M1A2 vs T-80U

Re: M1A2 vs T-80U

Now, of course we have the superior trainees...but in terms of performance which overall is the better tank? And which carries the better Armour?

Let's start all over again please, now with actually some people putting up an argument instead of blazing out their "our 1337 Abrams tanks pwnz the shi77y T80! BECUZ ITS AMERICAN!!!"

First of all the characteristics:
T80U vs M1A2
Crew: 3 vs 4
Weight: 46t vs 63t
Profile: 2.2m vs 2.5m
Main Gun: 2A26-M1 125mm Main Gun vs Deutsche Rheinmetal 120mm Main Gun
Machine Guns: 12,7 KVSK, 7,62 PKT vs 12,7 M2HB, 2x M240 7,62
Engine: GTD 1250 horse powered Gas Turbine engine vs. "Likoming" AGT 1500 horse powered engine
Range: 500km vs 420km

The Abrams was made with the T72 in mind, the American tank needed to counter the new Soviet machine. After field tests its British 105mm L7 (M68) gun proved to be ineffective against frontal armour of the Soviet T72 tank. That is how the M1A1 was born, the German Rheinmetal main gun which was used on the Leopard 2 tank. The M1A1 proved to be quite expensive especially with its new ballitic computer and other electronic appliances, probably too expensive to be produced in large numbers in a full scale war with the Soviet Union.
The M1A2 was developed after the Cold War was over and the need for a tank that could be easily mass produced in a large scale war was no longer needed. The M1A2 got a new ballistic computer new armour etc.
But that made it too heavy, it is not only some 17 tonnes heavier than the T80 but it is also more cumbersome. It has a great difficulty of negotiating rivers on pontoon bridges. It cannot swim under water unlike the T80.
The gas turbine engine of the M1A2 (which was copied from the T80's gas turbine engine) unlike its Soviet counterpart proved to be ineffective in desert enironments.
The Chobham armour of the M1A2 is not undefeatable as many of you think, in this Gulf War many M1A2's were disabled by RPG's, and some were destroyed by RPG's. Consequently one might think what damage would a 125mm T 80 round do to the armour of the M1A2. It would do great damage. When Germany was reunified, the Bundeswehr fired T72 rounds at their Leopard 2's which has Chobham armour and it proved to be ineffective in stopping 125mm Soviet rounds.
So my opinion is that the T80U is a better tank than the M1A2 because of the following reasons:
1. It is more mobile and agile than the M1A2, it is also faster.
2. It will outrange the M1A2 with a "Kobra" ATGM at the range of 5000km, the M1A2 would not hit anything up to the range of atleast 3000m.
3. It's engine is much more reliable than the M1A2.
4. It can negotiate rivers up to 5 meters deep while the Abrams can't.
5. It has a higher rate of fire because of the automatic loader, unlike the Abrams which doesnt even have a Rate of Fire because that depends on the loader and his training.
6. The T80 is cheaper and easier to mass produce.
7. The fire control systems of the T80 are more reliable in extreme cold and extreme hot environments.
8. The T80 has a further range.
9. The T80 has a sleeker profile making it a harder target to hit than the Abrams.

above you can see the profiles of a T80 compared to an Abrams.

The T80 is an all round better tank than the M1, in a full scale conventional war the T80 would wipe the floor with the Abrams.

[Stinger]

Damn commie's are like rats, once they manage to get in you can't seem to get ris of them.

[Stinger]

Actually I have a relatively high IQ as does KingFrogger. However I usually choose not to waste it on the ramblings of mentally challenged peseants.

[hater]

To bigross86:
Your avatar is almost as good as mine ! :D

[Stinger]

Well my intelligence seems to surpass yours, since I can spell "your" correctly.

And for Farmers talking to peasants I have no idea... I'm neither.

[Stinger]

Actually i just type real fast and have had a pot of coffee :D

as for the original topic I will say this... the T-72 main gun has had ample opportunity to show its supperiority to the Armor on the M1 series tanks, yet has failed to ever penetrate the crew compartment. The M1 series tanks have had ample opportunity to wax many T-72's and has done so. The T-80 wieghing in at 17 tons lighter cannot by laws of weight and physics have more armor than the M1 series tank. The T-80 night sights are limited to a maximum engagement range of 1300 meters, the M1 series can easily see farther than that. Of course as has been said in this very topic a pure tank on tank engagement will likely never happen, Bradleys, Hummers and BMP's will all add to the engagement not to mention A-10's and Su-25's. But I would bet my life on an M1 series tank ahead of any other type.

[Praxus]

The M1A2 was developed after the Cold War was over and the need for a tank that could be easily mass produced in a large scale war was no longer needed. The M1A2 got a new ballistic computer new armour etc.
But that made it too heavy, it is not only some 17 tonnes heavier than the T80 but it is also more cumbersome. It has a great difficulty of negotiating rivers on pontoon bridges. It cannot swim under water unlike the T80.
The gas turbine engine of the M1A2 (which was copied from the T80's gas turbine engine) unlike its Soviet counterpart proved to be ineffective in desert enironments.

You do relise that the M1A2 has the same Gas Turbine as the M1A1 and the M1.

It's the AGT-1500 gas turbine engine, it is 1500 horse power.


GDT-1250

The Chobham armour of the M1A2 is not undefeatable as many of you think, in this Gulf War many M1A2's were disabled by RPG's, and some were destroyed by RPG's. Consequently one might think what damage would a 125mm T 80 round do to the armour of the M1A2. It would do great damage. When Germany was reunified, the Bundeswehr fired T72 rounds at their Leopard 2's which has Chobham armour and it proved to be ineffective in stopping 125mm Soviet rounds.

The RPG's did not penetrate the crew compartment, most of them were shot at the tracks/skirt and the grill. No tank had it's crew compartment penetrated with an RPG(RHA penetration of 600mm with newest Tandem Warhead, frontal armor on turret of M1 against Shaped Charge is over 1500mm and over 1750mm if you include the tilt of the armor).

A 125mm HEAT round will not penetrate the frontal turret armor, nor will it penetrate the glacis or the top of the hull armor in the front, it will only penetrate the sides and the back of the armor, which means we would have to be retreating.

So my opinion is that the T80U is a better tank than the M1A2 because of the following reasons:
1. It is more mobile and agile than the M1A2, it is also faster.
2. It will outrange the M1A2 with a "Kobra" ATGM at the range of 5000km, the M1A2 would not hit anything up to the range of atleast 3000m.
3. It's engine is much more reliable than the M1A2.
4. It can negotiate rivers up to 5 meters deep while the Abrams can't.
5. It has a higher rate of fire because of the automatic loader, unlike the Abrams which doesnt even have a Rate of Fire because that depends on the loader and his training.
6. The T80 is cheaper and easier to mass produce.
7. The fire control systems of the T80 are more reliable in extreme cold and extreme hot environments.
8. The T80 has a further range.
9. The T80 has a sleeker profile making it a harder target to hit than the Abrams.

(My numbers corispond with your numbers)

1.)The M1 Abrams with Governers off has gotten up to 70 mph(112km/h) and with no turret it got up to 90 mph(144km/h). It can turn just as "agile" as the T-80.

2.)The AT-8 Songster(nato designation) only has a range of 4000m not 5000m like you claim which is with in the killing range of of an M1 Abrams firing an APFSDS round.

The T-80's night optics can only identify a target out to 1500m meaning the ATGM can only be used at day time. It only has RHA penetration of 600mm at 0 degrees meaning it can't penetrate the front of the Abrams turret. The M1A2 can identify targets out to 4000 meters.

We are also making the Mid-Range Munition for the M1 Abrams and the Future Combat System which is a non-line of sight anti-tank round for the 120mm gun. It has a range of 16km and it uses a kinetic energy warhead going at the same velocity of current APFSDS round to penetrate the armor of the tank(on top of this if it is attack in None line of site mode it will penetrate through the thin armor on the top of the tank).

3.) We didn't seem to have many problems going through the Desert in two different wars in Iraq. There were very few reports of failure in the first one and they had a 90% Operational Readiness.

4.) The M104 and the M60 AVLB put out a bridge that our Tanks will go over.

5.)The Abrams with a fast loader can get 12 rounds off a minute(only 8 per minute with auto-loader), but there are never that many tanks for a single tank to engage in one minute.

6.) I'll give you that.

7.) The inside of the M1 Abrams have 200 SCFM CleanCooled Air NBC system the FCS are fine as long as they don't run out of gas.

8.)I'll give you that.

T80U vs M1A2
Crew: 3 vs 4
Weight: 46t vs 63t
Profile: 2.2m vs 2.5m
Main Gun: 2A26-M1 125mm Main Gun vs Deutsche Rheinmetal 120mm Main Gun
Machine Guns: 12,7 KVSK, 7,62 PKT vs 12,7 M2HB, 2x M240 7,62
Engine: GTD 1250 horse powered Gas Turbine engine vs. "Likoming" AGT 1500 horse powered engine
Range: 500km vs 420km

The T-80U only has a range of 335 km without extra feul tanks. Feul Tanks give it a range of 600km.

So far the only advantage you have showed me is that it can go farther, it has a 11 foot smaller profile, and can be mass produced. Not very scary tank to me.

[Ironduke]

Actually I have a relatively high IQ as does KingFrogger. However I usually choose not to waste it on the ramblings of mentally challenged peseants.

lol you brag about spelling... and how your IQ is superior to ours... and how he cannot spell yours, but would a guy with such a high IQ as yours mispell such a simple word as PEASANTS.
so please, cowboy stop showing off, and stick to the original topic of this thread!

сранный пиндос

Heh, those who live in glass houses should be the last to throw stones. :roll:

Your sig:
"Nothing is more sacred than liberty and independance!"

It's independence.

I take it you're Troy?

[bigross86]

Does this mean I need to help Stinger feed these trolls? No fair! I was having fun hitting them with the BB gun...

You do relise that the M1A2 has the same Gas Turbine as the M1A1 and the M1.

It's the AGT-1500 gas turbine engine, it is 1500 horse power.

I know that the M1A2 has the same engine as the M1A1 etc.
The point is that the T80 rolled off the production line in 1976, while the Abrams did so in 1980. American spies had 4 years to tell their friends at Chrysler what kind of an engine the Soviets installed on their tanks.

The RPG's did not penetrate the crew compartment, most of them were shot at the tracks/skirt and the grill. No tank had it's crew compartment penetrated with an RPG(RHA penetration of 600mm with newest Tandem Warhead, frontal armor on turret of M1 against Shaped Charge is over 1500mm and over 1750mm if you include the tilt of the armor).

A 125mm HEAT round will not penetrate the frontal turret armor, nor will it penetrate the glacis or the top of the hull armor in the front, it will only penetrate the sides and the back of the armor, which means we would have to be retreating.

Have you read a stroy about how a unit of Iraqi Republican Guard T62's pretended that it was surrendering outside Kuwait airport in 1991 hung out white flags turned their turrets around and drove towards a unit of M1's? So when the distance between them was about 300 meters the Iraqi tanks quickly turned around their turrets and opened fire. Destroying 2 M1A1's and rendering 2 more useless.

I have pictures of 2 destroyed Abrams', one with 2 holes from RPG's and the other one was hit by a Republican Guard T72 when it was entering Baghdad.

(My numbers corispond with your numbers)

1.)The M1 Abrams with Governers off has gotten up to 70 mph(112km/h) and with no turret it got up to 90 mph(144km/h). It can turn just as "agile" as the T-80.

Whats the use of an Agile Abrams without a turret?

2.)The AT-8 Songster(nato designation) only has a range of 4000m not 5000m like you claim which is with in the killing range of of an M1 Abrams firing an APFSDS round.

I'll quote my tank book:
"A T80U with a "Reflex" FCS and an "Irtysh" laser designator will hit a target at the range of 5000km with a "Kobra" ATGM with an effectiveness of 90%."

The T-80's night optics can only identify a target out to 1500m meaning the ATGM can only be used at day time. It only has RHA penetration of 600mm at 0 degrees meaning it can't penetrate the front of the Abrams turret.

A "Kobra" has such a trajectory that it will penetrate the top of the turret, unless you have 600mm of armour on the top of your turret your tank would be effectively destroyed.

The M1A2 can identify targets out to 4000 meters.

during the night?
During the day I might think.

We are also making the Mid-Range Munition for the M1 Abrams and the Future Combat System which is a non-line of sight anti-tank round for the 120mm gun. It has a range of 16km and it uses a kinetic energy warhead going at the same velocity of current APFSDS round to penetrate the armor of the tank(on top of this if it is attack in None line of site mode it will penetrate through the thin armor on the top of the tank).

perhaps that is possible but did you hear about the "Arena" defense system. that would probably take out a roung\d that is travelling from a distance of 16 km's with ease.

3.) We didn't seem to have many problems going through the Desert in two different wars in Iraq. There were very few reports of failure in the first one and they had a 90% Operational Readiness.

i dont know what about this war, but in 1991 the Abrams had a faulty filtering system.

4.) The M104 and the M60 AVLB put out a bridge that our Tanks will go over.

but those bridges are not always alvailable.
when the Abrams' were crossing the Euphrates in this Iraq war they had to wait 6 hours on one bank for the bridges to arrive.
now if that would be in a war with an induastrialized nation with a descent army or an airforce, those Abrams' would have either been destroyed from the air or outflanked.
i read an article about German Tiger tanks and when their were retreating from Soviet troops in the Ukrainian SSR they stopped on one bank of the Dnjestr river and couldnt cross it without bridges, so they had to destroy their own tanks and swimm it.

5.)The Abrams with a fast loader can get 12 rounds off a minute(only 8 per minute with auto-loader), but there are never that many tanks for a single tank to engage in one minute.

it depends on the loader...
and in a full out war i dont think tank crews will be as experinced.

7.) The inside of the M1 Abrams have 200 SCFM CleanCooled Air NBC system the FCS are fine as long as they don't run out of gas.

in arctic conditions the "Reflex" FCS poved to be THE most reliable one in the world.

So far the only advantage you have showed me is that it can go farther, it has a 11 foot smaller profile, and can be mass produced. Not very scary tank to me.

in a full out war even the advantages that you agree with (I still think that the T80 has many other advantages that i pointed out in the previous post) more T80's could be manufactured and simply outnumber your tanks.

And the M1A2 could be the last modification of the Abrams, it has met it's limitations, you could update the electronics but the tank hasn't got that many possibilities of being completely upgraded.
I agree with the fact that the M1 is a more comfortable tank and that it has almost everything to suit hte crew correctly, but comfort doesn't play a major role in tank combat.
while the T80 could be upgraded in many ways.
ever heard of the "Black Eagle" that is a development of the T80. According to French and German NATO observers it is THE best tank in the world.

[Stinger]

French and German observers huh? *snickers*

Night vision and Flir on M1A2 allows near equal vision to day time.

I'm surprised no one has brought up IVIS yet.

You do know that the "Two Tanks" in your first two pictures are the SAME tank don't you?

French and German observers huh? *snickers*

yes the French, who have developed the Leklerk, and the Germans who have developed the Leopard 2.

You do know that the "Two Tanks" in your first two pictures are the SAME tank don't you?

the upper Abrams is different to the lower one, it has its ammunition compartment and the back of the turret missing.

Actually I have a relatively high IQ as does KingFrogger. However I usually choose not to waste it on the ramblings of mentally challenged peseants.

lol you brag about spelling... and how your IQ is superior to ours... and how he cannot spell yours, but would a guy with such a high IQ as yours mispell such a simple word as PEASANTS.
so please, cowboy stop showing off, and stick to the original topic of this thread!

сранный пиндос

Heh, those who live in glass houses should be the last to throw stones. :roll:

Your sig:
"Nothing is more sacred than liberty and independance!"

It's independence.

I take it you're Troy?

i copy pasted from a website...

[Stinger]

Look again



Notice the back equipment storage rack has the same bending and damage. Also look in front of the lowe portion of the tank you can see the two large rod braces are in both pictures at the same angle. there is also on rock that is visible in both pistures thats the same, and one depresion. thats the same tank.

[Praxus]

perhaps that is possible but did you hear about the "Arena" defense system. that would probably take out a roung\d that is travelling from a distance of 16 km's with ease.

Wrong it is going the same speed as an APFSDS round and it is a kinetic energy warhead, even if it could take targets out that fast(which it can't) it would have to cause the round to YAW. But the Arena radar is set to ignore targets that quickly.

it depends on the loader...
and in a full out war i dont think tank crews will be as experinced.

You don't need to be highly trained to load that quickly you just need to be strong.

during the night?
During the day I might think.

They have been known to use their night scopes during the day because you can easily see trough camoflouge, dust, and smoke. The Night Scopes(IR) have an identification range of 4000 meters.

Whats the use of an Agile Abrams without a turret?

You claimed the T-80 is faster, this is clearly not true.

in a full out war even the advantages that you agree with (I still think that the T80 has many other advantages that i pointed out in the previous post) more T80's could be manufactured and simply outnumber your tanks.

A "Kobra" has such a trajectory that it will penetrate the top of the turret, unless you have 600mm of armour on the top of your turret your tank would be effectively destroyed.

It only has a range of 4000 meter range.

600mm RHAe(Rolled Homogeneous Armor equivilent). This means that it can penetrate anything that is worth 600mm of Rolled Homogeneous Armor.

The AT-11 Sniper has the range of the Songster but it is a laser ream rider which means it will hit the front of the armor on the Abrams. It is also the successor to the AT-8.

The Kobra can not be fired during the nighttime unless the target is lit up which will make the tank puting out the light the largest target on the battlefield. So we can knock you out at 4000 meters during the night and you have to wait till we get within 1300 meters. Not very good situation for the Russian Tanks.

yes the French, who have developed the Leklerk, and the Germans who have developed the Leopard 2.

The Leklerk is a worstless overexpensive peice of shit. The Leopard 2A6 is a very good tank(the best in the world).

The T-84(Black Eagle) is not the best in the tank by far, if you looked at the stats you would relise this. It is also not being built so it is irrelivent.