I'll stand correcte don the T-72 and the use of the correct "name" however my description of the T-80UM2's system remains accurate.
Quote:
|
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.
|
with or without ERA or 120mm guns the Soviet mission vs the US was probalby never more than a holding action. The real invasion corridor was vs the BOAR/WGr/Dutch across the North German Plains. vs the much more restricted terrain and higher troop density vs the Americans along with modern artillery sub muntions Bavaria was pretty safe.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Really, are you sure? Prove it! I mean sure they trained to fight in a WMD enviroment, and thier force structure and troop density sure seemed to be geared towards offnesive operations (armor heavy, lots of offensive engineering assets, mobile air defenses etc). But if you have an actual copy of thier war plans post it please. It is the offical stance FIS that the USSR never really wanted to attack, let alone break through.
Did the USSR really want to attack? That question is the single biggest mystery of the Cold War.
Quote:
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.
|
No this was irelevant. After LBJ mobalized the USN to block passage of Soviet help to Nasser in 67 the USSR knew the US wasn't kidding when it came to risking nuclear war for its allies. Kruchev reportedly told his commanders to stop mobalisation of the paratroopers becuase the American's were crazy and Nasser wasn't worth it. In fact at every turn during the cold war when the Nuclear spectre raised its head it was the USSR that backed down. They didn't risk war over Berlin, meekly accpeted nukes in Turkey, backed down in Cuba, left Nasser out to dry ect and so forth. So hwer eis the evidence that the USSR was committed to a policy of national suicide in order to reach the Rhine?
Likewise, while the US was prepared to use nukes when and where as needed, such release was in the hands of the German's on German soil.
Quote:
|
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]
First off the Chally I's gun is not low velocity and holds the world record for long distance direct fire kills. In ODS it easily penetrated T-72's in excess of 3000M. Even allowing for decreased protection of monkey models the L11A5 could still core the T-72 in excess of 2000M.
Secondly 500 Abrams, 1800 Leo's and 400+ Chieftans and Chally's backed by 3-8000 more tanks with 105's is more than a match defensively for the WGSF. The tiube fired AT-10 could not destroy either of the three big ones and that was the principle AT weapon of Soviet armor. The Missile also drastically reduced the R.P.M of Soviet tanks.
Thirdly, becuase percived doctrine and past history indicated that the Red Army would apply sustained pressure via echelons to force a breakthrough, and not re-inforce defeat the actual numbers in play at any one time are much more balanced locally to a dept of about 24-36 hours
Quote:
|
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.
|
The Hind was maybe the equal of the Cobra. However when comapring the AT-6 armed Hind to the Hellfire Armed Apache in the same enviroment it becomes clear just how limited the Hind really was. US Stingers were making short work of them in Afganistan. the air defense denisty on both sides wa smuch higher. but the US helo had better range than most low altitude soviet systems and a faster missile with less flight time.
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.
Quote:
|
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)
|
Again the numbers don't tell the whole story. Many of those tanks were satalite nation or catagor B T-55 and T-62 units, and a few T-34/85 and T-10/IS-III/IIM. Also a signifigant minority of the more Modern T-64+ tanks were in SGSF and not readily availabe for use in Germany.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It was a concern but not a great one. ERA did not protect from high velcocity cannon fire, sub munitions, FASCAM, or air lauched HVATGM's like the Hellfire and Maverick. To be sure ERA added a new dimension but it did not radically alter the way of doing business. Don't go just by articles, go by reaction. When a real threat was percived the west acted quickly.