M1 Abram in battle vs Soviet Tanks

T3h_shammy

Now I know America's tanks in the 60's and 70's were on par with if not worse then the Soviet tanks who were numerically superior throughout the world. When the 80's came around and President Reagan increased spending and the Abrams became massively produced the death tolls began to ring for the Soviet Union who was literally outspent out of the Cold War.

Now my question is, what tank would have had the most success against the Abrams (if any), and were the Abrams enough to turn the tide of a conventional war in Nato's favor despite the many disadvantages they had against the USSR.
 

WatsonLadd

Big question: 1 on 1 or big groups, and how is it that after NATO uses nukes the Russians don't fry everything in sight.
 

tallwingedgoat

T3h_shammy said:
Now my question is, what tank would have had the most success against the Abrams (if any), and were the Abrams enough to turn the tide of a conventional war in Nato's favor despite the many disadvantages they had against the USSR.
Click to expand...
Soviet tanks were designed to fight in a nuclear war scenario. They had automatic loaders to compensate for crew loss to radiation and greater fuel economy to reduce the logistic trail in that environment. There was never going to be a conventional war in Europe.
 

T3h_shammy

tallwingedgoat said:
Soviet tanks were designed to fight in a nuclear war scenario. They had automatic loaders to compensate for crew loss to radiation and greater fuel economy to reduce the logistic trail in that environment. There was never going to be a conventional war in Europe.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about never. Wasn't there the plan Seven Day to the River Rhine? Which advocated for a conventional push with limited tactical nuclear weapons being used. Of course limited seems unlikely because once one side throws nukes the other side will get pissed and retaliate.
 

DireSituation

Well how about the late 80's, like 1989?

By then, both powers could have engaged in mass conventional warfare without using any ICBMs.
 

T3h_shammy

DireSituation said:
Well how about the late 80's, like 1989?

By then, both powers could have engaged in mass conventional warfare without using any ICBMs.
Click to expand...

Therefore my question is how would the Abrams tank have fared. I'm sure it would have done worse then it has versus the relatively weak Iraqi Republican Guard who, rest assured did not have the same amount of mechanical firepower as the Soviets once possessed.
 

Mako_Leader

Hresvelgr said:
I might be mistaken but I believe the T-80 was roughly on par with the M1 Abrams?
Click to expand...

Yes unfortunately you're mistaken. The Abrams is currently the most survivable and one of the deadliest tanks around. They can't even kill themselves. The T-80 was not reguarded as really any better than the T-72, and the T-90 is just a more expensive T-80 with a bit more bolt on armour.

But this whole issue has been done before here, and the Abrams won.
 

Dave Howery

tallwingedgoat said:
The premier Soviet tank in the 60's was the T-64.
Click to expand...

still, I'd always had the idea that the M60 was better than that tank too... or am I just being over influenced by the Yom Kippur War, where the Israelis used them so effectively. From what I've read, the Soviet tanks were smaller, cramped, unreliable, slower, and not able to 'hull down' as well...
 

strangeland

Dave Howery said:
still, I'd always had the idea that the M60 was better than that tank too... or am I just being over influenced by the Yom Kippur War, where the Israelis used them so effectively. From what I've read, the Soviet tanks were smaller, cramped, unreliable, slower, and not able to 'hull down' as well...
Click to expand...

The T-64 wasn't used in the Yom Kippur War. The T-80 was actually an improved version of the T-64, and while it may have been only slightly better than the T-72, and was probably inferior to the Abrams, you have to remember that the Soviets would be using a much better variant of the T-72 and T-80 than the ones they sold to the Arabs. Also, Soviet tanks crews were much better.
 

tallwingedgoat

The M60 wasn't any faster than the T-55/62 and was slower than the T-64. It didn't have the range of Soviet tanks and the T-62, T-64 were at least if not better armoured. T-55 was quite reliable, though the T-62 had some problems with the shell ejector and the T-64 was overly complex.

Soviet tanks didn't have the same gun depression because they wanted a low profile, which arguably was useful in the old days when everyone had crappy targeting systems. Soviets never cared about gun depression because their tank doctrine was offense oriented and this was not useful for them.

None the less American tanks could fire more accurately at long range. This was exploited by the far better trained Israelis in '73. In Central Europe those long range fights would be less common. Anybody can kill anybody else in that environment. It would come down to training and numbers rather than tank quality. Given Soviet numerical superiority, its not hard to imagine they could overwhelm NATO forces if their tankers were given decent training.

In the 1980s, the M60A3 and M1A1 (up-gunned to 120mm) gave the American tankers a massive advantage especially in their ability to fire on the move and fight at night. None the less they were far better equipped than the Iraqis. T-80s and late model T-72s can penetrate Abrams armour with their main guns at medium range and out range Abrams with their AT-11 missiles. Still, in the late 80s its difficult to imagine the Soviets conquering West Germany without going nuclear.
 
Germaniac

Germaniac

Donor
Soviet tank only had a short time up on american tanks and that was run out by the time the 60's rolled in. There was no need for nuclear war the american tanks would rule the battle field
 

backstab

Banned
Side and rear Hull of the M1A1 can be penetrated by the soviet/russian 125mm. The M1A1 is good but I would not want to bet my life on it
 
Sigma7

Sigma7

If you haven't already, read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy.

It depicts a conventional war between NATO and the Soviet Union in Europe.

It never comes to a pure tank battle, there's armor engagements, with Soviet tank columns being engaged by groups of Abrams, Leopards, etc...but the NATO strategy denies the Soviets their "Big Armor Fist" strategy of one massed armored breakthrough.

There's a lot to it and, initially, the Red Army does make substatial gains on the ground, but NATO's overall ground game stalls them out just short of the Rhine before the war ends with a combined arms strategy that works rather effectively and exposes both sides weaknesses and strengths.

There's plenty of ways to stop a Russian armor offensive and it's not all centered around a head to head tank battle.

It's a pretty good read.
 

Dure

Banned
The Abrahams is fatally flawed. Its logistics train is enormous which is why it is such a stupid buy for the Australians (but not the USA). It uses up fuel like it is going out of fashion. The way to stop it is to cut off the fuel and consumables there are many ways to do this if you have the resources. The primary ones are; nuke or destroy the refineries and pipelines with deep penetration weapons, destroy the logistics train with deep penetration weapons or gunships or interdict the logistics train by detroying bridges, cratering roads and air launched mine fields. A tank without fuel is at best a rather small fort at worst a big green lawn ornament.

Even Challenger II which is a thirsty beast is not in the same league as Abrahams in terms of fuel consumption.
 

backstab

Banned
Dure said:
The Abrahams is fatally flawed. Its logistics train is enormous which is why it is such a stupid buy for the Australians (but not the USA). It uses up fuel like it is going out of fashion. The way to stop it is to cut off the fuel and consumables there are many ways to do this if you have the resources. The primary ones are; nuke or destroy the refineries and pipelines with deep penetration weapons, destroy the logistics train with deep penetration weapons or gunships or interdict the logistics train by detroying bridges, cratering roads and air launched mine fields. A tank without fuel is at best a rather small fort at worst a big green lawn ornament.

Even Challenger II which is a thirsty beast is not in the same league as Abrahams in terms of fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

The M1A1 was the best value for money that we could have bought. The US offered everything in the package... Spares, Training Sim's, Ammo , Tactical Refulling Vehicles. If we were to have got ... say the Leopard 2 or the Challenger , we couldn't even have got half as many as we needed. Another point is interoperability , We work a lot with the US Army/Marines more than the English or Germans , so it makes more sense to use M1A1's so we can use their supply system when in theatre not to mention being able to use their vehicles instead of our own. All in all , it was the best choice.
 

Dure

Banned
All very good points BUT Australia is not the USA and it cannot maintain, even in country the logistics train it needs to support Abrahams properly. So it will always need the approval and support of the USA for any military action it wants to take. So against a significant loss of Australian independence and military autonomy you offer value for money. I don't think the scales balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top