Jump to content

Those who you wanting CMFG need to read this


Recommended Posts

CMFG = Combat Mission: Fulda Gap. As some-many of you know, I've been hammering away for years about the dire US/NATO plight in the armor-antiarmor weapon situation during the 1980s. I've specifically cited hair-raising things I learned at the then-SECRET/NOFORN/WNINTEL 1985 Soviet Threat Technology Conference hosted by the CIA and featuring its top analysts in every warfare field. Here's some of the pertinent information, delivered via the esteemed Richard Ogorkiewicz, author of several seminal books of AFVs and their design.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?127544-Jane-s-Impenetrable-Russian-Tank-Armour-Stand-Up-to-Examination

Fair Use

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."

Hope the above recalibration was useful!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soviets had few or no tanks with Kontakt-5 in 1985. Even in 1989, tanks with Kontakt-5 represented a tiny portion of the fleet. Anyways, problem was solved with later versions of M829, but yes, for a few years NATO tanks would have had some problems penetrating frontal arc of a very limited subset of the Soviet/Russian tank force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akd, hi,

It’s not just Kontakt-5.

If you run through tank for tank, but importantly the same generation v the same generation then often the Soviets did have the edge.

Just compare the contemporary Soviet production models with say the M60A3. Until ’85 the US near pure 105mm gun.

But it’s not just in tanks. I remember very clearly reading the arms trade journals such as Jane’s and the German based Military Technology in the first half of the ‘90s and NATO found Soviet kit generally was a match for anything NATO.

All interesting stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

akd,

The problem was that Gen One ERA turned even a T-55 into a big problem, especially if it had the Kladivo radical upgrade for the T-55 I discussed in the Russian and Ukrainian weapon thread. Gen One ERA alone effectively nullified much of NATO's antiarmor capability, and thereafter it would've gotten worse. The nastiest ERA configurations would've been on the Sunday punch best tanks held in the Western Military District and Carpathian Military District under strict secrecy and far away from prying eyes, waiting for a disrupted defense to drive home the Tank Armies and win the war. Meanwhile, the ignorant would naively presume that what the GSFG had in its sheds was the worst threat to be faced. Nyet! I remember quite well reading with horror in Armed Forces Journal International about the Russians stacking ERA to defeat even precursor charges. At the time, TOW-2A was the best we had in the TOW family. Consequently, TOW-2B was created because smashing through the ERA was simply not viable anymore. While you blithely dismiss the M829 problem, the fact is the XM829 "silver bullet" of ODS fame was already characterized and countered before the round could even be standardized. Indeed, the CIA briefing I attended in 1985 directly addressed the issue of ERA with moving plates which defeated HEAT and long rod penetrators. The latter was accomplished by generating shear loads the projectiles simply couldn't handle. Not to mention the Russians had DU the fielded two years before us and that lots of other nastiness--Krasnopol, laser-guided Grad, laser-guided lots of stuff, Granit SFW and more--were also in service. They could kill our HAS with air-delivered 240 mm rockets and several types of guided munitions, while all we could do was jam the massively protected hangarettes' heavy doors. No I-2000 then! They had rocket-boosted runway busters deployed en masse, while we were trying to get Durandal from France. Thanks to hexagon standard sections, they could fix bomb cratered runways at rates which were embarrassing to us, and they were far less dependent on them in the first place. The MiG-27/D ground attack aircraft had specially shields to keep the dirt out of the intakes and had rough field landing gear.The MiG-29 had sealable primary intakes and secondary topside intake slots, allowing it to ignore FOD as an engine hazard altogether. To operate our birds, we needed a minimum clear stretch 5000' long and 50' wide. A meticulously clean swept down stretch at that. This was for tactical aircraft only and with light loads. I know, because i spent many weeks investigating the rapid runway repair issue, to the point where I practically dreamt about it. In closing, I'd note that in Hackett's Third World War August 1985, as originally written, NATO lost. HM the Queen personally intervened before publication, turning the book into a "We barely scraped through and urgently need to fix, well, everything" clarion call to action.

dan/california,

I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain. Did I miss something?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we needed a minimum clear stretch 5000' long and 50' wide. A meticulously clean swept down stretch at that. This was for tactical aircraft only and with light loads.

Even before 1985 the capability for using roads as improvised runways was well under way.

HarrierMWay.jpg

jaguar.jpg

1975

2.20 Jaguar taking off and landing from grass fields

Hackett's Third World War August 1985, as originally written, NATO lost. HM the Queen personally intervened before publication

Source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In closing, I'd note that in Hackett's Third World War August 1985, as originally written, NATO lost. HM the Queen personally intervened before publication, turning the book into a "We barely scraped through and urgently need to fix, well, everything" clarion call to action.

Forgive me for my impertinence but what is your source for this?

Why on earth would HM the Queen be even remotely interested, let alone intervene in the storyline of a work of fiction? Added to which, given that the book was published in 1982, I am sure she and the rest of the country was more interested in the unpleasantness in the South Atlantic than the ending of a book.

Given the context, you can see why I'm asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way thats a hell of a book.

T-80U was first production model with Kontakt-5 ERA, which came into service around 1986 I believe.

It was retro fitted to T-72B in 1989 (Obr 89.)

Kontakt-1 ERA was commonplace on T-80BV, T-64BV, and T-72B (Obr 85.)

So ERA was present in large quantities, just not K-5. Only the highest readieness tank units of tank divisions would be equipped with limited numbers of T-80U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for my impertinence but what is your source for this?

Why on earth would HM the Queen be even remotely interested, let alone intervene in the storyline of a work of fiction? Added to which, given that the book was published in 1982, I am sure she and the rest of the country was more interested in the unpleasantness in the South Atlantic than the ending of a book.

Given the context, you can see why I'm asking.

I heard (or read) something similar regarding the same book. Can't remember where, though.

There are many reasons why someone would be interested in the End of the book. Imagine someone in the US writing a book about a successful japanese invasion during WW2, or a german author writing about a russian offensive, where the Russians win. If it isn't complete fantasy it will make the population worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll put it another way then ... 'it is not true'.

Because it is more fun than working, I procrastinated this out of Google:

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074494,00.html

Combining their expertise, Sir John wrote a 30,000-word first version, which had West Germany annihilated by nukes and occupied by the Russians. But he decided to scrap that war because it was too demoralizing to the North Atlantic alliance—"the last thing I wanted." The final, limited nuclear war version, he says, is just "a cautionary tale."

No Queen mentioned there, though.

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also From Wikipedia

"Alternate ending

In The Untold Story a separate chapter is devoted to an alternative, much darker, scenario written in the form of radio transcripts and newspaper editorials... This chapter is not included in the Macmillan edition."

"1982, UK, Sidgewick & Jackson (ISBN 0-283-98863-0), Pub date ? ? 1982, hardback (First edition)

1982, US, Macmillan (ISBN 0-02-547110-4), Pub date ? ? 1982, hardback

1983, US, Bantam Books (ISBN 0-553-23637-7), Pub date ? ? 1983, paperback

1983, US, New English Library, (ISBN 0-450-05591-4), Pub date 1 July 1983, hardback"

So the UK edition the doom and gloom version was there but in the US edition it wasn't included, however in the 1983 editions it was included again.

So the Queen from this wan't quite omnipotent as Kettler makes out. As per usual Kettler comes out with bollocks which isn't surprising considering his dubious past record of fantastic claims regarding german WW2 nukes on Soviet front , tanks on Mars, V2s launched from Cherbourg bunkers, UFOs with underslung panther turrets, singlehandedly killing telepathic reptoid monsters and his being a foremost military analyst. Funnily enough all these claims follow a bang to the head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wicky,

As usual you're behaving rudely. I do wish you would stop. I especially wish you'd stop invoking matters which you know perfectly well I'm not allowed to discuss. This allows you to pot away at me, knowing I am defenseless in terms of specifically replying. Ungentlemanly and boorish behavior at best. I will say, though, that I can comprehensively refute your sweeping generalization. Anyone desirous of such proof may PM me.

I'm still trying to reconstruct where I saw the statement about HM applying persuasion to Hackett, and more and more I'm starting to think it was a brief instant during an interview. Meanwhile, here's a thought model for you to ponder.

General Sir John Hackett had a glittering career as both a top-notch solder and an academic. His British Empire level awards were: CB, CBE, KB, KCB and GCB. Do you really believe, for one second, that were word passed from the Queen to the effect "We do not consider it wise for to publish the book as currently written, and We most strongly suggest you rewrite it as a warning and show how NATO barely scrapes by," that he would even think twice about complying? She is, after all, his Sovereign and he her loyal Subject, a man who has shed blood on behalf of the Crown and endured mortal peril on its behalf many times. If the US government can obtain advance copies of books it finds threatening and arm-twist changes before publication to meet its concerns (see Agee, Inside the Company, which came out redacted, likewise Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers), do you really believe the British Government couldn't and wouldn't do the same? Here's what the British Government is attempting to do right now--for vastly smaller stakes than something which could be deemed as affecting what some might deem Security of the Realm.

http://boingboing.net/2014/10/17/writers-condemn-uk-book-censor.html

Understand that Hackett was not some Tom Clancy type. He was a revered and august man of international stature and renown, a man who was, in a real sense, the glory of the Nation. Consequently, when he wrote, from the perspective of a man who's known war, including helping launch the LRDG, SAS and Popski's Private Army; who organized and was CO of 4th Para in terrible strife at Arnhem, who commanded the BAOR and NORTHAG and finished his career as the DCGS; it was of immense gravity and import. If you don't think so, I invite you to see for yourself some of the major journals which reviewed his book. Here's one: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: January 1980 (p. 50 et seq)

https://books.google.com/books?id=VgsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=the+third+world+war+august+1985,+reviews&source=bl&ots=rVa8iSiS4j&sig=cGEfQ97pngw4kJz8_rayllAXyl4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k6KCVPqHHdKZyASj0YLABA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=the%20third%20world%20war%20august%201985%2C%20reviews&f=false

Rest assured, I will eventually find the item I mentioned, your insults notwithstanding.

Wicky and JonS,

I am really tired of these attacks on me. Every time I think you've finally learned to behave, you show me my optimism was misguided. Both of you have been warned about your bad behavior to me, and others, by BFC, and I have stood on my head to deal with your abuse without myself stepping across the line. And I have been goaded in the past, to such effect I got an Infraction for it. Your posts No. 14 and No 15 appear to be straightforward, knowing violations of the Forum Rules, as seen below.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_bfc_forum_rules

General Rules

4. Members agree, through use of this service, that this Forum will not be used to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Members agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by self, Battlefront.com, or its agents.

Abusive Personalities

5. Axe Grinder - it is only natural that people will occasionally have to agree to disagree. An Axe Grinder is someone who goes out of his/her way to make sure that such a topic remains a thorn in the side of an individual or the Forums in general. Usually it resurfaces in the form of snide comments or opinions restated as if previous debates never occurred. This causes old arguments, that likely have no resolution, to spark up again.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way thats a hell of a book.

T-80U was first production model with Kontakt-5 ERA, which came into service around 1986 I believe.

It was retro fitted to T-72B in 1989 (Obr 89.)

Kontakt-1 ERA was commonplace on T-80BV, T-64BV, and T-72B (Obr 85.)

So ERA was present in large quantities, just not K-5. Only the highest readieness tank units of tank divisions would be equipped with limited numbers of T-80U.

You are absolutely correct in reference to the mid 80's and early 90's. At this point (i.e. CMBS time-frame) many T-72s have been fitted with K-5 ERA as part of T-72BA or T-72B3 upgrades (not to mention T-90s). However, despite this potent defensive package, they still suffer from poor ammo stowage that tends to cause catastrophic explosions when the vehicle is penetrated. In that sense, K-5 ERA package offers only a marginal improvement to Russian tank defenses; while not addressing their major problem - poor survivability post-penetration from sides or rear areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DreDay,

In the mid 80s, there was a remarkable piece in Armor magazine. It took the form of a threat discussion with T-72 tankers by a senior Russian officer. In it, the Gen One Abrams and the T-72 were compared. Unsurprisingly, the T-72 didn't come out on top, a point explicitly noted in the article. The officer's trump card was impossible to ignore, though. Loosely, it was: "The Americans have 200 Abrams, but we have many thousands of T-72s."

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DreDay,

In the mid 80s, there was a remarkable piece in Armor magazine. It took the form of a threat discussion with T-72 tankers by a senior Russian officer. In it, the Gen One Abrams and the T-72 were compared. Unsurprisingly, the T-72 didn't come out on top, a point explicitly noted in the article. The officer's trump card was impossible to ignore, though. Loosely, it was: "The Americans have 200 Abrams, but we have many thousands of T-72s."

Regards,

John Kettler

Sure, per Lenin's quote "Quantity has a quality of it's own". It could very well be a case at that time that 3 T-72Bs (which would cost about as much as one M1A1) would have been a better investment (although T-72s were only deployed in Czechoslovakia in the 1980's, while the rest of Soviet offensive armored force was made up of T-80s and T-64s). However, my main point here was to say that Kontakt-5 (while a good defensive measure on its own), was not enough to make up for the inherent survivability issues with Soviet tanks of that era..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wicky,

1 As usual you're behaving rudely. I do wish you would stop. I especially wish you'd stop invoking matters which you know perfectly well I'm not allowed to discuss. This allows you to pot away at me, knowing I am defenseless in terms of specifically replying. Ungentlemanly and boorish behavior at best. I will say, though, that I can comprehensively refute your sweeping generalization. Anyone desirous of such proof may PM me.

2 I'm still trying to reconstruct where I saw the statement about HM applying persuasion to Hackett, and more and more I'm starting to think it was a brief instant during an interview.

3 Meanwhile, here's a thought model for you to ponder.

General Sir John Hackett had a glittering career as both a top-notch solder and an academic. His British Empire level awards were: CB, CBE, KB, KCB and GCB.

4 Do you really believe, for one second, that were word passed from the Queen to the effect "We do not consider it wise for to publish the book as currently written, and We most strongly suggest you rewrite it as a warning and show how NATO barely scrapes by," that he would even think twice about complying? She is, after all, his Sovereign and he her loyal Subject, a man who has shed blood on behalf of the Crown and endured mortal peril on its behalf many times.

5 If the US government can obtain advance copies of books it finds threatening and arm-twist changes before publication to meet its concerns (see Agee, Inside the Company, which came out redacted, likewise Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers), do you really believe the British Government couldn't and wouldn't do the same? Here's what the British Government is attempting to do right now--for vastly smaller stakes than something which could be deemed as affecting what some might deem Security of the Realm.

http://boingboing.net/2014/10/17/writers-condemn-uk-book-censor.html

6 Understand that Hackett was not some Tom Clancy type. He was a revered and august man of international stature and renown, a man who was, in a real sense, the glory of the Nation.

7 Consequently, when he wrote, from the perspective of a man who's known war, including helping launch the LRDG, SAS and Popski's Private Army; who organized and was CO of 4th Para in terrible strife at Arnhem, who commanded the BAOR and NORTHAG and finished his career as the DCGS; it was of immense gravity and import. If you don't think so, I invite you to see for yourself some of the major journals which reviewed his book. Here's one: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: January 1980 (p. 50 et seq)

https://books.google.com/books?id=VgsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=the+third+world+war+august+1985,+reviews&source=bl&ots=rVa8iSiS4j&sig=cGEfQ97pngw4kJz8_rayllAXyl4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k6KCVPqHHdKZyASj0YLABA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=the%20third%20world%20war%20august%201985%2C%20reviews&f=false

8 Rest assured, I will eventually find the item I mentioned, your insults notwithstanding.

1 If you are 'not allowed to discuss them' then why do you insist on talking about CIA, DIA, WNINTEL or classified sources in your posts?

Likewise - if you cannot discuss certain topics in your defence, why are you able to refute via PM?

2 It would have been preferable if you had reconstructed the incident before posting.

3 I don't need the thought model - I swore an Oath of Allegiance to HM the Queen in 1984 - I get it more than you ever will.

4 Why would HM the Queen speak in the first person plural in this context?

Also, why didn't HM the Queen object to Birmingham being nuked in the original version of the novel?

5 The publications you mention were not marketed as fiction. I am well aware of the extent of the British Government's willingness and ability to clamp down on 'unpleasant' matters. An example from the 1980s and relating to national security matters would be Spycatcher rather than your example.

6 To call General Hackett 'the glory of the nation' is a stretch. I don't recall him being accorded a state or ceremonial funeral upon his death.

7 General Hackett's writings were so influential that UK defence spending increased following the publication of the book?

8 Don't waste your time looking because your assertion was fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kendar,

Absolutely hilarious! Thanks for a much-needed laugh!

Guys,

IT's 1985, and the invasion of Germany is making frightening progress! The signs tell the tale. 10th Guards Division is already SE of Stuttgart.

Reports have now been confirmed Soviet Naval Infantry is ashore in Copenhagen, Denmark. Agents managed to get a few shots of the drive to seize the docks before they were forced to retire.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combatintman,

The "them" does not refer to the intel. Rather, it refers to certain topics Steve has asked me not to bring up. I agree it would've been preferable to have all the information in hand, but it doesn't always work that way. I am certain, though, I'm not citing myself. I either read it or saw it. I just need to recall where. Wicky made a sweeping general statement, but because of the topics involved, I can't give the whys and wherefores here. Again, this is to honor Steve's direct request. The thought model was for Wicky. I used the Imperial We. I know those publications weren't marketed as fiction. Equallly, I'm aware of the Spycatcher story, have read the book and seen some interview footage of Peter Wright. There is quite a bit of fiction which treads on security ground. SecNav John Lehman nearly had apoplexy (said he'd bring charges if a serving officer had written it) over The Hunt for Red October, and the Navy specifically assigned an officer to the film version with the objectives of: making the Navy and the Silent Service look good, while providing a credible depiction of submarine ops to the viewer, yet not giving any secrets away. There are books full of information so hot that the only way they could be published was to label them as "fiction." See, for example, the work of Edgar Fouche, who wrote a "fiction" book with insider info from no less than six people working on black projects. The US government can and does censor films and TV over national security issues, to include fiction. One such example was an NCIS episode, with a fictional story line, shot at Patuxent River NCAS. The story line was not the issue. The issue was a scene shot in front of an open hangar door. Inside the hangar was the then highly sensitive X-47B strike drone. The offending frames were doctored to remove the problem areas. Hackett was obviously not Nelson, but The Times devoted a great deal of attention/space to him in his obituary.

http://hill107.net/battle-of-arnhem/john-hackett/hackett-obituary-the-times/

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...