Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing Tanks

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:43 pm

    How does the T-80 tank compared with T-90 tanks , I just came across this book on T-80 and ordered one seems interesting to me considering Russian operates a sizeable number of T-80.

    http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Armour-Main-Battle-Tank/dp/0711032386/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296409240&sr=1-2
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:56 pm

    It is a rather scrambled history.

    In the west it was believed that the T-64 was to replace the T-62 and was a failure and was replaced by the T-72 and then the T-80 came to replace them all.

    In actual fact it was rather different.

    The T-64 was expensive but rather capable and had composite armour that the west only introduced in the late 1970s. It introduced a powerful new 125mm gun though the first models had a 115mm from the T-62. It introduced an autoloader, which was new for a modern tank at the time.

    The T-72 was made by a competing company and was designed as a capable but cheaper tank that could be mass produced and exported yet was superior to the enemy equivalent at the time.

    The T-80 was the replacement of the T-64 and in many ways was a very good tank... it was the first tank to have a gas turbine engine as the primary propulsion to enter service.

    It was the more expensive but also the more capable of Soviet tanks and was produced together with the T-72. Warsaw Pact and other licence production agreements for tanks involved the T-72 and not the T-64 and T-80.

    Then the cold war ended and the Soviet Union broke up and all of a sudden the main production facilities for the T-80 was in the Ukraine while the main production facilities for the T-72 was in Russia.

    There was no longer a demand for a cheap production MBT and a high quality expensive MBT, there was just a requirement for a new tank and both companies upgraded their tanks as far as they could to win. Obviously UVZ, the maker of the T-72 had the advantage of being in Russia, while both tanks had components made in both countries it was the T-72BM that won... don't let the T-72B fool you as all the cheap stuff was dropped and all new expensive stuff was added to make it as capable or more so in some areas than the T-80.

    The T-72BM was renamed T-90 and is quite different to other older model T-72s in most senses.

    The current situation seems to be that the T95 in development has been cancelled though it might be redesigned to meet new requirements in 5 to ten years, and the focus is the upgrade of the T-90 with domestic and foreign technologies as far as they can. I would expect they will try to get about 2,000 T-90 tanks into service with maybe 4,000 upgraded T-72 tanks as a reserve by 2020 or so likely with lots of development of new rounds and sensors as a priority. The existing tanks will likely be sold off or scrapped or given to museums or allies depending on their condition.
    avatar
    runaway

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  runaway on Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:46 pm

    The T-80 is a well enough tank, but not equal to the T-90.
    The gas turbine is very thirsty and suffers from breakdowns. The armour was proven to be vulnerebul to RPG in chechnya.
    Although with new Contact armor, the only flaw is the engine.
    I belive the desicion to go for T-90 was right, and i think it can be upgraded to soldier on for many years.

    Cypres recently bought new T-80;s instead of T-90;s . They already had 41 and bought 41 additional from russia.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:53 am

    The T-80 is a well enough tank, but not equal to the T-90.

    Totally agree, and the T-80 is improved in the T-80UD model with the diesel engine... but that model and the engine is made in the Ukraine now.

    The gas turbine is very thirsty and suffers from breakdowns. The armour was proven to be vulnerebul to RPG in chechnya.

    The gas turbine means the logistics train needs to be capable of moving more fuel forward faster to keep the engines running and it is expensive.

    When the tanks were rushed to Chechnia without ERA contents it was found that from many angles they were very vulnerable.

    The T-80 has a slightly different autoloader with the rounds in the turret base arranged differently which made it more vulnerable to a penetrating hit.

    The T-72/90 autoloader had better armoured ammo cassettes but that is only for the ready to use ammo. The other ammo stored in the tank made them vulnerable too. In the second Chechen conflict they operated the tanks with no extra ammo with ammo only in the autoloader and it was much much safer for the crew.

    I belive the desicion to go for T-90 was right, and i think it can be upgraded to soldier on for many years.

    The range of things that can be upgraded is large, there is a new gun with a muzzle reference system, new ammo types, a battle management system, new communications equipment, new thermal sights for the commander and gunner, enlarged turret with better arranged hard armour and new Relickt ERA, and a new turret bustle autoloader so the total number of rounds carried ready to fire is 45-55 rounds including long rod penetrator rounds, new more powerful engine, new EO protection system, new active defence system that can deal with top attack weapons, new remote control roof mounted gun, the Nakidka screening system, EMP anti IED system, and for some missions they have an anti sniper system that uses microphones in an array to detect the source of shots fired including the calibre that might be useful for some missions too.

    Cypres recently bought new T-80;s instead of T-90;s . They already had 41 and bought 41 additional from russia.

    They were going to buy T-90s but realised it would just make logistics a pain for no real advantage. The Russians have T-80s to spare. For being such a good customer when the Russians do start getting rid of their extra vehicles and their spares I hope they direct some stuff to Cyprus.

    I would think that because they are actually fairly similar a T-80 could certainly be upgraded with parts that are used to upgrade T-72s to near T-90 standard, so you could still operate T-80s and T-90s together without too much waste, but in Russia the T-80 is seen as a Ukrainian tank so there is little support for it there so I think it will quietly disappear from service. There are plenty of Russian suppliers of T-80 parts and they could keep them running, but as I said above the gas turbine engines are from Russia and the Diesels are from the Ukraine. Russian diesels are however gaining ground.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:13 am

    Thanks Garry for your insight.

    T-90 is indeed a good tank and is doing quite well in IA service ,the key advantage is it has good deal of logistics commonality with T-72's and the other T's that india operate and is in the 40T class , something that is useful since Pakistan too operates tank of similar class and perhaps their logistics and bridges etc are designed to take that weight and not that of heavy tank like Abrams.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    How does the T-80 tank compared with T-90 tanks , I just came across this book on T-80 and ordered one seems interesting to me considering Russian operates a sizeable number of T-80.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:38 am

    In practical terms a tank is a mobile heavy gun platform that is basically has an anti vehicle and anti hard point role.

    In some operations where light weight and mobility are serious concerns the T-90 might find itself replaced with a variation of a BMP-3 where the gun is lower calibre and lower velocity but light armoured vehicles and bunkers wont know the difference.

    You have to keep in mind that the Soviets liked direct fire artillery and that vehicles like the ISU-152 was often used to provide direct fire support to obliterate enemy positions.

    On paper the T-34 for example should have had a 45mm or even 57mm long barrel gun and be used in the anti tank role, but in practical terms a lower velocity 76.2mm gun was much more suitable because although it wasn't as effective as the 57mm gun in penetrating armour it certainly penetrated enough to defeat contemporary German armour it was much much more effective against softer targets like bunkers and MG nests and artillery positions using HE shells.

    The Germans and it seems the west have become fixated at the tank being the best anti tank weapon, when in fact a shoulder fired ATGM probably does a better job let alone air power and land mines.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:23 am

    This is interesting piece

    T-90S MBT's Combat Effectiveness Flowcharts

    If you check the bar chart they rate T-90S combat potential below M1A2 Abrams and Leclerc but higher then German Leopard , ofcourse this is from Rosoboronexport but a fair assessment ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:31 pm



    Seems about right.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:13 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:

    Seems about right.

    So you think Leopard fighting potential is lower then T-90 ?

    Wonder how would they rate the new T-90M they would probably make it equal to Abrams Wink
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:08 am

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:

    Seems about right.

    So you think Leopard fighting potential is lower then T-90 ?

    Wonder how would they rate the new T-90M they would probably make it equal to Abrams Wink

    IMO, compared to the Abrams, the Leo 2A5 is not that much different, but only slightly inferior. The T-90 however is completely different, and on a quantity to quantity basis, the T-90 could be considered superior to the Leo.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:26 am

    IMO, compared to the Abrams, the Leo 2A5 is not that much different, but only slightly inferior. The T-90 however is completely different, and on a quantity to quantity basis, the T-90 could be considered superior to the Leo.

    Many would consider T-90 to be an iterative development and upgrade of advanced T-72/T-80 variant keeping many things common and adding new.

    I would consider T-95 as a new development.

    Here is perhaps an advanced tank from Japan (MBT-X) , seems to have all quality that would be needed in modern warfare plus keeps the weight to T-90.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10

    I just hope the new Russian FMBT introduces many innovations in them.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:24 am

    As you might notice, the MBT-X is highly expensive, and is worth almost 6 T-90s.

    Those who consider a T-90 an upgraded T-72/80 has a reasonable argument, but that's not my point. My point is that Russian tanks have distinct qualities not found in most Western tanks.

    The Black Eagle would of been Russia's "bridge" so to say to Western tank designs.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:59 am

    IMO, compared to the Abrams, the Leo 2A5 is not that much different, but
    only slightly inferior. The T-90 however is completely different, and
    on a quantity to quantity basis, the T-90 could be considered superior
    to the Leo.

    The problem I have with such rankings is that they have no context.

    Russia had the worlds first tank whose primary propulsion was a gas turbine in the form of the T-80. Experience with it proved that no matter what its other features an M1 Abrams would be no use as their primary MBT because the logistics simply could not keep up with the fuel consumption and there are too many rivers and bridges in Russia to cross to make a 70 ton tank viable for Russia.

    As far as I am concerned the Russians aren't stupid, and neither are the Americans or Germans or British... though they can all make mistakes at times. At the end of the day each has a tank that suits them, though right now Russia does not because of a period of lack of funding their T-90s haven't received the upgrades they have needed, so whatever the new T-90 upgrade they are working hard on right now can be considered their current ideal tank.

    I just hope the new Russian FMBT introduces many innovations in them.

    Innovation has risk. The T-95 was supposed to be very innovative, but the goal posts changed before it got into production and it was no longer the ideal platform the Russian Armed forces wanted. Sometimes the expensive cold war white elephant enters service... like the F-22 and B-2, and sometimes it is cancelled in time like the T-95, Commanche helicopter, and that US artillery vehicle.
    The simple honest truth is that for most jobs the T-90 is fine and the upgraded T-90 what ever it is called is all the Russians need for quite a period.

    Those who consider a T-90 an upgraded T-72/80 has a reasonable argument,
    but that's not my point. My point is that Russian tanks have distinct
    qualities not found in most Western tanks.

    The first model T-90 was a T-72BM, which was basically an earlier model T-72 with greatly improved armour and all the sophisticated modern stuff that the T-80 had like new ballistics computer and fire control system etc etc.

    If it wasn't made mostly in the Ukraine the T-80 would still be an adequate tank with new ammo and a few tweeks here and there.

    AFAIK they use laser in non-visible spectrum , only the gun dot folks use visible laser.

    I didn't mean human eye visible, I meant that when the gunner is looking in his sight using TI the IR laser beam is visible to him and if another tank is lasing the same tank at the same time he will see their laser too.
    The problem is that they are both only lasing for 1 second so while he is looking at his target waiting for his round to get close if he sees a laser beam light up his tank and 1 second later an impact of a missile if he has only just fired his missile he might have time to move the sight a few degrees sideways and aim at another target... the missile doesn't care and as long as it is still within the missiles field of view it might have to manoeuvre a bit more but I don't see why it couldn't still hit a different target close by.
    Certainly there is always the chance that a stationary target could start moving after the round has been fired or a moving target stops after the round has been fired so there would have to be some flexibility in the guidance to allow for that... these missiles are not cheap and only 6-8 are normally carried, though the addition of HE FRAG warhead equipped missiles might increase that number at the expense of the number of standard HE FRAG rounds carried.

    Nice Explaination , I think the Sokol-1 is still a mystery ,hopefully
    they would have inducted that weapon and its not a paper project.

    Hard to day without talking to someone who has served recently or still in service...

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:22 am

    GarryB wrote:Innovation has risk. The T-95 was supposed to be very innovative, but the goal posts changed before it got into production and it was no longer the ideal platform the Russian Armed forces wanted. Sometimes the expensive cold war white elephant enters service... like the F-22 and B-2, and sometimes it is cancelled in time like the T-95, Commanche helicopter, and that US artillery vehicle.
    The simple honest truth is that for most jobs the T-90 is fine and the upgraded T-90 what ever it is called is all the Russians need for quite a period.

    Its true that Innovation has risk , but without taking the risk you cant move beyond what you have to build a break through product.

    We really do not know the real reason why T-95 was cancelled ,but perhaps i would think after being 20 years in development even if it had many key new features in it , Russia would do a better job by building a new design and taking positive qualities of T-95 and look and incorporate what is available now in its FMBT design.

    I believe T-95 was cancelled not because it was expensive , heavy or lacked innovation it was cancelled becuase they could today build a much better tank than what T-95 could deliver ,keeping their doctorine of mobility in mind , so put it simply an FMBT designed and developed in next 5 years will be a better and newer T-95.

    Innovation need not necessarily be expensive and giving America has an example of how things can go wrong is a bad example in first place , American developers and designers and companies are privately owned entity, responsible for their privately owned shareholders well being , so they try to extract maximum money from Pentagon for any project giving the most expensive solution , it doesnt matter if it ends up being viable or not , these corporates and entity make most money even if the project gets cancelled midway , if pentagon purses expensive project well they make more money.

    Russian entities are largely government owned and they know there is a hardlimit to how much they can get , so they try to build something knowning very well that they would be budget caps and the defence forces may not buy if its expensive , so they end up delivering best they can within the money alloted by government , they know if they make innovative projects with lowest cost they will have a higher chances of getting selected and that would bring them long term revenue.

    I really like the idea that Russians are now moving to Electric Tanks ,keeping featured of T-95 and building a common platform for different vehical ,thats one way to innovate and spread the cost to keep unit cost minimum.

    Lets see what shape and role FMBT takes place in years ahead.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Comparing Tanks 2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:38 am

    Its true that Innovation has risk , but without taking the risk you cant
    move beyond what you have to build a break through product.

    Every design choice limits your options and every design requirement further makes some design choices better than others.
    The BMP-3 is protected from 30mm armour piercing ammo from the front, but decisions had to be made to retain amphibious capability like having to have the engine in the rear to balance the weight of the turret and front armour.
    The BMP and BMP-2 both have the engine in the front of the vehicle for easy access at the rear, but as protection requirements increased the armour and main weapon/turret have gotten heavier.

    The point is that the Russians don't need a new tank right now... upgrading the existing model, and putting that model in production and also upgrading 4-5 thousand more tanks to make them largely compatible is their focus right now.

    We really do not know the real reason why T-95 was cancelled ,but
    perhaps i would think after being 20 years in development even if it had
    many key new features in it , Russia would do a better job by building a
    new design and taking positive qualities of T-95 and look and
    incorporate what is available now in its FMBT design.

    It was a big heavy tank to fight 24 hours a day in Europe against NATO. The main reason for cancelling it would no doubt be it would be expensive and contain a significant number of foreign parts so of course they are going to cut funding right now because they have about 20,000 tanks they have to do something with... producing more brand new tanks would be hard to justify.

    I believe T-95 was cancelled not because it was expensive , heavy or
    lacked innovation it was cancelled becuase they could today build a much
    better tank than what T-95 could deliver ,keeping their doctorine of
    mobility in mind , so put it simply an FMBT designed and developed in
    next 5 years will be a better and newer T-95.

    I don't agree with the first part but I agree with the second part. It was certainly heavy for Russian/Soviet tank makers and even the tank makers themselves said it was expensive and some of the parts they were getting were not of good enough quality and they had to make them themselves.


    I really like the idea that Russians are now moving to Electric
    Tanks ,keeping featured of T-95 and building a common platform for
    different vehical ,thats one way to innovate and spread the cost to keep
    unit cost minimum.

    I like it as long as they can cash in on the technology by also making electric cars and trains etc.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:52 pm

    A comparison of the T-90 to the Leopard 2A6 and the Arjun that I wrote for another forum.

    T-90's qualities are emitted from their small stature, including short silhouette, great maneuverability, cheap production costs, etc.

    The 3 Isles of Tank dominance comes from Firepower, Protection, and Mobility.

    The 3 Isles of Battlefield dominance comes from Quality, Quantity, and Strategy.

    Tank Dominance is apart of the Quality Topic.


    In the Sub-Topic of Tank Dominance, how things stand.

    Mobility Specifications:

    The T-90A has an 840 HP diesel engine (the newest model has a 1,200 HP engine), can carry a maximum of 1,600 liters of fuel with external tanks, and can travel 650 km with that fuel, which equates to an impromptu fuel efficiency of 2.46 liters per km. The T-90 has a ground pressure of 0.91 kg/cm2. The Top speed of the T-90 is 65 kph on road. The T-90 can ford 1.2 m of water unprepared, traverse a 2.8 m long trench, and climb over a 0.85 m tall obstacle. The T-90 has an APU.

    The Arjun has a 1,400 HP diesel engine and can carry 1,610 liters of fuel, which will allow it to travel 450 km, which equates to an impromptu fuel efficiency of 3.58 liters per km. The Arjun has a ground pressure of 0.84 kg/cm2. The Top speed of the Arjun is 72 kph on road. The Arjun can ford 1.2 m of water unprepared, traverse a 2.43 m long trench, and climb over a 0.91 m tall obstacle. The Arjun has an APU.

    The Leopard 2A6 has an 1,480 HP diesel engine, and can carry 1,200 liters of fuel internally which would allow it to travel 450 km, which equates to an impromptu fuel efficiency of 2.7 liters per km. The Leopard 2A6 has a ground pressure of 0.83 kg/cm2. The Top speed of the Leopard 2A6 is also 68 kph on road. The Leopard 2A6 can ford 1.2 m of water unprepared, traverse a 3 m long trench, and climb over 1.1 m tall obstacle. The Leopard 2A6 has an APU.

    Analysis:

    If in question is the T-90M with a 1,200 HP engine, than HP/Weight ratio wise, they would all be roughly equal, with each tank having a HP/Weight ratio of 24. However, if not in question is the T-90M, than the T-90 will be struck down. But I will be using the T-90M has the comparison. Fuel efficiency wise, the T-90 is somewhat superior to the Leopard 2A6, and outright superior to the Arjun. Speed wise, they're all quite close to each other, with only a 7 kph difference between the farthest kids off the field. However, the Arjun is capable of the fastest speeds, and is thus superior in that sub-category. Ground pressure is an indicator to maneuverability, specifically traverse speeds. The Leopard 2A6 and the Arjun are quite close to each other in this sub-category, with only an 0.01 kg/cm2 difference between the two. The T-90 is a bit sluggish compared to the two in this sub-category. Obstacle clearance wise, they are all equals in the Fording capability point, but the size of the larger tanks allow them to traverse taller obstacles and longer trenches, which allows the Leopard 2A6 to pull through on the Obstacle clearance sub-category. They all have APUs, so everyone wins there.

    Visual Breakdown of Mobility Comparison:
    ----------------------------------------
    [indent]|T-90|Arjun|Leopard 2A6|[/indent]

    • Horsepower/Weight ratio|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    • Fuel Efficiency|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Maximum Speed|Inferior|Superior|Inferior|
    • Ground Pressure|Inferior|Superior|Superior|
    • Obstacle Clearance|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Auxillary Power Units|Superior|Superior|Superior|


    Mobility Totals:
    T-90 - 3 Superiors
    Arjun - 4 Superiors
    Leopard 2A6 - 4 Superiors



    Protection specifications:
    (for this section, I will be using Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalency to compare the tanks and I will be using data over it's Frontal Arc)


    The T-90 uses a 2nd or 3rd generation Composite armor called, "Combination-K" along with Kontakt-5 ERA for Frontal protection. It has up to 920 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Frontal Turret, and 710 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Glacis. It has up to 1340 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT on it's Frontal Turret and about 1,030 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT on it's Glacis. The T-90M is equipped with Shtora-2 Passive Defense System which protects the T-90 from laser-guided ATGMs. The T-90 also has Nakidka camouflage, which reduces a Gunner's ability to detect the T-90. Finally, the T-90 has several 81 mm Smoke-grenade launchers, which disrupts a Thermal Imager's ability to aquire the T-90.

    The Arjun also uses Composite armor, called "Kanchan" armor. The Arjun has up to 570 mm RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Frontal Turret and 410 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Glacis. It has up to 830 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's turret and up to 730 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's Glacis. An Additional NERA layer is being developed for the Arjun but I have not took that into account as no estimate of it's capability has delivered itself to me. The Arjun has the ALWCS protection suite, which provides similar capabilities to the Shtora jammer and Smoke grenades on the T-90. The Arjun also has the Mobile Camouflage System to conceal it's presence.

    The Leopard 2A6 uses 3rd Generation Composite armor. It has up to 940 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Frontal turret and 620 mm of RHAe v.s. KE projectiles on it's Glacis. The Leopard 2A6 also has up to 1,960 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's turret and 750 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT projectiles on it's Glacis. The Leopard 2A6 has spall liners. The Leopard 2A6 also has 76 mm smoke grenade launchers that can conceal the tank from Thermal Imagers.

    Analysis:

    The Arjun seems inadequate in terms of RHAe when compared to the other two tanks. However, the T-90 achieves it's relatively high RHAe ratings from it's usage of Kontakt-5 ERA, which provides 250 mm of RHAe v.s. KE and 600 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT alone. If one were to strip a T-90 of it's ERA, it's baseline protection is inferior to the Arjuns and down-right paper compared to the Leopard 2A6. The T-90's Turret protection v.s. KE is on par with the Leopard 2A6's protection on the turret, with only 20 mm deviation. Turret protection v.s. HEAT wise, the Leopard 2A6 reigns supreme over the other two comparison tanks. Glacis KE protection wise, the T-90 holds a small lead over the two tanks. The T-90 also holds a clear lead in Glacis HEAT protection compared to the other two tanks. Additional protection from other types of weapons seems to be equal between the T-90 and the Arjun, but the Leopard 2A6 lacks some of those additional protection. I should note that in a study on tank round impact probabilities done in 1991 after the Gulf War, showed that 60% of tank rounds tend to impact 1.5 m off the ground. For the T-90, that means 60% of the rounds will hit the Front Turret, at about the same height of the Gun. For the Leopard 2A6, that means 60% of the rounds will hit on the upper part of the Glacis. For the Arjun, that means that 60% of the rounds will hit at about the lower Front Turret, parallel with the mantle.

    Visual Breakdown of Protection Comparison:
    ------------------------------------------
    [indent]|T-90|Arjun|Leopard 2A6|[/indent]

    • Turret Protection v.s. KE|Superior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Turret Protection v.s. HEAT|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Glacis Protection v.s. KE|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Glacis Protection v.s. HEAT|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Anti-ATGM capability|Superior|Superior|Inferior|
    • Camouflage|Superior|Superior|Inferior|


    Protection totals:
    T-90: 5 Superior
    Arjun: 2 Superior
    Leopard 2A6: 2 Superior


    Fire Power specifications:

    The T-90 has an 125 mm L/48 smooth bore gun with an autoloader capable of firing at 8 rounds per minute. It can fire APFSDS, HEAT, HE-FRAG, and ATGM munitions. The 3BM-42M is the projectile designation of the APFSDS the T-90 can fire. It's projectile is made of Tungsten and weighs 4.6 kg, and it's projectile will travel at 1,750 meters per second with about 60 meters per second velocity drop per km. It's estimated to penetrate 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km. The 3BK-31 is the projectile designation of the most modern HEAT round that the T-90 can fire. It has a Triple-tandem charge, and is credited with a penetration of over 800 mm of RHAe. The 9M119M Reflex is the designation for the ATGM that the T-90 can fire. It is a Tandem-charge HEAT projectile with a range of 6,000 m and is guided by SACLOS. It's penetration is about 900 mm of RHAe, and over 1,000 mm of RHAe if ERA is not present. For Fire control, the Commander has the CATHERINE-FC 3nd Generation Day/Night thermal sight, which can ID a tank at night over 2.3 km and ID a tank at day at over 8 km.

    The Arjun has an 120 mm L/50 rifled gun with a manual loader capable of firing up to 8 rounds per minute. It can fire APFSDS, HE, HEAT, HESH and ATGM rounds. The APFSDS round (unknown designation) has a Tungsten projectile. All other figures are unknown to me. It's penetration estimate is 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km. The Arjun's HEAT round is unknown to me. The LAHAT ATGM is a SALH guided Tandem-HEAT round. It has a maximum range of 8 km but could be extended to 13 km if the terrain allows. It's warhead is capable of penetrating over 800 mm of RHAe, and about 900 mm if ERA is not present. The Commander of the Arjun has a Day/Night Thermal imager from Bharat Electronics. It's capabilities are unknown to me but are presumably similar to the T-90's capabilities.

    The Leopard 2A6 has an 120 mm L/55 smooth bore gun with a manual loader capable of firing at 4 rounds per minute sustained and up to 10 rounds per minute if you have a strong loader. It can fire APFSDS, MPAT, and ATGM rounds. The DM63 is made of Tungsten and weighs about 5 kg estimated. It will travel about 1,730 meters per second from the L/55 with a velocity drop of about 55 meters per second per km. It's estimated penetration is 720 mm of RHAe at 2 km. The MPAT round is designated the DM12 is a Tandem-HEAT round which can penetrate about 650 mm of RHAe. The Leopard 2A6 can also fire the LAHAT, to which's specifications are above (penetration of 800 mm of RHAe and 8 km maximum range). The Commander and Gunner has a 3rd Generation Day/Night thermal imager from Rheinmetall Defense Electronics. It has a maximum range of 10 km, and presumably a maximum ID range at night of 2.5 km and a maximum ID range at day of 8 km.

    Note*
    Although information in regards to Indian systems aren't as forthcoming as I like it to be, it's safe to assume that the Arjun's Sensor capabilities are slightly superior to the T-80s, to which it was derived from. Knowing this, the T-80's Day/night Thermal sight, the 1G46 PERFECT Day sight and the AGAVA-2 night sight, which has ID ranges of about 5 km and 1.5 km respectfully. Knowing this, I'll magically upgrate the Arjun's unknown performances to 150% of what the T-80 had, so the Arjun's sensor capabilities will be 7.5 km Day ID range and 2.25 km Night ID range. You can throw this part out if you want, at least until the Arjun's sensor data are found.


    Analysis:

    The German long rod DM63 round pulls out as the top performer in the APFSDS sub-category, with about 70 mm more penetration than the APFSDS rounds of the two tanks. The Russian 3BK-31 is the god-king in the HEAT sub-category, and you shouldn't blame it, as the Triple-tandem charge is a rarity in the world. I should note that it was designed to penetrate the many different layers of a Composite armor array. Although the Russian 9M119M round has slightly superior penetration, the LAHAT has a farther range than the Reflex, so thus, the LAHAT is the better ATGM. Fire Control wise, the German electronics by far pulls out ahead of the rest of the competitors, in Night ID sub-category. They're all roughly tied in the Day ID sub-category. Finally, the T-90 still has the best in the rate of fire category, as it's auto-loader ensures consistency, while Human manual loaders can vary depending on level of fatigue, size of the person, etc.

    Visual Breakdown of Firepower Comparison:
    -----------------------------------------
    |T-90|Arjun|Leopard 2A6|

    • KE Penetrator|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • HEAT Penetrator|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • ATGM round|Inferior|Superior|Superior|
    • FCS - Daytime ID range|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    • FCS - Night Time ID range|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Rate of Fire|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|


    Firepower totals:
    T-90 - 3 Superiors
    Arjun - 2 Superiors
    Leopard 2A6 - 4 Superiors


    Totals:
    T-90 - 11 Superiors
    Arjun - 8 Superiors
    Leopard 2A6 - 10 Superiors


    Conclusion and Notes:

    I should note that I have left several facts and additional analysis out of this report. The clear height advantage of the Leopard 2A6 (0.8 meters taller than the T-90 and 0.7 meters taller than the Arjun) allows it to take advantage of the terrain better, by situating itself in the Hull-down position more often. This tactic, will expose the Front Turret of the Leopard 2A6 to enemy fire, which happens to be the most protected part of the Leopard 2A6. I have also left out Maintenance from this report, as information regarding these tanks are already scarce (save the Leopard), my attempts at finding breakdown averages bared no fruit. But you should take note of these maintenance failures. The Fire Control System of the Arjun tank seems to malfunction at temperatures over 42 degrees Celsius, and there are reports of the T-90S malfunctioning due to the heat in the Indian deserts. I have also left out Gun-accuracy from this equation, simply because I could not find the max deviations for the guns in question.

    Overall, the "best" tank of the 3 is the T-90, with the Leopard 2 pulling a close 2nd. The game changer was the Protection levels, to which the T-90 had an advantage on because of the Russian's habit of spamming ERA on their tanks. The T-90 also happens to be the cheapest, worth about $2.2 million USD a piece, compared to the $3.7 million USD that the Arjun is worth and the $5.8 million USD that the Leopard 2A6 is worth. So to sum it up, the T-90 is a nice tank.

    Sources:

    Arjun from Wikipedia
    T-90 from Wikipedia
    Leopard 2 from Wikipedia
    Leopard 2 from fprado.com
    T-90 from Vasiliy Folfanov's Tank page
    Tank Protection Levels site
    Random Indian Defense Blog
    CATHERINE FC brochure
    [quote]

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:01 pm

    Nice analysis ,but there are some caveats

    1 ) Do not rely on Wiki for Arjun information , they have been adequately manipulated or there is no authentic base to that information , with some pointing to some blog or website that are known to be biased wrt Arjun.

    A good information is the one provided by what appears to be from DRDO/CVRDE , check this link , i got that from Ajai Shukla blog link Ajai Blog

    BTW in that Ajai Blog link that i gave you check for Ghorcharrah Gabbar comments if you are keen to get the other side of view on T-90 vs Arjun debate , its interesting since the person claims to be a T-72 tanker in the Indian Army and still vouches by it.

    2 ) Kanchan armour performance figures for Arjun is unknown , the DRDO wants to keep that a secret , with just information stating to be quite good , so any figures for kanchan is just speculation ATM.

    3 ) Lahat has been tested with Arjun but its not integrated with Mk1 , it will be integrated with Arjun Mk2 which is under works and will be heavier like 60T plus , Lahat and Reflex has similar performance figures and not 13 km etc both are rated at ~ 5 km.

    4 ) d_berwal who happens to serve the army rates arjun better in driving easyness due to use of joystick and rates its FC better than Indian Bhishma , but with T-90M i suppose the gun will be a newer one and FC will be better.


    Can you provide me the link to the forum where you had originally posted this information ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:57 pm

    Austin wrote:Nice analysis ,but there are some caveats

    1 ) Do not rely on Wiki for Arjun information , they have been adequately manipulated or there is no authentic base to that information , with some pointing to some blog or website that are known to be biased wrt Arjun.

    A good information is the one provided by what appears to be from DRDO/CVRDE , check this link  , i got that from Ajai Shukla blog link Ajai Blog

    BTW in that Ajai Blog link that i gave you check for Ghorcharrah Gabbar comments if you are keen to get the other side of view on T-90 vs Arjun debate , its interesting since the person claims to be a T-72 tanker in the Indian Army and still vouches by it.

    2 ) Kanchan armour performance figures for Arjun is unknown , the DRDO wants to keep that a secret , with just information stating to be quite good , so any figures for kanchan is just speculation ATM.

    3 ) Lahat has been tested with Arjun but its not integrated with Mk1 , it will be integrated with Arjun Mk2 which is under works and will be heavier like 60T plus , Lahat and Reflex has similar performance figures and not 13 km etc both are rated at ~ 5 km.

    4 ) d_berwal who happens to serve the army rates arjun better in driving easyness due to use of joystick and rates its FC better than Indian Bhishma , but with T-90M i suppose the gun will be a newer one and FC will be better.


    Can you provide me the link to the forum where you had originally posted this information ?

    Pretty much all Modern armor estimates are just that, estimates. You can determine the effectiveness of an armor by doing 2 things, knowing it's composition and knowing the effective of that composition. Kanchan armor is technically Composite, which means that it's a bunch of stuff lobbed into one, we know there's RHA in it, there's Ceramics, there's Fiberglass in it, etc. From photos, one can estimate the amount of space the armor gets to take up, which we can then through deduction figure out the approximate thicknesses of the various layers. Once we know that, we can do some fancy shmancy math and we get a RHAe out of it.

    It's how people figured out the protection of the Abrams and the Challenger and the like.

    Here's the link to the forum I first posted this on:

    http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/3275-best-tanks-in-the-world/page__pid__421631__st__640#entry421631


    Yes, it is a game I play :v
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:38 am

    The 3 Isles of Battlefield dominance comes from Quality, Quantity, and Strategy.

    I rather disagree. During WWII the Russians had thousands of T-26 tanks yet the large numbers had little effect on their performance in battle. The quality of their manufacture also had very little to do with their performance.

    I think there is a direct relationship between Quality and Quantity, as these are to some extent opposites... if they hadn't taken the time to make Panthers vehicles that would last 30 years they could probably have produced a lot more and from cheaper and less strategic materials.

    Regarding strategy that would apply to anything and is quite independent of design.

    Ground pressure is an indicator to maneuverability, specifically traverse speeds.

    I totally disagree. I think total weight has as much to do with manoeuvrability and total weight together with power to weight ratio is more important to traverse speeds. For a tank it is acceleration and speed from cover to cover that is far more important than top speed. There is no speed a modern tank can move at that will protect them from being hit by a missile or being tracked by an enemy tank gun. Accelerating quickly however means you can move from covered position to covered position much faster which of course is much more relevant than top speed. Top speed is normally on flat hard level roads which is a very vulnerable place for a tank to be.

    The Leopard 2A6 and the Arjun are quite close to each other in this sub-category, with only an 0.01 kg/cm2 difference between the two. The T-90 is a bit sluggish compared to the two in this sub-category.

    Ground pressure like this would be important for travelling over deep snow or through deep mud. I have not read of any problems with the T-90 in this regard, in fact they seem to like to drive the T-90 through all sorts of difficult obstacles to show it off.



    • Horsepower/Weight ratio|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    • Fuel Efficiency|Superior|Inferior|Inferior|
    • Maximum Speed|Inferior|Superior|Inferior|
    • Ground Pressure|Inferior|Superior|Superior|
    • Obstacle Clearance|Inferior|Inferior|Superior|
    • Auxillary Power Units|Superior|Superior|Superior|
    Real obstacle clearance is performed by engineer units, Fuel efficiency is really a problem for logistics... the Abrams would rate poorly in this category yet the gas turbine engine it uses is a necessity considering its total mass, top speed is irrelevant, as is ground pressure unless it is excessively high or excessively low.

    Regarding protection, I assume all the numbers are estimates and I don't know where you got them from but I don't have any accurate figures so I wont comment except to say that T-90M will likely have Relict rather than kontakt.

    Although the Russian 9M119M round has slightly superior penetration, the
    LAHAT has a farther range than the Reflex, so thus, the LAHAT is the
    better ATGM.

    I suspect the chances of either weapon being used at max range is fairly low with normal tank engagements in places that are not flat open deserts so I question your assertion that extra range = superior weapon... especially at night when both vehicles can't correctly ID targets at more than 3kms anyway.

    The Russian 3BK-31 is the god-king in the HEAT sub-category, and you
    shouldn't blame it, as the Triple-tandem charge is a rarity in the
    world. I should note that it was designed to penetrate the many
    different layers of a Composite armor array.

    The RPG-28 uses a single 125mm calibre shaped charge warhead with a small precursor charge to defeat ERA and its armour penetration is listed as "more than 900mm behind ERA", so I would expect with an extra 125mm calibre HEAT warhead that the penetration of this 3BK-31 would likely be better.

    The clear height advantage of the Leopard 2A6 (0.8 meters taller than
    the T-90 and 0.7 meters taller than the Arjun) allows it to take
    advantage of the terrain better, by situating itself in the Hull-down
    position more often.

    The height of the Sherman during WWII was considered a disadvantage that made it a target. Height is irrelevant in a hull down postion... important factors in hull down positions are the distance from the gun bore to the top of the tank and the elevation range of the main tank gun. The only time the M60 was found to be more useful than smaller tanks was in the desert where its height allowed it to see further. It also meant it was visible from further away and it also meant it was a larger target so the advantage was not considered useful. In more cluttered terrain it just makes you a bigger target. Ask an F-14 pilot fighting a Skyhawk or F-5.

    and there are reports of the T-90S malfunctioning due to the heat in the Indian deserts.

    The Thales thermal sights failed in Indian deserts and required Israeli air conditioning units to cool them down. A Russian company has since developed an efficient compact air conditioning unit that will be fitted as standard to the T-90M.

    d_berwal who happens to serve the army rates arjun better in driving
    easyness due to use of joystick and rates its FC better than Indian
    Bhishma , but with T-90M i suppose the gun will be a newer one and FC
    will be better.

    It will have a new gun, able to use new longer penetrators with the new auto loader and the driver will have new steering wheel controls to drive the vehicle. (note even the BMP-1 has a steering column like a car, but the reason they haven't fitted such controls to their tanks is because in their tanks there is very little space in front of the driver so side sticks means less space in the driver compartment is wasted).
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:03 am

    Quality not in manufacture but in the Quality of the design.

    And Garry, we're comparing tanks, not systems, always remember that.

    In regards to the 3BK-31, that'd be a false assumption.

    The extra warheads aren't there to provide extra penetration, it's there to destroy the different layers of armor in Composite armor.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:37 am

    The photos I have seen show the shaped charge liners are made of the same material... surely if they are to defeat different materials in composite armour each charge would be optimised to penetrate different the different materials by having different liners optimised to penetrate the different layers?

    The Metis M1 has a 130mm calibre and a single rear large warhead and a penetration of 950mm with a small precursor warhead charge to defeat ERA.

    And Garry, we're comparing tanks, not systems, always remember that.

    Wouldn't you say that the better German tank tactics was part of the system rather than the tank, yet at the same time the system effected the design of the tank in that German tanks were over crewed compared to the tanks of other countries like the T-26 and Char tanks. German tanks had commanders with no gun to aim or fire or even load... they commanders just commanded the tank! (imagine that!)

    The System effects the tank design and how it will be used also effects the design.

    Being able to drive over the majority of existing bridges for instance... the 52 ton T-10 was the heaviest tank the Soviets had ever had in service, so suggesting their ideal tank would be say a 75 ton design is a little silly I believe. Heavy tank designs have been considered obsolete in Russia for quite some time largely due to the effect of modern air power and ATGMs, but also because of the cost involved.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:05 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:Pretty much all Modern armor estimates are just that, estimates. You can determine the effectiveness of an armor by doing 2 things, knowing it's composition and knowing the effective of that composition. Kanchan armor is technically Composite, which means that it's a bunch of stuff lobbed into one, we know there's RHA in it, there's Ceramics, there's Fiberglass in it, etc. From photos, one can estimate the amount of space the armor gets to take up, which we can then through deduction figure out the approximate thicknesses of the various layers. Once we know that, we can do some fancy shmancy math and we get a RHAe out of it.

    Yes these are just estimates and like any estimates it can be closer to truth or just off the target.

    Just because Kanchan or other armour are composites armor does not mean they are of the same composition , materials and effectiveness might vary from good to excellent

    Hence I have my doubts over known penetration capabilities of any armour , unless you get some figures from its makers.

    It's how people figured out the protection of the Abrams and the Challenger and the like.

    They figured out but its not certain if they figured out right.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:29 am

    The points you bring up Austin are very valid and even more so because the estimates are very dependant on what is being used.

    For instance if the threat is x model rocket for the RPG-7 then the first thing you do is examine how that particular rocket warhead works and then the design of the armour is to defeat the way that it works.

    Lets say the rocket in question is rocket number 4 and its penetration figures are given as 500mm of RHA.

    The new armour designed to defeat that particular rocket might be so effective that it stops penetration, so you could describe this armour as being the equivalent of MORE than 500mm of RHA because it can stop this particular rocket that has this penetration capacity.

    It might however be that the composition of composites in the armour are very effective against the copper liner of rocket number 4 and rocket number 5 which has an armour penetration of 450mm might have a completely different liner for which the various layers of your armour have little effect and rocket number 5 completely penetrates it easily. Now none of the armours on tanks are actually as thick as the protection they represent and it would only be if they were all homogeneous steel plate that you could use standard estimates and compare them directly.
    Different liners, different focal lengths of warheads, different sized HE warheads driving the shaped charges, different detonating speeds for different explosive charges, and of course different fuses as well as diameters and angles of impact will all effect the real performance of an anti armour weapon.
    Angles of armour also effect its protective performance too, but the angle of impact can negate that as a very shallow armour angle is not a shallow angle for a top attack weapon...

    Also with estimates there is the issue of new designs... the west was very skeptical when the Russians said they had ERA that was effective against both HEAT and APFSDS rounds too, and they did some quick tests based on how they thought it might work and found it didn't. Of course their understanding of how it worked was wrong and it did work requiring a redesign of their APFSDS rounds to solve the problem.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Comparing Tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:21 am

    GarryB wrote:The photos I have seen show the shaped charge liners are made of the same material... surely if they are to defeat different materials in composite armour each charge would be optimised to penetrate different the different materials by having different liners optimised to penetrate the different layers?

    The Metis M1 has a 130mm calibre and a single rear large warhead and a penetration of 950mm with a small precursor warhead charge to defeat ERA.

    Again, remember that vile 4 lettered word, RHAe, it's not as accurate as most people may think. The thing about Composite armor is that because it has varying thicknesses of varying materials, the effective of the first layer will do one thing to the penetrator and then another to the same penetrator and so on and so forth. The single warhead on the Metis M1 just delivers a generic big boom, what the 3BK-31 does is prepare the armor for the next penetration, and then prepare it again for the final penetration, which instead of just adding up each warhead's penetrations, just makes it easier to defeat Advanced armor arrays.

    And Garry, we're comparing tanks, not systems, always remember that.

    Wouldn't you say that the better German tank tactics was part of the system rather than the tank, yet at the same time the system effected the design of the tank in that German tanks were over crewed compared to the tanks of other countries like the T-26 and Char tanks. German tanks had commanders with no gun to aim or fire or even load... they commanders just commanded the tank! (imagine that!)

    The System effects the tank design and how it will be used also effects the design.

    Being able to drive over the majority of existing bridges for instance... the 52 ton T-10 was the heaviest tank the Soviets had ever had in service, so suggesting their ideal tank would be say a 75 ton design is a little silly I believe. Heavy tank designs have been considered obsolete in Russia for quite some time largely due to the effect of modern air power and ATGMs, but also because of the cost involved.[/quote]

    No, tactics are apart of the Tank. You're saying that Tanks don't need obstacle clearance because that's what Engineers are for, but Engineers are apart of the system.


    Yes these are just estimates and like any estimates it can be closer to truth or just off the target.

    Just because Kanchan or other armour are composites armor does not mean they are of the same composition , materials and effectiveness might vary from good to excellent

    ...but I just told you, we know that Kanchan armor has: RHA, Fiber Glass, and Ceramics (probably Alumina). It also has other materials to which properties we can deduce later. From people who've been to Tank exhibitions and has touched the Arjun, they can measure it's varying armor layouts, so we know how much armor they get to work with. We know the physics of armor so we can deduce the layout of the armor. The Arjun's protection estimate should be accurate to the 70 percentile.

    l plates in different directions, and in general, just feeds the Projectile with more steel and then guillotines the


    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Austin on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:13 am

    Garry , right now they have a fleet of more then 20 thousand tank of various modification.

    The idea is as part of rearmament and modernesitation program , they will reduce the tank force by half and move toward a small force of 10 thousand tank , but the small force will be more capable and modernised tank like T-90 and other types.

    http://www.russiandefenseblog.org/?p=881

    BTW there are lot of fan following of T-80 tanks that I have seen on blogs/forum etc , so can you just explain me briefly why is T-80 a better tank compared to say a late model T-72 ?

    Thanks for your time patience and effort in explaining me the nuances of Tanks and the same I would extend to IronsightSniper thumbsup

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:02 pm