Armour? About that...every T series tank has crap of armour compared to the western tanks. Chinese and Soviet tanks are kept in mind for mobile artillery. The ERA is their best armour. But ERA and even the Kontact 5 is useless...to some degree. You see the problem with ERA is that it tends to blow off from one hit. If the tank survives the initial hit thanks to ERA and not blown up due to its ammo it will be left with out much skin. Another round will finish it from another tank of course. And the other problem is you don't want infantry taking shelter behind a ERA armoured tank. Because if its hit with HESH then the ERA becomes an enemy. Imagine these heavy metal blocks flying at you! The Western concept is designed to take hits and support infantry. Its a mantanence problem but much more effiecient.
Significance of the Al Khalid
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
wow.........you wanna tell me just who stills use the traditional tank-infantry combo in MODERN warfare? Not urban warfare, MODERN warfare. Besides, if ERA is really that dangerous, why did the TUSK upgrade for M1s specifically imported Israeli ERA blocks? Mind you, urban warfare is probably the only place you still use unprotected infantry with tanks in close proximity.
And let's not generalize about Soviet armor. Iraqis had the EXPORT version of a T-72, which was a FAST tank...in fact, the fastest MBT when it first came out. The armor on the T-80, or even the T-72A and M2s, are much more resilient. A better example would be the Israeli Arab comflicts, although they had exported versions too, the Arabs were able to use the Soviet armor to greater effect. (Iraqis can't fight)
And let's not generalize about Soviet armor. Iraqis had the EXPORT version of a T-72, which was a FAST tank...in fact, the fastest MBT when it first came out. The armor on the T-80, or even the T-72A and M2s, are much more resilient. A better example would be the Israeli Arab comflicts, although they had exported versions too, the Arabs were able to use the Soviet armor to greater effect. (Iraqis can't fight)
vincelee said:
I agree with you. But during the 91 war, the Iraqis weren't using the proper ammuniton agains the American tanks. Hell, they were using obsolete HEAT rounds against the M1's! Had they been using something like DU rounds, then more American tanks would have been destroyed. Above that, the Iraqis had deployed their entire army in Kuwait, a massive strategical error. If you place half a million men in a country barely the size of any US state along with thousands of tanks, APCs, artillery, etc. you have absolutely no way to manuever your forces or even to conduct a proper retreat. Saddam's retreat was one of the most disorganized retreats in military history. Saddam himself is going to be labelled as the most incompetent military general in history as well.
Going back to the topic, tanks with ERA blocks are not at all obsolete. The ERA will only turn into big chunks of flying steel if they are not placed properly on the tank. As vinclee pointed out, the Americans are now upgrading their M1's with ERA to further reduce the damage done by RPG's and IED's.
darth sidious
Banned Idiot
jatt said:
I dont know where you got the idea that soviet armour is incapable but thats simply not true. In fact they where the first to invent composite armour long before the british even tried. If you are talking about the T-72 the version Iraquis used is called the the T-72M its downgraded with convential armour steel insted of the Russian combo-K. the T-72M1 also has down graded composite these are the tanks you see blowing up in Iraq. For you informationthey are also the T-72 india has thats why you always ee them buried in a thich layer of ER armour
darth sidious
Banned Idiot
jatt said:But my argument still stanks that the Soviet style armour was crap compared to Western ones. So you can argue Soviet armour wasn't as bad but its still no better. So stop trying to be know it all.
the burden of proof is on you. How is soviet armour inferior campare to western armour ? I already proved perfomance in Iraq is not evidance .
the russians them self dont use their export grade weapons
jatt said:But my argument still stanks that the Soviet style armour was crap compared to Western ones. So you can argue Soviet armour wasn't as bad but its still no better. So stop trying to be know it all.
If Soviet style/Russian armor is crap, I doubt India would be buying T-90's from Russia. Hell, they'd probably pay for the Israeli Merkava if the T-90 had crappy armor. Above that, when the T-72 first came out it made NATO start to shake in its pants.
crazyinsane105 said:
Soviet armour are light so that they can move fast and use the lightning strike concept !!!
Nato armour is heavy and is for hold and fight concept (against overwhelming soviet armour attack) !!! India did get T72 and T90 because its light and can move easily in desert and soft plains (of Punjab) .
Arjun , though having better gun and far more protection , is heavier and will have little induction . Probably it will be with infantry regiments in hold and fight wars !! Arabian desert , Unlike Thar , is having strong ground . The sand there is fine and while Indian desert is having coarse particles and affected by shifting dunes !!!
Thats why Merkavas , Abrams ,etc . can do wel in Arabia but they will surely bogg down in Indo Pak desert or softer plains of Punjab !!! Actually Pakistan was offered Abrams M1 in 80s but it failed to secure good marks in desert tests !!!
Actually MKI I thought the same myself about the M1 Abrahams being offered to Pakistan until an ex-M1 tank driver proved me wrong. The reason Pakistan didn't go for the M1 Abraham was because of the fear that the US might stop spare parts to Pakistan in the event of a war with India. Above that, the M1 is a gas guzzler. The sand in Pakistan is quite soft I admit, but the sand in Kuwait is like snow: your feet would sink knee deep trying to walk through, yet the Abraham performs quite well in Kuwait. You may have a point about the Punjab region since the Abraham can't deal very well with mud (I saw several pics where the Abraham got stuck in mud). Probably the last reason why neither Pakistan and India aren't pursuing Western made tanks is most likely because they are quite expensive to buy and a nightmare to maintain. Chinese and Russian equipment is known for its simplicity.
A 125 mm gun can do wondars on bunkers and fortesses. If you haven't noticed the Soviets relied on ATGM heavily and artillery to hit tanks from the top. T-72 was suppose to be fast like all Soviet tanks and use speed and numbers to counter Western Armour. For every Abhram the Americans had and could build the Soviets would have 3 T-72/T-80/T-90 etc... and as for its armour. Perhaps the Chechs could tell you more about it.