What went wrong? Could it have killed the Abrams?

>>32501259
>Grozny
>Chukchi march into the city in a parade column
>Got RPGs shoved up their asses
>It's the tanks fault

>>32501259
Depends. Shot to the back? Shot with GLATGM? point blank?

Everything is possible given perfect circumstances

>>32501259

Couldn't do anything that couldn't also be done by the T-72.

File: 1394401537020.jpg (788KB, 2308x1298px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 2308x1298px

>>32501259

>What went wrong?

The gasturbine engine made the T-80 a very costly tank to purchase and to maintain despite there being diesel engines who had similar performance.

But other then that, it fixed many of the flaws that the T-64 had and to this very day, a T-80 is still a very decent tank.

>Could it have killed the Abrams?

Yeah. Maybe not frontaly but definitely in the sides/rear.

File: T-80U.jpg (2MB, 2250x1425px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1425px

> low crew survival inherent to design
>poor overall opinion after the fuckups at Grozny, not really the tanks fault
>same issue the T-90 ran into (lol export), does absolutely nothing an upgraded T-72 cannot do, at a much higher cost compared to an upgraded to an upgraded T-72 hull.


>could it have killed Abrams

Of course. But a tanks job does not solely revolve around killing other tanks, something everyone forgets when comparing western vs eastern MBTs. They're more then a match for each other, he who shoots first wins.

Just western MBTs don't fold like wet paper and kill their crew when they encounter other threats on the battlefields, mainly infantry anti tank weapons.

>>32501259
Money, Ukraine and sadly T-72 being a more efficient platform.

>>32501336
>The gasturbine engine made the T-80 a very costly tank to purchase and to maintain despite there being diesel engines who had similar performance.
This and the fact that incompetenc commanders in Grozny blamed the turbine for losses caused by their own mistakes.

>>32501375
>Ukraine

Russia got the bulk of the design bearu post collapse.

They learned after the T-62 debacle, 5-10% increase in performance does not outweigh a massive leap in production cost.

Especially once ERA became even more the mainstay for armor. The T-80s superior hull wasn't worth too much over the T-72.

>>32501384
Yes but Ukraine got the primary Engine/Transmission production plant. This split helped further it's death spiral. Completely agree though it was a dead production line for the marginal increase over the T-72 which was vastly more efficient.

>>32501336
>there being diesel engines who had similar performance.
I agree, however as far as I know, the turbine was chosen primarily for use in areas with arctic climate, as well as transmission system, was designed to be used in extremely low temperatures.

>>32501259
in a 1 on 1 slug match assuming both tanks are within eachothers effective range and they both hit eachother? maybe. but tanks are mostly only as good as their crew make them

>>32501336
>But other then that, it fixed many of the flaws that the T-64 had and to this very day, a T-80 is still a very decent tank.
What flaws? That it's suspension and chasis is kinda old? No shit it is from the 60's and the T-80 share the same armor flaw as the T-64 and other things like the autoloader and general layout of things while being more expensive.


>>32501259
The very first T-80 had the exact hull and turret as the T-64 with only a different engine and suspension which is completely retarded.

The T-72 and T-80 were a mistake. First one being created since a design bureau in russia wanted to be relevant and went further then "just" change the engine they were told to and decided to change the suspension and autoloader while they were at it for no good reason except to be relevant and special while the other one was a leningrads politicains pet project because he got a boner for turbines.

Both being only marginally and mostly equal to the T-64 in combat capabilities while being more expensive at it.

>>32501505

How was the T-72 a mistake? It was cheaper to make than the T-64, primary the reason it was adopted and built in massive quantity.

T80 vs the M1?

Similar armor, with a slight edge for the T80.
Vastly superior gun in the T80.

The T80 was also in full production for 4 full years before the M1.

Same crew, no terrain advantage, I'd give it to the T80 every time.

Now, when the US upgraded to the M1A1, everything swung directly in the Abram's favour.

>>32501403
Proly for russia, when they already had literally thousands of T-72B laying about. Hell they even gave the remaining T-80U to South korea because they didn't have money to maintain 2 different tank

For ukraine tho, the amount of obsolete tanks that needed replacement as well as not having nearly the same amout of T-72B means that they would have better reasoning to pursue better tank design between the two.

>>32501559
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10297-history-of-soviet-tanks/
Cheaper? No, not in the long run either if we consider the fact it has different suspension and engine which results in different training and logistic and as we all know, logistic wins wars. It is kinda "cheaper" after the T-64B came to existence since the T-64B got more advance FCS and the ability to fire GLATGM which is the primary cause for the T-64B higher cost compared to the T-72B but funny enough the "T-64B1" is cheaper then the T-72B and the T-64B1 is essentially a T-64B with no GLATGM capabilites.

Primary reason it even came to existence was that the T-64 was having engine problems and thus the army wanted to have a T-64 put into service but with a different engine hence Object 439. Who got the job for the Obiect 439? Nizhni-Tagil. What did they do? Replace the engine, suspension and autoloader because they wanted to be relevant and be special since those parts came from Obiect 167 which failed in competition with the T-64 because Obiekt 167 is simply a modified T-62 and the space age T-64.

When was the T-72 in service of the soviet army? August 1973. Why was it in service of the Soviet army? People in the army had sided with Nizhni-Tagil and it's creation allowing it to exist.

So if the T-64 had engine problems and the T-72 was created because of the problems and Nizhni-Tagil wanting to be relevant, how did the T-64 still exist if the design that was to be more reliable then it be put into service along with the T-64 and the T-64 saw service until the end of the cold war? Simple really. In 1971 the T-64's engine averaged at 480 engine hours and 9800 km and in 1972 the engine hours reached 700. What was the demands for it to reach? 300 engine hours and 3000 km in 1966 and ulimately 500 engine hours and 5000km so it was late but it already showed promise in 1969 to reach these goals so the T-64's reliability or cost was not a problem in 1973 when the T-72 was put into service.

File: proof friendo.png (849KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 1920x1080px

>>32501719
So in the end neither cost nor reliabiltiy was a justifed for the T-72 to exist in 1973 when the T-64 had proven itself in 1972. It was Design buearu riviality and compeititon amongst the army with some politicians joining the shit-show.

In 1976 the soviets had 3 different tanks or "same" tanks with same gun, similar armor protection and FCS while having different suspension and engine with caused logistical and training problems which were completely unneeded.

At the very end of the cold war the Soviets had the T-64BV, T-72B, T-80U and T-80UD which was actually supposed to be namned T-84 but not since it would be extremely embarassing to have 4 different tanks in production that are very similar but still having different logistical needs and training.

What's my source except Damian?

T-64 BATTLE TANK
The Cold War’s Most Secret Tank
STEVEN J. ZALOGA

>>32501259

Yelstin butchered the Russian army by promoting a lot of people into generals as a way to ensure that nobody could launch a successful coup against his weak regime.

>Could it have killed the Abrams?
no, there is no russian tank that could or can, sadly. thank for retards who think good gunner and commander optics, fcs and stabilization are too exspensive.

>>32501719

Learn how to use commas ffs.

>>32501761
Source on PDF?

>>32501798
For the Soviet combat potentional which is a interesting read
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1980-08-25.pdf

For Steven J zalogas latest book on the T-64.

I dont remember where i found it and I cant really help. I think it was on Gen.lib.ru but it might have gotten removed since I cant find it again.

I dont either now how to upload files and shit either.

>>32501768
>Yelstin butchered the Russian army

The country was bankrupt. The Russian armed forces were out hunting and foraging for food.

>>32501314
Grozny showed that this thing with full equipped ERA is almost fucking invincible.

File: literally kek.jpg (251KB, 501x807px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 501x807px

>>32501867
As long as the conscripts dont sell the ERA.

File: 1435943115730.jpg (56KB, 403x391px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 403x391px

>>32501879

>>32501867

To be fair, they probably didn't have many tandem RPGs. You see a couple in images, but most are older models in all the images you see.

Of course it could kill an M1, from the side and rear.

BM-42M can't handle the front.

>>32501601
M1 BTFO

>>32502257

Original M1 wasn't much better than the stock T-72s/80s against KE

If you look at M1 pictures in ODS you can see some with steel plates welded to the turrets; these are the non-HA versions that needed beefed up protection against BM-42 (just in case the Iraqis had it for their T-72s).

>>32501259
>What went wrong?
When did T-80s and Abrahms actually fight?
And when did you think it was a good idea for a tank to fight another tank? these days tanks are destroyed by air, infantry or light vehicles with missile launchers. Using tanks against tanks is like bashing your head against a brick wall. Tank are best used against infantry and lighter vehicles. Read Sun Tzu.

Also you can build 4 T-80s for every one Abrahms.
T-80: $2 million to build,
Abrams: $8 Milllion

If both sides had even production, the abrahms would be outnumbered 4:1. considering the tanks are a rough match, the Abrahms would be fucked.

>>32501454

>but tanks are mostly only as good as their crew make them

And we have a winner folks. If there is one undeniable truth that has been learned in the middle east wars, it's that even the best tank can be killed by an incompetent crew.

>>32502296

A tank is the best weapon to kill another tank, especially today with APS and ERA.

T-80s never had sights anywhere near the lever of the M1A1.

You could simply fight at night and you'd have the same outcome as fighting T-72M1s.

T-80s would be massacred against M1A1s.

>>32502305
Tank V Tank isn't really a thing in modern combat anyway. Send in the Bradleys with missile launchers, or call in an air strike, or use an RPG from an infantry unit.

Tanks are for infantry support, and for anti infantry. not the best anti tank weapon.

>>32502313
>A tank is the best weapon to kill another tank
fuck no. An aircraft is. 1 hellfire missile, 99% PK on any armored vehicle. And you can see the tank clearly from above. Being on the ground puts you in range of the enemies weapon, and means you need to find him and get LOS.

Its so much easier to kill a tank from the air.

Tank V Tank is retarded and you should learn more about how modern combat works

>>32501761
>war thunder
Mah nigga

>>32501259
Kinda unrelated question are barrel fired atgm's a meme

>>32502326

The problem with air is that your airpower will be fighting the opposing air force and their SAMs

File: javelin.jpg (52KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x400px

>>32502313

>A tank is the best weapon to kill another tank

I beg to differ....

>>32502343

Generally, as you can shoot your HE at fixed positions just as far away, and KE is better against hard targets within LOS.

You also don't have to hang around waiting for it to hit if you're shooting at another tank. They're slow and need guidance.

They're also limited to your bore diameter. You need around 150mm+ to get the penetration you need.

>>32502257
The M1 protection requirements were to stop 115mm APFSDS, 105mm APDS, and a certain number of 152mm HEAT rounds. No requirement to resist anything on the level of 120/125mm APFSDS. This was changed with the introduction of the M1IP, which also fixed a few other problems with the vanilla M1. The M1A1 brought the 120mm into play, thus outmatching all fielded soviet equipment.

>>32502348

APS will shoot it down

You also can only shoot so many tanks before they're on you

>>32502316

I meant in general. As we've seen with M1A1s and Leos getting fucked in Syria and Iraq, all a great tank needs in order to be blown the fuck up is an Arab crew.

>>32502355
ty anon

>>32502365

Which APS can take down a top attack ATGM? Also that's why the Javelin is so great. Since it's man portable you can have multiple crews humping it around the hills and mountains as opposed to a TOW or other equivalent.

>>32502365
>Man portable
>Fire and Forget
>Top down attack

Missed on all three, anon.

>>32502316
>Tank V Tank isn't really a thing in modern combat anyway.
That's because there hasn't been a proper peer-to-peer conflict since the 80s (Iran-Iraq, Israel-Syria in 1st Leb war). In any peer conflict, you can bet your ass that tanks are going to be the primary antitank system.
>Bradley
Armor won't stop a tank gun, you'd take massive casualties. Long flight time gives opponent a chance to react, and jammers are common.
>Airstrike
Denied airspace is a thing, air dominance is not guaranteed.
>RPG
Suicidally short range, and no way of using during an advance.
Generally speaking, ATGMs are the modern equivalent to WWII AT guns, and RPGs are modern AT rifles. IFVs are combined APCs, TDs, and assault guns.
No weapons platform is as survivable as a tank, nor is there any weapon system with a better Pkill against modern* heavy armor than a saboted KE penetrator.
Tanks are for mobile, protected firepower, and that combination is the most useful for destroying the enemy's mobile, protected firepower. There's a reason AP ammo has seen so much investment, and that's because it's one of the main missions tanks are supposed to carry out in wartime. In the west, until the last 10 years, all of a tank's main gun ammunition was capable of destroying armored targets- loadout was roughly half APFSDS, half HEAT which served a multipurpose role). After quite a bit of "peacekeeping", MPHE rounds have started appearing, and by Israeli reports have proved themselves quite well in Gaza during the last round there.
But the point remains that from roughly 1960 to 2005+, a general purpose HE round wasn't considered a necessity in the West. The Soviets, who presumably would have come charging through the Fulda Gap in a cold-war-gone-hot scenario, did feel a need for general use HE, and developed several for the 100, 115 and 125mm guns. They generally took up around half of a tank's ammo allocation, as they would be needed for dislodging NATO.
*with APS to kill top-attack missiles.

>>32502348
>short range
>exposed squishy operator
>APS is a thing
Yeah no.

>>32502296
The M1 Abrams actually fought enemy tanks on a regular basis in it's heydays.

The T-80BV and T-80U did have some few duels with chechen tanks but those are quite rare.

>>32502313
Yes that is correct, the T-80 has similar combat capabilities as a T-72M1, only having a speed advantage and slight mobility advantage and maybe slightly better firepower since it may have the 3BM-22 which the T-72M1 did not have.

But against a T-80U then it is a whole new fight. It has better night fighting capabilities and the T-80UK have thermal sights. Combined this with having greater armor protection and firepower vs a T-72M1 then you have a much harder scenario to fight.

>>32502494
M1A1 did. The original M1 with the 105mm gun saw no action

>>32502523
Oh yeah ment those yes.

How would the M1 with 105mm do against the first T-80?

>>32502487

>short range
2500 meters or 1.6 mile effective range is not short for a man portable ATGM
>exposed squishy operator
What is cover and fire & forget?
>APS is a thing
Top Attack. Look it up.

Try again, amigo.

>>32502564
Why is it so difficult to defeat top attack ATGMs?

>>32502585
It's not.
Maybe if they came directly down at a 90 degree angle, but it's never straight down.

>>32502564
>2500 meters
Well within the range of a snapshot return from enemy tanks, as well as being well within zones designated for supression by various forms of artillery.
>cover
Let's see the cover that'll save you from PROX fuzed 155mm/120mm mortar/ 120mm tank MPHE .
soldiers are very vulnerable to indirect fire, and every competent warplan uses a LOT of IF to supress or destroy ATGM teams.
>Top attack
Again, APS. Also smokescreens while we're at it, even the Javelin and Spike can't hit what they can't see.
It could be argued that no APS has yet been proven to counter steep-trajectory diving ATGMs, but seeing as the only countries to have such ATGMs are those who purchased Javelin and Spike derivatives, the Russians are on a shoestring budget for new APS, the Israelis have no need to counter such missiles, and the Americans have yet to show a APS which WORKS, the fact that current APS doesn't do a very good job of stopping them doesn't mean such a capability couldn't be made available in the next few years.
Your turn.

>>32501259
it would have replaced the Tshittytwo as grand turret throwing champion

>>32502478
>Long flight time gives opponent a chance to react, and jammers are common.
Modern missiles are resistant to jammers.
>>32502651
>Well within the range of a snapshot return from enemy tanks, as well as being well within zones designated for supression by various forms of artillery.
ATGM crew must be detected before. This is probably hard when crew is covered.
>Again, APS. Also smokescreens while we're at it, even the Javelin and Spike can't hit what they can't see.
Hard-kill APS is not common thing today, the only fielded now is Trophy. Also to effectively deploy smoke screen against incoming missiles tank must have radar, UV detectors or something like that, which is uncommon too.

>>32502651

>snap shot from tank

The soft launch feature as well as fire and forget means that by the time the tank knows it's being shot at the Javelin crew is already moving.

>smokescreen

Javelin uses infrared homing

You then went on to say how APS is vulnerable to top attack/step trajectory attack which is exactly what Javelin does.

Is it a perfect ATGM system? No. But it's damn near it when you consider that no military in the world has the constant battlefield intelligence to detect and defend against a one or two man crew from getting within firing range of their target.

>>32502761
>Modern missiles are resistant to jammers.
Not the 1980's vintage TOWs you've got on Bradleys.
>ATGM crew must be detected before. This is probably hard when crew is covered.
The thing is, they don't need to be discovered. War plans, particularly Soviet ones, were very generous in their ore-planned bombardment of likely ATGM positions, ie "fuck this forest edge in case anyone's there".
>Hard-kill APS is not common thing today, the only fielded now is Trophy. Also to effectively deploy smoke screen against incoming missiles tank must have radar, UV detectors or something like that, which is uncommon too.
I'll give you that, but considering how Javelin has a pretty impressive launch signature, it would be visible on FLIR sights.
Even if the tank's systems are incapable of engaging the missile, slew-to-cue is a thing, rendering the ATGM crew's survival doubtful (they can't run fast enough to escape the frag pattern of 120mm MPHE) and the launch is enough reason to pop smoke and reverse, thus defeating the attack.
>>32502877
>The soft launch feature as well as fire and forget means that by the time the tank knows it's being shot at the Javelin crew is already moving.
The soft lauch means that it can be launched from enclosures. Following the soft launch, the booster engages, sending the missile up high. This is VERY visible to anyone with FLIR and very distinctive- nothing climbs like that other than a Javelin or Spike. The climb also marks the launch pretty well, so expect MPHE on the lauch position pretty damn quickly.
>Javelin uses infrared homing
And modern spectral smokescreens can block FLIR main sights, so the Javelin's relatively small and low powered seeker will have a really hard time. And modern smoke projectors are designed to produce thick smock above the vehicle as well.
WRT APS vulnerability, I agreed that current systems do not defend against them; but what I was trying to say is that it's not all that difficult to adapt the existing (1/2)

>>32503155
System (Trophy) to deal with them; the lack of current capability is more due to lack of need (for the Israelis) than to a physical hard limit.
>Is it a perfect ATGM system? No. But it's damn near it...
Javelin is, without doubt, one of the best ATGMs out there.
The best is probably the Spike, as it combines the Javelin's capability with longer range; the question is if its Jewish tricks can match American secret squirrel tech.
However, my point wasn't to claim the Javelin to be a poor ATGM, but rather to show that even it suffers from some problems all ATGMs suffer vs tanks and tank guns, and that therefore in a peer conflict, tanks still have a very large role as antiarmor systems, which the Javelin (for all its impressive capabilities) cannot replace.

>>32502246
Welp, who had many randem RPGs in time, when T80s with Kontakt were top of the line?
If we take that short timeline, when vanilla M1 was deployed in Europe, T80s from GSFG would wreck them.

>>32503155
>Not the 1980's vintage TOWs you've got on Bradleys.

Current model TOW missiles are a decade old at most.

>>32503290
Didn't know that, thanks.
A. What model are the new missiles?
B. Did they upgrade the launcher? If they haven't, jamming is liable to work.

>>32503155
>Not the 1980's vintage TOWs you've got on Bradleys.
BFVs can be equipped with any missile, including TOW-2B. Though TOW-2 from 80's is resistant too.
>impressive launch signature
It's not. Soft launch capability reduces visual signature.
>Even if the tank's systems are incapable of engaging the missile, slew-to-cue is a thing, rendering the ATGM crew's survival doubtful
And again, launch must be detected and identified first. Launch must be made inside commander's field of view. It will be hard to identify launch with wide FOV, so all tanks in platoon/company will pop smoke grenades (and there is not so many of them) when something like missile launch will be detected. This reveals position and complicates task.

File: atgm.jpg (211KB, 1050x800px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1050x800px

>>32503316
IIRC they haven't changed the designation (although you will see words like Aero, RF and LBS) but current production TOW's are wireless and have a new motor that makes them faster and longer ranged.

>>32503155

>This is VERY visible to anyone with FLIR and very distinctive- nothing climbs like that other than a Javelin or Spike

Yes. FORWARD Looking Infrared. So you already have to be looking in the general direction of your attacker. Even IF the tank immediately sees the launch and has immediate reaction to it, the Javelin crew is already booking it before the tank can send return fire down range. And yes, if they're able to have a battery of artillery or mortars immediately saturate the area I'm sure the Javelin crew is toast, but there are a lot of if's involved there.

>>32501259
Nothing.
>>32501375
T-80 is a Russian tank.
>>32501403
>Ukraine got the primary Engine/Transmission production plant
http://klimov.ru/en/production/landmarine/GTD-1250/
Since fucking when Klimov moved to Ukraine?

>>32502313
>T-80s would be massacred against M1A1
780 mm vs. APFSDS in 1985. Good luck trying to penetrate that, fatnik.

>>32502363
>The M1A1 brought the 120mm into play, thus outmatching all fielded soviet equipment.
Keep dreaming. In real life it took Americans the dissolution of the USSR to catch up on Soviet armour.

>>32502326
>hellfires
nah m8.

SFW/CSS smart cluster EFPs. Either in 40-piece INS-guided cluster dispensers from fixed wings or launched in 2-piece shots in 155mm cargo shells.

>>32502313
Kek no. In gulf war majority of iraqi tanks were destroyed by airstrikes while on the ground, M2 bradley with TOW killed more armored vehicles than M1 with its gun

>>32503482
They also come with counter-APS systems on the 2B.

>>32501879

>explosive 4 times more powerful than TNT

What's it called?

I thought TNT was pretty much the non nuclear gold standard.

>>32504800
It is the standard unit for determining how explody shit is. Relative explosive force units are 1 whhere 1 is a unit of TNT.

most modern HE is somewhat better, by maybe 20 to 40%. RDX was the standard for a long time, HMX and PBXN are becoming the new standards.

>>32504722
>1985.

I chortled.

Meanwhile the soviets didn't even think about putting passive thermals on their vehicles until 1989, more than a decade after the west had them. To top it off, their smoke at the time was not IR opaque, meaning that they couldn't see out but NATO could see in.

>>32504722
Most T-80's in 1985 only had Kontakt-1 at best.

>>32502313
Airpower you dense nigger.

Why do you think the fucking Soviets doled out MANPADs to everything they couldn't strap them on?

I've still not ready any reports on APS vs larger amounts of modern infantry anti tank shit.

>>32502316
>Tank V Tank isn't really a thing in modern combat anyway.

Tank vs tank was never a "thing", it only happened in isolated instances. Tanks have always been used in combined arms or with supporting infantry before the doctrine was invented.

>>32502343
You're trading improved first hit capability for increased cost and complexity.

For what end I don't know, all top trim modern MBTs can shrug off HEAT frontally.

File: ss (2017-01-02 at 04.44.45).png (380KB, 1151x759px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1151x759px

>>32504722
>M1A1
>1985
Nope.
In 1985 T-80U entered service, with Kontakt-5 and AT-11 Sniper missile.
Before 1988 balance of forces in Europe was pretty fucked up and NATO had a little chances against mix of armor and artillery superiority. NATO had better planes, but that was not enought to fight against Soviet air forces, fight against Soviet AA and bomb armored colummns in same time.

>>32507161
T-80U had Kontakt-1 initially, and did not enter service in 1985.

>>32504800
no
theres lots of stuff thats more explosive, its just not as stable & nice to deal with

>>32502348
Yes, unless the armour is moving with artillery support, in which case all the bags of meat carrying the missiles are liquified

>>32508484
Assuming you know where they are to call in fire.

>we will just rain artillery as we advance

Very slowly then.

>>32501259
>What went wrong?

It being built in first place. Soviets built three tanks to meet essentially same specs thanks to old feuds and alliances between engineers, generals and politicians going back to days of Stalin.

>>32502494

T-80 has worse strategic mobility than any T-72 variant... thanks to gasturbine.

>>32503482

If it is wireless... its designation should be changed into TOWi-fi...

>>32504691

Last production model T-80UD used 6TD diesel engine that was developed from T-64's engine.

>>32504722

It's less than that without Kontakt-5

There's also the lower hull that has effectively no armor, even today on the T-90

>>32508762
TOW is now Tube-launched, Optically-tracking, Wireless-guided

>>32504800
>I thought TNT was pretty much the non nuclear gold standard.

Not a chance. ERA blocks need to be filled with something that reacts at a much higher rate.

Newest generation ERA is supposed to be so fast, it can dissect certain parts of an APDS rod which is already damn fast.

File: abrams armour.jpg (183KB, 1280x864px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1280x864px

>>32505019
Meanwhile americans didn't even think to put composite armour on their tanks until 1979, 15 years after the soviets had it, because of the "limitations in manufacturing capacity and the added cost". To top it off, americans produced "tanks" with 105 mm guns until 19 fucking 85. Soviet armour was impenetrable for anything the west had since 1964 all the way until 1993.
>>32505040
And most Abramses are M1A1.
>>32507161
Nope what? I was talking about T-80U.
>>32507477
>T-80U had Kontakt-1 initially
T-80BV had Kontakt-1. T-80U had Kontakt-5 and did enter service in 1985.
>>32508762
T-80UD was a very limited modification produced in Soviet Ukraine in the late 80s that used diesel. T-80U with turbine engine was produced in Russia until 1998. Klimov is the primary engine production plant, it is in Russia and the whole implication that T-80 is somehow related to Ukraine is a rather interesting example of how misinformed an average /k poster is on the subject.
>>32508793
It is exactly that and americans couldn't catch up on that until M1A1HA was entered service. Too bad by that time T-72 obr.1989 was introduced that had 800 mm vs. APFSDS. Soviet armour was space magic to Americans. Also Abrams upper glacis is paper thin.

>>32509684
>Soviet armour was impenetrable for anything the west had since 1964 all the way until 1993.

Except for the 105mm and 120mm guns widely used.

>And most Abramses are M1A1.

And?

>T-80BV had Kontakt-1. T-80U had Kontakt-5 and did enter service in 1985.

T-80U entered service in 1985 with the same armor package as the T-80B until 1989.

>Too bad by that time T-72 obr.1989 was introduced that had 800 mm vs. APFSDS.

Not even the T-90A has that good of armor.

File: t-80u at mont saint-michel.jpg (523KB, 1600x1701px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1600x1701px

>>32509841
>Except for the 105mm and 120mm guns widely used.
Except not.
>And?
And it can be easily penetrated by HEAT-FS from 1982.
>T-80U entered service in 1985 with the same armor package as the T-80B until 1989.
No, dumbass, you are thinking of T-72B that received Kontakt-5 in 1989. T-80U entered service in 1985 and had Kontakt-5. In parallel, existing T-80B since 1985 were equipped with Kontakt-1 packages, becoming T-80BV. Read at least a fucking wiki article before posting.
>Not even the T-90A has that good of armor.
Because you say so? T-80B shit on M1, T-80U shit on M1A1, T-72B obr.1989 shit on M1A1HA. Even basic monkey model T-72M slaughtered every western tank it met in combat until 1991. Deal with it.

>>32509910
>Except not.

>And it can be easily penetrated by HEAT-FS from 1982.

Unlike Russia, the US actually upgrades the armor on its tanks. A M1A1 in 2017 does not have the armor it had in 1985.

>No, dumbass, you are thinking of T-72B that received Kontakt-5 in 1989. T-80U entered service in 1985 and had Kontakt-5. In parallel, existing T-80B since 1985 were equipped with Kontakt-1 packages, becoming T-80BV. Read at least a fucking wiki article before posting.

I said armor, not ERA, but your reading comprehension is forgiven because english is obviously not your first language.

>Because you say so? T-80B shit on M1, T-80U shit on M1A1, T-72B obr.1989 shit on M1A1HA.

Inferior gun/ammunition combinations, inferior armor, no thermal sights, no IR blocking smoke. But they were better "because you say so".

>Even basic monkey model T-72M slaughtered every western tank it met in combat until 1991. Deal with it.

Oh, you are the anon who takes Syrian damage control as gospel.

>>32509979
>Except not.

Just like when the Syrians gave Russia a captured Israeli Patton, which led to an addition of applique armor on T-72 and T-80 tanks.

>>32509841
Bruh, Kontakt 5 debuted with the T-80U.
It was the T-72B and the T-80B that started receiving Kontakt-5 upgrades officially in 1989.
Even prior to that, it was common for Kontakt-5 to be requisitioned as replenishment instead of the to spec ERA.

Also, the T90A is a lighter tank than the T-80U, both have approximately 800mm equivalent protection against APFSDS, when equipped with Kontakt-5.

The Abrams wasn't upgraded for lack of a reason, it was sub par at release.

>>32504736
Step back there Slavaboo, your bias is showing.

>>32510020
Armor and ERA are not the same my friend.

T-90A's have a claimed protection of 800mm against APFSDS with Kontakt-5, except the entered service in 2005 which is long after ammunition that bypasses Kontakt-5 became common.

T-90A are heavier than T-80U.

The Abrams was designed to be easily upgraded over its lifespan, which is why it constantly has received upgrades and is still a contender for best MBT in the world 30+ years after it entered service.

>>32510020
>The Abrams wasn't upgraded for lack of a reason, it was sub par at release.

It was subpar in the sense that it had an inferior thermal sight to the M60A3 TTS, which had a very good (and expensive) one.

>>32509979
>Unlike Russia
Lol, coming from a country that didn't operate tanks with composite armour until 1979.
>US actually upgrades the armor on its tanks
And Russia actually upgrades its ammunition.
>M1A1 in 2017 does not have the armor it had in 1985
It doesn't make it suck any less compared to its contemporary counterparts.
>I said armor, not ERA
ERA is armour, imbecile.
>english is obviously not your first language
>Wtf is A in ERA?
>Complains about english comprehension
Has a burger ever been so much self-owned?
>Inferior gun/ammunition combinations, inferior armor, no IR blocking smoke
Factually incorrect.
>Oh, you are the anon who takes Syrian damage control as gospel.
>Taking american/yid damage control on imageboards for real
I'd rather pass.
>>32510019
>addition of applique armor on T-72 and T-80 tanks
>He believes yid internet forum fairy-tales
First, it was only T-72, second it was a natural upgrade. In the meantime americans had T-54 tier armour on their tanks.
>>32510032
Soviets had better armour. The last time americans had parity was in the times of M60 and T-54/55. The introduction of composite armour on T-64 and the failure of MBT-70 assured soviet lead in tank protection for the last 30 years of the Cold War.

File: 1395830368457.jpg (193KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 640x640px

>>32510136
>Armor and ERA are not the same my friend.

>>32509684
>And most Abramses are M1A1.
Not today at least. Army has between 1600 and 2100 M1A2 SEP in service. It is vast majority.
>Soviet armour was impenetrable for anything the west had since 1964 all the way until 1993.
Can't say anything about other tanks, but T-72B can be frontally penetrated with M829 from 2 km.

>>32510136
Armor is armor is armor.

By your same claim, composite armor isn't armor.

If it deflects or otherwise stops projectiles, it's armor.

>>32510150
And inferior armor, and an inferior gun.
If you don't have numbers (the US definitely didn't have this at the time) you need quality.

>>32510136
>T-90A's have a claimed protection of 800mm against APFSDS with Kontakt-5
830 mm.
>except the entered service in 2005
T-90 entered service in 1993 and being essentially a T-72B obr.1989 with T-80U electronics had the same 800 mm protection against APFSDS as T-72B obr. 1989.
>T-90A are heavier than T-80U.
T-90 weights the same 46 tonnes. T-90A is mete 0.5 tonnes heavier.

>>32510136
>which is long after ammunition that bypasses Kontakt-5 became common
It was only developed in 1993 and it was only then, 8 years after Kontakt-5 introduction, when it became possible for american ammunition to at least counter heavy Russian ERA. We are yet to see anything americans ever produced to penetrate armour behind Kontakt-5.
>>32510184
>Not today at least
U.S. Army
1,174 M1A2 and M1A2 SEP variants[13]
4,393 M1A1 variants[13]
U.S. Marine Corps
403 M1A1[13]
>T-72B can be frontally penetrated with M829 from 2 km
By the time M829A1 was in service T-72B obr.1989 and T-80U were introduced.

>>32510247
>1,174 M1A2 and M1A2 SEP variants[13]
1590 M1A1 upgraded to SEP before 2016. Page 149
http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/budgetmaterials/fy17/pforms/wtcv.pdf
530 M1A2 was planned in 2007 to be upgraded to SEP. Page 117
http://www.asafm.army.mil/documents/officedocuments/budget/budgetmaterials/fy09/pforms/wtcv.pdf
>By the time M829A1 was in service T-72B obr.1989 and T-80U were introduced.
M829 has 540 mm penetration of RHA at 2 km, just slightly more than T-72B1 has in front. T-72B production was started in 1975. M829 became full service in late 1984.

>>32510363
>T-72B production was started in 1975.
1985

>>32510363
It doesn't even contradict the information I posted.
>M829 has 540 mm penetration of RHA at 2 km, just slightly more than T-72B1 has in front.
540 mm is exactly the amount of RHA T-72B has in the front. But with T-72B a much better armoured T-80U was introduced.
>M829 became full service in late 1984.
With what gun, lol? See the pic >>32507161 anon posted.

>>32501719
>>32501761
No. The biggest problem with the T-64 is that its engine and tranny are way too advance for the teh average maintainer. The V engine of the T-72 and its transmission technology basically dates back to WW2 but with the materials updated, which meant that everyone and his babushka had a great idea of how to maintain these things already. Incidentally this is also the reason why they insisted on using twin truck engines (each is underpowered on its own) for motorizing the troops in BTRs. The T-64's main failing is that its way too ahead of its time- heck those numbers were only achieved with factory specialists if I recall.
If anything, its the T-64 and then T-80 line that should have been killed as soon as the T-72B showed up. Its criminally incompetent to waste that much resources in what are basically dead ends when the tech already existed that would enable the creation of an T-90A at that time.

File: object 187.jpg (44KB, 687x509px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 687x509px

>>32511246
They were supposed to drop both lines for Object 187 serial production. Just imagine how good this beast could have been, had the collapse of their country not prevent it from entering service.

File: T-72B armor weakness.jpg (48KB, 594x358px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 594x358px

>>32511246
So you want something that cost more then a T-64 to produce.

I mean for god sake the T-64 proved itself in 1972 to be reliable and yes it is true it was advance for it's time it did have flaws in the engine that were fixed before the T-72 saw service.

The T-72 should not exist. Instead we should have had something like the T-74 or Obiekt 490 instead. Something that does not share the armor flaws of the T-64.

Almost every T-64, T-72 and T-80 have the flaws that pic related have. Especially on the hull, maybe not on the turret as all have different turrets but still a serious one.

>>32509684
>Soviet armour was impenetrable for anything the west had since 1964 all the way until 1993.

Not really, when the T-64 started to see service the main tank strength was made of T-54/55 and T-62's. When Both the T-72 and T-80 saw service the T-54/55 and T-62 were still the main players untill the late 1970.

Even when the T-64BV, T-72B, T-80BV and T-80U saw service there were still a large number of earlier models in service and some T-54/55 and T-62 that made up the strength and lets not forget that the warsaw pact was almost exclusively made up of T-54/55 and some T-72M1 and early T-72 which did not stand that much of a chance against the western tanks.

Well luckily there are still a large amount of pattons and early leopards+ centurions in the west so it was not that much of a shocker.

File: object 299.jpg (40KB, 800x490px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x490px

>>32511327
>Instead we should have had something like the T-74 or Obiekt 490 instead
Both were obsolete by the late 80s. Object 299 family vehicles was undergoing actual trials when the country collapsed.
>Something that does not share the armor flaws of the T-64.
So Object 187 then.
>0.45 probability
Yeah, right, "guaranteed".

>>32511356
Yes, really. Just because T-62 had long service doesn't mean T-72B, T-80U and T-72 obr.1989 magically didn't exist or were not in service at the time.
>T-72M1 and early T-72 which did not stand that much of a chance against the western tanks
T-72M and T-72M1 annihilated western tanks in combat and were only defeated by brand new shiny M1A1 and to a larger scale M2 with ATGM and better communication.

>>32511359
How about the 490A?

And the 187 would not give the Soviets the decisive advantage over the west. Only make them equal. (but hey that is good in itself when your economy goes to shit)

And 0.45 is almost a 50/50 chance for killing a T-72B.

The point is that having two tanks in service and both being similar is a bad move. In my opinion the T-72B does not have any big enough advantage over the T-64BV that would justify having the T-72B at all.

In the end having just the T-64+T-72 is so much better then having them two with the T-80 "I drink too much fuel and cost so much" turbine disaster.

>>32511382
>magically didn't exist or were not in service at the time
Never said that.

>T-72M and T-72M1 annihilated western tanks in combat
Not so sure about that since all tanks in arab service have had poor service record because arabs.

Some CIA dokuments speak of Syrian T-72 getting penned by TOW after they drove into a unfavorable position that the Jews could pen them.

Iraq for example suck so much they cant defeat Iran and instead drag it out in some bizare world war 1 reenactment even with Iran having so much fewer tanks and everything.

>>32509684
>Soviet armour was impenetrable for anything the west had since 1964 all the way until 1993.
is this what retards truly believe?
even a fucking ww2 tank can pen most modern tanks with a bit of effort.

File: object 299 ifv trials.jpg (33KB, 522x285px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 522x285px

>>32511397
>How about the 490A?
Same as Objects 450, 477, 477A, an R&D prototype. Object 299 was undergoing actual trials.
>And the 187 would not give the Soviets the decisive advantage over the west. Only make them equal.
They were already superiour. Object 187 would have simply assured this superiority for the next decade or two.
>0.45 chance for penetrating a T-72B
"Guaranteed". That is for a top notch western gun against a mass-produced cheap T-72B, not even taking into account T-80U or T-72B obr.1989. According to a fucking Polish forum post. Please.
>The point is that having two tanks in service and both being similar is a bad move
Try 6, lol. At a certain point in the early 90s Russia had T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 in service simultaneously.
>In my opinion the T-72B does not have any big enough advantage over the T-64BV that would justify having the T-72B at all.
T-72B is better in pretty much every single aspect. It's also better than T-80BV. T-80U and T-72B obr.1989 are more or less equivalent, but T-80U has better electronics. Turbine engine is much more desirable for cold winter conditions, as indicated by their recent decision to modernise and redeploy T-80BV. But in the end ditching all that zoo for Object 187 would have been the only sane thing to do simply because of how godly it was.
>Never said that.
Then what is your point? Of course more modern ammunition can penetrate legacy armour. It is so obvious that the talk is about contemporary counterparts that I consider it a redundant thing to point out.
>all tanks in arab service have had poor service record because arabs
That's the point, both western and soviet tanks were operated by arabs when they saw combat against each other, so the conditions were more or less equal for both. Besides, T-72M proved itself against Israeli tanks, while still being operated by the damn Arabs.

File: ss (2015-01-05 at 04.21.41).png (73KB, 645x936px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 645x936px

>>32511397
>Some CIA dokuments speak of Syrian T-72 getting penned by TOW after they drove into a unfavorable position that the Jews could pen them
Truth is absolutely opposite. Back in that days TOW had a little chances to penetrate T-72 which was proven be Israel and Iran.

>>32511397
>Some CIA dokuments speak of Syrian T-72 getting penned by TOW after they drove into a unfavorable position that the Jews could pen them.
Ambushes by infantry crews with hand-carried ATGM can fuck-up any tank ever built, it's like saying T-80 can be penetrated by RPG-7 grenades just because imbecile generals sent it into a city with a mujahideen on every roof. Technically it's correct, but it is not the scenario people talk about when discussing tank protection.
>Iraq for example suck so much they cant defeat Iran
Iran preformed just as bad, which is exactly why the war turned into this bizarre WWI reenactment.
>>32511408
Assburger, please. Everyone knows tanks are vulnerable from the back.

File: 11.png (143KB, 2592x3300px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 2592x3300px

>>32511627
>They were already superiour
Really now.

>According to a fucking Polish forum post
Well the pole has sources for his claims and you disregard him simply because of his nationality is something I look down on.

>Try 6
Well the T-55 and T-62 share parts and are mostly in reserve and other less important areas so it is not that bad. While the T-64 and T-80 are bad to have the T-72 and T-90 share more parts and the T-90 is infact just a T-72 with T-80 electronic. It got a the name T-90 for the sake of better chance for export.

Well the 187 would have been the best option but my point is that this should have been done long before at the year 1973.

>Then what is your point?
Well when the legacy tanks make up the majority of your tank force, saying soviet armor superiority is a silly thing to do.

We have not even entered the area of sights where the west were superior at. It is just that the european terrain would negate that and the soviets tactics would do it's best to negate the difference.

>>32511641
Not really. And that was with the 450-500mm penetration version.

The later ITWO had 630mm of peneteration but that was rendered moot when kontakt-1 was mounted and the better armor of the T-72B and T-64BV and T-80BV (The tanks produced after 1982-85 got redesigned glacis)

>>32511685
Unlike Iraq, Iran just had a regime change and was in chaos so they have the right to be bad. Iraq had no such thing and had the superior equipment.

>>32511327
>So you want something that cost more then a T-64 to produce.
??

>I mean for god sake the T-64 proved itself in 1972 to be reliable and yes it is true it was advance for it's time it did have flaws in the engine that were fixed before the T-72 saw service.
Its the people, the institution of maintainers and soldiers that would have problems with adapting to the new tank. When your tanks need factory specialists to maintain them you dun goofed.

>The T-72 should not exist. Instead we should have had something like the T-74 or Obiekt 490 instead. Something that does not share the armor flaws of the T-64.
Even worse of a leap. Remember most units are jumping from the insanely simple to operate and maintain T-55 and then to unmanned turreted mechanically complex monsters.

>Almost every T-64, T-72 and T-80 have the flaws that pic related have. Especially on the hull, maybe not on the turret as all have different turrets but still a serious one.
Those areas, aside from either side of the gun, would have ERA set at extreme obliquity to the projectile(enhancing area of interaction between mechanism of defeat and the arrow) so its not an issue anyway.
I'm actually quite puzzled why the Russians didn't bother to put ERA on either side of the gun. I know its needed to provide space for the gunner's head when driving up the hatch or when getting out but still. I've talked to some people about it and they all told me its not much of a problem what with it being insanely easy to just weld an ERA module on either side of the gun even in wartime but I haven't really seen this in the T-72B3s in Ukraine or the gifted assorted T-72Bs, T-90 and T-90As in Syria. They know this- see the T-90MS which has the most comprehensive ERA coverage of any tank like, ever, but I'd chock this up to the legendary Russian mulishness until people get slaughtered in vast numbers at which point throw everything including the kitchen sink at it.

>>32511707
>gunner's
*driver's

>>32508762
>TOWi-fi
Kek'd
Also 7.62 get

>T-72 would annihilate western tanks

Chieftains and M60 Patons with APFSDS had no problems dealing with T-72's in Iraq.

The Battle of Bridges in Kuwait showed that in a defensive position NATO block tanks can and will inflict casualties to T-72 armored spearheads.

So far from the few engagements the T-72 had with non M1A1 and Challenger tanks showed that the main factor determining a victory for tank engagements would hinge on whoever would land the first hit.

Not exactly something that inherently favors the T-72 in anymore than it does the M60 and Chieftain since both of them have been constantly upgraded with better optics, FCS and ammunition as the T-72 entered production.

The T-72 had a decent edge over those tanks but to say they would have annihilated them is absurd.

>>32509910
>>Except for the 105mm and 120mm guns widely used.
>Except not.
I'll take 'what are Conqueror and Chieftain?' for 10 points please...

The West is more than just the Yanks.

File: f0c75b444254.jpg (418KB, 1774x714px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 1774x714px

>>32511707
>??
See pic related.

>Its the people, the institution of maintainers and soldiers that would have problems with adapting to the new tank. When your tanks need factory specialists to maintain them you dun goofed.

Well maybe you should I dunno increase the training for your soldiers because you want to have the advantage over your enemy?

>Remember most units are jumping from the insanely simple to operate and maintain T-55 and then to unmanned turreted mechanically complex monsters.
You could have them jump to the T-64 instead and have some units that operated the T-64 jump to the space age tank.

And you could say the same about the T-72 and T-90 to the T-14 armata. Regardless the jump is gona happen.

>"text"
Well ERA is a one time use and the ERA coverage varries to tank and tank.

T-64BV and T-72B have good ERA coverage and even on the hull side while the T-80BV got bad coverage and no ERA on the side, instead they have some steel plates which I have no idea why they have at all. They are absolutely useless which is another proof why leningrad tank bureau should not produce tanks at all.

Maybe russian stupidity is behind the lack of ERA at the turret mantle area.

>>32511627
>T-72M proved itself against Israeli tanks
Except the Israelis never faced the T-72 in combat. All Syrian losses were to Jeep-mounted TOW launchers which ambushed them over a ridgeline.
The Israelis in turn were ambushed by T-62s, which managed to destroy several tanks, including a few Merkavas, but most of the IDFs tank losses in Lebanon were to IEDs and helicopter-launched Milans.

>>32511701
>Well the pole has sources for his claims and you disregard him simply because of his nationality is something I look down on.
Not who you're replying to, but Damian has repeatedly made it clear his bias against the Soviets then Russians have colored his views on the matter. Also likes to cherry pick his sources along with his buddy. Anything that shows the T-72 - bad, most especially from the Ukrainian, who he somehow despises less, he drinks, glass and all. Ironically, the dude (Andrei Tarsenko) likes to shit on the Leo 2 and the Abrams from time to time, and that's when he's unreliable- according to the dynamic duo, that is.

>Well the 187 would have been the best option but my point is that this should have been done long before at the year 1973.
It can't be. The 187 was designed as basically the T-72B uncucked in that the things that the original were deprived off, like a decent FCS, or an actual next gen drivetrain in favor of dead ends like the T-80 latter models were at last given to it.

>Well when the legacy tanks make up the majority of your tank force, saying soviet armor superiority is a silly thing to do.
Because they WERE SUPERIOR at those times. Qualitatively, in broad terms they were superior to every Patton, Leo 1, AMX whatever that were the majority during that time- or did you think Abrams and Leo 2s magically replaced those in an instant?

>We have not even entered the area of sights where the west were superior at.
The passive sights of the day only had the lack of emissions as their major advantage over active IR systems. Emissions that could come easily from the myriad of light sources all over the place. heck even, a partial moonlit sky if I recall pretty much made the sight advantage at night moot at relevant European countryside sight lines.

>>32511778
>Damian
I have never seen anyone with as huge a hard-on for the Abrams as this guy.
Anything said against it, and he goes on a rant. He does have rather extreme double standards as well, criticising Soviet test beds, but not accepting any faults of US Abrams based ones as "it's only a testbed". He's also one of the ruder posters in AFV circles.

>>32509684
>muh 105mm is bad because it's smaller even though it took the Slavs 5 years to come up with a 125mm round to best the m774

Man I love vatniks

>>32511759
>See pic related.
The T-72A wasn't just a T-64 with a V-diesel, planetary gearbox, and larger roadwheels you know.


>Well maybe you should I dunno increase the training for your soldiers because you want to have the advantage over your enemy?
Insanely expensive.

>You could have them jump to the T-64 instead and have some units that operated the T-64 jump to the space age tank.
You just payed double for retraining those people then.

>And you could say the same about the T-72 and T-90 to the T-14 armata. Regardless the jump is gona happen.
The Russians are not arming a multimillion man army with thousands of modern tanks, not unlike those times if we follow what we are saying, so the comparison is not quite. Besides, the Russian population of today is in a rather better position for absorbing the added complexity because of an above average educational system than their counterparts who grew up while most of the country including the institutions, in particular education are rebuilding.

>Well ERA is a one time use and the ERA coverage varries to tank and tank.
I blame videogames. They make it look like precision hits happen with players being able to pick which part of the tank they hit. Spoiler alert: It doesn't happen like that. You aim center mass, or rather what you reckon is given the target is likely more or less a tank-shaped blob in your reticle as large as the notches probably, and when you can spot features cleanly you are close enough that your arrows(and his) stand a good chance of penetrating anyway, ERA or not.

File: Object 187 glacis vs T-72.png (64KB, 859x576px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 859x576px

>>32511778
>Damian
Well I was never there to see him sperg out in tanknet and other places and I have noticed his disgust for the T-72 but I dont have that much of a choice. I only got two extremes to listen to.

I cant read russian nor ukranien so I have no better sources and I am not willing to trust google translate that much.

>dead ends
Well the only thing dead in the T-80 is the turbine engine. All other parts are okay and the 187 is not exclusive to the T-72B. FCS, gun and all other parts can easily be done on other chasis.

>Because they WERE SUPERIOR at those times. Qualitatively, in broad terms they were superior to every Patton, Leo 1, AMX whatever that were the majority during that time
Well point taken.

Well passive sights have their obvious advantage over active but they are still limited to a degree that thermals beat it and the soviets rolled around with passive sights long into the 80's.

>>32511843
During that time the Soviets were still very much in love with HEAT rounds, so their best AT ammo for the tanks was 3VBK-16 and the Kobra, which, remember this was just a few years before composite armor in Western tanks, were very much effective against the contemporary Western armor.
Heck, they weren't actually trying before the introduction of composite armor in Western tanks, relying merely on either upgunned AP rounds from the T-62, or simply putting a Tungsten slug, and they got away with it.

File: trans72l.jpg (26KB, 708x458px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 708x458px

>>32511904
>The T-72A wasn't just a T-64 with a V-diesel, planetary gearbox, and larger roadwheels you know.

Both have side-mounted planetary gearboxes AFAIK.

File: pokrycieeraaszansetrafi.png (854KB, 800x443px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 800x443px

>>32511904
>The T-72A wasn't just a T-64 with a V-diesel, planetary gearbox, and larger roadwheels you know.
Yes it was completely more expensive for the same job that the T-64 fills.

>Insanely expensive.
So they are gona continue driving T-55's into 2000? They are gona leave the T-55 which they did. You know the T-55 and T-62 were almost gone from the GSF in europe at the end of the cold war since people died and were retrained and so on. Alot of reasons.

Well we are speaking from a soviet time perspective so I think it is a fair comparison. But for that to happen the education would have to improve and year of training to be maybe increased so it is competely hypothetical if.


>I blame videogames
So you actually deny the ERA coverage is different from the T-72B, T-64BV and T-80BV and it is not important? How amusing.

You know there are more then just 60's era tanks with HEAT rounds who engage you at maximum range you know? You yourself even stated that you dont understand why the T-72's did not have good ERA coverage around the gun mantle area and why the T-72B3 did not have it yet the T-90MS is fully capable to have good ERA coverage.

Pro tip: dont start to talk about video games.

File: t64vld.jpg (434KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1280x960px

>>32511984
>same job that the T-64 fills

File: ou-3ga.jpg (234KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1024x683px

>>32511701
>Really now.
That's just how it is. The west skipped a generation and it was showing up until the end of the Cold War.
>Well when the legacy tanks make up the majority of your tank force, saying soviet armor superiority is a silly thing to do.
What that anon above said. You are acting as if the majority of American tank force was not M60. Fucking M60, anon. Legacy tanks always make up the majority of your tank force at the moment you introduce a new tank. the difference is that Soviets introduced and produced tanks that were superiour to what the west had.
>We have not even entered the area of sights
The superiority of early passive sights is a rather questionable matter. Of course the modern ones are vastly superiour, but neither do Russians produce tanks with Luna spotlight anymore.
>Not really
Your pic specifies top and side penetrations, no frontal ones. Any tank is prone to those, it is not some specific feature of any tank. That's why no one really discusses modern Abrams getting BBQd after taking a side hit from a 70s ATGM, except for shitposters and trolls. Because that's not an indicator of how protected any tank is.
>they have the right to be bad
They're all towelheads, they are bad regardless of the situation. Just the recent example of how Syrians, while having a major advantage and the support of Russian Air Force, literally just ran away from Plamyra instead of fighting is a proof enough that this is not something that changes as the time passes by.

>>32511937
The reliance upon HEAT had everyuthing to do with the poor chamber pressure of the 2A46 series coupled with the the poor FCS' which meant that accuracy wasn't exactly great.

>>32511641

Several T-72s were killed by TOW in Lebanon

It was the only confirmed T-72 losses

They were marching along a road in the open and ambushed by TOW teams

>>32512063

HEAT would be even more inaccurate if no FCS

Higher velocity = flatter trajectory so range errors aren't as compounded

The poor APFSDS performance of the 125mm is due to limitations on the length of the rod they can load. They improved it some in the newer T-90s so they can take longer rounds

File: 1444589609077.jpg (256KB, 1585x1107px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1585x1107px

>>32512026
Yes same job.

>>32511746
>Chieftains and M60 Patons with APFSDS had no problems dealing with T-72's in Iraq.
In a parallel world, where T-72 didn't slaughter both equally.
>So far from the few engagements the T-72 had with non M1A1 and Challenger tanks
The only time these met in combat was during the Gulf Wars. Before that T-72 had a whole decade of successful combat experience against western and Israeli tanks. If anything, its engagements with Abrams and Challenger can be characterised as "few".
>The T-72 had a decent edge over those tanks but to say they would have annihilated them is absurd.
I didn't say it "would have" annihilated them. I said that is did. Don't make me copy-paste the examples from Lebanon and Iran-Iraqi Wars again.
>>32511754
>what are Conqueror and Chieftain?
T-55 tier trash.
>>32511764
>Israelis never faced the T-72 in combat
They did, it's whether Merkava and T-72M met in combat or not that is a questionable matter.

>>32512038
>That filename
How long before you post your next article Tiles Murphy?

I am waiting.

>>32511984
>Yes it was completely more expensive for the same job that the T-64 fills.
By that logic all of those latter tanks are expensive for the same job the T-55 fills.
The Soviets never really subscribed to the Western dogma of the best AT weapon is another tank- they used the tank mainly to spearhead efforts to effect a break in the enemy's line of defence - that's how they won the land war after all, and why the main round in their loadout for every tank is the HE-frag shell. But that's besides the point because the T-72A is commensurately better in the hard aspects of firepower, armor, and mobility as expected from it being newer by a couple years and being more expensive as well.

>So they are gona continue driving T-55's into 2000? They are gona leave the T-55 which they did.
The T-55 constituted a huge part of their tank fleet well into the 2000s incidentally. But anyway, the Russian military did, overtime, evolve to be able to utilize more complex but capable gear, but it happened organically overtime, and they have to abandon aspects that simply prevent full-scale exploitation of the new techs. by utilizing contract soldiers- the T-80s in Germany were mainly those afaik for instance and even today were basically the specialist MOS are all contracts and simple infantry are like conscripts.


>So you actually deny the ERA coverage is different from the T-72B, T-64BV and T-80BV and it is not important?
All I'm saying is that precision hits on the same area- first shot strips the ERA, then second finishes the job- don't happen. Well, not when you are using your tank a a mobile gun platform and not as static pillbox that is.

>You know there are more then just 60's era tanks with HEAT rounds who engage you at maximum range you know?
Try context. And yes, being able to pick your where your shots land as you are that close pretty much means his inferior arrows can pen. you as well.

>>32512107

Kuwaitis actually "slaughtered" the Iraqis with their Chieftains in the Battle of the Bridges.

We have no real valid data on their performance in the various wars in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon prior to ODS.

Whilst I agree that the T-72M1 is superior in armor protection and gun performance over the Chieftain and M60, the latter 2 can still knock them out if they hit the lower hull or mantlet. We have little actual data on the fights that happened other than the Battle of the Bridges with Kuwait.

We know T-62s knocked out a Chieftain.

There was no recorded data of T-72s fighting Merkavas. One Merkava was knocked out by 115mm in the rear/side turret.

>>32512125

And also:

Over a hundred T-72s were knocked out by M1s and M2s

That's arguably the most in any single war prior to the Syrian civil war

>>32501336
Lul nou niet over tanks Mat Herben. Blijf bij de straaljagers.

File: 1404814781-w6sd.jpg (32KB, 477x215px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 477x215px

>>32511926
It's "western style" because it's Stridsvagn 122 glacis, idiot. Quit shitposting this pic over and over again, please.

>>32512107
>They did, it's whether Merkava and T-72M met in combat or not that is a questionable matter.
Sorry, I meant never faced in tank-to-tank. The rest of my post mentioned the ambush by Jeeps with TOW.

>>32512079
>They improved it some in the newer T-90s so they can take longer rounds
T-72B3 has a modified autoloader that allows longer rods than the ones suitable for T-90.

>>32512217

T-72B3 is pretty much your T-90, so yeah.

>>32512183

It's about right, however.

T-series use laminated plates at a slope; except the latest B3 and T-90s, which have the typical spaced composites

M1 and Leo 2, and many others, use a cavity that's filled with composite plates

>>32512107

>Getting so BTFO that you have to claim the Conqueror and Chieftain are T55 tier

>>32512243

Of course, I'm talking about the hull front.

The turret of of newer T-series tanks have composite plates in the cavities; old ones had sand, various ceramic balls and shit

>>32512120
>The T-55 constituted a huge part of their tank fleet well into the 2000s incidentally
T-55 was rapidly decommissioned in the 90s. T-62 remained in limited service in the 00s and even saw action, but T-72 remained by far the largest part of their tank fleet.
>>32512125
Yeah, sure, and Kuwaitis reports are of course a "real valid data" despite T-72M having a borderline perfect history of dealing with these tanks prior to that.
>We have little actual data on the fights that happened other than the Battle of the Bridges with Kuwait.
>There was no recorded data of T-72s fighting Merkavas
When I said they did, I meant Israeli-operated M60.
>>32512135
M1 didn't knock out nearly as much T-72Mas M2 with ATGM did. But this is an example of better electronics and tactics used against a vastly outdated monkey model.

>>32509684

>exactly that

Perhaps on the thickest areas of the turret near the gun tube it's 80 cm. thick or higher. The glacis is still much thinner and no more than around 60 cm.

>>32501259
Could one fill the space between the plates with ordinary sand? It sure would act like cheap ceramics on shaped charges and would help dispatch the energy of an projectile. Plus cheap as fuck. I saw somewhere that russian tanks hat sand casted into the armorplates itswlf i think around the 70s. Can somebody lighten me up there?

>>32512306

Where's your "borderline perfect history" of the T-72s against Chieftains and M60s?

I agree that the T-72 is the next step up over those 2, but I've seen no actual accurate history. Brits upgraded their Chieftains against 115mm and early 125mm SABOT due to Iranian experience, but that's all I can find.

>monkey model

The T-72M1 was as good as the T-72A in all realistic approaches. The AV wouldn't have helped with K-1. The increase in armor of the B wouldn't have mattered against M829A1. The M was basic steel on the turret, yes, but it didn't matter for what was thrown at them.

The biggest problem with the Iraqi tanks compared to the M1s, and also Soviet tanks compared to the same, was the lack of thermal sights and good FCS.

The T-80U didn't even have thermals. Just the UM. The T-90S. The B3.

>>32512332
Sand is completely useless.

People will tell you that some soviet tanks use sand but that is false. They actually use some form of granit or ceramic powder that is described as sand.

>>32511778

>Andrie and Damian

Andrei is a drooling retard that masturbates to T-80s and 64s and had to eat humble pie when the might T-64 Bulats died like any other T-series

Damian, whilst annoying and in love with the M1, at least puts retarded Soviet lovers in their place

>>32512392

T-72M1 uses sand

It works through compression inside the cavity when hit

>>32512418
Nope

See thesovietarmourblog and check out the T-72 article.

File: DGVZdcU.png (424KB, 1044x519px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1044x519px

>>32512224
T-72B3 is better than even T-90A, despite lacking its welded turret. Naturally they could put the same technology in some T-90A upgrade, but it's just more cost effective to implement it on newer T-72B variants.
>>32512243
Also, the "T-72" glacis on the pic is actually the glacis of T-55. The whole picture in the incarnation of shitposting.
>except the latest B3 and T-90s
Firstly, this was a thing since at least 80s. Secondly, the glacis of T-72B varied a lot even within the same production variants with no indication in its name. It was being constantly upgraded in apparently whatever way that worked better at the given time.

>>32512436

Yes

Some M1s didn't use sand, but others did

That's where the confusion comes from

Some used a metallic-quartz (sand) mix which gives a similar effect

>>32512351
>Where's your "borderline perfect history" of the T-72s against Chieftains and M60s?
In Iraq. Iranian M60 could do shit against Iraqi guard T72.
>The T-80U didn't even have thermals
They abandoned T-80U years ago. Only now they ordered some modernizations for it.

File: T72A_diag.jpg (149KB, 700x560px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 700x560px

>>32512454
Since when did the T-55 use steeltextolite in its armor glacis? It is a T-72 glacis.

>>32512413
Both are annoying. But at the very least Andrei carved up a niche with his informative if biased writeups on Soviet shit, Damian, not so much. He pretty much piggybacks on Militarysta for much of the legwork on stuff, and funnily enough got himself blasted from both the Western and Eastern armor spheres. He's since milded just a bit, but afaik the only place he frequents nowadays is that shit AW forums where people don't really know much, and he usually doesn't get called out- well as long as that other Euro poster is out anyway.

>>32512481

>in Iraq

Sources?

Technically, 105mm SABOT can handle the T-72M, and even the A/M1 depending on ammo. Of course, Iran probably didn't have the best 105mm at the time.

Early 80s 105mm can do 400 to high 400s. Assuming they had the earliest 105mm SABOT (and not APDS), then they could probably bang a T-72M from the front.

>>32512509
>Andrei carved up a niche with his informative if biased writeups on Soviet shit
Got a link?

Im a stranger here.

>>32512509

Yes, Andrei is/was a good source of Russian info; he still drools at the mouth over mentioning anything different than his opinion on topics. He can't fathom that the West might just have better armor than Russia/USSR. Even when given direct evidence, he'll just stop replying and continue on with his opinion elsewhere.

Damian, sure, is probably equally annoying to the Soviet jerkers, but as someone that tries to be objective, I don't find him anywhere near as bad simply because his data on Western stuff isn't too far from the "truth". Of course he's biased.

Paul's stuff is overestimated due to applying the best theoretical limits to it, for both West and East. His stuff on older tanks is pretty spot on, though.

>>32512545
http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/
Baghdod Bob as dp is apt at times.

>>32512562
>I don't find him anywhere near as bad simply because his data on Western stuff isn't too far from the "truth". Of course he's biased.
Somehow I doubt this. This is the same guy who argues against vetted US tankers who tried to reason with him at times to no avail after all.

File: Fake_Rock_EFP_IED_OTA-ROCK2.jpg (161KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 600x360px

>>32501259

sure, but this can kill anything

File: you tried.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>32512251
T-54/T-55, 1949: 35 tonnes, upper glacis 200 mm / turret front 205 mm.
FV 214 Conqueror, 1955: 64 tonnes, 250 mm.
My bad, Chieftain is actually not T-55 tier. It's somewhere in the middle between T-62 and the original T-64 production variant (Object 432). It has 388 mm glacis and 390 mm turret, compared to 204 mm glacis and 214 mm turret of T-62 and 547 mm glacis and 600 mm turret of Object 432. Subsequently T-64A with even fatter turret saw service, later upgraded with a thicker glacis too. Save a star. You tried.
>>32512317
>thickest areas of the turret near the gun tube
You don't even know shit about tanks, anon. Don't embarrass yourself.
>>32512351
In the Lebanon and Iran-Iraq Wars.
>The T-72M1 was as good as the T-72A in all realistic approaches
The point is by the time the Gulf War happened it was 6 years out of production. In 1991 T-72B, T-80U and T-72B obr.1989 were good, not T-72A.
>The increase in armor of the B wouldn't have mattered against M829A1
Too bad it did. M829 could barely penetrate T-72B at specific spots and couldn't do shit to T-80U, M829A1 couldn't penetrate T-80U and T-72B obr.1989 equally.
>The biggest problem with the Iraqi tanks
...was the lack of communication and coordination allowing Americans to easily outflank and ambush them. 80s thermals were shit and Soviet tanks had Luna.

>>32509660

Holy shit

>>32512392
They didn't use sand or anything like it. The standard laminate that the Soviets used was referred to as STEF and was essentially fiberglass. The notion of 'sand' being used anywhere is the NATO code name for the 'Dolly Parton' upgrade that was called sandbar.

File: 8hAk7vL.jpg (59KB, 639x479px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 639x479px

>>32501348
>Just western MBTs don't fold like wet paper and kill their crew when they encounter other threats on the battlefields, mainly infantry anti tank weapons.
They do compared to when compared to some West Asian tank models
Don't pretend the M1 is designed to maximize survivability

>>32512509
>and funnily enough got himself blasted from both the Western and Eastern armor spheres

People say this but I don't remember it ever happening.

>>32512857

>maximise survivability

Except it is. But not of the tank but the crew which is the most important component of the tank.

Shit crew = shit tank.

Good crew = good tank.

That's been the case forever and why crew survivability is key to tank warfare.

>>32512857
Your picture is the result of an inert training round.

>>32512720
Your image is appropriate.

>>32502313
>T-80s never had sights anywhere near the lever of the M1A1.
>M1A1: Production started in 1985 and continued to 1992
OH WOW
RUSSIA WAS MILITARILY OUTCLASSED IN THE LATE 80s AND EARLY 90s
HOW WILL THE SLAVS EVER RECOVER FROM THIS TRUTH BOMB

You're a cherry picking jingoist

Russian tank design and for the most part the tanks with regards to individual combat effectiveness, ignoring build quality, were superior to American tanks since the moment Stalin laid eyes on the T34 in 1940.
Russian tanks were better than American ones for the entire cold war.
They only fell behind militarily when Gorbachev took power in 1985 and initiated Perestroika, which virtually ended the Cold War.
They only got back up to standard in 2010-2011.
T14 outclasses M1. Manual loader a shit.

>>32512966
>80s and early 90s

Soviet FCS and optics systems were never the equal of the wests.

>>32512966
The irony in this post.

>>32512970
Yeah, and Western tanks are 30% larger,
American strategy to counter Soviet armour for decades was tactical nukes.
T34-85 > Sherman
T54 > Pershing, M48
T72 > M60

>>32512981
My country uses Leopards older than their operators.
Russian tanks were just superior.

File: t-10.jpg (71KB, 712x324px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 712x324px

>>32512898
And your damage control is not.

>>32513019
>Yeah, and Western tanks are 30% larger,
>American strategy to counter Soviet armour for decades was tactical nukes.

What does this have to do with Soviet optics being garbage?

For someone who cries about MUH JINGOISM, you sure seem to have quite a bit of cognitive dissonance.

>>32512966
>RUSSIA WAS MILITARILY OUTCLASSED IN THE LATE 80s AND EARLY 90s
In was only outclassed in the 90s after the budget cuts effectively finished off a handful of soviet projects in all military branches.

>>32512866
You haven't been browsing forums long enough.
Too bad, mp.net's kaput and tank-net's equally shit(have they fixed that malware carp and searching shittiness yet?), and I really wanna spare you the google translate nightmare that is otvaga2k4.

>>32513020
What is a picture of a tank that was obsolete when it entered service supposed to show?

>>32513066
>You haven't been browsing forums long enough.

Or you are lying, as I lurk(ed) all the forums you listed.

File: chieftain trophy in russia.jpg (2MB, 5322x3548px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5322x3548px

>>32513084
That bringing up Conqueror was as pathetic as it gets.

>>32513110
>He says after he posts the T-10, something that served through the 80s

>>32513036
Soviet optics and fire control were adequate
You're apparently basing all your assertions on performance of outdated, downgraded models in the hands of sand niggers.

>>32513019
>T72 > M60

This is the only one that can be realistically claimed, and even then it has to be in scenarios that deny advantages like thermal sights.

>>32513102
Damian detected

>>32513135
Are you kidding
Go spend 8 seconds on the wikipedia page for the T54
The M60 was developed because the T54 outclassed everything the US had up until that point.

>>32513125
>Moving goalposts
It was out of service by 1967. Try harder.

>>32513133
>Soviet optics and fire control were adequate

WW2 sights were adequate, that doesn't mean they were good during the cold war.

>>32513155
>citing wikipedia

The only change the T-55 spurred in the west was the adoption of 105mm guns.

>>32513133
>goes straight to MUH MONKEY MODELS

The soviets didn't put a passive IR sight on their vehicles until the late 80s. nearly two decades after they appeared in quantity in the west.

>>32513163
No, it was out of front line service by 1967. It still was in service with Category B and C units throughout the cold war.

>>32513163
So it served longer than the Conqueror, despite being obsolete.

>>32513184
>They developed the M60 because of T55
>No they only got 105mm guns
Yeah and the M60 is essentially the 105mm version of the M48
Are you trying to be retarded

>>32513192
>The soviets didn't put a passive IR sight on their vehicles until the late 80s. nearly two decades after they appeared in quantity in the west.
Well then they obviously didnt confer that much tactical advantage

>>32513224
>Well then they obviously didnt confer that much tactical advantage

Now who's moving the goalpost?

>>32513224
>Yeah and the M60 is essentially the 105mm version of the M48

Are you trying to be retarded?

>>32513192
>The soviets didn't put a passive IR sight on their vehicles until the late 80s. nearly two decades after they appeared in quantity in the west.
That is a direct lie.

They had passive sights in the 60's.

>>32513241
If you need an IR light, it's not a passive sight.

>>32513250
No it just indicate you have two modes aviable. Passive or active.

File: almost.jpg (31KB, 266x340px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 266x340px

>>32513275

>>32512509
He's rather infamously active on Indian forums for some reason and on Tanknet.

>>32513184
That is because the west was incapable of going anything besides that.
>>32513192
Americans didn't have composite armour on their tanks until 1979, 15 years after the Soviets. Nothing the west had could penetrate contemporary Soviet armour since the introduction of the T-64. first IR sights were shit and Soviets had Luna that was effective enough and could be installed on tanks en masse.
>No, it was out of front line service by 1967
So out of service. And didn't suck at being a heavy tank, unlike Conqueror. On the other hand, the fucking M48 was not only in service, but also actively used by the Americans throughout the Cold War, unlike T-10 that was resting in the rear just in case. Americans were this desperate and out of good armour.
>>32513202
Not as obsolete as Conqueror though.

File: 1482808047621.jpg (27KB, 219x239px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 219x239px

>>32513336
>So out of service.

If you count only front line units as being in service and not reserves, but that's so hilariously stupid that I refuse to think you're being that intellectually dishonest.

>And didn't suck at being a heavy tank,

It actually did. It suffered almost all the problems that the IS-3 did aside from the hull breaking when you drove it.

>On the other hand, the fucking M48 was not only in service, but also actively

Oh, so you are intellectually dishonest and suffer from cognitive dissonance. Please, tell me more

>>32513336
>Not as obsolete as Conqueror though.
Conqueror was just an example of how earl the west (not including the US) implemented the 120mm that he denied they used - never suggested it was a good tank.

>>32512870
>Shit crew = shit tank.
>Good crew = good tank.
While the first part is true, the second isn't automatic. When you go up against a trained and motivated enemy, the quality of his gear also matters an awful lot-had the Iraqis been trained to the same level as the Coalition troops, they'd have still lost, if perhaps inflicting greater casualties.
The truth is that to be effective you need both crew and vehicle to not be outclassed by the opponent.

>>32513019
>T34-85 > Sherman
Them's fightin words, pardner.

>>32513235
T-54/T-55, 1949: 35 tonnes, upper glacis 200 mm / turret front 205 mm.
M48, 1953: 45 tonnes, upper glacis 220 mm / turret front 178 mm.
M60, 1961: 46 tonnes, upper glacis 220 mm / turret front 180 mm.
T-62, 1961: 37 tonnes, upper glacis 204 mm / turret front 214 mm.
M60A1, 1962: 47-49 tonnes, upper glacis 258 mm / turret front 250 mm.
T-64, 1964: 36 tonnes, upper glacis 388 mm / turret front 390 mm.

T-55 and M60 were more or less equal. T-62 was better than both, M60A1 was better than all the rest, T-64 shat on all of them. All while having huge and continuous weight advantage.

>>32513397
I'd agree it was better than the 75mm M4,

If you compare it to the later models with the 76mm, the extra armour and the wet stowage, not so much.

>>32513412
>Yeah and the M60 is essentially the 105mm version of the M48

Are you trying to be retarded?

>>32513020
>T-10
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/276564847/Red-Star-White-Elephant

>>32513066
>have they fixed that malware carp and searching shittiness yet?
No, but it can be avoided.

>>32513142
>Damain
>Lurk
Yeah nah. I don't think he could avoid responding to someone insulting his beloved Abrams.

>>32513366
>>32513336
>>32513202
>>32513163
>>32513125
>>32513110
>>32513084
Get a room you fags, also why was t-10 obsolete when it entered service? I play as germans in shit thunder and t-10ms rape me daily.

>>32513279
Yes the Soviets tank in the 60's had rather interesting night vision capabilies. They had active and passive IR sights which actually put them in the advantage over their western counterpart.

http://photopribor.ck.ua/en/products/defense/equipment_for_armored_vehicles_control_systems/tkn_3m/


And it gets even better with the T-64.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product5089.html

>>32513224
>Yeah and the M60 is essentially the 105mm version of the M48
No, that would be the M48A5, or in its earliest form, the Magach 5. The M60 was an all-round superior beast, particularly from the A1 model (with the improved turret) onwards.

>>32513366
"Reserves", as in let it lay there just in case. Unlike Americans who never developed anything better enough to ditch M fucking 48, Soviets actually did develop tanks better than WWII relics like Patton.
>>32513369
Where the fuck did I deny 120 mm was used in the west in the post in response to which Conqueror was first mentioned? Read more than one post of the discussion you are replying to. "Except not" was aimed at the implication that 105/120 mm guns could do shit to contemporary Soviet armour since 1964.

>>32513465
To be fair, the M60 was never used. Only the M60A1

>"Reserves", as in let it lay there just in case. Unlike Americans who never developed anything better enough to ditch M fucking 48, Soviets actually did develop tanks better than WWII relics like Patton.

Are you trying to be retarded?

>>32513501
>Where the fuck did I deny 120 mm was used in the west in the post in response to which Conqueror was first mentioned?

>>32509841
>>Except for the 105mm and 120mm guns widely used.
>Except not.

Yeah except not what you actually wrote says.

If replying to part of a post, don't quote the other part dumbass.

>>32513416
The T-34/76 was slightly inferior (mostly due to 'soft' factors) to the 75mm Sherman, and likewise the /85 was slightly inferior to the 76mm Sherman. I'd say the /85 breaks even with the 75mm, losing on the 'soft' factors and winning on the 'hard' ones.

>>32513459
>stretching the term 'passive' to the point where as long as the vehicle itself isn't using the IR spotlight, then it counts

WEW LAD
E
W
L
A
D

>>32513530
>Soviet armour was impenetrable for anything the west had since 1964 all the way until 1993.
>Except for the 105mm and 120mm guns widely used.
>Except not.
Are you mentally challenged? "Except not" refers to "impenetrable for", not to "widely used". Jesus Christ, what an idiot.

>>32513512
>M60 was never used
It was by the Israelis. Called the Magach 6. The A1 was the Magach 7. Both were kept in service for a very long time in upgraded forms until finally displaced by the Merk 4.

>>32513540
Do you even know what passive is? It is the direct opposite of active which is it picks up light from other sources and does not emitt it itself.

Dont play retarded here.

>>32513588
Why? You already played retarded and tried to act as though somehow being able to see the light from a separate IR spotlight (something every active IR sight can do) is the same as not needing a spotlight at all. Pretty pathetic tbhfamalam

>>32513628
>Pretty pathetic tbhfamalam
Pure shitposting you are.

Let me tell you this. Some passive IR sights see further then other but they all suffer when the moon is gone and the sky is full of clouds and some tanks cant see anything at all without active IR Like the pattons before 1977.

And you know what the soviets got? Passive and active.

>>32512454
I appreciate your posts. Learned quite a bit ITT. Maybe adopt a tripcode ?

>>32513752
>but they all suffer when the moon is gone and the sky is full of clouds

You are confusing IR with night vision.

You can be in a cave 300 meters underground and IR will still spot heat just fine.

>>32513854
No I am talking about infrared light.

You are talking about thermal imaging.

If you want to know exactly what I am talking about then see.>>32512436

>>32513934
IR immittance or reflection is essential for IR, yes.

IR works just fine in a zero light enviroment, assumeing heat (tank engines)

Passive IR works just fine without assistance, in any realistic enviroment.

File: 1428193825544.png (94KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 250x250px

>>32513854

>>32514017
Thermal radiation is picked up just fine by IR.

>>32513988
Except passive IR (or should I say image intensifier since that is more correct) need illumination from other sources like the moon or the stars to function in that you can see something at ranges such as 800-1300 meters or more.

You are still talking about thermal imaging.

>what went wrong
Too expensive for what it did.

>Could it kill an Abrams
Absolutely, as long as it's can spot first and hit first. It also had a barreled ATGM that the M1 doesn't have.

>>32514141
You have no clue what you are talking about.
"infrared" is delineating the wavelength.
Active means emitting. Passive means non-emitting.
A thermal imager is also passive IR. But it uses infrared heat instead of infrared light to come up with an image.
I hope this makes things a bit more clear for you.

>>32514283
Meaning you are making it intentionally hard for the sake of it even when you know what I mean.

>>32514141
It simply does not. It can see heat emittance just fine. You are confusing IR with other types of night vision

>>32501325
This, pretty much. It's a spruced-up T-72 with a fucking ludicrously expensive turbine engine. So why not just spruce up a T-72 instead and save some money?

>>32514309
You were already attacking him on semantics, get your own facts straight if you do so.

>>32514141
You got it right Anon.
Don't listen to others...

File: t-14 (14).jpg (395KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1920x1080px

>>32514371
In case you didn't notice, T-14 chassis developed from T-80 chassis.

>>32514420
Nope. Take an electric heater, turn it on, put it in a lightless void, and an passive ir will pick it up just fine.

File: LAND_M270_Firing_M30_GMLRS_lg.jpg (68KB, 950x771px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 950x771px

>>32502296
>these days tanks are destroyed by air, infantry or light vehicles with missile launchers
>>32502313
>A tank is the best weapon to kill another tank
ITT /k/ forgets that DPICM is a thing

:'(

>>32513465
>or in its earliest form, the Magach 5
Magach 5 literally was an M48A5. The Magach 3 actually had the 105mm first.

File: 9k58 bm-30 smerch 3m55k1 projectile.png (353KB, 1072x661px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1072x661px

>>32514534
Depends on how well you can secure air superiority / area denial. Generally speaking artillery was, is and will always be the queen of the ground war.

>>32513557
>It was by the Israelis. Called the Magach 6. The A1 was the Magach 7.
Plenty of A1s were Magach 6es. Magach 7 was a later modification, the difference between 6 and 7 having nothing to do with what particular flavor of M60 they were originally.

>>32514616
>queen
*King

>>32514609
>Magach 5 literally was an M48A5. The Magach 3 actually had the 105mm first.
The Magach 3 was a M48A3. The Magach 5 was the Israeli upgrade, with the 105mm gun, new low profile cupola, and various minor changes. The M48A5 came about MUCH later (October 75), when the Americans needed to fill a projected gap in equipment following the Yom Kippur war- M60A1s were being sent to replace Israeli losses, so in the meantime to keep up the numbers of 105mm gunned tanks they upgraded the M48 with the 105mm m68, a new ring of vision blocks under the cupola (making it a worse tumor, and so was replaced in 76 by an Israeli-style one), diesel and various smaller changes to increase interchangability with the then-standard M60A1. However, none were delivered to Israel.

>>32514644
You are correct. I got confused between the various subscripts of the 6 vs the 7.
Apparently 6aleph was A1, 6bet A2, and 6gimel A3.
7 was the updates with new passive armor suites.

File: 2s19 msta-s.jpg (246KB, 2500x1107px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 2500x1107px

>>32514661
Artillery is feminine in Russian tho.

>>32509910
This image is fucking with me, this has to be shopped.

File: t-80u & bmp-2 (2).jpg (465KB, 1280x825px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 1280x825px

>>32515150
But it's never too late to make it real.

>>32514849
>The Magach 5 was the Israeli upgrade, with the 105mm gun
No. Do some basic research before you speak.

>>32514661
mobility is and Always will be the king of ground warfare

File: 2959460.jpg (215KB, 971x650px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 971x650px

>>32514904
Napoleon wasn't Russian :)

>>32515180
This is the most quintessential picture of Soviet Cold war era warfare.

File: 2s3 akatsiya (1).jpg (361KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1280x960px

>>32515256
It's feminine in both Italian and French too.
>Napoleon wasn't Russian
And how did it turn out for him? :^)

File: t-72 & mig-21.jpg (531KB, 1122x1450px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 1122x1450px

>>32515322
How so?

>>32515379
Nah, MIG-21s just don't cut it.

File: t-72b3 & mi-28n.jpg (1002KB, 5016x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 5016x3456px

>>32515407

>>32515221
I did. And what I wrote was the result. Note that the Magach 5 was named and used BEFORE the US produced a single M48A5.

>>32515240
WWI would like a word.

>>32515478
This is also very magnificent! Will be adding to my collection, thank you!

>>32515533
Sorry, turns out I was terribly wrong and need to refresh my memory of Israeli vehicles.

>>32513454
It is funny when Damian rips them a new asshole.

>>32513336
>Nothing the west had could penetrate contemporary Soviet armour since the introduction of the T-64.

People actually believe Soviet tanks were armored with the crystallized blood of Stalin.

>>32513019

Larger Western tanks are pretty much the main reason (other than FCS) that they've always wiped the floor with Soviet shit

Who'd thunk that fighting ability is tied to crew ease of use?

>>32513412

105mm can handle baseline T-64 just fine, anon.

>>32516394
It can't, anon.

>>32516429

105mm can do from low 400s to high 400s with early 80s APFSDS. T-72M1 and A/AV too.

So yes, it can.

>>32516444

To add, the late 70s rounds they got from Syria captured from Israel were why they had to weld the extra plate to the glacis of the T-64, 72 and 80.

The 80s rounds nullified that plate.

File: Applique.jpg (761KB, 2592x1552px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 2592x1552px

>>32516486

Here's the applique plate they added because the M111/M735 could punch it

>>32516444
>early 80s
T-64 is from early 60s. Stop being retarded, anon.
>>32516486
>He believes yid internet forum fairy-tales
First, it was only T-72, second it was a natural upgrade. In the meantime americans had T-54 tier armour on their tanks. No western round could penetrate contemporary Soviet tank since 1964.

>>32516576

>stop being retarded

>105mm can handle baseline T-64

That statement is right.

>T-64 didn't and it's a fairy-tale!

T-64 got the same plate as the T-72. T-80 got a 20mm plate. See for T-64>>32516528.

Zaloga mentions it in his books.

>No Western round

M111/M735, COULD PENETRATE THE T-72, T-64 AND T-80; THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO UPGRADE THEM. YOU FUCKING BLIND MORON.

>>32516643

>natural upgrade

An 18mm plate ad-hoc welder ISN'T A NATURAL UPGRADE YOU FUCKING RETARD.

It's the same as the M1 getting an ad-hoc plate welded to the front of the turret during ODS.

>T-55 armor

Yes. Though it didn't really matter in effect as since the 105mm COULD HANDLE THE T-SERIES, it was first to shoot that won.

File: pop goes the turret.png (463KB, 1528x618px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1528x618px

>>32512857
Compared to all western MBTs, the T-72 and friends are considerably more dangerous by default due to their layout.

It doesn't take a retard to figure this out.

>>32512877

Nah, they said it was the APAM HE round.

>>32512857

The M1 was designed for maximum crew safety. Improved munitions outstripped its protection in various ways until they upgraded, such as TUSK 1/2 and the improved frontal armor of SEPs. But, it's the only tank that won't kill the crew with the ammo going up. That's the main reason for wiping the entire lot.

Merk 4 will still kill the entire crew if it's hull ammo is hit, and it happened in Lebanon.

>>32516709
Adding on because autism.
>West Asian tank models
Like? I'm really curious to see what you mean by this. I'm not really certain they're significantly more survivable than contemporary western MBTs, esp once urban kits become involved.

>>32516805

All tanks outside of the M1 are pretty much the same; the T-series is the worst in that the entire hull is one big ammo magazine, so any big enough hit will blow it up.

Western tanks outside of the M1 tend to have a hull rack off-center, so a hit isn't as likely to blow it up with a typical center shot.

File: blowout panels.webm (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>32516801
>But, it's the only tank that won't kill the crew with the ammo going up


iirc isn't the Abrams the only tank in the world that has 100% blowout panels on both chassis and turret storage?

File: pop goes the turret.jpg (101KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x768px

>>32516844
>T-series is the worst in that the entire hull is one big ammo magazine, so any big enough hit will blow it up.

T-72/64/80/90 turret throwing makes for a good battlefield sport.

>>32516846

Yes

It doesn't really have hull stowage, but the few rounds it keeps there it also has panels over.

Merk 4 and Leo 2 have panels for their turret, but not hulls.

>>32516643
That statement is wrong. No contemporary 105 mm round could handle even the baseline T-64 and no western round could penetrate a contemporary soviet tank since 1964.
>T-64 got the same plate as the T-72
No, it did not. T-64 glacis was 80+105+20 which later changed to 100+105+20 and subsequently 120+105+40. T-72 glacis was 80+105+20 later changing to 60+105+50, then to 16+60+105+50, then to 60+15+15+15+15+15+15+15+50, etc.
>M111/M735, COULD PENETRATE THE T-72, T-64 AND T-80
No, it could not. That's why the west had to ditch 105 mm "gun" for 120 mm. Too bad by that time soviets introduced even more advanced armour.
>>32516672
It is, loud moron, just like the change in the armour composition of T-72 glacis.
>Though it didn't really matter
Only in your wet damage control dreams did it not matter that Americans were completely incapable of penetrating Soviet armour while simultaneously being incapable of introducing composite armour themselves.
>105mm COULD HANDLE THE T-SERIES
No, it could not.
>it was first to shoot that won
It was who actually could achieve penetration that won. I.e. Soviets. As it is proven by a more than successful combat record of monkey model T-72, butchering every western tank it met in combat up until americans got so butthurt they rolled in themselves on their new shiny M1A1. Too bad by that time M1A1 was vastly ourpreformed by not only T-80U, but even the basic T-72B obr. 1989 upgrade.
>>32516709
Compared to all western MBTs, the T-72 and friends were considerably better protected due to their superb composite armour.
It doesn't take a retard to figure this out.
>>32516844
>so any big enough hit will blow it up
Now the only thing left is to achieve the actual penetration of essentially anything that is not a baseline 1985 version or a monkey model.
>>32516875
T-64 prefers to throw an upper glacis.

File: chally 2 in a burka.jpg (149KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x720px

>>32517133
I've realized how much of a backwards fuckup the Chally II is in many ways.

>rifled (lol hesh)
>two piece ammo
>no blowout outside of turret

I will never understand the fetishization of this tank. The bongs did the math, they're too poor to bring up to standard, replacing the rifled gun with an L-55 requires a redesign of the storage system.

File: 1434191821883.jpg (1MB, 3000x1997px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1997px

>>32517133
>but the few rounds it keeps there it also has panels over.
Does anyone have any photographs of the M1's hull ammunition storage and/or its blowout panels?


>>32517245
>no blowout outside of turret
No blowout panels at all.
Once you've seen the Challenger's ammunition layout it becomes comical reading posts where people try to praise it while shitting on tanks like the T-72.

>>32517188
>T-72 and friends were considerably better protected due to their superb composite armor.

When they rolled out at first? Easily. Western tanks such as the Leo 1, M60 etc weren't that impressive. I'm not arguing this fact.

The moment the current iteration of western tanks rolled in, the soviets were already behind. Slapping more ERA does not fix the problem of an outdated hull.

>>32517188
>>105mm COULD HANDLE THE T-SERIES
>No, it could not.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

File: blowout panels m1.png (200KB, 538x433px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 538x433px

>>32517300
I thought it had blow out section for the charge bags?

Either way, T-62 tier layout. For shame Britain. For shame.

>>32517302
The early T-64/T-72 composite armor wasn't superb, it was subpar (glass fiber between armored plates of varying quality or casted in quartz sand). It didn't achieve any significant improvement in terms of protection, nor did it save a lot of weight (somewhere around 10-20%).

>>32517300

The one positive of the CR bins is that the charges are stored in water containers, which would greatly decrease the chance of them going up if hit

Water would turn the powder inert

>>32517188

>it is

You keep on saying that, but 105mm could handle the T-series until the T-80U and 90.

I know it might make you feel insecure with your invincible Soviet tanks, but it didn't change history.

Show me where it says the Soviets didn't add the glacis plates due to M111. And also where early 80s 105mm can't do 400mm.

I'll wait.

>>32513387
Tawakalna were well trained, highly disciplined, and their Major Mohammed had been trained at Ft.Benning.

http://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2016/2/26/eagle-troop-at-the-battle-of-73-easting

Of course we should have kept moving:

http://www.douglasmacgregor.com/SalonPresentation10March2010Finalpicturescompressed.pdf

I met Douglas MacGregor. Very sharp guy who retired as a Colonel because he clearly doesn't suffer fools gladly.

>>32517388
>The one positive of the CR bins is that the charges are stored in water containers


Sherman tier.

>>32517302
>the soviets were already behind
There was not a single moment Soviets were behind the west in therms of armour since 1964. M1 was barely on par with T-80B, T-80U shat on M1A1 and M1A1HA couldn't catch up on it. Slapping more uranium on an already overweight tank doesn't fix the technology gap caused by incapability to introduce composite armour for 15 fucking years.
>>32517307
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.
>>32517373
Is that why T-64 had godlike armour compared to M60A1 while weighting more than 10 tonnes less? Come on, try harder, you can do better damage control than this.

>>32517436

Well, better wet Sherman than plain Sherman like the T-64/72

>>32517411
>105mm could handle the T-series
No, it could not.
>Show me where it says the Soviets didn't add the glacis plates due to M111
I can show you where it says that. On a yid internet forum.
>early 80s 105mm
Didn't exist in 1964 and could not penetrate early 80s Soviet armour.