Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

   T-64, as mechanical device, have not much potential (while keeping other characteristics in acceptable levels). That's why T-72 and T-80 don't share parts with it. T-80 maybe being chassis with highest potential by 1991, as i understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read that different versions of the T-80, e.g. T-80U/T-80B were substantially different tanks from different factories and design bureaus.

 

I do also recall reading Ural's design director saying that the T-64 was so tiny and lightweight that it lacked growth potential.  It seems plausible; but I take all statements from Ural about the T-64 and all statements from Kharkov about the T-72 with a grain of salt.  They're definitely not unbiased sources, to say the least.

 

The actual T-64 chassis may have been limited, but the compound torsion bar suspension seems like a good idea.  Rumor of course is that it didn't work well on the T-64, but I cannot think of any reason why compound torsion bars would be inherently unreliable.

 

Compound torsion bars are, for a given performance, slightly lighter than traditional torsion bars.  This is because a greater percentage of the steel being stretched is the surface of a torsion bar, rather than the center which contributes little to energy density.  Compound torsion bars should also be slightly easier to remove from the hull of a tank, since they can be pulled off with the swing arm rather than being pushed through from the opposite side.  Finally, the half-length torsion bar design on the T-64 allows symmetrical road wheels, which eliminates the problem with normal torsion bar designs where one road wheel is in front of the corresponding road wheel on the opposite side of the hull, which tends to cause accelerated wear.

 

The best design is the very clever arrangement of compound torsion bars and reversed swing arms on Object 277, such that the torsion bars are not under the turret basket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-80s had different versions that don't have such distinct designations as T-80B, T-80U. AFAIK some of them were called "Olkha", "Beryoza" etc. I think because of this Soviet/Russian tendency to always improve design Armata UTP now have ability to be a Lego tank. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big part of the reason the ZBD-08 is layed out that way is because they wanted it to be heavier armored then the BMP-3M (particularly on the frontal arc) which has relatively light armor for an IFV, though this comes at the cost of agility and also It's speed on water.

 

(If you look at the weight figures, the ZBD-08 is something like 6 tonnes heavier then the BMP-3M and 8 over the regular BMP-3 unloaded despite being of similar size.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A picture from the Armored Warfare articles section showing a T-62 supplied to Arab forces:

JuBtpOQ.jpg

 

You can see just how gigantic the 2A20 115mm cannon and its ammunition are in relation to the tank.  It's a whole lot of gun stuffed into a fairly small tank.

 

The article is worth a read.  Sadly, English-language sources on the 1973 war are lacking in Syrian and Egyptian perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumb question inbound; 

 

Does the T-90, or T-90A incorporate any changes to their Glacis plate armor layout, versus the T-72B? I have always believed to the two to be identical, but quite a few people I talk with on other forums oppose that belief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking into account that T-72B from different years have different frontal armor layout i would expect that different models of T-90s also have different armor. IIRC during live fire test T-90 showed iteslf to be better protected than T-80U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...