The T-80s future in the Russian Army

Isos wrote:They should put upgraded Arena on them and offer them to iran, iraq ans syria. Those 3 countries are now in need of such tanks and could buy togather at least 1500 tanks or 2000 easily. Russia could send a lot quickly as they are already produced and nedd just upgrade. Iran and irad have almost no tanks to operate against modern ATGM (don t tell me M1 abrams we saw how it handle kornet missile).

As the tanks belongs to russian army they will receive the money and they could invest in buying T-90M and T-14. They don t need all those t-80 that they have in reserve and if they can chose they would prefere T-14 instaed of t-80

I doubt they're interested in T-80s of all things, Iraq has already ordered T-90s, Iran is making there own T-90M so if anything they'd buy that if they could and Syria will probly go with T-90s too.

I don't really see a market for the T-80s, those that want a capable tank will probly go with the T-90 anything more advance would be the T-90SM and those on a budget will most likely go for an upgraded T-72.

At this point Russia needs not to give exit to the T-80s. A proper maintenance and some upgrade if possible (in this order) are good news for Russia.

In late 80s SSSR or USSSR have less then 100 T-80( produced from 1976-1978), 3700T-80B, around 500T-80BV and lest then 100T-80U and UDs.

Mass production og T-80U-Ud in USSR start in 1990. After collapse of USSR Russia have around 4000 T-80s all versions in her inventory. Till 1995/96 they have more then 5000 T-80s all versions. They produced from 1990-1995 around 1000 T-80Us for Russian ARMY and have beside them around 500-550 T-80UDs. UD and U is same tank with deferent engine, and because that i wright that Russia have 1500 T-80U/UD...

To day Russia have 250 active T-80U and  350-400 T-80BV.

galicije83 wrote: They produced from 1990-1995 around 1000 T-80Us for Russian ARMY and have beside them around 500-550 T-80UDs. UD and U is same tank with deferent engine, and bicause that i wright that Russia have 1500 T-80U/UD...

To day Russia have 250 active T-80U and  350-400 T-80BV.

and yet they let these tanks go (U and UD) by 2010, how retarded of them

I was wondering if it was viable to produce a more simplified and up to date version of the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" with the 2a82 and Afganit?



You would technically only be making a new turret and adding some ERA would this be viable?

The-thing-next-door wrote:I was wondering if it was viable to produce a more simplified and up to date version of the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" with the 2a82 and Afganit?



You would technically only be making a new turret and adding some ERA would this be viable?

For what ?

They already don't know what to do with all the T-80 they have. T-90 and T-14 are better in all fields and they are already producing them.

Isos wrote:

For what ?

They already don't know what to do with all the T-80 they have. T-90 and T-14 are better in all fields and they are already producing them.

For science ofcourse...

And to have a capable reserve tank while also helping Omskmash.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

For what ?

They already don't know what to do with all the T-80 they have. T-90 and T-14 are better in all fields and they are already producing them.

For science ofcourse...

And to have a capable reserve tank while also helping Omskmash.

Produce a new tank so that you can put it into the reserve ...
Some guys here have such stupid ideas ...

Isos wrote:

Produce a new tank so that you can put it into the reserve ...
Some guys here have such stupid ideas ...

No produce a new turret for your reserve tank.

The T-80 is never going to be good enough for a frontline tank of Russia since it is not vastly superior to all non Russian tanks in all the 3 main aspects (firepower,survivability and mobility) that is what the T-14 is for.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

Produce a new tank so that you can put it into the reserve ...
Some guys here have such stupid ideas ...

No produce a new turret for your reserve tank.

The T-80 is never going to be good enough for a frontline tank of Russia since it is not vastly superior to all non Russian tanks in all the 3 main aspects (firepower,survivability and mobility) that is what the T-14 is for.

If your t 14 are destroyed the war will be over. No need to send t 80 they won t do better. For secondary mission like fighting transport tropp vehicle, no need to uphrade them.

Isos wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

Produce a new tank so that you can put it into the reserve ...
Some guys here have such stupid ideas ...

No produce a new turret for your reserve tank.

The T-80 is never going to be good enough for a frontline tank of Russia since it is not vastly superior to all non Russian tanks in all the 3 main aspects (firepower,survivability and mobility) that is what the T-14 is for.

If your t 14 are destroyed the war will be over. No need to send t 80 they won t do better. For secondary mission like fighting transport tropp vehicle, no need to uphrade them.  

Syria proves how today T-55 and T-62 are useful still to win a war. To have important amounts of T-80 is good for Russia.

eehnie wrote:

Syria proves how today T-55 and T-62 are useful still to win a war. To have important amounts of T-80 is good for Russia.

And for them to be equipped with the APS,ERA,FCS and gun of your frontline tank is even better for Russia.

The new turret could also be fitted to the T-90 and since you are only producing the turret it will be super cheap and have better firepower than any filthy nato tank.

It will take 5 to 10 years to build the thousands of needed T-14s (Russia needs to be able to beat every single slimy nato member at once in every theatre.) so a few thousand modernized T-80s and T-90s would help in the meantime.

So it does make sense to build an improved vertion of the best T-80 modernization with the Armatas gun,ERA,APS and FCS.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Syria proves how today T-55 and T-62 are useful still to win a war. To have important amounts of T-80 is good for Russia.

And for them to be equipped with the APS,ERA,FCS and gun of your frontline tank is even better for Russia.

The new turret could also be fitted to the T-90 and since you are only producing the turret it will be super cheap and have better firepower than any filthy nato tank.

It will take 5 to 10 years to build the thousands of needed T-14s (Russia needs to be able to beat every single slimy nato member at once in every theatre.) so a few thousand modernized T-80s and T-90s would help in the meantime.

So it does make sense to build an improved vertion of the best T-80 modernization with the Armatas gun,ERA,APS and FCS.

Russia can build all the tanks it wants, Russia alone cannot out produce all of NATO, it does not have nearly as much of a manpower pool to draw from. Where has NATO could afford to lose millions easy, Russia could not.

If such a war did happen and nukes weren't used Russia would need to win QUICKLY and even then it would have insurrections all over the place in occupied nations which would force it to keep considerable manpower to keep things calm. Thus weakening it's offensive force.



Long story short Russia simply cannot win alone in a war verse NATO and the and if you switched the US with Russia it also could not defeat all of Russia and NATO conventionally.

Russia can produce more tanks then nato look at the 70s numbers nato does not have massive amounts of tanks but they do have massive numbers of infantry. But Russia is building very good infantry shredders like the BMPT-72 and BMP-2 Brezhok so in the event of war the gutters will run with enemy blood (insert sinister grin here) a crowd of nato filth is no match for the superior technology of the Soviet Union...Oh wait were still pretending to be the capitalist Russian federation.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Russia can produce more tanks then nato look at the 70s numbers nato does not have massive amounts of tanks but they do have massive numbers of infantry. But Russia is building very good infantry shredders like the BMPT-72 and BMP-2 Brezhok so in the event of war the gutters will run with enemy blood (insert sinister grin here) a crowd of nato filth is no match for the superior technology of the Soviet Union...Oh wait were still pretending to be the capitalist Russian federation.

...in the 70's a thing called the Warsaw Pact existed..Russia cannot out produce NATO and do not use Pre 90's Era numbers to try and say that because the Soviet Union had Access to a lot more factories back then.

Soviet Union? are you insane Russia is not nearly has powerful has the USSR was verse NAtO at the time

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Russia can produce more tanks then nato look at the 70s numbers nato does not have massive amounts of tanks but they do have massive numbers of infantry. But Russia is building very good infantry shredders like the BMPT-72 and BMP-2 Brezhok so in the event of war the gutters will run with enemy blood (insert sinister grin here) a crowd of nato filth is no match for the superior technology of the Soviet Union...Oh wait were still pretending to be the capitalist Russian federation.

...in the 70's a thing called the Warsaw Pact existed..Russia cannot out produce NATO and do not use Pre 90's Era numbers to try and say that because the Soviet Union had Access to a lot more factories back then.

Soviet Union? are you insane Russia is not nearly has powerful has the USSR was verse NAtO at the time

Our force on Earth is sadly lacking but this should soon be rectified Russia is still rebuilding its military is it not by the 2030s Russia should be easily capable of eliminating the nato threat without external aid.

Sadly we are not allowed to supply our comrades on earth with any of our latest superweapons due to the Politburos paranoia of lets say someone capturing a ant planet death ray.

But Russia should do fine on its own nato are primitive vermin after all one does not need a anti planet death ray to kill an ant.

The Armata Is going to be the standard tank so that probably means around 8-10 thousand of them and that should be enough to deal with th enemies inferior equipment.

Anyway it was just an idea maybe it wold be a great export tank.

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

Produce a new tank so that you can put it into the reserve ...
Some guys here have such stupid ideas ...

No produce a new turret for your reserve tank.

The T-80 is never going to be good enough for a frontline tank of Russia since it is not vastly superior to all non Russian tanks in all the 3 main aspects (firepower,survivability and mobility) that is what the T-14 is for.

If your t 14 are destroyed the war will be over. No need to send t 80 they won t do better. For secondary mission like fighting transport tropp vehicle, no need to uphrade them.  

Syria proves how today T-55 and T-62 are useful still to win a war. To have important amounts of T-80 is good for Russia.

Most stupid thing I've heard in this forum I think.

They are wining the war because of russian airstrikes. And they are wining against guys with pick ups. Not really the war we are discussing here ...

Their t72 were destroyed by hundreds before russian came. What would do a t-54 in a real war against leopard or merkavas ? Nothing even if you have 2000 of them against 400 merkavas. Oudated means outdated. At a certain point even having the number advantage isn t enough.

Isos wrote:

Syria proves how today T-55 and T-62 are useful still to win a war. To have important amounts of T-80 is good for Russia.

Most stupid thing I've heard in this forum I think.

They are wining the war because of russian airstrikes. And they are wining against guys with pick ups. Not really the war we are discussing here ...

Their t72 were destroyed by hundreds before russian came. What would do a t-54 in a real war against leopard or merkavas ? Nothing even if you have 2000 of them against 400 merkavas. Oudated means outdated. At a certain point even having the number advantage isn t enough.
[/quote]

Just give any old tank a 2a82 and it becomes a spamable glass cannon 500 leopard 2s will lose to 1000 2a82 armed anything.

You could just use 200 T-14 to kill of 500 leopards though.

PS this forum does not allow me to write my full birthdate 9th of May 2359?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:..................
Russia can build all the tanks it wants, Russia alone cannot out produce all of NATO, it does not have nearly as much of a manpower pool to draw from. Where has NATO could afford to lose millions easy, Russia could not.

If such a war did happen and nukes weren't used Russia would need to win QUICKLY and even then it would have insurrections all over the place in occupied nations which would force it to keep considerable manpower to keep things calm. Thus weakening it's offensive force.
...............

Seig I belive we are all discussing this from different starting points hence the argument.

You assume that Russia would be going into NATO countries.

Rest of us here assume that NATO will be going into Russia.

PapaDragon wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:..................
Russia can build all the tanks it wants, Russia alone cannot out produce all of NATO, it does not have nearly as much of a manpower pool to draw from. Where has NATO could afford to lose millions easy, Russia could not.

If such a war did happen and nukes weren't used Russia would need to win QUICKLY and even then it would have insurrections all over the place in occupied nations which would force it to keep considerable manpower to keep things calm. Thus weakening it's offensive force.
...............

Seig I belive we are all discussing this from different starting points hence the argument.

You assume that Russia would be going into NATO countries.

Rest of us here assume that NATO will be going into Russia.

Regardless of who is going to whom.

My point does not change, NATO could build more things faster has more manpower to use.

Russia alone simply could not win. I am not saying that to bash russia also it's just how it is.

If russia should on constant defense it would get widdled down to nothing in due time, it's only means to survive would be to grab land, take factories and hopefully have people in the countries it takes fight for them.

WW2 left a nasty mark on Russia population wise one they still have not healed from.

The only one production facility for the abrams exists and the leopard 2 is built in germany so stopping production of both is easy due to natos lack of decent air defences.

Even I you have to lose 100 aircraft the enemy loses its ability to produce capable tanks and are forced to rely on infantry numbers numbers that the Russian Army will have little difficulty dealing with in the open and can simply artillery barrage to death when in cities since when does Russia need the west intact?

With enough MRLS rockets they could raise europe to the ground in no time.

As for rebellion well there is one simple way to deal with that equip your troops with armored vehicles and aircraft but make sure there are no AT or AA assets so that the rebels have no means to defeat your occupation force.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
My point does not change, NATO could build more things faster has more manpower to use.

Russia alone simply could not win. I am not saying that to bash russia also it's just how it is.

If russia should on constant defense it would get widdled down to nothing in due time, it's only means to survive would be to grab land, take factories and hopefully have people in the countries it takes fight for them.

WW2 left a nasty mark on Russia population wise one they still have not healed from.

You are complete right with the point that NATO is superior to Russia in terms of Manpower and industrial capacity. In a "fast conflict" let's say 1 - 6 months the NATO would dominate.

But in a long time conflict, over a year, Russia would win! Sounds paradox? It's not!!!

Industrial output in NATO countries is high, but in western and middle europe there are no backups for factories! Don't forget monopolistic producers (many more than decades ago), but vital for whole branches of economy and production. If conventional russian cruise missiles or strategic bombers would hit these factories the output would go to near 0%. Factories today are not the same like in WW2, they are high tech and extreme vulnerable to "complications". Another factor is the supply chain! In Germany many factories rely at "rolling warehouses", so they have nearly no stuff stored, all come just in time in to produce. So a problem in logistic and output goes to 0%. In cold war era in Germany we had for the worst case (WW3) some "backup fabrication" deep inside bunker, able to survive a nuclear hit...after cold war nothing like this anymore and no food or medic storage (only very low for medic!) for crisis time. Western countries live for today, no thoughts spent about tomorrow. In western society everything relies on just in time production, depending soo extreme on logistics, that a small hit to infrastructure will result in complete economic collapse!

Positive for Russia is, that many industrial sites are out of range for NATO cruise missiles! If Russia is able to withstand the first onrush and maintain the production of military goods, than it's bad for NATO europe. Another factor is production in USA...Russia must be able to cut the logistic lines through the Atlantic Ocean.

Another factor is manpower...
Yes, in western media is a massive hype and hysteria about Russia. This is a factor bringing the population to war, making them hot for blood. But if blood flows in masses the mood will turn drastic. After the first thousands of dead NO ONE in western europe will fight Russia anymore. Russia is not Serbia or Iraq, where the losses were very low. Another factor is that population in europe is very friendly towards Russia (elite is hostile), so I doubt the loyality would be very high. I'm reservist in german army, but I would never shoot a single shot if NATO is the aggressor!

But for smaller conflicts without involving Europe and Russias Heartland yo are complete right! A conflict only in Syria or Middle East would Russia not win, if the West goes all in.

I personal don't believe in a conflict between european countries and Russia! But some parts in the USA, the so called "deep state" try to provoke a small and controlable war with Russia, to bind the european vasalls and reunite the divided american society. It's funny that Russia as "foe of democracy" rised up after NSA spionage in Europe was revealed and many european countries were really really pissed off I hope Trump Administration is able to dry the swamp in Washington or sooner or later we will have conflicts wide-ranging from cold war status to controlled hot war in some parts of the world (maybe US-soldiers fighting in Ukraine against Russia).

SeigSoloyvov wrote:..............

Regardless of who is going to whom.

My point does not change, NATO could build more things faster has more manpower to use.

Russia alone simply could not win. I am not saying that to bash russia also it's just how it is.

If russia should on constant defense it would get widdled down to nothing in due time, it's only means to survive would be to grab land, take factories and hopefully have people in the countries it takes fight for them.

WW2 left a nasty mark on Russia population wise one they still have not healed from.

You are 100% right about building stuff but as for manpower in scenario of NATO going into Russia you are wrong.

I am not talking about numbers but about troop quality and political will especially in Europe. There is no way they would be able sustain something like that demographically and politically for even several weeks.

It would be Vietnam-hippie situation times 1000. Hell, it already is and it's peacetime.

I mean just look at Europe today.

Not that it matters one way or the other because, you know, nukes...

Azi wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
My point does not change, NATO could build more things faster has more manpower to use.

Russia alone simply could not win. I am not saying that to bash russia also it's just how it is.

If russia should on constant defense it would get widdled down to nothing in due time, it's only means to survive would be to grab land, take factories and hopefully have people in the countries it takes fight for them.

WW2 left a nasty mark on Russia population wise one they still have not healed from.

You are complete right with the point that NATO is superior to Russia in terms of Manpower and industrial capacity. In a "fast conflict" let's say 1 - 6 months the NATO would dominate.

But in a long time conflict, over a year, Russia would win! Sounds paradox? It's not!!!

Industrial output in NATO countries is high, but in western and middle europe there are no backups for factories! Don't forget monopolistic producers (many more than decades ago), but vital for whole branches of economy and production. If conventional russian cruise missiles or strategic bombers would hit these factories the output would go to near 0%. Factories today are not the same like in WW2, they are high tech and extreme vulnerable to "complications". Another factor is the supply chain! In Germany many factories rely at "rolling warehouses", so they have nearly no stuff stored, all come just in time in to produce. So a problem in logistic and output goes to 0%. In cold war era in Germany we had for the worst case (WW3) some "backup fabrication" deep inside bunker, able to survive a nuclear hit...after cold war nothing like this anymore and no food or medic storage (only very low for medic!) for crisis time. Western countries live for today, no thoughts spent about tomorrow. In western society everything relies on just in time production, depending soo extreme on logistics, that a small hit to infrastructure will result in complete economic collapse!

Positive for Russia is, that many industrial sites are out of range for NATO cruise missiles! If Russia is able to withstand the first onrush and maintain the production of military goods, than it's bad for NATO europe. Another factor is production in USA...Russia must be able to cut the logistic lines through the Atlantic Ocean.

Another factor is manpower...
Yes, in western media is a massive hype and hysteria about Russia. This is a factor bringing the population to war, making them hot for blood. But if blood flows in masses the mood will turn drastic. After the first thousands of dead NO ONE in western europe will fight Russia anymore. Russia is not Serbia or Iraq, where the losses were very low. Another factor is that population in europe is very friendly towards Russia (elite is hostile), so I doubt the loyality would be very high. I'm reservist in german army, but I would never shoot a single shot if NATO is the aggressor!

But for smaller conflicts without involving Europe and Russias Heartland yo are complete right! A conflict only in Syria or Middle East would Russia not win, if the West goes all in.

I personal don't believe in a conflict between european countries and Russia! But some parts in the USA, the so called "deep state" try to provoke a small and controlable war with Russia, to bind the european vasalls and reunite the divided american society. It's funny that Russia as "foe of democracy" rised up after NSA spionage in Europe was revealed and many european countries were really really pissed off I hope Trump Administration is able to dry the swamp in Washington or sooner or later we will have conflicts wide-ranging from cold war status to controlled hot war in some parts of the world (maybe US-soldiers fighting in Ukraine against Russia).

that's assuming Russia can touch all the factories, NATO could afford to waste thousands of jets to down the airforce and all of Russia's AD and have tons left over.

That not taking into account Cruise missiles or anything else. EVen if only half of Nato's manpower was willing to fight that's still more then enough.

The Russian navy would not be able to affect naval supply lines against all of NATO's fleet. Within the first few months the russian will have lost their navy if they tried this.

Now do I think europe has awhole will fight Russia, no I do not. However doesn't change the fact if NATO goes all in Russia is done for unless nukes start flying and then everyone dies.