equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[BasileyOne 10]

Whats the Kontakt feedback like? any good links?

depend Kontakt model.

Kontakt-5 less visible. less smoke, more frags.

later will more like early one.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Perhaps BIS devs do need only a good overview of the main differences, armour protection systems and advantages/disadvantages of west+east technolgies/developments?

I don't think that BIS devs do know everything or all the details... ;)

[BasileyOne 10]

Perhaps BIS devs do need only a good overview of the main differences, armour protection systems and advantages/disadvantages of west+east technolgies/developments?

I don't think that BIS devs do know everything or all the details... ;)

Arma2 was commercial product.

so i doubt thats necessarily for it.

all is players need is fun and [in Arma2 case]challenging gameplay.

making real-world units/things reproduction will both spoil gaming fun and be too expensive for mass-market.

military simulation is another case with [nearly]opposite-weighted priorities. like VBS2, for example.

in such case, customer, usually able to provide vital info, thanks to huge intel networks around globe ;)

Edited April 15, 2011 by BasileyOne

[dreday 1]

And regarding armoured vehicles or tank, yes the heavier it is the more resistant/armored it trends to be!

I am surprised that I have to mention this, but this assumption is not necessarily true. The tank with a lower internal volume can afford to be lighter (i.e. there is less of an area to be protected, hence less weight in armor) while offering the same levels of protection as a heavier and larger tank. Of course the lower internal volume causes its own host of issues, but it had been an approach taken by the soviet tank designers to offer completable armored protection at a lower weight... and up until the late 80s they were able to accomplish that...

Peace,

DreDay

[BasileyOne 10]

I am surprised that I have to mention this, but this assumption is not necessarily true. The tank with a lower internal volume can afford to be lighter (i.e. there is less of an area to be protected, hence less weight in armor) while offering the same levels of protection as a heavier and larger tank. Of course the lower internal volume causes its own host of issues, but it had been an approach taken by the soviet tank designers to offer completable armored protection at a lower weight... and up until the late 80s they were able to accomplish that...

Peace,

DreDay

yep, perfect explanation of Soviet/Russian tank design&reasons/strategy behind it.

in result, tanks more armored, mobile, lighter, powerful at expense of crew comfort/space for extra-eqipment.

[dreday 1]

yep, perfect explanation of Soviet/Russian tank design&reasons/strategy behind it.

in result, tanks more armored, mobile, lighter, powerful at expense of crew comfort/space for extra-eqipment.

I don't believe that it was always the case of "more", but the armored protection of the Soviet tanks was at least comparable to that of their Western counterparts throughout the Cold War. Unfortunately the smaller crew compartment volume had also resulted in the lower chance for the crew survival if the armor was penetrated...

Peace,

DreDay

Edited April 15, 2011 by DreDay

[BasileyOne 10]

I don't believe that it was always the case of "more", but the armored protection of the Soviet tanks was at least comparable to that of their Western counterparts throughout the Cold War. Unfortunately the smaller crew compartment volume had also resulted in the lower chance for the crew survival if the armor was penetrated...

Peace,

DreDay

in yearly 9x's, united Germany tested T72M's[East Germany legacy]armor and rate frontal projection in about 1200 RHA strenght.

point is technilogy/production not stopped from 198x's, where those T72M's was produced/deployed.

"at least comparable" even not remotely reflect discance between combat efficency of Western and Eastern tanks.

most noticable flaw - FCS efficiency was should be polished by ATGM usage, which is consist over 1/3 of wartime loadout.

[dreday 1]

in yearly 9x's, united Germany tested T72M's[East Germany legacy]armor and rate frontal projection in about 1200 RHA strenght.

point is technilogy/production not stopped from 198x's, where those T72M's was produced/deployed.

"at least comparable" even not remotely reflect discance between combat efficency of Western and Eastern tanks.

most noticable flaw - FCS efficiency was should be polished by ATGM usage, which is consist over 1/3 of wartime loadout.

It's been a while since I've read about this, but I believe that the tank that you are referring to was actually T-72B that was "accidentally" left on one of the ex-Soviet bases in ex-GDR. It was proven to be quite effective against the latest 105mm rounds; which was quite a surprise to the Western experts; however it's frontal RHA equivalent was nowhere close to 1200mm...as far as I recall...

As for the whole advanced FCS vs ATGMs - I am not even going to get into that discussion. Plenty has been written about it and much of that can be found on the internet...

Peace,

DreDay

[BasileyOne 10]

thats why i posted what i mean, exactly. leaving no room for [similar]"interpretations".

point is where is West really ahed is .. training, not Equipment.

[Ollie1983 10]

If you knew how crappy most western systems really are (in most cases, just as bad as their "shoddy eastern made" counterpart, you wouldnt be flapping your gums this hard either ;)

Oh, obviously you have firsthand experience of this then.... please do share some convincing anecdotes with us or perhaps you have material efficiency reports to hand you can quote from?:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------

I don't believe that it was always the case of "more", but the armored protection of the Soviet tanks was at least comparable to that of their Western counterparts throughout the Cold War. Unfortunately the smaller crew compartment volume had also resulted in the lower chance for the crew survival if the armor was penetrated...

Peace,

DreDay

What makes you say that?

It is worth noting that it is very difficult for the tank designer to proof a tank against the larger variety of ATGMs- hellfire/Maverick, they are of much larger throw weight and size than the more hand held versions, and tend to attack from a higher angle. The Infantryman cannot carry, much less deploy, something the size of a hellfire effectively, even the TOW is a beast of a thing, limiting their ability to kill tanks. Hence Western armies are not equipped with RPG type weapons, they are considered a waste of time.

The copperhead is an interesting weapon, never understood why it was binned. Obviously cost, but the ability to wipe out a tank formation merely by firing artillery in its general direction has got to appeal.

Interestingly NATO did copy soviet ideas in some other areas- the MLRS system for example, was late arriving to the party but the Soviets had rocket launchers for decades before.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Ollie1983

[whisper 0]

It is worth noting that it is very difficult for the tank designer to proof a tank against the larger variety of ATGMs- hellfire/Maverick, they are of much larger throw weight and size than the more hand held versions, and tend to attack from a higher angle. The Infantryman cannot carry, much less deploy, something the size of a hellfire effectively, even the TOW is a beast of a thing, limiting their ability to kill tanks. Hence Western armies are not equipped with RPG type weapons, they are considered a waste of time.

Mmmh, troops aren't transported in tanks, AFAIK.

RPG-type weapons can be targeted at many vehicle types ;)

[Ollie1983 10]

Excuse me, what the hell are you on about? Troops aren't transported in tanks..? What on earth does that comment relate to?

RPGs can be targetted at many targets, your point being??

Edited April 15, 2011 by Ollie1983

[whisper 0]

That giving RPG-type weapons to infantry isn't that stupid, considering the variety of potential targets for RPG on the battlefield ....

[Ollie1983 10]

Fine but that is why NATO troops have things like the M203.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well lets collect facts about:

...Kontakt-5 and Kaktus ERA

...Shtora, Arena

...T-72, T-90 and T-80 variants

+ Please stop this childish nonsense about X vs Y.

[ricnunes 0]

I am surprised that I have to mention this, but this assumption is not necessarily true. The tank with a lower internal volume can afford to be lighter (i.e. there is less of an area to be protected, hence less weight in armor) while offering the same levels of protection as a heavier and larger tank. Of course the lower internal volume causes its own host of issues, but it had been an approach taken by the soviet tank designers to offer completable armored protection at a lower weight... and up until the late 80s they were able to accomplish that...

Peace,

DreDay

Therefore that's why I used the word TRENDS and not IS.

Neveretheless, note that empty areas don't weight nothing! Yes, a vehicle with a greater empty area TRENDS to be bigger and therefore TRENDS to be heavier. But the diference in internal "empty" space that an Abrams have compared to the T-72, T-90 or T-80 is not that big to justify the diference of 20 tons between both tanks. Most of the diference of weight between both tanks is in the armour level/protection, period! Sugesting that a T-72, T-90 or T-80 could have, even remotly a simlar level of protection (or even bigger) as an Abrams have is simply wrong. There is many information regarding this out there - just search!

If what you said was the truth for every case, than modern and well protected IFV vehicles such as the CV90 or the Puma would be as heavy or even heavier than tanks (MBTs) since their empty area is MUCH, MUCH more bigger than what we have in a tank but in reality these vehicles are not as heavy as a tank!

Finally, it's true that western tanks have bigger internal ("empty") areas but I can assure you that even the internal "empty" area of a western tank is very, very small - at least it is in a Leopard 2, which I had the oportunity to be inside one in real life! :D

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Sugesting that a T-72, T-90 or T-80 could have, even remotly a simlar level of protection (or even bigger) as an Abrams have is simply wrong.

The problem is that everyone is trying to compare the old T-72M and M1 tanks to the latest M1A2 SEP Abrams. Its like if I would compare the T-80U and the M-48A3. And it looks like lots of people forgot that there was the collapse of the soviet union!

But if we compare the M1A1 from 1985 and the T-72B, also from 1985, we can see interesting things:

T-72B is 44.5 tons, turret front is 540mm KE, 900mm CE (Kontakt-1)

Hull front is 490mm KE, 900mm CE (K1)

M1A1 Abrams is 57 tons, turret front is 450mm KE and 800-1000mm CE Hull front is 400-450mm CE and 500-800mm CE

The T-72B has very similar CE protection, but its turret front is much stronger!

This is not primarily due to the internal volume, but due to entirely different design philosophy. I absolutely recomment the book "Боевые машины уралвагонзавода. Танк Т-72"

[kireta21 13]

But if we compare the M1A1 from 1985 and the T-72B, also from 1985, we can see interesting things:

Ermm... M1A1 entered service in 1986. Unless you mean M1IP. Same was ERA on T-72B. 1985 T-72B had just slighty better armored turret than T-72A.

Edited April 16, 2011 by boota

[archbishop lazarus 24]

One year doesnt matter :). Since Kontakt-1 is useless against KE penetrators, it doesnt matter if the T-72B has K1 or not. Its superior to M1A1 either way. They had K1 in 1985, although the first few machines were built without ERA, they entered service in the end of 1984.

T-72B has significantly better turret armor than T-72A. The two has completely different armor structure. If you want, I can describe it in detail. T-72A turret is around 380-410mm KE and 490-500mm CE, the same as the Czechslovak built T-72M1.

My point is that we shouldnt compare tanks that arent in the same period. If we want to compare the M1A2 SEP, we should compare it to the T-90, not the T-72.

[Baff1 0]

Sugesting that a T-72, T-90 or T-80 could have, even remotly a simlar level of protection (or even bigger) as an Abrams have is simply wrong. There is many information regarding this out there - just search!

Many speculations out there about this.

Actual "information" is likely to get you arrested (and even executed!).

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

Finally, it's true that western tanks have bigger internal ("empty") areas but I can assure you that even the internal "empty" area of a western tank is very, very small - at least it is in a Leopard 2, which I had the oportunity to be inside one in real life! :D

If we think in minimum terms... one extra human body in the turret.

Only the top half of that body being housed in the turret...

Lets say 3 foot by 2 foot by one foot.

That's a front on profile of an extra 3 foot x 2 foot to add.

6 square feet of depleted Uranium is a lot of weight! And that is just the front of the turret.

6 square feet of 500 mm rolled steel is also pretty damn heavy for that matter. I've got an online calculator for it here... That works out as an extra 9 tons just for rolled steel and just for the front of the turret.

Add a DU plate... add more for the sides of the turret, plus some extra for the lower chassis ... plus bigger suspension to handle the extra weight. Bigger engines to move it....

I think composite armours might actually be lighter than rolled steel. I think part of the tech advancement is getting lighter armour.

---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

in yearly 9x's, united Germany tested T72M's[East Germany legacy]armor and rate frontal projection in about 1200 RHA strenght.

point is technilogy/production not stopped from 198x's, where those T72M's was produced/deployed.

.

While it has not stopped siince then, it is important to remember that it did stop completely for a very long part of that period after the Cold War ended during the collapse of the Soviet Union (when they went broke).

For example, I expect the M1 had a big refit after the Gulf War in 1992 or whenever.

I very much doubt any of the Russian tanks did at this time.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

Mmmh, troops aren't transported in tanks, AFAIK.

I might be wrong, but I think one of the Merkava's has a troop transport capability.

---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

Oh, obviously you have firsthand experience of this then.... please do share some convincing anecdotes with us or perhaps you have material efficiency reports to hand you can quote from?:rolleyes.

I don't know any about tanks, but I can sure tell you a few about my own gun and nightvision collections.

Buy Russian. It's not just much cheaper, it's significantly better engineered.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

I might be wrong, but I think one of the Merkava's has a troop transport capability.

Yes. With maingun ammo mostly removed though.

[dreday 1]

Therefore that's why I used the word TRENDS and not IS.

I think that the word that you are looking for is "tends", but I understand that English is not your first language; you communicate in it quite well and I commend you on its usage. I definitely know what you mean.

Neveretheless, note that empty areas don't weight nothing! Yes, a vehicle with a greater empty area TRENDS to be bigger and therefore TRENDS to be heavier.

The weight of the internal space (whether empty or not) is not an issue, what's important is that it requires extra armor to cover it.

But the diference in internal "empty" space that an Abrams have compared to the T-72, T-90 or T-80 is not that big to justify the diference of 20 tons between both tanks. Most of the diference of weight between both tanks is in the armour level/protection, period!

Baff1 has already given an excellent breakdown of how a little bit of the internal space results in a lot of external armor that is required to cover it.

Sugesting that a T-72, T-90 or T-80 could have, even remotly a simlar level of protection (or even bigger) as an Abrams have is simply wrong. There is many information regarding this out there - just search!

LOL! I am not claiming to be an expert on the tank design, but I have read more than enough about it to form my opinions. Believe you me, I have searched... plenty! If this is something that you want to debate, I think that a TankNet might be a better place for it...

If what you said was the truth for every case, than modern and well protected IFV vehicles such as the CV90 or the Puma would be as heavy or even heavier than tanks (MBTs) since their empty area is MUCH, MUCH more bigger than what we have in a tank but in reality these vehicles are not as heavy as a tank!

These IFVs have quite good armor for their class, but they are not nearly as well protected as the MBTs. Nor do they have the heavy turrets or guns that MBTs do. If they were and if they did, they would weigh the same as comparable MBTs, or more. It's as simple as that...

Finally, it's true that western tanks have bigger internal ("empty") areas but I can assure you that even the internal "empty" area of a western tank is very, very small - at least it is in a Leopard 2, which I had the oportunity to be inside one in real life! :D

That's beside the point, the inside space of the Soviet tanks was even smaller....

Peace,

DreDay

Edited April 17, 2011 by DreDay

[BasileyOne 10]

"simply wrong" isn't argument or fact.

and clearly bad manners indication.

point is this is ... game :)

not ask gameplay be SO serious/real-life-alike in commercial game :-)

[max power 21]

"simply wrong" isn't argument or fact.

and clearly bad manners indication.

point is this is ... game :)

not ask gameplay be SO serious/real-life-alike in commercial game :-)

Interesting you should say that...

but you WRONG.

Kornet ATGM isn't wire-guided.

[wolfbite 8]

Well various accounts including Jane's, U.S Military and German Military have said that Kontakt-5 was Impervious to M829 and various other older munitions.... That even after its been set off it still provides protection... Obv there are new rounds floating around to counter this....