>T-80 appears

> - Oh, look, comrade, we have engineered our best and most advanced tank! Finally, now we can stop producing two parallel MBT models and focus only on this machine (maybe, in two versions - diesel and gas turbine)! It will be a breakthrough!
> - Um, actually, comrade, continue to produce and upgrade all three (3) models. Дa. And keep working on the diesel version of the T-80 as well.
> - B-but, comrade! We will have as many as 3, and in fact 4 different models of MBT at once! It's going to be logistical hell!
> - Дaa... Keep working, tovarisch. Oh, and yes, remove the RCWS from the T-80. Let everything be as in the good ol days, like in the WWII.

Why are Soviets like this?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Forgot to mention the carrousel autoloader instead of a fucking turret bustle with blowout panels
    Unforgiveable, these retards must have already knew back then but they were too lazy to change it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Unforgiveable, these retards must have already knew back then but they were too lazy to change it.
      Turret bustle probably wouldn't save most of the exploding russian tanks that you see. When you see them launching turrets it's generally because they're carrying HE-frag rounds. In Ukraine russian tanks are routinely sent out with 10 to 20 3of26 HE frag rounds, each contains explosives comparable to about 5kg of TNT. The M1 style turret bustle with blowout panels protects against propellent burning, 100kg of high explosive exploding would likely just obliterate the entire turret.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >When you see them launching turrets it's generally because they're carrying HE-frag rounds.

        You're wrong, it's because of the propellant. Despite what people think, Russia did eventually figure out how to make explosives that burn instead of detonating when they encounter high temperatures.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Russia did eventually figure out how to make explosives that burn instead of detonating when they encounter high temperatures
          But did they figure that you can put these explosives into tank shells?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's the propellant that is the issue, not the shells, because it's the caseless type where every thing is meant to burn away, in order to simplify gun operation.

        To be fair to them it was an issue that the west had to deal with also in the form of premature detonation, because no one thought it prudent to have a fume extractor, or autoloaders made for metal cased propellant chewed them up.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Turret bustle probably wouldn't save most of the exploding russian tanks that you see. When you see them launching turrets it's generally because they're carrying HE-frag rounds.
        found the dumbass. Blowout panels saves tanks and lives, thing is, it doesn't preserve immediate combat capability. The tank still needs to be repaired afterwards, its just capable of retreating on its own.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know its something that is always hyped up to be some major design flaw with Russian tanks but wouldn't most hits that send the turret flying likely have killed the crew anyways, regardless of ammunition stowage scheme?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty much. If you have a sabot or heat shell end up where the ammo can be hit you probably wouldn't have a turret crew anymore. Only thing you'd save is more salvageable parts and possibly a repairable tank in the long run.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If you have a sabot or heat shell end up where the ammo can be hit you probably wouldn't have a turret crew anymore.
          at least according to US tests, blow-out panels only fail if its penetrated from the front or back, the former of which requires the projectile still be intact after penetrating such a thick mass of armor and the latter being a rare occurence even in urban fighting

          in all other cases, such as perfect flanking attacks and off-axis attacks, blowout panels will work at least 50% of the time
          the explosion always takes the path of least resistance, and if the ammo doors are not compromised that will be up and away from the crew

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >at least according to US tests, blow-out panels only fail if its penetrated from the front or back, the former of which requires the projectile still be intact after penetrating such a thick mass of armor and the latter being a rare occurence even in urban fighting
            There's a pretty wide arc behind the turret that will allow a shot through the weaker bustle armor, through the bustle magazine, and through the door

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >There's a pretty wide arc behind the turret that will allow a shot through the weaker bustle armor
              only angles where <50% effectiveness is achieved is past the 3 and 9 o clock positions and nearly behind the tank

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >past the 3 and 9 o clock positions
                Yes, that was what I said

                >and nearly behind the tank
                No, not just those. The shallow angles are bad too, look at the percentages on numbers 1 and 6. Almost 1 in 2 chance of cat-kill even if the doors are closed at the time of the hit.

                Don't get me wrong, I'm pointing out a hypothetical, not claiming it's a relevant factor. The combat history of the Abrams seems to support this choice, as there are no cases of this scenario happening AFAIK. Export too many to Arab countries and that may change.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                this feller's brought graphics
                quick T-72/64/80/etc. enthusiasts show what happens when you shove a sabot up the ass of one of those!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and no.

        I wouldn't want to be in a tank that gets penetrated but
        >tank gets hit
        >two of three turret crew get pasted by the penetrator
        and
        >tank gets hit
        >everyone is cremated by exploding ammo

        aren't the same. In the former for every two tanks that get destroyed you get one back (assuming you have the equipment for it) because the survivors can be merged into a new crew.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Either way, its still a talking point that is often repeated without any thought. Bugs me because it has many of the signs of being akin to fuddlore, but, because the Russians are everyone's favorite punching bag, any attempts to add context are handwaved as shilling or such.

          Tanks are just a number of compromises. Certain limitations are accepted in exchange for other capabilities. Wish people would actually take the time to have a good will understanding of why things are the way they are rather than starting at the conclusion of "x vehicle is shit" then listing off a bunch of bullet points on why they are right.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the big issue and my counter point is like

            Yes and no.

            I wouldn't want to be in a tank that gets penetrated but
            >tank gets hit
            >two of three turret crew get pasted by the penetrator
            and
            >tank gets hit
            >everyone is cremated by exploding ammo

            aren't the same. In the former for every two tanks that get destroyed you get one back (assuming you have the equipment for it) because the survivors can be merged into a new crew.

            says, I'd rather not have the tank have a near certainty to explode. The "faster fire rate" and smaller size seem like very lag luster trade-offs for the russian autoloader, especially when a bustle autoloader would allow for those benefits still.

            Case and point , the T-84-120

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I mean, size (and weight) are major factors for actually getting your tanks anywhere meaningful - river crossings without bridge infrastructure, ability to move via rail, etc. This of course loops back to the Soviet Union spending too much on weapons and not enough on economic fundamentals, but that's a bigger picture thing that goes beyond the immediate concerns of tank engineering

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/AwBM5Td.jpg

                smaller size has some advantages, besides somewhat better strategic mobility as anon above said,

                Again

                T-84-120
                It is basically an upgraded T-80 with bustle, and it is only 48 tons

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              smaller size has some advantages, besides somewhat better strategic mobility as anon above said,

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                shit, my posts got mixed up.

                as anon above said, light and small tank is easier to move through countries with horrid infrastructure, which is why soviets were really wary of the idea of adding weight to the tank. Other advantage is that a smaller tank is also a cheaper tank, which the soviets definitely liked as well.

                https://i.imgur.com/l2V28L0.jpg

                [...]
                Again

                T-84-120
                It is basically an upgraded T-80 with bustle, and it is only 48 tons

                Shit armor, cope boxes are not a viable armor solution for anything expected to face any remotely modern in battle. Virtually all modern antitiank weapons, including tank gun ammunition are designed to either completely bypass ERA or severely limit its effectiveness. Even regular tandem shaped charges present a huge threat to anything but the most advanced and modern ERA, and they are 80s tech.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so ERA is a dead end?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ERA is still used today
                russians have ERA all over their tanks, while the M1A2 has optional ERA that goes over its sides

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In terms of primary tank protection? Yeah. Things like segmented APFSDS that only lose the tip to ERA or EFP precursor tandem charges that don't initiate the explosive at all and just hydraulically break the ERA box rather than burn through it negate the most modern and future ERA prospects and are 90s tech. It's got other uses like lightweight and easy add-on protection against older threats. For example, M1 Abrams uses ERA as part of the TUSK package meant to enhance the sides' armor for operating in urban settings. Although M1 could already resist threats like RPG-7 to the side of the crew compartment, ERA added protection to the ammo bustle and engine as well as improved the protection of the crew area so that it can resist some of the older ATGMs. M2 Bradley also uses ERA for the same purpose - to give the vehicle additional survivability against second and third class threats without greatly impacting the weight. For comparison - and RPG-7 or M72 LAW can easily penetrate the steel armor of the 45 ton M60 tank, but fail to go through 25 ton M2.

                Basically, it's lightweight enough that putting it onto things is usually not a design problem and it can protect from more basic threats but as you go into hotter and newer tech the ERA becomes less and less useful, to the point of being dead weight, if not a lot of it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Shit armor, cope boxes are not a viable armor solution for anything expected to face any remotely modern in battle. Virtually all modern antitiank weapons, including tank gun ammunition are designed to either completely bypass ERA or severely limit its effectiveness. Even regular tandem shaped charges present a huge threat to anything but the most advanced and modern ERA, and they are 80s tech.

                I mean, yes, but the other person is intent on the weight and size advantage of the soviet tank architecture, which I was trying to make the point that you can add a bustle autoloader to those tanks without adding much weight. or size to the tank.

                Basically, while I like soviet tanks a bit, there is a reason why everyone else is bigger or heavier (or both), but it has nothing to do with the autoloader.
                Hell, the Type 90 from japan is another example of a lighter MBT with bustle autoloader.

                so ERA is a dead end?

                Not a dead end per se, but it's add on armor. People still use it, but you can't coat tanks in it like the Russians do and expect a huge improvement in protection because everyone's designed weapons to not be as affected by ERA. Because of this, you need composite arrays, and newer kinds.
                Basically the Russian approach of just fucking chucking ERA all over on the hull on old tanks is a cope to make up for the fact that they haven't actually made any new tank designs with better protection.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think it's a moot point regardless as we have seen footage of crew surviving ammunition detonations (not the turret tossing kind though). There's plenty of videos of flaming jets exploding out of the turret yet the driver jumping out moments later.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those drivers were already dead, just high on adrenaline. There's no way to survive those burns without going into an ER. And in a tank with separate ammo compartments or even a fucking Sherman with wet storage, more crew members would have got a chance to live after a penetration, not to mention being able to put it again into service after a bit of work and cleaning the inside.

            There's no way around it, this war has proven beyond doubt that the soviet tank design trade offs weren't worth it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            well, that's the driver

            meanwhile, let me introduce to you most comfortable and reassuring commander's seat

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Btw, I only now noticed that the stock T-80 has only one triplex, like the T-64 and T-72. The triple triplex turns out to have appeared only with model B.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Triplex? Me dum dum

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          damn kims looking better these days, good for him

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's called a triplex because there's three of them
      Single one is just called a driver's periscope (or vision block if it's a direct optical channel)

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean they produced over 20,000 of the T-64 with god knows how many T-54/55 and T62's that they built way to much of... why would they need the T-72 and T-80 at that point. Shouldn't they have started focusing on infrastructure and growing the economy so they don't I don't know, collapse in 30 years...
    Was 20,000 tanks and the threat of nukes not enough?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Shouldn't they have started focusing on infrastructure and growing the economy so they don't I don't know, collapse in 30 years...
      The Cold War Soviet economy was just 40 years of paying someone to dig a hole and then fill it in again.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Soviets genuinely believe that the West would invade them if they ever fell behind in the arms race, and acted according to the belief that the only way to discourage if not prevent that invasion would be to make invading the biggest nightmare possible

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And the Western belief was that Russia was going to use that colossal horde of tanks to barge through all of Europe like a big fucking ogre. If only they knew what they were really up against...

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >like a big fucking ogre.

          I wish the russians were that cool.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If only they knew what they were really up against...
          The Soviets and the Russians are two completely different creatures. You morons completely miss the massive scale difference. They could be just as dumb but still fuck the shit out of NATO just with the sheer number of their forces.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They could be just as dumb but still fuck the shit out of NATO just with the sheer number of their forces.
            nah. at most they had about 3:1 advantage in the number of tanks but only about 1.5:1 advantage in manpower, which raised to 2:1 total if you count forces outside of europe, which is nothing considering over half of these people were conscripts. soviet artillery has the elegance and finesse of a chronic drunkard beating his head against a brick wall, and naval and air forces are pitiful to look at.

            unless soviet tanks managed to bumrush unsuspecting positions and settlements they'd get bodied even without air power, while along with it'd become a miserable slapfest.

            thanks to NATO(and not just US) putting in money in the proper military the superiority was so overwhelming that even the most retarded soviet planners kept their pompous boasting for their media and morale.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They might've but a change in government and utter takeover of crimelords really does a country in at every level.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Soviets genuinely believe that the West would invade them if they ever fell behind in the arms race, and acted according to the belief that the only way to discourage if not prevent that invasion would be to make invading the biggest nightmare possible

        more like because they genuinely lack any other industrial capability and could only make tank for the sake of it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I can't really blame them when you read how gung ho people like MacArthur were and the attitudes of the Cuban Missile Crisis war room. Everyone there was 100% committed to an invasion of Cuba all the way till the end except Kennedy, who started out at 90% and grew less and less comfortable as nukes entered the picture.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    T55 with a few simple mods

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How does the AA machine gun work? I have heard some anecdotes that using it turned out is impossible, and that the remote control mechanism is also garbage. Are there good english language descriptions of it?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, you want to say that directors of other factories, which were producing parallel models, would have to admit superiority of T-80? You know, developing tanks in soviet union was quite profitable, more tanks you design more money you get.
    I guess you just don't understand the basics of plan economy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Though the Kharkov plant admitted the superiority of the T-80 tank and built a diesel version (which was 6x less the cost and 1.4x more fuel efficient) in the T-80UD

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They would have preferred to keep building T-64's however the party decided that it had to go in favor of the T-80 as "the good tank", so they had no choice other than start producing that or come up with their own new design. They originally wanted to call it T-84 but for several reasons including the party desire to produce "another T-80" as well as the embarrassment of a country fielding 4 contemporary MBT designs.

        We're talking about a country where it was illegal to own pickup trucks so "there would be no temptation to do private business". We are talking about a totalitarian state where private property was denied as a fact. If in such a state the government gave an order, you either carried it out or went to the gulag.
        The only reason why the T-72 appeared was the complexity of the T-64 engine and the inability to master it in other factories (the Soviets wanted even MORE than 13k new mbts). And the T-80 is just an experiment on the T-64 with a gas turbine engine. The fact that both tanks got a different chassis, and the T-72 also had a different autoloader is a product of either technical problems, as in the case of the T-80 (the T-64 chassis could not withstand the loads of the new engine), or banal autism and amateur performance, as in the case of the T-72. Any normal manager after the appearance of the T-80 would simply retire the T-64, replacing it with a diesel version of the T-80, and would not allow the appearance of the T-72 at all.

        >The only reason why the T-72 appeared was the complexity of the T-64 engine and the inability to master it in other factories
        The problem was not just production but also the astounding unreliability of the T-64 when it came out. It was so bad and the defense minister got so sick of it and being fed bullshit about the tank being fixed that he threatened to completely pull several thousands of these tanks out of service and scrap the project. T-72 was meant to do better than that. The problem - by the time T-72 arrived T-64 had been for the most part fixed as the plant engineers and management shat their pants at the prospect of their tank being cancelled and put their all into fixing it.
        >And the T-80 is just an experiment on the T-64 with a gas turbine engine
        The one other major difference between these two is the armor scheme. T-80, despite using mostly copy pasted T-64 turret for most of its development went away with T-64's armor scheme and used the ones developed for T-72 instead, likely due to inability to produce the former on their own.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The one other major difference between these two is the armor scheme. T-80, despite using mostly copy pasted T-64 turret for most of its development went away with T-64's armor scheme and used the ones developed for T-72 instead, likely due to inability to produce the former on their own.
          T-80B used BTK-1 steel vs 42SM for the hull of T-64/72, which made it 5-10% better performing for the same thickness
          After 1983, the T-64, T-72 and T-80 diverged in their armour protection (though all 3 achieving roughly the same protection values)
          T-64B (1983) had 50 RHA - 35 GRP -35 HHS - 35 GRP -50 RHA
          T-80B (1983) had 50 RHA - 35 GRP -50 RHA - 35 GRP -50 RHA
          T-72B had 60 RHA - 10 air -10 HHS - 10 air - 10 HHS - 10 Air -20 HHS - 10 air - 20 HHS - 10 air - 50 RHA

          T-72B also introduced the NERA plates in the turret which gave it better protection vs the qvarts filler of T-80B and the ceramic balls in the T-64B.
          Really it seemed to be all a shitshow with each factory trying to 1 up each other, I think the only constant is the T-72s generally had a worse FCS then the T-64/T-80s (1A46 vs 1G42/46 for example)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1A46
            1A40 I mean

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            T-72B, despite carrying the same designation as T-64/80B is a beast of a different caliber in terms of tech, representing a new generation of soviet tanks in terms of armor and ammo, along with the T-80U that was meant to be more advanced counterpart while still carrying the same tech(aka NERA, in the turret, going away with fiberglass in the hull and replacing it with spaced steel, coming with new monobloc APFSDS and carrying ERA).

            T-64B is from 1976, T-80B copypaste is from 2 years afterwards 1978 and their contemporary in terms of protection and firepower is the T-72A. T-64B was still getting T-64A style hull armor with a thinner backplate but it was changed to the new one with a thicker backplate like the other two instead in 1978. So T-64/80B shouldn't really be compared to the T-72B, despite the misleading name. Soviet naming conventions are a huge mess as well. I remember some soviet pilot saying that they referred to their aircraft by NATO nicknames because of the secrecy and the jumbled mess that comes from calling things "object XXX", "project XXX", some weird plant/river names and only after formal adoption by the manufacturer's name, if at all.

            1983 variants were more or less experimental, being produced for a very short time before shutting down(in case of T-64), or the production switching over in case of T-80U and T-72B. You'd be unlikely to see one in any event that would involve soviet tanks and unlikely to notice the difference if you did.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We're talking about a country where it was illegal to own pickup trucks so "there would be no temptation to do private business". We are talking about a totalitarian state where private property was denied as a fact. If in such a state the government gave an order, you either carried it out or went to the gulag.
      The only reason why the T-72 appeared was the complexity of the T-64 engine and the inability to master it in other factories (the Soviets wanted even MORE than 13k new mbts). And the T-80 is just an experiment on the T-64 with a gas turbine engine. The fact that both tanks got a different chassis, and the T-72 also had a different autoloader is a product of either technical problems, as in the case of the T-80 (the T-64 chassis could not withstand the loads of the new engine), or banal autism and amateur performance, as in the case of the T-72. Any normal manager after the appearance of the T-80 would simply retire the T-64, replacing it with a diesel version of the T-80, and would not allow the appearance of the T-72 at all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, yeah, classless society and everything like that, sure, dude.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          30 years' too late cope
          I have some blue jeans if you would like them, time traveling anon

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not what he is saying. It wasn't up to the design bureaus what they were gonna do like it would be for western private corporations, so their "market incentives" don't really apply. The decision was made higher up, orders were issued and the bureaus had to follow them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The thing is, the higher ups were also invested in different design firms and their own personal prestige and influence was tied to their pet agencies getting ahead of rival ones. Soviet computing suffered greatly and fell far behind the West partially because of infighting that resulted in one of their early computers being inferior to a second computer made at the same time, and the second computer (That they eventually ended up adopting anyway since the first one was not fit for purpose) wasn't as good as it could have been because it had to use inferior components after certain parts were monopolized under the umbrella of a firm that was hostile to its existence.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Any normal manager after the appearance of the T-80 would simply retire the T-64, replacing it with a diesel version of the T-80, and would not allow the appearance of the T-72 at all.
        Eh, it was a mix of platitude of factors in the entire orchestral shitshow that was soviet defense industry in the 70s. If they pulled through and decided to flesh out and stick with T-64 instead of having different factories go ahead with their political bickering about how they didn't want to make a Ukrainian tank, they'd have the most strategically and economically optimal solution. T-64 is where all their forefront development was already going up until the 80s, and unlike the defense minister's pet project of having a turbine tank it'd be more reliable and economical, although they were too busy chasing the west in paper stats for that. The turbine serving as an excuse to displace T-64 with their local design was there as well. Honestly the story is so convoluted and messed up that with the whole general soviet secrecy and most of the participants being now dead, it'll likely be forever shrouded in mystery, as even then active defense minister couldn't have told the entire story even if he tried being completely truthful.

        And despite the whole mess resulting in T-80BU/84, which is better than T-64 in suspension and drivetrain reliability, it's not nearly as much better as to justify this whole story. Instead of meticulously developing T-64B, then copying the turret into then obsolete T-80 to create T-80B years later and shelving the T-64 to develop T-80 that they couldn't produce and maintain in desired numbers they could just work more on fixing the T-64's drivetrain more, developing T-80U's turret for the T-64 like it was originally meant to and maybe changing the armor scheme to that of the T-72/80s so that other factories could produce it easier. T-80U turret went away with either armor schemes in favor of western style NERA anyway.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And T-84 is not just T-80U with turbine thrown out and a normal diesel shoved in, it also introduced other upgrades that were planned for the T-80U but didn't make it in, like increasing the turret roof angle so that it can bounce APFSDS ammo properly, unlike previous tanks that retained the less inclined roof that was originally there during the time the tank was meant to protect only against 105mm APDS. The same change in roof angle was later introduced in the welded turret of the T-90A.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    imagine the treasures the russians have in their gigantic vehicle depots

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Fire all 3 cannons
      >A gigantic crane with a hook removes the turret and throws it away
      >Another gigantic crane with a turret hooked drops it on top of the tank.
      >Another 3 shoots
      >'impressive comrade, fast reload tanks are amazing'

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Another completely retarded post from a gay who became an expert on Russian armor doctrine in March of 2022.
    I fucking hate garden gnomes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its like the history channel talking points that used to be common. Everyone just parrots the same tired lines that have enough truth in them that correcting them would take way too much effort.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The masses of tanks we have faced on the Eastern Front are the result of 25 years of social misfortune and misery of the Bolshevist people.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’ll always luv the T-80UM-1 Bars.

    To me the T-80 line were the only tanks I cared about all all from Russia. After they shut it down I stopped caring about Russian tanks.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They kept producing old designs because they were major export products.

Your email address will not be published.