what if allies keep moving EAST??

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 21:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by Sam H. » 03 Jan 2003 13:52

I think you'll get a lot of arguments about the T-90 being the best MBT today. I don't see how it could best an M1a2 SEP. Every time US weapons have faced off against Russian weapons in the last 20 years or more, the Soviet weapons have proven (in large part) inferior.

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 03 Jan 2003 15:55

Geh. Comparing the 46 ton T-90, with it's simplicity and low cost to the much heavier and more expensive M1A2SEP isn't the best way to go. In performance, the difference is marginal. That is why so many argue for and against. But, overall, I'd rather have 3 T-90's than 2 M1A2's. Although, my main argument remains. In a 70's land war, the Soviet Union kicks the bejesus out of NATO.

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 21:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by Sam H. » 03 Jan 2003 15:58

How did Nato airsupport compare with Soviet air in the 1970's?

That might be the only trump card the US had. But then again, the 1970's were the Carter years, the US military was in a sorry state of readiness.

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 03 Jan 2003 16:20

NATO would have definitely had an advantage in terms of air support. No argument there at all. But the Soviet Air Force could probably tie them up for a few weeks - enough time to overrun NATO front lines and start hacking into the logistics base of the Alliance. A TV documentary laid out a scenario in which NATO won by massive air strikes against Soviet command centres, not Soviet ground forces. However, most analysts show that the SU would win conventionally, and NATO would up the ante with a tactical nuclear strike in Europe.

Regards,
Sokol

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 03 Jan 2003 19:51

SU would always have numerical superiority, but not technological. The kind of arguments where russian armor and air power has been better than the NATO countries is not true as it has been proven in many conflicts throughout these 3 last decades that western tanks and airplanes are better than their Soviet counterparts.

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 04 Jan 2003 10:35

I'm sorry Korbius, but you're wrong. NATO tanks have never proven themselves against real Soviet tanks. The Iraqi T-72's are stripped down and downgraded versions of actual T-72's. NATO tanks have never faced T-80's and T-90's. However, in the 70's, even the standard (not export downgraded) T-72 would rip through anything NATO had to offer.

If you're talking about the Western lead in aerotech, you're right. But so what? Soviet air defense systems were superior to anything the West had (in terms of AA).

Ahh crap. Gotta watch SG-1 now. Later.

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 04 Jan 2003 12:21

You might be right but anyways I said for the last 3 decades and not prior to '70s. Soviets used to say that also Mig 21 was a great formidable airplane and then finally it started seeing action in the early '70s. MiG's losses that occurred were from the use of other countries except SU and gave the soviets a reason for blaming the losses to unskilled pilots. And then finally in Egypt there was a clash between 36 MIGs vs. 8 mirage IIIs and 4 F-4 Phantoms and the outcome of this air engagement was 5 losses on the Soviet side and 0 on the Israeli side. And then when Mig 29 came out they were saying that it could shoot down F-15s and F-16s, so when it finally was used against W. airplanes in Iraq and Serbia, it never shot down a western aircraft. Even in Iraq as you mentioned it, there were around 2160 losses of Iraqi tanks such as T-62s and T-72s destroyed from APCs and MBTs of the coalition who had a total of 7 M1A1s damaged or destroyed throughout the entire conflict and most of those 7 losses were caused by friendly fire. It's easy to say who is going to win an engagement between western tanks and soviet or Russian tanks of today's standards but I guess we will have to wait and see.

Btw, in what planet did SG-1 end up this time?

wotan
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 22:13
Location: Norway

Post by wotan » 04 Jan 2003 15:51

If I'm correct no M1A1's where knocked out by Iraqi armour during the gulf war.

Some where immobilised due to mech failure and mines and where destroyed by its crew.

wotan
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 22:13
Location: Norway

Post by wotan » 04 Jan 2003 16:23

If I'm correct no M1A1's where knocked out by Iraqi armour during the gulf war.

Some where immobilised due to mech failure and mines and where destroyed by its crew.

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 04 Jan 2003 17:11

Yes wotan, u r right, and 4-5 M1A1s were damaged by friendly fire and the rest either mechanical failure or damaged by AT mines.

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 04 Jan 2003 17:23

Despite what Western media has spoon-fed you, you should know that only 70 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in tank-vs-tank battles. And, as I have said, not a SINGLE ONE OF THOSE TANKS WAS WORTH THE MATERIALS IT WAS MADE OUT OF. Listen, I REALLY don't feel like going over on this forum what has already been regurgitated a hundred times over in other forums. I never argued against Western air supremacy - but don't use Serbia to *prove* it, at least. After a total of 27,000 sorties, the 2,000 strong NATO air fleet managed to knock out a total of 13 tanks (the VJ was pretty much wholly intact at the end of the war). A testament to the power of modern avionics. And, like I said, despite babbling on about the technological prowess of NATO, you have not dealt with ANY of my arguments. BTW - FYI - The Gulf War happened in 1991. My claim is that the Soviet Union could win a conventional land conflict in 1975, not 1991. I'm sorry for sounding angry, I'm not really. I'm annoyed.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 04 Jan 2003 17:35

Let's get back on topic.

/Marcus

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 04 Jan 2003 18:06

Sokol, I think u got the message wrong. What I wanted to show was the "effectiveness" of Soviet weapons, and that's why I made the examples ranging from the late 70s to the Gulf War.

wotan
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 22:13
Location: Norway

Post by wotan » 04 Jan 2003 18:10

Sorry Wendel, one more.. ;)


The T-90 is the best MBT on the planet
And, like I said, despite babbling on about the technological prowess of NATO, you have not dealt with ANY of my arguments
who can argue against arguments like that :)
You havent made one single argument about why the T-90 is the mother of all MBT's.

And yes, in 75' USSR would probably kick natos butt until Nato unlease nucler hell. USSR knew this so they didnt try.

but don't use Serbia to *prove* it
why not? Its a reasent battle involving Nato eq. against USSR eq. It shows quite well how innefective the AA systems really was against modern airforce as they didnt even scratch the nato forces.
After a total of 27,000 sorties, the 2,000 strong NATO air fleet managed to knock out a total of 13 tanks (the VJ was pretty much wholly intact at the end of the war). A testament to the power of modern avionics
If yoguslavia was doing so well in this war why did they surrender??? I'll tell you because all the AA system where blown to bits and they had nothing to defend themselfe with. Nato wasnt interested in blowing up tanks they went for infrastructure, commands etc. Nato paralyzed the army so it couldnt move. Nato shutted down all of the supply systems of JV. Yugo saw this and knew it would only be a matter of time before the rebels would really start to hurt them, so better to quit while u still have something left. The goal of Nato was to defeat Yogu with as little loss as possible.. and so they did.

Western media has spoon-fed you
ehr.. opposed to the Iraqi media who still belive it won the war?
you should know that only 70 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in tank-vs-tank battles
Read history, the mech. div. of the allies wrecked the iraqi forces to bits. One observer who flew over a battle in the middle of iraq said that he had never seen such destruction. The ground was littered with blown tanks and trucks.. The americans say that they simply rolled over iraqi forces who were destroyed. Remeber that more than 50 000 tanks, trucks etc attacked from Saudi arabia that day, a force we probably will never see again. The americans say that the tanks and tactics worked brilliant and looking at the results I have no reason to disclaim that.

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 05 Jan 2003 13:51

Sorry Marcus, but that last post by Wotan was an outright insult, and I cannot ignore that.

1) My main argument was not that the T-90 is the best MBT in the world, but that the Soviet Union could conventionally destroy NATO in a 1975 European war. The fact that I also stated that nuclear war would follow does not seem to phase your relentless attacks against a single comment, which I believe you have not proven wrong.

2) For you to say something like what you did about the nature of the NATO-Yu conflict, you'd have to be pretty missinformed. Which you are. NATO, after seeing it could not militarily humble the VJ in Kosovo via air power alone, decided to *punish* Serbia's civil infrastructure. THERE is your reason for our eventual capitulation. Watching our factories, hospitals, civil transport networks and power distribution networks bombed day after day for 72 days grows tiresome. It was that and not NATO technological or military prowess that forced us to *capitulate*. That, and numerous Russian delegates all telling our leadership to give it up.

3) Serbia's AA system managed to keep your airfleet at a level from which no amount of precision bombing could stop the VJ. NATO was forced to resort to night-time attacks and a HUGE campaign targetting the civilian infrastructure.

4) This *in-effective* AA system you speak of also managed to take down dozens of drones, a F-117 stealth craft and more than a dozen other fixed-wing aircraft. FYI, this *in-effective* AA system was modern in the 60's. Now, it's rubbish. Imagine what Soviet systems would do to NATO aircraft in the 70's...

Thank you, for providing me this opportunity to dispell your foolish notions regarding the Kosovo conflict. I assure you, anyone well versed with the topic would call what you stated as fact to be rubbish.

Regards,
Sokol

Return to “What if”