The Greatest Ever Military Tanks

[Firral]

I see no M829 on that list, nor do i see ANY NATO round, APFSDS, HESH, or HEAT of ANY KIND on that list.

If you will look at characteristics of shells you will understand that 3БМ32 is very similar with M829А1, and 3БМ42 (that that was used in the test) similarity M829А2.

Hell, all the newest NATO missiles attack the TOP of the tank anyway, and bypass the frontal armor altogether.

Malyutka-2 and Kornet:
These rockets can do precisely also. However in the given test it was important to check up the armor of tanks. I read about it in other place, all rockets shot on tanks, flied as the crow flies.

[leib10]

The Kornet could've been smuggled in from Syria, who is known to operate Kornets.

[Triple C]

That's odd. I seem to remember on this very board a picture of an Abrams that had been hit in the skirts with some sort of HEAT weapon. Went all the way to the other side of the turret. I thought it was supposed to be some variant of an RPG, maybe more advanced than RPG 7 though.

There are also numerous documented incidents where the M1A1 survived multiple RPG hits at the side hull.

[Triple C]

So much so that many strategists have questioned the survival of armor in the future.

Say that to an armor vet online and he'll try to kill you with angry, CAPITALIZED profainities.

As for the Russian tests,

If the estimates I have access to is right about the penetration of M829A2, it is a significantly better APFSDS then the BM-42. While the T-90's turret might stop the A2, it's glacis can't.

[Firral]

The Kornet could've been smuggled in from Syria, who is known to operate Kornets.

Yes I too heard about it. However till now are not found empty rocket directing "Cornet".

Nope, IIRC that one missed the skirt and hit the thin hull between the road wheels. That's a very vulnerable area on most tanks.

You can look at this picture. It not a weak place in the armor the tank.

I am am amused with your logic:
All the American technics - the best
All Russian technics - dung
The American tanks burned down in Iraq - you have burnt all, or them have struck in the weakest points of the armor
All Russian tanks - plywood boxes which can be punched in the frontal armor
Mine to you advice: read books Tom Clancy less, differently you soon will believe in Santa.

[leib10]

Say that to an armor vet online and he'll try to kill you with angry, CAPITALIZED profainities.

Then that's just too bad. How do you think the cavalryman felt when the horse became obsolete?

[Bill]

If you will look at characteristics of shells you will understand that 3БМ32 is very similar with M829А1, and 3БМ42 (that that was used in the test) similarity M829А2.

I do not accept that 3BM anything is as good as M829 series ammo.

When someone does SIDE BY SIDE penetration tests in a controlled environment- OR when a 3BM does something a M829 clearly failed to do(such as penetrate the frontal turret armor of an M-1A1HA at close range), THEN, and only then, will i accept that the Russian round is an equal(or superior) munition.

I have simply seen TOO MANY WILD EXXAGERATIONS of Russian weapons capabilities to ever take ANY of them at face value ever again.

Now before you call me complacent, from a war preparation standpoint it is WISE to assume the enemy weapons work, but that sure doesn't mean that they actually do.

I mean has this 3BM series ever even seen face to face combat with other contemporary tanks? Say in Chechnya or where-ever?

Malyutka-2 and Kornet:
These rockets can do precisely also. However in the given test it was important to check up the armor of tanks. I read about it in other place, all rockets shot on tanks, flied as the crow flies.

I'm quite sure Kornet works fine for flank kills. Whehter or not it will penetrate the frontal armor of an M1A1HA or newer, well, the jury is out. If it can top attack then it should be pretty good.

Of course there are a jillion variables like ease of use, thermal sight quality, time of flight, and blah, blah, blah that are more important to consider wrt an infantry ATGM than actual penetration is.

The US Army gets it's hands on all manner of russian weapons, so i'm sure we've had the opportunity to evaluate the Kornet.

The lack of a 'desperate' M-1 uparmoring program seems to me to indicate that the Abrams frontal rmor is just fine against it....but that's just my guess.
The only armor mod made to Abrams after the most recent Iraq war was the fitting of stainless steel slats that cover the rear engine grill, to aid in engine compartment protection.

One thing of interest about the M1 is that the armor has always been viewed to be good enough to not need ERA.

Just imagine the kind of protection you could get from a Kontact5 type ERA equipped Abrams with the anti-RPG screens installed.

[Bill]

Yes I too heard about it. However till now are not found empty rocket directing "Cornet".

You can look at this picture. It not a weak place in the armor the tank.

I am am amused with your logic:
All the American technics - the best
All Russian technics - dung
The American tanks burned down in Iraq - you have burnt all, or them have struck in the weakest points of the armor
All Russian tanks - plywood boxes which can be punched in the frontal armor
Mine to you advice: read books Tom Clancy less, differently you soon will believe in Santa.

That's not the tank i was talking about. A question was asked about a tank that got hit on the FLANK, not a frontal shot.

PS: I have said that all tanks are death traps. Repeatedly.

Perhaps you should pay better attention, or drink less vodka.

PS: Without verifiable context that picture you posted is completely meaningless. For all we know it was shot by a Maverick fired from an A-10, and there's no visibile evidence in that pic that the turret was actually penetrated anyway.

Or perhaps you had not considered these small details?

I googled "M1 frontal armor penetration", "M1 Abrams frontal armor penetration", "M1 turret penetration", and "M1 Abrams turret penetration" for images, and did not get a single hit. What's more, i could find no directly relevant google hits(in fact for most relevant phrases i tried i could find no hits at all) on the www either, for those key words.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=aNd&...on&btnG=Search

So far as I know, no Abrams have ever been lost to a frontal hit.

In fact, almost all(if not all) of the Abrams we've lost to ENEMY fire were not a result of catastrophic explosion, or even fire due to penetration, but due to top side or engine compartment fires.

[Bill]

That's odd. I seem to remember on this very board a picture of an Abrams that had been hit in the skirts with some sort of HEAT weapon. Went all the way to the other side of the turret.

If you replace the word "Turret" with the word "Hull", you did.

THAT was the picture i was referring to earlier. The penetration occured on the flank, below the skirt, between two road wheels.

As i said, that's one of the most vulnerable places on any tank.

[Bill]

There are also numerous documented incidents where the M1A1 survived multiple RPG hits at the side hull.

Multiple DOZENS of hits.

The RPG is a perfect example of the kind of thing i'm talking about with russian CRAP.

I read in one of the US Army AARs that the dud rate for RPG was over 30% and the MISFIRE rate(ie, the blow up in your face rate) was over 10%.

So sure, the RPG-7 is fine and dandy, when it actually works- and when it doesn't blow your face off first.

[Bill]

Then that's just too bad. How do you think the cavalryman felt when the horse became obsolete?

Armor is not obsolete, and the very mention of armor being obsolete IMO makes the person suggesting that it is look like a total moron.

Armor is about as obsolete as infantry or artillery.

IOW, it's not.

[dalem]

leib-

I believe that overall point Snipe is making (and slap me down if I get it wrong, Snipe) is the old tried-and-true concept that no one piece of the pie is more important than the pie itself.

Tanks are deathtraps, grunts are squishy, everything on the ground is just a target, everything in the air is too far away to make a difference, etc.

-dale

[leib10]

Naturally agreed.

Snipe- I never said armor will become obsolete. I was just stating what others have predicted, whether they are right or wrong.

IMO (for whatever it's worth) armor WILL have a role in warfare. However, their nemesis will always come in the form of airplanes.

[Bill]

The US military is infantry-centric, iow, every other system/branch/combat arm that exists exists to assist the infantryman in his mission......but every other system/branch is a NECCESARY part of the what's needed to let the lowly US infantryman do his job without getting slaughtered on an epic scale.

Look at WWI and we see what happened when mobility did not keep up with defensive doctrine and hardware.

Air assault, armor, amphib.....they all exist to get the infantryman where he's got to go without charging into concentrated cannister and machinegun fire.

We all work(ed) together in what is in reality, the ULTIMATE TEAM SPORT.

[kNikS]

They never faced US tanks or ground forces. Likewise, they were very effective at hiding under cover from Allied airpower(as all ground forces are in that terrain, something the flyboys refuse to believe even now, lololol).

You had your chance, you missed it.

Any of a wide variety of current US munitions would blow a nice big hole in the front of an M-84 IMO, based on actual combat evidence and public demonstrations and my own first hand knowledge of US weapons systems(dated as it may be).

Now that's a bloody conjecture!

I'd believe that when i saw it demonstrated, or read of a credible incident of it being demonstrated. Until then, it's just another russian defense brochure claim IMO.

Of course. You have enoug info availble and you are free do draw your own conclusions. I have no problem with you Snipe, you are decent, patriotic fella (which is not bad nor a sin, infact it's everyones duty) with certain experince from your service, but on this one - I'm more ready to belive those guys on tanknet.

We would have to agree that we disagree. :)