Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
I saw none of that in their invasion of Afghanistan which is on par with the American invasion of Iraq. They built their own roads!
Just an FYI, Firral is a Russian Naval Infantry Captain.
And I've always said it's not their tanks I worry about. It's their damned artillery.
|
Zdraviya jelau the colonel.
The artillery is that only thing that can lower losses and destroy the enemy on distance in large ground war.
The reason on which the army of the USSR (and armies of Russia) has a plenty of air defence and Artillery that except for us and armies of Germany of 40th years, not one country in the world has no experience of is large-scale ground war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
It would be my contention, the USSR would not be able to effectively launch an invasion of the US. Therefore I previously put it in Russia. The first, and probably the most difficult part in an invasion of Russia would be establishing air supremacy. If we did establish air supremacy, and a ground invasion took place, I believe without a doubt the Abrams would outclass T72 and T80 tanks in everyway, and the only real threat on the battlefield would be the Kornets. Mine clearing equipment would negate anti-tank mines, and I know molotov coctails would do nothing against an Abrams. In a ground war, in the end, the US would gain superiority and probably fairly quickly but not without considerable losses. I don't believe the Kornets would be enough to turn the tide, so to speak.
No amount of extra equipment would help Russian tanks, it's their inablility to penetrate armor. Which is why I compared it to the war in Iraq. It was not my intention to make the Iraq war the perfect simularity in a Soviet vs. United States scenario but at point blank range, Russian T72s were no match against an Abrams.
|
In the first - the air superiority.
Let's not argue on quality of planes (I firmly convinced that between the USSR and the USA in them are not present greater distinctions). You like to extol the technics, but I not the simple inhabitant, I am interested in it for the speciality as your technics is my probable opponent on battle field.
I do not know on how many you are familiar with modern war in air, but I shall inform you, that one of the main things in it this management and prompting of planes. For this purpose exists at you is AWACS, and at us A-50. But at intrusion into the USSR you could not take advantage of it because of systems S-200 which have been intended for their destruction. But we would have all stations of tracking on the ground.
To the same as I also spoke, the army of the USSR had the best in the world of air defence, since air defence of separate units (Shilka, Tunguska, Strela-10, Buk, Tor and others) and completing air defence of a cover (S-200 and S-300).
Proceeding from it you simply could not reach an air superiority.
PS: I Wish to add: read through memoirs of German militarians 2 world wars. Having an air superiority in 1941-42, they speak that it did not bring due results. The reason - huge spaces and set of the purposes. It could help with separate episodes, but could not bring the significant contribution. You certainly can argue with me, that it was for a long time and that modern planes are more effective. Probably, but also for them it is now more complex than the purpose, and counteraction by it is more.
The second - tanks.
What do you have for 1985?
The best M1A1 - only starts to be made. At you is only М1 the first series with weak (on recognitions of your militarians) gun М68Е1 105mm.
Protection against CE, RHA equivalents: - 510-800.
Shells - the best M833 (power 440mm) - but them is not enough for large-scale war. The cores it M774 (power 340mm).
What it is had we have?
The best T-72BV, T-80BV - too only in the beginning of manufacture. We have T-72A and T-80B.
Protection against CE, RHA equivalents:
T-72A: 540-750.
T-80B: 510-810.
Shells - the best 3BM32 (power 510mm), but them a little. The basic shells - 3BM26 (power 420mm) and 3BM29 (power 450mm)
Show me an essential difference???
PS:As to tank Abrams. (I know about your propagation. About 15 years ago you advertised F-117 as super a fighter a bomber, and now remove it from arms.
) You that consider that we are so silly what to rush on it with molotov cocktails? Stocks RPG of different types at us it is saved up on two world wars.The matter is that tank Abrams has (as well as any other tank) set of weak places. And even Iraquis with old rockets to grenade cup discharge RPG-7 (a part from which did not blow up at all), not having any military preparation can damage it. What to speak about Russia where more than 80 % served in army and where set of more modern RPG.