+41

Sujoy

RTN

Atmosphere

miketheterrible

lyle6

Isos

ALAMO

lancelot

Mir

franco

starman

KoTeMoRe

LaVictoireEstLaVie

x_54_u43

Mike E

higurashihougi

GunshipDemocracy

cracker

Alex555

Zivo

Walther von Oldenburg

medo

magnumcromagnon

max steel

sepheronx

Stealthflanker

Flyingdutchman

collegeboy16

kvs

Battalion0415

TR1

Werewolf

VladimirSahin

flamming_python

Mindstorm

Viktor

nightcrawler

IronsightSniper

runaway

GarryB

Austin

45 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 11 ... 15

Comparing Tanks

max steel

max steel: Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole

Post n°176

Re: Comparing Tanks

max steel Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:41 pm

flamming_python wrote:

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.

I hope Russians might be having merkava 4 single shot busting anti-tank weapon by now ? Are you an Israeli ?

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°177

Re: Comparing Tanks

TR1 Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:11 pm

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

Literally every tank ever that has seen serious combat has been busted.

So what?

Merkava-IV did fine in 2006.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°178

Re: Comparing Tanks

TR1 Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:11 pm

flamming_python wrote:

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.

Merkakav 3 has a much cruder armor array than Leo-2 and M-1 contemporaries. It is just steel!

Hmm, that misspelling was unintentional. But from now on I am calling it the Merkaka.

max steel

max steel: Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole

Post n°179

Re: Comparing Tanks

max steel Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:11 pm

TR1 wrote:

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

Literally every tank ever that has seen serious combat has been busted.

So what?

Merkava-IV did fine in 2006.

" Everyone should know it . Fine but still got busted."

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 9543
Points : 9601
Join date : 2012-01-30

Post n°180

Re: Comparing Tanks

flamming_python Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:28 pm

max steel wrote:I hope Russians might be having merkava 4 single shot busting anti-tank weapon by now ? Are you an Israeli ?

Sure, HEAT or APFSDS rounds shot from the 125mm 2A24M tank gun and Sprut AT guns ought to make a nice dent in it.
Khrizantema missiles shot from Ka-52s will be completely devestating.

Actually there are plenty of Russia weapons that will take out the Merkava IV in one shot - but few infantry-portable ones.

The Metis-M and Kornet-E stand a decent chance of disabling it; however they may run into trouble from the new Israeli Trophy APS and other countermeasures.

Compared with those AT missile systems, the RPG-30 has less of a chance of penetrating the Merkava IVs thick frontal armour albeit its still possible. However, it's a dumb rocket so it can't be spoofed by passive counter-measures, and its also designed to penetrate APSs by using a precursor rocket - albeit the Israeli Trophy was apparently developed to be able to defeat the RPG-30.

And no I'm not Israeli I'm afraid.

TR1 wrote:Merkakav 3 has a much cruder armor array than Leo-2 and M-1 contemporaries. It is just steel!

Hmm, that misspelling was unintentional. But from now on I am calling it the Merkaka.

Didn't know that, tnx for the info.

max steel

max steel: Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole

Post n°181

Re: Comparing Tanks

max steel Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:37 pm

Trophy is built not just to counter RPG's and recoilless rifles, but also anti-tank missiles, such as those fired out of the cannons of Russian main battle tanks. It is rumored that Trophy can also work against air-launched anti-tank missiles, even those that fly a "top down" attack profile. So they can easily shoot Metis ans Kornet .

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur

Post n°182

Re: Comparing Tanks

collegeboy16 Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:35 am

um, rpg-30 is a thing you know...
125mm 2a42m- more like 2a46, just to point it out

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°183

Re: Comparing Tanks

GarryB Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:51 am

If it works by setting it off a distance from the armour to reduce penetration then Kh-29T should still be effective enough...

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°184

Re: Comparing Tanks

magnumcromagnon Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:23 am

GarryB wrote:If it works by setting it off a distance from the armour to reduce penetration then Kh-29T should still be effective enough...

Kh-29T's are you serious lol? 320 kg warhead against a MBT is the definition of overkill, you can reliably kill any MBT with a 10 kg HEAT warhead, literally 1/32nd the amount found in a Kh-29T.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°185

Re: Comparing Tanks

Werewolf Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:28 am

Kh-25 is already far overkill with 90-140kg warhead, by so much explosive you can even use a back facing HEAT warhead and the explosion would still rip off the tank like a shrimp.

medo

medo: Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°186

Re: Comparing Tanks

medo Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:44 pm

In 2006 war Merkavas survive quite a lot of ATGM hits, but it is also true, than not all ATGM hits are with Kornets. Vast majority of ATGMs used in this war were still old Malyutkas and Fagots as well as Milan and TOW ATGMs. Kornet was there in small number, so they did small number of hits, but for sure have most destroyed tanks per hits from them all.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°187

Re: Comparing Tanks

Werewolf Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:54 pm

medo wrote:In 2006 war Merkavas survive quite a lot of ATGM hits, but it is also true, than not all ATGM hits are with Kornets. Vast majority of ATGMs used in this war were still old Malyutkas and Fagots as well as Milan and TOW ATGMs. Kornet was there in small number, so they did small number of hits, but for sure have most destroyed tanks per hits from them all.

The vast majority were real old Maylutkas with only 400mm RHAe penetration that is even for side turret penetration not really great against Merkawa 4.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°188

Re: Comparing Tanks

GarryB Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:57 am

The reality is that most western ATGMs are not that much better than Malyutka... I remember claims in the early 1980s that the Milan was some wonder missile that could penetrate 1,000mm of armour and other such nonsense...

there is over kill and under kill and everything in between... it is important to keep in mind that a simple guidance package and steering kit as fitted to new Russian 152mm artillery shells could just as easily be fitted to FAB-50 or FAB-100 dumb bombs and result in weapons accurate enough to destroy any tank that are cheap enough to use rather widely... as a standard round.

Walther von Oldenburg

Walther von Oldenburg: Posts : 1725
Points : 1844
Join date : 2015-01-23
Age : 33
Location : Oldenburg

Post n°189

Re: Comparing Tanks

Walther von Oldenburg Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:27 am

Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°190

Re: Comparing Tanks

Werewolf Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:54 pm

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

That is actually not a good performance, at least from the various modifications. Currently the US like most NATO countries lack modern ATGM's that have enough penetration to kill tanks from the front, the only that would come to mind is Spike-LR with 1000mm RHAe which exist in very rare numbers.

Walther von Oldenburg

Walther von Oldenburg: Posts : 1725
Points : 1844
Join date : 2015-01-23
Age : 33
Location : Oldenburg

Post n°191

Re: Comparing Tanks

Walther von Oldenburg Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:18 pm

Infantry AT weapons in their current form are nearing the end of possible development. There simply isn't much that can be done to improve their performance. Penetration of ~1500mm RHA is a limit of what we can get IMO.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°192

Re: Comparing Tanks

Werewolf Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:34 pm

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Infantry AT weapons in their current form are nearing the end of possible development. There simply isn't much that can be done to improve their performance. Penetration of ~1500mm RHA is a limit of what we can get IMO.

Actually they test already new alloys which have a significant higher capability to pierce through composite armor and ceramics than the current copper liners they use.

Here is a little chart of factor penetration of different materials for penetrators.

http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150404/jdb55gqv.jpg

While copper maintains a good penetration overall length through homogenous materials like we use for tests RHA steel, they tend to decrease in penetration capabilities quicker when used in spaced armor against different materials. Some tests have shown Tantalum has better penetration against composite armor, but it costs more and one big factor is it needs more time form an optimal penetrator meaning needs a longer probe which has an effect on the total length.

There is one russian tank round BK-31M which uses tripple shaped charges with an alloy for the main charge that significantly increased the armor penetration than its model it is based upon the BK-27 which has 660mm RHAe penetration at best while BK-31M has 800mm RHAe penetration. There is still grow potential and i've seen some studies on different shapes for the shaped charges that also have a direct effect on how fast the penetrator is forming and how thin it can get which would increase its penetration.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°193

Re: Comparing Tanks

GarryB Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:47 pm

Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

Upgraded Malyutka penetrates 800mm of RHA and unlike all variants of TOW it is actually man portable.

1980s model TOW had performance not much different from AT-4 and AT-5, which were also rather more man portable, plus Shturm which had a much faster flying missile of greater range because it wasn't dragging a wire like TOW does.

The easiest way to improve tank killing performance is to attack the thinnest armour... ie the roof and the hull.

BILL has be doing that for quite some time...

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°194

T-72 was certainly one of the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best.

Zivo Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:58 am

TOW-2B uses a similar flyover top-down EFP warhead to BILL.

Kornet-E has ~1200mm RHA pen after ERA. Which was enough to gut Iraqi M1's front to back through the heaviest armor on the turret.

Alex555

Alex555: Posts : 32
Points : 34
Join date : 2014-01-20

Post n°195

Re: Comparing Tanks

Alex555 Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:13 pm

Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
Laughing

KoTeMoRe

KoTeMoRe: Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-21
Location : Krankhaus Central.

Post n°196

Re: Comparing Tanks

KoTeMoRe Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:37 pm

Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/

I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°197

Re: Comparing Tanks

Werewolf Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:44 pm

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/

I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!

I aggree, that is highly unlikely that Egnineers and designers themselfs with their superior education and knowledge would go into a 3rd grade childish dick measuring, such behavior is usual for yellow papers and tabloids of paid writers not even the PR department of such companies rely to such childish behavior. The big majority of PR from companies themselfs just usually tell its "Best in the World" or "Is among the best in the world" but they do not throw ape shit towards other companies, countries and their product.

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°198

Re: Comparing Tanks

Zivo Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:55 pm

Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/

Not likely, at the end of the day it's just a T-72 variant with all of the T-72's inherent advantages and problems. For a bit more money, you could get a T-90SM with more bells and whistles.

KoTeMoRe wrote:I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!

Pretty much. It just reads like poor journalism too me.

cracker

cracker: Posts : 232
Points : 273
Join date : 2014-09-03

Post n°199

Re: Comparing Tanks

cracker Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:32 pm

the article is full LOL

they claim "our tank can fire wide range of shells! much *****! including ATGM with 5km range! wowowow!!"

among other ridiculous things... Yeah sure, that makes the VT-4 totally superior to... wait... equal to... T-64B of 1976, first tank shooting missiles through a standard gun.

This is a joke to grab a maximum clueless chinese boys (fanboys), create a false advertising and such...

Stealthflanker

Stealthflanker: Posts : 1459
Points : 1535
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia

Post n°200

Re: Comparing Tanks

Stealthflanker Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:44 pm

That Chinese marketing BS.

They don't even get a working APS.. let alone integrating it to a tank. While newest T-72 and Armata comes in with APS as standard.

Russia Defence Forum

Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

T-72 was certainly one of the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best.

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Re: Comparing Tanks

Similar topics

Similar topics