11-03-2004 01:04									#121
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lancer An M60 was a piece of junk that couldn't survive long on the battlefield because it was too high. Vast target. The T-72 would have the advantage of cover. Consider GePap that the state of the art in electronics was the laser range finder, and both sides had em. Also, the armor on the M60 was slab sided. Even the later varients were not much better because of the height of the thing. On the other hand the cold-rolled armor or the T-72 was of better quality as well as a heck of alot better sloped, making it a much harder kill. The guns were about equal, with the T-72's being slightly larger bore. 115 vs 120? Something like that.

The M60 had a 105mm gun.

The M60 was hardly a piece of junk-not as good say as a T72 in all aspects, but the Israelis showed it to be a capable machine in 1973.

Most Soviet tanks rolling donw the front would have been T62's and T55's, and the M60 was certainly capable of taking them on, as well as the Leopard, AMX30, and Chieftains. NOw, certainly the T72's and T64's were formidable, but again, we are not talking here like it's Sherman v Tiger. If and M60 got a clean shot at a T72, it's not like the round will bounce off.

So the main facotrs in the central front in the 70's and early 80's were the size of the forces and the tactics and strategies involved, not some qualitative gap between NATO and Warsaw pact tanks.

	11-03-2004 04:48									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It hardly matter that the Soviets may have had better tanks. Tanks are dominated by tactical air power. I assume that we would have dominated the Soviets in this area if war broke out at any time. (However, we were clearly behind the Soviets at the outbreak of the Korean War, when their airforce kicked our ass.)

	11-03-2004 08:54									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, but as GePap noted earlier, that was a very temporary advantage.

	11-03-2004 10:18									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ned It hardly matter that the Soviets may have had better tanks. Tanks are dominated by tactical air power. I assume that we would have dominated the Soviets in this area if war broke out at any time. (However, we were clearly behind the Soviets at the outbreak of the Korean War, when their airforce kicked our ass.)

Of course, it didn't help that early in the war the only air cover we had was the Valley Forge's airwing.


Whoops!

	11-03-2004 20:10									#125
	Support Apolyton

During the time I gave a **** about comparisons of NATO and WP equipment, the assessment was:

1) only the leopard II was superior to the T80, all others were inferior (or perhaps comparable) to the T72 but superior to earlier soviet tanks.

I disagreed with that assessment (which was mainly based upon speed) since I considered the chieftan to be an excellent tank in a defensive position. The M60 was too slow, too tall, and undergunned to be anything other than a mobile pillbox by 1980.

2) We were totally unsure as to who had superior fighters and GA aircraft (the eternally optimistic ops types believed we were much better). Given their superiority of numbers and everyones ability to destroy runways, their was some belief that the airwar would be short, sharp, and to some extent indecisive.

3) It was hoped that the TOW2 equipped cobras would be decisive against the Soviet armour and mech inf (but where I worked we believed that the soviet anti- AT tactics would be very effective against the cobras.

NB

The soviet divisions were smaller ~10K men compared to our ~20K. If you look at the number of combat troops though, you'll see they're comparable. Soviet armoured and mech inf divisions didnt include the support troops that 'bulked up' the western units.

	12-03-2004 06:28									#126
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"On the original premise, I don't think there would have been a major war in Europe post WWII even without nukes. I am sure that the US did not have the will to raise a large army to attack the USSR without the USSR beginning to shoot first. I doubt that the USSR would have begun to shoot first because the had no realistic means of defeating the US. This would only mean their eventual defeat.

What nukes did do was almost cause WWIII - in the Cuban missle crisis for certain and earlier in Korea. The spread of nuclear weapons is tremendously destabalizing and can lead to anything, including nuclear war."

Interesting theory Ned. So if there was no way to win why did the Sovs build so much conventional stuff?

I don't think it would have been so easy to force the USSR to its knees through a blockade if that's what's on your mind. They have everything they need within the USSR. Hitting the beaches would be out of the question as the Sovs would have no 2nd front to bleed off troops as the Germans did.

If they kicked us out of continental europe I think you could pretty well write off continental europe.

No big loss mind you...

	12-03-2004 08:34									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Lancer - you forget China. The US could have played China off of the Soviet Union, as it somewhat did historically, as a counterbalance. If the Soviets had to keep a million men on the Soviet/Chinese border, then things would have been evened up a little more in terms of manpower.

	12-03-2004 12:05									#128
	Remove this text

Lancer, they would eventually lose for the same reason the Germans and Japanese lost. We would destroy their means of production, their rairoads and highways and then their troop formations with airpower, while they could not touch us in return.

	12-03-2004 12:39									#129
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

oops

	13-03-2004 10:32									#130
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Joseph Then explain the Marines with M-60A3 at the Kuwaite Airport.

Can anyone, please provide a link to this story?
I really want to read something about this fight, because for me it seems pretty suspicious, it seems like another FOX's bs story.
Anyhow, USSR sell tanks to Iraq in export modification (the cheapest), with worse armor, gun, fire control and electronics, damn, this export modification of T-72 even didn't have a rangefinder. Also, Iraqis bought a licence and build some of their T-72 themselves. There is no way in hell, that this export modification and especially Iraquis-build T-72 is equal to T-72 build by Soviets for themselves. Also, There is no way in hell, doctrines, training and experience of Iraqis is equal to Soviets.

Finally, how do you explain F-117 shot down by Yugoslavs in 1999. It was shot down by S-75, a Soviet SAM designed at 60's. Does it mean your F-117 is complete crap, since it can be shot down by 40 years old Soviet SAMs?

	13-03-2004 10:35									#131
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

David,
Your arses would have been kicked, no matter what you seems to think.



USSR!!!

Attachment: ussr_flag.gif
This has been downloaded 16 time(s).

	14-03-2004 00:53									#132
	Support Apolyton

Why don't you have the USSR flag as your avatar?

	14-03-2004 01:23									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

serb

It's true, the Marines with M-60's stomped the crap outta the Iraqis in Kuwait with T-72s'.

But, as has already been mentioned here, the key word is Iraqis.