[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gorshkov

Maybe in SBP but not in today's reality.

It depends on the ammo - in SBP, and in reality.

To be sure T-80U is on par with T-90 except possessing better maneuverability. However now it is not any serious opponent for Western tanks present in SBP like Leo-2A5/A6. Its frontal armor can be penetrated by today's standard Western APFSDS ammo of M829A3, DM63 types from almost 2 km distance. On the other hand Leo-2A5/A6 and M1A2SEP frontal armor is almost impenetrable by outdated Russian tank ammunition. Moreover T-80U lacks thermal sight which is ridiculous these days.

Again, it depends on the ammo. If you set up old ammo against modern armour, or modenr ammo against old arnmour, do not be surprised of the outcome. Below a certain range, Western AND Eastern tank cannons with decent SABOT-type ammo have an overkill capacity against any MBT in the world - this range is slightly bigger for Wetsern tanks, probably, that's why they want to avoid letting diatnces become too short - they would give up an advanatge without compensation. However, Russian tanks shoot guided mini-missiles (Refleks etc.) at greta ranges exceeding conventional ballistic grenades, by that they acchieve shooting ranges exceeding the usually preprogram,med maximum shooting ranges of 4000m in Western tanks. While these things fly relatively slow, and need the shooter sitting still if I am not mistaken, their warhead is a major threat to armour.

The 80U was difficult to penetrate for Western tanks in its time. Also, it has thermals - the only Russian MBT of that time with thermals.

And now that is very reasonable and very well founded assumption!

In the wars of the past 20 years, only second- and third-class export versions of T-72s saw battle action against Wetswern tanks, and neither German nor American tank experts deny that the Russians during the cold war usually produced much better quality and kept the best equipment for themselves, compared to the tanks build in thwe CSSR or Poland. Also, training and maintenance were not of Soviet standards, when considering the cold war era or the ME. It ha snot been before the blocks fell apart that for exmapke the Czechs build a serious improvement kit for their T-72, the M1 version, with additional armour, Western electronics and thermal sights.

Ammo improved also over time, especially in Germany, Sweden and America. Latest Tungsten-type of German rounds almost amtch the destuctability of third-generation DU-rounds used by the Americans. Considering the different phasical characteristics of both materials, that really means siomething and indicates a small "wonder". In SBP, both rounds are therefore rated almost identical at ranges of up to 4000m, with just a microscopic lead for the the US round.

Not true. Leo-1 was not any huge milestone in tank development and it did not outclassed contemporary Soviet tanks.

Oh, it did, and by a very huge marghin - it coutclassed any tank when it was introduced. It wasa fast5er, more agile, the gun was more precise and had a longer reach, it had thwermals, it was quick in reverse, it had superior optics and - considering thát effectively it was a heavy turret on a medioum chassis - a remarkable armour protection for its time. Major advanatge was its agility, manouverability, speed and precise cannon. The T-72 was designed to be the Leo-1 killer, for the T-55, T-62 and T-64 were more or less chanceless against the Leopard-1, being infeiror in EVERY regard. Slow, even slower in reverse, unsufficient armour - these factors alone meant a death sentence considering we talk the era when ATGMs entered service. No thermals, IR which to use meant an invitation to shoot at it, and guns which had a huge callibre, less, but was short in range due to lacking precision and low muzzle velocity. Also, notorious mechanical failures and unreliable autoloaders.

The Leopard-1 also dominated any Western tank design of that era. It was a Porsche, armed to the teeth, moving in a field of under-motorized Beetles.

For instance T-62 tank was on par with Leo-1. It possessed very powerful 115 mm 2A20 smoothbore gun firing APFSDS rounds which could destroy Leo-1 easily at any practical distance during entire Cold War period.

As I indicated and summarised just above, it takes a little more than that. When comparing tanks, you alwqays must incldue the full package, the overall balacning fot he threer majhor factors of "mobility", "armour", and "armament". Usually focussing more on the one factor is at the cost of the two others. We also need to add "sensors" here.

T-72 origins are different. This tank was designed as a second-rate model intended for second-line formations and for export because it was simple and cheap. In short it was indirect T-55 successor and replacement! However main Soviet battle tanks of this era were much better T-64B and T-80B which constituted backbone of Soviet armored forces deployed against NATO in Central Europe. In sum T-72A/M worse than those two in mobility, FCS and armor protection. Only during time of Soviet Union's crisis and collapse T-72 was chosen due to being cheaper than T-80B/U as a mainstay of Russian tank forces. As a result it was modernized using T-80U's technology and this way T-72B and later T-90 versions appeared.

The T-72 was meant to cover thew weaklness in the army setup that was revealed by the T-55 and T-62/64 when the Leopard-1 showed up. It was a much better design to challenge the Leopard, than the earlier T-tanks, and remember, the T-80 was not around when the T-72 showed up. The T-72 was commissioned in or around 1972, the T-80 was pölanned during the 70s, was produced since 1978, and was delivered to the Russian army not before 1984. The T-80 did not base on the T-72 indesign, however, but on the T-64 which it was meant to repalce, due to the immense mechjnaical unreliability of the T-64.

When the T-72 appeared, it rang alarm bells in NATO HQs, and the developement of the new Ameican and German MBT was speeded up. Both the Abrams and the Leopard 2 were demanded to have the capacity to deal with and to defeat the T-72, while being outnumered. And then came the T-80 as well, but thankfully late, and in smaller numbers than the Soviet high command wanted.

Leopard-1 was produced since 1965, btw.

It makes little sense to compare tank designs which are decades apart in developement. It also makes no sense to compare them just by their gun callibre. And callibre still does not mean the same like firing range and precision, and penetration value. In conventional (non-missile) gun projectile design, Russia still lacks, compared to Wetsern rounds, since it has a larger tank fleet ti equip and thus needs cheaper solutions. Its kinetic rounds for long time thus did not base on expensive Tungsten or deplreted uranium, but steel. Range of such projectiles, considering the typical (slower) velocities of Russian tank guns, gives htem an effetive (precise shooting) range of 25-30% less than Western rounds. In SBP it is modelled that weay that the L-44 gun of Westerntanks suually fires at a maximum of 4000m, Russian tanks fire at ranges of 3300m max, or less - while being able to shoot at ranges of up to I think 5000m with Refleks. But these are no miracle weapons in themselves, and come in smaller quantities also.

Not compare this to the advantages of thermal sights versus IR-sights or visual sights only. As the Iraqis said in 1991: they did not even see their opponents.

And then, agility: speed-in-reverse, speed, acceleration. Until today, Western tanks are superior in these fields.