"Confused about T-64/T-72/T-80" Topic

Central Europe circa 1987-88, what units would be using the T-64, T-72, or the T-80?

I would recommend this as a good place to start:

link

If I recall most of the T-64 in 3SA had been replaced by, or were being replaced by the T-80. Facing BAOR onl;y the NVA had T-72,

Tally Ho!

Confusing subject…

T64- Mid 60s
Original-about 500 built
115mm gun..
3 (at least turrents)
1st with steel/ solid aluminum /steel
2nd with with steel/thin aluminum + thin steel + rubber/ steel
3rd with corundum balls
Hull
80mm steel + 105mm fiber glass + 20mm steel

T64A earlier- mid 70s.
125mm gun
Turret was steel + corundum balls +steel
Hull- same as T64 original

T64B very late 70s/early 80s
125mm gun
Turret was improved (thicker- same basic layout)
Hull- better steel
60mm steel/ 105mm fiber glass/50mm steel

T64BV mid 80s
125mm gun (improved)
Turret as about the same as T64B
Hull 30mm Steel/60mm Steel/105mm Fiber glass/50mm steel
Reactive armor

Upgrades….many of the earlier models were upgraded. Usually got a newer turret and a 30mm High Hardness steel plate added to the glacis.
Some (few)very late model T64BVs may have had a turret more like the T80.

T72- Original (early 70s)
125mm gun- slower auto-loader than T64
Turret 300mm average of steel
Hull: 80mm steel + 105 fiber glass + 20mm steel

T72- 1976 Same as T72 original… but
20 to 40mm corundum insert in the turret…
some with laser range finder

T72A – late 70s/early 80s
125mm Gun
Turret
Steel/quartz sand (with waterglass) Steel
Hull
60mm Steel +105mm fiber glass +50mm

T72A-
Same as T72A with reactive armor

T72 Monkey model- original 72 with laser range finder

T72B- mid 80s
125mm gun
Turret
Steel + an stacked deck of aluminum+steel_rubber +steel
Hull a mix of different hardness steel and rubber
Reactive armor

T80-very early 80s
essentially a T64b with heavier turret (thicker steel) and a
turbine engine… not widely deployed.

T80BV- mid 80s..
Same as T64BV with even a heavier turret
Steel/ steel cylinders filled with plastic/steel plate/cylinders filled with plasic/steel
Hull: not known -Multiple layers
and reactive armor.

T80U-
Turrent… unknown… thought to be more like the T72B
Hull probably the same as T80
Heavy reactive armor.

Hope this helps

Couple of comments…

T72 was a cheap version of the T64…suitable for export
Not as fast.
Slower autoloader.
Fire control not as advanced.

T80 was flop at first…
redesign was mis-handled, politically charged, and late.

T64BV was a stop gap to fix the T80 issue.

T80BV was the fixed T80… not deployed in numbers till 87-88.

T80U was actually ready about the same time as the T80BV. Much more capable…. but not widely deployed.

T90 is a T72BV upgraded…

Newest versions have a welded turret.

Joe Collins

Deployment
87-88….

I use…
MRR- T64As
TR- T64BVs or
T80BVs
for army in Germany…

Soviet units in Cz had T72AVs

Follow on units were T72As and T72s.

T62 were withdrawn in 84.. though it took awhile. No T62 in 87…

No T80Us or T72Bs

Joe Collins

Ummm… OK.

Allen

Looking at some old stuff, all units in 3SA had T-80/U-BV(In the orbats on a threat pamphlet we have T-80U) including BTR/BMP and Independent Tank. Looking at some barrack imagery certainly with the flap of rubber at the front between the tracks.

Tally Ho!

Nick,

I'd certainly be interested if you could post some more details (pics?) regarding the T80U is GSFG. To my knowledge this is the first time someone with relevant experience has suggested firm evidence for T80U ever being deployed in theatre. Please give us some more…

I will have a look at what I have, much has happend since 3SA turned right out of Magdeburg as opposed to left!

Tally Ho!

1st I've heard of T80Us in Germany as well.

In 87-88 I would be very surprised…. T80BV were just being deployed at this time.

Joe Collins

As I said quite a few conflicts since! The email I was expecting to confirm reads:

"hells teeth, that was some time ago, it was the early version with ERA"

Looks like it was the BV!

Tally Ho!

"T72 was a cheap version of the T64…suitable for export"

No it wasn't--Both developed by different teams at roughly the same time…The T72 was seen as a simpler tank whereas the T64 was a complex high tech vehicle for defeating the NATO forces in Europe--Was far ahead of its time and had initial problems but eventually these all got sorted out!!--T 72 was also reasoanably hitech but was seen as a simpler tank with a different design philosophy..

Central Europe circa 1987-88, what units would be using the T-64, T-72, or the T-80?

The WARPAC and Soviet units.
-Kle.

Soviet tank deployment in Central Europe in the 1970s-1980s is a sad tale. Essentially, in the mid-1970s the Soviet High Command decided to re-equip GSFG in short order with the 'premium' tank T64A. The plan for re-equipment was 6-7 divisions (2000 tanks) a year, so that GSFG would be completely re-equipped in 3-4 years. T-64As began arriving in 1976 in 16 and 35 divisions (and were mistaken by Western intel to be T-72s – hence the beginning of the myth that T-72s were in GSFG).

At first re-equipment went quite quickly, helped by the stripping of T-64As from divisions in the interior USSR, and in 1977 six tank or Motor Rifle divisions were re-equipped. But the single tank plant producing T-64As (Kharkov, Leningrad insisted on their T-80 and Nizhny Tagil on their T-72)) couldn't keep up the initial pace. Each year after that the number of divisions in GSFG re-equipped fell. By 1980 they were down to only two divisions a year – and hence many GSFG were still equipped with T-62.

At the same time, in 1980 the Soviet government unilaterally withdrew 1000 tanks and 20000 men from GSFG. In reality most of these tanks were T-55s, T-62s and T-10Ms from training and border regiments.
To be continued…

Thanks for all the useful info. Soviet tanks post WW2 seems to be one of those subjects that I read and read and still get confused. Collins355 looking forward to the rest of your story on Soviet tank deployments

lkmjbc3 13 Apr 2011 10:22 a.m. PST
Deployment
87-88….

I use…
MRR- T64As
TR- T64BVs or
T80BVs
for army in Germany…

Soviet units in Cz had T72AVs

Follow on units were T72As and T72s.

T62 were withdrawn in 84.. though it took awhile. No T62 in 87…

No T80Us or T72Bs

Joe Collins

Good stuff, just the kind of info I want for planning miniature purchase.

One other question: what about Czech/Poles/East German units? What do they have in 87-88?

For the East Germans…

Mostly T55s… I believe a few lead units had Monkey model T72s.

Same with the Poles… except a few Polish Tank regiments would have had T72As ..(T72M1s under the old designation).

CZ were T62 I think with a few T72s. Though my memory is hazy on that one.

Joe Collins

Continued from above.

By the end of 1980 the Soviet High Command were getting worried their plan was falling down. This was no doubt exacerbated when the rate of re-equipment dropped to only about one division in 1981. Meanwhile, reliability problems plagued the T-64 through the 1970s, at least in some units (some say sabotage was involved, or deliberate mis-reporting – this is symptomatic of the ongoing extreme conflict and hostility between the various supporters of the competing Russian tank design houses).

In 1982 the T-64B began shipping to GSFG. Initially equipment was on a scale of one company per battalion of T-64s. This allowed the replaced T-64As to be cascaded down to T-62 units, speeding up re-equipment to an extent. During 1982 the decison was taken to have the GSFG equipped with two types of MBTs: the T-80 from Leningrad and the existing Kharkov T-64 (in effect abandoning the 1970s plan to standardise on one MBT).

In the first quarter of 1983 the first T-80Bs began shipping into GSFG in line with the new dual tank strategy. Initially the deployment pattern was to 1st Tank Army and 8th Army. T64Bs went to 3rd "Shock" (as it was known to NATO) and 20th Army on the scale of one company per battalion.

From 1984 the T80B deployment pattern was gradually changed to a more general scattering of T80s in company packets across GSFG, rather than reserving them for 1st and 8th Armies. T80BVs and T64BVs began appearing in 1985.

Finally, by the end of 1985, the re-equipment with new generation tanks envisaged in 1975 was virtually complete. GSFG had about 7700 tanks, with 5700 in the 11 tank and 8 motor rifle divisions, and about 2000 MBTs in training regiments and repair and reserve depots (including still about 1000 T-62s).

In the decade the re-equipment took, NATO had begun deploying the Leopard 2 and then Abrams MBTs which significantly outclassed the basic T-64A which still formed the majority of GSFG tanks in 1985, as well as introducing numerous ATGMs and new tank gun ammunition. The Soviet High Command then decided to switch to an all T-80 force, but this was never completed before GSFG was disbanded (numbers grew from 838 at the start of 1987 to nearly 3000 T-80s by the end of 1990). GSFG tanks remained deployed in a mosaic or patchwork pattern with little standardisation, even within regiments. The grand vision of a rapid re-equipment of GSFG with a single premium tank was unfulfilled.

The Czechs did not field T-62s to the best of my knowledge, only T-54/55 and a few T-72.

"T72 was a cheap version of the T64…suitable for export
Not as fast.
Slower autoloader.
Fire control not as advanced."

No. No it wasn't. The T72 is a standard MBT. The T-72M is the export model and has virtually no armoured protection by comparison and comes with amazingly substandard ammunition, leading it to be near useless against a modern tank and inferior to, but not completely incapable of fighting older tanks like the M60 Patton.

I understand the point you're wanting to make wolfprophet – but even the T-72M has considerably better armour protection on the frontal arc than the M60.

Even firing old BM-15 APFSDS, the T-72M will have a reasonable overmatch against the M60 armour at Central European battle ranges – and if firing BK-12 HEAT instead, a comprehensive overmatch. The M60 has nothing like the HEAT protection of the T-72M.

The T-72M has much better mobility, and a lower silouette.

If you make it the very last model of the M60, then you get TTS and that would give a significant advantage in the area of fire control and target acquisition.

Wolfprophet…
I have to disagree with you. Your general idea of the situation is correct… but your facts are off…

The Monkey Model export T72 was actually more capable that the original T72.

The armor basis was roughly the same, though the turret on the export T72 was slightly better. The export T72 had a slightly better gun. The main difference was the laser range finder on the T72M (export monkey model). This made it a more capable tank.

However…. when the Sovs began to allow export T72s… the original T72 was not being produced. There had been two intervening models. The first is the T72 1976 (I forget the Sov name). It had the original T72 hull, but the turret had corundum inserts like the T64A. Later models that year had the laser range finder as well (though earlier production still had the coincidence stereo unit).

This model was superseded by the T72A. The T72A had the sand bar armor (not as effective as corundum.. but much easier to manufacture… and not as politically charged) in the turret. The T72A hull was also thicker (60mm+105 fiberglass)+50mm vs the 80+105+20 of the original T72). The hull reconfiguration underperformed and required a later upgrade… but that is another story.

So… the export T72M was actually much less capable than the standard T72A of the time… but actually somewhat better than the original T72.

The ammo argument is much the same. The T72 export ammo wasn't sub-standard (well, Soviet manufacturing… maybe it was or not). It was just an older design.

Iraqi ammo was mainly substandard… but it was their own design. Better was available (BM-15) if you could afford it… or get the Sovs to sell it to you.

BM-15 would wreck any M60 or Leo from any combat range (the very last Leo1s had some immunity in the turret… but it was iffy). It stayed the standard export issue. The Finns had it till they dumped their T72s.

BM-22 was frightening… It still is standard issue for Russians in areas of a low conflict.

So, to the point.. your general understanding is correct… but the details are off. The Export T72M wasn't equal to the standard T72 design of the day. On this you are correct. The standard issue T72 however was not the original T72.

Joe Collins

Excuse my ignorance

What did the corundum inserts do?

Corundum is synthetic ruby. It is an extremely hard substance. It in a sense shatters when hit be tremendous forces.

Vs CEP…. which has a large amount of energy and little mass.. it tends to force the penetrating jet to bend making the penetrating hole bigger (and taking more energy)… it also shatters and gets in the way… forcing the jet to push it (the corundum fragments) along with it…(Remember the corundum is encased in steel).

Vs KEP…. which has much less energy but more mass…
The corundum shatters and produces uneven pressures along the rod …likely breaking it… the pieces will still penetrate… but will take slightly different flight paths.. making a bigger hole.. and using more energy. The shattered corundum also forms a plug in front of the penetrator that won't flux out of the way… it is pushed in front of it. Finally, pieces that are pushed out of the way will be extremely hard… and will actually strip pieces of the rod off.

Basically, corundum gets in the way differently than steel.

T72 has the same thing with its "sandbar armor" It is essentially just quartz chips glued together. Quartz isn't as hard as Ruby… but it is close… and does much the same thing. The sandbar armor is also much easier to manufacture. The corundum had a more complicated design that made it more effective vs KEP… though the difference wasn't huge.

Joe Collins

Befor you ask CEP means Chemical energy projectile
KEP means explosive energy projectile.

And to finish that translation from tanker to civilian, Chemical Energy means shaped-charge (HEAT/HEAP).

And to correct that translation for those of you who don't habla:

CEP is Chemical Energy Penetrator, commonly known as HEAT or MPAT.

KEP is Kinetic Energy Penetrator, commonly known as APFSDS, or just fin or sabot. The penetrator is most commonly constructed of tungsten alloy or depleted uranium alloy.

cheers