[Gorshkov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It depends on the ammo - in SBP, and in reality.

Again, it depends on the ammo. If you set up old ammo against modern armour, or modenr ammo against old arnmour, do not be surprised of the outcome. Below a certain range, Western AND Eastern tank cannons with decent SABOT-type ammo have an overkill capacity against any MBT in the world - this range is slightly bigger for Wetsern tanks, probably, that's why they want to avoid letting diatnces become too short - they would give up an advanatge without compensation.

It rather depends on selected time-frame! Now Western APFSDS ammo is much superior to Russian/Soviet designs. Take into account the best today's Western rounds M829A3 and DM63 fired from L/44 and L/55 guns respectively have penetration almost 800 mm RHA at 2 km, while old but still widely used Russian APFSDS rounds like BM-32/42/46 only reach 500-600 mm RHA penetration at 2 km. Moreover armor protection of latest Western tanks (M1A2SEP, Leo-2A6, Merkava-4) is much mode effective than T-80U and T-90 armor based on outdated ERA concept.

In sum, T-80U and T-90 are viable opponents for Leo-2A4 and M1A1 but are no match for Leo-2 and M1 latest incarnations.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The 80U was difficult to penetrate for Western tanks in its time. Also, it has thermals - the only Russian MBT of that time with thermals.

No Soviet tank had thermal sights in 1980s, buddy! Only several years later Russians firstly imported and later got license on French thermal sights. They were offered in T-80UM (1993 - purely export T-80U version) and later were introduced in some T-90s.

Originally Posted by Skybird

In the wars of the past 20 years, only second- and third-class export versions of T-72s saw battle action against Wetswern tanks, and neither German nor American tank experts deny that the Russians during the cold war usually produced much better quality and kept the best equipment for themselves, compared to the tanks build in thwe CSSR or Poland.

It depends. As for older tanks like T-54/55 I think they were produced at similar quality level in both USSR and NSWP countries. Later Soviets incorporated policy of producing several tank models simultaneously with some of them being build exclusively for Soviet Army (T-64, T-80). So there isn't odd those tanks were unique for Soviet arsenal. In the T-72 case all this looks quite different and...messy. In short Soviets designed...three basic T-72 versions: for Soviet Army, for NSWP armies and for their Third World clients. Essentially the latter were [much] worse than two previous versions while T-72 for Soviet Army did not differ much from T-72 built on license in selected NSWP counties.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ammo improved also over time, especially in Germany, Sweden and America. Latest Tungsten-type of German rounds almost amtch the destuctability of third-generation DU-rounds used by the Americans. Considering the different phasical characteristics of both materials, that really means siomething and indicates a small "wonder". In SBP, both rounds are therefore rated almost identical at ranges of up to 4000m, with just a microscopic lead for the the US round.

I suppose recent US made APFSDS-DU ammo is better suited for penetration of advanced ERA armor than German wolfram APFSDS rounds. Yet this is only my guessing because real data are top secret.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh, it did, and by a very huge marghin - it coutclassed any tank when it was introduced. It wasa fast5er, more agile, the gun was more precise and had a longer reach, it had thwermals, it was quick in reverse, it had superior optics and - considering thát effectively it was a heavy turret on a medioum chassis - a remarkable armour protection for its time. Major advanatge was its agility, manouverability, speed and precise cannon. The T-72 was designed to be the Leo-1 killer, for the T-55, T-62 and T-64 were more or less chanceless against the Leopard-1, being infeiror in EVERY regard.

Nope, buddy! you overestimate Leo-1 capabilities against T-62 by a large margin. Look at basic data:

- firepower: T-62 - 115 mm 2A20 gun (first smoothbore gun firing APFSDS round ever created), Leo-1 - 105 mm L7 rifled gun
- frontal armor protection: T-62 - 250 mm, Leo-2A1/A3 - 190-250 mm
- mobility measured in power/weight ratio: Leo-1 - 14,4 kW/t, T-62 - 11 kW/t
- FCS - no Leo-1 had thermal sights until Leo-1A5 introduced in 1987!

So in sum early Leo-1 (A1-A3) and T-62 models were almost equal. Their armor protection was on par, T-62 has better firepower while Leo-1 had better mobility.

Later it was changing but not to a large degree as you describe it! For instance Leo-1A4 (IOC 1974) got quite advanced automatic FCS but T-62M (IOC 1983) was very deep T-62 modernization with good "Volna" FCS (digital computer, laser rangefinder, gun stabilizer), better BDD frontal armor equals 480-500 mm RHA and gun launched AT-10 ATGM providing capability to destroy Leo-1 from 4 km distance. As a result T-62M was better than Leo-1A4 and partially that's why Leo-1A5 was developed. However in 1987 Cold War was almost over and both tanks were seen as outdated.

Summarization - T-62 and Leo-1 were similar second generation tanks which were modernized as a small part of arms race between two military blocks. However none of them outmatched another.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The T-72 was meant to cover thew weaklness in the army setup that was revealed by the T-55 and T-62/64 when the Leopard-1 showed up. It was a much better design to challenge the Leopard, than the earlier T-tanks, and remember, the T-80 was not around when the T-72 showed up. The T-72 was commissioned in or around 1972, the T-80 was pölanned during the 70s, was produced since 1978, and was delivered to the Russian army not before 1984. The T-80 did not base on the T-72 indesign, however, but on the T-64 which it was meant to repalce, due to the immense mechjnaical unreliability of the T-64.
When the T-72 appeared, it rang alarm bells in NATO HQs, and the developement of the new Ameican and German MBT was speeded up. Both the Abrams and the Leopard 2 were demanded to have the capacity to deal with and to defeat the T-72, while being outnumered. And then came the T-80 as well, but thankfully late, and in smaller numbers than the Soviet high command wanted.

You have false vision of Soviet and Western tank development in that era. Basically Soviets relied doctrinally more heavily on tanks and that's why they were not satisfied with T-55 and T-62 tanks versus contemporary Western models like AMX-30, M48/60 and Leo-1. So in 1960s they took heavy effort to gain qualitative superiority over NATO tanks. Doing so they designed T-64 in 1967 which was much better tank than each Western counterpart and thus T-64 was chosen as a premiere Soviet tank model. However you should know Soviet tank arsenal was gigantic - 60000 tanks, more than entire World combined! No way advanced and expensive T-64s can be built in such numbers. Therefore USSR had to develop another tank - cheaper and simpler than T-64 and this was T-72 - a direct replacement of hordes of T-54/55s and even...T-10M tanks. As I pointed out above T-72 was seen in Soviet Union as second-line model which means it did not constituted backbone of Soviet tank forces in hypothetical war waged on Central Front against NATO. This role was reserved for T-64 and later T-80 tanks. So NATO strategists could not afraid T-72 more than those two tanks and Western third generation tanks (Abrams, Leopard-2, Challenger) were designed primarily as a counterweight against T-64B and T-80B.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Leopard-1 was produced since 1965, btw.

And T-62 from 1961 so not far away. Besides Leo-1 production number is 4744 tanks while T-62 production reached 22000. Note Soviets always preferred quantity over [alas constantly better] quality.

Originally Posted by Skybird

In conventional (non-missile) gun projectile design, Russia still lacks, compared to Wetsern rounds, since it has a larger tank fleet ti equip and thus needs cheaper solutions. Its kinetic rounds for long time thus did not base on expensive Tungsten or depleted uranium, but steel.

Well, buddy - you are amazing me! Where did you get that BS? Actually Soviet APFSDS rounds were made with DU even before Western ones! Look at BM-21 and BM-28 rounds for...T-62 - first was introduced in the middle 1970s! They could defeat all Western second generation tanks and even first models of third generation tanks (M1, Leo-2A1) up to 1,5-2 km thanks to 330-400 mm RHA penetration at 2 km.
As for 125 mm rounds - look at BM-22 APFSDS (wolfram) introduced in 1976.
In contrast I can't see any NATO 105 mm APFSDS-DU round fielded before 1980s and their first wolfram APFSDS appeared in 1978. They relied heavily on...APDS rounds back then!