the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

hi alls!!

i'm newbie in MBT ;)

i want to ask what are the best ways to use US units against Russia 2009 ( T-90,Uragan,Grad and other to too lower price )into ME games !!!

i see that many US units have high price :eek:

M1A2 abrams are good for short range ( SABOT ) but not very effective to long range against T-90 ( ERA cells,Reflerk )

MRLS are great artillery ( 155mm gun howitzer not good ) but they needs continue logistic support for ammo :envy:

bradley and many other mobile armour TOW are not good against T-90

the heavy ATGM infantry is very good but they needs APC to leave from fire point after the shot ( russian artillery is more cheap and hit half map )

USAF aircraft ( except B2 ) is not convenient because Russia has many AA syxtems too effective in MBT game ( SEAD and Strike action is too expensive and not very useful )

air support is important to US Army but AA weapons are too effective ( too for me )

i suggest to give greater importance to aircraft for a future patch :up:

a question: where are the F14 of US Navy ? :confused:

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

The F14 in 2009? How about driknking tea with the Spitfire? I is not in active duty anymore (I think). The Navy uses the F18s nowadays.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Use you gunships, Apaches were built to fight the soviet tanks. Just fly them low and carefuly.

Also your Javelins or TOW with Top Attack strikes. Fire once or twice then get the hell away from where you are to avoid getting killed.

If CM artillery is allowed, use them!

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

The F14 was retired from active duty back in late 2006. As far as I know only the Iranians still use them.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

sure the apaches with Hellfire are very good but ZSU and other SAM are very cheap and are many on battle camp :mad:

infantry can hit near heli also :envy:

i seen heli escaped after same shot also :eek:

the Buratino can flame woods and Grad is powerful to suppression

javelin and TOWs are not effective on T90

Heavy infrantry ATGM can hit but they needs APC near after shot ( to fire russian artillery )

russian tanks have same AA syxtem

M1A2 haven't same thing and they needs SAM cover near

i think that US player must choose MRLS batteries or aircraft but air strikes not hits tanks when they see them during air passage :down:

why aircraft not use rockets often? i seen aircrafts use main gun only °°

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Probably have already used their main armament in a previus run ...

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

I would suggest you start smaller & learn some tactics.
Yes Bradleys need flank shots to kill T-90s a lot of stuff does, could be why they built them:) Abrams infantry & some transport to get them around are quite capable of dealing with but not an easy fight. If your tanks cant cut it use them to snipe or hit & run strip infantry support from tanks first then kill them.
The timeframe you are talking about Russian stuff is not cheap they have some very expensive stuff to. Troops APCs etc that cost more than yours

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Something tells me you are new to this game. :)

Use your Apaches from great distance. The enemy can't have complete view of the battlefield. The Apaches can go behind hill, sneak, fire and cover. Use trees, hills, buildings anything to take cover and you should be able to do it. I know it is possible, I do it all the time.
The only way for non manpad infantry to hit your gunships is if you are flying too close to it. Don't use your apache like an inf squad. Have it at least 40 hexes away from the enemy units.

Javelin and top attack tow can not be innefective against T-90. They are top attack missiles, most of the time they hit a tank, they will destroy it. I don't know how you see them as not effective against T-90.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

And who has told that will be easy? :)

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

sure but the random map for USvsRussia is russian terrain often, with not many obstacles views

i'm agree on use Heli behind hills, i'm tryng :)

i seen Javelin not destroy T90 to first hit and many TOW mobile are eneffective, ATGM M1045 or Heavy ATGM are better ( for me, of course )

a problem of ATGM units is low ammo. they needs ammo truck near after same shot...

the russian player can use smoke away to problem view for US ATGM units, the US ATGM units are enough capable to fire with smoke?

you suggest me patriots like SAM long range defence ? :confused:

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

If the terrain does not suit helos dont use them, no cover no helos.
ATGMs will kill most times if hit of course T-90 has 2 anti missile defence shots which have a chance to stop them. I say again try smaller battle & learn putting ammo trucks by inf ATGM with a fast arty call time results in instant death.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

ALL ( repeat ) ALL units in the game have their cost calculated in the same way. Units with higher capability have higher costs whether they are US or Russian or Chinese or whatever. National experience and morale ratings also affect a units cost but that only shows up in the game NOT when viewing the OOB's in MOBHack. In the game the T-90 is one of the most expensive tanks ( and some of the Russian attack helos are the most expensive attack helos as well) As Kramax says....... WHY do you expect killing them to be easy ?


Then ALTER THE MAP if you don't like it. All the controls are available to do that when viewing the map.


Don

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Be sneaky. Capitalist are sneaky, so their war making reflects that. Watch your ranges. Set the range so that you are not taking long range low percentage shots. If you have the CD version, use your op fire filters to set up your anti-armor units to fire only on the side or rear of those T-90's.
If you are doing PBEM, out-think your opponent. Set traps and lure him into a kill sack. If your opponent has 3 choices, make sure he chooses the one you want him to. It's called controlling the OODA loop or riding inside his cycle.
The main requirement for all of these tactics is information. You must win the data battle BEFORE you fight the kenetic battle. Buy cheap scouts and either turn off their weapons or set the range to zero. Get them to their zone and then don't move them any more often then 1 hex ever other turn. If you can see him and he can't see you, you will win. I don't care what sort of uber panzer he is driving wround in.
As the U.S. Marine Corps tells their grunts "Hunting tanks is fun and easy".

I have been on a unwanted sabbatical for the last several months. I now have a fresh install of 4.5 with 250 PBEM slots. I also have a legal requirement to keep a low profile for the rest of the year. So if you want, we can play, me as US and you as Russian. I will explain what I did AFTER I do it to you.
Then you can try to do it to me and learn the counter tactic.
Every weapon has a counter. Every counter has a weapon.
The ultimate weapon is surprise. It comes free with EVERY OOB. The counter to surprise is information. Most information is expensive, but some is free so long as you remember that no information IS information.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

The US Army doesn't use the SMAW but believe me since every USMC rifle platoon has two attached if you even the least bit sneaky you can blow the hell outta an armored assault.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Fighting Russian first-elchelon units eh?

Well first while the M1A2 Abrams some of the equipment of the T-90A (VIRSS, gun launched ATGMs, etc.) the later APFSDS ammo should have no problem dealing with the T-90A. Also the M1A2 SEP is very well protected when in a hull down position. In fact I don't think the T-90A can penetrate the front turret in WINSPMBT, so try to use this advantage when possible and get your tanks in a hull down position.

WINSPMBT's rendition of the countermeasures system the T-90A has isn't entirely realistic, but regardless VIRSS has a chance to block your Bradley's TOW-2 missiles. While it seems the Russians only have Arena on a few prototypes in real life, in the game they may end up with some tanks with CIWS systems, these have a better chance to stop your missiles. TOW-2B should be able to penetrate Russian armor from any angle as it is top-attack but with older model TOWs you may need to hit the sides. Javelin missiles used by your infantry are quite expensive, yet their effectiness seems rather inconsistent. In some battles I have crushed multiple tank platoons with them, in others half of them that hit don't penetrate.

If the AI buys a ton of older anti-aircraft guns like they sometimes do, use your artillery the best you can. Against mobile SAMs and advanced anti-aircraft systems, sending in a stealth aircraft or SEAD F-16, followed by lets say a F-15E loaded with JDAMs can be quite effective.

Helicopter effectiveness varies from map to map.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

The Problem is the T-90 is WAAAAAAAY overrated (10 to 15%) in game terms.
It looks like some Russian teenager did the numbers for the T90.
An RHAE of 1100mm! Somebody has been deep into the pipe for that number.
ALL the Soviet/Russian Armor rating's need to be cut by about 1/4.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=161

The Russians, like the Soviets are stuck in WW2 when it comes to MBT design. What they see as 'features' are actually 'bugs'.
A short list of examples;
Low profile. Important in WW2 where you had hordes of tanks crawling across the Steppes, it is a serious drawback in a modern tank. That low profile limits the ability of the MBT to get a 'hull down' firing position. Being hull down is of greater value then a low profile.
Auto loader. A complex bit of gear that even when working is slower then a human. Plus by reducing the crew from 4 to 3, you increase the maintenance workload of the crew by 1/3rd. That lowers crew efficiency, which is already pretty low because of the low profile making the tank uncomfortable to live in. Not only does this lower crew effectiveness, it causes the crew to leave the MBT for rest breaks. 80% of tankers killed are killed outside their tank.
I could go on, but I will make one more point, then stop. American tanks have blow out panels so if the ammo explodes, the force of the explosion will be directed outside the MBT. In a soviet MBT the blow out panel is called a 'turret' by other nations.

Soviet Armor sucks. That is why it keeps getting slaughtered in REAL combat. I'm trying to find a link to the research the Israelis did on the armor they captured in their various battle. It seems quality control isn't so hot;

http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/story-o...mor-commentary

The above link is for WW2, but IT STILL APPLIES today. The Soviets/Russians haven't learned yet what makes a good MBT.
They never will because their social system won't allow them to see it.
The simple fact is that any weapon system is no better then the crew using it. In the above URL, the German officer writing the article hits the nail on the head. The T-34 was inferior to the German tanks because it has a two man turret. Period. The motorheads that don't seem to understand that tanks have crews never see the point here, Despite the Germans running up absurd kill ratios against the T-34, they keep insisting the T-34 was a superior tank. Despite mountains of evidence otherwise.

No, once you get off the paper or monitor and onto the battlefield, Soviet/Russian tanks get pounded. They will continue to get pounded until the Soviets/Russians figure it out. That won't happen until the Russian social system recognizes the value of human life and it's primacy over the state.
Here is a URL to a technical intelligence site;

http://www.wlhoward.com/id3.htm

This is from FAS, which is a socialist organization that is prolly a former Soviet front. I say that because they have been running on fumes since the Soviet collapse, which would indicate their funding was cut off.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5T90.pdf

{Snipped}
Times have changed since the T-90/T-90S first appeared in 1993. Built upon
the poor performance of Iraqi-employed T-72s in Desert Storm, network news
footage of turretless M-84A MBTs ablaze in the former Yugoslavia, and the
misplaced bad press dumped on the T- 80BV MBT for its performance in
Chechnya, large export orders for modernized T-72s and T-80U MBTs have not
materialized."

Multi million dollar targets are not in great demand.
Most sources give a 800 RHA and a 870 RHAE (HEAT) rating for the T-90.
Numbers like that are dubious (WAG's) to say the least, but they are the best there is. In game terms that would be 80 and 87 instead of the 90 and 110 in the game.
If I can find that IDF article, I'll post it. Examination of wrecked T-62 by the IDF and T-72's by the US Army show serious quality control problems in all the soviet MBT. Bubbles and air pockets in the Armor showing that the were not manufactured corectly.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5T90.pdf

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

I got side tracked. The solution is to not play the Russians. MBT has many other nations. Avoid playing the ones where the equipment values were lifted off a sales brochure.
The fact is that the T-90 is just a renamed T-72. That was done because the Russians were losing sales to the Ukraine, which was selling renamed T-72's (T-80). It worked, since the Indians bought 300 of them to counter the 320 T-80's the Pakis bought.
You can argue that the T-72, T-80 and T-90 are different tanks. I can argue that they are not. Same tanks, a few different bits bolted on them.
In the end, the only thing that really counts is how the perform on the battlefield. The T-72 didn't do any better then the T-62. The T-80 didn't do any better then the T-72. I doubt that the T-90 will do any better then the T-80. You can make excuses all you want, in the end I can point to pillars of smoke raising to the sky from burning Soviet MBT's.
Or as we say in the West, 'the proof is in the pudding'.
Russian designers have to start with a clean sheet of paper. They have to realize that a low profile means nothing in an age of radar and infrared guided weapons. That crew comfort is the single most important part of a crews ability to fight their weapon. That crew survivability is even more important then anything else.
American MBT's did "Thunder Runs" thru Baghdad because the crews knew that even if they got hit, they wouldn't get hurt. That gave them the confidence to be very aggressive, which is what you need in a tank crew.
compare that to the Soviet tankers in Chechnya(sp?) who knew they were dead as they climbed into their steel coffins. Brave men all. It's just a pity and a crime that they had to die proving their bravery.
As Patton said; 'The idea is to make the other poor SOB die for his country.'

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Eh, aren't all MBTs sold by USSR/Russia of lesser equipment and armour than those for the country itself? Don't think that because the MBTs of the Iraqi's sucked that much means the ones used by Russia are exactly same in qualities.
Also, you seem to be forgetting a major factor, one that you keep mentioning as being very important. The quality of the crew. How can you possibly rate as comparable the crew of an Iraqi or Egyptian or perhaps even Syrian MBT and the one of the USA or Israel?

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

You are fondling my point, but you won't reach out and grasp it.
Soviet MBT's have design flaws built into them. It doesn't matter which ones they export when they ALL are poorly designed.
And yes, crews are the most important part of any weapons systems. Anyone that thinks one man is better or worse then another man because of the location of his birth is wrong. Now the various social systems that raise, train and support that tanker ARE different. That difference is important.
At this point in history, we don't have many examples of 3rd worlders fighting it out with NATO vs Soviet equipment. Jordan and Syria springs to mind. A few others. Israel isn't quite a 3rd world nation. That will change in a few decades once the ****tes kill off all the Suni's and take over in Iraq. Of course, they won't have access to American weapons by then, but I'm sure the French, Germans and British will be more then happy to sell them weapons.
Og yeah, that reminds me, Iran Iraq war from 1980 to '89, IIRC. Iran started that war with NATO weapons and would have finished with NATO weapons if they could have gotten spare parts and/or new units.
The point I was trying to make is that the Soviets are designing the perfect WW2 tank. Only WW2 is over and has been for some time. The Russians need to step back and rethink the entire concept of armor use in the 21st century. Hanging new bits off the T-72 won't make it a better MBT. Raising the profile, throwing out the autoloader, finding somw place else to store ammo will make a better MBT.
The T-62 had the fuel tank in front!!!! Diesel at that. So every time an IDF 105 round hit the glacis of a T-62, the fuel would detonate, sending the fighting compartment back into the engine compartment. Rough on the crew. It would also detonate the ammo, which would send the blow out panel (AKA turret) flying skyward. That would have been rough on the crew also, only by then they were meat paste and didn't care anymore.

My question is, "How would having a Russian crew changed that?"
Followed by "How would having that T-62 assigned to a front line GSF formation instead of being sold to the Syrians have changed that?"

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

I am sorry but I am not sold to your idea/opinion. The lower profile = worse tank argunment just doesn't make any sense to me. The M1A1/2 have lower profile/shape than the previous american tanks. British, French, German tanks all have low profile, they might not be as low as some russian ones (I guess, I don't know), but that doesn't mean they don't see advantages to it.

I am a bit lazy right now, but I don't think I agree with most of your points about why a russian tank is not as good. Crew quality (training, society) I agree, but tank design, not so much.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

For what its worth my 2 cents take with a pinch of salt.
Some valid points but its still mainly speculation.
Yes a turret without a commander is at a big disadvantage but thats not the case now though if the electronics are up to the job now is the question. Do Russian MBTs have hunter/ killer tech (commander selects next target while gunner deals with first) Is there targeting TI as good or better? On the modern battlefield he who sees the other first wins aka Iraq. Where if I remember they were sub standard tanks & badly maintained. Though of course the Russian military went to pieces for a good while & maintanence suffered there.
Chechnya several reports the tanks did not have there reactive armour fitted which makes a huge diffrence. Other factors to but not going into & then you have to figure whos actually got it right.
I can remember reading the Rheinmetall tests that lead to designed the present gun, conducted against tanks fitted with Soviet ERA they found it was quite capable of defeating both HEAT & kinetic rounds. Its effectiveness against kinetic rounds surprised them hence we need a gun with a lot more grunt.
Simple things like estimates of armours effectivness need carefull analysis because people use diffrent criteria. Fired at obliqly or straight projectile passes through or marks a metal plate behind etc.
The upshot is Russian frontline tanks may not be as bad as you think though perhaps the majority could be worse as only get low level upgrades. With a bit of luck we will never find out.
Then you could throw in the situation you create in MBT war has broken out its Russia vs USA & its gone on for a few days. Russian tanks are now quite good as USA uses a dumbed down version of the Rheinmetall gun but makes the penetration up with depleted uranium rounds. Oh weve used all the rounds can we have a cease fire while we build some more nuclear powerstations & replenish our stocks please.
Like I said pure speculation & if you think its wrong you can adjust it.
On T-90S & dont know why I remember this but have seen ratings varying from about 550-1300. The 1300 applying to approx 50% of the surface as thats the part covered by second generation kontact 5 (forget the name) 550 was the area to ether side of the gun as mounts detection gear so no reactive armour. And yes I would say the relience on ERA means the tank has more vulnerable spots. It also means its a lot lighter & can use bridges possibly go places (I know ground pressure) Western tanks cant.

The simple way to look at in my view is with the advent of the T-72 & its derivatives Western tanks entered an era of rapid upgrades & refinments compared to the past. The Abrams for example got its upgrades because the experts thought it needed them to survive not just because there was some cash in the kity.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

First only partly true - it was a renamed and significantly upgraded T-72B. You know, the variant that by fairly simple solution brought "monkey model " (compared to T-64 and 80) to par.

T-90S and T-90A are already different beasties, though. Does "new turret" ring a bell?

First: In what? Firing lots of HE? Sure, lower pressure does wonders for barrel life so the T-72 is in this aspect worse than T-62. Resisting damage? I very much doubt so.
Second: AFAIK T-80 showed to be pretty survivable, and after all T-72 as well, once the Russian commanders learned how not to fall into massive ambushes of state-of-the-art RPGs.


Mebbe, just mebbe the fact that US tankers in Iraq knew that the best the Iraqi's have is RPG-7 with PG-7M projectiles (the more modern ones are very scarce and began to appear later on), whereas Chechens got newer stuff? Would they be so eager to make thunder runs if they knew that PG-7L was widespread in the streets of Baghdad?
How many Thunder Runs were made by Israelis in Lebanon and Gaza? I suppose you take that the Israelis also knew they were dead when they climbed into Merkavas and so they pussyfooted with all that slow advance and infantry support stuff? Or mebbe just the Iraqis were so lame and so weakly armed as to allow for Thunder Runs?
Also notice there were no thunder Runs in Fallujah. Why was that? Did the US tankers learn about their coffins? Don't think so.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Btw re. diesel behind glacis, all western tanks have either fuel tanks, ammo or both behind the glacis. Except maybe Merkava, which has the fuel all around the crew ;)

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Re Fuel
Do not take this as correct but sure I read somewhere its done on purpose. It is quite good at taking the energy out of a kinetic round. Diesel is not very volatile though I would think a HEAT hit would ignite it as hotter than the sun. The thing is though I suppose it either ignites the diesel or sprays the crew compartment.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

As I said you have to read quite a bit & pick the bones out of it rather than just looking at end results.
If anything was wrong in Chechnya I would say it was tactics & underestimation of the enemy, high command/political meddling if you will.
Hardly something you could acuse the West of in its "little forays" into Iraq, overkill comes to mind trying to do it on a budget never entered into it the cost of air ordanance alone used is stagering.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

I don't think that is correct. The M1 came after my time, but IIRC, the fuel tank is amidships, between the turet backet and the engine compartment. Co-formal, I think, so the turret basket sort of sits in it. I'm looking for a picture or line drawing that shows the gas cap.
If there is one thing the Soviet Union was the undisputed champion at, it was propaganda. The 'Monkey' model export weapons is a classic example of that. Do you really think that some Arabs who grew up hageling with his mother over a teat is going to buy a monkey model? Or are you suggesting that the Arab in question didn't know it was a monkey model? Or maybe the Salesman from Britain or France or Germany, looking to sell some of their tanks would forget to mention that the Arab was getting the monkey model and if they wanted the real thing, buy from me? No wonder capitalism never took hold in Russia.
As far as being a new tank because it has a new turret, I beg to differ. The Germans put several new turrets of various makes of their Leo. Changed the engine, gun, electronics, almost everything over the decades. They aren't doing any propaganda about it being a "new" tank.
A new tank is one where you start with a clean sheet of paper.
Like the T-72. The Soviets would change the Hull, Engine, Turret and gun, then restart the cycle over. That is why I say they were trying to design the perfect WW2 ( Great Patriotic War) tank, since it was the T-34 that was the 'clean sheet' design that started that process.
And while everybody raves about the T-34, the Germans had a better then 20 to 1 kill ratio over it with Mk IV's, which the experts claim was an inferior tank. So much for experts.

My final point is that while Soviet/Russian tanks look good on papaer and make the experts drool, when the shooting starts, they explode and burn. What exactly will make the T-90 (T-72 Mk2/b) different? Unproven defense systems that have never been tried in combat?
Good luck with that! It takes more then propaganda to defeat a DU penetrator.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ons/m829a1.htm

The USA isn't going to fight Russia in a conventional war.
I seriously doubt that America will honor it's NATO commitments, since NATO didn't honor theirs in 2001 (except for Britain).
So when Putin decides to take Europe away from the Muslims, America will yawn and go back to rooting against the Yankees.
So the Russians will be fighting the Krauts, again. And Russian tanks will be burning, again. So the Russian propaganda department will rename the next modification of the T-72, again and peddle it as a new tank, again. None of this will work any better then it did last time, again.
How do you say it in Russin?
поражено в колейности
"Stuck in a rut"

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Sounds like I am fighting you but would just like to point out from what I have read & what most guys in charge of Panzer Div seem to say regarding success vs T-34 or indeed any Soviet Armour.
Normaly hugely outnumbered 5:1 was considered an everday thing & the Soviet problem was not so much the eqipment as a lack of command structure & rigidity in carrying out orders.
The Soviets would have a plan & pretty much stick to it reacting poorly if at all to opportunities. Very few people knew what the plan was so they just followed the leader & had little training.
The Germans on the other hand everyone knew the objectives platoon leaders were told the overall picture & their objectives & in the better formations were encouraged to use their initative to achieve them.
This meant for a good Percentage of German Commanders after a short while on the German front they could predict what the Russians would do with high accuracy & react accordingly. So at 5:1 odds there was no doubt in there mind they would win with acceptable losses.
It was command structure or lack of that was the deciding factor & if take early Russian or most French tanks they had little choice with no radios. Follow your leader & do not lose sight of him while he is exposed out of his turret waving flags.
Yes I am sure the 2 man turret played a part as did lack of training. At least the factory workers that jumped straight in the T-34s as they had come off the line at Stalingrad had seen & possibly driven a vehicle before. But it bought them time & they won in the end as much due to Hitler overrulling the military & so negating its advantage.

The Germans had it there way till another army with good C&C, I think its fair to say British tanks were generally a bit lack lustre yet they still managed good kill ratios versus the Germans. nothing to do with the equipment you said it yourself a weapon is only as good as the men maning it.

So the problem in the game if you want to call it that is not the modeling of equipment but the fact you play Russia with same tactical aplomb that you do its opponent.
Letting Russia be played by the AI might actually make the game more realistic certainly in WW2.

Sorry mentioned France because in many ways there tanks were better yet they failed miserably perhaps as I say through this due to C&C leading to them being out thought

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

That's one tank. Another is right behind the glacis. The 80mm at 72 degrees sheet of metal. And it's there intentionally.

That's why I put it in "". The so-called "Monkey models" were not any downgraded equipment, just older equipment - the same way as the US didn't sell M1A1 to anyone in 1988, just selling off M60s. Bear in mind the original idea behind T72 was to have a more potent follow-on to T-55 and 62, ie inexpensive medium tank with fairly good gun. As the problems with 64 and esp. with 80 showed up, it was decided that the T-72 will be brought up from the Cannon Fodder category to MBT category - to do that, at first improved version of the "old" model came - T-72A and its derivatives (T-72M and M1 - export variants, T-72M keeping old plain steel turret, T-72M1 using different composite than A) and in 1980s T-72B, which meant a great leap for T-72 series. So the older variants were indeed much less capable than T-72B.
As for why Arabs bought them, they looked kewl, were cheap so there could be masses of 'em on parades and finally countries that bought them were not all that rich and were under Soviet influence. Still, for example India bought them and builds them.

So say M60 was not new tank when it came?


Actually, T-34 was a result of evolution of BT series. Hardly "Clean sheet" design, it just got bigger and bigger as new requirements came. And the result wasn't all that good either, T-34 was more of temporary sollution till much better T-43 comes - though the war disrupted the plans.

I would like to see the source of that claim. Aren't you confusing it with kill ratios from the beginning of Eastern front, achieved against masses of totally incompetently led BTs and T-26s with few off T-34 and KVs?

Actually ERA was proven in combat - in Chechnya (where it served well once the Russians started to use it), in Georgia... Why the heck did the US switch to it in the TUSK Abrams upgrade if it is such an unproven defense system? Sure, ERA isn't panacea, but it is quite significant.
As for exploding and burning, Abrams does it as well. Merkavas too. Depends on the hit location and so on. And sudden catastrophic explosions are pretty rare - most of the famous "turret popping" happened when tanks stayed burning for a prolonged time, not right after hit. Or it happened after multiple hits.
And may I point to the fact Western tanks are hardly immune to ammo explosions? Just have a look at that unfortunate Chally 2 friendly fire incident.

Sweet, so propaganda of M829 manufacturer is somehow better than propaganda of T-72 manufacturer? The M829 proved itself... Against export models of T-72, and many of them locally produced in Iraq with all consequences for quality. Many of those did not even have the basic measure T-72s were given against 105mm M111 round, ie 17mm additional steel plate on the glacis. And with crew doing pretty wild stuff with them (if I can extrapolate from reports of our T-72 instructors teaching tankers of the New Iraqi Army) - much of it similar to mistakes US tankers did when entering the WW2, ie keeping axcessive amounts of various combustible materials in the fighting compartment, around the ammo, neglecting maintenance (incl. firefighting equipment) and so on. Compared to this, even a T-72M4CZ or Polish PT-91, with skilled crew, good FCS and optics and heavy ERA, is much tougher nut to crack, let alone T-72B variants with their significantly stronger armor, let alone T-90 which got again stronger by using Ti instead of Al in its armor arrays.
You seem to operate under illusion I am claiming that Russian tanks are über alles - no, they suffer from many design decisions that aren't (by my opinion) all that well thought out, but they ain't POS you claim them to be. They are quite robust, reliable design with a big upgrade potential and decent protection, given your commander is not a dumb moron ordering your Bn to take tanks without support to city fighting against a determined and well-equipped enemy. But then in Grozny situation Abrams or Leo 2s would not make any difference other than (contrary to Russian tanks)) lacking a decent HE shell.

Wonder how did all the NATO troops find themselves in A-stan. Wonder how come our soldiers were KIA and WIA there and how come our Spec Forces hunted the Taleban through the mountains, calling in air strikes and generally earning praise from the US commanders, when I learn now from you we do not honor our NATO commitment. And it is especially sweet coming from you with your shouts about propaganda. Though I do not know whose propaganda are you consuming as, fortunately, US officials seem to notice even 10million countries and their contributions.


Oh and btw when the Russians will be taking Europe from Muslims, you will be already learning how to use eating sticks :p

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Now boys play nice, the truth is all tanks have there design faults its the nature of the beast. And all modern MBT are unproven including the likes of the M1 to say otherwise is delusional.
Taking a man of the street & pitting him against a heavy weight boxer does not prove anything only when he faces the opponent he trained for or the tank was designed to take on has that happened.
Tank design is a slow progresion with occasional leaps the first big one possibly being the Germans realising armoured warfare was on the cards & designing the Tiger.
The next probably the T-34 which became the basis for tank design spawning for instance the Panther. Targeting computers came along Chobham Armour improved detection & the USA finaly managed to produce a half decent tank as the M1 was born, etc etc etc.
Of course it to was found to be almost immediatly redundant as the West managed to miss the birth of the T-72 so its main gun was a travesty & the drawing board came out again.

It is only when you get a sudden leap that you get a tank that rules the battlefield, but even the Tiger only got a few years grace. If you are capable of killing the other guy it comes down to crew & training & the standard of your equipment makes that easier or harder. With recent advances but the same holds throughout history staying on top of the game is important. If the tanks a couple of years old & someone has made an advance it may as well be 20 years old from an effectivness point of view.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

So say M60 was not new tank when it came?
No Mark, the M-60 was an upgrade of the M-48, which was an upgrade of the M-47, which was an upgrade of the T-26 (M-26 Patton) which was a clean sheet design and the MBT the US should have gone to war in Europe with.
Mark, I'm not meaning to get you upset, since one day we might be opponents. I'm just saying that the T-90 is over rated in game terms. Armor needs to be cut back to 80 87 frontal.
I understand it isn't for the same reason the US JDAM isn't accurately represented in the game. Playability.
That is OK with me, since I like playing the game and if it reflected reality, the Russians would have no chance against the US Army, just like in the real world. In the real world, the battle will end with burning Russian tanks everywhere, just like has happened for the last 50 plus years.
The Soviets had an erroneous design philosophy for tanks, which the Russians have inherited. As evidence to support my statement I point to generations of Soviet designed tanks that look good on paper and in parades but perform poorly on the battlefield.
You can make excuses until the cows come home, but when you are done, the picture of those tanks burning will counter your excuses.
Mark, Afghanistan is a side show. What happens there makes no difference anywhere else in the world. Maybe not even in Afghanistan. It was only incompetence on the part of the Clinton Adminstration that allows the WTC attack to go home. Remember the CIA knew about the WTC attack in time to stop it, they were prevented by Law from doing so. Clinton had at least two opportunities to put and end to Osama. The Emir of Sudan has Osama in cuffs at the airport waiting for the call from the Clinton administration to hand him over to a CIA agent waiting to put him on a plane and fly him back to the states. Call never came. A CIA sniper had his cross hairs on Osama, waiting for the order to put him down. The call never came.
Iraq, on the other hand , is a key element in defeating Islamic terrorism, or Radical Islam, if you prefer. The USA WAS attacked. Igf you don'tthink so, I believe Youtube has the video. NATO requires that America's allies aid us when we are attacked.
Nothing in the treaty about picking and choosing which attack counts. Nothing about having a veto over our strategy for counterattack, of even the fact of a counterattack. Italy and Spain tried, England was great. Germany failed the test. Poland and the New Europe gave all the help they could. The Low Countries didn't come thru.
Those are facts. You may not like them, but that is another issue, one that doesn't matter at this point in time.

Imp, I'm just chatting. I am to old to be serious about any of this, so if it bothers you, I'll leave it alone. I am correct. Russia needs to sit down with a clean sheet of paper and design a MBT that is worthy.
Re-paintintg the ГАЗ-М20 Победа; Победа and putting a new emblem on it won't make it a Mercedes.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Me to & it might bother me if I thought you were making comments with a You Tube mentality of my army is the best.
Just pointing out where people could disagree so presenting both sides of the coin on which.

You had a go T-80 T-90 are just renamed upgraded T-72s. Now you say M60 is what exactly. Renamed following a similar convention to the Russian upgrade.
Little changes we stick a number or letter on the end big ones we rebadge it.

Also I would like to say the Russians pulled off the biggest propaganda coo of all time at the end of the cold war. If I remember the tanks that are only good in parades caused an US General to remark "Glad they were on our side"
So a large part of the USAs paranoia over the cold war was caused by a bunch of rubbish tanks parading through Berlin.
Thats value for money.
Anyway will stop now as getting boring but will say as the game models ERA the combination of armour rating & ERA might be slightly high, not really looked.
Certainly the armour ratings are possibly slightly high but without testing the game model of ERA its hard to say. Of course Soviet composite armour could be rubbish to but it might also be quite good.
But as said I have seen figures as high as 1300 across approx 50% of front & the link you gave was some guy who puts out his estimate for game use not from a military source that studies & makes estimates on enemy equipment. On that point some countries do not seem very good at it best to trust what the Europeans say

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Appologies on that statement if wrong just occured to me I might have confussed with another post elsewhere.
also it just occured to me against Western MBT armour rating does not matter if a bit out as they will defeat it unless extreme range or it triggers an ERA packet which may save it so seems okay to me as thats what I would expect to happen.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

But the US marketed it as new. And T-26 was just an evolution of an M4 and M6 hybrid. After all the turret used on T-26 was based on work done on T-23 turret (that went to M4(76) series). So hardly a "Clean sheet" design, the same way say Challenger 2 is based on 1 which is based on export Chieftain which is based on Centurion which is based on British Cruiser tanks... Yet again both Centurion, Chieftain and Chally 1 and 2 were being announced as new tanks.

Yep, most players would object if the JDAM and most other PGM could be relied to hit the target hex regardless of what's in it, if it meant it would blow up a truck shile the tanks next doors will suffer only minor headache.
As for T-90, agree and not. The figure used in the game is based on armor and ERA ratings combined, while the ERA coverage is pretty low. That is one way of putting it, as the game isn't that detailed in the area of effects of heavy ERA.
The second way, the way I chose for my OOBs (which I will hopefully release soon - as soon as I entangle the great T-54-55 variants headache) is to use "armor" only for actual "hard" armor and raise the ERA coverage, so my T-90 has front hull just a little better than T-72B (OTOH T-72B is significantly better vs. KE than in the original OOB) and I have front hull of 62 (both KE and CE) and front turret of 71 and 91 (KE, CE) - based on the approximation of its BDD-like structure. Either way can do justice to real values just in a limited way.

Where in the real world did the US and Soviet forces directly clash?

I can supply you with pictures of burning Mag'achs in Sinai, or of burning M47s on Indo-Pakistani border. I can supply you with pics of burning Abrams, after being hit by a puny late 1948s SPG-82. What does it prove? And in 1991, when did the "burning T-72s" mostly occur, a large portion of Iraqi tanks was destroyed ahile being abandoned, either by gunfire or by traditional means, IE demolition charges, the same way as so many Georgian tanks got burned last summer. Few fell in actual combat, most were demolished either by Georgians themselves or by Russians when after the Georgian collapse Russian troops more or less freely roamed many Georgian bases.
Note the Israeli experience. After 1967 and 1973, they accepted captured tanks en masse to service. Given their aim of minimising crew casaulties, do you think that these tanks were really so much of a deathtrap?
Was Leopard 1 a deathtrap with its thin armor? Canucks using them in A-stan seem not to think so.

Frankly, your stance here reminds me very much the stance of Axis and Soviet fanboys re. Sherman tank. They use similar arguments: fields of burning tanks (Africa, Goodwood, usually in a situation where the tactics used would mean the Allies would lose the tanks even if they have had already M48s), "Tommy cooker" once and for all (though in fact as for example Dmitri Loza recollects, while Sherman caught fire more easily than T-34, if properly handled, it provided more time for evacuation and didn't blow up), "poor mobility" (though again Red Army vets with both M4 and T-34 combat experience - as opposed to just being told - do not say so and Germans in Italy complained that Sherman goes where their tanks cannot), "poor weaponry" (esp. ironic if it's being compared to T-34 where it was generally on par) etc. And what are those denigrations of M4 based on? On initial combat where green crews in early variants of poor quality (early M4A1 cast armor hardness was generally in the area of 50% - 75% of the planned value, and with numerous cracks and bubbles) faced experienced veterans of Panzerwaffe.

Just a final "tank" question for you: Do you think that had Iraq in 1991 M1's and M60's and the Coalition having T-72's, Iraq would win? I dare think the opposite. Same for Sinai, 1967, give IDF T-55's (hell, they would be glad enough to have them instead of having few M48 and Centurions and rest upgunned Shermans) and Egypt 105mm Centurions and M48s, Egypt would still get its backside handed to them.
Same for the Valley of Death on Golans in 1973'. Switch both side's equipment and watch as IDF tankers slaughter Centurions and Shermans while safely remaining in the dark thanks to T-55 night vision kit.
It's not as much the machine as the man inside. You may have M1A56 Superduperabrams but if you do not pay attention to such pesky details as setting up your sights properly, keeping the inside clean and uncluttered, setting up proper C3I structure or lubricating the engine, you are in deep trouble even if you encounter an IFV manned by at least semi-competent crew.

Which attack do you mean? You mean Sptember 11? But Iraq had nothing to do with that (and despite attempts of persons with Bush Derangement Syndrome GWB never said so and did not justify action in Iraq as a response to Sept 11, just as a means to prevent possible future attacks), Afghan-based Osama's group did, that's also why A-stan is a NATO mission.
That is not to say Iraq did not deserve a good hard smacking for repeated violations of ceasefire agreement from 1991, but connecting Iraq with response to Sept 11th is a bit like connecting British invasion of Vichy Syria with Pearl Harbor.
Also if Iraq works as "draw the terrs out in the open", it was not intended so in the first place. You recall the apalling job of post-invasion planning made by the US, with blunders like immediately totally disbanding the army and the police? Needless to say that A-stan serves that purpose as well and moreover lets us watch closely a large unstable country with nukes. If the Talebs were nto killed in A-stan mountains, guess how many nmore will be available to try to topple the Paki govt, which, as corrupt and backstabbing as it is, is still better than an imam with nukes.
Needless to say, US gov knew all this well enough to not ask for NATO help in Iraq. It called for individual countrie's help (and you'll notice that my country, taxed enough as it was with A-stan and Kosovo, among others, also helped), but not for a NATO stamp because there simply was nothing to earn it.
But this is an off-topic sideshow so I recommend we drop the issue and you look up what is a NATO mission and what is not.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

The ERA is a difficult beastie all by itself, as is the slat armor and standoff screens. Currently the game does ERA in a "digital" fashion, ie "Block 100%" or "Fail 100%", which is not entirely accurate re. modern HEAT and sabot rounds. The protection of ERA is usually given by RHA thickness its manufacturer says it presents, so it would suggest that the ERA is expected to degrade, not destroy the projectile - so say if you slap Kontakt-5 on a T-90 and fire BGM-71E TOW-2 at it, it might well be degraded enough that it will not penetrate. However do the same with Kontakt-5 on a BMP and the TOW will rip it apart, whereas with the "digital" model it would block the HEAT as well.
The same goes for other technologies. NERA armor used on LEo2A5, T-90 or T-55AM2 would work better against some projectiles, worse against others, of the same category. So any composite armor rating is a WAG even if we do know its composition (which, I believe, we do with T-72B and T-90 to a great degree of certainity).

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Love it

On your comments about ERA etc.
Tend to agree the game model is not correct but then its an add on they managed to squeeze into the code. If doing your own OOB I did think for a lightly armoured vehicle you could reduce the amount of ERA so there is less chance of a hit to represent it will still probably penetrate. So 50% coverage instead of giving an ERA of 5 give it 3.
This on reflection will not work either because now its not there to stop the RPG round that it could have degraded sufficently. You are going to have a bit of fun working out a compromise.
Also agree finding info on what Russian composite armour is made of & construction of has become a lot easier. Still does not realy help though as like its Western counterparts we dont realy no how good it is. Till someone releases data for first generation Chobham saying compared to rolled plate its XX% better vs KE & HEAT its a guess what XXmm of composite is actually worth. And then its a guess how good the improved stuff is
I have a feeling the new generation of composites is very very good against HEAT.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Last news re. Western armor that appeared on Tank-Net seem to show that at least part of Abrams side turret armor is arranged by a similar principle to BDD/T-72B/T-90, i e multiple thin layers, of unknown composition, prolly metal with something in between. (EDIT: Based on a pic from iraq showing M1 with rear turret side outer layer blown off by IED)
There were suggestions that the entire Chobham, rep. the US version, is arranged in a similar fashion, ie no bulk ceramic with inserts, but lots of thin stuff, IOW that both sides reached similar arrangements for similar reasons. though of course that remains speculation until someone manages to dissect M1A2SEP in detail ;) Or, for that matter, T-90A or Leo 2 or Chally 2. Anyway similar structures were also seen on damaged NERA modules from Merk IV from Lebanon.

EDIT: Re. ERA, the representation as it is in the game is "good enough", any attempt at more details will drown in a swamp of details... Just decided to look into remnants of ERA and their effect on armor, seems that Kontakt-5 and other newer ERA will have some influence, as their outer plate remains in place and the action is contained inside - IOW even after the ERA is fired, the 15mm standoff armor at some angle remains there and works a bit.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Cheers I might take a look at Abams had not seen that & agree the scale we are playing have been happy with ERA model in use.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

"Which attack do you mean? You mean Sptember 11? But Iraq had nothing to do with that (and despite attempts of persons with Bush Derangement Syndrome GWB never said so and did not justify action in Iraq as a response to Sept 11, just as a means to prevent possible future attacks), Afghan-based Osama's group did, that's also why A-stan is a NATO mission."

You might be correct that Saddam had nothing to do with the WTC attack ( jury is still out, there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence that Saddam may have unwittingly provided training, papers and funding for the mission but there is no smoking gun and if there ever was it has been buried too deep to find or been destroyed), but Bush II was correct about the WTC attack being part of a larger picture.
Between 1980 and 2000, the Dept of State listed over 4700 attacks on US property or persons by Islamic affiliated groups.
So to just go after Al Qaeda would be like England declaring war on the 9th Panzer division. 9th Panzer was PART of the German Army. Al Qaeda is PART of the terrorists that have been waging war on the USA for the last 40 years or so. Since 1979 when the Embassy in Tehran was captured.
What makes it difficult for the naive to comprehend is that terrorist groups do not work directly for nations or states. Hezz-bo-Allah (Arm of God, roughly translated) works for whoever wants to pay them to kill members of the Dar al-Harb (House of War, which is anyone and everyone not a Muslim). While Hezzbollah are enemies of Al Qaeda, they will both work together to kill Infidels. Sort of like Protestants and Catholics taking a break from killing each other to kill Muslims or 7th day Adventists.
So to say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism is wrong and evidence of a total misunderstanding of the problem. To say that the current WoT ( War on Terror, a really bad choice for names by Bush II) is a response to the WTC attack is just as wrong. The WTC attack was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
The real issue and the reason why the Left in America and the Euros of both sides were against Iraq is it brought home the fact that we ARE at war.
Clinton and the Euros want to treat terrorism as a crime. It isn't, it's war, but wars are nasty and require sacrifice while a crime is something you can leave to the police, who like doing that stuff. So the average citizen can go back to watching a football game and not be bothered.
At least until guys with rags around their head and automatic weapons kick in his door and ask him to quote Suran 9.18 or be put in jail. He then tells them to leave or he'll call the police. They tell him they ARE the police and if he gives them any more trouble, jail is out and he'll get the old one in the gut two in head roadside execution treatment.

We wandered waaaaay OT here and I apologize for my part in that.
I still fail to understand how where the tank driver was born affects the ratings of the front hull armor. Maybe I'm just slow, but could you 'splain that over agains lucy. ;-)

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

I'm not going to wade through all this dreck to figure out where this came from so just tell me who is suggesting that experience and morale "affects the ratings of the front hull armor"


Don

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Fraid you are the only one who suggests such a thing, for neither me nor anyone else made such a statement. After all the birthplace of the tank crew is also of no effect - I bet large part of IDF tankers in all wars was born in Russia or even in Arab countries.
However what you fail to grasp is that a skilled crew might utilise their tank so well that thinner armor does maybe bother them, but does not doom them to your apocalyptic images of fields of burning wrecks. You want an example? What about the scores of T-34 vs PzKpfw IV? The latter tank got thinner armor and worse mobility.
You also can take a non-tank matter of say the Winter War. Finnish army, desperately outnumbered in manpower, airpower and artillery, managed to deal good enough blows to the Soviets that the plan to get a puppet govt to Helsinki failed.
What about IDF AMX-13s and M50 Shermans vs. T-55 and IS-3? Not only the Israeli tanks got significantly thinner armor (nearing paper-thin on AMX), not only AMX was really weird vehicle not all that suitable for a maneuver battle, but the 75mm French gun was too weak to penetrate T-55 from the front and IS-3 turret from all aspects... Yet the IDF won. Why is that? Was it because they grew extra two feet of armor on their tanks and used APFSDSDU? Or was it because IDF doctrine led the crews to aggressive maneuvering and initiative, as opposed to rigid Arab units led by not too brilliant officers and with bad overall knowledge about their equipment (search for an article "Why Arabs lose wars").
Or take the battle of Khafji: the only Coalition tanks fighting there were AMX-30, with guns rougly comparable with at most the 115mm of T-62s encountered and armor weaker than T-55. By your "weak armor" theory the USMC was even more pathetic as the heaviest vehicle used there was LAV-25. Yet the Coalition prevailed, and not only in defense, but also in assault.

Now let's just make a mind experiment - 1991, Kuweit, US forces have T-72M and M1 as their prime battle tank, Iraq has M1A1(HA). What will you see? Again a Coalition victory. With heavier losses of course, as the matchup of old model T-72 with 1960s ammo (Remember, Iraq used BM-15 APFSDS at best, AFAIK mostly BM-12 - that is roughly on par with M735A1 and M735 105mm) against M1A1(HA) is really pretty poor ('bout as poor as between Sherman M50 and T-55 I would say), but based on historical record of Iraqi army, the crucial difference will be in following areas:
-Iraqi M1A1s will hit desert mostly due to lack of regular boresighting
-Their electronics would not work and even if it does, the crews are not trained to do so.
-A third of M1A1s will be broken down by bad maintenance
-A third would be abandoned in panic
-The rest will either fight from stationary positions, will try to charge in parade groun d formations or will blunder aimlessly around the battlefield. Republican Guards might pose a problem, but then not unbeatable.
-The C3I structure of Iraqi army will crumble just as fast.
In the end you'll have lots of burning M1A1s and few destroyed US T-72s.

What am I basing this on? On experience of an US tanker who trained the Kuwaitis with M1A2s. And the Kuwaitis are still a bit better in this regard than Iraqi army was. What did he say (or rather write)? That the Kuwaitis neglected such petty unwarlike things as boresighting. That none of the crews fulfilled US gunnery standards and the single crew in the battalion that hit the target on 3rd try already was treated as wondermen and sharpshooters.
Similar things were also reported by our instructors teaching the new Iraqi army how to operate T-72. They said the Iraqis treated them with despect at first "What are you going to teach us, eh? We're combat veterans with war experience!". A quick demonstration incl. gunnery between Czech and Iraqi crew did effectively shut them up.
So here you can see enough examples, how where the crew was trained can mean pretty big shift in combat value of a vehicle, not by means of adding it armor or so, but by means of rising its combat effectiveness (or downgrading it).

To sum it all up: The best tanks in the world will do you no good if the crew and their commanders do not know what to do with it.
Or, to paraphrase one important military saying: Bad tanks and good tactics are the slowest and hardest path to victory. Superb tanks and bad tactics means just a lot of noise before the defeat.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Good post Marek.:)

Don

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

'm not going to wade through all this dreck to figure out where this came from so just tell me who is suggesting that experience and morale "affects the ratings of the front hull armor"


Don

Anyone that thinks the Soviets made a 'Monkey model" and the Arabs were dumb enough to buy it or wouldn't know it was a monkey model even after the salesmen for the British, French or German MBT's explained it to them.
I argue that the monkey model thangie is propaganda.
The original tangent that we all wandered off on was that Soviet armor is vastly overrated. As evidence of that I pointed to kill ratios. Mark and others claim it was because of the Monkey Models being used by 3rd worlders, with the assumption being that the New Soviet Man would get more out of a Soviet MBT. I don't disagree entirely. I commented that one of the design flaws of Soviet MBT was crew protection and crew comfort.
Biometrics, if you will.
Anyway, Several people here think that Soviet MBT's are the greates thing since sliced bread. I ask them if they are so good, why are the kill ratios against Soviet tanks so lopsided?
The answers I got were the monkey model, which is pure propaganda, and crew training. On Marks' question about the US having T-72's in Desert Storm and the Iraqi's having M1's. I would guess that the M1's would have won. Despite the better training of the US crews. Hence the crack about national origins having no effect on frontal armor. Nothing to do with the game here.
I think there is quite a bit of communications breakdown taking place. Most of it seems to be my fault.
So I am no longer contributing to this thread. I have strong opinions and it doesn't upset me to argue with others that have equally strong opinions. I do have 248 slots available if anyone is interested. We can put it to the WinMBT test.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

Just few notes re "why did the Arabs buy them". I have already explained the term "Monkey mode" and why did I use it (ironically). However few points to consider:
-What Western tanks were being available to Iraq, Syria et al that were better than T-72? There were M60 variants, maybe some Chieftains, Centurions, Vickers tanks, AMX-30 or OF-40 (forget Leo-1s, German arms export policies would prevent it). Which od these tanks, in its basic variant, is better armed, armored and mobile than even the original T-72 Ural? I can think of only one of them as better protected and that one was by far the most expensive.
What guns were available to them? The longrod APFSDS rounds were in their beginning in the West, mostly secret, and all they'd be able to procure would be 105mm and 120mm HEAT, HESH or older APDS. Suddenly the APFSDS of Soviet 125mm gun starts looking like a killer in comparison, even if it is all the USSR would allow for export, IE BM-12, 15 and 17 (and no, WarPac allies didn't get better - BM-15 for us back then). However USSR itself, in the period when it sold T-72 and T-72A derivatives, was already producing T-80A (ie T-80B hull mounted with T-80U turret without ERA) and T-72B (both of which, btw seem to be better protected than M1 variants before HA version).
So your choice on purchase isn't "T-72 vs Abrams", but "T-72M or M1 vs M60A1" and not "M829A1 vs BM-42" but "BM-15 vs. M392". Suddenly, more frontal protection and more potent ammo at a good price seem to look like a good deal, won't you agree? The T-72 was the best they could have realistically gotten and, if properly employed, might have posed a serious problem to the Coalition forces, esp. those with AYMX-30 or no armor. Luckily, they were not properly employed, but try a ground warfare at that time against say Finns or Yugoslavia and you'll end up with plenty of problems.

EDIT: Few figures:
M60A1: Glacis some 110-143 mm at 55 degrees, Front Turret cast shape offering some 300mm RHA. 53 tons and some 10.6 kW per ton. 105mm M68 gun. Huge.
AMX-30: glacis 80@60, turret cast, ca. 160/200mm RHA. 36 tons and 14.9 kW/ton. 105mm gun.
Centurion Mk13: glacis 120/60, front turret ca. 220-250mm. 52 tons, 9.4 kW/ton. 105mm L7.
Chieftain Mk5: glacis 120@72, front turret ca. 380mm. 55 tons, 10.2 kW/ton. 120mm L11 gun.
Vickers Mk3: glacis ca. 80@55, front turret ca 120-150mm. 40 tons, 13.5 kW/ton. 105mm L7 gun.
OF-40: glacis 70@60, turret ca. 300mm RHA. 46 tons, 13.5 kW/ton. 105mm L7 gun.
T-72: glacis composite, ca. 300mm KE/400 CE, turret cast, 380-400mm RHA. 41 tons, 14kW/ton. 125mm gun.
T-72M1: glacis composite, ca. 400 vs KE, 500 vs CE, turret composite, similar values. 43 tons, 13.5 kW/ton. 125mm gun.

And ammo?
105mm L64 (UK, 1978): 310mm @ 2000m
105mm M735 (US, 1976): 300mm @ 2000m
105mm DM-23 (DEU, 1978): 310 @ 2000
105mm OFL105G1 (FRA, 1981): 300-350 @ 2000
125mm BM-12 (USSR, 1968): 315 @ 2000
125mm BM-15 (USSR, 1968): 340 @ 2000
125mm BM-17 (USSR, all steel, 1970): 330 @ 2000

So which one looks better?

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

C of Red I was not going to post anymore but you are missing the whole point. I am not saying Soviet tanks are ubber tanks & putting it to the test in MBT the M1 will win unless ther is a huge disparity in the players.
There was a huge enough disparity in the combatants & as Marek points out this tends to be the case more often than not & is what I have been saying throughout.
You seem totaly unable to grasp a big enough diffrence effects the outcome & brain over brawn applies to war to.
I dont think there has been a war since WW1 when both sides were matched both on equipment or skill. The US had its biggest problems after all in Vietnam not because they had good equipment but because of the tactics used, a "proper war" & it would have been over in weeks.
Quite simply put it would be a hard slog but in MBT you would beat a rookie who had vastly superior equipment.
The other point I raised is you cant just take a cursory look at info you have to dig to get anything like the whole picture which is what bought me into this as you are ignoring lots of factors in my view.

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

There is no doubt there were versions of the T-72 that were built to an older and / or lower standard and sold as export and those for the most part are the ones that have made the news ( those and the obligatory shots of burning T-55's from those two wars but what does that prove ?.. that a tank designed just after WW2 has next to zero chance against the best tanks the west fields? Duh.) However, if you steadfastly refuse to believe that then there is little point in anyone offering any counterpoint information because all you'll do is dismiss it as propaganda or the claim the info comes from a "socialist organization " and the "argument" goes round and round and round then it's just as well you are no longer contributing to this thread because you simply are NOT contributing anything worthwhile besides personal opinion and alternate propaganda. As for putting it " to the WinMBT test " I have no doubt that if you take Iraqi and Russian T-72's with the same armour and armament and put them up against the best the US has to offer you'll get similar results to the Gulf War but what you seem to expect is that every battle between Western forces and Russian tanks should be a turkey shoot based on what has happened when "western" forces fought Arabs which is totally absurd IMHO.

A top of the line T-90A is NOT the same thing as an Iraqi T-72 any more than a M1 Abrams with the 105 gun is the same thing as a M1A2 SEP


Don

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

It absolutely agree with Marek.
Battles are won by people, instead of tanks.

In our game, always it is possible to arrange small civil war (for example USA vs USA) and then at whom tactics will be better will win.

"A victory not at that at whom force, and at that at whom the truth!"

Re: the best ways to use US Army against Russia
 

I think this post is dead but just found this though not verified showing as refered to in this thread the monkey tank does indeed exist, even to Western equipment

"There were built about 4 796 M1A1 "Abrams" main battle tanks for US Army and 221 for US Marines. In November 1998 there was made an agreement organizing in Egypt cooperation assemblage and serial production of 555 M1A1 main battle tanks for Egypt Armed Forces. The only Egypt main battle tank's difference was usage of multi-layered armor similar to M1 version. Egypt rejected additional used in M1A1 "Abrams" precipitant uranium increased armor. Tanks were built in Egypt plant No.200 since year 1992. 40% of parts and equipments are made in this African republic while the other part is imported from USA. 77 M1A2 tanks have been built for US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait and a number of tanks are used by Egypt.