U.S. VS. Soviet Union

**Stan187** · 25 Mar 08,, 14:47

Originally Posted by 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.

Remember this advice for dealing with trolls my man, the ignore list is your friend.

**Firral** · 25 Mar 08,, 15:44

Originally Posted by 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.

You are right, however pay attention, that these seven or eight shells could not make anything! The reason: shells were too weak what to punch protection at a great distance. Your shells easily destroyed their tanks on this distance. You represent moral spirit of the Iraq tankmen (if they have remained are alive)?
On close distance you simply did not admit them. On your party there was an aircraft, satellites and excellent communication. This all speaks about your excellent tactics, but not that does not speak that all this was possible in the USSR.
Speaking that war in Iraq has shown opportunities of the USSR, you resemble the person who beats the teenager, and then speaks that it also is ready to beat any adult person.
About 105mm gun. This gun could struggle easily with Т-55, Т-62 and Т-72A. However to 1985 in the USSR have started to be made T-72B, T-80B, (and it is fast and T-72BV T-80BV T-80U), and against them on greater distances 105мм gun was weak. Therefore it has been replaced on 120мм gun.

**Bella** · 26 Mar 08,, 02:55

This is for the military pros!
Head-to-head, how would the Russian tank divisions, and artillery, deal with a American assault from UAV's armed with hellfire missiles, B-2 bombers, and A-10 Thunderbolts? Their combined use and effectiveness has showed to be devastating in the past with the Abrams to clean up.

Thanks!

**T_igger_cs_30** · 26 Mar 08,, 03:48

Originally Posted by Bella

This is for the military pros!
Head-to-head, how would the Russian tank divisions, and artillery, deal with a American assault from UAV's armed with hellfire missiles, B-2 bombers, and A-10 Thunderbolts? Their combined use and effectiveness has showed to be devastating in the past with the Abrams to clean up.

Thanks!

oh ya an easy one to answer )

**Stan187** · 26 Mar 08,, 04:00

Originally Posted by Bella

This is for the military pros!
Head-to-head, how would the Russian tank divisions, and artillery, deal with a American assault from UAV's armed with hellfire missiles, B-2 bombers, and A-10 Thunderbolts? Their combined use and effectiveness has showed to be devastating in the past with the Abrams to clean up.

Thanks!

What time period do you mean? I'm guessing today since you mention UCAVs, but where is the prospective battleground, since the US and Russia today aren't really projected to fight anytime soon.

**Bella** · 26 Mar 08,, 04:31

Originally Posted by Stan187

What time period do you mean? I'm guessing today since you mention UCAVs, but where is the prospective battleground, since the US and Russia today aren't really projected to fight anytime soon.

Sorry! Yes, in today's period of time. The battleground would be a mixture of open field and forest. Cover would be open to very dense.
Also, the area would be neutral, with no home field advantage to each side.

Thanks!

**Stan187** · 26 Mar 08,, 07:00

Originally Posted by Bella

Sorry! Yes, in today's period of time. The battleground would be a mixture of open field and forest. Cover would be open to very dense.
Also, the area would be neutral, with no home field advantage to each side.

Thanks!

A good answer requires a better setup. The more you can flesh it out, the better someone can answer you. There is no homefield advantage? Then what are they fighing over. Someone is usually defending and someone attacking, it makes a bit of a difference. Think about it, for example if you're using A-10s to hit Russian armor... If Americans are defending, it is a lot easier to keep friendly casualties down by hitting Russian follow on forces. But if Americans are attacking and there are some brigade size groups well behind the front line and intermixed with Russian reserve elements, then it changes how the A-10 operates, its priorities, what it can and can't shoot at. Try to understand, if a question is not extremely specific, an answer can turn out to be a short essay, there are just THAT many factors involved, and we're not getting into the meat and potatoes, which is to say disputing my opinion with someone else's.

**BD1** · 26 Mar 08,, 10:16

In today´s context - if US has currently what ~ 20 Predator -derivative UAV-s ? that can carry say 2 Hellfire-s each , then a Russian tank division would not even notice them .
Never ever is B-2 bomber (with it´s price tag) going to do tactical bombing in such situation . This is like using Keyhole satellite to take picture of your familiy picnic.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 26 Mar 08,, 11:00

Interesting scenario...... far to many variables I feel.

**VarSity** · 26 Mar 08,, 11:05

Originally Posted by braindead

In today´s context - if US has currently what ~ 20 Predator -derivative UAV-s ? that can carry say 2 Hellfire-s each , then a Russian tank division would not even notice them .
Never ever is B-2 bomber (with it´s price tag) going to do tactical bombing in such situation . This is like using Keyhole satellite to take picture of your familiy picnic.

Wasnt the B2 only mega expensive because they built so few of them?

I though the idea was for there to be many hundreds and thus get the costs down.

**Triple C** · 26 Mar 08,, 14:02

Originally Posted by VarSity

Wasnt the B2 only mega expensive because they built so few of them?

I though the idea was for there to be many hundreds and thus get the costs down.

I suspect B2's primary mission was nuking. It definately makes a good first strike weapon.

**Silent Hunter** · 26 Mar 08,, 15:25

The B-2 had c.135 planned, but only 21 were built, hence the big per-unit cost (much of the cost was R&D). It was originally designed for nuclear attack, yes. I believe crews still train for that.

**Bad Karma** · 26 Mar 08,, 16:21

Firral.

мой русский учитель был tankist.
Morale основан на он сказал.

I do not understand as you can compare these two armies!!! The army of Iraq has what similarity to army of the USSR???

- только, такие же оружия. ничего больше. я знаю его точно такие же, однако, я знаю ваши возможности вашей армии. вы только знаете ваше правительство сказало вам.

**Silent Hunter** · 26 Mar 08,, 16:31

He's not comparing them. He's commenting that the Soviet military was far superior to that of the Iraq and that just because you beat a teenager, it doesn't mean that you can take on an adult.

**Firral** · 26 Mar 08,, 17:05

Originally Posted by Bad Karma

мой русский учитель был tankist.
Morale основан на он сказал.

I do not understand as you can compare these two armies!!! The army of Iraq has what similarity to army of the USSR???

- только, такие же оружия. ничего больше. я знаю его точно такие же, однако, я знаю ваши возможности вашей армии. вы только знаете ваше правительство сказало вам.

Give those nevertheless in English (though I probably very badly write).
I have already explained to you why the weapon was not that in the USSR. Besides, the army had absolutely other level of preparation and a moral spirit. And it is very important.
In occasion of that that you know, and that I know.
In the first (contrary to opinion in the West) - I have access to any resources on the Internet, any TV to programs and any books. I do not understand, why I know " only what has told to me, my government "? Times of the Iron Curtain has ended 18 years ago!!!
Secondly, I doubt of your knowledge because of your statement about the weapon of Iraq too as in the USSR that time. It more resembles propagation of your government, than on an objective estimation of a situation.