Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing Tanks

    Share
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  x_54_u43 on Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:49 am

    Zivo wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:Something from Otavaga. So what do you guys think? Accurate size comparison of various MBT's?

    An excellent image, clearly puts the "Armata does not have turret armor" claim to rest.

    Never understood those people anyway.

    That sheet metal must be a mix of depleted uranium and mythril.  Rolling Eyes  

    To me, this image shows just how efficient the T-14's minimal turret armor layout is vs contemporary MBT's.

    [/img]

    Yes, of course a very official drawing that is. Perhaps you should start taking into account that the T-14 does not have anyone in its turret, no ammo in its turret, and a very compact new design autoloader.

    Armata's turret is very well protected against the threats it is intended to face over a 60 degree arc.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:05 am

    The turret of the T-14 and its internal occupation of electronics, autoloader and the little internal volume for maintenane of one crew is that what is in question. The Armor could be direct inwards and not outwards for all we know.

    From those artist pictures without the signature footprint reducing casing around the turret many have thought this are just thin RHA steel plates without knowing their actual thickness.

    People speculated due the metal casing that the turret armor is so thin that it will not protect against anything, but after pictures have occured about the new gun being longer while pictures of T-14 vs T-90A show roughly same length of the gun suggests that the gun 2A82 goes roughly one meter into the turret, covering alot of metal between it and the actual autoloader and breech. The T-14 turret also does not appear to be very thin when compared to T-90A which already has a strongly armored turret. The more i see, the more it appears to have better armor in its turret than anticipated.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  max steel on Mon May 30, 2016 12:56 am

    nope they came second last they're able to beat only  the Slovenian team in museum piece M84s (clone T72) ,with manual firecontrol, -+1 mil weapon stabilisation and 80's optics. Effectively US teams placed dead last Slovenian team in M84 beat them in most tasks but firing where M1A2SEP tech comes to light.

    Thoughts on Leopard 2A6 comparing with russian mbts ?
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  VladimirSahin on Mon May 30, 2016 1:01 am

    max steel wrote:nope they came second last they're able to beat only  the Slovenian team in museum piece M84s (clone T72) ,with manual firecontrol, -+1 mil weapon stabilisation and 80's optics. Effectively US teams placed dead last Slovenian team in M84 beat them in most tasks but firing where M1A2SEP tech comes to light.

    Thoughts on Leopard 2A6 comparing with russian mbts ?

    Leo 2A6s are pretty good, but I'm not a expert in German tech. It should be comparable to the T-90.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue May 31, 2016 6:09 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    max steel wrote:nope they came second last they're able to beat only  the Slovenian team in museum piece M84s (clone T72) ,with manual firecontrol, -+1 mil weapon stabilisation and 80's optics. Effectively US teams placed dead last Slovenian team in M84 beat them in most tasks but firing where M1A2SEP tech comes to light.

    Thoughts on Leopard 2A6 comparing with russian mbts ?

    Leo 2A6s are pretty good, but I'm not a expert in German tech. It should be comparable to the T-90.

    It still does not have autoloader with the ability to choose various type of ammo. It still does not have warhead seperated from propellant and has to put the ammo chamber on the turret bustle, instead of hiding it inside the hull.

    And its seems like the West is still far far away from deplyoment of ATGM on tanks, things that Russia did long ago.

    And T-90 is much much lighter than Leo 2, but still provide similar protection and power. Actually I am quite confident that T-90 is superior.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3938
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Thoughts on Leopard 2A6 comparing with russian mbts ?

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue May 31, 2016 12:04 pm



    Depends what you're looking for.

    We've said this numerous times. If you have a line, the T90 will do just fine in Anti-tank combat. If the lines are broken and the T90 is forced to clear out its back, then the problems start happening. And this is true for all tanks BTW. I personally think we've not gone past the Legacy designs era but Russians have decided the future was to be different. I salute the Legacy designs as ground breaking and truly marvels of compromise, but most things indicate so far that the T90MS is going to be the last of the Mohicanskis. I would have liked they gave it a chance (48 tons is still leaps and bounds above the Western Tanks, except for the AMX 56, but that's a different issue).

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:10 am