Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

T-80 Megathread: Astronomical speed and price!


Vasily Krysov
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

https://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1829&p=26

  Maybe this will be interesting for people outside of Russian defense-themed forums, a taste of one of many battles between Kharkovite mujaheeds and warriors of the Church of Glorious T-80, raging across internet for decades in endless war between opposite piston diesel worshippers and Gas Turbine votarists to find out which one was worse:

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

   And it [T-80] also showed the highest unreliability among all Soviet tanks, the T-64 was criticized for this, and they turned a blind eye on the T-80 -

759778

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   The picture is not visible, but I suspect that we are talking about 75-82 years, just at the formation of 219 as a machine. I don't know, it was obvious to me that the 64 tank, as a fundamentally new object, cannot be without flaws at the start of production and saturation of the troops, the criticism should be justified, and not on the basis of genus, as is now accepted. The same situation was with 219 and 688...

 

Quote

to Baron Kharkovite by another forum member:

   Does it not bother you that in the picture - the 1970s, when the T-64 and T-80 were at fundamentally different stages of identifying and eliminating "jambs"?

 

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

[you] suspect incorrectly, we are talking about all years.

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1990_05_ove.htm

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   Well why, you corrected the link to the picture, I saw it and my assumptions were correct with a confident decline [amount of problems with reliablity].

   Under article from 90 - why is there only a comparison with 172 objects, where are Kharkov's [vehicle]? I do not understand a lot about it, and again, to equate the flow of failures of a vehicle with a gas turbine engine, with an FCS and a GL-ATGM system, with a machine that has a heart from the theory of the 30s and the simplest sight of the 70s ... well, such a thing

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

   Because see "Table 1: Test Failure Rates (Numerator) and 5 Years Failure Rates (Denominator)" in the post above.
   Guided weapon system and FCS - all the "bumps" were "stuffed" on the T-64B,
   GTE - there is an unavoidable problem in it, as with the chassis, as well as with the transmission, which is not particularly friendly with this GTE, and in many other ways.

/.../

   ANALYSIS OF CAUSES OF FAILURES DURING CONTROLLED OPERATION OF TANKS IN 1975-1984

http://btvt.info/5library/vot_1986_nadeznost_72_64_80.htm

Only by 1985! T-80 absolutely by accident reached w close to 1.

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   PVE [army pre-serial production test service] - this is a pre-production 71 engine, the initial susepnsion of the object - is there anything more interesting in 82-83+ years?

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

   So what, in 1975-1984 was there only a pre-production engine? Maybe it's time to tie this show, everything has long been published for reliability, myths have been dispelled.

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   No Andrey, let's return to your article:

Quote

During the PVE period since 1975, 96 cases of GTE failures on 233 tanks were recorded

 

   PVE, without this article I know what it was worth bringing the GTE to working condition, where is the number of 5TDF and V46 screwed up during the periods of the beginning of their production? We don't need "shows" about unreliable gas turbine engines here, but Kharkovites should be silent here, otherwise the rows of engines in Leipzig will start to be remembered.

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

   During the PVE period since 1975 (to 84), 96 cases of GTE failures were revealed on 233 tanks under control due to burnout of high-pressure compressor turbine blades and destruction of power turbine blades and disks.
   This is a breakdown only for one of the reasons for the specified period of time of the machines during PVE.
   It is absolutely clear to me that you do not understand what you are writing about in the phrase "where is the number of screwed up 5TDF and V46 for the periods of the beginning of their production"? This is nonsense.

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   For example, it is absolutely clear to me - that during the PVE period X, 100 cases of 5TD engine failure were detected due to Y, then the rest of the objects will not look so cheerful is this clear?

Quote

Radus-Zenkovich:

- 35% of the engines in the troops were out of order. There are 31 tanks [immobile] because of the engine. Average engine operation in the tank is 212 hours. At the stand 244 hours

 

   Tests of the tank "432" in the Belarusian MD raised 4 questions:

- the engine runs less than 150 hours;

- high oil consumption;

- small track resource;

- Difficulty starting the engine.

   The main defect remained - this is the engine. All attention must be focused on the engine. Defect number 1 - oil consumption. Defect number 2 - engine reliability. It is necessary to speed up the introduction of engines of the fourth series.

Quote

   The thermal process of the engine has not been worked out and the plant is not working on it. Because of this, the piston group does not work, dust wear was present before. This was shown by the exercises "Dnepr". How dust enters the engine - the plant does not know. Morozov plays the role of Chief Designer poorly.

Quote

   The engine in the car is chronically not working. It is capricious about dust. Golinets believes that engine is fine, only Morozov does not create normal conditions for it in the tank. Morozov believes that the problem is not his design (system). Although airfiltering is not the main problem. The engine still has 75% of other defects. The main defect of the tank is the engine, the "crux of the matter" is the engine.

Quote

- The improovement work was delayed. So far we do not have trouble-free operation. Previously, the tank ran much less. It is urgent to remove several emergency issues and, first of all, air purification. We also need to make a fallback, although single-stage air purification is clearly better. The central issue is the engine

Quote

- On machines No. 20, 23 and 26, the engines were out of order due to dust wear. The presence of wear on the blower impeller, wear on the rings and dullness of the piston. The air cleaner is not made correctly. The pressure in the hopper is less than in the clean air chamber. There is no protection of air filter from the AK-150 compressor.

Quote

Chernov:

- After the exercise, 36 engines were removed. Disassembled 20: dust wear - 11, piston group - 6, destruction of the piston lining - 1, destruction of the piston - 1, water in oil - 2, destruction of the crankshaft - 1. On the Dnepr exercise march, 23 engines failed. Now 9 are disassembled: piston group - 4, destruction of the lining - 1, destruction of the piston body - 1, water in oil - 3.

 

Strunge:

- The engine will not run on dust. The purification has now reached 0.999, which is not enough for 5TDF. It is necessary to do the airfiltering two-stage. It is necessary to install two oil flushing rings.

   And it's not about the GTE, by the way, but the agony of the birth of 5TD, the comrades from Kharkov should have kept quiet.

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

   The problem is that you are reading the article, but you do not understand what is written there.

Quote

the comrades from Kharkov should have kept quiet.

   Typical behavior of a "tank fanatic", they are given the facts, the results of 10 years of testing and army service, and they have butthurt.
   Someone's fairy world collapsed under the weight of facts.

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   No Andrey leave these attacks for the youth, how did you destroy my world?

   Problems with the engine during the implementation phase? Your heart does not have enough oxygen, you should be silent about it, you should write better about a suspension that has no analogues, or the streams of failure of all objects and for all defects and not selectively, 80 is a better and this is a fact, even according to tests where fire was corrected by 447, failed to get around

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

   I am not writing anything, it was written long ago in VBTT and VOT. And all these tales of "seasoned tankers" thanks to statistics are just special cases and personal affections.
   The bottom line is that the parameter of the flow of failures ω reached the norm only in 1985 at the demonstration races. And at the same time, the reliability of the T-80 was lower than the T-72 and T-64 of the corresponding modifications of the time

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   Andrey, you are for some reason excited and trying to call everyone fanatics, I once again ask an elementary question according to these data:

Quote

   During the PVE period since 1975 (to 84), 96 cases of GTE failures were revealed on 233 tanks under control due to burnout of high-pressure compressor turbine blades and destruction of power turbine blades and disks.

   Well, ok, they broke down (were send to capitel repair), 96 engines over a 9-year period, this figure does not affect at all, the question is how much during the period between the start of production and the 9-year PVE did the V-46 and 5TD engines break down? Taking into account how the 5td was born, I think you have numbers no less? Bring me, there is nothing to write about an unreliable and complex GTE.

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

Broken down only on PVE tanks.
They broke down for only one reason, the author of the article focuses on this.

 

I say that you do not understand the essence of what you have read, see above.

And let me remind you that the T-80 is the most unreliable of Soviet tanks of the 2nd post-war generation.

 

Quote

Another forum member

I see no point in arguing about the bestness of 64s and 80s, since, it seems to me, they had to merge and give birth to the 80U and 80UD family as the main ones for the USSR Armed Forces before the appearance of new objects.

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   Well, I see well the probability of almost 6 failures in the most intense years of improvements and searches for new solutions. Yes, why only 73? So that the flow of refusals of Kharkivite with the number 15 per 1000 km does not bother anyone?

 

   I like your diligence in drawing far-reaching conclusions from one tablet from the magazine. I have already said above - without decoding the reasons for the failures, these are just some kind of measuring things in parrots, because the nature of the failures is not clear, this is the product itself, or its components.

 

   However, no less interesting tablets were printed in this magazine, just the same they were drawn up correctly:

   The values of the parameters of the flow of failures ω of the chassis (1) and the gas turbine engine (2), obtained from the results of the army test service 1978-1986.

832890

 

   Moreover, Efremov - I hope you know who he is, describes the bursts on the chart quite adequately and truthfully

Quote

   The nature of the change in the reliability indicators of tank systems, for example, the chassis and the gas turbine engine (Fig. 2) in the course of army trials 1978-1986, confirms that under extreme test conditions weak links are revealed, and this is often not possible in the process of testing the components on the stands ... So, the highest value of the parameter of the flow of failures of the undercarriage [suspension] ω kh.ch  was on tests in 1979 and 1980 when driving on solid frozen ground with a high average speed in the conditions of Transbaikal, and during tests in 1983 under the same conditions, the parameter value stabilized and amounted to 0.43 failures/1000 km, and later (from 1984 to 1986) the value of ω kh.ch decreased to 0.06

Quote

   Even more characteristic is the regularity of the change in the parameter of the flow of failures of the gas turbine engine ωgtd. As follows from Fig. 2, the value of ωgtd sharply increased in 1981-1982. when tested in Central Asia. It took several years of refinement of both the tank systems and the engine, comprehensive testing by bench and run tests, in order to solve the problem of reliable operation of the gas turbine engine in conditions of increased dustiness and ambient temperature. Tests carried out in the Central Asian Military District in 1986 fully confirmed the correctness of the chosen and worked out directions.

Quote

   During the army trails 1978-1986. a whole range of measures was worked out to fine-tune the components of the tank, the effectiveness of most of which (up to 90%) was confirmed. As a result, the value of the failure flow parameter for the whole tank decreased from 3.77 in 1980. up to 0.76 in 1986 and since 1983 satisfies the requirement: ω ≤1.0 failures / thous. km.

 

   The analysis of the achieved reliability indicators of the tank based on the results of army trials and experimental military operation (OVE) allows us to distinguish two stages of its development (Fig. 3):

  • 1st stage (until 1977) - constructive testing of prototypes, production of a small series;
  • 2nd stage (from 1978 to 1986) - intensive testing in extreme conditions and accumulation of information, modernization of the tank and the development of large-scale production at factories 1 and 2.

   The increase in the parameter ω at the beginning of the 2nd stage of development is due to the beginning of intensive tests in extreme conditions, the accumulation of information, the modernization of the tank with the help of measures to refine the power plant and the weapons complex, as well as the beginning from 1980 large-scale production at plant No. 2. At the same time, the large value of ω (3.77) at the 1980 obtained mainly due to a significant number of chassis failures in the conditions of Transbaikal, where ω kh.ch (2.25) failures / thous. km (Fig. 2).

 

[about T-64]

42405

Total 378 "suitcases" in 5 years

[chart shows number of replaced engines]

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

   And the main result - we got a tank that had no advantages over the existing ones except for a slightly higher speed in certain conditions, the engine cost 100 thousand rubles, is unreliable, and has a short cruising range. The same power was achieved by a diesel 6TD, while hundreds of millions were poured into the plant and equipment for the nonexistent VTDT-1000FM, even if they did see the quote below. The result - instead of a new generation tank, we got the T-80 with all its jambs.

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   However, even prototype vehicles showed:

1) The best travel speeds in a marching / combat;
2) Provided the best rates of advance;
3) Provide less crew fatigue;
4) The fastest preparation for the shot;
5) Better accuracy by tens of percent on the move with the antediluvian TPD-K1;
6) Better accuracy by tens of percent in general on average in various battle conditions (and without 1A33);

Do you have data on 219P? Please post it is very interesting to look, at least thesis

/.../

   Well, as it turns out, the ward is not worse than others, the price is well, yes, the price is expensive, or maybe a less tired unit that came three hours earlier, with a day long transition, as an example, turned out to be at the right time in the right place, with less tired crews with a more accurate machine with less cost in preparation for battle and shooting?

/.../

  And why tank is here? Engineers worked, who lobbied for the construction of the plant? Surely the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine was interested in this, investment money and so on.

   About 6TD The story with the 5TD fine-tuning could backfire on this type, which is why they received it coolly in Moscow offices? They got fed up at one time after the divisions' alarm went out to the GSVG.
   Of course, then in a few years it will hiccup about battalions that got up after 180 km "dry" but with intact engines, but this will then be with another object in general.

 

Quote

Baron Kharkovite:

reliability is worse than others, and most importantly, why was a third tank "no worse than others" needed?

 

Quote

Warrior of the Church of Glorious T-80:

   Andrey, above is from the same magazine engine excerpt.

 

   Was a third tank needed? I don't know if a third was needed, or even a second with the first?

   History went on such a spiral, why now wave swords, the second one is generally a hit for all time, half the world is fighting on them, while beautiful 1 and 3 are beyond the borders of the former USSR did not get out - although all the gateways have been open since the 90s, everything is being bought and sold

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, rubenski said:

Tell me, I'm uneducated in the manner.

 

It's nonsense out of principle. What KE means? There are plenty of KE penetrators with completely different performance. In extreme that can be whatever since WW2 till today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rubenski said:

Steel Beasts T-80U front armor in detail.

Steel beasts armor and penetration values are totally nonsense. Sometimes it turns to utter ridiculous levels, like 270-350mm KE protection for Leopard-1 turret (not bad for those paper thin plates! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Steel beasts armor and penetration values are totally nonsense. Sometimes it turns to utter ridiculous levels, like 270-350mm KE protection for Leopard-1 turret (not bad for those paper thin plates! :D

Still their simulator is being used for training by several armies. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth remembering that steel beasts is a game available to the general public. I'm led to understand the professional version of it allows one to plug in values of their own, so presumably militaries which use it on a professional basis have what they consider to be accurate values, the open source version, being based on unclassified data, cannot be taken as an authoritative source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2021 at 2:57 PM, rubenski said:

Tell me, I'm uneducated in the manner.

 

Steel Beasts uses its own (and very flawed) system for calculating armor and penetration that doesn't reflect the reality very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

vJmfu5F.png

Trying to find very early pictures of T-80U in the "modern" configuration (i.e not the early-early ones without ERA flaps etc). I presume T-80Us of this configuration weren't seen until the very early 1990s. If anyone has pictures from 89 or earlier I'd be more than happy to see them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

  • 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 delfosisyu
      Hey guys. This is my first post in this forum.
       
       
       
      I want to find out sources for 2 information.
       
       
       
       
      Firstly, a friend of mine told me about the accuracy of T-80B tested in 1980s.
       
       
       
       
       
      T-80B      1000m   1500m     2000m
                      
                      87%       66%       46%
       
       
       
       
       
      I asked him where he found this data. But he told me he forgot where he did find this since too much time passed from that moment.
       
       
       
       
       
       
      The Second one is about Russian ballistic computer's range-finding rate.
       
       
      One day, one of my friends who speaks russian quite well showed me a product info. of russian(maybe ukrainian) gunner's primary sight.
       
       
      It was written that range-finding rate of the sight after laser fired-off 0.3~3.0 seconds. 
       
       
      I totally forgot the address of that product brochure.
       
       
       
      I'd be very appreciated if you help me finding links of these information.
    • 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        
×
×
  • Create New...