Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chudacabra

Differences Between Russian Tanks?

Recommended Posts

CM%20Black%20Sea%202016-03-11%2011-09-37

Perhaps it has covered elsewhere (I searched, I tried, I failed!), but I'm interested in a breakdown between the different Russian tanks in CMBS: T-72B3, T-90A, and T-90AM (AKA "The Good Morning Tank").

Particularly in a QB, I'm wondering if it's better to buy more T-72's or better T-90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welll this is subjective. But i always have completely awful experiences with T72s and never willingly take them.

In defense I use T90 As. The shtora and pop smoke is good. In offense i use AMs.

Basically on offensive you really need to divide the battle zone up by keyholes and terrain obstructions especially buildings along with smoke. Bring khrizanthemas along for defense or attack. Keep them back. Let enemy targets come into their line of fire never try to position a kgriz to attack enemy units in their los itll be destroyed. Its radar can see through smoke and target and kill m1s.

In defense i use my t90s in pairs. With thermals in BS hidibg troops in even heavy woods will lead to them being massacred by US forces. The only foolproof anti thermal ĺ5method is buildings. You want on attack or defense your atgms to support your armor. I cant stress the importance of this. A few trenches with at 14s at very long range  the rest in buildings far back. At 13s in bldgs closer they have an exceptional in bldg setup time. They KO every US vehicle with ease except abrams and still can give them a helluva knock around. You want to try to set them up for flank shots on advancing armor. You also want your atgms where possibke to be mutualy supporting. If i have atgms like say 3 of them that can all see the same target ill have them all open up at once. This increases odds of a kill and doesnt let the US destroy one ar a time. The T90 gun is fine against abrams especially close in. Problem is who spots who first. Thats why slow methodical advance using buildings to cover flanks etc with smoke and atgms and khriz in overwatch is essential in the attack  in defense i use my t90s in pairs. Usually behind a buiding aone facing each way. Again like the khriz you cant do what you can do with US armor - i.e. maneuver in sight of the enemy to engage. You ll be destroyed  the trick is to maneuver so the tank or ifv or whatever is stationary and the enemy tank rolls into its FOV. This will almost always ensure a first shot on your side and often the exposed part of the enemy will also be a flank and will result in a kill.

Dont worry too much about US precision arty strikes. Yes ive seen them KO tanks but ice also seen and have proof of a t90am taking 6 direct 155mm hits from precision strikes. Yes the  sensors were out and it was immobilized but thats it.

If my bmp2ms fired their at 14s id always take them however ive never seen one launch... at all in literally hundreds of engagements. Therefore on the attack i use bmp2ms in the hope one day theyll use their atgms but also bc they have the autocannon and ammo for troops. However in the defense i take btr82as. I select the btr bttn tac grp because its atgm element is significantly beefier than a bmp tac grp because the btr doesnt have at14s on it. This is perfect for defense because you get a mix of the lethal kornet along with the less lethal but especially useful saxhorn that can be deployed faster than any other unit including mgs in buildings in all of the cm series. It can also be fired undeployed from the shoulder. It will KO bradleys from the front no problem. Abrams from the rear definitely. Sides are iffy some contend that tho they should be able to they wont penetrate abeams side. However a missile hit will still do damage and prbably cause the tank to turn. This is key to the multille attackers strategy. The tank turns one way to attaack on atgm or tank and therefore is exposing itself to an atgm or tank thats mutualy supporting the first sight but is say some distance to either side of it.

Again I cant stress these points enough - 1.even if its only 2 seconds ahead of time you want your tanks ifvs or ambush vehicles to be stationary and the enemy to drive into their fov to engage you never want to maneuver russian armor to engage in view of the enemy.

2. BS tank hunting is completely different than any other cm title. Us thermals are so good heavy woods are useless. Ive had enemies lead attacks with armor into heavy woods infantry was intermingled but quickly fell behind because my artillery. The tanks were not affected of course.  In a ww2 game this would be certain doom.for the armor. Perhaps IRL too. However time and again ive seen it the thermals are too good and the armor just obliterates your Russ infwntry whether theyre hiding entrenched whatever. So always remember to really be safe from thermals you need extreme distance ( only really appllicable and useful for at 14s in trenches on hills) or buildings which thermals are waaaay less effective against.

3. Tunguskas. Always bring one. For the first part of any battle let them sit in the rear to ko cas and drones. When its obvious enemy air is done then - on attack carefully bring them up. Keyhole them and use them to obliterare enemy inf. Positions.

On defense. As always no maneuvering in front of the enemy. But if a tuguska fires on am abeams first itll hit it so much and so quickly with its 30mms that the abrams will almost be shocked into inaction and its susystems wil be utterly stripped. If you get this going and then have atgms engaging the abrams he.s dead. This is the one exception to maneuvering in the face of the enemy and only applies if youre sure that theres only 1 abrams with los to the tunguska and the tank you.ll use. If a tunguskas rippin up an abrams go in there with a tank or two and hit the abrams first chance u get. The subsystems damage and shock of hundreds of 30mm hits per second will basically let your tanks have their way with the enemy.

 

 

Back to the original question. Honestly when i use t72s or t64s i unbutton them. Only tanks in BS i do  that with.  If i could buy T64s instead of t72b3s as the russians i would too. Ive had more luck with t64s against russian t90s than with t72s against.... anything.

Of course this is subjective im sure some poster will come in an prove hes won every battle he ever fought with t72s. But for me they explode without any spot of the enemy nothing. Thats it.

Of course the best Ukr tank is the oplot.

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Russian tanks: 

They're all effectively increasingly effective T-72 variants (the T-90 designation has more to do with moving away from the disastrous connotation of the T-72 designation than anything else).  Key things to remember:

1. T-90A<T-72B3<T-90AM from my experience.  The T-90A represents an aging 90's era tank, the T-72B3 is a very aging tank that's had a lot of new and powerful equipment slapped on it, and the T-90AM is a semi-fictional massive upgrade to the T-90A (in that it exists but last I checked, no one has bought it)

2. Firepower wise they're all pretty much equal in regards to main gun.  There's a practical upper limit to the size of the gun rounds thanks to a shared autoloader.  I think the T-90AM might be slightly more lethal but that may have to do more with other factors.  None of them work especially well against the Abrams from frontal angles, all Ukrainian tanks however don't seem to resist 125 MM even in the frontal arc well.  

3. Mobility is virtually identical.  

4. The big differences are all in protection and sensors.  All have about equal protection once you get past the ERA/APS array...but boy does the ERA and APS make a difference.

In detail:

The T-90A again is a largely 90's era tank with fairly modest upgrades.  It is your entry level Russian tank.  I'd contend it is still superior to all Ukrainian tanks, but it lacks a lot of the protection measures of your other choices.  It also does have anti-ATGM jammers but they're miss or mostly miss (rarely doing anything to US missiles, sometimes confusing earlier Ukrainian ones)  It also has the worst optics for Russian tanks, and will virtually always lose in a gunfight with Abrams, and it's lack of APS means that top attack ATGMs* are pretty much world enders.  

The T-72B3 is a very robust upgrade to the cold war era T-72B.  Chiefly it incorporates a newer thermal optic and improved fire control package, and the very latest in K-5 ERA.  It will stand a slightly better chance of detecting US Armor before getting engaged, and it does a better job at finding enemy infantry I find.  The K-5 is the bigger deal however in that it makes the tank much stronger against any ATGM that is not a top attack, and reduces the effect of not-Abrams sabot type rounds.  It's also comes in an APS equipped model which will add TOW-2B to the list of things you do not have to worry so much about (Javelins and Abrams still being pretty high on the list though)

The T-90AM represents a very dramatic upgrade in protection and sensors to the T-90.  Best optics of any Russian vehicle in the game I feel, and the Relikt ERA is quite formidable.  It's one of the few Russian tanks that reliably will take main gun rounds from US or Ukrainian tanks and not just explode.  It also comes with the Russian C3 system so it better shares information with its fellow T-90AMs and other late model Russian equipment.  It also has a remote weapons station which helps in infantry engagements.  Finally it also may be equipped with APS which makes it quite robust.  Its only real downside is that it's quite expensive in QB, and the firepower is still lacking to go head to head with US Armor.  

Sublime is the better reference for the actual tactics in employing them.  I get the impression that folks might disagree where I place the T-90A, but I've never gotten especially better results with them over the T-72B3.  

*TOW-2Bs now that I think of it.  Javelins in top attack virtually always get through anyway. 

**Okay it's not nearly that certain, it's not a good idea to get in tank duels with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-90A is not an aging 90s tank... It was brought into service in the mid 2000s... Totally new armor packages then the T-72B, And the T-90 (1990s era) I usually use T-90As as a break through force against US forces. T-72B3s I'd use as company support, And if needed they can engage enemy armor.  I like to attach at-least 1 T-72B3 to a company. And have T-90As as break through force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see a T-90A survive anything bigger than an AT-4.  It's optics are only good because the Ukrainian ones appear to have been stolen and sold elsewhere, firepower wise it is subpar and Bradleys take a bloody toll on it.

The T-72B3 at least lets you mount APS, but I've never felt like the T-90A was a good investment, real life or in game.  It's the finest in 1995 technology regardless of introduction date.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRL it hasn't exactly impressed many folks either.  I'll contend it's sub-par to the T-72B3 simply because ultimately it is a later model T-72, and retains a lot of its problems, while a lot of it's "fixes" aren't quite up to snuff either, while the B3 is at least more modern equipment.  

If you're on a budget or you're worried about fighting someone with T-72s, it's not a bad choice, but it falls pretty short of most NATO or Western designs.

I'm really rather convinced there's a bug or some improperly set value for the Ukrainian armor.  I don't expect it to be great, but it does not work to a degree that is suspicious.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer, Without starting a heated debate :D you being a experienced tank commander, What do you see of the T-90A that leads you to your thoughts on it? Of course you haven't been in one or ever near one but I'd rather listen to your criticism then non tankists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Oplots

Those and those alone are the reason I have some questions about Ukrainian tanks.  Their sensors shouldn't be too drastically far behind Russian armor, and yet, feels rather like you've got a T-34 out there vs something somewhat modern.

Re: T-90A
The skinny on why I'm not especially impressed:
1. The armor array cannot effectively resist any US Army anti-armor (and many western NATO) weapons.  It'll do okay against some earlier model TOW-2s, but it doesn't have enough protection to resist sabot type rounds, or more advanced ATGMs.  If I could see it, the question was never "if" I could kill it.
2. The firepower is lacking.  The autoloader limited just how potent the shells could be, and as a result it increasingly fell behind western armor design.  If he could see me, there's a simple chance he's not going to be able to kill me.
3. The sensor package is marginal.  Like about on par for everyone else's 1990's vintage tanks, but poor in 2005 and very poor in 2017.  Not only in terms of detection/target discrimination, what's the point of having a stand-off weapon like an ATGM if you cannot actually spot a target at stand-off range?
4. It's a small compact tank.  While giant house sized tanks are sub optimal, looking at how smaller tanks react to penetration, usually there's something to be said for somewhat bigger (or compare, late model Sherman and T-34s were about on par for armor protection.  However in practice, while each Sherman knocked out tended to generate around 1 KIA or WIA per penetration, however T-34s had a 75% mortality rate for crewmen on struck tanks let alone WIA).  The T-90 couldn't take a turret penetration without likely killing the turret crew and firepower killing the tank, and that autoloader seems to like to explode.  I know folks who've walked away from catastrophic Abrams losses with one very messy KIA but otherwise the rest of the crew intact.  Not sure a smaller more compact vehicle would have handled it as well, and the advantages to something that compact pay off enough to make the downsides worth it.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id say we have to agree to disagree only on whether the t72 or t90 is better pz. You certaimly know more about the actual realities of the tanks equipment and of course this is  anecdotal from my side. Ive killed several dozen abrams with t90s. Ive never ko.d anything american with a 72. But also a lot of it is my very negative t72 experiences led me to never buying them again after an early point. Another major obvious factor leading to our disagreeing is APS because I refuse to use it.   The T90A IMO has the best LWR and defensive reaction times of any Sov. Tanks. Again anecdotal but usually they get lased pop smoke and reverse. Surviving that initial few seconds is iffy which is why ambush positions using a house as your hub to a wheel to move your tanks around as a piece of cover helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Oplots

Those and those alone are the reason I have some questions about Ukrainian tanks.  Their sensors shouldn't be too drastically far behind Russian armor, and yet, feels rather like you've got a T-34 out there vs something somewhat modern.

Re: T-90A
The skinny on why I'm not especially impressed:
1. The armor array cannot effectively resist any US Army anti-armor (and many western NATO) weapons.  It'll do okay against some earlier model TOW-2s, but it doesn't have enough protection to resist sabot type rounds, or more advanced ATGMs.  If I could see it, the question was never "if" I could kill it.
2. The firepower is lacking.  The autoloader limited just how potent the shells could be, and as a result it increasingly fell behind western armor design.  If he could see me, there's a simple chance he's not going to be able to kill me.
3. The sensor package is marginal.  Like about on par for everyone else's 1990's vintage tanks, but poor in 2005 and very poor in 2017.  Not only in terms of detection/target discrimination, what's the point of having a stand-off weapon like an ATGM if you cannot actually spot a target at stand-off range?
4. It's a small compact tank.  While giant house sized tanks are sub optimal, looking at how smaller tanks react to penetration, usually there's something to be said for somewhat bigger (or compare, late model Sherman and T-34s were about on par for armor protection.  However in practice, while each Sherman knocked out tended to generate around 1 KIA or WIA per penetration, however T-34s had a 75% mortality rate for crewmen on struck tanks let alone WIA).  The T-90 couldn't take a turret penetration without likely killing the turret crew and firepower killing the tank, and that autoloader seems to like to explode.  I know folks who've walked away from catastrophic Abrams losses with one very messy KIA but otherwise the rest of the crew intact.  Not sure a smaller more compact vehicle would have handled it as well, and the advantages to something that compact pay off enough to make the downsides worth it.  
 

I see what you're meaning, The firepower is somewhat lacking in the AP category against say the M1A2 and others like it but it has HE, HEAT, ATGM rounds as well. The Autoloader did limit the shell size, Which pretty much killed its AP potential, If I remember correctly the 3BM42M penetrates 680-700 mm of RHA at 2 KM. Would be good enough for hull shots, Turret shots not so much against the M1A2 @ 2 KM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Sublime

With how much you play red actually I think your opinion is more valid here.  T-90As failed me for the last time some time ago.  Might have to give them another whirl.  I do play mostly US though and I rarely notice a difference unless it's a T-90AM as occasionally they do not explode despite being hit directly, and I feel like T-72B3s are quicker to return fire which gives me the impression of better sensors.

Re: T-90As continued

The simple rule of tank on tank is he who shoots first wins.  Simple as that.  The sensor package on the T-90A will make it challenging to accomplish that.  If it spots a Western MBT first, there's a chance that if it hits that tank, it will be unable to knock it out.  There is virtually no chance if the T-90A is struck first it will survive in any sort of combat effective manner (it might not blow up, but given the small size of the tank, a penetration is going to kill crew, the weapons, or the mobility, or some combination of those three things).  

It's like the T-90A is a gun fighter, and he will generally start the gunfight facing the wrong way, his bullets are only effective if carefully aimed, and he has shown up wearing nothing more than jeans and a t-shirt so if he's hit, he goes down.  If you're shopping for tanks and your enemy is a T-72M or worse user, the T-90A is a good tank.  Against a M1A2, Leo 2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, K2 for good measure, it's just not enough tank.  As a tanker I was by far more worried about dismounted ATGMs*, or close range RPG ambush or even mines than I ever was Russian armor.

*not exactly for the penetration values, more to do with if a T-90 showed up, I'd likely see him and kill him before he had much of a chance to do anything all of those other threats are things that might sneak up on me/hit somewhere that wasn't the frontal slope of the armor.  There's ways to mitigate all of them pretty effectively, but against tanks it was just keeping your eyes open and then shooting center of mass on whatever you spotted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, But the T-90A's thermal has a guaranteed identification range of 2.6 Kilometers, And considering Russia is most likely to engage NATO in Europe which the average engagement range was estimated to be 1.3-1.6KM I think it wouldn't be as big of a problem. I agree that the M1A2 SEP is superior to the T-90A in sensor terms, And in AP firepower M1A2 is more powerful. But that doesn't mean the T-90A is not on par with NATO heavy tanks. But if you ask me, I think we need T-90AMs and T-14s if we want to remain a viable ground power in the coming 3-10 years. T-72B3Ms would do good too, The T-72B3s still have the ancient commander periscope for some reason...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 however T-34s had a 75% mortality rate for crewmen on struck tanks let alone WIA). 

Myth. 

186520_original.png

5th Tank Corps losses 18-28.07.1944.
T-34 - 28/T-34-85 - 89. Crew casualties ≈1.3 KIA per tank.
M3c (M3 Lee) - 13. Crew casualties ≈2.5-3 KIA per tank.
IS-2 - 11. Crew casualties 1 KIA per tank.

Another example:

For example Polish 4th Armoured Brigade had got 65 tanks (T-34) and 325 members of tank crews before the battle of Bautzen (16.04.1945). Irrecoverable losses until the end of the battle (01.05.1945) were 30 tanks. Irrecoverable losses of tank crews (not only KIA but also MIA & POW) were 55.


For T-64/72/80/90 numbers around the same (1 KIA per tank). In Grozny 30 tanks lost, crew casualties 31 KIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, But the T-90A's thermal has a guaranteed identification range of 2.6 Kilometers, And considering Russia is most likely to engage NATO in Europe which the average engagement range was estimated to be 1.3-1.6KM I think it wouldn't be as big of a problem. I agree that the M1A2 SEP is superior to the T-90A in sensor terms, And in AP firepower M1A2 is more powerful. But that doesn't mean the T-90A is not on par with NATO heavy tanks. But if you ask me, I think we need T-90AMs and T-14s if we want to remain a viable ground power in the coming 3-10 years. T-72B3Ms would do good too, The T-72B3s still have the ancient commander periscope for some reason...  

Not thinking about it correctly.  Detection radius is not especially useful because rarely outside of table top gaming are LOSes uncomplicated flat objects.  The real issue with Russian optics is that:

1. They maintain very poor resolution on the move making it difficult to scan rapidly.
2. Fairly bad at telling subtle differences in heat.  So a Russian thermal optic will tell you there's a hot object.  It might be a sun heated rock, might be a helmet, might be the gunner's optics on a tank.  Something with better discrimination, you'll be able to see more than just hotspots.

The range is irrelevant for reasons you've picked out already.  But the Russian tank will be trying to filter through dozens of "might be target" hot spots, while the NATO tanks will be generally better able to narrow down which hot spots are tank-like targets vs rock-like targets.

T-90A is not on par with anything except for T-90s man.  

Re: Myths

I can't read Russian, so I'm going to assume your chart has some words in it.  However:

What are irrecoverable loses?  Are they vehicle penetrated and burned, or is it simply the tank mobility killed, crew bailed out, and it's now behind German lines or even simply was declared a loss because it's easier to get a new tank than whatever complicated assembly fell out the back of the tank?

Regardless from the US Army AAR on Armor on Armor combat against T-34/85s in Korea, they found what was left of about 75% of NKPA tankers on penetrated vehicles.  This certainly excludes tanks abandoned due to less than penetrating damage, or catastrophic mobiltiy kills (vehicle has fallen off a bridge).  Further in terms of Grozny you're looking at very few penetrations, and a lot of vehicles being mobility killed, and then abandoned as their panicking overwhelmed crews abandon them.  The killer of armor there was not catastrophic vehicle ruining, it was after 19-22 non-penetrating RPG-7 hits, the vehicle is untenable and was left behind.  

I'm just curious.  I'm getting caught up on my Eastern Front stuff, and lot of T-34 losses early war had everything to do with a lack of recovery assets/poorly trained crews/automotive reliability issues and very little to do with enemy fire.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 with Russian optics

French actually. Locally produced Thales Catherine FC/XP Thermal Imager on T-90A/MS/T-72B3 obr. 2012/2016.

T-72B3 obr.2012:

http://uploads.ru/K5p3V.jpg

http://uploads.ru/maEsO.jpg

 

Are they vehicle penetrated and burned, or is it simply the tank mobility killed, crew bailed out, and it's now behind German lines or even simply was declared a loss because it's easier to get a new tank than whatever complicated assembly fell out the back of the tank?
 I'm getting caught up on my Eastern Front stuff, and lot of T-34 losses early war had everything to do with a lack of recovery assets/poorly trained crews/automotive reliability issues and very little to do with enemy fire.  

Статистические данные по безвозвратным потерям танков и их членов экипажей танковых частей 5 танкового корпуса в Двинской операции (18-28.07.1944)/Statistical data on irrecoverable losses of tanks and crews in tank units of 5th Tank Corps during Dvina (Rēzekne-Dvina) operation. This was successful offensive operation. Most of the losses a from 7.5 and 8.8 cm guns.

 

 Further in terms of Grozny you're looking at very few penetrations, and a lot of vehicles being mobility killed, and then abandoned as their panicking overwhelmed crews abandon them.  The killer of armor there was not catastrophic vehicle ruining, it was after 19-22 non-penetrating RPG-7 hits, the vehicle is untenable and was left behind.  

3rd Tank Battalion, 6th Tank Regiment, 90th Tank Division. 

22 tanks have penetrating hits from RPG/ATGM/Tank and AT-guns fire:
5 total loss T-80B №198, T-80BV №174, 186, 193, 195.
11 abandoned T-80BV №172, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 189, 191, 197.
5 withdraw under their own power T-80B №188, T-80BV №170, 187, 190, 199.
+1 abandoned T-72  taken by T-80BV №180 crew.
6 crewmembers died in tanks.
Sources (Russian):1,2.

Edited by Bydax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French actually. Locally produced Thales Catherine FC/XP Thermal Imager on T-90A/MS/T-72B3 obr. 2012/2016.

Which looks about on par with the 1992 vintage M1A1 I trained on.  You can see where the top of the tank blurs into the treeline off and on.  This would not be the case with more modern western equipment.

When the US ordinance dudes looked over more or less the entire allotment of T-34/85s operated by the DPRK during the original invasion, they found on average 75% of crewmen were KIA.  I checked up on the report itself and it refers specifically to tank on tank kills so it would have been largely 76 MM HVAP or 90 MM AP of various models.  


Now perhaps North Koreans are just weak inferior race of not good comrade stock, but this seems to indicate a certain degree of crew member risk.  The fact 90 MM would simply drive through the frontal slope, into the driver/assistant driver, through most of the turret crew, and out the engine seems to highlight the problem with small interior volume.

While I'm not an expert on the eastern front, nor do I have the inclination to learn Russian, there would appear to be problems with the T-34 and crew survival when penetrated by tank caliber rounds.

Re: Chechnya

Again, mostly RPG-7, RPG-18 and a few odd smaller projectiles.  The performance of Syrian T-72s when struck by TOWs, or T-72Ms in 1991 seems to indicate that making crew survival claims based on smaller infantry point defense type AT systems is likely misguided.  It is interesting to see how readily Russian crewmen depart their tanks given a chance however! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've been wondering too, so I did a little testing just to see: 100 60 second 1vs1 head-to-head tank duels at 1000m over open ground between each Russian tank and each Ukrainian tank. No one has any orders whatsoever, its up to the AI to react. Obviously this is massively restrictive and thoroughly divorced from any kind of tactical reality and anything you learn from it should be treated with great skepticism, but it throws up some interesting points.

First of all the results, out of 100 engagements:

For the T72B3:

vs T64BV it went 53:10; vs Bulat it went 37:13 and vs the Oplot it went 15:8

The T90A:

vs T64BV it went 33:0; vs the Bulat it went 32:1 and against the Oplot it went 7:6

And last the T90AM:

vs T64BV it went 37:3, against the Bulat it went 32:1 and it went 10:1 against the Oplot.

It looks like one of the most important factors is whether the tanks have laser warning receivers- the T90A, T90AM and Oplot all get fewer kills and take fewer losses because they pop smoke when they get lased. The T72B3 doesn't know if its getting lased, but seems to get the first round off more often than the Ukrainians.

The T72B3 is the surprise here- I could expect highest losses because it has no Shtora, but I didn't expect it to lead in kills against all 3 Urkrainian types. Think I'll be ditching the T90s and taking the T72s out for a try.

Oh, I did a few tests with the Abrams and guess what? Its a head-to-head test, so its an invincible killing machine.

Edited by Hapless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Pz i disagree. Im a military brat. You were an active duty combat vet in armor my opinions a steaming dog turd in comparison to yours except perhaps amecdotally on how these tanks act in a video game.  As far as penetration and spotting first... the 90AMs beat sensors are part of why attacking with them is essential and you still need overwatch. At14s tanks and khriz. The at14s have thermals and can hit enemy tanks and the khriz can see through smoke.

The first round off argument is why in defense i never maneuver any armor unless its a siper emergency in fov of the enemy. Their move orders may end where the enemy will pop into sight in seconds but mever ever on purpose have a move in front of or end in sight of the enemy.

Picture the infamous circle strafe first person shooter tactic circling a target shooting at the center. Now picture the tank as your fps shooter and a house as the target except in cm the target is your cover your moving the tank around a house to keep it covered from m1s. You want them to roll into view and not 2k or 1km view. I mean less than 1km preferably less than 500m. That alone usually will see abrams kills but abrams are very deadly and it can still blow up in your face if u do everything right. Literally.  But if you operate tanks in pairs have ay13s with inf screens closer at 14s fyrther away and all these defenses are in mitually supporting groups. Note i didnt aay all i said groups. One group of  2 t90ams by a house may be coveees by a khriz. Or 2 at 13s and 2 at14s. Or nothing. Its all variable. This is also why you wanna defend deeper in as russians. Pretend the first fifth of your defensive deployment zone doesnt exist. Id  go further and say no armor or anything unless its either 2 ot 3 km away and keyholed or behind hills bldgs etc.

Also if youre new to russians get used to losing tanks no matter what. If youre used to US its freaky at first. Whats normal or even good seems horrific loss wise.. but its not.

You can tell if your Soc defense plan is good if youre not doing much repositioning during the battle if youre moving tanks all over your rear you fu8Ked up somewhere.

More than any side its important to really really figure outbwhere the enemy is probably.gonna attack from.  Also make use of your arty. I find the 2s1 i believe 152mm on the bttn tac grp with the 120mm lortars on board works well. Unlike mortars in every other game i rarely d/f these bexayse US thermals are just too good. Instead i set up batteries near their trucks and a radio unit. On map.mortars have a quick call in time  esp with TRPs.

Also as Russ player never forget all of your armor is very vulnerable even to Bradleys. Abrams are NOT vulnerable to your BMPs. Sorry antaress YOU may get our BMP2ms to fire their kornets but IVE NEVER seen any prove vid or pictorially of them used from a BMP2M in CM.

Brads besides their TOWs which I do see them fire can also KO any Russian mbt from the side easily and cause big problems from the front too.

Fijnaly Pz cheesy as it is love and respect for your service for my freedom.ĺooo

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anecdotal note,  as I did not record the game,  but I just had a battle as UKR v. RUS. Oplot, elite,  hit a T90A FOUR TIMES,  at about  600m distance,  same direction,  within about 10mins. Front to front. T90 finally shot back,  nailed it. 

I checked the T90A later,  all four hits were either front glace or turret. 

Now,  I know the 90 is a tough tank,  but a sabot,  4000m/s round didn't go through like butter at 600m??!

Whats the max close range for Era to stay effective? Because this blew my mind.  

I've taken out Abrams at that distance,  with T72s. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...