TR1 wrote:Werewolf's numbers are baloney.
And that quote is Fofanov, saying Obj 195 was the answer to M829A3. Since you know...that round did not exist earlier. Obj 187 was made with newer rounds in mind as well, especially post M829A1 ones.
Fofanov explicitly says a new tank was the answer, not modernized ERA that entered service before the A3- AND HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT K-5! He is talking about Relikt.
But somehow you guys believe the delusion that T-72B3 can withstand A3 hits anywhere it has ERA.
Baloney is what you try to portray it here, those are numbers from FOFANOV which you have quoted here already, meaning you trust his work and those numbers were only from him.
Since you clearly have added or better to say ignored half of what i said and just jumped on the phrase which you seemed the most convinient to comment, ripping it out of its context making it a baloney debate and not a discussion.
Since you already have aggreed that Fofanov is also your source so lets keep it the same way.
T-72B on his page for upper glacis like i have posted before has 720mm RHAe against KE, the M829A3 have around 680-690mm at 2km, the K5 highly capable ERA is already explained on Fofanovs side that it can destroy long rods, destroy the hardend tip and make them yaw from the explosion, decreasing their capability. Since you clearly have ignored and not even mentioned in the replies this sentence which is the entire point of discussion you ignore everytime so far,
The T-72B3 with K5 is well enough protected against M829A2 and A3 to common and effective tank engagement ranges
, that makes them effective for engaging other tanks, this are not some iraqi monkey models that couldn't penetrate even weak spots with their 290mm RHAe training APFSDS-T rounds from 10m distance. The T-72B3 can not just enter the the effective tank engagement round but also deploy weapons outside of the M1A2 SEP. I've never ever stated nowhere that it is immune, it is not, but the M1A2 SEP would need to get within 2km and below to destroy the T-72B3 unlike with iraqi Monkey Models which could have been destroyed by M60A3 from 3km range without problems.
Either you keep it to what it was intented a discussion or you further go down the track of pulling it down to a debate with personal crusade.
You know exactly that it can withstand tank rounds at engagement ranges and can also engage tanks far beyond the iraqi 1500m (day vs static).
If you haven't followed this thread here, it was not me who started to compare B3 with A2, it was asked to be compared by another user, most likely he wanted to know how it fares to compare it with the so "legendary" Abrams against allegedly "soviet" T-72's in Iraq.
And yes the gas turbine is a big flaw and your notions that the T-80 has them does not change this very fact that gas turbines on tanks are shit, this is also proven by every single country even russia has abondoned gas turbines and USA does too with M1A3 model getting a Diesel engine. They don't do it because of any other reason as mentioned before, it is shit and damaging the tanks value on battlefield.
Besides... Not like the M1 would ever reach the ground, knowing that the smallest transport aircraft that can take it is the ****** huge C17 that would get nailed before it lands.
As opposed to T-90 right, which is only carried by An-22s and An-124s.
Well weight is a big factor at deployment, while russians actually can airdrop T-72/90 and have all necessary equipment for it, US can't do and a heavier tank does not make it easier. Logistically the M1 is the worst, uneconomical, disastrous and depends in more situations on the supply chain more frequently than any other tank, thanks to gas turbine and its enormous weight.