Comparing Tanks

Werewolf wrote:

That is not the case, but US loves to call everything they have modern. Majority of equipment is cold war era status and they couldn't even provide enough HMMV's that are armored in Iraq, so they welded metal plates from destroyed bradleys and hummves on the tank graveyard and stuffed the hummves full with sandbags since they were not even holding 7.62mm not to mention 12.7mm DShK's. They also are not equipped with the Javelin which they portray often as the standard ATGM for infantry, not a big coverage of forces with such equipment and not a big amount actually properly used. Canibalism was and is the biggest factor of keeping some of their vehicles operative. Since the US buys M829A2 in large amounts in past several years, the M829A3 is clearly not the standard issue. They just started recently to demilitarize 105mm DU rounds.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

That is not the case, but US loves to call everything they have modern. Majority of equipment is cold war era status and they couldn't even provide enough HMMV's that are armored in Iraq, so they welded metal plates from destroyed bradleys and hummves on the tank graveyard and stuffed the hummves full with sandbags since they were not even holding 7.62mm not to mention 12.7mm DShK's. They also are not equipped with the Javelin which they portray often as the standard ATGM for infantry, not a big coverage of forces with such equipment and not a big amount actually properly used. Canibalism was and is the biggest factor of keeping some of their vehicles operative. Since the US buys M829A2 in large amounts in past several years, the M829A3 is clearly not the standard issue. They just started recently to demilitarize 105mm DU rounds.

band aid solution or not, they clearly didnt shy away from spending a cool 50 billion on 27k mraps to protect their troops.  javelin numbers are also relatively ok, they are supposed to be the metis-m rough equivalent, not rpg-7 they have m136 for that. and i dont follow you with m829a3 not being standard issue- i was under impression that when you start to dispose of the earlier models you buy/already buying the new one.

Mike E wrote:Anybody know what variants of the T-90 have K-5 on the hull?

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:Anybody know what variants of the T-90 have K-5 on the hull?

They all have K-5, from T-90 to T-90A1 and MS has relikt if i am not wrong.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:Anybody know what variants of the T-90 have K-5 on the hull?

They all have K-5, from T-90 to T-90A1 and MS has relikt if i am not wrong.

Really? The A (Vlad) doesn't appear to have any hull K-5 or ERA in general, look at the AM for reference.

Mike E wrote:Aw crap... I'm an idiot then... 

I thought it would be similar to the AM's arrangement.

Anyway, that changes a few thing... Chances are the M1 would now struggle to pen the B3's hull if it hits the ERA and vice-versa.

Mike E wrote:
Frontal arc armor is stronger on the Abrams, no doubt about that. But, at the very least the B3 has its extremely low hull profile (and smaller) to its advantage.

Yes, everything else being equal that would be a substantial advantage.

An Abrams' shot at the turret of a B3 will almost always result in a non-penetration, as will the opposite situation.

Definitely not. T-72B with K-5 could reliably stop late 1980s APFSDS. It was not designed (neither tank nor ERA) to take on more modern ammunition. Plus, the way the T-72Bs turret geomtry is, some parts are indeed extreemely thick, but other far less. And I don't just mean the gun mask and the other "weakened zones". There are plenty of areas that a modern gun + aumminion could penetrate. Abrams A2 on the other hand has a fundamentally newer turret array than the T-72B does. It is larger, but proportionally has less weakened zones as well. Point is, turrets only, T-72B3 + Svinets vs M1A2 with M829A2, I will take the latter, most of the time.

Now, if either tanks successfully strikes the others' hull, then they will penetrate it w/o much question. - Which leads me to once again say it will be the first one to... 

Based on what?!? T-72B has an array that was good for the mid and late 80s. The M1A2s beak is much thicker in LOS than the T-72s upper glacis. The only advantage the T-72 has here is if the shot comes in at an angle from the top, where the Abram's upper glacis loses its extreme angle advantage. But on most tank on tank scenarios, once again, the M1A2 has simply a newer array and better ammunition.

The A3 is a newly-developed round that (AFAIK) hasn't been wielded in large numbers, though the A2 has for sure. Either one will not be able to reliability pen the B3's turret. 

No way, the A3 has been in production since 2003, in fact they had a whole cycle of production issues, re-design and re-starting of production. But point is, by 2015 the issues are worked out and the round has proliferated into the fleet. And I would not take any part of T-72B3 as reliable M829A3 protection, aside from some extreme angles on turret.

Most American rounds were cutting edge "in the 90's" so there isn't much more to say there... Anyone got info on Russian ammunition load ups for the T-90 or B3?

The best it carries is Svinets, though realistically you have older ammo on load, Mango and such. Once again, US Army has bought more modern ammo than Russian Army, which bought almost nothing new for years.

Doesn't it have a new FCS system?

Sure, Sosna is nice. But Commander has ancient sight, and there is nothing like a BMS all together. T-72B3 is a CHEAP, half-assed upgrade. You get what you pay for.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:Aw crap... I'm an idiot then... 

I thought it would be similar to the AM's arrangement.

Anyway, that changes a few thing... Chances are the M1 would now struggle to pen the B3's hull if it hits the ERA and vice-versa.

Here you can see how it was integrated into the armor, plating the ERA with heavier steel plate giving it better performance against APFSDS and HEAT rounds, catapulting the heavier steel plate towards the incoming penetrator, increases the protection.

TR1 wrote:

Mike E wrote:
Frontal arc armor is stronger on the Abrams, no doubt about that. But, at the very least the B3 has its extremely low hull profile (and smaller) to its advantage.

Yes, everything else being equal that would be a substantial advantage.

 - True

An Abrams' shot at the turret of a B3 will almost always result in a non-penetration, as will the opposite situation.

Definitely not. T-72B with K-5 could reliably stop late 1980s APFSDS. It was not designed (neither tank nor ERA) to take on more modern ammunition. Plus, the way the T-72Bs turret geomtry is, some parts are indeed extreemely thick, but other far less. And I don't just mean the gun mask and the other "weakened zones". There are plenty of areas that a modern gun + aumminion could penetrate. Abrams A2 on the other hand has a fundamentally newer turret array than the T-72B does. It is larger, but proportionally has less weakened zones as well. Point is, turrets only, T-72B3 + Svinets vs M1A2 with M829A2, I will take the latter, most of the time.

 - No doubt it could stop newer ones as well... It's not like the US's newer rounds are friggin lasers, in fact, they are often just slightly improved versions of their former round. Of course there are weaker zones that could be penetrated, but accuracy comes into play there... Turrets only, both are going to hard time. I believe the M1 has a pretty big weak spot itself, directly under the mantle. Which, by my estimations, is only a few 100 mm thick equivalent if even. 

Now, if either tanks successfully strikes the others' hull, then they will penetrate it w/o much question. - Which leads me to once again say it will be the first one to... 

Based on what?!? T-72B has an array that was good for the mid and late 80s. The M1A2s beak is much thicker in LOS than the T-72s upper glacis. The only advantage the T-72 has here is if the shot comes in at an angle from the top, where the Abram's upper glacis loses its extreme angle advantage. But on most tank on tank scenarios, once again, the M1A2 has simply a newer array and better ammunition.

 - Have you seen the Abrams? It's upper glacis is only 1/5 of its frontal hull, the rest is a big *** badly angled lower plate.

The A3 is a newly-developed round that (AFAIK) hasn't been wielded in large numbers, though the A2 has for sure. Either one will not be able to reliability pen the B3's turret. 

No way, the A3 has been in production since 2003, in fact they had a whole cycle of production issues, re-design and re-starting of production. But point is, by 2015 the issues are worked out and the round has proliferated into the fleet. And I would not take any part of T-72B3 as reliable M829A3 protection, aside from some extreme angles on turret.

 - True, but once again it really isn't a super-round or anything. Just a simple improvement that would need to not hit the B3's or T-90's ERA to stand a chance of penetrating. 
Most American rounds were cutting edge "in the 90's" so there isn't much more to say there... Anyone got info on Russian ammunition load ups for the T-90 or B3?

The best it carries is Svinets, though realistically you have older ammo on load, Mango and such. Once again, US Army has bought more modern ammo than Russian Army, which bought almost nothing new for years.

 - This is when I request statistics. Older ammunition could penetrate the possible weak spot and the lower glacis *if de-angled*. 

Doesn't it have a new FCS system?

Sure, Sosna is nice. But Commander has ancient sight, and there is nothing like a BMS all together. T-72B3 is a CHEAP, half-assed upgrade. You get what you pay for.

 - The sight wasn't upgraded? The Commander is probably the only that doesn't need a super-high-tech sight anyway (Or so I assume). The Gunner is the one whose doing the shooting. 

 - Affordable is *great*, sure it doesn't fix all the -72's problems, but it doesn't have to. Give it an upgraded selection of ammunition and possibly some more FCS upgrades and it would be great. Don't forget the B3 is a stop-gap, it doesn't have to be "amazing", all it has to do is be "good enough", and "good enough" it is. 

Werewolf wrote:

A but the B3 does not have any weak sposts that can be called weak sposts and not more and they curtainly do not cover bigger space than on other tanks.

First of all, there are significant weak spots around the gun-mask (yes, I am aware they exist on all tanks, but they are quite big on T-72s), and second, look @ turret geometry in general.
http://blogi.militis.pl/dratka/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/t72blos.jpg
Nevermind the exact numbers, not important to the discussion. But what you can clearly see, is the armor thickness is not uniform. Extending past the gun mask, there is a significant area that is much less thick than the rest of the turret that progressively becomes very thick. This is cured to some extent in the more uniform T-90A, which still has a thinner composite area extending past the gunmask.

The focal array on both tanks is great and the Cathrine FC is among the best which again Thales usually produces among the best TIS.
Thales has been making the much better Catherine XP for years. And while Sosna is nice, T-72B3 has one nice sight and a bunch of older shit for the rest of its optics. Abrams has had more thorough modernizations in practice.

The M1A2 has no difference in its hull either a difference of 50mm RHAe to earlier model is not really a difference.

They changed internals several times however. At the end of the day it is fundamentally newer and has more room for growth than the older T-72.

The M829A2 maybe widely deployed but i doubt that for A3 and we already know that the A2 is ineffective hence why the A3 was developed because the A1 and A2 were incapable to penetrate ERA equipped T-72A and this is a B model and B3.

I am not aware of A2 tests against T-72B, let alone the T-72A can you show any results? IIRC they tested T-72M with M829A1 at best. And either way, A3 is widely deployed for a while now, even if the older shells are still stockpiled.

The K-5 is still superior to anything the west can produce and to anything the west can produce for AT weapons.

K-5 is also outdated and Russia has made newer ERA to deal with modern ammo. The only reason it has not been adopted is finances.


On the other hand the T-72B3 has everything on ammunition and yes highly capable, too. Svinets maybe not the best APFSDS

Svinets was a great round for the time, but it is the only relevant round to the discussion because we are comparing Abrams A2 to B3 in frontal combat. So using Svinets as (AT BEST) the round used (even though its likely to be older shit) is relevant.

but russia is the best when it comes to HEAT weapons, today the BK-31M is not widely deployed like mostly any other latest tank rounds but it out does in penetration any other round with around 800mm RHAe, it has airburst ammunition capability to have even a chance agaisnt infantry targets on the battlefield with RPG/ATGM/Mortars and it has HEAT rounds which are usefull against a broad band of targets and not just tanks.

I am not aware of the BK-31M in terms of detailed tested info, but it would definitely be relevant to the discussion if it was purchased and we had some good knowledge about it. As Kornet demonstrated in Iraq recently, HEAT is nothing to sneeze at.

Actually russia has but they needed to much time to get them into service. The Svinets will not destroy any MBT today but that is also the case for KEWA2 or M829A3 they absolutley have no chance of penetrating any 3rd gen MBT today, the armor wins over ammunition currently.

T-72B3 has 25 year old protection, that is the issue.

As for the part that M1A2 wins across the board against B3 is nonsense since you haven't even elaborated more than the two few advantages of the M1A2 over the B3 and completley ignored important factors like Mobility, actual performance on the battlefield based on capabilities and overall a very thin explenation where non was really shining in light.

We are talking hard factors here, to keep the discussion simple. The T-72 is simply older and outdated in most aspects. No getting around it. It is like comparing modern M60 to T-72....the latter has fundamental advantages. And some of the T-72s advantages over the Abrams are also due to American (strange) reluctance to finally get ATGMs and modern fused HEFRAG rounds into service, not the tanks themselves.

The T-72/90 are absolute champions in mobility without any concurence. Even the chinese that had some trouble with their Type-96A2 tanks on Tank biathlon can have several failures and will arrive on the battlefield still earlier than a fleet of Abrams would.

Not across the board they are not. Their reverse speed is pitifull. Transmission and engines are archaic by modern standards, to be frank.

TR1 wrote:
Definitely not. T-72B with K-5 could reliably stop late 1980s APFSDS. It was not designed (neither tank nor ERA) to take on more modern ammunition. Plus, the way the T-72Bs turret geomtry is, some parts are indeed extreemely thick, but other far less. And I don't just mean the gun mask and the other "weakened zones". There are plenty of areas that a modern gun + aumminion could penetrate. Abrams A2 on the other hand has a fundamentally newer turret array than the T-72B does. It is larger, but proportionally has less weakened zones as well. Point is, turrets only, T-72B3 + Svinets vs M1A2 with M829A2, I will take the latter, most of the time.

TR1 wrote:
Based on what?!? T-72B has an array that was good for the mid and late 80s. The M1A2s beak is much thicker in LOS than the T-72s upper glacis. The only advantage the T-72 has here is if the shot comes in at an angle from the top, where the Abram's upper glacis loses its extreme angle advantage. But on most tank on tank scenarios, once again, the M1A2 has simply a newer array and better ammunition.

TR1 wrote:
No way, the A3 has been in production since 2003, in fact they had a whole cycle of production issues, re-design and re-starting of production. But point is, by 2015 the issues are worked out and the round has proliferated into the fleet. And I would not take any part of T-72B3 as reliable M829A3 protection, aside from some extreme angles on turret.

TR1 wrote:
The best it carries is Svinets, though realistically you have older ammo on load, Mango and such. Once again, US Army has bought more modern ammo than Russian Army, which bought almost nothing new for years.

TR1 wrote:
Sure, Sosna is nice. But Commander has ancient sight, and there is nothing like a BMS all together. T-72B3 is a CHEAP, half-assed upgrade. You get what you pay for.

Werewolf wrote:
The T-72B have stopped all tank rounds of the US M833,M829A1 and A2 that is why the A3 was developed

Show me the evidence that shows the T-72B was A2 proof. I have not seen any results of firing trials of T-72B + K-5 vs A2. And the fact remains, they were already working on Relikt plus Obj 187, with much improved hull and turrret armor back in the late 80s. Why? Because T-72B was proof for the upcoming rounds? No.

There are not many sposts a tank round can penetrate at tanks except weak spots which are completely irrelevant since even a T-72 has less of them than M1 or Leo2,
Baloney. The T-72B has just as many if not more weakpots. Just look at the turret.

The only true weak zone is the below glacis which again is the least likely to be hit spot, actually in most situations it isn't even in LOS to the enemy. You keep repeating the T-72B has more weakend zones how about you eleborate those zones except the gun mantel and lower glacis which both are no targets that could be intentionally hit.
Sure. First of all, the hull is weakened at the top part as well, since the thickness tapers on the composite filler and does not extend all the way to the top of the plate. Second the freaking USSR itself tested shells on the T-72 turret and found there were multiple areas possible to penetrate with elderly APFSDS, like the top of the turret (not protected by composite array), big area around gun mask (where as I showed and you ignored, the thickness is FAR from uniform), and the thinning of the turret around the ring (even more so than on Abrams).


The M1A2 glacis against T-72B glacis is a difference of entire 40mm RHAe omg what big difference for a tank model of current compared to a tank from the past generation.
INTERNALS are what matter. The M1A2 has had continuous internal armor array changes. So has the T-72...THATS WHY THE T-90 APPEARED. WHy the hell else do you think they would have made it? For shits and giggles? They kept upgrading their tank armor just like the US did. The problem is, you are comparing Abrams that have had serious overhauls and been gutted for armor in the 90s and later, vs a T-72 that has has ZERO internal armor changes since the late 80s.

In most tank on tank engagements i doubt that the M1A2 would fare well against B3 since all relevant equipment for tank duells are deployed on B3 model, with proper TIS, good protection and the advantage of small profile, with higher engagement range and tactically it will have in most cases the surprising factor of shooting before the enemy can shoot aka Abrams the selfpainted target.

Whatever you want to think, the consensus on every forum, English OR Russian speaking among educated members is the T-72B has a good armor array FOR THE EIGHTIES. Comparing M1A2 to T-72B is silly, more accurate to do T-90 or T-90A at the least. They simply were made for different protection requirements. You must think Americans are idiots to not be able to improve on Soviet tank armor from the 80s.

This are quite some bolt guesses you rely on. The armor on T-72B3 make it effectively protected against M829A3 as the other way around.

HAhahahahahaaha. Go post that on Otvaga 2004. You will be laughed at. Even NII Stali has NEVER indicated that even K-5 T-72 is A3 proof. The fact that you think a tank with 25 year old protection can stop a shell from the 2000s says a lot. Delusional.


Sure same as M1A2 SEP is a half-assed upgrade,

Not compared to B3 it is not. Compare their commanders sights. Their drivers sights. BMS systems. RWS. The list goes on and on.

without providing any protective measures other than magical DU plates in turret arrays

Which is a lot more than T-72B3 got. If you think ancient tank armor like that is relevant today you are high.

It is still a mediocre tank compared to any other current MBT and does not even shine much to half assed B3 models except of 3 things to speak off, armor,TIS and BMS the rest is old and lacks behind almost every other country and has big minus on its engine and weight which play a very crucial role in deployement of such vehicles in tactical valueable areas which they will losse with certainity against any advancing enemy and are more or less useless since the enemy will have to fight mechanized troops long before they can arrive or the USAF has to strike enemy forces which only worked so far against banana republics.

There is nothing equal to the T-72B3 of its generation of MBTs and that not even remotley it can without much of problems play on todays battlegrounds with moderate to good outcome in comperision what you may believe or what in general people believe usually basing it or at least effected by the created perception of iraqis monkey models.

TR1 wrote:
First of all, there are significant weak spots around the gun-mask (yes, I am aware they exist on all tanks, but they are quite big on T-72s), and second, look @ turret geometry in general.
http://blogi.militis.pl/dratka/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/t72blos.jpg
Nevermind the exact numbers, not important to the discussion. But what you can clearly see, is the armor thickness is not uniform. Extending past the gun mask, there is a significant area that is much less thick than the rest of the turret that progressively becomes very thick. This is cured to some extent in the more uniform T-90A, which still has a thinner composite area extending past the gunmask.

TR1 wrote:
Thales has been making the much better Catherine XP for years. And while Sosna is nice, T-72B3 has one nice sight and a bunch of older shit for the rest of its optics. Abrams has had more thorough modernizations in practice.

TR1 wrote:
They changed internals several times however. At the end of the day it is fundamentally newer and has more room for growth than the older T-72.

TR1 wrote:
I am not aware of A2 tests against T-72B, let alone the T-72A can you show any results? IIRC they tested T-72M with M829A1 at best. And either way, A3 is widely deployed for a while now, even if the older shells are still stockpiled.

TR1 wrote:
K-5 is also outdated and Russia has made newer ERA to deal with modern ammo. The only reason it has not been adopted is finances.

TR1 wrote:
Svinets was a great round for the time, but it is the only relevant round to the discussion because we are comparing Abrams A2 to B3 in frontal combat. So using Svinets as (AT BEST) the round used (even though its likely to be older shit) is relevant.

TR1 wrote:
I am not aware of the BK-31M in terms of detailed tested info, but it would definitely be relevant to the discussion if it was purchased and we had some good knowledge about it. As Kornet demonstrated in Iraq recently, HEAT is nothing to sneeze at.

TR1 wrote:
T-72B3 has 25 year old protection, that is the issue.

TR1 wrote:
We are talking hard factors here, to keep the discussion simple. The T-72 is simply older and outdated in most aspects. No getting around it. It is like comparing modern M60 to T-72....the latter has fundamental advantages. And some of the T-72s advantages over the Abrams are also due to American (strange) reluctance to finally get ATGMs and modern fused HEFRAG rounds into service, not the tanks themselves.

TR1 wrote:
Not across the board they are not. Their reverse speed is pitifull. Transmission and engines are archaic by modern standards, to be frank.

TR1 wrote:We are talking hard factors here, to keep the discussion simple. The T-72 is simply older and outdated in most aspects. No getting around it. It is like comparing modern M60 to T-72....the latter has fundamental advantages. And some of the T-72s advantages over the Abrams are also due to American (strange) reluctance to finally get ATGMs and modern fused HEFRAG rounds into service, not the tanks themselves.

Mike E wrote:Guys... No need to get personal. 

@TR1 

Assuming the A3 hits the K-5 it won't penetrate almost for sure. The A3 only has ~670 mm of RHAe penetration, versus K-5 plus the comp. armor on the -72 it shouldn't have much of a chance. That being said, if the upper glacis of the B3 is de-angled to an extent, the A3 should have no trouble you get the idea. 

According to CIA reports, the T-72 (note that this is the *base* model with *no* ERA) couldn't defeat the Soviet's own top-notch KE rounds, but that it could defeat their own HEAT rounds. When you include K-5 into this situation... I seriously doubt either the Soviet/Russian or American rounds could reliability pen its upper glacis. I can't really confirm this but from what I've seen, the upper plate of the B3 with K-5 has a RHAe of ~700+ (KE) and ~1200+ mm (HEAT).

TR1 wrote:I am sorry but the notion that 2000s M829A3 can't deal with 80s T-72B with K-5 is so illogical and contrary to all available logic it hurts.

Go ahead and post that claim on Otvaga (A russian forum) and see how many agree and disagree with you.
Or tanknet. Or any serious armor forum.

Wishful thinking=/= reality.

And ragging on the Abrams gas turbine is funny indeed, since the USSR made the T-80 itself.
Both of their engines are light years ahead from a technical viewpoint compared to freaking V-84.

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.

Mike E wrote:

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.

And you have proof of this? 

Yet they doesn't have much relevance... The numbers show that the A3 is barely an improvement, and that ERA + the Comp. and spaced armor of the -72 in combination should be able to stop it. No need to get all butt-hurt about it.