Tank Lovers Group
Hobbies & Interests
This group is for everyone who like tanks, sci-fi tanks, real tanks, funny tanks, you can put here tank mods, tank maps, simply everything with straps, armor and gun :D
Saudi M1A1/?2 (1980) vs 9K111 Fagot (1970)
Post a comment
And here goes Saudies first impression.
Go Houties, go
I feel sad for the crew. But if they park a Tank in the other country backyard. Then thats what you get. Same applied for USA
Saudi hasn't deployed their tanks in Yemen, they use them to patrol the their southern borders with yemen, and if they did deploy them in Yemen they could only do it far east since it's the only non mountainous region though it isn't likely to happen anyway because with exceptions to some presence in south Yemen all the areas under houthies control are in mountains.
Apparently that M1A1 (like all of the export versions) doesn't have the Depleted Uranium armor that the American ones do, so they're much easier to destroy. Don't know why, but I'm not surprised by this :/...
Same applied to Iraqi T-72.
Iraqi copies of export models of T-72. Yet America managed to make world believe that T-72 is a bad tank
And for Depleted Uranium . Does it leak Radioactivity when damaged ??
I really don't think Depleted Uranium Armor leaks when damaged, otherwise it wouldn't be safe for the crew. Many of the M1's that were "damaged beyond repair" in Iraq did see much of the crew survive.
Don't get me wrong, the T-72 is in fact a very good tank. The latest versions of them are comparable to tanks such as the Abrams. The export versions of the T-72 lacked the capabilities of the Soviet/Russian versions, thats why it gets a bad rep.
I've seen some scary images of Abrams hulks being transported by train, or sitting abandoned in some forgotten siding, and they have radiation stickers plastered all over them.
Then you have Russia putting all their DU rounds into strict reserve for "extreme situations only", stating that they are a danger to their crews...
So I don't know. Maybe there is a danger when the stuff is thrown into the air in tiny bits.
Depleted uranium means that there is less than natural 0.7% of 235U isotope (the rest is 238). Half-life of 238 isotope is 4.5 billions of years, which means the radioactivity is minimal.
@CommanderDef
Well I still rather preffer something simple as ERA
+1 for some Science λ
I wouldn't say ERA is simpler. Once you actually have depleted uranium, it is just a plate of superheavy metal between composites. That somehow makes it more passive and 'failure-proof' than ERA.
Iraq had several types of T-72. They T-72Ms built from spare parts, T-72Ms imported from countries like Poland and Czecholslovakia, and they had the domestic Assad Babil.
Pretty much stationary tank out in the open is vulnerable to an ATGM or AT fire whether it be a clunky T-55, a T-72, M1, Leopard 2,T-80/90, or T-14.
I would argue that the T14 has better passive and active survival capabilities then most modern tanks on the battlefield. The T14 hasn't fought in any wars yet so this is all just speculation but so far from the specifications that the Russian Federation has released on paper the T14 looks to be one of the best protected tanks in the world.