Official US Army training film on countering the T-62

[chuckdyke]

Is he talking about the same? Suvorov is considered one of the greatest military commanders in Russian history and one of the great generals of the early modern period. He was awarded numerous medals, titles, and honors by Russia, as well as by other countries. Suvorov secured Russia's expanded borders and renewed military prestige and left a legacy of theories on warfare. Ref: Wikipedia which is not always reliable. 

Edited October 1, 2021 by chuckdyke

[chuckdyke]

Sorry did some web surfing and it becomes a lot clearer. Viktor Suvorov (Never heard about the man) saw the likes of Skorzeny probably, who made some good income in the west by selling his expertise after the war to the highest bidder. Not a bad idea watched it on Netflix it included Mossad of all organizations. The Viktor Suvorov I just read about will not lose any sleep about this discussion about him. 

[John Kettler]

10 hours ago, Rice said:

I have been on this forum for a while now and one thing that has been crossing my mind a lot after reading more and more of John Kettlers posts is how many times he has claimed to be a Soviet Threat Analysist, yet he has never backed up the claim with any credentials. I would normally not randomly ask someone for their credentials but,  there has been many times where Kettler has said something, or claimed something, then falls back on his claimed experience as evidence when presented with sources that contradict him instead of providing sources himself. This is obviously potentially very harmful to the collective integrity of Combat Mission itself, considering the amount of input this forum has. So @John Kettlerplease provide credentials as to your experience please.

Thought I'd covered my credentials many times before, over a period of 21 years, but shall do so again.

Joined Hughes Aircraft Company, Missile Systems Group (now part of Raytheon) on Valentine's Day 1978 and worked there through September 12, 1984. My job was Soviet Threat Analyst, but my official HR slot was Mathematical Analyst. When I got my degree, I got the even more giggle inducing slot of Statistical Analyst. Was the only full time Threat guy in Operations Analysis. Worked threat for Phoenix, AMRAAM, Maverick,TOW, ASSAULT BREAKER, WASP, Anti-SUAWACS Missile, Roland, etc. Anything and everything Soviet and Warsaw Pact weapon and capabilities, current or projected, fell under my ambit, be they hand grenades or ASATs. Worked hand in hand with our weaponeer, a physicist, and an electronics engineer who had a CIA sponsor (whom I met personally at Langley) and functioned as a back door on up to date threat info. The latter individual and I put the highly accomplished program manager for that missile into a state of white as copier paper shock when we showed him conclusively his missile would NOT be able to home in on the SUAWACS radar because the programmed frequencies were wrong.

Not only did I support the work in my department but in other departments, and part of my job involved working on new applications and capabilities (such as a special SEAD version of the Maverick) for various Hughes Missile Systems Group weapons. Was also consulted by Dr. Hans Maurer, a Project Paperclip scientist who was our CTO. The result of one of those discussions was the Wireless TOW, which grew out of discussions of guidance mechanisms on several Soviet ATGMs. During my time at Hughes, I briefed an array of customers, including a branch chief of the US Army Foreign Sciece and Technology Center (FSTC). Twice he tried to hire me, only to be done in by hiring freezes. While at Hughes my investigations led to discovering critical vulnerabilities on one of our missiles. This got me shut down both by Hughes management and the customer. Was later quietly informed a fix had been produced and implemented.

Started at North American Rockwell, North American Aerospace Operations on September 24, 1989. Was originally hired to be a Member of the Technical Staff I, Soviet Strategic Analyst, but was done in by a reorganization while I was waiting to come in. Thus, wound up doing nauseating (ever seen a pic of a one foot diameter blister on someone or faced a nightmare decontamination program in which a CW gassed aircraft keeps outgassing for hours even after decontamination?) Operation and Supportability work on NBC and laser protection for aircraft and crew of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter), the program that eventually yielded the F-22. Worked B1-B Conventional Capabilities, B1-B SA-10 Escape, provided detailed analyses of the composition of Soviet EW/GCI sites, radar types, operating frequencies, etc. Worked on a Stealth CAS (A-10 replacement). This was a SAP (Special Access Program).

Created and maintained a comprehensive bed down of Soviet and East German aircraft in East Germany, together with all fixed SAMs, filter centers, hardened HQs, etc. As part of a two-man group (the other being Air America's former threat briefer), created a Central American threat laydown for the AC-130U Spooky so dead on that we were told by the customer that validating it would exceed program security level! Was heavily involved with the MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft), a program which eventually yielded the super capable P-8 Poseidon.

One of my major activities a Rockwell was Soviet Threat Analysis for the military versions of the NASP (National AeroSpace Plane) and its endoatmospheric hypersonic versions. The program was an acknowledged SAP, and I held all four clearance levels for these craft. My work involved not just the direct threat side of things, including such concerns as Spetsnaz attacks while on the ground but the Soviet perception side, to include declaratory policy and doctrine. Worked in tandem, chiefly with a physicist who dealt with the nitty gritty aspects of lasers and particle beams weapons. While at Rockwell, was a co-founder of the DEWWG (Directed Energy Weapons Working Group), with particular concerns about the rapidly emerging HPM (High Power Microwave) threat. Sounded the alarm, too about Soviet hyperdimensional Tesla type weaponry (AKA scalar weapons) and associated breakthrough science called energetics.

The NASP Program Manager, Ed Brown (who earlier in his career helmed the X-15 program), told me that my threat briefings were the "long pole in the tent" for quarterly reviews. If they went well, we were good. Must've known what I was doing, because some lateral thinking I did about ways to hide the NASP once in orbit unmasked a black program when a pair of CIA types popped out of their chairs, demanded to know my source and blurted in front of about 100 people that this was compartmented information. That briefing was so well receivved by the various generals, admirals and suits that it's fair to say they wore my arm out shaking my hand afterwards. Somewhere in all this activity I was promoted to MTS II, and by the time I left, my health in ruins from hyper stress on the job (long story), was MTS III promotable and was offered my own projects and project team. By then, it was way too late.

Subsequent to leaving Rockwell on June 20, 1989, in the early 1990s I became lead researcher for The Empowerment Project's blockbuster documentary The Panama Deception, which won a stack of fim awards, including an Oscar for Best Documentary. My research activities covered the history of the US in Panama, US covert and overt activities to create an excuse for military intervention, US awareness of and involvement in narcotrafficking and money laundering in Panama, but the real discovery, in terms of evaluating what weapons were employed and what they did, was uncovering multiple evidences that the US combat tested several varieties of HEL (High Energy Laser) weapons there, as well as its use of some sort of chemical weapon.  

I have no doubt I left out a few things, but it should nevertheless show the depth and breadth of my 11+ year Soviet Threat Analyst career, as well as use of my intelligence analyst capabilities after leaving military aerospace and classified defense work. Suggest, too, that a search under my name might unearth other interesting items, but make sure you don't get the John Kettler who's an air conditioning engineer!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 9/30/2021 at 1:13 AM, Combatintman said:

Suvorov's writings are at best debatable - in fact Glantz, who is reputable scholar of WW2 is very critical of Suvorov's writings about that war.  Others are, albeit less so, critical of his works on the Cold War era.  As an intelligence professional I certainly do not assess Suvorov as credible.  As to agents of the Carpathian Military District reporting every movement of Chieftains - a quick look at a map has to tell you that this is a dubious claim.  Image below shows the distance between the HQ of the Carpathian Military District and HQ 1 (BR) Corps.

 

That sort of data would more likely be tracked by fused IMINT and ground reporting by SOXMIS which reported to GSFG/WGF and not the Carpathian Military District.  In the case of the latter, I worked for seven  months at the desk in BAOR that monitored SOXMIS touring activity and I'll tell you for free that it could not and did not track 'every movement.'

Shall be happy to discuss Suvorov/Rezun as an intelligence officer and spook, but I can't do it here without getting into trouble. Please PM me if you'd like to know more. But for now, please know that a great deal of what Suvorov/Rezun said about Soviet organization and capabilities wound up almost verbatim in Soviet Military Power, which should tell you something right there about his credibility. Would also note that our SECRET level SAM launcher counts wound up matching his numbers, too. This means that had there been a war, we would've been facing a far more capable and robust air defense than we expected to encounter.

Ref the Chieftain situation, I would note that the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia from the Carpathian Military District and that Suvorov/Rezun's company was the veritable tip of the spear in that invasion. Since in this period the British Chieftains of the BAOR were the most potent tanks NATO had, iy makes sense to me that the Carpathian Military District would be very concerned at what those tanks might do if sited so as to be able to intervene against the Red Army invasion force from the Carpathian Military District. Recall the Soviets back in 1968 considered it highly likely NATO would intervene to stop the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Consequently, this is why I believe so much emphasis was attached to knowing which direction those Chieftains were going on a certain bridge. Suvorov/Rezun says he sent a rocket to the agents responsible for that incomplete report.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 1, 2021 by John Kettler

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Shall be happy to discuss Suvorov/Rezun as an intelligence officer and spook, but I can't do it here without getting into trouble. Please PM me if you'd like to know more. But for now, please know that a great deal of what Suvorov/Rezun said about Soviet organization and capabilities wound up almost verbatim in Soviet Military Power, which should tell you something right there about his credibility. Would also note that our SECRET level SAM launcher counts wound up matching his numbers, too. This means that had there been a war, we would've been facing a far more capable and robust air defense than we expected to encounter.

Ref the Chieftain situation, I would note that the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia from the Carpathian Military District and that Suvorov/Rezun's company was the veritable tip of the spear in that invasion. Since in this period the British Chieftains of the BAOR were the most potent tanks NATO had, iy makes sense to me that the Carpathian Military District would be very concerned at what those tanks might do if sited so as to be able to intervene against the Red Army invasion force from the Carpathian Military District. Recall the Soviets back in 1968 considered it highly likely NATO would intervene to stop the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Consequently, this is why I believe so much emphasis was attached to knowing which direction those Chieftains were going on a certain bridge. Suvorov/Rezun says he sent a rocket to the agents responsible for that incomplete report.

Regards,

John Kettler

Suvorov, as I have pointed out, is not a credible source.  With regard to Chieftain, if we subtract the 66 prototype/development tanks issued in 1962 we end up with a figure of 230 in service.  According to the UK's own vehicle database, 107 of those were issued in 1964, 86 in 1967 and 37 in 1968.  According to a UK Defence Parliamentary debate in 1967 - the 11th Hussars in BAOR had reequipped with Chieftain that year with 17/21 Lancers due to be the next regiment in BAOR to receive it.  It is also reported that a significant slice of the 107 issued in 1964 went to training regiments in Bovington and Catterick.  So, at best three BAOR Regiments, which in US parlance = three battalions, could conceivably have been Chieftain-equipped by the Czechoslovakia Invasion of 1968 with the third probably having just received Chieftain and thus in the process of working up to a full operational capability in that year.  For clarity, the UK Staff Officer's Handbook for 1968 has the tank strength of an armoured regiment as 51 tanks.  I doubt very much; therefore, that Chieftain movements featured highly in the Carpathian Military District's collection deck, which as I have already pointed out, would unlikely have had the capability to collect that sort of data in that area.  To use tradecraft terminology - 1 (BR) Corps would likely have been, and I'm being generous here, an Area of Intelligence Interest (AII) rather than an Area of Intelligence Responsibility (AOR) for the Carpathian Military District.  Now I have no idea what your experience is with collection and collecting in an AII versus an AOR is - my experience is that you focus on your AOR and, if you're lucky, you might have something to cover the AII.  In reality - the assets of the organization whose AOR in which 1 (BR) Corps sat (i.e., GSFG) - would provide this information/intelligence.  So ... further evidence that Suvorov was a big fat fibber.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Combatintman

[LongLeftFlank]

Suvorov tells great stories though.

Did they ever find him? I don't know that either.

Of course they found him. They are good at that.

[Rice]

6 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Thought I'd covered my credentials many times before, over a period of 21 years, but shall do so again.

Joined Hughes Aircraft Company, Missile Systems Group (now part of Raytheon) on Valentine's Day 1978 and worked there through September 12, 1984. My job was Soviet Threat Analyst, but my official HR slot was Mathematical Analyst. When I got my degree, I got the even more giggle inducing slot of Statistical Analyst. Was the only full time Threat guy in Operations Analysis. Worked threat for Phoenix, AMRAAM, Maverick,TOW, ASSAULT BREAKER, WASP, Anti-SUAWACS Missile, Roland, etc. Anything and everything Soviet and Warsaw Pact weapon and capabilities, current or projected, fell under my ambit, be they hand grenades or ASATs. Worked hand in hand with our weaponeer, a physicist, and an electronics engineer who had a CIA sponsor (whom I met personally at Langley) and functioned as a back door on up to date threat info. The latter individual and I put the highly accomplished program manager for that missile into a state of white as copier paper shock when we showed him conclusively his missile would NOT be able to home in on the SUAWACS radar because the programmed frequencies were wrong.

Not only did I support the work in my department but in other departments, and part of my job involved working on new applications and capabilities (such as a special SEAD version of the Maverick) for various Hughes Missile Systems Group weapons. Was also consulted by Dr. Hans Maurer, a Project Paperclip scientist who was our CTO. The result of one of those discussions was the Wireless TOW, which grew out of discussions of guidance mechanisms on several Soviet ATGMs. During my time at Hughes, I briefed an array of customers, including a branch chief of the US Army Foreign Sciece and Technology Center (FSTC). Twice he tried to hire me, only to be done in by hiring freezes. While at Hughes my investigations led to discovering critical vulnerabilities on one of our missiles. This got me shut down both by Hughes management and the customer. Was later quietly informed a fix had been produced and implemented.

Started at North American Rockwell, North American Aerospace Operations on September 24, 1989. Was originally hired to be a Member of the Technical Staff I, Soviet Strategic Analyst, but was done in by a reorganization while I was waiting to come in. Thus, wound up doing nauseating (ever seen a pic of a one foot diameter blister on someone or faced a nightmare decontamination program in which a CW gassed aircraft keeps outgassing for hours even after decontamination?) Operation and Supportability work on NBC and laser protection for aircraft and crew of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter), the program that eventually yielded the F-22. Worked B1-B Conventional Capabilities, B1-B SA-10 Escape, provided detailed analyses of the composition of Soviet EW/GCI sites, radar types, operating frequencies, etc. Worked on a Stealth CAS (A-10 replacement). This was a SAP (Special Access Program).

Created and maintained a comprehensive bed down of Soviet and East German aircraft in East Germany, together with all fixed SAMs, filter centers, hardened HQs, etc. As part of a two-man group (the other being Air America's former threat briefer), created a Central American threat laydown for the AC-130U Spooky so dead on that we were told by the customer that validating it would exceed program security level! Was heavily involved with the MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft), a program which eventually yielded the super capable P-8 Poseidon.

One of my major activities a Rockwell was Soviet Threat Analysis for the military versions of the NASP (National AeroSpace Plane) and its endoatmospheric hypersonic versions. The program was an acknowledged SAP, and I held all four clearance levels for these craft. My work involved not just the direct threat side of things, including such concerns as Spetsnaz attacks while on the ground but the Soviet perception side, to include declaratory policy and doctrine. Worked in tandem, chiefly with a physicist who dealt with the nitty gritty aspects of lasers and particle beams weapons. While at Rockwell, was a co-founder of the DEWWG (Directed Energy Weapons Working Group), with particular concerns about the rapidly emerging HPM (High Power Microwave) threat. Sounded the alarm, too about Soviet hyperdimensional Tesla type weaponry (AKA scalar weapons) and associated breakthrough science called energetics.

The NASP Program Manager, Ed Brown (who earlier in his career helmed the X-15 program), told me that my threat briefings were the "long pole in the tent" for quarterly reviews. If they went well, we were good. Must've known what I was doing, because some lateral thinking I did about ways to hide the NASP once in orbit unmasked a black program when a pair of CIA types popped out of their chairs, demanded to know my source and blurted in front of about 100 people that this was compartmented information. That briefing was so well receivved by the various generals, admirals and suits that it's fair to say they wore my arm out shaking my hand afterwards. Somewhere in all this activity I was promoted to MTS II, and by the time I left, my health in ruins from hyper stress on the job (long story), was MTS III promotable and was offered my own projects and project team. By then, it was way too late.

Subsequent to leaving Rockwell on June 20, 1989, in the early 1990s I became lead researcher for The Empowerment Project's blockbuster documentary The Panama Deception, which won a stack of fim awards, including an Oscar for Best Documentary. My research activities covered the history of the US in Panama, US covert and overt activities to create an excuse for military intervention, US awareness of and involvement in narcotrafficking and money laundering in Panama, but the real discovery, in terms of evaluating what weapons were employed and what they did, was uncovering multiple evidences that the US combat tested several varieties of HEL (High Energy Laser) weapons there, as well as its use of some sort of chemical weapon.  

I have no doubt I left out a few things, but it should nevertheless show the depth and breadth of my 11+ year Soviet Threat Analyst career, as well as use of my intelligence analyst capabilities after leaving military aerospace and classified defense work. Suggest, too, that a search under my name might unearth other interesting items, but make sure you don't get the John Kettler who's an air conditioning engineer!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Prove any of this, please. The issue is that you just claim these things. You have never backed them up once.

[chuckdyke]

I didn't know you had to prove any credentials when you share a YouTube video. Official US Army training film on countering the T-62. Completely of topic again. 

[Combatintman]

Right this is getting silly.  Bottom line is that John made a couple of sweeping statements about the Matsimus video.  The first was that Matsimus had claimed to be in 7 Armoured Division during the Cold War.  That was debunked by @IICptMillerIIand acknowledged by John.  I then pointed out various things about BAOR/1 (BR) Corps in relation to comments that John had made which has now resulted in the frame of the debate being shifted around a bit.  From my perspective, this is not a personal attack on John, it is an attempt to frame this discussion on the basis of facts.

The lesson here is that when you're in hole, you stop digging.  That point was reached when @IICptMillerIImade his observation.

[John Kettler]

Combatintman,

Am all in favor of having more data and much appreciate what you've provided. Would note that it's extremely dangerous to mirror image Soviet collection tasking with US/NATO practice, just as it was even more dangerous to model Soviet weaponry on best US/Western design practices. What concerned us certainly does have significant overlap with what concerned them, but it's also true that what they collect is driven by their world view and the particular needs of their own military, intelligence and defense production apparatus.

Consider, for example, the MiG-25/FOXBAT, which we shockingly found was made mostly of steel, had titanium only when and where needed, and was only flush riveted where that was needed. Since we thought US aircraft design practice was being followed, we were shocked to discover the aircraft was a massive beast powered by two simply gigantic jet engines, with thrust eclipsing anything we had operational on a fighter or interceptor back then. Know this because I read the roughly 3 inch thich SECRET//NOFORN/WNINTEL REL UK/CA/AU/NZ technical exploitation report myself.  Where we started with a clean sheet of paper, they did aircraft design by cookbook, if you will, choosing from an array of proven component designs and hardware, creating other items only as needed. Thus, you'd have, say, three approved inlet designs to choose from. two landing gear configurations, etc. 

Rice,

Almost everything I did during my 11+ years was classified, so I have little to show on that score. They don't, after all, let you take either classified or Company Proprietary documents with you when you leave. Had to comprehensively account for every single page of classified material, and company security directly inspected every single piece of paper in the two boxes containing my personal stuff. Can show you copies of my hiring notices at both Hughes (also my promotion notice there after graduating from college while working full time) and Rockwell, but neither says a thing about Soviet Threat Analyst because I was tied to an already existing job classification, so what my actual job was doesn't reflect in the documents. Have an award made to those at Rockwell NAAO Operation Analysis Department who helped develop ERIS, an ATBM/ABM system. Worked threat characterization and also came up with a way to launch ERIS from US Navy VLS (Vertical Launcher System). The award clearly shows me. Don't recall that it was a proposal effort, so we may've been a subcontractor to Lockheed. I may still have an unclassified Assault Breaker briefing I worked on at Hughes and perhaps a conceptual study of defending US armor against the AS-15/Kedge through seeker deception. 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/eris.html 

Other than the above, perhaps in conjunction with meeting people I worked with who know what I did then, I don't know what to tell or show you. Have been on the CM Forums since 2000, during which I've many times posted--at length--on what the true armor-antiarmor and other situations were doing the Cold War. I know what I did, People in the intelligence community know what I did, as do military personnel and DOD personnel who were present at my threat briefings.

My first boss in the Operations Analysis Department of Highes Missile Systems Group was John Green. John Green's career included RAND and China Lake. His deputy and later successor was David Spencer, who held a doctorate in Operations Research from Harvard. Our weaponeer was Robert "Bob" Martin, a physicist. Don't know much about his career, though I do know he and John Green had worked together elsewhere. Our TOW expert was US Army Retired LT COL Robert "Bob"Siegrist" who'd been instrumental while serving in bringing in TOW to the Army. He was a battlefield commission during WW II and was slated as an Assistant Division Commander role if the balloon went up. Greg Latta ran Air Defense, George Hahn helmed Strike, and Ron Dawson ran FAD (Fleet Air Defense). Later, we got a very senior guy named Don Kephart who apparently was a nuclear targeting specialist at RAND. Used to talk about the MMP (Moscow Missile Package) and even gave me a nuclear weapon kill probability whiz wheel like this one.



On a more prosaic note, I had one of these, too.



Used to read this, too. The issues I saw were issued by The Jasons (our US mega brain trust) and published by Mitre Corporation.

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2010/07/jdr/

At Rockwell NAAO Operations Analysis, the department manager was Steve Hostetler. My section heads were, successively, Tony Ortega and Tom Gurbach. Dave Toliver was the other part of the AC-130U threat team. The physicist who handled the esoteric laser stuff on NASP was a Cornishman named Nigel Thomas--who had eidetic memory and used to brief eyes closed--opening them only long enough to make sure the right slide was visible. NASP Proect Leader for OA was Jim Kirkpatrick. Dave Toliver was also on NASP. The Director of Hypersonic Research was Marine Reserve major and fighter pilot Don Zinn, and the program manager was Ed Brown.

The FSTC branch chief I mentioned was Tom D'Isepo (Target Signature and Image Metrology). The CIA conduit I mentioned was in the OSWR (Office of Scientific and Weapons Research) at the CIA. Met him briefly and then was sent outside the office for the several hours of briefing my colleague got. Apparently, there was a LOT of ground for them to cover, for I spent the entire next day exploring the Washington Mall while my colleague was at Langley!

Regards,

John Kettler


 

[Combatintman]

John give it up will you - 'would note that it is extremely dangerous to ...' is just shunting the argument around as is bringing in Soviet aircraft design vs NATO aircraft design.  I go back to Suvorov is a big fat fibber and has been proven to be so yet you stubbornly refuse to admit this despite the evidence presented here and elsewhere to the contrary.  You lack the same degree of knowledge of BAOR/1 (BR) Corps that I have, having served in both but felt that you were qualified to comment about them and refuse to back down when challenged on it.  Your initial assertion about Matsimus being a Cold War veteran was absurd based on the evidence presented - did you even look at how old he looks in his video of a 2011 tour to Afghanistan and think ... too young to have joined the Army in 1989 ... or establish whether 7 Armoured Division was in 1 (BR) Corps ... or compare the relative strengths of 1 (BR) Corps and 3 Shock/Combined Arms Army before talking about mightiness and fear ...  Do I have to post the map of Lvov to Bielefeld again?  Do I need to give you the details of every single Chieftain that was delivered to the British Army up until the Czechoslovakia invasion in 1968 - because I have them (see image for the 1968 ones) - although that again was a shifting of you argument away from your initial position.  Your credentials are the only ones being challenged here ... That alone should tell you something.  Or put another way - no-one believes what you are saying in this thread.  You're in a hole - stop digging.

[John Kettler]

Combatintman,

Freely concede your knowledge of BAOR is vast compared to mine. As I said, it wasn't my direct concern at all. Nor have I ever served, much less been in MI. Vietnam would've been my war, and it ended shortly after I registered for the draft. Told you how I got crossed up on Matsimus and owned my mistakes in that regard. Conflation post-TBI has been and still is an intermittent but significant problem, as is recalling what I read and where. Am very impressed with your research skills. Whether people believe me or not ref my credentials is on them. Have provided a wealth of material and offered to present such physical evidence as I have available. 

As for your first point, aircraft design was an easy example to present to illustrate my point. Let's talk tanks instead. Soviet and, later, Russian tanks are designed to operate on the steppe. where every additional inch of height over the bare minimum to make the AFV effective on the steppe increases the chance of being seen, engaged and killed. but US tanks have to be able to operate worldwide. As a result of the differing operational requirements, the opposition's tanks are significantly lower than ours, but at a roughly factor of 2 disadvantage in gun depression angle, which translates directly into likelihood of being spotted, engaged and killed. Their tanks are much lighter than ours because of the constraints Russian narrow gauge railroads, especially their tunnels. Lighter weight is also because of reduced armor envelope, in turn made possible by the smaller stature of their crews. Believe the height requirement during the Cold War, maybe even now, was 5'5" (10th percentile for height of US man). By contrast, the US tanks are designed for at least a 90th percentile man (6"), making for a much bigger tank. Russian tank cannon are designed for expected combat range, and as I've several times explained, drawing on US Army and DIA documents, cold War doctrine prescribed platoon volleys or even company volleys to deal with targets outside the nominal cannon range for each type. The AT-8 and other CLGMs were designed, not for tank duels but to reliably deal with ATGM platforms both on the ground and on helicopters in the air. By contrast, US guns, FC and training allowed (it seemed before we understood how inadequate the L7 was) effective tank engagements out to roughly twice that of the Russians prior to the AT-8 and siblings. The Vietnam War provides several examples of this in action, for the ARVN , using M47s ,M48s and US training and ammo, butchered NVA armor (including T-54s and T-55s) at such long range panicked intercepted radio traffic that the tankers thought they were in a minefield. We design our tanks for 20+ year heavy use service lives, but the Russians designs are based on very short service life (24 hours?) once committed to battle and little use before then. US tests found that overall, their tanks (M60A1 vs T-62) were far less durable, had shorter MTBF, lower readiness rates, shorter lived tracks, dramatically lower EFC on the main gun, etc. Unsurprisingly, the much simpler and lighter T-62 was way cheaper, by around, I believe, a factor of 3. Read the whole analysis in Journal of Defense Research, in a study which also compared the F-4 with a MiG-21.

Overall, you have two radically different tanks or aircraft based on operational environment, expected service life, concept of war and expected casualties, role, sensors, weapons, expected quarry, industrial base, etc. The new Russian AFVs represent a radical departure from previous designs in some ways, which I believe are the product of a shift to expensive higher quality, greater capability AFVs, AFVs which whether they see combat or not, WILL be competing against advanced weaponry from many nations in the global weapon marketplace. Would note, though, that the T-14 Armata tank has thermals, not of Russian design and manufacture, but the license built Thales Catherine system, and initially, the Russians had to have the French deal with repairs, if memory serves. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Rice]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Rice,

Almost everything I did during my 11+ years was classified, so I have little to show on that score. They don't, after all, let you take either classified or Company Proprietary documents with you when you leave.

I couldn't find your name, assuming it truly is John Kettler, anywhere on what you provided. You have no way of proving your experience. Regardless of the validity, you still rival sources with none of your own. It's been brought up multiple times, but you are adamant of the existence of a 76mm HEAT shell that could frontally penetrate an Abrams, which is completely ridiculous and has never been backed up with any sources or evidence other than your "experiences". Anyhow the problem is, you can't prove you are who you say you are, and you claim to be a source of a ton of information, much of which is dubious at best. So, do you have any proof of who you are?

[John Kettler]

Mods,

Have no way to excise colorful language in BK-354M item. Sorry.

Rice,

I gave the source and where and when I heard it. Dr. Joseph Backofen told us this at the Soviet Threat Technology Conference in 1965 held at the CIA under the auspices of the prestigious AIAA (American Institute of Aviation and Astronautics). Here's some info on Dr. Backofen.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734743X99000585

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813009284
 

Jospeh Backofen was a a Co-Inventor of a special kind of shaped charge with liquid follow through.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4955939A/en

Dr. Backofen was the CIA's SME for Soviet and Warsaw Pact shaped charge weaponry. He was also the person who told us about the major advantages the Soviets had over us in explosives, information subsequently published in Soviet Military Power. He informed us of the as much as 40% penetration delta between static testing of Soviet cannon launched HEAT projectiles and dynamic testing at typical impact speeds. 

At some point, if I happen to think about it, I'll post on FB some SSN hidden docs showing I did work at Hughes and Rockwell, did work on ERIS, etc. If you don't want to believe what I tell you after that, then I shall continue to post on what I do know, but you're welcome not to read it. 

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

Am on FB under my own name and Twitter under at John_Kettler. Should also tell you that brother George and I visited Michael Emrys at his home in Washington state coming up on roughly two years ago. Michael subsequently posted on the Forums about our visit. If you can find him, the CMer whose handle is/was Actor had me over to his house as part of a large Beta Test for, successively, CMBB and CMAK. 

Edited October 2, 2021 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 9/30/2021 at 9:06 PM, chuckdyke said:

Sorry did some web surfing and it becomes a lot clearer. Viktor Suvorov (Never heard about the man) saw the likes of Skorzeny probably, who made some good income in the west by selling his expertise after the war to the highest bidder. Not a bad idea watched it on Netflix it included Mossad of all organizations. The Viktor Suvorov I just read about will not lose any sleep about this discussion about him. 

He took the name as a nom de plume because he greatly respected him. Suvorov/Rezun is a former GRU major who defected to the British. Before joining the GRU, he was successively a  Motorized Rifle Company commander and Tank Company commander. While in the GRU, he worked in the Carpathian Military District Intelligence Department and also as a SpetsNaz Training Officer. He authored a stack of books on the Soviet Army, Spetsnaz, the GRU, but is highly controversial in some circles for his (Soviet archive documented) views on the case that Stalin was going to preemptively invade Germany. Nevertheless, in 2009 he was invited to come to the United States Naval Academy Eurasia Forum and present his case, which I thought he did very well. Suvorov/Rezun's books on Soviet military and intelligence matters were so important they formed part of my work library.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited October 2, 2021 by John Kettler

[Rice]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

Rice,

First of all, "Dr. Joseph Backofen" was not a Doctor, he was a contributor to Armor Magazine. Second of all, the sources you linked have nothing to do with Joseph Backofen. Also the sources have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Also, a War Thunder Reddit post is not a credible source.

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

At some point, if I happen to think about it, I'll post on FB some SSN hidden docs showing I did work at Hughes and Rockwell, did work on ERIS, etc. If you don't want to believe what I tell you after that, then I shall continue to post on what I do know, but you're welcome not to read it. 

Please do this.

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

m on FB under my own name and Twitter under at John_Kettler.

I don't doubt you're a real human being, I doubt you were ever a "Soviet Threat Analyst".

Edited October 2, 2021 by Rice

[Sgt.Squarehead]

15 hours ago, Rice said:

Also, a War Thunder Reddit post is not a credible source.

The War Thunder post is actually based on an article from Tankograd (who are generally very reliable):

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/pt-76.html#d-56t

"Based on the semi-empirical shaped charge penetration by Walters and Zukas, a standoff distance of 2.66 yields a penetration of 5.0 calibers or more when a precision-made copper shaped charge liner is used on 320 BHN armour steel. With a shaped charge liner diameter of 62.3mm, this implies that BK-354M should be able to penetrate 311mm of RHA steel or more. However, because the spitback mechanism in the GPV-2 fuze introduces an additional delay compared to more modern piezoelectric fuzing systems, the nose of the shell to experiences some deformation during an impact with a hard target causing the standoff distance to decrease slightly. Furthermore, the design of the shaped charge itself with its long spitback receptacle at the apex of the shaped charge liner is not optimal. As such, the penetration power achieved with BK-354M was less than 311mm RHA. "

PS - @Rice  If JK does publish those documents, I trust you'll be man enough to make a public apology? 

Edited October 2, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Artkin]

For real, grow up. 

Please do this. 

 

[Rice]

32 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

As such, the penetration power achieved with BK-354M was less than 311mm RHA.

Even so, the implication is that is can penetrate the M1 Abrams frontally, which even with the stated numbers in the article, it cannot. So I don't even know why Kettler posted contradicting evidence to his own case..

34 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - @Rice  If JK does publish those documents, I trust you'll be man enough to make a public apology? 

If he can prove he was a Soviet Threat Analyst then I will absolutely issue a public apology.

[LukeFF]

On 10/1/2021 at 8:19 AM, Rice said:

Prove any of this, please. The issue is that you just claim these things. You have never backed them up once.

John's credibility issues are at least as old as this discussion forum.

[Codreanu]

I haven't ever heard of the base model of M1 having anything less than 650mm RHA equivalent protection against shaped charges. Maybe it could penetrate the XM1 prototype, but the M1? No chance in hell.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Yeah, I couldn't find any indication that 280mm penetration was going to do the job either. 

[John Kettler]

On 10/2/2021 at 12:10 AM, Rice said:

First of all, "Dr. Joseph Backofen" was not a Doctor, he was a contributor to Armor Magazine. Second of all, the sources you linked have nothing to do with Joseph Backofen. Also the sources have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Also, a War Thunder Reddit post is not a credible source.

Please do this.

I don't doubt you're a real human being, I doubt you were ever a "Soviet Threat Analyst".

Rice,

Am still checking, but I thought he had a PhD, hence, Doctor.

As for not having the right Backofen, you're either having severe information uptake issues or are being deliberately cantankerous and argumentative.

Backofen's two part series in Armor magazine was as an expert in the field. Indeed, NEVER have I ever seen so many (and relevant) footnotes for an article in my life. My recollection was two solid pages in small type, single spaced.

Here's more of Joseph Backofen's work. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268803563_The_future_of_warheads_armour_and_ballistics_paper
 

THE FUTURE OF WARHEADS, ARMOUR AND BALLISTICS

Bo Janzon1, Joseph Backofen, Jr.2, Ronald E. Brown3, Roxan Cayzac4, André

Diederen5, Marc Giraud6, Manfred Held7, Albert W. Horst8, Klaus Thoma9

1 Chairman, International Ballistics Committee; FOI, Grindsjön Research Centre, Tumba. New

address: SECRAB, P.O.Box 97, SE-147 22 Tumba, Sweden, e-mail: bo.janzon@secrab.eu

2 Brigs Co., 4192 Hales Ford Road, Moneta, VA 2412, USA

3 Naval Postgraduate School; 2682 Bishop Drive, Suite 212, San Ramon CA 94583, USA

4 GIAT Industries, 7 Route de Guerry, FR-18023 Bourges, France

5 TNO Defence, Security, and Safety, P.O. Box 45, NL-2280 AA Rijswijk, The Netherlands

6 Exobal, 15 Rue de la Roselière, Saint-Louis, FR-68300 France

7 TDW, P.O. Box 1340, DE-86523 Schrobenhausen, Germany

8 Business Plus Corporation, c/o US Army Research Laboratory, (Attn.: AMSRL-WM-B),

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md 21005-5066, USA

9 EMI, Fraunhofer-Institut für Kurzzeitdynamik-Ernst-Mach-Institut, Eckerstr. 4, DE-79104

Freiburg, German
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.19930180503

The use of analytical computer models in shaped charge design^†

Joseph E. Backofen, 

http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/032126956.pdf

Penetration of Shaped Charge into Water Manfred Held, Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm GmbH

Joseph E. Backofen, Brigs Company (Note this is the same Joseph Backofen of Brigs company in The Future of Warheads entry, note 2.)
 

The Effect of Aerodynamic Heating on Air Penetration by Shaped Charge Jets and Their Particles 

Show affiliations

• Backofen, Joseph E.

Abstract

Analysis of experimental data using theoretical models reveals that a very small portion of a shaped charge jet particle's kinetic energy shocking the air in front of it can couple convectively into the particle's leading surface to soften an already hot material enough to justify hydrodynamic modeling of the air cratering process. 

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AIPC.1195.1461B/abstract

Publication:

 

Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 2009: Proceedings of the American Physical Society Topical Group on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1195. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1195, Issue 1, p.1461-1464

Pub Date:

 

December 2009

1985 Shaped charge related patent with Joseph Backofen as Co-Inventor (1985 was the year The Soviet Threat Technology Conference (U) was held at CIA HQ)
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4628819A/en
Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

[John Kettler]

Rice et al.,

Got the ABM system confused, for it was AERIE not ERIS. Also, I wrote the wrong designator for the design threat against the laser decoy system. It was the AS-10/KAREN version equipped with laser guidance. Found some of my docs, so shall post them shortly on FB, which was down for quite some time. These include excerpts from the ASSAULT BREAKER and laser jammer analysis briefings.

Ref the HEAT round for the PT-76, I posted that because it was the first such direct data I had on ANY HEAT round for the PT-76 and thought it might contribute to the discussion. What Backofen told us at the conference was the HEAT round for the PT-76 he was describing would penetrate the original armor for the M1 Abrams. Please bear in mind, too, that he also told US. that dyanic penetration testing was yielding some 40% greater penetration than traditional static testing was.

Was unable to find my hire docs for Rockwell International NAAO, so am instead providing most of my W-2s and pics of an award given to all the AERIE team members, most of whom were in my department. Am second from right in back row.

Regards,

John Kettler

  

[John Kettler]

Rice et al.,

Everything I could find is now up on FB https://www.facebook.com/john.kettler.50

Have annotated the pics to provide context as to what's shown and why. If this doesn't convince you, given the acute limits I faced in showing you my work product, then, short of talking to people who knew me and my work back then, I don't know what to tell you.

Regards,

John Kettler