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.

[Collimatrix]

3 minutes ago, Andrei_bt said:

 

Why never made?

 

Aren't you supposed to be the Ukranian tanks expert?  You tell me why the object 476 was never mass produced.

[skylancer-3441]

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

[RedEffect]

 

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.

[Sturgeon]

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

[Collimatrix]

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.

[Scolopax]

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:

New addition: COMBAT POTENTIALS of the Armament and Combat Equipment of the Ground Forces and Aviation of the USSR and of the Armies of the Probable Enemy, and Table of the Combat Potentials of Large Units

[skylancer-3441]

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)

[Andrei_bt]

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.

 

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

 

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

 

and

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

[Jägerlein]

4 hours ago, Andrei_bt said:

 

 

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

The colour code is series, modernized series and modernized ?  Sry the translation app sucks when it comes to russian.

[EnsignExpendable]

Red/dark blue: prospective

Brown/gray blue: modernization

Yellow/light blue: production

 

The orange bit isn't in the legend, I'm guessing it's a modernization that has already been applied?

[heretic88]

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... 

[heretic88]

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.

[RedEffect]

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 

[LoooSeR]

Anyway, this discussion is out of the scope of this thread, continue here

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/6-the-soviet-tank-thread-transversely-mounted-1000hp-engines/?page=129

[Andrei_bt]

On 6/7/2018 at 10:53 PM, Collimatrix said:

Are you going to cover that never-made variant of T-64 that the T-80U turret design is taken from?

 

Suppose it will be possible to publish drawing in a next book

[LoooSeR]

T-64 post, with T-64A section is up.

@Collimatrix

@Scolopax

@Bronezhilet

@N-L-M

[EnsignExpendable]

Thank you for continuing your work in teaching us how to root out Kharkovite saboteurs.

[LoooSeR]

T-64B section added.

Only Kharkovite-64BV is left to cover.

@Collimatrix

@Scolopax

@Bronezhilet

@N-L-M

@Zyklon

@Lord_James

@EnsignExpendable

[EnsignExpendable]

Are you going to do ultimate Kharkovite waste of money, the T-84?

[Zyklon]

For covering this kharkovite demon whose name i do not even dare to speak our brave @LoooSeR would need to attain the holiest of blessings by lord Putin himself!

[VPZ]

Damn, how many topics related to Soviet/Russian tanks are on this forum? Just don't create them.

[Mighty_Zuk]

12 minutes ago, VPZ said:

Damn, how many topics related to Soviet/Russian tanks are on this forum? Just don't create them.

Russia, and formerly the Soviet Union, have a rich history of AFV-making, even if it was at times non-sensical. Only one or two threads won't do it justice.

[LoooSeR]

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

Damn, how many topics related to Soviet/Russian tanks are on this forum? Just don't create them.

   About ~100 years of AFV development inside of Land-focused superpower is not exactly a shallow topic that can be easily and comfortably covered by single thread for those who are interested. If you are not interested, nobody is forcing you to open them. 

 

   There are ~4 active threads about Ru/USSR armor. Soviet/Russian AFV thread for general stuff, 80-90s future MBT project (separate for several reasons), T-80 thread (KIROV STRNG) and this one. 2 of them were create by me several years ago. This thread was started in early 2016.

   "Western" AFVs have much more threads - Israel, Turkey, France, US, M8 separate thread, Leo2 separate thread, General German AFV thread (Stug3 and other German vehicles), British AFV thread, Polish AFVs and so on.

[LoooSeR]

T-64BV added.

Also added spoilers to make page a bit shorter, faster to scroll.

This was the last vehicle that this guide will cover, BTW. So yes, after several years it is finally done!

@Scolopax

@N-L-M

@Collimatrix

@Ramlaen

@Lord_James

@Zyklon

[Collimatrix]

I just noticed something:

You know how one of the identifying features of the T-64 is that, against all logic and safety considerations for the driver, the IR lamp is on the left?

Look at this Object 435.  They clearly moved the lamp later on in the design process!