The T-80s future in the Russian Army

franco wrote:

80 BVM's were delivered in 2021, two battalions out East and appears the 200th now has a 41-tank battalion

And that brings the total close to about 500

Russia withdrew their T80UDs in mid 2000s, not because soare parts but because they want only diesel tank in their army, and they plan to made more then 1000 T90A witch will replace all T80s, but they never made that number of T90s so they stick with 80s in some units.

2nd and 4th operates only with T80BVs and T80Us...they neve have UDs in their inventory...

As i said T80UD was put in reserve in mud 2000s, not in 1995...

galicije83 wrote:Russia withdrew their T80UDs in mid 2000s, not because soare parts but because they want only diesel tank in their army,

The T-80UD is a diesel powered tank...

Here is the engine deck of the T-80U >>


Versus the T-80UD's engine deck >> also take note of where the fuel drum brackets are located as apposed to the T-80U's.


In the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, (4 October) six T-80UD MBTs took positions on a bridge opposite the Russian parliament and fired on it.

Mir wrote:

galicije83 wrote:Russia withdrew their T80UDs in mid 2000s, not because soare parts but because they want only diesel tank in their army,

The T-80UD is a diesel powered tank...

Really D stand for Diesel...majority of T-80U tanks in Russian army was this D version with this crappy engine....

Diesel tank with their engine not this 6TD made in Harkov, Ukraine...this engine was and still is piece of shit, compare to the classical V12 made for T-72s....

flamming_python wrote:
Russia was looking at withdrawing the gas-turbine T-80s from service I think, but then found that gas-turbines actually perform optimally in Arctic conditions, and so has kept them around for that, as well as in training units.

Compare to diesel engine on -40 this GTD tanks start their engines in less then 1 minute, for diesel you need 45-50 minute...so yes this tank are very good for Arctic conditions and because that they still are in service in RUS army.

galicije83 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:
Russia was looking at withdrawing the gas-turbine T-80s from service I think, but then found that gas-turbines actually perform optimally in Arctic conditions, and so has kept them around for that, as well as in training units.

Compare to diesel engine on -40 this GTD tanks start their engines in less then 1 minute, for diesel you need 45-50 minute...so yes this tank are very good for Arctic conditions and because that they still are in service in RUS army.

They also generate large amounts of surplus heat which keeps crew warm and cozy

All T-80's shortcomings in usual conditions become massive advantages in polar environments

galicije83 wrote:

Really D stand for Diesel...majority of T-80U tanks in Russian army was this D version with this crappy engine....

Diesel tank with their engine not this 6TD made in Harkov, Ukraine...this engine was and still is piece of shit, compare to the classical V12 made for T-72s....

I don't know where you get your info from but the T-80UD's (diesel) engine was made in the Ukraine. The engine was not crappy at all. This particular tank (T-80UD) was set to become the main Soviet battle tank as it was cheaper to run but then the Soviet Union collapsed and Ukraine became an independent country. Ukraine itself inherited a lot of these tanks that were still at the factory and they then sold a large number of them to Pakistan. Russia did not like this deal (India)and refused to deliver the tank guns and other equipment for these tanks. Ukraine in turn refused to supply engine spares to the Russians, with the result that in 1995 the Russians started to withdraw the T-80UD from front-line service due to spare shortages. Ukraine developed the T-80UD into the T-84.

Mir wrote:

I don't know where you get your info from but the T-80UD's (diesel) engine was made in the Ukraine. The engine was not crappy at all. This particular tank (T-80UD) was set to become the main Soviet battle tank as it was cheaper to run but then the Soviet Union collapsed and Ukraine became an independent country. Ukraine itself inherited a lot of these tanks that were still at the factory and they then sold a large number of them to Pakistan. Russia did not like this deal (India)and refused to deliver the tank guns and other equipment for these tanks. Ukraine in turn refused to supply engine spares to the Russians, with the result that in 1995 the Russians started to withdraw the T-80UD from front-line service due to spare shortages. Ukraine developed the T-80UD into the T-84.

It was shitty engine when it was made in 60s for T-64s, and it was still shitty in 2020s when they made new version of it for their upgraded T-64BMs and it was shitty in mid 80s. Production of T-80UD was political, because they lost competition in new tank who will replace their T-64s...so they need tank to produced in their factory and they just took T-80U and made D version of it...it was all political...

This 6DT engine have same problems in 60s/70s/80s/90s and still have it...its junk, was junk and always will be junk...

Yes it was most common U version because Ukraine made it easly. Russian have big problems at start with GTD1250 so they made fist ~40 T-80Us with old engines, same as it was in T-80BVs, also they have problem in production and result was small batch of T-80U made till 1991. After they solved this issue they start production of their U version and stop production of BVs..And because of this reasons Urkaine made more U model with diesel engine then Russia.

galicije83 wrote:
It was shitty engine when it was made in 60s for T-64s, and it was still shitty in 2020s when they made new version of it for their upgraded T-64BMs and it was shitty in mid 80s. Production of T-80UD was political, because they lost competition in new tank who will replace their T-64s...so they need tank to produced in their factory and they just took T-80U and made D version of it...it was all political...

This 6DT engine have same problems in 60s/70s/80s/90s and still have it...its junk, was junk and always will be junk...

Yes it was most common U version because Ukraine made it easly. Russian have big problems at start with GTD1250 so they made fist ~40 T-80Us with old engines, same as it was in T-80BVs, also they have problem in production and result was small batch of T-80U made till 1991. After they solved this issue they start production of their U version and stop production of BVs..And because of this reasons Urkaine made more U model with diesel engine then Russia.

No sir you have your facts all wrong - again! The T-64's engine was the 5TDF 5 cylinder 2 stroke diesel engine that delivered 700hp. This engine was designed to function for 300 hours but it was initially a very troublesome engine with numerous brake downs well before the 300 hours warranty. It took a while but the problems were eventually more or less sorted.

A few T-64B's were fitted with the 6DT and was known as the T-64BM. Another version fitted with the 6DT was the T-64B1M but never entered production.

The 6DT1/2 tank engine is still used today in the Ukrainian T-84, The Oplot and the Pakistani T-84UD and Al-Khalid tanks and seems to be working fine.

Mir wrote:

No sir you have your facts all wrong - again! The T-64's engine was the 5TDF 5 cylinder 2 stroke diesel engine that delivered 700hp. This engine was designed to function for 300 hours but it was initially a very troublesome engine with numerous brake downs well before the 300 hours warranty. It took a while but the problems were eventually more or less sorted.

The 6TD1/2 tank engine is still used today in the Ukrainian T-84, The Oplot and the Pakistani T-84UD and Al-Khalid tanks and seems to be working fine.

Its same engine with more cylinder and it has same problem as 5TD engine in T-64s older version, newer ones have 6TD in it...its was junk, its still is and it will be in future...

Because of this trouble maker engine Thailand has gave up of buying more Oplot tanks...All tanks who have this engines have big problems with it...its fact...you can find text about it...its hell for maintenance....

galicije83 wrote:
Its same engine with more cylinder and it has same problem as 5TD engine in T-64s older version, newer ones have 6TD in it...its was junk, its still is and it will be in future...

Because of this trouble maker engine Thailand has gave up of buying more Oplot tanks...All tanks who have this engines have big problems with it...its fact...you can find text about it...its hell for maintenance....

It's not the same engine as the 5TD. Very few T-64's had the 6DT's fitted - as I've mentioned. Thailand had no intention to order more than 49 Oplots from Ukraine and they are all still in service. The fact is the Russian had to abandon the T-80UD's as Ukraine refused to supply engine spares - and not because it was a crappy engine - end of story.

I already said this here. But Omsk produced the Mtsa artillery chassis. This is a T-80 chassis with regular V-12 diesel engine.

Mir wrote:
It's not the same engine as the 5TD. Very few T-64's had the 6DT's fitted - as I've mentioned. Thailand had no intention to order more than 49 Oplots from Ukraine and they are all still in service. The fact is the Russian had to abandon the T-80UD's as Ukraine refused to supply engine spares - and not because it was a crappy engine - end of story.

No, they quit order of next 49 Oplot and they buy 49 more VT-4 tanks instead of Oplot, because they have lot of problems with engines...its overheating as hell when you push it hard...Late version of T-64BM have 6TD engines (this version are made from 1981-1985 when they put this engine in T-80UDs) , also version of T-80BVs made after 1981 have this 6TD engines......

yes its was crappy engine...to complicated to maintenance, to complicated to operated with them (overheating as hell, till today they didnt resolved this problem)...its engine army didnt want, but still they produced tank with it...

Thailand is a very tropical country with very high humidity - but I have not seen any of these issues but perhaps you have some article on it? Thailand ordered only 49 Oplots and there was never an option to buy any more of these tanks from Ukraine. The delivery was delayed on account of internal unrest in the Ukraine at the time. There were some threats from the Thailand government to cancel the contract but it had only to do with the lengthy delay and had nothing to do with the performance of the tank's engine or anything else.

Pakistan is a bit different with a more extreme climate and they seem to have no issues with these tanks with the Ukrainian engine. They have not opted to replace it with a Chinese engine - which they could have done if they were desperate to replace these engines.

galicije83 wrote:Late version of T-64BM have 6TD engines (this version are made from 1981-1985 when they put this engine in T-80UDs) , also version of T-80BVs made after 1981 have this 6TD engines......

The T-64BM with the 6TD was produced in 1983 and very few were built. The old 5TDF engine was replaced by the 5TDFM which produced 850hp and also solved the reliability issues. All the T-80's except for the UD model had gas turbine engines (GTD-1000T/GTD-1250). BTW the T-80BV was only produced from 1985 onward and also has gas turbine engines.

My understanding was that the T-80 was good because of its high power to weight ratio gave it excellent performance but the fuel bill was enormous, so they started funding a new diesel engine of high power to give it the same power to weight ratio but with less fuel burn and that resulted in the T-80UD, but the investment in the more powerful diesel engine needed to achieve the horsepower requirement was made in the Ukraine, which made it a foreign engine.

Back then the T-80 was seen as a Ukrainian tank because of all the foreign parts and as they had to pay in US dollars to buy parts from the Ukraine they retired the T-80UD vehicles first even though their performance potential was the best... I have no idea how reliable they were.

The point is that the T-80 was potentially dead because it was too expensive to operate compared with other tanks with potentially similar performance in other areas.

What sparked the salvation of the design was the push to the arctic and far east where the gas turbine engine excelled... it was also appreciated by the marines because it could run on ship grade fuels they were already carrying.

I was told... so don't bite my head off, but I was told they put small gas turbine APUs on the command versions to power the radios and extra electronics, and that was successful so they added them to other models as well because if you are sitting with the main engine idling to keep the crew compartment warm and optics and electronics all working you burned a lot of fuel. Being able to run a small gas turbine APU meant you could heat the crew compartment and the engine compartment to the point where it started very very quickly and also allowed running all the electronics and systems while burning less fuel than a diesel engine.

The APU was built in as part of the main engine and exhausted from the same exhaust port but generated a tiny fraction of the heat the main engine produces and much of the heat was used to warm up the main engine so it could be started quickly if you needed to move, and also heated the crew compartment as well.

So the successful diesel model failed because of its Ukrainian engine, and the gas guzzler is kept in service because of a shift in priorities to the far east and far north.

As mentioned the T-80 chassis used for the MSTA also uses a diesel engine and over time obviously most of the equipment and systems of the originals has been replaced by Russian versions.

Obviously there was a lot of terrible information in the west, like the T-64s ripped off arms and were useless so they were not exported, while the T-80 was absolutely hammered by Abrams tanks in Desert Storm... I know because I was chatting on the internet in the mid 1990s and American teenagers whose uncles who were tank crew killed T-80s... they said so....

Of course the habit of storing loose ammo in the crew compartment led to poor performance in Chechnia for both the T-72 and T-80 tanks, which was solved simply by not carrying any ammo above that carried in the autoloader.

The problem for the T-80 is that the 28 rounds in the autoloader had the propellent stubs sitting vertically and exposed if the armour was penetrated and the stub round is made of consumable cardboard impregnated with propellent so a spark would be enough to make it burn out of control.

An important lesson for the designers... hense the Black Eagle upgrade where the underfloor autoloader was replaced with a turret bustle autoloader, but that was considered too expose to enemy fire.

I liked the T-72 proposed upgrade Burlak that had both an underfloor autoloader (with 22 rounds) and a turret bustle autoloader with a further load of rounds... I seem to remember 31 but I am not certain... the turret bustle could hold much longer penetrators that can be ramloaded straight into the gun chamber so they could be made very long indeed... even if they would be more exposed to enemy fire.

Why do entire russian tank divisions with T-80s still have to rely on shitty IR searchlights instead of getting thermals?

Interesting analysis of T-80BVM actions in Ukraine, provided by the actual user.
TLDR is that tank performed very well, with a known drawback of high fuel consumption and, for me
surprising, outdated thermal sights (SOSNA-U).


https://telegra.ph/Nemnogo-o-T-80BVM-06-03

A little about the T-80BVM
#PTSD_cognitive #VVT June 03, 2022
The author of the article is the call sign "Sivert"

Interviewee (tanker) - callsign "North"

This article has two heroes. One all in armor and with a powerful "heart" and weighty arguments, if a "dispute" arises, the T-80 BVM tank is a truly interesting machine.

The second is a guy made of steel, who went through fire and water, and copper pipes, a real hero of our time, whose youth ended in 2014. I had to become a warrior, and now he is participating in the SVO on the T-80 BVM.
TTX T-80BVM:
Tank length - 9554 mm, width - 3384 mm, height - 2202 mm. The T-80 BVM can overcome ditches up to 2.6 m wide, vertical walls 0.8 m high, ford water obstacles 1.2-1.8 m deep, with the use of special equipment - up to 5 m deep. Tank weight in combat gear - 45.7 tons. Crew size - 3 people.

Thanks to the installation of a gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1250 horsepower, the tank can move along the highway at a record speed of 80 km / h, which is why it is called “jet” or even “flying” in the media .

The fuel range is 500 km. Ammunition for the 125-mm gun 2A46M-1 is 45 rounds. The stock of cartridges for the 7.62-mm PKTM machine gun is 1250 pieces, and for the anti-aircraft 12.7-mm "Korda" - 300 pieces.
Initially, the main T-80 tanks of the BV line, including the T-80BV, were equipped with the 9K112 Kobra guided weapon system with the 9M112 missile. The development of this complex, which is dominated primarily in the development of new missiles, continued until the end of the eighties. As part of the T-80BVM project, it was decided to replace the outdated Cobra with a more modern system of the same class. During the modernization, the tanks will receive the 9K119 Reflex guided weapon system with 9M119 missiles.
Since this is the first conflict for the T-80 BVM, SVO, many people wondered how this tank would prove itself in battles. One of our brothers from the PTSD Team, it so happened, participates in the CBO, just on such a machine. And so the idea of ​​a mini-interview was born. I note right away that I asked people to help me compose questions of people who are interested in the topic, for which I thank them very much.
Author:

- A question about the mobility of the machine: GTE - "hell for suppliers" or a thing? Reliable enough? Problems on the march for fuel? Smoothness, shaking, acceleration in comparison with diesels. What are the main disadvantages of the T-80 BVM?

tankman:

— It all depends on what role the tank group plays. As practice has shown, the speed of the "box" directly affects its survival. If the same instances in the form of T-72B and T-72B3 during the battles in urban areas had very impressive losses, then the group of "80s" lost only one tank in 3 months of the operation.

Of course, catering to mixed groups is hell to provide, but they are not necessary. In the later stages of the operation, the machines were used for completely different tasks. There were no complaints about the reliability of the machines, they withstood more than they should have. The movement on the T-80 BVM is much quieter and smoother, which made it possible to carry out lightning attacks.

The main disadvantage of the car is an outdated thermal imaging sight on which any waste heap is fonil, and high fuel consumption.
Author :

- Nuances in use? Ammunition? Did you take BC for the task only in mechanized laying? Typical composition of BC (proportion: OFS, KS, "crowbars")? Or was it filled differently for a specific task? What type of ammunition was used most often? Is the main "scrap" still 3B42?

ATGM - a suitcase without a handle or a really useful thing? Is it realistic to implement the "long arm" of our tanks in the conditions of combat in the current theater of operations? Did you have to apply? If so, what are the nuances, reliability, were there any failures in guidance and what is their reason? From personal experience: what kind of ammunition needs to be finalized or created?

tankman:

- There have never been more than 10 shells in the armor. Even from the experience of fighting around the Donetsk airport, I know what happens to a combat vehicle when it is filled to capacity with ammunition. When a shell from an RPG arrives from the floor into the commander's hatch, and the tower flies to the 3rd floor of the terminal. Our counterparts decided to ignore this simple truth and were always packed to capacity, for which they were nicknamed among the unit "a herd of lemmings."
In addition to the "Mango" at the beginning of the operation there was nothing, the ammunition was spent so quickly that it was not possible to replenish it. As for the “long arm”, I will answer as concisely as I can.

It's possible, but slow. It is extremely inconvenient to make a calculation in order to hit a closed standing target (God forbid, and a moving one), and it forces you to invent a bicycle on the spot, based on the terrain.
Concrete-piercing types of weapons are urgently needed, taking into account NATO manuals for the construction of fortifications.
Author:

— Observation. Did you complete tasks at night? How does the commander conduct surveillance at night? How did the sighting equipment perform? At what distances did you manage to detect the enemy on average?

tankman:

- Performing tasks late at night with armored formations is effective only when working from closed positions. Ideally, if the tank group advances for an assault, it is better to do this at 2-3 in the morning and reach the starting point of the battle by dusk. The sighting equipment is obsolete and needs to be replaced. But at the stage of the fight against the tanks of the USSR, although modernized, this is not critical. Thanks to the infantry and the well-coordinated work of Akhmat, we always knew where the enemy was and how he was moving.

Author:

- General awareness of the situation. connection. Communication in combat with an infantry unit? Were automated control systems used (like ESU TK) or was everything only through radio communication?
tankman:

- I won't disclose it.

Author:

— Tank duels? Or tanks don't fight tanks (c)? Are there any problems with the defeat of enemy tanks? How do you assess the resistance of the T-80 BVM to modern anti-tank weapons? What is the enemy's skill?

tankman:

- Tank duels in this theater are in great demand on our part, and we are trying to impose them. Superiority in reverse speed and the ability to go into the sides of the enemy gives us the opportunity to never lose these duels at all. And since the Ukrainian tanks are completely filled with ammunition to capacity, more than one hit is not needed.

As for resistance to domestic - a solid 5-ku. As for the Western ones, it's more difficult, since we didn't give the opportunity to work on us. But, as it seems to me, tandem shells could be a problem for us, but there is always a good old mesh for this.

Luckily for us in the Ukraine, the tankers have disappeared, most of the experienced commanders and gunners were knocked out as a result of the hostilities of the 14-15s.
Author:

- And the last question. How did the additional fabric screens perform?

tankman:

- By the current moment, they are no longer on our car. But, apparently, they charged us from something during the cleansing of the village "Z", and they saved us.It works.

So my claim that tank reverse speed is actually useful is correct and confirmed, despite what tacticool "genius" fanboys were saying before the war.


The interviewer shouyld've asked why there are so many captured BVMs(from the arctic division). The ukrainians have at least 10 captured ones vs a bit less T-72s.

Also I wonder why he considers the thermals to be inadequate.