Videos & Audio - C&C Generals: Visual Reality Mod for C&C: Generals Zero Hour

T-72 would have lost due to the better armour of the M1A2. M1A2 is overall a better MBT unless we are talking about the later types of the T-72 especially those with ATGM support.

If they went for realism, the M1A2's main gun shoots from over 2 miles away. It can see and shoot a T72 before it even sees the Abrams. The only thing T72s were able to hit in the Iraqi war were the M2 bradleys. The Abrams has more frontal armor than any other tank in the world today. Not to mention the M1A2 is about 30 years more advances in all aspects

Wrong. Both T-72M/M1 and M1A1/M1A2 can shoot from >2000m but in the case of the monkey export models the M/M1 were equipped with older export and less capable ammunition

"For example, the inferior 3VBM8/3BM17/18 APFSDS 125 mm smoothbore rounds were exported for use in the T-72 family of tanks. It was specifically designed for export and had a penetration of sloped armor at 2000 m that was half as much as that of the original Soviet model."

In the case of the M/M1 models of the T-72 their doctrine also played a role in how they were employed. They were told to dig in and wait to ambush the enemy. In a hostile enemy air environment the enemy spotted them first from the air and not from the land leading to few chances for the T-72 to be employed effectively.

It's summed up to this effectively:

1. Older ammunition
2. Employment/Doctrine of Iraqi tankers
3. Hostile enemy air environment

As for your claim of M1A2 having more frontal armor than any other tank in the world. That's a wrong claim. Merkava 4 is designed as the world's heavily armored tank and during its use in 2006 Lebanon war it was penetrated by Kornet/RPG-29.

Your Abrams was easily penetrated by RPG-29 during the Iraq war even from the front and not once but on several instances.

Here's a nice little reading material for you:

Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

T-72 lost due to its weaker armor but it has equal firepower to Abrams,T-72 has 125mm smoothbore gun with many kinds of ammunition,while M1 have 105mm and M1A2 have 120mm.T-90 is a great answer to abrams tank,instead of thick front armor T-90 used advanced kontakt 5 ERA it protects the tank from ATGM and cannon shells more than just a thick armor but a less weight so thats why Russian tanks are mobile and even can fly!

and add some new player

and make the technical,, all units enter inside of technical can fire,,,all kind of soldier dude