Jump to content

ON THE LAST EPISODE OF WAR THUNDER Z, GAIJIN DECLARED THE ADDITION OF MODERN MBTS AND THE COMMUNITY REJOICED, ONLY TO BE TRAPPED IN A PLACE WHERE CONCRETE SOURCES ARE HARD TO FIND AND WHERE "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF IT'S WRONG" REIGNS SUPREME. HOW WILL OUR HEROES ESCAPE FROM THIS VORTEX OF CONFUSION, THIS WHIRLPOOL OF MADNESS, THIS TORNADO OF BAMBOOZLEMENT, THIS SWIRLING TOILET OF UNHOLY SMELLS?

 

But seriously this is how I rate modern MBTs. I'm going to explain why I sorted x tank with y tank, as some of my choices can seem very strange. For the sake of simplicity I will assume the standard NATO vs Warsaw battle in the way both sides seemed to envision a hot war in Europe for the most part (NATO defending and Warsaw rushing B the weast). Some of it might come from AFV fair match ups that were found in SB because I lack originality like every popular writer does. I will not use Armor Basics as reference either since that book is outdated according to Lakowski (2/3rds aluminum for the Leopard 2 good joke). Everything will be sorted in tiers, using Russian tanks as reference points since that's what everyone is used to nowadays.

 

Disclaimer: This is not a suggestion for War Thunder balancing. Some War Thunder tanks might not even be in due to balancing issues. Hell, War Thunder maps may not even work in this scenario. Variety is also of no concern, just equivalents.

 

 

Onions have layers, ogres have layers, and so do Russian MBTs:

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-64A (3BM-15, 3BK-12)

- T-72 Ural mod 1973 (3BM-15, 3BK-12)

 

You guys basically know these two. Both have rather similar performance. Both have strong UFPs that were made to stop 105mm APDS at around 300m according to what Andrei dug up from the choppy seas of Russian archives. Both have strong guns with 3BM-15 easily slicing through M60s, Centurions, Chieftains, Leopard 1s, AMX-30s, basically anything, while having solid stabilization and reloading in around 6.5-7 seconds at best thanks to an autoloader. Both have solid mobility that makes the T-62 look like a slug thanks to superior engine power, better suspension and perhaps a better geared differential (except the non-existent reverse speed). There's differences on the T-72 Ural that makes it inferior, such as a cast steel turret that is easily defeated by HEAT and an autoloader that rotates in a single direction, leading to a reload speed above 20 seconds if the shell is to the left side. And for common problems these two have? Their FCS consist of a coincidence rangefinder, which is slow for target acquisition, and the night optics are awful, leaving the gunner unable to clearly identify targets past around 800m and the commander has it worse at 400m, maybe 500m depending on variant. The ammo layout is hideous, leading to a very high K-kill chance upon penetration.The side armor is not special at all, only being able to stop autocannons at best and is thus easy to penetrate even with a KwK 42, if not possibly a KwK 40. And to make things worse, both tanks have abysmal turret traverse speeds of 18 degrees a second, thus increasing reaction time. The LFP is also trash, but that's a given. It's through the vision game that NATO should dominate in, and luckily getting the first hit on unsuspecting targets is the most important factor in winning the fight and is precisely what NATO does best. It's full on hard anaconda mode here, and luckily the increased emissivity of the unclean V-12 on the T-72 Ural helps, and maybe the V-12 of the T-64A isn't so clean, meaning easier times spotting them with IR sights especially if the Luna IR spotlight is turned on.

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 1A1A2 (DM23, DM12)

 

Hold on, is this anti-German bias? Have I gone crazy? Why not the 1A4, or better yet the 2AV or KPz-70? All these vehicles are overqualified. Let's start with the ammunition: DM23. This is essentially M111 Hetz, but given a German designation so that the German military can easily sort it. This shell penetrates maybe around 300mm of 300 BHN RHA according to the Lanz-Odermatt equation. This sounds like it's not an improvement over DM13, but the sloped performance is amazing at maybe 170-180mm at 60 degrees. On top of this, monobloc penetrators are less affected by composite armor in general. This allowed M111 to go through the T-72A: a tank with superior armor compared to the T-64A. Now imagine what this can do to a T-64A. Yep, penetration at standard combat range. The 1A1A2 also comes with much better IR sights than the T-64A, which means in the dark, the 1A1A2 is just going to win. And in a NATO defense scenario, the T-64A would need a few extra numbers compared to the number of 1A1A2s on the field. If all else goes wrong, the 1A1A2 has great mobility thanks to a very beefy engine and double differential, making it easier to get out of trouble even in reverse. Sure, there's basically no armor on the tank that would stop any of that 125mm ammo, but it becomes quite irrelevant in the defense. It's ok for the most part. Oh and 1A1A2s have good turret traverse speeds of 28 degrees a second or so, which makes reacting to threats a faster task, not to mention great gun depression.

 

US tanks:

- M60A3 (M735, M456A2)

- T95E6 (T102)

 

Ah, now compared to the Leopard 1A1A2, we might have an issue. M735 is worse in penetration compared to M111, at least against composites. It's an issue when considering the T-72A, but definitely not the T-64A. The mobility is also definitely worse than on the T-64A, since an M60 is pigfat and even has worse engine power compared to its Russian contemporaries, but doesn't suffer from terrible reverse speeds. Also, the armor can technically stop 3BM-15 if angled at an odd angle, but all bets are off when the Russians spam HEAT ammunition. So what does the M60A3 have to defeat them? The answer is FCS. The M60A3's FCS is truly top notch, with truly dynamic lead. Laze a target for a while, shoot target, kill target, dump lead, repeat. The hit rate for an M60A3 especially for first hits at range will be very high indeed, meaning that there is no way T-64As will be able to get an accurate firing solution before the M60A3 in most cases. Even if the shot does not penetrate, the Russian crew will definitely be extremely stressed out and thus will be significantly less consistent all while the M60A3 crew is calm and collected, lazing the next target. The turret traverse speed and gun depression are also good as expected of NATO. If that doesn't work, then we might as well give M774 to M60A3s. After all, it's close to the level of M735.

 

If we wanna go crazy with a desire for composite armor to stop worse Soviet tanks like the T-55 from annoying NATO, there's always the T95E6. What this would have had is composite armor made by Ford. This should provide better protection against T-55 HEAT. But the real kicker is most definitely the gun. The 120mm T123 is stupid strong with T102 HVAPDS: ammo that would have easily gone through the UFP of a T-64A and possibly even the turret at shorter ranges. It's insanely strong a gun, but the FCS of the T95 has always been of debatable quality especially in comparison to the amazing FCS of the M60A3. I mean it is a laser rangefinder, but it's not exactly accurate especially in the fog. Also we're heading into uncertain prototypes, which is a can of worms no one wants to open. Still, this is an interesting vehicle that could pop T-64As with no problems whatsoever, even if reload speeds would be awful.

 

UK tanks:

- Chieftain mk 10 (L15A5)

 

Now that's a surprise, why L15A5 and not L23? Well if you paid any attention earlier, the T-64A was only rated for stopping 105mm APDS. Nothing was said about the far stronger L15A5. That there can easily get rid of T-64As no problem especially with a solid reload speed and excellent gun depression. Another thing going for the Chieftain here is Stillbrew, which can aid in making HEAT useless, or at least 100mm and 115mm HEAT from lesser Soviet tanks. Against 3BM-15 Stillbrew can still be effective, though it's more likely a way to stop 3BM-9. Sure, the mobility is mostly on the same level as the T-64A (at least I delude myself into thinking that because triple diff and similar hp/ton), but the armor kinda makes up for it. In defense there should be more T-64As than there are Chieftain mk 10s. Of course the FCS is still relying on a mere laser rangefinder (still better than coincidence), but if that isn't enough there's always the mk 11 with proper dynamic FCS and TOGS, which allows for superior night vision and gunnery. That might actually be a bit overkill since the laser rangefinder is already quite a leap since getting the exact range near-instantly and automatically is far better than getting a rough range estimate manually especially under pressure.

 

French tanks:

 

- AMX-30B (OFL 105 F1, OCC 105 F1)

 

Now the French I believe have the best deal for stopping T-64A rushes, and it's all thanks to excellent ammo. OFL 105 F1 would be so overkill that the turret of the T-64A would probably be penetrated at standard combat range. This is what gets the T-64As to get out of any hulldown positions they can find. On top of that, the AMX-30B moves around quickly even if the gearbox is quite mediocre for war. And does it suffer in reload speed or gun depression? Not at all. This is all compensated for by a few serious problems, like the armor. Like most NATO tanks, the AMX-30B cannot withstand any 125mm anti-tank round, but most NATO tanks in here compensate by having superior FCS and night optics and even stabilization. The AMX-30B gets none of these, being stuck with a coincidence rangefinder similar to what the T-64A gets, all while having no gun stabilization. This makes the AMX-30B theoretically slower to react than its Russian contemporaries, and serves as a balancing point for such incredible ammunition.

 

yes i know ofl 105 f1 isnt something normally associated to the amx-30b but more to the b2, but its the same gun

 

Japanese tanks:

 

- Type 74G (M735, M456A2)

 

I'm serious, this is enough. We know how M735 is like, so I don't need to explain that. The armor is garbage as usual when trying to fend off 125mm rounds. However, the FCS is another story, for it is similar to that on the M60A3 in the sense that it has dynamic lead capability. Combine that with great mobility, gun depression and still solid reload speed and it might be better off than the M60A3 actually. Don't know if it has the same FCS quality, but hey, not much to complain about here since it still probably has better IR than Warsaw. Using solid FCS and mobility will be how the Type 74G will get ahead.

 

As for why Type 93 APFSDS isn't mentioned? Well judging by schematics, it looks like a monobloc penetrator. And according to the Lanz-Odermatt equation, the penetration is roughly equivalent to that of OFL 105 F1, which I gave to the AMX-30B on the sole condition that it gets the worst time trying to lob one of these towards a T-64A. Can't let that slide.

 

 

And they don't stop coming

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-80 (3BM-22, 3BK-18)

- T-72A (3BM-22, 3BK-18)

- T-72 Ural mod 1976 (3BM-22, 3BK-18)

- T-64B (3BM-22, 3BK-18, 9M112)

- T-72M (3BM-15, 3BK-12)

- T-72M1 (3BM-15, 3BK-12)

 

Dear lord where to even start? So many tanks are in that category. I shall break it all down though.

 

First off is the big one: the T-80. The mobility is far superior to its predecessors, outmaneuvering even the AMX-30B and Leopard 1 except in reverse where it's still kinda slow yet not 4 km/h slow. Even the ammo is superior, with 3BM-22's larger core and cap leading to a big leap in penetration and trajectory. All in all a very dangerous vehicle on the battlefield and perfect at exploiting weaknesses in the defense. Thankfully the armor is no different from the T-64A, which is then troublesome given the opposition's improvements in ammo. It also doesn't help that the T-80 uses the same inaccurate coincidence rangefinder found on previous Soviet MBTs, meaning that after exploitation of a flank, reaction times are oddly slow. And yes, it doesn't help that the turret traverse is still so painfully slow.

 

The T-64B is no different from the T-64A other than having a few new quirks. One of them is the Kobra ATGM: a powerful missile with a HEAT warhead capable of ruining anyone's day at ridiculous ranges. The FCS is also improved, giving a laser rangefinder and the ability to automatically adjust for elevation and lead even if the lazing point tends to drift while moving. This massively improves reaction time and first hit accuracy, making the T-64B lethal at range. Thankfully ATGMs are really expensive and have to be loaded manually, which means it is rare for the T-64B to even use them. Also worth noting is that the lazing point drifts when moving sideways relative to the turret, which means that for all intents and purposes the FCS is worse than what's on the M60A3. The night optics also do not hold a candle to some NATO variants, being only able to see at up to 1.3 km more or less while not being connected to the ballistic computer (though at such ranges this doesn't matter). Still better than the outdated Luna spotlight that just makes it easier to be spotted and is even shorter ranged.

 

The T-72s also underwent upgrades. All of them have improved UFPs, being difficult to take out with M735 now. The turret of the T-72M on the other hand did not change a bit and is still easily crushed by HEAT ammunition, though all other T-72s have proper composite turrets that are not so vulnerable against HEAT. The previously good mobility is now starting to become an issue with newer NATO opposition. The FCS on the other hand, well, now there's laser rangefinders and automatic elevation adjustment. This means accurate range estimation in a fraction of the time it takes for the old coincidence rangefinder to get a worse result. This of course means faster reaction times to use with the very lethal 3BM-22. Sadly for those that get stuck with the T-72M, it's just coincidence rangefinders and 3BM-15 if lucky. Still, putting it down to the same level as the T-72 Ural is insulting.

 

German tanks:

- KPz-70 (XM578, M409, MGM-51)

- Experimentalentwicklung KPz Keiler 105mm (DM13)

- Leopard 1A4 (DM23, DM12)

 

Yes, the KPz-70 belongs here. It doesn't have the greatest hull armor in this case, but its mobility is insane. It's even better than the T-80's, and that's a fast tank. Turret traverse is also insane at 40 degrees a second, plus great gun depression that can reach ridiculousness with hydropneumatic suspension, the latter which also grants great off-road speed. The turret might be good enough against 3BM-15, but 3BM-22 is really pushing it, not to mention being ATGM chow. While the APFSDS is M735 tier and thus insufficient against T-72As, T-64Bs and T-80s are still very much vulnerable. And this is good, since the FCS is most definitely very top notch other than maybe not having a cant sensor or something. Oh and the gun has an autoloader that can house (rather useless) ATGMs, reloading within 8 seconds with the GM autoloader or 6 seconds with the Rheinmetall one that hasn't been made. This is truly the elite Soviet tank counter right there, while the T-72A plebs can roam free. Then again, it's kinda assumed that T-72 crews would be less experienced than KPz-70 crews.

 

Then there's the Keiler. Now it's definitely got no armor, though the angle can cause HEAT-FS fuse issues. Aside from that, the mobility is still insane and will outmaneuver T-80s, but maybe not the KPz-70. The hydropneumatic suspension is still there and gun depression is still good, just like turret traverse I assume even if there's quite a bit of stress on the turret drive. However, the main reason to even use the Keiler is the gun, with its insane penetration despite using a sheathed penetrator and not monobloc like M111. It will most definitely wipe the floor with T-72s. It might just be superior in the anti-tank role compared to the KPz-70 actually. Being loaded manually might result in a faster rate of fire at times too. The big drawback to all this is a coincidence rangefinder. Yes, that's definitely a big one. Target acquisition at range can get pretty slow, but at least the commander sights aren't bad. That still doesn't stop the Keiler from being very good in defense and giving fire support to KPz-70s.

 

But then what about tanks that actually were in mass production? This is where the 1A4 gets in. Yes, you heard me, the 1A4 is enough. I am not crazy. The key here is the abuse of the new FCS, which is easily capable of getting first hits on T-72As and the rest of the opposition. The mobility is inferior to the T-80 this time around, but T-80s simply have awful FCS. Don't even get me started in night battles where it's just pure slaughter for anything but the T-64B that might have some chance of survival. As long as the FCS is used to its full potential, there will be no issues dealing with the Soviet tanks. Oh and the turret is actually better, but expecting 125mm APFSDS to be stopped is just pure fantasy. Least the Soviets will not even be able to get accurate shots off. I just listed the prototypes above for the sake of padding, as the 1A4 is adequate.

 

US tanks:

- M60A3 TTS (M774, M456A2)

- MBT-70 (XM578, M409, MGM-51)

 

I really do not need to explain the MBT-70, for it's pretty much the same as the KPz-70 except maybe having the 20mm autocannon. Go read the German section and you'll understand that it's the stupid fast exploitation tank for the US as well.

 

The M60A3 TTS on the other hand is a different story altogether. At first one might go ballistic over the fact that I dared keep an RHA M60A3 in the same category as the seemingly stronger T-80, but bear with me. What the TTS has is insanely good FCS. Seriously, some say that the TTS has superior FCS compared to the M1 Abrams. With that in mind there's absolutely no surprises for the TTS. If a Soviet tank gets a bead on the TTS, the latter most likely spotted the Soviet tank ahead of time. The best part is as weather becomes worse, the TTS becomes better. There's probably no better spotter than the TTS in this NATO lineup. However, M735 is getting a little weak here, hence M774. This DU beauty is a close equivalent of M111, and will tear up any Soviet tank out there. Thankfully the TTS is really slow now that the T-80 is a thing, and it still cannot take any punishment from 125mm guns. Still, I pity the fool that tries crossing a defensive line of TTSes. Night battles as Warsaw are just hell with those things around.

 

UK tanks:

- Chieftain mk 11 (L15A5)

 

I am having difficulties with this, since there seems to be a gap in British tanks around the late 1970s era (no cheeky labour jokes you lot, same goes for MoD budget cuts). I could go for the Chieftain mk 5/4, but that has good FCS and penetration. All that is left is TOGS. TOGS grants a much needed improvement in night battles, where the Chieftain could plink away at T-64Bs and T-80s no problem. The FCS is also fully dynamic, which is nice except for TOGS itself not being stabilized thus resulting in the lazing point drifting away Soviet style. L15A5 is all it gets and this is not enough against T-72As sadly. Or maybe not since it worked against Iraqi T-72Ms with the same UFP as the T-72A. Either way this is plenty to do well against the selection of Soviet tanks here. Can't even have the Vickers mk 4 because of fear of thick composites damn dude.

 

also no mbt-80 here i dont accept tanks that were not finalized

 

French tanks:

- AMX-30B2 (OFL 105 F1, OCC 105 F1)

 

Yes, the same ammo, tank and generally everything is kept intact. It's all good since OFL 105 F1 is still more than enough against all Soviet tanks here, just not so much against the turret now. Also the FCS was upgraded. A laser rangefinder has been added. Dynamic lead has not. It's kind of similar to what the T-72A has actually minus gun stabilization, but stationary accuracy from the use of COTAC FCS is high. Against a T-80 the 30B2 is just death incarnate, and the T-72A can react faster strangely enough because it has actual gun stabilization. It's just the T-64B that's trouble, but that's just a fancy T-64A and thus is paper. You know what else is still paper? Yep, the AMX-30B2. The mobility seems unchanged on paper, but the gearbox is automatic and allows for the same front and reverse speeds. Defense is still what the French do best, and with the 30B2 there's still no problems with Soviet tanks. Don't even need the AMX-32's partial stabilization, the AMX-30B2 is enough all due to COTAC FCS.

 

Italian tanks:

- OF-40 (DM33, DM12)

 

The first Italian tank on this list is oddly similar to the Leopard 1A4. Actually, it is the 1A4, but with Italian flair added. Just look at the 1A4 section and you'll know what to expect more or less, except there's no gun stabilization so it gets better ammo to compensate.

 

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk I (M111, M456A1)

- Merkava mk II (M111, M456A1)

- Merkava mk IIB (M111, M456A1)

- Merkava mk IIC (M111, M456A1)

- Magach 6B Gal (M111, M456A1)

- Magach 6C (M111, M456A1)

 

Yep, the Merkava mk I is that low because it's honestly a good counter to the T-72s here. Hell, some may argue that if simulating War Thunder conditions the Merkava mk I should be fighting the T-64A. First thing that comes to mind here is the armor: what people praise the Merkava for having. It's a rather unique design by being a front engine tank, meaning the crew compartment is in the middle and the turret a bit in the back. The idea here is apparently to place as much stuff in front of the crew (the entire engine compartment) in order to save them from shell fragments. Brilliant in theory, but when the Americans toyed with the idea in the 1950s they found armor maintenance to be more difficult as well as armor placement. And the Merkava mk I is no different, as the UFP is a mere 2 rather thin RHA plates with some space in between. This helps against HEAT quite a bit and 3BM-15, but stopping 3BM-22? Absolutely not happening. Maybe the engine will prevent the crew from being killed, but if the engine dies the crew bails immediately either from the top or from the rear (another nice addition from the front engine layout). The LFP is mostly a joke as normal of a 75 degree LFP design. Also, with the engine in front, the ammo is at the back exposed to the crew. If that goes off from a side shot, the crew is very likely to be cooked inside due to propellant fires. Not Soviet bad, but still pretty bad. The turret is another story entirely, having an abnormally large armor module that could very well stop 3BM-22. Seriously, its 650-700mm LoS, and it only houses the crew and radio equipment. At this point the Merkava mk I is a very hulldown oriented tank, and it is aided by good gun depression and of course a secret party trick. Reload speed is still rather good despite the location of the ammo racks. Turret traverse speed is probably sluggish as well, though I don't know the exact figures. The mobility on it is frankly quite bad due to its weight of 63 tons that not even a 900 hp engine can move that easily, but what else did anyone expect here? The M68 on the Merkava is no peashooter thanks to M111: a round that struck fear into the heart of the Red Army, forcing this whole HHS and 5 layer armor drama. T-72As can be taken care of at combat range, and the more elite tanks at even longer ranges than that. Speaking of long range, the FCS of the Merkava is quite odd. If one wants stabilization, one may or may not get it depending on when they got their Merkava mk I, and those that don't have it can retrofit it onto their tanks. I mean it's better than the French, but one can tell that the tank was rushed or that Israel didn't fully refine production. The commander sight is bonkers with up to 20x magnification to warn the gunner way ahead of time, for the latter only has up to 8x magnification according to some, but others say a more conventional 12x. Also, the gun adjusts itself just like on the M60A3. Overall the Merkava mk 1 is a shaky tank whose performance really depends on whether there's a hill or not. It's alright against T-72As. The Merkava mk II is mostly the same except better for urban environments, with the IIB having better thermal optics and the IIC just making a difference only versus top attack weapons. Also, I know there's a 60mm mortar on Merkavas, but they don't mean jack in tank combat except if they fire smoke or WP.

 

Now, for fire support the Merkava mk 1 is backed by an Israeli M60: the Magach 6B Gal. It's pretty much an M60A1 with Israel's own Gal fire control system. What's so special about Gal? I dunno you tell me. Still, I'll assume at least similar enough to the M60A3's FCS and backed by M111 APFSDS. It's good enough. The Magach 6C is mostly just a modernized M60A3, so why one should ponder about it so much is beyond me. It still has M111 though. Still good enough. Oh, and they all have ERA so HEAT rounds will be ineffective for the first shot, which could be a saving grace when dealing with T-72s that would normally have few APFSDS rounds.

 

Merkava party tricks: To impress IDF women such as Gal Gadot, just do these. Normally when hulldown and out of ammo, tanks have to rotate in order to maintain constant pressure on enemy forces as reloading them without being at risk of getting shot is impossible on the frontlines. However, the Merkava has the ammo right at the back of the tank as well as having a rear door. Just keeping stuffing ammo into the tank from the rear door and the supplier is safe and the tank's cannon will pretty much be able to fire indefinitely long as the loader breathes. This is exactly why the Merkava is indeed the best hulldown tank. Then there's the ability to stuff infantry inside the tank, but then everything gets cramped, ammo will have to be thrown out and just the thought of grunts being in the tank can make things gross pretty quickly. The tricks are legit, but only with optimal use of the Merkava, not Israeli women. That doesn't work with them at all.

 

Indian tanks:

- Arjun mk I (mk I)

 

How the hell is the Arjun mk I allowed to be here? It's a 2004 composite tank made to replace the T-90 for crying out loud! While that would have some merit in most cases, this doesn't work in the case of the DRDO. We're not just talking vatnik delusions here, we're talking Qaher-313 best plane stuff here. I'll start with what I assume is the least bad part of the tank, which is the FCS. Why is it good you may ask? Because the DRDO had nothing to do with it. It's all Israel's Elbit. No complaints there apart from problems working in arid environments, which I doubt is Elbit's fault because Israel has pretty large arid spots in the first place. The mobility is interesting so to say. I've heard stuff about 10 seconds 0-32 times, and that's solid for the competition there. What irks me is the engine. See, the Germans offered engines to the DRDO, with amazing options such as the MB-873 Ka-501. What does the DRDO do? Pick the Leopard 1's engine of course, then tune it up to 1400 hp. An engine that was made for 800 hp making that much horsepower will require a unicorn build of sorts or end up overheating, not to mention increasing IR signature. The suspension doesn't help either, for while it is hydropneumatic, I've seen the tank bounce like a track car off-road on reasonable bumps. This affects vertical stabilization obviously, meaning all bets are off versus pretty much anything based on the MBT-70 chassis. The armor and general protection features are just confusing. The turret is very well-armored to the standards here possibly thanks to a high LoS thickness rivaling what's on the Leopard 2 later on, but that only covers the left cheek. The right cheek has practically no composite armor at all and neither does the gun mantlet. The sides also have thin RHA only, and really thin RHA on the entire roof even to roof standards. There's no blowout panels either and thus a hit to the turret bustle can very well fry the crew, but in this tier most tanks have such issues anyway. The hull is decently laid out thankfully with the standard strong UFP thin RHA LFP configuration, or so it seems since there's a literal hole in the center of the UFP to replace fuel tanks. This is a massive red flag since there is no way to fit the so-called Kanchan composite armor there as it will require removing the entire outer RHA plate in order to have any structural integrity in said composite. However, the Indians are on Russia's side in this scenario, so luckily the RHA is not such a big deal. I need not comment on the hull sides and rear since it's the normal thin RHA stuff everyone knows. And if it isn't enough, there's the firepower. Oh god the firepower is just so not comparable to the gun caliber and length. The Arjun mk I uses a 120mm rifled gun firing mk I APFSDS, HESH, PCB (google it yourself because this stuff is not pg, but it's an anti-fortification round for use against bunkers even if HESH does a fine job already), thermobaric and apparently LAHATs. Now, rifled guns are not the best option for APFSDS since one will have to use slip bands to induce friction to reduce rotation speed and consequently muzzle velocity, but mk 1 APFSDS is insulting even to those standards. Mk 1 APFSDS penetrates around the same as 105mm M111 Hetz found on Israeli tanks. It's that trash. It won't even penetrate the M1, Leopard 2A0, CR 1, etc at anything that would be considered a barely acceptable range, hence it stays down here where the firepower is alright. Oh and reload speed and gun depression are decent too, but the ergonomics inside aren't too great given that there's wires everywhere held by goddamn string.

 

So yeah, the Arjun is possibly the biggest prank in modern tank history that went on for too long, hence it gets to fight here, where it need not worry about early 2000s monsters, but just ~1970s weaklings. If you dare ask me to talk about the Arjun mk II, I won't as long as the ammo remains so incredibly bad from what I could tell.

 

Japanese tanks:

- Type 74G (Type 93, M456A2)

 

Alright, I don't know whether this will be OP, but I cannot let the Type 74 face a T-80B. This is pretty much the good old Type 74G, but with Type 93 APFSDS, which is on the same level as OFL 105 F1.

 

 

You know, not everyone likes onions. Cakes! Everybody loves cakes! Cakes have layers!

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-80B (3BM-26, 3BK-18M, 9M112M)

- T-64BV (3BM-26, 3BK-18M, 9M112)

- T-64B mod 1984 (3BM-26, 3BK-18M, 9M112)

- T-72B obr 1983 (3BM-26, 3BK-18M)

- T-72A mod 1983 (3BM-26, 3BK-18M)

- T-72 Ural mod 1983 (3BM-26, 3BK-18M)

 

The T-80B just delivers what the T-80 completely failed to. First off is the armor. The turret is much better, and the hull armor is around what one gets in the T-72A. That eliminates the armor weakness. The FCS is also around the same as the one found on the T-64B, and that's really good. This means the T-80B fires ATGMs and has dynamic lead, even if the lazing point drifts. Mobility is relatively unchanged if not a bit better. The turret rotates at 24 degrees a second now, which is getting really quite slow sadly. 3BM-26 is similar to 3BM-22, except that the tungsten core is located in the back so that the entire steel rod eats up as much of the composite layers as it can to clear the way for the tungsten penetrator (main penetrating element) to finish the job. Gone are the days of point and shoot however, and thus the optics really start to show their weaknesses.

 

The T-64BV also got an armor upgrade. Now the armor improved rather considerably, leading to great protection versus NATO guns despite the improved firepower. The ammo also improved. What's also liked is Kontakt-1 ERA, which stops all single liner HEAT rounds for the first hit. The mobility hasn't improved at all though, and this shows when facing NATO's new tanks. With this the T-64BV is a strong spearhead tank, though exploitation and even long range work would be better suited to the T-80B. This is probably the last anyone will see of the T-64 as a dominant tank. The T-64B gets a 30mm HHS plate to get on the same level as the T-64BV.

 

As for the T-72s? Enter the T-72B: a tank that ditches STEF layers. Don't be fooled, the armor is better than that of the T-72A. There might be not that much a difference against HEAT rounds, but that's speculation. If it's true, then HEAT is what kills this tank's hull. The turret on the other hand is full of bulging plate modules, thus being highly resistant to penetration in general. LoS also increased to maybe 800mm on the turret cheeks, resulting in high protection levels against KE and SC. There's also a new engine, ditching the filthy burning V-12 for a cleaner V-12 with more power, leading to both higher mobility (maybe CR 1 tier minus smoothness) and lowered IR signature. This current model is not exactly a production model, but is more of the transitional model. Think of it as a beefed up T-72A, as the FCS is still the same trash. Still, the extra turret armor is always welcome.

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 2AV 105mm (M833, M456A2)

- Leopard 2K (DM13, DM12)

- Leopard 1A5 (DM33, DM12)

 

I know, the 2AV was meant to be for the US, not the Germans. However, begging for armor some may do, this is what they get. For once this German tank gets some actual armor, and it's pretty good. It'll take care of 3BM-15 easily, maybe even 3BM-22 thanks to an interesting layout of perforated steel plates. And of course with that, there's no way HEAT will harm this tank's UFP or turret cheeks. And then there's the ammo, which shouldn't even be here, but then again the 2AV was a cancelled project. The M833 is pretty solid a performer and can serve to get rid of the T-80B, though the T-72B is tougher to crack and same goes for the T-64BV. Don't think that the armor makes it slow, because the 2AV is still really fast with its ~48L twin turbo diesel V-12, pushing its mobility over that of the T-80B also thanks to an excellent gearbox with high reverse speeds, not to mention a proper double differential. Gun depression is excellent, reload speed is still strong, and the turret traverse speed is simply bonkers at 40 degrees a second. And to top it off, some of the best IR optics in the world when it showed itself in the late 1970s. Actually no, since these were not exactly on the 2AV but on the native variants. Still, the FCS was still good. It's one solid package, but there's weaknesses. The LFP for instance is still pretty weak, though the truly pathetic part is rather small. The gun mantlet is also rather large and relatively weak. The ammo is just in the wrong place, with it being next to the driver. That's an easy K-kill if that gets hit, though the turret ammo gets pushed away from the crew through blowout panels. But then for some reason the turret bustle area is 80mm RHA and is thus super easy to penetrate, even if the rest of the side is good. Side hull armor is mostly non-existent for the gun calibers being dealt with. Still, it isn't bad.

 

Now that we got the most ridiculous fanfiction in this OP out of the way, we get onto what Germany actually gets: the Leopard 2K. Essentially it's similar to the Keiler, as in it has no armor, yet boasts the same ridiculous turbocharged V-12 the 2AV has. Before saying "ermahgawd soviet bias!!!!!!!", do remember that this tank uses the extremely powerful Rh 120. Such a gun can easily penetrate all Soviet tanks on the UFP even with DM13. That's how good it is. Sure, the turrets will be intact, but only the cream of the crop. Everything else below will be penetrated way too easily. And you know what would compliment such a powerful gun perfectly? Excellent FCS. The commander's PERI-R12 sight was considered one of the best sights of its category at the time, only being matched by command variants of T-80s. This means target acquisition is very easy. EMES-12 is pretty good as well, with access to great IR sights and good clarity in general. Well, except for the main catch: the 2K uses a coincidence rangefinder. Yep, that's the big problem, just like the Keiler. Using that advantage of long engagement distance coupled with long identification distance is actually necessary for making the most out of the 2K. That's gotta sting, but this is one of the prices to pay for such an incredible gun on an amazing chassis.

 

But what about those who want FCS just like on the M60A3? Oh that's simple, have a 1A5. The FCS is very modern this time, essentially being on the same level as the Leopard 2's FCS more or less. The mobility is now nothing special due to the T-80B being faster most of the time, but it's still nothing to laugh at. It's T-64BVs one should laugh at in terms of mobility. In order to counter the new threat, DM23 is no longer sufficient. That's why we're gonna switch to DM33, which should be kinda close to M833. Still fairly competitive thanks to the FCS, but it might be lackluster compared to the railgun on tracks we call the Leopard 2K.

 

US tanks:

- M1 Abrams (M833, M456A2)

- M60A3 TTS (M833, M456A2)

- M60 Super (M833, M456A2)

 

What can I say? It's the Abrams. It's good even if it uses a 105mm M68. First off, the armor everyone raves about. It's definitely good, probably being able to handle 3BM-22 and 3BM-26 just fine. HEAT will not bother the front at all. The whole turret sides might even stop some low end 125mm HEAT, who knows? Plus most of the ammo is located in the turret, meaning that the crew is safe should the ammo set itself on fire thanks to blowout panels. Ok, the sides are trash, but that's a given. The mobility is also really damn good, outrunning every single Soviet tank with no problems, and this is while restricted. The gas turbine might even make the M1 faster off the line than a Leopard 2 due to how its power band is like, but it loses out in high end torque. Still, the Leopard 2 and M1 have similar mobility, and I didn't even have to mention the T-bar used for more precise steering than levers. The gun is a bit disappointing for some, but the M833 is definitely adequate against the opposition. This is especially true with a very fast 40 degrees a second turret traverse speed and excellent gun depression. The gunner sight is also damn good, using digital magnification when needed to increase zoom even further at the cost of clarity (one of the reasons why M1A1s in the Gulf War had quite a few instances of friendly fire). The commander sight is a bit rudimentary from what I could find (PantherAI could probably correct that), but it's probably still better than Soviet commander sights, and the M1 commander can see what his gunner sees if needed to get a proper reference point. Hell, even the loader has a sight, though it's 1x only and not used that much. The FCS itself is really nothing to complain about, as it's got everything one could want except that the only weather settings that change automatically would be the wind. Still, that's one hell of a tank, even without the M256.

 

And then we get right back to our boi, the TTS. Good old thing, only really needs M833 and it's set. I'm not even kidding, just give it M833 and it could manage itself as a supplement to the M1. The TTS actually has better IR than the Abrams I kid you not. I'm not gonna meme this tank any further, but it had a good run. A good run where it massacres Soviet tanks at night.

 

Also there's the M60 Super, which is an M60A3 with some composite armor inserts in between spaced armor, plus extra mobility. It's good for keeping HEAT ammo away, but it's the weaker ammo only. It's kind of what one gets for a compromise between the composite and speed of the M1 yet wanting an M60. Doesn't even have the TTS's amazing sights sadly. Oh well, still nice.

 

UK tanks:

- Vickers mk 4 Valiant (L23)

 

Not yet. The CR 1 is too good for now. Hold your horses or whatever you use to pull your carts. No worries, for the humble Vickers mk 4 Valiant is here. It still has composite armor somewhere in the Burlington family, which is good. The modules seem thick enough to stop HEAT rounds and maybe even 3BM-22, even if the LFP is a weakspot as always. Sides are trash as always on all MBTs. For the gun, well it's the L11A5. It's a decent cannon, and taking advantage of the fact that the Valiant was still considered in 1983, the L23 is an option. It's one of the stronger monobloc APFSDS rounds, only lagging a bit behind OFL 105 F1 (don't be surprised, the French are just excellent with ammo) and somewhat better than M833. Reload speed's still unaffected by two piece ammo, gun depression is still amazing, turret traverse is probably insane. Even mobility is great, matching the Abrams rather well despite using a 915 hp engine thanks to reduced weight from the aluminum hull. The commander sight is also fully stabilized so target acquisition on the move is good as well as IR view range. Even the FCS is good with basically all a gunner needs for accurate lazing of targets. The problems start with the penetration still not being enough to challenge the turret armor of some of these Russian MBTs. On top of that, aluminum for the hull can really affect maintenance. Aluminum wears off faster than steel, and thus aggressive maneuvers such as jumps will wear out the hull faster than on the Abrams, which uses a more conventional steel hull. It also doesn't help that the suspension itself wasn't tampered with enough to compensate for the aluminum hull. Otherwise I'd say there's not too many weaknesses on the mk 4 surprisingly enough. It's a solid all-rounder that can hold its ground against its opposition.

 

also the chieftain mk 5/4 is ok but that is too much of an extreme for accurate balancing

 

French tanks:

- AMX-32 (OFL 120 G1, OECC F1/OFL 105 G2, OCC 105 F1)

 

In the face of Soviet tanks with superior armor that slowly reduces the effectiveness of the very deadly OFL 105 F1, how will France keep its head above water? Simple, they actually improve the FCS. Yes, the somewhat crude COTAC FCS somewhat has an upgrade by having some sort of gun stabilization for once. It's about time ain't it? However, the gun is stabilized through the commander sight, and thus isn't that refined. Still, that's some sort of stabilization and thus decreased reaction time for relocation as one can slave the gun to the commander sight before leaving, but it is rather limited and so it's mostly all about stationary shooting again. Speaking of the commander, he gets a new sight. This also speeds up target acquisition especially compared to the Soviets. Also, the AMX-32 has composite armor. Sadly, it's useless against large caliber high velocity cannons. The mobility is still good as expected of a French tank, as is gun depression, turret traverse and reload speed. As for the gun? Well, OFL 105 F1 still works fine, but there needs to be a little oomph due to improved armor and to compensate for the FCS still not being up to par. The 120mm CN120-25 answers that need with OFL 120 G1, which is a faster OFL 105 F1 penetrator with improved penetration. Being faster also flattens trajectory. Barely any tradeoffs for the 120mm other than stuff I cannot explain myself such as logistics. Overall, the AMX-32 still remains an excellent sniper like its predecessors.

 

Don't like 120mms? There's also the 105mm variant with OFL 105 G2. It's on the same level as the OFL 120 G1 more or less, so nothing wrong there except for missing out on the multipurpose OECC F1.

 

Italian tanks:

- OF-40 mk 2 (DM33, DM12)

 

Now the Italians are starting to be a little different. Better turret armor has been added, but considering the ammo Soviet MBTs have, it won't do much good. What is good on the other hand is a massive 14x magnification on the gunner sight. That's even more than on the 1A5. This allows the OF-40 mk 2 to easily see its targets before its targets see it, though the minimum magnification is 7x, which is a bit much. An LLLTV was also added to both the gunner and commander stations to see targets at night up to 2 km away, which makes it even easier to pick off blind Soviet tanks. Definitely not bad at all for snipers even if the ammo doesn't change.

 

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IID (M426, M157/3)

- Magach 7A (M413, M157/3)

- Magach 7C (M413, M157/3)

 

Finally, some composite armor that isn't just spaced steel plates. This adds quite a substantial amount of SC and KE protection especially for the turret, which now boasts the thickest front side armor of any MBT in terms of LoS even if the other part of the side armor is just RHA. The effectiveness on the other hand, is not a pretty story and is quite a heated debate topic when it comes to the hull armor. Think of it like a bunch of nerds talking about a random girl with an average physique. Some argue she thicc, some argue she thinn. I argue the latter, but no one argues with the turret. This is a pretty crucial debate topic since this extends to all composite Merkavas. For now I shall argue thinn due to comfort, but still good enough for 3BM-26 in theory. Not too bad. The M68 is now equipped with M426 APFSDS: the strongest Israeli 105mm APFSDS. Yes, I know there was M413 that is an analogue to M833, but the IID just does not have the mobility for this. It needs that M426 to compete. And compete it still does with its solid FCS and unbeatable hulldown strategy. The sides also have composite armor as indicated by the rivets. Useless against large caliber APFSDS, but still nice to have in urban areas.

 

Oh and we get more Magachs to accompany the newly improved Merkava. The Magach 7 is probably the closest equivalent to the M60 Super, and frankly the differences between the two are kinda negligible. Not to say that the Israelis copied US tech, but it's just that the general idea is so similar that I can't be bothered to tell the difference out of a lack of sufficient details on the M60 Super. Well, except that the Magach 7s are slower. Still, pretty nice complement for the Merkava IID. I warned you guys about that Patton love didn't I? Only the shape of the gun mantlet changes between both variants, and I don't know how substantial the increase is after the 7C used the angled gun mantlet layout.

 

Indian tanks:

 

no

 

Japanese tanks:

 

i was gonna type something about it but im too lazy to bother mai, so its either the type 74g+ or an stc

 

 

I don't care what everyone likes. Ogres are not like cakes.

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-80B (3BM-32, 3BK-18M, 9M112M2)

- T-72B1 obr. 1985 (3BM-32, 3BK-18M)

 

Yep, still the same old T-80B. The difference is this one has a 16mm HHS plate for extra protection. Yeah, it's 16mm for some reason, not 30mm. Maybe I'm wrong though. What is also there is Russia's very first monobloc penetrator: the 3BM-32. This should work better versus composite armor. The ATGM is also better and can theoretically go through NATO composite armor, and by that I mean the hull only. It's still rather good.

 

And for the T-72B? If you're asking about the FCS, don't bother, it's still the same garbage. Armor has improved on the other hand, changing the hull composite slightly as to have 4 steel inserts (2x 10mm HHS and 2x 20mm RHA) instead of 3x 15mm HHS. This slightly improves armor protection. The turret probably didn't get an upgrade, but why would it when it's already really good?

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 2A0 (DM13/DM23, DM12)

- Leopard 2A1 (DM13/DM23, DM12)

- Leopard 2A2 (DM13/DM23, DM12)

- Leopard 2A3 (DM13/DM23, DM12)

 

Finally, the Germans get a proper Leopard 2 with composite armor. To recap what was in the 2AV section, there's a thick composite UFP and composite turret front and even composite turret sides (thinner especially at the RHA turret bustle). Said composite is perforated steel, which may or may not be worse than the Burlington family at the time. The mantlet is quite weak too, and the LFP is a given even if it's not as bad as some other LFPs. Shame about the hull ammo rack. It might have some decent protection against the ATGM and 3BM-42 unless there's something I completely missed here. Mobility's just around M1 tier, and gun depression is excellent not to mention the ridiculous turret traverse speed. The FCS is all nice other than the fact that the Leopard 2A0 only has image intensification, not IR. What that means is no ability to see through smoke, which is something I usually ignored because IR optics see through that most of the time in this generation. Also annoying is the lack of a digital ballistic computer, which would mean that dynamic lead doesn't exist with these Leopard 2s. Fortunately the 2A1 has its thermal optics and apparently has better armor, but that doesn't change the outcome so much that it needs to be a significant power increase of its own. The 2A2 and 2A3 have very minimal upgrades compared to the 2A1. Also, the commander's sight was considered one of the best in the world at the time of its introduction, so that's cool too for faster target acquisition especially combined with some hunter-killer that obviously doesn't let the commander lead targets dynamically. Also worth noting is DM23, which surprisingly penetrates significantly less than DM13 vs steel, yet the monobloc design can give it that edge against composites.

 

US tanks:

- M1IP (M833, M456A2)

 

The key here is armor. The M1IP is pretty much identical to the M1 except having needed superior turret armor. This most definitely can stand up to new Soviet ammunition without any problems. Well, other than reduced mobility through being fatter. You may clap now in the style of some variation of a Finnish meme. Can't give this M900 just yet as it will mess up the ideal waifu pairing, but that would mean flanking the T-72B1. Eh, at least it's mostly immune hulldown and can wait to strike the T-72B1 from the sides thanks to far superior FCS and mobility.

 

UK tanks:

- Vickers mk 4 Valiant (DM13/DM23, DM12)

- Challenger 1 mk 1 (L23A1)

 

Yes, another mk 4. It's annoying, but at least there's the Rh 120 this time. Everything else is the same as the old mk 4 though, but the gun is probably enough of a difference versus the increased armor of the Soviet MBTs.

 

What isn't annoying is the Challenger 1: a crowd favorite. The most noticeable attribute is the firepower, with L23A1 packing an insane punch to the point that I'm starting to feel British bias for once. Even the turret of the T-80B may not be able to stop this. The armor is comparable to the M1IP. Yes, comparable, not better as the armor comes from the same Burlington family from the same era with some aid from the Americans. The UFP is roughly on the same level as on the LFP of the M1IP as both seem to have very similar LoS thickness values for the strongest parts of their hulls. The turret cheeks are inferior to those on the M1IP, which is bad since 3BM-32 is pretty mean stuff. The turret is similar in layout to the Leopard 2 (front half composite, rear half RHA). There are more weakspots on the CR 1 including the 70mm RHA LFP with a smaller UFP composite overlap than the Leopard 2 and a driver's hatch that's very thin. The turret bustle being paper is not as bad since only projectiles are stored in that area, but the propellant is in a rather risky place and wet ammo racks only serve to delay the inevitable raging inferno upon penetration more than stopping the fire outright. Hulldown is crucial for the CR 1 otherwise it might be penetrated on the hull, and this is not yet the variant with the urban package and ERA appliqué. It also doesn't help that the mk 1 does not have TOGS, so night battles are truly out of the question. Let's not even begin with mobility, as the CR 1 is only potentially faster than the T-72B and that's it. Otherwise it's kinda sluggish, but that's not a surprise to anyone. This is why it gets L23A1: possibly the most powerful APFSDS round for NATO other than what the French get, but the CR 1 gets actual stabilization. The CR 1 can dish the pain, but at range only in order to have some possibility to stop incoming APFSDS. But hey, least one can actually live the CR 1 sniping dreams without sounding ridiculous. Shouldn't be too bad I think, or it could be OP and I'm doing something horribly wrong. Also the turret traverse speed is 10 degrees a second slower than the Abrams, so Russian tanks might have a bigger margin of error for flanking CR 1s.

 

French tanks:

- AMX-40 (OFL 120 G1, OECC F1)

 

The armor on the T-72B1 obr. 1985 is kinda tough, but we can still appreciate the slight improvement the partial gun stabilization brings. It isn't enough though, hence why with the AMX-40, the mobility has been increased significantly. In fact, the AMX-40 is probably the fastest other than the Leopard 2, which might have lower offroad speed and does not have the firepower that the CN120-26 brings. It helps bring that 120mm smoothbore around where it is needed. Oh and there's better armor, but that's no good against 3BM-32. Turret traverse isn't bad, and neither is gun depression nor reload speed.

 

Italian tanks:

 

i mean i would add the of-40 mk 2a but wheres the ammo

 

Israeli tanks:

- Sabra mk I (M321, M325)

 

Yes, I know the IDF isn't normally associated with the Sabra, but that would be the mk II, not the mk I. Anyway, the main selling point here is the gun: IMI's very own 120mm MG251 smoothbore. Using M321 APFSDS, there's not much that can really resist the Sabra's gun, and this is backed by a standard FCS with all the stuff one would expect. The mobility isn't that bad either, even if it's still not the fastest MBT. The problem is armor, which it lacks. Yes, I am fully aware that there's an instance where a Turkish Sabra survived the extremely powerful Kornet ATGM, but the liner was not going towards the crew compartment in the first place. Even a 2000mm penetration HEAT round wouldn't have gone through in that scenario. Still, that's a pretty nice glass cannon even if the Israelis didn't use it much.

 

Indian tanks:

 

go away

 

Japanese tanks:

 

yeah maybe some other type 90 prototype or japanese mbt prototype in general but i need actual info on it to make any calls

 

South Korean tanks:

- K1 (K274, KM456A1)

 

The K1 is South Korea's take on the American XM1 program, and there's quite a few similarities between it and the M1. Both seem to have very similar armor layouts and protection levels, which is not surprising at all because they share the same origins. They both have the same protection levels, and despite the lower horsepower of the German V8 diesel in the K1, it has the same power/weight ratio. Even reload speed, gun depression, crew layout and quite a few other things are similar to the M1. There are still a few differences worth noting however, such as K274 being a bit weaker than M833 and some of the suspension having hydraulics added to better cope with SEA's terrain in general (mountains, jungles, swamps), and also boosting gun depression when stationary. But wait, why isn't it with the M1 then? This is because the K1 is a step above in FCS, and a pretty noticeable one. The gunner's sight has some improvements with allegedly superior image clarity compared to the sights on the M1, which strangely enough means higher identification range. But the real reason for why it has to be with the better armored M1IP is because of its hunter-killer abilities. This just makes reaction speed quite fast compared to the competition. And because it is a whole 7 tons lighter than the M1IP, it's also faster. In fact, it might be up there with the Leopard 2A0 in mobility, except with better FCS. There's absolutely no way the T-80B should be able to even compete with the K1 reliably in Europe as it gets detected significantly ahead of time. Let's not even mention SEA in general, since the suspension of the K1 is better for the soft ground there compared to Soviet tanks of the time mostly centered around European conflict and trying to adapt to other conditions.

 

 

You know what else everybody likes? Parfaits. Have you ever met a person you say "hey let's get some parfait" and they say "Hell no, I don't like no parfait"? Parfaits are delicious!

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-80BV (3BM-42/3BM-46, 3BK-18M, 9M112M2)

- T-72B obr. 1985 (3BM-42/3BM-46, 3BK-18M, 9M119)

- T-72BA obr. 1985 (3BM-42/3BM-46, 3BK-18M, 9M119)

 

And now for another armor upgrade, and a substantial one at that. With the T-80BV, armor protection reaches a new high eclipsing that of the T-64BV and even getting close to the T-72Bs if not better. Quite a scary thought alone along with ERA. 3BM-42 is similar enough to 3BM-32 versus steel, but there are two rods welded together instead of a single one. This is apparently to improve performance versus NATO composite armor. 3BM-46 is Svinets, which is an even longer DU penetrator.

 

The T-72B on the other hand gets a pretty significant upgrade not in armor or mobility, but FCS. While the sights only adjust themselves for distance like on the T-72A, lead is indicated in mils. This is an improvement compared to the previous FCS where one had to guess, but it's still quite crude sadly. Night optics have definitely improved in the active channel, allowing for an identification range of up to 1.2 km or so at the cost of being easier to spot for superior NATO IR. The new IR optics can be used for guiding a new weapon in the Russian arsenal: the 9M119. This missile is theoretically less potent than 9M112M2, but it gets a tandem warhead. What that means is that any NATO ERA will not stop it. However, as missiles are hard to come by even for Guards units, the chances of the plebs getting them is even lower. Still good stuff. Everything else is the same as the T-72B1 otherwise. The T-72BA mostly just gets Kontakt-1 ERA to fend of HEAT, but ATGMs are not really something NATO uses. Eh, works against AT crews so it's ok.

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 2A4 (DM23/DM33, DM12)

 

The first of what I'd call an ideal waifu pairing, the 2A4 is the de facto Leopard 2. It's the variant people automatically point to. Compared to its predecessors, it gains improved composite armor. How improved I do not exactly know, but it's a noticeable one I heard. All the weakspots are still there, including the dreaded hull ammo rack. The ammo available can range from the DM23 (most waifu) to the more powerful DM33 (not as waifu). Mobility did not degrade that much, so it is still fast. The typical turret traverse, gun depression and reload speed didn't change at all. The FCS also had a significant overhaul with a digital ballistic computer, allowing for automatic adjustment of lead. EMES-15 in general is quite amazing, with the commander's PERI-R13 sight allowing one to see what the gunner sees and generally having no problems in most conditions, resulting in high accuracy. One cannot really go wrong with the 2A4 at all.

 

just a good solid tank as our favorite bald guy on the history channel said

 

US tanks:

- M1A1 (M829/M829A1, M830)

- M1IP (M900, M456A2)

 

The 2A4 with DM23 and M1A1 with M829 are pretty much the closest in tank power levels so far thanks to the M256 on the M1A1. I shall start with the first ammo, which is quite noticeably better than DM23 and even DM33. M829 can chew up these Soviet MBTs very easily indeed. M829A1 on the other hand is monstrous and almost unfair, with a massive boost in penetration even compared to DM33. A boost so unfair some might wonder when the Germans get their DM43: the proper equivalent. Now that we got the big selling point out of the way, everything else is maybe the same. Well, not mobility. Mobility on the M1A1 is significantly worse than on the M1, due to a 7 ton increase in weight. This results in worse mobility than the Leopard 2A4, which didn't fatten up. Maybe the turret has improved too? I mean I don't think just the gun increased the weight that much. Either way, that's still the Abrams most people know best for clubbing T-72Ms effortlessly.

 

Then there's the M1IP. I don't know if my values are wrong, but M900 is strangely close if not better than M829. Makes sense since it's pushing the boundaries of what the M68 can even handle while M829 is not really pushing the M256 that much. Still, since the M1IP isn't that much different from the M1A1 otherwise, it's similar enough in all other aspects when it comes to tank vs tank. What's tempting however is a mere 3 ton increase relative to the base M1, thus being faster than the M1A1. Of course, once M829A1 starts flying the M1IP might as well not exist.

 

Reasons why M1A1x2A4 best pairing: The 2A4 might have similar if not better hull armor compared to the M1A1. It also has potentially better mobility except maybe off the line due to power band. It even has better FCS thanks to hunter-killer. However, thanks to raw firepower the M1A1 bridges the combat range gap and most likely cannot be penetrated on the turret by DM23. It thus boils down to whoever gets the first shot off and dares expose the hull or sides. A true gentleman's game. At this point comparing 2A4 vs M1A1 is like arguing over which girl is best in some overrated anime about some dumb kid refusing to get in the robot. Things start getting hairy with M829A1 and DM33, because as said earlier, M829A1 is just extremely brutal.

 

UK tanks:

- Challenger 1 mk 3 (L23A1/L26A1)

 

Now what does the CR 1 get this time? TOGS. Finally, actual night fighting capabilities and no more getting annoyed by smoke. A problem then arises: the firepower is not as ridiculous due to relative protection values. Yeah, that sucks. L23A1 is still competitive and all, but get to L26A1 and we just get in with M829A1 that vastly outclasses it. Firepower is thus not the key, as is the case IRL actually with the armor being hyped up because that's the only thing on the tank that's not terrible, yet not that good either. There's some compensation though, with armor packages. The CR 1 mk 3 can equip ERA on the LFP so that HEAT rounds don't go through the first time. It can also get ERA on the sides for urban operations, or even composite blocks on the side for repeated SC hits. No, the composite will not stop any large caliber APFSDS here for the most part. The CR 1 then finds itself in urban environments better than other MBTs. The problem is that the better the armor package, the worse the already mediocre mobility. Also, TOGS itself is not stabilized, so the lazing point will drift off Soviet style. It's still a competitive tank though, don't get me wrong. It's just not guaranteed top dog. Btw, lever steering is quite a drag on the CR series in general compared to some more sophisticated steering methods.

 

French tanks:

- AMX-40 (OFL 120 F1, OECC F1)

 

Same old AMX-40, but this time with a massive penetration improvement. OFL 120 F1 is the French designation for the very powerful 120mm DM43 that is on the same level as M829A1. And that extra penetration is needed, for the AMX-40 is starting to overstay its welcome. Sure, one could technically get a Leclerc prototype in there, but I don't have enough info to satisfy my curiosity.

 

Italian tanks:
 

if you thought the ariete goes here, you wrong fool

 

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk III (M321, M325, LAHAT)

- Sabra mk II (M322, M325)

- Sabra mk III (M322, M325)

 

This is arguably the biggest overhaul in Merkava development history. The composite armor probably improved here, but the hull is still shockingly weak going by the assumption of thinn. Turret's still as strong as ever though, so no complaints there. The FCS also improved quite considerably, probably to the point where it can stand with what the M1A1 has. What's more noticeable however is the MG 251 smoothbore gun, firing M321 APFSDS that can easily penetrate Soviet tanks especially if hulldown tactics are used. There's also the LAHAT ATGM: a top attack tandem warhead ATGM that hits targets kilometers away with very high accuracy as well as usable in direct fire mode to shoot down unsuspecting helicopters. LAHAT can also be fired from the mk II, but that is just too extreme to balance accurately. The turret finally gets a ready rack in the form of a revolving 5 round drum for the loader to grab shells from, so gone are rather slow reload speeds. And for mobility, one would expect sluggishness again. Dead wrong. The 1200 hp engine increases acceleration substantially over the mk II's 900 hp engine. And if that weren't enough, the suspension is really good. It's some coilover sort of design, but instead of a shock, there seems to be yet another spring. For some reason this means the mk III can keep up with an M1A1 pretty nicely, and in long stretches it might even be faster. All this while keeping Merkava tricks mentioned before. It's just that huge an upgrade. Does it even need M322 APFSDS? I don't think so considering it also gets hunter-killer apparently. Or is that the IIIB? idk

 

Also as expected we get more Pattons. The Sabra mk II gets an upgrade with NxRA on the turret and ERA on the hull, both of which won't stop the main rounds used. Also, mobility improved quite substantially and should only be slightly behind the M1A1 in theory. The FCS finally gets hunter-killer capabilities too. The gun has been replaced with the MG253, which can accept better rounds and is generally more reliable overall. The mk III comes with the same warning systems found on the Merkava mk IV, and some better armor that may not even matter in this scenario. Getting a bit sick of the Pattons now. This is part of the reason I was reluctant to talk about Israeli tanks.

 

Indian tanks:

 

definitely not even here

 

Japanese tanks:

 

i was going to put the type 90 there, but thats not becoming an option

 

South Korean tanks:

- K1 PIP (K274N, KM456A1)

 

Uh... yeah. No one has hunter-killer still. The armor has improved and same for the ammo. K274N is significantly longer than its predecessor and is slightly worse than M900. What it does have however is a special tip for taking care of composite arrays and even shows partial resistance to stronger ERA like Kontakt-5. The armor should also be somewhat on the same level as the M1A1's more or less, though I suspect the side armor to be thin as is typical of SEA tanks. Eh, it's good enough.

 

 

YOU DENSE IRRITATING MINIATURE BEAST OF BURDEN

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-80U (3BM-46, 3BK-29, 9M119)

- T-80UK (3BM-46, 3BK-29, 9M119)

- T-90 (3BM-46, 3BK-29, 9M119)

- T-72B obr. 1990 (3BM-46, 3BK-18M, 9M119)

- T-72B obr. 1989 (3BM-46, 3BK-18M, 9M119)

 

The T-80U is most likely the most dangerous tank ever produced in the Soviet days. While the UFP didn't really change, what did change was the ERA, from Kontakt-1 to Kontakt-5. Kontakt-5 uses multiple plates in quick succession to wear out HEAT liners and even APFSDS. Tests even showed that Kontakt-5 allowed T-72Bs to stop M829A1 completely. While ERA only works once, the fact of the matter is that the previous M1A1 needs two shots to knock out a T-80U, and in that time the Soviet tank could relocate and let some other tank with Kontakt-5 take the next hit. APFSDS didn't improve at all, but the missile did by using a beefed up variant of the tandem charge 9M119. The FCS didn't improve much compared to the T-80BV, but if talking about the T-80UK (command version), one can get the Agava-2 periscope for dramatically improved identification range at night, at near double that of the previous IR sights (2500m vs 1300m in the active channel). It's one of the greatest optics in the Soviet arsenal and thus NATO tanks would have to tread cautiously around T-80UKs. Mobility also seems to have been improved too, still keeping up with the fast NATO MBTs. Overall, thanks to K5 ERA and sometimes Agava-2, the T-80U is no pushover.

 

And then there's our multiple shades of T-72B that we all know and love. Both versions get improved hull armor, finally incorporating bulging plate modules in the hull. Both versions equally get Kontakt-5 ERA that can make M829A1 useless versus the front. Ammo is unchanged and same goes for mobility and all that stuff. The FCS didn't change either. Well, aside from the obr. 1990. From what I can tell it's mostly more manually adjusted values becoming automatic, including wind speed thanks to the addition of a crosswind sensor. It's just an armor improvement more or less for these two.

 

Now, the T-90 is different. That there is technically a T-72, but it's not at the same time. Debates about this go on for quite some time. The upgrades the T-90 gets are more substantial that expected though. Sure, the armor is most likely like on the obr. 1989. The mobility is also very obr. 1989. However, the FCS is the same as on the T-80U, which is a good thing. No, it does not seem to get Agava-2 sadly, so it's kinda blind at night as expected of most Russian tanks (T-90 isn't Soviet). At least now it doesn't depend on the Luna spotlight thanks to TO1-KO1ER though, so that's nice at least. The turret traverse speed on the other hand is very not Russian. The turret spins at a max speed of 40 degrees a second, which is nuts. This completely eliminates slow response speed due to low turret traverse. Gun depression improved a tiny bit too. And to top it off, it gets new smoke grenades that even block LoS for IR optics, even if the smoke only lasts for 20 seconds instead of the previous 2 mins. It's quite a lethal tank deserving of respect. Oh and it also comes with Shtora-1 for confusing ATGMs, but that requires the precise frequency of the ATGM, and not too many tank crews can rapidly determine which ATGM is which until the battle is over, mostly with the tank being scrap.

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 2A5 (DM43, DM12)

 

The most notable upgrade the 2A5 has is armor, specifically the turret. By slapping on a massive 700mm LoS wedge on the turret cheeks, the turret's armor protection raises considerably, making the 2A5 that much better when hulldown. Apparently even the UFP was improved, though those are rumors I heard. Also worth noting is the ammo: DM43. This is the most powerful ammo for the L44 that is made out of tungsten alloy, and it penetrates just around as much as M829A1. Sadly, it suffers when facing Kontakt-5, plus the extra armor reduces the mobility of the 2A5 down to the same level as the M1A1. A shame, but the improved armor is welcome anyway. I heard that DM53 could be fitted onto the L44 with a reduced charge, but DM53 makes Kontakt-5 mostly cosmetic and so gives me second thoughts.

 

US tanks:

- M1A1(HA) (M829A2, M830A1)

 

Yet another armor upgrade, but this time for the M1A1. Depleted uranium composite was added to improve armor protection considerably. The catch is that the only parts of the armor that were upgraded were the turret cheeks. Yeah, back to hulldown, but at least mobility wasn't that affected this time. Also, new ammo has arrived and its name is M829A2. It is faster than M829A1 and longer, thus penetrating more armor. But the best part is the tip, which dampens the effect of Kontakt-5. It won't completely bypass Kontakt-5, but it will allow the M1A1(HA) to go through the front of T-80Us. I'd say that's a pretty nice upgrade.

 

UK tanks:

- Challenger 2 (L27A1)

 

Now this is an interesting upgrade, because for so much loss in parts commonality the upgrades are pretty minor. Still, that doesn't mean the CR 2 is a bad tank. Its armor has been improved rather considerably, both hull and turret this time. Sure, the same old weakspots are still there, but those were always going to be there anyway. The new L30 120mm gun is capable of firing L27A1 CHARM-3, which is considerably better than L26A1 Jericho versus steel. But wait, it also sports a tip that somewhat dampens the effects of Kontakt-5. As amusing as it is to see HESH wipe out nearly all if not all ERA bricks off the front of a T-80U, a second shot is just a waste of time while CHARM-3 is a thing, but CHARM-3 is significantly worse than M829A2 and DM43 in terms of actual penetration without factoring in ERA. For going outside of defense, the CR 2 can get composite appliqué on the LFP to stop HEAT rounds more than once, and with the full TES package, composite is even added to the sides. The catch? TOGS II (TOGS but better somehow) is still not stabilized, so the lazing point drifts off like all Soviet tanks. Mobility is still mediocre and becomes substantially worse with TES. It's going to be the last one will see of the British tanks though, because the MoD just played themselves into a wall where they have a tank that is not easy to upgrade with serious ammo restrictions and budgetary restrictions as well. Better wait for the LEP upgrades to be applied to the CR 2 until then. Still, that's a nice way for the British tanks to end. Until the LEP my dudes.

 

French tanks:

- Leclerc série 1 (OFL 120 F1, OECC F1)

 

Finally, the French get their proper modern MBT: the Leclerc série 1. The mobility on this tank is insane thanks to a powerful diesel engine with forced induction from an auxiliary turbine engine, as well as light weight. This makes the Leclerc possibly one of the fastest if not the fastest MBT in NATO. The firepower is great as well, with OFL 120 F1 still being quite strong but on a more mobile platform than the 2A5 except fired through the CN120-26 that can handle better ammo in the future. The ammo is fed by a bustle autoloader, leading to a reload speed of 5-6 seconds (usually 6 because any more might do some weird things to the autoloader), 8 seconds if switching ammo types. The armor on the other hand is... questionable. Sure, the UFP is probably good and same goes for the turret even if it's a bit thin, but the LFP is still RHA and quite exposed CR style. The gunner sight is also a weakspot, but the gun mantlet is just unbelievably thin. Like, we're talking 40mm LoS. It's so ridiculously thin an IFV's autocannon can penetrate. Trusting the armor of a Leclerc is just not easy. Gun depression and turret traverse speed are still both nice. The FCS, for the first time in French history, allows dynamic lead and full gun stabilization relative to gunner sights, which are pretty good just like the commander sights that can operate in hunter-killer mode. Overall the Leclerc is a very fast tank with armor one cannot trust, but it works out in the end. I don't feel comfortable placing it below M1A1(HA) tier though, but that's the only place where it could fit.

 

Italian tanks:

- C1 Ariete (CL3143, CL3105)

 

Yes, the Italians do have a solid MBT more or less and the Ariete has been a victim of discrimination. Let's start with CL3143: the main 120mm APFSDS ammo used by the Italians. I'm not gonna lie, that is a renamed Israeli M322. That's it. It's surprisingly good as one would expect, but M829A1 is still better and same goes for DM43. The mobility's strangely good as while it uses a V12 2 welded V6s for 1270 hp, it's 8.5 tons lighter than the CR 1. Lack of power some may claim, but come on, the CR 1 is worse. The armor is said to be Chobham, but as we all know that word is very inaccurate. It's probably using some form of Burlington, maybe BRL-2. This leads to pretty average armor laden with the standard Leopard 2 weakspots at best. The real surprise however lies in the FCS. The commander sight is... unique to put it lightly. The stadia markings tilt left or right depending on where the gun is aiming relative to the sight. I mean there's good intentions here, but that just makes manual rangefinding pretty hard. I thought I would only see this level of passione in Alfas, not Arietes. The gunner sight is more respectable, though one may argue that the ID range can be a little short at night, yet not Soviet tier bad. Hunter-killer is also present just like on the Leopard 2A4. There's two real gems though, and the first is RALM. What is RALM you might ask? Oh I dunno, it's simply the laser warning system. Yes, the Italians had a laser warning system before the French and Israelis did apparently. Color me and yourself surprised, because just like the great pioneers at Lancia the Italians are ahead in innovation, except that RALM is a BAE invention and the Japanese did it 5 years before. Second gem is a battlefield management system. You see, there's a reason why the Italians scored 4th in Strong Tank without using a Leopard 2 like everyone on the podium. The C1 Ariete is actually a rather good tank that can stay ahead of everyone but the Japanese in terms of situational awareness. This is why it tangles with the HA, not the M1A1. Now all that is left is for the engines to literally sound like 2 Bussos and we're set.

 

Ukrainian tanks:

- T-80UD (3BM-46, 3BK-29, 9M119)

- T-84 (3BM-46, 3BK-29, 9M119)

 

The fall of the USSR really didn't stop KMDB from producing MBTs, starting with the T-80UD. Everything is mostly the same as the T-80U, but there are a few differences. Instead of the powerful yet thirsty gas turbine, the T-80UD uses a diesel engine producing 1000 hp. This is not good for mobility, as the T-80UD is only a bit faster than the T-90 in theory. The ammo is mostly hand me downs from Soviet era tanks, and so isn't made to tackle Russian tanks effectively. On the other hand, the FCS received a neat boost with the 1A43U sighting complex, starting with the gunner night sights ditching the outdated Luna spotlight entirely for the TO1-KO1ER and its better ID range of 1400m. While the Russians can reach up to 1.2 km ID range at night, they would have to turn their IR spotlights on, making them significantly easier to detect with the exception of the T-90 that shares the same night sights. Not the T-80UD though. Even the 1G46 has been upgraded to the 1G46M, which might have helped in correcting the whole sight drift issue. It's not too bad a tank honestly and the winner is usually the one that lands two shots in the same area.

 

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IIIB (M322, M325, LAHAT)

- Merkava mk IIID (M322, M325, LAHAT)

 

Same Merkava mk III, just DM43 tier APFSDS tacked on as well as the ability to lock onto targets while moving. That's honestly pretty big an upgrade as it allows the IIIB to shoot on the move effortlessly let alone take out helicopters no problem, and one may consider the IIIB's FCS to be one of the best of its time because of that. What, you expected better armor? It's good enough as it is especially if you're one who follows thicc armor instead of thinn armor. Did I mention central air conditioning? Good AC is a necessity when operating in the arid deserts of Israel. Well it's not as necessary in Europe, but still. The IIID is the same thing except with better tracks and something similar to CROWS. Oh, and better armor this time around, but maybe not enough to make such a big difference.

 

Indian tanks:

 

out

 

Japanese tanks:

- Type 90 (JM33, JM12)

 

Yep, finally a tank for Japan. It's a pretty strong one too apparently, starting with mobility. The Type 90, because it was built by a country that's essentially an agglomeration of islands, is very light for ease of naval transportation and use of bridges. It's even lighter than the Leclerc. One would be surprised that even then some Japanese officials think the Type 90 is too heavy. Much to my surprise though is the armor, which is unusually strong. I don't know how, but the Type 90's front armor seems to be one of the best here. Yes, the LFP is weak as a consequence of using a ~75 degree UFP like on the Leopard 2, but that armor is said to resist the tank's own JM33 ammo at 250m. Considering that JM33's penetration is close to DM33, that's a shocker. The gun mantlet even seems to be almost as thick as the turret cheeks. The sides on the other hand, while strangely good for a modern MBT, most definitely will not resist large caliber APFSDS rounds here. Which then leads to one of the weaknesses: margin of error for armor. See, the side armor profile of the Type 90 is potentially worse than some NATO tanks when it comes to the crew compartment area, most notably in the turret where the turret cheeks overlap with a mere 1/3rd of the tank instead of the Leopard 2's 1/2? When hulldown it's a bit harder to maintain consistent armor protection versus such large guns, even if IFVs have zero chance without ATGMs. Also worth noting is the ammo, which is Japan's own take on DM33. Sadly this isn't that strong versus its opposition that would struggle to penetrate it anyway. Past the Kontakt-5 however, and JM33 is perfectly adequate. The tank's ammo is fed through a bustle autoloader just like on the Leclerc, but whether it can actually maintain the 5 seconds reload speed without breaking down is something else. I'd be surprised if it didn't, and it might not break down for that rate of fire. 5 seconds is more of what it takes for the gun to complete its full reload cycle including realigning the gun with the sights. And of course mobility needs no introduction, for it might as well match the Leclerc. The FCS from what I can tell is also up to the typical NATO standard at the least, so no complaints there. Well, except for hunter-killer, which it can do only in clear day time as well as laser warning receivers that inform the crew of enemy ATGMs and even tank rangefinders aiming at the vehicle. It's still quite the reaction time improvement though, as the commander can take matters into his own hands and fire the main gun at the targets he himself spotted instead of waiting for the gunner. It's a strange tank to say the least, and it's only the underwhelming ammo that keeps it from fighting alongside the M1A2: the first M1 variant to have hunter-killer.

 

South Korean tanks:

- K1A1 (K276, K277)

 

Yep, finally a 120mm smoothbore, and the ammo isn't too bad actually. K276 is a pretty close analogue to the German DM43 used by the Leopard 2A5, and K277 is an analogue to DM12. It's pretty good firepower. The armor is the same as the K1 PIP. It's alright though, for no one has hunter-killer yet and the FCS just improved some more, particularly the gunner sight and commander sight. It's a serviceable upgrade I guess.

 

 

Parfaits may be the most delicious thing on the whole damn planet.

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-90A (3BM-42M, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

- T-72B3 (3BM-42M, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

 

The T-90A has a few improvements going for it compared to the T-90. It has better turret armor thanks to the use of RHA over cast steel. It also has some improvements in mobility thanks to a new engine. 3BM-42M is its new APFSDS ammo, with slightly better performance than 3BM-46 before it thanks to the use of tungsten alloy, which is better at the specified velocity. Most notable though is the ESSA thermal viewer that grants night vision capabilities way beyond those of even Agava-2, with an ID range of 4 km. It's an upgrade of sorts, I think.

 

Good news for T-72 fans though, because the T-72B is back. The T-72B3 is an updated version of old T-72Bs in reserve to bring them up to more modern standards. The main highlight here is the SOSNA-U sight, which is a great thermal sight that eliminates lazing point drift and massively increases ID distance. Well, except for one tiny detail: its zoom sucks. 12x magnification is thought to be common sense in most cases especially in NATO, but the SOSNA-U only allows 6x magnification. This is appalling. Lazing at long range can be difficult with this. The FCS of the T-72Bs of old is still present as a backup though, so one could simply switch to that for stationary accuracy. But come on, 6x magnification? Ugh, at least the image shown on screen is pretty clear. The commander also gets shafted with the same old now godawful periscope that wasn't upgraded much. For the armor, it's probably worse than on the T-90A as the Tank Biathlon indirectly showed that the T-72B obr. 1985 hull is the hull most used for conversion. That's not as good as the bulging plate modules probably still in the T-90A. Turret traverse is identical to the one on the T-90 luckily enough and everything else is all T-72B of old. Mobility on the other hand is actually significantly better than the T-90A in some cases. It's an odd upgrade to say the least, but it should be around the same level as the T-90A.

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 2A5 (DM53, DM12)

 

Yeah, just a firepower upgrade, but a good one. DM53 can actually be fired out of L44s with a reduced charge, or at least that's what Rheinmetall seems to claim. What one gets is the ability to practically ignore Kontakt-5. Any issues with a potential lack of armor is remedied just through this ammo. Not the most efficient gun for this ammo though.

 

US tanks:

- M1A2 (M829A2, M830A1)

- M1A1HC (M829A2, M830A1)

- M1A1D (M829A2, M830A1)

- M1A1AIM v.1 (M829A2, M830A1)

 

What's so great about the M1A2 are the improvements in FCS and armor. The commander gets the CITV: a panoramic sight that allows the commander to take over and use the main gun. Just like on the Type 90, this lowers reaction time considerably. Also worth noting is the additional zoom level the gunner gets, and it's also the easiest way to find out whether one is in an M1A1 or M1A2 in Steel Beasts. This allows more precise aim As for the armor? Well, the hull gets actual DU plates. Getting out of a hulldown position is now not nearly as suicidal. Maybe the turret has improvements as well. This makes the M1A2 a pretty solid upgrade, hence why it does not get better ammo.

 

And what about the M1A1HC? Same armor upgrade, no CITV nor extra zoom. The USMC gets shafted in equipment compared to the US Army? Shocking news! The M1A1D is pretty much the closest to the M1A2, and the M1A1AIM v.1 is a communications-focused package with stuff like more sensors, crew situational awareness stuff, and an infantry telephone so that the grunts can let the crew know which MRE they ingested without talking and insult their relatives. I'd say the infantry telephone is the upgrade infantry never knew they needed. Has anyone annoyed the crew with that thing?

 

UK tanks:

 

waiting for the mod to deliver

 

French tanks:

- Leclerc série 2 (OFL 120 F1, OECC F1)

 

What one gets is a new thermal image camera, as well as a battlefield management system that allows one to keep tabs on whatever anyone else is doing. Other than that, nothing much else. Doesn't need much else though.

 

Italian tanks:

- C2 Ariete (CL3143, CL3105)

 

Now there's not too much to go on, so I'll try to make it simple. The C2 has significantly better mobility for starters, using a 1600 hp engine. We could be looking at levels of mobility exceeding the Leclerc as the suspension also gets an upgrade. The ammo is assumed to be the same since the Italian MoD didn't order M338, but maybe the current ammo will do well enough. The armor is said to be upgraded, but that might just apply to the composite appliqué to be added to the sides. What's more curious are the upgrades to the already good FCS, which has yet to be discussed. Should be alright.

 

Ukrainian tanks:

- T-84 (3BM-42M, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

- T-84U (3BM-42M, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

- T-84 Oplot (3BM-42M, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

- T-64BM Bulat (3BM-42M, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

 

This is when it starts getting confusing. We shall start off with the T-84, which still has hand me downs from Russia for ammo. But wait, the armor has been improved, most notably the turret that's now welded. The extra armor should aid in stopping APFSDS after Kontakt-5 has been breached. That's why I didn't put it with the T-80U, as the armor alone is enough to justify an increase in tier. That and the improved engine, with 1200 hp. This places it at T-80U levels of mobility for sure. The turret drive has been upgraded and now the turret rotates as fast as the T-90A. The night optics have been replaced with a Buran-Catherine thermal imaging suite that allows hunter-killer even at night. There's even Shtora-1, which is useless. If that's not good enough, there's the T-84U and its new PTT-2 thermal sight. This is Agava-2 tier in ID range and allows for the elimination of the ID range gap. The commander also gets a laser rangefinder of his own, and there's even a laser warning system. The T-84 Oplot even adds extra protection on the turret and a bustle autoloader with blowout panels, although reload speeds probably didn't change much with the whole two piece ammo business. Overall we get the T-80U feels right back with Ukraine unlike Russia that's stuck with a glorified T-72 and a literal upgrade of a T-72.

 

For the plebs, well, do you remember the T-64 and how it was built at Kharkov? Now that Kharkov doesn't belong to Russia, what do you think happened to all the T-64s still in the factories? Did they get scrapped? Nope. KMDB grabbed all the T-64Bs it could and brought them back on the field with various upgrades. As the ammo is yet again Soviet era hand me downs, let's talk about the armor. Well, it's a T-64B chassis, maybe T-64BV. Not special is it, until you slap on ERA of Ukrainian design. That's right, new ERA named Nozh, and it's got an interesting mode of operation. See, in the bricks we have these small EFPs that when stretched by the explosion erode the penetrator in multiple places, thus decreasing penetration. That is true if you live in the mind of a delusional Khakovite. That nonsense doesn't happen. It's physically impossible for the liners to do any sort of serious damage to the penetrator, so all we get are larger explosions and nothing else. How anticlimactic is that? Still, even if the penetrator chop is a marketing scam, Nozh works better than Kontakt-5 in tests probably because of the sheer explosive power. It works to compensate for the fact that no T-64BM has had actual composite improvements. For FCS, well, now it's up to T-80U standards, which is bad. Real bad. The Bulat is blind. The commander sight is outdated and same goes for the gunner sights. I mean they wouldn't be all that bad back then, but ESSA is just so ridiculously good and SOSNA-U is also strong despite low magnification. Least the engine has been upgraded to make 1000 hp, so at least it isn't slow. It's such a mixed bag, yet somehow it's on the same level as the T-90A because of meme tier ERA.

 

Israeli tanks:
- Merkava mk IIIm (M322, M325, LAHAT)

 

Same as before, but with better armor. Oh, and it has Trophy APS: the only battle tested hardkill APS that tracks incoming RPGs and ATGMs and launches a canister of EFPs at them. Upon getting close enough to the projectile, the EFP charges themselves are detonated, leading to multiple small liners tearing up the projectile and thus making it either crash into the tank without doing anything but annoying the crew or flat out detonation. The problem is that Trophy cannot intercept APFSDS, which is why it's not that big of a deal in actual tank combat. However, it's very effective in urban environments and in uncharted territory where some random ATGM crew may stalk. So yeah, all there is is better armor. Hey, this section is slow anyway.

 

Indian tanks:

 

hell no

 

Japanese tanks:

 

if theres a better type 90 variant, it goes here since the type 10 is obviously too good

 

South Korean tanks:

 

could be the k1a2, but that would mean looking up k276n and that round either doesnt exist or just isnt easy to find on the internet

 

 

You know what? I think I preferred your humming.

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-90M (3BM-59/3BM-60, 3BK-29, 9M119M1)

- T-72B3M (3BM-59/3BM, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

- T-80BVM (3BM-59/3BM-60, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

 

If you expected the T-90AM, then this tank doesn't exist technically. No Proriv-2 (Proriv-1 is the T-90A generation) T-90 was ever made for the Russian army, and I can't seem to find much on the T-90AM and thus adhere to the notion that it doesn't really exist. A shame, and Russia deserves better. This is where the T-90M comes in. No, don't let the image of the T-72M fool you, this is Russia's most advanced T-90, being Proriv-3. The T-90M has some armor improvements supposedly concerning the turret, but I don't know for sure the true extent of the protection level increase relative to the T-90A the tank was based on. Kontakt-5 is still being used, because Relikt just isn't coming out any time soon. It's just not happening for now considering Russia chose to go with plan B for tank production (get reserve T-80Bs back because the T-14 is too expensive), so T-90Ms would be stuck with Kontakt-5 instead. Still, mobility increased significantly thanks to a roughly 150 hp increase, so it's not way slower than NATO contemporaries now. The gun may even be the same one as on the T-14, but because of autoloader constraints all one gets is superior accuracy and less frequent gun replacement. But the autoloader, much to people's surprise, has some life left in it with the ability to house 3BM-59 and 3BM-60, also known as Svinets-1 and Svinets-2. These rather new APFSDS rounds feature an improved L/D ratio and thus penetration may even rival that of the M829A1, except maybe the tip is more optimized versus NATO armor. That's quite the firepower increase especially considering this is two piece ammo restricted by the drawbacks of a carousel autoloader. The ATGM is a newer version of the 9M119, having superior penetration that could go through lower end composite MBTs in NATO. FCS has also been improved, with sight drift long gone, hunter-killer for the commander, good sights for the gunner, and a battlefield management system like what is found on the Leclerc. This is a pretty decent modernization package actually. Can't exactly complain.

 

The T-72B3M on the other hand I don't know too much about. The mobility most certainly is better, possibly equaling the mobility of the T-90M. The FCS has been improved a bit, though the sights apparently being similar to SOSNA-U just do not make me feel optimistic even for a commander's sight. Least sight drift is gone. And it gets great ammo as well, because the autoloader has been modified. It has worse base armor than the T-90M because of recycling old T-72Bs with older armor layouts, but it'll have to do for now. Not a bad complement to the T-90M, at least for now.

 

Also there is the T-80BVM: Russia's plan B after they realized that they can't actually produce that many T-14s yet. So what they've done is get T-80BVs from storage and modernize them, hence the designation. So basically, for all armor purposes one might as well refer to the T-80U and the same for mostly everything else. Not ammo however, because Svinets-1 and Svinets-2 are added for the modern era. FCS has been improved with Sosna-U and its questionable zoom and turret traverse might have been improved as well. I'll assume K5 for now because I can't be bothered to assume that Relikt will be added any time soon.

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 2A6 (DM63, DM12)

- Leopard 2A6M (DM63, DM12)

- Leopard 2A7 (DM63, DM12)

 

What a way to finish strong. With the 2A6, the Leopard 2 gets the even better L/55 Rh 120. This allows DM63 to reach a muzzle velocity of 1750 m/s, which is around where tungsten performs best. DM63 is also no slouch, being a more consistent DM53 and thus negating Kontakt-5 entirely. The commander also gains hunter-killer capabilities. And that's it mostly. Apparently armor protection was also increas The 2A6ed, but to which extent no one really has a clue. Might not resist Svinets-1 completely though. The 2A6M is basically the same 2A6 but with modifications to survive IEDs better such as suspending the driver's seat a bit in the air and removing some ammo. The 2A7 apparently has better armor, but no one knows. It's mostly a battlefield awareness package and the like. Kind of a mystical beast in the German army, like going to one of their outdoor toilets and somehow not seeing doodles of inappropriate things on the wall. Though if the 2A7 is better than I thought, then it gets to fight the T-14 using mediocre ammo relative to it.

 

US tanks:

- M1A2 SEP (M829A3, M830A1)

- M1A2 SEP V2 (M829A3, M830A1)

- M1A1AIM v.2 (M829A3, M830A1)

 

Yet another armor upgrade for the M1A2. It's getting quite tiresome, though if you've noticed, the SEP gets access to M829A3: the most powerful APFSDS in US service until the SEP V3. Thanks to the rather simple solution of making the tip out of steel, the M829A3 can ignore Kontakt-5 as well. Everything else is mostly just the same M1A2 stuff. The SEP V2 is less considerable an improvement, but it does give side armor appliqué packages for going into urban environments where some rando with an RPG may be hiding. CROWS is also standard for the commander to reenact FMJ fantasies. The interfaces are also prettier for the inattentive (literally everyone). Also, the phone is standard so crew harassment from salty grunts also comes standard with SEP V2, but sadly the pizza never comes for some reason. AIM v.2 is essentially the same thing as SEP V2 more or less.

 

actually mike sparks might have been onto something with the whole infantry telephone business

 

UK tanks:

 

is the mod actually doing something yet

 

French tanks:

- Leclerc série XXI (OFL 120 F2, OECC F1)

- Leclerc AZUR (OFL 120 F2, OECC F1)

- Leclerc Version EAU (OFL 120 F2, OECC F1)

 

Now we get to the série XXI after quite a bit of damage control. This new Leclerc comes with brand new composite armor, thus adding a needed boost in protection versus Svinets-1. Sure, the weakspots are all still there, but those are impossible to salvage. The commander's sight also got some improvements. That's mostly it other than OFL 120 F2: a round that's pretty damn dangerous and might be the most powerful APFSDS in the French arsenal as of now other than PROCIPAC. The Leclerc AZUR is pretty much a série XXI with thicc skirts for going into urban areas and not getting demolished by RPGs and even EFPs in secret locations, as well as protecting the LFP with ERA and reversing sounds to relive the days of backing Scanias in Euro Truck Simulator. The Version EAU is pretty much an export Leclerc, with the German MB 873 Ka-501, an extra zoom level thanks to different sights and an infantry telephone to prank call in Arabic (EAU stands for Emirats Arabes Unis, as in the UAE so it makes complete sense).

 

Italian tanks:

 

nothing yet

 

Ukrainian tanks:

- T-84 BM Oplot (Vitiaz?, 3BK-29, 9M119M)

- T-84-120 Yatagan (M338/DM63, M325/DM12, 9M119M)

 

I have weird reservations towards the BM Oplot. It's just something that sounds too much like a paper tiger. Either way, tis not time to disappoint. The armor is... well, you know how I mentioned the cult of thicc and thinn with Merkavas? This is weirder. See, I don't think the BM Oplot even has composite hull armor. I've seen the pictures, and they show disappointment. Doesn't seem to be composite at all. Maybe that's a temporary thing, but it's a little offputting. What isn't is the new ERA called Duplet, which is simply ERA on top of ERA and in some cases the ERA on top of ERA is on top of ERA. This is even applied to lighter AFVs. Gee, and I thought the Russians were crude. This is just a new level of "no ERA = ded" I haven't seen before. I really do hope I'm wrong in this case. Hardkill APS named Zaslon is also found on the BM Oplot, though the interception speed is not high enough to track APFSDS. There's also softkill APS to confuse missiles when out of ammo for Zaslon. The ammo is mostly hand me downs from Russia. Yes, mostly, because there's this urban legend about Vitiaz APFSDS with 380mm penetration at 60 degrees and 2 km away. Now that makes me skeptical, for the BM Oplot uses a carousel autoloader. I'd assume similar performance to Svinets-1. Mobility is probably on a level unheard of in a tank if using a 1500 hp diesel on a 51 ton tank through a 4 speed automatic gearbox. That has the potential to beat the Leclerc on smooth surfaces, yet not off-road because of more primitive suspension. That's an if though, because it might just be the 1200 hp diesel found on all T-84s instead and it turns out to be slower than its predecessors. Oh, and the FCS has been improved with the PNK-6 panoramic sight that just gives CITV levels of versatility. It's a fine machine, but goddamn is the armor even for real?

 

Now, what if one wants something that isn't trash in base armor? That's where the T-84-120 Yatagan comes in, featuring a new 120mm smoothbore and bustle autoloader. Now, why M338/DM63? Well, this was intended for the Turkish market, and that's what the Turks use. Well other than the ATGM of course, which is KMDB's attempt at shoehorning in 9M119 into a 120mm smoothbore instead of letting Israel get away with the deal on their LAHATs. With NATO APFSDS, there's no escaping the T-84-120. Anything with Kontakt-5 is simply gone, except the T-84-120 firing the gun. Who knows, maybe it reloads as fast as a Leclerc now for added lethality. Everything else is mostly the same as the T-84 Oplot though. Good gun though, and that's all that matters in the end.

 

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IV (M338, M325, LAHAT)

- Merkava mk IVm Windbreaker (M338, M325, LAHAT)

 

This is the shining jewel of the IDF when it comes to tanks. At first glance it's easy to think this is like the Merkava mk III, but there are a few key differences. First is armor, which has been improved again and it seems the thicc crowd is winning. The hull is practically junk for stubborn believers of the thinn, but very good for believers of the thicc, while both still agree that the turret is very likely to be the best turret in NATO in terms of front turret armor, not to mention floor protection and roof protection versus those pesky RPGs. Mobility has been improved by some suspension improvements as well as the addition of a 27.4L German V-12 diesel that is much smaller in displacement compared to the V-12 diesel found on the Leopard 2 yet not lacking the power, leading to most likely outmaneuvering every single MBT bar the Leclerc and similar. Not bad for a 65 ton "I'm you but stronger" version of the Gavin. For firepower M338 APFSDS and its performance comparable to DM53 is very suitable. The revolving drum acting as the tank's ready rack also now houses 10 rounds instead of 5, meaning faster reload speeds. The FCS is excellent too, with a battlefield management system, IR and radar sensors for detecting ATGMs and laser rangefinders, and generally improved optics and all that. With the IVm, one can even use Trophy APS.

 

Turkish tanks:

- Altay (M338/DM63, DM12/M325)

 

This here is Turkey's first 100% Turkish tank, except for borrowing design cues from the K2. The armor is said to be really good, though the hull takes cues from the Leopard 2 and the turret is very much K2. Still, for Roketsan to compete decently in armor would be quite a feat on its own. The gun is just a typical L/55 smoothbore, using M338 and DM63. How do I know this? When Turkish Leopard 2s operated in Syria, there were pictures of the rounds used, and both Israeli and German rounds were used. Naturally, the Altay should be able to use said ammo. Even if it uses indigenous ammo, who's to say that it would need to be better than these two foreign APFSDS rounds? Unlike the K2, there's no autoloader on the Altay. The mobility is not yet decided, as the Turkish army has a choice between two engines. They could go with the solid German V12s they already like, but there's talk about an indigenous engine producing 1800 hp. If that were true, then the Altay might be faster than the Abrams and Leopard 2A6. If not it's mostly on the same level. The FCS is also rather nice too albeit quite standard what with the laser warning receivers, battlefield management and all that stuff the kids talk about these days. Overall the Altay is rather fine, though it's a bit too K2ish. Don't mention that to Turkish tank nerds though, they will get mad. Still waiting for Turkey to make some though.

 

Indian tanks:

 

why here

 

Japanese tanks:

 

probably saving the type 10 for later because its so damn good

 

South Korean tanks:

- K2 (K279, K280)

 

Now that's quite the step up. The K2 is not much alike compared to the K1, for it shares little in common with the XM1 project at all. The gun has been improved quite substantially, with K279 approaching the level of DM63 quite nicely. There's absolutely no problems dealing with most tanks at this point, especially since K279 seems to be segmented as well. The gun is also fitted with a bustle autoloader that has similar performance to the Leclerc's autoloader. Mobility might have degraded a bit compared to the K1A1 on asphalt, but off-road speed is still pretty strong partially thanks to a fully hydraulic suspension that is capable of adjusting each individual bogie from each wheel in a reactive manner (think more like how ABS and TCS act in a car), and this also makes it easier to stabilize the gun. The armor layout follows the typical SEA layout of more thin side armor areas than normal, but surprisingly enough the K2's turret is not as questionably covered as the Leclerc's turret, so it's more reliable for hulldown. Generally protection should be alright for dealing with Svinets at range, but Svinets-1 might be a different story except for the turret. ERA can also be added for urban areas, as well as softkill APS for confusing missiles. The FCS is pretty advanced too, with a battlefield management system, the apparent use of radar and laser for rangefinding and automatic smoke grenade deployment upon being lazed long enough both for avoiding missiles and forcing the enemy gunner to go with a faulty laze. The sights aren't too bad either and of course hunter-killer is standard. It's a pretty strong tank that should play nice with the other tanks in here, or end up OP because I'm an idiot at sorting tanks.

 

 

Do you have a tissue or something? I'm making a mess. Just the word parfait makes me start slobbering.

 

Spoiler

Russian tanks:

- T-14 (Vacuum-1/Vacuum-2, 3BK-29M, 3UBK-21)

 

Russia strong: the tank. When that thing entered the scene, the tank nerd community just lost it. Mud was flung everywhere. But the truth is, the T-14 is a real Soviet 1980s prototype brought to life, and it brings quite a lot to the table. The first one is firepower, as in a ton. Thanks to a brand new carousel autoloader design, the T-14 can store the massive Vacuum-1 and Vacuum-2 APFSDS shells. These things actually rival NATO's best ammo such as M829A3 and DM63, and some argue the ammo is even better than NATO's (not me). 3BK-29M is a triple liner HEAT round that won't exactly go through the newer composite of NATO MBTs, but can do some damage to older NATO composite MBTs. The 3UBK-21 ATGM penetrates 950mm after ERA and is guided by millimeter wave, leading to some softkill APS being quite useless. All I can say is that it's better than anything in the Svir/Refleks family. The armor is also no joke, starting with the turret whose armor is a joke. The turret cheeks are non-existent and anything can go through them including autocannons. But you see, this is genius since the T-14 uses an unmanned turret with an isolated ammo compartment, meaning that all APFSDS will harmlessly pass through the cheeks, making the T-14 oddly good at hulldown. If the turret is hit from the sides it's unable to fight, but the crew itself lives and isn't as rattled. Because of the weight savings of using no armor on the turret, the hull is very strong alone. But it's not alone, as it is backed with Malachit ERA: the best ERA Russia actually bothered offering. M829A3 gets cut by that ERA thanks to some clever improvements with the brick's internals. And I'm not done yet, for Afghanit APS can actually intercept APFSDS rounds and give them a little nudge, reducing penetration slightly. Sadly Afghanit launchers are unable to move upwards to intercept top attack ATGMs: the T-14's real Achilles heel, though the softkill portion might be able to do something about it. Load up them Javelins regardless boys. Side armor is most likely still trash as always. Also, the mobility is also nothing to laugh at either thanks to an X-shape diesel engine producing 1500 hp and rumored to go up to 2000 hp without a governor at the cost of killing UVZ's most expensive and complex engine. The two first road wheels are apparently capable of lowering themselves to increase the decent gun depression. The rate of fire is even up to Leclerc standards, which is quite impressive. Even the FCS isn't bad and is more up to NATO standards and multiple TV screens allow for improved situational awareness. It's no wonder people think this tank is unbeatable. Then again, people said that about the Su-35, PAK FA, new AK variants, the SVCh, the AN-94, etc. All produced in tiny numbers.

 

German tanks:

 

actually nothing until rheinmetall actually decides to put their 130mm in an actual vehicle for once

 

US tanks:

- M1A2 SEP V3 (M829E4, XM1147)

 

This is the best the US can do, but I don't think it will really struggle too much. The SEP V3 gets access to M829E4: a round said to negate Relikt. However, Malachit is not Relikt. It might penetrate the T-14 at shorter ranges. XM1147 combines every other shell the US had for the 120mm into one round, which is pretty nice but not relevant to this discussion. If the T-14's turret is not flush with the SEP V3's line of sight, that can result in the T-14 just being unable to battle, for it won't have an operational turret. The SEP V3 also comes with improved armor, which might make all the difference in stopping Vacuum-1 successfully. It's kind of what I'm betting on here as mobility will be lowered because of the extra armor. The FCS also gets improvements, but the descriptions are vague for now. It might just be alright in the end. The hype about Soviet tanks of old was real back then, but they weren't so bad in the end and the CIA overestimated the armor.

 

UK tanks:

 

mod when

 

French tanks:

- Leclerc XLR (PROCIPAC, OECC F1)

 

This is the closest answer to the T-14 so far I think, and a pretty good one. PROCIPAC is more of an urban legend, but penetration numbers on the thing are pretty nuts. Don't know whether this was meant to take out Relikt or not, but maybe it is meant to do so. That would work well enough if the Scorpion strategy the French came up with actually works. Armor hasn't really improved much sadly, and the improved FCS only has vague details. If the French know what they're doing this could work.

 

Italian tanks:

 

lolno

 

Ukrainian tanks:

 

kmdb sure isnt what it used to be

 

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IV Barak (M338, M325, LAHAT)

 

The French went on a light tech and strategy overhaul to counter the T-14. The Americans are betting on the SEP V3 somehow being able to push back the T-14 conventionally. The Israelis? Well they go ham on tech. One of them is making the tank a hybrid. No, the IDF are not going eco, they are improving lower end torque with an electric engine and combined with even the standard 27.4L V-12 mobility would increase considerably. This places the mobility at Leclerc tier if all things go well enough. The armor would also be improved, but the extent is unknown even to composite standards. Ammo sadly doesn't change much, or at least I haven't heard of newer ammo than M338. Who knows, maybe the IDF is confident with M338. And this is rather small stuff compared to the next steps. One of them is the introduction of a new hardkill APS that can lower APFSDS penetration just like the experimental Iron Fist. Not sure about flipping the round over reliably, but even a slight nudge can lower penetration by 10%. The crew also get special helmets with displays just like what pilots get. This improves crew dynamics quite a bit. One of the tech Elbit even experiments with is basically EO-DAS for tanks. EO-DAS, found on the F-35, is advanced enough so that one can essentially look through the vehicle itself, get accurate data on enemies and thus allow a never before seen level of situational awareness. When on the F-35, that kind of tech makes the pilot seemingly omniscient to enemy pilots. On a tank the effect is not as useful, but that's still quite useful indeed. Not sure whether this is considered, but it's one of the things Elbit shilled a few times. There's also talk about isolating the ammo rack (finally) and even a proper autoloader instead of a revolving drum serving as a ready rack. What the Barak could do versus a T-14 best though is fire LAHATs. Since Afghanit hardkill cannot hit top attack ATGMs, only softkill is a problem. Sadly LAHAT is still dependent on the standard laser homing guidance method, so it might veer off course. However, with the Barak and its massive improvements in FCS and general electronics, the IDF crew will be one step ahead of the T-14. It sounds amazing, but the biggest problem is that out of all theoretical upgrade packages here, this is the most theoretical of them all. It almost sounds too perfect. Still, if Elbit delivers in terms of electronics, everything should go smoothly. Oh, and if the LAHAT is indeed not going to be bothered by the softkill APS.

 

Turkish tanks:

 

if the altay gets etc call me back

 

Indian tanks:

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Japanese tanks:

- Type 10 (Type 10, JM12)

 

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here. The Type 10 is Japan's best MBT and it brings a pretty interesting package, starting with mobility. The Type 10 uses a CVT (belt-driven transmission in layman's terms) to allow it to go as fast backwards as it does forwards, granting possibly the best mobility out of any MBT I know of also thanks to its low weight of 45 tons that still doesn't completely please some stubborn Japanese officials wanting the tank to be able to cross more of Japan's rather frail bridges. The armor is said to use nanotechnology to optimize the composite's effectiveness, though obviously no one knows what that actually means other than "it's definitely better than what the Type 90 has", including side armor. The ammo seems to be roughly on the same level as DM53, though I cannot say for sure. It's also not fired out of the Rh 120, but by Japan's very own 120mm smoothbore. Whether that's actually good enough, nobody really knows. If so I really gotta reconsider the 2A7 and laugh some more at the T-14. The FCS is definitely a step up from the Type 90 just by having a battlefield management system, but what caught my attention is some sort of warning system. One can already see such systems on the Merkava for instance, but the Merkava is limited to detecting ATGMs. The Type 10 can apparently detect laser rangefinders. If that is true, then that means the crew can be aware of the T-14's presence and react accordingly through the battlefield management system after viewing where all the other JSDF units are at. It's like 6th sense in real life. As lazing takes some time and maybe a little movement game, the Type 10 might force the T-14's gunner to make inaccurate shots through timed smoke deployment, if not movement. I most certainly hope this is not me being dumb as always, because that's almost as nuts as the South Korean counter that I'm too lazy to talk about.

 

South Korean tanks:

- K2 PIP (K279, K280, KSTAM)

 

Out of all tanks coming out later, the K2 PIP seems to have the best chance at taking out T-14s. Mobility has been increased through a system that scans the terrain 50m around the tank and adapting the tank's hydraulic suspension to the data gathered so the ride is extra smooth for maximum performance as the hydraulics are now predictive in nature rather than purely reactive. Composite modules could be added instead of ERA, and even hardkill APS similar to Trophy. That's just the small stuff. What truly seals the deal is KSTAM. KSTAM is a special top attack munition exclusive to the K2 PIP, shooting a round above the enemy tank in a manner similar to SPGs (actually the PzH 2000 has a round that pretty much works the same way called Smart 155). Upon close proximity to the enemy tank, the projectile releases a submunition that is then flown over to the enemy tank through parachute, guided by radar and sensors. When the submunition detects that it's right above an enemy vehicle, it fires an EFP straight through the fragile top armor of the target, disabling it completely. This can be shot at distances of 2-8 km. This is by far the best ammo for taking out a T-14. As I have explained above, the T-14's Afghanit APS cannot intercept any top down ammo with hardkill because the launchers are fixed. Sure, there's the softkill portion, but it might not have the elevation to deal with KSTAM. The only way for the T-14 to survive KSTAM is to either hide under something or hope that the Malachit ERA in the front is hit, as there's literally nothing directly under there. Still, this would mean the K2 PIP can engage T-14s from extremely far away with no fear of retaliation. Oh, there's an ATGM you say? Well it's a good thing hardkill APS has been installed then unless that new ATGM is top attack, but the K2's APS might be able to move upwards.

 

 

And then I saw her face, and now I'm a believer
 

Spoiler

Russian MBTs:

- T-14 152mm (Grifel-1/Grifel-2)

- Object 477A (Grifel-1/Grifel-2)

- Object 195 (Grifel-1/Grifel-2)

- Object 299 (Grifel-1/Grifel-2)

 

Welcome to a land far far away, where we go prototype vs prototype and thus let fanboy fantasies run wild. First off is the T-14 152mm. The only thing to talk about here is the big gun: the 152mm. This operates on a level that goes beyond 125mms, beyond 120mms. 800mm penetration at range is a real possibility, but I don't think the rate of fire would increase that much. Everything else is the same as the T-14 currently in service.

 

The Object 477A on the other hand is one of my favorite tank concepts. Literally everything is overkill. The gun is overkill like on the T-14. The coaxial is overkill with a 30mm 2A42. The autoloader is also very interesting, using drums instead of a carousel or belt. The composite on the hull is more than a meter thick apparently, and it has ERA too. The turret is oddly well armored. The mobility is still great. It lacks sophistication compared to the T-14, but it's just brutal in all the right places. Plus it looks sweet and comes from KMDB. Truly the most amazing Soviet tank I have ever seen. Oh, and the FCS was probably somewhat Agava-2 tier idk. The impact this had on NATO was especially funny, as it was known as Object 490A once until some spy leaked it to the US only for them to label it FST-2 and go on full damage control.

 

The Object 195 is regarded by some as the proto-Armata, mostly because it has an unmanned turret and comes from UVZ: the same factory that makes the T-14. The Object 195 shares the same baggage as its KMDB competitor with the unmanned turret, the massive 152mm, the best FCS the Soviets could make, the insane hull armor... But it has a few differences as well, such as using the X engine that might have been used as a base for the T-14's engine, and a fully isolated crew, ammo and engine compartment. The autoloader is also very much like the T-14's. It's really quite an amazing machine as well. Also, the hatches are unbelievably thick for some reason.

 

And then there's LKZ's Object 299, which I believe is where the universal hull concept of the T-14 might have come from. The turret is kinda strange, as it doesn't seem to have good protection and relying more on its thin front profile. The engine is oddly enough in the front most likely for easier IFV conversion, so the protection levels suffer accordingly (see this is why I don't include Israel otherwise arguments about waifu placement will last forever and same goes for Ukrainian tanks). No worries though, the gun is still nuts as is mobility through a gas turbine. The autoloader is also similar to the T-14's, and the FCS may be on the same level. I'd say this is the true proto-Armata if talking about the chassis itself, and thus the T-14 is like an odd mix between the Object 195 and Object 299.

 

German tanks:

- Leopard 2 KWS III (???)

 

This is basically Germany's desperation button if the Soviets actually deployed something that would be described as the FST-2. If a gun doesn't work, use more gun. And that's why this Leopard 2 gets a 140mm. The muzzle energy on that thing is insane, and the rounds are so large that Rheinmetall thought about adding an autoloader on the thing. And then the FCS would get a boost as well. However, such a gun makes the tank unwieldy, and combine that with the fall of the USSR and there was no need for it. Still, it would have worked nicely against the new Soviet tanks, with the 900mm penetration at range mark being clearly in sight. Damn. Still don't know if XM962 was used.

 

US tanks:

M1 CATTB (XM962)

 

Ok, the Leopard 2 KWS III was already quite ridiculous. The CATTB combines the enormous power of the 140mm with insanely thick turret armor over 1m thick. This means it can tank 152mm APFSDS in theory, which is quite surprising. It's also diesel powered last I checked. Might not have the FCS improvements of the KWS III, but that's still a very powerful tank.

 

UK tanks:

 

there was a 140mm challenger but i dont know much about it

 

French tanks:

- Leclerc T4 (XM962)

 

Get a Leclerc, slap on a 140mm. All is done, goodbye literally everything.

 

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IV 140mm (????)

 

There were plans for a 140mm Merkava mk IV. I mean, do you really need elaboration? I swear it's all just big guns and no fun. Also, IMI worked on the 140mm mounted on a Swiss Leopard 2. The more you know.

 

Japanese tanks:

 

i dont know how strong the 130mm is or whether the type 10 gets etc propellant later so idk

 

 

And that's the end of the massive tank power level list, yet the saga continues. I have yet to add a few more tanks in there (China, South Korea, Best Korea, Israel, Brazil, India, maybe Canada), but this is a start.

 

28 pages in word get a load of this pleb rite

 

Special thanks:

 

- Alzoc, for correcting me on some stuff about COTAC and telling me how Scorpion works.

- IOC_100, for reminding me that spoilers exist.

- Tiles Murphy, for excellent articles on Russian AFVs in general.

- Mighty_Zuk aka zukboi for Israeli tank info. NOT known as zucc as that's someone else.

Edited by Nope
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 4
  • Confused 5
  • Upvote 7
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YESSSSSSSSSSS

Just a few things.

Should the T-80BVM be with the T-90M/T-72B3M?

Where would you place the T-80UA and T-72B2?

Where did you see the T-90 doing 40 Deg/S turret traverse?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

YESSSSSSSSSSS

Just a few things.

Should the T-80BVM be with the T-90M/T-72B3M?

Where would you place the T-80UA and T-72B2?

Where did you see the T-90 doing 40 Deg/S turret traverse?

 

I haven't read up too much about the T-80BVM, but it seems to work with the T-90M theoretically as long as 3BM-59 is an option. The T-80UA is even more difficult to find info on, but the T-72B2 I feel reserved with. I most certainly will never place it with the T-14, but it seems better than the T-72B3M. It's in between for now.

 

As for the T-90's 40 degree a second traverse speed, that's from Tiles's article on the T-72. The 2E42-4 stabilizer is first found on the T-90, though I made a mistake and it's also on the T-72B3.

 

Just now, TheFreakyKids said:

This post.
I dont know where to start


anywhere that has traces of love

Edited by Nope
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nope said:

As for the T-90's 40 degree a second traverse speed, that's from Tiles's article on the T-72. The 2E42-4 stabilizer is first found on the T-90, though I made a mistake and it's also on the T-72B3.

Wew. I thought it was 24 Deg/S. o7 mate

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Josephs_Piano said:

TL;DR

 

rha tanks are good enough against composite mbts if they have better fcs, challenger tanks are mediocre, japanese tanks are strangely good, composite tanks are like ogres and are thus like onions

  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cadianguardian said:

What about countless iterations of craming 1000hp diesel engine into Soviet T-64/72?

 

1000 hp diesels into T-64s only really happened with Ukrainian conversions, and Ukrainian tanks of that time are post-Cold War and so aren't Russian variants. The T-72s I have already included.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nope said:

 

1000 hp diesels into T-64s only really happened with Ukrainian conversions, and Ukrainian tanks of that time are post-Cold War and so aren't Russian variants. The T-72s I have already included.

I heard that there is soviet era T-64 6TDF prototype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cadianguardian said:

I heard that there is soviet era T-64 6TDF prototype.

 

Yeah, but I try to limit prototypes for Russia since they already have a massive selection of production vehicles and modernizations of said vehicles.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

Yeah, but I try to limit prototypes for Russia since they already have a massive selection of production vehicles and modernizations of said vehicles.

Yeah i think there logic in that.Because it is possible to build entire techtree out T-72 and prototypes,modifications and vehicles on it's chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nope said:

That would work well enough if the Scorpion strategy the French came up with actually works. Armor hasn't really improved much sadly, and the improved FCS only has vague details. If the French know what they're doing this could work.

 

To gives further details on this (since I don't think I have spammed it too much on this forum yet^^) the idea behind Scorpion is basically to gives the same BMS to all of our AFV (MBT, Recon, IFV and APC).

Said BMS is supposed to keep track of all friendly forces in real time and do the same for detected threats by pooling all sensors of the GTIA (Inter arms task force).

 

The BMS is then supposed to launch alerts when a threat pop-up and propose a firing solution to the most effective counter (Be it an MBT, an heli, a missile or planes) while trying to avoid having several vehicles firing at the same target.


Demo video in the spoiler:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by Alzoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

To gives further details on this (since I don't think I have spammed it too much on this forum yet^^) the idea behind Scorpion is basically to gives the same BMS to all of our AFV (MBT, Recon, IFV and APC).

Said BMS is supposed to keep track of all friendly forces in real time and do the same for detected threats by pooling all sensors of the GTIA (Inter arms task force).

 

The BMS is then supposed to launch alerts when a threat pop-up and propose a firing solution to the most effective counter (Be it an MBT, an heli, a missile or planes) while trying to avoid having several vehicles firing at the same target.


Demo video in the spoiler:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Huh, so this also includes the ability to detect laser rangefinders. This system does seem to put the French one step ahead compared to the enemy in terms of reaction speed, but more on how effective backup will be. Seems pretty cool, though backup sights not using laser rangefinders can negate the effect. Then again, not using the laser rangefinder means not having any dynamic lead nor dynamic elevation, meaning reaction speed will be garbage either way.

Edited by Nope
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not see M1 TTB tovarish... em vary sed.

 

Em. Vary. Sed. 

 

Anyway, nice post! Looking forward to Chinese and Korean tanks (both Koreas). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

Did not see M1 TTB tovarish... em vary sed.

 

Em. Vary. Sed. 

 

Anyway, nice post! Looking forward to Chinese and Korean tanks (both Koreas). 

 

The TTB is an odd one since it doesn't seem to have improvements in anything but mobility and sustained rate of fire, and no mention of subsequently improved hull armor. It's a dead end sort of deal and I only added prototypes to fill the void in places where I am not confident with the selection of tanks, not to mention pandering to the "germoni nid armur' crowd a bit.

 

As for the next tanks, don't expect China soon. Information on Chinese tanks can be quite hard to find. South Korea comes earlier because they have a genius solution to the elephant in the room that is the T-14.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nope said:

 

Huh, so this also includes the ability to detect laser rangefinders. This system does seem to put the French one step ahead compared to the enemy in terms of reaction speed, but more on how effective backup will be. Seems pretty cool, though backup sights not using laser rangefinders can negate the effect. Then again, not using the laser rangefinder means not having any dynamic lead nor dynamic elevation, meaning reaction speed will be garbage either way.

 

Normally yes it include both LWR, IR imagery on the EBRC (to detect ATGM launch and possibly later track them and use it for a future APS) and sound waves detection (which apparently is already in service on the field both on VAB and as infantry kits).

 

As for the number of kits that will be bought, that's always the question.

Though I guess that those kind of sound sensor are rather cheap, the fancy part being the software.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Also the 120mm on the AMX 40 and the AMX 32 isn't the CN 120 26 (only mounted on the Leclerc) it's the CN 120 25.

It's basically the same gun but the 25 is limited to 3600 bar while some provision (how much is unknown) were taken for the CN 120 26 so that the Leclerc could fire more powerful rounds in the future.

 

As for the COTAC FCS (found from the AMX 30B2 all the way to the AMX 40) afaik it did authorized dynamic lead:

 

Spoiler

324.jpg

 

This page is about the AMX 32 but the first paragraph talk about the COTAC in general:

 

Measuring the distance with a laser range finder and the moving speed thanks to a sensor on the turret ring, the COTAC FCS calculated the angles and commanded the displacement of the aiming reticle and the main gun at the same time. This mean that contrary to previous generations of FCS the repointing phase was deleted which gave a much appreciated gain in time. Moreover, by taking in account pressure parameters, winds, slope and cant the FCS allowed an excellent first hit probability even on moving target up to 3000 m.

 

As for how the gun was stabilized (as far as I understand it) on the on the AMX 32 and 40, the COTAC FCS measured the angular difference (both in elevation and azimuth) between the main gun and the M257 panoramic stabilized commander sight and slaved both the gun and the turret to it.

 

That mean however that to do that the commander has to aim at the target and override the gunner controls and that while feeding angular difference to the gun the FCS probably couldn't do more complicated things like taking in account elevation for long range shot. That mean that this feature could only be used when the trajectory of the round was going to be flat (i.e battle sight which IRC is 800m in the French army).

Edited by Alzoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

Also the 120mm on the AMX 40 and the AMX 32 isn't the CN 120 26 (only mounted on the Leclerc) it's the CN 120 25.

It's basically the same gun but the 25 is limited to 3600 bar while some provision (how much is unknown) were taken for the CN 120 26 so that the Leclerc could fire more powerful rounds in the future.

 

As for the COTAC FCS (found from the AMX 30B2 all the way to the AMX 40) afaik it did authorized dynamic lead:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

324.jpg

 

This page is about the AMX 32 but the first paragraph talk about the COTAC in general:

 

Measuring the distance with a laser range finder and the moving speed thanks to a sensor on the turret ring, the COTAC FCS calculated the angles and commanded the displacement of the aiming reticle and the main gun at the same time. This mean that contrary to previous generations of FCS the repointing phase was deleted which gave a much appreciated gain in time. Moreover, by taking in account pressure parameters, winds, slope and cant the FCS allowed an excellent first hit probability even on moving target up to 3000 m.

 

As for how the gun was stabilized (as far as I understand it) on the on the AMX 32 and 40, the COTAC FCS measured the angular difference (both in elevation and azimuth) between the main gun and the M257 panoramic stabilized commander sight and slaved both the gun and the turret to it.

 

That mean however that to do that the commander has to aim at the target and override the gunner controls and that while feeding angular difference to the gun the FCS probably couldn't do more complicated things like taking in account elevation for long range shot. That mean that this feature could only be used when the trajectory of the round was going to be flat (i.e battle sight which IRC is 800m in the French army).

 

The correction to the type of 120mm smoothbore is appreciated even if it's just a prerequisite for superior ammo. The COTAC part doesn't exactly change too much in the case of the typical scenario of long range European combat, as combat there takes place well above 1 km when the T-80 and T-64B show up. The gunner still is forced to use the FCS in the same way as on the T-72B more or less except that relocation speed is faster, which can't exactly justify placing the AMX-30B2 any higher while using OFL 105 F1. I wouldn't consider the tank to have dynamic lead if the gun doesn't adjust itself. It's mostly just displaying the required mils and the gunner can just aim accordingly. Eh, at least I mentioned the high stationary accuracy one can get with COTAC, hence the sniper comment.

 

For the stabilization though, I never knew that the limited capability might refer to the inability to use some of COTAC's other functions as long as the gun is slaved to the commander sight. That would be strangely not that bad since <1 km is referred to as point blank in some cases.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nope said:

For the stabilization though, I never knew that the limited capability might refer to the inability to use some of COTAC's other functions as long as the gun is slaved to the commander sight. That would be strangely not that bad since <1 km is referred to as point blank in some cases.

 

that's mostly inference on my part and I should have been more clear about it.

 

The author say that the turret can be slaved to the sight and that it allow to use the various ammunition to their "combat range" (which IRC is 800m but an actual tanker could confirm/infirm that)

 

Now what I understand from that is basically the commander force the gun to rally on his (stabilized) aim point in real time (like constantly clicking when in the commander view in WT) and the most logical way to do it would be to use the commander override.

The fact that he say that it can only be used at point blank range make me think of two possibles reasons for that:

 

  1. The system was rather slow and didn't authorized a very good stabilization (denying any long range shot)
  2. The fact that potentially the commander would be using his override non stop would mean that he doesn't have the time to do anything else (like if he let the override go away to laze, the gun would be back doing whatever it want and there wouldn't be any point to the stabilization) hence the system didn't authorized to do two thing at the same time and was limited to flat trajectory (battle range).

 

Edited by Alzoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

 

that's mostly inference on my part and I should have been more clear about it.

 

The author say that the turret can be slaved to the sight and that it allow to use the various ammunition to their "combat range" (which IRC is 800m but an actual tanker could confirm/infirm that)

 

Now what I understand from that is basically the commander force the gun to rally on his (stabilized) aim point in real time and the most logical way to do it would be to use the commander override.

The fact that they say that it can only be used at point blank range make me think of two reasons for that:

 

  1. The system was rather slow and didn't authorized a very good stabilization (denying any long range shot)
  2. The fact that potentially the commander would be using his override non stop would mean that he doesn't have the time to do anything else (like if he let the override go away to laze the gun would be back doing whatever it want) hence the system didn't authorized to do two thing at the same time and was limited to flat trajectory.

 

 

Ah, so it's a lack of refinement and not accidentally making the commander the gunner.

  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

Ah, so it's a lack of refinement and not accidentally making the commander the gunner.

 

I think so, but that's where the sources I have lack details.

Edited by Alzoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nope said:

It also comes with Shtora-1 for confusing ATGMs,

Doesn't the original T-90 have that too?

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome read, tough I did spot what can only be described as a completely unacceptable typo:

 

'' The most notable upgrade the 2A5 has is armor, specifically the turret. By slapping on a massive 700mm LoS wedge on the turret cheeks, the turret's armor protection raises considerably, making the 2A4  that much better when hulldown. ''

 

 

Also, I believe the Leopard 2A0-A3 series offered rather limited protection? it's often stated that these tanks were indeed not designed with substantial composite modules from the get go, heavily implying that they're utilizing some rather basic forms of steel layering/construction untill the Leo 2A4 came about.

Edited by Necrons31467
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WulfPack said:

Doesn't the original T-90 have that too?

 

 

That it does.

 

1 hour ago, Necrons31467 said:

Awesome read, tough I did spot what can only be described as a completely unacceptable typo:

 

'' The most notable upgrade the 2A5 has is armor, specifically the turret. By slapping on a massive 700mm LoS wedge on the turret cheeks, the turret's armor protection raises considerably, making the 2A4  that much better when hulldown. ''

 

 

Also, I believe the Leopard 2A0-A3 series offered rather limited protection? it's often stated that these tanks were indeed not designed with substantial composite modules from the get go, heavily implying that they're utilizing some rather basic forms of steel layering/construction.

 

Man I gotta proofread sometime. As for the 2A0-2A3s, the armor protection is better than people claim. Sure, maybe BRL-1 is better, but it's not that big of a gap honestly, except maybe in SC protection even if I was told it was a myth. Or maybe that was about the Leclerc.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...