Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
What vassily calls a magazine, I am calling a cassete, if you look at his diagram it winds and unwinds the chain just like a VHS or music cassette. What he calls a cassette in refrence to the T-72 is a peace of the ammuntion not the style or way the autloader works.
|
'Cassette autoloader' is synonymous with carousel autoloader. You can ask Vasily himself on Tank Net. Here is a scanned source. If this isn't enough for you, I don't know what is. Again, ask on Tank Net. You are wrong.
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9...oloadervu9.jpg
Quote:
|
do you really think either Germany would have allowed Nuclear release?
|
It depends entirely on the velocity of penetration of Soviet forces of the U.S. V Corps in West Germany, which during the 80s would have been pretty fast. It's a question of whether you want your country to be occupied or not. If you take a look at the papers which form our attitudes on the defensive doctrine of the era, nuclear war was one of the real possibilities.
Quote:
|
Do you think the USSR was ready to go down that road?
|
Yes, in fact, according to their doctrine they were willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in West Germany and East Germany to guarantee a breakthrough.
Quote:
|
By the 70's the effects of radition and nuclear winter were public knowledge and the anti-nuke movement was very powerful.
|
Well, this is largely irrelevant given that in war it doesn't really matter what is popular. What matters is your defense. Had the Soviets broken through the U.S. V Corps there was nothing which would have stopped the Soviet Army at the time. The United States would not have had enough time to land more armor and personnel in Western Europe.
Nuclear war was a reality. I would suggest reading a book that I read last year for a thesis I wrote, but the name doesn't come to mind. I will have to look it up again.
Quote:
|
And how many hundreds of Leo's, Cheiftans, and new Challanger I tubes added to that mix? Not to mentions gobs and gobs of 105mm systems in the hands of the smaller allies.
|
The only NATO gun which was assured a penetration on Soviet armor was the 120mm. At the time almost all M1s in Europe were armed with the 105mm gun (
source: Interview with Phillip A. Karber, Armed Forces Journal, 1987, pg. 56). There were not enough Leopard 2s produced. By 1987 1,800 Leopard 2s had been accepted by the German Army, and in 1984 there were 1,130 (
Source: Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank, M Jerchel & U. Schellbacher). The Challanger's 120mm gun suffered from low-velocity using sub-caliber rounds, and the inability to use long-rod penetrators. In regards to the M1A1 Abrams production of HA+ models (improved chobham with dU) only began in May 1988. (
Source: Green, Michael,
Abrams at War)
All Soviet armor in Central Europe was up do date - improved T-64s, T-72s and T-80s. In fact, the majority of their new T-80s were positioned against the U.S. V Corps.
Quote:
|
As for attack helo's, the Mi-24 Hind barely managed to function in a low threat enviroment. How well the slow lumbering sloth could have done in skies patrolled by eagles and watched by gepards and rolands is another story. It's wire guided atgm's are a huge hindrance with massive exspoure time. The hellfire's supersonic flight time really cut down exposure.
|
It seems as if you are comparing single Soviet systems to NATO combined arms. It's not a very accurate argument, unfortunately. I don't know much about air systems, and so I can't really argue the technical aspect, however.
Quote:
|
I think your looking for "red scare", I was handed a supply of "air force" when was a kid, while dealing mostly with the air threat it did cover the ground side of things because of ALBD and deep interdiction.
|
No, my opinions are based entirely off what I read - various journals and other publications.
Quote:
|
The tenor of the conversations IIRC was on the USSR closing the gap, not on thier huge lead in numbers which was being adressed by CFT(E) plus Gorby's unilateral withdrawl of 10,000 tanks from warsaw pact satalite countries in 1988/90.
|
I think, if you would have read, that I specifically gave the date of 1987. Not all 10,000 tanks were withdrawn within those two years. In fact, many remained there until the fall of the Soviet Union and were incorporated into the national armies of the various rising independent entities.
But, I agree, post-1987 the situation was getting progressively worse for the Soviet Union. Admittedly, the trend was visible between 1982 and 1987, although that only means that it was progressively deteriorating. Between 1982 and 1987 there was a 4% drop in total Warsaw Pact armor (from 70,420 to 67,600), and a 12% increase in NATO armor (26,728 to 31,527). (
Source: Chalmers, Malcolm and Unterseher, Lutz,
Is There a Tank Gap?: Comparing NATO and Warsaw Pact Tank Fleets)
Nevertheless, the introduction of ERA was a serious strategic concern for the United States, and it can be seen within the thousands upon thousands of articles which were published on the subject asking why there hadn't been an earlier reaction. In fact, it was only until the early 90s that there were a great deal of countermeasures introduced in Europe, or in general really.