M-1 vs T-80

The new Cold War turned hot wargame from On Target Simulations, now expanded with the Player's Edition! Choose the NATO or Soviet forces in one of many scenarios or two linked campaigns. No effort was spared to model modern warfare realistically, including armor, infantry, helicopters, air support, artillery, electronic warfare, chemical and nuclear weapons. An innovative new asynchronous turn order means that OODA loops and various effects on C3 are accurately modeled as never before.

Moderators: WildCatNL, cbelva, IronManBeta, CapnDarwin, IronMikeGolf, Mad Russian

Gratch1111
Posts: 358
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: Sverige

M-1 vs T-80

Post by Gratch1111 »

In my World the M-1 is a way better tank, better protected and better gun, but the T-80 in the game feels just a Little bit less capable.

To me it would take 2-3 T-80 to 1 M-1 but it more feels like 1,5?

Anyone else have an opinion?
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by Mad Russian »

Not really.

Depends on models, range, sighting conditions etc. as to which one of them is the better vehicle.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Gratch1111
Posts: 358
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: Sverige

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by Gratch1111 »

of course it depends on the situation at hand, but under normal circumstances the M-1A1 is better than the T-80any. I dont feel the game shows that enough.
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by wodin »

Really? The Russians take severe Tank casualties compared to the Allies.
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by CapnDarwin »

A ton of testing went into the combat models and in particular the M1A1 vs. T-80BVs and we find it to be where we like it. The US forces are deadly at range/night/smoke and it becomes an even throw inside 2000m.
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by mikeCK »

I think the the Western Challengers, Leopard IIs and M1A1s are far superior to the T-80. Having said that, actual battlefield results depend on a lot of factors and the expertise/training of units. I think the game does a good job of modeling it.

The problem with these games (like AirLand battle) is that people tend to be "Homers" when it comes to their nations gear. try and find a Russian player who thinks the F-15e is superior to the Mig 29...stuff like that. The devs have to try to take that bias out of it. A good example is the Soviet AA-11 AAM. The west assumed it was inferior to the AIM 9m because it was Russian. Turns out is was far superior and some of its design was used in the AIM 9x. So we can't assume what we think is always correct

Since the only data we really have is a series of battles between American M1A1s and T-72s. Problem there is you have to factor in that the T-80, although sharing a lot with the 72, had a lot if upgrades as well...not to mention the Soviets had better training and doctrine than the Iraqis....so it's guess work
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by Mad Russian »

Look up the ERA called Kontakt 5 and see if you still think the M1A1 is still head and shoulders above a T-80U.

The Soviet battle drill was to close the range and get in close. Having a swirling tank battle where tanks start to take hits on the flanks and in the rear and a T-80 is as good as any tank in the world.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... ofcomments

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by wodin »

To be honest AIrLand battle is low down on my list of serious wargames. I really wouldn't compare the two games as this is in a different league altogether.AirLand battle is a game I'd class as arcade rather than a serious sim.


Besides that I do see your point.

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

I think the the Western Challengers, Leopard IIs and M1A1s are far superior to the T-80. Having said that, actual battlefield results depend on a lot of factors and the expertise/training of units. I think the game does a good job of modeling it.

The problem with these games (like AirLand battle) is that people tend to be "Homers" when it comes to their nations gear. try and find a Russian player who thinks the F-15e is superior to the Mig 29...stuff like that. The devs have to try to take that bias out of it. A good example is the Soviet AA-11 AAM. The west assumed it was inferior to the AIM 9m because it was Russian. Turns out is was far superior and some of its design was used in the AIM 9x. So we can't assume what we think is always correct

Since the only data we really have is a series of battles between American M1A1s and T-72s. Problem there is you have to factor in that the T-80, although sharing a lot with the 72, had a lot if upgrades as well...not to mention the Soviets had better training and doctrine than the Iraqis....so it's guess work
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by CapnDarwin »

Airland is not a "wargame" IMHO. It is a RTS with war like guys running around. It is a fun game.
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
User avatar
deadsunwheel
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:09 am

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by deadsunwheel »

I would also say that the T-80 can credit its low profile and high top speed for some of its durability. At least when led correctly, not like in Gorky. Any tank going into a hostile urban environment without infantry support is going to be demolished.

From my point of view the game does a pretty good job of modelling what a modern tank battle could look like. A Soviet tank with a 125mm seems to have to get within 1.5-2km (3 to 4 hexes) to be really effective against NATO armour. On the other side a NATO unit sporting the 120mm Rheinmetall can cause some serious hurt to soviet tanks at about 4km (8 hexes). If it is the 105mm cannon the effective range seems to slip a bit to around 2.5-3km (4 to 5 hexes). This is just from my experience. The lesson when playing as NATO never let a good order Soviet tank company close range or you will pay the price. If 12 T-80s get a shot at optimal range something is going to strike home, better to be facing 4 disorganized remnants when they make their range.

For the record I just finished a PBEM of Fulda '85 which showed some of the superiority of the M1 on the field. The US lost 76 M1s (28 KIA) to 254 T-80s (can't remember the split of KIA to Fallen Out) so about 3-1.
User avatar
deadsunwheel
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:09 am

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by deadsunwheel »

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Airland is not a "wargame" IMHO. It is a RTS with war like guys running around. It is a fun game.

Agreed. It is so very pretty too. My lack of hand eye coordination prevents me from playing well though. The old Starcraft skills have gone a bit rusty.
TheWombat_matrixforum
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:37 am

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by TheWombat_matrixforum »

Yeah, I have to say that this game gets the armored balance pretty well. I've played pretty much every NATO/WP simulation/game from the SPI days until now, and you never get the perfect matchup that pleases everyone. This is particularly true here because this situation never happened. But I think the results in Flashpoint seem believable to me.

A platoon of first-line NATO armor that catches a company of Soviet tanks or APCs at 2500 meters crossing open country will decimate them, with little direct fire damage in return usually. Artillery and rockets, that's another story of course. When that same company of Soviet tanks, though, rolls up out of the rainy fog at point-blank range, in the ensuing melee the Abrams or Leo IIs are going to die. Sure, they'll take some Bears with them, but it won't be pretty.

In even matchups, at reasonable range with both sides in some cover, the NATO forces seem to have a slight edge as perhaps they should. Close in, the advantage is with the red forces, again, as it probably should be.

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.

And of course, this is all hypothetical. We can talk about armor thickness, composites, fire control technology, and all that, but theory /= practice in war.

On a related note, it's interesting to see how little difference in survivability there is between trucks, APCs, and IFVs. Sure, the latter have more offensive punch, but they tend to die just as fast. The Bradleys and BMPs evaporate about as fast as M113s and BTRs. Trucks go even faster, but not that much faster than APCs it seems.

Which makes ya wonder if IFVs are actually worth the money [:)] I suspect in many cases they are, but it also makes the case for hordes of BTRs too.
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by Mad Russian »

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.

What always amazed me about the NATO strategy is that it was a simple continuation of the German answer in WWII. Counter quantity with quality. What made me shake my head is, that formula was tried and shown to fail miserably.

Nuclear weapons were the balancing point between Soviet tanks. The Soviets couldn't one up the nuclear card like they could the tank card.


Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
TheWombat_matrixforum
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:37 am

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by TheWombat_matrixforum »

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
ORIGINAL: TheWombat

We have to keep in mind that the Russians have always had a great interest in tank warfare and tank design, at least since the 1930s, and despite our own propaganda, they actually do a good job at it. Different philosophies and all, but effective for what they want to do. NATO's whole philosophy was pretty much to use quality and precision to offset mass and firepower. The trick is, no one was sure it would actually work. We eventually had to beef up sheer numbers too, in the 1980s Reagan-era buildup, because we sure as hell weren't confident that we could offset a large Pact force that was actually adding some very capable equipment.

What always amazed me about the NATO strategy is that it was a simple continuation of the German answer in WWII. Counter quantity with quality. What made me shake my head is, that formula was tried and shown to fail miserably.

Nuclear weapons were the balancing point between Soviet tanks. The Soviets couldn't one up the nuclear card like they could the tank card.


Good Hunting.

MR

Yeah, another reason why I'm very glad this game is fiction.

I lived in Germany in the 1960s, the 70s, the 80s, and into 1990, first as a dependent (father was US Army) and then ultimately as a civilian contractor. My last assignment there was in Berlin, 1988-90. It's easy at this distance to look at this hypothetical conflict as a cool wargame setting (and it is!) but the reality was that if the balloon went up, it would have been a total frickin' human disaster.
LuckyJim1010
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:08 pm

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by LuckyJim1010 »

Most heart stopping quote I ever read, which may be apocryphal, was when an American commander was asked "On Average how far apart are West German towns", the reply came "About 5 Kilotons"

Still makes me shudder.
LuckyJim1010
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:08 pm

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by LuckyJim1010 »

Sorry to double post but did anyone ever play an old SPI game Called NATO Division Commander ?

I had it and loved it. I'm hoping this game will have a bit of that in it. Certainly looks like it.
User avatar
Hexagon
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:36 am

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by Hexagon »

Problem is that theories need real life to be tested and thanks to God we continue with theories [;)]

But if we talk about quality VS quantity... Germany lose in WWII not only by quantity they lose more for strategical KO when lose all his allies, and was sorrounded against practically full world power... in a WWIII is more open at least in the first steps.

In tactical part... well, i prefer be in the quality side but only with a commander that understand that is better fight and retreat to counter later than stand and be rolled [:'(]
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by Mad Russian »

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

But if we talk about quality VS quantity... Germany lose in WWII not only by quantity they lose more for strategical KO when lose all his allies, and was sorrounded against practically full world power... in a WWIII is more open at least in the first steps.

We were talking about tactical situations as well. It's hard to win strategically when you are losing every battle.
In tactical part... well, i prefer be in the quality side but only with a commander that understand that is better fight and retreat to counter later than stand and be rolled [:'(]

Here you get to be that commander. We'll see how you do! [;)]

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
TheWombat_matrixforum
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:37 am

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by TheWombat_matrixforum »

ORIGINAL: LuckyJim1010

Sorry to double post but did anyone ever play an old SPI game Called NATO Division Commander ?

I had it and loved it. I'm hoping this game will have a bit of that in it. Certainly looks like it.

Yes! This was a great experiment in a command-oriented boardgame. I really thought it was pretty cool.
kipanderson
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: U.K.

RE: M-1 vs T-80

Post by kipanderson »

Hi,

Just to reinforce what has already been said.

Having dug about a lot in the data files they seem of the same astonishingly high quality all else is here.

To directly address the question.

M1 v T80B does not and should not give the M1 an overall advantage. M1A v T80U does not and should not give the M1A any particular advantage.

Generally if you compare like with like Soviet tanks do find. Normally what happens is that people compare the T72A or T72M with the M1A(HA). They are different generation tanks. The comparison to the T72A or T72M is the M60A1 tank. Topside, M60A3.

All interesting stuff,
All the best,
Kip.

Post Reply

Return to “Flashpoint Campaigns Classic”