Indian T-90S a sub-standard tank ?

[Damian]

I am interested in knowing what causes M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90.

As Dejawolf said, one of reasons is bigger internal volumes... is this really needs to be repeated 100 times?

 

[militarysta]

I am interested in knowing what causes M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90.

Becouse it have mucht bigger inner volumen:

«Леопард» 2А5 19,4 м3
«Абрамс» М1А2 21 м3
Т-90 12 м3

More or less Abrams and Leo-2 have 7-9 м3 bigger crew and engine comparment.
It's first reson, second is hide in turret geometry:

 

[pmaitra]

As Dejawolf said, one of reasons is bigger internal volumes... is this really needs to be repeated 100 times?

Dejawolf was talking about M48 and T-55. Is it really that difficult to read before responding?

 

[pmaitra]

Becouse it have mucht bigger inner volumen:

«Леопард» 2А5 19,4 м3
«Абрамс» М1А2 21 м3
Т-90 12 м3

More or less Abrams and Leo-2 have 7-9 м3 bigger crew and engine comparment.
It's first reson, second is hide in turret geometry:

You are saying what I think @ersakthivel was also trying to say. Bigger volume increases the total surface area of the material encompassing the volume. The turret geometry, further increases that. Typically a perfect sphere would have the least surface area given a fixed volume. So, you are right. So, we already established M1 has more surface area, and hence more armour. Now, it boils down to what materials are used - and regarding that, we can only speculate.

 

[militarysta]

Training ammunition, and all the excuses in the world does not change the fact that not one single american was ever killed in a Abrams tank in two wars by an Iraqi tanks while having thousands of Iraqi tanks destroyed in combat.

I) during ODS T-72 losses where lower then 100 tanks. It's a fact convirmed after caputured Iraq Army documents in 2003. Combat losses T-72 during ODS are between 40 and 80 tanks. Seems to not be huge numbers?

II) Compare Iraqi T-72 Whit M1A1 and M1A1HA is ridiculous. During Cold War Soviets have six class of tank equipment, please read this and learn:

1) Hig-Level tanks only for top Soviet units: T-80B, T-80U, T-80UD, etc erlier T-64B etc
2) lower level tanks based on T-72 family but in forbiden for other users : T-72B, etc.
3) Export tanks for "better" (more political constans WarPac members) : DDR, Bulgaria ex: T-72M1 whit better FCS and others.
4) Export tanks for normal War Pac members ex: Poland and T-72A and in middle 1980s. T-72M1 (soviet A)
5) Export tanks for comunist countries comitted whit Soviet Union: ex Yugoslavia, Cuba
6) Whole rest (India, Iraq, Lybia,) where tanks where sold as late as it was possible whit most monkey version as it was possible.
Very offen WarPac countries whit tank industry (Poland...) where seling those downgraded tanks -for example for Iraq.

And you try to compare those the last, the most downgraded and obsolate Iraqi monkey model T-72 whit top in 1991 M1A1HA?!
Whit lack of FCS, lack of passive night vision, whit ammo developed in.. 1968(!) (3BM15) and whery rare ammo developed in 1976(!) (3BM22) .
It's imposible to compare. So low T-72 loses during ODS (circa 100 tanks ) are caused by simple fact: in 1991 T-72 almoust don't take part in battles, most of them where hold after battelfield, and only two-three batalions take part in combat.

 

[Damian]

Dejawolf was talking about M48 and T-55. Is it really that difficult to read before responding?

Dejawolf is also talking about differences between M1 and T-90, there also factor is internal volume. Seems that understanding something such obvious is problematic for you?

You are saying what I think @ersakthivel was also trying to say. Bigger volume increases the total surface area of the material encompassing the volume. The turret geometry, further increases that. Typically a perfect sphere would have the least surface area given a fixed volume. So, you are right. So, we already established M1 has more surface area, and hence more armour. Now, it boils down to what materials are used - and regarding that, we can only speculate.

It also depends what you mean by "more armor". In case of turret it is truth that thicker armor is both at front and sides of turret surface. In case of hull however situation is far more interesting, actually only the front hull "beak" have more armor (more composite volume per armor thickness and is ~650-700mm thick), glacis plate is thinner (~50mm @80 degrees = ~300mm LOS), hull sides are comparable (~60-70mm in upper part over crew compartment, 40-50mm over engine compartment and 40mm where suspension is attached) and rear (40mm), to the T-90 (glacis plate is ~600-650mm, hull sides are ~80mm over crew compartment, 70mm over engine compartment, 20mm over suspension attachement points and 40-45mm over rear).

 

[Dejawolf]

I am interested in knowing what causes M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90.

does it really have to be spelled it out? armour on T-90 has same thickness, less volume.
upgrading T-90A to the level of abrams or leopard would add at most 1-2 tons.

more specifically, side turret of T-90 is 53x105cm area.
density of steel: 7.8g/ccm

side turret armour of T-90A is approximately 100mm.
adding 200mm of steel would increase the weight by:

0.53x1.05x0.20 = 0.1113m^3
0.1113*7800 = 868.1kg
868*2 = 1736kg.

 

[pmaitra]

Dejawolf is also talking about differences between M1 and T-90, there also factor is internal volume. Seems that understanding something such obvious is problematic for you?

There are the two posts by Dejawolf.

What he mentions: T-55 and M48.
What he does not mention: M1 and T-90.

T-55 and M48 again. all LOS thickness. this time side/rear protection:

T-55:
side turret: 130mm front, 60mm rear
rear turret: 60mm

side hull: 80mm upper, 20mm lower (around suspension arms)
rear hull: 60mm

M48:
side turret: 76mm
rear turret: 51mm

side hull: 76mm over crew compartment, 51mm over engine compartment
rear hull: 51mm

looks like the smaller lighter T-55 has thicker side and rear armour than the M48.
and thus your argument about more weight = more armour falls to pieces.

The closest he comes is T-72, and still no mention of M1.

i can give you another anectode if you want. how about T-62 vs M60, T-64 vs M60, or perhaps T-72 vs M60.
the results are the same. lighter russian tank with more armour than it's heavier western counterpart. hell we can even compare T-64 and T-62.
the reason i picked M-48 and T-55 is because both tanks are pretty much pure steel, no composites, it perfectly demonstrates how much of an impact internal volume has on weight.

@Damian, for the second time, read before responding. Also, I really don't have the time or patience to keep trolling about.

It also depends what you mean by "more armor".

Read my post again, and you will know what my deductions depend upon, and what I mean by more armour.

In case of turret it is truth that thicker armor is both at front and sides of turret surface. In case of hull however situation is far more interesting, actually only the front hull "beak" have more armor (more composite volume per armor thickness and is ~650-700mm thick), glacis plate is thinner (~50mm @80 degrees = ~300mm LOS), hull sides are comparable (~60-70mm in upper part over crew compartment, 40-50mm over engine compartment and 40mm where suspension is attached) and rear (40mm), to the T-90 (glacis plate is ~600-650mm, hull sides are ~80mm over crew compartment, 70mm over engine compartment, 20mm over suspension attachement points and 40-45mm over rear).

Yes, finally something related to the current debate. Now let us compare that with M1, if any information is available.

 

[pmaitra]

does it really have to be spelled it out? armour on T-90 has same thickness, less volume.
upgrading T-90A to the level of abrams or leopard would add at most 1-2 tons.

Yes, when someone asks you what you ate today, you don't respond by telling him your name. Answer to the point instead of beating around the bush. My question was what makes M1 20 tons heavier than that? So you are saying 20 tons extra is because of the armour? Yes or no?

Advisory:
Question: What makes M1 20 tons heavier than a T-90?
Answer: Does it really have to be spelled out? [This is not the answer to the question.]

If you don't know, say you don't know. If you know, then answer the question.

 

[militarysta]

@pmaitra
about what You are asking acually?
I suppose that im my last post I gave You answer for that question.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra
about what You are asking acually?
I suppose that im my last post I gave You answer for that question.

My question was what you see below. Yes, you gave me a to the point answer, and I agreed with you. I am still waiting for @Dejawolf to answer my question objectively, if he has the inclination to stop abusing people.

My question was what makes M1 20 tons heavier than that?

 

[p2prada]

Question: What makes M1 20 tons heavier than a T-90?

Your question is fine.

Answer: Does it really have to be spelled out? [This is not the answer to the question.]

His answer is also fine.

He did answer in the same quote too.

His answer: armour on T-90 has same thickness, less volume.

Selective quoting and selecting reading won't get you anywhere.



Anyway, for the number of times you asked the same question over and over again, you did receive responses from all of them.

Post No 398, you : The argument was what causes the M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90. Please give us your views.
@Dejawolf; post #399 : the reason i picked M-48 and T-55 is because both tanks are pretty much pure steel, no composites, it perfectly demonstrates how much of an impact internal volume has on weight.

You again : Post #400 : I am interested in knowing what causes M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90.

@Damian answered Post #401: As Dejawolf said, one of reasons is bigger internal volumes... is this really needs to be repeated 100 times?

@militarysta; Post #402 : Becouse it have mucht bigger inner volumen:

You again : Now you begin to annoy. Post #403 : Dejawolf was talking about M48 and T-55. Is it really that difficult to read before responding?

Refer back to Post #399 by Dejawolf. His argument is valid. The M60 - T-55 comparison is perfect to explain the difference between M1 and T-90.

Damian : Post #406 : Dejawolf is also talking about differences between M1 and T-90, there also factor is internal volume.
Again a valid post by Damian, which support Dejawolf's point of view.

Let me point this out: You are annoying. Both Damian and Dejawolf pointed out the M1 has greater internal volume, but you decided to answer to militarysta with this,

My question was what you see below. Yes, you gave me a to the point answer, and I agreed with you. I am still waiting for @Dejawolf to answer my question objectively, if he has the inclination to stop abusing people.

So,

Does it really have to be spelled out?

 

[pmaitra]

@p2prada,

My question was about M1 and T-90, and why the former is 20 tons heavier. The only person whose answer included M1 and T-90 was @militarysta; he gave a to the point answer, and I agreed with him.

On the contrary, the answer by @Dejawolf was about M48 and T-55, which was not my question. Whatever reason he picked those two instead of the ones in my question is probably because (1) he does not know, or (2) he deliberately wants to beat around the bush.

When I ask a specific question, I expect a specific answer. When I don't get it, I refrain from abusing people; but some people don't.

I get really annoyed when people repeatedly beat around the bush, refuse to answer to the point, and then pretend that I am not understanding.

Now, you can do me a favour. Either answer my question (like one person who has), or debate with someone else. I am already rather pissed off, and I am not interested in another round of irrelelvant discussion that has nothing to do with my original question.

 

[p2prada]

Yes, finally something related to the current debate. Now let us compare that with M1, if any information is available.

This is one more instance which proves you yourselves don't read what others post.

You asked for comparable information for the M1 when he gave the figures in the same post.

Let me break it up:
In case of turret it is truth that thicker armor is both at front and sides of turret surface. In case of hull however situation is far more interesting, actually only the front hull "beak" have more armor (more composite volume per armor thickness and is ~650-700mm thick), glacis plate is thinner (~50mm @80 degrees = ~300mm LOS), hull sides are comparable (~60-70mm in upper part over crew compartment, 40-50mm over engine compartment and 40mm where suspension is attached) and rear (40mm), >>>>> All these are for the M1

to the T-90 (glacis plate is ~600-650mm, hull sides are ~80mm over crew compartment, 70mm over engine compartment, 20mm over suspension attachement points and 40-45mm over rear). >>>>> All these are figures for the T-90.

So simple, if you start reading and stop annoying.

 

[p2prada]

My question was about M1 and T-90, and why the former is 20 tons heavier. The only person whose answer included M1 and T-90 was @militarysta; he gave a to the point answer, and I agreed with him.

Then point out that you got your answer instead of patronizing others.

As far as I go, Dejawolf's first post alone answered it when he posted M60/T-55 armor LOS figures.

If you want a "to the point answer" then ask a "to the point question." Stop beating around the bush.

Dejawolf compared with actual figures on tanks, he did it with M60 and T-55.

Damian answered with actual figures on M1 and T-90, which you could not identify.

Militarysta answered with internal volume figures.

All three are correct in the way they answered.

I told you this a long time ago.

If you already made up your mind on what you want to hear, then there is nothing you will learn. Merely accept the fact that these three guys are far more knowledgeable than you are and instead of patronizing them learn to ask better questions.

 

[pmaitra]

This is one more instance which proves you yourselves don't read what others post.

You asked for comparable information for the M1 when he gave the figures in the same post.

My question was why is M1 20 tons heavier than T-90. His post was comparing M48 and T-55. May be to you, but to me, he wasn't answering my question, rather beating around the bush.

Let me break it up:
In case of turret it is truth that thicker armor is both at front and sides of turret surface. In case of hull however situation is far more interesting, actually only the front hull "beak" have more armor (more composite volume per armor thickness and is ~650-700mm thick), glacis plate is thinner (~50mm @80 degrees = ~300mm LOS), hull sides are comparable (~60-70mm in upper part over crew compartment, 40-50mm over engine compartment and 40mm where suspension is attached) and rear (40mm), >>>>> All these are for the M1

to the T-90 (glacis plate is ~600-650mm, hull sides are ~80mm over crew compartment, 70mm over engine compartment, 20mm over suspension attachement points and 40-45mm over rear). >>>>> All these are figures for the T-90.

Thank you for the information.

[HR][/HR]

So simple, if you start reading and stop annoying.

If you start reading the following two posts, you should see who is the one being annoying here.

The argument was not between T-55 and M48. This is just one anecdote you are presenting to suit your argument. The argument was what causes the M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90. Please give us your views.

i can give you another anectode if you want. how about T-62 vs M60, T-64 vs M60, or perhaps T-72 vs M60.
the results are the same. lighter russian tank with more armour than it's heavier western counterpart. hell we can even compare T-64 and T-62.
the reason i picked M-48 and T-55 is because both tanks are pretty much pure steel, no composites, it perfectly demonstrates how much of an impact internal volume has on weight.

 

[pmaitra]

Then point out that you got your answer instead of patronizing others.

I asked a to the point question, and it was Dejawolf (and now you), who are patronizing others.

As far as I go, Dejawolf's first post alone answered it when he posted M60/T-55 armor LOS figures.

He was answering an imaginary question, certainly not my question.

If you want a "to the point answer" then ask a "to the point question." Stop beating around the bush.

Already did. Cannot make it any simpler.

Dejawolf compared with actual figures on tanks, he did it with M60 and T-55.

So he wasn't answering my question.

Damian answered with actual figures on M1 and T-90, which you could not identify.

Damian claimed Dejawolf was talking about M1 and T-90 (read his post again), which is not true.

Militarysta answered with internal volume figures.

I know that. I also replied to that post, did you see it?

All three are correct in the way they answered.

I told you this a long time ago.

If you already made up your mind on what you want to hear, then there is nothing you will learn. Merely accept the fact that these three guys are far more knowledgeable than you are and instead of patronizing them learn to ask better questions.

If you have made up your mind you are going to defend those who are beating around the bush, then nothing can make you less annoying than those you are defending.

I have a question: Why would one continue to beat around the bush? Is it because he has no to the point answer but doesn't want to come across as he doesn't really have the answer? What's wrong is saying, "I don't know?"

 

[p2prada]

They were not beating around the bush.

Well, you can be as stubborn as you want. There is always someone like that around.

This board isn't about people competing for a prize. If you aren't happy with an answer then let it go.

But whatever makes you happy.

 

[pmaitra]

They were not beating around the bush.

Well, you can be as stubborn as you want. There is always someone like that around.

This board isn't about people competing for a prize. If you aren't happy with an answer then let it go.

But whatever makes you happy.

I wrote this post at 13-04-13, 07:47 PM. It is 13-04-13, 10:11 PM now.

@Damian, for the second time, read before responding. Also, I really don't have the time or patience to keep trolling about.

I would like to reiterate that once again to you.

 

[Austin]

pmaitra , you seem to ask question and depending if you like it or not you have edited their post using mods right.

This is unfair , keep the post as it is and let the reader decide , IMO people out here have answered your query but you keep persisting with the same question and then you edit many of those post its very annoying ..if you are not happy with their answers dont ask the question and lets move on with it.

To reply to your query on why Abrams are heavier , beyond the fact that they have bigger internal volume , they also use all composite armour over T-90 Composite+ERA approach ...composite armour tend to be heavier and they would also add more weight to the tank.