Military Review

In Russia, modifications were created T-80, which are superior to T-72B3 and T-90A

97
Designers from St. Petersburg developed several modernization options for the legendary T-80 gas turbine, but the military preferred simpler and cheaper diesel engines. Tanks.


In Russia, modifications were created T-80, which are superior to T-72B3 and T-90A


T-80 with dynamic protection "Relic"


In 2005, the T-80UA and T-80UE-1 tanks were adopted by the Russian army. Compared with earlier models of "eighty", these options have increased tactical and technical characteristics. They installed a modernized fire control system, thermal sights, a new gun, and as a result, these tanks began to outperform even the T-90A troops, which began to arrive in many ways. True, the problems with the efficiency of the gas turbine engine have not been resolved, and as a result, the troops received a very limited amount of these combat vehicles.

Even more perfect was to be a radical upgrade of the T-80BV to the Object 219M variant. This tank had to absorb all the best that was available in the domestic tank building.

On this version of the "eighties" set new dynamic protection "Relic" and active protection complex "Arena". As a result, the T-80 received some of the best security features in the world.



Tank Object 219M


"Relic" allows you to resist most of the modern sub-caliber and cumulative projectiles, including with tandem combat units. As you know, the sides of the tank can be covered only from light anti-tank weapons, but the Arena is able to effectively deal with the heaviest anti-tank missiles.

In addition, it is clear that the tank has sensors that inform the crew about laser irradiation, which are associated with a grenade launcher. The system will sense that the tank is being irradiated with a laser rangefinder sight or something else, and automatically fires grenades with noises that can even illuminate thermal imagers.

For the upgraded T-80, new modifications of the 125-mm guns were developed, capable of firing longer “projectiles”. It was reported that the loading mechanisms of the tanks were specially modified for these purposes.

The fire control system has been significantly improved, in terms of its characteristics, it has come close to the best foreign models, although it is a further development of the old JMS that appeared in the 80-e years. Especially for the T-80 was created a thermal imager called "Plisa". And if possible, operate this car at night - at the level of the best world standards.

The tank commander was able to capture an image from a thermal imager onto a monitor mounted in front of him and, if necessary, duplicate the work of a gunner operator.

All these innovations should have had an effect on the weight of the tank, but, as is known, based on the GTD-1250, a modification of the engine was created with power boosting to 1400 hp. Earlier it was reported that there are options for T-80, in which the driver was able to control the tank using the steering wheel. As a result, mobility characteristics should remain at the highest level. As you know, during the tender tests in Greece, T-80U showed the best speed characteristics - up to 80 km / h.



T-80U in Alabino


However, despite such magnificent characteristics in Russia, it was decided not to carry out further modernization, and to stop the operation of gas turbine tanks in the army in the near future. Currently focused on diesel tanks. True, the former leadership of the Ministry of Defense, in anticipation of a promising "Armata", did not buy new T-90s, but chose to upgrade T-72 to a very low-end B3 version.

At the tank biathlon held in Alabino, those present were fascinated by the demonstration performances of tankmen kantemirovtsev on T-80U, it is likely that participation in this event will be a kind of "last parade" of Russian gas turbine tanks.
Originator:
http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. dominatus
    dominatus 10 September 2013 07: 41
    12
    The Russians invited Italians, Germans, Americans to the next tank biathlon ...
    I wonder why the Ukrainians were not invited to their T-84 "Oplot" or BM "Oplot-M"?
    So they would find out on the spot whose cars are better.
    1. Predator-74
      Predator-74 10 September 2013 08: 06
      11 th
      Quote: dominatus
      The Russians invited Italians, Germans, Americans to the next tank biathlon ...
      I wonder why the Ukrainians were not invited to their T-84 "Oplot" or BM "Oplot-M"?
      So they would find out on the spot whose cars are better.

      Is it lubricated with fat?
      1. ymNIK1970
        ymNIK1970 10 September 2013 14: 48
        +7
        No. These are the ones the railroad car plant with a "promising" platform is trying to reach. And "h.o.kh.l.o.v.", clearly they will not call. Because these tanks will do everything that is in the Russian tank forces. But afterwards the impudent, stupid, thieving "management" will have to answer a number of naive questions. And not just journalists. There is no free competition. There is a lobby. So they rivet the T-72 robotic, in different modifications. And everything else is "killed". Always and at all times such distortions have cost us very dearly. And as we have all seen, war can be on the doorstep at any moment. We are ready?
    2. seller trucks
      seller trucks 10 September 2013 12: 43
      11
      Quote: dominatus
      I wonder why the Ukrainians were not invited to their T-84 "Oplot" or BM "Oplot-M"?
      So they would find out on the spot whose cars are better.


      everything is extremely simple, "Oplot" is not a massive tank and, in principle, there are scanty chances to meet with it in a real battle, secondly, it is a direct competitor, and no one is going to advertise for "Brothers" Ukrainians, love the project "Oplot" no future, you have been with him since the beginning of 2000 as with a decommissioned bag and what? now it's not even very important better - worse is better, from now on you are somehow yourself, okay?
    3. Alexey Prikazchikov
      Alexey Prikazchikov 10 September 2013 14: 54
      14 th
      The Russians invited Italians, Germans, Americans to the next tank biathlon ...
      I wonder why the Ukrainians were not invited to their T-84 "Oplot" or BM "Oplot-M"?
      So they would find out on the spot whose cars are better.


      And nah we need you)))))
    4. bereg
      bereg 10 September 2013 15: 29
      +3
      Quote: dominatus
      The Russians invited Italians, Germans, Americans to the next tank biathlon ...
      I wonder why the Ukrainians were not invited to their T-84 "Oplot" or BM "Oplot-M"?
      So they would find out on the spot whose cars are better.

      in the sense of biathlon is the skill of the crew, and here what is better
    5. Uhe
      Uhe 10 September 2013 16: 56
      +5
      And what is there to find out if, judging by what is happening, Ukraine will soon be in the EU and NATO, and these T-84s will be cut into metal?
      1. Joker
        Joker 10 September 2013 21: 16
        +3
        and these t-xnumx will be cut to metal?

        Like all of our T-80, and without joining NATO.
    6. clidon
      clidon 13 September 2013 17: 18
      0
      Invited, this does not mean that they will come.
  2. Papakiko
    Papakiko 10 September 2013 07: 56
    18
    At the tank biathlon held in Alabino, those present were fascinated by the demonstration performances of tankmen kantemirovtsev on T-80U, it is likely that participation in this event will be a kind of "last parade" of Russian gas turbine tanks.
    To perceive the article as a "swan song"?
    as a result, by many characteristics, these tanks began to surpass even the T-90A, which had just begun to enter the army. Tank Object 219M
    And if you set all the bells and whistles on "72" in the form of "Relic," Arena, etc., how much will it be inferior to "80"?
    Not tired of making a "shit" because of "72" - "80" - "90"?
    Well, they would be like "morkva" - "abrasha" - "leclerk", otherwise the brothers T (USSR) came out of one "parent".They have more in common than differences.. hi
  3. ka5280
    ka5280 10 September 2013 08: 19
    +3
    Please tell me, is it possible to install the T-80 tower on the T-72 chassis?
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 10 September 2013 09: 12
      0
      Quote: ka5280
      Is it possible to install the T-80 tower on the T-72 chassis?

      Sense, or ask about equipment?
      1. ka5280
        ka5280 10 September 2013 10: 05
        0
        About the equipment.
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 10 September 2013 10: 38
          +3
          Quote: ka5280
          About the equipment.

          If free-falling bombs can be turned into controlled bombs by means of not cunning manipulations, then even in "our" case, even more so.
          Any metamorphoses that fit into the dimensions are not only possible but are categorically welcomed and supported by all parties to the cooperation. (Moscow Region, Armed Forces, Russian Railways, UVZ, etc.)
          The main thing is BABLO.
          1. ka5280
            ka5280 10 September 2013 12: 28
            0
            Thank you for the clarification!
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 10 September 2013 20: 25
            +2
            Quote: Papakiko
            Any metamorphoses that fit into the dimensions are not only possible but categorically welcome

            Not so simple. MZ, standing on the T-80, cab type. That is: the loading mechanism and the ammunition are fixed to the tower. The T72-90 has a separate tower, the ammunition is separate (located on the bottom of the tank). Structurally, different systems.
            And does it make sense to put a tower from the T-80 on a chassis from the t-72? The tower from T72-90 has been repeatedly modernized and, I think, at the moment it is the most advanced in the line of teshes.
            1. Yemelya
              Yemelya 10 September 2013 20: 46
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              And does it make sense to put a tower from the T-80 on a chassis from the t-72? The tower from T72-90 has been repeatedly modernized and, I think, at the moment it is the most advanced in the line of teshes.


              You can theoreticalize: for example, the T-80U go to the scrap, and their towers are placed on the T-72A, for example.
    2. Yemelya
      Yemelya 10 September 2013 20: 44
      +1
      Quote: ka5280
      Please tell me, is it possible to install the T-80 tower on the T-72 chassis?


      The tower shoulder strap is probably the same.

      Quote: ka5280
      About the equipment.


      The internal volume of the T-80U tower was made somewhat larger than that of its predecessors, just in order for the equipment to fit in, the T-90 with a cast tower should have less volume, but the equipment seems to fit ...
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 September 2013 21: 34
        0
        Quote: Emelya
        the T-90 with a cast tower .....

        The cast tower on the T-90 was only at the first modification, and on the subsequent only welded (including the tower was installed from the facility 187).
        1. Yemelya
          Yemelya 10 September 2013 21: 48
          0
          Quote: Bad_gr
          The cast tower on the T-90 was only the first modification


          But the LMS there, it seems, was already from the T-80U.
          In 2005, a couple of T-90AKs with cast were released, probably from the stash.

          Quote: Bad_gr
          (including the tower was installed from the facility 187).


          About 187 the tower was larger than the T-90 with a welded one.

          shh
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 10 September 2013 22: 12
            +2
            Quote: Emelya
            But the LMS there, it seems, was already from the T-80U.

            The MSA for the T-80U, as well as for all the allied tanks (including the T-64), was made by the Chelyabinsk SKB Rotor, which now (OAO NPO Elektromashina) is part of the UVZ. By the way, the developer of the T-80 tank, Open Joint-Stock Company Special Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (Spetsmash OJSC), is also part of this corporation. http://www.uvz.ru/company/is
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 10 September 2013 09: 21
    +9
    Serdyukov and K., why they needed modern tanks, they would have to cut the dough and dump it over the hill, and what’s interesting for Russia. However, the authorities stubbornly insist that Serdyukov and K worked only for the good of the Motherland tirelessly. Why in the country no one believes in this even somehow strange.
    1. il grand casino
      il grand casino 10 September 2013 09: 54
      +2
      Our people, in the opinion of our Duma, are illiterate and ... that’s incredulous))) They don’t believe the working people’s government for the good and that’s all)))
    2. alone
      alone 10 September 2013 20: 24
      +1
      Quote: vladsolo56
      However, the authorities stubbornly insist that Serdyukov and K worked only for the good of the Motherland tirelessly.


      they worked, nobody doubts that. Only the Motherland had nothing to do with it
  6. Per se.
    Per se. 10 September 2013 10: 41
    13
    Alas, according to yesterday's statement by the head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Alexander Shevchenko, the T-80 clearly has no place in our army. According to Shevchenko, according to the "concept for the development of armored weapons of military equipment until 2020," in 1,5 years, only two types of tanks should remain in our ground forces, these are T-72 and T-90A, otherwise the type is not profitable. During the war, the Germans made SPGs on the chassis of old tanks, what we will have with the rest of the tanks is not clear, nor did they enlighten us on the topic of the miracle platform, where everything is "in one bottle." It is a pity for the "eighty", this is a good tank with a gas turbine engine, which could still serve Russia, and, you must understand, this tank has far from exhausted its capabilities, becoming a victim of monopoly and narrow-minded logic. For the Yankees with their Abrams, there will be one less dangerous enemy ...
    1. luiswoo
      luiswoo 10 September 2013 13: 18
      10
      Quote: Per se
      ... this is a good tank with a gas turbine engine that could still serve Russia, and, one must understand, this tank has not exhausted its capabilities, becoming a victim of monopoly and narrow-minded logic.

      I absolutely agree that it is a crime to write off the "pitiful" 4000 cars (in the USA there are only 6900 Abrams), which even the language does not dare to call morally obsolete.
      Well, okay, as the T-80 tank as a whole is overlaid, perhaps, but 4000 pieces of its chassis, which are likely to be scrapped in the "best traditions", when they can still be used - there are no words here anymore.
    2. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 10 September 2013 18: 21
      0
      YES IF YOU LEAVE ANOTHER ONE TANK EXACTLY TO FLOW TO THE PIPE, NOW THIS IS A OTHER COUNTRY AND IT IS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A TANK ONLY OWN, DO NOT SEE ANYTHING TO TAKE IT YOURSELF, HERE IS READY TO SOME. THOSE WHO COLLECT THE COUNTRY ARE SCARISHLY EXCITED FROM ANYWHERE OF THESE, HERE AND ITS REQUIREMENT ONLY
    3. phantom359
      phantom359 13 September 2013 22: 16
      +1
      Yes, it is a pity. We have been carrying out firing from these vehicles for 17 months already. The guys praise. He can compete with an abram.
  7. Algor73
    Algor73 10 September 2013 10: 44
    +8
    The T-80 tank is unique. It was the best tank in the USSR. But the policy of the country's leadership is such that it is expensive to operate even two types of tanks. So they gave preference to tanks of the T-72 line, where the production base is preserved, the design bureau. The personal ambitions of UVZ designers took up common sense and instead of perfecting the eighty, they took up the seventy-two. The Kharkiv residents were not ashamed of it on the basis of the T-80, they created a very not even bad Oplot-M, modernizing the 64-ku (after all, they did not create the Oplot on the basis of "64", but on the basis of "80", where the potential for improvement is much higher. A "72" the same "64"). But this is already in the past. Ahead of "Armata" and what tanks will be in service, I hope, in peacetime, before its arrival, is not so important.
  8. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 10 September 2013 11: 03
    +7
    T-80 is a great tank. The rejection of it demonstrates the shortsightedness and tendentiousness of the current generals. Alas. It is just that the St. Petersburg plant did not shout to all of Russia what kind of president it would tear everyone. Alas. crying
  9. barbiturate
    barbiturate 10 September 2013 11: 07
    +7
    "The motor is the same weapon of the tank as the cannon," Guderian said, and he understood something about tanks. It's a pity for the T-80 (gas turbine versions), the excellent engine gave excellent mobility and maneuverability, it would be improved further in the direction of increasing power and fuel efficiency, like the Americans (the characteristics of a promising gas turbine engine with a consumption like a diesel almost), but Yeltsin was born in the Urals and he promised his fellow countrymen to leave Uralvagonzavod, which he did. Still they knew how to make a diesel engine, it would be okay, otherwise, how was the V-92 840hp? and remained.
    1. uwzek
      uwzek 10 September 2013 22: 45
      +2
      The V-92 diesel engine has never been 840 horsepower, it is more. The disadvantage of tank gas turbine engines is not their gluttony, but their vacuum content - a jet engine requires a large amount of clean air, which the tank does not have, it dusts when moving.
      1. M. Peter
        M. Peter 14 September 2013 09: 31
        0
        The T-80 has no problem with dust, do not la-la.
        Another thing is that many say that the diesel engine has a problem with starting at low temperatures. But this problem is completely solvable. For diesel fuel, you can use a variety of additives that will solve this problem. But the cost of the tank, or rather its power plant, is also a critical moment for our army, there are no special advantages in the current conditions, why then ask to keep two tanks almost identical in their characteristics? So they chose a much cheaper option.
        It’s not worth killing on the T-80, the tank is good, but it’s more expensive for us to maintain it.
  10. ksan
    ksan 10 September 2013 11: 20
    +1
    And "72" is the same "64").
    No "not the same" smile This is a different machine. Yes, and no one is going to "cut" like in Ukraine.
    Ahead of "Armata" and what tanks will be in service, I hope, in peacetime, before its arrival, is not so important.
    And here I agree smile Let's wait for "Armata", we'll see, and 80_ka is put in storage and not under the "knife" hi
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 10 September 2013 16: 59
      +2
      Storage with the loss of technology turns into destruction :(
  11. ss25
    ss25 10 September 2013 11: 23
    +3
    as I understand it’s the price, the t80 is 2 times more expensive and it’s easier to buy more tanks.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 10 September 2013 20: 36
      +4
      Quote: ss25
      t80 costs 2 times more expensive and it is easier to buy more tanks.
      Why buy if there are ready-made ones? Do you believe that instead of the T-80 they will "buy" twice as much? Why did our Defense Ministry's hands itch to destroy those stored in warehouses of AK, of excellent Soviet quality, passing them off as junk, almost with crooked barrels, do you think it would be wiser with "extra" tanks? They slaughtered the T-95, a supertank that was almost ready eight years ago, began to push the budget topic on the "Armata", from which it is not known what else will turn out, whether this bourgeois concept of a "sexless" platform will be justified at all. Well, we have optimists, otherwise you will get drunk so much from the realization of a new common sense, where the main thing is only money, and all morality is in profit.
      1. uwzek
        uwzek 10 September 2013 22: 54
        0
        "Armata" is not a budget topic. As a tank, your T-95 will work out, at a price for sure ...
    2. Yemelya
      Yemelya 10 September 2013 22: 55
      +1
      Quote: ss25
      as I understand it’s the price, the t80 is 2 times more expensive and it’s easier to buy more tanks.


      It will not work to buy the T-80, but it would be worth the T-80U now, if it were to be produced in a large series, it is difficult to say much more expensive than the T-90A, only due to the engine, and this is 10 percent of the cost.
  12. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 10 September 2013 11: 56
    13
    Why, before, when we operated a motley fleet of tanks, no one shouted or screeched about deunification?
    Because the deliveries were SECONDARY kits, including not only the machines themselves, but also the tahnic base for routine maintenance and repair, the training and methodological base and the corresponding simulators.
    And then, of course, there was a problem with the attached equipment, for example, linear parts were equipped with T-72, and BREMs based on T-62, BTS based on T-55 in the staff of these regiments.

    Why are you talking about this now?
    Caring for the tank?
    Do not tell my rusty "gusli" ...
    Everything is very similar to the capture of sales markets by manufacturers and repairmen ...
    BABLO - this is the first thought that arises, unfortunately ...

    With all due respect to UVZ, but: Omsk and St. Petersburg tank schools "undermined" ...
    The question is not even about design ideas and not about possible options for modernization of the T-80, but about the simplest and most primitive factory overhaul of cars and gas turbine engines.
    Pancake.

    The resources of the T-80 fleet currently in service have not been used up to such an extent that they can be decommissioned and put into BHVT.
    If they do it now, then the name for this is very simple - STATE CRIME, not negligence.
    Siberia, the Far East, the North - ideal conditions for these machines at present, even without modernization.
    These cars are so unique that ... in general, the "okiyan" will obviously be delighted with such news, and this is the best indicator ...

    If the problem is only in repair, then this is generally a scribe animal.
    Do not forget about the export deliveries of T-80s, for example, to Cyprus and Korea, will we also throw them with repairs and spare parts? Or are we going to strip our cars to maintain the image of a tank exporting country?

    Well, wherever you look - everywhere it turns out ...
    I want to swear.
    And this despite the fact that I'm a fan of T-72B ...
    I’m just writing as a TANKIST, who is pained to hear such crap ............................

    It is possible to replace the T-80 only with Armata, and it is not known what it will be.
    I hope for logic in the issue of the country's defense, and not for the official lobby and the thirst for money in the military-industrial complex.
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 10 September 2013 20: 53
      0
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Why, before, when we operated a motley fleet of tanks, no one shouted or screeched about deunification?


      Maybe they didn’t squeal, but the question was acute.
      Entire decisions of the Council of Ministers have been adopted. T-80U was supposed to be one, but it did not work out. It seemed that there were plans to switch to a single plant at all plants by 2000, but, as you know, this is not fate either.

      Quote: Aleks tv
      If they do it now, then the name for this is very simple - STATE CRIME, not negligence.


      Or maybe I really want to sell the retired T-80U?
  13. Crang
    Crang 10 September 2013 12: 09
    -6
    Where do they surpass that? As a maximum at the level of T-72B3.
    1. gallville
      gallville 10 September 2013 14: 58
      +4
      Quote: Krang
      Where do they surpass that? As a maximum at the level of T-72B3.

      And how many of these T-72B3s in the Russian Federation are 100? 200? 300?
      And the T-80 which, incidentally, is higher, at least in terms of design and materials, of 4000 thousand.
      According to the reform, 2500 thousand tanks were supposed to be built in and about 7,5 thousand at storage bases.
      What prevented the T-80 from being left in service? And the T-72 is in storage?
      I’ll even say differently why T-08.08.08 fought in Georgia on 62, why T-62?
      The answer is clear to everyone - disorder, disregard, lobbying for their financial interests in this case through UVZ.

      And then we look:
      - T-80s remained in the Far East; moreover, the party was sent to the Kuril Islands;
      - T-72 in about 3 modifications - different LMS minimum;
      - The T-90 is another essentially modification of the T-90 - it’s only a suo and an engine.
      Here is the savings !!!!
      And at the same time, the T-72 modification of early models to B3 is being carried out which is essentially inferior to the T-80.
      And is it not lobbying for financial interests due to a drop in defense capability?
      1. Crang
        Crang 10 September 2013 15: 07
        -5
        Again this nonsense has begun. Kars two.
      2. Crang
        Crang 10 September 2013 15: 14
        -1
        Quote: gallville
        A T-80 which by the way is higher, if only from the point of view of construction and materials

        Who said the above? Are you? And I say the same.
        Quote: gallville
        4000 тыс.

        It was. Not anymore. And the T-72 was 9000pcs.
        Quote: gallville
        What prevented the T-80 from being left in service? And the T-72 is in storage?

        Because the T-72 was chosen as the best of the trinity.
        Quote: gallville
        I’ll even say differently why T-08.08.08 fought in Georgia on 62, why T-62?

        T-62 is very small. Mostly T-72B and T-72BM. Now there is a T-90A.
        Quote: gallville
        - The T-90 is another essentially modification of the T-90 - it’s only a suo and an engine.
        Here is the savings !!!!

        Are you wrong? Or are you all driving the same T-64 modification?
        Quote: gallville
        And at the same time, the T-72 modification of early models to B3 is being carried out which is essentially inferior to the T-80.

        T-72Б3 surpasses the T-80 (basic) by an order of magnitude. And better than T-80U.
        1. gallville
          gallville 10 September 2013 15: 30
          +3
          Quote: Krang
          Are you? And I say the same.

          Then argue.
          Quote: Krang
          It was. Not anymore.

          The Russian army - 4000 T-80BV and T-80U, of which 3000 are in storage, as of 2012 [22].
          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D2-80
          Quote: Krang
          And the T-72 was 9000pcs.

          Level B3 or T-80U / BV?
          Quote: Krang
          Because the T-72 was chosen as the best of the trinity.

          Reason again? Does the T-72 at -40 degrees start up well? Or T-72 level T-80 in bulk at the storage bases was?
          Quote: Krang
          T-62 is very small.

          Nonetheless. Well, after the scandal, they bothered to re-preserve the T-72B and drive it into combat units, before that they wanted to spit on what they were fighting there. By the way, Budanov also fought on the T-62, and this is excuse me for the times of Chechnya.
          Quote: Krang
          Are you wrong? Or are you all driving the same T-64 modification?

          1. Smiled not a lot of the answer from the series: "you yourself ...."
          2. The main tank in Ukraine is the T-64B (in the USSR there were only B and A), the Bulat (about 64 pcs.) And the Oplot (where there are as many) are also adopted by the T-10. But in combat units T-64B. Total yes! We go on one modification.
          3. I hope the situation in Ukraine in the topic of Russian T-80 We will not discuss. But if there is such a desire, we can go back to the relevant topic.
          Quote: Krang
          T-72B3 exceeds T-80 (base) by an order of magnitude. And better than the T-80U

          Well, what prevented "Pine" from being put into the T-80BV?)))) And which of them would be better?
          And how many of these same B3 in Russia?
          1. Crang
            Crang 10 September 2013 18: 15
            +6
            Quote: gallville
            Then argue.

            No, you first. You are the first to declare that the T-80 is better than the T-72. So you are the first to argue for this. So far, none of my interlocutors have been able to do this. There are only lengthy statements about "the perfection of the fire control system" and 28 shots in the MZ versus 22 in the AZ of the T-72. On the LMS - of course nonsense. Any tank, like a combat ship, undergoes upgrades in the course of its service, during which more and more new and improved FCS are installed on them. This was originally incorporated in them and does not require any radical changes in the design of the tank. The only thing that can be compared in such a situation is the basic design and layout of the tank. Here, neither the T-80 nor the T-64 can oppose anything special to the T-72 (the T-80 is perhaps only a gas turbine engine, but this is still in question).
            Quote: gallville
            The Russian army - 4000 T-80BV and T-80U, of which 3000 are in storage, as of 2012 [22].

            T-80U or T-80UD? This is a big difference.
            Quote: gallville
            Level B3 or T-80U / BV?

            All models. From T-72A to T-72B3.
            Quote: gallville
            Nonetheless. Well, after the scandal, they bothered to re-preserve the T-72B and drive it into combat units, before that they wanted to spit on what they were fighting there. By the way, Budanov also fought on the T-62, and this is excuse me for the times of Chechnya.

            Well, let's put our main tank of that war - the T-72B was there initially. Hero of Russia Colonel Budanov fought in Chechnya 13 years ago (time is running fast) and not on the T-62, but on the T-62MV - this is a huge difference compared to the base T-62. The T-62 is generally one of the most beloved vehicles by tankers, and also the T-62MV, D, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs is generally a sweetie.
            1. Yemelya
              Yemelya 10 September 2013 21: 04
              0
              Quote: Krang
              The only thing that can be compared in such a situation is the basic design and layout of the tank. Here, neither the T-80 nor the T-64 can do anything special to counter the T-72 (the T-80 is probably only a gas turbine engine, but this is still in question).


              It is very difficult to convey this simple truth to the participants of the Tankosrach, then there will be nothing to splint about.

              Quote: Krang
              Budanov fought in Chechnya 13 years ago (time goes by quickly) and not on the T-62, but on the T-62MV - this is a huge difference compared to the base T-62.


              Judging by the footage of the chronicle, the Budanov regiment fought on the T-62 without any extra. armor. At best, a caterpillar wrapped around a tower.

              And what about the T-62MVD?
              1. Kars
                Kars 10 September 2013 21: 21
                +3
                Quote: Emelya
                it’s very difficult to convey that simple truth to the participants of Tankosrach, t

                Oh yes, the simple truth is that GTE is mentioned in one sentence with the layout.
                and of course the basic design and layout of the so-called T-64 tanks
                72 / 80 / 90 well, very different.

                below dame cro dignity krengi tankman one noted
                Quote: Aleks tv
                Dear Gregory, you don’t seem to be polite with politeness ...
                In general, I do not care for this, but here, on the forum there may be children ...
                So what’s the brains uh ... well ... torment? Lana?
              2. Crang
                Crang 10 September 2013 21: 22
                -1
                Quote: Emelya
                Judging by the footage of the chronicle, the Budanov regiment fought on the T-62 without any extra. armor. At best, a caterpillar wrapped around a tower.

                There were the usual T-62. But most were the T-62M. There were also T-62MV.
                Quote: Emelya
                And what about the T-62MVD?

                A monster with combined armor modules, a Kontakt-1 mounted explosive reactive armor system and a Drozd active protection system installed at the same time. An automated control system with TBV and URO is attached. Well, the engine in 690hp. Serially, such a mutant was not produced, but it seemed to be met. Probably brutal technology.
                1. Yemelya
                  Yemelya 10 September 2013 21: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Krang
                  A monster with combined armor modules, a Kontakt-1 mounted explosive reactive armor system and a Drozd active protection system installed at the same time. An automated control system with TBV and URO is attached. Well, the engine in 690hp. Serially, such a mutant was not produced, but it seemed to be met. Probably brutal technology.


                  Think fairy tales.

                  Combined armor and DZ on the T-62 were not installed at the same time, either this or that.

                  At the expense of "Drozd" - tests were carried out, no more.

                  The T-62D is an "Afghan" modification, it differed from the T-62M in the absence of a heat-shielding barrel casing and modernization of weapons.


                  1. Crang
                    Crang 10 September 2013 21: 46
                    0
                    Quote: Emelya
                    The T-62D is an "Afghan" modification, it differed from the T-62M in the absence of a heat-shielding barrel casing and modernization of weapons.

                    Well, according to the manual, the T-62D is an ordinary T-62 with a KAZT "Drozd" and some other improvements. Type of new LMS and additional armor of the bottom.
                    1. Yemelya
                      Yemelya 10 September 2013 21: 57
                      0
                      Quote: Krang
                      Well, according to the manual, the T-62D is an ordinary T-62 with a KAZT "Drozd" and some other improvements. Type of new LMS and additional armor of the bottom.


                      The letter "D" is misleading, which, by analogy with the T-55AD, is taken for the designation of the modification with the KAZ "Drozd".

                      But, I believe that the T-62D got its designation by analogy with the BMP-1D, BMP-2D and BTR-70D used in DRA.

                      In the memoirs of veterans met the designation of the T-62D.
          2. Crang
            Crang 10 September 2013 18: 16
            0
            Quote: gallville
            Well, what prevented "Pine" from being put into the T-80BV?)))) And which of them would be better?

            "Sosna-U" is just a sight. In the T-72B3, this sight is interfaced with an automated control system 1A40-1M with a microprocessor computer with a built-in target tracking machine. Of all the modifications of the T-90, only the export Indian T-90S Bshikhma has an automatic target tracking. Others don't. And on the T-72B3 there is. In addition, the command complex in the T-72B3 was replaced by the TKN-3M, which has a "Double" mode (that is, allowing the commander to fire a cannon from his seat) and an improved night vision channel. If you put all this on the T-80BV .... We chose the T-72B because there are more of them and they are better. For the T-80BV, they came up with an upgrade in the form of the T-80UE-1 - this is the installation on the T-80BV hull of the turret from the unreliable T-80UD decommissioned long ago. In this case, it is not clear what kind of thermal imager the author is talking about. The FCS T-80UD differed from the FCS T-80U in that instead of the Ti-sight TO-PO-2T "Agava-2" (which then cost like a floor of a tank), the T-80UD was fitted with a simpler ik-sight "Buran-PA" as evidenced by the "Moon" searchlight to the right of the cannon. If the T-80UE-1 has a thermal imager, then this is the same upgrade as in the case of the T-72. In addition, even the T-80U with "Agave" is very far from the T-72B3 and T-90A in terms of night search capabilities. In this respect, the T-80U is equal to the basic modification of the T-90. So, the assertions of the author of the article that the modernized T-80 is superior to the T-90 are completely untenable. So in the prototype it was stuffed to the brim: KAZT, VDZ "Relikt", KOEP, etc. But it was exactly the same with the T-90. 100% that the military, if they order these T-80UE-1 and T-80UA, will take them in the same cut-down configuration as the T-90. And all the same, they will be far from the T-90A. The T-90A not only has a more perfect and safer AZ itself, but it is also booked locally. And the side of the hull and turret of the T-90A has "Chobham" composite armor, while the T-72B3 and T-80UE / UA have a monolith of very modest thickness.
            1. gallville
              gallville 10 September 2013 18: 52
              +1
              Can you essentially answer? What would be better to get the T-80BV "Pine" and so on?
              Quote: Krang
              So, the author’s claim that the modernized T-80 is superior to the T-90 is completely untenable.

              And I did not say that the T-80 is superior to the T-90 of the latest modifications. By the way, one grandmother in the yard said that the T-90 was born from a symbiosis of T-80 equipment and T-72, only the LMS chose a slightly better one.
              Quote: Krang
              The T-90A is not only that in itself a more advanced and safe AZ

              But this is a sore point, what is better than MOH or AZ, and that and that have their advantages. Although, of course, for local counterguerrilla conflicts, the horizontal arrangement of shells is more advantageous.
              1. Crang
                Crang 10 September 2013 19: 49
                -2
                Quote: gallville
                Can you essentially answer? What would be better to get the T-80BV "Pine" and so on?

                Nothing would have happened. A tank equal to T-72B3 in terms of fire capabilities would have turned out. And further: The protection is about the same. In terms of survivability and explosion safety - worse. Reliability is worse. For the price more expensive. The speed is better. For comfort worse.
                Quote: gallville
                But this is a sore point, what is better than MOH or AZ, and that and that have their advantages. Although, of course, for local counterguerrilla conflicts, the horizontal arrangement of shells is more advantageous.

                Yeah, it’s been discussed 100 times. AZ tanks T-72 and T-90 compared with the MZ T-64 and T-80:
                - leaves more space inside the tank, allows the crew to move freely and control units to the fighting compartment and vice versa, which increases the chances of the crew to survive the defeat of the tank. Ship MZ T-64 and T-80 block the interior of the tank.
                - AZ is flat, located at the bottom of the tank and is shielded by road wheels - getting into it is quite difficult. Vertically standing charges in the MZ T-64 and T-80 give a large area and are not shielded from the sides (the MZ starts above the track rollers). This is an obvious flaw.
                - Shot pallets AZ T-72 and T-90 are thrown out of the tank, which provides enough fresh air inside the tank and the possibility of "series" firing mode - up to 10 rounds per minute (shot in 6s). Pallets T-64 and T-80 remain stinking inside the tank and exclude the firing mode series. Maximum 8 rounds per minute.
                - Of the real advantages of the MZ T-64 and T-80 before the AZ T-72, perhaps only a few more large capacity can be attributed.
                That is, in the aggregate most vital parameters (excluding any technological nonsense) AZ of the T-72 and T-90 is much better. It could not be worse because Designed later than the MZ T-64, taking into account the shortcomings of the latter. It seems that the designers, putting the ship’s MH in the tank, somehow forgot that after all, people are also sitting there. Now, if we were arguing about ship (uninhabited) gun mounts - I would agree with you. for such conditions, the MOH is really preferable. But not for the tank. Not for work in inhabited BO where people are. MZ is simply not adapted to this, and the T-72 design is better here. That's why they chose her. And you would also need to draw such conclusions. You have a lot of all sorts of T-72s. Take a closer look at it - a great tank. Certainly no worse than your T-64B and T-64BV.
                1. Aleks tv
                  Aleks tv 10 September 2013 21: 08
                  +4
                  Quote: Krang
                  T-72Б3 surpasses the T-80 (basic) by an order of magnitude. And better than T-80U.

                  Quote: Krang
                  In addition, the command complex in the T-72B3 was replaced by the TKN-3M, which has a "Double" mode (that is, allowing the commander to fire a cannon from his seat) and an improved night vision channel. If you put all this on the T-80BV ...

                  Quote: Krang
                  The T-64 and T-80 pallets remain stink inside the tank and exclude the shooting mode series.

                  Dear Gregory, you don’t seem to be polite with politeness ...
                  In general, I do not care for this, but here, on the forum there may be children ...
                  So what’s the brains uh ... well ... torment? Lana?

                  T-72Б3 is a budget modernization of the 184 Object, the machine that I know well.
                  I declare with absolute certainty that it is short and insufficient for "modernization".
                  You probably didn’t notice that TPD-k1 was left in the same place? Type of spare? Dulea with poppy seeds. He is the BASIC.
                  A really wonderful sight Pine - NIGHT and SPARE.
                  Do you need to chew or guess yourself?

                  Copies of your cues - think about them at your leisure.
                  The fact is that TKN-3, TKN-3M, TKN-3MK are as ancient as I am.
                  With pleasure I will put it on the head of all the designers who put them now (!!!) during the modernization. More advanced TKN-80s and TKN-4s-4 stood and stand on the T-01.
                  Regarding the "series" ... Actually, this is a T-80 chip, did you know? There was no "series" system on the T-72b.
                  The rest is too lazy to comment. And trolling is not for me.

                  Regarding your long-reaching sayings:
                  They are mixed with complete truth and absolute crap, which very brainwashes those who are really interested in this topic.

                  I have served on the T-72B for more than 10 years and remain a FAN of my "turtle" and say again:
                  1. Modernization of T-72Б3 - NOT SUCH AS MANY PARAMETERS for the realities of today, Mulien has already described the necessary principles for its improvement.
                  2. T-80 so far, even without modernization, can stand up for itself quite well in front of all today's "novii", it can only be changed to Armata.
                  Everything else is crap verbal Crap.
                  I will listen to criticism with attention only from tankers, lovers of beautiful booklets with performance characteristics, please do not torment "Klava".
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 10 September 2013 21: 36
                    -2
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    You probably didn’t notice that TPD-k1 was left in the same place? Type of spare? Dulea with poppy seeds. He is the BASIC.

                    Left in the same place. But from the main, he switched to auxiliary.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    A really wonderful sight Pine - NIGHT and SPARE.

                    The combined sight "Sosna-U" installed on the site of the former TPN-3-49 night light or the 1K13-49 sight-device is now the BASIC one. It and the OMS 1A40-1M are tied to it.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    The fact is that TKN-3, TKN-3M, TKN-3MK are as ancient as I am.

                    Maybe there is a confusion of modifications here. Distinguish the old TKN-3M from the new TKN-3M. The new combined device TKN-3M has a "Double" mode and an increased field of view of the night channel. If in the old TKN-3 in the night mode the commander saw only in the center of the screen, now the field of view of the night channel has expanded to cover the entire field of view of the device.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    Regarding the "series" ... Actually, this is a T-80 chip, did you know? There was no "series" system on the T-72b.

                    The very meaning of the "Series" mode is that when the projectile is already in the cannon, i.e. BEFORE the shot, the AZ turns so that the next shot is ready to be loaded. As soon as the shot thundered, the next loading immediately goes. at the same time, time is not spent on turning the AZ and choosing a projectile. In the T-80, this mode is simply not feasible because MZ is forced to wait for a shot to take back the spent pallet and only then starts to rotate. You are confusing something.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    1. Modernization of T-72Б3 - NOT SUCH AS MANY PARAMETERS for the realities of today, Mulien has already described the necessary principles for its improvement.

                    Did I say something about this? I have always, with all my hands and feet, advocated the purchase of the T-90A, and not the modernization of the T-72BM. Because I think the T-90A is a more modern and advanced tank than the T-72B3. I can only repeat it to you again.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    2.T-80 so far, even without upgrades, can stand up well for itself in front of all today's "new",

                    Not more than T-72B. If we are talking about the T-80U - this is a tank at the level of the base T-90. It is worse than the T-72B3 and T-90A. Where did I lie?
                    1. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 10 September 2013 22: 21
                      +1
                      Quote: Krang
                      But from the main, he switched to auxiliary.

                      Well, well ... it's useless to explain.
                      Quote: Krang
                      If in the old TKN-3 in night mode the commander saw only in the center of the screen, now the field of view of the night channel has expanded to the entire field of view of the device.

                      You confuse with TKN-3MK, and this is the same crap, only with the 2 generation image intensifier.
                      Quote: Krang
                      In T-80, this mode is simply not feasible

                      Several thousand T-80s have a "series" system, but you claim there is none ...

                      It is useless to talk, I began to answer in vain.
                      1. Crang
                        Crang 10 September 2013 22: 35
                        -1
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        Several thousand T-80s have a "series" system, but you claim there is none ...

                        I explained to you the meaning of the "Series" mode. And he explained why it is impossible in the T-80. If you state the opposite, then if you please, explain in general terms how this "Series" mode is implemented in the T-80 and how does it work?
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        You confuse with TKN-3MK, and this is the same crap, only with the 2 generation image intensifier.

                        Maybe.
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        Well, well ... it's useless to explain.

                        Well, well, well, well? Who generally determines what should be the main and what the auxiliary? I would venture to suggest that the gunner. So what - do you think he will use the old sight when the Pine-U is next to it? Why? Where is the logic?
                      2. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 10 September 2013 23: 14
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        Where is the logic?

                        Practice.
                      3. Crang
                        Crang 11 September 2013 06: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        then please, then - explain in general terms how this "Series" mode is implemented in the T-80 and how does it work?

                        NOT explained. Therefore, on the T-80, as you yourself put it, you are a theorist with imagination.
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        Practice.

                        Again not explained. You are not a woman, I hope? Therefore, they must have normal male logic and good knowledge of mathematics. Well, EXPLAIN why in PRACTICE how do you say (I suspect that you are not familiar with the T-72B3 in practice - but you are only familiar with the T-72BM or the transitional repair model) using an old sight instead of a cool new one?
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        You are not a practitioner, but a theorist with fantasy. Keep that in mind.

                        During his very short service, it was given a little to use the T-80BV (by the way, there was no "Serie" firing mode in it) and to ride the T-34-85. Only you end this gelding with pipis. The military is generally a kind of people - since you served, and others did not, so they are not people at all and do not even have the right to anything at all, and your opinion should be immediately taken as the last resort. Stop promoting this nonsense here. Here the forum is a free zone. Leave your orders. People talk here.
                      4. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 11 September 2013 10: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: Krang
                        You are not a woman, I hope?

                        Stall.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Well, EXPLAIN why in PRACTICE how do you say (I suspect that you are not familiar with the T-72Б3 in practice - but are familiar only with the T-72БМ or transitional repair model) using an old sight instead of a cool new one?

                        Few people are familiar with the T-72B3.
                        On the sights I will explain how to practice:
                        The TPD-k1 sight was left in the car in the 100% configuration in a regular place, respectively, all the mechanisms for interfacing with weapons were left.
                        A wonderful sight Pine stuck into it using the equipment of the night system, which is optional.
                        In Russia there are NO domestic devices combining multichannel.
                        The Pine head cap screwed on bolts says the same thing.
                        This is called "upgrading with fear".
                        In practice, training firing will be carried out with the TPD-k1, it is not known whether they will use the Pine in full measure as the main sight.
                        I am most interested in this issue and I am waiting for feedback from my colleagues.
                        They have an extremely negative opinion about T-72Б3. Modernization is about nothing.
                        They put the Pine as a super-duper equipment, ordered it to DO NOT TOUCH AGAIN.
                        That's clearer ?
                        Quote: Krang
                        For his very short service, the T-80BV was given a little poyuzat

                        I do not believe. You have not said a word about the equipment of this machine, in particular, you are not even aware of the commander’s main device.
                        If you are just fond of tanks, then say so - I am fond of. This is really masculine, not bustling.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Military men are peculiar people in general - since you served and others do not, they are not people at all and do not even have the right to anything at all, and your opinion should be taken immediately as a last resort.

                        I repeat again -
                        Your commands are filled with a damn cloud of everything, starting from the correct phrases that you have clearly read on the Internet, with your own fantasy thoughts. True with a lie. This is extremely confusing for those who are interested in this topic. It's disgusting.

                        You, on a hike, know all the vehicles: the T-72 and T-80 and generally know all the tanks.
                        Personally, I know T-72B. And I know that the modernization of the T-72Б3 is done RAPIDLY. Your list of necessary modernization measures causes rzhach, a good army rzhach.

                        I hope the tankers from the T-80BV will catch you in a lie, you are our "servant". They will also say on which modifications of the T-80 the "series" system is installed.
                      5. Crang
                        Crang 11 September 2013 10: 35
                        +1
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        Stall.

                        Deaf yourself "polite" you are ours. They are trying to talk to you constructively. What's the answer? Insults and bestial roar. That is why I did not answer at first the "polite" questions - your feigned politeness. I can see right through these.
                        So, I still hope for a CONSTRUCTIVE conversation. And so I repeat my innocent question:
                        Quote: Krang
                        I explained to you the meaning of the "Series" mode. And he explained why it is impossible in the T-80. If you state the opposite, then if you please, explain in general terms how this "Series" mode is implemented in the T-80 and how does it work?

                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        Few people are familiar with the T-72B3.

                        Well, that means you're here same guest like me. So why all this shit and me and me? When you can just talk normally.
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        The TPD-k1 sight was left in the car in the 100% configuration in a regular place, respectively, all the mechanisms for interfacing with weapons were left.

                        And what are these mechanisms? If we are talking about a digital ballistic computer and a laser rangefinder SUO 1A40-1 of the basic T-72B (which is not in 1K13-49), then Sosna-U has all these components, and they are connected into a single automated system.
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        In practice, training firing will be carried out with the TPD-k1, it is not known whether they will use the Pine in full measure as the main sight.

                        Do you know that for sure?
                      6. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 11 September 2013 10: 44
                        -1
                        Quote: Krang
                        They are trying to talk constructively with you. What is the answer? Insults and bestial roar.

                        Yes.
                        A beast when they attach themselves to a tank fraternity.
                        Just talked to the T-80 officer.
                        Quote:
                        "... on the T80B, as well as on the T64B, this mode (series) existed in the MZ"
                        It is strange that you did not know about this, having served on this machine.
                        Stall, impostor.

                        And do not get into the discussion about T-72Б3, you know it for sure only from the brochures.
                      7. Crang
                        Crang 11 September 2013 11: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        Stall, impostor.

                        Are you stupid or something? Or blurted out the bullshit and now do not know how to get out?
                        One more time:
                        Quote: Krang
                        I explained to you the meaning of the "Series" mode. And he explained why it is impossible in the T-80. If you state the opposite, then if you please, explain in general terms how this "Series" mode is implemented in the T-80 and how does it work?

                        Or stall yourself. Or an officer with a T-80 in the studio.
                  2. Crang
                    Crang 11 September 2013 10: 40
                    -1
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    I hope the tankers from the T-80BV will catch you in a lie, you are our "servant". They will also say on which modifications of the T-80 the "series" system is installed.

                    Tankers with the T-80BV have not yet said a word about this system. This was stated by you - the owner and user of "Lizard". That is exactly YOU and explain to us:
                    Quote: Krang
                    I explained to you the meaning of the "Series" mode. And he explained why it is impossible in the T-80. If you state the opposite, then if you please, explain in general terms how this "Series" mode is implemented in the T-80 and how does it work?

                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    I do not believe. You have not said a word about the equipment of this machine, in particular, you are not even aware of the commander’s main device.

                    Who asked? That was 15 years ago. Then I didn't even know what it was called. I met a military man with 20 years of experience. He could not tell the AKMS apart from the AK-74M. For him it was just Kalash-7,62 and Kalash-5,45. Nevertheless, this man actually served in the army all his life and fought. Are you the same? Theory without practice is deaf. Practice without theory is blind.
                  3. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 11 September 2013 16: 15
                    -1
                    Quote: Krang
                    This was stated by you - the owner and user of "Lizard".

                    Yes, I went all the way to the "dinosaur" - T-72B and am proud of it.
                    And T-72B3 causes me bitter bewilderment by such a "modernization". Pine planting is just the required “start”.
                    And T-80 tankers have always considered the best machine in terms of the combination of combat and operational properties.
                    You don’t understand this, fans of advertising booklets - what is it like to operate a combat vehicle.
                    Quote: Krang
                    Tankers with the T-80BV have not said a word about this system yet.

                    Quote: Krang
                    Or an officer with the T-80 in the studio.

                    And you are also insolent ...
                    Serve the officer.
                    Can’t you lubricate one place with butter?
                    To the great your Unfortunately, not everything is possible to read on tyrnet.
                    Well, not all.
                    Be content with the quote from the company commander T-80:
                    ... "Series" on the T-80? Gunner's panel PO47-1S. Used to turn on the OMS and MH. Poke this "tanker" there ...
                    Strange you are the T-80 tanker, if you do not know the obvious.

                    About me and my service:
                    Yes, we are all on the internet, it is not clear who is who.
                    But a couple of abandoned phrases can say a lot. You have already said yours.
                    Read my comments on the forum and you will find many that are not in the public domain. I am not an expert, but a simple servant. Hanging out on this site because of nostalgia.
                    Your comments are filled out only by retelling TTX in the form of trolling and tank esch.
                    And you didn’t want to enter into a conversation, this was evident from your ignorant of my questions about your service yesterday.
                    By the way, for the first time I see a tanker wishing for his tank, especially if it's a T-80 ... Bullshit.
                    The conclusion is obvious.

                    Do not cling on.
                  4. Crang
                    Crang 11 September 2013 17: 28
                    -1
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    And you are also insolent ...
                    Serve the officer.
                    Can’t you lubricate one place with butter?
                    To your great regret, not everything is possible to read in tyrnet.
                    Well, not all.
                    Be content with the quote from the company commander T-80:
                    ... "Series" on the T-80? Gunner's panel PO47-1S. Used to turn on the OMS and MH. Poke this "tanker" there ...
                    Strange you are the T-80 tanker, if you do not know the obvious.

                    Trying to get out? Will not work. Once again (probably the tenth in a row):
                    Quote: Krang
                    I explained to you the meaning of the "Series" mode. And he explained why it is impossible in the T-80. If you state the opposite, then if you please, explain in general terms how this "Series" mode is implemented in the T-80 and how does it work?

                    I do not need to thoroughly with the presentation of structural diagrams. Simply in your own words - how does the "Series" mode work in the T-80? "Officer" can't go to your computer? Well, let him tell you, and you tell me. Or that - I know a conscript more than you - an officer? Do you understand that you "fool those who are interested in this topic"? Shame on you.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    Strange you are the T-80 tanker, if you do not know the obvious.

                    I am not a tanker.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    Yes, I went all the way to the "dinosaur" - T-72B and am proud of it.

                    Awesome tank. The best of the trinity. Powerful and reliable. At least not inferior to the T-80BV. Because he was chosen, and not the T-80. Do you think there were sitting in the commission?
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    And T-80 tankers have always considered the best machine in terms of the combination of combat and operational properties.

                    I understand how to repair it later after operation. Many people really love the T-80 for its driving performance and engines. But this is not the main thing in the tank. And in terms of protection, survivability and reliability, the T-72B and T-72BM are better than the T-80BV. What makes "Death Whisper" good - the engine is almost inaudible. But the well-oiled engine of the T-72B also sounds like a song (but a broken one - like a tractor).
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    Be content with the quote from the company commander T-80:
                    ... "Series" on the T-80? Gunner's panel PO47-1S.

                    It's just that the type of ammunition is introduced in advance and is automatically charged after the shot. Where is the time saving? She's gone. And in the T-90 and according to unconfirmed reports in the T-72B3 the "Series" mode:
                    Quote: Krang
                    The very meaning of the "Series" mode is that when the projectile is already in the cannon, i.e. BEFORE Shot The AZ rotates so that the next shot is ready for loading. As soon as the shot rang out, the next loading took place immediately. At the same time, the rotation of the AZ and the choice of the projectile is not wasted.

                    That's clearer?
                  5. Crang
                    Crang 11 September 2013 17: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    By the way, for the first time I see a tanker wishing for his tank, especially if it's a T-80 ... Bullshit.

                    First, I'm not a tanker. And in T-80BV during the circumcised service he sat 1,5 times.
                    Second - where did I fault the T-80? Where to show me? I can also say that you hay your T-72B. T-80BV awesome tank. One of the best in the world at one time. But the T-72B is better. It is better for iron. And you can cram any electronics (which they did). By the way, even the basic T-72B on the SLA has some advantages over the T-80BV, although the SLA of the latter is certainly better.
                  6. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 11 September 2013 21: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Krang
                    First, I'm not a tanker. And in T-80BV during the circumcised service he sat 1,5 times.

                    Finally. Pronounced.
                    Quote: Krang
                    For his very short service, it was possible to use the T-80BV a little (by the way, there was no "Serie" firing mode in it)

                    But what about this?
                    Lana, let’s down.
                    The truth was said, and that’s good.

                    My, so to speak, "growl" was associated with THIS, in the first place. Since it felt fake.
                    And secondly:
                    Your obstinacy, as in the case of the "series" regime, which supposedly is not on the T-80.
                    Scroll through our correspondence and find TWO aspects to which I drew your attention:
                    1. Your sayings strikingly combine truly sensible phrases with frank imagination. This confuses those who are interested in the topic.
                    2. T-72B3 is currently advancing as a super-modernization and I strongly disagree with this.
                    I will try to chew the second point again in another way:

                    The release of the T-90 is suspended. T-80 is scheduled for decommissioning. T-72 is massively upgraded to the level of T-72Б3 and becomes BASIC before being replaced by Armata.
                    So ? So.
                    They set a wonderful Pine - wonderful. But other ? After all, the T-72B3 will be BASIC!
                    At the beginning of the 90, we dreamed about:
                    1. The gunner’s thermal imager (done)
                    2. The stabilized panorama of the commander (no)
                    2. Closed ZPU (no)
                    After the Czech Republic, they realized the need
                    4. Circular protection.
                    We have been talking about this since the 90's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                    Stuck Pine, and the commander again TKN-3 ...
                    In time to find the target and correctly classify its danger much harder than destroy the target. Believe me, I had to sip something.
                    An independent inside-controlled rifle block of weapons is LIFE needed against any trash in the form of basmachi.
                    And about the need for circular protection and talk is not necessary.

                    Where is this done on the T-72B3?
                    It's nothing.
                    And the order of placement of DZ is a mockery.
                    Ahead - holes. One, like to exit the mechanic (they used to solve it), the other ... it was just too lazy to put it after dismantling the Moon.
                    The roof is bare.
                    The sides are goals.
                    To weld on the "trash" again?
                    And this tank will be the BASIC to Almaty?
                    Do not wait for Armata quickly:
                    1. Factory tests.
                    2. Army Tests.
                    3. Operation of the installation lot.
                    4. The minimum release per year (not the level of the USSR).

                    I, as a practice, do not like NIHRENA such a situation.
                    Kutsya modernization of the T-72, the cessation of production of the T-90 and the staging of the T-80 on BHVT.
                    Therefore, I, a fan of my T-72b, and defend the T-80, it is a harmoniously balanced tank in all respects.
                    Put the same Pine in it, strengthen the reservation and this car will still show Kuz'kin’s mother.

                    And my beloved "turtle" needs to be modernized comprehensively. Add to it at least what I wrote above and ...
                    pancake !!!
                    I write this almost every day in comments on tank topics.
                    I am not interested in "paper" increases in combat effectiveness, but am really interested in COMBAT capabilities.
                    The T-72B3 is a mockery, not an upgrade. The bolted cover alone at Pine is worth something, although the armored covers were invented a long time ago and were on our T-72B at the "night lights".

                    Now my position is clear?

                    Sorry, Gregory, but I know firsthand what is needed to modernize the T-72. There is not even an essential minimum.
                  7. Crang
                    Crang 11 September 2013 22: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    2. T-72B3 is currently advancing as a super-modernization and I strongly disagree with this.

                    I have not heard. I heard that "the modernized T-72 are approaching the T-90 in terms of performance characteristics" - which is not so far from the truth.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    They set a wonderful Pine - wonderful. But other ? After all, the T-72B3 will be BASIC!

                    "Sosna-U" is just a sight. It is interfaced with an automated microprocessor-based OMS 1A40-1M with an automatic target tracking, which, for example, is not found on many western tanks. The "Double" mode has been introduced into the command complex. Made? Well done. The fact that the Sosna-U on the T-72B3 is in place of 1K13-49 ... Well, that's okay. In the T-90A TVP "Essa" in the same place. In T-80U TVP "Agava-2" in the same place. What is the problem? What makes you think that it is not paired with the tank's control system? This is absurd. So far, the only thing that is clearly striking is the bolt-on sight cover. Here, the logic of our constructors is certainly not clear. And what about the new 125mm 2A46M5 cannon with 30% increased power and accuracy? And what about the new AZ for new BOPS? And the new 1000hp engine? After all, they did and did quite a lot.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    2. The stabilized panorama of the commander (no)

                    No really. At night, the commander can sleep while the gunner is on duty at the Sosna. But the T-90A does.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    2. Closed ZPU (no)

                    Really no.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    4. Circular protection.

                    Of all the domestic tanks, it is best at the base T-72B (where the DZ closes the side to the MTO) and at the T-90MS. Not bad with the T-80U.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    Ahead - holes. One, like to exit the mechanic (they used to solve it before), the other ... it was just too lazy to put it after the moon was dismantled. The roof was naked. The sides were goals.

                    There is one. The T-90A fixed it.
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    I am not interested in "paper" increases in combat effectiveness, but am really interested in COMBAT capabilities.

                    With significantly enhanced fire capabilities of the T-72B3, the level of protection of this tank remained at the level of T-72BM.
                  8. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 11 September 2013 22: 58
                    0
                    Quote: Krang
                    Why did you get the idea that it is not interfaced with the tank’s SLA?

                    Do not write absurdity. You need to read carefully.
                    Quote: Krang
                    After all, they have done and have done quite a few.

                    Few.
                    Quote: Krang
                    At night, the commander can sleep while the gunner is on duty at the Sosna.

                    Kindergarten, not reasoning.
                    The troops would have you ...
                    That's enough for me. I do not read further.
                    Adyus.
                    Bazaar with yourself.
                  9. Crang
                    Crang 11 September 2013 23: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    That's enough for me. I don’t read further. Adyus. Bazar themselves.

                    And you don’t get sick. Alex.
                  10. svp67
                    svp67 12 September 2013 01: 40
                    +2
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv

                    A page from "Technical description and operating instructions vol. 219. Book two." I think it will remove some of the questions ...
              2. Crang
                Crang 11 September 2013 22: 41
                -1
                Quote: Aleks tv
                Therefore, I, a fan of my T-72b, and defend the T-80, it is a harmoniously balanced tank in all respects.

                T-80? T-80BV probably? How is it balanced? Or is the T-80BV's roof heavily protected? No. Or is the T-80BV's side powerfully protected? No - 80mmMB + 10mmRE and that's it. The T-72B has 80mmMB + 10mmRE + NDZ "Kontakat-1" (the T-80BV has only one row on the fenders). What else - you haven't forgotten about the T-80BV MZ with vertically standing charges and small road wheels? I hope you don’t need to be reminded about the huge duct channels of the gas turbine engine? The Lizard does not have these shortcomings. Ah navrenye at T-80BV MSA cool! Well, let's see. Firstly, nightlights TPN149-23 (800m in P and 1200-1300m in A) and TKN-3V (200-300m in P and 400-500m in A) are the same bullshit as in T-72B, no better. The meeting of the T-80BV at night with the "Abrams" will end exactly the same as that of the Iraqi T-72Ms. Further LMS. LMS 1A33 "Ob" is really not bad at first sight. BUT - stabilizer gomno 2E26M, about the same was on the T-72 and T-72A. The T-72B has a steep 2E42-1 "Jasmine" stabilizer, which is almost as accurate as Western tanks. So the automated OMS 1A33 Ob must be supported by appropriate stabilization and night vision capabilities. And in the block with 2E26M / TPN149-23 / TKN-3V it is not a buzz. So the T-72B is perfectly balanced here. His LMS is quite adequate for his vision and stabilization. This time. Second. URO in the T-72B is guided by a laser beam, which ensures high accuracy of the T-72B missiles. URO in T-80BV ("Cobra") is guided by a radio beam, which has a large dispersion. In the 1st Chechen Company, 80 recorded missile launches were made from the T-5BV. Of the 5 missiles fired, only 2 (40%) hit the target - with such "accuracy" it was better just to shoot from a cannon. So the T-80BV is not ideal in terms of the OMS, albeit better than the T-72B. In general, the T-80BV tank is at the level of the same T-72B or even worse. Corresponds to the level of the 80s (among the Americans, thermal imagers appeared on the M60A3TTS in the late 70s). He will be able to fight modern tanks only during the day. Like the T-72B. The tank no longer meets modern survivability requirements. T-72B is still something like that. There is no T-80BV at all. In terms of armor protection, it is about parity, although given that the T-72B is almost a ton heavier, it can be assumed that it has more armor.
              3. Kars
                Kars 11 September 2013 22: 49
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                T-80? T-80BV probably?

                Why not T-80U?


                Quote: Krang
                that T-72B almost a ton

                then he’s got big rollers.
                Quote: Krang
                The tank no longer meets modern survivability requirements. T-72B more like something.

                What joy is this?
              4. Crang
                Crang 11 September 2013 23: 10
                -1
                Because of your beloved MH, small rollers and frail side screens.
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 12 September 2013 00: 16
              +1
              ".... The T-72B3 project was created as a way of budgetary modernization of the existing fleet of T-72B tanks and therefore has a number of characteristic features. The cost of upgrading one old tank to the T-72B3 state, according to available data, is does not exceed 52 million rubles. At the same time, most of the finances (about 30 million) go to the overhaul of the combat vehicle, and the remaining funds go to purchase and install new equipment.
              During the overhaul and modernization of the serial tank model T-72B during the conversion to T-72B3 receives a number of new devices. First of all, it is necessary to note the new multi-channel gunner’s sight “Sosna-U” .....
              The driving performance of the T-72B3 tank remained at the same level as that of the T-72B. The fact is that in order to reduce the cost of modernization, it was decided to leave the power plant without any changes. During the repair and conversion T-72B3 saves the V-84-1 diesel engine with power 840 h.p................
              The weapon system of the T-72B3 tank has undergone minimal changes. Cannon launcher 2A46-5 received an updated automatic loader, modified to use new ammunition. The gun itself, as far as is known, has remained the same. Also, the anti-aircraft machine gun installation was not finalized. .........
              As a result of the alteration of the T-72B tanks into the T-72B3, their combat potential increases, but the difference in the capabilities of the basic and modified vehicles can serve as a reason for serious disputes .... "
              http://army-news.ru/2013/08/modernizirovannyj-tank-t-72b3/
            3. svp67
              svp67 12 September 2013 07: 23
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              Crang

              But everything is correct !!!!!
              Down with the T80 !!! On his metal !!! On the metal !!! On metal !!! ... On ....
              Stop fool
              You are well done. Know how to appeal with facts. But just once again I’m convinced that the main thing is not discussed, but how ... We didn’t try to work in propaganda, or in a PR company, you succeed ... But seriously.
              Quote: Krang
              Or is the T-80BV's roof heavily protected? No. Or is the T-80BV's side powerfully protected? No - 80mmMB + 10mmRE and that's it. The T-72B has 80mmMB + 10mmRE + NDZ "Kontakat-1" (the T-80BV has only one row on the fenders).

              That's right. But why don’t you think of QUALITY? The fact that the armor, the armor itself on the T80 is higher in quality, plasticity, level of surface hardening? The fact that in the T80, even in the first, the combined armor included corundum balls of the T64 type, and not sand fillers, as in the T72, which, with equal thickness, provides greater armor resistance ...
              And this is the main thing that causes complete bewilderment. WHY are you comparing the BEST of the T72 modification "B", not with the best modification of the T80, modification "U"?
            4. svp67
              svp67 12 September 2013 07: 28
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              The armor protection is approximately parity, although considering that the T-72B is almost a ton heavier, it can be assumed that it has more armor.
              An important role in this is played by the fact that on the T72, for example, the rollers are not made of "light" grades of steel, as on the T80 and they are larger in size, that it has a fan drive for the cooling system, between the two walls of the armor in the stern, that the bottom it is thicker, not by much, but thicker, since AZ is structurally more susceptible to failures when the bottom is deflected ... So ... Not everything is so simple
              And if about DZ
              T80U with built-in protection, which is more thought out than on T72B

              Look at these tanks T72B, T80Y, T72B. With the naked eye you can see how the issues of installing additional on-board armor have been resolved and you say that the T72 have better ones?

              NOT. The T80 has more beautiful and practical ...
            5. svp67
              svp67 12 September 2013 20: 20
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Look at these tanks T72B, T80Y, T72B.

              Sorry for not accuracy, but in the picture T90A, T80Y, T90A ... well, all the worse for T90A
            6. nick-name
              nick-name 14 September 2013 14: 33
              -1
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: svp67
              Look at these tanks T72B, T80Y, T72B.

              Sorry for not accuracy, but in the picture T90A, T80Y, T90A ... well, all the worse for T90A

              Pay attention to the second photo in the article. wink
        2. svp67
          svp67 12 September 2013 07: 41
          +1
          Quote: Krang
          Ah, the hell out of the T-80БВ СУО cool! Well, look. First nightlights TPN149-23 (

          STOP!!!! At the expense of nightlights I AGREE ,,,, but the OMS is primarily a DAY SIGHT, do not want to compare them? In terms of capabilities, ease of use ... Here, even the T80B significantly outperforms the T72B ...

          Quote: Krang
          BUT - stabilizer gomno 2E26M, about the same was on the T-72 and T-72A. The T-72B has a steep 2E42-1 "Jasmine" stabilizer, which is almost as accurate as Western tanks.

          It remains only to recall that at T80
          STV - - weapons stabilizer, consisting of an electro-hydraulic VN drive (vertical guidance), an electromechanical GN drive (horizontal guidance), a stabilizer control unit and sensors;

          And now from http://topwar.ru/16511-t-64-t-72-ili-t-80-chto-luchshe.html
          If the guns of these tanks are almost identical, then the fire control system and the guided weapons complex (TOS) differ quite significantly. The most accurate tank artillery - T-80BV. The soft suspension, which provides a smooth ride and the presence of an automated OMS 1А33 "Ob" allows this tank to conduct effective fire from the course of a moving target from the most difficult conditions. The gunner only needs to measure the distance to the target and hold the crosshair on it. Using input sensors, the digital ballistic computer calculates corrections and, through the stabilizer 2E26M, holds the gun in the desired position to produce an aimed shot. The T-64BV has the same 1А33 "Ob" LMS as the T-80BV tank, the same stabilizer 2E26М, but its firing rate is worse than eighty because of the more rigid and primitive suspension. T-72B does not have an automated LMS at all. His aiming complex 1А40-1 has only a ballistic corrector, and therefore it is inferior to T-64BB and T-80BB for long-range shooting at moving targets and for long distances. However, the T-72B has an advantage: the much more sophisticated dual-core weapons stabilizer 2E42-1 "Jasmine", the tracking accuracy indicator whose goal greatly exceeds the capabilities of the stabilizers 2E26M T-64BV and T-80B tanks. Therefore, T-72B can accurately shoot at a higher speed than its opponents. The soft, modern running gear also contributes to this.
          That is, I’ll explain - the T8 is HIGHER the chances of hitting the target, thanks to more advanced FCS and suspension, and regardless of the worst STV ... So, there is no need to distort it. You just have to shoot yourself from these tanks, which is UNDERSTANDABLE to understand the T80 BETTER ...
        3. svp67
          svp67 12 September 2013 07: 55
          +1
          Quote: Krang
          In general, the T-80BV tank is at the same T-72B level or worse.
          No worse, like the T72B, the T80B has a huge potential for modernization. And if now it is brought to the level of T80U, in terms of booking and LMS, add "Pine", install "Barsovskaya" "GOP" and some other devices, in the form of new means of communication ... Then our country will receive a SIGNIFICANTLY more advanced tank than T72B3 and not nearly inferior, but even superior in many respects to T90A. Not to mention the fact that the "Leningraders" had even more ideas for its perfection ...
        4. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 12 September 2013 12: 17
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          Not to mention the fact that the "Leningraders" had even more ideas for its perfection ...

          Sergey, thanks for all comments with data on T-80.
          Short, dry and clear.
          The specialist and practice of this machine can be seen immediately.
          yes
      3. svp67
        svp67 12 September 2013 19: 53
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        Or is the roof of the T-80BV powerfully protected?
        And you know, this "heir in a straight line" T80 has already resolved this issue, it is not for nothing that its tower was covered with a tarpaulin for a long time and what prevents such a design from being done on the modernized T80 ...
      4. nick-name
        nick-name 14 September 2013 14: 35
        -1
        Black Eagle example is extremely unsuccessful, the middle of the tower is one continuous hole
      5. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 14 September 2013 15: 15
        0
        Quote: nick-name
        Black Eagle example is extremely unsuccessful, the middle of the tower is one continuous hole

        In the central part of the tower is a cannon. Everything else is covered by DZ, spaced from the main armor of the tower, and the crew on the battlefield sits below the shoulder strap of the tower.

      6. nick-name
        nick-name 16 September 2013 09: 32
        0
        It's about the gun I'm talking about, in fact, it's one big hole. Plus, the turret-mounted AZ has practically no protection, and there are no safe maneuvering angles at all ... In general, the tank is certainly beautiful, but there are "But"
      7. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 16 September 2013 18: 26
        0
        Quote: nick-name
        Plus a crazy AZ has virtually no protection,

        It is not at all a fact that there is no protection. The box is large, angular, which clearly does not match the shape of the conveyor belt.
      8. nick-name
        nick-name 16 September 2013 22: 36
        -1
        Just for comparison, the T-90SM has about the same dimensions with a missile defense system on a recessed niche, but there are 10 shots there, without any sending mechanisms.
      9. The comment was deleted.
      10. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 17 September 2013 00: 00
        0
        Quote: nick-name
        Just for comparison, the T-90SM has about the same dimensions with a missile defense system on a recessed niche, but there are 10 shots there, without any sending mechanisms.
      11. nick-name
        nick-name 20 September 2013 13: 46
        -1
        Yes, you are right, a little borschul with dimensions (thanks for the photo))) But I look at this kurdyuk at 640, and I see no protection except steel 10-20 mm. (purely IMHO) But in general, the idea is of course very interesting, however, I am tormented by doubts that the AZ was removed from the case, most likely the construction was supposed to be like on a burlak.
  14. Crang
    Crang 11 September 2013 10: 43
    +1
    Quote: Aleks tv
    If you are just fond of tanks, then say so - I am fond of. This is really masculine, not bustling.

    These are five ... Of course I am fond of. Just like you. I wouldn’t get carried away - I wouldn’t be here. And you too. You then get carried away, you have to think even harder than me once 10 years according to your words they worked on them.
  • Crang
    Crang 10 September 2013 22: 22
    0
    Quote: Aleks tv
    I have served on the T-72B for more than 10 years and remain a FAN of my "turtle" and say again: 1. Modernization of the T-72B3 - INSUFFICIENT IN MANY PARAMETERS for the realities of today, mulienne has already described the necessary principles for its improvement.


    What did the full program in T-72Б3:
    - Installed a new more powerful 125mm gun 2A46M5.
    - We installed a new AZ for more powerful Lead-2 shells.
    - We installed a new automated control system 1A40-1M with an automatic target tracking and a combined Ti-sight "Sosna-U" and an updated gunner's complex.
    - Installed a new engine V-92S2 with a capacity of 1000l.s.

    Which apparently did NOT:
    - The defense apparently remained at the T-72BM / T-80U level.
    - Explosion hazard at the level of the base T-72BM.
    - The command controllability on the radio stations corresponds to the previous generation.

    What would I personally like to add to the T-72B3:
    - Increase the size and improve the filler of the frontal armor.
    - Introduce local protection of the AZ as T-90A.
    - Protect the hull side opposite the AZ with the Chobham combined armor.
    - Instead of rubber-fabric hovna, put normal side screens with a rubber skirt at the bottom. From armor 10-15mm thick.
    - Complex VDZ "Contact-5" or NDZ "Contact-1" (well, or "Relic") should cover the entire side of the tower and in fact the side screen. At least until MTO. In general, install the screen like a T-90MS with a normal mount as if it would not fall off.
    - Instead of coaxial 7,62mm PKT machine gun - 14,5mm KPVT machine gun.
    - Instead of "Cliff" - ROM-5 from T-90.
    - New hydromechanical automatic transmission from T-80UM1.
    - Protect the roof of the hull and turret like the T-90A.
    - Inside the dashboards install color monitors, which display information with an eye, a computer and tactical environment.
    - Introduce into the computer an operating system of domestic development, which would allow tankers to flash TBV in place for any type of shells with any ballistics.
    - Put a new high-speed fire extinguishing system, which would automatically open the hatches.
    - Put a tactical link management system with a tactical environment screen.
    - Associate an OMS with it so that the computer, according to the system, directs the gun to hit the OFS with the first shot at a visually invisible target from a distance of 10 km.
    - To expand the range of URO: Along the ATGM, introduce missiles (or universal) and tactical ground-to-ground missiles.
    - Introduce a projectile for natural needs, so that you can address the need and shoot waste without leaving the tank (in the event of a nuclear war).
    - Install auxiliary power unit.
    - And in the place of the gunner to mount a remotely controlled turret with a powerful flamethrower, so that it would be possible to burn enemy soldiers and grenade throwers from the windows of houses, loopholes of bunkers, cellar openings, etc.
    - Install a condo and a TV.

    What can be left old in the T-72:
    - Suspension (only torsions to match the load).
    - Running gear.
    - Elements of the hull and tower.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 10 September 2013 23: 17
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      What did the full program in T-72Б3:

      Quote: Krang
      Which apparently did NOT:

      You are a storyteller.
      Write your tales further.
      Digging into these "cartoons" - you will break your head.
      Finished the conversation.
      You are not a practitioner, but a theorist with fantasy. Keep that in mind.
  • uwzek
    uwzek 10 September 2013 23: 38
    +1
    You, slightly went over with sights. And on the T-90, the screens of the thermal imagers are located on the side of the weapon control knobs (although the day sights are better there). All of the optical systems listed by you are really outdated, as are their followers. The point is only in the interface - so far no optics with a thermal imager have really been combined.
    I completely agree that the T-72 could be upgraded steeper, but this is a question for the government ...
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 10 September 2013 18: 53
    +2
    Quote: Krang
    In addition, the command complex in the T-72B3 was replaced by the TKN-3M, which has a "Double" mode (that is, allowing the commander to fire a cannon from his seat) and an improved night vision channel.


    Once again I will try to politely ask:
    Gregory, what do you have to do with tank troops?
    1. Kars
      Kars 10 September 2013 20: 32
      +3
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Gregory, what do you have to do with tank troops?

      He's nobody. He's just a clown.
      Quote: Krang
      You are the first to say that the T-80 is better than the T-72

      He can’t even understand something simple and still suffers. When they prove to him, and more than once that only with the advent of the T-90A using French technology the Russian army received a tank better than the T-80U
      1. Crang
        Crang 10 September 2013 21: 00
        -3
        Quote: Kars
        He's nobody. He's just a clown.

        Are you crazy? Impudent collision. It’s Ukrainian popandopolos.
      2. Crang
        Crang 10 September 2013 21: 03
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        . when they prove to him, and not once that only with the advent of the T-90A using French technology the Russian army received a tank better than the T-80U

        Who has proven that? Are you? Phrases like "T-80U is better than T-90" - is it proof that T-80U is better than T-90? Yes, you need a guy. I've already told you a hundred times why the T-90 is better than the T-80U. You cannot understand the current and how you hammer and hammer a woodpecker the same thing. I already began to doubt Kars - aren't you a bot? It looks like a bot.
        1. Kars
          Kars 10 September 2013 21: 09
          +2
          Quote: Krang
          Are you crazy? Impudent collision

          that odnik couldn’t answer with a comment? Doesn’t so many thoughts fit in your head?
          Quote: Krang
          Yes you

          why just a statement of the fact about your level.
          Quote: Krang
          Who proved that? Are you?

          Yes, I have repeatedly.
          Quote: Krang
          I already began to doubt Kars - but are you a bot? It looks like a bot.

          of course the bot
        2. uwzek
          uwzek 10 September 2013 23: 49
          0
          Kars is right in the sense that the T-90 gained leadership only after the advent of French thermal imagers. The firing accuracy has increased many times (this is what the testers say, not me personally).
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 10 September 2013 16: 10
    +3
    Quote: Krang
    T-72Б3 surpasses the T-80 (basic) by an order of magnitude. And better than T-80U.

    Gregory, tell me pliz:
    What do you have to do with tank troops?

    I am without a second, just asking.
  • Uhe
    Uhe 10 September 2013 17: 02
    0
    In the USSR, it was not in vain that three types of tanks were in service at the same time: T-64, T-72 and T-80. Each has its own advantages, and together they complement each other. The USSR was a rich country, putting the benefit of the people above all expenses, therefore, could afford;) The leadership of the Russian Federation easier to spend money on breathtakingly expensive events that throw dust in the eye than work for the good of the country, including defense, hence the rejection of the T-80 .
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 10 September 2013 14: 13
    0
    If such near-minded people are in the Moscow Region that they are ready to abandon the T80, then things are bad, they are not ready to exploit, sign a contract to remake them in the BMPT, all one is ahead of only local-city conflicts, and you can sell this device yourself, and enterprises would be loaded with work.
  • max702
    max702 10 September 2013 14: 52
    0
    As it was written here earlier, the difference in price of t-72 and t-80 1x2,75 is all ..
    1. gallville
      gallville 10 September 2013 15: 32
      +2
      Quote: max702
      As it was written here earlier, the difference in price of t-72 and t-80 1x2,75 is all ..

      So what? Their 4 thousand has already. What is the difference how much the t-80 costs on the purchase (which is already enough) if the armata is ahead?
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 September 2013 20: 51
        +1
        Indeed, it is not necessary to produce a tank - it is already in the army, therefore its high price is not significant.
        The tank runs on kerosene, which, if I am not mistaken, is four times cheaper than diesel fuel, in addition, when using the APU, it is comparable in fuel consumption with the T72-90 which do not have an APU.
        The life of the turbine (in engine hours) is 3-4 times longer than that of a diesel engine.
        In general, stick a new OMS in it, hang it with modern protection - and could still serve.
  • Andrew 447
    Andrew 447 10 September 2013 15: 38
    +1
    Oh, these upgrades and modifications. It wouldn’t have happened that the team would have 5-6 of these modifications on the engines and on the LMS and the rembats and remotes would stand on their ears in search of technical documentation and spare parts. It seems to me that GBTU itself does not really know with which performance characteristics and capabilities it needs tanks. There is no clear application doctrine here and they shy from side to side. And there are also questions with repair plants, and he will distribute the equipment so that the tanks will be across the country to repair by echelons. In general, there are more questions than answers.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 10 September 2013 20: 54
      0
      Quote: Andrey 447
      ..... and rembats and remrotes will stand on the ears in search of technical documentation

      And they, it seems, were eliminated even under Serdyukov, so that there is no one to stand on ears.
  • ATATA
    ATATA 10 September 2013 17: 51
    0
    In terms of aggregate efficiency indicator, the cost of T80 is inferior to T72 with a coefficient of 2,8.
    Those. for 1 T80 you can make 2,8 T72.
    The study was conducted in the late 80s.
    What do you think in a duel, who will win 2,8 T72, or 1 T80?
  • Ivan Ural
    Ivan Ural 10 September 2013 20: 00
    0
    Sell ​​used T80 to Mexico to get drugs to America wink
  • gallville
    gallville 10 September 2013 20: 27
    0
    Quote: Krang
    Nothing would have happened. A tank equal to T-72B3 in terms of fire capabilities would have turned out. And further: The protection is about the same. In terms of survivability and explosion safety - worse. Reliability is worse. For the price more expensive. The speed is better. For comfort worse.

    More reliable at -40 temperatures. Protection is better anyway.
    Now back to what we have.
    You exchange 4 thousand T-80U / BV for 2-3 hundreds of B3 (the equipment of which could be inserted into 80s) and about 5 hundreds of T-90A which are basically the same T-80.
    General defense capability how?
    What is the logic? Modernization of the worst model in small quantities against 4 thousand models that are essentially the same level as those upgraded?
    Quote: Krang
    Yeah, it’s been discussed 100 times

    That's why I proposed not to rely on the differences in the MOH and AZ. So we slide to the level of that beam M / Az or Negro-pitching?
  • scientist
    scientist 10 September 2013 20: 29
    0
    although I am not a tanker, it seems to me that the medium tank has already exhausted its capabilities. It is necessary to create heavy machines that really would be invulnerable to the enemy by definition. And for medium tanks, you can continue to upgrade and make some of them unmanned with remote control. This is especially important when reconnaissance in battle, and such a tank unmanned tank itself can carry a charge capable of detonating the most fortified defense. As far as I know, such samples already exist in the Israeli army.
    1. gallville
      gallville 10 September 2013 20: 51
      0
      Getting started in a circle? Already there were heavy tanks.
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 10 September 2013 21: 19
    +1
    Even more perfect was to be a radical upgrade of the T-80BV to the Object 219M variant. This tank had to absorb all the best that was available in the domestic tank building.


    The same amount of modernization was provided for about. 184M ("Slingshot")



    so they didn’t modernize it, not because it was a T-80, but because they didn’t want to modernize their tanks in a normal way.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 11 September 2013 03: 13
    0
    Here are stupid people am What for write off existing tanks when they are still in large numbers? Another cut or betrayal? Although I’m not special in tanks, I heard that in terms of the totality of its characteristics it is slightly better than the T-72.
    Immediately I remembered the crew of the tank in the film "Chestilische" (about the battles in Chechnya) sad
  • Andrew 447
    Andrew 447 11 September 2013 18: 48
    +2
    Explanation in the course of srach between Crang and Aleks tv. Firstly, "SERIES" is not "SYSTEM" - this is "MODE". Secondly, as someone of you rightly noticed, that mode allows the gunner to accelerate the defeat of the same type of targets defined by him type of BP. But there are disadvantages of this mode. Let me explain, in the "series" mode, the loading of the gun occurs in automatic mode, immediately after the shot, after the ejection of the pallet from the charging chamber of the gun, so you can find yourself with a HE in the barrel before rolling out at you from -for the Abrasha hills and you still have to turn off the "series" mode, bang the HE somewhere, change the "projectile type" by pressing either BK or KUM, wait for the gun to load and only then, after receiving a splash from Abrasha, fill up the foe. TANKERS, especially officers, do not like the "series" mode, especially during firing or exercises, this is for those who understand.
    1. Crang
      Crang 11 September 2013 19: 01
      0
      Exactly. And in the T-80 and T-64, due to the design features of their MZ, it is impossible to immediately charge a gun after a shot, because first, the fired pallet is sent back to the tray and only then the MOH turns and loading with a new shell takes place. Here in the T-90A there is such a thing, and as a result, a rate of fire of 10 rds / min. And the T-72B3 seems to be there, too. But the T-80 is not, because it is simply impossible physically. As I tried to explain to my friend Aleks TV, but apart from a growl and insults at my address, I did not hear anything worthwhile.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 11 September 2013 21: 26
        0
        Quote: Krang
        Here in T-90 there is such a thing

        "Series" can be put into any car, if there is an electronic control system.
        This is an option. And she should be everywhere. Just in case.
        1. Crang
          Crang 11 September 2013 22: 09
          0
          I will explain again. In the T-80, the "Series" mode simply automatically loads the projectile after firing. In the T-90A, the "Series" mode increases the rate of fire. This is clear?
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 11 September 2013 22: 19
            0
            Quote: Krang
            I will explain again. In the T-80, the "Series" mode simply automatically loads the projectile after firing. In the T-90A, the "Series" mode increases the rate of fire. This is clear?

            I got in ...
            Thank you for explaining about AZ and MZ, otherwise we don’t know anything about them.
            We are poor and gray, and then Krang came and opened his eyes to everyone.
            I can tell you tens of times more about the effectiveness of AZ than just the possibility of a "series".

            Well, that at least they stopped denying the absence of this option on the T-80 and then forward.

            I’m personally already tired of pouring from empty to empty.
            1. Crang
              Crang 11 September 2013 22: 43
              -1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Well, that at least they stopped denying the absence of this option on the T-80 and then forward.

              They noticed that I had to abandon vain attempts to get at least general information from you on the principle of the functioning of this regime and to embody its essence in the T-80 for you?
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 11 September 2013 22: 53
                0
                Quote: Krang
                I had to give up vain attempts to get at least general information from you on the principle of the functioning of this regime and embody its essence in T-80

                Did you notice that you simply denied its existence on the T-80?
                I gave you the direction of the search.
                The principles of the MoH are known to all.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 11 September 2013 21: 09
      0
      Quote: Andrey 447
      Explanation along the line between Krang and Aleks tv.

      I'm sorry, Andrey. The categorical adversary himself is.

      Quote: Andrey 447
      TANKERS, especially officers, do not like the "series" mode, especially during firing or exercises, this is for those who understand.

      I also heard about it, I did not use it myself.
      Thanks for the comments.
  • Crang
    Crang 11 September 2013 19: 23
    0
    So the author of the article is wrong. I don't know whether Alex wrote it or not, but he's wrong. "Lizard" rules and the upgraded T-80s will not be able to reach the level of even the T-90A, not to mention the T-90MS. If we go back to the gas turbine engine, then don't muddy the waters with another platform, but just stick the gas turbine engine into the T-90A and that's it.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 11 September 2013 21: 09
      0
      Quote: Krang
      I don’t know whether Alex wrote it or not, but he’s wrong.

      Not. Not me.
    2. Kars
      Kars 11 September 2013 21: 13
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      the upgraded T-80 will not be able to reach the level of even the T-90,

      Well, not nonsense. He writes?
      Quote: Krang
      not to mention the T-90MS

      let it be built first, so that someone could grow up to it.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 11 September 2013 21: 20
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        Well, not nonsense. He writes?

        Kars, I'm shocked myself ...
        He turned everything upside down.

        Can you imagine this, that I am the ETERNAL PROTECTOR OF MY NATIVE T-72B, currently snapping for the T-80?
        And yet, as it turned out, climbed into the tank srach?
        request
        That scribe is complete ... It's definitely not me ...
        laughing
        1. Kars
          Kars 11 September 2013 21: 25
          +2
          Quote: Aleks tv
          He turned everything upside down.

          Yes, I don’t know - maybe this is a disease.
  • Mikle-xnumx
    Mikle-xnumx 11 September 2013 23: 34
    0
    I’m reading everything and I want to wait for an answer and don’t see: the first question is when each operating tank, armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle and self-propelled guns of the RF Armed Forces will finally be equipped with thermal imagers ..... That in Russia they cannot roll up their sleeves and make their own thermal imager. Academicians and professors in each city, one hundred research institutes, too, no less.
    - the second when this bragging stops, well, boasted before the Second World War and rolled to Moscow.
    - the third weapon that you don’t supply to the army, but the army decomposed by bullying, where there is no time to study and thoroughly master the equipment, since there is no time between the household work and the construction sites, vegetable gardens and floor cleaning and step-by-step training. the officers themselves need to study the mate part, but you need to study it not in books but at real training grounds and shoot every week, day and night ..
    - while NATO is preparing and approaching the border of Russia, and there is no doubt that it’s time to move from combat training to combat training, but this is not visible ... soldiers get their jobs with work, criminality, and step-by-step training, when this parade ground is not good. it's time to understand that the pros will go against Russia. There has long been a competition in NATO for the title of the crew of the first shot - and why in Russia this is not. Personnel lost, excellent officer corps of the USSR was decommissioned
    1. Andrew 447
      Andrew 447 12 September 2013 14: 40
      +1
      Mikle-xnumxThe need to install a thermal imager is secondary in my personal opinion. The effective range of conventional ammunition from the gun to 2 km, the TUS to 5 km, this is in the daytime and with good visibility. The presence of smoke, dust on the battlefield will significantly reduce this range and the imager here is especially if you fire on the defensive (from the spot), the effectiveness of the fire will be 10-15% higher than firing on the move at the same distance. The reason is the stabilizer with side roll of the tank. The quality of fire depends on the level of preparation of the gunner. Minus s a higher probability of damage to the upper (zabronevoy) part of the thermal imager and its failure under the influence of electromagnetic radiation.
      1. Mikle-xnumx
        Mikle-xnumx 12 September 2013 21: 40
        +1
        I agree with you on thermal imagers, but in the USSR in the 60s work was underway to create a radar sight for tanks with a TV-set (if not mistaken) display. But the work was minimized as a doublet appeared on the screen, i.e. a double image of the target. then this problem was not solved, but today with the advent of powerful and small-sized computers it is possible to cut off doublet filters. It is a pity that this work is forgotten. This was written in the journal Technics and weapons 87-90 years.
  • nick-name
    nick-name 14 September 2013 14: 07
    0
    On the first 2 photos of the T-80 modernized according to the ROC "Slingshot-1"? It is almost impossible to distinguish from a seventy-two slingshot in front, although for some reason there is no thermal imager recourse