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

  • warmoviebuff
    replied
    T-64 was more influential, in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by nikolas93TS View Post
    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.
    Hunnicutt discusses it in length in his volume Patton. Siliceous core armor gives a small increase in protection against HEAT but seriously degrades the armor against APDS and other shot. The US found that the silica core (essentially quartz) simply shattered rather than absorbed the impact of such rounds.
    The big protective increase comes with composite armor using plastics, ceramics, and other materials in very careful combinations. Siliceous core armor was simply an idea before its time.

    Leave a comment:


  • nikolas93TS
    replied
    Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
    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 mid 1970s Soviet High Command decided to re-equip GSFG in short order with the T64A. The plan for re-equipment was 6-7 divisions (2000 tanks) a year, so that the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG) would be completely re-equipped in 3-4 years. T-64As began arriving in 1976 (and were mistaken by Western intel to be T-72s hence the beginning of the myth that T-72s were the main tank of GSFG).

    At first re-equipment went quite quickly, helped by the stripping of T-64As from divisions in the interior USSR, and in 1977 six tank or Motor Rifle divisions were re-equipped. But the single Kharkov plant producing T-64As (Leningrad insisted on their T-80 and Nizhny Tagil on their T-72) couldn't keep up the initial pace, hence many GSFG were still equipped with T-62.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    First the typ 90 making it through to round 2, then the tiger to round 3 and now this.

    I am starting to see the apeal in being a dictator.
    I think I can understand why with the Japanese Type 90 vs the Chinese ZTZ 96. The Type 90 is both reassuringly "Western like" in its general appearance and probably more of a "known quantity" to most members. By contrast, the ZTZ 96 would probably be far less familiar or known to most. People generally feel more comfortable with something they can relate to even if only a little bit, compared to something they don't relate to at all.

    With the Tiger tanks, I can understand that to a considerable extent also because whatever their drawbacks they tended, and still tend today, to have an impact (at least partly psychological) that goes beyond their numbers. Even now, the name "Tiger" gets attention and awe (both the cat and the tank ). If we were to identify the three best known tanks of WW2, the Tiger would unquestionably be one of them. Maybe taking equal place with Sherman as the best known tank of WW2, at least in the West? On its own, that will garner some votes.

    Leave a comment:


  • andrewza
    replied
    First the typ 90 making it through to round 2, then the tiger to round 3 and now this.

    I am starting to see the apeal in being a dictator.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    The T64 should have landslided this round.
    I would have thought so too. Should being the operative word here, of course.

    ... but at the end of the day (end of the tournament, that is), it's the collective opinions of the membership that count. What will be, will be.

    Leave a comment:


  • andrewza
    replied
    The T64 should have landslided this round.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
    "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".
    Seems like a very reasonable line of thinking to me, but I suspect the main reason you would not have had the T-64 included in your classes/training is that the chances of ever encountering any would be close to zero. That's because the T-64 was (a) produced in relatively quite small numbers (compared with the likes of T-54/55 and T-72) and, most importantly (b) it was not meant for export.

    That said, all the later designs you speak of - T-72, T-80 and T-90 - owe a very great deal of their design to the T-64. It might be said that the T-64 was the "father" (or maybe in the latest cases "grandfather") of all the newer Russian types. If you look at nikolas93TS's "family tree" diagram a few posts back, you'll see what I mean. Essentially, none of those later designs would exist in their current form if it had not been for the T-64.

    If we think of any of the tank developments that occurred with Western designs over the last several decades which were in some way either prompted, spurred on or influenced by the advancements represented in Russian designs between the 1970s and today - either directly or indirectly - then the credit for whatever Soviet/Russian influence there was largely begins with the T-64.
    "The T-64 tank was the most radical advance in World tank technology in the 1960's; as much a breakthrough as the T-34 tank had been in 1940. The T-64 was the first series-manufactured main battle tank to employ non-metallic armor, and the first to use an autoloader. In spite of its modest weight of 38 metric tons, it was armed with a very potent 125mm gun, at a time when 55-ton NATO tanks were still armed with 105mm guns. Its armour was quite thick for the time, and its road speed was very impressive. Indeed, all Soviet main battle tank design (since then) has been only an evolutionary outgrowth of the T-64 design."
    Page 1, T-64 and T-80, Steven Zaloga

    IMO, seen in the broader context it would be quite difficult to overstate either the significance or the influence of the T-64 in relation to modern tanks.


    Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
    "In the meanwhile, the Leopard 1 was the MBT serving on every continent except Africa & Antartica."
    True, the Leopard 1 has seen more widespread service. Even our (Aussie) army used them for a decent period of time. But then, we never would have got our hands anywhere near the T-64 even if we had wanted it. I think spare parts might have been an issue too (not to mention the political implications).

    Nothing against your vote for the Leopard 1 or anyone else's; and all those members who voted for that tank are every bit as much entitled to their opinions and their votes, as I am to mine.

    However, I really struggle to see how the T-64 could be losing in this particular poll if the voting was based on a full understanding of the true significance and influence of these two designs. Perhaps it is because most of our members are from Western countries and they are not only likely to know more about the Leopard, but much more likely to be able to relate to it? The T-64 is still a relatively little known tank to most Westerners, and far less well understood than the tanks we are more familiar and comfortable with.

    Last edited by panther3485; 22 Aug 14, 23:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capt AFB
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Well, the Leo 1 looks nicer than T64.

    T-64 wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • nikolas93TS
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Merkava188
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • nikolas93TS
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X