History of Soviet tanks

[Wiedzmin]

15 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

my drawings.

Your drawings? Lol your a certified engineer on factory who made any? 

 

16 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

Which is true and shown on the scheme which is 100% made from drawing.

Package 184 (T-72 m. 1989) and 188 (T-90) 50 mm plate 6 mm rubber 4 mm plate. At the back 40 mm plate

 

Its your words or not ? 

 

Its not single 6+4 as you wrote 

 

Your pixel art from twitter also shows nothing aside fron some strange proportions 

 

So either you don't understand what you doing, or suck at readable scheme's and description , or both 

[Harkonnen]

Quote

Your drawings? Lol your a certified engineer on factory who made any? 

Maybe you are? As you say “you can steal again?”

What have I stolen instead of "your" blue and yellow colors? As for your pictures – they appeared years after I made it, and I have no problems with remakes and sharing.

Quote

Its your words or not ? 

My scheme and words are evident – if you do not see 2 plates it is your own problems, everybody else does. As well I also told - https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/14200-history-of-soviet-tanks/&do=findComment&comment=1740612

Quote

So either you don't understand what you doing, or suck at readable scheme's and description , or both 

 

Looks like you are lying. Evrebody can see 2 + 2 plates her. Such miserable envy )))

Edited April 24 by Harkonnen

[Wiedzmin]

 

55 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

What have I stolen instead of "your" blue and yellow colors?

All reports, that's kinda obvious, even using same photo with same artifacts (cause each of those photos was made by specific person per specific request) in both cases t44 and leo2av, and a lot of other materials.

31 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

Looks like you are lying.

Look like your crazy paint skills killed by image compression, but the one you posted with double layer and without compression - yes show correct one.

33 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

Maybe you are

Maybe you want to tell where you get t44 report? Or leo2av report? Cause none of those was paid by you, or scanned by you , only photoshopped it attempt to hide sources and claim that it's your idiotic "exclusive", which is always the case with any of "your"  post or selective quoting the main source 

 

But moving further, any swiss archive's reports which you mark with your stupid watermark without giving source? Or all of those also "yours"?

 

Oh sorry really forgot about your mental condition and the fact that it's spring outside.

 

 

[Harkonnen]

Quote

 

All reports, that's kinda obvious, even using same photo with same artifacts (cause each of those photos was made by specific person per specific request) in both cases t44 and leo2av, and a lot of other materials.

 

You're a liar. Of course, a person who's never visited an archive wouldn't understand. In the Bundesarchiv, anyone can order scans of materials for money.
Absolutely wild, ridiculous accusations from an uneducated, envious. of an uneducated, envious man.

Quote

Look like your crazy paint skills killed by image compression, but the one you posted with double layer and without compression - yes show correct one.

You are a liar and everything written above is just the result of envy. Everyone can see that the image has 2 + 2 layers. You deliberately degraded its quality as "proof".

So many lies to say everything's right in the end.

[Harkonnen]

Quote

Oh sorry really forgot about your mental condition and the fact that it's spring outside.

 

This is not a Russian forum, here it is customary to communicate culturally and not throw tantrums of envy

[Harkonnen]

Quote

But moving further, any swiss archive's reports which you mark with your stupid watermark without giving source? Or all of those also "yours"?

If I were writing a scientific article for a journal to be cited, I would definitely include it, but I don't need it. And the watermark is necessary, because I spend time searching, and people like you press Ctrl+C Ctrl+V.

Why such hysteria because I shared material from the archive about T-44? It is publicly available, and I spent time to post it on the Internet and recognize the text.

[Harkonnen]

 

[Jim Warford]

Here are some T-72B pics (just as a reminder)...

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

Unfortunately, this photo doesn't help. It doesn't show the crucial details.

[Harkonnen]

The price of the T-64 tank in 1960-70. The T-64A tank was cheaper than the T-72 tank and its modifications throughout its production.

 

[Rick]

On 4/24/2024 at 4:37 PM, Jim Warford said:

Here are some T-72B pics (just as a reminder)...

 

For ex-sailors lacking tank armor knowledge, what is the purpose of the steel and rubber plates?

[Damian]

13 minutes ago, Rick said:

For ex-sailors lacking tank armor knowledge, what is the purpose of the steel and rubber plates?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-explosive_reactive_armor

[Rick]

11 minutes ago, Damian said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-explosive_reactive_armor

Thank you. So this type of armor was designed to make penetration of H.E.A.T. more difficult while providing the same amount of protection vs high velocity rounds as the "old fashioned" R.H.A.?'

[Damian]

6 minutes ago, Rick said:

Thank you. So this type of armor was designed to make penetration of H.E.A.T. more difficult while providing the same amount of protection vs high velocity rounds as the "old fashioned" R.H.A.?'

Yes and no. Modern NERA or NxRA also provides very good protection against kinetic energy ammunition. This is because modern tanks use something of a hybrid armor, where NERA/NxRA is in the front and is backed up by passive armor layers, sometimes made from heavy metals like Depleted Uranium alloy or Tungsten.

This is a more complex subject.

[shep854]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 4/27/2024 at 7:32 PM, Harkonnen said:

The price of the T-64 tank in 1960-70. The T-64A tank was cheaper than the T-72 tank and its modifications throughout its production.

 

 

The T72 was always portrayed in the west as the 'cheaper' alternative to T64.  Is this a case of political lobbying playing a role again? That happened all the time under Brezhnev I understand, particularly in ballistic missile projects.

[Harkonnen]

Quote

he T72 was always portrayed in the west as the 'cheaper' alternative to T64.  Is this a case of political lobbying playing a role again? That happened all the time under Brezhnev I understand, particularly in ballistic missile projects.

 

Political intrigues, envy and desire for honors, weakening of central power and strengthening of regional centers. Many reasons.
But the funny thing is that the T-64A tank is attributed the shortcomings of its analogs. Thus, being the cheapest it is called expensive and complicated, being the most cross-country it is accused of poor cross-country ability. All this has been transferred from the false book of UVZ and in Western sources.

 

Edited April 30 by Harkonnen

[Interlinked]

Wouldn't it be good to see full reports published in their entirety and actual technical texts that go into detail on each of these parameters.

[alejandro_]

Quote

Thus, being the cheapest it is called expensive and complicated, being the most cross-country it is accused of poor cross-country ability.

That data is for 1974, when T-72 had just been launched into production and T-64 had been in production for quite a few years. It would be interesting o compare the price in later years, I would expect T-64 to be somewhat more expensive because it has a more sophisticated FCS.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It would be good to have a cost breakdown year by year. I think that would be really interesting.

 

[old_goat]

6 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

That data is for 1974, when T-72 had just been launched into production and T-64 had been in production for quite a few years. It would be interesting o compare the price in later years, I would expect T-64 to be somewhat more expensive because it has a more sophisticated FCS.

Maybe Im wrong, but there were another price comparison from the 80s, published years ago that showed that the T-64A was still somewhat cheaper than the T-72. Of course the T-64B then became significantly more expensive thanks to the new FCS and especially the Kobra system.

One more thing. Andrei mentioned the debate about the T-64 vs T-72 mobility. There is a great video about this topic, with in depth analysis, I REALLY recommend watching it. If russian is a problem, google translate works surprisingly well. It is about the two mentioned tanks, but in the comments lots of people asked about the T-80 too. Basically, the conclusion is this: The best running gear is the one on T-80. It has advantages and disadvantages too, but on average is is better than both the T-72 and T-64. Second is the T-64. It has good, soft ride, has extremely good offroad capabilities, and generally, it performs very well. It has one big disadvantage: On paved roads its miserable. Massive amounts of vibration (and noise) transmitted to the chassis. After road marches, it needs to be checked frequently. Finally, the worst running gear belongs to T-72. It has very rough ride, has problems with mud, and it is generally a heavy construction. It performs much better on paved roads than T-64 though.

 

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, old_goat said:

(T-72)  It has very rough ride, has problems with mud

I can not confirm this .

Yes OK. The T-80 has advantages of high engine power. The T-64 has advantages off-road with its narrow rollers.
But I can confirm that we had no problems driving the T-72 (780 hp) under mud conditions. And yes, all chassis with support rollers make noise.

[old_goat]

6 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

I can not confirm this .

Sorry, I wasnt clear. I meant T-72 has problems with mud compared to T-64. The video above explains it why. 

[Stefan Kotsch]

7 minutes ago, old_goat said:

T-72 has problems with mud compared to T-64.

The T-72 has no problem with mud. Although the T-64 handles it better.
This is an important nuance in the assessment. 😊

 

[Harkonnen]

9 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

That data is for 1974, when T-72 had just been launched into production and T-64 had been in production for quite a few years. It would be interesting o compare the price in later years, I would expect T-64 to be somewhat more expensive because it has a more sophisticated FCS.

 

Yes, indeed, why compare tanks with the same FCS when you can compare a tank with primitive FCS and a tank with sophisticated FCS.