Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

Don't forget the BMPT, that has 3 crew in the hull and is more likely to be designed to a similar armour basis as a gun tank

 

True, but ammunitions for the BMPT being much less bulkier than 125mm rounds, I guess that some of the space liberated could be put to good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xlucine said:

 

Don't forget the BMPT, that has 3 crew in the hull and is more likely to be designed to a similar armour basis as a gun tank

It have crew of 5 in the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, mounting the 152mm gun onto the T-14 only will make sense once we see what type of tanks come out of current western development. And that´s not gonna happen at least for a decade away from now. For the time being, new 125mm ammo will do againts 3rd gen tanks.  Anyhow, the current situation is that the bulk of russian tank fleet is qualitatively overmatched by everything west of the Ukraine-Poland frontier. The russian goverment already decided that this situation is not desirable and hence they took the ambitious goal of replacing most of their tank fleet with T-14 and now we now that they can´t achieve that. On the other hand, their "Plan B" (modernization of current tanks) is a short-sighted one, it does not solve the qualitive inferiority and in a few years the gap with western tanks will again increase. Thats why i see as increasingly likely that in the coming years we will see an "intermediate tank" between 3rd gen and Armata platform, an overhauled T-90 mounting downgraded of simplified Armata  features ,which will be cleared for export and most likely will be a  (much needed) commercial success. Something similar happened with the adoption of T-62 and later the T-72, also both UVZ tanks. 
 
The russians have the very big advantage that much of the developmental work they would need to do for this hipothetic new tank has already been done in the last of the soviet days. Much of the aspects that would need redisigning in a T-90 chassis to create a new "T-X2" tank have already been realized in the Object 187: It had a redisigned hull armor, mounted the 2A82 and also could use the engines in service with T-72 and T-90 as well as the engine in use with the T-14. In my opinion its a no-brainer.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, alanch90 said:

On the other hand, their "Plan B" (modernization of current tanks) is a short-sighted one, it does not solve the qualitive inferiority and in a few years the gap with western tanks will again increase.

T-90M is very nice I think, and not inferior at all to any Leopard-2 variant, Challenger-2, or M1A2 SEPv2. The most recent Abrams upgrade is better though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

T-90M is very nice I think, and not inferior at all to any Leopard-2 variant, Challenger-2, or M1A2 SEPv2. The most recent Abrams upgrade is better though.


Dont get me wrong, T-90M is indeed a very nice tank. But SEPv3 already counters it (and that tank is alrady available in larger numbers) and so will future Leo 2 with improved 120mm gun and APFSDS. If the russians would have adopted the T-90M back in 2012 when the T-90MS was announced that investment would have been more valuable in time. 

However, the russian army standard is the T-72B3, well inferior to T-90M. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

But SEPv3 already counters it (and that tank is alrady available in larger numbers)

 

Given the changes made from M1A2 SEP v2 to M1A2C (SEP v3), how does it counter the T-90M? Aside of the unknown armor improvements, nothing in the upgrade seems to be focused on tank-vs-tank combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Given the changes made from M1A2 SEP v2 to M1A2C (SEP v3), how does it counter the T-90M? Aside of the unknown armor improvements, nothing in the upgrade seems to be focused on tank-vs-tank combat.

In terms of armor i think its likely that it can resist Svinets 1-2. Those rounds are not a new design and given their date and also their reported performance i think that they were meant to counter the armor in the original M1A2 (600mm vs KE) or the first SEP upgrade. I find it likely that the newest abrams armor was designed to counter these rounds.

However i was referring more on the M829A4 which is claimed by ATK to be able to defeat Relikt protected tanks.

Overall, seems to me that the SEPv3 as a whole was meant to not loose overmatch to the newest russian tanks in service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

You tried to say Ptuin, communist, garbage tractor made for illiterates is superior to the Trump, liberating Freedom making Murica Tank!

Ah, sorry :D 

the-heresy-train-has-no-brakes-13587036.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2018 at 12:50 AM, alanch90 said:

In terms of armor i think its likely that it can resist Svinets 1-2. Those rounds are not a new design and given their date and also their reported performance i think that they were meant to counter the armor in the original M1A2 (600mm vs KE) or the first SEP upgrade. I find it likely that the newest abrams armor was designed to counter these rounds.

However i was referring more on the M829A4 which is claimed by ATK to be able to defeat Relikt protected tanks.

 

That's pretty much baseless speculation. The penetration capabilities of the Svinets-1/Svinets-2 rounds and the M1A2C's armor protection is classified and unknown to the public. The internal construction of both armor and penetrators matters a lot.

Generalizing statements make no sense in this regard.

 

The hull armor of all models of the M1 Abrams that have seen service seems to contain no DU at all based on the licences requested by the US Army and by General Dynamics from the NRC. The M1A2's hull armor was designed to provide protecting equal to 350 mm steel along a 50° frontal arc. That's not enough to stop even the oldest types of 125 mm APFSDS rounds reliably at combat ranges.

 

hQcWM70.png?width=864&height=630

 

While the hull armor composition might have been altered in the past*, there are still limits to what can be achieved when staying at the same weight and thickness. There is less than 500 mm space for armor inserts at the hull front, so it is impossible to make this section of the tank resistant to modern rounds like M829A2/A3/A4, Svinets-1/2, DM43/53/63, etc.

 

* (Or it might not have been altered; photographs from a damaged M1A1 HA tank in the Gulf War show that at least the turret bustle armor of this version has the same layout as on the original model from 1980. The thickness and composition of the side skirts of all Abrams tanks seems to be identical regardless of version).

 

Given that Svinets-1, Svinets-2 and Relikt have only recently entered service in Russia and weren't yet exported to other countries, it seems very unreasonable to assume that the United States has proper knowledge of the internal construction and performance of these things; they probably have to rely on rough estimations for protection and lethality assessments. In the end there is no reason to believe that Russia didn't bother to make any (smaller) changes since thee first reveal of Relikt and its series adoption. The T-90M also might feature the new armor inserts developed for the T-90MS, given that it is factory rebuiilt and based on it.

Likewise it doesn't mean that Russia knows much about the armor protection and penetration capabilities of the M1A2C and the M829A4 APFSDS.

 

 

I have not found any statements from ATK regarding claims that the M829A4 is capable of or designed to defeat a T-90 wiith Relikt ERA. However it is stated in official documents that it has the same velocity, weight and dimensions as the M829A3, so it mostly seems to differ by propellant (now temperature independent), combustible cartridge case and potentially internal construction of the penetrator; given that the M829A3 is often overrated and wouldn't actually seem to be superior to Svinets-1 (at least if both rounds wouldn't make use of exotic tip and internal constructions), I don't think that there is any clear edge for the M1A2C; in fact the T-90MS seems to have overall better armor thanks to the improved coverage and apparently stronger hull armor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

That's pretty much baseless speculation

Well, doing guestimates is ususally the best we can do about modern systems. But we have some data.

 

Spoiler

The hull armor of all models of the M1 Abrams that have seen service seems to contain no DU at all based on the licences requested by the US Army and by General Dynamics from the NRC. The M1A2's hull armor was designed to provide protecting equal to 350 mm steel along a 50° frontal arc. That's not enough to stop even the oldest types of 125 mm APFSDS rounds reliably at combat ranges.

 

While the hull armor composition might have been altered in the past*, there are still limits to what can be achieved when staying at the same weight and thickness. There is less than 500 mm space for armor inserts at the hull front, so it is impossible to make this section of the tank resistant to modern rounds like M829A2/A3/A4, Svinets-1/2, DM43/53/63, etc.

 

* (Or it might not have been altered; photographs from a damaged M1A1 HA tank in the Gulf War show that at least the turret bustle armor of this version has the same layout as on the original model from 1980. The thickness and composition of the side skirts of all Abrams tanks seems to be identical regardless of version).


When it comes to protection analysis, hull armor is secondary to turret armor. As we all know, most of the shots in tank-tank engagement impact the turret. According to this guy

Spoiler

 

The tank has new armor on the hull. It doesnt mean thats to counter 125mm apfsds though.  But on the other hand, this upgraded armor package is the first one in almost 2 decades, im sure that they managed to make armor thats either more weight efficient (for the claimed protection against IEDs, for example) or more effective vs conventional threats, or both. To what extent is up for guessing. 

 

Spoiler

Given that Svinets-1, Svinets-2 and Relikt have only recently entered service in Russia and weren't yet exported to other countries, it seems very unreasonable to assume that the United States has proper knowledge of the internal construction and performance of these things; they probably have to rely on rough estimations for protection and lethality assessments. In the end there is no reason to believe that Russia didn't bother to make any (smaller) changes since thee first reveal of Relikt and its series adoption. The T-90M also might feature the new armor inserts developed for the T-90MS, given that it is factory rebuiilt and based on it.

I have not found any statements from ATK regarding claims that the M829A4 is capable of or designed to defeat a T-90 wiith Relikt 
ERA. However it is stated in official documents that it has the same velocity, weight and dimensions as the M829A3

Both the Svinets 1-2 and Relikt have been introduced recently thats true, but that introduction was way long overdue. They were designed around the early 2000´s. While some improvements can be made, i would expect them to be negligible. Those designs are so old that there is data about their performance.
For the APFSDS rounds we have this table, supposedly from Tula which claims a penetration at a 60º target from 2km of 370mm RHA for Svinets 1 and 330mm RHA for Svinets 2, and at minimum double those figures for non-sloped targets (for some reason im unable to attach the table in the post). Both figures imply that they can defeat the original M1A2, but we dont know how effective would they be against the first SEP, let alone the SEPv3. However lets say that both Svinets would penetrate a maximum of 800mm, for the Abrams, having its armor upgraded up to that figure wouldn´t be much of a stretch after 2 armor upgrades and almost 3 decades for research and development (since the introduction of M1A2 armor package).

About the Relikt, usually its claimed to be twice as effective vs KE than Kontakt 5, so around 40 percent decrease in APFSDS penetration. Said ERA is so good that it renders M829A3 useless, and thats something admitted by ATK in the brochure about the new round while also claiming the capability to defeat Relikt with the A4:
 

Spoiler

 

"The M829A4 120 mm cartridge is a line-of-sight kinetic energy cartridge designed for the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBT. It is the materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor."

Source: https://studylib.net/doc/10712568/m829a4--formerly-m829e4--armor-piercing--fin

 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

* (Or it might not have been altered; photographs from a damaged M1A1 HA tank in the Gulf War show that at least the turret bustle armor of this version has the same layout as on the original model from 1980. The thickness and composition of the side skirts of all Abrams tanks seems to be identical regardless of version).

 

 

We know that the hull armor of the M1A1 AIM (and thus presumibly the M1A2 SEP) was changed because it was specifically stated to have been in the CBO report that Damian keeps referencing.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7461/08-02-army.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, alanch90 said:

The tank has new armor on the hull. It doesnt mean thats to counter 125mm apfsds though.  But on the other hand, this upgraded armor package is the first one in almost 2 decades, im sure that they managed to make armor thats either more weight efficient (for the claimed protection against IEDs, for example) or more effective vs conventional threats, or both. To what extent is up for guessing. 

 

The statement regarding the hull armor package can mean anything and is hardly relevant. The armor package of the Abrams has been upgraded several times - like the adoption of first, second and third generation DU armor in the turret - but this was always limited in scope due the limits set on weight and budget. This is why I mentioned that the M1A1HA (from 1988) had the same turret bustle armor array as the M1 Abrams from 1980 - maybe the materials were improved, but any gain in protection purely by material changes is likely very limited when looking at NERA's performance vs KE) - and even modern Abrams' tanks have the same side hull armor as the original production model (at least in terms of thickness and layering, again small adjustments could have been made to the materials). Likewise "new hull armor" might be identical  to that of the previous model with slight changes in material composition; it could be different, but weight and size impose limits.

These factors also make it rather unlikely, if not flat-out impossible for the Abrams to resist 125 mm APFSDS rounds at the hull (specifically when looking at the frontal arc rather than just the frontal surface; 65 mm skirt armor + 60 mm hull armor is not going to stop much).

 

13 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Both the Svinets 1-2 and Relikt have been introduced recently thats true, but that introduction was way long overdue. They were designed around the early 2000´s. While some improvements can be made, i would expect them to be negligible. Those designs are so old that there is data about their performance.

 

The design of ammunition can be altered at any time of a product life; before, during and after initial introduction. Svinets-1, Svinets-2 and Relikt might be very different in terms of internal construction or material composition since then.

 

13 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Both figures imply that they can defeat the original M1A2, but we dont know how effective would they be against the first SEP, let alone the SEPv3. However lets say that both Svinets would penetrate a maximum of 800mm, for the Abrams, having its armor upgraded up to that figure wouldn´t be much of a stretch after 2 armor upgrades and almost 3 decades for research and development (since the introduction of M1A2 armor package).

 

You keep relying on baseless speculations. First of all it is extremely unlikely that any modern APFSDS performs worse against sloped targets than against flat armor; sloped armor is easier to penetrate and perforate - by as much as 20% in case of 60° sloped armor according to the work of W. Lanz and W. Odermatt (depending on penetrator geometry).

The performance of APFSDS ammo against steel armor is also completely irrelevant to their abilities to penetrate composite armor; research has shown that the ability to penetrate special armor is highly dependent on the exact interactions between armor and projecitle; two rounds with the same penetration against steel armor can have very different performance against the same type of special armor, which was demonstrated in the German tests during the LKE program (two rounds with the same penetration against RHA had a difference of 110 mm in penetration power after defeating a special armor array). This also means that all figures in regards to armor protection (and penetration) have to be taken in the context of the munitions or simulation used to come up with the values: an armor providing 500 mm protection against a BM-22 APFSDS won't provide 500 mm protectioon against something like the M829A3 APFSDS round.

 

You also cannot simply say "this armor is newer, so it has to provide significantly more protection". You want the armor of the later models of the M1A2 Abrams to provide 50% more protection, while staying in the same physical volume, retaining the same basic steel shell (as old tanks are rebuilt and the interior and exterior steel plates are apparently not changed unless necessary), roughly the same weight limit (may or may not be different for the M1A2C), being affordable and providing decent multi-hit capability. Specifically given that supposedly (assuming the front and back plates of the turret have the same thickness as on hull) more than 150 mm of the "600 mm" protection that the M1A2 (HAP/EAP) provided against older types of APFSDS ammo are the result of the steel structure, you are asking for an improbable, if not impossible, improvement in performance.

 

Armor doesn't grow on trees, neither does it come from the clouds of imagination. MBTs achieve higher levels of protection by adding weight and/or volume to the armor. Improvements from superior materials are often negligible and come with another issue (large increases in costs!). The M1A1 HA's much higher protection than the M1A1's (using inaccurate RHA values apparently an increase from 380-400 mm to 600 mm) came in combination with an increase in armor weight by roughly 3 tons. The Leopard 2's massive gains in protection came with an increase in armor thickness by up to ~80% and a weight increase of 5 to 7 tons depending on model. The M1A2 SEP series doesn't seem to offer similar increases, although there are still some open questions regarding the M1A2C (How much of the increased weight is related to armor? Does the listed figure include TUSK or Trophy?).

 

13 hours ago, alanch90 said:

About the Relikt, usually its claimed to be twice as effective vs KE than Kontakt 5, so around 40 percent decrease in APFSDS penetration. Said ERA is so good that it renders M829A3 useless, and thats something admitted by ATK in the brochure about the new round while also claiming the capability to defeat Relikt with the A4:
 

  Hide contents

  

"The M829A4 120 mm cartridge is a line-of-sight kinetic energy cartridge designed for the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBT. It is the materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor."

Source: https://studylib.net/doc/10712568/m829a4--formerly-m829e4--armor-piercing--fin

 

The Russians claim that Relikt provides a reduction of APFSDS penetration by 50% even against APFSDS rounds designed to defeat Kontakt-5. You should note that your quote doesn't mention Relikt or the ability to defeat a T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM anyhwere, which is relevant. The ability to defeat ERA is not a binary metric; improving the performance of an APFSDS round agains a certain type of ERA can mean anything from "We managed to reduce the performance penality caused by ERA by 5%" to "The penetration performance of the APFSDS is essentially unaffected by the ERA".

 

The text speaks of third-generation explosive reactive armor, which is a very broad term and may have absolutely nothing to do with the exact layout of Relikt. How would the US Army know about the exact working mechanism, layout and performance of Relikt? Super-spies like an American version of James Bond? Did the US Army simply call Putin and asked them about these things? Or did they go to Amazon.ru and order a bunch of Relikt ERA tiles?

 

Most likely the US Army uses a self-developed ERA system as representation of future/current ERA arrays; Germany did something like this during the LKE II program. The USA might have by pure coincidence developed a perfect clone of Relikt, which could perfectly replicate the behaviour of Relikt - but that is extremely unlikely. The US' third-generation ERA might look and work completely different from Relikt, for example it could be based on Nozh (a third-generation ERA to which the US military actually has access, because it was installed on a number of T-80UD/T-84 tanks  purchased by the US Army). Nozh and Relikt use completely different working mechanisms, so a performance gain against one type of ERA doesn't automatically render the other type obsolete.

 

Threat vehicles is likewise a very broad term. It could mean that the US expects the M829A4 to defeat a T-90M, but it also could mean a dozen other things. Being able to overcome third-generation ERA potentially without a major reduction in penetration performance doesn't automatically mean that all tanks equipped with this ERA can be defeated; there still is some hefty amount of base armor, which supposedly has been improved on the T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM, that needs to be penetrated aswell. Being able to defeat threat vehicles with third-generatrion ERA also could refer to upgraded last-generation tanks fitted with Relikt (or Nozh/Duplet), which might be immune to the current M829A3 (they should  be immune, if the Russian performance claims were true). For example it might refer to the T-72BM or the initial model of the T-84, which should have inferior base armor compared to the T-90M.

 

1288263806_t_72bm1_rogatka1_696.jpg

2_117369.jpg

 

We don't know if the M829A4 is capable to defeat the T-90M with Relikt ERA, we don't know if the current M1A2's armor is capable of resisting hits with Svinets-1/Svinets-2 - yet you keep making generalizing statements based on nothing but speculation. That is not good.

 

13 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

We know that the hull armor of the M1A1 AIM (and thus presumibly the M1A2 SEP) was changed because it was specifically stated to have been in the CBO report that Damian keeps referencing.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7461/08-02-army.pdf 

 

No, we don't know anything about the hull armor being improved. CBO reports are mostly based on unclassified data and use publicly available sources. Damian just likes to ignore any weak links in his sources as long as they fit his narrative. Just look what's under the table that Damian considers a confirmation of his theories:

bMxwBQs.png

Yes, another unclassified CBO report from 1993 and a privately-run website run by Gary W. Cooke...

 

Unless the United States decided to change the definition of heavy armor two times (before and after the AIM upgrade), the M1A1 AIM doesn't feature heavy armor in the hull. First M1A1 AIM tanks were made in 2000, but in 2006 only five prototypes of the M1 Abrams featured heavy armor in the hull.

 

RICBNmE.jpg

As of 2014 General Dynamics was only granted the licence to install DU armor in the turret of the Abrams, but not the turret. The CBO report simply doesn't have the same degrees of quality and reliability than the documents from the NRC. Unless the CBO report is using the term heavy armor to refer to one of the five prototypes with DU armor in the hull or has changed the definition of heavy armor (which also seems unlikely given that the M1A1 AIM weighs 62 metric tons vs the M1A1 HA's 61.3 metric tons), it is simply incorrect. The only variant that theoretically could have heavy armor in the hull - and that depends on the weight distribution - seems to be the M1A2C Abrams.

 

https://i.imgur.com/GqQrmjw.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2018 at 5:16 PM, Ramlaen said:

So we get to reconcile those NRC documents with this one.

  

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A098.pdf

 

That's a very nice find, but unfortunately it isn't particularly clear what this document is exactly refering to - which is quite different from the earlier two documents. It is dated 2016, so it might refer to the M1A2C variant, which due to the larger combat weight might very well feature DU armor in the hull; earlier variants with no gain in combat weight (or negligible gains, that were mostly related to APU, RWS, air-conditioning, etc.) are very unlikely to feature DU armor in the hull based on the known facts. Alternatively the statement "For possession, use, transportation, and storage of turrets and hulls of Abrams M1 Series Tanks" might put the emphasis on "storage" in regards of the hull armor, as the US military still has at least five prototypes with DU plating inside the armor arrays of the hull since at least 2006.

 

The 2006 document is filed under the category "renewal of licence", while the 2016 document is an amendment (number 10) to this very licence (SUB-1536). A renewal of this licence has been requested in 2017 (where initially the taxpayer's identification was missing), the renewal also included an eleventh amendment made in 2017.

 

 

8x2yLAj.png

Here is an excerpt form a letter from earlier in 2016, before the document posted by you. The text again specifically mentions the turrets, which together with the 2014 licence amendment made for General Dynamics (licence SUB-1564) makes me believe that the DU armor in the hull of Abrams tanks is a new development and older versions of the tank (made prior 2016) did not feature this type of armor. The CBO table is clearly not a reliable source given that it openly admits to be based on a privately run website from a civilian.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Alanch90, do you have reliable fotos or sketches of Svinets-1 or -2? I found no fotos with a clear type allocation to 3BM-59 or 3BM-60! When was the DOI of these rounds? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weight guesses for t14 armata.

 

The numbers banded around seem to be 48 tonnes and 57 tonnes.  Personally i suspect 57 tonnes is more realistic (as its a longer tank and probable keeping the similar ground pressure as t90.)

 

What do others think? A modern 57tonne, tank with hull only manning sounds significantly more survivable than a less modern 48 tonne tank witb conventional turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 11:44 AM, Gun Ready said:

     Alanch90, do you have reliable fotos or sketches of Svinets-1 or -2? I found no fotos with a clear type allocation to 3BM-59 or 3BM-60! When was the DOI of these rounds? 

No i dont, but there are drawings and tables showing claimed performance

 

1 minute ago, Kal said:

Weight guesses for t14 armata.

 

The numbers banded around seem to be 48 tonnes and 57 tonnes.  Personally i suspect 57 tonnes is more realistic (as its a longer tank and probable keeping the similar ground pressure as t90.)

 

What do others think? A modern 57tonne, tank with hull only manning sounds significantly more survivable than a less modern 48 tonne tank witb conventional turret.

 

You shuldnt speculate with weight alone. The Abrams turret (without the DU inserts) weights by itself 20 tones. And T-14 turret has no heavy armor, so the tanks weight is better optimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 2:05 AM, alanch90 said:

You shuldnt speculate with weight alone. The Abrams turret (without the DU inserts) weights by itself 20 tones. And T-14 turret has no heavy armor, so the tanks weight is differently prioritised.

Fixed that for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Doesnt change that fact abrams armour arrays have cover much amount of space though. So it is better optimised.

Different design philosophy, can't directly compare the "efficiency" of the armour layout to each other since one has an unmanned turret that is likely paper to any calibre of 90mm or higher while the other has the heaviest armour on the front of the turret.

So, while the abrams has to cover a lot of space, it also does a good job of that, unlike the T-14 which relies entirely on not getting hit in the turret by any decent KE or HEAT shell.

You might argue that the crew will live because they're not in the turret, but you don't know that, if their capability to fight back has been neutralised that means anything can then follow up, even IFVs, which will absolutely wreck any optics making the crew blind so they have to rely entirely on poor vision or GPS to find their way back to cover.

 

Even if the tank does get out of the situation with "only" a firepower kill, that's still a neutralised tank, if that was an M1A2, it could've taken the hit and potentially fired back.

Sure, the T-14 probably is more weight optimised, but you're also comparing a late 70s tank to a mid 2000s tank while not taking into account the consequences or results of that higher weight optimisation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By seppo
      Hello,
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
       
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 


      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
       
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
       
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By LoooSeR
      Well, we have thread about Yemen conflict and Ukrainian war, so in light of recent changes in situation in Syria, this thread became relevant enough, IMO.
       
       

       

×