Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Share

    Poll

    Which was the best for soviet army?

    [ 3 ]
    9% [9%] 
    [ 20 ]
    57% [57%] 
    [ 12 ]
    34% [34%] 

    Total Votes: 35

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:28 am

    Kh-25 is already far overkill with 90-140kg warhead, by so much explosive you can even use a back facing HEAT warhead and the explosion would still rip off the tank like a shrimp.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  medo on Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:44 pm

    In 2006 war Merkavas survive quite a lot of ATGM hits, but it is also true, than not all ATGM hits are with Kornets. Vast majority of ATGMs used in this war were still old Malyutkas and Fagots as well as Milan and TOW ATGMs. Kornet was there in small number, so they did small number of hits, but for sure have most destroyed tanks per hits from them all.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:54 pm

    medo wrote:In 2006 war Merkavas survive quite a lot of ATGM hits, but it is also true, than not all ATGM hits are with Kornets. Vast majority of ATGMs used in this war were still old Malyutkas and Fagots as well as Milan and TOW ATGMs. Kornet was there in small number, so they did small number of hits, but for sure have most destroyed tanks per hits from them all.

    The vast majority were real old Maylutkas with only 400mm RHAe penetration that is even for side turret penetration not really great against Merkawa 4.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:57 am

    The reality is that most western ATGMs are not that much better than Malyutka... I remember claims in the early 1980s that the Milan was some wonder missile that could penetrate 1,000mm of armour and other such nonsense...

    there is over kill and under kill and everything in between... it is important to keep in mind that a simple guidance package and steering kit as fitted to new Russian 152mm artillery shells could just as easily be fitted to FAB-50 or FAB-100 dumb bombs and result in weapons accurate enough to destroy any tank that are cheap enough to use rather widely... as a standard round.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 894
    Points : 951
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:27 am

    Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:54 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

    That is actually not a good performance, at least from the various modifications. Currently the US like most NATO countries lack modern ATGM's that have enough penetration to kill tanks from the front, the only that would come to mind is Spike-LR with 1000mm RHAe which exist in very rare numbers.

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 894
    Points : 951
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:18 pm

    Infantry AT weapons in their current form are nearing the end of possible development. There simply isn't much that can be done to improve their performance. Penetration of ~1500mm RHA is a limit of what we can get IMO.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:34 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Infantry AT weapons in their current form are nearing the end of possible development. There simply isn't much that can be done to improve their performance. Penetration of ~1500mm RHA is a limit of what we can get IMO.

    Actually they test already new alloys which have a significant higher capability to pierce through composite armor and ceramics than the current copper liners they use.

    Here is a little chart of factor penetration of different materials for penetrators.

    http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150404/jdb55gqv.jpg

    While copper maintains a good penetration overall length through homogenous materials like we use for tests RHA steel, they tend to decrease in penetration capabilities quicker when used in spaced armor against different materials. Some tests have shown Tantalum has better penetration against composite armor, but it costs more and one big factor is it needs more time form an optimal penetrator meaning needs a longer probe which has an effect on the total length.

    There is one russian tank round BK-31M which uses tripple shaped charges with an alloy for the main charge that significantly increased the armor penetration than its model it is based upon the BK-27 which has 660mm RHAe penetration at best while BK-31M has 800mm RHAe penetration. There is still grow potential and i've seen some studies on different shapes for the shaped charges that also have a direct effect on how fast the penetrator is forming and how thin it can get which would increase its penetration.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:47 am

    Newest TOW variants penetrate about 800mm RHA and that is enough for all but frontal armor of modern tanks. So ATGM teams may be kept in reserve until a good chance to hit enemy tanks from the side or rear appears. One may also use ATGMs against IFVs, APVs and other lightly armored targets and use tanks in head on clashes against other tanks.

    Upgraded Malyutka penetrates 800mm of RHA and unlike all variants of TOW it is actually man portable.

    1980s model TOW had performance not much different from AT-4 and AT-5, which were also rather more man portable, plus Shturm which had a much faster flying missile of greater range because it wasn't dragging a wire like TOW does.

    The easiest way to improve tank killing performance is to attack the thinnest armour... ie the roof and the hull.

    BILL has be doing that for quite some time...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Zivo on Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:58 am

    TOW-2B uses a similar flyover top-down EFP warhead to BILL.

    Kornet-E has ~1200mm RHA pen after ERA. Which was enough to gut Iraqi M1's front to back through the heaviest armor on the turret.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Zivo on Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:30 am

    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 Laughing




    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:09 pm

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

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:11 pm

    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).

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Zivo on Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:22 pm

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


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:24 pm

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


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

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Zivo on Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:27 pm

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


    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:20 pm

    The fuel consumption rate of the GTD-1250 is given as 225 g/hp.h which means using full power all the time would use 225g x 1250 every hour, or 281.25 litres per hour...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:32 pm

    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.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  cracker on Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:53 pm

    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...



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:03 am

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

    You have to ask yourself a few questions my friend... like:

    If the T-64 was simpler and cheaper than the T-72 why didn't they export that in huge numbers to the Warsaw Pact and foreign countries and keep the more capable T-72s for themselves.

    T-64s were not exported outside the Former soviet republics, and sales of the T-80 only happened after the end of the cold war.

    If the T-64 was simpler and cheaper than the T-72 then what is the T-80?

    We already know the T-90 is a sophisticated and capable upgrade of the T-72... so what again is the T-80?

    If the T-64 is simpler and cheaper than the T-72 why did they mass produce the T-72 in large numbers to try to replace the older vehicles in the Soviet front line fleet and also give foreign countries production contracts to produce them in their own countries?

    The T-62 was an upgrade of the T-55... with a better gun, though their development of the T-64 and its 125mm gun meant the ammo for the 115mm rounds were under developed and did not receive the funding they would have gotten.

    The T-64 was a brand new tank with a new gun, new composite armour, new fire control system, new autoloader, etc etc. The T-72 was externally very similar to the T-64 and indeed T-80 and T-90, but was simplified for mass production... it still had good armour and a powerful 125mm main gun and an autoloader, but it lacked the sophisticated fire control systems of the T-64 and early models lacked a laser range finder too.  The T-80 was to replace the T-64, and in aviation terms you could say the T-64 and T-80 were the MiG-23 and Su-27 respectively the high fighter, while the T-72 was the smaller cheaper simpler MiG-29/MiG-21 numbers simpler fighter.
    Of course following that analogy the T-90 is the Su-35/MiG-35 and the MBT version of the armata is the PAK FA.

    At first I thought he was confusing the T-62 with the T-64, but he didn't and is just plain wrong.

    Edit: What Cracker said above rather better than I did... Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:52 pm

    @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.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  cracker on Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:08 pm

    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.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:48 am

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


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  TR1 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:59 am

    Ahem. Forgetting Omsk?

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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:05 am

    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 ? Question

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:10 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:10 pm