equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[BasileyOne 10]

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....

thats why intel specialist will remain demanded and well-paid.

difference between "obviously"&"of course", "without doubts", "definitely", sure" and facts, between suggestions and exact numbers, between [important] prognosis and actual blueprints is mission-CRITICAL, definitive.

and of course, "my mommy was better !"-alike sentences will never disappear too, tnx. whatever context it had[tech, location, personality, whatever].

Edited April 20, 2011 by BasileyOne

[ricnunes 0]

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.

No, English is not my first language but Yes, it was tRend the word I want to use. According to an English online dicionary the word TRENDS means:

-the general course or prevailing tendency;

So the heavier a tank is the "prevailing tendency" is that will be more armoured. So yes, Trend seems to be the word that I wanted to use. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

This reply is both for you and for Baff1:

Are both of you saying or sugesting that an incress of something less that 1%of a tank overall size (to accomodate the "extra" internal empty space in Western tanks compared to the Russian tanks) means an incress of 50% of weight?? Yes because Russian tanks such as the T-72/80/90 which are in the 40 ton class weight less 20 ton than 60 ton class western tanks (such as the M1 Abrams) - That's simply NUTS!!!

Also notice that the M1 Abrams tank is made of Chobham composite armour which it's already lighter than a steel armour that composes most of the T-72/80/90 hull. This is one more evidence that the M1 Abrams (even the M1A1) is more armoured than a T-72/80/90 - The M1 Abrams uses a lighter armour, yet it's still much more heavier!

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...

I was only pointing out that your theory about the more internal space the heavier it is, it's not the justification for the vast diference of weight between a M1 Abrams and a T-72/80/90!

And as you point out there are things which contributes more to the incress of weight (much more than a small internal space incress), things such as main guns, incressed armour or even automatic gun loaders (which the western tanks lack, BTW).

I could also argue that, while the "incressed" internal space can somehow contribute to a SMALL incress in overall weight (see first part of this post), an automatic loader that the Russian tanks have (and not present in western tanks) will also incress the overall weight of a tank!

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 PM ----------

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....

thats why intel specialist will remain demanded and well-paid.

difference between "obviously and facts, between suggestions and exact numbers, between [important] prognosis and actual blueprints is mission-CRITICAL, definitive.

and of course, "my mommy was better !"-alike sentences will never disappear too, tnx. whatever context it had[tech, location, personality, whatever].

Those Jane's, U.S Military and German Military sources never said that the Kontakt-5 was Impervious to M829!! Do not misrepresent words. What those sources said was that the Kontakt-5 (which is an addon armour BTW) could defeat the M829A1 round fired at the tank front arc but that is a capability that the M1A1 tank (which doesn't have addon armour) always have! In fact M1A1 were hit by M829A1 (friendly fire incidents) during Desert Storm 1991 and stopped that round. This only proves that the M1A1 is more armoured than the T-72 and even than the T-90! Of course the M1A2 is even more armoured!

And of course the Kontakt-5 cannot defeat the M829A2 and M829A3 rounds which is what the current western tanks use!

[max power 21]

I'm pretty sure what you meant to say was tends. In english you can say something trends towards something but not trends to do something.

Here's a dictionary definition of tends to help convince you:

Verb

tend (third-person singular simple present tends, present participle tending, simple past and past participle tended)

[..]

3. (followed by a to infinitive) To be likely, or probable to do something, or to have a certain characteristic.

They tend to go out on Saturdays.

It tends to snow here in winter.

[Beagle 684]

And of course the Kontakt-5 cannot defeat the M829A2 and M829A3 rounds which is what the current western tanks use!

Most western (including Turkish) tanks use DM53-A1 or DM63 not any M8xx. The M8xx is an US ammunition and not used by most european armies due to a ban of using DU ammunitions. Edited April 19, 2011 by Beagle

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Those Jane's, U.S Military and German Military sources never said that the Kontakt-5 was Impervious to M829!!

Really?

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.

"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.

Of course Kontakt-5 is obsolete now, the M829A2 and A3 can defeat it easily.

Also notice that the M1 Abrams tank is made of Chobham composite armour which it's already lighter than a steel armour that composes most of the T-72/80/90 hull. This is one more evidence that the M1 Abrams (even the M1A1) is more armoured than a T-72/80/90 - The M1 Abrams uses a lighter armour, yet it's still much more heavier!

Russia had the Chobham equivalent even in the '60s. You heard of the "composite K" armor? The T-64 in 1962 had the same protection level as the M1. (1980-84 variant) In fact the M1A1 is less armored than even the T-55AM and T-62M tanks. The M1A1HA was the first drastic improvement, but its protection was still inferior to the late T-72B and the T-80U.

Try to read russian sources too!

[wolfbite 8]

Lazarus beat me to its That is the very quote I saw....

Also sources say that 6 Abrams were put out of service due to friendly fire with DU several of these were from other abrams... and some were from A-10's

I'm not trying to say Russian tanks are invincible but this weird notion that they are just lambs to the slaughter because of the poor performance of their export and foreign license built copies has no reflection on the Russian ones...

And even though Russia is Offering T-90's for foreign sales they are very different from the Russian ones as always as they use more non Russian technologies within them to keep customers happy... So they cant be used as direct examples either...

[Beagle 684]

And even though Russia is Offering T-90's for foreign sales they are very different from the Russian ones as always as they use more non Russian technologies within them to keep customers happy... So they cant be used as direct examples either...

I guess they can, thats because russia changed the policy of delivering downgraded technology to foreign customers due to the overall harder competion on the market...in fact some of the export models can even be better than the russían ones. (for examkle the T-90s with Thales made TI and CITV.)

Currebtly I simply dont see a T-90 surviving 7 RPG (type) hits and still beeing operational in ArmA as it happens in Dagestan 1999.

Even the underpowered PG-7V in ArmA will make a T-90 unoperational. Compared to BMP-2 a T-90 in arma is only twice as "strong".

A BMP-2 RL has to be considered as a really thin skined vehicle....33mm maximum steel armour...simply 33mm that's not a RHA equivalent...thats really useless in this light armour class. But still it will survive a hit from a T-55...this shows how messed up the whole armour aspect is.

The Western APCs on the other side cruise aroudn the maps like light tanks, taking lots of RPGs and even MBT rounds still going on.

The whole armour aspect of ArmA is indeed exremely biased.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Beagle

[BasileyOne 10]

Russia ships not "downgraded" technology, but "adapted". to customers training, maintenance, upgrade, application/deployment specific/requirement.

aside NBC-protection-related stuff, Russia can offer stock versions, but high doubts about ability/neccesity of efficient use my most consumers render this option "Auxilary". also, stock version, noticeably more expensive, which have negative impact on customers enthusias, addicted to bargain prices of Rusian armaments.

sure, Arma2 ratio was felt victim of NATO Pr/PsyOps efforts by BIS developers[brainwashed by space Aliens, hired by CIA? :P]

same was about aircrafts, esp choppers: Kamov 2x-3x times more precise, LR, maneurable, 10x more survivable and had other advantages[less signatures, fuel efficency], in Arma2 look like piece of ..., esp against Hind or West choppers, both of which he can down in two seconds, during duels[for example].

Edited April 20, 2011 by BasileyOne

[king homer 1]

Currebtly I simply dont see a T-90 surviving 7 RPG (type) hits and still beeing operational in ArmA as it happens in Dagestan 1999.

Even the underpowered PG-7V in ArmA will make a T-90 unoperational.

The bigger the damage value the easier a tank will be defeated in Arma. It's just plain subtraction. Simple as that.

[maturin 12]

same was about aircrafts, esp choppers: Kamov 2x-3x times more precise, LR, maneurable, 10x more survivable and had other advantages[less signatures, fuel efficency], in Arma2 look like piece of ..., esp against Hind or West choppers, both of which he can down in two seconds, during duels[for example].

Nonsense. In things besides tanks, the Russians come out on top in Arma 2.

They get a fire-and-forget Metis that works just fine from the shoulder, Tunguska vs. Avenger, SU-34 vs F-35 and the KA-52? You may say it's weak, but I suppose you haven't noticed that its Vikhr missiles (of which it has so damn many) travel somewhere near the speed of light, shoot down aircraft better than Sidewinders and COME BACK to hit the target again when they miss. All this with a weapons system that is supposed to be quantity over quality.

[Amra 10]

Currebtly I simply dont see a T-90 surviving 7 RPG (type) hits and still beeing operational in ArmA as it happens in Dagestan 1999.

As far as I know (from open sources) T-90 was never used on battlefields. Are you sure you're talking about T-90, not T-80?

[maturin 12]

As far as I know (from open sources) T-90 was never used on battlefields. Are you sure you're talking about T-90, not T-80?

Or whatever. T-72s are on record surviving dozens (more than seven) of RPGs just like the Abrams is.

They've also been disabled or destroyed by 30mm and 23mm autocannons.

[Amra 10]

Or whatever. T-72s are on record surviving dozens (more than seven) of RPGs just like the Abrams is.

They've also been disabled or destroyed by 30mm and 23mm autocannons.

I'm just tired of all that mystifications about T-90. "I saw T-90 that killed 10 tanks, 2 choppers and plane, received an ICBM hit and moved back to base on his own in Dagestan". When tank (or IFV) survives several RPG hits it usually means those hits were indirect. And nothing more.

[Ollie1983 10]

Lol!! Okay so the reports about M1s having extreme difficulty in destroying their own disabled vehicles, are all rubbish then? The Russian MBTs suddenly are invulnerable to Sabots, yadda yadda yadda, M1s must be pants because they were lit up by A10s...

Put it simply. There is no armoured vehicle in existance that could take a salvo from the A10s GAU, being attacked from the top, not the front or the side, puts all armoured vehicles at a disadvantage. The same can be said of Hellfire and Maverick type weapons, both of which are huge and rather heavier than a mere tank shell.

I am in no doubt that a T72 even an early version could withstand RPG hits, the uprated versions, even more so. As reports in Iraq etc have stated M1s and Challengers and also Warriors were being hit by DOZENS of RPGs with no major damage, the ratio of vehicles hit and their number of hits were tiny compared to the number actually knocked out or killed. The T72 or above models must be similarly resistant or otherwise Nato armies would deploy hand held ATGMs more readily- they don't. Because you can't equip an infantryman with anything really heavy enough the Javelin only works by attacking top armour.

[Beagle 684]

As far as I know (from open sources) T-90 was never used on battlefields. Are you sure you're talking about T-90, not T-80?

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestankrieg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1778&catid=244

Just because you do not know does not mean it never was.

[Ollie1983 10]

You have to excuse me for laughing, but do you really think a website with the prefix .ru might be a wholly impartial source of information about the performance of Russian military equipment?:D

And Wiki, the Dagestan war thing, not a lot mentioned there about the T-90 mate.

[Beagle 684]

You have to excuse me for laughing, but do you really think a website with the prefix .ru might be a wholly impartial source of information about the performance of Russian military equipment?:D

And Wiki, the Dagestan war thing, not a lot mentioned there about the T-90 mate.

Information about this kind is hard to get, so some info is better than none. Not all warfaring nations have the same kind of puclic relation department as the US.

On the .ru side you can see that 12 T-90 where deployed in Dagestan while the encounter took place and since im not the secret service or have active spies in moscow right now I can't provide better sources. Russian sources are in now way more or less believable as US ones...all authorities are deceivers these days since politics is nothing esle as mass deception.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Beagle

[Ollie1983 10]

Oh right. So a Russian website reporting the performance of Russian equipment, you would say this has the same gravity as say Janes?

[Beagle 684]

Oh right. So a Russian website reporting the performance of Russian equipment, you would say this has the same gravity as say Janes?

How can I know but I tend to say "Yes". The western defense industry has as much a reputation for aggrandizement as the russians.

Back in the cold war we in the west received the same kind of Propaganda as the soviets, thats for sure, why should this have stoped now...the internet is the biggest propaganda mashine that ever existed.

[king homer 1]

Don't feed the trolls Beagle...

[nkenny 1057]

You have to excuse me for laughing, but do you really think a website with the prefix .ru might be a wholly impartial source of information about the performance of Russian military equipment?:D

And Wiki, the Dagestan war thing, not a lot mentioned there about the T-90 mate.

Yes this is true. In fact russians are all liars and have for years been deceiving the west! Detailed picture analysis has proven that Russian tanks are in fact made of stacked cardboard and powered only by cheap Italian FIAT car engines. Yesterday when I was wanking to a picture of a M1 Abrams tank it all came to me. Russia doesn't actually exist! Its all a lie created by the filthy Euros to have expensive superior American military forces deployed there to protect them from ehh err Germany! yes Germany!

All this years you've been tricked! There never was an ironcurtain nor a humongous industrial, military, and political coalition in the east. Its all tent camps and horses. I'd say this qualifies as proof of a massive cover up and I'd NEVER been able to figure it out! Its all thanks to you Ollie1983.

-k

[max power 21]

Yesterday when I was wanking to a picture of a M1 Abrams tank it all came to me.

Hahaha. I bet.

[Beagle 684]

Yesterday when I was wanking to a picture of a M1 Abrams tank it all came to me.

Thats nothing, I'ven seen guys wanking, pissing and vomiting INSIDE of a Leopard II.

[Ollie1983 10]

You do have some peculiar views mate.

There is a simple reason why Western designers had to to be very specific and careful with their claims about their products, not least because their competitors (IE other western companies) were trying to sell similar equipment and any illegitimate claim would be torn to pieces very quickly, which looks bad to your customers when you are trying to sell them multibillion dollar defence projects....

I'm going to have to admit I had a great laugh at your .RU website and your claims it was as equally valid in subject matter and evidence when compared to Janes- an international organisaton of certified experts who use verified data and sources. Unlike some Soviet fanboi website written by a collection of guys all dreaming of the resurgence of the soviet union...

[dm 9]

There is a simple reason why Western designers had to to be very specific and careful with their claims about their products, not least because their competitors (IE other western companies) were trying to sell similar equipment and any illegitimate claim would be torn to pieces very quickly

Oh how naïve you are... :j:

The "west" is full of just as much bullshit as the "east" when it comes to mil-specs...