Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LoooSeR

Communist tracked boxes with pancake turrets: don't you dare to confuse GLORIOUS T-80 battle tank with Kharkovite T-64 tractor that doesn't work.

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

IIRC, there was a Soviet assessment of their tanks and NATO tanks that concluded that the T-80U was about 10% better than the T-72B, but it was also about twice as expensive.

according to Kostenko /Yuri Kostenko's book "Tanks (tactics, equipment, economics)"/ - allmost 3 times as expensive (824 thousand roubles including 104 thousand for gas turbine, vs 280 thousand) and he also gave numbers for some sort of "military technology level" - 1.25 for T-80U and 1.15 for T-72B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

It is not

Do you have some source to back up that claim, your own words aren't really enough for something like that.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

which is me, i do think that T-64 is not good. Also, using "you idiots" in your first post here gives bad impression about you.

 

Which T-64, T-64 is a broad term. Well, this is internet, people insult each other all the time, I don't see why is "idiots" such a big deal.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

As i said, there would be another tank and another line of vehicles after it if there was no T-64. Object 770-based MBT would have been good attempt. Autoloaders were tested before T-64, layered armor was developed outside of Kharkov and could be used by other vehicles as well. Not using opposite piston diesel engine would have been a positive aspect. 

There definitely would have been, but after what time? I said that because you seem to glorify T-72 and T-80 and tend to give T-64 a hard time. If something like Object 770 came to light, T-72 and T-80 would be completely different, or wouldn't exist in the first place. I am aware of the issue T-64 had, especially with its engine, but my entire point is that T-64, being the first from the series, doesn't deserve all the hate it is getting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

according to Kostenko /Yuri Kostenko's book "Tanks (tactics, equipment, economics)"/ - allmost 3 times as expensive (824 thousand roubles including 104 thousand for gas turbine, vs 280 thousand) and he also gave numbers for some sort of "military technology level" - 1.25 for T-80U and 1.15 for T-72B

 

 

Do you have a link to the entire chart?  I googled for it, but in vain.

 

IIRC, it had some strange ideas, like M47 was slightly better than M48.  But I would expect the Soviets to have a pretty good idea about their own tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Do you have a link to the entire chart?  I googled for it, but in vain.

 

IIRC, it had some strange ideas, like M47 was slightly better than M48.  But I would expect the Soviets to have a pretty good idea about their own tanks.

 

Something similar that was posted here before, but too early to include T-80U and T-72B (dated 1977).

 

On 11/6/2014 at 9:47 PM, EnsignExpendable said:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

Do you have a link to the entire chart?  I googled for it, but in vain.

AFAIK there are no chart in (that part of) Kostenko's book, just those two numbers

 

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

I don't understand how you can say the T-64 wasn't a success when the T-72 is derived from it.

Well, there is a problem of collateral damage. Soviet Army did not recieve about 6,5 thousand revolutionary tanks - that's only untill end of 1970 (probably several thousands more in 1970-1975), and also It took allmost 10 years utill T-72 appeared in production - so by the time T-72 was in production, and T-64 was finally working, kind of, - well, Leningrad, Chelyabinsk and Kharkov design bureaus were designing (if i'm not mistaken, for allmost half a decade already) another revolutionary generation of tanks. (which never entered production, just like another one after that, and another one after that... all the way untill now)

(Alternate History scenario on US soil and with infantry carrying vehicles:
Sheridan-based version of "austere MICV" enters production in early 70s, and they make several thousand of those, instead of some of M113s, or whatever. And than Bradley as we know it enters production in early 80s just like in real life, but with planned production numbers cut in half, so about 4500 instead of 9000. Nothing else is changed, and of course ASM, than FCS, and finally GCV ends just like IRL.)
(one can draw parallels to actual soviet situation with not 2 but 3 new tanks by adding to this - a production of couple of thousand Bradleys with GT-601 gas turbine engine (expected to cost $250k each in 1987 in mass-production, according to "The nearly engine" book, page 151) instead of diesel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Do you have a link to the entire chart?  I googled for it, but in vain.

 

IIRC, it had some strange ideas, like M47 was slightly better than M48.  But I would expect the Soviets to have a pretty good idea about their own tanks.

 

123.jpg

http://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/10/blog-post_16.html

 

http://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/08/blog-post_14.html

 

and

1234.jpg

http://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/10/blog-post_12.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

On top of that add here too cramped layout that makes significant upgrades of firepower or protection on this vehicle very hard.

 

Same with T-72 and T-80... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RedEffect said:

T-64 did have issues initially, but most of it was later resolved, T-72 tanks served as a cheap version of the tank,

 

T-72 was never meant to be cheap. (In fact, it was more expensive than the T-64, at least, until the T-64 variants with the Kobra appeared.) There was a bitter struggle between the tank design bureaus, all competed for their product accepted as the main tank of the army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

 

T-72 was never meant to be cheap. (In fact, it was more expensive than the T-64, at least, until the T-64 variants with the Kobra appeared.) There was a bitter struggle between the tank design bureaus, all competed for their product accepted as the main tank of the army.

It wasn't meant to be cheap, but was favored for being cheaper initially, and it offered better reliability than T-64 had at the time, but again, it was based on T-64 and without it, it wouldn't be the same. Soviets wanted Nizhni Tagil, Omsk and Kharkov to all produce T-64 tanks, but after they were proposed with such ideas, Nizhni Tagil and Omsk refused and promised to deliver their alternatives, T-72, based on T-64 but with better reliablity and more simplified for production, and Omsk later presented their T-80 tank which was a failure at first, because it was comparable to T-64A at the time T-64B came out (T-80 and T-64B came out in 1976) but Omsk redeemed themselves in 1978 when they presented T-80B with better armor, mobility and firepower than any other tank USSR had. Now, I may be wrong about this, but iirc T-64BV was the first to offer steel+textolite+steel+textolite+steel hull composition which was later used on T-80BV and T-80U, I may be wrong, it could have been T-80BV :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×