Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:18 pm
Damn, guess 800 wasn't that far off. Thanks anyway.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Iltica wrote:How much armor is strictly necessary for tank2tank combat in generation 3? (let's say late 80's-early 90's)
LOS thickness seems to vary between 650-950mm but I can't find much on what can pen what. I know the RHA equivalent varies between compositions and all but is there any rule of thumb for what is considered "enough"?
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Iltica wrote:How much armor is strictly necessary for tank2tank combat in generation 3? (let's say late 80's-early 90's)
LOS thickness seems to vary between 650-950mm but I can't find much on what can pen what. I know the RHA equivalent varies between compositions and all but is there any rule of thumb for what is considered "enough"?
not really a rule of thumb. It largely depends on doctrine and shit. Leopard I has been a very succsssful tank despite being not well armored. IIRC Challengers set the standard in the west for armor protection when they were introduced but have since been overtaken by the Abrams.
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Iltica wrote:How much armor is strictly necessary for tank2tank combat in generation 3? (let's say late 80's-early 90's)
LOS thickness seems to vary between 650-950mm but I can't find much on what can pen what. I know the RHA equivalent varies between compositions and all but is there any rule of thumb for what is considered "enough"?
not really a rule of thumb. It largely depends on doctrine and shit. Leopard I has been a very succsssful tank despite being not well armored. IIRC Challengers set the standard in the west for armor protection when they were introduced but have since been overtaken by the Abrams.
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Iltica wrote:How much armor is strictly necessary for tank2tank combat in generation 3? (let's say late 80's-early 90's)
LOS thickness seems to vary between 650-950mm but I can't find much on what can pen what. I know the RHA equivalent varies between compositions and all but is there any rule of thumb for what is considered "enough"?
not really a rule of thumb. It largely depends on doctrine and shit. Leopard I has been a very succsssful tank despite being not well armored. IIRC Challengers set the standard in the west for armor protection when they were introduced but have since been overtaken by the Abrams.
Iltica wrote:But what about strategic mobility? Sure the tank itself can be fast but if it weighs 60 tonnes you'll have the same problems with bridges, mud, transport etc that plagued heavy tanks.
Iltica wrote:35 tons is preposterous yes, I'm only arguing for something around 45- 50 metric tonnes. About the size of a Panther, the older generations of MBTs, and supposedly the T-14. This seems to be the upper limit before any of these things become a problem.
While you can enlarge the support vehicles along with the tanks if you have the resources, and the same goes for you own infrastructure, you cannot guarantee that the same engineering standards are present if you are fighting outside your own borders. Unfortunately, most wars anymore are fought in less developed countries where if there is any sort of roads or bridges at all they may be in terrible condition.
There may also be numerical advantages when transporting smaller, lighter vehicles in your own transports. For example, suppose you have a transport plane that can carry 150 tonnes or so, you could carry 2 60-tonne MBTs at a time whereas if your MBT weighed 50 tonnes or less you might be able to bring a 3rd.
If you are going somewhere really remote to fight someone who opted for the 60-tonne class you're going to have half again as many tanks when you meet. Even if they are somewhat inferior in terms of protection as long as the lighter tanks still have enough firepower to destroy the heavier ones I'd bet they would probably win just by the volume of fire.
There may also be numerical advantages when transporting smaller, lighter vehicles in your own transports. For example, suppose you have a transport plane that can carry 150 tonnes or so, you could carry 2 60-tonne MBTs at a time whereas if your MBT weighed 50 tonnes or less you might be able to bring a 3rd.
Iltica wrote:What if you have to reinforce somewhere really far inland?
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:not really a rule of thumb. It largely depends on doctrine and shit. Leopard I has been a very succsssful tank despite being not well armored. IIRC Challengers set the standard in the west for armor protection when they were introduced but have since been overtaken by the Abrams.
Didn't we have a post earlier on how Leo 1A4 was better protected than every other steel tank in the West?