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.

[JJKettunen]

If you want to experience the power of T-80s, try the Canadian campaign or scenarios, where you have insufficient number of ATMs and Leopard C1s, the latter being lightweight in comparison. Frankly, some poor scenario design right there.

E: Have to add that it is an excellent game otherwise!

[CapnDarwin]

I'll say it's not "poor" scenario design so much as it is about dealing with each nation's capabilities. If you try to fight Canadians in the same way you would the US or West German forces, you are going to have a bad day. Same with French forces. There are very different tactics and considerations to make based on the kit you have to work with. We are not about adding forces or changing the situation for balance's sake. We have a scoring system designed to handle situations where one side or the other has superior forces. Believe it or not, but testers and players have won those scenarios and, in some cases, have lost with what looks like superior equipment. The game really does require sound tactics and planning to achieve victory.

[JJKettunen]

Well, in the first scenario of the Canadian campaign you are told to repulse ("Hold Them Here") three Soviet mech inf Bns and two tank Bns (of T-80s) with a light infantry bn, supported by one coy of ATMs and one coy of Leopard C1s. It's mostly an open field, over 10kms wide. Victory locations are set very forward. If you are lucky, you can take care of one tank bn with a very concentrated ATM-fire and some Leopard help. Artillery can defo hurt enemy infantry, but won't stop them. Scattered obstacles are of no use. Something will give in and heavy losses are guaranteed. It's better to ignore the victory locations and hide your troops to save them for later scenarios.
Now, if T-80s were a bit more fragile, FE against infantry in rugged terrain when unsupported, this could be a whole different ballgame.