Damian90 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Of course, what if funny, majority of WarPact countries after testing T-62 said "well yeah, you know it's a junk, can we please get something better?". Or at least that thing happend in Poland, same with IS-3... actually we still have IS-3's (2) that we got for tests, tests results were... interesting, so interesting in the end we purchased more IS-2's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) Okay, I've got an M60A3 related question here... I understand the M60A3 TTS. I beleive that I understand the M60, M60A1, M60A1 RISE, and the RISE Passive...But, was anyone here ever a crewman on an M60A3 Passive? I understand that before the M60A3 TTS, there was an M60A3 Passive still utilizing the passive elbow night sights of the A1 Passive. My question is how integrated, if at all, was the A3's fire control system into the passive night sight system? Although I had posted before about being able to get an A1 Rise/Passive in game, if the A3 Passive is as simple as changing the night vision mode only...That makes it very similar to an A1 Rise/Passive for cold war scenarios, right? Edited July 3, 2016 by Maj.Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, Marko said: I have also read the T-62 cost considerable more to produce then the T--55 So much more some said the marginally better performance of the gun was not worth the expense. In terms of production costs T-55A and T-62 are more or less equal. As for unit replacement cost- here real fun begins; T-62 is about 1/8 cheaper than T-55A(in 1995 prices). As for performance- transition to 115mm gun was only cost-effective solution in late 50s-early 60s timeframe. Also keep in mind that Obj.166 was a tank destroyer(it appears that nomenclature was changed only during type standardization) designed to supplement(and not to substitute) regular medium tanks. Edited July 3, 2016 by Jartsev 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 Yes the tank costs in Soviet Union were, hmmm sometimes strange, for example T-64 was cheaper than T-72 even tough T-72 was designed as cheaper and "simpler" mobilization tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billman Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 maby some of you read this allready but this is a great blog post on the t 62 on the Soviet armor blog. https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.my/2015/12/t-62.html?m=1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Jartsev said: In terms of production costs T-55A and T-62 are more or less equal. As for unit replacement cost- here real fun begins; T-62 is about 1/8 cheaper than T-55A(in 1995 prices). As for performance- transition to 115mm gun was only cost-effective solution in late 50s-early 60s timeframe. Also keep in mind that Obj.166 was a tank destroyer(it appears that nomenclature was changed only during type standardization) designed to supplement(and not to substitute) regular medium tanks. yes... in 1995 price.but not in back in 1960s at the height of its production. back then T62 was indeed twice the cost of a T55. Edited July 4, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Damian90 said: Yes the tank costs in Soviet Union were, hmmm sometimes strange, for example T-64 was cheaper than T-72 even tough T-72 was designed as cheaper and "simpler" mobilization tank. maybe by todays prices T64 is cheaper to purchase by unit, but not back then. T72 Ural was most certainly cheaper at the time of its introduction than the T64A. unlike the T64 the T72 wasn't plagued with issues with its engine. its why the T64 wasnt deployed to East Germany until 1970- 1971 only when the teething issues were ironed with was it deemed combat effective enough to be placed right at front lines. when looking at prices you also need to keep in mind to look at the model in comparison, not just price based on year. Edited July 4, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) On 6/30/2016 at 4:41 PM, Iarmor said: If the subject interests you, I recommend to try and get the English version (if it's already available) of "The Wars of Modern Babylon: The Rise and Fall of the Iraqi Army" book by Pesach Malovany. I believe that Malovany contributed some knowledge to the "The Iran-Iraq War" book as well. cost of tanks in rubles and dates: T-64 230880 (1966) tanks without ATGM: T-64A 249033 (first verison 1967 upgraded several times in 1969 1972 1975 and 1981) T-72A 337247 (1978) equivalent to late 1981 T-64A here cost is clearly lower on T-64A, although what version of T-64A is unclear. late T-64A has same FCS as T-72A, TPD-K1. tanks with ATGM: T-64B 512737 (first version in 1975 upgraded in 1981) T-64BV 536028 (1985) T-72B 421200 (1985) T-80B 826800(1978) T-64B and T-80B have identical turrets, with only differences in stowage layout and cupola(T-80B has cheaper(!) unpowered cupola, T-64B has powered cupola with AA sight.) yet russian-built T-80B is nearly twice as expensive. (thanks to expensive hull with turbine) as for T-72B, it has drastically lower-quality FCS compared to T-64B. T-64B has 1G42 optics which are fully stabilized, has variable magnification between 4x-9x, missile guidance built into the main sight, has wind sensor, cant sensor, dynamic lead.. pretty much all of the fancy stuff you expect to find in a modern western battle tank save the thermal sight and MRS. meanwhile T-72B FCS is barely an upgrade over the one in T-72M1/A with a bolted on dynamic lead system, and new 1K13 sight for the missile. autoloader in T-64B is also superior to T-72B having an option for rotating both directions, loading faster, and holding 28 instead of 22 rounds as in T-72B. missile of T-72B is inferior as well. Svir only has a range of 4000m, while refleks has a range of 5000m. so T-72B is 80% of the price of a T-64BV, but is quite inferior in many ways. Edited July 4, 2016 by dejawolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Kev2go said: maybe by todays prices T64 is cheaper to purchase by unit, but not back then. T72 Ural was most certainly cheaper at the time of its introduction than the T64A. unlike the T64 the T72 wasn't plagued with issues with its engine. its why the T64 wasnt deployed to East Germany until 1970- 1971 only when the teething issues were ironed with was it deemed combat effective enough to be placed right at front lines. when looking at prices you also need to keep in mind to look at the model in comparison, not just price based on year. Actually T-64 was cheaper than T-72 back then, same with T-64A, more expensive was only T-64B due to it's advanced FCS and 9K112 GLATGM guidance system. This is based on Soviet sources. As for problems with engine, these are greatly exaggarated by UVZ propaganda. Edited July 4, 2016 by Damian90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) Quote missile of T-72B is inferior as well. Svir only has a range of 4000m, while refleks has a range of 5000m. Not correct. T-64B/BV uses 9M112 Kobra GLATGM, 9M124 or 9M128 Agona GLATGM, all used radio guidance system 9K112. Evolution of them is Kombat GLATGM that radio guidance replaced by "beam raider" laser guidance like in 9K119 Refleks system. There is also 120mm version of Kombat for NATO standard 120mm smoothbore guns called Konus. T-72B uses 9K120 Svir guidance system for 9M119 Refleks/Invar missile. The missile itself is exactly the same as in case of T-80U/UD and T-90/T-90A 9K119 Refleks guidance system, the only difference is guidance system itself. In case of 9K119 Refleks system, the range is 5000m and missile can be launched and guided during movement, in case of 9K120 Svir, tank needs to stop, guidance can't be done during movement, also range is reduced to 4000m. Problem of both systems are sights, both TDP-K1 and 1G46 have limited zoon, so at such long ranges, gunner might not even see tha target properly. Edited July 4, 2016 by Damian90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Damian90 said: Actually T-64 was cheaper than T-72 back then, same with T-64A, more expensive was only T-64B due to it's advanced FCS and 9K112 GLATGM guidance system. This is based on Soviet sources. As for problems with engine, these are greatly exaggarated by UVZ propaganda. But thats the T72A which started arriving only by 1979... not the T72 Ural that began production in 1973, which was the one i was specifically referring to in a prior post. T72A has newer FCS, laser rangefinder, and thicker effective armor over the T64A and T72 Ural. So yes i would expect the T72A to be more expensive, especially since T64A production ceased in 1976. If engine problems were truly exaggerated propaganda then the T64 would have been deployed sooner to East Germany. Now since this document is showing the production prices of the T80UD, it means this document would have been from the Late 1980s Edited July 4, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) Quote But thats the T72A which started arriving only by 1979... not the T72 Ural that began production in 1973, which was the one i was talking about. T72A has newer FCS, laser rangefinder, and thicker effective armor over the T64A and T72 Ural. So yes i would expect the T72A to be more expensive, especially since T64A was no longer in production since 1976. 1. T-72A just like T-72 do not have FCS, it's a misconception, both have "sighting system" not a true FCS. T-64 also had just a sighting system with optical rangefinder just like T-72. T-72A and late T-64A both had laser rangefinders, but T-64A in general have a much more advanced "FCS". First tanks with true FCS were T-64B and T-80B. 2. Thicker armor of T-72A didn't made it more advanced or didn't offered better protection. T-72A had more or less the same protection levels as T-64A, T-64B, T-80 and T-80B. It's also a misconception that T-80 and T-80B used the same turret as T-64A and T-64B. T-80 and T-80B used the same turret armor as T-72A, which was less advanced than turret armor of T-64A and T-64B. T-80/T-80B and T-72A used so called "sand rods", T-64A and T-64B used "Combination K" which had at leat 3 different variants for turret, first being a cast steel turret structure with aluminium filler, second was cast turret structure with high hardness steel inserts, and third was cast aluminium turret structure with ceramic spheres as inserts. Thanks to this T-64A and T-64B had equivalent protection levels to T-72A and T-80/T-80B but with less weight. http://btvt.narod.ru/4/armor.htm Here is rather good article about various types of armor used. In general Andrei's blog about soviet armor is worth to read, as he used official soviet documents... contrary to that UVZ propagandist Khlopotov. Quote If engine problems were truly exaggerated propaganda then the T64 would have been deployed sooner to East Germany. No, deployment of specific vehicles had it's own schedules, based on how many were manufactured at a time and when crews were ready. T-64 was in principle a completely new revolutionary design, a completely new training system was needed both for crews and maintnance personell. T-64 did not shared any components with it's predecessors which again, maked preparation time longer, it was not an quick and easy transition like in case of crews going from T-54/55 to T-62. Remember that a lot of bad press about T-64 comes from UralVagonZavod and it's propagandists, for decades there is a silent war between UVZ in Nizhny Tagil and KMDB in Kharkiv, and no wonder considering a fact that UVZ for it's own gains, sabotaged all R&D work done by KMDB... a common practice among design bureaus in Soviet Union, concerning massive levels of corruption there. Edited July 4, 2016 by Damian90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) On 7/4/2016 at 9:26 AM, Damian90 said: 1. T-72A just like T-72 do not have FCS, it's a misconception, both have "sighting system" not a true FCS. T-64 also had just a sighting system with optical rangefinder just like T-72. T-72A and late T-64A both had laser rangefinders, but T-64A in general have a much more advanced "FCS". First tanks with true FCS were T-64B and T-80B. 2. Thicker armor of T-72A didn't made it more advanced or didn't offered better protection. T-72A had more or less the same protection levels as T-64A, T-64B, T-80 and T-80B. It's also a misconception that T-80 and T-80B used the same turret as T-64A and T-64B. T-80 and T-80B used the same turret armor as T-72A, which was less advanced than turret armor of T-64A and T-64B. T-80/T-80B and T-72A used so called "sand rods", T-64A and T-64B used "Combination K" which had at leat 3 different variants for turret, first being a cast steel turret structure with aluminium filler, second was cast turret structure with high hardness steel inserts, and third was cast aluminium turret structure with ceramic spheres as inserts. Thanks to this T-64A and T-64B had equivalent protection levels to T-72A and T-80/T-80B but with less weight. No, deployment of specific vehicles had it's own schedules, based on how many were manufactured at a time and when crews were ready. T-64 was in principle a completely new revolutionary design, a completely new training system was needed both for crews and maintnance personell. T-64 did not shared any components with it's predecessors which again, maked preparation time longer, it was not an quick and easy transition like in case of crews going from T-54/55 to T-62. Remember that a lot of bad press about T-64 comes from UralVagonZavod and it's propagandists, for decades there is a silent war between UVZ in Nizhny Tagil and KMDB in Kharkiv, and no wonder considering a fact that UVZ for it's own gains, sabotaged all R&D work done by KMDB... a common practice among design bureaus in Soviet Union, concerning massive levels of corruption there. Yes perfectly aware that earlier tanks had optical rangefinders, or earlier cases prior to the introduction of the T64 lack there of. I was just listing it as a new features, yes the inter Design Bureau squabbles, competition and bureaucracy had impacted soviet tank design as well as the fact that ended up with them fielding 3 different new generation tanks at the same time. However that doesn't change the fact that the document lacks the T72 ural price to make fair comparison. Granted the price difference wasnt big, fairly mininmal but from what i read, T72 Ural was still nonetheless cheaper than the T64. Ultimately it isnt jsut about production prices, but the technology. T72 systems more simplistic and easier to use than the T64A, which was described by a examining engineer, almost as complicated as a Jet Fighter. Obviously an exaggeration, but T72 no doubt would be easier to train new crews or to transition from T55 & T62, than to the T64. This is more important for a nation like Russia that relied on short timer conscripts. and thats not quite the Case. the T72A had slightly thicker armor plus Hull further eventually reinforced with the 16mm HSS plate. Similarly the T64B and T80B actually has better protection Levels than the T72A Edited March 3, 2018 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 I suspect T-72 would still be more expensive than T-64, why, well it needs more steel to be manufactured, due to larger roadwheels, and also hull is slightly larger than that of T-64. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 Excellent thread,very informative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 Actually a funny fact. UVZ initially had problems with manufacturing T-72's, due to lack of proper tooling and skilled workforce. That was also one of the reasons why a T-72 and T-72M (export variant) didn't had a composite armor in turret. If my memory serves well they had even problems with manufacturing roadwheels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 16 minutes ago, Damian90 said: Actually a funny fact. UVZ initially had problems with manufacturing T-72's, due to lack of proper tooling and skilled workforce. That was also one of the reasons why a T-72 and T-72M (export variant) didn't had a composite armor in turret. If my memory serves well they had even problems with manufacturing roadwheels. well i guess we should be glad SB models the T72M in the way it was intended to be produced, not one of those examples with poorer quality standard builds, with mechanical issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 The T-72/T-72M turret protection in general was considered adequate against KE threats of the time when it was fielded, however it's protection against CE threats was considered as completely inadequate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 there was multiple variants of the T-64A 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 and also multiple variants of the T-64B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 8 hours ago, Damian90 said: Problem of both systems are sights, both TDP-K1 and 1G46 have limited zoon, so at such long ranges, gunner might not even see tha target properly. TPD-K1 has 8x magnification, 1G42 of T-64B has 9x magnification, 1G46 has 12x magnification. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, dejawolf said: snip yes. though in SB we only have 1 variant of the T64A and T64B represented. ( ofc non crewable) the T64A is the last model production, the model 1975, since it has the 2a46 cannon, whilst the T64B is a model 1981. Edited July 4, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Kev2go said: yes. though in SB we only have 1 variant of the T64A and T64B represented. ( ofc non crewable) the T64A is the last model production, the model 1975, since it has the 2a46 cannon, whilst the T64B is a model 1981. i know. i made the models, and did all of the research. Edited July 4, 2016 by dejawolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 42 minutes ago, dejawolf said: TPD-K1 has 8x magnification, 1G42 of T-64B has 9x magnification, 1G46 has 12x magnification. Yup, still even with 1G46 it might be problematic at longer ranges. It's paradox that modern variants of M1 have sights better suited to use GLATGM's at longer ranges than Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 29 minutes ago, dejawolf said: i know. i made the models, and did all of the research. Well sorry your title lists as a senior member, i assumed you were just a forum goer & knowledgeable tank buff .had no way of knowing who you really were. On other sims or game forums, indivdual directly assiociated or employed with a given company normally have a unique title displayed depending on the job they fulfill as to avoid any such confusion. Edited July 4, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.