Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

Goddamit. I had a long response typed out but my browser reloaded.

Suffice it to say, we are going in circles.

The Abrams is safer from insurgency type RPG fire in most scenarios, because of crew isolation from ammo.
That is obvious, and all there is to it.

However, in the interests of the discussion I will retype my response tonight.

TR1 wrote:Goddamit. I had a long response typed out but my browser reloaded.

Suffice it to say, we are going in circles.

The Abrams is safer from insurgency type RPG fire in most scenarios, because of crew isolation from ammo.
That is obvious, and all there is to it.

However, in the interests of the discussion I will retype my response tonight.

Yes, compared to T-72 however that was not the subject of the discussion, maybe yours not of previous users.

The point is a fact, that no tank is battle proven, period.

Depends what you understand as "battle proven". If a tank takes part in a war and does well than it's battle proven I guess.

The Abrams is a generation ahead of the T-72. The Abrams was still a paper tank when the T-72 appeared. It's contemporaries were the M-60 and Leopard-1....not many of them left in service (if any?), while the T-72 is still in the game.

I think the T-80U would be a counterpart to the M1A1

TR1 wrote:Finally a good pic of Burlak.

No one tell Werewofl, those stupid Russians went for a bustle .

It's possible the T-14 has a 'Burlak' style turret according to some sources

higurashihougi wrote:
My opinion is like this.

If a warhead manages to get into the center of the tank where T-xx stores ammo, then the tank - no matter whether it is T-xx or Western - is surely KOed.

If a warhead manages to get to the turret bustle where Western tank stores ammo, then for T-xx its does not recieve even a scratch, because (most of the versions) T-xx has no bustle and the warhead only hit air space.

At the end of the day, a safest tank is something which are least likely to be hit and has the best protection to neutralize the warhead when it hits.

And who is the winner ? Small T-xx 46 tons with low profile, ERA, APS, or a big big 62 tons Abrams which is assf*cked by Bradley ?

Yeah, rear armour of T-xx is quite thin. But that rear armour is angled, and the profile is much much lower than Abrams.

nobody uses APHE shells anymore so there is no warhead that gets into inner space and detonates. KE projectiles and shaped charge jets are optimized to just punch tiny holes about an inch wide in armor so unless anything vital like crew, equipment, fuel or ammo is in direct path everything's fine since anti-spall liners will take care of the uh, spall. well except that going through nearly a meter of really tough material tends to heat things a lot- and that means lots of sparks flying around exit point- those sparks find their way into exposed propellant charges and boom, viking funeral.

Heavy Metal – A comparison of Russian and Western armour


Your thoughts?

max steel wrote:Heavy Metal – A comparison of Russian and Western armour


Your thoughts?

"Russian guns can also fire guided missiles although the usefulness in the battlefield is still debated as the launching vehicle has to maintain target lock (thus be immobile) until the missile hits the target. Therefore while in theory a BMP3 can kill a Leopard 2 in practice this is difficult. Consider that the most advanced ATGM the BMP3 can fire is the 9M117M1which has a maximum range of 5.5Km. However target acquisition usually takes place around 5Km and to fire a laser-guided missile (SACLOS) you need to be standing still and have a clear line of sight. Which means the enemy can see you."

From what i am aware this is not true, you can fire 9К119/ 9К119М while on the move.

Militarov wrote:

max steel wrote:Heavy Metal – A comparison of Russian and Western armour


Your thoughts?

"Russian guns can also fire guided missiles although the usefulness in the battlefield is still debated as the launching vehicle has to maintain target lock (thus be immobile) until the missile hits the target. Therefore while in theory a BMP3 can kill a Leopard 2 in practice this is difficult. Consider that the most advanced ATGM the BMP3 can fire is the 9M117M1which has a maximum range of 5.5Km. However target acquisition usually takes place around 5Km and to fire a laser-guided missile (SACLOS) you need to be standing still and have a clear line of sight. Which means the enemy can see you."

From what i am aware this is not true, you can fire 9К119/ 9К119М while on the move.

You can fire them on the move, those GLATGM's are not wire guided TOW's. AFAIK BMP3 has to great degree a stabilized FLIR which makes the guidance even on a very rough terrain a highly accurate guidance.

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

max steel wrote:Heavy Metal – A comparison of Russian and Western armour


Your thoughts?

"Russian guns can also fire guided missiles although the usefulness in the battlefield is still debated as the launching vehicle has to maintain target lock (thus be immobile) until the missile hits the target. Therefore while in theory a BMP3 can kill a Leopard 2 in practice this is difficult. Consider that the most advanced ATGM the BMP3 can fire is the 9M117M1which has a maximum range of 5.5Km. However target acquisition usually takes place around 5Km and to fire a laser-guided missile (SACLOS) you need to be standing still and have a clear line of sight. Which means the enemy can see you."

From what i am aware this is not true, you can fire 9К119/ 9К119М while on the move.

You can fire them on the move, those GLATGM's are not wire guided TOW's. AFAIK BMP3 has to great degree a stabilized FLIR which makes the guidance even on a very rough terrain a highly accurate guidance.

Precisely, coz i clearly remember reading on Partner (military expo in Serbia) few years ago under M2001/M84AS "can fire Reflex gun launched missile while on the move". Naturally you cant drive 50km/h during guidance but being static as something mandatory is out of the question.

"Russians also have the ability to drop the BMP family IFVs by air. While a Bradley weights 27.6 tons and a Marder 1A5 37.4 tons, a BMP3 is only 18.7 tons. This allows for the highly risky (yet effective if done properly) tactic of dropping BMP3s with parachutes while the infantry is in the vehicle. Also all Russian IFVs are designed with the ability to swim across lakes and rivers with little or no preparation (BMP3 employs hydro jets for this)."

Is that me or he confused BMD family with BMP here. Coz i never heard of BMP3 being airdropped even tho it shares plenty of components with BMD-4M. We just discussed few weeks ago how BMD4M is almost on the edge of weight to become "undroppable" with its 14t.

Militarov wrote:"Russians also have the ability to drop the BMP family IFVs by air. While a Bradley weights 27.6 tons and a Marder 1A5 37.4 tons, a BMP3 is only 18.7 tons. This allows for the highly risky (yet effective if done properly) tactic of dropping BMP3s with parachutes while the infantry is in the vehicle. Also all Russian IFVs are designed with the ability to swim across lakes and rivers with little or no preparation (BMP3 employs hydro jets for this)."

Is that me or he confused BMD family with BMP here. Coz i never heard of BMP3 being airdropped even tho it shares plenty of components with BMD-4M. We just discussed few weeks ago how BMD4M is almost on the edge of weight to become "undroppable" with its 14t.

BMP-2 have been air dropped, the thing is just BMD were specifically designed for that one purpose, having lighter body with specialized chasis and gears is logistics term much more suited.

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:"Russians also have the ability to drop the BMP family IFVs by air. While a Bradley weights 27.6 tons and a Marder 1A5 37.4 tons, a BMP3 is only 18.7 tons. This allows for the highly risky (yet effective if done properly) tactic of dropping BMP3s with parachutes while the infantry is in the vehicle. Also all Russian IFVs are designed with the ability to swim across lakes and rivers with little or no preparation (BMP3 employs hydro jets for this)."

Is that me or he confused BMD family with BMP here. Coz i never heard of BMP3 being airdropped even tho it shares plenty of components with BMD-4M. We just discussed few weeks ago how BMD4M is almost on the edge of weight to become "undroppable" with its 14t.

BMP-2 have been air dropped, the thing is just BMD were specifically designed for that one purpose, having lighter body with specialized chasis and gears is logistics term much more suited.

Yeah i have heard of BMP2s been air dropped i think there is even video on youtube. But BMP3, this would be first source that i saw mentionig something of a sort.

Actually one of the earliest photos I saw of the BMP-3 included hinges on the hull sides in locations where the BMD has hinges for attaching parachute racks to their backs... it would not surprise me if they could be parachuted if necessary.

The BMD of course is designed especially for the task however which makes such capabilities redundant...

GarryB wrote:Actually one of the earliest photos I saw of the BMP-3 included hinges on the hull sides in locations where the BMD has hinges for attaching parachute racks to their backs... it would not surprise me if they could be parachuted if necessary.

The BMD of course is designed especially for the task however which makes such capabilities redundant...

Interesting, that could mean they were experimenting with airdropping with first series of BMP3 probably.

Indeed whether is armata or a submarine or a warship ,you will want to have the smaller
crew possible. Is easier to handle 1-2 military casualties ,as happened to Russia recently vs Turkey.. than to have ~400 soldiers killed..that will be the case if a major destroyer is sink by
enemy.In the last case war will be the only option left if the enemy does not recognize its aggression. Aside the cost of operating military hardware is way higher the more people are required to operate a machine.

That said Armata tank ideally will be a 2 crew machine ,with lots of automation. And highly automated Warships like corvettes ideally should be made operational with just ~15 sailors.
The Huge savings in crew payroll and training and benefits that Russia will save could be used to build another warship.

I will love to see Russia with no less than 15,000 Armata T-14 tanks and about same in T-15.
To fully cover Far east ,West ,Central and Kaliningrad. is a lot of territory to cover..and about 5,000 of each one in reserves in central Russia.. This might look alot. .but US already have near 9,000 modern tanks..not counting the ones of NATO..Soviets used to have 30,000 tanks before. Russia needs to be prepared for a major conventional war if one day found itself invaded by 300,000 ISIS jihadist all armed with the best modern anti tank weapons that US and its allies have. Spike and javeline for example.

So in armata crew ,with 20,000 tanks and 20k IFV.. you have there about 80,000 soldiers.
If the crew was only 2 soldiers.. and about 120,000 if crew was 3. a major saving of 40,000 soldiers salaries.

Then the rest of the army using about 30,000 bomerang . Airforce Russia desperately needs long range bombers as many they can pull because in a full scale conventional war or nuclear they will be needed. 200 to 300 will be ok.

All said it will be better for Russia to spend its money in highly automated hardware..if possible
Robots controlled machine and invest more their budget in state of the art hardware ,instead
of Payroll of a major numerous military force.

US does not have 9000 modern tanks it has roughly 1300 M1A2 SEP tanks rest are old generation M1 and some M1A1 which are both no better than T-72B/T-80's and is also inferior in actually capablility to deploy them.

There won't be 15.000 Armata's unless WW3 is inevitable and maybe we can run up 5000 of them specified for war.

Proxy wars is what you can expect for the next two decades and then we shall see if they are so ridiculous stupid or right out insane to actually trying to use theatre based nukes in europe. I would like to see how their assumptions would end and the rest of imbeciles who love to play meatshield for US if they do regret that at the end or still want to blame russia for everything.

Werewolf wrote:US does not have 9000 modern tanks it has roughly 1300 M1A2 SEP tanks rest are old generation M1 and some M1A1 which are both no better than T-72B/T-80's and is also inferior in actually capablility to deploy them.

There won't be 15.000 Armata's unless WW3 is inevitable and maybe we can run up 5000 of them specified for war.

Proxy wars is what you can expect for the next two decades and then we shall see if they are so ridiculous stupid or right out insane to actually trying to use theatre based nukes in europe. I would like to see how their assumptions would end and the rest of imbeciles who love to play meatshield for US if they do regret that at the end or still want to blame russia for everything.

I fully agree with you werewolf, there is no need for 15,000 Armata tanks, that just way too many and waste of resources. And I don't think we will see Armata's in action for the next decade(if two countries go to war and one has the Armata tank than yes but it will mostly be proxy wars and in proxy wars the lastest equipment is not given out).

Werewolf wrote:US does not have 9000 modern tanks it has roughly 1300 M1A2 SEP tanks rest are old generation M1 and some M1A1 which are both no better than T-72B/T-80's and is also inferior in actually capablility to deploy them.

There won't be 15.000 Armata's unless WW3 is inevitable and maybe we can run up 5000 of them specified for war.

Proxy wars is what you can expect for the next two decades and then we shall see if they are so ridiculous stupid or right out insane to actually trying to use theatre based nukes in europe. I would like to see how their assumptions would end and the rest of imbeciles who love to play meatshield for US if they do regret that at the end or still want to blame russia for everything.

US have more than 8,000 M1 tanks.. many of them being upgraded..

United States – United States Army and United States Marine Corps have received over 8,100 M1, M1A1 and M1A2 tanks combined.[13][122]
U.S. Army
1,174 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants[13]
4,393 M1A1 variants[13]
U.S. Marine Corps
403 M1A1[1

Read at the end of the article shows how many m1's each NATO country have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Any m1a1 is way better than T-72.
Russia have 15,000 tanks already but most of those are T-62s ,t-80s and T-72.
only about 900 T-90s.

In a real probable combat scenario , Russia will be attacked on many fronts at same time.
and it will be forced to move its army outside its main land (as already US forced RUssia to do in Syria) All that is needed is a major economy collapse and chechenia uprising again declaring independence. Then ISIS armed by NATO attacking Russia in Tajikistan , then Serbia Attacked ,Then Tranistria attacked ,then Donetsk Attacked , then Syria invaded by Turkey. Then Kaliningrad attacked by ISIS..then Georgia attack ossetia again ,Armenia attacked by Azerbaijan.. etc.

That said Russia does not have enough strong modern tanks to fight in many fronts at same time against proffessional mercenary groups armed by NATO modern weapons. So wouldnt Russia be better prepared than say sorry?  Absolutely.  

Russia needs no less than 15,000 armata T-14 tanks to be really prepared and fully cover East ,Central and west Russia + Kaliningrad while at the same time allowing Russia to defend its allies and fight outside 6Russia territory (as already they doing in Syria).

Vann7 wrote:
US have more than 8,000 M1 tanks.. many of them being upgraded..

United States – United States Army and United States Marine Corps have received over 8,100 M1, M1A1 and M1A2 tanks combined.[13][122]
U.S. Army
1,174 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants[13]
4,393 M1A1 variants[13]
U.S. Marine Corps
403 M1A1[1

Read at the end of the article shows how many m1's each NATO country have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

US has roughly 9000 M1 tanks, however you said "modern" M1 and M1A1 are not modern and it begs the question how many of those 9000 are actually opertional and how many are in combat ready status. I will tell you that much, USA can not field more than 2000 tanks in actual combat ready status and even less bring them via their limited logistics to europe and further crippled by M1 itself since it is the worst tank in logistical terms that exists today. The US will never exceed with more than 1000 tanks in active service on european theatre against russia, not that they would ever dare except sending meatshield after meatshield of european russophobic inflitrated counrties.

Vann7 wrote:
Any m1a1 is way better than T-72.
Russia have 15,000 tanks already but most of those are T-62s ,t-80s and T-72.
only about 900 T-90s.

On operational level in european theatre even M1A2Sep2 is inferior to T-72B. Unbearable logistically not even for the US, there are non existent supply routes in europe which are sufficient enough to deploy them even on operational level and impossible to use ground forces on tactical level which they are designed for. US does not have such capabilities in Europe against military super powers.

Russia has roughly 600 T-90/A's and question is how soon we will see more.

Vann7 wrote:
In a real probable combat scenario , Russia will be attacked on many fronts at same time.
and it will be forced to move its army outside its main land (as already US forced RUssia to do in Syria) All that is needed is a major economy collapse and chechenia uprising again declaring independence. Then ISIS armed by NATO attacking Russia in Tajikistan , then Serbia Attacked ,Then Tranistria attacked ,then Donetsk Attacked , then Syria invaded by Turkey. Then Kaliningrad attacked by ISIS..then Georgia attack ossetia again ,Armenia attacked by Azerbaijan.. etc.

That said Russia does not have enough strong modern tanks to fight in many fronts at same time against proffessional mercenary groups armed by NATO modern weapons. So wouldnt Russia be better prepared than say sorry?  Absolutely.  

Russia needs no less than 15,000 armata T-14 tanks to be really prepared and fully cover East ,Central and west Russia + Kaliningrad while at the same time allowing Russia to defend its allies and fight outside 6Russia territory (as already they doing in Syria).

Here you are wrong on a big scale.

Anyone that has looked on NATO and its members, their military, economical power and their rank in the european theatre doctrine understands that the only global player is USA, with almost no capabilities UK, France, Poland, Turkey and Australia. You can throw away Australia since it is not in europe and has absolutley nothing to aid NATO in european theatre except navy which is the biggest plus for NATO and only reason for that is USA. There will no more than three actual NATO fronts that are of concern. The navy front that will try to contain Russia in pacific ocean by Australia, Japan, South Korea and US, northern (arctic ocean) by USA, UK maybe even Canada and plausible at some narrower search Scandinavians, germans and UK close to some supply routes and Indian ocean by US and Australia. That is the only sea fronts that are plausible not counting some skirmishes because russias navy fleet is small and will mostly be trump card (Typhoon) SSBN class aswell Shkval suprise attacks if they are in the current doctrine manifested.

The only land force that will push against russia can only and exclusivley come from east european vassals of Poland, Czech, Romania, 404 and so on. The central asian region was, is and will be intense proxy war region trying to cut off Russia from "allies" from ME and supply routes of civilian goods of the sea trade aswell crucial points in asian theatre which will be hold entertained with local conflicts due "revolutions" with attempt to give them a hard time to justify an participation in that war against  NATO like India, China and probable sympathizing nations aiding or trading with Russia.

The only other front russia could face is off-shore stations they could have or enclaves like Kaliningrad which is isolated and will have big attention for PR aswell moral boost for the european slave nations of US. The US however will face many fronts, the german front of civilians not putting up with this bullshit, the yugo/greek front and partisans within czech/poland. Probable attempts of liberation from US in central and south american continent maybe aswell in Asia otherwise they will pushed to it by China herself.


The last time US had professional proxies was in Afghanistan and they were already professional without US training. US training we saw in Georgia, Ukropistan, Central and South Asian terrorists even tho some were good and not to forget the Proxies in Syria, Lybia, Iraq those headchopping hearteaters that are almost bunnyhopping through the villages like on a bennyhill comedy. They are so well trained giving willingly their position away with shouts of Allahu Akbar and spraying everwhere except for actual cover or Tanks that manage to shoot themselfs with PKT.

Professionals in that region we saw called Hezbolla fucking special forces even compared on levels of professionals.

What and how many tanks russia needs is no relation to what it can produce. This isn't Soviet Union level of production anymore the Soviet Union could have pulled off 15.000 Armata's if it really prepared for WW3.

Reality is that super-extensive production of the Armata program isn't really a priority. Why? Because what Russia fields currently will easily hold its own and then some against anything that NATO can throw at them on their own turf. The only truly threatening MBT in the NATO arsenal is the Leopard 2A6, but they exist in pitiful numbers, and suffer largely from typical European over-engineering and logistical ineptitude (US corporate MIC sabotage). Like Werewolf detailed, the Abrams suffers from being a complete logistical nightmare, unseen since Nazi Germany's heavy tank programs, and in saying that it makes for a terrible MBT even when running. As many have pointed out, it's a mediocre tank destroyer (when there is a coherent strategy and battle line), but a terrible tank.

US invasion forces are completely and wholly reliant on swift victory, if the initial engagement manages to drag on outside of their predicted margins, they completely stall logistically, due to training and equipment employed (encouraging mass wastage of munition stocks, high maintenance vehicles). In a war of "fluid" attrition (which is exactly what NATO ground forces would find themselves in if they attacked Russia) NATO lines would fail to stabilize, with bottlenecked (or outright tac-nuked) logistical lines, failing vehicles, the sheer enormity of Russian terrain and Russia's highly mobile divisions tearing holes in NATO's stalled and incoherent front-lines... the way I see it, if NATO fails to take ground, they fail full-stop, they 100% rely on momentum.

I think with the Armata program finalized and low scale production with the ability to switch to war footing production is really all that's required. Having 15000 Armatas is absurd.

Well I suspect they will introduce the Armata MBTs in Armata divisions... which pretty much means every armoured vehicle within a division is armata based.

How many armoured vehicles in a division?

In a tank division you are generally talking about three brigades with 30 MBTs each, but hundreds and hundreds of other armoured vehicle types from engineer to air defence and IFV etc etc.

Instead of 90 tanks per division you will need 200 odd armata vehicles or more per division.

Of course until all the different vehicles are developed they might put Armata MBTs in current divisions as a replacement for T-90s and possibly T-15 IFVs in the same divisions but the ultimate plan is to replace every armoured vehicle in a heavy division with an Armata based vehicle... that will require a lot of vehicles...

Likely eventual strength will be about 6,000 MBTs in european Russian... similar levels as agreed in the now defunct CFE agreement.

Vann7 wrote:US have more than 8,000 M1 tanks.. many of them being upgraded..

United States – United States Army and United States Marine Corps have received over 8,100 M1, M1A1 and M1A2 tanks combined.[13][122]
U.S. Army
1,174 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants[13]
4,393 M1A1 variants[13]
U.S. Marine Corps
403 M1A1[1

Read at the end of the article shows how many m1's each NATO country have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Any m1a1 is way better than T-72.
Russia have 15,000 tanks already but most of those are T-62s ,t-80s and T-72.
only about 900 T-90s.

In a real probable combat scenario , Russia will be attacked on many fronts at same time.
and it will be forced to move its army outside its main land (as already US forced RUssia to do in Syria) All that is needed is a major economy collapse and chechenia uprising again declaring independence. Then ISIS armed by NATO attacking Russia in Tajikistan , then Serbia Attacked ,Then Tranistria attacked ,then Donetsk Attacked , then Syria invaded by Turkey. Then Kaliningrad attacked by ISIS..then Georgia attack ossetia again ,Armenia attacked by Azerbaijan.. etc.

That said Russia does not have enough strong modern tanks to fight in many fronts at same time against proffessional mercenary groups armed by NATO modern weapons. So wouldnt Russia be better prepared than say sorry?  Absolutely.  

Russia needs no less than 15,000 armata T-14 tanks to be really prepared and fully cover East ,Central and west Russia + Kaliningrad while at the same time allowing Russia to defend its allies and fight outside 6Russia territory (as already they doing in Syria).

I'll start off by saying those figures sound unreliable, and the obvious wiki-paste doesn't help with that. The US has something like 8,000 M1's, sure - but a lot of them are original M1's (can't be upgraded, useless) and the rest are early M1A1's (could be with massive money and time, still not very useful). The US only operates ~1650 M1A2 SEP v2's (all belonging to the Army), and an additional ~400 M1A1's (upgraded to the SEP v2 level) for the Marine Corp. 

That's only ~2000 or so tanks, of which very few are in a position to do anything to Russia. IIRC, there are less than 50 in said position at the moment. 

M1A1 is better than early T-72 variants (Ural and A) undoubtedly, possibly even against the early T-72B's. Against the T-72B m.1989, T-72BA, and T-72B3, it is either equalled or simply surpassed. Given the specification of the M1A1's in the Marine Corp, they are in the level of the B3 if not beyond. 

Russia really wouldn't be all that exposed. In a realistic conflict, NATO has little chance of attacking from the South (thanks to China, India, and Kazakhstan), the East (China, too little strategic importance, and even North Korea all being reason), and lot of the North (too little importance strategically). That leaves one major area, the West, in which case one or two thousand MBT's is more than enough. It isn't like NATO can teleport every tank it has. I'd bet serious money that only a few hundred vehicles would reach the front in a few MONTHS, simply because logistical structures (rail-ways, highways, airports) would be some of the first places to go. 

As for Russia's tank supply; all T-55's and T-62's are scrapped, most T-64's are too. Reserves are mostly T-72's, T-80BV's, and T-80U's, plus the original T-90's. Active units have; ~1600 T-72B's (800+ T-72B3, 200+ BA, and the rest should be mod.87 or 89), ~400 T-80U's (U or UE1), and ~400 T-90A's. That's a lot of vehicles, and is in the sweet spot of numbers. 

15,000 vehicles is impossibly expensive to purchase, repair, and maintain. There is not even enough tankers for that! Russia's MOD has been downscaling the number of MBT's gradually for a reason, it is simply too hard to keep them all.

When you consider that in the end, Russia will have 2,300 T-14's, and a few hundred T-90M's, can you seriously say they won't have enough tanks?

OminousSpudd wrote:Reality is that super-extensive production of the Armata program isn't really a priority. Why? Because what Russia fields currently will easily hold its own and then some against anything that NATO can throw at them on their own turf. The only truly threatening MBT in the NATO arsenal is the Leopard 2A6, but they exist in pitiful numbers, and suffer largely from typical European over-engineering and logistical ineptitude (US corporate MIC sabotage). Like Werewolf detailed, the Abrams suffers from being a complete logistical nightmare, unseen since Nazi Germany's heavy tank programs, and in saying that it makes for a terrible MBT even when running. As many have pointed out, it's a mediocre tank destroyer (when there is a coherent strategy and battle line), but a terrible tank.

The Abrams is superior in terms of overall survivability and firepower to the German Leopard 2A6. The threatening tanks in terms of capabilities are the British Challenger 2 and French Leclerc Serie 2 and 3. In terms of NATO KE lethality the M829A3 leads the pack, followed by the German DM53/63, the French/German DM43/OFL120 and last and least the UK L27A1 CHARM 3.

Challenger 2....threatening? 




It's easily the worst designed of the modern NATO MBT's.

Mike E wrote:Challenger 2....threatening? 




It's easily the worst designed of the modern NATO MBT's.

No kidding, on top of being excessively heavy (ground pressure keep in mind) it has a pathetic rifled gun (the rifled spin significantly hurts KE and HEAT performance) with even more pathetic HESH ammunition, the only reason why it even exists is because of heavy bribery...err I mean...'lobbying'.