Ukrainian soldiers praised the T-80BMV quiet a lot. Is it just that their tanks are trash or are modernized T-80s actually good?
Modernised T-80 liked by Ukrainians
Ukrainian soldiers praised the T-80BMV quiet a lot. Is it just that their tanks are trash or are modernized T-80s actually good?
T-80's are good tanks, the closest thing the Soviets had to M1 abrams, just engine issues mainly IIRC
I would say that t-80uk was better that m1
Better than an unupgraded M1 with the 105mm gun? Sure.
Yes and it was also better than M1A1
Now you're just smoking crack
>the closest thing the Soviets had to M1 abrams
this might be true but at the same time its not really very close - even in weight they have like15 short tons between the T-80 and the lightest M1
It's literally the best mass produced tank Russia has in service. It's got French thermals, and considerably better mobility than the T-72/90 series, and it's probably got the best frontal armor profile of any of their mass-fielded tanks. I'm pretty sure the tankers with the most kills in the Ukrainian army scored them in captured BVMs.
And Russians have been losing and abandooning them in fricking piles since the invasion somehow.
>Best frontal armor
Unfortunately for the Russians, the BVM uses the T80BV for the base and not the T80U.
Means the turret is similar in protection to a T72A. Sure T80bvm has relik, but it doesn't change the fact that it's 1970s armor tech covered in spicy Legos
>Sure T80bvm has relik, but it doesn't change the fact that it's 1970s armor tech covered in spicy Legos
You know, I didn't realize it, but I was still going off the meme performance specs of Relikt. By this point in the war, and with how many BVMs we've seen taken out, I think it's a safe concession to make that that shit's probably not offering the kinetic or chemical protection they say in the specs lmao.
The commander thermal is definitely a huge benefit on the T-90M, and it does have an actually modern protection (though I don't think there are too many Shtora-equipped units in the field right now). Really the only ding in my mind is the shit transmission of the 72 family, but on balance you're right, the T-90M is the better equipped tank. I believe the 90M's turret offers better protection than the BVM's, too.
Shtora doesn't work on beam riders like Stugna nor does it do much to a Javelin. NLAW/MBTLAW is immune since its an inertially guided quasi-rocket/missile. TOW2 more or less is very resistant due to a dual band reference flare system that is encoded for modulation as well.
It works great against older SACLOS ATGMs that don't like a constant wideband IR source however.
The T-90M turret is essentially a T-90A welded turret with full Relikt coverage for the front/sides and no awkward gaps like the T-80BVM. Of course, the base armor is significantly better as well. No APS on a tank rolling off assembly lines in 2022 is a travesty but at least they thought to include a turret bustle for ammo storage where an Arena-3 system radar would normally go.
The T-90M commander's thermal (the PNM-T Russian domestically produced version, not the Thales one), despite being third-generation, has a laughably small display. Pic related is a screenshot from a T-90M commander's video and that screen is about the size of the palm of his hand. On the Ukrainian battlefield that sight plus Sosna-U for the gunner might be enough but despite the genuinely well-thought out incremental improvements you can see the Russian army's classic corner-cutting in places.
And yes, Shtora isn't entirely useless against opponents with 20th century ATGMs but in this decade you're asking alot to only ever be facing 30-year-old missiles from the front. In that regard it's almost worse than useless given the weight.
Tiny thermal screens seem to be an eternal problem for Russian tanks, this, the Sosna-U, even going back all the way to the Agava-2 (pic).
Maybe they just simply don't have the space inside.
Serious question: is there any reason the commander/gunner need separate TV screens to use thermal channels and they can't just have the thermal image feed directly in to the eyepiece on the gunner's sight/commander's periscope? Is it just so you can ride around without your face pressed to the sight at all times?
>use thermal channels and they can't just have the thermal image feed directly in to the eyepiece on the gunner's sight/commander's periscope?
Because the gunner and commander would be looking at different things you moron. If they had the same image fed to both, then the commander can only see what the gunner is looking at and vice versa.
On slavshit tanks the thermal sight screen is offset because the sight itself is dropped into the place of the original auxiliary/infrared sight, which is left to the primary sight and has its own hole in the turret roof. The primary sight in the middle is optical only, and does a lot of other stuff than just be some optics (basically it's the centerpiece that holds everything together from vertical drive, to gunner's handgrip), so replacing it is a cost nightmare, while the old infrared auxiliary sight was already obsolete anyway.
See pic, it's the entire primary sight for the T-72B. During the T-72B3 upgrade program they just kept this, dropped the Sosna-U in next to it, made that the new primary sight, redesignated this the new backup sight, and having every Russian T-72B3 and T-80BVM gunner develop scoliosis over time.
On the subject of eyepiece the Sosna-U has both an eyepiece for daylight mode and an LCD for thermal, but unfortunately, like I said, offset to the left. Why they don't have eyepiece thermals is probably because a (relatively) big external screen is going to provide a better image than basically a camcorder viewfinder.
that's pretty interesting
knowledgeable anon, do you know how the fcs on the T-64B fit into this? what was it capable of? I don't think soviets could into semiconductors on a practical level in the mid 70s yet.
I think the T-64B's 1A33 FCS was already paired with a ballistic computer, either digital, or analog electronic. But probably digital, seeing that it already had a laser rangefinder as well, which had to be digital. This was already 1976, the Soviets could build IC's for their most advanced shit if they wanted to. By 1979 at the very least they were already making chips for commercial use.
Before laser rangefinders you had a stereoscopic mirror rangefinder integrated within the primary sight. That shit was completely analog.
huh, that's interesting. I thought that soviet semiconductors were almost non-existent before the 80s, seeing as Mig-25 was still flying with vacuum tubes and so on. I know that US started upgrading their missiles with solid state components in the late 60s. A-7 corsairs were among the first aircraft to have digital computer systems in them. I'm not aware on any soviet microporcessors that weren't made well into the 80s, and these are usually copied from western ones.
I guess it should not be surprising that soviets gave a tank project the same priority or importance as their submarines, but it's still pretty wild. Could it be that they only used digital rangefinder in an otherwise analog system? This seems much more likely. They had great trouble in upgrading T-72A past the alredy laser rangefinder as well.
>Could it be that they only used digital rangefinder in an otherwise analog system?
That's what they did in upgrades of older systems, like the T-62M and T-55AM. You had a bolt-on laser rangefinder that displayed its output on a seven-segment display somewhere around the gunner. See pic.
I think the turning point was about 1972-1975. Anything put into production before that is going to have analog systems. Anything designed after that is going to have at least some digital integrated circuits. The Mig-25 was put into production between 1969-1971, the Su-24 entering production in 1971 already had digital computers (the also swing-wing F-14 in development around the same time was also packed with computers, including the first digital flight computer, that handled mostly automatic wing sweep). The Mig-29 entering service in the late 70's was meant to be the USSR's budget next-generation fighter (next to the Su-27 and Mig-31), but already had digital computers.
A-7D corsair had programmable digital computer that much improved its ease of uprades later on. It first entered service in 1970.
It seems to me that there has to be a larger capability gap between soviet union and US otherwise it all doesn't make sense to me. maybe US had fully digital architectures when ussr stated to get solid state components? The first soviet spacecraft to have a digital computer was built in 1968, and this thing is enormous like all spacecraft.
Now that i'm reading about it, it seems like my feeling was correct, as the multi mode radar on F-4D already had solid state components while the APQ-120 of the F-4E was fully solid state.
E-models had a mix of solid state components including the UHF radio but also had tube and tuning motor gear. Secure voice was so bad it was rarely used.
http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/ky28.html
The good part was being on Mid shift keying the fleet then skating afterwards.
yeah, i meant only the radar was fully solid state. Idk which aircraft was, but so far i know that A-7 was the one with a digital architecture. That's why it got HARMs way earlier than A-6 did, for exampe, despite the latter being a more favorable platform to carry them, being adopted into an EW platform later on.
To me it seems the Soviets were lagging behind on computational power, and REALLY lagging behind in production numbers. Meaning while in the West in the 70's production corporate computers and later in the 80's home computers were widespread, the Soviet Union only had production capacity to fill the needs of the military, universities and scientific institutes and the space program. Consumers got zip till the very end of the 80's.
Also the difference in computing power, and technical experience showed in stuff like the F-14 having a digital top-down TID (Tactical Information Display), and a computer-generated VDI (Vertical Display Indicator, similar to the earlier ALICE on the also Grumman A6), entering service in 1975. Best the later Mig-29 do is a CRT that's a HUD-repeater. Meanwhile the F-16 had full digital fly-by-wire.
As far as I remember, initial pre-production Mig-29's were already tossed out to some testing units by the late 70's, but only a handful. I might be wrong on this though.
>To me it seems the Soviets were lagging behind on computational power, and REALLY lagging behind in production numbers.
this is obvious, but the biggest deal i think is about miniaturization, as soviets did build some high performance cumputers on a large scale but as you go smaller there's nothing. First soviet calculator to use integrated circuits came out the same year as west came out with the first microprocessor. This was 50 years ago. overall, soviets really disliked solid state, possibly because they couldn't get out of them the reliability they needed. It's hard to talk about that because electronics is the most secretive part of all soviet systems, probably due to the lack of things they can boast about and their merited fear of NATO EW capabilities.
>As far as I remember, initial pre-production Mig-29's were already tossed out to some testing units by the late 70's, but only a handful
It might be, but this is still mostly testing, possibly without many working systems. It's only after official adoption that you usually get to see the aircraft in large numbers. Interesting fact: despite Su-27 being formally adopted in the 1985, it was so raw that all the ones that made it through were basically frying testbeds, and its first N001 radar was adopted in 1991, only months before the dissolution of the soviet union, and only because the alternative was having no radar at all.
>The Mig-29 entering service in the late 70's
Mig-29 entered service in 1983, it first flew in late 70s.
I'm pretty sure the thermal image can also be displayed through the main sight/commanders scope.
If not the vatniks are dumb.
It can't. I believe on all production designs, with ONE exception (the T-90M) it has to be displayed by the gunner's auxiliary sight on the left, on a CRT or LCD screen, not an eyepiece. The commander has a duplicate screen of the gunner's thermals on some tanks. I don't think any Russian production tank has commander's thermals though, apart from the one exception.
On the T-90M the Sosna-U thermal sight is the centerpiece for the gunner, and a separate LCD. Still I think the eyepiece is still only for the daylight optical mode, unless it's different from the T-72B3, but I don't think it is. The commander also has a Wester-style TV and thermal sight. This should be the only modern Russian tank in proper service where the optics aren't a complete Black person-rigged shitshow, if of course all the UVZ brochures and Russian Army claims are correct, considering how the Russians are pathological liars.
you have any source to read on the armor structure of each t-80 variants ?
Not him, but knock yourself out:
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html#prot
I found an infograph for Russian Hull armor profiles a while ago. If you want to read about the T-80, I would reccomend the soviet armor blog, and the book on it by Steven Zaloga.
As for the turret armor, It varies wildly dependin on the model in question:
>T-80: Used the same turret as the T-64A, which featured silicon carbide (ceramic) balls suspended in cast aluminum to degrade incoming penetrators. Offered approx. 45cm of KE/CE protection.
>T-80B: Featured a new turret, the cavity of which was filled "kvartz", a composite of 70% sintered quartz ceramic and 30% aluminum oxide/titanium dioxide. An improved version of the T-72A turret, "Kvartz" was slightly more effective than combination-k on the T-64A while being exponentially cheaper to manufacture.
>T-80U: This is where it gets interesting. The tank used a unique form of quasi-NERA in the form of polymer cellular armor. The armor consisted of two layers of steel backed polymer cells in a resin-filled cavity. When the penetrator entered the composite block, shock waves would eminate from the penetrator through the resin and structurally deform and compromise the projectile, similar to how rubber/steel NERA functions today. It was noted to be extremely effective, and with the aid of Kontakt-5 ERA provided about 78cm of RHAe against kinetic projectiles, and 136cm against CE munitions.
>T-80UD: In the spirit of saving money (the primary reason for the T-80UD's creation) The polymer cell reactives on the T-80U were abandoned in favor of traditional steel/rubber plate NERA with ceramic/CHA backing. While I couldn't fin any numbers citing it's effectiveness, it's layout is more similar to western-style NERA than T-72B style reflective plate NERA.
>T-84, Oplot, Oplot-m: Welded "nut" turret similar to what is in service on the T-90A/M models of MBT. NERA/Ceramic cassette almost 40% thicker than on the T-80U with less steel backing and a far more uniform width. 1/2
While the nut turret design is Russian in origin, first seen on the obj.187 in 1985, but the Ukrainians were the first ones to mount the turret on a production vehicle, the T-84 in 1999 six years before the T-90A saw service.
Website:
beat me to it.
This composite build is called ''reflective plate array'
It was first seen on T-72B and provided very good protection for the space they were dealing with.
Also frick the redditor who couldn't handle a differing opinion so he reported my post because he can't downvote it heh
This is basically NERA, that's found in a lot of Western tank design (in fact probably every modern tank design). The T-72B should have crazy amounts of frontal turret protection for the 80's.
Also in your pic the top plate has been flame-cut off to reveal the interior of the turret cavity. This is an intentional design, when the internal plates get damaged from a hit, you flame-cut the top plate off, and replace whatever plates you need to. A way better solution than the earlier solid "Quartz" armor (probably a solid block sintered quartz) of the earlier T-72A and T-80B, that I have no idea how would be repaired, if repairable at all.
>The T-72B should have crazy amounts of frontal turret protection for the 80's.
Absolutely, the Soviets definitely had a monopoly on tank technology until the mid-late 80s. The US even had an assessment of a T-80U with Kontakt-5 and admitted they underestimated Soviet armored forces, in fact their tests on Kontakt-5 led to them developing M829A2 and M829A3 sabot rounds, designed specifically to counter the Anti-KE effect of K-5.
>Also in your pic the top plate has been flame-cut off to reveal the interior of the turret cavity. This is an intentional design, when the internal plates get damaged from a hit, you flame-cut the top plate off, and replace whatever plates you need to. A way better solution than the earlier solid "Quartz" armor (probably a solid block sintered quartz) of the earlier T-72A and T-80B, that I have no idea how would be repaired, if repairable at all.
Yes I am aware, its very smart. The idea is if you get shot in the cheek and the composite becomes damaged, it can be repaired / fixed very easily in the field. Like you mentioned, the T-72A/M with the Quartz filler would probably need to be rebuilt and pasted entirely.
>Soviets definitely had a monopoly on tank technology
>until the mid-late 80s
Well let's not get ahead of ourselves. Till then they were on-par mostly with westshit, but the arrival of Chobham, 120mm smoothbore and thermals were a game-changer.
Lets see what the soviets had in the 60s?
>MBT with composite armor
>125mm gun, West only just starting on the 105mm (105 still a damn good gun though)
>APFSDS as the main anti tank projectile, West stuck with HEAT and APDS until mid 80s
>Autoloader, yeah turret go boom meme whatever the west was still impressed
>Advanced FCS
>Two plane stabilizers, West still unstabilized until 70s
I'm not trying to say the Soviets were light years ahead, I'm just saying its generally accepted the soviets were more advanced than the west with their ground forces, until the 80s when US, DE, UK all developed modern main battle tanks, thats when the T-72 and T-80 fall behind. You mention thermals, that is something that the soviets were extremely far behind on.
Yeah the ERA was great for the soviets, cheap and did a good job.
>the ERA was great for the soviets, cheap and did a good job
just barely, tbh. Besides T-80Us quite few T-72s were upgraded with kontakt-5 before the union shit itself, and kontakt-1 was only useful against legacy threats like RPG-7s and LAWs. By that point several tandem ATGM systems were rolled out, for example TOW-2A(1987 btw) and those that would just not give a frick like Hellfire. So against advanced threats the only thing that matters is kontakt-5 and only against APFSDS. With such a limited scope of usefulness, the amount of anti tank platforms in NATO and absolute superiority of NATO tanks in any aspect(which ERA doesn't change, only narrows the gap), this is nothing but a bandaid, even if it was applied to the soviet tank fleet rather than every 10th of them.
Even without K-5 though, newer Soviet tanks had enough NERA in the form of reflective plates and polymer cellular armor to stop most NATO antitank munitions. You are correct in that there were munitions which could perforate these arrays without too much trouble, but Soviet vehicles had excellent protection against virtually all 105mm and most 120mm projectiles. While NATO tanks usually sported far better crew awareness, turret protection and in some cases (M1/M1A1) tactical mobility, Soviet armor came with certain advantages as well:
>Better armor protection on the hulls
>More efficient armor arrays thickness and weight wise due to ERA
>Better fire on the move capability on rough terrain due to autoloader
>THe ability to fire GLATGMs*
>Better anti-infantry capability with HE shells
I'm not saying Soviet tanks were superior to western designs like the Leo 2A4 of the M1A1, They were capable adversaries which in some cases could've matched us tank for tank. Unlike now where Russia has clearly fallen behind even with some of their latest equipment.
*Although the effectiveness of these missiles is usually vastly overstated, and they were more a tool to compensate for a lack of gun elevation than anything else. Russian 125mm HEAT-FS is actually more effective.
the NERA is still cope plates, nothing more and won't really do shit against old weapons on their own. They are too small, cover too little and are too heavy to add more to count, so even if you get your CE protection to the level of 550mm rha it doesn't matter because ITOW from 1978 pens 630 and TOW-2 pens whopping 900mm rha. Other weapons follow the suit. Against KE penetrators there are glaring weak spots on that old armor and the glacis has been consistently beaten by western ammo since M111 Hetz from 1978, again.
>they were more a tool to compensate for a lack of gun elevation than anything else
Nah, more than that they were compensating for the shit accuracy of soviet 125mm guns. Guess what, slapping a huge barrel onto a tiny tank while skimping on every gram results in poor accuracy and durability, who could've guessed.
one thing that NERA greatly improved in sovet tanks was the repairability of the tank, as they could cut the steel open and replace the inserts rather than the whole turret. Not that it would matter much with the sovet single-use tank doctrine, assuming the thing didn't launch the turret into orbit for ISS cosmonauts to do repairs on.
>Nah, more than that they were compensating for the shit accuracy of soviet 125mm guns. Guess what, slapping a huge barrel onto a tiny tank while skimping on every gram results in poor accuracy and durability, who could've guessed.
You make a good point. The 2A46 series of gun basically has to have a paper-thin barrel in order to be handled by the gun stabilizers. However, the CEP of the gun is pretty low for the first few dozen rounds fired, and is supposed to be boresighted/replaced around every 250 rounds fored to compensate. Unfortunately, many of the tank's operators (Russia included, apparently) don't conduct proper maintenance on the cannon, and so the accuracy of the gun degrades significantly over long periods of neglect. You can see these size-based compromises in other areas of the design, such as the 22 round limit for the autoloader. Or the single reverse gear. And while these compromises create much bigger drawbacks now, they wouldn't hamper the tank all that much in central european maneuver warfare, in which having a fast, well armored tank with a powerful cannon and a low logistical footprint outweighed these possible weaknesses. In fact, most of the T-72's problems can be solved with a working supply chain
>NERA is still cope plates, nothing more and won't really do shit against old weapons on their own.
NERA is basically the only type of armor in use on any tank anywhere right now, and for good reason: It's probably the most mass/thickness efficient armor that exists, which is why EVERY NEW MBT on earth uses NERA+ceramic/steel backing. It's just that good. Now can it be argued that the reflective plates the T-72B3 uses have gotten a bit long in the tooth, absolutely. Does that mean NERA itself is shit? Hell no.
>NERA is basically the only type of armor in use on any tank anywhere right now
i mean the NERA on the soviet tanks, not the concept
Yeah, very good tank, Ustinov, much obliged!
Btw, you know what tank had stabilized gun? The sherman.
shit, Morozov, not Ustinov
>Btw, you know what tank had stabilized gun? The sherman.
By that you mean a One plane, Gyro Stabilizer that deactivated over 24km/h? I'm not saying they were the first to use a stabilizer moron, I'm saying that they mass produced MBTs with two-plane stabilizers while the US didn't use a stabilizer even on the first M60s, not until the Add On Stabilizer (AOS) mods.
you sounded like you were trying to make a point about US not knowing what stabilizers are, so i preemptively decided to shut you up
also soviet stabilizers were huge pieces of shit
>were
Are.
How come both the T-64's and the Chieftain's designers got sucked into the opposing-piston meme? Even though it turned out to be garbage for both of them.
autism
it's not very well known but T-64 was not just a program for the glorious soviet army to create a wunderwaffe on the jubilee of the revolution but also a response to US development of the T-95 which, being designed by backwards Americans in the 50s had smoothbore gun, quartz composite armor(sovet development circa late 1970s), turbine engine and a ballistic computer.
I am aware of the T-95 program, but it was a failure. Also did you know the M60 was designed to incorporate ceramic composite? Or silica, I cannot remember. Either way thats why its a lot more ''boxy'' with less cast armour. It never did get this composite though.
Black person its obvious stabilizers weren't a 1960s invention.
if anything the brits should get the credit for actually having the balls to go through with a two plane stabilizer in the 50s on the centurions.
Yeah, M60 was intended to get the same silica armor as T95 for the turret, but it was deemed too expensive.
And in the late 60s and early 70s US tank development stagnated quite a bit and besides(a very good) stabilizer M60 only got maintainability upgrades and the starship ate up the rest of the budget. This is partly because by that time tanks had serious competition for budget with newly invented attack helicopters, which got more development(but also stagnated during early-mid 70s), and partly because of the expenses of the vietnam war and post-war budget cuts which really stalled multiple developments during that time and until people started getting worried about biggest soviet technological and military buildup the world would ever see.
>Today I learned that the US would 've invented kvartz in 1955, if only they had thought to sinter the crystals with fricking rust instead of fusing them
What a timeline.
I don't even think oit was the costs that stopped them, it was just that fused siliceous armor was brittle as all hell (literal glass) and crumbled after multiple penetrations.
>it was just that fused siliceous armor was brittle as all hell (literal glass) and crumbled after multiple penetrations
that didn't stop the soviets from dumping silica carbide balls into their castings with abysmal results when they developed T-64, lol
Fun fact, "textolite" used in older Soviet armor is just woven fiberglass resin. Looks like the same kind or phenolic resin they made AK mags out of.
Turns out a lot of composite armor is not as exotic as you think it would. Well maybe apart from depleted uranium,
>>Two plane stabilizers, West still unstabilized until 70s
British Centurion Mk. 3
In 1948, the British Centurion Mk. 3 featured the first two-plane stabilization system in a production tank, while 1954 saw the introduction of the STP-1 stabilizer complex for the T-54A, and similar systems would be implemented on virtually all Soviet tanks from then on.
>Advanced FCS
how advanced?
Soviet ERA was the only thing going for them in the 80s, period, in terms of tanks. And pre-70s soviet tanks didn't have much on NATO tanks either, besides their stupid numbers.
The only period of soviet armor dominance was during mid-70s until NATO got their APFSDS ammo and especially after they got new tanks.
T90M is technically better due to having an independent 360 thermal sight for the commander.
I thought french thermals and electronics were shit like the rest?
>didn't france shit on germany's idea of a 140mm gun infavor of a homemade 130 ?
It's the opposite anon.
But I find your post interesting. Why indeed wouldn't the french gun be smaller? Are these frogs overcompensating? WHy can't they just let the germans have bigger things like God intended?
TL:DW of the video
>it's fast and maneuverable (75km/h+)
>the engine doesn't need to be warmed up to start (I am guessing tank diesels need to be warmed up and inconvenient amount??)
>Sosna-U targeting system is really good and the night vision works really well
>however maintenance of the gas turbine is kind of a b***h
it's actually the opposite, turbines are easier to maintain. The reason some countries use diesels is because they're cheaper, that's it. In extreme heat or cold, the turbine will start more easily. It produces no smoke, it's quieter at a distance, the powerpack is smaller, and you still have 400+km range on internal fuel alone.
My apologies I didn't specify what about it was a b***h. They said it starts really well and is powerful but requires special fluids which I am guessing is a strain on logistics. After all they claim to run only 11.
Ukraine just doesn't have a big fleet of T-80s like Russia does
there's no special fluids required - it's a turbine, but turbines are known to take just about anything including civilian gasoline in an emergency
I would bet the "special fluids" aren't fuel, but some weird transmission fluid Ukraine doesn't use.
Post-war, I predict Ukraine is going to build up its armor.
If Ukraine exists post-war it probably means Russia is unable to conduct offensive operations and has been reduced to a failed state, why would Ukraine need a post-war buildup?
Because Russia is like herpes. It has a bad habit of flaring up due to Russian neurotic fixation on "historical slights".
Some madman will come to power in Russia AGAIN, and gear the Russian state towards a war economy. He'll rant and rave about "The West", and tell his people they'll going to conquer Ukraine. And the poor stupid Vatniks will cheer.
Seriously, we all know Russia's history. They frick up and collapse, then some Strongman shows up and beats enough heads in that Russia is able to be a threat again. Give or take a few decades, and Russia will try it again.
Someone here said it best:
>Hard times create strong men
>Strong men create worse times
>worse times create stronger men
>why would Ukraine need a post-war buildup?
i dunno
20th and 21th century shows that if you are bordering them you are better off being poor and spending 50% GPD on defense
I want to see what the planned T-rex tank can do
Not likely. Want to know why they didn’t build up their armor during 8 years of hot war with Russian proxies after having been invaded by same Russians? Because their government is super corrupt. I’m not saying Zelensky’s government right now is but corruption is what’s kept their military in such a piss-poor, laughable shape. Once this threat is over there’s no proof that they’ll get serious about upgrading their capabilities, doctrine, training, organization, etc.
I think it's not as much even about corruption, but lack of any substantial funding and government being somewhat anemic
>but corruption is what’s kept their military in such a piss-poor, laughable shape
If someone before 2022 said "Wow, Ukraine didn't defeat Russia in five months, it proves their military is in laughable state" they'd be considered mentally ill
This isn't entirely accurate. One of the T-80 plants was in Kharkiv during the Cold War and Ukraine fielded over 100 prior to the war, the difference is that Ukraine's T-80 plant during the Cold War was converted from a T-64 plant and instead of the standard T-80 variant, they manufactured the T-80UD, which is essentially a T-80U with a diesel engine.
100 is not a big tank force, at all.
It's like 1/4 of their active tank force before the war.
I'm a turbine advocate and Abrams enjoyer but turbines are difficult to maintain if your maintenance infrastructure isn't set up to deal with them.
They're dead reliable until something goes wrong and then you need to send the whole shebang back to be remanufactured.
Does the T-80 have an easily removable powepack like the Abrams?
So how exactly did they repair engines during GW1? They had facilities on station my guy.
Wasn't that mostly just taking one powerpack and replacing it with another?
Not that that's a bad system at all, it's way faster then sending the whole tank back to depot
It's easy to cann parts and do pretty much anything to baby turbines in the field if you bothered to deploy a back shop but they probably confined work to borrowing external parts before sending back the most fricked packs first. Same as canning good parts off bad jet engines (which I did during Shield/Storm) but I don't know Army maint. practices.
in 4th Army Autist thread there's a semi translated interview with the Ukrainian tank factory worker, one who used to work under Morozov.
He claims, that powerpack replacement inT-64 was actually pretty easy, since once You unplug all hoses, and remove the nuts securing the engine in place - the whole thing is suspended on a single clamp on the roof of engine bay.
In comparison, a T-72 engine is sitting on several hardpoints and to correctly put back the whole thing You need to use numerous washers, which vary in numbers due to loose standardisation.
>that powerpack replacement inT-64 was actually pretty easy, since once You unplug all hoses, and remove the nuts securing the engine in place - the whole thing is suspended on a single clamp on the roof of engine bay.
Wait, go over that again for me. So the powerpack is attached to the roof, and not the floor of the engine bay?
My bad, gotten that one wrong
>. T-64 engine is relatively easy to remove, since one has to take off the bonnet over it and pull it up. T-72 is also simple, but takes a lot longer. Once untying all the bolts, a solder has to crawl under half-lifted engine and disconnect all the connections, because it is often impossible to do it all via the portholes. People designing it, didn’t think about reparability of the vehicle at all.
In case You missed
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/53279066/#q53305169
I'm still salty to this day how jannies pruned his threads, absolute horseshit
>semi translated
I can assure you, that it's translated almost word for word, because I did it
>They're dead reliable until something goes wrong and then you need to send the whole shebang back
As someone who watched flight crew using a brass hammer to beat bent out bent blades to a UH-1Y 3 hours before take off.. I don't buy it.
how exactly are rotor blades the same as a turbine's insides
Quite sure he was talking about turbine blades, UH-1s use turbine engines.
that's fair, but he's a marin, so their maintenance is fricked regardless of any other factors
Their maintenance is actually perfectly fine. No idea where you're getting this opinion from, but it sure isn't factual.
This.
It's no doubt that the US adopted the turbine engine for the Abrams due to the great reliability and how acceptable it was to fix them up in helicopters.
The only issue was fuel consumption, but it uses every type of fuel without an issue so the cost is negligible.
Australians were actually offered a diesel engine variant of the Abrams but they did a cost study and the normal gas turbine engine wasn't significantly more expensive.
Yeah, the whole meme about fuel consumption is kinda overblown, especially since the Abrams can just chug any type of fuel.
I think the big point of contention was that it still consumed a lot of fuel even while stationary. Leopards only consume like 1/10th of their power while idling than when they're traveling at road speeds. New model Abrams have auxiliary power units to power everything while it's not moving so that's now a moot point however. I'd suspect the next gen Abrams we're going to see later this year might have a higher capacity APU or even maybe some weird sort of "automatic stop start" system like some modern cars have, where the main engine shuts off whenever the vehicle is stationary and everything is just powered by the APU or a supercapacitor.
I can't wait. That shit is gonna be hot.
Had the Ukraine war not happened, I think it would be on the back burner with DoD focusing on the MPF platform, but now I think we're going to see a lot of Abrams given to allies and these new Abrams models rapidly procured and put into active service to replace those units lost to foreign military sales. I think Australia will actually try to purchase some. Wouldn't surprise me if some of our Euro allies end up with some either. Sweden and Finland possibly, as Germany has recently proven an unreliable partner so their KF51 might not be the safest bet. One of the big rumors is that the new Abrams can be had with either the 120mm or 140mm gun. I actually think this is a strong possibility as the French are also pushing really hard for 140mm to become the new NATO standard.
didn't france shit on germany's idea of a 140mm gun infavor of a homemade 130 ?
Nope, the French are still pushing for the 140mm gun big time. It's been a point of contention with the Germans on the MGCS project but it seems like they've agreed to the 140mm for that at least. Rheinmetall is pushing the 130mm gun on the KF51, but KNDS is now saying the EMBT might get the 140mm gun even before the MGCS is ready. The French proposal is really cool in that their 140mm ammo would be able to be configured in telescoped variations for the proprietary French gun but could also be manufactured in a conventional configuration. Sweden, Switzerland, the US and even Germany itself had previously been toying with 140mm becoming a new NATO munition before the USSR fell.
I'd suspect the next gen Abrams we're going to see later this year might have a higher capacity APU or even maybe some weird sort of "automatic stop start" system like some modern cars have
This would be pretty much impossible for a turboshaft engine, for the reason that turboshafts actually take quite a while to spool up, to 50K RPM, as opposed to cumbustion engines which take seconds. And even if you could, you would lose out on the turbine's greatest advantage; that being theinsane acceleration it's straight-line torque curve provides
You could do something like the Hyper-bar engine in the Leclerc. Basically an inline small turbine APU that functions as a turbo charger for the larger engine. Except in this application it would be a smaller inline turbine APU that could be used as a rapid starter for the larger APU. That stop start functionality could obviously turned off in combat scenarios.
I'm sure they'll introduce a more effecient turbine as well. Don't get me wrong, the AGT-1500 is still an incredible engine, but the fact is it only has a compression ratio of 13.3:1. Meanwhile, there are now helicopter turboshafts with compression ratios of 25:1 and better fuel efficiency than the AGT-1500 are out there on the market. I can understand the military's reluctance to replace the engine given it's amazing capabilities, but there are far more capable options available in this day and age. I think eventually, when turboshafts start hitting 30 or 40:1 compression ratios, it would make more sense to give the Abrams two or three smaller ~700HP turbines, both for combat survivability and fuel efficiency. For non-combat maneuvers the driver could just turn one off or on as required.
what do tanks even need five speed trasmissions for
Vidrel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZfVP19mDm4&ab_channel=BelLavoroAutoSpa
Also, meant to greentext kek
Here's one from the inside
https://youtube.com/shorts/AdEo6lccgpU?feature=share
>As someone who watched flight crew using a brass hammer to beat bent out bent blades to a UH-1Y 3 hours before take off..
and it managed to take off and operate just fine? Thats a strong point in its favor, dude.
>dude just whack the blades vaguely into shape and it'll work
thats what reliability is
That does depend on the turbine a bit
I'm not sure what it was used for, but I remember one of my professors recently getting very excited about some new additive manufacturing technique introducing the possibility that certain high end turbine blades could now be repaired where before the complex materials had made this impossible
Given the way he was talking about these particular turbine blades whacking one with a hammer of any kind seems like it would be a really bad (and incredibly expensive) idea
>turbine good or bad
can't use experience with western turbines as a basis because russia never learned to make reliable turbine engines.
for example compare the engine maintenance intervals on a F-16 and Mig-29, russian turbines can only sustain 1/3 of the working hours of a western one. hence the talk about maintenance.
but obviously still better than the boosted diesel from a t-34
>1/3
The AL-31 found in the Su-27 has a life rated in 1000-3000 hours, meaning the engine is economically toast.
A fricking J79 from a F-4 Phantom had engine life in the >10,000-15,000 range easily. The F100 and F110 are past 25,000-40,000 hours.
>In 1970, the year after these efforts began, the Air Force awarded the F-15 power plant contract to Pratt & Whitney for the company’s F100-PW-100 engine. The first operation at Arnold involving the Pratt & Whitney F100 occurred Dec. 18, 1969, in the T-4 engine test cell. From that point, AEDC logged more than 23,000 hours testing the F100 engine, which equates to more than two-and-a-half years.
Soviet Superscience BTFO, Americhad Aviation Hours.
Wait,so it's even worse than this?My god,i can't stop laughing.
Even then, it's presuming that you can even get the Russians to give you replacement parts when needed.
Russia could not make the agreed upon payments to Mexico in either US dollars or Mexican pesos an agreement was brokered where Russia would settle the debt with a direct trade of vehicles and food products. Mexico was repaid with several dozen military helicopters, amphibious vehicles and multiple cargo vessels loaded with vodka and seafood. Much of the seafood spoiled in transit and the Mexican government refused to accept it. Russia agreed to pay the remainder of the balance with two Mi26 heavy lift helicopters. Russia agreed it would take back the spoiled seafood and dispose of it properly. Instead the food was dumped by Russian sailors off the coast of Cozumel where it caused short term damage to the local eco system. The odor of the several hundred tonnes of rotten fish could be detected on shore 5 kilometers away. Presently the Mexican fleet of Russian helicopters sits unused as Russia has failed to provide vital parts required for maintenance. Russia has claimed that the contracts with Mexico are not valid. Mexico has replaced many with Blackhawk and EC-725 transport helicopters.
>Even then, it's presuming that you can even get the Russians to give you replacement parts when needed.
They couldn't, that was the other big problem with the Hungarian Fulcrums. Most of those Migs in pic
are the ones that had to be shut down and gutted as parts donors. I think it was only three years in, in 1996 when the Air Force had to gut their first Fulcrum.
Also:
>Russia would settle the debt with a direct trade of vehicles
>Mexico was repaid with several dozen military helicopters,
>Presently the Mexican fleet of Russian helicopters sits unused as Russia has failed to provide vital parts required for maintenance.
Exact fricking same story with the Hungarian Fulcrums. Russia had a shitton of state debt, no hard currency, but lots of Soviet military hardware that were not needed anymore. The Mig-29's Hungary got for "free" (i.e. as payment for sate debt) were originally for the Soviet VVS, and were manufactured between about 1989-1990. See pic, they repainted the original red star, as these were originally domestic contract, but the original paintjob has already faded a bit from sitting under the sun on the plant grounds for three years.
After they were delivered, the Russians gave frickall support. Capability-wise sure, they were a huge step up from the Mig-23, but by 1995, the air force was already sending pilots to back-seat in Hornets, Mirage-2000's and F-16's to see what should we buy next.
South-Korea also got some T-80U's, and BMP-3's in the same kind of state-debt deal, in retrospect they were the least shafted.
Why did Mexico get involved with Russia on this deal to begin with?
Russia ran out of money during the collapse of the USSR from the late 80s to very early 90s and needed to jump start their oil industry to get their economy running again. Mexico was one of the only countries during the era that was very friendly with the USSR but was also western and had access to higher end US and German designed oil equipment as much of it was manufactured in Mexico for use by Mexicos state owned oil company Pemex. Mexican government offered to be an intermediary and transfer newer higher tech non Soviet oil drilling equipment to the then collapsing USSR. No one else wanted to touch it. The USSR had some Aztec/Maya gold and other artifacts given to it by Republican Spain during the Spanish civil war to pay for Soviet arms. USSR/Russia gave this as a down payment for the oil equipment from Mexico and then agreed that the newly independent Russia would pay Mexico back in US and Mexican currency. Russia pissed away the oil revenue to corruption and then tried to pay in worthless Russian currency. Mexico refused so this happened instead.
>The USSR had some Aztec/Maya gold and other artifacts given to it by Republican Spain during the Spanish civil war to pay for Soviet arms
hilarious if true
>Remember a J79 from a F-4 would dunk on the Al-31's engine life with time between overhauls alone.
>This is your engineers and scientists minds on communism which also murdered most of the intelligent ones.
It's even funnier when the Crapp & Shittney F-100 was still considered to have unsatisfactory reliability, maintenance need, service life, and ultimately cost, so the GE F-110 was developed as an alternative, and fitted to many F-15's and F-16's.
Also on the subject of Russian engine costs, for the Hungarian Air Force it turned out, that even though the Fulcrums were horribly, criminally neglected (literally criminally, someone should have went to prison for that) their operating costs were still way higher than the SAAB Gripens.
b-b-but they can (must) fly migs in desperately underthrottled manner to increase engine lifespan
by a whopping 20%
unironically tho, all this shit also applies to soviet/russian attempts at tank turbines
Vatniks can't build hot sections.
Turbines drink fuel while idling. Diesels barely sip.
That's best post-soviet tank that exists, probably better than T-90M
>better than T-90M
doubt
Read the thread bucko.
T-80s are good tanks and could Russia and Ukraine afford it, they would both be using them in large numbers (Ukraine has its own modernization called the T-84).
The 4th Guards Armored, the most prestigious armored division in the Russian military, exclusively uses T-80Us. Unfortunately for them, they were chewed up and spat out near Sumy in the early days of the war, and were hurt again north of Kharkiv. Picrel is a former 4th Guards COMMAND tank (T-80UK) that was abandoned and is now in service with the Ukrainian military.
>(Ukraine has its own modernization called the T-84)
The only issue is that most of them are in Thailand.
just the fact it has decent reverse speed already made it light years ahead of nearly every other tanks we've seen so far in this conflict.
seriously the transmission on most russian tanks is absolutely depressing
>12 km/h reverse speed on T-90A
thank you Vlad, very cool
>12 km/h reverse speed on T-90A
incorrect, its still 4km/h
holy frick what
You are aware that the T-90 is just a T-72BM with a welded turret and shtora APS?
T-90 started its life as a deep modernization of T-72, not a new tank entirely. The transmission is the same size and model (just upgraded for better service and reliability)
I'm fully aware of that, I'm baffled by the fact that they haven't fixed the engine
like all things in life, the problem isn't the engine, it's the trannies, one reverse gear
They did fix the engine, T-90A has a 1000hp V-92S2.
But that's not what dictates the reverse speed, its the transmission size and gearing.
The reason the reverse speed is so bad on those tanks is because when they were designed, they wanted as small a profile they could get, this meant mounting the engine transversely (sideways) and making the transmission as small as possible, sacrificing reverse gears.
It's why the rear of Western tanks are so fricking huge, the engine is obviously mounted normally, but the transmission is gigantic. The soviet doctrine didn't want this. The Chinese fixed this on the ZTZ99A which is why the rear of that thing is so fat.
Either way the original soviet doctrine never required more than 1 reverse speed, so it was built that way.
very informative, much appreciated.
>the original soviet doctrine never required more than 1 reverse speed, so it was built that way
дa
Tank only go forward. Political commissar ensure you get bullet for retreating.
>The Chinese fixed this on the ZTZ99A which is why the rear of that thing is so fat.
As much as I like to shit on poorly built Chinese stuff, the newer Type 99 variants are genuinely interesting. It's like they took the best aspects from NATO and Soviet armor and then added some of their own ideas into it. China will export virtually anything they produce but the fact that they won't sell these (or the J20) abroad is what makes me think they're probably of at least decent quality. I at this point think that Chinese tanks are better than Russian designs. I think the Russians have probably already sold China the actual innovative tech from the Armata at this point as they've likely already figured out that it isn't going to get mass produced. I think their reversed heavier BMP3 is neat too.
China did get some T-80U's in the early 90's, by now obviously to reverse-engineer them.
Also they had to have obtained some T-72's, or at least obtained manufacturing plans from one of the few T.72 manufacturers in the world. The ZTZ-99's whole running gear, hull design, gun and autoloader are completely off the T-72.
The hull on the newer Type 99 variants has been modified a lot to fit new mechanicals in. It's fairly different now. It has a fat fricking ass.
Still has carousel space program autoloaders though, which unironically makes their new ZTQ-15 light tank the safest tank in their arsenal
>they haven't fixed the engine
how can they fix the engine, when the factory is in Ukraine?
1942
>Tiger tank has 4 reverse gears and a steering wheel
2016
>T-72B3 obr.2016 has one (1) reverse gear and steers by tillers
The absolute state of Russia.
Reverse gears? For what? Retreat? Is this *insert French joke here*.
See, tovarich, tanks are for attack, fro going forward, why do you want ever go back driving tank?
If the tank is allowed to go backwards, the turret might land on your own troops.
a shitty tank used by top tier tankers is still a shitty tank
What factory was the T-80 designed at again?
The T-64 was designed and manufactured entirely in Kharkiv Under Morozov, that's true. The T-80 however, was designed by the Kilmov design bureau in Leningrad under Dimitry Ustinov. The T-80 gets mistaken for a Ukrainian design for two main reasons; First, because the original T-80 used the same turret as the Ukie T-64A, and second because T-80 production was assigned to Kharkiv in addition to the Leningrad factory, with Kharkiv also being responsible for the T-80UD side-grade. The first point is irrelevant because the T-80B had it's own new turret, and after the T-80B the two designs would never converge again, and the second is relevant only because Tagil paid bigger bribes to regulators than UVZ, so vatBlack folk killed Russia's ability to indigenously produce/upgrade more than a handful of T-80s at a time. So while Ukraine arguably has made great use of it's domestic T-80 production facilities, it is by no means a Ukrainian tank by design.
Tagil is UVZ you fricking moron. Uralvagonzavod is located in Nizhny Tagil. Omsk that produced turbine T-80s wasn't able to sell shit since 1991, just like Kharkov.
Yeah, sorry about that kek, I meant to type OTM (Omsktransmash). Kharkiv has been much more successful in foreign markets than OTM to my knowledge. Most most notably they sold about 300 upgraded T-80UDs to Pakistan and more recently, 50 T-84 Oplot-Ms to Thailand, along with T-64Bs being sold to various African states. I’m not aware of OTM selling it’s products abroad to that extent.
Omsk had this thing which almost became the mainline tank for Russia. Would have solved most issues with Russian tanks
>Improved gas turbine engine with better transmission
>Hull integrated reactive armor and turret integrated active protection system
>Bustle mounted autoloader with ammo stored in armored bulkhead away from crew
>Imported French FCS and optics
It was cancelled because the T80 did poorly in Chechnya because Russian military leaders were incompetent buffoons and blamed gas turbine engines for their own shit tactics.
Bustle mount is moronic. You can't turn your turret around without making it open to enemy fire.
>Bustle mount is moronic. You can't turn your turret around without making it open to enemy fire.
This is perhaps the most moronic comment i've read on PrepHole in months. Probably from a vatnik.
Nice video game footage, the peak of mutt military expertise. Post some M1s from Iraq and Yemen for the veracity of arrying HE in bustles.
Not him, but you're a fricking moronic vatBlack person clown.
A blow out panel fire because you caught a ATGM to the bustle is far less of a problem than participating in the turret toss Olympics.
>peak of US mil is going to the moon
yeah
Because It's better to send your entire crew to space alongside the turret once you get penetrated right?
The Obj. 640 was too good for this world. I honestly think that Russia not adopting it had more to do with political pressure from UVZ than any design concerns about the Eagle. Nobody wanted it to utterly BTFO the T-90A and have the government question the need for the T-14 scam.
Kharkiv sold them in 1996, and every T-80UD sold tp Pakistan was upgraded/manufactured by the Kharkiv factory. Did they use parts that originated elewhere in the Soviet union? Yes, but so did every other factory in the former USSR, including UVZ and OTM, which all of them still do to this day. As for Thiland, Ukraine did finish the order. Unacceptably late, yes. But they did finish it. The reason they didn't finish sooner was because the Russian and Ukrainian MICs actually had a fairly good working relationship before 2014, and a large percentage of Ukraine's AFV parts were imported from Russia. Ukraine was content to keep it that way, until Putin went apeshit and annexed crimea and sparked a Donbass civil war. Because of this, Ukraine has had to take extraordinary measures to keep it's defense industry afloat, but so far they've done a commedable job of restoring and maintaining it in spite of having to start multiple, entirely new supply chains domestically.
Kharkov's T-80UDs for pakistan were the tanks paid for by the USSR that were left on the production line in 1991 in various stages of completion. When they actually tried to make new tanks from scratch for Thailand, they couldn't. The contract was years behind schedule because the factory was operating like a manufacture. Most talent moved over to Russia, UVZ actively bought off the engineers because they were the only ones actually selling tanks in the 90s and 00. People went unpaid for months in Malyshev, while the management looted the factory.
Ukraine's problems with industry were much deeper though. By 2010s they couldn't even make real armored steel, as evidenced in their various armored car projects and the cracking in the BTR-4s for Iraq. Stop the cope, because that factory couldn't make shit ever again even if it wasn't bombed apart in March.
OTM was bought by UVZ, and is currently upgrading T-80s and making engineering vehicles on T-90 chassis.
>and is currently upgrading T-80s and making engineering vehicles on T-90 chassis
none is making shit in Russia right now because turns out just like Ukraine couldn't replace their Russian parts in tank neither can Russia replace Western parts in their tanks. After that one batch of BTR-4 with cracked steel it was fixed
No it wasn't. The rejected BTRs for Iraq were accepted into service in hohol armed forces, as they were. They still can't make artillery shells because they completely lost their metallurgical know-how, see SPH Bogdana failure and ammunition for it that almost killed the crew. Or similar, 120mm "molot" mortars with exploding barrels.
On the other hand, no part of russian tanks today is western. They make their own infrared matrices since 2010s.
And you're a nigspawn ame****n
>And you're a nigspawn ame****n
Actually am not. My country is replacing T-72's with Leo-2's, so I'm by genetics alone an expert in both.
You're just a moron 14 year old, bustle autoloader with blowout-panels is far superior than the Vatnig Turret Escape System™.
Storing HE in bustles is extremely moronic. Every HE round that's detonated within a tank will equal a total loss. Blowout panels can at best contain a deflagration of a charge, not a warhead. You could see it happen in Turkish Leo2A4s in Al-Bab in Syria (their ammo rack is next to the driver). The only reason M1 was spared the flying turret, is the mutts never had a real HE round (cringe), until recently with the multipurpose shit they introduced. Now, no blowout panel would protect them from a 30 degree+ shot, if the bustle carries actual high explosive, the tank is fricked when it detonates. On the other hand T-72 has it's HE rounds in the lowest possible point in the tank, making it the least likely to detonate after a penetration compared to all currently serving tanks. T-80 is worse because it's round are stored vertically.
Every ukrainian story pushed so far in the media was a moron-flypaper coordinated by the british intel. Good luck believing next ghost of kiev bucha gostomel.
>On the other hand T-72 has it's HE rounds in the lowest possible point in the tank, making it the least likely to detonate after a penetration compared to all currently serving tanks
It's not the 1970's anymore, vatBlack person moron, when you could have counted on the cast aluminum roadwheels to act as spaced armor. Reality is proof for that. Also:
>modern propellant is inherently stable and safely deflagrates
>but not modern explosive filler
God, you're a moron high on copium.
Stop giving it attention, the vatnik clearly has no idea what IM is. With any luck he'll be moobilized soon enough.
>Every ukrainian story pushed so far in the media was a moron-flypaper coordinated by the british intel. Good luck believing next ghost of kiev bucha gostomel.
>They make their own infrared matrices since 2010s
Ukrainians still haven't found any Russian infrared tech, everything bought from French, same as Orlans
Based informative anon, thank you.
T-64 and T-80 are unironically Ukrainian designs.
isnt the T-80 derived from the T-64? maybe they like it for the familiarity
they said it's a huge improvement over the T72. However, it is very difficult to maintain. it has a turbine engine for example
>durrr
despite how much the crew like em, i think T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 are ultimately dead end designs due to the autoloader
russia might not have many top attack options, but thats where the development is going
thats the russian strategy as oppose to western tank design.
Auto loader, smalle tank for more mobility, one shot from a AT crew is dead.
vs western.
No autoloader due to saving space and not wanting to be a deathtrap , bigger tank due to more armour meaning less mobility than the russians.
Pretty much fits each armies motto, russians throws bodies at you whilst the west want more safety in the way they operate. for my taste i dont like the hyper focus on heavy battle tanks if they are gonna go down by one AT shot anyway, better to have actual battle advantage first, ie mobility and faster reload.
If a tank goes down in one shot no matter how much armor you put on it, what's the point of even having tanks at all?
Where have the 84's been? They look cool.
Ukraine had like 6 of them before the war
They produced more for export into Thailand than for their own military
This made sense back when the deal was made, and Ukraine was at peace and needed the cash more. IIRC Thailand also scrapped the deal, and bought heckin Chinese instead.
>somebody said something I agree with? I better show my gratitude by acting as obnoxious as possible
Well the Ukrainian stabilizers literally didn't work on the tanks they sent to the NATO competition, so no wonder they'd praise this.
So this is the T-80 thread, so I'm gonna ask, anyone have that picture Girkin posted months ago of Russia putting absolute trash-tier T-80BV's on rail?
T80s are better than the T72 by quite a bit and the T90 is just a modernized T72. The T80 was ironically designed in Ukraine during the Soviet era, but was last produced in Russia. Ukraine further developed the T84 from the T80 after the USSR broke apart. There are some pretty advanced variants of the T84 utilizing NATO components which seem pretty fricking high spec on paper but Ukraine has never been able to afford to mass produce them.
T-90 was originally just a T-72B with a T-80U FCS dropped in.
The Soviet-era T-80U's FCS and ballistic computer already has all the gizmos the M1A1 had, maybe a bit more even. Minus the thermals of course. Shit like:
>auto-lead
>crosswind and temperature
>tilt
>delta-d (how much you've driven forward or sideways toward the target since your last lase)
>two-way sight stabilization, so sight reticle doesn't move from the target when superelevation and lead is applied
>hunter-killer capability (i.e. commander's sight duplicated all functions of the gunner's, pic related, commander's handgrip)
That's true, but the T-80U had a production under 500, with the bulk of those coming after the USSR collapsed.
We actually have a little hint of what's going to be in the Abrams NextGen:
https://timryan.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-ryan-secures-65-million-abrams-tank-modernization
So, unmanned turret +autoloader, integrated APS, and Hybrid-electric drive, which would get rid of the Abrams' fuel efficiency problems.
Yeah, the bulk of Soviet tank FCS was the ones put into the T-72, with its most advanced vesrion having wacky technological-stopgap solutions like having one eyepiece giving you the sight picture, while the other only gives you a numerical display of how much lead you need to manually apply to the target.
>ballistic computer
an analog one? or a electronic one imported from the west? The SU imported western electronics as well.
A proper digital one. This is the mid to late 80's were talking about. By this time the USSR was far into production of both military/aerospace and commercial integrated circuits. They were making PDP clones, IBM AT/XT clones, Sinclair clones, etc by now, with domestic components.
Pic is a Soviet 5MHz clone of the Intel 8086.
Hey? Why is an obese man in his 60s driving a tank? Can he even fit in one of those things?
Anyone knows when SEP v4 is going to general release?
General Dynamics says it's getting a public unveiling on October 10th.
What we know so far is
>Totally reworked electronics
>Roof mounted 35mm/50mm autocannon
>Hybridization option
>Two men in the front compartment instead of just the single driver
>Integrated active protection system
>Integrated drones
>Turret has been made smaller and sleeker
>Autoloader
Supposedly the turret itself is unmanned, but this likely just means that the turret crew now just sit in a basket totally below the turret line under an armored bulkhead like in the Ruag Falcon turret developed for Jordanian Challenger 1.
That's not the SEPV4 dumbass
Updated T-80s are the best tanks Russia has ever fielded, the problem is that they were made in Ukraine, so Russia’s new production tanks are based on the T-72, which was made in Russia.
Any tank is better than no tank. Ukraine, DPR/LPR and even Wagner are actively using Rapira (rapier) - it's an ancient towed 100mm direct fire gun.
abandooner strikes again
goddamn there are too many types of soviet tanks with too many fricking models. By the time I have studied enough to learn them all they will be extinct. Its like trying to learn a foreign language or something
They aren't hard to identify. Look for the things that set them apart.
Roadwheels
Exhaust location
Drivers port
ERA placement
Gunners sight
Cupola
Sure their tanks might be decent however why they don't do like other western tanks and have the ammo compartment behind the crew, rather than below I don't quite understand. Why is it so?
1. Doctrine from the USSR
2. Lower silhouette
3. Less manpower = 1 extra crewmen to operate another tank
4. Autoloader reloads at constant rate and doesn't get tired
So, basically they try to avoid it getting blown up in the first place? I suppose that works well enough with infantry and recon support. But it seems like a lot of times tanks has been sent in with no advanced infantry support, so they're sitting ducks when they get shot at. A tank is a death trap alone in hostile territory.
But then again when you can send in so many it probably doesn't matter so much.
I mean blow out panels are a great feature, and I think most modern MBTs should have them, but if you are gonna get hit in the first place, then the blow out panels are not really essential.
No doubt they save crews but the survivability onion exists for a reason.
Well, not really effective following that onion those Ruskies aye
Yeah not really, they are probably the worst example of it actually.
>So, basically they try to avoid it getting blown up in the first place?
That was the idea, back in the day when the biggest threat were shaped-charge warheads and ATGM's.
HEAT rounds coming directly from the front would be stopped by the newest composite armor (shaped-charges go through homogeneous steel armor like it's nothing, but get easily dissipated by a thick enough composite array). Shots coming from the front at say a 30° angle would be stopped at the lower hull by the thick cast-aluminum road wheels acting like spaced armor, and at the upper hull get detonated prematurely by impacting the fold-out "gills".
Nowadays the main threat is going to be lightspeed heavy metal darts shot from tank guns, top-attack ATGM's, and tandem HEAT rounds, so this doesn't really work anymore. Still, at least the slavs tried, unlike Europeans with the Leopard 1, and AMX-30, where they just gave up on armor protection altogether, thinking shaped charges can never be countered.
>russians use t 80s
LOL SOVIET JUNK GARBAGE WE'RE 200 YEARS AHEAD
>ukranians use t 80
YOU KNOW ITS NOT A BAD TANK AT ALL CLOSEST SOVIETS HAD TO ABRAMS
fricking lmao
That is not even close to what people in this thread said. the T-80 is a good tank for its time and it would serve Ukraine well if they had more (as well as Russia but they can't make any). No one is saying that the tank is shit because russians are using it, the issue is that any tank is shit when russians use it.
The difference is Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe and Russia is SUPPOSED to be the second of two super powers in the world.
>Russia is SUPPOSED to be the second of two super powers in the world
Russia was hyped by Russia itself and boomers in US general staff to get more shekels for their projects. Its been a non-threat in terms of military outside of nuclear armament since the twilight hours of the USSR.
>t. tourist
Anyone who clowned on the T-80 at any part of this war is either and idiot or also a tourist. What is worth mocking is the utter shit-shape garbo 70s vintage T-72As that the Russians have been fielding since day 1. This is like of the US rolled into Syria right now with M60A2s.
I mean you are somewhat right, because I've seen those type of people, but no one in this thread has that mentality. If you actually read the posts you'd have probably learnt something, we actually had some good informative conversation, which is pretty rare for 2022
Ukraine operates older turret tossers, and compared to those, BVM is good. In contrast, if you'd compare even old western MBT's like M1, Leo 2A4 or even truly horrendous ones like Ariete, BVM would get shit on all day long.
>Russia uses t80
>lololol what shit tank
>ukraines uses t80
>wow what a nice piece of equipment
one nation is supposed to be a first-world power with the 3rd strongest military on the planet, the other is Ukraine.
This is one of the laziest pastas chug frogposters are using these days.
(s)laughter stops when russians learn how to use their fricking tanks in offensive role combined arms warfare.
>WHOLE VIDEO IS THEM COOMING OVER TURBINE ENGINES
Abrams vindicated, Leo relegated to the motorpool.
Blessed armor bread
Very easy to use, very easy to abandoon!
Russian good will donation