Main page

For those wondering, the M1A2 has a hard time rendering itself unrepairable.  Remeber reading an article about an M1 trying to combat loss another one, and it taking 6 or 8 rounds of APFSDS to fully combat loss the tank from point blank range.  Those things are freaking tough.

That's actually due in part to the M1A2 Abram's "air-tight" ammunition storage. If there was a crew in there, upon the first hit you'd see KIAs. That's not to say they aren't indestructible, few cases where rounds and/or explosions managed to set it's fuel on fire, rendering the tank totalled. Also an infamous case where a daisy-linked 6-152mm round IED managed to blow the Abram's turret cleanly off. There's also been incidents where a RPG penetrated the Abram's armor and killed and or wounded a guy. Tough beast to kill, but not as hard to maim.

M1A2 can be penetrated by several type of RPG, it just depend on the weak spot, you should know it by now as WoT player.  
Also no sane country sell their best stuff, even America sell downgraded Abram to other country. USA sell it without depleted uranium layers in armor = reduce armor almost by half. No one know if there is other stuff got downgraded.


USA hold to much advantage against Iraq, we really can't use the war as basis for comparing tank. The difference in firepower, technology, air power, information is too great.

Well isn't that sad, the Vid isn't showing up no more

Most of these 'misconceptions' are nobodies fault but the Soviets themselves. They sold every Tom Dick and Harry, Monkey models of their weapon systems and when these weapons systems get utterly dominated by their western counterparts the reputation of them declines. This isnt just Gulf War '91 thinking, this comes from a long list of conflicts. The videos go on about how downgraded versions of whatever the soviets shat out were the reason for poor combat showings (thus implying the real versions are superior in every way) yet neglects to inform that in the vast majority of those engagements, those same export models were facing WESTERN imports.
So all the video tells us is that Soviets export junk to their allies and NATO exported superior equipment that while ALSO export downgraded was so superior to its eastern contemporaries as to render them embarrassing in comparison.

Ultimately, its pointless. The most important aspect in ANY machine is the skill of the operator behind it. Even IF you took every every monkey model Soviet platform, increased its specs by 30%, you'd still wind up with a cutrate death trap with a poorly trained conscript in it. Thats why the Soviet model has always emphasized numbers. Quality was never an option.

Seems like PatrikasLTL just overhauled his channel and deleted all his videos about soviet tanks (and apparently lost quite a few subscribers).

Plod, on Aug 22 2011 - 21:58, said:

The T-72s Iraq had, had acually been superior to those of the Soviet Union. they upgraded them with the best technology on the market, so they could be used by their Republican guard.

Teddy_Bear, on Nov 22 2011 - 01:45, said:

Iraq had aquired T-72Ms which are the Soviet Export model simular to the T-72A except it had thinner armour and lacked weapon systems that the T-72A had.

Now the T-72B (Soviet 1985 model)had a new main gun,stabaliser, fire control, had the capabilities to fire a Svir guided missle, a new 840hp engine ( I beleive?) and had 20mm of Dolly Parton armour on the front of the hull.So in no way was the T-72M superior to the T-72B which was the newest model of T-72.

We also need to remember that the Iraqi army were using substandered ammunition, there were even reports of T-72Ms being equiped with training rounds. We also need to remember that the locally built T-72s were of bad build quality compared to Soviet T-72s. Aswell as maintenance of these tanks wasn't anywhere as good.

And lets not forget the way Iraqi armour was used during both Gulf wars. T-72s and other Iraqi MBTs were used too often as self propelled guns rather than their proper role. Their use as SPGs wasted plenty of ammunition, and caused heavy barrel wear. There use as SPGs caused little to no casualties and caused them to be located and destroyed.

Rhomer, on Nov 19 2011 - 15:53, said:

Well to be fair, in Soviet defense, they don't have chance to show of their newest tech because they never directly in war with any US/NATO allies. So we can never know what will happen when western monkey model vs newest soviet tech

Belesarius, on Nov 09 2011 - 07:59, said:

The problem here is that shortly afterwards, when top line T72s became more available (the Russians needed the money), it was discovered that though M1A1 was all but impervious to M829A1 from the front, so was a front line kitted out T72. So you could argue that on the basis of practical experience, Abrams armor in 1992 was just as good as T72, or that the ammunition used to conduct the live fire tests was useless and the examples are not a good benchmark. The development of better KE rounds to replace the ' silver bullets' indicates towards the latter.

Tanks used by Iraq were laregely produced in iraq itself, and Syria, Pakistan, and Egyptian productions.