Most dominating tank in the world

[faded glory]

T-90 is a better tank than the T-80U. T-90 was an upgrade to the T-72BM. Same design, but definately more armor than your run of the mill T-72. It would be tough. An abrams vs a T-90 would be great. T-90 can fire and move much like the abrams..only drawback of the T-90 is night fighting capabilities. Lacking Thermal imaging.


T-80U is an old design. T-90 and the "black eagle" tank are last 2 Russian designs. T-90 introduced in 1990 I believe.

[Serb]

Originally posted by steelehc
Serb: The M1A2 is better because it is better.

Really strong argument.

-The T-80/T-90 tanks have an "auto-loader" in place of a crewman. The crewman in an M1A2 can load shells faster and safer then an autoloader, and help out with damage control, maintainance, re-arming, and various other tasks, in addition to weighing less, and being more reliable.

WTF? Do you really believe in what are you saying? Do you really think that larger crew of M1A2 (4 mans), while T-80U has 3 crew members) is the advantage of M1A2? It's absurd.
Do you realy think that manual loading of cannon (in M1A2), while in T-80U shell's load is automatic, is advantage of M1A2?

-The M1A2 tank is faster then the T-90.

No, M1A2 is much more heavier then T-80U. T-80U has unique mobility, that's why it's called "the Flying tank". When T-80U starting to show it's mobility (like it was in Abu Dabi and on other military exchibitions) your Abrams out of competition. See picture below. (Well it is not the best one. T-80U can jump much heighter)

-The M1A2 tank consumes fuel at roughly the same rate as the T-90.

T-80U has much better engine then T-90. It's powered by gas turbine and can use any type of fuel, while T-90 powered by diesel. And I suppose M1A2 consumes more fuel then T-80U.

-The M1A2 has a larger fuel tank then the T-90.

With this I can agree.

-The Chobham reactive armor on an M1A2 is almost impossible to penetrate with any consistancy. This is the best and most efficient armor plating in the world, per inch and per pound.

That's why your tank is so heavy and have so big suiluete, it is much easier to hit such big tank. We choosed the different way, our tank have much more law suiluete. You do not have analogs of our ERA- Explosive Reactive Armour. Over the past 10 to 20 years, many countries have been involved in the development of active protection systems for tanks, but only Russia has brought developmental work to fruition and launched production. Arena is one such system. For its performance characteristics there are no other systems in the world that can compare with Arena. This system is designed to protect the tank against antitank grenades and missiles fired by all types of infantry weapons, as well as ground and air-launched ATGMs flying at a speed of 70 to 700 m/s, regardless of the type of control systems and warheads.

-The main cannon on the M1A2 can fire farther and with greater accuracy then the gun on the T-90, especially when the vehicle is moving perpendicular to the angle of fire.

Disagreed. Is M1A2 are able to fire on distances more then 5000 M, like T-80U can? The tank's modern fire control system, designated 1A45, includes a laser range finder, a wind sensor, a tank speed indicator, a target speed indicator, a roll angle sensor, ammunition and surrounding medium temperature indicators, and a ballistic computer. In combination with the unique running gear that provides for the smooth running of the vehicle, this system permits the crew to deliver fire effectively while moving cross-country at a speed of 35 km/h with the tank's turret facing in any direction. As regards this parameter, the T-80U family of tanks are unrivalled.

-The US army can afford more M1A2s then the Russian army can afford T-90s.

It has nothing common with quality of tanks.

-Quality control of Abrams tanks is far superior to that over any Russian design. This is a problem that has plagued Russia since WW1.

I'm not sure what are you talking about.

-American soldiers have been driving the M1 series longer then Russians have been driving the T-80/90.

Do you traing to say that M-series are older then T-series? Don't make me laugh.

This means that American tankers are better trained then their Russian counterparts.

Of course not. In fact T-series are the simpliest tanks in use, one of the major conditions for designers was that rookie tankers be able to learn to use tank efficiently as soon as possible, less then 1 year, because the Soviet/Russian army is conscriped (I can't find proper word, I want to say that people spent only 2 years in our army)

-The vast majority of American combat tanks are M1A2s, or a variation thereof. There are some specialized versions of other vehicles (engineer tanks, bridge-layers, minesweepers...). The T-90 makes up less then a third of the Russian arsenal. Other vehicles include the T-80, the T-72, the T-55, and even some (in the Far East Military District) JS-3s, and T-34/45s.

T-72, yes very good tank btw, T-55 may be somewhere, but JS-3s, and T-34/45s????? what is it a joke? They was out of use decades ago.
And btw, what about your M60 then?

I hope this helps.

No it is not.
Principal Advantages of the T-80U:
- Unique guided weapons permitting fire-on-the-move at a 5,000m.
- Automatic loader with 28 ready rounds;
- Exceptional mass and dimension indices (mass 46t, roof height 2,202mm, fire line 1,678mm);
- High power/volume ratio for the power plant compartment (368k W/m);
- Guaranteed engine operation in heavily dust-laden air without maintenance;
- Use of GTD-1250 gas turbine engine with high degree of adaptability for improved manoeuvrability, control and simplified transmission;
- Capacity of crossing a 1.8m deep ford without preliminarypreparation;
Multi-fuel engine that can be started at sub-zero temperatures without special preparati
-Vertical obstacle negotiation - 1 meter
-High rate of fire.
- ERA "Arena"
- Optical compex "Shtora"

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Serb

Really strong argument.

Thats not my argument.

WTF? Do you really believe in what are you saying? Do you really think that larger crew of M1A2 (4 mans), while T-80U has 3 crew members) is the advantage of M1A2? It's absurd.
Do you realy think that manual loading of cannon (in M1A2), while in T-80U shell's load is automatic, is advantage of M1A2?

Yes, the extra crewman is a huge difference. If there is damage to the auto-fire extinguishers, the loader can deal with the fire. And the crewman can still load shells faster then the autoloader. The M1A2 can fire 60 rounds per minute, much more then the 9 rpm of the T-80/90.

No, M1A2 is much more heavier then T-80U. T-80U has unique mobility, that's why it's called "the Flying tank". When T-80U starting to show it's mobility (like it was in Abu Dabi and on other military exchibitions) your Abrams out of competition. See picture below. (Well it is not the best one. T-80U can jump much heighter)

Just because the M1A2 is heavier does not mean it isn't faster. Cars are heavier then bicycles.

T-80U has much better engine then T-90. It's powered by gas turbine and can use any type of fuel, while T-90 powered by diesel. And I suppose M1A2 consumes more fuel then T-80U.

The T-80U may have a better engine then the T-90. That is irrevelant. The M1A2 has a more powerful engine then the T-80U or the T-90.

That's why your tank is so heavy and have so big suiluete, it is much easier to hit such big tank. We choosed the different way, our tank have much more law suiluete. You do not have analogs of our ERA- Explosive Reactive Armour. Over the past 10 to 20 years, many countries have been involved in the development of active protection systems for tanks, but only Russia has brought developmental work to fruition and launched production. Arena is one such system. For its performance characteristics there are no other systems in the world that can compare with Arena. This system is designed to protect the tank against antitank grenades and missiles fired by all types of infantry weapons, as well as ground and air-launched ATGMs flying at a speed of 70 to 700 m/s, regardless of the type of control systems and warheads.

The M1A2 is not much bigger then the T-80/90. The M1A2 is 1.2 inches longer, .4 inches wider, and and 3.5 inches higher. That isn't a whole lot bigger. Chobham armor is the most efficient armor design ever made. It is equally as protective as the ERA armor on the T-80/90 tanks.

Disagreed. Is M1A2 are able to fire on distances more then 5000 M, like T-80U can? The tank's modern fire control system, designated 1A45, includes a laser range finder, a wind sensor, a tank speed indicator, a target speed indicator, a roll angle sensor, ammunition and surrounding medium temperature indicators, and a ballistic computer. In combination with the unique running gear that provides for the smooth running of the vehicle, this system permits the crew to deliver fire effectively while moving cross-country at a speed of 35 km/h with the tank's turret facing in any direction. As regards this parameter, the T-80U family of tanks are unrivalled.

The M1A2 can indeed fire more then 5000m. The M829A1 "Silver Bullet" can fire more then 8000m. The M1A2 fire control suite can fire with near 100% normal accuracy even traveling at full speed.

It has nothing common with quality of tanks.

True, but it is still a weakness with the Russian design.

I'm not sure what are you talking about.

M1-series tanks are far more reliable, as the quality control procedures at the factories and maintainance laagers is far superior to that in Russian facilities.

Do you traing to say that M-series are older then T-series? Don't make me laugh.

No, thats not what I meant to say, but it is true. The original M-1 was built by Ford in 1916, before American entry in WW1, far before ANY Russian tank. What I meant to say was that the M1 Abrams series has been around longer then the T-72/80/90 series of tanks.

Of course not. In fact T-series are the simpliest tanks in use, one of the major conditions for designers was that rookie tankers be able to learn to use tank efficiently as far as possible, less then 1 year, because the Soviet/Russian army is conscriped (I can't find proper word, I want to say that people spent only 2 years in our army)

The Russian army is a conscript army, meaning that the soldiers' training is very poor, especially in comparision to the professional army of America. Even if a tank is simple, that does not mean its crew is trained very well. In fact, the modern Russian army is trying to implement a new training system, modeled on what has been used by the US army since the 1980s.

T-72, yes very good tank btw, T-55 may be somewhere, but JS-3s, and T-34/45s????? what is it a joke? They was out of use decades ago.
And btw, what about your M60 then?

Believe it or not, it is true. There are over 6500 JS-3s and T-34/45s housed in warehouses in the far east. They were stationed there as a stopgap measure against a Chinese invasion, as the best units of the Russian army were always stationed in European Russia. The M-60 is still used by the Marine Corps, but it isequivalent to eht T-72, and superior to any of the older models.

Principal Advantages of the T-80U:
- Unique guided weapons permitting fire-on-the-move at a 5,000m.
- Automatic loader with 28 ready rounds;
- Exceptional mass and dimension indices (mass 46t, roof height 2,202mm, fire line 1,678mm);
- High power/volume ratio for the power plant compartment (368k W/m);
- Guaranteed engine operation in heavily dust-laden air without maintenance;
- Use of GTD-1250 gas turbine engine with high degree of adaptability for improved manoeuvrability, control and simplified transmission;
- Capacity of crossing a 1.8m deep ford without preliminarypreparation;
Multi-fuel engine that can be started at sub-zero temperatures without special preparati
-Vertical obstacle negotiation - 1 meter
-High rate of fire.
- ERA "Arena"
- Optical compex "Shtora"

Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check

These "advantages" do not push the T-80/90 over the M1A2. They are both very fine tanks, IMO the finest in the world, however, the M1A2 is superior in many, albeit small ways.

Steele

[Serb]

Originally posted by steelehc

Yes, the extra crewman is a huge difference.

Sorry, disagreed. The manual loading of cannon is good for last century, but not for future. The more function in tank is automatic the better. What if loader is KIA? Who would load then? Btw, as I know while in T-80U cannon load is automatic, it could be loaded manualy as well.
It is absolutely clear for me that automatic loading of cannon is actully an advantage of T-80U, not otherwise.
In oversimplyfication it's the same advandage every self-loading assult rifle have against rifle wich have single shoot mode only.

And the crewman can still load shells faster then the autoloader. The M1A2 can fire 60 rounds per minute, much more then the 9 rpm of the T-80/90.

I suppose you are joking? You whant to convince me that loader can load cannon 60 times a minute?
In M1A2 manual said that loader MUST load the canon in 7 seconds. Let's see 60 second/ 7 seconds=8.5 rounds per minute. And notice 8.5 rpm only if loader will act without ANY mistake wich is unlikely. So, 8.5 rpm is very generous. The longer loader is load the canon the more tired he is. Automatic loader removes "human factor" from this process.

Just because the M1A2 is heavier does not mean it isn't faster. Cars are heavier then bicycles.

The T-80U is more maneuverable then M1A2, this is fact.

The T-80U may have a better engine then the T-90. That is irrevelant. The M1A2 has a more powerful engine then the T-80U or the T-90.

Yes, M1A2 has more powerful engine, but it is very hevy, it is 23.5 tons heavier then T-80U.

The M1A2 is not much bigger then the T-80/90. The M1A2 is 1.2 inches longer, .4 inches wider, and and 3.5 inches higher. That isn't a whole lot bigger.

Could you translate it to metric system? please? On pictures it looks much bigger then T-80U.

The M1A2 can indeed fire more then 5000m. The M829A1 "Silver Bullet" can fire more then 8000m. The M1A2 fire control suite can fire with near 100% normal accuracy even traveling at full speed.

The very good ammunition is the strong side of your tanks. Yes I agree that you have very good shells.
But we have ERA!!!!
[/QUOTE] 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.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

M1-series tanks are far more reliable, as the quality control procedures at the factories and maintainance laagers is far superior to that in Russian facilities.

May be it is correct for our cars, but not for tanks.

No, thats not what I meant to say, but it is true. The original M-1 was built by Ford in 1916, before American entry in WW1, far before ANY Russian tank. What I meant to say was that the M1 Abrams series has been around longer then the T-72/80/90 series of tanks.

First Soviet tank was build in 1920. And btw, why you still using Abrams if they so old? Is it time to invent somthing new.... more modern? I'm just curious, do you propose to upgate M series more or you have new concepts in developments?

The Russian army is a conscript army, meaning that the soldiers' training is very poor, especially in comparision to the professional army of America. Even if a tank is simple, that does not mean its crew is trained very well.

Crew is training very well, and training is not poor. And our army always had proffessionals who dedicate their lives to army for long time. In tank forces commanders spent five years in military academies before they allowed to command a tank. Conscripted soldiers used as drivers and gunners.

In fact, the modern Russian army is trying to implement a new training system, modeled on what has been used by the US army since the 1980s.

Our army under reform, it's true, but I don't know about American training system.

These "advantages" do not push the T-80/90 over the M1A2. They are both very fine tanks, IMO the finest in the world, however, the M1A2 is superior in many, albeit small ways.

I've just point on some strong sides of T-80U.

Of course they are both fine tanks and the major competitors.
You like M1A2, I like T-80U, it is normal that we prefer tanks of our own countries design.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Of course the Leclerc has more speed. It's vital to French military doctrine.

Please stop your BS ! French Military haven't such doctrine !

You know perfectly that such tanks are too expensive for our army !

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Serb

Sorry, disagreed. The manual loading of cannon is good for last century, but not for future. The more function in tank is automatic the better. What if loader is KIA? Who would load then? Btw, as I know while in T-80U cannon load is automatic, it could be loaded manualy as well.
It is absolutely clear for me that automatic loading of cannon is actully an advantage of T-80U, not otherwise.
In oversimplyfication it's the same advandage every self-loading assult rifle have against rifle wich have single shoot mode only.

Yes, the loader could be killed, but what if he isn't? Why don't other heavy guns use autoloaders if it is such an advantage, then?

I suppose you are joking? You whant to convince me that loader can load cannon 60 times a minute?
In M1A2 manual said that loader MUST load the canon in 7 seconds. Let's see 60 second/ 7 seconds=8.5 rounds per minute. And notice 8.5 rpm only if loader will act without ANY mistake wich is unlikely. So, 8.5 rpm is very generous. The longer loader is load the canon the more tired he is. Automatic loader removes "human factor" from this process.

I wasn't joking, I was incorrect. However, I am curious to your figure, 8.5rpm. I asked a friend of mine who was in the First Armored division, he says that on a good day, they could fire 12rpm. You are correct about the "tiredness" factor, however, machines break down too.

The T-80U is more maneuverable then M1A2, this is fact.

A tank which can turn inside itself, meaning it can turn without any forward momentum is by definition as maneuverable as a vehicle can be. Tracked vehicles are all about equally maneuverable.

Yes, M1A2 has more powerful engine, but it is very hevy, it is 23.5 tons heavier then T-80U.

True, however the M1A2's engine develops nearly 50% more horsepower then the T-80.

Could you translate it to metric system? please? On pictures it looks much bigger then T-80U.

Metric: 1 inch is about 25mm. Therefore: 3cm longer, 1 cm wider, and 8.5cm higher. Not very much difference.

The very good ammunition is the strong side of your tanks. Yes I agree that you have very good shells.
But we have ERA!!!!

The 'ERA' armor system is equivalent to the Chobham armor on the M1 series.

May be it is correct for our cars, but not for tanks.

Don't be so sure. The main reason the T-34 wasn't completely dominant over the Tiger and Panther in WW2 was because of terrible manufacturing techniques used in the factories. They have gotten much better, but still do not measure up to the American standard.

First Soviet tank was build in 1920. And btw, why you still using Abrams if they so old? Is it time to invent somthing new.... more modern? I'm just curious, do you propose to upgate M series more or you have new concepts in developments?

'M' means Model, or Mark. M1A2 means Model 1, advancement 2. In 1916, the first US tank was named the M1, or "Model One." Then, other versions developed, more tanks were built, the M4 Sherman, the M-26 Pershing, the M-48 Patton... Eventually, the numbers got very high. The brass took M-97 (I think) and renamed it M1, the Abrams. I hope I have explained this well, it is a confusing topic.

Crew is training very well, and training is not poor. And our army always had proffessionals who dedicate their lives to army for long time. In tank forces commanders spent five years in military academies before they allowed to command a tank. Conscripted soldiers used as drivers and gunners.

I didn't say training was bad, I said that in comparision to a professional army, it was rather lackluster.

I've just point on some strong sides of T-80U.

Of course they are both fine tanks and the major competitors.
You like M1A2, I like T-80U, it is normal that we prefer tanks of our own countries design.

We seem to each have our own opinion, and thats great. Both tanks are exceptional, as I said, but I think the M1A2 is better, and you think the T-80U is better. BTW, what does the "U" mean?

Entertaining discussion...

Steele

[Alephz]

what about CHIORNY ORIOL (black eagle)?

[Serb]

Originally posted by steelehc
Yes, the loader could be killed, but what if he isn't? Why don't other heavy guns use autoloaders if it is such an advantage, then?

May be because not all countries have automatic loading systems more efficient then live man? Frech LECLERC MBT for example have such system.

I wasn't joking, I was incorrect. However, I am curious to your figure, 8.5rpm. I asked a friend of mine who was in the First Armored division, he says that on a good day, they could fire 12rpm. You are correct about the "tiredness" factor, however, machines break down too.

It was just simple calculations based on info about M1A2 which I've read somewhere, there was said that loader must load the gun within 7 seconds. But very good, (veteran) loader can load gun faster then 7 seconds. And yes, I agreed that good loader is able to load a gun within 5 seconds as you said.

A tank which can turn inside itself, meaning it can turn without any forward momentum is by definition as maneuverable as a vehicle can be. Tracked vehicles are all about equally maneuverable.

Not exactly, because of its lighter weight T-80U is more maneuverable, it able to go through obstacles like hills at higher speed then M1A2 etc. I was quite impressed when on last military exchibition wich happen in my city last summer, I saw the "flight" of T-80U. At full speed muchine jumped from small hill, the tank was few meters abowe the ground and flew seweral meters, and make a shot while 'flight'. I saw other tricks this tank could do, like climbing over 1 meter height absolutely vertical obstacle and others. But jump over hill was the most impressive.

True, however the M1A2's engine develops nearly 50% more horsepower then the T-80.

M1A2 -1500 HP, T-80U - 1250HP, yes in absolute numbers M1A2 have more powerful engine, but the hevier the tank the more power it needs. That's what for a "Power to Weight Ratio" characteristic are using. The M1A2 have 21.6 hp/ton, while T-80U have 27.17 hp/tn. By this parameter T-80U is better.

Metric: 1 inch is about 25mm. Therefore: 3cm longer, 1 cm wider, and 8.5cm higher. Not very much difference.

Thanks.
But' again this is absolute numbers, while silhouette is more important, and T-80U has smaller silhouette. I'm absolutely sure about this.

The 'ERA' armor system is equivalent to the Chobham armor on the M1 series.

Yeah, Chobham armour is very good and hard to penatrate. But ERA use different principle, it is an active defence and it could be easily attached to tank of any model.

Don't be so sure. The main reason the T-34 wasn't completely dominant over the Tiger and Panther in WW2 was because of terrible manufacturing techniques used in the factories. They have gotten much better, but still do not measure up to the American standard.

I can asure you that it's not true, our tanks showed much better perfomance then German's in hard weather conditions of Russian winter and in hot summers too.

'M' means Model, or Mark. M1A2 means Model 1, advancement 2. In 1916, the first US tank was named the M1, or "Model One." Then, other versions developed, more tanks were built, the M4 Sherman, the M-26 Pershing, the M-48 Patton... Eventually, the numbers got very high. The brass took M-97 (I think) and renamed it M1, the Abrams. I hope I have explained this well, it is a confusing topic.

So, do you work on new type of tank to replace M1A2 or you want to upgrade M1A2 with more advanced systems- electronic, defence etc.? What's the plans for near future? If this is not a classified information of course.

I didn't say training was bad, I said that in comparision to a professional army, it was rather lackluster.

Today our army semi-professional. Part of it are conscripts another part are mans who signed contracts, but in near future entire army will be consisted of professionals only.

We seem to each have our own opinion, and thats great. Both tanks are exceptional, as I said, but I think the M1A2 is better, and you think the T-80U is better. BTW, what does the "U" mean?

Who knows? Just a letter. As far as I remember it means -'Unificirovannyi"- Unificated?

Entertaining discussion...

Yeah...
The most important without insults.
But I wounder if I'll be able to continue it untill Sunday. I had to go now.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alephz
what about CHIORNY ORIOL (black eagle)?

Hey, this exchibition was in city where I live and I saw this tank. It's fantastic. But our generals still can't decide wich tank is better our 'Black Eagle' of Omsk's design or T-95 of Nizhny Tagil's design.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Finland bought used Leopard-2 tanks from germany. Well, I guess they are better than T-72s.

[Giancarlo]

I hate to break this to you serb, but Russian tanks aren't well maintained and never were. The majority of tanks they have are T-55s and T-72s. It is an undeniable fact that American weaponry is better. Infact, the M1A2 can fire while moving at targets efficiently, while Russian tanks cannot.

[aaglo]

Thank Banana for the Banana tank!

[Alephz]

It is an undeniable fact that American weaponry is better. Infact, the M1A2 can fire while moving at targets efficiently, while Russian tanks cannot.

It is an undeniable fact that You do not know anything about russian tanks

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Alephz

It is an undeniable fact that You do not know anything about russian tanks

At least I know about efficient machines and not hunks of crap.

[Alephz]

Hey, this exchibition was in city where I live and I saw this tank. It's fantastic. But our generals still can't decide wich tank is better our 'Black Eagle' of Omsk's design or T-95 of Nizhny Tagil's design.

Can you post some good link about t-95 please?