"Don't Underestimate Russia": Prospects for Reviving T-80 Tank Production

After the start of the Second World War and the resulting increase in demand from the army for armored vehicles, information was officially announced about the planned revival of production tanks T-80. The Polish press tried to assess the prospects of this.

As stated in the publication Defence24, the gas turbine engines installed on the T-80 have a number of advantages. Despite their compact size and light weight, they provide high power and torque. The gas turbine is easy to start, especially at low temperatures, has a simpler design than a piston engine, the exhaust gases are almost invisible to the naked eye, and since the turbine generates high-frequency sounds, it is almost inaudible over long distances.

Gas turbine engines have a service life similar to piston engines, especially after the introduction in Russia and the USA [the M1 Abrams is also equipped with a gas turbine engine] of automatic air filter cleaning systems using compressed air pulses.

The main disadvantage of the GTE is significantly higher fuel consumption at idle. When driving, when the power plant operates at optimal speed, the combustion processes in the turbine and diesel engine are similar. This problem can be solved using digital control of the power plant.

GTD-1250

As the author explains, more modern gas turbines for tanks, developed in the 1980s and 1990s, had significantly lower fuel consumption, for example, the VTDT-1000FM, but were never adopted for equipment.

Since at least 2024, production of the GTD-1250 for the T-80 has been resumed in Russia. At the same time, work was announced to revive the production of the tanks themselves. Uralvagonzavod explained that other equipment will also be produced on its basis, including BREM, TOS-2, and tracked vehicles for Arctic brigades.

What will the new version of the T-80 tank look like? It's hard to say yet, but we can make assumptions

- the author writes.

According to him, there is no talk of returning to the original cast turrets, as this is impractical. It would be possible to use the T-90M turret system, welded from rolled armor plates. But, in his opinion, a more successful idea is a unified combat module for the T-80 and T-90M, previously proposed within the framework of the "Burlak».

In terms of the hull, the modifications will be minimal: it is already welded and consists of rolled armor plates. The only serious change may be the installation of a special armor module in the frontal part, possibly unified with the T-90M. The same Relikt DZ blocks may be installed on the hull and turret.

New planetary gearboxes may be installed, providing higher reverse speeds. The development of such a solution is already underway as part of the T-90M modernization program codenamed "Ryvok-2".

Will T-80 tank production resume? There is a chance, time will tell. Despite all the economic difficulties and sanctions, Russia produces new T-90M tanks, continues to improve the T-90M under the Ryvok-2 project and is working on the Armata heavy platform, including the T-14 MBT. Do not underestimate a potential enemy

- the conclusion is made in the Polish press.

Comments

[Aken]

What about the T-90? Didn't live up to its promise?

[Sky strike fighter]

Justified, but we need more tanks, and more can only be produced by producing a new modification of the T-80BVM at another plant. With the GTD-1500 engine, this will be just right.

[Aken]

I don't know if more tanks are really needed in the current conditions?
But even if that is the case, then there is no point in producing the one that is worse.

[KCA]

A tank is needed not only in attack, but also in defense, a tank with a self-digging device will bury itself and five more and quickly, in an open field this is crap, drones will graze, and a windbreak forest belt in the field will help, especially when the trees are green, in the North Caucasus even if in winter without foliage you can see a tank in a hole, you still have to hit it, acacia grows densely and is very hard, I almost sawed off my finger, the two-handed weapon slipped

[Aken]

What is needed here is not tanks, but ISU-152.

[KCA]

MSTA-S, Giatsint, Malka, that's it, without thinking, Nona, Sprut, Giatsint and Malka send projectiles with TNW at 50+ km, and these are not cruise missiles or ballistic missiles, it is much more difficult to shoot down, if the "pidartners" can do it at all

[Aken]

This is a different story.

[Furious bambr]

Why not 100+?))) 2S19 maximum 29 km with a projectile with a gas generator, 2S7 47 km with an active-reactive projectile. "Gyatsint-B" - 33 km, "Gyatsint-S" - the same. "Nona" and "Sprut" are not for long range. So, don't think about it anymore.

[Scalpel]

They are comparable. Like the La-5 and the Yak-3. Each has its pros and cons.

[Aken]

The Yaks were needed for one task - to drive away the Messerschmitts from the stormtroopers. They are not capable of anything else.

[bayard]

Quote from Aken

if so, then there is no point in producing the one that is worse.

Which one is worse?
The T-80BVM is better or at the same level as the T-90M in almost everything, but it has better acceleration and a higher reverse speed, which is very useful and advantageous for maneuvering in combat. It has a better suspension, a more powerful engine, higher speed, and its chassis is much better suited for self-propelled guns, air defense systems, and other special equipment.
But the T-80 is by definition more expensive and more complex. So the T-80 is a tank of maximum capabilities. And the T-90M is an "economy class" MBT. Therefore, both are needed. One as a mass-produced tank, the other as the best. And both factories need to be loaded to their full capacity.
And if the new T-90 is equipped with a diesel engine from the "Armata", it will be a beast. And economical. The T-80UD was also conceived, and even went into production. But not for long - the USSR was gone.

Quote from Aken

Is it really necessary to have more tanks in the current conditions?

Our Ground Forces have grown in numbers by about 7 times, what do you think? Especially since the war with NATO is just around the corner. And the Soviet tank fleet is not eternal, and they form the basis of our tank forces. In theory, the tank fleet should be brought up to 20 units. But half should be kept in reserve. So that there would be something to replenish and with the help of which new units can be deployed.

[Aken]

Your reasoning is logical, but one-sided and within the framework of an outdated paradigm.
Before setting up and expanding production, it is necessary to transfer current tactical discoveries and refinements to the rank of military doctrine. Without this, if you rush, you can flush down the toilet not only money. You can lose time. And this is worse. Much worse.

[bayard]

Quote from Aken

Before setting up and expanding production, it is necessary to translate current tactical discoveries and innovations into military doctrine.

Do you want the Ministry of Defense to lay out all its plans for you during the war? The decision to deploy new units, formations, and air regiments was made back in early autumn 2022. Implementation is underway. New buildings have been built in Kurgan, Cherepovets, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, and Votkinsk, and new production and assembly lines have been deployed. Production of all types of armored vehicles, missiles, ammunition, explosives, and heavy weapons has increased not by a factor of ten, but by an order of magnitude at least. And while new production is ramping up and launching, Soviet armored vehicles are being used for modernization or simply refurbishment.
There have been long-standing discussions about the T-80. Before the start of the Second World War, there were approximately 5500 T-80s in storage, including at least 3000 T-80BVs, which are the first to be upgraded to the BVM standard. A decision was made to return all T-80BVs to service and upgrade them to the BVM standard, as well as all T-72Bs, with upgrades to the T-72B3M standard. The remaining tanks of these types are also being returned to service, but in varying degrees of modernization. A decision was also made to modernize 800 T-62Ms, equipping them with ERA, side skirts, a sighting system, and a thermal imager from the T-80U/T90A (this task has already been completed, and the order has likely been expanded by at least another 300-400 tanks).
But the old tanks in storage are gradually running out, and new units need ever more armored vehicles. And the war continues. So, the number of modernized tanks per year will gradually decline, while the number of new ones built will increase. The task is simple: the Russian Armed Forces must have at least 20 tanks in service, reserve, and storage, ready to be deployed and engaged in combat at short notice. This "simple" task is why tank production is being ramped up. Humanity has another 000 years of war ahead of it, and the factories will definitely not be left idle. And we, the Army, need to be kept as fit as possible—these are the times.
Also, all our military air defense systems: Tor, Pantsir (will also be military, already exists), Buk-M2 and Buk-M3, S-300V4, Msta-M/MS self-propelled guns, the new Koalitsiya-SV (for which the T-90 chassis turned out to be "the wrong coat"), Malka and many other special vehicles - all on the T-80 chassis, because it is the best serial chassis. And "maximum capability tanks" for a war with NATO, especially as breakthrough tanks and tanks for developing an offensive in the enemy's rear, are also preferable. And for the Far North. And for the Far East. And for export too, because it is the best. Especially when a new modification appears in two versions - with a GTU-1500 and with a diesel engine from the Armata.

The "Armata" is justified only as a "tank with new capabilities"—a seven-wheel chassis, a 152mm gun. It's designed to significantly reinforce armored units in offensive and assault operations. And in the form D.A. Medayedev ordered it for (and in which we all know it), it's not even needed for free. But we'll sell a license to India and build a factory for them.

Quote from Aken

If you rush, you can flush not only money down the drain, but also waste time.

If you just let it slide, you can flush it all down the drain, even saving money. We need a LOT of tanks, no matter what our doctrine. Just like other armored vehicles. Of those, we desperately need heavy armored personnel carriers and heavy infantry fighting vehicles to equip assault units (heavy assault brigades within tank and motorized rifle divisions). And all of that is also on a tank chassis and with tank-like protection. Not to mention how many new Army Air Defense SAM systems, self-propelled guns, and other specialized equipment we need.
So Omsktransmash will have a LOT of work to do, and for a long time. That's why production capacity is expanding.

[Aken]

Thanks for the insight. But that's not quite what I'm getting at.

Do you want the Ministry of Defense to lay out all its plans for you during the war?

?
It's getting worse. I doubt the validity and thoughtfulness of their plans. The Ministry of Defense has ruined its reputation for generations to come. Hence my rhetorical questions.

[bayard]

Well, I'm no less skeptical, but if we're specifically talking about resuming T-80 production in Omsk, I've written everything above. I'm for it.
And what the Chief of the General Staff will fight there or the Supreme Command will plan cunningly - we will see, we will look, we will evaluate.

[Aken]

I have read that the T-80s proved useful in the North at Arctic temperatures.
If it was necessary to reorganize production, then those 5500 no longer exist.
The question remains: where will the new ones go? To the Arctic or to Ukraine?

[bayard]

Quote from Aken

If it was necessary to reorganize production, then those 5500 no longer exist.

Why would that be? Only about half of the storage bases have been modernized so far. But firstly, there were 80 T-3500BVs in storage (before the modernization began), and they are the ones selected first, and of those, the most "quality" (in the best condition) are the ones most often used. Therefore, over time, restoring and modernizing each tank will require more time and expense. Then we'll be left with tanks of the first modifications, which may not even be modernized to such an extent. They might simply be restored without extensive modernization. And by then, the entire cooperation will be ready to restart production of new ones. And their production will be launched in parallel, gradually accelerating and reaching a "plateau" (planned indicators).
So, there are already quite a lot of T-80s in the troops, and tank losses have been minimal over the last year and a half. And the tanks are being used to equip NEW tank and motorized rifle divisions, corps, and armies deployed in districts bordering NATO.

Quote from Aken

To the Arctic or to Ukraine?

Ukraine already has plenty of tanks in the Northern Military District, so why send them there? Primarily to new units and to re-equip existing ones or those being expanded to full strength.
Well, as for the Arctic... even in the central zone we get such cold winters that any Arctic region would be envious. In winter, tanks with gas turbines start and warm up much faster. There are fewer rubbing parts and moving joints. Besides, the T-80BVM, as a "maximum-capability tank," is far preferable for the European theater of operations, where the enemy can put up serious resistance and will, by definition, have more advanced equipment. The best tanks will go to the most critical sectors. But in the southern/southwestern direction, even the modernized T-72B3Ms will trample everyone with a cheerful squeal. And even the T-62M, T-72A/AM, and T-64BV (there were many of them in service with the DPR brigades).
Moreover, initially (and this was before the start of the Second World War), the decision was made to modernize all 5500 T-80BVs out of 3500 T-80s. The rest weren't even considered initially. They only have a 1000 hp engine (different), and other differences. They won't be left to rot, of course; all usable ones will undergo refurbishment and modernization; the only question is the extent of this for earlier models. But the repair factories will definitely have at least another five years of work to do.

[Aken]

You've described a huge number of plans. Five years ago, I would have been genuinely pleased. Now, I'm not sure we need so many tanks.
I suspect that the Ministry of Defense is still preparing for the last war.

[bayard]

Whatever the war, tanks are a primary, essential, and expendable asset. Therefore, there must be plenty of tanks, by definition, so that there are not too few.
Or do you have a specific vision of the role of tanks in modern warfare? What does it mean when they say, "Why do we need so many tanks?"
How much is so much?
Before the Second World War, the Russian Armed Forces had approximately 3500 tanks in service. The Russian Ground Forces currently number 280 troops (conscripts, contract soldiers, and officers), and now their numbers have increased approximately sevenfold. So, HOW MANY tanks do we need for such an army?
The USSR had between 50 and 000 tanks in service and in storage. The Russian Federation had 60. I believe that we should still have at least 000 tanks in service (in service and in storage).
Are you against it?
What are you planning to fight NATO with? What about all the other very likely and imminent conflicts they're preparing for us? And what are we going to arm our allies with? We'll just say, "Brut said tanks aren't needed, so fight them." No way – we will have and must have SUFFICIENT tanks. And a bunch more in reserve. And production capacity. Right now, only a fully equipped tank has a chance of surviving a battle. Or are you suggesting we continue fighting in infantry groups of 2-3?
No way - this is a perversion of trench warfare. This won't happen in other conflicts.

[Aken]

I really like your reasoning. Honestly. We are, in fact, on the same team.
But there are nuances.
In '18, I predicted, and in '20, I saw, that the future war would be a drone war. But I didn't see the Mu-Mu blockhead. I never served in the active army. So I think differently. Due to my profession and corporate training, I know well what professional deformation is.
1 T-90M Breakthrough tank costs on average 300-330 million per unit.
One Lancet is an order of magnitude cheaper.
Three Lancets per tank without loss of crew.
It's an order of magnitude cheaper.
I won't go into detail now, but I hope you get the idea.
And yes, 2-3 people have a better chance of surviving than a tank in full armor.

[bayard]

Quote from Aken

In '18, I predicted, and in '20, I saw, that the future war would be a drone war. But I didn't see the Mu-Mu blockhead.

Well, in reality, we don't know for sure what he saw and what he didn't foresee, because he's the Chief of the General Staff, while Shoigu and the beautiful Shevtsova were in charge of the Defense Ministry budget. And they have completely different plans for the Defense Ministry budget money – very specific ones. And Shoigu's other deputies need to eat too, they're not penniless slobs. Timur Ivanov alone cost the budget a fortune, and look how many of them there are. Remember how, during the "partial mobilization," there weren't even uniforms or boots for the soldiers? And you're talking about drones here. The war had been going on for 6-9-12 months, and the people were still collecting money for their army for socks, underwear, uniforms, sights, and drones.
Why
Because Shoyga remained minister, with deputies like Shevtsova, Ivanov, and other cheerful characters with a healthy appetite. That's the vertical power structure in just one ministry. What do they care about drones? And who knows what the General Staff and Chief of the General Staff might have planned. If the order isn't paid for, there are still no drones, communications, uniforms, UAZ vans, ammunition, and much more. Only after Utkin's March for Justice on Moscow and Prigozhin's on Rostov... something began to change, creaking and very reluctantly.
For such is the vertical.
But war dictates its own laws.

Quote from Aken

1 T-90M Breakthrough tank costs on average 300-330 million per unit.
One Lancet is an order of magnitude cheaper.

Well, not by one order of magnitude, but several. And FPV is even cheaper. But our tanks are also becoming an increasingly difficult target. And there's simply no one to replace them on the battlefield. And although drones are increasingly replacing traditional artillery with strike missions, for example, by accurately dropping anti-tank mines on dugouts, buildings, and fortifications, if a tank, even under a barbecue shed, breaks through a "dead zone," takes out a fortification with its gun, catches two or three dozen drones, and is finally immobilized, but allows its infantry to break through and clear another fortified defensive point... that's the Price of Victory.
If only we had heavy armored personnel carriers (TAPs) so our assault infantry could follow a tank through the dead zone, which is now several kilometers long, under a similar barbecue shed and its armor. It used to be (in Donbas) that you could hear the curses of the enemy trenches from our trenches, but now, if they can get there on foot, with all their gear and a full complement of additional ammunition, hiding in forested areas and dodging drones, they'll still need the strength for battle. And where will they get it after such a forced march? That's why they switched to dirt bikes. But that's like charging machine guns with cavalry. And I know how people burn out in such battles, especially when there are no normal rotations. If they are also deprived of tank support... it will just be some kind of joke. And not an Army.

Quote from Aken

And yes, 2-3 people have a better chance of surviving than a tank in full armor.

And you should look at the enemy's chronicles from their UAVs. And from ours too. How much infantry can one drone mow down at once with airdrops?
And for two?
And for twenty-two?
But when a tank collected 25-30+ drones under a barbecue shed, completed the task, lost its speed, the crew lay under the tank until dark, and in the dark made their way through the forest to their own - such cases did occur.
Besides, such a war with NATO will definitely not happen. Nuclear strikes, massive ones, and EMPs knock out not just all electronics, but all electrical systems completely. And then, under reliable armor, forced marches through contaminated areas to reach the target points and mop up the enemy's remaining positions. So, it is through contaminated zones, under reliable armor and tanks, that the tracks must be torn. With RELIABLE and extremely serviceable equipment. With sufficient and even excessive quantities of it.
But we fight in a completely different way in used cars.
Perhaps this is to ensure we have time to deploy heavy IRBMs, commission all the new SSBNs, SSNs, SSGNs, and nuclear-powered missile cruisers before the practically inevitable war with NATO, and to crank out as many combat aircraft as possible, including their antiaircraft guns and pilots, and train them for combat use up to the "extra" class. Therefore, WE ARE NOT HURRYING to war. But with NATO, everything will be not just quick, but VERY FAST. And then there will be tank marches through radioactive ruins and wastelands – to Gibraltar and Lisbon.
And for this TANKS are boring.
"After all, the battlefield is held by tanks.
The cars will go by with their tracks rattling
On the rubble of former railway stations
They will pass any line of fire."

[Aken]

Thanks for the interesting excursion.
I think the same way myself in many ways. There are just some more nuances.
Shoigu was obliged to provide for the army, which he did not do.
But the General Staff itself determines what exactly needs to be provided. Gerasimov and his colleagues, with their half-century-outdated theory of vertical envelopment, not only failed to foresee the nature of the future war but, as their enemies slander, actively resisted the introduction of drones and KABs.
You've convincingly described current battlefield tactics. But the Sarai-Mangal will only be able to replace the assault trios when it's mass-produced, not homemade. And here, as we wrote yesterday, they're planning to revive the T-80 as it was created half a century ago.
I don't believe in nuclear war. I don't believe our oligarchs would dare. Everyone expects only one thing from them: betrayal.

[bayard]

Our oligarchs are already late with their betrayal.
You apparently don't fully understand who these 90s oligarchs really are and who owns their capital and assets. They are merely avatars, trustees or "responsible owners by proxy." One of them, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, explained and admitted this well in an interview with Dud immediately after Jacob Rothschild's death. Listen to his interview; it's worth it.
So right now, all these oligarchs are on a triple hook, the main one being the frozen state reserves of over 300 billion. Because in response, all Western capital assets in Russia have been frozen. If you make a move, you'll lose more than just everything. They were all under control, and had no real leverage for a coup, and many understood that without Russia and its firm rule, their masters would have no use for them. The experience of their fellow fugitives has long since demonstrated this. They live on their assigned pensions, while their masters confiscated all their assets and deposits, and say, "Thank goodness you're alive." Because you could end up hanging by a scarf, like Berezovsky.

Quote from Aken

The General Staff itself determines what exactly needs to be provided. Gerasimov and his colleagues, with their half-century-outdated theory of vertical envelopment, not only failed to foresee the nature of the future war, but, as their enemies slander, actively resisted the introduction of drones and KABs.

Well, he wasn't the only one guilty of this. Those Mavics had only just appeared at the time and were generally considered toys. Many simply bought them for their children, like they used to buy radio-controlled cars and tanks. And look how it turned out. And no one is absolving the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff of this.
But beyond such exotic items (as it seemed at the time), the Ministry of Defense failed to provide the Army with even the most basic items. And that's entirely the fault of Shoige, his woman, and his ambition.

Quote from Aken

Yesterday we wrote that they are planning to revive the T-80 in the form it was created half a century ago.

It definitely won't be in its current form (with a cast teardrop-shaped turret). The turret will be welded and, I think, more sophisticated than the T-90M's. And it's not clear when it will appear. Right now, they're only reviving engine production for the previous 1250 hp version. We'll talk about it once the entire production cycle is restored, once the promised 1500 hp engine is built, once the concept is ready and put through all the testing.
In the meantime, I foresee expanded production of chassis for the military version of the Pantsir-MS, the new Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled howitzer, the S-300V4, the Buk-M3, and other specialized equipment at the new facilities in Omsk. We truly need to urgently increase the size and quality of the Army Air Defense, as the Ground Forces have grown exponentially in numbers and require reliable cover. And a new tank... it first needs to be CREATED. And that will take years. In the meantime, the plant is modernizing equipment being removed from storage.
Well, with the release of KABs and other high-tech gadgets, the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense have already recovered. And as far as I remember, the reasons for the previous refusals were made up solely to avoid wasting money. Shoige was better off restoring forts for his daughter in the Gulf of Finland and throwing art projects there with Ministry of Defense money, building a "main temple of the army" on a vacant lot, and holding biathlons and parades on a grand scale. The "kids" were simply living their lives to the fullest, because they had gained power.

Things are much different now - the awareness of the mortal threat has finally dawned, so even if it's against our nature, under the reins of the Instinct of Self-Preservation, decisions and actions are turning us onto the right track. And the rest - we'll see.

[Aken]

I understand about oligarchs. It's a collective term now. They just haven't come up with a separate word for "oligarch on the hook." It's the old-fashioned way. Whether he's alone or has a dozen shady characters hiding behind him isn't that important to us. What matters is the decisions this collective mind makes. And I don't believe this collective mind is ready for nuclear war. The SVO has shown how we can prepare. Besides, we agree to do the same.
In general, we wait and see.
You write that the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff are improving. Perhaps. But the results are barely noticeable so far. And I'm not talking about territory here. I'm talking about the enemy's manpower. They have enough of it, no matter what and no matter the victory reports.
And everything is right about air defense. Right now, it's more important than the revival of the T-80, which may or may not happen, and it's unclear when. In today's conditions, the ISU-152 looks much more advantageous.
The oligarchs' coup didn't work out. The emphasis has shifted to the people. With petty attacks, the comrades are clearly stirring up the people, increasing anxiety and irritability, hoping to bring them out into the streets. And they're doing this quite openly.

[bayard]

Quote from Aken

I don't believe this mind is ready for nuclear war.

The balance of power within the clan-corporate groups in power shifted somewhat after the March for Justice. However, personnel decisions were delayed, as were some of the decisions regarding these personnel. However, a shift in this balance has finally occurred. And the results are already visible.
Regarding the determination to wage a nuclear war... when you have a choice: war or the loss of EVERYTHING, and this applies first and foremost to those making the decision... the choice has been made. But there is no need to rush the timing of such a denouement; time is on our side – our strength and capabilities are growing, while those of our opponents are declining. That is why we have chosen this... at first glance, unpleasant mode of conducting air defense, where the bet is placed on a war of attrition. Because the enemy is being exhausted, while our military capabilities are constantly growing. And especially in high-precision medium-range weapons, in NSNF (a new SSBN arrives every year), in submarines, in combat aviation and all types of its ASP, the Army has grown numerically (its land component) approximately sevenfold compared to its previous strength. Such things cannot be done overnight. And time for all this before the main battle is won and earned on the fields of air defense.
So there's no point in rushing the government into making such a decision. If they make it, you might not like it. But it will be impossible to change. Today, Russia has the strongest ground force and the most powerful and modern strategic nuclear forces. No one disputes this fact anymore. And the balance is still shifting in our favor. So why rush things? Only this year did our first Su-57 assembly line reach its planned production capacity of 30 aircraft per year. The second line is producing its first products for export this year (6 units for Algeria), and the third is already completing its assembly. The Su-35S/SM, Su-30SM2, and Su-34M will also have 30 units each this year. We still need to rearm our Aerospace Forces and expand their numbers. Our forces are growing, and our enemy only realized this year that they are losing, and not only in Ukraine. And the recently concluded Zapad-2025 exercises clearly demonstrated this. And the Europeans also saw what was practiced during the exercises. Units from our allies and (this was definitely unexpected for everyone) a unit from India took part in the exercises themselves. Who could have believed such a thing? And no one would have believed it even six months ago. The world is changing. And not in the West's favor.
And we are the North.
And the Global South is already with us, not with them.
And how can one not remember A.S. Pushkin:
"He brings the stars down from the sky
He whistles - the moon trembles
But against the Time of Law
His science is not strong."

[Aken]

I don't know if a choice has been made and what it was.
As you can imagine, there's no point in hastening the apocalypse or provoking it. From my balcony, I can see a strategic target.
It's enough for me to know that even if something happens, my finger won't miss the button. If everyone had this, it might not come to cheating with loaves of bread.
And the result is uncertainty.
In short, there is no confidence in the stability of the party and government, as there was, for example, in 1942.
And I wouldn't be so optimistic about the opponents' decline. They're also preparing and have more resources.

[bayard]

Now the US is distancing itself from confrontation with us, and NATO without the US is a piece of cake for our strategic nuclear forces. But all together – yes, that's strength. Only some terrible disaster is looming over the entire West. A financial one. Even Modi not only jumped into our camp with China, but even sent his soldiers and officers to participate in our strategic exercises. Which surprised not only everyone. And we just finished joint naval exercises with China and another joint patrol of warships. And planes were flying together again. So, words and deeds at our towers are becoming more and more firm. And we also have new IRBMs of at least two types being deployed. This adds confidence and firmness to the authorities.
And many people like it.

[Tommy Calhoun]

Quote from Aken

So Omsktransmash will have a LOT of work to do, and for a long time. That's why production capacity is expanding.

I have to say something about Omsktransmash. I recently interviewed them, and they're not expanding. The plant is in disrepair. Most of the machines are from the 70s and 80s, some are even older. They have very few modern CNC machines. No, with that kind of "capacity," they won't produce anything.

[bayard]

Allow me to not believe you.
I saw new hulls on satellite images; the latest CNC machines are generally not needed to repair tanks - they are overhauled, the most important components are replaced, new equipment is integrated, the DZ is installed, painting is done - and they are ready to go.
Tank construction from scratch is only just beginning, as is the design for a new modification, with a new turret, etc. For now, the vast majority of tanks entering service are modernized. The percentage of new tanks is approximately 20%. But this percentage will gradually increase as long-term storage depots are depleted. Essentially, a tank after such a modernization is a new tank in an old hull. And age is no barrier to service for an armored hull.

Quote from Tommy Calhoun

the machines are mostly from the 70s and 80s,

This is a wonderful age for machines with unused service life. In those years, our machine tool industry was at its peak. And such machines are quite sufficient for repairs and modernization.

Quote from Tommy Calhoun

There are very few modern CNC machines.

There will be a lot when production of new products begins. For now, it's mostly a "large repair plant."
Moreover, production of domestic CNC machine tools has resumed and is growing in Russia; demand is huge. And the Belarusians are helping with the machines – their factories are fully booked, with contracts for a couple of years to come.

[Tommy Calhoun]

Quote: bayard

This is a wonderful age for machines with unused service life. In those years, our machine tool industry was at its peak. And such machines are quite sufficient for repairs and modernization.

But no one wants to work there. I've been out of work for almost a year now, because I don't see the point in going to work at the scrap yard, considering that the wages at this plant are very high, and accordingly, the tools, equipment, and fixtures are crucial.

Quote: bayard

There will be a lot when production of new products begins. For now, it's mostly a "large repair plant."

Apparently when all the normal specialists leave Omsk.

Quote: bayard

Moreover, production of domestic CNC machine tools has resumed and is growing in Russia; demand is huge. And the Belarusians are helping with the machines – their factories are fully booked, with contracts for a couple of years to come.

I haven't seen them anywhere, no matter how many factories I've visited, and they're all Soviet-era universal machines. Modern CNC machines, if they exist at all, are 10-15+ years old. I've seen new Chinese ones, the cheapest ones. That's basically it. In Omsk, mechanical engineering and aircraft manufacturing are at their lowest ebb.
Apart from the former aggregate plant, there are no normal enterprises; the equipment there is constantly being updated; almost all the universal Soviet machines there have been scrapped; there are only CNC machines there.

[bayard]

Well, my dear, you are spoiled. I studied turning back in high school, during my professional training course – two years and a month of internship at a factory to get the qualification. It was in the early 80s. Now, give me some time to look around, get used to it, my hands remember. Once, in the early 90s, I needed a part turned for my foreign car to adapt a non-standard shock absorber. We arrived with the repairmen at the workshop (where the machines were), near a well-known factory, but the turner had gone somewhere and was nowhere to be found. We waited and waited, but I needed it fast, we had a long way to go. I looked – everything I needed for the job was there. Everything was included, and there was even an apron. I said, “Give me a sketch, please,” to the foreman, but he just blinked. I found the right blank, cutters, adjusted them on an emery wheel and a diamond wheel, inserted them into the carriage, adjusted the centers and corners, turned the part in 15-20 minutes, I handed it over - "put it in, we have to go." So he later recalled that incident to me for a year - "He arrived so imposing, in a suit, in a cool car, and then stood at the machine and turned the part."
My mother is a kindergarten teacher, but one day in the first half of the 80s, it so happened that she went to work at a factory, took courses with no knowledge at all, got the hang of it in a week or two, and then she got so carried away that they started slowing her down. And she sharpened parts for missiles. From aluminum. For ICBMs. And they even put her on the honor roll... A kindergarten teacher... And you, young man, seem to be a softie.
Or you make it up as you go.
Any high school student can operate a CNC machine after a short training session; it's not even a qualification. But you can operate a universal machine. Then you're a professional.
In my former town, there was a machine tool factory, and it also produced CNC machines. Entire production lines. It completed turnkey factories. And it exported to 37 countries around the world. To Germany and France too. So there - abroad and in the former Soviet republics - those CNC machines are still working to this day. Old specialists would go out from time to time to calibrate and repair them. And the owners of the factories are happy with the machines. And your machine is 10-15 years old - old. Yes, during the liquidation of that machine tool factory, the West German manufacturer bought two German coordinate machines for a price higher than the factory had paid them in the mid-70s! And they were as happy as elephants after sex with such a success – buying back their own machines after 25-30 years of use. The machines were truly unique, and their price had probably already risen significantly by then... But they were BOUGHT, not "just made new ones," and they were very happy with the deal. And they certainly didn't consider them "old" or even "obsolete." And yet it was one of the world's flagships of machine tool manufacturing. I don't remember the name of the company, but several people told me this story, including plant management and the person who worked on the machine.
So, you, citizen with a very suspicious nickname, are making something up. Including about Omsk.
And certainly when they prepare the plant to launch production of new tanks, the entire machine park will be updated, since most likely the new workshop buildings were built precisely for this purpose.
Well, you can go shopping some more, maybe there will be work for a CNC operator with claims.

[Tommy Calhoun]

Quote: bayard

Well, my dear, you are spoiled. I studied turning back in high school, during my professional training course – two years and a month of internship at a factory to get the qualification. It was in the early 80s. Now, give me some time to look around, get used to it, my hands remember. Once, in the early 90s, I needed a part turned for my foreign car to adapt a non-standard shock absorber. We arrived with the repairmen at the workshop (where the machines were), near a well-known factory, but the turner had gone somewhere and was nowhere to be found. We waited and waited, but I needed it fast, we had a long way to go. I looked – everything I needed for the job was there. Everything was included, and there was even an apron. I said, “Give me a sketch, please,” to the foreman, but he just blinked. I found the right blank, cutters, adjusted them on an emery wheel and a diamond wheel, inserted them into the carriage, adjusted the centers and corners, turned the part in 15-20 minutes, I handed it over - "put it in, we have to go." So he later recalled that incident to me for a year - "He arrived so imposing, in a suit, in a cool car, and then stood at the machine and turned the part."
My mother is a kindergarten teacher, but one day in the first half of the 80s, it so happened that she went to work at a factory, took courses with no knowledge at all, got the hang of it in a week or two, and then she got so carried away that they started slowing her down. And she sharpened parts for missiles. From aluminum. For ICBMs. And they even put her on the honor roll... A kindergarten teacher... And you, young man, seem to be a softie.
Or you make it up as you go.
Any high school student can operate a CNC machine after a short training session; it's not even a qualification. But you can operate a universal machine. Then you're a professional.
In my former town, there was a machine tool factory, and it also produced CNC machines. Entire production lines. It completed turnkey factories. And it exported to 37 countries around the world. To Germany and France too. So there - abroad and in the former Soviet republics - those CNC machines are still working to this day. Old specialists would go out from time to time to calibrate and repair them. And the owners of the factories are happy with the machines. And your machine is 10-15 years old - old. Yes, during the liquidation of that machine tool factory, the West German manufacturer bought two German coordinate machines for a price higher than the factory had paid them in the mid-70s! And they were as happy as elephants after sex with such a success – buying back their own machines after 25-30 years of use. The machines were truly unique, and their price had probably already risen significantly by then... But they were BOUGHT, not "just made new ones," and they were very happy with the deal. And they certainly didn't consider them "old" or even "obsolete." And yet it was one of the world's flagships of machine tool manufacturing. I don't remember the name of the company, but several people told me this story, including plant management and the person who worked on the machine.
So, you, citizen with a very suspicious nickname, are making something up. Including about Omsk.
And certainly when they prepare the plant to launch production of new tanks, the entire machine park will be updated, since most likely the new workshop buildings were built precisely for this purpose.
Well, you can go shopping some more, maybe there will be work for a CNC operator with claims.

I started out as a milling machine operator, but it wasn't long before I switched to CNC lathes and never left. I'm a 4th-grade mechanic with 7+ years of experience, but they offer mere peanuts. I'm tired of working for peanuts; it's easier not to work at all. It's better not to lower already peanut-sized wages even further. I've worked in other regions a couple of times, mostly in the Moscow region, and the work there is excellent. I earned over half a million in a two-month shift. So, I stand by my words: there are good jobs in Omsk, too, but they're very few and far between, and people don't leave because there aren't any better ones, and new, decent jobs aren't being created.

[bayard]

So, Omsktransmash is only doing repairs and modernizations for now; that doesn't require a lot of machine operators. But since they're planning on launching a full cycle, there will be a lot of recruitment. This plant was literally brought back from oblivion shortly before the SVO with these orders. First, they started upgrading the T-80 to the T-80BVM in St. Petersburg. Omsk was brought in later. But since it's mostly Soviet equipment and the corresponding machine tools... how much did they offer?

[Tommy Calhoun]

Quote: bayard

So, Omsktransmash is only doing repairs and modernizations for now; that doesn't require a lot of machine operators. But since they're planning on launching a full cycle, there will be a lot of recruitment. This plant was literally brought back from oblivion shortly before the SVO with these orders. First, they started upgrading the T-80 to the T-80BVM in St. Petersburg. Omsk was brought in later. But since it's mostly Soviet equipment and the corresponding machine tools... how much did they offer?

What about the money? They pay by the piece, and I declined the offer, but my friends who did accepted earned 45 rubles a month on the old CNC machines and then quit immediately. On the new machines, it's 80-100 rubles. On the universal machines, it varies greatly, the parts are different, and the prices vary, but generally it's 70-80 rubles. If you're more or less experienced, have been working there for a while, and have made your own tooling and so on, it's 100-120 rubles+, but that's with overtime. And it also depends a lot on the shop floor; everything varies greatly.

[bayard]

Well, the other day in Vladivostok, the Guarantor of All Our Guarantees promised to make Russia "a country of high wages." True, he might think 80-100 thousand is a high salary for a complex industry.

[Tommy Calhoun]

Quote: bayard

Well, the other day in Vladivostok, the Guarantor of All Our Guarantees promised to make Russia "a country of high wages." True, he might think 80-100 thousand is a high salary for a complex industry.

Well, 100 is a good salary. If I were getting paid at least 90 in Omsk, I'd work for that kind of money, since I live alone and don't have a family. But right now, I can't find a job that pays that much. For now, I'll travel around the country, so that's okay. 🙂

[Mikhail3]

Quote from Aken

I don't know if more tanks are really needed in the current conditions?

Not yet, of course. It's much better to have more self-propelled guns, since a tank is no longer a breakthrough weapon, but merely a carrier for a gun. Self-propelled guns are much better at this job.
But manufacturers couldn't care less about war, victory, or the lives of tank crews. They're focused on getting as much as possible without changing their production line equipment. That way, profits are higher. Much higher!
Why the T80? Because it's the fastest. Which means it's harder to hit with a drone. That's all.

[Aken]

There you go. And I got pelted with slippers for such a simple thought.
A drone is definitely faster than a tank. Well, you'll need two, not three, but the result is the same.
The entire armor concept needs to be reconsidered, and unmanned self-propelled guns need to be considered. Yes, it's time. But that doesn't mean we should waste money now.

[Mikhail3]

That's normal. They're paid for their "slippers," in one form or another. Those who don't want changes in the tank forces, those who get paid for propaganda, those who are paid as "propagandists," silence anyone who has an opinion that differs from our own playbooks. Just wait, we'll end up as open enemies...

[KCA]

Operating conditions are different, I doubt that there is even one T-90M in the "Trifolites", but there are definitely T-80s of various modifications, although not being an engine specialist, I don't understand why helicopters run turbines for hours, while the T-80 with a gas turbine engine just goes and goes

[topol717]

Quote: KCA

I don't understand why helicopters run turbines for hours, but the T-80 with a gas turbine engine just goes off

because the engines have only one common name. The 3rd circuit in the helicopter turbine spins the propeller slowly but surely. And in a tank, the working circuit of the power take-off spins without a load. i.e. in a tank it will spin up quite quickly. Well, and the failure of the internal combustion engine in a helicopter and in a tank will lead to different consequences. Therefore, a full warm-up is mandatory on a helicopter.

[olegff68]

"The best thing" is to breed a zoo of armored vehicles, so that later suppliers would rip their pubic hairs, and the industry would be overloaded with various orders. Back in the 80s, the USSR realized the error of this approach and planned to move from various MBTs to the ET - a single tank and transfer all factories to its production. 40 years have passed and here we go again - "we want everything and more."

[topol717]

2 different is not much, and it is better to always have 2 that will compete. Then there will be progress. Monopoly has never moved science/market forward.
But at the present stage, one more option of the engine-transmission pair can be considered, this is an internal combustion engine (any) and electric motors on the leading rollers. BelAZ trucks carry 1 tons.

[olegff68]

BelAZs do not have such a limitation on the volume of armor space. And let's consider all the MBTs in service and not reduced to a common denominator - T-72 of several different upgrades, the latest T-72B3M. T-80 of several upgrades, the latest T-80BVM, T-90M, Armata (which everyone seems to have forgotten). Well, and a movie to remind about the warring T-55 and T-62.

[topol717]

Quote: olegff68

There is no such limitation on the volume of the armored space in BelAZs

In BelAZs, all motors and gearboxes are hidden in the wheel hub. It is not yet known where more space is needed. Tesla has 2 electric motors with 600 hp each, the size of a 10-liter bucket. I think installing one on a skating rink will not be a big problem.

[olegff68]

Dear, compare the weight of this Tesla and the weight of a similar car. And as a result - if you consider the entire chain between the combustion of hydrocarbons in a thermal power plant turbine with the corresponding efficiency, losses during transformation, losses during energy transportation through networks, transformation again, losses during charging, during battery discharge (for its warming up), then the overall efficiency of this Tesla is lower than that of a classic car, where the combustion of hydrocarbons immediately generates movement. And you propose to add a generator to the main engine in a tank, two more massive electric motors, it will still not be possible to do without onboard boxes and gearboxes ... and why does a goat need a button accordion?

[topol717]

The 1500 kW generator is very small in size, no more than 20 liters. Just like electric motors.

and why does a goat need a button accordion?

Allows to simplify the tank design, to abandon friction clutches and other transmission junk. Elementary will allow the left and right tracks to rotate in different directions. Speed ​​back = Speed ​​forward.

[olegff68]

Heh... You should learn a little about something, and only then talk about "transmission nonsense". You confuse Watts with KiloWatts, but still there - my thought flies, knocking down stars.
The engine power of the first T-72 models is 576 kW - a diesel generator of this power is sold right in a trailer, its generator is the size of a 100-liter barrel or more. And you also need 2 electric motors of the appropriate power, because when turning, all the power can be supplied to one of them - so an asynchronous motor of 500 kW weighs about SIX TONS. I understand that a motor on neodymium magnets will be more compact - but not radically, besides, magnets are not produced in our country, not at all.
You won't get rid of "transmission crap" - it's a tank, it needs a lot of torque, etc., etc., and the rotational speed, high-speed reverse - this can be done on a manual transmission, if there's a desire. Hence again - why the hell does a goat need a button accordion?
And yes, to broaden your horizons - humanity invented electric cars before automobiles.....

[topol717]

A 500 kW engine weighs almost SIX TONS.

It's strange that in my car 2 electric motors produce 693 hp together with the differential, the size of each of these motors is no more than a 10-liter bucket.

it's a tank, it needs a lot of torque, etc., etc.

The electric motor at maximum, like the gas turbine engine, produces very high revolutions, more than 30. And the torque on the shaft of this motor does not depend on the revolutions at all. Therefore, the simplest gearbox with a ratio of 000 to 1 will increase the torque on the rollers by 60 times. Even a 60-liter diesel engine never dreamed of such a torque.

[olegff68]

2 electric motors produce 693 hp.

I recommend that you trust advertising brochures less.

the simplest gearbox with a ratio of 1 to 60

And here we are again back to that same "transmission nonsense" - you will need more than one or two of these gearboxes (hello, gearbox, etc.). And google an industrial generator for 500 kW at your leisure - admire it, what is 500 kW without advertising makeover.

[topol717]

I recommend that you trust advertising brochures less.

Race log shows 4,4 seconds to 100 km/h.

And here we are again back to that same "transmission nonsense"

The tank's gearbox and transmission are like heaven and earth.

[olegff68]

In such cases, I remember how one military man tried to explain the structure of a rocket to his wife, but she did not give in. In the end: "Well, believe me, Lyuda, it flies!!!" Believe me, my dear, your cool electric motors will not pull a tank, although their total declared power is greater than that of the base T-72 engine.
All mechanical transmissions consist of a set of gearboxes - even automatic transmissions. And believe me - electric transmissions were invented long before our parents were born. You are not offering anything new at all.

[topol717]

Yeah, BelAZ trucks, diesel locomotives and submarines work, but tanks don’t.

[olegff68]

Well, that is, you are not at all embarrassed by the physical dimensions of everything you listed, as well as the dimensions of their power plants... Well, okay, everyone is stupid - you are smart.

[bar]

Don't get too excited, just think about it. The BelAZ's power is comparable to that of a tank. Have you ever seen that BelAZ up close? The dimensions of its engine compartment and the dimensions of its in-wheel motors? Even if the diesel engine were replaced with a gas turbine, that zoo wouldn't fit in a tank.
It's a mistake to calculate the electric motor power of an electric vehicle based on the figures in the advertising brochure. At maximum power, electric motors can operate only briefly due to poor heat dissipation from the windings. Continuous power under steady-state thermal conditions is several times lower than advertised. Moreover, the same generator can't deliver the same power in a single burst, as it's driven by a conventional heat engine, which has no overload capacity. Therefore, either the maximum electric motor power must be abandoned and limited to continuous power (as in the BelAZ), or an additional buffer battery must be installed in the tank. This adds weight, fire hazard, and the need for rare metals, which our vast country is not particularly rich in.

[Jager]

On the Ferdinand, all of this worked, and the 88-mm carriage crawled quite successfully near Kursk long before all these Leopards.

[Jager]

Congratulations, you have invented the Ferdinand self-propelled gun with an electric transmission.

[bar]

Quote from: topol717

It's strange that my car has 2 electric motors that produce 693 hp.

And how long do they do this before they overheat? Those same 4,4 seconds? Electric motors have a high overload capacity. You can drive a large current into them and get high power for a short time. The long-term power to limit heating will be three times less than the peak. That's one. And two - they were right about magnets made of rare earth metals, which we do not produce. And without them, using classic copper and iron technology, motors turn out to be much larger and more massive. To become dependent on "brotherly" China in such technologies is, to put it mildly, short-sighted.

[topol717]

Quote: bar

Electric motors have a high overload capacity. They can handle high currents and generate high power for short periods. Their continuous power output, while limiting heat, will be three times lower than their peak output.

An internal combustion engine will run for no more than 5-6 hours at peak power. So why do you think liquid cooling for an internal combustion engine is fine, but liquid cooling for an electric motor's stator is outrageous? Besides, the efficiency of an electric motor is 95%+, while an internal combustion engine is 35%+. So, an extra 50 kW of thermal power for a 1.2 MW engine won't have any significant effect.

[bar]

Quote from: topol717

So why did you decide that liquid cooling of an internal combustion engine is normal, but liquid cooling of an electric motor stator is something beyond the pale?

It's not my decision; it's technology. Electric motor windings are very difficult to cool. In sealed electric motors, all heat dissipation occurs through the stator, and it's the windings that heat up. Each winding wire is covered in insulation, which is inherently a poor conductor of heat. Furthermore, it's impossible to make a winding solid and monolithic; there will always be gaps between the individual conductors, which also impede heat transfer. Furthermore, the windings themselves are mounted to the stator through insulating layers. As a result, even liquid nitrogen can be pumped through the stator, and the windings will still overheat at maximum operating conditions. This is precisely why the continuous power of electric motors is significantly lower than their short-term peak power. You can fantasize as much as you like about this; the laws of physics are still in place.

[topol717]

An internal combustion engine also can't deliver 100% power constantly. And with 35% efficiency, twice its power needs to be dissipated in the radiators. And the "green zone" of revs is in the 2-1200 rpm range, with 1700 rpm being the maximum. So, it's also far from maximum power.

[bar]

Quote from: topol717

An internal combustion engine cannot deliver 100% power constantly.

Why do you think that? Boat motors, for example, always operate at maximum power. Car engines can operate at maximum power for a long time. What's the problem? Sure, it will affect the engine life, but it will be hundreds of engine hours, not tens of seconds.

[topol717]

Car engines can run at maximum power for a long time. What's the problem?

The problem is heat dissipation: at maximum power, efficiency drops below 30%. If your internal combustion engine produces 750 kW, you'll have to dissipate 1.5 MW in radiators. Therefore, internal combustion engines can't deliver even 50% of their power for long, as no cooling system can handle it.

[bar]

Quote from: topol717

If your internal combustion engine produces 750 kW, then you will need 1.5 MW.

See above. I've said it all.

[smart ass]

How will they compete? Do both belong to UZ?

[Alexey RA]

Quote from: topol717

2 different ones are not many, and it is better to always have 2 that will compete.

Yeah - UVZ will compete with... UVZ.
We have one monopoly company for tanks. Why should it compete with itself?

[Konnick]

Quote: Alexey RA

Yeah - UVZ will compete with... UVZ.

Someone talked about the tank-building traditions of UVZ, but the traditions were at the Kirov and Kharkov plants. UVZ is not a developer, it is not right to compare the intellectual potential of Leningrad with Nizhny Tagil.

[smart ass]

Do you have any proof or did you just make this up?

[Konnick]

Quote: Clever man

Do you have any proof or did you just make this up?

Proofs?
Read this first

All this was only the visible tip of the "iceberg" called Soviet tank building. It took more than 40 years to see its invisible part, carefully hidden by hook or by crook [ 13 ]…

By the mid-50s, the following cities took part in the creation of Soviet armored vehicles: Leningrad (the “northern”, chief designer Zh. Ya. Kotin), Kharkov (the “southern”, chief designer A. A. Morozov) and the “children of war”: Chelyabinsk (chief designer P. P. Isakov) and Nizhny Tagil (chief designer L. N. Kartsev).

The first three participants went through the harsh trials of war, demonstrated their professional qualities in practice and maintained mutual respect for each other. Each of them was able to find their niche: Kharkov - medium tanks, Leningrad - heavy tanks, Chelyabinsk - light-weight vehicles (BMP).

The director of UVZ I.V. Okunev (Ivan the Great), left without the chief designer A.A. Morozov, placed his bets on the young, assertive (tactless), career military man L.N. Kartsev, who had no practical design experience and sufficient engineering education, but was full of ambition and a desire to be on the same level as the honored "bison" A.A. Morozov and Zh.Ya. Kotin.

The lack of tact and basic respect for the merits of A.A. Morozov, one of the creators of the T-34, was evident in his statement [14]: “In conclusion, I would like to share my opinion. The T-64 and T-64A tanks were created in Kharkov by one talented (highlighted by the authors of the article) designer for his own glorification and to receive awards and honorary titles.”


Studying the memoirs of Leonid Nikolaevich [15], one is amazed at how easily he modernized the planetary gear set by throwing out the "extra" satellite, not understanding that this leads to a decrease in the load-bearing capacity of the structure, the loss of prospects for its modernization. "Breaking is not building," says popular wisdom, here you do not need great intelligence.

The ambition of the new chief designer of UVZ runs through his memoirs like a red thread: “For the first time in the world…” this is both a tank with a gas turbine engine and the IT-1 tank destroyer - but there was no benefit for the country and its army from these developments, only losses, which were calmly written off…

The creation of the T-64 tank in Kharkov and its introduction into production, with the prospect of its development at all tank factories in the USSR, crossed out the developments of Nizhny Tagil, and here the Ural “local patriotism” manifested itself - the T-72 tank, which became “the most advanced, the best in the world, the most purchased tank of the twentieth century”, but in reality - the most vulnerable, the most backward in technical equipment and a tank no one needed in the world.


Ural "local patriotism" sabotaged the implementation of the Government and CM Resolution No. 802-266 of 15.08.1967 "On equipping the Soviet Army with new T-64 medium tanks and developing capacities for its production", caused stagnation in domestic tank building, but these were "only flowers", the "berries" appeared later, after the appointment in 1976 to the post of first secretary of the Sverdlovsk regional party committee of B.N. Yeltsin, who destroyed the Soviet Union...

If you are interested, I will give you a link

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Konnick

The creation of the T-64 tank in Kharkov and its introduction into production, with the prospect of its development at all tank factories in the USSR, crossed out the developments of Nizhny Tagil, and here the Ural “local patriotism” manifested itself - the T-72 tank, which became “the most advanced, the best in the world, the most purchased tank of the twentieth century”, but in reality - the most vulnerable, the most backward in technical equipment and a tank no one needed in the world.

Wow! I could almost smell the spirit of Baron Tonkolyuk - from the time of his heated discussions with Gurkhan.
But for some reason the most vulnerable and most unnecessary T-72 was sold and fought all over the world. While the T-64 was sitting in the boxes. But as soon as the T-64 went into battle, it turned out that all its vaunted advantages were just Kharkov PR. And in fact, even Tonkolyuk, who at first would not agree to anything less than "Krasnopol" when looking at another photo of a T-64 falling apart at the seams, a year later already admitted that the T-64 was irreversible from a hit by a 120-mm mortar shell.

And yes, if the T-64 was such a breakthrough, then why did Kharkov have to make the “foreign” T-80 after it?

[Konnick]

Quote: Alexey RA

But for some reason, the most vulnerable and most unnecessary T-72 was sold and fought all over the world, while the T-64 sat in storage.

Could you explain why the GSVG's 10 tank divisions only had T-64 and T-80 tanks? These were the most combat-ready units.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Konnick

Could you explain why the GSVG's 10 tank divisions only had T-64 and T-80 tanks? These were the most combat-ready units.

Considered the most combat-ready in theory. Thank God, they never got around to it in practice.
The problem with comparing the T-72 to the T-64 and T-80 is that the T-72 actually fought, often with less-than-stellar crews and in export configurations. And its opponents were based on tabulated values ​​and test results from hand-picked individuals. Who in the GSVG could have imagined that the T-64's hull, with its tabulated excellent protection, would fall apart at the seams under real-world impact?
However, even for show, not everything was smooth. Remember the TUR firing in 2020? When the T-80, which on paper was superior in everything to the ultra-budget T-72B3, in reality managed to send almost 3/4 of the shots "into the milk".

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Konnick

UVZ is not a developer at all,

Well, well, well... after all, the T-72 was developed for it in Kharkov or Leningrad. / sarcasm off

Quote: Konnick

It is not wrong to compare the intellectual potential of Leningrad with Nizhny Tagil.

The intellectual potential of Nizhny Tagil was revealed by a tank that became the basis of the combat armament of the USSR and Russia for many years and one of the symbols of the Warsaw Pact.

[KCA]

So, off the top of my head, about 40 types of tanks took part in the Red Army in WWII, from tankettes to IS-2, some were released before the war, some were in the process, who sniffled? And there were also lend-lease tanks, how did they even survive, I don’t know. Or did the USSR completely lose tank battles? And then it was a war, not like the SVO. Now there are MBT T-72, T90, T-80, various modifications, everything, they are bringing the T-14 to mind, you can drop a lot of shit on the Armata, but this is a next-generation machine, why did the T-44 appear only after the war, although it was maximally unified with the T-34, and even then it didn’t take off, there was nothing new before the T-54, cats and flies are quickly born, tanks and other combat vehicles are not, and, the IS-3 was

[lukash66]

T44 was already there at the end of 43, beginning of 44. And before it there was also T34M. Apart from the number T34, there is nothing in common at all.

[KCA]

It didn't go into production, the stone flower didn't come out, I don't know, it's somewhere in a museum in Kubinka, it was in Kubinka, it's not in a museum, and I don't remember if it was there then

[lukash66]

Quote: KCA

It didn't go into production, the stone flower didn't come out, I don't know, it's somewhere in a museum in Kubinka, it was in Kubinka, it's not in a museum, and I don't remember if it was there then

By the way, they say that Stalin really wanted to put the T44 into production. But they decided not to break production by force during the war. Plus there were problems with 100mm ammunition. They only started producing it at the end of 44, beginning of 45. That's when the SU100 and BS3 went into production.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from: lukash66

Plus there were problems with 100mm ammunition. Their production was only established at the end of 44, beginning of 45. That's when the SU100 and BS3 went into production.

There were problems with the 100mm armor-piercing shells. Because the fleet didn't need them: on the big pots, the 100mm were anti-aircraft guns, and when small ships encountered an enemy that would require 100mm armor-piercing shells to penetrate, it was better to go into smoke and not show off.
The 100mm BBS was put into production in November 1944. Incidentally, this is why the SU-85M tank destroyer appeared - an 85mm gun in the SU-100 hull - since the front required a tank destroyer, and the SU-100 without the BBS was only good for training in the rear.
As for the BS-3, its release was not connected with the availability of the BBS - the AUs were sent to the troops in the spring of 1944. Because for a field gun, which the BS-3 was, the main thing was the OFS.
Even at Balaton, the majority of BS-3s were not in the IPTA, but in regular artillery regiments.

[Captain Pushkin]

In 1944, 25 T-44 tanks were manufactured, and from January to April 1945, another 165 were manufactured.
Production ended in August 1947, with a total of 1823 tanks produced.

[kapitan92]

Quote from: lukash66

T44 was already there at the end of 43, beginning of 44.

Designed in 43-44. A batch of 44 vehicles was manufactured in the spring of 3. The first series of 4 tanks was produced in the 44th quarter of 25.
At the end of November 1944, it was assembled new tank "T-44B" with a simplified armored hull with a monolithic plate; reinforced bottom; a new V-2-44 engine with a cooling and power supply system; an 85-mm ZIS-S-53 gun with increased ammunition and a turret that had a commander's cupola with a minimum height. After successfully conducting its state tests, On March 1, 1945, Plant No. 75 (Kharkov) began serial production of the T-44 tank "bulk series" (T-44B), and by the end of the year, 880 tanks of this type had already been manufactured.

[olegff68]

Do not compare the Red Army and the USSR industry with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the Military-Industrial Complex of the Russian Federation - these are absolutely incomparable things. The zoo of armored vehicles in the Great Patriotic War was explained simply - tank building in the USSR had just begun to develop and each plant and design bureau did what they could. This development was rapid, so the models quickly replaced each other. But already in the late 80s, a decision was made to switch to the ET (unified tank), for this role they chose the T-80UD, which was produced in Kharkov, with minimal modernization of production they were preparing to put it on the conveyor in Omsk, then they planned to re-equip the rest of the plants - UVZ, etc.

[KCA]

Tank building began to develop in the RSFSR with the purchase of a license for Renault, I don’t remember the brand, the first tank was called Comrade Lenin, in the 30s and 40s everything was not so bad, soapboxes BT, T-26, freaks T-28 and T-35, but also T-34, IS-1, IS-2

[olegff68]

Well, compare - how much time passed between the purchase of that license, the beginning of mass production and the beginning of the Great Patriotic War and look at the path that was taken in tank building alone. For comparison - the fact that a big war was on the threshold was absolutely obvious more than 15 years ago. And instead of preparing for it, they trained exclusively an army of network trolls.

[smart ass]

The Lenlizovskys lived exactly one battle

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Clever man

The Lenlizovskys lived exactly one battle

And how did Loza manage to go through the entire war in a foreign car?

[Jager]

The T-44 is a "passable" vehicle. The turret from the I-85 was installed not out of necessity, but because it was understood it would immediately give way to the more advanced T-54. How the KV-85 evolved into the IS-2.

[Emelianenko Igor]

Versatility sometimes hurts. If the T-80BVM with a gas turbine is better in the Arctic region, then they should be there, but if possible, they should be unified with the T-90M (combat module, fire control system, dynamic protection, etc.).

[olegff68]

We've been stuck with this story about "arctic regions". In fact, the T-80 was created for any region, not just the arctic ones. Isn't it too much of a luxury to produce a separate line of tanks for the sake of several divisions? No?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sky Strike fighter

Justified, but we need more tanks, and more can only be produced by producing a new modification of the T-80BVM at another plant.

At what other factory?
We have one tank factory - UVZ. Plus its additional site in Omsk, which does not produce, but modernizes T-72 and T-80.

[Murmur 55]

Aken , so this is the fabrication of some Western "expert" and not an official statement of our M.O.

[Aken]

Then the title should have said exactly that - unsubstantiated fabrications of some Pole.
And there will be no questions. That's definitely true for me.

[Engineer]

Information about the planned revival of T-80 tank production was officially announced.

But the article says something different...

[Hitriy Zhuk]

The 80tik is like a "light tank".
He's so nimble.
The 90tik is slower and more armored.
Need both 2. For different data sets.

[Mwg]

A tank, like a car, has different intended purposes. The T-80 was created as a high-speed tank for breakthroughs and fast marches in the European theater of military operations. Once their numbers are restored en masse, then the "European partners" will again have their point of being a means for cutting through scrap metal. Or what if he comes? You never know, they'll sober up.

[K-50]

The gas turbine is easy to start, especially at low temperatures, has a simpler design than a piston engine, and the exhaust gases are practically not visible to the naked eye, and since the turbine generates high-frequency sounds, it is practically inaudible over long distances.

But they are perfectly visible with a thermal imager.
Unfortunately.

[KCA]

The rhinoceros has very poor eyesight, but with its mass and running speed it does not matter at all, no one will carry out tank attacks in an open field of 5,10,15, XNUMX, XNUMX km, shuttle running, from tree to tree, or ambushes

[flanker7]

In a thermal imager, a diesel engine will be no worse. Thanks to the temperature trace from the exhaust gases. In a diesel engine, they are higher and dissipate worse in the atmosphere than in a gas turbine engine, in which they mix with the air flow from cooling. I hope I managed to explain.

[Irokez]

All designers have the same principle - from different, but similar in action devices, all the best and most reliable is taken and combined in one product. Here too T-80 + T-90 = T-85 (or according to the new marking, a new name, or simply "Russian Bear", "Rusich", "Slav").

[Murmur 55]

Irokez , The bear already exists. So another option is needed.

[Sky strike fighter]

Due to the fact that the new T-80 model will receive enhanced protection and other additional systems, the task was set to create a modern engine with a digital control system with a capacity of 1500 hp.

[t7310]

T-80+T-90=T95 although they wanted a different name, or T-100 or T-98 or T-92 but not less than 90

[Vic Vic]

Can't this engine be installed on the T-90?

[Sky strike fighter]

What's the point of installing it on the T-90? To redesign the T-90M for a new engine? And this is at a time when the more tanks they produce, the better. Especially since there are options for where to put it.

. the editors of the resource "Technosphere. Russia" learned about a proposal at the federal level to resume the project for further development of the T-80 tank, known as "object 640" ("Black Eagle", also in some sources "T-80UM2"). The following arguments are given in favor of "object 640": a high degree of unification with the well-mastered "eighty", the presence of a prototype of the machine built and preserved after the 1990s for working out technical solutions and design documentation for it. What else is good about the "six hundred and fortieth"?

The "object 80" differs from the T-640 by a new turret and an extended chassis (one pair of rollers has been added), while the first version of the promising vehicle used the same serial 125-mm gun and serially produced gas turbine engine GTD-1250 (with a capacity of 1250 hp). At the same time, the failed replacement of the "eighty" from Omsk turned out to be even lower - only 1,8 meters (for comparison, the T-14 "Armata" has a height of up to 2,7 meters on the roof of the turret, while for the T-90M this figure is about 2,3 meters). For the "object 640" there is a more powerful GTD-1500 ("product 39") developed, which, when modernized, can also be used on the T-80.

https://tehnoomsk.ru/archives/10057

[Vic Vic]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that the advantage of the T-80 over the T-90 was its turbocharged engine. In other respects, the T-90 has an advantage. Since all our tanks are, as they say, from the same box, then installing a T-80 engine in a T-90 should not present any significant difficulties, especially considering the more compact dimensions of the T-80 engine.
We get a more agile machine in a more modern case

[Good Evil]

Quote from vicvic

I may be wrong, but I thought that the advantage of the T-80 over the T-90 was its turbocharged engine.

In fact, a turbocharged engine and a gas turbine engine are, so to speak, completely different things. Fundamentally different.

[Vic Vic]

Yes, you are right. When I wrote that I meant that the engine has a turbine.

[KCA]

There were also T-80Bs with diesel engines at first, if I'm not mistaken, and there were UDs with diesel engines too.

[Good Evil]

Quote: KCA

There were also T-80Bs with diesel engines at first, if I'm not mistaken.

I think they did it in 404.

[Bad_gr]

T-80 with diesel engine was made not only
in Ukraine (- Object 478B (T-80UD, T-84)),
but also in Leningrad (- Object 219RD (with the 2V-16-2 engine, the ancestor of the engine that is now installed on the T-14)
and at UVZ (- Object 644 (with an engine from T-72)

And they were not made before the turbine, but as a cheaper alternative to a tank with a turbine (the turbine was installed on the T-80 initially)

[topol717]

Quote from vicvic

then installing the T-80 engine in the T-90 should not present any significant difficulties, especially considering the more compact dimensions of the T-80 engine.

Then tell me why the T-80 is 7 meters long and the T-90 is 6.6? i.e. the T-90 is 40 cm or 6% shorter???

[Vic Vic]

I don't know the answer to your question, I can only guess. If you know, write, it's interesting, especially if there is a direct connection with the possibility or impossibility of reinstalling engines.

[BIGLESHIY]

Quote from: topol717

Quote from vicvic

then installing the T-80 engine in the T-90 should not present any significant difficulties, especially considering the more compact dimensions of the T-80 engine.

Then tell me why the T-80 is 7 meters long and the T-90 is 6.6? i.e. the T-90 is 40 cm or 6% shorter???

Externally, the two vehicles are very similar, but they are completely different. And it's not just the engine types. They have different hulls, road wheels, turrets, and even sighting systems (the T-80's is sophisticated; it's not called a sniper tank for nothing).
For the Far East and the Far North, the T-80 is an ideal tank.

[Engineer]

That's what I don't see a shortage of, but grandiose plans. Maybe we'll wait until the words are backed up by at least a running conveyor belt, huh?

P.S. I think they wrote that the T-80 turned out to be unreasonably expensive because of the engine?

[K-50]

Quote: Engineer

P.S. I think they wrote that the T-80 turned out to be unreasonably expensive because of the engine?

But such movement gives a lot of advantages in conditions of extremely severe cold, and in our country three quarters of the country are such places in winter.

[Engineer]

Ummm, but where there is extremely severe cold, is it even there, where can you fight with tanks? And won't everything burn in a nuclear flame ten times over before the fighting reaches there from the border?

[Alf]

Quote: Engineer

Umm, but where there is extremely severe cold, is it even there, where can you fight with tanks?

"Partners" prepare their soldiers-soldiers specifically for battles where there is a lot of snow and cold. And where there is infantry, there are also reinforcements.

Quote: Engineer

And won't everything burn in a nuclear flame ten times over before the fighting reaches there from the border?

I may be wrong, but I think that the turn for nuclear weapons will come at the very, very last moment, because there is also no ... like, why the hell did they capture the territory, but it is scorched and glowing with a gentle blue fire, and from our side they will not rush to press the Button either, because then EVERYTHING.

[t7310]

After the explosions in Hiroshima, Nagasaki was dangerous for the first few hours and only if you crouched or were short, the survivors left on foot and nothing happened, they remained healthy, and many did not leave and those who were lucky were also fine, some survived both explosions and also remained healthy, so after an air blast you can walk through the epicenter in a few hours, unless of course they hit a nuclear power plant, if they hit a nuclear power plant then everything is bad

[KCA]

The length of the border where there is a need to use tanks with gas turbine engines is such that the enemy will not have enough heavy nuclear warheads for anything else.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: KCA

The length of the border where there is a need to use tanks with gas turbine engines is such that the enemy will not have enough heavy nuclear warheads for anything else.

The main thing is that we have enough fuel tankers.

According to the test results, the average fuel range during marches was (with main refueling / with additional barrels / taking into account 20% of the minimum reserve):
for T-80 tanks - 278/338/270 km;
for T-64A tanks - 305/400/320 km;
for T-72 tanks - 322/430/344 km;
for T-62 tanks - 301/427/341 km.

© Khlopotov

...to complete a 24-hour march as part of a tank company over long distances T-80B tanks require 3 special AC-5,5-375 high-capacity fuel trucks, while tanks with diesel engines require only one standard ATMZ-4,5-375 fuel tanker.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Engineer

I think they wrote that the T-80 turned out to be unreasonably expensive because of the engine?

In Soviet times, the engine for the T-80 cost approximately 20 times more than the diesel engine for the T-72 and was approximately equal to the cost of the entire T-72 assembly.

[KCA]

In the USSR and the Russian Federation, GTEs were developed in dozens, if not hundreds of modifications, and was it really that expensive to unify a GTE pumping oil and gas for export and engines for tanks and helicopters? Especially if the potential enemy pays? Don't talk nonsense, in the USSR there were almost more helicopters with GTEs than in the entire world, the Absikorsky flew on piston engines

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

Quote: Engineer

I think they wrote that the T-80 turned out to be unreasonably expensive because of the engine?

In Soviet times, the engine for the T-80 cost approximately 20 times more than the diesel engine for the T-72 and was approximately equal to the cost of the entire T-72 assembly.

___ At the end of the 80s:

tank cost:
T-80U - 824 thousand ₽,
T-72B - 280 thousand ₽.

Engines:
T-80U - 104 thousand ₽,
T-72B - 14 thousand ₽.

when selling abroad:
T-80 $4 million,
T-90 $2.7 million

[Dim114]

The evolution of tanks in Russia in recent decades reminds me of the evolution of the animal world. Warm-blooded animals appeared God knows when, then successfully died out, then somehow reappeared. So here, aroma was already declared the pinnacle of evolution, when again twenty-five, on the conveyor belt 72, 80 and even dinosaurs 62 slightly peeked out from behind the corner of oblivion

[alexoff]

You'd think it's limited to tanks, they don't want to modernize the BMP either, let alone the APC. You have to think about how to provide the fighters during the modernization, and opening new lines is a hassle and expensive. But the BTR-60 and T-62 are just right!

[VLAD-96]

Do we need tanks when the war has turned into a drone war, where 2-3 good hits and the tank is finished. No matter what kind of barbecues it is hung with, we just need more drones to remove the outer shell.
Is it worth investing so much effort into tanks when the benefits of much cheaper drones grow exponentially!

[AVA77]

Yeah, who cares about a rusty wheel wrench on the road if you have a new shiny screwdriver in the glove compartment.
When penicillin was invented, it was also considered a cure-all.

[Vic Vic]

So at first penicillin was just that and fulfilled its role as a miracle drug in full.

[Bayun]

WAR differs from "military operations" as "a canal differs from a sewer". In WAR, "toys" will be of little use, since "gamers" will be wiped out "radically and instantly", while "those-in-the-tank" will remain.

Happy belated Tanker's Day to all involved!

[VLAD-96]

No doubt about it! Especially in such a tank..
Guess why our craftsmen at the front did this? Probably because they had nothing better to do?
And probably protection from a javelin? Or from an RPG? Or from a sub-caliber Abrashi?

[Bayun]

This is what happens with things for WAR, when politicians and businessmen “play” with them.

[26_Sergey_26]

Fuel consumption in a gas turbine engine at idle speed cannot be reduced.
Because idle is the minimum speed at which the engine operates stably.
Otherwise, you have to get into the design.
engine.
It wouldn't be bad to increase the speed in reverse.
There is nothing new to come up with in terms of protection and weapons.
T-90 and T-90 in the same dimensions.
Arena, barbecues, optical-electronic sighting system, electronic warfare.
I wonder - in addition to the Arena, it is possible to shoot drones with buckshot from a cannon using a radar?

[Bayun]

A couple more AR-2s from the drones would be great(the barrel robot from Star Wars) with built-in shotguns to put on the tower. No joke.

And if you add something more severe than a shotgun, they will be able to reflect even “tricky” missiles from the upper hemisphere.

[flanker7]

Quote: 26_Sergey_26

Fuel consumption in a gas turbine engine at idle speed cannot be reduced.

Everything had already been invented, around 1985. The idle parking mode. An effective thing. After a short time after stopping, the mode was automatically switched on. On a tank with a gas turbine, you don't need to press the gas pedal like on a diesel. Acceleration and braking are achieved by switching gears, at practically constant revolutions.

[Ricochet]

In fact, there was a message that the updated T 80 for the Arctic had been launched.

[Incvizitor]

So all the shells won't fly under the turret?
previously proposed within the framework of the Burlak program.

[ln_ln]

So all the shells won't fly under the turret?

This is DZ.

[Byurer]

I read on various tank forums that the T-80 cost the Soviet industry 2,5 times more than the T-64 or T-72, with practically equal characteristics.

[flanker7]

Quote: Burer

I read on various tank forums that the T-80 cost the Soviet industry 2,5 times more than the T-64 or T-72

And he was just as many times better.

[Alf]

Quote: Burer

I read on various tank forums that the T-80 cost the Soviet industry 2,5 times more than the T-64 or T-72, with practically equal characteristics.

I can’t say anything about Khokhol, but as for Uralets, he’s hardly equal to Leningradets.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Our tanks need active protection against ATGMs, RPGs and drones.

It is a shame to talk about Arena for 30 years and not have a single battalion equipped with this system.

[nedgen]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Our tanks need active protection against ATGMs, RPGs and drones.

It is a shame to talk about Arena for 30 years and not have a single battalion equipped with this system.

I think there are several problems. First, there's the cost, and it's also very difficult to target a slow-moving FPV. Besides, even the Arena M couldn't engage targets in the upper hemisphere. Also, defense must be all-round. Imagine an FPV approaching from the rear, and the Arena goes off at that moment, knocking out the FPV and simultaneously wiping out the infantry following the tank! Until ammunition is developed that's safer for infantry, it's unlikely the Arena or any other will be adopted. Besides, for example, the SDS sometimes fires up to 20-25 FPVs against a tank. It's unlikely the Arena has that much defensive ammunition. The Arena M seems to have some, but they're focused in specific sectors, and there's no guarantee the Arena will be able to, for example, rotate its turret in time for the remaining ammunition to knock out an FPV approaching from the side of the deployed elements. So, there are a huge number of problems.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: nedgen

Even Arena M couldn't fight targets in the upper hemisphere.

Arena-M, unlike just Arena, protects the upper hemisphere

Quote: nedgen

The arena works, knocks out the FPV and at the same time sweeps away the infantry following the tank!!!

The Arena (Arena-M) shoots enemy ammunition downwards with a narrow beam of shrapnel. "Sweeping away infantry following a tank" has nothing to do with it.

Quote: nedgen

Arena M seems to have them, but they are oriented in specific sectors and there is no guarantee that Arena will be able, for example, to rotate its turret in time so that the remaining ammunition can be shot down by the FPV flying from the direction of the used elements.

The Arena-M's submunition can be turned in the air in the desired direction, so there is no need to rotate the turret.

[nedgen]

Judging by the diagram you provided of the Arena M's operation, if the ammunition on the right side of the turret is approaching from behind (I mean at an altitude of 10 meters), then the defensive ammunition can easily wipe out the infantry coming from behind, if the Arena M even has the ability to defend the rear hemisphere. I heard about the additional turning, but I doubt this additional turning means that the ammunition on the right side of the turret can be turned and protect against incoming targets from the left. I don't know for sure, but in my opinion, additional turning doesn't mean a turn of 90 degrees or more, but rather a certain deviation of about 30-40 degrees. Maybe even 50-60 degrees. And it's still not enough, and when the ammunition on the right side of the turret is expended, when new targets approach from the right side, the turret will still have to be turned. And now in the SVO, a situation is normal for one tank to be attacked by 20 or even 30 additional firepower. Especially if for some reason the first firepower didn't have time to withdraw. The target is disabled. And yet, personally, I believe that if a radar can discriminate between FPVs, it SHOULD be installed on tanks and especially on infantry fighting vehicles, but neither you nor I decide that.

[HAVE]

THREE MBTs in service!!!
THE DEGREE OF MADNESS IS GROWING STRONGER!!!
THIS IS A CRIME ON A STATE SCALE!!!

[Mars]

Not 3, but 5 MBTs in service.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Mars

Not 3, but 5 MBTs in service.

Three and a half: T-62, T-72 in several modifications and T-80. Because T-72B3 and T-90 are all modifications of T-72.

The vaunted T-90 tank is the seventeenth modification of the T-72, priced at 118 million rubles.

© Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Postnikov, when he was told that UVZ had raised the price of the T-90 by 70% in 1 year

[Alf]

Quote: Alexey RA

Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Postnikov, when he was told that UVZ had raised the price of the T-90 by 70% in 1 year

And Postnikov didn’t ask why this happened?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alf

And Postnikov didn’t ask why this happened?

Did UVZ's expenses really increase that much over the past year? Or did the monopolist simply take the amount from the Ministry of Defense's tank procurement budget and divide it by 65 (the Ministry of Defense's standard T-90 order in previous years)?

[Alf]

Quote: Alexey RA

Have UVZ's expenses really increased that much in a year?

What if I ask a counter question? The Ministry of Defense, when signing a contract with a factory in January to produce tanks, guns, and aircraft, sets and locks in the price of the product. The factory begins operations. How many times a year do prices for energy, materials, and so on change? And it's the government that changes these prices, while the factory has no right to change the price of a tank, gun, or aircraft. And the factory also gets held accountable for breaching the contract. As a result, it's a welcome visit to the bank for a loan. The factory is the last resort...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alf

What about a counter question? When the Ministry of Defense signs a contract with a factory in January to produce tanks, guns, and aircraft, it sets and locks in the price. The factory begins operations. How many times do prices for energy, materials, etc., change over the course of a year?

By 70% in a year?
Contracts for the T-90 supply were signed for one-year terms. And until 2011, UVZ also regularly raised prices for the T-90, compensating for rising costs of components and materials. But from 2007 to 2010, the price increased from 56 million rubles to 70 million rubles. And then, suddenly, for 2011, the plant announced a price of 118 million rubles.

[Alf]

Quote: Alexey RA

And suddenly, for 2011, the plant rolls out a price of 118 million evergreens.

And no explanation for this? Everyone and their dog was writing about this scandal, but no one explained the reasons for it. Isn't that odd? Usually in such cases, you hear everywhere, "Damn businessmen trying to make a buck," but here there's total silence. Isn't that odd? Or did the government get an unpleasant response?

[Mars]

Forgot the T-55? By the way, the T-90 is an inexpensive tank, much cheaper than Western tanks.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Mars

Forgot the T-55?

But it is not an MBT.
And who among us fights on T-55? The last one was the relic 18th pulad, from which T-55AM was removed during the furniture maker's visit.

[Mars]

Under the furniture maker, they removed it because the army was being cut, and now they've brought out the T-55 and T-62 again.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Mars

They removed it when the furniture maker was working because they were cutting down the army.

The reason wasn't downsizing, but rather the realization that the T-55 had zero combat value in the 21st century. Therefore, the 18th Tank Detachment received T-80BVs instead. Similarly, the 42nd Motorized Rifle Division replaced its T-62s with T-72B3s.

[Mars]

Nevertheless, the North Military District needed a lot of tanks, so the T-55 and T-62 were returned to the troops.

[Pavel57]

It is necessary to standardize tanks as much as possible.

[Alf]

Quote: Pavel57

It is necessary to standardize tanks as much as possible.

For example ?

[Pavel57]

Quote: TEM

THREE MBTs in service!!!
THE DEGREE OF MADNESS IS GROWING STRONGER!!!
THIS IS A CRIME ON A STATE SCALE!!!

What is the third type of tank?

[HAVE]

T-72B3; T-80 and Co; T-90 and Co.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: TEM

T-72B3

More precisely, T-72 and Co. Because, despite the current production rate, there weren't enough T-72B3s for everyone. So, some T-72s of previous modifications still remain.

[seregatara1969]

the information has been officially announced

Then it was officially described, and now it has also been officially read.

[Sancho da Vinca]

I served in the North on the 80s, a very cool machine, powerful, fast, starts in 50 seconds, in any weather, only pleasant memories... But the T-72 family is also needed, this "field worker" has its advantages, in short, I love both!

[Broad flag]

Quote: olegff68

Heh... You should learn that a 500 kW asynchronous motor weighs almost SIX TONS.
Hence again - why the hell does a goat need a button accordion?
And yes, to broaden your horizons - humanity invented electric cars before automobiles.....

Sorry for interfering in your intellectual dispute.
But:
1 at what frequency does a 500 kW AC weigh 6t, with what number of poles? (the military uses 400Hz, do you remember the formula?
2. There are direct current machines.
3 There are hybrids in which the torque of the electric motor and the internal combustion engine is added together.
By the way, the turbine and electric motor are combined much more organically.
The problem is that we don't have production.
I can hardly imagine normal power electronics - an inverter on LGBT with a power of 1.5 MW in the form factor of our tank.
And so the box with the power plant twin turbine with a reversible motor generator and a tower with a 152mm gun will make not only a savings bank but also any stronghold at a distance of 25-30 km.
And it will disappear.

[kriten]

Are we going to go to NATO with columns of tanks? Who are we going to fight with tanks? It would be better to invest money in more useful things: now we need means of fighting drones like air. And there are almost no effective ones at the front. And they are also extremely necessary in the rear.

[AC130 Gunship]

We need to have one MBT. A good one. And the capacity for repairs. Not three (one of which was driven around the squares for a long time, but for some reason it never reached the front line)

[Alf]

Quote: AC130 Ganship

You need to have one MBT. A good one.

Brilliant! We'll make the T-90 our main tank. T-72, T-80 scrap?

[nedgen]

The gas turbine is easy to start, especially at low temperatures, and has a simpler design than a piston engine.

Well, as for a simpler design, that's a tall order. Look at the price of a diesel engine and the price of a gas turbine engine (although some might say that's the result of a huge series of diesel engines, even though the technology for producing gas turbine blades is already prohibitively expensive). ). Besides, diesel engines can be repaired in the field, including major overhauls, but this isn't possible with gas turbine engines. Yes, theoretically, the gas turbine design is simpler, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Just imagine the turbine rotor balance. And how do they change turbine blades in the field, for example? That's why the turbine on the T-80 can be replaced in 20-30 minutes. Of course, the same could be done for the T-72 and T-90, but unfortunately, this would require replacing too many things in the engine compartment, and that's definitely not feasible in wartime conditions. Production of the T-90 would plummet immediately, unless production is completely halted for a while. It could take even six months, if not a year.