The T-80s future in the Russian Army

The new T80 will probably have a welded turret and improved armour arrays. There is no point in reproducing the models from the past.

I do hope they give it a better gun and APS though.

I would have thought that a T-90 could be equipped with a gas turbine engine and associated gear box without much modification.
What characteristics of the T-80 outside of its drive train are so distinctive and appealing compared to the T-90? Something does
not add up and the announcement posted above by Kiko almost looks like some feudal lord taking a fancy to something (the Alyosha
tank) and waving his hand to buy it all up.

Has our forum mentioned something about the development of T-14 engine that I failed to notice ?        Because the below post said some bad news about the engine of T-14 and T-90.

https://www.facebook.com/K01Archive/posts/pfbid0k3YV3GUNuFVNMhKVr7uGHC4ExDBKnwSBd4qp8YrbbQZzZFF9cpFCpNDhsDzM8bb8l

At the 24th National Conference of Science and Technology in Russia, the UKBTM bureau of UVZ informed that the T-14's X-engine still has many defects and fixing all the errors will be economically ineffective. Moreover, an increase pressure of the T-90's V-92S2F is also ineffective because it requires changes in material and crafting.

Therefore, the T-80's engine at the moment is the one with highest power that Russian army can acquire. We can see that Chelyabinsk fails to improve T-14's engine and modernize T-90's engine. That is one of the reason for the re-start of T-80 production.

That doesn't make any sense, at all.

The engines of the T-90 is fine seeing as how they increased production of T-90M considerably. And what makes fixing the T-14 engine economically ineffective? That sentence alone isn't even proper.

Yeah, I call bullshit.

Good find. I wonder how the t-14 engines fared during the field tests. They need to start a whole new development for a new diesel right quick. Thry need to stop imposing the ridiculous size limitations on engine and gear box. Already the t-90 engine and addendums are quite small and offer equal power to foreign diesel engines pound for pound. The issue is that the engine bay for the old late 20th century t series tank focused on such a small area to work on such an engine. And even the t-14 power pack is small for its power output.

Essentially they need to get out of the box of soviet ideologies of design altogether.

It could be bullshit but I will still weigh it in the balance of all the other rumors ww got. I think the engine does have some issues figuring thr constant squawking about it. We will have to wait and see. I still think though that Russia needs to break out of the soviet paradigms altogether for some military kit.

A heavily modified T-80with upgraded gas turbine engine would still be pretty awesome as a place holder. With the 2a82 cannon and latest sensors and armament and arena aps it would be equal to the best of western tanks. It will undoubtedly get beefed up in weight probably similar to t-14, about 55 tons.

What really bothers me most if this us all true is actually the t-15. My favorite of the armata series.

They better not be producing T-80s with the BV mod.1985 armor array. They should produce at least T-80U base armor.

I doubt they would have 1985 armour in stores... what are they going to upgrade with that?

I doubt they have such things still in production.

They will produce it with the newest of everything that is sensible and proven.

If T-80 will restart production, why not produce its most advanced variant? The T-80+++ aka Black Eagle

The Black Eagle is an untested prototype that was never developed to being actually operational AFAIK.

It would be stupid to just put it straight into serial production.

Would be interesting to make a version though... the crew could be lowered to below the level of the turret ring with the removal of the under turret autoloader, and the turret itself could be raised a little with the gun mount raised up to improve gun depression and gun elevation by a significant margin... have armour above the turret crew at the height of the vehicle hull so any penetration from the front or side or rear of the turret will lead to fragments and sparks and flames but the armour above the two crew positions would protect them from that. A panorama sight on the turret roof giving the commander excellent views of the battlefield...

But obviously it is all untested so would not be put into serial production any time soon.

I would have thought that a T-90 could be equipped with a gas turbine engine and associated gear box without much modification.
What characteristics of the T-80 outside of its drive train are so distinctive and appealing compared to the T-90?

Maybe an idle factory or three that make T-80 parts that they want to get working and producing to take some slack from other tank producer factories and subcontractors.

It is like the Mi-28 and Ka-52... different enough to be useful to have both, even if the armament is the same.

The engines of the T-90 is fine seeing as how they increased production of T-90M considerably. And what makes fixing the T-14 engine economically ineffective? That sentence alone isn't even proper.

The engine of the T-14 is the same engine as used by the T-15 and T-16 and all the other planned Armata based vehicle types... it is interesting they only mention it being the T-14 engine... perhaps because they don't understand what they are talking about.

Good find. I wonder how the t-14 engines fared during the field tests. They need to start a whole new development for a new diesel right quick.

The article above said they tested it and after a few modifications to the electronics they are putting it into serial production next year...

Do you honestly think that would make sense if there was something fundamentally wrong with its engine that they couldn't fix?

They need to start a whole new development for a new diesel right quick. Thry need to stop imposing the ridiculous size limitations on engine and gear box. Already the t-90 engine and addendums are quite small and offer equal power to foreign diesel engines pound for pound. The issue is that the engine bay for the old late 20th century t series tank focused on such a small area to work on such an engine. And even the t-14 power pack is small for its power output.

Essentially they need to get out of the box of soviet ideologies of design altogether.

Or they need to think perhaps facepalm is not a great source for information... that same source will probably tell you Kiev is winning, and Putin is doomed and the Russian economy is collapsing.

I think the engine does have some issues figuring thr constant squawking about it.

The squawking comes mostly from the incident at the moscow parade where a conscript left the handbrake on and stalled the vehicle and didn't know how to restart it properly.  The engine must be broken!!!!

We will have to wait and see.

No we don't. They have said they have finished testing and they are going to put it into serial production next year... which means the engine problems are all in peoples heads.

What really bothers me most if this us all true is actually the t-15. My favorite of the armata series.

Doesn't it bother you that this problem with the T-14 engine is not effecting the T-15 or the T-16 which use the same damn engine?

So you think it might just be a case that Leopard 2s are shit and now Challenger 2s are shit and soon Abrams tanks are shit too... what can we throw at the T-14... it had a problem at a parade... lets pretend it is broken and can't be fixed forever... because what would Russians know about making engines for vehicles?


BTW tried to look at the facepalm content and it says it is not available.... go figure... has it been proven to be bullshit already?

You are right but I think it is a knee jerk reaction to hearing about restarting T-80 production. Even this though might be a misunderstanding. I just read the same info you mentioned on another defense forum a few moments ago about the t-14 electronics for next year. This conflict has made the media exceptionally poisonous and perilous. Never been more disgusted. I include "alternative media" in all this too (On a side note I must also say that the "osint experts" in particular need a good tarring and feathering).

Also the t-14 though rooted in soviet design ideology is a very different beast now. So in summing it up the last two posts I made were made by my doppelganger and I cannot in good conscience agree with his ridiculous statements.

GarryB wrote:The engine of the T-14 is the same engine as used by the T-15 and T-16 and all the other planned Armata based vehicle types... it is interesting they only mention it being the T-14 engine... perhaps because they don't understand what they are talking about.

These people know what that engine is, it is simply that the T-14 is the most famous member of Armata family and therefore it is a habit that people usually mention T-14 as the representative.

But, anyway, did something happened that I failed to take note or it is just a misunderstanding ?

You are right but I think it is a knee jerk reaction to hearing about restarting T-80 production.

They are currently fighting a war against a country directly supplied by all the countries of HATO... the T-80 is not a terrible tank... why not restart production if they have the capacity to do so?

Also the t-14 though rooted in soviet design ideology is a very different beast now.

No it isn't.

The T-95 was the Soviet tank the Armata vehicle family is a post cold war Russian concept that the west has talked about but could never get off the ground.

The use of 5 different families of vehicles should make the Russian plans rather more practical, but we will see where it goes.

So in summing it up the last two posts I made were made by my doppelganger and I cannot in good conscience agree with his ridiculous statements.

It is easy enough to think there is fire where there is smoke... but when you know there are plenty there trying to blow smoke up your arse you get to become rather skeptical of the western bullshit.

Thank goodness there is a potential for an alternative now...

It is funny because if you watch Firefly or Serenity the future it suggests has a poor average people vision being mixed American Chinese view including in language, with the characters often switching to chinese for swearing normally, yet it is mostly american culture that is shown. When going to the more civilised regions it appears to be British and European, which perhaps is why many see it as a space western because Europe and the UK are the home country and civilised and the outer reaches are American and Chinese and dangerous.

Looking forward to Chinese and India and Russian future movies where the English or American guy is the Kooky sidekick and everything is about China or India or Russia in terms of story line and culture.

But, anyway, do you know or did our forum mentioned any incidents or issues about the development of the Armata engine or T-90 engine that I failed to notice ? I am also very confused here about the "not economically effective" issue. Did something happened or it just a misunderstanding ?

That is the hint isn't it... if they said that the Su-57s new engine has a fault and so they need to develop a new engine again from scratch... which would be 10 years or more... would you believe them too?

Armata is a vehicle family, that is going to be developed over the next decade or two and if you take every armoured vehicle in an armoured division from BTR and BRDM and tank and BMP and engineer vehicle and ATGM missile vehicle and armoured recovery vehicle and artillery vehicle and command vehicle and ECM vehicle etc etc etc... eventually there is going to be a an Armata version of that vehicle... but this article you talk about says they don't have an engine that works for it... are the going to scrap everything over an engine... come on... get real... articles saying electronic changes are going to be made and the vehicle will be put into serial production next year suggests the talk of engine problems is just talk.

How about a link to the facebook page of the guy making the claims because the link you posted doesn't work.

Agreed the t-80 is a good tank I was just disappointed by the armata news and made assumptions on it. And actually yeah I have been suckered into izd30 rumors nearly like this example lol

As I said the infowar surrounding this conflict (and news not even related to the war these days...) is unsettling and depressing. I try not to dwell too much on it as the things I know that I did not know as a child have destroyed my once rosy outlook. It is a hell of a thing.

GarryB wrote:That is the hint isn't it... if they said that the Su-57s new engine has a fault and so they need to develop a new engine again from scratch... which would be 10 years or more... would you believe them too?

Well in that case I will send you a message and ask your opinion about it. And then I will also send a message to a Russian-speaking member of the forum to ask whether Russian sources have any article that can verify or refute these claims.

Becase the guys in my link are 100% pro-Russia, they are knowledgeable about Rusian weapons, most of their claims so far are reasonable and I have not find any evidences which imply that they are being influenced by Western propaganda.

So if they make some claims that I feel weird or raise my skepticism, I would naturally seek other knowledgeable people, for example the members of this forum, to ask for advices.

GarryB wrote:How about a link to the facebook page of the guy making the claims because the link you posted doesn't work.

Here, go ahead. But you will need Google Translate or Yandex https://www.facebook.com/K01Archive/

So it is Andrei_bt who makes this claim... unusual it is made nowhere else on the internet... his claim is based on the XXIV All-Russian Scientific and Technical Conference, April 19-21, 2023... so it was quite a few months ago and no one else noticed... and they still talk about putting the vehicle in production next year despite not having a working engine.

Couldn't possibly be a hard core Ukraine supporter wanting to trash Russian tank engines?

GarryB wrote:

I doubt they would have 1985 armour in stores... what are they going to upgrade with that?

I doubt they have such things still in production.

They will produce it with the newest of everything that is sensible and proven.

There is no such a thing a "1985 armor".
"1985" is not a benchmark for anything, because nothing particular happened in that year.

Limb was referring to a modification of T-80 armour he called mod.1985.

They better not be producing T-80s with the BV mod.1985 armor array.

And I was just referring to that.

Whatever the armour was in 1985 on T-80s is what I am talking about.

kvs wrote:I would have thought that a T-90 could be equipped with a gas turbine engine and associated gear box without much modification.  
What characteristics of the T-80 outside of its drive train are so distinctive and appealing compared to the T-90?   Something does
not add up and the announcement posted above by Kiko almost looks like some feudal lord taking a fancy to something (the Alyosha
tank) and waving his hand to buy it all up.  

The T-90 is a small platform with limited potential for further improvement in mobility, firepower and protection.

1- Power plant location is limited and limits further development of the engine capacity and the platform as a whole.
2- Reverse gears improvement seems limited for the same reasons. T 72 was meant to augment firepower in shock breakthrough offensive operations. Retreat was not thought out. In Ukraine the war is a constant attack and retreat. (I trust this may be a leading reason for abandoning tanks in the war as no one wants to expose the rear section of a tank to attacking forces).
3- Crew Survivability is low as there is no possibility to remove munitions completely to a separate compartment. The T-80 had an upgrade that addressed this issue.
4- Additional tanks are needed and Omsk is there. T 80 is there to stay so spares are needed for all mechanical, electrical and electronic components. This makes producing new tanks easier.
5- I'm not sure whether the new gun of the Armata can fit the T-80 as it was not possible to fit on the T-72. This is important given that the Russia will be facing better equipped armies and armor on its borders.

T-72 was adopted because it was cheaper and simpler to operate plus it was excessive to operate 2 factories but in the modern battlefield sensors, optics etc. are a necessity to all vehicles and are already more complex than any other mechanical component on the T80 platform that made the T72 more appealing at that time.

GarryB wrote:Limb was referring to a modification of T-80 armour he called mod.1985.

They better not be producing T-80s with the BV mod.1985 armor array.

And I was just referring to that.

Whatever the armour was in 1985 on T-80s is what I am talking about.

And still, there is nothing like that.
The problem with this matter is a fact, that the Soviets produced so many tanks of different origins, that there is no universal answer.
Some tanks produced well after some official solution accepted, still used older technology as they had stocked parts.
New turrets were put on onld hulls and vice versa.

The only thing happening in 1985, was the revealing new T-80B series that had a rearranged hull armor structure, replacing a three layered one for five layered one, while retaining the general thickness.

To bring the existing already tanks to the level, a hardened steel plate was reproduced, and welded on the hull as a regular maintenance procedure.

It is all irrelevant because those changes were applied as an answer to dedicated threats that appeared.
The new composition of armor could provide somehow better protection level for 120mm smoothbore gun, but has no effect on the rifled 120mm due to a different penetration scheme.
In general, much more important change was changing the steel plates structure, thickening the backplate at the expense of front one, because that seriously increased the resistance to the newly developed 120 smoothbore gun of Leopard - this change was made in mid 70s.
So in reality, the differences are cosmetic, and don't tell us much. Not to mention, that changes in the steel type used for the armor plates inflicted the effect more than changing the composition itself.

Here you have THREE different T-72B3 tanks :





While here you have a "standard" T-72B model with 10+10+20+20 steel plates filling.



And, surprisingly , for T-80 the process just the same, and what is even more bizarre - it was not leading the race for improving armor. T-72 actually did. Till the very end, T-80 retaind glass textolite filler, which was considered outdated, expensive, and dangerous to inhale already in the early 80s.

As I said, it is all irrelevant for the modernization program, as we talk about very small difference margine.

What can be considered as a factor, is a technological change that happened in the early 80s. To this date, turrets were either monolith casted ones or casted ones with ceramic or quartz inserts. The production technology was to place the inserts and fill the mold with cast steel. It made them impossible to upgrade, as it was one solid steel chunk after, with the roof welded on as a separate element.
In mid 1982, a new turret production technology was applied to - again - T-72A.



Cast turret was made with cavities in a frontal arc, that were filled with insert and welded on top steel plate at the next production step.
This solution was withspreading, becoming a standard for every tank in production.

What is an effect? Well, it is technologically possible to cut the cavities open, take out existing NERA armor packages, and replace them with whatever they will develop.

Considering the overall modernization procedures, it is not the base armor that represents the armor protection increae, but add on Relikt package.
Functionally all Soviet and Russian tanks produced in the last 40+ years already have combined and multi layer protection for both hulls and turrets.
Considering of how the battlefield is shaped now, caging them properly, and adding additional ERA panels all over might be considered much more important.

So here we are, considering rebuilding tanks they have in storage - we talk thousands of pieces.

And if we are considering "newly produced ones", it is a totally different story.
But of course, those will get new, welded turrets - much easier to produce.
But of course, the hull armor will be of reflective type, without STB and glass textolite, with some energy absorbing spacers, probably with ceramic plate replacing some of the steel ones.
But it is a very distant story.

william.boutros wrote:3- Crew Survivability is low as there is no possibility to remove munitions completely to a separate compartment. The T-80 had an upgrade that addressed this issue.

If you mean the turret bustle then as far as I know Burlak turret can be fitted on T-72/90 hull.

I don't think the T-72/90 structure is more difficult to put a turret bustle autoloader on.

william.boutros wrote:5- I'm not sure whether the new gun of the Armata can fit the T-80 as it was not possible to fit on the T-72. This is important given that the Russia will be facing better equipped armies and armor on its borders.

According to this photo the T-90 tank hull can be modified to fit the ammunition of Armata 2A82 gun (the red line), implying that the gun itself can be put on T-72/90 series https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw4Zi_DU0AAW6vo?format=webp&name=small

I thought that by seeing western tanks heavier by 20+ tonnes cooking off perfectly fine one would finally cease with the "survivability" meme, but seems not ...

I would have thought that a T-90 could be equipped with a gas turbine engine and associated gear box without much modification.

They have had every opportunity to fit the T-72 and T-90 and T-14 with gas turbines if they were so inclined and it seems to me they have chosen specifically not to do so.

The fact that that the old T-80 had a 1,250hp GT and that they were developing a 1,500hp replacement ignores the fact that they were thirsty engines to be putting onto a tank.

What characteristics of the T-80 outside of its drive train are so distinctive and appealing compared to the T-90?

An unused production chain that is not doing anything else in particular is the main appeal I suspect.

he T-90 is a small platform with limited potential for further improvement in mobility, firepower and protection.

I would say the AM upgrade with the APS systems they seem to be neglecting on operational models is about as perfect as you can get the design, which is not invincible but seems to be a couple of levels above what the Ukraine have fielded so far.

Not perfect, but if it was why would they bother with T-14, which offers even better levels of crew comfort and protection.... yet still not invincible.

1- Power plant location is limited and limits further development of the engine capacity and the platform as a whole.

What do you mean limited... they can extend that bay as much as they require if they wanted to fit a bigger engine... they have decided that is the size they want in regard to transport on trains and ships and aircraft and tank carriers.

A bigger engine would likely lead to a bigger heavier tank, which in their opinion is going in the wrong direction... which many western experts are coming to realise too.

2- Reverse gears improvement seems limited for the same reasons. T 72 was meant to augment firepower in shock breakthrough offensive operations. Retreat was not thought out. In Ukraine the war is a constant attack and retreat.

Reversing speed has nothing to do with engine size and everything to do with how many reverse gears you give them... most diesel engines have a very narrow power range of about 400 rpm... so 1,800 and perhaps 2,200 is the gear range for power so if you want to go slow to reverse up hills or over obstacles then first reverse gear is not going to be very fast, second and third reverse gears are going to be slightly faster and faster... but still not fast.

(I trust this may be a leading reason for abandoning tanks in the war as no one wants to expose the rear section of a tank to attacking forces).

If you think you can get out of a tank and run away and be safer than remaining in that tank and reversing then I have a bridge to sell to you.

Plus the tanks that happened to were T-80s which actually have better reversing speed than T-72s.

Odds are they were left behind because they probably ran out of fuel...

3- Crew Survivability is low as there is no possibility to remove munitions completely to a separate compartment.

Crew survivability is not that bad... the ammo is under the turret which is not often hit directly in normal combat... the shots of tanks with turrets blowing off are either a very lucky hit or a consequence of a not lucky hit leading to a fire that eventually reaches the ammo and detonates it.

Not surprisingly western tanks that store ammo in their turret bustles means the enemy can directly target their ammo and a direct hit will destroy the vehicle...

Blow out panels help with propellent fires but not ammo detonation... as they are described blow out panels relieve pressure and stop a detonation, but detonations are supersonic and a blow out panel wont blow out fast enough to save you if the ammo explodes.

Artillery vehicles don't have blow out panels.

The T-80 had an upgrade that addressed this issue.

They stopped carrying spare ammo in the crew compartment in the T-72 and T-80 and T-90 and the turrets getting blown off happens much less often now.

T-72 was adopted because it was cheaper and simpler to operate plus it was excessive to operate 2 factories but in the modern battlefield sensors, optics etc. are a necessity to all vehicles and are already more complex than any other mechanical component on the T80 platform that made the T72 more appealing at that time.

The T-72 was the affordable numbers tank to replace the T-54/55 and T-62s still in service at the time... in many ways the T-72 is the F-16 of the tank fleet... even the US can't afford all F-15s.

The T-90 and T-80 are more expensive and not really suitable for numbers tank production, and the T-14 will replace them with the K-14 and B-14 tanks with T-14 turrets being the numbers tanks...

And still, there is nothing like that.
The problem with this matter is a fact, that the Soviets produced so many tanks of different origins, that there is no universal answer.
Some tanks produced well after some official solution accepted, still used older technology as they had stocked parts.
New turrets were put on onld hulls and vice versa.

I know, and during the lifespan of a vehicle things will be upgraded during overhaul due to damage or due to that piece or item of equipment not being used any more so even vehicles in storage will occasionally be upgraded to become frankenstein monster versions of themselves.

And if we are considering "newly produced ones", it is a totally different story.

He was.

If you mean the turret bustle then as far as I know Burlak turret can be fitted on T-72/90 hull.

The Burlak turret along with the Black Eagle design were rejected because they present the ready to fire ammo to the enemy for targeting and is too vulnerable.

Some of the ideas actually looked rather clever like having a turret bustle autoloader that was like a rifle magazine with the autoloader built in to it so you could use a crane to load a loaded magazine to the turret bustle... on the Burlak you could load a 22 round filled turret bustle mag and transfer those rounds to the under floor autoloader and then remove the empty bustle loader and attach a full loader with 31 rounds so the vehicle would have two autoloaders with 51 rounds ready to fire. The turret bustle would be fastest with a straight ram motion for longer rounds if you wanted, while the underfloor loader could have shorter rounds.

Interesting, but they rejected it.

I thought that by seeing western tanks heavier by 20+ tonnes cooking off perfectly fine one would finally cease with the "survivability" meme, but seems not ...

Ironically the roof armour of these super western tanks seems to be particularly thin so even something like Lancet should be a real threat...

Top attack cluster munitions would be devastating, like the PTAB-2.5.

ALAMO wrote:
What can be considered as a factor, is a technological change that happened in the early 80s. To this date, turrets were either monolith casted ones or casted ones with ceramic or quartz inserts. The production technology was to place the inserts and fill the mold with cast steel. It made them impossible to upgrade, as it was one solid steel chunk after, with the roof welded on as a separate element.
In mid 1982, a new turret production technology was applied to - again - T-72A.

This the T72B variant. It was also wrongly identified in the West as the T-80 for a split second. It was also dubbed as the "Super Dolly Parton"

Btw I doubt very much that they would restart T-80 production. They will more likely upgrade what is in reserve to the T-80BVM standard.

higurashihougi wrote:Has our forum mentioned something about the development of T-14 engine that I failed to notice ?        Because the below post said some bad news about the engine of T-14 and T-90.

https://www.facebook.com/K01Archive/posts/pfbid0k3YV3GUNuFVNMhKVr7uGHC4ExDBKnwSBd4qp8YrbbQZzZFF9cpFCpNDhsDzM8bb8l

At the 24th National Conference of Science and Technology in Russia, the UKBTM bureau of UVZ informed that the T-14's X-engine still has many defects and fixing all the errors will be economically ineffective. Moreover, an increase pressure of the T-90's V-92S2F is also ineffective because it requires changes in material and crafting.

Therefore, the T-80's engine at the moment is the one with highest power that Russian army can acquire. We can see that Chelyabinsk fails to improve T-14's engine and modernize T-90's engine. That is one of the reason for the re-start of T-80 production.

You're reading too much into it. They're just asking for more money.
Notice they didn't say its technically impossible to field the T-14 with the A-85-3A engine - they say its economically ineffective - you need x more money than your paying us and ChTZ right now to realize this.
Most of you people have no experience in product development and it shows.

Mir wrote:

This the T72B variant. It was also wrongly identified in the West as the T-80 for a split second. It was also dubbed as the "Super Dolly Parton"

Btw I doubt very much that they would restart T-80 production. They will more likely upgrade what is in reserve to the T-80BVM standard.

Actually no bro, and that is the point
Those tanks were not T-72B yet.
Those are Obyekt 172M-1, an effect of the direct order of the Soviet MoD to increase the parameters of 72 series.
This is the one that received the Kvartz turret layout since the 1976.
It still used an old autoloader, FCS, gun and no AGLATMs.
Long story short, it was T-72A, Obyekt 172M-1, which started to get a new technology armor package in the beginning of the 80s. The cavities in the turret were filled with "reflective" armor, being no more no less than NERA package.
Sure it was later widespread, and T-72B/Obyekt 184 get the feature from the beginning. Plus new gun, new FCS, new hull armor, improved engine and missile system. Sure that there was B1 with no GLATMS either, but the difference was in FCS rather than other features.

ALAMO wrote:

Mir wrote:

This the T72B variant. It was also wrongly identified in the West as the T-80 for a split second. It was also dubbed as the "Super Dolly Parton"

Btw I doubt very much that they would restart T-80 production. They will more likely upgrade what is in reserve to the T-80BVM standard.

Actually no bro, and that is the point
Those tanks were not T-72B yet.
Those are Obyekt 172M-1, an effect of the direct order of the Soviet MoD to increase the parameters of 72 series.
This is the one that received the Kvartz turret layout since the 1976.
It still used an old autoloader, FCS, gun and no AGLATMs.
Long story short, it was T-72A, Obyekt 172M-1, which started to get a new technology armor package in the beginning of the 80s. The cavities in the turret were filled with "reflective" armor, being no more no less than NERA package.
Sure it was later widespread, and T-72B/Obyekt 184 get the feature from the beginning. Plus new gun, new FCS, new hull armor, improved engine and missile system. Sure that there was B1 with no GLATMS either, but the difference was in FCS rather than other features.

That is interesting but it may just be that the above image may be confused with this US State Department picture from 1983 depicting the modified T-72A tank that got the nickname "Dolly Parton". Not a very clear picture I must admit but I believe I have a rare good quality colour picture of what I believe may just be the real "Dolly Parton". This T72A clearly has the thicker turret armour compared to previous models.



Look at these boobies!



Compared to these kwartz turrets



BTW the late production T-72A did feature a a turret similar to the brand new T72B, but as far as I know very few were built and all were converted to T72B's when they fitted Kontakt-1 ERA.