Comparing Tanks

VladimirSahin wrote:

max steel wrote:
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.

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).

nemrod wrote:
Regarding Iraq Iran war results, it was an evidence that neither the  M-60 or Centurion could match the T-72....
The Merkava was developped because of these two tanks had low results during 1973's war against the T-62.

The Centurion and M-60 had "low results" against the T-62? Look what happened to the Republican Guards at Red Ridge, and the 25th brigade on October 17. The Merkava was designed to better withstand arab numerical superiority in tanks; arab tanks had no technical superiority.

The Merkava was designed to better withstand arab numerical superiority in tanks; arab tanks had no technical superiority.

Not strictly true... I do seem to remember an engagement where the arab forces were able to take advantage of the limited night capability of the T-62 to their advantage...

GarryB wrote:
Not strictly true... I do seem to remember an engagement where the arab forces were able to take advantage of the limited night capability of the T-62 to their advantage...

Do you remember where or when it was? Syrian armor used this capability during the night of October 6-7 at red ridge, but those were T-55s.

Do you remember where or when it was? Syrian armor used this capability during the night of October 6-7 at red ridge, but those were T-55s.

So if they were T-55s... that proves my point.

If you are going to say the Arab forces had no technical superiority then how can the Arabs have had night capable equipment and the Israelis not?

Doesn't that mean some arab tanks had the technical superiority of night fighting capability... however limited it might have been...

starman wrote:

GarryB wrote:
Not strictly true... I do seem to remember an engagement where the arab forces were able to take advantage of the limited night capability of the T-62 to their advantage...

Do you remember where or when it was? Syrian armor used this capability during the night of October 6-7 at red ridge, but those were T-55s.

Which used the exact same night capability assets.

GarryB wrote:
So if they were T-55s... that proves my point.

If you are going to say the Arab forces had no technical superiority then how can the Arabs have had night capable equipment and the Israelis not?

Doesn't that mean some arab tanks had the technical superiority of night fighting capability... however limited it might have been...

But IDF tanks were still generally superior. The bulk of arab tanks were T-55s with 100mm guns whereas most IDF tanks had 105mm guns. In addition, IDF western armor, "bred partly from the experience of the North African campaign" was better suited to desert warfare than arab tanks see e.g. The Yom Kippur War by the London Insight Team.

It is pretty clear the Israeli forces were superior but I really don't think it was because of their equipment.

Training and tactics were much more important, and of course I suspect the attitude within the military was different too.

The Israelis tended to use captured equipment... if it was so inferior why would they do that?

And if you gauge the potential of equipment based on how it performed in combat would it not be sensible to look at how that same equipment that failed in arab hands seemed capable of succeeding in israeli hands...

On paper a 105mm gun is superior to a 100mm gun but the effects on target didn't actually differ that much... a penetration is a penetration.

GarryB wrote:It is pretty clear the Israeli forces were superior but I really don't think it was because of their equipment.

In fact equipment did play a major role, especially in the air. Many arab MIG-21s had poor endurance and ineffective weapons.

The Israelis tended to use captured equipment... if it was so inferior why would they do that?

They certainly weren't satisfied with a lot of it as it was. Captured T-55s for example were rearmed with 105mm guns and I believe also new engines.

And if you gauge the potential of equipment based on how it performed in combat would it not be sensible to look at how that same equipment that failed in arab hands seemed capable of succeeding in israeli hands...

The vast bulk of Israeli success was due to western tanks, which always made up of their force. According to Adan, the Tirans or captured, upgunned T-55s did win a battle but fared relatively poorly.

On paper a 105mm gun is superior to a 100mm gun but the effects on target didn't actually differ that much... a penetration is a penetration.

Longer range and accuracy may not be so important in Europe but the are in the desert.

starman wrote:

GarryB wrote:It is pretty clear the Israeli forces were superior but I really don't think it was because of their equipment.

In fact equipment did play a major role, especially in the air. Many arab MIG-21s had poor endurance and ineffective weapons.

The Israelis tended to use captured equipment... if it was so inferior why would they do that?

 They certainly weren't satisfied with a lot of it as it was. Captured T-55s for example were rearmed with 105mm guns and I believe also new engines.

And if you gauge the potential of equipment based on how it performed in combat would it not be sensible to look at how that same equipment that failed in arab hands seemed capable of succeeding in israeli hands...

The vast bulk of Israeli success was due to western tanks, which always made up of their force. According to Adan, the Tirans or captured, upgunned T-55s did win a battle but fared relatively poorly.

On paper a 105mm gun is superior to a 100mm gun but the effects on target didn't actually differ that much... a penetration is a penetration.

Longer range and accuracy may not be so important in Europe but the are in the desert.

Actually it's not true, the Israeli theatre is very narrow and endurance is really absurd, we're speaking a 300km envelope. And because of this the Soviet phase of the War of Attrition turned out the way it did. With Israel bowing dow?

Same for the tanks the "Range" you speak off is literally senseless. A part from the Centurions all the other tanks were equipped with 90mm or less calibre guns during the 6day war. Ironically the AMX-13/75 was as effective as the Centurions. The L7 had also huge issues with shot dispersion and heat, mirages on the sights and warping on periscopes.

The fact is that Tank wise the Israelis didn't have a material advantage, it was a hard parity for reasons we will not discuss here. The main issue stands with the awareness of Syrian tanks and the overall poor intelligence and scouting that the Syrians mustered

Also during the Yom Kippur War

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Actually it's not true, the Israeli theatre is very narrow and endurance is really absurd, we're speaking a 300km envelope. And because of this the Soviet phase of the War of Attrition turned out the way it did. With Israel bowing dow?

Not sure I understand this but arab pilots certainly claimed the limited endurance of their MIG-21s put them at a disadvantage. Syrian pilots, quoted by Cooper, also said Israeli tactics were designed to exploit this weakness.

A part from the Centurions all the other tanks were equipped with 90mm or less calibre guns during the 6day war.

There were plenty of Centurions to deal with the best equipped arab force, in Sinai. And in 1973 the 105m gun was almost universal in the IDF armored corps.

Ironically the AMX-13/75 was as effective as the Centurions.

What I read in The Six Day War by the Churchill brothers suggests otherwise. When T-55s counterattacked near Gafgafa, Israeli AMXs "came close to being overwhelmed." Shells from AMX guns bounced off T-55 armor.

The L7 had also huge issues with shot dispersion and heat, mirages on the sights and warping on periscopes.

Tal's Centurions performed rather well. If the Israelis didn't have a material advantage overall, it was because of arab numerical superiority (although negated by poor strategic leadership).

The main issue stands with the awareness of Syrian tanks and the overall poor intelligence and scouting that the Syrians mustered

In '67?? They were atop the Golan looking at the enemy right below them.

starman wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Actually it's not true, the Israeli theatre is very narrow and endurance is really absurd, we're speaking a 300km envelope. And because of this the Soviet phase of the War of Attrition turned out the way it did. With Israel bowing dow?

Not sure I understand this but arab pilots certainly claimed the limited endurance of their MIG-21s put them at a disadvantage. Syrian pilots, quoted by Cooper, also said Israeli tactics were designed to exploit this weakness.

Yet Soviet Pilots did the exact same feat of forcing Israel to bow down and simmer.

A part from the Centurions all the other tanks were equipped with 90mm or less calibre guns during the 6day war.

There were plenty of Centurions to deal with the best equipped arab force, in Sinai. And in 1973 the 105m gun was almost universal in the IDF armored corps.

Plenty? Let's say that this is a complete fallacy that relies on the pre-emptive action taken by Israel. Being smarter and bold, doesn't make your weapons "better".

Ironically the AMX-13/75 was as effective as the Centurions.

What I read in The Six Day War by the Churchill brothers suggests otherwise. When T-55s counterattacked near Gafgafa, Israeli AMXs "came close to being overwhelmed." Shells from AMX guns bounced off T-55 armor.

close to being overwhelmed is jus the typical view of those who don't understand that the 4th Mech underestimated the opposition. While you might say that there were issues with the T-55, they also were issues with some other tanks, like the M47/48 used by the Jordanians. Clearly the problem of the AMX, wasn't the gun, but its protection. Ironically the M51 Jumbo-Sherman was quite capable to deal with the T-55 family, with the same french 75mm gun.

Yes, one vehicle might be lacking, but that's not on firepower alone.

The L7 had also huge issues with shot dispersion and heat, mirages on the sights and warping on periscopes.

Tal's Centurions performed rather well. If the Israelis didn't have a material advantage overall, it was because of arab numerical superiority (although negated by poor strategic leadership).

The main issue stands with the awareness of Syrian tanks and the overall poor intelligence and scouting that the Syrians mustered

In '67?? They were atop the Golan looking at the enemy right below them.
[/quote]

In both confrontations, having the Israelis creep up or shoot them as turkeys in the Golan or in the Sinai, is a testament to the lack of tactical culture, not strategic. So you might actually want to read the difference between those.

When T-55s counterattacked near Gafgafa, Israeli AMXs "came close to being overwhelmed." Shells from AMX guns bounced off T-55 armor.

So which is it... you say the Israelis were superior in every area and now you admit the AMX was not superior and nor was their night vision equipment...

GarryB wrote:
So which is it... you say the Israelis were superior in every area and now you admit the AMX was not superior and nor was their night vision equipment...

The AMX was the exception not the rule. Israel had far more Centurions etc.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Yet Soviet Pilots did the exact same feat of forcing Israel to bow down and simmer.

In July 1970, Israeli pilots ambushed Soviet piloted MIGs, shooting down 5.

Plenty? Let's say that this is a complete fallacy that relies on the pre-emptive action taken by Israel. Being smarter and bold, doesn't make your weapons "better".

The preemptive attack of '67 affected arab air forces not tanks. But based on the performance of surviving arab jets in air combat, the Churchill brothers doubt it would've made much difference had there been no initial destruction of arab jets on the ground.

In both confrontations, having the Israelis creep up or shoot them as turkeys in the Golan or in the Sinai, is a testament to the lack of tactical culture, not strategic. So you might actually want to read the difference between those.

Arab strategic mistakes, such as focusing on red ridge or attacking on Oct. 14, contributed greatly to defeat.

starman wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Yet Soviet Pilots did the exact same feat of forcing Israel to bow down and simmer.

In July 1970, Israeli pilots ambushed Soviet piloted MIGs, shooting down 5.

Then proceeded to lose a whole wing. Also read the actual ambush story, nothing to do with "lack of range". Once again, what you say and what is real seem to be two different universes.

Plenty? Let's say that this is a complete fallacy that relies on the pre-emptive action taken by Israel. Being smarter and bold, doesn't make your weapons "better".

The preemptive attack of '67 affected arab air forces not tanks. But based on the performance of surviving arab jets in air combat, the Churchill brothers doubt it would've made much difference had there been no initial destruction of arab jets on the ground.

Uhm so the Israelis didn't invade, they didn't initiate a ground attack, nor did they exploited the cold start...I get it, Pz3 is better t-34 because you know the German Invasion was absolutely flawless...for 3 months. I'm going to need a bigger facepalm.

In both confrontations, having the Israelis creep up or shoot them as turkeys in the Golan or in the Sinai, is a testament to the lack of tactical culture, not strategic. So you might actually want to read the difference between those.

Arab strategic mistakes, such as focusing on red ridge or attacking on Oct. 14, contributed greatly to defeat.

[/quote]


Oh no you didn't, Golan occupation happened once the Syrians accepted the cease-fire by 9th of June. Part of the Syrian forces were blindsided by the cease-fire order, the other part was simply already in retreat. Golan Occupation took part during 6-day war, maybe you should start switching from one story to the other.

By mid-day the 9th of June Israeli air-force has reduced the fighting capability of the Syrian armed forces to less than 30%, not as much in material losses, than in logistical drought with basically no motorized component. This meant that the small available forces of the Syrian tank companies were pretty much mobile pillboxes. And that the Syrians would be forced to fight their hearts out. With one small asterisk. Basically NO Supplies. Unlike in 1973 where the syrians WOULD engage in delaying tactics, here they stood their ground, bloodied the Israelis but they would be done by sheer logistical shortages. And indeed, guess what? From Al Zaura onwards the Syrians couldn't defend themselves, because ... they were running on borrowed time. They totally forgot

The most important issue however happened when the Golani Brigade led itself to the slaughter house and the Syrians didn't exploit it. Instead of hitting the M3's they insisted on the Jumbo shermans which while more dangerous were also lame ducks in the Golan terrain, but allowing the Israelis to dismount (tactical mistake) they made their task harder and allowed infiltration.

We can have this discussion day in, day out and the end would be the same. Arab armies were hollow ones, and that hasn't changed, but that didn't meant they were idiots.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Then proceeded to lose a whole wing.

Israel lost a whole wing after the ambush of 7/70?

Uhm so the Israelis didn't invade, they didn't initiate a ground attack, nor did they exploited the cold start...I get it, Pz3 is better t-34 because

The Israelis initially fought mainly infantry forces along the border; most of the armor was farther back. The Egyptians committed some of it according to plan but it was crushed.

Golan Occupation took part during 6-day war

I realize that...Pollack blamed the Syrian defeat on the failure of tactical commanders to commit their reserves, during the initial Israeli attack.

Arab armies were hollow ones, and that hasn't changed, but that didn't meant they were idiots.

Shazli considered Sadat an idiot. In the end Gamasy was as harsh or harsher.

starman wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Then proceeded to lose a whole wing.

Israel lost a whole wing after the ambush of 7/70?

Uhm so the Israelis didn't invade, they didn't initiate a ground attack, nor did they exploited the cold start...I get it, Pz3 is better t-34 because

The Israelis initially fought mainly infantry forces along the border; most of the armor was farther back. The Egyptians committed some of it according to plan but it was crushed.

Golan Occupation took part during 6-day war

I realize that...Pollack blamed the Syrian defeat on the failure of tactical commanders to commit their reserves, during the initial Israeli attack.

Arab armies were hollow ones, and that hasn't changed, but that didn't meant they were idiots.

Shazli considered Sadat an idiot. In the end Gamasy was as harsh or harsher.

During attrition war, Israeli lost to Soviet intervention at least 20 planes. The biggest issue wasn't thus the range. Soviets prior Rimon 20 had also shot Hawks and phantoms by air kills.

During the 6-day war the very few encounters between T-54/55 and IDF armour were mostly on the Golan sector. The Biggest encounter in the Egyptian sector was in Rafah and Around Khan Yunis. Both areas had been treated by air power.

While tactical awareness was poor, the issue was also that Israel started the operation towards the Golan heights well after the Syria had agreed to the ceasefire and ordered a partial pullover. Which is the exact same moment the IDF picked to attack the exiting columns. Also what reserves? The idea was that they pulled them out in the areas attacked when the attack took place. Israel boxed the Golan and made it a free fire zone, despite sending terms for a cease fire.

It's always like this in most Arab wars, Arabs pull a shit show, get nose bleed the agree to terms and get "jewed". This lends to the image of an over-performing IDF and an under-performing Arab side down to incompetence. While the general logic is true, the extent of this discrepancy isn't that huge. And based on such shit-shows people have been making wrong assessment on actual hardware. Boo, T-72 is shitty US mopped the floor with Saddam. Soviet stuff is junk etc.

Then fast forward 20 years and you start to discover than nope, "shitty" Soviet rustbuckets and lead piped can deal as much damage when used at their best. Againt their analogues (Metis on Leopard 2A4/ Konkurs on M1A2SA, Kornet on T-90A from IS).

It's a matter of how you use it and what SA you allow your opponent. Into that Arab Armies were probably very very bad to the point of being dysfunctional. Period. This leads to and is caused by a whole bunch of issues that plague the Arab world to this very day. One of them is caring about stuff.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
During attrition war, Israeli lost to Soviet intervention at least 20 planes.

Source? I don't think Soviet piloted MIGs killed any Israeli jets, though they damaged a Skyhawk. SAMs killed about 5 Phantoms just before the ceasefire.

During the 6-day war the very few encounters between T-54/55 and IDF armour were mostly on the Golan sector.

The Syrians were equipped with WWII vintage stuff, even old German tanks.

The Biggest encounter in the Egyptian sector was in Rafah and Around Khan Yunis.

The IDF faced mostly infantry forces (7th Infantry division) in those areas. The biggest armored engagement involving T-55s was around bir Lafhan.  Egyptian rearguard forces enjoyed some success with the tank during the retreat, but not enough...

Both areas had been treated by air power.

According to Pollack or his sources, few arab tanks were hit by aerial munitions. He cited an Israeli who said his air force got "maybe two or three" kills at lahfan.

Boo, T-72 is shitty US mopped the floor with Saddam. Soviet stuff is junk etc.

Well, based on what I read in Zolaga's M-1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural the Iraqi T-72s--and their ammo--were far from the best available, and far inferior to US counterparts they faced.