T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

GarryB wrote:
There was no need for lies... the facts were clear.... the autoloader of the T-64 and T-80 was flawed as the vertically arranged propellent charges were exposed and any penetration of the turret led to showers of hot metal and sparks setting off the propellent charges which were not properly protected.

With the T-72/90 the propellent stubs were horizontal and had sheet metal over top to prevent ignition in case of a turret penetration except if it penetrated the autoloader itself.

When operating the tanks with the only ammo on board being in the autoloader they were safer for the crew and less likely to explode.

We've been through this before, but the majority of T-64/80's autoloader cassettes were covered by a thin metal shield, same as the T-72. The extra ammo on the AL also removed the need for the extraneous rounds stowed just about everywhere on the T-72. So no, sparks and spall were not that much more dangerous for the T-80 than it is for the T-72.

The real problem is that the propellant charges are vertical. The profile of the basket autoloader was almost double that of the T-72 autoloader: 125 + 408 mm tall, vs 125 + 172 (160) mm tall; and slightly wider  Its a much bigger target.

galicije83 wrote:
Well T-80 was good at first chechen war as it was any T-72, even batter but as i said, UVZ at that time has batter lobby then Omsk and they lied about tank efficiency in that war...worst tank was batter and vice versa....

The T-80 was thrice as expensive as the T-72 but this was not at all reflected in their performance. If it was, the users would have singled them out for outperforming everything else just like the do now with the T-90 in Syrian hands. Instead its proponents are left to haggle with loss numbers because they are that close run when it shouldn't have in the first place.

galicije83 wrote:
T-72BU was first name of T-90 witch was political name because of 1991 Gulf war and bad reputation of monkey model of T72 in iRAQ. They give T-72BU new name T-90 model 1992, but this tank has turret same as T-72B, only they put in it the ability for the commander to  aim and fire instead of gunner..everything else was same as on T-72B tank...this choice have any T-80 tank with good FCS, with before T-90, any T-72 tank lack of it...T-90 has now same FCS as it was in T-80U....

Its a new name for a new tank: the leap in performance from previous variants are so drastic compared to the leaps between the T-80 and T-64 when the former was introduced, and it was made in a new country. It only makes sense.  

galicije83 wrote:
T-80U was expensive because it was more advanced then any T-72 tank, not because of his GTD engine...Maintenance of T-80 tank is easy, because its all electrical not hydraulic (turret moving, auto loader and ect...)...

True. But The T-72's subsystems are idiot proof and actually performs even under mad max levels of under-maintenance and sub-optimal operating conditions. Just look at the ME and Africa where these tanks (and their T-55/T-34 forefathers) still run when everything else have been clapped to death.

galicije83 wrote:
Most of the year and most of the part of Russia is harsh cold time, and T-80 are superior with his engine then any diesel tank...

The advantages of the GT's cold-start is often over stated. You can leave the diesel running for extended periods of time on alert and still have enough fuel to get where you need to be. Can't do that with a gas turbine that consumes roughly the same amount of fuel whether its moving or standing still.

galicije83 wrote:
BTW this new Russian diesel engines have less torque then GDT 1250 made in mid 80s....

And so what? The new Russian diesels have more than 50% extra range on the same tank of fuel. That's 50% more time you have a tank doing tank stuff..

As i said before, T-80U was all made in SR of Russia, design and made by Russians parts, only T-80UD made in Morozov Plant in Harkov was made mostly but not all from Ukrainian parts.

So you said but what I remember was that the T-80 was essentially a Ukrainian tank with mostly Ukrainian parts which meant when Russia sold T-80s to South Korea to pay their debts for all the electronics and other things they were buying from South Korea the Ukrainians made the deal a real pain in the ass... much like they behaved with Antonov transport aircraft in Russian operation too.

Well T-80 was good at first chechen war as it was any T-72, even batter but as i said, UVZ at that time has batter lobby then Omsk and they lied about tank efficiency in that war...worst tank was batter and vice versa....

Neither the T-80 nor the T-72 went well in the first conflict in Chechnia and the primary lesson learned was to only carry ammo in the autoloader and not carry loose ammo in the crew compartment because the propellent stubs have a combustable cardboard casing that ignites on contact with sparks or burning material.

The T-80s autoloader has exposed ammo stubs in the autoloader that are oriented vertically which means even only with rounds in the autoloader the T-80 was vulnerable to fires when penetrated.

The T-72 much less so because it had a different autoloader that had the propellent stubs horizontal and covered in sheet metal to prevent combustion in case the turret is penetrated.

Most of the year and most of the part of Russia is harsh cold time, and T-80 are superior with his engine then any diesel tank...

Simply not affordable in terms of fuel consumption and costs.

They also need clean air to run properly and really choke on dust and dirt...

This discussion should move to the T-80 thread, but yes I am very happy to see the old BV's being upgraded these days. As Galicije83 already noted both the T-80 and T-72 were actively used during the First Chechen War and all of them suffered badly in urban combat as for some stupid reason there were not much infantry support for these tanks. Easy pickings for the Chechen's with RPGs. In tank vs tanks battles the T-80's had no problems knocking out Chechen tanks. From the start it was clear that the T-80 will have problems with fuel consumption, but the late T-80U is a much better all round tank than the T-72B at the time.

Will be moving now...

The Chechens were trained on these tanks and knew them inside out and had state of the art anti tank weapons direct from Soviet stores... they knew exactly where to hit them.

The upgrades to the T-80s currently in Russian service centre around replacing all the Ukrainian stuff with new Russian stuff to improve commonality with the T-90s they are also using.

The T-80 and T-64 look like T-72s and T-90s but they are totally different tanks with nothing really in common... even the wheels were different.

Since teh end of the cold war Russia has been converting T-80s into T-90s with Russian bits replacing Ukrainian bits so they can operate them because access to Ukrainian bits stopped a while ago.

The original Object 188 was approved for production as the T-72BU. This is the tank that we know today as the T-90. It was actually renamed as it entered service in 1992. It was also shortly after The Gulf War where the burning Iraqi T-72M and Ural variants with blown off turrets got mega TV coverage as an example of how superior Western tanks are to the Soviet T-72. From a marketing point of view it certainly makes sense and the T-90S had considerable export success since then - but on the other hand the T-72 didn't do so badly either.

The Iraqi tanks were monkey models from Eastern Europe and not related to Soviet T-72Ms at all...

The real problem is that the propellant charges are vertical. The profile of the basket autoloader was almost double that of the T-72 autoloader: 125 + 408 mm tall, vs 125 + 172 (160) mm tall; and slightly wider Its a much bigger target.

The problem was that in combat the propellent stubs were more exposed in the T-64/80 design and led to explosions more often that destroyed the vehicle... whether there was ammo loose in the vehicle crew compartment or not.

By only loading ammo in the autoloader the T-72 and T-90 were essentially much safer vehicles... not so for the T-80.

Its a new name for a new tank: the leap in performance from previous variants are so drastic compared to the leaps between the T-80 and T-64 when the former was introduced, and it was made in a new country. It only makes sense.

It was a new all Russian tank for the 1990s...

Well no biggie but I don't quite agree with you guys that thinks marketing means squat. The taxpayer is not going to be too happy when the military spends billions on a tank that joe public seemingly perceives as a dud. Perception is everything even if it's not the actual reality.

They didn't change the name of the AH-64 Apache when Iraqi Farmers with bolt action rifles shot some down....

Using weapons the way they were designed to be used means something...

To get back to the T-90. No other tank has had a name change as far as I know - and it came at a time when burning T-72's made headlines? Perception is everything.

They changed everything in it.... just like they changed everything in the Su-27 and got the Su-35, or the MiG-35, or the AK-12... tank designation changes are perfectly normal.

.hell Tiger 1 tank have hydro steering and use semi auto transmission in 1942

They lost that war though didn't they?

Perhaps another 10,000 Panzer IVs might have been a better use of time and money... instead of what 1,600 Tiger Is?

and second one was called object 188 or later our T-90 obrazac/mod 1992, cheap version witch was accepted buy USSR with name T-72BU and was with same name accepted in Russia in late 1992 but they change name same year in T-90...this tank incorporate some features from T-80U, FCS, gun from that tank, commanders control of the gun, no termovision at that time for it, turret was from T-72B, hull is same as on T-72B, later version of T-90A has slighty different hull...same engine from T-72B 840HP, same transmission from old T-72B...it was cheap version of old new tank with just new name...later they upgraded T-90 to A model and AM latest version, who still luck of auto transmission, steering wheel for drivers they still use friking livers, manual transmission with only 1 revers gear...hell Tiger 1 tank have hydro steering and use semi auto transmission in 1942, and this is 2021 and Russians do not use it on their tank, OK T14 have it but this new T-90AM do not have it...

In the 1990s they would not have been able to produce any 6 million dollar tanks and their biggest problem was to deal with the tanks that had already been produced that they didn't know what to do with.

Their priority was to develop a new tank based on the T-72 to replace the T-80 because it was Ukrainian and to then deal with the tanks they had in storage... who cares if the T-90 didn't have an automatic transmission or steering wheel... they made **** all of them anyway.... it was just a Russian replacement for their Army to move forward with. By the time they actually started making any in any numbers they had improved the design further and got a useful tank that was not too expensive.

However the perception created by the MSM was that the burning "Soviet" T-72 in Iraq was inferior to Western tanks.

The perception of the general public also at the time was that the Patriot Missile system was the best SAM in the world... public opinion is irrelevant when it comes to weapon sales in so many ways.

For a start US allies are expected to buy Patriot no matter what they think or know about it... which is why the US went ape shit over Turkey buying S-400s... and China and India too even though they are not strictly close allies... they fear the S-400 so much they don't want anyone to have it.

Please refresh my memory as I do not know of any such tank except the T-90 where it was changed from T-72BU to T-90.

The T-54 and T-55 are not that different, and the T-80 is just an evolution of the T-64 just like the T-90 is an evolution of the T-72.

The T-14 may be following the same system if it is reset
for the new century. The T-34, T-54/55 appear to break the pattern but things change.

Things are going to start to go mad, because all Armata series vehicles are going to be T designation vehicles even though they are not all actual tanks they are tank based vehicles so the T-15 is a BMP, and the T-16 is a BREM engineer vehicle.... the tank vehicle with the T-14 turret in the Boomerang range of chassis will be designated K-?? and the T-14 turret equipped vehicle in the Kurganets range of chassis will be B-?? and they will be tanks too... like the 2S25M Sprut light tank.

There are roughly 27 different vehicles in a current Russian armour division... whether that is a tank division or a motor rifle division... and they have added BMPT type heavy fire power vehicles into the mix too so that is 28... which means there will be 28 Armata types and 28 Kurganets types and 28 Boomerang types being developed.

Now there might be exceptions... they might decide that that truck based Coalition vehicle might be good in the Boomerang units and because of its firing range might even be OK for Kurganets units too... the Boomerang and Kurganets share an engine so if the wheeled Coalition has the same engine and the same wheels as the Boomerang they might just use that for 152mm artillery for both forces and perhaps also the Typhoon forces... but I suspect they will be mainly light recon forces... but then if they achieve a 180km range shell then long range fire support to a high speed unit sounds interesting too.

Well you wouldn't want your neighbour to stab your best friend in the back now would you?!

When he catches that neighbour sleeping with his wife and you know he is sleeping with yours... should you interfere?

With regard to the poll added to this thread - the Soviets almost always went for a two tier option. One was a more advanced tank and the other a cheaper option for mass production. No need to add it to the poll but that was an option the Soviets preferred.

I didn't actually vote, because it is not realistic... the whole purpose of the T-72 was a mass produceable affordable tank with decent mobility and decent armour and a good gun with plenty of growth potential... they had enormous stocks of old tanks that were obsolete and needed to be replaced so the T-72 was critical... but then having enormous numbers of OK tanks is often a problem if they can't defeat better tanks so a better tank is essential too even if you can't equip your entire tank fleet with them having some to spearhead an attack and knock the guts out of an enemy armoured force that your numbers tank can then clean up is important too.