steppewolfRO

Big damn thanks to steppewolfRO for his donation!

The other SPG designed in Romania was Maresal:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/arme/?language=en&article=244

I might wake up to watch (starts 4 AM Romanian timezone) but I hugely dislike both candidates. In fact, I don't see looking around a potential statesman / stateswoman that I like in entire Western world. I kind of sympathized a bit Trudeau but he's too leftist for my taste. I rate myself as a conservative liberal and constantly voted this way since I obtained the right to vote with a small hiatus in 2000 when it was between an ex-Commie and a nationalist-Stalinist despicable candidate.
 
Anyway, I use to follow US elections with moderate interest but obviously I am not aware of the intricacies and stratagems so here's one question, how much the other candidates matter? I mean, Green party, Libertarian party etc. Are they likely to be able to tip the balance to one side or another?

Tank design is often conceptualized as a balance between mobility, protection and firepower.  This is, at best, a messy and imprecise conceptualization.  It is messy because these three traits cannot be completely separated from each other.  An APC, for example, that provides basic protection against small arms fire and shell fragments is effectively more mobile than an open-topped vehicle because the APC can traverse areas swept by artillery fires that are closed off entirely to the open-topped vehicle.  It is an imprecise conceptualization because broad ideas like "mobility" are very complex in practice.  The M1 Abrams burns more fuel than the Leo 2, but the Leo 2 requires diesel fuel, while the omnivorous AGT-1500 will run happily on anything liquid and flammable.  Which has better strategic mobility?  Soviet rail gauge was slightly wider than Western European standard; 3.32 vs 3.15 meters.  But Soviet tanks in the Cold War were generally kept lighter and smaller, and had to be in order to be moved in large numbers on a rail and road network that was not as robust as that further west.  So if NATO and the Warsaw Pact had switched tanks in the late 1950s, they would both have downgraded the strategic mobility of their forces, as the Soviet tanks would be slightly too wide for unrestricted movement on rails in the free world, and the NATO tanks would have demanded more logistical support per tank than evil atheist commie formations were designed to provide.
 

 
So instead of wading into a deep and subtle subject, I am going to write about something that is extremely simple and easy to describe in mathematical terms; the top speed of a tank moving in a straight line.  Because it is so simple and straightforward to understand, it is also nearly meaningless in terms of the combat performance of a tank.
 
In short, the top speed of a tank is limited by three things; the gear ratio limit, the power limit and the suspension limit.  The tank's maximum speed will be whichever of these limits is the lowest on a given terrain.  The top speed of a tank is of limited significance, even from a tactical perspective, because the tank's ability to exploit its top speed is constrained by other factors.  A high top speed, however, looks great on sales brochures, and there are examples of tanks that were designed with pointlessly high top speeds in order to overawe people who needed impressing.
 

When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're going to see some serious shit.
 
The Gear Ratio Limit
 
Every engine has a maximum speed at which it can turn.  Often, the engine is artificially governed to a maximum speed slightly less than what it is mechanically capable of in order to reduce wear.  Additionally, most piston engines develop their maximum power at slightly less than their maximum speed due to valve timing issues:
 

A typical power/speed relationship for an Otto Cycle engine.  Otto Cycle engines are primitive devices that are only used when the Brayton Cycle Master Race is unavailable.
 
Most tanks have predominantly or purely mechanical drivetrains, which exchange rotational speed for torque by easily measurable ratios.  The maximum rotational speed of the engine, multiplied by the gear ratio of the highest gear in the transmission multiplied by the gear ratio of the final drives multiplied by the circumference of the drive sprocket will equal the gear ratio limit of the tank.  The tank is unable to achieve higher speeds than the gear ratio limit because it physically cannot spin its tracks around any faster.
 
Most spec sheets don't actually give out the transmission ratios in different gears, but such excessively detailed specification sheets are provided in Germany's Tiger Tanks by Hilary Doyle and Thomas Jentz.  The gear ratios, final drive ratios, and maximum engine RPM of the Tiger II are all provided, along with a handy table of the vehicle's maximum speed in each gear.  In eighth gear, the top speed is given as 41.5 KPH, but that is at an engine speed of 3000 RPM, and in reality the German tank engines were governed to less than that in order to conserve their service life.  At a more realistic 2500 RPM, the mighty Tiger II would have managed 34.6 KPH.
 
In principle there are analogous limits for electrical and hydraulic drive components based on free speeds and stall torques, but they are a little more complicated to actually calculate.
 

Part of the transmission from an M4 Sherman, picture from Jeeps_Guns_Tanks' great Sherman website
 
The Power Limit
 
So a Tiger II could totally go 34.6 KPH in combat, right?  Well, perhaps.  And by "perhaps," I mean "lolololololol, fuck no."  I defy you to find me a test report where anybody manages to get a Tiger II over 33 KPH.  While the meticulous engineers of Henschel did accurately transcribe the gear ratios of the transmission and final drive accurately, and did manage to use their tape measures correctly when measuring the drive sprockets, their rosy projections of the top speed did not account for the power limit.
 
As a tank moves, power from the engine is wasted in various ways and so is unavailable to accelerate the tank.  As the tank goes faster and faster, the magnitude of these power-wasting phenomena grows, until there is no surplus power to accelerate the tank any more.  The system reaches equilibrium, and the tank maxes out at some top speed where it hits its power limit (unless, of course, the tank hits its gear ratio limit first).
 
The actual power available to a tank is not the same as the gross power of the motor.  Some of the gross horsepower of the motor has to be directed to fans to cool the engine (except, of course, in the case of the Brayton Cycle Master Race, whose engines are almost completely self-cooling).  The transmission and final drives are not perfectly efficient either, and waste a significant amount of the power flowing through them as heat.  As a result of this, the actual power available at the sprocket is typically between 61% and 74% of the engine's quoted gross power.
 
Once the power does hit the drive sprocket, it is wasted in overcoming the friction of the tank's tracks, in churning up the ground the tank is on, and in aerodynamic drag.  I have helpfully listed these in the order of decreasing importance.
 
The drag coefficient of a cube (which is a sufficiently accurate physical representation of a Tiger II) is .8. This, multiplied by half the fluid density of air (1.2 kg/m^3) times the velocity (9.4 m/s) squared times a rough frontal area of 3.8 by 3 meters gives a force of 483 newtons of drag.  This multiplied by the velocity of the tiger II gives 4.5 kilowatts, or about six horsepower lost to drag.  With the governor installed, the HL 230 could put out about 580 horsepower, which would be four hundred something horses at the sprocket, so the aerodynamic drag would be 1.5% of the total available power.  Negligible.  Tanks are just too slow to lose much power to aerodynamic effects.
 
Losses to the soil can be important, depending on the surface the tank is operating on.  On a nice, hard surface like a paved road there will be minimal losses between the tank's tracks and the surface.  Off-road, however, the tank's tracks will start to sink into soil or mud, and more power will be wasted in churning up the soil.  If the soil is loose or boggy enough, the tank will simply sink in and be immobilized.  Tanks that spread their weight out over a larger area will lose less power, and be able to traverse soft soils at higher speed.  This paper from the UK shows the relationship between mean maximum pressure (MMP), and the increase in rolling resistance on various soils and sands in excruciating detail.  In general, tanks with more track area, with more and bigger road wheels, and with longer track pitch will have lower MMP, and will sink into soft soils less and therefore lose less top speed.
 
The largest loss of power usually comes from friction within the tracks themselves.  This is sometimes called rolling resistance, but this term is also used to mean other, subtly different things, so it pays to be precise.  Compared to wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles have extremely high rolling resistance, and lose a lot of power just keeping the tracks turning.  Rolling resistance is generally expressed as a dimensionless coefficient, CR, which multiplied against vehicle weight gives the force of friction.  This chart from R.M. Ogorkiewicz' Technology of Tanks shows experimentally determined rolling resistance coefficients for various tracked vehicles:
 

 
The rolling resistance coefficients given here show that a tracked vehicle going on ideal testing ground conditions is about as efficient as a car driving over loose gravel.  It also shows that the rolling resistance increases with vehicle speed.  A rough approximation of this increase in CR is given by the equation CR=A+BV, where A and B are constants and V is vehicle speed.  Ogorkiewicz explains:
 
 
It should be noted that the lubricated needle bearing track joints of which he speaks were only ever used by the Germans in WWII because they were insanely complicated.  Band tracks have lower rolling resistance than metal link tracks, but they really aren't practical for vehicles much above thirty tonnes.  Other ways of reducing rolling resistance include using larger road wheels, omitting return rollers, and reducing track tension.  Obviously, there are practical limits to these approaches.
 
To calculate power losses due to rolling resistance, multiply vehicle weight by CR by vehicle velocity to get power lost.  The velocity at which the power lost to rolling resistance equals the power available at the sprocket is the power limit on the speed of the tank.
 
The Suspension Limit
 
The suspension limit on speed is starting to get dangerously far away from the world of spherical, frictionless horses where everything is easy to calculate using simple algebra, so I will be brief.  In addition to the continents of the world not being completely comprised of paved surfaces that minimize rolling resistance, the continents of the world are also not perfectly flat.  This means that in order to travel at high speed off road, tanks require some sort of suspension or else they would shake their crews into jelly.  If the crew is being shaken too much to operate effectively, then it doesn't really matter if a tank has a high enough gear ratio limit or power limit to go faster.  This is also particularly obnoxious because suspension performance is difficult to quantify, as it involves resonance frequencies, damping coefficients, and a bunch of other complicated shit.
 
Suffice it to say, then, that a very rough estimate of the ride-smoothing qualities of a tank's suspension can be made from the total travel of its road wheels:
 

 
This chart from Technology of Tanks is helpful.  A more detailed discussion of the subject of tank suspension can be found here.
 
The Real World Rudely Intrudes
 
So, how useful is high top speed in a tank in messy, hard-to-mathematically-express reality?  The answer might surprise you!
 

A Wehrmacht M.A.N. combustotron Ausf G
 
We'll take some whacks at everyone's favorite whipping boy; the Panther.
 
A US report on a captured Panther Ausf G gives its top speed on roads as an absolutely blistering 60 KPH on roads.  The Soviets could only get their captured Ausf D to do 50 KPH, but compared to a Sherman, which is generally only credited with 40 KPH on roads, that's alarmingly fast.
 
So, would this mean that the Panther enjoyed a mobility advantage over the Sherman?  Would this mean that it was better able to make quick advances and daring flanking maneuvers during a battle?
 
No.
 
In field tests the British found the panther to have lower off-road speed than a Churchill VII (the panther had a slightly busted transmission though).  In the same American report that credits the Panther Ausf G with a 60 KPH top speed on roads, it was found that off road the panther was almost exactly as fast as an M4A376W, with individual Shermans slightly outpacing the big cat or lagging behind it slightly.  Another US report from January 1945 states that over courses with many turns and curves, the Sherman would pull out ahead because the Sherman lost less speed negotiating corners.  Clearly, the Panther's advantage in straight line speed did not translate into better mobility in any combat scenario that did not involve drag racing.
 
So what was going on with the Panther?  How could it leave everything but light tanks in the dust on a straight highway, but be outpaced by the ponderous Churchill heavy tank in actual field tests?
 

Panther Ausf A tanks captured by the Soviets
 
A British report from 1946 on the Panther's transmission explains what's going on.  The Panther's transmission had seven forward gears, but off-road it really couldn't make it out of fifth.  In other words, the Panther had an extremely high gear ratio limit that allowed it exceptional speed on roads.  However, the Panther's mediocre power to weight ratio (nominally 13 hp/ton for the RPM limited HL 230) meant that once the tank was off road and fighting mud, it only had a mediocre power limit.  Indeed, it is a testament to the efficiency of the Panther's running gear that it could keep up with Shermans at all, since the Panther's power to weight ratio was about 20% lower than that particular variant of Sherman.
 
There were other factors limiting the Panther's speed in practical circumstances.  The geared steering system used in the Panther had different steering radii based on what gear the Panther was in.  The higher the gear, the wider the turn.  In theory this was excellent, but in practice the designers chose too wide a turn radius for each gear, which meant that for any but the gentlest turns the Panther's drive would need to slow down and downshift in order to complete the turn, thus sacrificing any speed advantage his tank enjoyed.
 
So why would a tank be designed in such a strange fashion?  The British thought that the Panther was originally designed to be much lighter, and that the transmission had never been re-designed in order to compensate.  Given the weight gain that the Panther experienced early in development, this explanation seems like it may be partially true.  However, when interrogated, Ernst Kniepkamp, a senior engineer in Germany's wartime tank development bureaucracy, stated that the additional gears were there simply to give the Panther a high speed on roads, because it looked good to senior generals.
 
So, this is the danger in evaluating tanks based on extremely simplistic performance metrics that look good on paper.  They may be simple to digest and simple to calculate, but in the messy real world, they may mean simply nothing.

Thank you very much for the extensive explanation, it was very educative. I suppose Romanian Army does not use heavier bullets since there were rarely any reports about breaking of the receiver plate and I didn't heard ex-users that I know complaining too much about it. Also is wasn't used as a sniper rifle but as a designated marksman rifle so probably light ammo was sufficient. As far as I know PSL will be probably upgraded at some point. 
 
Back to history, I'll post some maps with WP exercises for Cold War going hot in Balkans along with a translation of an article of a Romanian recent historian (original article here, in Romanian). Excuse my English, sometimes is hard to translate from Romanian while keeping the same meaning. 
 
Military exercises Balkan-89 from Bulgaria (4-9 June 1989)
 
Between 4 to 9 June 1989 in Bulgaria was held a joint military application of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, coded named 'BALKAN-89 ". The planned maneuvers of Joint Armed Forces Command (CFAU) participated in big units from Bulgaria, Soviet Union and Romania. in his memoirs ("Sentenced to discretion") Rear Admiral Stephen Dinu said that in 1989 "in southern Romania, two military applications quite important, in June -" Balkan 89 "and in August" Maritsa 89 ", both oriented towards the south to Greece, missions that they were assigned to Bulgaria by the Treaty of Warsaw". A series of information from former archive of CC (Central Committee) of PCR (Romanian Communist Party) completes general picture about military application "BALKAN-89", said the former head of the Intelligence Directorate of the general Staff. Thus, on 3 April 1989 Colonel-General Vasile Milea Nicolae sought approval to Ceausescu for sending Bulgaria a task force of the 3rd Army. This was in order participate in an application on the map in the first decade of June 1989 - in maneuvers organized by CFAU (Command of Unified Armed Forced of WP) of under the name "BALKAN-89". We note that, since September 1968, the Romanian army was involved very little in applications CFAU performed in other states. Typically, Romania was represented at such maneuvers by generals and officers who acted within Command and General Staff, distinct from the national staffs. Strategic and operational-tactical problems created by leaders of exercise were solved by the Romanian participants only on maps. Also, on 3rd April 1989, the Minister of National Defence proposed and Nicolae Ceausescu agreed that Lt. Gen. Constantin Călinoiu, deputy of Command for Infantry and Tanks to explore Bulgaria a for exercise "BALKAN-89", together with six Romanian officers between 25-28 April 1989. They were working all documents necessary for the Romanian side, in agreement with the Bulgarian General Staff.
 

 
As deputy manager of the exercise from Romanian Army side, Lieutenant General Constantin Călinoiu received as subordinates 18 officers and NCOs and was instructed to allow the participation of Romanian soldiers "in some activities politico-cultural that will take place during application". Simultaneously, Nicolae Ceausescu approved that Major General Dumitru Rosu, 3rd Army commander, to lead a task force, his headquarters to the application "BALKAN-89". This group was composed of Chief of Staff of the Army 3rd Major General Niculae Matei, 85 officers and non-commissioned officers, 24 conscript servicemen and 34 special vehicles for staff and transport machines. Moving to Bulgaria of military combat equipment used by them in the application "BALKAN-89" was carried by train and transportation costs were paid by the Romanian Ministry of National Defense.
 
Fictional Balkan War
 
Since 1966, common military exercises in which Romanian military forces were supposed to deployed were in South West Military Theather - usually the "Greek Operative Direction" These were aimed at "training of practical skills needed to organize , planning and conduct battle (operation) in echelon division-army ". Usually CFAU stated that the Romanian army should carry out joint exercises at the beginning of spring on operative-strategic map. To understand the general concept of military applications like "BALKAN-89", we appeal to the documents of the former archive of the PCR. For example, in the meeting of the Defence Council of 13 October 1972 it was approved an exercise in Romania during 12 to 21 February 1973 as an war game on the map, on "Conducting groups allied troops in the theater of military action, with simultaneous rejection of enemy aggression. Taking the offensive operation Front and warfare and maritime forces air defense troops of the states participating in the Warsaw Treaty ". In the application were employed "frontline operational command groups, air defense of territory and Romanian, Soviet and Bulgarian Navy", in total about 400 generals and officers, of which only 100 were Romanian. For the first time since the creation of the alliance, provided that CFAU Romanian Front should have to act on the direction of Turkey, forcing the Dardanelles Straits. Until that time, the Romanian army had been engaged only in military games on operative directions North-Italian (until 1966) and Greek (1966).
 

 
In accordance with the request made by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Marshal Ivan Iakubovski would have lead the game of war as "supreme commander of the group of fronts in the theater of military action Southwest". It was also envisaged that the management of exercise to have only one deputy Romanian and Bulgarian unaccompanied by their working groups and operative activities of these officers should have been carrier out by Soviet officers. According to the concept of the war game "SOYUZ-73" forces of Army Group South (NATO) would have attacked Bulgaria and arrived on the line: South Sofia - North Gabcovo - North Burgas. Simultaneously, NATO aircraft forces engaged in a battle around Constanta and about 150 miles east and north of Burgas it would have been launched three amphibious operations in the flank of 3rd Southern Front (Soviet). Army Group South was composed of Greek 1st Army (three corps) and the Greek Army 4th Corps (three divisions), Turkish 1st Army (Corps 3, 5, and 2) and the Turkish Army 4th Corps (three divisions). At the same time, Army Group South have the support of the 6th Aviation Corps. 2nd South Front was formed by the Romanian Army composed of 10 divisions (two tanks divisions). Of these, three divisions were permanent combat capability, three divisions were ready for battle after 1-2 days of starting the war and four divisions were ready for battle after 3-4 days. Large group of Romanian units, framed on two sides by Soviet military would have advanced south of the Danube between Ruse and Nikopol. Operation crossing of the river by the Soviet and Romanian unfolded while NATO was supposed to use weapons of mass destruction to the mandatory pass from Isaccea, Braila, Giurgeni Vadu Oii Olteniţa - Turtucaia, Giurgiu - Ruse, Zimnicea - Belene, Turnu Magurele - Nikopol, Islaz - Somovit, Ship - Lom Palanka and Bechet-Oreahovo.
 
Conquest of Bosporus and Dardanelles
 
After passing of Danube would have been completed, the WP forces went on the offensive. Romanian units (Front 2 South) would have act on the territory of Bulgaria in cooperation with the 3 rd Soviet Front South, on the South - South East direction. At some point, the lines of action of the two fronts became divergent. Soviet forces were meant to attack Istanbul, while the Romanian army attempt to reach the Dardanelles and the Marmara Sea. For immediate mission Romanian 2nd South Front were established following elements: advancing depth (200-250 km), the pace of advance on the offensive (40-60 km / 24 hours) and duration to fulfill the mission (4-6 days ). Subsequently, a parachute Romanian regiment would have assault and engaged in battle east of the town Kanok (Turkey), on the 5th or 6th of opening hostilities. Its action constituted a prelude to a new offensive triggered by the Romanian army, for creating a bridgehead south of the Dardanelles. For the next mission of 2nd Romanian South Front were established following objective: deepest advance (200-250 km), the pace of advance (30 km / 24 hours) and duration to fulfill the mission (7-8 days). Simultaneously with the Romanian attack, units of 3rd Soviet South Front were to engage in combat against Turkish forces in southeastern Bulgaria to repulse them to Western Istanbul. Then a Soviet airborne division would have been launched in the 4th or 5th day after the opening of hostilities in northeast of Izmir (east of Istanbul), in close proximity to the Bosphorus Strait. In the Black Sea would engage two air - naval battles: first, 150 miles northeast Istanbul and the second about 50 miles east of Istanbul.
At the same time with the offensive against the Turkish 1st Army at the right flank of Romanian army Bulgarian forces would have conducted a similar military operation. Bulgarian Forces of the 1st Southern Front in cooperation with units of Soviet army would have repelled attacks of the 1st Greek Army liberating the Bulgarian territory occupied by NATO and than conquering Greek towns Komutini, Cavalla, Thessaloniki and Cojani, then pushing to the Aegean coast . The application "SOIUZ-73" reveals that Soviet military leaders were concerned about the quick conquest of Bosporus and Dardanelles in the situations of a war between NATO and the Organization of the Warsaw Pact. Also, it can be seen that Romanian army was put between two Soviet armies during military applications. This is understandable considering the problems that the Romanian authorities have been created to Moscow after 1968 events in Czechoslovakia. Of course, exercise "SOIUZ-73" and "BALKAN-89" were fictional scenarios but Moscow wanted by such actions to prepare better in military terms. Also, it seems that the Soviets were trying to discipline Romania. Coincidentally or not, the application in 1973 was named SOYUZ ( Union). A union of interests that Nicolae Ceausescu and Romanian generals were unable to ignore.
 
Further reading about other exercises in the same area:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1975-05-27.pdf

Thank you very much for the extensive explanation, it was very educative. I suppose Romanian Army does not use heavier bullets since there were rarely any reports about breaking of the receiver plate and I didn't heard ex-users that I know complaining too much about it. Also is wasn't used as a sniper rifle but as a designated marksman rifle so probably light ammo was sufficient. As far as I know PSL will be probably upgraded at some point. 
 
Back to history, I'll post some maps with WP exercises for Cold War going hot in Balkans along with a translation of an article of a Romanian recent historian (original article here, in Romanian). Excuse my English, sometimes is hard to translate from Romanian while keeping the same meaning. 
 
Military exercises Balkan-89 from Bulgaria (4-9 June 1989)
 
Between 4 to 9 June 1989 in Bulgaria was held a joint military application of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, coded named 'BALKAN-89 ". The planned maneuvers of Joint Armed Forces Command (CFAU) participated in big units from Bulgaria, Soviet Union and Romania. in his memoirs ("Sentenced to discretion") Rear Admiral Stephen Dinu said that in 1989 "in southern Romania, two military applications quite important, in June -" Balkan 89 "and in August" Maritsa 89 ", both oriented towards the south to Greece, missions that they were assigned to Bulgaria by the Treaty of Warsaw". A series of information from former archive of CC (Central Committee) of PCR (Romanian Communist Party) completes general picture about military application "BALKAN-89", said the former head of the Intelligence Directorate of the general Staff. Thus, on 3 April 1989 Colonel-General Vasile Milea Nicolae sought approval to Ceausescu for sending Bulgaria a task force of the 3rd Army. This was in order participate in an application on the map in the first decade of June 1989 - in maneuvers organized by CFAU (Command of Unified Armed Forced of WP) of under the name "BALKAN-89". We note that, since September 1968, the Romanian army was involved very little in applications CFAU performed in other states. Typically, Romania was represented at such maneuvers by generals and officers who acted within Command and General Staff, distinct from the national staffs. Strategic and operational-tactical problems created by leaders of exercise were solved by the Romanian participants only on maps. Also, on 3rd April 1989, the Minister of National Defence proposed and Nicolae Ceausescu agreed that Lt. Gen. Constantin Călinoiu, deputy of Command for Infantry and Tanks to explore Bulgaria a for exercise "BALKAN-89", together with six Romanian officers between 25-28 April 1989. They were working all documents necessary for the Romanian side, in agreement with the Bulgarian General Staff.
 

 
As deputy manager of the exercise from Romanian Army side, Lieutenant General Constantin Călinoiu received as subordinates 18 officers and NCOs and was instructed to allow the participation of Romanian soldiers "in some activities politico-cultural that will take place during application". Simultaneously, Nicolae Ceausescu approved that Major General Dumitru Rosu, 3rd Army commander, to lead a task force, his headquarters to the application "BALKAN-89". This group was composed of Chief of Staff of the Army 3rd Major General Niculae Matei, 85 officers and non-commissioned officers, 24 conscript servicemen and 34 special vehicles for staff and transport machines. Moving to Bulgaria of military combat equipment used by them in the application "BALKAN-89" was carried by train and transportation costs were paid by the Romanian Ministry of National Defense.
 
Fictional Balkan War
 
Since 1966, common military exercises in which Romanian military forces were supposed to deployed were in South West Military Theather - usually the "Greek Operative Direction" These were aimed at "training of practical skills needed to organize , planning and conduct battle (operation) in echelon division-army ". Usually CFAU stated that the Romanian army should carry out joint exercises at the beginning of spring on operative-strategic map. To understand the general concept of military applications like "BALKAN-89", we appeal to the documents of the former archive of the PCR. For example, in the meeting of the Defence Council of 13 October 1972 it was approved an exercise in Romania during 12 to 21 February 1973 as an war game on the map, on "Conducting groups allied troops in the theater of military action, with simultaneous rejection of enemy aggression. Taking the offensive operation Front and warfare and maritime forces air defense troops of the states participating in the Warsaw Treaty ". In the application were employed "frontline operational command groups, air defense of territory and Romanian, Soviet and Bulgarian Navy", in total about 400 generals and officers, of which only 100 were Romanian. For the first time since the creation of the alliance, provided that CFAU Romanian Front should have to act on the direction of Turkey, forcing the Dardanelles Straits. Until that time, the Romanian army had been engaged only in military games on operative directions North-Italian (until 1966) and Greek (1966).
 

 
In accordance with the request made by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Marshal Ivan Iakubovski would have lead the game of war as "supreme commander of the group of fronts in the theater of military action Southwest". It was also envisaged that the management of exercise to have only one deputy Romanian and Bulgarian unaccompanied by their working groups and operative activities of these officers should have been carrier out by Soviet officers. According to the concept of the war game "SOYUZ-73" forces of Army Group South (NATO) would have attacked Bulgaria and arrived on the line: South Sofia - North Gabcovo - North Burgas. Simultaneously, NATO aircraft forces engaged in a battle around Constanta and about 150 miles east and north of Burgas it would have been launched three amphibious operations in the flank of 3rd Southern Front (Soviet). Army Group South was composed of Greek 1st Army (three corps) and the Greek Army 4th Corps (three divisions), Turkish 1st Army (Corps 3, 5, and 2) and the Turkish Army 4th Corps (three divisions). At the same time, Army Group South have the support of the 6th Aviation Corps. 2nd South Front was formed by the Romanian Army composed of 10 divisions (two tanks divisions). Of these, three divisions were permanent combat capability, three divisions were ready for battle after 1-2 days of starting the war and four divisions were ready for battle after 3-4 days. Large group of Romanian units, framed on two sides by Soviet military would have advanced south of the Danube between Ruse and Nikopol. Operation crossing of the river by the Soviet and Romanian unfolded while NATO was supposed to use weapons of mass destruction to the mandatory pass from Isaccea, Braila, Giurgeni Vadu Oii Olteniţa - Turtucaia, Giurgiu - Ruse, Zimnicea - Belene, Turnu Magurele - Nikopol, Islaz - Somovit, Ship - Lom Palanka and Bechet-Oreahovo.
 
Conquest of Bosporus and Dardanelles
 
After passing of Danube would have been completed, the WP forces went on the offensive. Romanian units (Front 2 South) would have act on the territory of Bulgaria in cooperation with the 3 rd Soviet Front South, on the South - South East direction. At some point, the lines of action of the two fronts became divergent. Soviet forces were meant to attack Istanbul, while the Romanian army attempt to reach the Dardanelles and the Marmara Sea. For immediate mission Romanian 2nd South Front were established following elements: advancing depth (200-250 km), the pace of advance on the offensive (40-60 km / 24 hours) and duration to fulfill the mission (4-6 days ). Subsequently, a parachute Romanian regiment would have assault and engaged in battle east of the town Kanok (Turkey), on the 5th or 6th of opening hostilities. Its action constituted a prelude to a new offensive triggered by the Romanian army, for creating a bridgehead south of the Dardanelles. For the next mission of 2nd Romanian South Front were established following objective: deepest advance (200-250 km), the pace of advance (30 km / 24 hours) and duration to fulfill the mission (7-8 days). Simultaneously with the Romanian attack, units of 3rd Soviet South Front were to engage in combat against Turkish forces in southeastern Bulgaria to repulse them to Western Istanbul. Then a Soviet airborne division would have been launched in the 4th or 5th day after the opening of hostilities in northeast of Izmir (east of Istanbul), in close proximity to the Bosphorus Strait. In the Black Sea would engage two air - naval battles: first, 150 miles northeast Istanbul and the second about 50 miles east of Istanbul.
At the same time with the offensive against the Turkish 1st Army at the right flank of Romanian army Bulgarian forces would have conducted a similar military operation. Bulgarian Forces of the 1st Southern Front in cooperation with units of Soviet army would have repelled attacks of the 1st Greek Army liberating the Bulgarian territory occupied by NATO and than conquering Greek towns Komutini, Cavalla, Thessaloniki and Cojani, then pushing to the Aegean coast . The application "SOIUZ-73" reveals that Soviet military leaders were concerned about the quick conquest of Bosporus and Dardanelles in the situations of a war between NATO and the Organization of the Warsaw Pact. Also, it can be seen that Romanian army was put between two Soviet armies during military applications. This is understandable considering the problems that the Romanian authorities have been created to Moscow after 1968 events in Czechoslovakia. Of course, exercise "SOIUZ-73" and "BALKAN-89" were fictional scenarios but Moscow wanted by such actions to prepare better in military terms. Also, it seems that the Soviets were trying to discipline Romania. Coincidentally or not, the application in 1973 was named SOYUZ ( Union). A union of interests that Nicolae Ceausescu and Romanian generals were unable to ignore.
 
Further reading about other exercises in the same area:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1975-05-27.pdf

The problem is only with PSLs.  Other Romanian AKs are fine; basically the same as anyone else's AKs.  Romanian AKs in general have a bad reputation in the US, but this is because of sub-standard, cheap rifles (usually called WASRs) that are imported here that are not made to military specifications.  WASRs are complete garbage, but actual military Romanian AKs of all variants are fine.  Except for PSLs.
 
I will try to explain it best I can with pictures from the internet.  There is a lot of technical jargon that I want to make sure is understood, and I'm not sure if English is your first language, so forgive me if this is a bit slow.
 
The first AKs that were mass-produced in the USSR used a milled receiver.  This meant that a heavy, solid piece of steel was forged into the rough shape of the receiver, and then a lot of metal was removed with milling machines in order to make space for the moving parts.

 
In the picture above you can see the raw forging of the AK receiver at the bottom, and the receiver after it was milled and coated with epoxy paint.
 

 
And here is the milled AK receiver after the safety, trigger, and other moving parts have been installed.  You can see how the receiver only needs a few more parts in order to become a complete rifle.
 
The disadvantage of the milled receiver is that it takes a lot of time on milling machines to remove all the metal from the forging in order to complete the receiver.  That is why most AK receivers are stamped.  As an added advantage, stamped AKs are about half a kilogram lighter than milled AKs.  However, while stamping is faster and cheaper (for large production runs) than milling is, there is a lot that can go wrong in the stamping process.  The metal can bend out of shape, it can stretch into the wrong shape, and it can tear.  It took the Soviets several years to figure out how to get it exactly right, which is why the old milled AK-47 and SKS were kept in service for so long.
 
In a stamped AK, the receiver starts a piece of sheet metal that is 1mm thick (or 1.5mm for RPKs, PSLs and Yugoslavian AK variants).  Then holes are added to the piece of sheet metal, and the metal is bent in a few places with stamping dies to make it stiffer.  At this point, the piece of sheet metal is called a "receiver flat."  It looks like this:
 

 
Then the flat is bent into a "U" shape with another set of dies.  The holes that were cut out in the receiver flat before are the holes that will hold the trigger, hammer, sear, safety, etc.  So these holes have to line up fairly closely if the rifle is going to work.  But the metal doesn't always bend in exactly the way the stamping dies are shaping it.  Steel is a bit springy.  When steel is bent into a shape with a stamping die, the steel will spring back slightly towards its original shape.  So it takes a fair amount of trial and error to figure out how to get the dies to bend the receiver flat into the exact correct shape every time.  A friend of mine has a Russian book on steel stamping that is filled with complicated equations about how the steel will change shape when stamped... and at the end of the book it says that all of these equations are approximations, each stamping design will behave slightly differently, and if you want to get the best possible results you will need to re-design your stamping dies several times after trial and error.  Again, it took the Soviets years, and they had more resources than anyone else in the Eastern Bloc.
 
After the flat is bent, the front and rear trunnions are added to the receiver.  The front trunnion is the piece responsible for holding the barrel, and the piece that the bolt locks into:
 

 
The rear trunnion is what the stock attaches to.  Here are the front and rear trunnion before they are attached to the receiver:
 

 
These are riveted in place because they have to be attached very securely to the receiver.  The front trunnion has to transmit all of the recoil from firing through the receiver, and the rear trunnion has to transmit all of the recoil from the receiver to the stock.  When the rivets are done correctly, this really isn't a problem for stamped AKs.  The trunnions will hold strong for tens of thousands of rounds, and when they start to break the barrel is worn out or close to worn out.
 
So, a stamped-receiver AK is a perfectly satisfactory weapon, once the stamping dies have been perfected and the heat treatment doesn't warp the receiver and the riveting process has been figured out, et cetera.  There is a lot of production engineering that goes into making good stamped AKs.
 
But we all know that the AK in 7.62x39mm is a short to medium ranged weapon.  In 5.45x39 or 5.56x45 it's a little better; basically a medium range weapon.  But let's say we want to make it a proper long range weapon.  That's going to require a new cartridge, one that's much more powerful.  Happily, all Eastern Bloc countries already had such a round in service, the 7.62x54R (Yugoslavians had both 7.92x57 and 7.62x54R in service because Yugoslavian logistics were a complete mess).
 
But here there is a problem:
 

 
Left from right 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 7.62x51, and 5.56x45.  Look at 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and 5.56x45.  Even though the cartridge cases are different lengths, the overall cartridge length including the bullet is almost identical for all three; within a millimeter or two.  Re-designing an AK from the 7.62x39 it was originally intended for to either 5.45x39 or 5.56x45 is not too hard.  It will require new barrels, new bolts and new magazines, but they will all fit inside more or less the same receiver.  The dimensions of the existing moving parts can be left largely the same.  A Russian AK bolt carrier will fit in an Israeli galil rifle.  I don't know if it's a good idea to do so, but the parts will fit, because much of the design could be left the same.
 
But 7.62x54R (or 7.62x51) will require an extensive re-design of the AK's receiver because it is so much bigger.  A lot of things need to be lengthened.
 
The bolt and bolt carrier are both going to have to be enlarged to handle the longer and wider cartridge:
 

(PSL at top, standard AK at bottom)
 
 
And the hole for the magazine will need to be widened and lengthened:
 

 
Standard AK receiver flat at the top, PSL receiver flat at the bottom.  The PSL flat doesn't have several of the holes drilled yet, but you can see that the large rectangular hole (which is where the magazine will fit) is much larger than a standard AK.
 
You can also see that a PSL receiver flat isn't much bigger than a standard AK receiver flat.  But the cartridge it is firing is much longer, and the bolt and bolt carrier that are reciprocating within the receiver are also longer!  How can this work?
 
The answer is that the PSL has an extension on the rear portion of the receiver riveted on:
 

 
In English sources this is usually called the "receiver plate."  This extension gives the receiver the additional length required to accommodate the longer cartridge, bolt and bolt carrier.
 
And this is the problem with the PSL.  That receiver plate isn't very strong:
 

 
The plate itself can crack.
 

 
It is also possible for the rivets to break (the heads have sheered off in this picture).
 
It is not a very good technical solution.
 
Whether or not a PSL breaks its receiver plate or receiver plate rivets depends on what ammunition is fired in it.  7.62x54R with lighter weight bullets, say 149 grains, (called "light ball" ammunition in the US) usually causes less bolt carrier velocity than heavier ball loadings (say, 170-180 grains bullet weight).  The faster the bolt carrier moves, the harder it strikes the rear of the receiver, and the more likely it is to break the receiver plate.  So PSLs hold up reasonably well if they fire only light ball ammunition (but it's not unheard of them to break with light ball.  The owner of the rifle in the second picture stated he only used light ball).  But the light ball is less effective at longer ranges than the heavier weight bullets are, because heavier bullets are more aerodynamic.  The PSL is supposed to be a long-range weapon, so why can't it use the very best long range 7.62x54R ammunition?  Again, it's not a very good technical solution.
 
Some gunsmiths have made adjustable gas blocks for the PSL, which can reduce the amount of gas flowing into the system when firing the heavy ball ammunition:
 

 
While these would extend the life of the receiver, they don't exactly look robust.  Look at all those screw threads that could attract dust, or work themselves out.  Obviously, the military rifles don't have these.
 
It's worth noting that several Yugoslavian AK variants, including the M76, do have adjustable gas systems:
 

 
So, why would the Romanian engineers use such a bad design as the receiver plate?
 
It turns out that the spacing for the holes for the hammer, trigger, safety, and most other things besides the magazine well and trunnions are identical between standard AKs and PSLs.  Since stamping takes a lot of time and effort to get right, it appears that to save time the engineers modified the receiver flats for the PSL as little as possible from standard AKs.  This would have saved a lot of time and allowed the re-use of a lot of the pre-existing machines and tools used for AKs and RPKs to be re-used for PSL production.  So it was most likely a time and cost cutting measure, although it can't be said to have given entirely satisfactory results.
 
As for the SVD and M76, they use milled receivers:
 

 

 
This increased the cost and production time of these rifles, but it allowed exactly the right receiver design to be made with no compromises.

It looks like the creator of this thread was banned ...dunno if is good or bad.   I just wanted to point some errors in his posts, especially in the pictures he posted, some of them are Yugoslav, Soviet, East-German, nothing to do with Romania. Also some so called scouts are obviously mountain rangers considering their beret.
 
Anyway, I posted on Wargame forums the info I gathered for an eventual Romanian deck; however, the information might be of interest here as well and my research is still work in progress. It is amazing how little systematized info is available and how paranoid the secrecy still is in some areas. You'll find some different approaches than the rest of Warszaw Pact armies. 
 
Keep in mind that it's made for a game so I've no claims this is a historical study, obviously. However, it may evolve later in some posts made on a more serious note about Romanian army and equipment in Cold War Era. I'm no specialist so it's difficult to sort the information and it's more of a learning process for me. Please note that in some areas is still work in progress and I am open to suggestions or any type of help/involvement/tips. I will also add gradually upgrade the albums with new findings and new knowledge. Questions, suggestions, remarks, debates are of course welcomed!    LOGISTICS: Trucks, APCs, tanks, helos   INFANTRY Gărzi Patriotice - militia Infanterişti / Infanterie/ BIM / Gărzi - line infantry, marine infantry, CQC shock guards Vânători de munte - mountain rangers/ light infantry Paraşutişti - paratropers MANPADS, ATGM, FIST, ENGINEERS - support infantry; one very interesting touch would be engineers with shock status   SUPPORT AA Mortars MLRS Tube Arty   TANKS Tank line will add a more detailed post about TR-125 and TR-85 especially   RECON Grăniceri - regular recon infantry Cercetaşi / Cercetaşi-Paraşutişti - shock / SF recon infantry Recon Helos Recon Vehicles   VEHICLES VEHICLES TAB IFVs/ APCs/ various transports/trucks   HELO: Helo Tab Transport Helicopters   PLANES: Soviet, Eastern Block and Chinese planes in RoAF. Romanian Planes   Additionally I'll post findings that does not exactly fit in decks categories but could prove interesting in shaping an eventual Romanian deck or its flavor. This is still work in progress so please take it with a pinch of salt; obviously I 'd appreciate any feedback.   History, doctrine & organization 1968 - 1989 Aviation AG missiles/ecm/pods/bombs/AA missiles Uniforms Various Individual Weapons Rumored protos and acquisitions but not enough info

Il-29/Hong-5 is a beautiful plane, I always liked watching it and I had a plastic model kit from a DDR firm before 1989, it was one of my favorite
 
Plane is well know so I'll only post some info about its use in Romanian Air Force. 
 
It was the only medium bomber that equipped RoAF after World War II. IL 28 remained in operational service in the period 1954-1972, after which period was replaced Chinese copy Hong 5 .
Romania has equipped three variants of IL-28 as follows:
- Trainer IL-28 U - 1954;
- IL-28 R recon and also equipped with two containers of electronic warfare at the ends of wings and other specialized systems, aircraft that came into the country in 1954, with IL-28 U;
- IL-28 B, classic version, intended for bombing missions, which entered into service from 1955.
Aircraft ended its career in 1972 for economical reasons and only one IL-28R (405) was kept in the Aviation Museum but it's not exposed nor refurbished.
 

 
In 1972 it was replaced with Chinese H-5, 12 bombers and two HJ-5 trainers and was kept in service until 2001. Only surviving aircraft is exposed Borcea airfield with board number 308.
 

 
In 70s and 80s it was mainly used for testing various systems such as:
- calibration of Air defense radars , training of radar operator in active jamming environment
- test of active radar jammers
- test of various chaff, flares, passive jamming, metallic dipoles and other such devices
- test of reconnaisance pods 
- test of various air to ground missiles/bombs
Systems tested by H-5 later equipped aircrafts like MIG-21, IAR-93, IAR-99. 
 
early 90s paint scheme:




 



 
At the end of this post, various pictures from 60s or 70s which I found during my research of Il-28/H-5 which aviation fans may find interesting.
 
MIG-21 MF

 
Exercises on an auxiliary airfield (early 70s):

 
MIG-19:

 
Alexeni airfield, early 70s:

 
Last MIG-15 squadron was about to received new upgraded IAR-93 in 1990 but plans halted. MIGs were phased out in 1991 I think.  



 
Pilot students, early 70s:

 
MIG-21 F-13:

 
MIG-23ML from Timisoara Airbase; this flotilla was trained to use Kh-23 and Romanian variant hence the painting


 
MIG-23 and MIG-29 stored:

 
Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, 1983:

It looks like the creator of this thread was banned ...dunno if is good or bad.   I just wanted to point some errors in his posts, especially in the pictures he posted, some of them are Yugoslav, Soviet, East-German, nothing to do with Romania. Also some so called scouts are obviously mountain rangers considering their beret.
 
Anyway, I posted on Wargame forums the info I gathered for an eventual Romanian deck; however, the information might be of interest here as well and my research is still work in progress. It is amazing how little systematized info is available and how paranoid the secrecy still is in some areas. You'll find some different approaches than the rest of Warszaw Pact armies. 
 
Keep in mind that it's made for a game so I've no claims this is a historical study, obviously. However, it may evolve later in some posts made on a more serious note about Romanian army and equipment in Cold War Era. I'm no specialist so it's difficult to sort the information and it's more of a learning process for me. Please note that in some areas is still work in progress and I am open to suggestions or any type of help/involvement/tips. I will also add gradually upgrade the albums with new findings and new knowledge. Questions, suggestions, remarks, debates are of course welcomed!    LOGISTICS: Trucks, APCs, tanks, helos   INFANTRY Gărzi Patriotice - militia Infanterişti / Infanterie/ BIM / Gărzi - line infantry, marine infantry, CQC shock guards Vânători de munte - mountain rangers/ light infantry Paraşutişti - paratropers MANPADS, ATGM, FIST, ENGINEERS - support infantry; one very interesting touch would be engineers with shock status   SUPPORT AA Mortars MLRS Tube Arty   TANKS Tank line will add a more detailed post about TR-125 and TR-85 especially   RECON Grăniceri - regular recon infantry Cercetaşi / Cercetaşi-Paraşutişti - shock / SF recon infantry Recon Helos Recon Vehicles   VEHICLES VEHICLES TAB IFVs/ APCs/ various transports/trucks   HELO: Helo Tab Transport Helicopters   PLANES: Soviet, Eastern Block and Chinese planes in RoAF. Romanian Planes   Additionally I'll post findings that does not exactly fit in decks categories but could prove interesting in shaping an eventual Romanian deck or its flavor. This is still work in progress so please take it with a pinch of salt; obviously I 'd appreciate any feedback.   History, doctrine & organization 1968 - 1989 Aviation AG missiles/ecm/pods/bombs/AA missiles Uniforms Various Individual Weapons Rumored protos and acquisitions but not enough info

Israel DLC should be available very soon and devs barely posted anything about it; so far, what is sure is that:
 
- will go solo, no coalition pairing; hopefully it's a hint for next WG 4 (if will ever be) to drop coalition or limit them. 
- Israeli para will have maroon beret
- no IFVs 
 
 
next will be Yugoslavia and Finland. 
 
LE:
Yugoslavia may be paired with Czechoslovakia
Finland may be paired with Poland

It looks like the creator of this thread was banned ...dunno if is good or bad.   I just wanted to point some errors in his posts, especially in the pictures he posted, some of them are Yugoslav, Soviet, East-German, nothing to do with Romania. Also some so called scouts are obviously mountain rangers considering their beret.
 
Anyway, I posted on Wargame forums the info I gathered for an eventual Romanian deck; however, the information might be of interest here as well and my research is still work in progress. It is amazing how little systematized info is available and how paranoid the secrecy still is in some areas. You'll find some different approaches than the rest of Warszaw Pact armies. 
 
Keep in mind that it's made for a game so I've no claims this is a historical study, obviously. However, it may evolve later in some posts made on a more serious note about Romanian army and equipment in Cold War Era. I'm no specialist so it's difficult to sort the information and it's more of a learning process for me. Please note that in some areas is still work in progress and I am open to suggestions or any type of help/involvement/tips. I will also add gradually upgrade the albums with new findings and new knowledge. Questions, suggestions, remarks, debates are of course welcomed!    LOGISTICS: Trucks, APCs, tanks, helos   INFANTRY Gărzi Patriotice - militia Infanterişti / Infanterie/ BIM / Gărzi - line infantry, marine infantry, CQC shock guards Vânători de munte - mountain rangers/ light infantry Paraşutişti - paratropers MANPADS, ATGM, FIST, ENGINEERS - support infantry; one very interesting touch would be engineers with shock status   SUPPORT AA Mortars MLRS Tube Arty   TANKS Tank line will add a more detailed post about TR-125 and TR-85 especially   RECON Grăniceri - regular recon infantry Cercetaşi / Cercetaşi-Paraşutişti - shock / SF recon infantry Recon Helos Recon Vehicles   VEHICLES VEHICLES TAB IFVs/ APCs/ various transports/trucks   HELO: Helo Tab Transport Helicopters   PLANES: Soviet, Eastern Block and Chinese planes in RoAF. Romanian Planes   Additionally I'll post findings that does not exactly fit in decks categories but could prove interesting in shaping an eventual Romanian deck or its flavor. This is still work in progress so please take it with a pinch of salt; obviously I 'd appreciate any feedback.   History, doctrine & organization 1968 - 1989 Aviation AG missiles/ecm/pods/bombs/AA missiles Uniforms Various Individual Weapons Rumored protos and acquisitions but not enough info

Eh, Romania it is OK but much of its equipment is outdated and not much is usable except what was upgraded in 90s and 2000s. The good news is that pilots fly, infantrymen and tankers are training on regular basis and generally there's a feel of preparing the army. Defense budget was raised and will stay constantly at 2% from GDP and there might be acquisitions over this amount, especially for big programs.
 
So far, the following acquisition programs are scheduled for next years: 
Second F-16 squadron (probably MLU) with a perspective to buy the latest variants (24 planned) 273 mm MLRS with 300 km range upgrade of KUB, OSA-AKM and HAWK  new APC: curentely the participants are PATRIA AMV, SUPER IVECO AV, PIRANHA V and BOXER; to be noted that Romanian terrain required an amphibious APC. Initially here we thought that only PATRIA and IVECO are seriously qualify for the requirements, however it is a rumor that Germany made a very good offer in developing a local APC, based on BOXER, with amphibious capability; given the lessons of Ukraine, there is however an interest for a better protected  and customizable APC; All offers except Piranha suppose transfer of technology, development of local designs like wheeled IFV, AA (possible with Crotale for SHORAD) and AT vehicles (probably SPIKE), self propelled mortar etc. Personally I prefered PATRIA and IVECO. upgrade of two frigates, allegedly a Kilo submarine refurbish  Upgrade of fluvial fleet - better MLRS on the vessels, drones, close AA defense systems. Long range AA (probably Patriot, unclear what version) new MANPAD ( possible Mistral although I would prefer a shoulder  light attack/recon helo (some Kiowas would be nice , Croatia did a good move) but probably will be an Eurocopter product.  New Super Puma helos built in Romania  SPG howitzer  new 120 mm mortar with enhanced and guided ammo drones, lots of drones...   we even build some From old equipment, the following are still decent:
TR-85M1A - upgraded MBT, but more a medium with 100 mm gun with Israeli APFSDS ; otherwise, basically a Leclerec (stabilizier, FCS etc.) but smaller PUMA SOCAT - support helicopter (not a real attack one) SPIKEs ATGMs upgraded CA-94M manpads (likely, not sure here) MLI-84M upgraded IFV AA artillery with GEPARD SPAAG and towed 30 mm local design, 35 mm Oerlikon GDF with modern upgrades, FCS  etc. LAROM 122/160 mm MLRS with Israeli technology and local built ammo of various sorts (HE, thermobaric, clusters)  M85 towed howitzers (performance similar with Msta-B TABC-79 recon vehicle  BM-33 Zimbru (BTR-80 local enhanced copy) Piranha III C was a big flop; did bad in Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly local designs were used (TAB-77, BM-33, TABC-79); still, can do a better work than 70s designs (TAB71) which were phased out.  Local built mortars (82 mm, 120 mm) Some replacement for PG-7 and SPG-9 although for the first one Romanian builds some nice thermobaric warheads) As OOB, Romanian has one Spec Op Brigade (4 battalions, para included), one artillery independent Brigade, one Engineers brigade, one Information brigade and 3 Divisions each with 3 fighting brigades ( 5 Mechanized, 2 Infantry, 2 Mountain Rangers ) along with their respective independent smaller units (recon/SF battalions, arty regiments, CRBN, AA defense, engineers). There is also one Marine battalion trained more like a raiding /recon (with some ISTAR capabilities) for Danube Delta (a resembling unit would be Italian Lagunari). 
 
Not all these units are first line but there are efforts to keep this OOB and also add a core of reservists with regular training of around 3000 people which will be raised in the next years. 
 
Some US old equipment handed to Romania would be good albeit not all of it would be very useful. I mentioned earlier Kiowas but from logistical point of view an Eurocopter similar design would make more sense due to the fact that it can be repaired, maintained etc. at local Eurocopter factory.
 
F-16s would be great if they'd be upgraded.
 
I am in two minds regarding M1 Abrams; won't work with turbine, needs Diesel engine and at least some river crossing limited capability; 
 
A really good SPG and generally artillery with modern ammo would be really useful as well. 
 
There is also old equipment that it could be used such as TR-77 and T-55 chassis which could be well maintained and developed in many ways like SPGs, SPAAGs or even IFV or APCs. There are tons of it still usable, would be a pity to just cut them. 
 
Well, this is in few words Romania's situation, not great but not as bad as our neighbours and most important thing is that soldiers are constantly in training and shooting range and there is a sizeable contingent of reservists which was in Iraq, Afghanistan or in UN missions (Kosovo, Angola, Albania etc.) 

It looks like the creator of this thread was banned ...dunno if is good or bad.   I just wanted to point some errors in his posts, especially in the pictures he posted, some of them are Yugoslav, Soviet, East-German, nothing to do with Romania. Also some so called scouts are obviously mountain rangers considering their beret.
 
Anyway, I posted on Wargame forums the info I gathered for an eventual Romanian deck; however, the information might be of interest here as well and my research is still work in progress. It is amazing how little systematized info is available and how paranoid the secrecy still is in some areas. You'll find some different approaches than the rest of Warszaw Pact armies. 
 
Keep in mind that it's made for a game so I've no claims this is a historical study, obviously. However, it may evolve later in some posts made on a more serious note about Romanian army and equipment in Cold War Era. I'm no specialist so it's difficult to sort the information and it's more of a learning process for me. Please note that in some areas is still work in progress and I am open to suggestions or any type of help/involvement/tips. I will also add gradually upgrade the albums with new findings and new knowledge. Questions, suggestions, remarks, debates are of course welcomed!    LOGISTICS: Trucks, APCs, tanks, helos   INFANTRY Gărzi Patriotice - militia Infanterişti / Infanterie/ BIM / Gărzi - line infantry, marine infantry, CQC shock guards Vânători de munte - mountain rangers/ light infantry Paraşutişti - paratropers MANPADS, ATGM, FIST, ENGINEERS - support infantry; one very interesting touch would be engineers with shock status   SUPPORT AA Mortars MLRS Tube Arty   TANKS Tank line will add a more detailed post about TR-125 and TR-85 especially   RECON Grăniceri - regular recon infantry Cercetaşi / Cercetaşi-Paraşutişti - shock / SF recon infantry Recon Helos Recon Vehicles   VEHICLES VEHICLES TAB IFVs/ APCs/ various transports/trucks   HELO: Helo Tab Transport Helicopters   PLANES: Soviet, Eastern Block and Chinese planes in RoAF. Romanian Planes   Additionally I'll post findings that does not exactly fit in decks categories but could prove interesting in shaping an eventual Romanian deck or its flavor. This is still work in progress so please take it with a pinch of salt; obviously I 'd appreciate any feedback.   History, doctrine & organization 1968 - 1989 Aviation AG missiles/ecm/pods/bombs/AA missiles Uniforms Various Individual Weapons Rumored protos and acquisitions but not enough info

It looks like the creator of this thread was banned ...dunno if is good or bad.   I just wanted to point some errors in his posts, especially in the pictures he posted, some of them are Yugoslav, Soviet, East-German, nothing to do with Romania. Also some so called scouts are obviously mountain rangers considering their beret.
 
Anyway, I posted on Wargame forums the info I gathered for an eventual Romanian deck; however, the information might be of interest here as well and my research is still work in progress. It is amazing how little systematized info is available and how paranoid the secrecy still is in some areas. You'll find some different approaches than the rest of Warszaw Pact armies. 
 
Keep in mind that it's made for a game so I've no claims this is a historical study, obviously. However, it may evolve later in some posts made on a more serious note about Romanian army and equipment in Cold War Era. I'm no specialist so it's difficult to sort the information and it's more of a learning process for me. Please note that in some areas is still work in progress and I am open to suggestions or any type of help/involvement/tips. I will also add gradually upgrade the albums with new findings and new knowledge. Questions, suggestions, remarks, debates are of course welcomed!    LOGISTICS: Trucks, APCs, tanks, helos   INFANTRY Gărzi Patriotice - militia Infanterişti / Infanterie/ BIM / Gărzi - line infantry, marine infantry, CQC shock guards Vânători de munte - mountain rangers/ light infantry Paraşutişti - paratropers MANPADS, ATGM, FIST, ENGINEERS - support infantry; one very interesting touch would be engineers with shock status   SUPPORT AA Mortars MLRS Tube Arty   TANKS Tank line will add a more detailed post about TR-125 and TR-85 especially   RECON Grăniceri - regular recon infantry Cercetaşi / Cercetaşi-Paraşutişti - shock / SF recon infantry Recon Helos Recon Vehicles   VEHICLES VEHICLES TAB IFVs/ APCs/ various transports/trucks   HELO: Helo Tab Transport Helicopters   PLANES: Soviet, Eastern Block and Chinese planes in RoAF. Romanian Planes   Additionally I'll post findings that does not exactly fit in decks categories but could prove interesting in shaping an eventual Romanian deck or its flavor. This is still work in progress so please take it with a pinch of salt; obviously I 'd appreciate any feedback.   History, doctrine & organization 1968 - 1989 Aviation AG missiles/ecm/pods/bombs/AA missiles Uniforms Various Individual Weapons Rumored protos and acquisitions but not enough info

It looks like the creator of this thread was banned ...dunno if is good or bad.   I just wanted to point some errors in his posts, especially in the pictures he posted, some of them are Yugoslav, Soviet, East-German, nothing to do with Romania. Also some so called scouts are obviously mountain rangers considering their beret.
 
Anyway, I posted on Wargame forums the info I gathered for an eventual Romanian deck; however, the information might be of interest here as well and my research is still work in progress. It is amazing how little systematized info is available and how paranoid the secrecy still is in some areas. You'll find some different approaches than the rest of Warszaw Pact armies. 
 
Keep in mind that it's made for a game so I've no claims this is a historical study, obviously. However, it may evolve later in some posts made on a more serious note about Romanian army and equipment in Cold War Era. I'm no specialist so it's difficult to sort the information and it's more of a learning process for me. Please note that in some areas is still work in progress and I am open to suggestions or any type of help/involvement/tips. I will also add gradually upgrade the albums with new findings and new knowledge. Questions, suggestions, remarks, debates are of course welcomed!    LOGISTICS: Trucks, APCs, tanks, helos   INFANTRY Gărzi Patriotice - militia Infanterişti / Infanterie/ BIM / Gărzi - line infantry, marine infantry, CQC shock guards Vânători de munte - mountain rangers/ light infantry Paraşutişti - paratropers MANPADS, ATGM, FIST, ENGINEERS - support infantry; one very interesting touch would be engineers with shock status   SUPPORT AA Mortars MLRS Tube Arty   TANKS Tank line will add a more detailed post about TR-125 and TR-85 especially   RECON Grăniceri - regular recon infantry Cercetaşi / Cercetaşi-Paraşutişti - shock / SF recon infantry Recon Helos Recon Vehicles   VEHICLES VEHICLES TAB IFVs/ APCs/ various transports/trucks   HELO: Helo Tab Transport Helicopters   PLANES: Soviet, Eastern Block and Chinese planes in RoAF. Romanian Planes   Additionally I'll post findings that does not exactly fit in decks categories but could prove interesting in shaping an eventual Romanian deck or its flavor. This is still work in progress so please take it with a pinch of salt; obviously I 'd appreciate any feedback.   History, doctrine & organization 1968 - 1989 Aviation AG missiles/ecm/pods/bombs/AA missiles Uniforms Various Individual Weapons Rumored protos and acquisitions but not enough info

With only 5 strong maneuver brigades, Germany has in essence checked out of NATO and tacitly accepted a US nuclear umbrella.  
 
France and Germany about twenty years back signed that white paper that assured each of mutual home defense.  At the time NATO planned for Germany to provide for 15 brigades out front - the core of the European footprint.  The US it was believed would have another 15 brigades in Europe, and smaller NATO allies would undertake an individual brigade or team up to do combined brigades.  France was out of this picture but it was assumed they would provide crucial strategic reserves.
 
The problem with the Franco German plan is they both planned to take advantage of it to reduce forces.  15 Brigades?  Germany saw a chance and said, well France can provide the 10, and we will provide the 5.  Money saved (and so much for strategic reserve).  To make things look good we will do a combined brigade on the cheap with wheels.
 
France also said the same thing.  NATO wants 15 brigades in the shop window?  Well Germany can do the 10 and we will do the 5, and yeah, we can throw some effort into the wheeled brigade - the French army is nothing but filled with wheels.  Although back in NATO informally they like to be independent.
 
So they ended up with 10 brigades and no strategic reserve.  As for the idea that the US would put 15 brigades in the window - they went south with the US believing Europe could handle its own policing while they concentrated on the WOT.  The 170th and 172nd went home and no more US heavy brigades.
 
That leaves Poland (9 heavy brigades), the Czechs (2 heavy brigades), the Slovaks (2 heavy brigades), Belgium (1 brigade), Hungary (2 brigades), Romania (6 brigades, plus some strong leg units) and Bulgaria (2 brigades) guarding the front door.  Poland is a scary customer and very able.  The Czechs and Slovaks could be good but there are indications that they are having issues.  Romania is surprisingly good.  However all of these countries are in need of modernization.
 
A group of friends and I have been agitated for congress to donate about 2000 M1 Abrams to Poland and Romania.  About 210 A10 and 250 F16 are also boneyard ready for return to service.  
 
As for Germany and France - that ship has sailed.  They won't ever again have a heavy land army sufficient to counterbalance Russia, and both plan on initial use of nuclear weapons to occur on first invasion, thus allowing them to feel justified in their draw down.

This is not Romanian Army but Patriotic Guards
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Guards_(Romania)
 
They used a lot of outdated weapons like:
MG 42
Orita sub machine guns
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/submachine-guns/orita-m1941/
Czech Samopal SA 25
 
Main mission in case of war was to liaise with Border troops and form light infantry brigades which would have been used for defending cities and urban areas (they were trained for this type of mission) and they were trained to use light weapons, demolition charges, guerilla tactics. 

http://www.business-review.eu/sidebar-featured/romanians-strike-back-at-bernie-sanders-over-internet-speed-comment-99891
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-meets-romanian-internet
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/romanians-make-fun-bernie-sanders-internet-tweet-37367452
 
It was hilarious to read the replies to that tweet
 
it was poorly phrased and makes him look a bit senile ...

Il-29/Hong-5 is a beautiful plane, I always liked watching it and I had a plastic model kit from a DDR firm before 1989, it was one of my favorite
 
Plane is well know so I'll only post some info about its use in Romanian Air Force. 
 
It was the only medium bomber that equipped RoAF after World War II. IL 28 remained in operational service in the period 1954-1972, after which period was replaced Chinese copy Hong 5 .
Romania has equipped three variants of IL-28 as follows:
- Trainer IL-28 U - 1954;
- IL-28 R recon and also equipped with two containers of electronic warfare at the ends of wings and other specialized systems, aircraft that came into the country in 1954, with IL-28 U;
- IL-28 B, classic version, intended for bombing missions, which entered into service from 1955.
Aircraft ended its career in 1972 for economical reasons and only one IL-28R (405) was kept in the Aviation Museum but it's not exposed nor refurbished.
 

 
In 1972 it was replaced with Chinese H-5, 12 bombers and two HJ-5 trainers and was kept in service until 2001. Only surviving aircraft is exposed Borcea airfield with board number 308.
 

 
In 70s and 80s it was mainly used for testing various systems such as:
- calibration of Air defense radars , training of radar operator in active jamming environment
- test of active radar jammers
- test of various chaff, flares, passive jamming, metallic dipoles and other such devices
- test of reconnaisance pods 
- test of various air to ground missiles/bombs
Systems tested by H-5 later equipped aircrafts like MIG-21, IAR-93, IAR-99. 
 
early 90s paint scheme:




 



 
At the end of this post, various pictures from 60s or 70s which I found during my research of Il-28/H-5 which aviation fans may find interesting.
 
MIG-21 MF

 
Exercises on an auxiliary airfield (early 70s):

 
MIG-19:

 
Alexeni airfield, early 70s:

 
Last MIG-15 squadron was about to received new upgraded IAR-93 in 1990 but plans halted. MIGs were phased out in 1991 I think.  



 
Pilot students, early 70s:

 
MIG-21 F-13:

 
MIG-23ML from Timisoara Airbase; this flotilla was trained to use Kh-23 and Romanian variant hence the painting


 
MIG-23 and MIG-29 stored:

 
Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, 1983:

Il-29/Hong-5 is a beautiful plane, I always liked watching it and I had a plastic model kit from a DDR firm before 1989, it was one of my favorite
 
Plane is well know so I'll only post some info about its use in Romanian Air Force. 
 
It was the only medium bomber that equipped RoAF after World War II. IL 28 remained in operational service in the period 1954-1972, after which period was replaced Chinese copy Hong 5 .
Romania has equipped three variants of IL-28 as follows:
- Trainer IL-28 U - 1954;
- IL-28 R recon and also equipped with two containers of electronic warfare at the ends of wings and other specialized systems, aircraft that came into the country in 1954, with IL-28 U;
- IL-28 B, classic version, intended for bombing missions, which entered into service from 1955.
Aircraft ended its career in 1972 for economical reasons and only one IL-28R (405) was kept in the Aviation Museum but it's not exposed nor refurbished.
 

 
In 1972 it was replaced with Chinese H-5, 12 bombers and two HJ-5 trainers and was kept in service until 2001. Only surviving aircraft is exposed Borcea airfield with board number 308.
 

 
In 70s and 80s it was mainly used for testing various systems such as:
- calibration of Air defense radars , training of radar operator in active jamming environment
- test of active radar jammers
- test of various chaff, flares, passive jamming, metallic dipoles and other such devices
- test of reconnaisance pods 
- test of various air to ground missiles/bombs
Systems tested by H-5 later equipped aircrafts like MIG-21, IAR-93, IAR-99. 
 
early 90s paint scheme:




 



 
At the end of this post, various pictures from 60s or 70s which I found during my research of Il-28/H-5 which aviation fans may find interesting.
 
MIG-21 MF

 
Exercises on an auxiliary airfield (early 70s):

 
MIG-19:

 
Alexeni airfield, early 70s:

 
Last MIG-15 squadron was about to received new upgraded IAR-93 in 1990 but plans halted. MIGs were phased out in 1991 I think.  



 
Pilot students, early 70s:

 
MIG-21 F-13:

 
MIG-23ML from Timisoara Airbase; this flotilla was trained to use Kh-23 and Romanian variant hence the painting


 
MIG-23 and MIG-29 stored:

 
Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, 1983:

Il-29/Hong-5 is a beautiful plane, I always liked watching it and I had a plastic model kit from a DDR firm before 1989, it was one of my favorite
 
Plane is well know so I'll only post some info about its use in Romanian Air Force. 
 
It was the only medium bomber that equipped RoAF after World War II. IL 28 remained in operational service in the period 1954-1972, after which period was replaced Chinese copy Hong 5 .
Romania has equipped three variants of IL-28 as follows:
- Trainer IL-28 U - 1954;
- IL-28 R recon and also equipped with two containers of electronic warfare at the ends of wings and other specialized systems, aircraft that came into the country in 1954, with IL-28 U;
- IL-28 B, classic version, intended for bombing missions, which entered into service from 1955.
Aircraft ended its career in 1972 for economical reasons and only one IL-28R (405) was kept in the Aviation Museum but it's not exposed nor refurbished.
 

 
In 1972 it was replaced with Chinese H-5, 12 bombers and two HJ-5 trainers and was kept in service until 2001. Only surviving aircraft is exposed Borcea airfield with board number 308.
 

 
In 70s and 80s it was mainly used for testing various systems such as:
- calibration of Air defense radars , training of radar operator in active jamming environment
- test of active radar jammers
- test of various chaff, flares, passive jamming, metallic dipoles and other such devices
- test of reconnaisance pods 
- test of various air to ground missiles/bombs
Systems tested by H-5 later equipped aircrafts like MIG-21, IAR-93, IAR-99. 
 
early 90s paint scheme:




 



 
At the end of this post, various pictures from 60s or 70s which I found during my research of Il-28/H-5 which aviation fans may find interesting.
 
MIG-21 MF

 
Exercises on an auxiliary airfield (early 70s):

 
MIG-19:

 
Alexeni airfield, early 70s:

 
Last MIG-15 squadron was about to received new upgraded IAR-93 in 1990 but plans halted. MIGs were phased out in 1991 I think.  



 
Pilot students, early 70s:

 
MIG-21 F-13:

 
MIG-23ML from Timisoara Airbase; this flotilla was trained to use Kh-23 and Romanian variant hence the painting


 
MIG-23 and MIG-29 stored:

 
Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, 1983: