This is quite widely known fact - in early 80x USSR tested captured tank with m111 round against T-72A. Only glacis were penetrated from less than 1000m range (3 from 5 hits). As result of this trial 20mm steel appliqué was added on glacis to all T-72A in russian service. T-72B / T64B / T80 had better protection, so obviously they were safe.
T-90 Tank
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
And who conducted these tests, who confirmed these tests, is the engagement range realistic.
Last edited:
Good to know about 16,000.
Any source?About BM-42 you are right, but you dont take in to account that the new APFSDS round with 20% better penetration was developed already some years ago. In what degree it's in serial production dont ask because it's classified. I cannot see a cause why not.
About aviation, 5th gen planes etc - I also agree, but we speak about tanks yes. US have no next gen tank even in project, do they. I repeat: never I said Russia is as US in conventional forces.
for feanor:
If you read Russian I can offer you Suvorov's book about T-72. He writes about T-72 battle experience very broadly including rare English sources.
t-72_optimised.pdf - 17.45MB
Last edited:
One could count the XM1202 Mounted Combat System which is part of the FCS program. It is not really a new tank and I am scepticle about it's true capabilities but nevertheless it is a new step.
And you said that russia uses it's 10 times smaller budget 10 times more effective. For me this makes it look like they are in the same level which they are defenitely not.
You also mentioned the reduced size of the USN and USAF as if Russia comes even close to the capabilitiesmof these two services.
And do you really think that Russia is on the way to the same level as the US? Russia would have never been able to pull a stunt like the conventional phase of OIF with the same amount of troops and in the same timeframe from Kuweit to Bagdad nor are they reaching this capability in the near future.
BTW, while alot of Abrams are also upgraded to M1A1 AIM2 level instead of M1A2SEP this upgrade makes them also a lot more capable than most of the current tank fleet of russia.
And you said that russia uses it's 10 times smaller budget 10 times more effective. For me this makes it look like they are in the same level which they are defenitely not.
You also mentioned the reduced size of the USN and USAF as if Russia comes even close to the capabilitiesmof these two services.
And do you really think that Russia is on the way to the same level as the US? Russia would have never been able to pull a stunt like the conventional phase of OIF with the same amount of troops and in the same timeframe from Kuweit to Bagdad nor are they reaching this capability in the near future.
BTW, while alot of Abrams are also upgraded to M1A1 AIM2 level instead of M1A2SEP this upgrade makes them also a lot more capable than most of the current tank fleet of russia.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_tan-military-tanksGood to know about 16,000.
as example, the numbers are taken from Tom O’ Connor, “Intelligence Analysis,” http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/427/427lects - but now the article is removed and i couldnt find any copy.
There are a lot of things developed in Russia. For example, we also all know there are Su-30MKI and Su-35BM developed, which are at least equal to latest F-15. But we are speaking about fielded equipment. Entirely different matter...
US have next gen tank in project, research study. But right now they have no needs to really speed up development - there are no competitors. IF Russia actually starts fielding new gen tank - then we will surely quickly hear something definitives about next-gen US tank.
We do not have 16,000 tanks in inventory nor storage, the only way that anybody could get to that number is if we could include M-60A1/A3 model tanks, we have gone through great pains to get rid of them to a point that we darn near are just giving them away for nothing including throwing a bunch of them in the ocean. What is left is pretty much earmarked for Iraq.Good to know about 16,000.
About BM-42 you are right, but you dont take in to account that the new APFSDS round with 20% better penetration was developed already some years ago. In what degree it's in serial production dont ask because it's classified. I cannot see a cause why not.
About aviation, 5th gen planes etc - I also agree, but we speak about tanks yes. US have no next gen tank even in project, do they. I repeat: never I said Russia is as US in conventional forces.
for feanor:
If you read Russian I can offer you Suvorov's book about T-72. He writes about T-72 battle experience very broadly including rare English sources.
t-72_optimised.pdf - 17.45MB
Why BM42, your focus should be on Russian BM42M and BM46, the question is how many of these rounds have made it into storage and if any of them have been sold off to Russian clients. Russians are concerned Extern on the capabilities of the latest KE projectile model when it comes to engagement ranges and performance against the likes of M1A2.
You have brought up a good point inregards to 1989 performace tests, thus the reason why the U.S scrambled for getting the M829A2 designed. I keep telling you guys that range is one of the things that plays a important aspect on what gets fielded.
M829A2 is designed for K5 protection level tanks.
M829A3 is designed for K6 and future protection level tanks.
You will all see our future FSC tank alot quicker than originally anticipated, the U.S Army was pretty much told to get it produced along with some of the other models/platforms or the whole bloody project will get scrapped all together, the money and time spent on this project for our army is something else to be pissed about, hey - could this be another example of how a countries top brass that is rubbing elbows with defense contractors can muck things up, kinda like the Arjun debacle.
Of course M60 are included - after all only less than 9000 Abrams were produced.
Thats why i specifically talked about fielded equipment. There are almost no such rounds in russian inventory - same as there was almost no R-77 until about 3 years ago when Su-27SM / Mig-29SMT program started.
In very near future we will likely see quite big rearmament of russian army regarding projectiles and missiles used - i.e. buying new tank rounds, new AA missiles, etc.
For the same reason the R-77 never entered serial production.Good to know about 16,000.
About BM-42 you are right, but you dont take in to account that the new APFSDS round with 20% better penetration was developed already some years ago. In what degree it's in serial production dont ask because it's classified. I cannot see a cause why not.
No money, no productino facilities equipped for it.There probably is one inn project, just hasn't been publicly presented yet.
Suvorov is not a good source. I've read his books on WWII. He constantly falsifies quotes and makes many, many errors of omission. While he's a talented author, he's a bad researcher. I'll read it. But I doubt it will majorly expand my horizons, or change the way I think.
They did present but after that they closed it:
Again Chrom - we do not have 16,000 tanks laying around that are activated or in storage.
And how do you know what Russia has in storage as far as KE projectiles.
Yep - and that will not keep congress going much longer, the U.S Army has been told to produce or can the whole concept due to cost. We will soon see how great the SPH portion of the project will be.Hey at least the US army releases one shiny new FCS commercial video every year or so.
You are so so wrong, M1A3 is in the final design stages, and the photos you presented is just one of the many proto types that have emerged.
Rumors and some data (also not official) about BM-46 and newer rounds production. Seems rather very believable to me compared to other facts - like already mentioned almost non-existent R-77.
Hmm... I read about M1A3, but allways thought it's a tank with a still conventional design, or according to last rumor in internet - unmanned turret on Abrams chassis. If the americans followed it , it's just great! It means, the stupid gready Kremlin-walkers will give money for T-95 production and Russia will have a new tank too
Suvorov - is the best Russian source about tanks! He is a professional tank officer and further - the military researcher and an academic instructor in the Russian tank academy. Many things he knows not from the books but from the field. For example, he was an eyewitner of the field tests of american 105 mm vs T-72, and he writes it could not penetrate T-72 from the front even from zero distance. Now I send you the article about Merkava and its clashes with T-72s in Lebanon, were Suvorov writes about this fact.
merkava_suvorov_2.pdf - 4.57MB
M1A3 will not come equipped with a unmanned turret, FSC platform yes.Hmm... I read about M1A3, but allways thought it's a tank with a still conventional design, or according to last rumor in internet - unmanned turret on Abrams chassis. If the americans followed it , it's just great! It means, the stupid gready Kremlin-walkers will give money for T-95 production and Russia will have a new tank too