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.

 

New asian tanks

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel

Originally posted by longbow
Actually the new russian tanks (like t-90) are made for ATGM defense - for example shtora system, but these advanced antimisile defenses will not help them when facing western MBTs like Abrams or Challenger. The American tanks are manufactured for TANK VS TANK combat, because of their air superiority. So Russians have better anti missile defenses but their armor is inferior to the western tanks when firing sabot against it for example.



Im always amazed by these kinds of comments. you sound so sure of your self as if you have a "big book of armor" some where with all the 'facts'


Care to share the source with us?


No I don't have a big book of armor. But why do you think the T-90 weight is 50 tons and Abrams weights 70 tons? The russians are simply concerntrating on the lighter reactive armour and advanced anti ATGM systems like Shtora and Arena (to make the tanks lighter and mobile), while western tanks have heavy solid armor (plus DU) maybe some rear or upper parts are reactive.. Solid armor is always better against kinetic energy rounds than reactive. And the tanks are using mostly kinetic-energy rounds.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by longbow]




posted on May, 2 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
New smart ERA is being developed where the jet is better controlled and thus will be better at stopping sabot, also there is a new reactive armor that has sensors detect incoming round and then shoots metal rods perpendicular to it.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by Agent47
Neither. Why? Because the Abrams did not exist in World War 2. Did you mean to refer to the Sherman?

The better tank is ultimately the Panzer because the T34s just beat them out of sheer numerical advantage.


Agreed. No one wanted to fight the Panthers or the Tiger I tanks.

The kill to loss ratio for the Allies was very high. (even the mighty T-34) The Shermans were no match for the German Armor. (the KR for the Shermans was 3-1, German advantage)The Allies beat the German armor by making more than tanks than the Germans could defeat. While the Germans could not replace their own tanks and crews fast enough to compete.



america did start using a new tank near he end of ww2 that was superior to panzers and panthers, i remember seeing a show about it and this tank took out a panther with one shot, i forgot what it was called though.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehereamerica did start using a new tank near he end of ww2 that was superior to panzers and panthers, i remember seeing a show about it and this tank took out a panther with one shot, i forgot what it was called though.


That Tank was a Pershing. I have seen the footage you are talking about. In that film, that Panther also took out one or two Shermans before it was taken out by the Pershing.

The Pershing was introduced in the last year of WWII. By then, the German Army was in it's final days. It took a few years for the US to come up with something that could compete at a comparable level against the German MBTs.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
u gotta admit...that south korean tank is pretty damn sexy



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow


No I don't have a big book of armor. But why do you think the T-90 weight is 50 tons and Abrams weights 70 tons? The russians are simply concerntrating on the lighter reactive armour and advanced anti ATGM systems like Shtora and Arena (to make the tanks lighter and mobile), while western tanks have heavy solid armor (plus DU) maybe some rear or upper parts are reactive.. Solid armor is always better against kinetic energy rounds than reactive. And the tanks are using mostly kinetic-energy rounds.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by longbow]


Wow I've done some studying on this and even I know this is rubbish!


T64-T-90 tanks have an internal volume of ~ 11m^3 while western tanks are much much bigger. Leopard tank is reported to be 19.5m^3 , while M-1 is 23m^3.
Do the math . If the T-80U is 45 tons but its 1/2 the volume then it probably has steel mass as the M-1 armor.


The Turret armor on the T-80U is over 1 meter thick and half of that is solid steel. Guess how thick the armor is on the M-1, about 3/4 meter thick. THe glacis on the T-80 is reported to be 235mm @ 67 or ~ 620mm thickness. Know how thick the glacis is on the M-1 ? Its 5cm @ 82, or ~ 360mm thick.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   

The Turret armor on the T-80U is over 1 meter thick and half of that is solid steel. Guess how thick the armor is on the M-1, about 3/4 meter thick. THe glacis on the T-80 is reported to be 235mm @ 67 or ~ 620mm thickness. Know how thick the glacis is on the M-1 ? Its 5cm @ 82, or ~ 360mm thick.


You do understand that you are talking two different metallurgical processes here right....hence the M1 having only 3/4's (Chobham)?


seekerof



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

The Turret armor on the T-80U is over 1 meter thick and half of that is solid steel. Guess how thick the armor is on the M-1, about 3/4 meter thick. THe glacis on the T-80 is reported to be 235mm @ 67 or ~ 620mm thickness. Know how thick the glacis is on the M-1 ? Its 5cm @ 82, or ~ 360mm thick.


You do understand that you are talking two different metallurgical processes here right....hence the M1 having only 3/4's (Chobham)?


seekerof



Given the same armor tech in the cavity the T-80U would have more protection than M-1A1HA or even M-1A2. Soviet manufactures had trouble with ceramic tiles more than 12cm size thus limiting the effectiveness of the armor package as a whole to about the same level as the M-1A1HA. If they had or get western ceramic tiles technology they would have had the same protection as M-1A2 front turret.

The differences are not as much as some people would like to believe.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Some modern tanks in Asian Countries


Pakistan Al-Khalid

Indian Arjun tank

China type 98



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Psteel, where did you get that information?



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
t-90s are more powerful, durable, and more reliable.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
And plus. The Germans during ww2 were trying to develop a tank that could withstand the t-34 and t-40. A t34 shell blew holes through tigers and panzers while their shells bounced off the t-90s.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Gravija, the T-90 is just a upgraded T-72, it is a renaming of the T-72BU. Now what is the track record of the M1A1 Abrams vs. the T-72?



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The Russian T-34/40s were argueably the best tank of WW2. With the sloped armor to deflect shells, super speed, and it's massive 75mm-90mm rounds, no other tank could stand up to it. Not even the German Pzkpf. VI(Tiger II) or the Panther. The US Sherman was a poorly designed tank, but as said before, numbers won the day. The M10 Wolverine and Pershing tanks were good, but too late to factor a difference in the war. Japan's Chi-ha tank was a flop, smallest, slowest, most ineffective tank of WW2. The British Matilda Mk.II, Crusader, and Cromwell tanks were okay, but still no match the the mighty T34/40s.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Arent you just a biased little sh*t



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
lol, not biased, just factual. The Russian's did have a better tank design in WW2. I am a WW2 Reenactor, and a US citizen as well. I reenact US, German, Russian, and British. And I can tell you that of all the armies in WW2 the Red Army had the best armor. Its not biased or anything.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gravija
Arent you just a biased little sh*t


Are you talking to me? Biased to what? M1A2 is better then the T-90, but the Merkava and Strv-122 are better then the Abrams.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   



M1A1 / M1A2 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK - SPECIFICATION
M1A2
Crew 4 - driver, commander, gunner, loader
Weight 69.54 tons
Dimensions
Length with gun forward 387 inches
Turret height 93.5 inches
Width 144 inches
Ground clearance 19 inches
Ground pressure 15.4 p.s.i.
Propulsion Gas turbine engine, 1500 horsepower
Transmission Hydrokinetic transmission, 4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Performance
Maximum governed speed 42 m.p.h.
Speed cross country 30 m.p.h.
Speed, 10% slope 17 m.p.h.
Speed 60% slope 4.1 m.p.h.
Acceleration 0 to 20 m.p.h. in 7.2 seconds
Range 265 miles cruising
Obstacle crossing
Vertical 42 inches
Trench 9 feet
Main armament 120 mm smooth bore cannon, M256
Coaxial Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240
Loader's Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240, on Skate mount
Commander's weapon 0.50 calibre machine gun, M2, on powered rotary platform
NBC protection: 200 SCFM, clean cooled air



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   



T-90S MAIN BATTLE TANK - SPECIFICATION
Crew 3
Combat weight: 46.5 tons
Engine: 4-stroke V-84MS diesel engine, 618 kW (840 hp)
Fuel tanks capacity 1,600 litres
Armament
main gun 125 mm 2A46M - smoothbore
coaxial machine gun 7.62 mm PKT
machine gun 12.7 mm NSVT-12.7 AD
assault rifle 5.45 mm AKS-74
3UBK14 weapon system with 9M119 missile
3UBK20 weapon system with 9M119M missile
Firing range 100 to 5,000 m
Ammunition
2A46M gun: 43 rounds including 22 on carousel
PKT machine gun: 2,000 cartridges
NSVT-12.7 AD machine gun: 300 cartridges
AKS-74 assault rifle: 300 cartridges
Armament stabiliser: 2E42-4
AD machine gun sight PZU-7
AD machine gun fire control system: 1ETs29 with vertical stabilisation
Communications UHF R-163-504 radio set
UHF R-163-UP radio receiver
Performance
Road range
Paved road: 650 km
Unpaved: 500 km
Ground pressure: 0.87 kg/sq cm
Refleks Missile System
Range 100 - 4,000 m
Hit probability at least 0.8
Armour penetration 700 mm
ERA penetration ensured
Guidance system: semi-automatic, laser
Time of flight to 4,000 m: 11.7 sec
Weight of missile: 23.4 kg



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
the abrahms are ok but too pricey
challangers can do thier jobs at a better price




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join