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
Just read that this beast is already in service and I must say, I'm impressed. From what I've seen so far this seems to be the first real tank of the 21st century: heavily networked, equipped with a plethora of defensive measures including a hard-kill system, all kinds of imaginable sensors and can apparently be operated by a single crew member in emergency cases, choosing targets automatically and engaging them, utilizing all the sensor data availible, even from other tanks.
Basically a heavily armored high-tech computer on tracks. Was about time tanks finally reached that stage, after the 70-80s conflicts already showed that the old Soviet "mass of expendable" tanks approach doesn't work, and the recent counter-terrorism operations showed that even Western vehicles are increasingly vulnuerable to RPGs and IEDs. "Quantity over quality" simply doesn't work anymore, it's about time for the rollout of active protection and networking systems that make the difference between a RPG hit and RPG miss. After all, one working K2 still trumps five knocked out best Korean T72s.
Great tank. I must say, especially since I have some personal reasons of mine to write that.
Sounds intriguing! Would you care to elaborate? Hearing first-hand accounts is always amazing.
This MBT can effectivly survive with half of the crew incapacitated or even dead thanks to the advanced electronics and mostly computers!
This ensures superior resistence to various CBRN threats. Meaning you don't get any similar combat vehicle like this in that part of the World.
This thing is even more overlooked than the french leclerc tank, this thing deserves to be more known as a modern tank, not just the whole which is better leopard 2 or t90
(cause everybody knows by knows that the abrams is **** and that the challenger 2 is just slower than everything else and has a weaker gun)
Yea, it's kinda overlooked, but it's also exremely new, it's been introduced less then a year ago.
Out of those 5 you mentioned, I'd put the least amount of money on the T-90 though, it's simply in a different league and a different kind of tank.
You mean a lesser, much inferior league? Last I checked all T-90s (save for the T-90MS) still have the same ammo-layout as T-72s, which made for a good firework display for rebels in Syria. And basically everywhere else T-72s are destroyed.
Nah, I meant it's worse then the Western tanks... T-90 is still pretty much an upgraded T-72, and that puts it in a different league than the Western tanks. It's also a bit cheaper, even though not by a very large margin anymore.
We had T-72B3 in Ukraine which in many ways are similar to T-90s (some consider them to be equal), and they didn't fare any better then T-64s or earlier-model T-72s. Still have the blown-off turret "problem" as well. So it's still the same vehicle at heart.
The chinese type 99 is probably better than the t90
But the ZTZ-99 lags behind in quantity of deployment and does not contain or make use of ATGM equipment IIRC.
The armour is also a little worst than in the new generation T-90 Main Battle Tanks.
China has also reportedly manufactured Soviet AT-11 laser-guided anti-tank missiles[citation needed] to be fired from the 125 mm gun for enemy tank with Explosive Reactive Armour, with an effective range of 4 km. In addition, the Chinese have developed depleted uranium (DU) rounds for their tanks and these may be available for the Type 99.
The ATGM "feature" seems kinda gimmicky to me, to be honest. Russian (and the still Russian-based Chinese) tanks generally are quite overrated around these forums, on the on hand due to edgy anti-Westernism, on the other hand due to the fact that they tend to look good on paper.
In practice, however, especially recently, we have received numerous proof that they unfortunately are lacking. The armour thickness of the T-90, which on wikipedia is listed as bigger then a M1A2's is artificially inflated by Kontakt 5, due to the genius positioning of the autoloader this: Lostarmour.info Lostarmour.info still happens in engagements with T-64s and Soviet-era ATGMs which it should theoretically defeat. The barrel-launched missile seems to have been used on a number of occasions, most recently Ukraine, however I haven't found any info on superior performance, especially since I doubt it has that many benefits against a regular tank gun if that's aided by a capable fire control system (which all modern Western tanks have). The autoloader? Meh, not the way it's done on the T-72/T-90, hand-loading is still faster, and not worth it, if it leads to a lot of flying turrets and the death of the entire crew in the process. Smaller and faster? Yeah, that one's probably true, but therefore also cramped, hard to exit after a hit, and prone to burning out. Only real advantage current-gen Russian tanks (so far, maybe Armata will change all that) is the price, which imo is not all that worth it, if you take crew training prices into account.
T-72B3s in Ukraine again? How long are you going to ride that scooter? Still going from that image of a T-72BA? Or do you have more "proof"? Maybe something similar to the "proof" that the US State Dep. and your idol NATO are lapping up?
The douchebaggery on this thread is out of this world.
Turret popping in T-72s is usually caused by excess ammo being stored in the crew compartment, and is a side effect of bad crew training, T-64s on the other hand use vertically stored propellant stubs, which being exposed to the crew compartment, means they can go off with only a slight bit of encouragement. I'd like to see any other tank in the world survive a Kornet/Vampire to the face without losing its turret, especially without modern hardkill protection. Besides, the UA could operate Leopard 2A6s and it would still lose them like no tomorrow, due to their utter lack of strategical competence.
Lol what? Having a fire and forget GLATGM with an up to 6km effective range is now "gimmicky"? You do know that from a 6km range an Abrams wouldn't even know what it's looking at when facing a T-90AM with Nakidka? A shame the Abrams wouldn't have an EO APS to counter it either, but wait, the T-90 does!
"Artificially inflated by Kontakt-5" It comes off the production line with it and you know what? It's lighter, smaller, faster, harder hitting, and harder to detect because it doesn't try to match armour through conventional means. You do know that due to the Abrams size and archaic design it's thermal signature is absolutely beautiful, right? Which is fantastic when you've got even mediocre IR optics, or, wait for it, LONG RANGE GLATGMS! Oops, just got toasted by a "gimmick".
The autoloader is marginally slower than manual loading, but it provides consistency, not slowing down even when the crew are suffering from shellshock, it also adds protection by simply removing a crewman altogether. While the design does suffer from cramped crew spacing the advantages it offers far outweigh the disadvantages.
In a modern war the issues of poor logistics and bad intel would take their toll on most modern MBTs, which would soon (as has been proven many times) suffer from overly complex systems. The Abrams would be a pile of slag imo.
The T-72/T-90 design philosophies aim to avoid a lot of that.
Oh, man, Spudd, buddy, really? We now have had T-72s launching their turrets into space in Syria, Chechnya, Balcans, Ukraine and all kinds of local Caucasus conflicts. So you are trying to tell me the well-known myth that "it's all bad ammo handling"? Really? Hint: it may have something to do with that nice round carousel autoloader right under the turret.
As to the T-72s, I gave pics, you spewed your usual rhetoric. Hint: go to Lostarmour.info (run by your beloved Russians), and enter "Т-72". Some results: Lostarmour.info Lostarmour.info. Looks like the T-72B3 isn't safe from that dreaded "ammo overload" either, even in Russian hands! What a surprise! Russians really seem to not know how much ammo to load either! /s
Also, if you're still denying Russia supplying the "rebels" with anything from their main troops and manpower, ammunition, to vehicles you live in a fantasy land. But guess I can't change anything about that, it's cool to be an edgy anti-western conspiracy theorist nowadays after all.
As to the rest .... lol.
a)Nakidka, really! Let me reply with this: when T-90 faces an M1 with BAE Adaptiv thermal camounflage he is not going to see it! HURR DURR (about as much relevance and actual combat presence).
b)Smaller and harder hitting? Bro, a half meter of height difference is negligible, the T-90 is still a rolling 7*4*2.5m block of heat. It may have made a difference 30 years ago, but not today anymore, so I'd rather sit in an M1 which actually lets me survive and exit the tank in case of a hit then in a T-72/90 which cooks off and becomes a death trap.
c) M1 has a miximum engagement range of 4.2 km, Leopard 2 of about 4.6-5 km. But tanks are never going to be able to use those ranges effectively, because at those ranges they're either fighting in a desert or in steppes, where there are much more effective weapons to hit them anyway (ATGMs, attack helos, hellfires etc.). I've yet to see any indication that their use has any benifits in a real egagement and not only on paper e-peens (6km vision range... lel)...
d) They can slap on as much "Kontakt 5", "Relikt" or whatever they're called they want, as usual it looks good on paper, but realtiy (see above) has shown that if the underlying platform is ****, then it changes nothing.
e) Bad logistics is where the Russian army would fail first. Also, following your argument, I guess then we can say that a T-34 with "Kontakt 5" would be the best option right? "The T-90 would be a pile of slag imo." Technology=bad, right? That's what Desert Storm etc. taught us! /s
f) Finally, if you use the "design philosophies" excuse, use it correctly. As I already said, the T-72 was indeed a zerg-rush second line tank originally. Which was perfectly fine for the soviet doctrine of the 70s. After precision weapons, AirLandBattle and Desert Storm showed that masses of tanks no longer work the designers tried to mold it into the equivalent to the Western tank concept more. And THAT did not work, because it is still the same faulty, but cheap tank at heart. So far it's up to Armata to fix that.
P.S.: stop using ad-hominem attacks, it would make you look smarter. Your run-of-the-mill Kremlin rheotric is not some kind of "genious wisdom" and you keep ignoring hard evidence again and again while replying with the same old tired slogans. I undestand it makes you feel edgy and cool, but it is counterproductive in a discussion.
If I took a drink for every cliché piece of "evidence" you used there I would be well and truly floored by now. "Syria" Yep, old Kontakt-1 against RPG-29s and TOW missiles, but hang on, have you seen what those things can survive over there? Multiple RPG-7VL hits, and it takes it like a beast, guess that didn't fit your narrative. "Chechnya" Corruption to such an extent that some of the bricks on the T-80s and T-72s were empty, plus military incompetence to the same level as the UA today, lax in crew discipline leading to events such as incorrect storage of extra ammo. "Ukraine" Again, old technology and strategical incompetence, along with poor crew training, bad morale. "Balkans" What about them? Airpower was the death of most T-72s in that conflict.
"Georgia 2008", Oh wait you didn't mention that one did you? Why? Does it not conveniently fit with your narrative like the other ones? The T-72s performed perfectly in that conflict, and you know it.
"Technology=bad" Yeah, well depends how it's implemented, ahem F-35. The Abrams isn't that incredible in the terms of tech, I don't know why you think I'm slamming "technology".
"6km visual range, lel" wut? Just wut? Is that why the Israelis are going for an 8km range GLATGM for their Merkavas? But obviously you know better than the Chinese, Russians, and Israelis when it comes to this sort of thing.
I can see where you lads are going with this, you're trying to dismiss the T-90 so completely that when the T-14 actually enters service all you morons can sit their and stroke your egos, telling yourselves that only now the Russians have caught up with us. Pretty lame, but not all that unsurprising really. Predictability is your name of the game.
"Design philosophies" again, wut? Did you actually read what I wrote?
Erm, really? Is that ALL you can show for the T-72B3? Could I at least see its chassis? I mean it COULD be a B3, but I can't even see the complete turret in the picture. Yeah, no. Really really not a compelling argument there. I do use Lost Armour, it's a good site.
"Bad logistics is where the Russian Army would fail first" This statement has just degenerated your entire argument into plain old loud mouthing ********. A completely unfounded sentence that has no bearing on the situation currently.
"PS stop using ad-hominem attacks..." Goes on to use ad-hominem attacks in the same paragraph. -_-
I'm done.
With the T-72B3 I rest my case, you purposedly are ingonring evidence pointed in your face in order to keep believing your favorite narrative. I'll give you the two pictures from last time you went into "denial mode": Smg.photobucket.com compared to: Smg.photobucket.com . Oh, and actually the pics of the destroyed tanks happen to be from Lostarmour, and even they confirm that those are indeed T-72B3s, along with the 40 or so other confirmed destroyed T-72 variants that Ukraine happens to not use in combat. If you want to see the chassis (turret should be enough since the main differences lie here, actually), just go there and find it. Hell, since you I bet you will reply with: "didn't find it", try ID 205, 300 or 511.
As to the other conflicts you are not getting my point once again, and as usual resort to "outside factors" as the reason for the T-72s consistently bad performance. I purposedly did not mention any tactical background in any of those wars, because even in one on one situations the T-72 performed sub-par and below expectations in any of those cases, which is understandable since it's a cheaper second-line tank, that has now been pushed into front-line service and has to compete with more expensive tanks with different priorities. The specific design weakness I was talking about was the faulty ammo placement and the resulting turret blow-off. Now that you mention Ossetia, which I simply forgot about since it was a five-day war with only about 20 tanks destroyed, there was the same case there, with one T-72 turret cooking off and famously sailing about 30 meters before landing. Guess they didn't know how much ammo to stack either! /s
T-72 fans like you always pull out outside factors like "tactics", "bad training", "ammo placement" as reasons when their tank performs badly in every war. It's never because it's a cheap tank that wasn't designed for today's battlefields. It will always be "better in a real war". But at the same time you assume that bad logistics will take a toll on the Abrams there. Like, dude, really?
Two quotes from you:
>In a modern war the issues of poor logistics and bad intel would take their toll on most modern MBTs, which would soon (as has been proven many times) suffer from overly complex systems. The Abrams would be a pile of slag imo.
>The Abrams isn't that incredible in the terms of tech, I don't know why you think I'm slamming "technology".
Which one is it now? (also nice bringing in of the F-35, much relevance to the discussion)
The Lahat missile actually proves my point nicely: it is to be used in a desert environment, where actually even HAMAS infantry can take out Merkavas with ATGMs easily, and has now been refitted to helicopters and UAVs, which are much more effective long-range missile platforms anyway on a large flat plane (or trucks in some cases, which are cheaper). Exactly what I said in my post.
@ "design philosophies: quote from you: "The T-72/T-90 design philosophies aim to avoid a lot of that." What major point did I miss? I clarified what that "design philosophy" really is after I replied to your prior points. Are you failing to comprehend me once again?
Lel @: "Stroke your egos" at Armata, much salty
@ Logistics: Sorry mate, but in a US-Russia confronation US has much superior logistics since it's the only global power with over 500 overseas bases, the most powerful fleet and the ability supply soldiers in two overseas wars and perform minor operations in a dozen other far-away countires. On the other hand Russia is a post-soviet regional power with no major force projection capabilites beyond it's neighbours (no, nukes are not force projection capabilites) and didn't have (euphemistically said) terribly impressive logistics in it's few recent wars. So yeah, knowing how the Russian mentality and how projects are organized there it's not "loud mouthing ********" but very much qualified unlike your expected response.
@ ad-hominem: I did not call you and your arguments a "douchebag","moron" or "loud-mouthed ********". Keep failing to see the difference and,
Stay salty bruh
Ok, it looks and sounds good but the real test will be on the battlefield.
Hot