Comparing Tanks

Mike E wrote: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.

TR1 wrote:

Mike E wrote: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.

Yep, cause mid-40 tons is so **** heavy compared to 70 tons. That's what I'm getting at.

TR1 wrote:

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.

Ok, this is getting painful. You guys can be obstinate in your Russia-defense it is just sad.

Stay ignorant if you wish.

How so? I'm not wearing a Putin shirt trolling you on my Russian flag colored PC....

I'd like to hear *your numbers* for a change.

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.

TR1 wrote:And ragging on the Abrams gas turbine is funny indeed, since the USSR made the T-80 itself.

Russia and Ukraina has already gone foward with diesel engine, while the U.S. is still jerking off with superman gas turbine. And Leopard 2 is using DIESEL engine with THE SAME power as gas turbine.

Gas turbine engine has terrible fuel consumption, its effeciency is only okie when the tank is running fast. At low speed, the effeciency becomes damn terrible.

M1 Abrams is the weakest cousins of Leopard 2. No ERA, no spaced armour on the turret, old version of tank gun, stupid gas turbine, and 20mm bullet can penetrate the rear armour at the engine

higurashihougi wrote:

TR1 wrote:And ragging on the Abrams gas turbine is funny indeed, since the USSR made the T-80 itself.

Russia and Ukraina has already gone foward with diesel engine, while the U.S. is still jerking off with superman gas turbine. And Leopard 2 is using DIESEL engine with THE SAME power as gas turbine.

Gas turbine engine has terrible fuel consumption, its effeciency is only okie when the tank is running fast. At low speed, the effeciency becomes damn terrible.

The concept of using a gas turbine in a tank is retarded. It just limits the tank's range with no other benefit. These
engines make sense in power plants and trains since the mode of operation is steady and can be optimized. They make
no sense in a tank or a car where there is a never ending change in operating modes from stopped to rapidly moving.

Why don't they use variable compression diesel engines instead. This way they could actually save a large amount
of fuel and extend the tank's range.

Werewolf wrote:
They currently dispose their 105mm M833 rounds and not 120mm rounds except maybe the M829A1 versions.

What 27000 MRAPS? That is some major BS.

Javelin numbers are not ok nor are they distributed to majority nor even to significant amounts and numbers of forces and METIS-M is rather equal to TOW and not Javelin. The US lacks of new technologies in lot of fields, they haven't developed and not deployed any new SHORAD system and still rely on such systems like Chapparral or Avenger and even those are old and not upgraded. This just not the case that US gets new and modern technologies ASAP, that is only the case for crucial equipment they see direct result to pushing their agenda like Drones to keep their terrorism spreaded.

im only going by wiki on my numbers, and the a2 is indeed included in the contract for disposal:
http://www.cadu.org.uk/cadu/us-to-demilitarise-78000-depleted-uranium-tank-rou
anyway, its a 20 year old round by now- and more importantly doesnt take into account K-5 ERA at all(1993 year of intro vs 1996/7 K-5 tests) so its only natural to scrap it. perfectly adequate for the most likely opponents T-62/T-55 and monkey model T-72 derivatives tho.

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).

we are only working with conjectures here, so is it not fair to also assume that the a3 would work as advertised against K-5 ERA? remember K-5 is just first serial ERA that is "heavy"/with anti-apfsds properties, wouldnt take long for the other side to have a grasp of a reliable counter against relatively noobish design principles for new class of "heavy" era. the newer and more sophisticated relikt (kind of an oxymoron, really) should push back the tide, and then along comes a4, but i doubt a4 can help much, esp. since the abrams gun system is getting old- modernized sprut-sd should have much better gun than even latest m1a2, hahaha.

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.

umm, x2.

TR1 wrote:
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.

light years is an overestimation, but all tech for both being equal id say its actually the opposite, gas turbine is one of the simplest if not the simplest design from design standpoint- with major caveat of requiring quite advanced materials engineering just to make it practical in land use.
anyway, its a dead horse by now- practically everyone is moving away from gas turbines for their land vehicles.

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.

hmm, i dont understand russian very well(did a crash cyrillic in light of not getting eng subs for the new RE) or at all, and google translate doesnt help much with expressing the nuances of the quote either. maybe the "answer" vasily is referring to is about achieving substantially more overmatch, like showing a smerch to a a grad fight, because i fail to see how a next gen tank with all its associated heachaches is answer to mere new round that is unlikley to be anything other than marginally better, relatively speaking (like dont expect meter penetration length from this one kids) from a3, apart from that respect.

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.

The T-72B3 is supposed to have the new gun and ammo developed for T-90AM and Armata, so even if the Abrams can penetrate the 72 the reverse is also likely true too... so in the end the Russians get a much cheaper tank that is 20 tons lighter that is comparable in most areas... sounds like the US should offer to buy some T-72s....

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.

gas turbine engines as prime mover engines is an enormous failure. As a generator of electricity not under load or high torque they are excellent and are used widely as APUs and in power stations, but as direct drive for tanks they are poor options.

In 15 years time when tanks and armoured vehicles are all electric then the gas turbine makes enormous sense... right now... they are crap.

What about Leopard 2a6 vs T-90SM?

Flyingdutchman wrote:What about Leopard 2a6 vs T-90SM?

Well, in what respect ?

GarryB 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.

The T-72B3 is supposed to have the new gun and ammo developed for T-90AM and Armata, so even if the Abrams can penetrate the 72 the reverse is also likely true too... so in the end the Russians get a much cheaper tank that is 20 tons lighter that is comparable in most areas... sounds like the US should offer to buy some T-72s....  

No, the T-72B3 only has 2A46M5, nothing better, and the best round it uses is Svinets.
It most certainly does not have 2A82, and it will have Sabot length limits unlike Armata.

Comparable, it is not. Cheap, it is.

TR1 wrote:

GarryB 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.

The T-72B3 is supposed to have the new gun and ammo developed for T-90AM and Armata, so even if the Abrams can penetrate the 72 the reverse is also likely true too... so in the end the Russians get a much cheaper tank that is 20 tons lighter that is comparable in most areas... sounds like the US should offer to buy some T-72s....  

No, the T-72B3 only has 2A46M5, nothing better, and the best round it uses is Svinets.
It most certainly does not have 2A82, and it will have Sabot length limits unlike Armata.

Comparable, it is not. Cheap, it is.

So, nothing else on the matter that you called those numbers baloney despite those are the numbers provided by Fofanov himself?

Yes, tanks are comparable, not equal that not but unlike the US likes to portray it, this can indeed shoot back and hit without being destroyed by 105mm rounds like Monkey models and T-55's did.

Fofanov himself essentially said that you are full of shit, and that is staying polite.

I am not going around in circles. If you can't even read Otvaga, I am not wasting my time repeating things.

TR1 wrote:Fofanov himself essentially said that you are full of shit, and that is staying polite.

I am not going around in circles. If you can't even read Otvaga, I am not wasting my time repeating things.

When the numbers he states says the opposite?

sepheronx wrote:Then, let us post the numbers.  It is better to show evidence rather than just talk.

I already did so his now butthurt and contradicting his own trusted source, he prefers words of a prototype over evaluated numbers of his own source.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

T-72

numbers are:



The entire discussion was if the T-72B3  upper glacis can withstand M829A2/A3 at first engagement ranges or effective engagement ranges 2000-2500m up to 2800-3200m for M1A2 SEP.

The figures of the M829A3 are also not that magical in comperision with M829A2 only slight difference of 680mm ±10mm RHAe at 2km.

About tanks, Can someone tell me about modern KE rounds Russia has developed and developing and also estimates on their penetration?

Hate to rag on you TR1 but we've been the ones with the numbers... If you're gonna try and prove a point, then prove it with proof and not beliefs.

Werewolf, I thought that was the T-90's armor profile (looked it up the other day?)?

Russia has modern KE rounds in development, but it is a royal PITA to find any info on them. The newest round shown in the public had above 800 mm of pen if I remember right.

Mike E wrote:Hate to rag on you TR1 but we've been the ones with the numbers... If you're gonna try and prove a point, then prove it with proof and not beliefs.

Werewolf, I thought that was the T-90's armor profile (looked it up the other day?)?

Russia has modern KE rounds in development, but it is a royal PITA to find any info on them. The newest round shown in the public had above 800 mm of pen if I remember right.

Yes this picture is a T-90 the figures are from Fafonov from T-72B, just look on his page.

Mike E wrote:Hate to rag on you TR1 but we've been the ones with the numbers... If you're gonna try and prove a point, then prove it with proof and not beliefs.

Werewolf, I thought that was the T-90's armor profile (looked it up the other day?)?

Russia has modern KE rounds in development, but it is a royal PITA to find any info on them. The newest round shown in the public had above 800 mm of pen if I remember right.

Honestly I have so much questions I find it easier asking it on this forum then searching Russian forums I'm gonna try to get some more detailed information on Russian tanks, Through Russian sites.

First of all, I presented plenty of numbers in the earlier pages- and if you don't know the numbers about the systems I mentioned, it is your job to find them, not mine.

Second, I posted Fofanov's own words that disprove your nonsense. And Finally, even if we go by your chart, then sub 700mm WITH K-5 is indeed inadequate since most reliable A3 estimates put penetration above that.
That is no T-72B either. What exactly are you trying to prove?

Svinets has less penetration than A3. The A3 by all sources is much more powerfull than the band-aid A2. They have big construction differences.
T-72B3 has less armor than M1A2. Get over it.  The insides are what matter, M1A2 has gone through several DU arrays, comparing it with old T-72B is senseless- the T-90 and T-90A themselves have newer arrays, in fact several versions of them.

I am tired of repeating myself so I will leave it at this: Learn Russian, go read Otvaga2004.

Mike E wrote:

TR1 wrote:Fofanov himself essentially said that you are full of shit, and that is staying polite.

I am not going around in circles. If you can't even read Otvaga, I am not wasting my time repeating things.

When the numbers he states says the opposite?

Obj 195. Answer to M829A3.

That Relikt was never the answer to M829A3 itself.

Go ahead and deduce from that how T-72B with K-5 fares .

Also that chart posted by Werewolf is ancient, and Fofanov himself has said it is outdated. Once again, if you guys actually kept up with Russian armor discussions, you would know this.