Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,404
- Location
- Planet Earth
T72 models exported were inferior to the T72 Ural models which the Soviets used. The T64 was designed as an advanced model but had a ton of teething issues,but the Soviet military really favoured it.
The T72 was created independently from a competing tank plant/design bureau,as a non-sanctioned internal project,who wanted to show they could make a similar performing tank using less risky technologies. In the end they too won a contract when the T64 programme started to have issues.
The T64 had a compact engine which had real problems,and a carousel autoloader which is far more vulnerable to detonation when the armour is penetrated,than the simpler bussel type used in the T72. The T72 technically was inferior initially as it was a cheaper tank,but as time progressed the T64 turned out to be a bit of turd as it was expensive to make,the compact engine had reliability issues,and it started to fall behind in actual performance,etc. This is why the T72 ended up being modified to the extent later T72 models were as good,and probably more mobile than the T64 models at the end. It was much easier to modify.In fact later T72 models were heavier and had better armour.
The T80 tried to fix the problems which plagued the T64,and took on lessons learnt with the T72. So they replaced the engine with a gas turbine to improve power to weight ratio,and the armour took some lessons from later T72 variants. It also mounted the most advanced Soviet era fire control system in the T80U. However,the gas turbine still had the issue of greater fuel consumption,and both the T64/T80 have the carousel autoloader which is a huge weakness of both tanks. This is why the T64/T80 had issues in combat - look what happened in Chechnya. The T72 by extension has a lower likelihood of ammo cookoff compared to the T64/T80.
The T90,took the lessons learnt from the T80 and put them into the T72. There were two parallel projects in the late 1980s - Object 187 and Object 188,which attempted to further improve the T72B. The Object 187 was far more advanced,and Object 188 was designed as a cheaper fallback. By the late 1980s it was quite clear,the T64/T80 lineage was being abandoned in favour of the T72 based one.
The Object 187 T72 would have been the most advanced Soviet tank if it entered service:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-72-object-187.htm
https://murtie-djokobayu.medium.com/meet-object-187-the-other-t-90-5ac1fe573dee
However,the USSR collapsed and it lead to the cheaper alternate "advanced next generation" T72,the Object 188,which was branded the T90. However,that was not enough because the collapse of the USSR lead to a huge collapse in defence procurement.
In the 1990s,it was common for Russia to export its best equipment so the R and D was paid for countries like India. An example isn't just the T90 but also the Su30MKI which ended up in Russian service as the Su30SM. So the Indians wanted a better T72,and Russia exported an improved T90 called the T90S to India,and this was the basis of the T90A the Russia bought at a later date.
The T90 is significantly better than the T72 models encountered decades ago,especially with the newer ERA. The latest models,even make changes to the autoloader system to improve survivability and has even made attempts to better protect the ammo storage. But all of these tanks,for the most part,tend to have weaker all-round protection than any western tank,and rely far more on ERA and active protection systems than passive armour,especially with them being around 20 tons lighter.
The lessons learnt from the T90 programme,have been implemented in improving 100s(probably over a 1000) of late model T72 and T80 MBTs. One of them is the use of advanced ERA,and other forms of armour added to the hulls. The other aspect is the wholesale improvement of the FCS. You can see this with the T72B3M/T72B4,which not only integrated ERA,but new generation FCS and the engine from later T90 models,and the T80BVM which again shares systems from newer T90 models.
The issue with Ukraine is not that they cannot make decent improvements to their T64 and T80 MBTs,its more the case they have limited production capability,from years of underfunding of their defence industries because of corruption. Only now it is starting to probably get the attention it required. If anything the area they have been traditional good at,is engines....hence why the Russians for decades used Ukranian engines(especially those for ships),before Crimea essentially ended that. It's taken years for Russia to actually manage to get over the loss of Ukrainian ship engines. Its why China was after Motor Sich.
They have very capable engineers,but look at their contract for T84 MBTs to Thailand. It was beset by production issues for years:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/r...iver-tanks-thailand-turned-chinas-vt-4-184553
In the end Thailand had to turn to China with its VT4.
Most of these tanks mount a variation of the same Soviet era 125mm gun - basically whatever side hits the tank first will win the engagement. The FCS will be an important factor in who wins first as is the kinetic penetrators used. Again,you are not appreciating the improved T72 and T80 models,are taking parts from the later T90 models,including the newer ERA and FCS.
They are no M1 but against peer tanks they are more than capable.
Rob Lee on Twitter is following this all. Russia has perhaps put 60% of their BTGs in range of Ukraine. They have been moving armour for weeks,and apparently equipment from last year didn't technically leave. They have a massive railway network and that involves movement of heavy equipment even from Siberia,and elsewhere.
They also under the guise of "exercises" have moved equipment to Belarus. The issue is if an invasion happens,its going to be on multiple fronts,possibly with Belarus being involved too.
So if this is a bluff its a real high stakes one.
Last edited:
