>>>Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
@Golden Frog that's why military has three different divisions, that's to protect each other's military equipment through the specified capabilities on their counterpart which will be helped with reconaissance assistance and tanks' own defensive and offensive capabilities will be mixed with proper and accurate calculations to avoid such threats to damage the whole mechanized divisions and exterminate anti-tank entities and it tank crew and support from the ground, air and sea can destroy positions of anti-tank positions if needed and approved by military officials and commanders.
@@rinaldoman3331 is there a source for those figures? I can’t find anything on total T-80U production figures. All I know is that Ukraine had a few hundred that it sold to Pakistan.
I have to agree. Any tank that goes into an urban combat setting without Infantry Support and one has insurgents with anti-tank weapons (such as RPGs) is (as well say in America "a sitting duck." One might as well paint a huge bullseye on the top or on the behind. 🎯
@@bernardobiritiki And also have commanders with almost the highest General's admission (Dudaev), unlimited access to weapons in warehouses, get information BEFORE the attackers.
@@bernardobiritiki There was no preparation for the assault, no predetermined task was set. The enemy received information BEFORE those who entered the city, i.e., it was a trap in advance. There were no experienced crews; they were assembled from different units. There was no preparation of tanks for urban combat. ERA often did not load at all after transporting the equipment. There was no interaction with infantry and aircraft; the enemy immediately received information. The enemy had tactical, quantitative and information superiority. The enemy had virtually unlimited stocks of mobilization weapons depots. The enemy had the experience of command and support from abroad and domestically. It was a political step, the troops were trapped in order to receive political dividends and demoralize the army in order to seize power.
I think modern day Syria would fare waaaaay better in the battle of Grozny (even assuming they have the same amount of men fielded as the Russians, exact equipment as the Russians, the same available intelligence and the same amount of preperation as the Russian) in place of the Russians in terms of utilizing Armor and Infantry. The way they utilize armor along side infantry, though not perfect, was intoxicating.
@@youngrody2386 Yes, the Syrians are learning fast and unfortunately just as quickly forget. a tactical advantage is often lost due to many errors. The general level of the army is extremely low and lack of initiative. In addition, logistics problems are simply terrible due to lack of transport and fuel. That is why the United States is occupying and stealing oil in Syria, giving terrorists time to recover and not allowing Syria to restore logistics. In addition, constant sabotage and air attacks by Israel But the constant air strikes of the Russian Air Force prevent the situation from being missed and provide the Syrians with the opportunity to maneuver.
You forgot one little detail about Grozny. The T-80 reactive armor is supposed to stop an RPG. What Russian crews found out on the ground was that their explosive responsive plates...had NO explosives in it! Stolen for the black market.
Richard Patton I read somewhere that the aftermath of that was a hay day for Stavka. Oh there’s a hull over there, and there’s a turret over there. That means we lost two tanks. What? Why the false accounting? Why exaggerate the losses? Where did the tanks that were not knocked out go? Many reasons. High denomination, used, non-sequential. Despite all this, I don’t forget that the more savvy commentators did not disparage Russian/Soviet tanks because they knew they were designed to fit in with the prevailing doctrine. If they did not have the same features as their Western counterparts, it was deliberate. Maybe these days in an age of hybrid war fare, tank development is not a priority. By the time conventional armour makes an appearance, either the operation has failed or they are just there to look impressive on the evening news. No one should ever again think “we have only to kick in the door, and the whole rotting edifice will collapse.”
When transporting or storing the ERA must unloaded for safety reasons. I already mentioned the reasons why the ERA was not loaded: The problems of the T-80 during the New Year’s assault were that: There was no preparation for the assault, no predetermined task was set. The enemy received information BEFORE those who entered the city, i.e., it was a trap in advance. There were no experienced crews; they were assembled from different units. There was no preparation of tanks for urban combat. ERA often did not load at all after transporting the equipment. There was no interaction with infantry and aircraft; the enemy immediately received information. The enemy had tactical, quantitative and information superiority. The enemy had virtually unlimited stocks of mobilization weapons depots. The enemy had the experience of command and support from abroad and domestically. It was a political step, the troops were trapped in order to receive political dividends and demoralize the army in order to seize power.
i love t80. i love how it looks, i love the gasturbine, the autoloader, etc. But yeah, it has lower protection, fire controls, optics...etc than western tanks. The 2 most shameful things about T80 for me: low gun depression( just like any post-ww2 soviet tanks),it has gun stabilisation, but when a t80 goes on a bumpy road, on bigger bumps its gun points at the sky.western tanks had proven the benefits of gun depression at the Yom Kippur War. Second thing: primitive mechanical steering mechanism (even some western ww2 tanks had better steering): it can only turn on a couple fixed turning radius, and it cannot pivoting.Modern tanks have hidrostatic or hidrodynamic steering, they can turn as smooth as a car.I red somewhere that the T80um1 had hidrostaic transmission, but it was just a prototype from the end of 90s, for export only. Maybe its not a big issue, but im always jealous when i see in videos, that how smooth is the gunstabilisation on a Leo2 even on big bumps compared to the t80, and the steering,too.
My guess is that the T80BV was used for the newer upgrades because the Russians didn't want to take the T80U out of service to upgrade it. Upgrading the T80BVM will allow these tanks to "leapfrog" the better T80U and keep more tanks in service.
@@Max_Da_G It was a functional prototype, they even did testing with it, the project was cut short because Russia saw the potential cost and said: "NOPE, NOPE!!" Edit: Some of it's technologies were used to further the development of the T-90MS
Worth mentioning that after the dissolution of the USSR, Russia inherited quite a few t-80UDs (which actually was supposed to become the main Soviet tank). Those t-80UDs ended up being scrapped after the engine resource was exhausted, all those superior turrets just wasted
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the T-80UD uses the exact same turret, gun, and FCS as the base T-80U, only changing out the powerpack. There aren't any turret improvements to speak of.
@@Strelnikov403 The only T-80 with an improved turret that I know of (ignoring prototypes like Black Eagle) is the the T-84 Oplot M, which has a welded turret that looks strikingly similar to the T-90A.
The problems of the T-80 during the New Year’s assault were that: There was no preparation for the assault, no predetermined task was set. The enemy received information BEFORE those who entered the city, i.e., it was a trap in advance. There were no experienced crews; they were assembled from different units. There was no preparation of tanks for urban combat. ERA often did not load at all after transporting the equipment. There was no interaction with infantry and aircraft; the enemy immediately received information. The enemy had tactical, quantitative and information superiority. The enemy had virtually unlimited stocks of mobilization weapons depots. The enemy had the experience of command and support from abroad and domestically. It was a political step, the troops were trapped in order to receive political dividends and demoralize the army in order to seize power. After the failure of the coup, he fled to London. ----------------------------------------------- For the first time, a criminal case against Berezovsky was instituted in 1999 under the Primakov government. Since September 20, 2001, he was wanted in Russia on charges of fraud, money laundering and an attempt to forcibly seize power. In addition, since 1999, the Swiss prosecutor's office has been investigating him on charges of fraud and money laundering. In the same year, Berezovsky was denied entry to Switzerland. The circumstances of the death of Berezovsky on March 23, 2013 near London were not reliably established; According to the priority version of the investigation, he committed suicide. German forensic expert Bernd Brinkmann, a strangulation specialist employed by the businessman’s family for an independent investigation, did not agree with the suicide findings. In his opinion, the deceased could not hang himself; he was strangled. -----------------------------------------------
*(Boris Berezovsky)* Whether it is in Russia, western Europe or America, (these people) always act only for their own interests, but against the interests of the native population. Their ideology preaches that people outside their ethnic group are to be considered "cattle" and (they) aren't held by any moral restraints when interacting with. (They) have secretly held these racists views for millenniums. Nowadays, they're heavily involved in liberal activism, influencing foreign policies of superpowers that benefit their home country, promotion of open borders and endless third world non-white migration. (Who) are these people?
@@JAnx01 This is the financial "elite" (as they themselves believe), which is hindered by the state and the family as an institution of society, the goal is the atomization of society and direct financial management, corporate fascism with the relegation of a person to a disenfranchised element that does not have its own identity. The right to something delegates responsibilities, but if a person is completely "free" then he does not have rights. Their goal is maximum "freedom", freedom from being human. "A terrorist or extremist doesn't have a nationality, it's just a criminal." с Liberalism, in the sense that it is now being imposed, is the plague of our time, which cripples society and deprives it of the possibility of development.
@@JAnx01 pls tell why immigrants that are non white are bad? Also if an poor Afghany guy can barely make it over several country's with really small budget and bad education and still can steal your job, then maybe you should try harder and not he.
@@Tankliker It is true that no one is worse or better; everyone is equal. If you want to do something good just do it, do not expect that someone else will do it for you. Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were destroyed by the United States and Europe, although these were secular countries. Granting preferences to migrants in Europe is also not clear, this contradicts the logic. Everyone must be equal before the law otherwise it does NOT work.
Problems of operation of the T-80: Lack of manufacturability, high cost of maintenance and repair. High labor costs for field repairs, the impossibility of field repairs in many cases. High fuel consumption, 1-2 times higher than the T-72B for the same mileage. 4 times higher cost of replacing the engine, the requirements of high-class fuel and lubricants, filters. Difficulties with system repair, extreme (unjustified) complexity of aiming systems. Increased requirements for mechanics and crew. The difference in mobility with the T-64 and T-72, higher average speed and fuel consumption. Problems with logistics, spare parts, fuel. Technical problems: Higher complexity - higher likelihood of breakdowns, higher labor costs for repairs. The requirement for the availability of special tools, consumables and high-class mechanics. Longer repair time. High fire hazard due to the presence of hydraulics (the T-72 is an electro-mechanic). Arrangement of charges in the loading mechanism vertically, increased vulnerability. Increased risk for the driver due to the specifics of the tank. Weaker booking compared to the T-72B, for the T-80B, except for the rare T-80U.
Yes, this is the real problems with T-80. Gas turbine tanks are not needed anymore. Germans has turbo diesel engines as powerful as Abrams gas turbines and consumes a lot less fuel. Also cheaper to make and to maintain. T-80 is from the era were Soviet Union had 10x bigger military budget then todays Russia. Todays Russia can't afford gas turbine engines anymore. I dont say that Russia is poor, but only very rich countries can maintain gas turbine tanks and in big numbers. But even Germany understood that turbo diesel was the better choice in most cases.
@@cactuslietuva The use of a gas turbine engine on the T-80 was dictated by a greater specific power and compactness. Now on the T-14 this is not so much relevant, the diesel is more than enough.
You can start T-80BVM or any T-80 at -40 less then minute, and for all diesel engines you need at that temperature more then 45 min to start up engine....So T-80 is great for arctic conditions and arctic warfare...
basically the same story with the tanks since t-62... - i'm obsolete let me die already. - here have a insignificant upgrade that will barely change anything and we will either give you new letter in the name of the model or slap a new number.
Russian Army: "Oh no, these tanks are horribly obsolete and we don't have the money to replace them!" Tank Manufacturer: "Well... why don't we give a nice, cheap upgrade for them -that doesn't address the underlying issues that make them obsolete- ." Russian Army: "Okay."
42 not really a man with a 10 rounds of ammunition can beat 10 unarmed men without breaking a sweat. Quantity only works if your opponent is running out of material. The Soviet’s has lost 30million soldiers in their mass attacked strategy, but they had the men to back it up. Now Russia is paying for that as their population is only 118million. It turns out sending 30million men to their death had effects on the future population.
42 if quantity’s beats quality, why did the USA lose the Vietnam war? You know, it’s easy to send millions of troops to die when your an authoritarian government and a world superpower.
42 think of quantity vs quality like Machine gunner vs Sniper. Machine gunner can spray bullets and has a small chance of succeeding and killing his target. The Sniper may take longer to shoot, but he has a high chance of actually hitting his target. So yes quantity will get results faster and possibly a successful result , but it will never be as good as a quality success.
Meh, I think the CITV in Arjun was probably not even plugged to power or it failed right at the beginning of tank service. Then it was replaced, and then again and again, and they simply left it as it is cuz it started to be hilariously expansive to fix.
@@HanSolo__ I worked a lot with Indian colleagues in railway business and I can 100 % confirm that this is the way they work. A non functional part is being replaced three times, then they give up, instead of searching for the reason, why the part didn’t work in the first place.
The biggest problem with T80 is price and maintenance problems of the helicopter-type engine. Also, it use more fuel. The Russian Army keeps them ONLY in the northern part of Russia where this kind of engine can be started more easily compare with regular diesel.
It's probably good enough for it's intended role..the armor is good enough against most rounds it will probably face from the front. The most likely round the T-80BM will face from another tank is the Bm42/22 .
They probably choose to prioritize the modernization of T-80B/BV tanks because those are actually hopelessly outdated, and there are also many more T-80B/BV than T-80U. Even though the T-80U is outdated, it can still somewhat hold its own against NATO tanks which are not the most advanced of their types. For example, Turkey uses Leopard 2A4 and M60A3 tanks in large numbers, and even the M60T 'Sabra' probably isn't better than a T-80U, while the mainstay of Polish Army are T-72M1s with various degrees of upgrades (including the PT-91), with a good number of them being even worse than T-80B. All of these tanks I mentioned above are arguably inferior to even basic T-80U. Additionally, relatively limited upgrades such as T-80UM or T-80UE can continued to be applied which makes the T-80U fleet more capable (even if it is still not up to standards of most modern tanks). Protection-wise, T-80U turret with Kontakt-5 makes it at least somewhat capable of withstanding all but the most modern munitions, which is relatively rare among European armies, and even the US Army still has some old APFSDS in service that were proven to be ineffective against T-72B. The T-80BV on the other hand, is far worse in capability (with base armor being worse than T-72B) and therefore needs the protection of Relikt ERA, and other upgrades to things like FCS, much more urgently. That's why the BVM upgrade makes sense, especially if the plan calls for reintroduction of thousands of T-80B/BV, which were previously in storage, now to be modernized and back in active service alongside T-72B3 as the 'second line' of its tank fleet (with T-90M and T-14 forming the 'first line'). So suppose that the Russians decided to apply the BVM upgrade to T-80U instead of T-80BV (let's call it T-80UB). They would end up having ~350-400 T-80UB (which still isn't as good as T-90M), while the 3000 or so T-80B/BV are still stuck in the 1980s and would get trounced by other tanks or ATGMs in an actual war. This choice is obviously worse than the plan they actually chose, with the 3000 T-80B/BVs eventually upgraded to semi-modern standards to meet their requirements. Furthermore, if they were to upgrade the T-80U, than the T-80Us would be taken out of service temporarily without a good substitute, while the T-80B/BVs are not in active service anyway. This way, the army would not be affected much during the modernization process.
You make really good videos without the fanboyish slant a lot of reviewers give their videos.....way to go. I would love to see an in depth video on the T-14 Armata sometime this year, just to see how far its evolved since its unveiling.
Only the 4th Guards tank division is armed with T-80Us, and it is one of the most prominent formations in the Russian Army, stationed in the Western MD near Moscow. The fact that its vehicles are not being upgraded while almost all others are seems to indicate that its units are among the first in line to be rearmed with the T-14s. Perhaps, when that begins to happen, its T-80Us will be rotated to other formations, receiving upgrades in the process.
Another option would have been to mate the turrets of decommissioned T-80UDs (that Russian MOD maintains a stock of) with the hulls of T-80BVs during the upgrade, similarly to the T-80UE-1. But, apparently, the Russian MOD considers just adding Relikt to be the more cost-effective option for now.
The T-80BVM is the T-72B3 MOD.2016 of the T-80 line, the T-80BVM is a upgrade for a less then desirable vehicle that Russia has alot of, just like the B3 UBH, the T-90Ms existence tells me a T-80UVM(probably won't be its ne lol)will be eventually made, to bring the T-80U up to T-90M standard, so Russia has T-90M and T-80UVM as front line units with T-72B3 UBG and T-80BVM as the more numerous backline units.
Let's be honest nothing stops Russians to make a T80UM (just put the same stuff from T80BVM but on T80U ) but they just don't do it there even was attempts to put APS on T80U and they named as T80UM1 and T80UM2 so technically i believe that they are okay with what T80U capable to do.
The biggest problem is that the Soviets ended up with 3 very similar tanks in the form of the late model T-64B, T-72A/B and T-80 due to political machinations around the 3 design bureaus and the Army. Similar in size, different in armour (though most of that was mounting completely different ERA in the T-80U models) and similar guns, with different ammo loadouts. T-80U did represent the pinnacle of Soviet tank tech in the late 80s/early 90s though. T-80 now suffers the same problems again, with the Russians stuck with the T-72, T-80 and T-90 series. Any upgrade to one type can easily apply to the rest, since a lot of upgrades are now plug-and-play. T-80BVM pretty much is used for the arctic patrol anyway, with T-72B3 being the mainline tank, and T-90M as the odd breakthrough tank. This pretty much means that the budget is not really going to upgrade T-80s.
T-84 Bastion (or old T-80UD) VS Arjun "battle". It does not make sense to compare with the normal T-80 or T-80B. Pakistan has 200 T-80UDs, with all their problems that they cannot solve. Unlike the indicated problem T-84 or T-80UD, T-80B and T-80U are still in service and are being modernized.
T-80BV does have upgraded turret compared to T-80B, so it has nearly the same level of protection as T-72B (basically, T-72B and T-80BV are from the same generation, and T-72A and T-80B are from previous generation of the tank families). I've seen many internet experts not mentioning this fact, but, you know, internet experts are no experts at all 99% of the time. Overall design of turret armor of T-80BV is the same as T-80B, unlike T-72B compared to T-72A, but the materials are different as far as I know (basically, T-80BV has different composite filler in the same cast shell), so armor protection had increased between two models. T-80U is more akin to early T-90.
T-80B and T-80BV have exactly the same turret, I dont know where you got the idea that any changes were made. When in 1982 USSR got captured Israeli tanks together with M111 Hetz 105mm APFSDS, they discovered that the hull armor of their tanks, including T-80B, could be penetrated, the turrets were good enough on most tanks because they were made to be stronger than hulls in the first place. So in 1983 they put additional steel plates over existing tanks as a place holder until new armor arrays are developed. T-80BV retained the same turret of T-80B but got upgraded hull armor, at that time it wasnt that necessary to upgrade the turrets and the turret of T-80U which appeared at the same time as the new hulls, was more expensive, and thus was reserved for the superior T-80U tanks.
@@RedEffectChannel "Дальнейшее усиление бронирования танка Т-80Б достигнуто в Т-80БВ, принятом на вооружение в 1985 г . Броневая защита лобовой части корпуса и башни этого танка принципиально такая же, как на танке Т-80Б, но состоит из усиленной комбинированной брони, и из навесной динамической защиты «Контакт-1» - "Further increase of armor protection of T-80B was made in T-80BV model, which was adopted for service by 1985. Upper front hull and turret protection remained fundamentally the same as for T-80B, but consisted of reinforced composite armor and ERA 'Kontakt-5'. Link: btvt.info/1inservice/t-80.htm - there are some sourcebooks at the end. You can google translate the whole article if you don't believe me. But I wouldn't believe whose sources fully, as the armor protection is a matter of technological secrets, so even in with the collapse of the Union all the sources remained pretty vague and politically motivated.
@@RedEffectChannel in any case, not increasing turret protection of T-80BV doesn't make any sense in historical perspective, as NATO made a major shift in firepower increasing battletank's gun calibre by early 80s. T-80B model was made with the 105 mm gun in mind after all. T-80U was, on the other side, more of a more experimental 'future-proof' model rather than a direct response to new up-gunned Abrams models, even if the adoption year officially is the same as of T-80BV.
@@ФедяКрюков-в6ь I have used the article as source for info for the video, but that sentence in particular is very vague. It states that the armor is mainly like the one of T-80B but features improved composite armor, the problem is, it doesnt mention the parts where the improved composites are implemented. You can see in the table a little below that text that the armor values for the turret (420mm) and the hull (570mm) against APFSDS are drastically different, that is because the turret hasnt been upgraded. You have other proof. When T-80BV appeared existing T-80B tanks were now getting 30mm plate on the hull instead of the 16mm one that was being added after the tests against M111. This was suppose to bring T-80B to T-80BV in the level of protection, but no changes were done to the turret to T-80B, which should say that the turret of T-80BV is the same, since no efforts were made to improve the T-80B one when T-80BV came out. And why would they make an improved turret when they were already working on an improved one, the T-80U one, the turret was also meant to be installed on T-80BV tanks, and such tanks are now known as T-80A tanks, a pic of T-80U turret I used in the video is one of those, you can recognize it by the fact that it has Kontakt-1 mounts.
The reason for up grading the t80bv and not the t80u is to extend the service life, although the t80u being upgraded would make a more heavily armoured tank it does not currently require the upgrade
I feel like in this modern age, tank armors are not really that important. Modern tanks have crazy amount of penetration and Equipped with ATGM that'll blast through anything anyway.
Also, that tank "killed" one of russian youtubers. Alconafter (his nickname) made critical video about video on Zvezda chanel about this tank. Zvezda, as channel of russian Ministry of Defence, of course, sayd, that this tank is super cool, super moder and that army need this one very badly (usual propaganda). And, when they saw, that some dude from the intrnet with 400k subscribes criticizes them they baned his chanel on youtube. And, what is the most funny part of all this story, they baned him for using chronicle videos of Soviet Ministry of Defence.
This is my favorite Russian tank of all time. Even given its flaws. However, if I had a fantasy tank that I've always wanted, the Black Eagle is it. That rounded front end to the turret and a long box for ammo on the back with blowout panels for crew safety. I just love the way it looks 😊
I would be interested to see an unbiased video on which tanks are being used, how they are deployed, and how well they fare in action in the Ukraine Conflict.
@@talltroll7092 Ukraine has its domestic tanks of closely related types as well. Hopefully the combined tactics are better such that they don't fare as bad as Russians. The most recent variant being Oplot but I don't think they have more than a handful of these.
@@richardm3023 the actual game changer is Stugna. If Ukrainian equip thermal imaging for every unit, I don't think there is a show place for Javelin. Stugna is a God.
@@SianaGearz There are 5 Oplot in Ukrainian army. Yeah, there are 5. I dunno if they survived. The rest are outdated T 64. Some have the new thermal imaging system for gunner. Some have Nozh 3rd gen ERA- T 64BM Bulat. The condition of Ukrainian tank force is even worse than Russian one, which is already bad. But Ukraine has a lot of modern anti tank weapon and that is the main point.
Exactly the upgraded T-80BV to BVM to avoid graveyard and scrap because T-80U can still be made operational once needed. If you think about it, Russia did not produce Tanks for more than a decade, pushing all the resources into T-14's development, So they need to keep the Tanks available by upgrading older T-80BVs to T-80BVM, older T-90 and eventually all of T-90s to T-90M (also promoting for export), while upgrading what in service of the T-72s to T-72B3/B3M and have T-80Us in reserve/operational storage, while the rest in long term storage such as T-80B/T-72s. So basically the plan was a mix of T-90M/T-80BVM/T-72B3M to reach 2700-3000 in service and T-80U 2700-3000 in reserve/operational storage (with an amount of T-72 in storage for potential spare parts or export after modernisation) Until T-14 gradually puts T-80BVM/T-72B3/B3M in reserve/operational storage and T-80U in long term storage and the rest such as T-62/72/80B/BVs in graveyards to be scrapped into parts or metals/components. Now what happened is proving that T-80BVMs was the right decision, the brought old T-80BVs instead of scrap or inoperability without decreasing the number of T-80Us. The situation is so dire that they need every tank available due to poor Tank storage condition, parts stealing and illegal scrap, and constant breakdowns + proof is that they are fielding T-62Ms to the battlefield despite being old/vulnerable and having a different ammo caliber (115 mm i/o 125 mm). I think in those 7000 T-72s in storage they can only rely on a 1000-1500, half can be sent to battle after minor repair (some previously in reserve, so working from time to time). Leaving 5500-6000 T-72s in a situation where scrapping is better (salvaged and missing parts, rusted, old designs, grass all-over), so might be used for some commun parts to be given to working Tanks. While T-80s despite being a legacy of ukrainian soviet factories and having the hated gas engine, T-80U can be sent to battle after a quick repair and overhaul maybe 2500-3000 units, replacing the Tank losses and arming half of mobilized 300ks reservists, but will complicate logistics (Fuel/spare parts/skilled mechanics and crews (they are more familiar with T-72s). T-80A/B will have the same fate of T-72s, scrap and canibalisation (at least they serve a purpose), while what remains of T-80BV can be sent to factories for modernisation to T-80BVM. Basically 3000 T-80U/BVs (contact 5/1 ERA) and 1500 (contact 1 ERA) T-72s (+4500) Tank can be repaired and sent to battle and replace all Tank losses (Numerically) and arm the 300 K reservists in Ukraine, with little to No operational reserves remaining. (Some 6000 T-72/80 used for parts/scrap), hundreds of T-62Ms to be sent as fire support (as mobile short Artillery or as an IFV) to compensate for the losses of IFVs, All of the BMP-2 fleet in storage can replace all IFV losses but will not arm 100% the reserves, while Bmp-1 is in same situation as the T-72s. The only reserve is in order to maintain a post war 3rd G level stock of Tanks with few hundreds of T-72/T-80BVs in storage reserved for modernisation in factories to B3M/BVM, relaunch full production of T-90M production and send those 200 reserve T-90s to battle (meaning suspending T-14). Creating basically a cushion of a few hundreds to 500 Tank of 3rd G for expected inevitable attrition as a replacement in the next couple of years. So basically we have 1700-2000 lost or will be lost in few weeks. Meaning only 1000 remains from previously active service Tanks made of mostly (T-90/T-80BVM/T-72B3-B3M). + 1500 T-72Bs (contact 1 ERA) for immediate losses numerical replacement (+ hundreds of (ex-mothballed T-62M for infantry support or Wagner/Donetsk militia-previously reserved for Syrian army), small & slow influx of T-72 from storage areas if they are lucky (salvaging the 5500 scrap metals of old inoperable T-72). + 3000 T-80s from storage (mostly contact 5 ERA T-80Us) arming the 300k reserves for a winter push in Ukraine. (Total in best conditions 5500 Tanks(T-90/80/72)-4500 to fight in Ukraine, maybe 1000 in guard duties and 3500 for pushing the lines ( +3 to 1 odds necessary for a push) and 1000 to remain in Russia proper), No further Tank reserve remaining (5500 T-72s/80s in critical condition-Better to be scrapped). Having 500 tank or So (T-80BV/T-72) in bad condition but eligible for modernisation to be sent to factories for modernisation (out of combat potential) to replenish 3rd G level Tanks and future attrition post-war replacements. + production of T-90M.
I think the reason why we modernizing the t-80bv it’s their numbers. Upgrading them much cheaper than building new thanks especially until we will starting to produce t-14 in mass numbers. In the end it’s better to have BVMs in reserve than old ass BVs.
I don't believe T-80U have 700mm but rather ~630mm(since its not that thick) , T-72B whit K5 was also ~650mm. (this also comes from a source displayed in one off red effect vidoes Frkm what I know T-80UD was 600mm it had knew armour layout T-80UD'89 had the same but armour was RHA and not cast ( or it was cast but hardened) being 700mm against AP and T-80UK which had the base turret In hardened RHA (High carbon steel) 850mm ke. Soviet tanks had expecial steels whit better properties than regular steel.
The biggest problem with the T80, as well as all other Soviet T-tanks, is that they must be nearly fully exposed to fight. Soviet engineers fetished small size to the point where they can no longer occupy a hasty hull down position, which limits them to fully prepared stationary defensive fighting positions (called "kill me" positions by Western tankers) or driving around fully exposed in the offense. Western tanks can acquire targets from the turret down position and kill targets from the hull down, which is far superior to anything you can do with Soviet tanks.
I'm guessing the thought process was "the T-80U is already pretty good, but the T-80BV sucks. Let's upgrade the oldest, worst tanks first, and then the newest, best ones."
During the 80's I was in the US Army as an 11H (Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman) where we used the TOW missile. Each month I would go to our BN S-2 shop and review armor vehicle updates from Jane's Monthly to learn about new systems and countermeasures the Soviet bloc countries were using. But for each missile defense system they put on their tanks, we would simply modify the TOW missile to work around it. For instance, when reactive armor was fielded we developed a "top attack" missile that flew one meter above our aiming point then when the missile detected both thermal and metal below it through its anomaly detectors, two shape charges would detonate downward to penetrate the thinner armor on the top of the vehicle. We have about 8 different types of TOW missiles to choose from when engaging a target (BGM-71A-H). I've seen older Soviet type tanks being used in Syria and I know the export types are not the same as what the Russian Army uses. It's up to the country that bought the tanks to improve their armor protection but they rarely care to do so because they don't want to spend money on their military. When fighting against tanks we use other assets before the tanks are close enough for the TOW system (4,000 meters) which is aircraft, naval gun fire, artillery and even mortar rounds. By the time an enemy armor formation reaches our positions, the enemy has been weakened substantially which gives us an advantage because of how their state of mind is which ensures they'll make poor decisions when we attack. We try to use terrain to our advantage by killing the rear tank then the lead tank in a road convoy to bottleneck the convoy so they have nowhere to go and then we work through all the tanks one by one until eliminated. Our main purpose is to protect our Infantry and armored vehicles if we have them attached to our task force. By knowing details of each tank variation we're able to tell which tanks have advanced technology or are their leaders so we engage them first. The easiest way to tell is if a tank has two or more radio antennas since most tanks will have just one. What I mentioned doesn't always ensure I'll win a battle since we have to worry about countermeasures to deal with.
Some funny ideas for fun: maybe you could view some fictional tanks or AFVs (i.e., Mammoth Tank from Command and Conquer or Scorpion Tank from Halo) and see how they would work / how good they would be if they actually exist IRL.
Gas turbine is actually cutting edge tech for a tank. The use of them has been limited by cost, availability of parts etc. Ask le mureica, they'll swear by it.
A modern gas turbine is definitely "cutting edge tech", so is a modern diesel engine. It has less to do with the principle of operation and more to do with the specific engine model in question.
The "only" deficiency with the T-80 isn't that it lacked a TTS, or that later variants had the TTS dedicated to the gunner. The T-80 has many of the shortcomings common to Soviet/Russian designs. Specifically, insecure ammo storage, a reliance on applied rather than organic armor, crew ergonomics that were damn near torture, lack of internal volume for system growth and an autoloader which (by elevating the gun to bring the breech into the loading position) signaled when the tank's gun was unloaded (IE, "that tanks no threat because he's reloading. Gunner, engage his wing man first..."). The Russians are trying to do two things. First, they are trying to keep their tank fleet viable given that the T-14 will not see widespread (if any) deployment and the upgrades to the T-90 are going to suck up a lion's share of the AFV budget. Secondly, the Russians are using the T-80 upgrade as a marketing demonstrator to sell upgrades to other Soviet/Russian tank users. Lets be honest, the Russian armor program is in a very poor state. They are still burdened with to many tank types and sub-models which would cause logistical issues in a major conflict. Their latest tank (which I always thought was vaporware), the T-14 is not going into full (if any) production, resulting in the Russians falling back on modest upgrades to the T-90, a tank which does not inspire much fear in the hearts of Western tankers, given the problems the Indians are having with it. To quote my old First Sargent, "Sir, you just can't spit shine a turd."
@@bobfg3130 That's odd. I would define those who made the tank having problems getting it to work properly as the definition of a bad tank. This explains why the Indians purchased the T-90, and the wonder weapon that is the T-90 explains why the Indians returned to the Arjun. They'd have been better off if they'd built the Leo under license
@@Waltham1892 No. You sound like you're intentionally dense. I hope you are intentionally. Export versions will be inferior to domestic versions. That's always the case. The Egyptians have a "downgraded" M1 Abrams for example. As for maintenence, the Indians could have not maintained them properly. Sadly the Indians have messed up things they shouldn't quite recently.
War Thunder is pretty cool. But they lowered the traction coefficient so much that even in Realistic battles the tanks slip around like they are rally cars on loose gravel. It's quite silly. I hope they fix it.
I wonder how good a t80 was, when it's left on top of a hill for days like the Turkish leo 2a4. The Leo 2a4 losses in turkey are the prime example for people who like to descredit its performance. But on a t80 we should start to get picky. That's double standard.
tank usage doesnt increase armor unless specifically angled. And that is spot-specific. Western tanks didnt have to fight jihadists in their own countries with plentiful modern antitank means. What it basically means, once there is a counter to armor or even with APS, there is radar suppression from infantry, when hit from the side especially, most tanks go boom, but it also depends on loadout.
@@cdgncgn Most modern composite armours don't really work as well when angled as they do from head on. Hence if you look at the armour of tanks without the steel plates etc, it's almost always in flat 90° blocks.
Russia has been behind I the tank game since NATO modernization in the early 19080's after having the better vehicles for decades They finally were going to modernize properly with the T-14 but that has been a phantom menace for since the one broke down at the parade, the production number by 2020 is nowhere near what they wanted and the tank from all available info has been stuck in development still.....I think Ivan found out that modern MBT are not that easy to build.....and they learned this the hard way
@@ASlickNamedPimpback i did not save it, but in pictures taken from north of Kyiv territorial forces of Ukraine found T-72 tanks with cardboard insted of reactive armor in capturedtanks. I can't give you a source, so you either have to Google yourself ot do the "dude, trust me"
Most of those are in cold storage......pre-po equipment, just in case the mother of all wars kicks off. I'm telling everyone on this board that Russia is a fall-guy, made up boogeyman. Russia is worried about Russia. We could have made massive inroads as far as working together, until we decided to expand NATO right on its doorstep. Russia still has nightmares about another Germany devastating its country which is why its lashing out in the way it has over the last decade. China is the REAL boogeyman.....read, learn, inform yourselves on how this whole pile of crap ties together.
Not exactly, at a range of more than 1.5 km, it matters. In addition, 80BV or T-72B3 M are needed to counter the P-91, T-64B, T-72M, T-72A/B, Leo-2A4, T-55 and T-62. For NATO, there is otrk Iskander.
@@elusive6119 i didn't say it doesn't matter at all but not much, you forgot chall 2, chall 1, leclerk, 120 abrams variants, leopard 2a5+ for them it doesn't matter much
@@Sveta7 Poland or Ukraine do not have these tanks. The United States and Britain or France will start a war only if it is financially beneficial. In addition, they are too vulnerable due to the lack of air defense, in case of aggression against Russia, the losses will be so serious that it is simply not worth it.
Reason, why they upgraded the T-80Bs instead of the T-80Us, were because of the fact that they are rotating the inventory to the reserves. If they upgraded the neglected T-80Bs then they would have a better force generally than upgrading the already decent T-80Us. If they only upgraded the T-80Us, they would still have a mass inventory of sub-par T-80Bs.
The logic (and I am not saying it is a good one) behind the T-80BVM is that they are upgrading the lighter version of the tank (T-80BV is 42Tons vs T80U 46 tons) to maximise mobility and that's because of where they are deploying the new tanks: the T-80BVMs are being sent to the extreme east (east of Siberia) and extreme north (Arctic region) in both ground forces and Naval infantry formations, where the roads are less available (a lot of off roading will be needed in snowy/muddy regions so more power to weight ration is needed) also where the multi fuel gas turbine can facilitate the logistics of remote regions and the Gas Turbine engines can start faster than diesel in really (really really) cold conditions. Also all in all their numbers are not that big (400 max/a tank batallion is around 35 tanks) and just like the T-72B3 are used as stop gaps until they make up their mind about the T-14 (either the tests are satisfactory and mass production could start or they will infest more in T-90M and start a new "new gen" tank design). the whole problem with Russian Ground Forces is the stop gap measures that have been going on for nearly 15 years because they did not have any serious projects in development in 90s and 2000s + the big slap they received in Georgian war.
Everything is correct except for the last assumptions. The development of tanks did not stop. Since UVZ received a large order from India for the T-90, they could finance the development of ob. 195 and buy out competitors, Omsk and the Kirov plant. It is at least strange to consider "ob. 195" and "ob. 299" as insignificant projects) In 2008, the T-72SIM1 was of interest to the trophy teams and was studied, probably this was the starting point for the modernization of the T-72B3, it is quite similar. The T-62M reservists who were there first in the battle (since they were the closest of all) showed themselves unexpectedly well. Neither Israeli thermal imagers and digital communications helped Georgia.
Ask the javelin and nlaw if it cares about the armor. Better yet ask the guys in side after they are hosed out about Russian tanks and how Great they are Slava Ukraini
dude all russian autoloaders have the same just watch his vid on T72 and T90 then, that will solve you question. or know basics of russian tank in general you should know by now
@@wonkagaming8750 i know, but if its a NATO counties tank then any weakness such as internal ammo storage (Leopard 2) gets the full treatment. The T-80 was regarded as the best Soviet tank in its time by NATO during the cold war, there are vids on youtube about Britmis where they are filming all the T-80's on exercise and how they found out about how good the ERA was, this showed that NATO tank ammunition was inadiquate to penetrate said tank(s) and new penetrators were needed to combat this :) (still nice to get all the issues with the tank though 😆)
The t-80 does have a more vulnerable mechanism for loading the gun (for 28 rounds ready to fire), with the location of the charges vertically (!). In addition, the mechanism is hydraulic, and therefore fire-dangerous. But it assumes the possibility of modification to use more modern projectiles and it is faster when the projectiles are loaded sequentially. The T-72B has a horizontal two-level more secure loading machine for 22 projectiles, where there are no hydraulics, but only electromechanics. The main problem with the vulnerability of ammunition IS not automatic loading. A secondary laying of shells throughout the internal volume, usually they are not loaded for this reason.
T90 has a diesel engine.. which means it had huge issues to work in arctic conditions... turbine doesnt have such issues and can run in much colder weather.... thats why T80
The Russians were making T-90s in the 1990s. Basically they focused on equipping those and didn't send almost any money on the T-80s which were....obsolete and probably difficult to maintain.
>>>Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
RedEffect hi
Red effect make a video on Bob Semple tank.
redeffect you should make war thunder video too.. like tank review and gameplay
@Golden Frog that's why military has three different divisions, that's to protect each other's military equipment through the specified capabilities on their counterpart which will be helped with reconaissance assistance and tanks' own defensive and offensive capabilities will be mixed with proper and accurate calculations to avoid such threats to damage the whole mechanized divisions and exterminate anti-tank entities and it tank crew and support from the ground, air and sea can destroy positions of anti-tank positions if needed and approved by military officials and commanders.
I like the look of the game!!
This war thunder ad is brought to you by raid shadow legend
Andrew Coetzee LMAO
Laughing my ass off
@@alanmaclaren4118 you should go see a doctor
@Tohtori Vanukas why though?
@@alanmaclaren4118 your ass falling off, as I understood it is pretty serious.
T-80BV exists: Gets upgrade
T-80U exists: 'sad russian tank noises'
T-80U russian army has in small count
Not to mention the 80U can still technically hold its own, so no need to spend money on it.
@@spamuraigranatabru1149 the t-80u was a great tank.
@@CS-zn6pp Yeah, it is, that's why it should have never upgraded instead of the 80B/BV
@@rinaldoman3331 is there a source for those figures? I can’t find anything on total T-80U production figures. All I know is that Ukraine had a few hundred that it sold to Pakistan.
I have to agree. Any tank that goes into an urban combat setting without Infantry Support and one has insurgents with anti-tank weapons (such as RPGs) is (as well say in America "a sitting duck." One might as well paint a huge bullseye on the top or on the behind. 🎯
Now imagine those tanks are fighting ex-soldire who used to work with those tanks and know its weak spots .
Grozny was fucking mess
@@bernardobiritiki And also have commanders with almost the highest General's admission (Dudaev), unlimited access to weapons in warehouses, get information BEFORE the attackers.
@@bernardobiritiki There was no preparation for the assault, no predetermined task was set.
The enemy received information BEFORE those who entered the city, i.e., it was a trap in advance.
There were no experienced crews; they were assembled from different units.
There was no preparation of tanks for urban combat.
ERA often did not load at all after transporting the equipment.
There was no interaction with infantry and aircraft; the enemy immediately received information.
The enemy had tactical, quantitative and information superiority.
The enemy had virtually unlimited stocks of mobilization weapons depots.
The enemy had the experience of command and support from abroad and domestically.
It was a political step, the troops were trapped in order to receive political dividends and demoralize the army in order to seize power.
I think modern day Syria would fare waaaaay better in the battle of Grozny (even assuming they have the same amount of men fielded as the Russians, exact equipment as the Russians, the same available intelligence and the same amount of preperation as the Russian) in place of the Russians in terms of utilizing Armor and Infantry. The way they utilize armor along side infantry, though not perfect, was intoxicating.
@@youngrody2386 Yes, the Syrians are learning fast and unfortunately just as quickly forget. a tactical advantage is often lost due to many errors. The general level of the army is extremely low and lack of initiative. In addition, logistics problems are simply terrible due to lack of transport and fuel. That is why the United States is occupying and stealing oil in Syria, giving terrorists time to recover and not allowing Syria to restore logistics. In addition, constant sabotage and air attacks by Israel
But the constant air strikes of the Russian Air Force prevent the situation from being missed and provide the Syrians with the opportunity to maneuver.
You forgot one little detail about Grozny. The T-80 reactive armor is supposed to stop an RPG. What Russian crews found out on the ground was that their explosive responsive plates...had NO explosives in it! Stolen for the black market.
Richard Patton
I read somewhere that the aftermath of that was a hay day for Stavka. Oh there’s a hull over there, and there’s a turret over there. That means we lost two tanks. What? Why the false accounting? Why exaggerate the losses? Where did the tanks that were not knocked out go?
Many reasons. High denomination, used, non-sequential.
Despite all this, I don’t forget that the more savvy commentators did not disparage Russian/Soviet tanks because they knew they were designed to fit in with the prevailing doctrine. If they did not have the same features as their Western counterparts, it was deliberate. Maybe these days in an age of hybrid war fare, tank development is not a priority. By the time conventional armour makes an appearance, either the operation has failed or they are just there to look impressive on the evening news. No one should ever again think “we have only to kick in the door, and the whole rotting edifice will collapse.”
When transporting or storing the ERA must unloaded for safety reasons.
I already mentioned the reasons why the ERA was not loaded:
The problems of the T-80 during the New Year’s assault were that:
There was no preparation for the assault, no predetermined task was set.
The enemy received information BEFORE those who entered the city, i.e., it was a trap in advance.
There were no experienced crews; they were assembled from different units.
There was no preparation of tanks for urban combat.
ERA often did not load at all after transporting the equipment.
There was no interaction with infantry and aircraft; the enemy immediately received information.
The enemy had tactical, quantitative and information superiority.
The enemy had virtually unlimited stocks of mobilization weapons depots.
The enemy had the experience of command and support from abroad and domestically.
It was a political step, the troops were trapped in order to receive political dividends and demoralize the army in order to seize power.
That comment has aged like a fine wine
I think the explosives were never installed but the manufacturer charged the Russian military for them
@@jamesricker3997 there are some videos of tanks destroyed in Ukraine with empty ERAs
Thats the main problem in this totally corrupt country...
One of my favourite channels. Always concise, articulate and intelligent content. Very good.
and a better mic :D
No robot voice either.
@@grammoore that is one of the most important one
9:27 poor T-80U :(
Probably my favorite tank.
i love t80. i love how it looks, i love the gasturbine, the autoloader, etc. But yeah, it has lower protection, fire controls, optics...etc than western tanks. The 2 most shameful things about T80 for me: low gun depression( just like any post-ww2 soviet tanks),it has gun stabilisation, but when a t80 goes on a bumpy road, on bigger bumps its gun points at the sky.western tanks had proven the benefits of gun depression at the Yom Kippur War. Second thing: primitive mechanical steering mechanism (even some western ww2 tanks had better steering): it can only turn on a couple fixed turning radius, and it cannot pivoting.Modern tanks have hidrostatic or hidrodynamic steering, they can turn as smooth as a car.I red somewhere that the T80um1 had hidrostaic transmission, but it was just a prototype from the end of 90s, for export only. Maybe its not a big issue, but im always jealous when i see in videos, that how smooth is the gunstabilisation on a Leo2 even on big bumps compared to the t80, and the steering,too.
I'm glad to see you understand the importance of gun depression. It is truly the Holy Grail of tank combat.
My guess is that the T80BV was used for the newer upgrades because the Russians didn't want to take the T80U out of service to upgrade it. Upgrading the T80BVM will allow these tanks to "leapfrog" the better T80U and keep more tanks in service.
Will you do a video of the T-80UM2? The black eagle that well, never happened?
T-100 Varsuk
@@synthilein hahahaha, fellow Arma 3 player you are! :D
The Black Eagle, AKA Obyekt 640. was never completed into a functioning prototype
Previous person is wrong.
One T-80UM2 was made and us usable at the moment, not in future production though.
@@Max_Da_G It was a functional prototype, they even did testing with it, the project was cut short because Russia saw the potential cost and said: "NOPE, NOPE!!"
Edit: Some of it's technologies were used to further the development of the T-90MS
Worth mentioning that after the dissolution of the USSR, Russia inherited quite a few t-80UDs (which actually was supposed to become the main Soviet tank). Those t-80UDs ended up being scrapped after the engine resource was exhausted, all those superior turrets just wasted
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the T-80UD uses the exact same turret, gun, and FCS as the base T-80U, only changing out the powerpack. There aren't any turret improvements to speak of.
@@Strelnikov403 The only T-80 with an improved turret that I know of (ignoring prototypes like Black Eagle) is the the T-84 Oplot M, which has a welded turret that looks strikingly similar to the T-90A.
The problems of the T-80 during the New Year’s assault were that:
There was no preparation for the assault, no predetermined task was set.
The enemy received information BEFORE those who entered the city, i.e., it was a trap in advance.
There were no experienced crews; they were assembled from different units.
There was no preparation of tanks for urban combat.
ERA often did not load at all after transporting the equipment.
There was no interaction with infantry and aircraft; the enemy immediately received information.
The enemy had tactical, quantitative and information superiority.
The enemy had virtually unlimited stocks of mobilization weapons depots.
The enemy had the experience of command and support from abroad and domestically.
It was a political step, the troops were trapped in order to receive political dividends and demoralize the army in order to seize power. After the failure of the coup, he fled to London.
-----------------------------------------------
For the first time, a criminal case against Berezovsky was instituted in 1999 under the Primakov government. Since September 20, 2001, he was wanted in Russia on charges of fraud, money laundering and an attempt to forcibly seize power. In addition, since 1999, the Swiss prosecutor's office has been investigating him on charges of fraud and money laundering. In the same year, Berezovsky was denied entry to Switzerland.
The circumstances of the death of Berezovsky on March 23, 2013 near London were not reliably established; According to the priority version of the investigation, he committed suicide.
German forensic expert Bernd Brinkmann, a strangulation specialist employed by the businessman’s family for an independent investigation, did not agree with the suicide findings. In his opinion, the deceased could not hang himself; he was strangled.
-----------------------------------------------
*(Boris Berezovsky)*
Whether it is in Russia, western Europe or America, (these people) always act only for their own interests, but against the interests of the native population. Their ideology preaches that people outside their ethnic group are to be considered "cattle" and (they) aren't held by any moral restraints when interacting with. (They) have secretly held these racists views for millenniums.
Nowadays, they're heavily involved in liberal activism, influencing foreign policies of superpowers that benefit their home country, promotion of open borders and endless third world non-white migration. (Who) are these people?
@@JAnx01 This is the financial "elite" (as they themselves believe), which is hindered by the state and the family as an institution of society, the goal is the atomization of society and direct financial management, corporate fascism with the relegation of a person to a disenfranchised element that does not have its own identity. The right to something delegates responsibilities, but if a person is completely "free" then he does not have rights. Their goal is maximum "freedom", freedom from being human.
"A terrorist or extremist doesn't have a nationality, it's just a criminal." с
Liberalism, in the sense that it is now being imposed, is the plague of our time, which cripples society and deprives it of the possibility of development.
@@JAnx01 pls tell why immigrants that are non white are bad? Also if an poor Afghany guy can barely make it over several country's with really small budget and bad education and still can steal your job, then maybe you should try harder and not he.
@@Tankliker It is true that no one is worse or better; everyone is equal.
If you want to do something good just do it, do not expect that someone else will do it for you.
Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were destroyed by the United States and Europe, although these were secular countries.
Granting preferences to migrants in Europe is also not clear, this contradicts the logic.
Everyone must be equal before the law otherwise it does NOT work.
@@elusive6119 any proof with that billionaire part?
Watching technical videos with subtitles that confuse the names of things and trying to not lose track of what's going on is very hard
Problems of operation of the T-80:
Lack of manufacturability, high cost of maintenance and repair. High labor costs for field repairs, the impossibility of field repairs in many cases. High fuel consumption, 1-2 times higher than the T-72B for the same mileage. 4 times higher cost of replacing the engine, the requirements of high-class fuel and lubricants, filters. Difficulties with system repair, extreme (unjustified) complexity of aiming systems. Increased requirements for mechanics and crew. The difference in mobility with the T-64 and T-72, higher average speed and fuel consumption. Problems with logistics, spare parts, fuel.
Technical problems:
Higher complexity - higher likelihood of breakdowns, higher labor costs for repairs. The requirement for the availability of special tools, consumables and high-class mechanics. Longer repair time.
High fire hazard due to the presence of hydraulics (the T-72 is an electro-mechanic).
Arrangement of charges in the loading mechanism vertically, increased vulnerability.
Increased risk for the driver due to the specifics of the tank.
Weaker booking compared to the T-72B, for the T-80B, except for the rare T-80U.
Yes, this is the real problems with T-80. Gas turbine tanks are not needed anymore. Germans has turbo diesel engines as powerful as Abrams gas turbines and consumes a lot less fuel. Also cheaper to make and to maintain. T-80 is from the era were Soviet Union had 10x bigger military budget then todays Russia. Todays Russia can't afford gas turbine engines anymore. I dont say that Russia is poor, but only very rich countries can maintain gas turbine tanks and in big numbers. But even Germany understood that turbo diesel was the better choice in most cases.
@@cactuslietuva The use of a gas turbine engine on the T-80 was dictated by a greater specific power and compactness. Now on the T-14 this is not so much relevant, the diesel is more than enough.
#AttackOfSwampGas
You can start T-80BVM or any T-80 at -40 less then minute, and for all diesel engines you need at that temperature more then 45 min to start up engine....So T-80 is great for arctic conditions and arctic warfare...
Highly charged electric fields . . will rule the bloody roost . . as per Tunguska
basically the same story with the tanks since t-62...
- i'm obsolete let me die already.
- here have a insignificant upgrade that will barely change anything and we will either give you new letter in the name of the model or slap a new number.
T80: exists
Enemies: on a second or third floor
T80: sad noises
Russian Army: "Oh no, these tanks are horribly obsolete and we don't have the money to replace them!"
Tank Manufacturer: "Well... why don't we give a nice, cheap upgrade for them -that doesn't address the underlying issues that make them obsolete- ."
Russian Army: "Okay."
42 not really a man with a 10 rounds of ammunition can beat 10 unarmed men without breaking a sweat. Quantity only works if your opponent is running out of material. The Soviet’s has lost 30million soldiers in their mass attacked strategy, but they had the men to back it up. Now Russia is paying for that as their population is only 118million. It turns out sending 30million men to their death had effects on the future population.
42 if quantity’s beats quality, why did the USA lose the Vietnam war? You know, it’s easy to send millions of troops to die when your an authoritarian government and a world superpower.
42 think of quantity vs quality like Machine gunner vs Sniper. Machine gunner can spray bullets and has a small chance of succeeding and killing his target. The Sniper may take longer to shoot, but he has a high chance of actually hitting his target.
So yes quantity will get results faster and possibly a successful result , but it will never be as good as a quality success.
@@melt6894 But the US only had 50k casualties compared to 1 million Vietnamese casualties. So in your logic the Vietnamese won by quantity
When you pimp out your Lada, but it is still a crap
i always LOL hard when he says even Arjun have CITV xD
Meh, I think the CITV in Arjun was probably not even plugged to power or it failed right at the beginning of tank service. Then it was replaced, and then again and again, and they simply left it as it is cuz it started to be hilariously expansive to fix.
MrKansai1 teghe how dare you !!!Arjun best MBT in the world !
@@HanSolo__ lol, nice story , but source?
@@HanSolo__ I worked a lot with Indian colleagues in railway business and I can 100 % confirm that this is the way they work. A non functional part is being replaced three times, then they give up, instead of searching for the reason, why the part didn’t work in the first place.
Me too!!! 😂😂😂
The biggest problem with T80 is price and maintenance problems of the helicopter-type engine. Also, it use more fuel.
The Russian Army keeps them ONLY in the northern part of Russia where this kind of engine can be started more easily compare with regular diesel.
Ok that meme at the end caught me completely off guard. Well played, sir.
It's probably good enough for it's intended role..the armor is good enough against most rounds it will probably face from the front. The most likely round the T-80BM will face from another tank is the Bm42/22 .
They probably choose to prioritize the modernization of T-80B/BV tanks because those are actually hopelessly outdated, and there are also many more T-80B/BV than T-80U. Even though the T-80U is outdated, it can still somewhat hold its own against NATO tanks which are not the most advanced of their types. For example, Turkey uses Leopard 2A4 and M60A3 tanks in large numbers, and even the M60T 'Sabra' probably isn't better than a T-80U, while the mainstay of Polish Army are T-72M1s with various degrees of upgrades (including the PT-91), with a good number of them being even worse than T-80B. All of these tanks I mentioned above are arguably inferior to even basic T-80U. Additionally, relatively limited upgrades such as T-80UM or T-80UE can continued to be applied which makes the T-80U fleet more capable (even if it is still not up to standards of most modern tanks). Protection-wise, T-80U turret with Kontakt-5 makes it at least somewhat capable of withstanding all but the most modern munitions, which is relatively rare among European armies, and even the US Army still has some old APFSDS in service that were proven to be ineffective against T-72B.
The T-80BV on the other hand, is far worse in capability (with base armor being worse than T-72B) and therefore needs the protection of Relikt ERA, and other upgrades to things like FCS, much more urgently. That's why the BVM upgrade makes sense, especially if the plan calls for reintroduction of thousands of T-80B/BV, which were previously in storage, now to be modernized and back in active service alongside T-72B3 as the 'second line' of its tank fleet (with T-90M and T-14 forming the 'first line').
So suppose that the Russians decided to apply the BVM upgrade to T-80U instead of T-80BV (let's call it T-80UB). They would end up having ~350-400 T-80UB (which still isn't as good as T-90M), while the 3000 or so T-80B/BV are still stuck in the 1980s and would get trounced by other tanks or ATGMs in an actual war. This choice is obviously worse than the plan they actually chose, with the 3000 T-80B/BVs eventually upgraded to semi-modern standards to meet their requirements. Furthermore, if they were to upgrade the T-80U, than the T-80Us would be taken out of service temporarily without a good substitute, while the T-80B/BVs are not in active service anyway. This way, the army would not be affected much during the modernization process.
5:10 when I first heard you say a cavity full of quartz , it sounded like you said a cavity full of farts . Lol .
Thank you algorithm for bringing up old videos based around current events for us people of culture to watch!
You make really good videos without the fanboyish slant a lot of reviewers give their videos.....way to go. I would love to see an in depth video on the T-14 Armata sometime this year, just to see how far its evolved since its unveiling.
Only the 4th Guards tank division is armed with T-80Us, and it is one of the most prominent formations in the Russian Army, stationed in the Western MD near Moscow. The fact that its vehicles are not being upgraded while almost all others are seems to indicate that its units are among the first in line to be rearmed with the T-14s. Perhaps, when that begins to happen, its T-80Us will be rotated to other formations, receiving upgrades in the process.
Another option would have been to mate the turrets of decommissioned T-80UDs (that Russian MOD maintains a stock of) with the hulls of T-80BVs during the upgrade, similarly to the T-80UE-1. But, apparently, the Russian MOD considers just adding Relikt to be the more cost-effective option for now.
The T-80BVM is the T-72B3 MOD.2016 of the T-80 line, the T-80BVM is a upgrade for a less then desirable vehicle that Russia has alot of, just like the B3 UBH, the T-90Ms existence tells me a T-80UVM(probably won't be its ne lol)will be eventually made, to bring the T-80U up to T-90M standard, so Russia has T-90M and T-80UVM as front line units with T-72B3 UBG and T-80BVM as the more numerous backline units.
And over here i was wondering why in WT T80BVM turret armor is worse than T80U
love the thumbnails with world leaders in shock
Nice to have a fairly , as much as possible, unbiast channel in English done by someone from the other side of the former Iron Curtain.
Well if you like unbiassed things, Warthunder is not for you!
@@Rainaman- War Thunder isn't biased
@@giantskeleton2418 It is.
@@23GreyFox please, explain.
I get the feeling its just a cheaper alternative to more expensive models. Likely to help phase out T-72's at a higher pace.
Everyone always forgets; intended function. Just because it's not the same as something we understand, does not mean it's worse.
I'm pretty sure British Challenger 1 was the first tank to have hunter-killer ability...
I'm am 100% sure XD
It's probably a joint thing.
Let's be honest nothing stops Russians to make a T80UM (just put the same stuff from T80BVM but on T80U ) but they just don't do it there even was attempts to put APS on T80U and they named as T80UM1 and T80UM2 so technically i believe that they are okay with what T80U capable to do.
Red please do a video on the Romanian TR-85 and TR-125!
I love your content man keep it up!
The TR-125 was an unfinished project.
The biggest problem is that the Soviets ended up with 3 very similar tanks in the form of the late model T-64B, T-72A/B and T-80 due to political machinations around the 3 design bureaus and the Army. Similar in size, different in armour (though most of that was mounting completely different ERA in the T-80U models) and similar guns, with different ammo loadouts. T-80U did represent the pinnacle of Soviet tank tech in the late 80s/early 90s though.
T-80 now suffers the same problems again, with the Russians stuck with the T-72, T-80 and T-90 series. Any upgrade to one type can easily apply to the rest, since a lot of upgrades are now plug-and-play. T-80BVM pretty much is used for the arctic patrol anyway, with T-72B3 being the mainline tank, and T-90M as the odd breakthrough tank. This pretty much means that the budget is not really going to upgrade T-80s.
I hope there will be a T-80 vs Arjun "battle" on this channel
T-84 Bastion (or old T-80UD) VS Arjun "battle".
It does not make sense to compare with the normal T-80 or T-80B.
Pakistan has 200 T-80UDs, with all their problems that they cannot solve.
Unlike the indicated problem T-84 or T-80UD, T-80B and T-80U are still in service and are being modernized.
@@elusive6119 it would still be nice to see it
T-80 would completely obliterate the Arjun, the only advantage the Arjun has is the TC's independent thermal sight.
Why would Gaijin sponsor this guy? I don't think a single person watching a red effect wasn't already playing War Thunder before the ad
T-80BV does have upgraded turret compared to T-80B, so it has nearly the same level of protection as T-72B (basically, T-72B and T-80BV are from the same generation, and T-72A and T-80B are from previous generation of the tank families). I've seen many internet experts not mentioning this fact, but, you know, internet experts are no experts at all 99% of the time. Overall design of turret armor of T-80BV is the same as T-80B, unlike T-72B compared to T-72A, but the materials are different as far as I know (basically, T-80BV has different composite filler in the same cast shell), so armor protection had increased between two models. T-80U is more akin to early T-90.
T-80B and T-80BV have exactly the same turret, I dont know where you got the idea that any changes were made. When in 1982 USSR got captured Israeli tanks together with M111 Hetz 105mm APFSDS, they discovered that the hull armor of their tanks, including T-80B, could be penetrated, the turrets were good enough on most tanks because they were made to be stronger than hulls in the first place. So in 1983 they put additional steel plates over existing tanks as a place holder until new armor arrays are developed. T-80BV retained the same turret of T-80B but got upgraded hull armor, at that time it wasnt that necessary to upgrade the turrets and the turret of T-80U which appeared at the same time as the new hulls, was more expensive, and thus was reserved for the superior T-80U tanks.
@@RedEffectChannel "Дальнейшее усиление бронирования танка Т-80Б достигнуто в Т-80БВ, принятом на вооружение в 1985 г . Броневая защита лобовой части корпуса и башни этого танка принципиально такая же, как на танке Т-80Б, но состоит из усиленной комбинированной брони, и из навесной динамической защиты «Контакт-1» - "Further increase of armor protection of T-80B was made in T-80BV model, which was adopted for service by 1985. Upper front hull and turret protection remained fundamentally the same as for T-80B, but consisted of reinforced composite armor and ERA 'Kontakt-5'. Link: btvt.info/1inservice/t-80.htm - there are some sourcebooks at the end. You can google translate the whole article if you don't believe me. But I wouldn't believe whose sources fully, as the armor protection is a matter of technological secrets, so even in with the collapse of the Union all the sources remained pretty vague and politically motivated.
@@RedEffectChannel in any case, not increasing turret protection of T-80BV doesn't make any sense in historical perspective, as NATO made a major shift in firepower increasing battletank's gun calibre by early 80s. T-80B model was made with the 105 mm gun in mind after all. T-80U was, on the other side, more of a more experimental 'future-proof' model rather than a direct response to new up-gunned Abrams models, even if the adoption year officially is the same as of T-80BV.
@@ФедяКрюков-в6ь I have used the article as source for info for the video, but that sentence in particular is very vague. It states that the armor is mainly like the one of T-80B but features improved composite armor, the problem is, it doesnt mention the parts where the improved composites are implemented. You can see in the table a little below that text that the armor values for the turret (420mm) and the hull (570mm) against APFSDS are drastically different, that is because the turret hasnt been upgraded. You have other proof. When T-80BV appeared existing T-80B tanks were now getting 30mm plate on the hull instead of the 16mm one that was being added after the tests against M111. This was suppose to bring T-80B to T-80BV in the level of protection, but no changes were done to the turret to T-80B, which should say that the turret of T-80BV is the same, since no efforts were made to improve the T-80B one when T-80BV came out. And why would they make an improved turret when they were already working on an improved one, the T-80U one, the turret was also meant to be installed on T-80BV tanks, and such tanks are now known as T-80A tanks, a pic of T-80U turret I used in the video is one of those, you can recognize it by the fact that it has Kontakt-1 mounts.
Shut up Ivan
Wow using a quartz filled pocket in the cast turret is fascinating. Cool fact, thanks!
Can you do a video on the battle of Grozny though? Nothing like a ‘guide on how not to use a tank’
The reason for up grading the t80bv and not the t80u is to extend the service life, although the t80u being upgraded would make a more heavily armoured tank it does not currently require the upgrade
I feel like in this modern age, tank armors are not really that important. Modern tanks have crazy amount of penetration and Equipped with ATGM that'll blast through anything anyway.
Yugoslavia supposed to introduced M94 and it was supposed to be state of the art but the country collapse
Also, that tank "killed" one of russian youtubers.
Alconafter (his nickname) made critical video about video on Zvezda chanel about this tank. Zvezda, as channel of russian Ministry of Defence, of course, sayd, that this tank is super cool, super moder and that army need this one very badly (usual propaganda). And, when they saw, that some dude from the intrnet with 400k subscribes criticizes them they baned his chanel on youtube. And, what is the most funny part of all this story, they baned him for using chronicle videos of Soviet Ministry of Defence.
Smells like sarcasm
This is my favorite Russian tank of all time. Even given its flaws.
However, if I had a fantasy tank that I've always wanted, the Black Eagle is it. That rounded front end to the turret and a long box for ammo on the back with blowout panels for crew safety. I just love the way it looks 😊
I would be interested to see an unbiased video on which tanks are being used, how they are deployed, and how well they fare in action in the Ukraine Conflict.
Really badly, it seems. Oh wait, you meant 2014...
@@talltroll7092 javelin seems to be a game changer.
@@talltroll7092 Ukraine has its domestic tanks of closely related types as well. Hopefully the combined tactics are better such that they don't fare as bad as Russians.
The most recent variant being Oplot but I don't think they have more than a handful of these.
@@richardm3023 the actual game changer is Stugna. If Ukrainian equip thermal imaging for every unit, I don't think there is a show place for Javelin. Stugna is a God.
@@SianaGearz There are 5 Oplot in Ukrainian army. Yeah, there are 5. I dunno if they survived.
The rest are outdated T 64. Some have the new thermal imaging system for gunner. Some have Nozh 3rd gen ERA- T 64BM Bulat. The condition of Ukrainian tank force is even worse than Russian one, which is already bad. But Ukraine has a lot of modern anti tank weapon and that is the main point.
Exactly the upgraded T-80BV to BVM to avoid graveyard and scrap because T-80U can still be made operational once needed. If you think about it, Russia did not produce Tanks for more than a decade, pushing all the resources into T-14's development, So they need to keep the Tanks available by upgrading older T-80BVs to T-80BVM, older T-90 and eventually all of T-90s to T-90M (also promoting for export), while upgrading what in service of the T-72s to T-72B3/B3M and have T-80Us in reserve/operational storage, while the rest in long term storage such as T-80B/T-72s.
So basically the plan was a mix of T-90M/T-80BVM/T-72B3M to reach 2700-3000 in service and T-80U 2700-3000 in reserve/operational storage (with an amount of T-72 in storage for potential spare parts or export after modernisation)
Until T-14 gradually puts T-80BVM/T-72B3/B3M in reserve/operational storage and T-80U in long term storage and the rest such as T-62/72/80B/BVs in graveyards to be scrapped into parts or metals/components.
Now what happened is proving that T-80BVMs was the right decision, the brought old T-80BVs instead of scrap or inoperability without decreasing the number of T-80Us.
The situation is so dire that they need every tank available due to poor Tank storage condition, parts stealing and illegal scrap, and constant breakdowns + proof is that they are fielding T-62Ms to the battlefield despite being old/vulnerable and having a different ammo caliber (115 mm i/o 125 mm).
I think in those 7000 T-72s in storage they can only rely on a 1000-1500, half can be sent to battle after minor repair (some previously in reserve, so working from time to time).
Leaving 5500-6000 T-72s in a situation where scrapping is better (salvaged and missing parts, rusted, old designs, grass all-over), so might be used for some commun parts to be given to working Tanks.
While T-80s despite being a legacy of ukrainian soviet factories and having the hated gas engine, T-80U can be sent to battle after a quick repair and overhaul maybe 2500-3000 units, replacing the Tank losses and arming half of mobilized 300ks reservists, but will complicate logistics (Fuel/spare parts/skilled mechanics and crews (they are more familiar with T-72s).
T-80A/B will have the same fate of T-72s, scrap and canibalisation (at least they serve a purpose), while what remains of T-80BV can be sent to factories for modernisation to T-80BVM.
Basically 3000 T-80U/BVs (contact 5/1 ERA) and 1500 (contact 1 ERA) T-72s (+4500) Tank can be repaired and sent to battle and replace all Tank losses (Numerically) and arm the 300 K reservists in Ukraine, with little to No operational reserves remaining.
(Some 6000 T-72/80 used for parts/scrap), hundreds of T-62Ms to be sent as fire support (as mobile short Artillery or as an IFV) to compensate for the losses of IFVs, All of the BMP-2 fleet in storage can replace all IFV losses but will not arm 100% the reserves, while Bmp-1 is in same situation as the T-72s.
The only reserve is in order to maintain a post war 3rd G level stock of Tanks with few hundreds of T-72/T-80BVs in storage reserved for modernisation in factories to B3M/BVM, relaunch full production of T-90M production and send those 200 reserve T-90s to battle (meaning suspending T-14).
Creating basically a cushion of a few hundreds to 500 Tank of 3rd G for expected inevitable attrition as a replacement in the next couple of years.
So basically we have 1700-2000 lost or will be lost in few weeks.
Meaning only 1000 remains from previously active service Tanks made of mostly (T-90/T-80BVM/T-72B3-B3M).
+ 1500 T-72Bs (contact 1 ERA) for immediate losses numerical replacement (+ hundreds of (ex-mothballed T-62M for infantry support or Wagner/Donetsk militia-previously reserved for Syrian army), small & slow influx of T-72 from storage areas if they are lucky (salvaging the 5500 scrap metals of old inoperable T-72).
+ 3000 T-80s from storage (mostly contact 5 ERA T-80Us) arming the 300k reserves for a winter push in Ukraine.
(Total in best conditions 5500 Tanks(T-90/80/72)-4500 to fight in Ukraine, maybe 1000 in guard duties and 3500 for pushing the lines ( +3 to 1 odds necessary for a push) and 1000 to remain in Russia proper), No further Tank reserve remaining (5500 T-72s/80s in critical condition-Better to be scrapped).
Having 500 tank or So (T-80BV/T-72) in bad condition but eligible for modernisation to be sent to factories for modernisation (out of combat potential) to replenish 3rd G level Tanks and future attrition post-war replacements.
+ production of T-90M.
4:30
Why is his head so red? Is this part of the upgrade?
he's trying to squeeze one out rn
He probably cold
Probably the vodka
Heavy drinking
Vodka + frostbite
I think the reason why we modernizing the t-80bv it’s their numbers. Upgrading them much cheaper than building new thanks especially until we will starting to produce t-14 in mass numbers. In the end it’s better to have BVMs in reserve than old ass BVs.
Basically the only problem with it is the sight … got it lol
Considering how many of them are on fire in Ukraine, I feel they have a few more issues than simply sites.
@Nevermind wrong
T80u with k5 era had around 700-750mm of armor vs KE
That means with relikt it should have more 100-200mm of armor vs KE rounds (750-1000mm).
I don't believe T-80U have 700mm but rather ~630mm(since its not that thick) , T-72B whit K5 was also ~650mm. (this also comes from a source displayed in one off red effect vidoes
Frkm what I know
T-80UD was 600mm it had knew armour layout
T-80UD'89 had the same but armour was RHA and not cast ( or it was cast but hardened) being 700mm against AP
and T-80UK which had the base turret In hardened RHA (High carbon steel) 850mm ke.
Soviet tanks had expecial steels whit better properties than regular steel.
@@76456 yeah you are right i thought t80u had hardened armor all the time
What about t80ue1
@@aihamkashow1511 idk i think it was like an UD whit a diesel engine
Please review modern Swedish tanks, best regards from Sweden
Red Effect: this video is better then a many of your other ones.
The biggest problem with the T80, as well as all other Soviet T-tanks, is that they must be nearly fully exposed to fight. Soviet engineers fetished small size to the point where they can no longer occupy a hasty hull down position, which limits them to fully prepared stationary defensive fighting positions (called "kill me" positions by Western tankers) or driving around fully exposed in the offense. Western tanks can acquire targets from the turret down position and kill targets from the hull down, which is far superior to anything you can do with Soviet tanks.
I'm guessing the thought process was "the T-80U is already pretty good, but the T-80BV sucks. Let's upgrade the oldest, worst tanks first, and then the newest, best ones."
Red effect make a video on Bob Semple tank.
Add Bob Semple to War Thunder please
Nsm S no and no. This joke is getting old, it stopped being funny ages ago. Your iq must be in the low 40s if u still think it’s funny
@@sumrandumguy7177 i still like the tank
@@strelok1396 I actually wanna see that
Emilio Loredo I think it would be ovepowered
During the 80's I was in the US Army as an 11H (Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman) where we used the TOW missile. Each month I would go to our BN S-2 shop and review armor vehicle updates from Jane's Monthly to learn about new systems and countermeasures the Soviet bloc countries were using. But for each missile defense system they put on their tanks, we would simply modify the TOW missile to work around it. For instance, when reactive armor was fielded we developed a "top attack" missile that flew one meter above our aiming point then when the missile detected both thermal and metal below it through its anomaly detectors, two shape charges would detonate downward to penetrate the thinner armor on the top of the vehicle. We have about 8 different types of TOW missiles to choose from when engaging a target (BGM-71A-H). I've seen older Soviet type tanks being used in Syria and I know the export types are not the same as what the Russian Army uses. It's up to the country that bought the tanks to improve their armor protection but they rarely care to do so because they don't want to spend money on their military. When fighting against tanks we use other assets before the tanks are close enough for the TOW system (4,000 meters) which is aircraft, naval gun fire, artillery and even mortar rounds. By the time an enemy armor formation reaches our positions, the enemy has been weakened substantially which gives us an advantage because of how their state of mind is which ensures they'll make poor decisions when we attack. We try to use terrain to our advantage by killing the rear tank then the lead tank in a road convoy to bottleneck the convoy so they have nowhere to go and then we work through all the tanks one by one until eliminated. Our main purpose is to protect our Infantry and armored vehicles if we have them attached to our task force. By knowing details of each tank variation we're able to tell which tanks have advanced technology or are their leaders so we engage them first. The easiest way to tell is if a tank has two or more radio antennas since most tanks will have just one. What I mentioned doesn't always ensure I'll win a battle since we have to worry about countermeasures to deal with.
Muv-Luv Alternative: TE begs to differ.
Primitive Hunter killer was on the Sherman. That's actually pretty cool ngl. I just found you channel and I am liking it.
7:26 Arjun level rant
Modernized t80s have their uses, mainly where the gas turbine engine offers an advantage (extreme cold,etc).
Some funny ideas for fun: maybe you could view some fictional tanks or AFVs (i.e., Mammoth Tank from Command and Conquer or Scorpion Tank from Halo) and see how they would work / how good they would be if they actually exist IRL.
He could collab with Spookstoon.
Another great and informative video, keep it up
Me in 7:29 : Yaah we also hv thermal sight.
Also Me in 7:30 : WTF eVeN ArjUn
Lmao but no offense mate, the arjun is probably one of the worst tanks in the world
@@remove_marko *probably
@@remove_marko ; We know, that is why the comparison is made. Even Arjun has the commanders thermal sight, which makes that new T-80 obsolete.
@@remove_marko It's better than the old T72A variants that it's supposed to replace anyway.
@@remove_marko the mark1 version of arjun outperformed t90 in 2008 trials, is t90 also one of the worst?
GREAT VID. SUPER INFORMATIVE !! THANK YOU !! AND I COMPLETELY AGREE W YOUR ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT AND FUTURE STATS. OF T-80
Cutting edge tech...gas turbine
Gas cutter ...
Gas turbine is actually cutting edge tech for a tank. The use of them has been limited by cost, availability of parts etc. Ask le mureica, they'll swear by it.
@@deven6518 I know...but gas turbine cutting edge sounds....weird
#AttackOfGas
A modern gas turbine is definitely "cutting edge tech", so is a modern diesel engine. It has less to do with the principle of operation and more to do with the specific engine model in question.
The "only" deficiency with the T-80 isn't that it lacked a TTS, or that later variants had the TTS dedicated to the gunner.
The T-80 has many of the shortcomings common to Soviet/Russian designs. Specifically, insecure ammo storage, a reliance on applied rather than organic armor, crew ergonomics that were damn near torture, lack of internal volume for system growth and an autoloader which (by elevating the gun to bring the breech into the loading position) signaled when the tank's gun was unloaded (IE, "that tanks no threat because he's reloading. Gunner, engage his wing man first...").
The Russians are trying to do two things. First, they are trying to keep their tank fleet viable given that the T-14 will not see widespread (if any) deployment and the upgrades to the T-90 are going to suck up a lion's share of the AFV budget. Secondly, the Russians are using the T-80 upgrade as a marketing demonstrator to sell upgrades to other Soviet/Russian tank users.
Lets be honest, the Russian armor program is in a very poor state. They are still burdened with to many tank types and sub-models which would cause logistical issues in a major conflict. Their latest tank (which I always thought was vaporware), the T-14 is not going into full (if any) production, resulting in the Russians falling back on modest upgrades to the T-90, a tank which does not inspire much fear in the hearts of Western tankers, given the problems the Indians are having with it.
To quote my old First Sargent, "Sir, you just can't spit shine a turd."
The Indians having problems with a tank doesn't necessarily mean that tank is bad. The Indians have an export version.
@@bobfg3130 That's odd. I would define those who made the tank having problems getting it to work properly as the definition of a bad tank.
This explains why the Indians purchased the T-90, and the wonder weapon that is the T-90 explains why the Indians returned to the Arjun.
They'd have been better off if they'd built the Leo under license
@@Waltham1892
Export versions aren't that good. Besides, the Indians might have not maintained it properly.
@@bobfg3130 So, they built a tank that requires more maintenance then they can give it?
Sounds like a bad tank.
@@Waltham1892
No. You sound like you're intentionally dense. I hope you are intentionally. Export versions will be inferior to domestic versions. That's always the case. The Egyptians have a "downgraded" M1 Abrams for example. As for maintenence, the Indians could have not maintained them properly. Sadly the Indians have messed up things they shouldn't quite recently.
At last, Arjun is better than something.
The bayhst tank in the worold. 😂
Keep the videos up :) love to see these
One question: Can it beat Bob Semple tank and Emus at the same time?
Emu's would run rings around a T80 just on their own
War Thunder is pretty cool. But they lowered the traction coefficient so much that even in Realistic battles the tanks slip around like they are rally cars on loose gravel. It's quite silly. I hope they fix it.
I wonder how good a t80 was, when it's left on top of a hill for days like the Turkish leo 2a4. The Leo 2a4 losses in turkey are the prime example for people who like to descredit its performance. But on a t80 we should start to get picky. That's double standard.
I won't nock the leo for how turkey used them it is the same as saying how shit the M1 is based on Arab countries being Arab
It doesn't matter when a tank is used by monkeys.
tank usage doesnt increase armor unless specifically angled. And that is spot-specific.
Western tanks didnt have to fight jihadists in their own countries with plentiful modern antitank means. What it basically means, once there is a counter to armor or even with APS, there is radar suppression from infantry, when hit from the side especially, most tanks go boom, but it also depends on loadout.
@@cdgncgn Most modern composite armours don't really work as well when angled as they do from head on. Hence if you look at the armour of tanks without the steel plates etc, it's almost always in flat 90° blocks.
T80 is no doubt a deadly tank, but this video shows how much of a difference tactics make.
And Putin is sending these guys into Ukraine?! Wow!
Your mom wanted a abortion?! Wow!
Excelent as usual.
When we will see the next Tank Arena ?? :)
Russia has been behind I the tank game since NATO modernization in the early 19080's after having the better vehicles for decades
They finally were going to modernize properly with the T-14 but that has been a phantom menace for since the one broke down at the parade, the production number by 2020 is nowhere near what they wanted and the tank from all available info has been stuck in development still.....I think Ivan found out that modern MBT are not that easy to build.....and they learned this the hard way
Good news for Russia: Every day, the amount of still active T-80 tanks gets reduced. Plus they found a way to use cardboard as reactive armor.
Lol what? Send a link cuz I can’t find anything about cardboard era
@@ASlickNamedPimpback i did not save it, but in pictures taken from north of Kyiv territorial forces of Ukraine found T-72 tanks with cardboard insted of reactive armor in capturedtanks. I can't give you a source, so you either have to Google yourself ot do the "dude, trust me"
@@ReaperCH90 those are spacers for explosive reactive armor not cardboard
My god do some research
At least a fitting Sponsor. Im happy for you :D
So they turned out to just be shit tanks
What I think is funny is how people dont know that almost 50% of Abrams dont have CITV. xD
Most of those are in cold storage......pre-po equipment, just in case the mother of all wars kicks off. I'm telling everyone on this board that Russia is a fall-guy, made up boogeyman. Russia is worried about Russia. We could have made massive inroads as far as working together, until we decided to expand NATO right on its doorstep. Russia still has nightmares about another Germany devastating its country which is why its lashing out in the way it has over the last decade. China is the REAL boogeyman.....read, learn, inform yourselves on how this whole pile of crap ties together.
Tbh it wont matter much if it's 630 or 730 when it comes to modern projectiles from NATO countries
Not exactly, at a range of more than 1.5 km, it matters. In addition, 80BV or T-72B3 M are needed to counter the P-91, T-64B, T-72M, T-72A/B, Leo-2A4, T-55 and T-62. For NATO, there is otrk Iskander.
@@elusive6119 i didn't say it doesn't matter at all but not much, you forgot chall 2, chall 1, leclerk, 120 abrams variants, leopard 2a5+ for them it doesn't matter much
@@Sveta7 Poland or Ukraine do not have these tanks. The United States and Britain or France will start a war only if it is financially beneficial. In addition, they are too vulnerable due to the lack of air defense, in case of aggression against Russia, the losses will be so serious that it is simply not worth it.
@@elusive6119 i doubt it's that simple war wise, they are in nato shit would start, but this is off topic
@@elusive6119 Lucky for us that count for both sides.
Reason, why they upgraded the T-80Bs instead of the T-80Us, were because of the fact that they are rotating the inventory to the reserves. If they upgraded the neglected T-80Bs then they would have a better force generally than upgrading the already decent T-80Us. If they only upgraded the T-80Us, they would still have a mass inventory of sub-par T-80Bs.
The ongoing conflict has shown that "reserves" in Russia means a junkyard you can steal parts from.
The MK 1 land ship would have laughed off those RPG'S in Grozny 😏
a WW1 tank? i think not!
Nah. Just send in captured german tiger 2 xaxaxaxa
The Mk 1 land ship would kill the crew if it was hit with an RPG
@@toasterbathboi6298 If the King Tiger doesn't malfunction then it's ok 👍
really concise explanation of what happened to this tank ,informative
not really. Lots of opinions. Not backed up by sources and so on. He is not always wrong, but makes too much drama and inaccuracies pop up.
Better than tanks in my country,I think🤔🤔😂😂
Black Eagle was actually best project they had.. shame it was never produced..
This video aged like a fine wine.
Wouldnt be the correct tilte "what were they thinking?"
＊ｄｏｎｔ＊ｆｏｒｇｅｔｔｏ＊ｐｌａｙ＊ｗａｒｔｈｕｎｄｅｒ＊
The biggest problem with the T80is that it is a T72 that has been upgraded !!
All tanks have problems. All tanks have certain flaws. The only perfect tank ever made is KV2!!
The logic (and I am not saying it is a good one) behind the T-80BVM is that they are upgrading the lighter version of the tank (T-80BV is 42Tons vs T80U 46 tons) to maximise mobility and that's because of where they are deploying the new tanks: the T-80BVMs are being sent to the extreme east (east of Siberia) and extreme north (Arctic region) in both ground forces and Naval infantry formations, where the roads are less available (a lot of off roading will be needed in snowy/muddy regions so more power to weight ration is needed) also where the multi fuel gas turbine can facilitate the logistics of remote regions and the Gas Turbine engines can start faster than diesel in really (really really) cold conditions.
Also all in all their numbers are not that big (400 max/a tank batallion is around 35 tanks) and just like the T-72B3 are used as stop gaps until they make up their mind about the T-14 (either the tests are satisfactory and mass production could start or they will infest more in T-90M and start a new "new gen" tank design).
the whole problem with Russian Ground Forces is the stop gap measures that have been going on for nearly 15 years because they did not have any serious projects in development in 90s and 2000s + the big slap they received in Georgian war.
Everything is correct except for the last assumptions. The development of tanks did not stop. Since UVZ received a large order from India for the T-90, they could finance the development of ob. 195 and buy out competitors, Omsk and the Kirov plant. It is at least strange to consider "ob. 195" and "ob. 299" as insignificant projects)
In 2008, the T-72SIM1 was of interest to the trophy teams and was studied, probably this was the starting point for the modernization of the T-72B3, it is quite similar.
The T-62M reservists who were there first in the battle (since they were the closest of all) showed themselves unexpectedly well. Neither Israeli thermal imagers and digital communications helped Georgia.
Ask the javelin and nlaw if it cares about the armor. Better yet ask the guys in side after they are hosed out about Russian tanks and how Great they are Slava Ukraini
No mention of the weak ammo rack, one of the biggest issues on this type of tank??
dude all russian autoloaders have the same just watch his vid on T72 and T90 then, that will solve you question.
or know basics of russian tank in general you should know by now
@@wonkagaming8750 i know, but if its a NATO counties tank then any weakness such as internal ammo storage (Leopard 2) gets the full treatment. The T-80 was regarded as the best Soviet tank in its time by NATO during the cold war, there are vids on youtube about Britmis where they are filming all the T-80's on exercise and how they found out about how good the ERA was, this showed that NATO tank ammunition was inadiquate to penetrate said tank(s) and new penetrators were needed to combat this :) (still nice to get all the issues with the tank though 😆)
The t-80 does have a more vulnerable mechanism for loading the gun (for 28 rounds ready to fire), with the location of the charges vertically (!). In addition, the mechanism is hydraulic, and therefore fire-dangerous. But it assumes the possibility of modification to use more modern projectiles and it is faster when the projectiles are loaded sequentially.
The T-72B has a horizontal two-level more secure loading machine for 22 projectiles, where there are no hydraulics, but only electromechanics.
The main problem with the vulnerability of ammunition IS not automatic loading. A secondary laying of shells throughout the internal volume, usually they are not loaded for this reason.
I’ve had issues since I drove my T-80 off the Lot....should have got a T-90 instead...buyers regret!
T90 has a diesel engine.. which means it had huge issues to work in arctic conditions... turbine doesnt have such issues and can run in much colder weather.... thats why T80
The Russians were making T-90s in the 1990s. Basically they focused on equipping those and didn't send almost any money on the T-80s which were....obsolete and probably difficult to maintain.
heh as i was watching this, i was downloading war thunder
It's a bad game don't play it
F2P games are never worth the grind. If you don't listen now, you will realize it 1000 hours later.
low tier ground forces are fun, jets are fun too, at least for france and america i dont recommend you get attached to your heavy tanks
@@JAnx01 Oh, but imma still play it
Prepare for grind
Sending in tanks without proper infantry support is akin to making a suicidal Banzai Charge.