Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Share

    Poll

    Which was the best for soviet army?

    [ 3 ]
    9% [9%] 
    [ 20 ]
    57% [57%] 
    [ 12 ]
    34% [34%] 

    Total Votes: 35

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  cracker on Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:55 pm

    Hi

    This question always comes back, soviet state decided to produce 3 tanks that are arguably totally equivalent, but in the same time, very different, with a problem in logistic.

    The T-64 was produced in 8000 pieces, the T-72 at least 20000, the T-80, at least 5000. These tanks were to replace the previous generations, the T-54 and T-55, based on 1944 design... And T-62, just a modification of said design. Also, the T-10M was to be replaced by the new gen tanks.

    T-64 as we all know, was a breakthrough in all aspects, firepower, mobility, size, armour... Once perfected, it became the main steel fist of the soviet army vs NATO. T-72 was a concurrent design, and was accepted by the state because it had many things going for him: it was easier and cheaper to produce, it could be exported and used to equip allies nation of the warsaw pact, it had a proven and reliable engine, while keeping most of the T-64 performance. T-80 was originally just a T-64 with a new super engine, a gas turbine. Later T-80 was accepted along the already existing T-64 and T-72, a choice dubious for a state already manufacturing 2 tanks, and mostly a political move. But the T-80 was also perfected, and found to be a great machine, exeeding T-64 in most ways, and the thinking then was to replace T-64 with T-80 and to keep T-72 for the export market and low-end domestic use.

    I found this website in russian, which makes a great comparative of the 3 tanks, and the T-72 finally comes out best.

    http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/t-64-t-72-ili-t-80-chto-luchshe/

    In this battle, they compare the main and most common in mid 1980s variant of each tank, namely the T-64BV, the T-72B and T-80BV. All these tanks are covered with 4S20 Kontakt 1 ERA.

    With their point system, the T-72B takes 1st place, with 137 points, the T-80BV is 2nd for the sake of it, but it's simply equal, at 135 points. The T-64BV lags behind, at 124 points.

    Reminder:

    T-72B (Object 184): 1985
    T-80B (Object 219R): 1978, BV (Object 219RV): 1985 (possibly earlier)
    T-64B (Object 447A): 1976, BV: 1985 or earlier.


    I haven't fully read the source

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Mike E on Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:19 pm

    The T-72 was by far the best choose for the Soviet army... Look at it today, it is still going strong!

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  TR1 on Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:06 pm

    T-72 with a decent fire control.

    T-80 did not need to exist at all. T-72 would not have existed if T-64 itself worked *as advertised*.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2533
    Points : 2666
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  kvs on Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:43 pm

    As the war in Donbas has highlighted, the T-64 has a major design flaw compared to the T-72. The shells and powder
    cartridges are stored vertically in the T-64 but horizontally in the T-72. The effective cross section of getting hit
    by penetrating fragments and hence chance of blowing off the turret is significantly higher in the T-64. The engine
    is a none issue in the face of this design flaw.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:01 am

    Conceptially the T-64 was the high quality highly capable tank with all the new expensive technology.
    The T-80 was the replacement for the T-64 in that sense.

    A T-72 was intended to be good enough but more easily producible and exportable.

    All through the lives of all three vehicles they were given upgrades to improve performance or to address changes made to the enemy vehicles that might have given them an edge if the Soviet tanks remained unchanged.

    All three vehicles evolved over time and got rather better.

    The T-90 of today is designed to replace both the T-80 and the T-72, though it could be argued that really the T-90AM replaces the T-80 on paper if not production, while the T-72 in their current upgraded form replace the previous T-72s in service.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  nemrod on Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:45 pm

    T-72 was certainly one of  the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best. This tank demonstrates its effectiveness during the battle of Sultan Yaakub june 11, 1982 where he destroyed several dozens of Merkava -in that time the best western tanks beside Leopard A1-.
    See from 16.30' minute

    Moreover, during Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88, the iraqi's T-72 inflicted severe blows to western iranian's tanks, and it is noteworthy to say that US-iranian Tows were completly ineffective.
    Nevertheless, in 1991, many T-72 were destroyed, again, US, as usual with their propaganda's recital told us, M1 Abrams successfully destroyed a column of T-72 belonging to republican guards.
    If indeed, many T-72 were lost, I cannot see US column cheerfully advancing against well armed, and well trained Republican guards, chieflly knowing the impressive past of the T-72, and knowing they had redoutable AT-5. At first US army often advances cowardly, they could not attack if they could not rely on aerial coverture. It is possible that A-10, AH-64 were engaged, after, and only after F-15, F-18 managed to bomb, if not B-52 with its carpet of bombs. And only after the US army could attack a complete destroyed battailion. During Desert Storm, it is usefull to say that some T-72 inflicted several blows to US coalitions's armored vehicles, including US M1 Abrams.

    If a fair combat occured between T-72, and M1 Abrams, the victory of US tank is far to be obvious. Furthermore, the T-72 export version was not the same that were in service inside the red army.

    Conclusion: The T-72 was -as its glorious fathers like T-62, and T-34 - among the best tanks in the world during the 80's, maybe after the Leopard A1. It is normal that it was ranked as number 1. As we saw above, this tank prove its effectiveness in the battlefield. Sincerely, I doubt the ability of Russia to design and produce a such tank. Even the Armata will be far from T-72's effectiveness.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:52 pm

    T-72 and Merkava never fought.
    It is a long standing, and long disproved myth.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  cracker on Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:36 pm

    nemrod wrote:T-72 was certainly one of  the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best. This tank demonstrates its effectiveness during the battle of Sultan Yaakub june 11, 1982 where he destroyed several dozens of Merkava -in that time the best western tanks beside Leopard A1-.
    See from 16.30' minute

    Moreover, during Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88, the iraqi's T-72 inflicted severe blows to western iranian's tanks, and it is noteworthy to say that US-iranian Tows were completly ineffective.
    Nevertheless, in 1991, many T-72 were destroyed, again, US, as usual with their propaganda's recital told us, M1 Abrams successfully destroyed a column of T-72 belonging to republican guards.
    If indeed, many T-72 were lost, I cannot see US column cheerfully advancing against well armed, and well trained Republican guards, chieflly knowing the impressive past of the T-72, and knowing they had redoutable AT-5. At first US army often advances cowardly, they could not attack if they could not rely on aerial coverture. It is possible that A-10, AH-64 were engaged, after, and only after F-15, F-18 managed to bomb, if not B-52 with its carpet of bombs. And only after the US army could attack a complete destroyed battailion. During Desert Storm, it is usefull to say that some T-72 inflicted several blows to US coalitions's armored vehicles, including US M1 Abrams.

    If a fair combat occured between T-72, and M1 Abrams, the victory of US tank is far to be obvious. Furthermore, the T-72 export version was not the same that were in service inside the red army.

    Conclusion: The T-72 was -as its glorious fathers like T-62, and T-34 - among the best tanks in the world during the 80's, maybe after the Leopard A1. It is normal that it was ranked as number 1. As we saw above, this tank prove its effectiveness in the battlefield. Sincerely, I doubt the ability of Russia to design and produce a such tank. Even the Armata will be far from T-72's effectiveness.


    much lol here Laughing

    in the 80s M1 abrams and Leopard 2 ring a bell maybe? And, the T-64B was far better than any T-72 before the T-72B, there is 10 years difference between them...

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  runaway on Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:17 pm

    cracker wrote:
    much lol here Laughing

    in the 80s M1 abrams and Leopard 2 ring a bell maybe? And, the T-64B was far better than any T-72 before the T-72B, there is 10 years difference between them...

    The M1 and Leopard 2 were not superior to T-72B, they all have some advantages. For example the T-72B was equipped with the 9M119 Svir ATGM, and kontakt-1 ERA.
    In mobility the T-72B was much better than the heavy Leo-2 or M1, they could move through terrain the others couldnt.
    The Leo-2 havent been in combat yet so its untested, it does have strong front armour but is weak at the flanks. M1A1 in Iraq was blown up by RPG´s and havent really faced any other modern tank. Crap T-72M and Leion of Babylon is like T-90 facing M60´s.

    T-72B3 can stand up against Leo-2A5 and M1A2, and with the more favorable price and mobility.
    There can be no argue the T-72 was amongst the best tanks in the 80´s.
    T-64 and T-80 hasnt been as succesfully, as is proven by their withdrawal from service and the T-72 still soldering on. Also the T-90 is really a T-72 with another name and T-90 i would say is superior to both M1A2 and and Leo-2A6


    In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and probably Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[51] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armored Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border, and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[52] After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. 105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s. Only in one case the frontal hull armor was penetrated by a TOW missile. According to some unofficial sources, one Syrian T-72 was knocked out by Israeli tank fire. However, according to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire. After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world."[51][53]...


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:01 pm

    cracker wrote:
    In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and probably Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[51] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armored Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border, and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[52] After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. 105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s. Only in one case the frontal hull armor was penetrated by a TOW missile. According to some unofficial sources, one Syrian T-72 was knocked out by Israeli tank fire. However, according to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire. After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world."[51][53]...

    ....According to wikipedia.

    The problem with this so-called encyclopaedia, they are not objectives. I had a friend that participated beside arabs in october 1973's war, and he tried to explain with its proofs how arabs were near the victory, how the western hardware were not superior to soviet hardware. and most of the time it was the contrary, either you talk fighters like Mig-21, either you talked about atgm, or you talk about tanks. My friend tried several times to post in wikipedia evidences of israeli and western disaster regarding hardwares, each time his post were simply wrote off, strong censurship was applied. Wikipedia has the main purpose to protect western view, and western products, western hardwares regarding history, adverstising, etc...In french one of famous case of censureship is Beljanski's case. Here you can see how the website is simply another CNN or Fox.

    Regarding Iraq Iran war results, it was an evidence that neither the  M-60 or Centurion could match the T-72. After several attempts with Tow, this anti tank missile revealed it was useless against T-72.
    The Merkava was developped because of these two tanks had low results during 1973's war against the T-62. The, what would be the result against T-72 ? Do you think that Israelis could dare any risks ?
    The Merkava was engaged in Sultan Yakkub against T-72, Israelis realized that their tank could not match too. During these 3 days of war, Israelis were unable to achieve their main objective, the Highway Beyruth-Damascus. You can notice, the battle of tanks that occured in Sultan Yakkub, was when Israelis claimed a total control of air above Lebanon. You can realize the mismatch between what said Israeli governement and their propagdantists -including Wikipedia- and the reality.
    They have neither the control of the Lebanon's sky, and neither the superiority in hardware regarding tanks.
    In 2006 simple anti tanks missiles like AT-5 Spandrel, or RPG-7-29 blew dozens of Merkava IV, and in Iraq russian hardware blew several hundreds of M1 Abrams, then,  what would be the result with a modern tank like T-72 against Merkava I ?

    Battalion0415
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 145
    Points : 152
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 30

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Battalion0415 on Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:51 pm

    I liked T-90 but I voite T-80 even I never seen this 2nd newest tanker in Russia.

    T-99 Armaat is not for sale so far.

    Neutral

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:17 pm

    But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:32 pm

    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

    Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
    Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.

    So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.

    The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
    They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...

    The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:35 pm

    Putin’s New 'Wunderwaffe': The World’s Deadliest Tank?


    Russia will display its newest tank during the Victory Day Parade in Moscow’s Red Square on May 9 this year. 20 units of the world’s first series-produced third generation main battle tank, designated T-14 and based upon the new “Armata” universal chassis system, have recently been delivered to the Russian Armed Forces for training purposes.


    From Comments:

    Russia can't afford it.
    http://strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20150331.aspx

    In that case its gonna be like China's T-99. About 700-1000 made for the elite units and backed up by "filler" tanks such as the T-90 and the T-72B3 .

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:40 pm

    max steel wrote: Putin’s New 'Wunderwaffe': The World’s Deadliest Tank?


    Russia will display its newest tank during the Victory Day Parade in Moscow’s Red Square on May 9 this year. 20 units of the world’s first series-produced third generation main battle tank, designated T-14 and based upon the new “Armata” universal chassis system, have recently been delivered to the Russian Armed Forces for training purposes.


    From Comments:

    Russia can't afford it.
    http://strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20150331.aspx

    In that case its gonna be like China's T-99. About 700-1000 made for the elite units and backed up by "filler" tanks such as the T-90 and the T-72B3 .

    It is not 3rd generation tank but 4th and also no point posting something like this nonsense when there is actually no content of this "report".

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:41 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

    Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
    Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.

    So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.

    The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
    They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...

    The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.



    I hope Russians might be having merkava 4 single shot busting anti-tank weapon by now ? Are you an Israeli ?

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:47 pm

    [quote="Werewolf"]
    max steel wrote:

    It is not 3rd generation tank but 4th and also no point posting something like this nonsense when there is actually no content of this "report".



    Diplomat Magazine shared it . I have too . Btw Diplomat is another US CSIR funded propaganda outlet in pacific . Earlier it started from japan .

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:11 pm

    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .
    Literally every tank ever that has seen serious combat has been busted.

    So what?

    Merkava-IV did fine in 2006.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:11 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

    Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
    Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.

    So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.

    The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
    They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...

    The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.

    Merkakav 3 has a much cruder armor array than Leo-2 and M-1 contemporaries. It is just steel!

    Hmm, that misspelling was unintentional. But from now on I am calling it the Merkaka.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:11 am

    TR1 wrote:
    max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .
    Literally every tank ever that has seen serious combat has been busted.

    So what?

    Merkava-IV did fine in 2006.

    " Everyone should know it . Fine but still got busted."

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:28 pm

    max steel wrote:I hope Russians might be having merkava 4 single shot busting anti-tank weapon by now ? Are you an Israeli ?

    Sure, HEAT or APFSDS rounds shot from the 125mm 2A24M tank gun and Sprut AT guns ought to make a nice dent in it.
    Khrizantema missiles shot from Ka-52s will be completely devestating.

    Actually there are plenty of Russia weapons that will take out the Merkava IV in one shot - but few infantry-portable ones.

    The Metis-M and Kornet-E stand a decent chance of disabling it; however they may run into trouble from the new Israeli Trophy APS and other countermeasures.

    Compared with those AT missile systems, the RPG-30 has less of a chance of penetrating the Merkava IVs thick frontal armour albeit its still possible. However, it's a dumb rocket so it can't be spoofed by passive counter-measures, and its also designed to penetrate APSs by using a precursor rocket - albeit the Israeli Trophy was apparently developed to be able to defeat the RPG-30.

    And no I'm not Israeli I'm afraid.

    TR1 wrote:Merkakav 3 has a much cruder armor array than Leo-2 and M-1 contemporaries. It is just steel!

    Hmm, that misspelling was unintentional. But from now on I am calling it the Merkaka.

    Didn't know that, tnx for the info.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:37 pm

    Trophy is built not just to counter RPG's and recoilless rifles, but also anti-tank missiles, such as those fired out of the cannons of Russian main battle tanks. It is rumored that Trophy can also work against air-launched anti-tank missiles, even those that fly a "top down" attack profile. So they can easily shoot Metis ans Kornet .

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:35 am

    um, rpg-30 is a thing you know...
    125mm 2a42m- more like 2a46, just to point it out

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:51 am

    If it works by setting it off a distance from the armour to reduce penetration then Kh-29T should still be effective enough...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:23 am

    GarryB wrote:If it works by setting it off a distance from the armour to reduce penetration then Kh-29T should still be effective enough...

    Kh-29T's are you serious lol? 320 kg warhead against a MBT is the definition of overkill, you can reliably kill any MBT with a 10 kg HEAT warhead, literally 1/32nd the amount found in a Kh-29T.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:49 am


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:49 am