U.S. VS. Soviet Union

[Officer of Engineers]

Colonel when were you in the 4th CMBG? I was in the US 1st Infantry Division (Forward) 1981-1984. 1-26 INF...later 4-16 INF. We had partership units with the PPCLI and 3 RCR.

Bought my Volvo through the Canadian PX! Good O Club too as I recall. Didn't it have a Pirahna tank near the bar?

Sorry, saw this. Wanted to reply. Forgot. Other things came on my mind.

I was there 86-87 detached right at the downturn right just before the decision was confirmed to pull 4 Bde out. The Piranha tank. Yeah, that was good. Remember we dropped rats into that thing. I heard a story that a Lt from the Crazy 8s (8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise) dropped a snake (a boa or a python) into that thing. The snake caught a fish before the blood made the rest go wild.

I think that was the last year of the Canada Trophy and it was a hoot watching the Americans trying to drink Canadian beer. You know after a trip or two into town, you think they could've handled the increased alcohol.

Purely conventional? NATO would have won but North Germany would have been lost.

It would've been one hell of a bloody fight. Lahrs was set up good. I had complete confidence that we would stop them. Only thing is that we knew if we were too stubborn, they would just nuke us.

[lwarmonger]

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.

Because we and our allies would mobilize for a full scale conventional war against the Soviet Union?

There is no reason why such a campaign would be impractical from a material standpoint.

[Stan187]

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.



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).

Numbers that I've read could be wrong, but this is what they are

Protection against CE, RHA equivalents:

M1-------->Turret & Glacis:700-800
M1A1----->Mantle: 990 Turret: 800 Glacis:510-800
Lower front hull: 570-790
M1A1HA-->Turret: 1080-1320 Glacis:510-800
Lower front hull:800-900
M1A2----->Turret: 1310-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970
M1A2SEP->Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970

Kornet---> 1200 under ERA

I could have gotten bad numbers, and I have never sat in the turret of an Abrams as a Kornet hit, so I don't know first hand. But from those numbers, it seems reasonable to me, depending on the model and shot placement in the front, that a Kornet could penetrate and Abrams. Perhaps your first hand experience contadicts. If so, I'd like to hear more.

[zraver]

Numbers that I've read could be wrong, but this is what they are

Protection against CE, RHA equivalents:

M1-------->Turret & Glacis:700-800
M1A1----->Mantle: 990 Turret: 800 Glacis:510-800
Lower front hull: 570-790
M1A1HA-->Turret: 1080-1320 Glacis:510-800
Lower front hull:800-900
M1A2----->Turret: 1310-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970
M1A2SEP->Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970

Kornet---> 1200 under ERA

I could have gotten bad numbers, and I have never sat in the turret of an Abrams as a Kornet hit, so I don't know first hand. But from those numbers, it seems reasonable to me, depending on the model and shot placement in the front, that a Kornet could penetrate and Abrams. Perhaps your first hand experience contadicts. If so, I'd like to hear more.

Those numbers are suspect besides being from a gaming site. 1- in Lebanon not one Kornet affected a penetration of the Merkava IV and it has thinner armor to the front 750-1340. 2- Russian tests reported by Vassily Fovanov on his site show that vs a T-90 showed the Kornet failed to achieve a turret penetration 580-1040. 3- Even when the US attacks an Abrams t destroy it in place they go for side shots and thats with Mavericks and Hellfires to ensure penetration, although I would not trust the Abrams armor vs either of them.

So while that site is a good starting point, its numbers for protection seem low.

[Stan187]

Those numbers are suspect besides being from a gaming site. 1- in Lebanon not one Kornet affected a penetration of the Merkava IV and it has thinner armor to the front 750-1340. 2- Russian tests reported by Vassily Fovanov on his site show that vs a T-90 showed the Kornet failed to achieve a turret penetration 580-1040. 3- Even when the US attacks an Abrams t destroy it in place they go for side shots and thats with Mavericks and Hellfires to ensure penetration, although I would not trust the Abrams armor vs either of them.

So while that site is a good starting point, its numbers for protection seem low.

The numbers for T-90 protection on Fofanov's site are with or without ERA?

Yes, those numbers are from a number of sites that may or may not be correct. Fortunately for us (you in particular, I suspect), the US military chooses not to publish detailed numbers on such things all over the internet for people who don't need to know to see.

Indeed, Hizballah's experience with the Kornet does not prove its capabilities beyond what we already knew. They were well trained, and they made sure to take flank shots to vlunerable areas, such as the engine exhaust area. Hizballah is not necessarilly a good example of what most tankers would face, considering their swarming tactics (7-8 missiles per tank) they would probably run out of ammo pretty quickly without resupply. Most organizations, be they state or guerilla, usually cannot afford such a prolifiration of ATMGs, but Hizballah ground forces focused on that pretty exlusively, which makes sense in light of the armored threat they were facing. Although some groups might pick up their tactics and example, I suspect it won't work as well if applied on less harsh terrain, not to mention against an opponent that correctly applies the past 60 years of lessons in the importance of combined arms.

Sorry, /Hizballah rant off

[omon]

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.
.

wtf??? you gave him a chance to redeem himself?? who the ,,, do you think you are? god?

you have too high of opinion of your self, don,t you think?

you are worth opening an ignore list. see ya.

p.s. otoh, i wont, i get good laughs reading your posts, keep up the good work,

[zraver]

The numbers for T-90 protection on Fofanov's site are with or without ERA?

IIRC with for at least some of the shots.

Yes, those numbers are from a number of sites that may or may not be correct. Fortunately for us (you in particular, I suspect), the US military chooses not to publish detailed numbers on such things all over the internet for people who don't need to know to see.

I don't have official figures, but we were told in the 90's we had the equivalent of well over a meter of protection. That was with the M1A1. The M1A2 goes far past that.

Indeed, Hizballah's experience with the Kornet does not prove its capabilities beyond what we already knew. They were well trained, and they made sure to take flank shots to vlunerable areas, such as the engine exhaust area.

sir no sir, the Kornets CEP (.3 to .5m IIRC)is not accurate enough for vent shots vs a moving target especially the Merkava with its long-narrow vents.

However back to the topic of the thread the Kornet or Metis in a head to head US/USSR showdown is not going to be a war winner. The US M829 migh tnot work any more effectively vs the Kontack equipped T-72 and T-80 tanks at range but no Russian round was effective at any range. Any kills would be golden BB type shots from the front.

[Triple C]

Hey Stan,

Numerous US veteran tankers that served at the '80s I have talked to rebuked the RHAe figures cited by most websites as being too low for the M1 tank. Most of them are very tight lipped about the actual figures but all expressed a confidence in the qualitative superiority of their tank over any Soviet-made AFV and ATGM. Of course, it must be noted that they all have a healthy respect of the Red Army's fighting prowess during this period.

[Firral]

However back to the topic of the thread the Kornet or Metis in a head to head US/USSR showdown is not going to be a war winner. The US M829 migh tnot work any more effectively vs the Kontack equipped T-72 and T-80 tanks at range but no Russian round was effective at any range. Any kills would be golden BB type shots from the front.

I already wrote here before in this occasion:
You confuse time pieces (like as it does Tom Clancy in the books).
Correct my data if I am not right:
THE USA
Shell М829: year of acceptance on arms - 1986, power - 500 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
Shell М829A1: year of acceptance on arms - 1990, power - 600 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
Shell М829A2: year of acceptance on arms - 1992, power - 620 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
Shell М829A3: year of acceptance on arms - 2002, power - 720 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
The USSR/Russia
Shell 3BM32: year of acceptance on arms - 1984, power - 510 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
Shell 3BM42: year of acceptance on arms - 1986, power - 530 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
Shell 3BM48: year of acceptance on arms - 1989, power - 600 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
Shell 3BM44: year of acceptance on arms - 1994, power - 630 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
Shell 3BM48-2: year of acceptance on arms - 1995, power - 650 mm (for hit at 0 degrees)
You can notice, that shells are similar between the contemporaries. Only after disintegration of the USSR, backlog of Russia from the USA was outlined.

Numerous US veteran tankers that served at the '80s I have talked to rebuked the RHAe figures cited by most websites as being too low for the M1 tank. Most of them are very tight lipped about the actual figures but all expressed a confidence in the qualitative superiority of their tank over any Soviet-made AFV and ATGM. Of course, it must be noted that they all have a healthy respect of the Red Army's fighting prowess during this period.

It has the name " belief in your weapon ". It is a healthy situation necessary for a good moral condition of any soldier: you trust that your weapon better, you know that your opponent too is able to be at war well.

[Bad Karma]

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

- No, they weren't obvious, maybe in your mind but no where else.

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

- Confidence? You are just being a pedantic jackass now.

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.

- Wow, is English a second language for you? No, the T-72 was not dumbed down for the Iraqis. And you should get a clue as well if you think the conscript force of the Soviet Union was a highly trained force with better ammo, training, equipment etc. than the Iraqis, because they were/are not. I also pointed out in my original post that it would be difficult to determine a similar outcome in Russia, because the Iraqis did not have the same capabilities as Russia I put it in bold this time because reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.

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.

- Again, one of the major coups the US had in the beginning of the current Iraq war was stopping the sale of Russian Kornets. Now you have a homework assignment, and tell me how well EFPs, IEDs, and RPGs do against the Abrams. If you can cite one example of an IED taking out an Abrams, I'll fly out and kiss your stupid toes. Oh hell, I'll tell you right now, they don't. Side shots? Really? You are stupid. The most lopsided achievement of the M1A2s was the destruction of seven T-72 Lion of Babylon tanks in a point-blank skirmish (less than 50 yards) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles (29 km) south of Baghdad, with no losses for the American side. Landmines have disabled Abrams tanks, actually that's wrong it's not plural. But golly gee mister, why do you think they put mine clearers out front.

You come on this board with a lot of knowledgeble people, and you realize that they are.

- That they are what? I'm taking it that went on your head again and just didn't make it to the page. Maybe you can put in bold again, that will help.

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.

- If you are the norm, I don't think I want to stay, thanks.
__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158

- Change your sign off, you look really stupid slapping on a statement that has grammar/spelling errors.

[Firral]

- Wow, is English a second language for you? No, the T-72 was not dumbed down for the Iraqis. And you should get a clue as well if you think the conscript force of the Soviet Union was a highly trained force with better ammo, training, equipment etc. than the Iraqis, because they were/are not. I also pointed out in my original post that it would be difficult to determine a similar outcome in Russia, because the Iraqis did not have the same capabilities as Russia I put it in bold this time because reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.

I do not understand you! Really you consider, what army of Iraq had the same preparation as army of the USSR? (you think draft army had in the USSR bad preparation?) or you consider that army of Iraq had the modern weapon? Т-72М - on yours it is the modern tank?
On mine Stan187 the rights, speaking " The Gulf War showed nothing about the capabilities of the Soviets ",
It is war simply beating: strong and modern army of the USA - weaker and backward army of Iraq. It is more than anything.

[Firral]

For Bad Karma
The army of Iraq had no:
-modern interconnected by air defence for all country (the USSR had it since 1960)
-modern aircraft
-the-adjusted interaction and management of armies
-modern tanks, ammunition to them
-modern anti-tank means
-special diversive divisions
-means of radio of struggle
-means of a night image
-normal combat training
And it is a lot of another, that had the USSR in the beginning 90

[T_igger_cs_30]

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

Forgot about the Easter hols Sir..........need a couple more days everyone on leave right now

[Firral]

For Bad Karma
You heard that the army of Iraq has applied somewhere artillery? Or artillery of type Grad, Uragan, Smerch? And about fighting starts of the Iraq aircraft?
They at all did not have means of air defence for covering movement of the military columns (even type become outdated Shilka). You have fearlessly burnt them from helicopters! You consider that in the USSR was too most?
And you serve in MI - Military investigation? Know, I was the best opinion on preparation in your army.

[Officer of Engineers]

Forgot about the Easter hols Sir..........need a couple more days everyone on leave right now

Not a problem, Sgt-Maj, I thank you for your efforts and time.