+22

lancelot

galicije83

Isos

Arrow

lyle6

PapaDragon

Mir

marcellogo

KomissarBojanchev

VladimirSahin

collegeboy16

Cyberspec

higurashihougi

Werewolf

Zivo

runaway

nemrod

GarryB

kvs

TR1

Mike E

cracker

26 posters

Go to page :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

Poll

Which was the best for soviet army?

Original MBT, with revolutionary engine, from kharkov, T-64: [ 3 ]; [8%]

Cheap variant, not so cheap, and roughly just as good, with conventional engine, from Nizhni tagil, T-72: [ 22 ]; [59%]

Hyped and exotic variant of the T-64, with a turbine engine, from leningrad, the T-80: [ 12 ]; [32%]

Total Votes: 37

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°26

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

TR1 Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:43 am

The lower one is wrong in about 20 different ways.

Top one is less wrong.

However both ignore that Soviet tank production was not just planned out along performance lines, but had a lot to do with factories lobbying for work and projects.
There did not need to exist such a diversity of parallel production.

Cracker pointed out many logical flaws fairly accurately.

cracker

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

Post n°27

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

cracker Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:20 pm

I made this.... more correct (avoided many ob XXX designation, but, i was forced to include some of them)

T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80 - Page 2 15042706222916279613211717

T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80 - Page 2 15042706222916279613211717

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°28

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

Werewolf Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:09 am

Nice post, my vote cracker.

higurashihougi

higurashihougi: Posts : 3409
Points : 3496
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

Post n°29

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

higurashihougi Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:33 am

Werewolf wrote:Nice post, my vote cracker.

Me too.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40538
Points : 41038
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°30

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

GarryB Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:57 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.

Close, but my simplified view would be this:

T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80 - Page 2 Untitl10

The west was not frightened by the T-62 or T-64... they thought smooth bores would be inaccurate and that the T-64 was a failure and that was why it was not more widely deployed.

Pretty much just read Crackers replies and consider my input as being a very simplified basic summary... (as is often the case... Very Happy

)

Last edited by GarryB on Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total

Cyberspec

Cyberspec: Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis

Post n°31

The Bundeswehr does not possess ammunition that will pierce the armor of even Soviet tanks T-80 and T-90

Cyberspec Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:06 pm

Hmmm....maybe a push to import depleted uranium shells....apparently Tungsten-Carbide just doesn't cut it

Die Welt: Germany has no chance against Russian tanks

The Bundeswehr does not possess ammunition that will pierce the armor of even Soviet tanks T-80 and T-90, not to mention the latest "Armata", said the former head of the Department of Planning Ministry of Defence of Germany, Hans Rühle.

...

According Rühle, back in the mid-1980s the Bundeswehr and the German domestic intelligence came to a disappointing conclusion that the shells "the world's best tank" Leopard 2 is not able to penetrate the armor of the Soviet T-80.

The problem is that the ammunition for the Leopard 2 are made on the basis of tungsten carbide instead of depleted uranium, wrote Rühle. However, the German authorities, according to him, decided to "avoid anything where there is the word "uranium" although NATO allies - the US, Britain and France - use similar shells.

Currently, the Bundeswehr uses tank ammunition DM63 based on tungsten carbide, which are almost equal to the American armor-piercing ammunition of the 1980s.

"However, this is not enough to penetrate the new versions of the T-80 and T-90 and the new Russian tank "Armata"- wrote Rühle. In this regard, the Bundeswehr plans for the modernization of hundreds of decommissioned tanks Leopard 2 do not make sense, he said.

"In some cases it is possible that there is a modern armor protection, which is able to withstand anti-tank ammunition Leopard 2", - said the Ministry of Defense of Germany in response to a request by Die Welt .

"Against Russian tanks no chance" - summed up the publication.

РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150426/1061019925.html

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40538
Points : 41038
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°32

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

GarryB Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:25 pm

Of course when was the last time a German tank faced a Russian tank... WWII?

the cost of cleaning up practise ranges of DU will make the Tungsten shells seem to be a great investment...

In its solid form the DU rounds aren't dangerous, but after hitting a steel target the radioactive dust created is genotoxic and very very dangerous... both for the victim and any children they might have...

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°33

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

Werewolf Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:29 pm

The major thing behind this is Lobbying and preparation of europe against russia, they are literally pushing for euro meatshield against russia.

cracker

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

Post n°34

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

cracker Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:54 pm

and it's pure BS.

DM53 out of L55 gun is frankly enough to penetrate any russian tank, the problem is probably the Kontakt-V that will break the arrow before in can penetrate. Some areas of turret on T-72B/T-90/A and T-80U are indeed unpenetrable, but most of the frontal aspect of the tanks are less protected.

DM63 is for 105mm guns, the article is total BS they don't even know what they talk about.

Russian experts rate the 120 L55 with DM53 as the most powerful anti tank system in the world, on equal footing with 120L44 US firing M829A3.

But that was before 2A82-M1 with new APFSDS rounds, which, might be the uber most, but, are not fielded yet and won't be until 2018 at least.

Russians rely on tungsten too... Only US and china went full retard with DU rounds, most countries have a small number of DU and mainly use tungsten.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40538
Points : 41038
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°35

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

GarryB Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:20 am

One reason to go for DU is that it is cheap... it is literally spend reactor fuel...

Also its reaction to steel makes it an effective material for punching holes in thick structures.

The enormous down side is that outside the body its weak radioactive nature makes it reasonably safe, but when fired as an effect of hitting steel targets it generates enormous amounts of super fine powder that is very easily ingested and of course once it is inside you the body can't process it or purge it so it stays inside your body, which can mistake it for other metals... Calcium is a metal. Imagine the body using DU as substitute calcium in your bones... the radioactivity of DU wont penetrate human skin but inside the body it is genotoxic... in other words it damages human tissue at the genetic level... which means children born with birth defects, or just born dead...

I would say it wasn't worth it... the the German military said the same thing but it seems there is pressure for them to change their minds...

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°36

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

Werewolf Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:16 pm

I would say it wasn't worth it... the the German military said the same thing but it seems there is pressure for them to change their minds...

That is the main issue, this push for DU comes from western not from within because no one in their right mind is even thinking about using nuclear waste as ammunition and polluding its own country or region, but ofc they do not care because they do not need to live over here our so called Allies that are suggesting to sacrifice europe as a meatshield against russian nukes and against US nukes.

higurashihougi

higurashihougi: Posts : 3409
Points : 3496
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

Post n°37

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

higurashihougi Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:59 pm

DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

The Pentagon jerks off with DU armour and bullet, while German's Leopard has spaced armour and Russian T-xx has ERA.

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur

Post n°38

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

collegeboy16 Fri May 01, 2015 7:10 am

higurashihougi wrote:DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

The Pentagon jerks off with DU armour and bullet, while German's Leopard has spaced armour and Russian T-xx has ERA.

wtf,

. i dont even...

anyway, one main advantage of Tungsten over DU apart from it not being nuke waste is that it performs better/optimum at higher (think 2.2-2.5 km/s) impact speeds, not worse like DU which loses its self-sharpening properties at anything more than about 1.6km/s. the Germans reportedly made their tungsten alloys self-sharpening too, so the advantage is doubled. ofc. you can make DU perform better in the same range of impact velocity, but you have to remember its still nuke waste and the reason anyone would use dangerous waste is because its cheaper than alternative.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°39

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

TR1 Fri May 01, 2015 7:37 am

higurashihougi wrote:DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

The Pentagon jerks off with DU armour and bullet, while German's Leopard has spaced armour and Russian T-xx has ERA.

Also that use of subhuman would make Adolf blush.

You know USSR made DU sabot rounds as well lol...

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°40

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

Werewolf Fri May 01, 2015 1:36 pm

DU only actual advantage is that it is heavier, however every other attribute of DU is a huge disadvantage and obviously not used by anyone else but the aggressor who use it of course only on territories of other countries. There is also no one using DU for armor since again it is highly toxic despite the US propaganda to keep the moral high of their tankists, but reality looks different. Just see how they sargopharg their M1 tanks which got damaged when they are shipped and trailed through the US, untoxic DU. Rolling Eyes

http://rense.com/general75/limp.htm
Notice the one with damaged DU armor is put in a sarcophagus while the undamaged is not.
T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80 - Page 2 T1

Russia has DU rounds but it is black ammunition for use only in case of invasion of NATO any advantage of DU is useless when considering the massive disadvantages it brings and developing WHA is much better and DM53 is pretty much proof that WHA is more than adequate to achieve good penetration.

higurashihougi

higurashihougi: Posts : 3409
Points : 3496
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

Post n°41

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

higurashihougi Sat May 02, 2015 8:32 am

TR1 wrote:Also that use of subhuman would make Adolf blush.

I didn't say all individiuals in the Pentagon are subhuman. And I didn't say all US citizens are subhuman, either.

So that has nothing to do with Hitler.

TR1 wrote:You know USSR made DU sabot rounds as well lol...

They did not use DU to create sextoys like Abrams.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40538
Points : 41038
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°42

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

GarryB Sat May 02, 2015 11:14 am

DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

Not true.

The West German Tungsten round... Wolfram round, required a longer barrel to achieve the same or better performance than its US DU equivalent... in other words it needed a higher velocity to get the same or better performance... wolfram is expensive. DU is nuclear waste.

Du reacts with steel to generate a very powerful incendiary effect that actually weakens the steel and gives even better penetration than other materials.

DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

It is denser than steel and therefore offers better protection... at the cost of the danger when struck in combat.

Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

they are slightly better than the best tungsten rounds and much cheaper... if you don't care about the cost of the clean up they are ideal... if the US had tried to clean up the mess of agent orange in Vietnam then they likely would not use DU for fear of the cost of cleaning it up... but they couldn't care less about what is used on enemy territory.

DU only actual advantage is that it is heavier, however every other attribute of DU is a huge disadvantage and obviously not used by anyone else but the aggressor who use it of course only on territories of other countries.

Every country that uses the AA-8 (R-60) Air to Air missile uses DU... with such a small warhead it uses a DU fragment shell to maximise the effect of the shrapnel... Rather less dangerous than an APFSDS round as HE will shatter it into still fairly large and non digestable fragments whereas a high velocity impact of a DU APFSDS round creates lots of fine dust...

The Soviets also use DU rounds.

They did not use DU to create sextoys like Abrams.

Its effect on steel makes it useful as an armour... except when that armour is penetrated...

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur

Post n°43

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

collegeboy16 Sat May 02, 2015 11:38 am

GarryB wrote:

DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

Not true.

The West German Tungsten round... Wolfram round, required a longer barrel to achieve the same or better performance than its US DU equivalent... in other words it needed a higher velocity to get the same or better performance... wolfram is expensive. DU is nuclear waste.

apples and oranges - the DM53's penetrator is shorter by about 140mm than the M829A3 while maintaining similar performance(going through RHA-wise).

VladimirSahin

VladimirSahin: Posts : 408
Points : 424
Join date : 2013-11-29
Age : 33
Location : Florida

Post n°44

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

VladimirSahin Sun May 03, 2015 11:47 pm

Is the DU Apfsds round still in use with the Russian army?

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°45

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

Werewolf Mon May 04, 2015 12:05 am

VladimirSahin wrote:Is the DU Apfsds round still in use with the Russian army?

As far as i know stored but not used. They are for use only in case of NATO invasion, but i don't know the figures and performance of them.

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur

Post n°46

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

collegeboy16 Mon May 04, 2015 2:11 am

VladimirSahin wrote:Is the DU Apfsds round still in use with the Russian army?

probably not- like Werewolf said they are stored but not used. mainly because the rounds produced in significant numbers are pre-1991, terribad against modern armor, and is a nuke waste. the new ones- i can think of a svinets round(just going by english wiki here), but it supposedly wasnt produced in numbers (along with other tungsten round), probably because they still werent enough for opfor armor so they just waited for new gun and new ammo still.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40538
Points : 41038
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°47

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

GarryB Mon May 04, 2015 12:43 pm

apples and oranges - the DM53's penetrator is shorter by about 140mm than the M829A3 while maintaining similar performance(going through RHA-wise).

They developed a new gun... 120mm L55 just to give their tungsten round the same performance as the US DU round... do you think they did that for fun?

That would be enormously expensive... do you think if it just meant they had to make their tungsten rounds 140mm longer that they would get the same effect that they would have done that instead?

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur

Post n°48

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

collegeboy16 Mon May 04, 2015 1:38 pm

GarryB wrote:
They developed a new gun... 120mm L55 just to give their tungsten round the same performance as the US DU round... do you think they did that for fun?

That would be enormously expensive... do you think if it just meant they had to make their tungsten rounds 140mm longer that they would get the same effect that they would have done that instead?

they could, since they (allegedly) have tech. to make tungsten self-sharpening too it wont lack in performance compared to US round- but they didnt, yet.
why they didnt, probably since they are comfortable with where they were back then.

and besides the decision to reequip late model leo 2s with L/55 is taken with the future in mind. who knows, maybe the new a4 round proves to be inadequate against armata and then suddenly they go for an upgunning too.

and wouldnt it be more prudent to have another way of cracking the enemy's protection- just in case the other cant cut it. the two rounds have significantly different characteristics and tricks to defeat the enemy armor- one is massive and hits relatively slow but relies on sheer length and mass to resist counteracting/reacting armor and go through, other relies on its extra velocity to give it a lot more push when going through armor.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°49

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

Werewolf Mon May 04, 2015 5:10 pm

GarryB wrote:

apples and oranges - the DM53's penetrator is shorter by about 140mm than the M829A3 while maintaining similar performance(going through RHA-wise).

They developed a new gun... 120mm L55 just to give their tungsten round the same performance as the US DU round... do you think they did that for fun?

That would be enormously expensive... do you think if it just meant they had to make their tungsten rounds 140mm longer that they would get the same effect that they would have done that instead?

Making a new gun with few calibres longer barrel increases accuracy and velocity of all rounds not just APFSDS and that is certainly more worth than just upgrading one kind of ammunition that probably will never see use anyway.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40538
Points : 41038
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°50

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

GarryB Tue May 05, 2015 12:38 pm

Making a new gun with few calibres longer barrel increases accuracy and velocity of all rounds not just APFSDS and that is certainly more worth than just upgrading one kind of ammunition that probably will never see use anyway.

Accuracy is not related to velocity and APFSDS is the only round that benefits from high velocity... for penetration and not accuracy.

Russia Defence Forum

T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

Poll

Which was the best for soviet army?