T-73B compared to M1A2 Tusk

[damiendehorn]

Comparing T-72 with M1A2??Seriously??M1A2 is like best tank for over 2 decades.T-72 came nearly 1 decade before M1A2 and weighs 2/3 of Abrams.Abrams will smash anything upto 4 km if given.But T-72 is poor man's MBT and has some tangible advantages over Abrams.

But I'd love to highlight that please don't bring Iraq war to advertise Abrams.Iraq had downgraded T-72s and not enough Armour piercing rounds.

Iraq had very little to do with who had the best tanks, even if the Americans used the t72s and the Iraqis had the m1s the result would have been the same. The Americans have far better trained crew, better net centric data capacity, air support etc etc.....

 

[GR!FF!N]

Iraq had very little to do with who had the best tanks, even if the Americans used the t72s and the Iraqis had the m1s the result would have been the same. The Americans have far better trained crew, better net centric data capacity, air support etc etc.....

well,that is my point.

 

[Penguin]

Comparing T-72 with M1A2??Seriously??M1A2 is like best tank for over 2 decades.T-72 came nearly 1 decade before M1A2 and weighs 2/3 of Abrams.Abrams will smash anything upto 4 km if given.But T-72 is poor man's MBT and has some tangible advantages over Abrams.

But I'd love to highlight that please don't bring Iraq war to advertise Abrams.Iraq had downgraded T-72s and not enough Armour piercing rounds.

T-72B3, not T72

The T-72B3 is a development of the standard Russian-made T-72B series currently in service in the Russian army. The T-72B3 has significantly improved its combat characteristics with more fire power, protection, mobility and command controllability. Besides the improved armor and targeting systems, it kept all the good features of previous versions of T-72. The modernized version of the T-72, which was a main second-generation battle tank produced in the Soviet Union since the 1970s, is equipped with new generation communications and firing systems and a ballistic data computer. The T-72B3 contract was performed by the Russian Defense Company "Uralvagonzavod". A contract was signed in 2012 to launch the modernization program for a total amount of six billion rubles ($150 million). Currently, the Russian army has some 8.000 T-72s on various variants in its arsenal (most of them in reserve). Russian Ministry of Defense has decided that all of them will be converted to a t-72B3 standard. By the end of the 2013 some 270 units were delivered to the Western Military District. The T-72B3 is now become the backbone of the Russian armor regiments until the new Armata MBT will enter in service. President Vladimir Putin has allocated 23 trillion rubles ($703 billion) to reequip the Russian army with modernized weapons over the next decade.

T-72B3 main battle tank technical data sheet specifications information description pictures video | Russia Russian army tank heavy armoured vehicles U | Russia Russian army military equipment vehicles UK

Refurbished and upgraded T-72B3 tanks are fitted with new engine, new gunners sight, new fire control system and have some other improvements. Now this MBT has a hunter-killer capability.
Protection of the upgraded tank was slightly improved. The T-72B3 is fitted with built-in Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor. The same armor is used by the T-80U, T-90 and some other main battle tanks. This armor can effectively defeat most older APFSDS rounds.
autoloader of the T-72B3 has some modifications and can use newly-developed munitions.
The tank has new fire control system and new ballistic computer. Gunner uses new Sosna-U sight with thermal imager. This sight has day/night and all weather combat capability. The T-72B3 has a hunter-killer capability even though it lacks commander's panoramic sight. Vehicle commander can select a target and lay the gun and let the gunner complete all the aiming and firing process. During that time commander looks for the next target. The tank is also fitted with new digital radio system.
Initially refurbished and upgraded T-72B3 tanks were powered by original V-84-1 diesel engine, developing 840 hp. However later production tanks were fitted with the new V-92S2F engine, developing 1 130 hp. This tank is also fitted with new tracks.

T-72B3 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

M1: First production variant. Production began (at Chrysler) in 1979 and continued to 1985
M1A1: Production started in 1985 and continued to 1992.
M1A2 (Baseline): Production began in 1986 and entered service in 1992 .

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tank Urban Survivability Kit (TUSK)

On August 29, 2006 General Dynamics Land Systems received a US Army order for 505 Tank Urban Survivability Kits (TUSK) for Abrams main battle tanks supporting operations in Iraq, under a US$45 million contract. The add-on kit will be provided for M1A1 and M1A2-series tanks to enhance crew survivability in urban environments.

Tank Urban Survivability Kit (TUSK)

the M1 TUSK kit purchases from 2006-2008

Street Fighters: M1 Abrams TUSK Tank Conversions

 

[damiendehorn]

well,that is my point.

i know, i was just adding to it.

 

[desimorty]

Your comparing a 70 ton heavy MBT against a 3 million 40 ton medium tank?
Not a fair comparison. You need a scenario.

 

[yugocrosrb95]

Your comparing a 70 ton heavy MBT against a 3 million 40 ton medium tank?
Not a fair comparison. You need a scenario.

T-72 is designed for pack tactics, like wolves or swarm... Overwhelming by numbers.

It can dish out the punishment, but not that it much...

 

[desimorty]

T-72 is designed for pack tactics, like wolves or swarm... Overwhelming by numbers.

It can dish out the punishment, but not that it much...

Source: T-73B compared to M1A2 Tusk | Page 2

I know. Thats why its a bad comparison.
The heavy tank should be limited in numbers. Not to mention that ATGM weapons protection.
The T-72 for all its worth is a powerfull tank for its size and simple...and cheap. But its got problems, big ones. RPGs can kill the tank or the crew.
The M1A2 is actually IMO the best tank for buck. Simple, powerful and inexpensive NOT cheap and not expensive like Lecrec. Has issues too, like use of jet fuel...lol
The evolution of the T-72 line into T-90 now ARMATA is interesting.
The Russians have a new ARMATA and its quite a positive design. Question is how cheap can this tank be now and long run.
Also, Cold WAR logic, USAF and NATO would have destroyed half the mech forces. Hence the huge stockpile of tanks, and simplicity in manufacture.
Take out cold war scenario- and high end equipment seems for logical. Since its rarely used.

 

[Gazprom]

T-72B3 only if it has gun launched ATGM package.

Else M1A2 Tusk would be preferred

@C130

The ATGM package is the reason why many simulations in Cold war showed victory of T-80's/T-72 over western tanks. Take that out ,and the russian tanks are in trouble. Russian tanks have excellent frontal armor but then crew safety sucks . M1A2 has better crew safety measures. Though in terms of logistics its a nightmare and on the East European field you would prefer a T-72/T-90 which has low logistical issues compared to a T-80/M1A2 .

 

[yugocrosrb95]

M1A2 if produced today would be 10 million while T-72 like 2-3 million.

M-84 which is based on T-72 has various improvements over T-72.

T-72 can be penetrated by 105mm Pakistani gun with Depleted uranium munition while M-84 just has enough armor to survive.

 

[alimobin memon]

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.

 

[yugocrosrb95]

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.

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

M1A3. Don't even think about it.

 

[Penguin]

Your comparing a 70 ton heavy MBT against a 3 million 40 ton medium tank?
Not a fair comparison. You need a scenario.

They both are the Main Battle Tank of their respective forces. They would meet in battle. Therefor they can and should be compared. The represent different design philosophies and different tank doctrines. So what?

 

[yugocrosrb95]

They both are the Main Battle Tank of their respective forces. They would meet in battle. Therefor they can and should be compared. The represent different design philosophies and different tank doctrines. So what?

T-72B3 is a stopgap... T-90AM is where is it at...

 

[Penguin]

T-72B3 is a stopgap... T-90AM is where is it at...

Don't shift the issue. T-90AM is 50tons, which still is 20 tons less than M1 version in question. Same difference.

Army Guide

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

 

[desimorty]

They both are the Main Battle Tank of their respective forces. They would meet in battle. Therefor they can and should be compared. The represent different design philosophies and different tank doctrines. So what?

Source: T-73B compared to M1A2 Tusk | Page 2

Which is why I consider numbers where applicable.