I was just thinking about how the Abrams came out in 1979, and how it kind of ruined the pattern of equivalent MBTs with the USSR
>T-54 vs M46/47
>T-55 vs M48
>T-62/64 vs M60
>T-72 vs M1 Abrams
Wtf was the American counterpart for the T-80/84/90?
Soviet equivalents to US Tanks?
That would require the russians doing anything worthwhile since the 70s
>Wtf was the American counterpart for the T-80/84/90?
yes we also went to the stars
my sides..
>shuttle
>cant make it past LEO
>stars
Now imagine it next to a modern wheeled IFV
>Where do you work out?
>At the library
damn girls the left one got serious ass
Only now realizing Russian design is so recognizable because they have minimalist turret designs.
It is the "teacup" turret, distinct to East-bloc T-series family tanks.
>Metal_Max.jpeg
>The Soviets adopted three new designs trying to catch up with the Abrams and then collapsed.
>The Soviets adopted three versions of the same design before the Abrams first appeared and couldn't catch up with and then collapsed.
ftfy
>the t-80,84 and 90 are basically modernised t-72s which themselves are basically t62/64s
If you mean by being an incremental evolutionary progression like T-34 being further developed into T-44, then T-44 further developing into T-54, then prob yes. The Abrams was a radically distinct design that showed no clear lineage progression from the tank it succeeded, the M60 Patton.
sums up soviet and now russoid arms development and procurement in general.
the t-80,84 and 90 are basically modernised t-72s which themselves are basically t62/64s
russia had multiple competing tank factories which lead to multiple samey and competing designs being put into service, while the us made the abrams and just continues to improve it as much as possible within weight constraints
>the t-80,84 and 90 are basically modernised t-72s which themselves are basically t62/64s
bruh
If you really think about it, all tanks are basically FT17s
The only Cold War COMBLOC nation that has actually innovated anything involving tank design past 1990 is North Fricking Korea. After half a century they evolved the T-62 into something vaguely interesting and threatening.
All other COMBLOC designs like Russia after 19i90 are based on stolen tech used as a stopgap measure or outside technology. Christ on a stick, there are half a dozen areas where the DPRK outclasses them militarily. Russia really needs to calm down and start thinking rationally. Putin really needs to start paying to Asia i.e the most important 4/5ths of his nation.
They are pretty close and 3 different vehicles that were upgrades of t55 are basically the same especially if you need a fricking guide´and a high res image to figure out which is which.
Shameful nonsense.
>Wtf was the American counterpart for the T-80/84/90?
M1A1 and M1A2
T-80 is already practically a contemporary of base M1 anyway
T-90s are basically T-72s with a welded turret instead of cast at a basic level but further upgrades have seen the two diverge from that basic DNA
T-80s (and 84) are the upgrade on T-64 becasue the soviets weren't happy with it but beyond the Autoloader and basic Soviet design, they don't have that much in common
Early T-90s had a cast turret, they switched to a welded one with the T-90A in the early 2000s due to exhausting the original run from the 90s.
The T-80 is a modernization of the T-64 and the T-90 is a literal rebrand of the T-72.
Soviet/Russian tank production and design has been crippled by the various lineages they have merged and branched apart. It's been over half a century and they still haven't figured out how to unify the threads into one doctrinally coherent design. It doesn't help that sanctions + war have basically put the pause button on any such development and the Russians are going to war with at least 7 different model numbers and 3 dozen subvariants.
The Americans, by contrast, really got their shit together and created one design that fits into the MBT role and can be upgraded over time.
T-64/72/80/90 are Russian equivalent MBTs to the M1 Abrams. Upgraded versions of those tanks can also compete against the M1A1/M1A2.
I wouldn't go as far to say that design was crippled by the various T-series tanks. The Soviets had a vast well of armored combat experience from WW2 to draw from, they knew what they wanted in a tank and were mostly able to execute on it. The production clusterfrick started with the T-64, a tank that was ahead of its time and thus mechanically complex and expensive to build. Naturally an expensive, complex tank is going to demand simpler and cheaper versions to field in a sizeable quantity. Thus the T-72 was born. The T-72 was itself an iteration of the T-64 but was 40-50% cheaper to build and less mechanically complex, it was to be built only in war time. Upon learning this, it's no surprise that the Soviet MoD jumped on the T-72. We're still not done here - some time has passed since the introduction of the T-64, what if we improved the T-64 while also keeping the good parts of the T-72 (mechanically simple, cost etc) AND THEN put a gas turbine engine on it? The T-80 was born. The Soviets figured out how to unify it into one design - that tank was the T-90. Unfortunately the USSR collapsed (and so did plans for the true T-90, Object 187) but people in the MoD still wanted a unifying tank. The cheaper option was chosen, basically mating T-72 hulls to new T-90 turrets and adding in bells and whistles. One saving grace for the T-64/72/80/90 is that they at least use the same gun. Imagine if they used different guns. What a cluster frick with ammunition that would be.
>Naturally an expensive, complex tank is going to demand simpler and cheaper versions to field in a sizeable quantity. Thus the T-72 was born
T-64 was only more expensive because it was a much better tank, with far superior armor scheme, fire contol and a faster, higher capacity autoloader, especially in comparison to the T-72 Ural. The main reason T-72 was born was because the non-Ukrainian soviet industry couldn't produce the T-64 and the issues with the T-64 gave them an opportunity to develop and produce it. The T-64 was still declared fit for service earlier than the T-72 began mass production and the T-64 was the more numerous tank than the T-72 throughout the 1970s.
>(mechanically simple, cost etc) AND THEN put a gas turbine engine on it?
You're a fricking idiot. T-80 was far more expensive than the T-64, came later than it and directly copied its high-end components, including mounting T-64B's entire fricking turret on it 2 years later with a different armor scheme. It was basically an overpriced unreliable abortion of a tank made because the soviets weren't satisfied with only making the low of the hi-low mix of tanks with the T-72 and wanted a turbine tank. So they just copied the T-64 and then gutted the T-64 development and production completely in favor of replacing them with the T-80 which were never built in those numbers.
>he Soviets figured out how to unify it into one design - that tank was the T-90.
T-90 was a T-72 with finally a semblance of fire control system added. Soviets didn't even come up with the T-90 name. The actual unifying tank was the T-84 aka T-80UD.
Soviets fielded 4(four) types of broadly comparable MBTs in the 80s all because of minute and whimsical differences like unwillingness to produce good FCS, creating a jobs program for the UVZ and an irrational turbine obsession. The whole thing is a clusterfrick of epic proportions even for a dysfunctional dilapidated shithole like the USSR. Only the BMP frickery was worse.
Oh, and T-90 didn't exist in soviet times, there was only the T-72BU prototype that had some parts of the T-80U fire control slapped onto it. It was only after US completely wrecked hundreds of T-72s in the Gulf war did the russians come up with the bright idea to whitewash the same tank and rename it T-90 so they could sell a turd easier, a move they'd repeat miltiple times with aircraft, SAMs and other stuff in the post-soviet era.
Could you elaborate on the BMP thing
Sure, i'll repost a few paragraphs but i suggest you read the whole thing from the original: https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/60700454/#60706326
>A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun.
>What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“.When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug.
Oops, my link wasn't to the original post but a more or less full repost of the original. You can just search a part of the text to find the older one if you're so inclined.
>You're a fricking idiot.
u on ur period?
>T-64/72/80/90 are Russian equivalent MBTs to the M1 Abrams.
closest would be the T-80, in capability and time frame
>Upgraded versions of those tanks can also compete against the M1A1/M1A2.
no existing T-64 comes close to the M1A2
only the very, very latest T-72B comes close to the M1A2 but not even close to the M1A2 SEP3
>only the very, very latest T-72B comes close to the M1A2
Fun fact: under those ERA bricks, the armor array on all russian tanks still stayed the same since 1985. That NERA array only offers ~600mm RHA protection from shaped charges and can be penned by 1970s vintage ATGMs.
>counterpart for the T-80/84/90
well...abrams lol
>>T-62/64
You know those are completely different, and one of them is better than T-72, right?
T-80 would be the Abrams
The T-72 was basically the cheaper competition for the T-64, which while it did have a lot going for it, had a bunch of issues early on which prevented standardization of it, or the closest thing the Soviets considered to that.
The T-80 in most facets is the equivalent of the Abrams. Except in the fact Russians can't develop engines worth a damn.
By weight class alone the Abrams would be considered a heavy tank and the T-6to9 series would be medium tanks if we go back to ww2 style classification. The earliest version M1 Abrams weighed roughly 53 metric tons in comparison to the early model T-64 was 38 tons. Now, the M1A2 sepv3 weighs a whopping 67 metric tons while latest T-6to9 models hover around 45 tons, the difference is still very significant.
To really explain, lets go dial back time abit earlier. WW2 was really the last war where major powers engaged in large scale warfare with each other and engage in an endless cycle of developing new hardware in order to get the upper hand. This basically led to a back and forth where one major power introduced a weapon that was so cutting edge over its opponent's but became either obsolete or just no longer state of the art anymore usually within 1 year or 2 because the opposing major power, through active battlefield encounters had actively fought against or recovered specimens of said hardware and either through a combination of reverse engineering and battlefield experience, develop countermeasures against it.
This was not the case anymore during the cold war. And the only war where US and USSR personnel did clash to some major albeit limited degree was the Korean War only in the form of fighter jet duels over an airspace in North Korea dubbed "Mig Valley". They did so because Soviet participation in the hostility was covert and kept confined to a limited area. And the only conflict where both US/USSR were able to capture at least one example of each others most advanced fighter jets through either defection or shootdown.
And coming back to the main topic about tanks, because unlike ww2 where nations usually send in their most advanced hardware into the battlefield to fight against each other and then make adjustments accordingly.
continuing from this previous post.
This explains the huge developmental time gap of each superpower's respective hardware relative to each other. Both sides never got the chance to fight one another with their most advanced tanks and this is why it took so long for the US to go from M60 Patton in 1957 to M1 Abrams in 1980 and why for the Soviets, their tank procurement program was a clusterfrick despite it being more advanced for its time during the early phase of the cold war. When one side have very scant knowledge of each others kit during peacetime, they basically rely entirely one imagination and guess-timation (heh) to progress down the development road in the hopes to outdo the other side.
>Wtf was the American counterpart for the T-80/84/90?
upgraded abrams because those are just upgraded t-72s
(1/2) This topic is really complex but I'll also summarize it further in evolutionary biology terms. Imagine on a supercontinent two major rival predator species both trying to outcompete the other in their shared habitat to become the apex predator, as millions of years go by, at various points of that time period both sides briefly each evolve a trait that briefly gave one species a brief advantage before the other side evolves a trait in response to counter it. Millions of years keep go by and they are evenly match with no side having a clear advantage. Then, all of a sudden a massive asteroid crashed dead center into the continent, wiping away many lifeforms and also creating an ocean that separated the former supercontinent into 2 halves. Our 2 predator species were both devastated by this extinction event but fortunately, both survived. At the same time, by pure chance, each predator species managed to only survive on one different half of the new continents. They are now geographically isolated from each other. Even though they could no longer interact with one another, it does not mean the two species are not evolving anymore. But without interaction between the 2 predator species, all further evolution to become the top predator in their respective niches now rely entirely luck. Millions of years go by and the 2 predator species both evolved powerful new traits to help them dominate in their respective habitats. At the same time, we find that the 2 new continents are slowly shifting towards each other and will eventually merge back into a single supercontinent again. Millions of years go by and the continents merged back and the 2 predators are once again competing to be apex predator. Only this time, 1 will be driven into extinction and the surviving species becomes the apex predator. Millions of years of isolation meant the 2 predators were developing uncertain and unproven evolutionary traits that could only be decided which is superior until a...
(2/2)
...second and final re-encounter. And by that time, the disadvantaged predator species will no longer be able to adapt in time in response because of the long periods of isolation and inability to adapt against a opponent that was otherwise not existent precluding to the final showdown. And had the continent actually merged a few million years earlier, then the losing species could have been the winner instead since the losing species might have had evolved advantageous trait while the winning species have not evolve a randomized trait that lead it to win yet. This basically sums up US/USSR tank development vis a vis the arms race/cold war/iron curtain
how high were you when you wrote this?
>T-80/84/90
you mean T72s?
take a T64 and put modern FCS and thermals and it will kill M1s all day long because in a tank battle, he who shoots(& hits) first wins.
>take a T64 and put modern FCS and thermals and it will kill M1s all day long because in a tank battle, he who shoots(& hits) first wins.
The 1A33 FCS on the T-64B and T-80 apparently was pretty comparable to what the Cold War era M1's had, with automatic lead and wind sensors and everything. The big deficiency was not having any thermal sights, albeit that was probably a bigger deficiency than the Soviets coping about Monkey Model Iraqi T-72's wanted to acknowledge.
>he who shoots(& hits) first wins.
>T-64 presents its weaker hull because it has no gun depression
>M1 only presents its turret
>M1 fires first because it has at least 50/50 chance to hit the weaker hull armor, T-64 has to fire at the armored turret and hope that it hits the weaker mantlet instead of the cheeks, so the M1 can open fire at longer ranges compared to the T-64
It won't because M1's armor could typically handle all but a few most modern contemporary 125mm ammunition. Not that it matters because tank on tank battles are a meme post ww2.
Forget about thermals, soviet tanks were al stuck with shitty gen 1 night vision that was horribly unergonomic and gave the users nausea. The only soviet tank to have gen 2 night vision, which was for the gunner only, was the T-80U which was a white elephant even during soviet times.
>Not that it matters because tank on tank battles are a meme post ww2.
tanks are literally meant to fight other tanks
if deep battle met airland battle, then the massive soviet armored forces would be met with a counter-attack by a large NATO armored force
Deep battle was a stillborn concept that would smash headfirst into comms, control and decision-making deficiencies that have always plagued russian army.
It's either them getting slaughtered against well prepared defenses and minefields or breaking through and getting their convoys cut off and shredded or bombed to hell.
>soviets would probe enemy defences with tanks and then commit a main thrust of tanks into the weakpoint
>NATO will aggressively counter-attack the probing attacks with their own tanks and then counter-encircle the main thrust with another thrust from tanks
ground war of WW3 would have been decided by tank on tank combat
the evolution of both soviet and western armor is heavily geared towards fighting enemy armor
tank on tank engagements were not a meme, they were the norm
Oh frick off you moronic vatBlack person.
>attacker will rely on tanks
>defender will rely on tanks
>this will somehow not result in the determining factor of ground engagements being the tanks
theres a reason army strength in the cold war was determined largely by number of tanks
they were the basic unit of maneuver
>strength in the cold war was determined largely by number of tanks
More moronic vatBlack person bullshit.
How about you eat shit and die, moronic homosexual?
Didn't Saddam have an absolutely insane amount of armor during the gulf war? Fat lot of good that did them.
because they forgot to take into account that each iraqi unit was of lesser quality than an american unit
but the reason they chose to measure the capability of the iraqi army to resist them on the ground in terms of the numbers of tanks they had was for the same reason the measured their own force by the number of tanks they were attacking with
instead of, say, the number of infantrymen or artillery tubes they were attacking or defending with
its because they would have maneuvered into iraqi territory with their own tanks and they expected a counter-attack by iraqi tanks
Deep Battle was the USSR pretending that they could fight like the US military already was, they just didn't understand combined arms doctrine.
So basically the Ukraine war
Pretty much.
>tanks are literally meant to fight other tanks
Opinion immediately discarded. Go study how and why tanks appeared before spouting such idiocy.
>. Go study how and why tanks appeared before spouting such idiocy.
tanks have a smoothbore gun thats designed to fire armor piercing rounds
because the main counter to an enemy armored unit is your own armored unit
>the main counter to an enemy armored unit is your own armored unit
No it isn't. Do you even know anything about anti-tank warfare?
>No it isn't
it literally is
tank destroyer battalions were disbanded because they would literally just rather have their own tanks
>tank destroyer battalions were disbanded
nobody tell him
I'd like to emphasize that soviet tanks only got gen 1 in certain instances. Most tubes in tanks were gen-0 and gen-0+ like V-7 for gun sights, V-1PM for the standard PNV-57 and V-3M for other periscope optics. Gen-1 cascade tubes were (embarrassingly) rare.
Afaik all the T-64's T-72 and T-80s received those passive cascade sights from the get-go. The rest of the tank forces were utterly outdated and in disarray but the new tanks stuck with the standard kit, even if the standard kit was having a completely separate tank night sight mounted right next to the daytime one.
The ones that require illumination are typically referred to as gen 0 IR scopes, and those go back all the way to ww2. Gen 1 is the passive or starlight night vision with the fish-eye effect that was mostly good for short range and was still often used with a spotlight for more range. Both NATO and soviets started standard-issuing gen 0 night vision on tanks in the 60s, but the soviets rushed to introduce their gen 1s into the newer tanks while US only used them in infantry weapons in Vietnam before quickly developing gen 2s and after a few years delay due to the post-vietnam cut budgets skipping straight to passive gen 2 night vision in their tanks, with thermals following soon afterwards.
> Both NATO and soviets started standard-issuing gen 0 night vision on tanks in the 60s, but the soviets rushed to introduce their gen 1s into the newer tanks
I'm...pretty sure that's wrong? Or maybe you misunderstood the text? Cause in the late Cold War all Warsaw Pact tanks still used Gen 0 style night vision that required active illumination from an IR spotlights. It's the circular thing to the side of the main gun. Even the more advanced T-80's had them. There'd be no reason for them if you had any passive night vision.
Just because they carried one doesn't mean it was neccessary for operation. Gen 1 night vision is pretty shitty so to see at any decent range you'd expect a tank to see you'd still use an IR spotlight.
>Just because they carried one doesn't mean it was neccessary for operation. Gen 1 night vision is pretty shitty so to see at any decent range you'd expect a tank to see you'd still use an IR spotlight.
Okay, that's more than fair. Though it sounds like it still leaves the Soviet AFV's in the same fix basically. You've got limited range on the Gen 1's if you don't use the spotlight. If you use spotlight you're massively at risk to being spotted by NATO guys using passive Gen 2. Meanwhile, the NATO guys have thermals on their more advanced AFV's that are highly effective at spotting you even if you're running silent so to speak.
T-80 had a lot going for it compared to the export model T-72's the Iraqis had, but I feel like even they would have suffered pretty badly in any night fighting situation against NATO AFV's.
>Forget about thermals, soviet tanks were al stuck with shitty gen 1 night vision that was horribly unergonomic and gave the users nausea.
While that's bad, I think the fact that their shitty gen 1 night vision required active infrared spot lights was a much bigger problem. Particularly after the US and most NATO countries had transitioned to passive night vision devices. Sensors that expose you to the enemy faster than they can be used to detect said enemy are kind of only marginally better than worthless.
>Wtf was the American counterpart for the T-80/84/90?
>implying each one of those wasn’t a failed attempt to match the Abrams.
It took the Su-57 for them to finally catch up to the F-15A.
A later T-80 variant like the T-80U would be more comparable to the Abrams.
As others have said, the T-80 was the Soviet equivalent to the M1. The T-72 would be like if the the US had forced the MBT-70 project (the rough T-64 equivalent) through and then produced a cheaper XM803 that more or less just ends up being shittier but cheaper and simpler (assume that they ditch the gun-launcher entirely and slap a 105mm on instead) than the both the MBT-70 and M1. And then, because of MIC frickery, building all three anyway.