>*blocks your path* How the fuck did NATO plan to face these

>>34605445
Up until the 80s armor was lagging behind behind new at missiles and rockets. So it didn't really matter what tank you had, you were going to die if you were hit.

>>34605445
>How the fuck did NATO plan to face these things?
missile spam

>>34605445
ROCKET SPAM POWERS ACTIVATE!

Nukes, a lot of nukes.... A shit ton, from both sides

>>34605482
>>34605492
It had some 450mm frontal protection against HEAT due to composite armor. I don't think any land-based ATGM NATO had in 60's and 70's could scratch it.

File: TOW_fired_from_Jeep.jpg (64KB, 684x542px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 684x542px

>>34605445
*penetrates your tank*

>>34605543
Nope, until improved TOW comes into service.

>>34605530
>>34605555
You go for the sides with ATGMs anyway, a Law66 or even a carl G will do

>>34605445
Bombs, missiles, APFSDS and HESH from chieftans and AMX-30s, M60s, etcetra, and my personal favorite, the Davy Crockett.

The thing about the cold war, especially in Europe, is that if it had gone hot then there is no way in hell the nuclear weapons weren't going to be brought out, which is why a number of units were equipped with nuclear recoilless rifles, to delay until an effective counterattack could be forged, or, more likely, for the nukes to start flying...

>>34605555
>Implying T-62 has 430mm side/rear armour

>>34605568
Well attacking sides works for any tank, but tankers also try to avoid that, so it's not like this wasn't a major weakness. I suppose T-64's weren't deployed in insane numbers until early 80's, but still, it's incredible how weak NATO was in some areas until mid-80's.

File: 434-60.jpg (268KB, 1222x558px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1222x558px

>>34605596
I'm talking specifically about armor and AT weapons, and besides air-deployed stuff NATO had no counter for this tank in most probable combat situations.

>>34605555
In the late 70s ITOW hit the scene.

Then the US had the MGM-32A in the early 60s, with its 650mm pen.

Then the US had the AGM-22 in the 50s, with 600mm pen

>>34605629
Okay but as I said I'm talking about land-based AT weapons, and ENTAC wasn't that effective was it.

>>34605629
Entac and SS.11?
What?

They probably couldn't even front kill a T-62 ffs, plus it's 50's - early 60's MCLOS shit, and markedly worse than the AT-3 Sagger

>>34605652
SS.11 and ENTAC can be fired from the ground dipshit

>>34605620
Don't discount the L7

>>34605620
I wouldn't say that, the L7 and L11 guns are quite lethal with their APFSDS and HESH rounds, trying to find exact numbers, but I know that they can go through the front and sides of a T-62 or T-72 without too much difficulty, if I remember correctly

>>34605664
I did not say that, I said it wasn't very effective, are you functionally illiterate?
>>34605679
Ammuntion it used until late 70's would have trouble with T-64. Meanwhile T-64 could nuke any Western tank from any realistic distance.

>>34605752
T-62 and T-55 wouldn't be problematic, but I'm talking about T-64 here.
In any case former two were deployed in insane numbers.

>>34605603
And by the 80s challys, Leo's and m1s would be slapping it's shit.

>>34605445
Whats with all these shit threads recently?

>>34605766
Yes but I'm talking about 60's and 70's. It seems to me Soviets would cut through NATO like knife through butter in that period, and not just because of this detail. Unless nukes are used of course, but they planned for that.

>>34605662
Uhhh, 650mm pen does not care if your a t-32 or a armata, it's going to go though 650mm.

>>34605755
They were plenty effective, they just require a LOT of training.

But your question is what did the US have, with the implications of it being reasonably being able to do the job.

That's what they had, and it was more the capable of doing it.

>>34605752
T62 : 102/242mm
T64 : 370/440

L15: 340@ 2KM
L15A4: 450 @ 2KM
L23A1: 450 @ 2KM

There wer instances during the invasion of kuwait during the battle of the bridges where kuwaiti chieftains took out some T72s without using jericho ammo(IE with L15/L15A4 or L23A1)

>>34605767
i think its a lack of /THG/ thread since the dud that did them no longer posts here

>>34605787
Yeah well it wasnt really deployable in numbers till then anyway. I wonder how much the Vietnam war stagnated American tank design

>>34605830
>Both were out of service before 1970
Because the TOW was such a superior system
Your pen figures are all fucked up. Entac and SS.11 were 106mm Recoilless Rifle tier or worse.
The wiki isn't correct, penetration performance was similar to (early) Saggers and Snappers.

The BGM-71 TOW is quite fucking large for a multi-purpose ATGM - it outsizes Mistral, HOT, AT-4/5, etc. You would have to be batshit to think a smaller box launched MCLOS piece of shit could compare

File: MBT2.jpg (3MB, 4054x1930px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4054x1930px

>>34605445
Pic related is the western advanced pre composite armor MBT desings, it was not untill 1978 that the first Leo 2's entered service (i think the abrams entered service around the same time)

>>34605941
More like 90mm M67 Recoilless Rifle tier

>>34605949
Can you name them all?

>>34605861
Of non tube launched portable ATGM's, Sagger was most successful. It had the best MCLOS controls, and the firer could be located up to 25m away from the missile, and could rig multiple missiles up to one command unit.
The sagger got improved warheads and SACLOS with later variants (circa 70's).
The Entac/SS.11 were so fucking far behind TOW and even Sagger they didn't even last until 1969

>>34605941
>Mistral
I meant MILAN, sorry

>>34605949
What tank is bottom left?

>>34605977
I don't know why you're replying to me L15/L23 are 120mm KE penetrators

>>34605766
there is no real world engagements of a m1 vs another modern Russian tank to judge who would win.

though there is plenty of real world evidence and examples of Abrams being BTFO by Russian anti tank.

File: 1477624749916.jpg (462KB, 1280x1043px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1280x1043px

>>34605994
Swiss panzer 68

>>34605830
That penetration figure is bogus.

The Swiss/West German Cobra, a MCLOS missile used by the USMC in small numbers, was quite larger than an ENTAC or SS.11 and it could only penetrate 475mm

>>34606032
only tandem warhead ones, such as the RPG-29, or against monkey model ones exported to the Saudis and Iraqis. The RPG-29's a beast of an anti-vehicle weapon, though.

>>34606029
meant for
>>34605830

>>34605755
On the plus side at least the western tanks had the volume of fire advantage, better hull down capability and (dependent on model) better FCS

File: IMG_4085[1].jpg (291KB, 1600x1210px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1600x1210px

>>34606050
Here are some swedish penetration figures
http://tanks.mod16.org/2015/09/25/armor-penetration-of-swedish-tank-and-anti-tank-weapons/

Because WARPAC armies were hideously unprepared. There was an anon who posted a story about a time that his dad, in the Czech army, was called up for a drill exercise that everyone thought was the real deal. I didn't save it, so here are some highlights;
>half of the man-portable equipment was non-functional or gone
>half the vehicles either weren't working, or didn't have either fuel or ammunition
>contradictory orders from every source
>nobody had any idea what to do or where to go
>entire platoons deserted, not wanting to die for the regime

>these guys were supposed to rush across the Volga and hold off NATO for three days

>>34606108
That's fucking brutal. I could certainly see it happening, though, I'd shit my pants too if they told me I was going up against Leos and Challengers, even early models.

File: butwhy.jpg (25KB, 262x246px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 262x246px

>>34605949
Why is it they decided to go with standard ERA with the m60 instead of the composite that was planned?

>>34605941
>Entac and SS.11 were 106mm Recoilless Rifle tier or worse.

Wrong.

>smaller

SS.11 had a larger diameter, and a longer length than the tow.

>>34606159
I meant to say RHA but ERA still applies

>>34606098
>http://tanks.mod16.org/2015/09/25/armor-penetration-of-swedish-tank-and-anti-tank-weapons/

Rb52 (SS.11)
(100m)
The minimum effective range for MCLOS SS.11 was 500m
400mm for ENTAC

Date of report - 1969
Improved SACLOS variant introduction - 1967
The US Army didn't adopt SACLOS SS.11.
The SACLOS model would be capable of engaging targets at close distances, unlike MCLOS
TOW largely replaced it by that time

File: silaceouscoredprotectiotw7_zps03678e46.jpg (55KB, 640x414px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x414px

>>34606159
>>34606171
this is what you are talking about?

>>34606159
Probably didn't provide enough bang for the bucks, either straight up or after having looked into how big a pain in the ass it'd be to manufacture.

>>34606168
ENTAC was a hot fucking mess and practically all of SS.11's kills were with SACLOS models

>>34606171
>>34606159
well, the main NATO armour design doctrine was, in the 50s to the 70s, until composite armour started really gaining traction, 'speed is armour, fire and maneuver'. at the time, offensive ability was massively outpacing defensive, and so your only real choice for armour was sticking incredibly massive slabs of RHA on your tank,which is incredibly bulky, expensive, and affects the reliability of the tank. The other choice was putting on enough armour to resist machine guns and auto-cannon rounds, and sticking a powerful engine in it, allowing the tank to move fast and reposition itself, NATO had, generally, chosen the latter.

File: Polish T-72M1 or PT-91 glacis.jpg (218KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x600px

>>34606189

>>34606189
>homo steel

File: simpsons_steel_mill.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>34606189
>silaceouscoredprotectiotw(...).jpg
>SOLID HOMO-STEEL ARMOR
And we all know where those are made!
or
The Simpsons did it!

>>34606249
>>34606253
brofist, no homo.

>>34606108
That tends to happen when you have hundreds of divisions, alot of which are not active duty.
The Soviets themselves had 10-20 full strength maneuver divisions, and the other ones were in a low state of readiness/reserve - with just full time/part time/rotating cadre and maintenance detachments taking care of entire brigade/divisions equipment. They'd drill like every month or what not, but otherwise have their civilian lives.
The Soviets only required like what 3 years active service, followed by reserve service

File: IMG_0923.gif (70KB, 650x474px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 650x474px

>>34605445
Get out of my way you fuckin commie. I'll take you to hell with me!

>>34606159
high costs and not enough manufacturing capability for the siliceous cored armor

>>34605445
>How the fuck did NATO plan to face these things?

The didn't.

Thats the most simple answer, their defense wasn't based around the idea of actually stopping the red army on its tracks but rather to mount a flexible defense in West Germany hoping that it would eroide the soviet forces just enough so by the time the Soviets hit the Rhine 5 days had passed, the US would be in France and already on a counteroffensive against a weakened enemy that lost most of its first echelon forces.

I don't even remeber where I read it, but NATO forces in West Germany and specially West Germany were instructed to resort to guerrilla warfare after the first 24 hours of the war and save as much equipment as possible for the counterattack.

This would have worked? No idea, Russians weren't that retarded and did put some emphasis on force conservation so their tank columns were organically protected by SAMs and ZSU on big numbers(and for you SEADers, they were instructed to not use their radars but rather depend on the radars far away on the front and trained to defend themselves from typical EW trickery),that had orders to shoot as soon as the enemy was in range without taking into consideration optimal range, they focused on maintaining air superiority through numbers and their artillery was based around the idea of mass and sector fucking and at least howitzer were organic to regimental level(so there is some level of decentralization), on the ground they put an emphasis on making sure that tank threats like ATGMs, Helis and artillery were first destroyed in the offensive and countered by similar means in the defensive.

To avoid nuclear vulnerability everything except maybe artillery was motorized. avoided massing like they did on WW2, relied on cable and visual signals rather than radio and used mock ups and mobility a lot to avoid easy destruction through tactical nukes.

I'm not saying that they would win, but rather that it would be a hell of a fight.

>>34605445
>How the fuck did NATO plan to face these things?

there were nuke mines all over germany- they have since been moved, in smaller numbers, to Poland.

>>34606469
I wouldn't suppose you have a source for that? Because last I checked those were all deactivated.

File: Bo-105 TOW.jpg (1MB, 2409x1705px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2409x1705px

Just spam these

File: SA-7.jpg (45KB, 600x351px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x351px

>>34606664

Sorry I cannot hear you over the sound of how many manpads I have.

>>34605949
>1978 that the first Leo 2's entered service (i think the abrams entered service around the same time)

Makes sense. If I recall they all came from the same development program and base prototype.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70

File: 3m above ground.jpg (66KB, 892x409px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 892x409px

>>34606728
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2jIgR7twmc

>implying you'd even notice the helicopter before it's too late

>>34606806
It's a bit impossible to use the TOW in that circumstance, or indeed any ordnance other than randomly throwing grenades out the window and hoping it hits somthing.

File: Defensive observation posts.png (166KB, 671x616px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 671x616px

>>34606806

>Implying I wouldn't visually catch any heli with ATGMs coming out from obvious visual obstacles.

Although I always wondered, whats the point of having infantry near a tank if infantry based ATGMs can be shot much further away than infantry weapons can deal with them and as we have seen in Syria missiles are hard to see coming so they can't warn the tank crew of the impending threat.

I get that the point of infantry near a tank is to deal with these threats but that makes far more sense in the 200-500m domain were at least the infantry can shoot the ATGM operator and either kill him or make him fail, and thats if they see him.

File: crockett.jpg (120KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x600px

>>34605445

>>34605445
>How the fuck did NATO plan to face these things?
T-64 had 180mm armor (as NATO believed). No problem to deal with.

File: a68.png (301KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 520x678px

>>34606914

>Handle with care

>>34606032
I get that they were export models but to discount all the m1s experience vs Iraqi t72 and how bad they blew them out is bullshit. especially if you are going to bring up Russian atgms killing export m1s.

Fact is the m1 is the only modern tank with any real combat experience in large numbers.

>>34605445
Because amerisharts stole the german rocket scientists while soviet scums stole the panzer and assault rifle scientists

>>34606998
I think you are in the wrong thread you brain dead wehrboo.

File: shoo shoo wehraboo.jpg (120KB, 988x688px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 988x688px

>>34606998

>>34605445
Jets and artillery

>>34606931

Well around that time people believed that weapons were so hard hitting that tanks shouldn't even bother to use armor in the first place and rather focus on mobility, so in comparaison to your numbers the Leopard 1 had 40-55mm, AMX-30 80mm and the M60 was around the 150mm.

Then the soviets came around with good armor, mobility and somewhat decent stabilization and bricks were shat for around a decade.

>>34607042
1.Manpads+shitton of aa and jets
2.not with shitty western artillery

>>34605445
>This thread again

>>34606911
Mostly to prevent other infantry from fucking with the tank, a lone tank is extremely vulnerable to infantry even with the mounted machine guns, there's a video of a t72 maybe in Syria where they shoot the mounted gun to disable it before going down to incapacitate the tank up close

>>34606469
>there were nuke mines all over germany-
Incorrect. At best a major exaggeration.

>they have since been moved, in smaller numbers, to Poland.
Absolutely false.

>>34605445
>what are ATGMs
>what is NATO air cover
>what is the USN
>what is the USAF
>what is france
>what is SEAD
>what is rotory wing
>what is German armor
>what is US armor
>what is NATO itself

literally kys

>>34605949
>that starship

THICC

>>34605530
considering the 120mm APFSDS of the Chieftain could cut through the frontal armour of the turret of a T-64 no problem, I think they would've been fine

>>34606911
>and as we have seen in Syria missiles are hard to see coming so they can't warn the tank crew of the impending threat.

what is, LWR
>in b4 lel no LWR on tanks
fucking pleb

File: 10922427_972046736188789_1409742209876102776_n.jpg (55KB, 600x731px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x731px

>>34605445
>How the fuck did NATO plan to face these things?

Attrition via air power and shitloads of ATGMs, slow their tempo of operations with gas and, lets face it, NATOs plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons early and often.

>>34607217
Sure, if the Chieftain made it to the battle and wasn't stuck in some repair depot getting its engine unfucked.

>>34607338
You don't need to move anywhere when you'll be sitting in a ditch waiting for T-64's and BMP's to cross your line of fire.

The Chieftain's reliability issue was fixed by the Mk.6 variant.

File: 1500324642863.jpg (4MB, 3300x2550px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3300x2550px

>>34607010
>>34607028
He isnt though
>look up Werner von Braun center in Hunstville Alabama
>Red Stone Arsenal Huntsville Alabama
>yfw Nazis gave us the edge over Soviets in Rocket and missile technology.

>>34607217
>Chieftain
>APFSDS

File: 1499662224784.jpg (195KB, 500x629px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 500x629px

>>34610145
The entire US military rocket program was moved from White Sands New Mexico to Huntsville Alabama because the Nazis didn't like New Mexico's geography and climate. The Nazi thought Alabama reminded them of home with all its trees.

File: mg42NordWestGermany1953.jpg (100KB, 728x467px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 728x467px

>More based former Nazis
>First line of infantry in west germany in 1953
These dudes were ready to lay it on the line for Europe in WW3 and knew they would be decimated.

File: 1280px-M110_Column.jpg (213KB, 1280x834px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1280x834px

>>34605445
*Blocks your path with enhanced radiation weapon*

>>34605949
What is the one bottom row, second from the left?

>>34605445
Instant minefields, a la ADAM and RAAM.

>>34612143

Wouldn't work only by themselves, the soviets had orders to simply ignore minefields and keep going forward.

Also, in case of air attack they had orders to accelerate forward and disperse and tell the air forces or use their own means of air defense(which weren't exactly small)

Attrition wasn't a concern for the soviets, brutal extermination of the enemy with all the means possible was.

File: 137485980010.jpg (51KB, 340x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 340x480px

>>34605445
Israelis knocked the shit out of those tanks with surplus U.S Sherman tanks.

File: A-10droppinloads.jpg (142KB, 920x1379px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 920x1379px

>>34612263
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears
100 British Centurions with Israelis vs 500 arabs with Soviet T62s that have night vision.
>Gets BTFO still
>Dune coons and pathetic soviet engineering btfo
Even when given every advantage Ruskie shit cant preform.

>>34607217
>APFSDS of the Chieftain

File: 1413414256268.jpg (1MB, 3401x1358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3401x1358px

>>34605445
with a fresh brew

>>34612714
couldn't stand a chance against t64 if approaching from front

>>34606911
Infantry supporting tanks are generally for urban conflicts. Suppression, set up, and support.

In the open flat desert tanks can generally do fine on their own as long as they have air superiority.

>>34612218
>the soviets had orders to simply ignore minefields and keep going forward.
Brilliant! What could even go wrong.

nobody mentions that t62 cant fight at night without painting a giant target on itself?

>>34605445
Hochwald Gap all over the place with forest and road bottlenecks when the ground turns to mud in the spring.

>>34605555
I-TOW already came out before the T72B and most of the Soviet tanks will still be T62 and M variants by the date.

>>34610750
Looks like TAM

>>34610168
>>34612655
>what is the L23
gb2 War Thunder shitters

>>34612517
>Syrians ditch their tanks at a numerical and tactical advantage.

Embarrassing.

>>34612733
>L23A1 APFSDS - 500 mm pen RHAe @ 3500m w/ 1534m/s velocity
>T-64 only has 370mm - 440mm RHAe frontal armour
Sure thing, boris.

>>34612783
You think any of its contemporaries where any different?
There's a reason why tanks from that period all had huge IR lamps.

File: 1-d9BQwvF5Me-qo4AQevnClQ.jpg (355KB, 1920x1524px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1920x1524px

>>34605445

>>34606108
Let's face it, any war would have turned out like the Iasi-Kishinev Offensive in WW2. Most of the combat would have been Soviets vs their own allies.

>>34612938
>Date Fielded: 1985

>>34613084
>any war would have turned out like the Iasi-Kishinev Offensive in WW2
So Soviet victory?

>>34606308
Having bivouac'd at Schofield as a young man, I think it would have been nicer as a smoking irradiated crater. Maybe it'd be a bit warmer and have improved drainage.

>>34613187
>T62 : 102/242mm
>T64 : 370/440
>L15: 340@ 2KM
>L15A4: 450 @ 2KM

>>34607217
>120mm APFSDS of the Chieftain could cut through the frontal armour of the turret of a T-64 no problem
You wish.
>>34612926
>1985
Bitch, please, are you even trying?

>>34605787
>It seems to me Soviets would cut through NATO like knife through butter in that period
nah, they would've been taken care of. the soviets were closest to the u.s in the late 60s-early/mid 70s.

>>34613295
>When fielded in 1965, the L15 was arguably the most powerful kinetic energy round in service, able to defeat Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks frontally at ranges beyond 2000m, but only capable against T-64A and T-72 Ural tanks frontally below 1000m.
Uh-oh, bong got shat on again.

>>34613337
>>T64 : 370/440
>>L15: 340@ 2KM

>>34612218
>in case of air attack they had orders to accelerate forward and disperse and tell the air forces or use their own means of air defense

Which is why the two mine types were designed to be delivered by 155 howitzers. The idea was to move a light fast strike battery in, spam the armor advance with anti tank and (allegedly radioactive) area denial mines, leaving the armored elements immobilized and defenseless.

>>34605445
NATO just shat their pants until they managed to overtake Soviets with better artillery and munitions for artillery.
The best part is how modern-day NATO has fuck-all for artillery, and Russians have ridiculous arty capabilities

>>34614124
>The west
>Ever overtaking Russians in artillery
Tip top kekkity kek, not as long as Earth rotates around the Sun.

>>34614207
they used to have better munitions