Jump to content

Warsaw Pact Ground Forces


Recommended Posts

Note: This thread started as a narrower thread on 1980s Soviet Armor. I've retooled it to be, akin to the USAREUR thread, an all-encompassing thread for folks interested in armor and other sundry ground equipment of the Warsaw Pact. Incidently, the T-80 mentioned in the following posts can be found in the USAREUR thread, completed. Originally, this thread started with:

So I wanted to get some input on armor finishing from the late Soviet Empire period. Judging from photographs and color profiles I've seen over the years it seems that the Red Army, as with the United States Army, had several different color schemes during the 1980s. I've seen a sort of Olive-Drab colored finish, something a greener than that, and various camouflage schemes. For single-color finishes what's your favorite hobby paint options? Does anyone know if there was rhyme or reason to what was camouflaged and when? What different color combinations were employed prior to, say, 1991?

I have an old DML T-80 on the bench right now; that's what's inspired the question. In the past I've used NATO green (ironic, I know) for single-color finishes but I'd like to put a three-tone camouflage finish on this tank. I don't know if the Soviets camouflaged T-80s prior to adding ERA-kits. DML said yes, but I have never seen a photograph to verify that.

Edited by Fishwelding
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some camo non-ERA T-80s, but frankly... its a rarety. Once ERA was installed, camo would soon follow

t80_1.jpg

t80-10050.jpg

For nor-ERA T-80, your best guess would be solid green paintjob. Of course there was rhyme and reason for camo, esp before 1991, but that doesnt mean they were all identical.

Edited by Zmey Smirnoff
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting ready to paint it, but these days I'm working at a glacially slow pace on models. Right now there's not much to see other than a gray plastic tank. The thing is, Dragon's T-80 was kitted just prior to the end of the Cold War, and it was really educated conjecture on their part as to details and dimensions of the real thing. Under those circumstances, like the Kelly's Heroes Tiger, it's impressive how close they came. But the internet consensus seems to be that if you want an accurate T-80, you really should fix up the Skif kit's myriad problems, and put Dragon's kit out to pasture.

By the way, I see in the new Squadron Catalog a company I don't recognize, "UM." Is that Skif?

EDIT: Ah, just saw the answer over on Missing-lynx. UM appears indeed to be Skif kits, possibly with extras.

Edited by Fishwelding
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some camo non-ERA T-80s, but frankly... its a rarety. Once ERA was installed, camo would soon follow

t80_1.jpg

t80-10050.jpg

For nor-ERA T-80, your best guess would be solid green paintjob. Of course there was rhyme and reason for camo, esp before 1991, but that doesnt mean they were all identical.

Zmey,

Cool picture of those T-80's with the fording kit installed. Never seen that before. Not sure I would have liked being the driver of a tank going across a river bed 30' underwater!

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zmey,

Cool picture of those T-80's with the fording kit installed. Never seen that before. Not sure I would have liked being the driver of a tank going across a river bed 30' underwater!

John

The driver or crew. Image the TC being hit by a wave and falling down the stack. What about incoming fire from an ambush?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, that quest by the Soviets to solve the problem of all those %*($ rivers and canals in West Germany always amused me. Bridging equipment would have been hassle enough amidst the armor and other logistics on all those congested roads, and moreover, once built, the new bridges would be magnets for NATO airpower anyway. I always assumed that tactically, the Soviets would have sent floating amphibious IFVs and the like across first, having tanks and artillery in overwatch or indirect support, like World War II. Then the tanks would make their treacherous submarine crossing after a bridgehead was more or less secure enough. Any way you slice it, if they were at all serious about all that non-bridge water crossing equipment and techniques, it would have been quite a feat. I suppose tankers probably hoped that NATO airpower wouldn't be as impressive as it was touted to be, so the engineers could bridge of ferry them, as in the Egyptian Suez crossings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...