Are the T-80BVM ready to cover the SF facilities? Weaknesses of the updated English Channel tanks

As you know, motorized rifle units of the Coastal Naval Forces fleet Along with naval anti-aircraft missile regiments, Russia is an integral component of maintaining the combat stability of key border stationary naval facilities of Russia (including communications centers, integrated logistics bases, and airfields of permanent deployment of anti-submarine squadrons aviation and naval assault aviation regiments), as well as individual coastal missile brigades that have coastal air defense missile systems 3K60 "Bal" and K300P / S "Bastion-P / S".



The topic of technological renewal of coastal units has gained particular relevance in relation to the 200 separate motorized rifle arctic brigade of the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy, whose range of tasks includes covering strategically important military installations of the A2 / AD Murmansk zone in the area of ​​the north-western sections of the Russian-Norwegian and Russian-Russian Finnish borders. Indeed, the operational-strategic situation in this region has a steady tendency to aggravate. It is due to the following factors.

Firstly, by tightening the Arctic race between Russia, Norway, the USA, Denmark, Great Britain and Canada. Secondly, the completely unfounded claims of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the "non-adaptation of the Northern Sea Route to search and rescue operations and long-distance flights." Thirdly, the construction of a promising X-band centimeter X-band radar in the Norwegian fishing village of Vardø. The latter will not only allow the Norwegian Intelligence Service and the US Air Force command to carry out radar reconnaissance of aerospace over the Barents Sea and the Murmansk Region, but will also provide the Pentagon with an extremely advantageous carte blanche for “pumping up” the Finnmark fule (province) with additional military units intended supposedly for Globe-3 cover from motorized rifle regiments of the Coastal Forces of the Northern Fleet.

Updated T-80BVM: unsurpassed firepower with dubious armor protection


In the light of the situation described above, information about the upcoming implementation of the final stage of the re-equipment of the 60th separate guards tank battalion of the 200th Omsbr (a) Coastal Forces of the Northern Fleet with the deeply improved "reactive" MBT T-80BVM provides extremely interesting food for thought by expert circles and observers, knowledgeable about the parameters of power plants, MTOs, fire control systems, weapons and armor protection of modern main combat tanks.

On the one hand, the deeply modernized English Channel tanks, which are a modification of the early T-80B / BV, boast:

- increased power density and speed of 27,7 — 85 km / h on the highway increased to 90 hp / t achieved through the installation of improved gas turbine engines GTD-1250ТФ, also used as power plants for MBT family T-80У; the integration of these engines in the engine-transmission departments of the updated T-80BV will not require significant processing of the main components of mechanization;

- integration of the more or less modern gunner’s sight “Sosna-U” into the architecture of the SLA of the tank and the PDT-7151 television sight-understudy, which provide targeted fire at 3000-3500 distances both day and night;

- the presence of developed elongated anti-cumulative screens (SCE), rubber skirts which reliably cover the 80-mm side armor plates of the hull over their entire height, thereby protecting the vertically oriented ammunition from the defeat of 30-, 40-mm armor-piercing firing APKDS-T type APMDS-M projectiles 1 / 2 used by large-caliber automatic guns such as Bushmaster III and L-70 / B;

- the re-equipment of the ammunition kit of the 125-mm smoothbore gun 2A46M1 with more modern, long-range and "penetrative" tank guided missiles 9М119М "Invar" of the Reflex complex with a tandem X-NUM mm generations.

On the other hand, being a modification of the MBT T-80BV, the updated T-80BVM tanks have the same "flimsy" cast turret with combined armor and an upper frontal hull with equivalent 530 and 450 mm resistances, respectively. As a result, equipping the tank with 4С23 elements of the Relict dynamic protection, although it provides a more dense overlap of the front projection in the safe maneuvering angles ± 35 ° (without 50-70-mm gaps characteristic of Contact-5) and protection against tandem CS , brings the level of equivalent resistance from BOPS kinetic action only to 800 — 820 mm, which is absolutely insufficient to counter modern German and American BOPS M829A3 and DM63 during tank combat at a distance of 1500 — 2000 m. What can we say about the use of m adversary latest kinetic energy penetrator M829E4 from «Orbital ATK»!

This is where you begin to seriously think about reviving and bringing to mind the MBT T-80UM1 Bars project. In addition to equipping the Arena active defense complex, the more “dimensional” cast tower of the standard T-80U (in combination with the Relic) would make it possible to bring equivalent resistance from BOPs to 900-1100 mm in safe maneuvering angles +/- 15-20 degrees providing Bars with a number of advantages over Leopards-2A6 / 7 and M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

137 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. polk26l 10 November 2019 10: 26 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Woe from the mind !!!
    1. Alekseev 10 November 2019 16: 58 New
      • 27
      • 3
      +24
      Quote: polk26l
      Woe from the mind !!!

      Who has grief? The author has a little.
      Again, very witty passages about power density and speed on the highway.
      If the margin of specific power allows you to increase security by adding additional. armor while maintaining acceptable maneuverability, then writing about a maximum speed of 85-90 km per hour is simply incompetent. If you uncover the tank (downhill wink) until such a speed is likely, then it is impossible to control it. If the respected himself tried to control MBT at a speed of at least 45 km / h (this is the nominal speed of the T-64, T-72 in 6th gear), he would not write more enthusiastic pearls.
      How do rubber-tissue screens protect against BOPS? fool
      How does the author know which towers on the T-80BVM and what modifications B, BM, U the tank arrives at the plant for cap. repair and modernization?
      And also how did he know the secret data on the armor resistance of various parts of the hull and turret?
      To write this kind of opus, you probably need to not only read all kinds of print and electronic newspapers and magazines and be in the subject, specialist be.
      As for the essence of the matter, the T-80BVM is almost equal in its capabilities to the modern modernizations of the T-72 (T-90, T-72B3). Why exactly did they put him in a part of the Northern Fleet? Yes, because he are available, not a re-melting is a modern tank, the budget is not rubber. In addition, the gas turbine engine is relatively quick to start in cold weather on alarm, and this theater does not provide for too long marches, where the gluttony of a gas turbine engine has a very negative effect on the combat capabilities of tank units. Yes, and dust, another enemy of gas turbine engines on the Kola Peninsula is smaller than in Kara-Kum.
      1. 210ox 10 November 2019 17: 42 New
        • 11
        • 2
        +9
        Well, you have to understand. This is Damantsev. He’s all like that, head of the panic.
      2. carstorm 11 10 November 2019 18: 16 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        exactly. after 45, the car becomes like a bullet that flies stupidly right without the ability to twist. Which is paradoxical by the way on the asphalt on which they supposedly fly to the English Channel it is getting worse.
        1. AleBors 13 November 2019 15: 38 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Do not. In the T 80B variant at 70 km / h the tank is completely controllable. Personally checked.
  2. 210ox 10 November 2019 10: 34 New
    • 29
    • 1
    +28
    But in general, do we have combat tanks with KAZ? The defense itself is there, but not on the tanks.
    1. Sergei 777 10 November 2019 12: 12 New
      • 38
      • 2
      +36
      KAZ is only at the "Military Acceptance"
      1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 12: 18 New
        • 13
        • 4
        +9
        KAZ was still on the T-55AD. Not everything is so simple from that KAZ in terms of the concept itself.
        Especially now, when the tank is used in local conflicts as a means of supporting infantry and not for breaking through to the rear. And the infantry, she does not like directed beams of fragments.
        1. 210ox 10 November 2019 15: 56 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Well, I heard that about ten years ago. Israel puts up a “cloak”, the Amerzians do too. One of our infantry is shaving shards.
          1. Dude 10 November 2019 16: 14 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Quote: 210ox
            Well, I heard that about ten years ago. Israel puts up a “cloak”, the Amerzians do too. One of our infantry is shaving shards.

            It’s just that battle tactics need to be correctly developed, and coordination should be worked out, then you won’t need to be afraid of friendly frayers from “their” fragments, IMHO.
            1. 210ox 10 November 2019 17: 39 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Here I completely agree with you. On the tactics of the middle of the last century, you will not go far.
              1. Dude 10 November 2019 17: 55 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                yes And it’s not a sin to learn this, even from anyone - from Israel, from the USA, from anyone, everything that’s literate must be learned.
        2. Doliva63 10 November 2019 19: 05 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: 30hgsa
          KAZ was still on the T-55AD. Not everything is so simple from that KAZ in terms of the concept itself.
          Especially now, when the tank is used in local conflicts as a means of supporting infantry and not for breaking through to the rear. And the infantry, she does not like directed beams of fragments.

          About infantry support and breakthroughs to the rear - this is tin! laughing Maybe, of course, I didn’t understand or you put it crookedly. drinks
      2. lukewarm 11 November 2019 10: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But how nice to watch her on Sunday. Day off, positive. And it seems that not everything in the country is bad. Psychotherapy. wink
      3. Alexey LK 11 November 2019 21: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Do you see a gopher? No? But he is!
    2. carstorm 11 10 November 2019 18: 18 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      he will not be worn in combat units anyway. will be stored in a warehouse. otherwise they are tortured to change it after polygons. here the block DZ you tear off the whole brain sucked.
  3. Mountain shooter 10 November 2019 10: 37 New
    • 18
    • 2
    +16
    And what, the Norwegians and NATO have many tanks in the north? And will our 80s meet the latest leopards and abrams there? Is there a chance?
    1. Chaldon48 10 November 2019 11: 39 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      There is probably a chance to meet, but it is not clear why NATO needs this. Well, at most ten tanks will be sent there, and then what, at the first clash, they will burn like firewood in the stove, because there we will have more than one tank opposing them.
    2. Stalllker 10 November 2019 11: 41 New
      • 12
      • 2
      +10
      I agree, it would be interesting to watch the leopard at -50)))
      1. Dude 10 November 2019 16: 17 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: Stalllker
        I agree, it would be interesting to watch the leopard at -50)))

        Well, near Murmansk -50, to be honest, after all, it’s a rarity - tea, not Oymyakon, and the Gulf Stream is nearby smile
    3. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 10 November 2019 11: 47 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      And will our 80s meet the latest leopards and abrams there? Is there a chance?

      Vikings have 2A4 Leopards hailing from 80's. In Germany, the Leopard 2A4 tanks were successively upgraded in the nineties to the Leopard 2A5 level, in the 2000s to the Leopard 2A6 level and they are planned to be converted to the Leopard 2A7 level.
  4. mark1 10 November 2019 10: 39 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    "Ilyich’s eyebrows" could save the situation. And on the other hand, why in the T-80 fleet ?!
  5. knn54 10 November 2019 10: 44 New
    • 13
    • 4
    +9
    Tanks with gas turbine engines are irreplaceable in the Arctic.
    1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 11: 58 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      Therefore, all Arctic all-terrain vehicles, including the DT-30, on the basis of which magnolias and Arctic shells are made, is equipped with a B-46 diesel :))) From the fact that diesel in the north is bad, you only need a gas turbine engine :))
      1. Dude 10 November 2019 16: 21 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: 30hgsa
        Therefore, all Arctic all-terrain vehicles, including the DT-30, on the basis of which magnolias and Arctic shells are made, is equipped with a B-46 diesel :))) From the fact that diesel in the north is bad, you only need a gas turbine engine :))

        GTE in the Arctic, for a tank, of course, is preferable to 100 pounds. He just eats, unlike more diesel.
        1. Captain Pushkin 10 November 2019 18: 34 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Dude
          GTE in the Arctic, for a tank, of course, is preferable to 100 pounds. He just eats, unlike more diesel.

          And unlike the middle lane, delivering fuel to the Arctic is many times more difficult and expensive ...
          1. Dude 10 November 2019 20: 30 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            And this is a matter of service to the rear. The main thing is the implementation of the KB. If the aircraft are to be refueled with Armenian cognac, and not alcohol, then they will be refueled with cognac (s) Well, or for half a day we will warm the diesel engine in the cold, and remove power from them.
    2. Captain Pushkin 10 November 2019 18: 32 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      Tanks with gas turbine engines are irreplaceable in the Arctic.

      And why are tanks in the Arctic at all ??? Who to fight with?
  6. Lopatov 10 November 2019 10: 50 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    during a tank battle at a distance of 1500-2000 m.

    And why arrange such duel situations in the presence of the 3UBK20 mentioned earlier?
  7. Whisper 10 November 2019 11: 40 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    The author sulphates .... everything is fine with our tanks there.
    1. 113262a 10 November 2019 15: 07 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Yes, all over the T-10 tundra stick out! On the tower in the meslot! And eighties will be there! So the T-10 could be from the starter, and from the pneumatic start, and he had a manual drive with a PZD. And the t-80 only starts from the starter-generator .. The batteries sat down and in an hour in 40 degree frost they also burst!
      1. Bad thing 10 November 2019 19: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        There are no such frosts there, in the Far East and in Transbaikalia it is colder in winter than on the Kola Peninsula, therefore nothing threatens the batteries there (of course, if they are not followed, they can burst at - 15).
        1. 113262a 10 November 2019 19: 50 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          And if there is no frost, how are they better than the same t-90? I know what, well, certainly not the reliability of the launch! BMP-2 in the winter with us on alarm at the same time went to the spare area. Though in winter, even in summer from unheated box., True, in the summer they were boiling. And for some reason, eighty does not boil))))
          1. Bad thing 10 November 2019 22: 06 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            And my BMP-2 did not boil, neither in the BVI, nor in ZakVO, nor in the MBO. Service must be carried out in a timely manner and in full.
  8. svp67 10 November 2019 11: 44 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    This is where you begin to seriously think about reviving and bringing to mind the MBT T-80UM1 Bars project. In addition to equipping the Arena active defense complex, the more “dimensional” cast tower of the standard T-80U (in combination with the Relic) would make it possible to bring equivalent resistance from BOPs to 900-1100 mm in safe maneuvering angles +/- 15-20 degrees providing Bars with a number of advantages over Leopards-2A6 / 7 and M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams.
    But isn’t it easier on the T-80B chassis to completely install the T-90M Breakthrough tower? This would enable unification.
    1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 12: 01 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Ilyich’s eyebrows are much easier to weld. No need to bother with the shoulder straps of the tower (the first thing that comes to mind), for sure there are big problems with the layout of the turret, well, and the little things that non-specialists (I for example) simply do not suspect.
      1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 12: 22 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        This is the Arctic. There are no roads, there are not even directions, even in winter. Mass tank battles will never be there and the tank is needed there insofar as. Any weighting of the tank and increased pressure on the ground is a bad idea. In the Arctic, the tank needs to be lightened.
        1. svp67 10 November 2019 12: 50 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: 30hgsa
          In the Arctic, the tank needs to be lightened.

          Then you need to buy the "Octopus". But a tank is a tank and it has its own mission on the battlefield. And it’s not impossible to refuse armor on it
          1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 13: 34 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Octopus is very expensive.
            And there are as many tasks for tanks in the Arctic as in the mountains.
            Well, tanks are used in areas such as mobile firing points.

            Therefore, the same Chinese for mountainous areas sculpt light tanks based on MBT- with protection against RPGs and petro, scoring on protection from kinetics. So we would have to take the T-72B3, make it as easy as possible due to the passive armor of the frontal projection, weigh the DZ, finalize the MTO for the north.
            1. svp67 10 November 2019 13: 56 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: 30hgsa
              So we would have to take the T-72B3, make it as easy as possible due to the passive armor of the frontal projection, weigh the DZ, finalize the MTO for the north.

              And get "Octopus"
              1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 14: 01 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Nope. Will not work. Aluminum octopus with individual titanium elements, with hydropneumatic suspension. Due to what he costs mom do not worry. At the same time, passive protection on it is completely shit, but it is desirable for us that it normally holds a 30 mm.
                1. svp67 10 November 2019 14: 13 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: 30hgsa
                  Due to what he costs mom do not worry. At the same time, passive protection on it is completely shit, but it is desirable for us that it normally holds a 30 mm.

                  There was a variant of "Octopus" on the BM-3 BM, not BMD, what are the problems? In general, I would be glad for the appearance of such a machine based on the BMP-3M "Dragoon"
                  1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 14: 19 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Now the BMD-4M is unified with the BMP-3.
                    But, again,
                    1. The octopus is not necessary, but very complex and expensive, it needs to be changed to torsion bars.
                    2. The octopus and BMP-3 also have luminous armor. And the T-72 - up to 80 m steel on board. Therefore, BMP-3 and Octopus hold 30 mm only in the forehead and only from distances. That the tank is not suitable.

                    If you remove the frontal part from the T-72, replace it with 80 mm steel, if you lighten the tower from the point of view of the frontal package. But to "smear" everything densely DZ. The machine will be much better protected from manual anti-tank weapons, automatic BMP guns and other things that may appear in hard-to-reach areas than octopuses. At the same time, the price will be cheaper.

                    Well, the operational and just the mobility of such a machine along the tundra will be many times better than both the T-72 and the Sprut, with its narrow gusli.
                    1. svp67 10 November 2019 14: 25 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: 30hgsa
                      And the T-72 - up to 80 m steel on board.

                      Who told you this? No there is so much and a 30-mm BRS breaks through the side armor of the T-72, and the tower, in some places. The result of shelling a 30-mm brS
                      1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 14: 34 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        80 mm - the top of the front of the side.

                        30 mm pierce the armor of the T-72 side along the normal and then not all and even not from all distances. They don’t pierce a board within the limits of safe maneuvering angles, even subcaliber types of punch. And when installing DZ it is still sadder for 30 mm.

                        According to the photo - there are weakened zones. But this does not mean anything. The octopus has a weakened zone everywhere by the standards of T-72.
        2. alexey alexeyev_2 10 November 2019 14: 53 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Well, don’t tell me. We have no roads in the Arctic .. And in the same Norway, the roads are quite tolerable for our tanks .. Climate ... I must say that in Norway even strawberries are grown in open ground .. And there’s no permafrost ..
      2. svp67 10 November 2019 12: 22 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        No need to bother with the epaulettes of the tower

        Shoulder straps for our third generation tanks are the same
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Ilyich’s eyebrows are much easier to weld.

        No, not easier. The balancing will change, the “eyebrows” will close the exit through the fur-water hatch and this is already enough to refuse them
        1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 13: 06 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          But isn't the elongated tower in front of it blocking the same hatch? By the way, the hatch is located in the center, and its eyebrows will not overlap (I am aware of the position of the tower on the march). Yes, you just look at the t-90m photo, then why don’t you brow?
          Quote: svp67
          Shoulder straps for our third generation tanks are the same

          Where does the data come from? Different automatic machines (mechanisms) of loading, different SLAs, different cases, and uniforms are the same? Let me not believe it.
          1. svp67 10 November 2019 14: 08 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Yes, you just look at the t-90m photo, then why don’t you brow?

            No, there are no longer eyebrows, but rather "bags under the eyes", a tower of a different design, it was made so specially, which means it is already balanced
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Where does the data come from? Different automatic machines (mechanisms) of loading, different SLAs, different cases, and uniforms are the same? Let me not believe it.

            Various? Well, not everywhere. The main thing is that the gun and the shells are the same ...
            Here is a photo of the Ukrainian version of the modernization of the T-80UD tower on the T-72 chassis, they have one running diameter of 2162 mm.
            1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 14: 23 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Hehe, this is not a T-72, another MTO cover, the exhaust is not clear where it is directed, and a turret box seems to be set, i.e. obviously much more complicated modernization than eyebrows.
              Quote: svp67
              there are no longer eyebrows, but rather "bags under the eyes", a tower of a different design, it is made so specially, which means it is already balanced

              The imbalance is easy to treat, and it is much cheaper and easier than installing a tower from another tank.
              1. svp67 10 November 2019 14: 35 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Hehe, this is not a T-72, another MTO cover,

                T-72, but there is not only the Kharkov tower, but also the engine and fully MTO
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Imbalance is easy to treat,

                Yeah, extra "parasitic" weight in the feed. But is it necessary for the tank to carry extra weight?
                1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 14: 50 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: svp67
                  T-72, but there is not only the Kharkov tower, but also the engine and fully MTO

                  those. almost a different tank, why not stick another tower?
                  Quote: svp67
                  Yeah, extra "parasitic" weight in the feed. But is it necessary for the tank to carry extra weight?

                  A protected box with additional BC is not at all "parasitic weight", for example. )))
                  By the way, the T-90m tower is clearly much heavier than the 80ki tower, with both eyebrows and a BC drawer.
                  1. svp67 10 November 2019 15: 00 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    those. almost a different tank, why not stick another tower?

                    Not really, the case remained the same, but as well, then yes, the characteristics have changed ...
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    A protected box with additional BC is not at all "parasitic weight", for example. )))
                    By the way, the T-90m tower is clearly much heavier than the 80ki tower, with both eyebrows and a BC drawer.

                    We returned from the T-90M tower, it has all the qualities that you want to see and the weight is not critically greater, but armored resistance is !!!!!
                    1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 15: 05 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Yes, I do not want to see, unlike Damantsev, a tank suits me. )) But I insist that the edges and the box on an ALREADY existing tower is much cheaper than throwing this tower off, and stick a new one from another tank!
          2. 113262a 10 November 2019 19: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            We must believe! The same! Ukrainians are playing it. So it was conceived under the USSR. Only VKU (contact device) differs
            1. Vladimir_2U 11 November 2019 04: 10 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              While I was googling according to the instructions of my comrades))), I read that the towers 64ok and 80ok were more or less unified, nothing came across about 72. And then say, the MOH and AZ are very different.
      3. Eroma 10 November 2019 13: 46 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        It seems like all of our tanks have interchangeable towers! On the T72 you can tower from the T80, and on the T80 from the T90, the shoulder strap is the same everywhere. recourse
        Only muddy doubts torment me about the armor penetration of Abrams and Leo 2 guns, do they really break through the meter? I think nonsense no
        more important is protection from cumulus ptur and protection of the roof of the tank, also from cumulus ptur.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Cats 10 November 2019 13: 37 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      svp67 (Sergey)
      “Isn't it easier on the T-80B chassis to completely install the T-90M Breakthrough tower? That would make it possible to carry out unification.”

      I agree with you, and not only on the T-80 chassis, but also on the T-72 chassis - this is both unification, and increase in combat efficiency, modernized tanks, and a decrease in the cost of serial T-90s (due to increased production of towers).
    4. carstorm 11 10 November 2019 18: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Th really do not know the difference between 80 and 72-90?)))
    5. Mazuta 12 November 2019 08: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      For svp67 (Sergey)[i] [/ i]
      It will have to be shoveled absolutely everything, including the chassis.
      Like a house of cards, "just move" ...
      It’s easier to design a welded tower for the T-80, (probably already), but then many more things will be wanted at once.
      As a result, a “completely new car” hybrid with wild costs and low effect ... (it's like “cut the board by 75-80 mm” and “slightly” change the pitch of the VLD in the conversation about the t-34 and the hatch)
  9. Ironcity 10 November 2019 11: 55 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I didn’t understand anything: how does the rubber lining of anti-cumulative screens protect against 30-40 mm armor-piercing armor-piercing ones? request
    1. svp67 10 November 2019 15: 07 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Ironcity
      I didn’t understand anything: how does the rubber lining of anti-cumulative screens protect against 30-40 mm armor-piercing armor-piercing ones?

      Due to the "layer" of armor plates and packs with DZ on the model of T-72B3 arr. 2016
      1. Kaw
        Kaw 10 November 2019 19: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So these are armor plates, and not DZ?
        1. svp67 10 November 2019 20: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kaw
          So these are armor plates, and not DZ?

          Soft bales with DZ
  10. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 11: 56 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Naturally, Damantsev went too far with the injection.
  11. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 12: 08 New
    • 11
    • 3
    +8
    For centuries, we have been engaged in "supporting the domestic producer" to the detriment of the army and the country's economy. In the USSR there was the Leningrad, Kharkov, Chelyabinsk tank lobby - as a result, 3 MBTs, similar in capabilities, were pushed to support each of them. We have two attack helicopters of the same Ka-52 and Mi-28N capabilities, so as not to offend the design bureau. We wanted to make both in the USA a light and heavy fighter, but in the end we made and produced 1 heavy Su-27 and one lightweight twin-engine Mig. As a result, a lot of money has been thrown out for the development of parallel production, maintenance, supply, development, modernization, and training of crews for the same machines as possible.

    The same with the T-80BVM. The idea that the gas turbine engine is needed in the north ... Is it okay that the Arctic shells ride on the basis of the DT-30 with the B-46, and are they Arctic all-terrain vehicles with diesels? How so - in a civilian GTE did not take root at all, but is it absolutely necessary for a tank? And where will you be in the north, where is the supply of fuel limited to take fuel mixtures for gas turbine engines in the volumes that it eats? So the gas turbine engine for the north is a saying for suckers.

    If you wanted to make an “Arctic tank”, you had to lighten the T-72B3 and modify its remote control for working at low temperatures. And not to block the modernization of the T-80, in order to have another zoo in the troops, with the supply of which there will be huge problems. It was possible to reach a beautiful and economical scheme for using a single T-72B3 / T-90A (M) tank in the troops with a gradual replacement with the T-14. And we have a zoo T-72B, AB, B3 (11-13-16), T-90A, T-90AM (promising), T-80BV, T-80BVM
    1. nedgen 10 November 2019 13: 55 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Hi, I’ll try to answer some questions as far as possible. For the production of three MBTs you are right, about the same capabilities of the Ka-52 and Mi-28 you are a little wrong. The possibilities of using the Ka-52 in the mountains are completely superior to the capabilities of the Mi-28. Just a coaxial circuit works much better in the mountains. But just because of this, to produce TWO combat helicopters fool As for the fighters, I’m not sure. All the same, the Mig-29 has several advantages. It can take off even from the ground, which is impossible for Su-shki. Yes, and its operating costs are lower - and significantly. About the T-80. He has one VERY significant advantage in the Arctic. It is much more comfortable in winter than in the T-64 T-72 T-90. Just for heating the fighting compartment, air is taken after the turbine compressor. (not sure how. I read somewhere) Of course, this does not redeem a huge fuel consumption. And I also had to add 80s somewhere laughing Why dispose of serviceable tanks in a landfill?
      1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 14: 11 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        1. Habitability problems are easily resolved - if desired.

        2. In order to attach the 80s you need to "throw out the same number of T-72s that are stored in kilotons. For you have both T-72 and T-80 in storage and you have to choose what to take and what to leave to rot.

        3. At the same time, commissioning of the small T-80 series will be several times more expensive than construction and modification for the conditions of the north of the same amount of T-72B3, which are already being produced in a large series.
        1. nedgen 10 November 2019 15: 25 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: 30hgsa

          1. Habitability problems are easily resolved - if desired.

          Yes, it’s so, but for this you need to have a lot of money wink desires and also possibilities somewhere, for example, for example, an air conditioner will add and even add an additional generator for power (or install a new high-power one, which is sometimes not so simple for the T-72)

          Quote: 30hgsa

          2. In order to attach the 80s you need to "throw out the same number of T-72s that are stored in kilotons. For you have both T-72 and T-80 in storage and you have to choose what to take and what to leave to rot.


          Well not quite kiloton wink Tanks are always in short supply at the most uncomfortable moment laughing Well, this is a joke. Firstly, leaving tanks to rot according to your expression is the same as throwing money away. Moreover, if they are not used in parts, then at some point there will be (not so remote) no one at all (or almost no one) who can fully use the tanks. And these tanks are not even millions, but billions. So somewhere in some parts they need to be exploited. And it is better where those tanks will have at least some advantages over the T-72BV3-4

          Quote: 30hgsa

          3. At the same time, commissioning of the small T-80 series will be several times more expensive than construction and modification for the conditions of the north of the same amount of T-72B3, which are already being produced in a large series.

          Honestly, I have not heard about ANY serial T-72BV3-4 produced from scratch. As far as I know, they are made from those in service or in storage of the T-72B during overhaul. Between, however, I still did not understand WHY why on the tower left such huge gaps between DZ elements ??? If you look at the tower T-80BVM DZ is located much better. And I don’t know how small such a series is. hardly less than a couple of hundred cars. As I heard, the Marines of the Pacific Fleet also switch to them, but I'm not sure. In any case, as I understand it, NO ONE THINKS to produce the T-80BVM from scratch, but to use what has already been done, as they say, GOD WELL.
      2. 113262a 10 November 2019 20: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, the air in the tank is really warm in winter .. Yes, from the second stage of the turbine compressor ... But the armor has a temperature overboard. An exception is the MTO cap. She is warm, even hot. That's only when using a tray for blowing snow with an exhaust-crew quickly dies. For the exhaust has partially come inward. The use of HLF in this case saves for a short time.
    2. carstorm 11 10 November 2019 18: 25 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      if you rearm the northern parts by 80 then there will be no problems with the supply because other tanks are not there), which means that everything will come only for this machine and the reserve will be filled sooner or later.
    3. Doliva63 10 November 2019 19: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      "In the USSR there was the Leningrad, Kharkov, Chelyabinsk tank lobby - as a result, 3 MBTs, similar in capabilities, were pushed to support each of them."
      And which tank pushed through the Chelyabinsk tank lobby, interesting? belay
      1. 113262a 10 November 2019 20: 08 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        T-72, apparently, and pushed through! Just as he was TANKLE-POOR, he stayed.
        1. Doliva63 11 November 2019 18: 51 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: 113262
          T-72, apparently, and pushed through! Just as he was TANKLE-POOR, he stayed.

          And what, a lot of T-72 in Chelyabinsk since then released?
          1. Mazuta 12 November 2019 08: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            As for the lobby, we definitely noticed ...
          2. Mazuta 12 November 2019 08: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            By the way, ChTZ really produced the t-72, saw the assembly back in 84 +/- year ...
            nevertheless correctly noticed, plus.
            1. Doliva63 12 November 2019 18: 06 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Mazuta
              By the way, ChTZ really produced the t-72, saw the assembly back in 84 +/- year ...
              nevertheless correctly noticed, plus.

              Surprised, right. Why did they let him out at ChTZ? UVZ was quite up to the task. Well let it be drinks
            2. Alexga 17 November 2019 12: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              You are right, my division in ZabVO was re-equipped with 72 assemblies of ChTZ.
      2. nedgen 11 November 2019 02: 51 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Well, if I’m not mistaken, not Chelyabinsk but Nizhni Tagil lobi. And the thing is that the T-64 stupidly could not be produced in large series. There were not enough engines. So they put the B-46 on a 64-ku and she had a train after 200-300 km and fell. Therefore, they reworked using a hodovuha from the Tagil experimental tank. I don’t remember which one. And also the MH was, to put it mildly, raw, and even completely isolated the mechanical drive from the fighting compartment. Therefore, they developed a fully eaten. AZ for 22 shots, although the rate of fire decreased slightly, but AZ turned out to be fireproof (of course, not counting the charges laughing ) and did not need ANY adjustments for the entire time of operation, while the electro-hydraulic MZ needed such adjustments. In addition, a simplified LMS was installed on the T-72. Therefore, the T-72 was much easier and cheaper. With the T-80, the situation is almost the same. When the GTE was stuffed into the T-64, the train began to roll in after 20-30 km. So we made a new one laughing . But the time for a new SLA, etc. not enough. But they strengthened the armor. And also at the expense of cheaper, the closed ZPU was removed. And we have what we have hi After the USSR, it turned out that there was no money for the T-80, and the T-64 (the factory was the same abroad as for the T-80D and T-80UD) did the T-90 and T-72BV3-4, and 64-rock cut, T-80UD yuzali until the resource ran out and made parts for the T-80. hi
        1. 113262a 11 November 2019 20: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, not everyone cut it! Had a chance to work on UNCUT! By the way, it differs from CRIMEAN!
        2. Mazuta 12 November 2019 08: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Are you, by any chance, not from the Drive2.ru branch?
  12. The leader of the Redskins 10 November 2019 12: 13 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The bird is visible by flight, and Damantseva by the volume of numbers)
    1. dvina71 10 November 2019 12: 18 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      The bird is visible by flight, and Damantseva by the volume of numbers)

      And the size of the ruler ..
  13. mitrich 10 November 2019 12: 19 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    I recognize the "brother Vasya". Again, the pseudo-expert howls sucked out are clear from what and understandable for what. On the first lines, this opus, it is clear who cropped.
    Here at VO, he is already a super-mega expert.
  14. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 12: 31 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    I’ll just remind you that the main type of fuel for domestic tank GTEs is SOLARA! Some huge supply difficulties are idle inventions, such as "10 minutes of a tank’s life in battle."
    https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/367312-gazoturbinnyy-tank-t-80u-test-drayv-populyarnoy-mehaniki/#part2
    An example of a good article, in the role of an expert, Sergey Suvorov is a really seasoned tankman and special BTT, the author of several books about tanks, with personal examples.
    1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 12: 38 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Only here:
      1. GTE declared power is formed when working on special mixtures. When working on a solarium, it falls. And strives for diesel performance.
      2. The same gas turbine engine diesel engine eats one and a half times more, and in the Arctic it needs to be delivered.
      3. Supply is not only a solarium, it is also rollers, for example, for supplying both T-72 and T-80, two types of the same rollers must be manufactured and delivered. Like the rest.
      4. You need to train tankers in two different types of tanks.
      5. It is necessary to develop in order to maintain in the parts of 2 types of the tank the production of engines of 2 types, but in fact 2 types, because it will break, these are personnel, equipment.
      6. Why is it all if a diesel engine can work perfectly in the Arctic - the DT-30 is proven, which rides on a version of a tank diesel :)
      1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 12: 54 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        I agree on spare parts, although if all the tanks in the okrug are (conditionally) the same type, well, for example, there is no T-72, then there are no more difficulties. But about the power for some special mixes and one and a half fuel consumption, then proofs for inspection! ) Once again, the main type of fuel for tank gas turbine engines is a solarium, and not some special mixtures and power calculations and tests were based on solariums.
        As for fuel consumption, let me remind you that on the 72nd engine it was (was) max. 840 horses, and on 80s from 1100 to 1250 hp, this, as it were, implies a higher consumption, no?
        Second, the DT-30 is a natural barn, you can stick any means there to facilitate the launch, no one will notice, but stick these means under the armor of a serial tank! 80-ka on the run starts without any heaters and dances with blowtorches. So the example is incorrect.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 13: 44 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            You are fighting so hard, as if these tanks were going to be re-assembled in the country. Understand that they already have these tanks and these tanks have successfully built up, by the way a rare case when the mind entered and did not squander a valuable resource.
            1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 13: 49 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              1. In order for the tank to be in the army, it is necessary to organize the production of everything for them - components for the MTO and running gear at least, because not everything can be obtained by cannibalism. Tanks require permanent minor and periodic medium repairs.
              2. After that, it is necessary to organize the supply chain for this particular tank in the army.
              3. After that, it will be necessary to organize training for tankers on this tank.
              4. In addition, tanks cannot be sent to troops as they are — they will have to be modernized; for this, the OKR needs separate, separate equipment, separate maps.
              And all this is SMALL for these tanks will be few, which means that the cost will be wild. And all this is money, money, money, in the long run - a lot of money.
              Moreover, it makes senselessly spent money since there are a bunch of T-72Bs on BHVTs, for which there are already production, supply chains, modernization schemes, and training programs. And the commissioning of the T-80 and its supply as a result of the small series will cost you MUCH more expensive than the T-72.
              If it were now the 1950th year for the commissioning of this valuable resource, they would simply have been shot.
              1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 13: 59 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Well, well, it looks like you are suggesting that these tanks be rotted on storage bases pointlessly? That’s for sure they would lean against the wall.
                Quote: 30hgsa
                BHVT a bunch of T-72B, for which there is already production, supply chains, modernization schemes, training programs developed.

                What makes you think that all this, except for production, of course, is not for the T-80? Well, why? And production in this case is not particularly required, for obvious reasons.
                By the way, where are the proofs about the fuel mixes for the T-80?
                1. 30hgsa 10 November 2019 14: 07 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  1. And you propose to rot from the T-72B storage bases despite the fact that for the same money you can commission 1 T-80 or 3 T-72. That is, you propose to put into operation 100 T-80 and rot in storage 300 T-72 for this.
                  2. For the T-80, all this is mothballed or not available at all - they have not been produced for 30 years now.
                  3. A gas turbine engine can operate on a solarium, but its recommended fuel is not a solarium. Google.
                  1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 15: 17 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    No, no, no, you propose to rot hundreds, and possibly thousands of T-80s at bases, I am for the modernization of the T-72, but the 80s are by no means garbage, and in the Arctic they are objectively better than 72-oeks. And by the way, the modernization of the T-72 to an acceptable level of protection and the LMS is far from a penny, and no matter how expensive the T-80bv.
                    https://topwar.ru/103847-novyy-proekt-modernizacii-tankov-t-80bv.html
                  2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 10 November 2019 18: 48 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    And you propose to rot from the T-72Б storage bases, despite the fact that for the same money you can commission the 1 T-80 or 3 T-72. That is, you propose to commission the 100 T-80 and rot in storage 300 T-72 for this.

                    Modifications suitable for alterations in the T-72B3 are not so much left. The T-72B3 is already reworking the “late” T-72s, which correspond to the T-72B as much as possible. Also, due to the lack of storage, the T-72B began to upgrade the T-80BV to the T-80BVM version, which implies the maximum possible unification with the modernized T-72B3 tank in order to reduce costs and was created on the basis of the task set for the plant - to ensure that the army enters the army the maximum number of tanks with modern weapons and thermal imaging sights. Most likely, they will replace the existing T-80BV / U and UE-1, which in many ways have already exhausted their resources or are simply hopelessly outdated. In parallel with the contract for the modernization of the T-80BVM party in Omsk, there is a state order for the overhaul of the T-80BV in Strelna.
    2. svp67 10 November 2019 14: 16 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I’ll just remind you that the main type of fuel for domestic tank GTEs is SOLARA!

      No, for T-80, the main is T-1 brand kerosene
      1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 14: 39 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        No, for T-80, the main is T-1 brand kerosene

        I will not say that this is a lie, but at least a misconception:
        http://armedman.ru/tanki/1961-1990-bronetehnika/osnovnoy-boevoy-tank-t-80-rossiya.html
        http://oruzhie.info/tanki/60-t-80
        https://warbook.club/voennaya-tehnika/tanki/t-80/
        I’m not ready to lay out a scan, but Suvorov said that: “the main type of fuel is diesel fuel, a reserve type of kerosene, and a reserve type of a mixture of gasolines.”
        Nobody claims that ship gas-turbine engines work on kerosene, for example, but what is worse than tank ones?
        1. svp67 10 November 2019 14: 50 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Nobody claims that ship gas-turbine engines work on kerosene, for example, but what is worse than tank ones?

          They themselves said a loss of power and a decrease in engine life. And so, yes the gas turbine engine is multi-fuel. Yes, and I'm not quite right, I have already forgotten, but here is an extract from

          The main fuel is RT, it is kerosene, and everything else is reserve
          1. Vladimir_2U 10 November 2019 15: 01 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Serious argument, you will not throw off the link, for the general development?
            1. svp67 10 November 2019 15: 09 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Serious argument, you will not throw off the link, for the general development?

              Unfortunately, but this is a long downloaded document. Look in nete, they are. Enter a name for the document.
    3. Doliva63 10 November 2019 19: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I’ll just remind you that the main type of fuel for domestic tank GTEs is SOLARA! Some huge supply difficulties are idle inventions, such as "10 minutes of a tank’s life in battle."
      https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/367312-gazoturbinnyy-tank-t-80u-test-drayv-populyarnoy-mehaniki/#part2
      An example of a good article, in the role of an expert, Sergey Suvorov is a really seasoned tankman and special BTT, the author of several books about tanks, with personal examples.

      The main fuel for the T-80 solarium has never been. It’s clear, if necessary, and it’ll pass some time on cognac (kapets, a nightmare with its consumption laughing ) but, for example, in the GSVG - ONLY kerosene. Cognac must have been sorry laughing
      1. svp67 10 November 2019 20: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Doliva63
        Cognac must have been sorry

        Goons ...
    4. 113262a 10 November 2019 20: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The main type of fuel for the GTD-1100,1250-TS-1 and RT !. Allowed to work on mixtures and clean diesel fuel, and even gasoline.
  15. Ros 56 10 November 2019 12: 45 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    During the Second World War, the Germans in the north didn’t even get Murmansk, and they are no match for these Europeans, so let them sit at home and our tanks will be at home, and besides tanks we have something else. These eccentrics will not like it much.
  16. Andrey VOV 10 November 2019 13: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Oh, a long time ago there was no Mr. Damantsev .. I already missed him, everything was gone, the cast is removed, the client is leaving
  17. Operator 10 November 2019 14: 34 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    What is the relationship between the T-80 on the Kola Peninsula and the ground units of NATO in Norway to the Globus III SPRN radar (which is destroyed by the OTRK within a few minutes after the outbreak of the military conflict)? laughing
  18. 113262a 10 November 2019 15: 12 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Drive tanks of breakthrough into the tundra-wrecking! The car is imprisoned under the conditions of Europa and the desert (I almost didn’t get help to dad Assad at 83, then I made peace with Begin and got into the GSVG). Winter operation of this tank is still haemorrhoids! Even in frosts -30. And if below, yes, with snow, write it is gone!
    1. Doliva63 10 November 2019 19: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: 113262
      Drive tanks of breakthrough into the tundra-wrecking! The car is imprisoned under the conditions of Europa and the desert (I almost didn’t get help to dad Assad at 83, then I made peace with Begin and got into the GSVG). Winter operation of this tank is still haemorrhoids! Even in frosts -30. And if below, yes, with snow, write it is gone!

      Yeah, the snow for his filters is still a joy. But on the other hand, it’s necessary to use it somewhere, where no strains are shining so far, and tanks must be marked. Let the Arctic be laughing And in the GSVG he was comfortable - no frost, no snow, drive yourself along the tank route or along the autobahn, when ordered laughing
      1. 113262a 10 November 2019 21: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        There was snow and frost under 30- in 84-85 years and the sky with a sheepskin seemed! And the dumps of self-digging into the tube were wrapped, had to be removed and thrown. And the MZ hydraulics froze. And two crews were burned. When the trays from the snow-set set. And it’s how he frostbitten his face when Koenigsbruck pushed into the part of the pearl in the blizzard from the pligon. The same cap, which was laid in an instantly mechanical drive, was immediately covered with snow, and the electric heating did not help. So, the wind in mug-and rode-changed with a mechanical drive. And here is seven months winter ...
        1. Doliva63 11 November 2019 19: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: 113262
          There was snow and frost under 30- in 84-85 years and the sky with a sheepskin seemed! And the dumps of self-digging into the tube were wrapped, had to be removed and thrown. And the MZ hydraulics froze. And two crews were burned. When the trays from the snow-set set. And it’s how he frostbitten his face when Koenigsbruck pushed into the part of the pearl in the blizzard from the pligon. The same cap, which was laid in an instantly mechanical drive, was immediately covered with snow, and the electric heating did not help. So, the wind in mug-and rode-changed with a mechanical drive. And here is seven months winter ...

          Cool! For 9 years I have never seen such a thing there. But he looked for the Königsbruck training ground, and did not understand anything. Is it between Uterbozhsky (Jupiter) and Heidehofsky (Ridge), in the Forst Zinn region, where was the notorious OTP? Actually, it was their Uch.centr, or what?
          1. 113262a 11 November 2019 20: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Training center-KARAKAU (tank training at the GSVG). It is part of the Konigsbruck training ground. Base Division Totenkopf. In the neighborhood stood the DSB and our rockets. Under the tactical field and directors, they are lost to the firing lines. On them, the Germans covered the field-drove trucks. It is still dry there, dust Although the surface is a swamp!
            1. Doliva63 11 November 2019 21: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: 113262
              Training center-KARAKAU (tank training at the GSVG). It is part of the Konigsbruck training ground. Base Division Totenkopf. In the neighborhood stood the DSB and our rockets. Under the tactical field and directors, they are lost to the firing lines. On them, the Germans covered the field-drove trucks. It is still dry there, dust Although the surface is a swamp!

              I did not understand where it is. At least tie us to points. It was just that the Forst Zinn Center was at our side, but it didn’t suit us in size. We shot on Jupiter, and "crawled" more often in Heidehof - it was more. A Forst-Tsinnsky UTs was, like, for "cooks" laughing And yes, Forst-Tsinn herself, we also sometimes “gutted” - both the “Abwehr school” and the tank regiment.
              1. 113262a 12 November 2019 08: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                51 ° 19'22.2 "N 13 ° 52'40.6" E on Google And regularly on Liberos, Eisenach, and, well, Shield 84 on Magdeburg.
                1. Doliva63 12 November 2019 08: 52 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: 113262
                  51 ° 19'22.2 "N 13 ° 52'40.6" E on Google And regularly on Liberos, Eisenach, and, well, Shield 84 on Magdeburg.

                  Yeah, got it, thanks. I have never been there, although I often visited Liberozu, Shtakov, Leskov in those parts when I served in 20 Guards Army. And in the 8th GuoA - yes there, Eisenach, Ordruf, Dalmar, etc. Well, remember the Group! drinks
  19. dgonni 10 November 2019 15: 17 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    I have only one question for the author! And WHAT side the T-80BV type flimsy tower? Well, yes it’s cast, But obviously not with sand cores, but with corundum filler. Unlike the same 72m of the same years of release. and yet the T-90 of the first series in fact copied this tower in terms of protection, albeit not very successfully, but still copied it.
    P.S. And I'm very interested in the questioner! And where? In the north, there are currently NATO tanks in the guise that the author indicated, well, to the heap of their number !?
    In fact, an eighty tank capable of a quick maneuver regardless of stone and snow. Roughly speaking, the marine corps having a tank behind them is more stable than just with the usual artillery system. And the fact that starting a gas turbine engine is easier than a diesel engine at minus 40 is an indisputable fact under equal conditions!
    P.S. Given that there are contract servicemen, there will be no burning of tanks. Because the gas turbine engine had its own characteristics and personally observed the burning and descent of the tower at 2x 80b in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany.
    1. carstorm 11 10 November 2019 18: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      for this reason, relic and contact immediately. they even cover the roof. the tower there really is not the best)))
    2. Doliva63 10 November 2019 20: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: dgonni
      I have only one question for the author! And WHAT side the T-80BV type flimsy tower? Well, yes it’s cast, But obviously not with sand cores, but with corundum filler. Unlike the same 72m of the same years of release. and yet the T-90 of the first series in fact copied this tower in terms of protection, albeit not very successfully, but still copied it.
      P.S. And I'm very interested in the questioner! And where? In the north, there are currently NATO tanks in the guise that the author indicated, well, to the heap of their number !?
      In fact, an eighty tank capable of a quick maneuver regardless of stone and snow. Roughly speaking, the marine corps having a tank behind them is more stable than just with the usual artillery system. And the fact that starting a gas turbine engine is easier than a diesel engine at minus 40 is an indisputable fact under equal conditions!
      P.S. Given that there are contract servicemen, there will be no burning of tanks. Because the gas turbine engine had its own characteristics and personally observed the burning and descent of the tower at 2x 80b in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany.

      Oh damn, are we classmates? wassat
    3. 113262a 10 November 2019 20: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And what such features of a gas turbine engine led to combustion and escape? And how do rubber-metal joints of T-40 tracks work at -809, if already at -30 with a sloth the hump goes after parking? And at 72 with the fingers of the tracks it doesn’t exist in principle? or GTE! The fact that this machine perfectly digests heat and sand does not make it a tank of the North!
      1. dgonni 12 November 2019 10: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        When staged for a couple of days, the fuel distribution valve and the expansion tank valve were not blocked. Then, at startup, this moment was profiled and did not scroll the engine. At startup, since there is a lot of kerosene overs, the second stage of the compressor does not reach revolutions above 40-50% (from memory) for 3-7 seconds and the narrow-eyed goblin does not see this and stokers further. Voila cotton and the little tank merrily burns. They may also try to turn on the fuel spray at positive temperature and without having an EMNIP of 50 atmospheres in air cylinders!
    4. 113262a 11 November 2019 20: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Tower with homogeneous armor. Not to be confused with the frontal housing, there is composite, with fiberglass filler.
      1. dgonni 12 November 2019 11: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The tower in the frontal projection 80b had a corundum filler. Gomogenk had towers of the early T-72!
  20. KJIETyc 10 November 2019 15: 41 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    that 18 years ago the “leopard” was in the amount of three “rings”, that now it’s stability .... What other “Almatys” - in 40 years?
    1. Doliva63 10 November 2019 20: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: KJIETyc
      that 18 years ago the “leopard” was in the amount of three “rings”, that now it’s stability .... What other “Almatys” - in 40 years?

      After 40 years, nobody will need them.
  21. Kaw
    Kaw 10 November 2019 17: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    the presence of developed elongated anti-cumulative screens (PCE), the rubber skirts of which reliably cover the 80-mm side armor plates of the hull over their entire height, thereby protecting the vertically oriented ammunition from 30-, 40-mm armor-piercing firing APCDS-T Mk 1 shells / 2 used by large-caliber automatic guns of the Bushmaster III and L-70 / B type;

    T-80BVM enter the troops in this configuration. They do not have any side screens and on the back of the tower there are no gratings and DZ.
    1. carstorm 11 10 November 2019 18: 31 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      they just don’t dress and that’s it. there is a soft DZ and the lattices at the very first polygon in the trash will endure. it's stupid to wear them. half of the cars will arrive without boards. tears off meat once.
      1. Kaw
        Kaw 10 November 2019 19: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, it’s clear that this is not so. There are already small screens from the T-72BA and the grilles, respectively, it makes no sense to set. At the rear of the tower, a standard set of equipment is also left, from the T-80B, there is no place under the remote sensing.
        1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 10 November 2019 19: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Kaw
          There are already small screens from the T-72BA and the grilles, respectively, it makes no sense to put.

          You have a photo of the T-80BVM Marine Corps. The marine corps has size limitations taking into account the size of the landing ships, so such sides with rubber-fabric screens. T-80BVM in the army come with other on-board screens.
        2. carstorm 11 11 November 2019 00: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It is easy to replace. no particular difficulty.
  22. yasvet 10 November 2019 18: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    repeatedly)) noted that since tanks are in the Pechenga brigade, at the present stage (1990-present), the T-80 was returned to the VERNULI battalion after a short operation of the T-72 (2013-2018), at least this fact speaks of the demand for the 80s in the conditions of the forest-tundra.

    "Are the T-80BVM ready to cover the objects of the Northern Fleet?"
    The team has been there since 1945, probably every boulder has been shot)).
  23. Kaw
    Kaw 10 November 2019 19: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the way, that’s what they do with these screens in combat units.
    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 10 November 2019 20: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      On the exercise screens can be removed
      1. carstorm 11 11 November 2019 00: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        with the intensity that they are now going through it is easier not to wear them at all)))
  24. rusboris 10 November 2019 23: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Until recently, Russian models of technology traditionally provided the comfort of a person operating a machine according to the residual principle. Widely known are the studies of scientists, including the military, dedicated to this issue. For example: an increase in the reaction time of a tired person by 0,1 seconds leads to an increase in the probability of an accident in drivers by 10%. With a daily march with closed hatches, the ability to detect targets for weapons or dangerous traffic situations decreases from 40% to 60%.
    Man is an integrator and regulator of the tactical and technical characteristics of the machine. The human link remains the weakest component of the man-machine system.
    The air temperature inside the machine, which is not thermostated by insulation, becomes painful for the crew even when the outside air temperature is lower than -20 C. Moreover, the humidity in the car can reach 75% or 95%.
    These conditions lead to an increase in the level of colds, diseases of the skin and eyes, to frostbite of the hands and feet, which affects the combat effectiveness of weapons.
    At low temperatures, temperature control of the living space of the conveyor housing is of great importance. A long stay of people in a seated immobilized position with a sharp layer-by-layer temperature difference in the inhabited compartment leads to a loss of combat readiness. In the existing samples of Russian armored vehicles at outside temperatures below -20 C, snow does not melt on the floor of the vehicle, and at the level of the head of a seated person the air temperature reaches +20 C. In such conditions, there can be no talk of long-term performance of the crew. With a long march or halt, personnel should be able to remove warm clothes and shoes to dry from sweat and snow.
    The airy atmosphere of the living compartment must be dry and warm from floor to ceiling. Along with special units for filtering, heating and drying air, thermal insulation of the housing is of great importance. With its incorrect calculation, any drainage systems will not cope with their task.
    The dew point of the heat-insulating material on the housing at a temperature difference of -60 C to +20 C should not be inside the habitable space of the conveyor. The thickness of the insulation should not significantly affect the useful internal volume of the conveyor. Thermal insulation should not emit toxic gases and maintain combustion. The service life of thermal insulation should not be less than 10 years. Thermal insulation weight should be minimal.
    Such a set of properties individually does not possess any of the known materials. Therefore, special design solutions using multilayer composites are offered.
    1. Parvis rasulov 11 November 2019 00: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      What are you talking about inconvenience? I do not agree with your thesis that the T-72 and T-80 tanks are very convenient in terms of crew accommodation, and you are wrong when you write that the USSR did not pay attention to the crew’s work, because it’s really one of the reasons for the creation of a charging machine or mechanism for charging and reducing the crew by three people was precisely the concern for the crew’s performance ...
      The thesis that Soviet tanks are not comfortable is a stereotype imposed back in the forties ..,
      The question is if the T72 tank is so uncomfortable then why did Finland and many other countries buy it?
      By the way, South Korea and Pakistan respond very well and are very pleased that they have T-80 tanks in service
      1. rusboris 11 November 2019 15: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Tank car for the crew may not be convenient in principle. But the crew loses combat effectiveness from an uncomfortable sitting and sleeping posture more than from a light concussion. The operator was tired, missed the target from the first and second shots. There is no one to tire more in the tank. Food on what to heat-cook? Humidity or heat is tiring, just the head is cracking. Yes, it stinks of all sorts of different. Veteran told. The gunner got into the toilet at night, a fragment of a stray mine in the head and kapets. We are talking about this. If there are good thoughts in this direction, we will listen with pleasure. The Arctic and human living conditions are generally poorly compatible. Only the ax will help the crew to share bread and butter. To understand this, it is useful to shut up at night in a rustic toilet in the winter. Better with a comrade, so that you have no where to straighten your legs. In the morning, the design idea will work in the right direction very intensively. Unless of course you wake up.
  25. Parvis rasulov 10 November 2019 23: 54 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    some nonsense about the flaws that the T-80 tank supposedly has, the author go and get killed ...
    The T80 tank will have one drawback is when an untrained tanker is put into it and when it is not used correctly ...
    The rest of the shortcomings voiced by the author are all modern tanks, I mean in reserve ...
    By the way, when they taught tankers in the USSR, they went through a tank march of 500 kilometers and on such marches, T-80 tanks showed their superiority over T-72 and T-64
  26. Parvis rasulov 11 November 2019 00: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s interesting, but the author is aware of the power reserve of the German tank Leopard 2, the French Leclerc and the American M1 Abrams. And finally, does the author have an idea what is the average speed of a tank in rough terrain and what prohibitive recommendations should tank mechanics observe?
    Does the author have an idea that if the speed of the tank is over 42 kilometers per hour, then firing from an ATGM on this tank is not possible, except for launching an ATGM in front of the tank
  27. Vladimir_2U 11 November 2019 03: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Damn, it's really interesting to argue, you learn a lot of new things! And not only about yourself, ahaha!
    1. Parvis rasulov 11 November 2019 17: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I’ve specifically looked at the prices of kerosene and diesel fuel in Russia, so the TS 1 aviation kerosene is being refueled by T-80 tanks, it costs 36 rubles and diesel fuel 43 rubles.
      Now look at the prices of kerosene and diesel in the USSR
      And draw conclusions that it was beneficial diesel engine or gas turbine engine.
      In the Soviet army, which served as a training course, in Berdichev there was a tank training division that trained the commander of tanks and driver mechanics for the T-64 and T80 tanks. He was trained as a commander of a motorized rifle division on BMP-2 and BRM 1 K.
      And I saw the T80 and T-64 tanks very often since they always went to the training ground with a tank battalion
  28. shoroh 11 November 2019 21: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Rave. Modernization of the tanks of the 80s will never make them competitive with modern models of enemy weapons. There is armata, compare it.
  29. Yar_Vyatkin 13 November 2019 04: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Damantsev would have to learn the material part, for starters. His 9М119М1 breaks 700mm for DZ, damn it. About "Lead-1 / 2" he forgot. About the fact that 820mm of reduced BPS strength is not enough from M829A3 - did he invent it himself, or who suggested? In general, another crying material.

    And by the way, who is the enemy in the north? 32 Norwegian Leopard-2A4? What these piles of scrap metal can do, the Ishilovites showed a good pair with stupid Turks .... Yes, and the Kurds. Explode perfectly.