Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by shift8

  1. Ah yes. Now that we have actual Russian IADS and AF, the NATO attack can now go from being described as a curb stomp to simply a mere seal clubbing instead.
  2. Interesting. Certainly food for thought, although without knowing his source it is hard for me to take it as gospel. Although if that last bit is correct, it would certainly lend credence to my suspicion that T-80 numbers spiked between the late 1980s to 1990. In fact, that 800ish number matches extremely well with the 15% zaloga wrote in 1989.
  3. Also this discrepancy got me rummaging, and I dug out Zaloga's extremely recent book on the T-64. T-64 variants west of Urals sept 1990" 64A---------------------1386 AK----------------------220 B-------------------------1192 BV------------------------159 B1-------------------------420 B1K/BV1K-------------------27 R--------------------------578 Total T-64-3982 In addition paraphrased: "the t-80 began to replace the 64 in 1983. initally in the southern sectors. Before the time of GSFG withdrawal, it also replace the northern sectors. 64 remained in 2 divsions and 2 tank brigades at the time of withdrawal. at time of collapse, 3982 64 were east of urals, with addtional 2000 in ukraine. " So as indicated, at some point after 1983 the T-80 began to supersede the 64. By 1991, we would be about 50/50 as you indicated. Curious how this would have looked in 85 o 87.
  4. Undoubtedly. I did say the numbers were approximate. I also have a copy of "T-80 standard tank" by the same author. However I think it is important to note that the book states the numbers were for "currently" meaning 88 or 89, or whenever the writing took place. Changes could have occurred in the space of 2 years. Especially since we don't know exactly what date Zaloga's source was for the first book. For example, he might have been using whatever the most up to date estimate or source was, etc. Not necessarily from the year of publishing.
  5. Tank War Central Front------By Zaloga The numbers, as I stated, are for the late 1980s. Not 1991. Which is probably the reason for the discrepancy on T-80 numbers.
  6. Already some really good posts on this subject, so to piggy back on what Miller and Krautwerfer have already touched on.... Late 1980's Pact Tank inventory(values are approximate): Soviet: T-55/54------------38% T62-----------------24% T-64----------------18% T-72----------------16% T-80----------------- <10% NSWP: T-55--------------85% T-62--------------none T-64--------------none T-72--------------5-10% T-80--------------none Group of Soviet Forces-Germany 5700 tanks in units T-64 A/B------------------65% T-80-----------------------15% T-62-----------------------15% mainly in independent tank regiments and training units 2000 tanks in reserves Summary: Total in Place Forces Tank Divisions Motor Rifle Divisions Old Tanks New Tanks Total (GSFG, CGF, NGF, EGNVA, 26 29 8325 9125 CSLA, LWP) Total tanks-17450 NATO Tank Divisions Mech Divisions Tanks 15 13 13750 US Tank Forces Breakdown (1987) : 1700 M48A5, 2525 M60 and M60A1, 4810 M60A3, 2374 M1, 894 M1IP, 3270 M1A1 (In Europe) 1750 Tanks. All of but 200 of which are M1 Abrams of some variant. 1400 other pre-positions tanks 2,300 tanks in war reserve stocks
  7. Honestly my complaint is the AA in game is that it is so binary. BUT, I also dont think there any way around this unless you added (and this is obviously not feasible) some kind of additional game to manage A2A and SEAD etc. Essentially, each mission has to either assume SEAD has already been done, or that it hasn't. Or that you have local air supremacy etc. Ban AA vehicles or dont, given how OP they are right now.
  8. To be clear here, I am on your side of this argument as of the subject of the thread. My point here had nothing to do with Crimea or Ukraine in so much as their separation of Russia. My point is that Crimea itself cannot re-decide to leave the Ukraine because it now thinks its Russian ( and I am not even saying thats the case). Russian cannot point at Crimea and go "oh look they want to be Russian now" and then invade to please those people.
  9. I think maybe we misunderstood each other. I of course agree that a nation can rebel or separate over a major moral grievance if there is no other recourse.
  10. Yes, if the government fails to act in a ethical manner this is of course grounds for divorce. What I do no agree with though is the arbitrary separation of sections of a nation state for "jollies." The efficacy of the laws of said nation state would mean nothing if groups or even individuals could randomly decide to secede whenever they wanted to. It would also make it impossible to have nation states at all, since they could theoretically dissolve into individuals ie: anarchy. There are reasons for separation: but they should not be arbitrary whims.
  11. This is illogical rubbish. Secession can only be done legitimately if either the formation of the nation was not originally self determined, or if the nation state as a whole agrees with the secession. Or if at time of formation the seceding portion had a clause granting it the right to separate if it so desired later. The seceding portion cannot secede on its own. Otherwise you would have endless disintegration until you have defacto anarchy. Period. End of Story. Full stop.
  12. Once established, portions of nations states cannot legitimately secede. Unless there was foul play in the initial formation. Once self-determined: permanently determined. Otherwise the laws of the nation state would have no logical efficacy, and the state would continue to micro secede until you had anarchy.
  13. Ukraine already made that decision back in 91. It voted to be independent, as did Crimea vote to be apart of Ukraine. The decision has already been made, and it is not the prerogative of your nation to bully the Ukraine into "do-overs" where the votes are cast by your tanks. Ukraine is a sovereign state. Estonia is a Sovereign state. Lithuania is a sovereign state. Poland is a Sovereign state. Your empire is over. Get over it. You dont have some kind of "jurisdiction" over your neighbors just because you you have some ethnic overlaps.
  14. International law doesn't even need come into play here. Your nation has consistently violated the natural rights of the nations in its region for hundreds of years. Your justification to invade Crimea or any other section of Ukraine as about as valid as Hitlers justification to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Poland in 1939. Or your nations decision to invade lithuania, estonia, and latvia. Ethics Russians living in the Ukraine are NOT Russians any more so than I am British or Italian because of my heritage from American immigrants. EVEN IF you had a legitimate human rights complaint against the Ukraine (which you dont) if does not give you carte blanche to invade them and annex their territory. Congratulations on your Hitler-esque justification for annexing other nations or parts of other nations.
  15. Sure, no analogy needed. Lets keep this real simple. Your nation is a corrupt autocratic bully who has considered eastern Europe to be its playground since the middle ages. The current situation in Ukraine is just another example of Russia bullying the smaller eastern European nations around it. So a simple, no analogy version of what has happened: Ukraine, a sovereign nation, ousted a corrupt leader who was the toy of your government and when that upset Russia, you invaded the Crimea and annexed it. Then you incited and covertly aided rebellion in the eastern section of the Ukraine. (You do it in this manner btw, to obfuscate your involvement because you know you stand a snowballs chance in hell against NATO if there was ever concerted demand to foil your designs) This is just another example of the Russian state continuing to act as if eastern Europe is its property. I think that about sums it up.
  16. Yes I do. Thanks for admitting your cognitive dissonance.
  17. No. And second, its ridiculous to insinuate the FDR handed eastern Europe over because he was pro-USSR. It was done because the Western allies didnt have the inclination to fight WW3.
  18. Right.........Except he was dead by the time the war ended. Final decisions rested with Truman.
  19. If they had had true honor or loyalty, they would have either rebelled against the Third Reich or deserted. Plus I think we all have better things to do than watch a bunch of mid-life crisis Nazi wanna be's make a movie about their lost dreams and sexual frustrations.
  20. German armor quality deteriorated towards the end of the war mainly due to molybdenum shortages. Because of the reduction in its use to make certain alloys, German steel could sometimes be overly brittle. However, it should be noted that the effects of this were not consistent or particularly predictable. Nor would it appear that it had any significant impact on the combat effectiveness of the vehicles in a general. The Americans conducted tests on several captured Panther G's and the effectiveness of their armor was completely in line more or less with what would be expected. As noted in the tests, sometimes there were weak points in the plate, and if a round struck that point, you might penetrate otherwise immune plate. As the testing indicated though, and as CM also does, this is the exception not the rule. You can see this in game as well. Every once in a blue moon (like 1 in 15) you will see something kill a Panther that shouldnt have.
  21. That was done just for fun purposes. I want the tempt to start slow.
  22. For starters, I am in the military. As I understand it so are you. Although honestly I see both of these things as being irrelevant to who is right etc. Just letting you know. No, not everyone's opinion is equal. But an appeal to authority means very little for the purpose of debate. Many "experts" have pointed out before me that the BAR was not the greatest lmg, for the same reasons I stated. I have not seen anyone specifically mention why the Lewis was ignored. On top of this, history is full of accounts of "experts" who did very stupid things militarily. That doesnt meant I completely discount their opinion, on the contrary, my opinion on this matter derives much of its information from experts etc. This is an entirely moot conversation point, as it will eventually devolve into us finding experts with opposing views. Essentially meaningless. No one gets to ride their own coat tails. And I agree with you on the 113. The cult of Gavin is completely insane. However, there are plenty of myths that float around inside the military that are nonsense. I take peoples opinions on reason alone. I dont really care what credentials they have. By way of comparison, last time I checked, people who degrees in political science and years of time in congress does not necessarily make them good at their jobs. Being an expert is a largely unique characteristic in certain fields. Hence why we have been institutionally training officer corps since the 1800s but only produce handfuls of truly capable commanders. It is also why people who graduate at the top of military academy's are not always the best. Re Magazine: Objectively, it has a much larger magazine. The BAR was criticized by the Army and others for its deficiencies, the magazine size being one of them. If you want to make a appeal to experts, this is not a new opinion. The Army makes mistakes all the time. Need I point out the post WW2 insistence on 7.62 Nato? Or the decision to keep the P-40 in production throughout the war for absolutely no good reason? I mean come on. This isnt an argument. RE: perfect: Obviously. However that does not mean that someone who questions a procurement decision somehow misunderstands the decision making process. The BAR was found not to be adequate, regardless of the Lewis guns merit. Hence why the 1919A6 was made and the decision to double up on BARs later in the war because 1 was seen as insufficient. Also again there I am hearing an appeal to something that is not being back up with anything concrete. You are simply assuming that the decision makes decided right, and that they must have had some unknown reason to make their decision. The point of this thread was to dig up said reason, if it exists. You can justify any weapons system, not matter how bad, with the logic you are using. Re "were they right": Good, lets have this debate then, based on the actual merits of the guns. It would hardly be the first time someone cocked something up. The WW2 US Army was good, but it is not immune to criticism. Re 240: I am well aware of the US Armies squad structure. Couple of things there though. While the 249 is much closer to the BAR's weight, it is also alot more akin to a full GPMG in terms of capability. IE: belt fed, changeable barrel etc. IF you have such an ideal weapon, it makes sense to break it up as it has been. But if all you could choose between was a BAR and a 240, the 240 is the clear choice Full Stop. The WW2 US Army has neither of these things. For much of the war it has no GPMG, until the A6. And as you stated, franken gun. Instead it has a nearly 50 lbs medium, and a Auto Rifle that isnt really all that well suited to being either a lmg or a rifle. Clearly we have come a long way. A GPMG would have been a far better happy medium between the previously mentioned extremes. Hence MG-34 and 42. And that everyone copied this idea after the war. I am of the opinion that the BAR was a right idea but with bad implementation. Clearly there is need for a SAW type weapon. But the BAR wasn't really there. Having the right idea doesn't mean much if the tech you use doesn't do it right.
  23. Please refrain from appeal to authority fallacies. The governments in ww2 made tons and tons of mistakes during the war. It is hardly unreasonable to question their logic. Armies have been making stupid decisions since the beginning of time. Reloading is important. Reloading the magazines or drums in the middle of a firefight is not. The point made was about reloading the individual rounds into the magazines. If you are doing this in a firefight then we are beyond debating any real merit of the weapons. And speaking of reloading, its kind of hard to be a lmg when you are changing magazines every 20 or 30 rounds. This is not a new criticism. The BAR was not a good squad auto because it lacked barrel change and large enough magazine capacity, among other things. The Bren was better, but slapping on change in barrel is only part of the solution. Sorry but the Lewis is not too heavy, unless you somehow think the Mg42 or 240B are too heavy. 25-28lbs is pretty standard fair for the GPMG. Kind of the whole point actually, since it makes the MUCH lighter than mediums like the 1919. Yes, belts are better than Pans. But the point made was about their awkwardness to carry. Belts can be plenty awkward on their own. Whatever the problems with the drum, it fed reliably and being somewhat more annoying to carry doesn't suddenly make a bunch of tiny box magazines a better idea. And as for its use after the war, Im not making an argument for the Drum as some kind of replacement for the belt. But I will point out that you dont see any LMG's these days using 30 round magazines except as a backup. And the BAR is a ww1 relic, one that is far too heavy for the firepower it delivers. And since were leaning on expert opinion, the Army clearly found the firepower of the BAR unsatisfactory. Hence why you see lmg versions of the 1919 very late in the war. Or doubling up on the BAR since 1 was not enough. And like I said, "experts" have been criticizing the BAR as inadequate for ages, it is hardly inconceivable to think the BAR was a mistake whatever approach you make at it.
  • Create New...