Bradley vs T-72

[Az]

USMC M60A3s held their own pretty well against Iraqi T-72s, T-55s and BMP-2s at Kuwait International Airport in GW1. They had no crew fatalities, and quite a few armor kills.

The basic model and the A1 are pieces of ****, the A2 was an abomination, but the A3 is at least more or less mediocre.

what about a M48 Patton against a T-62?

[CerberusIV]

The M60 and M48 trace back to the M26 of 1945 vintage. Both have been used successfully by the IDF against various soviet built tanks over the years. It is worth noting that the IDF tanks were fairly heavily modified for desert conditions but this was more about reliability than increased armour or firepower.

The main advantages these tanks had in Israeli hands were far better command and control and crew training and the ability to depress the main armament below horizontal allowing them to engage Egyptian tanks from hull down positions behind sand dunes. The 105mm main armament used by the M60 (and the IDF M48's) outranged the soviet 100mm (T-55) and 115/125mm (T-72) weapons.

The current Abrams/Challenger/Leopard tanks are a whole generation ahead and that is a big difference.

What will never be known is how NATO tanks like the M48/M60/Chieftain/Leopard would have coped against T64/72's used be elite Soviet Guards tank divisions. Countries like Iraq simply don't have the quality of troops or the control/communications systems to use these weapons properly - that is partly why the Soviets exported the "monkey" versions to them, because the good stuff would have been wasted.

[Az]

I was under the impression that the soviet tanks of the time were better than the american ones, even the export versions.

you sure that the 125mm had a lower range than the western 105mm?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It is pretty mean, but not in casual contact. The problem in desert environments like Iraq is that DU residue will get in the soil, be kicked up in sandstorms, and can get into the lungs, where DU particles are truly dangerous.

It does take a fairly significant amount, and the Army has specified procedures for personnel working in a DU environment. Respirators are only indicated when doing something like working during recovery operations inside a vehicle that has had a DU kill.

It is less toxic than most heavy metals when ingested (obviously in small amounts), and it is generally not absorbed into plant or animal tissues, but it is highly carcinogenic when ingested into the lungs.

BTW, the 25mm gun on the Bradley can fire both AP and HE rounds, both are belt fed to it.

it does not even take a desert environment. DU was used in bosnia and the incidence of cancer in areas it was used increased considerably. IIRC there were also often leukemia cases among sfor personnel....

[Ted Striker]

Hey I like your "IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM!" thing Azael

IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM!!!

Where is Z by the way this is like prime time for after the club...

[Az]

I am just so sick of this frickin' statement. It is used to make any kind of action "unwinnable".

This said, however, I am not sure that things will go right. I surely hope so, but time will tell.

[Paul Hanson]

OK, to put an end to all this speculation, I ran a test on Steel Panthers III. And I can conclude from this thorough and scientific analysis that an M2 Bradley is no match for a T-72.

So that's sorted. What's next?

[Fidel]

pretty abrams', pretty flames

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&sort_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en

[The Mad Monk]

Yepper, that's one fricassied tank.

[SpencerH]

It was the genaral opinion during the late 70's that the soviet tanks (in Soviet and East German hands) were better than all but the leopard. Personally I thought the chieftan was always undervalued because of its slightly slower speed compared to the others (still better than any APC of that time cross country I can assure you). It should have been rated better than the T72's.

Its interesting the distances that MtG is quoting for these tank battles. The desert has always been the classic site for tank warfare at long ranges. Does anyone know the distances in the 73 war. I know that the Egyptians were able to use their wire guided missles at max ranges ~2000M at the onset.

At 500M, TOW is just point, aim, and hope. After launch it takes about 500M for the missile to stabilize its flight and to really come under the control of the gunner.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Azazel
I was under the impression that the soviet tanks of the time were better than the american ones, even the export versions.

you sure that the 125mm had a lower range than the western 105mm?

AFAIK. The Soviet 115/125mm are smoothbore and predate the modern smoothbore guns which are better.

The limiting factor is actually the amount of elevation/depression available. Soviet tank designers went for a compact hemispherical turret which was good for protection but limited the maximum elevation/depression of the main armament and hence range. It also leads to very cramped conditions for the crew and rapid fatigue in combat conditions.

Western tank designers went for less protective shapes (more shot traps and complexity) but allowing better use of the main armament and better crew conditions.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by LaRusso
pretty abrams', pretty flames
http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_im...Id=347&lang=en

you know how that was destroyed, outa curiosity?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kramerman
or are they just some alloy AP round like tungsten carbide?

DU only has 10% more penetrating power than the best tungsten.I'll admit, if I were fighting, I'd want that extra 10%, but the stuff is extremely toxic. It's kinda like using agent orange, it's useful, but causes problems later.

[Space05us]

you know how that was destroyed, outa curiosity?

and what does that sign on it say?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its interesting the distances that MtG is quoting for these tank battles. The desert has always been the classic site for tank warfare at long ranges. Does anyone know the distances in the 73 war. I know that the Egyptians were able to use their wire guided missles at max ranges ~2000M at the onset.

At 500M, TOW is just point, aim, and hope. After launch it takes about 500M for the missile to stabilize its flight and to really come under the control of the gunner.

During the ground phase of GW1, particularly on D+2 and D+3, visibility was pretty poor due to haze and sand kicked up by wind and vehicle movement. We didn't engage at those ranges out of choice, it was just that visibility of hull down vehicles was about 1000 meters, so that's where it started. By 500 meters, the Brads would have used both TOWs, and been firing their chainguns. Even if it didn't penetrate, one of those things knocking on your door would tend to distract you.