Ashes said:Hard to choose between the top western tanks in a tank on tank battle.
Unless someone has some classified info on every tanks armour, it's impossible to say which one would be superior.
The Leclerk is one of the newest and has an autoloader, so I guess it should come in for a mention.
But it seems tanks of today like tanks of the past are still vulnerable in urban fighting, M-1's were knocked out in Iraq by rpg's and early model Merkavas had shot traps that were exploited by guerillas, frequently taking them out with rpg's.
I've noticed that posters bring crew training into the disscusion when backing up one tank, fighter etc, which is O.K. I suppose when it's U.S. or Brit tankers or pilots going up against a third world country like Iraq, but I would have thought that the training for most western countries would be on a par. And I guess Russia's or China's elite front line forces would be up to scratch.
Ashes said:Great links Guy100, especially the clips, first time i've seen film of the Shtora-1 or Arena.
I suppose it makes sense to have an active defensive system like that instead of just adding heavier armour all the time.
What's the latest on Russian tank design, any chance of something like the T-95 going into service in the future?
Kozzy Mozzy said:Not really
1. M289A3 sabot does 960mm at 2km, the T-90M's frontal turret is 800mm vs KE. Even the M289A2 could do it at 750mm. Basically, the Abrams can take the turret off a T-90 at 2km for sure.
2. The T-90's guided missile, the AT-11 can get cannot get a turret front kill on an Abrams, on the glacis yes. It's range advantage is null, normal battle ranges are under 3km, where the Abrams can easily get the T-90
3. The x50 FLIR channel on the SEP is the best in the world. The T-90's fire control and optics are lacking. The Abrams has a 90% hit chance while on the move, the T-90 has 70%
4. The M1 has 2 M240 MGs and a .50 cal, with more ammo then a T-90
5. Human loaders are superior to auto-loaders, go back through this thread and see why.
1. The mobility of the two or more or less equal, the T-90 is lighter and more reliable. The M1 has better acceleration and top speed.
1. The M1A2SEP has 900mm vs KE and 1500+ vs CE. The T-90M has 800mm vs. KE and 1200mm vs CE. I believe the KE value would go down more against a M289A3, which is designed against K-5.
2. THe T-90's ammo is stored around the turret ring, if the ammo blows, the turret flies into the air. When the ammo explodes on the M1, the explosion is vented through blowout panels, the crew survives and maybe even able to fight after this
3. I like the Anti-missile systems on the T-90. But they aren't going to do much against an M1 or a Hellfire or a LOSAT.
Did I miss anything?