Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieste
Other than ZSU23-4, and all those tactical SAMs - both MANPADS and vehicle mounted...
And the SU-25 is arguably a better ground attack aircraft than the A-10.
I'd also take issue with the assumption that NATO had a significant edge in armoured technology during the early 1980s. The majority of NATO armour had the 105mm L7/M68 gun, which is marginal at best using 1980's ammunition against the later T64B/T80B tanks of GSFG (The 120mm L11 was probably less effective, as it was still mostly using APDS). A proportion of hits would penetrate through weakened areas of the frontal armour - but equally many would not be capable of penetrating... forcing many re-engagements and increased vulnerability - against return fire an M60 or Leopard 1 is relatively vulnerable to any KE/HEAT round striking it - and the original M1 and Leopard 2A0-2A4(early) was only marginally protected against the more modern rounds used in GSFG tanks. The 'long range advantage' is eroded further by sight lines in a European context - the average is between 1-1.5 km and it is common to be able to approach to within a few hundred metres in some directions without intervisibility.
NATO also underestimated the effectiveness of dense fire concentrations of HE quick on armour and anti-armour systems. Their late cold war testing indicated that casualties would be around 50% for all types of equipment in the area of effect - although tanks would 'only' be damaged except by a direct hit, they were still vulnerable to mobility and firepower kills at rates similar to lighter vehicles.
Fighting equal numbers of early model T72 in open desert and with air-superiority after 30-40 days of the air-war is very different from being outnumbered and attacked by echeloned forces which have jumped over the border 'fresh' in a densely built-up and wooded European terrain.
Fortunately this wasn't tested, as both sides would most likely have used Chemical and/or nuclear forces if the war had gone hot - either pre-emptively to aid break-in, or defensively to halt a successful attack/counter attack.
|
I disagree on Lieste'S assassment on the Su-25 and A10, but I support his hinting at that the T-72 is underestimated. This is because we tend to see it in the light of Iraq 1991, and modern Abrams and Leopard2s and airpower. But when the T-72 came up, these Western tanks still did not exist, and NATO would have fought with the very agile Leopard-1A5s, and M-60s, which are very slow, both had still 105 mm guns - and which to counter the T-72 had been designed. A three-echelon attack by T-72s with their 125mm guns and solid forward speed and low profile and, for that time, relatively good armor, would have been something that still needfs to be shown that NATO could have stopped it by ground forces alone. The gunning at the typical German viewing ranges of
far less than 4 km would have given the theoretically inferior ammo designs of the Soviets still a bigger punch over the NATO tanks, I think.
The most decisive digfference in favour of NATO tanks would have been their night combat ability. The Russians are struggling with that until today. Wikileaks showed cables that the Russian troops in the Georgia war messed it up very dramatically by night. They simply do not have a significant night fighting capacity that is worth to be called that.
I recommend to switch some Steel Beasts scenarios from modern tanks to early T-72s, M60A3s and Leo-1A5, all of which are included. You'd be surpürised to see how dangerous the T-72 suddenly becomes.
Using the Leo-1 against T-55s and T-64, on the other hand, or comparing it to the M60, teaches you with one show why the Leo-1 for most people has been the by far best trank design in the pre-T72, -M1 and -Leo-2 era. Compared to the competitors of its era, both East and West, the thing is
fast and
agile.
Imagine a Leo-1 with a 120mm-gun - the German answer to the Centauro!
Both offer heavy turrets on medium hulls, but the 120mm giving a meaner punch.