Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

M-84 ws M1A1

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by sinissa, Dec 30, 2006.

  1. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I thought the T-72 had a gunner in the turret as well as a commander...?
    I can just hear the commander giving grief to his "autoloader."
    "C'mon you slacker. Faster! FASTER. Those Yanks can load faster than you, you miserable excuse for an autoloader!"

    Tim
     
  2. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    rate of the fire have something to do with the training of the loader, but most of the time it have more to do with the first shoot, I dont care if the enemy have a high rate of fire, if I see him first and score the first hit on him, then he could have been able to shoot 10 shots in the minut, wont help much if he is dead

    in modern warfare it come down most of the time to who see who first, if you see the enemy first then you can shoot him first and there by kill him first
     
  3. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actualy,in modern warfares is more about logistics.If u know,where is ur enemy,and what he got,and he dont hawe info line that,u r in bigg advantage.SO basicly,when u look armor,it is not that important anty-tank armos,as anti-infantry protection.

    Not in far future,new portable weapons will be able to knock any modern tank from 400-500m,so it will be serius test for AFV ower the world.
     
  4. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, I've been on the M-84 in Kuwait and yes we did race them against the M1A1s. (M1A1 won) I even met a Yugoslave tank designer there. Almost everything I have read here about this supposed test is not accurate. We even held a big "show", including a live fire with the Kuwaitist, to show the differences. Combine the results of the T-72 design in almost every conflict it has seen and from the demo it is painfully obviuos which is the better.

    The Kuwaitis did like it though. Of course they were using Centurians in 1990 so any modern tank was a serious improvement. The Kuwaitis are not good gunners and have problems hitting target from stationary vehicles much less on the move. Years later many crews have been observed during gunneries with their M1A2s. On the occassion they did happen to hit, they have been known to abandon the tank and begin to start praying and celebrating.

    The M-84 is a huge improvement on the T72 design. The fire control system incorperates several varibles not considered in the typical "Soviet design". However, in the end it is still a T-72. It suffers the same ills as its grandfather and its crews will share the same fate as their Iraqi counterparts if it were to meet a NATO, or modern Russian, tank design on the battlefield.
     
  5. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    And with more powerful anti-tank weapons in the furture its just even more importen for the tank crew to be able to see the enemy first, there by its still better to have 4 pairs of eyes on the look out then only 3 pairs of eye.

    It is the most basic in warfare, if you see the enemy first then you can shoot him first and there by kill him first, its kill the enemy or he kill you so its better to see him first and then shoot him first

    Even with all the high tech equiment modern armies have today, its still humans that have to pull the trigger and kill the enemy, its still infantry and tanks that have to go in and take an area and humans very much relay on what they can see with their own eyes, to see the enemy with their own eyes (its not like fighter pilots that use a radar and shoot down the enemy from many kilometers away) you have to see the area and the enemy with your own eyes, so its much better to have more eyes on the look out on the battlefield/area of operation
     
  6. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Mike,i say that M-84 is outdated tank now,no doubth when we compare it with modern tanks but in that time,it was pretty mighty weapon.EX Yugoslavia developed next generation of MBT and 2 prototypes was maden,and it was not on T-72 base,but completly new MBT,without any T-72 flaws (known in that time),but ciwil war prevented further development.
     
  7. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    I belive Sinnisa is talking about M-90 Vihor. But i belive that that was based M-84 and not entirely new concept.

    Comparison of siluette of M-90 and Abrams and Leo:
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Jens:
    One of todays' great technological advances has probably been the use of GPS and satellites to track your assets, and that of the enemy on the battlefield. Todays troops use computers and real-time assessment to increase situational awareness.
    With that said, it's those MarkI eyeballs that continue to fill-in the gaps.

    MikeGolf:
    Welcome to the forum... and thanks for sharing the "personal" insights.

    Tim
     
  9. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    yes, you have alot of equiment to show where you are and where the enemy have been observed, but the bullet that come out of your little 5,56 mm rifle (or what ever caliber weapon you use as infanty) is not guided, it relay on that the shooter can see his target, the same is with the 120 mm tank round, still relay on that you can see your target, they are not smart bullets, so the infantry and the tank crew still have to see their targets, so it still better to have 4 pairs eyes to look out for the enemy then only 3 pairs of eyes
    You dont kill the enemy with GPS, you kill him with bullet, the basic thing in fighting have not changes since gun powder have been introduced, its still come down to one man is shooting another, with bullets or granats, you still have to been on the battlefield, with your weapon, see the enemy and shoot him.
    And Btw. how will you use GPS to track the kind of enemy that you find in Afghanistan and Iraq? they look like civilian, they dont drive around in large groups of tanks that you can see with a satellite
     
  10. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    TISO it was path in tank dewelopments.U look like a bit elder man (coz u served ur "time" with M-72 :lol: ) and u know probably betther then i how fast Yu military industry grown and develop.I sow Vihor prototype,one is in VTI belgrade (Vojno-tehnicki institut) where i was one part of my "time".
     
  11. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    That's a difference.
     
  12. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Arguably all current warsaw pact designs are based on the T-64. I did not mean to imply that the M-84 is a T-72 varient but it is an upgrade of the T-72 design. The M1A2 is in itself a new tank but it is still an improved M1A1.

    In terms of the era the M-84 was produced in, I'd have to slightly disagree. We thought the T-72M1 at that time was one of the best out there but learned afterwards the truth. There are those that still say certian varients of the T-72 is better that this tank or that (including the M1A1). The M-84 was the best that could have been developed at that time from that base design. The issue is the base design is greatly flawed in the entire series. The M-84s that would face the M1A1s, Challengers, and LEO IIs would have shared the same fate as the T-72s we have become accustomed to seeing.

    Let my say one thing about the use of GPS and such. These items were issued as a checks and balance system in order to prevent frats. They can also be used for navigation. These devices are not like the ones in peoples cars. There isn't a voice saying, "At the next tree turn left". Soldier's Land navigation skills have gone into the toliet since the things have come out. They rely on them far too much to get from point A to B. They don't move tactically when using the GPS because they are going in a straight line. Maps tell you far more than where to go and soldiers are not looking at them anymore. I see it all the time in training. Lets no forget that the CPT leading Jesica Lynch's convoy was using a PLUGGER.
     
  13. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actualy Yugoslavia was not part of Warhsav pact,so we had (and still do) west and east made weapons in army arsenal.Moste of that r outdated,coz last bigg army purichase was MIG-29 in late 80's.TITO was whell know here as a man who with extremly skills balanced between NATO and Warshav pact.
     
  14. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    AH we were foundation member of "non aligned countries" (together with Nehru (India) and Nasser(Egypt)). It was more or less club for selling YU arms. We were wheeling and dealing on both sides. This army sales were only partialy disclosed in late 80's. My father was in merchant marine in 60's and 70's (master when he finished carear in late 70's) and he told me a lot about it.
     
  15. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Tito was known for a lot of things but thats a different subject. YU did not have too many "western" weapons. It was well known the "interesting" relationship Tito had with the Soviet Union. Again, different subject.

    The M-84 did take advantages of the improvements in gunnery components common in western tanks at that time. Something that even some modern Russian tanks lack. However, it is still the same shared flawed basic design
     
  16. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Off top of my head, stuff we were suplied after the war:
    Planes:
    F-47D
    Mosquito NF-38, FB-IV
    F-86D
    F-84G

    Tanks:
    Sherman upgunned with 76mm
    M-36
    M-47 Patton
    M-7 Priest
    M-3 white scout
    M-3 APC
    M-8 Greyhound

    Guns:
    US 105mm howitzers (some later sold to indonesia, slovenia still has some inherited from YU)
    US 155mm guns (sold to indonesia)
    25pd guns (some were still used by serb forces in the Bosnia war)
     
  17. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Dont forget Bofors AA guns,and Some swedish mobile radars,i forgot the name,we called them "Gyrafe",also some systems was inported from Sweden,and Israel for our home domestic industry.
     
  18. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Okay, it is obvious since we are discussing M-84s then the time period of this subject is way beyond 1950. I have seen several "interesting artifacts" that were still being used in YU as well. It was a wonder the "owners" didn't get killed by mistake too. However, they are not worth comparing to anything in this discussion.
     
  19. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    But poit is that ex Yu was not totaly turned on Russia,we balanced more less between east and west.Only things why we buyed mostly Russian weapons r prices,what is far more cheaper then US ones.
     

Share This Page