mullermb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Muller) (03/20/91)
From: mullermb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Muller) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >>From: Eric Andrew Morgan <em31+@andrew.cmu.edu> >>The T-80 has been determined to be follow on to the T-64, the current >>Soviet Main Battle Tank. The T-72 is mainly exported, while the T-64 is >>not. A large portion of T-80 are armored with reactive armor. Any >>follow on tanks to the T-80 are currently unconfirmed. It is know that >>the Soviets are working on a new main battle tank. > >Sorry Eric, but I recall reading in "The Military Balance" that the T-72 >is the most numerous tank in the Soviet Army. Also, the "T-80" per se, >does not exist. The T-80 is really the T-74 and the only differences >between the T-74 and the T-72 are that the T-74 has reactive armor (now >retrofitted to many T-72's) and a laser rangefinder. "T-80" was a term >created solely by the Reagan Administration in its sucessful quest to >portray the Soviet Military to be at parity or an advantage with respect >to our own. This was true in the early 80's. The tank originally called the T-80 by the US is the T-74. However, there is also a T-80 now in service that is based upon the T-64 rather than the the T-72/74 series. Any of these tanks may be found with reactive armor, depending on the whim of the Soviets. The main difference between the T-74 and the T-72 is that it has more and probabbly better armor, and they are built with the laser, which can be fitted on a T-72 if desired. Of course, the T-72's armor is not that great, so even with the addition (which is not al that large), the T-74 is not extremely impressive. As for the T-80, much of its automotive components (transmissions, suspensions, etc) are different due to the T-64 basis, and it also utilizes a gas turbine engine. It still has the same 125mm gun, which is not that impressive due to generally poor (by western standards) ammunition, among other reasons. Operationally, there is probably little difference between it and a T-74. >The real truth is that most of the Red Army's equipment is >junk and we know it just as well as the Soviets do. If they didn't >think that they were going to take horrendous losses due to superior >enemy tanks and AT weapons, how come they retain over 23,000 T-54/55's >and 14,000 T-62's? Whether the appropriate people know this or not may be debatable, but generally, the Soviet's equipment is not very impressive at all. Of course, before the existance of the M-1 (and M-1A1 especially), the Soviets were a match (equipment wise) for US ground forces. With M-1's and M-1A1 with all that glorious chobham armor, and more off road speed than previously imaginable, the Soviets are outclassed. Of course, if the Army ever admits this, they won't be able to get more and better tanks and other stuff! >The only reason that the Soviets need as many as >they do is their primary tactic is to throw division after division into >direct frontal assaults against the enemy. I heard once that a Soviet >tank or motor rifle division is expected by their doctrine to be combat >effective for only two days before being totally wiped out. Oh well, so >much for the 10,000-odd soldiers in the division. > >Also, if it is "unconfirmed" whether or not there is a follow on to the >T-74/80, how can you say that "it is *know[n]* that the Soviets are >working on a new main battle tank"? > There have been pictures of follow on tanks published in the west. I saw some in some issue of ARMOR magazine, although I can't tell you which one (I read them at the library). Of course, new does not have to mean significantly improved. >Allan "I'd rather have one M1A1 then ten T-74's" Bourdius I don't know about ten, but the M1A1 totally outclasses the T-74; it has far more and better armor, is much faster off road due to power and superior suspension, has a much better gun, and much better fire control. *-------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark Muller Undergraduate at Purdue University * * muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu Aeronautics & Astronautics Engineering * *-------------------------------------------------------------------------*