braindead

Sov.-s had Mig-31 ASAT version , however it was not primary mission
USSR/CIS Miniature ASAT

__________________
....

Triple C

No, destroyed, friend, not disabled. Catastrophic failure with crew loss means the tank was KO'ed, burnt, and blown. FUBAR'ed and gone.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

Triple C

Thanks. I forgot to bring that up. Marine Corps M-60s admittedly had access to better munitions but not the Iranians, and they faced significant number of T-72M1s. I don't have any references at hand about USMC Pattons at war, though; if only there are published data of the kills, engagement ranges and ammo type . . . .

Guess that's operational security, too.

Adux

Cementing the point, Triple C... lol

Bad Karma

The numbers I have are 14 disabled, 2 Destroyed. One of the destructions was from friendly fire. The other from repeated RPG attacks. Source Janes.

Shek

If you're talking the three week ground war in Mar/Apr 03, then your numbers are probably good.

If you're talking OIF, then your numbers are way off.

Since you spoke about IEDs, which didn't appear (other than worthless SVBIEDs and S-IEDS) essentially until the summer of 2003, my assumption is that you are talking about the latter.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Bad Karma

I guess I have a certain scenario that that is going on, and that of a conventional war between Soviet and US forces. The period I am only considering, is the initial beginning of the war in Iraq. I was also trying to point out that there are other factors involved...that the Soviets would have in such a war but the Iraqi's didn't have, i.e. Kornets. In a head to head fight, I think in a ground war the Abrams would undoubtedly have the advantage. However, we would suffer far more casualties due to other variables, but still the Abrams is a vastly superior tank over T-72/T-80s.

zraver

No sir, it may have been under development but by the time of the Soviet Unions fall the craft had never even fired a test shot becuase the missile was still under development. Plus the claim was the Mig-31 would shoot down the the US satellite net. Not possible with no missiles and only 2 test aircraft.

zraver

That depends, if the Soviets avoid the cities and it was a meeting engagement the US has huge advantages before the tanks ever collide. Soviet recon doctrine was to blunder forward until your security element came under fire. While this insures your main force never gets surprised as long as the security element is alive it slows the the whole thing down and does nothing to tell you whats 3+KM away.

The US on the other hand invested heavily in the recon-counter recon fight. The advantage of information by the US from the mid-80's on combined with its air dominance is almost insurmountable.

Elbmek

If you remove the nuclear threat from both sides and play the game with conventional forces, NATO would have won it hands down. The old premise that the USSR would have walked it due to numbers is completely false.

My last job in Germany before leaving for Northern Ireland was looking after a Brigade War Room, preparing all the maps, notes, orders etc for all units, including 1 RTR in Hildesheim (Chieftain) with their specific orders for any border incursion.

I could see "numbers" over the border, dispositions, locations etc etc. It was all a con!! Those tanks on the opposite side of the wall were, in the main, fake. Cardboard tube wrapped around old guns to make them appear to be "newer models" and most of the Soviet tanks were broken, swimming in diesel or, as stated, fake.

They obviously had some armament looking our way, but nothing along the lines spread by the propaganda merchants at NATO in Brussels, trying to justify jobs for the boys.

Most of the "modern" equipment the Soviet Union had was kept way back on home turf. What they did have going for them was air power and sea but on land, all a con.

Stalin, and successive leaders, never had any intention of invading westwards, it would have been too much trouble. Stalin said at Yalta, that he would satellite surrounding countries to form an armoured buffer zone around Russia to stop any further invasions! Not to push further out! The Red Army was defensive. The whole cold war was a giant con trick.

As for firepower. I understand the Chieftain, with our laser sights, could outfire the latest T by a ratio of 12-1. I believe the Challenger ratio is slightly higher.

__________________
Never lie, then you have nothing to try and remember.

Officer of Engineers

Question for you Elbmerk,

Can you identify which regiments of the BAOR would remain combat effective after the 16th Guards and the 4th Guards get through with it?

__________________
Chimo

Davis_Chan

my answer is USSR would have won

US' milltary system is designed for and good at the samll and middle scale battle, so western weapon have high quality but less quantity. and the USSR's military system aimed at the total war, so they have worse quality but mass quantity.

__________________
It was when the Great Way declined,that human kindness and morality arose.
It was when intelligence and knowledge appeared,that the Great Artifice began.

S-2

"Soviet recon doctrine was to blunder forward until your security element came under fire. While this insures your main force never gets surprised as long as the security element is alive it slows the the whole thing down and does nothing to tell you whats 3+KM away."

Zraver,

Are you certain that Soviet tactical and operational reconnaissance was collected by the security detachments of first echelon regiments and that this was done so by "blunder"?

"The US on the other hand invested heavily in the recon-counter recon fight. The advantage of information by the US from the mid-80's on..."

Why did we do so? Have you read after-action reports from brigades deployed to NTC, particularly from 1983-88? OPFOR recon/counter-recon missions routinely embarassed our manuever brigade collection and security resources.

Perhaps you're correct but I'd suggest that even a casual inspection of Soviet offensive doctrine would highlight the importance of operational and tactical reconnaissance and that it would make clear distinction between that mission and that performed by the security detachments of first echelon regiments.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

Elbmek

Sorry it was a while ago!! I had mountains of info but now have limited storage capacity!!! Memory!