Thread: What is Best MBT in Asia?

I expect the big difference to be execution, not in basic principals. All the WP and in fact current wargames (you might be interested in the Sino-Russian Exercise PEACE-MISSION 2007) all reflect the direct principal that offence wins, defence at best is a tie.

With the exception of fire bases, I have not seen Russian Engineers are even taught the basic theories of the Kursk defence lines, which included LOCs to facilitate the reserves to the FEBA (strangely, no lines of retreat).

The Book at least leads me to believe that the Soviets would be more inclined to at pre-empt the American strike rather than waiting for the ground war. At the very least, they would be actively probing the American lines.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I expect the big difference to be execution, not in basic principals. All the WP and in fact current wargames (you might be interested in the Sino-Russian Exercise PEACE-MISSION 2007) all reflect the direct principal that offence wins, defence at best is a tie.

With the exception of fire bases, I have not seen Russian Engineers are even taught the basic theories of the Kursk defence lines, which included LOCs to facilitate the reserves to the FEBA (strangely, no lines of retreat).

The Book at least leads me to believe that the Soviets would be more inclined to at pre-empt the American strike rather than waiting for the ground war. At the very least, they would be actively probing the American lines.

Ohh I agree the USSR would not have sat still and took the air beating. They would have fored back something even without the VVS. Scud barrage on a truly grand scale and launched more than one probing attack. But once NATO
had control of the air the outcome would have been the same.

It remains debatable whether US/NATO would ever achieve control of the air with the Soviets. For one thing, Soviets offer enough air targets that US/NATO would run out of missiles or for even that matter, out of AWACs (because Soviets would doing their damnest best to kill the AWACs and tankers since they are the highest priority targets) before the Soviets run out of planes and AD missiles and guns.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

It remains debatable whether US/NATO would ever achieve control of the air with the Soviets. For one thing, Soviets offer enough air targets that US/NATO would run out of missiles or for even that matter, out of AWACs (because Soviets would doing their damnest best to kill the AWACs and tankers since they are the highest priority targets) before the Soviets run out of planes and AD missiles and guns.

The Soviet's problem in the air mirrored America's on the gorund. We had more planes and most of them were safely out of reach in England or the US and could re-inforce Germany at will. The USSR not only had the WGSF but NGSF and SGSF plus the USSR own military districts to call from for more divsions.

NATO had the missiles and planes to take on the VVS and win in a realtively short (under 3 weeks) time frame if the VVS surged. Also popping an awacs is no easy task with 80's technology. The Mig 25/31 might be fast enough but neither can get quite highenough to evade the eagles or ground based SAM's. the best they can hope for is to create temporary windows by sacraficing Fox class fighters to force the AWAC's low. The Mig 29/Su-27 wasn't present in numbers and the bulk of the fighters were 21/23 which were simply manned targets. And its not just numbers, but the fact that NATO could sustain 24 hour air ops on a far higher level than the USSR. F-111, F-117, F-15, Tornado the NATO air ops would not have given the Soviets any rest. Here Iraq is a very good example of the round the clock campaign and the ineffectiveness of a SAM/Mig based airdefence network.

Which brings up NATO's all around ability to operate in darkenss and smoke. After 1980 NATO had a huge advantage on the ground with thermal equipped tanks, modern stabilisation, and laser ranger finders that provided for effective warfighting past 1500M and in low visibility conditions. This gives NATO two advantages 1- they get a pause or slow down every night as the Soviets bring up supplies/replacements (to avoid NATO tacair) and it gives Thermal equipped units the ability to atack supperior numbers under the cover of darkness and triumph.

I'm not so sure that NATO birds in the UK were entirely safe from the Red AF, I thought the UK was seriously worried about the prospect of mass BACKFIRE attacks on places like Scapa Flow and Aldershot. I admit that the Sovs would have taken a lot of hits, but the number of bombers they could field, flying in co-ordinated mass attacks and then dumping their entire payload would surely have at least slowed down the NATO Air response. When you consider that the Soviets didn't much care about the losses they would take in their initial air campaign, I would imagine it would seem worth it.

In addition, the Iraqi defence in GW1 has been picked apart over and over again for all it's failings, but I think simply the biggest difference between them is:
1. They never attempted to sieze the initiative, which is was the Red Army was all about.
2. They never questioned why the Coalition seemed to be doing exactly what they expected and indeed wanted them to do - Attack directly into the mine-field and entrenched units along the border between Kuwait and Saudi. Surely they would have been aware of the ability of the Coalition to conduct air recon with impunity, and in the desert it's not particularly easy to hide tank movements as I understand it, yet they never appeared to have considered that the coalition would try out-flanking them. Which is weird.

I'm a new on these forums, but I read this entire discussion with much interest. However it seems to veer off topic at an incredible rate. I would recommend a system by system comparison of the combat capabilities of MBT's currently on the asian market.
Example: T-90
125mm smoothbore gun with barrel fired ATGM
840hp engine
Kontakt-5 ERA (reduces long-rod penetrators penetrating potential by 35-50%)
weight 46.5 tonns
1 remote controlled aa machine gun range of 2 km and rate of fire of 210 rounds per minute
1 coaxial machinegun
full nbc protection
Shtora-1 active defence system: infrared jammer, laser warning system with four laser warning receivers, grenade discharging system which produces an aerosol screen and a computerised control system. It jams the enemy’s semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders, and target designators. (like the A1M1 range finders)

Merkava tank.

Originally Posted by bigross86

Why not? Technically Russia is part of Asia. It is on the Risk board, anyway...

Oh that great! it is on the risk board ... I'm sold!

Originally Posted by zraver

After 1980 NATO had a huge advantage on the ground with thermal equipped tanks, modern stabilisation, and laser ranger finders that provided for effective warfighting past 1500M and in low visibility conditions.

Unless it was not used by army of the USSR at that time? You surprise me. Probably not all systems were too good (for example night vision), but they were. Therefore successful night approaches would be for you illusion. (do not read much Tom Clancy )

[QUOTE=-{SpoonmaN}-;377115]I'm not so sure that NATO birds in the UK were entirely safe from the Red AF, I thought the UK was seriously worried about the prospect of mass BACKFIRE attacks on places like Scapa Flow and Aldershot. I admit that the Sovs would have taken a lot of hits, but the number of bombers they could field, flying in co-ordinated mass attacks and then dumping their entire payload would surely have at least slowed down the NATO Air response. When you consider that the Soviets didn't much care about the losses they would take in their initial air campaign, I would imagine it would seem worth it.

In addition, the Iraqi defence in GW1 has been picked apart over and over again for all it's failings, but I think simply the biggest difference between them is:
1. They never attempted to sieze the initiative, which is was the Red Army was all about.
2. They never questioned why the Coalition seemed to be doing exactly what they expected and indeed wanted them to do - Attack directly into the mine-field and entrenched units along the border between Kuwait and Saudi. Surely they would have been aware of the ability of the Coalition to conduct air recon with impunity, and in the desert it's not particularly easy to hide tank movements as I understand it, yet they never appeared to have considered that the coalition would try out-flanking them. Which is weird.[/QUOTE]

Extremely good point ... Not entirely un common though.
As far back as Sun Tzu's verses, the danger of allowing Non millitary minds into campain planning and exectuion was expressed. This however is not the most recent example of this failing ... Witness caolition policy in the theater ... If we refuse to learn from history we are cursed to repeat it.

Originally Posted by 1 Observer

Oh that great! it is on the risk board ... I'm sold!

lol necropost

Originally Posted by Stan187

lol necropost

SO then .... we're on the same page?

Originally Posted by 1 Observer

SO then .... we're on the same page?

Page 17, methinks.

Originally Posted by bigross86

Why does Russia have the most experience? Checnya? How about Israel and 1956, 1967, 1973, 1981, 1982-2001, etc...

From what I know, Arabs were incredibly incompetent in warfare against Israel. Saddam was no exception either.