The T-80s future in the Russian Army

limb wrote:So my claim that tank reverse speed is actually useful is correct and confirmed, despite what tacticool "genius" fanboys were saying before the war.


The interviewer shouyld've asked why there are so many captured BVMs(from the arctic division). The ukrainians have at least 10 captured ones vs a bit less T-72s.

Also I wonder why he considers the thermals to be inadequate.

Check original text, in Russian. I couldn't understand what slang that he used means in the context. I think that Sosna U has french second generation matrices, but I'm not entirely sure.

As for, why the tanks were abandoned, probably, because the loss of fuel or some mechanical breakdown. Most of the tanks and other equipment didn't show any battle damage.

I was looking to see if ЕСУ ТЗ automatic fire control system was used, but he denied to answer. It should act as an umbrella system for whole army and, in theory, it should greatly shorten time between target acquisition and engagement.

The T-80 is considered to be a foreign tank, when the Ukraine sold lots of T-80 tanks to Pakistan and Russia objected they refused to supply guns for the sale to avoid upseting India and in response the Ukraine stopped supplying spare engine parts for the T-80UD in Russian service.

The engines were only made in the Ukraine which left Russia with the gas turbine version in service which drinks more than Boris Yeltsen.

Conceptually the T-64 and the upgraded T-80 were the high quality but also expensive tanks, while the T-72 got stuff as it became affordable like laser range finders and improved armour types.

They look very similar and many can't tell them apart unless certain features are visible, but they are completely different tanks with completely different equipment and systems... which is not a good thing.

The autoloader on the T-80 series carries more ammo... 28 rounds vs the 22 rounds of the T-72/T-90, and the design is different in that the propellent stubs are stored vertically in the T-64/80 family in their layer of the autoloader, while T-72/90 the ammo is all horizontal... and covered by a layer of armour plate inside so a turret penetration wont shower exposed propellent stubs with sparks and burning material that would set it off.

Regarding the thermals, I seem to remember the Sosna-U sights were the gunners sights and were not available to the commander... sounds like this guy is used to using better thermals on another tank... perhaps he has tested thermals on the T-14?

That's weired the strategy was to removed t-80 from service and use only t-72 variants and t-14.

T-90s are better than T-72s and in many ways equal or superior to T-80s.

The forces using upgraded T-72s were not that long ago using T-55s...

The myth of the T-80 being "Ukrainian" needs to die, It was derived from the T-64, but only the turrets of the early T-80 ever came from Kharkov, The T-80U is fully Russian, designed in Leningrad and made in Omsk.

The-thing-next-door wrote:The myth of the T-80 being "Ukrainian" needs to die, It was derived from the T-64, but only the turrets of the early T-80 ever came from Kharkov, The T-80U is fully Russian, designed in Leningrad and made in Omsk.

Exactly, tank is Russian, as is gas turbine. One problem  that is real is that it is a gas guzzler which makes operating it pretty expensive.
@Isos T-80UD variant has Ukrainian diesel engine.

Many of the parts that made up the T-80 came from Ukraine, and the big upgrade of the new more powerful diesel engine was based in the Ukraine...

It was a Soviet tank but to keep it running they needed the cooperation of the Ukraine and didn't get it.

The Utes HMG was made in the Ukraine and has been replaced by Kord in Russian service.... not much wrong with Utes though Kord is better.

The Russians could make Utes HMGs but they choose to continue forward making only Russian weapons with parts and support centred in Russia.

Antonov was Russian too, but the plans and Plants etc were in the Ukraine when the music stopped and so they are dropping those too.

The T-80 is good for Navy units and also for units in extreme cold regions... with such a situation there is no reason why a gas turbine engine could not be adapted for T-14s and also Kurganets type vehicles for use in such roles.

The BMMP the Navy was planning would have a gas turbine and a diesel engine... where the diesel is used on land and the gas turbine used on the water... presumably running water jets more efficiently than a diesel engine could...

Seems to me that they need to upgrade the armour and equipment of their Naval Infantry forces.... those two 40K helicopter landing ships can't come too soon... likely new helicopters and new land vehicles too including all new optics and communication and the fact that they are talking about one helicopter carrier carrying troops and armour and of course fuel and food and water and ammo and weapons as well as helicopters and landing boats and landing hovercraft, the other vessel was reportedly going to be optimised for drones and helicopters which suggests an enormous expansion of the use of drones is anticipated... land, sea surface, air and underwater drones presumably.

The plan to save money not upgrading older stuff to use on newer stuff is not a good idea and I have mentioned in the past that putting newer stuff on the in service older stuff is a great way to get it into mass production and get field experience with it so bugs and problems can be ironed out but also so the makers can earn a living from their products which can fund upgrades and improvements.

The Moskva is a huge ship so keeping S-300F and OSA on board when there are other much newer and much more capable systems they could have put on board is a false saving of money.... obviously easier to say now with hind sight but these are weapons of war and a big ship that can defend itself is not an asset.

It sounds like its large radar arrays were useful enough...

Older tanks equipped with older optics and systems will also struggle but then tactics also come in to it too... at least their guns are powerful enough to be effective against any potential enemy target... not like the Germans going into the Soviet Union with 50mm tank guns and 75mm short barreled guns.

Any word on a BVM like upgrade to the t-80U?

September 30, 10:01 am
updated September 30, 10:28

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, within the framework of the state defense order, received a batch of T-80BVM tanks ahead of schedule




MOSCOW, 30 September. /TASS/. A batch of T-80BVM tanks was delivered ahead of schedule to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation by the Omsk Transport Engineering Plant (Omsktransmash) as part of the state defense order. This was reported on Friday in the press service of the enterprise.
The Omsk Transport Engineering Plant (part of JSC Concern Uralvagonzavod, part of the state corporation Rostec) handed over to the Ministry of Defense another batch of T-80BVM tanks as part of the execution of the state defense order. The company fulfills all obligations to the customer ahead of schedule. The updated combat vehicles have passed the necessary tests with a positive result, and in the near future they will be delivered to the military units of the Russian army.

It is noted that before being sent to the cars, they put letters from the children of the plant employees with drawings for military personnel.

The T-80BVM is an upgraded version of the T-80BV. The 125-mm cannon was improved on the machine, the gas turbine engine was improved - its power increased to 1,250 hp. With. In addition, the tank is equipped with a multi-channel gunner's sight, a driver's observation device and an armament stabilizer. The armor is reinforced with anti-cumulative lattice screens, as well as a complex of modular dynamic protection. Deliveries of T-80BVM to Russian troops began in 2019.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/15916753

GarryB wrote: The autoloader on the T-80 series carries more ammo... 28 rounds vs the 22 rounds of the T-72/T-90, and the design is different in that the propellent stubs are stored vertically in the T-64/80 family in their layer of the autoloader, while T-72/90 the ammo is all horizontal... and covered by a layer of armour plate inside so a turret penetration wont shower exposed propellent stubs with sparks and burning material that would set it off.

The T-80 autoloaders’ ammo placement makes them more vulnerable because they cover more area.

The ammo stubs in the T-80 autoloader are stored vertically and present a larger target to hit if the enemy weapon penetrates the side of the tank.

On the T-72/90 the propellent stubs are lying down horizontally and have a light steel plate over the top to stop hot embers or sparks inside the turret from landing on the exposed combustible cardboard sides of the propellent charges.

See here for images and info on that anti-drone EW module (Wavebreaker) visible in the image above.

https://vk.com/video-123538639_456301858

Russia decided to resume production of T-80 tanks, by Dmitry Zubarev for VZGLYAD. 09.10.2023.

The Uralvagonzavod concern will resume the creation of T-80 tanks from scratch. This was announced by the company's general director Alexander Potapov. According to him, the military set this task for the concern.

As Kommersant quotes Potapov’s words with reference to the  Zvezda TV channel , this issue is now being discussed with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, because it requires new capacities.

Earlier, tank platoon commander Alexander Levakov, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin , said that the crew of the T-80 Alyosha tank, which defeated a column of armored vehicles of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) in the Zaporozhye direction, always got the most difficult sectors of the front.

https://vz.ru/news/2023/9/10/1229732.html

bigger story is that Russia with half the population is not only matching, but even exceeding the mighty USSR at her peak. All while under the toughest conditions of economic warfare that the collective west can impose. And without even dipping the living standards of ordinary Russians. wrote:

It's not true. It doesn't outperform at all. The USSR had a larger army, larger armored forces, larger air force, much larger nuclear forces, larger navy and submarine navy. Twice the population and a larger economy. Where is Russia superior to the USSR?

Arrow wrote:

It's not true. It doesn't outperform at all. The USSR had a larger army, larger armored forces, larger air force, much larger nuclear forces, larger navy and submarine navy. Twice the population and a larger economy. Where is Russia superior to the USSR?

And the USSR collapsed for its troubles. While under less sanctions.

Modern Russia is fine. Although that's as much if not more to do with the rest of the world having gotten its shit together and made some alternative centers of finance, industry, innovation as any Russian achievements.

It fell because a few traitors in the USSR destroyed it.

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