Operation Unthinkable...

Point taken Neosdark.

Otto wrote:During the Berlin airlift  in 1948  the Soviet Anti-air response was in-effective; (A lot of airmen died though). "A total of 101 fatalities were recorded as a result of the operation, including 40 Britons and 31 Americans,^[4] mostly due to crashes. Seventeen American and eight British aircraft crashed during the operation... During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods  to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes,  obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining  searchlights to dazzle pilots at night. Although the USAFE  reported 733 separate harassing events, including flak, air-to-air  fire, rocketing, bombing and explosions, this is now considered to be  exaggerated. None of these measures were effective".- Wikipedia

Just for clarification Redguard, how many conscripts and volunteers were their in the Soviet Army?

Out of the 13 million Americans that served in WW2, 11.5 million were drafted. 6.3 million however volunteered immediately after Pearl Harbor. So almost 40% of American forces were volunteers. So not all American forces were drafted and it's good assumption that alot of the volunteers ended up in units like Rangers, Para's or Marines.

Reason I bring it up it because the only information I can find regarding Soviet conscription, is that all able bodied men of 18 years old were required to serve.

Also cool post Otto. Definitely get the impression that you've seen Robert McNamara's documentary The Fog of War. Definitely one the most interesting things I've seen about war in general. If people here haven't seen it, they should.

the soviets conscripted just short of 30 million men at the start of the war. I believe there was about 5 million or more already serving in the red army before the conscription began

thats not counting volunteers, i cant find a number on that at the moment but it will no doubt be astronomically higher than the US military, ill post it soon

the red army was the largest army of the time, it was the largest army in the world before the war, and after the war it was even larger by alot. a real steamroller

Last edited July 7, 2011 at 9:49 PM by RedGuard

The question tigerclawstyle poses regarding numbers raises an interesting issue. How many casualties could the involved nations sustain? IIRC 60,000,000 died in WWII. 25,000,000 in the USSR alone. Perhaps half of these deaths were civilians. The USA estimated there would be 5-6 million American casualties resulting from the Invasion of Japan. Britain's resources were stretched to the limit by 1945. They had never recovered from the manpower/braindrain effect of WWI. USA logistical doctrine during WWII dictated 19 people in the support chain for each combat trooper on the front. Doubtless the Soviets had a lower ratio but even in Medieval times 10:1 was the rule. How many casualties can a nation sustain and still continue the fight?

Naval Concerns:

1. THe Soviet navy, like the Imperial Russian Navy before it, was severely hampered in projecting its force to the far flung reaches of its empire(sic). Consider the Russo-Japanese War, Battle of Tsushima and more importantly its aftermath. As a result of the loss of naval control the Russians were forced to 1. Sue for peace. 2. Cede the Sakalin Islands. (Details of the Battle are interesting but not germane to the discussion. But note that the Russians lost more battleships in this one battle than the Soviets deployed during WWII -including the 2 LL BBs from USA and Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Battle_of_Tsushima ).


2. The "Queen" of the Soviet Navy was the submarine. The Western Allies  had great experience and success in countering submarine warfare directed against merchant marine and Naval Targets. German sub pens were effectively bottled up (they couldn't be blown up though). Allied sub efforts crippled the Japanese Merchant Marine  and  even infiltrated Tokyo Harbor!


3. The Soviets had and effectively utilized large numbers of small missile boats during the Great Patriotic War. If and when they could be deployed to the appropriate locations, (weather and geography again), THey would have been deadly in confronting Allied amphibious assaults.


4. AFAIK the Black Sea fleet was the most combat effective part of the Soviet Navy. I'm doubtful they could have forced the Turkish Straits and projected Naval power into the Mediterranean; Meaning the soft underbelly of the Balkans would be exposed. The Mediteranean was an Allied Lake by 1945 and Small RN and RAF forces had demonstrated their ability to neutralize the Italian Navy in 1941-2 (IMO Italian Navy more powerful than the Soviet surface Fleets).


5. The United States Navy and USMC were "Ne Plus Ultra" in controlling the sea . Where ever they could project their power they would prevail (ultimately). In this regard a production figure may be pertinent. By Early 1945 USA was launching one Aircraft Carrier a week. During the course of the War IIRC the Soviet Union launched only four BBs. BTW THe Soviet Union did build one conventional CV "Admiral Kuznetsov",  but not during WWII.
   

Lend Lease: For Four or more years  The Soviets had recieved the benefit of Allied support.  Did this create a hole in the Soviet arms industry that the planners for Operation unthinkable hoped to exploit? The large number of trucks sent to the USSR coupled with the change in railroad gauge at the Soviet border suggests to my mind that Soviet Operational effectiveness in "non-Russian" Europe might be impaired. Q.Does anyone know if the RRs in the Baltic States had been converted to Russian Railroad guage by the start of Barbarossa?
                                                                                           

Last edited July 8, 2011 at 12:02 AM by Otto 213

They predicted that their would've been 1 million casualties in the first month if the invasion of Japan went through. That prompted the American's to drop the bombs. Your question definitely raises doubts on whether nations would even be able to fight another war directly after WW2 ended in Europe.

If all a nation's resources are being put into the war effort and every man turning 18 (or younger if desperate enough) being sent to the front, then after another few years or five years or another decade of war, would they really be fighting for anything anymore? Just be continuation of loss and destruction, and most likely nations would cease to exist. If their aren't any new generations being born because previous ones are killed off and all the resources are wasted on the war effort, then that nation would simply become a shell of what it once was. Their soldiers and civilians would wither into dust, and all that loss would be for nothing. Manpower is all well and good but once their is a massive generation gap because of the losses, then a nation wouldn't be able to bring up any more troops.

I'd hate to bring it up but it serves my point. As most of us know 6 million Jews died in the holocaust. Now assuming those 6 million people had family and distant relatives, its safe to say that maybe one person may have 100 people related to them either then or in the future that was cut short for them. If my math is wrong (which usually is) that means their are 600 million souls(or so) that didn't get to breathe one day. The same could be said for any incident where vast numbers of human beings were killed. WW1, WW2, Holocaust, Holodomor, Cultural revolution, natural disasters and the 150+ wars that have been fought since WW2. Imagine if these points in history didn't happen, and all those people didn't die. What would  our population be today?

My point being is, once those numbers start to rise whether it's soldiers or civilians, and continue to, then a responsible government or military should be able or made to say "we're done."

It also depends on the nature of the nations and war itself on what could be determined of sustainable casualties. For example, I can't remember where I read it but it is said that today the Chinese are willing to lose their entire east coast (where most of their population is located) and still be capable of fighting, if a major war broke out.

Sorry if I got off track.

Your math is a little fuzzy. Start with 60,000,000 not 6.000.000... Your reasoning is correct. I think if the Unthinkable Operation had been pursued, regardless of the military outcome a negotiated settlement would have resulted fairly quickly. (In diplomatic time scales at least. THe fighting in Korea had stopped a year before a negotiated settlement could be reached. In Vietnam negotiations started in 1968. Over a year was wasted in determining the shape of the negotiating table).

I think the Will of the People would have been the cause. Winston Churchill, an early advocate of Unthinkable, and an ardent Hawk had been voted out of office in April 1945 IIRC. FDR utilized all manner of underhanded diplomacy with the Japanese to trick the American people into believing Pearl Harbor was an unexpected sneak attack. The American people needed to believe they had the moral high ground before they would support such a national effort.
I don't think betraying your Ally is something the People would consider right. Maybe RedGuard can shed some light on the Soviet peoples view on this. I find trying to obtain solid information about the Soviet Union somewhat of a futile endeavor.

OT: My brother-in-law's Father-in-law was a career engineer with General Electric. He was at Pearl HArbor on 12/7/1941 working on a recoiless rifle system to be mounted in the B26. The purpose of this weapon was to attack Japanese destroyers.

my sympathies and condolences to all the persecuted peoples of WWII

Governments all over have lied or conducted false flag operations to stir the common people's resolve into fighting for whatever cause for ages. Still happens to this day, and it's amplified with the media. Information travels so fast now, and the masses are easily manipulated that it's basically become an art form for governments to utilize it.

I definitely agree with your statement about the people and their opinion on the matter would be determining factor whether or not something like Unthinkable could have happened. 5 years of war, bloodiest in history, more casualties then all the wars in recorded history combined (correct me if I'm wrong on that), and people, economies and civilization in general were tired of it.

Imagine being a civilian on the home front or a soldier ready to go home after VE Day or VJ day, go to bed, and wake up to find out that another war has begun with your former ally. Pretty sure any person on either side would be quite pissed.

Also about your link to Pearl Harbor. "The Art of War teaches us to not rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his attacking, but rather the fact that we have made our position unassailable."

Quote Information travels so fast now,

This brings up the subject of espionage/counter espionage. THe Anglo/Americans were, are(?), the masters of code breaking. During WWII they had cracked the Japanese naval code; (Midway and Pearl Harbor- You don't really think it a coincidence that All USA Cvs were at sea on 12/7/41 do you)? German Naval and Heer  codes. Actually the Poles cracked the Enigma Naval code inf 1936(?). THe allies sent advanced notice of Barbarossa to Pappa Joe. (He ignored it just like king George II before 9/11). How would/did this effect the planning or implementation of Operation Unthinkable? At Yalta Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan 90 days after the Nazi's were Kaput. The USSR occupied Korea on August 9-10, 1945. THe JS3 was part of the occupying forces. Presumably Shock guards were too. In 1941 it took the Far East Army 4-5 months to arrive before Moscow.

The point of all this fol der rol is that Fore knowledge of Soviet movements would have been a powerful trump if warfare broke out again in Germany.

At the risk of incurring your ire, and in hopes that one day we will be able to mix and match factions in any game; I offer these trivia tid bits:
1. When Eisenhower was briefed on Operation Unthinkable he proposed withdrawing the Allied Armies to the Lowlands, while awaiting for the next generation of Heavy Armor to arrive at the front.
2. When Eisenhower became president he authorized the Interstate Highway System. (America's Military highway system). He insisted that one mile in every three of highway be straight and flat.... for use as emergency airfields and landing gliders. A little idea he copied from the Third Riech's similar use of the Autobahn during the Second World War.

Last edited July 9, 2011 at 11:02 AM by Otto 213

Otto wrote:
2. When Eisenhower became president he authorized the Interstate Highway System. (America's Military highway system). He insisted that one mile in every three of highway be straight and flat.... for use as airfields and landing gliders. A little idea he copied from the Third Riech's Autobahn.

Were the flat stretches of highway actually used in WW2?

no, the planes back then wouldnt make it from mainland USA to europe or the pacific, so they were launched from an allied countrys airfield not the american highway system.

the highways would be a last resort and by last resort i mean LAST RESORT

Tankbuster wrote:

Otto wrote:
2. When Eisenhower became president he authorized the Interstate Highway System. (America's Military highway system). He insisted that one mile in every three of highway be straight and flat.... for use as airfields and landing gliders. A little idea he copied from the Third Riech's Autobahn.

Were the flat stretches of highway actually used in WW2?

I believe I have confused the issue. German fighters used the autobahn as emergency airstrips when necessary. IIRC in Leon Uris' novel about the Berlin Airlift he mentions a C47/C54 doing likewise. Harrisburg Intl Airport's runway is only a mile long and it bases C130's. My point was that the Autobahn could have been used for advanced basing for air operations in Germany by either side during Unthinkable. To expand  upon the difficulties foreign armies would have had in a battle on German Soil: Rail lines airfields and ports were fairly easy to interdict. THe western Allies march into Germany was radically slowed by the Necessity of trucking fuel to the advancing armies from Normandy. From 1936 on all internal truck traffic inside Nazi Germany was fueled by Hydrogen. Fuel for ANglo/American and Soviet armies would have to be continually brought in once the German military fuel supplies were unavailable. The more I consider Logistical problems involved with Operation Unthinkable the more it seems like Mission Impossible. And we really haven't gotten into the land combat capabilities part of the arquement yet!?!

whoops i misunderstood you :-[

Sorry.

QuoteTHe fault (Dear Crassus) is not in our stars but in ourselves

My bad lads. I hope the correction I made to the post clears things up. I'm very weak on writing skills. Too many years working as a mechanical and civil engineer.

OT: What is the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer...A Mechanical Engineer builds weapon systems. A Civil Engineer builds targets.
hmmmn. same choice of words as Kalashnikov. @ RedGuard  what is the russian word for "Design"

Agreed, we've only discussed a little about manpower, but mostly nuclear forces, air power, and naval power.

Should look at Germany and central Europe, and try to assume where their would be bogged down fighting or fast advances. During the Cold War, NATO considered the "North German Plain" to be the key area of any Soviet invasion (ironically NATO call's cyberwarfare, the new "North German Plain").

We've brushed on it abit, but if possible, should to try to get an order of battle going and that might be able to give us an idea of what land combat would be like.

Also Otto, what do you think about the British Centurion tank in comparison to the Soviet armour?

IMO the Centurion is the best of the "WWII vintage" tank designs. I think the IDF (Israeli Defense Force designates Centurion as S'hot-"Scourge"), would agree. It has passed the test of time:

1. Korea: "Operating in sub-zero temperatures... General John O'Danie stated: "...In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new  type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go is tank  country: even the tops of mountains".".


2. Vietnam: "after three and a half years of combat operations, 58 Centurions had  served in country; 42, of which 6 were beyond repair, suffered battle  damage, and two Centurion tank crewmen had been killed in action.^[13] The Centurion crews...learned to remove the protective armoured side skirts from both sides  of the tank, to prevent the vegetation & mud from building up  between the track and the mudguards,(jungle).


3. Middle East: "Battle of "The Valley of Tears" on the Golan Heights in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  Less than 100 Centurion tanks of the 7th Armor Brigade defeated the  advance of some 500 Syrian T-55s and T-62s....During the war Israel captured 30 Centurion tanks from Jordan, (deserts/widely used).


4. Survivability: "An Australian Army Mk 3 Centurion Type K, Army Registration Number 169041, was involved in a nuclear blast test'''in 1953...It was placed less than 500 yards from the epicentre and left  with the engine running. Examination after detonation found it had been  pushed away from the blast point by about 5 feet (1.5 m) and that its  engine had stopped working only because it had run out of fuel. Antennas  were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sandblasted, the cloth  mantlet cover was incinerated, and the armoured side plates had been  blown off and carried up to 200 yards (180 m) from the tank. Remarkably the tank could be driven from the site. Had it been manned the crew would probably have been killed by the shock wave...169041, subsequently nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was later used in the Vietnam War ... 169041 is the  only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on  for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational  deployment in a war zone.

Its fair to say I'm a Centurion fanboy.

THe Soviet work with curvilinear armor as epitomized by the JS3 is not to be snubbed but the Soviets bought the equipment to manufacture heavy curvilinear armor from the Germans ~1938. As such it was a borrowed design. ("Unified design leads to superior results in AFVs" -TPCoughlin PE  :D ), Subsequent Soviet tank design/performance utilizing the Curvilinear Armor concept in the T54 through T80/T84 series has proved less then Sterling. I think this is because the Sovs development path pushed them in the direction of low silhouette, smaller crew sizes and a return to two-man turrets. Too retro AFAIC.

I look forward to the continuation of the dialog.

Last edited July 10, 2011 at 2:04 PM by Otto 213

Yeah definitely a very cool vehicle, and probably the first real Main Battle Tank. What's interesting is that it entered full production in 1945, and is still in use today by the IDF.

Even though the Soviet ground forces were massive, especially their tank corps, but the T-54/55 didn't enter production until 1947. Then like you brought up, it proved it's worth during Israel's conflicts with it's neighbors.

Tanks would arguably be the main focus in a operation like Unthinkable or any large scale land invasion then, or now. The question I pose to you, is did the British perhaps have a leg up on the quality of tank coming compared to the Soviet's at the time?

Also it would be safe to assume, that if Unthinkable was inevitable or during the course of it got bogged down in Central Europe or wherever, that the American's would start replacing their Sherman's with a MBT of their own design or maybe with the Centurion to enrich it's current forces. The "Patton series" of tanks didn't hit the ground floor until 1947 I believe.

Again its about tank design and quality not quantity. Which side had the better tanks after 1945?

Also I found this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_tank_production_during_World_War_II

I'm trying to run the numbers, but like I said previously, I have terrible math. What I'm interested in is how many tanks the German's destroyed, and what was left for the Soviet tank corps after German surrender?

Also off topic question for this thread and forum, but what do people think is the best Main Battle Tank, today?

Leopard 2 IMO.

the first true MBT was the t54/55 from 1950

the best MBT today is the abrams, hands down no competition

RedGuard: if an Abrams starts driving in the US, and I shoot a heat seeking missile up into the sky in Europe, I'll hit it.
In my opinion, it depends on the war you need to fight. If it's purely a "get of my lawn" defensive war with a few offensive options (if you don't need to do air or navel lifts anyway), then the Merkava wins.
If you need one that is able to be airlifted and such, I'd go for the Leopard 2 because it has a way lower heat signature and because it isn't a gasguzler.

Tico_1990 wrote:
RedGuard: if an Abrams starts driving in the US, and I shoot a heat seeking missile up into the sky in Europe, I'll hit it.

hah, thanks for the laugh. ;D theres no MBT that can defeat the abrams in a slugfest.

the US military, is smarter than that and more experienced than you can obviously imagine. this abstract anti armor system you speak of would be long disabled/destroyed before they deployed/exposed their armored columns

theres no stopping the US military in a direct and conventional war they spend more on their military budget than the rest of the world superpowers combined

insurgency and guerilla tactics are how you defeat the americans, wound their morale and break the public support at home.

Last edited July 11, 2011 at 9:37 AM by RedGuard

The question was what is the best tank, not which nation has the best support options. I think the Leopard 2, Abrams and Challenger II are all practically the same vehicle with the Abrams and Leopard having bigger guns but the Challenger having the greatest maneuverability. The Merkova is pretty different in function to the others. The tank/turret is designed in a more defensive way. Because of the turret at the back of the tank it's more vulnerable to flank/rear attacks is it not? I'm not exactly an expert on today's tanks though.

Fuel consumption is a very important factor in today's world. All emissions count. IMO Leopard wins out over Abrams because of this and it looks cooler.

Last edited July 11, 2011 at 1:17 PM by GodlikeDennis

Tico_1990 wrote:
it depends on the war you need to fight.

Oh so true.

RedGuard wrote:insurgency and guerilla tactics are how you defeat the americans, wound their morale and break the public support at home.

I would add effective propaganda to this list. Bin Ladin's, (may he rot in Gehenna), propaganda campaign to win the heart's and minds of Muslim Fundamentalists was a masterstroke.

I think the MBT with the best deployable ECMs Countermeasures should be on the top of the list.
My favorite current design is the Merkava. I like the front engine mount which protects the most crucial part of any tank, the experienced crew. The rear hatch design  also gives a new meaning to "Tank Riders".  YES DENNIS the Merkava is susceptable to rear attack but when a squad of Israeli Paratroopers hops out the back??? That seems like pretty good micro to me. :D

Isn't the Sabra IDF's MBT?

@ Tigeclawsstyle: I don't think the Brits had an edge in AFV warfare in 45-46. The main reason is Tank Production. AFAIK Brit tank production was limited to ~1800 tanks per Year. The Amis were ramping up their production of M24s and M26s bigtime in 1945. Total tank production for 1943(?) ~39,000 units. And with the fall of Japan there would be no reason to build one CV per week, etc. The Soviets were capable of producing ~ 2000 units per month. In 1945 Their Heavy Chassis production figures were about 75% greater than the Amis.If the Anglo/Amis were going to backstab the Sov's; Operations would'nt have started until fall 1945. Papa Joe may have known about the Bomb but he could not have known it would stop the war. Most of the Sovs newest/best Troops and equipment were deployed in Manchuria in August 1945. Germany and the "Eastern Block" were Stalin's primary strategic focus but Stalin had a healthy respect for the Folly of fighting a two front war or doing things by half measures.

The first operation in unthinkable would have been... THe Air inderdiction of the Trans-Siberian Railway! Eisenhower had already stated his views: Armies should be withdrawn from Germany to the Lowlands, Another Phoney War?... To be continued.

Last edited July 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM by Otto 213

GodlikeDennis wrote:
The question was what is the best tank

yeah the abrams is the best tank of this day and age - atleast thats what I found experts agreeing is the best  ;)

Leopard 2 is too cumbersome, besides the lack of an auto-loading system and modern active protection.

Abrams and Challenger are pretty fine considering passive/active armor protection.

Best armored are the Merkava series and T-90 (the latter being difficult to detect moreover).

Leclerc tanks are quite nice too considering firepower and protection.

P.S: didnt participated to the discussion about Unthinkable, no time  :P

RedGuard wrote:

Tico_1990 wrote:
RedGuard: if an Abrams starts driving in the US, and I shoot a heat seeking missile up into the sky in Europe, I'll hit it.

hah, thanks for the laugh. ;D theres no MBT that can defeat the abrams in a slugfest.

the US military, is smarter than that and more experienced than you can obviously imagine. this abstract anti armor system you speak of would be long disabled/destroyed before they deployed/exposed their armored columns

And you obviously didn't understand that I was not speaking about some abstract anti armour system, but rather, in a humorous fashion,  about the enormous heat signature which an abrams gives of. Also, I think that in a pure slugfest, the Merkava would be able to beat an abrams and I also think that which one would win between those two would be dependant on the crew.

In terms of actual engagement's with other tanks, the M1 Abrams definitely has the edge. It absolutely lit up the Iraqi tank's of Soviet design in the first Gulf War, but fighting conscripts with low morale and limited experience should be taken under consideration. Still, any tank with a barrel, should always be taken seriously, because it is still dangerous.

An old friend of mine is in the the 1st Armour Division based at Ft. Bliss, and has done 4 tours in Iraq. When the insurgency really kicked up in 2006, when he came back he told me he said he witnessed M1 Abrams being shot up by RPG's, and had their turrets blowing off and flying 50-60 feet into the air (his word's, not mine). Also I've spoken to soldiers from the Lord Strathcona's Horse here in my hometown, and they constantly get asked by tank crews in America to try out their Leopard C2's (upgraded Leopard 1's) when they go down their to cross train.

What I like about the Leopard 2 is the range of variants. Alot of nations use it and most look completely different to their counterparts. The Singaporean variant looks quite bad ass.

The Merkava is quite the machine as well, Israel knows that replacing experienced tank crews is important for it's force because of the limited number of people in Israel, but also because of the nature of the wars there. It's a small nation, and under certain circumstances could be completely overran in afew days.

The T-90 is a cool machine to, but has only been used in combat against the Georgians in the South Ossetia War, against older T-72 models. Definitely interested to see how it would perform against Western tanks.

Surprised to see no one has posted anything about the Chinese, South Korean or Japanese tanks. The Chinese Type 99 was designed after the Chinese observed how easily the Americans rolled over the Soviet designed tanks of Iraq during the first Gulf War. They watched that conflict and learned quite abit about modern tank warfare. Their most elite armored divisions are equipped with it. The Korean K2 Black Panther is a game changer as well and once it enters full production, will be a formidable force. The Japanese Type 90 hasn't been tested in combat, but once its complemented by the Type 10 will make the Japanese tank forces quite scary.

^^I dont call brave heros soldiers liars but i watched show in Iraq war that says not a single abrams was lost to enemy hostilitys

Between 2005 to 2009, 80 M1 Abrams were heavily damaged and totally written off. Another 500 had been damaged to a certain degree and were taking off the line or sent back to the States to be repaired.

Their were no casualties inside the tanks themselves, but when tank crew's had to abandon their vehicles some did get killed in ambushes afterwards or IED's. Many were disabled due to enemy action, and following standard protocol for any army, they set charges or called in fire support to destroy the vehicles.

Interesting note as well, is that in Vietnam the M-48 put 5000 miles on between overhauls, when procedure dictated that after 2000 miles, it should be overhauled. In Iraq War 2, some tank units had get a new set of tracks every two week.

Last edited July 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM by tigerclawstyle

@tigersclawstyle: Canadian EH.  ;)
Wiki alert! Caveat Emptor guys the Abrams article contradicts itself  several times!

tigerclawstyle wrote:
Between 2005 to 2009, 80 M1 Abrams were heavily damaged and totally written off.

Of  the 80M1 Abrams KO'd in combat (up until 2005?) Only 2 were written off  AFAIK. When deemed unrecoverable the local tank crews used their own  primary armament to try to destroy the abandoned tanks. (They weren't  particularly effective as I understand; apparently demolitions and auto  destruct are not features the Amis use in their Tank program), Much,  (some?) of the data on RLA penetration of the 105/120 tank and defensive  effectiveness of Abrams various armor protection systems come from  these incidents. Most of the reported damage to tanks in THe American  Follies in Asia seems to come from close range urban assault type  operations. Amis countermeasures include providing carbines for each  tanker, Hand held AT weapons and the TUSK system (Tank Urban Survival  Kit). Apparently All Amis MBTs will be provided with TUSK. It is  interesting to note the Reactive Armor (read as skirts and Zimmerit) in  TUSK is left up to the tankers as a field applied solution) Note: in a  previous post I used the term ECMs improperly. I should have use the  term Countermeasures.  :P
Two aspects of current Western Tank design concern me: 1. Use of  automatic Halon fire extinquisher systems; Which rapidly displace the  air and stop the fire but also rapidly displace the air and anesthetize  the crew. 2. The trend towards smaller crew sizes coupled with the  disappearance of autoloaders. I believe the Russians are going this  route too.

A note or two on cost effectiveness. The Amis government seldom stints  on spending money in military matters. The various folks who have  addressed fuel economy and emissions have valid points but the cost of  maintaining 5 soldiers a year in Afghanistan is greater than the cost of a  new Abrams Tank. 1.2million US$/man/year! for any of you cut the budget  but don't tax the rich (corporations) congressmen who read these  forums. >:(

Last edited July 12, 2011 at 11:22 AM by Otto 213

Yes Canadian  :P

I originally looked at wiki for the equipment losses during the Iraq War 2, but I also looked at the many Defense/Security reports that I frequently look at daily online. The Abrams damaged in combat are originally from a report from a think tank called the Lexington Institute, and its reports state that as of 2009, 80 tanks were destroyed. Their words not mine. The rest I gathered from online articles from newspapers and from a forum dedicated to tanks with men who served in Iraq. But perhaps I was abit hasty with the term "written off" and apologize for that. Finding accurate reports on these matters can be quite a hassle if they aren't directly from the military. I just wanted to establish to other readers, that the M1 Abrams or any other MBT for that matter, shouldn't be considered invincible. Millions of taxpayers dollars are being spent on overhauling these vehicles daily, and countless man hours dedicated to refitting them. For instance it takes a day and a half to remove a M1 turret and in 2007 they had to completely rebuild 1,400 turbine engines for them.

I agree with you on the follies of tank design fulls greatly on urban combat. From what I've studied, the insurgents in Iraq used tactics that were first mastered by the Afghans during the Soviet War, then the mujahedin in Chechnya, and Hezbollah in Lebanon during the many IDF incursions. Basically small teams of 3 more or less men, one rifleman, one machine gunner or sniper and an anti-tank man would operate together and simply wait for armor or whatever to pass by or be disabled by IED's. They'd coordinate their attacks with other small teams, and since urban combat is considered to be "Three Dimensional" worked quite effectively.

Also I've read numbers like that from many nations, regarding the cost of having a soldier deployed in combat zones. Any idea what the cost's of soldiers in WW2 or Vietnam?

Would you be interested in me sending you a PM with the different links of Defense/Security reports that I frequent? I'd definitely be interested in seeing what you read.

tigerclawstyle wrote:Also I've read numbers like that from many nations, regarding the cost of having a soldier deployed in combat zones. Any idea what the cost's of soldiers in WW2 or Vietnam?

All numbers are IIRC $162,000-US/soldier/year in Vietnam; $40,000-US/soldier/Year in WWII. I'm stretching here but $1,000,000-US/ day/week(?) for US CivilWar - Federal. Somebody should try to make an honest man of me if they have better figures.

Operation  Unthinkable Early naval operations

Naval blockade would be instituted immediately. Most Soviet ports are vulnerable to blockade because of geography and climate. Early amphibious activities would probably be limited to the Far East. After Patch's landings in South of France most amphibious transport was earmarked for the Invasion of Japan. Redeployment would have been slow. In the west I would think an operation to pull Finland into the act would be ideal but I suspect the Soviets could have held their own on the North German Plain and East. Their submarine fleet should have been capable of blocking the Skaggerack (sic).
Could Sweden have been inveigled into the Allied camp?

Last edited July 14, 2011 at 7:10 PM by Otto 213

It would be a very serious threat for the Soviets that is for sure. Since the bulk of the Soviet forces would be concentrated in central Europe, and the other countries they occupied, their back doors would be vulnerable. I'd imagine an amphibious force of seasoned cold weather fighters (Royal Marines, Norwegians, Swedes, and Fin's) could possibly land in the Karelia or Murmansk region. The Fins already had much experience fighting in those conditions. Think Anzio or Incheon but on a much grander scale.

As for Sweden I'm not to familiar with their military during that period, although I do know it was mobilized in the event of an attack. Of course you hear about the neutrality, iron ore and the Jews escaping from the rest of Europe. They may have stayed out of the war with Germany, but if something like Unthinkable had happened, I'd imagine they would be hard pressed to join the allies. The country itself was relatively untouched (big reason why I want to travel there, no bombs dropped on old architecture), and the Swedes at one point were a major military power.

I think the Swedes were a major power during the time of Empire Total War.

the swedes? they were never a power of any sort at any time frame

Yes they were.

The Swedes in the 16th and early 17th century were a very powerful and militarily successful nation. The Russian empire became powerful after being invaded by the Swedes and eventually driving them back under Peter the Great. They gained much of their knowledge of warfare from them. St Petersburg was founded on the Baltic coast by Peter after pushing the Swedes back that far.

The Swedes are also mentioned in Hamlet, if you've read it, as being the source of many of the Danish troubles, since they lost control of Norway to them.

King Charles XII is credited as being one of the great European military leaders I'm pretty sure.

Last edited July 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM by GodlikeDennis

if the swedes dont stand out in my mind as any kind of a power at some time history they werent.

im a history fanatic

And I'm a history student (university level). Sweden was a powerful nation once, even though you RedGuard might not be willing to aknowledge that. If you used to provide balance suggestions the same way "if I don't think/know then it isn't true" then I'm glad you aren't a part of the balance team anymore.

nations that were once powerful that stand out in my mind are along the lines of britain, france, germany, russia, spain, india, china, japan, greece, italy just to name a few and give you an idea

never once would sweden enter my mind. what did they do that was so great? who did they conquer? what did they invent that changed the world so drastically? nothing

if you provide stupid arguments they way you do now your head will melt down and you will make other mentally slow by looking at you. slughead ;D
im glad i cant actually see you

Ever heard of Mr Alfred Nobel? He was a Swede (the guy who invented dynamite and also the guy which the nobelprice is named after). Another famous Swede was Carl Linnaeus who, through his writings influenced a lot of other European studies. They were also the first nation to pass a law giving freedom of press.
Also, Italy never was a great nation, Rome was one. Greece wasn't a great nation either, several Greek citystates (most notably Sparta and Athens) were though.
Anyway, hugely off topic, let's get back to the topic at hand.

Search Swedish Empire. Also if your interested in military science and philosophy, check out Carl Von Clausewitz's On War. From that you'd learn that the Swedes were one of the first European powers, to put a professional Army together, and their system influenced the British Army (even today) and Napoleon . As we all know, he revolutionized warfare all together.

Swedish military history goes back to the Viking Age, and influenced much of Europe for a long time during and after that age. They've also been to war with Russia 11 times, and beat them 3 times in a row in the 15th/16th centuries. Russia beat them 3 times as well, and the rest were stalemates. Not bad for a nation you don't consider to be a power and is 1/8th it's size.

Also, in 1709 after nine years of fighting, Peter the Great destroyed arch rival's Charles XII tough Swedish Army (at the time, the Swedish King was considered to be invincible) and marked the rise of modern Russia and decline of the Swedish Empire. Read up on the Battle of Poltava if your interested.

Last edited July 17, 2011 at 12:17 AM by tigerclawstyle

Tico_1990 wrote:
[...]
Also, Italy never was a great nation, Rome was one.

Italy had a comparable army in both the world wars. They were not unified until the 1800's so you can barely compare them to any other country because it was essentially a collection of city states. I would call them history changing anyway, loads of inventions and ideas come from Italy.

Though we are infamous for being half-ass. Do you know the reason why Venice is flooding/sinking? It's because the Italians built the city on a mudpit supported by a couple of sticks. (My theory was the Architects put the sticks in the mud and said "Well our job is done here" and went off to have more wine) Also, Pisa was literally built on an uneven swamp, which is why ALL their buildings lean, not just the tower. And infact they can completely straighten the tower but they didn't because no one wants to see the Straight Tower of Pisa. :D


A little political turmoil is common though...but that can't possibly hurt anyone though...can it? ;D

Tico_1990 wrote:
And I'm a history student (university level). Sweden was a powerful nation once, even though you RedGuard might not be willing to aknowledge that. If you used to provide balance suggestions the same way "if I don't think/know then it isn't true" then I'm glad you aren't a part of the balance team anymore.

Ouch but +1

RedGuard wrote:
if you provide stupid arguments they way you do now your head will melt down and you will make other mentally slow by looking at you. slughead ;D
im glad i cant actually see you

Libel is a shitty way to argue, seriously.

You're wrong, Sweden was a powerful country in past times and has been stated/proven by multiple intellects here. That is almost like saying the Netherlands was never a powerful country because it isn't a very powerful country now.

We're way off topic guys. Lets stop arguing about Sweden, it's been proven that it was formerly a powerful country.

If you consider that Vikings are from Scandinavia they had a pretty good run considering they invade all over Europe, parts of Asia, and may have made it to North America 400 years before Columbus. They gave Russia all they can handle in wars several times before finally losing Finland and there other Baltic holdings. They were an Empire till 1910's when they peacefully split from Norway.

Italy was never great Rome was????? Rome was Italy, Rome didnt start going down hill till the majority of there legions were comprised by non-italians. Ruling Europe for 700 years not good enough for you?

Greece never did anything? Well Alexander might have been Macedonia but most of his soldier were Greek. Culture Powerhouse unmatched by any in history. Is there any period of history in one region that has more great works, from Philosophy, to architecture, art, literature.

Just because these things did not happen 100 years ago like some of the other nations you mentioned does not lesser there accomplishments. Maybe in 1000 years people wont think that America, Russia, China, or Brittan ever did crap and that New Zealand and Paraguay are the greatest nations that ever were.

Yes I agree, back on the topic on hand. The question Otto posed to us was whether or not the Swedes, would've gotten involved in Unthinkable. Again, like I said before, I don't know what kind of equipment they used before, during and shortly after the war ended in Europe, but I do know they had an extensive intelligence network from start to finish. Much of the intelligence gathered from Norway, Poland, and Germany itself cycled through Swedish channels to get to the allies on the British Isles.

Also many Swedes volunteered to fight for Finland against the Soviets which gave them alot of experience in fighting in cold weather warfare. I believe that the Norwegians, Swedes and Finnish with elements from Canada, UK, and USA could form a proper force to attack the Soviet Northern flank, either in the Baltic or in the Karelia region. They wouldn't make the same mistakes the Germans did (cold weather clothing) and the supply lines running through the Nordic countries could be sustained.

Again, where do you guys think an amphibious assault could occur (from Soviet/Western allies perspectives) and what kind of forces would they compose of?

Tigerclaw, I'd say a feasible option would be to do a naval invasion on St. Petersburg and then either expand that territory a bit so that you can split the Soviet attention on multiple fronts. The other option, albeit risky, would be to do a naval invasion in st. Petersburg, and then march on to Moscow. The downside to this is that you'll be left with a very long corridor for your supplies which is easily attacked.

vonklaus wrote:
Greece never did anything? Well Alexander might have been Macedonia but most of his soldier were Greek. Culture Powerhouse unmatched by any in history. Is there any period of history in one region that has more great works, from Philosophy, to architecture, art, literature.

The Poster seems to forget that the Indian and Chinese cultures are way older than said "Cultural powerhouse" and they survive to this day. On topic, the British had control of the middle east and Iran. They could have used it as a spring board to launch an invasion of the Caucasus. No Oil for the Ruskies!!!

Tico_1990 wrote:
Tigerclaw, I'd say a feasible option would be to do a naval invasion on St. Petersburg and then either expand that territory a bit so that you can split the Soviet attention on multiple fronts. The other option, albeit risky, would be to do a naval invasion in st. Petersburg, and then march on to Moscow. The downside to this is that you'll be left with a very long corridor for your supplies which is easily attacked.

Definitely would be an option. Looking at Google Earth, all the Soviets would have to do to close the Baltic is occupy Denmark. However, the allies could just use Norway, Sweden and Finland for its base, and move landing craft overland. It would have to be a mostly infantry force, regular infantry, paratroopers, and special forces. Artillery and air bases in the Nordic countries could provide support where battleships and naval bombardment might not be able to reach the area of operations.

The bulk of the Soviet and Western allies armor would be situated in central Europe. The idea of any amphibious incursion would be to go through the Soviet's back door, and maybe have an armor force link up with it. Air power would be key.

What tankbuster proposed is a good one, if the allies were to do a double invasion (one in st. Petersburg and one in the Caucasus), while keeping the soviets in central Europe as well, they could do a giant pincer manouvre.

I am uncertain where the ambhibious assault boats would come from for use in European operations. An amphibious strike into the Baltic would be attractive but unlikely. How long did it take the Allies to prepare for Overlord, A ~40 mile crossing where air superiority had been present for years. Operations in Yugoslavia or Greece would have helped isolate the Soviets from potential allies.

Turn the glass. What would be early Soviet Response to Anglo/American aggression?