When i say state of the art m1a2 it's that most people seem to compare the latest development in western design to a 40 year old soviet tank, wasn't a go at anything you said specifically 
Warning, long post follows (sorry).
FWIW, I agree that it's hard to draw any useful conclusions about tank design prowess from a comparison of the M1A2 with the T-64/72/80. Effectively, the economic collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s (and the political collapse in 1991) deprived the Russians of a truly modern MBT. Had the Soviet Union survived into the 1990s with its economy in reasonable shape, I think we'd have seen a replacement for the T-80.
However, the same economic and strategic factors that applied in the 1960s would have applied in the 1990s. Thus, I believe that the replacement Soviet MBT would have been smaller and less capable than Western MBTs like the M1A2 and Leopard II. My guess is that it would have massed maybe 50 tons, been armed with an autoloaded 135mm main gun, with fire control and stabilization equivalent to 1970s Western technology (i.e., comparable to early model M1 Abrams or Leopard II). Armor protection would have probably been composite armor, again comparable to 1970s Western tech. Reactive armor is a useful expedient, but it has a host of problems (logistics, dangerous to use in training, etc.). I think that the Soviets would have been glad to ditch it in favor of composite armor. I doubt that the Soviets could have afforded to put thermal sights on its new MBT, but eventually, this would probably be done.
The resulting tank would be a significant improvement over the T-80, but inferior on a tank-per-tank basis to the latest Western MBTs.
Oh i agree, i meant that tanks aren't the only part of a force.
the soviets didn't build tanks that are supposed to go toe to toe with western designs, they're supposed to outnumber them 6-1 and have plenty of support 
Yep. That's why "A Fistful of TOWs" has always had a points system.
FYI -- here are some sample point values in FFT3:
Original T-64 -- 193
T-64BV (1984-85) -- 240
T-64bv1 (1997+) -- 263
Original T-72 -- 197
T-72A (1980) -- 217
T-72B (1986) -- 252
Original T-80 -- 200
T-80B (1985) -- 239
T-80U (1997+) -- 289
M60A1 (1963-71) -- 194
M60A1 (1979-82) -- 219
M60A3 (1979-82) -- 249
M1 Abrams (1981) -- 326
M1A1 (1986-89) -- 373
M1A1HA (1989) -- 390
M1A2 (2001-2005) -- 434
M1A2 SEP (2001+) -- 465
Leopard 1 (1965-70) -- 195
Leopard 1A1A1 (1974-79) -- 214
Leopard 1A1A2 (1980-93) -- 235
Leopard 1A5 (1994+) -- 279
Leopard 2A6 (2001) -- 445
Challenger 2 (2008+) -- 433
Chieftain Mk 2,3,3S,3/2,3/3 (1967-83) -- 243
Chieftain Mk 5/3,6/3,7/3,8/3 (1980-85) -- 283
Assuming our ratings are accurate (we believe that they are extremely accurate FWIW) and that the points system accurately models the comparative lethality of the tanks, a few useful conclusions can be drawn:
1. The T64/72/80 series was comparable in lethality to contemporaries like the Leopard 1 and M60A1. BUT notice that the Chieftain was noticeably better (~25%) than its contemporaries. Heavy armor and big damn gun...
2. The Russians have improved the lethality of their tanks by 25-40% over the last few decades. Unfortunately for them, NATO has done even better on average.
3. The T64/72/80 series is definitely inferior to modern Western MBTs like the M1 and Leopard II. They were only about 60-65% as good as the M1 when it was introduced. The same is true of the latest models of M1 and T-80.
So, assuming equal troop quality and no tactical advantages for either side, it takes about 1.5 T-64/72/80 to equal one M1 Abrams class MBT. However, troop quality has a critical effect on combat effectiveness. Our research (based in large part on Trevor Dupuy's Qualified Judgment Model) indicates the following quality levels:
US (1970s): 0.68
US (1980s): 0.80
UK (1960s-1980s): 1.00
West German: 0.80
Soviets (1971-1984) : 0.50
Soviets (1971-1985-90) : 0.45
So in a 1980s scenario against the Americans, the Soviets will be worth about 63% the value of American units (0.50 / 0.80). 63% x 60% [typical value of Soviet tanks vs modern US tanks] = 37%. This means that the Soviets will need almost 3 times as many tanks as the Americans.
In addition, computer models for FFT3 indicate that an attacking force against a prepared defense will require ~1.6 times the defender's point total for a scenario to be balanced. 1.6 x 3 = 4.8. In an attack on a prepared defense, the Soviets would need about 4.8 times as many tanks as the Americans.
So yes, the Soviets require serious numerical superiority, especially in the attack.
Oh i agree, i meant that tanks aren't the only part of a force. the soviets didn't build tanks that are supposed to go toe to toe with western designs, they're supposed to outnumber them 6-1 and have plenty of support
As you can see, our numbers pretty much agree with you. And yes, there's a lot more to winning a battle than tank quality. (Let's recall that the Allies and Soviets defeated the Germans in WWII despite the fact that Germany had the best tanks in the second half of the war).
10 May 2013, 08:50:47 AM