It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If the cold war had gone hot.....

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Disturbed deliverer is right just because the T 72 has a bigger gun doesnt mean squat a 120mm gun is best. Besides can anyone tell me if a rifled or smoothbore can shoot farther and oes gun length matter. By the way Disturbed Deliverer Steallar X is making quite a mess on the new S400 triumf SAm counterstealth.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by urmomma158]




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The older Russian models used reactive armor. I don't know of Russia having composite armor before the West, let alone something comparable to the Chodham used. The M-60's had the same armor add-ons in the 80's, anyway.



The E.R.A didnt come around in the USSR until about 1985 they were using composite armour similar to the Chobham armour since 1980 before the west.


www.reference.com...




But you're right, that one little line from Wikipedia (which I could edit out right now, if I chose to) proves it all wrong...


And yet you still havent produce any verifiable proof of a T-72 killed by a Merkava. Im not saying T-72s werent destroyed in that war but we have no proof to say Merkavas "demolished" T-72s. Israeli Air Force dominated the air and without good air support tanks are sitting ducks, Its likely most were taken out with Israeli air power.

old exported T-72s were "demolished" in Iraqi by M1A1s. We have proof of this from both sides. I dont really remember any M60 leading any offensives in Desert storm and a large percent of Iraq tank most of which werent even t-72s, were taking out with US and UK airpower



There's simply nothing backing up your claim that the T-72 was a superior tank


Except of the facts when you compare the T-72 vs the M60




Posted by urmomma158
Disturbed deliverer is right just because the T 72 has a bigger gun doesnt mean squat a 120mm gun is best. Besides can anyone tell me if a rifled or smoothbore can shoot farther and oes gun length matter


That would be true if it was just the gun but pretty much all the stats of the T-72 were better then the M-60. Im also talking about Contemporary version not a T-72 vs a M60A3 that came out almost a decade after the T-72

T-72
Main gun- 125-mm smoothbore gun 2A46M/ D-81TM
Max speed- 47 mph ( 780 HP)
Range- 373 miles with aux fuel tanks
Fire on Move- Yes (up to 25 km/h)

M-60
Main gun- 105mm/51cal M68 rifiled gun (smoothbore was clearly better)
max speed-30 mph (750 hp )
Range- 295 miles
Fire on move- NO (not until later version)


So you have better main gun, better speed, more power, better range, lower profile. The Soviets clearly had the better tank until the M60A3 came out in 1978 the (M60A2 was a failure) and by then the Soviets were already moving on to T-72Bs and composite armour for their tanks.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheButcher
If the cold war had gone hot, would NATO have won. Say no nukes were used because both sides agreed it would be the end of humanity.


You know, I thought my post might elicit some comment, and I was surprised when it didn't...so then I went back and re-read the opening premise to the thread (quoted above)...

Sorry to have posted off-topic;, i misunderstood the premise, though it was quite clearly laid out


Regarding your ongoing discussion: as I remember it, the T-72 was a source of some concern to us, primarily because of it's lower profile. Also, the sheer weight of numbers was a definite concern for the border units; this made trying to channel the attacking formations into large-scale killing zones even more important. This was one of the primary tactical goals practiced during REFORGER.

Gaining and retaining air-superiority was, obviously, another fundamental concern.

On another note (not about weapons systems, but in regard to the initial question) the morale of NATO units is something that needs to be factored in.

Previous posters have commented on Warsaw Pact vulnerabilities in this area; certainly European members of NATO would have been expected to defend their land to the bitter end (probably one reason why France dropped out, so she could retain control of her nukes), but race-relations within the US Army in Germany at the time were definitely bad during the 1970's, and drug abuse rates were high.

On the other hand, I remember the old story going around at the time, that drunkenness was such a problem in the Soviet military that pilots would siphon alcohol based fluids from their aircraft for "punch making" purposes.

Probably not true (I've never tried to verify it) but a memory of those days.

[edit on 4/2/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
The Russian T-72's were much better than the ones faced in Iraq and Lebanon. They were equiped with better equipment than any of the countries using it in the ME. But the M-60 wasn't a piece of crap tank by any means. And the first issue of the T-72 could not fire on the move. Much like the Iraqi T-72's in 1991. Later versions of the T-72 this ability was added. And you cant really compare the M-60 effectivly to the T-72 seeing as it came a full decade earlier than the T-72 in 1959. The M-60 was developed to go agianst the T-54's and 62's.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheButcher
If the cold war had gone hot,


every man woman and child would be dead by now from either direct attacks, radiation, or nuclear winters... nobodys gonna stop russia from using nukes should the need arise.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by worksoftplayhard]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

. . . stop russia from using . . .



worksoftplayhard, what on earth are you talking about? Russia ceased to exist in 1917, and then came back in 1992. During the Cold War, Russia was not around.

Now, the SOVIET UNION was there, but people have this common misconception that it was lead by a bunch of hotheads intent with destroying/taking over the world. This impression is wrong, so please don't post on the basis of what you were taught in school.

The Soviet Union, yes, has a majority of military officers in the echelons, but to think they would have liked to destroy the planet is just plain wrong.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Im just wondering why you guys are comparising the T-72 and the M-60?.

You should be comparing the T-64 which was the real soviet tank



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   


The E.R.A didnt come around in the USSR until about 1985 they were using composite armour similar to the Chobham armour since 1980 before the west.


Right:

"The most common type of composite armour today is Chobham armour, first developed by the British in the 1970s for their new Challenger tank. Chobham sandwiches a layer of ceramic between two plates of steel armor, which was shown to dramatically increase the resistance to high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. HEAT had posed a serious threat to armored vehicles since its introduction in WWII, and Chobham was such an improvement that it was soon copied on the new US M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) as well. It is the fabrication of the ceramic in large tiles that gives the Challenger and Abrams their "slab sided" look.

...

The first widespread use of a composite armor appears to be on the Soviet T-64. It used an armour known as Combination K, which apparently is glass reinforced plastic sandwitched between inner and outer steel layers. Through a mechanism called thixotropy, the resin changes to a fluid under constant pressure, allowing the armour to be moulded into curved shapes. Later models of the T-64, along with newer designs, used a boron carbide filled resin aggregate for greatly improved protection. However the quality of the tanks produced during this era varied widely; if the boron carbide was not available in time to meet production quotas, the tank would be shipped with any filler that could be found, and sometimes nothing at all. In order to deal with these problems, the Soviets invested heavily in reactive armor, which allowed them some ability to control quality."


www.reference.com...

The words "composite armor" don't put it in the same class as Chobham armor, nor does it mean the Russians were using superior quality armor.



And yet you still havent produce any verifiable proof of a T-72 killed by a Merkava. Im not saying T-72s werent destroyed in that war but we have no proof to say Merkavas "demolished" T-72s. Israeli Air Force dominated the air and without good air support tanks are sitting ducks, Its likely most were taken out with Israeli air power.


I have no proof, besides a link discussing armored battles. Global Security also calls the Merkava the best tank in the war.



old exported T-72s were "demolished" in Iraqi by M1A1s. We have proof of this from both sides. I dont really remember any M60 leading any offensives in Desert storm and a large percent of Iraq tank most of which werent even t-72s, were taking out with US and UK airpower


As I've said before, most Russian tanks weren't T-72's. Nor was their quality guarenteed. The Russians were producing flawed equipment throughout the Cold War. They had poor logistical capability. Most of the Russian tanks wouldn't have been used.

Most of the tanks in the Gulf War were not M1A1's, but normal M1's. There were still M-60's used, as well. A number of marines were still using the M-60's.



That would be true if it was just the gun but pretty much all the stats of the T-72 were better then the M-60. Im also talking about Contemporary version not a T-72 vs a M60A3 that came out almost a decade after the T-72


The M-60A3 didn't come out anywhere near a decade after. It was about a 5 year difference. That's typical throughout the Cold War. There were year delays while one side upgraded its equipment. E



So you have better main gun, better speed, more power, better range, lower profile. The Soviets clearly had the better tank until the M60A3 came out in 1978 the (M60A2 was a failure) and by then the Soviets were already moving on to T-72Bs and composite armour for their tanks.


The gun you mock was used by the Merkava with success. The 125 mm was known to America, yet discarded. The Russians used, and still use, the larger rounds to compensate for other weakness, as I've pointed out. The 105 mm gun was capable of destroying the Soviet tanks. A T-72 still had to be within 1000 meters to knock out a Western tank.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
The Russian T-72's were much better than the ones faced in Iraq and Lebanon. They were equiped with better equipment than any of the countries using it in the ME. But the M-60 wasn't a piece of crap tank by any means. And the first issue of the T-72 could not fire on the move. Much like the Iraqi T-72's in 1991. Later versions of the T-72 this ability was added. And you cant really compare the M-60 effectivly to the T-72 seeing as it came a full decade earlier than the T-72 in 1959. The M-60 was developed to go agianst the T-54's and 62's.

I dont really see why matching up an M60 and a T 72 isa good idea the abrams will slaughter it.
You may be right of the M60 but what good is a russian T 72 against an M1A2 it has 1st generation chobhmam armor reinforced with DU for significanltly increased protection not only that but a 120 mm gun which is superior to the 125 mm and du penetrators that are dubbed the best in the world > Not to mention great C4ISR,interface,communications,datalinks,FBCB2 etc. Also the Abrms is quite fast.

APFSDS
www.globalsecurity.org...
STAff it never came out though but stil a great munition nontheless
www.globalsecurity.org...


M1A2 info www.army-technology.com...
www.fprado.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...

Also lets not forget the abrms is quite the killer. Taking just 20min to destroy an entire iraqi battalion with no losses. The abrms also has great protection from the front.

according to Future Fighting Machines; Cuase it's got 10 inches up front of chobham armor that is.... Lets not forget its also DU enforced.

Disturbed Deliverer Steallar X is amking quite a nuisance if you dont you could post a thing or 2 because he's getting quite annoying and being foolish. Ive seen u shut people up quite well on other threads (Its the newest S 400 thread i started just for a good discussion) thanx


[edit on 3-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The M-60A3 didn't come out anywhere near a decade after. It was about a 5 year difference. That's typical throughout the Cold War. There were year delays while one side upgraded its equipment. E



The M-60a3 came out in 1978 the T-72 1971. 7 years before hand almost a decade, one came out at the start of the 70S the other the end.




The words "composite armor" don't put it in the same class as Chobham armor, nor does it mean the Russians were using superior quality armor.


I just said they were using composite armour "similar" to the Chobham armour on T-72S since 1980 and thats quite true from the same reference sourse you linked


Around 1980, the Soviets began building the tanks with composite armour similar to the Chobham armour used in modern Western tanks, in the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Late in the 1980s, T-72 tanks in Soviet inventory (and many of those elsewhere in the world as well) were fitted with reactive armour tiles

www.reference.com...




I have no proof, besides a link discussing armored battles. Global Security also calls the Merkava the best tank in the war.


Im not asking for proof if there was armoured battles or what Global Security opinions of the best tank of the war was.

Im asking for the third time of now for, verifiable proof of a T-72 killed by a Merkava. And you still havent produced a single such case yet


Your own words were " Merkavas "demolished" T-72s" after saying that you would think such proof would be easy to find of many such cases.




The gun you mock was used by the Merkava with success. The 125 mm was known to America, yet discarded. The Russians used, and still use, the larger rounds to compensate for other weakness, as I've pointed out. The 105 mm gun was capable of destroying the Soviet tanks. A T-72 still had to be within 1000 meters to knock out a Western tank.


I wasnt mocking any gun just its clear what was the better gun.

A 105mm rifled main gun or a 125mm smoothbore.

What lets see what the West uses now. A 120mm smoothbore main gun
hmmm wonder what was closer to what many consider the best modern gun. On one hand the 105mm rifled barrel or a 125mm smoothbore barrel.

Only a 5mm difference and both are smoothbore , or a 15mm difference and a rifled barrel. Looks like the Soviets were much closer to the future of western designs then the west was.



The 125 mm was known to America, yet discarded


YEAH discarded
more like adopted a similar design minus a 5 mm difference. Smoothbore was the way to go and the soviets knew that years before the west and 125mm was a better choice then 105mm with 120mm being darn near ideal in the West eyes.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   


The M-60a3 came out in 1978 the T-72 1971. 7 years before hand almost a decade, one came out at the start of the 70S the other the end.


Um, no. 1977, in spite of what Globalsecurity says. 6 years, and that's not almost a decade. Is 1960 almost a century past 1900?

And, there are similiar delays between each nation issuing their latest weaponry. China currently has, on paper, an army technologically close to what America currently fields. That would be because America is, essentially, at the end of a generation of weapons.



I just said they were using composite armour "similar" to the Chobham armour on T-72S since 1980 and thats quite true from the same reference sourse you linked


It's composite, which the Russians stopped using...I wonder why? Oh, right...I already showed why. It was nowhere near what the Chobham armor. Ridiculous.



Im asking for the third time of now for, verifiable proof of a T-72 killed by a Merkava. And you still havent produced a single such case yet


Armored battles = tank battles. Unless you have another definition for them. I can't find you many examples of individual tank kills in the Gulf War, a comparatively major war to what we are talking about here. You are asking for something near impossible on the internet. All logic, and two links back up my claim.

You have nothing more then a single quote from Wikipedia, which says there are no verified kills.


What lets see what the West uses now. A 120mm smoothbore main gun hmmm wonder what was closer to what many consider the best modern gun. On one hand the 105mm rifled barrel or a 125mm smoothbore barrel.


American experimented with the 125 mm gun in the 60's. If it was superior, why not make the switch? The Russians used the 125 to make up for their relative weaknesses in the area, not because it was a necessarily a superior weapon.

I've already given a link to back this claim up, have I not?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Um, no. 1977, in spite of what Globalsecurity says. 6 years, and that's not almost a decade. Is 1960 almost a century past 1900?



Sorry but no the work on the M60A3 variant began in 1978 and the first A3s began to deploy in Germany in mid-1979. They would have been a non factor in the war until they were deployed.

Thats almost a decade

link1

link2

link3

link4



It's composite, which the Russians stopped using...I wonder why? Oh, right...I already showed why. It was nowhere near what the Chobham armor. Ridiculous.

No whats Ridiculous is thinking the Soviets stopped using composite armour. They moved more toward ERA true, but modern Russian tanks use a combined composite/explosive armor. As seen in newer variants of the T-80s





Armored battles = tank battles. Unless you have another definition for them.

Where you get that definition?

Armored battles = any battle with armoured vehicles. A tank fighting a APC is still a armored battle, Two APCs fighting it out is a armoured battle. Thats why they call them "Armored battles" and not "Tank battles"

You still havent produced any proof of a single tank on tank kill by a Israeli tank in that war. You said these Israeli tanks "crushed" T-72s. Crushed what a strong word you should be able to find many such examples of these amazing crushing kills.




I can't find you many examples of individual tank kills in the Gulf War, a comparatively major war to what we are talking about here. You are asking for something near impossible on the internet. All logic, and two links back up my claim.


What bull you can find dozens of examples of Tank on Tank kills in the Gulf War. Video of such kills are all over the history channel or the military channel all the time. You can find them on the internet as well. But its more then that.

You can also find accounts of these events from both sides Iraqi and US,UK that account to tank battles and their results. Even Iraqi Generals recount the events of the pounding their armoured force recieved from the coalition ground war compared to the Air war.




American experimented with the 125 mm gun in the 60's. If it was superior, why not make the switch? The Russians used the 125 to make up for their relative weaknesses in the area, not because it was a necessarily a superior weapon.


Um thats exactly what they did they switched from a 105mm rifled gun to a 120 mm smoothbore gun. They knew what was superior and it wasnt a smaller rifled gun. They adopted pretty much the same thing with a 5mm difference from what the Soviets were using decades ago.

They even tried a bigger size the the Soviets at first with the M-60A2 (the "A-deuce")152mm gun-launcher system. This wasnt close to what the soviets were using it was a radical change, the gun and tank as a whole was a failure though.

Lets try not forget this thread is about the Cold war and you havent showed any evidence as too why the M60 was better then the T-72 or the T-64. You try to compare models that came out almost a decade later and compare that with old soviet tanks.

The soviets had far better numbers in tanks and even with that alone junk tanks can beat far better tanks WW2 proved with Shermans vs German tanks. Clearly the Soviet tanks werent junk compared to anything the west had for most of the cold war. With exception of the M1A1 comming along, and then old exported T-72 are junk when compared to them.

You trying to use MERKAVAs as any example in the Cold war is kind of funny. Israel would have been such a non-factor in any War with the USSR its really pointless. Stick with comparing US and European tanks with Soviet ones.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   


Um thats exactly what they did they switched from a 105mm rifled gun to a 120 mm smoothbore gun. They knew what was superior and it wasnt a smaller rifled gun. They adopted pretty much the same thing with a 5mm difference from what the Soviets were using decades ago.


I've already provided the link to this. Seriously, can you answer the question? Why would America experiment, and decide against using a 125 mm gun in the 1960's? At the time, it was not a viable option. America still does not use it.



Lets try not forget this thread is about the Cold war and you havent showed any evidence as too why the M60 was better then the T-72 or the T-64. You try to compare models that came out almost a decade later and compare that with old soviet tanks.


You would like to compare the T-72, an elite model of the Soviet forces to a basic model T-60 which came out MORE then a decade before the T-72.

You have completely contradicted yourself with this hypocritical argument.

I have not arguied the M-60 is superior to the T-72. It was roughly equal, and I would say the M-60A3 was superior because of its revolutionary firing systems.



The soviets had far better numbers in tanks and even with that alone junk tanks can beat far better tanks WW2 proved with Shermans vs German tanks. Clearly the Soviet tanks werent junk compared to anything the west had for most of the cold war. With exception of the M1A1 comming along, and then old exported T-72 are junk when compared to them.


WW2 proved no such thing. The Sherman is a very underrated tank. It wasn't originally designed to fight against other tanks, but by the end of the war it was capable of doing so.



You trying to use MERKAVAs as any example in the Cold war is kind of funny. Israel would have been such a non-factor in any War with the USSR its really pointless. Stick with comparing US and European tanks with Soviet ones.


No, you just don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. The Merkava was similiar to the M-60. The Western tanks demolished the Soviet forces.



Armored battles = any battle with armoured vehicles. A tank fighting a APC is still a armored battle, Two APCs fighting it out is a armoured battle. Thats why they call them "Armored battles" and not "Tank battles"


You are grasping at straws at best.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Well.

The T-64 was deployed along with the T-80 in forward positions in germany during the cold war. While the T-72 which was less sophitcated than the T-64 and cheaper to run was deployed behind the front lines. The soviets were intending to use the T-64 as their only tank but realised that it cost to much to use them alone so the T-72 was used to fill the spaces.

The T-72 ended up being the iconic tank because it was exported so much and played its part in the cold war while the T-64 had less exposure. But the T-64 was further developed into the T-80.

Look at the deployment numbers

........................... 1985 1990

T-80/-U/UD/UM 1,900 4,000
T-72L/-M 7,900 10,000
T-64A/-B 9,300 9,700

The T-72 in soviet service was a cut throat space filler for less important units that needed to better than the T-55s and the less than sucessful T-62 but cost less to run than the T-64. Part of the cost saving measures that were needed for the expansion of the soviet navy and missile force.

But when exported they were even less basic than the first T-72As but without the advanced firecontrol and laser range finders. Just refer to the polish versions. The soviets did not fully commit to the T-72As but a few years later adopted the T-72B which is called the Super Dolly Parton which compared to any M-60 makes it look like a dud.

But if you look at soviet tactics during the war, tanks were to spearhead attacks behind the enemy front lines and head to the headquarters and supplies lines, that is one and the biggest reason why the soviets had mechanized divisions that were self contained having most of their needed gear to function by itself.

The soviets figured that anything that hit a tank would kill it, remember this was the 70s and even having a meter of steel wasn't going to stop a tank round at 1000 meters. Thats why they configured their tank guns to work at the optimum range of 1500 meters because they researched tank engaments and came to the conclusion that most tank battles happened around that range. Hence at 1500 meters your tank was not going to survive another round. All this stupid comparison about not being able to match a 120mm so they choose a 125mm to compensate is plain silly if you read soviet tactics on armoured engament. Something about how a 125mm was the perfect measurment.

The T-64 and T-72 had just enough armour for survial againest 105mm rouns at ranges over 1500m but thats all they needed and crew comfort and protection was not a priority

But now thats changed since the russian times


It's composite, which the Russians stopped using...I wonder why? Oh, right...I already showed why. It was nowhere near what the Chobham armor. Ridiculous.


Stopped using it?. Its still being used

Well to the russians, their composite mix did not fare to well in afganistan and it was found that they broke easily under pressure, eg a hit for a RPG. So using ERA which added as much protection from HEAT warheads but had less weight penaties and could be easily replaced seemed the logical move. Because if the tank just had a big layer of composites every time it was hit it would need to be replaced. Again refer to cost saving measures

They now have a combined mix of the original armour(albit upgraded) and a layer of Kontakt-5 to give as much protection (via russian claims) as western tanks just using a massive layer of compostie armour. And the weight was kept down along with the cost of replacing the armour.

The thing with Kontakt-5 is its now being replaced by new ERA called katus (?) Spelling

Here is a comparative website of armoured levels
members.tripod.com...

But im using this site as a reference and not a true factual site. But its rougly similar to real figures. But as you can see the T-62 and T-72 outmatched any M-60s. So in a tank v tank battle in the 70s the soviets would have had a massive numerical advantage along with a qualtive advantage.

Not until the 80s did america have a comparable tank in service with some numbers. But the russians seemed to be doing fine with ERA,

[edit on 8-4-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   


The soviets figured that anything that hit a tank would kill it, remember this was the 70s and even having a meter of steel wasn't going to stop a tank round at 1000 meters. Thats why they configured their tank guns to work at the optimum range of 1500 meters because they researched tank engaments and came to the conclusion that most tank battles happened around that range. Hence at 1500 meters your tank was not going to survive another round. All this stupid comparison about not being able to match a 120mm so they choose a 125mm to compensate is plain silly if you read soviet tactics on armoured engament. Something about how a 125mm was the perfect measurment.


Well, I'm now convinced. I mean, your vague claim has really ended that argument...

I mean, what does the source I already provided, explaining the reasons Russia adopted the 125 mm matter? It blatantly contradicts your claim, but please, dont' let that stop you...

Not to mention the Russians had to get within 1,000 meters to actually take out the Western tanks of the day.


Well to the russians, their composite mix did not fare to well in afganistan and it was found that they broke easily under pressure, eg a hit for a RPG. So using ERA which added as much protection from HEAT warheads but had less weight penaties and could be easily replaced seemed the logical move. Because if the tank just had a big layer of composites every time it was hit it would need to be replaced. Again refer to cost saving measures


The composite armor they employed was ineffective, as I already stated.

If they had engaged the Western forces, they would have learned this lesson in a far more difficult manner. Shadow tried to assert that this composite armor was superior to what the West was already using. Simply wasn't the case, and the Russians did abandon it.



They now have a combined mix of the original armour(albit upgraded) and a layer of Kontakt-5 to give as much protection (via russian claims) as western tanks just using a massive layer of compostie armour. And the weight was kept down along with the cost of replacing the armour.


The key words here: Russian claims. They claimed a lot of things. It has never worked out the way they have said it would.

Their equipment is proven not to live up to its hype. It has failed in every conflict its been involved in.

They had a form of composite armor in the early 80's. It was just so ineffective they scrapped the idea. They used the 125 mm gun, but it failed to defeat basic Western tanks equipped with the 105 mm gun. The 125 itself was used to mask weaknesses in Russian manufacturing, not because it was so much more powerful. The West tested the same 125 mm gun, yet chose not to use it in the 1960's.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The cold war is still hot. Look at the U.S.', China's, N. Korea's, India's defense budgets. As long as nuclear weapons are still tolerated and produced, we will have a cold war!



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Clearly, nobody who has posted in this thread thus far has learned anything from the Cold War.

Like in WarGames, the only winning move is not to play. To even speculate who would win is futile, because in the end, it would come down to nuclear arsenals. The overwhelming numbers and firepower of the Warsaw pact would wear NATO down to the point they'd have to decide whether to surrender, fight until reinforcements arrive, or use tactical nukes.

Its a no-win situation, no matter how poorly the Warsaw Pact ends up doing.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Clearly, nobody who has posted in this thread thus far has learned anything from the Cold War.

Like in WarGames, the only winning move is not to play. To even speculate who would win is futile, because in the end, it would come down to nuclear arsenals. The overwhelming numbers and firepower of the Warsaw pact would wear NATO down to the point they'd have to decide whether to surrender, fight until reinforcements arrive, or use tactical nukes.

Its a no-win situation, no matter how poorly the Warsaw Pact ends up doing.


Sure, but once Iran goes nuclear the ballgame changes. A win for them could simply mean destruction, total destruction, they're not concerned because of all the virgins they will have. They have already stated their intentions towards the U.S and Israel and we have no reason to doubt them.

What do you think Monica, should we stop Iran from producing Bomb? After all isn't that the question?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I mean, what does the source I already provided, explaining the reasons Russia adopted the 125 mm matter? It blatantly contradicts your claim, but please, dont' let that stop you...


one user opinoin from stratgerypage?. umm sources?. Oh yes did you not realise that stratergy page is a fourm?

Even today the russians use ARTILLERY as the tank killer as well as close support aircraft and helicopters. But by all means claim the T-64s and T-72 were designed to actually fight in one to one combat like the western tanks. You look though the glass and see the T-72 in the M1 role. The russians had a completly different doctrime and were not focused on tank battles but armoured breakthroughs.

Again i repeat that soviet weapons were geared towards battles of under 1500m in a european threater which wouldn't see 5km kills (even though that wouldn't happen normally anyway).

The 115mm gun out performs the L7 in veolocity of the cannon. The smoothbore cannons having a higher level of veolocity. The cannon wasn't the T-62s failure it was its design and armour and the training of the crews which affected performace. In paper the T-55 would have made mince meat out of the shermans, eg armour FCS armour peneration. But the israelis which were more displined out fought them



The composite armor they employed was ineffective, as I already stated.


Even your own source mentions why they switched to ERA. Or another wikipedia article? I see production quality issues but nothing else about inferior armour.

"However the quality of the tanks produced during this era varied widely; if the boron carbide was not available in time to meet production quotas, the tank would be shipped with any filler that could be found, and sometimes nothing at all. In order to deal with these problems, the Soviets invested heavily in reactive armor, which allowed them some ability to control quality." "

The article in questions states that ERA was prefered because you could see if it actualy had armour inside the tank. Since you posted it yourself you cannot contridict yourself and discredit its information.

The T-90 which is a 45ton tank give or take for ERA weight has as much protection as a M1 which weighs 70tons. Now imagine a T-90 which weights 70s tons and see its armour protection after that. Thats shows us the "superior" western amour is not as superior as its made out to be


Simply wasn't the case, and the Russians did abandon it.


...... The T-72, T-90, T-80, T-64, T-80UM2.

ALL USE COMPOSITES IN THEIR ARMOUR

Here is something about Kontakt-5 ERA

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:


"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.



The key words here: Russian claims


The russians in the 90s like everyone else does test on their armour with their anti-tank missiles. This test or competition was done between the T-80U and the T-90 which is just a T-72BM. As you can see they give the relavent RHA ratings and what type of missile etc


On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.

The following weapons were used:

* Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
o RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
o RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
o RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
* ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
o Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
o Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
o Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
o Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
* APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.

The trials yielded the following outcome:

* ATGLs
o T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
o T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
* ATGMs
o T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
o T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.
* APFSDS
o T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
o T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

armor.kiev.ua...



They used the 125 mm gun, but it failed to defeat basic Western tanks equipped with the 105 mm gun.


Compare the weight of projectiles distance being lubed and the muzzle veolocity. The 2A46 is in a different class of its own. Tell me a 105mm which has a muzzle veolocity of 5900 fps?.

You think you roll out some T-72s with 125mm and the whole war is going to change around?. The syrians were textbook trained soldiers and were not allow to move without consulting their manuals. In this situation you do this, in that situation you do that. How can you fight a war on those terms. I think they also had the system where you had to ask political cadres if they could take action.

How do you think a couple of T-72s are going to do if your whole armoured force only has 300 tanks againest 1500 tanks. The israelis also had air superioty and the cobra tanks did most of the killing. I have yet, not seen one instance which refers to another tank beating the T-72 in 1982

Another reason why the 2A46 is less efective is because the lenght of its projectiles which is only 20 times the size of the diameter while american projectiles are 30 times the diameter. This has to do with the russian autoloader which limits the lenght you can put in so you have less peneration since your round is lighter





[edit on 10-4-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Shadow tried to assert that this composite armor was superior to what the West was already using. Simply wasn't the case, and the Russians did abandon it.



I did say Russia was using Composite armour before the West and thats indeed true as I linked to proof of that. Composite armour does offer better protection then conventional steel armor and the West realized this and switched over their own version of composite armour.

Your still wrong saying the Russians abandoned composite armour because they still use composite armour to this day on their new tanks.

Honestly Disturbed Deliverer do you enjoy making this stop up as you go along? You think that helps you claims...



[edit on 10-4-2006 by ShadowXIX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join