So yea I wanted to know your guys fav mbt and afv used from 1960 till now my two fav mbt would be the m1a1 and German Leopard 2 for afvs there is 3 I like the m113 the Bradley and stryker how about you guys what's your favorite ?

4531427

The M113? Excuse me while I vomit. That thing is the bane of my existence.

Favorite MBT would probably be the T-90 (heresy as an American tanker to say this, but it just looks mean). Favorite AFV would have to be the Namer or the CV90.

4531436 yea well I like the m113 just because of how fast it is lol but then again my dad in nam hated the damm thing he was offered rides in them he said he would rather walk lol also Russian ? A m1a1 would eat a t90 for lunch and still be hungery sorry man for mocking your fav tank also you a tank commander?

4531448

I'm a gunner. The M113 is not fast compared to modern AFVs, nor is it well armored. And I think any match between a T-90 would be decided by the crews, so obviously an American crew would win, but the T-90 is a great tank that fits Russian armored doctrine well.

4531448 what's the armour thickness of a m1a1 and a t90? I'm pretty sure the t90 has a 125mm smoothbore which automatically makes it better in firepower. Give the reasoning for your liking the m1a1 other than its the best tank around.

4531548 American built looks better and kicked the crap out of Soviet tanks in both desert Storm and the war we had over there again just look up the battle of 73 easting its proved its self time and time again and besides gun size is not everything just look at the easy 8sherman it knocked out tigers with its 76 and also I think the m1 has better amour on it thanks British lol

T-90s are known to have superior firepower the M1A1/A2 in the form of their Barrel-launched ATGMs, and outfitted with the most modern ERA packages available to the RU military the T-90 may arguably have better protection. Current US APFSDS-T supposedly is capable of penetration, but given that the RU has not released certain ERA packages for international testing, anyone who actually knows isn't talking.

The German Leopard 2A6 is probably the best current on the field, especially if the Bundeswehr gets those Spike ATGM packages in for them. It's basic armor isn't the greatest, but up-armor kits exist, and it's the fastest tank in existence. With the Spike packages installed, it'd have better firepower then any western tank, at least equal to the T-90.

Since the definition of AFV includes tanks, I'll just say my favorite IFV is the BMP-3. Best weapons package on any AFV, ever. 105 smoothbore gun, ATGM capable, 30mm cannon, PKT coax and two additional bow mounted PKTs to boot. Amphibious, can be modified to up to sea status 5, or airdropped.

4531593

Those Soviet tanks were export model T-72s and T-54/55s with indigenous AP rounds. A Russian built and crewed T-90 would be a match for an M1A1, or M1A2 for that matter.

4531548

The fact that it has 5mm more diameter is meaningless. Russian rounds tend to lag behind American rounds in performance, especially long rod penetrators. Their HEAT rounds are equivalent. Not that HEAT would go through either tank.

4531608

Spot on. I personally think a super sabot would go through Relikt or Kaktus ERA, but I'm biased. The specs of the armor and the round are both classified, so it's a moot point. The BMP-3 has a 100mm main gun, not 105mm. Minor quibble.

4531611 I heard or Read some were that us tank rounds are made of depleted uranium is that true ? Also the Russian tanks all have autoloaders to me that's a big risk if the system gets damaged or destroyed no way to load shells

4531624

Yes, APFSDS-T rounds have depleted uranium penetrators. And you're right that an autoloader can be disabled by battle damage, but it also has its advantages over a human loader. Quite a few to be honest.

4531627 OK cool thanks for letting me know by the way you play many video games ? Like wot or warthunder ?

4531649

Yeah I play both occasionally. WoT for the tanks, WT for the planes.

4531657 cool because I am in the armored warfare beta you might like it any way ever want to platton on WoT hit me up game names Poohbear1

4531667

Sure thing. Forgot about Armored Warfare, it's pretty fun too.

4531427
Well, keeping in mind there is a difference between favorite and best. My favorite modern one would probably be the Abrams, I guess I just like the look of it; I guess the same goes for the Stryker. There's not a whole lot of them that I don't like, be honest; at least to the point of outright hating them.

4531677 yea to bad I am still suck on the pt76 and m113 in the game the pt76 is kick ass lol
4531695 yea I am kind of the same way lol

4531623

Huh. Always seem to remember it as a 105mm. Dun matter though. AT-10 series is guaranteed 750mm RHSe, which is still considerably more then the average AT round at 600m, nevermind further away.

4531624

Worse. The standard RU autoloader has the shells loaded in a circular pattern around the turret. Any significant penitration of the turret and the damn thing goes K-Kill. (Catastrophic eg the tank blows up).

On the bright side, RU autoloaders are reliable and faster then the average human loader, and don't tire.

Still, having the loader around is and extra set of hands, and a good set of hands is worth allot.
4531611

No, those were the cheap Chinese copies of the export version of a tank one or two gerations behind. Not fair at all.

4531855

They were about a half and half mix of Type 59/69s and Soviet-made export variant T-55s and T-72s, as well as indigenous "upgrades". They also had piss-poor penetrators and generally shit commanders, which led to a military disaster.

On ATGMs, yes they are very lethal, especially top-attack, but with the massive investment in both soft and hard-kill countermeasures they are going to need significant upgrades to stay in the race. The US is way behind the power curve in that regard. By the way, an AT-10 won't penetrate an Abrams frontally. The armor is obviously classified, but it's more than 800mm RHA equivalent, even without ERA.

Great discussion!

4532210 ah just call in the airforce with some a10s nothing going to survive that and also I had no idea that RU tanks were set up that way Jesus talk about a accident waiting to happen

4532210

Most RU current line ATGMs are very resistant to soft kill measures, and hard kill does not exist on any of the tanks I've personally examined. Realistically the only real potential hard kill system would be an Israeli design, but I've seen/hear no real proof, whether that Israeli counter-intel work or simply lacking, who knows.

On the AT-10, yes. Abrams has (personal guesstimate) ~1000mm RHAe after ERA blocks on the frontal arc, and at least 800mm on the flanks. Still, not invulnerable. Rumor has it that there have been up to two hull penitrations by RPG-29s (granted, flank), and 30mm APDS can penetrate the top. And if the RU redid the AT-10 warhead, and felt the investment worthwhile, the certainty could make a new variant capable of penetrating M1A2 frontal armor.

Still, current RU armor doctrine is basically guesstimates with the unveiling of the new T-14 Armata. Thing is scary on paper. Unmanned turret, reforced armored internal crew compartment, rumors that its got a 30mm plus 7.62 as secondaries, BMPT, AAV and IFV variants. Add the standard RU gun system at least, next series ERA plates, less then 50 tons, and sprints of 56kph, and it's definitely next gen. We'll just have to see how much of that gets to the production models and if it has the same teething problems the vast majority of the new tech is having on the battlefield.

4532226

A-10s are going out the door, man. Airforce is working to have every airframe off active duty by this time 2017. Best pray you're laser markers are on point or have cobras/apaches on call.

4532341

The problem with missiles is that shaped charges are garbage at getting through modern tank armor. If you look at the armor specs of tanks, you'll typically see two figures: "vs sabot" and "vs HEAT". The armor equivalency vs HEAT is invariably much higher than vs sabot. ATGMs have a hard time cat killing a modern tank except through top attack, which as I said is easy for hard kill systems to defeat due to the pop-up movement of the missile slowing it significantly. And there are quite a few hard-kill systems in use, not to mention in development. Arena, Trophy, AMAP-ADS, and Iron Fist, just to name a few. I haven't seen any in person, but as I said the US is way behind the power curve on them.

I'd also love to see what the Russians are cooking up as far as new maneuver warfare strategy. The Armata is just not a tank I see being effective with the current Red Book tactics of fast maneuver, concentration of fire and deep battle. It almost seems like a vehicle designed for NATO tactics; fighting hull-down, defensively, and withdrawing in the face of concentrated forces. The Russians have never fought like that or even planned to, so I want to see how it develops.

4532341
The A-10 is probably going to stick around longer than that. There was a push by the brass to get them out by as early as 2015 and even more so in 2017 so they could introduce the Lightning IIs. But problems with the plane have made that unforeseeable at best and unreliable at worst. At first the Army threatened to just buy all the retired A-10s, which scared the AF enough to hang on to them, and their retirement is being further blocked by the Armed Service Committees in Congress. They've been jockeying their retirement since 2012, but with all the problems the F-35 is facing, and all the resistance from the A-10 guys, it's more than likely going to be around longer than that. At least I hope so.

4532462
The Armata's doesn't look like a dedicated tank for their doctrine because it's not. From the design and use as a universal platform, it seems to be more geared towards general usage and being more economically useful in using one general design than making a specific one for a tank, IFV, and so on. Considering Russia's economic position, it doesn't surprise me if they're foregoing overall doctrine to make something they can afford.

On the other hand, though Russia's never planned to fight the dug-in type of war, their 'enemies' also haven't been this close to their borders since WW2. Throughout most of the Cold War, when the doctrine was developed, they had the entire Eastern Bloc to be used as a buffer zone, and generally kept in mind the idea of offense. Now most of that has collapsed and joined NATO, and with the Ukraine pushing to better relations with Europe, they won't have anything between the West and the Motherland. Maybe they really are scared of having to fight that kind of war in the future, not that we have any plans or desire to undertake such an effort, but considering their overall history it wouldn't surprise me if they're at least a bit paranoid.