M60 Phoenix Main Battle Tank

[BLACKEAGLE]

Most of the eastern tanks flaws are not because of eastern concept but because of sloppy design and low quality production. And because of slow reaction of producers to technological advancements.

On paper a three-man, auto-loading, 125mm, lighter tank idea is not flawed. But i think using all steel armor plus ERA blocks is no more an option against NATO tanks. They phucking have to use composite armors with some good ceramic percentage it's 2012 now. In my theory, If you make a new T80 with this configuration, bring it to a good 60-65 metric tons 1500hp standard it can beat M1A2SEP single handedly.

Because non of the problems you mentioned: short range, flammable fuel and ammunition stowage and thin dorsal armor is related to core concept of eastern tank. I think these are just results of being light.

Your lines are purely hypothetical and not based on facts.
In fact, it's a core concept. When the fuel and ammunition are stored randomly in the body of the tank without giving any consideration to the safety of the crews, it becomes a core issue. Furthermore, fuel storage on the rear and sides of the tank make the ones on the rear vulnerable even to 14 mm machine guns. Soviets thought they would avoid threats with lower height and were the first ones who resorted to hard and soft kills systems to make up their tanks flaws. Even their BMPs were a joke, you would disable a BMP-1/2 by a Molotove thrown on it's engine vent on the front, and destroy it with 12.7 mm DShK at the feul tanks stores inside the doors on the rear in urban areas like what happened in Syria. You can find many stupid flaws in Russian armored vesicles. Early versions of T-72 used steel and sand and ceramics in the middle as an armor while the West adopted composite armor (Chopham), which is now the standard.

 

[LegionnairE]

BLACKEAGLE, Please I've seen those turrets flying in the air too. I know about those flaws. As i said above if you bring the Russian tank to 60+ tons there won't be much space left in the hull. And it's not that phucking hard to build a bit larger turret. It's all about weight.

I still think only flaw with eastern designs is idioticly using all steel armor. It makes the tank more like a heavy APC.

And it's called chobham If only challenger 2 had a better engine it would be exported all around the world.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

BLACKEAGLE, Please I've seen those turrets flying in the air too. I know about those flaws. As i said above if you bring the Russian tank to 60+ tons there won't be much space left in the hull. And it's not that phucking hard to build a bit larger turret. It's all about weight.

I still think only flaw with eastern designs is idioticly using all steel armor. It makes the tank more like a heavy APC.

And it's called chobham If only challenger 2 had a better engine it would be exported all around the world.

Actually all modern tanks adopt composite armor including T-90. Chopham is just an another (British) name for Composite armor.

 

[LegionnairE]

Actually all modern tanks adopt composite armor including T-90. Chopham is just an another (British) name for Composite armor.

Nope, chobam is the name of the institute who found the composite armor. And it's still not possible for T90 to have a comperable armor to M1 or Leopard2 or Challenger2. It's against the laws of physics. A 45-50 ton tank can't go toe to toe with a 65 ton heavy one.

 

[Desert Fox]

Actually, that pic was on Wikipedia page of this tank, look, it's not a matter of Iraqi T-72 performance in GW2, we (Fans of Russian tanks) used to have big arguments with a very respectable and knowledgeable tank specialist in Arab military forums, he proved that Eastern tanks have serious shortcomings in their designation, flaws in storage of fuel and ammunition, short life of their main guns (series of main guns came before 2A46M), weakness of armor protection, light weight, the advantages and disadvantages of the auto loading system, and superiority of of Western sight equipment. So, I believe Western tanks are superior.

But here is where you are wrong. For one, you need to be specific as to which time period you are referring to, judging from what you have stated above you are most likely talking about the Cold War era and the GW1 period. You have to understand that the Eastern Bloc (Warsaw Pact and Soviet Strategy in general) was to overwhelm NATO forces by sheer numbers, that was the overall Soviet strategy with regards to almost everything. To them Tanks were something they didn't want to spend too much $$ on, rather they were meant to be disposed of and easily replaced very cheaply.

Now, coming to the Iraqi T-72's, how can you say that its not just a matter of Iraqi T-72's performance? Are you suggesting that all Eastern Tanks, even of today, continue to share the same flaws as the Iraqi's did in the 1991 Gulf War?

Those Iraqi Tanks were junk to put it bluntly, they had primitive systems, some of them even had to have their turrets manually turned. The armor was cheap quality, the ammo was useless, the Tank could go up in flames just from being hit by a RPG, i'm surprised the Allied Tanks were even using DU round against these T-72's when even a HEAT round would have been more than enough (perhaps they just wanted to test out their new Tank ammo on live targets as is their habit) to send the Iraqi Tanks turrets sky rocketing. Even Soviet Tanks of the Cold War era were far better equipped and armored than the "Lion of Babylon".

All of the flaws mentioned above in your post were found in the Iraqi Tanks and Cold War era Soviet Tanks, now you should have realized a long time ago that that was what, 20, 30, 40 years ago?

You think major Eastern Armies would cling to that same old mentality and not apply drastic changes to improve the quality of the Tanks/Armor within those 40,30,20 years?

So understand that today's Eastern Tanks don't equal to Iraqi Tanks of GW1 or Soviet Era Tanks of the cold war. And secondly, not all Eastern Tanks are Russian, though they might have been influenced by Russian Tank designs in one form or another, but slowly and slowly due to innovation and R&D on the part of many Eastern Military's this is slowly changing as new designs are being incorporated.

Iraqi Tank T-72 Asad Babyl and cold war Era Soviet Tanks:

Today's major Eastern MBT's:


ZTZ-96:

Type-98 Tank:

ZTZ-99:

Al-Khalid:

From one of his topics:

As a result of the Russian Army's mauling at the hands ofthe Chechen rebels-particularly the disastrous assault on Grozny on 31 December 1994, the Kremlin made a shocking admission ofshortcomings at a televised scientific-technical conference at Kubinka on 20 February 1995.
Defense Minister Pavel Grachev admitted that unnecessary casualties were sustained due to the T-80Y's vulnerabilities: short range, flammable fuel and ammunition stowage, thin upper surface armor.


Bitten by their own RPGs, the Russians have developed a defensive countermeasure that solves some of the technological problems addressed at Kubinka.

The Arena Active Protection System, developed at the Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau, is designed to provide protection from antitank grenades and ATGMs, including those with top-attack £^ warheads.

Arena is foreseen as useful, both on battlefields where the latest generation of 3-8 km ATGMs
vj prevail and during peacekeeping operations and LICs, where the greatest threats are from light antitank weapons.

Arena includes three major subassemblies. Inside the turret, and taking up about 30m
3 , is the target detection and tracking equipment (computer, TC's control panel, command signals converter unit).

J— The radar itself is fitted to a 'Kladivo'-style folding radar mast, mounted on the centerline at the rear of ~^ the turret roof. The octagonal radar panel assembly is fairly large, approximately 1.5m
3 .

^^ Launchers, which the makers call 'silos,' are mounted around the turret, reminiscent ofthe BDD 'Horse *^ Shoe' armor. They provide a 110-degree arc of protection, centered on the gun tube (Russian reactive ** armor kits weigh the same as an active kit, but only cover a 35-40 degree arc). The system has 22 to 26 rounds, depending upon the type of tank, which are mounted so that they provide overlapping 'fields of fire.' Unlike reactive armor, an expended round will not leave a hole in the defensive curtain. 1- short range, 2- flammable fuel and 3- ammunition stowage, 4- thin upper surface armor. Bitten by their own RPGs The silos are armored against splinters and bullets to prevent accidental detonation ofthe rounds. The whole 27 V system weighs 1,000-1,100 kg and consumes 1 kW of power.


The description ofthe system in use sounds fairly simple. Prior to entering a hostile area, the TC turns the system on. Arena automatically tracks incoming rounds, ignoring incoming rounds until they're within 50m, then engaging anything approaching at speeds of 70-700 m/s. False targets, such as outgoing rounds, near misses, birds, small projectiles (like bullets or splinters) would be ignored.

When fired, the round detonates the warhead at a stand-off distance of a few meters, so that the
double-charge ATGM warheads designed to defeat reactive armor are rendered impotent. Time to detect and destroy a threat is .07 sec, with .2 to .4 sec for the system to reset. The danger zone for accompanying infantry is 20-3Om.

If necessary, the TC can manually override and fire the system. The number ofremaining rounds are
displayed on the TC's control panel. The rounds are rectangular and reloadable by the crew.

The Arena system, which can be fitted to new production tanks as well as existing ones scheduled for rebuilds, is expected to double the tanks' survivability during assaults and reduce losses from 1.5 to 1.7 Arena-fitted tanks are not supposed to create electromagnetic interference while working with other tanks. The manufacturers also claim that the system is extremely immune to ECM.
Support for the system has also been addressed by the manufacturer. Subsystems are modular and can be pulled for fast replacement. Test and control equipment is mounted on a cross-country capable truck, for forward maintenance.

Like the T-90, this system may not be fielded in substantial numbers with Russian forces for some time, due to budgetary constraints.

* I have put the source itself here since his topic is in Arabic.

Even after collapse of Soviet Union, Russian Army was still using Cold War era Tanks in service since the weak Russian economy and loss of R&D spending left them without much of a choice. Most of their upgraded Tanks were only meant to take on Western Tanks (Tank on Tank warfare) and not for Guerilla Warfare, so obviously there was a weakness there.

Traditionally a Tanks strongest and most heavily armored area is its front area, as we move to the sides and finally the rear the armor thickness gradually decreases, thus the Tank's vulnerable spots. Therefore since the Russian Tanks were built for only Tank on Tank battles which involves Armored Formations facing each other face to face (which is mostly the case in regular warfare) they didn't put much emphasis on this aspect. In irregular warfare the enemy fights in a non-traditional method through carefully planned ambushes and traps.

The Russian army in the first Chechnya War was not prepared at all for irregular warfare/urban Guerilla warfare, but of course that would change during the second Russian-Chechen War since the Russians learned a great deal from their previous experience with irregular warfare/urban Guerilla warfare and were a lot more prepared for such warfare than they previously were.



Now you claimed that all Eastern Tanks are inferior to their Western counterparts from this portion of your post quoted below, well lets see:

Actually, that pic was on Wikipedia page of this tank, look, it's not a matter of Iraqi T-72 performance in GW2, we (Fans of Russian tanks) used to have big arguments with a very respectable and knowledgeable tank specialist in Arab military forums, he proved that Eastern tanks have serious shortcomings in their designation, flaws in storage of fuel and ammunition, short life of their main guns (series of main guns came before 2A46M), weakness of armor protection, light weight, the advantages and disadvantages of the auto loading system, and superiority of of Western sight equipment. So, I believe Western tanks are superior.

Secondly, all of those assumptions you made of all Eastern Tanks, even of the present Eastern MBT's, do back them up with reliable sources rather than just post a assumption.

What makes you so sure that modern day Eastern MBT's, especially 3rd generation tanks like Al-Khalid have a main gun with short life, flaws in fuel storage, weakness of armor protection, and why is a light weight tank a disadvantage?

Coming to auto-loader, the French Leclerc also has a auto-loader yet its is a Western Tank. Al-Khalids auto-loader allows the Tank to fire minimum 6 rounds per minute and maximum 8 rounds per minute. While M1A2 can only fire 6 rounds per minute through manual load (maximum 8?), therefore this is a clear advantage of a auto-loader which enables the Tank to repeatedly fire at enemy Tank within a minimal amount of time allowing it to deliver a knockout blow against enemy Tank if the first hit wasn't enough. There are other advantages of a auto loader as well that i haven't yet mentioned.

Thirdly, coming to weight and size. A large Tanks makes a large Target that is easily distinguishable from afar while Tanks with a low profile are far more easier to disguise with less effort not to mention smaller targets.

Weight wise, a lighter Tank is more maneuverable and less prone to being bogged down, requires less fuel to power it, add to that the ease of transportability as well as crossing rivers/canals when bridges are knocked out, etc.



So, i'll say it again, defeating junkyard worthy T-72's does not qualify one as "battle proven" and "ultimate weapon".

 

[Desert Fox]

Actually the Russians are answering this debate themselves. Looking at the T-95 concept and the Armata concepts both are more inclined to western design this time and almost abandoning the eastern tank concept all together.

But I am yet to see things other than designs and concept arts as of yet.

Those are only concepts, except the T-95 black eagle, but that was never inducted into the Russian Army.

 

[LegionnairE]

I still believe T95-armata will be a much improved version of Black Eagle and therefore an offspring of T64 line.

It looks like AMD trying to catch-up with Intel It will beat any variant of 72.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

I still believe T95-armata will be a much improved version of Black Eagle and therefore an offspring of T64 line.

It looks like AMD trying to catch-up with Intel It will beat any variant of 72.

That's because it would follow Western concepts of tanks.

@ Desert Fox

My God, how can I reply to all those notes and misconceptions? I need hours to refute them one by one. Maybe later.

 

[Desert Fox]

Your lines are purely hypothetical and not based on facts.
In fact, it's a core concept. When the fuel and ammunition are stored randomly in the body of the tank without giving any consideration to the safety of the crews, it becomes a core issue. Furthermore, fuel storage on the rear and sides of the tank make the ones on the rear vulnerable even to 14 mm machine guns. Soviets thought they would avoid threats with lower height and were the first ones who resorted to hard and soft kills systems to make up their tanks flaws. Even their BMPs were a joke, you would disable a BMP-1/2 by a Molotove thrown on it's engine vent on the front, and destroy it with 12.7 mm DShK at the feul tanks stores inside the doors on the rear in urban areas like what happened in Syria. You can find many stupid flaws in Russian armored vesicles. Early versions of T-72 used steel and sand and ceramics in the middle as an armor while the West adopted composite armor (Chopham), which is now the standard.

That's the problem with cold war era soviet tanks. You can't state the same for all eastern Tanks, especially modern Eastern MBT's, which you did in your other posts.

Here is a Pakistani Al-Zarrar ambushed by the Taliban, it was hit by IED's and whatever else the Taliban could throw at it, yet it never blew up and the crew lived to tell the story. The Taliban who ambushed the Tank, well i don't need to mention what happened to them.

The Al-Zarrar has composite armor, so does the Al-Khalid.

Composite armor is not a exclusively Western armor as you're suggesting in your posts.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

That's the problem with cold war era soviet tanks. You can't state the same for all eastern Tanks, especially modern Eastern MBT's, which you did in your other posts.

Here is a Pakistani Al-Zarrar ambushed by the Taliban, it was hit by IED's and whatever else the Taliban could throw at it, yet it never blew up and the crew lived to tell the story. The Taliban who ambushed the Tank, well i don't need to mention what happened to them.

The Al-Zarrar has composite armor, so does the Al-Khalid.

Composite armor is not a exclusively Western armor as you're suggesting in your posts.

One tank incident in which it survived doesn't mean anything, we don't know what was used against this tank, it could be a 10 kg of TNT mine. I didn't say all Easern tanks don't have composite armour. I said it was invented and used on Western tanks before Soviet tanks by about 20 years. I sated specifically that early versions of T-72 used steel stuffed with ceramics and sand as an armor while Western ones adopted the composite armor which was later adopted as a standard armor by all countries. I am well aware that Russian, Chinese tanks use composite armor, however their tanks still less protected than their Western counterparts.

Tank Protection Levels

Al Khalid
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 645
Glacis: 435-455

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1060 (1160 w/ERA)
Glacis: 540 (670w/ERA)

Arjun
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 500-570
Glacis: 410

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 650-830
Glacis:730

Ukrainian T-84 w/K-5 ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 850-1100
Glacis: 680-720

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1250-1600
Glacis: 960-1040

Chinese Type-99 w/ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 740-800
Glacis: 450-630

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1050
Glacis: 560-860

Merkava Mk4
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 600-1030

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 750-1340



Leopard 2A5
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 850-930
Glacis:620
Lower front hull:620

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1730-1960
Glacis:750
Lower front hull:750

Challenger 2
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

T-72B "Super Dolly Parton" & S w/K-1 ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 280-550-690
Glacis: 485
Lower front hull: 250

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 580-850
Glacis: 670-910
Lower front hull: 250

Leclerc

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 400-700+
Glacis: 600

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1400-1750
Glacis 1060

M1A2 SEP
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970

Main smoothbore guns:


Chinese Type-II 125mm 550mm at 2km

Pakistani Niaza 125mm DU 550mm at 2km

Iranian 125mm tungsten 470mm at 3km

Ukraine 125mm Vitiaz round 760mm at 2km (2002)

Russian 125mm BM-42M "Lekalo"? tungsten 600-650mm at 2km

German 120mm/L55 DM-63 tungsten 720mm at 2km (2006)

US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)

US/Egyptian KEW-A2 120mm tungsten 660mm at 2km

Chinese 120mm tungsten 550mm at 2km

UK L-28 120mm APFSDS 770mm at 2km (200X)

 

[Desert Fox]

One tank incident in which it survived doesn't mean anything, we don't know what was used against this tank, it could be a 10 kg of TNT mine.

This was the only Tank lost i believe, no other Tank was lost in battles against the Taliban, who typically are armed with RPG-7's and highly powerful IED's, but since NATO's supply trucks are captured by the Taliban, sophisticated weapons do end up in their hands so the Taliban aren't your average guerilla fighters armed with simple AK's and outdated RPG's. They have been known to use high powered weapons.

Now i can see that you're trying to grasp at straws to justify your unjustifiable point that all Modern Eastern Tanks=Iraqi T-72's of GW1 period and Soviet Cold war era Tanks, therefore they are inferior, and this argument again is baseless.

What would be your explanation, or excuse, for these M1 Abrams Tanks destroyed by Iraqis and their primitive weapons?

I didn't say all Easern tanks don't have composite armour. I said it was invented and used on Western tanks before Soviet tanks by about 20 years.

Again, "soviet Tanks"? Soviet Union doesn't even exist anymore, and neither does their failed strategy of using sheer numbers to overwhelm enemy forces. Soviet strategy, as i said before, was quantity over quality, therefore less focus on improving individual Tanks rather more focus on replacing Tank losses cheaply and easily. Soviet Union had more Tanks than NATO so obviously implementing composite armor on every single Tank would have been very costly and resource consuming, even though they did have forms of composite armor for early T-64 series Tanks, but again it was not implemented because it didn't fit the soviet philosophy.

I sated specifically that early versions of T-72 used steel stuffed with ceramics and sand as an armor while Western ones adopted the composite armor which was later adopted as a standard armor by all countries. I am well aware that Russian, Chinese tanks use composite armor, however their tanks still less protected than their Western counterparts.

You can't make such a bold statement, unless of course you know 100% for sure and have the insight on the protective measures used on these Tanks which doesn't only include armor but other countermeasures as well. Perhaps you can say their overall armor thickness is not as great as that of the Western MBT's, however there could be reasons for this like more composite and ERA armor compensates for the lack of thickness, and less thickness of armor for more mobility and light weight.

Tank Protection Levels

Al Khalid
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 645
Glacis: 435-455

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1060 (1160 w/ERA)
Glacis: 540 (670w/ERA)

Arjun
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 500-570
Glacis: 410

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 650-830
Glacis:730

Ukrainian T-84 w/K-5 ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 850-1100
Glacis: 680-720

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1250-1600
Glacis: 960-1040

Chinese Type-99 w/ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 740-800
Glacis: 450-630

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1050
Glacis: 560-860

Merkava Mk4
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 600-1030

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 750-1340



Leopard 2A5
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 850-930
Glacis:620
Lower front hull:620

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1730-1960
Glacis:750
Lower front hull:750

Challenger 2
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

T-72B "Super Dolly Parton" & S w/K-1 ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 280-550-690
Glacis: 485
Lower front hull: 250

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 580-850
Glacis: 670-910
Lower front hull: 250

Leclerc

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 400-700+
Glacis: 600

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1400-1750
Glacis 1060

M1A2 SEP
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970

Main smoothbore guns:


Chinese Type-II 125mm 550mm at 2km

Pakistani Niaza 125mm DU 550mm at 2km

Iranian 125mm tungsten 470mm at 3km

Ukraine 125mm Vitiaz round 760mm at 2km (2002)

Russian 125mm BM-42M "Lekalo"? tungsten 600-650mm at 2km

German 120mm/L55 DM-63 tungsten 720mm at 2km (2006)

US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)

US/Egyptian KEW-A2 120mm tungsten 660mm at 2km

Chinese 120mm tungsten 550mm at 2km

UK L-28 120mm APFSDS 770mm at 2km (200X)

This information is highly doubtful since actual thickness of armor is never revealed, neither is the type of composite armor and the material its composed of.

But lets say that this is the "actual" armor thickness of say for example the Al-Khalid Tank, even then its pretty good amount of armor thickness for a Tank that only weighs 46-47 Tons with a power to weight ratio of 26.66 hp/tonne and can cruise 70 km an hour off road terrain.

Now going back to your previous comment:

Actually, that pic was on Wikipedia page of this tank, look, it's not a matter of Iraqi T-72 performance in GW2, we (Fans of Russian tanks) used to have big arguments with a very respectable and knowledgeable tank specialist in Arab military forums, he proved that Eastern tanks have serious shortcomings in their designation, flaws in storage of fuel and ammunition, short life of their main guns (series of main guns came before 2A46M), weakness of armor protection, light weight, the advantages and disadvantages of the auto loading system, and superiority of of Western sight equipment. So, I believe Western tanks are superior.

" Attention was paid to land mine damage in the form of thickened floor armor. The ammunition is carried in armored bins, and virtually the entire vehicle has thick Kevlar anti-spalling blankets. The engine also has a thick bulkhead separating it from the crew compartment. An automatic explosion and fire suppression system is provided, and the crew has an NBC overpressure system; the engine compartment and ammunition bins have their own systems of the same sort."
Pakistani Tanks

superiority of of Western sight equipment.

True, this i agree, currently Western origin Tank optics are superior to their Eastern counterparts, however with the Russians acquiring French thermal optics i wouldn't be surprised if some how this technology is proliferated or reverse engineered.

short life of their main guns (series of main guns came before 2A46M),

Yes, this was a common problem in Soviet era tank guns and remains so in Tanks that still use those old guns pre 2A46m, however with the transfer of certain western gun boring/manufacturing machinery, newer guns like the 2A46m and KBA3 have a significantly increased life as well as quality on par with their western counterparts.

the advantages and disadvantages of the auto loading system

And just as there are advantages and disadvantages of a manual loader.

light weight,

Now you see this Abrams here, its stuck, and can neither move forward since it will only dig itself under more than it already is nor can it pull itself back because that too would just cause it to sink deeper. Armored recovery vehicle is out of question since it would take a hell lot more to pull this 60 ton monster out, therefore what other option is left? The crew must blow the Tank up to prevent any equipment from falling to the enemy therefore millions of $$ going down the drain.

And here's more:

The Al-Khalid weighs 13 tons less than the M1 Abrams, add to that wider tracks for greater and equal weight distribution making the Tank less likely to get bogged down, sink, or stuck in muddy terrain and when crossing rivers and canals.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

What would be your explanation, or excuse, for these M1 Abrams Tanks destroyed by Iraqis and their primitive weapons?

I am 100% sure that Al-Khalid would have survived those attacks...

Yes off course, Al-Khalid would have floated and even flown away.

I am sorry Fox, this is just an invitation for laugh, comparing Al-Khalid with M1A2 is more of a joke that no reasonable person would dare to make. none the less, Showing random pictures of destroyed tanks without giving info about them (the points were hit, the weapon used...etc ) prove that you are either clueless or lack logic, I hope you know that RPG-29 is different from RPG-7 and a 6 kg mine is different from a 20 kg mine.

 

[Armstrong]

I am 100% sure that Al-Khalid would have survived those attacks...


Yes off course, Al-Khalid would have floated and even flown away.

I am sorry Fox, this is just an invitation for laugh, comparing Al-Khalid with M1A2 is more of a joke that no reasonable person would dare to make. none the less, Showing random pictures of destroyed tanks without giving info about them (the points were hit, the weapon used...etc ) and apparently I hope you know that RPG-29 is different from RPG-7 and a 6 kg mine is different from a 20 kg mine.

The point he was trying to make was that an Al-Khalid was designed keeping in mind the environment it would be called onto operate in ! Even if we had the M1A2s...they'd be a waste in the mountainous insurgency ridden areas of Pakistan's North-West because these behemoths are as suited to those areas as a killer whale is to a goldfish's aquarium ! Plus the AKs are supposed to operate in the fertile plains of North and Central Punjab where a 55 ton tank would again be at a massive disadvantage because they'd get more owned by the rice paddies then by whatever the Indian's had to throw at us. Even in terms of the autoloader this works for us because the generally accepted criticism aimed at an autoloader is 'the fresh 4th man hence less workload'; well our entire width (on average) is about 200 kms and our FOBs are right next on the border...we don't have to travel half the country like (say!) KSA would...its just a few minutes drive !

The point is tanks are good or bad depending upon what scenarios they were envisioned to operate in !

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

The point he was trying to make was that an Al-Khalid was designed keeping in mind the environment it would be called onto operate in ! Even if we had the M1A2s...they'd be a waste in the mountainous insurgency ridden areas of Pakistan's North-West because these behemoths are as suited to those areas as a killer will is to a goldfish's aquarium ! Plus the AKs are supposed to operate in the fertile plains of North and Central Punjab where a 55 ton tank would again be at a massive disadvantage because they'd get more owned by the rice paddies then by whatever the Indian's had to throw at us. Even in terms of the autoloader this works for us because the generally accepted criticism aimed at an autoloader is 'the fresh 4th man hence less workload'; well our entire width (on average) is about 200 kms and our FOBs are right next on the border...we don't have to travel half the country like (say!) KSA would...its just a few minutes drive !

The point is tanks are good or bad depending upon what scenarios they were envisioned to operate in !

Armstrong, my friend, I don't really care which tank is stronger, but I thought this discussion is based on logic and pure technical differences, but I found rather people here tend to believe in absolute superiority of sth and desperately work on showing that only because it belongs to them without giving any slightest regard to logic or facts, I felt that I was being treated like a fool. I just don't believe in superiority and not even of equivalence of Eastern tanks over the Western counterparts and I have already said why in details.

 

[Armstrong]

Armstrong, my friend, I don't really care which tank is stronger, but I thought this discussion is based on logic and pure technical differences, but I found rather people here tend to believe in absolute superiority of sth and desperately work on showing that only because it belongs to them without giving any slightest regard to logic or facts, I felt that I was being treated like a fool. I just don't believe in superiority and not even of equivalence of Eastern tanks over the Western counterparts and I have already said why in details.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the Jordanian Army uses Western Tanks ! Yup...unbiased as always ! But do go through the Al-Khalid Thread or better yet open an Eastern vs Western Tank Design comparison thread because I know as much about a tank as I do about holding an RPG whilst sitting in a tub with wheels attached to it !