User Panel
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:11:31 AM EDT
The thread about the Fulda Gap has me wondering: What equipment would've each side had in the mid-70s? I know that the M60 would've been our MBT and the T72 theirs probably, but what about APC (M113 v. BMP or BTR?), rotary and fixed wing (Cobra v. Hind? no idea on fixed), artillery (no clue), etc? I suppose Huey and Mi8 would've been the mules of the air still. Were there a lot of M48s and T55 or 64 around? What CAS aircraft were there for each side since the A10 and SU25 weren't yet operational, correct? This is all conventional, of course. CBRN is a completely different matter. I was born in '81 so by the time I could care about such things we had Apaches, A10s, F15/16s, and Abrams everywhere.
ETA: if you have a link that's a good resource for me to check out I'd love to have it. Thanks! |
|
[#2]
Quoted:
The thread about the Fulda Gap has me wondering: What equipment would've each side had in the mid-70s? I know that the M60 would've been our MBT and the T72 theirs probably, but what about APC (M113 v. BMP or BTR?), rotary and fixed wing (Cobra v. Hind? no idea on fixed), artillery (no clue), etc? I suppose Huey and Mi8 would've been the mules of the air still. Were there a lot of M48s and T55 or 64 around? What CAS aircraft were there for each side since the A10 and SU25 weren't yet operational, correct? This is all conventional, of course. CBRN is a completely different matter. I was born in '81 so by the time I could care about such things we had Apaches, A10s, F15/16s, and Abrams everywhere. ETA: if you have a link that's a good resource for me to check out I'd love to have it. Thanks! View Quote US M60/M48's M113s Cobra M109's for arty among others CAS, F4's Germans Leopard1/M48's Marder They didn't really do much in the way of attach helos. MBB105 but I think that was the 80's IIRC M109's for arty among others CAS, Alpha jets Soviet T64 (still the premier tank in the 70s) T72 T62's/T55 for second and third line divisions. BTR-70's BMP1 CAS: Su-17's mainly The rest of the Warpac was generally running T55's with various upgrades during the 70's. IIRC they didn't get T72's till the early 80's. They had their own versions of BTRs. CAS was generally older soviet models, SU-7's SU-22's. Generally speaking NATO didn't have much of an advantage equipment wise as happened in the 80's. T-64/72's could easily frontally kill M60's M48s and Leopard 1's. Again, the war would have been nuclear on day 1. |
|
[#3]
I was an Infantry Lt in Germany from 1978-1981. My first platoon only had 17 men. This was pre Reagan and our equipment was not the best.
|
|
[#4]
This link has all the titles of the declassified reports, you just pick the year and scroll down to what looks interesting. There's some order of battle assements in the years your looking for. A google search of the title will usually get the .pdf report from the cia website.
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/Declassified%20Intelligence%20Analyses%20on%20the%20Former%20Soviet%20Union%20Produced%20by%20CIA's%20Directorate%20of%20Intelligence.html#1976 Looking at the titles of some of the reports, man they thought of everything. |
|
[#5]
|
|
[#6]
At least every one of our tanks and APCs would have a radio-IIRC, many Soviet mech units only had comms at platoon or even company level.
|
|
[#8]
|
|
[#9]
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf This is the Soviet Army operations and tactics from a 1984 Headquarters Department of the Army that might show insight into Soviet armored communications capability.
I keep getting deeper down the rabbit hole the more I read lol, it all just leads to other documents, all of which I find fascinating. Translated to English from an article in the Legerkoerier, the monthly periodical of the Dutch ground forces, 33rd edition, nr 10, October 1983. "The Soviet armed forces: the tank company on the attack
One of the most important pieces of equipment of the ground forces in the Soviet-Union is the tank. Even today it is still the offensive arm par excellence. The Soviet-Union has large numbers of tanks, which can categorised in various types such as: T-55, T-62, T-64 and T-72. Tank units generally operate closely with mechanised infantry units. The strength of a tank company (the Soviets speak of a company instead of a squadron) is 10 tanks. However in the event a tank company belongs to the tank bataljon of a mechanised infantry regiment the strength is 13 tanks. The Russian tanks are compact, roughly finished and have an excellent main gun. The optics however are not yet as modern as those of Western tanks. Organisation A tank company consists of three platoons of each three tanks and a company staff, which has the commander's tank (The tank company of 13 tanks has four tanks in each platoon). The commander of the company is a senior lieutenant or a captain. He is aided by two officers in the rank of junior lieutenant or lieutenant. One of these is second in command regarding political matters, the other is second in command regarding technical matters. In addition the company has ofcourse a CSM (starshina roty), and administrator etc. The platoon commanders are usually junior officers, though this function can occcasionally be filled by a sergeant or sergant-major. Armament and equipment A tank company disposes of the following equipment: 10x medium tank 1x truck (ZIL) 12x automatic weapon AKM or AK74 33x pistol 9mm - Every tank has a schnorkel kit, which enables wading through water obstacles up to a depth of five meters. - The number of crewmen could be reduced in the newer tanks by placing an autoloader in the turret. - All tanks can carry two drums with each 200 liters of fuel on the rear deck, which can be jettisoned just before combat is joined. - Every tank can lay a smoke screen by injecting fuel into the hot exhaust. In addition newer tanks have been provided with smoke grenade launchers. Tactics On the lower levels with regard to the Soviets we ought to speak of combat drills rather than tactics. The actions that a tank company needs to take in case an attack is launched are in sequential order: - actions in the assembly area (getting ready for combat) - the tactical movement towards the area where the company must execute the attack - the deployment into platoon columns at around a kilometer in front of the defending party - breaching of any obstacles present - attacking the forward edge of the defence - breaching the defence - continuation of the attack in the depth of the defence out to a depth of about two to five kilometers The preparations in the assembly area and the subsequent movement generally cannot be observed from defensive positions. Any data on these originate from for example airial reconnaissance. The breaching of obstacles however can usually be observed directly, for obstacles are always placed under observation and covered by fire. In that manner it may be seen how mine breaching devices can be attached to tanks to clear any mines present. This usually concerns the KMT-4 or KMT-5, respectively a mine plow and a combined mine plow and - roller. Against other types of obstacles a dozerblade may be attached to the tank. Deployment Before these kinds of action begin, that is before any contact takes place, the reserve fuel tanks have been jettisoned. As soon as enough breaches have been made through the obstacles (often with the aid of infantry) the tank company will deploy. This will be done as late as possible, because it costs time to deploy for action. However as soon as the tank company deploys, we will encounter the following situation: three platoons of three tanks each will operate with some intervals left between them and will try to reach the forward edge of defence as quickly as possible while firing away. The distance between the attacking tanks of the platoons will be some 50-150 meters. The total width of an attacking tank company can vary from 500-750 meters. In case the opponents in the defence prove too formidable, the battalion commander can decide to use the reserve of his tank battalion in the sector of this company, by which the number of tanks in the attack can be expanded with up to 10 tanks (NB: this should be 13 in case of tank companies belonging to the armoured battalion of a mechanised infantry regiment, as noted by the author at the start of the article). Prior to the attack on the forward edge of the defence there will be a long preparatory bombardment, which may last up to 30 minutes or more. It is also possible to call on the support of attack helicopters. Because this requires additional preparations and observation of targets and because some time will pass before any actual helicopter support can be provided, it ought to be clear that this will not always be the case. A good camouflaged defence, in addition to good firing positions and firing discipline will make life very difficult for the Russian commander. Chain of command and communications The company commander has the use of an HF radio, with which he is in communication with the battalion and the other companies. For communications within the company and any mechanised infantry placed under his command he can use a VHF radio. Many signals are communicated with flags and hand signals, because only the commander may use the radio during combat. Prior to joining combat radio silence is maintained. Weaknesses Some weaknesses can be identified in the Soviet tank company and its manner of operating. The command system is so strictly structured, that when the commander is removed it will be very difficult to lead the attacking company correctly for command cannot be assumed by anyone else. There are serious limitations to the use of radio communications as well. Before the unit is operating in an organised manner again, they are likely to have lost valuable minutes. The schnorkel kit seems like a wonderful solution, but it comes with drawbacks. As soon as a tank is ready for schnorkeling, it is most vulnerable. The turret cannot move due to the sealings and the barrel is covered by a rubber cover. The main problem however may be resupply. Within the company there are hardly any or no spare supplies (fuel, ammunition etc) available and at battalion level only very limited ones. The longer a tank unit is fixed by fire the more vulnerable such a unit becomes, as resupply under combat conditions is very difficult to perform, especially if the required means (armoured supply vehicles) are lacking at lower organisation levels." Regards, View Quote Soviet Tactical air doctrine 1976: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b010712.pdf From a U.S. Army Tank Platoon FM 17-15 manual: OPFOR doctrine recognizes three basic forms of offensive operation:
meeting engagements, breakthrough attacks, and pursuits. Meeting engagements are defined as encounters with the enemy in which both forces begin the engagement on the move. Movement to Contact is the Western counterpart of this mission profile. Breakthrough attacks are the equivalent of the Western Deliberate Attack. The objective is to confront and overwhelm a well entrenched defender, so that follow-up units can exploit the breach created by the attack and carry the offensive into the enemy’s rear area. Pursuits are attacks against an enemy that is attempting to withdraw and regroup his forces. Regardless of which type of offensive operation is being conducted, however, OPFOR units will employ very similar schemes of movement while traveling—schemes that you can exploit to advantage. View Quote The third company is not a reserve in the Western sense of the term. All
of the units in the echelon are committed to the attack. The spacing simply dictates the timing of each unit’s arrival in the contested area. By holding one of the three units back, the OPFOR commander is seeking to create a breach with the first two that the third can exploit at full combat strength. The Russian theory of combat has no place for the Western reserve concept. OPFOR commanders always use second echelon units to reinforce success. If a commander had three units under his command, one making slight headway against tough resistance, one making no headway, and one being pushed back by a counterattack—and all calling for help—how would he divide his second echelon forces? The answer is simple. The unit advancing would receive all of the available support. The other two units do not deserve support, and in his view they would be wrong for asking for it. View Quote |
|
[#10]
Well considering upgraded Israeli Shermans were taking out T-62's in 1973 with Mirage III as CAS, pretty sure we would've been ok
|
|
[#11]
The Carter era... with our military gutted and a caricature for POTUS, was probably about as scary as it got for the Cold War. The Soviets just might have have "blunt forced" their way to the Atlantic before we could have stopped them.
Glad I wasn't old enough to start paying attention to this type of stuff until well into the Reagan administration. I'd have been one neurotic little kid. |
|
[#12]
|
|
[#13]
Quoted:
I know that was true in early WW2, but was that still the case in the mid-70s? Especially Soviet units? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
At least every one of our tanks and APCs would have a radio-IIRC, many Soviet mech units only had comms at platoon or even company level. I know that was true in early WW2, but was that still the case in the mid-70s? Especially Soviet units? No... Sov/warpac units all had radios in the 70's. They used flags etc when operating under radio silence. ETA. Also it was assumed that heavy use of EW would be a reality, so you trained to work without the convenience of radio comms, turns out NATO did too... |
|
[#14]
Also probably forgot to list the best western army during the 70's, the British army (hey no conscripts here)
Cheftain MBT (easily the best western MBT of the 60's and 70's and it was even good by 80's standards) FV432's Abbot guns Jaguars for CAS |
|
[#15]
Vietnam draw down..
Carter in place. Would of been very bloody. |
|
[#17]
|
|
[#18]
Quoted:
Thanks for those! I was a grunt in Germany '81-'83. Very cool reading. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
1st!!! Seriously, you might be interested in these declassified CIA reports on war with Russia: . Thanks for those! I was a grunt in Germany '81-'83. Very cool reading. Having read some of those and having some experience with the subject matter I would take some of those with a large grain of salt... |
|
[#19]
Thanks for serving guys btw, I love hearing the stories from the Cold Warriors.
Yea, the assements are just that, assessments based sometimes on info that is overestimating and underestimating forces, but it's a neat historical perspective none the less. |
|
[#20]
Download Wargame: AirLand Battle or European Escalation and profit
|
|
[#21]
Those aren't simulatiors.
Get SteelBeasts Professional if you'd like to see armor represented in a more realistic manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdNI4qckAiM T-72 in Slovenian Defence Day mission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI5ciNPvdgk |
|
[#22]
Quoted:
Those aren't simulatiors. Get SteelBeasts Professional if you'd like to see armor represented in a more realistic manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPWqCuJp0lU View Quote Most of that stuff is far more modern than the 70's era... |
|
[#23]
|
|
[#24]
Most of that stuff is far more modern than the 70's era... View Quote That's where it gets complicated, you can actually simulate the older units, but you have to go into the editor, turn off stabilization systems, turn off thermal imagers, etc, depending on the unit. There's M60's and early M1's, origional Leopards, and T-62's though. If you like all the nuts and bolts details it's worth it in my opinion, I've had it for 8 years now. |
|
[#25]
|
|
[#26]
NATO was ready to burn the WARPAC if they advanced too far into Germany. The Soviets still wanted to play the 'We will win with the bigger army' game and the West was like, 'Fuck you, we'll nuke your hordes and the horses they rode in on.' Given that nearly every Warsaw Pact country but Russia is now in NATO shows you who won that one. |
|
[#27]
I know. But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. |
|
[#28]
Quoted:
I know. But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Again, the war would have been nuclear on day 1. Yup I know. But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. I actually agree. Just wanted to make sure the whippersnappers in the audience understood. |
|
[#29]
Quoted:
NATO was ready to burn the WARPAC if they advanced too far into Germany. The Soviets still wanted to play the 'We will win with the bigger army' game and the West was like, 'Fuck you, we'll nuke your hordes and the horses they rode in on.' Given that nearly every Warsaw Pact country but Russia is now in NATO shows you who won that one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Again, the war would have been nuclear on day 1. Yup NATO was ready to burn the WARPAC if they advanced too far into Germany. The Soviets still wanted to play the 'We will win with the bigger army' game and the West was like, 'Fuck you, we'll nuke your hordes and the horses they rode in on.' Given that nearly every Warsaw Pact country but Russia is now in NATO shows you who won that one. I believe the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons (at first, tactically) on the battlefield - looong before NATO would have felt backed into the corner enough to release the nukes. The Soviets viewed ABC as just another tool in the chest, and would likely have used them as part of their initial assault on the West. |
|
[#30]
Quoted:
I believe the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons (at first, tactically) on the battlefield - looong before NATO would have felt backed into the corner enough to release the nukes. The Soviets viewed ABC as just another tool in the chest, and would likely have used them as part of their initial assault on the West. View Quote Probably chem stuff too... in quantities that would have made WWI look like a fart in an elevator. All those arty tubes with gas shells..... fucking terrifying. |
|
[#32]
Quoted: I know. But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Again, the war would have been nuclear on day 1. Yup I know. But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. |
|
[#33]
Quoted:
I believe the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons (at first, tactically) on the battlefield - looong before NATO would have felt backed into the corner enough to release the nukes. The Soviets viewed ABC as just another tool in the chest, and would likely have used them as part of their initial assault on the West. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Again, the war would have been nuclear on day 1. Yup NATO was ready to burn the WARPAC if they advanced too far into Germany. The Soviets still wanted to play the 'We will win with the bigger army' game and the West was like, 'Fuck you, we'll nuke your hordes and the horses they rode in on.' Given that nearly every Warsaw Pact country but Russia is now in NATO shows you who won that one. I believe the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons (at first, tactically) on the battlefield - looong before NATO would have felt backed into the corner enough to release the nukes. The Soviets viewed ABC as just another tool in the chest, and would likely have used them as part of their initial assault on the West. It's well documented in war plans. I have a book with a list of how many kilotons of canned sunshine each bit of southern and central Germany would have got in the first 10min of a war. Fighting conventionally was a NATO fantasy. |
|
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know. But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. http://youtu.be/535Zy_rf4NU |
|
[#36]
Quoted:
That's where it gets complicated, you can actually simulate the older units, but you have to go into the editor, turn off stabilization systems, turn off thermal imagers, etc, depending on the unit. There's M60's and early M1's, origional Leopards, and T-62's though. If you like all the nuts and bolts details it's worth it in my opinion, I've had it for 8 years now. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Most of that stuff is far more modern than the 70's era... That's where it gets complicated, you can actually simulate the older units, but you have to go into the editor, turn off stabilization systems, turn off thermal imagers, etc, depending on the unit. There's M60's and early M1's, origional Leopards, and T-62's though. If you like all the nuts and bolts details it's worth it in my opinion, I've had it for 8 years now. Interesting, I've been debating getting it for years, but the cost and the fact it was modern focused kept me from buying it. So are there guys that have modded 1970's or early 1980's era cold war stuff? Anyone do a mod of the T55-AM (late Czech model) used in the 80's with updated armor and funky but modern FCS. |
|
[#37]
Like I said in the last thread, IMO the mid-70s was the point at which the WaPa had the greatest point of parity v. NATO.
No M1 Abrams. No F15. No M3 Bradley. Limited LGBs. Shitty post-Vietnam US morale. Shitty midst of Baader-Meinhoff West German morale. And, most importantly, no Pope JP II to rally anti-Communist sentiment. |
|
[#38]
Quoted:
I know. But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Again, the war would have been nuclear on day 1. Yup But that's not as fun to wargame on a tabletop with miniatures like GHQ's Micro Armor line of 6mm minatures using Flames of War as the rule set with a few mods. Yes, I'm a nerd. Equipment: M60A1 Tanks with a Battalion here and there of M60A2's. I saw a few Sheridan Tanks. Reserve and National Guard units would have M48A3 or M48A5 tanks; maybe some M60's, but don't ask how many. The M1 was not around until late1979. Extremely talented AH-1 pilots. I'm always going to remember that one Cobra whose skids were about a yard from the ground as he flew All Out. The Air Force still flew A7's, A-37 Dragonfly's, F105's and a bunch of other aircraft whose name I cannot remember at the moment. The A-10 was coming around with F14's, F15's and F16's just beginning to show up in numbers. From the time I graduated Basic to the Very Next Time I fired my M16A1 was about a year. I don't know if that is average for the time or not. But I do know that after I got my wings and got to Italy I wound up shooting more times than I did all the time I was at Fort Hood. I didn't even get to shoot a LAW until I got to Italy. The only time in my career that I have ever thrown a Hand Grenade was in Basic. I still have fired More Ammunition in a single year with MY Personal M16A1 than I have Ever fired while in the Service. Personnel were either Very Good or Very Mediocre. The professionalism of senior NCO's was about as good as you can expect in Good Outfits. But very often (like my first unit) the barracks would smell of incense to cover the stink of pot. There were personnel shortages All Over the place. The job of an E-5 might be done by an E-3. As an example: Todays average Re-Enlistment Bonus Multiple (Base Monthly Pay Times Multiple Times Total Years) is about .5 to 2.0 (or there about). Back then the multiples was usually 2 or 3. There was At Least one MOS whose multiple was 5. Stopping to think about the people I knew Back Then: The Professional Soldiers would have carried the day while the Heads & Co. would have been perfect for target practice. The Pros would probably use the Heads for bait while giving the Warsaw Pack a Very Bad Hair Day. Equipment shortages. While spare parts for vehicles wasn't bad, simulator parts were notorious for not being there, EVER. Maintenance: Read: This, and click the PDF link (4th one from top). As I was IN that battalion I KNOW there was a LOT of stuff not included. It sure made me glad I wasn't a Tread Head. Who would win? Flip a coin. If the NG and reserves got activated in time WE would have. |
|
[#39]
Interesting, I've been debating getting it for years, but the cost and the fact it was modern focused kept me from buying it. So are there guys that have modded 1970's or early 1980's era cold war stuff? Anyone do a mod of the T55-AM (late Czech model) used in the 80's with updated armor and funky but modern FCS. View Quote The sim is usually upgraded once or twice a year, main focus has been for training European crews on gunnery and such, but since the company expanded they have more staff to work on other projects. One of the latest is the crewable T-62's. T-72 Export model is also crewable, as well as the origional M1 and later variants like the M1IP etc. A lot of guys want that crewable M-60 though. There's a good list here of the vehicles and which are completely controllable, as well as AI units: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19582 I like the modern stuff as well, so the recent M1A2 SEP added to the sim is my favorite. Bradley's are great to use too. There is the T-55AM, but not crewable. You can put them on the map and tell them where to go etc and the AI will go hull down fire at targets etc. I'd recommend checking the SteelBeasts Wiki: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Category:Tanks And checking to make sure the stuff is there that you want to simulate to make it worth your money, also ask questions in their forum. The bonus for you is that you'd only pay the one fee for the latest version of the sim, where the early adopters had to occasionally pay a $25 fee for some of the major upgrades over the years. Up to the user though, good enough for some European armies to use, good enough for me to have my own tank range on my home computer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O6_qrgA-eQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPT8TQ50b40&x-yt-ts=1422503916&x-yt-cl=85027636 |
|
[#40]
Quoted:
The sim is usually upgraded once or twice a year, main focus has been for training European crews on gunnery and such, but since the company expanded they have more staff to work on other projects. One of the latest is the crewable T-62's. T-72 Export model is also crewable, as well as the origional M1 and later variants like the M1IP etc. A lot of guys want that crewable M-60 though. There's a good list here of the vehicles and which are completely controllable, as well as AI units: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19582 I like the modern stuff as well, so the recent M1A2 SEP added to the sim is my favorite. Bradley's are great to use too. There is the T-55AM, but not crewable. You can put them on the map and tell them where to go etc and the AI will go hull down fire at targets etc. I'd recommend checking the SteelBeasts Wiki: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Category:Tanks And checking to make sure the stuff is there that you want to simulate to make it worth your money, also ask questions in their forum. The bonus for you is that you'd only pay the one fee for the latest version of the sim, where the early adopters had to occasionally pay a $25 fee for some of the major upgrades over the years. Up to the user though, good enough for some European armies to use, good enough for me to have my own tank range on my home computer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O6_qrgA-eQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPT8TQ50b40&x-yt-ts=1422503916&x-yt-cl=85027636 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Interesting, I've been debating getting it for years, but the cost and the fact it was modern focused kept me from buying it. So are there guys that have modded 1970's or early 1980's era cold war stuff? Anyone do a mod of the T55-AM (late Czech model) used in the 80's with updated armor and funky but modern FCS. The sim is usually upgraded once or twice a year, main focus has been for training European crews on gunnery and such, but since the company expanded they have more staff to work on other projects. One of the latest is the crewable T-62's. T-72 Export model is also crewable, as well as the origional M1 and later variants like the M1IP etc. A lot of guys want that crewable M-60 though. There's a good list here of the vehicles and which are completely controllable, as well as AI units: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19582 I like the modern stuff as well, so the recent M1A2 SEP added to the sim is my favorite. Bradley's are great to use too. There is the T-55AM, but not crewable. You can put them on the map and tell them where to go etc and the AI will go hull down fire at targets etc. I'd recommend checking the SteelBeasts Wiki: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Category:Tanks And checking to make sure the stuff is there that you want to simulate to make it worth your money, also ask questions in their forum. The bonus for you is that you'd only pay the one fee for the latest version of the sim, where the early adopters had to occasionally pay a $25 fee for some of the major upgrades over the years. Up to the user though, good enough for some European armies to use, good enough for me to have my own tank range on my home computer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O6_qrgA-eQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPT8TQ50b40&x-yt-ts=1422503916&x-yt-cl=85027636 Yeah, still not too much I'm interested in it... I guess with the M1, Leo1, Leo2 you could do the 80's from NATO side ok. From the warpac side T72M would be ok for the 80's satellite nations though its weird that they chose that model. And the T62 is a totally bizarre choice given its general rarity, the T55 was FAR more common and would have been just as easy to model. For the 70's the T62 is the only tank that fits the Leo1A5 is too late being an 80's refit as is the T72M, though I guess it could simulate earlier T72s. Realistically to do the 70's they should a 60A1, Leo1A1, T55 of some sort, A actual soviet model T72, and a T64. Also sweet would be a Cheify... |
|
[#41]
Realistically to do the 70's they should a 60A1, Leo1A1, T55 of some sort, A actual soviet model T72, and a T64. Also sweet would be a Cheify... View Quote I hear ya, and your not alone about wanting those crewable. There is a Cheiftan, T-64A and B variants, T-72M4's B's etc. But from the way the sim has been going, once the models are in and AI only, they seem to eventually become crewable, but the wait is long unfortunately. |
|
[#42]
Quoted:
I hear ya, and your not alone about wanting those crewable. There is a Cheiftan, T-64A and B variants, T-72M4's B's etc. But from the way the sim has been going, once the models are in and AI only, they seem to eventually become crewable, but the wait is long unfortunately. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Realistically to do the 70's they should a 60A1, Leo1A1, T55 of some sort, A actual soviet model T72, and a T64. Also sweet would be a Cheify... I hear ya, and your not alone about wanting those crewable. There is a Cheiftan, T-64A and B variants, T-72M4's B's etc. But from the way the sim has been going, once the models are in and AI only, they seem to eventually become crewable, but the wait is long unfortunately. Yeah I saw that they are there but not crewable. It seems like the older tanks would be way easier to do than the modern ones from a sim standpoint. They should just prioritize based on numbers produced , that way you could die not so gloriously as warpac tanker in all of them... Do they simulate broken tracks and having to fix them ? |
|
[#43]
Do they simulate broken tracks and having to fix them View Quote They actually do. And towing vehicles out of ditches, too. And clearing minefields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rMr3Icpp-8 |
|
[#44]
Quoted:
They actually do. And towing vehicles out of ditches, too. And clearing minefields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rMr3Icpp-8 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Do they simulate broken tracks and having to fix them They actually do. And towing vehicles out of ditches, too. And clearing minefields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rMr3Icpp-8 It can't possibly simulate the "joy" of any of that do you get to hear your crew cussing? I wanna see a vid of the track fix if there is one. I actually played a bit of the original SB like a decade or more ago. I liked it. I don't think my current laptop will run the modern version. |
|
[#45]
We were speed bumps to buy time for REFORGER. Heck - that was the constant scenario for REFORGER. ADM units were similarly meant to slow the Soviet advance, not stop it.
|
|
[#46]
Quoted: I believe the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons (at first, tactically) on the battlefield - looong before NATO would have felt backed into the corner enough to release the nukes. The Soviets viewed ABC as just another tool in the chest, and would likely have used them as part of their initial assault on the West. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Again, the war would have been nuclear on day 1. Yup NATO was ready to burn the WARPAC if they advanced too far into Germany. The Soviets still wanted to play the 'We will win with the bigger army' game and the West was like, 'Fuck you, we'll nuke your hordes and the horses they rode in on.' Given that nearly every Warsaw Pact country but Russia is now in NATO shows you who won that one. I believe the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons (at first, tactically) on the battlefield - looong before NATO would have felt backed into the corner enough to release the nukes. The Soviets viewed ABC as just another tool in the chest, and would likely have used them as part of their initial assault on the West. I was reading the 1975 CIA report linked near the top of this thread - and got a different view. The Soviets seemed to see nuke use as a response to US use - or perhaps chem-bio as a response. It seems to me that chem-bio would be a better mode of response - since it did not contaminate huge swaths of the region - rendering them difficult or impossible to cross on their way west. Certainly nuke would deny the desire to occupy and exploit land and resources. Why permanently contaminate (nuke) land that you fought hard to take and hold? |
|
[#48]
Quoted: Yup, thats why I said to take those reports with a huge grain of salt in some cases, some are ok. That view was totally disproven when the various Warpac oplans were "found" after the cold war ended. Every version of the CSLA (czech) plan aside from the 50's version has tactical nuke use featured prominently as part of the plan. Nuke the shit out of the west and march west... The plans are pretty optimistic as well, but I guess if you nuke the fuck out of everything before you step on the gas you don't expect much resistance. View Quote Why did they plan on going West in the first place? I get the whole East vs. West thing but...they had absolutely nothing to gain except an irradiated wasteland. Every previous war in history was basically about land. If you destroy the land, what's the point? |
|
[#49]
Quoted:
Why did they plan on going West in the first place? I get the whole East vs. West thing but...they had absolutely nothing to gain except an irradiated wasteland. Every previous war in history was basically about land. If you destroy the land, what's the point? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yup, thats why I said to take those reports with a huge grain of salt in some cases, some are ok. That view was totally disproven when the various Warpac oplans were "found" after the cold war ended. Every version of the CSLA (czech) plan aside from the 50's version has tactical nuke use featured prominently as part of the plan. Nuke the shit out of the west and march west... The plans are pretty optimistic as well, but I guess if you nuke the fuck out of everything before you step on the gas you don't expect much resistance. Why did they plan on going West in the first place? I get the whole East vs. West thing but...they had absolutely nothing to gain except an irradiated wasteland. Every previous war in history was basically about land. If you destroy the land, what's the point? Honestly from what I can tell reading most of these plans, most of the plans were basically counter attacks to NATO invasions (Best defense is a strong offense, or nuke his land and fight on it). The 1950's plan is actually rather defensive in nature, but they turn more aggressive as time goes on, but there is a defensive part to the 86 plan. Generally speaking the soviets didn't want to "conquer" the west (that was western propoganda mostly), I think they just wanted not fight on their own soil. No one in the warpac seriously thought (or at least hoped) the soviets would march west. Generally the Soviets based on their WW2 experience wanted a nice big buffer with the west beacuse the experience of fighting WW2 on their ground was not a particularly pleasant one. |
|
[#50]
Quoted:
The Carter era... with our military gutted and a caricature for POTUS, was probably about as scary as it got for the Cold War. The Soviets just might have have "blunt forced" their way to the Atlantic before we could have stopped them. Glad I wasn't old enough to start paying attention to this type of stuff until well into the Reagan administration. I'd have been one neurotic little kid. View Quote Back during the Carter years US foreign policy vs the Soviets was worse than what we have with Zero. Briefings we got flatly stated that by year 2000 we would be kissing Russian ass all over the world and it would be smart for US schools to start teaching Russian so kids could communicate with their new overlords.. Carter's administration took the worst view of every CIA assessment they were given and simply threw up their hands and were ready to surrender when the Soviets asked. The late 1970s and early 1980s militia movement started as a result of Carter's pussiness, because American citizens seriously thought they were going to be fighting Soviet forces on American soil when Carter surrendered the nation to Soviet threats. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.