Was T-80 really a FAILURE? T-80 tank Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Today we will be taking a look at the last and possibly the best Soviet tank.
All information is taken from the book: "T-80 Standard Tank: The Soviet Army's Last Armored Champion" by Steven J. Zaloga
I have to agree.
Bad tactics in the Checen Wars gave the tank a bad name. Sending tanks alone is simply a bad idea, especially when it comes to an urban environment. It's a good question how bad the Russian intel was on the situation...
It reminds me of the early footage from the Syrian Civil War where T-72 tanks were alone in the cities. No wonder they had such high loses.
If the tank itself was really that bad, South Korea would have retired them already.
T72s in Iraq, just a small number were T72M made by USSR, without APFSDS rounds, and a lot were Iraqi COPIES made of commercial steel instead of RHA, without any FCS, without IR projector or anything that would allow Iraqi crews to shoot at night. Not to mention low training of Iraqis, and bad command structure. even if Iraqis had American tanks and Americans had Iraq tanks, Americans would still win because Iraqis and other arabs cant do shit in war. ... in Chechen war, there are examples of T72s and T80 withstanding direct hit on frontall armor and turret, without penetration or serious damage. there was one huge defeat in Grozny, when they lost like 100 tanks in one day. But they are not only ones losing massive amount of tanks in short time. Israel in 2006 lost also a lot of Merkavas in one day when muslims made ambush with METIS/KORNET and other missiles. Tanks are suppose to be fighting together with infantry and other weapons. and they are not ment to rush like WWII. Syria had a lot less losses in T72s than compared to Iraq because Russians gave them new tactics of use, even so today Iraq has Abrams and still lose them a lot, because they are dumb fucks. its all about tactics. in 1999 in war NATO vs Yugoslavia, for 78 days Yugoslavia lost 13 tanks, of which half were T55s, and half were T72s or Yugoslavian version of T72(M84) which tells you a lot about tactics...
Tanks unsupported + urban warfare + hostile infantry + antitank weapons = dead tanks.
@@charlieharper2529 mainly lost to the NATO aviation, you should check out the story about the 252. Armored brigade, which avoided NATO completely
As far as I know, there was not a single US tank in Yugoslavia or normal US infantry. So saying they only lost 13 tanks to air attack say nothing about tanks in general.
Roni Salina saying a tank is still good because x country still uses it is a stupid way of looking at it South Korea has continued to use it because the threat it has is equipped with 1950s tanks so it’s still viable
South Korea operates about 30 T80Us. Despite newer and better K2s in production the T80Us will not be scrapped for foreseeable future. In fact South Korea has started negotiation with Russia for new supplies of parts to upgrade and maintain existing T80Us.
When those T80s came to South Korea 20 years ago, they were only intended to be used as study samples for developing K2. But its performance has outlived its intended use.
Russia still has a few of them in active service and like 3000 in reserve, most are older models though. there are rumors that the tank might get a similar to T72B3 modernization program
Dimitri Kovalenko Would the T80 tanks that are still in use and in reserve be a better option to fill a niche where armour was needed when time was of the essence? I know they drink more fuel but I'm sure they can move around faster.
They being returned to service in Siberia.
SCUD B Why in Siberia? Is it because they need more powerful or faster tanks there for a quicker response?
PETAZ ZVEZDAR Awesome. Thanks for the reply. That makes sense since diesels do not like the cold.
PETAZ ZVEZDAR Do you have proof?
I like the graphics "Lenin offers you, the worker, this tank!"
a few things.
The T72B that USA tested was not the model 85 with kontact 1, but a Late model T72B (mod 89) which had a new armor array, and Kontact 5. ONly tanks that USA would have had trouble by that point would have been the T80U and T72B Mod 89 which woudlnt have been representative of the Most Common Threats on the battlefield. Thus the M829A1 Silver would have been able to Deal with the Typical T72B, and earlier T80B/BV tanks without issue.
Also the T80BV want merely just a T80B with Kontact 1. It was a new series of which had a new Glacis array.
T80B was 60mm RHA - 100mm STEF (Plexiglass) , 45mm RHA ( plus 30mm add on plate post 1982) T80BV Glacis was 5 layer setup of 50mm RHA - 35mm STEF - 50mm RHA,- 35mm STEF- 50mm RHA.
The latter would bead adequately protected against Late US 105mm ammunition like the M833 still in use on M60A3's and early 105mm amred Abrams, but not enough to negate 120mm ammunition when the M1A1 went into production.
Good info
Your an i"iot yes they wouldn't have been the avrege treat on the battelfiend but that is the same case with the abrams about the Soviets they would really meet abrams on the battelfiend and the main tank they would fight would be the m60 which they would easaly destroy
@@tonyjoka2346 um when the T72B mod 89 was put into operation the M60A3 was no longer considered the main front line tank at that point in time. The US army already had plentiful amounts M1 Abrams tanks in operation, and deployed to Europe. By the Time the gulf war happened. this is reflected that the US army didnt even bother deploying M60A3's in 1991 gulf war. All were M1A1's ( many were converted to M1A1 HA standard just in time for that conflict) with only a single M1IP armored unit held in reserve. Only the USMC was still using the older M60A1 RISE Passives up until the end of the culd war and into the Gulf war because only at that point they start adopting the first Abrams models, hence they were forced to go into combat with what they had.
Given the superiority of the Abrams it would have been more than capable to taking on superior numbers of soviet tanks, especially the models that were no longer impervious the ammunition's being issued at that time.
Plus also take into consideration with the exception of T80UK tank commander variant, Thermal imaging was virtually non existent on soviet tanks even will after the cold war. Thermal optics are great advantage to have even in daylight operations, but especially at nightime, this would be very massive advantage. A rule of thumb is the tank that spots the enemy first can typically get off the first shot, and those that can get off the first shot are typically the ones to win an engagement.
@@kcz1093 still an incredibly i"iotic reply the USa had only around 3k m1 a1 abrams gess what the Soviets had 2000+ t 80u which were imprivous to the m1a1s projectiles and was more than capable of destroying the abrams so the Soviets had a front line battle tank made to smash abrams and it was in massive numbers too so get into account the massive number of t 64s and t 72s that could also take out and abrams and you see that the Soviets where supirior also Iraq used old t 72s that Russia retired 10 year s before the gulf War
T-80 beats T-72 in technology while T-72 beats T-80 in performers while T-90 beats both T-80 and T-72 in everything.
vladimir Ye, you summed it up perfectly :)
RedEffect wow so that was right :)
vladimir Ye xD
RedEffect hey red can you review the bmd variant
no, original T-90 had turret from late model T-72B which has superior armor to the one of T-80. In 2004 new variant of T-90 was introduced, called T-90A and it features completely new welded turret which increases the protection over the cast one.
You forgot to mention the T80DU which did away with the gas turbine engine replaced with a diesel engine to fix the problem of it being a gas guzzler.
The turbine wasn't the issue. If you cant refuel them in a combat situation, it's more of a logistics issue, as in no fuel or tankers. LOL US Abrams turbines dont have a problem getting fuel.
@@yourfavman lol coz they invade countries for oil
@@noggamcstogga1756 LOL
@@noggamcstogga1756 the abrams actually has an oil turbine engine that uses crude oil for fuel that’s why America needs to invade countries
He did mention it in the video though
Literally every WW2 tank: *has transmission problems*
Everyone: nah
German WW2 tanks: *has transmission problems*
Everyone: lmao
It’s mostly because the transmission breakdown were more frequent and were harder to replace. Sherman? Easy. T-34? I sleep. Tiger? You on death watch
Predator 20357 also good luck getting a new tiger when the transmission is completely fucked
and finally lack of oil reserves to propper driver's trainning made things quite worse for the Germans
@@Predator20357 Good luck changing a transmission on a T-34. Repairing russian tanks is worse than german tanks.
23GreyFox I’m sure changing a transmission on a medium tank is easier than heavy tanks that are also complex to make.
So the real reason why the T-80 MBT was canceled was poor fuel economy and high cost, and the reason that the Grozny assault failed was little or no crew training for the T-80, and poor strategic and tactical planning.
Just found your channel, but I already love your videos! Keep it up dude! :D
Thanks! Really appriciate it :)
0:39 BOI
COMRADE
There been a massive rumor that t-80 have been all deactivated.
Fact is just as recent as this year there's a full battalion that committed tank exercise using T-80. It's a good tank just same issue that Western tanks have.. Fuel consumption.
Well the fuel consumption on the newest edition of the Russian gas turbine engine, the GTD-1250G, the fuel consumption has been reduced by 9%, previous fuel consuption was 225 g/hph, with the new engine, its around 205 g/hph. The fuel consumption of the T-72B1 and other T-72 variants (excluding the T-72B3) have fuel consumption of around 190 g/hph, which means that T-80U (the ones with new engine are T-80UM) have 10-20% more fuel consumption than T-72B, which on its turn, is not much at all. They also have APU (which is something that was not present on T-80B, the one used in Chechen War, where they wasted same amount of fuel on idling and on the move. On T-80U and T-80UM that is not the case, since APU has been installed).
And yes, T-80U (including T-80UM) is in active service, as far as I know, over 500 are curently in active service. There have been some rumors that they might get upgraded with new Relikt ERA :)
T-80 has the same problems as the Western tanks... Of course, the Russians copied the U.S. M48 tank Chassis. And stole other western technology. While the west figured out the problems, the Russians were in the beginning trying to figure out the same problems that the West had before. Little insight for everybody. The Chinese are going through the same thing with the technology that they stole too.
Hi There Well, what ABOUT the Operation Paperclip where you STOLE German tech huh. Russians coped up better in more practical terms. You just have too many sugar daddy to fuck around
Panzerreichus Holzer So they took some technology from an enemy they had defeated k den
Abrams tank doesn't have a fuel consumption problem. If you want a fast, enemy smashing weapon, you have to build it correctly and supply its needs. Russian tanks cant do what they were designed to do so they all need upgrades.
Without infantry support, no tank would have survived the assault on Grozny. This was a disaster.
There is a certificate kept in Uralvagonzavod, which says that one T-90 tank of the 1992 model was at the disposal of one of the units in the conflict zone in the Chechen Republic in the 1990s. According to the scientific editor of the Public Relations Department of the Research and Production Corporation Ural Carriage Works named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky, candidate of historical sciences S. V. Ustyantsev and the leading designer of OJSC Ural Design Bureau of Transport Machinery D.G. Kolmakov, in 1995 several T-90s participated in military operations in Chechnya and proved invulnerable to anti-tank means of militants
At the same time, it should be said that the tanks of the old generation (T-72 and T-80) showed significantly better survivability than the tanks that fought in the Middle East in 1973. One hit of a projectile RPG or ATGM was already not enough to disable it. As a rule, at least 6-7 hits were required, and a record was recorded when the tank withstood almost 20 rounds. Dynamic protection systems worked exceptionally well. (с)
@@elusive6119 1993 t90 was not even made first version 1999
T-80 is a top of Russian tank industry. You should understand, that T-72 was made for cases of aftershock post-nuclear war conditions, where are high-tech production is unavailable. While T-80 was exactly a hi-tech tank with ballistic computer for gunners primary sight. All T-90’s advantages are taken from T-80 (fire control system, commanders sight, hmg remote control from t-80ud). Only engine lft the old and become the most weak place. The conclusion is the T-90 is the T-72BM with T-80Us fire control system
These late cold war soviet designs simply look bad-ass! Too bad they are now moving away from the low silhouette style with the Armata platform.. but I guess the need dictates the form. Thank you for sharing these videos with us and keep on researching! Always interesting to see what you manage to dig up!(:
True, the placement of the capsule and a larger gun and engine requires a large volume and height of the shell. In addition, the crew is completely isolated from other compartments, which makes even multiple penetrations of the hull not fatal, the tank will be capable.
@@elusive6119 My problem with the T14 is, what if the electronics fail / get knocked out during battle? wont the crew have to abandon the tank because turret is remotely controlled
T80 is not really a bad tank
Looking back when t80u variant got in service 1985
The tank had very good protection and good firepower/mobility.
Yes it did have problems such as:
High fuel consumption
Expensive
No thermal sights
Russian tanks are cool.
LOL
uhh... ok?
@@yourfavman he say cool not great
@@rexforce6072 yep this guy is anti-russian
@@rexforce6072 they are great acttaly the best
Really enjoy your vids. You're objective, and present unbiased facts that I find refreshing. I live in America and I'll continue to watch your incredibly informative vids. And I say, keep up the great work!
Ur wrong mate. T-80U have has batter armor protection on turret then T-72B and T-72BU witch was later called T-90.
Soviet made two project or object in that late 80s too replace T-72A/Bs in their army. Obj. 187 with new turret, welded not cast similar to the turret of T-90A mod 2004. called Vladimir and new hull with frontal shape similar to the Leo 2A4 tanks with much batter armor protection of turret and hull. And second one is obj 188. witch took part of army trails in 1989 and pass it. Obj 187 was finished in 1991 and he didnt took a part in army trails because in mean time obj 188. get green light for starting production. They put obj 187 on hold and never gave him chance to go on trails....
I think that Russians made wrong choice between two projects. 187 was much batter in any aspect, but they choose i thin cheaper one witch was 188. instead of 187.
They made latter turret almost same as was turret on 187. who was welded with batter protection.
FCS was luck and still is on any T-72 version, except latest one. T-80U didnt have that problem because his FCS is very good....
No ur wrong mate t90 has slightly better armmor then t80U but much more better armmor then t72BA .
T90 has 880mm vs apfsds
And T-90 isnt t72bu
Recently found your channel and its awesome!
Thanks!
I am currently working on a T-80 Shock Tank Battalion for WWIII Team Yankee and found this video very informative. Thanks.
I remember in the original Microprose M1 Tank Platoon (wasn't it great?) the T-80 was the Big Chungus, the tough monster that you really had to have your tactics down to get close enough to defeat.
I always thought the T-80U's turret armor made it look like a crustacean.
there is a slight correction needet: russia didnt have to fight in checenia, they decided to do so.
they could have given the chechens autonomy and better representation, prevented lots of bloodshed and violence over the last 30 years.
but they decided to take the forceful route and try to keep chechenia in russian territory and under russian control while still discriminating agains the chechens by force.
its a problem you can see very often in the last years, that russian politics tends to use outward problem projection and agression to increase patriotism, wich lowers the level of unrest in the nation and turns the view away from internal problems.
georgia, eastern ukraine, chechenia, krim etc are all cases of outward faced agression and "solving" internal problems by turning outwards.
just now russia didnt even acknowledged they have corona cases in the russian federation, but only pulmonary infections. the amount of infections in russia is uncounted and porbably escalating rapidly
IMO this is a rather naive point of view, any country would resort to violent repression if one of their states seeked independence through arms, just look at North Ireland, the Basque Country or Yemen. If Chechnya or any other district had managed to archieve independence, it would have heavily undermined the integrity and stratigic standing of the Russian Federation, which had already taken a massive hit with the collapse of the USSR.
Mind you, I don't support much of the Russian Federation politics either internal or external, but there is no denying that their ultimate goal is to put the country in a better strategic position, at the peril of conflicting with NATO/UE interests.
The T-80 was blamed for incompetence in Grozny. One of the drawbacks of the Soviet love of simplicity is that it causes them to be suspicious of more innovative designs and they get blamed for problems they didn't cause.
Nice only just found out you have a channel lol
nice i have always loved the t-80
Well, of course I do.
Glad you like it, it definitely deserves more recognition than it gets.
@@RedEffectChannel Usually other people say this about you/ your channel . . .
I regret buying a t-80
Toy model!
...
was it too expensive for you economy? or ukrainians have some demands on it?
next time put some spaces xD
His funds crashed like the USSR's
Couldn't read the instructions probably.
Thanks for this video I am a huge fan of the T-80 tank
Lord Cypher79
LOVE ARMATA
Here is the 2 sides, USA says all Russian equipments is junk don't work. Yet - even with its flaws Russia has never been conquered. If you had to put them up in a battle one would find out really quick the Russian tanks do work and are very capable. Anyone who says otherwise is not living in reality. Russian T72's modernized are very effective, more agile and more reliable. Also, don't forget the Abrams tank takes a LOT of fuel a tank is a pill box sitting with no fuel. Lastly, Abrams tanks were sitting ducks in urban situations plus they are very maintenance intensive 70+ tons lot of wear/tear on tracks and drivetrain.
T-64 was a really ambitious program, and with its new smoothbore gun, composite armour, and opposed-piston two-stroke Diesel engine was innovative in firepower, protection and mobility. It was an attempt to combine the firepower and armour protection of a heavy tank with the mobility of a light tank and the weight of a medium tank, thus creating the Main Battle Tank. But such a rolling science fair created a multitude of teething troubles, and T-72 was developed as a cheaper alternative. However, ambitious men like Kartsev an Benediktov were not eager to design merely a "monkey model" of the T-64, but wanted to prove that Uralvagonzavod could produce a better tank than the Kharkov steam locomotive plant. And in many respects, they did. This created a lot of rivalries as to which tank should receive the best in equipment and fire-control that the USSR could produce. In stepped the people in Leningrad, building the premier tank, the T-80. But they addressed none of the fundamental problems like ammunition and crew in the same compartment, or lack of blow-out panels, but inserted a gas-turbine engine (because the USA were doing it as well) which turned it into an expensive fuel-hog. Nevertheless it continued to attract the best technology the Soviet Union could afford...
So, in my eyes, it was a failure, and the money could have been spent better improving the T-64 and T-72, and develop a real new solution.
I think 50s/60s were the Zenith of Soviet tech. They started to slip in the 70s, I'm guessing with the economic challenges and basically getting outspent by the West. The T-64 was an _amazing_ design once it was mature. Small, powerful, and maneuverable.
but gas powerd is better for cold conditions???
480k Rubles for a T-80U, what's that in USD (at the same time period)?
John Doe a lot
620k
both the T80 series and the T64 series tanks ive always had a an intrest in but one one thing ive never been able to find out is what was the crew height restrictions on the T64 and the T80 tanks ?
1.75 up to 1.78 I believe was the maximum height allowed
At the end of the day, it comes down to how you use what you have. You can use a rifle like a club if you so desired. However, we all know that is not the most effective use of a rifle, and a real club would do a much better job.
Great keep the videos coming, very informative and worth the watch... I m looking forward for next video
Wich tanks will win in the battle between the T-80U ,and T-72 B1MS white eagles?
Great video! Clear and organized information ! Thank you for sharing !!!
Either the IS2 only had 2 mounted mg's in the the tank (excluding the 12.77 mm on the top) or it would have had a bow MG gunner as a 5th man for the third MG in the front.
Tanks for watching!!
I love how Soviet high ups just but every metal on even if they don’t mean shit
Very informative and honest feedback from a engineering and war analysis stand point, machines depend how their applied to specific conditions and circumstances. Well done!!!
What's going on at 12:35 ? Something is ejected from the turret before the tank drives off. Can someone explain....
Thats the shell casing, autoloader automatically ejects it after each shell is fired.
Ser Garlik its just the charge casing after the shell has been fired,look like an empty tin can,no point keeping them in the tank where its already like hippos playing twister!.
I think T-80 is misunderstood by most people, it was created in specific time with the soviet doctrine which dictated fast strike to the West Europe, T-80 was created with that in mind - heavy armor and very fast speed, it was to be in the vanguard of the soviet forces.But no matter of how good a tanks is , none can survive without proper support and preparation and Chechen war was example of that- poor trained crews , reactive armor wasnt even placed.Its not the tank to blame but the poor state of the russian forces back then.
нет, вина была на командовании. или ты думаешь что во всей армии не нашли динамической защиты? лол.
Tanks for watching.
As always , very good analysis , keep up the hard work .
And the poor tankers in Grozny were left to die. When the command realised just how badly their rushed non-plan was and that the tankers were trapped they also realised they couldn't get them out. From memory at least one column was isolated and in a laager and simply left there without answering their calls for help. Any vehicle and any crew getting hit by salvoes of RPG-7 rockets will fail, and these crews were attacked ceaselessly until the survivors broke out. I'm not sure but I think this was at the train station.
T-80 was mostly builded in charkov that is one reason too
Incorrect, only the t-80uD was, and not in large numbers under 1000, over 5500 t-80s have been built, majority were built in Leningrad Kirov plant and then Omsk, Designer is Russian from Leningrad/Saint Petersburg.
Love the videos keep up the good work. Well done.
You also cant compare US/Soviet Armor. The BMP2 is 16 tons vs Bradley 26 tons. Or T72 48 tons vs M1 at 65 tons. Its pretty hard to have a fair match when comparing them.
Do Russian soldiers use medals instead of body armour.
weren't alot of them built in Ukraine? at the same place they did t64, I imagine that was part of it not being continued.
The T 80 was never designed in isolation. Everyone was looking at turbines and multi-fuel at the time for good reasons. Soviet armour till Armata was surprisingly conservative. This led to the western tanks amazing people, and of course marketing. There are solid underlying strengths to Soviet designs and weaknesses. This is true of any design, tactics are supposed to complement design and mitigate weakness. The T 80 would have been a very good breakthrough tank. Filling a role envisaged for British ww2 cruiser tanks and the m1 itself. I don't think it was a failure as long as you expected something a little specialised.
I thought T80B and BV were armed with a roof mounted NSVT 12.7mm mg? Or is that only some of them?
Having worked with T72 and Leopard 2a5 and M1a2 I conclude that I rather be in the latter ones. the working environment is much better and so if the surrounding awareness. I have seen a few T80 but never got the change to have a good look.
T 72 is cheap not suppose to fight best nato tanks
@@tonyjoka2346 not the point.
Welll, I learned a lot. Thanks to all of your videos, I can now understand more about tank.
Are the T80BVMs being given a Diesel engine or they keeping the gas turbine? I’m asking because I’ve heard they put the diesel on some T80Us.
Imagine what kind of tank could be created if the US engineers and Russian engineers teamed up and built something to defend both countries from China!
There is no need. T-90 and M1A2sev3 are more than capable of destroying those embarrassments.
I'm a little disappointed they didn't keep upgrading the T-80.
Tanks of that era where built with modifications in mind & it was built to be the more expensive option compared to the t-72. If they kept refining the T-80 I believe they would probably have a better option then the t-72 & even t-90.
Would I be too demanding if I where to argue that a T-72B3 is the very least a nation should consider?
Look what the Ukraine did with the T-84 or even the modernization of the T-64 which make up the bulk of their armor, I find upgrades on older tanks real cool & some of them are fairly viable options as well.
No.
The T-80 operation range wasn't as great and it was more costly (but yes, had some cool advantages, and would be super cool if heavily upgraded).
Well, there are plenty better designs out there then the ones that have been used in tanks I've been led to beleive. Even the one in the Abrams not being as bad as plenty would have you believe, there are more modern, compact & efficient designs out there suitable for the job.
I find it hard to believe in that pile of money they threw at the Abrams that this hasn't happened already.
the difference between T-80 and other Russian tanks of the same era is that otehr tanks were designed to be made in big numbers, while T-80 was designed to be super good, but the problem was the money ofc. Even now it reflects the Russian tanks, if they want to upgrade T-72Bs to modern standards they have to change whole gun and autoloading system in order for T-72 to be able to fire most modern APFSDS projectiles, while on T-80U they dont need to, even if the tank is 30yo it can still fire most modern projectiles, since the gun, autoloader and FCS in general was in that time excelent, that now they dont even require changes to fire most modern rounds. Right now there is over 500 of T-80Us in service, same number as T-90As, even tho T-90 was choosen over T-80U.
t80UK t80BVM
So that is $15,000 usd? Rubles must’ve lost ally of value since then?
2:25 This is a myth, executive order for Kontakt ERA acceptance field trials was signed several days before Lebanon war started.
It's curious that a certain Jewish guy named _G.A. Blazer_ worked on a proving ground where Soviet ERA prototypes were tested since 1950-s, emigrated to Israel in 1970-s and Blazer ERA just happens to be so similar to early Soviet designs... And is named "Blazer". What a coincidence.
10:25 That's also a derogatory myth. Only tanks in actual combat-ready units have armed ERA at all times. Tanks in reserve are stored and transported without explosives for basic safety reasons.
Nobody expected an actual warzone in Chechnya; it was supposed to be just a show of force.
Anyway, contrary to propaganda, actual statistics shows that T-80 still performed pretty well.
Can you provide proof or sources for this? Would be nice.
This makes sense. But, I am really interested in seeing sources.
I learn all the latest conflic had found the ANTITANK with the latest HEAT ammo: RPG 29,RPG 32 can DESTROY the Merkava 4,M-1A2 Abrams Easy
you missed HEATFS ammos
I would also disagree, that tank crew weren’t proparly prepared for T-80 handling. Just before entering the city crews shows a perfect performance of conquering the territory arround the city and had lost only 1 T-80bv, which been hit and then exploded after several minutes on the airfield from the atgm using a top distance. Crew showed a perfect knowledge of their t-80’s, considering the ability to use night vision during one of the battles and request artillery support to engage chechens Grad mlrs and suv-car with atgm mounted on it. However we all know that the night vision of t-80 is far from thermal imagers performance.
I don't think you can ever call any tank that is accepted into a service a failure. I think you can only say that it is better or worse then the countries last tank and then also say it's better or worse then another countries tank. The only tanks you can say are true failures is when it's built as a prototype and tested and then that tank program or particular tank is not accepted into the countries military or the concept is scrapped due to testing failures or any obvious short comings.
Also what one country needs in a tank may not be the same as another countries needs.
Also the chechin war went so bad for Russia because they didn't have a game plan and they entered a city with tanks without infantry support that alone will make u lose.
russia lost so many t-80's to inferior weaponry in Chechenyan war (and those we're the best versions of the tank btw) that they we're deemed a complete failure. They we're up against way older t-54 variants and some rpg-7's taking out them by the bunches.
I'll put an RPG into the roof or side of the Abrams, or right into the drivers prism and then see how that tank survives. Or better yet, into the bustle.
T-72s routinely carry HE-FRAG ammo. Lets load Abrams with HE-FRAG ammo and hit it with an RPG. Let's see what happens to its turret when they go boom, shall we?
@@Max_Da_G M1A1 and A2 can take an RPG round to the turret sides and still be fine( saw numerous times in Iraq) RPG- 7 is only a real threat to the engine compartment. RPG 29 however can penetrate the M1A1 turret in only a few areas on the sides and turret ring. Ammunition is stored in an armored compartment with blow out panels and will not blow up the turret or harm the crew( unless the loader leave the internal blast door open). Any tank operating without infantry support is not going to fair well especially in an urban environment.
Turbine Engine - it was such a bad idea, did T80 adopted it just to follow M1? Or there was no other alternative? European tanks never adopt turbine engine, right?
Wait how didn’t they know that it had a gas turbine engine if it sounds completely different from the T-72’s diesel
Good vid keep them coming
Т-80У(U) с дизельным двигателем получила наименование Т-80УД (UD)
You criticize the weak points of all the tanks and that's good.
I like your videos.
Which one is best tank in the world according to you..
The only reason T-80 was dropped in favor of T-90 was largely due to cost. T-80's are far more maintenance intensive than standard T-90 and T-72.
t80 is superior to t90 tanks?
The T80 & T90 are fairly expensive costing 3-4 times as much and production is very slow unlike the T-72 wich is fairly cheap reliable and can easily be mass produced by the hundreds. Russia dropped the T80 & T90 project selling the Blueprints to the Peoples Liberation Army of China. So there still being made just fairly slowly.
1:18 my same phone I'm watching this on ...got hit by Russian molotov cocktail XD
Does the news T80 and T90 come with an Small APU which make them able to operate without main turbine/engine running?
Battlenude they do indeed. And BMP-3 has one too
since the T64 and nato equivalent all MBT have APU, it's a "standard" for stealth on the battlefield
The new T-90s have an APU on the right rear at the stern. T-80BVM has digital engine management and constant low availability mode, the engine always works at low revs and spins the generator, consuming a minimum of fuel.
I’d like to hear more about the optics, fire control systems, ballistic computers, communication systems and general electronics in Soviet era tanks. This seems to be the biggest weakness of Soviet era designs, they were not good with developing advanced electronics.
They were about on par with the western counterparts mostly. In fact the hunter-killer concept where commander would seek targets and hand them over to the gunner was in use in USSR long before it became a catch-phrase in USA. It's just that Soviets never really gave things fancy names.
Another Soviet policy that today works against it in terms of how it fares against much more modern opponents was exporting VERY VERY degraded versions of tanks to their client states. While T-72B in Russian service had modern composite armor, laser rangefinding, ballistic computer, modern ammunition and secure coms, the T-72M that was exported, had rolled steel armor, no ballistic computer, optical rangefinding, ammo was obsolete and the coms were degraded. So essentially it was a whole different tank totally unrepresentative of what Russians kept to themselves alone.
During 90s Russians did lose a bit of ground in electronics and to this day they are working on clawing it back. As far as electronics go, they were behind more on weight and size, than on actual functionality. They were a little slower in terms of hardware operating speed, but that was very often made up for in faster working algorithms, so the effect was very comparable. Everyone laughed at the vacuum lamp based MiG-25 avionics, but the REASON for it was actually very strong: Russian electronics MUST survive EMP from a nuclear blast. At the time US made electronics wouldn't have survived that. Later on all MiG-25s had a full avionic refit as a result of that MiG-25 hijacking. Electronics in tanks had the same demands. In a lot of areas where possible Soviets deliberately stuck to mechanicals as opposed to electronics to ensure reliability. They were of opinion that where mechanics can be repaired in the field with sometimes crude methods (as they say "shovel, hammer and some "mother"), electronics are a whole different story and cannot be made to work for a short while in a pinch.
One thing that Russians demonstrated in many areas is that their sights and electronics don't need to be re-calibrated after a long relocation march. At least that was displayed in a few tenders. At the same time sights on Leopards and Leclerks had to be re-zeroed after a long drive.
Spetsnazovets Fascinating, thanks for sharing your insight on the subject. From the research I did, it seemed like those were areas Soviet designs suffered from. Yes, the designs were cheaper and easier to maintain but they lacked the sophistication of Western designs. It seems like Soviet night vision on tanks from the 80’s still required an IR searchlight to function, instead of the starlight designs of the West. I am shocked that Soviet designs from that era had the ability for the commander to designate targets electronically to the gunner, you see the interior of Soviet tanks from that era and they seem to run totally on mechanical based systems with minimal or no electronics. Even today I heard the thermal systems used on the latest T-90’s are French designs, which would lead an outside observer to believe its something that cannot be developed in house, especially when Russia/Soviet Union was well known for always using Russian designed/built gear.
I was under the belief that Soviet Industry couldn’t produce modern, solid state electronics back in the 80’s and that is why they still used vacuum tube technology where electronics were required. I heard about vacuum tube technology being hardened against EMP but I also heard solid state electronics can be hardened against those effects too. If you could share any reading material on the subject, I would be thrilled, I would like to know more on the subject. I have a fascination with weapon designs, especially Cold War era stuff. I know the American/Western stuff quite well but it’s hard to find info on the latest Soviet stuff from that era. Beyond the “Monkey” T-72’s they sold to the Iraqi’s.
@@chrisloUSA Sophistication isn't what Russians aim for. They have a set of requirements that they build their systems to. Electronics were among that. If there was a need for a tank to have certain features, those features were made. Either in a bunch of separate systems, or an integrated one. But Russians always wanted to automate as much as they could since during wartime sometimes a qualified and trained person isn't available.
IR searchlight was merely a helping hand. It wasn't used for a long time. In fact I've never seen T-80 in any iteration with that Luna-1 projector being actually used.
Thermal sighting was lost during 90s when a lot of cutting edge research and manufacturing was destroyed when Russia was being pillaged by criminal elements. So Russians bought the Thales Catherine FC cameras and later on developed their own thermal matrix. Not sure where they are with that today. But if need be they'll make it.
All the info I get is from Russian websites and Russian books. Helps knowing Russian lol
@@Max_Da_G All this I didn't know because I don't speak Russian and don't know where to find such detailed information, such information is easy for me to find on Western Designs. Thanks again, its truly a fascinating subject, I wish someone would write a book on Soviet Military Electronics of the Cold War in English.
What do you think about jugoslavin m84
Hi, please cover the main diferences between homemade usser t72's and the licensed versions made by other countries what tech the soviets did not give to the warsaw pact countries and how that loweres their preformance + do upgrades such as the polish pt-91 twardy compansate for that lack, and how would these upgrade packages compare to i.e. t72b3 ? in general is it worth it, or better design something new (for countries thinking about modernizing their t72 fleet)
Polish T-72m did not have combined armor, modern radios, ammunition, range finders. Control over their manufacture was not carried out. Sometimes the systems were replaced with the ones available to the customer, sometimes even better than the original ones.
European and combined modernization (europe, united states, Israel) mainly affect communication systems, navigation, coordination, sights and thermal imagery, sometimes engine replacement, etc. There are quite good ammunition. But there is no cardinal difference.
The T-72B3M differs from the T-72B and especially the simpler T-72A and T-72M, initially a heavier and more efficient combination armor, a new cannon, a loading device for more effective projectiles, a new engine, an integrated digital control and diagnostic system, for integration with network-centric systems, guided weapons and the ability to use modern versions of concealment systems and active protection (Arena-M or E), a new ERA on the body and tower.
In the future, complex modifications of armor and engine and transmission will be added, replacement of the gun with a modern one, another autoloader of ammunition, etc.
With regard to communication, navigation and sights, it is at least as good.
Modernization of the T-72B3M is more complex and in fact is a major overhaul with a complete replacement of all systems for more efficient ones, in addition, it is cheaper. T-80BVM uses most of these systems in the new version. In addition, modernization is carried out in stages and much remains to be done.
Good job! Keep it up.
T-80 + T-90 turret = russian dream tank?
There was a project to upgrade all MBTs in Russian ground forces with same futuristic turret. See "Burlak"
T80 its t72 with bad t64 autoloader in size like whole tank hull, and with good gas turbine engine GTD 1250 or 1000. [Also different turret]
I really appreciate your content but maybe consider remaking some of your older videos, the audio is terrible
In the US in the 80’s we were afraid of the T-80 coming through the Fulda Gap in Germany. But that war never happened, and we’re run up against Soviet exports ever since. Iraqi T-72’s at the battle of 73 wasting were completely destroyed by a much better tank, yes but also the element of surprise and the use of depleted uranium sabot rounds. It wasn’t even close. So the US Army never got to see the T-80 in combat!
And we never will because Ukraine is wiping them out 😂😂😂😂😂
Oh Russia uses the T-80 base, especially in harsh conditions!
The Kuril Islands will have (already have) a Battalion of them stationed, (or more)!
The newer Gas Turbine is much better to start and operate in cold and harsh climates!
Or more accurately, you can start it cold without the need of an hour or more of preparation before the engine can start (frozen oil, fuel etc) in -50°C (-58°F).
I
Due to what happens in Ukraine its just a big chicken frier.
I thought you ment the other t 80 from ww2
T80u is not failure. S. Korean tank still uses it with good condition.
I quite like the T80 but I prefer the T90
Ebenezer Scrooge well the t-80 uk was better than the original t-90
People I love Soviet tanks so much they're so sexy, but I'm very sad for the catastrophic results of ammo cook-off of these lovely tanks, some one help me with some words so that I can forget this sadness 😢, now please don't tell me about reactive armor it just helps against the first hit what about the next hit people 😢
Russian research found that majority of catastrophic cook offs and explosions are result of ammo outside of autoloaders carousel, hence why Russian tank crews are now advised not to put extra ammo in the turret. ERA works only once that is true, but there has never been an instance of a tank being hit near the same spot twice, and after being hit tank would move or eliminate the target that shot it
I'd buy one and use it as my daily driver. Not a failure.
T-80 wasn't really are failure
It was not. The tank was just used in the wrong way during chechen war.
1:57 cobra atgm..
Poor trained crews without infantry support go in they lost dozens from missles fired from 2 buildings they let them come im than boom it was a trap
My favorite Russian tank though it could use the safer autoloader if you ask me.
The grozny battle should never be mentioned u can get any tank and put in a situation like that the chechens had metis at missles in the 100s the general who sent them knew the outcome he got payed to send them
el t-72 leon de babilonia no tiene nada q ver con las versiones rusas del t-72 ,,,, es un clon fabricado en iraq ,,incluso el acero del t-72 leon de babilonia era muy malo ...por lo cual no se puede estimar el rendimiento de los t-72 sovieticos basado en los fabricados fuera de la URSS
Trying to defend a poor design with the poor training of the iraqi army is just misguided. Russia is years behind the US and europe. Are you saying Russian training is better than iraqi? What about the russian army in Cheznia, Ukraine and Gorgia? Poor training or poor design or both?
Do not try to ascribe your fantasies to reality.
Learning systems in Iraq? are you joking? There are some individuals in the clans who studied in the USSR, but they do not always have enough weight.
In all these conflicts, all tasks were solved, often with obsolete weapons against the numerically superior enemy.
Tanks are used differently than the United States does, do not try to show their ignorance.
2:57 t80bv
You forgot about the t80 UK
really gas turbine is so much expensive than diesel engine? This is firts time I hear that. I wonder why, since gas turbines seems to be fundamentaly simpler and smaller.
It's not the gas turbine itself that is more expensive - although if you start to use single-crystal turbine blades, exotic combustor lining materials, FADEC controls, and so forth you can really start to increase the price dramatically.
It's more the ancillaries, the electronics, the cooling systems, the pumps, and so on and so forth.
www.trucktrend.com/cool-trucks/0902dp-m1-abrams-tank/
This is a pretty good picture of the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine. As you can see, the gas turbine itself is pretty tiny.
But all of the ancillaries needed to make it run properly are massive.
If you compare it to a turbo-diesel with multi-fuel capability: www.trucktrend.com/features/1602-mtu-mt-883-v-12/ the engine is heavier by some 600 kilograms, but the volume taken up is smaller and there are less bulky ancillaries to run the engine.
Yes there are more parts and more complexity in the engine itself, but this is offset in the relative simplicity in the accessories.
A lot of tank engineering revolves around under-armour volume when it comes time to laying out the final design. Quite often, the bulkier things are, the heavier it makes the vehicle. So even though you might be able to reduce the weight of a single system like the engine, if it takes up more space under armour, the vehicle itself has to grow and that is far more weight growth than a difference of 600kg might suggest. That is why it is very important to minimise under-armour volume, even if individual systems might be heavier as a result.
my question would be what is the benefit of the t90 compared to the t80 (with d-engine) in regards of initial and upkeep cost, and the possibility of implementing future systemupgrades
The fact that T-90 can be produced, and T-80U is impossible. It's just unreasonably expensive. The T-80 has no decisive advantages over the T-90.