[Monthu]

Kontakt-5 is I believe rated up to 12.7 mm arour piercing,

Not exactly impressive, since Chobham/Burlington will show nothing but dings and maybe a few gouges from that.

They also dont rely entirely on reactive armour which is just the top layer but also composites, laminates, fillers and spacing improve armour protection.

Yes, but significantly less than on leopard/abrams type tanks. Added to the fact that the T90 is essentially a tank based off a T55 (1947! But almost alien in comparison) Can you really expect a tank 13 tons lighter to protect just as well?

[Igor Antunov]

The T-90 is designed to be light, fast, easy to service and maneuverable on shitty terrain for a MBT. Thus it doesn't carry the same amount of armour. But it does carry a big enough gun.

[Monthu]

True that, but look at WW2, when they tried to use tank destroyers like the real thing.

Still, I gave it #3.

[Typhoon]

Can you really expect a tank 13 tons lighter to protect just as well?

Indeed you would not, but I think thats what makes the T-X series of tanks so interesting. They are almost always lighter than the opposition since the Soviet Union ditched heavy tank production to focus on tanks in the medium weight class and yet they carry a similar (if not better in some aspects) level of firepower and protection.
This has come from finding some technically very innovative forms of protection without relying on large quantities of heavy metal like some western tanks. When looking at the armour of the T-90 I think it has to be viewed as a whole package, yes its carrying less protection in terms of mass behind the ERA but then by the time a round is going to impact that armour it has already lost ca. 40% of its penetration potential due to ERA effects!
In terms of K-5's resistance it should be able to survive 12.7 mm armour piercing fire and still provide the desired level of protection against main rounds and missiles which is quite impressive considering firing on explosive is essentially whats happening.

[Piano Red]

There is not such thing as a "best tank in the world".

It's a fallacy that gets touted by fanboys who don't understand the more fundamental aspects of Armored warfare.

Ultimately the "best tank" is the one that suits the overall combat doctrines and "way of war" of the Army that uses it. Period.

[MB.]

Yah that's great and all Piano Red, but which is the best in the world?

[Piano Red]

Well....which armored warfare doctrine do you prefer?

Soviet/Russian? (Which is also China's)
American?
Korean?
British/French?
German?
Israeli?

As you can see...there's a lot to choose from.

Each one has its own perception on the trade-off a tank should have when it comes to individual Firepower, Protection, and Mobility. With other relative emphasis put on small unit tactics, formation fighting, and command diffusion/communication.

[MB.]

Doctrine is irrelevant. If you took tank A and lined it up against tank B in a totally irrelevant completely hypothetical scenario were both are controlled by computers, which tank would be the best?

[Igor Antunov]

Doctrine is irrelevant. If you took tank A and lined it up against tank B in a totally irrelevant completely hypothetical scenario were both are controlled by computers, which tank would be the best?

Which tank is favoured by the terrain (i.e which tank was designed for the particular terrain it is in)? Is it muddy and hilly? Is it a flat desert? Is it heavily forested? Are the computers the same?

To take away thousands of nigling factors that mean no battle is ever even/equal (because battles in a vaccum don't exist), we will put both tanks in a very simplistic scenario, stationary, flat terrain, close together, frontal impact, both get a shot off.

If they are both within very close range of one another in a flat open expanse (100m), both stationery, and they both aim at one another and shoot at the same time, with both shells impacting frontal armour, both will be destroyed at that range, whatever combination of medium/heavy tank you may have.

And that's just one scenario of thousands between just two stationary random modern tanks. If you wanna get more specific then you won't predict shit, things can complicated fast.

[MB.]

If they are both within very close range of one another in a flat open expanse (100m), both stationery, and they both aim at one another and shoot at the same time, with both shells impacting frontal armour, both will be destroyed at that range, whatever combination of medium/heavy tank you may have.

Put them at one kilometer, same scenario. I pick a Challenger 2 and you can have a T-90. I know I'm asking you to produce the penetration tables but too bad. Strawman assumption: are you saying that a Challenger 2 and a T-90 shouldn't be directly compared in this silly hypothetical because they were designed to operate in different conditions under a different doctrine?? omgzorz!

[Smilin' Dave]

Doctrine is irrelevant. If you took tank A and lined it up against tank B in a totally irrelevant completely hypothetical scenario were both are controlled by computers, which tank would be the best?

It's kind of relevant if it becomes questionable as to why the two tanks are lined up against each other.

Soviet/Russian tank doctrine for example didn't emphasise tank vs. tank, that was secondary to the tank's purpose. A Soviet/Russian tank is probably better thought of as a fast, armoured artillery piece. It blows up infantry and such, it does breakthroughs. It's not that Soviet-era designers couldn't build higher velocity guns (even in WWII the Soviets had decent high velocity cannon), they just didn't want them on their tanks, instead they tended to go for 'bigger' guns. Particularly by the 1960s the anti-tank role was supposed to be filled in my missiles. I suppose Soviet-era MBTs are supposed to be able to fire anti-tank missiles, but this still doesn't appear to be their primary role (compare their load out of AT missiles to HE shells*). So maybe the Challenger II should be squared off against it's intended foil, a vehicle mounting AT-14 missiles.

* Unless I'm mistaken, Russian HE shells are also dedicated weapons, rather than a dual purpose HEAT round as used in NATO-type vehicles.

[MB.]

Doctrine is irrelevant !! I have no considerations in this thread whatsoever beyond the purely technical aspects of the various boring main boring tanks from around the world

A Soviet/Russian tank is probably better thought of as a fast, armoured artillery piece... So maybe the Challenger II should be squared off against it's intended foil, a vehicle mounting AT-14 missiles.

There will be no discussion of doctrine here! And what is this? You mentioned devastating anti-tank missiles! Guillotine!

[Piano Red]

MB.

Doctrine is irrelevant.

Pfft.

Tell that to the Germans on the Eastern front during WWII.

Or the Israelis against the Egyptians in '73.

Or the Iraqis against the US during Desert Storm.

If you took tank A and lined it up against tank B in a totally irrelevant completely hypothetical scenario were both are controlled by computers, which tank would be the best?

The tank being run by the Windows computer would obviously win over its Apple operated counterpart of course.

The problem with your scenario is that just as it's completely hypothetical....also makes it completely unrealistic.

All "heavy" armored warfare revolves around the particular terrain that the MBTs of either side are operating in.

Strawman assumption: are you saying that a Challenger 2 and a T-90 shouldn't be directly compared in this silly hypothetical because they were designed to operate in different conditions under a different doctrine?? omgzorz!

Ironically enough...(and I say this pretty rarely when it comes to Igor)...he's right.

Doctrine is irrelevant !!

Then this thread... ....is irrelevant.

*Cues the CSI Miami music*

[killim]

In todays potential symmetric wars of industrialized nations MTB's aren't that relevant. Hence you shouldn't talk about the doctrine. Besides that doctrines are a sure way t death if you don't apply them very flexible.

[Smilin' Dave]

I'm going to go off topic for a moment, because I know MB will really appreciate it...

Tell that to the Germans on the Eastern front during WWII.

Or the Israelis against the Egyptians in '73.

I don't know that either of these are good examples of doctrine:
- The Germans on the Eastern Front weren't really following doctrine at all. 'Mission tactics' doesn't exactly amount to improvisation.
- The Israelis used doctrine against the Egyptians... and it didn't turn out too well the first couple of times. And MB will be very upset about the prevalance of ATGMs vs. tanks .
- The Egyptian initial assault across the canal wasn't exactly doctine driven either beyond the concept of a 'heavily planed, minutely managed assault'. Egyptian actions were driven more by the need for solutions to fairly specific problems. They sort of flailed a bit once they accomplished their initial goals, which explains to some extent their failures after going back on to the offensive.

[SecretSquirrel]

Sorry to piss in you all's cereal, but cant the main gun of any MBT penetrate the armor of any other MBT in the current state of offense vs defense?

[MB.]

Depends on a number of factors such as type of ammunition, range, angle of impact, shell velocity, weather conditions, armour thickness, reactive armour, ECM, etc etc

[Smilin' Dave]

Sorry to piss in you all's cereal, but cant the main gun of any MBT penetrate the armor of any other MBT in the current state of offense vs defense?

I vaguely remember a story about a US Abrams which had to be destroyed in situ, and it proving difficult despite another Abrams shooting it. Always thought that story was sus, and can't source it right now but....

[MB.]

What are you still doing in this thread, SD? Didn't we Guillotine you?

[SecretSquirrel]

I vaguely remember a story about a US Abrams which had to be destroyed in situ, and it proving difficult despite another Abrams shooting it. Always thought that story was sus, and can't source it right now but....

Destroying a tank and merely taking it out of commission are two completely different stories.

You dont need to destroy a tank to make it useless to the enemy.

A tank which cannot move cannot join an advance or a retreat, and is a sitting duck for all manner of attacks. Disabled tanks have to be abandoned or towed and repaired.