Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing tanks

    Share

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:41 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:Well guys I didn't expect this to turn into a personal argument... But I honestly think that the M1A2 Abrams will lose its penetrative advantage against the T-72B3 at engagement ranges stated by werewolf. But the closer the M1A2 gets the worse it will be for the T-72B3 which as stated by TR1 is not as armored as the M1A2 is, albeit not by a huge factor. In a real war these tanks will face IFVs and infantry too also many other things. So you must also compare other things, Such as the fact that the M1A2 has no escape hatch but the T-72B does. But this is just a example of course. I'm not sure about other things since I am not considered a "expert" yet Very Happy


    Exactly that was my point he ignored and didn't want to hear or ask on Otvaga.


    Василий Фофанов wrote:
    Artemus написал wrote:
    Вы правильно понимаете. Шансов абсолютно никаких.

    You understand right. Chances are absolute none.

    Шансы есть всегда. Ни для одного боеприпаса попадание не гарантирует пробитие, а пробитие не гарантирует поражение. Но, да, шансы не очень велики.

    There are always chances. For no tank round hit is a penetration garanteed, penetration does not garantee destruction. However the chances are slim.

    So, i our TR1 ivan would ask the correct question i think we would get a to the exact point i was making over the last 6 pages, that the B3 would most stop A3 over distance above ~2km, not all, but he could stop at first engagement ranges and effective engagement ranges which lie significantly above 2km mark. I've never said anywhere that B3 would just eat M829A3 up without problem, that is what the other side tried to imply. I can understand that by ignoring the ranges above 2km which represent common engagement ranges in tank duells or campaigns, can be ignored and that the protection is measured at point blank ranges to have reliable armor, but that was never the comperision for this one since it is older tank against a newer.

    He also added.

    Василий Фофанов wrote:
    Иван В. написал wrote:Каковы шансы против А2?
    How are the chances against M829A2

    Тоже довольно плохие к сожалению. Для парирования требуется "реликт".
    Also very slim, sadly. For "parrying" (effectively) it needs "Relikt".

    That quote implies what we already know from him anyway. That the K5 has some effect on APFSDS aka decreasing its effectiveness. The notion made by him collorates with what NII Stali said about effectiveness of Relikt that it will be highly effective against APFSDS and Tandem HEAT rounds. This suggests or at least indicates that Relikt will have/has such high effectiveness that it barely leaves anything of the penetrator, notion to the word "parry".


    To the point made here about the presence of M829A3 in US Army inventar, he said:

    Василий Фофанов wrote:
    Иван В. написал wrote:
    А сколько снарядов А3 поступило на вооружение США? Сколько на вооружении стран НАТО, аналогов этого снаряда?
    How many rounds of M829A3 are present in US storage? How many are in NATO countries, do analogues exist?

    Этих снарядов очень мало, и аналогов ему не существует. Я пару лет назад выкладывал информацию о его статусе, здесь.
    There are only very small number of such rounds and there are no analogues. A few years back i already posted information on its status, here.

    Василий Фофанов wrote:
    From Jane's:

    Compared to past procurements of similar rounds, the number of M829A3 rounds has been relatively limited, as it is regarded as an interim response to the array of reactive and other armours expected to appear in coming years. The procurement programme appears to have ended as no M829 series funding was requested for FY11 or 12. Low-rate production, for 5,000 rounds, began during FY02. The first award for full-rate production came in FY03 and covered 8,490 rounds at USD3,450 each, followed by the exercise of the FY04 option in March 2004 for 8,040 rounds at USD3,409 each.
    The Program Year 2 lot failed their acceptance tests, and as a result, the FY05 buy of 7,050 rounds was restructured to allow ATK components that are not part of the problem (the penetrators and pre-preg material for the composite sabot) to be procured while they await the final report on the causes of the failures. An improved sabot design was approved in early 2006 and USD1.2 million provided to incorporate this change into Years 3 and 4 ammunition. This also allowed the Year 4 (FY06) buy to proceed, this being contracted for in February 2006 and covering 7,500 rounds at USD5,070 each for delivery between November 2007 and May 2008. A further 8,000 rounds were funded at USD5,729 each in FY07, followed by two final batches, of 8,000 each, in FY08 and FY09.
    The procurement schedule for the M829A3 as of February 2012 is:
    FY Quantity Total cost (USD thousands)
    2006: 7,000 43.5
    2007: 7,000 47.0
    2008: 8,000 47.0
    2009: 3,000 32.8
    2010 & later: 0 0

    So, now we have more information on the that too and can bet this question to grave.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:45 pm

    sepheronx wrote:How much of a difference would the T-72B2 upgrade would have been over T-72B3? The T-72B2 clearly had better armor (Relikt) and a better engine too. I understand the need to cheapen out on the upgrades, but really, how much is the difference?

    In terms of what, survival to M829A3?

    Very little.


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:50 pm

    So to summarize, no, The T-72B3 and M1A2 are not equal in a frontal duel. I will take my apologies now, for the vast pages of wasted space.


    Nothing nuanced about it. One can punch through the other with ease. The other can't.


    Nowhere on Otvaga has anyone said: Oh, but at 2Km and farther the T-72B3 has a fair chance of survival! Nope, sorry.


    Last edited by TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:51 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:Well guys I didn't expect this to turn into a personal argument... But I honestly think that the M1A2 Abrams will lose its penetrative advantage against the T-72B3 at engagement ranges stated by werewolf.

    No, it won't. 1 km. 2 km. 3km. A3 will go through T-72B3 reliable at all those ranges.


    T-72B3 won't go through M1A2 reliable any any range.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:55 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Well guys I didn't expect this to turn into a personal argument... But I honestly think that the M1A2 Abrams will lose its penetrative advantage against the T-72B3 at engagement ranges stated by werewolf.

    No, it won't. 1 km. 2 km. 3km.  A3 will go through T-72B3 reliable at all those ranges.


    T-72B3 won't go through M1A2 reliable any any range.

    Why are you declaring it without for a second asking this exact question Fofanov on Otvaga?

    Why are you openly ignoring the 6th time the point of this discussion and even ignore what Fofanov said himself, that hits do not garantee penetration. This is not a comperision of T-55 RHA steel vs A3 but composite ERA K5 at ranges above 2km where we already know that A3 has maximum 700mm RHAe penetration at 2km or BELOW, while the upper glacis armor and turret have more than 700mm with Kontakt5?

    It would be so kind if you would stop cheating in your addiation of my question to get your way around.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:56 pm

    But I thought you said the atgm would though, and T-73B3 does use atgms.

    And what is wrong with T-72's ammunition that it couldnt penetrate the m1?

    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 28, 2015 9:20 pm

    TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:24 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...
    Agreed... KE rounds will bleed off energy severely at those ranges, and that combined with the effects of ERA (slowing it down even further and weakening it) will mean it would be a matter of shear luck and nothing more.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:28 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

    How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

    I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:32 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

    How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

    I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".
    You act like "Otvaga" is filled with guys who actually designed the thing. Sure you're not paid by them?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:43 pm

    sepheronx wrote:But I thought you said the atgm would though, and T-73B3 does use atgms.

    And what is wrong with T-72's ammunition that it couldnt penetrate the m1?


    -No, the ATGMs that T-72s use do not gurentee penetration over the Abrams frontal arc (outside weakened zones or lucky shots).
    -The T-72B3 at best uses Svinets. That is what is wrong. It has less penetration than M829A3 for many reasons.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:45 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

    How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

    I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".
    You act like "Otvaga" is filled with guys who actually designed the thing. Sure you're not paid by them?

    Otvaga is the best Russian forum out there, period.
    Just like Balancer's is for naval subjects.

    It has people who are BTDTs, industry insiders, everything. There is a reason guys like Fofanov, Khlopotov and others post there.



    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:49 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

    How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

    I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".

    FFS i am getting tired of your bullshit and your nonsense you openly pull out of your arse.

    He never said anything like that and A3 wouldn't go through B3 like "crap", this isn't a fucking US beloved monkey model, the armor is ABOVE the penetrative capabilities of any A3 round at ranges of 3km even at 2500m it is highly unlikely to go through upper glacis with K5. Either you have some big issues understanding several words building a sentence or you just openly ignore what people say. Cheating and addiding out important factors like the engagement range you now proclaim bullshit based on wishfull thinking of yours.

    Since you little sissy has missed the entire point of a discussion it is to find out what is right, based on SOURCES and numbers and the numbers speak against your wishfull thinking and even the words of Fofanov say so.

    That a hit does not garantee a penetration and he did not say that because of generalisation but because this is not a T-34/55 or any other tank where we know with certain that it would go through 2-3 of such tanks.

    The penetrative capability of M829A3 is only slightly above A2 with 700mm RHAe pen. max at 2km which reduces its penetrative capabilities over distance with losing velocity that is a known fact, no need for rocket science to understand airdrag + 9.8m/s gravity reduces velocity which is among the most crucial factors for APFSDS rounds along with their angle of attack and how pointy the tip is, which again is degreesed when not perforated by K5 ERA on hit.

    AT 2km beneath it will penetrate, above that is highly unlikely.

    Get numbers or get lost with your crap and self interpretation.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:54 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    He never said anything like that and A3 wouldn't go through B3 like "crap", this isn't a fucking US beloved monkey model, the armor is ABOVE the penetrative capabilities of any A3 round at ranges of 3km even at 2500m it is highly unlikely to go through upper glacis with K5

    Prove it. Go ahead, find definitive penetration figures. Better yet go get some shells, and test them on armor plates, and get back with results.

    Otherwise keep digging your hole. Clearly you know better than all the serious forums predictions of A3 penetration.


    And no, A3 penetration is not slightly above A2. It is a bigger leap than from A1 to A2.

    You got your idea of numbers, I have mine. Funny how respected forum consensus is on my side.

    Oh and if you insist on making an ass of yourself, why don't you register @ Otvaga, and ask them if it can withstand M829A3 from past 2km. I'm not making an ass of myself on their by asking such a dumb question.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:00 am

    It isn't that big a leap TR1... Now something over 100 mm is a "big leap".

    The best round as of right now is German, a variant of the BM-53 they use right now.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:09 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    He never said anything like that and A3 wouldn't go through B3 like "crap", this isn't a fucking US beloved monkey model, the armor is ABOVE the penetrative capabilities of any A3 round at ranges of 3km even at 2500m it is highly unlikely to go through upper glacis with K5

    Prove it. Go ahead, find definitive penetration figures. Better yet go get some shells, and test them on armor plates, and get back with results.

    Otherwise keep digging your hole. Clearly you know better than all the serious forums predictions of A3 penetration.


    And no, A3 penetration is not slightly above A2. It is a bigger leap than from A1 to A2.

    You got your idea of numbers, I have mine. Funny how respected forum consensus is on my side.

    Oh and if you insist on making an ass of yourself, why don't you register @ Otvaga, and ask them if it can withstand M829A3 from past 2km. I'm not making an ass of myself on their by asking such a dumb question.

    The A2 to A3 represent 50-70mm higher penetration, big fucking gap...seriously.

    And no one is on your side, you EDITED the question to your favor and it is visible on Fofanovs reply, he stated it has slim chances, meaning it can stop it the question is at what ranges, your bullshit and wishfull thinking hears the complete opposite that the A3 will go through B3 like through butter, which is not the case.

    If such losers like you wouldn't edit out questions but ask the entire point we would already have speared us from your garbage and you would have to shut up 1 year.

    You are a dumb asking ridiculous questions that have edited out the content of this discussion and you do it on purpose because of the fact that you know it won't be in your favor.

    Some needs to educate you that among military numbers value more than assumptions based on wishfull thinking like yours. If the A3 goes through B3 like through butter at all ranges like you claim, then it shouldn't be that hard for you to provide credible sources with hard numbers. That is plain and simple i have embedded this behavior over the two years i am on this forum, every claim i make i back up with sources and evidence, you on the other hand you rather drag down discussion to personal crusades with bullshit over bullshit and no sources for your "believed" numbers.

    The best round as of right now is German, a variant of the BM-53 they use right now.

    It's DM-63 and it comes close to M829A3 but it is fired from L55, so has therefor superior figures, the A3 would win in the slight with same L55.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:11 am

    Mike E wrote:It isn't that big a leap TR1... Now something over 100 mm is a "big leap".

    The best round as of right now is German, a variant of the BM-53 they use right now.

    No it is not.

    Fire M829A3 out of a longer barrel and it too, will have better penetration, higher than anything German in production.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:15 am

    [quote="Werewolf"][quote="TR1"]
    Werewolf wrote:


    And no one is on your side, you EDITED the question to your favor and it is visible on Fofanovs reply, he stated it has slim chances, meaning it can stop it the question is at what ranges, your bullshit and wishfull thinking hears the complete opposite that the A3 will go through B3 like through butter, which is not the case.


    I did not edit anything you imbecile. Fofanov was clear, stop trying to mold his words as if he somehow supports you.
    The consensus was clear. Cry more.

    The A3 will fuck a B3 up with ease from any realistic combat range. Deal with it.

    And like I said. Go on, register, and beg for proof that the A3 somehow cant deal with T-72B past a measly 2km.

    Guess what? A2 will also wreck a T-72B3, from any serious combat range Very Happy . Fofanov clearly said so. I wanna see you try to weasel his words here though. " No No, he didn't say that, it might survive, fare poorly might means it might live blah blah blah".

    yeah, it is possible even the A3 hits the turret at a really bad angle and doesn't penetrate. It is also unlikely.

    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 Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:28 am

    M829A3 is the god weapon I read from the NATO fanboys if you are correct TR1... But doesn't the T-72B3 have the power to take out the M1A2 Abrams with its ATGM at the same distances and even farther?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:35 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:M829A3 is the god weapon I read from the NATO fanboys if you are correct TR1... But doesn't the T-72B3 have the power to take out the M1A2 Abrams with its ATGM at the same distances and even farther?

    There is nothing "God" about M829A3, it is just a modern and huge round, and we are comparing it to armor from the late 80s.....you get the point.

    And no, the Svir or Reflex that the T-72 fires do not posses enough penetration to reliably take out the Abrams from the frontal arc. Of course it is always possible they may hit a weakened zone, or damage the tank while not penetrating it, but if we are talking pure penetration vs "most" of the turret and hull frontal arc....

    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 Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:50 am

    I can make sense from what you are saying, But doesn't the B3 add a better armor package? Surely they arent keeping the same armor from the 80s... Or if they are they're adding something extra?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:51 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:I can make sense from what you are saying, But doesn't the B3 add a better armor package? Surely they arent keeping the same armor from the 80s... Or if they are they're adding something extra?

    Same T-72B hull as the original vehicles, they are not changing internals at all.

    Armor is same old K-5. Nothing new essentially. Some did not have K-5 before the modernization, but that doesn't change the fact that it is old ERA.

    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 Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:03 am

    TR1 wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:I can make sense from what you are saying, But doesn't the B3 add a better armor package? Surely they arent keeping the same armor from the 80s... Or if they are they're adding something extra?

    Same T-72B hull as the original vehicles, they are not changing internals at all.

    Armor is same old K-5. Nothing new essentially. Some did not have K-5 before the modernization, but that doesn't change the fact that it is old ERA.

    Pretty disappointing... They should have kept buyig the T-90A sure lower numbers but still very capable tank.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:10 am

    It is pretty much evident so far with numbers provided that the A3 can not reliabily penetrate B3 from ranges of 3km and even from 2km it is everything but "easy".

    The numbers are clear and yes you edited the question without asking about ranges at all, now stfu as long you have no sources with clear numbers we have the numbers and words of fofanov and he said it out right.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:32 am

    Pretty disappointing... They should have kept buyig the T-90A sure lower numbers but still very capable tank.

    AFAIK it was a cheap stopgap tank that allowed practise at night and all weather fighting with its thermals, and new guns and autoloaders so new rounds can be introduced earlier.

    TR-1... the results you posted here say Fofanov said:

    From Fofanov: There are always chances. Not a single shell guarantees penetration, and penetration does not guerentee destruction. But, yes, the chances are not very high.

    I would say it is pretty clear that as he didn't specifically mention ranges that he assumed you were talking about combat ranges of less than 2km.

    And more importantly...

    Also pretty bad unfortunately. For parity you need Relikt.

    So to get an equal to a 70 ton American super tank all the Russians have to do is fit a slightly newer ERA.

    the obvious question therefore is why don't they... but only obvious for those interested in the subject rather than chest thumping and BEING RIGHT.

    Potential answers would include that it is a short term stopgap tank that will hinder the introduction of new equipment if it costs too much.... plus NATO are our allies arent they.... Twisted Evil

    or maybe they assess the performance of the vehicles they are upgrading differently to you... or maybe they have a diving top attack missile that will bypass the heavy frontal armour of the Abrams and defeat them easily from ranges of 10km or more... remember Kornet can penetrate 1.2m of armour at 8.5km and weighs only 33kgs.

    Seeing as how you prefer to argue rather than discuss this thread is locked.

    Sorry VladimirSahin, don't take it personally, you wanted to learn but members just couldn't behave...


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:48 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:48 pm