Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

 

2009-03-24 20:57:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You (again) miss the point.

Saddam didn't have to park his tanks behind berms. He chose to do that. And they got fucked up by air power, primarily.

When he had his tanks out maneuvering, he got his ass handed to him...while following Soviet tactics. That's not necessarily a knock against Soviet tactics, per se. Arab countries don't do very well with the whole "following training" thing, regardless.

The odds are irrelevant. It is the performance of individual crews that is important. And the manual loader provides a more effective rate of fire than the autoloader, for all the reasons previously mentioned by others.

Perhaps before you start trying to characterize what happened in Gulf War I (or II), you should read a bit more history about what actually occurred.
you (again) go with "we whopped their ass so our military must be better in every aspect" instead of doing any analyzis. what do you compare that rate of fire to? to the rate of fire of... those, who had almost no chance to actually fire? at the rate of fire of those, who had to stop every time to take aim? you call that a comparison? if some of those abrams tanks had guys reloading and some had auto-loaders - then you could compare the two. when usa tanks are seen in a battle where rate of fire was of a consequence for both sides and was actually decided to any noticeable degree by how re-loading was done - than i'll take your "proven in war" for an argument (that is, if said rate of fire is actually better and compensates for the shortcomings associated with it).
If you would bother to actually read, you would see that it has actually been done on both sides in a major armor-on-armor engagement and the Soviet/Russian tanks had their asses handed to them for the aforementioned reasons.

So...I guess you should just take it then.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-25 06:09:12
Ottomania
Troll has returned.
+62|6823|Istanbul-Turkey

rdx-fx wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

imortal wrote:


I never heard about that.  I do know of one instance where an M1 shot through a (small) sand dune to hit and kill a T-72 on the other side.
Hmm that might have been it, but I'm sure I read something about an M1 taking out two tanks in one shot though.
Iraqi tank, hit by a DU Sabot round.  Hole in one side, slightly larger hole out the other side.  Everything sucked out through the 2"-3"exit hole, and sprayed as a charred mist in a cone spreading out from the exit hole.  Crew, equipment, fragments.. everything..  out of a 3" hole, in a fragment of a second.

Thermobaric effects of a DU penetrator on the interior of a tank..  not pretty.  Alot of heat energy developed by that sabot going through all that armor.  Much of that heat energy gets dumped into the crew compartment in the split second before the sabot goes through the other side.

Even worse for aluminum 'armored' vehicles once they start to burn.
So  was that 1 shot 2 kill incident really happened?
2009-03-25 11:01:21
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5877|The Wild West

Ottomania wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Hmm that might have been it, but I'm sure I read something about an M1 taking out two tanks in one shot though.
Iraqi tank, hit by a DU Sabot round.  Hole in one side, slightly larger hole out the other side.  Everything sucked out through the 2"-3"exit hole, and sprayed as a charred mist in a cone spreading out from the exit hole.  Crew, equipment, fragments.. everything..  out of a 3" hole, in a fragment of a second.

Thermobaric effects of a DU penetrator on the interior of a tank..  not pretty.  Alot of heat energy developed by that sabot going through all that armor.  Much of that heat energy gets dumped into the crew compartment in the split second before the sabot goes through the other side.

Even worse for aluminum 'armored' vehicles once they start to burn.
So  was that 1 shot 2 kill incident really happened?
its nowhere near beyond the realm of possibility.

Some tankers told me during the invasion they could tell the iraqi armor wasnt up and running because of FLIR.  They could see the tracks of the vehicle that towed it to its fighting position.

Last edited by Man With No Name (2009-03-25 11:07:39)

2009-03-25 13:40:34
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You (again) miss the point.

Saddam didn't have to park his tanks behind berms. He chose to do that. And they got fucked up by air power, primarily.

When he had his tanks out maneuvering, he got his ass handed to him...while following Soviet tactics. That's not necessarily a knock against Soviet tactics, per se. Arab countries don't do very well with the whole "following training" thing, regardless.

The odds are irrelevant. It is the performance of individual crews that is important. And the manual loader provides a more effective rate of fire than the autoloader, for all the reasons previously mentioned by others.

Perhaps before you start trying to characterize what happened in Gulf War I (or II), you should read a bit more history about what actually occurred.
you (again) go with "we whopped their ass so our military must be better in every aspect" instead of doing any analyzis. what do you compare that rate of fire to? to the rate of fire of... those, who had almost no chance to actually fire? at the rate of fire of those, who had to stop every time to take aim? you call that a comparison? if some of those abrams tanks had guys reloading and some had auto-loaders - then you could compare the two. when usa tanks are seen in a battle where rate of fire was of a consequence for both sides and was actually decided to any noticeable degree by how re-loading was done - than i'll take your "proven in war" for an argument (that is, if said rate of fire is actually better and compensates for the shortcomings associated with it).
If you would bother to actually read, you would see that it has actually been done on both sides in a major armor-on-armor engagement and the Soviet/Russian tanks had their asses handed to them for the aforementioned reasons.

So...I guess you should just take it then.
Not really sure who I am quoting right now, but I am referencing Sahter.  I am not going to argue whether the T-72 was better than the M1 was because they had an autoloader, or whether the M1 is better for having a manned loading position.  There are advantages and disadvantages to each.  I am going to concentrate on the advantages here.

Advantages.

Autoloader: 
+Reliable rate of fire.
+Smaller crew, less room needed.
+more compact tank.

Human loader:
+additional man for mainenence, guard, and other duties.

The US considered putting an autoloader into the M1, but decided against it, since they judged that the 4th crewman was more valuable, even in areas other than in direct gunery.

Now, as to the other issues.  The US M1 has a better sight, a better distancing device, active stabilization of the gun, and a kick butt balistic computer with, among other things, a crosswind sensor and a recalibration sensor to correct for barrel droop as a result of heat buildup from multiple firings.  The M1 can shoot on the move and identify and hit (and kill) an enemy tank at a greater range than the opposing tank can even range the M1.  Saying it is not a fair fight because the Russian designed tank never got to perform where it would excel is a pretty specious and naive viewpoint.

There is an old saying from the Marines: "If you show up to a fair fight, you are not prepared."  War and combat is not about being fair.  It is about being as massively unfair as possible in order to accomplish your objective with as little loss to your own personnel and combat power as possible (without putting other areas at undue risk).  If you have 4 tanks in a prepared position, I am going to try to come at you with a whole company (14 tanks).  Furthermore, if I can kill those 4 tanks at a range they can not respond at, you better believe I am going to do that, so I can be as sure as possible that I, and my men, will all go home with "all 10 fingers, all 10 toes, and alive," as my first sergeant used to say.

Also, I would submit that, in the realm of gunnery, the M1 has proven itself superior to the T-72 (and, by inference, to all other T-series tanks with the same system), from a hardware standpoint.  The gun, with the gunnery supporting systems, has a greater power, greater range, greater accuracy.  It may very well have a slightly lower rate of fire, but that does not do enough to negate its other advantages.
2009-03-25 16:59:39
Ottomania
Troll has returned.
+62|6823|Istanbul-Turkey

imortal wrote:

Also, I would submit that, in the realm of gunnery, the M1 has proven itself superior to the T-72 (and, by inference, to all other T-series tanks with the same system), from a hardware standpoint.  The gun, with the gunnery supporting systems, has a greater power, greater range, greater accuracy.  It may very well have a slightly lower rate of fire, but that does not do enough to negate its other advantages.
Have you ever examined a Russian tank? Or do you speak relying on statistics?
2009-03-25 17:01:48
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6802|so randum

Ottomania wrote:

imortal wrote:

Also, I would submit that, in the realm of gunnery, the M1 has proven itself superior to the T-72 (and, by inference, to all other T-series tanks with the same system), from a hardware standpoint.  The gun, with the gunnery supporting systems, has a greater power, greater range, greater accuracy.  It may very well have a slightly lower rate of fire, but that does not do enough to negate its other advantages.
Have you ever examined a Russian tank? Or do you speak relying on statistics?
Not a good stance to take when debating, it leads nowhere.

Sadly we are not all doctors, pilots, lawyers etc all at the same time. One can have opinions on things, without having first hand evidence. So you use second hand evidence to reinforce your position; there's nothing wrong with that.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-03-25 17:58:02
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

Ottomania wrote:

imortal wrote:

Also, I would submit that, in the realm of gunnery, the M1 has proven itself superior to the T-72 (and, by inference, to all other T-series tanks with the same system), from a hardware standpoint.  The gun, with the gunnery supporting systems, has a greater power, greater range, greater accuracy.  It may very well have a slightly lower rate of fire, but that does not do enough to negate its other advantages.
Have you ever examined a Russian tank? Or do you speak relying on statistics?
Okay, I studied them when I was in the US Army Tank School, back in 1993.  Please note that this is after the 1991 Gulf War, when the US Army had lots of hands-on testing of Russian made T-72s, so I think I can rely on that education.  Yes, I got to poke around a few T-72s when I was in Iraq myself, back in 2003.

Given the gun and the quality of optics, the maximum effective range of the Russian 125mm gun is around 1100-1300 meters.  This is the maximum distance where a gunner can reasonably pinpoint a target and hit it.  I am too tall to fit in the gunner area to look at the sights myself; I am relying on the opinion of a small SOB that could fit.

The first Gulf War was primarally fought with the US 105mm gun, but currently (and when I had my short life as a tanker) they use a 120mm gun.  The 120mm has a maximum effective range of around 2000-2300 meters.  HOWEVER, due to the limits of the maginification of the sight, gunners were not able to reliably identify targets above 1500 meters, since the thermal sights US gunners normally use lose some detail.  Therefore, in an effort to prevent fratricide, the US Army stated a "trigger line" for the 120 of 1200 meters. Gunners were ont supposed to engage past this under normal situations.  They could hit a target much further; they could just not do as good a job identifying what they just killed. 

In a circumstance like in Iraq, where there was no confusion whose tanks were whose, the max range of the gun could be used.

So, in answer to your question, BOTH.  I am not pulling my information from a video game, or from a book, or online.  I am pulling it from my experiences in a professionally run school and in real life.  I hope that is good enough for you.

Last edited by imortal (2009-03-25 18:00:22)

2009-03-25 19:06:30
BVC
Member
+325|6998
My gf just sent me this URL:
http://www.tankdriving.co.nz/

Looks like I might get to inspect a T55 on my birthday!
2009-03-26 03:40:33
Ottomania
Troll has returned.
+62|6823|Istanbul-Turkey

imortal wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

imortal wrote:

Also, I would submit that, in the realm of gunnery, the M1 has proven itself superior to the T-72 (and, by inference, to all other T-series tanks with the same system), from a hardware standpoint.  The gun, with the gunnery supporting systems, has a greater power, greater range, greater accuracy.  It may very well have a slightly lower rate of fire, but that does not do enough to negate its other advantages.
Have you ever examined a Russian tank? Or do you speak relying on statistics?
Okay, I studied them when I was in the US Army Tank School, back in 1993.  Please note that this is after the 1991 Gulf War, when the US Army had lots of hands-on testing of Russian made T-72s, so I think I can rely on that education.  Yes, I got to poke around a few T-72s when I was in Iraq myself, back in 2003.

Given the gun and the quality of optics, the maximum effective range of the Russian 125mm gun is around 1100-1300 meters.  This is the maximum distance where a gunner can reasonably pinpoint a target and hit it.  I am too tall to fit in the gunner area to look at the sights myself; I am relying on the opinion of a small SOB that could fit.

The first Gulf War was primarally fought with the US 105mm gun, but currently (and when I had my short life as a tanker) they use a 120mm gun.  The 120mm has a maximum effective range of around 2000-2300 meters.  HOWEVER, due to the limits of the maginification of the sight, gunners were not able to reliably identify targets above 1500 meters, since the thermal sights US gunners normally use lose some detail.  Therefore, in an effort to prevent fratricide, the US Army stated a "trigger line" for the 120 of 1200 meters. Gunners were ont supposed to engage past this under normal situations.  They could hit a target much further; they could just not do as good a job identifying what they just killed. 

In a circumstance like in Iraq, where there was no confusion whose tanks were whose, the max range of the gun could be used.

So, in answer to your question, BOTH.  I am not pulling my information from a video game, or from a book, or online.  I am pulling it from my experiences in a professionally run school and in real life.  I hope that is good enough for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Ba … _M1_Abrams

I think Tanks that you examined are those export models, unless US Army had seized some original Russian versions. Export models lack some vital elements of gun such as night vision, laser range finder and downgraded fire control system etc.  Original versions are even capable of launching anti-tank missile from that 125mm gun.

Last edited by Ottomania (2009-03-26 03:42:08)

2009-03-26 03:57:23
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6923|London, England
Tbh, I reckon that considering how much the US budget is, you'd have to be thinking what the fuck if their equipment wasn't the best in the world. At the end of the day lots of countries still have all those missiles which would easily rip open any tank composite armour or not

I reckon the tank is going to be obsolete one day, the anti-armour seems to be outpacing the armour way too much

Iraqi tank, hit by a DU Sabot round.  Hole in one side, slightly larger hole out the other side.  Everything sucked out through the 2"-3"exit hole, and sprayed as a charred mist in a cone spreading out from the exit hole.  Crew, equipment, fragments.. everything..  out of a 3" hole, in a fragment of a second.
tank warfare is fucked up

Gotta feel sorry for the bastards that have to clean the shit up

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-03-26 03:58:00)

2009-03-26 04:32:58
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7077|Moscow, Russia

Ottomania wrote:

I think Tanks that you examined are those export models, unless US Army had seized some original Russian versions. Export models lack some vital elements of gun such as night vision, laser range finder and downgraded fire control system etc.  Original versions are even capable of launching anti-tank missile from that 125mm gun.
the tanks he was able to examine were t-72's - of course those are stone age compared to abrams. the one able to lauch AT missiles from its main gun is newer t-90, which these self proclamed "war veterans" couldn't have seen in iraq at all. t-90 is about as advanced compared to t-72 as abrams compared to m-60 - but this doesn't seem to bother these kewl doods here since somebody told 'em "t-90 was derived from t-72, end of story" (as i said earlier, the only thing that was left relatively unchanged is chassis).
anyway, derived or not, it has nothing to do with what i was trying to debate here  a t  a l l. it was auto-loader vs manual and i still stand by my opinion - whatever happened in iraq doesn't prove anything. i did read a lot of different stuff, and it's always the same: "abrams grossly outranged t-72", "could shoot on the move", "was better armoured", "was equipped with night vision and fire control stuff vastly superrior to anything available to iraqis" and so on and so forth, but nobody mentiones manual loading giving any significant advantage, while disadvantages associated with it are, imo, immediately obvious.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-03-26 05:48:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
The autoloader can carry 22 ready-to-fire rounds in its carousel and can load a round in 4-5 seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoloader
A modern autoloader for a 120–125 mm caliber weapon in good condition can achieve about 10–12 rounds per minute. This rating may or may not include the time required to bring the gun to the appropriate loading angle (if required) and then bringing it back up to firing angle after loading. This is fast, but not quite as fast as a human loader, for which claims of 15 rounds per minute (at least for a short time) are made.
The effective firing rate is basically a wash under ideal combat conditions (1 rnd/4-5 sec). Unless the autoloader fails. Then there are the other factors involved in the decision to choose manual over autoloader. Those can't be discounted just because the autoloader has the potential of being faster (as opposed to better) in a single aspect of operations. It goes back to efficiency vs effectiveness. The former is far less important than the latter.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-26 05:56:40
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6923|London, England
Was the T-90 used in Georgia, I wonder how well it fared?

If you look at Wiki of the T-90, and look at the bar on the right that says post-Cold war tanks. You'll realise most of the good tanks are in the over 50 ton category. Russia seems to just keep on producing the "light" tanks which will never be able to cope with the behemoths of the (mainly) west/NATO

Russian tanks suck

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-03-26 06:00:50)

2009-03-26 06:02:06
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6802|so randum
So basically Challenger 2's >all?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-03-26 06:03:50
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6923|London, England
I think it's about time we had another one of those Challenger 2 vs Abrams threads, so yes, in every single way

But tbh, I'm no expert on this shit, but tanks seem kinda pointless these days. Those anti tank guided missiles just keep on kicking their arse, like Hezbolla did against the Merkava in 2006

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-03-26 06:05:57)

2009-03-26 07:09:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Mekstizzle wrote:

I think it's about time we had another one of those Challenger 2 vs Abrams threads, so yes, in every single way

But tbh, I'm no expert on this shit, but tanks seem kinda pointless these days. Those anti tank guided missiles just keep on kicking their arse, like Hezbolla did against the Merkava in 2006
There's a lot of military hardware that seems pointless today but are still necessary should today's fight shift from unconventional warfare/counterinsurgency to a major theater-wide, force-on-force type conflict. If you are only prepared to fight one kind of battle, you'll get your ass handed to you when the nature of your battle changes...at least until you can catch up (which is usually MUCH more expensive than preparing beforehand).

Oh, and "Challenger" is just old English for "vagina".

Last edited by FEOS (2009-03-26 07:10:16)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-26 07:28:42
Ottomania
Troll has returned.
+62|6823|Istanbul-Turkey

Mekstizzle wrote:

Was the T-90 used in Georgia, I wonder how well it fared?

If you look at Wiki of the T-90, and look at the bar on the right that says post-Cold war tanks. You'll realise most of the good tanks are in the over 50 ton category. Russia seems to just keep on producing the "light" tanks which will never be able to cope with the behemoths of the (mainly) west/NATO

Russian tanks suck
On 07 November 1950, the US Ordnance Committee Minutes (OCM), order #33476, ceased utilizing the terms heavy, medium, and light tanks and redesignated tanks by the gun system, e.g. 90mm Gun Tank M48 Patton, etc.[4] with heavy gun tanks (120mm), medium gun tanks (90mm), and light gun tanks (76mm), although these gun terms were often still shortened to simply heavy, medium, and light tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification
2009-04-19 02:00:03
BVC
Member
+325|6998
So I went to the open day at that place I mentioned.

Saw a Centurion, hopped inside & had a look etc.  When it came to the T55 (AM2 variant), the comments here about Russian tanks being made for midgets became very, very apparent.  I'm 6'4", and not of slight build - I decided not to hop inside as I simply wasn't sure that I'd be able to get out without dislocating something.
2009-04-19 02:26:16
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6693

Pubic wrote:

So I went to the open day at that place I mentioned.

Saw a Centurion, hopped inside & had a look etc.  When it came to the T55 (AM2 variant), the comments here about Russian tanks being made for midgets became very, very apparent.  I'm 6'4", and not of slight build - I decided not to hop inside as I simply wasn't sure that I'd be able to get out without dislocating something.
So essentially you're calling everyone under 6'4" a midget?
2009-04-19 03:04:52
BVC
Member
+325|6998

some_random_panda wrote:

Pubic wrote:

So I went to the open day at that place I mentioned.

Saw a Centurion, hopped inside & had a look etc.  When it came to the T55 (AM2 variant), the comments here about Russian tanks being made for midgets became very, very apparent.  I'm 6'4", and not of slight build - I decided not to hop inside as I simply wasn't sure that I'd be able to get out without dislocating something.
So essentially you're calling everyone under 6'4" a midget?
So you're under 6'4"?

One of the staff did say they were designed with a height of around 5'4" in mind.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-04-19 03:05:31)

2009-04-19 08:54:23
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6525|Escea

Pubic wrote:

some_random_panda wrote:

Pubic wrote:

So I went to the open day at that place I mentioned.

Saw a Centurion, hopped inside & had a look etc.  When it came to the T55 (AM2 variant), the comments here about Russian tanks being made for midgets became very, very apparent.  I'm 6'4", and not of slight build - I decided not to hop inside as I simply wasn't sure that I'd be able to get out without dislocating something.
So essentially you're calling everyone under 6'4" a midget?
So you're under 6'4"?

One of the staff did say they were designed with a height of around 5'4" in mind.
I remember reading up that Russian tank crews had to be of a certain height, but like pilots. Was under 6ft. You can see why when you see the turrets of some of their tanks though, like the T-72.
2009-04-19 14:57:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Having had multiple opportunities to get hands on with Russian equipment...it's not made for normal-sized people.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-04-19 15:27:27
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6693

Pubic wrote:

some_random_panda wrote:

Pubic wrote:

So I went to the open day at that place I mentioned.

Saw a Centurion, hopped inside & had a look etc.  When it came to the T55 (AM2 variant), the comments here about Russian tanks being made for midgets became very, very apparent.  I'm 6'4", and not of slight build - I decided not to hop inside as I simply wasn't sure that I'd be able to get out without dislocating something.
So essentially you're calling everyone under 6'4" a midget?
So you're under 6'4"?

One of the staff did say they were designed with a height of around 5'4" in mind.
That's because the russians were sensible instead of wasting metal.  Take a look for yourself.  I'd guess people over 6 foot wouldn't be allowed to drive tanks in Russia anyway.

Average male heights

And seeing as no country has an average of 6" or above, you're calling over 50% of the world midgets, which doesn't help the point. 

Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-19 15:30:06)

2009-04-19 15:33:59
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Don't listen to Panda, if I remember correctly he's azn.


In other news, I'm about 1/4th of an inch off 6 foot.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-04-19 16:00:11
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7131
lot of wiki info in this thread.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard