Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

Oh god... talk with complete m...



Are You capable to read in English?

Read again:



Where did I say that T-72BA have newer FCS? Where You uneducated prick?!



So it have nothing better than any western FCS considered as modern.

Western MBT's had MRS (Muzzle Reference Sensor) in the early 1980's, so in case of barrel deflection, proper correction can be made by FCS, nothing new. 2A46M-5 is also nothing special, neither superior to western 120mm smoothbore guns. Firing GLATGM's with only LOS capability is useless in 90% of Europe. USAEUR estimated that in their sector most engagements during cold war would be below 1,500m (this was one of the reasons why West abandoned for a long time development of guided munitions for tanks), where do You want to use GLATGM's there? I could understand the ones with BLOS capabilities like XM1111 MRM, but GLATGM's like 9M112, 9M119 or Kombat can't do it.

LAHAT can be used in BLOS mode, less capable than XM1111 MRM, but still have it and can be integrated in to a tank without deep modifications.

T-72BA do not have Hunter-Killer capability, so it will be less effective in combat than even old Leopard 2A4.

Only thing that Leopard 2A4 have worse is thermal sight.



And You are providing something usefull besides stupid advertisement? Go back to a computer games forums, and stop waste time of adult people kid. Because it is obvious that You have some inferiority complex against West and You need to prove everywhere Your side of the barricade superiority in everything... which is typical for fanboys, not matter what is the object of their excitement.

On this post you provided no comparison between T-72BA and Leopard 2A4, at all. I will not respond to this babble and your childish theories, you claim to be expert but your way of redacting is that of a teenager.

I will focus instead on technical comparison.

Let's start again.

Contract was signed on march 2011 to upgrade 300 tanks T-72B with said characteristics, which someone here assures it has no value compared to Leopard 2A4.

I want arguments.

 

[Damian]

This is why I hate idiots...

Listen moron, are You even capable to read in english?

Arguments are there, or do I need to do things Your parents wiere reposnible for, to teach You how to read with understanding.

You are not providing anything, besides babble and nonsense.

I said why T-72BA is not comparable even with old Leopard 2A4.

T-72BA:

Lack of Hunter - Killer,
Lack of modern transmission,
Lack of data about stabilization error in mrads, so we can compare it with Leopard 2A4,
Irrelevant GLATGM capabilities in LOS mode, not BLOS mode more suited for European terrain,
UVZ added MRS system, something that was used on western tanks from 1980's, and they are talking about it as something super high tech... oh I'm sorry, Russians do not treat it as super tech, only some silly Belarussian.

Leopard 2A4:
Hunter Killer capability,
Modern transmission enabling proper mobility forward and backward,
At least partially safe storage ammunition, not perfect, but partially better than in T-72B,
Better ergonomics and maintainability.
Relatively modern FCS, I have a lot to say about Leopard 2 FCS in negative, but it is hardly to say that it is not precise system. Of course I preffer system with automatic lead, but Leopard 2A4 is far more superior than T-72B with only sighting complex not real FCS.

You still not understand? Then go away and stop wasting our time.

Not to mention that You even lie about T-72BA standard, as I said, there are no tanks with this designation code with equipment in one single standard, some have Sosna-U sight, some have older sights with active IR instead of thermal sight. Simple as that.

 

[militarysta]

Let's start again (...) I want arguments.

There is no reson to "start again" just start to read what other users wrote. And start to use aruguments, facts, technical dates, not sentenses without knowledges.

About mobility:

You here made the wrong comparison. T-72BA, new engine V-92S2 and wrong figures for old vintage T-72B which do not reflect it after overhaul with modern elements (you know on what it consists ? No)

Are You mad? I have dates from Ob.184 instructions - it was posted in 3 big ZIP files on otvaga.2004.ru, and for manuals for W-84MS engine. Tose dates are correct for T-72BA, and You even haven't idea how many and in what standard T-72BA came to Russian Army!
1. First 30 tanks was deweloped in 1998 - and W-46 engine was replaced to W-84MS!
2. Second bath 15 tanks was ordered in late 1998
3. In 1999 was ordered modernisation of 30 T-72B and B1 tanks to the T-72BA standard. And in 2000 oficcialy T-72BA entry service.
4. In 2003 there was proposal using W92S2 in T-72BA but it was to expensive for russian army and T-72BA is stil with W-84MS.
5. In 2011 was deploed 110 T-72BA tanks but in old standard With Sosna-U on only 60 tanks, without new engine, and withot other major changes!
6. Until 2013 UWZ will deploy "new" 220 T-72BA - and maybe some part of this 220tanks will be use W92S2, but now: There is no W92S2 in T-72BA!:

Ð’ замен дизелей Ð’-84-1 и Ð’-84Ðœ танка Т-72Б, имеющих проблему в виде перегрева и прогара выпускного коллектора, на Т-72БА установлен улучшенный двигатель этого семейства – дизель Ð’-84МС.

And again:
Using W92S2 engine was proposition for some part of T-72BA modernisation, but it was to expensive, so in fact for all ~300 T-72BA in service there is no W92S2 engine. For new bath T-72BA (this 220 tanks until 2013) maybe will be W92S2. But until now -sorry there is no (due to money reson) new engine.

but what is most funny:
Even if in T-72BA will be W92S2 it's is still far far whorse then Leopard-2 power-pack - in fact T-72BA with W92S2 will have the same mobilit as erly Ob.188 (T-90) and is not very good. In fact its still suck:
SESM Powerpack vs. T-90 / T-72 powertain - YouTube


But maybe You have propper dates so please fulfill it here:

T-72BA weight 44,5t, have power to weight ratio ##HP/t and ground pressure ##kg/cm2. T-72BA have ############ pivotn T-72B/BA driver have ###gauges to watch and ### pedals and ### levers to actuate. fix stering radious is ##### on the gear engaged. T-72BA have max ###km/h on foward, and ####km/h on reverse!. Time for 0-32km/h is ####s. W-84MS engine can be replaced in ###h, and have life time about ###h, and suspension have ####mm up and ####mm down from static equilibrium position.

If You have dates for this all -just put it in tekst C'mon.
I have this dates, and I had posted this here -now I suppose You have some facts and dates and can post smth good here.

Point was, how, according to you, 80s Leopard 2A4 has more value (whatever that is) than modernised T-72BA.

Becouse in some aspects in 1980 Leopard-2A4 was far far better tnak then Ob.184! In mobility, in firepowr, in protection. etc.
And now, after 20yers modernisated Ob.184 - T-72BA is still no better (in most aspects) then 25yers old Leopard-2A4. It's simple.
You way of thinking is ike "new bulid T-62M1 from North Koreea can't be worse then M1A2 form 1994 becouse it's "new" and bulid late then M1A2". It dumb as hell.

Soon I will return to protection thema.

 

[militarysta]

more accurate and powerfull gun 2A46-M5, .

WTF?

Штатные стабилизаторы вооружения 2Э28М и 2Э42-2 заменены на новый 2Э42-4. Стабилизатор вооружения 2Э42-4 «Жасмин» двухплоскостной с электромашинным приводом в горизонтальной и электрогидравлическим в вертикальных плоскостях. Обеспечивает срединное значение точности стабилизации в основном режиме по вертикали 0,4 т.д., по горизонтали 0,6 т.д.

T-72BA 2Э42-4 «Жасмин»
X axis - 0,6
Y axis - 0,4

Leopad-2A4 WNA
X axis - 0,3-0,4
Y axis - 0,15-0,2

Do You understand? Modernisated 2Э42-4 in 2010 have whorse values (twice worse...) then "old" WNA from leopard-2A4.

And what ammunition You wat to use in old Korzina autoloader? 3BM42 and 3BM32? It's amunition outdatted when we compare it to DM43, DM53 and DM63 from L-44 Rh120. BM42 and BM32 can perforated about 200-250mm RHA plate less then DM53/63 from L-44. And csette in autoloader in T-72BA are to short for new APFSDS...


ps.Damian You have PM here.

 

[p2prada]

And beofre You say something stupid about me. Ask other users on this forum, I allways defended Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian military technology against unreasonable critics. But at the same time I will not agree with complete nonsense.

We can only try, can't we? :thumb:

 

[militarysta]

I do not understand, comparison is for T-72B model 1989 which is equivalent of T-72BA, not T-90. You want to dissimulate Leopard 2A4 huge weak zone ? Sorry, it is vulnerable and not any better.

So here You have T-72B (Ob.184) and Leopard-2A4. The weak zones for Ob.184 are minimalized - I don't count this huge and all-catching cast turet roof, only part near comander cupola. So it's the best estimatous for T-72B weak zones - and it's not co cruel like this articlon Chlopotov blog (Ghur Khan). For Leopard-2A4 I of course don count erea behind EMES-15 window becouse it's 650mm thick - so it's bigest value then almoust whlole T-72B turret LOS on 30.degree for longitiudal axis. Taking this area as "weak" is equal to take whole T-72B turret at 30. as "weak". So it haven't sens.

And here is comparison:

 

[Akim]

So here You have T-72B (Ob.184) and Leopard-2A4. The weak zones for Ob.184 are minimalized - I don't count this huge and all-catching cast turet roof, only part near comander cupola. So it's the best estimatous for T-72B weak zones - and it's not co cruel like this articlon Chlopotov blog (Ghur Khan). For Leopard-2A4 I of course don count erea behind EMES-15 window becouse it's 650mm thick - so it's bigest value then almoust whlole T-72B turret LOS on 30.degree for longitiudal axis. Taking this area as "weak" is equal to take whole T-72B turret at 30. as "weak". So it haven't sens.

And here is comparison:

Why do you draw these weak areas? Make attempt in them get, when a tank rushes on you at a speed of a 30-40 km/h. And obviously not on a highway.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

And here is comparison:

Why never Leo2a4 in Polish service were updated with Erawa-2 ERA ?

 

[devil510]

will the tanks be ever used in future wars most likely bombers and fighter jets

 

[Akim]

will the tanks be ever used in future wars most likely bombers and fighter jets

Wars that the different are. Americans in past world war thought to put fashistic Germany on knees by "carpet bombardments", but war was won by infantrymen Ivan and John, support by an artillery and covered by tanks. A tank will not disappear and from local wars.

 

[ALBY]

Guys pls any one tell what are the chances of Arjun or T90 against ztz96 or ztz99?

 

[Akim]

Guys pls any one tell what are the chances of Arjun or T90 against ztz96 or ztz99?

Understand, you compare tanks as racing Ferrari and Lambo. Tank it just is part of complex during a fight. Yes, it is shock power of army, but tank duels already will never be and, some separate advantages in mass armies are leveled.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-multimedia/40227-raining-corps-1954-use-atomic-weapon.html
You will look at these manoeuvres: a weapon became more precisely Now, the new systems appeared, but principle of fight remained such же.

 

[Damian]

Why never Leo2a4 in Polish service were updated with Erawa-2 ERA ?

Good question, I suppose it was something with Germans agreement on Polish made modifications without support from German manufacturer.

But there are good news, our Leopard 2A4's during modernization process in to Leopard 2PL are reciving mounting points for addon armor. It is greatly possible that Polish Leopard 2PL will look like this:

Guys pls any one tell what are the chances of Arjun or T90 against ztz96 or ztz99?

Rather big. Of course You should not underestimate Chinese but, T-90S is definetly a very good tank, better than both ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99. Arjun have it's problems, the main one is protection within frontal arc, and it's main gun, but in terms of tactical mobility, FCS and electronics should be definetly not worser.

 

[Damian]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@Damian,

I think you posted them before, but can you post pics of CR2 with the new ERA package again and the M1 with the TUSK upgrade.

Sure.

Challenger 2 with TES-H (Theater Entry Standard - Herrick) upgrade.

M1A2SEP v2 with TUSK-2 (Tank Urban Survivability Kit - 2)

PS.

P2P this is Leopard 2A4 with Evolution upgrade package, not Leopard 2A7.

The hydro-gas suspensions seem to be working fine now. There were issues earlier, but I suppose they were fixed with the current upgrade program.

Hydrogas suspension system have major advantages than torsion bars suspension system.

Hydrogas is lighter by at least 1 metric ton, it does not occupy space inside hull, it permitts after modifications to use suspension variable height control, usefull thing.

Americans plans to also replace torsion bars suspension system with hydrogas suspension system in M1 series.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Thanks for the pictures. Good resolution too.

P2P this is Leopard 2A4 with Evolution upgrade package, not Leopard 2A7.

Hmm. Am I right in assuming they look the same?

 

[Damian]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Hmm. Am I right in assuming they look the same?

No.

Leopard 2A7.

Leopard 2A4 with Revolution upgrade package.

Leopard 2A4 with Evolution upgrade package.

There are significant differences.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

As for T-90MS,it would be definetly very interesting alternative for IA,

T-90MS is very capable but its better in developing stage until its exposed roof is fixed, As long as this dont, its deign flaw is no lesser than Arjun..

 

[Damian]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

T-90MS is very capable but its better in developing stage until its exposed roof is fixed, As long as this dont, its deign flaw is no lesser than Arjun..

T-90MS roof is a smaller weak zone, and less exposed than huge gun mantle and main sight in Arjun. Compare the size and placement, not the fact of existance of weak zones.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

T-90MS roof is a smaller weak zone, and less exposed than huge gun mantle and main sight in Arjun. Compare the size and placement, not the fact of existance of weak zones.

I dont have to go back But as i told before, I know abt the extend better than Photos posted on web, T-90MS have weak zones so does Arjun and so does T-90S and T-72M1, All have weak points...

Anyways, weak spots are weak points that must be corrected till then they better in developing stages where the flaws are corrected..

 

[Damian]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

I dont have to go back But as i told before, I know abt the extend better than Photos posted on web, T-90MS have weak zones so does Arjun and so does T-90S and T-72M1, All have weak points...

Yes, all tanks have weak zones in their armor. This is unfortunate, but sometimes nececary. You should rather make a question, why T-90MS have such weak zones, that are well known to Russians, and were not present in T-90A and T-90S?

I can tell You why it was designed that way. Because there was no other way to place new bulkier electronics package in the old turret, as well as to provide TC with better short range visibility through his cupola vision blocks.

Anyways, weak spots are weak points that must be corrected till then they better in developing stages where the flaws are corrected..

Perhaps it can be corrected by making larger turret, but this will make vehicle heavier. It is not nececary the best way to improve vehicle, there might be of course also other way, like redesigning interior.