Oh. HI :D
Yes I know this is just a silly picture of a T-90 crushing a WW2-era Panzer and I probably shouldn't take this too serious because it's just meant to be a funny joke, but I can't let your statement remain to be unanswered so who ever is interested in history should read this:
The T-34-76 lacked efficient optics or a cupola hence the tank commander lacked situational awareness. Furthermore it had only a 2-men turret (the commander was also the gunner) which means that the commander had to do both jobs shooting and spotting at the same time (unlike in the Panzers which had 3-men turrets for separated commander, gunner and loader).
T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. As a result of the poor fire control factor, a tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the firepower of three independently operating tanks.
Only the company commanders' tank could be fitted with radio set, due to their expense and short supply – the rest of the other tanks in each company had to signal with flags which was a dangerous procedure in combat. Meanwhile all German Panzers had their own independent radio sets, allowing effective coordination and situational awareness for all Panzers.
The Panzer III J & L, which were the most produced versions, had the long gun barrel with increased penetrating power which delivered the same fire power as the T-34's much bigger gun. And with the APCR round (which was delivered to all Panzer platoons) the long gun could penetrate the T-34's front armor easilly.
But the Pz III L version had an additional layer of spaced armor on the front plate
(20mm + 50mm) of spaced armor, which increased the effective armor protection level and reduced the penetrating power of shells, as after penetrating the first 20 mm plate the shell would deform, break or disintegrate and shatter on impact with the inner 50 mm plate, which boosted the overall armor protection level. This means the front armor on the Panzer III L was about 80 mm effective which isn't any worse than the T-34 armor which had about 90 mm effective armor. So they both had about the same (equal) armor value, but the Panzers therefore had all the other additional advantages (independent radio, better vision, separate commander and gunner etc).
Though the T-34 is a legend due to its high production rate, low cost and reliability. And of course its sacrificing strenght and the overal reputation for winning the war. But the T-34 was clearly not "overkill" to a single Panzer III, that's just a myth. In fact it was the contrary as real combat showed, most of the times the Panzer III L or Pz IV G would "overkill" the T34's. The combat results show the Soviets lost an average of 3-4 tanks for every German Panzer lost. This doesn't seem to be quite overkill in favor of the T-34 now, does it? More like the other way around. The T-34 made up for the highest tank losses in combat in WW2 (not just on the eastern front but on any front of WW2) but of course it could allow this due to its high production and replacement rate. The entire battlefield was literally littered with countless burning T-34 wrecks. a In the end the Soviets only won with overwhelming numbers against an popressed opponent that was already fighting on 3 separate fronts against 2 other "great powers" at the same time, while its cities were being bombed and destroyed by Allied (British and American) air force bombing raids beginning from 1943 to 1945.
And now, unfortunately, we are at this point once more again. Russia is being encircled and surrounded by warmongering NATO and NWO. God damnit will people never learn from history?
It's only estimated thou
yes working as arcade strategy game
That's good for them. But Russian fighter jets are still lacking modern radar avionics. For example, Russian aircrafts still use outdated PESA (passive electronically scanned array) which is 50 years old technology. While the Rafale and updated F-15 and F/A-18 are fitted with the newest technology which is the AESA (active electronically scanned array).
>planes come out of the "4th dimension" and disappear back into the 4th dimension again (before you can even intercept them)
>ingame missile range is only 10% of the real historic missile range (because scaled down game mechanics)
yeah totally realistic
>posts screenshot of arcade game
>"yeah that'll show 'em"
nice argument, I'm totally convinced that I'm wrong about this now. you did it champ
There are many other countries who develope good indigenous MBTs too, such as Israel, France, UK/GB, Japan, South Korea and of course the USA. And recently China and Turkey are also up. OK, the Turks and Chinese are just copying stuff, but they are learning from it so they will be able to develope their own stuff. There are many good MBTs in the world that deserve to get more attention. T-84 Oplot, K2 Black Panther, Merkava IV come to mind. These are just as good as a Leopard 2A6 or Challanger2 or M1 Abrams (or even better). Especially the Merkava IV with Trophy APS is one of the best protected tank in the world today. And the T-84 oplot has very unique and innovative "knife" ERA protection which can defeat any APFSDS penetrator. The Ukrainians are also developing lots of good stuff recently, they have developed their first indigenous APS. The South korean K2 Black Panther is a very advanced high tech MBT and the Chinese Type 99A2 is a pretty impressive as well, considereing that some 20 years ago Chinese tanks were only copies of outdated T-55/T-62/T-72. The first Merkava series didn't even have composite armor, just regular steel armor. It took the Israelis many years to develope their own composite armor. And now look at the merkava IV, it's a beast.
The Arjun, Typ 90, Type 10 and C1 Ariete could also be considered as some of the best MBTs in the world. Some of these tanks were influence by Western design though. For example, the Japanese Type 90 and Indian Arjun were influenced by Leopard 2A4, and the Chinese Type 96 is partly copied from T-72 and the South Korean K1 is influenced from M1 Abrams, and the Italian C1 Ariete was influenced by the Challanger. And the turkish Altay is copy from... all sorts of tanks.. mostly Leopard 2A6 and K2 Black Panther. But this doesn't change the fact that these are still very good MBTs nonetheless.
And the M1 Abrams is also still one of the best MBT's in the world of course, but even more crucial is that it was mass-produced. While Germany has only 250 Leoaprd 2A6 left, the USA have over 6000 (!) Abrams. So the Americans can replace much more losses in combat since they have so many of them. And then of course there are many other countries who import/buy our tanks, such as many NATO members who bought and operate the Leopard 2 or middle east countries who bought the Abrams, Challanger 1 and Leclerc. According to your logic they must all have great tanks too, since they are using our great tanks. What you probably meant is that some countries developed and invented more than others, while the other countries simply copied from the already existing tech. And that's where I agree with you. Germany, USA, GB, France, Italy and Russia were indeed the most contributing and influencing countries in military tech of the 20th and 21th century. But recently more and more other countries are catching up and starting to develope their own stuff. Some tanks are just better than others. But in the end they are all "great" tanks IMO.
>implying the Su25 would get even close enough to perform its CAS mission.
>implying it wouldnt be downed by a Dassault Rafale first.
>implying Blue doesn't have total air superiority
We are not talking about some 3th world middle east country.
Nope, it's not a myth but it is a commonly known fact that ERA modules work only once, since they can not "respawn" after they detonate. Of course it isn't a problem for the T-84 Oplot since it has multiple layers of ERA modules which give it better protetion and endurance to resist more attacks, than conventional ERA does which has only one layer.
And of course, hitting the exact same spot twice is very unlikely in realistic combat, only a tandem-charge warhead can do that, but not APFSDS penetrators. I was merely pointing out that each ERA module will disappear after detonation and then the basic armor will be exposed.
For APFSDS penetrator hitting the exact same spot twice is very unlikely in realistic combat due to the tank's movement and random deviation of the firing gun hit probability. MBTs that are covered by ERA will lose some of their ERA modules when hit in combat and then their basic armor will be exposed. But that is of course still better than not having any ERA modules in the first place.
and whether it was real ammo at all xD
turret = yes... hull? no
Because overkill isn't enough
but this has a FLIR (forward looking infrared) thermal gun sight, which enables it to see targets much clearer and better in all conditions!
You can see the bluish gun sight on the top of turret
In fact it succeeds the T-80U because it has much better and newer Nozh "knife" ERA cutting warheads and APFSDS penetrators in small pieces.
But it also still has the same weak point (no gun mantlet) lel
It probably has a composite armor package in the hull front, so It's not just a vertical steel RHA plate (like in the Challanger's lower hull front)
Globalsecurity.org and Tanks-encyclopedia.com
Now it only needs the AMAP-ADS and this would be overkill.
Trolololo the admin faked the original photo xD if you now click on "view original" it will show you a KV taking revenge by crushing a german truck. Well played Admin. Meh I'm not going to change it though, so I'll let you have your kicks this time :P
Actually, not. In fact, quite the opposite. Who would have thought things turn out like this? Now it's not Urkain vs Germany, but Ukraine (+ Germany and USA) vs Russia instead... very conspiring.
I see a dark future for Europe, if the European people don't unite with Russia against the capitalist warmongers.
i know man, me too.
Merkava IV turret on T-90 chassis? Disgusting perverts! lol jk xD
Sorry I kinda repeated myself there twice lol. Sorry for the long comment xD
Yes indeed, modern KE penetrators (APFSDS) are so strong, they never simply "bounce off" an angular armor plate, that's not possible, because they are simply too powerfull. They have such a poweful penetrating potential that they will always penetrate the first layers of the composite armor (the surface). That's why such thing as "shot-trap" doesn't exist on modern MBT's anymore. Because the point of modern composite armor is not to delfect/ricochet a APFSDS penetrator, but to slow the penetrating KE rod down so much, that it will lose its potential penetrating power and eventually stop completely, so that it will get stuck in the armor itself - but it won't fully penetrate and so the crew will not be harmed. Whether a composite armor "works" (as it is intended) or not depends on many different factors, but that's another story to be told. But the fact remains, that a APFSDS penetrator will never bounce off an angulare armor. It will always penetrate the first layer and if the armor works as it is intended, then the penetrator gets stuck in the armor and it won't go any further. So that the crew will not be harmed and the tank is not destroyer and it is still operational. But as to how much it penetrates into the armor depends on the individual armor applique itself. Sure, the tank will be damaged to some degree, but that can be repaired after the battle in a few hours. It is at least much cheaper to only repair a part of the tank, than to built another one entirely from scratch again.
me neither :o
The british Challenger 2 MBT is a copy of the Russian post-war tank IS-7.
The T-90 is much more in the need of some major upgrades, as it is far behind, and more outdated than the M1 Abrams, or any other western MBT for that matter. Since after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian tanks have not been modernized to modern standards. Unlike western MBT's which have continuously been upgraded and redesigned throughout the last years.
The T-90 has the worst protection, because it still uses the outdated Kontakt-5 ERA from the 1980's, which is outdated by now. It may have been very effective back in the 80's, but it's insufficient for today's protection standards. Now, the M829A3 and DM53 (used by the Abrams and Leopard) are both able to penetrate the Kontakt-5 ERA (and of course the basic armor of the tank). In fact, even the earlier M829A2 from the early 90's was already credited of being able to penetrate the K-5)
On top of this, the 125mm gun that is used by all Russian tanks, has not received any upgrades or any new tank rounds capable of penetrating the front armor of the Leopard 2A6 or the M1A2 SEP. At least not the turret front. Maybe it could penetrate the lower hull front of the western MBT's, at close range, but I'll leave this open to debate.
Although the Russians did come up with a few new prototypes recently, such as the T-95 (with an impressive 152mm gun), or the T-90AM presented in 2011, which has the new developed Relikt ERA armor. But neither of them have entered service yet, and probably will remain as such for the next few years.
lol nice, is that a E-100 twin barreled flak tank "Krokodil" with twin 88mm guns that I spot in the upper right corner?