Latest news at:
       

This article, based on extensive archival documentation, presents a detailed and multi-perspective analysis of a pivotal moment in Soviet tank development: the concurrent adoption of the T-64A and T-72 tanks in 1973. It critically examines the decision-making process that led to the abandonment of a unified tank model for the Soviet Army, instead establishing a decades-long course of parallel production for different main battle tanks. The core of the study rests on primary sources: internal reports of the USSR Ministry of Defense, correspondence and memoranda from military leadership (notably Marshal I. I. Yakubovsky), official letters and technical reports from the Malyshev Plant management and Chief Designer A. A. Morozov, and field trial records. This archival foundation allows the author to reconstruct the arguments and rationales of all major stakeholders. The article meticulously contrasts the perspectives: · The Ministry of Defense's position, citing extensive field trial data from 1969-1973 to highlight persistent reliability issues with the T-64A's engine (5TDF), transmission, and running gear, ultimately deeming it unsuitable for mass production outside its native plant. · The Malyshev Plant and Design Bureau's defense, which presents its own statistical data and lists hundreds of implemented design improvements, arguing that the T-64A had reached satisfactory reliability by 1973 and that its shortcomings were either overstated or in the process of being resolved. · The pivotal intervention of military leadership, encapsulated in Yakubovsky's 1973 letter listing seven "structural deficiencies" of the T-64A, which served as the formal justification for initiating parallel production of the T-72. A significant portion of the analysis is devoted to a point-by-point technical rebuttal by A. A. Morozov of the criticisms leveled in Yakubovsky's letter, covering aspects such as operational range, ammunition handling, cross-country mobility, and engine reliability. Furthermore, the article references later declassified industry journal data (from the 1980s) to compare the long-term reliability statistics of the T-64A, T-72, and T-80, challenging the established narrative of the T-64A's inherent unreliability. The conclusion posits that the events of 1973 were less a reflection of the T-64A's objective failure and more a result of complex industrial, regional, and administrative factors within the Soviet defense industry. The study asserts that the subsequent historical narrative often relied on a "large-scale falsification" that overlooked the T-64A's achieved technical level and the similar reliability challenges faced by its successors in their early service years.
History of Tank Development in the USSR (T-64A, T-72, T-80). Pivotal 1973

This material represents a unique historical and technical source, presenting an English translation of the preliminary (conceptual) design project of the Soviet medium tank Object “ 430” , originally developed in 1953. The document captures an early and critically important stage in the formation of a fundamentally new Soviet tank design philosophy and provides insight into the evolution of layout concepts, engineering solutions, armament, protection, mobility, and production-oriented design approaches that were later realized in next-generation armored vehicles. One of the important principles adhered to in both domestic and foreign tank design was that the adoption of a new vehicle into service marked the beginning of development of a new tank intended to replace it. Even the most advanced design of its time becomes obsolete within five to ten years. During the development of each new-generation tank project, a number of intermediate designs were produced. Some of them remained at the level of conceptual or technical projects, while others progressed to the manufacture of running mock-ups. One such example is the conceptual design project of the tank Object “ 430” , completed in 1953.
NEW MEDIUM TANK OBJECT “ 430” THE PRELIMINARY (CONCEPTUAL) DESIGN PROJECT

The article presents a comprehensive technical and historical analysis of the Technical Project “Object 432” (April 1961) — the prototype that laid the foundation for the T­64, the first Soviet main battle tank. Based on archival materials, designer diaries of A. A. Morozov, and specialized engineering publications, the study examines the origins of key innovations that defined the next generation of Soviet armored vehicles. Particular attention is given to the evolution of the composite hull and turret protection, the development of the automatic loading system, and the implementation of integrated NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) defense systems. The paper reconstructs the principal design solutions detailed in the explanatory memorandum of the 1961 technical project, including armament arrangement, crew layout, armor composition, and protection efficiency. The research highlights the technological challenges encountered during early production — such as design shortcomings of the “cheeked” glacis, turret modifications, and the transition from fiberglass to multi­layer steel­ceramic protection — and traces their resolution through the evolution of T­64A/B models. The analysis demonstrates that Object 432 became a milestone in armored vehicle development, establishing the architectural and technological framework later used in the T­72, T­80, T­90, and derivative tanks across the world. The material contributes to the historiography of tank design by combining primary technical documentation with engineering evaluation of structural innovations.
Technical Project “Object 432” , April 1961: The Birth of the T­64 and Its Key Innovations. Part 1

This article examines the technical project “Object 432” (April 1961), focusing on the design decisions that shaped the mobility and maneuverability of what would become the T-64 main battle tank, as well as the debates surrounding those decisions. Particular attention is given to the powerplant, transmission, suspension, and track system, which were the most controversial elements of the tank. The paper analyzes criticism directed at the 5TD/5TDF opposed-piston diesel engine, the ejector cooling system, and the perceived lack of growth potential in the suspension, and shows how these issues influenced parallel design efforts in Nizhny Tagil and Leningrad, leading to the T-72 and T-80. From a conceptual perspective, the article argues that despite structural differences, the T-64, T-72, and T-80 shared a common ideological foundation formulated by A. A. Morozov in the 1960s, a concept that remains relevant due to the absence of a fundamentally new tank employment doctrine. Using archival documents, technical data, and contemporary assessments, the article concludes that while Object 432 suffered from significant reliability and production challenges, its overall concept proved viable and forward-looking. The T-64’s long production run and capacity for modernization demonstrated that its key design solutions, particularly in mobility and layout, were not only justified for their time but influential for subsequent generations of main battle tanks.
Technical Project “Object 432” , April 1961: The Birth of the T­64 and Its Key Innovations. Part 2

Despite West German developments in dynamic armor in the early 1970s (DE2031658A, DE2008156A, DE2460302C1, and others), its use was abandoned. Primarily, Wegmann’s overly complex dynamic armor design would have significantly increased costs. Blohm + Voss AG had sufficiently advanced composite armor designs, and there were also active protection developments from DAIMLER BENZ AEROSPACE AG and other firms (DE2612673C1). Meanwhile, CLOUTH GUMMIWERKE AG worked on a promising armor concept consisting of a steel armor plate with a rubber layer vulcanized to a deformable structural steel backing plate. Patent DE2439522A1 was issued in 1974 but declassified only in 2006. The concept is well-known: a cumulative jet hitting the outer armor plate creates a shockwave that affects the rubber layer, which deforms the soft steel plate, disrupting the jet. This non-explosive dynamic armor design (30 mm steel + 4 mm rubber + 4 mm steel + 25 mm air, and similar configurations) was called Baulblech, and in the USSR, “reflective sheets” (the USSR connection will be explained later). This achieved an outstanding anti-cumulative protection equivalent of 700 mm for the 1970s.
On the Path to Leopard 2

Part 1: Development and Specifications. The article details the development of the improved T-80U tank ("Object 219A") in the Soviet Union, focusing on its design and production challenges during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Initiated by a 1976 decree, the project aimed to enhance the T-80’s combat capabilities, including improved fire accuracy, engine power, and armor protection with ERA (reactive armor). The Kharkov Design Bureau and Kirov Plant faced significant hurdles, particularly with the VTDT-1000FM gas turbine engine, which remained underdeveloped. The article outlines the tank’s tactical-technical characteristics, such as a 125 mm cannon, "Kobra" guided missiles, and advanced fire control systems, while highlighting the extensive design documentation and production preparations at the Malyshev Factory. Part 2: Factory Trials and Outcomes. This section covers the factory trials of four T-80U prototypes conducted in 1979, testing missile-cannon and cannon-only variants. The trials confirmed the tank’s enhanced firing accuracy and visibility but revealed issues with the "Agat-S" device, autoloader, and night vision systems. Delays in engine development and component deliveries, such as the "Sova" illuminators, complicated preparations for range trials. The article discusses the refinement of design documentation and the eventual shift to the 6TD engine, leading to serial production of the T-80U in 1985. It also notes the outdated specifications by 1983, high costs, and low reliability, comparing the T-80U to contemporary tanks like the Leopard-2 and XM1.
Unknown T-80U

NKPz - the best tank of the second half of the 20th century? In terms of its capabilities, the NKPz was a head above the Leopard-2 and superior to the Abrams and many advanced tank designs that were just being developed, such as the KPz Leopard-3FT. Complete isolation of the ammunition pack from the crew. Unique automation of the ammunition pack (88% automated rounds, 44 out of 50). Two automatic loaders with a relatively simple layout. Minimum weight with high protection - only 50 tons. Separation of the tank into isolated compartments for crew safety. All the details of the project and the reasons for its closure see -
New Swiss Battle Tank: NKPz – Technological Breakthrough of 1979

The bulletin was prepared by the combat experience generalization group of the 38th Research and Testing Institute of Armored Armament and Equipment. To evaluate the design solutions used, determine the feasibility and appropriateness of their implementation in domestic armored combat vehicles (ACVs), the Federal State Budgetary Institution “38th Research and Testing Institute of Armored Armament and Equipment” of the Russian Ministry of Defense conducted studies of captured tank samples: Leopard 2A5, T-72AG, and T-64BV Model 2017. The sample of the main battle tank Leopard 2A5 provided for research was captured during the Special Military Operation (SMO) in 2024. The tank was disabled due to combat damage (mine explosion, hit by a cumulative projectile in the turret near the loader’s station). The Leopard 2A5 tank was developed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and manufactured in 1984 at the Rheinmetall Landsysteme plant (Germany). The tank’s layout is classic, with the engine-transmission compartment located in the rear, the fighting compartment in the middle, and the control compartment in the front of the vehicle. The crew consists of four members: commander, gunner, loader, and driver. The driver’s station is located in the front of the hull, while the tank commander, gunner, and loader are positioned in the turret.
Results of Studies of Captured Leopard 2A5 Tanks (Germany), T-72AG, T-64BV Model 2017 (Ukraine) and Proposals for Improving the Design of Russian Tanks

The advent of the 120mm standardization program, in 1979, added a new dimension to the M1 tank system. The program encompasses technical translation of available German 120mm weapon designs, development of two new rounds, components, integration of the 120mm system into the tank, and preparation for production. Our prime objective remains to capitalize on available technology and to translate the 120mm cannon and ammunition designs intact. Further, the OS Army remains fully committed to maintain interchangeability between the US and German weapon systems. During 1980, the transfer of technology, with minor exceptions, was completed and testing of US fabricated hardware began.
M1E1 TANK PROGRAM

There is an opinion that the Soviet tank design, unlike the USA and Western Europe, relied on the automatic loader and the placement of non-insulated ammunition in it. But this is not quite true - the USSR tank building is a rather vast subject, where there were different directions of development, some of which became serial, and some remained forgotten projects. The T-64 layout was successful for its time and surpassed the contemporaries M60, Leopard-1, AMX-30, Chieftain in terms of protection. In the next generation tanks, full ammunition isolation is realized only on the Abrams tank. On other projects 2/3 of the ammunition is not isolated. The 1st attempt to create a tank with fully insulated ammunition was made in the early 1970s. 
About the automatic loader and ammo isolation in the USSR tank design

The German company Rheinmetall has developed a project for a new generation of the future main combat platform, known as Main Ground Combat System (MGCS). The crew of the tank consists of 2 people and is placed in an isolated capsule in the hull. The idea of 2-man tank was offered and tested in the end of 80-s during EGS program (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann). Protection of the crew from above is provided by overlapping placement of elements of the turret and gun. The engine is located in the front of the hull, the fan cooling system is located in the aft hull. It is evident that the platform will use most of the components of chassis from KF41"Lynx" presented at the exhibition "Eurosatory" in 2018. In the aft part of the hull there is also a compartment where it is possible to transport additional ammunition or a landing force.
Rheinmetall'‎s future tank. Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)

The new version of Object “ 490” by E. A. Morozov was under development in parallel with the Object “477”, and was also redesigned to equip with a 152 mm 2A73 cannon. This led to the creation of one of the most unusual and fundamentally new projects in the history of post-war tank design, characterized by unmatched levels of crew protection, mobility and firepower:
- crew protection with a level equivalent to more than 2000 and 4500 against APFSDS and HEAT (CE), 200 and 600 from the upper hemisphere;
- 32 unitary shots with L=1400 mm in fully automated loading system;
- 2 engine motor compartment with variable power up to 2000 hp;
- 4-track chassis with the possibility of movement in case of damage of 2 tracks (from opposite sides).
Future Soviet Tank of the 21st century. Object “490”

A future 1980-s tank with maximum protection, firepower and crew safety. One of the most unusual developments of the Soviet tank construction in the post-war period was the project of a two-cannon tank by Evgeny Morozov. The works were carried out in the late 70s and were presented to the customer (Soviet Ministry of Defense) along with other future directions for the development of the design for the future tank. The design of the tank was unusual, the hull was divided into isolated compartments, the first - the transmission compartment, the second - the fuel compartment divided by partitions, the third - the engine compartment. The crew consisting of two operators (commander-operator and driver) was placed in the rear of the hull in an isolated stationary (weapon platform rotated while crew stations remain stationary) capsule.
Soviet two-gun tank project (490 "Poplar")

Work on the future Soviet tank was officially conducted in Kharkov design bureau from the beginning of the 1980s under the guidance of N. A. Shomin, chief designer of the KMDB. Initiative work on the new medium tank of the 80-s NST-80 [New Medium Tank] began even earlier, from 08.17.1977, when the group of designers approved by N. A. Shomin was formed. The layout of the future tank was represented by two projects - a two men crew Object “490” developed by E. A. Morozov and Object “490A” with a crew of three, a low-profile turret and low-profile turret, the design of which was headed by V. R. Kovalyukh, deputy chief designer of the KMDB.
Soviet 80s Future tank projects. Object “ 490” , Object “490A” (Rebel), “490A” with 152 mm gun (Boxer).

Development of future Soviet tank in 80-s and was a continuation of works started in 1970-s under designation “Project 101”. Necessity for development was grounded by the development of next generation tank in US and NATO. The importance of this task was well realized by Nikolay Shomin, a new chief designer of Kharkov design bureau, who replaced Alexander Morozov after he retired in 1976. The development of the tank had two main directions – conventional layout with 3-man crew and unmanned turret, which was known under designation “Object 490A” and later “Object 477” and unconventional 2-man design known as “Object 490”. The project “490” developed in the 80s was under development by Eugenie Morozov, son of the famous designer of tanks T-34, T-54, T-64 Alexander Morozov.
The main features of the “Object 490” were:
- crew consisting of two people - commander-gunner and driver. Reduce the crew to two people and place them in a compact, well-protected capsule. Depending on the specific layout, this gives a volume saving of up to 1.2 m3.
- the use of hydro pneumatic suspension. In addition to solving the main problem - increasing average speeds by improving running smoothness, it allows to control the clearance of the tank, which increases maneuverability and survivability in battle. In addition, controlled hydro pneumatic suspension by changing the hull angle allows to increase the pointing angles of the gun in the vertical plane.
- Creation of a special armored refueling and reloading vehicle capable of accompanying the tank in the same formation, overcoming hard natural and artificial obstacles, passing through nuclear contaminated areas of the terrain, and operating under conditions of use of nuclear weapons. In layout no. 1 and 2, it was supposed to implement the replenishment of ammunition and refueling the tank without leaving the crews of the tank and refueling-loading machine.
Object 490 "Poplar". Unknown Soviet future tank of 80s

The “Object 640” also known as a “Black Eagle” was created in 1990-s by the designers of Omsk KBTM (transport machine building bureau). The tank belongs to a new generation and realizes a lot of innovative constructional decisions and arrangement which differs it from all classical Russian and western tanks. The tank uses the new design turret with low frontal profile and detachable transport and loading module. The armor protection of front hull and turret is modular design. The crew is stationed in the hull below the turret ring and completely separated from ammunition and fuel.
“Object 640” (Black Eagle), "Unified turret" and "Burlak"

Our site is for those who are interested in information about modern tanks of the world's leading countries. Particular attention is paid to developments of new generations of tanks and IFV, new concepts in the development and application, as well as to development of new Active protection systems, elecro-optical countermeasures, reactive armor e.t.c. Also you can post your articles on your site, memoirs or photo materials, contact address btvt2017@gmail.com We also invite you to take part in the discussion of the materials on the pages of facebook, youtube and livejournal.

In the beginning of 60-s cast turrets with composite armor were introduced for T-64, T-64A (later for T-72A and T-80B) which had a significant protection against shaped-charge projectiles and APDS rounds. Such protection provided Soviet tanks with protection superiority over western designed tanks of that time like M60A and “Chieftain”. But in same period of time in the 1-st half of 70-s it became evident, that future development of tank cast turrets has no long term perspectives comparing to welded design. An experimental turret was tested with results published in 1977 special literature.


Development of welded turrets for post-WW2 tanks in USSR, Russia and Ukraine

Technical data on soviet 1-st post WW2 generation of tanks, Like T-54, T-55 and T-62 are well known and well described in literature. But what if Soviet “premium” tanks of 70-s era were engaged into real combat against western tanks in Europre. This article provides description of "Object 432" (T-64) and T-64A tank combined protection (composite armor, anti radiation and chemical protection) in comparison to western designed tanks – “Chieftain” Mk5P and M60A1. Information on T-64 protection includes technical project (presentation) dated 1961 and technical drawings from various periods. Information on “Chieftain” Mk5P and M60A1 tanks is a result of study of captured tanks delivered to USSR in 1970s and beginning of 1980-s, published in technical reports of that period. The importance of information is the common testing criteria based on Soviet approach to tanks testing and protection design. This article contains mostly direct citations of facts and numbers published in reports with some comments.


Armor protection of the tanks of the second postwar generation T-64 (T-64A), Chieftain Mk5P and M60