It's a good thing American and Russia didn't ever get it on.

[lcm1947]

I am in a game against an AI Russian T-64B tank where it took at least 8 each heat ricochets and 7 each ricochets from (as far as I can tell) either a M60A3 or M60A2 and it's still alive and a threat although immobilized.  Is that even possible?  

[domfluff]

Yes.

T-64 had composite armour, and the T-64B had even thicker armour. Composite armour is extremely effective at dealing with HEAT rounds, to the point of making them essentially ineffective. Wikipedia gives the T-64 a protection of 440mm RHa versus sabot, and 575mm RHa versus HEAT, and that's before taking slope into account.

The M60A2 fires the enormous six inch MGM-51 Shillelagh, which Wikipedia lists as being able to penetrate 600mm RHa at zero degrees... since you'd be unlikely to get a zero degree angle on the front of a T-64, that's very likely not to penetrate. M774 APFSDS (a sabot round from 1980 or so) is similarly listed as having a penetration of around 440mm RHa, but this will drop off with distance and angle, so is equally likely not to penetrate.

So even if all of the figures above are wrong, you can see the problem. The T-62 was considered to be more or less an even match in the literature, and the T-64 and T-72 took the west by surprise. This kind of logic is why the Dragon was considered a weapon of last resort in the Gulf War - there was no expectation of that ATGM dealing with even the Iraqi export version of the T-72, let alone top of the line Soviet equipment.
 

[ThathumanHayden]

I would like to point out that there has been a good bit of debate on the forums about the T-64's armor performance. A few posts marshalled significant evidence that the upper glacis is over-preforming against sabot and lacks the top center weak spot. Still, T-64/72/80 were very tough tanks in this time period, so don't be surprised if they can take serious punishment to the front armor.

[Artkin]

Yes I recall reading the US rounds were underperforming but I don't know the exact variants or which tank fires them. 

[ThathumanHayden]

I think most of the debate was around the early American APFSDS M735 and M774. Usually Hapless has a good video on the M-60's. M60A1 RISE+ onwards should have M735, and the M60A3 should have M774.

[lcm1947]

Well, Ok then. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, but I certainly thought I had found a bug or bad stats.  Greatly appreciate the comments and explanations they were interesting and informative to say the least.  Once again very pleased with the knowledge and willingness to help on this site.  Thank you, gents.  

[Halmbarte]

17 hours ago, lcm1947 said:

I am in a game against an AI Russian T-64B tank where it took at least 8 each heat ricochets and 7 each ricochets from (as far as I can tell) either a M60A3 or M60A2 and it's still alive and a threat although immobilized.  Is that even possible?  

Going up against T64s in '79 can feel like a return to WWII with 75mm Shermans vs King Tigers. 

Except the Sov made a whole lot of T64s...

Much like Shermans vs King Tigers you don't want to attack them head on. Get them to button up to reduce their situational awareness and hit them from the flanks whenever possible. If you can immobilize them move to make the tank useless or to a position where you can hit them from the flanks or rear. 

The other thing to remember is that those non-penetrating hits are still reducing the effectiveness of the T64. 

H

[IICptMillerII]

17 hours ago, ThathumanHayden said:

I would like to point out that there has been a good bit of debate on the forums about the T-64's armor performance. A few posts marshalled significant evidence that the upper glacis is over-preforming against sabot and lacks the top center weak spot. Still, T-64/72/80 were very tough tanks in this time period, so don't be surprised if they can take serious punishment to the front armor.

This is worth pointing out. It is a known bug that has been logged and is on the list of things that need to be fixed. When that fix will happen I have no idea, but best practice would be to not expect it anytime soon. 

19 hours ago, lcm1947 said:

Is that even possible?

As others have said, yes it is possible. Even given the above caveat that the frontal armor is overperforming a bit, T-64A/B, T-72A, and T-80/B were all very well armored for the time they were introduced. 

However:

It should be pointed out that during the span of years Cold War covers (1979-1982) the vast majority of Soviet tanks forward deployed (specifically in Group of Soviet Forces Germany GSFG) were still T-62s. Something like 75% of all Soviet tanks in GSFG were T-62 variants. Warsaw Pact allies were even worse off, as by 1989 the vast majority of their tanks were still T-55 series. Further, the majority of T-64/T-80 tanks were concentrated in NORTHAG (3td Shock Army being infamous for having lots of modern Soviet MBTs). All of that is to say that the Soviet tank you should almost always see is the T-62 in Cold War. 

Why is T-64/T-80 so over-represented? Cool factor mostly. They are the shiny new toys (and also new vehicles in the Combat Mission catalog) and they also make REDFOR much more competitive. This is a big deal compared to the other modern CM titles where REDFOR is at a disadvantage in CMBS and a severe disadvantage in CMSF2. The problem is similar to how CM and other games over-represent things like Tiger/Panther/King Tiger/etc in the WWII titles. People generally are more enthralled by a King Tiger than a Panzer 4, even though in reality the vast majority of German tanks encountered were a Panzer 4 variant. Same phenomenon. 

A final note on T-72. There were none in GSFG, and so its appearance in CW should be even more rare than T-64/T-80. During the Cold War the T-72 was an export tank. In Soviet service it was relegated to second echelon and peripheral forces. The Soviet army in Czechoslovakia had some for example. Had the war gone on long enough for Soviet reserve formations to get to the front, T-72 would have started to appear here and there, but it still would have been pretty rare. 

 

[lcm1947]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

This is worth pointing out. It is a known bug that has been logged and is on the list of things that need to be fixed. When that fix will happen I have no idea, but best practice would be to not expect it anytime soon. 

As others have said, yes it is possible. Even given the above caveat that the frontal armor is overperforming a bit, T-64A/B, T-72A, and T-80/B were all very well armored for the time they were introduced. 

However:

It should be pointed out that during the span of years Cold War covers (1979-1982) the vast majority of Soviet tanks forward deployed (specifically in Group of Soviet Forces Germany GSFG) were still T-62s. Something like 75% of all Soviet tanks in GSFG were T-62 variants. Warsaw Pact allies were even worse off, as by 1989 the vast majority of their tanks were still T-55 series. Further, the majority of T-64/T-80 tanks were concentrated in NORTHAG (3td Shock Army being infamous for having lots of modern Soviet MBTs). All of that is to say that the Soviet tank you should almost always see is the T-62 in Cold War. 

Why is T-64/T-80 so over-represented? Cool factor mostly. They are the shiny new toys (and also new vehicles in the Combat Mission catalog) and they also make REDFOR much more competitive. This is a big deal compared to the other modern CM titles where REDFOR is at a disadvantage in CMBS and a severe disadvantage in CMSF2. The problem is similar to how CM and other games over-represent things like Tiger/Panther/King Tiger/etc in the WWII titles. People generally are more enthralled by a King Tiger than a Panzer 4, even though in reality the vast majority of German tanks encountered were a Panzer 4 variant. Same phenomenon. 

A final note on T-72. There were none in GSFG, and so its appearance in CW should be even more rare than T-64/T-80. During the Cold War the T-72 was an export tank. In Soviet service it was relegated to second echelon and peripheral forces. The Soviet army in Czechoslovakia had some for example. Had the war gone on long enough for Soviet reserve formations to get to the front, T-72 would have started to appear here and there, but it still would have been pretty rare. 

 

Your remark (All of that is to say that the Soviet tank you should almost always see is the T-62 in Cold War) alone will make a difference to me in my future games.  I 100% only play the US and for whatever reason always use the newer more powerful Russia tanks so knowing this T-62 fact my future games should be more accurate and that is my main interest to pit fight as accurate realistic games as possible and is the main reason I play CM in fact.    

[lcm1947]

3 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

Going up against T64s in '79 can feel like a return to WWII with 75mm Shermans vs King Tigers. 

Except the Sov made a whole lot of T64s...

Much like Shermans vs King Tigers you don't want to attack them head on. Get them to button up to reduce their situational awareness and hit them from the flanks whenever possible. If you can immobilize them move to make the tank useless or to a position where you can hit them from the flanks or rear. 

The other thing to remember is that those non-penetrating hits are still reducing the effectiveness of the T64. 

H

No joke but I expected that in WWII but damn this completely took me by surprise in that era.  Kinda disappointed in us.  

[domfluff]

1 minute ago, lcm1947 said:

No joke but I expected that in WWII but damn this completely took me by surprise in that era.  Kinda disappointed in us.  

So this is why CMCW is set when it is - this is the turning point, where the US started to get it's act together and accelerate past the Soviets, for good. It's a really well chosen period - many Cold War games are set in 1985 or so, and if this was set in the sixties the Soviet juggernaut might very well have been overwhelming.

There were a number of reasons for this, one of the big ones was microprocessor technology, but essentially the US moves from stopgap after stopgap, to finally (finally) producing Abrams and Bradley, and moving a generation ahead. That advance, combined with the crumbling Soviet Union, was something that was never caught up to, and this is to a large extent still true.

For what it's worth, I think that CMCW is best played at 1980 or so (and in QB terms, with Strict rarity). The later you go, the more the game looks like Shock Force, and the less subtlety you'll see in the interactions.

T-62 being the most common is true for the core game. If and when we see BAOR forces we should see the best Soviet armour - Chieftain was traditionally the scariest NATO tank, so the heavier stuff was levied against it, on the best tank terrain. If and when we see East German forces, we're more likely to see more T-55s in play.

[IICptMillerII]

8 minutes ago, lcm1947 said:

Your remark (All of that is to say that the Soviet tank you should almost always see is the T-62 in Cold War) alone will make a difference to me in my future games.  I 100% only play the US and for whatever reason always use the newer more powerful Russia tanks so knowing this T-62 fact my future games should be more accurate and that is my main interest to pit fight as accurate realistic games as possible and is the main reason I play CM in fact.    

Glad to have helped!

I think you will find that the M60A1 and M60A3 are more than a match for the T-62. Not a cakewalk, especially considering all the other assets the Soviets get (ATGMs, artillery, etc) but certainly much less of a "Panther vs Sherman" dynamic.

[Halmbarte]

9 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Glad to have helped!

I think you will find that the M60A1 and M60A3 are more than a match for the T-62. Not a cakewalk, especially considering all the other assets the Soviets get (ATGMs, artillery, etc) but certainly much less of a "Panther vs Sherman" dynamic.

The big problem I have with the M60 series is they are really big, really slow, and can't hardly handle hits. 

I think the Germans had the right idea with Leopard 1. If you're limited to steel only (no composite) make the armor just thick enough to keep out auto cannon fire. Pretty much any HEAT is going to be able to penetrate any reasonable thickness of steel so why try? Focus on firepower and mobility i instead. 

With the M60 we get a tank with thick enough armor that it's slow, but the steel still can't keep out HEAT from pretty much anything the Sov can bring, including RPG-7s. 

H

[Combatintman]

16 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

It should be pointed out that during the span of years Cold War covers (1979-1982) the vast majority of Soviet tanks forward deployed (specifically in Group of Soviet Forces Germany GSFG) were still T-62s. Something like 75% of all Soviet tanks in GSFG were T-62 variants. Warsaw Pact allies were even worse off, as by 1989 the vast majority of their tanks were still T-55 series. Further, the majority of T-64/T-80 tanks were concentrated in NORTHAG (3td Shock Army being infamous for having lots of modern Soviet MBTs). All of that is to say that the Soviet tank you should almost always see is the T-62 in Cold War. 

To reinforce the point - have a look at 8 Guards Army here:

8th Guards Combined Arms Army (ww2.dk)

Then drill down to the divisions to see the equipment types fielded which conveniently have figures for 1979 and 1985.  Even as late as 1985 the ratio of T-62 to newer types was still higher than most casual observers would expect.  Leaving tanks aside - look at the other equipment - still lots of BMP-1  and BTR-60s sat in GSFG's East German barracks - where many would probably expect more BMP-2 and BTR-70/80.

[domfluff]

5 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

I think the Germans had the right idea with Leopard 1. If you're limited to steel only (no composite) make the armor just thick enough to keep out auto cannon fire. Pretty much any HEAT is going to be able to penetrate any reasonable thickness of steel so why try? Focus on firepower and mobility i instead.

A highly debatable point, but it's one of the core questions that CMCW can inform, once it reaches its final form.

M60, Chieftain and Leopard should all end up being represented (you'd assume), and each comes from a very different approach to the same problem.

Whilst you shouldn’t really look at any of them in isolation, it's an easy point of comparison, and they each represent a very different philosophy, which will be fascinating to dig into.

[IICptMillerII]

8 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

The big problem I have with the M60 series is they are really big, really slow, and can't hardly handle hits. 

I think the Germans had the right idea with Leopard 1. If you're limited to steel only (no composite) make the armor just thick enough to keep out auto cannon fire. Pretty much any HEAT is going to be able to penetrate any reasonable thickness of steel so why try? Focus on firepower and mobility i instead. 

With the M60 we get a tank with thick enough armor that it's slow, but the steel still can't keep out HEAT from pretty much anything the Sov can bring, including RPG-7s. 

H

The lack of composite armor on the M60 series is tough. It makes Soviet ATGMs that much more of a headache, which is a problem considering how prolific those ATGMs are. 
 

That said, I honestly like the M60. I know it’s a bit cliche to say but the first line of defense shouldn’t be the armor of your tank. Survivability onion and all that, but not being effectively engaged is much better armor than getting hit, no matter the armor package of the tank. Which brings me to the next major benefit of the M60, its height. Height is an asset for vehicles, not a detriment. Not sure where the “height=bad” myth came from (I blame Pentagon Wars and Sherman WW2 myths) but a myth it is. Height is great because it gives you a better spotting vantage, and more importantly it makes hull down easier to do. Tanks not fighting from hull down are either attacking, caught by surprise, or wrong. The height of the M60 means it can find and fight from hull down positions easier which is a huge advantage. Especially against the Soviets who are both generally on the attack, and their squatter tanks make it very hard for them to fight from hull down positions that haven’t been engineered for them. 
 

Regarding mobility, speed is mostly irrelevant on the tactical level. No matter how fast your tank is, you will never outrun a sabot traveling at 1,500m/s. 

[lcm1947]

18 hours ago, domfluff said:

So this is why CMCW is set when it is - this is the turning point, where the US started to get it's act together and accelerate past the Soviets, for good. It's a really well chosen period - many Cold War games are set in 1985 or so, and if this was set in the sixties the Soviet juggernaut might very well have been overwhelming.

There were a number of reasons for this, one of the big ones was microprocessor technology, but essentially the US moves from stopgap after stopgap, to finally (finally) producing Abrams and Bradley, and moving a generation ahead. That advance, combined with the crumbling Soviet Union, was something that was never caught up to, and this is to a large extent still true.

For what it's worth, I think that CMCW is best played at 1980 or so (and in QB terms, with Strict rarity). The later you go, the more the game looks like Shock Force, and the less subtlety you'll see in the interactions.

T-62 being the most common is true for the core game. If and when we see BAOR forces we should see the best Soviet armour - Chieftain was traditionally the scariest NATO tank, so the heavier stuff was levied against it, on the best tank terrain. If and when we see East German forces, we're more likely to see more T-55s in play.

Ah, good info to use in my games.  Thanks for the specifics.  

[lcm1947]

26 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

The lack of composite armor on the M60 series is tough. It makes Soviet ATGMs that much more of a headache, which is a problem considering how prolific those ATGMs are. 
 

That said, I honestly like the M60. I know it’s a bit cliche to say but the first line of defense shouldn’t be the armor of your tank. Survivability onion and all that, but not being effectively engaged is much better armor than getting hit, no matter the armor package of the tank. Which brings me to the next major benefit of the M60, its height. Height is an asset for vehicles, not a detriment. Not sure where the “height=bad” myth came from (I blame Pentagon Wars and Sherman WW2 myths) but a myth it is. Height is great because it gives you a better spotting vantage, and more importantly it makes hull down easier to do. Tanks not fighting from hull down are either attacking, caught by surprise, or wrong. The height of the M60 means it can find and fight from hull down positions easier which is a huge advantage. Especially against the Soviets who are both generally on the attack, and their squatter tanks make it very hard for them to fight from hull down positions that haven’t been engineered for them. 
 

Regarding mobility, speed is mostly irrelevant on the tactical level. No matter how fast your tank is, you will never outrun a sabot traveling at 1,500m/s. 

That will really change my thinking about tall tanks being bad.  Never thought about it just accepted that higher was bad for tanks.  Seems to make a lot of sense.  Thanks for mentioning that.  

[ratdeath]

From the force selection in QB I thought the most common tank was T-64s as the T-62 is only available in reserve formations.

[domfluff]

This is correct, at least for the Tank battalion formations (MRBs have the full choice of armour) but QB selections are always a bit suspect. I've no idea why they aren't a 1:1 match for the TO&E in the scenario editor, in all titles.

In that context, at least in 1980, both variants of the T-62 are "Standard" (zero rarity), as is the T-64A. The T64-B is "Common", so starts costing you rarity points.

Edited January 7, 2023 by domfluff

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Regarding mobility, speed is mostly irrelevant on the tactical level. No matter how fast your tank is, you will never outrun a sabot traveling at 1,500m/s. 

This - not sure why people think that the Leopard approach is a winner on this basis.  Comes back to rule one of combat - don't be seen.

[Halmbarte]

13 hours ago, Combatintman said:

This - not sure why people think that the Leopard approach is a winner on this basis.  Comes back to rule one of combat - don't be seen.

If my tank won't keep out sabot or HEAT anyway I might as well have a fast tank where I can use the speed to either a) minimize my exposure time or b) relocate to another firing position. Make the Sov go through the whole target acquisition cycle from scratch. 

It's not like the slower M60 can tank hits from pretty much anything the Sov brings in '79. The frontal arc might keep out T55's 100mm sabot but if I''m remembering right 100mm HEAT will take out a M60 from the front. 

H

[chuckdyke]

Armor makes the crew survive an engagement, it doesn't make the tank survive necessarily. 

[domfluff]

I definitely believe that concepts like "Speed is Armour" or similar are nonsense, and always have been, but I've seen quite a few situations recently where having higher mobility than an opponent has been crucial to the fight to dismiss the concept out of hand.

The advantage is subtle - it's certainly not the case that you can just make something faster and it's automatically better by the same degree, but greater mobility means you can often choose which battles you take and where those battles are fought, when the circumstances allow.

This might well mean that it's only important sometimes, or for certain applications (e.g., cavalry), but I do think tactical mobility is worth something - it's just far too easy to put outlandish claims on the effect it can have.

So yeah, Leopard 1 made sense for the German cold war doctrine, which was heavily focused on counter-attack and manoeuvre. It would have made zero sense for BAOR, whose static defence in depth was built around Cheiftain. The M60 plays more of an supporting, enabling role in US doctrine, so it needs to be somewhere in between, because it needs to be able to protect and exploit. 

(Obviously doctrine and equipment are a chicken and egg situation, and just because something "makes sense" doctrinally, doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea - this is the kind of thing that can be explored with CMCW)

[lcm1947]

On 1/7/2023 at 8:33 AM, ratdeath said:

From the force selection in QB I thought the most common tank was T-64s as the T-62 is only available in reserve formations.

Actually, in 1979 and 1980 the 64-A and the 62's are standard while the 64-B is common.  I am assuming standard means more plentiful whereas common means less often.