Best Cold War Tank

[fastmongrel]

The problem with comparing Soviet tanks is most information comes from the Israelis who captured plenty of T54 to T72 tanks. These weren't the tanks the Soviets and the more advanced Warsaw pact forces used, they were known as Monkey models with lower grade cast steel rather than laminated steel armour, less powerful engines, older electronics and noticeably poorer ammunition.

The T55 was the equal of M48 and early Centurion. The T62 probably the equal of the M60 and late Centurions. The T64 is the joker no one is entirely sure just how good the T64 was, certainly the Soviets rated it very highly and advanced versions of it are still in use.

 

[Vincenzo]

i know that T-64 is not in the list but is surely a cold war tank with 1,000th built in 1969, it's near contemporary to european Leopard 1, AMX-30 and Chieftain (also this miss in the list)

 

[Juha]

If anythink Chieftain was very impressive on the cover of Uriah Heep's Salisbury

 

[GrauGeist]

The problem with comparing Soviet tanks is most information comes from the Israelis who captured plenty of T54 to T72 tanks. These weren't the tanks the Soviets and the more advanced Warsaw pact forces used, they were known as Monkey models with lower grade cast steel rather than laminated steel armour, less powerful engines, older electronics and noticeably poorer ammunition.

But with the breakup of the Soviet Union, those tanks of the Warsaw Pact nations were available to NATO for evaluation

 

[parsifal]

The reports being received in the western military following the various conflicts in the Middle east was that the tanks supplied to the Arabs were somewhat short of the refinements that could be expected in Soviet tanks. The old warsaw pact forces were in a similar situation. Things like night vision equipment, ranging gear, advanced communications equipment, were generally left out of the export models because there were bottlenecks in the Soviet production systems and this stuff was considered sensitive.


However the Israelis were also not always provided with the most up to date gear either. So I have my doubt just how valid it is to make special allowances for the Arab equipment. Much of it was captured by the Israelis and re-used, showing the basic tanks were all quite workable.

The T-64 has greater mobility than the T-62. The 5-cyllinder, opposed-piston, diesel engine has an estimated output of 700 to 750 hp. Although the engine is smaller than that of the T-72, the lighter (38 mt) T-64 is believed to have approximately the same road speed and cruising range as the T-72. Two 200-liter auxiliary fuel drums can be fitted on the rear of the hull.

The T-64 possessed better armor protection than the T-62. The hull and turret are of cast and welded steel armor incorporating both conventional steel armor and ceramic inserts, called Combination K, which provide superior protection against HEAT attack. Besides having greatly increased frontal armor protection due to the use of improved layered armor, the T-64 was also able to attach track protection plates or full-length skirts. According to the reports received at the time, it possessed low- flash fuel storage which offered some protection against fuel ignition. The front-mounted hull shovel enables the tank to dig itself in within a few minutes and also increases the armor protection of the lower hull front when it is folded upwards.

As standard fit the AFV carried the PAZ radiation detection system and an antiradiation liner. The T-64 also has a collective NBC filtration and overpressure system.

The T-64 has the same integral smoke generating capability as earlier T-54/55/62 tanks, and variants have the same type of turret-mounted smoke grenade projectors as have been observed on the T-72 and T-80.

The main armament comprises a 125mm smooth bore gun which power-elevates from -6º to +14º in a powered turret capable of traversing throughout 360º. The 125-mm smoothbore main gun fires a hypervelocity, armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot (HVAPFSDS) round which is now known to have a muzzle velocity of over 1,750 meters per second and an effective range of at least 2,000 meters. Importantly it did not have this range at night, due to the limits of its night ranging equipment. During the 1st gulf War, Tp64s were both outranged and oputgunned by the much more capable Abrams fitted with advanced targetting and IR gear.

The 40-round basic load of the T-64 was the same as the T-62, and would typically include 12 HVAPFSDS rounds, 6 HEAT rounds, and 22 HE rounds. The cartridges were semi-combustible with stub-cases which may have been copied by the West. An automatic loader allows the crew to be reduced to three (commander, gunner, and driver), and an automatic spent-cartridge ejection system similar to that of the T-62 is employed.

The 125-mm gun also fires the AT-8 Songster ATGM, and normally carries six AT-8 Songsters plus 36 rounds (projectile and charge) of 125-mm ammunition.
It has an automatic loader, similar to that installed in the T-72, which delivers eight rounds a minute. The incorporation of this innovative automatic loader allowed for a three-man crew. Problems remained, however, and there are reports of the autoloader system still tryoing to load members of the crew at various times.

The commander is capable of operating all weapons in the tank from his position, a great improvement over the T-62. . The T-64 has an improved, integrated fire control system compared to the T-62, but it still is far short of western elctronics. . It was fitted with an onboard computer, and some variants may have a laser rangefinder.

The use of an automatic loader retained many of the problems of the T-62, but it allowed the Soviets to reduce the number of crewmen. The soviets did not take the opportunity to rectify the space problem for their basic turret design with this design. In fact the turret size was reduce, so in the end the significant cramped nature Soviet tanks was retained. . The space available in the turret for each crewman was not significantly increased, and the ability to upgrade the tank severely curtailed. . The ability to depress the main gun (-5°) is still limited. When using the mast antenna, the command variant is immobile, since the mast must be anchored in the ground.

 

[Vincenzo]

no T-64 was never exported so can not be outranged or outgunned in the 1st gulf war (but is clearly you're talking of 2nd the american don't fight the first)
however your description is contradictory depression in first -6 after -5, ammo load is first 40 after 42 you did copy and paste from different sources?

 

[GrauGeist]

no T-64 was never exported

Yes, they were. Several nations have them, including the Ukraine.

 

[parsifal]

no T-64 was never exported so can not be outranged or outgunned in the 1st gulf war (but is clearly you're talking of 2nd the american don't fight the first)

T-64s were not exported, as such, but the similar T-72 was. T-72s did suffer several defeats to Western style armoured forces.

Since the break up of the Soviet Union, several ex=Soviet countries have acquired them, and some second hand surplus types have found their way into some foreign service.

however your description is contradictory depression in first -6 after -5, ammo load is first 40 after 42 you did copy and paste from different sources?

Its from one source, and i disagree that its contradictory. Different round types have different stowage requirements, more of one type may lead to a smaller loadf out overall.

As far as depression is concerned, Not sure why two different values are given either, but two other books that I have, but did not refer to in that information say the max depression is -5 degrees. it may be explainable in the various sub- types produced

 

[Vincenzo]

Yes, they were. Several nations have them, including the Ukraine.

at cold war time thy were never exported
actually nowdays there is a order from DRC for 50 T-64 but the actual delivery is not confirmed (or i don't find any notice)
all other countries get T-64 is not for export but as successor state of SU so obviously after the cold war

 

[Vincenzo]

T-64s were not exported, as such, but the similar T-72 was. T-72s did suffer several defeats to Western style armoured forces.

Since the break up of the Soviet Union, several ex=Soviet countries have acquired them, and some second hand surplus types have found their way into some foreign service.



Its from one source, and i disagree that its contradictory. Different round types have different stowage requirements, more of one type may lead to a smaller loadf out overall.

As far as depression is concerned, Not sure why two different values are given either, but two other books that I have, but did not refer to in that information say the max depression is -5 degrees. it may be explainable in the various sub- types produced

T-72 is similar only superficially. T-72 get several defeats vs newer/modernized western tanks no that available in the 60s (implicit time limit for the list)
however ammo load for T-64 was 36/38

 

[fastmongrel]

But with the breakup of the Soviet Union, those tanks of the Warsaw Pact nations were available to NATO for evaluation

Not the T64 I dont know if any Western army has ever got its hands on a T64 or if it has it would only have been an early model from Ukraine.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Ukraine modified theirs to what is called a T-64BM

 

[Glider]

Which would imply that they had some concerns over the original version. I wonder what the changes were

 

[GrauGeist]

The "Bulat" is an up-armored version with modular and composite armor arrangements and more recent modifications include an auto-loader.
Several modifications have been made since the BM version was introduced in the 90's

 

[tomo pauk]

T-72 is similar only superficially. T-72 get several defeats vs newer/modernized western tanks no that available in the 60s (implicit time limit for the list)
however ammo load for T-64 was 36/38

Welcome back, Vincenzo

The T-72 was 1st defeated by Western tanks in 1991, during the op. Desert Storm. There was no kills by Israeli tanks vs. T-72s in 1982 (Bekaa Walley), only TOW kills.
The T-64 and T-80 share the same lineage, the T-72 and T-90 are another branch (originating from the T-44 IIRC, via T-54/55 and T-62). Export models of the T-72 did not featured composite armor for turret, the T-64 did.


A lengthy thread at the tank-net forum, that covers Soviet post war tanks, is well worth reading.

 

[parsifal]

The T-72 was 1st defeated by Western tanks in 1991, during the op. Desert Storm. There was no kills by Israeli tanks vs. T-72s in 1982 (Bekaa Walley), only TOW kills.

this is hotly disputed. the biggest problem is that the Israelis, for political reasons have never released the causes or results of the various battles that were fought in that war. Syrian sources are notoriously unreliable. All information relating to any losses, let alone the cause of those losses is from highly suspect and unverifianle seconadary and tertiary sources. Put simply, anybody who says they know the cause of a loss in that war is speculating, guessing or just makig it up, because the most important sources of information are not talking, and neverr have, or cannot be relied on as a reliable source.

Having said all that, Ive read that Syrian tank losses ran to the hundreds with nearly 400 T-72s committed. Not a single israeli tank has ever been admitted lost in those battles (thats not the same as saying they didnt lose a tank....they just arent saying) . If it isnt zero, it is at least known to be very low. This speaks volumes on the overall lack of capability of the Soviet tank. On their own, they outnumbered the entire tank committment made by the israelis. That is a very poor combat record, whatever way you want to cut it. T-72s were similalrly cut to pieces in 1991 and as far as Im aware, have never won any battles of any strategic significance in their entire career.


The main AT weapon in that war was meant to be Israeli gunships, but the efforts of these weapons platforms was curtailed by the heavy presence of enemy SAM defences that severely curtailed Israeli air operations.

Id really like to know your sources for this claim, because Im not aware of any source that can be verified as to losses for either side.

 

[Vincenzo]

Welcome back, Vincenzo

A lengthy thread at the tank-net forum, that covers Soviet post war tanks, is well worth reading.

Ty but i'm not sure that i'm back

this http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200 ?

 

[tomo pauk]

What ever it is, I highly value your input

this is hotly disputed. the biggest problem is that the Israelis, for political reasons have never released the causes or results of the various battles that were fought in that war. Syrian sources are notoriously unreliable. All information relating to any losses, let alone the cause of those losses is from highly suspect and unverifianle seconadary and tertiary sources. Put simply, anybody who says they know the cause of a loss in that war is speculating, guessing or just makig it up, because the most important sources of information are not talking, and neverr have, or cannot be relied on as a reliable source.

Those 'disclaimers' should be applied on all sides taking part? Ie. many of us, either enthusiasts or pros, take at face value that Syrians lost 80 A/C in air battles above Lebanon, for zero Israely A/C losses. Worse, the capabilities of the MiG-23 were judged by the 80:0 victory count, even though most of the Syrian losses were MiG-21s, and maybe a handful of MiG-23s with BVR capability. Many people don't take into account the differences in radar coverage, availibility (or not) of secure communications and all-aspect missiles, pilot training, doctrine/strategy. etc.
Guess we will never know.

Having said all that, Ive read that Syrian tank losses ran to the hundreds with nearly 400 T-72s committed. Not a single israeli tank has ever been admitted lost in those battles (thats not the same as saying they didnt lose a tank....they just arent saying) . If it isnt zero, it is at least known to be very low. This speaks volumes on the overall lack of capability of the Soviet tank.

It does not speak of the capability of the Soviet tank. You know better than me that a tank, that is 'better' on paper, does not win the battles, let alone the wars. Panther, Tiger, Tiger II?

On their own, they outnumbered the entire tank committment made by the israelis. That is a very poor combat record, whatever way you want to cut it. T-72s were similalrly cut to pieces in 1991 and as far as Im aware, have never won any battles of any strategic significance in their entire career.

Again, no tank ever won strategical battles. The tanks that cut T-72s in pieces were a full generation ahead.

The main AT weapon in that war was meant to be Israeli gunships, but the efforts of these weapons platforms was curtailed by the heavy presence of enemy SAM defences that severely curtailed Israeli air operations.

The Syrian SAM systems were defeated in detail, whether by 'soft' or 'hard' means. MANPADS and Strela-1 were easily defeated by flares.

Id really like to know your sources for this claim, because Im not aware of any source that can be verified as to losses for either side.

I'll look it up and post the link.

 

[parsifal]

Of course the MBT is a part of system, but its meant to be the biting end of the overall army of which it is a part. T-34s were the spearhead of the Soviet Army that won at Kursk and other battles. Despite heavy losses, they still managed to pull off a strategic victory, ,and hence the reverence that this tank is held.

Not so the T-72. your right, it is part of a much bigger war machine. But at no stage has it ever shown any sign of being able to pull the rabbit out of the hat so to speak. Its not a stand out piece of technology, where one can say....."this piece of hardware made a difference", in the same way as say a FW190 or an Abrams might be able to claim. Its a good tank, but its unremarkable, and i daresay, the T-64 and the T-80 are both in the same category.

All these tanks were developed with the basic philosophy of the Red Army in mind. The Soviets designed their army for a rapid thrust, in a war that might last 20 days or less, across the northern plains of Europe. they needed a tank with legs and firepower, cheaply made, easily maintained, high levels of mobility. The T-72 delivered all of that and more. The T-64 and the T-80 less so, but perhapos because the Soviets by the time of the T-80 at least were beginning to realize the shortcomings of their doctrine . Soviet technology since the war has always lagged behind that of the west, and any time they try to achieve a technologiucal advantage in sophisticated weaponry like tanks or aircraft, they always come up short. Anytime the T-72 came up against any decent defence in depth its weaknesses have been exposed. Claiming its an obsolete tank is no real defence. It was constantly upgraed and modernized in its career, to no avail, and even when confronted with lighter, older tanks of western design, just fell down with all its weaknesses exposed for the world to see, if they chose. I daresy the T-64, T-80 would have suffered the same had they been so exposed.

 

[Vincenzo]

MBT available in the late 60s (only MBT the light tank had not chance v/s MBT, they are usufull only in niche operation)
(only newer for short the list)
M60A-1
Chieftain Mk 3
Leopard 1 (A1)
AMX-30
T-64A
not the newer but with capability similar a one or more MBTabove
Centurion Mk 10
T-62
others countries MBT
Vijavanta
Pz 61

Strv 103 (turretless combat vehicle).

Within this T-64A is the best, it's not a perfect tank, it's not w/o weakness but is the best available at time