equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[kireta21 13]

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.

.

Side armor insert of this tank was removed to be mounted on another tank. So not as much "solid chunk of armor" as you think

[king homer 1]

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

Theoretically yes. But in reality it will be unbelieveable hard to guide the missile to a small silouhette at maximum engagement range. Depending on the type of missile it takes up to 24 seconds to reach the utmost range. 24 seconds the engaging tank is vulnerable to the enemy.

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.

The warhead of most Russian gun launched missiles are as good as most other CE warheads.

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.

It's true, the M1 is longer but height and width is almost the same.

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

Any version of the T64 with that.

That's just not true. The first T-64s were still equipped with the 115mm gun developed for the T-62. T-64A introduced the 125mm gun but the gun launched missiles were first available in the T-64B with new 1A33-1 FCS. And the missile was far away from being able to penetrate todays armor.

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.

1.000 was not a rough estimate by me. Read my last post again.

Let alone the three main Republican Guard companies had about 700 T-72 tanks deployed.

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.

The only "new" tank (4th generation) is the Leclerc. All other tanks exist quite as long as M1 or T-72 do. Leopard 2 saw firsth light in the late 70's while the T-90 is "just" an improved T-72.

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.

It makes no sense at all to compare side or back armor of any tank. If you want to make a statement you always and only consider front protection. Tanks are meant to fight face to face

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

Source?

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.

This is just not true either. Why would the Abrams need a new turret for the same gun with increased length. The internal modifications are necessary yes, as already mentioned by DM. Main reason for the cancle was in my eyes that the current M829A3 ammunition performed as good with the L44 as the non-DU ammo with the L55. So why spend money for something not yet beaten?

I don't think for minute that Abrams has Chobam all over. Even though it would be significantly lighter if it did.

No it's not made out of composite armor all over. But that ain't no secret at all. Side turret armor is steel with probably an air spacing. Rest is also steel armor.

Here are some pictures I collected over time from tanknet forums.

A general comparison of the Russian vs. US tank armor arrangement.

And the inside of a T-72 turret front:

Edited March 29, 2011 by King Homer

[Beagle 684]

It's true, the M1 is longer but height and width is almost the same.

You are wrong here!

M1A2 height = 2,86m

T-90 height = 2.23m

The T-90 is actually 10cm more in width than a M1A2.

[king homer 1]

You are wrong here!

M1A2 height = 2,86m

T-90 height = 2.23m

The T-90 is actually 10cm more in width than a M1A2.

This is true but I was comparing T-72 and M1A1.

T-72 width = 3.60 m

M1A1 width = 3.66 m

T-72 height = 2.20 m

M1A1 height = 2.44 m

[max power 21]

Does anyone use the M1a1 anymore?

Anyways, I'm not sure of the meaning of the graph that you posted. I'm not doubting its accuracy, but what does the y axis on the graph mean, if anything? Why the weird shapes? Is it a comparison of armour thickness compared to some locations in space on a cross section the turret?

Edited March 29, 2011 by Max Power

[king homer 1]

Does anyone use the M1a1 anymore?

Anyways, I'm not sure of the meaning of the graph that you posted. I'm not doubting its accuracy, but what does the y axis on the graph mean, if anything? Why the weird shapes? Is it a comparison of armour thickness compared to some locations in space on a cross section the turret?

The USMC still uses the M1A1 in it's latest version.

As far as I understand you're talking about the first picture I posted.

The graph is not made by me. ;-)

It's the comparison of the front armor (KE protection level) in relation to the impact point of the ammunition when fired parallel to the maingun.

Edited March 29, 2011 by King Homer

[Baff1 0]

Theoretically yes. But in reality it will be unbelieveable hard to guide the missile to a small silouhette at maximum engagement range. Depending on the type of missile it takes up to 24 seconds to reach the utmost range. 24 seconds the engaging tank is vulnerable to the enemy.

The warhead of most Russian gun launched missiles are as good as most other CE warheads.

It's true, the M1 is longer but height and width is almost the same.

That's just not true. The first T-64s were still equipped with the 115mm gun developed for the T-62. T-64A introduced the 125mm gun but the gun launched missiles were first available in the T-64B with new 1A33-1 FCS. And the missile was far away from being able to penetrate todays armor.

1.000 was not a rough estimate by me. Read my last post again.

Let alone the three main Republican Guard companies had about 700 T-72 tanks deployed.

The only "new" tank (4th generation) is the Leclerc. All other tanks exist quite as long as M1 or T-72 do. Leopard 2 saw firsth light in the late 70's while the T-90 is "just" an improved T-72.

It makes no sense at all to compare side or back armor of any tank. If you want to make a statement you always and only consider front protection. Tanks are meant to fight face to face

Source?

This is just not true either. Why would the Abrams need a new turret for the same gun with increased length. The internal modifications are necessary yes, as already mentioned by DM. Main reason for the cancle was in my eyes that the current M829A3 ammunition performed as good with the L44 as the non-DU ammo with the L55. So why spend money for something not yet beaten?

No it's not made out of composite armor all over. But that ain't no secret at all. Side turret armor is steel with probably an air spacing. Rest is also steel armor.

Here are some pictures I collected over time from tanknet forums.

A general comparison of the Russian vs. US tank armor arrangement.

T90 is the next generation of T72.

It's not an existing T72 that has been upgraded, it is a completely new build.

The T64 with the missile (125 gun) can fire any missile that fits in a 125 gun, not just the oldest ones. Howver that said, the oldest ones still work well enough. Ask the IDF.

Tanks may be meant to fight face to face, but they that doesn't mean they always will.

Shermans and T34's defeated Tigers by attacking them side on or rear on.

Just imagining that your enemy is always going to attack you in the way that you most wish to be attacked is moronacy in the extreme.

1,000 T72's is an estimate.

The Iraqi's ordered 1,000 T72's. They may not have received them all... they may not have had all T72's operational after 10 years of sanctions, they may have lost some in other wars notably the Iran Iraq war.

Hence why estimates differ.

The Abrams needs a new turret for a longer gun because the breach in the German gun is bigger, It sticks out further inside the turret. which means it can't be elevated properly inside the existing Abrams hull, I suggest.

It's not the external length of the barrel that is the issue.

Does the M829A3 really match the weapon system of other nations? Germans laugh at that idea. (I think the Brits and the Russians do too for that matter).

Certainly the U.S. was developing further weapon upgrades a new gen of rocket assisted sabots for example to counter their range disadvanatge.

But clearly they don't feel it's a critical or immediate issue anymore that the Russians do.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

No it's not made out of composite armor all over. But that ain't no secret at all. ]

Actually, yes it is a secret.

I have no evidence to back up my theory on this.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

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.

But then it doesn't need replacing becuase they put the best gun around in it when they built it and that wasn't very long ago.

It's a new build.

It holds the record for the longest ranged tank kill.

Yes, replacing it may well cost a boot load of money too. Which isn't currently why it isn't happening but presumably may well have been about 20-30 years time when it's as old as the Abrams.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Baff1

[king homer 1]

I have no evidence to back up my theory on this.

Have you any evidence at all? :rolleyes:

[Baff1 0]

I have very limited evidence I'm afraid.

As do you, or indeed any of us.

My source for Obama's cancellations of the FCS programs is the newspapers.

He cancelled them last year as I remember. Along with some Aircraft carriers, some F22's, The Space Shuttle... and a whole host of other stuff.

[Beagle 684]

I have very limited evidence I'm afraid.

As do you, or indeed any of us.

Well... I at least actually worked in the production line in a company called KMW. I build light armoured vehicles like Fennek and Boxer...and made some of the bridge elements for bridge layers.

I've seen how armour is layered and made...but I would not call me an experst even after seeing the blueprints because I cant estimate how all this turns out in a life fire test.

Outcomes of these are indeed still secret even to people building that stuff, thats why I always wonder why the internet is so full of "experts"...most be the white collars up in the office tower all beeign bored and posting in various forums.

btw. 16 Years ago I used that stuff in active service and in that role I even had less of a clue how it works or is made...the soldiers that use the system always know less than the people who manufacture it.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Beagle

[king homer 1]

That's why most of the people talk of estimates. I worked myself through tons of armor technology books and the normal tank books and gather lot of intel from the holy internet. But in the end I'm still an armchair general likewise.

But some things are really evident and already validated - so why not rely on these facts? Things like T-90 is a new built tank is just wrong. In the end it will remain as an upgraded T-72.

And if you ever sat in a Leopard 2 and a T-72 you will know which tank to chose.

[Beagle 684]

And if you ever sat in a Leopard 2 and a T-72 you will know which tank to chose.

The T-72 because its easier to keep it operational in field conditions ;). A Leopard II is only effective as long as two service trucks follow it all the time :D

[king homer 1]

The T-72 because its easier to keep it operational in field conditions ;). A Leopard II is only effective as long as two service trucks follow it all the time :D

Jaja, du weisst was ich meine.

But I was talking about the size of workspace. ;)

[Beagle 684]

Jaja, du weisst was ich meine.

But I was talking about the size of workspace. ;)

Ja nee is klar!

The workspace is no problem in T-72...you just need smaller tankers and you don't need a loader. When you're 1.85m tall the workspace for the loader in a Leopard II A4 is not optimal neither. My father was a Leo1 driver... he measured 1.95m...hard to believe he could manage that job.

[dm 9]

But then it doesn't need replacing becuase they put the best gun around in it when they built it and that wasn't very long ago.

It's a new build.

It holds the record for the longest ranged tank kill.

Yes, replacing it may well cost a boot load of money too. Which isn't currently why it isn't happening but presumably may well have been about 20-30 years time when it's as old as the Abrams.

Well its not that new... It [the L30] was designed in the early 80's and put into production in 1989. The Challenger 2's were designed and built around the same time (the oldest being about 18 years, not counting the prototypes).

The problem is not with the gun, but with the ammunition. No one has made the types of ammo that the L30 fires for quite some years, and the stockpiles are slowly running out.

The choices are:

re-open ammunition production lines. Which is costly, since you need to restore all the tooling, knowledge, etc etc, but means you keep your current equipment and training.

or

re-gun the tank. Which is also costly, since you need to re-design the interior of the tank, replace key components, etc etc, but it means you save money in the long run, as the "NATO standard" 120mm ammo is still being produced, so is easy to obtain...

[king homer 1]

Ja nee is klar!

The workspace is no problem in T-72...you just need smaller tankers and you don't need a loader. When you're 1.85m tall the workspace for the loader in a Leopard II A4 is not optimal neither. My father was a Leo1 driver... he measured 1.95m...hard to believe he could manage that job.

Well I felt really uncomfortable sitting in the gunner position of the T-72. The massive gun breech constrained my lower body. And I'm just 1,80m.

I also heard the missing air conditioning made it terrific to use in desert terrain.

[Beagle 684]

I also heard the missing air conditioning made it terrific to use in desert terrain.

That was a problem with the Leo II A4 too even in a typical hot german summer. Air conditioning was widely retrofittet with the KFOR deployment first...until this the most effective coolign was open hatches.

[Baff1 0]

Well its not that new... It [the L30] was designed in the early 80's and put into production in 1989. The Challenger 2's were designed and built around the same time (the oldest being about 18 years, not counting the prototypes).

The problem is not with the gun, but with the ammunition. No one has made the types of ammo that the L30 fires for quite some years, and the stockpiles are slowly running out.

The choices are:

re-open ammunition production lines. Which is costly, since you need to restore all the tooling, knowledge, etc etc, but means you keep your current equipment and training.

re-gun the tank. Which is also costly, since you need to re-design the interior of the tank, replace key components, etc etc, but it means you save money in the long run, as the "NATO standard" 120mm ammo is still being produced, so is easy to obtain...

This is no longer a problem for the moment. They have mothballed most of the tanks. So the remaining ammo is no longer in short supply.

But I agree sooner or later this will need to be addressed.

There is however no "NATO standard" 120 mm Ammo.

The American 120mm isn't the same as the German 120 mm ammo.

If we buy german guns then we need to buy German ammo.

And will they be making it when we need to buy it etc... The same dilemmas will continue to haunt us each time we have to think about it.

That experimental tungsten sabot performed quite well. (I.E. better than all the other NATO systems).

I hope that we go with the option of making our own ammo.

Having the Belgians refuse to supply us like during the Falklands War and Iraq etc rather sells me on the need for domestic military production.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Baff1

[Beagle 684]

This is no longer a problem for the moment. They have mothballed most of the tanks. So the remaining ammo is no longer in short supply.

But I agree sooner or later this will need to be addressed.

There is however no "NATO standard" 120 mm Ammo.

The American 120mm isn't the same as the German 120 mm ammo.

If we buy german guns then we need to buy German ammo.

And will they be making it when we need to buy it etc... The same dilemmas will continue to haunt us each time we have to think about it.

That experimental tungsten sabot performed quite well. (I.E. better than all the other NATO systems).

I hope that we go with the option of making our own ammo.

Having the Belgians refuse to supply us like during the Falklands War and Iraq etc rather sells me on the need for domestic military production.

All Rh120 variants L/44 L/47 L/55 are compatible with US 120mm ammunition according to STANAG 4385.

[kireta21 13]

All Rh120 variants L/44 L/47 L/55 are compatible with US 120mm ammunition according to STANAG 4385.

Exactly. All you have to do is upload data for new round, and voila! This is the point of standardization.

[Baff1 0]

All Rh120 variants L/44 L/47 L/55 are compatible with US 120mm ammunition according to STANAG 4385.

But is all their ammo compatable with US 120mm guns too?

Or are they too long to fit in.

Unable to be loaded inside the confines of an M1 Abrams turret?

[kireta21 13]

You're kidding me right?

M829A3 with overall length of 892mm is the longest 120mm round in use. If it can fit - anything can.

[kotov12345 10]

most reply's not regarding game - thread regarding problem that if you sabot track

t72 it blows and if you sabot turret m1a1 track damaged.

is it more clear ?

[king homer 1]

Kotov12345 did you try the ACE damage system for tanks yet? Is this something you're looking for (at least temporary)?

[kotov12345 10]

Kotov12345 did you try the ACE damage system for tanks yet? Is this something you're looking for (at least temporary)?

yes- but I'm not talking about temporal solutions.this require to be working in large maps like warfare ,big servers with many players on them and need to be fixed in game.

For that reason ace not suitable.server stops working too many updates and as results ace not popular.