How good is the TR 85-M1 tank?

T-59 is not T-55.
T-59 is in fact a chinese built T-54A.
But T-54A is not T-55 either. (is it?)



Ahh, dont worry about it...

Eh! It's not so big difference between "54" and "55"! Give me a break!

Iama

Speaking of tanks:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1703.htm

And that tank had no ammo on board -- what the hell happened, there was hardly anything left of it. Was that a T72?

. An arrow shell can penetrate over 450 mm of equivalent armor at over 4000 m. "

Well a t-80 can resist frontal blows from 120 mm ammo ,not to mention it can also be fitted with kontakt 5 era and shtora protection system against atgm.But Romania is sorounded by only 300 t-80s (t-84 s),the rets are just old t-55,t-62/64 s and t-72 s against whom an 100 mm apfs-ds has devastating effect.Infact in the gulf war t-72 s have been knocked out by bradleys with theyr autocannon.

Here is an article on an exercise made by the 284th Tank Battalion in the firing range at Malina last year after they received the TR-84M1. There is also a comparison done with the TR-580 within the same unit.

http://www.presamil.ro/OM/2004/30/pag%2022.htm

G

Now the translation please.

That is a classical..it didn't had ammo, but it had a shit load of TNT inside it... US Army test of the javelin. It look spectacular but the ammo in live tank doen't go of that way. Most of the T-72 get their turrets blown away due to the carusel autoloader that actually propulsate the turret up.
As you can see in that explosion ...there is nothing left from a tank.

This post has been edited by tomcat1974 on September 19, 2005 06:25 am

Ha ,
I talked afew days ago with an Israeli army oficer.
I asked him about the Merkava tank.
He said that the IDF are selling old Merkava models and keeping only the new models.
Momentaly they are not going to produce more tanks,since the eve of major armour battels is long over.
The Helicopter and missles are making the tanks to vulnerable and to expensive.
If a single soldier can anable a tank ,and a helic.can finish quite a few,who needs them any more?
P.S
Those who doesn't know,in 73,the Israelis won the second biggest battle tank (after Kursk).
Since 73,they found out that he (the tank) became more and more useless.

Give a source for that.

Anyway, all i read about this subject contained something like "T-72 were sprayed with 25 m.m. projectiles". From years, i did'nt find something like "were KO with 25 m.m."

"Well a t-80 can resist frontal blows from 120 mm ammo" ... acording to what source? Ukraineans shot at a T-80 from a Leopard 2, Challenger 2, or a M1? Or they used an 120 m.m. howitzer from first world war?

If ukrainean ammo didn't penetrate frontal armor of a T-80, what chances have they in a fight with advanced armour of western MBTs? Oh, yes... for that type of fights they will shoot with guided missiles, because T-72 gun was incapable to penetrate chobam type armor...

Iama

Relly?? I never thought that way... Did US stop producing the Sherman because the german had better Antitank weapons? ... I don't think so

But the age of the tank will never sunset... The tank is evolving... is changing ... The infantery will alway need the big beast to support them or to kill enemy tanks.. Perhaps we will see different classes of tanks...more specialised ..but the tank will remain here..

There are defences agains helicopters ...and also against missiles...

That was what I wanted to know -- if the "test" was faked, because obviously the tank had no ammo in it, but almost nothing was left of it. And I doubt that effect was achievable by that launcher. So you think they packed it with TNT?
No wonder some americans think their weapons are awesome, if thats the case. The tests are forged...

take care

I will add something to what tomcat1974 write about tanks: in all battles, the culminant momment is when you launch the charge of tanks. In a proper momment, you will achieve the victory with tanks.

Iama

If ukrainean ammo didn't penetrate frontal armor of a T-80, what chances have they in a fight with advanced armour of western MBTs" youre making no sence,ukraine has t-80s why would they need to fire at their own when tests are being done in test grounds and only the armor is tested not the whole tank.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t80tank.htm doesnt say what type of round i dont think its vs arrow,maybe vs heat or he.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.lyle/ the bradley vs t 72
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/IFVarm.html smae thing .

I'll bite.What C-2 meant is that the tank as it existed until today it will most probably cease to exist.The concept, however ,not.Assault with the heavy tank will probably last for a while but don't forget that what they were against to were 20 years older technology and design. And US Army is very well aware of this fact.It was fun,but it wouldn't last forever.But this is the tip of the iceberg only. Huge deployment cost,huge manufacturing cost are one of the many reasons the tank as we know it will dissapear soon.The new air-land USA doctrine does not fit with the heavy tank anymore. Armor will play a minor role in the future. At this stage there's no armor which can be considered bullet proof. And what is more important is the fact that the platforms carying these weapons are twenty times less costly than a heavy tank.Then what's the reason?Of course,a modern amy will keep a big array of weapons and is for that there will be few heavy tanks brigades but apart from that there's no doubt they will be replaced.Tanks battalions can't win war on the ground by themselves.Everytime they are stucked in a certain point guess what they do? Call in the artillery and aviation so they can advance. This is not speed and a heavy tank can't have the speed and flexibility a small armored vehicle have. Apart from the occasional shrapnels there is no immediate threat.How would you target accurately a very fast moving,low profile vehicle?I tell you how , very difficult.Most chances of success will be from air. And even if you will disable one , it will be replaced imediately by a similar vehicle.Knocking out a tank will not only waste 5 millions or more but it will create that gap any ground force need to advance on.Marines have a say : killing tanks is fun and easy.If they think like that ...
My conclusion is that heavy tank will survive for a while,now that USA doesn't have enemies with similar devices fighting them. Given the fact that the quickest tank deployment can't be done from air,but ships, will probably make them quite unusefull. How will you deploy them for example in Yugoslavia or Croatia? Yes, veeeery difficult.Think about terrain.
My conclusion is that they will stick for a while (heavy tanks) but they will be replaced with another tech/concept and so on. Stay around and we'll find out what that will be