Military Review

T-64, T-72 or T-80, which is better?

129
T-64, T-72 or T-80, which is better?
Tank T-64BV



Tank T-72B


Tank T-80BV


In military forums and feature articles, it has recently become very fashionable to condemn the Soviet army and, in particular, the simultaneous presence in serial production of three main combat tankshaving almost the same combat and technical properties, but with a different design and different nomenclature of spare parts, which made it difficult to master, maintain and repair them. As a result of the development of this whole trinity, the main battle tanks of the T-90 Vladimir family became the main platform for the creation of which was the base of the T-72BM tank, the production and modernization of which is still ongoing. However, the very idea of ​​which tank of these "three heroes" is the best is intriguing. In the online community today, the attitude towards these three tanks is approximately the following: the main part is fans of the T-80 gas turbine tank, especially its “coolest” modification T-80UM1. Has its small share of fans and the Kharkov T-64. The attitude towards Nizhne-Tagilsky T-72 is usually restrained and contemptuous as to the rude and primitive iron “tank” of the second line. The unsuccessful use of Iraqi T-72Ms against coalition forces during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 also contributed greatly to this attitude. Well, let’s try to figure out why we take and compare in detail the design, strengths and weaknesses of three close in time period and fairly common modifications of these tanks: T-64BV, T-72B and T-80BV.

Firepower:

The main armament of all three tanks is represented by 125mm modifications of a smooth-bore gun - a launcher of the D-81 family. 2А46М-1 for T-64БВ, 2А46М for T-72Б and 2А46-2 for T-80БВ. All three guns have almost the same BTX and are considered among the most powerful tank guns in the world. So it’s impossible to give a palm to a cannon of a particular tank.

The main types of shells of these guns: BOPS or armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells. The most powerful of them are: Mango ZBM-44 with a tungsten core and ZBM-33 with a depleted uranium core are able to pierce a vertical armor plate with a thickness of 2000 mm and 500 mm, respectively, from the 560 distance. Cumulative shells ZBK-18M pierce 550-mm armor plate. There are still high-explosive fragmentation projectiles of the type ZOF-19, the destructive effects of which are well known to those who saw shots fired at the White House.

If the guns of these tanks are almost identical, then the fire control system and the guided weapons complex (TOS) differ quite significantly. The most accurate tank artillery - T-80BV. The soft suspension, which provides a smooth ride and the presence of an automated OMS 1А33 "Ob" allows this tank to conduct effective fire from the course of a moving target from the most difficult conditions. The gunner only needs to measure the distance to the target and hold the crosshair on it. Using input sensors, the digital ballistic computer calculates corrections and, through the stabilizer 2E26M, holds the gun in the desired position to produce an aimed shot. The T-64BV has the same 1А33 "Ob" LMS as the T-80BV tank, the same stabilizer 2E26М, but its firing rate is worse than eighty because of the more rigid and primitive suspension. T-72B does not have an automated LMS at all. His aiming complex 1А40-1 has only a ballistic corrector, and therefore it is inferior to T-64BB and T-80BB for long-range shooting at moving targets and for long distances. However, the T-72B has an advantage: the much more sophisticated dual-core weapons stabilizer 2E42-1 "Jasmine", the tracking accuracy indicator whose goal greatly exceeds the capabilities of the stabilizers 2E26M T-64BV and T-80B tanks. Therefore, T-72B can accurately shoot at a higher speed than its opponents. The soft, modern running gear also contributes to this.

We now turn to the guided weapons complex. T-64BV and T-80BV are equipped with guided missiles KUV 9K112 Cobra. This complex allows the targeted launch of missiles from a course to a range of up to 4000m. The maximum possible start-up and 5000m. The rocket punches 700mm armor plate. The minus of the complex in the not very accurate radar guidance system due to the large dispersion of the radio beam. The T-72B has a more sophisticated rocket complex 9K120 "Svir". The complex also makes it possible to carry out an aimed launch of rockets at a distance of 100-4000м and 5000м as much as possible, but at the same time it has a high-precision semi-automatic laser guidance system. Rocket punches up to 750mm armor. A minus in the impossibility of an aimed missile launch from a course, but in general, the T-72B missile system is more advanced than its opponents and allows crushing the enemy even before he approaches the range of real artillery fire.

Another important component of the firepower of a tank is its technical vision. There is a widespread belief that one of the main reasons for the failure of the Iraqi T-72M in the battles with the coalition Abrams and Challengers is the lack of an automated LMS. Say, if there were T-64BV or T-80BV, then they would have burned all these "Abrams" there. A very naive proposition. Iraqi T-72M in the open desert and complete air supremacy aviation the enemy, including NAP - direct air support, there was simply nothing to catch there. Most of them were destroyed by aircraft or simply abandoned by crews and then finished off by coalition troops. Those T-72Ms who managed to survive and engage in a duel with the Abrams won in the first place because of very poor night vision and outdated projectiles. It is regrettable to admit that the T-72B tank’s infrared night vision kit is pretty bad. TKN-3 and 1K13-49 provide the maximum range of target detection / recognition of the “tank” type at night no more than 600-1300m in passive or active modes. This is 2-3 times less than the modern Western tanks equipped with thermal imaging cameras had. I hasten to disappoint fans of the T-80BV and T-64BV. Their devices commander: TKN-3V and gunner: TPN149-23 see about the same as the T-72B - 600-1300m. The exception is a small amount of the latest T-80BV. So we must assume that if the T-80BV were in the specific situation that the Iraqi T-72M found themselves in 1991, the results of night battles would not have been much better. In general, all three tanks, according to night vision capabilities, approximately correspond to the old tanks of the 50s: T-55/62, which set the heat for the Israeli Centurions and M48 in night battles in the 1967 war and T-10M. Apparently resting on our laurels has led to the fact that such an important parameter has not been given due attention for many years.

Another important aspect is the loading system and ammunition. All three tanks have automatic loaders. The most advanced AZ tank T-72B. It accommodates 22 shots, has compact dimensions and a higher survivability. The rate of fire 6-8 vyst / min. Its disadvantage is that the loading occurs in two steps i. the piercer goes twice: first, the projectile, then the charge, but this is nothing more than an operational characteristic that does not affect the combat properties of the tank. The T-64BV and T-80BV are equipped with less sophisticated ship-type MVs with vertically standing charges that are poorly adapted to the layout in the crew’s habitable fighting compartment. 28 shot capacity. The rate of fire is the same: 6-8 vyst / min. The advantage is that the loading takes place at one time - the projectile and the charge are simultaneously fed into the charging chamber. The total 45 ammunition shots for T-72B, 38 for T-80BV and 36 for T-64BV. Here the obvious leader is T-72B.

The last paragraph in this section is auxiliary armament. It in all three tanks consists of a PKT machine gun paired with an 7,62mm cannon and an anti-aircraft gun with an 12,7mm NSVT heavy machine gun. This installation is mounted on the commander’s observation complex. On a machine gun coupled with a gun, all three tanks are absolutely equal. At the same time, the anti-aircraft installation of the PZU-5 tank T-64BV with 12,7mm machine gun NSVT much better than the anti-aircraft installation "Cliff" tanks T-72B and T-80BV. ROM-5 has a remote control from the workplace of the tank commander and does not require his sticking out of the fire hatch. Installation "cliff" tanks T-72B and T-80BV open type with manual transmission.



Security:

We divide it into several paragraphs: Protection of the forehead, protection of the bead, protection of the stern, protection of the upper hemisphere, survivability of armor penetration, thermal signature of the tank and the noise level produced by the tank during operation.
Frontal projection protection is best for the T-72B. It is provided with multi-layered armor of the hull and turret, elements of semi-active booking, and the “Contact-1” mounted dynamic protection system. Needless to say, T-72B was one of the most powerful tanks in the world at the time of its appearance, and even today its booking is still quite high. Its minus is in the arrangement of the elements of the DZ on the frontal part of the tower: just on the armor itself, adjacent to it. T-80BV is somewhat worse in this respect, which also has multi-layered booking, but does not have semi-active booking. At the same time, the elements of the DZ complex on the tower of the T-80BV tank are much better positioned: a wedge. And the last in the list is T-64BV. It has a multi-layer booking and DZ, located on the type of tank T-80BV, i.e. wedge, but inferior to T-80BV and T-72B in armor thickness. Semi-active protection also does not have.
The defense of the turret of all three tanks is ensured by the incredible thickness of its armor and the Kontakt-1 dynamic defense complex. Here the leaders of the T-72B and T-80BV. Protection of the hull side is the most powerful in T-72B. It is provided by the onboard armor itself, onboard anti-cumulative rubber-fabric screens, DZK Kontakt-1 elements placed on these screens and covering almost the entire board to the stern (with the exception of a small sector in the MTO area) and supporting rollers of optimum diameter, which shield the lower part of the board opposite the ammunition in the AZ is not closed by the screen. All this allows the T-72B tank to feel quite confident in the battle in the city at a high saturation with its means of fighting against tanks: RPGs and ATGWs. If there are intact screens and intact DZ elements, this tank is almost invulnerable from the fire of the majority of such means into the frontal and side parts of the hull and tower. The downside is that the DZ T-72B elements are mounted directly on the onboard screen, which leads to some of its inward folding, but this again has no effect on the combat characteristics of the tank. However, this design looks at least not aesthetically pleasing. The second is T-64BV. He also has anti-cumulative screens, on which special power screens are fixed, on which, in turn, the elements of the “Contact-1” DZ are fixed. The advantage of this technical solution is that the T-64BV board, unlike the T-72B, looks even and neat - “armored”. The minus of this tank is that its very small diameter supporting wheels of the skating rinks badly shield the side of the tank below the screen in front of the MOH's ammunition. The very same board with a thickness of 70-80mm (at the level of 2 World War II heavy tanks) is not able to withstand an ATGM strike or a rocket-propelled grenade of a modern RPG. Worst of all with the protection of the side of the tank T-80BV. His side screens do not have DZ elements at all! Only on the fences. The armor of the board itself is the same as in T-72B and T-64BV. Track rollers of smaller diameter than T-72B and leave decent open areas below protivokumulyativnogo screen.
The defense of the stern of the turret is very poor in all three tanks and is their most vulnerable point. Protection of the rear of the hull is worst of all for the T-80BV, which, due to its gas turbine engine, has large duct channels. Theoretically, a fragment or a bullet can fly into the engine through them. Reservation of the T-72B and T-64BV poop is solid, it is better, but still leaves much to be desired.
On top, all three tanks are well protected somewhere up to half of their length. Then everything becomes very bad. Plus, poor protection at the hatches mehvod.
On the vitality of the leaders for the umpteenth time T-72B. Its carousel AZ is very compact, located at the bottom, where it is protected from the front with powerful frontal armor, lateral side armor, screens with DZ and support rollers, rear MTO and engine. MZ tanks T-64BV and T-80BV with vertically standing charges have a much larger projection area and are much more vulnerable. Breaking the hull side opposite the MOH will immediately lead to hitting the ammunition with all the ensuing consequences. It is easier to do this than with the T-72B: the T-80BB does not have DZ elements on the side screen, the T-64BV has them, but below the screen, skinny plates almost do not close the board. At the same time, it should be noted that in the event of a detonation of the ammunition assembly, the crew of all three tanks die instantly. Is no exception and T-72B. Unfortunately, this Achilles heel of Russian tanks has not been overcome to this day either.
According to the thermal signature of the “problem” of the T-72B - its exhaust goes to the port side, not back.
In terms of noise in the leaders by a wide margin T-80BV. The front noise of his engine is almost inaudible. “Whispering death” in this respect favorably differs from its diesel counterparts T-72B and T-64BV.
In general, in terms of the overall level of security and survivability, the best tank is the T-72B. The second and third place is shared by T-80BV and T-64BV. The location of the unit in the fighting compartment with people, without any protection, is today considered an anachronism.


Mobility, maintainability, comfort:

The most spacious and comfortable: T-72B. Flat AZ of this tank provides a completely acceptable space inside. If desired, in the tower you can even go to bed, after removing the cannon fence. There is a passage to the department of management. However, the T-72B controls in the tower are less conveniently located than in T-80BV or T-64BV. All three tanks have one disease - with the gun positioned straight and its elevation angle zero, the driver cannot leave the tank through his hatch. If in peaceful conditions it is still possible to constantly keep the tower slightly rotated, then in battle it is not always possible. If it is impossible to exit through his hatch, the driver T-72B can safely get out through one of the two tower hatches. In T-80BV and T-64BV tanks, an unsuccessful MOH completely blocks the passage from the command and control compartment to the combat compartment. To form a passage, you must remove the cassettes from the MOH. The driver cannot make it from his seat. Such a design and layout of the BO of T-64BV and T-80BV tanks cost the lives of more than one driver. In the fighting compartment T-80BV and T-64BV is also much closer than in T-72B. In fairness it should be noted that even T-72B is much inferior to Western tanks with their brutal towers in interior space.
The maximum speed leader T-80BV. Powerful gas turbine engine GTD-1000ТF 1100l.s power. It provides this tank with 70-80km / h speed on the highway. Features T-72B with a B-84-1 engine in 840л.с. and T-64BV with 5-TDF engine in 700л.с. much more modest here: 60km / h and 60,5km / h, respectively. At the same time, the best T-72B is according to the dynamics of acceleration from a spot. The “steam” torque of the almost 40-liter V12 is enough to jerk the 44,5-ton slug from a place with low acceleration and to maintain a decent average speed on rough terrain. The T-80BV has better handling and can also go quickly along the “cross-path”, but is inferior in dynamics from low speeds to the T-72B due to the fact that its turbine does not have a tight connection with the output shaft. On the one hand, this is an advantage - the tank will not stall, even if it hits the wall. On the other hand, the acceleration dynamics is somewhat rubber. As an outsider T-64BV. Turbo engine piston even in 700l.s. a very small volume obviously suffers a shortage of torque, especially at low speeds and is poorly equipped to carry an 42,4-tonne tank. Even the installation of a 1000-strong engine 6-TD on T-64BM did not give him the advantage in dynamics and average speed over T-72B. The control of all three tanks is outdated - the BKP have long gone out of fashion. At the same time, modifying them with the use of a “robot” for shifting gears may well provide many advantages over conventional, power-consuming, complex and expensive “automatic torque converter” of Western tanks.
Engines. The GTD-1000ТТ Т-80БВ and В-84-1 Т-72Б divide the championship. For the first high power, smoothness, low noise and excellent starting characteristics. For the second reliability and excellent traction. Among the shortcomings: the high cost and the fear of dust of the T-80BV gas turbine engine and the difficulty in mounting / dismounting the T-72B diesel engine. Worst of all - the turbo piston 5-TDF tank T-64BV. It has a good overall power, but it is extremely capricious, not tight, loving to “eat” oil, unreliable and prone to overheating engine. Another plus is its relatively fast replacement.
Running gear The best in T-80BV and T-72B. Give the first place to someone specifically difficult. The T-80BV is slightly smoother, the T-72B has the best bead protection due to large rollers and holds explosions on mines better. Both are great at keeping the caterpillar. In service, do not strain. Against this background, the chassis T-64BV - tin. Something like the chassis of the KV-1 "Ghost", but unlike the latter made much worse. Very thin small plates of road wheels, which even did not bother to put on rubber, do not distribute the pressure well on the track. Maneuvering on heavy soils, as well as hitting the edge of a caterpillar on a high obstacle, easily leads to dropping the caterpillar. In doing so, it turns out the fences with all their contents and, if the caterpillar has flown in, it can damage the elements of the undercarriage. Towing a tank with a flying caterpillar is problematic. Track rollers get stuck in the ground. In terms of rigidity, the suspension is approximately at the level of T-72B, but it creaks and clanges when moving much stronger than the latter.



Points are set on a 10-point scale. At the same time, the highest 10 ball is assigned if any parameter corresponds to the highest index in world tank building (for example, the T-90 T-10 Forehead armor corresponds to the 26 score, and the T-0 Fore armor to the 200 score) . At once I will make a reservation that even the latest generation of tanks capable of gaining more than XNUMX balls does not exist yet.



In the end, with a small margin from the T-80BV leads T-72B. He is the cheapest trinity tank. Apparently it was not for nothing that his base was chosen for development.

Tank T-72B
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.ru
129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 17 July 2012 08: 38 New
    19
    Great article. He himself saw the T-64, T-72 and T-80 at the exercises in the 1991 year, which were carried out in order to identify the modernization potential and unification of all combat vehicles.
  2. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 17 July 2012 08: 40 New
    10
    The article is quite detailed, but after reading it, it only got stronger in the opinion that it was still a big mistake to spray forces on three tanks so close in characteristics!
    1. wown
      wown 17 July 2012 15: 44 New
      +4
      Do not forget, they were produced at different plants and at different times ...
    2. Bronis
      Bronis 17 July 2012 21: 12 New
      18
      It seems to me that it is more expedient to compare only the T-72 and the T-80. The T-64 is a vehicle developed almost a decade earlier. The 64 was in many ways an experimental machine. She began to enter the troops in 1964, and was officially adopted in the 69th - brought to mind.
      As for the three MBTs at the same time. Let's go back to that time. Soviet tank park - several tens of thousands of relatively cheap, but already obsolete T-55/62. It is physically impossible to quickly replace this park, and it is necessary, mainly, in the European theater of operations. Accordingly, the situation can be qualitatively improved by saturating the advanced units with the most powerful (at that time tanks) - T-64. These "super tanks" became the edge of the USSR's punishing tank sword. But, since the tank was new, it took a long time to finish it. It's time to change not only the "edge", but the rest. We needed a fairly new, but not very expensive tank - the main "fighter". It was the T-72, which "grew" from the T-64, but more adapted to mass production.
      The T-80 is a different line from the T-64 - an updated and refined "spearhead" - adapted to the realities of Western Europe. The T-80 (like the T-64) first of all arrived in the western districts and the GDR itself. The lighter undercarriage and gas turbine engine allow the T-80 to reach higher speeds than the T-72. And the European autobahns and the alleged specifics of the conduct of hostilities demanded this. So we got the "breakthrough tanks": the "experienced" T-64 and the "finished" T-80. Both are quite expensive, but more adapted to Europe and with a more advanced LMS.
      Thus, the T-72 is the main tank fighter (more than 30000 units have been released), and the T-64 and T-80 (together about 12000) are more specialized vehicles.
      As for the savings from one type of MBT - I do not argue. But the time was such that they tried to collect the maximum number of tanks per unit of time. If one MBT was introduced, then a number of factories producing other tanks would inevitably lose production rates, which was considered unacceptable. And at that time, there were much more types of tanks in service than the 3. court is worth adding T-54 / 55 / 62 and even later Is-s. But if you want a huge tank fleet, it won’t work out differently ... Plus, I admit the influence of the military-industrial lobby, but it was not decisive, most likely.
    3. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 17 July 2017 05: 36 New
      0
      The power of the "tank fist" was clearly excessive. Even the T-10M and T-44 remained in service until the 80s. And if the use of the T-10M can still be understood (they were used more likely as bunkers), then the use of the T-44 until the 80s generally does not go into any gates. And you say MBT ...
      In my opinion, after the appearance of the T-80 - T-64A / B, it was necessary to put or dispose of the maximum for storage at all.
  3. urich
    urich 17 July 2012 08: 47 New
    +5
    Great article! Respect to the author. A little addition. The dimensions of the tank are not taken into account. The smallest dimensions of the T-64BV. He still holds the palm of the lowest tank. I think under certain circumstances, these few centimeters can add to the survival of the crew.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 17 July 2012 11: 20 New
      +7
      Maybe in WWII it would have saved him. Well, it’s so perfect for the Zapodny tanks that this pair of centimeters doesn’t solve anything.
      1. g1kk
        g1kk 17 July 2012 21: 06 New
        +5
        But with a grenade launcher to get into Abrams or t-72 is a completely different matter
      2. urich
        urich 17 July 2012 23: 08 New
        +6
        Now compare which target is easier to hit. Do you really think that the projectile hits exactly the point where the gunner aimed the jackdaw? I will tell you a terrible military secret: all gunners aim at the center of the target! But the shell WHY SOMETHING (for those who have not delved into the topic) does not always fall under the epaulettes of the tower or the mask of the gun!
    2. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 17 July 2017 06: 41 New
      0
      Everything in comparison is comprehended. What is 2 cm for a tank? You will not see the difference in centimeters with all desire. Tens of centimeters - yes. The difference in a meter or more is unconditional. That is how Abram-s and T-64/72/80 are so different. In the following modifications of the T-90, on the contrary, I would increase the height of the tower - to increase the vertical pointing angles. In hilly or mountainous terrain, this can be critical. For Western tanks, the BH + 20-10 angles are characteristic, for our T-shekels the BH + 14-6 angles, which can be critical in mountainous terrain. A large increase in the height of the tower is not required in my opinion, about 10 cm, this is not a disaster.
  4. Yarbay
    Yarbay 17 July 2012 08: 55 New
    +2
    *** Points are set on a 10-point scale. *** - points set are not clear, that is, why in one case or another 4 points, in another 5 !! ??
    Unobjective counting!

    *** Worst of all with the side protection of the T-80BV tank. Its on-board screens do not have DZ elements at all! *** - and why is it so difficult to install them ???
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 July 2012 10: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Yarbay
      Unobjective counting!


      And most likely even stupid --- the T-72's LMS is 4 out of 10, but in the end it is the coolest. It just doesn't clear how it turned out that the T-80 went into the series if there was a miracle tank T-72.

      And how does it turn out that with a hinge of the same set of DZ Kontakt at the T-72 for some reason, the security increases more than others?
      1. Splin
        Splin 17 July 2012 10: 42 New
        +1
        American women bought one thing in Ukraine that year, the T-80BV. They consider this tank the best in this letter series.
        1. Prohor
          Prohor 17 July 2012 11: 52 New
          13
          Yes, they bought it to improve the methods of its destruction! Only an idiot can sell his latest equipment to a potential adversary!
          1. Kars
            Kars 17 July 2012 12: 14 New
            +6
            Will you stop trading with China? Or do you think the T-80 that you sold to South Korea does not count?
            1. Prohor
              Prohor 17 July 2012 13: 46 New
              +3
              Yes, you can not trade in tanks ... I know one thing for sure - "Abrams", "Leopard", "Challenger" will never be sold to Russia. For no money!
              1. Kars
                Kars 17 July 2012 22: 41 New
                +2
                Quote: Prokhor
                I know one thing for sure - "Abrams", "Leopard", "Challenger" will never be sold to Russia

                Have you tried to buy? Italian wheeled tanks can sell you, maybe they will sell something else.
                1. Prohor
                  Prohor 17 July 2012 23: 36 New
                  +2
                  But who needs them, these scooters are worthless ?!
                  No, they won’t sell the tanks, and they won’t let us sell them to Egypt, and nobody ...
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 18 July 2012 00: 00 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Prokhor
                    these scooters are worthless ?!

                    There are some generals.

                    Quote: Prokhor
                    No, they won’t sell the tanks, and they won’t let us sell them to Egypt, and nobody ...

                    But you all the same try --- especially from Egypt, maybe buy.

                    But all the same, did you understand the mistake in your words?
                    Quote: Prokhor
                    Only an idiot can sell his latest equipment to a potential adversary!

                    You sold the T-80 to South Korea too. And for Ukraine, the USA is not a potential adversary.
                    And by the way, documents, drawings of parts of NATO and US equipment on Soviet tanks from T-80 inclusively were received even with the withdrawal of the Soviet group of troops from East Germany.
                    1. Bronis
                      Bronis 18 July 2012 09: 51 New
                      +2
                      Yes, NATO received especially much during the reunification of Germany, up to the Mig-29 regiment and various air defense systems (up to C-200, it seems). And most importantly, it got people who knew how to use it ...
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 18 July 2012 16: 26 New
                      +2
                      And a little more information about Ukrainian tanks in the USA.
                      They sold 4 3 with KAZ 1 with air conditioning. You can also search for an article where all the most modern infantry fighting vehicles were brought to the USA. Ukraine in BTT is an export-oriented country, and you don’t have to label it as potential opponents, friends --- we have several countries with territorial pritenzia - of which only Romania can do something and everything.

                      On Steel and Fire srach on this occasion is noble.
                      And the photos there are valid.
                      1. byrnas
                        byrnas 18 July 2012 17: 40 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Kars
                        we have several countries with territorial claims - of these, only Romania can decide on anything and everything.

                        It has long been decided and in full swing distributes its passports to residents of Ukraine living in border areas, there is an ordinary peaceful expansion, on the turn Hungarians in Transcarpathia .........
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 18 July 2012 17: 48 New
                        0
                        Quote: byrnas
                        It has long been decided and in full swing distributes its passports to residents of Ukraine living in border areas, there is an ordinary peaceful expansion, on the turn Hungarians in Transcarpathia .........



                        yes, yes of course. This fairy tale has been going on for years. Since the time of Transnistria.
                        Ukraine is a unitary state, and if anyone with a Romanian passport wants to leave for Romania, we are kindly requested.
                        I’m more interested in the question of the Danube Canal.
            2. ksan
              ksan 28 September 2013 15: 47 New
              0
              Prokhor (1) RU July 17, 2012 13:46 p.m. ↑

              Yes, you can not trade in tanks ... I know one thing for sure - "Abrams", "Leopard", "Challenger" will never be sold to Russia. For no money!
              You can buy through 3 countries, I do not think that the SVR and the GRU have no brains or the ability to "crank" such a scheme in principle.
          2. Sober
            Sober 17 July 2012 14: 10 New
            +4
            Quote: Kars
            Will you stop trading with China? Or do you think the T-80 that you sold to South Korea does not count?

            no need to compare gs with p ... china export options are coming, and this .. is not there, what it really is! if rockets, then two fly less! if tanks, then do not have the latest armor modifications! if something else, then that))) and so on) + everything is coded, well or partially ... besides, they don’t sell the latest, if it doesn’t work out, something else is newer))
            1. Splin
              Splin 17 July 2012 14: 26 New
              +2
              Quote: Sober
              no need to compare gs with p ... china export options are coming,

              Ukraine sold BV to Americans after 35 T-80BV tanks went to Africa from Belarus. You are right, you bought for study. And I, too, am outraged, but here is another question - they bought not such a 64-ku or 72B, but such a car. So she is the best.
              1. Sober
                Sober 17 July 2012 14: 57 New
                +2
                Quote: Splin
                So she is the best.

                not a fact, maybe others are already there)
                1. Splin
                  Splin 17 July 2012 15: 00 New
                  +1
                  Of course there is, I just had a conversation about this trinity - they are the main tanks in Russia and Ukraine.
              2. mkpda
                mkpda 18 July 2012 14: 24 New
                +3
                For Americans, the T-80BV from this trinity is the most interesting model for the development of Abrams ...
              3. vitya29111973
                vitya29111973 18 February 2013 01: 00 New
                +1
                t 72 sold in the United States, a great friend of the Soviet Union Ceausescu back in the 70s or early 80s.
                1. Grigory_78
                  Grigory_78 17 July 2017 06: 47 New
                  0
                  There was an export modification. It is armored much weaker than the original. By the way, there was also export in Iraq. Only with Georgia and Ukraine did the USA have the opportunity to study original tanks.
        2. wown
          wown 17 July 2012 15: 45 New
          +3
          the latest technology ... t-80 !!!!! what are you dear
          1. Grigory_78
            Grigory_78 17 July 2017 06: 49 New
            0
            Yes, it infuriates me too. Take for example the T-55 of the 60s of the release, stick the last generation walkie-talkie into it - and immediately begin to call it the latest tank. Idiocy.
    2. Sober
      Sober 17 July 2012 14: 06 New
      +3
      Kars,
      it says that the armor is the same, but is set by a different figure .. not everywhere covered! + the form of the tank itself .. everything is written there))) you generally read, What is written or where? one didn’t read it, the second one too .. it is necessary to read EVERYTHING, but did not quickly go over and that’s it ...
      1. Kars
        Kars 17 July 2012 14: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: Sober
        but set by a different figure .. not everywhere covered!


        DZ can be put as you like, even in two layers - so this is not an indicator.
        Quote: Sober
        do you even read what is written or where?

        I read it on Valor and here a couple of days nazat voiced that I was waiting for this article.
        Quote: Sober
        it is necessary to read everything, but did not quickly go over and that's it

        And you can read not only this article but also monographs on these machines.
        Quote: Sober
        if rockets, then two fly less! if tanks, then do not have the latest armor modifications!

        Yes of course.

        But the most ordinary T-80U from parts of the Russian Ministry of Defense were sent to South Korea.
        Quote: Sober
        Well, it’s also written there that the counting goes on all tanks in general)))

        The calculation itself is not correct ---- how can one compare the LMS and the power of on-board booking in one calculation? Yes, and the numbers themselves are mostly contrived.
        1. Sober
          Sober 17 July 2012 15: 05 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          DZ can be put as you like, even in two layers - so this is not an indicator.

          as this is not an indicator))) indicator and what else)
          And you can read not only this article but also monographs on these machines.

          What does the other article have to do with it? it's about this one!
          Yes of course.

          what dada of course? what’s wrong, I don’t understand ..
          The calculation itself is not correct ---- how can one compare the OMS and the power of on-board booking in one calculation?

          they compare the OMS with the OMS)))
          1. Kars
            Kars 17 July 2012 15: 30 New
            +1
            Quote: Sober
            as this is not an indicator))) indicator and what else)

            True, I’ll give a diagram of the T-64BV and now prove that he has a forehead on 7 by giving the T-72BV plate
            Quote: Sober
            What does the other article have to do with it? it's about this one!

            But what are you? Apart from this article, there is also a sea of ​​information and the light on this article has not come together. Do not think so narrowly.
            Quote: Sober
            what dada of course? what’s wrong, I don’t understand ..

            It may have been truncated during the USSR, but after the collapse, China received standard models --- for example, do you think C-300 has a smaller lesion area? Who will buy such truncated weapons then.
            Quote: Sober
            they compare the OMS with the OMS)))


            And in the end, the numbers go to the general katel ---- therefore, if you then misinterpret the LMS, for example, on the 100 scale, --- T-72 40, T-64 --70 and then fold it.
            1. 77bor1973
              77bor1973 17 July 2012 19: 31 New
              +2
              With the best TMS on the T-64 but more shaking, due to the unimportant running gear and a smoother movement of the T-72, the numbers will be like 50 to 50!
              1. Kars
                Kars 17 July 2012 19: 38 New
                +3
                Quote: 77bor1973
                due to the unimportant running gear and smoother movement of the T-72

                Can you prove it? The T-64 undercarriage provided a smoother ride better. Yes, and allegations of negligence are pretty poor.
                Not talking already about shaking ---- I wonder why they came up with a stabilizer?
    3. AER_69
      AER_69 17 July 2012 22: 16 New
      +6
      For some more important indicators, you just need more points. Not 10 maximum, but for example 20 or 30. Then the T-80 could well gain more.
      bully
  5. Sober
    Sober 17 July 2012 14: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: Yarbay

    *** Points are set on a 10-point scale. *** - points set are not clear, that is, why in one case or another 4 points, in another 5 !! ??
    Unobjective counting!

    Well, it’s also written there that the counting goes on all tanks in general))) i.e. for all serial-world)) i.e. they took some general indicators of all tanks, looked, counted, but pulled them into the table, only for those that interest us in this article))))
  • neri73-r
    neri73-r 17 July 2012 09: 21 New
    10
    In fairness, it is worth noting that even the T-72B is much inferior to Western tanks in their internal space with their brutal towers.


    Of course inferior, respectively, and in the projection it is smaller, and this is another question, what is better - to be less noticeable or comfortable ??????? After all, they fight, and not women ride! And it's better to be tired and alive than dead!
    1. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 17 July 2012 10: 13 New
      0
      For modern PTS, a few centimeters of height have little effect on the probability of a hit. And if you take into account the fact that with a tight layout, the crew is not separated from the shells, then the big question is whether it will be possible to return alive.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 17 July 2012 11: 34 New
        +4
        and try to get into the moving T-72 tank in which the BC in the AZ is located on the floor.
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 17 July 2012 12: 24 New
          +2
          American tankers somehow fell into Iraq.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 17 July 2012 13: 08 New
            +8
            Ask how and where they got into reality and not through the Discovery channel)))
            For example, refer to KARS comrade; he has a lot of interesting things about this.
            And I recommend you read what tanks the Iraqis had.
            It’s also interesting to compare geography such as European theater of war and Iraq. You will learn a lot of interesting things.
            1. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast 17 July 2012 13: 44 New
              +1
              Provide links. We are pleased to read it.
              In turn, I recommend from myself a good analysis of one comrade:

              The rough reality of a tight layout.

              1. Probably, the main drawback of the dense layout in its classical design is a sharp increase in explosion and fire hazard when breaking through, consisting of the placement of: a) fuel; b) ammunition. With a small reserved volume, it is determined not on the basis of a decrease in the likelihood of damage and isolation, but on the basis of a small free space. The compactness of the T tanks actually served them poorly - the decrease in the chances of hitting with a decrease in silhouette was more than compensated by the fact that tanks or shells would be hit against almost any trajectory of penetration.
              ......


              http://bauris.livejournal.com/10597.html
    2. Raven1972
      Raven1972 21 July 2012 18: 40 New
      +6
      And for the sake of justice, we add - the lack of an automatic loader on Western tanks as such .... Especially on Abrams captured beyond measure ... Because of this, both the turrets and the tank dimensions themselves are larger than ours ....
      The tank can’t shoot - AZ Joe is tired .... laughing
  • sergo0000
    sergo0000 17 July 2012 09: 25 New
    +7
    Good article ! I have long been waiting for a similar one on the site. +++
    I myself served on the T-64 B about 72 and 80 only know firsthand! I learned a lot for myself and I'm glad that the old dinosaur is not very old! winked
  • mkpda
    mkpda 17 July 2012 09: 28 New
    +7
    I would like to understand why the author chose for comparison precisely these modifications of these tanks? And for a better understanding, I would like to see the compliance of the rating scale with any specific numbers or parameters.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 17 July 2012 09: 33 New
    +3
    Holyiivar !!!!!
    Reade set Go!!!!!
    1. Green 413-1685
      Green 413-1685 17 July 2012 13: 17 New
      +5
      So no, somehow freshly. For a fat one, you need to invite here to discuss this topic: andrei_bt (fapuyuschih on the Ukrainian military-industrial complex), and Alexei Khlopotov, but already a fan of Uralvagonzavod and the military industrial complex of the Russian Federation. Then there will be a battle of the titans))
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 17 July 2012 13: 51 New
        +8
        The battle of the titans will be when the whole trinity comes out for a month at the training ground! To the tundra, taiga, steppe, desert! So long as they all three do not train together, do not shoot - there will be only idle speculation.
        Champions in the ring come to light, not in the articles!
  • redcod
    redcod 17 July 2012 09: 56 New
    +2
    Good article. Add information on tanks of potential opponents to it.
  • Nubia2
    Nubia2 17 July 2012 10: 17 New
    +3
    Quote: urich
    I think under certain circumstances, these few centimeters can add crew survival

    For modern surveillance / guidance tools, these centimeters have absolutely no meaning.
    1. urich
      urich 17 July 2012 17: 36 New
      +5
      Did you shoot a tank yourself? And on the go? And on the go on shitty terrain and in shitty weather? And then you’ll understand what a shot is even up to 1500 m. From the side, it just seems that he put a tick and the shell got to where the tick is aimed. And do not la la that suo replaces brains with 100%
    2. Raven1972
      Raven1972 21 July 2012 18: 48 New
      +1
      And the fact that the visibility of a tank with a low silhouette less does this mean nothing? Even with a thermal imager ... there are funds from TV detection ....
  • Splin
    Splin 17 July 2012 10: 48 New
    +3
    Apparently it was not in vain that his base was chosen for development.


    What was the choice? Put the B-series engine into an XNUMX's, like stuffing a lawn engine into Mers
  • borisst64
    borisst64 17 July 2012 10: 56 New
    +3
    I read the article on the source site. The author immediately stipulates the possibility of further discussion and discussion.
  • mkpda
    mkpda 17 July 2012 12: 06 New
    +6
    Regarding the ammunition, the MOH and the AZ. As far as I understand, in real combat conditions, using that part of the ammunition that is outside the MH and AZ is very problematic. Therefore, when comparing tanks for this parameter, it is necessary first of all to evaluate by the capacity of the MOH and AZ, where 28 shots of the MZ look preferable to 22 shots of the AZ.

    A small addition from personal impressions. In training, I had to face the T-80 at the tankodrome (I drove the BMP myself), when it comes at you - it's a real ghost, it is almost silent for the observer and leaves a strong impression. We were specially instructed so that by chance someone would not crush us.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 17 July 2012 12: 11 New
      +2
      where 28 shots of the Ministry of Defense looks preferable to 22 rounds of AZ.
      BUT at the same time AZ is much safer located. And not by ship as in the Ministry of Health
      1. mkpda
        mkpda 17 July 2012 12: 35 New
        +2
        Of course, the probability of defeat of the Ministry of Defense is higher than the AZ, but both types do not have adequate protection and their defeat leads to the destruction of the tank. I focused on real ammunition, which the crew is able to use with maximum efficiency, because in most cases the one who was able to successfully use the weapon first is the winner (regardless of the type of target). In fact, the T-72 carries half the ammunition for nothing, leaving the tank in battle with an empty MZ or AZ is a sure way to lose it without harming the enemy.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 17 July 2012 13: 17 New
          +2
          have proper protection
          Chitot try to get on the combat unit on a moving tank with a covered screen of the area.
          I focused on real ammunition, which the crew is able to use with maximum efficiency
          And here it’s interesting especially when compared with the zakidnym on Western tanks.
          How many black joe will maintain the rate of fire. Especially if the tank does not stop for a minute. IMHO it is better to be able to stably shoot 22 rounds from the AZ with guaranteed supply than to have an unstable supply.
          1. mkpda
            mkpda 17 July 2012 13: 30 New
            +1
            In my opinion, the probability of hitting a non-mechanized warhead in our tanks is even higher than the AZ and MZ - the additional ammunition is usually in its place (unless of course it has been removed in advance) and is scattered throughout the available tank volume, and in AZ and MZ it may already be used.
            Comparing AZ and MZ, I think that it is necessary to take into account the difference in their capacity, any tank with any type of feed with empty mechanized laying is prey, not a predator. With manual feed in an intense clash it will be sad on any type.
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 17 July 2012 13: 41 New
              +3
              In my opinion, the probability of hitting a non-mechanized warhead in our tanks is even higher than the AZ and MZ - the additional ammunition is usually in its place (unless of course it has been removed in advance) and is scattered throughout the available tank volume, and in AZ and MZ it may already be used.
              That is why they decided to bring it to the feed niche with BCS
              With manual feed in an intense clash it will be sad on any type.
              Gentlemen, tankers, do not tell me if there are standards for the use of shells from non-mechanized ammunition?
              1. Eugene
                Eugene 17 July 2012 15: 15 New
                +4
                Not a tanker, but read that in Chechnya shells were not put at all in non-mechanized laying. And when designing the T-90SE, they generally wanted to abandon it, because 22/28 is enough for modern combat.
                By the way, the Leopard-2 has a lousy feature, in the unapproachable availability of the crew there are either 15 or 17 shells, the rest in the aft niche, access to which can only be obtained if the tower is rotated.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 July 2012 15: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Eugene
                  the crew is either 15 or 17 shells, the rest in the aft niche


                  On the contrary, it’s easy to access in the stern, but in the installation near the driver’s mechanic they are difficult to access.
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 18 July 2012 17: 40 New
                    +2
                    Ammunition Leo-2 (to the left of the driver)

                    In the tower
          2. Raven1972
            Raven1972 21 July 2012 18: 50 New
            +2
            good Yeah, I already wrote above - the tank does not shoot - AZ Joe is tired ... lol
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 18 July 2012 17: 35 New
          +1
          Quote: mkpda
          Of course, the probability of defeat of the Ministry of Defense is higher than the AZ, but both types do not have adequate protection and their defeat leads to the destruction of the tank.
          On the T-72, it is flatter and onboard covered by track rollers, which are larger than the T-64 and T-80. The T-90 conveyor is additionally armored.
          1. Kars
            Kars 18 July 2012 17: 52 New
            +2
            I love this picture from Khlopotov

            By the way, a link to one article was sent to me today. There is no desire?
            http://glavcom.blogspot.co.il/2012_03_01_archive.html


            And another freshman with Pasha Mercedes
            How Russian tank building was destroyed

            http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/148452.html
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 18 July 2012 21: 17 New
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              By the way, a link to one article was sent to me today. There is no desire?
              http://glavcom.blogspot.co.il/2012_03_01_archive.html

              Article with rotten. A lot of lies and fraud.
              Some military statements are passed off as truth (for example, about the high cost of the T-90 tank: "The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Ground Forces, Colonel-General Alexander Postnikov, said that for the money that Uralvagonzavod demanded for a new T-90A tank, it would be easier to buy three German Leopards ").
              It is said about reducing the production of T-90 at the Indian plant, but it is modestly silent about the fact that at the same time the number of purchases from Russia was increased.
              Dynamic protection is compared: the T-80 is one of the most practical with the T-90 protection with the cheapest option.
              "...... The T-90A model of 2004 with a V-92 engine with a capacity of 1000 hp in terms of driving performance is at the level of the T-72B model 89, since the gearbox of the T-90A tank gets 720-730 hp Thus, Uralvagonzavod managed to catch up with the T-14B mod. 72g tank in terms of running capabilities only in the next 89 years ..... "
              etc. and so on
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 July 2012 21: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Article with rotten. A lot of lies and fraud



                Nope, huh?

                and by the way, by the way, there’s almost no direct one, and the statements of some military men were by the way.
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Dynamic protection is compared: the T-80 is one of the most practical with the T-90 with the cheapest option

                And here - for some reason, I wouldn’t - T-90 as Nikam is positioned as a better tank than the T-80 and more advanced, but it turns out it needs to be compared differently, bipartite to compare? And I didn’t know that the T-90 has cheap options .
                Here's a video how ugly it gets?
                So from UVZshna patriots about Ukrainian tanks articles of similar quality.

                And what about the supplies of T-90 from UVZ to India, something passed by, how much, when?
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 18 July 2012 23: 12 New
                  +1
                  There was an article on the tanks of India, where it was written about. The T-90 on their assembly line is inferior to its Russian counterpart in terms of build quality, so their production was reduced in favor of additional purchases. The production of their Arjun was reduced several times. A large order for tank shells (they will buy in Russia). By the way, rather old sub-caliber weapons will be purchased ("Mango"), but against the equipment of potential enemies of India, their penetrating properties should be enough.
                  I did not save the article, because in it, nothing, in my opinion, was special.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 18 July 2012 23: 19 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    T-90, standing on their conveyor belt, is inferior in quality of assembly to the Russian counterpart


                    By the way, this also does not paint the Russian military-industrial complex ---- India paid money for it.
                    But about direct deliveries from UVZ of new tanks to India, I have not heard for a long time.
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    Production of his Arjun reduced at times

                    They have an approximate excuse, like the Russian Defense Ministry with T-90MS, they are expecting weather from Arjun 2 from the sea - but the program itself has not been stopped.


                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    By the way, the subcaliber rather old ones will be purchased ("Mango"),

                    But there are simply no others, unfortunately I have not heard (maybe a military secret) about the mass production of new BPS in Russia. We also have a new type - but there are no customers.
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    but against the technology of potential enemies of India, their penetrative properties should be enough.

                    This is also a type of reassurance --- Pakistani T-80UD will keep them, and I wouldn’t have taken off 2000 Office so abruptly.
                    1. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 18 July 2012 23: 46 New
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      But there are simply no others, unfortunately I have not heard (maybe a military secret) about the mass production of new BPS in Russia.


                      An assortment of ours, not new.
                      the first red arrow points to "Lead"
                      the second - possibly on "Lead-2"
                      "" mango "- if I'm not mistaken, the third (according to the bottom picture)

                      Incidentally, the length of the "lead" is 640mm, and the MZ of the modernized T-72 and T-90 are designed for a projectile length of up to 740mm.
                      We are armed with a BOPS, which they say of "increased power" (I can not guarantee that I quoted it correctly) - there were no detailed performance characteristics (even markings) on it.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 19 July 2012 00: 01 New
                        0
                        In the pictures from the stands this is one thing, but the boxes in the warehouses or in the combat storage of tanks is another.
                        Same as serial production in factories.
                        Not to be confused. We have BM-44-1 and so what?
    2. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 17 July 2017 07: 02 New
      0
      Regarding the ammunition - it depends on the type of battle. If you need to shoot a lot and there is where to hide in place - loading a full ammunition makes sense. He took refuge, laid down non-mechanized ammunition in the AZ, then fight on. If there is a good chance of shelling, the shells are charged only in the AZ. Shot 2/3 - out of the battle to replenish ammunition. As usual, the results of the battle depend, among other things, on the competent use of technology. Some on the T-34 successfully fight, while others give the T-90 - there will be no result.
  • M. Peter
    M. Peter 17 July 2012 12: 28 New
    10
    I read the plus to the author. It was very interesting to read.
    Although he dealt only with the T-72. A lot of time spent dripping in a diesel engine. Fuel oil on the ears was. smile

    And so personally, I think that the choice in favor of the T-72 (T-90) fell for a completely different reason. All the same, the production base is all in Russia. The remaining tanks in this regard have too much dispersion over the territory of the former USSR. Due to the circumstances, that is, the loss of technological links between enterprises, the choice in favor of the T-72 is quite obvious. As well as the choice of Ukraine tank T-64.
    1. Sober
      Sober 17 July 2012 14: 14 New
      0
      leon-iv,
      I don’t think that due to the loss of technology)) where where, but not in the tanks)) rather that those tanks cannot have a future, i.e. even better modifications! those. from T72 you can still do something even better, but the rest do not roll! Will the same armature based on t72 be?
      1. Splin
        Splin 17 July 2012 14: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Sober
        where where, but not in tanks)) rather that those tanks cannot have a future, t

        Hindus depend on the T-80UD, which are in the packs, and only the engine and the even distance between the rollers distinguish Bars from Bars. They do not compare their Arjun with the T-90, but with the T-80UD - what they write about the T-90, I do not risk voicing it on the Russian forum.
        1. Sober
          Sober 17 July 2012 15: 11 New
          +1
          Splin,
          what does the t90 have to do ????? deeply modified t72b, here are those and t90, essentially the same thing)
          1. Splin
            Splin 17 July 2012 15: 35 New
            -1
            I mean, they can really appreciate the difference between tanks and give the palm to "tanks without a future." Ural engines lose their power in their heat, stall in the mountains, Belarusian "Pines" sweat from their climate. AZ is limited in the length of APFSDS shells (in our opinion, BOPS)
    2. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 17 July 2017 07: 21 New
      0
      As for the choice between the T-64 / T-72 in Russia and Ukraine, the result was obvious, you are right. But Russia's rejection of the T-80 occurred only due to its high cost. Even the minimally modernized T-72 (which T-90, object 188) was purchased almost piece by piece. Object 187 was noticeably more expensive. And the T-80 is even more expensive, and significantly. Tell me, what components of the T-80 were produced outside the RSFSR?
  • Fidain
    Fidain 17 July 2012 13: 04 New
    -1
    Odno ne ponyatno, chto za punkt chto tak trudno xoroshi postavit, teplovizor, normalno bronirovat, kak nuzhno a ne kak polucheca?
    1. Splin
      Splin 17 July 2012 14: 38 New
      0
      And where to get the money ?. We are not in the EU with Russia; we, like Athens, will not give us 40 billion dollars!
    2. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 17 July 2017 07: 27 New
      0
      With thermal imagers, Russia has the same problem as with microchips for space. Their production is very outdated, now they are trying to restore and reach the world level. But it is hard. And they don’t give sanctions to buy abroad. The same Johnson-Venik amendment, which has been in force since the Soviet Union and was formally, but not actually canceled in 2010, if I am not mistaken. And right there they adopted Magnitsky’s law and not only it. So, Russia does not have access to the same thermal imagers of the last generations.
  • Sober
    Sober 17 July 2012 13: 50 New
    +2
    I didn’t understand, but where is the DZ - the Relic complex, why do not they install it? Or will he go to the armature !? and why contact -1, there’s contact -5 ... something they messed up in the article, contact 5 has been in use for a long time and goes to all serial tanks! and this is 1.5-1.8 times greater opposition to the cumulative jet! and contact -1 is a little old protection and should not be used right now, because. eat better and for a long time! and contact 1 is already somewhere 30-40 years. and even more! so it’s not clear!
  • Prohor
    Prohor 17 July 2012 13: 58 New
    +1
    People, but in Russia, at least there are prospects for getting a good thermal imager?
    1. Splin
      Splin 17 July 2012 14: 41 New
      +2
      It is necessary to buy from the frogmen not ready, but to conduct joint development, then something will work out.
    2. Eugene
      Eugene 17 July 2012 15: 31 New
      0
      http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/19030/ может и сдвинется с мертвой точки дело.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 18 July 2012 21: 46 New
        +1
        "....... According to the corporate website (http://www.zenit-foto.ru/index.php) Open Joint Stock Company "Krasnogorsk Plant named after S.A. Zverev" (OJSC KMZ), within the framework of the International Forum "Technologies in Mechanical Engineering - 2012", a presentation of prototypes of new products took place: a tank thermal imaging sight of the gunner "Irbis-K" and a commander's combined sighting and observation complex "Agat-MDT".

        As it was announced, "Irbis-K" was created using a domestic matrix photodetector and, at least in the opinion of experts, this thermal imager is not worse than the imported one used on the T-90A tank. It is expected that "Irbis-K" will be put into serial production in 2013.

        As for the commander's combined sighting and observation complex "Agat-MDT", its release will begin at the end of this year .... "

        http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-1928.htm
  • vorobey
    vorobey 17 July 2012 14: 35 New
    11
    What are you doing here? Argue again?
    1. Sober
      Sober 17 July 2012 15: 01 New
      0
      vorobey,
      We are discussing you, but without disputes, the opinion is the same))
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 17 July 2012 15: 10 New
        +8
        Sober, oh no thankful thing to argue whose BATTLE CHIRIPAHA is better

        I put all the pros except Sober, Karsa, and Splina
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 July 2012 15: 35 New
          +3
          Thank you for your trust, of course, but without this lesson I will have nothing to do here.
          Doesn’t Monica remember me in the context of Hillary?
          1. vorobey
            vorobey 17 July 2012 16: 06 New
            +5
            Andryusha, I understand you, but the self-propelled sold.

            I have two questions.
            1. On the issue of zakidny. Who will sooner come to their senses if a tank is discovered and gets a spoof OFSom (the necessary projectile is not always in the trunk, but playing ahead of the curve is better than playing in the box) thrown or AZ (MZ)? And even if the BPS or the cumulative did not break through the armor without consequences, this does not work.

            2. My friends. All three cars are the product of the same school, and at least bite this dispute will be eternal. Each has its own pros and cons. You approach one-sided in something, obviously destroying the car, and approach adequately in order to give it maximum survivability.
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 July 2012 16: 29 New
              +6
              Quote: vorobey
              box) zakidny or AZ (MZ)?

              Quote: vorobey
              box) zakidny or AZ (MZ)?

              I have never been against an automatic machine, even though in principle for an increase in the crew.
              Quote: vorobey
              All three cars are the product of one school.

              Maybe of course it’s forever ---- but I personally figure out the T-80 is better, but for some reason (though most likely it’s just from an UVZ article) it turns out that the T-72 is super-duper. Which is strange in itself, but it’s clear from what they made The best tank in the world T-90
              1. M. Peter
                M. Peter 17 July 2012 16: 47 New
                +6
                Quote: Kars
                It may of course be eternal ---- but I personally figure out the T-80 is better

                So do I. Plusan to you.
                Yes, but I think BMW X5 is better, but I drive a NAVA Chevrolet. Guess why? winked
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 July 2012 16: 50 New
                  +2
                  Quote: M.Pyotr
                  Guess why?

                  I will not.

                  But I hope you do not tell on every corner that the Chevrolet Niva comes out better than BMW in table summation of numbers.
                  1. M. Peter
                    M. Peter 17 July 2012 16: 54 New
                    +3
                    Of course not.
                    Although I wouldn’t go to Beha, I would rather not venture to go where I go to Niva. laughing
  • Andrei
    Andrei 17 July 2012 15: 37 New
    +4
    Sober, here they compared about the same modifications corresponding to a friend to a friend ... on t64 in the USSR, as far as I know, contact-5 was not serially put ... the Ukrainians, of course, have now installed a lot of things on it, but that's another story ... but it would not be bad compare the t90 and t80u in my opinion they are worth each other ... the t-72 was originally created as a mobilization version of the t64 so it is so primitive in the event of a full-scale war in those years I would need as many tanks as possible, as cheap as possible, albeit with some deterioration in khar-kakh because the war devours tanks like the furnace of a steam locomotive coal. The T-64A was a breakthrough, he was the first Soviet MBT, it is quite clear that he had shortcomings ... but if the task was to make a compact engine, the task was to keep within the given weight (about 36 tons in my opinion), then it was done. At the expense of the unreliability of the T64 ... it was just more difficult to operate and required more care ... a simple soldier, the conscript will figure it out in absolutely all the intricacies of this machine ... it was almost the same with the KV tank, but with skillful operation they passed 3000 !!! km (for this tank it was a lot), even the manufacturer did not give such a guaranteed mileage. also . Of course, there are design flaws, but this is mainly due to the framework in which the designers were assigned and especially the engines ... it was created practically from scratch on the basis of American diesel engines. And Khrushchev also "tried" on October 22, 1962, he was present at the 38NII test site in Kubinka where, after showing the T-64 that had not yet passed all the tests, he said at the expense of him "Let's take!"
  • Andrei
    Andrei 17 July 2012 16: 00 New
    +5
    And at the expense of the OMS and night vision devices, they are only in our country, they will hardly stand on these tanks ... export modifications of the T80 were equipped with good devices, but the most important thing is the collapse of the union (thermal imagers, in my opinion, "remained" in Belarus and many other manufacturers of components remained abroad) and the termination of the production of tanks at factories (in Leningrad, Omsk). It's just that the T-72 was much cheaper, the same B-46 engine (on the 72 tank) in the 80s cost 9600 rubles and the GTD-1000 (on the T80 tank) 104000 !!! rubles - the difference is on the face, in the 90s there is no money was or almost never was and they chose the development of the most economical option, .. well, but the t-64 remained abroad - it's a pity for its engine with its dimensions, it gave very good power and if the chassis was modified, then with the further development of its engine (which is what happens in Ukraine) improving the quality of its manufacture, with proper operation and timely maintenance, it would not turn out to be a bad tank. Total: the presence of three different tanks in the troops would have been rational if the T64 was revised and the most qualified tankers who knew it well were sent to use it ... Why?
    The T64 would be the main tank of the army, the T72 was a backup option in case of war, and the T80 was used in cold places (because its engine required the least time to warm up in cold weather) more actively in the winter and as a reserve tank when used in the north frost, and also, if necessary, a quick throw over long distances. This is my opinion and others may be (disagree) with him.
    1. Splin
      Splin 17 July 2012 16: 07 New
      +2
      Plus - if the USSR hadn’t collapsed, we would have gone to a single tank T-80UD (1987) and its continuation
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 17 July 2012 16: 21 New
        +4
        And if any of these tanks, any !, but one remained in service, and all the engineers united to modernize it - there would be three "pluses"! This is what is being done all over the world.
        The creation and adoption of three MBTs is simply nonsense!
        Germans with T-IV and "Panther" got burned on that ....
        1. Splin
          Splin 17 July 2012 16: 26 New
          0
          Well not quite right though Kars better to explain, his path
      2. flanker7
        flanker7 19 July 2012 18: 13 New
        +1
        I am for the t-80U. In general, I consider our lack of money as the reason for curtailing the T80 development program .... GTE has been brought to mind, and in aggregate this engine is optimal, although it is more expensive and less fuel efficient. BUT any complex weapons are expensive. And in war, fuel consumption is flour ..
    2. vorobey
      vorobey 17 July 2012 16: 09 New
      +1
      Andrei, unlike self-propelled and sober you have a sober look.
      1. Splin
        Splin 17 July 2012 16: 21 New
        0
        Quote: vorobey
        Andrei, unlike self-propelled and sober you have a sober look.


        And what is my opinion subjective? fellow
        1. vorobey
          vorobey 17 July 2012 16: 31 New
          +2
          Read both posts of Andrey and compare with yours. By the way, we had all the cars in the school except 64 starting from T54. On tactics and 80 and 62 and 72 drove. 80 in the summer in Central Asia only with pipes for air intake went otherwise engines planted just like that. You can overheat any car, but how quickly you can cool your brains here. Maybe the Indians just did not master it and write.
          1. Splin
            Splin 17 July 2012 16: 41 New
            0
            The Indians T-90 appeared in large numbers even earlier than in the Russian army - he had exploited 72-ku for a long time, so I do not think that they are such idiots. They just really like the 80 diesel.
            1. vorobey
              vorobey 17 July 2012 16: 51 New
              +4
              Self-propelled gun about what dispute in general. Personally, I'm on the drum. You all know my preferences, but I will say one thing. If the motherland again puts the old fart at guns I don’t care what to fight 64, 72, 80, 90 I am sure of these machines.
              and I’m on the drum which is better or worse. Only an intelligent mechanic is needed to read thoughts.
              And as for the Indians, I can then say - reaalnoooo doooallbooooebbyy.
              Having the money. you need to buy what you like, or you forum there already got everyone so that they agreed with you.
              1. Splin
                Splin 17 July 2012 17: 07 New
                +1
                Quote: vorobey
                Having the money. you have to buy what you like,


                I don’t write there, I just read my problems with local grammar. I also make mistakes on the clave in Russian. And there one letter is not so - another word. And my English in technical disputes is not enough. There in PM only argue with the Poles.
                Of course, what kind of tank will it be if the adversary is locked in, only the conversation on this topic is practical. The author proves the advantage of UVZ products, but I do not agree with him.
                Somehow, from the Indians, a crowd of sellers stood in front of the doors in the 90s, and the loot appeared, they bought Rafali completely MiGs, and they are developing their light fighter jets
                1. vorobey
                  vorobey 17 July 2012 17: 17 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Splin
                  The author proves the advantage of UVZ products, but I do not agree with him.

                  But in vain. UVZ products go with a bang. and the Poles are what they say. What do they prefer to come to them?
                  1. Splin
                    Splin 17 July 2012 17: 24 New
                    +1
                    Those who have the loot do not want the products of the Russian military-industrial complex, only air defense systems. But the Poles received the free Leoperdy 2A4 and now I will fight with them - because, they think only the T-90MA and BM Oplot are equivalent to them.
                    1. vorobey
                      vorobey 17 July 2012 17: 34 New
                      +3
                      A loot appeared?

                      Abrams, as far as I know, is distributed free of charge to the Hamers. The suckers of the Saudis only and promoted will buy a large batch. Leopards speak for free too.
                      In general, Spleen spit, do not respect yourself with the Poles to argue.
                      1. Splin
                        Splin 17 July 2012 17: 46 New
                        0
                        The UAE is buying the seventh modification Leopards and the Puma BMP in addition to the Eclairs and instead of the BMP-3. Hindus put their new systems on all 90s and 72s and develop their own Arjun-2. ... Russia is losing markets + even Taburetkin began to buy foreign military vehicles for a license, and for them this is an alarming sign.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 17 July 2012 17: 50 New
                        +1
                        Someone is confusing something - Saudi Arabia with the UAE, or did a new infa go?

                        And if about SA, then the Yankees will not flaunt their pie to the Germans, Congress is already counting on the continued supply of the Abrams.
                      3. Splin
                        Splin 17 July 2012 18: 03 New
                        0
                        Indeed - a little "missed" - about the tanks, but to the Puma, both of them asked the price.
                        As I told the Poles that BMPT is the Puma class, what started here!
                        PS By the way, who has a new info about BMPT - I want to annoy them again.
  • yacht
    yacht 17 July 2012 16: 28 New
    +1
    But it would be interesting to compare our and the best foreign tanks in the same way.
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 17 July 2012 16: 34 New
      +6
      Oh, it started, I'm retiring.

      yachont, that was the key phrase for the fight.
    2. M. Peter
      M. Peter 17 July 2012 17: 17 New
      +5
      Quote: yacht
      But it would be interesting to compare our and the best foreign tanks in the same way.

      Which tank will we dump in the mud? Abrams, Leopard or Leclerc? laughing
      1. Kars
        Kars 17 July 2012 17: 22 New
        +2
        Nothing Is Heard About the New Japanese - Type 10
        And this triple has already been thrown out quite enough --- something new is needed --- Maybe the Black Panther K2 or Kitiyayts from the latter.
        1. M. Peter
          M. Peter 17 July 2012 17: 25 New
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          or Kitaits from the last.

          Compare the T-72 with the T-72? No.
          1. Kars
            Kars 17 July 2012 17: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: M.Pyotr
            T-72 compare with T-72

            If I honestly I wouldn’t say so
            1. igor67
              igor67 17 July 2012 18: 39 New
              +1
              Kars,
              What is this miracle?
              1. Splin
                Splin 17 July 2012 18: 55 New
                +1
                This is the American M50

                Applied in Vietnam, removed from service in the 69th.
                1. Prohor
                  Prohor 17 July 2012 20: 08 New
                  0
                  Tear off five trunks, stick one in between - Yagdptanter will succeed! wassat
                  1. Splin
                    Splin 17 July 2012 20: 25 New
                    +1
                    These are 6 trunks of BZO M40. They wanted to use against Soviet tanks, but it turned out that they are only good against infantry.
        2. igor67
          igor67 17 July 2012 17: 34 New
          +6
          Kars,
          Andrey start, the initiative is punishable
          1. M. Peter
            M. Peter 17 July 2012 17: 47 New
            +1




            Let's talk about decorative tanks then. wink
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 July 2012 17: 51 New
              0
              Not Ozoria and the Brazilians touch scary.
              1. Kars
                Kars 17 July 2012 18: 08 New
                +1
                By the way, the third from the left in the bottom row.
                1. Splin
                  Splin 17 July 2012 18: 12 New
                  0
                  What is your opinion about this tank?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 17 July 2012 19: 17 New
                    +2
                    As there is no current ----- the medium tank is inherently nothing outstanding and remarkable. Noticeable cooperation with Europe.
                2. Prohor
                  Prohor 17 July 2012 19: 59 New
                  0
                  Ha, our photos are so maspy! laughing
              2. laurbalaur
                laurbalaur 17 July 2012 18: 13 New
                0
                Kars and what to touch them, if they will fight, then on our side! You need to study them!
              3. Splin
                Splin 17 July 2012 20: 44 New
                +3
                But what for?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 July 2012 23: 05 New
                  +1
                  There was an article about him recently - I checked in there normally

                  http://topwar.ru/15648-proekt-vt1-tank-po-prozvischu-leopard-3.html#comment-id-4
                  31818
                2. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 21 July 2012 19: 13 New
                  0
                  Where is Ratt ??? lol
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 21 July 2012 20: 17 New
                    0
                    There is no rata, there is such as promised.

                    It is very likely that all the same through.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 21 July 2012 20: 20 New
                      0
                      And the case here is not entirely clear. And so in principle there are 73 photos in only one album.
                      1. Raven1972
                        Raven1972 21 July 2012 21: 13 New
                        0
                        It is generally unclear here - the view is very strange and with such a trace, for some reason, the MV hatch is not damaged .... Although it should have passed right through it ...
                    2. Raven1972
                      Raven1972 21 July 2012 21: 11 New
                      0
                      You know - no, not through, for quite some time considered at different magnifications - there is a cavity, no penetration ...
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 21 July 2012 21: 21 New
                        +1
                        That is, is, for me, it’s a draft.

                        There is one mention from the forum

                        quite recently met with a discussion in the style of "Rashki iron-lapped packs of virake." Found on the sample, which gave the search engine for the phrase "BMP delusions".
                        As usual, the discussion fell into two camps. What they debated about - I think everyone understands.
                        From all that was written I remember the following (not verbatim) "At the end of hostilities, American DS contracted to dispose of the destroyed Iraqi armored vehicles. Of the 382 (three hundred eighty two) tank skeletons, only 14% (fourteen) belonged to the T-72. The bulk of the T-55. -62/18. At the same time, traces of penetration of armor from the impact of ATGM "Tou" and air missiles were detected on 72% (eighteen) of the T-72 skeletons. Some of the vehicles were destroyed by aerial bombs. Only one T-XNUMX skeleton had a penetration of the frontal armor with a subcaliber shell (OBPS). The rest of the vehicles were destroyed by the crews during the retreat. "


                        And so who knows. But I don’t particularly believe in the armor of the export T-72M.
                    3. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 22 July 2012 00: 26 New
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      It is very likely that all the same through.
                      When through, there is a trace of the plumage of the projectile. He is not here.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 22 July 2012 01: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        When through, there is a trace of the plumage of the projectile. He is not here

                        And even better would be a photo under such words breaking something thicker than 100 mm with traces of plumage. (photo not T-72 by the way)
                      2. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 22 July 2012 11: 43 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        And even better would be a photo under such words breaking something thicker than 100 mm with traces of plumage. (photo not T-72 by the way)

                        T-90 tower after testing a version of its frontal reservation. As for through penetration, it is unlikely, but the tail unit of the BOPS reached the armor
                        [img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-YQxG8fABJFk/UAuu8lk83dI/AAAAAAAABs0/zkuS
                        PS-JYek / s800 / 1% 3D.jpg [/ img]
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 22 July 2012 11: 48 New
                        0
                        There is nothing real, not from testing.
                      4. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 22 July 2012 11: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        There is nothing real, not from testing.
                        Who cares ? or in combat conditions on the BOPS do not put tail feathering?
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 22 July 2012 11: 54 New
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Who cares ? or in combat conditions on the BOPS do not put tail feathering?

                        But who knows? And then on the T-72 tower I can also see the trail of plumage, and even five wings were imprinted on your T-90 photo on every hit.
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 22 July 2012 12: 09 New
                        0
                        I ve really interesting
  • Kars
    Kars 17 July 2012 17: 48 New
    +1
    I would love to --- but almost nothing about him.
    even this photo can be easily confused with Leo 2A4 Neo with ease (if it were not for the Japanese kondovy dump and a falsbart)
  • igor67
    igor67 18 July 2012 07: 41 New
    +2
    demonstrator tank T-90MS Tagil
  • vorobey
    vorobey 17 July 2012 17: 22 New
    +2
    And then I said Abrams.
  • Miroslav
    Miroslav 17 July 2012 17: 38 New
    0
    The armor is strong and our tanks are fast! .. All cars are good - choose to taste.
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 17 July 2012 17: 51 New
    +4
    The article, on the whole, is correct, although somewhat banal - all the disadvantages and advantages of the machines listed in it are well known. As a practitioner who devoted quite a few years to the operation of the T-64 and T-80, he also captured 72 ku., I will draw your attention to one very nasty "trifle" - on all these machines the extremely unsuccessful TKN-3 from the commander (there was a desire to give this device a head to those who invented and adopted it) and the gunner's night sights, especially the TPN-1. Now they are installing new aiming and observation devices, let's hope that there will be no old mistakes. And one more purely practical moment: in T-64, T-80, especially beshki (modifications with KURV) it is very crowded, a well-fed "partisan" will not be able to unlock the worm pair to turn on the stabilizer. Tanks for short and slender ones, fortunately in modern RA there are many of them ...
    And also the apologists for T-64 (80) do not know, probably, that the release of the fired pallets from the MH, unlike the AZ, is not provided, but it is kind ...
    The "knowledgeable patriots" are amused by those who know, almost first-hand, about the experience of operating tanks in India and Pakistan. De good, de bad. They are terribly far from "the people" laughing Reliable information was not disclosed, statistics of equipment sales speaks best of all.
    But here there is no complete truth - dumping, political pressure, etc. can be applied. For those interested in the topic of comparison of Soviet MBTs, I recommend, in my opinion, very professional articles.
    http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/NoUPz/NoUPz001.htm
    http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/Ant84/Ant84001.htm
  • Aeneas
    Aeneas 17 July 2012 17: 59 New
    +1
    Call, sho we are not from here (I am not a tanker), but as far as I know, the Union was going to fight the NATO imperialists on the T-64 and T-80. It was these tanks that were in service in the GSVG, the western districts of the USSR, and these tanks were never sold for export and for a license, or simply presented to our brothers in mind the Warsaw Pact and all passionary fighters against Zionism. The USSR has always sent more obsolete or previously deteriorated equipment to the armament of its friends-allies beyond the cordon. And this tank for the Arab fighters with the moishe-izy was the T-72 .... Well, in the very court tank division of the Union - Kantemirovskaya, the T-64 and T-80 were in service. So the question is, did our commanders really send the best tanks into the clutches of the enemy (through the evacuees from the battlefield, reconnaissance and buying secrets from the mercantile Arabs), and left the worst for themselves for the "last and decisive" battle?
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 17 July 2012 18: 28 New
      +1
      Our commanders wanted something better, but they did "business" together with "some civilians", as always.
      An interesting story answers your question, telling why everyone has one MBT, but in the USSR there were three, read, if interested, on the indicated links and on the network (now this is not a secret)
      1. Aeneas
        Aeneas 17 July 2012 18: 52 New
        0
        I read, did not understand anything. belay Tuta Sandpiper praises his swamp recourse
        1. Alekseev
          Alekseev 18 July 2012 19: 21 New
          +2
          I will try to briefly decipher the "waders' songs".
          Three MBTs with approximately equal performance characteristics in the USSR arose due to the lobbyism of industrial plants by party leaders, the insufficient competence of the party apparatchiks involved in this issue, and the compromising attitude of the military.
          Recall the story (briefly and without details). There was a T-64. Well done comrade Morozov, zd Malysheva, cheers! But, push-pull Kharkov diesel and now, to put it mildly, not the best, but at that time (5tdf) hl. in terms of reliability indicators - generally g ...
          Problems with the chassis.
          What to do? UVZ was instructed to supply the T-64 with a four-stroke diesel engine. UVZ has installed, plus its own automatic loader, plus a more "big" chassis. The result is the T-72.
          But it wasn’t there, huge amounts of money were invested in the engine plant in Kharkov, to this opinion, so what should close production? Kharkov designers, supported by party leaders cried out: we’ll eliminate all the shortcomings, we’ll do better than everyone. We tried, no one disputes, made 6td, etc., acceptable (no more) in operation. It’s complicated, it’s an honor to praise them as engineers, but ... So far, a two-stroke diesel engine is not the best option, as evidenced by international experience.
          Here the "Leningrad", also talented engineers and punchy party members, got involved in the matter. Instead of a "lousy" diesel engine turbine in the tank. And they convinced the military and the party. leadership. It will be better than everyone else. We solved the most difficult problem of installing a gas turbine engine in a T-64 tank. Improved chassis - the birth of the T-80.
          But that ours, that the American gas turbine engine eats kerosene (DT) "like a bull slop." While the question of efficiency, and it is the cornerstone in the power plant of the tank, the power reserve is dancing from it, the amount of fuel that must be supplied to the troops for the gas turbine engine has not been resolved.
          In Kharkov, they again put diesel instead of gas turbine engines (they shoved their own!) - the birth of the t-80ud.
          What is the customer-the military, Marshal Poluboyarov and other senior officials?
          They could not (did not want to?) Resist the pressure of the party-industrial elites, who were eager to produce tanks themselves, and, of course, receive funding and rewards for this.
          Moreover, all three cars, although not without flaws, are generally not bad.
          But the folk money was snapping pretty.
          Instead of combining all the advantages in one machine, avoiding, if possible, disadvantages, the then "waders" did what they did.
          By and large, this is one of the reasons, "droplets" led to the collapse of the union.
    2. loft79
      loft79 18 July 2012 01: 58 New
      +1
      Write nonsense. Read the posts above. No one claims about super-duper 72. It's all about money and mass production.
  • panzer
    panzer 17 July 2012 18: 33 New
    +5
    Quote: Alekseev
    And also the apologists for T-64 (80) do not know, probably, that the release of the fired pallets from the MH, unlike the AZ, is not provided, but it is kind ...

    When the FVS is turned on, excess pressure is created in the T-80 and the powder gases are squeezed out. From personal experience: during the shooting I rolled young gunners around the headmistress. We fired three or four times and on the next race, after stopping at the finishing cable, I saw the barrel of the gun dropped somewhere down and to the side, the commander in the tower did not answer. I reported to the tower, the head of firing commands: stop all, off the beaten track. The mechanic has a useful button: "Rotate the hood." I pressed it, turned the tower away, drowned it out, got out and I see - this elephant forgot to close the hatch !!! The commander with the gunner got mad, I got off with a wild headache.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 17 July 2012 20: 39 New
      0
      A question for the tankers: how does the barrel feel on our tanks on the "intersection"? Purely visually, the distance from the muzzle to the attachment point will be greater than that of Western tanks, the lever is not too large?
      1. panzer
        panzer 17 July 2012 21: 23 New
        +1
        I am a driver, so I can only tell what I saw: Our noise, with the stabilizer turned on, measured the range and twisted such pretzels, my head was spinning! The barrel looked at the measuring point and smoothly reacted to all the movements of the car without deviating. What was going on in the tower, I don’t know, I could not see.
        1. Prohor
          Prohor 17 July 2012 23: 43 New
          0
          And if without a stabilizer? Does a barrel with such a length not lead a tower?
          1. panzer
            panzer 18 July 2012 07: 11 New
            +1
            Without a stabilizer, the tower is locked with a worm and the breech of the gun with a special stop is such a powerful piece of iron with several holes. The upper hole is attached with a finger to the ears in the arch of the tower, the lower one to the breech. Here is a stopper, one diligent elephant broke, as, I myself did not see, the lads said that he slammed into the pit with his belly at speed.
            1. flanker7
              flanker7 18 July 2012 23: 23 New
              +1
              nominally, the gun is also locked with a worm. And the "piece of iron" is used when marches are a marching stopper
      2. flanker7
        flanker7 18 July 2012 22: 54 New
        +1
        The stabilizer fulfills 100%. The goal is not lost, verified by personal experience.
    2. flanker7
      flanker7 18 July 2012 22: 47 New
      0
      When the hatch is open, the inclusion of the MSA is blocked, it will not work. Although, of course, on training machines this lock could be removed ...
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 18 July 2012 23: 11 New
        0
        With the driver’s hatch open?
        1. flanker7
          flanker7 19 July 2012 18: 02 New
          0
          Including. When the tower is turned, its shoulder strap partially overlaps the inlet of the hatch. Plus body kit on the tower (DZ). The head will not stand this. To remove the lock from the hatch of the MV - the top of idiocy ....
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 17 July 2012 19: 44 New
    +2
    About the running T-64. Non-rubberized skating rinks are certainly not good and very noisy, but remember that they were supposed to be used after a nuclear strike, in which those that were close to the epicenter would be exposed to light radiation, and those that would be far away would move on fire. Non-rubber rollers here, IMHO, preferred. I also heard that gas turbine engines are much smaller than ICE accumulates radioactive dust.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 17 July 2012 20: 41 New
      0
      And then - the tank isn’t BRDM, to sneak in quietly!
      1. mkpda
        mkpda 18 July 2012 15: 36 New
        +2
        T-80, when he goes at you, almost inaudible.
        1. vorobey
          vorobey 18 July 2012 18: 36 New
          +3
          Quote: mkpda
          T-80, when he goes at you, almost inaudible.

          It's right. only at the last moment of the meter for four clang of tracks gives
          1. flanker7
            flanker7 18 July 2012 22: 58 New
            0
            Dear, what kind of "clang" are we talking about? The track and roller are rubber coated! At the "last moment" all you hear is engine noise.
  • Grumbler
    Grumbler 17 July 2012 20: 41 New
    +1
    You can argue until you blue in the face, here who studied what ... But the UVZ adherents modestly keep silent (or forget) about such "trifles" as fuel stuck, or turning radii, for example, there is nothing to say about starting in the cold, and about a bunch nuances ... Yes, and the dynamics of the T-80 is no worse than the T-72, the GTE is not a diesel engine and this must be taken into account when driving ... How Mekh-Vod of both machines would definitely give preference to the "eighty" ...
    This article ... another PR UVZ.
    1. flanker7
      flanker7 18 July 2012 23: 05 New
      0
      Exactly! He was the commander of the 80BV. The machine is a fairy tale. No complaints at all
  • Diesel
    Diesel 17 July 2012 21: 46 New
    +2
    If the highest minds of the USSR did not choose which is better and decided to release everything at once, then we certainly will not choose anything wassat
  • mkpda
    mkpda 18 July 2012 15: 38 New
    +1
    IHMO. The T-80 is a tank for professionals, even conscripts didn’t manage to master it in two years, but it’s scary to think how they can use it today.
    1. flanker7
      flanker7 18 July 2012 23: 12 New
      +2
      The tank is generally for professionals. After all, the question is not so much in mastering as in practical skill .... And this is shooting, marches, etc. ....
  • gabs
    gabs 18 July 2012 15: 44 New
    +4
    Itself served on a t-80 diesel engine. In the training, officers who served on the t-72 came to shoot - they said the T-80's MPS was much better. And I saw 80 types of dynamic protection on the t-3. I think that the choice fell on the t-72 because of its relative cheapness.
  • ymNIK1970
    ymNIK1970 18 July 2012 18: 26 New
    +2
    "This article ... another PR of UVZ." Exactly. And the local "leaders", the essence of the ideology of the "tavarisch" Tukhachevsky and others like him. Nobles rivet themselves BT-7M and happily report. And the company that created the T-34 is already on the other side of the border. And it won't help the Motherland. And time goes by.
  • 6o6er
    6o6er 19 July 2012 08: 34 New
    0
    It all depends on the concept of the tank, how you are going to use it, our "generals" needed an inexpensive, easy-to-manufacture, with a small resource tank that can be riveted in batches, during an attack, the tank lives on the battlefield for no more than 20 minutes, the calculation is set by the amount. This is the T-72, etc. etc. and comparing it with foreign tanks ala leopard or merkava is not serious.
  • Dnepropetrovsk
    Dnepropetrovsk 20 July 2012 23: 19 New
    0
    Why this article?
  • kov
    kov 8 October 2012 13: 56 New
    0
    Video review T-64

  • m.dima77
    m.dima77 20 December 2013 20: 50 New
    +1
    I can say one thing: a custom article, designed to blacken the T-80 and exalt the T-72. How can you compare the "diesel tractor" T-72 with the swallow T-80. What is the advantage of a diesel engine over a gas turbine unit? And the author praises the T-72 because one more "tractor" was created on its basis - the T-90, instead of modernizing the T-80. Why don't Americans put diesel on their Abrams? Because the gas turbine plant is much more reliable in battle. The T-80 accelerates from a standstill much faster than the T-72, and the T-80 is much more maneuverable than the creaky "tractor". (I myself served in the 90s on the T-80 and I remember what a depressing impression on us was made by the T-72 who came to our base in Khankala). The author writes that you can sleep in the T-72 turret. There is no need to sleep in the tower, otherwise the tank will be captured, having previously cut out the entire crew. The author also bears the heresy that the T-80 engine is afraid of dust. Dear, for general development I want to tell you that the T-80 is equipped with a system for vibration cleaning of turbine blades from dust. And the T-80 was never afraid of any dust. Otherwise, they would have stood up from dust in Chechnya in the summer. In addition, the T-80 feel great in such "northern" countries as Cyprus, Yemen, Pakistan, South Korea and Egypt, in the latter there are generally some deserts. About the chord: Have you ever driven a T-80? Have you seen the torsion bar suspension in action? And I saw. An unforgettable experience. It feels like you are sailing on the sea. So in the tank it gently rocks. No wonder the T-80 can "fly" thanks to it, and nothing happens to the crew. But the modern "Abrams" also decided to jump, so everything that could be tumbled off in the tank, and the mechanic was taken to the hospital with a fractured spine. And you say, an outdated chassis. Yes, it is the best in the world, like the T-80 itself. Those who served on the T-72 and T-80 unanimously claim that the gas turbine "eighty" is much better than the "tractor" "seventy two". And it was she who had to continue to develop, and not the antediluvian T-72.