Soviet Infantry Training

I've heard from so called experts onother games and weapons forums that  soviet mechanized infantry  had completely inferior training to all their NATO nation counterparts due to being conscripted  and the AK-74, RPK-74 and PKM all supposedly being less accurate than the m60,G3,L1A1, FAMAS,MG3,NF1,etc.
Is this true?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I've heard from so called experts onother games and weapons forums that soviet mechanized infantry had completely inferior training to all their NATO nation counterparts due to being conscripted and the AK-74, RPK-74 and PKM all supposedly being less accurate than the m60,G3,L1A1, FAMAS,MG3,NF1,etc.
Is this true?

I've heard that pigs can fly. Do they?
Training wasn't inferior, compare it to any Cold War conscript army and You will see it. But it takes two seconds understand that maybe professional soldier with 5 years of service can be more motivated and experienced than a conscript that serves 2 years far away from home. But there is a big plus on maintaining conscription. People who already served can be called back in dire situation and You can imagine size of Soviet reserve pool.
Even now PKM is good machine gun. There is nothing wrong with it. Finland is modern country and they are buying PKM and KORD machine guns.
Don't have time to repeat myself all over and over about guns, but Soviet guns were potent guns that could kill. Real life is not star wars, and Soviets weren't stormtroopers.
Not all NATO forces were professional, not all of them had up to date weapons and etc.

I've heard from so called experts onother games and weapons forums that soviet mechanized infantry had completely inferior training to all their NATO nation counterparts due to being conscripted and the AK-74, RPK-74 and PKM all supposedly being less accurate than the m60,G3,L1A1, FAMAS,MG3,NF1,etc.
Is this true?

Obviously it is true.....in theirs minds.

In reality ?

Oh man....

Well someone, therefore, should have informed CIA on that ; so that them wouldn't had wrote something like that :


http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000500655.pdf


In reality the Soviet edge over NATO in equipment for mechanized infantry was both qualitative and quantitative; naturally before FOIA in all open media publications of those years was all about the ridiculous level of URSS's vehicles and equipment .

Are there any videos on the training of regular Russian mechanized infantry?

5th Motorized Infantry engaged in "hook" amphibious attack ,including outflanking of enemy main defense line through river crossing to obtain decisive local force overmatch.

No western IFV can do that still today .

[quote="Mindstorm"]
Well someone, therefore, should have informed CIA on that ; so that them wouldn't had wrote something like that :


http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000500655.pdf

In reality the Soviet edge over NATO in equipment for mechanized infantry was both qualitative and quantitative; naturally before FOIA in all open media publications of those years was all about the ridiculous level of URSS's vehicles and equipment :l

ol: .

Well NATO started to have edge in quality in 80ies. Before that they their mech infantry was nothing to write home about.

No western IFV can do that still today .

AMX-10P, Bradley with pantons (don't know word for english). There must be more I think

Well NATO started to have edge in quality in 80ies. Before that they their mech infantry was nothing to write home about.

Regular have you realized that this document was written in ....1987, isn't ?

That the problems highlighted ,for both firepower/range of engagement's overmatch and level of protection, are related just to late '80 vehicles ?

"..the Soviets' latest improved BMP-2 has significant firepower and protection advantage over the Bradley"

I repeat one more time: as usual in western open, not classified, publications of those times the overall tone of the "analysis" and assessment of the Soviet menace was almost the opposite of that present in classified documents such as the one here pointed out.

Try to ascertain where was the real assessment of the situation of those years.....

AMX-10P, Bradley with pantons (don't know word for english). There must be more I think

Bradley ?

Bradley is totally incapable of amphibious operation in practically any meaning of the expression.
Flotating screens of M2 "Bradley" :

- Don't allow any type of battlefield maneuver operation at tactical relevant tempo (20 minutes ,at least, to mount)
- Is highly vulnerable to enemy fire of any kind (even 5,54 caliber fire !!); and ,you know, in this instance even only a 5,54 mm burst mean a lost M2 Bradley !
- Don't allow any M2's weapons to be employed, to provide the crucial fire on enemy position ashore
- Allow a speed in water of only 1,6 km at hour ! This "speed" in water is completely irrilevant and incapable to prevent enemy -truly amphibious- IFVs and APCs to gain total local numerical overmatch and position advantage over single segments of your defending or attacking lines



This type of capability is what i mean for strategically and tatically relevant mobility capabilities:







or this one



or this one





Clear ?

I've heard from so called experts onother games and weapons forums that soviet mechanized infantry had completely inferior training to all their NATO nation counterparts due to being conscripted and the AK-74, RPK-74 and PKM all supposedly being less accurate than the m60,G3,L1A1, FAMAS,MG3,NF1,etc.
Is this true?

So was US training in the Vietnam era also inferior because they went to war with a conscript army. You might want to tell an Arab that the Israeli defence forces are inferior because they have conscription too.

Conscript armies are generally no good for invasions of other countries but when used to blunt an invasion they are better than professional armies... because they are generally larger.

BTW when the Sht hits the fan you will see soldiers firing in bursts at anything they think might be concealing an enemy... in such situations accuracy is not that important.

There is plenty of talk of western weapons being more accurate than eastern block ones... it is just a shame that amateurs take that to mean eastern block weapons are shotguns and western weapons are all sniper rifles. The Israeli defence forces use AKMs, so do US special forces when it suits them... do you think they would even consider using inaccurate weapons?

I have two .22LR calibre rifles... rabbit guns. One is a bolt action that is very accurate and I have a x6 power scope on that and can cut out the centre of a bullseye on a paper target with a half dozen shots. My other 22 is a semi auto that groups OK but creates larger groups no matter whether I use a bipod and high power scope, so I have a x2.5 power scope on it.

The best rifle to hunt rabbits with is not the bolt action, the lower power scope makes it easier to hold and there is almost never time to get on the ground and use a bipod when I go shooting rabbits.

I get far more kills with the less accurate semi auto than with the bolt action... imagine that!

i'm still not sure about training of warsaw pact infantry being good enough in certain units. My father was a conscripted infantryman in 1985-87 in the Bulgarian people's army tasked with guarding an airbase and in general mobilization would've been in the BTR units. He said that marksmanship training was almost nil since they fired only about 17 AK47 rounds at full auto once a year and morale was awful since everybody was stealing supplies and constant hazing. was this a similar case in the soviet army of the 80s?

Could soviet, DDR, Czech, etc. infantry stand a chance versus west german panzergrenadiers or French legionnaires?

Although the PKM is very reliable does it have the similar suppression ability of the MG3 firing at 1200 rpm?

I've always wondered why there weren't any battle rifles in in soviet service for longer range combat. A SVD battle rifle derivative would've been very effective.

Mindstorm wrote:

Well NATO started to have edge in quality in 80ies. Before that they their mech infantry was nothing to write home about.

Regular have you realized that this document was written in ....1987, isn't ?

That the problems highlighted ,for both firepower/range of engagement's overmatch and level of protection, are related just to late '80 vehicles ?

"..the Soviets' latest improved BMP-2 has significant firepower and protection advantage over the Bradley"

I repeat one more time: as usual in western open, not classified, publications of those times the overall tone of the "analysis" and assessment of the Soviet menace was almost the opposite of that present in classified documents such as the one here pointed out.

Try to ascertain where was the real assessment of the situation of those years.....

AMX-10P, Bradley with pantons (don't know word for english). There must be more I think

Bradley ?

Bradley is totally incapable of amphibious operation in practically any meaning of the expression.
Flotating screens of M2 "Bradley" :

- Don't allow any type of battlefield maneuver operation at tactical relevant tempo (20 minutes ,at least, to mount)
- Is highly vulnerable to enemy fire of any kind (even 5,54 caliber fire !!); and ,you know, in this instance even only a 5,54 mm burst mean a lost M2 Bradley !
- Don't allow any M2's weapons to be employed, to provide the crucial fire on enemy position ashore
- Allow a speed in water of only 1,6 km at hour ! This "speed" in water is completely irrilevant and incapable to prevent enemy -truly amphibious- IFVs and APCs to gain total local numerical overmatch and position advantage over single segments of your defending or attacking lines



This type of capability is what i mean for strategically and tatically relevant mobility capabilities:







or this one



or this one





Clear ?

not to mention the Bradley is huge, has very exposed ammo, no firing ports and after firing 2 TOWs a crewman has to get out of the vehicle and full exposed has to load 2 more missiles from the infantry compartment, a slow and painful process virtually impossible in combat so the Bradley during combat technically only had a load of 2 ATGMs.

Regular have you realized that this document was written in ....1987, isn't ?

Sorry, I've overlooked that document and I can that мне похуй. I will stand by my words. NATO always were crying how soviets are so strong so they could increase spending even more until it was them that were threatening Warsaw pact. Able archer was a show of power.
Before 80ties Soviet had advantages in almost all areas, not only numerically, but technically too. Then thing called stagnation happened.

"..the Soviets' latest improved BMP-2 has significant firepower and protection advantage over the Bradley"

I would only recall BMP-2D that would be compared to M2 Bradley armour, but it wasn't employed en masse. Basic bmp-2 doesn't sport all round protection against HMG fire, and my family member who served in BRDM-2 recalled when BMP-2 was pierced with PKT in FF accident resulting in minor crew injury. Experience in Afghanistan showed that more protection was needed from HMG and RPG attacks and D version was born. Firepower of BMP-2 is very comparable with M2 bradley, but twin mounted TOW missiles have advantage to Bradley. Both of IFV would be shredded to bits if they would fire at each other.

I repeat one more time: as usual in western open, not classified, publications of those times the overall tone of the "analysis" and assessment of the Soviet menace was almost the opposite of that present in classified documents such as the one here pointed out.

I would be more interested to read Soviet assessments about NATO power.

Bradley ?

Bradley is totally incapable of amphibious operation in practically any meaning of the expression.
Flotating screens of M2 "Bradley" :



- Don't allow any type of battlefield maneuver operation at tactical relevant tempo (20 minutes ,at least, to mount)
- Is highly vulnerable to enemy fire of any kind (even 5,54 caliber fire !!); and ,you know, in this instance even only a 5,54 mm burst mean a lost M2 Bradley !
- Don't allow any M2's weapons to be employed, to provide the crucial fire on enemy position ashore
- Allow a speed in water of only 1,6 km at hour ! This "speed" in water is completely irrilevant and incapable to prevent enemy -truly amphibious- IFVs and APCs to gain total local numerical overmatch and position advantage over single segments of your defending or attacking lines

You got the calibre wrong, but believe me, it's not easy to puncture military panton. Even the old military boat I used for fishing was self sealing and has multiple cameras. But if You are getting shot while You are crossing river it means that You are doing something wrong and more likely You will get hit by AT weapons than bullets. I only mentioned Bradley because even this vehicle was thought to be amphibious, but when it gained weight this requirement was dropped.

But with most of statements I agree. It wouldn't be as practical, plus water crossing is very dangerous even with lighter amphibious vehicles. It would be impossible to forge fast river.

This type of capability is what i mean for strategically and tatically relevant mobility capabilities:

Clear ?

I understand. I've know thing or two about river crossing, believe me. Don't have to teach me what it is.

But Your statement about that Russian BMP are the only ones that can be amphibious are totally amateurish. It's not like other countries can't develop IFV that can cross water obstacles. If You think about NATO doctrine it becomes clear that it wasn't requirement. While French forces prefer mobility and speed so they had amphibious IFV as it suited their tactics. For example

Look at K-21. It crosses river in same speed as russian analogues while weighing more and having very competent armour. But sure this thing is more capable than any version of M2 bradley

[quote]

KomissarBojanchev wrote:i'm still not sure about training of warsaw pact infantry being good enough in certain units. My father was a conscripted infantryman in 1985-87 in the Bulgarian people's army tasked with guarding an airbase and in general mobilization would've been in the BTR units. He said that marksmanship training was almost nil since they fired only about 17 AK47 rounds at full auto once a year and morale was awful since everybody was stealing supplies and constant hazing. was this a similar case in the soviet army of the 80s?

Can You tell us more about his service in army? Was he proud of it?
Well according to my father who served for quite a time hazing was not as bad as it helped soldiers to become men.
First dedovchina happened still in Lithuania, when all young recruits were called to serve and they were taken to other city for medical punkt for inspection.
Most of them were drunk and just said goodbye to their families so you can imagine emotions involved. One city hated another because of futbol teams or old grievances because of stolen girls and etc Fighting was part of culture.
After that he was taken to Russia and he was hazed there. He was called lesnichka, fashist by dedi. Had to do them things like put taburetka on his head and other nonsenses. And they are asking to give cigarettes and money. But he never did it. He had to fight until those people who were hazing became his good friends. According to him - Churki, ruberoidi (people from Caucasus, asians) were trouble and most of them got hazed. Asians especially, as they were less physically stronger and resorted to knives in the fight. Most of them had luck to serve in stroi bat as labourers. Soviet military belts were used as a weapon too

Don't know anything about stealing supplies, like weapons, probably was impossible. But my father came back with full chemodan of kitchen tools, as they basically stole everything from military cafeteria on dembel day

He said that shooting was done couple times a month, they had exactly 31 bullets per month. 30 bullets in magazine and 1 in the chamber. I bet units in stationed closer to the west had more shooting, but if really wanted You could always get more bullets. He was from countryside, and was shooting in school before army, grandfather was shooting instructor in dosaf and it was noted. He even asked other soldiers to give him their magazines. Soldiers could shoot with officers thats how he befriended most of them.
I'm pretty sure he got very good marksmanship training. No tactical shooting though. Don't think even nato had it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He is still proud of his service, but in same time he was next television tower in Vilnius, January of 1991 with me and my mother standing in front of Soviet tanks.

Could soviet, DDR, Czech, etc. infantry stand a chance versus west german panzergrenadiers or French legionnaires?

Not sure about DDR, Czech, or Polish, but Soviets- why not?

Although the PKM is very reliable does it have the similar suppression ability of the MG3 firing at 1200 rpm?

High rate of fire = loads of wasted ammo. You know that You can't go full auto with MG3 as you can damage barrel? You fire burst. I have video somewhere when guy from Lithuanian army shoots MG3 full auto while standing, can't post it for obvious reasons. You can hit person potato field if you try hard. For example new HK machine guns have lower firing rates.

I've always wondered why there weren't any battle rifles in in soviet service for longer range combat. A SVD battle rifle derivative would've been very effective.

RPK can hit in long ranges. Ask anyone who served in Afghanistan war.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I've heard from so called experts onother games and weapons forums that soviet mechanized infantry had completely inferior training to all their NATO nation counterparts due to being conscripted and the AK-74, RPK-74 and PKM all supposedly being less accurate than the m60,G3,L1A1, FAMAS,MG3,NF1,etc.
Is this true?

I don't believe that there was a single Warsaw Pact nation with basic training longer than 4 weeks.

That doesn't mean to suggest that they only received 4 weeks of training and then were deemed ready to go into combat. Soldiers would receive additional and ongoing training once assigned to a particular unit.

That said, US/NATO basic training was typically longer, anywhere from 2-3 times longer. The British have some of the longest basic training, at least they do these days... Indeed Britain's basic training is about 2 times longer than America's longest basic training... Basic training for the Royal Army is about 6.5 months long, compared with 13 weeks for the US Marine Corps.

If you want to be in the infantry of the Royal Army, your basic training is about 26 weeks long, at least today.


The MG3 is perhaps the best light/medium support weapon from what you listed, but why didn't you mention the FN MAG?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:i'm still not sure about training of warsaw pact infantry being good enough in certain units. My father was a conscripted infantryman in 1985-87 in the Bulgarian people's army tasked with guarding an airbase and in general mobilization would've been in the BTR units. He said that marksmanship training was almost nil since they fired only about 17 AK47 rounds at full auto once a year and morale was awful since everybody was stealing supplies and constant hazing. was this a similar case in the soviet army of the 80s?

Could soviet, DDR, Czech, etc. infantry stand a chance versus west german panzergrenadiers or French legionnaires?

Although the PKM is very reliable does it have the similar suppression ability of the MG3 firing at 1200 rpm?

I've always wondered why there weren't any battle rifles in in soviet service for longer range combat. A SVD battle rifle derivative would've been very effective.

The NVA [Nationale Volksarmee] was a joke compared to the Bundeswehr.

Keep in mind that the West Germans, as of 1980-1982, had more tanks than the East Germans, and a large number (more than 2,400) of West German tanks were Leopard 1 [A1, A2, A3, A4], nothing to sneeze at.

They also had a large number (more than 1,000) of heavily upgraded M48s, and a few hundred Leopard 2 tanks.

The East Germans had a few hundred [max] T-72s and then about 1,400 T-55s and T-54s.

West Germany had approximately 3,800 tanks and then about 1,100 tank destroyers [either assault gun tank destroyers or armored guided missile carriers] against East Germany's deployed 1,500 T-54s, T-55s, and T-72s, and an additional 1,500 T-54s and T-55s in storage.


The West German upgraded M48 and the T-54/T-55 were reasonably well matched against each other. The West German Leopard 1 [all variants- especially the more modern variants] were substantially superior to the East German T-54s and T-55s. The East German T-72s were substantially superior to the West German M48s and were probably on par with the earlier variants of the Leopard 1 and slightly disadvantaged with the later variants of the Leopard 1. The West German Leopard 2 tanks were considerably superior to the East German T-72s.

East Germany had 6 divisions in 1981-1982, compared with West Germany which had 12 divisions and 12 home defense brigades [6 tank, 6 armored/mechanized infantry].


West German training was also of a very high quality, to such an extent that some military authorities regarded West German training as superior to British, French, or American.

West German training was also of a very high quality, to such an extent that some military authorities regarded West German training as superior to British, French, or American.

And they still do... the new training simulation complex/suite the Russians have bought from the Germans is an example.

The average engagement range in Iraq was about 300m at which any 5.45mm calibre rifle is effective enough.

If you want a super long range sniper rifle then you make one, but there is no point issuing all your soldiers with such weapons as they simply don't have the quality training or ammo/optics to take advantage of such things. Use Google Maps to find something outside your window that is 1,000m away and look at it. Any people you might see at that range are little dots. Put the iron sight of a 5.45mm or 5.56mm rifle on them and they disappear behind it, but of course if you fire the bullet will drop and hit the ground no where near them... so raise your aim to about 35 feet above them and think that it will take your bullet 5-6 seconds to get there... and any cross wind will take your bullet metres off target... are those little dots on your side or are they enemy forces? Can you tell... I can't.

Shooting at a nicely measured range, fed and not being fired upon, and having plenty of time, then you might get some hits... but in the real world it is called luck, or more accurately a waste of ammo... especially when there are guys at less than a third that range actually shooting at you.

The NVA [Nationale Volksarmee] was a joke compared to the Bundeswehr.

Yeah... Germans... what would they know about fighting...

NATO always were crying how soviets are so strong so they could increase spending even more until it was them that were threatening Warsaw pact.

If any was (and is still today) true the exact opposite.
In not classified technical documents and intelligence documents - classiffied ones was those employed by US and NATO Command to effectively shape theirs entire Military Doctrine and Military Force's structure - URSS forces was always immensely downplayed (in technique and effciency) in order to spread optimism and confidence among NATO's effectives and mantain high theirs morale and will of combat in the event that a war was on the horizon.

Naturally when you read the formerly classified documents of those years the picture of the situation not merely change but become almost the opposite of that present in open media publications

After the end of Cold War the new PR's stance in western public media of the sector has been to dilute at maximum the importance and level of the crushing force overmatch enjoyed by Warsaw Pact over NATO in the entire Cold War.
This fairy tale on intelligence and technical documentation (on which depended ,to different degrees, the same military consistency and survival in war of NATO) totally falsified to press the Congress toward certain military expenses is so absurdely laughable for any person with a minimum knowledges in those subjects that seem impossible to find someone giving the minimum credit to it.

Basic bmp-2 doesn't sport all round protection against HMG fire, and my family member who served in BRDM-2 recalled when BMP-2 was pierced with PKT in FF accident resulting in minor crew injury.

Hard facts are that average Soviet production of BMP-2, in the '80 years, was over three times greater than the maximum level of production of M2 "Bradley" in the same period and that the same CIA and Pentagon analysts considered BMP series as the IFV setting the technical standard for vehicles in theirs class .

Basic bmp-2 doesn't sport all round protection against HMG fire, and my family member who served in BRDM-2 recalled when BMP-2 was pierced with PKT in FF accident resulting in minor crew injury.

And what this "event" (...if even true) has anything to do with a large scale open war battle against Warsaw Pact forces?
In this very unlucky instance -for M2 Bradley's crews-, the Soviet combined arms assault or counter-assault would have included a BMP-2's component (without include any possible BMD component) outnumbering the M2 Bradley by a factor of 4 to six to one !
This crushing ratio would have been the product not only of the vastly superior mass production of BMP-2 IFV but also of its much higher level of strategic and tactical mobility.


At this element you must also add that:


1) Each of those BMP-2 would have disembarked one more infantry units, greatly worsening he numerical overmatch.
2) BMP-2 offer a much smaller target area to enemy fire (an element enormously influencing final exchange ratio in mobile engagements).
3) Domestic version of BMP-2's 2A42 30 mm autocannon has an higher rate of fire and muzzle energy in comparison with M2's Bushmaster 25mm autocannon generating a simply fearful fire power volume's overmatch (remember that each surviving BMP-2, among those engaging a single M2 Bradley, would have increased the numerical overmatch of the following triggering a progressively faster catalyzing spiral in the exchange ratio between the IFVs).
4) Each domestic BMP-2 carried 5 9M113/9M113M ATGMs with a range of 4 km+ ,also here the difference in long range fire power would have been dramatic.
5) BMP-2 damaged in battles was much easier to remove ,for their reduced weight, and incomparably easier and cheaper to repair in respect to M2 Bradley. This mean that the cycle for vehicle's return to operative combat was way shorter for BMP-2 (another factor increasing the numerical overmatch).


If we talk of a large scale war against Warsaw Pact forces, M2 Bradleys would had been totally overwhelmed, in a very short time, by the outflanking waves of BMP-2 ; nothing short of massive employment of tactical nuclear weapons (and perhaps even not) would have prevented WP to achieve a crushing conventional victory.


On the other side ,for NATO in all those years has been not difficult to preserve the image of its M2 "Bradley" (and all of of its other weaponry ) : it was sufficient to attack, with overwhelming forces and after a sustained international embargo, only insulated low level enemies equipped at maximum with very limited quantity of old ,downgraded export models of those BMP-2.

I served in a East European Army during 1986/87 in a Airborne unit. The basic training consisted of the following and was the same for most units. The intensity of the training and additional training depending on the type of unit, it's status and purpose. I'm pretty sure it's similar to other East Euro Armies.

> First 30 days

- Learning about rules and discipline of Army life. Spit and polish and that sort of thing. Frequent inspections of bedrooms, toilets, personal items...
- Endless barracks square drilling
- Endless assembly-disassembly and cleaning of your rifle
- PT: mainly running and obstacle course
- The first live ammo target practice
- This stage ends with the swearing of allegiance ceremony, after which you're formally considered a soldier

This is the hardest time since you're the lowest of the low, have practically no rest all day and suffer from constant sleep deprivation and I remember always feeling hungry

---


> We had 2 weeks of Parachute training straight after this, which consists of principally physical preparation...again lots of running and using the "amusement park" type contraptions for spinning you around and jumping of platforms. A bit of theory and learning to pack your chute. This stage ends with your first 2 jumps.


---

> Tactical Infantry training. Our one was about 6 weeks but it wasn't done in one go. For example, depending on the time of year you might have to do one of the specialist courses in between

- Section in attack & defence
- Company in attack & defence
- Tactical group in attack & defence
- Recon and Ambush tactics
- Anti-Armour training, where you have tanks and IFV drive over you and you take pot shots at them.
- Navigation & Orientation
- NBC training
- Several speed marches, target practice sessions and learning to use your unit's weapons (RPG, disposable RL and light mortars in our case)

Now if you're in some 2nd echelon unit, the above training would likely be compressed into a shortened 2-3 week course without some of the bells and whistles, and then you spend the rest of the year pulling guard duty. But from what I've heard, the higher readiness infantry units had a similar Infantry training course.


We also had specialist courses, like rock climbing, survival course, skiing, explosives & sabotage course, river forcing.... Plenty of brigade level exercises all over the country where we almost always played the bad guys

GarryB wrote:

The NVA [Nationale Volksarmee] was a joke compared to the Bundeswehr.

Yeah... Germans... what would they know about fighting...

I believe that their T-55s were seriously outclassed by the Leopard 1 series of tanks of the Bundeswehr, while the T-55s and M60 series tanks were on more equal footing, but the M60A3 series were clearly superior to the T-55s that the NVA had... As for the M48s and the T-55s, they were on essentially equal footing until the Bundeswehr began to deploy the heavily upgraded variants.

Nobody could honestly claim that the NVA had any tanks even approaching the Leopard 2 series.



In terms of quality of personnel, the Bundeswehr may well have had a leg up on the US Army.

The Bundeswehr was a large for, especially for a NATO force... They were also well equipped and with quality weapons and weapons systems, for any force, NATO, WP, or other.



Remember, the Soviets didn't trust the DDR with building their own heavy weapons or weapons systems. They basically only allowed the DDR to produce small arms, ammunition, and thin skinned vehicles.

If the DDR had been allowed to produce their own T-72s, T-64s, or T-80s, they could have improved and modified/upgraded them and been quite a match for even the later versions of the Leopard 2. Heck, the basic T-80 is capable of going toe-to-toe with the Leopard 2 and it will be a true fight. But the T-64 would struggle against the Leopard 2 and the T-72 wouldn't last long... The T-55 would basically last as long as it took the Leopard 2 crew to see it, range it, and fire.

If anything, the M60 was a bigger challange to the T-55 than the Leo1.
T-55 could penetrate Leopard with ease. Not the same is true with M-60.

Btw contemporary T-72s could very well fight with contemporary Leopard 2s, as far as "hard" characteristics go.

Well the joke at the time was that the NVA was a "real" German Army in the Prussian tradition while the Bundeswehr were a bunch of long haired hippies...

Seriously though, the NVA was probably the best WP Army in terms of readiness and they had solid equipment

TR1 wrote:If anything, the M60 was a bigger challange to the T-55 than the Leo1.
T-55 could penetrate Leopard with ease. Not the same is true with M-60.

Btw contemporary T-72s could very well fight with contemporary Leopard 2s, as far as "hard" characteristics go.

Are you talking about the T-72BA ERA?

I'm not saying the Leopard 2 is better than modern versions of the T-72, but the basic T-72 that the DDR had in the late 1970s and early 1980s would have been easy pickings for the Leopard 2 of that era.

I believe that their T-55s were seriously outclassed by the Leopard 1 series of tanks of the Bundeswehr, while the T-55s and M60 series tanks were on more equal footing,

Sorry... what? A KV-1 had thicker frontal armour than a Leopard 1...

At certain points in time different sides had different advantages... in the 70s I would say the thermal sight advantage of the west was not developed to a point where it would have as much an impact as most westerners seem to think. The advantage of the Soviets is that in almost every conceivable war it is a Soviet attack, which means the low mobility of the super heavy western tanks really counts against them. In the mid to late 1980s the improvements in electronics and armour shifts to the west but not completely, with Soviet tanks enjoying special armoured vehicles and ammo that is keeping pace with western improvements in armour, plus they have the enormous added advantage of the increasing deployment of Mig-29s and Su-27s with high off boresight missiles and helmet mounted sights... which would have been serious to the wests grip of the air... the Soviets could fight without air control... they learnt it and practise it and have their own air defence network. In the west the air defence is largely handled by their air forces.

I'm not saying the Leopard 2 is better than modern versions of the T-72, but the basic T-72 that the DDR had in the late 1970s and early 1980s would have been easy pickings for the Leopard 2 of that era.

I can't agree, you make it sound like it would be fought in a flat open desert where the Leopards could see the T-72s from great distances. Lets face it, the East Germans knew the Leopard has good optics so they will use smoke as a matter of course to negate their advantages, and of course use dead ground to get in close. I rather doubt the Leopard II would not do the same to ensure the effectiveness of its ammo.

GarryB wrote:

I can't agree, you make it sound like it would be fought in a flat open desert where the Leopards could see the T-72s from great distances. Lets face it, the East Germans knew the Leopard has good optics so they will use smoke as a matter of course to negate their advantages, and of course use dead ground to get in close. I rather doubt the Leopard II would not do the same to ensure the effectiveness of its ammo.

If I am not mistaken the first several hundred Leopard 2 [initial version] tanks did not have thermal sights due to shortages and the fact that the thermal sights were not ready, but all other Leopard 2s [even the next bach of the initial/first version] had the thermal sights, and the original production run of 200 had the thermal sights put in soon after.

Thermal sights are not impacted much by smoke, are they?

thermals can see through smoke no problem. Even WP smoke screen can only block vision when smoke is being produced by combustion but it doesn't last long. There is not much You can do to counter flir, anti-thermal covers weren't used back then

There is not much You can do to counter flir, anti-thermal covers weren't used back then

The use of dead ground and approaching from behind cover.