Russian Black Eagle Surpasses America's Abrams

[osti]

Originally posted by Balamut

ERA is basic configuration for soviet and russian tanks from the moment of invention - 1983. In first chechen campaign, because they were not fitted with ERA.( why - it's another question.)
In second chechen campaing russia didn't lose not one single tank.

Different tactics were used in Grozny 3 (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/Rusn_leslrn.htm). Tanks did not go into city.

Scale of city battle is incomparable.

Not really, the main difference is that Chechens knew their job. Iraqis don't.

It's reliable. Most of Abrams were destroyed by RPG. BTW.See page N 3 of the current thread for new rounds for it.

Abrams were not destroyed, their mobility was destroyed. Some even had three RPG hits and the crew was still alive and fairly well, the turrent was ok, and the tank could still fire rounds. T's can't do that after one RPG hit. And I saw this with my own eyes, when a Yugoslav Army tank (T-72 version) was blown up by a Armbrust AT weapon.

Really?

LOL, is this picture for real? The ERA can't be fitted on top because of the simple fact that people (crew) has to walk on the top to get to their positions. I don't particurarely like walking on minefields, does anyone else?

Merkava is very good tank, probably the best. But T can stand in one row with the others.

As I recall, Israeli tankists hold the record on confirnmed enemy kill (a little over 3.800m). A Merkava3 fired on T-62 (Syrian I think).
Slovenian Army has T-72 and T-55 (modified to M-55s1 standard). None of them can survive modern engagement against western tanks. M-55 was modernized by Israelis, it has a new 105mm cannon and Blazer (ERA) armor. It is still out-gunned, out-armored and out-senzored by western tanks. The new T-95 (automatic turrent) and Black Eagle are promising. But any other T is just a target.

P.S Russian systems of active defence such as Arena and Drozd are highly capable to protect tanks. What analogues can west offer?

[Edited by Balamut on 15th April 2004 at 19:25]

[/b]

Western tanks don't need active protection, their COBHAM armour is good enough.

[quote]Originally posted by osti

Different tactics were used in Grozny 3. Tanks did not go into city.


In the city every tank is easy target. Replace T's with Abrams in Grozny, 1995 and their casualties won't be less.


Not really, the main difference is that Chechens knew their job. Iraqis don't.

This doesn't prove American tanks are better - see above.

[quote]
Abrams were not destroyed, their mobility was destroyed. Some even had three RPG hits and the crew was still alive and fairly well, the turrent was ok, and the tank could still fire rounds.

RPG-7 isn't a top model of RPG serie. But even this old thing with outdated rockets Iraqis have can penetrate Abrams' armour and immobilize it at least. Impressive. You have nothing to be proud of here. Your luck Iraqis didn't have Kornet system or something like that.

T's can't do that after one RPG hit.

Really? You mean T-34? Come on, in one contact in Chechnya T-72 with ERA survived several RPG-7 hits and didn't even lose mobility.


LOL, is this picture for real? The ERA can't be fitted on top because of the simple fact that people (crew) has to walk on the top to get to their positions. I don't particurarely like walking on minefields, does anyone else?


What sh!t do Americans call ERA then? Do you made ERa blocks of paper? Real ERA shouldn't explode even if hit with 12.7mm bullet. Otherwise it's useless.

As I recall, Israeli tankists hold the record on confirnmed enemy kill (a little over 3.800m). A Merkava3 fired on T-62 (Syrian I think).


When I heard about kills at 3800m I want say "guys, imagine you're not in desert". In area with mountains, hills and forests contacts are made on distance less than 1 km. T-62's sabot round can penetrate Abrams' front armor from 700m. In close combat you won't have such advantage as you have in desert.


The new T-95 (automatic turrent) and Black Eagle are promising. But any other T is just a target.

Wrong. T-72 (modernized, with ERA and ADS), T-80 and new T-90 are match for western tanks today. Black Eagle and T-95 outperform any known tank.


Western tanks don't need active protection, their COBHAM armour is good enough.

You just don't know what Active Defence System (ADS) gives to tank.


P.S. Balamut, let's not argue. The more they think their tanks are invulnerable and ours are sh!t, the more advantage we'll have.

[Balamut]

People ust walk over era .. - that picture is real?? LOL????
Man, do you know this subject, or you'r one of those who just want to say : Abram is the best; best there is.
I have nothing to say to you more.

[Balamut]

oK, Alex

[limey_defence]

Just one thing, well two actually.

1. The Isrealis hold the longest kill shot do they, at 3,800m? How come in World War 2 it was reported a German Ferdinand took out a T-34/76 at over 4500m?

2. Did none of you see the M1 in action recently? One was hit by at least two RPGs and it was still moving and in fact still in action.

The M1 isn't invunerable, neither is the T-90. They are both very good tanks, and they do their job, the job a tank should do, very well.

Originally posted by limey_defence
Did none of you see the M1 in action recently? One was hit by at least two RPGs and it was still moving and in fact still in action.


It depends highly on what part of tank was hit by light AT weapon. Advantage of such weapons like RPG is that soldier can (in urban zone especially) fire rocket to tank from any direction (even from above) from quite close distance. In fact this make any tank vulnerable. If soldier doesn't know weak points of enemy's tank it's his problem - in this case he can hit tank 100 times without any success.

The M1 isn't invunerable, neither is the T-90. They are both very good tanks, and they do their job, the job a tank should do, very well.

Well said, Limey.

M1 wasn't made by schoolboys. It a very good tank, but it's JUST a very good tank, not a super invulnerable weapon. Americans have too much faith in its abilities.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Alex_Ivanov

Well said, Limey.

M1 wasn't made by schoolboys. It a very good tank, but it's JUST a very good tank, not a super invulnerable weapon. Americans have too much faith in its abilities.

Alex,

I don't think Americans have too much faith in the abilities of the M1. The public can believe what it wants, and as with most people, national pride sometimes carries more weight than raw truth. Especially if they don't know any better. It really doesn't matter though, as that only makes for fluff and bluster in a forum like this one, and you really can't judge the opinion of most Americans based on the internet posts of a handfull.

In the cold war days, when representatives of each side would declare to the public that the other side is so far behind that they are trying to chisel fighter aircraft from stone with a small hammer, I used to ask, "If that were really the case, why is it necessary to spend billions of Dollars every few years just to maintain parity, if the enemy is a moron, and the threat doesn't exist"? More fluff and bluster. The truth is that we all build awesome stuff, and that designs, like time, never stand still.

The weapons designers, military leadership, and even the actual tank crews are well aware of the strong points and limitations of the M1. That's what really counts. Understand the threat you face, and adapt to meet it. Updates are made on a regular basis, and, in my opinion, the M1 is a pretty damn good tank. One of the best at that.

Russia has always built excellent tanks, and both east and west are great at adding bandaids to "fix" problems that crop up as battlefield reality changes with time. I still maintain that the urban setting of recent battles has marginalized the role of tanks in the future, as tanks don't belong in a well armed urban setting.

Reactive armor, active armor, or magic armor, unless it is used only to suppress an (essentially) unarmed civil population, a tank is about as effective against a properly armed insurgency on city streets as is a fishtank full of piranahs.

Meanwhile, the great inertia of the military community allows the tank to remain in vogue, and gobble up some development money while better solutions for the urban theater are in the works.

"New" tank designs were probably started before it became clear that the battlefield had changed so much. There are still places in the world where wars without masses of airpower will be fought in rural settings, so it makes sense to market these designs to those countries in order to get some investment money back into the State bank.

Then again, it seems clear to me that the most active area of development for tanks today (and the most secrecy in terms of work in progress) is in the area of modifying current models to survive highly man portable threats that used to be a mere footnote in the armored warfare playbook.

Considering that the political goal of warfare is to kill people and break things until the enemy submits, while protecting your own people and things as best as possible, I think the tank is on it's way to the museum.

I don't know for sure what will replace the tank, but given the tech of the day, various remote piloted vehicles that are relatively cheap, well armed, well sensored, more difficult to hit, easily deliverable in large quantities, and operate in a true three dimensional field, seem to be scratching the itch that the military has been feeling recently.

Tanks are still impressive, but then again, so must have been the last Tyrannosaurus Rex in it's time.


Voyager