Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Share
    avatar
    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 350
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2010-11-13
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  runaway on Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:43 am

    Yes, that's very wise. And you wouldn't risk to loose a multimilion machine either. Although aircraft can be surgical and very precise.
    In fact in kosovo bomb war, NATO plans couldn't come down low to hit tanks and troops because of the heavy aa defences. I wouldn't make tanks be able to defend itself, but a helicopter aa is enough. So you should have dedicated aa viehcles
    In case of low aa defence, airpower is murdering and devastating.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:22 am

    "Yes, that's very wise. And you wouldn't risk to loose a multimilion machine either. Although aircraft can be surgical and very precise.
    In fact in kosovo bomb war, NATO plans couldn't come down low to hit tanks and troops because of the heavy aa defences. I wouldn't make tanks be able to defend itself, but a helicopter aa is enough. So you should have dedicated aa veihcles
    In case of low aa defence, airpower is murdering and devastating."

    Yes, but that don't finish here , a single attack to the airfield where yuor aircraft are forced to reside ,an easy, fixed target full of very soft-skin vehicles and against which is possible to concetrate any quantity of stand -off weapons (such as cruise/ballistic missiles) and your air centric structure collapse in few minutes litterally !!
    Is just for this reason that this type of offensive means,capable to quickly change the balace of power in a region and completely rule out some military offensive options, are strictly controlled by international treaties banning the export and the uncontrolled spreading of those long range weaponry ; in presence of them ,in fact ,not merely conduct, but even only prepare an air campaign become a true "mission impossible".

    Ground forces ,obviously, are not vulnerable to this type of "beheading" attacks , but are contemporaneously also more difficult to deploy in distant theatres of operation and generate great problems of compliance with international laws and conventions.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:24 pm

    You are quite correct Mindstorm, but I still think that Land forces are more capable with air support than on their own, or worse operating under enemy air power.

    A decent air component of JSTARs like aircraft and unmanned recon vehicles is the quickest and most efficient way of determining enemy strengths and force positions in depth.

    A few Mi-9 helicopters to jam enemy air defence systems and communications, and Su-25s to support attacks and soften targets as they form up greatly improve the chances of success.

    The future Russian military will combine air force and army and navy and the new space and air defence forces into a much more powerful force than any on their own could achieve.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:33 am

    "You are quite correct Mindstorm, but I still think that Land forces are more capable with air support than on their own, or worse operating under enemy air power."

    Yes GarryB of course, but we must remember what Land Forces would operate under enemy "Air Power" ,because also here the ideas present in common immaginary are often fruit of recent wars between immensely superior nations ,often in coalitions, against incomparably smaller nations very often also under strict ONU embargos since several years.

    In the year of first Gulf War ,the same JSTAR, F-15Es ,A-10s and AH-64s which have attacked (moreover with horrible results !!) : export models of T-55 ,T-72M, Type59/69 ,T-62,BMD-1 etc.. defended ,at best, by few horribly downgraded versions of antediluvian 9K33 Osa , ZSU-57-2 amd ZSU-23-4 in a conflict against a peer opponent would have been forced to confront: BMP-3, T-64B , T-80/T-80U ,T-72A/B ,incomparably better protected and all capable to employ gun fired guided missiles (a very big danger for CAS aircrfat), defended by an highly mobile, monstrous IAD including S-300V, Buk-M1, Tor-M1 , Tunguska-M, Igla , SPN-2/4, SPN-30 , Pelena-1 and countless aid systems like mobile and fixed decoys, chaff/aerosol dispensers,anti-radar/IR camo-nets etc...

    Do you see the ...little differences ...between the two situations ? Very Happy

    Well ,ours idea of what can do land forces while engaged by opposing air forces should take into account similar scenarios between typical, original ,not export versions of land force equipements and air forces equipement employed by peer opponents, only this approach can let to us to realize what would really happen in a conflict wherein advanced equipments of those two branch would interact.
    Do you remember what previously said on air defence systems confronted in Gulf War and the systems composing the typical contgemporary IAD at defence of Soviet ground forces of the times?

    Good that are the words of General John P. Jumper, commander, US Air Forces in Europe at Eaker Institute Symposium on Allied Force of August 2000 after Kosovo War :

    "I was constantly concerned during the Balkan air campaign that ,somehow, Mr. Milosevic would find a way to float an SA-10 or SA-12 up the Danube River, put it together, and bring it to bear as a part of this conflict. If that had happened, it would have profoundly changed the balance of the threat and our ability to maintain air superiority."

    Clear ? Here we talk of the impact would have obtained, in the opinion of the commander in chief of the opearations in this conflict, the presence of a single battallions of a relatively modern SAM systempresent ,in URSS, in several thousands of units since '80 years .

    All this argument have obviously even left completely unmentioned the impact of 50-60 conventional theatre ballistic missiles or cruise missile on Aviano Air Base ,in those days litterally full of the aircraft fleet involved in the entire air campaign of Kosovo War ,even before the most basic logistical basis for the first air mission would have been established ....


    A decent air component of JSTARs like aircraft and unmanned recon vehicles is the quickest and most efficient way of determining enemy strengths and force positions in depth.

    A few Mi-9 helicopters to jam enemy air defence systems and communications, and Su-25s to support attacks and soften targets as they form up greatly improve the chances of success.

    The future Russian military will combine air force and army and navy and the new space and air defence forces into a much more powerful force than any on their own could achieve.


    Yes this is absolutely true , some tasks when carried out by flying assets have undubitable advantages and can provide decisive edge also to other branch of Armewd Forces capitalizing them ,in fact role of Air Forces in a conflict against a peer opponent would be exactly that : integrate the capabilities of other components and assets of military structure in an olistic way ,in particular using at best theirs exclusive capabilities for work as force multiplier element.

    Conversely the employement of Air Force at which we have accostumed ourselves in the last wars would be simply a suicide against a peer opponent ...but for similar enemies exist MAD equilibrium factor.....






    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Air power against tanks

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:18 pm

    Do you see the ...little differences ...between the two situations ?

    Of course, but I don't tend to think in terms of US vs Russia, simply because such a conflict will not be decided by an aircraft or a tank.

    Tanks might conclude a conflict quicker and cheaper in a conventional conflict, but in a guerilla war you have the contradiction that a tank is a target for the enemy... mainly because of the threat it represents to them, but it is also fire power for the local unit that doesn't take 10 minutes to arrive, spend 15 minutes blowing the crap out of stuff and then leaves for an hour or more.

    If the problem is in 5 years time when the US has run away from Afghanistan and the rest of their allies have left too and the Taleban take everything back and start looking to the north and south then air power and tank power will be important on the northern Afghan border, but the mobility of air power makes it much easier to patrol a long border with a few military bases dotted along it perhaps with helicopter delivered forces because of the mountainous terrain making ground vehicle travel too slow.

    Clear ? Here we talk of the impact would have obtained, in the opinion of the commander in chief of the opearations in this conflict, the presence of a single battallions of a relatively modern SAM systempresent ,in URSS, in several thousands of units since '80 years .

    I think that was a minor exaggeration. You can't just get an SA-10 system in pieces and expect to be able to put it together and use it efficiently straight away... you need training and practise, and you need to properly integrate it into your air defence network.

    More importantly even if you got it working properly and it shot down 30 NATO aircraft... would that bring NATO to the negotiating table asking for peace, or would the rules of war change and suddenly anything that can be bombed in Serbia will be bombed?

    Personally I suspect the latter.

    Just the same as if the Georgians had Javelin and Stinger and a C4IR they could actually operate and inflicted very serious losses on the Russian military in 8 8 8 do you think that would make Russia decide to give up... or would they have marched on Tblisi?

    NATO air power is very skilful in taking down air defence networks, now they haven't ever attempted to take down a really modern system, and clearly when they took on even a small nation without really modern systems, but that used the equipment they did have skilfully (ie Serbia in the Kosovo conflict) the world was shown that air defence has moved on since the Vietnam war where a dedicated attacking force could penetrate a fairly strong air defence system.

    All this argument have obviously even left completely unmentioned the impact of 50-60 conventional theatre ballistic missiles or cruise missile on Aviano Air Base ,in those days litterally full of the aircraft fleet involved in the entire air campaign of Kosovo War ,even before the most basic logistical basis for the first air mission would have been established ....

    I remember reading about US fears that Saddam might take the US reaction to their invasion of Kuwaite and continue and invade Saudi Arabia. The main fear was that all there was to stop them was the 82nd airborne and Sheridan "tanks". Fortunately for the US Iraq just sat and waited the 8 months it took to get the ground force into position and ready to take back Kuwaite.

    Conversely the employement of Air Force at which we have accostumed ourselves in the last wars would be simply a suicide against a peer opponent ...but for similar enemies exist MAD equilibrium factor.....

    In the past the Russian AF has been a separate arm with its own missions and goals. With the introduction of a net centric model a unified command structure means that the Air Force and Army and indeed Navy will becomes team members in one game, they will be able to see what the others are doing and will be able to communicate and cooperate much more closely.

    If 500 Georgian tanks cross the border then Russian Army and Air Force assets can easily deal with that together.

    If 20,000 NATO tanks cross the border then nukes will be involved, but those tanks will not come without an Air Force, so Russian ground forces will face them, but although its air defence capability is formidable... it is even more formidable with a real air force behind it... supporting it, and attacking targets it can't reach.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3129
    Points : 3221
    Join date : 2010-10-25
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  medo on Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:30 pm

    Just the same as if the Georgians had Javelin and Stinger and a C4IR they could actually operate and inflicted very serious losses on the Russian military in 8 8 8 do you think that would make Russia decide to give up... or would they have marched on Tblisi?


    Georgia have the most modern air defense in any conflict up to now and one of the strongest. Together with older systems like SAM-3 and SAM-8, they also have a lot of Igla and Polish Grom MANPADs, which are no worse than Stinger and Javelin, Buk-M1 from Ukraine and the most modern Georgian SAM was Israeli SPYDER, which become operational after year 2000. They have C4IR and were connected with NATO system in Turkey together with NATO satellite images. They have C4IR in their tanks and their communications were based on US Harris systems. Georgia only didn't have fighter air force, all other was actually in NATO standard as well as their trainings and strategy and tactics. And they still loose to quickly to equal sized Russian army which use inferior equipment in this conflict (Georgian T-72SIM1 with Israeli thermal imager and C4IR comparing to Russian T-72 without thermal imager and C4IR, armor and ammo were the same).


    Serbian air defense in Kosovo war was inferior to NATO in numbers and in generations, but Serbs use it correctly by the book and give quite a headache to NATO and results are clear. Serbs use their air defense properly and their ground forces have minimal losses to NATO air attacks, on the other hand Syria in 1982 and Iraq in Gulf wars use their air defense wrongly and they have heavy losses to ground forces.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:55 pm

    Sorry, I meant Javelin the ATGM, not the MANPAD.

    Regarding the rest I agree... the real difference was that one side was largely a bunch of conscripts fighting for Sakashvili, and the other side... because of the lack of prior warning ironically, was largely made up of volunteers mainly from North Ossetia and Chechnia who all had a grudge against Georgia and wanted to get revenge for what Georgia was doing to South Ossetia.

    It should be remembered that after the Russian force pushed the Georgian forces out of South Ossetia and a little beyond the Abkhazians then on their own pushed the Georgians out of some contested areas near Abkhazia under the watch of the Russian forces... there was a reason the Georgians didn't attack Abkhazia first... Smile
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3129
    Points : 3221
    Join date : 2010-10-25
    Location : Slovenia

    Air power against Tanks. History

    Post  medo on Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:02 am

    Regarding the rest I agree... the real difference was that one side was largely a bunch of conscripts fighting for Sakashvili, and the other side... because of the lack of prior warning ironically, was largely made up of volunteers mainly from North Ossetia and Chechnia who all had a grudge against Georgia and wanted to get revenge for what Georgia was doing to South Ossetia.

    Of course Georgian military have reservists units in this war, but their main fighting force were two professional brigades /third was in Iraq if I remember correctly), which were trained by US and Israeli instructors. That is why western armies are worried about results in Georgia, because their doctrine failed, when opponent is at least equal in strenght and with will to fight.

    I don't think Javelin ATGM would make anything different in Georgian hands comparing to ATGMs, which they already have. It was not about weapons, but about strategy and doctrine, when they didn't manage to close tunnel, which was the only entry for Russian army and they were strategically in far better position, because Russian military was limited by tunnel and civil population, which go in opposite way. Actually Russian battalions stopped Georgian brigades.

    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:54 am

    @Mindstorm criticized my and Militarysta drawings of estimated turret protection of MBT's.

    However countrary to Andrei's silly manipulated estimations and lies, we have real messures done on a real tank.

    Unfortunetly, because of rules on this forum, I can't post these photos right now, when this strange prohibition rule will end I or Militarysta will post these photos with messures made on real Leopard 2A4.

    Besides this we have other estimations, much better than these silly manipulations and lies made by Andrei vel Harkonnen.

    militarysta
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  militarysta on Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:42 am

    Damian wrote:@Mindstorm criticized my and Militarysta drawings of estimated turret protection of MBT's.

    Yeees...

    So:

    1. We have measurements made ​​on real Leopard-2A4 from 1986r. This Leopard-2 is from polish 10 TkBde (Świetoszów). Basic LOS is the same in: Leo2A3-A4 and 2A5 2A6 2A7, only the Strv.122, Leo2A6HEl, 2A6E, 2A6Ex have "addons" (15-20cm) on turret roof. But frotnal LOS is the same.

    For dummies - Leo2A4:
    http: // imageshack. us/photo/my-images/828/16960513. jpg/
    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/232/p1190532. jpg/
    http: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/64/p1190538. jpg/


    2. It is diffrent way to count this. We can compare L-44 Gun,it mantle, and Leo2 turret during welding process:
    Photos:

    Strv.122:
    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/708/leopard2spawanie. jpg/
    each one can compare with this:
    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/228/armatylh44im256. jpg/
    LOS = ~2x mantle thickness

    3. Is someone is not stupid he can compare this whit one old discusion on TankNet.
    Paul Lakowski wrote:
    The 830mm comes from two independant measurements made by two Leopard 2 tankers of their own tanks. When I get home I will post an interesting picture of Leopard 2 tank under construction showing the cavities, with markers reporting where the inner armor wall is plus scale drawing done to further illustrate the armor thickness.

    It was in:
    Posted 27 January 2006 - 1609 PM


    4.You must be a moron to think that the drawing in defence journal form 1994 don't have any mistake. BTW: ratio of the width of the hull (3,7m) to the "A" LOS give us on the picture ~750-760mm LOS. This missing ~80mm is natural drawing error - is probably clear for evry normal person Smile






    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:22 pm

    Welcome to the forum gentlemen (Damian and militarysta).

    It is a forum rule that your first post is an introduction in the Member Introductions and Rules section of the Forum.

    Obviously that is not possible now, but an introduction in the appropriate section is required.

    In anticipation of a potential heated debate I would like to remind you to respect others have a right to different views and that this forum is for discussions rather than arguments.

    No personal attacks or name calling will be tolerated.

    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:23 am

    In anticipation of a potential heated debate I would like to remind you to respect others have a right to different views and that this forum is for discussions rather than arguments.

    I agree that others have right for their point of view. However contrary to the Mindstorm and other people like Andrei vel Harkonnen, we have a hard proof that their estimations based only on messuring drawings that are flawed is wrong, and any action to force others to belive that they are right is pure manipulation.

    We not only have messures of Leopard 2A4, but also one man (Pole but living in USA and serving in US Army as a tank crew member) said that he messured front turret armor of his M1A1, thickness was around 900mm at 0 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, of course this is still hard to verify, but we taken great effort to make estimations based on his informations and photos of real turret on production line from the outside and inside, conclusion was very surprising us, armor ends more far than weld lines on turret roof suggests. It should actually proofs opinions that backplate of composite armor cavity is ~80-100mm thick. Also we know that from the original M1, designers increased armor thickness in M1IP and M1A1 by 9 inches, this means around 220-230mm.

    So by Militarysta calculations (as far as I know, he askd some professionals to help him) it will be around ~900mm at 0 degrees, and ~800mm at 30 degrees from turret longitudinal axis.

    Also I made my own research about armor itself on M1 series, first thing is that Americans changed composite armor at least 6 times, latest official reports says about frontal (hull and turret) and side (turret) armor enhancements.

    We also have some information that can get us closer to the real protection levels of M1A1HA turret, however still this are uncertain, not as detailed as we wish, but at the first look, protection is impressive, despite lack of dynamic protection.

    But it only shows that all RHAe estimations are in great % underestimations, RHAe itself is not very reliabale thing too.

    But don't get us wrong, I and Militarysta have great respect to Soviet, and now Russian and Ukrainian AFV's designers, we understand their philosophy of vehicle design.

    Our opinion is that both, NATO (especially US and German) and Russian/Ukrainian designs are comparabale in frontal protection, tactical mobility and near comparabale in overall firepower (NATO still have superior APFSDS ammunition, but Russia is not far behind).

    I think that this post can be treated as official statement of me and Militarysta.

    militarysta
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  militarysta on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:34 am

    In my opinnion late cold war NATO Tanks (Leopard2A4, CR1, M1A1HA) was simply immune against Sowiet ATGMs and RPGs with HEAT warhead. Of course im talking about turets for +/-30. for longitudinal axis of turret.

    Even Konet and Chrizantiema seem to be too weak to perforate frontal turret armour Leo2A5 or M1A2...

    two interesting facts:

    1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only ~450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.

    2) during ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 in front turret armour. Hellfire penetrated only ~70cm deep. No perforation.
    Penetration AGM-114 is more then 1000mm RHA of course.

    So You can image how modern armour is resistant against HEAT warhead, that's one of the resons why GLGATM (like Refleks, Kobra, Invar) are not in use in West. 650-900mm RHA penetration it to little to perforate modern western MBT.

    talkig like:
    Naturally the up-mentioned figures have nothing to do with the comical metropolitan legends (on tanks moreover with horrible armoured mass/volume index ) about MBT's passive protections level of 950 mm RHA against KE
    is BS, becouse in most western tank there is active armour.
    example:
    Leo2A5-A7 have NERA NRxA "wedges". It's mass efficiency is about 4-4.5 (for polish NERA - germans NERA should be better...) One weighs 500kg. So active working NERA/NRxA pannels propably give protection like ~4000kg additional armour. When we realize that armour mass on Leoard-2A4 turret is ~8900kg we can image how increased protection of Leo2A5 armour with this "wedges".

    Of course "insert" in amrour cavity is not only passive - it's myth base on erly burlighon. In M1A2 they are NERA/NRxA layers - in turret sides, and propably in turret front. Leclerck XXI (since T9)have NERA layers in turret.
    Leopard2? In Leopard-2 germans rejected burlinghton becouse it was to weak against soviet APFSDS. erly Leo2 have their own solution - simmillar to Burlinghton against SC, but slighty better against KE penetrators. And it's not only passive to...
    What funny - this is confirmed by the estimates of erly M1 and Leo2. First one against KE have 350mm RHA (for 740mm LOS propably), erly Leo2 have about ~410-470mm RHA (first value for 740mm LOS, second for rare 840mm LOS).

    Russians tanks are pretty good, but marketing stuff, and obvius lies distort the picture. Like about T-90MS:

    The Russians carefully "directed" "leak information" when some engeener says to Putin that T-90MS have on turret:
    ~850mm RHA vs KE
    ~1200mm RHS vs HEAT

    Of course, microphones "accidentally" captured it. And it leaked to the media.

    By chance you can get pregnant, and not reveal this information. Therefore, it is a deliberate marketing plot.

    But...
    If it's true we can seriously think about the resistance of earlier versions of T-90 ...
    especially if truth is writing on NI STALII pages about Relickt and Kontakt-5 ERA.

    Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
    Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
    Od course working hevy ERA depends on meny factors.
    But:

    теперь все становится на свои места с уровнем защищенности. Если с реликтом уровень 850мм по БПС то без него гдето 570ии а с К5 680мм
    (...)
    без него 600-650, с К-5 720-780, как вы 570 то получили ? с учетом того что в инет утекает не пойми что, и 850 и НИИ сталевская табличка могут быть фейком, уж Путину то можно было сказать хоть "3 метра" разница то
    (...)
    Я тупо взял и тупо поделил 850 на 1.5 (заявленная эффективность работы реликта по БПС ) получил 567 потом так же тупо умножил на 1.2 (заявленная эффективность к5) получил 680мм
    It's looks funny when we realize that this values are for LOS thickest value (~840mm).
    If T-90S with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.
    think about this valuse not for 840mm LOS but for (more offten) 650mm LOS (perpendicular to the turret at an angle of 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower)
    And DM-53LKEII (1999) "accidentally" have about 750mm RHA for 2000m

    Of course in my opinnion russian havy ERA works on more sophisticated way, and you can not count it like "base armour" x1,5 etc. - for me this talking about russian havy ERA is ussaly rubish...
    Even polish simply ERAWA and ERAWA-2 can reduce for more then 30% some APFSDS. Of course Im talkig about BM-15 (3BM15). The same ERAWA can't reduce significantly more modern APFSD (DM-33, "Pronit" etc).
    In my opinnion talking about 1,5 for Relikt is just wrong, but it's look greate for marketing and PR guys.
    Rather better idea is finding that the possibility of penetration of the some type of rod (penetrator) is reduced for ~20% (kontakt-5) to 40% (Relikt) and after taht we have penetration base armour. It's big diffrence. So we can count not base armour x 1,5 (like in marketing stuff) but reduce penetation capabilities for 20-40% and afer taht thinking if rod with lower abilities can perforate base armour.

    In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
    for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
    for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.

    It's much less than other estimates assume, but I have certain conditions to make such a claim. Except that I leave some things for myselves :-)

    Of. course this 500-650mm RHA for basick T-90A means that tank have very good protection.
    All because active working ERA can reduce (Kontakt-5)
    DM53 for 700-750mm to only 560-600mm RHA pnetration, and in case Relikt to only ~450-500mm RHA. So in theory T-90A turret can withstand even modern amo. Of course with Relickt, not old Kontakt-5.

    It looks worse when we take M829A3 -this APFSDS should pass 600-640mm RHA after Kontakt-5, and ~500mm RHA after Relikt.

    Of course the above is my speculation. I may be wrong. But as I said - I have my reasons to believe so.




    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:47 am

    I would also want to add something more about estimating turret thickness.

    For M1 series, all estimates are based, more or less on drawings from or based on these ones in Richard Hunnicutt book. But... these drawings are intentionally or not, flawed, weld lines are in not proper places, thus this is probably where wrong estimatesions have their source. Book itself is great, all books of Hunnicutt are real bible in case of History of Development of US AFV's.

    I can later post one of these drawings in clear version, and one with correct placing of weld lines, still however it is difficult to correctly estimate where armor in reality ends, this is because we lack more detailed photos of "naked" turret.

    But one I can say being 100% sure, front armor on the right side of turret ends very close to he opening in roof for main sight, not where weld line on turret roof suggests.

    So actually M1A1 and M1A2 tanks, are very impressive in case of pure armor thickness, especially that front turret and hull armor do not have any extreme angles.

    For example Challenger 2 is much less impressive in this, also front turret armor protection is probably not so good because backplates of turret front armor are made from CHA not RHA, and as we know, RHA should give 10-15% more protection than CHA of the same thickness.

    In my opinnion late cold war NATO Tanks (Leopard2A4, CR1, M1A1HA) was simply immune against Sowiet ATGMs and RPGs with HEAT warhead. Of course im talking about turets for +/-30. for longitudinal axis of turret.

    Indeed, but these vehicles were fielded after Soviets fielded their tanks with dynamic protection or added dynamic protection to the older vehicles.

    IMHO progress in protection was parallel and very comparabale, of course I'am talking about frontal protection, definetly the better choice to protect side hull armor was dynamic protection instead of heavy ballistic skirts, here Soviets have edge over NATO.

    But such stance on NATO side can be understanded as a way to find alternative for Dynamic Protection in form of explosive reactive armor, that was well known on the west, and nothing wrong or strange for that. As we know dynamic protection can damage some parts of vehicle, so alternative was searched.

    This may be the answer for question why NATO invested so much in research and development of multilayer composite armors and other more passive protection solutions instead of simple, cheap, light and very effective ERA.

    militarysta
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  militarysta on Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:06 am

    About famous fetish:
    on tanks moreover with horrible armoured mass/volume index
    It's about western tanks.

    (to open link please copy link and remove space after dot before press enter)
    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/811/m1a2leo2a4t90aleclerc. jpg/

    Erly bulinghton against SC (HEAT) have 2-3x better value then RHA block. So 300kg Burlinghton armour, give us protection like 900kg RHA monoblock.
    When we realiste that, we can properly assess the "armoured mass/volume index" in western tanks.

    ps. Insert in T-72B cavity weight only 781,5kg. Rest - cast Laughing





    Last edited by militarysta on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:05 am; edited 1 time in total

    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:43 am

    1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only ~450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.

    This actually shows how much worth are any RHAe values in case of composite armors.

    I think that many people here that were talking with such great confidence that they know how good or weak is protection of each specific vehicle is, they should rethink their arguments.

    ps. Insert in T-72B cavity weight only 781,5kg. Rest - cast

    At their time, Soviets were making good composite armor, maybe the reason of many casualties was not composite armor itself but rather cast armor of turret?

    It is all specualtion but, what if Iraqi T-72M1's would have turret welded from RHA not CHA, and with the same inserts? I would suspect higher protection, especially against HEAT.

    militarysta
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  militarysta on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:02 am

    Damian wrote:
    At their time, Soviets were making good composite armor, maybe the reason of many casualties was not composite armor itself but rather cast armor of turret?


    Good? In comparte to what? Insert in T-2B is far worse then Burlinghton. It reactive, ok, but it's not Burlinghton.

    In turret mass ~15t. T-72B have simmilar vs. KE protection like Leopard2A3 (~16t. turret mas) but, vs HEAT it's only ~55% Leo2A3 protection (~530-600 vs 900mm+). At almost the same weight of turret.
    That's power of Burlinghton style armour. Not against KE but against SC!


    Ps. I forgot - width Leopard2A4 turret is smaller then most Soviet tanks Smile
    http: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/wiee. jpg/
    http: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/t72m1leo2naloonewiezena. png/


    Last edited by militarysta on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:29 am; edited 1 time in total

    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:12 am

    Good? In comparte to what?

    I would be far to any comparision.

    Insert in T-2B is far worse then Burlinghton. It reactive, ok, but it's not Burlinghton.

    Well, Burlington evolved 2 or 3 times from it's initial fielding with M1.

    The first change in materials was with M1IP, also then designers increased thickness, in M1A1 designers once again changed materials. FV4030 Challenger 1 also had much different Burlington version, probably more comparabale with M1A1, but it seems that in 1985/86 Americans allready seen Burlington as outdated, probably around 1986-1987 they started work on their new armor with Depleted Uranium alloy elements.

    And there is something else, as far as I know, Americans change composite armor in their M1's each time they are send them on general repair, not modernisation but general repair work, so it is highly possible that for example some M1A1HA's have inserts same to M1A2, or some M1A1HC have inserts from M1A1SA or M1A2SEP.

    As we know it is much cheaper to replace armor than modernize whole tank, so at least in terms of protection we can increase combat values of vehicle.

    militarysta
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  militarysta on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:17 am

    The same in Leopard2:
    Leo2A1 I gen.
    Leo2A3-A4(erly) II gen.
    Leo2A4 since half 1986 IIIgen.
    Leo2A5 - propably IV gen.

    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:21 am

    Yes, in US we have:

    1st variant of Burlington (M1), 2nd (M1IP), 3rd (M1A1), then new domestic armor, 1st (M1A1HA), 2nd (M1A1HA+, M1A1HC, M1A2) and 3rd (M1A1SA, probably M1A1FEP, M1A2SEP).

    There were also low production or interim variants.

    M1A1AIM, each vehicle had the same armor as it have in it's previous variants.

    M1A1D had 2nd generation of new domestic US armor.

    There are also rumors of close connection between 2nd and 3rd generation of this US armor with British Dorchester, it would be normal as we know, US and UK are close allies and cooperate in some fields.

    But also very interesting are Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian composite armors, especially in T-64, T-64A, T-64B, T-80, T-80B, and T-80U/UD and T-84 series. T-90A and Object 187 are also very interesting.

    I do not know Russian very well, so I hope that Russian speaking users of this forum, with proper knowledge, can tell more about differences, similiarities and design solutions of basic armor protection in these vehicles, especially front hull and turret.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:59 am

    I agree that others have right for their point of view. However contrary to the Mindstorm and other people like Andrei vel Harkonnen, we have a hard proof that their estimations based only on messuring drawings that are flawed is wrong, and any action to force others to belive that they are right is pure manipulation.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

    Very simply you can give all your reasons for what you think is right, but if the other party does not agree then there is little you can actually do about it.

    You can't force people to believe... 70 years of communism has not made all Russians Athiests... do you not agree that is a good thing in terms of freedom of choice?

    BTW you don't need to convince me... I really am not interested in western kit.

    If you guys say Abrams and Leopards and Challengers are ATGM proof from the front who am I to argue... the point is even 14.5mm HMG fire will remove the track from any tank, and any modern tank will eventually be defeated... except in third world countries with 1970s performance RPGs.

    Also I made my own research about armor itself on M1 series, first thing is that Americans changed composite armor at least 6 times, latest official reports says about frontal (hull and turret) and side (turret) armor enhancements.

    Sounds to me like they found out their setup was inadequate 5 times and had to change it... isn't that the opposite of what you are claiming?

    1) DM-12 HEAT can penetrate up to 700-750mm RHA, but the same DM-12 can penetrated only ~450mm erly Leopard2A4 armour.

    Does that say something about the armour or the HEAT round?

    2) during ODS one M1A1HA was hit by AGM-114 in front turret armour. Hellfire penetrated only ~70cm deep. No perforation.
    Penetration AGM-114 is more then 1000mm RHA of course.

    One off exceptions should not be used as guidelines.
    A man survives 120mm APFSDS round hit... it takes off his fingers on one hand. Not a good argument for the performance of the 120mm gun either way.

    So You can image how modern armour is resistant against HEAT warhead, that's one of the resons why GLGATM (like Refleks, Kobra, Invar) are not in use in West. 650-900mm RHA penetration it to little to perforate modern western MBT.

    A totally dishonest assertion.
    The west spent billions making gun launched missiles, including Copperhead and Shillelagh (spelling) but their paradigm was fundamentally wrong in the case of the tank based system. They developed the missile first and then built a rather crappy useless gun around that.
    The result was a gun that could be used for short range demolition that was completely different from anything else in the inventory, to accommodate a missile that was only any good on paper.
    For a fraction of the cost and much better actual performance even if on paper inferior they could have put TOW missiles on an M113 chassis... which they eventually did.
    A much better system.

    The enormous irony is that the Soviets learned from the western mistakes and treated the gun launched missile as just another round of ammo and used standard tank guns for the basis.
    The result is not some super missile armed tank killer, but another option for the commander.
    Another offshoot is an anti helicopter round that can be fired from any tank.

    Current work on fire and forget seekers in Russia right now for the krisantema and Hermes should lead to technology that can be fitted to gun tube launched missiles to allow a fire and forget diving top attack missile which will bypass the heavy frontal armour of tanks and hit them where they are at their weakest.

    Note the HERMES is a 130mm calibre missile so adapting its seeker types to 125mm calibre shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

    In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
    for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
    for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.

    But such figures in many ways lack meaning due to what you said above.
    The penetration figures for different types of penetrator are effected dramatically by the material the armour and the penetrator are made of, so one penetrator might cut through large amounts of armour on one vehicle because of the armour structure, yet be more effectively stopped by a different vehicles armour of less thickness because the structure is more effective against that penetration.

    I can later post one of these drawings in clear version, and one with correct placing of weld lines, still however it is difficult to correctly estimate where armor in reality ends, this is because we lack more detailed photos of "naked" turret.

    You have admitted yourself that the armour has been changed 6 times... is it not possible the different weld lines reflect different armour configurations?

    Good? In comparte to what? Insert in T-2B is far worse then Burlinghton. It reactive, ok, but it's not Burlinghton.

    So you are of the opinion that something is either the best or it is rubbish?
    Soviet composite is not as good as Burlington therefore it must be rubbish?
    In answer to your question it is good compared with plain RHA.

    In turret mass ~15t. T-72B have simmilar vs. KE protection like Leopard2A3 (~16t. turret mas) but, vs HEAT it's only ~55% Leo2A3 protection (~530-600 vs 900mm+). At almost the same weight of turret.
    That's power of Burlinghton style armour. Not against KE but against SC!

    And add 2-3 tons of ERA and suddenly the protection levels are similar.

    BTW Damian... still waiting for an introduction post from you, militarysta has done his duty, please follow his lead. Smile

    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:20 am


    Sounds to me like they found out their setup was inadequate 5 times and had to change it... isn't that the opposite of what you are claiming?

    It was adequate, just ammunitions evolved back then very quickly, so protection needed also, You should not forget that for example front hull armor of T-72B was changed also several times during production.

    Does that say something about the armour or the HEAT round?

    Yes, this means that all RHA equivalent estimations for modern composite armor (also these with ERA) are just innacurate. There will be higher penetration against simple RHA than against composite armor.

    The enormous irony is that the Soviets learned from the western mistakes and treated the gun launched missile as just another round of ammo and used standard tank guns for the basis.
    The result is not some super missile armed tank killer, but another option for the commander.
    Another offshoot is an anti helicopter round that can be fired from any tank.

    And we completely agree with that, and remember that Israelis and west (USA) also learned on these mistakes, examples are LAHAT and XM1111 MRM-CE.

    But such figures in many ways lack meaning due to what you said above.
    The penetration figures for different types of penetrator are effected dramatically by the material the armour and the penetrator are made of, so one penetrator might cut through large amounts of armour on one vehicle because of the armour structure, yet be more effectively stopped by a different vehicles armour of less thickness because the structure is more effective against that penetration.

    Yes, but Militarysta said that these are only estimations based on what one of T-90MS designers said, he also said that he can be wrong with them, this is not hard statement, only estimation to show some things.

    You have admitted yourself that the armour has been changed 6 times... is it not possible the different weld lines reflect different armour configurations?

    No, weld lines on drawings are placed in wrong places, I saw photos of M1A1's from 1985 and M1A2SEP from 1999, welds are in the same places, this is because armor have the same thickness and is placed in the same places, only materials changed.

    Besides this would be hard to change weld lines by increasing or decreasing internal volume that is same in all variants (of course I'am not mentioning volume inside with all equipment mounted).

    So you are of the opinion that something is either the best or it is rubbish?
    Soviet composite is not as good as Burlington therefore it must be rubbish?

    I'am also against such statements, however as far as I know, in Soviet Union, it was also belived that T-72B composite armor was simpler thus less effective than for examle one mounted in T-80U.

    This don't mean that Soviets were not abale to do something good or even better. For example ERA, ERA made in Soviet Union and after it's collapse are the best ones ever made, there is no doubt in this.

    And add 2-3 tons of ERA and suddenly the protection levels are similar.

    Indeed, however ERA have shotcomings in design. First is fact that there is explosive filler, I will not talk about infantry near vehicle, explosion of RPG itself can hurt them, but ERA itself have very small multihit capability, it is one time armor in fact, a bit of problem in a battles when vehicle can be hit multiple times, and sometimes it happens that vehicle is hit in the same spot or near it.

    Besides this, all data about NERA/NxRA effectiveness vs ERA are old, from the 90's, we do not know how advanced are currently used NERA/NxRA armors. Besides this it seems that all data is based on tests of one single block of NERA against one single ERA cassette, it is a bit unfair because NERA should work in layers, this of course means that NERA will be bulkier and heavier than ERA but still effective and will have greater multihit capability.

    BTW Damian... still waiting for an introduction post from you, militarysta has done his duty, please follow his lead. Smile

    Will do, will do, I'am just a bit beausy man, writing articles etc. etc.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1172
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:26 am

    Damian wrote:
    In anticipation of a potential heated debate I would like to remind you to respect others have a right to different views and that this forum is for discussions rather than arguments.

    I agree that others have right for their point of view. However contrary to the Mindstorm and other people like Andrei vel Harkonnen, we have a hard proof that their estimations based only on messuring drawings that are flawed is wrong, and any action to force others to belive that they are right is pure manipulation.

    We not only have messures of Leopard 2A4, but also one man (Pole but living in USA and serving in US Army as a tank crew member) said that he messured front turret armor of his M1A1, thickness was around 900mm at 0 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, of course this is still hard to verify, but we taken great effort to make estimations based on his informations and photos of real turret on production line from the outside and inside, conclusion was very surprising us, armor ends more far than weld lines on turret roof suggests. It should actually proofs opinions that backplate of composite armor cavity is ~80-100mm thick. Also we know that from the original M1, designers increased armor thickness in M1IP and M1A1 by 9 inches, this means around 220-230mm.

    So by Militarysta calculations (as far as I know, he askd some professionals to help him) it will be around ~900mm at 0 degrees, and ~800mm at 30 degrees from turret longitudinal axis.

    Also I made my own research about armor itself on M1 series, first thing is that Americans changed composite armor at least 6 times, latest official reports says about frontal (hull and turret) and side (turret) armor enhancements.

    We also have some information that can get us closer to the real protection levels of M1A1HA turret, however still this are uncertain, not as detailed as we wish, but at the first look, protection is impressive, despite lack of dynamic protection.

    But it only shows that all RHAe estimations are in great % underestimations, RHAe itself is not very reliabale thing too.

    But don't get us wrong, I and Militarysta have great respect to Soviet, and now Russian and Ukrainian AFV's designers, we understand their philosophy of vehicle design.

    Our opinion is that both, NATO (especially US and German) and Russian/Ukrainian designs are comparabale in frontal protection, tactical mobility and near comparabale in overall firepower (NATO still have superior APFSDS ammunition, but Russia is not far behind).

    I think that this post can be treated as official statement of me and Militarysta.

    Damian I can assume your busy but please follow the rules, Militarysta made an intro thread and unless your one and the same, you have to. I must also note multiple accounts are not allowed here

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:34 am

    However countrary to Andrei's silly manipulated estimations and lies, we have real messures done on a real tank.

    Unfortunetly, because of rules on this forum, I can't post these photos right now, when this strange prohibition rule will end I or Militarysta will post these photos with messures made on real Leopard 2A4.


    Interesting, i return from work and find the happy duo at...work .

    Damian losing even only 2 or 3 minutes you would have discovered that the "photo" in question has been not only posted here very long time ago but also examined (for what can be useful losing even only a minute of live at examine them...),


    we have real messures done on a real tank.


    Shocked Shocked M1 Abrams has not , T-90 has not , T-72 has not ,Challenger 2 has not, Ariete has not, T-80 has not, K2 BP has not ,Type -90 has not, Al-Khalid has not, Leclerc has not ,Type-99 has not, Merkawa has not, etc....etc....etc.... for luck of your nation and its military insider service security protocols also Leopard-2,obviously, has NOT any type of armour's LOS live measurement maked on a real Leopard-2A4 and circulating without any problem in internet in the hands of a pair of guys with definitely too much time at theirs disposition.
    This type of information is one of the most stricly surveiled information among any Army Ground Forces worldwide, not differently than aircraft radar operating frequency in Air Forces,or crushing deep threshold of a particular submarine in Navy etc..etc... their total absence , in public accessible sources for any of those systems operative worldwide is a clear proof of that.

    On a personal note ,i can say that the thing has even recalled to my mind a funny episode of several years ago : when a collague of mine staged all the model pics and the elements measurement (including the ratio with several others!!) in the program of a secondary component, and the "target" of the joke ,an engineer at the time working in ours same departement, expended almost four days to realize what was wrong with that component Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Now ,admitting that you even know the funny chap author of this "operation" ,i think that you could give to him some suggestions for the next time:

    While is surely appreciable its attempt to avoid to present in the pics two or more structural elements (or ,even worse, a panoramic photo of the turrett) which would have obviously offered the chance to execute element's ratio metric computation adn ruined all in fewe seconds, it should have avoided, for this same reason, completely the third pic -forcing it also to a clumsy,even if funny, attempt to increase the supposed armor's LOS measuring from centre of periscope area but ,even more important, you could also educate him on the concept of aplomb ,so at least in the first pic the "virtual" line of gun mask in the background shouldn't appear so comically out of position.

    I understand perfectly that the guy in question (likely an upright insider operative that has gone along its humor sense and the repeated requests from some petulant civilian, without obviously surrender any sensitive information very dangerous for the security of its Nation and.... for it ) has ,ostensibly, not losed too much time for the thing ,but at this stage it is truly unacceptable for a trained eye ; it is not different from pics of giant mans in South America or UFO ships in Virginia Very Happy Very Happy


    You must be a moron to think that the drawing in defence journal form 1994 don't have any mistake. BTW: ratio of the width of the hull (3,7m) to the "A" LOS give us on the picture ~750-760mm LOS. This missing ~80mm is natural drawing error - is probably clear for evry normal person

    "You must be a moron" ... Ha Ha ,Sorry the mean attempt to change the type of the discussion on another level with me fail from the beging ,procede.


    "ratio of the width of the hull" .....ratio with width of the hull ? Very Happy The claimed measure of A fail horribly against ANY know metric of Leopard-2A4 structure !! : overall lenght ,median of the turret, ratio with side turrett armor figure, ratio with claimed B figure (and consequently the ratio between B and the side of tureet wideness above it ) it is a complete disaster .

    Do you know this type of things happen in those instances ; ratio between measures of constructive elements are highly resilient to attept to overstrech them....you twist one and the others litterally explode.




    The problem is that what is, in this drawing, is indicated as A2 is ,obviously and unescapably ,almost equal to the armour block section area indicated as A1 .
    Naturally the attempt to claim figures so different ,over the self evident incongreuncy between the measure of the two segments, force the designer to other "adjustements" ( only to name one : attempt to reduce the wideness of the turret ,reducing the wideness of the armour of right side turrett section -that meanly not identified by a letter- in resepct to the left side) ,obviously nothing work.

    The almost perfect capability to overlap of the two LOS segments (A1 adn A2 ) like its ratio with the inescapable physical limits of the LEO-2A4's structure itself, and total inconsistenmcy of the 84 cm figure result absolutely clear in pratically any pics of real LEO-2A4.
    Even in one of the same pic used just some months ago just by you mylitarista (note : seem that your figures have change very quickly lately ,in particular after this funny photo hoax ..... even worse than the tons of worthless words produced after the equally funny staged pics of PAKFA'sduct with exposed compressor face Laughing Laughing ).

    Anyone can note in this image from top as a LOS segment in the area named here G and that in the area named E would be almost equal ,moreover is equally clear as a figure of 84 cm for E's LOS would create a turrett more than 3 meters wide !!!





    That irreconcilable incongruency between the claimed figure of 84 cm and the ratio with the other constrcutive elements of the turret and its physical constraints is as very clear here :







    Real photos ,showing integrally the elements of real Leo-2 are very quick at disperse the mist generated by claims totally irreconcilable with parametrical reality.


    Damian
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-03

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Damian on Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:42 am

    Of course, You can argue with hard evidence that are photos we provided made on real Leopard 2A4. You have Your own photos of messures made on a tank, please provide them. If not then please, kindly stop Your propaganda.

    Damian I can assume your busy but please follow the rules, Militarysta made an intro thread and unless your one and the same, you have to. I must also note multiple accounts are not allowed here

    Do I need to do this in new topic? because I allready posted in Militarysta "Heloo topic", if this is against rules, sorry then I will make my own.

    BTW, these are hard evidence, of course in eyes of some people with dellusion we are CIA agents with CIA provided measure (it is sarcasm) but it is hard to not see that this is a real tank...

    http: http://imageshack.us /photo/my-images/713/p1190532. jpg/
    http: http://imageshack.us /photo/my-images/31/p1190540q. jpg/
    http: http://imageshack.us /photo/my-images/444/p1190535. jpg/

    (Note, there are spaces, delete them to see photo)

    I don't know what can be harder evidence.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu May 25, 2017 3:34 am