Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing Tanks

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:44 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
    Laughing

    I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!


    I aggree, that is highly unlikely that Egnineers and designers themselfs with their superior education and knowledge would go into a 3rd grade childish dick measuring, such behavior is usual for yellow papers and tabloids of paid writers not even the PR department of such companies rely to such childish behavior. The big majority of PR from companies themselfs just usually tell its "Best in the World" or "Is among the best in the world" but they do not throw ape shit towards other companies, countries and their product.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Zivo on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:55 pm

    Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
    Laughing

    Not likely, at the end of the day it's just a T-72 variant with all of the T-72's inherent advantages and problems. For a bit more money, you could get a T-90SM with more bells and whistles.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!

    Pretty much. It just reads like poor journalism too me.

    cracker

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  cracker on Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:32 pm

    the article is full LOL

    they claim "our tank can fire wide range of shells! much *****! including ATGM with 5km range! wowowow!!"

    among other ridiculous things... Yeah sure, that makes the VT-4 totally superior to... wait... equal to... T-64B of 1976, first tank shooting missiles through a standard gun.

    This is a joke to grab a maximum clueless chinese boys (fanboys), create a false advertising and such...
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 801
    Points : 883
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:44 pm

    That Chinese marketing BS.

    They don't even get a working APS.. let alone integrating it to a tank. While newest T-72 and Armata comes in with APS as standard.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:52 pm

    cracker wrote:the article is full LOL

    they claim "our tank can fire wide range of shells! much *****! including ATGM with 5km range! wowowow!!"

    among other ridiculous things... Yeah sure, that makes the VT-4 totally superior to... wait... equal to... T-64B of 1976, first tank shooting missiles through a standard gun.

    This is a joke to grab a maximum clueless chinese boys (fanboys), create a false advertising and such...

    I heard of QC nightmares on chinese tanks. Didnt the curret fall off or became problematic on MBT-2000 in Peru tests?

    Also, the tanks were initially designed by Ukrainian company. Al Khalid actually, which is MBT-2000 variant.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:02 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    I aggree, that is highly unlikely that Egnineers and designers themselfs with their superior education and knowledge would go into a 3rd grade childish dick measuring, such behavior is usual for yellow papers and tabloids of paid writers not even the PR department of such companies rely to such childish behavior. The big majority of PR from companies themselfs just usually tell its "Best in the World" or "Is among the best in the world" but they do not throw ape shit towards other companies, countries and their product.
    if you truly believed that then i have a bridge to sell to you...
    anyhow, silly article aside, i cant help but think they futzed up the panoramic sight placement on the MBT 3k. the gunner's sight possibly blocks the 9 while the commander's MG definitely blocks the 6 of the panoramic sight. not the end of the world, but definitely mediocre tier.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:17 pm

    The diplomat? recently in RIA was info about increase funding of info warfare to make BRICS fight each other. et voila !
    Ethnic thigs will come soon as well.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:27 pm

    Actually the MBT-3000 or ZTZ-99A1/A2 or even ZTZ-96A do not share every problem T-72's have, they are improved versions while ZTZ-99A2 is equal and in some points superior to even T-90A and most western tanks. They for example do not scatter their ammunition in the turret inside, which is the major problem in after penetration effects compared with T-72's so that disadvantage they have dealt with, the other thing is most T-72b versions except the later versions do not have such a developed FCS like the ZTZ-96A, the overall performance maybe marginal in comperision of the overall leap between 2nd and 3rd generation of tanks but still better in performance, the other point is the overall protection and armor distribution. Of course i don't know like no one knows the exact armor composition, but the ERA coverage on ZTZ tanks is higher than the ERA coverage on T-72/90 tanks, i also do not know the effeciency of their ERA but is not less effecient than K5. So reading some of the statements is relative ignorant to the chinese tanks. You shouldn't underestimate their tanks, they are superior in everyway to any other 2nd generation tanks and their 3rd generation tanks 99A2 with some troubles still of higher value then Abrams or Challanger for that matter.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:49 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Actually the MBT-3000 or ZTZ-99A1/A2 or even ZTZ-96A do not share every problem T-72's have, they are improved versions while ZTZ-99A2 is equal and in some points superior to even T-90A and most western tanks. They for example do not scatter their ammunition in the turret inside, which is the major problem in after penetration effects compared with T-72's so that disadvantage they have dealt with, the other thing is most T-72b versions except the later versions do not have such a developed FCS like the ZTZ-96A, the overall performance maybe marginal in comperision of the overall leap between 2nd and 3rd generation of tanks but still better in performance, the other point is the overall protection and armor distribution. Of course i don't know like no one knows the exact armor composition, but the ERA coverage on ZTZ tanks is higher than the ERA coverage on T-72/90 tanks, i also do not know the effeciency of their ERA but is not less effecient than K5. So reading some of the statements is relative ignorant to the chinese tanks. You shouldn't underestimate their tanks, they are superior in everyway to any other 2nd generation tanks and their 3rd generation tanks 99A2 with some troubles still of higher value then Abrams or Challanger for that matter.

    No disrespect meant, but here werewolf you're out of your depth. REcently the Chinese got a Type-96 to the tank biathlon. It was found pretty unsatisfactory from the Russian crews that could interact with their Chinese counterpart on various little bits. There is a livejournal post somewhere here.

    As for the 99, the complement of ammunition on a 99 is 55 rounds according to people @Sinodefence/se. With the current bustle, you don't have enough room for 55 without putting them in the fighting compartment. There a other issues (weight for instance) that makes most 99's rather lardy. FCS like the 96A are you kidding me? They have a 35 year old FCS from the M60 barely upped and have had MANY accuracy issues under Sudanese and Somali ownership. Ask yourself why in the face of such cheap alternatives (and new!) do countries like Ethiopia and Venezuela still buy second hand Soviet Crap?

    It's easy, because the Chinese tanks so far are either untested or frankly shit. Era coverage doesn't mean much when your side armor is not better than 89 era 72B's.

    It has nothing with ignorance, it is based on what is known and stated by current owners of Chinese hardware.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  kvs on Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:21 am

    China is in a big hurry to advance so you get the sort of crap products that would be avoided via a long term, systematic
    development program instead of copy and paste short cuts.

    It will be interesting to see if China slows down and does it the right way or whether it will be in this catch up frenzy
    indefinitely. Even scientific articles from China have high crap fraction. They need to realize that the current
    approach is not working.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:45 pm

    max steel wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The diplomat? recently in RIA was info about increase funding of info warfare to make BRICS fight each other. et voila !
    Ethnic thigs will come soon as well.

    Diplomat is CFR funded online media outlet . They run it from japan focusing on spreading pro-us propaganda and agenda in Eurasia to others . Sometimes they do sensible reporting rest take it with grain of salt .

    pro-US is synonym on anti Rus and anti China. Well you remember divide et impera. Why to fight together Russia ans China if you can make both of them fight each other? For me is is just a tiny brick in anti-Russian crusade of US elites.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

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

    china vs russian tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:00 am

    @Min, Mod: I am sorry if this has been posted before.

    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/

    Can This Chinese Tank Beat Russia’s T-14 Armata?

    Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.

    Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users.

    During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata (see: “Putin’s New ‘Wunderwaffe’: The World’s Deadliest Tank?” ). Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14.

    “The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. See: “Did the ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’ Just Break Down?”) “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

    Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams. … Why don’t buyers consider Chinese tanks that have well-developed technologies and equipment as well as much-lower prices?” The lower price of the VT series is specifically designed to target the needs of militaries in developing countries.

    Norinco also notes that in comparison to its Russian competition, it also can offer a much wider array of products. “Currently, Russia has only one new tank that is available for export – the T-90S. In contrast, we have the low-end VT-2, middle-end VT-1 as well as the high-end VT-4, covering the requirements of almost every client in the international market,” the company said.

    The VT-2’s two major selling points are that it uses proven technology and that it is cheap. The VT-4, however, allegedly features the world’s latest tank warfare technology and can be compared to any modern third generation main battle tank like the U.S. M1A2 Abrams or Germany’s Leopard 2A6, according to Feng Yibai, chief designer of the VT-4.

    The VT-4′s “main gun is a 125 m smoothbore that can fire various shells, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. It can fire anti-tank missiles with a maximum range of 5,000 meters,” China Daily notes.

    Also, the VT-4 “has an advanced fire-control instrument, a new-type active protection system and a state-of-the-art, fully automatic transmission device,” he said. “In addition, the inter-unit network connects commanders of tanks and armored vehicles under a combat group, enabling them to share battlefield data in a real-time manner,” the WeChat article summarizes.

    Any speculative comparison between the leading Chinese and Russian main battle tanks is in many ways premature and nonsensical; it has to be discarded as a mere clever marketing ploy to garner attention at this stage. Neither of the two tank programs have entered the mass-production phase yet and most of the current speculation is based on prototypes and the sparse public data available. Without rigorous testing it is virtually impossible to verify whether the VT-4 does display superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems.

    China has traditionally relied heavily in the development of its indigenous tank force on Russian license-built technology and know-how. Judging from publicly available images, the T-14 appears to have made a clear break with older Soviet legacy tank designs, whereas the VT-4 very much looks like an improved version of the T-90s. This is as far as any sensible unclassified analysis should go at this juncture.

    According to the United Nations’ Register of Conventional Arms, China exported a total of 461 tanks from 1992 to 2013, whereas Russia sold 1,297 tanks during the same period. The United States is still the leading tank export of the world with 5,511 sales, followed by Germany with 2,680 exported armored fighting vehicles.
    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 Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:54 am

    According to a ranking by Germany's Focus magazine, the Type-99 is the third-best tank in the world, only surpassed by the Leopard 2 and the United States' M1A2 Abrams.

    Oh really ? Did they forget T-90A ?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:58 am

    T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:16 am

    Mike E wrote:T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.

    Oh really? That huge engine that the Chinese use is a whole lot of help if it breaks down. T-90A has active protection that most tanks do not have, Type-99's active defense system doesn't look like it is close to the same. Engines will produce what, speed?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:19 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    Mike E wrote:T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.

    Oh really?  That huge engine that the Chinese use is a whole lot of help if it breaks down.  T-90A has active protection that most tanks do not have, Type-99's active defense system doesn't look like it is close to the same.  Engines will produce what, speed?
    Well don't get me wrong, the Type isn't up there either. T-90A has Shtora, but it can not really be classified as "an" APS, as it is more similar to a basic defense system.
     
     - T-90A might be top-5, actually, due to the lack of generally high performing MBT's out there.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:42 am

    The PLA team was the only competitor that used its domestically developed tank during the Tank Biathlon last year and this year. All other teams used the Russian T-72B3 tank, a competition edition of the T-72, a Soviet-era, second-generation main battle tank.

    Umm... isn't the T-72 a Russian tank and therefore domestically developed by Russia? You could equally argue that the other former Soviet republics could also call it a domestic development too...

    BTW unless they have a component of the biathlon where the tanks have to be fired upon by other platforms then I would argue any capabilities in terms of absorbing enemy fire and continuing to operate become irrelevant... that means the big super heavy western tanks that are 70 tons would be at a disadvantage to the smaller lighter Russian tanks... and those differences could be further increased simply by removing extra armour options that don't improve mobility or fire power capabilities...

    Perhaps a version of the T-14 without the heavy armour fitted that is much lighter and more mobile than a standard MBT... perhaps even a Kurganets MBT model... whose power to weight ratio should be very impressive... and fully modern FCS.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:47 am

    Mike E wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    Mike E wrote:T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.

    Oh really?  That huge engine that the Chinese use is a whole lot of help if it breaks down.  T-90A has active protection that most tanks do not have, Type-99's active defense system doesn't look like it is close to the same.  Engines will produce what, speed?
    Well don't get me wrong, the Type isn't up there either. T-90A has Shtora, but it can not really be classified as "an" APS, as it is more similar to a basic defense system.
     
     - T-90A might be top-5, actually, due to the lack of generally high performing MBT's out there.
    I am confident about the protection level of T-90. It is smaller and lower, means it is harder to hit. And the surface area of T-90 is much smaller than Western tanks, means you can put thicker armour without using much material and increasing much weight.

    T-90 is 15 tons lighter than Leo 2 and Abrams, but I am confident that T-90 has thicker armour. You can see the length : width ratio of T-90 hull is smaller than Western. T-90 turret is also much smaller and closer to round-shape, while Western has rectangular and big turret. Square and round boxes of course have smaller surface area than rectangular box.

    Sorry for Off Topic
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:57 am

    Lower doesn't mean it is harder to hit anymore, as guns have gotten far more accurate over time. 

    As for thickness, generally it is lower than the Western competitors. Turret ranges from ~500 mm to ~900 mm LOS, and the hull is ~630 mm LOS. For comparison, an Abrams turret is almost uniformly ~900 mm LOS, and the hull ~620 mm LOS. It also need be known that Dorchester is a more advanced composite than the Russian NxRA.

    It's not too off topic  Wink
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 am

    Mike E wrote:Lower doesn't mean it is harder to hit anymore, as guns have gotten far more accurate over time. 

    As for thickness, generally it is lower than the Western competitors. Turret ranges from ~500 mm to ~900 mm LOS, and the hull is ~630 mm LOS. For comparison, an Abrams turret is almost uniformly ~900 mm LOS, and the hull ~620 mm LOS. It also need be known that Dorchester is a more advanced composite than the Russian NxRA.

    It's not too off topic  Wink

    Wait, how do we know Dorchester is more advanced?  Where did you get that from?  Both are technically classified.  You nor I have the actual data.  Mike, don't make shit up.

    Mike E wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    Mike E wrote:T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.

    Oh really?  That huge engine that the Chinese use is a whole lot of help if it breaks down.  T-90A has active protection that most tanks do not have, Type-99's active defense system doesn't look like it is close to the same.  Engines will produce what, speed?
    Well don't get me wrong, the Type isn't up there either. T-90A has Shtora, but it can not really be classified as "an" APS, as it is more similar to a basic defense system.
     
     - T-90A might be top-5, actually, due to the lack of generally high performing MBT's out there.

    Yes, it is an APS. Don't try to change what it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora
    Shtora-1[2] is an electro-optical jammer that disrupts semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators. Shtora-1 is a soft-kill, or passive-countermeasure system.
    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 Sun Aug 23, 2015 8:27 am

    @MikeE: Compairson of T-90 and M1 Abrams from different angles. T-72 probably has similar size to T-90.

    http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/comparison.png

    You can see the considerable difference between them. Especially in the turret, the difference is really drastic. And the T-90 turret is nearly round, while M1 turret is rectangular, that makes the surface area difference become more drastic.

    Difference in turret size is very meaningful, since turret armour is expected to be much thicker than hull armour. That is the reason why T-14 manages to be 48 tons disregard of the much bigger hull.

    In short, T-90 has much much smaller area surface and it is not surprise for T-90 armour to be thicker than M1 Abrams.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:19 am

    I'm not denying that it is smaller...just that, a smaller tank is maybe only 1-5% less likely to get hit than a larger one. Modern guns firing APFSDS are very accurate, and typically average 0.2 mil from what I have heard. 

    T-90 has a smaller surface area but it doesn't have as thick armor as the M1(A2). A2 has a turret with a uniform thickness of 900 to 950 mm LOS. T-90A's welded turret varies between 550 (closer to the gun, on the flat sections) and 900 mm LOS (on the outer, angled edges). In regards to hull armor, they are almost identical in raw thickness. T-72B has a LOS thickness for the Glacis of about 627 mm, A2 Abrams is somewhere between 620, and 630 mm LOS. T-90/A might have an increased thickness (here-say puts it at 680 mm LOS), but the older NxRA armor is bound to be at least a little less effective than HAP on the A2. 

    If the T-90A has a thicker glacis than the T-72B, then you can be certain it will at least match the A2 Abrams. If not, it most probably can not.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:49 am

    Mike E wrote:I'm not denying that it is smaller...just that, a smaller tank is maybe only 1-5% less likely to get hit than a larger one. Modern guns firing APFSDS are very accurate, and typically average 0.2 mil from what I have heard. 

    T-90 has a smaller surface area but it doesn't have as thick armor as the M1(A2). A2 has a turret with a uniform thickness of 900 to 950 mm LOS. T-90A's welded turret varies between 550 (closer to the gun, on the flat sections) and 900 mm LOS (on the outer, angled edges). In regards to hull armor, they are almost identical in raw thickness. T-72B has a LOS thickness for the Glacis of about 627 mm, A2 Abrams is somewhere between 620, and 630 mm LOS. T-90/A might have an increased thickness (here-say puts it at 680 mm LOS), but the older NxRA armor is bound to be at least a little less effective than HAP on the A2. 

    If the T-90A has a thicker glacis than the T-72B, then you can be certain it will at least match the A2 Abrams. If not, it most probably can not.

    You have no idea what armor it uses, it is a secret and HAP armor of Depleted Uranium is certainly not better for protective capabilities than ceramic plates which other tanks use, actually it is the opposite in case of a perforation and penetration of the armor it will only enhance the after armor effects against the crew,

    Also armor thickness isn't something that is known but Mindstorm had already mentioned that to other two guys that ended up very rude.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mike E on Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:56 am

    In regards to HAP, of course not, almost nobody does. What I do know, is that it is one of the most advanced composites to date. BRL-2 was already considered to be advanced, but HAP brings in ____ improvements (rumored to be a co-development of Burlington) along with the DU kit. I fail to see how this is inferior to a steel/rubber based, passive composite. 

    Diagrams show the turret being 550 mm at the flat-frontal section, and the sides being far greater. Mindstorm's post didn't debunk this or anything for that matter. 

    Damian and Militarysta may have been rude, but generally they know what they are talking about (outside of an undeniable bias, they are Polish after all).
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:52 am

    Mike E wrote:In regards to HAP, of course not, almost nobody does. What I do know, is that it is one of the most advanced composites to date.


    Certainly it is not most advanced composites to date, since it is a two decade old technology and technology has moved on and not to mention that we have Armata's unknown armor package that is the latest technology of armor there is on any tank right now. Further to "know" that one of any of the tanks using the most advanced composite armor, you would need direct knowledge of the composition of those armors and all necessary information of their protective capability to declare one of those tanks to have the best armor technology to date. You obviously have no knowledge of every tank, you have no knowledge of a single tank, such knowledge is restricted to only relative low number of people in design and manufactoring of those tanks and even those guys in the manufactoring facilities have no idea of the protective capabilities even if they know each component, since they are not the phycists nor those guys that evaluade armor capability in tests.

    Mike E wrote:
    BRL-2 was already considered to be advanced, but HAP brings in ____ improvements (rumored to be a co-development of Burlington) along with the DU kit. I fail to see how this is inferior to a steel/rubber based, passive composite. 

    I somehow fail to see how you know the armor of the T-90A not to mention your attempt and notorious to portray armor like murican fanboys that constantly ignore ERA and dissmiss it as not relevant or paint russian armor as such inferior to need ERA, while the first tanks of Russia/Soviet Union that used ERA already were significant more armored than any western tank like T-55 which already weights 36t compared with heavier but less armored tanks like Chieftain.

    Mike E wrote:
    Diagrams show the turret being 550 mm at the flat-frontal section, and the sides being far greater. Mindstorm's post didn't debunk this or anything for that matter. 

    Damian and Militarysta may have been rude, but generally they know what they are talking about (outside of an undeniable bias, they are Polish after all).

    Damian and Militarysta are known fanboys of the Abrams and even they know it better, they often tend to ignore or right out keep disadvantages of Abrams out of equation and discussion to let it appear better than it is, while constantly using any opponent of the Abrams in discussion comperision to be pointing out disadvantages to create a perception that is favoring the Abrams.

    Here to show you what i mean, the fanboyism is undeniable.



    Here he suggests the Abrams is almost perfect design, by re designing its frontal projection vulnerablility of the hull would mean to make it a) first smaller and b) use upgraded ERA to achieve a better protection from frontal projection for the hull (russian tank philosophy)
    He mentions that the only frontal projection vulnerability of Abrams is the gun mantlet, while the frontal projection in safe maneuvering angles would be the entire turret side armor and especially the ammunition bustle.

    Militarysta fanboyism claims the T-72,T-90,T-80 mobility is far worse than Leo2 or M1 Abrams, which tests in Sweden T-72 tests, Malaysian jungle which T-90 against the Leo2 and Abrams haven't even participated in, the Greek trails with T-80 have proven to be not the case.



    Or his understanding or better to say his purposely grotesque purposely depiction of things he actually knows better  like armor performance do depict and not understand the basics of protective capabilities, like depicted by him in the reply from GazB to him and his assertions and flawed comperisions.



    Here another post by Damian, here you have to follow the conversation and his chosen words when he is talking about russian tank design conecepts and completley different terminology when talking about US tank design concepts.

    http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150823/od7nmt8x.jpg

    The russians are using "tricks" while even the basic rectangular design of the Abrams is a technology, which you can see in lot of his posts like the first one his praising for it and the fact that Abrams is inferior to Leopard 2 in almost everyway but still depiction of his favorite tank as superior is funny.

    He is no authority, he is just as biased as others, the difference here is he actualy knows advantages and disadvantages but he ignored and right out lies in debates and discussions to portray his favorite tank as superior, meaning he is not reliable but actually harming for understanding of the matters. People that are ignorant and just believe based on their limited knowledge that one tank is superior to another is an entirely different thing, but to create perceptions with the goal to let appear one tank superior to another in discussions of different approaches, despite knowing better is just wrong.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:53 pm