Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing tanks

    Share

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Comparing tanks

    Post  VladimirSahin on Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:22 am

    Due to extreme power fanboys of NATO tanks on the internet I decided it would be great if we can have a debate on tanks vs tanks. For example which one is better then the other and which one has overall best war fighting capabilities. I want to start off with a comparison of T-90As and M1A2 SEPs, I would love to know which one is better with a honest and realistic comparison.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:04 am

    the main problem is that for a while there was a big gap in funding for the Russian tank, while the Abrams continued to get proper funding and attention.

    In terms of protection they are very similar, which in my biased opinion is a win for the Russian tank as it is 20% lighter and uses rather less fuel and is easier to move around the place.

    In terms of fire power the Russian tank matches the US tank with optics thanks to its excellent French thermal sights, but the US tank has better anti armour rounds. The Russian tank fights back with guided anti armour rounds with laser guidance, but the battle management and excellent C4IR of the US military means the US tank crew probably have better situational awareness on the battlefield.

    Mobility, both are mobile and capable... but again the Russian tank is lighter but has less engine power.

    Of course if you add in things the T-90A could have like Shtora, ARENA, Nakidka, or you look at the T-90AM with these upgrades then I would suggest it is very one sided unless you are Saudi Arabia and fuel is very cheap.

    Of course I am biased.

    The Abrams is not a bad tank, in fact it is a rather good one.

    there is no safe place in a real war.


    _________________
    “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

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  VladimirSahin on Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:23 pm

    Thanks GarryB for explaining, Is it true the abrams series have been taken out with rpg-7s to the side?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:18 am

    There are three main factors which make a tank a tank.

    Firepower, Protection and Mobility and the Abrams is kind of mediocre to horrible in all three catagories.

    The Firepower of M1 Abrams is only good when talking about AT weapons like KE penetrators which are only effective against tanks, not so much against anything that is soft as APC's or IFV's it just won't do much of damage. The Abrams lacks any significant HE-Frag rounds is relative shitty against infantry with only a co-axial gun with limited range and power and a Canister round which is nothing else but just a shotgun round with also limited range and power, it has no GLATGM meaning it has no capability for extend range and no capability to bring down low flying helicopters which few other tanks can.

    Protection, the tank is well protected from the front and have one of the best crew protection but other than that it is awfull protected all around, weak side armor even with TUSK which is 1st gen ERA making it not really effective, the huge surface brings a lot of weight with it for almost no protection since they need to cover all the internal volume and thin out the armor on side,rear and top and if i am not wrong the side,rear and top armor of Abrams is the thinnest of MBT currently, with this huge internal volume this tank is really a sitting duck for Top attack weapons or in urban warfare it is just impossible to miss the turret from above where on other tanks such as T-90 the turret is rather small and for the CEP of top attack weapons it might not hit the turret but engine or front part of the hull. For protection there are also 2nd equipments and systems that are relevant like ERA and APS which Abrams has only weak ERA which is also fit in the old fashioned big ERA tiles, meaning it leaves a very large gap after one ERA tile was blown off, while K5 tiles are rather small giving little chance for opponents to hit the same spot again. APS is just not present not even existent in US except of the not succesful Iron Fist of israel that is not use within israel itself, well the T-90 has currently also no APS installed but at least it exists and is installed on some other vehicles BMD-4M if i am not wrong.

    Mobility this is the true Nemesis of the Abrams which is almost exclusively bad to such a huge extent to the Abrams like to no other MBT.

    The M1A2 SEP weights roughly 72t which is almost 33% more heavy than T-90A with its 48.5t combat loaded. This huge weight cripples the M1A2 SEP's mobility, since it is very important for Mobility to cross all kinds of surfaces and this tank has a history of collapsing smaller bridges where tanks with roughly 60 t could cross. The M1 Abrams also has no snorkel kits to cross rivers which is also a major draw back for the mobility factor since it has to weight for pioneer units to set up a supply chain and install a panton bridge leaving the Abrams depending to other vehicles for its own mobility. The last part is kind of the worst for the Abrams it has a gas turbine which eleminates alot of important and useful factors such as the huge IR spectrum they represent, meaning no Abrams can idle with engine running near any forest or foliage, it would and has caused to burn the surroundings. The IR spectrum is so huge a big portion of the remote area around the tank gets heated up when it idles with running engine, that tank is even visible without Line of Sight when it is dug up into a "tank hole" due the heat it radiates. The gas turbine is very hungry and unlike any other tank with Diesel engines it needs and is bound to a very specific supply chain which is and was ambushed in iraq because big supply chains have to move almost directly with the tanks to cover the ranges from battle to battle. The T-90 uses a capsuled autoloader which when left with it alone has greater crew survivability than most western tanks with exception to M1, the autoloader is very reliable and holds up its space what a human loader can not and that under any circumstances.

    Well i am little bit biased but the facts when looking up even older tanks with their capabilities and limitations they still are more appealing than an Abrams is and not to mention it gets destroyed in comperision with a T-90A,Merkava 4, Leo2A5/6/7, Leclerc or ZTZ-99 for that matter. It does not shine in much actually only in KE and front protection but it does not shine in any category of Firepower,Protection or Mobility, while the T-90A shines actually in all three categories, with great firepower it has not that great KE penetrators but just as good HEAT penetrators like BK-31 with 800mm ERAe penetration, it has Airburst system for its HE-Frag rounds giving it greater capabilities against Mortar teams or infantry hiding behind cover and limited Anti-Helicopter capability, it has the Refleks a GLATGM with 5km range giving it better capabilities against Helicopters and any ground vehicle which is unjammable due LBR guidance. It has a RWS (remote weapon station) the commander does not need to get his head out to arm the 12.7mm MG. The tank has almost no internal fuel tanks, pumps or pipes to speak about, the majority of its fuel is stored outside the vehicle around the turret, leaving such incidents like fuel ignition which the Abrams is prone for due the octane rich fuels it uses and the gas turbine it has to fires inside the tank which is a concern for ammunition detonation and crew survivability. There is also very neat thing called Nakidka which is like blanket that reduces the IR and even Radar signature of the tank camoflauging it from ATGM weapons and other Tanks, the system is cheap and in service also not known how many are there.

    The Protection of T-90A is the highest value of armor per cubic meter ton, giving it great all around protection and not just frontal arc protection, due the low internal volume the tank is small leaving only a very low target to enemies to engage which is also a point for its protection. The use of K5 and next Relict a highly capable ERA that can defeat and/or reduce KE penetrators and not just HEAT weapons, with the high coverage of the tank giving it very good protection from 180° from front and with limited protection even from above, but not really serious protected there, using soft kill systems like Shtora which gives it the capability to automatically turn towards the Laserdesignator which is targeting the tank and dazzle the guidance or engage the source. It has a metal plate on the lower glacis that can be lowered and it basically is a shovel so the tank can dig itself in a tank-hole, reducing its silouette even further and adding protection to it.

    Mobility the T-90 shines the brightest among all MBT, it can equip two external fuel tanks for greater ranges (700km and 550 without external fuel tanks) to teach front lines by itself. The tank has the lowest weight giving it very good basis for its mobility with almost no limitations of any major bridges or unhomogen grounds to stuck in, a good ground presure ratio and hp/t ratio. The tank carries always its snorkel kit to cross rivers by its own and can be installed in a few minutes (15min if i remember right), giving it better mobility and even protection since it can cross river and secure the other side while friendly units and vehicles without such crossriver capabilities have to weight for panton bridges to be installed. The tank shined very bright in Malaysia tender where it travelled 3000 km of malaysian jungle without break downs which no western tank has participated in this mobility tests. There is one drawback for its mobility that would be no standard automatic gearbox but that is only some of a problem for less experienced drivers.



    Such factors break down to one important thing the Combat efficiency which the T-90A is among the highest which the M1 Abrams can not even meet to such efficiency which price and costs of unit and maintenance also plays a roll for the combat efficiency.

    Of course this is a rather surface touching comperision but for a true and fair comperision of every detail for technological evaluation some would need to right a book and would still have points left for speculations or at least one point the armor since it is the only part of tanks that is secret and kept that way for good reasons.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:22 am

    Their side armor is about the same, aside from the M1 having a larger profile. However, if the M1s hull is penetrated, it has a much smaller chance of brewing up since there is no carousel to hit.

    Regarding turret T-90s is much smaller, and half of it (where the main array extends) would be essentially impenetrable...however due to turret geometry the rear half of the turret side is extremely weak and easy to penetrate without additional ERA and standoff protection. Abrams doesn't have as much of the turret side protected by the main array, but it doesn't have any parts of the turret as thin as the T-90 either.

    You could argue from some angles it is easier to trigger the Abram's ammo bustle, and disable the tank, but the crew would probably be fine.

    Overall, the Abrams is designed with greater crew safety in mind, that much is indisputable.

    RPG-7 penetrating is simple physics, there is no magic here. M1 has done very well with most of the RPG hits it has been subject to. Also no magic there.

    Take an RPG-7 and fire it from a strong angle down @ the M1 front hull, and guess what? It will penetrate easily, because the upper glaces relies on extreme slope. No magic here either.

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  VladimirSahin on Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:33 am

    Thank you both for your information, I really appreciate it. I would love to hear more because I am so fed up with NATO military "experts" on the net... And if you guys have any other information please write it. Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:22 am

    The simple fact is that weapons to penetrated tank armour are generally enormously powerful.... in this day and age you wont get a situation like you did in WWII at the start when heavy tanks like the Tiger 1 and the KV-1 could drive around with enemy medium and light tanks armed with 37, 47 and 50mm for anti armour use that couldn't penetrate the front, side, or rear of your tank.

    The penetration performance of anti tank weapons had to go up and rapidly... and it did... from a 37mm gun on a T-26 at the start of the war to the 122mm gun of a JS-3 at the end of the war.... at the start of the war a 52 ton KV-1 could be protected from all angles from 37mm gun fire from any range, but by the end of the war there was no possibility of protecting ANY tank from a 122mm anti armour round from the side or rear and protecting from the front took a lot of armour on the hull and the turret.

    Very simply all designers of modern main battle tanks aim to have... as a rule of thumb... protection over the front 60 degrees from enemy MBTs main guns at about 2km range and most of the enemies main ATGMs over the same angles. From the side however the main goal is protection from the enemy IFVs, main gun... which generally means the enemies standard auto cannon calibre, so it means at least 300-400mm, though with the introduction of 40mm and even 57mm guns the requirements will become rather more demanding. The rear is generally protected the least in the horizontal plane... the belly often reinforced to protect from mines and the top from top attack weapons but generally top, rear and belly are vulnerable on any armoured vehicle.

    As you can tell.... 300-400mm protection from the sides is not generally sufficient to stop even older model RPGs that manage a clean hit in a sensitive spot.

    There is a myth that the Soviets don't care about their men so their equipment and vehicles are not so safe... a big tall M60 tank at 3m would be an enormous target in combat, yet its armour was no better than the T-72s which was 2/3rds as high a target.

    the M1Abrams was designed to protect the crew but even it carries 8 rounds of ammo in the crew compartment, which if hit would likely not make the turret fly 30m, but would certainly kill the entire crew instantly.

    the new Russian design separates the crew from the ammo and fuel and should be even safer still, but not invincible.


    _________________
    “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

    Battalion0415
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Battalion0415 on Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:54 am

    I like T-90 more than T-80. I didn't like India but they will to buy T-90.

    Merkava is one of best tanks in world. Only in Israel there are those.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2515
    Points : 2648
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  kvs on Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:04 am

    Battalion0415 wrote:I like T-90 more than T-80. I didn't like India but they will to buy T-90.

    Merkava is one of best tanks in world. Only in Israel there are those.

    Merkava is grossly over-rated. The 2006 Lebanon fiasco demonstrated this quite well. I am not saying it is a bad tank,
    but it has become mythologized beyond reason.

    People love to use war equipment as a size of their dick proxy. But the cold, cruel world of physics rules everything.
    All tanks have similar issues since they are all trying to do the same thing. None are immune from penetration with modern
    shells. Even with depleted Uranium armour used by the Abrams.

    The Abrams had issues with its tracks coming off due to its weight. I do not think this has really been solved. Mobility
    really is an advantage for a tank since the days of bouncing shells off the hull are long gone. It's one hit, one kill and the
    tank that shoots first, wins.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:16 am

    The Merkawa is a good tank but not much of use for any other country it is tailored on the needs and philosophies israelis wanted but zero of use for every other country this is also the reason why no other tank has crew compartment or front mounted engine which brings mostly negative effects than positive.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:35 am

    kvs wrote:
    People love to use war equipment as a size of their dick proxy.   But the cold, cruel world of physics rules everything.
    All tanks have similar issues since they are all trying to do the same thing.   None are immune from penetration with modern
    shells.  Even with depleted Uranium armour used by the Abrams.  
    actually modern tanks with modern armor like T-90A, M1A2, Leo2a5, Leclerc, Chally 2 and (maybe K-2) their latter versions are immune across their frontal arc to most contemporary tank-fired anti-armor weapons except maybe the latest and best round/ gun combo. You had to have something like the grifel apfsds paired with new 2a82 gun of the armata to provide a comfortable overmatch for these armors.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2515
    Points : 2648
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  kvs on Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:24 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    People love to use war equipment as a size of their dick proxy.   But the cold, cruel world of physics rules everything.
    All tanks have similar issues since they are all trying to do the same thing.   None are immune from penetration with modern
    shells.  Even with depleted Uranium armour used by the Abrams.  
    actually modern tanks with modern armor like T-90A, M1A2, Leo2a5, Leclerc, Chally 2 and (maybe K-2) their latter versions are immune across their frontal arc to most contemporary tank-fired anti-armor weapons except maybe the latest and best round/ gun combo. You had to have something like the grifel apfsds paired with new 2a82 gun of the armata to provide a comfortable overmatch for these armors.

    For actual war time conditions, there will be the usual measure-countermeasure race. So reactive armour will be triggered before the actual
    penetrator arrives. Think of an APFSDS-HEAT hybrid where the kinetic penetrator is a scaled down dummy to take out the ERA.

    We are no longer in the good old days of 1939 when just the thickness of the tank armour would be enough to stop a shell. We are now
    in a very tenuously balanced equilibrium between armour and penetrator.

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  VladimirSahin on Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:35 am

    How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:03 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

    That depends on the version.

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  VladimirSahin on Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:33 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

    That depends on the version.

    By that you mean either T-72B3 or T-72B3M? If so, Can you tell me about both? I am not a expert when it comes to tanks this is why I would like to know. It is often stated that the western tanks highly overpower the Russian tanks. I'm sure our guys know how to build tanks but I would like to know the details, I search often on Russian websites but most of them highly exaggerate our tanks Smile

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:42 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

    That depends on the version.

    By that you mean either T-72B3 or T-72B3M? If so, Can you tell me about both? I am not a expert when it comes to tanks this is why I would like to know. It is often stated that the western tanks highly overpower the Russian tanks. I'm sure our guys know how to build tanks but I would like to know the details, I search often on Russian websites but most of them highly exaggerate our tanks Smile

    No, i meant the version of western tanks you like them to compare with.

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 359
    Points : 379
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  VladimirSahin on Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:46 am

    I would like to hear it against the M1A2

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:15 am

    It would be whoever gets the first shot off wins the engagement. And it that case, the B3's mobility and smaller profile would come in handy, as would its updated fire control.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:33 am

    The point between those tanks in reality isn't big actually it favors for lot of situations the tank that is better allround good tank, but if you want a technological evaluation than it is little bit different in approach of how they fare, since this is only based on technology and not on actual duell.

    I will go into detail when i have slept.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:48 am

    Obviously a cheap T-72 upgrade is not a good match for a more thorough upgrade of a fundamentally newer tank.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:47 am

    TR1 wrote:Obviously a cheap T-72 upgrade is not a good match for a more thorough upgrade of a fundamentally newer tank.
    Both tanks are fundamentally from the same generation... And the A2 variant isn't much to be proud of, as it is with the Abrams concept to begin with. The B3 upgrade is "cheap" sure, but that doesn't mean it ain't effective. TBH the A2 was basically just a facelift kind of thing, with the still-in-development A3 being the "last hoorah" for the Abrams. A B3 firing actual Russian ammunition (not some cheap crap like the Iraqi's) would have no problem going through the hull of an A2, even at a decently long range. The Abrams would, as expected, have basically no trouble with the B3 at the same range unless he hits it's very well armored sections. So once again, the first tank to fire an effective shot wins.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:14 am

    I disagree. The M1A2 has clearly better armor over the frontal arc than the T-72B3. Less weak-spots and actually a fairly up to date array. The B3 has the same hull armor as T-72s from the mid 80s, and late 80s ERA.

    As for ammunition, Abrams operate with M829A2 and A3 widely deployed. Even with K-5 the T-72 will have a hard time surviving here.

    Russia hasn't proliferated modern ammo in such a scale. T-72B3 can carry at best Svinets....a round that was cutting-edge in the early 90s. Still a solid round, but not enough for newer armor. The only edge the T-72 has is its gun-missiles, otherwise it is disadvantaged across the board.

    And of course aside from the (optimally placed) modern Sosna-U, T-72 has essentially an old electronics suit, very much so compared to the M1A2.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:51 am

    TR1 wrote:I disagree. The M1A2 has clearly better armor over the frontal arc than the T-72B3. Less weak-spots and actually a fairly up to date array. The B3 has the same hull armor as T-72s from the mid 80s, and late 80s ERA.

    As for ammunition, Abrams operate with M829A2 and A3 widely deployed. Even with K-5 the T-72 will have a hard time surviving here.

    Russia hasn't proliferated modern ammo in such a scale. T-72B3 can carry at best Svinets....a round that was cutting-edge in the early 90s. Still a solid round, but not enough for newer armor. The only edge the T-72 has is its gun-missiles, otherwise it is disadvantaged across the board.

    And of course aside from the (optimally placed) modern Sosna-U, T-72 has essentially an old electronics suit, very much so compared to the M1A2.
    Frontal arc armor is stronger on the Abrams, no doubt about that. But, at the very least the B3 has its extremely low hull profile (and smaller) to its advantage. An Abrams' shot at the turret of a B3 will almost always result in a non-penetration, as will the opposite situation. Now, if either tanks successfully strikes the others' hull, then they will penetrate it w/o much question. - Which leads me to once again say it will be the first one to... 

    The A3 is a newly-developed round that (AFAIK) hasn't been wielded in large numbers, though the A2 has for sure. Either one will not be able to reliability pen the B3's turret. 

    Most American rounds were cutting edge "in the 90's" so there isn't much more to say there... Anyone got info on Russian ammunition load ups for the T-90 or B3?

    Doesn't it have a new FCS system?

    For the sake of relevance to this thread; I'd like to add something. 

    Russian and American armor deployment strategies are very different, as are there ways of countering them. My guess would be that Russian forces would primarily rely on artillery and infantry along with vehicles to destroy enemy armor, while the US does the same but with aircraft (based on their known tactics, air support is prioritized). Both sides have capable ATGM's as well, with 
    Russia having the great number (AFAIK). 1 v. 1 the first tank.... But in a real engagement, it depends not as much on the tank as its crew and direct support.

    One more thing... 

    ETC tank guns will have a drastic result when it comes to reducing the effectiveness of armor. They'd increase velocity by a large % I'm order to do so. The US was actively funding and supporting a project on these guns but it seems like the whole thing went under. I have no clue of Russia has such a gun in the works or not.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2127
    Points : 2242
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:58 am

    M1 Abrams actually is a weakened version of Leopard 2. It does not have ERA and no spaced armour on the turret, it uses the old gun of Leopard 2, and it jerks off with gas turbine while Leopard already used fuel effeciency diesel with the same power.

    You may say what about the TUSK kits... but the fact is M1 is already damn heavy and TUSK is probably for jerking off in advertisement picture.

    Compared to Rus's T-90, M1 is 15-20 tons heavier and double the cost, while both tanks' capabilities are more or less on the same level. If you spend twice the money to make a tank 20 tons heavier but with the same capability... then that is a clear failure.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:10 pm

    funny thing is there is something out there that the russians could use that is a) super mobile, like air droppable, b) decked with latest electronic gizmos like hunter-killer, etc. c) can cap tanks at reasonable ranges with use of modern ammo, and last but not least d) is hilariously survivable to apfsds due to being made up of thin armor. yup, the humble modernized sprut-sd can whoop all you western armor out there and its coming soon Twisted Evil

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:25 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:25 am