NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Smolvaniak]

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this

My nation has a boarder with a very hostile neighbour and the boarder is heavily fortified on both sides and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to use old heavy tank turrets as fortified defensive guns? My idea was to take the turrets off my old heavy tanks that I had in storage then then put them on top of hardened bunkers along the boarder.

I know that Bulgaria worked their T-34's into static defense positions. There are probably other, better options but if you have too much manpower when compared to material, you could certainly do such a thing, with various levels of effectiveness.

Cool! I'll have to read into that

The USSR also did this.

Obviously it was part of a complicated defense system.

I'm just thinking of ways I can have a more fortified boarder on top of what I already have

[The Soodean Imperium]

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this

My nation has a boarder with a very hostile neighbour and the boarder is heavily fortified on both sides and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to use old heavy tank turrets as fortified defensive guns? My idea was to take the turrets off my old heavy tanks that I had in storage then then put them on top of hardened bunkers along the boarder.

It depends on the composition of your forces and your enemy's.

Around the 1970s when China and the USSR were teetering on the brink of war (a confrontation many people tend to forget), the Soviets did this quite extensively along their side of the Amur River, both with old heavy tank turrets and more modern medium tank turrets. Yet throughout the Cold War, they built few if any such fortifications along their side of the Iron Curtain.

Mobile defenses will trump fixed defenses, especially in an era of precision-guided munitions and mechanized forces. If you just want to defend a few contested areas, strategic crossings, or valuable objectives against the threat of lightly supported infantry attacks, tank-turret bunkers can be a decent option. But if the front line is packed with troops and likely to break into a fast-paced, unrestricted, highly mechanized war, your efforts would be better spent on maintaining a less visible and more fluid defense.

[Inyourfaceistan]

From the front, yes.

"When equipped with heavy armor, a Tulkas II becomes virtually impenetrable. The frontal arc is capable of stopping 155mm armor piercing shells at all but suicidally close range. From the side, the tank is protected against 105mm guns – such as those carried by the Stryker mobile gun system and many early MBTs – at medium to long range; however, some high-pressure guns like the 105mm Improved Weapon System may be able to penetrate. The rear and top armor offers protection from guns of up to 90mm, though it can also stop 100mm rounds from the BMP-3’s low-velocity gun, and some 105mm guns at long range. A Tulkas II-HA (heavy armor) is completely impervious to almost all HEAT weapons, including top attack ATGMs and even air launched missiles such as the Hellfire."

An AGM-65 may or may not be able to penetrate it. It would take more than one to get a hit anyway, though. You have to get past both the softkill and hardkill APSs before you get to the armor. The best way to destroy it is probably to hit it with a 500 lb bomb or a cruise missile or something, though taking out the tracks and external electronics and sensors would get you an effective mission kill.

EDIT: I'd guess that this would cost no less than $20 million each, so you have a bit of leeway in what you can use to kill it cost effectively.

If I have forced you to use a tank which is also apparently impervious to almost all HEAT weapons (which I find debatable considering I could still reasonably kill the optics and I'm wondering how that AESA radar works through all that armor) then I guess I have already won, haven't I?

Secondly, let me throw off a few ideas:

Two of my A-10/A-6E/IA-40/IEK-74/Su-37MI simply fire all 4 - 8 of their AGM-65/Kh-25. What now?

I spam with rocket artillery (because I would never do that! ) forcing you to waste most of your APS in very short order or else loose your external electronics. What now?

I bring in a modified mobile artillery acting as a tank destroyer (with a smoothbore cannon) and fire a 155mm APFSDS. What now?

I simply don't fight your wankstrosity, kill your ships and bloated logistical trails and just starve out the crew who now have no way of getting home and/or run out of fuel very fast (apparently the Abrams is a massive gas guzzler, so imagine what yours would be). What now?

Or, I shoot my normal person 120mm at the sides of the tank. What now?

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Or, I shoot my normal person 120mm at the sides of the tank. What now?

I don't get why people always act as though this is a reasonable thing to expect. Sure it happens, but nowhere near enough to rely on unless you don't mind losing 4 tanks for each of his because you will have a hell of a time trying to outflank any competent armoured force. Honestly if I faced this tank I would just call him a wanker and refuse to RP until he toned it down because it is in no way realistic.

[Smolvaniak]

It depends on the composition of your forces and your enemy's.

Around the 1970s when China and the USSR were teetering on the brink of war (a confrontation many people tend to forget), the Soviets did this quite extensively along their side of the Amur River, both with old heavy tank turrets and more modern medium tank turrets. Yet throughout the Cold War, they built few if any such fortifications along their side of the Iron Curtain.

Mobile defenses will trump fixed defenses, especially in an era of precision-guided munitions and mechanized forces. If you just want to defend a few contested areas, strategic crossings, or valuable objectives against the threat of lightly supported infantry attacks, tank-turret bunkers can be a decent option. But if the front line is packed with troops and likely to break into a fast-paced, unrestricted, highly mechanized war, your efforts would be better spent on maintaining a less visible and more fluid defense.

Ok

I was thinking of having the bunkers around boarder towns then having them be crewed by reservists from the towns.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Or, I shoot my normal person 120mm at the sides of the tank. What now?

I don't get why people always act as though this is a reasonable thing to expect. Sure it happens, but nowhere near enough to rely on unless you don't mind losing 4 tanks for each of his because you will have a hell of a time trying to outflank any competent armoured force. Honestly if I faced this tank I would just call him a wanker and refuse to RP until he toned it down because it is in no way realistic.

Actually I don't see how people expect it not to happen.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think the shell has to impact at a 90 degree angle. All I have to do is send two tanks a few hundred meters apart beside any form of obstruction, and the fact is one of them is going to be able to pull of an angled shot to the side.

The only reason I would deal with this tank is because it's hilariously inefficient, and honestly seems to cast a shadow of over confidence on user. It honestly does me more of a favor him trying to use these than as if he had just gone with an Abrams, Challenger or Leopard-2...

[Allanea]

Mobile defenses will trump fixed defenses, especially in an era of precision-guided munitions and mechanized forces

Mobile and fixed defenses reinforce each other, when done properly.

What you should have, in addition to those tank turrets:

1. Armored trains. (The USSR used those on the Chinese border).

2. Gorchak turrets. http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ ... topic=7127

3. Large, well-camouflaged expanses of dragon's teeth.

4. Sensors implanted throughout the protected zone.

5. Technical observation points equipped with ground RADAR.

6. The usual mechanized infantry mobile forces.

7. Permanent minefields in key points, that can be rapidly reinforced with rapid-deployment minefields.

8. Sentry turrets (like the Belarussian A-3 sentry turret) that can be deployed and configured rapidly in the field.

9. CAS aircraft prepositioned within 200-300 kilometers of the border, including mock airfields. (Modern technology can even allow you to fake a movement of aircraft on a fake airfield).

10. A large amount of moving, full-scale vehicle mockups, capable of confusing the enemy to the intent of your armed forces.

11. An ability to blow up major mountain passes, making them untraversable.

12. Extensive networks of bunkers to augment your defenses. However, remember that these are only useful when supported and augmented by maneuver units.

13. An elaborate network of rail and/or roads to supply your forces, including but not limited to, a road system running the length of your border (a rocade road in military technology.

14. A variety of measures needed to control your border for saboteur infiltration. We've covered sensors. You'd also need sensor-equipped border fences, track areas (i.e. long strips of ground covered in soft sand, perhaps artificially, on which tracks would be left if somoene passes), K9 teams involved in border patrol, etc.

[Imperializt Russia]

Or, I shoot my normal person 120mm at the sides of the tank. What now?

I don't get why people always act as though this is a reasonable thing to expect. Sure it happens, but nowhere near enough to rely on unless you don't mind losing 4 tanks for each of his because you will have a hell of a time trying to outflank any competent armoured force. Honestly if I faced this tank I would just call him a wanker and refuse to RP until he toned it down because it is in no way realistic.

Half of all strikes occur on a 60 degree arc over the front of the tank. About a third occur over the rear, presumably over a similar 60 degree arc.
The remaining 240 degrees of the sides of the vehicle (possibly less) account for one-sixth of all hits in normal mechanised warfare.

[Allanea]

Just fire lots of top-attack munitions and HE-F unguided shells.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Actually I don't see how people expect it not to happen.

Just because it can happen doesn't mean it is reliable. I can shoot at a tank from a higher angle if I can get a good elevation and ignore their frontal armour hitting them on the top. Doesn't mean I should rely on it.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think the shell has to impact at a 90 degree angle. All I have to do is send two tanks a few hundred meters apart beside any form of obstruction, and the fact is one of them is going to be able to pull of an angled shot to the side.

The thing is tanks are generally armoured more heavily on the front of the sides than the rear sides. The protection more focuses on the front 90 degrees or whatever. Even then it is not something to rely on, why is your opponent letting you outflank him so significantly? Why doesn't he just engage the forces you moved over with his own forces he moved over. Sure a Sherman could kill a tiger by shooting it in the side during WW2, the thing is the Shermans suffered heavy casualties as a result, making tank destroyers and sherman fireflies preferable to engage the enemy since you didn't need to take as many risks. Also what if you are in an enclosed area like a city or a forest?

I've said it before and I will say it again the lower front hull should almost always be able to be penetrated by obsolete guns, much less modern guns, and as a result going out of your way to flank an enemy is needlessly risky most of the times. Besides his tank is pure wank, nothing more.

The only reason I would deal with this tank is because it's hilariously inefficient, and honestly seems to cast a shadow of over confidence on user. It honestly does me more of a favor him trying to use these than as if he had just gone with an Abrams, Challenger or Leopard-2.

Not really, his tank is immune to HEAT, it is immune to KE from the front, his gun can punch through the front of an Abrams at all combat ranges. His tank (if we ignore its wank) will wreck a fleet of Abrams absolutely, sure you could try to flank him, meanwhile he will be punching holes in your front from 4 km away with no effort, and if one of these gets into a city it is pretty much unkillable unless you wanna try flanking this tank with another tank in a city since it is pretty much immune to HEAT.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Just fire lots of top-attack munitions and HE-F unguided shells.

His tank can take a LOSAT to the roof with no problems.

[Romic]

Tac Nuke it. Unless it's like a cockroach.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Tac Nuke it. Unless it's like a cockroach.

Or tell him that you won't RP with a broken vehicle that has made up armour values

[Smolvaniak]

Mobile defenses will trump fixed defenses, especially in an era of precision-guided munitions and mechanized forces

Mobile and fixed defenses reinforce each other, when done properly.

What you should have, in addition to those tank turrets:

1. Armored trains. (The USSR used those on the Chinese border).

2. Gorchak turrets. http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ ... topic=7127

3. Large, well-camouflaged expanses of dragon's teeth.

4. Sensors implanted throughout the protected zone.

5. Technical observation points equipped with ground RADAR.

6. The usual mechanized infantry mobile forces.

7. Permanent minefields in key points, that can be rapidly reinforced with rapid-deployment minefields.

8. Sentry turrets (like the Belarussian A-3 sentry turret) that can be deployed and configured rapidly in the field.

9. CAS aircraft prepositioned within 200-300 kilometers of the border, including mock airfields. (Modern technology can even allow you to fake a movement of aircraft on a fake airfield).

10. A large amount of moving, full-scale vehicle mockups, capable of confusing the enemy to the intent of your armed forces.

11. An ability to blow up major mountain passes, making them untraversable.

12. Extensive networks of bunkers to augment your defenses. However, remember that these are only useful when supported and augmented by maneuver units.

13. An elaborate network of rail and/or roads to supply your forces, including but not limited to, a road system running the length of your border (a rocade road in military technology.

14. A variety of measures needed to control your border for saboteur infiltration. We've covered sensors. You'd also need sensor-equipped border fences, track areas (i.e. long strips of ground covered in soft sand, perhaps artificially, on which tracks would be left if somoene passes), K9 teams involved in border patrol, etc.

Didn't think of half that stuff, I'll be working on my defences to accommodate all that stuff

Currently the border has minefields, an anti tank ditch, barbed wire fences and electric fences, with outposts every couple kilometres and major bases every hundred kilometres. The border itself is 700km long.

[Mitheldalond]

Oh good, we're doing tanks. The picture is just a quick PowerPoint diagram I made to check the dimensions, so it’s a very basic outline and not much more.

Shit like this is why I hate people listing armour values. Short of like Sumer and two other guys I really do not trust anyone to have accurate protection levels, but I will get to that later.

Width: 9.84 ft (3m) hull, 17.39 ft (5.3m) overall
Height: 9.02 ft (2.75m) with 0.5m ground clearance

Strange dimensions, very long and tall but really narrow, I would actually be worried about high speed turns because it is almost as tall as it is wide.

• 140mm L45 smoothbore gun (36 rounds)

I have my doubts about such a large amount of ammunition. The Abrams only have like 40ish rounds and it has a much smaller gun.

Gun elevation: -15 deg/+25 deg (5 degrees from suspension)

Is the elevation/depression from the gun already added in? If not I would change that around, because -20 degrees depression and 30 degrees elevation is pretty cray cray.

Fuel capacity: 373 US gallons
Operational range: 400 mi (644 km)

Your fuel capacity is only slightly higher than that of the Leopard 2 yet your range is about 100 km longer, this is in spite of your significantly larger engine. Honestly, this is the main problem with NS tanks and their lulzy armour claims, if you have a heavy tank you need a bigger engine to move it as fast, if you have a bigger engine you need more fuel in order to give it the same operational range, if you give it a bigger engine and more fuel your tank needs to be bigger, a bigger tank means a higher protected volume, meaning your armour will need to cover a larger area. At a certain point you need to sacrifice somewhere.

Light Armor (values in parentheses include ERA):
Turret:

• Front: 1000mm (1250mm) vs APFSDS, 1500mm (2000mm) vs HEAT
• Sides: 150mm (400mm) vs APFSDS, 650mm (1150mm) vs HEAT
• Rear: 100mm (350mm) vs APFSDS, 600mm (1100mm) vs HEAT
• Top: 100mm (350mm) vs APFSDS, 600mm (1100mm) vs HEAT
• Underside: 100mm vs APFSDS, 600mm vs HEAT

Hull:

• Front: 900mm (1150mm) vs APFSDS, 1400mm (1900mm) vs HEAT
• Sides: 100mm (350mm) vs APFSDS, 600mm (1100mm) vs HEAT
• Rear: 50mm (300mm) vs APFSDS, 550mm (1050mm) vs HEAT
• Top: 50mm (300mm) vs APFSDS, 550mm (1050mm) vs HEAT
• Bottom: 50mm vs APFSDS, 550mm vs HEAT

Here is where I will really start bitching, and yes, it is bitching, not at you, but at your entire race (people who feel compelled to list RHAe armour values), if you are personally offended I am sorry but I meant no offence, simply need to get this off my chest. Okay, the M1A1 weighs about 57 metric tons, a little more than 10 tons less than your light tank. As was posted earlier its armour values were 820 mm max on the turret, 907 max on the hull. Now assuming you are only posting max thickness values your tank somehow has 52% more armour on the turret front and 27% more armour on the front hull. How the hell are you added all that armour with only 10 tons of weight and a significantly more powerful engine? Beyond that I have two more gripes, one that you should list more places (eg. replace hull front with lower front hull and glacis, replace sides with sides and sides+tracks), and two, although I don't remember the actual thicknesses, your sides seem abnormally thick.

The problem is that the values are arbitrary, even if you know the thickness in all places of modern tanks all you are doing is an arbitrary comparison and adding armour where you want, and results in stuff like you will see below where you have over double the thickness of an Abrams in places because who knows? And the thing is this adds nothing to the vehicle since the values are arbitrary, it just results in wank like rocket assisted APFSDS and gold lined HEAT in order to defeat these absurd armour levels.

If you wanna go in depth into your protection just list the materials your armour is made of and the general focus on its layout. Eg. if your tank is an 85 ton monster that uses a modern composite armour scheme with DU mesh inserts and heavy ERA like the East uses to defeat APFSDS that has virtually no rear and side protection (only protects against 14.5 mm ammunition) and a tiny engine leaving it underpowered than yeah, I might give you 1800 mm protection against KE in places on the front, doesn't mean it is a good design but I can imagine what it was designed to protect against. Arbitrary thickness values just motivate your opponent to masturbate more to bigger weapons to kill your tanks.

Turret:

• Front: 1500mm (1750mm) vs APFSDS, 2000mm (2500mm) vs HEAT

See, and this is exactly the shit I am talking about. Why do your need 2500 mm against HEAT or 1750 mm against KE? Seriously even without the ERA you are beyond redundant levels of protection, just stop this shit.

• 1,250mm @ 1,000m
• 1,175mm @ 2,000m
• 1,100mm @ 3,000m
• 1,025mm @ 4,000m
  
• Penetration: 1,100mm after ERA

See, I'm not even looking at the specifics because frankly that has nothing to do with my bitchfit, lets assume you face someone with a tank as heavy as your heavy tank. Not only can they easily defeat all of your munitions from the front at all ranges even without ERA, they can defeat you missile from literally every direction except the bottom. Forget top attack munitions we need fucking tunneling missiles.

In most cases, the light armor scheme is sufficient protection, especially with ERA and the APS systems. Perhaps I should call it the standard armor scheme instead of the light armor scheme, because it will be the most common armor scheme used. The heavier armor schemes exist for when I run into nations who run around with 155mm and 203mm guns (or bigger) on all their tanks.

(By the way, what I'm saying now overrules anything I've said before if there's a contradiction. I'm changing and revising things as I go along according to the advice and criticisms I receive.)

The tank is actually 5.3m wide when the [1m wide] tracks are included. The 3m hull width refers to the armored volume of the tank. (Yes, I know 5.3m is lolzy wide)

140mm ammunition isn't that much bigger than 120mm, at least as far as diameter goes, and my turret is a bit bigger than the Abrams' (not sure by how much exactly, since I don't know exactly how big the Abrams' turret is.)

The gun elevation without taking the active suspension into account is -10/+20 degrees. The suspension adds another 5 degrees to each number, thus the -15/+25 degrees listed.

I used the fuel efficiency of the Leo 2 (from Wikipedia) to calculate the range/fuel capacity. I should probably add a note explaining that the range listed is for the light armor (or standard armor) configuration. I don't really know how to calculate the fuel consumption or miles per gallon of an engine of X horsepower in a Y ton vehicle. If anyone has a more accurate idea about what kind of range I could expect from this tank, I'll gladly change it to a more realistic number.

No offense taken, you make a valid point. The armor really is kind of insane, especially when I've put so much effort into not getting hit in the first place with the APSs and ERA. Which is why I decided to use the light (standard now) armor by default, and only use the heavier schemes when the enemy comes at me with massive cannon wank. I really should have realized that awhile ago (most of the regulars here have already pointed all of this out to me). I guess it just took an angry rant to get through to me, so thanks for that.

Tunneling missiles? Like, torpedoes for use on (or rather, under) land? Sounds like the perfect weapon for a milbagger.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Actually I don't see how people expect it not to happen.

Just because it can happen doesn't mean it is reliable. I can shoot at a tank from a higher angle if I can get a good elevation and ignore their frontal armour hitting them on the top. Doesn't mean I should rely on it.

Not if I pick the site of battle.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think the shell has to impact at a 90 degree angle. All I have to do is send two tanks a few hundred meters apart beside any form of obstruction, and the fact is one of them is going to be able to pull of an angled shot to the side.

The thing is tanks are generally armoured more heavily on the front of the sides than the rear sides. The protection more focuses on the front 90 degrees or whatever. Even then it is not something to rely on, why is your opponent letting you outflank him so significantly? Why doesn't he just engage the forces you moved over with his own forces he moved over. Sure a Sherman could kill a tiger by shooting it in the side during WW2, the thing is the Shermans suffered heavy casualties as a result, making tank destroyers and sherman fireflies preferable to engage the enemy since you didn't need to take as many risks. Also what if you are in an enclosed area like a city or a forest?[/quote]

He's not letting me outflank him, it's already been established he uses this tank when he is outnumbered.
It's a question of how can he stop me from outflanking him?

Also, if it's in a forest (or jungle ) that's still better on me because he has far less room for him to engage my tanks before they are right up on him.
If its in a city, I'm golden because chances are a lot higher for getting a side shot, especially one at shorter ranges, when his tanks come rolling into my inevitable ambush. Unless the Tulkas-II has an elastic barrel that can extend 90 degrees around the corner to shoot my tank, he is going to have to either go around a long as detour and loose his ability to support his foot soldiers, or take a side shot.

The only reason I would deal with this tank is because it's hilariously inefficient, and honestly seems to cast a shadow of over confidence on user. It honestly does me more of a favor him trying to use these than as if he had just gone with an Abrams, Challenger or Leopard-2.

Not really, his tank is immune to HEAT, it is immune to KE from the front, his gun can punch through the front of an Abrams at all combat ranges. His tank (if we ignore its wank) will wreck a fleet of Abrams absolutely, sure you could try to flank him, meanwhile he will be punching holes in your front from 4 km away with no effort, and if one of these gets into a city it is pretty much unkillable unless you wanna try flanking this tank with another tank in a city since it is pretty much immune to HEAT.[/quote]

No, his tank can essentially only come out on top in the long run in the scenario for which it is justified if he has absolute air supperiority and estabished SAM and C-RAM grids, and we are fighting in either a desert, open plains/savannah, farmland or tundra.

And even if he does win, will it be worth it if I still manage to rape his logistics, which will naturally be bloated do to the gasoline those things will realistically suck down?

[Padnak]

Something I think allot of people over look when creating there stupidly over armoured tanks is that it only takes one AT mine to render it all useless-

[Imperializt Russia]

Something I think allot of people over look when creating there stupidly over armoured tanks is that it only takes one AT mine to render it all useless-

Misha is stuck...

[Padnak]

Something I think allot of people over look when creating there stupidly over armoured tanks is that it only takes one AT mine to render it all useless-

Misha is stuck...

[Padnak]

I need to get into an RP with lots of mechinzed warfare so I can test out my rocket deployed mine strategy

[The Soodean Imperium]

The heavier armor schemes exist for when I run into nations who run around with 155mm and 203mm guns (or bigger) on all their tanks.

If you run into someone who has a 203mm gun on their tank and claims nigh-impenetrable armor, don't respond by sinking to their level; instead, explain (as The Greater Luthoran Empire and I have) the flaws in their design and get them to tone it down to something more reasonable. If they listen, then you can go back to realistic military RPing against a sane target; and if they don't, then it sounds like they're the kind of person who isn't worth RPing with in the first place.

Otherwise it just turns into an unrestricted self-pleasuring festival of increasingly improbable penetration and armor values until you're cutting their tanks' roof armor with some kind of Bagger Buzzsaw.

[Padnak]

Bagger Buzzsaw.

[Imperializt Russia]

Misha is stuck...

We need someone to make a Soviet-themed poster educating tankers on the risks of AT mines...
By putting a terrified Misha in a beartrap.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Not if I pick the site of battle.

Sure he can, it is simply a matter of competence

He's not letting me outflank him, it's already been established he uses this tank when he is outnumbered.
It's a question of how can he stop me from outflanking him?

Which he can generally can if he isn't incompetent. If you shoot anywhere on his front arc you won't do anything, if he hits you anywhere within 5 km (assuming he can hit you that far out) he can penetrate you. That is a massive advantage.

Also, if it's in a forest (or jungle ) that's still better on me because he has far less room for him to engage my tanks before they are right up on him.

Except it means you have to try and maneuvre to get closer before you can get your precious side shot, meanwhile if he sees your tank he can kill it.

If its in a city, I'm golden because chances are a lot higher for getting a side shot, especially one at shorter ranges, when his tanks come rolling into my inevitable ambush.

So once again you are relying on his incompetence. Unless he is advancing in a thin column, with no other forces anywhere else in the city his forces should know "hey there are tanks here, might wanna turn around so you don't get shot from the back." You are pretty much claiming that it is easier to flank someone when you are going through a bottleneck.

Unless the Tulkas-II has an elastic barrel that can extend 90 degrees around the corner to shoot my tank, he is going to have to either go around a long as detour and loose his ability to support his foot soldiers, or take a side shot.

Or you know send infantry or some other asset to deal with it. Why is he actively sending tanks that are outnumbered to attack an enemy position under disadvantage circumstances.

No, his tank can essentially only come out on top in the long run in the scenario for which it is justified if he has absolute air supperiority and estabished SAM and C-RAM grids, and we are fighting in either a desert, open plains/savannah, farmland or tundra.

Why does he need absolute air superiority? As long as the skies are contested there is no way you will be able to do anything close to annihilating his armoured formations with air assets. Also wide open areas are where tanks like his will do the best because they can actually pick you off at 4+ km.

And even if he does win, will it be worth it if I still manage to rape his logistics, which will naturally be bloated do to the gasoline those things will realistically suck down?

Too bad he claimed his engine is more efficient than the Leopard 2 despite being significantly more powerful.

Once again it is wank, there is no need to RP against this tank, it is like trying to RP against an Abrams in a pre-WW2 RP, and while it may be an interesting thing to do it is by no means realistic or logical. Sure you can kill it, but unless that is the whole point of the RP (in which case Bolos are better) why go through such effort for something that is ultimately unrealistic? This is why I say don't list armour values. No one gives a shit if you don't. Lyras doesn't list armour values on his tank and he has the most popular storefront on NS.

[Padnak]

We need someone to make a Soviet-themed poster educating tankers on the risks of AT mines...
By putting a terrified Misha in a beartrap.

"Beware capitalists traps comrades! The glorious spread of communism depends on you!"