Jump to content

T-80 Megathread: Astronomical speed and price!


Vasily Krysov
 Share

Recommended Posts

   A bit more info about Cyprus T-80s, stolen from otvaga

Quote

of which 14 T-80UKs (command and control chassis version, specially designed with the 'Shtora' self-protection system and carrying Agava-2 Thermal Sight)

   So out of all bought T-80s, 14 of them are UKs equipped with Shtora system and Agava-2 thermal imagers.

 

Quote

tanks underwent modernization in 2006, got new sights

Yes, they didn’t take newly build tanks, in 2010 from storage bases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello, new here, been following the forum for years.

 

Anyone knows precisely how many T-80 were built? I can't seem to find the data on internet, either in english or russian. I'd like to know how many built in total, how many per sub-types and how many remain today in russian service, by sub-types.

 

Anyone knows how many T-80U-E1 were made from those unholy deactivated kharkovites T-80UD? How many T-80UA? / UM?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

   Viktor Murakhovskiy about T-80BVM

Quote

The mass medias "overfucked" already about the T-80BVM and its uniqueness. I will express three theses.
   1. It is not good that in fact we will have three tracked heavy-mass platforms: T-80, T-72/90, Armata. This seriously complicates the technical and logistical support, the training of crews and repairmen. The long-term development plan for the BTVT for the period until 2020 provided for the operation of the T-80 until the resource was used up and then the machines were to be removed from service. At the same time, the T-72/90 and Armata families have some continuity, for example, in consumables.
   2. The decision to leave the T-80 in service and purchase its upgraded version is a step towards industry, for the “support of pants” of some enterprises. The military does not need this, by and large. Besides harm, no good. Operation of the T-80 is approximately one and a half times more expensive than machines of the T-72/90 family. I will not say anything about some negative features of the T-80 operation, this is a topic for specialists.
   3. The ability to quickly start a gas turbine engine at low negative outside temperatures does not give any advantages. Tanks do not act on their own, but as part of units and subunits, elements of a combat (marching) order. For example, T-80s can quickly start their engines in the starting area for an offensive, but they cannot jump to the line of transition to attack before other vehicles of the first echelon. And all the “so unique” T-80BVMs will wait other equipment and advance to specified lines (initial, deployment to company and platoon columns, transition to attack) as part of units.
   Higher speed and throttle response of the T-80 do not give any advantages. Tanks ALWAYS move in convoys or combat (battle) formations.
   The above is true for all types of combat, march, etc. Similarly, when leaving the RPD to the concentration areas when bringing the units to the highest levels of combat readiness. Without reconnaissance, security, air defense, etc. sending tanks of any type to accomplish tasks is a crime.

 

   I agree with 1st thesis, but other ones are debatable.

   2. Omsk already upgrades T-72s into Budget Cuts 3, produce TOS-1A and involved in TOS-2, although can't say if income is enough to keep factory in capable form. The fact that it received an order to modernize additional tanks is not bad, UVZ should not be a complete monopoly, but the fact that T-80Bs were modernized instead of T-72s is bigger problem IMO.

   3. Disagree about higher speed and better handling/acceleration being useless. Argument can be made about cost effectivness of those not-so-big advantages of T-80BVM over Budget Cuts 3 for Russian army and given budget, but higher/increased mobility of a tank is not a useless improvement. Hell, T-72B3 mod 2016 is getting more powerfull engines for that reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

three tracked heavy-mass platforms: T-80, T-72/90, Armata?

 

Im not so sure. I do not see much future for armata. Maybe a very small batch for propaganda purposes, and thats it. Also, T-80BVM has a huge advantage over T-72B3: protection. In today's standards, T-72B3 counts as almost unarmored. Kontakt-5 is completely useless. True, nothing prevents Relikt installation on the 72, but as far as I know, no plans for it, so T-80BVM will have a much higher combat value. Another advantage of T-80, is that the gas turbine is much more reliable, and has longer life. T-80U&variants should be also overhauled and modernized with Relikt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

- if there was an opportunity to fight and win battles with [just] a tank crew, platoon, company - I would definitely choose the T-80U tank as the commander of the crew, platoon, company;
- but already at the level of the battalion tactical group, tanks with gas turbine engines begin to generate additional haemorrhoids with rear and technical support, and the higher the level of military structure - the more problems;
- it is already clear that the long-term plan for the development of the heavy AFVs for the period up to 2020, formed in 2010, has failed and the new plan for the period until 2027 is noticeably weaker, including in terms of the parameters of unification of the HAFVs;
- there is no hysteria about this, there is only regret that it was not possible to fulfill the plan for many key parameters, with one exception - the staffing of combat-ready equipment, and this is already good.

   Murakhovksiy comments about his remarks about T-80BVMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, heretic88 said:

three tracked heavy-mass platforms: T-80, T-72/90, Armata?

 

Im not so sure. I do not see much future for armata. Maybe a very small batch for propaganda purposes, and thats it. Also, T-80BVM has a huge advantage over T-72B3: protection. In today's standards, T-72B3 counts as almost unarmored. Kontakt-5 is completely useless. True, nothing prevents Relikt installation on the 72, but as far as I know, no plans for it, so T-80BVM will have a much higher combat value. Another advantage of T-80, is that the gas turbine is much more reliable, and has longer life. T-80U&variants should be also overhauled and modernized with Relikt.

 

As Syria shows K-5 works against nearly everything what can be realistically fired on the tank. The risk of fight against the very last generation of AT weapons is pretty low and there are other means which prevent that from happening, mainly the nukes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Beer said:

As Syria shows K-5 works against nearly everything what can be realistically fired on the tank.

   Syria didn't show anything about K-5 as number of tanks equipped with it in Syria is very low (and several T-90s were lost, BTW). People should filter out results of Syrian conflict, it is not an indication of capabilities of certain weapons because of general level of warfare (competence) was not very high in this war from both sides.

   Also note that vast majority of weapon system in Syria are old 60-70-early 80 tanks like T-72As, T-62/T-55, IFVs like BMP-1s and BMP-2s, etc.

 

Quote

The risk of fight against the very last generation of AT weapons is pretty low and there are other means which prevent that from happening, mainly the nukes. 

   Ukraine have Javelins, ISIS in Iraq captured at least 1 Javelin. Chances of our tanks being targeted by Spike, Raybolt, MMP, Javelin by non-official US troops or their closest allies is not zero at all. Note that Turkey have 3rd+ gen ATGM and they can sell it to Ukraine as they did with their attack UAVs, without political strings attached as with US Javs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   T-80UE-1, Note Kharkovite-80UD's turret (RCWS, ERA on roof with a step, no MG "mast" next to commander's hatch). It is not 100% giveaway feature, as some UE-1s (at least claimed to be) were photographed in units with T-80U turrets (straight ERA on roof, MG mast, no RCWS). 

4zViDXU.jpg

   This one looks like T-80UE-1 Sp2 (with thermal imager and no IR lamp or PL-1 IR laser projector). 

 

Spoiler

5mPUvYf.jpg

 

   Another T-80UE-1 Sp2

I4i8DKR.jpg

 

   Compare to normal T-80U

FY51fdM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Well, this was expected but still...

 

Quote

1. The Subject of the Agreement

 

   The documentation provider undertakes to fulfill in accordance with the requirements and conditions of this agreement and deliver it to the Customer in a timely manner, and the latter undertakes to accept and pay for the following work package on the terms of this agreement:

 

   “Transfer to Omsktransmash JSC the originals of the design documentation available at JSC Spetsmash (hereinafter referred to as the document originals) in accordance with the Decision of the Department of the Ministry of Defense of Russia to ensure the state defense order and JSC Uralvagonzavod Scientific Industrial Corporation dated June 28, 2019. No. 3/6 / 171-2019 on the transfer to Omsktransmash JSC from Spetsmash JSC originals of the documentation of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for products 219, 219R, 219RV, 219AS, 291, 294, 295, 208T and their modifications ”, hereinafter referred to as works.

 

The grounds for concluding this agreement are:


   Decision of the Department of the Ministry of Defense of Russia on ensuring the state defense order (hereinafter referred to as the State customer) and JSC Uralvagonzavod Scientific Industrial Corporation dated June 28, 2019 No. 3/6/171-2019 on transfer of Omsktransmash JSC from Spetsmash JSC original documents of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on products 219, 219Р, 219РВ. 219AC, 291, 294,295, 208T and their modifications.

   Decision on the procedure for the preparation and transfer of documentation of Spetsmash JSC to Omsktransmash JSC (according to Decision No. 3/6/171-2019 of June 28, 2019) sent by the Customer to the Documentation Supplier by letter No. 1749/869 of September 6, 2019 .

Letter of JSC Uralvagonzavod Scientific Industrial Corporation dated 04.04.2019 No. 237-05 / 0487.

   Schedule for the transfer of originals of documentation, approved by the Parties and agreed upon by the relevant RF Ministry of Defense.

Appeals of JSC Omsktransmash dated May 21, 2019 No. 981/869, dated July 3, 2019 No. 1289/869, dated July 8, 2019 No. 1310/869, dated August 08, 2019 No. 1543/869.

 

https://zakupki.gov.ru/223/purchase/public/purchase/info/common-info.html?regNumber=31908594878

 

ujMIAuo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...