Bad Karma

Firral,

The draft army of the former Soviet Union had poor morale, poor training (mainly due to budgetary problems), poor communication, (many tanks didn't have the capibility to communicate with each other), and poor intel (their own maps were printed to be misleading, their tank commanders often got lost).

Since there were caveats put forth in the original post of this thread we would need to clarify in which era this event would take place. I took it to be a modern one, in which the USSR had not caved in, and that the US was not involved in a different war. Before we could really discuss this further, we would need to establish a scenario for the battlefield. Is it Russian, US or other soil? Also I'm guessing that no nukes are to be used. Also what is the purpose of this war? What is the motivation for an invasion? Morale would soon diminish if there was not a sufficient reason.

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.

Stan187

Indeed, their staying tight lipped is exactly what makes figures cited by most websites educated (or perhaps at times uneducated) guesses.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Stan187

No, I don't think I have too high an opinion of myself. But you're welcome to think that if you want, I won't lose any sleep over it.

Stan187

Hmm, I'll try to go back and figure out where I read that then, I remember specifically reading it. Either way, flank shots obviously more likely to do damage.

I lol'd

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.

__________________
Chimo

omon

biggest enemy of 1st year service ussr solger, was 2nd year solger. aka ded(grandfather).

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

Firral

Whether in the first we speak about 80th years not so? Then allow I shall speak about army of the USSR till 1985.
The reason in that economic disorder of the USSR has begun approximately in the beginning of 80th years. Moral decline of army has begun also in in the middle of 80 years. The matter is that the reasons are very similar to modern army of the USA to which too now do not wish to go because of war in Iraq. For that moment successful in the beginning, war in Afghanistan, became slow (basically) guerrilla war which brought losses, but would not have the reasons that it to continue. Then there are refusals of army. To the end of 80th years in army start to appear and economic difficulties.
I shall agree only partially about cards, I and itself consider that they not better quality. And tanks without radio you speak about what bad communication??? Probably you confuse army of the USSR and army of Russia of times of war in the Chechen Republic in 96 year?
About poor moral - it is not true. Up to 85 years the service in army was considered honourable. It also brought privileges in the subsequent peace life. The officer personnel had solid salaries for that time. Serving in army had strong moral motivation.
About trainings - it is absolutely not true. Probably it is a unit of your propagation of that time, but in the West for some reason consider that the draft army had weak preparation. I shall not open this theme again. Me simply surprises, that you do not know the truth and do not wish it to learn. Training in army began at school (acquaintance to the weapon, shooting, means of chemical protection, driving of cars and full-track machines), then after an appeal the soldier got in a special training company, and after it in a company where it continued to serve. In current of service a plenty of doctrines (even in structure of military districts of the country) which purpose was training of interaction between armies was conducted. As a matter of fact I do not see a difference as training between the military man of army of the USSR and army of the USA.
Or I shall cite as an example my friend from VDV, was in Kosovo in 2000. As he said military men of NATO are not disciplined and frequently are not able to serve the weapon at all. I too do not have the reasons to not trust it!
Let's lean is better on more objective facts.

__________________

Triple C

You better shut up now. Go to tanknet and do a search. More than a dozen M1s have been written off by IED attacks. Two 3ID tanks suffered catastrophic failure with crew loss after stumbling on IEDs and that's from the top of head.

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

Firral

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.
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.

Firral

Again I shall repeat.
The army of Iraq had tanks T-72M approximately 1980 of release (analogue T-72A in the USSR with shells 3BM22 approximately 1976 of release against
М1А2 (1992) and M1A1 (1985) - with the newest shells! (for example M829A3 - 2002)
I do not understand as you can compare these two armies!!! The army of Iraq has what similarity to army of the USSR???
You were at war against the small country which has initially prepared for defeat. Present a moral spirit the soldier when against him there is a modern technics, and at him only the weapon of the end of 70th years! Представmте that he feels, when he is at war with the country - super power.
And now look at Russia: we have thousand-year history of intrusions on the territory. After the Mongolian intrusion not one foreign force could not win and subordinate us. We were at war with Napoleon (the best army of the Europe), with Hitler (the best army in the world for that moment) and left winners.
We have a military training how to struggle with modern technics, and we have a weapon that it to destroy.
The moral spirit of our army on two orders above than it was in Iraq.
But I do not represent moral spirit of your army when it will start to sustain greater losses. When from fighting starts half of pilots will come back only. When you will see as your tanks have weak places.
Your trouble in that that you HAVE got used to be at war with armies initially more poorly. The belief in the of the weapon at you became full. It actually is bad as effectively to use the weapon, you should know and its weaknesses also.

Firral

This problem exists, but is perfect in other scales and in other sense, than it is extolled by journalists. I can firmly approve to you it as itself I command a company and I know that in it occurs.
Actually physical humiliation is very much a unusual occurrence. As a rule takes place privileges (not approved by the charter) served more, above those who has served less.
Present, that the new soldier has much more the worst physical form than old, has no good skills in service. It causes smiles at " served more " (though they and were such one year ago).
However such occurs in any collective. For example at school it is always heavy to be the new person. On civil work - a new member of collective.
Only separate cases when served more physically humiliate above served less, are not ordinary.

nebula82

No doubt both sides would’ve pretty much annihilated each other. It wouldn’t have mattered much if the either side would’ve fared marginally better as the end result would be a devastated country and economy.

I believe the US had a much greater network of overseas military installations than the USSR. Especially if you factor in Japan and Korea. Is it true that the US placed nuclear ICBMs in Japan during the peak of the Cold War?

While NATO and the Warsaw Pact never engaged each other in direct armed conflict, both sides were pretty evenly matched. NATO had a qualitative edge in terms of superior equipment & better trained forces, whereas the Warsaw Pact countries had far more men and tanks.

Amazing how many times the world came close to WW3 during the Cold War. Thank god cooler heads & common sense prevailed.

Regards,
Nebula82.

nebula82

Oh, btw, how would the F-117 come into player in a hypothetical US/NATO v. USSR/Warsaw Pact war? The F-117 went operational in the early 1980s. While a full-scale war in stated time period would’ve been very unlikely, how would the Soviets have detected the stealth fighter & countered it? It seemed like the F-117 was another effective deterrent, in addition to the MAD doctrine.

Regards,
Nebula82.

Triple C

Straight from Wiki:

If you aren't a pretty girl, you may feel free to abstain from kissing my toes.

Triple C

Firral,

The Iraqi failure probably had more to do with tactics then their equipment, or the USMC M60A1s wouldn't have blasted through their T-72 ranks. Only seven or eight (!) 125mm hits on the M1 were recorded. That's pretty bad shooting.

I have no idea what are the actual penetrative power of the 105mm rifled gun is; nor am I quite convinced that 80s Russian tanks would be invulnerable to 105mm fire. Resistant, perhaps, but immune? The tankers I talked to seem to know what they are talking about, had served on three to four major types of US tanks (from M60A1 RISE to M1A1) and, as far as I can gather, knew the specs of Russian tanks pretty well.

That said, NATO would have had an easy going against the Red Army by no means.