Project Reality Forums

Even the most modern T-72's can't engage at the range that the Abrams and Challenger can. That is the reason why Iraq's tanks had no chance. Also to fit into the thing you have to be no taller then 5'7". That aside, a T-72 with a proper crew, could pose a threat to Abrams and Challengers but only if they are closer in (due to the outdated fire control system). Since gun stabilization is still being worked on, the whole not being able to shot on the move doesn't come into play as you have to stop to shoot anyways regardless of what tank your in.

IIRC the T-90 is built on the same chassis of as the T-72 except they slapped some ERA armor on it, as well as placed the newest version of the Fire Control system from the T-80. So I feel it is not too much of a stretch. Also the T-90 is expensive India could only afford a handful of them, and same goes for Russia.

Even the most modern T-72's can't engage at the range that the Abrams and Challenger can

hmm, whats the effective range of Abrams fire? modernized T-72 nearly 5km, T-55 with Redut complex- 6km
here the link(its in russian, sry, but its an oficial site)
KB Priborostroeniya
look at the bottom, Дальность стрельбы = Range of fire

Since gun stabilization is still being worked on, the whole not being able to shot on the move doesn't come into play as you have to stop to shoot anyways regardless of what tank your in.

fail, shooting on the move is a standart excersise and part of test program

Grim1316 wrote: Also the T-90 is expensive India could only afford a handful of them, and same goes for Russia.

india ordered around 300 , rusia has more than 100 in service .

the way they can balance it is probably make the t72 gun more powerful and a faster reload since the t72 is 125mm and abrams 120 and t72 has an autoloader so it would be more of a case of who sees who firts in a case when an abrams faces t72 head on (when they both spot each other first) the abrams would win

DankE_SPB wrote:hmm, whats the effective range of Abrams fire? modernized T-72 nearly 5km, T-55 with Redut complex- 6km
here the link(its in russian, sry, but its an oficial site)
KB Priborostroeniya
look at the bottom, Дальность стрельбы = Range of fire

Isn't that using rocket assisted munitions? If that is the case, the Rheinmetall 120 can reach out to 8km with assisted munitions (sorry had to use wiki on this Link) but the source says it comes from Janes) With unassisted munitions it can engage at 4km

DankE_SPB wrote: fail, shooting on the move is a standart excersise and part of test program

I was talking about in game. Though I have read that Russia was trying to fix that drawback of the original T-72.

What's wrong with the T-90? We are talking about a tank for a fictitious coalition in a hypothetical near-future conflict, not a recreation of a RL middle east army. If you're choosing new weapons for the MEC, it ought to be done based on what kind of weapon would be accessible, and take into account the fact that the MEC is probably rolling in money thanks to all their oil, meaning that they could get more expensive, modern weapons than any one of the countries in the Middle East by itself.

I was talking about in game.

sry, didn't get it
didn't hear about LAHAT,my fault
EDIT: read a little about it and found nothing about equiping it on Abrams

ive already got the awsome pics of T72 like in the technology thread i have a pic of a ukranian T72 that would balance out against the M1 it has better electronics

Grim1316 wrote:Even the most modern T-72's can't engage at the range that the Abrams and Challenger can. That is the reason why Iraq's tanks had no chance.

Incorrect. The reasons that an Abrams/Challenger would defeat most(all) OPFOR tanks IRL is due to their communication and battlefield informational systems. This is stuff we can't model in game, nor would we want to.

But when you're talking about manoeuvrability, optics, effective range and weapon systems (stuff we can portray in game) yeah, a modernized T-72* would square up to an Abrams/Challenger any day of the week.

*Talking about a proper modernized T-72 here, not one of the POS T-72's Saddam had.

Most of you guys are missing the point of this thread, or what the thread turned into. The T-72 is only a PLACEHOLDER. It's only going to be there until .9 or a bit later. As far as Wikipedia goes, it says that Abrams tanks were shot by T-72's with Kinetic energy rounds in Desert Storm, but not badly damaged(maybe the poor quality Iraqi ammo you guys were talking about). So we should all relax, I'm sure the Devs will give the MEC the perfect tank that will pacify all of us and let us engage in Armored Blitzkrieg peacefully.

i heard theres gonna be a MEC reserve force in .85 with older crappier equipment? anyone know if this is true? the t-72 would work great for them. hell even the t-62 would, you could have them in massive number to counteract their crappiness. i hope they dont get rid of the t-72 when .9 comes along.

also for everyone having an e-penis fight over saddams t-72s, they were MONKEY MODELS which means the russians made horrible export copies that were nowhere near the capabilities of true russian t-72s. they didnt have the same kind of armor and electronics. i read somewhere that a research group said that if saddam had real t-72s the abrams would have had a much more difficult time, but would have probably still won.

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley wrote:Well ya did

I didnt ment it that way though, there is a big difference between rasizm and not liking... but people can all ways get my intentions wrong so i excuse myself if someone understood this under a rasizm note, i just dont like some people that is all... btw someone may not like croatians so i wont blame em for it so sry again

Source plx.

I ment that i think that a frenchi tank is better in my opinion than an abrams, not ask which tank is better in the field

Damn that rifle has changed alot since I last saw it, do you know if its cunning balanced automatics system has survived the redesign? I'd love to know, but my skills in reading croation are somewhat lacking and theres a considerable lack of English sources on the matter (and I don't have a subscription to Janes, the only English source I've found so far that I'd actually trust)

All the pictures I have seen have the latest version of the VHS use STANAG magazines (M16 type).

If u look hard enaugh ull see the g36 mags





And here are the specs of the gun

TECHNICAL DATA

The VHS assault rifle is produced in two versions: the base model VHS-D and VHS-K model short-K. Both fires caliber ammunition 5.66 mm NATO. Rifles were designed by bull-bud principle, which shortens the total length of weapons at the preserved full length of pipe. Such structures soldier allows easier handling, which is the fact that VHS is among the lightest in its class.

TIP VHS-D(standard) -VHS-k(carabin)

DIMENZIJE(dimensions)
Kalibar(caliber) 5,56x45 mm 5,56x45 mm
Duljina(lenght) 765 mm 665 mm
Širina(wide) 43 mm 43 mm
Visina(hight) 230 mm 230 mm
Visina (spremnik 30)(hight with a 30 bullets mag) 300 mm 300 mm
Visina (spremnik 20)(hight with a 20 bullets mag) 260 mm 260 mm
Duljina cijevi(barrel lenght) 500 mm 410 mm

MASA(mass)
Bez spremnika(without mag) 3400 g 3300 g
Spremnik(storage)( 30 116 g 116 g
Spremnik(storage) 20 86 g 86 g
Bubanj(drum)( 230 g 230 g
Nožice(foward legs) 128 g 128 g
Picatinny(have no idea what this is) šine 20 g 20g
Remen za nošenje(sling) 128 g 128 g
Nož s nožnicom(knife with legs) 370 g
Optički ciljnik(optical sight,per wish) (izbor) cca 214 g

OSTALI PODACI
Brzina metka(projectile speed) 950 m/s 940 m/s
Brzina paljbe(RPM)/min 750 metaka 760 metaka
(Source: HS produkt)

So what do u think ?

I'm a bit dissapointed in all areas of the loss and replacement of the T-90. I was thinking that the MEC could use a Leopard2. I like the T72 but I don't think it should mirror the Abrams but it should have ERA as well as the guided missle that the particular model has and of course, the auto loader and maybe weaker AP rounds as compromise.

T72 = yay

Russian stuff is my favourite.

i hope the new tank will be good, i will miss the t-90 dearly.