4 T-90AMs against 2 M1A2.. open terrain, 2900-3000 meters, frontal slugfest

[Nerdwing]

My tank can beat up your tank

Just sayin

 

GET 'EM!!!

 

 

Although I agree with just about everything you said about the classification, I do not believe the story about the .50 cal SLAP going through, that sounds a bit fake were speaking about a tank here.

 

I think it was due to the external APU catching fire after being hit or some such?

Edited February 14, 2015 by Nerdwing

[apd1004]

Although I agree with just about everything you said about the classification, I do not believe the story about the .50 cal SLAP going through, that sounds a bit fake were speaking about a tank here.

Unfortunately it really happened, There was no fire, just a hole about big enough to stick a pencil through one of the side skirts and then the lower hull near one of the support rollers. When I saw the write up on it, they weren't sure what it was but most people at the time agreed it was most likely a .50 SLAP.

[dan/california]

Just felt like posting to say these threads are super interesting, particularly enjoy panzwersourkrautwerfer's writing style (and sense of humor).

 

Have limited time for gaming lately (and presumably for the next 18 years or so) but instead of starting up the game I come on the forums for a 'quick peak' and up learning about all kinds of interesting things.

You learn to filter the rugrat noise after a while, or go mad.  Nice wireless headphone help.  My wife would argue the two choices are not mutually exclusive.

[antaress73]

Will the T-72B3M be in black sea on a future patch or module ? It could really use that commander's panoramic sight

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Unfortunately it really happened, There was no fire, just a hole about big enough to stick a pencil through one of the side skirts and then the lower hull near one of the support rollers. When I saw the write up on it, they weren't sure what it was but most people at the time agreed it was most likely a .50 SLAP.

 

 

There's more than a few "wrong place, wrong time" penetration instances on otherwise very tough tanks.  The .50 cal SLAP penetration should be viewed as a fugitive from the law of averages, and an example of the whole "Alle Kunst ist umsonst Wenn ein Engel in das Zündloch Prunst" thing (translation milage may vary) rather than an example of armor quality.

 

Re: Challenger 2

 

Again, by all accounts I've seen it was an impact under the hull, which on the challenger II was not especially protected at all.  The round partially clipped the lowest sets of ERA, triggering them, but not in a way that'd prevent a penetration.

 

So basically the .50 cal SLAP round again, and improbable event occurring.  You'd struggle to replicate it, and the RPG-29 for all it's lethality is still best reserved for flank shots.  

 

 

 

I don't get this whole T-90A vs M1A2 SEP v2 debate. One for one, it's finest mid-late 90's tech vs finest late 00's tech money can buy.

 

This is true.  The irritation for me is that the T-90 is very much a late 90's piece of equipment, and it shows. Having to explain that it is not at all on the same level as a M1A2 SEP V2, or that the hardware mounted on it is last generation/sometimes not even as good as it's late 90's peers is something that's important to understanding the tank vs tank fights in CMBS.  It's not a bad tank, it's just not the same as a M1A2, or even a "almost as good as" M1A2.  It's catastrophic overmatch for the "might as well be 1989" Ukrainian designs, something fearsome against forces without much dedicated modern AT assets, but it is certainly something that is not a high performer in a armor fight vs US armor.  

[wee]

 

 

I seem to recall the Finnish F-18 deal involved a US agreement to buy some amount of reindeer meat.  You only really get into cash for tanks with the Russians.

 

...

 

(I had one diagnose an engine fault over the radio based on a crewman's description of the noise it was making).

 

 

I've never heard of this before, but thinking of Finnish domestic & internal politics where Finnish Keskusta puolue (Center party) has involved, I have no doubts for this at all.  

 

Not only diplomatic relations but also military alliances count. Earlier when we bought second hand Leopard 2A4s from Germany, it was under depate, would the price have been lower, if we've been a Nato member.

 

The last quoted sentence, that's something to admire. 

[antaress73]

The ammo is not from the nineties. Thats a big nuance but the rest I generally agree. I dont like the T-90A very much. I prefer the T-72B3 (better and newer FCS and quicker on the draw) and of course the T-90AM.

[LukeFF]

Meanwhile one needs to keep in mind that CM is a game made by a US company, sold mostly to North American and Western European customers.

 

I can only roll my eyes when I read statements like that, as people said the same thing back when CMSF was first released. 

 

 

[exsonic01]

We are talking here about T-90A / T-90SM welded turret. As I already noted, such high LOS armor thickness is only achievable in a very small area of turret and only from 0 deg. But it is the sort of thing that in CM "slug fest" tests where you line up tanks and have them shoot at eachother will result in an occasional failure to penetrate.

http://imageshack.com/i/0at90ajj

http://imageshack.com/i/g961276028j

 

I'm tired of this. This is overestimaion. I can't trust this one. I am, and I will, with the Hunnicutt and S Zaloga's expectation, which defined t90 defensive ability as 850mm KE and 1100mm+ (or 1200mm) CE INCLUDING ERA.

Without ERA, 600mm is also quite overestimated value IMO. I almost expect 550mm for front turret without ERA, with cast + TiBDD.

 

That is also confirmed and double-checked from the leaked data,

During the explanation, he "accidentally" exposed the T90's defense capability to Russian new Czar. Of course this is ERA included data. And please, don't say something like "T90AM is GREATLY upgraded it is far far upgraded than MS ,it will be different" T90's basic design is not that different or upgraded. Wielded turret? That will NOT help this.

 

I think you're Russian or Pro-Russian European, but whatever, try not to trust on China / Russia source, because they seemed to very generous for their products, while have dual-standard against western technology. Nah, I know you will not listen, so I don't know why I wasted my time here :/

[exsonic01]

Oh, and someone told that American penetrator's "neutralizing" factor is not a fact

 

The new penetrators don't "neutralize" heavy ERA making it a total non-factor. They sacrifice a small percentage of penetration in order to avoid losing a larger amount of penetration due to destabilization.

 

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12714&page=22

 

A3 has been designed and upgraded from 1980s to win over ERAs with 1) Fast muzzle velocity + 2) Monoblock pentrators. Even with 1980's solild steel nose, it worked against Russian ERAs. And now we are using DU, instead of steel and tungsten. In addition, A3 has been continuously improved design, it is not a surprise that Kontakt5 will not a match against A3. Since A3 (and A4) uses its super-fast-velocity (1555m/s) as main factor of penetration, it does not need flexibility of sabot. Stabilization? It is super stable when it flies, and does not need to "sacrifice" its speed, and it is already proved over last 2 decades.

 

A4? I don't even know how good it will be...  It is a rumour, but I heard that the designers collaborated with Ukraine manufacturers, testing Nozh and Duplet to design / improve A3 and A4. I think A4 will be pretty awesome.

Edited February 15, 2015 by exsonic01

[BTR]

Reportedly Nozh and Duplet don't really work as well as once advertised.  

[exsonic01]

Reportedly Nozh and Duplet don't really work as well as once advertised.  

Nozh is having hard time during recent Ukraine conflict, so I agree only with Nozh. Duplet, however, is different. But I also have only limited data about Duplet now, so I can't comment on that anymore.

[jspec]

You learn to filter the rugrat noise after a while, or go mad.  Nice wireless headphone help.  My wife would argue the two choices are not mutually exclusive.

Thanks, good to know!

 

I think for sure though the days of "just one more turn", and then the next thing you know you're hearing birds outside your window, are over.

[Pablius]

This is all very interesting

 

Now, a question, if thermals in the T-90 doesn't allow it to identified targets beyond 2Km at night, would they ever use ATGM in the dark? because it seems to me that a that range you are better of with KE munition, unless you run out of it...but of course, I´m a lawyer not a tank commander!

[VladimirTarasov]

This is all very interesting

 

Now, a question, if thermals in the T-90 doesn't allow it to identified targets beyond 2Km at night, would they ever use ATGM in the dark? because it seems to me that a that range you are better of with KE munition, unless you run out of it...but of course, I´m a lawyer not a tank commander!

Its not 2KM at night its 2.5 and just because it identifies targets at that range doesnt mean it cannot engage, It has a recognition of 5KM 

[Pablius]

Its not 2KM at night its 2.5 and just because it identifies targets at that range doesnt mean it cannot engage, It has a recognition of 5KM 

 

Ok, still it would be good to know what is the doctrine/training on this...shoot a 5km in the dark and hope for the best or identified first to conserve ammo...I guess much would depend on the situation, in the scenario presented by CMBS everything in front of you is an enemy, but in real life Ukraine/Georgia it wouldn't

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

 I´m a lawyer not a tank commander!

 

 

And for that you will die.

 

Kidding.

 

Maybe.

 

It's a question of what level of identification. In 1991 US tanks were shooting at targets they could reasonably assume were enemy and armor type targets well beyond "identification" range.

 

This led to a few of the friendly fire incidents, but it also lead to more than a few Iraqis assuming they were under air attack because they couldn't even see or make out the signature from the firing tank.

 

If I'm sitting in a T-90 in a defensive position, and I know without a doubt that the friendly scouts are not in front, and I've got a 5 KM sightline, I'm pretty safe to spike a ATGM into the first tankish looking target coming down the road.  If I'm part of a dynamic fight in which friendly positions are not known, or it's complex terrain and there's more than a few hotspots/areas where visibility comes and goes, engagement ranges are goin to get a lot shorter.  

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

It has a recognition of 5KM

 

Negatron, it has "Detection" out to 8 KM, which is to say the sensor can locate something vehicle sized around 8 KM, but it won't be sure if it's a Tank, IFV, T-90 or M1A2 until around 2 KM. It's the diffrence between seeing something moving down the street and being able to tell if it's a woman worth getting a phone number from.

[Pablius]

Negatron, it has "Detection" out to 8 KM, which is to say the sensor can locate something vehicle sized around 8 KM, but it won't be sure if it's a Tank, IFV, T-90 or M1A2 until around 2 KM. It's the diffrence between seeing something moving down the street and being able to tell if it's a woman worth getting a phone number from.

 

Maybe that should be standard by which all optics are measured

 

Thanks for the answers!

[VladimirTarasov]

And for that you will die.

 

Kidding.

 

Maybe.

 

It's a question of what level of identification. In 1991 US tanks were shooting at targets they could reasonably assume were enemy and armor type targets well beyond "identification" range.

 

This led to a few of the friendly fire incidents, but it also lead to more than a few Iraqis assuming they were under air attack because they couldn't even see or make out the signature from the firing tank.

 

If I'm sitting in a T-90 in a defensive position, and I know without a doubt that the friendly scouts are not in front, and I've got a 5 KM sightline, I'm pretty safe to spike a ATGM into the first tankish looking target coming down the road.  If I'm part of a dynamic fight in which friendly positions are not known, or it's complex terrain and there's more than a few hotspots/areas where visibility comes and goes, engagement ranges are goin to get a lot shorter.  

I see what you were trying to say now, Thing is Russian tanks do not get sent without support of other units this is a big fail if done. Russian tanks will be sent forward with recon units and ATGM teams and other assets, Plus the battle management system will provide this info, Im sure the Abrams will have its recon bradley units too. On a 1V1 if its flat terrain good vibility it all depends on range closer the Abrams is the more likely it will win, The farther the more likely the T-90 will win because of its ATGM even if it does not penetrate it will take out possibly the gun or sights. Same for any other situation, It all depends on who will get the round off, And I agree the Abrams will have the advantage of identifying the Russian tank first but if we are talking about a 1V1 it will not matter because both will know they are enemies.

Edited February 15, 2015 by VladimirTarasov

[Nerdwing]

I see what you were trying to say now, Thing is Russian tanks do not get sent without support of other units this is a big fail if done. Russian tanks will be sent forward with recon units and ATGM teams and other assets, Plus the battle management system will provide this info, Im sure the Abrams will have its recon bradley units too. On a 1V1 if its flat terrain good vibility it all depends on range closer the Abrams is the more likely it will win, The farther the more likely the T-90 will win because of its ATGM even if it does not penetrate it will take out possibly the gun or sights. Same for any other situation, It all depends on who will get the round off, And I agree the Abrams will have the advantage of identifying the Russian tank first but if we are talking about a 1V1 it will not matter because both will know they are enemies.

 

Yep.  Hence why so many folks find 1v1 static tests near useless for balance etc.  But still fun to see tanks shoot each other!

[VladimirTarasov]

Yep.  Hence why so many folks find 1v1 static tests near useless for balance etc.  But still fun to see tanks shoot each other!

agreed

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I see what you were trying to say now, Thing is Russian tanks do not get sent without support of other units this is a big fail if done. Russian tanks will be sent forward with recon units and ATGM teams and other assets, Plus the battle management system will provide this info, Im sure the Abrams will have its recon bradley units too. On a 1V1 if its flat terrain good vibility it all depends on range closer the Abrams is the more likely it will win, The farther the more likely the T-90 will win because of its ATGM even if it does not penetrate it will take out possibly the gun or sights. Same for any other situation, It all depends on who will get the round off, And I agree the Abrams will have the advantage of identifying the Russian tank first but if we are talking about a 1V1 it will not matter because both will know they are enemies.

 

The recon unit still cannot actually acquire the target for the firing platform.  And the level of visability you get at 5 KM will be entirely inadequate to ensure a hit on anywhere but "somewhere" on the target, assuming other variables remain in favor of missile hit.  The Abrams has proven very resistant to HEAT type rounds, and again when your target is "a blob" your odds in terms of frontage are most likely to be part of the tank that's fairly resistant to hits.

 

And of course, 5 KM sightlines are not at all common.  

 

The one vs one stuff is pretty silly.  But simply put the Abrams is better able to find targets, engage them accurately, and achieve first shot kills within most combat ranges.  The T-90 isn't again, a bad tank, it's just very clearly the best of 1999, stacked up against the various 2007-2014 era upgraded NATO tanks, which means it'll struggle to achieve results in situations where an Abrams, Leo or Challenger would likely succeed.

 

It will however beat the Leclerc, simply because Russian tanks are able to leave the garage for more than five minutes at a go.  

[BTR]

5KM ranges were intended for hovering helicopter type of target AFAIK, where if you hit a blob its likely a mission kill. Besides, extra range never is a bad thing for that once in a blue moon type of situations where a 4+km LOS can be found.  

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Extra range without the reasonable ability to acquire and track targets is a bit of a waste though.