T-73B compared to M1A2 Tusk

[yugocrosrb95]

Don't shift the issue.

Your parents didn't taught you that it isn't nice to lie about people.

T-90AM is 50tons, which still is 20 tons less than M1 version in question. Same difference.

In weight? Yes? In design? No, T-90 is superior.

T-90AM is stopgap too. Try comparing T-14 Armata and M1A3.

T-90 is current main Main Battle Tank, don't deny it, except if you want to lie straight in my face.

...How can I try when I can't... Comparing a tank that isn't introduced as main MBT that currently has just 20 units produced to a tank that is still in design process.

 

[Penguin]

Your parents didn't taught you that it isn't nice to lie about people.

And, apparently, your parent didn't teach you it is neither relevant nor polite to start referring to a person's relatives when you have an issue with that person. Keep it up and you will get reported to forum management subito.

In weight? Yes? In design? No, T-90 is superior.

Apparently, the trouble is with the expression 'same difference'.

same difference
Another way of saying "whatever". It is often confused with "same thing", but you're really saying "OK, I admit that they're not the same thing, but they're not different enough for me to really care about it."

"same difference" in American English: the same thing: Either he's a genius or he's crazy - same difference really.
"same difference" in British English: said when you agree that what you said was not exactly correct, but you think the difference is not important: "He was driving a red car." "Actually, it was maroon." "Same difference."
same difference Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Clearly, T-90 (in whatever version) is more modern and better than T-72 (in whatever version). It does not make a difference, however, in relation to the earlier statement about the Russian tanks being much lighter than contemporary M1 Abrams version. In no way have I said or suggested T-72 and T-90 are the same (similar, at best)

T-90 is current main Main Battle Tank, don't deny it, except if you want to lie straight in my face.

Just to get an impression, see List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T-72: Active 1,700 / Reserve 7,000, of the active units 1,300 are T-72B/BA, of which 400 completed upgrade to T-72B3
T-80: Active 550 / Reserve 3,000, all of the active units are BV or U models, which are gradually withdrawn and replaced with modernized T-72 (in view of conflict with Ukraine, which used to provide the spares for T-80s)
T-90: 550 total (Active or Reserve), of which 400 are to be upgraded (i.e. currently they are not the latest model).

So, in fact Russian army ground forces active combat units pretty much rely to a virtually equal extent T-72B3 and (as yet unmodernized) T-90, T-90K, T-90A and T-90AKs.

...How can I try when I can't... Comparing a tank that isn't introduced as main MBT that currently has just 20 units produced to a tank that is still in design process.

Further orders for T-90 were halted in 2011, to reserve funds for the Armata Universal Combat Platform. The first batch of Armata tanks and heavy personnel carriers has been manufactured and included in Russia’s 2015 defense order, with 20 units issued to troops for hands-on training. From 2015 to 2020 the Russian army plans to acquire 2,300 T-14s. If taken up as planned, this will make it the premier tank of the Russian army quantitalively (it already is that from a qualitative point of view, as well as in terms of defence planning and acquisition)

Armata Universal Combat Platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
T-14 Armata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, for those who didn't notice, development for the improved M1A3 version has been known since 2009. The intention was to build prototypes by 2014 and begin fielding the first combat-ready M1A3s by 2017. However, recent program documents suggest that the U.S. Army plans to start the research and development for the M1A3 in 2020. So, it is perfectly valid to compare what is known about T-14 Armata MBT with what is known about M1A3.

Apologies accepted, tank you.

 

[alimobin memon]

M1 can be kicked by T-72. M1A1 maybe, M1A2 I doubt it...

M1A3. Don't even think about it.

Even M1A2 has weak armour in the sides that is under the penetration capacity of t72 tank round and gun, if not frontal.

 

[alimobin memon]

Really? Okay. Though crew safety on M1's and specially M1A2's is really good, even if they hit the side, penetrate it... If it ammo doesn't go kaboom and if it does, crew will likely survive and at least then they have a single round in the cannon to fireback.

T-90AM the latest version has a really good ERA, it will survive a frontal hit from M1's?


You're ignorant/uninformed...

How is it the same difference? It does not make any logical sense...

T-90AM has the latest ERA which can negate 1100-1300 mm APFSDS and 1350+ mm HEAT rounds and how much is frontal armor of T-90? I know it is higher than 450 mm of M-84 thus assume it is 500 to 600 mm maximum.

You can claim that T-90 is a T-72 yet T-90 is crossbreed of T-72 and T-80.

Be more professional or just stop replying to my posts, Calling me ignorant ? who are you ?

My speculations are completely accurate the side armor of abram's m1a2 cant exceed 400mm or other weak spots which can easily be penetrated by any matured versions of t72. Crew survivability is good but in war if tank is disabled the kill is counted as it is basically useless in battlefield unless it is brought back for repairs but by then the skirmish or conflict is over their.

I am not saying t72 is t90 where the hell did i said ?

My point is about t72 tank rounds hitting the abram in sides, not about whether abram can pentrate front armour of t72 or not I which is obvious abram has edge of tank kill in terms of amount of armor pentrated of enemy tank on hit. abram's KE rounds probably can penetrate around 800mm if not more imho.

Now if you have problems with my view please ignore let me live with my speculations which i shared in general I was not interested in creating a personal discussion.

 

[yugocrosrb95]

...

My first paragraph for you... I don't know why the second quote wasn't in my post.

Now I get it... If it doesn't have any characters in the quote, it doesn't display it.

 

[alimobin memon]

My first paragraph for you... I don't know why the second quote wasn't in my post.

Now I get it... If it doesn't have any characters in the quote, it doesn't display it.

I read it. I guess neither of us will agree so lets just leave this conversation man.

 

[yugocrosrb95]

I read it. I guess neither of us will agree so lets just leave this conversation man.

I am not disagreeing with you.

 

[Penguin]

Even M1A2 has weak armour in the sides that is under the penetration capacity of t72 tank round and gun, if not frontal.

A Bradley (or similar ICV) can kill an Ambrams by shooting it in the rear with its 25mm cannon. That doesn't make the Bradley equal or better than the Abrams (or even a tank!)

 

[alimobin memon]

A Bradley (or similar ICV) can kill an Ambrams by shooting it in the rear with its 25mm cannon. That doesn't make the Bradley equal or better than the Abrams (or even a tank!)

not equal but in t72 is way powerful than bradley. As for Bradley around max 25 to 20mm penetration capability that would take dozens of round to actually do much damage to tank. while t72 easily has 400 plus penetration capability, which is going to be deadly for abrams. As witnessed in iraq war t72 had also first hits even though it was a low quality version with mostly expired or outdated rounds, imagine a russian army version of t72 lets say T72B or Indian ajeya it in urban areas has first hit in side armor of abram then I would say it can defeat and may even wipe it out. My point it head on fights are mostly going to be limited to early times of war but in city like areas there is a greater chance of abrams wiped out by the t72.

 

[Penguin]

25x137mm M791 APDS-T round penetrates 25mm RHA at @ 60° at 1300m
25x137mm PGU-32/U SAPHEI-T round 13mm RHA @ 30° at 1000m
See https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/25mm/docs/25mm_Fact_Sheet.pdf

25x137mm M919 APFSDS-T has better range and penetration than M791 and can penetrate e.g. 16" reinforce concrete and still have enough energy to cause casualties.

The 25 x 137 mm Armour Piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot, Tracer (APFSDS-T) C137 cartridge is designed for use in the M242 Bushmaster I chain gun and Oerlikon-Contraves KBA machinegun. Using components supplied by Oerlikon-Contraves Pyrotec AG, the C137 cartridge is assembled by GD-OTS Canada in accordance with Canadian requirements. Penetration: 31 mm of armour plate at 60° obliquity at 2,000 m.
GENERAL DYNAMICS - Ordnance and Tactical Systems - Canada - Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot,<br>Tracer (APFSDS-T) C137

The Bradley�s main armament is the M242 25mm "Bushmaster" Chain Gun, manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. The M242 has a single barrel with an integrated dual-feed mechanism and remote ammunition selection. Either armor piercing (AP) or high explosive (HE) ammunition may be selected with the flick of a switch. The Gunner may select from single or multiple shot modes. The standard rate of fire is 200 rounds per minute, and has a range of 2,000 meters (depending on the ammunition used). A wide range of ammunition has been developed for this weapon, making it capable of defeating the majority of armored vehicles it is likely to encounter, up to and including some main battle tanks. The M240C machine gun, mounted to right of the Bushmaster, fires 7.62mm rounds.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm

The tungsten [M791] APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm, being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks at close range. Subsequent ammunition developments resulted in the M919 APFSDS-T (Armor-Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer) round, which contains a finned depleted uranium penetrator similar in concept to armor piercing munitions used in modern tanks. The M919 was used in combat during the 2003 invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

Bradley Fighting Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See this presentation, slide 4 and 7, on Abrams penetrated in the engine compartment by (friendly?) 25mm: mobility kill with 5 rounds. With pics.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

not equal but in t72 is way powerful than bradley.

You didn't 'get' what I was saying

As for Bradley around max 25 to 20mm penetration capability that would take dozens of round to actually do much damage to tank.

Actually the old round 25mm at 1300m. Newer rounds over 30mm at 2000m (i.e. more than that at 1300m). See Iraq: mobility kill on Abrams by just 5 rounds of 25mm 'old round' to the engine compartment.

while t72 easily has 400 plus penetration capability, which is going to be deadly for abrams.

Over the frontal arc only if close in. No tank is designed to provide full protection against flat trajectory 90mm+ high velocity anti tank rounds (i.e. opfor tank main guns) all around.

As witnessed in iraq war t72 had also first hits even though it was a low quality version with mostly expired or outdated rounds, imagine a russian army version of t72 lets say T72B or Indian ajeya it in urban areas has first hit in side armor of abram then I would say it can defeat and may even wipe it out. My point it head on fights are mostly going to be limited to early times of war but in city like areas there is a greater chance of abrams wiped out by the t72.

During the ground war, only seven M1A1's were hit by rounds fired from the Iraqi's T-72 tanks, with none being seriously damaged

Clearly, if fighting in a built up area, M1 would loose some advantages of having superior fire control and sighting equipment. But the fact that a T-72 could destroy an Abrams at close range and e.g. from ambush position, hitting sides or rear, does not make the Abrams a poorer tank or the T-72 a better tank. No tank is invulnerable. Obviously.

This is how the allied troops took out superior Panther, Tiger and King Tiger tanks with their inferior Shermans in WW2 (possible exception: 17 pounder equipped Sherman Firefly, 90mm equipped Pershing).

M1 Abrams v T-72

King Tiger v. Sherman

T-55 v. Sherman (couple on the left)

 

[Tipu7]

Cost- T-72B3 ($2-$3 million)
Weight-T-72B3 (45t)
Maneuverability/Range- T-72B3 .
Armor Protection-M1A2
Armor Protection including laser warning and APS- T72-B3
Firepower
APFSDS- M1A2 (M829A4)
Multi Purpose Ammo- M1A2 (M830A1)
High Explosive- T-72B3 (30F26)
Guided Missile- T-72B3 (9M119 Svir)
Sensors & Targeting Systems- Tie


looks like the T-72B3 wins

T-72B3 6/10
M1A2 3/10
Tie 1/10

but then I ask you...poll

Will you plz correct the title.............?? There is no such thing as T73B.........................

 

[alimobin memon]

25x137mm M791 APDS-T round penetrates 25mm RHA at @ 60° at 1300m
25x137mm PGU-32/U SAPHEI-T round 13mm RHA @ 30° at 1000m
See https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/25mm/docs/25mm_Fact_Sheet.pdf

25x137mm M919 APFSDS-T has better range and penetration than M791 and can penetrate e.g. 16" reinforce concrete and still have enough energy to cause casualties.

The 25 x 137 mm Armour Piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot, Tracer (APFSDS-T) C137 cartridge is designed for use in the M242 Bushmaster I chain gun and Oerlikon-Contraves KBA machinegun. Using components supplied by Oerlikon-Contraves Pyrotec AG, the C137 cartridge is assembled by GD-OTS Canada in accordance with Canadian requirements. Penetration: 31 mm of armour plate at 60° obliquity at 2,000 m.
GENERAL DYNAMICS - Ordnance and Tactical Systems - Canada - Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot,<br>Tracer (APFSDS-T) C137


http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm


Bradley Fighting Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See this presentation, slide 4 and 7, on Abrams penetrated in the engine compartment by (friendly?) 25mm: mobility kill with 5 rounds. With pics.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf


You didn't 'get' what I was saying


Actually the old round 25mm at 1300m. Newer rounds over 30mm at 2000m (i.e. more than that at 1300m). See Iraq: mobility kill on Abrams by just 5 rounds of 25mm 'old round' to the engine compartment.

Over the frontal arc only if close in. No tank is designed to provide full protection against flat trajectory 90mm+ high velocity anti tank rounds (i.e. opfor tank main guns) all around.



During the ground war, only seven M1A1's were hit by rounds fired from the Iraqi's T-72 tanks, with none being seriously damaged

Clearly, if fighting in a built up area, M1 would loose some advantages of having superior fire control and sighting equipment. But the fact that a T-72 could destroy an Abrams at close range and e.g. from ambush position, hitting sides or rear, does not make the Abrams a poorer tank or the T-72 a better tank. No tank is invulnerable. Obviously.

This is how the allied troops took out superior Panther, Tiger and King Tiger tanks with their inferior Shermans in WW2 (possible exception: 17 pounder equipped Sherman Firefly, 90mm equipped Pershing).

M1 Abrams v T-72

King Tiger v. Sherman

T-55 v. Sherman (couple on the left)

Agreed. im saying somewhat same that t72 can have chances against m1 in urban area at good figure. Overall abram is better no doubt

 

[LeGenD]

T72 is a serious tank dont talk about iraqi t72 they werent even better than the standard t72 they were licensed low quality rip offs. It can be dangerous against abrahms, whats so special about abrahms it hasnt faced any real challenge I assure u the russian army t72 could kick abrahms *** as well as abrahm can both can have equivalent results.

I agree that T-72 is a serious MBT but I disagree with your remarks in general.

The American M1A1 Abrams, German Leopard 2, British Challenger, and Soviet T-72 and T-80 were the ultimate tank designs of the Cold War years, and still have not been replaced by a new generation of tanks. Indeed, there is some question whether they will be replaced in the foreseeable future, since they continue to be viable battlefield contenders so long as they are well maintained and regularly updated.

Source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

The most advanced MBT in the inventory of Iraqi army prior to the Persian Gulf War (1991) was T-72M1. Though not as well-protected as the T-72B variants, it was still a good MBT.

Both the M1A1 Abrams and the T-72 relied on APFSDS as their primary tank-fighting ammunition at the time of Operation Desert Storm.

The greatest disparity between the M1A1 Abrams and the T-72M1 was not in actual gun performance but rather in gun fire-control. The Abrams used a far superior FLIR (forward-looking infrared) thermal-imaging sight while the T-72 relied on the older and less versatile active infrared technology for night vision. The ultimate rule in tank fighting has always been “see first, fire first, hit first.” It was the thermal sights on the M1A1 that provided the crucial combat edge in Operation Desert Storm, since US tanks could spot and engage Iraqi tanks before the US vehicles could be seen.

Iraqi tanks suffered another significant disadvantage in 1991 in that they were supplied with inferior ammunition – a generation behind that used by the Russian army of the time.

Source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

Iraqi T-72 series MBT did score first hits in some cases against American armor (e.g. M1A1 Abrams MBT) during the war but Iraqi APFSDS ammunition failed to achieve desired results.

Here:

The design philosophy of T-72 was based on the design philosophy of T-34; fast, reliable and deadly in numbers.

----

Unfortunately, for the Iraqi army, US had revolutionized its armed forces, combat tactics and warfare doctrine to such an extent in the aftermath of the Vietnam War that US army was no longer the same military machine that had fought in earlier conflicts. No country was actually prepared for the surprises that awaited Iraqi armed forces during the Persian Gulf War (1991). The outcome of this war stunned China as well and inspired its modernization efforts.

Although Iraqi armed forces had fielded thousands of MBT of Soviet and Chinese origin, US military assets on the ground and air prevented them from being used in large packs in accordance with the Soviet doctrine. Network-centric warfare doctrine was a game-changer.

---

I strongly recommend people to read the book that I have cited as a source in this response. It is an excellent read and contains lot of technical data that people won't find openly on the web.

 

[Penguin]

It was the thermal sights on the M1A1 that provided the crucial combat edge in Operation Desert Storm, since US tanks could spot and engage Iraqi tanks before the US vehicles could be seen.

Exactly. And, when fighting in built up areas, some of that advantage is negated, because engagements will be at close(r) range, rather than over long(er) ranges. But even in an urban fibua setting, betters optronics and sights may give an edge e.g. because they allow the party with that advantage to determine when and where engagements will take place (e.g. at night versus during the day, or under more obscured conditions). Another factor will be the ready availability of high precision close air support and artillery/rocket fire support. As well as the availability of high quality troops, well trained to work in concert tank in urban areas. In short, the quality of your combined arms capability. Finally, recon and intelligence capabilities. The whole point is to make the fight as 'unfair'/'unequal' as possible on the opponent.

 

[LeGenD]

Exactly. And, when fighting in built up areas, some of that advantage is negated, because engagements will be at close(r) range, rather than over long(er) ranges. But even in an urban fibua setting, betters optronics and sights may give an edge e.g. because they allow the party with that advantage to determine when and where engagements will take place (e.g. at night versus during the day, or under more obscured conditions). Another factor will be the ready availability of high precision close air support and artillery/rocket fire support. As well as the availability of high quality troops, well trained to work in concert tank in urban areas. In short, the quality of your combined arms capability. Finally, recon and intelligence capabilities. The whole point is to make the fight as 'unfair'/'unequal' as possible on the opponent.

Agreed.

However, every battle presents its own set of challenges. Importance of competence of troops will never diminish. People assume that technological superiority is enough, it is not.

Popular assumption is that US defeated Iraq during the Persian Gulf War (1991) due to technological superiority, while this is correct to a certain extent but there is more to the story then just technological superiority; competence of US military personnel.

US army accomplished an entirely different level of competence and battle-readiness in the aftermath of Vietnam War (due to revolutionary measures) and Norman Schwarzkopf proved to be an able commander during the Persian Gulf War (1991). Schwarzkopf outsmarted Iraqi decision-makers holistically.

The Battle of Al-Burqan represents an important "case study" of a close-range battle where technological superiority of US was absent and competence of troops proved to be decisive: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dpress/docs/Press_Lessons_from_Ground_Combat_IS.pdf (PDF)

US marines defeated Iraqi armed forces in the aforementioned battle on the basis of relatively superior training and decision-making capability. In this single battle, Iraqi armed forces lost over a 100 military vehicles to enemy fire during a 90 minute span.

---

Even if you use the (state-of-the-art) M1A2 [SEP V3] Abrams MBT in close range combat (scenario), you should know how to take advantage of its qualities and also be able to make good decisions in general. You also need to ensure that your MBT does not gets flanked. Otherwise, it is a disaster waiting to happen. The purpose of the machine is to make your job of knocking out targets [easier] but your competence (training, planning and decision-making ability) will determine the outcome of the battle eventually.