Personally i think the 80's would have been very close.
wp would have won a conventional war in the end imho.
wp would have won a conventional war in the end imho.
Upvote
0
WARPAC vs. NATO-thread
- Thread starter Rss
- Start date
- Status
The T-72 was a ****box no doubt about it, it's only asset was cheapness of manufacture. However, the basic chassis design was sound and the later tanks built on it like the T80 and T80U were much better.
These days the T90 with it's ERA, good armour, advanced fire control systems, large range, reliability, speed, quick setup snorkelling ability and above all cheapness of manufacture is a huge improvement on the chassis and an excellent tank in its own right. Toe to toe with a Western MBT like the Abrams it would really come down to crew skill, and that's also discounting the fact that you can build three T90's for the price of one Abrams and also the three of them combined probably wouldn't use the same amount of fuel as the Abrams either
The only problem I really see with the T90 is it's low turret profile which makes it hard to get into a good hull down position, and limits the possible elevation of the gun (which int urn limits range to below what it could be). But it is intended for a more mobile role rather than static position taking and you can overcome a shorter range with good use of terrain.
As for war between NATO and the WP, well I think between 1950 and 1970 the WP would have kicked NATO's arse in a conventional war, the European nations at this time were just too weak and the only real NATO players were the USA and the UK, who would need to maintain a tenous supply line into Western Europe should hostilities have happened. During the 1980's onwards though the situation was reversing with the WP nations economically faltering and being unable to maintain the arms race, while NATO was steadily getting stronger. Early 80's conventional war would have been a stalemate like slugging match, mid 80's moving to 90's NATO would come out on top. I am of course excluding the use of nukes, it that happened there would be no winner.
These days the T90 with it's ERA, good armour, advanced fire control systems, large range, reliability, speed, quick setup snorkelling ability and above all cheapness of manufacture is a huge improvement on the chassis and an excellent tank in its own right. Toe to toe with a Western MBT like the Abrams it would really come down to crew skill, and that's also discounting the fact that you can build three T90's for the price of one Abrams and also the three of them combined probably wouldn't use the same amount of fuel as the Abrams either
The only problem I really see with the T90 is it's low turret profile which makes it hard to get into a good hull down position, and limits the possible elevation of the gun (which int urn limits range to below what it could be). But it is intended for a more mobile role rather than static position taking and you can overcome a shorter range with good use of terrain.
As for war between NATO and the WP, well I think between 1950 and 1970 the WP would have kicked NATO's arse in a conventional war, the European nations at this time were just too weak and the only real NATO players were the USA and the UK, who would need to maintain a tenous supply line into Western Europe should hostilities have happened. During the 1980's onwards though the situation was reversing with the WP nations economically faltering and being unable to maintain the arms race, while NATO was steadily getting stronger. Early 80's conventional war would have been a stalemate like slugging match, mid 80's moving to 90's NATO would come out on top. I am of course excluding the use of nukes, it that happened there would be no winner.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A war between NATO and WARPAC would have been MAD. Simple as that.
It almost happened on multiple occasions. They probably still haven't told us how many times we were almost annialated. It's even almost happened a few times since the cold war ended.
One of the biggest stories is Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
It almost happened on multiple occasions. They probably still haven't told us how many times we were almost annialated. It's even almost happened a few times since the cold war ended.
One of the biggest stories is Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Excluding nukes, it seems likely that NATO would have won from 1980's on. Before that, who knows?
I think that when the first Gulf War took place, the Soviets got a good look at the Americans' technical superiority in training and equipment and pretty much crapped their pants. A lot of people (including many western military analysts) were surprised at how well a lot of the American high tech gear actually worked, as it was unproven under field conditions before then.
The 1991 Iraqi army was probably a decent proxy for the Warsaw Pact. Sure, they had T-72's and not T-80's etc. but they were a conscript army using reasonably up to date Soviet equipment. They were battle hardened in the Iran/Iraq war. The outcome when they faced the Americans and British was as lopsided as any in history.
I think that when the first Gulf War took place, the Soviets got a good look at the Americans' technical superiority in training and equipment and pretty much crapped their pants. A lot of people (including many western military analysts) were surprised at how well a lot of the American high tech gear actually worked, as it was unproven under field conditions before then.
The 1991 Iraqi army was probably a decent proxy for the Warsaw Pact. Sure, they had T-72's and not T-80's etc. but they were a conscript army using reasonably up to date Soviet equipment. They were battle hardened in the Iran/Iraq war. The outcome when they faced the Americans and British was as lopsided as any in history.
Upvote
0
T-72 family has an integral bulldozer blade under front glacis, which enables them to construct defensive positions and therefore minimize the need of gun depression.
thedonster, Iraq Army is not a good example of WP army. Those battlefields were completely different.
Firstly: The climate conditions. Gulf war was fought in desert and occasionally in urban enviroment. In Germany there is lots of obstacles that decrease sight range all the way to 2 kilometres or less.
Secondly: Quality of iraqi soldier and WP soldier is something you cannot compare. WP had well trained and very well educated soldiers. WP soldiers started their training on higher level than NATO soldiers and I'm sorry to rain your parade but professional soldiers weren't NATO monopoly, WP had strong professional troops too. As a rule if you wanted to get to university or other higher educational institute, you had to serve as an officer. On the other hand, I've read reports about iraqi officers using their soldiers as wind covers for VIP guests...
Thirdly: The equipment. Iraq's best MBT, Asad Babil was a T-72 clone. A very bad one. It lacked all kinds of basic equipment that WP T-72s had, such as laser rangefinder (Iraqis had some of those, not much), sand rods in armor (used in usual export T-72s, a far cry from ceramic armor), tungsten subcaliber darts (Iraqis used mostly steel penetrators), LWRs and ballistic calculators.
Iraq's air defence had only a few modern units (Osa-AK SA-missiles), but even they had old radars. They were completely compromised 2 years earlier. Radars were easily jammed and attacked. There were no infrared nor optical backup-systems.
Upvote
0
Rss, the Soviet's performance in Afghanistan demonstrated just how professional their army was, just as Vietnam did for the Americans. And yes, the Soviet army was a conscript army, as in the regular soldiers were conscripts. Even the NCO's were mostly conscripts. I suggest you look up "professional army" and "conscript army" if you're unclear. A partially professional officer corps doesn't make a professional army, especially if advancement is partially dependent on party loyalty rather than ability.
You might also quibble about the quality of Iraqi vs. Russian T-72's but the fact remains most WP nations used the T-72 as the backbone of their tank arm, and no T-72 was a match for the Abrams or the Challenger.
You might also quibble about the quality of Iraqi vs. Russian T-72's but the fact remains most WP nations used the T-72 as the backbone of their tank arm, and no T-72 was a match for the Abrams or the Challenger.
Upvote
0
The T72 was never designed to match those tanks. The fact still is that iraq had poor T72's. A proper T72 can do allot better.
Upvote
0
Designed to match it or not, a NATO/WP war in Europe would have meant Abrams/Challenger vs. T-72. And nobody knows what a "proper" T-72 can do. Probably not much against NATO tanks of the same era.
Upvote
0
As I live in a country with conscript system, I know very well what it means. In my opinion, conscript army is superior to pro army in certain cases. Defence and large-scale war are these. Professional army is good for smaller, fast conflicts. Israel would've been run over if it hadn't have large number of reservists.
You should keep in mind that M1AX, Chally, Leopard 2 and other 3rd generation tanks weren't most numerous MBTs for NATO. 3rd generation didn't have winning edge until M1A1 HA and Leo 2 came, though.
Upvote
0
T72 would most likely have lost from M1's if it was a 1v1 but that wouldnt be the case. The T72's would outnumber the M1's. The combat distance would also be shorter so in the end it would be rather even.
Upvote
0
Another point to bear in mind, any NATO vs WarPac conflict would have featured NATO in a DEFENSIVE role and as such would have involved prepared positions and the WarPac armour would thus have been under an enormous disadvantage. No doubt numbers would have prevailed in the end, but a Pyrrhic victory beckoned.
Cue a post telling me how the WarPac would have negated all such disadvantages with their uber kit.
For the record, my experience in the 80's with border patrols on the East German/West German border,the regular 'crash outs' we had where we practiced all that stuff,Regimental and divisional strength exercises,plus combined NATO ex's like Reforger and Lionheart convinced me that we would suffer crippling losses, BUT they would be stopped. It was something we were prepared for and indeed had resigned ourselves to, but thankfully that was a different time.
By all means speculate, by all means pit machine against machine. As far as the men go, I sincerely beleive we had the better ones, we also had the ideal that what we were doing was 'right' and we would have had our backs to the wall. They would have been stopped.
Cue a post telling me how the WarPac would have negated all such disadvantages with their uber kit.For the record, my experience in the 80's with border patrols on the East German/West German border,the regular 'crash outs' we had where we practiced all that stuff,Regimental and divisional strength exercises,plus combined NATO ex's like Reforger and Lionheart convinced me that we would suffer crippling losses, BUT they would be stopped. It was something we were prepared for and indeed had resigned ourselves to, but thankfully that was a different time.
By all means speculate, by all means pit machine against machine. As far as the men go, I sincerely beleive we had the better ones, we also had the ideal that what we were doing was 'right' and we would have had our backs to the wall. They would have been stopped.
Upvote
0
WP wouldn't just sit there, taking 105 and 120 mm shells at them. TOWs and other ATGMs' effectiveness would've been significantly reduced by Kontakt-5, and Drozd. Frontal Aviation and army&theatre-level artillery were integral part smashing through.
Upvote
0
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Not entirely true. We got tons of soviet tanks after the reunion here in Germany and after testing them, we know what they could do or not. To put it simply, they were no match.
I expect to hear something like the NVA tanks were like Iraqi tanks, but seriously, they were not. They were "proper".
Upvote
0
That made me smile.
You think Soviet people believed that they were doing "wrong"? That they didn't have that ideal? Seriously, in my opinion, Soviets were more prepared in moral terms. Also, I've read some article few months ago, which stated that in, if I remember correctly, 1950s NATO did wargames, where WP attacked the rest of "free Europe". The result was not so very pleasant - soviet tankers could wash their boots in Atlantic ocean after 2 weeks of fighting. But that was in 50s, when NATO didn't have good answer to WP tanks.
Upvote
0
That made me smile.
Also, I've read some article few months ago, which stated that in, if I remember correctly, 1950s NATO did wargames, where WP attacked the rest of "free Europe". The result was not so very pleasant - soviet tankers could wash their boots in Atlantic ocean after 2 weeks of fighting. But that was in 50s, when NATO didn't have good answer to WP tanks.
I know that I HAD a job back then, a well paid one. I know that I left it to join the Army 'cos I (along with many others) thought it was the 'right thing' now I realise that such opinions may be out of date, and indeed pathetic to some but that was how it was. For a modern take on that, the difference between the attitude of the Iraqi forces we encountered and defeated in Kuwait and the ones we encountered in Iraq when they were defending 'their' country is huge. I know the attitude of those West Germans near the border with East germany, the ones who had most to lose in the event of WarPac expansionism, towards NATO troops was refreshing (as a soldier, I was used to being public enemy Nr1) they had a grasp of why we were there and knowing that it wasn't our country and that we were still there to help, god forbid, they appreciated it.
My Army career:
1983-2005 (with the odd gap while detached to Iraq [Granby and Telic])
Time spent in Germany in amongst other places,Hildesheim,Hanover,Soest,Minden,Osnabruck,Fallingbostel
Exercised with American troops, German troops,exercised AFTER end of WarPac with Polish troops in their training area at Drawski Pomorski, (apologies for bad spelling)
Did exercises in Canada using electronic replicas of Sov kit,Sov tactcs etc.
Regretably I can't point to assorted sources as I was a real soldier NOT a google soldier however enjoy picking at thread till it unravels and pointing out how we'd get pwn'd etc etc.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't being sarcastic about your ideals, moreover, I respect them as I respect all of people, who served in the Army.
But the thing I wanted to say that guys on the other side of that frontline - soviets - also had their ideals, they believed that capitalism is a real threat to their homeland, and if needed, they would defend it. My uncle and father were volunteers in Afghanistan, they wanted to fight to help USSR in its mission. So, what I'm trying to say: people of both armies had their vision of life, their ideals, for which they would fought.
And notice, I did write that that wargames thing happened in early cold-war. In my opinion, WP would win in this period, however, things wouldn't be so bright for us in the late period.
No disrespect was meant, sorry for that.
But the thing I wanted to say that guys on the other side of that frontline - soviets - also had their ideals, they believed that capitalism is a real threat to their homeland, and if needed, they would defend it. My uncle and father were volunteers in Afghanistan, they wanted to fight to help USSR in its mission. So, what I'm trying to say: people of both armies had their vision of life, their ideals, for which they would fought.
And notice, I did write that that wargames thing happened in early cold-war. In my opinion, WP would win in this period, however, things wouldn't be so bright for us in the late period.
No disrespect was meant, sorry for that.
Upvote
0
Well, there is a wellknown report by Bundeswehr where they are testing T-72 with Kontakt-5 (used by NVA). K-5 shattered 120 mm penetrators, DM-53s and american M829. Upgraded T-55s with BDD armor, Sheksna missiles, improved east german fire-control and ERA were widely used as well.
Upvote
0
everywhere its being quoted stiletto and i did saw a article somewhere but forgot where exactly.
The nice thing is that russia as developed kaktus as a successor to kontakt-5. So technically its already obselete.
The nice thing is that russia as developed kaktus as a successor to kontakt-5. So technically its already obselete.
Upvote
0
- Status