lurker

After that, the scheme of arouring changed at least 2 times.
Means all armouring was re-engineered from the ground.

In russan classification:
T-72 - first generation
T-72MP - second
T-84, T-90, T-80U - third

bigross86

So all that means is instead of an M1A1 APSFDS round destroying two MBT's, it will destroy/disable one MBT.

__________________
You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

lurker

Means that it's not straight forward.

Abrams performance sounds like fairy tale. Why? Many reasons.
For example they say that "Abrams" with it's GPS's were able to destroy iraqi tanks on distances average to 3 km.

But... after 10 years after that war, there was noted that performance of the AH-64 Apache TADS was bad. TADS is using the same pricipals as Abrams GPS, but it's more advanced and working in better environment (less dust).
But even with all that, "Apache" pilots were unable to determine the target type on distances more than 2 km, and on lesser distances often attacked friendly forces.
That is not just about the dayight. There was so much smoke and sand, that "Apache" pilots were using night-vison during the day, the same with M1 operators.

They lie, and we know it.

bigross86

Not lie, embellish. Everyone embellishes. Even the vaunted USSR embellished quite a bit.

Homer

Somewhere is a village that is missing their idiot...

Stinger

Good shot Homer :D Clp Clp

__________________
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

lurker

Well, whatever you call it - just don't call it "facts and data" :D On the other hand - it's funnier that way :D :D

Anon

Mayhem, you moron....the M-1A2 and A1HA have the same friggin armor package.

The M829A3 sabot will penetrate the frontal plate of any known MBT to a range of 1500 meters.

There is a US military armored engineer that posts over at warships1, by the name of Paul Lakowski. If you want mathematical formulae to back up these claims, go ask him.

The active IR search array of the T-80 will give away it's position to any surrounding unit with PNVS. IR is light afterall....

The thermal optics(TIS) of the M-1A1 and newer are far superior to any Russian tank in existence.

You're a troll Mayhem, kindly shut up.

lurker

No, it is not. General arrangement looks the same, but armour is different.
UО87 (on HA) ceramics is softer than UО100 (on A2). Uranium plates in U0100 are smaller and more dencily located. Because of that UО100 on M2 is 12% heavier.

So, why don't you shut up about the things you don't know, and we call it a night?

Captain C

Just a little FYI....

The barrel on the 120MM Abrams is not rifled. The 105 on the M-1 might be but we don't field any of those in active units anymore. Some reserve units may have them but most were converted to a higher level such as HA or A2.

Bottom line is we don't know everything about every weapon the larger powers have. We can guess, deduce, or shoot the heck out of it to find out. But hopefully we never have to take that last option. There are weapons that both sides have that no one on this board knows about. We won't find out about them until the next generation has been developed and we use the older ones to cream the bad guys. Why use the old ones? Because they still work and we already paid for them, might as well use them before the warranty expires......

As far as the performance of a particular weapon in warfare goes, it will never be known until the deficiency has been corrected. To release that information prematurely would be ludicrous. The only thing that can be truly stated is that the garbage "export version" of the Russian equipment used by Iraq was nowhere nearly as good as the top of the line Russian armor. The optics were second rate as well as the armor system. Do not judge the T-72 and up by that conflict. You may also state that the M1A-1 and up kick serious booty on those particular pieces of garbage. Does that mean they will do as good against the top of the line Russian equipment? Maybe yes, maybe no. The only comparison I could give is the M-60 kicked butt on all the various tanks it encountered in Desert Storm, that included the export version of the T-72 that theoretically was superior to a tank based on late 1940's design (M-26).

Hopefully our nations remain friends and we never have to find out who has he better tank in combat. Cheers!!

:D

__________________
Revelation 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
(Been There)

Anon

"No, it is not. General arrangement looks the same, but armour is different.
UО87 (on HA) ceramics is softer than UО100 (on A2). Uranium plates in U0100 are smaller and more dencily located. Because of that UО100 on M2 is 12% heavier.

So, why don't you shut up about the things you don't know, and we call it a night?"

If there is one thing i am confident in in life, it is that you do NOT know the internal compostition of either the M-1, IM-1, M-1A1, M-1A1HA, M-1A2, M-1A2 or M-1A2SEP.

Care to post a link to a site that has published this 'data' so they can be immediately reported to the FBI for breaching sensitive military information?

Anon

"Abrams performance sounds like fairy tale. Why? Many reasons.
For example they say that "Abrams" with it's GPS's were able to destroy iraqi tanks on distances average to 3 km. "

No IM-1/M-1's were equipped with GPS in operation desert storm, they used the original TIS system.

The GPS was introduced with the M-1A1(primary tank used in ODS), it is a next generation FLIR. The GPS is an improved TTS sight(from the M-60A3TTS- which is itself a better FLIR than the TIS).

Kills were made BEYOND 3000 meters using the GPS. I've looked through the old TIS(Our tank Platoon had IM-1s)....and even in that older sight you can easily see a large hot object 3000 meters away. Day or night. You just can't see any real detail.

The same holds true for the GLID, our team was issued one of those, and we trained with it fairly often.

"But... after 10 years after that war, there was noted that performance of the AH-64 Apache TADS was bad. TADS is using the same pricipals as Abrams GPS, but it's more advanced and working in better environment (less dust)."

The Apache has all kinds of mechanical issues. That the TADS is also screwed up does not surprise me.

"But even with all that, "Apache" pilots were unable to determine the target type on distances more than 2 km, and on lesser distances often attacked friendly forces. "

Ever looked through the older generation FLIRS? Detail aint their strong point dude.

"That is not just about the dayight. There was so much smoke and sand, that "Apache" pilots were using night-vison during the day, the same with M1 operators."

Too bad the Iraqi's couldn't, eh?

"They lie, and we know it."

They lie....but not about this.

Horrido

So, since we have our first die-hard troll in Mayhem, who gets to feed him and maintain his bridge? At least with school starting again, he should have his time occupied with spelling lists, coloring books, and "my first readers" rather than wasting bandwidth here...Hopefully, "Hooked-on-phonics" will benefit his literacy skills, too.

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

plasmon

8)
whatn about some data7
T-80
Front turret 54..74cm vs APFSDS; 80..132cm vs HEAT
Glacis 78±2cm vs APFSDS; 108±4cm HEAT
T - 90
Front turret 54..76cm vs APFSDS; 80..122cm vs HEAT
Glacis 69±2cm vs APFSDS; 94±4cm HEAT

According to newest Fofanov data these values is underestimated (T-80 turret is up to 1200mm vs apfsds)

Abrams M1A2 Leo2 front turret and glacis
approx 700mm vs APFSDS 850 mm vs HEAT

Horrido

So, how wide is the turret on a T-80? There can't be much space inside if the frontal armor and/or sides of the turret is 2.4 meters (eight feet) thick, combined. Or is this "equivalent" of conventional steal armor units, factoring in the reactive armor?