Jump to content

Some remarks on the ammo loadouts.


Amedeo

Recommended Posts

The 2A42 30mm autocannon on the BMP-2 in the game has APDS ammo. I presume it's the 3UBR8 round. AFAIK this particular type of ammunition wasn't available for the aforementioned weapon during the 1979-1982 timeframe (IIRC it entered service after the end of the Cold War).

No Beehive ammo for the 152mm gun launcher on the M60A2? Was it a Sheridan-only asset? 

Moreover I dare to say that some obsolete round are not likely to be found in units stationed (or deployed) in Germany during the first weeks of war. I mean the M392 105mm APDS and the 3BM12 125mm APFSDS. In the first case, even if NG units equipped with M48A5 would have been rushed to Europe I presume it would have been a  folly to add another round to the logistical queue (in addition to the two or three available), considering that in the 1979-1982 timeframe even the newer M728 APDS was obsolescent. For what concerns the Soviet round, well, Fofanov wrote that 3BM22 "was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s", so there's ground to presume that also 3BM15 should be rare in the 1979-1982 timeframe, let alone the 3BM12!

And last but not least, I presume that the more modern variants of the T-55 should get the 3BM20 APFSDS (minimum!) instead of the 3BM8 APDS. Let's remember that the mass production of the 3BM25 started in the mid '70s (although the round officially entered service only in 1978).

Thus, by 1979 we have two newer generations of AP ammunition already available for the 100mm D-10T gun to supersede the obsolete (and expensive - don't forget that one of the goal of introducing the 3BM20 was to issue the 100mm rifled gun a cheaper, tungsten-wise, ammunition than 3BM8). It makes no sense to suppose that these rounds were all deployed in some obscure military district in the interior of the USSR, instead that with the GSVG units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the longest threads on the Beta board for this title covers ammunition natures.  The long and the short of it is that there are some engine restrictions on ammunition natures and as a result compromises were inevitable.  I don't recall the details because ammunition is not really my thing but rest assured there was some thought that went into the whole subject as you would expect from Battlefront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the U.S. side, this was extensively discussed (and argued) and the decision was made to model tanks/ammo as they originally were when the model came out. Keep in mind this is a what if game which allows you to pit various models one against the other.

In real life, pretty much all U.S. M60A1s on the front line in Germany in the early 80s were the RISE Passive model, either factory originals or earlier A1 models that had been converted/upgraded to the RISE Passive standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Combatintman said:

One of the longest threads on the Beta board for this title covers ammunition natures.  The long and the short of it is that there are some engine restrictions on ammunition natures and as a result compromises were inevitable.  I don't recall the details because ammunition is not really my thing but rest assured there was some thought that went into the whole subject as you would expect from Battlefront.

Of course I have no difficulties believing that a lot of thought went into this whole business of crafting CMCW. I know the quality Battlefront strives to deliver because I'm a happy customer since the days of CMBO. With CMBO, Battlefront started to produce the best (that is, in my opinion, the most realistic, user friendly and fun to play) tactical wargames and still does. So, rest assured that I'm not writing this to bash CMCW: in fact, now that it is available, and installed both on my Windows laptop and Mac Mini, I ditched all my other tactical cold war era videogames.

Does it mean that CM is perfect? Of course not. And, although I am not one of the top posters,  it's more than 20 years that I joined this community and I do remember how the process of polishing, improving and expanding the various CM titles passed also through a lot of long, documented and passionate threads on these very forums. Even I had the occasion to partecipate in some of those discussions and contribute a little bit of info than managed to find its place into some CM titles. So, I wrote the OP in the spirit of those constructive threads, not to point fingers, not to demand, but to suggest and discuss.

And, speaking, of the engine restrictions on ammunition natures, I'm aware of them, but they are not consequential to what I wrote. They would be of hindrance if one had to place in the very same AFV different APDS types, or different APFSDS types, but that's not the case.

 

2 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

On the U.S. side, this was extensively discussed (and argued) and the decision was made to model tanks/ammo as they originally were when the model came out. Keep in mind this is a what if game which allows you to pit various models one against the other.

In real life, pretty much all U.S. M60A1s on the front line in Germany in the early 80s were the RISE Passive model, either factory originals or earlier A1 models that had been converted/upgraded to the RISE Passive standard.

I know of the sandbox nature of the game. But CMCW is not a 'generic' Cold War game nor simply an OPFOR vs US Army simulator: it sports a specific timeframe (1979-1982) and it's obvious that BFC goal was (as always) to provide players the most accurate and high fidelity representation of the opposing US and Soviet armies in terms of organization, equipment, weapons, ammo types etc. In this respect I do think that some more polishing and chrome might and should be added. Moreover, it can be easily made in a way that is already a CM staple, i.e. adding to a tank's name a suffix like 1979 or 1980 or early, mid, late, latest to differentiate models that differ only for the ammo loadout composition (reflecting, for example, the introduction of a better kinetic penetrator).

For what concerns the composition of the M60 park in USAREUR units, you are, of course, right. In fact, even with the 'policy' of one tank model-one ammo model, BFC managed to achieve the "best fit" for M60s and M1s in the given timeframe. But, as you noticed, I wasn't speaking of them (although one could point out some subtleties that could allow for a bit of chrome... but I'd better reserve this for another post! 😄)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some anecdotes:

Quote

In the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, we received M774 APDUFSDS in June or July of 1981. At that time, the tanks (M60A3 PASSIVE) carried a mix of APDS and APDUFSDS, and the standard gunner’s controls allowed for both types. If I remember correctly, the tanks carried something like 12-15 rounds of M774. I don’t remember the mix of the other rounds: APDS; HEAT; WP only. In crew drills, APDS remained as “Sabot”, while APDUFSDS was “Fin”.

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/33449-timeline-for-apds-replacement-in-nato/

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Amedeo I'll look into this more closely when I have time (swamped all weekend and trying to keep up) but I do think you bring up a few good points, especially regarding some of the Soviet ammo. I've added this to my own list of things to look into to be considered for the first patch. Try to get more detailed later when I have more time for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

@Amedeo I'll look into this more closely when I have time (swamped all weekend and trying to keep up) but I do think you bring up a few good points, especially regarding some of the Soviet ammo. I've added this to my own list of things to look into to be considered for the first patch. Try to get more detailed later when I have more time for it. 

No one is in a hurry... at least I'm not, since I just started the first of your training scenarios! 😄

 

21 minutes ago, akd said:

Yes. This is exactly what I had in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with adding years is that it did not really work that way. This is not like WW2 where a model would come out, be obsolete in 6-12 months and replaced by a newer model. M60s were in service for a long time. By the time you get to 1980 ish, M48s and early M60s were obsolescent and were being withdrawn from front line service. The remaining early M60s in good shape were being upgraded to RISE Passive standard which could mostly be done in Army depots during regular maintenance. But the U.S. Army did not have a special designation for that, all seemed to have just been called M60 RISE Passive after conversion/upgrades, so technically there were very few original M60A1/RISE/RISE+ in front line service in Germany in that period. Mix seems to have been 75-80% M60A1 RISE Passive of total U.S. tank strength in Germany.

So to be really accurate, BFC could have just modelled the RISE Passive and ignored all the early models. 

In game, the RISE Passive has the M735 and the newer A3s/M1 the M774. Both will kill Soviet Tanks, although the M735 has trouble killing T-64/80s from the front.

Even on the Soviet side, most players don't seem to realize that the most common tank in the GSFG in the early 80s was the T-62 which apparently made up between 50-75% of the tank park.

Edited by Sgt Joch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

Even on the Soviet side, most players don't seem to realize that the most common tank in the GSFG in the early 80s was the T-62 which apparently made up between 50-75% of the tank park.

What about the M48A5 on the US side in the 1979 campaign? I always assumed that it had been mostly used in the National Guard at that time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

The problem with adding years is that it did not really work that way. This is not like WW2 where a model would come out, be obsolete in 6-12 months and replaced by a newer model. M60s were in service for a long time. By the time you get to 1980 ish, M48s and early M60s were obsolescent and were being withdrawn from front line service. The remaining early M60s in good shape were being upgraded to RISE Passive standard which could mostly be done in Army depots during regular maintenance. But the U.S. Army did not have a special designation for that, all seemed to have just been called M60 RISE Passive after conversion/upgrades, so technically there were very few original M60A1/RISE/RISE+ in front line service in Germany in that period. Mix seems to have been 75-80% M60A1 RISE Passive of total U.S. tank strength in Germany.

So to be really accurate, BFC could have just modelled the RISE Passive and ignored all the early models. 

In game, the RISE Passive has the M735 and the newer A3s/M1 the M774. Both will kill Soviet Tanks, although the M735 has trouble killing T-64/80s from the front.

Even on the Soviet side, most players don't seem to realize that the most common tank in the GSFG in the early 80s was the T-62 which apparently made up between 50-75% of the tank park.

Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!

According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.

РАЗВЕРТЫВАНИЕ НОВЫХ ТИПОВ ТАНКОВ В ГСВГ/ЗГВ « « Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» (otvaga2004.ru)

Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:

1976 -  2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1977 -  8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20

1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).

So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.

And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.

The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.

A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist. 🙂

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually no one really knows, most of the info on the Soviet OOB comes from U.S. CIA estimates which are mostly guesses and some bits and pieces from the Soviet side, like the article you cited. I had seen estimates that as late as 1985, half of the Soviet tanks in Germany were still t-62s.

The only thing we know for sure is that most Soviet tanks in the late 70s wereT-62s and the Soviets planned to replace them by T-64/80s by the early 80s, however due to economic, financial, production issues, the replacement stretched out until the late 80s, so it not hard to figure out that in 1982, most tanks in the GSFG were T-62s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following this up but there seems to be an error in the manual.  The T64Bs should be showing the BM22.

Just to add, based on your timeline of T64 intro above, it kind of makes sense to have a better round for the T62 when these two types were in the middle of transition.  The rub here is military logistics and procurement.  If the T62 was the main tank in the theatre then stockpiles of its best ammo would be well established whereas the newer tanks ammo would still be in early production, so less availability.  This post suggests exactly that based on intro dates:

 Unless we are assuming perfect symmetry between tanks and their ammunition...which never happens.  Ammo normally lags because the platform creates the main effect of deterrence here (big new tanks rolling down Red Main).  In the West ammo lags are endemic (TOW, the M1 having the 105mm early on, DPICMs) and I do doubt the communist system was any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

Well actually no one really knows, most of the info on the Soviet OOB comes from U.S. CIA estimates which are mostly guesses and some bits and pieces from the Soviet side, like the article you cited. I had seen estimates that as late as 1985, half of the Soviet tanks in Germany were still t-62s.

Maybe no one really knows. But this is true for almost anything, so the only sensible thing to do is to make educated guesses based on some form or evidence.

And, speaking of evidence, if you have seen estimates as late as 1985 stating that half of the Soviet tanks in Germany were T-62, would you mind share them?

To give a good example, I post here an excerpt from a 1984 CIA declassified report:a.thumb.JPG.bfc2182bf2a6e41ae6e69cce4594a0fe.JPG

Please notice that the report is talking about Soviet forces in the whole Central Europe, thus, considering only the GSVG (that is excluding Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland) the ratio should be even higher in favor of the new generation tanks. 

37 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

The only thing we know for sure is that most Soviet tanks in the late 70s wereT-62s and the Soviets planned to replace them by T-64/80s by the early 80s, however due to economic, financial, production issues, the replacement stretched out until the late 80s, so it not hard to figure out that in 1982, most tanks in the GSFG were T-62s.

And how do we know this for sure, now? I posted above evidence that says that  1979 more than half of the Soviet divisions in the GSVG already had the T-64A, and that the schedule was stretched out untile the mid (not the late) '80s and that the original Soviet goal was replace all (not the majority) of the older tanks by 1980 (not the early '80s). 
I confess that, for me, is actually hard to figure that in 1982 most of the GSVG tanks were T-62 since I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion. And, since I bothered to post some of my sources and the reasoning behind, I presume that it's clear why I do think so. Anyway, I might have been too verbose, so I'll try to sum up my conclusion in a more concise way: given that in 1981 15/20 (that is 75%) of the Soviet divisions in Germany were already reequipped with the T-64A, how it is possible that the majority of Soviet tanks were T-62s? Yes, there were also other non-divisional tank units, but we are talking about an Independent Regiment per Army, not enough to redress the balance. 

So, the only way to doubt my conclusion is to doubt the accuracy of the premise, i.e. the accuracy of the evidence I presented. Your choice, of course, but before you dismiss the article as inconsequential, I'd like to point out a few considerations:

- the author V. I. Murakhovskii is not simply a teenager tank enthusiast but is a former Soviet officer, a tanker that served in units and positions that gave him unique insights on the question at hand;

- he's also not a stereotypical "Russia stronk" chauvinist, in his article he's very critical of the Soviet leadership ability to cope with the whole tank industry management issue, thus, even if we assume he had an axe to grind, he had interest in reporting a slower replacement rate, not a faster one;

- last, but not least, incomplete or circumstantial evidence is better than no evidence.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Following this up but there seems to be an error in the manual.  The T64Bs should be showing the BM22.

Interesting. Can you confirm this? 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Just to add, based on your timeline of T64 intro above, it kind of makes sense to have a better round for the T62 when these two types were in the middle of transition.  The rub here is military logistics and procurement.  If the T62 was the main tank in the theatre then stockpiles of its best ammo would be well established whereas the newer tanks ammo would still be in early production, so less availability.  This post suggests exactly that based on intro dates:

 Unless we are assuming perfect symmetry between tanks and their ammunition...which never happens.  Ammo normally lags because the platform creates the main effect of deterrence here (big new tanks rolling down Red Main).  In the West ammo lags are endemic (TOW, the M1 having the 105mm early on, DPICMs) and I do doubt the communist system was any better.

Since you are referring to that thread, did you notice this post, just under the one you quoted? 😉

There's the rub. The sequence of round names and DOIs only shows a part of the story. If one looks at a list of US 105mm APFSDS one might stumble upon the M735A1. Why is it not in the game? As you surely, know, since you are knowledgeable about US ammo, it's simply because it was never fielded! They found more efficient to directly mass produce the M774 and skip this one.

So, you're right in saying that ammo lags behind, exactly because, even if one churns out a new APFSDS every year, one cannot easily replace the whole inventory with the same speed. The fact I'm positive that the 3BM22 was available in very large quantities already in the late '70s is because it was, practically, the only one stockpiled in large quantities (see my previous remarks on the war in Ukraine) during the early-mid- '80s when newer generation APFSDS entered frontline service in Soviet units. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Amedeo, you are of course free to believe what you wish to believe, if you actually had hard verifiable numbers, I am sure you would share them with us.

The article you quoted has been around for some time, there is also an English translation floating about. As the author states at the beginning, there many different opinions and he says what he writes is just his opinion. He also gives no hard numbers on the breakdown of tanks so it is not the definitive answer on the subject.

As to the CIA report, these were estimates based mostly on open sources and the CIA tended to err on exaggerating the threat. We also know that T-72s were not deployed in the GSFG.

edit: here is the English translation of the same article I believe:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2426107/soviet-tanks-gsfg

You will note he says that many units were still equipped with T-62s in 1980 and that the Soviets realized they would not be able to manufacture enough T-64s to equip all units as quickly as they had planned.

Edited by Sgt Joch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Amedeo said:

Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!

According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.

РАЗВЕРТЫВАНИЕ НОВЫХ ТИПОВ ТАНКОВ В ГСВГ/ЗГВ « « Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» (otvaga2004.ru)

Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:

1976 -  2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1977 -  8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20

1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 

It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).

So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.

And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.

The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.

A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist. 🙂

 

 

This is a great post! Tons of good information here, and it is in line with a lot of what I know. 

I think the reality is somewhere in between regarding the T-64 to T-62 ratio. It comes down to the unit in a lot of cases. Tank battalions in motor rifle divisions tended to still be T-62s, but the tank regiments and tank divisions got higher upgrade priority. 

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

Maybe no one really knows. But this is true for almost anything, so the only sensible thing to do is to make educated guesses based on some form or evidence.

And, speaking of evidence, if you have seen estimates as late as 1985 stating that half of the Soviet tanks in Germany were T-62, would you mind share them?

To give a good example, I post here an excerpt from a 1984 CIA declassified report:a.thumb.JPG.bfc2182bf2a6e41ae6e69cce4594a0fe.JPG

Please notice that the report is talking about Soviet forces in the whole Central Europe, thus, considering only the GSVG (that is excluding Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland) the ratio should be even higher in favor of the new generation tanks. 

And how do we know this for sure, now? I posted above evidence that says that  1979 more than half of the Soviet divisions in the GSVG already had the T-64A, and that the schedule was stretched out untile the mid (not the late) '80s and that the original Soviet goal was replace all (not the majority) of the older tanks by 1980 (not the early '80s). 
I confess that, for me, is actually hard to figure that in 1982 most of the GSVG tanks were T-62 since I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion. And, since I bothered to post some of my sources and the reasoning behind, I presume that it's clear why I do think so. Anyway, I might have been too verbose, so I'll try to sum up my conclusion in a more concise way: given that in 1981 15/20 (that is 75%) of the Soviet divisions in Germany were already reequipped with the T-64A, how it is possible that the majority of Soviet tanks were T-62s? Yes, there were also other non-divisional tank units, but we are talking about an Independent Regiment per Army, not enough to redress the balance. 

So, the only way to doubt my conclusion is to doubt the accuracy of the premise, i.e. the accuracy of the evidence I presented. Your choice, of course, but before you dismiss the article as inconsequential, I'd like to point out a few considerations:

- the author V. I. Murakhovskii is not simply a teenager tank enthusiast but is a former Soviet officer, a tanker that served in units and positions that gave him unique insights on the question at hand;

- he's also not a stereotypical "Russia stronk" chauvinist, in his article he's very critical of the Soviet leadership ability to cope with the whole tank industry management issue, thus, even if we assume he had an axe to grind, he had interest in reporting a slower replacement rate, not a faster one;

- last, but not least, incomplete or circumstantial evidence is better than no evidence.

Interesting. Can you confirm this? 

Since you are referring to that thread, did you notice this post, just under the one you quoted? 😉

There's the rub. The sequence of round names and DOIs only shows a part of the story. If one looks at a list of US 105mm APFSDS one might stumble upon the M735A1. Why is it not in the game? As you surely, know, since you are knowledgeable about US ammo, it's simply because it was never fielded! They found more efficient to directly mass produce the M774 and skip this one.

So, you're right in saying that ammo lags behind, exactly because, even if one churns out a new APFSDS every year, one cannot easily replace the whole inventory with the same speed. The fact I'm positive that the 3BM22 was available in very large quantities already in the late '70s is because it was, practically, the only one stockpiled in large quantities (see my previous remarks on the war in Ukraine) during the early-mid- '80s when newer generation APFSDS entered frontline service in Soviet units. 

Again, good post. And again I am mostly in agreement with you. GSFG was prioritized for all the new equipment for obvious reasons.

Ammo is a bit harder as Warren talked about. That said I can confirm that the T-64B is using BM22, as is the T-80B. I'll check to see what the T-64A is using but I also agree that it should be at least BM15 given the timeline and the role the T-64A was to play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

The fact I'm positive that the 3BM22 was available in very large quantities already in the late '70s is because it was, practically, the only one stockpiled in large quantities (see my previous remarks on the war in Ukraine) during the early-mid- '80s when newer generation APFSDS entered frontline service in Soviet units. 

I read the same report, ok so we know stockpiles of BM22 were built up, but the question remains "when?".  Your T64 transition timeline does not really say to me "massive mountains of BM22 ammunition" by 1979 when those tanks were about 60% of in theatre tanks (and which tanks are we talking about A or B?).  Particularly when we both agree that ammunition production lags fleet introduction.

16 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

The fact I'm positive that the 3BM22 was available in very large quantities already in the late '70s is because it was, practically, the only one stockpiled in large quantities (see my previous remarks on the war in Ukraine) during the early-mid- '80s when newer generation APFSDS entered frontline service in Soviet units. 

This logic is losing me.  So we had a war in 2014-15 that saw use of old stockpiles of BM22 (makes sense that the new stuff runs out first).   New APFSDS rounds (the ones that ran out) started coming online in the mid-80s...ok, got it.  Then we leap to, "ergo there must have been large stockpiles of BM 22 in the late 70s".

So here is another story:

So I do not know if you have ever worked in strategic military procurement but it really does not work how people think.  Stockpiling takes time due to 1) massive bureaucracy and 2) starting up industrial production runs (remember this was all in "peacetime") and a;; of this occurs with the normal human screwups and corruption.  So when I do a quick search of introduction dates:

 http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

And I see the BM12 and 15 as introduced in the late 60s early 70s, in my experience (which is western based, so there is that) I would think massive stockpiles of that ammo by the late 70s (especially the BM15) due to aforementioned production realities. 

Then I see a DOI for the BM22 in 1976, which is basically when the project would have been green lit for implementation.  Unless the Soviet Union was in an actual war in 1976 (which in our game they are not), then normal stockpiling lag would occur and I would not expect to see large stockpiles until 1980-81 at the earliest, likely a bit later.

This matches the timeline your timeline above.  In 1976, the Soviet began to replace the T62 with the T64 (which had been around since the late 60s, "Prototypes were tested in 1966 and 1967 and, as production began after the six hundredth T-64, it entered service in the Soviet Army under the designation T-64A. Chief engineer Morozov was awarded the Lenin Prize for this model's success." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64))  Prior to this the numbers would have been modest in our theatre and industry would be set up for those numbers, probably relying heavily on existing stockpiles of BM15s.

In 1976, someone lit a fire under the T64s ass, right about the same time the T64B entered service ("On 3 September 1976, the T-64B and the T-64B1 were declared good for the service" (same wiki article)).  So what, well that is also the time the new BM22 round entered service, so clearly there is a link there (that and the T64A was a bit of a lemon).  So now the Soviets are ramping up T64B production along with BM22 ammo, all point to mountains of steel in 1980-81, at the earliest.

So what?  Well then in-game, where we have to live with engine restraints we went with the older round for the T64A, which kind of matches its place in the timeline.  The T64Bs and T80s get the BM22, which kind of makes sense with their timeline (lets leave out the T72s, which insiders say wasn't even in the GSVG). 

The T62, which was at the end of its life also had a its best round introduced in 1975 (Ah but Capt, do not the same rules apply?!).  No not really, as there would have already been a very large industrial base tooled for making 115mm rounds and the communists really like to keep everyone as busy as possible.  But it is very plausible that T62s would have used older rounds in context of our game, but we erred on favor of that good old beast and gave it a break (and it does really well with it).

So what?  Well in a perfect game we would be able to customize ammo loadouts as the player pleases and tailor the rounds to whatever they please...but CMx2 is not set up for that.  So instead we went with a middle ground that makes sense.  Now if you can come forward with some solid evidence of massive stockpiles of BM22 in 1979 and no stockpiles of BM12/15s, I think we could revisit (or at least try to).  

Finally, lets not forget the other side of the equation, what the US was fielding.  If you look here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data (and I do trust these guys as they are as nerdy as we are).  Every 125mm round (and I am pretty sure on the 115mm as well and hell the T55 had a solid chance) could kill the M60A3 from the front.  Then those damned Yankees started making noise about a tank they are making that uses all that technology from the Roswell crash.  And in 1976 all three guns types all start fielding ammo that tries to jump to over 400mm penetration, just when the M1 is becoming more than rumor (that and that pesky Brit new composite armor).  So now the scramble makes even more sense, which might be a shot in your favor but I still remain skeptical.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

Well Amedeo, you are of course free to believe what you wish to believe, if you actually had hard verifiable numbers, I am sure you would share them with us.

I'm also sure that if you actually had hard verifiable numbers to substantiate your claim (you were the first to claim something about Soviet tank numbers in Germany in this thread) you would share them with us.

Maybe the evidence I posted is only circumstantial, but, anyway, it is something. And, as I said, something is better than nothing, in my humble opinion.

38 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

The article you quoted has been around for some time, there is also an English translation floating about. As the author states at the beginning, there many different opinions and he says what he writes is just his opinion. He also gives no hard numbers on the breakdown of tanks so it is not the definitive answer on the subject.

As to the CIA report, these were estimates based mostly on open sources and the CIA tended to err on exaggerating the threat. We also know that T-72s were not deployed in the GSFG.

Yes opinions. But not all opinions are created equal, as is widely known since Aristotle's times. You may say that every fool can write something on the internet, and that is, indeed, true. But not every fool can be a former Soviet tanker or CIA analyst. So, in absence of hard data, as said earlier, the only sensible thing to do is to make educated guesses based on some form or evidence. If you think I could get better evidence, please share it with me. Otherwise, I hope you will pardon me if I won't take your personal opinion - that I respect, and no, I'm not being sarcastic - over the opinion of a former GSVG officer.

38 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

edit: here is the English translation of the same article I believe:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2426107/soviet-tanks-gsfg

You will note he says that many units were still equipped with T-62s in 1980 and that the Soviets realized they would not be able to manufacture enough T-64s to equip all units as quickly as they had planned.

Not only I noticed that, I also wrote the same thing. "Many" is not "most" and, of course, the Soviets didn't equip all the units as quickly as they planned, but the delayed timeline that the article speaks of is the one I posted (complete by the mid '80) and not the one you were referring to (end of the '80s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I read the same report, ok so we know stockpiles of BM22 were built up, but the question remains "when?".  Your T64 transition timeline does not really say to me "massive mountains of BM22 ammunition" by 1979 when those tanks were about 60% of in theatre tanks (and which tanks are we talking about A or B?).  Particularly when we both agree that ammunition production lags fleet introduction.

This logic is losing me.  So we had a war in 2014-15 that saw use of old stockpiles of BM22 (makes sense that the new stuff runs out first).   New APFSDS rounds (the ones that ran out) started coming online in the mid-80s...ok, got it.  Then we leap to, "ergo there must have been large stockpiles of BM 22 in the late 70s".

Maybe I wasn't linear in explaining my reasoning, I'll try to be clearer here.

0) DOI for the various 125mm APFSDS rounds we're talking about are: 

1976 3BM22

1982 3BM26

1983 3BM29

1985 3BM32

1986 3BM42

1) Ukrainian military and Russian separatists expend their stockpiles of 3BM32 and 3BM42 then get older 3BM22 from stocks.

2) Notice that after depleting their 3BM32 and 3BM42 stocks they don't go after 3BM29 or 3BM26 stocks, but after 3BM22.

My conclusion is that they had large stockpiles of 3BM22 rounds and scarce or non extant stockpiles of 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds. Why? Because if they had plenty of the better rounds, they would have used them!

So there's a large stockpile of 3BM22 rounds. But when was this stockpile produced? If I understand you correctly your question is: what makes you believe that it was there in the late '70s early '80s?

Well, of course the 3BM22 stockpile couldn't have been produced 1982 or later because they would have made 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds instead! So it should have been manufactured in the 1976-1981 timeframe and, since we already concluded it was produced in significantly larger quantities than other rounds, a plausible conclusion is that they produced them at full rate during the whole six year interval.

46 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So I do not know if you have ever worked in strategic military procurement but it really does not work how people think.  Stockpiling takes time due to 1) massive bureaucracy and 2) starting up industrial production runs (remember this was all in "peacetime") and a;; of this occurs with the normal human screwups and corruption.  So when I do a quick search of introduction dates:

 http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

And I see the BM12 and 15 as introduced in the late 60s early 70s, in my experience (which is western based, so there is that) I would think massive stockpiles of that ammo by the late 70s (especially the BM15) due to aforementioned production realities. 

Then I see a DOI for the BM22 in 1976, which is basically when the project would have been green lit for implementation.  Unless the Soviet Union was in an actual war in 1976 (which in our game they are not), then normal stockpiling lag would occur and I would not expect to see large stockpiles until 1980-81 at the earliest, likely a bit later.

This matches the timeline your timeline above.  In 1976, the Soviet began to replace the T62 with the T64 (which had been around since the late 60s, "Prototypes were tested in 1966 and 1967 and, as production began after the six hundredth T-64, it entered service in the Soviet Army under the designation T-64A. Chief engineer Morozov was awarded the Lenin Prize for this model's success." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64))  Prior to this the numbers would have been modest in our theatre and industry would be set up for those numbers, probably relying heavily on existing stockpiles of BM15s.

In 1976, someone lit a fire under the T64s ass, right about the same time the T64B entered service ("On 3 September 1976, the T-64B and the T-64B1 were declared good for the service" (same wiki article)).  So what, well that is also the time the new BM22 round entered service, so clearly there is a link there (that and the T64A was a bit of a lemon).  So now the Soviets are ramping up T64B production along with BM22 ammo, all point to mountains of steel in 1980-81, at the earliest.

So what?  Well then in-game, where we have to live with engine restraints we went with the older round for the T64A, which kind of matches its place in the timeline.  The T64Bs and T80s get the BM22, which kind of makes sense with their timeline (lets leave out the T72s, which insiders say wasn't even in the GSVG). 

The T62, which was at the end of its life also had a its best round introduced in 1975 (Ah but Capt, do not the same rules apply?!).  No not really, as there would have already been a very large industrial base tooled for making 115mm rounds and the communists really like to keep everyone as busy as possible.  But it is very plausible that T62s would have used older rounds in context of our game, but we erred on favor of that good old beast and gave it a break (and it does really well with it).

So what?  Well in a perfect game we would be able to customize ammo loadouts as the player pleases and tailor the rounds to whatever they please...but CMx2 is not set up for that.  So instead we went with a middle ground that makes sense.  Now if you can come forward with some solid evidence of massive stockpiles of BM22 in 1979 and no stockpiles of BM12/15s, I think we could revisit (or at least try to).  

Well, if the website you yourself just provided is to be considered a reliable source (I do think it is and, I presume, you too) I'd like to point you to the following excerpt:

" This was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s, and though no longer produced is still massively stockpiled and cleared for use." (emphasis mine). I presume this statement supports my point, don't you think? 😉

But there's more, see below...

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Finally, lets not forget the other side of the equation, what the US was fielding.  If you look here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data (and I do trust these guys as they are as nerdy as we are).  Every 125mm round (and I am pretty sure on the 115mm as well and hell the T55 had a solid chance) could kill the M60A3 from the front.  Then those damned Yankees started making noise about a tank they are making that uses all that technology from the Roswell crash.  And in 1976 all three guns types all start fielding ammo that tries to jump to over 400mm penetration, just when the M1 is becoming more than rumor (that and that pesky Brit new composite armor).  So now the scramble makes even more sense, which might be a shot in your favor but I still remain skeptical.  

Since you said that you trust these nerdy guys (I do too), I point you to another excerpt from the very wepbage you posted:

"This round [the 3BM15] was in use by the Soviet Army until 1976, and then it was exclusively for export and also license-produced by some nations." (emphasis mine)

So, according to the websites you mentioned, not only the 3BM22 was widely used in the 1979-1982 timeframe, but it was practically the only one fielded!

I rest my case.🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

Well, of course the 3BM22 stockpile couldn't have been produced 1982 or later because they would have made 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds instead! So it should have been manufactured in the 1976-1981 timeframe and, since we already concluded it was produced in significantly larger quantities than other rounds, a plausible conclusion is that they produced them at full rate during the whole six year interval

Well military manufacturing really doesn't work that way.  Re-tooling to a new round would come with same startup costs etc.  These things are not binary (Fri we made BM22s and on Mon now we make BM 29s), nor was how industrial contract were distributed.  This also assumes a linear production model, when it was more likely a curve upward with a slow start and then most production done in the early 80s.

8 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

This was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s, and though no longer produced is still massively stockpiled and cleared for use." (emphasis mine). I presume this statement supports my point, don't you think?

It does and not the first time I have heard it, nor do I think BM22s were absent in the late 70s (obviously), so what?  I agree with the intro dates but am still not entirely sold on that statement....I can't do both?  The question here is BM22s to T64As, which based on introduction of both items most likely saw a transition period over the period of our game.  Of course if this is going to devolve into some sort of Reddit games, from the article you posted (English translation):

"For example, in 1977 it was possible to equip  six tank and motorized rifle divisions with  T-64A tanks" [note, not the 8 you claim later in your post]

"But when the "sixty-fours" were pulled out of the inner districts, it turned out that the Kharkov plant (KhZTM), the only manufacturer of the  T-64 , was not able to provide the required rate of equipping the GSVG with new tanks. During 1978,  T-64A tanks  received only 25 Guards. Panzer (Vogelsang) and 21 motorized rifle (Perleberg) divisions." [And there would be the delays I was talking about]

"In 1980, two more units were equipped with new machines. But there were still many formations on the  T-62 , for example, the 7th Guards. etc., separate tank regiments of army subordination.  By the end of 1980, it became finally clear to the military-political leadership of the USSR that the industry was not able to provide the required rate of renewal of tanks in the GSVG."  [It got worse]

 So by your articles admission T64 introduction into the GSVG was slow and delayed but somehow the mountains of BM22 ammunition arrived entirely on target on time? This does not point to "massive stockpiles" of BM22s in 1979, now does it?  It points to normal communist inefficiencies and general FUBARness which leads to there being a lot more T62s in the game and T64As having to live with older ammo.

12 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

"This round [the 3BM15] was in use by the Soviet Army until 1976, and then it was exclusively for export and also license-produced by some nations." (emphasis mine)

  Again, not digital (emphasis mine).  So the Soviets had stockpiles of BM15s, in depots in Western Germany and on Jan 1st 1976, while cleaning up after New Years, they packed them all up and shipped them all out of country.  "Oh, look those (much fewer) T64s have shown up but again the factories have not kept up with BM22 production (which they just started this year), oh well I guess we will roll out empty."

  Tell you what, because as fun as this is it is a bit of a time suck.  You go out and find some hard data on BM15 vs BM22 stockpiles in the GSVG between 1977-1982, if you can find something that says "zero BM15s and 10 million BM22s", I will buy you a virtual beer.  While you are doing that, I will go back to central and try to get a T64A (1980) version that had the BM22 loaded on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just some quick things I gleaned from a quick look on the internet.

-jan. 1980 report to Congress by Sec Def: estimate that 75% of Soviet tanks in CFSG are T62s;

-CIA estimate that by 1983 50% of Soviet tanks in Western military district would be “modern” T64/72/80 which would mean 50% were still older T55/62s;

-OOB from 1989 showing 23% of all Soviet tanks were still T62s.

it is not too hard to crunch numbers and see T62s were not phased out as quickly as the Soviets wanted.

Edited by Sgt Joch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well military manufacturing really doesn't work that way.  Re-tooling to a new round would come with same startup costs etc.  These things are not binary (Fri we made BM22s and on Mon now we make BM 29s), nor was how industrial contract were distributed.  This also assumes a linear production model, when it was more likely a curve upward with a slow start and then most production done in the early 80s.

Of course the model is not linear, but the longer the timeframe, the sooner you reach the plateau the sooner a linear model might be a decent approximation. Anyway, I ask you to see it from another perspective. Would you consider acceptable that in an hypothetical module set at the end of the Cold War, say in 1989, the best first line tanks in GSVG get the best (i.e. 3BM32 and 3BM42) rounds? If yes, this means that you're assuming that's reasonable, in a 3-4 years period, to manufacture enough ammo to achieve this goal. Well, it's basically the same thing I'm claiming: in a 3-4 year period (from 1976 to 1979-80 it is possible to manufacture enough ammo to equip their first tier tanks, that mainly the T-64A, since T-64Bs and T-80s were present only in small quantities.

56 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It does and not the first time I have heard it, nor do I think BM22s were absent in the late 70s (obviously), so what?  I agree with the intro dates but am still not entirely sold on that statement....I can't do both?  The question here is BM22s to T64As, which based on introduction of both items most likely saw a transition period over the period of our game.  Of course if this is going to devolve into some sort of Reddit games, from the article you posted (English translation):

"For example, in 1977 it was possible to equip  six tank and motorized rifle divisions with  T-64A tanks" [note, not the 8 you claim later in your post]

The 8 I claimed in my post is, obviously, the running total, not the increment. And there's no ambiguity in what I wrote since I stated 8 out of 20, so 8 can only be a total, not the increment. The increment is six. Six, plus the two divisions reequipped in 1976, gives a total of eight divisions by 1977.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

"But when the "sixty-fours" were pulled out of the inner districts, it turned out that the Kharkov plant (KhZTM), the only manufacturer of the  T-64 , was not able to provide the required rate of equipping the GSVG with new tanks. During 1978,  T-64A tanks  received only 25 Guards. Panzer (Vogelsang) and 21 motorized rifle (Perleberg) divisions." [And there would be the delays I was talking about]

"In 1980, two more units were equipped with new machines. But there were still many formations on the  T-62 , for example, the 7th Guards. etc., separate tank regiments of army subordination.  By the end of 1980, it became finally clear to the military-political leadership of the USSR that the industry was not able to provide the required rate of renewal of tanks in the GSVG."  [It got worse]

 So by your articles admission T64 introduction into the GSVG was slow and delayed but somehow the mountains of BM22 ammunition arrived entirely on target on time? This does not point to "massive stockpiles" of BM22s in 1979, now does it?  It points to normal communist inefficiencies and general FUBARness which leads to there being a lot more T62s in the game and T64As having to live with older ammo.

Do you realize that the slower the introduction of the T-64A in the GSVG the easier to equip them all with the latest ammo? Moreover the delays the article talks about are relative to the production rate of the tank (only one plant and the T-64 was a notoriously complicated machine). The bottleneck was the tank production, not the ammo production. And this would also explain the large stockpile of 125mm ammo, owing to the rigid planning economy of the USSR - and that there was a five-years-plan exactly in the 1976-1980 period, hint! hint! - if they planned for tanks, they accordingly planned for enough ammo to equip them, then the tank production faltered but the command economy wasn't able to downscale the ammo production, or simply didn't care.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

  Again, not digital (emphasis mine).  So the Soviets had stockpiles of BM15s, in depots in Western Germany and on Jan 1st 1976, while cleaning up after New Years, they packed them all up and shipped them all out of country.  "Oh, look those (much fewer) T64s have shown up but again the factories have not kept up with BM22 production (which they just started this year), oh well I guess we will roll out empty."

Of course I don't believe that the 3BM15 stockpiles magically vanished from Soviet barracks overnight. I pointed you to that sentence to suggest that if competent and knowledgeable people take the risk of such a sweeping statement, maybe the truth is nearer to an "abundant 3BM22 scenario" than to a "what the heck is a 3BM22?" one. 🙂

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Tell you what, because as fun as this is it is a bit of a time suck.  You go out and find some hard data on BM15 vs BM22 stockpiles in the GSVG between 1977-1982, if you can find something that says "zero BM15s and 10 million BM22s", I will buy you a virtual beer.  

Well, you should ask it to the Steel Beast guys. It's they that made the claim! 😄

Jokes apart, I'm buying you a virtual beer to thank you for the insightful conversation and the wonderful AAR you wrote. 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

While you are doing that, I will go back to central and try to get a T64A (1980) version that had the BM22 loaded on it.

That was, basically, one of the things I asked you guys to consider. I'm glad that you deemed it a viable option. Thank you.

And, to prove that I'm not Soviet-biased, I'm already vieing to add an M1 (1984) with the M833 for when the 1983-1986 expansion module will come out! 🤣

1 hour ago, Sgt Joch said:

Agreed. 

just some quick things I gleaned from a quick look on the internet.

-jan. 1980 report to Congress by Sec Def: estimate that 75% of Soviet tanks in CFSG are T62s;

CFSG? Czechoslovakia?

1 hour ago, Sgt Joch said:

-CIA estimate that by 1983 50% of Soviet tanks in Western military district would be “modern” T64/72/80 which would mean 50% were still older T55/62s;

-OOB from 1989 showing 23% of all Soviet tanks were still T62s.

it is not too hard to crunch numbers and see T62s were not phased out as quickly as the Soviets wanted.

But I never questioned this, our difference was about the speed at which this happened. Anyway, since the point is now almost moot, I take this opportunity to thank you also for the exchange. I may sound confrontational, at times, but rest assured that it was never my intention.

28 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Emphasis added 😁

😁

Thank you, Miller! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

On the ammo loadout, your argument would have more weight IF it had a practical impact on the game. As it is the T64 has no problem killing any US tank from any aspect.

You should tell this to the Abrams that wiped the floor with my a** in the last game I had! 😄 Although it might be due to the fact that the engagement was in the 1500-2000m range.

And, since we're at it, I take the opportunity to recount an anecdote by col. Murakhovskii (he, again) that, remembering a secret trial of a prototype Soviet thermal imager sometime in the '80s, recalled that a conscript tanker, during a pause, asked him whether the Americans were working on anything similar. The colonel vividly described the expression of sheer terror the tanker had when he told him that thermal imagers were standard on all the more recent US tanks and IFVs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

I'm claiming: in a 3-4 year period (from 1976 to 1979-80 it is possible to manufacture enough ammo to equip their first tier tanks, that mainly the T-64A, since T-64Bs and T-80s were present only in small quantities.

Ok, I actually have no problem with that, to be honest.  I would say 80-81 is more than reasonable amount of time for the BM22 to become "the 125mm round".

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

Do you realize that the slower the introduction of the T-64A in the GSVG the easier to equip them all with the latest ammo?

Well that is one way to look at it.  The other is that it supports my point (along with a 32 year career in defence) that large military procurement always take a long time to ramp up, therefore seeing T64As with older rounds in 79-80 is not remotely wildly out of whack based on introduction rates and observed friction in delivery of the tank itself.  In fact the smaller fleets of T64Bs and T80s would have probably gotten first choice, which was the way we went in modeling.

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

Jokes apart, I'm buying you a virtual beer to thank you for the insightful conversation and the wonderful AAR you wrote.

Ok, I am a total sucker for flattery...and this part is unfair.

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

That was, basically, one of the things I asked you guys to consider. I'm glad that you deemed it a viable option. Thank you.

And, to prove that I'm not Soviet-biased, I'm already vieing to add an M1 (1984) with the M833 for when the 1983-1986 expansion module will come out!

You know, like most of these things the distance between positions is not really that far when you really break it down.  I really like the idea of a T64(1980 or 81) option with the BM22 as in reality both ammo types were likely available and loaded with mixed types (like those magic APCR rounds in the 6 pounders in Normandy).  It would truly set up the T64A to be a transition tank, which was a theme we were really shooting for.  We will see, only so many hours in the day and all that.

As to the M833...most definitely it should be in, right alongside the TOW 2 and Apaches. 

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...