T-90.t94

[Satchel 0]

You can only compare based upon technical data, well unless you´ve operated both vehicles yourself...what hardly will be the case.

Of course every forum member thinks his country has the best equipment and best trained personal, that´s normal and the usual exaggeration normally rises parallel to a posters national fanatism, but in the end it says very little.

A third world war never happened, where western equipment would have fought against that of the eastern block, so everything comes down to speculation.

All soviet era based equipment the NATO had fought against, were export models from the former Soviet union, means with stripped down features and mostly badly trained personal  operating them without any supportive troops.

Without supportive troops all odds are against a unit, it´s a very delicate chain, if it´s interruptet the combat machinery can´t work at full efficiancy and you will find yourself struggling for survival and rather react to whats coming next, than to have the initiative to conduct large scale offensive maneuvers.

Without air superioty and supportive troops the best tank or ground equipment is near worthless, a lesson learned from the 2nd WW. Without air superioty DDay would have never become possible, as  bombing raids of the 8th USAAF to destroy the german  industry would have never become possible.  

In Iraq for example there were about a handful of Mig-29 fighters against 100´s of coalition Fighter A/C, none of the MIG-29´s were destroyed in aerial combat according to terms, they were either destroyed on the ground or while the iraqys were trying to transit them over the border to avoid their loss.

What i´m saying is that NATO never fought against even odds or a formidable enemy on equal terms, so it´s a bit quick to draw final conclusions, there´s much overrating going on.

It´s the same as i would be cladded with my Shrapnel protection Vest and kevlar helmet aiming the G36 at someone 100m away who is armed with a sling shot, doesn´t take much imagination what the outcome would be.

Back to the gulf war (that is taken willingly for comparion purposes of equipment); it was a turkey shoot, nothing more nothing less. As hundreds of coaltion A/C passed the flight corridor on the first day, Iraq had virtually lost, it was only a matter of mopping up remaining iraqy troops that were dazzled and demotivated by the aerial attacks, if they survived them at all. What was left over by the aerial attacks stood against newest generation coaltition ground equipment, while the iraqy stuff was mostly older than i am. Without air superioty, or more precise without a single iraqy helicopter or A/C capable of supporting troops, cut of from communication, and in complete disadvantage in every regard the iraqys of course were eradicated, that isn´t surprising nor a huge achivement, nor something to meassure current western equipment on russian equipment.

[DodgeME 0]

Iraq!!!

Well the allied forces tend to softer the enemy defences "a bit" before going in. Well with out air support how on eart did u want em to fight?

Anyway even with no air support l am sure that the Yanks would have won.

[christophercles 0]

I say it every time a ruskie tank v The M1A2 comes up.

Number of m1's taken out in history?- 1. Who by? an m1.

Sure they were only attacked by RUSSIAN tanks (j/k ) but they still have a pretty good track record

[Oligo 1]

And in how many wars has the M1 fought? one

What was the best equipment of the enemy in that war? Monkey model T72 with steel SABOTs (the russians have DU SABOTs for T72 you know)

Could you have replaced the M1 with any modern MBT and still get the same result? yes

Were there any Challengers lost in the Gulf? no

[Satchel 0]

Hope there is no misunderstanding, i havn´t said that wasn´t a valid and successfull strategy, indeed it did shorten the whole conflict considerably, while exposing own ground  troops to as little enemy opposition as possible.

 

However, the essence of my post is that the gulf war can´t be taken to compare newest generation equipment to mostly "antique equipment pieces" used by Iraq, especially as the numbers and troop consistence didn´t match by the slightest amount, it couldn´t have been more unbalanced. Iraq was won through aerial bombardment, the so called "ground war" to mob up remainders, is vanishing and almost pathetic compared to that.

It was an uneven fight either way, now arm yourself with a slingshot and we´ll meet outside, i get my rifle and 10 buddies in the meantime and lets see who will be able to see another day to post on this forum, j/k- know what i mean? .

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Were there any Challengers lost in the Gulf? no <span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. I know of at least one that was killed by friendly fire.

[christophercles 0]

exactly, and ive heard stories about challengers being hit by enemy fire and infantry having to stay around and guard them.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ April 03 2002,13:29)</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">so untill those tanks perform in real combat as well as the abrams has.... the comparison is pure speculation.. nothing more..

<span id='postcolor'>

HOOAH!<span id='postcolor'>

Damn, Special Forces praisin the treadheads... what is the world coming to?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 03 2002,11:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well.. the M1A2 already has MUCH MUCH stronger conventional armor than any soviet tank.. cant argue that.. <span id='postcolor'>

Really? Where on earth did you get that from? Do you have any references to back that claim up? My guess would be the exactly opposite. The Russian tanks are well-known for their very good armour, while thier American counterpart have bettre fire-control systems and navigational aids.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PLUS it (and anything else) can be fitted with ERA aswell.. so? best conventional armor PLUS ERA.. kinda hard to beat..

<span id='postcolor'>

Except for the fact that NATO Era is about on the level of Russian Kontakt-1 ERA, while the Russians are currently using Kontakt-5. Havn't we discussed this already Wobble?

If you are having trouble with your memory read this *again*:

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

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

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"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.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

<span id='postcolor'>

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

you can speculate all you want.. but the M1A1 is battle tested.. and astonished the world with tis accuracy, speed and survivability.. in real combat..

<span id='postcolor'>

The Abrams was tested in the Gulf War, where Iraq was really bombed apart before the tank engagements. Iraq also had old versions of the T72.. so it is not possible to compare it to a modern tank.

[christophercles 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2002,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Abrams was tested in the Gulf War, where Iraq was really bombed apart before the tank engagements. Iraq also had old versions of the T72.. so it is not possible to compare it to a modern tank.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the american bombing did very little to the t72's (except from the a10's that is). One captured battalion commander said

"After six weeks of air bombardment, i had 32 left. After 20 minutes of fighting with the M1's, i had none."

Also, they wernt the old t72's, they where upgraded and modified 72's, with many of the old kinks knocked out, like the auto-loader being taken out.

Also the armour of the M1's contains A stainless steel shell, surround by chobbham, with an inch or two of depleted uranium mesh on top of that as an upgrade on the m1a2's. This armour has been proven to stand up to blasts stronger than hellfires (as seen on apaches and predators) and maverick (as seen on a10's) missiles. Those missles where built to destroy russian tanks .

[Guest]

The T72's used in the Gulf War were T72A and not T72BM (which is using ERA). Hellfires are HEAT missiles. They are utterly useless against modern ERA.

[christophercles 0]

and the mavericks?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ April 03 2002,17:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and the mavericks?<span id='postcolor'>

Havn't got a clue actually, but I am sure sombody in this forum does

[christophercles 0]

The mavericks are part if the a10's "tank buster" range.

[scout 0]

first of all almost all modern hellfires have tandem warhead which eliminates the effectivness of the ERA. its nice but not enough.

second of all, with all due respect NO TANK can withstand a hit from a maverick (unless it hits yer traks or any other sideshow) or tandem warhead missile. thats why they are enough for now.

its all equation of how big is your shape-charge. thats why the bigger the missile the better.

third of all: there are couple of missiles that attack from above where u dont need a charge much bigger then the new RPG's cause thats where the armor is the thinnest.

one of them is called the spike.

i know a TOW version that'll explode downwards while the missile is flying above the tank but the is no contact between the missile and the tank so its pretty wasted.

armor, guys, is not every thing.

[christophercles 0]

actually the new tow' fire a charge downwards, so there is physical contact.

[scout 0]

plz explain?

does the charge ejects from the missile?

[Aaron Kane 0]

I always thought the Hellfires had a sort of "double-explosion" thing, so the first one triggered the ERA, and the second actually hit the tank?

I'm probably wrong, but I'll say this anyway! Whoohoo!

[christophercles 0]

No the charge is the explosive, it gets fired downward, and explodes on contact with the top of the tanks turret.

[scout 0]

first of all, Kane, thats right! the first warhead explode the ERA and the second one gets the hull. thats why the first is pretty small.

second:

HEAT means u have basicly (i dont want to get into it!

a fast, hot copper rod traveling after explosion and hits the armor.

now in order for the HEAT to be effective u need it to touch the hull BEFORE exploding. if it first explodes and then get down to the hull u lose much efficency.

[Satchel 0]

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

"Actually, the american bombing did very little to the t72's (except from the a10's that is)"

<span id='postcolor'>

About 250.000 individual bombs and missiles were expended in 43 days of air war, a great chunk of them being "smart weapons". With an overall sortie raid of ca. 2500 per day, 40500 tonnage of ordnance were dropped per month average, this number coming close to the per month average of ordnance dropped in the 2nd WW (48000 tonnage/month),  they were litterally bombed back to stone age.

Of those 2500 sorties per day, apx. 100 sorties/day were against Iraqy ground units in the first 6 days (17.-23 Jan.) of the campaign, after 4 more days it jumped up to 500 sorties/ day.

This is why the "ground war" lasted hardly 100 hours, if you take into account that those still living on the iraqy side had been cut of from all supplys, comms and mostly stood under constant aerial strikes for a month, it´s no wonder they surrendered by the 1000´s.

What a 500lb bomb will do to a tank when hit needs no illustration, you probably can imagine.

What the Iraqys called "black rain", were in fact cluster bombs, like the MK 20 Rockeye or CBU-89 Gator,  both are affecting a large area with their submunitions and capable of knocking out whole armored columns, either directly by shaped charged submunitions or through AT mines that are mixed into. In addition to AGM´s,  laser guided bombs like GBU-12´s and unguided MK82´s (500lb) / Mk84´s (2000lb) were used to kill tanks. By no means was the A-10 the biggest or only tank killer, every A/C loaded with proper munitions for CAS (later stage, beginning of ground campaign), or S&D missions was.

Especially successful in these tasks were F-16 Killer Scout- as well as F-111 and F-15E "Tank Plinking" operations, along with the A-10´s deployment.

This is an excerpt from an F-16´s pilots war journal:

-31-91: Hit the Hammurabis with rockeyes- no emotional satisfaction from the ride. . . . pick whatever target looks least scorched.

2-16-91: The second sortie and . . . the 3rd sortie were hunt around and blow up whatever you happen to see.

2-18-91: It's tough finding a place to bomb that looks like it hasn't been hit yet. God help the Kuwaitis, that place is a ravaged wasteland. We describe where our targets are from blown up things and bomb marks and craters.

Although B-52´s are not suited to conduct precision strikes on point targets, PSYOPS would use them in Desert Storm to carpet bomb iraqy formations and positions to lower morale and kill/damage on random.

As the first allied ground troops crossed the Iraqi border, the elite Republican Guard heavy division Tawakalna was already down to ca. 50% in strenght, with other regular iraqy units already wiped completely out, surrendered, scattered, fled with just some pockets of resistance remaining.

[scout 0]

another killer was MLRS:

an iraqi artilery brigadier said:

"after the months of bombing i lost 12% of my strength. after 4 hour of MLRS shelling i lost the rest of it........"

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 03 2002,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">first of all, Kane, thats right! the first warhead explode the ERA and the second one gets the hull. thats why the first is pretty small.<span id='postcolor'>

Except for the fact that you are talking about light ERA. You really think that a puny Hellfire can make holes in Kontakt-5 ERA when a M829 APFSDS DU Sabot can't penetrate it?

[scout 0]

i dunno cause i've never been briefed on this Kontact-5.

but i know other thing. all it takes is to shoot two of them!

one of the ERA drawbacks is that all it takes is one hit and u dont have 'em anymore.

i know the ERA is easier to develop then a good, passive armor so that why the russians did that

[Guest]

Kontakt-5 ERA is layered. One shot at it isn't enough.

As for the passive armour - the Russians have always been better at material engineering so I wouldn't bet against that the Russian passive armour is better.