Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Failed Tanks

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MBT Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:23 am

    APS is the new name of the game. problem with recyclying old hulls like the T55 is that the cost of the hull becomes a negligible part of the overall system cost once you factor in all the modern gizmos.
    Hardly new... Drozd was tested in the 1980s and was successful enough... Drozd 2 is available now, while ARENA was designed from scratch, but ARENA 2 seems to have removed the big tower and made it more efficient... the real point is that APSs are still not very widely deployed.

    A decent APS could make older tanks still viable in a range of roles but one has to ask if they do their job do new armoured vehicles need heavy armour anymore?

    Mass production should reduce costs, but having modular armour arrangements could lead eventually to instead of having four different vehicles... having one with different levels of modular armour and the option of tracks or wheels... back to the BT series tanks!

    I reckon the best use for the T55 hulls is in cheap ARV/Heavy APC. mods that don't cost the earth, and thus the original hull / tracks / engine will retain a decent % of the overall value of the end vehicle.
    I would think a new design with modular armour that can be upgraded makes more sense. T-55s have old wiring and old components... the bother of giving it an extensive upgrade just to use it as an APC.

    For a country that has lots of them... they are either very poor or Russia or China... if they are poor then trucks will do the job. Russia is working on all new vehicles and China has a range of alternatives too.

    I would think the best market for a T-55 based APC would be to make them for small armies like NZ or Israel, with all the bells and whistles so they wont be cheap but will do a good job of protecting troops.

    The low cost and availability of parts making support cheaper than modern vehicles.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Failed Tanks

    Post  runaway on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:35 am

    There is some interesting videos on youtube on falied tanks, they show for example:

    T-62
    IS3
    M114
    M60A2
    Arjun
    M1


    Which is the most failed tank by your opinion?

    My vote would go to the M114, though its a APC, it was a horrible effort of an effective APC. On tanks, maybe M60A2, altough the only bad thing was the turret and main weapon.
    Perhaps the T-62? The T-55 with HVAPFSDS took away the only advantage of the T-62 with its 115mm gun.
    The M1? The most overrated and costly tank of today, no tanks from 1980´s are in service.
    IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun.
    Arjun? Doesnt seem even the Indians want to buy their own tank.

    There maybe are some else failed tank out there?

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:09 pm

    Would have to include the Sheridan, and if you are going to include the IS-3 and T-62 then I would have to say the Sherman tank... it entered service a couple of years after the T-34 yet in no way was superior to it... only comparable in production numbers, but then US factories were not getting bombed every night and weren't moved thousands of kms to the east during the conflict.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Brovich

    Posts : 12
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-02-25

    gtfo "post title"

    Post  Brovich on Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:29 pm

    Worst tank from conception to finish:
    The Bob Semple
    Best example of making a good tank bad:
    The Asad Babil
    Best example of accidentally making a really shitty tank, instead of an APC:
    M2 Bradley

    cracker

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

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  cracker on Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:01 am

    omg... not this crap again... those mike sparks VIDEOS!!!

    "IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun."

    ridiculous. Perfectly fine tank, thin side armour?????? 90mm in the bottom just behind the wheels, and about 210mm on the top part of the hull.... is that thin? Side turret is 200mm effective at least. Bad gun? God...

    T-62 bad? It brought many things filling the gap between primitive T-54 and complex T-64. T-62 was fine and needed, as the AFPSDS for T-55 came only in the 70s and 80s, T-62 was the main tool of power in the 60s and 70s, with T-64 also.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  runaway on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:14 am

    Yes the M551 Sheridan is a good candidate, but M4 Sherman was an adequat tank which though it had it drawbacks must be considered a good tank. Adding it to the fail list because of critisim against T-62 is inmature.

    The IS-3 was a heavy tank, and they belonged to history as they couldnt keep up with the fast moving MBT. The slow speed, slow ROF and high weigt is a serious handicap.
    T-62 was succesful in the right hands, so i dont either agree with "failed tanks author". Altough as most of warsaw pact countries continued with T-55 its HVAPFSDS came in 1967, and as the price for T-62 was double it did not offer a much better tank then the T-55.

    "The T-55 was significantly superior to the IS-2 Heavy Tank in all respects, including the rate of fire of the gun (at least four compared to less than three rounds per minute). Despite somewhat thinner frontal turret armour (200 millimetres (7.9 in) instead of 250 millimetres (9.8 in)) it compared favourably with the IS-3, thanks to its improved antitank gun and better mobility. Heavy tanks soon fell from favour, with only 350 IS-3s produced" Wiki.

    Now how about the Arjun?
    M1 with its fuel thirsty engine, no other country has bought it, a failure?


    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:10 pm

    cracker wrote:omg... not this crap again... those mike sparks VIDEOS!!!

    "IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun."

    ridiculous. Perfectly fine tank, thin side armour?????? 90mm in the bottom just behind the wheels, and about 210mm on the top part of the hull.... is that thin? Side turret is 200mm effective at least. Bad gun? God...

    T-62 bad? It brought many things filling the gap between primitive T-54 and complex T-64. T-62 was fine and needed, as the AFPSDS for T-55 came only in the 70s and 80s, T-62 was the main tool of power in the 60s and 70s, with T-64 also.
    LOL... I can't believe someone brought up this topic again knowing about what happened last time. 

    For the last time though, it is not Mike Sparks. He has his own troll area of the internet.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:07 am

    Yes the M551 Sheridan is a good candidate, but M4 Sherman was an adequat tank which though it had it drawbacks must be considered a good tank. Adding it to the fail list because of critisim against T-62 is inmature.

    Nothing to do with immature... the T-62 had excellent mobility, reasonable armour for its size and weight, and an excellent gun. If it is being considered a failure because the tank it replaced was evolved for export and got improvements along side the T-62, then a WWII tank that most in the west are under the impression was some super tank that was known at the time by an advertising slogan... lights first time, every time, for a cigarette lighter I would say it was a failure in that it was not the best choice or design at the time.

    Its only redeeming feature was that it was mass produced, and that would have applied to any tank the US had produced in its place.

    The T-34 in comparison, was also mass produced in enormous numbers under much harsher conditions, and it had heavier armour, better shaped armour, and a better gun for most of the war. It was more mobile and more effective. There were no claims of tank terror in the German army because of the Sherman...

    The IS-3 was a heavy tank, and they belonged to history as they couldnt keep up with the fast moving MBT. The slow speed, slow ROF and high weigt is a serious handicap.

    Only an idiot would expect a heavy tank to operate together with a lighter tank.

    The purpose of the heavy armour is to allow it to operate inside the range of enemy heavy weapons... WTF would you take a medium or light tank into such a place?

    And if you do then why not make 1,000 more medium and light tanks instead of 200 heavy tanks?

    Altough as most of warsaw pact countries continued with T-55 its HVAPFSDS came in 1967, and as the price for T-62 was double it did not offer a much better tank then the T-55.

    They had already stopped development of the 115mm ammo because they had already decided on the 125mm gun. Saying the T-62 was a failure because a cheaper tank had comparable penetration... well then every western tank ever made is a failure then I guess.

    Despite somewhat thinner frontal turret armour (200 millimetres (7.9 in) instead of 250 millimetres (9.8 in)) it compared favourably with the IS-3, thanks to its improved antitank gun and better mobility.

    Sorry... but that is just ignorant. "only" an extra 50mm of armour angled at 60 degrees adds quite a bit of extra metal to pass through for the enemy gun.

    Heavy tanks soon fell from favour, with only 350 IS-3s produced" Wiki.

    Yet they were kept in service for quite some time after they were produced...

    M1 with its fuel thirsty engine, no other country has bought it, a failure?


    The Abrams? Australia, Egypt, quite a few other countries have it in service... though I doubt the armour is the same if you know what I mean...

    With its British armour and German gun it is not a bad tank as long as you don't mind a large bill every time you visit the pump.



    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  runaway on Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:31 pm

    LOL... I can't believe someone brought up this topic again knowing about what happened last time.

    Haha, tell me what happened!?

    But it is ok to have different wievs i hope?

    GarryB wrote:Nothing to do with immature... the T-62 had excellent mobility, reasonable armour for its size and weight, and an excellent gun. If it is being considered a failure because the tank it replaced was evolved for export and got improvements along side the T-62, then a WWII tank that most in the west are under the impression was some super tank that was known at the time by an advertising slogan... lights first time, every time, for a cigarette lighter I would say it was a failure in that it was not the best choice or design at the time.

    Its only redeeming feature was that it was mass produced, and that would have applied to any tank the US had produced in its place.

    Yet the Sherman was preferred over Pershing in Korea and was even used in 1967 middle east war.(as supersherman) I dont consider either T-62 nor Sherman a failure. In WW2, Sherman was much better then M3, Cromwell or Churchill tanks, not to say it was super good, just better then these...

    But i wouldnt exchange my T-55´s for T-62´s as most warsaw pact countries wouldnt either. And the T-55 was in production long after the stopped making T-62´s.



    The Abrams? Australia, Egypt, quite a few other countries have it in service... though I doubt the armour is the same if you know what I mean...

    With its British armour and German gun it is not a bad tank as long as you don't mind a large bill every time you visit the pump.

    It would be interesting to see how the M1A1 export models would come out in a real conflict, as usual i would think it depend on crew training and the opponent. However i very much doubt it will be a succes.

    But the Abrams have certainly failed on the market, no european orders, they have all opted for other tanks.

    My favorite tank is the T-72, though the west surely deem it as a failure.
    My most Failed tank would be Churchill, its hard to find a modern failure, but i say Arjun and Ariette. Both domesticely produced in very low numbers with no other buyers.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:19 am

    Yet the Sherman was preferred over Pershing in Korea and was even used in 1967 middle east war.(as supersherman) I dont consider either T-62 nor Sherman a failure.

    Neither do I, but if someone defines a T-62 as a failure then most other vehicles have faults that could make them seem to be failures too... should we ignore those failures?

    In WW2, Sherman was much better then M3, Cromwell or Churchill tanks, not to say it was super good, just better then these...

    Considering the Sherman first entered service a couple of years after the T-34 you would expect a few basic changes to its design like better sloped armour and wider tracks.

    The Soviets used Shermans too but only because even a bad tank is better than no tank.

    But i wouldnt exchange my T-55´s for T-62´s as most warsaw pact countries wouldnt either. And the T-55 was in production long after the stopped making T-62´s.

    The T-55 was actually the most widely produced tank in the world and will likely remain so for some time... the fact that the T-62 was not a huge revolutionary leap forward does not make it a failure... they were the mainstay of Soviet forces in Afghanistan and later were used in Chechnia too.

    Most warsaw pact countries is not strictly accurate... Czechoslovakia and Poland tested the tank and rejected it... Hungary adopted it into service.

    It would be interesting to see how the M1A1 export models would come out in a real conflict, as usual i would think it depend on crew training and the opponent. However i very much doubt it will be a succes.

    It would be very important who was using it and more importantly who they were fighting...

    But the Abrams have certainly failed on the market, no european orders, they have all opted for other tanks.

    They have been exported, but not in huge numbers, and the sales are more to stooges that were more likely buying political favour rather than something their military needed.

    My most Failed tank would be Churchill,

    The Churchill was very slow and had pathetic armament for its weight, but its very heavy armour made it fairly popular on the eastern front AFAIK.

    but i say Arjun and Ariette. Both domesticely produced in very low numbers with no other buyers.

    Most countries have problems with their first few tank designs... you have to have different criteria for different tanks. I personally would rate the Arjun as a failure mainly because it has a German engine and a foreign this and a foreign that... if you want a domestic tank then it needs to be made of domestically produced parts.

    Personally I think India would be better off with joint ventures to produce foreign/Indian designed parts and put those together to make domestic designs.

    I think the whole idea of Tegas is very very good... if only they would put the sort of money they put into buying off the shelf foreign equipment into its development.

    If they can keep it small and light and relatively cheap it has potential for the future.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:29 am

    runaway wrote:
    LOL... I can't believe someone brought up this topic again knowing about what happened last time.
    Haha, tell me what happened!?

    But it is ok to have different wievs i hope?
    Not much... I was just stating my view and everyone else was doing the same. It got outta hand though, and it turned into a typical thread-ruining argument. +

    The Churchill 1 (early version) had no redeeming features, and, as such, was a massive failure; it was slow, large, didn't have an amazing armament, and was extremely unreliable all in one "glorious" package. 

    The Sherman wasn't a "bad" tank, just not a "great" one either. It had OK armor, an OK gun, along with OK mobility... Case in point; it was just OK. However, the German had vehicles that outclassed it. 

     - The Arjun is trash, period... No tank should take 3 DECADES OR MORE to develop, and it STILL isn't ready!

    As for the long-debated T-10 (IS-8 or whatever you like to call it)... It was kind of a medium-weight-heavy. - Basically, for a heavy tank, it didn't have *great* armor, but in return, for a heavy tank, it had *great* mobility. And in that respect, it was nothing more than a slightly slower MBT.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:36 pm

    what, nobody mentioned FCS MCS? basically their take on the russian sprut-sd. major problem tho, is that its meant to slug against frontline units, not unlike an abrams mbt wheras the sprut would be for that odd armor encountered deep behind enemy lines. mobility is not as good as the sprut too- non airdroppable and non amphibous. not only that, they rely a lot on APS to save the day
    avatar
    Brovich

    Posts : 12
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-02-25

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Brovich on Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:41 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:what, nobody mentioned FCS MCS? basically their take on the russian sprut-sd. major problem tho, is that its meant to slug against frontline units, not unlike an abrams mbt wheras the sprut would be for that odd armor encountered deep behind enemy lines. mobility is not as good as the sprut too- non airdroppable and non amphibous. not only that, they rely a lot on APS to save the day
    Well it was not produced so you can take it out of the running.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:26 am

    Brovich wrote:
    Well it was not produced so you can take it out of the running.
    fair enough, apart from it most of fail tanks that come to my mind were already mentioned.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Militarov on Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:37 pm

    I will have to vote for Fiat M15/42.



    It came so late, and was so obsolete compared to the rest of WW2 tanks that its just funny.
    avatar
    Khepesh

    Posts : 1665
    Points : 1734
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Ахетатон и Уасет

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Khepesh on Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:39 am

    In all aspects except for it's very impressive looks, T-35.

    But into the realms of "what if", then if WWIII occured before 1980s, perhaps Leopard 1, including up to A4 version, as I think it would have struggled against even the T-72M1 of NVA, and of course been brushed aside with impunity by GSFG T-72B, T-64 and then T-80 in the later 1970s.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 904
    Points : 959
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 26
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:58 am

    Japanese Type 1 and Type 3 tanks - both obsolete by the time they entered service
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:57 pm

    AMX30, in the respect that the tankers knew they were one and done for most hits, from most threats. Until the B2 upgrade came along. 20mm Co-ax being a nightmare in combat adds some more flavour.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:03 am

    In all aspects except for it's very impressive looks, T-35.

    To be fair there are distinct trends in tank design from the first lozenge shape to the roof mounted turret.

    When the T-35 was developed multi turreted tanks were normal because to combine the the anti personel HE power with anti armour capacity of the time you needed different weapons... a short snub barrel 76.2mm gun for HE fire power and a high velocity 37mm gun for anti armour use... there was little chance of getting them all into one turret so the top 360 degree 76.2mm turret plus four turrets placed around it with 37mm and later 45mm anti armour guns in one diagonal and machineguns in the other diagonal was standard practise... the British came up with very similar designs when facing the same problem but had no money to actually make any. So many turrets meant a large crew and a huge vehicle with relatively thin armour.

    The S-100 reduced it down to two turrets and the KV-1 to one.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Khepesh

    Posts : 1665
    Points : 1734
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Ахетатон и Уасет

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Khepesh on Sat Apr 02, 2016 12:06 pm

    ^

    Oh I know it was a tank of it's times and there were other monstrosities, the "Independent" I have seen. What I base my assessment on is it's war record, which is the worst probably of any tank ever to see combat.

    Of the 61 T-35 in existence in June 1941, 8 were at training establishments, 5 were undergoing capital repair, and the remaining 48 were with 8th Mechanised Corps.

    Only one tank from 8th Mechanised Corps survived and the fate of the 47 is so:
    6 in combat
    4 accidents, 2 fell off bridges and 2 bogged down
    8 unfit for service at the beginning of hostilities due to existing mechanical defects
    29 due to mechanical failure during the course of hostilities

    It was not liked by it's crew due to being extremely cramped inside, difficult to get in and out of, and when the crew had to evacuate, because the tank was so high they were sitting ducks for MG fire, but T-35 is not alone in this aspect. It was badly designed, it's excessive length to width ratio made it difficult to steer, tracked vehicles in perfect world would be as wide as they are long, but of course that is not realistically possible. It was also badly constructed. There were of course other bad tanks in other armies, but loosing all but one of those in frontline service, and mostly due to defects, is terrible. But, apart from effect on the guys who were inflicted with this nightmare, it was totally of no consequence in the bigger picture of what was happening.
    avatar
    Godric

    Posts : 467
    Points : 487
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Godric on Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:22 pm

    The JagdTiger and King Tiger both Tanks were a nightmare to maintain constantly breaking down due to being under powered with a Engine designed for the 45 ton Panther put in tanks that weighed 70 and 72 tons .. more tanks were lost to break downs than being knocked out by the enemy ... yes they had amazing firepower at that time period
    at the start of WW2 the UK had a whole series of shocking designs like the Matilda, the cruiser tanks, whippets etc
    avatar
    Godric

    Posts : 467
    Points : 487
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Godric on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:34 pm

    runaway wrote:There is some interesting videos on youtube on falied tanks, they show for example:

    T-62
    IS3
    M114
    M60A2
    Arjun
    M1


    Which is the most failed tank by your opinion?

    My vote would go to the M114, though its a APC, it was a horrible effort of an effective APC. On tanks, maybe M60A2, altough the only bad thing was the turret and main weapon.
    Perhaps the T-62? The T-55 with HVAPFSDS took away the only advantage of the T-62 with its 115mm gun.
    The M1? The most overrated and costly tank of today, no tanks from 1980´s are in service.
    IS3? Too heavy, too slow, thin side armour and a bad gun.
    Arjun? Doesnt seem even the Indians want to buy their own tank.

    There maybe are some else failed tank out there?


    the problem with the Arjun is the Indians don't have the infrastructure to support the tank it can only be fielded in limited areas of India ... it weighs 60 tons and the MK 2 weighs 68 tons and it costs nearly $9 million per tank ... it's basically a Indian built Leopard 2A4 ... on paper the Arjun2 is a very decent tank it's handicapped by the fact Indian transport infrastructure is not capable of supporting the tank
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:39 am

    Not failed but heavily over rated... the Sherman tank was big with poorly sloped armour with a pathetic gun that was introduced at a time when it should have been much better than it was.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10245
    Points : 10733
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  George1 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:16 am

    Regarding WWII here is an article with the worst tanks

    http://thegoodthebadtheinsulting.blogspot.gr/2016/01/the-10-worst-tanks-of-second-world-war.html


    From modern era tanks i would say Arjun because its a 3rd gen tank and delays and other problems have made it not so effective for the modern era


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    loguagri

    Posts : 1
    Points : 1
    Join date : 2017-06-05

    T90

    Post  loguagri on Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:35 am

    I have the craziness to know about T90. Which anti missile can destroy it. How many we need to spend to fire 1 round.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Failed Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:41 pm