American tanks

[Cloney 0]

Cloney, with a little better ammo than Iraqis really had (early 70`s) their fire would be more efficient.  I heard about seven American M1A1`s hit by T72 (one or more times), in most cases direct hit with newer projectile than BM12 would cause real "Abramscide" (in day fight when both side see each other).

It's better when they can't see you coming, why would we make the fight fair anyway?

[Acecombat 0]

Cloney, with a little better ammo than Iraqis really had (early 70`s) their fire would be more efficient.  I heard about seven American M1A1`s hit by T72 (one or more times), in most cases direct hit with newer projectile than BM12 would cause real "Abramscide" (in day fight when both side see each other).

It's better when they can't see you coming, why would we make the fight fair anyway?

So that i can umpire properly?

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Cloney, Iraqis` T72 failed to deal with M1A1 becouse of many factors. Old optics, no NV devices, many times worse armour plus less experienced crews plus this, plus that... made T72s prey of M1A1s.

But the same tanks with better, no almost medieval ammo would destroy those seven M1A1s, about which I mentioned above.

[bucket man 2]

Actually those T-72's that iraqis used werent really T-72's but cheap iraqi copy of them. They only looked like T-72 but didnt have any other common thing with the russian T-72.

The real thing would survive much better in fight against M1A1.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Really? Looks like a tank but it`s only a model?

Well, that what I know is that Iraqis T72 were Czechoslovakian, Russian and Polish build tanks (high quality of course ;)). Old, let said it laud, models T72A/M1 if I remember, with no T72B`s Super Dolly Parton armour... and, again, with very, very old and obsolete ammo. But if you have another info please show me your sources.

Conclusion is correct, Iraqis T72 in 1991 conditions were no match for superior and better used M1A1.

[DracoPaladore 0]

If I remember correctly, the Iraqi's also made most of their own T72's using a certain method of making the armour. I think it was a method of using rolled steel or something like that, but it was not as effective and not very well made as well as lacking good resources. The Russians make them toughter, from what I hear. Russians I beleive also have more resources to draw upon than Iraq.

I think the company in Iraq that made their tanks was called Asad Babyl or something like that.

I remember reading this info online, also alot of it off hand from hearing Sigma slam somebody.

[ag_smith 0]

AFAIK Asad Babyl ("Lion of the Babylon") is name for one of Iraqi's T72 version.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Oh.

Well, I'm sure a bigger armour buff have their own facts compared to my measly word of mouth stuff.

[Gollum1 0]

@Cloney: "tell it to the iraqis, hahaha"? Read it again, he didn't say it was a shit tank, he said it didn't match up to modern tanks.

Would the Iraqis disagree? Why?

Their "modern" tanks weren't able to even knock one out.

Am I getting through? They didn't have any modern tanks.

Not even close. Did they tell you that and you believed them?

[Cloney 0]

@Cloney: "tell it to the iraqis, hahaha"? Read it again, he didn't say it was a shit tank, he said it didn't match up to modern tanks.

Would the Iraqis disagree? Why?

Their "modern" tanks weren't able to even knock one out.

Am I getting through? They didn't have any modern tanks.

Not even close. Did they tell you that and you believed them?  

So, maybe not modern compared to the M1 but how come they couldn't knock out any M60 tanks that the Marines were using at that time? The T-72 is a much newer tank than that one.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

@Cloney: "tell it to the iraqis, hahaha"? Read it again, he didn't say it was a shit tank, he said it didn't match up to modern tanks.

Would the Iraqis disagree? Why?

Their "modern" tanks weren't able to even knock one out.

Am I getting through? They didn't have any modern tanks.

Not even close. Did they tell you that and you believed them?  

So, maybe not modern compared to the M1 but how come they couldn't knock out any M60 tanks that the Marines were using at that time? The T-72 is a much newer tank than that one.

Heard about some situation when M60 were facing T72 and T72`s projectiles failed to penetrate "American" armour? I do not know any situation like that... maybe happened.

Asad Babyl is a Iraq build T72M1, but Iraqis army were not equipped only with those tanks. Many others were build far from Tigris and Eufrat.

All of T72 type`s (independly from place of build) armour failed to protect vehicles from M829 hit.

[Gollum1 0]

@Cloney: "tell it to the iraqis, hahaha"? Read it again, he didn't say it was a shit tank, he said it didn't match up to modern tanks.

Would the Iraqis disagree? Why?

Their "modern" tanks weren't able to even knock one out.

Am I getting through? They didn't have any modern tanks.

Not even close. Did they tell you that and you believed them?

So, maybe not modern compared to the M1 but how come they couldn't knock out any M60 tanks that the Marines were using at that time? The T-72 is a much newer tank than that one.

Read the thread. Basically, the Iraqi T-72 only looks like a T-72, otherwise it's inferior. Also, you're not taking massive M60 upgrades into account.

EDIT: I think it was explained even more thoroughly in the DKM Black Eagle tank thread.

EDIT2: You said it yourself, it's not just the tank that determines the survivability. I'm confused, what are you arguing for?

[Cloney 0]

@Cloney: "tell it to the iraqis, hahaha"? Read it again, he didn't say it was a shit tank, he said it didn't match up to modern tanks.

Would the Iraqis disagree? Why?

Their "modern" tanks weren't able to even knock one out.

Am I getting through? They didn't have any modern tanks.

Not even close. Did they tell you that and you believed them?  

So, maybe not modern compared to the M1 but how come they couldn't knock out any M60 tanks that the Marines were using at that time? The T-72 is a much newer tank than that one.

Read the thread. Basically, the Iraqi T-72 only looks like a T-72, otherwise it's inferior. Also, you're not taking massive M60 upgrades into account.

EDIT: I think it was explained even more thoroughly in the DKM Black Eagle tank thread.

EDIT2: You said it yourself, it's not just the tank that determines the survivability. I'm confused, what are you arguing for?

I'm confused what we're arguing abot LOL.

[Cloney 0]

Sigma's M-60A3s get wiped out by equal numbers of RHS T-55s... hmm.

[Gollum1 0]

LOL Cloney

Well, whatever it is, I'm right and you know it!

[stgn 39]

I have a question why is the only one cover plate for the Abrams aiming device as fare as I know it have two.

STGN

[Przezdzieblo 0]

STGN, has it two? Do you mean M1A2 leader`s CITV?

[Cloney 0]

Talk about a total nitpick hahaha.

[E.rommel 0]

the botton of the turret is black!!I hope someone fix it!!!

[stgn 39]

STGN, has it two? Do you mean M1A2 leader`s CITV?

NO as on the pic, you see where what the gunner aims whit and as you can see It has som "coverplates" too protect it when you aren't using it or from gun fire. And the Abrams has two of these coverplates but on Sigmas there are only one and I think thats ashame.

STGN

[ag_smith 0]

Edit: Never mind...

[dm 9]

Nope. What you see on the pic, is a CITV (Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer). That's no gunner's sight.

Actually, you'll find that the optics in the picture STGN posted IS the gunners sight, and it DOES have 2 cover plates in real life.

Behind it you see the Commanders Hatch, the CITV is off to the far right of the turret (as you look at it in that pic), and is not actually in that picture at all.

Please get your facts right before making such sweeping statements

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Ok, I did not read cerefully and thought the question is about sights, not its cover plates... So I think STGN`s statement is simple - there is something to fix.

My questions are still about system of battle damage and too strong, in my oppinion, the newest M1A2`s/T80`s/T90 maind gun ammo.

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]P.S. Another thing. Ballistic of 2A46M looks better than 120 mm Rheinmetall. Both guns are comparable, there would not be any percetible difference, but there is

There's a substantial difference. . . several actually. . .

1. The 2A46 is rifled, the Rheinmetall 120mm is smoothbore

2. The 2A46' sabot ammo has several fin-contact points, the 120mm smoothbore's sabot rounds' fins do not contact the barrel.

both of these differences (and there are more, but these are primary) have a *substantial* effect on the single key factor in an APFSDS round's penetration rate (as in, the one that can display the largest variance) :

inflight stability. The 120mm's APFSDS rounds are substantially more stable. For this reason, the rounds don't have to be as well manufactured to achieve fantastic penetration. Beyond that, the main problem both of these barrels have is that they are both too short. The Ukranians have extended the 2A46 with excellent results (increased stability) and the Germans have done so with the Rheinmetall also with excellent results).

I'm concerned nonetheless with the fact that you're using my old T-90 set. Please save the (well taken) critique until the RHS version is released. Much has changed.

On top of that, the question you have about an M829E3 penetrating a T-90. . . I feel that it is important to establish that you must be careful which tanks you use. If you choose an M1A2 with the E3, you're getting the newest SEP with the ammo round that has not yet been fielded. Form the information that I have, the E3 will easily penetrate a T-90S from the front (especially since the K5 only covers 60% of that aspect), whereas on a T-90M this is more doubtful.

A more equal battle for the T-90S might be the 2003 M1A1. This is much more common.

In any case, I respect your concerns, but it's well known that the *latest* (and you're using the latest) APFSDS rounds have slightly outpaced armour development.

There are a number of other issues that have been brought up here. . . (the M-60 vs. T-55 one, for example. . . hehe. . . use your crews properly, and if you're concerned about that matchup, read about the Arab-Israeli wars. The M1 (and the DU sabot) was designed partly to mitigate problems encountered by M60 tanks engaging the T-54/55 series.)

I plan to do one update, and I'll take into account as many of your issues as I can. I've been busy recently (just moved 2500km) so I don't know what time I have.

[dm 9]

In any case, I respect your concerns, but it's well known that the *latest* (and you're using the latest) APFSDS rounds have slightly outpaced armour development.

Out of interest, how CAN you update a "simple" dense DU/Tungsten bar? Isn't it like re-inventing the wheel?