Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: em31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric Andrew Morgan) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Soviet tanks post T72 Message-ID: <1991Mar20.034739.2401@cbnews.att.com> Date: 20 Mar 91 03:47:39 GMT References: <1991Mar14.020342.21021@cbnews.att.com>,, Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 80 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Eric Andrew Morgan >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. >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"? Allan, I think you should check your sources a little more carefully before you post. My sources for the following are as follows: The Military Balance 1990-1991, Janes Armoured Vehicles 1990-1991, and The Soviet Army(an Army field manual, but I can't remember the number). 1.) Future Soviet Tank: According to Jane's, the USSR is known to be developing two new tanks. The consensus of opinion is that it will be armed with a 135mm smoothbore with a muzzle velocity greater than the current 125mm. 2.) The T-80: "It is now known that the T-80 is a further development of the T-64 and entered production in the early 1980s with the first units being equipped in 1984." (Jane's, pg68). The article goes on to describe the differences between the T-64 and the T-80, which are much more substantial than just reactive armor and a laser range finder. It was also said that as of 1987, "...over 2200 T-80s had been deployed with the Group of Soviet Forces Germany(GSFG), where they are issued to the 8th Guards Tank Army and the 1st Guards Tank Army. Total production of the T-80 is believed to have reached over 8000 vehicles with production continuing." (Janes, pg68). 3.) T-80s with reactive armor: Over half of the T-64s and T-80s in GSFG have been equipped with reactive armor. 4.) T-64 vs T-72: The T-64s and T-80s have not been exported, unlike the T-72. "In 1987 it was confirmed that the T-64 and the T-80 were the key MBTs with the Group of Soviet Forces Germany with three armies being equipped with the T-64A/T-64B(2nd Guards Army, 3rd Shock Army, and 20th Guards Army) and the other two with T-80s (8th Guards Army, and 1st Guards Tank Army), the former having 4000 T-64A/T-64Bs and the later 2200 T-80s." (Janes, pg71). If you look in the Military Balance you will see that T-80 is listed with a number ober 2000, and that the number of T-64s is only 300 less than T-72s. The T-72s are mainly sold to other nations, but are also used in some of the Soviet Armies in the Far East, or B-grade divisions all over. 5.) US vs Soviet MBTs: "The United States Army considers the M60A1 inferior to the T-72, the more recent M60A3 on a par with it and the new M1 superior to it." Yes, I would take an M1A1 over any Soviet Tank, but that does not make all Soviet tanks crap. The T-80 is an advanced and capable tank, and in the right hands it would be wrong to underestimate its power. Sure an M1A1 could take it out, or even a couple of them, but they have lots of them. 6.) Soviet Equip is Crap: I don't think we can completely discount most of Soviet equipment as shit. Yes, our stuff is superior, and yes, the the T-54/55s and T-62s are completely outdated. But that does not mean that all Soviet Equipment is crap. The T-80 is a good tank, the MIG-29 is acknowledged by Western pilots are an impressive airplane, and some Soviet Naval units are extremely capable. The recent victory over Iraq who was using Soviet equipment should be taken with a grain of salt. In most cases, they had the old shit, and second, they weren't trained for shit. Part of the superiority of the US Armed Forces is in training, not just equipment. Since my fingers are tired, I'll sign off now. ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Andrew Morgan Cognitive Science Major Carnegie Mellon University