Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 3 Grp B - Leopard 1 (Germany) vs T-64 (Russia)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Leopard 1 taking a lead is quite surprising, I have to admit.

    T-64 at the time of its introduction was the most advanced tank in the Soviet Army and abroad. It was a leap forward in Soviet tank design and a break from the evolutionary cycle seen in previous designs. Armed with a 125mm smooth-bore gun,incorporating innovative features as an auto-loader and advanced armor, it had unparalleled protection and firepower, deeply influencing Western and later Soviet designs.

    Opposed piston engine is often criticized and in Western literature connected with British issues with similar L60 design on Chieftan. There were indeed severe problems with T-64 engine, leading partially to development of mobilization Object 172 and later T-72.
    All Chieftains suffered from recurring gearbox failures, because they were under-powered for their 53 tons and efforts to increase engine output stressed gearbox and other components. Until late '70 opposed British piston engine was extremely unreliable, and even after upgrades, it rarely reached expected lifetime, and breakdowns were very frequent. On the other hand, T-64 was lighter and engine issues were solved gradually. From 1965-1969 the expected lifetime of the engine was 200 hours, 1970 to 1971 was 250, and from 1973 it reached 300 hours. By 1976 it had increased to 500 hours. As it seems, in 1987, a division fully equipped with T-64 was put through a 900km march and then field maneuver were carried out. The exercise was carried out successfully, with only 22 tanks falling behind because of breakdowns. These managed to catch up when the division had to cross a river.

    Those initial problems were mostly related with technological leap when manufacturing and field servicing T-64's 5TDF engine versus typical V diesel engines in previous tanks.

    On the other Leopard 1 was exceptionally well designed tank, characterised by reliability, ease of maintenance and repair, and during it's service it was extensively modernized. But, it was produced on flawed requirements stating that HEAT rendered heavy armor obsolete, so mobility and firepower were crucial. Those requirements proved to be wrong, and in fact Leopard 2 was born from attempts to make better protected Leopard 1.

    While development of Leopard 2 prototypes can be traced back to Leopard 1, final product had little in common other than name. Most importantly, a lot of internal components came from aborted MBT-70 project.

    For me, T-64 is a clear winner here.
    It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

    Косово је Србија!
    Never go to war with a country whose national holiday celebrates a defeat in 1389.

    Armored Brigade

    Armored Brigade Facebook page

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nikolas93TS View Post
      "Leopard 1 taking a lead is quite surprising, I have to admit. <snip>

      For me, T-64 is a clear winner here."
      Me too. I'll be voting for T-64 also. IMO, it blows Leopard 1 away both for significance and for influence, which is what these polls are about after all.


      Edit: My vote for T-64 now locked in.
      Last edited by panther3485; 18 Aug 14, 11:52.
      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

      Comment


      • #18
        Just voted for the T-64.

        It featured new armor components, a heavy smoothbore and was produced in large numbers. Can't see much innovations on the Leo.
        One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

        Comment


        • #19
          This poll's pretty close...still a lot of time to vote so we'll see if the Leo still keeps its lead.
          "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

          --Hávamál

          Comment


          • #20
            Had to go with the Leo.
            The T-64, while something of a breakthrough, seems to have primarily showed the USSR how not to build its next generation of tanks. As the Production figures show, they clearly thought the T-72 was a much better idea.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              Had to go with the Leo.
              The T-64, while something of a breakthrough, seems to have primarily showed the USSR how not to build its next generation of tanks. As the Production figures show, they clearly thought the T-72 was a much better idea.
              Seems like that'd be pretty influential still.
              "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

              --Hávamál

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                Had to go with the Leo.
                The T-64, while something of a breakthrough, seems to have primarily showed the USSR how not to build its next generation of tanks. As the Production figures show, they clearly thought the T-72 was a much better idea.
                So, why have they built T-80 then?

                I think this is a third time I post this.



                T-72 was produced in larger numbers because it was cheaper. T-72 as a product of T-64 and improved T-62.Kartsev hoped to develop a rival to the T-64A, and after being refused by Moscow, he envisaged two variants: the basic T-64A with still unreliable 5TDF diesel engine, and a "mobilization" version using a normal diesel engine from the T-62, which was intended as a low-cost alternative for mobilization.

                Uralvagonzavod developed a new auto-loader and introduced improved V-45 diesel engine. T-64A hull and turret were reconfigured to adopt those, which resulted in Object 172. A state decree on standardizing the T-64A gave Uralvagonzavod permission to further develop the Obiekt 172 which took it even further away from the T-64A configuration by permitting incorporation of the new suspension from the Obiekt 167 (which was improved T-62). This version was designated Obiekt 172M, which will later be accepted as T-72.
                It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

                Косово је Србија!
                Never go to war with a country whose national holiday celebrates a defeat in 1389.

                Armored Brigade

                Armored Brigade Facebook page

                Comment


                • #23
                  I think I saw you post that twice before so yep 3rd time here.
                  "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

                  --Hávamál

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Super Six 4 View Post
                    I think I saw you post that twice before so yep 3rd time here.
                    And I will continue to repost it until people learn the facts
                    It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

                    Косово је Србија!
                    Never go to war with a country whose national holiday celebrates a defeat in 1389.

                    Armored Brigade

                    Armored Brigade Facebook page

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                      Had to go with the Leo.
                      The T-64, while something of a breakthrough, seems to have primarily showed the USSR how not to build its next generation of tanks. As the Production figures show, they clearly thought the T-72 was a much better idea.
                      The most important breakthrough features pioneered with T-64 were carried over to subsequent Russian tank designs; and in fact the case was almost the opposite of what you suggest because it began a whole new line of tank design for them. It did indeed show the way for future Russian tank design.

                      IIRC, the main reason for limiting production of the T-64 was cost. Basically, it was just too expensive to build in the volumes required for both domestic and export needs. The essential driver for creation of T-72 was to produce a tank with the most important features of T-64 (or, more accurately, the T-64A) but at a substantially lower price. T-72 might therefore be seen as a "rationalized T-64A".

                      In any case, the T-64/64A would IMO have to be one of the most influential designs of the Cold War era. Its effects on both Russian and Western tank design have been very far reaching right down to the present time; even though its numbers were relatively limited.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I like the Leopard I as well as the Leopard II they have good armor and are certainly better looking than the T-64. Also I wonder if any Leopard I's were modified visually to look like German King Tigers for the film A Bridge too far?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          This is a tough choice. But, I think the T-64 represents more significantly the first really radical departure in Soviet tank design since WW 2 and the T-34.
                          While many of its features (like siliceous core armor) were tried and rejected in the West (yes, the US tried that in the late 50's and found it offered little or no improvement in protection) were not new to the world of tank design they were new to a production tank by the Soviet Union.

                          The Leopard on the other hand represents a return by Germany to building AFV. But, it has no radical design features and represents no giant change in technology by Germany.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            While many of its features (like siliceous core armor) were tried and rejected in the West (yes, the US tried that in the late 50's and found it offered little or no improvement in protection) were not new to the world of tank design they were new to a production tank by the Soviet Union.
                            That information probably come from Zaloga, who unfortunately never elaborated and sourced why it was rejected. Because all other sources says siliceous cored armor impressively outperformed the RHA equivalent plate, particularly against HEAT.
                            But using siliceous core had some limitations. Firstly an impact by round would pulverize an undetermined amount of the fuzed silica, therefore the effectiveness of the armor against a subsequent projectile impact would be greatly reduced. Secondly, it appears price of the armor would have increased and most importantly delayed the production, in the moment when US were needing tanks as fast as possible.

                            USSR on the other hand tested various multi-layered concepts, using textolite for example, with better proprieties.
                            It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

                            Косово је Србија!
                            Never go to war with a country whose national holiday celebrates a defeat in 1389.

                            Armored Brigade

                            Armored Brigade Facebook page

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Well, the Leo 1 looks nicer than T64.

                              T-64 wins.
                              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Voted Leopard I.

                                I don t ever remember any of my tactic classes or training about engaging T-64s... I remember T-54, T-62, T-72, T-80, and now T-90, but sorry no T-64...Except sometimes in passing in a technical brief...It doesn t mean it is a bad tank, but my experience provides me the basis of an impression as "non-significant".

                                In the meanwhile, the Leopard 1 was the MBT serving on every continent except Africa & Antartica.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X