Add to the fact that these 2 tanks were in their "stage" and if I'm not mistaken only elite units in Germany got hand on these tanks by 1985.
Wrong, elite units in Germany had issued T-64's and T-80's, T-72's were for second line units mostly placed in Soviet Union itself, although there were units in Soviet Union, also equipped with T-64's and T-80's.
Back in the 1980's NATO had these equipment only hence compared to what Russians had in A-stan it matched.
Don't compare an M1A2 operating with UAV and all sorts of modern equipment to the T-62 operated in 1980s.
Why should I not compare different approach to the same problem?
Then how can you expect Russians to maneuvre on confined stretch roads??
It is known that this country is not good for tank warfare..
Russians took initiatives their Bronegruppa concept is one of them, however this conflict was doomed to fail just like NATO adventure presently.
And who talks about roads? Did you saw how Americans use their tanks? They manouver through countryside, and there is a good reason to do so, you avoid IED ambushes, other ambushes as well.
As for conflict, insurgents are not capable to defeat armed forces of any kind in military way, they can do it only two ways, politically, conviencing society of superior country, that they should not fight, like in Vietnam, where US forces were forced to withdraw by their own society. Or when countries economy, no longer permitt to participate in operation, just like Soviets were incapable to sustain their losses both in men and equipment considering their failed socialist economy.
You did not answer my question. Compare with the 1980s when millions of dollars were poured for acquisition of anti tank weapons to take on Russians is nato facing similar situation?? ANSWER IS NO
NATO tanks have not face serious threat.
And why do you think that ATGM's are serious threat? Because they are advertized as such?
IED's are far more dangerous to any kind of armored vehicle.
In war soldiers will inevitably take initiative to save their lives.
Soviet doctrine back then laid less emphasis on quality and more on quantity in that perspective one could argue that Warsaw pact with thousands of tanks would have overcome NATO Defenses.
Our officers were preaty much clear, that they would be dead, and with losses that Warsaw Pact would take in a war with NATO, Soviets would quickly start to use nukes, trying to gain significant breakthrough.
What you are saying is only part of the story, not the complete truth.
The Mujahideen strategy was to ambush Soviet convoys. They would target the first and the last vehicle and disable them, thus halting the convoy. Thereafter, they would attack the rest of the convoy. This was the single most effective tactic used by the Mujahideen. So, yes, in such a scenario, the Soviets had to use their tanks as mobile (but stationary) pillboxes. There is very little opportunity to maneouvre tanks in a hilly terrain. I would like you to share some major battles where NATO used 'maneouvre' tactics in Afghanistan. Sure, there may be a few - but they are just few and far between.
NATO use different tactics, they do not send heavy vehicles in to such roads, keeping them closer to more open terrain and cities, high mountains are where helicopters and light infantry are sended.
Pushing a convoy through a narrow mountain pass is just stupid, you are literally asking insurgent to shoot you.
Correct. There is limited scope of 'maneouvre' tactics in Afghanistan. The analysis @Damian is referring to is either poorly understood, or simply flawed.
Only because this analizis is not following the old dogmats you believe in?
The M1 beginning service in early 80s was deployed to Pak for demonstration. Result the tank failed to hit even one stationary target, even while being stationary.
So this tank would be superior to the Soviet ones just across the border?
You are making typical logic flaw. First you believe that test had been performed, and again there is no details, story is just urban legend. Second how it is that during a single test tank fails, and in the same time, on all well documented trails and during real combat, tank becomes success.
You should also consider that crew that was performing during Pakistani trails, was poorly trained and didn't know how to use fire control system properly, it might be a problem for someone that have no experience with the early M1's automatically added dynamic lead, I know that most people that first used it, was confused.
Damian imagines the situation on the ground then and now is the same, with better Tanks making the difference. He conviniently omits the fact that the INSAF forces have far better Situational awareness than the Soviet ones. Courtsey the UAVs attached to battalion level
It is ISAF, not INSAF, and of course we have better situational awareness, but Soviets during cold war, were leaders in UAV technology.
The Indian Army, a veteran of 60+ years of counter insurgency, the longest in the world, never found it necessary to introduce tanks in CI ops, even in urban areas. That too when the whole Kashmir valley was burning, and troops were being ambushed multiple times on a daily basis.
It is different concept, we belive in force protection and overwhelming firepower to defeat enemy, this is why our casualties are generally low during firefights, most casualties are taken from IED's, against which, force protection is a difficult problem to solve.
CI is a infantry led warfare, with uavs palying support role. Tanks and artillery or CAS should have no role in it. They only serve to alienate the local population. We realised this 50 years back.
NATO soldiers have different opinion, actually our heavy eqiupment is not alienating our soldiers from locals, we have very good contacts among local population, why? Because not weapon systems are problem, but lack of investment in to local populations infrastructure and education. Out soldiers besides fighting with insurgents, are also helping with building schools, hospitals, roads etc.
And there is no problem when our APC's are providing protection for these soldiers and locals working on these projects.
Some silly TV documentaries, or other silly "sources"?
