DEBATE: A Question Of Tactics

[Lieste]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

What really matters is who holds the air space above those tanks. As we saw in '91 armor can be wreaked in mass by air power.

The west had some fantastic tank killing aircraft in the 1980s (A-10 and AH-64) that the Soviets didn't really have a proper equivalent for.

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.

[TLAM Strike]

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.

The Mav had greater range than all Soviet light SAMs.

The A-10 could fly faster and farther and could carry almost twice the payload as the Su-25. Plus its primary missile had twice the range.

[Sledgehammer427]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The Mav had greater range than all Soviet light SAMs.

The A-10 could fly faster and farther and could carry almost twice the payload as the Su-25. Plus its primary missile had twice the range.

I mentioned total land war and something told me that it was going to turn into an air superiority discussion.

How about them Wild Weasels TLAM, we still have those right?
at least to clear the way for the 'Hogs to roll in and blow the crap out of everything else

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer427

I mentioned total land war and something told me that it was going to turn into an air superiority discussion.

How about them Wild Weasels TLAM, we still have those right?
at least to clear the way for the 'Hogs to roll in and blow the crap out of everything else

Can't talk about war on land with out talking about war in the air. The Ground-Air battle is just too integral in modern tactics.

The Wild Weasel has been retired. Currently the US Military's SAM killers are the EA-6B Prowler and the new F/A-18G Growler (the 1st ones has been delivered I think), those both are operated by the Navy and the Corps. The USAF can mount Jammers and HARMs on their Strike Eagles and Vipers but they don't have a dedicated aircraft for SEAD.

[Skybird]

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.

[Lieste]

The T64 and T80 is the technological high-point of the Txx line of the cold war era - the T72 is a much more basic (but affordable) tank.

Both the T64 and T80 received laser designated ATGM for accurate fire to 4-5km at a time when 2.5km was considered 'long-range' tank gunnery.

The accuracy of these is still superior to any unguided weapon at these ranges today in good conditions, and the flight time is less than half that of TOW.

[Sledgehammer427]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Doesn't the Leo-2A6 have the 120mm gun?
I like the design but you Germans have a thing for shot traps on your turrets.
I'm referencing, of course, those angular additions on the front of the turret.

[frinik]

Yes the Leopard 2 has the Rheinmetall 120 mm( both L44 and L55 variants) as incidentally have the Abrams( same gun made under licence in the US), the Merkava IV, the Challenger II,The Korean Black Panther and the Japanese Type 90 tank.The best tank gun in the West no question about it.Now they are talking about replacing it with a 140 mm also made by Rheinmetall.There's an experimental Leopard (III ?)being displayed with it.

OFFTOPIC: I 've always wondered about the A designation in the Leopard I and II series.Does it stand for Ausfuehrung( series/version)?Skybird do you know?

RE the topic I agree with TLAM strike; airpower as demonstrated during WWII has changed nature of the technological versus numerical advantage issue.If your opponent can deny you mastery of the air then no matter how sophisticated your armoured or ground forces are numerical avantage will prevail as long as the technological gap is not insurmountable.We saw a examples both during the Normandy campaign in June-August 1944 and again in December 1944 during the Ardennes(Bulge) offensive when the moment the Allies were able to use their air supremacy to full effect the stronger and more sophisticated German heavy armour was unable to defeat Anglo-American armoured forces.On the East front on the other hand where the Soviets did not have air supremacy until the last few months of the war, the Tigers I and II and the Panther s were able to take a heavy toll on enemy armour.The Gulf Wars also showed how effective air power can be against armour but while airpower can help you win a war ground and armoured forces are still the basic tool to make your victory concrete on the ground.

In a hypothetical WWIII, airpower and the ability of NATO grounds forces to put to effective use their ATMs and TOWS would have mattered more than the 3 to 1 numerical superiority of the masses of Warsaw pact tanks and armour facing them.Not to mention the morale factor; i.e how effective and motivated would the WP " allies" of the SU have been in a surprise attack on West Germany?

Anyway interesting debate Sledge!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by frinik

OFFTOPIC: I 've always wondered about the A designation in the Leopard I and II series.Does it stand for Ausfuehrung( series/version)?Skybird do you know?

AV = austere version
A0-A6 = could be a simple letter-number counting, or indeed "Ausführung" X. I really don't know.

[frinik]

The Leo I only had the British-designed 105 mm gun.I think they thought at one point about upgunning it to 120 mm but then the Leopard II came along.

Speaking of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 there are several videos available on YouTube of firing tests made by the Bundeswehr which show the firepower of that awesome SPG.It would make Anzio Annie proud!!!!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer427

Doesn't the Leo-2A6 have the 120mm gun?
I like the design but you Germans have a thing for shot traps on your turrets.
I'm referencing, of course, those angular additions on the front of the turret.

I was speaking of the Leo-1, which never had the 120.

The Leo2-A6 has the L55, which is the new and longer version of the 120mm Rheinmetall. The older one was the L44.

The shot trap may be an issue with stones and balls, but not with Sabot projectiles - these will penetrate into the armour where they hit it, they will not bounce off. There are pictures were gun tubes had been split from the tip with the opening and then along the wall of the tube, as if it had been cut by a huge knife.

Those "angular additions" may look irritating, but I am sure the designers have not overseen something like a "shot trap". For some reason the Leo-2A5/6 is considered to be one of the best protected tanks in the world, so... The thing is called MEXAS, Modular Expandable Armor System, the wedge is hollow and should ignite HE warheads before they reach the solid turret armor, and to break up Sabot. The siurface consists of layers of ceramics and Keflar and should have a more than doubled resistence than steel plates of same weight. The hollow inside of the plates at the turret's sides sometimes even get used as storages. The Mexas is a German invention and got attached to several other German vehicles as well, for example the Fennek, the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (what a beast, the best of its kind in the world!), and several smaller vehicle types in Afghanistan. The Canadian Leopard-1s also got equipped with it.

An advanced new version of Mexas gets used for the latest German vehicle designs like Puma and Boxer.