Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

Mhm.

And this exploded by itself I am sure :



Russian T-72B, destroyed in Georgia in 2008, during ambush. Was fired @ by RPGs.

Btw, no one in Russia calls it T-72BV. Not officially, not anywhere.

Lots of Georgian T-72s destroyed in Ossetia as well, and you guessed it, they all had ERA.

And no, they were not being fired @ by Kornets either. Simple old RPGs for the most part. You have absolutely no proof they were all "tandem-head" advanced RPG warheads.

Abrams has done very well against old RPG for the most part. And of course even with penetration, the chance of it blowing the hell up like the T-72 and killing the crew is far less.
That is the difference. With even T-72B, the threat is ammo detonation and catastrophic consequences is far higher, RPG-7 or RPG-7V or RPG-29.

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

TR1 wrote:At the end of the day, the Abrams has overall done far better against the same old RPG-7s that have been used against T-72s.
And that makes sense, being a newer tank and all.

Which T-72 ? Naked T-72 Ural, monkey T-72 Babylon or T-72Bxx with ERA and etc etc ?

Even fully ERA equipped Russian Army T-72Bs.

Those have blown up quite a few times themselves, from a single penetration too.

And no, no stories (true ones to be fair) of 14 hits on a single T-72 in Chechnya will change that.

Now you are pulling things out of your rear. Fully equipped T-72BV with (V=ERA) can not be penetrated with monoblock RPG-7 warheads the iraqis used and that is the entire comperision here which you again try to avoid, Abrams have never seen new weaponary except in handful incidents while Chechnya, Dagestan, Ukraine and Ingushetia they have seen modern tandem shaped charged weapons, it lacks totally any incidents to make even a comperision.

No, you are like always pulling things out of god knows where.

The T-72Bs ERA does not cover NEARLY the entire tank.

There are plenty of weakened zones, or totally uncovered by ERA zones, the penetration of which is very possible and can quite likely lead to ammo detonation.

Also your claim that the Abrams has only had old monoblock RPG-7s fired at it is suspect to put mildly.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcc_1304114951

WOW, SURE LOOKS LIKE AN RPG-29.

You still don't get it do you?

PG-7 warheads are NON EXISTENT in russian nor any former soviet country in arsenal, they have no monoblock shaped charges only Tandem shape charges.

The PG-7/V warheads were not produced nor in storage since late 70's the production of Tandem shaped chargese PG-7VL have been produced since 1977 which completley took over production of any older warheads. They do not use monoblock shaped charges only tandem once that is the entire difference. Iraqis still knocked out Abrams from the side with monoblocks and therefore they had to install ARAT ERA on Abrams with the use of VL warheads they would still knock out Abrams with 1st generation ARAT ERA.

You are compering much more modern battlefield used Anti Tank equipment against T-72/64 tanks with the worst and oldest warheads used against Abrams and somehow come to the conclusion that the Abrams some how is battle proven. We saw what happens to Abrams in case of modern weaponary it gets penetrated evry single time. The M1A1 has less than 1m armor and got penetrated from front and exit the rear.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32870

Also, more info on RPG-29s vs Abrams.

Obviously no one is saying Abrams shrugs off RPG-29s wherever they hit, but all in all has done about as well as you would expect.

In no case has the tank turned into a giant fireball killing the whole crew-an occurrence that the T-72 has had happen with no need to even bring RPG-29 into the picture.

TR1 wrote:http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32870

Also, more info on RPG-29s vs Abrams.

Obviously no one is saying Abrams shrugs off RPG-29s wherever they hit, but all in all has done about as well as you would expect.

In no case has the tank turned into a giant fireball killing the whole crew-an occurrence that the T-72 has had happen with no need to even bring RPG-29 into the picture.

Please stop pushing for narrative to push that it is the case for each time or most times because we know the chances for that they are 1 out 30 times and that under worst conditions, no ERA and horrible tactics (Chechnya 1st war statistics).

Werewolf wrote:You still don't get it do you?

PG-7 warheads are NON EXISTENT in russian nor any former soviet country in arsenal, they have no monoblock shaped charges only Tandem shape charges.

The PG-7/V warheads were not produced nor in storage since late 70's the production of Tandem shaped chargese PG-7VL have been produced since 1977 which completley took over production of any older warheads. They do not use monoblock shaped charges only tandem once that is the entire difference. Iraqis still knocked out Abrams from the side with monoblocks and therefore they had to install ARAT ERA on Abrams with the use of VL warheads they would still knock out Abrams with 1st generation ARAT ERA.

You are compering much more modern battlefield used Anti Tank equipment against T-72/64 tanks with the worst and oldest warheads used against Abrams and somehow come to the conclusion that the Abrams some how is battle proven. We saw what happens to Abrams in case of modern weaponary it gets penetrated evry single time. The M1A1 has less than 1m armor and got penetrated from front and exit the rear.

Aside from the fact that I have already proved you wrong with the RPG-29 example...

You are wrong again. Monoblock RPG-7 warhead are ALL OVER ex-Soviet armies. There are literally thousands of photographs showing them. Are you even being serious right now?!?!?

Btw, the RPG-7VL IS NOT TANDEM. IT IS A SINGLE WARHEAD WEAPON.
Tandem weapons were NOT MADE UNTILL THE late 80s....because THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM BEFORE ERA.

DO I really need to explain the obvious here?

VR** warhead my fault, however you are pushing for stupidity that somehow Abrams is more battle proven than T-72 when facing some of the oldest and weakest AT weapons and each time the Abrams met modern weapon it got PENETRATED even with fatality from front to the rear exiting the 24t turret.


Do you even understand the discussion here or you pushing for your own again?

The Abrams is not more battle proven nor has it seen anything that was remotley modern except in 5 incidents where it was penetrated each time but you are pushing for narrative that those few incidents are representing the normal case of penetration. The Abrams storages its fuel inside near crew and a hit of it would let them suffer quite alot, just because those 5 incidents did not have penetrated the armor remotley where fuel is stored does not mean it can burn down, it burned down once ridiculing the entire concept of ammunition bustle to prevent crew grilling. The ridiculousness from you as i see it that you are pushing exactly this perception that 5 incidents and ignoring one, are representing the safety of Abrams but incidents 1 out 30 tanks of ammunition storage hit somehow represents the majority or normal case for T-72/64/90 which is not the case but you don't even go there.

I'm not pushing anything. I am stating facts. The Abrams has done well in combat. It has certainly been safer than the T-72 for its crew, which should be no surprise.

Also, you don't know it got penetrated "front to rear".
That is just speculation. I am assuming you are referring to the Kornet strike?
1.) We don't know where it hit. Certainly over the frontal arc, but the penetration is unclear. What is front armor? Was it the side? Was it a weakened zone? If you are going to look at it, you have to do it fairly and scientifically.
We simply don't know. Further, what basis do you have that it went right THROUGH and out? All we know is it hit and shit blew up
2.) How well do you think a T-72 would fare in that scenario? Yeah exactly.

T-72 is not a death trap it does fine for a tank of its age and design, but the Abram's ammo separation is undeniable AND proven by combat.
Also, I would argue that its armor layout (not considering ammo at all) has been quite succesfull in combat as well, though I have no interest in making a comparison to the T-72s armor array at this moment.
Suffice it to say they are very different.

Done well? How so? Testing a piece of equipment on sub-par counterparts only serves as a demotion. Those **** were getting stuck in the Iraqi landscape like nobodies business.

Mike E wrote:Done well? How so? Testing a piece of equipment on sub-par counterparts only serves as a demotion. Those **** were getting stuck in the Iraqi landscape like nobodies business.

well to be fair most would only agree with each other that a particular equipment is battle proven when it survives the conflict it was designed for- and these tanks were designed for WW3.

TR1 wrote:I'm not pushing anything. I am stating facts. The Abrams has done well in combat. It has certainly been safer than the T-72 for its crew, which should be no surprise.

No you are a mp like cherry picker. You are not stating facts, i gave you facts from 1st chechen war statistics where one out of 30 tanks while they had no ERA equipped and no tactics deployed against weaponary of the same level as they have used. But you are constantly pushing this line that T-72 "pops" every time while "no burning Abrams" while we have footage of exactly this case.

TR1 wrote:Also, you don't know it got penetrated "front to rear".

That is just speculation. I am assuming you are referring to the Kornet strike?
1.) We don't know where it hit. Certainly over the frontal arc, but the penetration is unclear. What is front armor? Was it the side? Was it a weakened zone? If you are going to look at it, you have to do it fairly and scientifically.
We simply don't know. Further, what basis do you have that it went right THROUGH and out? All we know is it hit and shit blew up

The same video that you have posted here before.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f88_1402790352&comments=1

The Kornet penetrates frontal turret armor array of the left side and ignites the ammunition in the bustle. Since the Penetrator has penetrated the main armor of the turret, there is no armor after that, just a simple steel sheet door seperating crew from ammunition stored in the bustle. We see the tank going in flames, crew in turret burned alive when not penetrated by ATGM penetrator itself. We know that it penetrated it, so how is this 1 out of 5 incidents not representative for each tank while your 1 out 30 penetrations that "pops" the turret is a representation for all or majority of cases?

TR1 wrote:2.) How well do you think a T-72 would fare in that scenario? Yeah exactly.

No tank survive it except Relikt equipped, but that is not the discussion we are still discussing how Low quality weapons of untrained soldiers under 2 decades of sanctions somehow show a Battle proven Abrams but far superior weaponary deployed against T-72 in Dagestan or Ukraine is showin it is inferior? 1 out 30 and 1 out 5 statistically it is not very well going.

TR1 wrote:
T-72 is not a death trap it does fine for a tank of its age and design, but the Abram's ammo separation is undeniable AND proven by combat.
Also, I would argue that its armor layout (not considering ammo at all) has been quite succesfull in combat as well, though I have no interest in making a comparison to the T-72s armor array at this moment.
Suffice it to say they are very different.

The T-72 has a better protection for its ammunition since the ammunition is stored behind main armor the ammunition in ammunition bustles are not protected at all, the only difference that actually is hazardous to the crew is the ammunition stored in turret not in the autoloader and we had this hundreds of times already you are ignoring the topic.

We have one video showing that Abrams ammo seperation is not as safe as believed, but of course we have no strict tests about it with modern ATGM's with 100 ATGM's and RPG's and APFSDS/HEAT rounds fired at it to see how often the armor gets penetrated and how often the ammunition in the bustle kills the crew or protects the crew, but we have one single video that shows the fire will enter the crew compartment when there is a hole from a penetrator entering the crew compartment.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Done well? How so? Testing a piece of equipment on sub-par counterparts only serves as a demotion. Those **** were getting stuck in the Iraqi landscape like nobodies business.

well to be fair most would only agree with each other that a particular equipment is battle proven when it survives the conflict it was designed for- and these tanks were designed for WW3.

Exactly!

Surviving a death match with 4th graders when you are a 30 old does not show how Battle proven he is but a rather embarrassment when he shows wounds taken from little kids.

Werewolf wrote:
Exactly!

Surviving a death match with 4th grades as a 30 year old does not show how Battle proven he is but a rather embarrassment when he shows wounds taken from little kids.

err it cuts both ways- strictly speaking by that measure even the much vaunted T-90 and T-72 are not battle proven either.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Exactly!

Surviving a death match with 4th grades as a 30 year old does not show how Battle proven he is but a rather embarrassment when he shows wounds taken from little kids.

err it cuts both ways- strictly speaking by that measure even the much vaunted T-90 and T-72 are not battle proven either.

Nobody said that if you would follow, but the T-72 and T-80 are much more battle proven than Abrams or any other tank besides Merkawa facing much more lethal and more modern AT weapons than any other tank, but non of those tanks has actually seen a battlefield they were designed to face and win, so factually non of those tanks are battle proven for their purpose.

Using examples of RPG hits to Apaches or Hinds does not proof they are well armored and therefore flying tanks just like dozens of HE-Frag from RPG's hitting Challanger2 tank does not show how well the armor is.

Werewolf wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Exactly!

Surviving a death match with 4th grades as a 30 year old does not show how Battle proven he is but a rather embarrassment when he shows wounds taken from little kids.

err it cuts both ways- strictly speaking by that measure even the much vaunted T-90 and T-72 are not battle proven either.

Nobody said that if you would follow, but the T-72 and T-80 are much more battle proven than Abrams or any other tank besides Merkawa facing much more lethal and more modern AT weapons than any other tank, but non of those tanks has actually seen a battlefield they were designed to face and win, so factually non of those tanks are battle proven for their purpose.

Using examples of RPG hits to Apaches or Hinds does not proof they are well armored and therefore flying tanks just like dozens of HE-Frag from RPG's hitting Challanger2 tank does not show how well the armor is.

you just said so now that the T-xx are battle proven when you just agreed that if it doesnt survive what it was designed for it was not battle proven.
and T-xx in russian hands series didnt face more modern weapons than the abrams. they didnt even face modern atgms, just mostly malyutkas and konkurs. the rpgs are decent and the users just as deadly but not more modern than what the iraqis used.

The hull with be 1000 mm RHAe at the very least, a figure such as the 1300 mm you mentioned isn't completely unrealistic either...

I have no clue about the turret though.

Mike E wrote:The hull with be 1000 mm RHAe at the very least, a figure such as the 1300 mm you mentioned isn't completely unrealistic either...

I have no clue about the turret though.

Yes.. that tarp around the turret sure make things difficult.

Another interesting aspect is how Armata crew can maintain situational awareness. Saw some ppl criticizing Armata (and US M1TTB) For lack of "all round vision" of commander's hatch periscope and "Limited capability of Video camera"

Looks to me, Armata (and her sibling T-95) is designed and optimized for a tank vs tank battle.. not or little expense be given on Urban combat.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Exactly!

Surviving a death match with 4th grades as a 30 year old does not show how Battle proven he is but a rather embarrassment when he shows wounds taken from little kids.

err it cuts both ways- strictly speaking by that measure even the much vaunted T-90 and T-72 are not battle proven either.

Nobody said that if you would follow, but the T-72 and T-80 are much more battle proven than Abrams or any other tank besides Merkawa facing much more lethal and more modern AT weapons than any other tank, but non of those tanks has actually seen a battlefield they were designed to face and win, so factually non of those tanks are battle proven for their purpose.

Using examples of RPG hits to Apaches or Hinds does not proof they are well armored and therefore flying tanks just like dozens of HE-Frag from RPG's hitting Challanger2 tank does not show how well the armor is.

you just said so now that the T-xx are battle proven when you just agreed that if it doesnt survive what it was designed for it was not battle proven.
and T-xx in russian hands series didnt face more modern weapons than the abrams. they didnt even face modern atgms, just mostly malyutkas and konkurs. the rpgs are decent and the users just as deadly but not more modern than what the iraqis used.

The T-72AV have faced M829 DU rounds fired from Leo2 L44 and survived every single time with K5.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Yes.. that tarp around the turret sure make things difficult.  

Another interesting aspect is how Armata crew can maintain situational awareness. Saw some ppl criticizing Armata (and US M1TTB) For lack of "all round vision" of commander's hatch periscope and "Limited capability of Video camera"

Looks to me, Armata (and her sibling T-95) is designed and optimized for a tank vs tank battle.. not or little expense be given on Urban combat.  

and urban combat too- just strap a dozen dashcams around the thing. you could even make a a boom rig attached to the back of the tank with a camera at the end for that authentic third person shooter experience.

Werewolf wrote:

The T-72AV have faced M829 DU rounds fired from Leo2 L44 and survived every single time with K5.

as it should- its sporting K-5 after all. but its no way better to Abrams and Leo 2 that can tank their own rounds too.

as it should- its sporting K-5 after all. but its no way better to Abrams and Leo 2 that can tank their own rounds too.

That does not matter to this discussion because we are talking about "combat proven" while the T-72A/BV is combat proven to adequate enemies rounds of its time period the other haven't proven the same so far.

Werewolf wrote:

as it should- its sporting K-5 after all. but its no way better to Abrams and Leo 2 that can tank their own rounds too.

That does not matter to this discussion because we are talking about "combat proven" while the T-72A/BV is combat proven to adequate enemies rounds of its time period the other haven't proven the same so far.

except that svinets and m829a1 (both early 90s) had similar performance- and the Abrams tanked a1s in GW1 not vanilla m829 actually. but then again the triple charged monster 3bk29m was only publicly seen in late 90s- maybe it was ready much earlier?

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

as it should- its sporting K-5 after all. but its no way better to Abrams and Leo 2 that can tank their own rounds too.

That does not matter to this discussion because we are talking about "combat proven" while the T-72A/BV is combat proven to adequate enemies rounds of its time period the other haven't proven the same so far.

except that svinets and m829a1 (both early 90s) had similar performance- and the Abrams tanked a1s in GW1 not vanilla m829 actually. but then again the triple charged monster 3bk29m was only publicly seen in late 90s- maybe it was ready much earlier?

M829A1 was tested on GDR T-72AV the same "Silver bullet" as iraqi MM's.

RPG-7: some real facts about warheads.

PG-7V - 1961. was in reserve/training up to the 80s at least. 85mm warhead, AI-X1. 260mm penetratrion (not "290").

PG-7VM - 1969. Still used worldwide in armies, old stock still used for training in russia and other eastern countries, but it's now rare. AI-X1, 70mm warhead, 300mm penetration. The most copied and used by warsaw pact in the 70s-80s.

PG-7VS - 1972, 72mm warhead, OKFOL, 400mm penetration. Big improvement in explosive, wave shaper and cone. The most used and common round for soviet army in the late 70s to early days of russian army up to the 2000s. Fast accurate and light to carry, it's the ideal and most widespread round used in armies other than russia. Still used in russia for training, out of production i think. Many used in ukraine war, the most common round in fact.

PG-7VS1 - 1972, 72mm warhead, 360mm penetration. A cheaper variant of the above, with AI-X1 explosive rather than OKFOL. To ensure sufficient number of the modern pattern round without worrying for the expensive OKFOL. Apparently discontinued in 1976, still used just like the standard PG-7VM.

PG-7VL - 1977, 93mm warhead, 550mm penetration, OKFOL. The last single stage warhead, nowadays the standard round for russian army, production by BAZALT still active. Quite common on battlefields around russia (chechnia, georgia, now ukraine), but not so common worldwide.

PG-7VR - 1980s. 105 + 64mm warheads, 700-750mm penetration. OKFOL. The double charge round, rather rare, but russia army has stocks. Exported and sought after in every conflict as it can kill MBTs with a simple RPG-7.


Facts:
-PG-7V was made from scratch.
-PG-7VM was inspired by the contemporary SPG-9 round, PG-9V (and used on BMP-1).
-PG-7VS is 100% identical to PG-9V rounds, except it uses more sophisticated inner construction (later, the SPG-9 in turn received a copy of the PG-7VS (which is a copy of the PG-9V if you follow me) called PG-9VM also with +400mm penetration.)
-PG-7VS round gave birth to the RPG-22 disposable laucher (yes the same warhead of 72mm but with different rocket motor). It evolved into RPG-26 which is as widespread in russian army today as rats in new york.
-PG-7VL was made from scratch and is unique to the RPG-7
-PG-7VR was taken from the RPG-29 and adapted to the rocket booster/motor of the RPG-7, reducing effective range by 5 compared to the much more powerful RPG-29, which can be considered a portable recoilless gun. The disposable RPG-27 also uses strictly the same warhead as RPG-29.

-OKFOL is a russian explosive composed mostly of HMX, it's one of the most expensive and most powerful (fast) explosive in use today, it gives tremendous penetrating power to HEAT warheads. Kornet or many other ATGMs use OKFOL. AI-X1 is a russian plastic explosive (RDX based, like C4) in use since WW2, it's already a very good explosive, it replaced the TROTYL (TNT based) in most applications since WW2.

So, now you know everything about RPG-7 ammo.

Werewolf wrote:
No you are a mp like cherry picker.

No, You just can't deal with the fact that the Abrams has done well in combat and has been statistically safer than the T-72.

You are not stating facts, i gave you facts from 1st chechen war statistics where one out of 30 tanks while they had no ERA equipped a

Go ahead and show me some "facts" that prove this claim. 1 out of 30 with no ERA, that were hit? Show me.

no tactics deployed against weaponary of the same level as they have used. But you are constantly pushing this line that T-72 "pops" every time while "no burning Abrams" while we have footage of exactly this case.

Uh no. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said any of that. Learn to argue.

The Kornet penetrates frontal turret armor array of the left side and ignites the ammunition in the bustle.

Wrong again. The turret is turned. You have no idea where it hits. Yes, the Kornet can mess anyones day up from the front, but you don't actually know if it hit the front armor plate.

crew in turret burned alive when not penetrated by ATGM penetrator itself.

You have proof the entire crew died? In the Abrams when the ammo goes, the explosion is still mostly controlled out the blowout panels. In the T-72, we have seen what happens when the ammo goes. Entire turret flies off and crew is in most cases incinerated.

We know that it penetrated it, so how is this 1 out of 5 incidents not representative for each tank while your 1 out 30 penetrations that "pops" the turret is a representation for all or majority of cases?

We were talking about older RPG weapons, were we not? Kornet can screw up anyone's day. Though I would argue, it would do far worse to a T-72s crew, since you know, IT HAS NO ISOLATION FROM THE AMMO. Incidently, the Kornet is a more modern weapon than was fired against 99% of T-72s that saw combat, so that sinks your argument further.

No tank survive it except Relikt equipped, but that is not the discussion we are still discussing how Low quality weapons of untrained soldiers under 2 decades of sanctions somehow show a Battle proven Abrams but far superior weaponary deployed against T-72 in Dagestan or Ukraine is showin it is inferior? 1 out 30 and 1 out 5 statistically it is not very well going.

Wrong, wrong, wrong again.
1.) Even with Relikt the T-72 has plenty of weakspots that could be hit from the front.
2.) We are discussing both tanks vs RPGs essentially from light infantry or insurgents. The Abrams has done very well in this secanrio.
3.) You are once again pulling statistics out of thin air. In 8-8-8 ONE Russian T-72B was hit with RPGs. And ONE was destroyed with its crew. so 1 out of 1, if we go by your approach . Terrible.

The T-72 has a better protection for its ammunition since the ammunition is stored behind main armor the ammunition in ammunition bustles are not protected at all, the only difference that actually is hazardous to the crew is the ammunition stored in turret not in the autoloader and we had this hundreds of times already you are ignoring the topic.

Hundreds of times doesn't make this any less baloney. The T-72s ammo layouts exactly far more dangerous for the crew.
As for being in a bustle, as combat has shown it hasn't been a huge problem, and that without a bustle the T-72 burns just as easily. Since, you know, it is very easy to penetrate from the sides, from the rear, and from the multiple weakspots in the front. The Abrams has the disadvantage of a larger profile....but those hits has a far less likely chance of killing the crew BY DESIGN in any case.

Neither tank was desighned from the outset to fight insurgencies from all sides in poorly defined battlefields, but the Abrams has kept its crws safer under fire.

No amount of whitewashing by you will change that.

TR1 wrote:

No, You just can't deal with the fact that the Abrams has done well in combat and has been statistically safer than the T-72.

It has not done well, not in comperision with what pathetic weapons were used against it of an army under 2 decades of sanctions leaving the military mainly with training APFSDS rounds as their main ammunition and with crew of the "elite" republic army having only 10 rounds per year of training. If it faces anything even remotley to what T-72 has seen in Chechnya, Iran-Iraq, Ukraine, Dagestan or anywhere else even monkey models had to deal with than you can say it did well and is combat proven.

I do well fighting kindergarden kids that does not make me a great fighter.

You are not stating facts, i gave you facts from 1st chechen war statistics where one out of 30 tanks while they had no ERA equipped a

TR1 wrote:
Go ahead and show me some "facts" that prove this claim. 1 out of 30 with no ERA, that were hit? Show me.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=61339604488844347766

Those tanks were under worst conditions, without ERA, against weapons that were on the same level as russia used, without tactics and still there were rarely ammunition cook offs.
Ok, it is 7 out of 41 T-72A/B tanks with one being hit by Artillery round from top for tanks without ERA under far worse conditions any Abrams has ever seen that does show exact oppossite of what you trying to portray here that T-72 are cooking off most off the time, which is not the case.
The T-80 1 out of 35 got penetrated with a cook off, they were used a little bit better and were all better armored in comperision with T-72, T-72A and T-72B.


[quote="TR1"]
Wrong again. The turret is turned. You have no idea where it hits. Yes, the Kornet can mess anyones day up from the front, but you don't actually know if it hit the front armor plate.

You have proof the entire crew died? In the Abrams when the ammo goes, the explosion is still mostly controlled out the blowout panels. In the T-72, we have seen what happens when the ammo goes. Entire turret flies off and crew is in most cases incinerated.
[quote]

Watch the video again.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f88_1402790352&comments=1

You can even stop the video at the moment where you clearly see the explosion while it is still on the frontal armor array and not the side armor array, following with flames from coocking ammunition out of the commanders hatch on the left side of the tank turret which excludes that this are the blow off penals which are on the right side.

I have a clear idea where it hits, the turret is standing like that. The Red is cornered the gun and frontal armor array, green is side armor and blue little dot is the missile split second before detonation. Check the video for yourself.



When there is clear and distingtive for ammunition cook off, flames coming out of commanders hatch then we are without doubt that those guys inside the turret had no chance surviving those flames, while the driver probably and most likely survived. Just because the turret did not fly off, because the hatches were open does not let the crew survive ammunition cook off, they are all dead inside the turret unless they wore fireproof suites which they use in melting oven.

TR1 wrote:
We were talking about older RPG weapons, were we not? Kornet can screw up anyone's day. Though I would argue, it would do far worse to a T-72s crew, since you know, IT HAS NO ISOLATION FROM THE AMMO. Incidently, the Kornet is a more modern weapon than was fired against 99% of T-72s that saw combat, so that sinks your argument further.

We are not discussing RPG vs Kornet, we are discussing that you claimed Abrams is proven fighting iraqis which common AT weapons were PG-7 warheads with 260mm RHAe and the most capable AT weapon they had was AT-4 with 350-400mm RHAe pen, while T-72's in Dagestan, Chechnya, Ukraine have seen weapons of shaped charges mono and tandem of minimum of 550mm RHAe penetration with more capable ATGM's with tandem shaped charges like METIS-M with 900mm RHAe. We are discussing your claim that somehow the Abrams did very good against weapons that did not even exist in any serious armor perforation and penetration compared with Weapons that verywell had far higher destructive power than the Tanks were designed to fight against without using ERA, it is this exact contrast you lack to compare.

TR1 wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong again.
1.) Even with Relikt the T-72 has plenty of weakspots that could be hit from the front.
2.) We are discussing both tanks vs RPGs essentially from light infantry or insurgents. The Abrams has done very well in this secanrio.
3.) You are once again pulling statistics out of thin air. In 8-8-8 ONE Russian T-72B was hit with RPGs. And ONE was destroyed with its crew. so 1 out of 1, if we go by your approach . Terrible.

1. Weak spots do not matter, they are not the object of our discussion, every tank has weak sposts and there are no exceptions. Armor and kprob in Tank vs Tank or AT vs Tank engagements are always measured by its moderate armor or by its highest protected armor, weak spots are not taken into any weapons development except top attack weapons, but there are no ATGM's that guide themselfs to hit gun mantled or lower hull glacis.

2. Abrams hasn't done well, that is why ARAT ERA was deployed because it was easily damaged and put out of operation by simple PG-7 warheads. I think we have here a big misconception of the level of your education on Iraqi war and equipment. You somehow think that using the weakest weapons of all against a 3rd GEN tank is somehow a better performance for the Abrams rather than the fact that older generations had to face much more modern AT weapons and did surprisingly well under circumstances.

You are comparing horse apples with bananas and claim horse apples are better tasting.

3. What retardation, the entire Georgian war only 3 tanks have been lost only one tank with cook off (T-72B) and of course not only 1 tanks has been engaged or damaged, so your 1:1 would not even work for your little bad argument to ridicule because the joke is only on you.

http://forums.vif2.ru/showthread.php?t=1709

TR1 wrote:
Hundreds of times doesn't make this any less baloney. The T-72s ammo layouts exactly far more dangerous for the crew.
As for being in a bustle, as combat has shown it hasn't been a huge problem, and that without a bustle the T-72 burns just as easily. Since, you know, it is very easy to penetrate from the sides, from the rear, and from the multiple weakspots in the front. The Abrams has the disadvantage of a larger profile....but those hits has a far less likely chance of killing the crew BY DESIGN in any case.

Neither tank was desighned from the outset to fight insurgencies from all sides in poorly defined battlefields, but the Abrams has kept its crws safer under fire.

No amount of whitewashing by you will change that.

That is not baloney that is a fact, that the ammunition stored behind MAIN armor is much harder to cook off than the unprotected ammunition in ammunition bustle, when cooking off puting the tank out of operation, crew survives but it does not matter to the purpose of you as an enemy RPG team if you can easily cook off the ammunition in the unarmored ammunition bustle and by that neutralizing the threat from the tank. I did not say that it is safer for the crew in case of cook off, i said the likelyhood of ammunition cook off is lower behind main armor as in comperision exposed ammunition bustles, that also show themselfs whenever the turret is turned. The T-72 is far better protect from all sides than Abrams, except front, due the thicker armor of side, top (small weak zones of the turret roof) and it is protected by ERA.

You still pushing this bullshit, Abrams has not kept its crew safer, because no WEAPONS were used in such numbers that would even penetrate it and every single time where Modern AT weapons like RPG-29 or Kornet-E have been used each time the tank got penetrated and one was injured or killed in one case 3 dead from Kornet-E cooking off ammunition in the ammunition bustle, fire entered turret and exit the commanders hatch, no surviving possible, no one tried to climb out of the wreckage.