• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    I did some digging and couldn’t find any statistics proving the Osorio superior except in proposed cost.

    Do you have any actual comparison data as to why the tank performed better?

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      That source claims it had better accuracy:

      In the firing tests, the Osorio managed to hit a target every 4 seconds, traveling 70 km per hour, with a total of 16 strikes during a 32-second course. The results were repeated by the Saudi crew. In the same course, the Abrams M-l made 12 strikes.

      It was also ~10 tons lighter than the Abrams, thus easier to transport.

      The real deal best source would be finding Saudi documents of that test, which is very unlikely for us to have access to.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        The real deal best source would be finding Saudi documents of that test, which is very unlikely for us to have access to.

        War Thunder forums, this is your calling.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Huh, interesting. Offensive firepower seems better at face value, but I wonder if there were other factors. Weight may be a ”problem” on the surface, but weight is also armor, so if the Abrams were better able to take a hit then I’d assume that is part of the calculation.

        Maybe it’s decision making that militaries have always faced - lighter, faster, more maneuverable but not able to take damage, vs. heavier, less maneuverable, but able to take a hit or two and potentially keep fighting.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m guessing the tradeoff is less armour and other survivability features. The Abrams is designed to remain survivable even if the ammo cooks off IIRC, which must add an insane amount to both the weight and the cost.