T-80 vs M60

[DodgeME 0]

Which is better. Plz give me detail.

[Damage Inc 0]

Do you mean in OFP or in real life? In both case the T-80 is much better.

[teargas 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DodgeME @ Feb. 11 2002,21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which is better. Plz give me detail.<span id='postcolor'>

You should be comparing M1A1 vs T80.

Or M60 vs T55.

Otherwise it is like "beer vs wine".

Wine is actually stronger

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

OK.

Facts:

Main gun

T-80 125mm Smoothbore (some are capable of firing ATGM's)

M-60 105mm Rifled (Better firecontrol?)

Coaxial

T-80 PKT (Tank variation of PK) 7.62 mm

M-60 M240 7.62mm

AAMG

T-80 DsHK 12.7mm

M-60 M2 12.7mm

Weight

T-80 46t

M-60 60t

Speed

T-80 70km/h (about 44mph!!)

M-60 64km/h (30 mph)

Engine

T-80(B-model) gasturbine 1100hp

M-60 V-12 diesel 750 hp

Ammo

T-80 45 rounds

M-60 63 rounds

T-80 is smaller and has 3 men crew (Commander, Gunner and driver) while M-60 is bigger(at least higher) and has 4 men crew (Commander, driver, gunner and loader).

M-60 was designed at 60's while T-80 was developed from T-64 (not from T-72!!!) in 1976.

I'm not going to say which one is better. Both have "fors" and "againsts". Although I'd prefer to get my tank hide behind bushes and that 125mm smoothbore sounds promising...

[DodgeME 0]

Interesting. Also heard that M60 isn't so good on rough terrain.

[red oct 2]

yea during nam the M-60 had faults in it. so to correct the faults it wen through a serries of upgrades. today the only branch of service that uses the M-60 is the U.S. Marines. btw i didnt know that the M-60 was larger and heavier than the T-80. and i also didnt know that it had a crew of 4. i thought it had 3. does that mean the Abrams has a crew of 5?

[digitalcenturion 20]

Uh no i think abrahams has a crew of 3 or 4? Do the abrahams have an autoloader?

Oh and the T80 could whoop the M60A3 anyday...

[Stag 0]

Almost all western tanks have a crew of four. In OFP the loader isn't used; guess the job wouldn't be that exciting.

The autoloader has it's problems; at least on the T72, there were cases where it shoved the gunners arm up the spout and closed the breech...

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 12 2002,03:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yea during nam the M-60 had faults in it. so to correct the faults it wen through a serries of upgrades. today the only branch of service that uses the M-60 is the U.S. Marines. btw i didnt know that the M-60 was larger and heavier than the  T-80. and i also didnt know that it had a crew of 4. i thought it had 3. does that mean the Abrams has a crew of 5?<span id='postcolor'>

M1 and M1A1 have crew of 4 men, but M1A2 has better firecontrol and autoloader (crew of 3).

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 12 2002,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Almost all western tanks have a crew of four. In OFP the loader isn't used; guess the job wouldn't be that exciting.

The autoloader has it's problems; at least on the T72, there were cases where it shoved the gunners arm up the spout and closed the breech...<span id='postcolor'>

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

''Although I'd prefer to get my tank hide behind bushes and that 125mm smoothbore sounds promising... ''

I argued the T-80's superiority over the abrams in another forum once (i actually against all odds got the other people i was aginst to accept it even if the abrams is better) and apparently the 125mm on the T-80 has a much lower muzzle velocity than the 120mm on an abrams. is this true? i've not found out yet but i'd like to know

[Wobble 1]

yes, the abrams has a faster gun and the T-80 has a bigger one..  

but its not one is better than other thing.. they are designed for different things.. the T-80 is made to be as powerful as possable.. kill with one shot.. big heavy EXPLOSIVE... the soviets never have been to big on kinetic rounds.. so for them the bigger the barrel the better.. the expense of course is range and speed, the Abrams on the other hand is designed to really reach out and touch someone.. maximum range.. it favors the Sabot because it is thin and slices through the air better..so it can be used out to much greater range that a heavy bulky heat round.. the Abrams was not intended to really be a one shot one kill weapon.. but insted to be able to hit something and disable at farther range than it could be fire back at... but when they adopted the DU sabot they found that they could pretty much have the best of both worlds becuase the desnity of DU coupled with the very high velocity of the 120mm smoothbore can penetrate pretty much any modern MBT with one shot.. and if not will will certinley knock the wholly hell out of it..

the T-80 is designed for relativley close combat.. the abrams for a longer range.. both have VERY VERY good armor.. and nobody (civilain) knows enough about either to say which is better..

oh yea, smooth bord guns are better because they last longer, and the need for riflings is almost moot as most modern tank rounds  are fin stabalised anyway.

[Corp.Pihla 0]

Actually from historical point of view:

Russians in WW II desinged tanks to be used against infantry using big guns, high exlposives and machine guns. Which is still visible today.

In their code of armored warfare (in early WW II) there were mentioned that if a tank has to fight against tank there has been an error somewhere. They had AT infantry and guns for enemy tanks.

[Wobble 1]

good point.

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

First, the penetration on DU is not about density. DU is bizarre material because it sharpens when travelling through steel. At op. Desert Storm Abrams' main gun hit the front of T-72 and came out from engineblock!! It zoomed right through ENTIRE TANK!!! Distance about 2 km...

BTW, why would they use ATGMs for close combat? (T-80)

EVERY MBT is designed to be "one-shot-one-kill", why would they design them otherwise?! MBT is very expensive piece of machinery, why risk it?!

T-80 is designed for central-europe. There are lot of forrests and hills so firing ranges are short and small tank is a benefit.

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

Please refer also to:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/120.htm

[Chernaya Akula 0]

Someone saw, that the new russian MBT, the Nizhny Tagil New Main Battle Tank or T-95, 'll probally have a 152mm gun!!!

Somy info:

*Crew protection on the tank will be emphasized to a far greater degree than ever before in Russian tank designs. The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

*A unique drivetrain suspension system is being tested on this tank that to a certain extent extinguishes the hull vibrations and stabilizes its position.

*The tank still remains in Class 50 (i.e. it weighs 50 tons) and it shall have an even smaller silhouette than the modern Russian MBTs.

*The gun will be a 152mm smoothbore tank gun/ATGM launcher. The development of this system started as far back as end of the fifties for the heavy tanks (originally a rifled gun, probably M-69). The project was revived in the eighties and the gun was significantly redesigned. Even with ordinary powders a very high initial velocity of an APFSDS projectile is achieved. I could not, unfortunately, learn how the caliber increase is going to influence ammunition allowance and rate of fire.

*This gun shall be located in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull with no crew access to it. This is likely to increase survivability and lower the silhouette even further.

The fire control system will be multi-channel (optical + thermal + IR + laser + radar).

*The carousel autoloader goes away.

*According to plans the crew will consist of a 3 man combat structure and one mechanic (not unlike the air force crew structure), who will be responsible for vehicle maintenance and will reside in a battalion service and repair company.

-------------------

[Paynemaker 0]

M60 All the way

[DodgeME 0]

Damn mate that sounds very interesting. If they make such a tank it would take out anything with one shot

[Antichrist 0]

M60 is even worse than BMP

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ Feb. 12 2002,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M60 is even worse than BMP    <span id='postcolor'>

hehe. Not true.

[Jamesia 0]

I reckon the M60 is bollocks.

I love the BMP.

The BMP is the best tank in the game if you ask me.

[Wobble 1]

it might be a good tank in concept *maby) but given the russian economy I doubt they woul be willing to drop the cash needed to do the extensive R&D needed to really maximize its potental.... much less produce a sufficent number of them to make any sort of real paradigm shift of sorts..

as for that massive gun.. whats the point.. the bigger the gun gets the more its range decreases, the fewre rounds it holds, and the longer it takes to load..

if its like most russian tanks its not designed for a long range enguagment.. I.E. firing at shit from great distances.. but insted for the 1000m or less knife fights that take place in dens or hilly areas...

it would probably be 100% at home in a jungle or in a hilly area.. but on a plane or desert.. it would be a fat juicy target for the long range super accurate guns of the sort the Abrams and Challenger use..

Im suprised they even bother with tanks.. tanks are useless if you dont have total air supremacy... they are just targets.. no tank will ever have the armor to take a direct hit from todays standoff highly accurate missles and bombs.. tank survival under hostile airspace is a fantasy..

but seeing as how this design will probably never see the light of day aside from perhaps a few dozen prototypes.. no sense in arguing it..

and why are the russians so facinated with being able to shoot a missle from the main gun? you can pretty much fit any vehicle with a box launcher that has better capabilities, range and power than anything you can squirt out of that main gun.. its like doing it for the sake of doing it ?

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it might be a good tank in concept *maby) but given the russian economy I doubt they woul be willing to drop the cash needed to do the extensive R&D needed to really maximize its potental.... much less produce a sufficent number of them to make any sort of real paradigm shift of sorts..

as for that massive gun.. whats the point..  the bigger the gun gets the more its range decreases, the fewre rounds it holds, and the longer it takes to load..  

if its like most russian tanks its not designed for a long range enguagment.. I.E. firing at shit from great distances.. but insted for the 1000m or less knife fights that take place in dens or hilly areas...

it would probably be 100% at home in a jungle or in a hilly area.. but on a plane or desert.. it would be a fat juicy target for the long range super accurate guns of the sort the Abrams and Challenger use..

Im suprised they even bother with tanks.. tanks are useless if you dont have total air supremacy... they are just targets.. no tank will ever have the armor to take a direct hit from todays standoff highly accurate missles and bombs.. tank survival under hostile airspace is a fantasy..

but seeing as how this design will probably never see the light of day aside from perhaps a few dozen prototypes.. no sense in arguing it..

and why are the russians so facinated with being able to shoot a missle from the main gun? you can pretty much fit any vehicle with a box launcher that has better capabilities, range and power than anything you can squirt out of that main gun.. its like doing it for the sake of doing it  ?<span id='postcolor'>

While i agree with most of thsi you have to understand that there aren't many places in the world where there'll be long range fights with tanks, the middleeast, one or two european countries... All areas where the russians will no doubt play a non-active role. i doubt they can afford to launch attacks in areas such as iraq, and probably couldn't be arsed anyway as its pretty pointless.

A tank that can kill a tank in one shot at close range is probably better than a tank that can kill a tank with one or two shots from 10kms or whatever (don't bring up the gulf where we were bullying a few export T-72's and 55's with our snazzy abrams and challengers (and shitloads of missles and bombs from the air as well).

I doubt the T-95 will ever see the light of day, especially since its lack of ammo and range would severly shite'n up its image and chance of production, they've just got the T-90 which should be alright.

[Wobble 1]

with that telephone pole of a barrel manuevering around in a jungle would be kinda tricky.. would get snagged on everything.. even if they turned it wround..

there aren't many places in the world where there'll be long range fights with tanks, the middleeast, one or two european countries

good point.. but at close range I doubt neither the T-80/90 or the abrams would be able to functionally survive a hit from either.. at that close the energy especially from kinetic weapons (SABOT..etc) is much greater because they are still travelling at near muzzle velocity.. a round that migh just barley pierce a tank at 4000m migh go right through both sides at 1000m.. so both tanks would be pretty much dead meat if spotted first by the other.