The T-80s future in the Russian Army

The longer projectiles used by the T-14 are for T-14-like targets - way overkill for the pedestrian garbage NATO is fielding. The current armament of Russia's modernized MBTs would be more than enough to dispose of the whatever overpriced trash can they can manage to scrape together to send Ukraine's way for disposal.

What I was suggesting is a small, secondary autoloader in the bustle for kinetic rounds only.

The Russian kinetic rounds contain extra propellant and so are not inert, which makes them an easy target for drones.

Need I remind everyone that the T-90M has bustle stowage often depicted as having HE and HEAT rounds stowed in it.

It is the detonation of HE and HEAT rounds that blows turrets off tanks when hit, so moving them to an external bustle not internally connected to the turret or crew compartment is a reasonable way to isolate the most volatile rounds the tank carries.

The Burlak is no worse than this, it is infact superior as it's bustle stowage is part of the autoloader.

Can't remember if it was Burlak or Black Eagle, but one of them had the bustle autoloader as a monobloc system that can be loaded into the bustle tray a bit like a rifle magazine in a way that the rear can be folded down and the entire autoloader with ammo can be ejected backwards off the tank if hit and the ammo started to burn.

With the Black Eagle that would mean your tank is now unarmed but at least you are not burning. With Burlak it means you have the ammo in the underfloor autoloader left to get you out of there but again, at least you are not burning.

Reloading would be much faster but would require a crane module to remove empty loaders and load loaded loaders.

On another forum I even suggested a three quarters magazine with 22 rounds that could be loaded with the autoloader transferring the rounds from the three quarters ammo bustle via the autoloader mechanism into the under floor autoloader, and when the underfloor system is loaded the three quarters magazine can be removed and by that time the original full sized bustle mag could have been fitted to a machine that loaded it up in the mean time and it can be returned to the tank ready to go... 22 rounds in the underfloor autoloader and 31 rounds in the turret bustle loader... 53 rounds ready to fire.

But as I said the Russian military rejected turret bustle ammo, which has been consistent since WWII where Germans used to put satchel charges under the turret rear overhang to destroy Russian tanks they couldn't otherwise penetrate.

If they are going to produce a new T-80, they must consider that it will need to be able to keep up with firepower requirements and that means it needs to be able to accommodate longer projectiles. Unfortunately the only way to do this outside of a complete redesign of the hull is with a bustle autoloader.

I would say the T-80 is optimised for arctic warfare and fighting in the cold and considering their performance so far I would say they should realise they have a lead over the west who need to upgrade absolutely everything and also actually produce it in quantity to get it into service let alone fill up stocks for any conflict lasting more than a week.

And what a difference it even makes, as 90% of the tanks used in the most brutal, modern and actual war fought between more or less similar capable forces are taken out by minefields, artillery, drones, and ATGMs?
Which was crystal clear like forever (minus drones) if anyone considered a war, not killing cavemen equivalent.

Have there been any tests to confirm

Of course not, as we all know Russians never test their weapons. 

... even if they did, they cry shy!

The-thing-next-door wrote:If they are going to produce a new T-80, they must consider that it will need to be able to keep up with firepower requirements and that means it needs to be able to accommodate longer projectiles. Unfortunately the only way to do this outside of a complete redesign of the hull is with a bustle autoloader.

There is a way to incorporate long projectiles of T-14 into T-80/90 hull with only minor modifications (look at the red line and red letters) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw4Zi_DU0AAW6vo?format=webp&name=small

Be more pointless, just for the records that someone can ...

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Have there been any tests to confirm the capability of Svinets to penetrate the frontal turret armour of newer western MBTs?

Western armor technology is actually grossly inferior to Russian armor technology at this point in time. Why would Russian ballisticians cheat themselves by testing on inferior armors? No, the 3BM-59/60 would be tested against target armors based on technology developed for the T-14 to ensure that they would be more than a match for the actual threat.

lyle6 wrote:
Western armor technology is actually grossly inferior to Russian armor technology at this point in time. Why would Russian ballisticians cheat themselves by testing on inferior armors? No, the 3BM-59/60 would be tested against target armors based on technology developed for the T-14 to ensure that they would be more than a match for the actual threat.

It has been like that like forever, with a very narrow point at the very beginning. When the Soviets were building up and required western technologies to jump over the revolution and civil war gap.
And that is the funniest part, as propaganda feed herd don't get that like forever.

The T-64 wasn't particularly troubled, there were some issues but nothing that made it a bad tank.

It was expensive and if it was their only tank they could not afford to have every tank and motor rifle division or force be equipped with them at full strength.

It made good sense to have a cheaper option with a similar gun and decent protection and mobility and as important things like laser range finders and tank barrel launched guided missiles become available they can be added during upgrades and improvements.

This meant you could have the best tank you could develop in service in places where that matters, and a standard tank that was rather better than nothing or the previous generation vehicle could possibly be upgraded to.

Essentially doing with tanks what bigger countries did with fighter aircraft though they went one step further with a heavy and light fighter and also a dedicated interceptor (Su-27, MiG-29, MiG-31).

BenVaserlan wrote:
After the opposed piston engine and transmission problems were fixed, it was a very good tank for the 1960s and for its weight.

The 1960s?

Try now. With modern electronics it beats the piss out of the Booker-T and the Type-15 cents.

Our friend is seeking entertainment, I guess. Throwing shit into a fan can work, on some occasions.

After the opposed piston engine and transmission problems were fixed, it was a very good tank for the 1960s and for its weight.

Its protection levels were rather good as was its gun for the time as well.

German tanks of the time like the Leopard 1 had pathetic armour and a British 105mm rifled gun, the Americans went from a British 105mm gun and only dreamed of a 120mm smoothbore with British armour in two decades time with the Abrams... western tanks were rather chaotic during this period, with British tanks chronically under engined...

T-80BVM with all extras.

Driver

T-80 with extras

Not so sure about this mod. The commander loses his capability to observe both from outside the hatch and with his optics. Lose the camo canopy perhaps?

When you are in a dark room with net curtains up you can see outside easily during the day, but it is hard to see in.

At night when internal lights are on and it is dark outside then it is reversed, but would it be reversed if you had thermal cameras?

Also if the unit is using a drone to spot the targets and the commander is using the view from the drone to hit targets and perhaps has another drone watching his own tank then isn't his visibility from the tank good enough?

Hard to say without testing it and I suspect they are testing it...