M-1 vs T-80

[Gratch1111]

Im not saying that the game is terribly unbalanced when it comes to M-1 vs T-80, Im just saying that I Think the odds should be a Little more in favour of the M-1

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Gratch11

Im not saying that the game is terribly unbalanced when it comes to M-1 vs T-80, Im just saying that I Think the odds should be a Little more in favour of the M-1

That's a blanket statement.

Odds meaning what?

Situation being what?

Another issue is there are 3 versions of the M1 Abrams tank.

M1 - with a 105mm gun. A mediocre tank.

M1A1 - with 120mm gun. Better firepower, improved armor.

M1A1 (HA) - up graded armor protection.

All three versions are in the game and each has drastically different characteristics from the others. The same with the T-80. There are multiple variants in the game.

This is much like saying apples are sweeter than grapes. There are multiple varieties and some are and some aren't.


Good Hunting.

MR

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: wodin

To be honest AIrLand battle is low down on my list of serious wargames. I really wouldn't compare the two games as this is in a different league altogether.AirLand battle is a game I'd class as arcade rather than a serious sim.


Besides that I do see your point.

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

I think the the Western Challengers, Leopard IIs and M1A1s are far superior to the T-80. Having said that, actual battlefield results depend on a lot of factors and the expertise/training of units. I think the game does a good job of modeling it.

The problem with these games (like AirLand battle) is that people tend to be "Homers" when it comes to their nations gear. try and find a Russian player who thinks the F-15e is superior to the Mig 29...stuff like that. The devs have to try to take that bias out of it. A good example is the Soviet AA-11 AAM. The west assumed it was inferior to the AIM 9m because it was Russian. Turns out is was far superior and some of its design was used in the AIM 9x. So we can't assume what we think is always correct

Since the only data we really have is a series of battles between American M1A1s and T-72s. Problem there is you have to factor in that the T-80, although sharing a lot with the 72, had a lot if upgrades as well...not to mention the Soviets had better training and doctrine than the Iraqis....so it's guess work

Okay for the record I never said wargame AirLand Battle was a real wargame or even a good wargame. I brought it up solely to give an example of what happens when people start playing favorites with what weapon systems are better than other weapon systems.

mad Russian- I also never said that the M1 A1 was head and shoulders above the t80...what I said was it was a superior tank and it is a superior tank to the t- 80s, how Superior depends on training tactics. implementation, range and all sorts of other factors. But my point was that two different people will bring two separate biases to the table and analyzing weapon systems that have never actually fought each other in a large-scale engagement it's just difficult to put a number on things like that

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

mad Russian- I also never said that the M1 A1 was head and shoulders above the t80...what I said was it was a superior tank and it is a superior tank to the t- 80s, how Superior depends on training tactics. implementation, range and all sorts of other factors. But my point was that two different people will bring two separate biases to the table and analyzing weapon systems that have never actually fought each other in a large-scale engagement it's just difficult to put a number on things like that

I know. I was answering Gratch11's responses not yours. Sorry for the mistake.


Good Hunting.

MR

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.

What always amazed me about the NATO strategy is that it was a simple continuation of the German answer in WWII. Counter quantity with quality. What made me shake my head is, that formula was tried and shown to fail miserably.

Nuclear weapons were the balancing point between Soviet tanks. The Soviets couldn't one up the nuclear card like they could the tank card.


Good Hunting.

MR

Well the Germans didn't always have a qualitative advantage over their enemies. many of the early German tanks in particular were far inferior to the they're French and Russian counterparts. The United States did not simply want to use quality, it wanted to use technology as a force multiplier. In addition tactics developed in the 1980s did not have NATO forces sitting motionless in defensive positions like the book red storm rising, rather it had American, British and German formations striking deep into the Soviet rear areas...off the soviet attack axis; thus the need for high-speed maneuverable armored forces. this is where high-tech and high-quality pays dividends. Things didn't work out for the Germans in that area for many reasons, not the least of which was their tanks weren't necessarily higher quality than their enemies and their enemies could far out produce them. The Germans main advantage was training and tactics. in the case of a World War III scenario United States industrial capacity could match Soviet power although it would take a long time.

In developing this philosophy the American military looked at the casualty level inflicted by the Germans on the Soviets and decided that such a favorable casually ratio could allow for a victorious war. They felt that the Germans had lost to the Soviets because of operational and strategic level decision-making not because of a lack of vehicles or equipment or personnel

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

mad Russian- I also never said that the M1 A1 was head and shoulders above the t80...what I said was it was a superior tank and it is a superior tank to the t- 80s, how Superior depends on training tactics. implementation, range and all sorts of other factors. But my point was that two different people will bring two separate biases to the table and analyzing weapon systems that have never actually fought each other in a large-scale engagement it's just difficult to put a number on things like that

I know. I was answering Gratch11's responses not yours.


Good Hunting.

MR

Ok, got it!

[MikeAP]

This thread is pure blasphemy.

Realistically, the M1A1 would be popping T80 turrets at 3k.

M829 would slice through that T80 ERA like butter, and your average American loader can load two round in the time it takes the T80 autoloader to load one. Don't even get me started on fire control systems. Lol!

But this is a wargame and that wouldn't be 'fun'

Airland Battle is an excellent game and has a beautiful game engine. Mod tools were just released.

[Mad Russian]

So, what are you saying MikeAP?

That no M1A1 would have been lost to Soviet tank gunfire in WWIII? [:-]

Because that's not what the war against Iraq showed. The M1A1HA version was knocked by RPG's and Iraqi T-72's. Will need to check the model. I agree, not many, but an Iraqi T-72 is a kitten compared to a Soviet T-80BV or T-80U.


Good Hunting.

MR

[deadsunwheel]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

Realistically, the M1A1 would be popping T80 turrets at 3k.

And they do, in fact they do it quite nicely at 4k as well. The question is can they knock out enough before the T-80s close to range.

I recall reading somewhere that the Soviet command estimated that the average unimpeded view in Western Germany was something in the order of 500m. By and large that seems to be what causes me the most challenge when playing the NATO side in FPC:RS. Covering those wide open fields is no problem, the difficulty comes when the T-80s crest a hill or burst from a forest already in their threat range. Cobaltium armour can only take so much.

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

So, what are you saying MikeAP?

That no M1A1 would have been lost to Soviet tank gunfire in WWIII?


Good Hunting.

MR

We may never know.[:D]

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Because that's not what the war against Iraq showed. The M1A1HA version was knocked by RPG's and Iraqi T-72's. Will need to check the model. I agree, not many, but an Iraqi T-72 is a kitten compared to a Soviet T-80BV or T-80U.


Good Hunting.

MR

How many? I'll answer... 2x M1A1s.

One was a mobility kill by an unconfirmed weapon. Not sure where you're getting information on the tank vs tank loss.

More importantly, how many US KIA?

[Mad Russian]

No, more importantly those were Iraqi made monkey versions of T-72's. That would be the same as us giving someone an M60A1 and then say that because those are obviously so bad the M1A1 in US forces hands are going to be bad too.

There must have been some reason for NATO to consider that they could finally fight the WP to a draw until 1989; and not before that.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

All our data is compiled from multiple sources. Checked and cross checked if possible. Of course, that can get frustrating when you are dealing with classified information.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

And Gent's the beauty of the game is you can go edit the data, make you own scenarios and play the game to your liking. [8D]

[apd1004]

Didn't take long for the M1 vs. T80 argument to start. The scenarios we have with the game take place in 1989. The base M1A1 was being fielded at the time and so was the T-80U. The two tanks never met on the battlefield and never will. We can talk all day about what happened in Iraq but as has already been mentioned there were no T-80U's in Iraq in 1991 or 2003.

1989 was an interesting time period because there were several technologies that were in their first or second generation and had not yet been tested in battle. The M829 120mm APFSDS round was first generation in 1989, which we discovered years later through testing would have been degraded by the ERA on the T-80 even though ERA was intended to defeat shaped-charge rounds rather than kinetic. The M829 still would have been effective, just not as effective as we thought. I think the Russians would have also discovered the same thing about ERA. The TIS and manual loader with a cartridge round on the M1 gave us a great advantage as far as fire control systems go, but there are still cons to that as well. I was an M60A3 tanker for almost 3 years in Germany and I can tell you that the TTS on the M60A3 was far superior than the first generation TIS on the M1. Even with the better TTS, I still spent many hours at Graf on "Fog Watch" because we couldn't make out the range fans or targets in heavy fog. Crystal clear perfect visibility is the exception more than the rule in Germany at any time of year. I'm sure there are forum members who live there that can back me up on that. Fog and WP based smoke or smoke from heat sources DO affect thermal imaging systems. And, the problem with being able to put more rounds downrange in an M1 means you're going to burn through your basic load a lot quicker and when you go black on ammo then you are no longer in the fight.

Long story short, they still teach at the operational level military schools that all things being roughly equal, you still need a minimum 3-1 advantage on the offense just to achieve even chances of winning. That didn't change when the M1 and T-80 came online, and neither one of those tanks are what anyone who studies military history would call a "revolution in warfare". I think the game pretty accurately models this. My M1A1's are popping turrets off T-80's like crazy but every now and then the T-80 gets an M1, and then I see the "R" in the lower right hand corner and my M1 has to back off to resupply, and hopefully he gets out of there before that T-80 gets close enough to even the playing field in his favor. The key is getting a local advantage greater than 3-1 as the attacker or upsetting the attacker advantage in the defense. That is what is making this such a great game to me.

[CapnDarwin]

+1 apd1004! Very well said.

[Vyshka]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.

What always amazed me about the NATO strategy is that it was a simple continuation of the German answer in WWII. Counter quantity with quality. What made me shake my head is, that formula was tried and shown to fail miserably.

Nuclear weapons were the balancing point between Soviet tanks. The Soviets couldn't one up the nuclear card like they could the tank card.


Good Hunting.

MR

I don't think the West had much of a choice. The quantity route was not politically feasible for them, and probably would have caused even more fiscal issues than the quality route did.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.

What always amazed me about the NATO strategy is that it was a simple continuation of the German answer in WWII. Counter quantity with quality. What made me shake my head is, that formula was tried and shown to fail miserably.

Nuclear weapons were the balancing point between Soviet tanks. The Soviets couldn't one up the nuclear card like they could the tank card.


Good Hunting.

MR

I don't think the West had much of a choice. The quantity route was not politically feasible for them, and probably would have caused even more fiscal issues than the quality route did.

The defense of Western Europe was primarily a political problem, as in, the only way to win was to make sure war never happened. So in that respect at least, ramping up the quality of NATO hardware sent a strong message, and kept the opportunity cost of any "adventurism" too high. It still took an increase in numbers as well, but you're right that there was never any intent, or possibility, of matching the Pact man for man or tank for tank.

Still, I'd rather not run into EITHER an M1 or a T-80 in a dark alley....

[kipanderson]

Hi,

BTW.... in many a way there is not that much to argue about. Discuss yes.. but not really argue.

The data on ‘80s equipment is out there and largely fully known. Soviet tanks do compared very well, sometimes better, than western tanks when you compare like for like. I could read off the figures for many. As someone mentioned earlier in the early ‘90s a T72B with the heavy ERA used by the T80U did prove to be able to with stand the 120mm gun over the forward arc. And... BTW with the later model of penetrator being used in the test than was used up to ’89.

All good stuff,
All the best,
Kip.

[OldSarge]

As MR mentioned, separating the classififed data from the publicly available is often difficult. However, the following article should be a useful analysis of the M-1 (presumably all pre-TUSK) performance in an urban environment..enjoy! [8D]

M-1 performance Iraqi Freedom 2003