Comparing Tanks

So to summarize, no, The T-72B3 and M1A2 are not equal in a frontal duel. I will take my apologies now, for the vast pages of wasted space.


Nothing nuanced about it. One can punch through the other with ease. The other can't.


Nowhere on Otvaga has anyone said: Oh, but at 2Km and farther the T-72B3 has a fair chance of survival! Nope, sorry.

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.

No, it won't. 1 km. 2 km. 3km. A3 will go through T-72B3 reliable at all those ranges.


T-72B3 won't go through M1A2 reliable any any range.

TR1 wrote:

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.

No, it won't. 1 km. 2 km. 3km.  A3 will go through T-72B3 reliable at all those ranges.


T-72B3 won't go through M1A2 reliable any any range.

Why are you declaring it without for a second asking this exact question Fofanov on Otvaga?

Why are you openly ignoring the 6th time the point of this discussion and even ignore what Fofanov said himself, that hits do not garantee penetration. This is not a comperision of T-55 RHA steel vs A3 but composite ERA K5 at ranges above 2km where we already know that A3 has maximum 700mm RHAe penetration at 2km or BELOW, while the upper glacis armor and turret have more than 700mm with Kontakt5?

It would be so kind if you would stop cheating in your addiation of my question to get your way around.

But I thought you said the atgm would though, and T-73B3 does use atgms.

And what is wrong with T-72's ammunition that it couldnt penetrate the m1?

TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

Agreed... KE rounds will bleed off energy severely at those ranges, and that combined with the effects of ERA (slowing it down even further and weakening it) will mean it would be a matter of shear luck and nothing more.

VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".

TR1 wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".

You act like "Otvaga" is filled with guys who actually designed the thing. Sure you're not paid by them?

sepheronx wrote:But I thought you said the atgm would though, and T-73B3 does use atgms.

And what is wrong with T-72's ammunition that it couldnt penetrate the m1?

-No, the ATGMs that T-72s use do not gurentee penetration over the Abrams frontal arc (outside weakened zones or lucky shots).
-The T-72B3 at best uses Svinets. That is what is wrong. It has less penetration than M829A3 for many reasons.

Mike E wrote:

TR1 wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".

You act like "Otvaga" is filled with guys who actually designed the thing. Sure you're not paid by them?

Otvaga is the best Russian forum out there, period.
Just like Balancer's is for naval subjects.

It has people who are BTDTs, industry insiders, everything. There is a reason guys like Fofanov, Khlopotov and others post there.

TR1 wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TR1 to say that the A3 would go through at 3 km sounds pretty fake. I'm sure you know more on military equipment and such on then me but saying that round has enough energy to pass threw T-72B3 at 3 km is high exaggeration...

How does it sound "fake"? Do you have proof that A3, that can go through T-72B3 like crap through a goose loses velocity as such monstrous rates that by 3km it is inadequate to penetrate 3 decade old protection?

I specifically left range out in my question on Otvaga so that anyone could say "Well, from 2km+ the T-72 might survive the shot". Aaaaand we got nothing, aside from "T-72B is fucked".

FFS i am getting tired of your bullshit and your nonsense you openly pull out of your arse.

He never said anything like that and A3 wouldn't go through B3 like "crap", this isn't a fucking US beloved monkey model, the armor is ABOVE the penetrative capabilities of any A3 round at ranges of 3km even at 2500m it is highly unlikely to go through upper glacis with K5. Either you have some big issues understanding several words building a sentence or you just openly ignore what people say. Cheating and addiding out important factors like the engagement range you now proclaim bullshit based on wishfull thinking of yours.

Since you little sissy has missed the entire point of a discussion it is to find out what is right, based on SOURCES and numbers and the numbers speak against your wishfull thinking and even the words of Fofanov say so.

That a hit does not garantee a penetration and he did not say that because of generalisation but because this is not a T-34/55 or any other tank where we know with certain that it would go through 2-3 of such tanks.

The penetrative capability of M829A3 is only slightly above A2 with 700mm RHAe pen. max at 2km which reduces its penetrative capabilities over distance with losing velocity that is a known fact, no need for rocket science to understand airdrag + 9.8m/s gravity reduces velocity which is among the most crucial factors for APFSDS rounds along with their angle of attack and how pointy the tip is, which again is degreesed when not perforated by K5 ERA on hit.

AT 2km beneath it will penetrate, above that is highly unlikely.

Get numbers or get lost with your crap and self interpretation.

Werewolf wrote:

He never said anything like that and A3 wouldn't go through B3 like "crap", this isn't a fucking US beloved monkey model, the armor is ABOVE the penetrative capabilities of any A3 round at ranges of 3km even at 2500m it is highly unlikely to go through upper glacis with K5

Prove it. Go ahead, find definitive penetration figures. Better yet go get some shells, and test them on armor plates, and get back with results.

Otherwise keep digging your hole. Clearly you know better than all the serious forums predictions of A3 penetration.


And no, A3 penetration is not slightly above A2. It is a bigger leap than from A1 to A2.

You got your idea of numbers, I have mine. Funny how respected forum consensus is on my side.

Oh and if you insist on making an ass of yourself, why don't you register @ Otvaga, and ask them if it can withstand M829A3 from past 2km. I'm not making an ass of myself on their by asking such a dumb question.

It isn't that big a leap TR1... Now something over 100 mm is a "big leap".

The best round as of right now is German, a variant of the BM-53 they use right now.

TR1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

He never said anything like that and A3 wouldn't go through B3 like "crap", this isn't a fucking US beloved monkey model, the armor is ABOVE the penetrative capabilities of any A3 round at ranges of 3km even at 2500m it is highly unlikely to go through upper glacis with K5

Prove it. Go ahead, find definitive penetration figures. Better yet go get some shells, and test them on armor plates, and get back with results.

Otherwise keep digging your hole. Clearly you know better than all the serious forums predictions of A3 penetration.


And no, A3 penetration is not slightly above A2. It is a bigger leap than from A1 to A2.

You got your idea of numbers, I have mine. Funny how respected forum consensus is on my side.

Oh and if you insist on making an ass of yourself, why don't you register @ Otvaga, and ask them if it can withstand M829A3 from past 2km. I'm not making an ass of myself on their by asking such a dumb question.

The A2 to A3 represent 50-70mm higher penetration, big fucking gap...seriously.

And no one is on your side, you EDITED the question to your favor and it is visible on Fofanovs reply, he stated it has slim chances, meaning it can stop it the question is at what ranges, your bullshit and wishfull thinking hears the complete opposite that the A3 will go through B3 like through butter, which is not the case.

If such losers like you wouldn't edit out questions but ask the entire point we would already have speared us from your garbage and you would have to shut up 1 year.

You are a dumb asking ridiculous questions that have edited out the content of this discussion and you do it on purpose because of the fact that you know it won't be in your favor.

Some needs to educate you that among military numbers value more than assumptions based on wishfull thinking like yours. If the A3 goes through B3 like through butter at all ranges like you claim, then it shouldn't be that hard for you to provide credible sources with hard numbers. That is plain and simple i have embedded this behavior over the two years i am on this forum, every claim i make i back up with sources and evidence, you on the other hand you rather drag down discussion to personal crusades with bullshit over bullshit and no sources for your "believed" numbers.

The best round as of right now is German, a variant of the BM-53 they use right now.

It's DM-63 and it comes close to M829A3 but it is fired from L55, so has therefor superior figures, the A3 would win in the slight with same L55.

Mike E wrote:It isn't that big a leap TR1... Now something over 100 mm is a "big leap".

The best round as of right now is German, a variant of the BM-53 they use right now.

No it is not.

Fire M829A3 out of a longer barrel and it too, will have better penetration, higher than anything German in production.

[quote="Werewolf"][quote="TR1"]

Werewolf wrote:


And no one is on your side, you EDITED the question to your favor and it is visible on Fofanovs reply, he stated it has slim chances, meaning it can stop it the question is at what ranges, your bullshit and wishfull thinking hears the complete opposite that the A3 will go through B3 like through butter, which is not the case.

I did not edit anything you imbecile. Fofanov was clear, stop trying to mold his words as if he somehow supports you.
The consensus was clear. Cry more.

The A3 will fuck a B3 up with ease from any realistic combat range. Deal with it.

And like I said. Go on, register, and beg for proof that the A3 somehow cant deal with T-72B past a measly 2km.

Guess what? A2 will also wreck a T-72B3, from any serious combat range . Fofanov clearly said so. I wanna see you try to weasel his words here though. " No No, he didn't say that, it might survive, fare poorly might means it might live blah blah blah".

yeah, it is possible even the A3 hits the turret at a really bad angle and doesn't penetrate. It is also unlikely.

M829A3 is the god weapon I read from the NATO fanboys if you are correct TR1... But doesn't the T-72B3 have the power to take out the M1A2 Abrams with its ATGM at the same distances and even farther?

VladimirSahin wrote:M829A3 is the god weapon I read from the NATO fanboys if you are correct TR1... But doesn't the T-72B3 have the power to take out the M1A2 Abrams with its ATGM at the same distances and even farther?

There is nothing "God" about M829A3, it is just a modern and huge round, and we are comparing it to armor from the late 80s.....you get the point.

And no, the Svir or Reflex that the T-72 fires do not posses enough penetration to reliably take out the Abrams from the frontal arc. Of course it is always possible they may hit a weakened zone, or damage the tank while not penetrating it, but if we are talking pure penetration vs "most" of the turret and hull frontal arc....

I can make sense from what you are saying, But doesn't the B3 add a better armor package? Surely they arent keeping the same armor from the 80s... Or if they are they're adding something extra?

VladimirSahin wrote:I can make sense from what you are saying, But doesn't the B3 add a better armor package? Surely they arent keeping the same armor from the 80s... Or if they are they're adding something extra?

Same T-72B hull as the original vehicles, they are not changing internals at all.

Armor is same old K-5. Nothing new essentially. Some did not have K-5 before the modernization, but that doesn't change the fact that it is old ERA.

TR1 wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:I can make sense from what you are saying, But doesn't the B3 add a better armor package? Surely they arent keeping the same armor from the 80s... Or if they are they're adding something extra?

Same T-72B hull as the original vehicles, they are not changing internals at all.

Armor is same old K-5. Nothing new essentially. Some did not have K-5 before the modernization, but that doesn't change the fact that it is old ERA.

Pretty disappointing... They should have kept buyig the T-90A sure lower numbers but still very capable tank.

It is pretty much evident so far with numbers provided that the A3 can not reliabily penetrate B3 from ranges of 3km and even from 2km it is everything but "easy".

The numbers are clear and yes you edited the question without asking about ranges at all, now stfu as long you have no sources with clear numbers we have the numbers and words of fofanov and he said it out right.

Pretty disappointing... They should have kept buyig the T-90A sure lower numbers but still very capable tank.

AFAIK it was a cheap stopgap tank that allowed practise at night and all weather fighting with its thermals, and new guns and autoloaders so new rounds can be introduced earlier.

TR-1... the results you posted here say Fofanov said:

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.

I would say it is pretty clear that as he didn't specifically mention ranges that he assumed you were talking about combat ranges of less than 2km.

And more importantly...

Also pretty bad unfortunately. For parity you need Relikt.

So to get an equal to a 70 ton American super tank all the Russians have to do is fit a slightly newer ERA.

the obvious question therefore is why don't they... but only obvious for those interested in the subject rather than chest thumping and BEING RIGHT.

Potential answers would include that it is a short term stopgap tank that will hinder the introduction of new equipment if it costs too much.... plus NATO are our allies arent they....

or maybe they assess the performance of the vehicles they are upgrading differently to you... or maybe they have a diving top attack missile that will bypass the heavy frontal armour of the Abrams and defeat them easily from ranges of 10km or more... remember Kornet can penetrate 1.2m of armour at 8.5km and weighs only 33kgs.

Seeing as how you prefer to argue rather than discuss this thread is locked.

Sorry VladimirSahin, don't take it personally, you wanted to learn but members just couldn't behave...

But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .

Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.

So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.

The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...

The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.