T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

Hi

This question always comes back, soviet state decided to produce 3 tanks that are arguably totally equivalent, but in the same time, very different, with a problem in logistic.

The T-64 was produced in 8000 pieces, the T-72 at least 20000, the T-80, at least 5000. These tanks were to replace the previous generations, the T-54 and T-55, based on 1944 design... And T-62, just a modification of said design. Also, the T-10M was to be replaced by the new gen tanks.

T-64 as we all know, was a breakthrough in all aspects, firepower, mobility, size, armour... Once perfected, it became the main steel fist of the soviet army vs NATO. T-72 was a concurrent design, and was accepted by the state because it had many things going for him: it was easier and cheaper to produce, it could be exported and used to equip allies nation of the warsaw pact, it had a proven and reliable engine, while keeping most of the T-64 performance. T-80 was originally just a T-64 with a new super engine, a gas turbine. Later T-80 was accepted along the already existing T-64 and T-72, a choice dubious for a state already manufacturing 2 tanks, and mostly a political move. But the T-80 was also perfected, and found to be a great machine, exeeding T-64 in most ways, and the thinking then was to replace T-64 with T-80 and to keep T-72 for the export market and low-end domestic use.

I found this website in russian, which makes a great comparative of the 3 tanks, and the T-72 finally comes out best.

http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/t-64-t-72-ili-t-80-chto-luchshe/

In this battle, they compare the main and most common in mid 1980s variant of each tank, namely the T-64BV, the T-72B and T-80BV. All these tanks are covered with 4S20 Kontakt 1 ERA.

With their point system, the T-72B takes 1st place, with 137 points, the T-80BV is 2nd for the sake of it, but it's simply equal, at 135 points. The T-64BV lags behind, at 124 points.

Reminder:

T-72B (Object 184): 1985
T-80B (Object 219R): 1978, BV (Object 219RV): 1985 (possibly earlier)
T-64B (Object 447A): 1976, BV: 1985 or earlier.


I haven't fully read the source

The T-72 was by far the best choose for the Soviet army... Look at it today, it is still going strong!

T-72 with a decent fire control.

T-80 did not need to exist at all. T-72 would not have existed if T-64 itself worked *as advertised*.

T-72 was certainly one of  the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best. This tank demonstrates its effectiveness during the battle of Sultan Yaakub june 11, 1982 where he destroyed several dozens of Merkava -in that time the best western tanks beside Leopard A1-.
See from 16.30' minute

Moreover, during Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88, the iraqi's T-72 inflicted severe blows to western iranian's tanks, and it is noteworthy to say that US-iranian Tows were completly ineffective.
Nevertheless, in 1991, many T-72 were destroyed, again, US, as usual with their propaganda's recital told us, M1 Abrams successfully destroyed a column of T-72 belonging to republican guards.
If indeed, many T-72 were lost, I cannot see US column cheerfully advancing against well armed, and well trained Republican guards, chieflly knowing the impressive past of the T-72, and knowing they had redoutable AT-5. At first US army often advances cowardly, they could not attack if they could not rely on aerial coverture. It is possible that A-10, AH-64 were engaged, after, and only after F-15, F-18 managed to bomb, if not B-52 with its carpet of bombs. And only after the US army could attack a complete destroyed battailion. During Desert Storm, it is usefull to say that some T-72 inflicted several blows to US coalitions's armored vehicles, including US M1 Abrams.

If a fair combat occured between T-72, and M1 Abrams, the victory of US tank is far to be obvious. Furthermore, the T-72 export version was not the same that were in service inside the red army.

Conclusion: The T-72 was -as its glorious fathers like T-62, and T-34 - among the best tanks in the world during the 80's, maybe after the Leopard A1. It is normal that it was ranked as number 1. As we saw above, this tank prove its effectiveness in the battlefield. Sincerely, I doubt the ability of Russia to design and produce a such tank. Even the Armata will be far from T-72's effectiveness.

T-72 and Merkava never fought.
It is a long standing, and long disproved myth.

nemrod wrote:T-72 was certainly one of  the best tanks of the early 80's, if not the best. This tank demonstrates its effectiveness during the battle of Sultan Yaakub june 11, 1982 where he destroyed several dozens of Merkava -in that time the best western tanks beside Leopard A1-.
See from 16.30' minute

Moreover, during Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88, the iraqi's T-72 inflicted severe blows to western iranian's tanks, and it is noteworthy to say that US-iranian Tows were completly ineffective.
Nevertheless, in 1991, many T-72 were destroyed, again, US, as usual with their propaganda's recital told us, M1 Abrams successfully destroyed a column of T-72 belonging to republican guards.
If indeed, many T-72 were lost, I cannot see US column cheerfully advancing against well armed, and well trained Republican guards, chieflly knowing the impressive past of the T-72, and knowing they had redoutable AT-5. At first US army often advances cowardly, they could not attack if they could not rely on aerial coverture. It is possible that A-10, AH-64 were engaged, after, and only after F-15, F-18 managed to bomb, if not B-52 with its carpet of bombs. And only after the US army could attack a complete destroyed battailion. During Desert Storm, it is usefull to say that some T-72 inflicted several blows to US coalitions's armored vehicles, including US M1 Abrams.

If a fair combat occured between T-72, and M1 Abrams, the victory of US tank is far to be obvious. Furthermore, the T-72 export version was not the same that were in service inside the red army.

Conclusion: The T-72 was -as its glorious fathers like T-62, and T-34 - among the best tanks in the world during the 80's, maybe after the Leopard A1. It is normal that it was ranked as number 1. As we saw above, this tank prove its effectiveness in the battlefield. Sincerely, I doubt the ability of Russia to design and produce a such tank. Even the Armata will be far from T-72's effectiveness.

much lol here

in the 80s M1 abrams and Leopard 2 ring a bell maybe? And, the T-64B was far better than any T-72 before the T-72B, there is 10 years difference between them...

cracker wrote:
much lol here

in the 80s M1 abrams and Leopard 2 ring a bell maybe? And, the T-64B was far better than any T-72 before the T-72B, there is 10 years difference between them...

The M1 and Leopard 2 were not superior to T-72B, they all have some advantages. For example the T-72B was equipped with the 9M119 Svir ATGM, and kontakt-1 ERA.
In mobility the T-72B was much better than the heavy Leo-2 or M1, they could move through terrain the others couldnt.
The Leo-2 havent been in combat yet so its untested, it does have strong front armour but is weak at the flanks. M1A1 in Iraq was blown up by RPG´s and havent really faced any other modern tank. Crap T-72M and Leion of Babylon is like T-90 facing M60´s.

T-72B3 can stand up against Leo-2A5 and M1A2, and with the more favorable price and mobility.
There can be no argue the T-72 was amongst the best tanks in the 80´s.
T-64 and T-80 hasnt been as succesfully, as is proven by their withdrawal from service and the T-72 still soldering on. Also the T-90 is really a T-72 with another name and T-90 i would say is superior to both M1A2 and and Leo-2A6

In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and probably Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[51] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armored Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border, and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[52] After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. 105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s. Only in one case the frontal hull armor was penetrated by a TOW missile. According to some unofficial sources, one Syrian T-72 was knocked out by Israeli tank fire. However, according to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire. After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world."[51][53]...

cracker wrote:
In the 1982 Lebanon War, Syrian T-72s engaged Israeli M60A1 and probably Merkava tanks in the south of Lebanon.[51] On 9 June 1982, the Syrian General HQ ordered a brigade of the 1st Armored Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, to move straight ahead, cross the border, and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange.[52] After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. Syrian and Russian sources claim that the T-72 had success against the latest Israeli Merkava tanks and that no T-72s were lost. Others claim that the two tanks never met in combat and that 11-12 T-72s were lost mostly due to anti-tank ambushes and the usage of TOW missiles. 105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s. Only in one case the frontal hull armor was penetrated by a TOW missile. According to some unofficial sources, one Syrian T-72 was knocked out by Israeli tank fire. However, according to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire. After the war, Syrian president Hafez Al Assad called the T-72 "the best tank in the world."[51][53]...

....According to wikipedia.

The problem with this so-called encyclopaedia, they are not objectives. I had a friend that participated beside arabs in october 1973's war, and he tried to explain with its proofs how arabs were near the victory, how the western hardware were not superior to soviet hardware. and most of the time it was the contrary, either you talk fighters like Mig-21, either you talked about atgm, or you talk about tanks. My friend tried several times to post in wikipedia evidences of israeli and western disaster regarding hardwares, each time his post were simply wrote off, strong censurship was applied. Wikipedia has the main purpose to protect western view, and western products, western hardwares regarding history, adverstising, etc...In french one of famous case of censureship is Beljanski's case. Here you can see how the website is simply another CNN or Fox.

Regarding Iraq Iran war results, it was an evidence that neither the  M-60 or Centurion could match the T-72. After several attempts with Tow, this anti tank missile revealed it was useless against T-72.
The Merkava was developped because of these two tanks had low results during 1973's war against the T-62. The, what would be the result against T-72 ? Do you think that Israelis could dare any risks ?
The Merkava was engaged in Sultan Yakkub against T-72, Israelis realized that their tank could not match too. During these 3 days of war, Israelis were unable to achieve their main objective, the Highway Beyruth-Damascus. You can notice, the battle of tanks that occured in Sultan Yakkub, was when Israelis claimed a total control of air above Lebanon. You can realize the mismatch between what said Israeli governement and their propagdantists -including Wikipedia- and the reality.
They have neither the control of the Lebanon's sky, and neither the superiority in hardware regarding tanks.
In 2006 simple anti tanks missiles like AT-5 Spandrel, or RPG-7-29 blew dozens of Merkava IV, and in Iraq russian hardware blew several hundreds of M1 Abrams, then,  what would be the result with a modern tank like T-72 against Merkava I ?

T-80U extreme terrain testing in Sweden, from the early 90's.

Both videos are good, but the second one the T-80 shuts out the competition... the slalom course

Since when were T-80U loaned for trials? Probably the same hoax stealing like with Moroccan (UK/US) proxy purchases in about same years?

Swedish report translated on T-80U terrain tests.

http://tanks.mod16.org/2015/04/09/report-from-terrain-trials-with-t-80u/

Report from terrain trials with T-80U
On April 9, 2015 0 Comments - Source documents
In late 1993, following the de-escalation after the end of the Cold War, the Swedish army borrowed a Russian T-80U and subjected it to a number of trials. Unfortunately, it arrived too late to compete directly with the M1A1, Leclerc and Leopard 2, which had been tested earlier as a part of the procurement of a new MBT for the Swedish army. In the end, the Leopard 2A5 with some Swedish modifications was chosen and entered service as the Strv 122 – you can read more about the procurement process and trials on Rickard O. Lindström’s excellent page. Most of the test results are still classified, but a friend got a report and some video tapes from the T-80U terrain trials declassified recently. The report originally contained comparison values with the Leopard 2 and the M1A1, but unfortunately those were blacked out by the national archives before they agreed to release the report to the public. Russian secrets are not as secret in this country as American and German secrets are.

The videos from these trials are available on YouTube (note that this report only covers the autumn trials, not the winter ones):
Part 1 (autumn 1993)
Part 2 (winter 1994)

Read the entire report as PDF (34 MB)

Some translated quotes from the report:

Summary

With 26 hp/tonne, the T-80U drives and accelerates very well in general. The difference in engine power between the T-80U and strv 104 (re-engined Centurion, nominal top speed 50km/h) is very noticeable on surfaces with some resistance, such as grassland or plowed fields. The T-80U is generally twice as fast as the strv 104 on these surfaces.

The suspension is good and allows high speeds over terrain without much discomfort for the crew.

Despite the antiquated steering system, with a good driver the tank does well in rough terrain, mostly thanks to its high engine power and good visibility for the driver.

Driving in rough terrain or narrow passages in the dark is considerably more difficult, mostly because the driver’s night vision periscope has a very limited field of view.

The tank has a very low reverse speed, which – among other things – limits its tactical options in prepared fighting positions.

The T-80U also does well with various obstacles such as steep slopes, trenches and road banks. The performance is however limited by the lack of self-cleaning tracks, which makes it tend to lose traction.
Re-positioning between prepared positions

If the re-positioning only involves driving forwards, the T-80U performs on par with modern western tanks. If reversing is involved, the T-80U is slower because of its low reverse speed.

In daylight, both the tank commander and the driver have good visibility forwards. When reversing, the commander has some problems with his visibility backwards since equipment on the turret are in the way.

When reversing in darkness, the tank commander has to turn the turret to the 6 o’clock position in order to get night vision so he can direct the driver.
Driving in difficult terrain

In daylight
T-80U average speed: 19.3 km/h
T-80U fuel consumption 201 liters/10 km
Strv 104 average speed: 14.4 km/h

In darkness
The same track as in the daylight trial was attempted, using the driver’s combined vision port (active IR and image intensifier). The trial was aborted after the tank had driven 300 meters in 60 minutes. Leopard 2 and M1A1 both have night vision devices well suited to this kind of driving.

Summary
When driving in daylight, the T-80U could maintain a relatively high speed. The driver’s visibility, the engine power and the steering system are all good enough for this kind of driving.

Driving in darkness, however, is very problematic. The driver’s field of view is so narrow he cannot see the tank’s corners. Since the turret has to be put in the 6 o’clock position to avoid damage to the gun, the tank commander cannot help him either.

Fuel consumption when driving in this type of terrain is very high.
Vertical obstacles

With the splash guard fasteners removed (20 minutes of work), the tank climbs a 1 meter tall vertical obstacle without any trouble. Without removing them, the tallest climbable obstacle is 0.8 meters.
Steep slopes

The tank does well up to a slope of about 25 degrees. The engine power is sufficient and if the surface is dry the track traction is good.
Top speed

On pavement, forward: 70.3 km/h
On pavement, backward: 11.3 km/h
On a grass field: 49.8 km/h
On a plowed field: 37.7 km/h
Slalom driving

Since every gear on the T-80U has a fixed turn radius, the tank has to be driven on the lowest gear to be able to make the tight turns, and it gets a result on par with the strv 104 despite being capable of much higher speeds.

The driver has some difficulties seeing when he’s past an obstacle; the commander has to direct him.
Time to prepare for fording

Depths up to 1.8 meters: 5 minutes
Depths exceeding 1.8 meters: 30 minutes

It is quick and easy to prepare for shallow fordings (up to 1.8 m).

"T-80U fuel consumption 201 liters/10 km"

Zivo wrote:"T-80U fuel consumption 201 liters/10 km"  

Gas turbine, i guess that supposed to be 100km.

Werewolf wrote:

Zivo wrote:"T-80U fuel consumption 201 liters/10 km"  

Gas turbine, i guess that supposed to be 100km.

I figured.

That must be the fuel during the terrain testing, I can't imagine it's that bad during a cruise.

GarryB wrote:Conceptially the T-64 was the high quality highly capable tank with all the new expensive technology.
The T-80 was the replacement for the T-64 in that sense.

A T-72 was intended to be good enough but more easily producible and exportable.

All through the lives of all three vehicles they were given upgrades to improve performance or to address changes made to the enemy vehicles that might have given them an edge if the Soviet tanks remained unchanged.

All three vehicles evolved over time and got rather better.

The T-90 of today is designed to replace both the T-80 and the T-72, though it could be argued that really the T-90AM replaces the T-80 on paper if not production, while the T-72 in their current upgraded form replace the previous T-72s in service.

@Garry: I heard somebody say some different things... what do you think about the below comments ?

Huy Phúc wrote:T-64 is NOT expensive and NOT more expensive than T-72. T-64 is quite lightweight (compared to other tanks) and cheap, its number is not very high because T-64 was quickly replaced by T-72 which is heavier and more pricey.

And T-64 is not more complicated than T-72.

And T-64 was not developed into T-80. T-64's direct successor is T-72 and T-90. Meanwhile, T-80's concept is a successor of T-62.

T-64 was produced from 1967 to 1970 and then was replaced by T-72, therefore the number of T-64 is not very high. Actually T-72 is an updated and improved version of T-64. But according to Soviet standards, these two belongs to 2 different classes. T-64 is medium tank, like T-34/54/62. T-72 is heavy tank, successor of T-10. Therefore we have the name T-64 and T-72, not T-64 and T-64 version 2.

T-64 is the last representative of medium tank. After that, due to improvements of machine and engine, heavy tanks became as fast as medium tank. Therefore people didn't need medium tank any more.

MBT is the successor of Russian IS tanks. Heavy tank adapted new technology later than medium, of course, because heavy tank is more expensive. T-34 line effectively went into extinction since T-64.

Huy Phúc wrote:At the time it was born, T-64 was very very impressive. And people adapt T-64's concept into heavy tanks and created T-72. Well, actually T-64 is not very expensive and not very few. A great number of T-64 are/were in storage, you see.

Lương Lê Minh wrote:You can tell to our Russian Defence friends that, T-64 was too lightweight. At that time, roads and engines were good enough to sustain heavier tanks with more loads and thicker armour. So T-64 became quite limited.

Actually, I think T-64 and T-72 is quite similar in concept. They are used in combined arms combat and have to deal with both vehicles and infantries. Meanwhile T-62 and T-80 is more specialized in tank versus tank combat. Like some sorts of spearheads used in gigantic battles in war. Therefore the frontal armour is very thick.

Well... I can tell you what I think. It's pure bullshit spoken out of totally ignorant mind who think he's the man.


T-64 is NOT expensive and NOT more expensive than T-72. T-64 is quite lightweight (compared to other tanks) and cheap, its number is not very high because T-64 was quickly replaced by T-72 which is heavier and more pricey.

T-64A was more expensive than base model T-72, T-72A was barely more expensive, and T-64B was much more expensive. T-64B1 without missile system was still more expensive than T-72A. T-72B was more expensive than T-64B, but T-72B was a formidable tank, T-72B1 without missle was just a little more expensive than T-64B1.

T-72 is not heavier by much, and it's only down to the bigger suspension and larger dimensions overall. T-64B is far heavier than the mythical "36t" T-64 object 432.

T-64 was never replaced by T-72. Only in russian army because T-64 were too old and because of supply problems of parts from ukraine. Choices had to be made.

And T-64 is not more complicated than T-72.

Yes it is, the engine, transmission, are much more sophisticated, while the fire control system is a lot more expensive. The autoloader is also more complex, while the suspension is not as simple as the T-72.

And T-64 was not developed into T-80. T-64's direct successor is T-72 and T-90. Meanwhile, T-80's concept is a successor of T-62.

That's a good joke. T-80 is a direct evolution of T-64, the first thing was a turbine powered T-64A.... Yes T-72 is a direct evolution of T-64 too, its prototype was a V engine powered T-64A. Both T-72 and T-80 are based on the T-64, with significant differences. And T-80 and T-62 are not linked at all. T-62 is a result of the abandon of object 140, which later was improved into object 167, and became slowly the T-72 object 172. T-62 is a modified T-55, as such it has nothing in common with the T-64, originally the object 430 of 1957.

T-80, T-72, T-64 are made by different companies, but they are virtually the same tanks, only with slight differences, notably the engines, dimensions, and suspensions. T-80 base model is a larger-turbinepowered-with different suspension hull of the T-64A, and T-80 base model HAS the T-64A turret. T-72 is more or less the same principle.

T-64B and T-80B also share the same turret, autoloader (just slight difference) and missile system... T-80BV and T-64BV were unified to the maximum.

T-64 was produced from 1967 to 1970 and then was replaced by T-72, therefore the number of T-64 is not very high. Actually T-72 is an updated and improved version of T-64. But according to Soviet standards, these two belongs to 2 different classes. T-64 is medium tank, like T-34/54/62. T-72 is heavy tank, successor of T-10. Therefore we have the name T-64 and T-72, not T-64 and T-64 version 2.

Funniest thing i read in ages. T-64 was produced from 1963 to 1987, in 4 main variants and in many subvariants and rebuilt variants. T-64 with 115mm gun, T-64A, T-64B, T-64BV, for subvariants, T-64R, T-64AK, T-64B1, etc... I can see this person bases in fact all his "data" on the video of "blacktaildefense" rant against the "failed tank T-64"........ Number of T-64 total was 8000 to 11000, it's HUGE. T-72 is not an "improved" version of T-64, it's a different tank, based on T-64, with similar capabilities, but easier manufacture. T-64A is the original OSNOVNOY tank, as in MBT, not MEDIUM. Yes, the early T-64 was classified as medium tank for a short period, it's irrelevant.

T-72 is NOT a heavy tank, it's a mobilization and cheaper variant of the osnovnoy tank T-64A. He mixed up everything badly. T-10M was conceptually replaced BY T-64 !!! the elite units manning the T-10M received T-64A. T-72 replaced T-55 and T-62 in other units!

The name only comes down to which company designed it, what a joke! T-64V2 ?? damn.... Also more or less, date of enter in service, or, date of "new era" like it's the case with T-80 (for tank, new, 1980s) or T-90 (tank, new, 1990s). Therefore we have the name T-64 because of MOROZOV DESIGN BUREAU who names tank by "4", T-34, T-44, T-54, T-64.... And The NIZHNY TAGIL URALVAGONZAVOD bureau who named T-72 after the prototype object 172, and also, T-64 and T-72 almost correspond to their date of introduction (1963 1971).

T-64 is the last representative of medium tank. After that, due to improvements of machine and engine, heavy tanks became as fast as medium tank. Therefore people didn't need medium tank any more.

this is senseless. Designating a tank medium or MBT is down to doctrine, not its characteristics. And heavy tanks never became as fast, the last heavy tank in service in USSR was the T-10M, and surely not the T-72.

MBT is the successor of Russian IS tanks. Heavy tank adapted new technology later than medium, of course, because heavy tank is more expensive. T-34 line effectively went into extinction since T-64.

same bullcrap.... MBT is a concept, T-34 was a MBT. IS tanks, which one? T-10M and IS-2 are far from each other in performance and role. T-34 concept died with T-34, in 1941, when the T-34M A-43 was READY FOR PRODUCTION, but they had to stuck with T-34 for the whole war as it was already manufactured, they managed to make the T-34 a good tank overall, especially with the model 85mm. T-44 is a radical departure from T-34 and you can say all russian tanks are an evolution of the T-44, and surely not the T-34.

At the time it was born, T-64 was very very impressive. And people adapt T-64's concept into heavy tanks and created T-72. Well, actually T-64 is not very expensive and not very few. A great number of T-64 are/were in storage, you see.

Heavy tank T-72? ok, lol. T-64 were MANY in the cold war. Yes many T-64 are in storage, nobody need that tank when the T-72 and T-80 are around, but ukraine keeps T-64 as she has the spare parts and factory who made them! T-64 and T-72 perform similarly in combat, but T-72 has a more stable suspension and less dangerous autoloader storage of ammo.


You can tell to our Russian Defence friends that, T-64 was too lightweight. At that time, roads and engines were good enough to sustain heavier tanks with more loads and thicker armour. So T-64 became quite limited.

Actually, I think T-64 and T-72 is quite similar in concept. They are used in combined arms combat and have to deal with both vehicles and infantries. Meanwhile T-62 and T-80 is more specialized in tank versus tank combat. Like some sorts of spearheads used in gigantic battles in war. Therefore the frontal armour is very thick.

T-64 was NOT too light!!! it was light because of the small silouette allowed by the very small engine!!! and also the lighweith suspension! that's all! T-72 is heavier because it has a bigger size due to bigger engine and suspension. T-64 has as much armour as any T-72 (except t-72B)... And T-80 has NO MORE armour than T-72 and T-64!!!! T-80B armour is identical to T-64B! T-72B outclass them both, but T-80U surpasses slightly the T-72B.

T-80 is not more an anti tank tank than t-64 and T-72.... pure imagination. T-80 equiped many elite units because it was seen as the fastest and newest tank. T-62 has no armour to speak of, your point is invalid.

T-64, 72, 80, in the end, all served together, not one was meant to fully replace the others! they were competitive designs and had to be all produced, each design bureau and its factories wanted to produce THEIR tank, and, this is what they did...

@Garry: another response from him

I translate from Vietnamese so there is a probability that my translation is not correct.

No, T-80 really inherited the concept from T-62. What I mean is this: both T-62 and T-80 were specifically designed to boost the capability of tank vs tank combat rather than others. Due to the not very developed gun stabilizer in the early time, when running T-62 can only fire best at the targets in the front of the tank, not the sides or other directions. That is the typical tank versus tank combat.

And here T-80. Compared to the "same level" tanks (for example T-90), T-80 has more simple type of armour and stronger engine, but the engine is not very stable. T-80's engine is strong but low efficiency. In low speed or anti-guerrilla warfare, T-80's engine consumes much more fuel than others.

==================

Actually, the saying "T-62 similar to T-80 / T-64 similar to T-90" does have many problems and incompatibilities... The similarities here is, their development compared with their own previous generation. Compared with the previous tanks, T-62 has smoothbore cannon to increase tank versus tank combat capability. Compared with the previous tanks, T-80 has increased speed for the same purpose. In other regards, T-62 and T-80 are not different much from each own predecessors.

But in other aspects, things are different. For example, the engine style of T-64 is similar to T-80 and the engine style of T-62 is similar to T-90.

In increasing the anti-guerilla warfare capabilities of tank protection, only since the time of T-72, people began to pay attention to that issue. Of course, T-90 and T-80 ERA is drastically different from T-72, and more different from naked T-64.

Tank versus tank combat is like this: fast speed, very thick turret and hull front, and good main cannon, ATGM, aiming, optics...

More multirole tank is like this: very high fuel efficiency, more attention to rear and side protection, more spaced armour and ERA to counter RPG from side and rear, systems and sensors to counter the anti-tank infantries.

Now take a look at T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and see who is in which group.

Again, the comparisons btw T-62/64/72/80/90 is not 100% compatible.

The style of T-64's engine is very similar to T-80's, that is increase the power but reduce the quality. T-80 gas turbin has very low efficiency at the low speed, while very quality of tank engine is located at the efficiency and the capability of maneuverability at low speed.

Meanwhile, T-62/72/90 use high quality engine, but low power. Like T-90 has lower maximum power than T-80 but heavier weight.

For further information, T-62 is not very different from T-55. The only considerable difference is T-62's smoothbore cannon, which doubles the penetration power and dramatically increases the accuracy, and increase the effective range 1,5-2 times. That is a dramatic advantage. So, while being a medium tank, while being cheap like T-55, T-62 still had a dramatic increase of fighting power and was the top of its time. Even the IS-xx versions without smoothbore cannon were not able to outcompete the T-62.

That created the fame of T-62 and that's why many people think T-62 is similar to T-80, that is a dramatic increase of fighting power but no change in other aspects.

Another important point that many people do not pay attention to, that is the development of electronics technology during the period T-55 -> T-62. T-62 still has the same set of function to T-55. But the quality is different.

======

The dramatic increase of engine power occured at T-62 -> T-64 and T-72 -> T-80. In T-62 -> T-64, armour changed from homogenous to composite. In T-64 -> T-72, armour is more all-around and has ERA.

All-around armour here means, for example, T-90 increase the protection against guerilla and infantry ambush. It is more multirole than specialized T-80 only for tank-vs-tank. T-90 is heavier than T-80. T-90's engine has much less power than T-90 and is more bulky. However, T-90's engine has better efficiency and more durable.

so much confusion and imaginative story telling... Really, this guy likes to make his own fact without checking reality.

No, T-80 really inherited the concept from T-62. What I mean is this: both T-62 and T-80 were specifically designed to boost the capability of tank vs tank combat rather than others. Due to the not very developed gun stabilizer in the early time, when running T-62 can only fire best at the targets in the front of the tank, not the sides or other directions. That is the typical tank versus tank combat.


It's not true. T-62 is indeed a tank killer support for the T-55, but the T-80 is just an incremental evolution of the osnovnoy tank concept.... with emphasis on better mobility vs T-64. As such, it's not a specific tank killer, just a new tank with better all around performance.


And here T-80. Compared to the "same level" tanks (for example T-90), T-80 has more simple type of armour and stronger engine, but the engine is not very stable. T-80's engine is strong but low efficiency. In low speed or anti-guerrilla warfare, T-80's engine consumes much more fuel than others.

........ 1976 T-80 is on same level than 1992 T-90? Simple type of armour? wow... Not very stable? what is it supposed to mean... GTD gas turbines are fantastic engines, reliable in all weather and very powerful, smooth (no piston action), much simpler than a V12 diesel engine. T-80 vs T-64 and T-72 are the most stable and smooth platform, thanks to a very good suspension and the turbine. T-90 has more armour than base model T-80 or even T-80B (model 1978 or 1982).... no shit! Guess what, T-90 is altogether a NEW generation of armour, based on the 1985 T-72B, but even better.... But if you compare T-90 vs T-80U (u for improved), then the T-80U has the edge in armour. The T-90A is a 21st century tank and has radically new armour protection, yes, if you want to go that way, T-90A has better armour than T-80. Irrelevant.


Actually, the saying "T-62 similar to T-80 / T-64 similar to T-90" does have many problems and incompatibilities... The similarities here is, their development compared with their own previous generation. Compared with the previous tanks, T-62 has smoothbore cannon to increase tank versus tank combat capability. Compared with the previous tanks, T-80 has increased speed for the same purpose. In other regards, T-62 and T-80 are not different much from each own predecessors.

All russian tanks are more or less an evolution of the precedent, but the T-64 was definitely "made from scratch", because it bears nothing similar with the T-44/54/55/62 and later 72 family.


But in other aspects, things are different. For example, the engine style of T-64 is similar to T-80 and the engine style of T-62 is similar to T-90.

nicely made up BS. T-64 and T-80 have the same engine style? 10 opposed piston compact diesel engine vs gas turbine? ok. T-62 and T-90, yes, have a version of the freaking V12 diesel, that exists since the T-34.


In increasing the anti-guerilla warfare capabilities of tank protection, only since the time of T-72, people began to pay attention to that issue. Of course, T-90 and T-80 ERA is drastically different from T-72, and more different from naked T-64.

Cherry picking variants, made up BS, etc.... All 3 tanks have exactly the same frontal armour and side/rear/top/belly armour... (way to speak, of course, small differences). T-64BV, T-80BV, T-72B are all protected the same way by ERA, and all 3 would be easy prey to any low cost RPG from the side without ERA (and even with ERA in fact).



Tank versus tank combat is like this: fast speed, very thick turret and hull front, and good main cannon, ATGM, aiming, optics...

More multirole tank is like this: very high fuel efficiency, more attention to rear and side protection, more spaced armour and ERA to counter RPG from side and rear, systems and sensors to counter the anti-tank infantries.

Now take a look at T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and see who is in which group.

Again... None of these belong to each of the "groups".... They are all conventional tanks with emphasis on frontal protection, and that's all. Specific modernised variants can be more emphasised toward other threats, but it means nothing regarding the original design. T-10M is by far a better 'assymetrical" warfare protected tank, because of its side armour, but it doesn't mean you must use it, T-64/72 were far better for everything, especially mobility and cost of running them.


The style of T-64's engine is very similar to T-80's, that is increase the power but reduce the quality. T-80 gas turbin has very low efficiency at the low speed, while very quality of tank engine is located at the efficiency and the capability of maneuverability at low speed.

This dude keeps talking about engines of soviet tanks, but he doesn't know jack, please someone can tell him to stop making a fool out of himself?
Reduce quality? T-64 5TD engine has very low fuel consumption, lower than T-72 V12, and is both a reliable, and very sophisticated compact engine. T-80 turbines are high quality and powerful engines, and both T-64 and T-80 have better automotive performance (especially T-80) than T-72 variants, either at high speed or while maneuvering at low speed.

Meanwhile, T-62/72/90 use high quality engine, but low power. Like T-90 has lower maximum power than T-80 but heavier weight.

They use tractor engines dude. Well, kind of. And they are not low power... T-80 is unique in mobility, it's stupid to compare it to other russian tanks and say "they are slow".


"For further information, T-62 is not very different from T-55. The only considerable difference is T-62's smoothbore cannon, which doubles the penetration power and dramatically increases the accuracy, and increase the effective range 1,5-2 times. That is a dramatic advantage. So, while being a medium tank, while being cheap like T-55, T-62 still had a dramatic increase of fighting power and was the top of its time. Even the IS-xx versions without smoothbore cannon were not able to outcompete the T-62."

Double the penetration? HAHAHAHAHAHA, nice joke. Let's see.... D-10T2S of the T-55 firing APDS: 290mm @ 2km. U-5TS of the T-62 with early APFSDS: 280mm @ 2km.
Later, T-55 received APFSDS rounds, and they penetrated above 300mm at 2km, T-62 only had marginally better rounds, and only one significantly better round with a DU penetrator, but the T-55 could have received one too if needed. HEAT rounds: T-55 3BK5M penetrates 380mm, later 3BK17M penetrates about 400mm. T-62 HEAT were never above 450 or 460mm. Tell me if that's what can be described as a 2 fold factor.... Yes if you compare full caliber BR-412 rounds vs T-62 APFSDS, there is a big difference, but only about 1.5 to 1.8x.
Accuracy? T-55 D-10T2S was more accurate at long range than most of U-5TS tubes. The increased effective range of 115mm was x0. Or 1.2 at max with proper APFSDS. T-62 was quite expensive. He knows pretty much nothing about russian tank guns. "IS-XX not able to compete with T-62" ????

The T-10M's M-62T2S 122mm canon penetrates 320mm @2km with APDS, and up to 500mm with the improved 3BK4M HEAT round. This firepower was not equaled in any soviet tank until 2nd generation 125mm ammo in the 1970s. And this gun also fired a much more destructive full bore AP round with 220mm penetration @2km, 25kg shell filled with explosive.

Hell, even the basic D-25T 122mm gun equiping IS-3M / IS-2M in reserve, and able to fire the same rounds, got the same penetration with HEAT, and 260mm pen for the APDS at 2km. Yes we're talking about a 1943 tank gun design which comes off a 1931 field gun, that pretty much has similar performance to the T-62 gun. T-62 gun was about cheap and fast production, cheap projectiles, and flat trajectory for increased first hit success, and not about raw power.

That created the fame of T-62 and that's why many people think T-62 is similar to T-80, that is a dramatic increase of fighting power but no change in other aspects.

Nobody thinks the T-62 and T-80 are similar, but you.

The dramatic increase of engine power occured at T-62 -> T-64 and T-72 -> T-80. In T-62 -> T-64, armour changed from homogenous to composite. In T-64 -> T-72, armour is more all-around and has ERA.

ERA only came in 1982 on the T-64BV, and T-80BV, and in 1985 on the T-72B, then to T-72AV retrofits, etc... That leaves many years of T-64/72/80 without ERA.

All-around armour here means, for example, T-90 increase the protection against guerilla and infantry ambush. It is more multirole than specialized T-80 only for tank-vs-tank. T-90 is heavier than T-80. T-90's engine has much less power than T-90 and is more bulky. However, T-90's engine has better efficiency and more durable.

what the heck... T-90 efficiency against "guerrilla" vs T-80 is a factor of 0. Exact same weak spots, exact same side armour problems. Total fantasy.

@cracker, Garry: I tried to make a comparison between the two opinions in the pic below. Hope that I do not make any mistakes.

Ahem. Forgetting Omsk?

USSR tank procurement was completely asenine, is the one word summary of the situation.

TR1 wrote:Ahem. Forgetting Omsk?

USSR tank procurement was completely asenine, is the one word summary of the situation.

And what about the non-summary, detailed description of the situation ?