APC / GTK-Boxer

[SHERMAN]

As for T-72s the modernized versions are up front completely unpenetrable.

At this point and with that statment, I would like you to either PM me or post here your proffesional record with tanks and tank guns. Nothing is completely unpenetrable. Espcially not a 2nd class tank from the 70s with some add on armor. What you are suggesting is that modern MBTs cannot penetarate eachother at contact ranges, which would mean they cannot fight the enemy armor. This would mean that the tactics and doctrines of most world armies are void, and i doubt that very much.

A KE round would not be effected by ERA

I have heard that some of the new Rrussian ERA effects KE as well, it was discussed in one of the threads here...I dont know how true this is as the russians tend to lie about what their gear can do...

 

[Panzercracker]

At this point and with that statment, I would like you to either PM me or post here your proffesional record with tanks and tank guns. Nothing is completely unpenetrable. Espcially not a 2nd class tank from the 70s with some add on armor. What you are suggesting is that modern MBTs cannot penetarate eachother at contact ranges, which would mean they cannot fight the enemy armor. This would mean that the tactics and doctrines of most world armies are void, and i doubt that very much.



I have heard that some of the new Rrussian ERA effects KE as well, it was discussed in one of the threads here...I dont know how true this is as the russians tend to lie about what their gear can do...

We're not talking about modern MBTs we're talking about LAVs with 105mm and of course if you will pound a vehicle enough it will eventually lose structural integrity and you will penetrate but a battlefield is not a computer game.

A LAV unless extremely lucky will be forced to fire multiple times before any significant damage can be done and thats from the sides and rear because frontal half-sphere of 3st and many 2nd gen tanks IS completely invulnarable to 105mm untill you absolutely destroy structural integrity.

As for modern MBTs they probably cant punch through each others frontal armor as well, or at least not with initial shots.

As for my professional record i'm a corporal in the 1st Warsaw Mechanized Brigade but since this is internet i could also be Darth Vader.

 

[SHERMAN]

We're not talking about modern MBTs we're talking about LAVs with 105mm and of course if you will pound a vehicle enough it will eventually lose structural integrity and you will penetrate but a battlefield is not a computer game.

My friend, I believe I know the diffrence between a game and real life warfare. Im not talking about pounding. I stand by my statment that 105mm APFSDS-DU could slaughter any 2nd rate tank at standart and even long contact rages.

As for modern MBTs they probably cant punch through each others frontal armor as well, or at least not with initial shots.

No. Tanks are by doctrine in most armies the first and formost tank killers. At contact ranges they are supposed to be able tokill other tanks.

 

[Panzercracker]

My friend, I believe I know the diffrence between a game and real life warfare. Im not talking about pounding. I stand by my statment that 105mm APFSDS-DU could slaughter any 2nd rate tank at standart and even long contact rages.

Whats a second rate tank? Because if we're talking about T-80U, PT-91 or T-72B than its no go, 105mm APFSDS-DU has 360-390 penetration in optimal conditions, thats not enough.

No. Tanks are by doctrine in most armies the first and formost tank killers. At contact ranges they are supposed to be able tokill other tanks.

Western tanks were produced to fight Warsaw Pact, this results in said tanks having a hard time penetrating each other in stand of ranges, Leo2A6 would have a tough nut to crack even with T-80U.

 

[SHERMAN]

Whats a second rate tank? Because if we're talking about T-80U, PT-91 or T-72B than its no go, 105mm APFSDS-DU has 360-390 penetration in optimal conditions, thats not enough.

No. You cant give a source for that and I cant give a source to the oppsite, neither can I tell you what is the true penetration for this ammo because I will go to jail. But if what I know from very reliable sources is true, than you are wrong.

Western tanks were produced to fight Warsaw Pact, this results in said tanks having a hard time penetrating each other in stand of ranges, Leo2A6 would have a tough nut to crack even with T-80U.

I dont know the RHA vs KE figures for the T-80U, but I doubt they are high enough to stop a 120mm DU round. The germans dont use DU anymore, but thatsa diffrent story.

 

[FO Seaman]

Whats a second rate tank? Because if we're talking about T-80U, PT-91 or T-72B than its no go, 105mm APFSDS-DU has 360-390 penetration in optimal conditions, thats not enough.


Western tanks were produced to fight Warsaw Pact, this results in said tanks having a hard time penetrating each other in stand of ranges, Leo2A6 would have a tough nut to crack even with T-80U.

Who's APFSDS? Germany doesn't have DU rounds, the DM Series uses Tungsten, that's why they upgraded from the L44 to the L55, to proved high muzzle velocity to help with penetration. All other Leo 2 users that want DU ammo by off the US. It's been proven by US and Israeli armor that APFSDS rounds can cut down a T-72.

The T-72 is the same generation system as the M60 and Cheiftain.


And? The T-80U is a Pact tank, it was made in the thick of the Cold War, designed in 67' and finally produced in 75'. The M1's most recent and updated model is the M1A2 SEP which was done in 1996. The Leo 2A6 and Merkava 4 I know are updated regularly, all updated with the last 10 years.

I have noticed a trend with Russian armor. It retains the same design. About time they started utilizing oblique angles.

We know for a fact that the M1, Leo 2 and Merkava 4 can survive hits from T-55, T-62, T-72's, but none of them can survive hits from a western tank. The T-80 has yet to contend with another tank.

 

[Panzercracker]

No. You cant give a source for that and I cant give a source to the oppsite, neither can I tell you what is the true penetration for this ammo because I will go to jail. But if what I know from very reliable sources is true, than you are wrong.

Thats ok, my source is more reliable than yours and it says its false but i cant tell you or i would go to jail too.

Who's APFSDS? Germany doesn't have DU rounds, the DM Series uses Tungsten, that's why they upgraded from the L44 to the L55, to proved high muzzle velocity to help with penetration. All other Leo 2 users that want DU ammo by off the US. It's been proven by US and Israeli armor that APFSDS rounds can cut down a T-72.

Who's T-72? ME countries could use cardboard boxes as well, these were unupgraded export versions of T-72s.

The T-72 is the same generation system as the M60 and Cheiftain..

Do you know even remotely what you're talking about? You realise there's a huge difference between shall we say Russian T-72BW and Thirdworldstans export version, and thats in every respect including armor.

And? The T-80U is a Pact tank, it was made in the thick of the Cold War, designed in 67' and finally produced in 75'. The M1's most recent and updated model is the M1A2 SEP which was done in 1996. The Leo 2A6 and Merkava 4 I know are updated regularly, all updated with the last 10 years...

Yes, with new optics, improved IED protection, LEO2A5 also got a new cannon, there's no revolution there, a T-80U is still an extremely dangerous opponent to any of those.

I have noticed a trend with Russian armor. It retains the same design. About time they started utilizing oblique angles.

Yes it does, they all use turrets, they all use tracks and they're all called tanks but if you're arguing that a T-64 and T-72 are the "same design" or even better that T-90 is of the "same design" you're clueless.

We know for a fact that the M1, Leo 2 and Merkava 4 can survive hits from T-55, T-62, T-72's, but none of them can survive hits from a western tank. The T-80 has yet to contend with another tank.

From export :cen: versions with unstabilized canon, lacking basic optics and modern AT ammunition.

 

[SHERMAN]

I think as neither side can actually post true penetration figures or sources, as they are secret, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[FO Seaman]

Thats ok, my source is more reliable than yours and it says its false but i cant tell you or i would go to jail too.


Who's T-72? ME countries could use cardboard boxes as well, these were unupgraded export versions of T-72s.

Do you know even remotely what you're talking about? You realise there's a huge difference between shall we say Russian T-72BW and Thirdworldstans export version, and thats in every respect including armor.


Yes, with new optics, improved IED protection, LEO2A5 also got a new cannon, there's no revolution there, a T-80U is still an extremely dangerous opponent to any of those.

Yes it does, they all use turrets, they all use tracks and they're all called tanks but if you're arguing that a T-64 and T-72 are the "same design" or even better that T-90 is of the "same design" you're clueless.

From export :cen: versions with unstabilized canon, lacking basic optics and modern AT ammunition.

How do you know your source is more reliable. Unless you've seen an M1 or Leo 2A6 fire at a T-80, you have no clue yourself.

Russia is not the only country on the block selling export hardware. So for all you know, China or even Iran could be selling add-on armor packages for 3rd World Countries.

I have a pretty good idea of what I am discussing. What difference is that? Both are still the same tank, unless your talking about how when they are sold, they get what shoddy guts they do have ripped out. All a 3rd World Country has to do is buy a cheaper copy of what was in it to begin with. The Chinese throw enough money on the table, Russia would sell it's mother. There's also a MASSIVE difference between a T-80U and M1A2 SEP.

I'm saying ALL T Series tanks are of the same design. I see nothing different, sure a few added lights and sights, but nothing new in the outlaying design. Adding some ERA isn't new armor, it's an add-on, they is no redesign in any of them as far as shape.

The Leo 2A6 is a tank years ahead of anything Russia has on the books. There's a reason why Russia mass produces it's tanks. They don't plan on them lasting long. Russian vehicles where viewed to be expendable, just like their crews.

See we learned the lesson that an oblique angle provides better protection because it increases the armors ability to withstand a hit, due to the slant.

We aren't arguing what makes a tank a tank, we are arguing what design is more efficient. Russia is the only country that has yet to catch on.


The vehicles still took hits, and managed to withstand them from the so call mighty T-72. Even our export version's of the M1 could put a T-80 in the dog house.

 

[Panzercracker]

How do you know your source is more reliable. Unless you've seen an M1 or Leo 2A6 fire at a T-80, you have no clue yourself.

That was sarcasm, our Polish PT-91 can be penetrated frontally (which doesnt mean thats easy) and they're basically a heavily upgraded T-72B, Russian T-72BW are "leopardized" and T-80U even more so, Dolly Parton doesnt even skim the surface.

Russia is not the only country on the block selling export hardware. So for all you know, China or even Iran could be selling add-on armor packages for 3rd World Countries.

Russia is the only country with technology to make it happen, after all they've modernized their designs all the way to T-90 which is a 3gen tank, probably the weakest in its class but none the less.

I have a pretty good idea of what I am discussing. What difference is that? Both are still the same tank, unless your talking about how when they are sold, they get what shoddy guts they do have ripped out. All a 3rd World Country has to do is buy a cheaper copy of what was in it to begin with. The Chinese throw enough money on the table, Russia would sell it's mother. There's also a MASSIVE difference between a T-80U and M1A2 SEP.

Both of what? T-72 is basically a different much cheaper and weaker design than T-64, this includes thicker armor, different engine, different hull.

T-80 as 64s modernisation bears many similarities but its still different, from armor through engine to the main gun not to mention things like optics, also its not equal to SEP but it'd give it a damn good run for its money.

I'm saying ALL T Series tanks are of the same design. I see nothing different, sure a few added lights and sights, but nothing new in the outlaying design. Adding some ERA isn't new armor, it's an add-on, they is no redesign in any of them as far as shape.

Just because a tank has similar shape doesnt mean its similar, they've been all built to similar concepts (except for late T-80s and 90s) but they're completely different, T-72 and 64s use completely different hulls and have different dimentions and T-80 has new optics, armor, gun, engine, autoloader and more, they're not the same.

The Leo 2A6 is a tank years ahead of anything Russia has on the books. There's a reason why Russia mass produces it's tanks. They don't plan on them lasting long. Russian vehicles where viewed to be expendable, just like their crews.

Thats what happens when you base opinions on your own general view of something, Russia does not mass produce tanks for years now, they base their armored force off T-80U, T-90 and T-72BW all of which are extremely heavily modernised designes, in case of T-90 on par with any 3gen MBT with the only real difference being side and back protection as well as slightly inferior optics and accuracy.

As for the rest i agree, Russia is behind in tanks but thats mainly due to money issues ( they buy about 200 T-90s yearly, thats not a lot) since they modernised their designs to a point where they can easily contend with the western ones.

 

[FO Seaman]

That was sarcasm, our Polish PT-91 can be penetrated frontally (which doesnt mean thats easy) and they're basically a heavily upgraded T-72B, Russian T-72BW are "leopardized" and T-80U even more so, Dolly Parton doesnt even skim the surface.

Russia is the only country with technology to make it happen, after all they've modernized their designs all the way to T-90 which is a 3gen tank, probably the weakest in its class but none the less.


Both of what? T-72 is basically a different much cheaper and weaker design than T-64, this includes thicker armor, different engine, different hull.

T-80 as 64s modernisation bears many similarities but its still different, from armor through engine to the main gun not to mention things like optics, also its not equal to SEP but it'd give it a damn good run for its money.

Just because a tank has similar shape doesnt mean its similar, they've been all built to similar concepts (except for late T-80s and 90s) but they're completely different, T-72 and 64s use completely different hulls and have different dimentions and T-80 has new optics, armor, gun, engine, autoloader and more, they're not the same.

Thats what happens when you base opinions on your own general view of something, Russia does not mass produce tanks for years now, they base their armored force off T-80U, T-90 and T-72BW all of which are extremely heavily modernised designes, in case of T-90 on par with any 3gen MBT with the only real difference being side and back protection as well as slightly inferior optics and accuracy.

As for the rest i agree, Russia is behind in tanks but thats mainly due to money issues ( they buy about 200 T-90s yearly, thats not a lot) since they modernised their designs to a point where they can easily contend with the western ones.

I didn't mean to be sarcastic, just that sources are on an equal field, especially Sherman's. I didn't mean any hard feelings or disrespect by it. :smile:

I would assume that each has internal differences but cosmetically they differ very little.

I will say if it came down to it, and NATO and the Pact had to have battled it out, it would be no easy fight. Whilst Russian armor may not be on the exact same par as Western armor, there sure as heck was enough of it to make up the difference.

I think Sherman is correct that none of us can either tell or know what the exact penetration is.

It was a very lively and interesting discussion, well debate more so. Let's follow suit with Sherman and agree to disagree. No sense in allies arguing, it is a bit silly of us. All of today's tanks are worthy contenders. eace:

 

[PzBrig15]

The Nederland Landmacht prsented by their Landmachtdagen 2009 their Prototype GTK-Boxer in configuration : Funk-Führungsfahrzeug

I see the cable-cutter at the front at first time.
And I see also a new style. The drivers-Top is new armoured !

 

[PzBrig15]

And a pictures from the back-side of the Version Coamnd-Post / GTK-Boxer ( nederland - Version)