Okay... let's see.... somewhere in this forum, I actually posted a comparison between all those MBT that are or will be in BF2 Euro Force.
These are: M1A2, T-90, Type 98, Challenger 2, Leopard 2A6.
As a matter of fact, a tank is made superior to others by the conjunction of several factors. These are:
Armor
Armament
Speed
Mobility
Ruggedness
Difficulty to maintain them in the field
As a matter of fact, we can let the Type 98 out of this scope. The T-90 is actually a downgraded export-variant of the T-72. So lets compare the 3 types in question again.
M1A2
Armor: composite armor with layers of depleted uranium (similar to Chobham Armor)
Main Arm: 120mm smoothbore(actually a licensed production of a German Tank gun similar to the one in the Leopard II)
Top Speed: 67 km/h
Weight: 62.1 tonnes
Range: 391 km
Engine: Turbine
T-72
Armor: composite armor (similar to Chobham Armor) fittable with additional reactive armor
Main Arm: 125mm smoothbore capable of firing ATGM's as well as penetrator ammunition.
Top Speed: 75 km/h
Weight: 41 tonnes
Range: 450km / 600km with external fueltanks
Engine: Diesel
T-80
Armor: Composite Armor (similar to Chobham Armor), fittable with reactive armor as well
Main Arm: 125mm smoothbore capable of shooting ATGM's as well
Top Speed: 70 km/h
Weight: 46 tonnes
Range: 335km / 600km with external fuel tanks
Engine: Turbine
For comparison:
Leopard 2A6
Armor: perforated Armor (steel with ceramic foamed cavities inside)
Main Arm: 120mm smoothbore
Speed: 70 km/h
Weight: 62 tonnes
Range: 550 km
Engine: Diesel
Challenger II
Armor: Chobham composite Armor, reactive armor can be fitted
Main Arm: 120mm rifled
Speed: 56 km/h
Weight: 62,5 km/h
Range: 450 km
Engine: Diesel
Ok, lets see. For starters, the M1A2 is the only tank, that uses a turbine engine, which tend to be heavier and more difficult to maintain. Also, fuel efficiency and range drops significantly.
As a matter of fact both the T-72 and the T-80 are smaller in size and weight, giving them a lower profile (good for using terrain as cover). Armor protection is not reduced by this since the enclosed volume is smaller, therefore less armor (and weight) is neccessary to ensure the same protection. The T-72 and the T-80 are app. half to three quarter of the size of an M1A2 but using a bigger gun that uses either DU- or TU-Penetrators or ATGM's.
Being lighter and having a higher speed than the M1 ensures a higher maneuvrability, quality not to be underestimated. Range is also a cruical factor since it defines how long a tank can operate independently.
So basically... electronic systems do not always win the day since they can fail more easily. The T-72 is technically speaking not really under par compared to other tanks and the T-80 definitely would win some against the M1A2.
You might say, that Iraq used T-72 tanks agains US M1A2, but consider this: those tanks where mostly not the modernized variant, they where not properly maintained, the crews where not properly trained and the morale was below the freezing point, metaphorically speaking.
I am not so sure who would win, if the hands where even.
Actually, one of the best balanced tanks is indeed the Leopard II. The different armor offers the same protection, the diesel of that tank guzzles basically every flammable liquid as fuel, it can traverse rivers under water using a snorkel, it is capable of climbing a vertical 1m ramp at top speed and (one of the best advantages) it is built modular.
By the way... instead of using conjectural knowledge and fantasy, I would definitely do some research... try to go to
www.army-guide.com for example.
That would definitely put some realism into that sometime ridiculously naive "hooray america, we are the best"-attitude
Last edited by BEE_Grim_Reaper (2006-01-25 20:42:41)