Prospects for the use of T-80 and the existing generation of tanks

136


The fate of the last adopted by the Soviet tank T-80 from its inception to the cessation of production. Despite the serious resistance, it was not the military or industry who sought to introduce him into the army, but, surprisingly, the party leadership in the person of Ustinov and Romanov. For some reason, they decided that the army needed a tank with a gas turbine engine. And for thirty years, this machine tried to conquer its niche in the armored forces.



If you look at what the T-80 is fundamentally different from its generational counterparts (T-64 and T-72), then it turns out that the presence of a gas turbine power plant. The tank was created in a very original way, not a gas turbine engine was introduced into the tank, and the tank was adapted for the gas turbine engine. For a long time the tank could not “stand up” and it was difficult to take root in the army.

Work on the tank with the GTE began in the 60-s. The main reason for the creation of such a tank was the high power density achieved with this engine, which at that time could not be obtained using diesel engines. After a long development and refinement of the tank, it was put into service in the 1976 year, but produced in small batches.

Due to the weak firepower of his sighting complex by this time hopelessly outdated. T-80 crossed with T-64B, installing a tower on it from this tank. In 1978, they were commissioned under the symbol T-80B, and he received the most advanced at that time Ob sighting system and Cobra guided weapons.

After serious troop tests of all three types of tanks in the 1976, Ustinov decides to develop an improved T-80U tank. The combat branch is developed in Kharkov, and the corps in Leningrad. In this case, there were two variants of the power plant: with a GTE with a power of 1250 HP. and diesel power 1000 hp

Create a CCD 1250 horsepower. failed. After the test cycle, the tank with the existing GTN hp power. in the 1000 year is adopted under the symbol T-1984U. For this tank, a specially designed Irtysh sighting system with a laser-controlled Reflex armament was specially developed.

After Ustinov’s death in 1984, support for a tank with a problem gas turbine engine dropped dramatically, since there was a variant of this tank with a 6TD diesel engine with 1000 hp power. With the creation of such a diesel, the characteristics of the power plant were almost equal, and the shortcomings of the CCD remained. After testing this tank in 1985, it was put into service under the symbol T-80UD.

So there were two modifications of the last most perfect Soviet tank. Production of the T-80UD was discontinued in 1991, and the T-80U, having undergone several modifications under the symbol T-80UM with a GTE with a capacity of 1250 hp, was also discontinued in 1998. In the Russian tank building, the T-72 family of tanks was taken as the basis.

Despite the generally good characteristics of the tank in the industry, he did not take root in the army. His main problem was in the power plant. The use of a gas turbine engine in a tank has proven to be ineffective due to the large 1,6 times of fuel consumption, power reduction when working in high temperatures, increased dust wear of turbine blades, complexity and high cost of gas turbine engines.

When asked whether the T-80 can be considered as a base for a promising tank, the answer is likely to be negative, since it is one of the versions of the existing generation of T-64, T-72, T-80 tanks, as well as with powerplant problems described above.

The Armata has been identified as a promising tank, although there are many questions on it. This tank is produced in small batches. After complex military tests, it is likely that the future direction of work will be determined.

The T-80 tank and the entire existing generation of tanks should be considered from the point of view of accomplishing the tasks facing the Russian army at the present stage before the troops are filled with a new generation of tanks, which will not be long before. It is necessary to provide for the further development and modernization of this generation of tanks and the provision of characteristics at or above foreign models. And there are many thousands of tanks ...

According to its characteristics, the fleet of existing tanks of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series are approximately equal, there are no fundamental differences, giving a serious lead, they have. All of them are equipped with the same 125-mm cannon, aiming complexes, about the same power of diesel or gas turbine power plants and have similar protection characteristics. They install almost the same universal devices, components and systems. All this allows for the modernization of tanks and bring their effectiveness to the requirements of today.

The existing fleet of main machines and their modifications for upgrading and upgrading can be divided into three groups. The first group: T-80B and T-64B, the second: T-80U and T-80UD, the third: T-72B and T-90.

In each group, the combat units are unified, equipped with practically the same sighting complexes, the layout and placement of instruments and components is not much different. On the basis of the T-XNUMCDU combat compartment, it is advisable to develop a single combat compartment for all groups of tanks with the equipment of the Irtysh sighting system and the Reflex guided weapons or their subsequent modifications. The modern thermal imager and the commander’s panoramic sight must be introduced into the complex.

On the basis of the hull of the T-80U, develop a hull with the T-XNUMHUD tank with the installation of a CCD with a capacity of 80l.s. and diesel 1250TDF with the same power or to provide for the replacement of diesel on GTE.

On the basis of the hull of the T-80B, develop a hull with the T-64B with the installation of the CCD 1250 horsepower. and diesel 6TDF with the same power or to provide for the replacement of diesel on GTE. The corps of tanks will be with different running gears - rubberized and with rollers with internal shock absorption.

On the basis of the hull of the T-90 tank, develop one hull with the T-72B tank with the installation of the HP 1000 diesel engine. The use of powerful diesel and gas turbine power plants with a mass of tanks up to 50 t will provide high power density and good maneuverability.

For all tanks, it is advisable to develop a unified system of protection using the latest advances and developments in armor, dynamic and active protection, ensuring the protection of the existing generation of tanks from modern means of destruction.

To ensure the interaction of tanks in a tank unit, equip all tanks with elements of a tank information and control system in terms of tactical control, modern radio communications systems that provide communications hidden and protected from suppressors and carried by mortar or gun launch UAVs. The introduction of these tools will significantly improve the management efficiency of the tank unit.

After carrying out such modernization of the existing generation of tanks, they will not yield to the main foreign models in firepower, protection and maneuverability, and will ensure high efficiency for many years to come.

At the same time, modernization should be carried out using the same components and systems to the maximum, which will reduce the cost of work and ensure the operation of almost identical tanks in the army. All these tanks were once created on a common base. The design allows you to bring them to virtually one tank with modifications to the power plant and chassis.

After analyzing the presence and condition of the fleet of previously released tanks, it is advisable to develop a program for upgrading tanks and bringing them up to date instead of releasing new modifications of the T-72 family. Whatever loud names you call them, they still remain modifications of the basic machine, and they do not provide a fundamental breakthrough in terms of the main characteristics of the existing generation of tanks.
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    3 August 2018 05: 49
    As tank biathlon showed, the main detail in any tank ... This is the gasket between the viewing gap and the seat ... I remember in the army service how the guys shot in the next tank regiment and I hope that it remains ..
    1. +4
      3 August 2018 12: 34
      Besides
      6TDF diesel engine with the same power or provide for the replacement of a diesel engine with a gas turbine engine
      where to get these engines in Kharkov? fool
      1. The comment was deleted.
  2. +15
    3 August 2018 06: 37
    Due to the weak firepower, his sighting system was hopelessly outdated by this time.
    Translated into household it sounds something like this: "due to a weak cartridge and a short barrel, the sights of the TT pistol (offhand, you can put any other) are outdated.
    What did the author want to say with this quoted phrase?
    1. +10
      3 August 2018 07: 23
      Quote: abrakadabre
      What did the author want to say with this quoted phrase?

      The first T-80s had a complex with an optical rangefinder, although even then the T-64B had an aiming complex with a laser rangefinder and had the ability to fire a guided projectile
      1. +13
        3 August 2018 08: 12
        So if the author said that on the contrary, due to the obsolescence of the OMS (in particular, the aiming component), the firepower decreased, then everything would be logical and understandable. But it says exactly the opposite. And it sounds exactly as I paraphrased above.
  3. +16
    3 August 2018 07: 21
    T-80 is the pinnacle of the development of the T-64, it was in it that many of the shortcomings of the T-64 were eliminated.
    The first group: T-80B and T-64B, the second: T-80U and T-80UD, the third: T-72B and T-90.
    In each of the groups, the combat squads are unified, equipped with almost the same sighting systems, the layout and placement of devices and components is not much different.

    The first group can be dismissed immediately, in our army the T-64B is withdrawn from service and the remaining vehicles still live their lives at storage bases, the same fate and the T-80ud. T-80B - outdated, by all criteria, now the only thing else suitable for it is to become a carrier of the T-80UD tank towers during modernization.
    In general, it makes sense to take the old BS T-72,80,90 and, with deep modernization, put on them NEW towers turning them into T-90 Breakthrough and T-80 Breakthrough-2, replacing the MOH with AZ
    1. +5
      3 August 2018 12: 02
      Quote: svp67
      In general, it makes sense to take the old BS T-72,80,90 and, with deep modernization, put on them NEW towers turning them into T-90 Breakthrough and T-80 Breakthrough-2, replacing the MOH with AZ
      In addition, old tanks can be converted into updated heavy BTR or BMPT. The Israelis for the IDF, at one time, were not shy and were not too lazy to remake the trophy T-54 / Т55 in the Akhzarit armored personnel carrier. We could have a BTR-T based on the T-55, and in a more modern version, based on the T-72 / T-90, a heavy BTR can be obtained from the BMO-T. Here, even outdated tanks could get quite modern combat vehicles with minimal cost. In Kharkiv, modifications of the T-64 to a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, with the engine thrust forward, are known. The photo "Ahzarit", view from the stern.
    2. +2
      3 August 2018 19: 49
      Put KAZ normal and all business for the next 20 years.
      1. +3
        3 August 2018 21: 36
        hi
        Quote: Kars
        Put KAZ normal and all business for the next 20 years.

        Yes, there’s a lot of business, it doesn’t even prevent the installation of new sighting systems, especially for night work, the installation of combat information complex equipment, it doesn’t interfere with putting air conditioning in the same way ... and so on and so forth.
        1. +1
          5 August 2018 09: 26
          The best enemy of the good. There is always something to improve. But Kaz is a screaming necessity.
          1. +2
            5 August 2018 10: 53
            Quote: Kars
            The best enemy of the good. There is always something to improve. But Kaz is a screaming necessity.

            Excellent night sights, the need for "screaming", from the day before yesterday
  4. +1
    3 August 2018 07: 26
    Only T72 and T90 need to be modernized, and T64 should be sent completely to Syria. With the T80, the question is more complicated, as though it weren’t wearing shoes, it’s only for the Arctic and it needs one or two divisions! !!
    1. +7
      3 August 2018 10: 41
      In the Arctic it is not as cold as you think (the proximity of the ocean affects), there is even summer there (short truth), But from the Urals to Khabarovsk the winters are very severe
    2. +6
      4 August 2018 00: 21
      Donetsk.
      Do you want to send the T-64 to Syria? All ? There are at least 3 of them at storage bases. - Do not crack the priest of the brothers of the Syrians?
      Give at least half - half to them, half to us. After all, they are not familiar with 64, and in our country it is just the opposite.
      But the T-80 must be modernized, and as much as possible. Although, if only because the Omsk plant is capable of doing this, and the Leningrad (sorry - St. Petersburg) too. But there are a lot of tanks - good and different, and fast, because the times are like this - you can't figure it out without tanks ...
  5. +3
    3 August 2018 07: 52
    . Prospects for the use of the T-80 and the existing generation of tanks

    The prospects for using the upgraded T-80UD, T-72B and T-90S are very large, since no large order for Armata is expected.
    1. +2
      3 August 2018 11: 50
      Quote: Stas157
      The prospects for using the upgraded T-80UD, T-72B and T-90S are very large, since no large order for Armata is expected.

      Rather - while the armata is brought to mind, you need to have something at least partially meeting the requirements of the time, and the modernized T-72, -80 and -90, as practice shows, may well come up.
      1. FID
        +5
        3 August 2018 12: 34
        Quote: Albert1988
        Rather - while the armata is brought to mind

        I apologize, but ... most likely "Armata" our aircraft will not be purchased.
        1. -1
          5 August 2018 17: 03
          Quote: SSI
          Quote: Albert1988
          Rather - while the armata is brought to mind

          I apologize, but ... most likely "Armata" our aircraft will not be purchased.

          I agree, even more categorically - EXACTLY they will not. Only indicative purchases are possible.
          And it was clear already in 2014. When everyone laughed and grimaced on the theme of the Iskanders.
  6. +6
    3 August 2018 08: 24
    And why doesn’t anyone write that the gas turbine engine works well (with a large resource), at constant speeds, high, and in modern realities it’s impossible to fly ahead on the Channel Break tank (it was created for this). Nevertheless, in the battle it is necessary to make stops, to shoot, somewhere to roll back, again the same city battles. The turbine spins up with a delay, diesel faster. The T-80 needs a hydromechanical gearbox, then it will be possible to talk about whether such tanks are needed or not. In general, there was a T-80UD, the best tank of the Soviet Union, upgrade all the GTK’s 80s, put a diesel engine, bring the gearbox to mind so that the tanks didn’t go back 4 km / h)))) and you will be okay, once you don’t have enough money
    1. +7
      3 August 2018 10: 19
      Quote: Konatantin 1992
      The turbine spins up with a delay, diesel is faster
      You won’t feel in the tank. And in general, Kharkov tales should be read very carefully.
      Quote: Konatantin 1992
      T-80 needs a hydromechanical box
      Pay attention to the height of the casing of tracked vehicles of the Buk, Tor, Tunguska complexes, thanks to the hydromechanical transmission.
      1. +4
        3 August 2018 11: 25
        "The turbine spins with a delay, the diesel is faster-- you will not feel in the tank"
        Alas, you will feel how. The tank is motionless for 7 seconds if it has lost speed.
        1. +8
          3 August 2018 13: 47
          I do not understand what I mean. He studied for several years on the T-80 at OVTIU. You must probably be absolutely wooden to be motionless for 7 seconds. You put the manual sector on revs, took off the brake, the car flew, pressed the brake, the car got up!
          1. +1
            14 August 2018 11: 32
            And the fuel consumption flew the same as the jet. Well, if you constantly "play" with the brakes, then you will quickly be left without them. Will work. Although the brakes were invented by cowards))) Manual sector at idle and nothing more. On the march, an experienced mechanic fully captures the moments of spinning up and stopping the turbine and works with gas. At the tankodrome, they usually slaughter, which is why boxes are crushed and fuel is burned mercilessly. In battle, it is quite enough that you cannot take your foot off the gas. Yes, and in battle it is necessary to quiet down, and not whistle like a fighter on afterburner.
        2. +1
          3 August 2018 13: 52
          Quote: AleBors
          Alas, you will feel how. The tank is motionless for 7 seconds if it has lost speed.
          Revolutions of what, engine or free turbine?
          1. +4
            3 August 2018 17: 04
            Hard case! Diagnosis.
      2. +3
        3 August 2018 11: 28
        I mean, you won’t feel it? and how? I clicked on the gas and you wait, with a delay of 3-5 seconds, and in battle the gas brake constantly. The gas turbine engine is stable at high speeds (I repeat, I accelerated to 70-80, and you spar 200-300 km without stopping). Well, yes, if Russia makes its hydromechanical box of “NON-PROPERTY ANALOGS ON THE VERSION OF THE STAR CHANNEL,” then the tank will be 3 times higher. Look at the Leopards, Abrashak, Leclerc with Types 90 there are no problems in the box))). Well, it’s understandable, damned west !!! The turbine is not needed at the moment (all the same, nothing good will come of it), do normal diesel engines (otherwise we started making diesel engines in 2017, the V-92S2F, which are behind the German engines of the 70s). Well, this is my opinion from the sofa, by the way ... And there it is, re-equipped on the SU-57 (which the Indians do not even need x * p) and the Armats with the Boomerangs and Kurganians, which have no analogues in the world ....
        1. +1
          14 August 2018 12: 06
          Abrams has 6,8 cubic meters of MTO, Leopard-2 has 6,9, and T-80 has only 3,15. Yes, Abramsya's part of the MTO "eats up" the heat exchanger, but Leopard does not have it. Although both tanks also, in comparison with ours on the T-80 (the T-72 has one and almost 2,5 times less), and not so huge air cleaners, the volume of the MTO is twice as large. Twice, Karl !!! Here's the damned west with its compact GMF.
    2. +6
      3 August 2018 11: 50
      Quote: Konatantin 1992
      And why doesn’t anyone write that the gas turbine engine works well (with a large resource), at constant speeds, high, and in modern realities it’s impossible to fly forward on the “Channel Break” tank (it was created for this).

      Because you do not know that the speed of the T-80 is regulated not by engine speed (they are constant at about 26000 rpm), but by turning the blades of the impeller of a free turbine, which is connected to the transmission through a gearbox.
      1. +4
        3 August 2018 21: 18
        I’ll make a clarification: the blades turn in the SAR (adjustable nozzle unit). Engine turns are constant. And there’s no delay with the start of movement ...
      2. +2
        5 August 2018 14: 27
        Turning the blades of the PCA, more precisely!
        1. 0
          5 August 2018 15: 35
          flanker7, 113262a thanks for fixing, getting old fool
      3. +1
        14 August 2018 12: 11
        This is only according to the principle: the sneaker is on the floor, and the speed is regulated by the brakes. For such exploitation, the machine is usually given a rammer in the head. Well, without the lock on the wings being removed, with such a "speed control" you will not switch from high gear to low gear.
    3. +2
      3 August 2018 12: 12
      Quote: Konatantin 1992
      The T-80 needs a hydromechanical box,

      Quote: Konatantin 1992
      .. Well, yes, if Russia makes its hydromechanical box "NON-PROPERTY ANALOGUES ON THE VERSION OF THE STAR CHANNEL", ....

      Even when there was a Greek tender, T-80s with hydrostatic gearboxes were presented for the competition (instead of the steering wheel levers). And in the Western Group of Forces (in Germany) they were in service.
      Quote: Konatantin 1992
      .... In general, there was a T-80UD, the best tank of the Soviet Union,

      This is at the level of a fairy tale. He had never been considered so.
      1. -1
        3 August 2018 12: 37
        Quote: Bad_gr
        This is at the level of a fairy tale. He had never been considered so.

        Yes, Kharkov tales should be treated with caution.
      2. +6
        3 August 2018 16: 14
        And what does the tale have to do with it? T80U and T80UD are one and the same, differing only in MTU. The same T90 only in the early 2000s caught up with the T80U / UD by TTX. By the way, the modernization of the T80 started in the late 72s to the level of T80U and resulted in the T90 tank.
        So the T80U / T80UD is indeed the swan song of Soviet tank construction.
        1. +5
          3 August 2018 17: 31
          Quote: Saxon
          So the T80U / T80UD is indeed the swan song of Soviet tank construction.

          I would not put the T-80u and T-80ud in one row.
          T-80u - this is the products of St. Petersburg and Omichi, and T-80ud - is the Kharkov alteration of the St. Petersburg T-80 for its diesel engine. And this diesel engine immediately crosses out some of the advantages of the 80s.
          For example, the turbine retains its power in a very wide speed range, so a 4-speed (one back) gearbox is enough for her. But the Kharkov super-forced diesel retains its power only in a narrow speed range. The momentum has fallen - and there is no power.
          Secondly, the T-80 has no problems with starting the engine in the cold season.
          In general, the "best tank of the Soviet Union" is not said about the T-80 ud.
          1. +3
            3 August 2018 20: 22
            This diesel does not cross anything. From the guys of the tankers who studied at the T80UD school, I heard only positive reviews about the engines of the TD6 family. And it is so "bad" that Pakistan, purchasing from China MBT-2000, based on the operating experience of the T80UD, chose from several possible MTU versions - the option with TD6-2.
            Speaking about the fact that this diesel engine is "super boosted", start with the fact that it is completely different. For starters, this is a two-stroke diesel engine, with all the ensuing pros, maybe minuses. But the pros outweigh the cons, otherwise they didn’t bother ...
            1. +1
              3 August 2018 21: 10
              Quote: Saxon
              ... From the guys of the tankmen who studied at the T80UD school, only positive reviews ...

              Studied and exploited - two big differences.
              Of those who operated tanks with these engines, the vast majority of them, at least, do not praise.
              1. +2
                3 August 2018 21: 33
                Studied - this is a very important point. The engine was familiar to them, unlike those officers who saw him for the first time in the army. The main trouble of the T-64 was precisely that the engine was poorly (still put it mildly) in the troops. Hence the operational problems multiplied by the crude construction of the first series. I repeat - this engine is different, in design it does not even resemble a diesel of the B2 family.
                I don’t know how it is now, but the troops often “destroyed” equipment during combat training. There was a dilemma: either call the breeders, or do the repairs themselves. The first option, if it is established that a failure is not a marriage, is fraught with deductions from the monetary allowance of the unit commander. Amounts are not small. If you can restore the forces of the unit - consider it has passed. The diesel of the B2 family was easier to recover than a turnip. Even civilians could exchange or buy some spare parts for it (it was cheaper for their own pockets than to call repairmen from the factory). In the mid-80s, the army already had many officers who studied the engines of the 5TD and even 6TD family in the school, they had the skills of competent operation. The rest, rather myths ...
                1. 0
                  3 August 2018 21: 58
                  Quote: Saxon
                  in design, it does not even resemble a diesel of the B2 family.

                  This engine was created on the basis of the Jumo 205 aircraft engine. Jumo also had more interesting engines: with three or even four crankshafts. The truth is I do not know how they showed themselves in operation.
                  1. 0
                    3 August 2018 22: 02
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    ....... with three

                  2. +1
                    3 August 2018 22: 36
                    I will slightly disappoint you, saying that such engines were produced long before the instance presented. And a similar engine design was and is still common in water and railway transport (diesel locomotives)
                    1. 0
                      3 August 2018 23: 35
                      Quote: Saxon
                      I will slightly disappoint you, saying that such engines were produced long before the instance presented.

                      In my photo and sketch, the engines that stood on planes during the war. But once again I want to draw attention to the fact that they have installed not 2, but 3 or four crankshafts, which complicated the engines many times, but nevertheless these engines were not produced in single copies.
                    2. +1
                      5 August 2018 14: 25
                      And did the same Malyshev!
                2. The comment was deleted.
            2. 0
              3 August 2018 21: 49
              Quote: Saxon
              .... Pakistan, purchasing MBT-2000 from China, based on the operating experience of the T80UD, chose from several possible MTU designs - the option with TD6-2.

              laughing And can you find out what other options were?
              1. +1
                3 August 2018 22: 23
                I met reports of two more options: manufactured by the Chinese under the German license MTU-396 and Perkins.
                1. 0
                  3 August 2018 23: 36
                  Quote: Saxon
                  ... under the German license MTU-396 and Perkins.

                  It is prohibited to export without the permission of the Germans, but they did not give it.
                  1. +1
                    4 August 2018 00: 05
                    In foreign sources, this was presented differently. Believe me, this diesel engine was developed in the USSR, it was widely used and still serves on diesel locomotives and ships. Why spread the legend about how this engine was bad? The negative mainly refers to the beginning of its operation in the army. The reasons for the negative, I outlined above. And so, any engine operator will say that such a construct has more pros than cons.
                    1. 0
                      4 August 2018 01: 04
                      Quote: Saxon
                      And so, any engine operator will say that such a construct has more pros than cons.

                      I have no opinion on this engine, because in my practice I dealt only with varieties of V-2. But I read any information about tanks. And from the read on 5TD, the opinions from the operators are mostly negative.
                    2. 0
                      5 August 2018 14: 24
                      He is bad! Rutsami felt! The fact that the German was good in aviation, in the tank, death!
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. +2
              14 August 2018 12: 19
              You will talk with the tank guys who exploited it, and not just studied it. Yes, 6TD-1, less capricious than 5TDF, but that thing ...
        2. +4
          3 August 2018 19: 06
          And then the business began. Both the Leningrad and Omsk factories died.
          There is a UZB which issues its products as the best in the world.
          1. 0
            3 August 2018 21: 12
            Quote: gromoboj
            Both the Leningrad and Omsk factories died.
            Stayed uvz

            St. Petersburg Design Bureau and Omsk (as Chelyabinsk) plant are part of UVZ.
      3. 0
        6 August 2018 22: 44
        Scream Tales! It's like a gas tank for Tesla! For the turbine, then the GM transmission ... Moreover, in the GBV ...
    4. +7
      3 August 2018 14: 32
      Quote: Konatantin 1992
      The turbine spins up with a delay, diesel faster.

      I do not agree with you, the t80 tears the dynamics of t 64 like a hamster (specific power is everything), "short" ones do not differ in acceleration at least, except for the lack of a jerk. 80ka starts off like a premium sedan, which affects not only comfort, but also accuracy. Chassis 80ki and 72ki exceeds T62 and the adjustment is not correct. Running 64ki is weak a priori, its openwork tracks and small-diameter rollers were a tribute to the terms of reference to facilitate mass, but operation set other priorities. It is interesting that at the time of adoption, the army was more comfortable with t 64 (compared with t72), but the combat use and operation in the troops showed the absolute advantage of t72 and t80. Even more advanced SLAs did not save the situation.
      Perhaps the author of this article tried to convey that the modernization of the existing park would be more effective when applying the extreme parameters of UVZ developments, and I agree with that. The budget modernization 72ek in parameters t72b3 looks rather silly. As a tanker, I can bring an allegory - "crossing the river, without having sailed 10 meters to the other side, turn around and swim back." I don’t know what was written in the terms of reference, but in my opinion such an upgrade is more like a cut. Are there really no analysts in the Moscow region who could calculate the effectiveness of the funds invested in modernization? The Breakthrough Tower (1.2.3) is at least an order of magnitude superior in security and combat awareness to the crew. It is completely incomprehensible why the installation of KAZ on existing tanks is blocked (for financial reasons), because the cost of modernization will be insignificant in comparison with the increased protection of MBT. In general, the author’s message is understandable, but the topic is not disclosed)))
      1. 0
        6 August 2018 16: 17
        Quote: avdkrd
        Are there really no analysts in the Moscow region who could calculate the effectiveness of the funds invested in modernization?

        No, only accountants and economists are left, and that's what they analyze in their favor (premiums for cost savings).
    5. 0
      5 August 2018 14: 31
      She is needed there, like a cow saddle! There is no smoother and more accurate control of the tank among domestic ones. 72-bowler, and 64-chainsaw, audible for 5 km!
  7. +12
    3 August 2018 10: 05
    I studied on the T-80 in 1979. The laser range finder, a ballistic computer (computer), started in any frost and after 54 seconds, gas to polik! Controlling an anti-aircraft machine gun without getting out of the tank! This is not a tank, this is a song! At the tankodrome had to constantly slow down, developed a frantic speed. I am a cadet, calmly 60 km. accelerated at an o'clock and it was necessary to slow down, the instructor yelled to slow down. The T-72 compared to the T-80 is just a piece of iron on the tracks! There was a case! They invited a tank veteran to shooting exams, and cadets fired at targets in motion. Shot-hit, shot-hit, etc. The veteran "realized" that he was being bred and demanded to give him a lift to the targets. I looked at the targets, and they were in the holes from the discs, waved a hand and hinted that it would be nice to wet the throat on such an occasion! Which they did with great pleasure!
    1. +5
      3 August 2018 11: 46
      In Sovetsk, when, under the treacherous Gorbachev treaty, they removed T-80 from the regiment for re-melting and left T-72 ...

      ... the officers were crying.

      sad
      1. +4
        3 August 2018 13: 38
        The T-80 in the west was nicknamed the English Channel! I am sure that our traitors, at the request of enemies from the west, specially ditched this miracle!
      2. +1
        6 August 2018 16: 41
        Quote: Horse, lyudovѣd and soulѣlyub
        when, under the treacherous Gorbachev treaty, they removed from the regiment the T-80 for re-melting, and left the T-72 ...
        If we are talking about the CFE Treaty, then we had to re-equip on T-62 (or T-55), there was a limitation on the number of tanks with guns over 120 mm (it was necessary to sign this and is still alive), then we weren’t touched, and neighbors (34td) from T-72 to T-62 were transplanted.
    2. +1
      3 August 2018 16: 18
      In! One of the few is an adequate review ...
    3. -1
      5 August 2018 14: 21
      Only about ZPU bent! And yes!
      1. +1
        5 August 2018 16: 38
        Quote: 113262
        about ZPU bent!

        In terms of
        Quote: maiman61
        Controlling an anti-aircraft machine gun without getting out of the tank!

        Such is the truth, although there the level of management performance is far from ideal, but that is, that is.
        1. 0
          6 August 2018 22: 48
          At 80 ZPU, the same as 72, only looking forward due to the design of the flap of the commander's hatch. She opens back! The cliff looks stared, to the same place where t TKN. and the commander's moon.
  8. 0
    3 August 2018 11: 36
    Chetarzhu ...

    hi
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 23: 32
      Quote: Horse, lyudovѣd and soulѣlyub
      Chetarju

      Well, Duc ... you can laughing
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. 0
    3 August 2018 11: 46
    All T-64 and T-80 Russia are not needed from the word at all. Vertical stacking of BC and its consequences. Changing the MOH to the AZ along with the tower is too expensive. Capitalize and sell as is to everyone. The same T-80 in some sort of Mali will be the doomsday machine.
    T-72 B and better to bring to B3 or remodel in TBMP.
    1. +1
      3 August 2018 12: 20
      What is the "vertical laying of ammunition (ammunition?) And its consequences" ??? What are the implications and what is vertical stacking?
      1. +1
        3 August 2018 14: 14
        Quote: oskar
        What is the "vertical laying of ammunition (ammunition?) And its consequences" ??? What are the implications and what is vertical stacking?

        So more clearly?


        And now the consequences


        I answer the question why I didn’t put an end to the end of the sentence because
        1. +2
          3 August 2018 14: 59
          Thank you dear comrade! He opened my eyes to the gunner-operator of the tank!
          But where is she vertical stacking BC all the same ??? Vertical stacking BC is your ammunition costs vertically inside the tower, right? Do not smack nonsense, she’s funny ...
          The collapse of the tower of course occurs after the blasting of the BC, but it (ammunition) is not vertically located inside the tower.
          1. 0
            3 August 2018 16: 36
            I clumsyly express myself, I apologize. 28 (or 26?) Charges without shells stand around the commander and gunner. Almost at the level of shoulder straps. This layout clearly does not add vitality to the tank.
            On the T-90 and, like, the later T-72s, automated laying was additionally booked. Plus she's at the rink level. On the T-80 and T-64, this is not possible.
            If tankers still give birth to tankers, then you can close your eyes to this, referring to the high performance characteristics of the machine.
            This is my attitude to BMP-1 and 2, T-64, T-80 as a kamikaze or as a zerg.
            1. +3
              4 August 2018 00: 52
              It’s clear what the problem is.
              You have never even looked inside the tank, but already talk about their advantages and disadvantages.
              Yes, what "charges without shells are around the commander and gunner" ???? What kind of game ???
              Ammunition on the T-72 and parts of the T-80 is located in three places and everywhere !!! he is in a horizontal position! and no other way! Specifically, about the BK in an automatic combat stowage: it lies (i.e., in a horizontal position) in the rotating loading conveyor: the main BK used in battle, also the part to the right of the mech-water (in the middle tank rack) and the part in the turret space. But everywhere he is in a horizontal position !!!!!!!!
              Try to guess why?
              On different tank modifications, the specific placement may vary, they can remove part of the BC to the right of the mech-water, but the rest of the BC is located in the conveyor and inside the tower.
              I involuntarily switched to “YOU”, I beg your pardon, just the children playing WOT and other tanks imagined themselves to be “experts” and pretend to be sofa analysts here.
              The reasons why the BC is why the charge is NEVER put upright several:
              1. work of AZ for loading weapons (when loading with a gun)
              2. The work of the gunner-operator (when loading manually, there simply will not be enough space in the turret space in order to transfer the shot from a vertical position to the horizon for laying in the breech)
              3. and the main reason why the BC is located horizontally, I will leave it for later if you demiurg will continue to be smart and pretend to be an analyst who saw the tank only on TV and during a computer game.
              1. +1
                4 August 2018 04: 58
                Good. What did I see in my picture then? Personally, it seemed to me that these are charges, a ring on top of the shoulder strap. I am wrong?


                I will be clever. I’m a broad-based sofa analyst, I’m supposed to.
                1. +2
                  4 August 2018 12: 07
                  MZ (T64, T80)
                  1. +2
                    4 August 2018 12: 08
                    AZ (T72, T90)
                  2. 0
                    4 August 2018 14: 58
                    I understand it. I'm trying to understand what Oscar wants to tell me.
              2. +1
                6 August 2018 16: 56
                Quote: oskar
                Ammunition on the T-72 and parts of the T-80 is located in three places and everywhere !!! he is in a horizontal position! and no other way!
                And the back tank-rack as, then put on the ass fool
                1. 0
                  6 August 2018 23: 00
                  But there is no back! Current front, it is the only one, to the right of the driver
                  1. +1
                    6 August 2018 23: 30
                    Quote: 113262
                    But there is no back! Current front, it is the only one, to the right of the driver

                    Clear. To the marrow of a tanker negative
                    Too lazy to look for a scheme, it's time to sleep, catch the text:
                    Quote: About T-72
                    The fuel system includes four internal and five external fuel tanks. One of the inner tanks placed on the floor in the aft of the fighting compartmentwhile the other three are in the control compartment, on both sides of the driver

                    This is the "back" tank rack. Shells-charges in it are located vertically.
                    Learn materiel (s) Yes
                    1. +2
                      7 August 2018 21: 18
                      And what to teach, I will start it today with my eyes closed. To the left of the MV is just the instrument panel, behind it, back- 4 batteries, behind them is the curtain and .. MZ conveyor. And the main tank is just behind the battle tank, right behind the conveyor! TWO projectiles with a charge, fastened to the rammer guard, stand vertically in the tower of the AJ. There is also a place for AKS-74, and a Russian brawler, the combat deployment of the gun stop! 83-85, GSVG, 23th Tank Regiment, 259 Zeithein box, by the way!
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. +1
                    7 August 2018 09: 08
                    Quote: 113262
                    But there is no back! Current front, it is the only one, to the right of the driver
                    If we are talking about the T-64/80, yes.
                    But Oskar claims that in his tank all the charges are horizontally arranged, even in mechanized packing.
                    Quote: oskar
                    Yes, what "charges without shells are around the commander and gunner" ???? What kind of game ???
                    And this is a completely different tank (T-72/90), in which there is a rear tank rack.
                    1. +1
                      7 August 2018 12: 21
                      Quote: Bad
                      tank (T-72/90), in which there is a rear tank rack.

                    2. 0
                      7 August 2018 21: 23
                      Buck-rack-ONLY! The rest are just tanks! Three outside, the main one behind the tower inside, the rack. 2 more camping barrels on the horns behind the stern!
                      1. 0
                        7 August 2018 21: 26
                        Quote: 113262
                        Buck-Rack-ONLY

                        In the T-64, yes. In the T-72, which, in fact, was talking about - no.
                        Read carefully the above, and everything will immediately become clear.
                      2. 0
                        7 August 2018 23: 33
                        Quote: 113262
                        Buck-rack-ONLY!

                        T-72
        2. +4
          3 August 2018 16: 23
          This is more likely from the point of view of the sofa analyst so. There is a video where the Abrams tank isn’t helped by the widespread boom panels - the tower is demolished at a time, even the crew does not have time to evacuate.
          And the fact that the tank burned out, the ammunition detonated - this still does not mean anything. Most often there is time to leave the car if the crew remained intact.
          1. +3
            3 August 2018 16: 39
            Now Aaron or the Professor will come here, and simply show the statistics of tank crew losses in the Arab-Israeli wars during the defeat of vehicles. Kick panels and wet styling are not a panacea, but they give an additional chance for survival.
            1. +1
              3 August 2018 20: 57
              Yes, yes ... I read and hear a lot of tales now. Only during the Arab-Israeli wars could only T-72 participate, with export modifications.
    2. +2
      5 August 2018 14: 19
      I’ll tell you a secret: towers 72 and 64 flew off equally in Donbass. And the crew doesn’t care, after breaking through at least a BP, at least cumulatively, that from Rapira, from RPG, then from tank, with closed hatches, no one leaves anywhere! Because, at least, shell-shocked. This is when blood flows from all the openings of the body, the feeling is like flat on water from 10 meters, only from the back too! Minimum!
    3. +1
      5 August 2018 16: 42
      Quote: demiurg
      and its consequences.

      What kind? Do the towers fly off?
      So everyone flies, it turned out in Syria that the Leopards burn like matches ...
  11. +2
    3 August 2018 11: 54
    “Use” is a clever “exploitation” or, in this case, “combat use”. Here the main question is against whom. After answering this question, you can analyze the possible results. Since the adversary is always concrete, against one adversary “use” can be effective, and against the other adversary.
  12. +3
    3 August 2018 14: 42


    The tank will still serve .. and its use is far north .. that’s where it can prove itself in full measure and the main advantage is its engine
    1. +1
      3 August 2018 16: 41
      And where in the Far North of Russia are tank brigades needed?
      Again we return to the zoo in the tank troops.
    2. +4
      3 August 2018 21: 23
      In the photo 72, not 80.
      1. -1
        4 August 2018 03: 29
        In that photo, the T-80BVM tank is two posts higher. Learn materiel
        1. +2
          4 August 2018 11: 42
          Quote: Dzungar
          In that photo, the T-80BVM tank is two posts higher. Learn materiel

          T-80 with rollers from T-72?
          Here is the T-80BVM
          1. +2
            4 August 2018 11: 47
            Quote: Bad_gr
            T-80BWM

      2. +2
        5 August 2018 16: 52
        If anything, then more precisely the T-90M ...
    3. +1
      5 August 2018 14: 08
      At -30 do not care what engine! Frozen batteries make eighty a piece of iron. the whole polar winter to work from the APU? Or a warm box? Then why the hell, what kind of motor do you have. Besides launching with the help of the SG starter-generator, there are no other options! In the north of the eighty, only those who were sent could send to serve!
      1. 0
        5 August 2018 16: 21
        But is it real to get a tank diesel from a pusher in the snow?
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 22: 49
          Yes, if you drag 20 meters!
      2. +2
        5 August 2018 16: 27
        Quote: 113262
        Frozen batteries make eighty a piece of iron. the whole polar winter to work from the APU? Or a warm box? Then why the hell do you have a motor

        Storage of batteries separately from the tank You basically do not consider, or what?
        At one time, he was regularly engaged in this exercise - removal-setting of batteries for 64-ku. With some skill, it's okay Yes
        Quote: 113262
        Neither a pneumatic start, nor a pusher!

        Indeed, horror, horror ... only the diesel must be heated before starting. The boiler-heater there is one more ...
        And the turbine, as far as I can understand, does not need to be heated at all ... profit request
        Quote: prodi
        But is it real to get a tank diesel from a pusher in the snow?

        Not “with a pusher,” how are you going to push him?
        Two tow cables + a tank (already wound up) in front is quite real. Well, not on bare ice if laughing
        1. 0
          5 August 2018 16: 44
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          Not “with a pusher,” how are you going to push him?
          Two tow cables + a tank (already wound up) in front is quite real. Well, not on bare ice if

          and not frozen at -30.
          In fact, I just thought that it was necessary to put the turbine as an APU, with the ability to move the tank at a speed of 2-3 km / h, and let it send the frozen two-stroke engine even to redness
          1. +2
            5 August 2018 16: 53
            Quote: prodi
            and not frozen at -30

            I repeat: there is such, ahem, detail:
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            Boiler boiler

            So he threshes until the engine reaches the start temperature.
      3. 0
        14 September 2018 12: 55
        On the T-72 there is another drawback of pumping oil out of the bkp during the cold season, and if the pumping does not work, then you won’t start the tank in any way .. Plus, the heater should work. The T-80 doesn’t need this, but without living batteries all modern dead tanks and T-64 and T-80 and T-72 with T-90 ................ somehow like this
        1. 0
          14 September 2018 17: 02
          Well, not only without them, without many piece of iron the tank is dead.
          As for the same T-80U and others, they are equipped with auxiliary power plants))) True, they are of different types, but ...
    4. -1
      6 August 2018 23: 07
      An advantage over what? As some suggest, store the battery in a warm battery? 4 things. 6ST-190? And carry them in 2 walks in the cold? What is faster than a pre-heater with the ability to manually start? The same 12 cylinder V-54. (About Kharkov freaks is another!)
      1. +1
        6 August 2018 23: 19
        Quote: 113262
        As some suggest, store the battery in a warm battery?

        "Some" is for me, a hike?
        In the winter, we kept in a kapterka. In the company belay
        During exercises, if it is extremely cold (up to 38 - it was for sure) - in his tent for the night, it’s all warmer there.
        Quote: 113262
        What is faster than a pre-heater ...

        A heater in a good (from 30) frost can warm for half an hour ... and never warm it.
        Batteries are put much faster.
        Since all this is relevant only in cold weather (and the presence of snow, of course) - an elementary drag eliminates the "two walkers".
        Not everything is as scary as you draw here wink
        Quote: 113262
        ... with the ability to manually start?

        What is a "manual start of a tank engine"? I do not understand request
        Quote: 113262
        The same 12 cylinder B-54

        Well, you remembered ...
        Quote: 113262
        About Kharkov freaks is another

        I basically dealt with them. Not sugar with molasses, of course, but they still work laughing
        1. 0
          7 August 2018 21: 31
          And did you have to go out on AZIMUT 666 in the winter, when the location is 500 meters from the box, and also load onto the mobile warehouse of the BC? When one car starts up from the whole box, and then we stoke the rest with NOZZLES? This is the T-80B
          1. +1
            7 August 2018 21: 36
            In winter - it was necessary. The location from the park was much farther than 500 meters. Batteries (and not only) dragged on specially prepared drags, if you talk about it.
            Quote: 113262
            one car from the whole box starts up, and then with STROKES we stokem the rest?

            GSVG, say? Well, and a mess, however ...
            1. 0
              7 August 2018 21: 53
              Yes, in azimuth the regiment left for the deployment area in 20 minutes, ALL! Including combat training! Who lit a cigarette, whom on a tie! 20 MINUTES!!! Filmed battery undermining combat readiness = disbat! 64 crews with drags is only UB boxing, there are anti-aircraft motorcycle racers, second behi and shilki?
              1. 0
                7 August 2018 22: 13
                Quote: 113262
                20 MINUTES

                That is your specificity. I remember, 40 or something like that ... we did it.
                Quote: 113262
                Filmed battery undermining combat readiness = disbat

                And ice cream batteries - not an explosion? Although, by the way ... what kind of frost are there in Hepmania? There is only one laugh ...
                It's good to scream, in short ... I already understood everything about you Yes
                1. 0
                  7 August 2018 22: 58
                  Winter 84--20, winter 85 -.- 35.
        2. +1
          7 August 2018 22: 36
          Manual start-up is when, in addition to the hatch, a starter-handle- curve is inserted on the side, you turn and start the same heating boiler!
      2. 0
        15 August 2018 11: 11
        Quote: 113262
        4 things. 6ST-190?
        and not 12ST-70 (85)?
  13. +4
    3 August 2018 16: 01
    Apply 6TDF ?! Tankers will thank you so much! Not an engine, but a piece of operational problems.
    By the way, a colleague at work - a former mechanical driver on the T-80, says - the gas turbine engine is a great thing: gas to the floor, second gear, the turbine spun, the brake released - and for five seconds only the sky is visible in the triplex! So tears from the spot!
  14. +1
    3 August 2018 16: 08
    He said: the main thing is not to completely throw off the gas so that the turbine does not lose momentum, but to work more with the brake, it acts on the turbine guide apparatus there and therefore it turns out that it can slow down and accelerate.
    In general, as I understand it, the skill of driving a tank with a gas turbine engine is fundamentally different from a tank with a diesel engine - hence the polarity of opinions.
    1. 0
      3 August 2018 17: 42
      On the T-80, gas can be set with a handbrake (constant speed), and without touching the gas pedal, change the speed by shifting gears and brakes.
      (as the T-80 driver told me).
      1. 0
        5 August 2018 14: 02
        And burn the vehicle nafig! A complete analogy to driving at full throttle with the clutch released! Although, the principle is radically different!
    2. +2
      3 August 2018 21: 34
      PCA work in motion, this is a separate pedal. Well, it's like engine braking on a car, but much more efficient. The brake is only used for a final stop. In motion, he is hardly touched ....
      1. 0
        3 August 2018 22: 07
        Quote: flanker7
        The brake is only used for a final stop. In motion, he is hardly touched ....

        Thanks for the information.
      2. +1
        5 August 2018 14: 00
        PCA pedal at the clutch. adjustable nozzle unit. Regulates power transfer to a power turbine. From 0 to full! She does not duplicate the brake in any way.
  15. +1
    3 August 2018 16: 22
    Ustinov Dmitry Fedorovich, "for a minute", at that time was the Minister of Defense of the USSR. His interest in taking the tank into service is understandable and justified. Prior to this, Ustinov D.F. was Minister of Defense of the USSR.
  16. +4
    3 August 2018 16: 26
    So I understand the appearance of this article is inspired by media reports about the modernization of the T-80BV and putting it into operation on the territory of the Far East, Siberia and the Arctic.
    I’m not afraid to say that the author is more than naive in his reasoning, especially in the discussion about the formation of the T-80, and such a division of our MBT into groups ...
    And the words about the rejection of the 80s in the army, this is generally something, with something!
    Man, such an impression, wrote focusing on information in the tabloid press.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. The comment was deleted.
    1. +3
      3 August 2018 19: 51
      Quote: Volodya Nigmetov
      Abrams showed that in the desert the turbine is inferior to diesel too. What is the discussion about?

      And what does the Abrams have to do with it? T-80u in Asia feel quite normal.
      1. 0
        3 August 2018 21: 31
        purely technically, probably, you can not rely entirely on the filter unit, but have a supply of compressed oxygen for the turbine
  19. 0
    3 August 2018 21: 57
    According to their characteristics, the fleet of existing tanks of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series is approximately equal, they do not have fundamental differences that give a serious margin. All of them are equipped with the same 125-mm gun, sighting systems, approximately the same power of diesel or gas turbine power plants and have similar protection characteristics.
    About protection - are you serious?
    1. 0
      15 August 2018 11: 17
      Quote: Dvinsk
      About protection - are you serious?

      There, as I understand it, and about sighting systems seriously recourse
  20. 0
    4 August 2018 03: 13
    One more iksperd .....
  21. +9
    5 August 2018 13: 55
    The author of the opus is incredibly far from tanks and from OB 219 r even more so. There are no eighty flaws in the engine from the word at all! By the mid-1s, all 80 TAs had been rearmament on the Cobras, and Germany was all in the sand! Polygons - and Liberose, and Magdeburg and Zeithein - a combination of swamp and Sahara. So, even the regimental combat training, having erased the root of the spolra on the tracks, the engines did not change! I changed the engine from the GTD-1100 to the GTD 1250 only because a command arrived! Changed by the crew in the presence of Zampotech DAY! No reduction in power or wear of the blades was found! Vacuuming, vibration cleaning did their job. She had a jamb, this is the same ATGM that was supposed to gather before the heap in the trunk before the shot, but from 10-4 they were not going to! Despite the fact that loading into trays was memorized before automatism in training. And diagnostics with a special machine based on shishigi designed for firing PTURs is MANDATORY, and did not increase reliability! The GTN system itself worked properly (lamp!), PDPS-clever, a head taller than today's seventy-two (I won’t tell you about PINE, I didn’t see it!) And the fact that Omsktransmash and the Leningrad Design Bureau with Kirov sabotage got through. As there was a 72 tank for the poor, it remained! Who served, he will understand!
  22. 0
    7 August 2018 10: 00
    Quote: 113262
    On 80 ZPU - similar 72,

    Not funny
    1. +1
      7 August 2018 21: 34
      But the truth! There was never a remote ZPU at 219. At 64, this is their trick!
      1. +1
        7 August 2018 21: 59
        What sticks out on top of the ZPU in the photo in the title is its collimator sight, the same as on 72. So, materiel, it’s such a materiel ...
      2. +1
        14 August 2018 11: 46
        Quote: 113262
        There has never been a remote ZPU at 219.

        You have a type of obsession, to prove that not?
        Have you read?
        http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/tender.htm
        By the way, the T-80U is not quite the 219th product, there, in the specification, after number 219 many more beech trees, both lowercase and uppercase ... laughing
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. 0
    13 September 2018 14: 37
    Does the T-64 seem to have a 115 mm gun, or did you have time to rearm?
    1. 0
      13 September 2018 18: 29
      Quote: nnz226
      or in time

      Success, in the late 60s, T-64А he is so called ... Well, modifications.
  25. 0
    20 October 2018 19: 29
    Che, are they preparing to apply them again in parliament?