Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunting
Could somebody please tell me the state of play with both Russian and Chinese modern Armour? Are their tanks "comparable" to let's say, the Challenger or Abrams?
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.  |
They certainly claim they are.
Armor- Russian and Chinese Armor is still less weighty than western MBT's. Of the weight they do have for armor they use some of it for active systems, and more still for ERA which can be vulnerable to counter measures such as tandem charges. Of the remaining weight able to be devoted to real armor they have as much or more frontal area to cover than a slab sided Western design. It is a myth that from the front T series type tanks are small targets. While the T-90 does have about half a meter smaller profile, its long angled turret and hull faces actually create more surface area facing the enemy on a level plain. The Russian's for thier part tacitly admit this, operational deployment of tanks now uses a reduced ammo load to help prevent the catastrophic flying frying pan that results when BAE results from a penetrating hit.
Gun Power- The Russians love to talk up the range of the Releks-M tube launched ATGM. They tend to ignore that it is slow, and being only 125mm does not pack a big enough warhead to seriously threaten the leading Western MBT (M1A2, Leo2A6, Chall2CLIP). For pure gun power both the Russians and Chinese claim thier 125mm guns are at least equal to the NATO 120mmL44. They are not. The 125mm uses two piece ammunition this limits the overall length of the penetrator and thus its ability to transfer energy and its over all weight both critical in achieving penetration. They both also use tungsten alloys vs DU. Tungsten alloys are actually worse for the environment despite the claims about DU and they are not pyrophoric and self sharpening like DU.