Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Vasily Krysov

T-80 Megathread: Astronomical speed and price!

Recommended Posts

I woundnt minimalize a completely new Turrent as a do-dad. Large numbers of t-72bs still remain in service which are very distinct from t-72bu. Which then have distinct configs of turrent

It's almost confusing as American tank development

As for the role you are correct. T-80s filled the same role as T-10 and T-62 and T-64 respectively. Breakthrough and destruction of enemy armor assets. T-55s and T-72 being simplified and supplemented to do the same in Soviet and Warsaw pact armies

 

In no way were the T-10 and T-62 meant for the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think that T-80 was supposed to be "heavy" tank. Is there any doc or interview that suggest so? Because now this idea looks like an attempt to try to make sense out of Soviet tank development after 1960s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think that T-80 was supposed to be "heavy" tank. Is there any doc or interview that suggest so? Because now this idea looks like an attempt to try to make sense out of Soviet tank development after 1960s.

 

Which is a mistake because it makes no sense.

 

More identification aids:

 

 

T-72 exhaust is on the left side of the tank.  The engine bay is somewhat similar to the T-44 family; the engine is a conventional, liquid-cooled diesel V that's turned sideways.  Leonid Kartsev mentioned this as an advantage; troops could walk directly behind a T-72 without getting gassed.  The sound is a normal deep diesel rumbling.

 

The T-64 exhausts to the rear, and the two-stroke diesel sounds very different from most other tank engines:

 

Like chieftain, which has a similar engine, T-64 appears to be very smokey.

 

 

I can't quite tell, but it looks like the turbine-equipped T-80 exhausts up and to the rear.  As you can tell from the video, the tank is relatively quiet from the front, and makes airplane-sounding noises from the rear, similar to the sound an Abrams makes.

 

Not sure how the engine bay is configured on the diesel-powered T-80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think that T-80 was supposed to be "heavy" tank. Is there any doc or interview that suggest so? Because now this idea looks like an attempt to try to make sense out of Soviet tank development after 1960s.

I don't think of the T-80 as a heavy tank, but as a breakthrough tank with a shorter combat radius. US thinking saw that breakthrough operations are a big part of any Soviet ground war even in the 1980s. 

 

With the T-80 being a very mean machine, but having fuel issues it would make some logic to have it in a frontline/breakthrough role which harkens back to the IS-2 and might get confused with being a "heavy" tank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that T-80 didn't had better armor than other tanks of the same production year. It got better armor than T-64 later, but part of main reason "why" was canceled production of the T-64. It also had exactly the same main gun as both others Soviet tanks. BTW, T-80 range on internal fueltanks was 320 km, while Leo2A4 (IIRC) had 350 in similar conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that T-80 didn't had better armor than other tanks of the same production year. It got better armor than T-64 later, but part of main reason "why" was canceled production of the T-64. It also had exactly the same main gun as both others Soviet tanks. BTW, T-80 range on internal fueltanks was 320 km, while Leo2A4 (IIRC) had 350 in similar conditions.

What role the T-80 meant to perform then? Basically all Westerners know about Soviet armor is from Cold War sources that really aren't all that good. 

 

Maybe Leo2 just sucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey sexy

 

I can tell T-80s apart by their seemingly wider turret and the driver periscopes. 

 

Modern T-72s and T-90s are basically the same thing, but T-72s usually don't have all those fancy do-dads on them. 

 

So judging from the the replies here, I am at least a little justified in thinking that around once you hit the T-64 and T-72, Soviet tank development is a mess to keep track of.  The IR lamp on the T-64 is a nice little detail I hadn't noticed before.  The engine sounds are nice too if it's a video.

 

For the T-90 without the angry eyes compared to a Kontakt-5 T-72, the differences in the turret here seem to most notably be the T-90 from the front isn't so rounded and from the side it looks a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

 

Nobody but you seems to harbor that notion

 

they have issues with with the Doctrine/need for 3 tanks

 

They are separate and distinct vehicles 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel this question quite warrants its own thread, but is there any quick way to tell apart the T-72, T-80, and T-90 apart from eachother?  The T-80 I know usually has different looking road wheels, the exhaust is on the other side, and the driver has 3 periscopes, but otherwise I'm not feeling very smart.

Sort of like the Sherman variants, they're a lot easier to tell apart looking at their engine decks and rears than they are from the front.

 

T-64 has a wide rectangular exhaust.

T-64_Kyiv_rear_view.JPG

 

T-64 also has upright flaps on the rear with the intakes located at the front of the engine deck.

aBN37FV.jpg

 

T-80 has a narrower centered exhaust.

1280px-T-80U_rear_view.jpg

 

T-80's intake is towards the front of the engine deck when it isn't covered by the turret filter.

YNidZSo.jpg

 

T-72 has a removable rear port and no exhaust.(Earlier T-72s also had single pin tracks.)

nT9hxOV.jpg

 

T-72 Intakes are located towards the rear of the engine deck.

DLMfdHk.jpg

 

T-80UD has an engine deck similar to that of the T-64.

2c05C1N.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 times the tank= 3 times the glory

 

 

Really, it was due more to the conscruction of the 64 versus the 72. It could be argued obviously, that the 80 wasnt needed, but not having at-least 2 tanks in service at once is for squares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the reason for the USSR to have the T-64, T-72 and T-80 all in service at the same time had more to do with political factors than any doctrinal need.  

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

 

Having two "primary" MBT is fine (consider M60 and M1, Leo1 and Leo 2, etc) having three is just stupid, especially if:

 

The thing is that T-80 didn't had better armor than other tanks of the same production year. It got better armor than T-64 later, but part of main reason "why" was canceled production of the T-64. It also had exactly the same main gun as both others Soviet tanks. BTW, T-80 range on internal fueltanks was 320 km, while Leo2A4 (IIRC) had 350 in similar conditions.

 

 

What role the T-80 meant to perform then? Basically all Westerners know about Soviet armor is from Cold War sources that really aren't all that good. 

 

Maybe Leo2 just sucks. 

 

There are two sides to Soviet tanks of this "generation". First, the "premium*" T-64 and T-80 on one side, and the T-72 "mass" tanks on the other. Intention to my understanding is that T-64 and T-80 would have been committed to high priority units, fronts and tasks in wartime, with the T-72 acting as filler. But as has been noted, there is really no point in having two different models of premium vehicle where the only difference is that one goes a bit faster and has lower range, while the other goes almost as fast and has much better range. This goal could have been met by keeping the T-64 in production and eschewing the T-80.

 

*This is what made them "premium"T-64 / T-80:

Better FCS

Faster Autoloader

GLATGM Kobra complex

Better systems (eg, driver station on 64 and 80 is much more modern than the tractor levers of the 72).

 

Any assigning of extra or more specific roles such as "pseudo heavy" or "breakthrough tank" between these three lines is post-facto arse-covering.

 

It's all the more curious really, considering that the Soviet's GPW experience informed them that it's much better to just have a lot of a good tank that's everywhere (based T-34/85) rather than trying to have specialized tanks do what they are best at, as that leads to them often being in the wrong place or not around at the right time. The Friction of war is always going to cause you to use whatever you have on hand, intentions be dammed. Hence why for my money I figure that sticking with the T-64 and T-72 would have been the best idea. Considering that the T-80 line went full circle with the T-80UD, they could have gotten to that point with the T-64 anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   I disagree about T-64. T-80UD was pushed by Kharkov factory so that Kharkov could produce T-80s. T-80U was clearly a better vehicle that had (and still has) upgrade potential [Oplot, lol]. While T-64 - don't. T-64BM Bulat already have overstressed suspension, while being just worse T-80U, and there is no way to bypass this problem without serious redesign work. T-64 suspension clearly hit it's limits, including how it perform at high speed. 

 

   T-80 was needed just because of suspension, but this tank was designed by LKZ, design team of which did not had much experience during initial work. This tank didn't went too far from T-64, which was it's main problem IMO. But in several parts where it went futher than T-64/72 - those changes were absolutely needed. With Object 292, T-80 could have got reasons to exist - gas turbine with 152 mm gun was exactly what people would consider as "heavy" tank. T-64's puny rollers would not be able to handle gas turbine and 152 mm gun.

 

   This tank potential was not fully used because of 1990s and problems with LKZ and later "Spetsmash". Object 299, a promising design, was also never made into anything substantial. LKZ probably was one of most interesting tank design bureau in USSR. I already posted somewhere a T-80-based prototype with crew capsule and pretty interesting crew compartent design. Driver even got a drive wheel instead of tractor leverstm:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

 

Having two "primary" MBT is fine (consider M60 and M1, Leo1 and Leo 2, etc) having three is just stupid, especially if:

 

Well it doesn't look quite as ridiculous when comparing NATO to the Warsaw Pact as a whole.

 

NATO members didn't quite succeed in developing a standard tank through Europanzer, MBT-70, or MBT-80 (Why they always collaborated with the Germans is beyond me). It's three tanks vs Leo 2, M1, Challenger 1/2, AMX-30/56, and maybe the Ariete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it doesn't look quite as ridiculous when comparing NATO to the Warsaw Pact as a whole.

 

NATO members didn't quite succeed in developing a standard tank through Europanzer, MBT-70, or MBT-80 (Why they always collaborated with the Germans is beyond me). It's three tanks vs Leo 2, M1, Challenger 1/2, AMX-30/56, and maybe the Ariete.

 

NATO were serious Wehraboos. MEIN KRUPPSTHAL!!!

 

 

   I disagree about T-64. T-80UD was pushed by Kharkov factory so that Kharkov could produce T-80s. T-80U was clearly a better vehicle that had (and still has) upgrade potential [Oplot, lol]. While T-64 - don't. T-64BM Bulat alread have overstressed suspension, while being just worse T-80U, and there is no way to bypass this problem without serious redesign work. T-64 suspension clearly hit it's limits, including how it perform at high speed. 

 

   T-80 was needed just because of suspension, but this tank was designed by LKZ, design team of which did not had much experience during initial work. This tank didn't went too far from T-64, which was it's main problem IMO. But in several parts where it went futher than T-64/72 - those changes were absolutely needed. With Object 292, T-80 could have got reasons to exist - gas turbine with 152 mm gun was exactly what people would consider as "heavy" tank. T-64's puny rollers would not be able to handle gas turbine and 152 mm gun.

 

   This tank potential was not fully used because of 1990s and problems with LKZ and later "Spetsmash". Object 299, a promising design, was also never made into anything substantial. LKZ probably was one of most interesting tank design bureau in USSR. I already posted somewhere a T-80-based prototype with crew capsule and pretty interesting crew compartent design. Driver even got a drive wheel instead of tractor leverstm:D

 

True enough on the limitations of the T-64 suspension, but on the other hand one can only assume that the Object 476 was designed with this limitation in mind.

 

http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/tanks/476.php

 

The quoted max speed here is certainly no slouch.

 

Actually, what would happen if you stuck the GTD into a T-72? All that power, with a big reduction in parts burden from avoiding having another tank...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   "Max speed" don't say much. How much time tank can hold this speed until wear of rollers will start to affect movements of tank? How it can survive turns at high speeds? How well it can resist vibrations and rough terrain? T-64 had problems with vibrations and "naked" stamped narrow rollers wearing down quicker than Army could accept, IIRC. T-14 use suspension, that was clearly based on T-80, even if it use diesel engine (although it is pretty powerfull, maybe even more than T-80 GTDs).

   T-72 suspension and GTD? IDK how it would work, but looking at size of rollers of all modern tanks with Gas turbines and T-72's rollers i think there is certain reasons why engineers didn't worked on this project. Seems to me T-72's rollers are too heavy and their dynamics is not fit for speeds and accelerations of tanks with gas turbines. But this is my uneducated guess.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, now I am thinking about a T-72 with the suspension of the T-80 put on it... But then that means we're getting into territory where said theoretical tank is a T-80 in all but name derived from the T-72 instead of the T-64 and would bring us full circle back to the original points of:

 

A ) Cost too much.

B ) Impaired operational mobility.

C ) Added logistical burden on spare parts, training and etc.

 

Whereupon my thinking defaults back to "T-72 stroonk!"  :lol: 

 

Edit: That's ironic walter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By LoooSeR
      BM "Oplot"
       

       

      Ukrainian designers managed to make biggest panoramic sight i ever saw - overall weight of it is reaching 500 kg.
       
       
             Oplot-M, or BM "Oplot" after addoption to service in Ukrainian army, is Ukrainian MBT based on another Ukrainian MBT - T-84 "Oplot", which is Soviet-designed T-80UD with some modifications. BM Oplot was designed by Morozov Kharkiv Machine Building Design Bureau and produced by Malyshev factory. Chief designer of BM Oplot - Mikhail Dem'yanovich Borisuk (he was born in 1934, BTW).
       
       
             It have several features, separating it from T-80UD, T-90A and T-84. Engine is new 6 cylinder 6TD-2E 1200 HP diesel with lowered smokiness and exhaust toxicity (wich is a problem for Kharkov engines) in new engine-transmission compartment (which is 2 part - lower is for engine itself and upper part is for big airfilters, which are needed because of how much air 6TD "eats"), new sort-of automatical transmission. Tank is equipped with new navigation systems, FCS, panoramic sight for commander with day and night (thermal imager) capabilities, new remotely controlled KT-12.7 12.7 mm HMG for commander, new gunner sights, which bring it to modern level of how tank should be equipped. A lot of that equipment is made not in Ukraine.
       
       
      From the side BM Oplot looks different from Soviet T-64-like MBTs.
       
            Main gun is not really different from 2A46 125 mm guns of T-72/ T-80/T-90 series of tanks, 125 mm KBA-3 L48 gun with autoloader for 28 shots (46 in total is carried). Main gun can fire HE, HEAT, APFSDS, GL-ATGMs (Ukrainian "Kombat" missiles). AFAIK part of ammunition is carried outside of the tank, in turret "basket", mounted to the rear part of it. Nothing really fancy here, 5 km range with ATGMs, up to 2.5-2.8 km effective range with APFSDS, which is standart for late Soviet and current Russian MBTs like T-72B3, T-80UE and different models of the T-90. 
       
           Vehicle is also equipped with Ukrainian version/local variant of Shtora system - "Varta", with additional laser-warning sensors on the turret sides. 

       
       
           BM-Oplot use somewhat unusual type of ERA (which is most interesting feature of that tank) - ~layered ERA named "Duplet". It is rumored that it can defeat tandem HEAT warheads like PG-7VR and PG-29V. Vehicle sides are also covered by Duplet ERA. 
       


            Note that the hull UFP is covered by differently shaped blocks of ERA (long and narrow). How much it is effective is unknown, but designers claim that it can defeat tandem HEAT warheads, EFP and APFSDS projectiles.  
       
      Upper frontal hull armor layout:
       
      Side ERA modules:
       
            Overall, BM Oplot is tank with better perfomance than T-80UD thanks to improvements in electronics and FCS, engine, transmission, driver controls, new ERA and better side armor, and in some areas this vehicle can be superioir to T-72B3 (latest Russian serial produced modification of the T-72 MBT, although it wasn't best proposed modification for it).
            But..., there is always "but" -  it is vehicle that Ukraine can not produce in any serious numbers, as their one and only contract with Thai army showed - out of 95 BM Oplot ordered in 2011 only 5-6 were delivered to this day. During trials in Thailand Kombat GL-ATGMs also showed not very good results - AFAIK out of 5 test firings, 2 missiles exploded before reaching targets. Another interesting fact about that tank is that no BM Oplot MBTs are presented on battlefields of Eastern Ukraine - T-64 and T-72s are primary tanks of the VSU. Seems to me Ukraine is either can't service them, or simply can't produce them in a first place.
       
      Oplot-BM on trials in Pakistan. No accurate information on results, rumors say that Chinese VT-4 won that competition.
       
      Oplot-BMs for Thai army on prooving ground.
       

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      This thread is where to post all the stupid and annoying tank myths that fail to go away.  We shall start with two pointed out by Marsh over in the Swedish tank thread.
       
       
      1. The S-Tank was designed as a tank destroyer or as a tank only fit for just defensive missions.   2. The Merkava was designed for asymmetric combat in an urban environment, rather than full scale armour versus armour battle.     I will add a few:   Any tank suspension without return rollers is a "Christie" suspension.  In particular, T-55 and T-62,   HEAT munitions create a molten jet that "burns" its way through armor.    The French 75mm gun on the AMX 13 is a copy of the German KwK 42        
×