The T-80s future in the Russian Army

Mir wrote:
That is interesting but it may just be that the above image may be confused with this US State Department picture from 1983 depicting the modified T-72A tank that got the nickname "Dolly Parton". Not a very clear picture I must admit but I believe I have a rare good quality colour picture of what I believe may just be the real "Dolly Parton". This T72A clearly has the thicker turret armour compared to previous models.

Look at these boobies!

Compared to these kwartz turrets

BTW the late production T-72A did feature a a turret similar to the brand new T72B, but as far as I know very few were built and all were converted to T72B's when they fitted Kontakt-1 ERA.

The tank you are referring to was revealed on 69th Revolution Anniversary parade in 1986.
But it was not T-72B yet. It was referred as "improved T-72A" in Soviet materials.
It is practically impossible to distinguish both, the only clear hint MIGHT be the arrangement of Tucha system.
Obyekt 172M-1 used 902A, while obyekt 184 - 902B with reduced and rearranged positioning of the system awaiting installment of Kontakt-1 package.
As you said, the first is a rare bird suggesting that not many of those have been made, but it is kind of clear thing considering the timetable.

My point is that all the changes in armor package used to be applied on a continuous cycle of natural evolution, for three different tank lines, in three different tank hubs. Some solutions has been used on pair, like monolithic steel casted turrets and kvarz ones, where the kvarz one was slightly thicker.
It is almost impossible to determine some aspects, even now.
For example till now, "quartz" inserts combination is classified.
Everyone in the west tested intensively T-72, that includes US, Germans, Swedes, UK and the French - yet nobody public those data.
Some things cleared only because Poland had a T-72 production line on pair with the Soviets, and produced its own T-72, 72M and 72M1, being respectively obyekt 172, 172M and 172M-1.
Łabędy never mastered new turrets with open cavities and NERA, but they did mastered "kvarz" ones.
Where you can find the data?
Well ... reading the materials provided by the Technical University of Silesia.
They made an article about casting technology revealing that ceramic used is made of quartz sand, aluminum oxide, and titanium dioxide. The binding material was .. clay, and some graphite was added to the mixture, too.
What you get at the end, is a sintered quartz block melted at 1200 deg., looking like this :



Here it is in a cut-open turret, on the right, while on the left it is a monolithic part.



Even the casting technology was covered with some myths, and revealed only because taking out the secrecy stamp in Poland - preformed kvartz blocks were stabilized in the mold using steel bars sticking out of the ready turret main element, and cut after that.
Here you have the markings of it :



And one more interesting thing :



Those are ready for assembling frontal hull plates of PT-91A.

See any steel sheets or glass textolite or STB?

Yeah, me neither

There is one more thing coming to my mind as I think about that.
T-80 case is, that those tanks were mass produced in the 80s, being relatively new when the SU broke up.
It ended up with a situation when due to lack of money, tanks have been taken out of line because of the engine malfunctions/end of resurse.
Russia didn't bother with that, just putting those at storage bases.
The end effect was that there are thousands of tanks - probably more than T-72Bs - that retained relatively good technical parameters and are not worn out as "only" the engines are.
Russkie have now the potential of serial and mass refurbishing of those engines, which means a huge reservoir of tanks ready for modernization/mid life repair.

Hole wrote:Here in Germany the propaganda talks about Russia buying old T-54/-55 tanks from NK. 

How can they breath in that f...ing bubble? 

They need some mental anchor for Leopard 1 I guess

The sole relatively big park of old vehicles NATO can provide is L1.
With slightly less than 5000 produced in total.
T-55 was produced in around 100k.
T-62 was produced in more than 20k.

European L1 operators have been selling them for the last 25 years, and most of the deals were signed with South America - Brazil, Chile and Ecuador combined purchased some 500 pcs.
What is left, is a junk that requires intensive modernization/repair program .We can see the scale of it - in the last half a year, a whole 10 pcs has been refurbished. The question remains about the cost of this procedure carried in Europe. I guess you can have a brand new T-90M with that money

Oh yeah, we need even more propaganda bullshit to cover that.
All 5th columnists hands on board, your incel nafo fellas need some strong dick massage.

This concept of putting the T-80 back into production is bonkers. And the idea it reduces the issues with supply of parts because of different supply base is also misguided in my view.
It is one thing to modernize tanks, quite another to make new ones.

As for the claims of lack of suitability of the Armata's engine. The truth is the X engine passed Soviet trials. It only lacks in lifetime against more modern engines. But it itself can be modernized as well if it came to it.

lancelot wrote:This concept of putting the T-80 back into production is bonkers. And the idea it reduces the issues with supply of parts because of different supply base is also misguided in my view.
It is one thing to modernize tanks, quite another to make new ones.

But to modernize old ones, you need to reestablish a stable supply of components.
Those tanks are not being cannibalized, and 4 used to make 1 at the end, assembled with still usable parts.
All the transmission, engine, hydraulics, cabling etc is brand new. Take a look at 72B3 production process at UVZ.
This stuff must be produced because I highly doubt if there is a spare parts stock huge enough to handle that.
Plus if you end up with some four-digit number of tanks in ranks after, part will be needed, again, to use them for the next 30 years.
That is why I won't reject the idea of restarting a full cycle production. They will simply have the production of the components running anyway.

What makes me wonder, is the status of T-64.
Russkie should have some 5-6 thousand of those in storage, out of 13k produced. Most of them were kept in Ukraine anyway, and the bizarre engine makes the thing not easier, but ... they will soon have the production lines in Charkov. Its shape is probably miserable, but maybe there is a chance that engine production line is OK. Even Ukrs had to repair their tanks ...

Hole wrote:A huge burden on supply systems are the small parts, like screws and bolts and so on.
They are mostly the same on the T-72, T-80 and even the T-64.

Sure, but you cant make a tank with screws only.
Some pics from UVZ showing the scope of work shows us for example intervention in carousel mount. Which is logical as it must hold new longer rounds. To make it happen, ammunition computer must be replaced, too. Along with the carousel rotation mechanism that is located on the bottom. And the electric switch ...
Which means, all that elements must have been produced to be replaced.
T-80BVM goes through the very same process, and I suppose they are using same parts and methods just to save time and money.

As they mastered 80BVM modernization, it means they had to reopen gas turbines production, or a full cycle restoration. So they can make new turbines.

Do you see my conclusions? They will end up with existing production lines, that will have to be kept alive for the next 30 years. Those newly refurbished tanks will stay in ranks till the 2050s.

Sending T-80UD from the storage means one thing only - they will refurbish them, too.
As a whole fleet of 80UD left in Russia was about 200 pcs, I hardly believe they would worry about such a homeopathic number. But that would mean that they are taking seriously the 6TD-1 restoration, and that is only a step from increasing the potential to rebuild ... T-64.
This decision would increase the reserves of tanks to be produced ... by some 30%. We talk a few thousand pieces.

I guess this is what they are going for.

A few years ago, Bumar presented a tank with PT-17 marking.
It used 6TD-2 engine and assisting transmission.
So in theory, T-722 based hull can do that.