T-80 vs M1A1

[William Betson]

Thank you for running that test. My reaction to it as one who can claim to be a subject matter expert, is that this is a quite unrealistic outcome. A dug in M1A1 company engaging a moving T-80B1 battalion in the open should win quite easily. Let's walk through the engagement. If the M1A1's engaged the T-80s at 3500m with a .8 pH, it should hit 9 targets with the first rounds. The second volley, coming 10 seconds later, hits 9 more. If the T-80s were able to acquire the M1s (a major problem at 3500m) after the first round it would take them 10 seconds to react and another 10 to lay their guns on target. By that time the third M1A1 volley would arrive. Assuming that the US company's fire distribution is not perfect, let's say the 27 US hits would have struck 18 tanks. 9 of these being hit by 2 rounds we can assume were destroyed. 6 of the remaining 9 hits would kill or render the tank incapable of firing.
Assuming all of the 15 remaining Soviet tanks would acquire (unlikely) and fire at hull-defiladed M1s.....the US tanks also would have been trained to back into full defilade after firing 3 rounds..... the T-80B .4 pH would be reduced to .2. - striking maybe 2 of the US tanks at the place of their greatest armor (the turret). The 10 or 11 US tanks would hit 8 targets with their 4th volley, leaving 8 soviet tanks. The continued exchange leaves the Soviets destroyed while taking out 4 Abrams at most.
All this assumes that this took place on a table top with all tanks visible to both sides. The game, correctly, does not play it this way. This is why the hits in the game are so far below the theoretical accuracy of the weapons systems. But remember that the defiladed posture of the US tanks renders quite an advantage. Soviet tanks cannot depress their guns very far and have difficulty exploiting defilade.
Theory isn't reality, and tank crews in real life do not normally match the theoretical pH of their tanks (although US crews came pretty close in the Gulf War). Nevertheless, in the first 5 minutes of this engagement, the US company could easily fire over 100 very accurate rounds against an enemy in the open.
If the Soviets have T-80Us then their pH is supposed to be much better. I am not sure this is true, but that would not change the outcome.

[GiveWarAchance]

William, that is what I would expect. The deadly Abrams performance in the Gulf War wiping out the T-72s in a one-sided engagement like at 73 Easting & Medina matches what you say. I think it was the longer range and better optics on the Abrams that give them a decisive advantage as well as far better trained crews.

I played some tank games like M1 Tank Platoon which has veteran crews in the T-72s and T-80s so they carefully use the terrain by going hill to hill and go hull down (not dug in which takes time, but deploy on the rim of hills) using multiple approach routes and supporting ATGMs from BMPs, and they were quite dangerous in that tactic. In the open they were easy targets but using careful tactics evens the score.

In this game, results will depend on tanks moving through cover, LOS and elevation so the odds even out a bit, but I think the Abrams is still the stronger tank with better armor, good gun and well-trained crews.