The T-80s future in the Russian Army

d_taddei2 wrote:They could always use them into something into like the BMPT. A real shame the BMPT has been produce in numbers would be ideal in Chechnaya and Syria.

Does anyone know what happened to Russia's T-62/T-64's scrapped????

Some of them were stored to this day in pretty good condition, but aside from small numbers sold, they are basically either rotting away or being cut up.

http://www.yaplakal.com/forum2/topic426273.html

They could always use them into something into like the BMPT. A real shame the BMPT has been produce in numbers would be ideal in Chechnaya and Syria.

The problem is like the T-80 is an AR and the T-72/90 is an AK.

They both do the same jobs but use largely incompatible parts and systems... it doesn't make sense to keep the T-80 when there are plenty of existing T-72s to do the job... even if they do need minor upgrades.

Most have gas guzzling gas turbine engines which would make them more expensive to operate, and with new diesel engines on the way with almost the same power it is best to let them sit in storage.

Eventually they will be replaced in storage by upgraded T-72s when new vehicles replace them and they can either be scrapped or handed to allies or used as targets for weapons development or just target practise at exercise and shooting ranges (with all the salvageable bits removed first of course...).

All the western claims about the T-72 being a death trap... they don't actually apply to a T-72 as much as they apply to the T-80 and T-64.

The arrangement of combustible propellent stubs in the turret makes any armour penetration potentially catastrophic as sparks and burning metal and other material will fall to the floor of the turret where all the vehicles propellent stubs are located exposed and highly vulnerable.

I read in a Russian forum that all T-80s were stored at the end of 2013. Can anyone confirm? I also saw photos of T-80UE-1, taken on January 2014. The rush to retire T-80s does not make much sense, especially the ones with modern sights (thermal camera).

Why not just give some T-80s to pridnestrovie and and east ukrainian militias to support their fight for independence from this right wing western POS?

Has anyone heard about T-80E, mosernised T-80 series MBT, the 'Kantemirovskaya' tank division is rumored to be armed with?

Seems like T-80 is somehow returns to service along with modernised T-72Bs

No,not really.Last me and my buddy on Wikipedia got is that Russia is withdrawing the T-80s because of high maintenance cost.However,I don`t really believe that Russia would just throw out 4,500 tanks,out of which at least some are usuable.I think it`s possible that the old T-80s are going to be scrapped,while the ones still usuable might be used at least until Armata comes in bigger numbers,although I have no sources which support my theory.

http://www.military-informant.com/index.php/army/3585-1.html Here is my source on withdrawal of the T-80s from service

According to every source ever, all T-80's will be phased out within the coming year. I still think they could sell em', or give em' to Assad, but clearly Russia doesn't think that...

As I have said before... they are a death trap because of the way the autoloader is designed...

As I have said before... they are a death trap because of the way the autoloader is designed...

It only matters if the armor is penetrated

I'm really curious what is the need of such modernisations. It seems like the MoD is rushing with the army modernisation in every way possible, even upgrading tanks which was meant to be outdated. The war is coming may be?

According to every source ever, all T-80's will be phased out within the coming year. 

I see not a single reason why not to trust the 2iC of 'Kantemirovskaya' division.

My bet is this information is real but 80's won't simply get scrapped. It isn't a viable export product but it is almost perfect as a political gift. It's able as a combat mean and complex enough for eventual user to service it in Russian Federation which in exchange gives additional diplomatic and economic ties, the question however remains who will get it because I doubt there will be much clientele for the the fair price ... although some serious discount might attract some buyers .

GarryB wrote:As I have said before... they are a death trap because of the way the autoloader is designed...

If T-72 is penetrated, the ammo all over the turret might be hit, and detonate anyways. The carousel has been hit and blown up in combat in any case.

The only practical difference is the T-80s ammo storage takes up phsically a larger profile from the side, and the T-72 has bigger roadwheels that offer up slight protection.
However, there is still a chance the T-72s ammo can be hit from the side.

T-80s and T-72s were destroyed in Chechnya, and extensively trialed by the Russian MOD after the war. They found similar performance in terms of protection.


The gas turbine is why they are removing them, it has nothing to do with ammo storage.

Russia is phased out T-80 tanks from simple reason. Long ago they closed Omsk tank factory, which produced T-80 tanks and keep only UVZ, which produce T-72 and T-90 tanks. They don't produce T-80 spare parts for a long time.

GarryB wrote:As I have said before... they are a death trap because of the way the autoloader is designed...

Doesn't mean Assad wouldn't take a couple... There is no point in destroying them if someone else needs em'.

Omsk is not gone, it was bought by UVZ, and they overhauled and repaired T-80s as of fairly recently.

Omsk is completely gone?

Nope. Don't forget Msta-S and S-300V is based on T-80 chassis.

If T-72 is penetrated, the ammo all over the turret might be hit, and detonate anyways.

It is rumored T-72's autoloader is more safe

The gas turbine is why they are removing them, it has nothing to do with ammo storage.

It's actually is very interesting thing - it's said in the source article (I have already post it, yes ) that 'T-80E have it's engine's power increased to 1500 horse powers'. Dosen't really sure if it means they are fitted with GTD-1500 (upgraded GTD-1250 of T-80U) or somekind of new diesel engine (1500 hp diesel engine is designed for 'Armata' - the only russian 1500 tank diesel I know). Frustrating news indeed, I even not quite belive in it.

If T-72 is penetrated, the ammo all over the turret might be hit, and detonate anyways. The carousel has been hit and blown up in combat in any case.

And a baby born without a winkle might be a girl... the point is that in combat tanks get hit. With no extra ammo in the turret and only ammo in the autoloaders the T-80 will certainly explode with any penetration of the side or rear of the turret... or indeed less likely the turret front.

The T-72 wont as long as there are no extra rounds in the crew compartment.

IN the case of extra ammo in the crew compartment they found both are likely to explode as are any western vehicle with ammo stored in the crew compartment.

The only practical difference is the T-80s ammo storage takes up phsically a larger profile from the side,

Which not only makes it a larger target more likely to be hit, it also means with the configuration that any penetration of the turret will be lethal to the tank crew.

and the T-72 has bigger roadwheels that offer up slight protection.
However, there is still a chance the T-72s ammo can be hit from the side.

Much less likely in combat than turret penetration.

T-80s and T-72s were destroyed in Chechnya, and extensively trialed by the Russian MOD after the war. They found similar performance in terms of protection.

They were when both carried extra ammo in the crew compartment. When extra ammo was removed the T-80 remained vulnerable to turret explosion, while the T-72 became a lot safer... at the cost of requiring reloading more often.

It is rumored T-72's autoloader is more safe

No question the T-72s and T-90s autoloader is safer and offers steel armour plate between the volatile and vulnerable propellent stubs and the crew compartment.

No question the T-72s and T-90s autoloader is safer

As a sciencist (well, engeneers are science practitioner) I only belief in a good expariment myself. Shells aren't tend to detonate easely and propelland charges are stored in autoloader below the turret projection itself iirc

Storing ammunition in special boxes on the backside of the turret does not make it impossible to kill the crew through the exploding ammunition stored in boxes on backside of the turret.

If a RPG is used from behind like it is possible in urban warfare and the RPG hits the box with ammunition stored lets say on an Abrams, the jet stream will ignite the ammunition, but the jet stream from the RPG warhead will not automatically stop nor will an APFSDS it will still go since there was no virtual protection and it will penetrate the backside of the turret hull, a small hole but where do you guys think the burning and exploding rounds exhaust and fire will go? Path of least resistance, it will go to all holes, to the entrance hole of the RPG, to the exhaust panels and to the hole which enters the tank and combat compartment of the tank.

Such boxes does not prevent the death of crew if the ammunition explodes they just increase the survivability but the tank is destroyed after that anyway.

As a sciencist (well, engeneers are science practitioner) I only belief in a good expariment myself. Shells aren't tend to detonate easely and propelland charges are stored in autoloader below the turret projection itself iirc

On the T-72 and T-90 the rounds themselves and propellent stubs are stored in two layers one on top of the other with both stored horizontally with a layer of plate armour on top separating the ammo and propellent from the crew compartment.

On the T-64 and T-80 the ammo is stored lying down horizontally under armour plate but the propellent stubs are stored vertically and are exposed to the open air in the crew compartment.

The propellent stubs have a stub metal case, but the body containing the propellent is propellent impregnated cardboard that is designed to be consumed when the round is fired. It is a semi combustable case so only the metal stub is left after firing.

this means that any spark or red hot metal fragment lands on the cardboard, or touches the cardboard and it is like a spark or red hot metal fragment on a match head... sometimes nothing... sometimes boom.... with lots of fragments inside a turret... boom... all the propellent stubs will go off at once.

When the main gun fires the muzzle flash is the size of the tank... multiply that by 22 and contain it inside the turret and of course that turret will be blow sky high... every time.

A modern Sherman.

Storing ammunition in special boxes on the backside of the turret does not make it impossible to kill the crew through the exploding ammunition stored in boxes on backside of the turret.

Storing ammo and propellent stubs in a metal box that is not flamable would protect ammo and propellent stubs from sparks and hot metal fragments and would prevent a fire or explosion in the case the turret was penetrated.

If a RPG is used from behind like it is possible in urban warfare and the RPG hits the box with ammunition stored lets say on an Abrams, the jet stream will ignite the ammunition, but the jet stream from the RPG warhead will not automatically stop nor will an APFSDS it will still go since there was no virtual protection and it will penetrate the backside of the turret hull, a small hole but where do you guys think the burning and exploding rounds exhaust and fire will go? Path of least resistance, it will go to all holes, to the entrance hole of the RPG, to the exhaust panels and to the hole which enters the tank and combat compartment of the tank.

If we are talking about a small metal box at the rear of the turret ring on the floor then to hit it from behind you would have to accurately shoot through the engine.

If we are talking about rounds stored in a turret bustle then the armour separating the bustle from the crew compartment should allow any propellent explosion to be contained outside the crew area with the blow out panels directing the explosion upwards... the crew would need to get out of the tank because after burning for a few minutes the HEAT rounds will start exploding which will be rather more devastating than the propellent "burning".

Such boxes does not prevent the death of crew if the ammunition explodes they just increase the survivability but the tank is destroyed after that anyway.

Separating the ammo from the crew compartment whether in an autoloader, or armoured box or turret bustle prevents the crew being killed by greatly reducing the risk of explosion and gives them time to escape while the vehicle is burning before the vehicle explodes.

If we are talking about a small metal box at the rear of the turret ring on the floor then to hit it from behind you would have to accurately shoot through the engine. If we are talking about rounds stored in a turret bustle then the armour separating the bustle from the crew compartment should allow any propellent explosion to be contained outside the crew area with the blow out panels directing the explosion upwards... the crew would need to get out of the tank because after burning for a few minutes the HEAT rounds will start exploding which will be rather more devastating than the propellent "burning". wrote:

I mean the ammunition bustle on the backside of the turret. The backside of the turret itself has virtually no armor to stop any RPG round and this small hole is still an entrance for the burning ammunition to enter the compartment, not really good for health when standing next to it inside the tank.

Anything burning in a tank is a signal to get out... by separating the ammo in a turret bustle, you reduce heat and flame and smoke in the crew compartment so it is easier and safer for the crew to get out before the HEAT and HE rounds start exploding.

On the T-64 and T-80 the ammo is stored lying down horizontally under armour plate but the propellent stubs are stored vertically

Both of them are actually stored under the turret, so turret penetrations aren't that dangerous:


If turret is penetrated and there is an open fire in the crew compartment that means tank have been hit and 2/3 of the crew is already dead or dying. In other cases I don't see how propelland can be ignited. Side hits are dangerous for both T-72 and T-80

Asf wrote:

On the T-64 and T-80 the ammo is stored lying down horizontally under armour plate but the propellent stubs are stored vertically

Both of them are actually stored under the turret, so turret penetrations aren't that dangerous:


If turret is penetrated and there is an open fire in the crew compartment that means tank have been hit and 2/3 of the crew is already dead or dying. In other cases I don't see how propelland can be ignited. Side hits are dangerous for both T-72 and T-80

Turret hits are not dangerous and will most probably harm or kill the crew anyway and side hits are dangerous to every existing tank and every other tank will "pop" like popcorn if you hit the ammunition stored in the hull.