| Mako11 | 17 Dec 2014 12:20 a.m. PST |
Just curious to see if there are any decent, on-line sources, or books on Cold War era armor, in comparison to enemy weaponry and ammo from the day? I'm curious to know if the general assessments of weaponry and ammunition penetration ratings for tank guns, ATGMs, etc. vs. enemy armor were accurate, or off base in some cases. Given it's been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, I suspect some of that info should be available from open sources, and that some people have studied and written about it. I'm interested in the very early period of the Cold War, e.g. mid-late 1950s and 1960s, through the 1970s, and 1980s as well. Any ideas on where to start, or good on-line source material? Suggestions for books on the subject? |
| Weasel | 17 Dec 2014 12:36 a.m. PST |
For Red stuff, I use this
link It's unfortunately wicked expensive though if you keep an eye out, cheap copies pop up once in a while.
It includes data from US army trials of Soviet equipment, mainly measured against M60 (its pre-Abrams) |
| flicking wargamer | 17 Dec 2014 8:35 a.m. PST |
Try ABEBooks.com. They have copies for as little as $12. USD |
| Lion in the Stars | 17 Dec 2014 12:29 p.m. PST |
I know that the Swedes got ahold of a few T72s in the 1990s, and found to their horror that the good 125mm APFSDS shells would make a mockery of that heavily sloped glacis on the S-tank. Darn near a through-and-through, the "dart" would stop in the engine block on it's way out the back of the tank. But for the early 1950s and 60s, the S-tank was pretty well protected. |
| BattlerBritain | 17 Dec 2014 12:51 p.m. PST |
A very good and accurate set of data for AFV armour and ammo capabilities is the FFOT3 ruleset. I've gone through all their data and compared to the best sources I can find (including Isby) and found just one minor error (in late-model Sov 115mm APFSDS penetration). And FFOT3 does WW2 as well :) |
| emckinney | 17 Dec 2014 1:16 p.m. PST |
Given that Isby was published in 1988, it's hardly a source for comparing contemporary information to currently available information. |
| Weasel | 17 Dec 2014 1:53 p.m. PST |
Sure, but given it references US army trials at the time for many of its statistics, I'd say its highly relevant. |
| jekinder6 | 17 Dec 2014 6:08 p.m. PST |
You might want to look for this through your local library:
link This is the original USMC version on Google books, not sure if it is complete:
link |
| Charlie 12 | 17 Dec 2014 8:57 p.m. PST |
When compared to later data, Isby's analysis holds up very well. And since the OP was referring to Cold War comparisons, it would be more relevant than comparing equipment introduced after 1989. |
| Weasel | 18 Dec 2014 12:33 a.m. PST |
I think the general consensus is that the Abrams ruins gaming a bit anyways :-) |
| Mako11 | 18 Dec 2014 12:49 a.m. PST |
Perhaps, though I just read that apparently all that nice, Russian reactive armor turns out to be very good, and can defeat 120mm shots from the Abrams as well. The source for that info is apparently an article from Jane's. |
| Lion in the Stars | 18 Dec 2014 1:08 p.m. PST |
The primary reason Abrams ruin games is because they don't need to stop to fire. Their fire control is waaaaay too sophisticated for most tabletop gaming. The other reason is that they're so well protected. When you can intentionally set off the entire ammo store and have ZERO effect in the crew compartment… I'm half tempted to design the Abrams and T72s/T80s in FASA's Centurion system, as Centurion is built around obscenely mobile vehicles. |
wants to know if you can tell the difference between weaker and stronger magnets with 3mm aircraft.