Yeah, naw i would say those are probably rpg hits not atgms blast is still much too small and still not enough blast residue even if era did its job. If ukraine has taught us anything. Its that russian era isnt even gonna stop a bradleys auto-cannon. Yes im referring the video where two Bradleys take on, and kill a supposed t90m.
Your gonna use Chechnya? Bro… their was no russian success, if you think their tanks did even relatively well with the outdated equipment and tactics then you need a history lesson
There were great technological advancements due to Chechnya. Why wouldn’t I use it? It was the first time late '80s vehicles were combat tested and to a great extent.
They were by no means outdated, either. But this discussion has nothing to do with tactics.
this is a 3D render lol
The battle of Grozny was the primary example of ERA effectiveness on vehicles, and had the most documentation. Unlike Afghanistan, Chechnya was the first war where ERA was widely used, and has documentation of success against some weapons.
Actually pretty much everything you have stated are “trust me bro” sources i.e. you claimed the two tanks you showed were hit by tandem ATGMs i.e.:
Without any proof that this was the case, i.e. where is your proof that these were tandem ATGM hits? They could be Stugna hits but, if they were these pictures don’t showcase what hit them, that said they obviously aren’t Javelin hits because from everything I have seen T-series tanks don’t do well with Javelins:
Likewise you claimed the tank picture from the battle of Grozny was apparently hit by some type of shaped charge, where is your proof of this? Also if those tanks are fine why were they obviously left behind?
That’s the exact same with almost every other tank in the world.
Almost, except the M1s and Leopards though right… This was why the M1s had blowout panels and also why the Germans finally gave their Leopards blowout panels (much later on), also apparently even the Challenger 3 will have blowout panels.
Also the problem with the T-series tanks isn’t that they have autoloaders, it is the fact Russia refuses to change where the ammo carousel is located i.e. even the CATTB and Abrams X showcased how it can be done with an autoloader.
This is why I find it hilarious that Russia gave the T-90M blowout panels without then changing where the ammo carousel was located…
4 Likes
HAP = Heavy Armour Package, it was the introduction of DU into the armour, whether the layout is different is irrelevant as to why we call it HAP, this was why the Army called the M1A1s with DU M1A1 HAs (Heavy Armour), also the AIM and SA do have HAP.
The SEPv3 uses Next Evolution Armor (NEA) / Next Generation Armour packages (NGAP) which most likely refers to the fact the armour incorporates next generation armour ceramics, maybe UHMWPE and new steels or something, regardless whatever they used apparently reduced the M1A2’s base weight by quite a bit.
2 Likes
Neither the Stugna nor the Javelin is in use in Syria, so…
The Leopard had blowout panels to begin with, and as well as the Abrams, it keeps ammunition in the hull. You can also argue about the Merkava’s laughable amount of ammunition in blowout panels, yet it still keeps almost 3/4 of its ammunition in the fighting compartment.
Where else would you put a cassette styled autoloader? It’s already been shown on the BMP-3 and the Object 148 development that compartmentalized crew compartments can be designed while keeping the autoloader, still holding the advantage of a turret that’s entirely clean of ammunition.
It makes no difference. In the case of the T-90M, compared to a Leopard 2A6, the T-90M keeps 10 rounds in the bustle while the Leopard keeps 15 in the bustle.
The hull? The T-90M holds 30 rounds, while the Leopard holds 27.
What difference is there?
How does this
Differ from this?
Yes, I understand. And no, the SEPv3 does not use HAP. It uses NGAP, which is an entirely different, VERY recent, classified armor pattern.
Whether or not the layout is different matters entirely, as HAP is defined by its iterations and layouts. HAP was introduced on M1A1HAs, and this was the only model to use the baseline HAP-1. Everything past the M1A1HC and M1A2 did not use HAP-1, but instead HAP-2 and beyond.
DU was not introduced with HAP armor, but the original BRL pattern armor on the legacy Abrams. Being developed from Burlington pattern armor (and, as pointed out by MiG-23, has a double meaning between the facility it was born from and its root armor name), it used DU materials.
The M1A1 AIM found in game would be one that consists of EAP-2 composites, not HAP. Yes, there were 200 or so M1A1 AIMs in American inventory, but these are not in game, so I see them as irrelevant to the topic of in-game armor and history of its armor.
Thanks for reiterating exactly what I stated.
Ah yes because I can look at each picture and know exactly where it is located… I only knew of the Grozny picture because I recognised that photo.
Regardless you still claimed “6kg tandem warheads, mind you.”, so what were they then?
The Leopard had blowout panels to begin with
Sorry I didn’t explain what I meant, the M1s also have what they call hull stowage (can hold 8 rounds), it however has blowout panels (however how well they work we don’t know), that said I have heard the M1 crew hardly ever use it, MiG-23M would know more about that, regardless for whatever reason I thought the Leos changed their hull ammo situation. The challenger 3 however seems to finally be getting blowout panels in general.
Where else would you put a cassette styled autoloader? It’s already been shown on the BMP-3 and the Object 148 development that compartmentalized crew compartments can be designed while keeping the autoloader, still holding the advantage of a turret that’s entirely clean of ammunition.
Oh I dunno maybe try something new:
This of course is a design concept, but we do know the Abrams X likewise uses an autoloader that loads ammo in a similar manner. Also we have no clue if the T-14s new design will even work in protecting the crew, because it hasn’t seen combat, it could, and if it does well this just proves my point no?
It makes no difference. In the case of the T-90M, compared to a Leopard 2A6, the T-90M keeps 10 rounds in the bustle while the Leopard keeps 15 in the bustle.
The hull? The T-90M holds 30 rounds, while the Leopard holds 27.
And the Leopard having all that ammo in the hull is dumb as shit isn’t it, thanks for proving my point.
Also just so people know that wasn’t a 2A6 it was a Turkish Leopard 2A4TR that was supposedly hit by a 9M113.
2 Likes
You’re attempting to butt into conversations that you have no part in, and now you’re whining when I didn’t magically know to give you specifically all the pretext in the world?
TOWS? Do you really not know what ATGMs are being used in Syria? Do you want me to list it out for you, your highness?
Such as what? What design change could you possibly propose that could do away with the AZ/MZ autoloader and its faculties, and instead favor another form of benign autoloader?
Secondly, does it keep the turret free from ammunition, like the current cassette autoloader does?
No? Your entire point is that the autoloader design itself should be done away with. If the T-14 has any operational success in this development, it would favor my side entirely.
You didn’t have a point about this? You barely seem to remember the ammunition placement and accommodations on the Leopard, let alone understand the hull rack of the Abrams.
I couldn’t give less of a shit about which variant it was. Both the Leopard 2A6 and 2A4 use the same exact hull ammunition placement. No ammunition that either the 2A6 and 2A4 can fire have any fire retardant capabilities as DM73 does, and they’ll both blow up the same when confronted with any ATGM. Let alone a Konkurs as shown in the video.
DU was not introduced with HAP armor, but the original BRL pattern armor on the legacy Abrams. Being developed from Burlington pattern armor (and, as pointed out by MiG-23, has a double meaning between the facility it was born from and its root armor name), it used DU materials.
woah there mate, now you are truly showing your “trust me bro” crap. HAP specifically refers to the M1s getting DU armour i.e. BRL never used DU:
This is also why in hearing about this M1s they also sometimes refer to it as the M1A1(dU):
Being developed from Burlington pattern armor (and, as pointed out by MiG-23, has a double meaning between the facility it was born from and its root armor name), it used DU materials.strong text
Also no that isn’t what MiG-23M said that is what you are stating, however I take it you have been reading wiki articles on this? BRL does not have a double meaning, BRL created the M1s armour based off of the info given to them by the British however it was not the same i.e. it isn’t Burlington, calling it Burlington would be like saying Dorchester == Burlington. BRL specifically refers to Ballistic Research Laboratory.
The M1A1 AIM found in game would be one that consists of EAP-2 composites, not HAP. Yes, there were 200 or so M1A1 AIMs in American inventory, but these are not in game, so I see them as irrelevant to the topic of in-game armor and history of its armor.
That isn’t what you stated, you stated:
Misidentify what? The SEPv3 does not use any pattern of HAP, nor does the AIM or SA.
M1A1 AIMs used EAP, while the M1A1SA uses either HAP-2/3 or EAP.
SEPv3 uses NGAP.
The in game M1A1 “AIM”, isn’t an original AIM it is an Australian AIMv2/SA and it doesn’t use the Improved FMS armour (2nd gen non-DU) it uses the Advanced FMS armour (3rd gen non-DU), thus you are wrong on every point. The initial AIM’s have HAP-2, the AIMv2/SA uses HAP-3, the FMS tanks then use a comparable FMS armour package.
Lastly, unlike the US M1 armour, the export armour is actually referred to by names and it is called the FMS armour by the US government:
Likewise the FMS armour does actually seem to have names for their variants i.e. FMS non-DU, Improved Special armour (non-DU) / Improved FMS, Advanced non-DU armour:
5 Likes
I read your comments, literally no where did you state it was in Syria, which is likewise why someone then asked you for sources on those pictures.
TOWS? Do you really not know what ATGMs are being used in Syria? Do you want me to list it out for you, your highness?
You do realise there are multiple TOW variants right? And yes I do, please give me proof that this was a TOW-2A hit.
No? Your entire point is that the autoloader design itself should be done away with. If the T-14 has any operational success in this development, it would favor my side entirely.
Have you ever heard of that little ol French tank called the Leclerc? Go check where there ammo is located (has blowout panels) and how their autoloader works, the CATTB and Abrams X have a similar system whist keeping blowout panels, Russia’s autoloading system isn’t the only one that exists mate.
Edit: Also yes, Russia proved my point with the T-14 i.e. if they didn’t believe that tanks being destroyed by their ammo going off was an issue why does it seem like they are attempting to fix this issue by compartmentalising the ammo in the T-14, why not just have it like how all the other T-series tanks have it?
1 Like
No need to argue with him, he is the same type of this guy, his tanks and his allied tanks has no drawbacks, accept it.
Spoiler
1 Like
If you look at tanks such way all current tanks are old and outdated.
1 Like
No need to argue with him, he is the same type of this guy, his tanks and his allied tanks has no drawbacks, accept it.
The M1s drawbacks are that it has become far too heavy (hence the M1E3), also prior to the SEPv3 the LFP may not have been enough but that is honestly less of an issue IRL as tank on tank encounters are quite rare which is the same for the turret ring, likewise TUSK I + II may not to protect the tank from tandem warheads (unknown though), this however was likely fixed with SEPv2/v3s receiving APS.
That said MIG-23M can correct me here on things I have missed or am wrong about.
I know more about the M1s then the following but here are some issues:
Leo 2 - has ammo in the hull i.e. these tanks are relying far too much on their frontal protection here, it also is getting on the heavier side nowadays.
Leclerc - The armour is overall unknown (afaik for later variants) but from trials was stated to be worse then the M1A2 and Leo 2, thus the protection is most likely not enough.
Challenger 2 - Doesn’t have blowout panels and was way too heavy, even the challenger 3 is worrisome if it is indeed 66 tonnes.
I accept the western tanks drawbacks.
T-series tanks - Rely far too much on ERA that already has quite a few counters to it, stores ammo in the hull that as has been shown is easily hit and when it is hit does not bode well for the crew.
Negative for all tanks - IEDs, artillery, top down munitions, drones.
Tell me where I am wrong?
2 Likes
- In the mindset of Soviet/Russian, ERA usage is like Leo 2 add-on NERA and it still has headroom for near future, instead of replace the whole NERA, they can just slap ERA on it
The countries who bought the tanks know what they need with their current situation: - In the pass, K1 is good enough for non tanderm HEAT, then K5 get in and get countered, now RELIKT/K5 with 2S24, still good.
- The trend now to add more ERA to counter drone/FPV with cages since the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, guess what, K1 now better since it can slapped into the roof and anywhere, does NATO/USA has some real combat method for that ?. And since the roof of those tanks even thinner then T-series, 40mm greanade anti-armored can easily pen it then T-series, not even talking about the heavy equpiment on the roof.
- A decesion for that autoloader is just like why the US can easily used autoloader on the turret like Lerclerc with 34 rounds and no draw back since 2000 but they don’t want to.
We also know what is good or bad about T-90M/80BVM/72B3, we wish T-90M can have 2A82, can have better reversed gears but no, the defence minister just don’t want to, even funnier, formered Russian Defence Minister once wanted to buy Leo 2 because back then all the big 3 of Russian tanks labs just suck with their own ego.
1 Like
I’m not sold on this. Just because people used to clame that it could stop javelins and we’ve seen that that was false, with all of the cope cages on the t series tanks that still does not stop javelins.
I think RELIKT/K5 proformance is over exaggerated.
1 Like
- No, the main purposes of the cages is again FPV/Drone, mainly drone drop grenades. Russian Defence Minister has not confirmed cages is to protect again Javelin.
- In any case, Javelin will punch through K5.
- When the first batch of T-72B3 got cages, we also confused, some “expert” from several mil forums in my country not even know what the heck was that, some of them even called it “tiger cages” as a meme. They might uses cages right after the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict / Syria combat experienced.
Spoiler
First image is from Jan 2022, second is the way we joke about the cage since it just share the same concept back then.
- The cages might got order for mass production but not fully designed, maybe they just ask for it then improved it from time to time, now more evidence show that cages is good, truly a sign of cope.
1 Like
Guess whos ERA underperforms cough everyone else
Well ERA and NERA sandwich but gajin doesn’t think that exists
1 Like