Tank T-64BV
Tank T-72B
Tank T-80BV
On military forums and thematic articles, it has recently become very fashionable to condemn the Soviet army and, in particular, the simultaneous presence of three main battle tanks in serial production at once, which have almost the same combat and technical properties, but at the same time have a different design and different nomenclature of the Z / CH. which made it difficult to master, maintain and repair them. The result of the development of all this trinity, as you know, became the main battle tanks of the T-90 "Vladimir" family, the main platform for the creation of which was the base of the T-72BM tank, the production and modernization of which is being carried out to this day. However, the very idea of which tank of these "three heroes" is the best is intriguing. In the Internet community today, the attitude towards these three tanks is approximately the following: the main part are fans of the T-80 gas turbine tank, especially its coolest modification, the T-80UM1. Has its own small share of fans and the Kharkov T-64. The attitude to Nizhne-Tagil T-72 is usually reserved and contemptuous as to a crude and primitive iron "tank" of the second line. This attitude was greatly facilitated by the unsuccessful use of the Iraqi T-72M against coalition forces during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Well, let's try to figure out why we will take and compare in detail the design, strengths and weaknesses of three similar in time period and fairly common modifications of these tanks: T-64BV, T-72B and T-80BV.
Firepower:
The main armament of all three tanks is represented by modifications of the 125mm smoothbore gun - the launcher of the D-81 family. 2A46M-1 for T-64BV, 2A46M for T-72B and 2A46-2 for T-80BV. All three cannons have almost identical BTX and are considered to be among the most powerful tank guns in the world. So it is impossible to give the palm to the cannon of a particular tank.
The main types of shells for these weapons are: BOPS or armor-piercing feathered subcaliber shells. The most powerful of them: ZBM-44 "Mango" with a tungsten core and ZBM-33 with a depleted uranium core are capable of piercing a vertically standing armor plate with a thickness of 500 mm and 560 mm, respectively, from a distance of 2000 m. HEAT shells ZBK-18M penetrate 550-mm armor plate. There are also high-explosive fragmentation shells of the ZOF-19 type, the destructive effect of which is well known to those who have seen footage of the shelling of the White House.
If the guns of these tanks are almost the same, then the fire control system and the guided weapons complex (CUV) differ quite significantly. The most accurate artillery tank is the T-80BV. The soft suspension, providing a smooth ride and the presence of an automated control system 1A33 "Ob" allows this tank to conduct effective fire on the move at a moving target in the most difficult conditions. The gunner only needs to measure the distance to the target and hold the crosshair on it. The digital ballistic computer calculates corrections using input information sensors and, through the 2E26M stabilizer, holds the gun in the desired position for an aimed shot. The T-64BV has the same 1A33 "Ob" control system as the T-80BV tank, the same 2E26M stabilizer, but its firing accuracy is noticeably worse than that of the 80's due to its tougher and more primitive chassis. The T-72B does not have an automated control system at all. Its 1A40-1 sighting system has only a ballistic corrector, and therefore, in terms of firing accuracy at moving targets and at long distances, it is inferior to both the T-64BV and T-80BV. However, the T-72B also has an advantage: a much more advanced two-plane weapon stabilizer 2E42-1 "Jasmine", whose target tracking accuracy significantly exceeds the capabilities of the 2E26M stabilizers of the T-64BV and T-80BV tanks. Therefore, the T-72B can aim at a higher speed than its opponents. The soft, modern chassis also contributes to this.
Now let's move on to the complex of guided weapons. T-64BV and T-80BV are equipped with KUV 9K112 "Cobra" guided missiles. This complex allows for targeted missile launch on the move at a range of up to 4000m. The maximum start-up is also possible at 5000m. The missile penetrates 700mm armor plate. The disadvantage of the complex is in a not very accurate radar guidance system due to the large dispersion of the radio beam. T-72B has a more advanced missile system 9K120 "Svir" The complex also allows for targeted missile launch at a distance of 100-4000m and 5000m maximum, but at the same time has a high-precision laser semi-automatic guidance system. The missile penetrates up to 750mm of armor. The downside is the impossibility of aimed missile launch on the move, but in general, the T-72B missile system is more advanced than that of its opponents and allows you to crumble the enemy even before it approaches the range of actual artillery fire.
Another important component of a tank's firepower is its technical vision. There is a widespread belief that one of the main reasons for the failure of the Iraqi T-72M in the battles with the coalition Abrams and Challengers is the lack of an automated control system. Say, if there were T-64BV or T-80BV, they would have burned all these "Abrams" there. A very naive judgment. The Iraqi T-72M in the open space of the desert and complete air supremacy of enemy aviation, including "NAP" - direct air support, there was simply nothing to catch. Most of them were destroyed by aircraft or simply thrown by the crews and then finished off by the coalition forces. Those T-72Ms that managed to survive and enter into a duel with the Abrams were primarily hampered by very poor night vision and outdated shells. Unfortunately, it is worth admitting that the set of infrared night vision devices of the T-72B tank is pretty bad. TKN-3 and 1K13-49 provide the maximum range of detection / identification of a tank-type target at night no more than 600-1300m in passive or active modes. This is 2-3 times less than modern Western tanks equipped with thermal imagers had. I hasten to disappoint fans of T-80BV and T-64BV. Their commander's devices: TKN-3V and gunner: TPN149-23 see about the same as the T-72B devices - 600-1300m. The exception is a small number of the last T-80BV. So we must assume that if the T-80BV were in that specific situation in which the Iraqi T-72Ms found themselves in 1991, the results of night battles would not have been much better. In general, all three tanks in terms of night vision capabilities roughly correspond to the old tanks of the 50s: T-55/62, which set the heat on the Israeli "Centurions" and M48 in night battles in the 1967 war and the T-10M. Apparently, resting on our laurels has led to the fact that such an important parameter has not been given due attention for many years.
Another important aspect is the loading system and ammunition load. All three tanks have automatic loaders. The most advanced AZ of the T-72B tank. It holds 22 shots, has a compact size and higher survivability. Rate of fire 6-8 rds / min. Its disadvantage is that charging takes place in two steps, i.e. the piercer goes two times: first a projectile, then a charge, but this is nothing more than an operational characteristic that does not have any effect on the combat properties of the tank. T-64BV and T-80BV equipped with less advanced ship-type MZ with vertically standing charges, poorly adapted to the layout in the manned fighting compartment of the tank. Capacity 28 shots. The rate of fire is the same: 6-8 rds / min. The plus is that loading takes place in one step - the projectile and the charge are simultaneously fed into the charging chamber. The total ammunition load is 45 rounds for the T-72B, 38 for the T-80BV and 36 for the T-64BV. Here the obvious leader is the T-72B.
The last paragraph in this section is auxiliary weapons. For all three tanks, it consists of a 7.62mm PKT machine gun paired with a cannon and an anti-aircraft mount with a 12.7mm NSVT heavy machine gun. This installation is mounted on the commander's observation complex. On a machine gun paired with a cannon, all three tanks are absolutely equal. At the same time, the anti-aircraft mount PZU-5 of the T-64BV tank with a 12.7mm NSVT machine gun is much more perfect than the anti-aircraft mount "Utes" of the T-72B and T-80BV tanks. PZU-5 is remotely controlled from the tank commander's workplace and does not require him to protrude from the hatch for firing. Installation "Utes" of tanks T-72B and T-80BV open type with a manual drive.
Security:
Let's divide it into several paragraphs: Forehead protection, side protection, stern protection, upper hemisphere protection, armor penetration survivability, tank thermal signature and noise level produced by the tank during operation.
Frontal projection protection is best for the T-72B tank. It is provided with multilayer armor of the hull and turret, semi-active armor elements and the Contact-1 mounted dynamic protection system. Needless to say, in terms of security, the T-72B at the time of its appearance was one of the most powerful tanks in the world, and even today its booking is still quite at the level. Its disadvantage is the location of the DZ elements on the frontal part of the tower: just on the armor itself, adjacent to it. The T-80BV is somewhat worse in this regard, which also has multi-layer armor, but does not have a semi-active reservation. At the same time, the elements of the DZ complex on the turret of the T-80BV tank are located much better: by a wedge. And the last on the list is the T-64BV. It has multi-layer armor and a remote sensing device located like the T-80BV tank, i.e. wedge, but inferior to the T-80BV and T-72B in armor thickness. It also does not have semi-active protection.
The turret side of all three tanks is protected by the incredible thickness of its armor and the Kontakt-1 ERA. Here the leaders are T-72B and T-80BV. Protection of the side of the hull is the most powerful in the T-72B. It is provided by the side armor itself, onboard anti-cumulative rubber-fabric screens, elements of the Contact-1 DZ located on these screens and covering almost the entire side up to the stern (except for a small sector in the MTO area) and support rollers of the optimal diameter, which screen the lower part of the side opposite the ammunition rack in the AZ, not covered by a screen. All this allows the T-72B tank to feel quite confidently in battle in the city with a high saturation of it with means of fighting tanks: RPGs and ATGMs. In the presence of serviceable screens and serviceable elements of the DZ, this tank is almost invulnerable from the fire of most of these means in the frontal and side parts of the hull and turret. The downside is that the elements of the DZ T-72B are attached directly to the side screen, which leads to some of its bending inward, but this again has no effect on the combat properties of the tank. However, this design looks at least not aesthetically pleasing. The second is the T-64BV. It also has anti-cumulative screens, on which special force screens are fixed, on which, in turn, the elements of the Contact-1 DZ are already fixed. The advantage of this technical solution is that the T-64BV board, unlike the T-72B, looks smooth and neat - "armored". The downside of this tank is that its very small-diameter plates of road wheels poorly shield the side below the screen opposite the MZ ammunition rack. The side itself, 70-80mm thick (at the level of heavy tanks of World War II), is not capable of withstanding an ATGM strike or a modern RPG rocket-propelled grenade. Worst of all is with the protection of the side of the T-80BV tank. Its side screens do not have remote sensing elements at all! Only on fenders. The armor of the side itself is the same as that of the T-72B and T-64BV. Road wheels are smaller in diameter than the T-72B and leave decent open areas below the anti-cumulative shield.
Protection of the rear of the turret is very poor for all three tanks and is their most vulnerable point. Protection of the rear of the hull is worst of all in the T-80BV, which, due to its gas turbine engine, has large air duct channels. Through them, a fragment or a bullet can theoretically fly into the engine. The armor of the T-72B and T-64BV sterns is solid, it is better, but still leaves much to be desired.
From above, all three tanks are well protected up to half their length. Then things get very bad. Plus, there is poor protection at the mechanical drive hatches.
In terms of survivability, the T-72B is among the leaders for the umpteenth time. Its carousel AZ is very compact, located at the bottom, where it is protected from the front by the most powerful frontal armor, from the sides by the side armor, screens with remote control and road wheels, behind the MTO and the engine. MH tanks T-64BV and T-80BV with vertically standing charges have a much larger projection area and are much more vulnerable. The penetration of the side of the hull opposite the MZ will immediately lead to a blow to the ammunition load with all the ensuing consequences. It is easier to do this than with the T-72B: the T-80BV does not have remote sensing elements on the side screen, the T-64BV has them, but below the screen, skinny plates almost do not cover the side. At the same time, it should be noted that in the event of a detonation of ammunition, the crew of all three tanks perishes instantly. The T-72B is no exception. Unfortunately, this Achilles heel of domestic tanks has not been overcome to this day.
According to the thermal signature, the T-72B has a "problem" - its exhaust goes to the port side, and not back.
In terms of noise level, the T-80BV is the leader by a large margin. Up front, the noise of its engine is almost inaudible. "Whisper of Death" in this regard compares favorably with their diesel counterparts T-72B and T-64BV.
In general, in terms of the overall level of security and survivability, the T-72B is the best tank. The second and third places are shared by T-80BV and T-64BV. The location of the ammunition rack in the fighting compartment together with people, without any protection for it, is today considered an anachronism.
Mobility, serviceability, comfort:
The most spacious and comfortable: T-72B. The flat AZ of this tank provides quite acceptable space inside. If you wish, you can even go to sleep in the tower, having previously removed the cannon fence. There is a passage to the control department. However, the controls of the T-72B in the turret are less conveniently placed than in the T-80BV or T-64BV. All three tanks have the same disease - when the gun is in a straight position and its elevation angle is zero, the driver cannot leave the tank through his hatch. If in peaceful conditions it is still possible to constantly keep the tower slightly turned, then in battle this is not always possible. If it is impossible to exit through his hatch, the driver of the T-72B can safely get out through one of the two turret hatches. In the T-80BV and T-64BV tanks, the unsuccessful MZ completely blocks the passage from the control compartment to the fighting compartment. To form a passage, it is necessary to remove the cassettes from the MZ. The driver cannot do this from his seat. This design and layout of the BO of the T-64BV and T-80BV tanks cost the lives of more than one driver-mechanic. The fighting compartment of the T-80BV and T-64BV is also much closer than in the T-72B. In fairness, it should be noted that in terms of interior space, even the T-72B is much inferior to Western tanks with their brutal turrets.
The leader in maximum speed is the T-80BV. Powerful gas turbine engine GTD-1000TF with a capacity of 1100hp. provides this tank with a speed of 70-80 km / h on the highway. Possibilities of the T-72B with the V-84-1 engine at 840hp and T-64BV with a 5-TDF engine of 700hp. here is much more modest: 60 km / h and 60, 5 km / h, respectively. At the same time, the T-72B is the best in terms of acceleration dynamics. The "locomotive" torque of an almost 40-liter V12 is enough to jerk a 44.5-ton colossus from a standstill with good acceleration from low revs and maintain a decent average speed on rough terrain. The T-80BV has better controllability and can also drive quickly along the "intersection", but in terms of dynamics from low speeds it is inferior to the T-72B due to the fact that its turbine does not have a rigid connection with the output shaft. On the one hand, this is an advantage - the tank will not stall, even if it hits a wall. On the other hand, the overclocking dynamics are somewhat rubbery. The outsiders are T-64BV. A turbo-piston engine, albeit 700hp a very small volume clearly suffers from a torque deficit, especially at low revs and is poorly adapted to pulling a 42, 4-ton tank. Even the installation of a 1000-horsepower 6-TD engine on the T-64BM did not give it an advantage in dynamics and average speed over the T-72B. The controls for all three tanks are outdated - the BKPs have long gone out of fashion. At the same time, modifying them with the use of a "robot" for gear shifting may well give many advantages over the usual, power-consuming, complex and expensive "automatic torque converter" of Western tanks.
Engines. The palm is shared by GTD-1000TF T-80BV and V-84-1 T-72B. The first is high power, smoothness, low noise and excellent starting characteristics. For the second, reliability and excellent traction. Among the disadvantages: the high cost and fear of dust of the T-80BV gas turbine engine and the difficulty in mounting / dismantling the T-72B diesel engine. The worst is the turbo-piston 5-TDF of the T-64BV tank. It has good overall power, but an extremely capricious, non-thrust, oil-loving, unreliable and overheating engine. Another plus is its relatively quick replacement.
Running gear. The best among the T-80BV and T-72B. It is difficult to give the first place to someone specifically. The T-80BV has a slightly smoother ride, the T-72B has better side protection due to its large rollers and better holds explosions on mines. Both have excellent caterpillar grip. The service is not annoying. Against this background, the running T-64BV is tin. It resembles the chassis of the KV-1 "Ghost" tank, but in contrast to the latter it is made much worse. The very thin discs of the road wheels, which they did not even bother to wear in rubber, poorly distribute the pressure on the caterpillar. Maneuvering on heavy soils, as well as hitting a high obstacle with the edge of the caterpillar, easily leads to dropping the caterpillar. At the same time, it turns out the fenders with all their contents and, if the caterpillar flew inward, it can damage the elements of the undercarriage. It is problematic to tow a tank with a flying track. Track rollers get stuck in the ground. In terms of rigidity, the chassis is approximately at the level of the T-72B, but it creaks and clanks when moving much stronger than the latter.
Points are awarded on a 10-point scale. In this case, the highest 10th point is assigned in the event that any parameter corresponds to the highest indicator in the world of tank building (for example, the T-90M Tagil forehead armor corresponds to a score of "10", and the T-26's forehead armor corresponds to a score of "0") … I will make a reservation right away that tanks of even the latest generation, capable of gaining more than 200 points, do not yet exist.
As a result, the T-72B is in the lead with a small margin from the T-80BV. It is also the cheapest tank of the trinity. Apparently it was not in vain that its base was chosen for development.
Tank T-72B
