PDA

View Full Version : OT: T-80 vs. M1 Abrams



Deuce420
08-13-2004, 01:20 PM
Do any of the 80s Russian tanks have an edge over the M1?

http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~jbrown4/m1a1.jpg

http://www2.zzu.edu.cn/wzb/tpss/004/t80.jpg

Deuce420
08-13-2004, 01:20 PM
Do any of the 80s Russian tanks have an edge over the M1?

http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~jbrown4/m1a1.jpg

http://www2.zzu.edu.cn/wzb/tpss/004/t80.jpg

Speco
08-13-2004, 02:50 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif


This is gonna be bad!

But, since you ask. First it would be nice if you told us which tank's do you mean(there were diffrent versions of M1 and T-80 out there).

But generly in therms of armor and fire control the m1 is better. The t-80 is far more manuverable and simpler to build. In terms of fire power they are roughfly the same.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

BIOLOG_
08-13-2004, 04:37 PM
Nop they are not lol
{you are right this is going to be bad, lol)

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

BIOLOG_
08-13-2004, 05:03 PM
Ok, here are some stats:
{Taking stock T-80 and M1A1)
Maneurobility:
T80 can travel at 75kph, while A1M1 at72.42kph.
Range of T80 is 600km, while that of Abrams is 498km. M1A1 can go over a wall 1.24 meters high, go through ditch 3.74 meters wide, and can climb at 31 degrees, while T80 can climb over a wall 0.9 meters high, go through a ditch 2.7 meters and climb at 30 degree.
Crew in T80 is only 3 people due to installed loading mechanism. Can shoot 8 shots per minute. Don't have the info on M1A1 regarding shooting speed, but I know it has 4 people.
Weapony and Systems:
T80 hasd (not counting machine guns) 125mm smoothbore cannon, which completely kicks a$$ of all M1 weapons built before 1985 (which were 105mm riflebore, same as in M68, and early M60's but With better fire suite). From 1985 120mm smoothbore was introduced into M1A1, which almost eliminates the power advantage T80 had. [HM, my book states that variation M1A1 is the one with 120 mil cannon(and better armor and fire suite), while one with 105mil was M1, is this correct?].
No info about fire suite, but I guess US one might be better. Now, in terms of armoring T80 is better then M1A1, (IMHO), however it doesn't have a couple of things like blowing weapons bay dors, and has also a tendency of burning rather well.
I also have another book but I can't be bothered to look in it (unless this tread escalates drastically)
Conclusion: Will T80 (stock, 1977 year) kick a$$ of stock M1(1980 year)? Yep, it probably will, as firepower of T80 is vastly supreme of M1, while maneurability is vertially identical.
Now here is more interesting question: Will 1985 M1A1 beat 1980 T80? Here we got two almost equal tanks. One got dge in that, other in that. In this case, it would depend on professionality of crew, circumstances, and luck.
Hopefully this is good enough answer.
{REGARDS}

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

Speco
08-13-2004, 05:53 PM
Very interesting. As I said it greatly depends on the version in question.

One thing tough, when you mentioned wather crossing, it seems to me that, unlike the T-80, the M1 needs special equipment mounted to cross wather of that depth.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

BIOLOG_
08-13-2004, 06:03 PM
That what I had a feeling about too... But the book wasn't specific about water crossing. And I do believe that T80 can use a snokel and a kind of perescope to go below 5 meter mark. It was done to cross the river.
What's the most modern US tank btw? I know, Russia's is "Black Eagle" (with 135-140mil cannon, he-he)
By the way I just looked at T80 modifications, and bloody hell, there are a lot of them1!

P.S. Without any preparation, M1 can cross water 1.24m deep.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

BigRSearle
08-13-2004, 07:26 PM
I would say the 120MM Abrams has more firepower simply because of the depleted uranium sabot rounds.

Russia doesnt field such projectiles, so the penetrating capability of the 125MM smoothbore suffers.

Most modern M1 is the "M1A2 SEP" which is currently in production.

This tank is pretty hot. The performance specs are essentially the same as the M1A1, BUT the licker with this version is that it is fully plugged into the "battlefield internet"

M1A2 SEP Abrams tank (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a2.htm)

also...the tank.net forums are a great place to discuss armor.

....here we like to focus on stuff that blows those targets up! lol....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/a10_1.jpg



BiG R

agarde
08-13-2004, 08:54 PM
What about costs and numbers? Somebody said the T-80 was easier to manufacture. These are pretty damn important as well. Just look at ww2, those german tiger tanks we're pretty nasty, the allies didn't have anything quite like it, but (luckily) it only existed in limited numbers...

IguanaKing
08-13-2004, 09:06 PM
Here's a link with a little bit of technical info on the M-1 series.

http://www.wideopenwest.com/~brobere/m1ipspecs.htm

M1 rate-of fire is listed as 6 to 8 rounds per minute. That, of course, will depend on how good your loader is. I have even heard reports of some loaders going a little beyond 8 per minute.

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

finiteless
08-13-2004, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigRSearle:
I would say the 120MM Abrams has more firepower simply because of the depleted uranium sabot rounds.

Russia doesnt field such projectiles, so the penetrating capability of the 125MM smoothbore suffers.

Most modern M1 is the "M1A2 SEP" which is currently in production.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not necessarily, if they use a shaped charge round it will have the same sort of effect as if hit by a Mav.

finiteless - it's bigger than you think

BigRSearle
08-14-2004, 12:25 AM
Well, its generally accepted that modern chobham "sandwich" type armor is the most effective against shaped charge warheads. The M1A2 provides over 960MM of RHA equivalent protection against shaped charge jets, while considerable less against long-rod penetrators.

Generally, long-rod penetrators (APFSDS) are accepted as the best penetrators of modern armor. HEAT rounds (shaped charge) are best used against lighter armored vehicles such as APC's and the like.

Heres a short summary of why the long rod is the best (http://www.theavonlady.org/theofpfaq/Armor/heatsabot.htm)



BiG R

BIOLOG_
08-14-2004, 06:11 AM
I got a feeling that you US people call long-rod penatrators, what we call Cumulative charges in Russia. Or is cumulative a shape charge?

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

BIOLOG_
08-14-2004, 06:34 AM
Ok, here is some info about what M1A1 can shoot:

1)two types of armor piersing trasing rounds (one of them with stabilisers, other one without)
2)Antitank round with plastic explosives warhead
3)Antiarmor cumulative round
4)Demolition round with plastic wardead
5)Trasing antipersonal round
6)buck-shot round

Here is what T80 can fire:
1)Antitank guided missile (from the barrel, not external)
2)Armor piersing round with stabilisers (not sure, whether it is tungsten or DpU, also one of them is basically a small missile, which look similar to AT-2)
3)antiarmor cumulative round with stabilisers
4)Antipersonal-explosive round.

M1A1 seems to have bigger viriety, however, they are almost even with regard to antitank ammo. US has the advantage of DpU, while Russia has advantage of missile firing capability.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

IguanaKing
08-14-2004, 06:40 AM
I'm not sure about the cumulative charge, but since it has "charge" in the name, I would have to say no, its not the same as a long-rod penetrator. The projectile of the long-rod penetrator contains no high explosives at all, it penetrates using only kinetic energy and destroys what's inside the tank, often by fragmenting the tanks own armor and turning it into a hail of deadly shrapnel. Does anybody know if the M1A2's are still using (unfortunately I forgot the name) the projectile that detonates above a tank and then fires the actual armor-defeating portion downward through the top armor?

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

HarryVoyager
08-14-2004, 08:48 AM
On a side note, some years back, I had a rather interesting debate over tank performance, with someone who turned out to be an actual Abrams driver. It turned out that the Abrams can, infact, go considerably faster than it's listed top speed of 60mph, and while he wasn't tremendously precise on the actual top speed, the implication was that it was something on the order of about twice that speed, and it tended to destroy roads too.

Then again, if the M1 can do that, the T-80 is probably capable of such speeds, too. Noone ever like to tell the other guy what they are really capable of, after all.

On a side note, does the T-80's autoloader still eat hands, and require the turret to be brought to full elevation every cycle, or have they fixed that by now? I know that was a problem with the loaders they used on previous tanks.

Harry Voyager

IguanaKing
08-14-2004, 09:48 AM
Was that an on-line debate? I'm not necessarily saying that his implication of actual top speed is impossible, but its very unlikely that, if he were in fact an Abrams driver, he would even hint at such figures on-line. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

BIOLOG_
08-14-2004, 11:29 AM
100% Agree with Iguanbaking. If someone tells you something he shouldn't there is a good chanse heis showing off.
No, T80 loading doesn't require any hands. Espesially older mods

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

Speco
08-14-2004, 01:06 PM
About the tank driver. I also have some serius reservations about what you said, for two reasons.
1. As mentioned before, there is a very high possibility that he was BSing you. If he did say that it would mean he discovered a very well keept secret, because I have never came across any source that would even hint at such a capebility.

2. The capebility itself is kinda "over the top" (one of the signs of a internet looser living in his wannabe world). The speed you/he mentioned as listed is incorect. 60 mph (thats miles not kilometars) is incorect. That's around 100 km/h. So, by his account an Abrams can reach speeds of up to 200 km/h!!! Thats very unlikely.
I belive that if thers anything that, almost all expers agree on, is that the T-80 is considrebly more manuverable (if we take aproximetly the same versions). I've seen a number of demonstrations of the T-80, and that thing can put on a show when it comes to speed.

btw. pretty much all tanks destroy roads when they drive over them. During the war in my country I remember seeing destroyed roads behaind T-55's.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

BIOLOG_
08-14-2004, 02:28 PM
A Tank doesn't destroy roads, it just makes separate ones for itself... And if it comes across some other road.. Well... Tough ****...
j/k.
By the way, I am pretty sure that T80's armor is bigger than Abrams's.
Speco, where, R U from if it is no secret?

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

Speco
08-14-2004, 04:20 PM
The T-80 "baseline" armor is weaker than the M1's, for sure. The M1 uses a "somthing-somthing"(sure someone will post it, cant remember right now) armor developed by the British. This armor is considerebly stronger that the T-80. This "gap", in part, is the reason why T-80 and almost all newer upgrades and variants use reactive armor. Now, how efficiant is this against the M1 armor penatreting rounds, I dont know for sure. But I'm guessing that it doesnt do much against the M1's AP rounds. But as I said I'm guessing, so maybe someone else has some input on this.

It's no secret http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I'm from Croatia. We had our selvs a nice little war from '91 to abouth '95 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif. My home town was/is a major comunication junction so we saw a lot of military hardwear go trough. T-55's, T-82's (an upgrade of the Soviet T-72 done by the former Yugoslavia, road speed 120 km/h!!! The Arabs loved it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif) and many others. Tanks do the most damage to the road in places where they do a slow turn(come to an, almost, complete stop, cut the power/brake to one of the tracks while the other one turns it around). This totaly F's up the road. I remember sometimes during the night(thats still the best time to move troops and equipment around, when you are fighting a low tech war) tank columns would go trough the city, we could hear them rumbling. And the next morning we the kids would get out and see marks left by them on the roads and then try follow it to the tanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

BIOLOG_
08-14-2004, 04:58 PM
Regarding the armor, is says here that even T64 had combined active armour. T80 had improved armour from T64. It says here that NATO is quite worried by high level of protection offered by T80's armour, which is supposed to be 1000-1100mil against some sort of rounds (not sure against which ones thou)
HEY I FOUND IT!!!!
In another book, is says that armor protection on T80U modification is 9oomil against cumulative and 1100 against armour-piercing.
Oh, and by the way, didI mention that basic T80 was mass-produced only for 2 years, so perhaps we should use another mod for qualitive comparison.
In this second book there is s@!t loats of data by the way, so if anyone is interested in things like starting velocity of the round, then shout!

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

Speco
08-14-2004, 06:07 PM
A comparison of muzle velocity of the M1 and the the T-80U would be nice.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

IguanaKing
08-14-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:
A comparison of muzle velocity of the M1 and the the T-80U would be nice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's going to depend on many different factors, I was reading something last night about the latest APFSDS being fielded by the US and apparently it is using a new propellant which yields a higher muzzle velocity than the previous variants. I'll see if I can find it again and I'll post a link.

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

IguanaKing
08-14-2004, 08:29 PM
Ok, here's the link to what I was reading yesterday. Unfortunately it only mentions a 100m/s increase in muzzle velocity, but doesn't give the standard muzzle velocity.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m829a1.htm

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

[This message was edited by IguanaKing on Sat August 14 2004 at 07:58 PM.]

IguanaKing
08-14-2004, 09:03 PM
M1 muzzle velocity:

M256 120mm smoothbore, firing M829A1 = 1661m/s

With the M829A2 it should be approximately 1761m/s.

Don't know about the 2A46M-1 on the T-80, the sites that appear to have that info are Russian and Chinese. Heh...I'm too tired right now to try and read the Russian pages and I'd probably take all night to do it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well, this looks like a job for BIOLOG_. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

Abanamat
08-15-2004, 01:16 AM
Tanks are obsolete because of attack helicopters.
If you make this argument without taking the choppers into account, think of this, regardless of how bad/good russian tanks are, there's about 60'000 of them. I don't think U.S has this much.

Russia has the world's largest tank force, China has airforce. U.S.A... is well organized i guess..

Goanna_Mk.2
08-15-2004, 04:29 AM
"Tanks are obsolete because of attack helicopters..."

Thats only an argument if the armies your fighting actually have attack helo's...and the US has fought such equiped arimies....well...never...so therefore tanks are still a credible force.

Force_Feedback
08-15-2004, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abanamat:
Tanks are obsolete because of attack helicopters.
If you make this argument without taking the choppers into account, think of this, regardless of how bad/good russian tanks are, there's about 60'000 of them. I don't think U.S has this much.

Russia has the world's largest tank force, China has airforce. U.S.A... is well organized i guess..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please keep your knowledge up to date. China has oficially the worlds biggest tank force, with over 6000 units (tanks, not counting the support ones). I don't think Russia still has 60000 tanks

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_for_in_eur_bat_tan

note, these are only the MBT's, there are also light tanks, bridge layers, antimine tanks, etc.

BIOLOG_
08-15-2004, 06:38 AM
Well, there are 5000 T80's in service... (all mods)+ S@!t loats of T-72, T-64's, some T90's and a couple of black eagles.
Muzzle velocity of stock T80 is 1715m/s. However, cannon was modified a couplew of times since then, but new speeds are classified(surprise-surprise). This book is quite interesting, contains loats of stuff. Did you know that one export version of T72 (T72M1) was analysed by British, and it was found that its front armor is over 2000mil? (it has extra dynamic plating, and extra 16mil armor plate). Also there are some tenks with this kind of armour still in service with Russia, but probably not for long.
By the way, Overall there are way over 5000 MBT's in Russian service. Don't listen to everythng on internet. (And you don't have to listen to me either, lol-had to say it before someone else did)

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

grist
08-15-2004, 08:01 AM
"Tanks are obsolete because of attack helicopters..."

The tank is no more obsolete than are attack helicopters.

During the invasion of Iraq, in the early morning of March 24, 2003, Iraqi forces ambushed 30 Apaches from the 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment, shot down one and forced the others to retreat. The Apaches were conducting a deep strike against the tanks and artillery of the Medina Division of the Iraqi Republican Guard.


http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1091364905277280.xml

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9674/F16PentagonSmall.jpg

Speco
08-15-2004, 08:51 AM
The attack helo is higher in the food chain than an MBT, but that doesnt make tanks obsolete. The main reason is that tanks still can do some things that hellos cant, like actually occupy and hold a position. And there is also the matter of cost. Attack hellos are much more expensive to use and maintain.

But, in a "1-on-1" engagement the tank doesnt stand a chance. There are some steps to try and level out the playing field (like the ARENA system) but tanks are still a long way from standing a chance against atack hellos on their own.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

BIOLOG_
08-15-2004, 09:15 AM
Well... SHTORA has 50 rounds... Helicopter has 8-16 Hellfires... and a gun.. Tank has 300rounds in AA gun...
Tank has little chance of knocking helo down (but it is still quite possible), but it has a moderate chance of survival (almost all Russian tanks have SHTORA or a more advanced system installed)

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

Abanamat
08-15-2004, 09:43 AM
Or they should be escorted by some low-level air defence system, like tunguska or (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/index.html) army's S-300

BIOLOG_
08-15-2004, 10:02 AM
Actually combo of Tunguska (or Shilka) and S-300 (or S-400) will do nicely. S-300 isn't exactly low-level. However, I think for tank escorting puproses, Tunguska will be the best, since it has both cannons and missiles.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

BIOLOG_
08-15-2004, 10:11 AM
Hmmm. If you look at T80U in the same website, you will notise that it can fire missiles from its barrel, which are not only antitank, as I thought, but apparently can also be used for slow aircraft, such as helicopters.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

destroyex
08-15-2004, 10:26 AM
Well does the T-80 have the compuer aiming like the M1 does? If not then the M1 would have a big advantage being able to move, aim, and fire all at the same time.

-44th_destroyer

BIOLOG_
08-15-2004, 10:35 AM
Yep it has one. I don't knowwhether it is as Good as on M1A1 (I mean stock modified T80), but T80 is capable of moving and shooting at the same time with high accuracy. T80U computor makes hitting a target on the move probable at 80% when shooting from 100-4000meters and 70% when shooting from 4000-5000 meters. This is T80U.
T80B and other mods can shoot from the move as well, but T80B, and probably stock T80 cannot shot missiles on the move, the need to come to momentary stop (well, there is no such thing, what I ment was a very rapid stop for firing and then rwesuming movement). However, fire with missiles is likely to be asurprise attack, when you don't really have to move.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

bigvette
08-15-2004, 12:06 PM
M1A2 with new LV100 engines are bar-none the best MBT in the world, with a narrow #2 going to the new Leopard 2A6. Challenger 2 is the next best MBT, and I'd wager the Japanese Type 90 and French LeClerc on par with the T-80.

Have you all heard of the new Israeli efforts to take a bunch of old US surplus M-60 MBT's and totally upgrade them? They look similar to their Merkava with a similar type turret, but needless to say should be interesting with their and the US's mdoern tech.

BIOLOG_
08-15-2004, 12:26 PM
Am... You forgot about more advanced T8o mods, T90 and Black Eagle. Also, would be nice to have some proof of your classification

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

bigvette
08-15-2004, 04:12 PM
Recent article ranks M1A2 SEP #1 MBT in world, with Merkava Mk IV #2, Japan Type 90 @ #3, and the Leopard 2A6 at #4.


http://www.forecast1.com/press/press121.htm

BIOLOG_
08-15-2004, 04:34 PM
Hm-Hm-Hm.
lol

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

SUBS17
08-15-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
Actually combo of Tunguska (or Shilka) and S-300 (or S-400) will do nicely. S-300 isn't exactly low-level. However, I think for tank escorting puproses, Tunguska will be the best, since it has both cannons and missiles.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That won't make any difference to an Apache Longbow if you're in an area where there is cover to hide behind e.g. trees, hills, buildings, dead ground etc. They use their mast to paint the targets and don't even need to pop up to fire the hellfires. The distance excedes your max range for your AAA. And your SAMs won't be able to lock as they can't see the target or paint it. The Apache is a very deadly aircraft as far as ground vehicles are concerned. In instances like the Ambush in Iraq the aircraft were caught off guard in an open area.

IguanaKing
08-15-2004, 08:28 PM
Yup, I agree with BIOLOG_. This article is written from the standpoint of what is known about those tanks, not from what is unknown (of course, no article would ever be released with that angle included http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Some countries, Russia for example, guard even their smallest military secrets a little more closely than others, so articles of someones (most-likely unqualified) assessment of the situation, really don't mean much. All we can do is compare hard, scientific data. Hey...I know...since "reality TV" is so popular, maybe these "who is better" questions could be settled there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif "On tonight's episode of 'Quien Es Mas Macho' we compare the Russian T-80 and the US M1A2 SEP in a knock-down, drag-out brawl. Only the crew of the best tank will go home alive." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

SUBS17
08-15-2004, 08:31 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigRSearle:
I would say the 120MM Abrams has more firepower simply because of the depleted uranium sabot rounds.

Russia doesnt field such projectiles, so the penetrating capability of the 125MM smoothbore suffers.

You are incorrect, Russia does have APDSFS rounds Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot. But I am unsure if they use DU (Depleted Uraniun)

IguanaKing
08-15-2004, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUBS17:
In instances like the Ambush in Iraq the aircraft were caught off guard in an open area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As helicopters can always be, especially when your enemy studies your tactics. They definitely have the upper-hand over armored vehicles, but they're no guarantee of victory. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

SUBS17
08-15-2004, 08:49 PM
The M1 is better than the T80, even the earlier versions of each type the M1 is still better. It has alot to do with the weapon sights and nightvision equipment. The US electronics is far better. They can engage the T80 from a greater distance and with greater accuracy.

Firemullet
08-15-2004, 08:59 PM
The 125mm guns of the T-80 tank family are only able to acheive a small degree of penitration across a very small portion of the M1A1 HA/HC/D or the M1A2 tanks. With frontal armor on the HC/D and M1A2 being about 800-880mm of protection against KE weapons across the front and 550-600mm across the hull front.

The t-80Um1 is not that far behind. It acheives about 500mm vs KE at its thickest. With the K5 reactive armour faceing optimal conditions it will add about 200-250mm of protection to this total.

Firemullet
08-15-2004, 09:20 PM
It is worth pointing out that the M829A2 penitrates about 750mm rha at 2000m while the russian round will only do about 460-520mm at that range. That shows us that the M1 can kill at 2000m regardless of where it hits and at a max range of 3000m for the majority of the front. Also that the newer american rounds are designed to defeat the K5 atvantage by the use of Du and the high LD ratio or i think 33:1. The Du rather than being blunted by the incoming era plate shears off and continue to have a sharp point at the end. That with the fact that the detection range and fire control on the M1 are better you can expect the to see many burned out russian tanks in an open engagement.

Abanamat
08-16-2004, 01:22 AM
Hey, both tanks are good. We'll never know which one is better until they've met each other in combat, alone, or have participated in a war-game specifically to test and compare. If they are fighting against each other, it's all about the battle conditions and the tactical advantage. If you place two teams on an empty field, with four-five tanks on each team, ready-for-war and well-informed of the situation... No-one is walking home. If it's 10 proud Abrams with air-support, data-linking, and other modern gizmos against 10 or even 20 old Iraqi T-72's who are unsure of what they're fighting for, not knowing where is what and who is who, then ofcourse we know who will win.

This subject has been done to death, not as often as "more flyable planes plz" or "which is best plane?", but still many many times.
All tanks are made with a purpose unique to each one. For example, I believe, the Israel's Merkava 3 is not specifically made as an anti-tank fighter. Sure, one of these can probably take on a T-72 or even a couple (old versions), but not the new 80 or the Abrams. It was made to survive many rpg strikes, mines, and act as a semi-apc in a harsh desert terrain. (however: http://www.4crete.gr/downloads/Images/merkava.jpg - unlucky i guess)
So, the Abrams and russian T-series have specific purposes, unique to each one, as well.

The ideal tank battle was the Kurst one, was the only REAL tank battle with thousands of machines coming from both sides, and was also an enormous mistake made of the strategists.
Mistakes like this won't happen again.

The main purpose of a modern tank, I believe, is not to fight other tanks, but to attack fortifications and other ground targets (cities, towns). I believe that you could even effectively use the old and unmodded T-72s against the Abrams(es), IF you had a DAMN good tactic or an advantage in some other way.

[This message was edited by Abanamat on Mon August 16 2004 at 12:37 AM.]

Abanamat
08-16-2004, 01:25 AM
Well, ofcourse if the rounds in the old T-72's could somehow damage the M1's.

You get the main idea. :P

[This message was edited by Abanamat on Mon August 16 2004 at 12:39 AM.]

Abanamat
08-16-2004, 01:45 AM
Oh yeah, some specs:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-80-specs.htm (note it says M1989)
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/index.html

Btw the T-95 seems to look a bit like the Abrams:
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html

BIOLOG_
08-16-2004, 05:20 AM
Amount of disinformation in these articles is trully remarcable. Considering that Black Eagle is supposed to be backbone of Russian tank forces in future, and is already on order... And a couple of things I don't think are quite accurate in articles about abrams and T80... Btw, is prise of Abrams really 4.3mil? Cause its kind of... Hard to believe...
Btw, I find it highly unlikely that Russia and even USA would give out some of the info present in the articles. Iguanaking, perhaps you could look at them (1st links for T80 and M1), you should know that as well.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

Abanamat
08-16-2004, 09:03 AM
I believe these are estimates

Airbus-Fan
08-16-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bigvette:
Recent article ranks M1A2 SEP #1 MBT in world, with Merkava Mk IV #2, Japan Type 90 @ #3, and the Leopard 2A6 at #4.


http://www.forecast1.com/press/press121.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Leopard on the 4th place? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Caretaker.
08-16-2004, 09:46 AM
For the same reason, the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6 falls to fourth place. The oft-praised advanced features of the Leopard 2 and the integration of the Rh 120/55 main armament simply cannot compensate for the fact that the Leopard 2A6 remains untested in the crucible of combat.

Goes to show how senseless such ratings are. And even though a lot of the requirements of main battle tanks are similar, they still have different priorities in their design, making them more or less suited for different demands. For example, the Merkava is probably a good solution for a small country like Israel, but I doubt it would be a wise choice when high mobility is a requirement.

- Caretaker

HarryVoyager
08-16-2004, 10:05 AM
Well, that the time, the official listed top speed was 60mph/100kph, and from what I gather you could get it up to about 100mph/160kmh by disabling all the limiters on the turbine.

And yes, 100kmh was the official listed top speed of the M1, as of 92. Does not mean that they haven't changed it since then, however. After all, we do want these to last a long time, and flinging turbine blades around isn't the best way to do that.

I supose the point I'm really trying to make is that performance is a very fluid entity. 74kmh to 72.5kmh isn't a real dirrefernce. What happens when the US Army goes to war, and decides to clear the turbine for another couple of hundred horsepower? By the same token, what happens when the turbines start getting old, and start developing leaks around the compressor stage?

Harry Voyager

whiteladder
08-16-2004, 10:35 AM
I think the main problem when comparing russian tanks to western tanks is that the only useful data we have comes from wars in the middle east, where they have seen combat in conditions and using tactic they were never designed for.

The whole design philosphy of the majority of soviet tanks was for them to be used en-mass on the central front, where they would enjoy a numerical advantage.

The designers where prepare to scarifice out- right performance advantages in some areas(such as armour protection, fire control, combat endurance), to produce tanks that where easy to manufacture and easy for a conscript army to maintain and use.

In the war in the middle east they have tended to be used against an enemy who at a tactical level at least has parity in numbers and on a one for one basis the better training of western/isreali crews, couple with superior tanks has made them look very mediocure.

In particular from the T-72 onwards the stowage of the ammunition is a serious design flaw, any type of penetration of the armour tends to lead to a major ammunition fire.

The 125mm gun has a serious problem with wear in that after around 150 rounds fired the accuracy and muzzle velocity is badly affected, again not a problem for a soviet army using thousands of tanks.

This creates a big problem from a training point of view, most t-72/t-80 gunners will have fired a fraction of the training rounds compared to a western gunner.

mark

finiteless
08-16-2004, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Caretaker.:
For example, the Merkava is probably a good solution for a small country like Israel, but I doubt it would be a wise choice when high mobility is a requirement.

- Caretaker<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I doubt that mate, that tank is designed to go DEEP and fast into other neibouring states. The Isrealis are not interested at all in a static-front type high-intensity warfare, they want to go directly for the other guys jugular in the shortest time possible.

finiteless - it's bigger than you think

BIOLOG_
08-16-2004, 11:27 AM
I don't agree with preformance sucrifices you mentioned, as not all of these are correct. However, I do agree that the barrel needs to be chenged after about 100-150 rounds. Which is why in T80 it can be changed from outside, without dismantelling the turret. However, Smoothbore M1A1 will have the same problem. And if that new ammo will be used, it will make barrel life even shorter. (US tanks may endure extra 10-20 shots due to better materials, but I am not sure about that)

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

IguanaKing
08-16-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
And if that new ammo will be used, it will make barrel life even shorter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily, the new propellant is supposed to yield higher muzzle velocities while producing lower pressures.

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

BIOLOG_
08-16-2004, 06:14 PM
Ok, before I comment on that, I would like to have an answer to a simple question: Does US employ 120mil armour-piercing (DP) rounds, or sub calliber ones? If they are subcallibet, then Yes, barrel life doesn't have to devrease. If the DP will touch the walls of the barrel while it is travelling through it... well, friction would be increased due to speed.
I know that Russia uses slightly smaller, subcalliber rounds, but I really haven't got a clue about US.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

IguanaKing
08-16-2004, 06:44 PM
I don't know about that one either BIOLOG_, I'll see what I can find. What you're saying about friction increase due to higher speed is true, however, gas pressures also play a major role in wearing out a barrel as does propellant composition.

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

IguanaKing
08-16-2004, 07:16 PM
Ok BIOLOG_, I just read over those first links on the M-1 and T-80 that you were skeptical about. About the M-1, everything looks pretty much in line with what would be allowed in public source publications...except for the section concerning specific fuel consumption, time it takes to refuel, etc...this information would NEVER be released in a public source document and is most-likely based on semi-educated, mathematical interpolation.

The T-80...well...I'd say probably a majority of that page is pure speculation (or else the FSB isn't doing their job http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). They get into specific armor penetration depths of each weapon type?! It is very unlikely these figures are anything but guesses.

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

[This message was edited by IguanaKing on Mon August 16 2004 at 06:28 PM.]

SUBS17
08-16-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
Ok, before I comment on that, I would like to have an answer to a simple question: Does US employ 120mil armour-piercing (DP) rounds, or sub calliber ones? If they are subcallibet, then Yes, barrel life doesn't have to devrease. If the DP will touch the walls of the barrel while it is travelling through it... well, friction would be increased due to speed.
I know that Russia uses slightly smaller, subcalliber rounds, but I really haven't got a clue about US.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot
I think you need to see that Discarding Sabot prevents any movement inside the barrel. I'd say an M1 can fire alot more than 150 rnds and still be accurate. Surely they would clean the bore after use.
cheers
Subs

K_Grape
08-16-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
Ok, before I comment on that, I would like to have an answer to a simple question: Does US employ 120mil armour-piercing (DP) rounds, or sub calliber ones? If they are subcallibet, then Yes, barrel life doesn't have to devrease. If the DP will touch the walls of the barrel while it is travelling through it... well, friction would be increased due to speed.
I know that Russia uses slightly smaller, subcalliber rounds, but I really haven't got a clue about US.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The APFSDS-DU round uses a relatively soft shoe to guide it down the barrel. The DU never touches anything inside the gun.

A couple of other notes (take these with several large grains of salt as I'm not a tank expert and I'm not going to talk about anything that I've read from authoritative sources).

I believe the M1's targeting computer gives it a longer effective range than the T-80.

I have also read that the M1A2 has an autoloader (I'm not sure).

As was mentioned, the two tanks were built with different doctrines in mind. As a general rule Russian equipment is cheaper and easier to maintain than US equipment, and US equipment has higher accuracy and performance (nominally) than Russian equipment.

The advantage of helocopters on the battle field is their high manuverability and firepower. The disadvantage is their low survivability given a hit. The tanks power likewise comes from good manuverability and firepower combined with decent survivability. Alas, the poor infantryman is stuck digging a whole in the ground and hiding http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Firemullet
08-16-2004, 08:16 PM
The M1A2 doesn't have an auto loader. It uses a 4 man crew. The T-80 has an auto loader. Which is a danger because the ready round is often detonated if the turret is penitrated.

The real diffrence lies in the ammo. Russian sabot rounds are limited in length because of ristrictions of the auto loader. They also use a diffrent sabot design that allows for higher muzzle velocities. The fins touch the walls of the gun tube and there for create more wear. They also because of their large size slow the sabot down alot faster than their Nato counterparts.

BIOLOG_
08-17-2004, 05:56 AM
That was the part I was sceptical about Iguanaking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I agree with you comment about gas pressure and propellant used. If they use cleaner propellant, it will increase barrel life, rather then decrease it.
I don't know M1A1 Range, but I already quoted figures for some T80 mod (either B or U), which state that probability of hit is 80% up to 4000 meters, and 1.7 up to 5000 meters.
US always had better computers then we did, BUT in terms of armour I firmly believe that T80 is at least on par ind IMHO has better armour then M1A1. BUT as I and someone else already mentioned, our tanks have two distinct disadvantages: They explode pretty well if armour compartment is hit, and they also tend to burn pretty well. Although this is not so much a problam as it was before. In T-90 and Black Eagle, these problems are almost/fully eliminated (Black Eagle I believe definately haven't got problem with burning, but I don't know about armour). Thing in the brackets was mostly a speculation, as my info on these tanks is quite limited.
By the way, my mistake, I forgot that DU and tungsten rounds are incapsulated. I am not sure about whether Russian rounds are as well. I think finless variation are...
P.S. During wartime, barrel is supposed to be changed every 100-120 rounds. Which isn't that bad, considering...

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

Yojimb0
08-18-2004, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigRSearle:
also...the tank.net forums are a great place to discuss armor.

....here we like to focus on stuff that blows those targets up! lol....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/a10_1.jpg

BiG R<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i was about to say the major difference between the T-80 and the M1 is that the M1 won't have warthogs hunting them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.graphic-artwork.co.uk/Sig/yojimbo.gif

BIOLOG_
08-18-2004, 10:58 AM
Same goes for Abrams and Frogfoot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif
Btw, regarding ammo in T80.
There is a completely different system of amm in Russia. In USA, they use a shell in a cartrige filled with propellant. In Russia we first put a shell in the barrel and then put a separate propellant in. Since we are comparing I thought I just point this out.
Btw, T90 doesn't have blowing armour doors in ammo compartment, but it seems that Black Eagle has them, and a signigicant amount of armour between placement of ammo compartment, and crew compartment.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

erorr404
08-18-2004, 02:14 PM
hey BIOLOG_, are you sure that the "object 640" black eagle is the MBT chosen by the russian army? various sources seem to indicate that the T-95 has been chosen.

EDIT:
i did a bit of research and it appears that the "object 640" T-80UM2 Black Eagle is an upgrade of the T-80U, featuring a whole new turret and a lengthened hull. they originally planned to put the new 152mm gun on it, but they went with the 125mm 2A46M-series gun instead. many websites say that this tank will be for export only, others say it is in competition with the more expensive all new T-95 for russian military's next MBT.
the new-generation "object 775" T-95 MBT was announced to the public by Defense Minister Igor Sergeev in March 2000 after inspecting the tank. most websites say that it features a 152mm gun while others say 135mm. it has a lowed profile than the T-80, and will weigh approximately 50 tons. it is still in development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant due to financial problems. there is not much more info on this tank.

[This message was edited by erorr404 on Wed August 18 2004 at 02:56 PM.]

BIOLOG_
08-18-2004, 05:05 PM
There isn't ever a lot of reliable info on Russian stuff (FSB Efficiency, for these who doubt it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif). Well, I am pretty sure that whatever they will go with will feature 135-140 mil gun, that it will have a completely new turret and chassis will be from T72/T80. Now, my book I doesn't mention T95 AT ALL. It could be that it has no info about it BUT it could also be that, because of some confusion, T95 is the same tank as Black Eagle. Also, it could be that there are 2 prototypes of new tank, which are essensially the same, but have diffirent weapony and electronics. Export version could be named Black Eagle, and armed with 125mil cannon, and Russian version could be called T95 and have 135mil cannon. Actually this seems to be most likely case, even thou it is a pure speculation part based on some experience of similar things happening in russian marketing (e.g Su-30...)

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

IguanaKing
08-18-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
There isn't ever a lot of reliable info on Russian stuff (FSB Efficiency, for these who doubt it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh...I almost made the mistake of knocking on the door of FSB headquarters on Liteinny Prospekt in St. Petersburg. According to my memory of the map I had, the US Consulate was in that general area, and FSB HQ was a very different building from the others around it, so I thought it might be the US Consulate. Luckily, it was late enough that evening that I decided to wait until another day. I found out the next day, from a motorist in a Lada that I had hitched a ride with, that it was FSB HQ. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Yikes!! I could have vanished as quickly as a Russian military secret. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

BoCfuss
08-18-2004, 08:21 PM
Yeah, I hate that, almost calling on the FSB, expecting to talk to Americans. I bet that happens a lot. Funny story, thanks. I can't imagine what would have happend to ya. I bet they have some neat ways of "taking care" of "problems." hehe.

kalo22
08-19-2004, 02:33 AM
The 2A46 and 2A46M lines of mainguns (internal designations D-81T, D-81TM) were developed by the Spetstekhnika design bureau in Ekaterinburg (former Sverdlovsk), and are manufactured at the Motovilikha artillery plant in Perm.

The 125mm high-velocity maingun was a huge overkill when it was first introduced on a T-64A MBT back in 1969. Today, however, it is barely able to keep on par with the modern Western mainguns like Rh-120. Its inability to reliably penetrate frontal projections of modern MBTs is the main reason why the Russian designers are developing a 152mm maingun to substitute the 2A46 gun on a perspective Russian MBT.

However, even with tungsten alloy rounds this gun remains a very dangerous adversary that assures penetration of any other projection at all battle ranges.

One of the drawbacks of this gun is that a high strain on internal surfaces during firing, as well as sheer size of it demands strict manufacturing discipline of which Soviet industry was never famous. This resulted in unsatisfatory dispersion characteristics of original models due to all kinds of manufacturing defects, including substandard materials, poor machining, barrel drooping, and so on. It is worth noting, however, that this problem has received due attention during the upgrading efforts (2A46M line of mainguns), including the purchase of the Western machining equipment. Improved manufacturing process and better stabilization and recoil equipment provided for increase in accuracy especially on the move and at medium to long ranges.

The barrel life of an original 2A46 gun was 210 APFSDS rounds or 840 HEAT/HEF rounds, or around 500 'generic' rounds, according to the Polish data provided by Mike Jasinsky. Russian sources give the figure of 900 rounds, but it is not known of what type. The barrel life of 2A46M guns is unknown, but modernization included the addition a more robust internal chromium liner and provided for a simple gun barrel replacement in field conditions.

As a last note, the unique feature of all Russian mainguns is the ability to launch guided rounds through the barrel.

kalo22
08-19-2004, 02:35 AM
russian ammunition:

3VBM-9 (3BM-22 projectile; 3BM-23 projectile assembly) (DOI 1976)
The first of a new generation of APFSDS rounds utilizing new propellant technology, new sabot and projectile design, and improved ballistic shape.

Projectile mass 6550g
Muzzle velocity 1760m/s
Penetrator W-C core in a steel sheath
Dimensions 450mm 12:1 L/d
including 250mm tapered core
Mass 4500g
Penetration at 2000m
Certified 420mm at 0?; 220mm at 60?
Average 470mm at 0?


3VBM-11 (3BM-26 projectile; 3BM-27 projectile assembly) (DOI 1983)
An improved projectile with tungsten-nickel-iron alloy ("VNZh" alloy) core.

Projectile mass 7050g
Muzzle velocity 1700m/s
Penetrator W-Ni-Fe core in a steel sheath
Dimensions 470mm 13:1 L/d
including 300mm tapered core
Mass 4850g
Penetration at 2000m
Certified 440mm at 0?; 230mm at 60?
Average 490mm at 0?


3VBM-10? (3BM-29 projectile; 3BM-30 projectile assembly) (DOI 1982)
A 3BM-22 variant with depleted uranium-nickel-zinc alloy ("UNTs" alloy, also refered to as "material B") core.

Projectile mass 6550g
Muzzle velocity 1760m/s
Penetrator U-Ni-Zn core in a steel sheath
Dimensions 450mm 12:1 L/d
including 250mm tapered core
Mass 4500g
Penetration at 2000m
Certified 450mm at 0?; 230mm at 60?
Average 500mm at 0?


3VBM-18 (3BM-32 projectile; 3BM-33 projectile assembly) (DOI 1984)
A 3BM-26 variant with depleted uranium-nickel-zinc alloy core.

Projectile mass 7050g
Muzzle velocity 1700m/s
Penetrator U-Ni-Zn core in a steel sheath
Dimensions 470mm 13:1 L/d
including 300mm tapered core
Mass 4850g
Penetration at 2000m
Certified 500mm at 0?; 250mm at 60?
Average 560mm at 0?

3VBM-17 (3BM-42 projectile; 3BM-44 projectile assembly) (DOI 1986)
A new round with tungsten alloy core and improved L/d ratio.

Projectile mass 7050g
Muzzle velocity 1700m/s
Penetrator W alloy core in steel sheath
Dimensions 520mm 16:1 L/d
Mass 4850g
Penetration at 2000m
Certified 460mm at 0?; 230mm at 60?
Average 520mm at 0?


3VBM-19? (3BM-42M projectile; 3BM-45? projectile assembly) (presented by NIMI in 1997; est.DOI 1998) A brand new round with monoblock tungsten alloy penetrator, utilizing unique finned two-point-of-contact sabot, subcaliber stabilizing fins, and improved L/d ratio.

Projectile mass 6950g
Muzzle velocity 1750m/s
Penetrator W alloy monoblock
Dimensions est.570mm 22:1 L/d
Mass unknown
Penetration at 2000m
Estimated average 600-650mm at 0?

kalo22
08-19-2004, 02:36 AM
The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total).

We've done a lot of work to analyze how effective Kontakt-5 is and by what methods it defeats the incoming APFSDS rounds. The results of the analysis are quite impressive in their own rough and limited way. We assumed that the Kontakt-5 brick was 10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick, with a mass of 10.35 kg. We arrived at a total mass of 2.8 t for the array. We later found out from Steven Zagola's literature that the array is supposed to be around three tonnes, so we were pretty happy. Assuming the use of Semtex for the interlayer, I found that the configuration was most likely a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm plate. This assymetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the front plate would retain a charateristic high velocity. This is completely opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to discribe 'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set in motion.

Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%. What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail. The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction in penetration due to a 2? yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67? slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.

Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.

So was I surprised by the results? Not really. I had expected penetrator yaw to be the primary defeat mechanism, but otherwise we had verified the effectiveness of Kontakt-5 before it became general public knowledge, which is great bragging rights.

Of course, now the goal is to do a rigorous mathematical proof.




Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

erorr404
08-19-2004, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
There isn't ever a lot of reliable info on Russian stuff (FSB Efficiency, for these who doubt it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif). Well, I am pretty sure that whatever they will go with will feature 135-140 mil gun, that it will have a completely new turret and chassis will be from T72/T80. Now, my book I doesn't mention T95 AT ALL. It could be that it has no info about it BUT it could also be that, because of some confusion, T95 is the same tank as Black Eagle. Also, it could be that there are 2 prototypes of new tank, which are essensially the same, but have diffirent weapony and electronics. Export version could be named Black Eagle, and armed with 125mil cannon, and Russian version could be called T95 and have 135mil cannon. Actually this seems to be most likely case, even thou it is a pure speculation part based on some experience of similar things happening in russian marketing (e.g Su-30...)

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>actually, all online sources seem to indicate that the T-95 is a newly designed, next generation tank, not a T-80 or T-90 modification.
some sources say that it may be competing with the "black eagle" (or T80U-M2) which is an upgrade of the T-80U-UM1 "bars." it is longer than the T-80U, with a new hull. the black eagle would be a much cheaper solution over the expensive bran new T-95 MBT.
other sources say that the black eagle was built for export to South Korea.

what year was your book written, btw? as ive said above, Defense Minister Igor Sergeev announced the T-95 in March 2000.

here are some links regarding the T-95:
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw000329_04_n.shtml
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-95.htm
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mbt-u.htm

and here is a very interesting site ive found for anyone interested in russian tanks in general (it also contains some of the articles kalo22 posted above): http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/

[This message was edited by erorr404 on Thu August 19 2004 at 04:18 AM.]

SUBS17
08-19-2004, 05:48 AM
That 152mm gun sounds like one mean piece of kit.

SUBS17
08-19-2004, 05:58 AM
The main purpose of a modern tank, I believe, is not to fight other tanks, but to attack fortifications and other ground targets (cities, towns). I believe that you could even effectively use the old and unmodded T-72s against the Abrams(es), IF you had a DAMN good tactic or an advantage in some other way.

[This message was edited by Abanamat on Mon August 16 2004 at 12:37 AM.][/QUOTE]

Nope I disagree with you there mate, Tanks are used to kill Tanks, APCs, Infantry and soft skin vehicles. To destroy fortifications and ground targets you use Artillery. Tanks can be used for that purpose as well but they are nowhere as good at it than a 155mm Artillery round.
A T72 Crew would have to be very lucky not to get detected first by the M1.
cheers
Subs

Wolfman_96th
08-19-2004, 09:18 AM
OK, you guys REALLY need to stop posting this cool stuff while I am gone! Please! (moved back to Florida as school is about to start)

I won't be back online until Monday.

Anyway, about the discussion. I won't compare the tanks, instead I'll try to correct some info that is wrong in the thread (haven't read it all):

In terms of mobility, the numbers I saw on the first page are quite meaningless. Top speed means squat (although some of the tank-net guys have tested the M1 at close to 100km/h with the governor off in the 1980s). Range also means squat if you have the logistical base of the US Army.

I notice that there is a confusion about the types of rounds used... The US currently uses APFSDS (long rod penetrators) and HEAT (shaped charge warheads). There are several types of each, the current being M829A2 and M830 (or M830A1 MPAT), respectively.

Comparing muzzle velocities is also quite pointless. The Russian long rod penetrator designs of the 1980s sucked ***. The reasons:

1) The autoloader system limited the length of the projectile, thus giving a very unfavorable length/diameter ratio.

2) The penetrator design used a small ring sabot at the front of the penetrator, and wide fins at the rear, to center and stabilize the round in the barrel. This produced a relatively light round (especially the early steel ones!!), with a very high muzzle velocity compared to contemporary NATO rounds. However due to the wide and draggy fin design, these rounds would slow down very quickly and have poor performance downrange (this was corrected with BM42 and latter rounds IIRC).

US rounds use a long sabot to carry the penetrator, which gives a heavier round but also one that doesn't slow down. Also manual loading doesn't place any practical limitations on the length of the projectile.

T-80 has pretty poor crew protection compared to the M1 series, especially after penetration.

The M1 Fire Control Computer works out to 4000m, not past it. M1A2SEP extended this to 6000m. However even with the baseline M1A1, you can hit past 4000m (ask 'Ray II' at tank-net about the 4140m T-62 kill in ODS). The issue here isn't the gun or the ammo, its the relatively poor optics (compared to M1A2SEP). Think of it as a very good sniper rifle with a cheap, low power/low resolution scope mounted on it.

About US rounds, APFSDS is used to hit tanks, not HEAT. The latter is used for everything else, including hitting troop concentrations (although performance sucks compared to Rusian HE-FRAG in terms of troop killing potential).

M830A1 MPAT has a proximity fuse and can be used to hit helicopters. It is actually a subcaliber HEAT round (sort of like a long rod penetrator except its HEAT). This gives it a significantly higher muzzle velocity than M830 (~1400m/s vs ~1100m/s), and as we all know it is much easier to hit a moving target with the faster round. However because the diameter of the warhead is smaller, it penetrates less. But who cares, you've got M829A2 loaded anyway.

OK thats it for now... don't kill each other over the weekend while I am gone please!

"i knowe that the jas39 gripen radar can detect stealth plane, it uses radio signals or somting like that

-Dr_Pepper_"

AlmightyTallest
08-20-2004, 07:56 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seems the M829 got an improvement, the M829A3, specifically meant to defeat the Kontact-5 reactive armor at long range.

http://www.atk.com/profilePrecision/Targets/M829A3.htm

http://www.pica.army.mil/voice2003/030328/M829A3milestone.htm

http://www.arl.hpc.mil/outreach/eLink_Spring03/newill.html

http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog2/miscellg.htm

Deuce420
08-26-2004, 01:33 PM
I doubt the T-80 is more stronger than the M1 with it's uranium armor.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
That was the part I was sceptical about Iguanaking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I agree with you comment about gas pressure and propellant used. If they use cleaner propellant, it will increase barrel life, rather then decrease it.
I don't know M1A1 Range, but I already quoted figures for some T80 mod (either B or U), which state that probability of hit is 80% up to 4000 meters, and 1.7 up to 5000 meters.
US always had better computers then we did, BUT in terms of armour I firmly believe that T80 is at least on par ind IMHO has better armour then M1A1. BUT as I and someone else already mentioned, our tanks have two distinct disadvantages: They explode pretty well if armour compartment is hit, and they also tend to burn pretty well. Although this is not so much a problam as it was before. In T-90 and Black Eagle, these problems are almost/fully eliminated (Black Eagle I believe definately haven't got problem with burning, but I don't know about armour). Thing in the brackets was mostly a speculation, as my info on these tanks is quite limited.
By the way, my mistake, I forgot that DU and tungsten rounds are incapsulated. I am not sure about whether Russian rounds are as well. I think finless variation are...
P.S. During wartime, barrel is supposed to be changed every 100-120 rounds. Which isn't that bad, considering...

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firemullet
08-26-2004, 04:02 PM
It all depends on the models used. The T-80U DOI 1989 is superior in armour than the M1A1 DOI 1985 But not the M1A1HC/D M1A2/SEP. This is as a result of the Heavy ERA that covers a portion of the frontal arch of the T-80U.

The round used in the tests against a T-72B fitted with K5 was the M 829 NOT the M829A1 or A2. The 200-250mm of added KE protection is rated against Russian penitrators whith low Ld ratios and made out of tungston. I wouldn't expect this preformance against The newer American (M829A2/A3) German(Dm-53) and British (charm-3) rounds. Some of these feature Prestress grouves that end the shock effects at a controlled depts. These may limit the K-5 effect to just the erosion component. Which accounts for less than half of the protection added.

Deuce420
08-27-2004, 12:14 PM
Of course, the M1A1 is inferior to the T-80 in terms of range becuase of the 105mm. But wouldn't the DU sabot round still give the M1 more penetrating ability than Soviet weapons?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Firemullet:
It all depends on the models used. The T-80U DOI 1989 is superior in armour than the M1A1 DOI 1985 But not the M1A1HC/D M1A2/SEP. This is as a result of the Heavy ERA that covers a portion of the frontal arch of the T-80U.

The round used in the tests against a T-72B fitted with K5 was the M 829 NOT the M829A1 or A2. The 200-250mm of added KE protection is rated against Russian penitrators whith low Ld ratios and made out of tungston. I wouldn't expect this preformance against The newer American (M829A2/A3) German(Dm-53) and British (charm-3) rounds. Some of these feature Prestress grouves that end the shock effects at a controlled depts. These may limit the K-5 effect to just the erosion component. Which accounts for less than half of the protection added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Treetop64
08-27-2004, 09:08 PM
Speco, I must confess that I was fascinated by your description of the tanks rolling through your town.

Baz_GFA
08-27-2004, 11:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deuce420:
Of course, the M1A1 is inferior to the T-80 in terms of range becuase of the 105mm. But wouldn't the DU sabot round still give the M1 more penetrating ability than Soviet weapons?

The M-1A1 has a 120mm gun.

Baz_GFA
_____________________________
To those who fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.

IguanaKing
08-28-2004, 07:54 AM
Yup, only the M-1 had the 105. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"You can have my illegal fireworks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers...which are...over there somewhere."

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

Speco
08-28-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treetop64:
Speco, I must confess that I was fascinated by your description of the tanks rolling through your town.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there you go! I knew that story will be of some use somewhere http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. It's one of the rear positive memories I have from the war. I ofthen think about the way I used to be back then. For us (the kids) it was cool to see the town beeing pounded by artilery, because it ment that we would spend the night in a shelter where all the kids could play together insted of sleeping in your own house by your self. So we often wished for attacks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif It was all new and very interesting. As time pased we would ignore the "general" alerts (basicly a signal that an attack is likely/immenent) because it was signaled regularly for months and ofthen the arty barrage didnt happen. So afther a while you ignore the sirens and continue to play outside untill you hear thumps in the distance(arty fiering) and only then run for cover. This all happened with our parents blessing. Not just mine but all the parents in my street allowed this to happen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif. Just some of the http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif memories from the war.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

Duxa
08-28-2004, 11:31 PM
Hey im new to these forums heeh (just started playing LOMAC)

Im from Russia (now live in US... going to a University) but in Russia I lived near a tank factory at like 10-15 years old me and my friends would sneak over to the factory and steal things like different gauges... uniforms etc... got shot almost shot at couple times... they have people guarding the place but if they didnt see that we were just kids they would prolly shoot us lol... anyways I just wanna say from personal experience that on this factory one of like hundreds... there were at least couple thousand tanks just sitting around brand new. And they kept making and making them again and again and they are still making them... so I wouldnt be surprized if the 60,000 whoever said is a correct number... also remember Russia doesnt like to give out its cards and likes to keep a reserve so I wouldnt doubt that there are far more than official numbers state.

On every May9th (WW2 victory day) there are always parades of military equipment and stuff everyone comes out on the street and watches tanks/BMP's artillery and all those awesome toys roll by... its awesome.. and BOY are tanks (non diesel ones... the ones that use turbines or w/e u call em) friggin loud =D

as of which is better? I dunno I personally think it all depends on the crew skill and luck... Im sure if a T-&lt;w/e&gt; shoots at M1&lt;w/e first then he'll win.. same goes for M1...

I have when people compare Iraq war to US equipment.. Iraq had like obsolete Russian tanks and US rolled in their brand new top of the line models... u cant compare them and say Rusian tanks suck...

and to questions US vs Russia war I say that invading force will lose... if US invades Russia US will lose.. if Russia invades US russia will lose...if Russia and US stop fooking around and unite and share technologies they can conquer the world =D

BIOLOG_
08-29-2004, 08:10 AM
I DON't want to see US and Russia unite ever. And I am pretty sure that 90% of Russians and majority of US people don't want this either.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

SabrE--
08-29-2004, 08:47 AM
uniting of Russia and USA would solve some problems, like "who is better, us or them" kind of discussions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

===============================================

[AeA]-SabrE-

.
..
http://tmfiles.net/aea/

Wolfman_96th
08-29-2004, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:
It's no secret http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I'm from Croatia. We had our selvs a nice little war from '91 to abouth '95 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif. My home town was/is a major comunication junction so we saw a lot of military hardwear go trough. T-55's, T-82's (an upgrade of the Soviet T-72 done by the former Yugoslavia, road speed 120 km/h!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to know why you didn't mention this earlier?? I'm from Kostajnica.

The Yugo T-72 upgrade is M-84 actually. And those tanks tear up roads pretty good because they don't have rubber pads on the tracks (those black squares on Leo2/M1 tracks). In Steel Beasts Pro the advantages and disadvantages of each will be quite obvious...

"i knowe that the jas39 gripen radar can detect stealth plane, it uses radio signals or somting like that

-Dr_Pepper_"

Deuce420
08-29-2004, 02:06 PM
Me too. I would hate to see Russia and the US united as imperialistic powers. China is already an enemy of Russia, and if war broke out I would rather that the orientals preserve their soverignty. The last thing they need is US's presence in another land it doesn't belong in.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
I DON't want to see US and Russia unite ever. And I am pretty sure that 90% of Russians and majority of US people don't want this either.

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speco
08-29-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:
It's no secret http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I'm from Croatia. We had our selvs a nice little war from '91 to abouth '95 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif. My home town was/is a major comunication junction so we saw a lot of military hardwear go trough. T-55's, T-82's (an upgrade of the Soviet T-72 done by the former Yugoslavia, road speed 120 km/h!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to know why you didn't mention this earlier?? I'm from Kostajnica.

The Yugo T-72 upgrade is M-84 actually. And those tanks tear up roads pretty good because they don't have rubber pads on the tracks (those black squares on Leo2/M1 tracks). In Steel Beasts Pro the advantages and disadvantages of each will be quite obvious...

"i knowe that the jas39 gripen radar can detect stealth plane, it uses radio signals or somting like that

-Dr_Pepper_"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'm from Slavonski Brod. I've allways known them as T-82(atough M-84 sounds farmiliar). Could be that Croatia renamed them to T-82 after the YU fell apart(not that it matters). The factory that builds those tanks is located here. In fact, it was one of the largest(if not the largest) factory complex in the ex-YU. My father used to work there (alongside almost every other person in my town). Just the other other day I was with a friend of mine visiting his father who still works there. And as we were standing there we heard a very loud engine roar. A gun barrel started to appear from a hangar some 70 metars from us. A few seconds later a Degman(another upgrade of the M-84/T-82-uses a Leopard gun along with it's electronics) drow past us to a truck. There the thing climbed up on to the trailor(rather rughly, at one moment it seemd like the trailor wont hold). Then they drow out of the gates. Later his father told us that the tank was transported to a poligon for testing. The thing went past us at some 5 m. As it rolled by I cold actully feel the ground shake http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

AlmightyTallest
08-29-2004, 06:08 PM
Wolfman, you mentioned Steel Beasts Pro. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Do you have it? I've been waiting for Steel Beasts 2 for over a year now, hope things are going forward with it.

At any rate let us know how it's working if you have seen or tested it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm really hoping they get enough info to create an
M1A2 SEP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It used to be a while back I thought that T-80's firing guided missiles from their turrets was really a great idea, and I wondered why the U.S. didn't do this with their M1's.

Turns out in an engagement, the T-80 can actually fire first at the M1, but the speed of it's missile has to accelerate up to it's top subsonic speed. It takes 12 seconds for the missile to reach 4km. The M1 simply has to use it's thermals to locate the flare and heat from a firing T-80 to fire a Sabot at it. The sabot usually gets to the T-80 before the T-80's missile, and if the T-80 is hit the missile usually misses (semi-active beam rider guidance). Plus there's time for the M1 to put terrain between it and the missile, or to at least turn to bring it's frontal armor to face the threat. Worse, the difference is even more apparent at closer ranges within 4km because the Sabot has a higher kinetic engery, and the T-80's missile is slower while accelerating within 3km.

An interesting discussion guys, keep it up.

M1 Tank Platoon II taught me a few things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The T-80U carries the 9M119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missile system which is fired from the main gun. The range of the missile is 100m to 4,000m. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5km. The missile system fires either the 9M119 or 9M119M missiles, which have semi-automatic laser beamriding guidance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My question now is, if this missile is made for explosive reactive armor, how effective is it against the non explosive, depleted uranium composites of an M1HA or M1A2? And can the M1 series of tanks actually bolt on reactive armor over their own armor?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/T-90.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system. The range of the missile is 75 to 5000 metres and takes 14.2 seconds to reach maximum range. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5 km. Hit probability is over 80%. The missile system fires either the 9M119 (3UBK14 weapon system) or the 9M119M (3UBK20 weapon system) missiles which have semi-automatic laser beam riding guidance and a hollow charge warhead. Missile weight is 23.4 kg. The gun's automatic loader will feed both ordnance and missiles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently 14.2 seconds for the 5km range version of the missile. Yet it only says it's for ERA armor, which the M1's don't have, or don't usually carry at least.

[This message was edited by AlmightyTallest on Sun August 29 2004 at 06:20 PM.]

valleyboy1
08-30-2004, 04:04 AM
Well, I know that Challenger and Challenger II tanks can fit on reactive armour to the fronts and sides of the hull.

And the Challenger II uses 2nd generation Chobbam armour.

--------------------
"The engines are overheating, and so am I!!, we either make a move, or blow up!, So which is it to be?!"
----------------------------------
XP3200
1GB XMS3200LL
ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe
80GB SATA-150
9800 Pro
Windows XP SP1
Thrustmaster Cougar
Track IR

Wolfman_96th
08-30-2004, 06:01 AM
Speco are you sure that Degman uses a 120mm L44 gun? It seems very unlikely. There was a guy on tank-net who posted a few high res photos, but nobody noticed a difference in the gun design (it looked like a 2A46).

To answer your question AlmightyTallest, I don't have SBPro yet... Here are a few screenies:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/albums/T-72/T_72M1_2.jpg

http://www.steelbeasts.com/albums/Leopard_2/Leo2A4_4.jpg

http://www.steelbeasts.com/albums/Leopard_2/Shamal_4.jpg

http://www.steelbeasts.com/albums/Light__vehicles/HEMMT_fueler_3.jpg

http://www.steelbeasts.com/albums/album13/BTR_80_2.jpg

http://www.steelbeasts.com/albums/album13/BMP_1_3.jpg

Gun launched ATGMs have their application, however the M1 doesn't need them to reliably kill tanks. They spawned in the era when other ammunition was either not accurate enough or lacked the performance to achieve long range kills.

The Israelis think it is a good idea to have these things though, since they deployed their LAHAT 120mm missile for Merkavas.

"i knowe that the jas39 gripen radar can detect stealth plane, it uses radio signals or somting like that

-Dr_Pepper_"

AlmightyTallest
08-30-2004, 10:43 AM
Thanks for the info Wolfman, man that sim looks great!

Can't wait to try it out for myself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wolfman_96th
08-30-2004, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
Thanks for the info Wolfman, man that sim looks great!

Can't wait to try it out for myself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that SBPro will cost you about $125.

"i knowe that the jas39 gripen radar can detect stealth plane, it uses radio signals or somting like that

-Dr_Pepper_"

BIOLOG_
08-30-2004, 12:17 PM
What tanks can you drive?

A message from Mother Russia... BE AWARE!!!!!

SUBS17
08-30-2004, 12:28 PM
Those screenshots look good, I might have to get that when its released. As for missiles, the Tow missile is faster and has a greater range than the missiles fired from the Russian guns. It also has the stopping power to kill a tank not just piss it off. I'm pretty sure some of the LAV3s can carry Tows.
cheers
Subs

Speco
08-30-2004, 01:18 PM
Wolfman if you follow this link:http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1042004/degman.asp you can see that there is an option of either a 125 or a 120 mm cannon(the page is in croatian so most of you will have a problem reading it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Notice they also mention Diehl tracks.

Some pics:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1093893401_m84-14.jpg


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1093893257_degman.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

BoCfuss
08-30-2004, 07:42 PM
SBPro looks awesome, good thing I'm not married yet, $125 price tag isn't cheap. I hope its worth it cause I'm reaching in my pocket as I type this.

AlmightyTallest
08-30-2004, 08:04 PM
Nice pics Speco http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lol me too BoCfuss, one more question about Steel Beasts though..

What's the difference between Steel Beasts 2 and Steel Beasts Pro?

I thought the Pro version was for military professionals only.

I'd be glad to pay $125 for a copy of SB Pro if it's a really accurate sim. The origional Steel Beasts didn't disappoint me, I'm hoping it's only gotten better over the years. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wolfman_96th
08-30-2004, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
What's the difference between Steel Beasts 2 and Steel Beasts Pro?

I thought the Pro version was for military professionals only.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are three flavors: Steel Beasts 2, Steel Beasts Professional (Personal Edition), and Steel Beasts Professional. The latter is what is used as a large scale military training tool, and you better be prepared to dish out a couple of grand for it!

Here is a comparison: http://www.esimgames.com/comparison.htm

Steel Beasts Pro PE will be released before the end of this year, while you'll have to wait for SB2 until late 2005 probably. And of course if you are looking for the ultimate simulation, go with Pro PE. SB2 will favor gameplay over extreme realism, sort of along the lines of SB1 (where you drag artillery calls around with the mouse instead of having to do a real fire call from a FISTV).

"i knowe that the jas39 gripen radar can detect stealth plane, it uses radio signals or somting like that

-Dr_Pepper_"

Wolfman_96th
08-31-2004, 10:33 AM
Hmm weird, wasn't showing the last 5 pages for a while (number of replies was -1 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif )

Deuce420
08-31-2004, 03:54 PM
Do these tank sims exceed LOMAC in realism? For $125 a copy, these games sound like some professional-level stuff. I played Armored Fist2, and that was dog sh*t.

BoCfuss
08-31-2004, 04:48 PM
In short YES. Lomac does a horrible job of representing the full picture, in terms of a war. One on One it does a good job. The fact that these tank sims are being bought by real armies should tell you something.

AlmightyTallest
08-31-2004, 07:54 PM
I would have to agree, Steel Beasts the origional was a very in depth simulation. And when they are making 3 flavors, 2 of which are recommended for individual soldiers to train with either on their own, and another which uses a networked system, you can pretty much be assured it's high fidelity.

I am definately going for Steel Beasts Pro Personel Edition when it becomes available, I only wish they would make flight simulators like this. One version for the general public, one professional and more realistic version for us sim junkies, and a very high fidelity version for serious military appications and professionals. It's worth the extra cost for a higher fidelity simulation in my opinion.

Wolfman, please let us know when this sim becomes available please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BoCfuss
08-31-2004, 10:22 PM
I have some questions. Obviously the U.S. Army and other armies around the world, have classified stuff(I know nothing of what is or not classified in the army), that they wouldn't want "out there" Is this why the personal edition is taking a little longer? They have to dumb it down a bit me thinks.

Wolfman_96th
09-01-2004, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BoCfuss:
They have to dumb it down a bit me thinks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a tough one to answer. In short, not quite. The Army version of Steel Beasts uses the same armor estimates as SB Pro PE. I say "estimates" because eSim Games does NOT have classified armor data from the armies. On the other hand, the sim will be equipped with some sort of armor modification system (at least thats how I understand it). So I suppose an army could enter actual data into it rather than what eSim supplies.

About the comparison, SB Pro PE will be a professional level simulator for the true armor junkie, it is quite a bit more realistic than LOMAC (speaking relatively here).

Don't worry AlmightyTallest, when it is released I'll let you guys know. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"i knowe that the jas39 gripen radar can detect stealth plane, it uses radio signals or somting like that

-Dr_Pepper_"

AlmightyTallest
09-01-2004, 09:52 AM
Thanks Wolfman, I can't wait for this one to come out now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif