Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is.

[GePap]

ON soviet tanks being better: How?

For example, a SU122 had heavier armor and much bigger gun than a Panther tank, yet all in all, the Panther, with its mobility, sufficient gun, better equipment (like a radio, better gunnery equipment), and speed was a great tank and capable, in the right hands, of taking out a SU122.

A M28 in good hands could take out any soviet tank of the time-certainly the M48 could as well, and the M60. The centurion was certainly adequate.

Now, this is not to say western tanks were superior-they were not- a T62, or better yet a T64 in good hands could have taken out any of these vehicles as well.

So I would not claim any significant TECHNOLOGICAL superiority on either side in tanks warfare until the late '70's when the NATO tanks gained an advantage. Who would win in the central front would have been a matter of doctrine and the size of the forces.

[Urban Ranger]

Wasn't the SU122 more of a tank destroyer? The IS series, on the other hand, were nasty tanks.

[David Floyd]

A M28 in good hands could take out any soviet tank of the time-certainly the M48 could as well, and the M60. The centurion was certainly adequate.

Now, this is not to say western tanks were superior-they were not- a T62, or better yet a T64 in good hands could have taken out any of these vehicles as well.

Which underscores my point of the importance of training and doctrine, areas in which the US had an advantage throughout the Cold War.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Wasn't the SU122 more of a tank destroyer? The IS series, on the other hand, were nasty tanks.

Well, my bad-though the point stands- A Panther could take out a IS122, certainly a IS122 could take a panther out. The winners would be the ones who got the best positioning, and better trained crews.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
because cities don't cover the surface of the planet, there is quite a bit of ground to cover before "all life is exterminated".

You don't need to blast every square inch of the planet to render it uninhabitable. You only have to blast nough of it to get so much dust into the atmosphere that you block out the sun and cause a nuclear winter. We won't even go into the effects of radioactive fallout.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Had he had a nuke on his own, well....)

Then the U.S. probably wouldn't have felt it could terrorize Cuba with impunity.

[Lancer]

Right now I have to go outa town, but when I get back this old cold warrior is going to destroy completely the notion that the US wanted to attack the Sovs!

Stay tuned...

US tanks better than Sov tanks?

Not in the late 70s early 80s...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
US tanks better than Sov tanks?

Not in the late 70s early 80s...

Who said better? but the notion that somehow technologically Western tanks were behind- anyone here willing to say that a crew in an M60, or a Leopard, or a Chieftain in 1978 could not defeat one on one a T72 or T64, or a T55 or T62 in the way a German tanker in 1941 could not really hurt a KV1 or a man in a Sherman faced with a Tiger tank? Anyone?

[Lancer]

An M60 was a piece of junk that couldn't survive long on the battlefield because it was too high. Vast target. The T-72 would have the advantage of cover. Consider GePap that the state of the art in electronics was the laser range finder, and both sides had em. Also, the armor on the M60 was slab sided. Even the later varients were not much better because of the height of the thing. On the other hand the cold-rolled armor or the T-72 was of better quality as well as a heck of alot better sloped, making it a much harder kill. The guns were about equal, with the T-72's being slightly larger bore. 115 vs 120? Something like that.

So I do think a T72 will win out more often than not when put one on one with an M60 or the later varients. However it is moot as the ratio was 5 or 6 to 1 in Warsaw Pact tanks compared to NATO tanks. 3-1 in aircraft. NATO launching a conventional attack into to Warsaw Pact is a ludicrous suggestion. Our aim was survival. The border guard units mission was to slow the advance of the WP for 24 hours. In this time we were expected to recieve 80% casualties, ie be wiped out. THe 24 hours we were to buy the main line divisions were to be used to bring them on line and up to speed, and bring the reforger divisions over from the US. Even with these divisions NATO was seriously outnumbered and almost inevitably in wargames NATO was forced to use tactical nukes to contain WP armored breakthroughs. NORTHAG was expected to be obliterated in the first 72 hrs (north German plain) while CENTAG was up in the air and SOUTHAG was expected to hold.

Anyway the notion of NATO attacking is absurd! We trained to stop em, and that was best case.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Lancer
An M60 was a piece of junk that couldn't survive long on the battlefield because it was too high. Vast target. The T-72 would have the advantage of cover. Consider GePap that the state of the art in electronics was the laser range finder, and both sides had em. Also, the armor on the M60 was slab sided. Even the later varients were not much better because of the height of the thing. On the other hand the cold-rolled armor or the T-72 was of better quality as well as a heck of alot better sloped, making it a much harder kill. The guns were about equal, with the T-72's being slightly larger bore. 115 vs 120? Something like that.

So I do think a T72 will win out more often than not when put one on one with an M60 or the later varients. However it is moot as the ratio was 5 or 6 to 1 in Warsaw Pact tanks compared to NATO tanks. 3-1 in aircraft. NATO launching a conventional attack into to Warsaw Pact is a ludicrous suggestion. Our aim was survival. The border guard units mission was to slow the advance of the WP for 24 hours. In this time we were expected to recieve 80% casualties, ie be wiped out. THe 24 hours we were to buy the main line divisions were to be used to bring them on line and up to speed, and bring the reforger divisions over from the US. Even with these divisions NATO was seriously outnumbered and almost inevitably in wargames NATO was forced to use tactical nukes to contain WP armored breakthroughs. NORTHAG was expected to be obliterated in the first 72 hrs (north German plain) while CENTAG was up in the air and SOUTHAG was expected to hold.

Anyway the notion of NATO attacking is absurd! We trained to stop em, and that was best case.

Then explain the Marines with M-60A3 at the Kuwaite Airport.

[David Floyd]

Wasn't the M-60A3 upgraded to include modern technology? And in any case, they were fighting the freakin' Iraqis!

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It helped to have more of them planes. Besides, in a war, one side always exaggerate the casualties of the other side and underestimate the losses of its own side. Always.

If you look around, you will fine out that we don't exaggerate plane shot down. Somewhere there is a list of every plane we lost in Korea. There are also a list of every plane we shot down. No I don't have the list.

[Lancer]

"Then explain the Marines with M-60A3 at the Kuwaite Airport."

Erm, they're marines...

Didn't know they made an A3 upgrade. Hmm. I'd have thought they would have **** canned the damn things by now. Well, they gave em to the marines, same thing.

Actually they might not expect the marines to be facing modern heavy armor. Hmm. Good question, can't explain it. Not enough Abrams to go around? Too hard to transport in existing marine transport?

Anyhoo, another good reason to GO ARMY.

Even better, pay attention in school...

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What about the Backfire?

First flight, not later than 1969 A model. B model probably 73. Enter service probably 74.

The "Backfire" would probably qualify as the greatest of the West's Cold War bugbears. Few aircraft have been as feared or as mocked, as overestimated or as dismissed. Soviet Military Power, the US chronicle of the USSR in the 1980s. Considered the Tu-22M to be a long-range strategic aircraft. However, both it and the 'Blinder' have only ever been used in the medium-range theatre role.

Source Modern Military Aircraft Anatomy. I also have the book Soviet Military Power.

[Ned]

On the original premise, I don't think there would have been a major war in Europe post WWII even without nukes. I am sure that the US did not have the will to raise a large army to attack the USSR without the USSR beginning to shoot first. I doubt that the USSR would have begun to shoot first because the had no realistic means of defeating the US. This would only mean their eventual defeat.

What nukes did do was almost cause WWIII - in the Cuban missle crisis for certain and earlier in Korea. The spread of nuclear weapons is tremendously destabalizing and can lead to anything, including nuclear war.