As Sa'iqa wrote: flamming_python wrote:Found some more pics; only this time of other burnt-out Yankee gear; Humvees, and is that a Striker I see? Or some other type of AFV?
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/12/islamic_state_retake.php#ixzz3MJ5H9fgl
Now the fanboys' myths are being broken and they're finding out that their gear are merely mortal just like all the rest of stuff produced by man around the world; and just the same as with any other military equipment, when it comes across competent fighters armed with modern weapons, as opposed to illiterate ragheads with 60s Soviet RPG-launchers - at least some of that expensive, desert-camo painted, luxuriously angled gear is going to end up charred, black and lifeless.
lol
What tank would you prefer to be in on the battlefield? Would you prefer M1A2 or a T-90MS? Or maybe some modernized T-80U? M1's are doing fabulously well during this conflict - there are no recorded cases of turrets flying 20m upwards or an entire crew burning alive cuz of one RPG. That destroyed M1 which was posted here recently isn't a proof of anything, it was captured, packed with explosives and blown up only then.
I'll take the T-90MS.
Wouldn't want a T-80U though. That's basically a Russian version of the M1 Abrams - only with worse crew survivability and vulnerability to HEAT warheads from the side.
There are no recorded cases of any T-90 turrets flying 20m upwards or an entire crew burning alive because of one RPG either.
Even T-72Bs proved themselves in Chechnya, there were reports of some tanks taking upwards of 10 RPG hits with no penetration.
Then there is that video of one T-72B firing a few rounds against another one as a means of demonstrating its armour to the audience, with the hit tank driving back under its own power at the end of the spectacle. Can't find it right now.
So far out of all III generation tanks M1 came as the safest one for the crew. It's ammo is located at the back of the turrent and the only way for the crew to be baked alive would be if some kind of round punched through the front armor to the back of the turrent, igniting the rounds stored there. Alternatively, you may try to hit it from the back but even then the chances of the crew sdying would be smaller as there are blowout screens.
I do agree that the M1 Abrams is an excellent tank with great crew survivability, due to the bustle ammo storage which is something that almost no other tank possess to the same degree.
However, you are wrong if you think that all the ammo in an M1 is always stored in the bustle. Given that the M1's gun is manually loaded, there will be times when there is a round in the crew compartment; namely while the loader is fetching it and loading it into the gun. Albeit the tank is more spacious than the T-90 and the chances of a penetrating round actually hitting the loader and his round are pretty low.
With the T-90 on the other hand, there is never a round in the crew compartment at all unless the crew decides to store extra rounds there. With the T-90MS, there is no need for that at all, as extra ammo can be stored in the turret bustle instead.
It is true though, that the T-90 ammo compartment is not separated from the crew nearly to the extent that the M1s ammo bustle is separated from the crew; and that a direct hit to the ammo propellent of one of the rounds will lead to a catastrophic cook-off.
But this would require a direct hit to the T-90s ammo compartment - which is harder to hit than the ammo bustle of the M1 Abrams.
Still though, of course on balance I'd rather have a tank whose ammo is easier to hit and cook but which won't kill all the crew in the process and destroy the tank, than a tank whose ammo is harder to hit but which if hit will most likely kill everyone and cause problems for tank recovery.
So the M1 Abrams wins here. But it's only one point out of many - crew survivability is all-important but still only one of dozens of characteristics key to a successful modern MBT.
The only good side of T-72 is that it's ammo is stored in a way that makes it hard to hit - but once you hit it, the crew has no chances of surviving. An M1 crew that suffered a cookoff would still be able to return to base unscathed.
The T-90 has many other advantages over the M1 Abrams.
For starters its smaller and has a lower profile. That means that it's less likely to get hit in the first place and it would be harder to target specific subsystems by intention. And don't give me the 'modern FCS is 100% accurate' rubbish, loved by some Abrams/Leopard fanboys.
The T-90 is more fuel-efficient with a 45% greater range, and is also less of a maintenance hog than the M1 Abrams is. If you have the US Army's entire logistics train behind you, then you're golden. If your platoon is cut off and needs to travel for some time - you're actually more survivable in a tank that's less likely to break-down or run out of fuel.
The T-90 is also lighter, by a whole 30%. While the ground pressure is likely to be similar; there would be certain roads and bridges that just won't be able to take the weight of an M1 Abrams, or would be less passable under that weight. I would think that the T-90 could do some better maneuvers too and have better obstacle clearance, w/o all that weight to lug-around - would come in handy in an urban battlefield. With a T-90; you'll have an easier time and have more mobility; that would give you more options on the battlefield, and also off - when you might want to take the path less traveled to avoid ambushes or whatever else.
I don't know what passive counter-measures the M1 Abrams employs but it clearly doesn't have an direct analogue to the Naikdka with its IR-reducing properties, nor the Shtora, with its optical/IR dazzlers. Which makes it more more likely to be hit by guided AT missiles than the T-90 is, or even successfully targetted.
Unless you have one of the latest M1 Abrams models; you'd also find yourself having to pop-up from the turret in order to shoot either machine gun. With the T-90; one of the machine guns is co-axial and the other is remote-controlled, giving it safer anti-infantry capabilties.
If I met any helicopters while in my tank.. to be honest I do think that modern FCS is up to the job with the tank's main cannon, but still - employing a projectile able to maneuver in reaction to changes in velocity; like the Refleks guided missile shooting out of the T-90s barrel - would have a higher chance of taking down an air target than a high-velocity tank shell firing out of the M1 Abrams would.
Actually it is a proof of fanboys like you which TR1 already has pointed out, when for promotion crappy videos like Bill2 TOW used against TNT filled T-72 Monkey Model, fanboys like you argued it is the ammunition, not explosives filled up, same case for lot of other vehicles used in iraq,syria and even lybia
And what does it prove? Does it prove that T-72 is as safe as M1? Do you think that only monkey models are so vulnerable and if they hit ammo storage compartment of a non-monkey model, the ammunition would miraculously teleport to the moon to explode there? The vulnerability of T-64/72/80 tanks to catastrophic explosions is because of the way they are designed. You can't eliminate these flaws unless you go back to the drawing board - but your result would be a completely new tank.
The T-64/80 has a different ammo-storage configuration to the T-72. Time you learned that.
The T-72 is not as safe as the Abrams in this regard; but it is about on the same level as most other Western tanks which have some ammo not completely separated from the crew-compartment - such as the Leopard. Yet I don't see anyone complaining about them.
The reason why T-72 series do disproportionately feature as burnt-out husks or as exploding vehicles - is because they were taken on by competent opponents with modern weapons - while the Abrams/Leopards/etc 'mobile bunker' designs... were never employed against anyone other than rag-heads, with the whole logistical, training & firepower apparatus of 1st world militaries right behind them.
How many T-90s do you think were lost fighting the Chechen invasion of Dagestan in 1999? None - and for the same reasons.
The fanboys are now getting to grips with reality - in Iraq. The lesson should probably have been learnt earlier - in Lebanon, when Israel's mechanized assault on Hezzie positions with their latest tanks faltered with high-losses and destroyed vehicles - due to the wrong tactics.
It's a slow painful process, but I'm sure they fanboys will cope.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
