Comparing Tanks

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.

T-72B. Sub 500 KE protection hull. K-5.

Vs ~700mm A3.

Good luck with that.

TR1 wrote:

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.

T-72B. Sub 500 KE protection hull. K-5.

Vs ~700mm A3.

Good luck with that.

Nice garbage mumbling.

It is you that bases your assumptions on words and does not provide any numbers and if those figures are outdated hoe exactly would it lose more than 220mm RHAe against KE with K5 like you claim of only 500, if you would apply to the same rules as everyone and provide credible sources to that and not your butthurt opinion.

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?

How does words disprove it when it isn't even mentioned nor does it represent the figures for it?

TR1 wrote:
Svinets has less penetration than A3. T-72B3 has less armor than M1A2. Get over it.

Nobody said otherwise it is you who acts like someone said something contra, maybe you should read what people actually write and not read what you want to read just so you can boost yourself and say anything of value while implying that someone said contra? Now find me that post or stfu already about things noone ever has said.

TR1 wrote:
The A3 by all sources is much more powerfull than the band-aid A2. They have big construction differences.

Yes, sure huge difference M829A2 650mm RHAe vs A3 690mm RHAe which the 700mm RHAe is to 2km range and sub, that would cut the engagement range of entire 600-1200 meter of which both tanks would engage each other (not counting GLATGM). By your suggenstion maybe we should also use the ridiculous figures of some self proclaimed "experts" (not calling names) which he state such ridiculous figures like the DM-63 (APFSDS) has 1000mm RHAe penetration capability like the same ridiculous numbers they take for Leo2A6 of 1960mm RHAe protection against HEAT from a computer simulation database? Let me guess the protection level figures by Fofanov are outdated and you use the figures from the well known computer simulation database?

TR1 wrote:
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.

That is what you still don't realize do you? You ignore what people say on purpose so you don't have to bother with what they are actually saying?

This comperision wasn't started by me, nor is this comperision made to to proclaim superiority of B3, this comperision was ASKED by the user VladimirSahin, how a T-72B3 would fare against M1A2 SEP. Either you should pay attention to the thread or not jump into the discussion and make implications on the basis of who started the comperision.

Christ you are thick.

Posts and posts of completely wastes of space.

Look, how about this.

One of us posts on Otvaga, and poses the question.
The consensus answer is what we will go with.

Loser shuts up and doesn't post for a year.

Wanna do it?

TR1 wrote:Christ you are thick.

Posts and posts of completely wastes of space.

Look, how about this.

One of us posts on Otvaga, and poses the question.
The consensus answer is what we will go with.

Loser shuts up and doesn't post for a year.

Wanna do it?

We asked for your sources, you come with bullshit like this = You confirm that you shoot blank.

So if you are so informed and so often on otvaga2004 why are you talking the talk instead of providing the hard evidence and uptodate credible figures for the T-72B armor of the upper glacis than rather mumbling without actual results?

So what should it be, your little game you try to make here without providing a single source which you proclaim to have (which btw you sound exactly like USA with their evidences, they always have but never show) or we keep providing information which indeed maybe are outdated but you refrain from providing anything to discuss, you just make claims. You are a grown up man you should know already the healthy behavior that is necessary in a discussion to move it on and not drag it down to a personal debate. I also find it funny that you who ridicules Vann7 for his behavior of getting personal and draging it to a debate and not keeping a discussion you yourself just go the same path, not to the same extent but still, not really discussion either.

Uh what? You literally pulled numbers out of your ass.

I post shit from Otvaga.

Let's do this bet. I am 100% sure I am right, so man up. 1 year no posting for the loser.

TR1 wrote:Uh what? You literally pulled numbers out of your ass.

I post shit from Otvaga.

Let's do this bet. I am 100% sure I am right, so man up. 1 year no posting for the loser.

You already lost your brain like it seems. My numbers are Fofanov's numbers, if someone pulled anywhere out that would be you, because i think Fofanov still claims more authority on that tank matter than you.

I made a decent suggestion to our little debate here, you present your claimed numbers, i already did based on my knowledge and my source i have, you refused to provide yours. Since you are constantly talking and implying that you are so well informed and common on Otvaga2004 why you don't find those numbers and sources, shouldn't be hard for you and then we pull up the bar from debate to discussion again? How does that sound?

TR1 wrote:Uh what? You literally pulled numbers out of your ass.

I post shit from Otvaga.

Let's do this bet. I am 100% sure I am right, so man up. 1 year no posting for the loser.

Stop pissing on every thread you f*cking retard.

kvs wrote:

TR1 wrote:Uh what? You literally pulled numbers out of your ass.

I post shit from Otvaga.

Let's do this bet. I am 100% sure I am right, so man up. 1 year no posting for the loser.

Stop pissing on every thread you f*cking retard.

Pissing is exactly what your posts are. Utterly devoid of any technical knowledge.

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:Uh what? You literally pulled numbers out of your ass.

I post shit from Otvaga.

Let's do this bet. I am 100% sure I am right, so man up. 1 year no posting for the loser.

You already lost your brain like it seems. My numbers are Fofanov's numbers, if someone pulled anywhere out that would be you, because i think Fofanov still claims more authority on that tank matter than you.

I made a decent suggestion to our little debate here, you present your claimed numbers, i already did based on my knowledge and my source i have, you refused to provide yours. Since you are constantly talking and implying that you are so well informed and common on Otvaga2004 why you don't find those numbers and sources, shouldn't be hard for you and then we pull up the bar from debate to discussion again? How does that sound?

Fofanov himself said even Relikt on T-90 was not made to deal with A3.

And you are here babbling about T-72B3. Lmao!


And yes, I will do it. I will post this week on Otvaga, ask the gents there what they think, and get a tally of who thinks T-72B3 is A3 proof along the areas you claim so.
Will be fun seeing what they say.

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:Uh what? You literally pulled numbers out of your ass.

I post shit from Otvaga.

Let's do this bet. I am 100% sure I am right, so man up. 1 year no posting for the loser.

You already lost your brain like it seems. My numbers are Fofanov's numbers, if someone pulled anywhere out that would be you, because i think Fofanov still claims more authority on that tank matter than you.

I made a decent suggestion to our little debate here, you present your claimed numbers, i already did based on my knowledge and my source i have, you refused to provide yours. Since you are constantly talking and implying that you are so well informed and common on Otvaga2004 why you don't find those numbers and sources, shouldn't be hard for you and then we pull up the bar from debate to discussion again? How does that sound?

He is baiting you with his null content trash posts. In this "debate" it is obvious that you are the only one who is making an effort provide information.
I would like to say don't feed the troll, but really TR1 just needs a ban hammer applied.

higurashihougi wrote:

TR1 wrote:And yes, I will do it. I will post this week on Otvaga, ask the gents there what they think, and get a tally of who thinks T-72B3 is A3 proof along the areas you claim so.

Will be fun seeing what they say.

No matter what the results is, I am eager to wait for it.

So I would like to ask you to give us the answer as soon as possible.

Stay tuned!

TR1 wrote:

Fofanov himself said even Relikt on T-90 was not made to deal with A3.

And you are here babbling about T-72B3. Lmao!


And yes, I will do it. I will post this week on Otvaga, ask the gents there what they think, and get a tally of who thinks T-72B3 is A3 proof along the areas you claim so.
Will be fun seeing what they say.

Very funny and bolt claim, which even contradicts with your own words that the T-90 inner array arrangement was changed and not even comparable like it is with T72B.

There is not a single KE/HEAT round that can penetrate any current MBT upper glacis or turret they are all well above 750-800mm RHAe vs KE and over 1200 vs HEAT (upper glacis) even the T-80U already outdid those protective figures and can stop M829A3 with K5 on upper glacis and now you want to tell that the T-90 will be penetrated, which again without any numbers. You do realize that you contradict yourself with several claims a) you bitch around that Fofanov didn't update his side since years, while at the same time you use a simple sentence from his outdated side, which b) is even older than the figures of the T-72B protection and declare it as the truth. That is hypocrite and illogical.


I actually never wanted to tell that to you due my despise of your political views, but i actually had respect for you based on your military knowledge which you over the time have

earned which was reflected on your rep. points, but over quite some time you ruined it for yourself with exactly such behavior and your political bias. I indeed aggree that you also

recieved some unfair beating on your rep points, mainly because of a personal attacks between you and some other user we all know.

I also have done voted some of your posts which soley political and or right out hypocrite and i would say that i was fair with my votes towards you but of course that is biased and

one side to look at it. Based on your behavior over the last couple month my respect towards your military knowledge, which mainly after this submergeful niveau of debating, i really

losse that respect, which i tried to keep seperated from my despise of your political views and uneducated comments.


Since i don't want to drag that bar even lower, which already is located at the mariana trench, i will refrain from this debate with you aslong there are no basis for a discussion i.e. provided numbers and sources to make things here moving.

Edit:

And yes, I will do it. I will post this week on Otvaga, ask the gents there what they think, and get a tally of who thinks T-72B3 is A3 proof along the areas you claim so.

Yes, do that but don't edit out the content of the entire discussion like you did over three pages here.

The discussion was exactly this and no other:

That the M829A3 won't penetrate the T-72B3 at first engagement ranges (2800-3200) nor at effective engagement ranges (2100-2600m) of both respective tanks in a tank duell.

So don't edit that part out. A tank duel within 2km range is no basis for a tank duel on their effective ranges.

Well instead of going around in circles, let us see what Otvaga has to say about it, ok?

Privet Vsem,
Mnogo let chitayu forum, spasibo bolshoye vsem za masy intersenoi informatsiy.
Izviniti za Angliskii text, problema s klaviaturoi. Hotel sprasite prostoi vopros:
T-72B3 immeyet zashitu protiv M829A3, ili kak ya ponemayu shansi nuleviye?
-Spasiba!

Well you already did what i asked you 3 times not to ignore the entire discussion and point i was making over past 5 pages.

I will write it 4th time just for you my luv.

The discussion was exactly this and no other:

That the M829A3 won't penetrate the T-72B3 at first engagement ranges (2800-3200) nor at effective engagement ranges (2100-2600m) of both respective tanks in a tank duell and would need to close in to 2km range or beneath.
So don't edit that part out. A tank duel within 2km range is no basis for a tank duel on their effective ranges.

I should ban pretty much everyone who has posted in the last 3 pages on this thread, but such argumentative banter is to be expected in dick measuring threads.

Post the opinions of those all mighty experts... post it on MP.net too and lets hear their educated opinions... the unwashed ignorant masses here will be temporarily enlightened in the glow of their knowledge... and then I am going to lock this thread.

Stealthflanker wrote:

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

Well, in what respect ?

Wich one is overall the better tank?

[quote="Flyingdutchman"

Wich one is overall the better tank?[/quote]
T-90MS, at the very least it offers the same amount of performance but on a much smaller and cheaper package.

higurashihougi wrote:
Leo's engine seems to be superior. In fact after 1991 Russia embraced Germany and learnt its engine technologies instead of Ukrainian ones.

But ERA provided better protection than spaced armour. And T-90 has autoloader while Leo 2 still used manual loader.

From my experience, Germany and Russia are the best weapon designers in this world and are the two strongholds of basic science. Russian weapons tend to focus on cost-effectiveness while German ones champion in many sophisticated and high-tech innovation.

nope, 1250hp for 49 ton tank gives 26hp/ton, more than 24hp/ton the german 1500 hp engine gives to its 62.3 ton customer.
and thats from t-34 engine- the new engine for armata promises to be even more monstrous, up to 2400hp with advanced materials.

Well guys I didn't expect this to turn into a personal argument... But I honestly think that the M1A2 Abrams will lose its penetrative advantage against the T-72B3 at engagement ranges stated by werewolf. But the closer the M1A2 gets the worse it will be for the T-72B3 which as stated by TR1 is not as armored as the M1A2 is, albeit not by a huge factor. In a real war these tanks will face IFVs and infantry too also many other things. So you must also compare other things, Such as the fact that the M1A2 has no escape hatch but the T-72B does. But this is just a example of course. I'm not sure about other things since I am not considered a "expert" yet

T-72B3 is screwed at any range that it engages the M1A2, barring ATGM use (which would seriously screw up an Abrams day even if it does not penetrate, but that is another story).

Now let's see where we are, shall we .
Straight from the land of Otvaga2004, where I asked directly what the T-72B3s chances of surviving M829A3 are:

"Вы правильно понимаете. Шансов абсолютно никаких."

-You are correct. Absolutely no chances.


"Шансы есть всегда. Ни для одного боеприпаса попадание не гарантирует пробитие, а пробитие не гарантирует поражение. Но, да, шансы не очень велики."

From Fofanov: There are always chances. Not a single shell guarantees penetration, and penetration does not guerentee destruction. But, yes, the chances are not very high.

ALSO From Fofanov, regarding chances against M829A2 this time:

"Тоже довольно плохие к сожалению. Для парирования требуется "реликт"."

Also pretty bad unfortunately. For parity you need Relikt.

Hmmmmmm.

How much of a difference would the T-72B2 upgrade would have been over T-72B3? The T-72B2 clearly had better armor (Relikt) and a better engine too. I understand the need to cheapen out on the upgrades, but really, how much is the difference?

VladimirSahin wrote:Well guys I didn't expect this to turn into a personal argument... But I honestly think that the M1A2 Abrams will lose its penetrative advantage against the T-72B3 at engagement ranges stated by werewolf. But the closer the M1A2 gets the worse it will be for the T-72B3 which as stated by TR1 is not as armored as the M1A2 is, albeit not by a huge factor. In a real war these tanks will face IFVs and infantry too also many other things. So you must also compare other things, Such as the fact that the M1A2 has no escape hatch but the T-72B does. But this is just a example of course. I'm not sure about other things since I am not considered a "expert" yet

Exactly that was my point he ignored and didn't want to hear or ask on Otvaga.

Василий Фофанов wrote:

Artemus написал wrote:
Вы правильно понимаете. Шансов абсолютно никаких.

You understand right. Chances are absolute none.

Шансы есть всегда. Ни для одного боеприпаса попадание не гарантирует пробитие, а пробитие не гарантирует поражение. Но, да, шансы не очень велики.

There are always chances. For no tank round hit is a penetration garanteed, penetration does not garantee destruction. However the chances are slim.

So, i our TR1 ivan would ask the correct question i think we would get a to the exact point i was making over the last 6 pages, that the B3 would most stop A3 over distance above ~2km, not all, but he could stop at first engagement ranges and effective engagement ranges which lie significantly above 2km mark. I've never said anywhere that B3 would just eat M829A3 up without problem, that is what the other side tried to imply. I can understand that by ignoring the ranges above 2km which represent common engagement ranges in tank duells or campaigns, can be ignored and that the protection is measured at point blank ranges to have reliable armor, but that was never the comperision for this one since it is older tank against a newer.

He also added.

Василий Фофанов wrote:

Иван В. написал wrote:Каковы шансы против А2?
How are the chances against M829A2

Тоже довольно плохие к сожалению. Для парирования требуется "реликт".
Also very slim, sadly. For "parrying" (effectively) it needs "Relikt".

That quote implies what we already know from him anyway. That the K5 has some effect on APFSDS aka decreasing its effectiveness. The notion made by him collorates with what NII Stali said about effectiveness of Relikt that it will be highly effective against APFSDS and Tandem HEAT rounds. This suggests or at least indicates that Relikt will have/has such high effectiveness that it barely leaves anything of the penetrator, notion to the word "parry".


To the point made here about the presence of M829A3 in US Army inventar, he said:

Василий Фофанов wrote:

Иван В. написал wrote:
А сколько снарядов А3 поступило на вооружение США? Сколько на вооружении стран НАТО, аналогов этого снаряда?
How many rounds of M829A3 are present in US storage? How many are in NATO countries, do analogues exist?

Этих снарядов очень мало, и аналогов ему не существует. Я пару лет назад выкладывал информацию о его статусе, здесь.
There are only very small number of such rounds and there are no analogues. A few years back i already posted information on its status, here.

Василий Фофанов wrote:
From Jane's:

Compared to past procurements of similar rounds, the number of M829A3 rounds has been relatively limited, as it is regarded as an interim response to the array of reactive and other armours expected to appear in coming years. The procurement programme appears to have ended as no M829 series funding was requested for FY11 or 12. Low-rate production, for 5,000 rounds, began during FY02. The first award for full-rate production came in FY03 and covered 8,490 rounds at USD3,450 each, followed by the exercise of the FY04 option in March 2004 for 8,040 rounds at USD3,409 each.
The Program Year 2 lot failed their acceptance tests, and as a result, the FY05 buy of 7,050 rounds was restructured to allow ATK components that are not part of the problem (the penetrators and pre-preg material for the composite sabot) to be procured while they await the final report on the causes of the failures. An improved sabot design was approved in early 2006 and USD1.2 million provided to incorporate this change into Years 3 and 4 ammunition. This also allowed the Year 4 (FY06) buy to proceed, this being contracted for in February 2006 and covering 7,500 rounds at USD5,070 each for delivery between November 2007 and May 2008. A further 8,000 rounds were funded at USD5,729 each in FY07, followed by two final batches, of 8,000 each, in FY08 and FY09.
The procurement schedule for the M829A3 as of February 2012 is:
FY Quantity Total cost (USD thousands)
2006: 7,000 43.5
2007: 7,000 47.0
2008: 8,000 47.0
2009: 3,000 32.8
2010 & later: 0 0

So, now we have more information on the that too and can bet this question to grave.

sepheronx wrote:How much of a difference would the T-72B2 upgrade would have been over T-72B3? The T-72B2 clearly had better armor (Relikt) and a better engine too. I understand the need to cheapen out on the upgrades, but really, how much is the difference?

In terms of what, survival to M829A3?

Very little.