From: antispam@uvic.ca (Robb McLeod) Subject: Re: T-90 verus M1A2 Date: 1997/06/26 Message-ID: #1/1 Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) References: Organization: University of Victoria Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated From antispam@uvic.ca (Robb McLeod) In article , Shea wrote: >The Russian army however did not learns it's lesson in Afganistan. >Tanks and mech infantry _do not_ take towns. After Vietnam the US did a >lot of soul searching about why we lost, what tactics worked, what >didn't. They trained in "Low Intensity Conflict" a.k.a guerilla >warfare. We also built a professional, volunteer force. The Russians, >on the other hand, kept their bloated, draftee army and continued to >operate on the heavy armor concept. Training has been on a steady >decline as has pay (sometimes non-existant) and equipment is basically >rotting in garrison (one battery for a company of tanks). > Simple, small tactics will win every time over an large, rigid, >inflexible, predictable force. Unfortunately the Russians have never >gotten away from that. Ahem. As a cadet, I assume you have never been to the National Training Center. When you get there, I'd like you to watch for a few things. a) Notice the speed at which OPFOR masses its troops to overrun a BLUFOR battalion. Then the other BLUFOR battalions will react singularily, and each will be defeated in turn. This is called "active defence." It doesn't work. b) When on the attack, notice how follow on BLUFOR formations follow the initial forces into an OPFOR fire pocket and are destroyed as well. c) Notice how the referees call breaks so that your staff officers can regain control of the situation. In real life, BLUFOR would lose control of the battle. In contrast, OPFOR's units and subunits are mainly organized around traffic control. They meticulously plan before hand, something which was adopted by the US Army. It's called "Intelligence Prepreation of the Battlefield." You don't win by making it up as you go along. d) You will lose. Everyone will explain it away as OPFOR being made up of superior troops because they get more practice. Don't. Examine what happened, and why you lost. It wasn't because their troops were better, it was because their doctrine was better. Get ahold of some of the NTC reports, both current and older. Notice how the same problems have existed for twenty years, yet nothing has ever been done about them. Then look at the technological advantage that people in the US Army will say you have, and ask yourself why you can't beat OPFOR in spite of it. NATO's so called "technology advantage" was supposed to be the reason we would win a war in Europe against the Warsaw Pact. Now go look at the results from NATO's gunnery, infantry, and recon tests. Germany and Holland always win, and often the US "highly professional army" comes in last. Why? German conscripts serve 15 monthes and the Dutch 16. I'm sure if you think for awhile, you can figure out why the conscripts consistantly outperformed the professionals, although you may not like the answer. Read OPFOR's newletter, read the after action reports from the Gulf War. Understand that being mediocre just doesn't cut it. -- Robb McLeod rmcleod@uvic.ca (Please replace the "antispam" with "rmcleod" if replying via email)