Question About an M1A2 as opposed to an M60A3

In Michael A. Palmer's "The War That Never Was" one of the best of the conventional World War 3 novels something interesting occurs to me.

Though it focuses mainly on air and naval warfare, on page 11 the war begins with an M1A2 Abrams tank crew trying to slow down a Soviet advance through the Hof Corridor. The Abrams destroys five T-80s before being disabled and destroys several more BTRs and other lighter vehicles before the main gun of the tank is disabled and the loader killed.

The remaining three members of the crew abandon the tank, steal a car and head to a rear area.

Once there the crew is assigned a new loader and given an M60A3 out of storage

The war ends 50 days later and its noted that the same crew is still using the same M60A3.

How likely would it be for an M60A3 Patton to survive seven weeks of hard warfare against the Soviets when their M1A2 was killed the first day of the war?

 

Were they still fighting on the front lines?

It seems in your first paragraph the M1A2 sacrificed itself to slow down an attack.

 

The M60A3 would hold up pretty well, better than the T-80's would. They still hold up well today.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...n-old-american-made-m60a3-tanks-killing-16142

 

I know that in the last pages they crossed into Czechoslovakia or southern East Germany as part of the NATO counteroffensives.

At the end, the Soviets had to either agree to withdraw from all territories outside their own borders or use nuclear weapons. They chose to withdraw and call it a war.

As a Soviet officer summoned to speak to the Politburo said.

"To hell with the Poles! To hell with the Czechoslovakians! And to hell with the Germans!. Russia is all that matters!"

 

I know that in the last pages they crossed into Czechoslovakia or southern East Germany as part of the NATO counteroffensives.

At the end, the Soviets had to either agree to withdraw from all territories outside their own borders or use nuclear weapons. They chose to withdraw and call it a war.

As a Soviet officer summoned to speak to the Politburo said.

"To hell with the Poles! To hell with the Czechoslovakians! And to hell with the Germans!. Russia is all that matters!"

 

Absolutely. Competent high command, luck and competent crew are much more important than tank quality. 105 gun is a bit outdated, you do not stand much chances against T80 of Dolly Parton head on. But you can try to flank, and what is much more important, a tank gun has much much more targets other than enemy tanks.

T34 was seen fighting in Syria. Why not? It’s a potent 85mm formal Flak.

 

Once the Soviet Cat A divisions are destroyed, you're dealing with T-62's or -55's. M-60's especially the A3's with reactive armor would certainly be survivable against them.

 

Why does everyone obsess over "can this tank penetrate this enemy tanks frontal armor?" anyway? Don't tanks frequently get hit in the flanks or the running gear.

For that matter, even a frontal shot that doesn't penetrate the armor can do critical damage to the gun and sights can't it?

A tank that has its track cut (as the M1A2 in the book suffers in the first battle initially) is out of the battle one way or the other.

And my mistake. I went back and looked. The M60A3 and its crew were near the East German/Polish border when the war ended. NATO forces had avoided fighting their way into the capital cities of any of the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe.

 

It's basically the same as the debate I've had with Apacherat at least a dozen times on this forum about battleships. You don't have to penetrate the armor or sink the ship to mission kill it and a mission kill is still a kill.

 

95% of threats come from sources other than enemy tanks. But that’s the simplest way of comparison. Simple minds like simple comparisons .
This is why operational costs, mobility, logistics, are more important than frontal armor. This is why Sherman is considered to be superior to Tiger, T34 to be superior to Panther.

 

I understand what you're saying and I both agree and disagree with it. I'll explain.

In terms of an immediate battle, "mission killed" might as well mean "sunk".

But in terms of a war or a campaign there is one hell of a difference. A carrier with damaged catapults and arresting gear is effectively mission killed.

But that damage is repairable and it can be put back into service. In those terms its one hell of a lot better for you if your warship is merely mission killed rather than upside down in 4,000 feet of water.

Not to mention that a ship that is "mission killed" can under certain circumstances still be an effective combat unit. A carrier that can't launch or recover conventional aircraft is useless in its primary role but it can be a very effective launch and landing point for helicopters, Ospreys, and for that matter Harriers and F-35s.

As a proud old navy man once said to me "If we can still float, we can still fight".

 

If your ship is put out of commission for 6 months but the war only lasts two months....

 

Point taken. Though if history is any guide the post war period is of some importance as well.

 

If there is a post war period. If we are talking about a major war between NATO and the WP, then in all likelihood, your damaged battleship or carrier ends up getting destroyed in dock by a nuclear attack anyways.

 

I've always believed that the likelihood of either side using nuclear weapons even if in danger of losing a conventional war was way overdone regardless of public statements or even doctrine to the contrary.

Even Stalin and Hitler wouldn't unleash their chemical weapons despite the total savagery of the Eastern Front. Thus I don't see any modern Soviet leader or Francios Mitterand firing nuclear weapon.

 

I think any such conflict would rapidly degenerate into irrationality. Especially if you have commanders with the ability to deploy tactical nukes independently.

 

the thing is if nuclear weapons are not used in the first moments of World War Three....they are unlikely to be used at all.

Within minutes of a conventional conflict beginning, nuclear missile submarines will be putting out to sea, bombers dispersing, political targets dispersing, underground command centers locked down and on basically a hair trigger....even conventional war targets for tactical nuclear warheads like aircraft carriers, squadrons of war planes will be much harder to target.

The only hope for the Soviets to limit damage to Russia is by a complete surprise bolt from the blue attack.

If they don't go nuclear on day one, chances are they never will. After that nuclear arsenals are no longer a tool of war to be used but a negotiating point.

 

I don't buy that. If a Division or Corps commander is given the voice of having his entire force destroyed or trying a Hail Mary with a few 155mm tacnuke shells, he'll try it. Then it'll snowball.

I also thing nukes would get used in the opening phases, but not in the way most people think. It think
You'd see lots of SADM's getting used to try and slow the Soviet's.

 

Were NATO divisional or corps commanders given nuclear release?

I'm pretty sure Soviet ones were never given that authority. Except for the Soviet commander in Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis was given that authority but it was rescinded before he ever received it

 

Do you think the 60 could have survived the incident that took out the Abrams?

 

No. The final shot that finished the Abrams, disabling its gun was apparently a 125 mm. shot from a T80

 

I was on an m1A1 when I was in the army. A lot was put into crew and vehicle survivability. Abrams is a well built tank but like any complex machine maintenance is important. Depending on the anticipated mission before the conflict is going to make a difference. A tank that is stationed in a real world mission environment is going to see a higher level of maintenance and parts availability than one assigned to a stateside unit.

It isn't without its Achilles heel(s). Fuel consumption is one. Approx 2 gallons per mile but it does hold 505 gallons.
Another is it doesn't fight well alone. Once you have exhausted the main gun ammo from the ready rack, you need to pull back to safety and either replenish from a supply train or transfer from your semi ready rack. Trying to fight by loading the gun from the semi ready is going to take the commander out of command and that possibly could be your platoon leader. It is definitely a capable platform but you need a platoon to be efficient.

 

They didn't have the "authority" but they did have the capability. Nuclear artillery shells don't have the security of ICBM's. A commander facing death for his entire command isn't going to care much about "authority".

 

The tank commander in the book complained about that. The tank that was supposed to be holding the crossroads with his Abrams threw a track and thus he and his crew were alone.

As he pointed out two tanks was always more than twice as effective.

 

I'll note that while in most of the nonnuclear World War Three scenarios I've read, the Soviet led invasion reaches, especially across the North German Plain to nearly the Rhine, in "The War That Never Was" the bulk of the Soviet attack is halted East of the Weser.