Could the Warsaw Pact have beaten NATO?

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:17 pm

iirc, a National Guard Reforger div saved the day. What equipment did this have?

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:04 am

Not meaning to take us too far off topic, but the question was asked...

Mickel wrote:
By the way, we are still paying for WW 2.

...
Where did the US fund the war from? I would have thought that the debt would be largely internal - ie the US people. Sorry, I don't really know too much about life on the home front in the US during that time.

The US funded the war mostly from the magic wand of John Maynard Keynes.

Roosevelt was a big adherant to Keynsian economic theories. WW2 more or less proved out the core tenants, in that one specific case.

How did the US Government pay for the war? They went downstairs and printed up million-dollar bills, and then went out and handed them to industrial developers.

At the same time that they were injecting currency into the economy, they drew at least SOME money back out through war bond drives. But not nearly as much as they pumped in. The currency (both M1 and M2 by modern vernacular) rose dramatically during the war. However, price controls were put into place to prevent hyper-inflation, as the production of consumer goods did not rise to match the growing monetary affluence of the American consumer.

The result was a tremendous pent-up demand once the war ended. This was met by converting factories to consumer production, and converting construction to the housing market.

And so the post-war era saw the greatest boom in median wealth levels in our nations history, on a cycle that continued to rise at very high rates for 10 or 15 years after the end of the war.

This worked for the US in part because even at the height of the war, we were still a net exporter. The US was not a large importer of oil, nor of foodstuffs. Some raw materials like bauxite and rubber were imported, but at the same time many finished goods were exported, even during the war. As more and more nations wanted in, military exports became a major export value, inluding such items as rifles, trucks, tanks, planes, and ships to allies and trading partners around the world.

In the post-gold-standard worldwide economy, nations manufacture their own currency as they choose. Need $32.4 Billion to pay for a program? Go downstairs at the treasury and ask them to print you a 32.4billion-dollar bill. They will. But currency looses value (suffers from inflation) if it grows faster than the Gross National Product, the level of the nation's production of goods and services. More money around, and no more stuff to buy with it, will push up the prices on the stuff there is. Still, inflation can be accepted if necessary, or managed at least temporarily through other means (like price-controls). And the money you manufacture can spur production output, which allows for the cash you are pumping in to the economy to go into buying MORE stuff, instead of just buying the SAME stuff at higher prices.

So governments can manufacture as much currency as they choose.

The issue that nations struggle to fund is their balance of trade, not their expenditures. If your currency value falls, it becomes harder and harder to pay for imports in excess of exports. The US retained a positive balance of trade. So there was nothing to fund.

In short, the nation didn't have to fund the war. The war funded the nation.

Matt D · Post by **Matt D** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:33 am

I had the opportunity to spend the month of January in 1988 studying in Eastern Europe. It was a wasted effort to try and understand the Warsaw Pacts efforts to create an open market economy, called the ComEcon, while maintaining their Communist credence. Regardless of the country (I was in Czechslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and East Berlin) every scheduled class, meeting, and presentation was cancelled. Little could we know that the cancellations were a part of the entire collapse of Communism 10 months later with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Along with having a profound appreciation for America, Western Europe, and Capitalism (you have to loose it to truly appreciate it) I several met soldiers in every country. Every pub, night club, and restaurant bar had a handful of guys in uniform drinking. Most spoke English or our group had someone who could communicate. The universal opinion of every soldier we met was their absolute hatred of Russia and for Russians. Aside from their lack of discipline and propensity for alcohol, they made it plainly clear of whose side they'd rather be on. Although the folks in Czechslovakia hated the French and English as a result of their not coming to help fight the Nazis in 1939. (As a side note, I you ever have the chance, visit Prague. The people didn't resist the Nazis and the city was left intact.)

Although I didn't serve in the military, I'm legally blind, it was clear that any Soviet attempt to launch an assault into Western Europe would have had to have been done with these types of soldiers. Every eastern bloc country had been subject to Soviet domaination and persecution for 40 years. To expect these same people to help their oppressors, as well as be expected to attack the very nations they admired in NATO, would have been a tall order.

This was in 1988 but I'd have to imagine the same feelings were felt in the 1960s and 70s as well. Heck the Hungarian uprising is still an open wound today. Maybe the opening days of an invasion would have been met with equal vigor, but I would imagine that fairly soon a stalemate that would have brought body bags home to these oppressed nations that would have been a spark for something the Soviets may well have had trouble handeling. And I believe any invasion would have been stopped fairly quickly. To think that West Germany would not have fought like lions to defend their country would be an understanement. And to my recollection no figure of the defending NATO force ever included the West German reserves and just plain people coming out of the woodwork to disrupt the Soviet advance.

thetourist · Post by **thetourist** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:12 am

I really appreciate all the comments so far on this topic. I've read a lot of really interesting points. The discussion so far seems to be centered around the political will of the opponents and the economic muscle to follow through. What I would like to see is some more discussion of the tactics or doctrines and the actual fighting strength of the opposing sides. For example, would the soviets with T-62's/64's and BMP 1's beat up on Americans with M60's and M113's.

I was really interested to read the scenario where the Soviets invade the Middle East and basically dare the West to intervene. Knowing full well that if the Americans/Brits etc. committed too much in the Mid east that the Euro Theater would become vulnerable to attack. I found that a really plausible possibility. At least in the short term. I think we all know what happens when someone invades a mideast country over the long haul. Just ask the Israelis/Russians/Americans/Brits and so on. I think the Russians would have an impossible time keeping their supply lines intact over a long period of time. But maybe long enough to inflict long term economic hardship on the West with an oil shut off. Nevertheless, I think all of my future games will have some element of this in the pre game briefing.

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:11 am

thetourist wrote: What I would like to see is some more discussion of the tactics or doctrines and the actual fighting strength of the opposing sides. For example, would the soviets with T-62's/64's and BMP 1's beat up on Americans with M60's and M113's.

The US M48 would have struggled greatly against the T-55. As accurate as the US 90mm gun was, its kinetic energy rounds (HVAP was the preferred penetrator) lacked the raw penetrating power to reliably kill T-54 or T-55 frontally.

The M60A1 was a good step forward for the US in lethality. The British L7 105mm cannon was a very good gun, and for the first time the US also went to a discarding sabot round that retained its penetration out to long range. But the M60 also came into service at a time when most NATO armies, US included, really focussed on HEAT rounds as a primary anti-armor munition. The 105's HEAT round was pretty good, but I wonder about the ultimate effectiveness of firng HEAT from cannons against moving targets at range. So also with the Britsh firing HESH.

If I reduce this to wargaming experiences ...

I've wargamed M60s against T-62s, and if the rules of that era are to be believed at all (I was using one of TTG's Challenger variants at that time), if both sides stopped to shoot it out, the penetrating power of US HEAT rounds could become decisive. But if the Soviets kept moving (as was their doctrine), the lower velocities, and hence longer flight times of HEAT rounds means more targets are not where you expected them to be when you fired, and you can't hit squat. Once the Soviets get in to 1.5 Km or less, their 115mm smoothbores do terrible execution.

I've wargamed M60A3s against T-72s. When both sides stopped to shoot it out at range the T-72s ate the M60s alive, due to the far greater penetrating power of their guns, their flatter and hence superior longe-ranged trajectory, and their heavy frontal armor. I'm not sure that's how it would have played out, but that's what the rules provided. I don't think the US laser rangefinders were accounted for well enough in those rules.

But when the same scenario was played out with M60A3-TTS's, by an American who knew what he had with thermal imaging sights, it wasn't even a fun game. You take a shot or two. As soon as there is any risk of the Soviets getting your range, you pop smoke. They can't shoot you, you can continue shooting them. When they get within about 1Km, you have your mortars fire some smoke while you back out of your firing positions and fall back to your next line. Then you start shooting him with impunity again. Your gaming opponent walks off in a huff.

Really, the emergence of thermal sights changed everything in tank warfare. Much like the emergence of radar did for fighters. Don't underestimate it.

M113s were rolling coffins. My BTR-60s regularly ate them for lunch. The Soviet KPV 14.5mm MG is that much better than the US M2 .50cal.

BMPs offered even better firepower than the BTRs, but tended to lead to tactical risk-taking that produced very high infantry casualties. Even with a BMP, you really want your infantry to debuss before you are in range of effective fire from the opposition.

Infantry, for both sides, was (and is) very dangerous to tanks. The question is: at what range? US infantry of the cold war era, if not accompanied by their M150 (and later M901) TOW launchers, are harmless to tanks beyond 1km. That means the tanks can get close enough to punish the US grunts.

Soviet infantry, if their battalion AT company is with them, are dangerous at any range. But they have fewer AT assets (4 to 8 launchers per battalion) than the US infantry (9 Dragon launchers per company). So often the US armor can get in to 6-800m and really dish out some hurt. But if it is a BMP unit, the are a LOT of missles backing up those guys in the woods/buildings/trenches.

In no cases do you want your tanks to get closer than 200m to the infantry. WAY too many RPGs and LAWs around.

At least, that's how my wargaming of the period played out. I'm looking forward to Mein Panzer's upcoming modern suppliment, so that I can get back to modern gaming. Haven't really had a ruleset to play since the late 80s/ early 90s.

I was really interested to read the scenario where the Soviets invade the Middle East and basically dare the West to intervene. Knowing full well that if the Americans/Brits etc. committed too much in the Mid east that the Euro Theater would become vulnerable to attack. I found that a really plausible possibility. ... I think the Russians would have an impossible time keeping their supply lines intact over a long period of time. But maybe long enough to inflict long term economic hardship on the West with an oil shut off. Nevertheless, I think all of my future games will have some element of this in the pre game briefing.

When you think about Soviet "adventurism", you should think in terms of geographic continuity. The Soviets, and the Russians before them (and since), do not have the kind of overseas power-projection that the US takes for granted these days.

A Soviet mechanized army needs rail lines. Maybe it can live with truck routes if it is motorized (mostly BTR-mounted infantry) with only a scattering of full mech (BMPs and tanks). Otherwise, they need rail.

The Soviets going through through Iran, to anywhere else, would have stretched the Soviets far more than any response would have stretched the US. We could support our forces by shipping. The Soviets couldn't.

Risks, at that time, were more like the Soviets getting the US (or NATO allies) caught up in some fight with a Soviet proxy, which would consume NATO strenght and NOT consume Soviet strenght. Then the Soviets might threaten bold moves in Europe. So for example, the Brits and French getting involved in the Israeli/Egyptian tussle over Suez, or the US shipping warstocks of tanks and ammo from Europe to Israel during the Yom Kippur war, or even Vietnam during the Tet offensive ... any of these consumed NATO strength without drawing away critical Soviet resources from Europe.

But if you look at it the other way around, say when the Soviets were busy in Afghanistan in the early 80s, I would say no, that is not the time they were likely to initiate a stare-down with NATO in Europe.

thetourist · Post by **thetourist** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:59 am

How vulnerable was NATO during the height of the Vietnam War? The US had 500,000 troops committed there. Granted, many were drafted and there wasn't much heavy armor there. but the logistical strain it would have put on the US to support two major wars might have made he difference.

The thermal imaging is an interesting point. Was that the edge that tipped the balance in favor of NATO for good? Or was there a point beyond that where the West became vulnerable again?

I see what you mean about logistical strain on the Russians with a Mid East campaign. However, they did maintain a large presence in Afghanistan for almost a decade. It seems to me that Iran wasn't much more of a challenge. Motorized units supported by some armor should have been able to do the job. Iran had some armor, but not much.

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:31 am

Mk 1 wrote: The US M48 would have struggled greatly against the T-55.

Well then, play the British in that game & get the Centurion Mk.5

Mickel · Post by **Mickel** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:08 pm

Thanks Mark. I suspected that was the case, since there was no one to borrow from.

But back on the topic at hand proper:
In a stand up fight, tank for tank, the British were arguably a bit better off than the US forces. The FV-432 was like an M-113, only worse. However they were taught a lesson about making tanks in WWII and didn't forget it - have a good gun and lots of protection..

The L-7 105mm was a excellent gun which is why it was the NATO standard. The L-11 120mm (not the Conqueror gun, the Chieftain one) was none too shabby either, especially compared to it's contemporaries in the late '60s and early '70s.

Nothing in the West (or probably East, with the possible exception of the T-64) had the armour/gun combination to match a Chieftain for more than a decade. OK, automotive reliability was questionable at times, and was lacking a bit of power when it was working. But on a table top that's not generally an issue.

I've had games where I've sat in hull down positions with a couple of four tanks troops against a battalion of T-55s and eaten the lot. Wasn't 31-0, but good enough. I wouldn't recommend it against a 125mm with decent fire control though.

To elaborate on the ammunition; in WWII, your average solid shot penetrator was pretty much it, and generally adequate at battle range with a gun designed to knock out tanks (so don't go knocking the Sherman - it wasn't). With the advance in fire control, battle ranges increased. But the projectile velocity fell off exponentially with range. So the explosive rounds came to the fore, as their penetration was not range affected. However, the trajectory was loopy and flight times longer, affecting accuracy against moving targets. This applied to HESH as well as HEAT. Along came composites in the late '70s and early '80s, and the effect of HEAT dropped off to basically nil. So the kinetic penetrators we have today came back, and will probably remain in some form until someone invents a workable laser.

Western KE rounds (APDS or APFSDS) have been either tungsten or DU. For a long time, Soviet ones were tungsten tipped steel (I stand to be corrected on this point). Since the penetrator relies on kinetic energy to go through armour, more is good. The Western ones, being 2Â½-3 denser than the Soviet steel ones had more penetrating power at any given velocity because of their greater weight (KE=mass x velocityÂ²). The velocity can't have varied greatly from one side of the curtain to the other, so NATO gun performance should have been better with the 105mm and 120mm/L55 & /L44 (L44 means calibre times 44, ie 120mm x44 - longer tends to be better).

Back to topic again, sort of...
Did early thermal imagers provide enough information to shoot with? Fratricide would have been a major issue, since the resolution wasn't what it it has become and one thermal blob looks much like another. Undoubtedly an advantage, but possibly an overstated one in rules.

What I have found interesting about this thread is that it hasn't been about who's tank is better, and quantity vs quality. It's been about political (and a nations) will, the ability to fund it, the ability to support it logistically (Will will be pleased

), and whether there is anything to be gained by starting a war in the first place. Signs of an enlightened group.

I look forward to reading more.

Mike

BattlerBritain · Post by **BattlerBritain** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:00 pm

On the subject of whether Thermal Imagers are good enough to ID from I used to work at a place called RARDE Chertsey in the UK - it's where they invented Chobham armour

I worked on tank gun accuracy stuff and I worked with a Major who told me of his first use of TI on Chieftains.

He said thay were on exercise in Germany and were up against some German Leo1's. They had a German representative with them as an Umpire. It was early morning and there was a fog around - real bad vis. The Germans decided to launch an attack at the Brits in the fog, and the Brits couldn't believe it 'cos they could see the Leo's clear as day. They decided to 'return fire' at the Leos. The German Umpire, riding on top of he Brit tanks, asked why they were claiming they could see the Leos as he clearly couldn't. The Brits told him to take a look through their sights - and he was amazed! You could tell whether the German crews had shaved that morning.

Pretty soon after the Germans got TI for their tanks

ferret701 · Post by **ferret701** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:21 pm

[quote="Matt D"] To think that West Germany would not have fought like lions to defend their country would be an understanement. And to my recollection no figure of the defending NATO force ever included the West German reserves and just plain people coming out of the woodwork to disrupt the Soviet advance.[/quote]

I think Matt hits on one very important point here. The West German military was basically two different militaries, each with a specific role. The one that gets (and got during the period) the most attention is the Bundeswehr proper -- the mech and armor units (along with limited numbers of airborne and mountain troops). It was designed to fight a mobile war with the Warsaw Pact, dodging and feinting, and setting up favorable engagements.

The other was the TerritorialHeer, which was almost as large. It was primarily infantry, although it contained 5 Panzer brigades (the five-series Heimatschutz brigades) and 6 panzergrenadier brigades (the six-series). It also fielded 15 infantry regiments, a number of security and infantry battalions, several hundred (250-300) infantry companies, and many hundreds of smaller units.

The stated strategy of the Territorials was to provide rear-area security, and to some extent, that was true. But one of the major missions with to deny the WP easy access to urban areas, and therefore, the road net. Given the stunning logistical requirements of a modern army, virtual total control of the road net was necessary for a prolonged campaign. The Soviets were well equipped for bombarding these urban areas (which covered a large chunk of West Germany by the 1980s) but less well-equipped for assaulting them -- even Soviet motor rifle divisions were infantry-poor relative to an actual infantry formation, and armored vehicles are at a significant disadvantage in the age of ubiquitous hand-held infantry weapons.

In addition, territorial units were organized to place obstacles, demolish roads and bridges, and to lay mines (the main tasks of the WallMeister units). They would also act as stay-behind forces to provide reconnaissance info to NATO, and to raid WP supply lines.

If I had to make one prediction about a general NATO-WP confrontation, it would be that logistics would come to dominate after the first week. There would be few broad-based offensives, but instead a number of local ones as both sides sought to sort out the "mother of all traffic jams" in their rear-areas.

Pat

jb · Post by jb » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:39 am

Mk 1 wrote:[If I reduce this to wargaming experiences ...

I've wargamed M60s against T-62s, and if the rules of that era are to be believed at all (I was using one of TTG's Challenger variants at that time), if both sides stopped to shoot it out, the penetrating power of US HEAT rounds could become decisive. But if the Soviets kept moving (as was their doctrine), the lower velocities, and hence longer flight times of HEAT rounds means more targets are not where you expected them to be when you fired, and you can't hit squat. Once the Soviets get in to 1.5 Km or less, their 115mm smoothbores do terrible execution.

Truth be told,as a former M60A1 tanker,we had no problem hitting moving targets with the HEAT round. You are correct in the fact that it was the US Army's main round of armor defeating round until 1975-76. We then used SABOT as the main armor defeating round. The thing I didn't like about SABOT was that you had a real hard time to see the tracer if you didn't hit the target. This fact was due to its higher velocity. So if you did miss it was always better to aim just a tad low that way you would see a short line better than an over.
Now the Soviet 115mm SABOT was higher velocity than our SABOT,they also had a very sh***Y weapons system. ALso if they missed with a first round they would have to have the main gun fall into a specific position to eject the spent casing,have it eject out a back door of the turret,reload ,relay the gun and hope you didn't die by our weapons in the mean time. True we still didn't want to get under 1200m with them , but our gunnery really got wicked at that range....

Timothy OConnor · Post by **Timothy OConnor** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:59 am

John,

On the official command decision forum they've have extended arguements about the effective range of WWII tank guns, specifically the 88. Some of the CD players feel that the new version of the rules don't reflect the range advantge of longer/heavier tank guns.

I was wondering if you could provide some insight into "effective" range for the 105mm gun on the M60. Based on your movement and/or that of the target, at what range could you reasonably be expected to score a hit?

The reason for my question is that I've seen "effective" ranges quoted for modern tank guns that are often much shorter than the ranges argued for by many fans of WWII gaming (especially fans of German hardware.) For some reason they seem to consistenly believe that German tank guns could routinely snap off killing shots at ranges the M1 can achieve under nearly perfect battle conditions.

I suppose the truth is somewhere in between in that modern guns have been subjected to greater scrutiny and the resulting data is more widely distributed among a better educated and better connected group of veterans. The WWII gun data seems less consistent and probably far more subject to anecdotal evidence as "data" from personal accounts and memoirs (thus every German tank is a Tiger and every gun an 88).

Any clarification you (and others) could provide as to typical ranges and how you would define "effective range" would be appreciated.

Tim

jb · Post by jb » Sat Sep 22, 2007 5:55 am

Timothy OConnor wrote:John,

On the official command decision forum they've have extended arguements about the effective range of WWII tank guns, specifically the 88. Some of the CD players feel that the new version of the rules don't reflect the range advantge of longer/heavier tank guns.

I was wondering if you could provide some insight into "effective" range for the 105mm gun on the M60. Based on your movement and/or that of the target, at what range could you reasonably be expected to score a hit?

The reason for my question is that I've seen "effective" ranges quoted for modern tank guns that are often much shorter than the ranges argued for by many fans of WWII gaming (especially fans of German hardware.) For some reason they seem to consistenly believe that German tank guns could routinely snap off killing shots at ranges the M1 can achieve under nearly perfect battle conditions.

I suppose the truth is somewhere in between in that modern guns have been subjected to greater scrutiny and the resulting data is more widely distributed among a better educated and better connected group of veterans. The WWII gun data seems less consistent and probably far more subject to anecdotal evidence as "data" from personal accounts and memoirs (thus every German tank is a Tiger and every gun an 88).

Any clarification you (and others) could provide as to typical ranges and how you would define "effective range" would be appreciated.

Tim

If memory serves me well I would say 2000m for at least 60%+ for a hit. This would be both for HEAT and SABOT. This is of course under ideal conditions i,e, Daylight,clear, no enemy fire incoming,etc. (The tanks I operated had no gun stabilization so all fire was from the halt.) I've hit moving targets out to 2500m before but that range makes things VERY difficult to identify. I think that is the real key to extreme long range gunnery-identifying friend or foe. Other than that yes you can hit targets out there,but you got to know who that is out there. Now getting to under 2000m I would dare say 80% or better for hits with the M68 105mm gun. As for effective peirce I was first taught that SABOT was only to be used when tanks showed there side aspect to us. The reason was because of deflection of the T-62 round turret and front slope of the hull. HEAT rounds (I was told) will not deflect,but burn through regardless of armor degree, be it slope or round. Then in 1975 or 76 we reverted to SABOT as the main armor defeating round regardless of target front or side aspect. We were told the SABOT round WILL go through regardless of armor slope or roundness

Kind of confusing, but it might just be a more potent SABOT round was handed to us in 1975. I don't know if it was more potent,but I do know we kept hitting with them.
One thing that I was initially taught at the Armour School and throughout my armour carrer... What can be seen, can be hit, and what can be hit can be killed- this also applied to our enemies weapons,especially that nasty ol Sagger...

Timothy OConnor · Post by **Timothy OConnor** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:14 am

Thanks John! Great info! Your comment reminds of a comment from a friend during a moderns game. When told that his Apache Longbows would need to get closer to a target to fire he exclaimed, "but they can fire 8,000m!"

Modern weapons and fire control can perform amazing feats under perfect conditions. I've read accounts of M1s killing Iraqi tanks in the desert at 4,000m. In another book a soldier describes killing tanks with Javelins well in excess of the weapon's spec range (I think the official range is ~2500m and they were killing tanks at ~3,000m.)

But there's always the issue of seeing and making sure that the target is an enemy.

Outside of weapon accuracy, what was your experience/training when it comes to spotting various troops? Infantry in the open? Trying to hide in a treeline? Vehicles in similar situations? Different wargame rules have different stats on this issue. In games it's usually expressed as a % chance to see at a given range vs a given target. In manuals and reference books it's usually stated as an absolute value or rule of thumb
and expressed in meters (eg your comment below that seeing a target at 2500m was tough,and I'm assuming that was a vehicle).

Thanks again!

Tim

jb · Post by jb » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:08 am

Timothy OConnor wrote:Thanks John! Great info! ...
...But there's always the issue of seeing and making sure that the target is an enemy.

Outside of weapon accuracy, what was your experience/training when it comes to spotting various troops? Infantry in the open? Trying to hide in a treeline? Vehicles in similar situations? Different wargame rules have different stats on this issue. In games it's usually expressed as a % chance to see at a given range vs a given target. In manuals and reference books it's usually stated as an absolute value or rule of thumb
and expressed in meters (eg your comment below that seeing a target at 2500m was tough,and I'm assuming that was a vehicle).

Thanks again!

Tim

Your welcome Tim. All this talk has been bringing back alot of memories. As for the spotting Infantry is very hard to detect, but Ive spotted an infantry patrol one time out to about 900m because one of them made a fast move with his arm (probably swatting a bug!) he in turn made me use my binocullars which in turn revealed his entire platoon! On the other end of the spectrum I've had infantry maneuver right up to our vehicles(thats when we were in woods or builtup areas). In these situations you need your infantry no other way about it. If you don't you are taking big chances especially in the FEBA.
As for spotting vehicles I've spotted them way out 3000m plus and I've been bushwacked by enemy armour 200m to our right flank!! (Damn 2nd LT!!).
When tanks maneuver in formation everybody has a zone they are responsible for scanning. Add to this of course weather, light, darkness,how tired you are,etc then anything can happen. So if you want to represent this in game form you need to randomize your chances on a spotting (I think Mobious' rules has something along these lines). I personally don't like to get into these finer details because there are lots of them.
As you well know rules have to have definte parameters,but with the ever abundant modifiers you can add any conditions to make your spottings more "real" for your personal satisfaction.
For my personal choices I use Vehicles in cover 900m,infantry300m if they fire 2400m /1800m.
If they are in the "open" -vehicle/infantry 1800m/900m, if they fired 3000m/1800m.
nighttimevehicle/infantry in cover 300m/100m , in open 600m/300m fired would be as above, but you need to use some sense as to what you really identify.
I also have a categorey of "Hid" or hidden. These means units that are camoflaged or previuosly hidden before hand. These ranges are Daytime vehicles/infantry 300m/100m night 100m/100m. I know but this is for game time ,like I said games have parameters that can be adjusted.
I hope this helps....

Could the Warsaw Pact have beaten NATO?

Red Storm Rising