Com-Central.net

Dontos said;

If thats what you find yourself on, you try to do the best job possible.

Fortunately I experienced this while stationed at NTC in the late 80's instead of the real battlefield. During this time we were fighting mostly M1 units with Bradley's with a few rotations of M60A3's (FT Carson/FT Lewis) and even fought against M60A1's (Fort Polk). Strangest was seeing M551's from Bragg one rotation. No question the opposition had much better equipment. Stabilization, Thermal or newer passive sights and in the case of 3rd ACR the very formidible M1A1 120mm was in their favor. Our advantage was one, home field (everyone said the biggest) but also the fact that our crews would fight a minimum of 5-6 battles a rotation with 14 of those a year. Nothing beats experience. Getting killed by MILES and living to learn from it after a while made you damn good. You also learned how to make the most of the beast you had. We were proud of our junky little VISMODS and the Goliath killing we did. Later in my career I took all that experience with me and on M1/M1A1's had much fun at NTC and other places. Never think less of a tank without considering the crew.

With that said I agree with Old Top. I had the same awakening after climbing in many foreign tanks over the years. Many of which I could not even fit in. The biggest thing I looked at when checking them out was:

Reliability, Surviveability, Maintenability, and Ergonomics (no particular order). Can't fight worth a damn if the crew is too beat up/wore out to fight or the equipment too cumbersome to operate when fatigued. Cannons are only as good as the munitions they fire. These days all of them are very lethal if given the right kind. Many times a crew will have to perform their own maintenance to stay in the fight, there are only so many mechanics and recovery teams. Keeping a tank simple enough to do this is a serious combat multiplier. Really sucks at SP time when you have only 8 of 14 in the company ready to roll and half of those down are for really minor crap.

Last,
Many tanks are designed specifically for the user in mind, Merkava and the ROK K1 come to mind. These countries didn't design these vehicles for the world but for their immediate national needs. Neither considered world wide deployment. That does not make them lesser tanks and in some ways make them better based on the enviroment they were made for.

You gotta consider this with both todays and much earlier Tanks.

Yes Bob, call me chicken but I still abstain for now . I just can't see how you can decide the best.


Joe D

T-72
- 35K produced, most produced modern tank;
- exported in 46 countries (in more 30 still in service);
- Poweful tank with high tactical mobility, very good armor protection and very good armament.

Bull**** from this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
"More recently, the T-72's reputation has suffered following poor combat performance of export models against Western tanks such as the M1 Abrams, M60 Patton, Merkava and Challenger 1 during the first and second Persian Gulf wars and the 1982 Lebanon war."

- no one captured or destroyed T-72 in 1982 war, and confirmed destroying of Merkava I tanks. Also in russian archives founded confirmed battle T-72 agains Abrams in 1982 (i think, it's been combat tests vehicles). Result of this battle - M1A1 with 120-mm gun, depleted uranium armor etc In fact, 120-mm gun can penetrate 1982 production T-72M1, but not T-72B and later.
- T-72 of Iraq army - it's a T-72M1, export version of first modification, T-72A. No ERA armor, no modern ammo and sighting systems. BTW any confirmed tank battles against Iraq T-72? I see abandoned and later destroyed tanks, but it's not destroyed in action vehicles.

Main problem of MBT-70 childrens - too big sizes and weight. 70 t for last Abrams modification - it's a awful. It's very low tactical mobility, in war agains banana republic it's ok, but against real good army... And 70 t of weight - it's not guarantee of invincibility, last war in Lebanon - best showing of this.

- Taranov

T-72
- exported in 46 countries (in more 30 still in service);

You counting "client states" with no (or little, by virtue of condiderable arm twisting) say about what they accepted as their imports? What's the number if those are subtracted?

- Taranov

....
Bull**** from this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
"More recently, the T-72's reputation has suffered following poor combat performance of export models against Western tanks such as the M1 Abrams, M60 Patton, Merkava and Challenger 1 during the first and second Persian Gulf wars and the 1982 Lebanon war."

Not BS true. Now whether or not it's reasonable is another matter.

... Also in russian archives founded confirmed battle T-72 agains Abrams in 1982 (i think, it's been combat tests vehicles).
Result of this battle - M1A1 with 120-mm gun, depleted uranium armor etc

Where were T-72s fighting M1A1s in 1982? Especially since the M1A1 didn't exist at that point in time.

In fact, 120-mm gun can penetrate 1982 production T-72M1, but not T-72B and later.

Hardly an accurate statment. You need to add at least a couple of qualifiers and even then may not be accurate.

... BTW any confirmed tank battles against Iraq T-72?

see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...73_Easting

Main problem of MBT-70 childrens - too big sizes and weight. 70 t for last Abrams modification - it's a awful. It's very low tactical mobility, in war agains banana republic it's ok, but against real good army... And 70 t of weight - it's not guarantee of invincibility, last war in Lebanon - best showing of this.

The M1 probably has the best tactical mobility of any currently fielded MBT. There are advantages and disadvantages for both size and weight. No one has said they were invincible. Not sure why it even need showing also not sure that Levanon was the best demonstration - some events in Iraq may be better for instance.

It's started ,

Food for thought;

120mm smoothbore, or 125mm smoothbore. depending on the round you fire (quality to ensure repeated accuracy), what level of tech stage (1980's vs 1990's vs todays) and what the developer of this round is willing to export with the possibility of loosing their advantage if the tech falls into the wrong hands. This all plays into a systems performance in combat when used by someone other than the developing country. That goes also for Armor protection, communications, and fire control systems/optics. Don't ever think that what a country is willing to sell is always equal to what they use for their own forces.

I hardly think the tank battles during Desert Storm can justify a clear supremecy of the M1 system over the T72 series. US crews using the the latest greatest against Iraqi crews in export models. Then take into account logistics support, level of crew proficiency, moral, and fatigue. It goes back to my previous statements.

The only true way to settle this would have been an all out war between the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. Each sides best in a winner take all life or death struggle for unconditional surrender. Last time anything on this scale happened was WWII. There are/were many fine systems out there that will never be tested like the tanks of WWII. Unless you have access to ALL data of a Tanks technical capability the ability to compare is invalid. Even some of the early model M1IP info is still restricted.

Lets stick to comparing WWII and earlier equipment, cutoff being 1945 for all the latest mods too.

Joe D

- Joe_D

....I hardly think the tank battles during Desert Storm can justify a clear supremecy of the M1 system over the T72 series. US crews using the the latest greatest against Iraqi crews in export models. Then take into account logistics support, level of crew proficiency, moral, and fatigue. It goes back to my previous statements.
....

Indeed the performace of the OPFOR at NTC rather points to crew quality as being the most critical element although one could also make an arguement for command quality being up there as well.

I should have made my points a little clearer I guess. The T-72 did see it's reputation decline as a result of ODS and the Syrian Isreali conflicts. However a lot of this was because many didn't really take a good look at all the factors.