New Type98/99 MBT thread

[IronsightSniper]

Actually, NATO's answer was improved HEATs.

 

[Red___Sword]

Actually, NATO's answer was improved HEATs.

It is funny that when questioning the western's "answer", that people start to talk about "the west got better quality equipments" - at the same time, they question others "how many nuck stockpile you have? that's not enough!"

Man, how many soviets those "improved HEATs" can eliminate, before the europe was overrun? Number matters, most of time.(especially during cold war)

It is ONLY the resolution of using tactical nuke, could the west deterrent soviets armour group.

 

[IronsightSniper]

The only problem about that was that we proliferated as much as the Soviets did. In fact, a Soviet armor charge was to be countered by Infantry portable ATGMs like the Javelin, which would of pretty much ate all those tanks up.

 

[i.e.]

\
It is ONLY the resolution of using tactical nuke, could the west deterrent soviets armour group.

and if.

the way soviets armor was spaced out I doubt tactical nukes could made any difference.
remember they had tactical nukes too and nato ground defence has much less space to work with, meaning the density and concentration of formations.

two elements in war fare: space and time, time is one can never recover.

 

[i.e.]

The only problem about that was that we proliferated as much as the Soviets did. In fact, a Soviet armor charge was to be countered by Infantry portable ATGMs like the Javelin, which would of pretty much ate all those tanks up.

I read some where that one US general (I can't remember who) that was in charge of war plans for NATO. summed up the problem as some thing like 1 tank./infantry company (1 platoon of tanks + 1 infantry company) has to destroy XX number of Warsaw pact tanks in Y hours.

or something to that affect.

XX was a double digit number and Y was a single digit number.

good luck.

 

[i.e.]

I think you get the wrong impression. I am emphasising "M1A2, Type99 kind of monster" is not suitable for Korea Peninsula. I am not saying "armor is no use."

You already know that T34/85 and M-4 firefly has been used during korea peninsula war - have you wander how much IS-2 and M-26 kind of monster being used? why they are not used in mess?

More than 50 years later, when MBT getting even heavier and more big-ass (widths), why not MBT? - I guess this question is selfexplanatory.

the core US ground combat forces in Korea mainly consists of 2nd ID's 1st heavy Brigade Combat team.
with rest of 2nd ID's BCTs (all strykers) based in fort Lewis Washington. + division aviation brigade (UH-60 and Long bow Apache)

1st heavy Brigade combat team, as its name suggest is a 'heavy armored' brigade

2 Combined arms M1A2 and bradley batallions + 1 armour cal + 1 Paladin


this is the first ground unit that would go into action when NK decides to cross into 38 or SK/US decides to go north.

and That is as a heavy formation as you get in US Army TO&E.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Mhm. Besides, it's not like a tactical nuke would of done much. Early Soviet MBTs were tested to be able to survive a small nuclear detonation (less than 15 kt I think) from 800 m away. That's simply not enough to blow out a chunk of Soviet tanks. It's easier to just spam it with things like the A-10 or the Apache.

But that's starting to get off topic :v

 

[i.e.]

Mhm. Besides, it's not like a tactical nuke would of done much. Early Soviet MBTs were tested to be able to survive a small nuclear detonation (less than 15 kt I think) from 800 m away. That's simply not enough to blow out a chunk of Soviet tanks. It's easier to just spam it with things like the A-10 or the Apache.

I doubt A-10s and Apaches would do that well in face of those nasty ZSU-23-4 buggers.
or a new generation mobile SAMs

In the end it would be up to the heavy divisions in europe to slug it out with waves of soviet tank and infantry.
tactical aviation can only be a good wish for the ground commanders.

if one reads the original AirLand stuff, it would be surprising for the ground troops how little "air" there was to depend on. everything was dependent upon organization and tacitical proficiency. kinda reminds me of how Germans organized its defense in Eastern front circa 1944....

 

[i.e.]

COme to think of it.
The Post WWII german army is a tank heavy formation.
they did not rely on tactical air so much.

I guess they after 3 hours their air-bases would all be smoldering radioactive ruins so better to put their faith in a metal can that can shoot back.

 

[Pointblank]

and if.

the way soviets armor was spaced out I doubt tactical nukes could made any difference.
remember they had tactical nukes too and nato ground defence has much less space to work with, meaning the density and concentration of formations.

two elements in war fare: space and time, time is one can never recover.

It would kill the crew inside the tanks from the shockwave... human bodies don't like being tossed around.

What the Soviets had was sheer numbers and weight of the attack; however, the individual crew training and initiative at lower levels left much to be desired. The Soviets when they did their 'live-fire' exercises behaved in well-rehearsed procedures, and the training grounds would show the treads of tanks going over the same area in the same way over and over again...