Duel of T-64As vs M60A1 RISE+ Tank Companies, The Grieshof Meet and Greet

[Probus]

In a tank fight of T-64As vs M60A1 RISE+ at a range of ~750-1000m, I have scored at least 15 frontal arc hits on 8 T-64As with my Patton M60A1 RISE+ tanks and Dragon teams. The result, as far as I can tell, is 1 immobilized T-64A.  Granted, the T-64s may have suffered damage, but not one of them has been destroyed.  Luckily for me, his T-64As can't hit the broad side of a barn.  I believe I've lost only one M60A1 RISE+, but that was to an ATGM.

I was able to take one out with a direct hit from a 105mm Arty to the top of the engine compartment, but that's pretty much it.

Is Cold War broken or is this result to be expected?  I'm playing "The Grieshof Meet and Greet" scenario on Veteran.

[domfluff]

Result is exactly as expected, welcome to the Cold War.

The T-62 should trade fairly evenly with M60 (and Leopard 1, and Chieftain, when those are things), but the T-64 represents a major uptick in armour, particularly on the front turret. Since the tank is so low, a large percentage of incoming fire will hit the front turret.

This is partly why the M60A2 Starship was obsolete for this period - when that was designed, there was debate as to whether kinetic penetrators or HEAT rounds (with the latter being best delivered by ATGM) would be the main tank armament of the future, but the introduction of everything T-64 or higher made that obsolete.

[Probus]

Wow! That's good to know. Thanks!

I thought the 105mm APFSDS rounds could penetrate 400mm+ of armor. I wonder why I got that impression. I guess I'm gonna have to think of some new tactics then.

[domfluff]

To put some hard numbers on that:

(Numbers from Wikipedia)

T-62 Turret 

214mm turret front, 242mm after 1972.

T-64 Turret

370mm-440mm vs APFSDS
500mm-575mm vs HEAT


The RHA penetration of the APDS rounds for the M60A1 (M728) are about 300mm, if I recall correctly, and obviously the spaced armour makes HEAT rounds worse.

[Artkin]

I definitely know the least about hardware made between 1946 and 1990. I would have figured the 105 performing better. 

What were general penetration values for HEAT around this time? 

[domfluff]

That's also why TOWs (and off-map assets) are so fundamental to the US side - their tanks can't cope 1:1. and Dragons have a tiny warhead. Both armour and the Dragons are vital supporting tools, but they're not the centre of mass of a given US formation.

[domfluff]

TOWs are huge missiles, very capable from CW to the present day. Wikipedia has estimates of 430mm-900mm.

Compare that to the MGM-51 Shillelagh (on M60A2 and Sheridan), which is supposed to go through 390mm of RHA. Dragon should cope with 330mm.

Obviously penetration stats like those are both estimates, and assume an impact at zero degress, real conditions will vary, and generally to the armour's benefit.

Edited July 31, 2021 by domfluff

[Probus]

How can you tell if an M150 needs it's crew exposed for optimal firing?  I'm pretty sure an M901 doesn't, and a TOW Jeep doesn't really have a choice. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Probus

[MikeyD]

M60A1 (RISE+) is firing the tungsten dart M735 round. This was a very problematic first generation APFSDS round. M735 was meant to be the backbone of NATO defense but they were horrified to discover just how poorly it did against Soviet armor. M735 had the nasty habit of occasionally breaking up in the barrel, or the sabot petals not separating cleanly, pulling the round off course. There was also the issue with it bouncing off highly angled armor. There was a reason why NATO quickly transitioned to 120mm.

[Probus]

Well BFC has got it modelled pretty good then!

[domfluff]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

How can you tell if an M150 needs it's crew exposed for optimal firing?  I'm pretty sure an M901 doesn't, and a TOW Jeep doesn't really have a choice. 

The M150 is a TOW launcher stuck on top of an M113. The crew need to open up to fire, since the launcher is on the roof.

The gunner will open up themselves to fire, but you're usually better off using the open up command in this case, since they'll spot faster.

[liamb]

I just finished this scenario. It was great fun and early on, when my TOWs, Dragons and M60s were having no effect on the T-64s I thought I was in all sorts of trouble. 

But I managed to ambush the main BMP force once they had crossed the river and then manoeuvred an open flank to avoid the overwatching T-64 that still took out an M-60 in the last 5 minutes. 
 

I swear I hit a couple of those T-64s with at least 1 TOW, 2 Dragons and a number of M60 rounds and they were still shooting back and taking out my M60s with their first shot. 
 

Tactical victory

[Gary R Lukas]

I Had a similar experience with the T-64's but I was using TOW Missiles. At 3,000 yards I Had 6 hits on their frontal armor, which all 6 missiles HIT, but only one TOW Missile destroyed one single T-64. After further inspection of the T-64's, none of the six hits were ricochets, so that meant that five missiles had solid hits on the front of the turrets, but the molten jets of the warheads failed to burn thru the front turret armor. I was kind of stunned because the TOW weapon system was my MOS 0352, from 1982-1989. I'm just glad that I never went up against them in battle. Now the improved TOW 2 missiles would have worked but we didn't receive them until late 1985-early 1986. Those T-64's are really bad ass, need to hit them in the flanks and rear and that's not easy

[liamb]

4 hours ago, Gary R Lukas said:

Those T-64's are really bad ass, need to hit them in the flanks and rear and that's not easy

Especially if they camp in a great overwatch position and don’t move again. 

[Probus]

Yes, I have stopped the attackers from crossing the river.  We've both taken up overwatch positions in the tree lines.  I've rushed in and taken the towns in the center early in the game, but dunno if I can hold it.  I haven't really employed my TOW missiles yet, but it sounds like they may not be as effective as we first thought?

[dbsapp]

It seems like its not us\soviet equipment problem. It's more like a general issue with player\ai visibility. Contrary to the rest of CM totlies I absolutely puzzled how it works in Cold War, it reminds some kind of twisted lottery. 

[Chudacabra]

T-64's are not invulnerable, even if their turret is very tough to crack. I'm playing a PBEM right now and the M60 will definitely rattle and severely degrade a T-64.

[MikeyD]

M60 series *may* have better optics than a T-64 but M60 is as tall as a church cathedral which negates the advantage. I've got a rusting gate guardian M60A3 not a mile away from my home and the thing is a monster, as stealthy as going to war in a  city bus. that's why spotting issues can get puzzling sometimes. T64 is downright petite in comparison. So does better optics allow for better spotting or does a more easily spotted target allow for better spotting?

[Probus]

On 8/1/2021 at 7:42 AM, dbsapp said:

Contrary to the rest of CM totlies

@dbsapp Is "totlies" a typo or just a word I'm not familiar with?

@MikeyD One thing that threw me in the CMCW manual was the mention of the B variant instead of the T-64A. See below:

"M735 Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) round. With up to 410 mm RHAe of armor penetration, the M735 was a major improvement over the earlier M728, but the round was still underpowered against the frontal armor of advanced Soviet tanks such as the T-64B, T-72A, and T-80B, sometimes significantly so."

For some reason I thought that meant the B variant was an up-armored version of the A. But that's not right. It has better fire control. 

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

@dbsapp Is "totlies" a typo or just a word I'm not familiar with?

@MikeyD One thing that threw me in the CMCW manual was the mention of the B For some reason I thought that meant the B variant was an up-armored version of the A. But that's not right. It has better fire control. 

T64B included "redesigned" armor. Stated on Wikipedia.

Steel Panthers is the best encyclopedia I ever purchased..

Edited August 2, 2021 by Artkin

[Gary R Lukas]

I have used my TOW's against T-62 and T-72, and my findings had very impressive results. As long as the Missile doesn't get a glancing blow, it's pretty much a KILL on the Soviet tanks. I noticed if the target doesn't brew up, there are usually 1-3 casualties, most in the turret. Its really difficult to get a good impact on the front hull armor, unless you are elevated  40-50 feet or better. The T-80 is still harder to knock out with the TOW, then the T-64 is. then I would say the T-72, then T-64, then T-62 and then T-54/55 in that order.

[dbsapp]

5 hours ago, Probus said:

@dbsapp Is "totlies" a typo or just a word I'm not familiar with?

@MikeyD One thing that threw me in the CMCW manual was the mention of the B variant instead of the T-64A. See below:

"M735 Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) round. With up to 410 mm RHAe of armor penetration, the M735 was a major improvement over the earlier M728, but the round was still underpowered against the frontal armor of advanced Soviet tanks such as the T-64B, T-72A, and T-80B, sometimes significantly so."

For some reason I thought that meant the B variant was an up-armored version of the A. But that's not right. It has better fire control. 

Oh, you're trying to develop a sense of humor through evolution and thousands of hours on the forum. In several years you will be able to read typos. 

[Codreanu]

3 hours ago, Artkin said:

T64B included "redesigned" armor. Stated on Wikipedia.

Steel Panthers is the best encyclopedia I ever purchased..

Zaloga's book on T-64s gives the same armor value for T-64A and T-64B, but also mentions the redesigned armor. From what I get out of it is that the T-64A's were eventually retrofitted with armor equaling the T-64B. If true maybe it would be worth implementing a T-64A Early and a T-64A Late, although I have no idea when the retrofitting process was completed. Later T-64B's also had an extra steel plate added specifically to counter Israeli M111 APFSDS but that's after the time frame of CM:CW.

[Artkin]

4 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Zaloga's book on T-64s gives the same armor value for T-64A and T-64B, but also mentions the redesigned armor. From what I get out of it is that the T-64A's were eventually retrofitted with armor equaling the T-64B. If true maybe it would be worth implementing a T-64A Early and a T-64A Late, although I have no idea when the retrofitting process was completed. Later T-64B's also had an extra steel plate added specifically to counter Israeli M111 APFSDS but that's after the time frame of CM:CW.

super informative thank you!

I should pick up his books

[Probus]

37 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Oh, you're trying to develop a sense of humor through evolution and thousands of hours on the forum. In several years you will be able to read typos. 

Sorry buddy. I'm brain dead right now. It was a legit (and probably really, really stupid) question.  I guess I'll puzzle over it some more until my brain decides to kick back in gear. 

If I have to depend on natural selection by forum to develop a sense of humor, that boat has already sailed.