What are you thoughts on difference between T72 and T64?

What are you thoughts on difference between T72 and T64?
Here's thoughts of Ukrainian gunner that used to drive on T64BV and now uses T72B3. Also this review is less about pointing out numbers on spreadsheet but from position of a gunner

- T72 outside

- T-72 gunner position

- inside T64BV

T72 pros
- better sights, thermals and better gun, good for using as direct weapon
- better armor

T72 cons
- ERA spaced by morons, huge gaps on turret and even on main armor, might have been fine in 40 years ago but now hitting spots is very easy
- tracks are awful on Donbass mud
- coaxial machine gun can't be used remotely
- neck of a turret is poorly protected, not angled and very low thickness
- parts of turret angled in such a way as to cause ricochet into weakest part of a roof a tank and kill whole tank
-very little space inside
- It takes 7 minutes for thermals to warm up for use
- Sosna U is huge and it's impossible to see azimuth (how turret is turned compare to tank body)
- there's some retarded bolts on sights handle that prevents you from comfortably using your thumb
- much harder to open hatch
-forehead protection on T-72 doesn't fixate your head during movement like on T-64, it's very hard to move and keep eye on sights
-not every T-72 has chair filled with soft materials, some of them are just metal
- very little space for gunner

Overall it seems T-72(and it's improvements) were made by morons who had better equipment to build from. There was more about T-64 transmission and engine but not about T-72

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Sosna U is huge and it's impossible to see azimuth (how turret is turned compare to tank body)
    Main problem sosna is mounted to the left. T-72B3 has its old 1A40 gunner sight in the middle and control sticks mounted on it. But now 1A40 is back up sight. Primary sight is Sosna but it's installed in free space on the left. So gunner holds sticks in the middle but puts head to Sosna bending neck to the left. Zero Ergonomics.
    Very low effort low testosterone upgrade. "Just slap sight somewhere". Instead of replacing old sight with the new sight.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This style of upgraded sight setup is very similar to other modernisations of Soviet tank.
      T-64BM, T-64BV 2017, T-72AV 2017 T-80BV 2017 and T-84 all have the thermal sight replace the old passive night intensifier, and to the left of the daylight gunner's sight.
      In the case of the Ukrainian tanks it's a thermal sight only,and not a day/thermal sight like SOSNA-U
      T-72M1R which is the upgraded tank that they recieved from the Polish is the same. Thermal only sight to the left of the main cold-war era day sight.
      T-80BVM has a more extensive rework where the Sosna-U was brought more to the right by taking out the old 1G42 main day sight and replacing it with a less bulky PDT 7151, which is purely a backup sight

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It makes sense if your modernisation is just add on thermal. So you slap on screen somewhere.

        But Sosna is full capability day optic and thermal sight with switchable channels. By functionality it replaces old 1A40 fully and more.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >- coaxial machine gun can't be used remotely
    Really OP? Did author really had the coax in mind or is there another mg on both tanks but on different mounts?

    >-very little space inside
    How is this a con for the T-72?
    The T-64 dimension are smaller in every aspect so I bet that the internal turret space is even smaller.

    Your author fails to mention the autoloader design. The T-64 uses vertical design with 28 rounds which completely blocks of driver from the fighting compartment as opposed to T-72's horizontal 22 round.

    Also T-64 extremely narrow road wheels eat into dirt and mud if the track is thrown over. T-72 has much wider wheels which act as regular wheels surfaces.

    This author is very T-64 biased.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Really OP? Did author really had the coax in mind or is there another mg on both tanks but on different mounts?
      yeah my mistake, he was talking about MG mounted on turret, on T-64 it's remotely operated, on T-72B3 commander needs to open hatch to use it

      >How is this a con for the T-72?
      >The T-64 dimension are smaller in every aspect so I bet that the internal turret space is even smaller.
      You can literally open videos of him being inside T-72 and T-64 to see that gunner has less space in T-72 than in T-64. Why are you "betting" anything?
      >completely blocks of driver from the fighting compartment as opposed to T-72's horizontal 22 round
      He's gunner, not driver so he doesn't talk about it as it's not his area of expertise

      >Also T-64 extremely narrow road wheels eat into dirt and mud if the track is thrown over. T-72 has much wider wheels which act as regular wheels surfaces.
      In theory maybe, in practice as he says T-72 constantly gets stuck in mud and T-64s have to pull them out. Tracks on T-72 are flat, without drainage, so mud gets easily stuck on inside, ruining connection of wheels

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everything he said goes in line with prewar conclusions of a tank expert who worked on both vehicles

      T-64
      desuarchive.org/k/thread/53279066/#53283589
      T-72
      desuarchive.org/k/thread/53279066/#53304947

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The T-64 dimension are smaller in every aspect so I bet that the internal turret space is even smaller.
      OP video author bithching was lost in the translation and previous videos context. His primary issues with gunner place space is no volume for legs and low seat. T-72 MZ with 2 rows takes more space vertically under seats than T-64 AZ that has only one row under seats. By vertical height T-72 and T-64 are bout equals in the turret. As result there is about 8" more height in T-64 gunner/TC seat and it makes serious difference. In T-64 seat is like normal seat it is above the flor and legs go down at angle. In T-72 gunner seats on the floor so to speak and legs go forward 90 degress. Seat on the floor. This is approximation how T-7 gunner seats. Very uncomfortable for any extended period and problem is exuberated by lack of forward space to fit legs, especially left leg.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Also T-64 extremely narrow road wheels eat into dirt and mud if the track is thrown over. T-72 has much wider wheels which act as regular wheels surfaces.
      It's opposite. T-72 wheels have fat rubber tiers on them. Only tip of the track guides is engaged with the metal of the wheel, if wheel lifts by mud a little over track it's guide only engaged with rubber tier of the wheel and rubber doesn't holds guide solid and it brakes free.
      T-64 wheels are full metal and track guide is engaged metal on metal full length, if wheels rises over track its tip is still engaged with wheel metal.

      Also T-64 track pin Is held by nuts. If pin brakes it is still held in place and track rides with broken pin.
      T-72 track if pin brakes it falls out and track disconnects. Pins brake all the time.

      As disadvantage of non rubbered wheels T-64 wheels vibrate hard on hard pavements (roads) wheels mounts need to be oiled every 150km, because their bearings lose oil from that vibrations fast.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are simply not right, the T-64 narrow wheels "eat" in to the soft ground and very hard to recover/pull.

        There is a reason why the T-72/80 have wider wheels....

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >T-72 and T-80 made wider wheels not to get stuck in soft ground
          >reports from fighting in soft ground indicate that T-72 is much more prone to stuck in mud

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Please, make up facts further.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And the T-72 for comparison.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you able to see how the wider T-72 wheels have much more even pressure distribution than the T-64's? Or is this concept too much for you?

                There is a reason why T-80 also has wider roadwheels such as the T-72. T-64 suspension was a big weight saving compromise, like having small roadwheels and half torsion bars system....

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's opposite. T-72 wheels have fat rubber tiers on them. Only tip of the track guides is engaged with the metal of the wheel, if wheel lifts by mud a little over track it's guide only engaged with rubber tier of the wheel and rubber doesn't holds guide solid and it brakes free. T-64 wheels are full metal and track guide is engaged metal on metal full length, if wheels rises over track its tip is still engaged with wheel metal. Also T-64 track pin Is held by nuts. If pin brakes it is still held in place and track rides with broken pin. T-72 track if pin brakes it falls out and track disconnects. Pins brake all the time.

                The purported mobility problems of the T-72 are nothing to do with the width of the road wheels.
                Can you see how, at least in theory, the on paper advantages of wider road wheels and better pressure distribution could be offset by the technical flaws discussed elsewhere, or is it too much for you?
                Is this something you are able to comprehend? Are you, in fact, merely pretending to be as clinically retarded as you seem?

                We may never know.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think he means the commander's MG. T64's has a remote controlled NSVT, while in the T-72 you are basically back to the old style "stick your body out and use musle power"

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The T72 was created because the T64 had reliability issues and was too expensive to build in large numbers. So in the end the soviets build a high-low mix with the T64/T80 being the "high-end" and the T72 being the "low end" (built by two different design bureau) and the T90 was meant to merge both design philosophies

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > parts of turret angled in such a way as to cause ricochet into weakest part of a roof a tank and kill whole tank
    what
    APFSDS and HEAT don’t ricochet

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That is bad choice if words to describe problem.
      Problem is inclined section of turret roof that is just plain steel. Modern round don't ricochet much and pen that roof from the front just fine. T-72 has that problem much more pronounced because it's roof angle is 74 degrees. T-64/80 have 82 degress. T-72 roof vertical projection is higher and rounds has mcuh much much more less of chance to richochete. Essentially T-72 turret roof is one big hole for AT rounds from the front

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Here is illustration of the problem.
        Dark areas is where T-72B can be oenned by lol BM-26 round (420mm pen). While nominal KE armor of T-72B is 550 RHA. But this protection is only for small pacthes of white. Half of the frontal armoe is weakened zone.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/Xeeruaq.jpg

          That is bad choice if words to describe problem.
          Problem is inclined section of turret roof that is just plain steel. Modern round don't ricochet much and pen that roof from the front just fine. T-72 has that problem much more pronounced because it's roof angle is 74 degrees. T-64/80 have 82 degress. T-72 roof vertical projection is higher and rounds has mcuh much much more less of chance to richochete. Essentially T-72 turret roof is one big hole for AT rounds from the front

          he's talking about this part. I'm sure even DSHK shot will be able to pen tanks neck if shot ricochets from here down

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus, how horrifying. Does the T-64 and T-80 have that issue?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              no, that's why he pointed it that thing out. He doesn't understand why would anyone make that

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, the hull roof around the turret ring is 25 thick vs 30mm for the ret of the turret. A ricochet HMG round wouldn't go through it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there are more weapons that tank guns, imagine that part getting shot by 30mm grenade ricocheting right into thinnest part of a tank

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Soviet tanks without all the ERA look like dudes with shrunken heads.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It seems the common consensus among Uki tankers is that the T-80BVM is the best tank on this battlefield, atleast produced in significant numbers

    I imagine that 10 Km reverse speed compared to the 4 Km of the T-72 and T-64 makes a big difference

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It also has the best integration of the Sosna-U

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm confused about the tracks, IIRC at some point in the production of the T-72B, they switched from the single pin tracks used on T-55 and T-62 to the UMSh double pin tracks used on T-80.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what are the plebbit morons talking about?
    the T-64 Tracks were specifically designed to go over Mud with as much Grip as possible
    the Tracks on the T-64 bend to get more contact Area with the Surface
    The T-72 Tracks are just you Standard cheap shit, which can hold more weight than the T-64 but because the Wheels are so heavy, the Vibrations at high speeds become so severe that it self destructs

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We are talking about roadwheels when the track is thrown.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would you select a tank based on how easy it is to recover when it throws tracks as opposed to picking the tank that throws tracks less and is actually available for combat?
        This whole argument seems demented to me.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It is demented but spergs only relate to symbols (numbers, words) when they have no personal experience with a system or mechanical skills in general.

          Any tank is "easy to recover" if your towing vehicle and at least one of the crews isn't retarded. Recovery is just rigging and dragging and doesn't require road wheels at all if you've enough torque. Hulls skid just fine on the bottoms.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        pretty sure you're the only one talking about that, because it's a fucking retarded argument. nobody in their sound mine selects a tank based on how well it drives in mud without tracks.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Smaller road wheels create more friction while moving, wear out faster and distribute the ground pressure across the track less evenly. However, they have less unsprung mass and allow more room for compression of the suspension.

      So is the T-72 and T-90 better than the T-64 and T-80 in general?

      The difference in the T-64 and T-72 is smaller then what people want to believe. Same with the T-80 to a degree but it is a major improvement in terms of mobility
      Early 70s
      >T-64A vs T-72 Ural
      Same hull armor, T-72 Ural has a homogeneous cast turret, T-64A has high hardness steel plates inserted in the cavities, so slightly higher protection. Same FCS (TPD-2-49 optical rangefinder)
      T-72 Ural's engine is more powerful (780hp vs 700 hp) and A LOT more reliable in this time period.
      >Late 70s/early 80s
      T-64B vs T-72A vs T-80B
      T-72A has a laser gunsight that is independantly stabilised in 1 axis (like M1A1) but no autolead. T-64B and T-80B have a 2 plane stabilised sight (like M1A2) with autolead and can fire GLATGMs, so T-64B and T-80B have a significant advantage in FCS
      Armour for all 3 tanks is fairly equal.
      T-64B has the same hull as T-64A, but improved turret with the corundum inserts vs HEAT. T-72A has an slightly improved hull layout over Ural. T-80B has the same hull as T-64A/B but with a slightly better alloy (BTK-1 vs 42SM). T-80B and T-72A have similar turret protection layout of a cast turret with qvartz inserts to improve protection vs HEAT. Basically all 3 tanks have about 400-450mm protection vs APFSDS and 550-600mm vs HEAT
      T-80B has unsurprisingly the best mobility.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        cont'd
        >Basically all 3 tanks have about 400-450mm protection vs APFSDS and 550-600mm vs HEAT for the turret
        >1987 (last production of T-64BV)
        T-64BV vs T-72B vs T-80BV/U
        In terms of FCS there isn't much of a change, except the T-72B being able to fire ATGM, and while not autolead it has a lead readout for how many mils the gunner should aim left/right
        T-72B has it's horsepower up to 840, T-80U is upped to 1250, T-64BV is still 700hp..
        In terms of hull armour, T-64BV and T-80BV/U go from a 3 plate array to a 5 plate array, T-80BV/U's is slightly thicker. T-72B goes to a spaced steel array, which gives it a better protection vs APFSDS but worse vs HEAT. T-64BV and T-80BV have no turret change, T-72B and T-80U have improved turret armor (NERA inserts for T-72B and "cellular armor" inserts for T-80U). Both give roughly the same protection, T-80U is slightly better, ~550mm vs APFSDS, ~650mm vs HEAT.
        All 4 tanks are fitted with ERA, Kontakt-1 for T-64BV, T-72B and T-80BV which boosts protection vs HEAT. T-80U has Kontakt-5 which protects vs KE and HEAT

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          All T-64s and T-72s have 7 forward and 1 reverse peed manual transmission with a woeful revere speed of 4kmh.
          All T-80s have 5 forward and 1 reverse speed manual transmission, with a bad reverse speed of 10kmh, which is workable. It's equivalent to most of the older western tanks (Centurion/Pattons etc), but it is still bad compared to the "3rd" generation of western MBTs like Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger, and some older tanks like Leopard 1 and AMX-30

          Intradsing.
          This whole thing makes me really curious to see how Ukraine restructures their forces for near term offensive operations. Obviously mixed units cause a maintenance headache and would be nice to avoid, but IDK how many of each tank the Ukrainians have following their current push into the Donbass. It looks like they probably have enough captured tanks to form regular tank companies by type, and one would assume that the (somewhat) modernized T-80s would be the vanguard, no?

          I would have thought that captured T-80s would be reserved as replacements for their Air Assault and Marine Brigades as these units were equipped with the tank type pre-war, but we've seen video/images of 93rd Mechanized with captured T-80s, and they were equipped with T-64s before the war.

          >Ukrainians dumped all their T-72s for T-64s but now I know why as the T-72 is an utter piece of dogshit

          I wonder if this is actually true.

          T-72 never left service, pic related is T-72B behind Porochenko in 2014. In the rearmament of Ukraine from 2014-2022, they have been refurbishing all 3 types from storage for their armed forces

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but we've seen video/images of 93rd Mechanized with captured T-80s, and they were equipped with T-64s before the war.
            Switching from T-64 to T-80 is easier for the crew than from T-64 to T-72/T-90.
            T-80 is based on T-64, T-90 is based on T-72, so they share a lot of parts and commonalities in general design [for example the autoloader type]

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Intradsing.
        This whole thing makes me really curious to see how Ukraine restructures their forces for near term offensive operations. Obviously mixed units cause a maintenance headache and would be nice to avoid, but IDK how many of each tank the Ukrainians have following their current push into the Donbass. It looks like they probably have enough captured tanks to form regular tank companies by type, and one would assume that the (somewhat) modernized T-80s would be the vanguard, no?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this post is false and misleading, possibly intentionally.
        >T-64A has high hardness steel plates inserted in the cavities
        the whole T-64's thing was carbide or ceramic balls cast inside the turret to improve protection, that only Ukrainians could make
        >T-72A has a laser gunsight that is independantly stabilised in 1 axis (like M1A1)
        this is the biggest vatnik bullshit. T-72A only has laser range finder with no digital ballistic computer or integration whatsoever, basically little change from older models. T-64B and M1 all had that, with M1 being far superior to either.
        >T-64B has the same hull as T-64A
        also wrong, T-64B hull doesn't use corundum, but fiberglass layered between steel plates. T-64B changed armor composition in 1978 to match that of the future T-72A.
        >Basically all 3 tanks have about 400-450mm protection vs APFSDS and 550-600mm vs HEAT
        also wrong, both are overstated but HEAT protection is vastly so. Soviet tanks before T-72B/T-80U were designed with the same RHAe protection for HEAT and KE. Only T-72B/T-80U's turret armor reaches 600mm CE protection without ERA.
        >T-72B goes to a spaced steel array, which gives it a better protection vs APFSDS but worse vs HEAT
        It's not worse vs HEAT, it's less efficient but the protection stays the same because the whole armor array is bigger and heavier.

        also gun launched ATGMs are shite and useless gimmick for anything but static targets.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the whole T-64's thing was carbide or ceramic balls cast inside the turret to improve protection, that only Ukrainians could make
          The T-64 had Steel-Aluminium-Steel turret, which is easy to tell as cheeks look like a hamster that has too much in its mouth
          The T-64A had high hardness steel inserts for most of it's production run (pic related) and in 1973-74 just before the start of the T-64B production they switched corundum ball inserts
          >this is the biggest vatnik bullshit. T-72A only has laser range finder with no digital ballistic computer or integration whatsoever, basically little change from older models. T-64B and M1 all had that, with M1 being far superior to either.
          T-72A's TDP-K1 gunsight has a mechanical computer that adjust the range based of the range readout of the laser and the ammunition selected
          >also wrong, T-64B hull doesn't use corundum, but fiberglass layered between steel plates.
          You can't read. I didn't say it used corundum in the hull
          >T-64B has the same hull as T-64A, but improved turret with the corundum inserts
          T-64B changed armor composition in 1978 to match that of the future T-72A.
          T-64B used the same 80-105-20 layout as the T-64A until 1983 with the 60-35-30-35-45.
          T-72 Ural used 80-105-20 and T-72A, 60-100-50
          >also wrong, both are overstated but HEAT protection is vastly so. Soviet tanks before T-72B/T-80U were designed with the same RHAe protection for HEAT and KE. Only T-72B/T-80U's turret armor reaches 600mm CE protection without ERA.
          Jarosław Wolski work on the PT-91 Twardy says the T-72M1 turret has a protection of 400mm KE 500mm HEAT at 30 degrees offset and 480mm KE 600mm HEAT from a front aspect. So I don't see how I am wrong. This is supported with other sources e.g. Suvorov and Mann who give similar figures. I just used the T-72A as an example, but I don't see how I am wrong.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and in 1973-74 just before the start of the T-64B production
            1973 is the time when T-64 started seeing service at least some distance away from the production plant
            >T-72A's TDP-K1 gunsight has a mechanical computer that adjust the range
            still nothing like the 64B and M1. to even suggest such bullshit is to out yourself as an insufferable vatmoron liar. the whole point of T-72s being shit tanks up to T-72B3 upgrades was about their fire control being 1950s tier.
            >T-64B used the same 80-105-20 layout as the T-64A until 1983
            nope, T-64B used 60-100-50 setup past 1978
            >Jarosław Wolski work on the PT-91 Twardy says the T-72M1 turret has a protection of 400mm KE 500mm HEAT at 30 degrees offset and 480mm KE 600mm HEAT from a front aspect. So I don't see how I am wrong.
            your own sources out yourself as a liar manipulating data to match your agenda. armor protection is stated as a frontal aspect, rather than one perfect angle where your magical numbers add up.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >1973 is the time when T-64 started seeing service at least some distance away from the production plant
              T-64 started production in 1964-1967 (~600 produced)
              T-64A production began in 1967

              I never lied. I even stated for T-72B that the 1A40 complex had lead calculations for the gunner which had to be applied manually, over the T-72A
              >nope, T-64B used 60-100-50 setup past 1978
              It didnt. You are just wrong here. I think you are getting confused with T-80B which used 60-105-45
              >your own sources out yourself as a liar manipulating data to match your agenda. armor protection is stated as a frontal aspect, rather than one perfect angle where your magical numbers add up.
              Now it's just ad hominem. The unsuprising the T-64/72/80 turrets are rounded and have a varying protection based on aspect. Their schemes were designed with 0-30 degrees aspect off the gun and I chose the inbetween values.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >T-64 started production in 1964-1967 (~600 produced)
                >T-64A production began in 1967
                And both were so ripe with production and reliability problems that the commander of the army nearly pulled the tank entirely out of service and completely scrapped the project.
                >It didnt. You are just wrong here
                I just checked and it seems right. I guess i was confusing it with something else.
                >The unsuprising the T-64/72/80 turrets are rounded and have a varying protection based on aspect
                The design requirement, combat expectation and evaluations were and are done across a specific arc, not at a single point. T-72 is no different. If it's less protected at one aspect then its whole protection falls down to this value. A higher protection at a specific angle is just a design anomaly, not representative of the tank's protection as a whole.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To add to my last point, T-72s, like T-64s had design criteria of the same protection over the entire front arc, which is the reason for their turrets having this teardrop shape. To have more protection in a specific point at a specific angle is inevitable but this does not detract from the overall protection and design.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/RCEgDw6.png

          >the whole T-64's thing was carbide or ceramic balls cast inside the turret to improve protection, that only Ukrainians could make
          The T-64 had Steel-Aluminium-Steel turret, which is easy to tell as cheeks look like a hamster that has too much in its mouth
          The T-64A had high hardness steel inserts for most of it's production run (pic related) and in 1973-74 just before the start of the T-64B production they switched corundum ball inserts
          >this is the biggest vatnik bullshit. T-72A only has laser range finder with no digital ballistic computer or integration whatsoever, basically little change from older models. T-64B and M1 all had that, with M1 being far superior to either.
          T-72A's TDP-K1 gunsight has a mechanical computer that adjust the range based of the range readout of the laser and the ammunition selected
          >also wrong, T-64B hull doesn't use corundum, but fiberglass layered between steel plates.
          You can't read. I didn't say it used corundum in the hull
          >T-64B has the same hull as T-64A, but improved turret with the corundum inserts
          T-64B changed armor composition in 1978 to match that of the future T-72A.
          T-64B used the same 80-105-20 layout as the T-64A until 1983 with the 60-35-30-35-45.
          T-72 Ural used 80-105-20 and T-72A, 60-100-50
          >also wrong, both are overstated but HEAT protection is vastly so. Soviet tanks before T-72B/T-80U were designed with the same RHAe protection for HEAT and KE. Only T-72B/T-80U's turret armor reaches 600mm CE protection without ERA.
          Jarosław Wolski work on the PT-91 Twardy says the T-72M1 turret has a protection of 400mm KE 500mm HEAT at 30 degrees offset and 480mm KE 600mm HEAT from a front aspect. So I don't see how I am wrong. This is supported with other sources e.g. Suvorov and Mann who give similar figures. I just used the T-72A as an example, but I don't see how I am wrong.

          cont'd
          All 3 tanks of this period, T-64B, T-72A, T-80B had around the same protection for their turrets
          The improved turret protections of T-80U and T-72B did improve HEAT protection, but the focus was there to improve KE protection, since these tanks would have ERA to supplant vs HEAT attack.
          >It's not worse vs HEAT, it's less efficient but the protection stays the same because the whole armor array is bigger and heavier.
          I was talking with respect to the T-80BV/T-80Us hull array which without ERA was ~500 vs KE and 600 vs HEAT
          T-72Bs hull array was about 550 vs KE and HEAT. Yeah T-72Bs armour is all round better vs T-72A, including the rare mod.84 transitional subvariant

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >All 3 tanks of this period, T-64B, T-72A, T-80B had around the same protection for their turrets
            that's true
            >The improved turret protections of T-80U and T-72B did improve HEAT protection, but the focus was there to improve KE protection, since these tanks would have ERA to supplant vs HEAT attack.
            that's also true, NERA was an all around improvement.
            >T-72Bs hull array was about 550 vs KE and HEAT. Yeah T-72Bs armour is all round better vs T-72A
            Another thing is that T-72B's array was cheaper because it didn't use fiberglass, instead having just basic spaced steel plates, helping offset the cost of new armor slightly.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So is the T-72 and T-90 better than the T-64 and T-80 in general?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no, the T-64 is still better than the T-72 if the upgrades are comparable
      The T-80 is the best of the bunch if the upgrades are good

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This article expalins it very good:
      >"Why three tanks"? https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/11/from-the-vault-why-three-tanks/

      There were may studied carried out by Soviet union, during contemporary T-64/72/80 variants there was 5-25% difference in effectiveness. Much of reason d'etre for some variants was purely political.

      It really comes down to cirmustances, but the T-90A is a nice cross between superior T-80 FCS features and T-72 simplicity and cheapness.

      But at the end of the day, all three platforms are mostly obsolete on modern battlefield.

      That is way T-14 Armata was designed, but that is another story of typical Russian corruption.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Leopard stronk

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Mid 1980:
        >T-72B 1.0
        >T-64B 1.1
        >T-80U 1.13

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also, see how little difference is between T-84 and the T-90S(A), which were at the time the ultimate versions of the T-80 an T-72, both having cast turret that is based on the object 187.

        >1.31 vs .1.47

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sorry, I meant WELDED turret, not cast!

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What are you thoughts on difference between T72 and T64?
    Both are shit

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >T72
    It's shit
    >T64
    Slightly less shit when fixed and maintained properly

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The sosna-u placement is just ridiculous. Imagine bending your neck to the left while you hold on to the gun controls while not using you thumbs because of that screw. All that while driving an dumping around.

    Meanwhile Abrams shoot automatic locked on targets being perfectly stabilized while going sanic speed.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Also here are some internal protection trials from Russian army.

    > 20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials
    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

    Difference is almost negligible.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Really cool thread

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bloody hell, this is a good thread, and I am used to PrepHoleners talking past each other, but there is a special PrepHole obnoxiousness in taking paragraphs to do so.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's a surge of T-64 vs T-72 threads lately, and all of it were good.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    can you autisms make a spreadsheet with the different variants i cant keep up with this argument

Your email address will not be published.