Jump to content

The difference between T-64, T-72 and T-80.


Recommended Posts

I know that some of you read, and maybe write on this site. But this is a really funny way to describe the differences between the said tanks. I really laughed when I read this. 

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/961-communist-tracked-boxes-with-pancake-turrets-dont-you-dare-to-confuse-glorious-t-80-battle-tank-with-kharkovite-t-64-tractor-that-doesnt-work/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great thread, whole site looks pretty good, gotta try to find that 'KV-1 Worship' thread now.....Sounds like my sort of religion!  :D

My favourite quote thus far:

ERA on turret have notable stepped layout in horizontal plane, this will help to tell it apart from Kharkovite T-64BV, which also use Kontakt-1 to cover their shame, only they use different layout.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Great thread, whole site looks pretty good, gotta try to find that 'KV-1 Worship' thread now.....Sounds like my sort of religion!  :D

My favourite quote thus far:

 

 

I have a few on my own :D

 "T-72 Ural doesn't have anything on turret frontal armor (3) with exception of Luna, only naked steel to resist capitalist-made profit-making projectiles with power of superior communist steel and a bit of sand of Motherland, soaked with Nazi fascist blood"

And this is my favorite

 " True socialists of the Ural understood a main problem with optical rangefinder - a worker and soldier of Fatherland had to match 2 images of capitalist in his sight in order to find a range to him. Not only you should have looked at decadent westerner for prolonged period of time during combat, but you were looking at 2 images of him! It is 2 times more decadency per capitalist that free komsomolets should have witness during combat and what is allowed by Party and Narkom of Health!

   In order to decrease hazardous and health problems of seeing 100% more concentrated capitalism per capitalist, Soviet engineers created a ray emitter that could measure distance to enemies by shooting red communism laser to their faces and tell exact range to increase accuracy of firing main gun!"

:D

 

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armorgunner,

Tremendously funny and oh so detailed discourse. What a truly terrible video on the T-64! That thing should never have been allowed out of kaserne. Shared this with my brother George and various other treadhead relatives and friends. Used to know a bunch of that recognition feature stuff back in my military analyst days, but imagery wasn't all that easy to get and least one person, the US Army's Major Arthur Nicholson, (shot and left to bleed out in DDR near GSFG tank shed) died as a result. The writer of the OP seems blissfully unaware the standard T-80 was really the Premium Tank (as our own Jim Warford put it) in the Russian tank park, whereas the T-72 was the simpler and cheaper to produce and maintain workhorse. The T-80 was very sophisticated technologically, therefore pricey, and the turbine engine was simply too much of a high tech field maintenance headache for a relatively low tech pool of mechanics. This is what drove the move to the Diesel multi-fuel power plant on the later models, however much the tank ranter may decry it. Good things ported over from the T-80 wound up in the T-90, while the T-72 continued to improve, too, though was never as capable. Moreover, it appears the same thing has happened again with Objekt (forget number but has remote turret with (140 mm ?) gun, all crew in heavily armored fighting compartment in hull and loads of other stuff). Hugely expensive and complex, so project was scrapped and the T-14 Armata was designed to incorporate at least some of those highly desirable features, while not incorporating others. Much of what the T-14 has now consists of features both open sources and classified sources were covering in highly alarmed tones in the mid 80s. Ought to know, for I was smack in the middle of such matters.

Regards,

John Kettler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Object 477 Molot
  2. 152mm
  3. Scrapped due to dissolution of the Soviet Union. Certainly the cost would have been astronomical but the project never went beyond the early prototype stage so in reality nobody knows. Though feasibility might have been a bigger issue for the end of 80s - beginning of 90s.
  4. Armata is basically started as an Ural's revival of all 477 ideas. Plus some things that appeared since the end of 80s.

1320373914_4896652.jpg

PS The tone of the article is actually a pun on Ural's vs. Kharkiv's tank aficionados. Both side are pretty aggressive in peddling superiority of their camps. Especially Ural's :)

Edited by IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The T-80 narrative in particular has me in absolute stitches.....

 

Though this T-72 caption is worth a chuckle...

 

Engine exhaust (1) is located on the left spectrum of political views side of the tank, with air intakes (2) sucking air to keep capitalist-hating engine alive to propel Soviet army into bourgeois army and crush them with mighty rollers with rubber bands to increase comfort of the crews and those, who are crushed. Used air is pushed out of the tank via grills (3), to warm up atmosphere and to make green Euroweaklings cry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty freaken hilarious.  If someone manages to find the KV-1 worship thread id appreciate a linky too..  I must admit the bias got to me, those big rollers look pretty great and serious while the little ones do look puny now that he mentions it.

 

Oh and the T64 does sound like a motor bike while T72 sounds like a tank

Edited by cool breeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, John Kettler said:

The T-64 doesn't sound like a motorcycle to me at ~5:42 or the end of the video. Documentary seems pretty good. Sure wish I spoke Russian!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

I think the sound quality of that clip was terrible.

This has better sound quality, and i think it sounds like the one in the clip from sturgeonshouse (like a motorcycle)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@John Kettler,

  1. I very much appreciate your words.
  2. Specs as of now - 35. But the autoloader was a novel design in Soviet tank construction so I'd say ABOUT that number :) Though overall the autoloader a was copycat of post-war French tanks so I'd say it was not a risky part.
  3. Obj.477 was EXTREMELY well advanced at that time. With all the pros of a potentially groundbreaking design and all the cons of feasibility doubts at that level of technology. Kind of T-62 story. Design ideas certainly proved themselves after about 30 years. Implementabilty with Soviet technology of the time and overall force impact - one can decide for him/herself. It would certainly require a groundbreaking changes in tactics and the art of operations. Whether feasible or not :)
Edited by IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sgt.Squarehead,

Nice video, which, I think, illustrates a many times reported Russian trait: persisting at the task by simply repeating it. I noted no attempt by the driver to pivot and try to get at least one track on relatively dry ground before he'd well and truly dug himself in. Equally, I blame the idiots who could've helped by putting down readily available logs and brush to improve traction (but instead stood around) and the TC who didn't pop out and demand that help from them. There was an entire sequence while I was watching the driver's ever more pendulum like futile efforts to extricate his tank when this came to mind:

Rockabye tanki

Didn't get far with the lyrics, but you get the idea. The toggle to English in the video works great, but here's the subtitled version directly. Judging from what I'm seeing, this is a wargame. there's some sort of official on the tank, and a BMP-2 appears which I'd be willing to bet is carrying an umpire.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sgt.Squarehead,

The fist time I ever crossed paths with this was in high school when I got a good deal on Milsom's simply amazing to me Soviet Tanks 1917-1970. The photo of Objekt 279 stopped me dead in my tracks/on its tracks, having never seen the like. The design made all the sense in the world once I understood the objective: give blast no opportunity to flip it by making it as smooth as possible top and bottom. By then I'd read Glasstone Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Kahn's On Thermonuclear War and some tome which laid out the realities of nuclear warfare, including a diagram showing I was going to die (along with everyone in greater Phoenix AZ) when the Russians hit Luke AFB (SAGE (Semiautomatic Ground Environment) and BUIC (Backup Interceptor Control for entire West Coast)  in a counterforce strike and was written in the mid 1960s. "Duck and Cover" drills are extra scary when you already understand nuclear weapons in elementary school! Never saw any footage before of Objeckt 279, so thanks for that. I like to call it the Russian Ogre (as in the game, Bolo series, etc.). Simply tremendous mobility, which was, of course, driven by the design requirement to operate and keep going no matter what, in a nuclear-devastated area.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...