In the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, a large number of tanks on both sides were destroyed, and tank cemeteries were almost everywhere. These tanks are basically derived from Soviet designs. It seems that finding an anti-tank weapon to fight these Soviet tanks is like cutting melons and chopping vegetables, but 40 years forward, these tanks are a nightmare for the Americans. It can be said that the Russian tank phobia is not good yet.
In the 1980s, the U.S. Army had a terrible war in mind: a torrent of steel made up of Soviet tanks swept across Western Europe all the way to the English Channel. The U.S. Army feared it didn't have the weapons to stop the tanks.
A secret 1980 study by Major General U.S. Army Major Generals, which was not declassified until 2014, wrote: "The U.S. Army may be at a qualitative and quantitative disadvantage in terms of weapons (armored fighting vehicles and anti-armored weapons) that could dominate future outcomes in Central Europe." ”
The situation still sounds very familiar today, with critics debating whether Russia's next-generation T-14 Armata tank is superior to Western models. Or whether U.S. and British anti-tank weapons would be effective against a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which would rely on tanks for maneuvering and strikes.
Throughout the Cold War, the United States acknowledged that its forces in Europe would not be able to surpass the Soviet Union's vast war machine. By 1980, the Soviet Union was equipped with 50,000 tanks, about five times as many as American tanks. But U.S. leaders always consoled themselves that the Soviet Union's numerical superiority could be offset by America's superior technology, training, and tactics.
But by the late 1970s, when U.S. military power had fallen to its lowest point since Vietnam, Pentagon planners feared that the Soviets had gained superiority in both tank quality and quantity. In particular, they warned that the new T-72 surpassed the M60A1 and M60A3 — essentially an upgrade of the M48 Patton in the 1950s and a mainstay of the U.S. tank depot at the time.
Even the first M1 Abrams tanks in service (armed with a 105 mm gun instead of a later 120 mm gun) had difficulty repelling the heavily armed T-72. "The U.S. Army considers the best Soviet tanks today to be significantly superior to U.S. main battle tanks," the Army report at the time warned.
It assessed that the T-72 was superior to the M60A1 with superior firepower and armor protection. The T-72 is also thought to have many of the advanced features lacking in the M60, including an "automatic electronic rangefinder— possibly a laser rangefinder," an automatic loader to increase the rate of fire, snorkels that can sneak across rivers, and an anti-radiation liner to protect crews from nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. Army's M60 carried at least 60 rounds of main ammunition, compared with 40 rounds for the T-72.
The United States also seems to have found no salvation in the anti-tank missiles that began entering service in the 1970s. Tests and mathematical models from the Army Ballistic Research Laboratory estimate that if used to strike the front armor of the Soviet T-62 tank, the American Tau and Dragon anti-tank missiles, and the M-735 tungsten core bullet for the 105 mm tank gun have a killing probability of up to 77%. But against the T-72, that probability drops to 22 percent, and according to worst-case models, even the upcoming M774 depleted uranium armor-piercing shell has only a 50 percent chance of breaking through the T-72.
This meant that until the M1A1, equipped with a 120 mm gun, entered service in the mid-1980s, it would be very difficult to defend against a tank-centric Soviet invasion of Europe.
"Whether one uses known American or Soviet calculations, the conclusion is that NATO can expect that by 1984 there will be no superiority over the Soviet Union in the quality of armored or anti-armor weapons, and its quantitative disadvantage can only be moderately changed." The study concludes.
Schematic of the armor of the M1 tank
But are these predictions reasonable? It's hard to be sure. While U.S. and Soviet-made armor did clash in the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1973 and 1982, the climax — perhaps the end of the world — between U.S. and Soviet forces — never happened. Still, the much-touted T-72 appeared to be more of a paper tiger during the 1982 Lebanon War, when Israel's Merkava tanks were armed with a 105mm gun that could penetrate it. Iraq's T-72 was defeated in the first Gulf War against the M1 series of Abrams main battle tanks.
M774 armor-piercing shell
While Moscow could try to blame these defeats on the incompetence of its allies, or that they used inferior export models, the 1970s T-72 tanks and MiG-23 fighters performed mediocrely in combat. Even Syrian T-90s could be destroyed by U.S.-made Tau anti-tank missiles supplied to Syrian rebels in 2016 and 2017.
As the Nazis, who owned Tiger tanks and Black Panther tanks, simply having the most powerful tanks did not guarantee victory. Well-trained personnel, flexible command and control, reliable logistics and ample air power are more important than the thickness of the tank's armor.
The U.S. Army's 1980 study was not so much about soviet tank superiority as it was about the fact that U.S. tank design shrank between 1945 and 1980. As defense funding and priorities focused on nuclear weapons and chased guerrillas through the jungles of Asia, tanks were already far removed from the most important component of U.S. military power. It wasn't until the M1 entered service in the 1980s that the United States claimed to have the most advanced tanks, claiming to be the best tanks in the world. On the other hand, many Soviet tanks actually resemble the 1950s T-55 (a descendant of the World War II T-34), suggesting that changes in tank design tended to be gradual rather than revolutionary.
Still, comparing the Little Willy tank from World War I to the Abrams tank, it's clear that tanks do change as technology advances. Tanks will inevitably change like war, and equally inevitably there will be calls for enemy tank superiority. Today, just as there are fears that the Tanks owned by the Soviet Union in 1980 perform better, there are warnings that the M1 and other Western tanks are inferior to the T-14, that their active protection system can shoot down anti-tank missiles, that it also has a complex network of sensors and data, and a powerful 125 mm cannon mounted in an unmanned turret, while the occupants still hide in the thick compartment-treated armored body.
M1 Abramstein
Of course, the United States and other countries are also developing new designs. For example, the U.S. Army wants an armored family that includes robotic tanks. France and Germany are exploring a European joint tank that could be equipped with a 140 mm cannon. This may help allay concerns about Russian tanks.