Originally Posted by Zastava-Arms

Im pretty sure none of us implied that a M-84AS would smash a Leopard 2 in a tank battle, I was just wondering about how well it would compete.

Like the factors like protection, mobility, speed, armour, electronics etc.

And Serbia has enough money to keep Yugoslav-Era equipment up to date and still pose a threat [They are going to fix up the old G-4 Super Galebs] but im not sure about Croatia.

Short answer, its almost as fast as a modern MBT and has an equally good gun, it has significantly inferior armor and optics though.

Its a good tank in that it can almost match a basic 2A4 or M1A1 in most fields and its cheaper to boot, the key word here is price, you get an overall good tank that i'd classify as 2+ gen for much less money than not that much better stripped down 3rd gen tank.

As for how well it would compete, i imagine it'd do fairly well against for example Polish 2A4s which are 20 years old but you'd need a 2-1 factor to assure victory.

Against updated 3gen tanks like German 2A5s and 2A6s its probably around 3-1 or more if its night.



@Redneck.

I was posting in reference to Sabra, Israel did a lot with it but ultimately its a very old hull with its limitations, i wouldnt really put it against a much younger Degman on a 1-1 basis.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Short answer, its almost as fast as a modern MBT and has an equally good gun, it has significantly inferior armor and optics though.

Its a good tank in that it can almost match a basic 2A4 or M1A1 in most fields and its cheaper to boot, the key word here is price, you get an overall good tank that i'd classify as 2+ gen for much less money than not that much better stripped down 3rd gen tank.

As for how well it would compete, i imagine it'd do fairly well against for example Polish 2A4s which are 20 years old but you'd need a 2-1 factor to assure victory.

Against updated 3gen tanks like German 2A5s and 2A6s its probably around 3-1 or more if its night.



@Redneck.

I was posting in reference to Sabra, Israel did a lot with it but ultimately its a very old hull with its limitations, i wouldnt really put it against a much younger Degman on a 1-1 basis.

Now that was a type of answer i was looking for!

Thank you.

That's funny. I never actually mentioned the Sabra specifically.
2-1 factor to assure victory? Says what?
The funny thing is you only look at speed, armor and gun. There's far more to a tank than that nowadays.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

That's funny. I never actually mentioned the Sabra specifically.
2-1 factor to assure victory? Says what?
The funny thing is you only look at speed, armor and gun. There's far more to a tank than that nowadays.

Sabra is the best M-60 variant out there, there's no point even mentioning other Israeli or US variants they're just inferior.

As for mentioning gun and speed, a tank in a very simplified definition is basically four things, speed, armor, gun and electronics which assist any of the three.

So speed and armament/optics are two of the most important features, they decide how fast a tank can get onto the battlefield and how fast can it move when on it, a difference of 15kmph can mean, for example that the faster tank outflanks the slower one and pulls off a shot to the side.

I'm basing off Soviet doctrine which stated that to assure victory over Western tanks you'd need 4-1 however Degman is heavily modernised and in Croatia manned by professional tankers not conscripts and 2A4s in use have 20 years by now which translates into optics and armor deficiencies.

As for newer 2A5/6 M1A2 that'd be 3 or more since they'll need to mangle the optics all the while their 3rd gen opponent shoots back.

Sabra is the best M-60 variant out there, there's no point even mentioning other Israeli or US variants they're just inferior.

As for mentioning gun and speed, a tank in a very simplified definition is basically four things, speed, armor, gun and electronics which assist any of the three.

So speed and armament/optics are two of the most important features, they decide how fast a tank can get onto the battlefield and how fast can it move when on it, a difference of 15kmph can mean, for example that the faster tank outflanks the slower one and pulls off a shot to the side.

I'm basing off Soviet doctrine which stated that to assure victory over Western tanks you'd need 4-1 however Degman is heavily modernised and in Croatia manned by professional tankers not conscripts and 2A4s in use have 20 years by now which translates into optics and armor deficiencies.

As for newer 2A5/6 M1A2 that'd be 3 or more since they'll need to mangle the optics all the while their 3rd gen opponent shoots back.

"Speed" is not by itself an element in tank design, IMHO. In my eyes, and the IDFs eyes for that matter, there are 3 elements:
-Firepower: including the destructive power of the gun, the electronics and optics used to aim it, the ammount of ammunition that can be stored etc.
-Protection: Passive, reactive and active armor as well as warning systems, screening systems etc.
-Mobility: Speed, fuel consumption, terrain crossing abileties, stratigic mobility(how easy it is to transport), etc.

The Sabra has superb firepower, with the new israeli 120mm and Elbit electronics and optics. The only short comming is that it probably(i dot know for sure) can only store a limited ammount of main gun ammunition because 120mm is a huge round to store in the M60. I will guess 40 rounds maybe? Dont know, will check.

As far as protection the base armor of the M60 is horid compared to anything modern, but with a weight of around 60 tons its clear to me that around 5-7 tons of armor were added. Add to this the fact that if the Sabra has anything to do with Israeli doctorine, most of that armor is in the frontal arc. Add to that that some of that armor is highly advanced ERA and Composite armor similar to that of the Merkava mk 4... And well, you get quite a protection package. No, its no Leopard 2 or Merkava Mk4, but I wouldent be surprised if it climbs up to 500-650 mm RHS vs KE and 750-950 mm RHS vs CE. Alltogather not too poor. Yes, I am aware that these are wild stabs at the figures. I have information that I cant share with you, sorry to pull OPSEC card but I have to.

Mobility...Well, It has a 16hp/ton ratio, which is rather poor. However if you look at the way Israel used its tanks over the years you will see that the emphesis s on protection and firepower, not speed. This is also coupled to the fact that in combat Israeli tanks rarely drive faster than 30km/h, so i guess it is a matter of doctrine. For me any tank that goes over 50km/h is fast enough. The question is can it preform over harsh terrain and harsh slopes. This I dont know, I never took a sabara for a ride. I did take a Merkava Mk 2 with a horrible 14.5hp/ton for plenty of rides, and while speed is indeed awefull, terrain crossing is to be honest superb.

I've seen tanks used for mobile defensive duties rather than fight in the more traditional flat land terrain tanks are associated with. Top speed would not be much of a factor in these situations. A tank used for this role would not require a high top speed but a big gun and good FCS and good frontal armor would be essential.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

"Speed" is not by itself an element in tank design, IMHO. In my eyes, and the IDFs eyes for that matter, there are 3 elements:
-Firepower: including the destructive power of the gun, the electronics and optics used to aim it, the ammount of ammunition that can be stored etc.
-Protection: Passive, reactive and active armor as well as warning systems, screening systems etc.
-Mobility: Speed, fuel consumption, terrain crossing abileties, stratigic mobility(how easy it is to transport), etc.

The Sabra has superb firepower, with the new israeli 120mm and Elbit electronics and optics. The only short comming is that it probably(i dot know for sure) can only store a limited ammount of main gun ammunition because 120mm is a huge round to store in the M60. I will guess 40 rounds maybe? Dont know, will check.

Mobility it is, i use these intechangeably when i shouldnt, as far as speed and armor it is important though and Sabra is terribly, horribly slow and quite a bit underarmored.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

As far as protection the base armor of the M60 is horid compared to anything modern, but with a weight of around 60 tons its clear to me that around 5-7 tons of armor were added.

Which still is far from most upgraded 2nd gen tanks, basic M-60 has 150mm and addon armor is not going to cut it regardless how good is it, the Israeli statement that "in some areas it nearly equals Merkava IV" is pure marketing with no truth to it whatsoever.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

Add to this the fact that if the Sabra has anything to do with Israeli doctorine, most of that armor is in the frontal arc. Add to that that some of that armor is highly advanced ERA and Composite armor similar to that of the Merkava mk 4... And well, you get quite a protection package.

Quite a protection package for an M-60, not by standards of the modern battlefield, you're still stuck with a tank with paper thin basic armor on which you slap several tonnes of composites which add to its protection ceirtanly but dont expect miracles, especially with the power pack capacity.

Add to it that Israel will not sell its best composites to Turkey and the armor is bound to be inferior to what Merkavas use.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

No, its no Leopard 2 or Merkava Mk4, but I wouldent be surprised if it climbs up to 500-650 mm RHS vs KE and 750-950 mm RHS vs CE. Alltogather not too poor. Yes, I am aware that these are wild stabs at the figures. I have information that I cant share with you, sorry to pull OPSEC card but I have to. .

If we're talking frontal turret i'm willing to believe that but glacis doesnt seem too altered si its still weak in the chassis.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

Mobility...Well, It has a 16hp/ton ratio, which is rather poor. However if you look at the way Israel used its tanks over the years you will see that the emphesis s on protection and firepower, not speed.

You're a tiny country, speed is not that important since a tank will get from point A to point B fast anyway due to a small area it has to cover, Turkey is huge and needs faster machines.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

This is also coupled to the fact that in combat Israeli tanks rarely drive faster than 30km/h,

There's several things i have to say about Arab militaries but i prefer not to be vulgar, to put it simply they suck, they suck so horribly they could give Italians a run for their money which means your doctrines are not that important.

Turkey has several potential enemies, none of which are weak, there's Greece which has a very good army for example.

You're a tiny country, speed is not that important since a tank will get from point A to point B fast anyway due to a small area it has to cover, Turkey is huge and needs faster machines.

To move tank from point A to point B even a tiny country as we are using lorry for faster tank mobility ...

Like darkgreen said, tank transport is done on the back of a truck.
Once you look at Turkish terrain though, it's mostly mountainous. You're not going to find much grand tank battles in wide open spaces. You'll have lots of hills to set up your tanks to fire from defensive positions.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Like darkgreen said, tank transport is done on the back of a truck.
Once you look at Turkish terrain though, it's mostly mountainous. You're not going to find much grand tank battles in wide open spaces. You'll have lots of hills to set up your tanks to fire from defensive positions.

You dont transport tanks on trucks, its expensive and difficult and done in peace time, most countries have a couple of dozen such trucks only.

Typically you either load them up on a train or make them move on their own, also the unit moves with the pace of its slowest component which means that an armored units having Leo2A4s and Sabra tanks will move with the speed of Sabras not Leos.

Also you're thinking WW2, a tank is neccesary to hold positions (something that a helicopter cant do), reinforce infantry and loads of other tasks that dont include Kursk style battles on open plains.