Jump to content

One Tough Cookie


MikeyD

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I believe the T64 made it out of (present day) Russia proper but definitely stayed in 'Soviet' hands.

yes, i think that's true.

As to 'more advanced', was the T64 advanced in actual warfighting ability? Or was the T72 just simplified from a production standpoint for cheaper manufacture?
comparisons get muddy when you start comparing different variants, but basicly T-64 had better armor, faster autoloader, more ammo...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I read that one of BFC's jobs on the T72 English release was to check and confirm the accuracy of the games penetration/armor models. Apparently (and I hope I'm not wrong) the English release will have more than just cosmetic changes. After all, BFC has a reputation to live up to!

It would be sooo cool if they got the T72 armor-vs-105mm thing right. Having an entertaining tank sim based on seat-of-the-pants estimates is one thing, having a tank sim with all the penetration curves correct would be an EVENT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MikeyD:

For those of you who don't subscribe to the small Canadian armor journal AFV News, in their latest issue (Vol.40 No.2) theres a photo article showing the effects of a 105mm APFSDS tungsten round (Hungarian-made NP105A2) on a Czech manufactured T72 M1. Hit three times in the turret in the area of the 'chernozyom' composite armor, and five times on the bow. NONE of the rounds penetrated!

just goes to show how poor eastern (hungarian) AP ammo really is... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, most photos I've seen of 'locally produced' 105mm rounds look exactly like the original tungsten APFSDS. Only a very few companies in a very few countries have the facilities to design and test an all-new-design round, plus alter the tank's ballistics computer to fire the rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Comparable to early '80s 105mm rounds from the US, UK, Germany and France, AFAICT.

it was meant as a joke aimed at the faulty reasoning underlying the initial post.

ok I didnt want to go into this but - I have a few concerns about all this.

one of them is my concern about this new trend that russian equipment is the best thing since sliced bread. I fear that something similarly subtle yet horribly wrong might happen here as it did with IL-2.

to elaborate: not originally a trackhead, I come from the aviation enthusiast corner decades ago. when there was all this hype about IL-2 being the best and most realistic flight sim out there, I eventually gave it a try (in the bargain bin).

ok, my very first mission, i barely knew the basic controls. maximum realism, of course. I have a Polikarpov I-16 Rata. my airfield is under attack, opening of barbarossa '41. I barely manage to get airborne, there is quite a bit of chaos with friendly and enemy aircraft. a lone high-flying Ju-88 is flying away after having dropped its bombs.

I chase after it, knowing it is futile: I still hadnt figured out how to retract my gear, and I keep overheating the engine.

I manage to fiddle around with the engine shutters and cooling to keep it working, but I never figure out how to retract the damn gear, actually I wasnt even sure if I had retracted it or not.

nevertheless, I was easily able to catch up with the Ju-88 (!!!) and pretty effortlessly shoot it down, then return to my airfield.

the video clearly showed I had my gear down all the time !

exhilarated at very first over my victory, but then, after quick reflection on what just had happened, very disappointed: what a let-down !

now, catching up with an empty Ju-88 that is making a fast descending exit home, in a decrepit little Rata with its gear down... plus this thing, as I later found out, flies wonderfully against Me-109s - one would start to wonder why the russians would ever feel the need to develop anything beyond that good ol' peashooter Rata !

here's another thing:

russian military equipment looks good on the paper. ships, tanks, aviation, avionics, optics, everything. they have fabulous data.

but only on paper.

reality looks different. it is faulty, poor craftsmanship, crude. non-working. prone to malfunctions. I know it. I've seen it.

during the cold war there was a military joke here in germany about how to tell american vehicles from german vehicles. the joke went on that you could tell the american designs by the buckets and pans under the vehicles to collect all the oil dripping down.

of course, despite some grain of truth somewhere (the original M113 was notorious for that), it was a joke. but the real truth is that compared to the russian equipment the US stuff was top notch craftsmanship, excellent work...

I have some other, even bigger concerns about this T-72 Balkans game, but there is also this fear that in this game I will be wondering why the russians ever bothered to evolve beyond the T-54/55 or even the T34/85.

this fear so far is unsubstantiated and I will be more than happy to see that it was unjustified.

cheers.

[ May 12, 2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

I believe the T64 made it out of (present day) Russia proper but definitely stayed in 'Soviet' hands.

yes, i think that's true.

As to 'more advanced', was the T64 advanced in actual warfighting ability? Or was the T72 just simplified from a production standpoint for cheaper manufacture?
comparisons get muddy when you start comparing different variants, but basicly T-64 had better armor, faster autoloader, more ammo... </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello fellow tread-heads.

I read your posts with interest. Seems like there is a great community here. I found this forum while searching for new PC War Games through a community site I visit called the Wargamer.

I am a 1980's era US MARINE, so a lot of what I know for fact is well over 2 decades old. I served with 1st Marine Tanks on several occassions, but my main job was that of Tac-Air controller for the 7th Marine Regiment.

By the time USMC M-60A3 tanks engaged Iraqi armor in 1991, I was living well in a beautiful house in a very quiet neighborhood in NW Washington State. I was eating hot meals, had a warm bath every day, a beautiful wife to wake up to, and no smell of burning diesel at all.

I am not sure what I can add, if anything, to this forum, but it is nice to find people interested in the same things I am.

I look forward to any replies.

Semper Fidelis,

ATGM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was once told a very odd tale by an former - um - 'spook' out of the Vietnam war.

The U.S. only has one 'official' tank-vs-tank battle during that war. That was dug-un M48s against NVA light tanks at a firebase perimeter wire at night. But my spooky friend had a different story to tell, of classified tank-on-tank battles along the DMZ involving M48s versus T55s. One anecdote had a M48 returning to laager after one encounter discovering to their horror that they had been holed clean through beneath the turret basket without realizing it! Based on these VERY unofficial (and perhaps apocryphal) stories, the 'natural superiority' of the M48 vs the Russian T55 should not be taken for granted. I don't believe the M48's AP round could reliably pierce a T55 bow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Whiteowl:

I look forward to any replies.

Welcome aboard Whiteowl.

There's always AFV/MBT discussions somewhere on the Battlefront forums.

Some of us are certified trackheads (..or loons, not sure which ;) )

Mace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well the reason the Soviet armor changed in SP2 etc was due to combined data from Steve Zaloga, Jim Warford, Rick Griest etc.

They all provided data that showed that their was some severe misconceptions about their tanks capabilties in the west.

Ie, we found out that Soviet tanks had been equipped with KONTAKT-5 ERA since 1985, an fact that had escaped Westren Intel, and would have had a huge effect on tank vs tank engagemennts as KONTAKT-5 effectivly adds another 280mm RHA protection vs APFSDS etc. And their was strong evidence that the 105mm APFSDS rounds could not penetrate the T-64 etc frontaly at all but PB range.

Anyway it took a confrence with SSI to get them to allow the changes in the patches, as everyone @ SSI outside the team thought we were nuts :D .....

Speaking of KONTAKT-5 it has now been replaced by KAKTUS IIRC which improved KE protection over K-5, is this modeled in the sim?......

Regards, John Waters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen a completely working russian vehicle. They all have some problems. But the nice thing is it really doesn't matter. If one system fails, there is a way to go around it. And as everything is very simple, crude and un-computerized, you can fix it yourself. And if there's a leak... "nyet problema, nyormal".

"For little problems use hammer, for bigger ones use the sledgehammer." <- And it really works in most cases. I wouldn't try it on newer westerns as they might break!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Anyone tried putting a DU round into the side of an Abrams?"

You mean, other than another Abrams? I seem to recall one Abrams putting a hole into another Abrams engine rear. Heck, i recall reading about a Bradley putting a hole into an Abrams engine rear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys.. Just reading some of this stuff.. Alot of "new" reports indicate that the T-72 was fielded as a relativly cheap replacment for the vast amount of T-55s in service with the, then, Soviets.

New 105mm rounds are almost as capable as 120mm DU rounds, and without the slightly harmfull side effects.

And to be honest.. I've fired the M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon on T-72B hulls on the range, and live APFSDS-T will penitrate the frontal armor, on average it seemed about 30-50% of the time. So you figure a normal engagement is 3 round bursts till the target is neutralized, about 1 in 3 of those rounds penitrated... Not bad odds.

Also, if you do some searching, there are reports of a M2 Bradley platoon engaging an M1A1 platoon by accident. 3 of the M1A1s where disabled by the 25mm cannon. 1 had a ammunition hit, and 2 had engine hits. This was thru the side armor.

Anyways.. thats just my two bits.. The T-72 did have some great advantages, like being increadably small.. and it was very very fast.. except in reverse.. or in the mud..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"Anyone tried putting a DU round into the side of an Abrams?"

You mean, other than another Abrams? I seem to recall one Abrams putting a hole into another Abrams engine rear. Heck, i recall reading about a Bradley putting a hole into an Abrams engine rear!

Not really concerned about where the projectile comes from. the point was that perhaps it isn't a feature of the armour, but more of one of the projectile. Certainly one Challenger 2 put a DU shot into another in GW3 killing most or all of the turret crew. The Challenger has pretty strong side armour - stronger than the M1, I think.
Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.

×
×
  • Create New...