T-72B armor is far better then in T-72A (aka T-72M1) and T-80 turret / other armor is same as on T-72A. Thus T-72B is better armored then T-80. Thus upgrades to T-72B make more sense.
@@tomk3732 not even close T-80B uses an improved version of Composite K where as T-72A uses "Dolly Parton" composite K is better than Dolly Parton but a tad bit worse than "Super Dolly Parton" used on T-72B regardless you are talking about a difference in protection of about 50mm maximum which largely insignificant. That plus T-80BVM uses relikt where as B3 uses K-5.
@@nemisous83 Video shows exactly same quartz as in T-72A and exactly same texolite as in T-72A. T-72A was designed before ERA was standard. Thus the emphasis of it was against both Kinetic and HEAT. T-72B mod 85 and later mod 89 had ERA as standard, first one Kontakt-1 and later one Kontakt-5. Thus their armor outside of ERA was strictly against kinetic and there was no textolite or no kwartz present. Are you saying video is wrong and T-80 this mod is based on had different armor?
Yeah they sponsor him. Pretty neat that we get to learn about the irl tank then play it in a game. ...well after you've played for 60 hours to grind the 1 tank out...
@@srelma T-80s are used to defend their assets in the arctic because of their ability to operate in extreme cold. That is pretty much the only thing they are used for.
The poor T-80U's just crying out of neglect, wondering why the Ukrainians made the Oplot while papa Putin's friendzoned him for an inferior variant or the T-72 fam.
@@dankerxd4108 This is the real question. My only thought is perhaps they are keeping gas turbine around for artic opps where it may have an advantage vs tradition diesel but I can confirm none of it. Could be a political reason as well.
@@johngezon1220 iirc they are indeed meant to be used in arctic regions where diesel engines do not perform so well. Then it kinda makes sense to have turbine powered tanks to guard these territories
@@johngezon1220 t 80 is probably the best tank for the cold, if any foreign power tries to invade from the east which would be suicide and its not likely that anyone would go to siberia
I'm glad to see that the Soviets kept the "TURRET EJECT" feature in their new line of tanks. It's been a popular, sought after feature since WW2. An ageless classic!
They have this problem of suddenly exploding after crossing into Ukraine. Really strange, the Russians should probably try and solve this asap. Someone told me that putting the tank in reverse might alleviate the problem though.
Sadly the producer,(Omsktransmash,I think) went bankrupt(due to the decision to fund other company and Russia had bad time after the fall of USSR), otherwise Russia may come up with better tanks,since they did have some interesting projects.
@@yosawin3018 yes they were bought by the company that produces T-72 and T-90 so the company still exists. Believe Red said in previous video that they made T-80BVM to milk money out of the modernizing the tanks instead of creating something truly effective.
@@yosawin3018 UVZ had some good designs too, look at the object 187 for example, mutch better than the T-90. but the T-90 (object 188) got built instead due to late/post-ussr budgets
@@adrianotaylor7230 Maybe they will survive because NATO invest more in APS kits for their tanks while the russians just put a Wannabe Cage on top of their rusty soviet era tanks my dear Russian Bot :D
@@misterputin8898 sorry kiddo; a kornet flying a bit above the tracks would like to say hello to the tank crew OH also you can just switch aim up to the turret upon that missile getting close enough (and trained operators do that)
So, the questions that need asking here are: What is the Russian Ground Forces' strategic intent for this vehicle? and Where will it be deployed and against what? The Russian Ground Forces' statements on T-80BVM show that it is intended for service in the Arctic and Siberia. Two places where they will not likely be fighting against top of the line tanks with advanced passive thermal sights. The reason why the T-80BVM didn't get a fancy Commanders Thermal Viewer or Battlefield Management systems is quite simply because they don't need them. They did need the ERA upgrade because shaped charge warheads are a major threat no matter where you go. Why no APS idk, probably can't afford it for 3k tanks intended for deployment in secondary theatres. Thing is with the armor and FCS upgrades the T-80BVM are solid vehicles. They can receive further upgrades if a war does break out relatively quickly but won't be completely outmatched should they be pressed into service in a frontline role before receiving the extra goodies.
Same stratedgy as always, enter tank, drive into enemy terretory, refuse to leave tank, gets taken out by a dude running around with sandals and a wool shirt. Rince and repeat untill the devision is gone, then declare victory because eho would even check?
Just goes to show how obsolete tanks are on the modern battlefield. A infantry fired missile launcher can completely obliterate a 2 million dollar machine.
@@guyintenn not true if you pay attention Russia is sending its tank columns with no infantry support snd no sir support either, obviously your tanks will die in mass if you don’t cover there weaknesses.
@@tanner1111 Its not just about the quality of the tanks. Its also the quality of the tactics Russia is using, or rather the lack of tactics. Common sense and lessons learned from a hundred years ago suggests that tanks shouldn't be moving on their own towards a known fortified position. They should at least have infantry on their flanks or ahead of the tanks. Maybe have air support to keep their enemies heads down. But that's not what they're doing. They're Zerg rushing the Ukrainians with tanks with no close air support which gets them ambushed and annihilated. What's worse? They invaded in spring, which transformed the countryside into mud. Giving the Ukrainians an easy time setting up ambushes. If Ukraine have a more powerful air force they would destroy the Russian army in a matter of weeks and liberate Belarus in a month(because why not?).
Allegedly (based on footage from abandoned/destroyed tanks in Ukraine) the bagged add on armor pouches on the sides are cardboard filled on at least some of the tanks... I guess someone embezzled the funds before they managed to buy ERA inserts?
I’ve heard that it’s the fiberglass spacers that hold the explosives in place. So yea, probably embezzled unless the theory about the explosives being taken out for training purposes and then the invasion order coming in turns out to be true.
@@Factao this. Russian bots have a response for every misserable fail of their army and dictator, it's all plan of a masterplan..the big masterplan to flaunt your nukes since otherwise your army is hot garbage.
@@Shaun_Jones there are reports that they have cardboard filled in bullet proof vests and some old Soviet steel helmets have covers to make them look like modern tactical ones. The worst are their medical supplies. I've seen videos of their med kits and the bandages have been from 1970s
@@Shaun_Jones Yeah, explosives age out, and even if a tank is hit, most of the ERA charges would not be triggered. So it probably makes sense for the innards to be replaceable. That said, the Russians clearly didn't replace them.
They announced that all T-80U will be upgraded to BVM and they will improve firepower, armor and optics. I think that it has potential to become pretty neat tank.
Already announced, not only that, it's getting the Burlak turret, with the ammo carasoul being moved into the rear turret, laser warning and hard/soft kill systems, advanced infared and thermal optics etc.
The T-80 is a "Kluge" of old technology, still missing certain absolute necessities on a modern MBT. Ukraine is proving it's an easy victory using a top-attack ATM.
Author forgot to mention the context in which Russians decided to upgrade old T-80 BV design into BVM model. T-80 BVM is a model meant for Arctic troops. Thanks to the gas turbine engine and comparatively light weight it is able to pass through deep snow terrain with ease,. Snow also means that enemy vehicles are easy to spot in IR and LLTV channels. Meaning you don't need superb optics to spot a typical US woodland camouflaged M1 against white background. This is even less of a problem since no other army in the world has arctic troops with fielded tank corps. Not even Canada... So in a region where no enemy armor is expected to operate in a nearby future T-80 BVM has pretty damn good characteristics...
@@myopicthunder yes and i have probably left some as well. We are not experts. I don't intend to sound like one. I just hate when i see a video lambasting a experts decision....
Are they going to use it against polar bears? Because no sane military would open a front in Arctic regions. Oh yes Mr. Brown you must be a genius! Lets deploy our paratroopers Novaya Zemlya hundreds of miles away from well anything and have them survive on snow. Those Russians won't know what hit them. Literally.
To be fair all canadian soldiers have extreme cold weather training. Not to mention in the arctic canada relies mostly on light infantry for the reasons you mentioned. Im not sure what sure what portion of the us army has ecw training but I bet its nowhere near 100%
I think Russia didn't waste money on developing a RWS & CITS on the T-80BVM since we are now finding out that they are dumping money developing the "Burlak" turret which they plan on mounting on the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks, fixing almost every issue they have which most importantly solves the issue with APDFS length limitations of the carousel autoloader, replacing it with a bustle type. I would be more worried about the drive-train, and upgrading the transmission to an auto.
Burlak is a dead project. The manufacturer Omsk is basically dead at this point with most of its military arm and design expertise folded into UralVagonZavod, if not sold off entirely. Nowadays it makes washing machines. I think it extremely unlikely that UVZ will be using anything from Omsk which had a history of unrealistic project costing and engineering specifications. All it would take is UVZ taking one hard look at the blueprints to most likely find many problems.
@@MonMalthias UVZ is exactly who is continuing the project. Look at the pics that leaked a few months ago compared to the one's leaked in the 2010's. The design of the turret has been altered, featuring a cover over the protruding ERA blocks which is clearly shown in the pics, what looks like a RWS under the tarp, as well as ERA mounted to the sides of the turret which looks like the Relikt blocks on the side of T-90M Proryv & newer T-80BVM turrets. These differences all seem to be made in the last few years, considering the time frame when they were introduced on the T-90M & T-80BVM, which dispels the idea that this new pic of the Burlak is "the old, abandoned project".
I should mention something you got wrong, or didnt mention. The T-80BVM's hull isnt that of the T-80B/BV, its actually the hull of the T-80U. Therefore, it has the same hull composite array as the T-80U which is much stronger than the T-80Bs. This stronger armor array of the UFP, coupled with the Relikt, actually would suggest the Hull armor might be slightly better/stronger than the turret (Minus the drivers port, of course).
It's not. It's T-80BV. 1)Russia has much more T-80B and T-80BV then T-80U; 2)you can't just replace the type of armor package T-80 uses without cutting down the whole tank to pieces. So T-80BV will continue to have armor package of T-80BV. The infamous "boob window" of T-64/72/80/90 is NOT just driver port. It's a significant portion of armor right in front of it since the cutoff is made vertically, meaning that while cutoff in external steel plate is rather small, there are significant areas where several layers or even the whole of "composite pie" are missing. Combined, it seems like you're either spouting nonsense that can be proven wrong with basic common sense and knowledge about these tanks OR(more likely) deliberately trying to spread misinformation. Feel free to provide your sources OR tell me where my logic wasn't spot on:P
There would be no sense of removing T-80B turrets and putting them on T-80U hulls since the later has much better base turret armor than the B. The T-80BVMs are just T-80BV being given a deep modernisation because they have a significant number in storage.
It is intended for arctic regions. If we consider tank versus tank battles (which are not the main task of tanks), then the T-80BVM is quite a worthy competitor to the Norwegian Leopard 2 A4
@@ullldotten Russians answer to Javelin top down attack missiles is the T-14 Armata but because of limited budget, they did not complete the active defenses and put only small numbers into service. The originally planned T-14 is to have sensors to detect incoming projectiles from above and to fire upwards explosive pellets shotgun style. Also due to limited resources, old tanks being deployed to Ukraine for additional fire support. T-80BVM is just the old T-80BV refitted with newer ERA and added extra side protection, not total remake like the T-90 from T-72.
@@jayjay53313 I'm aware. "Shame" it wont be any budget for T-14s for many, many years to come. My comment were not be taken too serious, was just pointing out how these performs against mostly javelins and NLAWs. No need to pull out our leopards' if the Russians (or more spesific their leader) descides to de-nazify Norway:)
@@jayjay53313 The T-14 would be at least as vulnerable to immediately brewing up as the T-72 and T-80 that have tossed their turrets. A brew-up of the autoloader that rapid isn't going to spare the crew. The Afganit active protection system is a paper shield. It's a list of specs. It doesn't exist. They haven't developed the simpler version intended for the T-90MS. I expect that the T-14 now has zero chance of being built. It's already seven years past the introduction of the prototypes. Instead it will be back to the drawing board to figure out how build a vehicle with better survivability when hit from above.
A javelin would destroy an Abrams quite easily.Not sure if a NLAW would.probably.But honestly tanks are like battleships anymore in my opinion.Expensive and outdated.
If ur interested in one, u can go to Any Ukrainian farms house and purchase one. They are littered All over Ukraine right now. Most without any damage… except for the graffiti of a Z painted on it. The Z seems to represent a knock-off Swastika. U may also be required to Remove the empty vodka bottles left from the previous crews
Also bring fuel. A lot of fuel. Otherwise you will run out of it and strand in the middle of an invasion like a total idiot. That would be such an embarrassment
While most of the things said are true, one needs to remember that that was "soviet era" one and only exploration into a gas-turbine tank, having a sturdy and proven T-72. The whole project was a test, R&D, and was to test the engine and chassis concept, similar to the M1A1 Abrams. The T-90 came after, back to diesel-multi fuel, 3 modifications. Also the T-14, and several modification into ERA and APS, as well as sights and active and passive defense systems. This is why it's so difficult to keep up with Russian tanks, several projects simultaneously, at different stages.....and they do have like thousands of old samples to mess up with. ;)
The T72 was initially introduced as a temporary solution due to the issues encountered with the T64 and its slow production rate. As a result, the T72 was designed with a conservative approach. On the other hand, the T80 was not originally intended for research and development purposes only. The Soviet military had always been working on conceptual tanks, and once the T80 received its designation, it was chosen as the mainstay of the Soviet tank force. However, the T80 proved to be costly, gas-guzzling, and high maintenance. As a result, the T72 was retained as an alternative option. This is why there were three primary designs in the Soviet tank force. The T90 is essentially a renamed T72, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the production plant and thousands of T72 tanks remained in Russia, which is why they continue to be used to this day.
I mean, maybe it’s difficult to keep up with Russian tanks by number of the sheer staggering variable designations from minor upgrade packages. But even if you look at the t-14 armata, the cutting edge russian tank has equipment they call cutting edge that was introduced onto nato tanks in the late 1980s. The thermal sights are literally the same model of sight the French Leclerc removed and upgraded from in 2006. Modern western civilian drones have better IR sights. And a test conducted with the Chinese concluded that all of its supposed hard kill and soft kill systems didn’t exist and were fabricated by the state to hype the tank to be more then it was. So in terms of keeping up with battlefield technology, Russian tanks can barely match what the west had in the early 90s. Nevermind current vehicles.
@@nathanielweber7843 I have to object here, this is no Serbia! While Russian tank designations and projects are out of bounds, even back in the Serbian war T-72s had night vision and thermals. I don't know what angle you are coming from, but Russian Armour has been significantly upgraded. The French were never good at anything, but keep gender neutral and carbon free Germany supplied by nuclear power plants, let's be honest. Abrams and the likes in excess of 50 tons, just can't function in mud and their operational costs are insane. Passive and active systems have been developed since the '80s. it's drones and hand held ATs now... "so I put a "curtain" so this 100,000 USD rocket scratches the paint" You're failing to understand that such warfare have never been fought before. All the issues we talk about here, have been considered. It's an economic and propaganda war..... T-72s with "grand momas curtains" are doing just fine, against Gustavs and top-down blowing AT rockets.....however in an environment like this most "western" tanks just bog down and when you take their sensors out, it's a sitting duck. Russian MBTs are usually less than 55 tons and can sprint @ 53 mph, it's not money, it's a doctrine!
@@nathanielweber7843well, consiidering the USSR's fall caused a lot of brain drain, the feds are very corrupt and their economy has mostly been dogwater they're doibg pretty well.
hmm War thunder adding t80BVM and red effect making a video about t80bvm You were the one how told gaijin to add the t80bvm Pls tell them to add t90m next patch xD
@@radonsider9692 M1A2 Abrams is strong enough, Leo 2A6 is still overpowered, T-80BVM still is inferior against both mentioned tanks, the only tank to be really added from the list is T-90M. Type 10 and Ztz 99 can be debated.
I have seen a few captured ones being reviewed and the Ukrainians were very pleased with them. They stressed the new Sosna U sight's quality as well as the ATGMs.
well its definitely better than the T64BV, and Bulats and Oplots exist in far too small numbers to make a big impact. Ironically the same is true of the T80BVM and T90M
@@MrMurder333666 Russia planned to change turrets on their tanks with Burlak turret in 2000s, Burlak can fit longer penetrators, has better armor and blast doors, but was abandoned. Then month or two ago they started testing it again, there are few leaked pics of it.
The conclusion I draw from your videos is that all tanks are vulnerable from the sides/rear/above with handheld anti tank weapons. The only viable solution being the very best active protection systems.
Amazingly well detailed videos as always, but could you do a video about the M8 buford AGS ( the US light tank project that got abandoned and restarted around 2016)? I love it’s concept, because the US lacks an armored vehicle more flexible logistically than the abrams while being better protected and armed than a bradley. Since the tanks are still being tested there’s not as much reference material, but I’m sure you’d figure that out. I discovered that tank because it got added as the top reward for the april fools grinding event on war thunder
the M8 is quite a nice light tank, especially with the extra thicc ERA add-on armor modules giving it quite nice protection against RPG's and with the 120 mm gun giving it the same firepower capabilities of a heavy MBT, all combined in a relatively light vehicle to be air transported. It only lacks an independent thermal sight for the commander (CITV), but at least he can still use the gunner's thermal sight (better than nothing). Unfortuantely it also does not have a bunker with "blow-out blast panels" as the rounds are all stored inside the crew compartment (probably in some fire-proof canisters, but it still pose a danger). But I guess that's the downside for most light tanks.
@@militaryanalysis5028 those are composite blocks and not ERA. I heard that there were plans to also have ERA armor but I am not a 100 percent sure. The 120mm smoothbore was only mounted on a single prototype if I remember correctly. Also the autoloader is completely separated from the crew, so there’s a blowout pannel. You’re right for the hu storage though, that doesn’t look very safe, but most of the shells are at the turret which is also the most likely part to be hit in a tank. I don’t think it needs CITV because 1, it’s meant to bring tank firepower to infantry/airborn troopers and so wouldn’t work independently. With the modernization of the buford m8 that is currently ongoing as the US asked BAE to produce around 20 more prototypes, they might include it. Overall it’s an amazing idea and I don’t get how the US could budget cut that and spend this long without something to replace the sheridan
@@maplearrow1842 well tbh I'm not sure about the actual add-on armor design, all I know is that there are 3 levels of protection and the level 3 can apparently stop RPG's at least. Whether it's ERA or composite armor, it's still doing same result 😂. The crew is still inside the turret tho, even with autolaoder... so I hope the ammunitoion is at least is some fire-proof canisters, otherwise it would be really nasty. But what it really needs is APS that would really help a lot! Who knows maybe it will receive APS in the future (if it gets accepted into the army), everything's possible.
@@militaryanalysis5028 due to it’s light armor it wouldn’t be dumb to develop a cheaper APS for it. Also I don’t understand what’s the issue with the turret, on one side you have the crew and on the other you have the autoloader. There’s quite a thick blast wall to separate both, and most of the roof above the autloader is made of blowout pannels, so in case of cookout it would never build enough pressure to do serious damage. The only downside with it is that if the turret gets shot sideways and it punctures the wall while there’s a burnout...
@@militaryanalysis5028 by the way I found out that the two weird rectangles with lines on them on the xm8’s hull are actually the blowout pannels for the hull ammo. I never understood why that was there, but now I know that they didn’t just leave the hull ammo as a risk
This is just an interim upgrade similar to T-72B3M to extend lifetime of existing fleet. Only several brigades (motor rifle and naval infantry) in the Far East and Arctic are armed with T-80BV(M)s. Besides that, only the 4th Guards tank division in Western MD is armed with T-80s (BVM in motor rifle regiment, U and UE-1 in tank regiments). And since its T-80Us have not gotten any significant upgrades in the last decade (despite widespread T-72 and now T-90 fleet modernization), the 4th GTD is probably one of the first formations in line to be rearmed with T-14s.
Imagine how freaky it would be to try and tag a target with a laser only to have the turret instantly spin around and start pointing your direction. Time to crap yer pants :)
Very interesting to watch your older videos after "the Lazerpig incident", especially after he basically called you "Russian Propaganda". But we can clearly hear how you're criticizing the flaws and that barely anyone is mentioning those.
Would you do a video on tank upgrades? Say, a summary of T-55 upgrades, be it M-55S, Serbian T-55S, Tiran, Viet T-54M, AlZarrar, Durjoy, Chinese VT-3, Jaguar, Peruvian Tifon, T-55AGM, etc
Almost all of this information is true, except the thing about protection. Late production T 80BV had the same armor layout as T 80U, making their protection identical. So, T 80BVM, not only has Relict at its front, it also has an added plate the material and thickness of which I can't remember
It's biggest problem now is being abandoned by it's neo-fascist forces and towed away by Ukrainian tractors. Oh wait, that's the opposite of a problem. :D
@@goldman6506 Why does every single 55 Savushkina street troll bleat "but azov, but azov, but azov" Sure there's a single small unit of right wing fighters defending their homes. Funnily enough they're from the East of Ukraine and they're descended from the ruSSkie colonizers that replaced the Ukrainians genocided during the Holodomor. It doesn't change the fact that putler sounds deranged trying to pretend that the elected, centre left, Jewish lead government of Ukraine is somehow fascist, when 3rd world ruSSia is actually a fascist nation.
@@mattmark94 It's amazing, I've seen so many videos of invading fascist tanks, AA vehicles, BMPs, BDMs etc being towed away. 3rd world ruSSia is now officially the single biggest supplier of Ukrainian military vehicles.
I learned that this tank is meant for very cold environmet, because it's gas turbine is there favorable. Don't think to meet many western tanks at the nordcap or sibiria.
you mean those angled panels? Well, even if they were a real steel slabs and not ERA panels like they are, they would not deflect the projectile into the base of the turret. Modern APFSDS projectiles dont bounce. If they dont penetrate, they shatter to pieces.
I feel like your core argument is T-80BVM is based on T-80BV and not T-80U which really is a stupid argument because aside from turret armor which only better by about 50mm is effectively the same as T-80BV in terms of firepower, mobility, and protection. The point of T-80BVM wasn't to bring T-80 to T-90M standard (I don't know where you go that from) it was to bring T-80 up to T-72B3 mod 2016 standard which in a lot of ways surpasses its. and before you ask "why not modernized T-80U" ? Remember Russia made less that 2,000 T-80U tanks with only a few hundred remaining in Russian service compared to the over 2,500 T-80BV tanks so BV was the obvious choice.
Don't forget about the T90s and T90A getting getting hammered out there too. Lol. When T72 or any sort of Russian tank gets destroyed in the middle east the Ivans be like..."Those are cheap export versions!!!!! Cheap knock off version! That's because it wasn't Russian! Tank in urban combat without infantry support is stupid". I'm 100% sure you seen all the excuses made by Ivan. These days Russian T72, the upgraded variants, T80U and T90A are getting knock out in Ukraine even when they have infantry as support. Now these Ivans are like..."That's because Putin is only sending in the older equipment and conscripted as cannon fodders to weaken Ukraine's defense! He doesn't care about casualties or equipment losses. He's saving the best for last!" 5mins later..."Those deaths are all fake! Propaganda!" Yeah...you see the endless excuses.
I wouldn't say so. Tanks still fill a vital role on the battlefield. Unless people feel like making major land invasions with infantry and trucks/IFVs. Incompetence=/=obsolescence
@@SCH292 TAnks still have place on battlefield..dont go in 2 much MSM propaganda ..Russia lost a lot in first few days but also make good progress against very good Ukraine army ..its now encircled most off Ukrainian big cities and that would not be able with out tanks because Ukraine has much more soldiers then Russia in Ukraine ..yes you lost off armor but still casualties much lower then if you would went with out it
In theory it shouldn't be too hard to bring a T-80 to T-90M's level via upgrades, as the T-90 itself is just an upgraded T-72. The USSR started development of it in the late 80's when it became apparent they couldn't afford to continue developing the T-64, 72 and 80 tanks so as a budget option they decided to focus just on the T-72 and add in some of the better features of the 64/80. Then in the 90's Russia renamed the T-72BU to the T-90 to try and hide the fact they were forced to focus on developing the USSR's third best tank in order to save money.
everything is simpler, just the Ministry of Defense does not have the money to purchase a more expensive and better stopping effect relic, contact 5 is an obsolete defense. which was relevant to the year in 1995 , the relic is now also almost obsolete, it was replaced by the protection of malachite developed on that Armata. but apparently it is even more expensive, for the purchase and mass production of armat, the military department now has no money. all funds are spent on equipping the army with expensive hypersonic missiles
The South Koreans received 40 T-80Us from Russia in the early 2000's. They found the armor protection to be surprisingly good, equivalent to NATO 3.5 generation tanks of that era. The Koreans deemed the frontal arch protection to be 600mm rha against KE and 1,200mm vs. CE (with the ERA blocks attached).
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 the Koreans had physical samples they were able to extensively test. Anyways, I am just talking about armor here only. Also, it's likely that Leo2s without active protection would be just as vulnerable to top attack ATGMs. Turkish 90's era Leo2A4s were pretty vulnerable against Syrian ATGMs. Look it up on TH-cam. A lot of videos of Turkish Leo2A4s getting wrecked by Syrians.
Not gonna lie, it is truly really shocking that this thing still uses an infrared searchlight. In modern combat that's like painting a bigass bullseye on your face.
What do you mean? Russia is doing pretty good. More than 40% of okraine is under Russian control and every Russian tank destroyed at least 5 okrainan tanks🤡
@@NKVD_Enjoyer it's doing so good in 20th day of the 48th hour special operation. :)) You're being delusional.. even Russians are running from Russia, and trolls like you still waste time by posting these low IQ propaganda B's. Man, in drug dealers world there's a saying, never get high on your own supply..This should be applied to Russian propaganda...never believe your own lies, or you'll start believing that cope cages work, you have a modern army and a strong economy and that Putin is a good leader :)). You made your account a week ago and you have 30 comments on this page alone.... Bahaha. Poor Russian, still believing that the year is 1968.. ah, i forgot, Russia is still in the 70"s.
Best timing, it just got added to war thunder.
🤔
why do you think he made a video about it?
it was his sponsor
Lol right?
Wow it is almost as if he is being paid by Gaijin to sponsor their game !
Its basically a faster T-72B3 with slightly better armor
It has worse base armour, and far worse turret armour. It has better speed. And better era. That is it.
@@stilpa1 Wrong. T 80BVM is based on t 80U hull and late production T 80BV turret, which is almost identical to T 80U
T-72B armor is far better then in T-72A (aka T-72M1) and T-80 turret / other armor is same as on T-72A. Thus T-72B is better armored then T-80. Thus upgrades to T-72B make more sense.
@@tomk3732 not even close T-80B uses an improved version of Composite K where as T-72A uses "Dolly Parton" composite K is better than Dolly Parton but a tad bit worse than "Super Dolly Parton" used on T-72B regardless you are talking about a difference in protection of about 50mm maximum which largely insignificant. That plus T-80BVM uses relikt where as B3 uses K-5.
@@nemisous83 Video shows exactly same quartz as in T-72A and exactly same texolite as in T-72A. T-72A was designed before ERA was standard. Thus the emphasis of it was against both Kinetic and HEAT. T-72B mod 85 and later mod 89 had ERA as standard, first one Kontakt-1 and later one Kontakt-5. Thus their armor outside of ERA was strictly against kinetic and there was no textolite or no kwartz present. Are you saying video is wrong and T-80 this mod is based on had different armor?
The problem is arjun, it’s too strong against all MBTs.
@The Chief Musician of the Gods a brief history of Cuba? are you a bot
My thoughts entirely..
Bullshit
Arjun just screams second place, bob semple is where its at
No Arjun Tank Can Destroy A Black Hole Dont Underestimate It🤪
@@Xcelcior6780 the Bob semple tank could destroy this universe and travel onto the next
I love how this thing just got added to War Thunder yesterday
Yeah they sponsor him. Pretty neat that we get to learn about the irl tank then play it in a game.
...well after you've played for 60 hours to grind the 1 tank out...
@@sampanyofella5832 grinded it in 4 hours lol. Provided, i received 250k rp from module bonuses
@@killthemall55 oh that makes sense. I should stop spading things in that case :P
@@sampanyofella5832 I wish I could do it in just 60 hours.
Goodbye 3BM42M... Hello 3BM46
Russia's wasting time upgrading their tanks. They should just order Arjun and become unstoppable.
Haha!
LMFAO
Right!
hahahahhahahahahhaha
Is arjun the new meme? lmao
It wasnt meant to be a perfect mbt. This thing can start its engine at - 50 degrees in cold arctic winter
Is Russia expecting the next Napoleon/Hitler to show up at Moscow's doorstep in the middle of winter?
@@srelma they have T 14s and T 90s for that
@@neki203 and the T72 B3
@@srelma nope. They guard the extreme cold parts of their country. (Not Moscow or Western parts)
@@srelma T-80s are used to defend their assets in the arctic because of their ability to operate in extreme cold.
That is pretty much the only thing they are used for.
The poor T-80U's just crying out of neglect, wondering why the Ukrainians made the Oplot while papa Putin's friendzoned him for an inferior variant or the T-72 fam.
Why dont they just get rid of the T-80s and make more T-90M
@@dankerxd4108 This is the real question. My only thought is perhaps they are keeping gas turbine around for artic opps where it may have an advantage vs tradition diesel but I can confirm none of it. Could be a political reason as well.
@@johngezon1220 iirc they are indeed meant to be used in arctic regions where diesel engines do not perform so well. Then it kinda makes sense to have turbine powered tanks to guard these territories
@@johngezon1220 t 80 is probably the best tank for the cold, if any foreign power tries to invade from the east which would be suicide and its not likely that anyone would go to siberia
@Prince Harambe one man sead you destroy russia, you destroy the world, preaty sure its been made clear the russia can not be tamed but keep dreaming
I'm glad to see that the Soviets kept the "TURRET EJECT" feature in their new line of tanks.
It's been a popular, sought after feature since WW2.
An ageless classic!
Agreed
Is anyone else using that design
@@james-im1sj Only the ones using the same reload system.
@@james-im1sj Leopards also has this option.
Is that a bad joke?
They have this problem of suddenly exploding after crossing into Ukraine. Really strange, the Russians should probably try and solve this asap. Someone told me that putting the tank in reverse might alleviate the problem though.
This comment will look very stupid in about 2 weeks
@@joeking5679 why?
@@mrwong8584 He's a Russian shill, pay him no mind.
@@TheStephaneAdam so true..lol
@@joeking5679 And I'm sure you were saying exactly the same thing two weeks ago.
Really wish they’d added T-80UE-1 or T-80UD instead of T-80BVM. But at least it still have the 1985 UFP.
Edit for capitalization
Sadly the producer,(Omsktransmash,I think) went bankrupt(due to the decision to fund other company and Russia had bad time after the fall of USSR), otherwise Russia may come up with better tanks,since they did have some interesting projects.
@@yosawin3018 yes they were bought by the company that produces T-72 and T-90 so the company still exists. Believe Red said in previous video that they made T-80BVM to milk money out of the modernizing the tanks instead of creating something truly effective.
@@yosawin3018 yeah if Uralvagonzavod had the budget like General Dynamics they definitely gonna make some futuristic tanks
What about the T-80 U-M1 ? Would be a good addition too, I guess...
@@yosawin3018 UVZ had some good designs too, look at the object 187 for example, mutch better than the T-90. but the T-90 (object 188) got built instead due to late/post-ussr budgets
Man its funny seeing these things abandoned due to running out of fuel in Ukraine
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Ukrainian farmers: hippity hopity this tank is now my property.
Before the invasion and on the training, crews have been selling their diesel. That really was happening..
@@TonyBustaroni cope,
@@TonyBustaroni How did conquering Kiev go for you guys?
The biggest problem I see now, it's not protective AT ALL against NLAWS and Javelins. Those launchers are making scrap out of any russian tanks
Put an abrams or challenger 2 or even a leopard 2 a7+ against russian kornet and you would get the same result
@@adrianotaylor7230 Maybe they will survive because NATO invest more in APS kits for their tanks while the russians just put a Wannabe Cage on top of their rusty soviet era tanks my dear Russian Bot :D
@@misterputin8898 sorry kiddo; a kornet flying a bit above the tracks would like to say hello to the tank crew
OH also you can just switch aim up to the turret upon that missile getting close enough (and trained operators do that)
Well multiple RPGs used to wreck western tanks as well and they're much cheaper to produce and carry
@@misterputin8898 you mean the aps that yall buy from israel russian tanks had aps since the 90s t90 shorta system
there is a tsunami of T-80BVM in War Thunder rn, great timing RedEffect
Red: talking about T80BVM
Comment section: Arjun meme🤣
So, the questions that need asking here are: What is the Russian Ground Forces' strategic intent for this vehicle? and Where will it be deployed and against what?
The Russian Ground Forces' statements on T-80BVM show that it is intended for service in the Arctic and Siberia. Two places where they will not likely be fighting against top of the line tanks with advanced passive thermal sights. The reason why the T-80BVM didn't get a fancy Commanders Thermal Viewer or Battlefield Management systems is quite simply because they don't need them. They did need the ERA upgrade because shaped charge warheads are a major threat no matter where you go. Why no APS idk, probably can't afford it for 3k tanks intended for deployment in secondary theatres. Thing is with the armor and FCS upgrades the T-80BVM are solid vehicles. They can receive further upgrades if a war does break out relatively quickly but won't be completely outmatched should they be pressed into service in a frontline role before receiving the extra goodies.
Same stratedgy as always, enter tank, drive into enemy terretory, refuse to leave tank, gets taken out by a dude running around with sandals and a wool shirt. Rince and repeat untill the devision is gone, then declare victory because eho would even check?
@@CrowColdblade the T-80BVM is still probably possessed by ghosts of tank crews who were roasted by Chechen ATGMs for this reason.
@@CrowColdblade that aged well
Coincident? No way warthunder is on you
He already got sponsored by War Thunder a thousand times, just use your brain bruv.
@@Eire_Aontaithe wosh
stinky redditor
@@justapanzercrewmanwithwifi1070 actually i shower every day, also between my asscheeks 👀
@@KleinerGrenadier that's good to know, mate. Amazing intel.
Think the world is seeing how poor this tank is at the moment, I wouldn’t like to be using one if I was in a war
Just goes to show how obsolete tanks are on the modern battlefield. A infantry fired missile launcher can completely obliterate a 2 million dollar machine.
@@tanner1111 True , Javelins and atgm Hellfire equipped Drones made tanks pretty much obsolete
@@guyintenn yeah but they are still useful to cowards that like sending them in against civilians
@@guyintenn not true if you pay attention Russia is sending its tank columns with no infantry support snd no sir support either, obviously your tanks will die in mass if you don’t cover there weaknesses.
@@tanner1111 Its not just about the quality of the tanks. Its also the quality of the tactics Russia is using, or rather the lack of tactics.
Common sense and lessons learned from a hundred years ago suggests that tanks shouldn't be moving on their own towards a known fortified position. They should at least have infantry on their flanks or ahead of the tanks. Maybe have air support to keep their enemies heads down. But that's not what they're doing.
They're Zerg rushing the Ukrainians with tanks with no close air support which gets them ambushed and annihilated. What's worse? They invaded in spring, which transformed the countryside into mud. Giving the Ukrainians an easy time setting up ambushes.
If Ukraine have a more powerful air force they would destroy the Russian army in a matter of weeks and liberate Belarus in a month(because why not?).
Allegedly (based on footage from abandoned/destroyed tanks in Ukraine) the bagged add on armor pouches on the sides are cardboard filled on at least some of the tanks... I guess someone embezzled the funds before they managed to buy ERA inserts?
It's proud Russian cardboard! How dare you imply it is not the best possible type of reactive armor.
I’ve heard that it’s the fiberglass spacers that hold the explosives in place. So yea, probably embezzled unless the theory about the explosives being taken out for training purposes and then the invasion order coming in turns out to be true.
@@Factao this. Russian bots have a response for every misserable fail of their army and dictator, it's all plan of a masterplan..the big masterplan to flaunt your nukes since otherwise your army is hot garbage.
@@Shaun_Jones there are reports that they have cardboard filled in bullet proof vests and some old Soviet steel helmets have covers to make them look like modern tactical ones. The worst are their medical supplies. I've seen videos of their med kits and the bandages have been from 1970s
@@Shaun_Jones Yeah, explosives age out, and even if a tank is hit, most of the ERA charges would not be triggered. So it probably makes sense for the innards to be replaceable. That said, the Russians clearly didn't replace them.
They announced that all T-80U will be upgraded to BVM and they will improve firepower, armor and optics. I think that it has potential to become pretty neat tank.
isn't it than t80uvm?
@@srbijairossiya3043 more like T-80UM3
Already announced, not only that, it's getting the Burlak turret, with the ammo carasoul being moved into the rear turret, laser warning and hard/soft kill systems, advanced infared and thermal optics etc.
That two-piece ammunition at 0:27 looks like it can start an another sepoy rebellion.
Haha nice reference
The T-80 is a "Kluge" of old technology, still missing certain absolute necessities on a modern MBT. Ukraine is proving it's an easy victory using a top-attack ATM.
NATO's thugs in Ukraine you mean.
Urkaine will fail
@@remydaitch9815 Shouldn't you be spending your monthly salary on a loaf of bread?
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 I love your reply haha
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 Urkaine will fail
the main problem is it tends to explode when hit by javelins or NLAWs.
🤣🤣
Bad Russian design habit of having ammo stored amongst the crew area.
Or panzerfaust3’s 😃
Russia captured over 2000 javelin and nlaws btw also destroyed 1300 tanks
@@Bababoy6969 Ukraine doesn’t even have that many tanks but nice try Ivan
Author forgot to mention the context in which Russians decided to upgrade old T-80 BV design into BVM model. T-80 BVM is a model meant for Arctic troops. Thanks to the gas turbine engine and comparatively light weight it is able to pass through deep snow terrain with ease,. Snow also means that enemy vehicles are easy to spot in IR and LLTV channels. Meaning you don't need superb optics to spot a typical US woodland camouflaged M1 against white background. This is even less of a problem since no other army in the world has arctic troops with fielded tank corps. Not even Canada... So in a region where no enemy armor is expected to operate in a nearby future T-80 BVM has pretty damn good characteristics...
all these pseudo expert channels leave out the most relevant pieces of information.
@@myopicthunder yes and i have probably left some as well. We are not experts. I don't intend to sound like one. I just hate when i see a video lambasting a experts decision....
@EndGameYTcaptain there plenty of examples of stupid designs that gone into production just because everyone was afraid to speak out. Tu22 for example
Are they going to use it against polar bears? Because no sane military would open a front in Arctic regions. Oh yes Mr. Brown you must be a genius! Lets deploy our paratroopers Novaya Zemlya hundreds of miles away from well anything and have them survive on snow. Those Russians won't know what hit them. Literally.
To be fair all canadian soldiers have extreme cold weather training. Not to mention in the arctic canada relies mostly on light infantry for the reasons you mentioned. Im not sure what sure what portion of the us army has ecw training but I bet its nowhere near 100%
This aged well...
Though I suppose T-80BVM isn't that bad... as a farm tractor. :D
M1A2 barn
@@mrMen-mo2kg Leopard combine
@@hasnicktir5310 )))
I cannot wait unit we see a Ukrainian farmer and his friends joy ridding in an Armata T14
Thats a real tracker pull contest....hahaha
What about Chechen Kadyrovites driving T-84s?
@@georgebonanza9487 doesn’t happen
@@cossack7679 because T-84s have been destroyed
That would require Russia to be able to both produce T-14 and bring them to the front line xD
I think Russia didn't waste money on developing a RWS & CITS on the T-80BVM since we are now finding out that they are dumping money developing the "Burlak" turret which they plan on mounting on the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks, fixing almost every issue they have which most importantly solves the issue with APDFS length limitations of the carousel autoloader, replacing it with a bustle type. I would be more worried about the drive-train, and upgrading the transmission to an auto.
Бурлак давно отменили, это неудачный проект
@CH Russia should seek help from India to implement Arjun technology in its future tanks.
@@CH3TN1K313 а есть пруфы поубедительнее просочившихся фоток? Потому как помимо них по бурлаковским башням никакого апдэйта не было.
Burlak is a dead project. The manufacturer Omsk is basically dead at this point with most of its military arm and design expertise folded into UralVagonZavod, if not sold off entirely. Nowadays it makes washing machines. I think it extremely unlikely that UVZ will be using anything from Omsk which had a history of unrealistic project costing and engineering specifications. All it would take is UVZ taking one hard look at the blueprints to most likely find many problems.
@@MonMalthias UVZ is exactly who is continuing the project. Look at the pics that leaked a few months ago compared to the one's leaked in the 2010's. The design of the turret has been altered, featuring a cover over the protruding ERA blocks which is clearly shown in the pics, what looks like a RWS under the tarp, as well as ERA mounted to the sides of the turret which looks like the Relikt blocks on the side of T-90M Proryv & newer T-80BVM turrets. These differences all seem to be made in the last few years, considering the time frame when they were introduced on the T-90M & T-80BVM, which dispels the idea that this new pic of the Burlak is "the old, abandoned project".
I should mention something you got wrong, or didnt mention. The T-80BVM's hull isnt that of the T-80B/BV, its actually the hull of the T-80U. Therefore, it has the same hull composite array as the T-80U which is much stronger than the T-80Bs. This stronger armor array of the UFP, coupled with the Relikt, actually would suggest the Hull armor might be slightly better/stronger than the turret (Minus the drivers port, of course).
"The T-80BVM's hull isnt that of the T-80B/BV, its actually the hull of the T-80U." what's your source lmao
It's not. It's T-80BV. 1)Russia has much more T-80B and T-80BV then T-80U; 2)you can't just replace the type of armor package T-80 uses without cutting down the whole tank to pieces. So T-80BV will continue to have armor package of T-80BV.
The infamous "boob window" of T-64/72/80/90 is NOT just driver port. It's a significant portion of armor right in front of it since the cutoff is made vertically, meaning that while cutoff in external steel plate is rather small, there are significant areas where several layers or even the whole of "composite pie" are missing.
Combined, it seems like you're either spouting nonsense that can be proven wrong with basic common sense and knowledge about these tanks OR(more likely) deliberately trying to spread misinformation. Feel free to provide your sources OR tell me where my logic wasn't spot on:P
There would be no sense of removing T-80B turrets and putting them on T-80U hulls since the later has much better base turret armor than the B. The T-80BVMs are just T-80BV being given a deep modernisation because they have a significant number in storage.
Man why does this blatant lie have so many upvotes...
Been seeing a lot of these destroyed in Ukraine lately. Was the armor just incredibly subpar?
There not destructible you id iot
It took 2 javelin to take them down
That’s how good they are
@@mbtenjoyer9487 Wait fr? Where did you get the info it took them 2?
@@RushZ3r a t-72b3 2016 with roof cage armour
Was shown taking 1 hit n surviving
And got destroyed by the second hit
To be fair, there were Shia militias knocking out M1A1 tanks with multiple RPGs
@@mbtenjoyer9487 lmfao yeah dude “id iot”
It is intended for arctic regions. If we consider tank versus tank battles (which are not the main task of tanks), then the T-80BVM is quite a worthy competitor to the Norwegian Leopard 2 A4
T-80BVM against M72, Javelins and NLAW's* :)
@@ullldotten Russians answer to Javelin top down attack missiles is the T-14 Armata but because of limited budget, they did not complete the active defenses and put only small numbers into service. The originally planned T-14 is to have sensors to detect incoming projectiles from above and to fire upwards explosive pellets shotgun style. Also due to limited resources, old tanks being deployed to Ukraine for additional fire support. T-80BVM is just the old T-80BV refitted with newer ERA and added extra side protection, not total remake like the T-90 from T-72.
@@jayjay53313 I'm aware. "Shame" it wont be any budget for T-14s for many, many years to come. My comment were not be taken too serious, was just pointing out how these performs against mostly javelins and NLAWs. No need to pull out our leopards' if the Russians (or more spesific their leader) descides to de-nazify Norway:)
@@ullldotten It is high time for the de-Nazification of Norway. Too many Quislings!
@@jayjay53313 The T-14 would be at least as vulnerable to immediately brewing up as the T-72 and T-80 that have tossed their turrets. A brew-up of the autoloader that rapid isn't going to spare the crew.
The Afganit active protection system is a paper shield. It's a list of specs. It doesn't exist. They haven't developed the simpler version intended for the T-90MS.
I expect that the T-14 now has zero chance of being built. It's already seven years past the introduction of the prototypes. Instead it will be back to the drawing board to figure out how build a vehicle with better survivability when hit from above.
Arjun could one-shot this foolish tank.
Cap
No. Even Leo 2A7 cannot pen the upper front plate at 1 kilometer. Only the driver port, lower glacis and breach.
@@bananabatsy3708 Arjun can penetrate from any distance.
Arjun can't even hit shit. Arjun can't do anything.
@@bananabatsy3708 it’s a joke...
They seem rather lacking... Especially the turret when they roll into Ukraine.
Hahaha giant frying pans
Javelin has entered the chat
This aged beautifully
This tank didn't age well against Javelin and NLAW in Ukraine.
A javelin would destroy an Abrams quite easily.Not sure if a NLAW would.probably.But honestly tanks are like battleships anymore in my opinion.Expensive and outdated.
Okraine still lost more.
If ur interested in one, u can go to Any Ukrainian farms house and purchase one. They are littered All over Ukraine right now. Most without any damage… except for the graffiti of a Z painted on it. The Z seems to represent a knock-off Swastika. U may also be required to Remove the empty vodka bottles left from the previous crews
Also bring fuel. A lot of fuel. Otherwise you will run out of it and strand in the middle of an invasion like a total idiot.
That would be such an embarrassment
The Z has nothing similar with the Swastika.
Arjun is meant for the star wars, nothing can be comparable to this marvelous tank.
The problem with all Russian tanks are their allergic to the US Javelin
And the NLAW, although they seem to get on quite well with Ukrainian tractors.
🤡
While most of the things said are true, one needs to remember that that was "soviet era" one and only exploration into a gas-turbine tank, having a sturdy and proven T-72. The whole project was a test, R&D, and was to test the engine and chassis concept, similar to the M1A1 Abrams. The T-90 came after, back to diesel-multi fuel, 3 modifications. Also the T-14, and several modification into ERA and APS, as well as sights and active and passive defense systems. This is why it's so difficult to keep up with Russian tanks, several projects simultaneously, at different stages.....and they do have like thousands of old samples to mess up with. ;)
The T72 was initially introduced as a temporary solution due to the issues encountered with the T64 and its slow production rate. As a result, the T72 was designed with a conservative approach. On the other hand, the T80 was not originally intended for research and development purposes only. The Soviet military had always been working on conceptual tanks, and once the T80 received its designation, it was chosen as the mainstay of the Soviet tank force. However, the T80 proved to be costly, gas-guzzling, and high maintenance. As a result, the T72 was retained as an alternative option. This is why there were three primary designs in the Soviet tank force. The T90 is essentially a renamed T72, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the production plant and thousands of T72 tanks remained in Russia, which is why they continue to be used to this day.
I mean, maybe it’s difficult to keep up with Russian tanks by number of the sheer staggering variable designations from minor upgrade packages. But even if you look at the t-14 armata, the cutting edge russian tank has equipment they call cutting edge that was introduced onto nato tanks in the late 1980s. The thermal sights are literally the same model of sight the French Leclerc removed and upgraded from in 2006. Modern western civilian drones have better IR sights. And a test conducted with the Chinese concluded that all of its supposed hard kill and soft kill systems didn’t exist and were fabricated by the state to hype the tank to be more then it was. So in terms of keeping up with battlefield technology, Russian tanks can barely match what the west had in the early 90s. Nevermind current vehicles.
@@nathanielweber7843 I have to object here, this is no Serbia! While Russian tank designations and projects are out of bounds, even back in the Serbian war T-72s had night vision and thermals. I don't know what angle you are coming from, but Russian Armour has been significantly upgraded. The French were never good at anything, but keep gender neutral and carbon free Germany supplied by nuclear power plants, let's be honest. Abrams and the likes in excess of 50 tons, just can't function in mud and their operational costs are insane. Passive and active systems have been developed since the '80s. it's drones and hand held ATs now... "so I put a "curtain" so this 100,000 USD rocket scratches the paint" You're failing to understand that such warfare have never been fought before. All the issues we talk about here, have been considered. It's an economic and propaganda war..... T-72s with "grand momas curtains" are doing just fine, against Gustavs and top-down blowing AT rockets.....however in an environment like this most "western" tanks just bog down and when you take their sensors out, it's a sitting duck. Russian MBTs are usually less than 55 tons and can sprint @ 53 mph, it's not money, it's a doctrine!
@@nathanielweber7843well, consiidering the USSR's fall caused a lot of brain drain, the feds are very corrupt and their economy has mostly been dogwater they're doibg pretty well.
hmm War thunder adding t80BVM
and red effect making a video about t80bvm
You were the one how told gaijin to add the t80bvm
Pls tell them to add t90m next patch xD
i want l2 a7.
Make----> Abrooms SEPV2, Leo2A7, T-90M, Chally TES, Type 10, Ztz 99A and Leclerc (revisited)
@@radonsider9692 isn’t the challenger 2 2f a challenger 2 tes with a different name?
@@radonsider9692 M1A2 Abrams is strong enough, Leo 2A6 is still overpowered, T-80BVM still is inferior against both mentioned tanks, the only tank to be really added from the list is T-90M. Type 10 and Ztz 99 can be debated.
@@schnitzel0330 and Leclerc XXI or the Scorpion variant
I have seen a few captured ones being reviewed and the Ukrainians were very pleased with them. They stressed the new Sosna U sight's quality as well as the ATGMs.
yeah because they're upgrading from the T-64 lmao "very pleased with them" what a weirdo
Yes because it’s either the 72 or 64 that Ukraine mostly has. Compare to their supposed “adversaries” the Abrams outcompetes it
@@enriqueperezarce5485 the original T-72 has long since been upgraded. i hope you're not comparing an original T-72 to an original Abrams.
well its definitely better than the T64BV, and Bulats and Oplots exist in far too small numbers to make a big impact. Ironically the same is true of the T80BVM and T90M
@@olegbobrovskiy3244 T-80 BVMs appear (and get captured) in significant quantities. T-90M is true tho.
Hey RedEffect, great content covering T-80BVM. Can you cover the leaked “Bulrak” tank that has recently appeared? It looks very interesting.
It would be interesting indeed, maybe only the amount of info available would be a slight problem
Bulrak ? Where did you find that ?
@@MrMurder333666 Russia planned to change turrets on their tanks with Burlak turret in 2000s, Burlak can fit longer penetrators, has better armor and blast doors, but was abandoned.
Then month or two ago they started testing it again, there are few leaked pics of it.
Bulrak is a revived project from the 2000s ,Red talk about it b4
Burlak you mean?
Man you make one of the most awesome military videos on TH-cam.
Have you ever considered making video about Polish tank PT-91 Twardy?
The conclusion I draw from your videos is that all tanks are vulnerable from the sides/rear/above with handheld anti tank weapons.
The only viable solution being the very best active protection systems.
Soon™️
Well the best solution is to not get in a situation where someone shoots at your tank.
Not if they have side era, also side turret armour is usually decent
NLAW and Javelin defeat active protection systems.
This video aged unironically well.
They should do a full recall on all of these. Lol👍
Amazingly well detailed videos as always, but could you do a video about the M8 buford AGS ( the US light tank project that got abandoned and restarted around 2016)? I love it’s concept, because the US lacks an armored vehicle more flexible logistically than the abrams while being better protected and armed than a bradley. Since the tanks are still being tested there’s not as much reference material, but I’m sure you’d figure that out. I discovered that tank because it got added as the top reward for the april fools grinding event on war thunder
the M8 is quite a nice light tank, especially with the extra thicc ERA add-on armor modules giving it quite nice protection against RPG's and with the 120 mm gun giving it the same firepower capabilities of a heavy MBT, all combined in a relatively light vehicle to be air transported.
It only lacks an independent thermal sight for the commander (CITV), but at least he can still use the gunner's thermal sight (better than nothing).
Unfortuantely it also does not have a bunker with "blow-out blast panels" as the rounds are all stored inside the crew compartment (probably in some fire-proof canisters, but it still pose a danger). But I guess that's the downside for most light tanks.
@@militaryanalysis5028 those are composite blocks and not ERA. I heard that there were plans to also have ERA armor but I am not a 100 percent sure. The 120mm smoothbore was only mounted on a single prototype if I remember correctly. Also the autoloader is completely separated from the crew, so there’s a blowout pannel. You’re right for the hu storage though, that doesn’t look very safe, but most of the shells are at the turret which is also the most likely part to be hit in a tank. I don’t think it needs CITV because 1, it’s meant to bring tank firepower to infantry/airborn troopers and so wouldn’t work independently. With the modernization of the buford m8 that is currently ongoing as the US asked BAE to produce around 20 more prototypes, they might include it.
Overall it’s an amazing idea and I don’t get how the US could budget cut that and spend this long without something to replace the sheridan
@@maplearrow1842 well tbh I'm not sure about the actual add-on armor design, all I know is that there are 3 levels of protection and the level 3 can apparently stop RPG's at least.
Whether it's ERA or composite armor, it's still doing same result 😂.
The crew is still inside the turret tho, even with autolaoder... so I hope the ammunitoion is at least is some fire-proof canisters, otherwise it would be really nasty. But what it really needs is APS that would really help a lot! Who knows maybe it will receive APS in the future (if it gets accepted into the army), everything's possible.
@@militaryanalysis5028 due to it’s light armor it wouldn’t be dumb to develop a cheaper APS for it. Also I don’t understand what’s the issue with the turret, on one side you have the crew and on the other you have the autoloader. There’s quite a thick blast wall to separate both, and most of the roof above the autloader is made of blowout pannels, so in case of cookout it would never build enough pressure to do serious damage. The only downside with it is that if the turret gets shot sideways and it punctures the wall while there’s a burnout...
@@militaryanalysis5028 by the way I found out that the two weird rectangles with lines on them on the xm8’s hull are actually the blowout pannels for the hull ammo. I never understood why that was there, but now I know that they didn’t just leave the hull ammo as a risk
I guess it's a decent upgrade so that 2nd line of tanks have some chance in 2021 and onwards for a few years.
This is just an interim upgrade similar to T-72B3M to extend lifetime of existing fleet. Only several brigades (motor rifle and naval infantry) in the Far East and Arctic are armed with T-80BV(M)s. Besides that, only the 4th Guards tank division in Western MD is armed with T-80s (BVM in motor rifle regiment, U and UE-1 in tank regiments). And since its T-80Us have not gotten any significant upgrades in the last decade (despite widespread T-72 and now T-90 fleet modernization), the 4th GTD is probably one of the first formations in line to be rearmed with T-14s.
They stopped existing 5 months ago
March 2022: Which is the worst modern Russian tank? Yes.
Putin doesnt like your comment 🤣
Imagine how freaky it would be to try and tag a target with a laser only to have the turret instantly spin around and start pointing your direction. Time to crap yer pants :)
turns out the Ukriane people dont need there tanks to take out the Russian ones.
In tank on tank combat russian tanks are kicking ass the only time ukraine destroys russian tanks are im ambushes
@@adrianotaylor7230 Hmmmm that changes something? Russian tanks are obsolete bullshit and food for the ATGM's
The Russian's are still winning.
Every Russian tank destroyed 5 okraine tanks.
@@misterputin8898 so just like every other tank you primitive clown kiddo? 🤡
These tanks have been upgraded already. Now there is a putin's Z swastika painted on them!
Zwastika
Most of them also have weird burn marks and holes in them, not sure why they are doing that but Ukraine says it makes them much better
@@Nick-fw5uj the burn marks are from them sanitising them from covid so they can enter the country
@@Tremumbus Ah that might be it, maybe the holes are for extra ventilation due to covid aswell.
Do you think it should get the cage armor in WT?
Not only that, it should also get its side skirts.
As a grunt, I sure as hell would not start a fight with one unless I had a javlen
Also don't forget, it throws turrets
I heard recently that they run out of fuel a lot and are vulnerable to LATWs.
Very interesting to watch your older videos after "the Lazerpig incident", especially after he basically called you "Russian Propaganda". But we can clearly hear how you're criticizing the flaws and that barely anyone is mentioning those.
Who will win T80 or guided rocket powered bomb stick
Video was informative but I noticed a lack of fine examples of Imperial technology like the Baneblade or any titans
5/10
Suspicious video Drop after it released in war thunder
Just joking;)
Main vulnerability: Ukrainian tractors
Tractors be like: _wololo_
Эх. Смотреть западные новости это как говорить что кошка это собака
@@robinfrenzy the t 80bvm wondering why red turned blue D:
@@robinfrenzy Age of empires reference?
Would you do a video on tank upgrades? Say, a summary of T-55 upgrades, be it M-55S, Serbian T-55S, Tiran, Viet T-54M, AlZarrar, Durjoy, Chinese VT-3, Jaguar, Peruvian Tifon, T-55AGM, etc
Russian fire-and-forget system: Putin fires his generals and forgets about his soldiers 🤣
😂😂😂👍
javelin hold my ammo
Redeffect in your opinion which mbt has the best base Armour? Love your videos
T-14 with crew capsule?
@@ГромкаяЧашка How about a tank that actually exists? At least in active service.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 so. t-14
@@patriotic-panda T-14 didn't enter serial production and is not in active service.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 T-14 is in active service, just in very limited numbers because no seriel producion.
Congrats you now have an answer.
Almost all of this information is true, except the thing about protection. Late production T 80BV had the same armor layout as T 80U, making their protection identical. So, T 80BVM, not only has Relict at its front, it also has an added plate the material and thickness of which I can't remember
Source?
@@Brother_Nihilus I have a Russian post, but you will have to use Google translate
The inside of Russian tanks feel's like it was build by people who hate their job.
They were made by dwarfs engineer's that are afraid of new stuff
they were build to fit in il-72 and similar aircraft
@@cactuslietuva they afraid of spending one morr ruble
This video aged well
problem #1: The Javelin exists
Farmers have this now
all of this to be turned into scrap metal by an NLAW or Javelin lmao
It's biggest problem now is being abandoned by it's neo-fascist forces and towed away by Ukrainian tractors.
Oh wait, that's the opposite of a problem. :D
Facts
A week ago I watched a video of ukrainian farmers taking control of this tank, it was hilarious 👌🏻
You know that an entire battalion of Ukraines best military in the south are literally nazis right?
@@goldman6506 Why does every single 55 Savushkina street troll bleat "but azov, but azov, but azov"
Sure there's a single small unit of right wing fighters defending their homes. Funnily enough they're from the East of Ukraine and they're descended from the ruSSkie colonizers that replaced the Ukrainians genocided during the Holodomor.
It doesn't change the fact that putler sounds deranged trying to pretend that the elected, centre left, Jewish lead government of Ukraine is somehow fascist, when 3rd world ruSSia is actually a fascist nation.
@@mattmark94 It's amazing, I've seen so many videos of invading fascist tanks, AA vehicles, BMPs, BDMs etc being towed away.
3rd world ruSSia is now officially the single biggest supplier of Ukrainian military vehicles.
As long as this isn't against the T80 series as a whole. I Think the T80 is a great tank capable of combat today with speed and gun and armor.
Shame it doesn't have its proper sideskirts in War Thunder yet.
Stugna-P: Hahahaaa!
Javelin: Lol what
NLAW: ez kill
Ukrainian Tractors: Got em!
can survive against drones and javelin attacks?
I learned that this tank is meant for very cold environmet, because it's gas turbine is there favorable. Don't think to meet many western tanks at the nordcap or sibiria.
I'm not that much into tanks, I believe the Abrams has a turbine engine
@@okay2439 Correct. You should also look up the Arjun tank, as per this comment section.
@@Trump-a-Tron ARJUN????
As it turns out, another over hyped piece of russian junk.
Thanks for the nice subsumption!
I love the incoming projectile guiding system to make sure the base of the turret is an easy target.
you mean those angled panels? Well, even if they were a real steel slabs and not ERA panels like they are, they would not deflect the projectile into the base of the turret. Modern APFSDS projectiles dont bounce. If they dont penetrate, they shatter to pieces.
@@pavelslama5543 interesting. I must admit my knowledge about this is rather WWII. But are all projectiles it will encounter be modern enough ?
I feel like your core argument is T-80BVM is based on T-80BV and not T-80U which really is a stupid argument because aside from turret armor which only better by about 50mm is effectively the same as T-80BV in terms of firepower, mobility, and protection.
The point of T-80BVM wasn't to bring T-80 to T-90M standard (I don't know where you go that from) it was to bring T-80 up to T-72B3 mod 2016 standard which in a lot of ways surpasses its.
and before you ask "why not modernized T-80U" ? Remember Russia made less that 2,000 T-80U tanks with only a few hundred remaining in Russian service compared to the over 2,500 T-80BV tanks so BV was the obvious choice.
Still not good enough against a tractor
funny to see all this analysis and it just gets torn apart by NLAWs and Javelins. I think the age of the tank is over
Don't forget about the T90s and T90A getting getting hammered out there too. Lol.
When T72 or any sort of Russian tank gets destroyed in the middle east the Ivans be like..."Those are cheap export versions!!!!! Cheap knock off version! That's because it wasn't Russian! Tank in urban combat without infantry support is stupid". I'm 100% sure you seen all the excuses made by Ivan.
These days Russian T72, the upgraded variants, T80U and T90A are getting knock out in Ukraine even when they have infantry as support. Now these Ivans are like..."That's because Putin is only sending in the older equipment and conscripted as cannon fodders to weaken Ukraine's defense! He doesn't care about casualties or equipment losses. He's saving the best for last!" 5mins later..."Those deaths are all fake! Propaganda!" Yeah...you see the endless excuses.
I wouldn't say so.
Tanks still fill a vital role on the battlefield. Unless people feel like making major land invasions with infantry and trucks/IFVs.
Incompetence=/=obsolescence
Jesus Christ.. the current war just shows how tanks are total absolute.
@@SCH292 TAnks still have place on battlefield..dont go in 2 much MSM propaganda ..Russia lost a lot in first few days but also make good progress against very good Ukraine army ..its now encircled most off Ukrainian big cities and that would not be able with out tanks because Ukraine has much more soldiers then Russia in Ukraine ..yes you lost off armor but still casualties much lower then if you would went with out it
You act like a Abrams would not die from a Javaline🤡
Funny how now it’s considered to be better than the T-90M.
Its actually both best now
T-80 is best because its faster. Mass production for both now
In theory it shouldn't be too hard to bring a T-80 to T-90M's level via upgrades, as the T-90 itself is just an upgraded T-72. The USSR started development of it in the late 80's when it became apparent they couldn't afford to continue developing the T-64, 72 and 80 tanks so as a budget option they decided to focus just on the T-72 and add in some of the better features of the 64/80. Then in the 90's Russia renamed the T-72BU to the T-90 to try and hide the fact they were forced to focus on developing the USSR's third best tank in order to save money.
T-80BVM aka the Conscript's tank
T80bwm with kontakt 5 side is marine version because relikt era side does not fit in landing craft.
everything is simpler, just the Ministry of Defense does not have the money to purchase a more expensive and better stopping effect relic, contact 5 is an obsolete defense. which was relevant to the year in 1995 , the relic is now also almost obsolete, it was replaced by the protection of malachite developed on that Armata. but apparently it is even more expensive, for the purchase and mass production of armat, the military department now has no money. all funds are spent on equipping the army with expensive hypersonic missiles
The South Koreans received 40 T-80Us from Russia in the early 2000's. They found the armor protection to be surprisingly good, equivalent to NATO 3.5 generation tanks of that era. The Koreans deemed the frontal arch protection to be 600mm rha against KE and 1,200mm vs. CE (with the ERA blocks attached).
I'm sure they're currently wishing they had bought Leos seeing the T-80U perform on an actual battlefield instead of reading its specs.
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 the Koreans had physical samples they were able to extensively test. Anyways, I am just talking about armor here only. Also, it's likely that Leo2s without active protection would be just as vulnerable to top attack ATGMs. Turkish 90's era Leo2A4s were pretty vulnerable against Syrian ATGMs. Look it up on TH-cam. A lot of videos of Turkish Leo2A4s getting wrecked by Syrians.
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 maybe you just should open your eyes instead of listening to primitive ukra-propoganda 🤡
Not gonna lie, it is truly really shocking that this thing still uses an infrared searchlight. In modern combat that's like painting a bigass bullseye on your face.
That welding looks like my mum did it...
The main problem with this and similar is that it doesn't operate at optimum efficiency without fuel. Or a crew. Or a turret.
Lol
Oh yeah the new Russian tank in war thunder
Yeah, But Ukrainian farmers love 'em.
virgin T-80BVM vs chad T-80U
But what if the country you are invading has... mud?
It's a junk-death-trap, judging by current events.
You talking about your mom?
@@NKVD_Enjoyer sick burn.
So....the fanboys are still blaming Syrian or irakian crews for this Ukrainian debacle?
What do you mean? Russia is doing pretty good.
More than 40% of okraine is under Russian control and every Russian tank destroyed at least 5 okrainan tanks🤡
@@NKVD_Enjoyer it's doing so good in 20th day of the 48th hour special operation. :)) You're being delusional.. even Russians are running from Russia, and trolls like you still waste time by posting these low IQ propaganda B's. Man, in drug dealers world there's a saying, never get high on your own supply..This should be applied to Russian propaganda...never believe your own lies, or you'll start believing that cope cages work, you have a modern army and a strong economy and that Putin is a good leader :)). You made your account a week ago and you have 30 comments on this page alone.... Bahaha. Poor Russian, still believing that the year is 1968.. ah, i forgot, Russia is still in the 70"s.
According to war thunder, its pretty decent when defending against dm53. But when was war thunder ever that accurate
Are the U modernisations much better than the B modernisations?
Great video. Where is the external port for the gunner's sights?