When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?

[traveller]

There are a number of MAA and Elite covering the period. I have a fair amount of unpainted Platoon 20 (East Germans, Russians etc) and Skytrex tanks/APC (T55, BMP1, M113 etc) that I can sell at 50% off listed price. Please PM me if you´re interested.

[tbeard1999]

Greetings. I'm a long-time modern wargamer and generally find that the early to mid-1980s offers a nice balance. By the late 1980s, the later models of the M1 and Leopard II MBTs had clearly outclassed the Soviet T-80 series.

But the initial models of the M1 and Leopard II were *not* supertanks. They were (for the day) tough and fast, but they could be defeated by T-80s, especially at close range or from the flanks. Here are some sample armor ratings and main gun penetration ratings from my soon-to-be-released-someday wargame "A Fistful of TOWs 3". In general, a gun needs a penetration advantage of 2+ to have a good chance of killing the target. At close range (800-1200 meters, depending on gun and fire control), penetration is increased by 2.

M1 - front armor 12, pen 14
Leopard II - front armor 13, pen 14
Challenger 1 - front armor 13, pen 14
T-80 - front armor 11, pen 14 (by 1984, pen rose to 15) (The T-64 and T-72 has the same gun).

So, as you can see, the Soviets can do quite well against the Abrams and its stablemates.

That said, Sovet antitank missiles are essentially worthless against Western MBTs like the Abrams from the front (the Abrams, in particular, had excellent protection versus HEAT rounds).

[Col.Stone]

I'm quite interested in how much if at all the smaller silhouette of the t80 is worth on a battlefield?

[Doc Twilight]

Actually, the T-64 has a better machined, more accurate, and generally more advanced gun, with superior optics, and a slightly higher rate of fire. The T-72's weapon is a mass produced weapon, with an inferior autoloader that has a tendency to raise the barrel up after each shot for a re-load, inferior optics, and a less accurate barrel with somewhat shorter range. They both have 125mm guns, but the guns themselves are different designs and model numbers.

The T-80 is a descendent of the T-64, while the T-72 and the T-90 are part of a separate family. The initial T-80s were actually T-72s with T-64 turrets, so sort of a hybrid design.

As for the smaller silhouette, I'm not sure how well it would work, Colonel. The Soviets seemed to think very much of the idea, and the Russians continue to work on designs with smaller turrets.

-Doc

[tbeard1999]

Actually, the T-64 has a better machined, more accurate, and generally more advanced gun...both have 125mm guns, but the guns themselves are different designs and model numbers.

According to my sources, the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 all use the D-81 125mm smoothbore. All fire the same ammunition. I can find no evidence that the T-64's gun is better. Depending on the specific model, the T-72's rangefinder was inferior or equivalent to the T-64. The original T-72 had a coincidence rangefinder. The T-72A and later models had laser rangefinders. The T-64 and T-64A had coincidence rangefinders, while the T-64B had laser rangefinders. I don't know that the T-64's optics were better; but since the T-64 was the "Cadillac", it's a reasonable inference.

...with superior optics, and a slightly higher rate of fire.

Yes, the T-64 was the "sophisticated" tank and the T-72 was the "cheap" tank.

While the T-72 has a different autoloader than the T-64, I can find no evidence that they are significantly different in rate of fire.

The T-80 is a descendent of the T-64, while the T-72 and the T-90 are part of a separate family. The initial T-80s were actually T-72s with T-64 turrets, so sort of a hybrid design.

According to Steven Zaloga, in  "Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945 to the Present", the initial model of the T-80 was a new tank. All models of the T-80 have much smaller road wheels (much like the T-64) than the T-72 and they are distinctively grouped in 3 sets of 2 wheels (much more promimently than the T-64). So it's a different tank, though a lineal descendant of the T-64.

The lower profile of Soviet tanks gives them one main advantage -- it reduces the frontal surface area so that Soviet tanks can mount thicker armor on a ~40 ton hull than is found on NATO MBTs in the same weight class. Tactically, the lower profile prevents the main gun from depressing as far as Western MBTs. This means that in a hull-down position, a Soviet tank will actually have a *higher* profile than a Western MBT. The lower profile also markedly reduces habitability compared with taller Western MBTs. Finally, the lower profile requires Soviet tank crews to be 5'6" or shorter, which limited the armored forces to a smaller segment of the population. (Compare this to the M60, which could accomodate crewmen from 95% of the US male population).

The Soviets seemed to think very much of the idea, and the Russians continue to work on designs with smaller turrets.

Soviet tank design is an intriguing example of what happens when non-military considerations drive a military design.

The Soviet Union had a "command economy", which means that a tiny oligarchy controlled all economic output. They simply did this by fiat -- "make 1,000 toasters" and the orders were hopefully carried out. They didn't have a functioning monetary system in the sense that Westerners understand the term. Soviet money was merely a form of voucher issued to the workers by the government. The small scale "real" market transactions were carried out with real money -- US dollars.

So there was no Soviet military "budget" pe se. The Soviet oligarchs simply decided what was needed and ordered it built. The problem, of course, is that military spending is an economic "hole". Production output spent building a tank is sunk into that tank and cannot be recovered, leveraged or used to make more output. As part of his effort to keep Soviet military production from destroying the civilian economy, Khruschev ordered that Soviet tanks be limited to a certain mass. A tank's cost tends to correlate to its mass, so this was a crude but effective way of imposing a "price cap" on Soviet tanks in an economy that had no mechanisms for price caps.

Soviet designers, then, were faced with a rigid limit on the size of their tanks that had nothing to do with military effectiveness. To produce the most effective tanks within that limit, they focused on making the tanks and particularly the turret as small as possible, thereby maximizing armor protection. A tank's mass tended to increase with its volume, so this was a sensible solution. It also allowed them to maximize armor protection (a smaller frontal area meant more armor thickness for the same weight).

I think it is instructive that no one has followed the Soviet design philosophy. Indeed, when the Israelis designed their first MBT, their massive amount of combat experience led them to design a very Western MBT (despite having extensive experience fighting against and operating Soviet tanks).

[Col.Stone]

Different soviet guns
2A26       T-64A                                APFSDS, HEAT, HEF, special rounds  1966
2A26M2, T-72                                                                                    1969
2A46-1 T-64A,T-72A                                                                           1970
2A46-2 T-64B T80B                          +ATGM                                         1976
2A46M  T-72AV,T-72B                                                                         1981
2A46M-1 T-64BV T-72B,T-80BV T-80U +high-energy APFSDS                     1981
2A46M-2 T-72S,T-90                                                                          1992
2A46M-4 T-80UM                                                                                2005
2A46M-5 T-90A                                                                                  2005
i was waiting for my coffe to get done

http://www.russianarmor.info/

another edit..
this was interesting..
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm


In my most humble opinion, the biggest drawback of the t80series seems to be they send it into cities with poorly trained crews and don't fit it with the ERA..

[Sky Captain]

In German TV there was a fictional documentation called "Der dritte Weltkrieg" (third world war) about what might have happend if the german reunification had failed. The plot was, that there was a putch of soviet hardliners. The first hour is about how tension increases and the last half hour is how a war might have happend.

It features real german newsspeakers and they use a lot of real footage in a changed context. Real Politicians and real military, so it is very convincing. Even if you don't understand german, you might perhaps get an idea from the english footage or just enjoy the fireworks.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5019344230626951787#

[Col.Stone]

That looks very interesting Sky cap, i'm going to try and find a subtitled version

[Gunbird]

Like all of these movies and documentaries, rather unsettling. Good thing the balloon never went up.

[Sky Captain]

I have found an english version on youtube.

[Col.Stone]

Nice one, thanks alot

[tbeard1999]

Different soviet guns

The "2A46" is the same as the "D-81". While there are detail changes that create variants, it's the same 125mm smoothbore gun. The fact that they all fire the exact same ammo strongly indicates that it's the same gun. (Much like the British 105mm L51 rifled gun that equips the M60, the Leopard 1, late models of the M48, late models of the Centurion, the original M1 and IPM1 Abrams, etc. These guns were made by various nations and had detail changes that created multiple designations, but they were all the same gun).

And my data -- drawn primarily from Zaloga -- differs with this website somewhat. For instance, the T-72A has the 2A46M, not the 2A46M-2 (whatever the heck that is).

Anyhow, I don't see any evidence that the T-64 has different, better gun than the T-72. (I note that even in your data, the 2A46M-1 is listed as being in various models of the T-64, the T-72 and the T-80.) I'd add to the chart the original T-64, which had the excellent 2A21 (or D-68T) 115mm gun (a later model of the same gun on the T-62).

In my most humble opinion, the biggest drawback of the t80series seems to be they send it into cities with poorly trained crews and don't fit it with the ERA...

Of course, poor tactical use can doom any tank. However, the T-64/72/80/90 series of tanks has a number of serious deficiencies, compared with modern Western MBTs. In no particular order, they include poor ammunition compartmentalization, poor habitability, inabality to fully depress main gun and take full advantage of hull down defilade, mediocre fire control systems (until very late in the series, manual analog ballistic computers), lack of thermal sights until very late in the series), mediocre stabilization gear that made "fire on the move" highly theoretical, gun barrels that wore out far sooner than Western equivalents, propensity for catastrophic explosions when hit, and buggy and unreliable autoloaders. The T-64's sophisticated suspension was expensive, hard to maintain and apparently disappointed in the field. The T-80 inherited a similar suspension, along with a gas-guzzling, expensive, unreliable gas turbine engine.

Certainly, Soviet tanks have not performed well at all in various post war conflicts. Of course, many of these may be "monkey models" crewed by poorly trained crews. But this should be troubling nontheless.

As I said, I think it's highly relevant that no one -- not even the combat experienced Israelis -- has developed a new tank similar to the T64/72/80/90 series. The only folks still pursuing that design philosophy are those with a significant investment in the design (and the tooling, production infrastructure, etc.).

As I noted earlier, the T-64/72/80 design philosophy was imposed by the Soviet government, not by any novel theories of tank combat. In essence, Kruschev capped the maximum weight of all new Soviet tanks. What resulted was probably the best compromise available. But it was still a serious compromise.

[Col.Stone]

The "2A46" is the same as the "D-81". While there are detail changes that create variants, it's the same 125mm smoothbore gun. and so on

I just wanted to show the progression of the gun, 2A26 for T-64A is exchanged for the 2A46-1

[Col.Stone]

Something i find strange generally, is that whenever this discussion comes up. (and it does  )
The Tseries as they're so fondly called are clumped together as "one tank", not one of them ever performing better than monkey models with sub-standard ammo (iraqi t72's Zaloga's osprey iirc) whilst the abrams is the state of the art model.

I think if anyone's going to compare tanks, do it with the time they were put to use etc in mind
a t72 in 1971 is quite a good tank, in iraq 2003 it's a 65year old getting beat up by a gang of boxers

Tank on tank is all nonsense tho, since the tanks are really just pieces of a puzzle, with the rest of the armed force.
especially for something like WW3..

[tbeard1999]

Something i find strange generally, is that whenever this discussion comes up. (and it does  )
The Tseries as they're so fondly called are clumped together as "one tank", not one of them ever performing better than monkey models with sub-standard ammo (iraqi t72's Zaloga's osprey iirc) whilst the abrams is the state of the art model.

In terms of performance, the T-64. T-72 and T-80 are roughly comparable. What one would expect from 3 tanks having very similar mass, volume, armament and design philosophy. Indeed, one of the great mysteries of postwar Soviet tank design was the design of the T-80. Other than having an unreliable gas turbine engine, it was not an improvement over the T-64 in either firepower or armored protection. Yet it increased by 50% the types of front line tanks in service, with attendant complications in logistics and maintenance.

The reason that the Abrams is classified as "state of the art" is that it IS state of the art, at least compared to the T64/72/80/90 series (which are really contemporaries of the M60A1, Leopard-1 and AMX-30).

And while its true that the Abrams (and Leopard II and Challenger-2) are held to be superior to the T-series, this is because they ARE superior. And why would anyone expect otherwise? These Western tanks weigh 50% more, cost 5-10 times more and were a generation later than the T-series.

I think if anyone's going to compare tanks, do it with the time they were put to use etc in mind
a t72 in 1971 is quite a good tank, in iraq 2003 it's a 65year old getting beat up by a gang of boxers

Noting that a weapon is inferior to contemporary opponents is not a moral judgement. Rather, it's a factual statement. But if it makes you feel better, consider that a lot of considerations go into a weapon system that do not appear on the battlefield. In the case of Soviet postwar tanks, the Soviets had several serious limitations that circumscribed what kinds of tanks they'd field:

1. The aforementioned maximum limit on the mass of Soviet tanks. This forced the Soviets into either fielding tiny, well-armored tanks, or larger, poorly armored tanks. The Soviets sensibly chose the former.

2. The need to defend far larger frontiers than the US/NATO. This implied a requirement for a huge number of tanks. With an economy only the size of (say) Italy, and saddled with a grossly inefficient manufacturing system, the Soviets had to build lots of tanks and these tanks had to be cheap.

3. An insufficient technological base, which made things like digital ballistic computers and thermal sights grossly expensive (and therefore impractical for the huge number of tanks).

The result of these constraints was a series of tanks that were small, cheap, well armed, well-protected and seriously deficient in things like habitability, sensors, ammo compartmentalization, etc. While en masse they could have matched up well against the M60A1, Leopard-1 and AMX-30, they were woefully outclassed by the next generation of Western MBTs.

Tank on tank is all nonsense tho, since the tanks are really just pieces of a puzzle, with the rest of the armed force.
especially for something like WW3..

An odd statement from a wargamer. Anyhow, I disagree. I think it is possible to create a reasonable model for tank on tank combat...