Project Reality Forums

Listen to some of you and you'd think that the Abrams is better
then all the other tanks combined....Wake up!














T-72 can't penetrate it ? No not with the 20+ year ammo that
Saddam had.Any modern Russian sabot would do the trick if you know where to shoot.

It does not matter how much (reactive) armour your cannon can penetrate from X distance if your opponent's ATGM can penetrate you double that range.


MEC is not "real" enough ? but using a keyboard and a mouse to
operate a 60 tonn machine is? Put things in perspective here people.

Well I merely suggested that the addition of the tank fired at-11-sniper atgm would balance out any defiencys the t-72 has. I do know that a fully modernized and equipped t-72 could easily take on an m1.

Looks like they survived pretty well. They appear to be mostly mobility kills.

joethepro36 wrote:Home Page

Article taken from Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15 but I can't source that directly.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles."

IIRC that article proved to be fake (i know , i posted it about a year ago in the military technology section ) altrough the tests did happened , but afaik the results were not published .


and i will love to see the at-11 in some t90s/t72m1ms , because , you know , those missils are not standart equipament .

'[R-CON wrote:77SiCaRiO77;923342']IIRC that article proved to be fake (i know , i posted it about a year ago in the military technology section ) altrough the tests did happened , but afaik the results were not published .


and i will love to see the at-11 in some t90s/t72m1ms , because , you know , those missils are not standart equipament .

You can download the .PDF file from Janes. It is not fake.

most people here seam to forget that the T-90 is actually just a T-72 variant, renamed for marketing purpose, and not such a big diference, the really good tank out of russian production is the T-80U and not the T-90

Maxfragg wrote:most people here seam to forget that the T-90 is actually just a T-72 variant, renamed for marketing purpose, and not such a big diference, the really good tank out of russian production is the T-80U and not the T-90

Well those silly russian fools are replacing their T80U's with inferior T90's then.

The T-90 is a pretty badass tank when equipped with shota etc and it outclasses the T80U: "the T-90 uses the gun and 1G46 gunner sights from the T-80U, a new engine, and thermal sights." - from the wiki article. It also comes with shorta and kontact-5 as standard.

SocketMan wrote:Listen to some of you and you'd think that the Abrams is better
then all the other tanks combined....Wake up!

T-72 can't penetrate it ? No not with the 20+ year ammo that
Saddam had.Any modern Russian sabot would do the trick if you know where to shoot.

It does not matter how much (reactive) armour your cannon can penetrate from X distance if your opponent's ATGM can penetrate you double that range.


MEC is not "real" enough ? but using a keyboard and a mouse to
operate a 60 tonn machine is? Put things in perspective here people.

Lol and i was warned for excessive patriotism for saying i dont like USA and France, i think the "Abrams is better than any world tank" is super excessive patriotism, we need a new rule, whoever says that anything american is the best in the world needs a warning

Oh and btw. excellent point to prove em wrong

A T-90 is an upgraded version of the T-72 yes.
But the M1A2 SEP is an upgraded version of the origonal M1, a tank which was thought to be ineffective against Soviet tanks of the time.

I asked about tank realisim for PR a while ago and the answer was that using realistic damage (1 shot kills) for the tanks would be impracticle for a team of only 32 (which would be mostly infantry) on a small map with low view distances. So the individual tanks are beefed up beyond their real life couterparts to compensate for the close range battles with fewer tanks.
With the balance for Soviet tanks being equal to the modern Western tanks the sticking point is: if you give them many more weaker tanks to balance, who is going to drive them?

Flanker15 wrote:A T-90 is an upgraded version of the T-72 yes.
But the M1A2 SEP is an upgraded version of the origonal M1, a tank which was thought to be ineffective against Soviet tanks of the time.

I asked about tank realisim for PR a while ago and the answer was that using realistic damage (1 shot kills) for the tanks would be impracticle for a team of only 32 (which would be mostly infantry) on a small map with low view distances. So the individual tanks are beefed up beyond their real life couterparts to compensate for the close range battles with fewer tanks.
With the balance for Soviet tanks being equal to the modern Western tanks the sticking point is: if you give them many more weaker tanks to balance, who is going to drive them?

And who will be left on the ground to cap flags?

Solid Knight wrote:Looks like they survived pretty well. They appear to be mostly mobility kills.

mobility kills my arse

those look exactly like the wrecks we have in PR.

Well, i agree with the fact the T72 is alot weaker than a Abrams ( Gulf war prove it.)

Middle East may had money, but they're is so many weapons embargo, you cant realy said they can got whatever they want. However, i known BF2E had limit, but i dont find it "Realistic" or "Fun" to be all equal. Just think to CR2 or L2A6, those tank are... extremly strong, no its not fair to had a tank that can resist 5 hits, but, just like Insurgent people would find an other way to take em out.

SuperTimo wrote:mobility kills my arse

those look exactly like the wrecks we have in PR.

What, you mean the wrecks that so many people have figuring out whether they're alive or not?

Gulf War doesn't prove very much actually. The Iraqis used an export model that is known as the "Monkey model" in Russia. It was, IIRC, much weaker and in many ways inferior to the original Russian design.

Monkey model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, the thing in PR is just a placeholder for the modernized and improved T-72M1M, similar to the T-90.

STORM-Mama wrote:Gulf War doesn't prove very much actually. The Iraqis used an export model that is known as the "Monkey model" in Russia. It was, IIRC, much weaker and in many ways inferior to the original Russian design.

Monkey model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, the thing in PR is just a placeholder for the modernized and improved T-72M1M, similar to the T-90.

MEC had to use Monkey Model too, since Russia downgrade every thing they sell.

But anywayz, there is much more than just the tank itself in armor warfare, crew, electronics, ammunition, maintenance... all play major role into a tank capability to survive.

Im quite sure MEC wouldnt buy and use tanks without personally upgrading them

Im very sure they would pay home contractors to upgrade them with modern tech thats available eater through BM(black market) or trough conventional means, and since MEC is an thought up military power im preety sure they would have such a standard

I seriously don't get why some people have this obsession with 'everything that's NATO must be "1337WTFBBBQPWENZOROMG!!!!!!!", every war game I played always had this 'US r leetz' in it and I'm getting tired of it, why can't we play a game where the opfor is equal/superior to the blufor for once?

Kind of agree with outlawz.

You know, there are so many opportunities for asymmetrical balance.

Make the mec tanks slightly worse but give them a slightly lower respawn time, give the mec BMP3s and bring back the tunguska (possibly with the realistic ability to engage ground targets with missiles).

So many options, yet we keep moving to exactly the same things in different colours and shapes.

Like above, the tunguska is a perfect example, yeah, its a rape vehicle, countered by maybe javelins on us side etc.

[R-CON]Outlawz wrote:I seriously don't get why some people have this obsession with 'everything that's NATO must be "1337WTFBBBQPWENZOROMG!!!!!!!", every war game I played always had this 'US r leetz' in it and I'm getting tired of it, why can't we play a game where the opfor is equal/superior to the blufor for once?

Well, NATO had the most advanced tech, most advanced armor, most advanced aircraft. That dosent mean the Russian/China stuff is bullshit. The fact NATO is 19 country put together working on creating always better stuff, sharing technologie, etc... When you have to work on you're own whit no help and many embargo (like China) its more expansive to build hitech 1337 thing, so Quantity became you're Quality.

Best example of that : Sherman/T34 against Tiger...

Yes and this is a game.