![]() |
|
|||||||
|
Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board! The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today? |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#121 (permalink) | |
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Quote:
__________________
Chimo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#122 (permalink) | |
|
Administrator
|
Quote:
__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader. ~John Quincy Adams |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#123 (permalink) |
|
A Self Important
Senior Contributor
|
I see there has not really no mention of WP Airborne units. In 1970 the BMD-1 first entered service and was first seen by the west in 1973. It was a radical shift in tactics for airborn units giving them a vehicle which in 1973 could kill any NATO tank (granted a LAW could kill the BMDs). Also the ASU-85 and ASU-57 were around giving mobile gun support to airborne units. The Soviets had 8 Airborne Divisions, Poland had 1 Airborne Division and the Czechs had an Airborne Regiment. That's a large airborne force that could cause a lot of confusion. And the Soviets being the way they are were not above giving up troops for dead during a big war.
Now only the Soviets had the BMD-1 but still with the 73mm and AT-3 it could cause some damage and confusion if dropped behind the lines and used to attack targets. At 800m the 73mm could kill an M-60A3 (with no ERA) and the AT-3 could do it at longer ranges. Those BMD-1 units would have good mobility on the ground compared to a NATO paratrooper. Each Russian airborne division had 48 SA-9 mobile SAMs, D-30 artillery and each company had SA-7 missiles. And of course they would have been upgunned with scores of RPG-7s and AT-3s to deal with NATO armor. Kind of a deadly force to have to deal with. That confusion after they landed would be rather big in theory and no doubt help the USSR out. Also back in 1973 we would also be dealing with T-34-85s and IS-3 heavy tanks ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 (permalink) |
|
Regular
|
I highly doubt the low velocity 73mm gun on the BMP's and BMD's could take out an M-60A3. Maybe an earlier version if it got a hit from behind, but even with a HEAT round I think it highly unlikely. On the other hand the WP troops had probably 10's of thousands of those AT-3 "suitcases" Which were clumsy to use but had been proven in the Isreali-Arab conflicts to able to cause serious damage to Centurion and M-60 tanks if properly employed.
__________________
http://zeljko-heimer-fame.from.hr/images/yu%7Dcetni.gif |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 (permalink) |
|
A Self Important
Senior Contributor
|
"I highly doubt the low velocity 73mm gun on the BMP's and BMD's could take out an M-60A3. Maybe an earlier version if it got a hit from behind, but even with a HEAT round I think it highly unlikely. On the other hand the WP troops had probably 10's of thousands of those AT-3 "suitcases" Which were clumsy to use but had been proven in the Isreali-Arab conflicts to able to cause serious damage to Centurion and M-60 tanks if properly employed."
Actually the 73mm HEAT on the BMD-1/BMP-1 could kill 400mm of armor. That is enough to kill an M-60. Yes the excellent L-7 on the Leo-1 and M-48A5/M-60A1/3 outranges it but not like the BMD-1 would want to play long range shoot out anyways. WP troops would have the AT-3, AT-2, RPG-7, SPG-9 (73mm), B-10 (82mm), B-11 (107mm) and towed anti tank guns like the T-21 (100mm) and D-44 (85mm). And of course most WP artillery had a secondary anti armor role. Many of the AT-3s and AT-3s would have been mounted on vehicles such as the BMP-1, BMD-1 and BRDM-1/2. They would have been good with anti armor work and of course being 1973 the world was still in shock at IDF losses in 1973 to AT-3s and RPG-7s in the hands of commando/raider/trained AT units. ----- OOE I have a question on the Chinese "forts" are we talking "forts" or cities? |
|
|
|
|
|
#126 (permalink) | |
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Quote:
Two primary targets for the Soviets were the nuclear facilities and garrison at Lop Nor and and the capital Beijing (Peking). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#127 (permalink) |
|
A Self Important
Senior Contributor
|
Ok.
The Russian army was better equipped and more mobile with tanks like the T-62 and the BMP-1 and more capable anti armor systems. Both sides would have mostly similar artillery and small arms. Well the Soviets did have big bore mortars and artillery like the M-240 (220lb shell) S-23 180mm field gun (194lb shell) but that would take awhile to blast up a city. Even with the D-20s (94lb shell), and M-46s (76lb shell) blasting up a fortified city would take forever. And China has both of the last two in service in big numbers. The VVS was also better equipped then the PLAAF at the time. Yet I doubt with "only" 45 divisions taking on most of the PLA with no nukes they would try to really take the cities over. Just encircle them and kill the PLA units still in the field and not hiding behind the walls. Maybe play Hannibal and go around killing troops, but I doubt they would be able with no nukes to take the centers of power like Beijing. Don't get me wrong 45 divisions is a lot of guys but I wonder if they would want to try a "Stalingrad" being outnumbered and giving up mobility by being in a siege. Maybe they could get the NoKos to show up and add in troops, doubt it but still. North Vietnam would not be helping out the USSR either againist China (it being 1973 afterall). |
|
|
|
|
|
#129 (permalink) |
|
A Self Important
Senior Contributor
|
No problem
I have been/and still am on the phone the entire day listening to quick paced jiber jaber that changes subjects fast and then asks me if I understand or agree.... I would so much rather move that shrub... And I am still on the phone.... You ever have a phone start to get hot from being on your ear for so long? ---- I think Iran has also not been mentioned even though they were supposed to be a front againist the USSR. Granted 1973 was 3 years before the first F-14A entered IIAF service... Last edited by troung : 04-16-2005 at 21:09 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#130 (permalink) | |
|
Administrator
|
Quote:
Yeah, I know wishful thinking ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#131 (permalink) | |||
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, back to digging holes. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#132 (permalink) | |
|
Military Enthusiast
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Just do what I do. Plant it in that hole and pretend to have a pulled back. Make her feel guilty. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#133 (permalink) | ||||
|
Military Professional
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by lwarmonger : 04-18-2005 at 00:29 AM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#134 (permalink) | ||
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Quote:
This also assumes that III, V, and VII Corps were all completely destroyed instead of falling back in good order or even managing a salient. Not a valid assumption given the speed to which 2Guards and 3Shock must achieve. Quote:
Last edited by Officer of Engineers : 04-18-2005 at 10:19 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#135 (permalink) | ||
|
A Self Important
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
In 1973 the USSR would have a little degree of control of the skies but the PLAAF was big so they would still be in action (though how well is the question). Russia had better equipment in some aspects but China had more (Russia's best would be fighting NATO). I we pushed this 10 years ahead with no nukes the Russians would be much better in terms of mobility and airpower. And if we are counting out nukes as somehow not being around would Lop Nor matter or be worth sending Divisions to take? Of course it does seem remote enough to prevent a peoples war from breaking out. With no nukes they would have a totally different plan more then likely. Quote:
![]() |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Turkey turning cool to NATO | Ray | The Field Mess | 59 | 09-14-2008 07:26 AM |
| Baku - NATO Membership? | Ironduke | The Western Alliance | 64 | 08-26-2008 03:21 AM |
| The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq | lulldapull | The War in Iraq | 35 | 05-20-2008 03:48 AM |
| For global security increase the NATO | Ray | The Western Alliance | 0 | 10-13-2006 13:26 PM |
| Project Afghanistan: Pakistan and NATO | Ray | Operation Enduring Freedom | 2 | 05-21-2006 18:08 PM |