Search results for query: *

That’s entirely irrelevant when it comes to criticizing the completely false claim that the Booker costs twice as much as an Abrams.

The M1A1 Abrams cost $4.3 million domestic in 1989; inflation adjustment alone brings that to $10.6 million apiece today. And that’s an obsolete version; the M1A2 SEP V3 is export priced at a cool $24 million each. The M10 Booker is at $12.9 million — barely half the cost of an Abrams, not double.

42 tons, the 105mm gun is an absolutely excellent weapon for its size and weight, the penetration of RPGs these days is high enough to make full protection impractical on anything less than a full-fledged MBT, and a human loader is actually a significant advantage over an autoloader.

Modern tank hypervelocity guns are generally "one shot, one kill, first to shoot wins", which is exactly the ammo economy that the larger 130mm and 140mm guns seek to maintain against improved armor technology.

Yes, but modern tanks weigh that much with all of their fancy electronic toys and vastly heavier armor protection and a much larger, more powerful engine. A modern MBT basically has the armor protection of a superheavy tank, the gun of a heavy tank, the mobility of a medium tank, and the sensors...

You're missing the point: 65 tons with a 120mm main gun and space for shells on 1950s technology. The Conqueror even had a limited early form of modern dual-sight hunter-kililer capability. There's a lot more flexibility in tonnage than you're giving credit for, even with a large-caliber gun.

It's worth pointing out that Cold War era heavy tanks like the M103 and the Conqueror were running around with 120mm guns several decades before the modern NATO MBTs with 120mm, and they weren't necessarily heavier than modern MBTs either, both being roughly 65 tons.

ETC has been a "big theoretical maybe" since the 1980s, and may or may not actually pan out in terms of being that big an improvement in performance. It's worth pointing out that the U.S. Army's prototype XM291 gun design massively hedges all bets; it's an ETC design, but also has a scaled-up...

The tradeoffs inherent to larger-calibre main guns are exactly why the U.S. Army ended up putting the 140mm on hold and focusing on advanced 120mm ammunition instead. However, the amount of performance that can be extracted from improving the ammunition appears to have very much plateaued -- and...

It's a modified Leopard hull, a production version thereof would certainly have additional hull hatches added even if the test vehicle does not.

Even used under very limited conditions, the performance of the PT-91 in Ukraine has been very poor. This has been cited by the Malaysian government (which unlike us has full access to military intelligence data) as a major reason that the PT-91 is no longer remotely adequate and must be...

Actually, ATP's entire assertion that the Polish government "betrayed the whole country" by buying German tanks instead of producing K2s appears to be similar to his bizarre assertion that the PT-94 Goryl is actually two separate tanks, in the sense that he's confused and this exists only in his...

In any case: the bottom line is that Poland lacks the industrial and technical capabilities to design, build, or support an indigenous MBT design that's even remotely credible on the modern battlefield. The actual Polish government, unlike ATP, actually recognizes this reality, which is why they...

Plenty of sources confirm the PT-94 Goryl. https://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4404.html The PT-94 is a more ambitious design than PT-91, and superior to Polish-spec T-72M1, but inferior to T-72S and T-80, let alone the T-90.

Even the Polish always thought of the PT-91 as the low-cost budget option. Part of the reason it took so long to finalize a simple refit was that at the time, the Polish were unsure whether they wanted to upgrade their existing T-72 fleet, purchase the T-72S, or even purchase new T-80s. They...

It should be noted that Malaysia's PT-91M Pendekar makes extensive use of French, German and Belgian components to achieve vastly higher performance than the original PT-91. It is not a tank that Poland would be capable of designing, building, or supporting by themselves. (For that matter, even...

Between five and ten prototype TR-125s were reportedly produced, and are believed to be stored in a warehouse *somewhere* in Romania to this day.

No frontal composite armor, an inferior ERA configuration of only 155 Kontakt-1 modules instead of 227 (no ERA at all pre-1985), and retains the old T-72M1 turret and fire control system. In earlier batches, only the "K" command sub-variant had the laser rangefinder, with regular "S" model...

The TR-125? It's hard to say as this was an extremely secretive project which never entered full production. It did definitely allow for a more powerful engine, the same 850 HP 8VSA3 diesel as the T-55 based TR-85. This was itself a reverse-engineered design based on the T-block diesel engine...

The T-72B was not shared with any of the Soviet Union's client states, due to the adoption of state-of-the-art composite armor; the subsequent T-72BI, even further upgraded and frontally immune to contemporary Western 120mm sabot rounds, never went into production due to the fall of the Soviet...