realistic abrams vs t72

[guysajergd]

got a buddy who is an ex abrams tanker and he states that in reality there is NO WAY a t72 can take out an abrams.....now i only have the demo so i do not know how acccurate this is to the full version and was this only done to balance out the game. any ex military that can answer this question? or armor buffs?

Thanks

[Becket]

Might want to ask him what T-72 he's talking about, and if he's limiting his statement to frontally, or from any angle.

[Kieme(ITA)]

And from which distance too...

Mushashy and Yamato were told to be invincible and unsinkable too

[Sequoia]

Right, how did it happen to you in the game? Was it a flank shot?

[Roter Stern]

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if your friend is also heavily biased about the capabilities of Abrames … much like the Germans were convinced that Tigers were invincible, yet some how they still managed to lose a few divisions worth.

Judging purely from in-game experience, Abrams is indeed very hard to take out head-on. Almost to the point of silliness – I had 4 Kornet ATGMs empty their entire ammo load (16-20 missiles total) onto the front of an Abrams and yet it didn’t even suffer any damage to the main gun or the optics.

Effectiveness of Soviet tanks varies widely, especially with range, and seems to rely more on getting a lucky side-shot than anything else. If they do manage a side-shot however, a kill is quite possible – I’ve seen static T-55 take out the Abrams with a side shot at just over a km.

[Becket]

Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

Mushashy and Yamato were told to be invincible and unsinkable too

To be fair to Yamato, it did take rather a lot to sink it.

And even then, it could still be retrofitted to save Earth from the Gamilons. So there's that.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Well I'm sure the weapons and airplanes used to destroy the Yamato were very little in terms of costs compared to Yamato's tonnage... not talking about human lifes expended...

[Becket]

Yeah, but Yamato was made obsolete on 12/7/41 - or really earlier, I suppose, since it was built for the wrong war. Extra iron wasn't really going to help the Japanese position by the time the ship sank.

Had the war that the designers of Yamato planned for ever occurred - a straight up "decisive battle" between dreadnoughts - there is little doubt that it would have been very effective. AFAIK, nothing in the US naval arsenal pre-Iowa could even dent it (excluding air assets), but I am no naval grog.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Anyway I reported Yamato as an example and as an example of people who wrongly considered a human creation "invincible".

by the way Yamato could have had its moment durin the battle of Leyte gulf...

RPG-7 designed in 1950s proved a single untrained man is capable of taking down a modern helicopter or cripple a modern tank.

I just don't like such statements like "this is impossible"

But form a M1 guy it's Ok, maybe a russian will tell you that T-90 can do the same

[Becket]

Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

by the way Yamato could have had its moment durin the battle of Leyte gulf...

How? Yamato did see combat there, right?

To me, the usefulness of the ship is best exemplified by its role at Midway: hundreds of miles behind the action.

[PSY]

Originally posted by Becket:

To be fair to Yamato, it did take rather a lot to sink it.

And even then, it could still be retrofitted to save Earth from the Gamilons. So there's that.

I almost spit out my coffee on that one Becket.

[Bradley Dick]

I'm not a tanker. I have noticed anyone who has ever been on an M1 tended to think they were invincible. And anyone who was on an M1 who saw another M1 explode, got a little less confident. On the other hand, crew survivability is top of the line. It's not a superhuman act to stop one, but it's pretty damned hard to kill the crew while they're still inside.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Originally posted by Becket:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

by the way Yamato could have had its moment durin the battle of Leyte gulf...

How? Yamato did see combat there, right?

To me, the usefulness of the ship is best exemplified by its role at Midway: hundreds of miles behind the action. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

PSY, I second that comment! However, I wasn't drinking anything at the time Becket, that was priceless! Someone should make that their sigline.

Bradley Dick has it right. The Abrams, even when knocked out (and they do get knocked out - see Fallujah) tend to keep their crews safe. Many of the "kills" are simply mobility kills, such as a shot to the engine compartment or to the suspension, not a true penetration kill.

And yes, a T-72 of any flavor can take out an Abrams from the side. Heck, there is one documented case from OIF of a M2A2 Bradely taking out an Abrams (of some flavor) with its 25mm cannon. The rear armor of an Abrams isn't good at all. The advantage of the Abrams is that if used correctly the enemy doesn't get that sort of chance very often.

[Note - I just remember seeing an Abrams tanker interviewed for some History Channel show about a big fight he was in during Desert Storm. His turret side was penetrated by a T-72 during a night fight. IIRC 2 crew memebers died and he was blown clear out of the turret with serious wounds. So yeah, it can happen]

The demo's Smashing Steel is a good example. There is no reason the Abrams in it have to expose their flanks to the enemy tanks two can overwatch while two advance, which means when something pops up the overwatch tanks likely kill it. And the moving tanks aren't defenseless either.

Steve

[ August 08, 2007, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Becket]

Which commanders are you speaking of, Kieme?

Definitely not Captain Avatar, right PSY?

[Kieme(ITA)]

You just killed the demo

[Battlefront.com]

Kieme(ITA) is correct about the feeling of invincibility being felt by the crews, but not necessarily reflected in the statistics. Shermans did kill Tigers and Panthers in WWII, and the German crews that didn't figure that out quickly probably did not survive long enough to brag about how invincible their tanks were

As others have said, the Abrams in CM:SF, when handled correctly, is a devistating machine to behold.

Steve

[Becket]

Sorry for the lack of clarity - I mean the commanders of Yamato. All kidding aside, I'd be surprised if Yamamoto felt that way. As for other commanders of the ship when he wasn't on it - I wonder whether comments that Kieme is referring to are more properly attributed to the feeling of invincibility that the IJN had as whole rather than one boat. But I really don't know, and have been very curious about all things Yamato ever since I ran home from school every day to catch the adventures of its reincarnated version. Thus the question.

Yeah, I'm derailing the M1 part of the thread.

[Battlefront.com]

You just killed the demo

A calculated risk to make a point

Steve

[YankeeDog]

A quick scan of M1 losses in Iraq from GW1 on shows the idea that they are *completely* invulnerable to a T-72 as complete bunk.

From the front, the M1 is damn hard to kill. Not totally invulnerable, but about as close to that as one can reasonably hope for. Gun, track and optics damage is always a possibility, but in general a T72 is at serious disadavantage in a frontal fight, even if, by some stroke of luck or good deployment, it overcomes the Abrams situational awareness advantage, and gets the first shot off.

But if the M1 is showing side or rear aspect to the T72, it's a totally different ballgame.

Heck, one M1 in GWII was taken out from the rear by 25mm fire from a Bradley in friendly fire incident. The issue depends a bit on ammo type, but unless you actually think that, in general, T72's main gun has less penetrating power than a 25mm bushmaster, it obvously should have some chance of KO with an advantageous angle of engagement.

It's also worth noting that the Iraqi Army did not have access to the most modern AT ammunition for their T72s. The Syrians don't necessarily have the *most* modern ammo for their T72s, but most publicly available intelligence estimates seem to think that they are, generally speaking, better off in this regard than the Iraqis were.

M1 tankers confidence in their machines is mostly well placed. But it's important to remember that the extremely lopsided armor battles of GW1 and GWII were not solely due to technological superiority of the armor. Better training, better intelligence, and better combined arms support also played a big role.

I certainly hope the Army does what they can to disabuse tankers of the notion that their rides are *invulnerable* to any class of enemy AT weapon. Confidence is one thing. Foolhardy notions are quite another.

Cheers,

YD

[Kieme(ITA)]

Originally posted by Becket:

Sorry for the lack of clarity - I mean the commanders of Yamato. All kidding aside, I'd be surprised if Yamamoto felt that way. As for other commanders of the ship when he wasn't on it - I wonder whether comments that Kieme is referring to are more properly attributed to the feeling of invincibility that the IJN had as whole rather than one boat. But I really don't know, and have been very curious about all things Yamato ever since I ran home from school every day to catch the adventures of its reincarnated version. Thus the question.

Yeah, I'm derailing the M1 part of the thread.

No nO Yamamoto had the opposite idea (he considered the Yamato less useful than a coastal battery), but part of the IJN commanding staff had different ideas about how a modern (for that time) naval warfare should have worked out... they lost their cause (and that was right) and that's why Yamamoto bacame commander of IJN in 1939...

Anyway funny thing that we speak about Yamato ships in the same thread dedicated to the M1 tank....

What about the T-72? Shall we talk about sampans?

[i'm a great fan of soviet armor though and this last sentence cost me a lot ]

[Becket]

Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

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

Sorry for the lack of clarity - I mean the commanders of Yamato. All kidding aside, I'd be surprised if Yamamoto felt that way. As for other commanders of the ship when he wasn't on it - I wonder whether comments that Kieme is referring to are more properly attributed to the feeling of invincibility that the IJN had as whole rather than one boat. But I really don't know, and have been very curious about all things Yamato ever since I ran home from school every day to catch the adventures of its reincarnated version. Thus the question.

Yeah, I'm derailing the M1 part of the thread.

No nO Yamamoto had the opposite idea (he considered the Yamato less useful than a coastal battery), but part of the IJN commanding staff had different ideas about how a modern (for that time) naval warfare should have worked out... they lost their cause (and that was right) and that's why Yamamoto bacame commander of IJN in 1939...

</font>

[tc237]

Heck, one M1 in GWII was taken out from the rear by 25mm fire from a Bradley in friendly fire incident

I'd like to read more about this if anyone has a link.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Hey let's not speak about Desert Storm engagements...

In any case those T-72 were not used in the best situation, handled and commanded by the best people...

Many people refer to desert storm operations as a measure of M1vsSoviet armor (T-72 especially) but that was a very particular situation which is not quite sure US army will face again in such good conditions for its side.

[Battlefront.com]

tc237,

I think there is some sort of mention of it on Wikipedi that might help. There was a detailed thread here, on this Forum, a while back that had some snipets from the official findings. The one with the rear mobility kill was originally thought to have been caused by an Iraqi AA gun. But after everybody was interviewed and no such enemy weapon was found on the battlefield, they pieced things together and found a Bradley was responsible.

Kieme(ITA).

Correct that Desert Storm isn't a good thing to draw conclusions from in terms of the US military's inherent material superiority. The setting was favorable to US forces for many reasons. However, that is just the point I was trying to make. Even with all those things in favor of the US tankers, one was taken out by an Iraqi tank. Therefore not only is it theoretically possible, it is in actual fact possible. That has meaning in the context of this discussion.

Steve