T-80 is not a joke: in the West, the Russian tank was appreciated

109
Although many Russian types tanks nominally intended to be replaced by the T-14, modernization of old cars continues, writes The National Interest.





While many Western experts considered the T-80 a dead-end weaponry, enterprises of the Russian defense-industrial complex continued to modernize it. And the updated version of the tank is not a joke.

According to the authors, T-80 is the best suited for the climatic conditions of Russia. While T-72 and T-90 perform best tasks in other climatic zones, in the north of the country, where temperatures can reach very low values, T-80 is irreplaceable.

If diesel engines at negative temperatures need to warm up to 45 minutes (at -30Сº), then T-80 with a gas turbine installation is ready for combat one minute after the launch, the material says.

The publication also notes that the working conditions of the crew of the T-80 in winter are much more comfortable than in the above-mentioned T-72 and T-90.

Experts mention an earlier version of the upgraded T-80U Black Eagle, known as the 640 Object. The car had an elongated body and chassis, which made it possible to strengthen the frontal armor, as well as a more advanced loading mechanism. But this tank was never launched into the series.

According to the magazine, the T-80UA model with an improved fire control system was the only serially upgraded version of the tank. The machine also received the opportunity to use new ammunition.

This year, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced the upcoming upgrade version of the T-80UЕ1.

As a result, the publication concludes that the reports of hopelessly outdated T-80 are greatly exaggerated.
109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    29 July 2018 19: 02
    "Black Eagle" is not close to T80 !!! fool To create one of the instances of the Black Eagle, a gecko from T80 was used, but with the same success they could take a chassis from t72! But in general, on the T80, you need to put a 152 mm caliber gun, and KAZ, and only such modernization will help the T80 successfully fight against modern NATO modernized tanks like Challenger2, or Leclerc.
    1. +3
      29 July 2018 19: 26
      Of course not a joke .. This tank is forty years old. And still running. And shoots.
      1. +9
        29 July 2018 19: 36
        The tank is being modernized. Here is today's photo of the T-80BVM in Severomorsk at the exhibition of armored vehicles dedicated to the celebration of Navy Day. Visible dynamic relic protection. True, it is not on the sides, but this is a version for the Marines.
        1. +6
          29 July 2018 19: 41
          It can be assumed that the decision to refuse additional protection for the sides and stern on the marine tanks is conscious because of the possible weight and overall restrictions imposed by the requirements for the operation of tanks in the marine corps.
          1. +2
            29 July 2018 20: 21
            Not my tanks, though it was passing by. I was more interested in the performance of “Pskov” and “Kaluga”. Happy holiday.
            1. +6
              29 July 2018 21: 48
              Read the article carefully!
              I quote:
              writes The National Interest

              All! Next will be a text about what is interesting to read to an ordinary American. I repeat: INTERESTING. That's why it Interest. No connection with reality there is no, here the connection is only with interest. And the interest of an ordinary American.
              So there’s nothing to argue about. Nonsense - it is nonsense.
              1. SSR
                +2
                30 July 2018 02: 43
                Quote: Shurik70
                Read the article carefully!
                I quote:
                writes The National Interest

                All! Next will be a text about what is interesting to read to an ordinary American. I repeat: INTERESTING. That's why it Interest. No connection with reality there is no, here the connection is only with interest. And the interest of an ordinary American.
                So there’s nothing to argue about. Nonsense - it is nonsense.

                And what, the whole article is Nonsense? Or essentially there is a cho?
                What does it start in minus or that the Russian Federation buys the old ones from South Korea, or what exactly .... but in general, what exactly is nonsense ?!
      2. +4
        30 July 2018 05: 50
        Dmitry, hi ! I'm back, doctors are not gods, we are stronger.

        For some reason, the word “modernization” does not hear the tanks, but the Mi-8. Modernization of modernized modernization. And who will argue? "Mom", which, at least, will fly, feed, water, give ammunition, take "three hundred" ... A low bow to the "modernized" spindles from the winged infantry.

        But I'm not talking about that. If the equipment has a modernization stock, then it would not be necessary to upgrade it.

        It was once inside the Abams. Sensation - how the year ended up in 1942.
    2. +5
      29 July 2018 22: 11
      it is said that the t80 is designed for problematic climatic zones and neither leklers nor challengers work there. The most terrible opponents are Swedish self-propelled guns and snowmobiles.
      1. +2
        30 July 2018 07: 03
        Swedish self-propelled guns proved their complete failure on tests in the USA (inability to shoot on the go) so even the Swedes themselves quickly replaced them with a Leopard2
    3. +2
      30 July 2018 05: 59
      Quote: ANCIENT
      In general, on the T80 you need to put a gun caliber 152 mm, and KAZ
      There was a modification of the T-80U-M1 "Bars" with "Arena". It is a pity that the “Black Eagle” was delivered, moreover, there was information in the network that the documentation for the tank was already purchased by the Chinese. After the Omsk Tank Plant was bankrupt, and the tank had a patent, it may well be that our eastern "brothers" will soon have these developments with an automatic loader in the feed niche. On photo T-80U-М1 "Bars".
  2. +5
    29 July 2018 19: 05
    The best tank of the three T-64, 72 and 80. am
    1. +4
      29 July 2018 19: 07
      Looking at what kind of theater! He is the best only in the Arctic, because of gtdshki, armor is weaker than on the T72! !!
      1. +3
        29 July 2018 19: 12
        Quote: ANCIENT
        Looking at what kind of theater! He is the best only in the Arctic, because of gtdshki, armor is weaker than on the T72! !!

        So for the deserts it was developed, and the chassis in general for the steppes is the very thing that would turn the tank carousel.
        Excellent tank, for a jerk.
      2. +5
        29 July 2018 19: 23
        Quote: ANCIENT
        Looking at what kind of theater! He is the best only in the Arctic, because of gtdshki, armor is weaker than on the T72! !!

        Why is that? The weight of the T-80 armor is greater than that of the T-72, and especially the T-64.
        1. +1
          29 July 2018 20: 11
          Captain Pushkin is not a matter of the total mass, but of its distribution over the hull! The T80 has armored sides thinner than the T72 !!! True, a little thicker than the T64! !!
          1. 0
            30 July 2018 07: 07
            I always knew that they all have 80mm hull side armor (in the MTO area of ​​70mm) do you know any other info ?? (T-55 78mm) I learned these numbers a long time ago)
      3. 0
        30 July 2018 09: 07
        as for armor, the issue is weaker (just a different arrangement) and for the terrain - t80
        relevant for desert territories - and the tundra, and the steppes, and deserts, not only cold.
        I’m not a tanker separately, but I’d like to understand - where can his furious thrust-weight ratio and maneuverability be revealed? How relevant is this car in the highlands? (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and Turks produce cars adapted to this area)
    2. +2
      30 July 2018 12: 20
      The best tank of the three T-64, 72 and 80.

      The best tank is where the crew of professionals with brains. And let the fools, even the newest, still become corpses. soldier
      1. 0
        30 July 2018 13: 07
        in Churchill 7 fools often survived, though not all ...
        1. 0
          30 July 2018 13: 11
          in Churchill 7 fools often survived, though not all ...

          This is a saying - lucky fools and drunkards. But seriously, why in Churchill, and even in the seventh?
          1. 0
            30 July 2018 13: 27
            there was a lot of armor.
            150-120mm almost everywhere in the forehead, 82 with screens in board plus partially protected
            Mounted screens, structurally and tracks
            protection at the level of the royal tiger and IS-2 with a smaller silhouette.
            knocking out the tank itself was not difficult, but the crew suffered losses not as stable as the t-34-85
            and very rarely did the entire crew die from shelling the tank.
            1. +1
              30 July 2018 13: 54
              knocking out the tank itself was not difficult, but the crew suffered losses not as stable as the t-34-85

              My friend's father passed the Second World War as a T-34 driver. With my own eyes I saw two funerals for him, so I was with him at a friend's wedding, and after that I drank vodka several times. The man was cool, but he did not say anything about the war, by the way, like my own uncle.
      2. 0
        30 July 2018 13: 59
        Quote: Ros 56
        The best tank of the three T-64, 72 and 80.

        The best tank is where the crew of professionals with brains. And let the fools, even the newest, still become corpses. soldier

        The current tank biathlon, some kind of nightmare. Most crews are simply not combat ready at all, including the Indians, on the T-90. The Vietnamese, in general, a miserable sight - they can neither shoot nor control a tank at all. How did their fathers put a piston on the Americans at the time?
        Representatives of most countries decently mastered driving a tank, but shooting ... It's something ... Even the best. Most have at least one unaffected target. For many, getting on the edges of the target in such an area that in battle the enemy’s tank would remain combat ready. Time to complete a fire mission, such that most would have received in battle in full without firing a single shot.
        1. +1
          30 July 2018 14: 06
          How did their fathers put a piston on the Americans at the time?

          So the Vietnamese bore the surname Li-si-ching and the pilots and anti-aircraft gunners, and won. There would be no Russian Vanya, they would have won the hell.
          1. 0
            30 July 2018 15: 44
            Quote: Ros 56
            How did their fathers put a piston on the Americans at the time?

            So the Vietnamese bore the surname Li-si-ching and the pilots and anti-aircraft gunners, and won. There would be no Russian Vanya, they would have won the hell.

            I have never heard of the participation of Soviet tank crews in the battles in Vietnam. But there were a lot of our and Chinese tanks in Vietnam. And the Americans sometimes cried from them.
  3. +6
    29 July 2018 19: 13
    Russian Defense Ministry Announces Upcoming Modernization of T-80UE1 Version

    hi ... When upgrading, the tank is installed:
    - The fighting compartment of the T-80UD tank;
    - Gas turbine engine GTD-1250 with a capacity of 1250 hp.;
    - An air intake device that allows you to overcome without fording a ford up to 1,8 m deep;
    - Autonomous power unit with a capacity of 18 kW;
    - Input device for corrections UVP 1V216M for 15 types of ballistics;
    - Built-in dynamic protection on VLD and sides;
    - Measures have been introduced to reduce fuel consumption.
    1. +1
      29 July 2018 19: 18
      You need to install a 152 mm caliber gun!
      1. +7
        29 July 2018 19: 22
        There is no such weapon for tanks in Russia, as well as ammunition for them.
        1. +1
          29 July 2018 19: 24
          Quote: Vadim237
          There is no such weapon for tanks in Russia, as well as ammunition for them.

          130 mm is smile With a sleeve.
        2. +6
          29 July 2018 19: 48
          Quote: Vadim237
          There is no such weapon for tanks in Russia, as well as ammunition for them.

          But in Russia there is Vadim237! laughing Shell in the bolt!
        3. +5
          29 July 2018 20: 08
          Vadim237 -if this is a joke, then it is unsuccessful! hi A 152 mm caliber gun was put on the T80 years ago, but it didn’t go into the series due to lack of money then! !!
          1. +1
            30 July 2018 00: 00
            This is an experimental version in the series there are no guns or shells, you need to redo the entire fighting compartment and change the turret — half the tank for a new one.
          2. +2
            30 July 2018 10: 46
            Why do I need a 152 mm gun? - only to increase the penetration rate of the cumm shells (the larger the diameter of the cone, the stronger the jet). But there are no such shells.
            125 mm is enough for OBPS. The length of the scrap is important here, and it can be drowned into a sleeve, making the projectile unitary. This is what NATO did.
            If you shoot from the tank with a full-fledged 152 HE shell, then the tower will fly off the shoulder strap and fly back.
            We need powerful shock absorbers, the size of a half-tower.
            1. +4
              30 July 2018 12: 30
              Quote: voyaka uh
              125 mm is enough for OBPS. The length of the scrap is important here, and it can be drowned into a sleeve, making the projectile unitary. This is what NATO did.

              That's it - it’s easier to install 2A82 - just the new longer crowbars fit into it normally and the new AZ is much easier. than trying to shove a 80 mm monster into a poor T-152, which the armata will pull.
            2. 0
              30 July 2018 21: 50
              It’s better to create a robotic, assault 203 mm, with a long barrel of 30 calibers, a gun based on the tank.
        4. mvg
          -1
          29 July 2018 22: 36
          2A83, and ammunition - you wonder ..
          1. +1
            30 July 2018 12: 32
            Quote: mvg
            2A83, and ammunition - you wonder ..

            2A83 currently has a resource of 280 shots, if I remember correctly, so what to bring and bring it to, and as for the ammunition, where do you find 152 caliber BOPs?
            1. mvg
              -1
              30 July 2018 15: 54
              Cannon with a resource of 280 will not be put on the tank.
              1. +1
                30 July 2018 17: 13
                Quote: mvg
                Cannon with a resource of 280 will not be put on the tank.

                That is - therefore, it is first necessary to bring 2A83 to mind - that is, to a resource of at least 1000 shots, and only then to set it. Perhaps someone is doing this ...
      2. +14
        29 July 2018 19: 25
        Quote: ANCIENT
        You need to install a 152 mm caliber gun!

        hi ... Now we will do ... Op-la recourse
        Object 292 with a 152 mm gun
        1. +1
          29 July 2018 22: 13
          what is this museum of elephants?
        2. +2
          30 July 2018 03: 56
          Quote: san4es
          Op la


          And so it goes *
      3. +3
        29 July 2018 19: 38
        Quote: ANCIENT
        You need to install a 152 mm caliber gun!

        Oga, it’s better to immediately 203, as if on a fry with a peony!
        1. +1
          30 July 2018 15: 16
          the scariest tank)))
    2. +2
      29 July 2018 19: 24
      Sanya, than to cut pictures, better say, who are you for? Although I am a tractor driver, I walk like in the dark in these tanks ...
  4. +4
    29 July 2018 19: 19
    reports of hopelessly outdated T-80s are greatly exaggerated.
    Amen. Everything else is infomusor. The publication is garbage, but the conclusions are correct.
  5. +1
    29 July 2018 19: 21
    Well, we can’t be without misinterpreting without at least a little.
    "According to the authors, the T-80 is the best suited for the climatic conditions of Russia. So far, the T-72 and T-90 perform the best tasks in other climatic zones, in the north of the country, where temperatures can reach very low values, T-80 is indispensable . "
    According to the authors, in the north of the country, where temperatures can reach very low values, T-80 preferable.
    "The publication also notes that the working conditions of the T-80 crew in winter are much more comfortable than in the above-mentioned T-72 and T-90."
    The publication notes that the working conditions of the T-80 crew in winter are more comfortable than in the above-mentioned T-72 and T-90.
    It seems like small distortions, and the sound of fanfare is already cutting through.
    That is, the publication calmly analyzes what caused the work to modernize the T-80, although it was stated that by 2015 they would not be in the troops.
    1. +2
      29 July 2018 20: 58
      there is still a theater of operations in the Russian north to find for these tanks ...
      1. +2
        29 July 2018 22: 13
        Why climb to the north, from Chita to Khabarovsk, in winter for -30 in the order of things.
      2. +1
        30 July 2018 03: 58
        Why in Russian? What does Alaska not like?
        1. 0
          30 July 2018 13: 18
          Our doctrine is defensive, rather Chukotka.
          1. 0
            30 July 2018 15: 56
            Our doctrine is always defensive. But somehow then our troops either in Paris or in Berlin find themselves.
            Creating the potential threat to the United States to capture Alaska with access to California is a wonderful wick in their ass. Moreover, in Alaska they have the bulk of the start-up mines. Let them also build what they do not know how - icebreakers, frost-resistant tanks, polar special forces, etc.
            1. +1
              2 August 2018 20: 16
              Quote: Nizhlogger
              Creating a potential threat to the US to capture Alaska with access to California is a wonderful wick in the ass

              Yeah .. For a trip on a tank under its own power from Alaska to California, even without war and shooting, the order should be given. To someone who gets there.
  6. +10
    29 July 2018 19: 22
    In general, we continue to use the Soviet laughing Still, they would have returned the economy, at least the mid-50s
    1. +4
      29 July 2018 19: 27
      Quote: Doliva63
      In general, we continue to use the Soviet. If only the economy were returned, in the mid-50s at least

      In figs you have an economy, the main thing is that you wouldn’t be a fool, and they lived 1-2%
    2. +5
      29 July 2018 19: 29
      Quote: Doliva63
      ... continue to use the Soviet laughing

      hi ..Main tank. The development was started according to the decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 16.04.1968 SKB-2 Production Association "Kirovsky Zavod" (Leningrad). The initial project - "Object 219sp1" - T-64 with a gas turbine engine. Tests of experimental tanks "Object 219" were conducted in 1972-1973. Pilot operation of the battalion of experimental tanks "Object 219" was carried out in 1974-1975. in the Baltic VO. According to the results of tests and trial operation, it was found that a tank with a gas turbine engine has a number of advantages compared to tanks with diesel engines. soldier
      1. 0
        29 July 2018 20: 06
        Sanya, or maybe we reanimate T-10, it’s IS -8 ... for Syria’s surprise?
        1. 0
          29 July 2018 23: 14
          Yeah. ... In the DPR won IS 3 from the monument resuscitated. Long served?
          1. 0
            29 July 2018 23: 31
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            Yeah. ... In the DPR won IS 3 from the monument resuscitated. Long served?




            Could you elaborate on this fake?
            1. 0
              30 July 2018 00: 03
              This IP 3 came to the APU, it again became a monument.
              1. +1
                30 July 2018 00: 06
                Well, this is an epilogue of a fake ... I asked specifically about the "episode" ... where when how was it "reanimated" ... do you even imagine the tank’s minimal technical condition on a pedestal? ... it's not even scrap metal ...
                1. 0
                  30 July 2018 00: 26
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  can you imagine the minimal technical condition of the tank on a pedestal? ... it's not even scrap metal ...

                  It worked like that. request
                  1. +1
                    30 July 2018 01: 00
                    Quote: mordvin xnumx
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    can you imagine the minimal technical condition of the tank on a pedestal? ... it's not even scrap metal ...

                    It worked like that. request




                    I wonder how people believe stories and do not believe their eyes and ears ... what worked there in this pile of scrap metal? ... do you have eyes to see that the smoke does not come from the exhaust .. and ears to hear that nothing worked there but the noise is heard only of the launcher ... and non-native and portable ... and there is still a brain to think about why there is no spectacular video of the tank leaving the pedestal ...
                    1. +1
                      30 July 2018 04: 01
                      Yes there was a video of him riding. This is not a fake. According to the stories, he even drove towards the APU and even fired a machine gun.
                    2. -1
                      30 July 2018 07: 16
                      video at least to the end looked? wound up in the end by the way isuhu (ISU 152) as it was shown pulled out of the swamp and after repair were able to ride it
                    3. 0
                      30 July 2018 09: 03
                      And all that you have wassat eyes, ears and even brain
                2. 0
                  30 July 2018 07: 13
                  here you are wrong, in my city Liski stands on the pedestal IS-2 written off in the late 80s from our repair part from storage, and so I arrived! they raised it to the pedestal with a crane, removed the batteries, welded the hatches and stands
                  1. 0
                    30 July 2018 09: 31
                    Well, the fact that no one can argue about the fact that old tanks can go. That's just they just can’t shoot. The optics have been removed and this can’t be found (well, except in specialized museums) and the barrel is emasculated (cutting with a gas cutter along the barrel closer to the breech).
  7. 0
    29 July 2018 19: 29
    As a result, the publication concludes that the reports of hopelessly outdated T-80 are greatly exaggerated.

    Yes, the T-34 is still in some places in the world, in some countries they are in service! wink
    1. +1
      29 July 2018 23: 30
      Some tribes still have bows and spears in service ...
      1. 0
        30 July 2018 15: 19
        Americans in films already have bows with cumulative tips, so it's a very modern weapon. True, I find it difficult to imagine an arrow that burns through at least 50 mm of homogeneous armor at an angle.
  8. +2
    29 July 2018 19: 36
    Quote: marshes
    If diesel engines at low temperatures need to be warmed up to 45 minutes (at -30 ° C), then the T-80 with a gas turbine installation is ready for military operations just one minute after starting,


    If diesel engines at low temperatures need to be heated up to 45 minutes (at -30 ° C), then the T-80 with a gas turbine installation is ready for military operations just one minute after launch.

    It specifically states that in winter it warms up faster, because of this its combat readiness is higher! - Read carefully!
    1. +1
      29 July 2018 20: 05
      Quote: Simon
      It specifically states that in winter it warms up faster, because of this its combat readiness is higher! - Read carefully!

      So we have a winter under -40, but I was glad at one time that 100 tanks could be transferred, but from behind the turbine it was necessary to contact the Ukrainians, there are dangerous scammers, although so far by transport aircraft.
      1. +3
        29 July 2018 20: 20
        Quote: marshes
        but because of the turbine it is necessary to contact the Ukrainians, there are dangerous scams here, although so far by transport aircraft

        we only produce diesel. After all, turbine engines in the RFSR were made.
        The T-80B and T-80BV tanks were equipped with gas turbine engines of the GTD-1000T family. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Klimov, a company engaged in the production of such products, remained in Russia. (IN)
        we
        that hundreds of GTD-1000T engines were discovered (for the T-80). For yes, we do not have engine production either.
        (Baron)
        can get out at the expense of MS and others. Repair is still 115 btrz (what flashed like found tanks)
        1. 0
          29 July 2018 20: 32
          Quote: Antares
          we only produce diesel. After all, gas turbine engines were made in the RFSR. The T-80B and T-80BV tanks were equipped with gas turbine engines of the GTD-1000T family. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Klimov, a company engaged in the production of such products, remained in Russia. (IN)

          And spatulas, where were they made?
      2. +3
        29 July 2018 20: 29
        Tank gas turbine engines were made with us, the saloids never did them.
        1. 0
          29 July 2018 20: 33
          Quote: Aviator_
          Tank gas turbine engines were made with us, the saloids never did them.

          shoulder blades.
          1. +1
            29 July 2018 22: 16
            In Kaluga they did and do.
            1. 0
              29 July 2018 22: 18
              Quote: Bad
              In Kaluga they did and do.

              Presently?
              1. 0
                30 July 2018 13: 00
                And at the moment too.
  9. +1
    29 July 2018 20: 14
    Why shake the air for nothing - 2019 will show in which tank-constructive direction we are moving. And, believe me, surprises await us ... then we'll talk ...
  10. 0
    29 July 2018 21: 21
    I don’t understand horseradish in tanks. But I understand that we have a lot of them ... either throw them away or upgrade them ...
  11. +6
    29 July 2018 21: 40
    Also news to me ... Moscow Region has long stated that it will be T-80s that will be modernized for the northern regions of the country, this tank is practically no different from the T-90, except for the engine ... Its plus is simpler use at low temperatures and power, cons - high fuel consumption ...

    In general, in this case, our generals and officials here are doing everything right ... For the northern regions of the T-80, for the rest of the T-90 or the modernized T-72 B3 ... But Armata will be finalized and until it is saturated with troops and reserve T- 90 / T-80 / T-72 B3 will still serve, especially since they are not inferior to the modern tanks of our "partners" ...

    We must take maximum care of what we have, we may not have time to make a new one ... We must stop the Russian slovenliness on the whole, do not save anything, we’ve killed - written off, squandered - written off and no one is responsible, so you won’t save any tanks ...

    Israel is doing the right thing, they removed the tanks from armament - they carefully serviced them and stored them, they’ll need to be put back into service at any time, they don’t ask for money, and if they can, they can help out a lot ...
    1. 0
      29 July 2018 21: 47
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Israel is doing the right thing, they removed the tanks from armament - they carefully serviced them and stored them, they’ll need to be put back into service at any time, they don’t ask for money, and if they can, they can help out a lot ...

      Israel, take a look at the map, there is the number 8 or 9, it’s not a fig to refer to them, with all due respect from me laughing , think about your country.
      1. +2
        29 July 2018 23: 13
        The United States does the same, generally in the United States there is a very careful attitude towards all decommissioned equipment. What can I say if they made museums from their dreadnought while retaining all the fighting characteristics of the ship. Similarly, combat aircraft decommissioned for storage, even recently they wrote that they wanted to take certain aircraft from conservation and return them to service after modernization. But in Russia they can only break, cut and destroy.
      2. +1
        30 July 2018 10: 50
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        Israel is doing the right thing, they removed the tanks from armament - they carefully serviced them and stored them, they’ll need to be put back into service at any time, they don’t ask for money, and if they can, they can help out a lot ...
        Israel, look at the map, there is the number 8 or 9, it’s not a fig to refer to them, with all due respect from me laughing, think about your country.


        I’m thinking about my country and I’m talking about what should be more careful about everything, especially military property ...
    2. +2
      29 July 2018 22: 28
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Israel is doing the right thing, they removed the tanks from armament - they carefully serviced them and stored them, they’ll need to be put back into service at any time, they don’t ask for money, and if they can, they can help out a lot ...
      If the tank is mothballed by the Israeli method and put in the region of Murmansk, or St. Petersburg, after 3 years it will turn into a pile of scrap metal. In our climatic conditions, the maintenance of equipment for long-term storage is not much cheaper than the maintenance of the same equipment in constant parts.
      1. +4
        29 July 2018 23: 28
        we have that little land where to put it in storage? or for storage should we look for the most sedimentary climatic regions? In my land we have enough
        1. 0
          30 July 2018 13: 36
          There really is a lot of land, do not tell me that ideal place where you can store several thousand tanks without problems, and then quickly (!) Transfer them to the right place on a single railway (Transsiberian).
      2. 0
        30 July 2018 10: 54
        Now very simple and quick hangars are being built from metal structures and warm sandwich panels. They built a hangar, drove there the tanks that were withdrawn from service, spare parts for them and the lock, until the “better” times ... They can be stored there forever ...
        1. +2
          30 July 2018 13: 02
          You tell the best to the Minister of Defense in the world about this.
      3. 0
        30 July 2018 14: 13
        Quote: Bad
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        Israel is doing the right thing, they removed the tanks from armament - they carefully serviced them and stored them, they’ll need to be put back into service at any time, they don’t ask for money, and if they can, they can help out a lot ...
        If the tank is mothballed by the Israeli method and put in the region of Murmansk, or St. Petersburg, after 3 years it will turn into a pile of scrap metal. In our climatic conditions, the maintenance of equipment for long-term storage is not much cheaper than the maintenance of the same equipment in constant parts.

        When storing the tank, it is sealed. There are different methods of sealing. If interested, you can google and familiarize yourself with the topic.
        1. 0
          30 July 2018 21: 57
          I don’t need to google, I did it with my hands. Google yourself, at what frequency MOT storage is done, control runs and PTO with a complete replacement of all rubber goods. And if you do not do this, it will be what is written above.
  12. +6
    29 July 2018 22: 53
    There is no money for a decent modernization of tanks, we often export better cars than in the Russian army. The same T-72VZ is a golem of ancient rubbish, and painted as the best of the best .... however, everything is in the spirit of propaganda. The new T-80 BVM is again a cheaper version of modernization, so you should not expect anything outstanding from it. The same news to me, the -30 engine is ready a minute after launch))) yes this engine was ready to launch back in the distant 80s in the GSVG)
    1. 0
      30 July 2018 00: 14
      But they put a new defense on the T 80BVM, and the rest, like there were 85 MPS OBG shells, a 1993 OFS tandemly cumulative 1990 shells and 1990 Reflex M ATGMs, there are still no new shells for tanks used by the Russian army for 27 years it was not accepted. But the T 72B3 in the Donbass fought, lost two tanks.
    2. 0
      30 July 2018 11: 04
      T-72 B3 is not rubbish, how is it inferior to NATO tanks?

      It has the same caliber, approximately similar to armor-piercing ammunition, has a thermal imaging sight that allows you to fire at any time of the day and in any weather, the tank has dynamic protection (which by the way is not found on many NATO tanks), a new more powerful engine ...

      As a result of modernization, the T-72 B3 has actually been brought up to the T-90 level ... It has only been done more economically than simply writing off thousands of T-72s to metal and making new T-90s ...

      So what is it out of date?

      And the fact that the engine in the cold of the T-80 starts faster is not news, this is an explanation of why this particular tank will be used in the northern regions ... Yes, it would be possible to put a gas turbine engine on all tanks, but given the number and need of tanks for To Russia all this will result in additional costs during operation ...

      So for now, everything is being done right ...
      1. +1
        30 July 2018 17: 39
        the fact that this tank did not receive a complete modernization but received only a stripped-down version, until the T-90 in the last modernization, it was like a cancer to Paris. A modern tank is not just a thermal imaging sight, but also a whole range of measures that contribute to increasing the survivability of the machine and the survival of the crew. The situation here is not very rosy. Yes, due to the presence of special bookings with “reflective sheets” (instead of sand rods on the T-72M1) and the integrated Contact-5 DZ, the equivalent resistance of the frontal projection of the tower from armor-piercing shells in the T-72B3 reaches 620-900 mm, from cumulative - 790 -1100 mm depending on the angle of fire (0 or 30 degrees to the normal). The situation is similar with the upper frontal part: 680-720 mm from the BPS and 800-1090 mm from the CS. It seems to be at the level of the Czech promising T-72 Scarab, and it is better in terms of anticumulative qualities. And the Polish PT-91 is generally “below the plinth”! But this is only the upper part of the iceberg for true “cheers-patriotism”, while the technique must be compared objectively. If you look closely at how the elements of the DZ 4C22 “Contact-5” overlap the frontal projection of the T-72B3 turret, then it becomes really alarming for the safety of the commander and gunner: there are half-meter open sections of the frontal armored plates in the area of ​​the gun’s mask (the left “gap” is present due to the need to save 1A40-1 gunner’s sighting system, right - so as not to obscure the firing range of the PKT).
        As a result, we have a huge unprotected “bare window” with a resistance of about 400-450 mm, which can be punched from RPG-7 or any other anti-tank weapon using monoblock cumulative “equipment”. From a distance in 1,5 km T-72B3 can be struck even by old BOPS of the “Hairpin” and “Nadezhda-R” type (provided they fall into the above-described “window”). Do not forget about the huge gaps between the EHR 4C22, as well as the extremely open part of the corps mating with the tower, which during the intense battle can get OFS and cores of the same BOPS M829А1 / 2 with 700 and 740 mm armor, respectively; There is no need to describe the result. In such a situation, it is time to think about refitting the T-72B3 into sets of remote sensing "Relikt", and generally recall the project "Slingshot". Talk about it went back to the 16-th year, and the situation has not moved from the dead center.
      2. 0
        30 July 2018 17: 44
        By the way, Russia has about 1000 units of T-72B3 and 150 units of T-72B3 arr. 2016, The 2016 sample comes with a relic, and the 2014 sample is not much different from the basic version
  13. +1
    29 July 2018 23: 05
    Some kind of nonsense .. Well, I'm a tanker. In life 45 minutes did not warm up. Maybe they dabbled in the Arctic. And so zipper and a couple of minutes is ready ... Although again de ... who served where. But the fact that branch-deadlock, I agree. BC in Zaman looks more promising ...
  14. +6
    30 July 2018 00: 09
    T-80 is not a joke: in the West, the Russian tank was appreciated

    Guys, why misinterpret ?! This is not a "Russian" tank, but a Soviet one!
    1. 0
      30 July 2018 08: 03
      Apparently, our country also decided to decommunize))
  15. +1
    30 July 2018 07: 45
    All kinds of tanks are needed, all kinds of tanks are important. Especially in the Russian expanses.
  16. +2
    30 July 2018 08: 02
    With minus 30 ready in 1 minute?
    But what about motor oil?
    It can’t warm up in a minute, especially since they don’t pour 5w30 into tank engines.
    1. +3
      30 July 2018 09: 44
      This is a turbine, the oil is different there, for example, MS-8p with a pour point of -55 (it's cooler than 0W, and there is also synthetics - VNIINP-50-1-4u or in general "water" - VT-301) and under high pressure, inert the mass of metal in a gas turbine engine is small. By the time of reaching the operating speed, the oil temperature is nominal (20 - 120 degrees, this is all the nominal temperature), and this is real 1-2 minutes.
  17. +1
    30 July 2018 10: 37
    Yes, yes, yes, let's talk about the fact that diesel start up badly in winter .. Maybe ours is bad, but Leopard 1 in Canada serves, and start up normally.
    1. 0
      30 July 2018 11: 09
      Climate Canada is our Volgograd, and everyone lives there along the US border ...

      And how German tanks felt in the cold can be found by reading something about the defense of Moscow ...

      It happens at minus 40, and in some areas, for example, Irkutsk, it’s up to minus 55 ...
      1. 0
        30 July 2018 17: 29
        There are no such low temperatures in Irkutsk. I can still believe if you write about Yakutsk.
      2. 0
        31 July 2018 07: 35
        And what does Moscow have to do with it? We are not talking about 41 years old, it’s already the 21st century in the yard ... and with us diesel engines only begin to rivet under 1200 mares ...