T-80 vs M60

[Blink Dog 0]

A good book on the subject from Osprey books is : Tank War Central front Nato vs. Warsaw Pact. It was written about 1988 just before the cold war ended. In it it points out little tangibles like crew training and extra equipment on Nato tanks. check out your local library , it may be out of print since it is dated but it is a good book none the less.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,02:56)</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'>

The advantage of a missile is that you can correct aiming errors in mid flight, and hence is more accurate. If it makes you feel any better, the US got there first in the 1960's with their 152mm Shellelagh weapons system, fitted to the M551 Sheridan and M60A2.

Problem was it didn't work very well for the US. I wonder how well the Russians have managed to debug the concept?

[Wobble 1]

yea.. buy why bother shooting missles from the tank gun itself when you could simply mount a nice box launcher on it?

[Stag 0]

Keep a low silhouette? Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire? Cost? You can reload the gun internally, but have to sick your head up in a shooting gallery to reload external boxes?

Take your pick

[sgtdwetzel 0]

Panzer Jaeger.....

I'm just curious about where you get your information.....specifically about the M1A2 having an autoloader. Funny......the M1A2's I have been on have the normal Western style of a 4 man crew...just like the M1A1, M1IP, and slick M1's I have been on......

Good info on the use of DU....that is the other reason why we use DU besides cost.....Tungsten is a HELL of a lot more expensive than spent nuclear fuel...

Not bustin you on the 3 man crew thing....just clarifying...

[Wobble 1]

Keep a low silhouette?

get the typical fold up one.. it lies parallel with the turret and the flips un when ready to fire..

Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire?

if they are that cheap they will never get anywhere

Cost?

what costs more? mounting a simple already designed effective missle system to the tank.. or having to reasearch and develop a new weapon?

You can reload the gun internally, but have to sick your head up in a shooting gallery to reload external boxes?

well there are usually about 4 rounds per box.. so if you need to fire 4 missles so fast that you have no chance to reload and haven managed to get away or win with yer main gun.. your in a world of trouble.

what about:

missle ammo that takes up valuable space INSIDE the tank.. box ammo can be mounted on the exterior strapped on in its cases,.

total lack of use of main gun when firing.. when using a box you could enguage 2 targets.. one with gun, one with missle..

POWER.. most box launcher's missle are much larger than the slimmed down ones that have to fit the relativley samll tank barrel.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

The M1A2 doesnt have an autoloader.They did when they tested it but it got deleted from the tank cause it was just to costly,more work, alittle more slower then a human loader (takes bout 3 sec to load)plus a human loaders arm is more reliable then some mechanical devices which could brake down in combat.A human loader has more advantages then a autoloader.But the M1A2 is ranked as the worlds best MBT(main battle tank).With Challenger or some european tank ranked 2nd.

[Wobble 1]

please dont say the M1A2 is the best.. even if it is true you will incur a shit storm of wrath from all corners of the earty... your supposed to say the M1A2, challenger and whatever other PC tanks are all tied..

j/k.. I dont think its fair to say any 1 tank is better than the rest because:

A: most of the stuff that we would REALLY need to know to pass accurate judgment is classified.

B: different tanks are build for different enviroments, different terrains..etc... so many are an apple/orange comparison..

anyone disagree.... BITCH!

[christophercles 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 12 2002,17:12)</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'>

The first thing suddam did when he bought his 72's was to take out the auto loader and replace it with another crew member. He actually did SOMETHING right! even if he did send them up against m1a1's.....

[christophercles 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Feb. 13 2002,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I reckon the M60 is bollocks.

I love the BMP.

The BMP is the best tank in the game if you ask me.<span id='postcolor'>

the bmp isnt a tank, its an ifv, like the bradley.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ Feb. 12 2002,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M1A2 doesnt have an autoloader.They did when they tested it but it got deleted from the tank cause it was just to costly,more work, alittle more slower then a human loader (takes bout 3 sec to load)plus a human loaders arm is more reliable then some mechanical devices which could brake down in combat.A human loader has more advantages then a autoloader.But the M1A2 is ranked as the worlds best MBT(main battle tank).With Challenger or some european tank ranked 2nd.<span id='postcolor'>

Oooo! Now you've done it!

http://www.vickers.co.uk/

http://www.vickers.co.uk/rt001.htm

http://www.vickers.co.uk/ftalks/98_summer/rt-k.htm

http://www.cthesis.com/politics/0700/p_605_37.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/

http://company.monster.co.uk/vickeruk/products.html

But since Challenger 2 has not fought its rivals, all is merely academic.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keep a low silhouette?

get the typical fold up one.. it lies parallel with the turret and the flips un when ready to fire..<span id='postcolor'>

Wherever and however you bung those boxes, it is going to add bulk.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire?

if they are that cheap they will never get anywhere <span id='postcolor'>

Conservstive guess, Å40,000 a missile (quite cheap) in a lightly armoured box which could be easily damaged by fragments?

Cost?

what costs more? mounting a simple already designed effective missle system to the tank.. or having to reasearch and develop a new weapon?

The Russkis have been using their 125mm gun since the early 70's at least. Once it's there, it's there. it costs X per unit after development. A basic gun tube costs slightly less than X, but then to put the missiles abourd you pay X plus Y. To give those weapons any degree of protection, you are going to at least do some research into the best place and method of storage. Then when the next generation AFV comes along, you may well have to do it again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can reload the gun internally, but have to sick your head up in a shooting gallery to reload external boxes?[/b

well there are usually about 4 rounds per box.. so if you need to fire 4 missles so fast that you have no chance to reload and haven managed to get away or win with yer main gun.. your in a world of trouble.

]<span id='postcolor'>

Think the best, prepare for the worst.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what about:

missle ammo that takes up valuable space INSIDE the tank.. box ammo can be mounted on the exterior strapped on in its cases,.<span id='postcolor'>

A good point, but:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">total lack of use of main gun when firing.. when using a box you could enguage 2 targets.. one with gun, one with missle..<span id='postcolor'>

Meaning the fitting of two seperate fire control systems. granted, one could be allocated to the commander, but then there's the matter of added cost to the MBT in general. Also, when ANY large calibre weapon kicks off, there is a hell of a recoil. What would that do to missile lock?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">POWER.. most box launcher's missle are much larger than the slimmed down ones that have to fit the relativley samll tank barrel.<span id='postcolor'>

Which brings you back to the silhoutte thing, which is quite important, when the new buzzword is stealth.

[Guest Scooby]

It is easy to make decoys and hide equipment from enemy airstrikes unless you are fighting on desert. Doesnt take many minutes to drive tank into dug in position and camouflage it so that it is impossible to detect. Especially when fighting in dense forests such as we have here in Finland you wont be able to detect equipment from air that well.

Just take alook at what happened when NATO bullied to Mr. Milo. First NATO reported that they had done alot of damage to their equipment but later on small correcting reports were published through media where they stated that great amount of destroyed targets were infact decoy targets.

What comes to turret getting stuck at trees that tree which is going to stop turret from rotating has to be quite thick tree. Tanks turret has enough power to swing over fairly ok sized trees.

I'm not in favor of fitting too much of equipment to outside of tank because shrapnels, etc will destroy everything outside of tank fairly easily.

In general it bothers me when people always seem to forget infantry and always put tanks only against other tanks or mostly go as far as placing them against airstrikes... Other issue is that most of the people, especially Americans(sorry for generalization) seem to have some sort of fetish of tank battles always happening at desert, mostly forgetting other areas where other aspects than firing range are in more value.

I've got alot of other things in my mind but I'm in hurry to go to gym now. More of my twisted thoughs after that...

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 13 2002,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

yeah i agree totally, unlike what some people say i think that the abrams would be able to survive more than one hit. While muzzle velocity of this T-95 will most likely be a problem the prospect of a 152mm DU round is no doubt gonna scare the pants of any tank crew it faces

Because of a higher calibre it'll no doubt have much more impact on the tank crew itself, which could disable it by totally fucking up the crew. It's the same case with the abrams/challenger 2'leopard 2 but i think the T-95 would have a much easier time with it. A round of that size may be necessary to negate the effects or chobham armor, which would be incredibly useful indeed, considering that chances are if NATO are involved in any conflict with tanks it'll be abrams and challengers (possibly leopard 2 but i doubt given germanys state, dunno about the many other operators of it though)

[Oligo 1]

</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'>

Which is an urban legend. They have a protective plate next to the gunners right arm (not shown in OFP) preventing the autoloader snatching the hand of the poor gunner.

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ Feb. 13 2002,05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M1A2 doesnt have an autoloader.They did when they tested it but it got deleted from the tank cause it was just to costly,more work, alittle more slower then a human loader (takes bout 3 sec to load)plus a human loaders arm is more reliable then some mechanical devices which could brake down in combat.A human loader has more advantages then a autoloader.But the M1A2 is ranked as the worlds best MBT(main battle tank).With Challenger or some european tank ranked 2nd.<span id='postcolor'>

The whole thing is debatable

i've seen programs that say the leopard2 is the best

then others that say the challenger 2 is

none that say the abrams is but say its a nice snazzy bit of kit anyway

and none that say the leclerc either

there is no definitive system that ranks these pieces of kit top trumps style.

I personally say the challenger 2 would be best, cos of its wicked gun, all that armor and some snazzy technology (and its british, i must say this )

I'd say the leopard 2 has the mobility to beat both of them though, the challenger has the armor and the gun, while the abrams has lots of nice computer screens. Not being anti american but it just seems to me the abrams only beats its european competitors in the snazzy extra cosmetics, otherwise it doesn't stand out as being the best armored, most mobile, most cost effective MBT there is (although granted the challenger 2 hasn't seen any action yet, and its really expensive as well)

[Stag 0]

That info is about 20-30 years old. If I remember correctly, it was in a book called "The Threat." In those days there was a belief that Russian kit was immeasureably superior to western gear. When that book appeared, it stuck a few pins on the over-inflated picture. Given the age of the info, I'm not surprised steps would have been taken to prevent it from happening.

[KingBeast 0]

I think when talking about tanks, even more importantly than anything else you shoudl think about the effectiveness of the tank next to the cost and production time.

No good having some snazzy computerised Iron Beast that takes an age to produce and costs more than entire budget of a small european country

[Corp.Pihla 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 13 2002,14:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">total lack of use of main gun when firing.. when using a box you could enguage 2 targets.. one with gun, one with missle..<span id='postcolor'>

Meaning the fitting of two seperate fire control systems. granted, one could be allocated to the commander, but then there's the matter of added cost to the MBT in general. Also, when ANY large calibre weapon kicks off, there is a hell of a recoil. What would that do to missile lock?<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, nice thought to target two targets at same time, but I would allso like meet the gunner who can do that...

Now, I'm talking about BMP-2:

I was wondering, how can you aim with 2A42 (30mm autocanon) and AT-5 at same time since they have seperated fire control systems...

(AT-5 is desinged to be able to be removed, if needed to be used for instance, by crew when BMP it self is eighter burning or left to cower...)

So, even when 30mm doesn't kick off a bit, it would be impossible to fire the gun and missile at same time...

Oh, I just remembered... They CAN'T be launched at same time, due to system wich prevents missile to be launched when gun isn't at its lowest point...

[teargas 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 13 2002,05:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keep a low silhouette?

get the typical fold up one.. it lies parallel with the turret and the flips un when ready to fire..

Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire?

if they are that cheap they will never get anywhere

Cost?

what costs more? mounting a simple already designed effective missle system to the tank.. or having to reasearch and develop a new weapon?

[skipped]<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, tank expert.

Didn't you ever think about why tanks have just one gun barrel although there are usually place enough to settle couple more?

Didn't you ever think to remove turret entirely and just put AT soldier under hatch so that he would stand up when needed?

Didn't you ever think why subbarel grenade launcher for M16 requiers partial rifle reassemby and weight much while GP could be attached to AK in a seconds and does not require shell removal after grenade shot?

Listen, those things are beyond yours and mine understanding. Those things designed in that way 'cos designers had guts and reasons to design them as they are.

I would lower my temperament and not reply in way I've done, but you ignorant enough to not just ask why but argue about something beyound your understanding. Learn if you want to know *why* but don't put an empty words just because you can't grasp *why*

[Wobble 1]

Listen, those things are beyond yours and mine understanding. Those things designed in that way 'cos designers had guts and reasons to design them as they are.

then dont call me and idiot and say you know better.

I would lower my temperament and not reply in way I've done, but you ignorant enough to not just ask why but argue about something beyound your understanding

I was asking why... why this? why not that? I never said they were dumb or stupid.. I just dont understand their decision.. you got a problem with that? tough shit.

Learn if you want to know *why* but don't put an empty words just because you can't grasp *why*

why do you think im am asking here?.. lots of people here know lots about this shit (yourself not included)

and if you want to bitch and moan at someoby... pic someone who gives a shit about your rant.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (teargas @ Feb. 13 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keep a low silhouette?

get the typical fold up one.. it lies parallel with the turret and the flips un when ready to fire..

Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire?

if they are that cheap they will never get anywhere

Cost?

what costs more? mounting a simple already designed effective missle system to the tank.. or having to reasearch and develop a new weapon?

[skipped]<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, tank expert.

Didn't you ever think about why tanks have just one gun barrel although there are usually place enough to settle couple more?

Didn't you ever think to remove turret entirely and just put AT soldier under hatch so that he would stand up when needed?

Didn't you ever think why subbarel grenade launcher for M16 requiers partial rifle reassemby and weight much while GP could be attached to AK in a seconds and does not require shell removal after grenade shot?

Listen, those things are beyond yours and mine understanding. Those things designed in that way 'cos designers had guts and reasons to design them as they are.

I would lower my temperament and not reply in way I've done, but you ignorant enough to not just ask why but argue about something beyound your understanding. Learn if you want to know *why* but don't put an empty words just because you can't grasp *why*<span id='postcolor'>

Up to now, we've been enjoying a decent discussion. By all means, field an opinion on what you think; I would be interested. Or don't you have an opinion, just a sucking attitude?

[PLRSniper 3]

Why u have Bush pic ?? Bush sux...

[Wobble 1]

Why u have Bush pic ?? Bush sux

because hes a Texan like me, and I think he is funny. and everyone picks on him.. ya know.. Wobble's gotta stick up for the little guy....

why you have a badge in yer avatar? cops suck, they are all corrupt and racist.

[PLRSniper 3]

Yeah... but in "USA", Some people say that Bush is stupid...and say that when Osama attacks WTC goverment people tell to Bush AL Caeda do that and Bush doesn't Know what's Al Caeda...