The Leopard 1 would have been the most common opponent for Soviet invasion forces in Europe in the 70s

Too late

To give you one detail: until late 70's (and introduction of M735), 105mm gun of NATO tanks had nothing that could reliably work against the frontal armor of T-64s at normal or even close combat ranges.
Meanwhile Soviets would easily defeat most of NATO armor from over 2 kilometers (if they could hit it, their FCS was indeed more primitive).
>correct some guy spouting nonsense about Soviet capabilities
>VATNIK
I'm just interested in historical discussion, is that a crime here or something?

Just to add, even M735 would have trouble at longer ranges.
Until the introduction of Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger, NATO tankers would be in for a rough ride if Cold War had ever gone hot in Europe.

All that tech is pointless without flexible command-and-control. You just have to target the Soviet command tanks.

That's a blanket statement. It's true that Soviets were more rigid in terms of tactics, but no, it wouldn't work like that and that's a far more complex question. Soviets actually took C&C disruption seriously. That's actually one of the reasons why they were so rigid. If you're more interested, I recommend Glantz, you can start with ''Soviet Military Operational Art'' and ''The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver''.
I'm merely talking about technical characteristics of weapon systems. NATO tank designs which were in service in 70's were inferior to what Soviets had in most aspects.
Furthermore, GSFG had the best equipment and the best officers. They wouldn't lack anything.

7 days to river Rhine.

Attached: Probable_Axes_of_Attack.jpg (372x530, 167K)

The over-emphasis on hardware is the mark of an amateur.

At the scale the Soviets were operating, once the armies were moving forward, nothing stopped them save death or empty fuel tanks.

>That's a blanket statement. It's true that Soviets were more rigid in terms of tactics, but no, it wouldn't work like that and that's a far more complex question. Soviets actually took C&C disruption seriously. That's actually one of the reasons why they were so rigid. If you're more interested, I recommend Glantz, you can start with ''Soviet Military Operational Art'' and ''The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver
This. At the level of industrialized war between super powers, the Soviets knew that it didn't matter if the occasional Western Battalion ate 3 Soviet Battalions in the initial battles so long as the Soviets were the ones most able to bring reinforcements and resupply through the carnage and the Western armies couldn't because the rear areas had been overrun by entire armies that had remained mostly untouched.

Their plan for WWIII was to win it fast and in an overwhelming fashion. Thing is, so long as your population has atleast a base iq of 95, that enough initiative for Soviet strategy to work. And Soviet strategy revolved around grand, massive sledgehammers of artillery and tanks to drown the enemy in ordnance and steel with the details worked out in action.

The Western plan of using tactical acumen and flexibility wouldn't have worked as well as like, because the Soviets had spare armies. Which means they could clog up the battlespace and leave no gaps for which to pull any clever maneuvering tricks in Western Europe, there wouldn't have been any room to go around this army or that, because you just bump into another Soviet force. So it was always going to be force on force attritional warfare in Germany and then in France. John Boyd wasn't a dumb guy, not in anyway, and his theories were very applicable....outside of the European theater.

And right behind those axis of attacks is Soviet WarPac reinforcements, so any clever maneuvering to attempt a flanking manuever just ends in smashing into another Communist army while the rest of the Communist plow forward and cut off your own reinforcements. 3 days later, foreces rendered ineffective due to lack of fuel.

There would have been nothing more kino than the tank battles and close air support in the Fulda Gap.

In other words, the Soviets had an army not configured for counter-insurgency warfare.

>, GSFG had the best equipment and the best officers.
Statements may vary. All the new stuff right under the nose of HATO?

>I'm just interested in historical discussion, is that a crime here or something
Y'know, wild claims without sources are.

>The Western plan of using tactical acumen and flexibility wouldn't have worked as well as like, because the Soviets had spare armies. Which means they could clog up the battlespace and leave no gaps for which to pull any clever maneuvering tricks in Western Europe, there wouldn't have been any room to go around this army or that, because you just bump into another Soviet force. So it was always going to be force on force attritional warfare in Germany and then in France. John Boyd wasn't a dumb guy, not in anyway, and his theories were very applicable....outside of the European theater.
That is just plain wrong, there are just so many ways you can effectively use to attack with tanks and all those ways are already known, most likely mined and filled to the brim with anti tank personal. And all you could do is getting most of your tanks shot before you even get what is happening and starting to hit the attackers position with artillery when they are already gone.

>Y'know, wild claims without sources are.
This
Making claims against a the consensus are more than often just bold lies and nothing more. If someone really wants to convince people he has to work for it and not go for the regular crap of acting like it is totaly obvious.

True but sometimes technological gap under certain conditions is too much.
See Iraq in 1991. Even if they fought 5 times better, outcome was predetermined. Their tanks could be spotted and engaged from massive distance. Occasionally they even did smart stuff like reverse slope defense. Didn't help them much.
Pretty much. Tactical defeat here and there is irrelevant, what matters it the big picture.
Though later on they did try to place more emphasis on leader initiative and what not.
>Statements may vary. All the new stuff right under the nose of HATO?
Yes, why not?
>Y'know, wild claims without sources are.
What ''wild claims''?

How accurate is this?

youtube.com/watch?v=gymiFY_efP4

youtube.com/watch?v=4bM_-9RI2M0

youtube.com/watch?v=kONMKmWQyE8

What ''consensus''?
What the fuck are you people talking about?
What I and the other guy are saying is the ''consensus''. I even gave you two books to read if you're interested about Soviet tactical and operational outlook during Cold War.

The leopard 1 was much better than the T-55 and T-62 that made up the vast majority of WarPac armor at the time.

They ran into problems when they fought wars that were smaller than Armageddon but weren't supplying a foreign guerilla force. In that respect, the Soviets hyper specialized. There is little reason for every Soviet APC/IFV to be a -20ton glass cannon with low survivability with air dropability and possibly amphibious capability.

But that's what they did. They built warmachines like they were perpetually about to be reinvaded by the Nazi's, which meant they kept ending up with a million tons of rusting steel coffins and nothing to do with them. The T54/55's can be upgraded and serve as Treaded Mobile Gun Systems instead of Main Battle Tankes, but the BMP series? 90% of Soviet made APC/IFVs have next to no use now, they are just unnacceptably easy to kill, and the amphibious ones have a limited market.

Hello newfag, let me take a wild guess: You are a week or so on this board and could not hold back anymore the urge to tell the truth to all those pesky westerners.

The Jow Forumsonsensus is that nukes would have started flying pretty early from both sides, rendering any number advantage totaly moot.

All IFVs and APCs are easy to kill, ignoring some modern designs.
That's not just Soviet thing. Though they and the Germans did bring the IFV concept to life.

I'm a Westerner.
>nukes would have started flying
That's why I said ''ignoring nukes''.
Everything else I and the other guy wrote is pretty much a consensus among experts and authors who deal with this matter.
Also, you sound like an incredibly cringy faggot.

>I'm a Westerner.
Smooth
>That's why I said ''ignoring nukes''.
No, you did not, you lying faggot.
The first time "nukes" where mentioned in this thread is the post you are answering to.
>Everything else I and the other guy wrote is pretty much a consensus among experts and authors who deal with this matter.
Who all talk about a cenario that would never have existed this way. Nukes where planed to be used by both sides right from the start.
>Also, you sound like an incredibly cringy faggot.
Why dont you go in the corner and play with the wehraboos, they love to play all those what would happen when games, you projecting faggot.

This. Our fanboys here think every single soviet tank was invincible ERA covered monstrosity. Whereas in fact the bulk of forces was made up of basic bitch T-72Urals, T-62s or ancient T-55s.

You're right, I didn't, I actually wanted to say it but I changed that post, I apologize.
>Who all talk about a cenario that would never have existed this way.
So what? We're forbidden from discussing it?
What's your fucking problem?
This is was a thread about how would Leopard 1 perform in 70's, and then it expanded into a discussion of Soviet tactics and potential performance in a Cold War scenario.
If you don't like this thread get the fuck out.

NATO should have all just bought M60s. Easily the best Western tank, and the M60 shat all over the Leopard 1 in every metric. Replace your scenario with M60s, and the Soviets would have been blunted in their attack since M60s werent made out of fucking paper

While that's true, GSFG had the best equipment Soviets had at the time.

Their army was not configured to control territory with anything less than full scale deployment. The worst of the problems, like shit gun depression and shit gun elevation, were things that should have been solved in every tank after the T55's got their first upgraded.

Their armored force was also hideously vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry, something that was very common in the early Cold War, and the proliferation of effective man portable antitank weaponry, and the brutal effects of artillery against concentrated armor, would have GUARANTEED enormous casualties. The first 2 Shock Armies sent against Western positions would have been eaten alive. And the Soviets would have been forced to use several of their field armies as occupation forces because they would have been losing men and material at a rapid pace.
>most likely mined and filled to the brim with anti tank personal.
Enough to eat 2 Shock armies alive and maul the third.

>And all you could do is getting most of your tanks shot before you even get what is happening and starting to hit the attackers position with artillery when they are already gone
I'm pretty sure the artillery bombardments would have been ongoing against suspected NATO positions, and fire adjusted for particularly difficult areas. And if the defenders run away before they run out of ammo, they just get cut down on the retreat.

The Soviet plan was quite literally to take enormous disproportionate casualties up front and save themselves the trouble of a long and grueling war.

I'd say this applies to everything short of the mid to late 80s. At which point NATO antitank capabilities had reached silly points, and both sides coutner artillery capability had also gotten wacky.
>Even if they fought 5 times better, outcome was predetermined
If they had been WarPac lead by Soviets, they would have launched an invasion into Saudi Arabia and smashed the early build up of allied forces before retreating

>shit reverse speed
>shit handling
>massive skyscraper of a turret
>driver not on the right side of the vehicle
>M68 cannon
>no superior german optics

nice b8

Attached: AKL052235.jpg (2500x1630, 667K)

>If they had been WarPac lead by Soviets, they would have launched an invasion into Saudi Arabia and smashed the early build up of allied forces before retreating

True but I don't think they would fare much better.

What? No, just buy Chieftain's and replace the engine with something that works

>driver not on the right side of the vehicle
Having him in the center of the vehicle is way way better

no, just buy chieftains and replace every part but the builder's plate with better components. This'll scare the commie into thinking the entire line is occupied with chieftains and think it'll be easy pickings.

What's wrong with M68? It's literally American version of L7 used by Leopard.

The Chieftain was not as bad as you say it is but it was not as good as teebs think it is.

right side, literally the best side to check for roadside objects, contacts and road integrity.
-most likely to see mines or IEDs on the right road edge.
-more likely to see contacts off the side of the road.
-loader can still use his dominant right hand to load.

Yes they would have. The Iraqi forces were crewed and lead by the mentally retarded. Eastern Europeans at least had an average of 95-100. The Sheridan and HUMVEE forces that were there in the earliest days would have been eaten alive. None of this gets into the problem that the Iraq Iran war would have been an occupation conflict and not a conventional war that it turned out to be.

>use EMP or EW to disable the pressure vessel
this makes the bong surrender

Drastically oversimplified and not as accurate as the chad L7A3 guns.

>would have been eaten alive
Until Americans quickly deploy their aviation and wreck Iraqis.

Weak bait. Or too much World of Tanks I guess
Friendo, Soviets cannot into standardization. Just because several chassis in propaganda platoon featured all bells and whistles doesn't mean other tanks in GSFG had working final drives.

>big red arrow right through the city where I never would have been born
This image always sends shivers down my spine

Attached: 1429889800712.png (950x894, 429K)

>You're right, I didn't, I actually wanted to say it but I changed that post, I apologize.
And the old garbage of being wrong and it not mattering at all.
>So what? We're forbidden from discussing it?
There are just all red flags going up with you, same talk as every other vatnik in disguise, all round up with the obvious lack of knowledge how all the other threads like this ended and what conclusions were formed. And than this forced 'huh who cares' and 'if you dont like it you can leave' bullshit like from anyone else that deals the same shit and proves to be just another biased idiot the second you actually spend some time discussing with.
Lurk the fuck more, before you think you can stroll in and lecture everyone on this board about stuff you dialed in pretty late.

If you dont want to be treated like the hundred other idiots doing that shit, you might want to step up and dont act like em for a start.

What the fuck are you talking about?
It's common knowledge (you can literally google it and read CIA reports) that Soviets fielded their best equipment in Eastern Germany, for obvious reasons.
I'm not talking about reliability of their weapon systems or shit like that.

Woah you're one paranoid motherfucker.
>lurk the fuck more
Perhaps you should lurk more outside of Jow Forums you cringy faggot. You take this shit too seriously.

>Soviets fielded their best equipment in Eastern Germany
Politely disagree
>I'm not talking about reliability of their weapon systems or shit like that
There is not much to talk about. Soviet gear was made for one short run towards the Atlantic.

>there could be retards thinking this for real

>no! you!
Me noticing how full of shit you are and how much of what you are doing is the same exact as the regular fuck heads aint paranoid at all. And that you are incable of engaging anything of it at all and only can do dimwit responses, just shows how right i was with all i said or you wouldnt avoid it so hard.

You dont know shit and at the same time you roll in here, acting like you know it all, while you dont even have a clue about all the stuff that has already been debated to death on the topic and you think you can make a point by just starting at square one again.

When it comes to tanks, GSFG exclusively used T-64s and T-80s once sufficient numbers became available.
Other models like T-72s were used for formations of lower readiness, on secondary fronts and so on.
Some of these forces would be sent to Germany as reinforcements, but those divisions in place were all fully manned and received the best equipment.

I don't give a fuck, stop responding to me because I will just ignore you, you fucking whackjob.

>please go away, i dont want other people to see what an obvious newfag and shithead i am, i just want to continue to tell everyone how they are supposed to look at thinks i only just got into
That is some multi level Dunning Kruger.

Or maybe some anons are just fed up how people like you hijack threads to debate the same old shit that this thread wasnt supposed to be about. How many of your posts where actually about the performance of the Leopard 1 against the most common opponents of a soviet invasion in the 70s? Like zero?

>premise
>NATO bombs random towns in Poland
>leave any military assets intact so the Soviets can start their invasion

What were the Russians trying to hide?

Even in the NATO at that time, people in charge were aware that the Leopard 1 was the only tank in service with a meaningful operational mobility.

I literally explained in the opening posts how Leopard 1 would be outclassed by T-64s in 70s.

Too bad that the tank was a mess. It was so bad that the Soviets instantly developed the T-72 as actual main tank.

Until the Mid-70s when it got a sabot round capable of destroying the T-64. Which is the timescale OP specified.

Leopard 1 was designed to be fast, light, hard hitting, reliable, and flexible. It had a solid armament and good FCS options that meant it was more than equal to the task of taking down the greatest threat they faced, being a mass of Russian T-54, T-62, and T-64 tanks and BMP/BTR infantry carriers pouring into Western Europe. A lot of NATO’s strategy would have been a huge defense in depth, with orderly fighting withdrawals over a variety of terrain types in order to absorb the brunt of a potential Soviet invasion, preserving as much of their force as possible in order to mount a powerful counterattack once the Soviet advance had petered itself out.

It had teething issues (which were solved) but reason why T-72 was introduced was because it was a cheaper and simpler design.
Later things get murky because T-64 is dropped and T-72 was upgraded and T-80 is also introduced (political factors played a role in this), but T-64 was a successful design and it was fielded in Germany in huge numbers, and outclassed NATO designs in most areas.

As I already said nothing that NATO had could perforate its armor at usual combat ranges, short of heavy AT missiles like Swingfire.

The typical combat range in Germany and Western Europe would have been a few hundred meters at best.

The navy video was good except it left out a few things. The Soviet Navy was far smaller on paper as it was hamstrung by its inadequate maintenance capacity and NATO forces seizing the Barents opens up routes for them to attack targets in the interior of the Soviet Union by air. A NATO carrier off Murmansk would necessitate the Soviets move a significant number of aircraft, EW equipment, and SAM's to defend against it.

Attached: admiral Kulakov.jpg (1952x1568, 378K)

>As I already said nothing that NATO had could perforate its armor at usual combat ranges
That only counts from the front and also not for the lower hull and the upper turret front or where the gun is embedded. Soviets would have been at a great disadvantage while attacking, simply because they only could all position their front against potential threats at a fraction of their time.

Are you a hamburger?

youtu.be/mlCRGD3rXt8

The Leopard 1 is fast

And which round was that?
Because M735 still couldn't reliably penetrate T-64 frontally, and it was only introduced in 1978. Keep in mind that introduced doesn't mean that it was widely available from the start.
That really depends where exactly, but in Northern Germany engagement range could be even farther than 2km. There's a lot of flat ''empty'' areas there.
That's true, and there's many variables here.
But I'm merely using this comparison to illustrate the fact that Leopard 1 was quite outclassed by T-64s which in 70's were becoming the mainstay of GFSG tank fleet.
Basically, T-64 can wreck Leopard 1 from any range (if it can hit it), while Leopard 1 needs to position itself to engage T-64 effectively.

I'm not arguing it's indestructible, and history taught us that technical characteristics aren't everything. But Leopard 1 WAS outclassed and it was a tank designed on a flawed presumption that armor is not that relevant since there is no protection against HEAT.

>That's true, and there's many variables here.
>I'm not arguing it's indestructible, and history taught us that technical characteristics aren't everything.
Always the same kind of bullshit with people like you, what the other user said about you is just true.
>But I'm merely using this comparison to illustrate
Nope, you are doing the fucking shill routine of claiming that one number is larger than the other and thats about it and everything stops at that moment, hoping no one objects and the actual truth get buried. You aint interested in looking into the subject, you are here to sell a specific story.

>Because M735 still couldn't reliably penetrate T-64 frontally, and it was only introduced in 1978. Keep in mind that introduced doesn't mean that it was widely available from the start.
Is there a good source on its armor? Because from what I've heard the anti-HEAT material was very poor against AP munitions. Overall I'd have to agree with you though, the 70s were not a good time for NATO on the ground.

>That really depends where exactly, but in Northern Germany engagement range could be even farther than 2km. There's a lot of flat ''empty'' areas there.

Germany is a dense populated country full with forests. Bundeswehr and NATO did studies on that matter and long range engagements would have been rare.

CIA estimated the armor protection of T-64A at 370-440mm on both upper glacis and turret front against kinetic rounds. There's various sources out there, but most are in that range.

Yes but there's a lot of open ground in Northern Germany, less so in Southern Germany and Fulda Gap. It varies, as I said.

>no arguments

>Because from what I've heard the anti-HEAT material was very poor against AP munitions.
You do know that composite armor has both anti-HEAT material and anti-kinetic layers?

German wiki says 335mm for upper frontal glacis against KE for the T-64A, 200mm for the lower one. Turret front is 280-450mm, while the upper turret part is 200mm.

Just ignore him, it's the same lunatic, only now he's pretending he's some other guy.

>samefagging intensifies

Well there's many numbers thrown around. Most are around 400mm RHA equivalent against kinetic rounds, as I said.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-03-06-22-54-38.png (1440x2560, 982K)

Not to mention the Soviets had a very large amount of regimental artillery(Gvozdikas) that would've been used to fire illumination shells, largely negating NATO's cover of darkness.

Also, all combat doesnt happen at night. The soviets had a major advantage at daytime, and they would've explouted it to eviscerate NATO defence lines. Once the soviets had a breakthrough, NATO would find it almost impossible to stop without nuclear weapons because of their lack of in depth defence.

So not really killable by 105 until DU. interadesting assuming the CIA was correct.
Yes but when more volume is dedicated to materials that don't really protect that well against APFSDS then it can become a problem.

>Not to mention the Soviets had a very large amount of regimental artillery(Gvozdikas) that would've been used to fire illumination shells, largely negating NATO's cover of darkness.

Thats not true, illumination shells aren't really something you can use continuously they put whoever's firing them at severe risk.

>Most are around 400mm RHA
>335mm
>200mm
>280-450mm
>200mm
Nope, just nope.
It only is so if you allow cherry picking on two sides at the same time. First you are only taking the hardest spots and then you are taking the values that suit you.

As I said Soviets had good image intensification technology, they wouldn't even need that.
However in late 80's they were in a serious trouble because thermal sights became widespread in NATO armies.

>The worst of the problems, like shit gun depression and shit gun elevation, were things that should have been solved in every tank after the T55's got their first upgraded.
Their gun handling was enough for the gently rolling hills of the central european plain. Soviets only intended to send tanks through tank country.

>Their armored force was also hideously vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry, something that was very common in the early Cold War, and the proliferation of effective man portable antitank weaponry, and the brutal effects of artillery against concentrated armor, would have GUARANTEED enormous casualties.
Less so than NATO paper tanks. Most NATO ATGMs of the 60s-early 70s were vehicle mounted, while Malyutkas could be operated by infantry.
NATO was quite pathetic in terms of artillery range and (especially mortar and MLRS)numbers because they expected the air force to the most of the work.

Why would you assume NATO counter attacks wouldnt be attacked by soviet massed artillery strikes?

>ooga booga you vatnik
>ooga booga you newfag

>Malyutkas could be operated by infantry
Why in the hell would anyone bring up the Sagger as an example of something good ever? 0/10 see me after class

I gave you a CIA report which estimates protection at 370-440mm.

>what was assault breaker
>what was soviet echeloning
>Why would you assume NATO counter attacks wouldnt be attacked by soviet massed artillery strikes?
A single level of recursion is the mark of an idiot, user.

The essence? NATO would destroy reinforcements and logistics with deep attack. Their superior tactical weapons weren't intended to achieve strategic victory through tactical victory, but to keep some front line units alive long enough for the Soviet machine to bleed out from deep strikes (short term/operational) or REFORGER to kick in (long term).

Brazilians still have Leopard 1

Which is a cherry picked value of the turret front without mentioning of it, clearly trying to imply the tank could not be penetrated from the front, when this simply aint the case.

>assault breaker
A program which resulted in various weapon systems and concepts which were only introduced in mid/late 80's. We are talking about 70's.

The only 200mm value against KE is LFP. 330mm UFP armor was superior to anything NATO had. Also NATO still used HEAT munitions for their tanks during the 60s. You cant assume they would always have access to APSFDS.

Okay, can you give me some sources which give other numbers?