The US sent M60A1 tanks, some of which are said to have made it into the fighting against the Egyptians. There were already M60's and M60A1's in Isreali service at the start of the conflict. I think you might be thinking of the Isreali modified M48 series. Agreed on the Centurions, but they were not available for large scale purchases, and the Isreali's were upgrading those as fast as possible with M60 type engines and the 105 if the tank did not have it already.
Soviet doctine called for a massive armored attack to smash through defences and by sheer weight of armor overcome the enemy. It was tried by the Syrians, and they came close to the edge of the Golan Heights before the Isreali's were able to counter attack.
If the Warsaw pact had made this type or armored assult in the west it probaly would have been a turkey shoot very similar to the Syrian/Isreali battle. Would the sheer weight have been enough? We will never know.
I see no reason that the Russians have not tried a field test using US ordnance, or as close to it as they could. Did the T72 meet the Isreali Merkava in the Beka valley? I remember reading an interview where an Isreali General commented that the T72 seems to burn as well as any other Russian tank. No proof was shown, so it might have been bravado.
Яusso-Soviэt Forum
Russian or Soviet vehicles/armor modeling forum.
Russian or Soviet vehicles/armor modeling forum.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Jacques Duquette
T-90 Fact?
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 01:26 PM UTC
Reiter960
Joined: June 24, 2007
KitMaker: 503 posts
Armorama: 500 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 02:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The US sent M60A1 tanks, some of which are said to have made it into the fighting against the Egyptians. There were already M60's and M60A1's in Isreali service at the start of the conflict. I think you might be thinking of the Isreali modified M48 series. Agreed on the Centurions, but they were not available for large scale purchases, and the Isreali's were upgrading those as fast as possible with M60 type engines and the 105 if the tank did not have it already.
Soviet doctine called for a massive armored attack to smash through defences and by sheer weight of armor overcome the enemy. It was tried by the Syrians, and they came close to the edge of the Golan Heights before the Isreali's were able to counter attack.
If the Warsaw pact had made this type or armored assult in the west it probaly would have been a turkey shoot very similar to the Syrian/Isreali battle. Would the sheer weight have been enough? We will never know.
I see no reason that the Russians have not tried a field test using US ordnance, or as close to it as they could. Did the T72 meet the Isreali Merkava in the Beka valley? I remember reading an interview where an Isreali General commented that the T72 seems to burn as well as any other Russian tank. No proof was shown, so it might have been bravado.
Russians are not interested in US 120mm ordnance as much as it's thought. In fact their primary concern had always been German rounds, especially after fall of USSR. How many nations did opt for M1 series to be their MBT and how many did for Leo 2? As for Middle East conflicts, Egyptians would never have beaten IDF even with all M1s they have now. Their commanders always manage to screw up so bad and in such way that whatever thenical advantage they may have is marginalized and slightest disadvantage is amplified. Even when they used the "good stuff" like JS-3M, they failed measurably. But what does it have to do with K-5, T-90 and Silver Bullets???
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 03:04 PM UTC
I am not an M1 expert by any means, but I was under the impression that the M1A series is fitted with the same gun as the Leopards. The US has also been a leader in testing and improving ammunition. Why wouldn't they be testing their armor with our ammunition or an equivalent. We shot up a some M1 hulls in testing, the Russians would do the same.
Most countries are not happy with the turbine in the M1's.
Most countries are not happy with the turbine in the M1's.
spongya
Associate Editor
Joined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 03:12 PM UTC
Quoted Text
This is a good discussion to have, but in isolation it essentially becomes a shouting contest.
I think it already has...
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 04:30 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
This is a good discussion to have, but in isolation it essentially becomes a shouting contest.
I think it already has...
...never mind those who try to keep the shouting match going. Ok, fair warning, keep it on track or I lock it up. I know, I know, I am Mr. hard nose...
IIRC German and US research pretty much goes hand in hand since the 120mm on both countries tanks are Rheinmetal derived. And the main point in doing so was to create a uniformity of ammo and such. So concern with German tanks would still logically lead to using US ammo if it could be had.
spongya
Associate EditorJoined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 04:38 PM UTC
Do you have any suggestions where to read in the subject? I found most of the Osprey and other books pretty biased -and my friends "from the other side" who actually speak Russian, have similar -though opposite- bias.
Not that it matters.
1. entirely hypothetical
2. nobody cares about it
3. in an integrated battlefield T-72 vs M1A2 might be the lesser thing to worry about. I'd be more worried about those Su-25s, Mi-28s, and even those pesky RPGs.
Not that it matters.
1. entirely hypothetical
2. nobody cares about it
3. in an integrated battlefield T-72 vs M1A2 might be the lesser thing to worry about. I'd be more worried about those Su-25s, Mi-28s, and even those pesky RPGs.
Reiter960
Joined: June 24, 2007
KitMaker: 503 posts
Armorama: 500 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 07:43 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Do you have any suggestions where to read in the subject? I found most of the Osprey and other books pretty biased -and my friends "from the other side" who actually speak Russian, have similar -though opposite- bias.
THANK YOU!!! Gee, second page already, someone out there laughs himself silly. If you want to think objectively, the hypothetical battle would be a draw at best. Warsaw pact tank crews were trained just as well as Bundeswehr or American ones. In addition, the only advantages M1A_ would have over "European' T-72M1, or even better T-72B, were better IR sights and slightly better frontal armor. Then add into equation an Uragan or Smerch battery and a well covered flight of Su-25s, Su-25T or Ka-50 would mean disaster, and none of these advantages would mean anything.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2007 - 03:21 AM UTC
Shouting match? I do not feel I have been shouted at, so I have no reason to shout.
One of the best, objective, studies on the theoretical battle came to the conclusion that one side of the other would start to lose, and that side would have to go nuclear to convince the other side to stop. It was really a coin toss as to which side that would be.
I did not say the M1 series was a wonder weapon, only that given the nature of the Warsaw pact assult they would be more exposed and suffer greater losses.
With the combining of Germany, did Nato have T72's to test?
I work with some people from the Warsaw pact countries. They are very happy the theoretical battle never happened.
One of the best, objective, studies on the theoretical battle came to the conclusion that one side of the other would start to lose, and that side would have to go nuclear to convince the other side to stop. It was really a coin toss as to which side that would be.
I did not say the M1 series was a wonder weapon, only that given the nature of the Warsaw pact assult they would be more exposed and suffer greater losses.
With the combining of Germany, did Nato have T72's to test?
I work with some people from the Warsaw pact countries. They are very happy the theoretical battle never happened.
spongya
Associate EditorJoined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2007 - 05:09 AM UTC
The thing is, that massed, brainless assault was never a Soviet docrine. (It's a myth, like the Polish attacking tanks with swords.)
Furthermore the Russians were scared of an invasion from the West –they never actually planned an attack. (They had this –understandable- fear of the Germans attacking yet again. That’s why they were so freaked out when W-Germany became NATO member, and that’s why they didn’t like the further NATO expansions. You have to understand their mindset; they lost 21 million people in the last war.)
Western military planners, however did not dismiss the Russian threat, as turkey-shooting. It was a good propaganda, to keep the people calm, but they knew that this would not be the case (illustrated by the plans to use tactical nukes to disrupt an attack…)
About the inferiority everything Eastern (this is where the shouting developed, I think): a few years ago I recall a joint practice between the Indian Air Force and the USAF. The Indian Su’s scored 9 out of 10 in BVR engagement against F-15s. This is certainly something to think about. (There are no clear-cut winners. It's enough to mention the Russian heavy bombers; the attack helicopters and hand-held AT weapons, artillery pieces, and of course, the nuclear arsenal. Even the T-72 has a bigger range than the M1A2 if it uses AT missiles.)
Even the Propaganda -“History”- Channel had military experts talking about their doubts against the F-22, by the way. The playing field does not seem to be too unbalanced, which is a very good thing.
(Off topic: A question about the M1: what happens if the ammo ignites in the turret, and blows out the blast-out panels? Does anybody have any photos, or analysis what happens in this case?)
Furthermore the Russians were scared of an invasion from the West –they never actually planned an attack. (They had this –understandable- fear of the Germans attacking yet again. That’s why they were so freaked out when W-Germany became NATO member, and that’s why they didn’t like the further NATO expansions. You have to understand their mindset; they lost 21 million people in the last war.)
Western military planners, however did not dismiss the Russian threat, as turkey-shooting. It was a good propaganda, to keep the people calm, but they knew that this would not be the case (illustrated by the plans to use tactical nukes to disrupt an attack…)
About the inferiority everything Eastern (this is where the shouting developed, I think): a few years ago I recall a joint practice between the Indian Air Force and the USAF. The Indian Su’s scored 9 out of 10 in BVR engagement against F-15s. This is certainly something to think about. (There are no clear-cut winners. It's enough to mention the Russian heavy bombers; the attack helicopters and hand-held AT weapons, artillery pieces, and of course, the nuclear arsenal. Even the T-72 has a bigger range than the M1A2 if it uses AT missiles.)
Even the Propaganda -“History”- Channel had military experts talking about their doubts against the F-22, by the way. The playing field does not seem to be too unbalanced, which is a very good thing.
(Off topic: A question about the M1: what happens if the ammo ignites in the turret, and blows out the blast-out panels? Does anybody have any photos, or analysis what happens in this case?)
SEDimmick
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2007 - 05:27 AM UTC
Quoted Text
About the inferiority everything Eastern (this is where the shouting developed, I think): a few years ago I recall a joint practice between the Indian Air Force and the USAF. The Indian Su’s scored 9 out of 10 in BVR engagement against F-15s. This is certainly something to think about.
As with anything, you read into everything to get the truth. The deal with the F-15 is that they weren't using the latest radars in the F-15 that deployed to India, nor did they have any AWACS support like they would in the real world. Another think to keep in mind is the Politics that go on with the Air Force, they could have sent the older F-15s to India, just to reinforce that they still need F-22s, even though in the popular press, people where saying that the F-15 and F-16 are good enough. The same game is being played currently with the current F-15 grounding...saying that the F-15 is getting old and will be worn out before they are replaced, thus encouraging Congress to put out more money for more Raptors then they have now.
Quoted Text
(Off topic: A question about the M1: what happens if the ammo ignites in the turret, and blows out the blast-out panels? Does anybody have any photos, or analysis what happens in this case?)
The panels pop off and it looks like a roman candle going off...I've seen Video of this happening many times on TV.
Anyways, getting back to the T-90...there was some Russian website that had some RPG testing done to it and it didn't fare very well against RPG's even with the Kontact-5 armor on it. Kontact-5 armor also defends against SABOT ammo by shearing the front of the Sabot off (image a guillotine), thus why the M823A3 round has a longer Sabot then the earlier models.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2007 - 05:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The thing is, that massed, brainless assault was never a Soviet docrine. (It's a myth, like the Polish attacking tanks with swords.)
(Off topic: A question about the M1: what happens if the ammo ignites in the turret, and blows out the blast-out panels? Does anybody have any photos, or analysis what happens in this case?)
Interesting, this was practiced right up to the end. It was not a brainless assault, but a massive armored fist designed to crush the defenses and then sweep in behind them. The tactic worked very well against the Germans in WWII. The Warsaw Pact version added better infantry support and mobile artillery. Not history channel, I do not have any cable. We used a version of this tactic in Desert Storm.
I do agree for the most part on the reasons the Russians were not happy with Germany and Nato and other things.
There were some pictures of an M1 after the panels blew off. Crew survived as the inner doors were closed at the time, or they were not in the tank. I do not recall.
VolkerS
Joined: June 18, 2007
KitMaker: 120 posts
Armorama: 112 posts
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2007 - 06:44 AM UTC
Hi Scott,
you (unintended of course) support Andras arguments
You stated at least three reasons, why the F-15 didn't fare quite well: Old radar, without AWACS support and the political intention to get the successor. And then you quote the russian tank-testing and...? No excuses at all! (May russian military did want to prove that Black Eagle is in urgent need, just as their US-counterparts did with F-22?)
I think one has to accept that 'the other side' made different approaches to fullfill a certain goal and that their goals rank different from US/western europe ones.
All in all an interesting discussion!
kind regards
Volker
you (unintended of course) support Andras arguments
You stated at least three reasons, why the F-15 didn't fare quite well: Old radar, without AWACS support and the political intention to get the successor. And then you quote the russian tank-testing and...? No excuses at all! (May russian military did want to prove that Black Eagle is in urgent need, just as their US-counterparts did with F-22?)
I think one has to accept that 'the other side' made different approaches to fullfill a certain goal and that their goals rank different from US/western europe ones.
All in all an interesting discussion!
kind regards
Volker
GeraldOwens
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2007 - 12:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
(Off topic: A question about the M1: what happens if the ammo ignites in the turret, and blows out the blast-out panels? Does anybody have any photos, or analysis what happens in this case?)
This report was published back in 1991. During the First Gulf War, an M1A1 became stuck during the advance into Iraq, and could not be recovered by the M88A1 recovery vehicle. Unit commander decided to demolish it, as doctrine forbids abandoning an operable tank. The rear of the turret was fired on, and the ammo blew up, venting upward through the panels, as designed. At that point, a second M88 arrived on the scene, and it was possible to recover the tank after all. As an experiment, a round was loaded into the gun of the damaged tank, and it fired as if nothing had happened. The recovered tank received a replacement turret and was eventually returned to service.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 03:45 AM UTC
No fears, just a warning. When arguments start going to "this is better and that is so obviously inferior" we loose a lot of the information and it just delvs into a froth. I did not lock the thread because, as stated, it has not gone there yet. So I gave a freindly warning.
A lot of my problem with the X vs. Y arguments/discussions is that there is a fair amount of deception involved on the manufacturer's side for ANY country. Talk of sabotage at intl' weapons shows. Anyone remember the T-72 fired on by the Javeline that literally disintegrated? What was not said, even to the high Brass in the stands that came to see the demonstration, is that the T-72 in question had been set up with full fuel and ammo load, and then packed to the gills with extra ammo and fuel cans. One of the guys who set it up has confirmed this...He said they were just having fun and wanted to give the "brass" a real fun explosion. The marketing and executive divisions of the compnay however had a field day with it... (it pissed me off to no end how many people bought into it being a real effect of the missile impact.)
Just one more example in my book as why the X vs. Y discussions offer little info.
As for the T-90/RPG trials, IIRC they were conducted to see how the tank would survive from off-frontal angles and top angles as well as with deactivated K-5 (they were trying to see if they should make the K-5 sensative to RPG rounds from the front or only for main tank gun/heavy missile fire). Obviously, it did not go so well. Relikt/Kactus 2+/3rd generation ERA is supposed to address this in a much more efficient manner.
Just so you know, K-5 degrades SABOT rounds by 20%, newer Relikt and its like degrade them by 50%. Or so it is claimed.
A lot of my problem with the X vs. Y arguments/discussions is that there is a fair amount of deception involved on the manufacturer's side for ANY country. Talk of sabotage at intl' weapons shows. Anyone remember the T-72 fired on by the Javeline that literally disintegrated? What was not said, even to the high Brass in the stands that came to see the demonstration, is that the T-72 in question had been set up with full fuel and ammo load, and then packed to the gills with extra ammo and fuel cans. One of the guys who set it up has confirmed this...He said they were just having fun and wanted to give the "brass" a real fun explosion. The marketing and executive divisions of the compnay however had a field day with it... (it pissed me off to no end how many people bought into it being a real effect of the missile impact.)
Just one more example in my book as why the X vs. Y discussions offer little info.As for the T-90/RPG trials, IIRC they were conducted to see how the tank would survive from off-frontal angles and top angles as well as with deactivated K-5 (they were trying to see if they should make the K-5 sensative to RPG rounds from the front or only for main tank gun/heavy missile fire). Obviously, it did not go so well. Relikt/Kactus 2+/3rd generation ERA is supposed to address this in a much more efficient manner.
Just so you know, K-5 degrades SABOT rounds by 20%, newer Relikt and its like degrade them by 50%. Or so it is claimed.
goldenpony
Joined: July 03, 2007
KitMaker: 3,529 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 04:26 AM UTC
Let’s just hope we never have to let those tanks test out their claims in actual combat. It has been know for many years that misinformation works just as well as correct information. When the Air force tested AFR many years ago, they claimed it did not work, when all along it did work and worked rather well.
Today we have a possible foe telling us that our tank rounds will not kill their tanks. Should we believe them or ignore them? To be safe we believe them and spend time and money making new rounds and beefing up our armor.
I am sure our military does the same thing with Russian equipment. We claim this or that will not work against our latest equipment. We could lie and cause them to waste time and money working on a defense.
There are so many different things to take into account, training being one of them. Many times in military history the team with the best equipment was beaten by the team with the best training.
Just my opinion.
Today we have a possible foe telling us that our tank rounds will not kill their tanks. Should we believe them or ignore them? To be safe we believe them and spend time and money making new rounds and beefing up our armor.
I am sure our military does the same thing with Russian equipment. We claim this or that will not work against our latest equipment. We could lie and cause them to waste time and money working on a defense.
There are so many different things to take into account, training being one of them. Many times in military history the team with the best equipment was beaten by the team with the best training.
Just my opinion.
Spades
Joined: February 08, 2003
KitMaker: 776 posts
Armorama: 477 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 09:19 AM UTC
Remember this important side note when it comes to the F-15, it is the ONLY plane with the best kill ratio in the world. One has yet to be shot down, AWACS or not, you cannot argue against its proven record.
So I give you the india thing, combat is different from the actual game.
So I give you the india thing, combat is different from the actual game.
spongya
Associate EditorJoined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 10:03 AM UTC
Huh. Again, this argument-thing. F-15 was NEVER employed by itself. In an integrated battlefield, where every single aspect of the battlefield is controlled by your forces, even a Sopwright Camel would achieve this loss-to-kill ratio. F-15s have yet to be employed against an equal opponent, in an even battlefield. (It seems they would have less than perfect record under these circumstances...)
About this "combat is different game" I can't say anything. Sure. AWACS, satelites, CNN, blood, death and all that jazz people usually salivate over. But the fact still remains, that the Su's detected and intercepted the F-15s BEFORE they even showed up on the radars of the American jets. I presume the equipment doesn't know the difference between war games and actual combat. (I hope, at least.) It shows that the Russian-made hardware performed better under these circumstances, gave a substantial edge in detection and weapon employment. (And their dogfighting ability is superior, I might add, not that gunfight is so wide-spread nowadays.) I don't think the USAF would intentionally try to lose these engagements to blackmail their newest toys from the politicians, as there's a tremendous prestige-loss is involved -and the international weapon-market (which is dominated by the US from land-mines to cluster bombs) is too important to let these slips happen.
The same is true about the performance Iraqi T-72s. Even if we take the fact, that they were downgraded, export models, and manned by those poor, undertrained, non-motivated souls, out of the equation, the overwhelming air-superiority of the US forces made their combat record somewhat irrelevant. It's a few old tanks, and a constript army in a flat desert against combined artillery-air power-land power-infantry (and this fact made the bloodbath in Operation Desert Storm a tiny bit unnecessary and unethical, but hey, what the heck). The situation would not have been remotely similar had the European WWIII broke out.
(Even the M1A2 would not stand up to these challenges that the Iraqi T-72s faced: alone without air-cover, infantry and artillery support, and no intel, no cover. It seems like even a ragtag insurgent-army with improvised and/or outdated weapons can take them out with some luck, and fight successfully against a well-equipped army. Hardware is not everything -which is illustrated by the loss of that F-117 by the "mighty and powerful" (sarcasm) Serbian army, and their 30 years old missles. Never once was equipment able to overcome a determined, well trained guerilla force. So I guess, training has a huge inpact on the regular armies, as well.)
About this "combat is different game" I can't say anything. Sure. AWACS, satelites, CNN, blood, death and all that jazz people usually salivate over. But the fact still remains, that the Su's detected and intercepted the F-15s BEFORE they even showed up on the radars of the American jets. I presume the equipment doesn't know the difference between war games and actual combat. (I hope, at least.) It shows that the Russian-made hardware performed better under these circumstances, gave a substantial edge in detection and weapon employment. (And their dogfighting ability is superior, I might add, not that gunfight is so wide-spread nowadays.) I don't think the USAF would intentionally try to lose these engagements to blackmail their newest toys from the politicians, as there's a tremendous prestige-loss is involved -and the international weapon-market (which is dominated by the US from land-mines to cluster bombs) is too important to let these slips happen.
The same is true about the performance Iraqi T-72s. Even if we take the fact, that they were downgraded, export models, and manned by those poor, undertrained, non-motivated souls, out of the equation, the overwhelming air-superiority of the US forces made their combat record somewhat irrelevant. It's a few old tanks, and a constript army in a flat desert against combined artillery-air power-land power-infantry (and this fact made the bloodbath in Operation Desert Storm a tiny bit unnecessary and unethical, but hey, what the heck). The situation would not have been remotely similar had the European WWIII broke out.
(Even the M1A2 would not stand up to these challenges that the Iraqi T-72s faced: alone without air-cover, infantry and artillery support, and no intel, no cover. It seems like even a ragtag insurgent-army with improvised and/or outdated weapons can take them out with some luck, and fight successfully against a well-equipped army. Hardware is not everything -which is illustrated by the loss of that F-117 by the "mighty and powerful" (sarcasm) Serbian army, and their 30 years old missles. Never once was equipment able to overcome a determined, well trained guerilla force. So I guess, training has a huge inpact on the regular armies, as well.)
Spades
Joined: February 08, 2003
KitMaker: 776 posts
Armorama: 477 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 12:03 PM UTC
In regards to the F117,remember, they (anyone) have yet to build a plane that cannot be knocked out of the sky.
spongya
Associate EditorJoined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 12:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
In regards to the F117,remember, they (anyone) have yet to build a plane that cannot be knocked out of the sky.
The same can be said about tanks
(Except for the sky part...)(It's offtopic, but that Scharwzkopf quote sums up what's wrong with the American doctrine. I've read an interesting essay about this by a military historian -can't recall the name, but I can look it up- that from D-Day to Desert Storm the Allied forces focused on grinding up the opposing forces rather than dashing ahead, and seizing the objectives as quickly as possible a'la Blitzkrieg. It was an interesting and convincing argument for an outsider like me.)
The real reason I actually came here again is to ask if anybody could point me to a photo of an M1 with the panels blown out. (I'm curious, that's all, but couldn't find any among the burned-out M1 photos.)
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 12:34 PM UTC
While I woud love to discuss the + and - of the F-15, I am not sure it is relevant here. Same with the F-117. To the aircraft forum, Robin! 
As for Iraq...the questions we need to ask is if the lessons learned there are releant to ANY other theatre for war? Is it a once-in-a-lifetime perfect area for armored warfare, or does it show how combined arms is absolutely the way of the future? Would fully functional, top of the line T-90 m1992 tanks have made any difference? Could a full Russian Army, with airpower, artillery, and special forces have done better against the "Coalition of the willing"?
My guess is that the reason WWIII was never fought in Europe is that the price in lives would have been much too high. No one side thought they could effectively overwhelm the other so I would say that both sides were evenly matched enough.
From a slightly different perspective, who would volunteer to sit in the M1A2 as someone else fired on it from a T-90? Or vise-versa? Not me.
As for Iraq...the questions we need to ask is if the lessons learned there are releant to ANY other theatre for war? Is it a once-in-a-lifetime perfect area for armored warfare, or does it show how combined arms is absolutely the way of the future? Would fully functional, top of the line T-90 m1992 tanks have made any difference? Could a full Russian Army, with airpower, artillery, and special forces have done better against the "Coalition of the willing"?
My guess is that the reason WWIII was never fought in Europe is that the price in lives would have been much too high. No one side thought they could effectively overwhelm the other so I would say that both sides were evenly matched enough.
From a slightly different perspective, who would volunteer to sit in the M1A2 as someone else fired on it from a T-90? Or vise-versa? Not me.
smciver121
Joined: July 11, 2007
KitMaker: 56 posts
Armorama: 55 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 01:11 PM UTC
Gents...
I think the M1A1 vs T72/T90 thing comes down to something very simple.
You have to look at the manufacturing capacity of the areas that these are made. If you look at the equipment and manufacturing standards of GDLS in the USA, vs the Russian tank factories, you will find the biggest disparity. The US tanks and the components that go into these machines are produced by state of the are equipment. The optics, and said equipment are produced on the best CNC equipment. You need to take this into account when you compare the capabilities of these two tanks. It is sort of were the rubber meets the road. The US is miles above Russia when it comes to producing accurate components on a consistent basis. My 2 cents.
Scott
I think the M1A1 vs T72/T90 thing comes down to something very simple.
You have to look at the manufacturing capacity of the areas that these are made. If you look at the equipment and manufacturing standards of GDLS in the USA, vs the Russian tank factories, you will find the biggest disparity. The US tanks and the components that go into these machines are produced by state of the are equipment. The optics, and said equipment are produced on the best CNC equipment. You need to take this into account when you compare the capabilities of these two tanks. It is sort of were the rubber meets the road. The US is miles above Russia when it comes to producing accurate components on a consistent basis. My 2 cents.
Scott
Reiter960
Joined: June 24, 2007
KitMaker: 503 posts
Armorama: 500 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 02:29 PM UTC
Question: anyone remebers what the original poster wanted to be clarified? F-15, Sukhoi Su-27 family, Raptors? what in the world does it or AN/APG-68 or any other hardware from above vehicles have to do with T-90's ability to withstand US SABOT rounds and K-5 in particular? This is no longer a discussion,IMHO, just "I am a better military expert than you" contest. Why do you even compare T-72M, by the way which export 72 are you all referring to, against M1A2?
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2008 - 05:27 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I am pretty skeptical about it. I have seen first hand what a SABOT round can do to a T-72, goes through it like hot butter. A T-90 is just an upgraded T-72 with some extra armor. Additionally, ERA blocks are pretty ineffective against SABOT rounds as well. They were designed for HEAT and shaped-charge projectiles.
several years ago I saw an M-1 (not an A-1 or A-2) turret take a side shot from six inch naval
gun shooting AP. There was no penitration. The hit was spectacular, and the integrity of the welded construction held true. I've also seen something similar with a hull shot to the side (don't remember what gun was used), and once again there was no penitration (used no side shields by the way).
Now to get back to hits in the field a sec: There was one particular instance where an M1 got bogged down in the first Iraqi war. It was jumped by three T-72s. The bogged down tank knocked out all three while taking point black hits from all three T-72s. There were several deep gouges in the hull, but no penitration.
gary
Removed by original poster on 01/04/08 - 12:46:04 (GMT).
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.