T-72 vs T-64
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
Apocalypse
New Member
The T-64 and the T-72 were made at approximately the same time periods. the T-64 being from the Kharkiv design bureau in Ukraine served only in the Soviet army. The T-72, from a Russian design bureau, was a cheaper, easier-to-build tank.
The T-64 was the better tank among the two in technology and power, but the Soviets chose the T-72 because it was cheaper and easier to produce in quantities
. Only the T-72 was exported.
T-62 Stats:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-64.htm
T-72 Stats:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-72-specs.htm
The T-64 was the better tank among the two in technology and power, but the Soviets chose the T-72 because it was cheaper and easier to produce in quantities
. Only the T-72 was exported.T-62 Stats:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-64.htm
T-72 Stats:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-72-specs.htm
Apocalypse
New Member
The T-62 is a further development of the T-55. Soviet tanks have two main families ...
The Kharkiv-Morozov Designed family: which includes the famous T-34, T-54/55/62, T-64 and the T-80/84 tanks. (Black Eagle tank under development)
The Kartsev-Venediktov Designed family: which includes the more recent T-72 and T-90. (T-95 under development)
It's surprising that the soviets had two competing tank design bureaus... but they both turned out basically similar tanks
The Kharkiv-Morozov Designed family: which includes the famous T-34, T-54/55/62, T-64 and the T-80/84 tanks. (Black Eagle tank under development)
The Kartsev-Venediktov Designed family: which includes the more recent T-72 and T-90. (T-95 under development)
It's surprising that the soviets had two competing tank design bureaus... but they both turned out basically similar tanks
contedicavour
New Member
How can the 2 competing MBT manufacturers survive in a market with very few new MBT orders ?? The manufacturer with no Russian govt support is destined to fail. AFAIK it is T-95 that has been selected or am I wrong ?Apocalypse said:The T-62 is a further development of the T-55. Soviet tanks have two main families ...
The Kharkiv-Morozov Designed family: which includes the famous T-34, T-54/55/62, T-64 and the T-80/84 tanks. (Black Eagle tank under development)
The Kartsev-Venediktov Designed family: which includes the more recent T-72 and T-90. (T-95 under development)
It's surprising that the soviets had two competing tank design bureaus... but they both turned out basically similar tanks
cheers
Big E- the T-64 was the better tank. It had a 125mm gun, just like the T-72, and similar preformance and armor. The best way to tell the difference between the two is the 64 has small road wheels, they are that much alike.
the t-62 has a 115mm gun, a rounded turret with a frontal armor thickness of 185mm, and a top speed of only 31mph. Oh yeah, the front road wheels are closer together than the rear ones.
the t-62 has a 115mm gun, a rounded turret with a frontal armor thickness of 185mm, and a top speed of only 31mph. Oh yeah, the front road wheels are closer together than the rear ones.
Apocalypse
New Member
Check out what Kharkiv-Morozov have in the works. it looks cool, but im not too sure on how good its gonna be, since its a development of a tank based on the T-80UD, im thinking this is not the black eagle tank.Waylander said:And this is the main problem of the Kharkiv-Morozov.
I would not bet on them existing in the near future.
http://morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot.php?menu=m1.php
i would vote for the t84,i believe that the black eagle is a formidable beast and if it can be equipped with a 152mm gun ,then it would be unmatched,however i believe that the 152mm gun would be an overkill and russians should concentrate on the development of a 130mm smooth bore gun having a higher muzzle velocity than the existing 125mm smooth bore gun.Big-E said:
their yatagan main battle tank has a performance capability equal to or inferior to the t80 and the t90 series,it is just an old tank with a few new systems and 120mm gun with a turret bustle ,nothing to be excited about,i dont think that the product is innovative enough to survive in the international market,particularly with the t80 and the t90 having already achieved export success.Apocalypse said:
You cannot really say who is best. The T-84 had some problems during the trials in greece.
But we really don't know how the armor differs.
Their attack capability should be nearly the same while both can be equipped with the newest 125mm smoothbore/ammo and both being able to use the same ATGMs and optics.
A bigger calibre is not always the answer. Remember that the 120mm smoothbore has more power than the 125mm. A bigger claibre also gives you problems in terms of ammo storage.
But we really don't know how the armor differs.
Their attack capability should be nearly the same while both can be equipped with the newest 125mm smoothbore/ammo and both being able to use the same ATGMs and optics.
A bigger calibre is not always the answer. Remember that the 120mm smoothbore has more power than the 125mm. A bigger claibre also gives you problems in terms of ammo storage.
T-64 (just as T-80) - was the second russian tank with WMD defesive measures and was especially intented for european military theater: it had maximum velocity on the relative good european roads, and was the first world tank lounched ATGM Kobra etc.
On the opposite T-72 - was intented for the south and the east military theaters (against non nuclear states) and for export to the USSR's allies in the Third World. If you look on their chassis you can see the difference: the rolls of T-64 are much smaller that of T-72. It means, the former has much lighter chassis (~1.5 t lighter) then T-72, but relative weaker and very problematic on the sand soil.
Bigger rolls means bigger contact surface with loose soil. The designers of contemporal tanks must take into concideration that fact. If you look on Leclerc chassis, you can see, that its 6 rolls are bir just as a rolls of T-72 (90).
On the opposite T-72 - was intented for the south and the east military theaters (against non nuclear states) and for export to the USSR's allies in the Third World. If you look on their chassis you can see the difference: the rolls of T-64 are much smaller that of T-72. It means, the former has much lighter chassis (~1.5 t lighter) then T-72, but relative weaker and very problematic on the sand soil.
Bigger rolls means bigger contact surface with loose soil. The designers of contemporal tanks must take into concideration that fact. If you look on Leclerc chassis, you can see, that its 6 rolls are bir just as a rolls of T-72 (90).
Last edited:
You will probably never see the Black Eagel in production, the South Koreans turned it down due to cost. 152 mm gun will be a disaster for a vechicle intended for shock and mobility, just look at the M-60A2 and Sheridian. They may have a use for long range defensive fire but that is it. You guy`swould be shocked if you knew what the Americans are working on, can you say Robotics.
chinawhite
New Member
The T-64 tank was introduced into service to be the spearhead of the soviet forces in germany and if war broke out, would have either led the forces through the Fulda Gap or the north german plain.
The Soviets realised that all divisions could not be armed with the T-64 since it was expensive and need a lot of manitance. Sticking to soviet practise, they developed a tank in unison to be easier to maintan and procure while having less advanced equipment
T-64 - Entered service 1966
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-400
Glacis: 335
T-64A - Entered sevice 1967~68
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-450
Upper front turret: 200
Glacis: 335
Lower front hull: 200
T-64B - Entered service in 1976
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-450
Upper front turret: 280-300
Glacis:415
Lower front hull: 230
Compared to the T-72
T-72 - Entered service in 1971
Kinetic rounds
Turret front: 280-380
Glacis: 305
T-72B - Entered service 1985
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-380
Upper front turret: 290
Glacis: 400
Lower front hull: 250
Notice the difference in armour between the two tanks. It wasn't armour which was the largest difference, but also the difference between the sighting equipment like a laser range finder which only begun to be fitted on the T-72A.The T-64 was later developed/replaced by the T-80 series of tanks in soviet service while the T-72BM was renamed the T-90 and placed into service
Armour levels were taken from the link Link . Armour levels only represent approimate figures and only appiles to the areas stipulated
The Soviets realised that all divisions could not be armed with the T-64 since it was expensive and need a lot of manitance. Sticking to soviet practise, they developed a tank in unison to be easier to maintan and procure while having less advanced equipment
T-64 - Entered service 1966
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-400
Glacis: 335
T-64A - Entered sevice 1967~68
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-450
Upper front turret: 200
Glacis: 335
Lower front hull: 200
T-64B - Entered service in 1976
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-450
Upper front turret: 280-300
Glacis:415
Lower front hull: 230
Compared to the T-72
T-72 - Entered service in 1971
Kinetic rounds
Turret front: 280-380
Glacis: 305
T-72B - Entered service 1985
Kinetic rounds
Turret: 280-380
Upper front turret: 290
Glacis: 400
Lower front hull: 250
Notice the difference in armour between the two tanks. It wasn't armour which was the largest difference, but also the difference between the sighting equipment like a laser range finder which only begun to be fitted on the T-72A.The T-64 was later developed/replaced by the T-80 series of tanks in soviet service while the T-72BM was renamed the T-90 and placed into service
Armour levels were taken from the link Link . Armour levels only represent approimate figures and only appiles to the areas stipulated
- We need refer with causion for 30-40 years old designation. It is totally useless to say "T-64 was more advance that T-72", its because the contemporal modification of T-64 and T-72 are drasticly different from 70th modifications. It like to say 'Leo2 better that Abrams because Leo2A5 much better that M1". It is also misleading to say that T-80 is follow of T-64 and T-72 - is not. Indeed it is a production of three completely different and competing tank design bureaus: Kharkov's Malishev-Morozov (T-64), Uralvagonzavod (UVZ - T-72) and Sankt-Petersburg Kirov's Tank Design bureau (T-80).chinawhite said:
What happen now is T-90A/S is much more advanced that any modification of T-64 in all parameters: chassis, engine, armor, turret, weapon etc. So about T-90 chassis vs any existed variant of T-80 chassis ay least in desert conditions. Grounding:
1) The chinese (i o improved T-72) chassis has been chosen for pakistanian Al-Khalid. The t-80's chassis was rejected even when its 6TD-2 diesel engine won the competition against the german and the chinese one.
2) The T-90S has been chosen by India. T-80U was rejected.
I think, the proofs are obvious.
First, 6TD-2 - is a good diesel engine, between the world best and it is better that its German and chinese competitors for Pakistani market thanks to dusty hot condition and peciliarity of Pucki maintenance (isnt so the chassis).Big-E said:
Second, their 'best combination' indigenous tank program still was at its initial study in middle 90th when they felt emergency and did make agreement to buy T-80UD.