tommy_gunn
Active member
like your wolfshead sas badge cool badge
M-95/84AS compared to foreign tanks
What fighter? I dont think Israel is better at military tech than most developed countries, just wondering what fighter are you refering to?
As far as upgrades, the Magach 6B and 7 were and still are able to match what they were built to match- T-72 monkey mdels, M1 early models, etc. The fire control system on the Magach 6B is considered by many to be better than the early Merkava Mk 3 FCS, and by some to match the Baz FCS.
Su-25, Mig-21, and someothers as far as I recall were and are being upgraded by Israel for clients around the world.
And this is based on what? What war saw heavily upgraded 2nd generation tanks face 3rd generation tanks? I honestly dont see the Sabra being slaughtered by M1A1 or Merkava Mk 3 or Leopard 2A4. This is assuming the have the same level of support. The main problem the Sabra would have is protection. Considering that no one should really build much on the armor of the tank to save his ass, I dont see it as a huge problem. The 120mm is the same, fire control is the same. Engine is the same.
Zastava-Arms
Banned
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Many versions of the Su-30 have Israeli avionics, especially the ones exported to India.
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_variants.htm
I don't think the Sabra would be slaughtered by 3rd generation tanks for the same reasons Sherman gave.
Money is a factor, but it's a factor in just about everything therefore I didn't really give it much mention. But even then the fact that the Chinese have a lot of money but no world class MBT is probably a good clue that pumping out a world class MBT is a lot tougher than it looks. Therefore, whether or not the Croatians or the Serbians can do it is highly doubtful. If they did, it'd be one heck of a feat.
Zastava, I got your question now. Sorry I jumped to conclusions.
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_variants.htm
I don't think the Sabra would be slaughtered by 3rd generation tanks for the same reasons Sherman gave.
Money is a factor, but it's a factor in just about everything therefore I didn't really give it much mention. But even then the fact that the Chinese have a lot of money but no world class MBT is probably a good clue that pumping out a world class MBT is a lot tougher than it looks. Therefore, whether or not the Croatians or the Serbians can do it is highly doubtful. If they did, it'd be one heck of a feat.
Zastava, I got your question now. Sorry I jumped to conclusions.
Last edited:
Panzercracker
Active member
Lavi, and i should have clarified, it was not subpar but not cost effective.
I absolutely agree with all of the above but we're not discussing ME T-72s which are a few paces short of junk on wheels but Eastern European ones which are a different animal alltogether.
Yes but thats because of the low cost/high technology, Russia would theoretically be able to do the same upgrades but the price would be much higher given the shape their industry is in.
Given its armor and manouverability? And i know its armor is upgraded but there's limits on the powerpack, your own security and the amount of money Turkey did cough up, i'm just not seeing it surviving a frontal hit, even if its not destroyed its a mission kill whereas the other side has a good shot at continouing operations, thats all ignoring what a slow unwieldy cow Sabra is.
And speed, Sabra is 15kmph slower than most T-72s (barring PT-91 thats one of the slowest ones), its a whooping 17kmph slower than Leo2A4.
That is a big difference, it means that often Sabra would get outmanouvered and you know what happens if its hit anywhere thats not the front.
And i agree that we can only theorize but speed and armor are pretty big cons.
Panzercracker
Active member
Pumping out a good MBT requires money and technology, countries like Sweden, Switzerland or Poland had the technology but didnt have the money, countries like India or China have the money but no one is willing to transfer the technologies so they're forced to develop their own which are less than satisfactory.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Panzercracker
Active member
Neither is developing anything special, these tanks are just in depth upgrade packages like Sabra, not a new tank.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
That's sort of what I've been getting at isn't it?
I said, that the odds are they are fine tanks (especially with Kuwait's interest) but don't ever think that they're top of the line MBTs.
I said, that the odds are they are fine tanks (especially with Kuwait's interest) but don't ever think that they're top of the line MBTs.
Zastava-Arms
Banned
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.
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.
Panzercracker
Active member
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.
Last edited:
Zastava-Arms
Banned
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
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.
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.
Panzercracker
Active member
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.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
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.
Panzercracker
Active member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
darkgreensoldier666
Active member
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 ...
To move tank from point A to point B even a tiny country as we are using lorry for faster tank mobility ...
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
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.
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.
Panzercracker
Active member
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.