so much confusion and imaginative story telling... Really, this guy likes to make his own fact without checking reality.
No, T-80 really inherited the concept from T-62. What I mean is this: both T-62 and T-80 were specifically designed to boost the capability of tank vs tank combat rather than others. Due to the not very developed gun stabilizer in the early time, when running T-62 can only fire best at the targets in the front of the tank, not the sides or other directions. That is the typical tank versus tank combat.
It's not true. T-62 is indeed a tank killer support for the T-55, but the T-80 is just an incremental evolution of the osnovnoy tank concept.... with emphasis on better mobility vs T-64. As such, it's not a specific tank killer, just a new tank with better all around performance.
And here T-80. Compared to the "same level" tanks (for example T-90), T-80 has more simple type of armour and stronger engine, but the engine is not very stable. T-80's engine is strong but low efficiency. In low speed or anti-guerrilla warfare, T-80's engine consumes much more fuel than others.
........ 1976 T-80 is on same level than 1992 T-90? Simple type of armour? wow... Not very stable? what is it supposed to mean... GTD gas turbines are fantastic engines, reliable in all weather and very powerful, smooth (no piston action), much simpler than a V12 diesel engine. T-80 vs T-64 and T-72 are the most stable and smooth platform, thanks to a very good suspension and the turbine. T-90 has more armour than base model T-80 or even T-80B (model 1978 or 1982).... no shit! Guess what, T-90 is altogether a NEW generation of armour, based on the 1985 T-72B, but even better.... But if you compare T-90 vs T-80U (u for improved), then the T-80U has the edge in armour. The T-90A is a 21st century tank and has radically new armour protection, yes, if you want to go that way, T-90A has better armour than T-80. Irrelevant.
Actually, the saying "T-62 similar to T-80 / T-64 similar to T-90" does have many problems and incompatibilities... The similarities here is, their development compared with their own previous generation. Compared with the previous tanks, T-62 has smoothbore cannon to increase tank versus tank combat capability. Compared with the previous tanks, T-80 has increased speed for the same purpose. In other regards, T-62 and T-80 are not different much from each own predecessors.
All russian tanks are more or less an evolution of the precedent, but the T-64 was definitely "made from scratch", because it bears nothing similar with the T-44/54/55/62 and later 72 family.
But in other aspects, things are different. For example, the engine style of T-64 is similar to T-80 and the engine style of T-62 is similar to T-90.
nicely made up BS. T-64 and T-80 have the same engine style? 10 opposed piston compact diesel engine vs gas turbine? ok. T-62 and T-90, yes, have a version of the freaking V12 diesel, that exists since the T-34.
In increasing the anti-guerilla warfare capabilities of tank protection, only since the time of T-72, people began to pay attention to that issue. Of course, T-90 and T-80 ERA is drastically different from T-72, and more different from naked T-64.
Cherry picking variants, made up BS, etc.... All 3 tanks have exactly the same frontal armour and side/rear/top/belly armour... (way to speak, of course, small differences). T-64BV, T-80BV, T-72B are all protected the same way by ERA, and all 3 would be easy prey to any low cost RPG from the side without ERA (and even with ERA in fact).
Tank versus tank combat is like this: fast speed, very thick turret and hull front, and good main cannon, ATGM, aiming, optics...
More multirole tank is like this: very high fuel efficiency, more attention to rear and side protection, more spaced armour and ERA to counter RPG from side and rear, systems and sensors to counter the anti-tank infantries.
Now take a look at T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and see who is in which group.
Again... None of these belong to each of the "groups".... They are all conventional tanks with emphasis on frontal protection, and that's all. Specific modernised variants can be more emphasised toward other threats, but it means nothing regarding the original design. T-10M is by far a better 'assymetrical" warfare protected tank, because of its side armour, but it doesn't mean you must use it, T-64/72 were far better for everything, especially mobility and cost of running them.
The style of T-64's engine is very similar to T-80's, that is increase the power but reduce the quality. T-80 gas turbin has very low efficiency at the low speed, while very quality of tank engine is located at the efficiency and the capability of maneuverability at low speed.
This dude keeps talking about engines of soviet tanks, but he doesn't know jack, please someone can tell him to stop making a fool out of himself?
Reduce quality? T-64 5TD engine has very low fuel consumption, lower than T-72 V12, and is both a reliable, and very sophisticated compact engine. T-80 turbines are high quality and powerful engines, and both T-64 and T-80 have better automotive performance (especially T-80) than T-72 variants, either at high speed or while maneuvering at low speed.
Meanwhile, T-62/72/90 use high quality engine, but low power. Like T-90 has lower maximum power than T-80 but heavier weight.
They use tractor engines dude. Well, kind of. And they are not low power... T-80 is unique in mobility, it's stupid to compare it to other russian tanks and say "they are slow".
"For further information, T-62 is not very different from T-55. The only considerable difference is T-62's smoothbore cannon, which doubles the penetration power and dramatically increases the accuracy, and increase the effective range 1,5-2 times. That is a dramatic advantage. So, while being a medium tank, while being cheap like T-55, T-62 still had a dramatic increase of fighting power and was the top of its time. Even the IS-xx versions without smoothbore cannon were not able to outcompete the T-62."
Double the penetration? HAHAHAHAHAHA, nice joke. Let's see.... D-10T2S of the T-55 firing APDS: 290mm @ 2km. U-5TS of the T-62 with early APFSDS: 280mm @ 2km.
Later, T-55 received APFSDS rounds, and they penetrated above 300mm at 2km, T-62 only had marginally better rounds, and only one significantly better round with a DU penetrator, but the T-55 could have received one too if needed. HEAT rounds: T-55 3BK5M penetrates 380mm, later 3BK17M penetrates about 400mm. T-62 HEAT were never above 450 or 460mm. Tell me if that's what can be described as a 2 fold factor.... Yes if you compare full caliber BR-412 rounds vs T-62 APFSDS, there is a big difference, but only about 1.5 to 1.8x.
Accuracy? T-55 D-10T2S was more accurate at long range than most of U-5TS tubes. The increased effective range of 115mm was x0. Or 1.2 at max with proper APFSDS. T-62 was quite expensive. He knows pretty much nothing about russian tank guns. "IS-XX not able to compete with T-62" ????
The T-10M's M-62T2S 122mm canon penetrates 320mm @2km with APDS, and up to 500mm with the improved 3BK4M HEAT round. This firepower was not equaled in any soviet tank until 2nd generation 125mm ammo in the 1970s. And this gun also fired a much more destructive full bore AP round with 220mm penetration @2km, 25kg shell filled with explosive.
Hell, even the basic D-25T 122mm gun equiping IS-3M / IS-2M in reserve, and able to fire the same rounds, got the same penetration with HEAT, and 260mm pen for the APDS at 2km. Yes we're talking about a 1943 tank gun design which comes off a 1931 field gun, that pretty much has similar performance to the T-62 gun. T-62 gun was about cheap and fast production, cheap projectiles, and flat trajectory for increased first hit success, and not about raw power.
That created the fame of T-62 and that's why many people think T-62 is similar to T-80, that is a dramatic increase of fighting power but no change in other aspects.
Nobody thinks the T-62 and T-80 are similar, but you.
The dramatic increase of engine power occured at T-62 -> T-64 and T-72 -> T-80. In T-62 -> T-64, armour changed from homogenous to composite. In T-64 -> T-72, armour is more all-around and has ERA.
ERA only came in 1982 on the T-64BV, and T-80BV, and in 1985 on the T-72B, then to T-72AV retrofits, etc... That leaves many years of T-64/72/80 without ERA.
All-around armour here means, for example, T-90 increase the protection against guerilla and infantry ambush. It is more multirole than specialized T-80 only for tank-vs-tank. T-90 is heavier than T-80. T-90's engine has much less power than T-90 and is more bulky. However, T-90's engine has better efficiency and more durable.
what the heck... T-90 efficiency against "guerrilla" vs T-80 is a factor of 0. Exact same weak spots, exact same side armour problems. Total fantasy.