History of Soviet tanks

[Stefan Kotsch]

I'm afraid we're talking about different things.

[Harkonnen]

Absolutely. Taking into account the title of the topic are meant events and arguments that took place during the appearance of tanks-analogues to understand the historical reasons for their appearance.

[Stefan Kotsch]

And that raises the question: is the T-72 chassis an inexcusable mistake? Or is the T-72 chassis in line with the international average?

[Interlinked]

Andrei here talks like he is in a mortal battle against Uralvagonzavod historians and their narrative, everything else can wait, first he must defeat them and burn down them all down to avenge the criminal theft of state funding and slander to the T-64.

Why? Who knows, maybe his mother was born in a T-64 and his house was destroyed by a T-72.

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Interlinked said:

Andrei here talks like he is in a mortal battle against Uralvagonzavod historians and their narrative, everything else can wait, first he must defeat them and burn down them all down to avenge the criminal theft of state funding and slander to the T-64.

Why? Who knows, maybe his mother was born in a T-64 and his house was destroyed by a T-72.

That does not make his points worthless, however.

[Stefan Kotsch]

Correct. We should only discuss technical questions in a technical manner.

[Interlinked]

Yes this is a rich topic where a lot of research can be done. T-80 suspension, including its wheels and tracks, were designed along the same lines as any modern Western tank. Parallel-pin tracks with moderate-sized road wheels, moderate track pitch. Why should even this uncontroversial design be considered "criminal" compared to the T-64? Technical subjects should be discussed with a technical approach. There is no Golden Path and different approaches are not blasphemous. 

[alejandro_]

41 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

Yes this is a rich topic where a lot of research can be done. T-80 suspension, including its wheels and tracks, were designed along the same lines as any modern Western tank. Parallel-pin tracks with moderate-sized road wheels, moderate track pitch. Why should even this uncontroversial design be considered "criminal" compared to the T-64? Technical subjects should be discussed with a technical approach. There is no Golden Path and different approaches are not blasphemous. 

It also seems to be the most stable platform for firing. When Ukraine has organised shooting competitions with tank units T-80s got the best results. An Indian veteran who tried T-80U and T-72 derivatives also pointed out that T-80 is less noisy and vibrates less.

[Interlinked]

Yes, and the T-80 solution of placing track pads (not track shoes) to reduce suspension vibration was itself a very expensive decision in terms of rolling resistance. Rubber wheel rims on rubber tracks has very high hysteresis losses. Much of the power from the gas turbine engine was spent just overcoming these extra resistances. As it turns out, suspension is a complicated engineering subject. 

[Harkonnen]

It is impossible to talk about the history of tank building in the USSR from the point of view of logic. This history is not logical. I'll give you an example that doesn't concern the running gear part.
There was a production of T-64A turret with combined armor with ceramics. to provide the required resistance to shaped-charge jets. But when the supporters of the of the T-80 won, they demanded that the T-64A turret be made of homogeneous armor. which was worse. Document - https://t.me/btvt2019/11817

[Harkonnen]

1 hour ago, Interlinked said:

Yes this is a rich topic where a lot of research can be done. T-80 suspension, including its wheels and tracks, were designed along the same lines as any modern Western tank. Parallel-pin tracks with moderate-sized road wheels, moderate track pitch. Why should even this uncontroversial design be considered "criminal" compared to the T-64? Technical subjects should be discussed with a technical approach. There is no Golden Path and different approaches are not blasphemous. 

Why was the T-80 needed when the T-64A was available?  Why didn't the US start producing 2 tank programs with a gas turbine Chrysler and GD with a diesel with conplectely different design, then a third main tank from AAI would have been added?

[Interlinked]

We all agree that three tanks was a stupid idea.

But three tanks were made anyway. Now we are discussing the technical merits and demerits of the choices made in their design.

Who are you trying to fight here? What enemies are you trying to invent?

[Harkonnen]

12 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

And that raises the question: is the T-72 chassis an inexcusable mistake? Or is the T-72 chassis in line with the international average?

The production of 2 or three similar tanks in one country is an inexcusable mistake. Why BRD did not produce KpZ 70 along with Keiler and KpZ III T at the same time? Why not - every one of them has advantages. To make this fraud accusations of low reliability and poor cross-country ability and others were used. I publish them based on the archives.
Nobody else but me did not publish the data of archives, the history that is now published is based on justifications of frauds and crimes. But why study the archives if you can stay within the framework of your old concepts.

[Harkonnen]

6 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

We all agree that three tanks was a stupid idea.

But three tanks were made anyway. Now we are discussing the technical merits and demerits of the choices made in their design.

Who are you trying to fight here? What enemies are you trying to invent?

The topic is called "History of Soviet tanks", I am discussing what is in the topic title.

And you seem to have decided to discuss me in this subject.

What can you offer in this matter - you apparently have a huge amount of data on the results of comparative tests of Soviet tanks? 

If the topic "History of Soviet tanks" gives you discomfort and reality somehow contradicts your concepts, why are you here?

[Interlinked]

It really is pointless.

[Harkonnen]

 

Edited May 4 by Harkonnen

[old_goat]

5 hours ago, Interlinked said:

T-80 suspension, including its wheels and tracks, were designed along the same lines as any modern Western tank. Parallel-pin tracks with moderate-sized road wheels, moderate track pitch. Why should even this uncontroversial design be considered "criminal" compared to the T-64?

Unfortunately, in this topic, we cannot set aside soviet internal politics. First we talked about the T-72. It is an unavoidable fact that the existence of this tank was exclusively the result of UVZ's stubbornness of pushing out Harkov (and eventually Leningrad) from tank production, making them the only tank producer of USSR. They didnt have any original design capable of beating the T-64, thats why they resorted to copying it, and later retrofitting it with their own, less advanced components, so they could avoiding retooling their production lines. This included the suspension, which was a modified, improved version of the one in Object-167, which itself was also just a modified version of T-54/55/62 suspension. Already obsolete. Too heavy, too expensive, and it had inferior characteristics.

For the T-80, it was a different story. T-80 had to be faster than anything else. T-64 stlye roadwheels were unsuitable, the bearings overheated at high speeds. That was one of the main reasons why the T-80 needed a new suspension system. 

[Harkonnen]

6 minutes ago, old_goat said:

For the T-80, it was a different story. T-80 had to be faster than anything else. T-64 stlye roadwheels were unsuitable, the bearings overheated at high speeds. That was one of the main reasons why the T-80 needed a new suspension system. 

If the wheels of the T-64 tank were not suitable, someone will explain why the future 490A and 477 tanks, which were designed with a unified engine compartment for diesel and AGT, had T-64 wheels and moved perfectly well with them?  

[old_goat]

Just now, Harkonnen said:

If the wheels of the T-64 tank were not suitable, someone will explain why the future 490A and 477 tanks, which were designed with a unified engine compartment for diesel and AGT, had T-64 wheels and moved perfectly well with them?  

Wheel bearings overheated at high speeds. The same happened during the tests of Object-478DU in Pakistan. 

[Harkonnen]

2 minutes ago, old_goat said:

Wheel bearings overheated at high speeds. The same happened during the tests of Object-478DU in Pakistan. 

And where does this information come from, I haven't seen any such records.

[old_goat]

38 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

And where does this information come from, I haven't seen any such records.

From your blog:

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/335248.html

"Объект 478ДУ до настоящего времени продолжает эксплуатироваться на опытной базе ХКБМ. Результаты испытаний показали, что благодаря снижению общей массы танка (за счет ходовой части) максимальная скорость 478ДУ возросла на 3-4 км/час, однако при длительном движении на таких больших скоростях из-за высоких оборотов опорного катка перегревались его подшипники."

[Harkonnen]

1 hour ago, old_goat said:

From your blog:

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/335248.html

"Объект 478ДУ до настоящего времени продолжает эксплуатироваться на опытной базе ХКБМ. Результаты испытаний показали, что благодаря снижению общей массы танка (за счет ходовой части) максимальная скорость 478ДУ возросла на 3-4 км/час, однако при длительном движении на таких больших скоростях из-за высоких оборотов опорного катка перегревались его подшипники."

Moving on a concrete highway is far from being the main way of moving tanks. It is rather an exception.

[KV7]

On 4/28/2024 at 10:05 PM, 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.?'

Protection vs AP can also be quite good, the movement in the plates still forces the projectile to cut a slot and it can be bent a little.

See these simulations:
 

 

 

Edited May 4 by KV7

[Harkonnen]

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

Protection vs AP can also be quite good, the movement in the plates still forces the projectile to cut a slot and it can be bent a little.

See these simulations:
 

 

 

2-nd video is not about actual T-90A as it does not correspond in armor array to T-90 or even T72B late.

[KV7]

7 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

2-nd video is not about actual T-90A as it does not correspond in armor array to T-90 or even T72B late.

Yes correct. Also the K5 does not detonate for some reason.

It does show the general defeat mechanism of NERA vs long rods reasonably well though.

Edited May 4 by KV7