Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kotov12345

equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

Recommended Posts

It works okay for now, its not awful or stopping me from playing, if a patch is released that solves this, fair enough, but I'm not irate about it, nor am I irate about the fact my fanboi T72 gets creamed so easily, apparently, since that apparently happens in real life anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It works okay for now, its not awful or stopping me from playing, if a patch is released that solves this, fair enough, but I'm not irate about it, nor am I irate about the fact my fanboi T72 gets creamed so easily, apparently, since that apparently happens in real life anyways.

your opinion is accepted and not necessary to write about it again.

Will be nice to read some constructive ideas from other members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm done with the autoloader argument. It is a poor system and pointless.

Then the koreans and french are idiots, and their K2 Black Panther and Leclerc are exactly as bad as the T-XX.

Anyway, I can further illustrate the problems soviet bloc tanks would have in combat, their lack of logistic support.

:eek::eek::eek: OMG! Is it serious???? You have no idea about the soviet and WP logistic support.

Hence the best tank to be in is always an American one. Whether it is the fastest, best protected, more well armed it is secondary to the fact it will be filled with ammo, fuel and other supplies more of the time.

This is BS, because the earlier. Anyway, american tanks never were the best. In the '50s, T-54 and the Centurion were better than an M-48. In the '60s, the M60 was roughly equal to T-55 and T-62. In the '70s-early '80s, the T-64 was absolutely the best tank in the world, far superior to anything, maybe except the Chieftain. The T-80B, BV, U were also superior to the Abrams, until the A2 variant. Soviet tanks were much more simple to maintain, more reliable, and more durable.

And I really doubt that the M1A2 is better than a Merkava IV, a K2, or a Challenger 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you're mistaken. The best tank is an AMERICAN one. Why? Because an American tank will always be the best supplied, best maintained and the one with the most ammo and fuel to burn. The British challenger, might be technically superior, but the British army have nothing like the logistical chain the Americans have. Have you been listening???

The WP cold war doctrine was to rely heavily on captured fuel or that delivered in bladders by helicopter, this is no secret. Erm, you don't think West Germany would have torched their fuel depots before they withdrew? Do you also suppose NATO would leave all the bridges over the Rhine and Elbe intact for you to use? You're having a laugh, those bridges are the sole reason PGMs were dreamt up. Yes half your armour might be swimmers or forders, but the supporting trucks and other vehicles sure as hell were not...

The M1 has proved itself time and time again in several instances, your much vaunted commie ones have proven to make for excellent, errr, targets....

A tank is only as good as its logical tail. The best gun in the world is of no use without ammo.

If you want further evidence of how good the American resupply infrastructure is, go and find out how many MLRS were deployed and their total rounds fired rate. Then go and check the British use of the very same weapon system. The same is also true of helicopter and attack aircraft inventories.... The british might well be able to afford more than 400 challengers, but supplying them in the field is a rather different matter. I might be mistaken but I read somewhere the Americans fielded over 1800 Abrams in Iraq. Even if the M1 was utter carp there were plenty of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The WP cold war doctrine was to rely heavily on captured fuel or that delivered in bladders by helicopter,

This is absolutely BS. The WP had more than enough supply trucks, there were hundreds of thousands of them.

Yes half your armour might be swimmers or forders, but the supporting trucks and other vehicles sure as hell were not...

This again proves that you know nothing about the wp logistics. PMP, GSP, PTS, (ПМП, ГСП, ПТС) do you know what are these?

And anyway...The M1 proved nothing. Except to fight against untrained fanatical zealots. And that it requires thousands of liters of fuel to operate for a single day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollie1983:

Ever heard about ponton bridges? WP countries engineers had these, and knew how to efectivly use them.

About logistic of WP countries, you know nothing. Zils, Urals, Tatra, Uaz, Gaz, all these and more vehicles were build in enormous quantities in many variants. So logistic support wasnt a problem.

And what have logistic to do with the actual performance of the Tank on the battlefield? Sure, it's important when you consider rearming, repair, refuel, but's it is irelevant in the actual combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OLD autoloaders derived from T-64/T-72 lines are obsolete. Sure. New autoloaders like those used in Leclerc, or planned for CATTB ("heavy" M1) are completely different story. Those not only allow long rod penetrators, but also allow to separate ammo from crew compartement, hell, with such design you can even try to separate ammo in blow-up compartement like in M1 series. Thing simply impossible with old Soviet design.

Apparently after Ob.640 project was scrapped, and Ob.195 halted, Russian designers are working on new turret for both T-72/T-90 and T-80, with new autoloader. Still, it may take decade or more, as Russian army is oversized for its budget, and there's no much money left for developenent and modernization.

Autoloader vs. loader argue is like smoothbore vs. rifled, Tunstein vs DU, laser lock vs. fire-and-forget. Both have their pros and cons if used properly.

Edited by boota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ollie1983:

Ever heard about ponton bridges? WP countries engineers had these, and knew how to efectivly use them.

Eh? These are hardly new or magic inventions!

About logistic of WP countries, you know nothing. Zils, Urals, Tatra, Uaz, Gaz, all these and more vehicles were build in enormous quantities in many variants. So logistic support wasnt a problem.

Right oh...

And what have logistic to do with the actual performance of the Tank on the battlefield? Sure, it's important when you consider rearming, repair, refuel, but's it is irelevant in the actual combat.

Wrong. Better logistics mean more armour available for operations more of the time. There is no way the Soviets could have resupplied their armour in Western Germany, and there is clear evidence of their plan to use helicopters to fly airportable bladders with fuel in to forward staging areas.

We're not talking about a few Gaz jeeps here either...

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

This is absolutely BS. The WP had more than enough supply trucks, there were hundreds of thousands of them.

This again proves that you know nothing about the wp logistics. PMP, GSP, PTS, (ПМП, ГСП, ПТС) do you know what are these?

And anyway...The M1 proved nothing. Except to fight against untrained fanatical zealots. And that it requires thousands of liters of fuel to operate for a single day.

Lol!!! soviet fanboi alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollie, your blanket statements about WP lack of logistics , alleged massive use of air transported logisitics and how it sucks compared to the awwww greater allmighty US army, without anything to really prove it (just to talk about the latest examples in this thread), looks A LOT like huge US fanboism :D

Funny you throw the fanboi label around. You are a perfect example of it

Welcome to the "equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks" Thread, aka "Clash of the fanboys". Popcorn time indeed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. Better logistics mean more armour available for operations more of the time. There is no way the Soviets could have resupplied their armour in Western Germany, and there is clear evidence of their plan to use helicopters to fly airportable bladders with fuel in to forward staging areas.

We're not talking about a few Gaz jeeps here either...

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

Lol!!! soviet fanboi alert.

Well, as you say, ponton bridge are nothing new, but they break you argument about stoping the WP armies at river like Rhine or Elbe (I dont know why you mention Elbe, because bridges over Elbe were acecible for WP armies trough Czechoslovakia and East germany)

an d if bassed on your argument, the WP armies werent able to support it's forces, than the thousands of supply trucks served for what? :D

Well maybe the Gaz was not the best to mention, but still Tatra, Ural, zil, arnt some jeeps.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a US fanboi. I would sincerely like to think the British has the best and most capable armed forces in the world, unfortunately, going on what I have been told by various people within that same organisation, that is far from the case.

There is a raft of publications out there written by all kinds of people, even defectors, I suggest you read some. Unfortunately it might not fit in with the propaganda you appear to have swallowed whole.

I have to say the WP war machine, going on what our eastern friends have to say, seems to be remarkably capable despite the fact troops sometimes went unpaid for months at a time, the state was incapable of disposing of its spent nuclear fuel or vessels producing it, and, rather alarmingly, an amount of materials involved in their nuclear weapons program has gone walkies or is otherwise unaccounted for...

We have also yet to deal with that lovely term 'conscription...'

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

Well, as you say, ponton bridge are nothing new, but they break you argument about stoping the WP armies at river like Rhine or Elbe (I dont know why you mention Elbe, because bridges over Elbe were acecible for WP armies trough Czechoslovakia and East germany)

an d if bassed on your argument, the WP armies werent able to support it's forces, than the thousands of supply trucks served for what? :D

Well maybe the Gaz was not the best to mention, but still Tatra, Ural, zil, arnt some jeeps.:)

Because they would be prime targets for being bombed!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the fact, that the main attack forces would already be at the west side of Elbe (as there were during the Cold war) and the fact, that the WP airforces wouldnt be sitting ducks as you consider, destroying some of bridges over labe/elbe or Vltava river wouldnt be so easy. :)

Still you dont get the point. Why do you take logistic there?

This is a situations (in ArmA II) where you put a tank vs. another tank. And there is no need to put the problems of logistic into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, lets get this right ALL the logistic support and fuel and ammo the Soviets would need for anything more than a very short conflict was all sat there on the right side of the Elbe just waiting to be used?

Oh.... there was me thinking trucks would get empty and probably have to return to depots far behind the front lines... obviously that is wrong, oh dear. NATO needed not waste any bombs hitting the Elbe bridges then...

Seriously, how old are you guys? 12?

Damn, NATO could never have won, not unless they had dumped about 4 months worth of fuel and ammo in Belgium before hand... Glad all the fuel refineries and ammo factories are already there like??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, still, you dont want to answer, what have the logistic of suplly of Warshaw pact anything to do with the performance of the ex-eastern block and current modernized russian machinery in Arma II???

Have you ever saw elbe or Vltava river on map? And if you did, do you know the geography of Czechoslovakia and East. Germany and where the rivers were passing? :) It would be usefull if you would check that.

A lost bridge can be replaced by a ponton bridge if a bridge over Elbe was lost. Still, you think that there would be some serious bombing of elbe river if WP would realy attacking the western europe? That the WP airforces would be sitting at base and observing the B-52 flying over them and doing nothing?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, lets get this right ALL the logistic support and fuel and ammo the Soviets would need for anything more than a very short conflict was all sat there on the right side of the Elbe just waiting to be used?

Oh.... there was me thinking trucks would get empty and probably have to return to depots far behind the front lines... obviously that is wrong, oh dear. NATO needed not waste any bombs hitting the Elbe bridges then...

Seriously, how old are you guys? 12?

Damn, NATO could never have won, not unless they had dumped about 4 months worth of fuel and ammo in Belgium before hand... Glad all the fuel refineries and ammo factories are already there like??

The main hope for us (Bundeswehr) was the fact that the most of germany is dense build up area and the main industrial complexes were in the far west of Germany (Bochum, Dortmund, Düsseldorf) that would have ended in Guerilla style war.

Nearly any soldier was trained for usage of explosives for demolition, usage of Anti-Tanks weapons was another main Focus in training. We had plans for using the home factor extensivly and even going underground and fighting out of the canalization. Another tactic armoured troops where trained in was diggign in and getting overrun and operating in the back of the WP lines cutting logistics there relying on the long range capability of our vehicles Leopard II and Luchs compard the Challenger or Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I am replying because this kind of thing interests me greatly and I have been fortunate enough to know people who were involved in the planning of the great cold war and the military excersizes and wargames designed to train for it.

The fact is Europe is divided cleanly by rivers. Big wide deep ones. whilst soviet armour coudl wade or swim it, few of their supporting vehicles could, no more so that the US HEMTT could.

There is a lot of publications and literary stuff out there folks. Some of it written by defectors and very well places experts, civilian and military, get out there and read it. All very interesting stuff.

:D

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

The main hope for us (Bundeswehr) was the fact that the most of germany is dense build up area and the main industrial complexes were in the far west of Germany (Bochum, Dortmund, Düsseldorf) that would have ended in Guerilla style war.

Nearly any soldier was trained for usage of explosives for demolition, usage of Anti-Tanks weapons was another main Focus in training. We had plans for using the home factor extensivly and even going underground and fighting out of the canalization. Another tactic armoured troops where trained in was diggign in and getting overrun and operating in the back of the WP lines cutting logistics there relying on the long range capability of our vehicles Leopard II and Luchs compard the Challenger or Abrams.

Agreed, Germans had a scorched earth police and were trained for intensive guerrilla ops, but you had nothing like the numbers of armoured vehicles as the Russians and many of your frontline units would have been saturated by their artillery in the first hours. Had special weapons been used huge areas would have been rendered ineffective.

Soviet doctrine was to simply bypass any and all strong points and let successive waves deal with them. Cut off from supplies and friendly forces it would have been a grim scenario.

Fortunately Europe is full of choke points where various anti armour weapons could have been deployed extensively.

Did they ever lay large areas of anti tank mines or build fortifications in Western Germany on the frontier? Several books I have read mention them but only in the planning stages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the WP airforces would be sitting at base and observing the B-52 flying over them and doing nothing?:)

Not only the airforce, there was the WP SAM belt! Hundeds of SAM sites, overlapping each other's destruction zone. Even the E-3 arircafts werent safe because the S-200 Vega. And there were the air defence of the troops, with mobile systems, like the 2K11 Krug, the 2K12 Kub, the 9K33 Osa, the ZSU-23-4 Shilka the Strela-1/3/10 and the Igla, also hundreds if not thousands of them.

And Ollie1983, I strongly recommend you this:

http://www.saper.etel.ru/index-texnica.html

Edited by Archbishop Lazarus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only the airforce, there was the WP SAM belt! Hundeds of SAM sites, overlapping each other's destruction zone. Even the E-3 arircafts werent safe because the S-200 Vega. And there were the air defence of the troops, with mobile systems, like the 2K11 Krug, the 2K12 Kub, the 9K33 Osa, the ZSU-23-4 Shilka the Strela-1/3/10 and the Igla, also hundreds if not thousands of them.

E3 sentry radar range is MASSIVE well beyond your SAM belt lol, besides, NATO forces trained effectively to penetrate Soviet air defence by flying very very low very very fast and using anti radiation missiles. The E3 would never have operated over anything but friendly soil, to co-ordinate air operations.

In the later stages of the cold war stealth technology and cruise missiles would have been deployed and hitting a bridge with those is easy peasy. Shooting a tomahawk down is not easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollie1983:

Again: Haw you ever saw the Elbe River on Map? Based on your argument not. Otherwise you would know, that in Czechoslovakia (now czech. and slovak. rep.) you dont even need to crose it. So no, Europe isnt divided by big rivers.

And your deep, wide rivers still have to originates from very small streams.

Still you seem to forget that engineers were trained to replace destroyed bridges by ponton bridges. And they were trained to do that in just a few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ollie1983:

Again: Haw you ever saw the Elbe River on Map? Based on your argument not. Otherwise you would know, that in Czechoslovakia (now czech. and slovak. rep.) you dont even need to crose it. So no, Europe isnt divided by big rivers.

And your deep, wide rivers still have to originates from very small streams.

Still you seem to forget that engineers were trained to replace destroyed bridges by ponton bridges. And they were trained to do that in just a few hours.

Come off it!!! Have you tried to swim the Elbe or the Rhine? You're saying that these rivers and others like them were not a problem?! :D

Thanks a lot guys, has been a great discussion but I have to go home, maybe see you tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actualy, it not a problem to swim on Elbe, have done it several time when i was near on vacations, but still, what does it have to do with our conversation?

For your interest, this is your super wide Elbe when it's corssing with Vltava near mělník city:

http://www.prahanoviny.cz/wp-content/uploads/soutokm%C4%9ALN%C3%8DK7.jpg

It's not so wide as you can see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The S-125 Neva especially liked low flying targets!, And if you fly low, you'll certainly meet the dreaded Shilka! Plus the Strela-1/3/10, the Igla, and of course the ZU-23-2, the ZPU-1/2/4 AA guns.

Concerning stealth technology: Do you remember the F-117 downing in 1999? (Also by a S-125 Neva) It wasnt luck! The old soviet radar systems, like the P-18 or P-12 operating in the VHF band have no difficulty detecting it.

And BTW, the S-200VE Vega had 250km range...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×