Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing tanks

    Share

    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 1:20 pm

    Mike E wrote:

    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?

    you can say a lot of bad things about the muricans, but they do provide their forces with up to date equipment asap. the a3 is standard issue round nowadays, and will soon be replaced by a4 in a few years. hell, i remember reading about tens of millions of dollars worth of contracts just to dispose of the a2- and those weren't half-bad rounds, just not the latest and bestest. we're probably gonna hear something similar in a decade time when they dispose of the a3s which are afaik 10k each in 2008?. pale

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:23 pm

    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.


    And i have to disagree here. Yes the frontal armor of A2 is better, but the B3 does not have any weak sposts that can be called weak sposts and not more and they curtainly do not cover bigger space than on other tanks. The weak Sposts are nothing else but the locations around the gun mantle and lower part of turret where the upper glacis starts which has every tank and it is bigger on bigger tanks. The focal array on both tanks is great and the Cathrine FC is among the best which again Thales usually produces among the best TIS.
    The M1A2 has no difference in its hull either a difference of 50mm RHAe to earlier model is not really a difference.

    TR1 wrote: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.

    The M829A2 maybe widely deployed but i doubt that for A3 and we already know that the A2 is ineffective hence why the A3 was developed because the A1 and A2 were incapable to penetrate ERA equipped T-72A and this is a B model and B3. The K-5 is still superior to anything the west can produce and to anything the west can produce for AT weapons. The Abrams losses firepower against every other tank because it is basically a tank that can only shoot a single round APFSDS, which are useless against 99% of targets, long before the tank engages enemy tanks it will have met RPG/ATGM equipped infantry, Artillery (little to do except counter artillery or air strikes), ambushes, mines and Helicopters it is even unlikely that the Abrams will arrive at a tank battle and it will draw always the short in engagements against RPG/ATGM teams, Helicopters (like most would) and any other situation that does not involve highly armored targets, because APFSDS are useless against APC's and IFV's which have more than enough power to destroy Abrams tank with ATGM's.

    On the other hand the T-72B3 has everything on ammunition and yes highly capable, too. Svinets maybe not the best APFSDS but russia is the best when it comes to HEAT weapons, today the BK-31M is not widely deployed like mostly any other latest tank rounds but it out does in penetration any other round with around 800mm RHAe, it has airburst ammunition capability to have even a chance agaisnt infantry targets on the battlefield with RPG/ATGM/Mortars and it has HEAT rounds which are usefull against a broad band of targets and not just tanks.



    TR1 wrote: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.

    Actually russia has but they needed to much time to get them into service. The Svinets will not destroy any MBT today but that is also the case for KEWA2 or M829A3 they absolutley have no chance of penetrating any 3rd gen MBT today, the armor wins over ammunition currently.

    As for the part that M1A2 wins across the board against B3 is nonsense since you haven't even elaborated more than the two few advantages of the M1A2 over the B3 and completley ignored important factors like Mobility, actual performance on the battlefield based on capabilities and overall a very thin explenation where non was really shining in light.

    A big factor which we know from history is mobility, it does not matter how powerful your gun is and how protective your armor is when you can not reach the battlefield aka Tiger and King Tiger history or Abrams for that matter.

    The Abrams uses a big glowing flaw, yes glowing hits the nail right on the head. Abrams uses a gas turbine which across hundreds of circumstances and situations is always a disadvantage and ruins even the most common tactics for tanks like camoflauging in forests or trenches. Even if the gas turbine equipped tank arrives at its designated location and than hides behind foliage, like tanks usually do, with shut off engine, it will take hours untill the tank actually reached the temperatures a Diesel engined tank would do in much shorter time and without igniting a forest or its cover. 800° C exhaust gasses will also ignite everyone that stands to close to the turbine. The tank also has a farely low time between breaks and lifespan for its tracks is also not even average.

    This very same gas turbine brings most of the tanks problems, since gas turbines are everything but economical the tank has been and has to be accompanied by an entire fleet of refueling/supplying trucks which also have to be very careful when resuppling the tanks since handling high octane gas near 800° C engine caused already a few incidents with bad outcome. The refueling fleet of trucks is like usually unnormal among the closest to the first front of tanks since they need far more often resupply and are therefor bound to the average speed of the refueling and supply trucks and can only advance remotley close to them, this leaves the tanks very exposed and damages their mobility even further.

    The decision for the gas turbine engine was initially met because they believed there is not diesel engine that can provide 1500 hp which germany uses since quite long time. The tank is also the haviest of all MBT's which again is a really bad factor on the mobility, due the unorthodox heavyness the tank is limited to very solid and large bridges and that is a major flaw for its mobility since an enemy knows this and can destroy any bridge that is large and powerful enough to hold them, meaning Abrams need to cross rivers or risk dying by driving over smaller and weaker bridges that may collapse and this already happened with fatalities. Since the Abrams is the only tank without river crossing capabilities without a snorkel kit, it is bound once again to friendly forces of the supporting units to lay down panton bridges which takes quite a long time compared with the 10 mins preperation a T-72 needs to install the snorkel kit so it can cross the river and secure the other side so remaining allied forces can lay down bridges for other vehicles without river crossing capabilities.

    There is also one quite important factor the tactical and combat relevant factors that may seem not so weightful but indeed are. I mean the size and the profile of the tank since FCS are bound to LOS and need to aim at a tank, a smaller tank is the better choice not be hit. The smaller profile also reduces the chances to get spotted in environments that are poor of covers. In such situations the M1A2 like any other Abrams version is the losser against any other tank since it is always the tank that will be spotted first a big huge target that is literally glowing with 800° C it is dream for anyone with AT capabilities to engage such a target.

    The T-72/90 are absolute champions in mobility without any concurence. Even the chinese that had some trouble with their Type-96A2 tanks on Tank biathlon can have several failures and will arrive on the battlefield still earlier than a fleet of Abrams would.

    Of course the T-72B3 is not the latest model nor does it have all fancy stuff later models have but in comperision it fares far better even due its age and relative cheap mods than a so called new tank and that is constantly hyped by rampaging in banana republics that never had any capabilities. The T-72B3 would completley wipe the floor with M1 and M1A1 in Iraq if that would be the case of iraqis with M1 and A1 against B3's, higher range of engagement, absolutley immune against training tank rounds to even point blank ranges, they haver a proper TIS and FCS which iraqis never had not to mention they never had ERA nor composite armor, but that is again another story of hyping pathetic engagements.

    you can say a lot of bad things about the muricans, but they do provide their forces with up to date equipment asap. the a3 is standard issue round nowadays, and will soon be replaced by a4 in a few years.

    That is not the case, but US loves to call everything they have modern. Majority of equipment is cold war era status and they couldn't even provide enough HMMV's that are armored in Iraq, so they welded metal plates from destroyed bradleys and hummves on the tank graveyard and stuffed the hummves full with sandbags since they were not even holding 7.62mm not to mention 12.7mm DShK's. They also are not equipped with the Javelin which they portray often as the standard ATGM for infantry, not a big coverage of forces with such equipment and not a big amount actually properly used. Canibalism was and is the biggest factor of keeping some of their vehicles operative. Since the US buys M829A2 in large amounts in past several years, the M829A3 is clearly not the standard issue. They just started recently to demilitarize 105mm DU rounds.

    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 5:34 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    That is not the case, but US loves to call everything they have modern. Majority of equipment is cold war era status and they couldn't even provide enough HMMV's that are armored in Iraq, so they welded metal plates from destroyed bradleys and hummves on the tank graveyard and stuffed the hummves full with sandbags since they were not even holding 7.62mm not to mention 12.7mm DShK's. They also are not equipped with the Javelin which they portray often as the standard ATGM for infantry, not a big coverage of forces with such equipment and not a big amount actually properly used. Canibalism was and is the biggest factor of keeping some of their vehicles operative. Since the US buys M829A2 in large amounts in past several years, the M829A3 is clearly not the standard issue. They just started recently to demilitarize 105mm DU rounds.
    band aid solution or not, they clearly didnt shy away from spending a cool 50 billion on 27k mraps to protect their troops. javelin numbers are also relatively ok, they are supposed to be the metis-m rough equivalent, not rpg-7 they have m136 for that. and i dont follow you with m829a3 not being standard issue- i was under impression that when you start to dispose of the earlier models you buy/already buying the new one.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:41 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    That is not the case, but US loves to call everything they have modern. Majority of equipment is cold war era status and they couldn't even provide enough HMMV's that are armored in Iraq, so they welded metal plates from destroyed bradleys and hummves on the tank graveyard and stuffed the hummves full with sandbags since they were not even holding 7.62mm not to mention 12.7mm DShK's. They also are not equipped with the Javelin which they portray often as the standard ATGM for infantry, not a big coverage of forces with such equipment and not a big amount actually properly used. Canibalism was and is the biggest factor of keeping some of their vehicles operative. Since the US buys M829A2 in large amounts in past several years, the M829A3 is clearly not the standard issue. They just started recently to demilitarize 105mm DU rounds.
    band aid solution or not, they clearly didnt shy away from spending a cool 50 billion on 27k mraps to protect their troops.  javelin numbers are also relatively ok, they are supposed to be the metis-m rough equivalent, not rpg-7 they have m136 for that. and i dont follow you with m829a3 not being standard issue- i was under impression that when you start to dispose of the earlier models you buy/already buying the new one.

    They currently dispose their 105mm M833 rounds and not 120mm rounds except maybe the M829A1 versions.

    What 27000 MRAPS? That is some major BS.

    Javelin numbers are not ok nor are they distributed to majority nor even to significant amounts and numbers of forces and METIS-M is rather equal to TOW and not Javelin. The US lacks of new technologies in lot of fields, they haven't developed and not deployed any new SHORAD system and still rely on such systems like Chapparral or Avenger and even those are old and not upgraded. This just not the case that US gets new and modern technologies ASAP, that is only the case for crucial equipment they see direct result to pushing their agenda like Drones to keep their terrorism spreaded.

    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 9:03 pm

    Anybody know what variants of the T-90 have K-5 on the hull?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:23 pm

    Mike E wrote:Anybody know what variants of the T-90 have K-5 on the hull?

    They all have K-5, from T-90 to T-90A1 and MS has relikt if i am not wrong.

    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 10:32 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Anybody know what variants of the T-90 have K-5 on the hull?

    They all have K-5, from T-90 to T-90A1 and MS has relikt if i am not wrong.
    Really? The A (Vlad) doesn't appear to have any hull K-5 or ERA in general, look at the AM for reference.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:46 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Anybody know what variants of the T-90 have K-5 on the hull?

    They all have K-5, from T-90 to T-90A1 and MS has relikt if i am not wrong.
    Really? The A (Vlad) doesn't appear to have any hull K-5 or ERA in general, look at the AM for reference.

    The ERA is integrated in the main armor if you look closely you can see it is fitted more fitting without much to no gaps.

    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 10:48 pm

    Aw crap... I'm an idiot then...  Embarassed

    I thought it would be similar to the AM's arrangement.

    Anyway, that changes a few thing... Chances are the M1 would now struggle to pen the B3's hull if it hits the ERA and vice-versa.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:09 pm

    Mike E wrote:Aw crap... I'm an idiot then...  Embarassed

    I thought it would be similar to the AM's arrangement.

    Anyway, that changes a few thing... Chances are the M1 would now struggle to pen the B3's hull if it hits the ERA and vice-versa.


    Here you can see how it was integrated into the armor, plating the ERA with heavier steel plate giving it better performance against APFSDS and HEAT rounds, catapulting the heavier steel plate towards the incoming penetrator, increases the protection.

    Min 30:00


    Yes, without hitting the weak sposts it is today almost impossible with the limited performance tank rounds 120/125mm offer in comperision what 127,152mm RPG/ATGM's offer.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:32 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    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.

    Yes, everything else being equal that would be a substantial advantage.

    An Abrams' shot at the turret of a B3 will almost always result in a non-penetration, as will the opposite situation.

    Definitely not. T-72B with K-5 could reliably stop late 1980s APFSDS. It was not designed (neither tank nor ERA) to take on more modern ammunition. Plus, the way the T-72Bs turret geomtry is, some parts are indeed extreemely thick, but other far less. And I don't just mean the gun mask and the other "weakened zones". There are plenty of areas that a modern gun + aumminion could penetrate. Abrams A2 on the other hand has a fundamentally newer turret array than the T-72B does. It is larger, but proportionally has less weakened zones as well. Point is, turrets only, T-72B3 + Svinets vs M1A2 with M829A2, I will take the latter, most of the time.

    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... 

    Based on what?!? T-72B has an array that was good for the mid and late 80s. The M1A2s beak is much thicker in LOS than the T-72s upper glacis. The only advantage the T-72 has here is if the shot comes in at an angle from the top, where the Abram's upper glacis loses its extreme angle advantage. But on most tank on tank scenarios, once again, the M1A2 has simply a newer array and better ammunition.

    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. 

    No way, the A3 has been in production since 2003, in fact they had a whole cycle of production issues, re-design and re-starting of production. But point is, by 2015 the issues are worked out and the round has proliferated into the fleet. And I would not take any part of T-72B3 as reliable M829A3 protection, aside from some extreme angles on 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?

    The best it carries is Svinets, though realistically you have older ammo on load, Mango and such. Once again, US Army has bought more modern ammo than Russian Army, which bought almost nothing new for years.

    Doesn't it have a new FCS system?

    Sure, Sosna is nice. But Commander has ancient sight, and there is nothing like a BMS all together. T-72B3 is a CHEAP, half-assed upgrade. You get what you pay for.


    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 11:35 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Aw crap... I'm an idiot then...  Embarassed

    I thought it would be similar to the AM's arrangement.

    Anyway, that changes a few thing... Chances are the M1 would now struggle to pen the B3's hull if it hits the ERA and vice-versa.

    Here you can see how it was integrated into the armor, plating the ERA with heavier steel plate giving it better performance against APFSDS and HEAT rounds, catapulting the heavier steel plate towards the incoming penetrator, increases the protection.

    - SM

    - A

    See the difference? That's what got me...

    Weak spots can't be hit at range for the most part, it would only be in close-quarters urban combat where they become a problem. Even then, I doubt the tankers will want to spend time aiming at some small areas. Adrenaline would impede their abilities. 

    Plus, the AM and newer variants have omitted the turret check weak spots, and its only a matter of time before they're upgraded to that standard right?

    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 11:51 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    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.

    Yes, everything else being equal that would be a substantial advantage.

     - True

    An Abrams' shot at the turret of a B3 will almost always result in a non-penetration, as will the opposite situation.

    Definitely not. T-72B with K-5 could reliably stop late 1980s APFSDS. It was not designed (neither tank nor ERA) to take on more modern ammunition. Plus, the way the T-72Bs turret geomtry is, some parts are indeed extreemely thick, but other far less. And I don't just mean the gun mask and the other "weakened zones". There are plenty of areas that a modern gun + aumminion could penetrate. Abrams A2 on the other hand has a fundamentally newer turret array than the T-72B does. It is larger, but proportionally has less weakened zones as well. Point is, turrets only, T-72B3 + Svinets vs M1A2 with M829A2, I will take the latter, most of the time.

     - No doubt it could stop newer ones as well... It's not like the US's newer rounds are friggin lasers, in fact, they are often just slightly improved versions of their former round. Of course there are weaker zones that could be penetrated, but accuracy comes into play there... Turrets only, both are going to hard time. I believe the M1 has a pretty big weak spot itself, directly under the mantle. Which, by my estimations, is only a few 100 mm thick equivalent if even. 

    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... 

    Based on what?!? T-72B has an array that was good for the mid and late 80s. The M1A2s beak is much thicker in LOS than the T-72s upper glacis. The only advantage the T-72 has here is if the shot comes in at an angle from the top, where the Abram's upper glacis loses its extreme angle advantage. But on most tank on tank scenarios, once again, the M1A2 has simply a newer array and better ammunition.

     - Have you seen the Abrams? It's upper glacis is only 1/5 of its frontal hull, the rest is a big *** badly angled lower plate.

    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. 

    No way, the A3 has been in production since 2003, in fact they had a whole cycle of production issues, re-design and re-starting of production. But point is, by 2015 the issues are worked out and the round has proliferated into the fleet. And I would not take any part of T-72B3 as reliable M829A3 protection, aside from some extreme angles on turret.

     - True, but once again it really isn't a super-round or anything. Just a simple improvement that would need to not hit the B3's or T-90's ERA to stand a chance of penetrating. 
    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?

    The best it carries is Svinets, though realistically you have older ammo on load, Mango and such. Once again, US Army has bought more modern ammo than Russian Army, which bought almost nothing new for years.

     - This is when I request statistics. Older ammunition could penetrate the possible weak spot and the lower glacis *if de-angled*. 

    Doesn't it have a new FCS system?

    Sure, Sosna is nice. But Commander has ancient sight, and there is nothing like a BMS all together. T-72B3 is a CHEAP, half-assed upgrade. You get what you pay for.

     - The sight wasn't upgraded? The Commander is probably the only that doesn't need a super-high-tech sight anyway (Or so I assume). The Gunner is the one whose doing the shooting. 

     - Affordable is *great*, sure it doesn't fix all the -72's problems, but it doesn't have to. Give it an upgraded selection of ammunition and possibly some more FCS upgrades and it would be great. Don't forget the B3 is a stop-gap, it doesn't have to be "amazing", all it has to do is be "good enough", and "good enough" it is. 

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:51 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    A but the B3 does not have any weak sposts that can be called weak sposts and not more and they curtainly do not cover bigger space than on other tanks.

    First of all, there are significant weak spots around the gun-mask (yes, I am aware they exist on all tanks, but they are quite big on T-72s), and second, look @ turret geometry in general.
    http://blogi.militis.pl/dratka/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/t72blos.jpg
    Nevermind the exact numbers, not important to the discussion. But what you can clearly see, is the armor thickness is not uniform. Extending past the gun mask, there is a significant area that is much less thick than the rest of the turret that progressively becomes very thick. This is cured to some extent in the more uniform T-90A, which still has a thinner composite area extending past the gunmask.


    The focal array on both tanks is great and the Cathrine FC is among the best which again Thales usually produces among the best TIS.
    Thales has been making the much better Catherine XP for years. And while Sosna is nice, T-72B3 has one nice sight and a bunch of older shit for the rest of its optics. Abrams has had more thorough modernizations in practice.

    The M1A2 has no difference in its hull either a difference of 50mm RHAe to earlier model is not really a difference.

    They changed internals several times however. At the end of the day it is fundamentally newer and has more room for growth than the older T-72.

    The M829A2 maybe widely deployed but i doubt that for A3 and we already know that the A2 is ineffective hence why the A3 was developed because the A1 and A2 were incapable to penetrate ERA equipped T-72A and this is a B model and B3.

    I am not aware of A2 tests against T-72B, let alone the T-72A can you show any results? IIRC they tested T-72M with M829A1 at best. And either way, A3 is widely deployed for a while now, even if the older shells are still stockpiled.

    The K-5 is still superior to anything the west can produce and to anything the west can produce for AT weapons.

    K-5 is also outdated and Russia has made newer ERA to deal with modern ammo. The only reason it has not been adopted is finances.


    On the other hand the T-72B3 has everything on ammunition and yes highly capable, too. Svinets maybe not the best APFSDS

    Svinets was a great round for the time, but it is the only relevant round to the discussion because we are comparing Abrams A2 to B3 in frontal combat. So using Svinets as (AT BEST) the round used (even though its likely to be older shit) is relevant.

    but russia is the best when it comes to HEAT weapons, today the BK-31M is not widely deployed like mostly any other latest tank rounds but it out does in penetration any other round with around 800mm RHAe, it has airburst ammunition capability to have even a chance agaisnt infantry targets on the battlefield with RPG/ATGM/Mortars and it has HEAT rounds which are usefull against a broad band of targets and not just tanks.

    I am not aware of the BK-31M in terms of detailed tested info, but it would definitely be relevant to the discussion if it was purchased and we had some good knowledge about it. As Kornet demonstrated in Iraq recently, HEAT is nothing to sneeze at.

    Actually russia has but they needed to much time to get them into service. The Svinets will not destroy any MBT today but that is also the case for KEWA2 or M829A3 they absolutley have no chance of penetrating any 3rd gen MBT today, the armor wins over ammunition currently.

    T-72B3 has 25 year old protection, that is the issue.

    As for the part that M1A2 wins across the board against B3 is nonsense since you haven't even elaborated more than the two few advantages of the M1A2 over the B3 and completley ignored important factors like Mobility, actual performance on the battlefield based on capabilities and overall a very thin explenation where non was really shining in light.

    We are talking hard factors here, to keep the discussion simple. The T-72 is simply older and outdated in most aspects. No getting around it. It is like comparing modern M60 to T-72....the latter has fundamental advantages. And some of the T-72s advantages over the Abrams are also due to American (strange) reluctance to finally get ATGMs and modern fused HEFRAG rounds into service, not the tanks themselves.

    The T-72/90 are absolute champions in mobility without any concurence. Even the chinese that had some trouble with their Type-96A2 tanks on Tank biathlon can have several failures and will arrive on the battlefield still earlier than a fleet of Abrams would.

    Not across the board they are not. Their reverse speed is pitifull. Transmission and engines are archaic by modern standards, to be frank.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:09 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Definitely not. T-72B with K-5 could reliably stop late 1980s APFSDS. It was not designed (neither tank nor ERA) to take on more modern ammunition. Plus, the way the T-72Bs turret geomtry is, some parts are indeed extreemely thick, but other far less. And I don't just mean the gun mask and the other "weakened zones". There are plenty of areas that a modern gun + aumminion could penetrate. Abrams A2 on the other hand has a fundamentally newer turret array than the T-72B does. It is larger, but proportionally has less weakened zones as well. Point is, turrets only, T-72B3 + Svinets vs M1A2 with M829A2, I will take the latter, most of the time.

    The T-72B have stopped all tank rounds of the US M833,M829A1 and A2 that is why the A3 was developed because the former were incapable to penetrate ERA equipped A model at usual tank engagement ranges like they used to in Iraq of 2500-2000m. There are not many sposts a tank round can penetrate at tanks except weak spots which are completely irrelevant since even a T-72 has less of them than M1 or Leo2, just because of the size of the turret and gun mantel. The only true weak zone is the below glacis which again is the least likely to be hit spot, actually in most situations it isn't even in LOS to the enemy. You keep repeating the T-72B has more weakend zones how about you eleborate those zones except the gun mantel and lower glacis which both are no targets that could be intentionally hit.

    TR1 wrote:
    Based on what?!? T-72B has an array that was good for the mid and late 80s. The M1A2s beak is much thicker in LOS than the T-72s upper glacis. The only advantage the T-72 has here is if the shot comes in at an angle from the top, where the Abram's upper glacis loses its extreme angle advantage. But on most tank on tank scenarios, once again, the M1A2 has simply a newer array and better ammunition.

    The M1A2 glacis against T-72B glacis is a difference of entire 40mm RHAe omg what big difference for a tank model of current compared to a tank from the past generation. There is almost no difference on the upper glacis in protection and that reduces even further with generations after that common B mod. In most tank on tank engagements i doubt that the M1A2 would fare well against B3 since all relevant equipment for tank duells are deployed on B3 model, with proper TIS, good protection and the advantage of small profile, with higher engagement range and tactically it will have in most cases the surprising factor of shooting before the enemy can shoot aka Abrams the selfpainted target.


    TR1 wrote:
    No way, the A3 has been in production since 2003, in fact they had a whole cycle of production issues, re-design and re-starting of production. But point is, by 2015 the issues are worked out and the round has proliferated into the fleet. And I would not take any part of T-72B3 as reliable M829A3 protection, aside from some extreme angles on turret.

    This are quite some bolt guesses you rely on. The armor on T-72B3 make it effectively protected against M829A3 as the other way around.

    TR1 wrote:
    The best it carries is Svinets, though realistically you have older ammo on load, Mango and such. Once again, US Army has bought more modern ammo than Russian Army, which bought almost nothing new for years.

    And again the difference are freaking 50mm RHAe penetration difference between a long rod M829A3 and BK-29 and BM-46 which won't get through turret or upper glacis of B3 model at any common engagement ranges and hoping for hitting some weaken zone is no argument since that goes both ways.

    TR1 wrote:
    Sure, Sosna is nice. But Commander has ancient sight, and there is nothing like a BMS all together. T-72B3 is a CHEAP, half-assed upgrade. You get what you pay for.

    Sure same as M1A2 SEP is a half-assed upgrade, without providing any protective measures other than magical DU plates in turret arrays and a TIS, majority of its praised stuff was half-assed all the way. It is still a mediocre tank compared to any other current MBT and does not even shine much to half assed B3 models except of 3 things to speak off, armor,TIS and BMS the rest is old and lacks behind almost every other country and has big minus on its engine and weight which play a very crucial role in deployement of such vehicles in tactical valueable areas which they will losse with certainity against any advancing enemy and are more or less useless since the enemy will have to fight mechanized troops long before they can arrive or the USAF has to strike enemy forces which only worked so far against banana republics.

    There is nothing equal to the T-72B3 of its generation of MBTs and that not even remotley it can without much of problems play on todays battlegrounds with moderate to good outcome in comperision what you may believe or what in general people believe usually basing it or at least effected by the created perception of iraqis monkey models.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:06 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    The T-72B have stopped all tank rounds of the US M833,M829A1 and A2 that is why the A3 was developed

    Show me the evidence that shows the T-72B was A2 proof. I have not seen any results of firing trials of T-72B + K-5 vs A2. And the fact remains, they were already working on Relikt plus Obj 187, with much improved hull and turrret armor back in the late 80s. Why? Because T-72B was proof for the upcoming rounds? No.

    There are not many sposts a tank round can penetrate at tanks except weak spots which are completely irrelevant since even a T-72 has less of them than M1 or Leo2,
    Baloney. The T-72B has just as many if not more weakpots. Just look at the turret.

    The only true weak zone is the below glacis which again is the least likely to be hit spot, actually in most situations it isn't even in LOS to the enemy. You keep repeating the T-72B has more weakend zones how about you eleborate those zones except the gun mantel and lower glacis which both are no targets that could be intentionally hit.
    Sure. First of all, the hull is weakened at the top part as well, since the thickness tapers on the composite filler and does not extend all the way to the top of the plate. Second the freaking USSR itself tested shells on the T-72 turret and found there were multiple areas possible to penetrate with elderly APFSDS, like the top of the turret (not protected by composite array), big area around gun mask (where as I showed and you ignored, the thickness is FAR from uniform), and the thinning of the turret around the ring (even more so than on Abrams).


    The M1A2 glacis against T-72B glacis is a difference of entire 40mm RHAe omg what big difference for a tank model of current compared to a tank from the past generation.
    INTERNALS are what matter. The M1A2 has had continuous internal armor array changes. So has the T-72...THATS WHY THE T-90 APPEARED. WHy the hell else do you think they would have made it? For shits and giggles? They kept upgrading their tank armor just like the US did. The problem is, you are comparing Abrams that have had serious overhauls and been gutted for armor in the 90s and later, vs a T-72 that has has ZERO internal armor changes since the late 80s.

    In most tank on tank engagements i doubt that the M1A2 would fare well against B3 since all relevant equipment for tank duells are deployed on B3 model, with proper TIS, good protection and the advantage of small profile, with higher engagement range and tactically it will have in most cases the surprising factor of shooting before the enemy can shoot aka Abrams the selfpainted target.

    Whatever you want to think, the consensus on every forum, English OR Russian speaking among educated members is the T-72B has a good armor array FOR THE EIGHTIES. Comparing M1A2 to T-72B is silly, more accurate to do T-90 or T-90A at the least. They simply were made for different protection requirements. You must think Americans are idiots to not be able to improve on Soviet tank armor from the 80s.

    This are quite some bolt guesses you rely on. The armor on T-72B3 make it effectively protected against M829A3 as the other way around.

    HAhahahahahaaha. Go post that on Otvaga 2004. You will be laughed at. Even NII Stali has NEVER indicated that even K-5 T-72 is A3 proof. The fact that you think a tank with 25 year old protection can stop a shell from the 2000s says a lot. Delusional.


    Sure same as M1A2 SEP is a half-assed upgrade,

    Not compared to B3 it is not. Compare their commanders sights. Their drivers sights. BMS systems. RWS. The list goes on and on.

    without providing any protective measures other than magical DU plates in turret arrays

    Which is a lot more than T-72B3 got. If you think ancient tank armor like that is relevant today you are high.

    It is still a mediocre tank compared to any other current MBT and does not even shine much to half assed B3 models except of 3 things to speak off, armor,TIS and BMS the rest is old and lacks behind almost every other country and has big minus on its engine and weight which play a very crucial role in deployement of such vehicles in tactical valueable areas which they will losse with certainity against any advancing enemy and are more or less useless since the enemy will have to fight mechanized troops long before they can arrive or the USAF has to strike enemy forces which only worked so far against banana republics.

    There is nothing equal to the T-72B3 of its generation of MBTs and that not even remotley it can without much of problems play on todays battlegrounds with moderate to good outcome in comperision what you may believe or what in general people believe usually basing it or at least effected by the created perception of iraqis monkey models.

    I can see the Russia strong pushes stronger than logic here.

    I could make about as logically a claim that an M1A1 from the late 80s with M829A1 is JUST AS GOOD AS T-90MS BECAUSE I SAID SO.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:10 am

    TR1 wrote:
    First of all, there are significant weak spots around the gun-mask (yes, I am aware they exist on all tanks, but they are quite big on T-72s), and second, look @ turret geometry in general.
    http://blogi.militis.pl/dratka/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/t72blos.jpg
    Nevermind the exact numbers, not important to the discussion. But what you can clearly see, is the armor thickness is not uniform. Extending past the gun mask, there is a significant area that is much less thick than the rest of the turret that progressively becomes very thick. This is cured to some extent in the more uniform T-90A, which still has a thinner composite area extending past the gunmask.

    Those weak sposts around the gun mantel are not bigger than on larger tanks, it is the same case for all tanks but up scaled on the area it effects.

    http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6751/sabeleo2m1.jpg

    The difference is there but not really in favor of M1 nor any other tank, lower and smaller tank and profile helps.

    TR1 wrote:
    Thales has been making the much better Catherine XP for years. And while Sosna is nice, T-72B3 has one nice sight and a bunch of older shit for the rest of its optics. Abrams has had more thorough modernizations in practice.

    The only big difference there is the drivers shitty sight against moderate sight of A2 SEP version the rest is good to moderate and comparable.

    TR1 wrote:
    They changed internals several times however. At the end of the day it is fundamentally newer and has more room for growth than the older T-72.

    That difference of quarter of decade in glacis protection is from A1 to A2 compared with B3 only 50-60mm RHAe difference hardly what anyone would call huge difference.

    TR1 wrote:
    I am not aware of A2 tests against T-72B, let alone the T-72A can you show any results? IIRC they tested T-72M with M829A1 at best. And either way, A3 is widely deployed for a while now, even if the older shells are still stockpiled.

    The tests were performed on GDR T-72 tanks from Leo2 L44 guns with M829A1 and later performane of A2 was revisioned as not sufficient enough on the performance tests they had and from the armor and Tank evaluation they did with the "schemed" T-80's in 1992 which they have tested on aberdeen testing range, this was the reason why they made A3 in relative short period of A2 in comperision with earlier rounds they had.

    TR1 wrote:
    K-5 is also outdated and Russia has made newer ERA to deal with modern ammo. The only reason it has not been adopted is finances.

    It is outdated by russian standards, it is top notch and non available for any western country they still have only 1st generation ERA that can not match the K5 performance.


    TR1 wrote:
    Svinets was a great round for the time, but it is the only relevant round to the discussion because we are comparing Abrams A2 to B3 in frontal combat. So using Svinets as (AT BEST) the round used (even though its likely to be older shit) is relevant.

    Well i did not start the comperision it was asked by someone else and even tho it is an quite older tank it still fares very well and i would doubt the equal performance by older M1 or Leo2 versions, in overall performance speaking.

    TR1 wrote:
    I am not aware of the BK-31M in terms of detailed tested info, but it would definitely be relevant to the discussion if it was purchased and we had some good knowledge about it. As Kornet demonstrated in Iraq recently, HEAT is nothing to sneeze at.

    Well the fault for that is 90's yelzin era and since russia has restarted modernisation that isn't even running a decade and we already have quite a few new systems that have entered and are about to enter service i would expect that there are already new rounds for Armata and can be used on T-90 and T-72 aswell. The thingy is that there were quite a few ammunition types in service without much information floating around like 3UBR9 rounds despite not much information i could find except 3UBR8 30mm rounds and are already planned for 3UBR11 APFSDS rounds. I would expect that they have BK31m in service but in low numbers and since the budget was given for modernisation one can expect that it is for rounds too, because tank upgrades would make little sense without newer effective ammunition.

    TR1 wrote:
    T-72B3 has 25 year old protection, that is the issue.

    And still equal to better against M1 and M1A1 in protection like most things.

    TR1 wrote:
    We are talking hard factors here, to keep the discussion simple. The T-72 is simply older and outdated in most aspects. No getting around it. It is like comparing modern M60 to T-72....the latter has fundamental advantages. And some of the T-72s advantages over the Abrams are also due to American (strange) reluctance to finally get ATGMs and modern fused HEFRAG rounds into service, not the tanks themselves.

    That is hardly worthy to mention and use as an argument, by the same standards the todays M1A2 SEP are archaic and outdated in most aspects with technologies soviets have already deployed in much broader range than US has today at its peak, they haven't even started designing and researching most of such technologies which were common on russian tanks for decades.


    TR1 wrote:
    Not across the board they are not. Their reverse speed is pitifull. Transmission and engines are archaic by modern standards, to be frank.

    That is a hard factor that M1 is literally shit in mobility we don't need a rocket scientist to put it in numbers for us, the T-72 owns any Abrams ass like most foreign tanks in mobility. Yes, it has its short comings but those like non automatic gearbox is are relative speaking will only be a problem for unexperienced and new drivers and as for the reverse speed is indeed one factor that is bad however in mobility it wins by a huge margin.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:42 am

    Guys... No need to get personal. 

    @TR1 

    Assuming the A3 hits the K-5 it won't penetrate almost for sure. The A3 only has ~670 mm of RHAe penetration, versus K-5 plus the comp. armor on the -72 it shouldn't have much of a chance. That being said, if the upper glacis of the B3 is de-angled to an extent, the A3 should have no trouble you get the idea. 

    According to CIA reports, the T-72 (note that this is the *base* model with *no* ERA) couldn't defeat the Soviet's own top-notch KE rounds, but that it could defeat their own HEAT rounds. When you include K-5 into this situation... I seriously doubt either the Soviet/Russian or American rounds could reliability pen its upper glacis. I can't really confirm this but from what I've seen, the upper plate of the B3 with K-5 has a RHAe of ~700+ (KE) and ~1200+ mm (HEAT).

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:54 am

    TR1 wrote:We are talking hard factors here, to keep the discussion simple. The T-72 is simply older and outdated in most aspects. No getting around it. It is like comparing modern M60 to T-72....the latter has fundamental advantages. And some of the T-72s advantages over the Abrams are also due to American (strange) reluctance to finally get ATGMs and modern fused HEFRAG rounds into service, not the tanks themselves.

    Yes... M1 Abrams is more modern because it is jerking off with human loader and damn low efficient gas turbine engine. Laughing Meanwhile Leopard 2 use a more efficient diesel engine with the same power. Laughing And "outdated" Russian T-64/72/80/90 used autoloader long long ago.

    And the fundamental advantages of M1 Abrams probably are it is 15-20 tons heavier and 2 times more expensive. Laughing

    And the modern M1 Abrams's engine was destroyed by 20mm AP bullet. Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:03 am

    Mike E wrote:Guys... No need to get personal. 

    @TR1 

    Assuming the A3 hits the K-5 it won't penetrate almost for sure. The A3 only has ~670 mm of RHAe penetration, versus K-5 plus the comp. armor on the -72 it shouldn't have much of a chance. That being said, if the upper glacis of the B3 is de-angled to an extent, the A3 should have no trouble you get the idea. 

    According to CIA reports, the T-72 (note that this is the *base* model with *no* ERA) couldn't defeat the Soviet's own top-notch KE rounds, but that it could defeat their own HEAT rounds. When you include K-5 into this situation... I seriously doubt either the Soviet/Russian or American rounds could reliability pen its upper glacis. I can't really confirm this but from what I've seen, the upper plate of the B3 with K-5 has a RHAe of ~700+ (KE) and ~1200+ mm (HEAT).

    That is exactly the case, the M829A3 over the A2 is not a huge difference and to claim that it would penetrate a K5 equipped T-72B and not those Monkey Models yanks are prone to claim every tank is like them. We already know today that the K5 is very good against APFSDS, it does not vaporize them entirely but reduces their performance greatly which will be aborsed by the main armor after wards. The performane of M829A3 with the best speculated performance is around 690mm RHAe, the K5 reduces the APFSDS penetration capability greatly and was tested so, it reduces the capability around 250mm RHAe and the Main armor of T-72B and it is on the upper glacis 720mm RHAe against KE rounds which is still enough to stop the round at engagement relevant ranges, at ranges under 2km it may even penetrate but at such distances the M1 has already recieved several rounds aswell, without penetration but with enough damage to make the tank to no threat and it has already first engagement due GLATGM's higher range and accuracy at such distances before the M1A2 SEP can enter its 2800-3000m effective egnagement range.

    That is the case for most of the time that both won't penetrate each other at combat and engagement relevant ranges, they would need to enter at ranges that we can consider point blank so they could actually aim at weak zones, but that is truelly no argument for a duell anyway.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:07 am

    I am sorry but the notion that 2000s M829A3 can't deal with 80s T-72B with K-5 is so illogical and contrary to all available logic it hurts.

    Go ahead and post that claim on Otvaga (A russian forum) and see how many agree and disagree with you.
    Or tanknet. Or any serious armor forum.

    Wishful thinking=/= reality.

    And ragging on the Abrams gas turbine is funny indeed, since the USSR made the T-80 itself.
    Both of their engines are light years ahead from a technical viewpoint compared to freaking V-84.


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:16 am

    Btw, from Fofanov himself:

    Ответом на М829А3 являться должен был объект 195, а нынче "армата". А вовсе не модернизация ДЗ, которая была принята на вооружение даже до того как М829А3 был принят в серийное производство

    lol, and you guys think T-72B can hold it.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:38 am

    TR1 wrote:I am sorry but the notion that 2000s M829A3 can't deal with 80s T-72B with K-5 is so illogical and contrary to all available logic it hurts.

    Go ahead and post that claim on Otvaga (A russian forum) and see how many agree and disagree with you.
    Or tanknet. Or any serious armor forum.

    Wishful thinking=/= reality.

    And ragging on the Abrams gas turbine is funny indeed, since the USSR made the T-80 itself.
    Both of their engines are light years ahead from a technical viewpoint compared to freaking V-84.

    What? So basing performance on age and age only makes sense?

    Turbine engines as a whole are a disaster, doesn't matter who makes em'.

    That quote (as far I can tell) doesn't even mention the B3.

    What do you want to believe TR1? Numbers, in the case of what Werewolf is saying, or personal beliefs, in the case of yourself?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:44 am

    Werewolf's numbers are baloney.

    And that quote is Fofanov, saying Obj 195 was the answer to M829A3. Since you know...that round did not exist earlier. Obj 187 was made with newer rounds in mind as well, especially post M829A1 ones.
    Fofanov explicitly says a new tank was the answer, not modernized ERA that entered service before the A3- AND HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT K-5! He is talking about Relikt.

    But somehow you guys believe the delusion that T-72B3 can withstand A3 hits anywhere it has ERA.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:50 am

    TR1 wrote:Werewolf's numbers are baloney.

    And that quote is Fofanov, saying Obj 195 was the answer to M829A3. Since you know...that round did not exist earlier. Obj 187 was made with newer rounds in mind as well, especially post M829A1 ones.
    Fofanov explicitly says a new tank was the answer, not modernized ERA that entered service before the A3- AND HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT K-5! He is talking about Relikt.

    But somehow you guys believe the delusion that T-72B3 can withstand A3 hits anywhere it has ERA.
    And you have proof of this? 

    Yet they doesn't have much relevance... The numbers show that the A3 is barely an improvement, and that ERA + the Comp. and spaced armor of the -72 in combination should be able to stop it. No need to get all butt-hurt about it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing tanks

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:08 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:08 pm