T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

DU has far lower melting temperature than even ancient RHA, making it completely useless against any sort of HEAT munition. In addition the HEAT penetrator will ignite the DU it passes through creating a dangerous radioctive mess. No wonder the abrams fared so poorly against 60s RPG-7 charges.

DU armor is fine only if you're ok with the tank that has it to become nuclear waste if it's damaged or destroyed by anything that can ignite DU.

Not true.

The West German Tungsten round... Wolfram round, required a longer barrel to achieve the same or better performance than its US DU equivalent... in other words it needed a higher velocity to get the same or better performance... wolfram is expensive. DU is nuclear waste.

Du reacts with steel to generate a very powerful incendiary effect that actually weakens the steel and gives even better penetration than other materials.

And in that incediary effect DU becomes dangerous because it becomes radioctive when ignited.

It is denser than steel and therefore offers better protection... at the cost of the danger when struck in combat.

No matter how dense it is the low melting temperature radioactivity of ignited makes it useless against incendiary or HEAT weapons.

The Soviets also use DU rounds

.
Not true. Soviet DU rounds were just an experiment and for good reason. Unlike the americans they actually care for the health of their crew and limiting nuclear waste dispersal.

Accuracy is not related to velocity and APFSDS is the only round that benefits from high velocity... for penetration and not accuracy.

The velocity defacto is not responsible for higher accuracy but a longer barrel undoubtly is responsible for higher accuracy. The RPK-74 also fires more accurate than AK-74 despite being essentially the same rifle except the barrel is heavier and longer giving higher velocity and accuracy and therefore higher lethality.

DU has far lower melting temperature than even ancient RHA, making it completely useless against any sort of HEAT munition.

What has melting point to do with anything?

HEAT warheads don't melt their way through armour... a HEAT warhead has velocity and density... velocity comes from the explosion and density comes from the material used for the cone of the warhead. DU armour is effective because it is dense and hard. In comparison Lead is pretty useless for armour from high velocity penetrators because it is dense but also soft.

In terms of penetration HEAT penetrators are treated pretty much the same as APFSDS penetrators... the difference is that the former is not as hard though the science of looking at penetrations at these velocities is fluid mechanics... treating hard metals like they were slow moving fluids, while the latter are hard but also moving much slower than the average HEAT warhead.

I personally would not include DU in armour, because I don't particularly want three heads and webbed feet for my grandkids... or anyone living near the combat zone.

And in that incediary effect DU becomes dangerous because it becomes radioctive when ignited.

DU is always radioactive. When ignited it burns to a very fine powder which makes it very ingestible... and therefore very very much more dangerous to humans and nature.

No matter how dense it is the low melting temperature radioactivity of ignited makes it useless against incendiary or HEAT weapons.

Modern armour structures consist of a range of materials including hard and soft materials... even including empty air pockets.

Most metals can ignite depending on the circumstances... iron powder is used in thermite, and aluminium powder is used to make the bright sparks in fireworks. Magnesium obviously burns as does lithium and anyone who has worked hard metals like Titanium will attest to the showers of sparks that come off it when cutting it with a high speed rotary tool.

Not true. Soviet DU rounds were just an experiment and for good reason. Unlike the americans they actually care for the health of their crew and limiting nuclear waste dispersal.

Even the R-60MK uses DU in its warhead... they don't use them much because of the costs of cleaning up afterwards, but they do have them.

The velocity defacto is not responsible for higher accuracy but a longer barrel undoubtly is responsible for higher accuracy. The RPK-74 also fires more accurate than AK-74 despite being essentially the same rifle except the barrel is heavier and longer giving higher velocity and accuracy and therefore higher lethality.

The increased accuracy of the RPK-74 over shorter barrel modifications largely comes from the fact that it also has a heavier barrel and a bipod to support the firing position.

The AKS-74U is evidence that if you shorten the barrel too far you can dramatically effect accuracy in a negative way, but we are talking about APFSDS rounds which are certainly not as accurate as full calibre rounds.

The US Army had extensive tests for weapons to replace the M16 and 5.56mm cartridge. One of the most fun contenders was from Steyr and it fired a flechette... basically an APFSDS round. the rifle had fixed iron sights because the enormous muzzle velocity and small low drag projectile meant you didn't need to correct the elevation for range to about 800m so elevation was fixed... aim at the targets chest and fire... from 10m to 800m and you should hit the target.
two problems... wasn't particularly accurate even if there was almost no bullet drop, and it wasn't particularly lethal... unless it tumbled and fishhooked it make an ineffectual puncture wound.

Hole wrote:In the end the Russian Army wants a functioning weapon system and not an F-35 on tracks.

They already have had one in the old times (the T-64), so it's normal they will do a lot of efforts to avoid to repeat the error.

marcellogo wrote:
They already have had one in the old times (the T-64), so it's normal they will do a lot of efforts to avoid to repeat the error.

You're saying the T-64 was a F-35 flop? The T-64 was way ahead of it's time back in the day - esp the B variant with the Kobra missile.

It had two issues >> it was very expensive to produce and the very advanced suspension proved problematic at times.

Mir wrote:

marcellogo wrote:
They already have had one in the old times (the T-64), so it's normal they will do a lot of efforts to avoid to repeat the error.

You're saying the T-64 was a F-35 flop? The T-64 was way ahead of it's time back in the day - esp the B variant with the Kobra missile.

It had two issues >> it was very expensive to produce and the very advanced suspension proved problematic at times.

You just described F-35

F-35 was also ahead of it's time when designed but by the time it finally arrived time had caught on with loads of problems on top same as T-64

The very expensive part and the maintenance issues are similar to the F-35's woes yes, but the T-64 was well ahead it's compatriots like the M-60 and the Leopard 1. The only NATO tank that came close was the Chieftain - but still in a distant second place. The T-64 was capable to take on any tank and win the duel. Not so much with the F-35.

The F-35 is no match in a dogfight against previous generation fighters. It lacks the required agility and any credible weapons load in "stealth mode", which is not very stealthy anyway. It is also completely unsuitable as a interceptor as it lacks any sustained supersonic speed. It's nowhere near as "multi-role" as the F-16 it's replacing. It's only really useful as an all-weather strike fighter.

The T-64 tank was truly revolutionary. It introduced the auto-loader and a three man crew as well as the Kobra missile and composite armour. All other Soviet/Russian tanks since then incorporated the T-64's design features. About 13 000 T-64's were produced despite being very expensive.

Mir wrote:
The T-64 tank was truly revolutionary. It introduced the auto-loader and a three man crew as well as the Kobra missile and composite armour. All other Soviet/Russian tanks since then incorporated the T-64's design features. About 13 000 T-64's were produced despite being very expensive.

All for the low, low price of the Soviet civilian automotive industry, and yet they still failed to preserve this technological lead in the end.

In contrast manufacture of armored vehicles in Russia today is a net economic positive. They consistently sell more to international customers than domestic - and at higher profit margins. Piggybacking on economies of scale investments in production and development paid using foreign money Russia could then buy and upgrade the ground forces it wants, at a shoestring budget, leaving a sizeable surplus to be reinvested back in R&D, preserving and even widening its lead over its competitors.

This is how you build a military that is superior not just today, even in the far future, despite having significantly fewer resources.

PapaDragon wrote:
You just described F-35

F-35 was also ahead of it's time when designed but by the time it finally arrived time had caught on with loads of problems on top same as T-64

The F-35 is the Euro military aerospace industry killer first, fighter plane second. By the time the ink is dry on the contract its already done its job.

lyle6 wrote:
All for the low, low price of the Soviet civilian automotive industry, and yet they still failed to preserve this technological lead in the end.

The Cold War demanded sacrifices and trade-offs to be made for a nation that was already devastated by WWII. They never produced anything close to German quality but the old Ladas, Volgas and Moskvitch proved reliable and tough enough to get the job done. True the Soviet's T-80U's were not cutting edge but they also proved tough enough to get the job done. Funny story happened when the Russians started to compete in the "open" military market when the T-80 became known as the "Flying Tank" with it's spectacular jumps! The Americans tried the same trick but failed miserably when the M-1 lost it's tracks when it slipped off the side of the ramp.

In contrast manufacture of armored vehicles in Russia today is a net economic positive. They consistently sell more to international customers than domestic - and at higher profit margins. Piggybacking on economies of scale investments in production and development paid using foreign money Russia could then buy and upgrade the ground forces it wants, at a shoestring budget, leaving a sizeable surplus to be reinvested back in R&D, preserving and even widening its lead over its competitors.

This is how you build a military that is superior not just today, even in the far future, despite having significantly fewer resources.

That "economic thinking" was basically forced onto the Russians as their domestic market collapsed, but yes it is a good and sustainable way to go.

The F-35 is the Euro military aerospace industry killer first, fighter plane second. By the time the ink is dry on the contract its already done its job.

The US Military Industrial Complex brewed that plan long before the F-35. It was just the cherry on the cake!

The F-35 was intentionally made expensive... they built factories to make components for it in areas of high unemployment in districts that voted in (or out) the congressmen on the committees that decided Pentagon funding... the result was the opposite of centralisation... and leads to even average material costing too much.

It is a dual edged sword... to prevent being cancelled by government officials afraid of closing factories and losing jobs in places that vote them in, and to bankrupt HATO countries with the high cost of purchase and maintenance of the aircraft.

In comparison the T-64 had some minor early problems but claims it was a terrible tank are western ignorance.... I remember even in the 1980s they claimed it ripped arms off loaders... ignoring the fact that it had an autoloader, and because of this it was not for export and therefore had to be kept secret.

It is embarrassing how stupid western experts actually were during the Cold War, but sadly they leave the current experts on Russia in the shade...

Civilian car industries are over rated. European cars are awful and American cars are too... asians make the best cars... and have done for a number of years now.

GarryB wrote:The F-35 was intentionally made expensive... they built factories to make components for it in areas of high unemployment in districts that voted in (or out) the congressmen on the committees that decided Pentagon funding... the result was the opposite of centralisation... and leads to even average material costing too much.

It is a dual edged sword... to prevent being cancelled by government officials afraid of closing factories and losing jobs in places that vote them in, and to bankrupt HATO countries with the high cost of purchase and maintenance of the aircraft.

In comparison the T-64 had some minor early problems but claims it was a terrible tank are western ignorance.... I remember even in the 1980s they claimed it ripped arms off loaders... ignoring the fact that it had an autoloader, and because of this it was not for export and therefore had to be kept secret.

It is embarrassing how stupid western experts actually were during the Cold War, but sadly they leave the current experts on Russia in the shade...

Civilian car industries are over rated. European cars are awful and American cars are too... asians make the best cars... and have done for a number of years now.

No one said hat T-64 was ineffective, also F-35 is such...when work.
Problem of T-64 was that at the moment of its introduction into service the Soviet Army was not ready to sustain a such advanced item in great numbers, so it was on one side partially redesigned and it was destined to top tier units only with a reinforced logistics chain.
In the meantime they introduced T-72 and T-80 to other part of the ground forces.
Actual design and introduction into service system of Russian forces, having not to hurry things in order to keep an advantage over the competitors at any cost could afford to take time to introduce items only when both fully mature and logistically sustainable.

T-64 even if advanced was a piece of metal so it can't be that expensive. Working the metals isn't expensive or complicated. Back in the time computer were simole and you couldn't fix unreachable objectives. What could go wrong is produce thousands of piece and figure out later there are issues with the product and even then you can control the cost of repairing them.

F-35 is full of not mature technologies that require thousand of engineers to work millions of hours to get something right. That can become quickly very expensive and it became. Find one issue in the software and you need to change lot of stuff because when you correct a software it often end up with new issues.

All the materials are pretty advanced making every part expensive and so on. Having defaults in them means lot of money will be spent to correct them.

The more modern a hardware is the more work it takes to create.

That is true for russian stuff too. Su-57 or t-14 are far more complicated than su-27 and t-54. If they find mistakes after making 100s of them reparing them will cost a lot.


The more they test them the better it is.

No one said hat T-64 was ineffective, also F-35 is such...when work.

F-35s in Israeli service don't seem to be any more successful than their F-16s in the same role.... both performing standoff attacks from relatively safe locations.

The whole reason for being for the F-35 was to be able to fly over S-300 sites and drop cheap dumb bombs to destroy them while the defenders never knew what hit them.

In that regard the F-35 is a total failure, worse so because it costs more than 10 times what an F-16 costs to do the same job but slower and with less range and less payload capacity...

The F-35 is like a punishment for being a US ally.

Problem of T-64 was that at the moment of its introduction into service the Soviet Army was not ready to sustain a such advanced item in great numbers, so it was on one side partially redesigned and it was destined to top tier units only with a reinforced logistics chain.

It was only ever intended to be the top tier heavy tank with all the best new stuff till it was replaced by the T80... and has heavy tanks go they made 10 times more T-64s than Tigers were made during WWII.

The T-72 was the mass produced budget version with good gun and decent but not amazing armour and the new systems from the more expensive tanks as the technology became affordable like laser range finders etc etc.

In the meantime they introduced T-72 and T-80 to other part of the ground forces.

The T-72 was the cheap numbers vehicle intended to replace older tanks in front line units quickly to get the 125mm smoothbore into widespread service... the T-80 was a replacement for the T-64 as the expensive model with new armour and equipment and engines.

T-64 even if advanced was a piece of metal so it can't be that expensive.

It got the expensive stuff first, the laser range finders and ballistic computers and new optics etc etc, and guided tank gun fired missiles etc.

The T-80 got such things as it started replacing the T-64 which had a few dead end technologies, while the T-72 was a success as the cheap mass production tank to replace all the older obsolete tanks in operational use.

F-35 is full of not mature technologies that require thousand of engineers to work millions of hours to get something right. That can become quickly very expensive and it became. Find one issue in the software and you need to change lot of stuff because when you correct a software it often end up with new issues.

So much of the software is interconnected that the symptoms might suggest a problem with something that is working just fine but is currently giving problems because the things feeding it information are faulty. GIGO.

Fundamentally the T-64 was designed as a powerful heavy tank with very good composite armour and a good gun and good mobility.... the three things you want in a modern tank. For the time the T-72 had the good gun and the good mobility, but its armour was not as complex, though of course the T-72 evolved and was upgraded well beyond the T-64 or T-80 to become the T-90... which combines the T-72 and T-80 into one Russian made vehicle.

(T-64 and T-80 came from Kharkov in the Ukraine).

None of this is relevant to the T-14 or Armata family... all of which are designed based on experience in combat to improve performance and safety of the crew... the opposite of the F-35 which is designed to be unlikely to be cancelled despite being enormously expensive.... the opposite of the whole concept of a jack of all trades produced in enormous numbers...

T80 didnt came fron Harkov, Ukraine. It was project made by Russians in Kirov plant, Leningrad ad that time. Later they made T80A, B, BV and T80U in Omsk. Only after Harkov stop producing T64BV in 1985, leaders of a USSR gave them to produce T80UD model, with diesel engine 6DT instead of GTD witch was used in all T80s tank. They made more T80UD then Russia made it because some one wanna that at that time. Omak produced their T80BV until 90, then they stop production if that model and start produce full scale of T80U. Yes they produce paralel BV and U after 85, but leader in number was Harkov tank factory with around 1000 T80U tanks under the UD name was produced until cilaps of USSR...so we have 4500 A,B, BV and U made in Russia and more then 1000 UD made in Ukraine.

Today Russia in service have only BV and U models of T89 tank. Most of the produced U tank are active and their number are around 350, rest are in active reserve, and all of them waiting modernizasiton. Also they as we all know modernized BV version to BVM, i do not know exactley number of old BV active in Russian army. They do not hame many if them ..rest are in reserve...

Russia produce for their army less then 500 U models, rest they sell in world...

Original factory was Kirov, then OMSK...Harkov start production because they lost in competition and leaders of USSR didnt want to closed that plant....

lancelot wrote:Doesn't the Msta-S artillery have a diesel engine powered T-80 hull in it?

Yes msta-s has T-80 hull. And do you know why is that?

Because T-80 suspension can handle much more force from the gun then T-72 and at that time when Msta-S was design in USSR..they need right away chassis witch can handle that force of the gun and only choice was T-80. They only change engine instead of GTD they use diesel engine...

So the T-80s suspension was better than the T-72? interesting, in what way did this increase combat effectiveness?

Well first of all suspension on T-80 tank has higher maximal load/wight limit 50 tons vs 45 tons on T-72 any version. At that time in mid 80's when the made Msta-S they need as i said platform witch can withstand recoil of 152mm gun from Msta-S and her weight of 42 tons empty with no ammo. Suspension of T-72 cant do that because of her limits so they used hull of T-80 because they know this data at that time. Only they change is diesel engine and i think it was mistake, because of less power on thta diesel engine 840HP vs at that time 1250 on T-80U...but this gun isnt push first line in enemy so 840hs is enough for her.

Second we all forget. USSR have 2 type of MBT in 60s and late in 80s. MBT of first line and MBT of second line. T64 first then T80 tank was tanks of fist line, they was best they can produced and when T-64 was made it was way ahead of any NATO tank...when T-80 show up it also was good and ahead of western tanks. later version was even batter with K5 on it..almost impenetrable from front in 80s and early 90s...today they are good for any major conflict (i mean on T-80U, BVM not so good, t has less armor protection but with Relict it has enough to not be penetrate from front with any NATO APFSDS)..and finally we have MBT second line it was T-72 and his all variants, cheap to produced in large numbers, easy to maintenance, easy to repair, also you can quickly train crew for them...and had very good gun same as T-64/80...only luck of modern FCS, but with large numbers this is not big problem. And they have it in large numbers 20 000+ in USSR only plus 7000+ T-64s and around 4500 T80s in late 80s...

I see, thank you for the info.
This is a good indicator towards the fact that a unified platform for artillery and tanks is the way to go in my opinion. The cost reduction brought by commonality may outweigh the cost increase of the new platform itself.

The MSTA was based on the T-80 as mentioned but the reason for the engine and other modifications was to improve commonality with the tanks it would be operating with which were mostly T-72 or related.

Most post cold war upgrades of Russian T-80s have been the introduction of T-72 and T-90 related components to improve commonality and because those components were made in Russia unlike many of the components of the T-80 which were not.

During the 1990s the T-90 or tank of the 90s basically evolved from a T-72 with all the advanced bits developed for the T-80 to make it the top tier tank.

The result was a more affordable easier to use top tier tank that ultimately resulted in the T-90AM, which is superior to the T-80 in all regards really, though the gas turbine engine of the T-80 does make it useful in the far north where a gas turbine is rather more efficient than a diesel engine in extreme cold.

The MSTA was based on the T-80 as mentioned but the reason for the engine and other modifications was to improve commonality with the tanks it would be operating with which were mostly T-72 or related.

Yes this is correct, Msta-S will operated far behind first line. But also they do not have so many engines made for T-80U GTD1250 and because of need for tanks they go for diesel enegne instead of GTD

Most post cold war upgrades of Russian T-80s have been the introduction of T-72 and T-90 related components to improve commonality and because those components were made in Russia unlike many of the components of the T-80 which were not.

No, this isnt true, because all of components made on T-80B/BV and T-80U was made in Russia, not in Ukraine. Only tank with Ukraine components is T-80UD, some components not all of them was made in Ukraine.

Do you know why is that? Because Ukraine communist was so strong at that time and they do not want to their tank withc they produced was cancel when they lost for new MBT in race with T-80U and Russians. So they continue to produce T-64 beyond 1976 when was plan to stop production of that thank. Instead they produced tank 10 years in future parallel with T-80A/B/BV and when finaly they stop production of T-64 way beyond original plan, they take some of production of T-80U and instead GTD they put their 6DT engine and their transsmision, also they used some of electornics from T-64BVs..not all...and that was major differences of this 2 same but different tanks...

During the 1990s the T-90 or tank of the 90s basically evolved from a T-72 with all the advanced bits developed for the T-80 to make it the top tier tank.

T90 in 1992 was far behind T-80U, but lobby of UVZ was so strong at that time and they pushed their tank to be build instead of T-80U, also they paid some generals after Chechen first war to lie about how bad was T-80BV/U tanks in that war and how good was T-72Bs. So Russian state stop buying T-80Us instead they buy T-90s but in small amount. Later in early 2000's Russian government diced they want just one MBT in their army and it was new made T-90A with new welded turret with lot of improvements from T-90 obrazac 1992( or model 1992 as you english speakers says).

The result was a more affordable easier to use top tier tank that ultimately resulted in the T-90AM, which is superior to the T-80 in all regards really, though the gas turbine engine of the T-80 does make it useful in the far north where a gas turbine is rather more efficient than a diesel engine in extreme cold.

Yes, T-90AM was top of the line right now, but only becasue they never modernized T-80U tank on way they do on T-90s form 1992 till 2018...They do not give a chance to T-80U to show their full potential of modernization. They just stop modernized this ones great tanks...T-90 was combined T-72 and T-80 in 1992, they put good stuff from T-80s in T-72BU tank and they named it T-90, but this tank luck of power only 840HP engine was far far behind of GTD-1250 in T-80U, hell far behind T-80BV GTD-1100. This 2 tanks have almost same weight but 400+HP on T-80U made difference...Yes they put in 2000's new engine 1000HP in T-90A but still this was low range power engine for 45 tons tank, same is with this new 1130HP engine in almost 50 tons tank T-90AM is...

GTD is hell of an engine, yes it tursty but not so much more thet diesel and yes they use it in far north because u can cold star turbine engine in less then 2 min under -30 celsius degree, with diesel u need 45 min at least...this is how much turbines are superior then diesel in this conditions..hell they are superiors in any conditions that any diesel engine, but they little thirstier then diesels...

No, this isnt true, because all of components made on T-80B/BV and T-80U was made in Russia, not in Ukraine. Only tank with Ukraine components is T-80UD, some components not all of them was made in Ukraine.

The T-80 was like an Antonov.... Antonov himself might have been Russian but most of the parts and production etc were in the Ukraine... it was considered a Ukrainan tank... even though it was actually a Soviet tank of course.

After the breakup of the SU, Russia started to focus on Russian weapons and equipment and to drop or replace foreign made weapons and equipment from their inventory.

Of course they still use some T-80s and they use a lot of Antonovs as well... but components are now made in Russia and when they are replaced they will be replaced by Russian products... so Utes gets replaced with Kord and T-64s are gone, while An-12s continue while a replacement is prepared... mostly waiting for engines. Helicopter engines are in the process of being replaced by Klimovs across the range of helicopter types.

T90 in 1992 was far behind T-80U, but lobby of UVZ was so strong at that time and they pushed their tank to be build instead of T-80U, also they paid some generals after Chechen first war to lie about how bad was T-80BV/U tanks in that war and how good was T-72Bs.

There was no need for lies... the facts were clear.... the autoloader of the T-64 and T-80 was flawed as the vertically arranged propellent charges were exposed and any penetration of the turret led to showers of hot metal and sparks setting off the propellent charges which were not properly protected.

With the T-72/90 the propellent stubs were horizontal and had sheet metal over top to prevent ignition in case of a turret penetration except if it penetrated the autoloader itself.

When operating the tanks with the only ammo on board being in the autoloader they were safer for the crew and less likely to explode.

So Russian state stop buying T-80Us instead they buy T-90s but in small amount.

The T-80 was a foreign tank they had to pay for in US dollars... it was not a difficult decision to make because there was very little money available anyway.

Later in early 2000's Russian government diced they want just one MBT in their army and it was new made T-90A with new welded turret with lot of improvements from T-90 obrazac 1992( or model 1992 as you english speakers says).

There was no need for a new tank in the 1990s, and the development time of the 1990s led to improvements to the T-90 to make it a good tank... not a great tank, but good enough. They spent their time getting rid of obsolete vehicles in storage including T-34s... to the point when recently they bought some T-34s from a foreign country because they had disposed of all the ones they had in storage.

Yes, T-90AM was top of the line right now, but only becasue they never modernized T-80U tank on way they do on T-90s form 1992 till 2018...They do not give a chance to T-80U to show their full potential of modernization. They just stop modernized this ones great tanks...T-90 was combined T-72 and T-80 in 1992, they put good stuff from T-80s in T-72BU tank and they named it T-90, but this tank luck of power only 840HP engine was far far behind of GTD-1250 in T-80U, hell far behind T-80BV GTD-1100. This 2 tanks have almost same weight but 400+HP on T-80U made difference...Yes they put in 2000's new engine 1000HP in T-90A but still this was low range power engine for 45 tons tank, same is with this new 1130HP engine in almost 50 tons tank T-90AM is...

They chose not to afford the cost of an all gas turbine powered T-80U fleet, it makes sense to consign these vehicles they do have to the far north. The T-90 is a fully Russian tank that is currently better than the T-80... they could apply the same upgrades to the T-80... but why bother? The replacements are on their way.

An upgraded T-80 would be more expensive than a T-90 to operate, and the upgraded T-72s are good enough for a numbers vehicle... which was its purpose all along.

Soon the T-14 and the K-?? and B-?? and the 2S25M Sprut will be their tanks.

GTD is hell of an engine, yes it tursty but not so much more thet diesel and yes they use it in far north because u can cold star turbine engine in less then 2 min under -30 celsius degree, with diesel u need 45 min at least...this is how much turbines are superior then diesel in this conditions..hell they are superiors in any conditions that any diesel engine, but they little thirstier then diesels...

They are very thirsty, and have a huge IR signature, but with a tank for the far north you fit them with small APUs with gas turbines that can power the vehicle and their hot exhaust can be used to heat the crew compartment and the engine compartment so the diesel can be started very quickly...

The T-80 was designed by a Russian (Soviet) engineer Nikolay Popov from SKB-2 design bureau of the Kirov Factory in Leningrad. The tank was also produced in Russia and the T-80U was from the Omsk factory in Siberia. The T-80UD was a Ukrainian development.

The reason why the Russians dropped the T-80 in the 90's was due to the high cost of the T-80 and it was very heavy on fuel. The T-80 didn't do too well in the First Chechen War either but it was mainly due to bad tactics.