Arjun Mk1A
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2022
- Messages
- 3,114
- Likes
- 17,071
![India Country flag](https://defenceforumindia.com/misc/flags/shiny/32/India.png)
Somehow so called Tin 90 aka T 90 is still fighting. On the other hand western tanks are destroyed left right centre.
wrongest hot take possible.Somehow so called Tin 90 aka T 90 is still fighting. On the other hand western tanks are destroyed left right centre.
And? I am not denying they were destroyed. What matters here is crew survivability - crew is far more difficult to replace than a tank.I am not hearing any news of these leopard 2s getting recovered if you sayng not all got blown up lol, dont seem to be serviceable either to move forward.
Stop lying. I never said that T-72 armor is weak. What I said is this:This is basically our conversation, you: the T-72 side armor is weak. Me: actually the side armor on the T-72 variations have better armour than the T-72M. You: lol, all side armors on tanks are weak........ T-72 urals had composite armour the T-72Ms lacked this for their light weight T-72As and T-72Bs along with later variations have been upgrading the side skirts the front and back of the tanks for more ERA protection and had composite armour. I can literally see the protection cases for these tanks but what I cant figure out is how good the variations of soviet block countries have in regards to their armor for their T-72s other than them giving them different names. 1st of all what wars are you even referencing your experiences from? I definetly know its not the ukrainian war because they are too busy bitching about the maintenance of leopards lol
Thin side armor behind the road wheels. It is a matter of fact that this armor is thin, not because it is M-84 but because it is behind the wheels. M1 Abrams also has thin side armor behind the wheels. Difference is that M1 does not have 22 rounds of ammunition right behind said thin armor.Yugoslav M-84s, which are far from the worst T-72 variants even today, showed themselves vulnerable even in 1990s. Specifically, carousel autoloader meant that they were particularly vulnerable to antitank mines (which hit from below) and flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels. These flaws are common to all T-72 family tanks, monkey models or not.
T-90 also does not have countermeasures to either 8 km ATGMs or drones, suicide or not. T-90s have already been destroyed by 500 USD hobby drones. And the reason is simple. Majority of hardkill APS only protect +-45 degrees in elevation - in other words, sides of the tank. Top of the tank, which is precisely the area that is attacked by drones and top-attack ATGMs, is completely unprotected.So just to be sure, I take it that you are completely ignoring my questions of does the Leopard 2 have a hardkill APS, what can it do to deal with 7km ATGMs and how it can deal with suicide drones is it lacks countermeasures for these threats therefore inferior to T-90s because of it? there are 132 T-14s and production of it based on the experiecnes of the operation zones will put it back in production for the 1st quarter of 2024 after the engines and new electronics will get replaced(from the looks of it 20km high resolution optics and GaN AESA radar from what I got on the ruselectronics.ru news from this august and september). I am not shitting on the Germans for not makiig a next generation tank but if they are giving the best leopard 2s to Ukraine than they should give a fuck about how to protect those ukrainians from suicide drone attacks, ATGMs, etc. the latest T-90s get these new sabot rounds that are skinnier versions of Vacuum-1 rounds, T-14 armour and atleast optical sights that are comparable to most 2nd gen optics of other western tanks but key difference is it has ATGMs that support the max range of their optics and got a hardkill and softkill APS.
What are you even trying to prove here? Some T-72s are intact, some are destroyed, etc. There are even turrets that come off the Leopard 2s.And? I am not denying they were destroyed. What matters here is crew survivability - crew is far more difficult to replace than a tank.
And even when it comes to tank itself, so long as the basic structure of the tank is intact - and in these images of Leopards you are showing, it is - the tank can still be recovered and repaired.
Compare that to this:
![]()
How did you go from weak thin side to ohhhh all side thin armour on tanks is weak than right here you are backtracking back to the armour of the T-72 after I told you that other T-72s variants have reinforced side armour?Stop lying. I never said that T-72 armor is weak. What I said is this:
Thin side armor behind the road wheels. It is a matter of fact that this armor is thin, not because it is M-84 but because it is behind the wheels. M1 Abrams also has thin side armor behind the wheels. Difference is that M1 does not have 22 rounds of ammunition right behind said thin armor.
Capisci?
There is no point in us having a discussion if you are going to not even read what I'm writing.
good ol piccard deflecting by just talking more about the T-90 and not about what features that the leopard 2 has that supposedly makes it better lol. I already showcased the T-90M having EW systems being tested on the tank, have not seen any 500 dollar drones you speak of just a few T-90s destroyed and one captured intact if you are talking about the switchblade drones i dont even think they have any confirmed hits on russian armoured vehicles because of their small range and dropping frag grenades doesnt really do the trick. Leopard 2s dont have 8km ATGMs to outsnipe the T-90s and the Arena-M offers top attack protection.T-90 also does not have countermeasures to either 8 km ATGMs or drones, suicide or not. T-90s have already been destroyed by 500 USD hobby drones. And the reason is simple. Majority of hardkill APS only protect +-45 degrees in elevation - in other words, sides of the tank. Top of the tank, which is precisely the area that is attacked by drones and top-attack ATGMs, is completely unprotected.
being tested with the T-90s outside of Ukraine's border, I am pretty sure you saw my post here awhile ago of the new EW systems being tested on both tanks not too long ago.If there are 132 T-14s, where are they? We have seen none of them in the combat zone, instead T-55s are being refurbished from scrapyards. So for both T-90 and war in Ukraine, T-14 is irrelevant.
PRECISELY. It wasn't caused by ammo detonation, meaning that crew survived.What are you even trying to prove here? Some T-72s are intact, some are destroyed, etc. There are even turrets that come off the Leopard 2s.
View attachment 224117
This leopard 2 turret was not hit by an ATGM, RPG or a drone it literally came off by bumping into another tank lol. Even if you want to go make a case or arguement with backed up proof which I have yet to see that there are more leopards intact than T-72s not one of those leopard tanks intact were able to be recovered because no news of it exists. There was twitter media showing a Ukrainian armoured vehicles trying to tow back a leopard, but it got hit by a drone. This war just only advertises to buy more T-72s because not only do they get destroyed like leopards they have less maintenance and cost less to purchase than leopards that would give you the same battlefield results of a failed offensive.
I am not backtracking, you just have no clue what I am talking about - or what you are talking about, for that matter.How did you go from weak thin side to ohhhh all side thin armour on tanks is weak than right here you are backtracking back to the armour of the T-72 after I told you that other T-72s variants have reinforced side armour?
this pretty much where the ammunition of the T-90 is atleast stored and it doesnt seem to be placed by thin armor on the side but rather in the center of the tank.
View attachment 224118
OK, literally everything you wrote here is bullshit:good ol piccard deflecting by just talking more about the T-90 and not about what features that the leopard 2 has that supposedly makes it better lol. I already showcased the T-90M having EW systems being tested on the tank, have not seen any 500 dollar drones you speak of just a few T-90s destroyed and one captured intact if you are talking about the switchblade drones i dont even think they have any confirmed hits on russian armoured vehicles because of their small range and dropping frag grenades doesnt really do the trick. Leopard 2s dont have 8km ATGMs to outsnipe the T-90s and the Arena-M offers top attack protection.
View attachment 224119
being tested with the T-90s outside of Ukraine's border, I am pretty sure you saw my post here awhile ago of the new EW systems being tested on both tanks not too long ago.
dead men tell no tales, leopard, T-72 crews have survived and some havent. Although I dont think anything is more humiliating than having your turret come off from hitting another tank compared to the effort of needing to use explosives.PRECISELY. It wasn't caused by ammo detonation, meaning that crew survived.
I dont see anything thin other than your own imagination from the photos i got of the T-90 ammunitition placement. saying that the sides and hull is weak makes no sense since I have stated the armour of where you claim the T-72 was weak kept getting re-enforced on later variations of the T-72s You already made it blatently clear that you think armour protection for the T-72 variations dont matter regardless of what side of the tank is re-enforcedI am not backtracking, you just have no clue what I am talking about - or what you are talking about, for that matter.
To sum it up: hull behind road wheels is thin on all tanks. But only tanks with carousel autoloader place majority of ammunition right behind said thin hull.
Capisci?
Also, what you have shown here is backup ammo stored in the turret bustle. Yes, having a reserve ammunition in turret bustle instead of all over the tank is a massive improvement, no argument about that. But autoloader remained unchanged, meaning that the ready-to-fire ammunition is still positioned right behind the thin lower hull side armor:
1) you can cope with this all you want on what the leopard lacks but I am not seeing any EW systems being tested on leopards no matter what excuses you make.OK, literally everything you wrote here is bullshit:
1) EW systems being tested = not in operation
2) I'm talking about FPV drones. Here.
3) Leopard 2 can fire LAHAT ATGM, which has range of up to 8 000 meters in newest variants (previously 6 000 meters). Whether either tank is using ATGMs in Ukraine is not clear.
4) Your image literally shows that Arena offers side protection only.
Dead men tell no tales, and T-72 crews are far more likely to die.dead men tell no tales, leopard, T-72 crews have survived and some havent. Although I dont think anything is more humiliating than having your turret come off from hitting another tank compared to the effort of needing to use explosives.
You have no clue what I am talking about, or what you are talking about, or anything really. From the beginning, I was talking about sides of the hull behind road wheels. You cannot reinforce that, because that is where suspension is. Doesn't matter if it is T-72, T-80, T-90, M1, Leopard 2... thickness there is some 20 mm RHA, for structural reasons. I think Leopard 2 may be up to 40 - 45 mm, but you can't really go thicker than that.I dont see anything thin other than your own imagination from the photos i got of the T-90 ammunitition placement. saying that the sides and hull is weak makes no sense since I have stated the armour of where you claim the T-72 was weak kept getting re-enforced on later variations of the T-72s You already made it blatently clear that you think armour protection for the T-72 variations dont matter regardless of what side of the tank is re-enforced
if the green section is the ammunition storage than I dont see the problem with it since a great deal of penetration is needed which would kill the crew before the ammunition detonates, but of course I am talking to someone that thinks armour was not added to the sides over and over again.
1) And? You are acting as if simply EW system somehow makes all the other flaws irrelevant. Also, I see no evidence of EW systems being used on Russian tanks, so...1) you can cope with this all you want on what the leopard lacks but I am not seeing any EW systems being tested on leopards no matter what excuses you make.
2)Croatian to english translation must suck I said it doesnt matter which drone it is from kamikaze to ones dropping grenades.
3) no idea what the max range of the new ATGM is but they have showcased the optics hitting a target 7kms away and we know the refleks was limited at 5kms. bringing up israeli atgms for german tanks, 2 can play at that game such as a chinese 10km AFT-10 on a T-90. of course the Sprinter ATGM will have a far longer range. Kornet-EMs equipped on any armoured russian vehicle will have a 10km range or the option of using helicopters you get 16km ranges, I know hellfires are limited to 8kms. Lahat was developed in the 1990s and the refleks was in the 1980s with sligtly deeper penetration capabilities. The armata seems it will get the optics that would support their long ranges (2276) [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 11 (russiadefence.net)
4) still nothing about a hardkill APS unless you are going to make a case that leopards can use trophy? the arena system display also shows you were wrong about the 45 degree angle thing based on this conversation, it would make sense that you might be referring to an old APS system since your brain is still stuck in the past when you talked about some war with serbs and iraq. got more photos but here it states 360 degree protection Русские танки получили систему защиты «Арена-М»: что это такое (tsargrad.tv) afghanit offers the same but makes claims of using 105mm rockets to deal with sabot rounds as well
I tried to be polite and assume you had some clue about what you are talking about, because drones have been destroying tanks in this war already... but, it turns out, you don't.have not seen any 500 dollar drones you speak of just a few T-90s destroyed and one captured intact if you are talking about the switchblade drones i dont even think they have any confirmed hits on russian armoured vehicles because of their small range and dropping frag grenades doesnt really do the trick
20 degrees coverage in altitude.In a nutshell, special ammunition is fired towards the Arena-M anti-tank missile and does so automatically, providing protection at 360 degrees and from -6 to 20 degrees in altitude.
guess someone needs to pay attention more to war because there are alot of reports of leopards getting hit and destroyed than I do see T-72s. check Tams posts https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/the-war-in-the-ukraine.8948/page-1857 I think the leopard 2s Sweden provided to Ukraine are all gone now. But of course the difference for this war is T-72s you lose 500,000 to 1.2 million dollars leopards you lose 13-15 million dollars. Nothing magical happened with the leopards or T-72s they had in their possession.Dead men tell no tales, and T-72 crews are far more likely to die.
you literally said sides the entire time from our last conversation which i repeatedly stated got re-enforced and than state this is the matter all tanks that suffer from it. I wasted my entire time with you because you cant clarify what you say.You have no clue what I am talking about, or what you are talking about, or anything really. From the beginning, I was talking about sides of the hull behind road wheels. You cannot reinforce that, because that is where suspension is. Doesn't matter if it is T-72, T-80, T-90, M1, Leopard 2... thickness there is some 20 mm RHA, for structural reasons. I think Leopard 2 may be up to 40 - 45 mm, but you can't really go thicker than that.
yes I know, you based your experiences from the war with serbs and iraqis and treat all T-models the same way even if I was to repeatedly tell you 100 times that the T-72M is the weakest tank lacking composite armour and that T-72As and Bs re-enforced their sideskirts it will just be straight up ignored by you.Best you can do to protect it is place armor on side skirts, but that is not something I am seeing done in Russian T-variants.
its literally in the center of the tank to get to the center you have to go pretty deep, this is why Croatians don't have people like Tesla.Great deal of penetration? Look at the image and turn on the brain, please. Tank can literally be destroyed by a 20 mm autocannon.
1)lets not play i am the mentally handicapped card when the images have showcased the EW systems and no one is doing the same shit for leopards. https://dzen.ru/a/ZPcuvPk0tTWATHfM if1) And? You are acting as if simply EW system somehow makes all the other flaws irrelevant. Also, I see no evidence of EW systems being used on Russian tanks, so...
2)no you talk like a gypsy you state 500 dollar drones but that can be anything, and i am assuming you have no idea what you are talking about which is why i offered both options for you to clarify back to me which drone you are talking about(no offense). We had this same problem about you talking about sides of tanks being weak than laughing it off that it was all tanks its things like this that make we wonder if you have a social life.2) Your eyesight must suck. This is what you said:
I tried to be polite and assume you had some clue about what you are talking about, because drones have been destroying tanks in this war already... but, it turns out, you don't.
Who gives a shit they can order from China if they want if they believe their ATGMs range is not far enough. Chinese have copied the 2A46 cannons from russia so what kind of special requirements you ask in which it can be fired from russians using the same kind of cannons?. The range tested on the T-90 showed 7km which is by far not a refleks model so I cant really determine what the max range of that new ATGM is but i would like to see footage of a LAHAT from a leopard and see how far it hits or if such footage exists.3) As far as I am aware, Russia is not using AFT-10, it is Chinese-only. Russian ATGM has shorter range and far lower hit probability than LAHAT. Germany meanwhile is fielding LAHAT.
Projectile APS systems being used sound like they can kill nearby infantry. The elevation really doesnt matter if it works against top attack like spikes or javelins as advertised at a considerable distance from 20 to 50 meters of engagement but I am assuming the Trophy has shorter range of engagement which requires the higher elevation which is why the Russians made the RPG-30 to fire a dummy rocket followed by a dangerous rocket behind it so no idea if leopard 2s have trench coat systems to get protected by these RPGs.4) Leopard 2 can use Trophy, yes. It recently entered service with Norwegian Leopard 2s. Meanwhile, for all the bluster about Russian APS, I have seen no evidence of it being used in Ukraine. So either it is too expensive, doesn't work as advertised, or doesn't work at all.
And yes, I was wrong about Arena having 45 degree coverage. It is 65° instead at most - some sources give it a far lower number. Big difference, there. </sarcasm> 45 or 65 degrees, fact still remains that top-attack ATGMs such as Spike or Javelin will simply fly outside the APS coverage, making it wholly irrelevant.
Also, try thinking about the stuff you are posting for a change. This is what translation of your link says:
20 degrees coverage in altitude.![]()
Русские танки получили систему защиты «Арена-М»: что это такое
Комплекс, придуманный специалистами из Коломны, задаст жару ПТУРам.mo.tsargrad.tv
Link claims that it allows tank to intercept Javelin, but... even if we assume that it is +65 degrees in altitude instead of +20 degrees that your link states, Spike has impact angle of 70 degrees and Javelin of 80 degrees. Arena cannot intercept either unless it does so immediately upon the missile leaving the launcher.
"360 degrees" is horizontal protection: in other words, it protects from the front, sides and the rear. Your interpretation of it meaning that Arena provides spherical protection is entirely false. It is a donut, not a sphere.
Somebody has no clue how media works.guess someone needs to pay attention more to war because there are alot of reports of leopards getting hit and destroyed than I do see T-72s. check Tams posts https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/the-war-in-the-ukraine.8948/page-1857 I think the leopard 2s Sweden provided to Ukraine are all gone now. But of course the difference for this war is T-72s you lose 500,000 to 1.2 million dollars leopards you lose 13-15 million dollars. Nothing magical happened with the leopards or T-72s they had in their possession.
Not only you are a liar, but quite shitty one as well. Either that, or you cannot read.you literally said sides the entire time from our last conversation which i repeatedly stated got re-enforced and than state this is the matter all tanks that suffer from it. I wasted my entire time with you because you cant clarify what you say.
And I have already pointed out that M-84 is improved variant of T-72M. Even base M-84 was far ahead of T-72M in terms of fire control - it had meteorological sensors and ability to track and engage moving targets - though both tanks had homogenous steel armor. M-84 does have composite glacis plate, though; not sure about T-72. Compared to T-72M, M-84 also has stronger engine, new radio equipment and new NBC detector.yes I know, you based your experiences from the war with serbs and iraqis and treat all T-models the same way even if I was to repeatedly tell you 100 times that the T-72M is the weakest tank lacking composite armour and that T-72As and Bs re-enforced their sideskirts it will just be straight up ignored by you.
I don't know if you are going for a dumbass or a clown here, but please, stop.its literally in the center of the tank to get to the center you have to go pretty deep, this is why Croatians don't have people like Tesla.
That is exhibition. We also saw T-14s on exhibitions... none in combat so far.1)lets not play i am the mentally handicapped card when the images have showcased the EW systems and no one is doing the same shit for leopards. https://dzen.ru/a/ZPcuvPk0tTWATHfM if
Yes, it can be anything. And?2)no you talk like a gypsy you state 500 dollar drones but that can be anything, and i am assuming you have no idea what you are talking about which is why i offered both options for you to clarify back to me which drone you are talking about(no offense). We had this same problem about you talking about sides of tanks being weak than laughing it off that it was all tanks its things like this that make we wonder if you have a social life.
They can, but have they?Who gives a shit they can order from China if they want if they believe their ATGMs range is not far enough. Chinese have copied the 2A46 cannons from russia so what kind of special requirements you ask in which it can be fired from russians using the same kind of cannons?. The range tested on the T-90 showed 7km which is by far not a refleks model so I cant really determine what the max range of that new ATGM is but i would like to see footage of a LAHAT from a leopard and see how far it hits or if such footage exists.
Elevation does matter precisely because elevation means that no, they do not work against top-attack missiles "as advertised".Projectile APS systems being used sound like they can kill nearby infantry. The elevation really doesnt matter if it works against top attack like spikes or javelins as advertised at a considerable distance from 20 to 50 meters of engagement but I am assuming the Trophy has shorter range of engagement which requires the higher elevation which is why the Russians made the RPG-30 to fire a dummy rocket followed by a dangerous rocket behind it so no idea if leopard 2s have trench coat systems to get protected by these RPGs.
this is cope to the 1st degree lol, they are showcasing T-72s, challengers, leopards, T-64s, bmps, bradleys they do not descriminate, even the head of Pentagon is telling the Russians to fight fair against the Abrams for whatever reason that means lol.Somebody has no clue how media works.
Russian media will focus on destruction of Leopard 2s for the propaganda value.
Western media will focus on destruction of Leopard 2s because they came from the West (for propaganda value, they focus on T-90).
oh dear god your using ukrainian sources lol. Here I will use a russian source but atleast it references a high ranking NATO officer. funny thing is this news just came today.Fact is, T-72 getting destroyed is expected. So media aren't going to report it... big news, yet another T-72 blown up... add it to the list. Leopard 2 getting destroyed however is news-worthy, because it is far more difficult to do, and also because Leopard 2s are far fewer.
Pravda reports that by the end of August, Ukraine lost only five out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks donated:
According to Oryx, some 6 Leopard 2s have been destroyed so far:![]()
Ukraine only lost 5 out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks during summer in counteroffensive – Forbes
In 13 weeks after the start of the long-awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive on several fronts in the south and east of Ukraine, the Ukrainian army has only lost five out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks. At least 10 more of these tanks have been damaged and are currently being repaired.www.pravda.com.ua
Further 10 were damaged.
How much is the cost of the crew that you also lose when you lose T-72?
you said it yourself in this quote you mentioned side armour before without clarification until you gave clarification later.Not only you are a liar, but quite shitty one as well. Either that, or you cannot read.
Let's see what I actually said, shall we?
https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...and-t-72-m-1-tanks.75606/page-71#post-2579730 - "flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels "
https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...and-t-72-m-1-tanks.75606/page-72#post-2580883 - "hull behind road wheels"
The only time I mentioned side armor without clarification is here:
But I immediately clarified it in the follow-up post, so you really have no excuse.![]()
Indian Army T- 90 (Bhishma) and T- 72 (M-1) Tanks
https://warinhistory.wordpress.com/2023/07/23/russian-t-90-main-battle-tank/ T-90/90S first appeared in 1993. It was not however a good time for Russian tanks. Iraqi T-72s badly underperformed in the Desert Storm, and even modern M-84 suffered badly in the Yugoslav wars. T-80BV was also blasted...defenceforumindia.com
this is a professional response and also the long awaited answer i wanted before of what T-72 variant the mi-84 was compared to. And I hope you do have an agreement that the T-72B and later variations got reinforced with more armor, fire control, better sabot rounds etc.And I have already pointed out that M-84 is improved variant of T-72M. Even base M-84 was far ahead of T-72M in terms of fire control - it had meteorological sensors and ability to track and engage moving targets - though both tanks had homogenous steel armor. M-84 does have composite glacis plate, though; not sure about T-72. Compared to T-72M, M-84 also has stronger engine, new radio equipment and new NBC detector.
M-84A is equivalent to T-72A, with only major difference between the two being that M-84A has stronger engine. Compared to M-84, M-84A has composite armor in both hull and the turret (where M-84 and T-72M had cast steel turret), thicker glacis plate, improved fire control, stronger engine, and several other improvements I don't recall.
I will believe you that the mi-84A is comparable to the T-72A from what you said earlier. What ATGMs or RPGs did the anti-tank croatian team possess? Did the Mi-84s possess any softkill APS for increased survivability? Would they have said anything different if the Serbs possess leopards? What year did the croatians possess leopards and what variations were they?I don't know if you are going for a dumbass or a clown here, but please, stop.
Yes, it is in the center of the tank. And? Do you really think some air will help so much as to compensate for the lack of armor?
Distance only helps if armor actually stops the projectile, thus allowing penetrative jet / fragments / whatever to disperse. But even that may or may not help, depending on where the tank is hit. During the war, when Croatian antitank teams engaged M-84 tanks, it was noted that any hit to commander's cupola resulted in destruction of the tank. While frontal armor, being composite and quite thick, was immune to antitank weapons of the time, tank could be destroyed by hits to:
Lower hull was in fact noted as a particular vulnerability as armor there was not thicker than 90 mm at most, area was quite large and relatively easy to hit, and of course there was ammunition and other critical stuff behind it.
- turret ring
- sides and rear of the turret
- roof of the turret
- engine compartment
- lower hull
They said those systems were combat tested in the operation zone, not asking you if you believe them or not but we are still waiting for confirmation of western tanks getting EW systems against drones or even have plans.That is exhibition. We also saw T-14s on exhibitions... none in combat so far.
Well just like you accused me of not checking my own sources I will say the same for you. thats a nice "3.9km distance" you showed me but hey you atleast showed me something.They can, but have they?
That footage is from 2005... congrats on finally leaving the cave.
yeah but size matters in distance if one tank has a 10 meter killzone and the other has a 50 meter kill zone. Tank with a 45 degree elevation might have a better chance than one with 22.5 degrees elevation at a 10 meter distance. but if the projectile or rocket is fired from 50 meters in an upward incline it would be 112.5 degrees if the increase of degrees is determined by every 10 meters in range. In layman's terms farther distance more height.Elevation does matter precisely because elevation means that no, they do not work against top-attack missiles "as advertised".
Considering Ukraine is the one using Leopard 2, they should have better idea of how many they were lost.oh dear god your using ukrainian sources lol. Here I will use a russian source but atleast it references a high ranking NATO officer. funny thing is this news just came today.
Yes. Once, and I immediately clarified it in the follow-up post. Which means that this:you said it yourself in this quote you mentioned side armour before without clarification until you gave clarification later.
is still wrong.you literally said sides the entire time from our last conversation which i repeatedly stated got re-enforced
They did, though the biggest vulnerabilities of the series were never removed.this is a professional response and also the long awaited answer i wanted before of what T-72 variant the mi-84 was compared to. And I hope you do have an agreement that the T-72B and later variations got reinforced with more armor, fire control, better sabot rounds etc.
1. It is impossible to know for certain, because they used literally whatever was available. Most significant numbers of anti-tank missiles however will have been unguided missiles, a.k.a. rockets: M79 Osa (penetration 400 mm RHA) and M80 Zolja (penetration 300 mm). Other widely used antitank rockets were Armbrust (penetration 600 mm for 2nd generation, 300 mm for 1st generation) and RPG-7 (penetration 600 mm RHA), both unguided as well. When it comes to guided missiles, these were 9M111 Fagot (penetration 400 mm RHA) and 9M14 Maljutka (penetration 200 mm RHA at 60 degrees, or 230 mm at 90 degrees). For reference, M-84 uses homogenous steel turret with maximum thickness of 410 mm at the front and minimum thickness of 65 mm at the aft sides and rear:I will believe you that the mi-84A is comparable to the T-72A from what you said earlier. What ATGMs or RPGs did the anti-tank croatian team possess? Did the Mi-84s possess any softkill APS for increased survivability? Would they have said anything different if the Serbs possess leopards? What year did the croatians possess leopards and what variations were they?
Leopard 2, as far as I am aware, has no such systems. Krauss-Maffei did state that EW systems used to jam IEDs (which Leopard 2 does have) could be adapted for use against drones, but I have seen no evidence of that being put into practice:They said those systems were combat tested in the operation zone, not asking you if you believe them or not but we are still waiting for confirmation of western tanks getting EW systems against drones or even have plans.
What matters is whether trajectory of the missile passes through the kill zone:yeah but size matters in distance if one tank has a 10 meter killzone and the other has a 50 meter kill zone. Tank with a 45 degree elevation might have a better chance than one with 22.5 degrees elevation at a 10 meter distance. but if the projectile or rocket is fired from 50 meters in an upward incline it would be 112.5 degrees if the increase of degrees is determined by every 10 meters in range. In layman's terms farther distance more height.
Bro...everyone and there grandma knows on this forum that NATO makes the strategic decisions even when the ukrainians got pissed at them and with their sources stated they got into an arguement with NATO of what their counteroffensive achieved in 3 months because the losses were that bad with the equipment and how far they go. of course they are aware how much equipment they gave and how much they lost before sending them more weapons because they are the ones making the decisions.. Oryx cant even give photographic evidence to back up their claims while i have enough telegram channels that showcase the losses.Considering Ukraine is the one using Leopard 2, they should have better idea of how many they were lost.
Russian claims remind me of US claims about MiG-15 shootdowns... 10:1 kill rate in favor of F-86 which turned out to be closer to 1:1. Or Kursk where Russians claimed facing 2 000 Tigers...
If you want to use Russian sources, find ones on losses of T-90 and similar.
Oryx is likely the best source seeing how they actually base claims on photographic evidence. Add some 50% on top of their claims, and you are likely close to real numbers. Relative numbers should be OK.
again no clarification if it was sideskirts that you were still talking about or not when I brought that up myself until clarification was given later on describing what parts of the tank. I wont even bother quoting this shit anymore.Yes. Once, and I immediately clarified it in the follow-up post. Which means that this:
is still wrong.
the thing you need understand is the trophy is 10-30 meters engagement distance and the arena-m killzone is at 30-50 meters. I hear that the T-80UM had the regular arena that had a elevation of -85 degrees to +65 degrees but covered 260 degrees and it had the same engagement distance as the trophy https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/arena.htm so this is what I mean by distance, it seems they have of course captured javelins a top attack ATGM which is no surprise since we have seen videos with chechnyans showcasing them before and fired it at the Arena-Ms .https://ria.ru/20230405/arena-m-1863060251.html?ysclid=lnb40bamvc425326766 tanks are like 3 meters tall but I am assured the placements of the hardkill APS and elevation is enough to cover the 3 meter height the javelin has to jump on top of.What matters is whether trajectory of the missile passes through the kill zone:
![]()
Basically, as can be seen from the above (very basic) drawing I threw together, it can almost certainly intercept RPG and NLAW type weapons; for Javelin, however, success of interception will depend on whether trajectory intersects the kill zone (Javelin red line) or not (Javelin green line); if it is the latter, then APS is useless.
If NATO is making strategic decisions, why is NATO supply of weaponry so unstable? One would think they would want their puppets to succeed...Bro...everyone and there grandma knows on this forum that NATO makes the strategic decisions even when the ukrainians got pissed at them and with their sources stated they got into an arguement with NATO of what their counteroffensive achieved in 3 months because the losses were that bad with the equipment and how far they go. of course they are aware how much equipment they gave and how much they lost before sending them more weapons because they are the ones making the decisions.. Oryx cant even give photographic evidence to back up their claims while i have enough telegram channels that showcase the losses.
I was quite clear on what part of the tank:again no clarification if it was sideskirts that you were still talking about or not when I brought that up myself until clarification was given later on describing what parts of the tank. I wont even bother quoting this shit anymore.
If you didn't understand that, well, ask.lower hull
Your own links disagree:the thing you need understand is the trophy is 10-30 meters engagement distance and the arena-m killzone is at 30-50 meters. I hear that the T-80UM had the regular arena that had a elevation of -85 degrees to +65 degrees but covered 260 degrees and it had the same engagement distance as the trophy https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/arena.htm so this is what I mean by distance, it seems they have of course captured javelins a top attack ATGM which is no surprise since we have seen videos with chechnyans showcasing them before and fired it at the Arena-Ms .https://ria.ru/20230405/arena-m-1863060251.html?ysclid=lnb40bamvc425326766 tanks are like 3 meters tall but I am assured the placements of the hardkill APS and elevation is enough to cover the 3 meter height the javelin has to jump on top of.
View attachment 224848
View attachment 224849
As a matter of fact, top-attack ATGMs such as Javelin were designed in large part precisely to defeat Arena itself. It is not a flaw of the system that it does not work against something specifically designed to defeat it.However it has the same limitations as the original Arena. It is not effective against top-attack munitions and anti-tank weapons fired from buildings and rooftops.
Nice. That should really improve things.on a sidenote here is some news on shells.
![]()
Танки Т-90М применили новые снаряды "Тельник" в ходе спецоперации - Российская газета
Действующие в зоне специальной военной операции российские танки Т-90М получили современные боеприпасы, позволяющие выполнять все поставленные перед ними боевые задачи.rg.ru
T-90M tanks used new Telnik shells during a special operation, by Alexey Moiseev for Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 10.02.2023.
Russian T-90M tanks operating in the special military operation zone have received modern ammunition, allowing them to carry out all combat missions assigned to them.
In his interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper , the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Army General Oleg Salyukov, mentioned the new Telnik high-explosive fragmentation shells. They have ready-made submunitions and are detonated in the air at specified trajectory points.
This weapon is very effective against enemy personnel, in particular operators of American-made FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank guided systems.
According to military experts, in the near future such equipment will become a mandatory attribute of all main battle tanks.
Back in the 90s, the T-90 and T-80UK began to be equipped with the Ainet complex, designed to perform similar tasks. However, "Telnik" is significantly superior to it in efficiency.
Army eyeing new airburst proximity round for 30mm chain guns (taskandpurpose.com)
Not solely content with its brand new counter-drone ‘proximity’ airburst round, the Army is set to fund the development of another do-it-all munition for use with the 30mm chain guns it’s slowly proliferating across its fleet of ground vehicles.
The service has requested $18.93 million in fiscal year 2024 for the new 30x113mm XM1223 Multi-Mode Proximity Airburst (MMPA) round designed to counter threats from incoming drones and ground troops behind cover, according to budget documents.
Designed to combat both aerial and ground-based threats in a single mission package, the MMPA will eventually replace both the 30×113mm XM1211 High Explosive Proximity (HEP) and XM1198 High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds currently fielded to U.S. troops to deal with the rise of adversary drones downrange
“The programmable fuze modes in the munition include proximity airburst to defeat personnel in the open and small Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) targets, proximity delay to defeat personnel in defilade, gated proximity airburst for cluttered environments, mechanical point detonate to defeat light materiel targets, and self destruct to minimize collateral damage,” according to budget documents.
New link:
T-90/90S first appeared in 1993. It was not however a good time for Russian tanks. Iraqi T-72s badly underperformed in the Desert Storm, and even modern M-84 suffered badly in the Yugoslav wars. T-80BV was also blasted for its performance in Chechenya. Because of this, large export orders for modernized T-72 and T-80U MBTs failed to materialize.
T-90 tank itself is a further development of the T-72B Main Battle Tank. It was developed at the Kartsev/Venediktov Bureau, “Vagonka” at Nizhnyi Tagil. Tank was officially adopted by the Russian Government in 1992 and the initial production began in the same year. In 1993 tank was adopted by the Russian MoD, and low-rate series production began in 1994.
Tank was shown outside Russia for the first time in March 1997, when it was demonstrated at Abu Dhabi. By September 1997, some 107 T-90 tanks had been produced, located in the Siberian Military District. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District. In 2007, there were about 334 T-90 tanks serving in the Russian Ground Forces’ 5th Guards Tank Division, stationed in the Siberian Military District, and seven T-90 tanks in the Navy.
The tank is the last mass-produced Russian MBT, and was considered to be among the ten best tanks in the world. T-90 is the most successful export tank on the market, being operated by Algeria (572), Azerbaijan (200 delivered, some were lost), Iraq (75), Syria (40), Turkmenistan (40), Uganda (44), and Venezuela (50~100). India is the largest export operator, having ordered 1 657 T-90S tanks. Indian order included 248 tanks delivered from Russia, 409 tanks assembled locally from knock-down kits and another 1 000 tanks license-produced in India. Some T-90s have been lost in Ukraine, with a number captured and pressed into service against their former owners.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
E | The Indian Army and paranormal activities, UFO and the Yeti! | Indian Army | 5 | |
W | Indian army should buy Galil ACE 7. 62 x 51 mm assault rifle | Indian Army | 4 | |
W | New 7. 62 x 51 mm assault rifle coming into Indian army service | Indian Army | 0 | |
W | 500 armed robots to Indian army | Indian Army | 0 |