Did Nato build the wrong tanks for a war in Europe?

[Werewolf13]

Grunts have been trying to figure out since the 1st one hopped on a horse how to make cavalry obsolete.

Infantry won't ever be obsolete and the mission of the cavalry won't ever be obsolete either.

Fast moving units built for recon and fast moving units built to punch thru what the grunts can't will always be around in one form or another. Hell, the tank might end up like the mobile infantryman wearing a Marauder suit as depicted in Starship Troopers (the book - not the trash hack the movie showed).

Who knows - not me.

What I do know though is that the cavalry in one form or another will be a part of human combat until the time when there aren't any more humans.

[Hexagon]

I finish some days ago the book to... even when i like it i think the movie is better because has a "Robocop" feeling, more dystopia or at least with a more black humor apart i support the mix armies with mix showers [:D]

Maybe this is the future... in the end for war since ancient humans need a mix of mobility+shock and defense against first, now a soldier can offer defense VS mobile troops using terrain and weapons but maybe in future we can see mix in infantry the 3 points... from power suits to big anime style mechas, light and heavy infantry.

Well T-64 was far from be a cheap tank... even T-72 the low cost version was excesive if you compared with T-55 serie... the T-62 start a point where soviets need put more money on the table to deal with new NATO designs (not all).

In the end in certain moment you need have something closer to enemy, think in WWII and what do soviets to deal with new german tanks... T-34/85 and IS serie ... even with SU and ISU TDs (like germans when have Stugs and other Panzerjager) they need have a tank that can at least stand VS enemy modern vehicles.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Well T-64 was far from be a cheap tank... even T-72 the low cost version was excesive if you compared with T-55 serie... the T-62 start a point where soviets need put more money on the table to deal with new NATO designs (not all).

Worth noting that the shift from the approach behind the T54/5 to the T62 also coincided with the major shift of Soviet assumptions about thermonuclear war. The default in the Kruschev years was that any war would go fully nuclear from the start. After Cuba, they started to plan for a dual environment.

In effect the T54 was exceptionally robust but can be seen as the final iteration of the T34 concept - its still the tank of choice in all sorts of poor corners of the world. The T62 was devised not just with updated technology but for a new concept of warfare.

But, going back to some earlier posts. There was a common assumption in the west, informed by seeing the Great Patriotic War from a German perspective, that the Soviets didn't care about losses and used mass to replace quality. I'm not arguing that the Red Army in 41-45 didn't have its fair share of sociopaths in senior command position, but even so they had to use their resources with care.

Red Army doctrine was (to me) based on 3 concepts. The traditional Russian army belief in the power of artillery - this runs back at least to the Seven Years War; a belief in the effectiveness of being the side with initiative (some of this came from Marxist-Leninist doctrine); and, a belief that losses were lower (in the final analysis) when the operational tempo was higher (again a key part of traditional Russian doctrine, Suvorov's 'more sweat on the training ground, less blood on the battlefield').

So their tanks were designed to fit. Artillery would have been critical at suppressing NATO and for breakthrough, attacking was better than being cautious (and like a nation trained to play chess, reinforce success) and the maximum number of AFVs to ensure an operation could be sustained. On that basis the whole series T62/74/80/90 were applications of technology to a concept of military operations.

[mikeCK]

Whether it not the Soviets (or NATO) had the right tank would be irrelevant of they couldn't supply it. I think the Soviets were traditionally a bit heavy in armor and AFVs vs logistical support. NATO identified this issue when it developed it's concept of AIRLAND battle. The idea was to fight while withdrawing and hitting the flanks of the enemy axis of advance. Air assets would be used to disrupt supply. The Soviets could have all the tanks they want but they have to have fuel, ammo, parts and crew supplies. NATO understood that as it was falling back on its supply (and various depots set up in advance) the WP was extending theirs. NATOs problem was whether it could maintain sufficient forces and equipment. This fight is over in 2 weeks. I just don't think in a war as destructive as this war would have been, either side could have sustained any attack that could threaten the enemy. Neither side.

NATOs biggest advantage was its strategic position. In essence, it had the USSR "surrounded " and could hit rail lines and supply routes from many directions. I don't think rear echelon units and supplies could have gotten forward in sufficient amounts to sustain anything. NATOs problem was similar...how deep would they have to drive?? Well, deeper than supply would allow likely. With ammo expenditures and destroyed equipment, NATO runs low on everything before the first convoy hits the Atlantic. No way they have the material to support a major attack after a week of fighting.

I think the war ends in a stalemate with one side resorting to tactical nuclear weapons ...NATO in particular if Soviet forces concentrated for a final push and NATOs munitions and equipment were low.

[Flef]

About the airland battle doctrine

Airland battle doctrine (CNA)


And about the sovietic doctrine:

OMG (that's fun no?) The Operational Manoeuver Group

[lwarmonger]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

One that could fight and win at relatively short engagement ranges. They build the wrong kind of tank to win in the deserts of the Middle East. But did they build the right kind of tank to win in the closer terrain mix of Central Europe? Thankfully we never found out.

NATO could be the ones of being guilty of building an army that was fighting the last war. They set their entire organization, tactics and equipment base on the German model of WWII. That model lost the war for Germany. Would the same have been true for NATO in the late 80's?

The thing to also consider was that NATO's weapons development began to shift in the late 70's/early 80's. Tanks can only be made so good before you've reached the point of diminishing returns (which has now been reached). At end state, you get the same battlefield effects at a significantly higher cost as you increase protections by adding armor, defense systems, etc. However, the addition of information systems and an integrated battlefield picture combined with additional enablers means that the tank, integrated into a combined arms unit, can remain extremely useful... and even decisive, for some time to come. That integrated set of adaptable battlefield effects that NATO rolled out in the late 80's/early 90's is what really puts it above the systems the Soviets created.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

One that could fight and win at relatively short engagement ranges. They build the wrong kind of tank to win in the deserts of the Middle East. But did they build the right kind of tank to win in the closer terrain mix of Central Europe? Thankfully we never found out.

NATO could be the ones of being guilty of building an army that was fighting the last war. They set their entire organization, tactics and equipment base on the German model of WWII. That model lost the war for Germany. Would the same have been true for NATO in the late 80's?

The thing to also consider was that NATO's weapons development began to shift in the late 70's/early 80's. Tanks can only be made so good before you've reached the point of diminishing returns (which has now been reached). At end state, you get the same battlefield effects at a significantly higher cost as you increase protections by adding armor, defense systems, etc. However, the addition of information systems and an integrated battlefield picture combined with additional enablers means that the tank, integrated into a combined arms unit, can remain extremely useful... and even decisive, for some time to come. That integrated set of adaptable battlefield effects that NATO rolled out in the late 80's/early 90's is what really puts it above the systems the Soviets created.

Systems > weapons, indeed. A German Panzer division in WWII might be reduced to a mere handful of actual, well, Panzers, but as a system it was still a very dangerous fighting force. The USSR might have had thousands of tanks in 1941 that were objectively better than their German counterparts, but the system that employed them was flawed and weak. Likewise, the old reliable M4 Sherman, on paper, isn't much to shout about, but as part of the US system of warfare, it did the job well.

It's sort of like sports teams. A team of all stars, the best at their positions, can lose to a better organized, better led group of average players that work as a system.

Unfortunately, it's much, much easier to rank and compare stuff than it is systems....

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat


Systems > weapons, indeed. A German Panzer division in WWII might be reduced to a mere handful of actual, well, Panzers, but as a system it was still a very dangerous fighting force. The USSR might have had thousands of tanks in 1941 that were objectively better than their German counterparts, but the system that employed them was flawed and weak. Likewise, the old reliable M4 Sherman, on paper, isn't much to shout about, but as part of the US system of warfare, it did the job well.

It's sort of like sports teams. A team of all stars, the best at their positions, can lose to a better organized, better led group of average players that work as a system.

Unfortunately, it's much, much easier to rank and compare stuff than it is systems....

I couldn't agree with you more. It is very much like a sports team. The team with a lot of average players can often beat the team with a single superstar and the rest of the team being below average. That is where the Sherman lies in my opinion and why NATO went the wrong way for a good while.

The Sherman was on a team full of average players. Lots of them. So, if one got tired you called in another one. THOUSANDS OF THEM. The Germans were playing with a few super stars but there were only so many of them and they had to play every play. Sooner or later the average guys won.

NATO looked at what the Germans had accomplished and were in awe. That put them to making some bad choices for about 4 decades. At any given time during those 4 decades those choices could have been disastrous.

That's my take on both the Sherman tank and the NATO defense posture all rolled into one for you.

Good Hunting.

MR

[jds1978]

To end this "TL;DR post", there is one thing to know about each side. They never wanted to attack. The West was fed up with bloody wars and there is no hope to survive a nuclear exchange, the Russians were only wanting to not be invaded again and to fight another bloody war. Russians are obsessed since NapoléonI with the defense of the Rodina.

THIS ^^^

Right tank; Wrong tank....doesn't matter much. It all would've ended with you, your family and everyone you knew turned into radioactive charcoal. Whatever the survivors there were two generations after wouldn't know who started it, who 'won' or what even happened.

(Edit: I don't know why this says it's in reply to MR....its mostly just meta; not a direct reply to Mad Russian)

[dassie]

Xenomorph Good day to you.
you have ask a very good question, one which PRC , USA , Russian Fed have been and still are try to work out every time they design a tank.

First of let me just say that i don't believe that gulf war's Iraq army are the same as GSFG in East Germany. the tank and aircraft are just not the same as the one the Russian use in Europe (even through they may look a like.)
as a example let's take a look at T-72.

The t-72 Iraq MBT is not the same as the Russian T-72. the Tank Iraq got is the downgrade of the downgrade vision.(a level down from the Warsaw pack vision and two level down soviet vision) it's fire control are ancient and have not been update unlike m1a1 that got use in

T-72 has several vision that server in Soviet army ,T-72A,T-72A+(or SMT 1981/3), B, B1, BM (almost never in Germany through, that is for t-64 and t-80).
T-72 have several Export model as well t-72M1, T-72S(or T-72M1M)

the Tank that Iraq Got are the T-72m1 which "Featured"[X(] a revised Frontal armor with homogenous steel( instead of laminate steel/ceramic armor), 3bm9 APFSDS homogenous steel round (which can't shoot through the DU armor that M1a1 had) and lot other 'improvement' such as bad sight (the sight is not build in the soviet union, and had even worst quality control)

all of this made the Iraq army anything but a good representation of the soviet ground force.the plane it got is even worse than the tank in some way.

[dassie]

Just Fellow up on my thread.

All tank are build with different Need and "history" in mind.

WW2 influence have always been a underling through on the tank design and concept.

The France tank designer learn that armor and gun are not necessarily the most important thing, speed and communication is just as important a factors. learn from France defeated from Germany, the France tank post war designer vow to never again be out speed and out communicated.

France tank from amx-13 to amx-30 are all the lightest of the NATO nation main battle tank and even the Leclerc a
post cold war design is geared toward communication and speed.

(one of the reason the France-West Germany common tank project split in to amx-30 and leo-1 later on one of the
reason is the speed vs armor. through this is also other reasons.)

The Germany tank designers learn from WWII that the tank is more than just armor and gun and communication, The reliability , uniformity of armor (not have 4 or 5 tank in service at same time), and finally the number unit can be build is also (Most?)important.

The west-Germany tanks have trend to stay in the middle and not overwhelmingly favor any of the three aspect of
tank design(firepower, mobility and protection). the leo 1 and leo 2 both have good all round performance.
the leo-2 didn't use gas turbine engine and have less armor than Challenger and Abram(not by too much) for this
reason.
( gas turbine are very fuel 'heavy' plus heavy armor gave very heavy weights , some thing germans remember well
about what happen to tiger 2 in WW2)


more thread on USA and British will come tomorrow, got work next day, need zzz)