After analyzing similar articles on "VO" over the past couple of years, I came to a strange conclusion. For some reason, a discussion on the topic "The best heavy tank of the Second World War" turns into a discussion, and a comparison, like the one we will touch on, into a holivar.
Nevertheless, I was "hooked" by an article that was reposted by a respected blogger in the world of tank scientists, Andrei-bt, whose opinions appear from time to time on our pages. A person knows and is able to express his thoughts.
The original is here: Comparison of T-64B and T-72B As well as some funny comments from neighbors.
Since I am absolutely not knowledgeable and understanding in tanks, but I can add two deuces without a calculator, I realized that in the opinion of the ukronavod “not everything is so simple”. The author is a Ukrainian who even sat in the third line of the ATO. And you don't need to be a specialist to understand that he will do everything possible to show the T-64B as an excellent machine, and the T-72B something like that …
What should be done in this case? That's right, invite a specialist. Who during his service "talked" with both the T-64 and T-72. And not as a “narrow profile” specialist, but as a commander, who, like it or not, is obliged to know and be able, albeit not in full, everything related to the vehicle entrusted to him.
The specialist whom I invited to consider this topic has been known on the site for a long time, and I am sure that his candidacy will not cause doubts. This is Alexey, who is "AleksTV". Many thanks to him for the time spent, they said three articles. But let's go in order.
The T-64 was indeed a unique vehicle. The newest word not only in domestic, but also in the world of tank building. Morozov really did the impossible in terms of stuffing everything into one car. And this was not just new. The newest. Therefore, the designer Morozov honor and praise. At that time, it was a unique car.
And then, after the birth of the T-64, the government began to think about urgent matters, that is, about the production of a tank on a massive scale and equipping all parts with it. And here two problems began.
First, not all factories (or rather, one KhTZ) could produce this car.
Second: the tank came out far from cheap, even by the standards of the Soviet Union.
The T-64 was put into service in 1968. But already in 1967, another tank was being developed. "Tanka of a special period". A simplified copy of the T-64, and, most importantly, a cheaper one.
That is, an analogue of the T-34 was needed. "Tank of war", which could be produced by other factories, which would be relatively unified with the T-64, but would be massive and cheaper.
(It is impossible to refrain from remarking that the current situation with the "Armata" and the T-72 / T-90 painfully resembles the affairs of the 60s of the last century.)
At UVZ, having received the order, they quite reasonably noticed that the copy was a copy, but a very good engine already exists, as well as there is a spent AZ for the T-62M and further down the list. But they demanded unification.
So, in fact, Project 172 was born. The prototype was the T-64, but the engine had its own, Ural, AZ also had its own, the sighting system was stuck in the cheapest. Tank of war … Project "172", which, in principle, inherited all the problems (especially with the chassis) from the T-64.
This was somewhat not what I wanted. We needed a "war tank", which either did not break down in difficult conditions, or could be repaired by the crew in the nearest ravine. A crew of former tractor drivers.
After three years of testing, UVZ received a new assignment: do what you want, but give us a "war tank", as much as possible unified with the T-64.
What has been done in the Urals. We took the base from the T-64 and all the developments on the T-62 and T-62M. This is how the "project 172M" was born, which became the T-72 tank. But the entire bottom (suspension) was from the T-62. Hull and turret from T-64, filling … Own engine, sighting system 2A40. That is, the complex did not exist as such. Optical sight TPD, mechanical ballistic computer and stabilizer. Cheap, and there was nothing to break there. All factories of the USSR could produce it.
Six years. Three years for a copy of the T-64, three years for the "project 172M". And the output is exactly what was required.
Now let's go through the article of the Ukrainian, and then try to compare things that are not really comparable, which are the T-64 and T-72.
In italics I will give what the Ukrainian gunner dumped on our heads. In the order in which he presented his views. T-64 / T-72. What the gunner thought was the best is highlighted in bold. And then there will be thoughts shared by Alexey.
In conclusion, a very peculiar conclusion will be presented, which was born in our conversation.
These are phrases ripped out by the author from tank holivars. I don’t think he sat well at the levers, otherwise he wouldn’t have written this. If 72 breaks a caterpillar in the mud, be calm, 64 simply won't get to this place. Where the 72nd passes with an effort, tearing off the caterpillar, there is simply nothing for the 64 to catch.
Heavy tracks of the 72nd, reinforced with RMSh (rubber-metal hinges) - it's not just that. This was all done taking into account the fact that the chassis of the 64th was a weak point. Yes, the tracks are heavier. But they had to be pulled much less often than on the 64.
Well, the plant system was invented in four ways specifically for the T-64. Before that they got by. The engine is not just weak, it also has such nuances … Starter, air, external start and "tie" - that's all for the T-64. In general, starting all the cars at once has always been a problem. And try not to start: "incomplete service correspondence" to the battalion commander shines brighter than the North Star. Well, the absence of another star too.
The T-72 is much easier. This is a simple Diesel, with a capital letter, which you just need to heat up. And that's all. And the T-64 at minus 20 degrees is almost impossible to start without dancing with tambourines for the whole battalion.
Reverse is disgusting for both tanks, so you shouldn't think of it here.
I don't know what the problem is, the side exhaust or the rear. It will illuminate almost the same, which will not illuminate in the thermal range, then it can unmask with a cloud. And the infantry … the infantry will go on the attack after the tank, even if it has fonds in the gamma range. Tank is armor. This is life for a foot soldier.
Yes, it is possible.
About the mechanic. The Ukrainian believes that it is easier to get out by taking out the trays. I have only one question: who will pull these trays out? If the tank is on fire or something is wrong with it, and the crew is going to bring down, and the mechanic decided to get to the towers, then it is very doubtful that the mechanic is able to pull out these two charges. And they can't help him from the tower, especially if he flew there.
There were facts, yes, that in peacetime the crews were on fire, and the mechanics were burned out. That is, the mechanic could not pull out these two charges, and the turrets could not help him.
There are two turret positions in 72 where the attached equipment interferes with crawling through. But these two rather small sections are real. Literally, 10 degrees out of 360. In other positions, the mechanic drive jumps to the turrets with a snake, regardless of whether they are alive or not. And he himself, without anyone's help. In this regard, the 72nd looks much more preferable than the 64th and 80th. Any experienced tanker will say this: two charges in 64 are needed so that there is someone to pull out.
I have said more than once that the anti-aircraft machine-gun mount on the T-72 is rubbish, so there is nothing to argue with. But we will talk about the ZPU separately.
Yes, TKN-3 with muscular stabilization of the whole body is an unpleasant fact. Usually the back is enough for 30 kilometers. Then there is sadness. Plus, with a standard shot, it must either be deflected forward, or fixed with it, otherwise the "stars" or "fish" are provided to the commander for five minutes. And this is a device through which the commander must not only observe the situation, he must see it, and preferably at all 360 degrees.
On the T-64 and T-80, the device is more modern, with vertical stabilization. Yes, the T-73B already has the TPD-1K, a more advanced one, but the ballistic computer has remained at the same level. Mechanical. Cost reduction strategy …
But even with the complex criticized by the author, the T-72 can work. It will take a long time to describe what the features are, and it will not be entirely clear, but I will say this: inconvenient. But with proper working out, everything is quite workable. And nothing so complicated in aiming at the target.
Well, he is disingenuous here, disingenuous. It can be seen that the T-64 who wrote this served more than the T-72. You can aim a T-72 cannon (yes, the tankers have a cannon, and the gunners have a gun) both vertically, horizontally, and obliquely. It's just harder. The control panel for aiming the T-72 gun is stiffer, which means it is less prone to shaking and other tank pleasures. You can aim as the gunner writes with the T-64. But harder. This is where skill is needed.
For the T-72 gunners, they came up with such an exercise: the tanks stood in pits so that the engines would not run in vain, they connected external power, and put a shield on the headmistress. A rectangle with diagonals was drawn on the shield, we called it an "envelope". They launched the LMS, spun the gyroscope, and the gunner's task was to draw the same "envelope" on a piece of paper that was on the shield under the gun using a pencil, through a spring attached to the gun. Looking through the scope on the far shield at the headmistress.
As soon as you have drawn such an "envelope", you are a gunner. It is not easy to do this, but knowledge-skill-skill is skill. Difficult, but possible. Again, the question of reducing the cost of the car.
Everything is correct for rangefinders. In the T-72, the gunner has to think about what he measured. Often an option is a reset and a new measurement. Second. Sometimes it is not fatal, and sometimes it is prohibitively long.
Right. But only for the T-72B, which we are going for modernization. Why so, we have already sorted out above, but with the introduction of the tanks of today "Sosny" this problem went away.
The same is true.
Well, here just the designers from Kharkov complicated everything by creating a loading mechanism (MZ) using both electrics and hydraulics. If one of the systems fails, the MH does not work. There are simply more parts that can fail. Twice as many reasons for refusal.
Yes, here he is right. The styling process is something else. If you saw how the BC is placed in the AZ (saw. - Approx.), Then if the crew's hands are not bloody, this is either an exception or complete specialists. It is hard physically and not very comfortable.
Well, yes, plus the MZ also charges faster. This is true. But AZ also has its advantages. This is reliability and reliability. And an important fact: all the ammunition for the AZ is located at the bottom. And the 64s and, by the way, 80s, have the ammunition load, as it were, in the tower, around you. Which does not increase the crew's chance of survival. But more BC and faster charging.
As for me, the 28-round ammo and fast reloading are great advantages. In peacetime, at the training ground. I would gladly serve on the T-64 or T-80 in this regard.
But if you go into battle, then it is better on the T-72, and even removing all the charges down, in the AZ. To pierce the rollers and armor on the T-72 - this needs to be hammered into one point by three grenade launchers.
In two ways. In peacetime, when it is necessary to collect and hand over, - I agree. But in war no one collects pallets. But here the Ukrainian colleague for some reason kept silent about the most important aspect of the pallet ejection hatch. And this is exactly the huge advantage of the T-72 over the T-64.
A supercharger that pressurizes the tank from the inside. When fired, all exhaust gases are removed through the ejector. When this hatch is opened, an additional huge amount of waste powder gases is emitted through it. And the crew of the T-72 is much less susceptible to gas pollution than the crew in the T-64.
Plus also protection from various emissions, chemicals and other things. If the blower is working normally, and there is air pressure, then one alignment. And if not? And if shooting in a series?
In this regard, the hatch is a very useful thing.
Yes, it is difficult for the infantry to walk behind the T-72 when the tank is firing. The pallets fly very randomly.
Conclusion
T-64 and T-72 are generally silly to compare. They are different machines designed for different tasks.
The T-64 (and the T-80) is a peacetime machine and an instrument of rapid war. Meet the enemy, break through the defenses, carry out a quick coverage. But if the country gets bogged down in a long war, then the advantages of the T-72 are undeniable.
In the T-72, you can cram everything that is in the T-64. No problem. But then the tank will become more expensive, and, most importantly, not all factories will be able to produce it.
Any normal tanker is interested in the question on which vehicle he will serve. Of course, in peacetime it is better on the T-80, or, at worst, on the T-64. Try to start a T-72 in a 30-degree frost somewhere in Siberia or Transbaikalia. It's 30-40 minutes to shaman in the cold. Around the pile of cold metal, wait for the heater to do its job and the car starts up. But the T-64 … It's just unrealistic.
Shooting at the range from T-64 is also more convenient because of better scopes. More accurate hit means higher marks, everyone is happy. Including the command, which is at the headquarters.
The T-72 is always a little broken. It needs to be serviced, it is necessary to climb into it. And to change the engine is generally 3-4 days of mat. Serving on the T-72 in peacetime is harsh.
But in wartime, everything is different. Everything in this regard was shown by the 1st and 2nd Chechens. The 1st included T-80 and T-72, since all T-64s remained in Ukraine. And they did it right, because Kharkov. Where can you repair and capital. And the 2nd already included only T-72s.
Why?
And because the 1st Chechen war was precisely the war. With brutal and maximum use of technology. And as a result of this war, only T-72s went into the next one, which in all respects are worse than the 80s.
But where to get, if something happens, a gas turbine engine for the T-80 and how to change it? Main question.
And I pulled out the T-72, which is always a little broken. It can always be repaired on the knee, in the field, ravine, ditch. From tools - a crowbar, a sledgehammer, a pair of keys, a set of spells.
T-72 can be shot from all sides, knock down everything that is possible from it. So what? Never mind. The tank will be on the move. There are no tricky and complex devices, there is nothing to break there at all. And even in this form (maximum, the next day), the T-72 will be ready for its main purpose - to perform a combat mission.
And the T-64 needs well-functioning logistics like air. Without specialized service, the 64 turns into a standing place and the BZ does not perform.
That is why they sent a car to the 2nd Chechen one that can be hit, blown up, fired at, not serviced, repaired in the field, and so on. Tank for war. Which (unlike the T-80) does not need an MTO machine in the middle of the field. Simple, reliable as a mammoth, with a minimum of electronics.
In war, they shoot at a tank. Is always. This is the tank, this is the main force. The question of when your attachments and, in general, everything that stands for armor will be smashed to you, is this: today or tomorrow. The fact that they will smash is a fact, it is really only a matter of time. And, if you do not have the opportunity to be repaired (there are no complex spare parts, the flyer has fallen behind, knocked out, etc.), then you will not be able to perform the BZ. The finish.
Here, the T-72, in which there is nothing that could be so fatally out of order, is good. This was especially shown by the practice of using the T-72 in BTG (battalion tactical groups). In isolation from the rear, MTO bases, generally in isolation, without any opportunity to prepare the vehicle for the next battle. Which, by the way, could start an hour after the end of the previous one.
So it is not correct to compare these machines. T-64 - tank in peacetime, or the beginning and end of the war. Or - a fast-flowing local conflict. The T-72 is a war tank. The wars are protracted.
And finally, after all the answers, this is the question: if the T-64 even today is so steeper and more promising than anything created in Russia, then why the basis for the Ukrainian "super tank" "Oplot" was not "Bulat", which is the further development of the T-64, but quite a Russian T-80UD?
