On the reasons for the appearance in Ukraine of the T-64BM "Bulat" tanks in the presence of the main tank T-84 "Oplot"

The main Ukrainian tank T-64BM "Bulat" was adopted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2005. The tank is a modernization of the T-64BV and even older T-64B. As conceived by the engineers, the car had to at least correspond to the level of another widely advertised Ukrainian tank T-84.

But in this case, the question immediately arises: why did Kyiv need to replace the T-84, created on the basis of the T-80UD, with a modernized version of the older T-64? The answer is actually prosaic.

The T-84, officially put into service in 2000, turned out to be too expensive. A total of 10 such machines were produced. Then the development of the BM "Oplot" or "Oplot-M" tank began, which came into the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2009. However, not so many of these tanks were produced - just over 50, along with export versions.

At the same time, in the late 90s, taking into account the "economic unattractiveness" of the T-84, work began on another future main tank for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They were supposed to be the modernization of the T-64BV and earlier T-64B, called "Bulat".

As mentioned above, the future cheaper tank had to match the T-84 in terms of performance.

In general, Ukrainian engineers managed to cope with the task. So, the production (read the modernization of the T-64) "Bulat" cost 470 thousand USD, which is 4 times cheaper than the creation of the same "Oplot". Meanwhile, it really is practically not inferior to the latest version of the T-84. Except, perhaps, for the more powerful engine of the Oplot.

The "Bulat" uses the same 125-mm cannon with an automatic loader. True, the T-84 has two more rounds of ammunition: 40 versus 38 for the T-64BM.

But the modernized T-64BV, like the Oplot, received the Knife dynamic protection. The latter has an unusual design (the first options are zigzag, and more modern ones are month-shaped). According to Ukrainian engineers, this protection is unique and significantly superior to Soviet and Russian DZ. However, CBO dispelled this myth.

Finally, it is worth adding that the cost of manufacturing a combat unit was not the only reason for the Ukrainian authorities to consider upgrading the T-64B and BV.

The thing is that after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine got 5394 tanks, of which 1564 units are T-64B and BV, and only 248 are T-80, on the basis of which the T-84 was created.

Comments

[zenion]

Apparently the reason is the same as Russia's with the T-55. The real ones, which supposedly were, were eaten by rust. Here, they ate the USSR, and at the same time everything that the USSR produced.

[marchcat]

The USSR has produced so much that they cannot even paint over "these" years. There is enough good left from the Union.

[Bingo]

Quote: marchcat

The USSR produced so many

There was also such a saying that in the USSR everything was done either for the army or sucks))) But what was done for the army - you can’t kill with a shovel. and it will be painted for a long time in all corners of the planet)))

[svp67]

Quote: zenion

Apparently the reason is the same as Russia's with the T-55

And in the West with Leopards-1

[Pavel57]

Active armor The knife is protected from bullets and shrapnel by 15mm armor, which reduces the chance of detonation. And what will happen if a 30mm projectile hits?

[Escobar]

There is an idea, why not introduce cumulative 2 mm ammunition in the ammunition load of the BMP 30, the terminator, to prepare for defeat with the help of ATGM tanks. Step one - the tank receives a burst of 30 mm shells, reactive armor works, + you can knock down the guidance devices of KAZ elements with them. Step two, an ATGM flies into the area bare from the dynamic protection units. The trouble is that the tankers will not doze off and there should be between step 1 and 2 seconds.

[Uprun]

One remark, on the T-64 and T-80 - there is a loading mechanism, and an automatic loader on the T-72. If we are to write about tanks, then you need to know the materiel.

[svp67]

Quote from uprun

If we are to write about tanks, then you need to know the materiel.

As well as the fact that the T-84 surpasses the same T-64 in terms of armor resistance of the hull and turret

[zenion]

I can advise the Russians, it's not your business to worry about Ukraine, let it worry. This is her tsurys. Reminds me of an old post-revolutionary anecdote, or maybe the dinosaur period. It's already night, and Abram is spinning and can't sleep. What's the matter asks his wife Sarah? You understand, Sarochka, I owe Gershka 10 rubles and pay them back in the morning, it's like tearing off my arm. And that's why you can't sleep? And Sarah immediately hits the wall with her fist. Behind the wall is the room in which Gershko lives. From there, a cry - why are you hitting the wall, what's the matter? Gersh, do you remember that Abram owes you 10 rubles and must give them back to you in the morning? I remember Gersh, but what's the matter? So know Gersh, Abram will not give you 10 rubles in the morning. He turns to Abram and says - sleep well Abramchik, let Gershko not sleep now. So now there is a commotion in Ukraine, and Russia can sleep peacefully

[Glagol1]

It's all about the enemy. On the Russian side, T-62/72/80/90 participate, of which only the 90th model confidently overlaps the 64th. They knew this and prepared 64BV / BM, in sufficient quantities. Our 90s are not very many, and there are few direct tank duels in the NWO.

[svp67]

Quote: Glagol1

On the Russian side, T-62/72/80/90 participate, of which only the 90th model confidently overlaps the 64th.

T-64s are already confidently blocking the T-80BV, not to mention the T-80U and T-72B3

Quote: Glagol1

Our 90s are not very many

Already as many as Ukraine, the West of tanks could not supply their models

Quote: Glagol1

It's all about the enemy.

And surprisingly, yes. The appearance in Russia of a rather "cheap" substitute for the T-90, under the brand name T-72B3, served as an example for them.

[Materialist]

What specific modifications of the T-64 and how do they overlap the above?

[svp67]

Quote: Materialist

What specific modifications of the T-64 and how do they overlap the above?

The T-64 has THREE main modifications. These are T-64, T-64A and T-64B. Everything else is created on their basis.
Tanks of the T-80 family, in relation to any modification, are more mobile and have a more advanced undercarriage, which allows more comfortable and efficient firing on the move, and the T-80U modification is also better armored.
The T-72B tank surpassed the T-64 in terms of armor, and after installing the Sosna sighting system and turning it into the T-72B3 version, it surpassed the T-64 in terms of ease of firing.
The saddest thing for the T-64 is that this tank has exhausted its modification possibilities, in which it was necessary to increase its mass, since its undercarriage is already at the limit and on Bulat it very often fails

[Materialist]

T-80 with its undeveloped voracious gas turbine engine is rather a voluntaristic compromise, as a phenomenon
The T-80U modification is already a rarity, now their bulk is in the Armed Forces of the RF-BV and BVM, the first differs from the latter in a diametrically opposite imbalance in the hull / turret armor, the resistance of the BVM is similar in terms of the T-90M hull, but inferior in the turret even to the T-72B (not counting DZ)
The T-64 also has a "B" version with similar durability to the T-72B, so why compare stock T-64s with modernized 72s and 80s
With regard to the well-known low load capacity of the T-64 suspension, I note that the beam torsion bars from the T-64A version withstand greater loads than any other modern Soviet tank (table data) and Ukrainian tankers (first-hand information) do not even complain about BM2 Bulat, weighing 48 tons (approx.)
With regard to the patency of tanks: the T-64 chassis is more adapted to work in viscous clay mud, since it has less specific pressure on the track treadmill near the track roller, due to which it cuts the mud, preventing it from stuffing, reducing suspension travel, softness T-64 was noted even in the very first tests; the T-80 chassis is made in such a way as if it adapted to asphalt and high speeds, the friction coefficient of the T-80 track roller is the largest (rubber / rubber), the resource of the last sample of the chassis is of course the most, but this is realized solely through the use of consumables for friction points (rubberized treadmill / bandages)

[svp67]

Quote: Materialist

The T-64 also has a "B" version with similar durability to the T-72B

No, you are wishful thinking. The letter "B" is the only thing that unites these tanks in terms of armor. Tank T-72B, this is the "swan song" of the USSR tank industry and it SIGNIFICANTLY surpasses the armor of the T-64B, especially in armoring the turret, and with the advent of the T-72B1, with the built-in DZ "Contact-5" and the hull

Quote: Materialist

T-80 with its undeveloped voracious gas turbine engine is rather a voluntaristic compromise, as a phenomenon

The engine that is being installed now, and this GDT-1250 is an EXCELLENT engine. Of course, he still has room to "grow", but this is a very good, reliable and powerful engine.

Quote: Materialist

With regard to the well-known low load capacity of the T-64 suspension, I note that the beam torsion bars from the T-64A version withstand greater loads than any other modern Soviet tank (table data) and Ukrainian tankers (first-hand information) do not even complain about BM2 Bulat, weighing 48 tons (approx.)

Thank God, I thoroughly studied this tank for four years at a military school, then served in the GSVG, so I leave your "tales" and "tales" that filled the YouTube of Ukrainians on your and their conscience. The torsion bar of the T-64 tank is a hollow pipe made of a twisted sheet of torsion steel

Quote: Materialist

With regard to the patency of tanks: the T-64 chassis is more adapted to work in viscous clay mud, since it has less specific pressure on the track treadmill near the track roller,

Who told you this nonsense or did you think of it yourself? The width of the bearing surface of the T-64 rink is 54,5 mm, the width of the bearing surface of the T-72 tank rink is 190 mm. With almost the same mass of tanks, which of the rollers has less pressure on the track? And we still do not take into account that the T-72 roller is larger in diameter and has a rubber band, which in itself further increases the contact patch with the track. And the question is, which roller exerts less pressure? High School Assignment

Quote: Materialist

the softness of the T-64 was noted even in the very first tests;

What about the last ones? And who said that the "softness" of a tank's suspension is always positive? Yes, the T-64 starts to "sausage" even on the spot when regassing, which I will tell you "minus", as it interferes with shooting

[Materialist]

It depends on what is considered "significant" differences, which may well not exist between all Soviet tanks, the thickness of the T-72B turret is somewhat large, the dimensions of the VLD armor are equivalent but not the same (layer thicknesses vary)
What does "excellent" mean, all gas turbine engines created in the USSR were an extreme compromise, they have low efficiency and in fact it was an attempt to increase power density by increasing fuel consumption, gas turbine engines were not sufficiently developed to replace diesel engines (their conceptual the design was imperfect), there was not enough time for this, even if this idea comes from post-war times, the T-80 phenomenon has the same essence as the T-72 - the desire to present its design bureau as advanced and not slave
The T-64A is not a Ukrainian tank and it was not created by Ukrainians and not in Ukraine, the tanks are Soviet and they all exist at the expense of the Soviet industry, on the remnants of which now all post-Soviet states parasitize, if you studied it then you should also have an understanding in regarding the fact that the T-64 tank was not left in a stock state and constantly tried to bring it up, this concerned, among other things, the suspension
It was sealed up, but according to what was said about the all-terrain vehicle, one could guess about it
Any tank starts to sausage when regassing, that is, the "stiffness" of the tank then does not interfere with shooting?
All this chatter regarding the disadvantages and advantages of the two Soviet vehicles is based solely on the fact that now two different camps parasitize on the tank industry of the USSR, in fact they differ only in engines and chassis, the advantages and disadvantages of each of them are already known, there is no such a huge gap in carrying capacity suspensions of these cars so that one level of booking would not be achievable for all of them

[svp67]

Quote: Materialist

It depends on what is considered "significant" differences, which may not exist between all Soviet tanks

I see you do not understand this issue at all, otherwise such things would not be said. In the 90s, one of the T-72Bs fell into the hands of the Americans and they were very surprised by the design of its turret. Here's what they saw there, cutting off part of the roof

The appearance of the T-72 tank reservation package with reflective sheets
Here are the booking schemes for the VLD T-80U and T-72B1

Compare them to these

you should also have an understanding regarding the fact that the T-64 tank was not left in stock condition and constantly tried to bring it up, including the suspension

Alas, the ingenious Morozov made this element so much in the limiting parameters that modernization there is very, very limited opportunities and something cannot be radically changed there

Any tank starts to sausage when regassing, that is, the "stiffness" of the tank then does not interfere with shooting?

No, the T-80 won't even move, and the T-72 won't sway like that...

[Materialist]

All your fabrications come from the fact that Morozov and his design bureau are stupid and did not think of bringing it to a combat-ready state immediately after the first version of the machine, and, consequently, it was impossible to put a tower with greater durability or a new VLD package
Did you think of this when you "studied" the T-64? Have you tested the suspension on the stand or have you dealt with the latest modifications?
All these arguments will instantly become sophistry if it suddenly turns out that Bulatov's running gear does not crumble on the go because of its mass
The T-72 or some other tank twitches three times, it doesn’t have an electric transmission with a rheostat, but this fits into the concept of the inferiority of Kharkov vehicles specifically
You can speculate on the nominal resistance of towers or hulls as much as it will be necessary to calm yourself down, but these are not conceptual differences between tanks, I have long been explaining that fundamentally Soviet vehicles differ only in engines / transmissions and chassis, where T-64 / T-72 / T- 80 engines are respectively moderately progressive / archaic used / progressive unfinished engines (the T-80 has a gas turbine engine production technology as such unfinished and not the engine itself), they have running gear, as if each for its own task, but, as it turned out, the tank lives in the mud, and for this, the 64 chassis is most suitable, not a single car had a revolutionary electric transmission

[svp67]

Quote: Materialist

All your fabrications come from the fact that Morozov and his design bureau are stupid

They were high-class specialists and even geniuses. They were given very strict parameters for the new tank and they were able to create it. But you have to "pay" for everything. In this case, the "fee" turned out to be a small possibility of modernization by weight

Quote: Materialist

All these arguments will instantly become sophistry if it suddenly turns out that Bulatov's running gear does not crumble on the go because of its mass

Alas, it "crumbles", the torsion bars break very quickly, and replacing them with the T-64, due to the design features, there is still that "circus"

Quote: Materialist

T-72 or some other tank twitches three starting off,

Here a lot depends on the skill of mech-water. And even if it twitches, so what? It doesn’t rock it in place, just because the mechanic sharply added engine speed, as on the T-64.

Quote: Materialist

but, as it turned out, the tank lives in the mud,

Have you seen a real tank? Served him, exploited him?
So I read and understand that your idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbtanks is "bookish".
It does not have a running T-64, now it has special advantages over running tanks T-72, T-80 and T-90, when operating in mud. Since these tanks have more powerful engines, which neutralize this advantage of the T-64.

[Materialist]

Have you seen a real tank? Served him, exploited him?
So I read and understand that your idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbtanks is "bookish".
It does not have a running T-64, now it has special advantages over running tanks T-72, T-80 and T-90, when operating in mud. Since these tanks have more powerful engines, which neutralize this advantage of the T-64.

Let's agree that when comparing the running gears, we will not touch the engine, the T-64 running gear is self-cleaning due to the fact that the pressure of the rollers on the caterpillar is greater, this is a disadvantage in the event of a loss of the caterpillar, but this does not eliminate the advantages
The T-64A, by the way, jumped the weight barrier of 38 tons, so what kind of 36 tons could we talk about
I note that the advantages of the T-64 are manifested on clay and not liquid soil, the latter is not an obstacle for a tank at all, unlike wheeled vehicles, on sands and harder soils, the advantage is over the rest, because they tolerate vibration load better
Similar running T-64 advantages were noted on the T-10, for example, which also proved to be soft and passable on the Belarusian black soil
I don’t operate tanks, but I can get some first-hand information about this, here, including the absence of classic shortcomings in the T-64, I learned from the tankers using them

[T.A.V.]

Is this a youtube ad?
Text, etc.

[Illanatol]

On the reasons for the appearance in Ukraine of the T-64BM "Bulat" tanks in the presence of the main tank T-84 "Oplot"

Because there is simply no availability. A new tank - you really need to produce, and this is expensive and difficult. Qua-qua-qualification, again, does not allow, production capacity is in short supply. But upgrading existing machines is still easier.

Such "demilitarization" has borne fruit, what new tanks are there ... except that the "curators" will throw up (and even then not entirely new ones).