Picture of the day

The Soviet T 72 B models with the "Dolly Parton" armour was surprisingly resistant/immune to the main Abrams AP round at the time according to one analysis I read.
The authors claimed this came to light after the wall fell and led to the speedy development/adoption of a better Abrams AP round.
Had a war broken out in the mid to late 1980's between NATO and Warsaw Pact, the Soviets would have surprised us with their level of quality, besides the advantage of quantity.
I will try to find the article source for y'all
 
It was scrap. What would it be worth now?

f9ftnlwvy4751.jpg


"You never lose money. You just sell at the wrong time."
 
zupermann said:
The Soviet T 72 B models with the "Dolly Parton" armour was surprisingly resistant/immune to the main Abrams AP round at the time according to one analysis I read.
The authors claimed this came to light after the wall fell and led to the speedy development/adoption of a better Abrams AP round.
Had a war broken out in the mid to late 1980's between NATO and Warsaw Pact, the Soviets would have surprised us with their level of quality, besides the advantage of quantity.
I will try to find the article source for y'all
Click to expand...

Numbers matter, and the Soviets had NATO swamped with a huge superiority in numbers of tanks which worked against qualitative advantages on the western side.

The Leo 1 reflected a philosophy where the Germans went for speed and agility to fight outnumbered in a highly mobile defensive battle. It weighed 42 tons (the WW2 Sherman was 32 tons) and traded armor protection for nimbleness. The Yom Kippur war was a big eye-opener which demonstrated the killing power of ATGMs and caused NATO tank designers to swing back to more protection. The Leo 2 is 62 tons, the M1 Abrams is a bit heavier, and they are both faster than the less protected Leo 1.

Its not just numbers and individual tank on tank. Crew proficiency and tactics make a difference, as do the use of other killers incl artillery, air and aviation. On balance, I believe NATO would have needed to go nuclear first to stop the Soviets before they got to the Rhine because conventional capabilities would have been overwhelmed by Soviet numbers.

4CMBG was basically a political presence to keep us at the adult table in NATO. People might remember that the West German Chancellor shirt-fronted Pierre Trudeau and told him to get some new tanks if he wanted to stay in the game. That's how we got into the Leopard tank in the mid 70s.

A brigade is an orphan formation which lacks staying power and maneuver capabilities outside of a divisional context. 4CMBG would have been decisively engaged and used up in a counter-penetration role. It was not a good choice in a counter-attack mission with only a single tank battalion. 2 tank battalions and 2 infantry battalions, along with better air defence and optimistically speaking, some attack helicopters, would have made it a better contender. But that was well beyond what our socialist masters were willing to spend.:rey2
 
From post 19760,

" no soldier would dare seek a permission to have a leave, because they knew that only thing they were going to get from their superiors was a bullet to the head "

Nonsense, German soldiers were given leave like any other army during WW 2.

Books written by German solidiers about WW 2, go into detail about the problems about travel to and from the front during the war.
 
.... and they came back demoralized when they saw the effects of Allied aerial bombardment on German cities.

A late German friend who grew up during the Nazi regime told of civilians looking for food having to dodge Allied "Jabos" (fighter bombers) patrolling the skies looking for any movement and strafing even individual targets during the final stages of the war.
 
Sharps '74 said:
.... and they came back demoralized when they saw the effects of Allied aerial bombardment on German cities.

A late German friend who grew up during the Nazi regime told of civilians looking for food having to dodge Allied "Jabos" (fighter bombers) patrolling the skies looking for any movement and strafing even individual targets during the final stages of the war.
Click to expand...

"having to dodge Allied "Jabos" (fighter bombers) patrolling the skies looking for any movement and strafing even individual targets"


My English grandmother had the same experience in Surrey (England) except they were German aircraft doing the strafing. My fathers experience (as a Canadian soldier) in Italy was the same although it was American fighter bombers strafing Canadians (they preferred Canadian gun positions)

(just to add .. after my father landed in Sicily in '43 ... there was no 'leave for home' for him until the end of 1946)
 
Last edited:
fat tony said:
I guess those are 1949 'bush' uniforms? It looks like the velcro webbing? The far soldier looks like he is not wearing an M1 helmet, but it is hard to make out.
Click to expand...

Hard to tell. Is that '51 or '64 pattern attached to the belt? What are those red patches on the shoulders? Patches look like 1st Division, Canadian Guards. So late 1960's?
 
Last edited:
bogusiii said:
Hard to tell. Is that '51 or '64 pattern attached to the belt? What are those red patches on the shoulders? Patches look like 1st Division, Canadian Guards. So late 1960's?
Click to expand...

4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Canadian Forces Europe, 1957-1993

tfSJoeT.jpg


McDonnell Douglas CF-188 Hornets over Hohenzollern Castle, Germany ca 1990.

If I put what & when the pic was taken...we can't have fun guessing!
 
AP said:
My fathers experience (as a Canadian soldier) in Italy was the same although it was American fighter bombers strafing Canadians (they preferred Canadian gun positions)
Click to expand...

My granddad said something similar. After landing in Normandy a couple days/weeks after D-day the only time he had tanks for support as an infantryman the Americans came and blew them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom