Hi. I wonder if I could pick the expertise of the fine ladies and gentleman of the forum? (I think this would be the right place to do that!)

As this is my first post here, I perahps ought to introduce myself a bit. I am a 3D print CAD modeller (for about five years now), who does primarily 144th scale models for wargaming, predominatly moderns (and sci-fi and starships, but that's not relevant here); I have a webstore on Shapeways, (Aotrs Shipyards).

I am far from an expert (the work on modern AFVs I do is principally "work" as opposed to what I got started in 3D printing it for, which was the scifi bit, which is "fun"). While like most wargamers, I have some knowledge of tanks, since I started doing this, I have found I've learned a great deal! (Since it always helps to know what that thing you are modelling actually IS; and one can then apply that knowledge back to one's scifi vehicles, too!)

I work primarily from finding technical drawings and walkarounds (mostly located through google iamge search), but I often find myself looking at kits (especially 1/35th) for details not readily visible on most photos (like top-down shots, or the shape of engine blocks or the underside of hulls). I have found nerly always one Armorama thread via the image search, often someone doing a build of one form or another, which I find not only helpful for just the pictures, but the discussion of what bit is right and wrong. The level of detail is far above what I could even attempt to work at (the limitations of both 10/12mm and 3D printing), but the expertise is invaluably helpful!

Any, today I decided, since I so often drop by as a lurker, I might as well sign up for an account and pose a question directly!

So, to (finally!) get down to business, as it were, I am starting on doing the T-80 (the T-80B specifically, from which I will later to the BV and possibly U etc).

As I have looked at the various pictures, I was struck by how very familiar the hull looks. It looks almost exactly like it is the T-64's hull (which I did at great pain[1] a month or few ago), only with new tracks/wheels/skirts (the wheels identical to the ones on the T-72 it looks like), but with, basically, an extra bit sticking out the back from the new engine block. (Obviously many of the surface details, especially on the engine block will be different.) The dimensions from my T-64 CAD model and the technical drawing of the T-80 are very similar as well.

I am right? Is the T-80 essentially a T-64 (hull shape) with a bigger engine block and new tracks? (Given the fact that the pre-production T-80 essentially used the T-64A turret this makes a lot of sense if true.)

I'd be grateful if anyone could shed some light on this, before I go too much further!




[1]The T-64 turned out to appropriately be as much of a pain to CAD model for often inexpliable reasons as the real thing is...!

Sorry to say, no, they are not the same. T-64, T-72, and T-80 hulls are all unique, though they all do look similar.

The T-64 was used as a base for the new design of the T-80, hence the use of the T-64A and T-64B turrets. But the hulls are different.

What are the major (visible) differences between the T-64 and T-80 hull, then? Obviously the engine deck at the back is different (because it's longer, to accomodate the engine), the skirts/wheels/tracks and the stowage boxes along the sides.

I'm looking principally at the proportional and basic hull shape and geometry, here.

T-64



T-80 (aka Obj. 219)

More info on the T-80

Okay. Thanks.

Having used the provided images, in conjunction with one provided by a gentleman on another website, I was able to (with a bit of faff) scale them to the same size and cudgel some sort of concensus.

(And proved the technical drawing, the best I found yesterday, was pretty much just wrong. As I half-suspected, else I would not have been asking questions!)

I was half-right. The T-80 front end (i.e. glacis slope) and the hull depth are near-as-dammit close enough to the T-64 for the purposes in question. The rear end is slightly longer than I had accounted for and, as I half-expected from yesterday's examinations, in particular, the rear sprocket is about 1.4mm (at 144) further back.

There's always a bit of an error margin (oftentimes, just in the thickness of the lines the drawings), of course, but there's no way around that.

(Sadly, the technical drawing I will now have to work from (because it's not just wrong) suffers particularly from the hazard of the job niggle that the various projections are not, in fact, not the same size as each other. But sometime one just to muddle through...)