"On the competence of Steven Zaloga..." Topic

To my regret, my quotes from respected military historian Steven Zaloga's recent Osprey on the T-64 tanks has led to a couple of assertions on this Cold War board that his work is suspect and is disrespected by 'serious' academics, as well as, apparently, Russian armoured museum staffers.

The purpose of this post is not to continue the debate over the value of the T-64, I think that positions have clearly been established. I just wanted to start a thread recognizing the contributions Steven has made to this area of interest, and put right any fallout that my use of his work may have cast in his direction.

I have long found his work to be authoritative as well as readable, and initially dismissed these attacks on the man, rather than on his argument, as typical TMP blow-harding…

I shan't trouble your intelligence with why Russian armoured museum staff might wish to denigrate his findings on the T-64, but I just thought I'd some googling to see if there were any academic doubts – and I have found no negative academic opinions on the man or his work.

But I did find some very positive reviews of his T-64 book on Amazon by another author I respect, R A Forzyck, a US Army armour officer as well as author:

As usual, armor expert Steven Zaloga provides a wealth of useful information and analysis in T-64: The Cold War's Most Secret Tank. Indeed, I wish I had this volume 30 years ago when I was an American tanker and we knew very little about the difference between a T64 and a T-72. In this volume, Mr. Zaloga shows how the Soviet quest for a new, advanced tank in the early 1950s was subverted by interference from Nikita Khrushchev, who endorsed full-scale production of the T-64 prototype before all the bugs were worked out – the Russian Army has been paying the consequences for this mistake for decades. Mr Zaloga assesses that the T-64, which influenced the later T-72 and T-80 tanks, saddled the Soviets with a tank that was simply too small to compete effectively with its Western adversaries. There is little doubt that the small turret, half of which is occupied by the autoloader, is sub-optimal. I've been inside the T-72 turret and found it too cramped and believe it would quickly undermine crew
effectiveness.

Mr. Zaloga also describes the in-fighting between the Soviet tank design bureaus in Kharkov, Nizhniy Tagil and Leningrad, which led to the concurrent development of three different tanks. The T-64 tank itself was a problem child, plagued with engine defects and a variety of other issues. Although the author mentioned problems with the air filters, it is never really clear what was causing T-64 engines to fail so quickly. The T-64's transmission is not mentioned, but I suspect that this component may also have been problematic. When I went through Foreign Vehicle training at Aberdeen, I was surprised by the T-72's poor design in terms of operator maintenance; unlike Western military vehicles, simple tasks like checking oil levels were difficult due to the design. Given the T-64's low operational readiness in the 1970s, I suspect that operator level maintenance was not up to snuff.

Overall, the volume is one of the best New Vanguards that I have read in the last year or so and boasts excellent graphical quality and information. An excellent volume.

link

I hope this post can clarify Steven's contribution to the field of knowledge about Soviet (and indeed US) armour.

Navy Fower Wun Seven:
I have long respected and relied upon Zaloga's copious body of work and I am pleased to see you taking the time and making the effort to bring balance to a discussion of the value of his work. Thank you.
Rod Robertson.

As a US Army military intelligence officer serving during and after the cold war, with both a personal and professional interest in Soviet armor, I can attest that Mr. Zaloga was considered a valuable and credible resource regarding Soviet equipment, armor in particular- amongst professionals in the intelligence community. His articles featured prominently in many intelligence journals of the day. He was and is considered the 'go to' resource at the unclassified level for accurate and up to date information on Soviet/Russian armor. His writing provided accurate insight and disambiguation often years before the same information was published in unclassified Army field manuals. I have yet to find information provided by Mr. Zaloga that wasn't later confirmed & verified by other sources. While I am comfortable relying on TMP posters for Napoleonic uniform piping color advice, I will continue to hold Mr. Zaloga in the high esteem he has earned over the decades regardless how the TMP masses bloviate about topics they likely know little about.

I'm with ds frank, I have read much of his WW2 stuff and find it to be excellently researched and by and large confirmed by other works and by veterans.

Zaloga's work is fine. What is missing is an understanding of the Soviets. Their interests were not Western interests. Their view of war was not the same as ours. Their society wasn't the same as ours.

What they considered important in a tank was not the same as we considered important.

The T64 wasn't a failed tank by any means. It would have been a formidable foe in the 70s and 80s. Against the M60 it was an extreme overmatch. Against the Leo 1 or M48 it wasn't even close.

Please remember that the Russians were backward rubes that always had the worst equipment and leadership… except they beat Freddy the Great… and Napoleon… Turkey and Hitler…

Hmmm… Maybe… just maybe they know something that we don't.

Joe Collins

To respectfully disagree Mr. Zaloga has a keen understanding of the Soviet/Russian military & poloitcal landscape that goes far beyond TO&Es and equipment Stat lines & he consistently provided insight as to why and how the various design bereaus did what often made little sense outside their political arena and the larger mechanations that drove seemingly silly, redundant, or imprudent decisions. The T64 was a landmark design, had huge impact on follow on tank series & was a potent adversary on paper (which our own military industrial complex capitalized -like it did with so many other systems – that later proved not to live up to their hype – because it pushed programs they profited from – many of which resulted in greatly expanded capabilities for us) – but in the field the T64 (put in service at least a decade before its technology could deliver its promised performance with any reliability) was found wanting to the point it was replaced by its less 'premium' cousins the T72 & T80 that were designed incorporating the benefits & discarding the drawbacks of their predecessor – that the T64 is retired & the T72 & T80 soldiers on is a testament that the T64 as a design had biten off than it could chew

Thanks Rod, DS Frank and Jowady for your support of Steven Zaloga, I now feel this thread has served its purpose – thanks again!

Joe, I take your point, and of course its a valid one, and this thread is not about the T-64 vs the M60 or what have you, as enjoyable as these can be in good company like yours.

But as DS Frank observes, its clear from his body of work that Steven has benefitted from a long study and knowledge of both Soviet operational art as well technical history so understood both their view of war and society, so would have taken your points on board in his research and publications.

What they considered important in a tank was not the same as we considered important.

Yeah Khrushchev wanted missile tanks and look how that little diversion turned out.

The T64 wasn't a failed tank by any means

The number of early revisions it had and its eventually retirement long before the T-72/T-80 (or even T-55!) show that it was a heavily flawed tank.

Not quite as bad as the M60 Starship or the Sheridan, but certainly not up to the reliability and ease of maintenance that the Soviets needed.

It would have been a formidable foe in the 70s and 80s. Against the M60 it was an extreme overmatch. Against the Leo 1 or M48 it wasn't even close.

Assuming all its advanced systems were actually functioning. Which is not given with the reality of Soviet maintenance and logistics.

Hmmm… Maybe… just maybe they know something that we don't.

Which is why former Soviet states retired the T-64 while the T-55 marches on.

Oh for **** sake, in the 80s we watched T-64 happily going about their business. Zaloga was not there. That is fact and report after report was written as they were observed on training areas, exercises etc etc. Again Zaloga was not there, or part of the process.

"and I have found no negative academic opinions on the man or his work."

And I have found no negative academic opinions on the men and women or their work monitoring GSFG, in particular 3SA.

It equipped the premier Army in GSFG, something that would not have been done had it been as useless as Zaloga maintains. If it was that bad, in 1976 instead of the T-64, 3SA, 2GTA and 20GA would have been equipped with the T-72 so beloved of the Team Yankee crowd as the mainstay of Soviet tanks in Europe!

"Thanks Rod, DS Frank and Jowady for your support of Steven Zaloga, I now feel this thread has served its purpose – thanks again!"

Oh really, if you are so confident please now tell former Int operators, IAs, techint analysts, BRIXMIS etc that they were all wrong, blind, inept etc. Interestingly a friend who worked in 6 Int Coy during the period, observing and reporting on T-64 trundling around LHTA is also a friend of Zalogas on Facebook. He is still waiting for a reply to his query about Zalogas opinion on the T-64.

"Which is why former Soviet states retired the T-64" Still busy in the Ukraine.

Folks are welcome to believe this academic, but personally I would rather believe the professional soldiers on the ground and in the Intelligence community at the time, with physical evidence of the T-64.

Tally Ho!

" first I've heard of such problems with the T-64. They frequently left barracks, as they were seen on training areas and rail transhipment points. We frequently saw tank regiments with 22-tank battalions: evidence that they were established for the full complement of 31 tanks (that is the 31 less one tank per section (9) for deep maintenance; a common practice throughout their army)"

This is not an academics opinion, just a soldier whose job was to monitor 3SA.

And a BRIXMIS friend:

" T-64 was the MAIN MBT, often out and about in GSFG" -- A man of few words!

Tally Ho!

Another BRIXMIS:

Yes, that's nonsense. I never saw anything indicating it was crap. I remember looking at some recovered paperwork from our Op Tomahawk (rubbish dumps), listing hundreds of T-64 FSNs, coming out of Kharkov – hot snot then,esp for London. Later of course, we saw it with ERA boxes, and we managed to nick one of those from a moving train, happy days.

Another thing we recovered on Op T was the thickness of the armour, T-64, basically NATO had to stop/amend its MILAN programme because it wd not be able to penetrate this new dimension, a few extra mm's.

Tally Ho!

As a reluctant member of the IC (Intelligence Community for those outside the SCIF and/or uncleared) I would not be discussing past operations, practices or successes in an uncleared environment just for OPSEC principles alone.

I would love to respond with factual screw-ups (beyond Castro still lives) and bad analysis (yellow cake anyone) but it seems inappropriate to go beyond those publicly acknowledged realities to say the least, if not unprofessional.

Countries build, maintain or dump systems (good and bad) for "military-Industrial" and "political" reasons regularly.

Mute,

it is now all in books!

Tally Ho!

And Snowden published a lot of stuff too.

A tank can be perfectly capable and still be removed from service. In the case of the T-64 it is quite possible that it worked just fine but required too much maintenance for the soviet way of doing things – so they dropped it and went with the easier to maintain 72/80 line.

This does not mean the T-64 was "crap", simply that it did not fit the peg it was meant to fit.

Could the answer be that Zaloga was writing what he believed to be true. But he was using the information he was given by people who had good reason to give false information to him.

He was not the only one lots of books written at that time said basically T72 good, T62 & T64 bad.

"And Snowden published a lot of stuff too"

Try the book "Brixmis" and LOOKING DOWN THE CORRIDORS

ALLIED AERIAL ESPIONAGE OVER EAST GERMANY AND BERLIN 1945-1990

Kevin Wright and Peter Jefferies Foreword by Air Vice-Marshal Mike Jackson CB FRAeS, RAF (Retd) ISBN: 9780750955775

Tally Ho!

This is not a divide between academic and military opinion, since 'Suvorov', a defecting Soviet armour officer, was also pretty trenchant in his opinions of the T-64, as well as Forzyck, from the US armour community mentioned above. Or are their opinions are to be dismissed out of hand too?

Good point about crossing the line in terms of reticence – I don't mind admitting we were completely taken in by the Udaloy class Soviet destroyer – its actually a pretty funny story, but they are still in service so I won't go there – suffice it to say they weren't as heavily armed as their training exercises suggested!

I rather think its more an argument about time – what we saw then (and perhaps were intended to see) and what is known now, with the benefit of hindsight, and reports from potential or disillusioned customers of the Russian arms industry. (Its not all bad – the T-72 and derivatives continues to sell like hot cakes…)

Of course which we choose to wargame is up to us – and I suspect a more balanced game is to be had by crediting the Soviets with the capabilities they wanted us to believe!

One Div CPX, chatting with the Int. team was told to take Suvorov with a pinch of salt.

I see the same attitude again and again. I'll remind everyone that some attitudes expressed here are similar to how the Germans felt about the Soviets. Funny how the T34 ate the Tigers and Panthers…

The T64 was the best tank in service until the Leo2 hit. It was the main tank of the Soviet forces in Germany. It was more difficult to maintain…though not as difficult as the T80.

I would advise folks to hang out at some boards with folks that served on Soviet tanks… not just drove them once… but actually crewed them for some time.

They tend to have a different viewpoint.

Joe Collins

Is it at all possible that he could be right about some things and wrong about others? Or is he literally tank-Jesus?

I've got all of the Zaloga Osprey books on Soviet tanks. Some observations from my reading of these books. The points below are just distilled paraphrases of his main arguments as I read them-

- I actually can't find any of the more extreme opinions attributed to him in some TMP posts about the 62, 64, 72 and 80. Certainly nothing which could be interpreted as 'T72 good, T62 and T64 bad' or anything like that.

- His basic contention however is the the T64 set the pattern for all mainstream Soviet tank development for the next 40+ years, and that the 72 and 80 followed that basic pattern closely. Small hulled and turreted tanks which were fast, heavily armed, and pretty well protected for their weight and size. BUT all that was bought at quite a big cost in other areas which have tended to compromise their effectiveness and survivability against serious opposition.

- The T64 was a vehicle of very advanced concepts for its time and for some years did suffer from a range of reliability problems in some key sub-systems. But these were largely fixed by the 1970-80s he indicates, although the tank continued to have a bigger basic maintenance overhead than than the T72- especially for two-year conscripts. It cost quite a lot more too.

- The T80 also had some very advanced elements- esp its engine. It was more expensive than the T64 and a LOT more expensive than the T72.

- Here is I think Zaloga's key point about the three tanks. While both the T64 and T80 were in different respects superior to the T72, this superiority was quite marginal- when compared to the increased complexity, the training and maintenance over head that created, and above all- the much higher unit cost. I don't think he says anywhere that the T72 had superior performance to the other two, but he clearly shows the economics stacked up very badly for the 64 and 80.

- He points out that while T64s and T80 remain in Service/storage in large-ish numbers- it is actually a T72 derivative (the T90) that the Russian army opted to carry on building after the cold war- though he indicates that was a complex multi-factor decision.

- All three Soviet tanks began to suffer badly in comparison to new generation NATO tanks because of the compromises in their design philosophy. NOT bad design- just a set of choices. A personal point from me here- but told me by a couple of folks who did serve in Sov armour in the 1980s- all models suffered from pretty woeful build quality of key components- optics, fire control, communications, NBC, etc.

I think that all of Zaloga's points (as I read them at least) stack up really quite well, and I found them difficult to argue with. I can't say how well respected Zaloga is as a military consultant and author- but I'm certainly struggling to find any particularly contentious or unsustained conclusions in the books I've read. But happy to have them pointed out by those who know more than me.

It's also worth pointing out that of Western books available on Sov AFV subjects- his do look pretty well sourced- especially the new ones. Zaloga's T64 and T80 books contain a lot of technical detail eg armour thickness and composition, engine reliability stats, etc drawn from official documents. These kind of technical details, together with the personal views of senior army officers and officials concerned with tank production and procurement which he also draws on, would have been very highly classified by the Soviets in the 1980s. I think as sources they can stand well alongside some of the valuable info provided by some of the well informed contributors of varying opinions, on this forum.

Lol!

Seneffe – great summary of Steven's views, especially of the T-64.

Puts me in mind of the Israeli attitude to the Centurion when it was first issued to the conscipts who had been used to the Sherman – a real lemon, unreliable and inaccurate as it was too difficult and complex for a conscript army to maintain and align properly…

Then Israel Tal was appointed Chief of Armour, kicked some butt and took some names, generally insisted the conscripts adopt a 'regular' approach to servicing and maintenance, and they never looked back!

The T-64 eventually overcame the disadvantages of its development history, but it could never overcome its need for high level technical support, at least as compared to the 'export' T-72, apart from a minority of reserved training vehicles received concentrated attention…(IMHO of course!)

But anyway, more importantly, thanks Tim for another endorsement of Steven's rep. from a tanker.

From Facebook:

Chris: My Osprey New Vanguard about the T-64 just came out. I didn't call the T-64 crap, but it had a boat-load of issues.

So was it a tank that in the 80s never left barracks, or if it did would be confined to the roads – A crap tank!

Or was it, by the 80s, a good tank that would have been pretty effective in a thrust over the IGB?

Tally Ho!

Yes, the T64 forced the Soviets to bring up their training and maintenance to more modern levels. The lessons from this were learned and informed the T80 roll out. The T80 required much more maintenance than the T64.

This is why the roll out of the T80 in 1981/82… yes, I said 81/82… happened the way it did. BTW, our intelligence missed this… not that it mattered much.

The real Soviet turkey btw was the T62. Lack of vision and an emergency stopgap… None of the Warpact Nations wanted it… Czechs I think bought 300… only to flip them. The T62s got dumped mainly on the Arab allies.

Sovs would have done better putting their time and money developing new rounds for the T55.

Joe Collins

Yes good point about the T-55 – ideal for the Soviet army, and well beloved by Suvorov's generation. I believe they did go some way to upgrading it, with a tube launched ATGW and various forms of strap on laminate armour. Not sure if they uprated the engine accordingly though. Enfield even developed a version of the NATO 105mm rifled cannon for it!

In fact, if its suitably cheap in points, it may be my MBT of choice for my eventual NVA force…

Get some T-55, a good excuse to get Cents and Conquerors! As for the NVA, you need some T-72s, you know you want to!!!

Tally Ho!