equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[rangerpl 13]

Chernarus wasn't a Union Republic, but an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. I don't know if that makes any difference as to what tanks it might have realistically. They would be at the same rank as Turkmenistan ASSR and Kazakh ASSR.

ASSRs didn't have their own army so any military equipment of Chernarus would have been supplied and owned by the Kremlin. Meaning they'd get standard Soviet Army equipment.

[maturin 12]

Chernarus wasn't a Union Republic, but an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. I don't know if that makes any difference as to what tanks it might have realistically. They would be at the same rank as Turkmenistan ASSR and Kazakh ASSR.

Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan were full union republics, with ASSRs inside them.

An ASSR is always a subunit of a union republic, so I wonder what Chernarus was part of. If it was Russia, it would unlikely that they would have been able to secede.

[max power 21]

Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan were full union republics, with ASSRs inside them.

An ASSR is always a subunit of a union republic, so I wonder what Chernarus was part of. If it was Russia, it would unlikely that they would have been able to secede.

Oh right. I guess I was reading the wrong time period. I think those two were ASSRs in the early 1900s. The subject of Soviet internal structure is interesting to me but it's quite complicated and I think it's too much for someone like me to gain a really good understanding of it without studying it formally.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Also bear in mind that the Iraqis were poorly trained, demoralized, unmotivated, and, unlike the Russians, lacked a developed tank doctrine. The Sergeants commanding tanks were not the only inept ones; the lieutenants, captains, colonels and generals commanding them also knew little about the proper application of armored forces.

One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine...

- From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook

:D:yay::D

[king homer 1]

This is true.

However, tests conducted by the United States and Germany with ERA-equipped T-72s showed that the modern Russian armor could prevent APFSDS rounds from achieving a 100% penetration rate. This worried the US and led it to develop the M829A2, meanwhile the Russians developed Kontakt-5 and Kaktus armor.

Source? ;)

The T-72s in ARMA 2 are not T-72M1s, Chernarus was a former Soviet republic and should therefore be equipped with Soviet Army equipment, not export models. The Russian faction in ARMA should also operate some kind of modern version of the tank.

I'd also say the T-72 in Arma2 is a kind-of-early-T72A model.

[Beagle 684]

Source? ;)

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche/Beschussversuche.html

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche2/Beschussversuche2.html

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche3/Beschussversuche3.html

Edited March 26, 2011 by Beagle

[king homer 1]

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche/Beschussversuche.html

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche2/Beschussversuche2.html

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche3/Beschussversuche3.html

I think this ain't his source. These are no T-72B's neither are they equipped with ERA. :p

[kireta21 13]

Source? ;)

If I recall well, Dynamit Nobel Defence performed real life firing tests in early 90's. They shoot out lots of ex-NVA T-72s, and a few uparmored tanks they bought. Apparently while T-72B with K-1 ERA could be penetrated with 105mm KE round, T-72B model 1988 with Kontact-5 ERA proved itself hard kill even for M829 DU round.

Note "can penetrate" means there's >50% success rate.

Besides RL battlefield results are usually mix of technology, training and luck, and only the first can be tested, so all such tests provide wide error margin.

I also heard few T-84s (3 or 4 tanks) were bought by USA during M829A3 developement, but there was nothing about results of these tests.

Edited March 26, 2011 by boota

[king homer 1]

If I recall well, Dynamit Nobel Defence performed real life firing tests in early 90's. They shoot out lots of ex-NVA T-72s, and a few uparmored tanks they bought. Apparently while T-72B with K-1 ERA could be penetrated with 105mm KE round, T-72B model 1988 with Kontact-5 ERA proved itself hard kill even for M829 DU round.

Note "can penetrate" means there's >50% success rate.

Besides RL battlefield results are usually mix of technology, training and luck, and only the first can be tested, so all such tests provide wide error margin.

I also heard few T-84s (3 or 4 tanks) were bought by USA during M829A3 developement, but there was nothing about results of these tests.

Thanks for the answer.

Are you referring in any way to this article:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070627074002/http://members.rediff.com/wolf17679/k-5.html

This would substantiate your argument. But it's hard to believe someone could buy a T-72B obj. 89/90 for testing purpose. You're sure if they tested there penetrators on K-5?

Edited March 26, 2011 by King Homer

[kireta21 13]

Not sure here, it's been years ago, during developement of PT-91 tank, so in early 90's. Article was mainly about results for ERAWA-2 armor, results for K-1, and K-5 were quoted to compare new ERA with other types.

Still this has been 15 years ago, so I might've just mess something up :p

Edited March 26, 2011 by boota

[archbishop lazarus 24]

So basically that what I wrote and you wrote already. Your source? :D

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I was too tired yesterday...:)

Germany did an another test on the T-72M1. They tested the tank against 105mm DM12 HEAT, (400mm penetration) 105mm DM33 APFSDS (wolfram-carbid version of M833, 380mm penetration) and 120mm DM53. I think everyone know the results of the 120mm, but the 105mm rounds are interesting.

The front turret and hull were invulnerable to DM12 HEAT. The DM33 APFSDS could penetrate only up to 1500m.

This would substantiate your argument. But it's hard to believe someone could buy a T-72B obj. 89/90 for testing purpose. You're sure if they tested there penetrators on K-5?

I also doubt that they did the test on T-72B. In my opinion, they bought only the Kontakt-5 blocks, and somehow fitted them on the T-72M1. Anyway, the result was that the US developed the M829A2 which could penetrate the K5 equipped tanks. Russia's answer was the Relikt, but I dont think that it could save the T-90 against the M829A3 and DM63.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Archbishop Lazarus

[Ollie1983 10]

This has now become rather academic and off on a tangent. It is of no good discussing theoretical projectile vs armour effectiveness even that tested under laboratory conditions, it is in the field that counts.

I wonder if modern soviet armour technology has found a way to counter LGBs filled with good old concrete yet.

[wolfbite 8]

Modern Soviet?

[Beagle 684]

Modern Soviet?

for some individuals the world stands still and nothing is changing at all. Or maybe "modern soviet" means 1985-1991.

[Baff1 0]

There were a lot more T-72s in Gulf War than M1s. I could now list a lot of facts why the M1 was the far more superior tank in GW but fortunately Archbishop Lazarus did already do this.

After a quick looksie at Fas.org and Globalsecurity.com, the numbers I have is 1900 U.S. M1's deployed in the Gulf War and Saddams total T72 force estimated to be consisting of 500 tanks.

So if we took that at face value, Abrams outnumbered T72 4:1

(Although of course, many other nations tanks were involved in that fight, not just U.S. M1's and the Iraqi army had about another 4,000 assorted tanks aside from the T72 model.

I read that 37% of these tanks were destroyed from the air and that around half survived the war.

Take all these figues with a pinch of salt of course).

That 4:1 numercal advantage however rather underestimates the manouvre advantage of American forces.

Because in that war U.S. forces had satellites and aerial reconaisance, while Saddam did not...they were able to fight battles with far superior numerical advantage.

To choose the battlefield.

Saddam must spread his forces around an enormous country to defend against all points of attack, while the U.S. forces were able to pick and choose when and where to attack and concentrate their forces in places where his line was weakest.To concentrate their forces.

8:1. That is the numerical advantage the M1 had in all the tank battles in the Gulf War. Not in the war, if you see what I mean, but in the battles.

I mentioned T64 not for any involvement in the Gulf War, but rather for it's weapon system, which outranges and out penetrates even the latest in western tank systems. (On paper!).

Saddam did not have access to these missiles. In that war, the range advantage belonged to the M1 but could reasonably not be expected to versus other nations T72's.

Later generations of Russian tanks, such as the T90 have not upgunned. Clearly they feel their weapon system is still up to the job.

So for me the importance of the tanks armour is comparative to the weapon system being fired at it.

We expect a cutting edge M1 round to be able to penetrate cutting edge Russian armour at it's hardest point. (going on those silly Steel Beast figures). Likewise we expect a cutting edge Russian tank weapon to penetrate cutting edge M1 armour face on (again using those silly Steel Beast tables).

So tank versus tank, neither has an armour advantage. A T72 can one shot an Abrams at it's hardest point, just as an Abrams can one shot a T72 at it's hardest point.

In this way they are equal.

The differences however lie elsewhere. Firing a missile a T72 has double the range of an M1A2 but 1/2 of it's immobile rate of fire. (The missile has a slower flight time that must be added to it's superior reload speed before another shot can be fired because they have to guide it in manually. Autoloaders are not only faster than humans but they reload at the same speed at full whack over rough ground).

Ukrainian T72, can use a fire and forget, top down attack missile, that has the rate of fire advantage to match it's range and penetration advantage! I think the Indians have this capability too.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Baff1

[Beagle 684]

The T-90 has upgunned twice since its introduction.

There are even more upgrades to the targeting and fire control system.

T-90 - 2A46M2 (L51)

T-90A- 2A46M5 (L55)

T-90M- 2A82 (L55)

The russian also stopped downgrading the export models to compete better on the market...and they incorporate more and more electronics made by manufacturers outside of russia like Thales and IAI. The question "who builds the better tank" is more like "who builds the better tank for the money"...its not about combat records...its about marketing and pricetags.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Beagle

[Baff1 0]

I mainly go on the "who built last" theory.

Whoever built last has the advantage. They know what they have to make to beat the opposition and they have the latest tech advances available to incorporate.

And this is why I instinctively lean towards Russian tanks. They are higher generation than everybody else because they produce more of them.

They are the market leaders.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Later generations of Russian tanks, such as the T90 have not upgunned. Clearly they feel their weapon system is still up to the job.

Not anymore. More and more of their experts and politicians realize that the 125mm gun isnt enough anymore. The latest russian 125mm APFSDS rounds can penetrate only the M1A1HA. The M1A2's hull can be penetrated too, but the turret front is invulnerable. Missiles are useless. It doesnt matter that they can penetrate 900-1000mm RHA, because all western tanks have 1350-2000mm CE RHA armor.

This is why they installed a huge 152mm 2A83 gun in their Objekt-195. They wanted superiority that last for decades, and I think they did the right thing. In my opinion, there wont be any western tank in the following 20-30 years that could resist this huge gun.

We expect a cutting edge M1 round to be able to penetrate cutting edge Russian armour at it's hardest point.

There is one: M829A3. It should have no problem penetrating any T-90 variant's armor. The only russian tanks that could resist this are the Objekt-640 Черный орел (Chorniy oryol), and the Objekt-195.

[king homer 1]

After a quick looksie at Fas.org and Globalsecurity.com, the numbers I have is 1900 U.S. M1's deployed in the Gulf War and Saddams total T72 force estimated to be consisting of 500 tanks.

Okay I was wrong on that. I just looked it up in Steven Zaloga's M1 Abrams vs. T-72. There were 1.956 in total deployed M1A1s (including HA's) and they faced about 1.000 T-72 tanks (21 regiments).

I mentioned T64 not for any involvement in the Gulf War, but rather for it's weapon system, which outranges and out penetrates even the latest in western tank systems. (On paper!).

May you give us the source on this, especially which version of the T-64 are you talking about?

The differences however lie elsewhere. Firing a missile a T72 has double the range of an M1A2 but 1/2 of it's immobile rate of fire. (The missile has a slower flight time that must be added to it's superior reload speed before another shot can be fired because they have to guide it in manually. Autoloaders are not only faster than humans but they reload at the same speed at full whack over rough ground).

In theory maybe. On flat terrain maybe and clear visibility and a well trained crew. But with these factors not given I cannot see how the gun launched missile is superior to Western tanks armament.

[Baff1 0]

It's superior in open ground.

The desert for example.

I.E the type of terrain tanks are most commonly deployed in/best suited for, not to mention the very scenario M1 and T72 have only ever engaged each other in.

So yes, you could take out the scenarios in which tanks are most used... but that would be a mistake.

If you can destroy an enemy tank 2 kilometres before it gets into range with you, you have an obvious advanatge.

Also, since it is has a chemical warhead, it's penetration ability does not diminish over range.

At shorter range, it's flight times become less of a disadvantage and it is just a warhead with greater penetrative ability.

It's weaker in these scenario's because it is not fire and forget.

As previously mentioned once in urban combat it's the infantry that gets you.

In urban combat the T72 has a manouverability advantage. It's smaller and lighter. It can cross bridges that an M1 collapses, pass through gaps an M1 does not fit. It's easier to mask because of it's lower profile.

The T64 is the first Russian tank to use the 125 mm gun that fires the missiles.

Any version of the T64 with that.

Estimates for T72 numbers in the Iraqi army start at 300 and end at 1,000. 500 seems a more reasonable guess than either of these to me.

However my main point still stands. The two armies did not line all their tanks up on one field and duke it out.

The U.S. army turned up to every battle in vastly superior numbers.

just as they always have. Just as you would expect from the worlds greatest industrial power.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

Not anymore. More and more of their experts and politicians realize that the 125mm gun isnt enough anymore. The latest russian 125mm APFSDS rounds can penetrate only the M1A1HA. The M1A2's hull can be penetrated too, but the turret front is invulnerable. Missiles are useless. It doesnt matter that they can penetrate 900-1000mm RHA, because all western tanks have 1350-2000mm CE RHA armor.

This is why they installed a huge 152mm 2A83 gun in their Objekt-195. They wanted superiority that last for decades, and I think they did the right thing. In my opinion, there wont be any western tank in the following 20-30 years that could resist this huge gun.

There is one: M829A3. It should have no problem penetrating any T-90 variant's armor. The only russian tanks that could resist this are the Objekt-640 Черный орел (Chorniy oryol), and the Objekt-195.

I stand corrected.

The T90's armour at it's hardpoint is 800-900 which means it is expecting to withstand even the latest sabot at it's hardest point.

Making it equal to the M1 in terms of armour vs weapon system.

But I have been talking about T72's. Super Dolly Parton T72's have an RHA of 750-900 in their front turrets.

I expect the key difference between uparmoured tanks and complete new builds will not be the front turret armour so much as all the rest of the armour.

Rather than weld some new bits on the front, they can completely integrate newer armour all over from scratch.

(The T72 and the M1 are not however new builds.

Challenger and Leclerc and Leopard and T90 are. We can expect all those tanks to have better composoite armour in all the other areas of the tanks).

So we are back to the same place we were in terms of game balance.

Armour vs weapon system the latest T72 can expect 1 shot penetration anywhere except the front turret vs the latest M1 and the latest M1 can expect 1 shot penetration against the latest T72 anywhere except the front turret on the latest T72.

The Russians didn't make a tank with 152 gun, they went with the 125 again last time round.

They cancelled the 152.

Likewise Obama has cancelled the next weapon upgrades for the M1.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

(The T72 and the M1 are not however new builds.

Challenger and Leclerc and Leopard and T90 are. We can expect all those tanks to have better composoite armour in all the other areas of the tanks).

You do realize in many modern tanks armor can be upgraded just like a gun or engine? M1A1 and M1A2 SEP have essentialy same armor, but new inserts give latter nearly twice as much protection as former have and Leopard 2A6's base armor is same as it was in A4, just with spaced add-on armour on turret.

Also, all estimates (even French ones) give Leclerc quite poor protection for a modern tank.

[Baff1 0]

Sorry I don't buy into that.

I think there are easy bits to swap out and places where you can add stuff but that the bulk of the armour is in too large sections for it to be a realistic proposition.

So there may be places that are easy to swap out.. say the side guards for example.. or the engine.. but that the core frame of the tank is essentially just a few very large pieces.

Adding a bird cage of welding some DU plates to the front of a tank is easy but to redo the entire lot of armour?

I'm, not buying into that being a realistic propostion.

When we take turrets for example they are all one peice. One giant casting and any joins in them are their weak spots.. so they don't have many.

Welding two plates on the front turret. Cheap and realistic.

Replacing the turret? Not very cheap and realistic.

The Abrams gun is a good example. Replacing it with the same gun as on the Leopard would involve completely rebuilding a new turret. So it got shitcanned. Too expensive. Never going to happen.

But a new build like a Leopard or a Challenger already has it becuase they designed and built a new tank from scratch.

Look at this damaged Abrams.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/tank%20abrams%20refit/RRoan/General/WIP/tank-2.png

That shell is almost all one piece.

Again here... the turret is just one core peice.

http://www.g2mil.com/M1A2destroyed.jpg

So there are parts that are designed to be replaceable, and parts that are not. Those core parts are the ones that aren't going to see any upgrades.

Here you can see some replaceable panels.

http://data.primeportal.net/m1_iraqp/m1_broken/Dsc04661.jpg

But http://www.army.mil/-images/2009/02/02/29281/size0-army.mil-29281-2009-02-02-150211.jpg here you can that underneath those the core of the tank is not so easily replaceable.

Hence, when Abrams started getting penetrated by RPG's to the sides in Iraq, they didn't replace the entire side armour with the latest gen composities... they just bolted on some reactive plates and some wire grills.

Look at the tops of this, I'm sure it's doable to take off that armour and replace it.... but it's not going to be cheap. I don't think for minute that Abrams has Chobam all over. Even though it would be significantly lighter if it did.

http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/26314/M1_Panther_II_Lower_Hull_1.jpg

Edited March 28, 2011 by Baff1

[dm 9]

When we take turrets for example they are all one peice. One giant casting and any joins in them are their weak spots.. so they don't have many.

In the 60's maybe...

Composite armour made casting all but obsolete overnight (for frontal armour arrays at least). Thats why you went from the smooth, curvy turret designs of Chieftain/Patton/Leopard 1, to the flat angular designs of Challenger/Abrams/Leopard 2.

Yes, casting is sometimes used for turret rears, and often in lower hulls. But the key armour components are now flat, and welded onto the remainder of the hull or turret.

[Baff1 0]

The anglular box shapes of those turrets are because of the Chobam.

Chobam doesn't do curves well.

Think of it as like a piece of slate. It has to collapse in the right way to absorb the energies.

[dm 9]

Chobham doesnt do curves at all. And you dont cast it.

Its made in flat sections and welded onto the hull/turret.

While casting was the "in thing" during the 50's - 70's, it fell by the wayside when Chobham and its derivatives entered the playing field. You'll find that many vehicles are now made of welded sections and smaller castings, in order to reduce production difficulty and costs.

---------- Post added at 00:28 ---------- Previous post was at 00:11 ----------

The Abrams gun is a good example. Replacing it with the same gun as on the Leopard would involve completely rebuilding a new turret.

Well thats just not true at all. Since the Abrams already uses the L44 version of the Rhinemetal smoothbore, switching it out to the L55 would actually be a reasonably trivial task.

Update the ballistic tables in the FCS.

Possibly strengthen the trunnions.

Re-balance the mounts for the different weight of the gun.

Getting the gun in and out of the turret is a trivial task, and is infact done on a semi-regular basis. (Every time a vehicle is rotated in/out of theatre and goes through an overhaul, the *entire vehicle is stripped down to component parts.

Its a crappy discovery channel show, but it has its moments, look up Extreme Engineering, Episode 5: "M1 Abrams"

So it got shitcanned. Too expensive. Never going to happen.

Just as many political reasons for that as there are technical...

But a new build like a Leopard or a Challenger already has it becuase they designed and built a new tank from scratch.

Actually, thats not true either.

The Challenger gun replacement (from L30 rifled to M256 smoothbore, or similar) would entail even more technical difficulty than replacing the L44 with an L55 on the M1. Mostly because the Challenger is designed to use the 3 piece ammo (round, propellant, initiator) that the Brits have used since forever. Switching to the M256 smoothbore (or something similar) would require a complete redesign of the turret interior for ammo stowage. Something that isnt easy to do, even in a "new build" tank.