It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If the cold war had gone hot.....

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

If it went nuclear then we all die!



I agree even if it started out as a convential war you know whoever started losing bad would then resort to nukes. Then everybody would be losers.




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The only advantage the Russians had was manpower. A lot is made of this, but it's nonsense. This isn't WW2, where they are fighting a German nation divided on two fronts. America was and is larger than Russia. The USSR had a weak foundation.

The USSR likely would have saw resistance forces spring up in their own backyard had they launched a war. I see a lot of their allied forces surrendering or having godawful morale.

The numbers wouldn't have meant jack. They were a paper tiger at best.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I dont know until western tanks like the M1A1 came around Russian tanks owned anything in the West. they had the T-72 in service in the early 1970s.

M-60s VS T-72s in a european war wouldn't have been good for the US. The Russians had a huge lead in Tanks for most of the cold war.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The M-60 wasn't much different than the T-72 on paper. The way the M1's steamrolled these, why would you expect them to be superior to the M-60's?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
tha abrams and chally csme out before the cold war ended.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The M-60 wasn't much different than the T-72 on paper.


The T-72 was way better then the M-60 in just about every department. Range,armour,optics,weapons,speed etc..

T-72
125-mm smoothbore gun,speed-45mph,Range:500/ 900 with external tanks
M60
105mm gun rifled barrel,speed-30mph,Range:295 miles

Better armour, better weapons, better range and speed.

The T-72s would have rolled over the M60 like the M1A1 did too T-72s. The M60 became obsolete with its introduction.




tha abrams and chally csme out before the cold war ended.


Thats true but it was at the end of the cold war. Most of the time the Soviets clearly had the upper hand in Tanks.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
i always thought the abrms came out in the 70's????????



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
mid 80s (85-86) for the first modern M1 I believe. Compared to the early 70s for the T-72



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
o ok thnx for the info but anti tank weapons wouldve destroyed the t 72's.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
M-60A3 had a superior gun, and far superior firing systems to the T-72. It had virtually equal armor to the T-72. There was no, if any real advantage for the T-72. America had tried, and gave up on the 125 mm in the 60's.

The Merkava faced the T-72, and destroyed it using the 105 mm gun. Don't think that's a problem.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
great post disturbed deliverer the russina T 72 was outmatched by the merkava and the latest western tanks. By the way has anyone seen laxpla lately his favorite sort of thread is active i wonder where's he's been the old chap.


[edit on 1-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
here is a link to a brief overview of what has been determined about Soviet war plans, following the release of documents by former Warsaw Pact nations. Recent disclosures by Poland have been especially enlightening:

www.usnews.com...

Speaking just for myself:

During the years 1974-75 I was a field artilleryman assigned to a battery of M-109A1's. Our battery (designated How Btry 3/2 ACR) was the self-contained artillery support component of 3rd Squadron, 2nd Armored Cav Regiment (Toujours Pret). 3/2 ACR's mission was to patrol a section of the Czech/West German border. How Btry's mission was to provide a dedicated fire-support element for 3/2 operations.

While I was there, I also filled an FO's position for 10 months, which gave me some insight into how the artillery was expected to be used, based on lots and lots of field time, but also participation in a couple of REFORGER exercises.

From what I remember, 3/2's normal field scenarios were tied to defensive strategy; , we ran through many field exercises whose primary mission was to provide artillery-delivered nuclear rounds. Bear in mind that 2nd ACR and our bud's to the north, 11th ACR, were assigned primarily as blocking recon units which operated with some German panzer regiments, and some Canadians, while division and larger forces were prepping further back.

The only time I can remember preparing for truly offensive maneuvers was during the counter-attack phase of REFORGER: even then, artillery-delivered nukes came into play.

The maneuver consisted of wide dispersal of 1/2 of the battery, while the other half provided security for the guns, each of which would receive, via chopper, a nuke. The gun would then use a special "whitebag" charge to deliver the round to target.

This charge was enough that it was fired using a 50' lanyard (I think it was because the special powder charge not only screwed the breechblock, but would also throw the gun completely out of battery.

Either way, I do believe nukes would have been involved by both sides early on
And I think the results wouldn't have been a "win" for anyone in Europe.

Our BC used to tell us that scenario's expected about 2 days for the 3/2 to remain operational, but he said he didn't think we would get over 12 hours "once the balloon went up". Personally, I think less... .

I know the countryside in our TAO was definitely prepped for a defensive war; all bridges which could hold heavy armor were pre-prepped for demolition. But their's were also, so.....

The Soviet's certainly tried to keep an eye on things, though. We caught one of their SMLM teams trying to scope out our kaserne, an area they were not supposed to be around... .




[edit on 4/1/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
M-60A3


Ah the M-60A3 the first ones didnt even come into service until the late 70s 1978 to be exact. More then a half a decade after the orignal T-72 was in service. Its really has to be compared to the T-72A with its- Added side skirts, additional armour, laser range-finder, electronic fire control system

Thats Bunk IMHO about the gun the T-72 125mm 2A46 series main gun is almost as powerful (depending on the ammunition) as the NATO-standard 120mm/L44 found in many modern Western MBTs. The 125mm 2a46 is capable of destroying any modern main battle tank in the world today, including the M1 Abrams.

so the T-72A would still have the better gun, better armour, better range,faster speed then the M60A3.

The Merkava 1 would have been a none issue in any coventional war with the USSR they didnt have close to enough numbers to do anything against the soviets

[edit on 1-4-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Ah the M-60A3 the first ones didnt even come into service until the late 70s 1978 to be exact. More then a half a decade after the orignal T-72 was in service. Its really has to be compared to the T-72A with its- Added side skirts, additional armour, laser range-finder, electronic fire control system


1977, actually. The originals, if you insist:


Going into Desert Shield, the Marines' main battle tank was the M6OA1, an improvement, several generations removed, of the M48 tank of the Korean and Vietnam wars. Retrofitted with applique armor, it is considered roughly equal to, if lesser-gunned than the best tank in the Iraqi inventory, the much-vaunted Soviet T-72. During Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force fielded 210 M60A1s to support the Saudi-Marine effort into Kuwait City.


www.globalsecurity.org...

There was only about a 10 year gap between the original M-60 and the T-72 being put into service. I don't consider the 5 years it took for America to put out its M-60A3's that long, especially considering the T-72's were considered an elite tank unit, while the T-64's were the backbone of their forces.



so the T-72A would still have the better gun, better armour, better range,faster speed then the M60A3.


There is nothing superior about the T-72's armor. As for the gun:


During the Cold War, Soviet weapons were known for poor manufacturing quality, and this reduced the penetration of the 125mm anti-tank shells. This was noticed every time the 125mm gun fought Western tanks (Lebanon in 1982, Kuwait in 1991, and Iraq in 2003). Russia has since improved the quality control and design of their 125mm gun, and produces better (at least on paper) ammunition. Countries like Israel also offer, for export, superior 125mm ammunition. But just to cover their bets, Russia is working on a 152mm tank gun. Theres no certainly that this beast will ever actually enter service. A gun that large can fire a 90 pound shell, and generate a lot of recoil. This would require a tank larger than the 60-70 ton behemoths that have proved to be about as large as it is practical for a tank to be.

For the Russians, size did matter, but only to close the quality gap. For the decade between the introduction of the Russian 125mm gun, and the arrival of the West German 120mm gun, the 105mm gun, with excellent ammunition, was able to destroy all of the tanks equipped with the 125mm gun. But the 120mm gun enabled Russian tanks to be destroyed at more than twice as far away (over 2,000 meters). The 120mm German tank gun became one of the most successful in history, with three million rounds of ammunition produced to date.


www.strategypage.com...

America tried the 125 mm in the 60/70's, and dropped it. I figure there's a good reason for that.



The Merkava 1 would have been a none issue in any coventional war with the USSR they didnt have close to enough numbers to do anything against the soviets


The Merkava was equipped in a similiar fashion to the M-60's. Used the same 105 mm gun. It demolished Soviet tanks it faced.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The Merkava was equipped in a similiar fashion to the M-60's. Used the same 105 mm gun. It demolished Soviet tanks it faced.


Those were export versions of the T-72 never as good as what Russia was using at the time.




Israelis and the Syrians claimed their main tank's superiority, but there is no verifiable evidence of a T-72 destroying a Merkava or vice versa.


en.wikipedia.org...

So I dont know how they got demolished by Merkavas.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   


Those were export versions of the T-72 never as good as what Russia was using at the time.


This is always a nice excuse when Russian equipment keeps getting demolished by Western made (and often times exported) equipment.


So I dont know how they got demolished by Merkavas.


Right:


There were also armor battles with the Syrians in the central and eastern sectors, around Jazzin and Ayn Darah, the latter of which commands the Damascus-Beirut highway, and stretching into the Biqa Valley. The Syrian armored divisions, with a strength of about 700 tanks, were equipped with the Soviet-made T-72 tanks, the most modern in the Syrian arsenal. Fighting effectively to prevent the Israeli forces from reaching the Damascus-Beirut highway, the Syrians also used heavy concentrations of antitank weapons manned by special commando units. In other battles, Israeli forces advanced into the vicinity of Beirut, moving beyond the original terms of reference laid down by the Israeli cabinet. Under the direction of Ariel Sharon, the controversial minister of defense, Israeli forces moved into West Beirut, attacking from land and sea, and laid siege to the Palestinian fighters.

...

By May 1983, Syrian materiel losses amounted to 350 to 400 tanks, 86 combat aircraft, 5 helicopters and 19 surface-to-air missile batteries; human casualties totaled around 370 killed, 1,000 wounded, and 250 prisoners of war. Israeli losses, meanwhile, amounted to about 50 tanks; Israel's casualties in the overall war in Lebanon reached about 480 killed, 2,600 wounded, and 11 prisoners.

The 1982 Lebanon War represented a number of milestones in military warfare. For example, the new Soviet T-72 tank was battle tested against US-equipped advanced Israeli armor. Also, Israel used new forms of battlefield intelligence (including electronic countermeasures), made effective use of reconnaissance drones, and demonstrated air superiority. The air battles over the Biqa Valley--one of the major aerial battles in modern history--involved a confrontation between two highly sophisticated electronic command, control, and communications systems, not just between aircraft and missiles. On the ground the Syrian Army fought well, and there was effective coordination between armor units and antitank commando units. Observers felt that the weakness of the Syrian Army was an inflexibility in maneuver at the major formation level.


www.country-data.com...

So, those 350-400 tanks were all lost how, exactly?

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

So, those 350-400 tanks were all lost how, exactly?



Any number of ways that have nothing to do with Israeli tanks- Israeli Planes, helicopters, man portable anti-tank weapons etc.. etc.. they could have been taken out any number of ways

I know you dont think only a tank can kill another tank



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Right. So, Mekava and the T-72 were on the same battlefields. Numbers of each were lost. Yet, we can say that they never actually met because you have a Wikipedia quote that says neither side can confirm anything?

All 400 of the tanks lost were done so by means of air, or anti-tank measures, and not other tanks? Bull. Military analysts used information from the fighting to gauge the ability of the Russian aircraft and tanks.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
And yet you still havent produced a single verifiable incident of a T-72 killed by a Merkava. Hard to back up a claim that " Merkavas demolished T-72s" without that.

Even when they were old export versions at a time when Russia was already putting composite armour similar to the Chobham armour on thier T-72s since 1980.

The simple fact is the West never went up against top of the Line Russian tanks during the coldwar or after it. Its a far cry from fighting older export versions of Russian tanks.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

And yet you still havent produced a single verifiable incident of a T-72 killed by a Merkava. Hard to back up a claim that " Merkavas demolished T-72s" without that.


No, I've only produced a site talking about armored battles and, of course, that 400 Syrian tanks were lost...

But you're right, that one little line from Wikipedia (which I could edit out right now, if I chose to) proves it all wrong...



Even when they were old export versions at a time when Russia was already putting composite armour similar to the Chobham armour on thier T-72s since 1980.


The older Russian models used reactive armor. I don't know of Russia having composite armor before the West, let alone something comparable to the Chodham used. The M-60's had the same armor add-ons in the 80's, anyway.

There's simply nothing backing up your claim that the T-72 was a superior tank. The T-72 has a lousy track record in actual battle against all Western models, from Israel's original Merkava to the modified M-60's faced in the Gulf War.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join