Operation Unthinkable...

[RedGuard]

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

[Otto Halfhand]

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!?!

[RedGuard]

whoops i misunderstood you

[Tankbuster]

Sorry.

[Otto Halfhand]

THe 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"

[tigerclawstyle]

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?

[Otto Halfhand]

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:

• 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".".
• 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).
• 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).
• 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  ), 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.

[tigerclawstyle]

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?

[GodlikeDennis]

Leopard 2 IMO.

[RedGuard]

the first true MBT was the t54/55 from 1950

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

[Tico_1990]

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.

[RedGuard]

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. 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.

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[Otto Halfhand]

it depends on the war you need to fight.

Oh so true.

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.

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.

Part IV Early Operations in unthinkable if it were implemented.

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.

[RedGuard]

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