U.S. VS. Soviet Union

[reve893]

Yes, but the countries that owned this Russian Equipment were not able to employ, the way that Soviet Doctrine intended to use it. They were badly led, poor troops, poor maintenance, and above all poor morale. The Soviets military theory is one of the best in the world, in actually there are many instances were the US army has used it, and actually trains in it. The soviets produced more tanks to deal with the fact that the Americans had better technology. But Soviet armor divisions have been some of the best the world has seen. Ably lead and motivated, they would had prove more than a match to the Abrahams. If the war became an attrition war the Soviets would win, but overall i still think the Soviets had the advantage. They had the political will and ability to take massive casualties.

[el_guapo]

Yes, but the countries that owned this Russian Equipment were not able to employ, the way that Soviet Doctrine intended to use it. They were badly led, poor troops, poor maintenance, and above all poor morale. The Soviets military theory is one of the best in the world, in actually there are many instances were the US army has used it, and actually trains in it. The soviets produced more tanks to deal with the fact that the Americans had better technology. But Soviet armor divisions have been some of the best the world has seen. Ably lead and motivated, they would had prove more than a match to the Abrahams. If the war became an attrition war the Soviets would win, but overall i still think the Soviets had the advantage. They had the political will and ability to take massive casualties.

Well they didn't have the political will, and motivation in Afghanistan did they? Infact Soviets were in a stalemate with the rag tag Mujahadeen in 5 years in the war. Soviets were no match for the Mujahadeen man to man. It was a stalement, because the Soviets had one thing the Mujahadeen didn't have, which was airpower, and the HIND gunship was invincible until the CIA introduced a little weapon known as the Stinger AAA missle launcher. Soviet capabilities are greatly exaggerated. True they had numbers in tanks, artillery, etc, but I wouldn't say the Soviets were competent.

US had very lethal anti-tank platforms such as the A-10 Warthog, now named the Thunderbolt, and the Apache. These two can wreck havoc on armored forces. If I remember correctly A-10 accounted for 80 percent depletion of Iraq armor during the Gulf War. In Afghanistan today, the A-10 can go to places that jet aircraft, and helicopters can't, because of ceiling, and mountainous terrain.

The problem with Soviet military was the fact they relied heavily on mechanized armor. Where the US would rather save their tanks if the opportunity presents itself deploying aircraft to destroy tanks, instead of head to head tank battles. Rock/scissor/paper concept. Soviet mechanized forces were easy prey for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. In a war of attrition US would win easily with it's industrial capacity, and logistically the US was, and still the best at keeping the supply lines running.

[Sinister]

Well they didn't have the political will, and motivation in Afghanistan did they? Infact Soviets were in a stalemate with the rag tag Mujahadeen in 5 years in the war. Soviets were no match for the Mujahadeen man to man. It was a stalement, because the Soviets had one thing the Mujahadeen didn't have, which was airpower, and the HIND gunship was invincible until the CIA introduced a little weapon known as the Stinger AAA missle launcher. Soviet capabilities are greatly exaggerated. True they had numbers in tanks, artillery, etc, but I wouldn't say the Soviets were competent.

US had very lethal anti-tank platforms such as the A-10 Warthog, now named the Thunderbolt, and the Apache. These two can wreck havoc on armored forces. If I remember correctly A-10 accounted for 80 percent depletion of Iraq armor during the Gulf War. In Afghanistan today, the A-10 can go to places that jet aircraft, and helicopters can't, because of ceiling, and mountainous terrain.

The problem with Soviet military was the fact they relied heavily on mechanized armor. Where the US would rather save their tanks if the opportunity presents itself deploying aircraft to destroy tanks, instead of head to head tank battles. Rock/scissor/paper concept. Soviet mechanized forces were easy prey for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. In a war of attrition US would win easily with it's industrial capacity, and logistically the US was, and still the best at keeping the supply lines running.

You can't contribute the fact that Soviets lost in afganistan that they are a bad military , thats what happens in such wars , look at vietnam , the point here is what would happen if NATO and Soviet Union would go to war at their peak and the answer is simple , speaking conventionaly NATO would be the winner but you must also consider alot of things as previusly mentioned was the West in a politicaly speaking manner willing too sacrifice million of troops ? And was the west capable of invading Soviet union? The answer is no.

[Stan187]

I realized that you put things in bold, but I have no idea what your are disputing. I was being facetious that the Iraqi army did well in the war, I thougt the following sentences cleared that up. Are you saying that the Iraqis actually did well or did you not understand my sarcasm?

I said the Russian Kornet is the only threat against an Abrams. Are you one of those tankies that was put under the myth that the Abrams is invincible and the Kornet is not a threat? If that's the case we have no more to talk about, because the only idiot is you.

Are you saying there are other weapons in the Russian arsenyl that can easily destroy take an Abrams? If that's the case I should elaborate, I often jot things down in my haste, and for that I'm sorry and I realize that a 500 pound bomb from a MIG would take out an Abrams. Current US strategy however is that ground/tank forces are not sent into the battlefield until we obtain air supremacy. The Russian T-38 is no match for an Abrams, as evidenced in the War in Iraq, hence my statement; the only thing that would take out an Abrams is the Russian Kornet. Again I don't know what your dispute is, maybe you're disputing that Russian Kornets were being sold to the Iraqis, and if that's the case I will cite the link, it has been released to the media.

A little advice, if you are going to dispute something cite argument so people can understand you and it can become a discussion instead of name calling. Because when don't; you make it clear who the idiot is, and I will clue you in, it's not me. In fact I think I'll write you off as someone I will ignore.

If my highlights were not obvious enough, your idiocy is clear.

I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, to realize where you went wrong. Apparently, my confindence in you was misplaced.

1. The Gulf War showed nothing about the capabilities of the Soviets because the Iraqis were trained way worse. It showed nothing about the real fighting capabilities of Soviet weapon systems, because so much of that equipment was dumbed down. The biggest development in the mid-80s was Soviet heavy-ERA to counter sabots. The Iraqis did not have it. They didn't have good ordnance, they didn't have thermal imaging and night fighting capabilities. There is absolutely nothing here that is surprising in terms of the Abrams being in every way superior. That is the first reason you are an idiot.

2. The Kornet can overcome every tank currently fielded. That is not a big surprise. One of those tankies who thinks the Abrams is invincible? No single tanker I've ever talked to thinks that, not one, and there like 20 of them on this board alone. The Kornet is not its only threat. And I'm not talking about MIGs smart ass, I'm talking about EFPs, roadside bombs, Metis, TOW, RPG-29, landmines, crappy bridges, side shots from weaker cannons, mobility kills. There is a host of things out there that can kill a tank, Abrams included. There is nothing particularly special about the Kornet besides its range, otherwise, there are plernty of weapons that can kill an Abrams, and that number expands exponentially as we begin talking about side and rear shots during ambushes. That, is the second reason you are a dipsh!t.

You come on this board with a lot of knowledgeble people, and you realize that they are. But instead of sitting there and learning and listening, you try to prove yourself as being really smart, when the fact of it is you're just some 15 year old puke who watched the history channel a couple of times and thinks he's a class A tactician. THAT, is the main reason why you are a dipsh1t. Welcome to my ignore list, though I suppose you probably won't last long on this board, most fools like you don't.

[el_guapo]

You can't contribute the fact that Soviets lost in afganistan that they are a bad military , thats what happens in such wars , look at vietnam , the point here is what would happen if NATO and Soviet Union would go to war at their peak and the answer is simple , speaking conventionaly NATO would be the winner but you must also consider alot of things as previusly mentioned was the West in a politicaly speaking manner willing too sacrifice million of troops ? And was the west capable of invading Soviet union? The answer is no.

Vietnam battles were won by the US. Mujadeen were beating the Soviets in tactics on the ground. Huge difference. The west could of invaded Soviet Union. US could invade anywhere in the world. Gulf War massed what half a million troops for a war that didn't last a week? Come on dude. You got it wrong. It's the other way around. The Soviets couldn't invade the USA. Again it's the US logistics capability that makes the US military capable of bringing wars to anywhere in the world, and no other military surpasses it, not even close. I don't know where you been at.

Politically American people will back wars if it means the country's existance is at stake. Simple answer yes.

[Stan187]

Soviet mechanized forces were easy prey for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

Not exactly. The Mujahedeen were smarter than that. Why take on the heavy mechnized force and put yourself into danger? Hit their supply trucks instead. And that's exactly what they did. That's not to say that they never engaged mechanized forces, it happened, but they did not often engage huge tank columns. First, that's very dangerous because of how much firepower they could bring to bear on you if they can elevate their guns high enough. Second, the Afghans didn't have such copious amounts of anti-tank round laying around that they could slug it out with armored columns often. What happened more often was that they used their limited AT capabilities to engage the small mechanized escort contingent of a mostly soft-skinned supply train. Then, they'd go to work on the trucks with heavy machine gun fire, which they could afford because of how plentiful that ammo was. It's a guerilla war, after all, they did not expect to defeat the Soviets in straight up battle. In that case, why not just get the easy kills? And that's exactly what happened.

[Officer of Engineers]

Mujadeen were beating the Soviets in tactics on the ground.

Where the hell did you get that? Every study out there points the Soviets were winning their fights 9 times out of 10 and they never lost a fight at the battalion level and up.

[Sinister]

Vietnam battles were won by the US. Mujadeen were beating the Soviets in tactics on the ground. Huge difference. The west could of invaded Soviet Union. US could invade anywhere in the world. Gulf War massed what half a million troops for a war that didn't last a week? Come on dude. You got it wrong. It's the other way around. The Soviets couldn't invade the USA. Again it's the US logistics capability that makes the US military capable of bringing wars to anywhere in the world, and no other military surpasses it, not even close. I don't know where you been at.

Politically American people will back wars if it means the country's existance is at stake. Simple answer yes.

How could the USA invade something as sheer sized as soviet union that had SEVERAL TIMES better tehnology , and SEVERAL TIMES more tanks , planes , submarines , ships , soldiers than Iraq has now , you seriusly don't know what your talking about.

[el_guapo]

Not exactly. The Mujahedeen were smarter than that. Why take on the heavy mechnized force and put yourself into danger? Hit their supply trucks instead. And that's exactly what they did. That's not to say that they never engaged mechanized forces, it happened, but they did not often engage huge tank columns. First, that's very dangerous because of how much firepower they could bring to bear on you if they can elevate their guns high enough. Second, the Afghans didn't have such copious amounts of anti-tank round laying around that they could slug it out with armored columns often. What happened more often was that they used their limited AT capabilities to engage the small mechanized escort contingent of a mostly soft-skinned supply train. Then, they'd go to work on the trucks with heavy machine gun fire, which they could afford because of how plentiful that ammo was. It's a guerilla war, after all, they did not expect to defeat the Soviets in straight up battle. In that case, why not just get the easy kills? And that's exactly what happened.

Soviet tanks were not good in the Hindu-Kush mountains. They lacked gun elevation to fire at the Mujahadeen. However, Mujahadeen could fire at them with RPGs. It's a no brainer they wouldn't engage Soviet armor head on. Soviet supply lines were very vulnerable, and there was very, very few roads that the Soviets could use for supply transport. Mujahadeen didn't have much modern weapons. Even the Soviets themselves admitted they were caught unprepared though they did adapt eventually with helicopters, appropiate weapons, and more mobile forces.

Ahmad Shah Massoud was undefeated in 9 campaigns against the Soviets. He would lure Soviet forces into valleys creating bottlenecks for advancement, and making them stationary targets to ambush.

Stinger missle changed Soviet tactics dramatically. Once dominant gunship helicopters, they had to resort to flying extremely low since the Stinger couldn't engage them from a high angle.

[el_guapo]

The Soviet 40th Army was outfitted for war on rolling plains with NATO or China. The 40th Army brought its full complement of tanks, air defense artillery, chemical protection units and all the other paraphernalia for conventional war against a modern mechanized force. Soon, the Soviets began sending home tank and air defense regiments and brigades and replacing them with more infantry. Tactics, troop formations and equipment were modified or replaced to meet the onerous conditions of Afghanistan. More helicopters and SU-25 close air support aircraft were brought into the fight. The Soviet Army was an artillery army with a lot of tanks. Unfortunately for the Soviets, neither the tank nor the artillery piece was to dominate the fight. The Soviets needed lots of light infantry and engineers—which they never had enough of. Soviet war-fighting was built around operational success. The Soviets developed and perfected the operational art during World War II and intended to defeat NATO and China on the operational level. Operational flexibility demands a deal of tactical predictability and rigidity. Battle drills were the basis of Soviet squad and platoon tactics. Afghanistan could not be fought on the operational level. It was a tactical fight that demanded tactical flexibility. The Soviets had to reinvent tactics in the middle of a conflict.

Soviet Lessons Learned from the War:
1. Guerrilla war is a contest of endurance and national will. The side with the highest moral commitment will hold the ground at the end of the conflict. Battlefield victory is almost irrelevant.
2. Air domination is irrelevant unless precisely targeted.
3. Secure logistics and lines of communication are essential.
4. Conventional tactics, equipment and weapons require major adjustment or replacement.
5. Conventional war force structure is inappropriate.
6. Tanks are of limited value except as mobile reserves and a security element in cities. Light infantry and engineers are at a premium.
7. Medical support is paramount.
8. Logistics determines the scope of activity and force size either side can field.
9. The information battle is essential to maintaining external and internal support.

[Stan187]

Soviet tanks were not good in the Hindu-Kush mountains. They lacked gun elevation to fire at the Mujahadeen. However, Mujahadeen could fire at them with RPGs. Which I acknowledged, but explained that it is not a no brainer to engage Soviet armor columns. It usually did not happen. Not to mention that MGs can shoot back at the Muj, and cutting past any propaganda, none of the Muj had as much of a death wish as was attributed to them. Again, pay attention to what I said. Ammunition supply was not infinite, they could not engage every armor column head. It would have been stupid in both their purpose (attrition, attacking supply lines) and feasibility.It's a no brainer they wouldn't engage Soviet armor head on. Soviet supply lines were very vulnerable, and there was very, very few roads that the Soviets could use for supply transport. Mujahadeen didn't have much modern weapons. Even the Soviets themselves admitted they were caught unprepared though they did adapt eventually with helicopters, appropiate weapons, and more mobile forces.

Ahmad Shah Massoud was undefeated in 9 campaigns against the Soviets. That's because he was smart enough to recognize reality. He didn't fight maybe battles, only ones he could insure to win. I'm not sure how that proves your point at all.He would lure Soviet forces into valleys creating bottlenecks for advancement, and making them stationary targets to ambush.

Stinger missle changed Soviet tactics dramatically. Once dominant gunship helicopters, they had to resort to flying extremely low since the Stinger couldn't engage them from a high angle.
If gunships were SOO dominant, then why were they killed more by heavy machine guns (incidentally of Soviet make) than by Stingers. A helicopter is really a contraption that's fighting against gravity.. and flying at 100%, it is just barely winning. It doesn't take much to bring it down. Ask another WAB member, Glyn, if you want to know more about exactly how easy it is to bring a helo down

.

[Stan187]

Speaking of sending air defense units home, the mobile AAA platforms were actually someone of the only heavy gunned vehicles that COULD register hits all the way to the tops of a mountain due to elevation capabilties (a lesson relearned painfully, firing on the top and bottom floor AT teams in Grozny). I don't know the statistics on them in particular, but my guess is that smarter convoy commanders were not as quick to send them home as your copy and pasted paragraph would imply.

[zraver]

1. The Gulf War showed nothing about the capabilities of the Soviets because the Iraqis were trained way worse. It showed nothing about the real fighting capabilities of Soviet weapon systems, because so much of that equipment was dumbed down. The biggest development in the mid-80s was Soviet heavy-ERA to counter sabots. The Iraqis did not have it. They didn't have good ordnance, they didn't have thermal imaging and night fighting capabilities.

neither did the Soviets, the last sabot produced by the USSR could not defeat an M1A1HA from the front. The Russian's did not get a sabot that could match western performance until the 3BM42M produced for the T-90 Vladimir with the improved autoloader.

2. The Kornet can overcome every tank currently fielded. That is not a big surprise. One of those tankies who thinks the Abrams is invincible? No single tanker I've ever talked to thinks that, not one, and there like 20 of them on this board alone. The Kornet is not its only threat. And I'm not talking about MIGs smart ass, I'm talking about EFPs, roadside bombs, Metis, TOW, RPG-29, landmines, crappy bridges, side shots from weaker cannons, mobility kills. There is a host of things out there that can kill a tank, Abrams included. There is nothing particularly special about the Kornet besides its range, otherwise, there are plernty of weapons that can kill an Abrams, and that number expands exponentially as we begin talking about side and rear shots during ambushes. That, is the second reason you are a dipsh!t.

The Kornet does not have the warhead to defeat an Abrams from the front. In fact only top down ATGM's or very big air launched (Maverick) or hypersonic (Hellfire) missiles can do it from the front on a level plane. From the front the Abrams is as close as anything ever has been to unstoppable. That does however come at a price the Abrams is exceedingly vulnerable from the top, sides and rear. The Abrams was designed dafter all to put its front to the enemy and either charge in (V/VII corps NATO counter attack) or engage in standoff fire (defensive war vs the Soviets assault).

[Officer of Engineers]

Anyone remember when the Soviets stopped doing 122mm and 155mm howitzer direct fire as SOP?

[T_igger_cs_30]

Anyone remember when the Soviets stopped doing 122mm and 155mm howitzer direct fire as SOP?

Not of the top of my head Sir, but will find out for you.Give me a day or two.