Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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.


LoooSeR
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

I don't know about Soviet-era competitions, I think the general rule of thumb was that T-80 was superior to all other T-tanks but accordingly expensive, while T-90 with welded turret was between the T-72 series and T-80 in effectiveness.

The recent modernization programs intend to put them all in roughly the same state in terms of firepower, situational awareness, night fighting capabilities etc. The T-90 though would still enjoy a more comprehensive protection suite.

 

EDIT: Oh and the T-64 was trash, *spit*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't know about Soviet-era competitions, I think the general rule of thumb was that T-80 was superior to all other T-tanks but accordingly expensive, while T-90 with welded turret was between the T-72 series and T-80 in effectiveness.

The recent modernization programs intend to put them all in roughly the same state in terms of firepower, situational awareness, night fighting capabilities etc. The T-90 though would still enjoy a more comprehensive protection suite.

 

EDIT: Oh and the T-64 was trash, *spit*.

 

 

Funny because the common belief amongst many even to this day is that the T-64 was a revolutionary design n all. So revolutionary and expensive that they had to build the T-72 instead lol.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

 

Funny because the common belief amongst many even to this day is that the T-64 was a revolutionary design n all. So revolutionary and expensive that they had to build the T-72 instead lol.  

It was indeed revolutionary for its time, but the Ivans driving the tank didn't need all this tech, they needed the glory of riding in no less than 3 main tank variants at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Funny because the common belief amongst many even to this day is that the T-64 was a revolutionary design n all. So revolutionary and expensive that they had to build the T-72 instead lol.  

Except that the T-72 was more expensive in reality, and was less capable... Also in the second half of the '70s T-64 became reliable enough. This whole T-64/72/80 affair was nothing more than a sad story of infighting between tank design bureaus. This resulted in that the russian army stuck with now hopelessly obsolete T-72 tanks. The main victims of this infighting were such revolutionary designs as the Objekt-490A, Objekt-477, and perhaps also the Objekt-299.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Except that the T-72 was more expensive in reality, and was less capable... Also in the second half of the '70s T-64 became reliable enough. This whole T-64/72/80 affair was nothing more than a sad story of infighting between tank design bureaus. This resulted in that the russian army stuck with now hopelessly obsolete T-72 tanks. The main victims of this infighting were such revolutionary designs as the Objekt-490A, Objekt-477, and perhaps also the Objekt-299.

 

 

 

Except that part that latter version T-72 are better armoured than T-64 and there are wasnt any indication that late T-64 have batter FCS than T-72 or T-80.Not the mention Object 187.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it was very convinient to Kharkov in late 50s - ealy-mid 60s - that all other tank design bureaus which were also capable of producing revolutionary designs - I mean Leningrad and especially Chelyabinsk, - were busy with designing heavy tanks and then missile tanks, and also it was probably even better that they became constrained by requirement of making tanks using T-64's parts.
 

11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Also in the second half of the '70s T-64 became reliable enough. 

One can argue whether it is good enough or not. There is also a very interesting question of  whether they mentioned that posibility in early 1960s when they were probably making all those nice posters for all those presentations before the Party leaders and so on. Or it was business as usual - that's it, shameless advertising as usual.
Also, one can deduce a probable answer to that - given that according to all those plans they had in 1964, Kharkov, Omsk, Tagil and Chelyabinsk tanks plants shoud have produced 8670 T-64s between begining of 1966 and end of 1970
and with levels of annual production achieved in 1970, 12750 more T-64s by the end of 1975.
(numbers from UVZ's book on t-62, table chart on  tank production plans on page 180, quoting documents of State Comittee on Defence Technology from Russian State Archive of the Economy https://imgur.com/a/E6E10J5)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-64 did have issues initially, but most of it was later resolved, T-72 tanks served as a cheap version of the tank, you idiots are bashing something that was the best tank of its time, no tank was nearly as good as T-64 in the entire world. Without T-64 there would be no T-72 or T-80 or T-90, this entire thread is people hating on T-64 simply because it is Ukrainian...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't know about Soviet-era competitions, I think the general rule of thumb was that T-80 was superior to all other T-tanks but accordingly expensive, while T-90 with welded turret was between the T-72 series and T-80 in effectiveness.

The recent modernization programs intend to put them all in roughly the same state in terms of firepower, situational awareness, night fighting capabilities etc. The T-90 though would still enjoy a more comprehensive protection suite.

 

EDIT: Oh and the T-64 was trash, *spit*.

T-90A (variant with welded turret) is superior to T-80 tanks. The turret is rated to be around 800mm effective (with Kontakt-5) while turret of T-80U with Kontakt-5 is rated around 600-650mm. And also improved gun, 2A46M5 (got upgraded with it in 2010, originally it had 2A46M4 while T-80U had and still has 2A46M1. Basically mobility is only aspect that you could say T-80 is superior to T-90.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It was indeed revolutionary for its time, but the Ivans driving the tank didn't need all this tech, they needed the glory of riding in no less than 3 main tank variants at the same time.

What they needed was something that they could produce in greater numbers, T-64 was superior to T-72, T-72 was a cheap copy of T-64 lacking some things that T-64 had in order to make it cheaper. T-72 was more suited for

"stereotypical" Soviet tank doctrines (spamming tanks on the battlefield) but in tank to tank comparison T-64 was undoubtedly better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Azrael said:

What they needed was something that they could produce in greater numbers, T-64 was superior to T-72, T-72 was a cheap copy of T-64 lacking some things that T-64 had in order to make it cheaper. T-72 was more suited for

"stereotypical" Soviet tank doctrines (spamming tanks on the battlefield) but in tank to tank comparison T-64 was undoubtedly better.

Indubitably. And yes you're right the T-90A is a superior tank to the T-80, and overall they are all pretty much trash by today's standards and the MoD doesn't see that they'll need to make the investment in their replacement at some point at least.

 

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Indubitably. And yes you're right the T-90A is a superior tank to the T-80, and overall they are all pretty much trash by today's standards and the MoD doesn't see that they'll need to make the investment in their replacement at some point at least.

 

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

Well T-80BV tanks are now being upgraded to T-80BVMs and T-90s are being upgraded to T-90Ms. So they are slowly being upgraded. But Russia doesn't have T-90s in high numbers anyway so the upgrade time should not take long. But they are ordering brand new ones as well... So that is a good start if you ask me ;)

Oh and thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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, you idiots are bashing something that was the best tank of its time, no tank was nearly as good as T-64 in the entire world. Without T-64 there would be no T-72 or T-80 or T-90, this entire thread is people hating on T-64 simply because it is Ukrainian...

If this kind of crap is your first post, i suspect we will not see you much here later.

 

   I don't bash T-64 because it is Ukrainian (it isn't, it was Soviet), i bash it because it had number of features that are still a problem, like engine that you need to babysit before launching in temperatures lower than -5 degr C in such warn country as Soviet Union of Tropical Republics, or general low level of readiness and reliability. On top of that add here too cramped layout that makes significant upgrades of firepower or protection on this vehicle very hard.

 

   If it wasn't T-64, than other tank would have appear, as Soviet tank development was not concetrate only in Kharkov. Maybe that tank would have been better? 

 

   And "Kharkovites" is a half-serious joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

If this kind of crap is your first post, i suspect we will not see you much here later.

 

   I don't bash T-64 because it is Ukrainian (it isn't, it was Soviet), i bash it because it had number of features that are still a problem, like engine that you need to babysit before launching in temperatures lower than -5 degr C in such warn country as Soviet Union of Tropical Republics, or general low level of readiness and reliability. On top of that add here too cramped layout that makes significant upgrades of firepower or protection on this vehicle very hard.

 

   If it wasn't T-64, than other tank would have appear, as Soviet tank development was not concetrate only in Kharkov. Maybe that tank would have been better? 

 

   And "Kharkovites" is a half-serious joke.

Engine having issues starting at -5deg C? Is this a joke, I get this article was half joke, my comment was not directed to you, but to people who take all of that seriously. And I stand by what I said, if there was no T-64, there would have not been T-72 or T-80 tanks. Soviet tank development was not concetrated only in Kharkov, yes, but they Kharkov, with Morozov as a chief-designer of the project, were the first to develop such a tank, it is easy to modify an existing tank, but Morozov and his team came up with something completely new, with some outside help, but nevertheless, T-72 and T-80 were still modified T-64 tanks (not literally). T-72 was designed as a "cheaper" variant while T-80 was designed to be "best of the best" where first T-80 failed to deliver when T-64B that came out the same year was a better tank. I do agree that today, T-64 is not that good, but it was the first and as that should deserve some respect.
And dont worry you will see lot more of me in the future ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Azrael said:

Well T-80BV tanks are now being upgraded to T-80BVMs and T-90s are being upgraded to T-90Ms. So they are slowly being upgraded. But Russia doesn't have T-90s in high numbers anyway so the upgrade time should not take long. But they are ordering brand new ones as well... So that is a good start if you ask me ;)

Oh and thanks :)

Wait, you mean they are ordering new-built, non-refurbished T-90 tanks? Because if that is true then it can show a great level of retardation. 

 

I suspected the RU MoD may have a strong lobbying group consisting of morons only, when people there started talking about how the Kurganetz was too tall (god forbid the troops actually have some room to straighten their backs and put their backpacks and gear), but how could none see through this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mighty_Zuk said:

Wait, you mean they are ordering new-built, non-refurbished T-90 tanks? Because if that is true then it can show a great level of retardation. 

 

I suspected the RU MoD may have a strong lobbying group consisting of morons only, when people there started talking about how the Kurganetz was too tall (god forbid the troops actually have some room to straighten their backs and put their backpacks and gear), but how could none see through this?

They have ordered 30 T-90M tanks on "Army 2017" forum and now on "Army 2018" forum they have ordered 30 more. And apparently some will be brand new, not upgraded older T-90A tanks but made from "scrap".
Well some did talk how Kurganetz was not appropriate for Russian army, but apparently they have ordered a batch of them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedEffect said:

Engine having issues starting at -5deg C? Is this a joke

It is not

 

3 minutes ago, RedEffect said:

my comment was not directed to you, but to people who take all of that seriously

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.

 

4 minutes ago, RedEffect said:

And I stand by what I said, if there was no T-64, there would have not been T-72 or T-80 tanks. Soviet tank development was not concetrated only in Kharkov, yes, but they Kharkov, with Morozov as a chief-designer of the project, were the first to develop such a tank, it is easy to modify an existing tank, but Morozov and his team came up with something completely new, with some outside help, but nevertheless, T-72 and T-80 were still modified T-64 tanks (not literally)

   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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2018 at 10:59 AM, AssaultPlazma said:

Would you say the T-72B is superior to the T-80U? 

 

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.

 

The T-80U is somewhat faster than a T-72B, its autoloader reloads the gun faster and carries more rounds, and... other than that, they seem fairly comparable.  The T-80U probably had better hull armor than the early T-72B, but the later T-72B had a revised hull armor array made of NERA that may have been superior to the T-80U's hull array of alternating layers of steel and phenolic-impregnated fiberglass.  However, the T-80U had the improved kontakt-5 ERA that gave additional protection against APFSDS ammunition.

 

Information comparing the turret armor arrays and fire control systems is hard to find.

 

1 hour 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, you idiots are bashing something that was the best tank of its time, no tank was nearly as good as T-64 in the entire world. Without T-64 there would be no T-72 or T-80 or T-90, this entire thread is people hating on T-64 simply because it is Ukrainian...

 

Oh, you're going to fit in just great here, I can tell.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...