True I didn't say which model, but I was thinking more of the T-64B against the T-72A, both were in production at around the same time.

 

The T-72 is not in any way kind to it's crews, when I frist saw one at Duxford I was amazed at how low down it is and the small size of the turret, now the T-64 isn't much bigger, true. However both tanks have different auto loaders, The T-64 has the hydrolic powered 'basket type' while the T-72 has the eletric powered 'cassette type' Both are reliable though there were issues with the auto loaders on the T-64A, the whole gunner's losing their arms stories. Due to the ammo storage arrangement on the T-64, the autoloader itself gives around 3in more head room than a T-72, very usefull in a tank as cramped as these. Also because of this the ammo is stored lower in the hull, and thus less exposed, the basket design also allows the carosell  to traverse in two directions allowing for faster selection of ammunition loading and thus a faster fireing rate, 6-9 seconds, vs 6-14 seconds for the cassette type. The T-72 also has a falw reminicent of the T-62 series; a small hatch at the back for the shell stubs are ejected, while this saves room it is not good in an NBC enviroment, unless however this system can be turned off.

 

As I said before the turret crew compartment is smaller in a T-72, which for long endurance is not a good thing, it's like been stuck in the back seat of a car, hunched over for a long road trip, also the T-64 was faster than the T-72 until it had the engine upgrade in the B model. While the T-72 may have been faster on rough terrain, it was not used in Afghanistan as the susspenation was prone to failure over that kind of ground. Both tanks have v very cramped driver positions an can be hard to drive with the two stick steering.

 

The armour values you gave were for the T-72B, but it was the T-64 which first introduced composite armour, using two layers of steel with a kind of fiberglass filler, I am not too sure on the properties of the fibreglass. Providing excellent protection at the time, enough to stave off 105mm L7/M68 rounds, the most common NATO tank gun at the time of their introduction. Even the T-72M/M1s (monkey models) could old their own against L7 armed Centurions in Lebanon in 1982. It was only with the introduction of the T-72B in 1985, that the base protection of the T-72s came close to that of the T-64s, by then both had Konkat 1 ERA, which went into wide spread use in 1983. 

(On the T-64 , the gun is only stabilized on 2 planes and the FCS cannot allow the Tank to fire on the move . The T-72 can fire on the move because the Gunner has the 1V528 ballistic computer .)

 

Only T-72B had a modern ballistic computer, also the T-64 could fire on the move however when firing the AT-8 it had to remain sationary, and the tank commander also had access to control the tanks weapons.

(On the T-64 , the gun is only stabilized on 2 planes and the FCS cannot allow the Tank to fire on the move . The T-72 can fire on the move because the Gunner has the 1V528 ballistic computer .)

 

Only T-72B had a modern ballistic computer, also the T-64 could fire on the move however when firing the AT-8 it had to remain sationary, and the tank commander also had access to control the tanks weapons.

I don't know where you get your data from, but T-64B is certainly capable of firing on the move. It shares the same 1A33 FCS with the T-80BV. 1A33 is capable of highly accurate fires out to 2000m, which is the design range.

 

Moreover, all T-64 variants have a much higher practical rate of fire than any T-72 variant until the T-90, and T-72BM, when the latter tanks adopted the "sequence mode" present in the former.

 

In terms of protection, too, only T-72B begins to approach T-64B. The only practical advantages T-72 vehicles had over their contemporary T-64 variants is general mechanical reliability and ease of maintenance, where the early T-64s were a nightmare.

Boris! How's it been? How are your studies in Aus going?

 

Well there is a reason I want to read that artical again, I have had no luck in finding it, but it did clearly say some asspects of the T-72 model were supirior to the T-64, but it is not obvious. Also I also once read that the T-72BV had almost the same protection offered by the T-80BV, so I wouldn't call it short.

The original thread which prompted me to strat this one, link

Blue lets keep in mind we are talking about the 1970s-1980s here if you are going to bring in NATO tanks use the same time period.

BW wrote "The T-64B is not capable to fire on the move in the way we fire on the move now . The gun stabilization and the FCS is simply not good enough . The T-80UM has the FCS you need . When an Abrams or a Leopard can fire at you at full speed @ 3800m on the move , you 'll better duck in your T-64B . Leclerc can even do better than that ."

 

I thought we were talking about T-72 v T-64...? No question that the modern Western tanks can outfight the T-64 but, being of a completely different generation, I would be very surprized if they couldn't!

"The autoloader and the FCS on the T-72BM are the one I was talking about . No probs with those , they can fire up to 8 rounds/minutes at full speed with a 90% accuracy at up to 2000m (which is short) ."

 

And are the T-72BM and T-64B contemporary? Also, firing on the move at high speed is quite challenging for the T-72B/BM because of the way the gunner has to input data into the FCS (i.e. minimum two, preferably three lases in a five second period).

 

Busy! My studies are progressing quite lethargically but, then, I do suffer from Acute Motivational Deficiency Syndrome!

 

The main advantage T-72 tanks had over T-64 was mechanical simplicity and all that goes with it. Early T-64 variants were a maintenance nightmare and quite unreliable mechanically, especially in cold starts. T-72 would start up first time, every time. T-64A improved on this a little, but the T-64B was the first tank in the series that could be reasonably described as reliable, and even that variant is quite inferior to contemporary T-72s in that respect.

 

T-64BV and T-80BV had remarkably similar protection and firepower levels. T-72B was, indeed, the first UVZ vehicle that could compare with Omsk and Kharkiv in terms of protection, but as a combat vehicle it still suffered from inferior practical firepower (ROF, FCS, tube-launched ATGM), though it was mechanically more reliable and had a smaller logistical footprint, especially when compared to T-80.

Ok 00-Chem , sorry .
But the T-64B is still a poor Tank by my standard ...

Cheers .

..er...compared to contemporary rivals, NATO or Soviet, T-64B is arguably the best MBT in the world. The American M-60A3 and the British Chieftain are the only ones to have a shot at the title, with the M-60A3 having its outstanding TTS and FCS, but it is undergunned and has inferior protection and mobility.

 

Chieftain with TOGS has the firepower and thermals, but doesn't have the mobility and protection. Additionally, T-64B/BV is highly resistant to HEAT/HESH.

 

Leopard and AMX-30 don't fare well in any of the three categories.

I wouldn't knock off the Leopard as it was NATO's most mobile tank, had the Chieftain not had the L60 problem, it would of been a world beater in terms of fire power, and the armour along with wet ammunition storage gave good crew survivability. Personally the 3rd gen T series tanks would of been much beter had they been a little larger, allowing more room for the crew, and better storage of ammunition. I know they wanted to keepo a low profile but the later FCSs somewhat removed that advantage.