Military Review

On the issue of competitiveness in the market

185
Last 10 years operating experience tanks with a gas turbine engine (GTE) received an inadequate critical assessment of specialists. Moreover, the criticism sounds both in the Russian media and in foreign ones. The essence of such statements is a negative attitude to gas turbine engines, first of all, to one of its characteristics - increased fuel consumption.




As evidence, opponents of tanks with GTE usually cite data obtained during troop exploitation, as well as statements by the leadership of the Armed Forces of Russia, dated to the middle of the 1990s. However, the basis of such statements, as a rule, are estimates of the onset of 1980's. (Of course, this fact is silent). Ultimately, waves of criticism emanating from Russian and foreign opponents of the CCD, rolling one after the other on the minds of readers, reinforce the overall impression of the futility of tanks with a gas turbine engine and, in particular, T-80U.

At the beginning of the 1980's exercises using T-80 tanks held in the Western Group of Forces revealed their significantly higher fuel consumption (2,5-3 times! compared with diesel engines. However, it should be borne in mind that the first T-80 equipped with GTD-1000 engines, which at that time were not equipped with a number of devices contributing to a significant reduction in fuel consumption and an increase in their reliability. The fact is that the specific feature of the CCD is significantly greater (at times) specific fuel consumption at idle (low gas) and engine braking Meanwhile, in these exercises, the operating time on such modes was more than 60% of the total operating time of the machines. Thus, the absence of the stand-by-gas mode on these tanks resulted in 2-3 -fold fuel overruns during long stops and to a large extent contributed to the formation of experts opinion about the unsatisfactory fuel economy GTE.



However, the main reason for the increased fuel consumption was the lack of training and lack of discipline of driver mechanics. Wrong choice of gear according to driving conditions (an untrained mechanic doesn’t feel this due to the lack of a stun effect of the engine, and an unruly mechanic is lazy to change gear because the engine still copes with any external load and does not stall) also caused unreasonably high fuel consumption . Therefore, an unsuccessful military experience in the operation of T-80 tanks in the GSVG should be regarded rather as an exception to the rules for the operation of tanks with GTE. More important in this sense are the results obtained in the operation of T-80 tanks in the Belarusian, Trans-Baikal military and Central Asian military districts, where the fuel consumption of tanks with GTE did not exceed the same indicator of tanks equipped with diesel engines in 1,5-1,7 times inferior to the T-1,3.
Based on the results of the exercises in the GSVG, the operating experience of the T-80 was carefully analyzed. The reasons for the high fuel consumption were established, and as a result of several development works, were eliminated on the following variants of the tank.

The advanced tank T-80U successfully demonstrated its driving capabilities and performance on pre-tender trials in Greece in 1998 g .; having surpassed in a number of indicators of famous competitors (American МХNUMXА1 "Abrams", German "Leopard-2А2", French "Le-clerk", English "Chelentzhder-5", Ukrainian T-2UD).



It turned out that the T-80U tank has the highest power density in the world - 27 hp. per ton of weight (1,2-1,3 times the best in the world). In addition, it is the fastest: the speed 80 km / h was recorded on the test. The maximum speed of the rest of the tanks was 14% less. The highest power density and excellent running gear provide the T-80У 30-45% gain in average speed on rough terrain. In full, except for the T-80U tank, only the French Leclerc overcame all obstacles.

According to the evaluators, the time spent on servicing the T-80U while making a march longer than 2000 km was the minimum among all rivals. According to Greek experts, this tank is the easiest to manage and maintain.

It should be noted that none of the critics do not operate with information obtained from the Greek trials.



The current state of the issue of operating economics (fuel consumption) of a T-80U tank with a GTD-1250

To improve fuel efficiency on the tank T-80U implemented a set of technical solutions that reduce the operational fuel consumption in 1,3 times.

First, the automatic mode control system (SAUR) has been introduced. It automatically reduces the supply of fuel when the tank is braked and, to an even greater extent, when forced to stand for more than one minute. This allowed to significantly reduce travel fuel consumption.

Secondly, the efficiency of the compressor and the permissible gas temperature are increased. This led to a decrease in hourly fuel consumption.

Thirdly, the auxiliary power unit GTA-18 is included in the tank. Provided that the tank is operated in 50 mode% of time on the move and 50% of time on site, the introduction of the GTA-18 allowed to significantly reduce the total hourly fuel consumption, which in terms of tank conditions on the 8% exceeds the same parameter of a diesel engine not equipped autonomous power unit.

Thus, fuel economy from the implemented measures in comparison with the GTD-1000 serial engine is 30%.

The results of the latest military tests (1986) and tests of the T-80 tank in Greece in 1998 showed the following values ​​of fuel efficiency of tanks with gas turbine engines compared to tanks equipped with diesel engines: the fuel consumption amounted to 4 l / km. This is only 25% higher than that of diesel tanks (for “Leopard-2” - 3,2 l / km).

The difference achieved so far is not the limit for gas turbine engines. At present, specialized design bureaus have developments of technical solutions that, if implemented, will allow to achieve the operational costs of fuel consumption of tanks with gas turbine engines at the level of tanks with diesel engines of equal power. However, to complete the corresponding ROC, which are suspended, funding is needed.



The promise of the future of the CCD (including fuel efficiency) is confirmed by the fact that the American firm General Electric has developed an aggregated gas turbine unit with an 1500 hp power. for demonstration of high perspective technologies. According to the company, the minimum specific fuel consumption of this engine is only 147 g / hp. h, which is 10% less than that of modern diesel engines.

It should be noted that fuel efficiency is not quite a correct indicator by which tanks should be compared with a diesel engine and GTE. It is more correct to estimate the total fuel and oil consumption. This is due to the fact that in tanks with gas turbine engines oil is practically not consumed, whereas in tanks with a diesel engine oil consumption reaches 3-5% of fuel consumption. Taking into account the three-fraction excess of the cost of oil over fuel, the total cost of operation (in terms of the cost of fuel and oil) of tanks with GTE is only 11% more expensive than tanks with diesel engines.

In continuation of the economic component of the topic raised, a comprehensive economic assessment of the efficiency of operation and repair of tanks with a diesel and gas turbine engine should be carried out. According to the results of this work, an unexpected conclusion can be made about the superiority of tanks with GTE in this indicator. Unfortunately, such studies were not conducted at the Ministry of Defense.



Opponents of tanks with GTE, focusing their criticism on one drawback, do not fully disclose the advantages of T-80U, limiting themselves to mentioning several of them, and not the most important ones. Meanwhile, the advantages of this tank are so significant that they repeatedly overlap its disadvantages.

Strategic advantages

In the T-80Y tank, the mobility problem was solved through the optimal combination of the best layout and engineering solutions and due to the tank's high electrical power, smoothness, reliability of components and assemblies of the power plant, transmission and chassis. The average speed of the T-80U is 10% higher than that of tanks with a diesel engine when driving on roads and 30-45% - on rough terrain with ups and downs to 10-12%. For comparison: in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War, the German mechanized troops surpassed the Soviet in mobility by 13%. This was enough to carry out a broad proactive maneuver in order to reach profitable lines, to achieve the results of the operation (a breakthrough of the defense to a greater depth of coverage and encirclement of the Soviet troops).

The gas turbine engine is not sensitive to aerosols, which can disable entire tank units. This is due to the loss of lubricating properties of oils under the action of these aerosols. Creating the required high concentrations of acetylene in the air is possible by splashing from tanks dropped from airplanes, helicopters, as well as delivered as part of artillery shells and mines. The first experience of using such aerosols refers to the Vietnam War, where they were used by the Americans. In a gas turbine engine, the oil is not in contact with the working fluid of the engine, therefore this type weapons for GTE is not dangerous.



Design advantages

The cooling system of a diesel engine takes up to 18% of its power. There is no water cooling system in the gas turbine engine. Thus, it is fair to compare not the power taken from the engine crankshaft, but the power transmitted to the transmission. This will actually be the effective power of the power plant. By this indicator, the CCD-1250 exceeds the B-92C2 (T-90C) diesel engine by 1,3 times.

Moreover, the superior design of the tank in terms of the layout and the engine and transmission used (and their influence on its mobility) should be judged by the overall power of the engine compartment (MTO) (MTO overall power is the ratio of the actual power of the power plant engine compartment). According to this indicator, T-80U exceeds T-90 by 1,6 times, “Leopard-2” - by 2,4 times. Such superiority of the T-80U is explained by the significantly smaller volume of MTO (2,8 м3) in comparison with the MTO of the German car (6,9 м3) and Т-90 (3,1 м3), as well as the absence of power losses for the cooling system.

The enormous size of the MTOs of foreign tanks add unnecessary 4-4,5 and the armor needed for equivalent protection of side projections, and force designers (including for this reason) to introduce the seventh skating rink into the chassis design. In addition, the weight of the composite MTO units (engine, transmission) of Western tanks is more on 4,5 tons than on T-80. The total weight of that part of the tank that does not belong to the combat compartment and control compartment (effective volume) on the 8,5-9 t exceeds that of the T-80У. Consequently, the displacement of the excess, unproductive mass of the tank is spent from 14,5 to 15,7% engine power.

Ultimately, the specific power of the tank (taking into account the power takeoff for the cooling system) is: for T-80Y -26,5 hp / t (the highest figure in the world), for T-9QC - 18,7 hp / t, for "Leopard-2" -22,2 hp / t.

The small dimensions of the T-80U engine, the absence of a heat exchanger and a torque converter, greatly simplify the design of the MTO and its layout.
Greater torque (more than 2 times), developed by a gas turbine engine, eliminates the need to install an automatic transmission.



The presence of four gears on the T-80U instead of seven on the T-90 simplifies the design of the onboard gearboxes, reduces their weight, size and, most importantly, increases the reliability of operation.

The vibration of a gas turbine engine is much lower than that of a diesel engine. Therefore, the speed of target detection and shooting accuracy (the main indicator of firepower), by definition, is higher for a tank with a CCD. Significantly better smoothness of the T-80U also improves the accuracy of shooting and reduces crew fatigue.

The total heat emission of a gas turbine engine is 10 times less than diesel. This factor is followed by very important consequences: the area of ​​radiators, for example, becomes three times less.

The area of ​​weakened zones in the roof of the MTO tank with a GTE is less than 2-3 times as compared to a tank with a diesel engine. The permissible transmittance of GTD dust in 10 times less than that of diesel engines. The engine does not stall, even if the tank rests on a fixed obstacle.

Operational advantages

The T-80U is distinguished by a higher passability on weak soils due to the smoothness of the load application, the wide range of operation of the gas turbine engine on the output shaft revolutions (0-100%), the high adaptability factor for torque in this range of the CRC-2,6 and the absence of engine silence at maximum torque

The tank can move in any gear without engine stalling in various road conditions, up to a stop. The T-80U has no need for servicing the cooling system. The complexity of the maintenance of the gas turbine power plant is less in 2 times.
Resource tank GTE 2-3 times higher than that of diesel engines, due to balance and minimizing the friction surfaces in the engine, which significantly increases the durability of parts and reduces the final cost of the engine during mass production and the overall cost of the life cycle of T-80.



Fighting capacity

The preparation time of a tank for movement at a gas turbine engine is several times less than that of a diesel engine. This is especially noticeable at low temperatures.

GTE better meets the requirements of multi-fuel than a diesel engine (multi-fuel - the ability of the engine to work on diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene and their mixtures in any proportion without any engine override).

The T-80U has a significantly lower level of visibility of exhaust gases (2-3 times), and, therefore, a higher level of noise and heat masking.

Ergonomic benefits

Significantly better ride T-80U reduces crew fatigue. Noise, vibration, exhaust gas composition, and other factors determining crew fatigue are much better for a tank with a CCD.

Environmental benefits

T-80U with GTE is characterized by higher environmental quality due to low toxicity of exhaust gases, lack of antifreeze and toxic synthetic oils.

Gas turbine engine there is no alternative when working in the zone of radiation contamination. Radiation particles along with the air fall into the flow part of the engine, then are emitted together with the exhaust gases. In a diesel engine, particles with air, getting into the cylinders, come into contact with the oil, and then find themselves in an oil system, which after some time becomes a powerful radiation source.



Measures to improve the competitiveness of the tank T-80U

Currently, industrial enterprises, in cooperation with the Ministry of Defense, are completing a number of R & D projects that significantly increase firepower,

security, mobility, maintainability and operational reliability of the T-80U.

1. The introduction of a fundamentally new fire control system with a tank information and control system.

Such a system (developed by JSC Spetsmash, St. Petersburg) has significant advantages over the standard MS of the T-80U tank. It provides:
- an increase in the range of actual firing immediately on the 350-500 m, i.e. up to 2400-2550 m;
- Increase in combat rate of fire (from the gunner’s place - by 12% during the day and 2 times at night; from the commander’s place - at 2 times during the day and at Zraza at night);
- automatic built-in control of the technical condition of the armament complex, which allows the crew to maintain the performance of the complex without the involvement of special control and testing equipment and qualified technical personnel;
- automated diagnostics of the causes of malfunctions of the armament complex with the possibility of automatic transmission of information to the material and technical support units;
- a significant (in 2 times) reduction in the number of governing bodies and operations with them due to automation of processes;
- automatic issuance of recommendations on the necessary actions to the crew member in case of delays or malfunctions.

In addition, the total amount of equipment, which significantly increases the IMS of the FCS, is less by 27 liters than the volume of standard equipment, the functions of which are performed by the TIUS. This allowed, for example, to increase the tank ammunition for two shots. The introduction of the TIUS also made it possible to integrate the T-80U tanks into the general information-control system by the troops and weapons of the divisional and army level.

2. Placement on the T-80U tank of the Arena active protection system complex.

KAZ "Arena" (developer - KBM, Kolomna) provides protection of the tank against ATGM and anti-tank grenades in all conditions of combat use of the tank at any time of day and year in any weather. Tank T-80U, equipped with a complex of active protection, has several advantages compared with traditional armor and dynamic protection.

The undermining of the anti-tank weapon occurs at a sufficiently large distance (6-8 m) from the armor, which allows to significantly reduce its impact. The entire projection of the tank is blocked, including the weak points: viewing devices, joints, sensors, headlights. Moreover, a large percentage of target destruction occurs without the formation of a cumulative effect or undermining of combat units of anti-tank weapons. Two or three times tank protection from one direction is provided. The azimuth sector of KAZ protection is more than 3 times wider than that of dynamic protection.

The proposed protection scheme allows, in addition to the usual ATGM, to intercept an ATGM of the type B11X, TOW-2В, which hit the tank when it is flying over it. Losses of tanks equipped with KAZ are reduced in 1,8-2 times in comparison with tanks that are not equipped with a complex.

3. Introduction to the composition of the transmission hydrostatic transmission (GOP)

As shown by the results of international tests, the installation of GOP (developed by TsNIIAG, Moscow) has significantly increased the tank's handling, thereby increasing the average speed of movement over the aggregate road conditions and reducing travel fuel consumption to a level close to that of diesel engines.

* * *

Thus, the T-80U tanks have by no means exhausted their modernization capabilities, as well as the attractiveness for foreign buyers of Russian armored vehicles. Unfortunately, the official export of these machines for several reasons was limited to Cyprus and the Republic of Korea. Now, probably, it would be utopian to assume the resumption of production of these tanks, taking into account the situation in St. Petersburg and Omsk. But the implementation of the above-described complex of measures could significantly increase the competitiveness of the machines available in parts and located at the storage bases if a decision is made to deliver them abroad. This, of course, does not mean that the presence of tanks should compete with the new T-90, but also customers are different and with different financial capabilities. A technique "used", as shown by the practice of the United States, Germany and even Ukraine, is in steady demand ...
Author:
185 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Portoss
    Portoss 22 February 2015 07: 05
    +59
    T-80 is a wonderful tank! Believe me! GSVG is unforgettable. We have it in any frost instantly started up and never failed.
    1. Siberian German
      Siberian German 22 February 2015 08: 21
      +21
      So there is hope that the 80s will return to us in Omsk?
      1. avg
        avg 22 February 2015 09: 22
        +32
        At 80 he served in Omsk. Next to my headmistress there was a test track of the October Revolution Plant, so I dashed off and shot from the T-80. And although I'm not a tanker, the T-80 has become my favorite tank. They say that part of the "Armat" will be done with the gas turbine engine. I think that for our "Severs" - the very thing.
        1. Native grandfather
          Native grandfather 22 February 2015 10: 54
          +10
          When someone begins to praise something like that, then for some reason vague doubts begin to visit - "Is this really so?" The article focused only on one "minus" of the gas turbine engine (and a very strong emphasis). Are there no other disadvantages? As far as I remember, there were tests of 80s in someone's sands. And there our tanks pretty much "coughs" because of the heavy dust. So much so that some of the engines are simply completely out of order. The modernization of dust protection systems immediately began, but soon the project of this engine was stopped (I don’t know the real reasons, but it seems because of the dust. Has anyone forgotten Afghan?).
          For reference: for the operation of a gas turbine engine, colossal volumes of atmospheric PURE air are required in comparison with a conventional internal combustion engine, which greatly eliminates all the advantages of a gas turbine engine over a diesel engine in dusty areas.
          Back to the article. The article does not say a word about the creep of GTE. The GTE chain was originally developed for aircraft, but there is no dust on top. And now about what is said in the article. Fuel consumption. How beautifully and smoothly you do not roll off-road, but if you have not reached (due to an empty tank), then you have not reached. And no matter how much it costs. In the rear support, fuel is all the same. But you still won’t go to the city gas station to refuel. Here either increase the tanks under armor, or reduce fuel consumption.
          These are a couple of stones in the garden of our T-80, unfortunately. In general, I hold both fists for our defense.
          (I saw how military equipment with GTE rides - beautifully)
          ps by the way, serving with the t-80u, tell me how things are now with the phobia of this tank?
          1. Hon
            Hon 22 February 2015 11: 48
            +19
            about the sands, the eighties have a cleaning system, when the sand just shakes off, on tests in the desert it showed even better than diesel, but the Abrams have problems with this, the filters can’t cope.
            the temperature is another matter, the article says that a gas turbine engine is "colder" than a diesel engine, everywhere they write that, on the contrary, the temperature is too high a lack of a gas turbine engine
            1. Aleksandr72
              Aleksandr72 22 February 2015 13: 45
              +32
              About the sands. When the question arose about the possibility of operating the T-80 with a gas turbine engine in a hot dry climate, the "eighty" was tested and tested in semi-desert and desert conditions in Central Asia (in Kazakhstan and, in my opinion, in Turkmenistan). So, this trial operation proved the possibility of using GTE on tanks even in conditions of strong dustiness, which is typical for this area. The only negative is that the air filters have to be cleaned and changed more often. In addition, a gas turbine engine is also installed on the M1 "Abrams", which does not interfere with its operation in Egypt, where, as we know, there is not just a lot of sand, but a lot.
              And in general, from the tankers who served on the T-80U (ZGV, SGV) I heard the opinion that this is the best Soviet tank.
              I have the honor.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. gjv
                gjv 26 February 2015 14: 39
                0
                Quote: Aleksandr72
                does not interfere with its operation in Egypt, where, as you know, there is not just a lot of sand, but a lot

                As well as Australia, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. lol
                Tanks in the sand, tanks in the snow ... good
                fellow Added 433-th, and then in the article a lot of the 373rd ...
            2. gjv
              gjv 22 February 2015 14: 29
              +18
              Quote: Hon
              As for the sands, the eighties have a cleaning system, when the sand is simply shaken off, in tests in the desert it showed itself even better than diesel, but the Abrams have problems with this, the filters cannot cope. the temperature is another matter, the article says that a gas turbine engine is "colder" than a diesel engine, everywhere they write that, on the contrary, the temperature is too high a lack of a gas turbine engine

              The demand for air in the working process of a gas turbine engine is greater than that of a diesel engine. The coefficient of excess air in the gas turbine engine is also increased - part of the air is spent on cooling the combustion chamber. But, in spite of the fact that less air is consumed in the diesel combustion process, its total amount (taking into account engine cooling and transmission) is almost twice as high. The practical need of a diesel engine for cooling is realized by an increased area of ​​radiators (2–3 times compared with a gas turbine engine), respectively, by an increased area of ​​air-suction shutters, i.e. the size of the machine-transmission compartment is growing, the area of ​​weakened zones is increasing. Consequently, the size of the tank is growing and additional reservation - the mass is growing - the specific power indicator is falling, according to which comparative conclusions are being made here.
              about the sands - read the NATO publications on "Desert Storm" - the American Abrams (on a gas turbine engine) went much better than the British diesel Challenger. I believe that the T-80 would not be bad against the background of the T-72, and against the background of the Challenger, and Abrams too. Much depends on the "spacer" between the seat and the "steering wheel".
              Also look at Military Review. There have already been articles on the design, advantages and disadvantages of tanks with a gas turbine engine, for example:
              On the way to the T-80: tank gas turbine engines
              [media = http: //topwar.ru/25686-na-puti-kt-80-tankovye-gazoturbinnye-dvigateli.ht
              ml]
              T-80 - 35 years in service
              [media = http: //topwar.ru/5513-t-80-35-let-na-sluzhbe.html]
              What is better for a tank - gas turbine or diesel
              [media = http: //topwar.ru/33172-chto-dlya-tanka-luchshe-gazovaya-turbina-ili-dizel
              .html]
              In Russia, modifications were created T-80, which are superior to T-72B3 and T-90A
              [media = http: //topwar.ru/33101-v-rossii-byli-sozdany-modifikacii-t-80-kotorye-pre
              voshodyat-t-72b3-it-90a.html]
              Thoughts on the prospects of gas turbine engines in Russia
              [media = http: //warfiles.ru/show-19130-mysli-o-perspektivah-gtd-v-rossii.html]
              and others.
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. Alekseev
              Alekseev 22 February 2015 14: 54
              +11
              Quote: Native grandfather
              When someone begins to praise something like that, then for some reason vague doubts begin to visit - "Is this really so?

              Quote: Hon
              the temperature is another matter, the article says that a gas turbine engine is "colder" than a diesel engine, everywhere they write that, on the contrary, the temperature is too high a lack of a gas turbine engine

              They revived the old theme, which had long been sucked to the bone.
              A tank with a gas turbine engine eats kerosene (DT) like a "bull slop" and not what "idle modes" do not fundamentally solve the matter. This is not even a half measure, but a quarter measure.
              GTE is especially inferior to diesel at variable loads, and not when driving on the highway.
              This is a theory - you can’t jump higher than horseradish.
              For achievement higher efficiency it is necessary to raise the temperature of the gases in front of the turbine, and this will result in addition to an awesome price increase, which is already several times higher than the price of a diesel engine, to the inability to operate the machine in dusty terrain due to the fact that the dust will melt on the turbine blades and no vibration cleaning will help.
              We need to install a high-performance air purifier for a huge amount of air ... And the MTO will immediately become the same as Abrams’s volume.
              Is this news for the author of the article? I'm not sure everyone knows everything, but they are discussing the topic: how to lower the engine from a helicopter to the ground and so that everything is as cool as in heaven. laughing
              A tank diesel also has a huge reserve for increasing efficiency, which is called a common rail fuel system.
              At the current level of development of GTE technologies, a tank diesel engine is not a competitor for the reasons stated. So the Americans are also thinking of launching a program to replace the gas turbine engine on Abrams with a diesel engine from Motoren und Turbinen (MTU)
              As for the insinuations about warmth and noise, I advise you to stand behind the 80s and ask the m / v to give in to the gas. Everything will become clear as God's day. yes
              1. Hon
                Hon 22 February 2015 15: 45
                +6
                but in practice the gas turbine engine copes with desert conditions, the same abrams serve in the Middle East, they tested the T-80 in Karakum, it is also in service with Egypt, Iemin, Angola. regarding air purity, gas turbine engines can even use coal dust as a fuel, i.e. The problem of air cleanliness is not so terrible as it is painted. modern gas turbine engines have heat exchangers, and fuel consumption indicators are close to diesel. five years ago he talked with a tanker, who popularly explained that the excessive consumption of fuel in skilled hands is not significant. expensive? Yes, but modern technology has long ceased to be cheap, and the advantages of a gas turbine engine are many. another matter how critical the flaws are. In my opinion, the main drawback is the unrepairability and visibility due to the high temperature.
                1. Alekseev
                  Alekseev 22 February 2015 21: 13
                  +5
                  Quote: Hon
                  GTE can even use coal dust as fuel

                  It's enough! wassat
                  Take the trouble to look on the Internet for IE and TO GTD-1250 (1000) and see what fuels (and how many hours!) Are allowed to use on this engine.
                  Coal dust instead of kerosene fool - The dream of all airlines in the world. laughing But, unfortunately, such a utopia did not occur to any of the staff ...
                  1. Alekseev
                    Alekseev 22 February 2015 21: 51
                    +6
                    In severe operating conditions IE T-80 strongly recommends: "The power plant should be switched to the" desert "operating mode, which restricts the fuel supply with a decrease in the gas temperature in order to exclude deposits of caked dust on the high-pressure turbine blades with a corresponding decrease in engine power.
                    At the same time, the following restrictions should come into force: a decrease in the warranty running hours of the engine from 500 to 300 hours; prohibition of the use of all types of fuel, except aviation kerosene.(not coal dust) laughing) "Even the use of the main (!) Type of fuel - diesel is not allowed.
                  2. family tree
                    family tree 22 February 2015 23: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: Alekseev
                    But, unfortunately, such a utopia has never occurred to any of the staff ..

                    I remember that a certain Rudolph threatened the German coal industrialists that he would build an engine that would work on coal dust, but he only fired this one, his last name, a diesel engine, which, for which, along the way, "disappeared", straight from the steamer, when I decided to screw up to America request as the legend goes what
                2. family tree
                  family tree 22 February 2015 22: 13
                  +6
                  Quote: Hon
                  GTE can even use coal dust as a fuel,

                  Why! laughing I didn’t believe my eyes at first, everything, I give up good Maybe dumplings still try, too, they say are burning what
                  1. Cynic
                    Cynic 22 February 2015 22: 23
                    +3
                    Quote: perepilka
                    Already did not believe my eyes

                    Well, this is not a tricky business, after recent allegations about the use of gas as a fuel, the truth remains behind the scenes, natural or any other (hmm, maybe liquefied) nothing to be surprised at!
                    wink
                  2. termit73
                    termit73 23 February 2015 21: 38
                    +2
                    Quote: perepilka
                    Quote: Hon
                    GTE can even use coal dust as a fuel,

                    Why! laughing I didn’t believe my eyes at first, everything, I give up good Maybe dumplings still try, too, they say are burning what

                    At the expense of coal dust, you’re ironic in vain — back in the 80s, operational tests were conducted on diesel locomotives with a gas turbine engine and quite successful though, this type of fuel is unacceptable for a tank
              2. Roman 57 rus
                Roman 57 rus 22 February 2015 18: 17
                +2
                I agree with you, the author made something up at the expense of a cooler exhaust from the gas turbine engine.
              3. Ze Kot
                Ze Kot 24 February 2015 21: 08
                +2
                Quote: Alekseev
                A tank diesel also has a huge reserve for increasing efficiency, which is called a common rail fuel system.


                I will not say about tank diesel engines, but in civilian life, common rail requires a high-performance pump, excellent quality injectors and high-quality fuel. And tank diesel engines are famous for the fact that they can "eat" everything ...
          2. Jew Russian
            Jew Russian 22 February 2015 16: 01
            +6
            The issue was resolved at the initial stage, the air inlet is like in a dyson vacuum cleaner plus vibration without details, there are no fatal problems only, problems of illiterate operation, there is protection against a fool, but not an idiot!
          3. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 22 February 2015 17: 14
            +7
            All rightly respected, but you missed the most important minus. I can’t know how it is now, but in Soviet times one T-80 cost the state about 4 T-72s. soldier Something tells me that this is the main reason for dislike for the GTE. By the way, there was an experimental tank, unfortunately I do not remember the number, where it was possible to install both a gas turbine engine and a diesel engine, without any modifications and alterations. There is a hope that such a principle will be implemented in "Armata".
          4. Roman 57 rus
            Roman 57 rus 22 February 2015 18: 11
            +2
            The air purification system of a tank gas turbine engine of the cyclone type (when air swirls and dust particles are screened out by centrifugal forces) Rumor has it that this system formed the basis of Dyson vacuum cleaners.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 22 February 2015 18: 24
              +9
              Quote: Roman 57 rus
              Air purification system of a tank gas turbine engine of cyclone type (when air swirls and dust particles are screened out by centrifugal forces)

              T-80 engine (on the right side of the air purifier cyclones). The cyclone-type air cleaner emits dust through the exhaust pipe.

              Dust adhering to the turbine blades is shaken off by vibration cleaning.
              On later T-80s, the engine’s air intake was moved to the level of the tank’s tower roof (as the tank’s purge in the wind tunnel showed, this is not a dusty place.


          5. Robespierre9
            Robespierre9 22 February 2015 22: 21
            +6
            The tank is almost noiseless, about the dust - we are not in the desert, we have just the same minus temperature in the fall, spring and winter, the diesel engine was chosen rather from despair, hence the T-90 and other dances with a tambourine.
          6. ReutovIvan
            ReutovIvan 23 February 2015 12: 21
            +3
            The dust problem was solved during the testing phase. Thanks to a special technical solution, the dust is periodically shaken off the turbine blades by vibration, it does not settle or bake, the engine is in order. There is no such system on "Abrams" - there are filters.
          7. BecmepH
            BecmepH 24 February 2015 11: 04
            -1
            In addition to the thoughts of the grandfather of the NATIVE ... The price of a gas turbine engine in comparison with a diesel one is five to ten times higher. For example, a 84 V-72 diesel engine for a T-1989B cost 14 thousand rubles, and a gas turbine engine for a T-80 - 104 thousand rubles. And, in general, is there any point in bothering so, taking into account the average life time of a tank in battle?
            1. Ze Kot
              Ze Kot 24 February 2015 21: 12
              +1
              It depends on how you are going to use the tanks. If, as in the Soviet doctrine: "huge steel masses of tanks, wave after wave rolled over the enemy's positions," then yes - there is no point in bothering.

              And if so, as "they say" now, that every human life is valuable ... Then you have to choose the best.
          8. gjv
            gjv 26 February 2015 16: 04
            0
            Quote: Native grandfather
            In general, I hold both fists for our defense industry. (I saw how military equipment with GTE rolls - it's beautiful)

            Tanks are not afraid of dirt! good
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. gjv
              gjv 26 February 2015 16: 40
              +2
              Tanks are not afraid of dirt!
              Sorry, the photo was not immediately printed.
        2. tol100v
          tol100v 22 February 2015 18: 00
          +12
          Quote: avg
          ... I think that for our "Severs" - the very thing.

          If you face the truth, then fuel consumption for Russia is not a critical indicator, all the more so if the defense capability depends on it! Much more is stolen and "written off"! But the direct indicators of the power-to-weight ratio surpass the nearest competitors by 30-50%! You can't discount it!
          1. ATATA
            ATATA 23 February 2015 18: 59
            +1
            Quote: Tol100v
            If you face the truth, fuel consumption for Russia is not a critical indicator

            If, in the conditions of Russia, more fuel would fit into a tank tank, or into a tanker of a fuel truck than in other countries, then fuel consumption would not be critical, but since mileage is limited not only by the flow rate, but also by the volume of the tank, the flow rate even in Russia Critical for the mileage at a single gas station.
      2. Portoss
        Portoss 22 February 2015 10: 11
        +18
        Quote: Siberian German
        So there is hope that the 80s will return to us in Omsk?

        I just served on the Omsk T-80U. God grant that they resume the production of gas turbine tanks!
        1. older
          older 22 February 2015 19: 19
          0
          My friend, I fully support you, but even in our time, no one forbids rollback. Therefore, we will not serve on what is needed, but on what is "rolled back"
      3. Rus2012
        Rus2012 22 February 2015 13: 41
        -12%
        Quote: Siberian German
        So there is hope

        "Armata" - first images!
        The first 20 Armata tanks entered service for practical study.
        Images courtesy of Russia Today.


        1. Hon
          Hon 22 February 2015 13: 55
          +11
          with a machine gun and an automatic cannon mounted at the edges, we can safely say that this is a fake
        2. Nevsky_ZU
          Nevsky_ZU 22 February 2015 14: 06
          -5
          There on the link slide video

          1. Hon
            Hon 22 February 2015 15: 50
            +3
            this is not a video, but graphics, with the same success you can draw a cartoon, by the way, "armata" has already appeared in some video games, perhaps otduda and images
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 22 February 2015 17: 35
              0
              Quote: Nevsky_ZU
              There on the link slide video

              Quote: Hon
              this is not a video, but graphics, with the same success you can draw a cartoon, by the way, "armata" has already appeared in some video games, perhaps otduda and images

              This is not a game - the concept was created by order of the "Courage" site.
        3. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 22 February 2015 14: 17
          +4
          you got fucked with "images" wassat it's been a year on the net ...
      4. sds555
        sds555 22 February 2015 19: 46
        +4
        IDEX 2015 T-90SM
      5. Astrahanec
        Astrahanec 23 February 2015 11: 50
        +6
        Omsk was unlucky that Yeltsin from Yeburg supported the Tagil people (((
    2. gameover_65
      gameover_65 22 February 2015 14: 33
      +10
      served as a gunner on the t-80.
      excellent cars, I would say that it’s even better than the T-90.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Civil
      Civil 22 February 2015 15: 28
      -3
      GTD-1250 ... they say in the distant past, the engine from MI-2 ... t-80 is kind of like the t-64 version only with such a dvigl
      1. deduly1957
        deduly1957 23 February 2015 08: 23
        +5
        on the mi-2 there was a 12-cylinder piston engine from the "maize" engine.
        1. gjv
          gjv 25 February 2015 17: 40
          +1
          He put a plus out of a sense of contradiction to Vadim Civil. Stop airplane-helicopter "land" engines.
          On the Mi-2 were the GTD-350 2x400 hp.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 25 February 2015 18: 40
            +1
            Quote: deduly1957
            on the mi-2 there was a 12-cylinder piston engine from the "maize" engine.

            Piston stood on MI-4, on MI-2 - turbines
        2. The comment was deleted.
    5. cyberhanter
      cyberhanter 22 February 2015 16: 12
      +2
      The article is useful, informative, and it has revealed a lot of new things for me (I am technically poorly savvy), but a huge number of errors just spoiled the impression. Here are just some examples.
      American M1A2 Abram

      The overall power of the MTO is understood as the ratio ham actual power
      1. drags33
        drags33 22 February 2015 18: 15
        +7
        I agree with you - the article was written very carelessly and insufficiently proofread by the editor (author). Therefore, you have to "wade" through every line ... This is doubly offensive, because the material is VERY interesting.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    6. BecmepH
      BecmepH 24 February 2015 10: 49
      0
      GSVG is unforgettable. We have it in any frost instantly started up and never failed.
      Interestingly, old man, what do you mean by frosts in the GSVG?))))
  2. svp67
    svp67 22 February 2015 07: 07
    +33
    It’s better to have a tank for the northern regions, including the Arctic, than the T80 and it’s hard to come up with now. So, that they bury her early ...
  3. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 22 February 2015 07: 19
    +26
    Great article! Bold plus. It is only a pity that at the top few people agree with what is written in the article, or rather they stubbornly pretend that they do not agree. Because of which, as much as two decades of possible progress, cat down the drain.
  4. viacheslav77
    viacheslav77 22 February 2015 07: 24
    +4
    Is everything as beautiful as the article says?
    In the early 1980-ies.

    Fuel consumption, mainly. Not cumulative with oil, but when the tank goes from 450-500 km from one refueling (we won’t go into modifications and the number of external tanks), but 700. And tankers still go after the tanks. Which cost money and people sit in them. And with the oil consumption of a modern diesel engine, I think it's not so bad.
    And how is a turbine with dynamics?
    1. svp67
      svp67 22 February 2015 08: 08
      +16
      Quote: viacheslav77
      And how is a turbine with dynamics?

      Above all praise. In dynamics, this tank outperforms ALL.
      Quote: viacheslav77
      And tankers still go for tanks. Which cost money and people sit in them.

      So ATMZ, AC, they are moving behind any equipment, like trucks with ammunition, food and other supplies. By the way, earlier fuel and "turntables" could deliver, well, if necessary. And so ... a lot of "local resources" need to count, well, what would the enemy not leave.
  5. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 22 February 2015 07: 28
    +7
    Or maybe a diesel generator. The transmission of the 2 electric engine will be removed, the tank will be torn from its place so that the panamas will fly off. And that winter Duc is possible and a pre-heater and control as on the machine. The resource of the engine will increase 2 times as you turn one generator. Diesel engines are all poisonous now, you can refuel at any "puddle" with any tractor. Although I may be wrong, as I served in the "queen of the fields"
  6. avvg
    avvg 22 February 2015 07: 28
    +7
    In the Arctic, we not only strengthen the military power of the country and stated that we will not allow violations of the ecology of the Arctic. So, the modernized T80 for the Arctic will be what we need.
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 22 February 2015 07: 44
      +1
      It is you who ask Omsk whether the plant will be able to pull this modernization.
      1. older
        older 22 February 2015 19: 41
        +3
        Countryman, believe me, you are a Siberian yourself, we will pull more. We always pulled. Chkalov’s plant at Bogatkov’s was also not outstanding, but ..
  7. Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 22 February 2015 07: 38
    -5
    "It turned out that the T-80U tank has the highest power density in the world - 27 hp per ton of weight (1,2-1,3 times higher than the best world samples)"
    Leopard 2 27, Abrams M1-28, M1A2SEP-24
  8. Lumumba
    Lumumba 22 February 2015 07: 59
    +7
    Quote: Lord of Wrath
    "It turned out that the T-80U tank has the highest power density in the world - 27 hp per ton of weight (1,2-1,3 times higher than the best world samples)"


    The comparison was not with modern samples, but with samples of a similar generation / class (see text). At the time of the test, it was like that.

    By the way, by the way, there’s a good sign: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D3%E4%E5%EB%FC%ED%E0%FF_%EC%EE%F9%ED%EE%F1%F2% FC
    1. Lord of Wrath
      Lord of Wrath 22 February 2015 09: 10
      -11%
      Quote: Lumumba

      The comparison was not with modern samples, but with samples of a similar generation / class (see text). At the time of the test, it was like that.

      And what's the problem? Т80У - 1985. Leopard 2 - 1979, Abrams M1 -1980
      Happatriotism floods the eyes?
      1. Days
        Days 22 February 2015 16: 42
        +3
        1 Abrams M1 / ​​IPM1980 - 25 hp / t. modernization of 1984 (M1A1) had 23,8 specific power, and 1 M2A1994 in general 21,6: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
        This later modification caught up to 27.

        Unless Leopard 2 of all MBTs of that time had the same specific power (27).
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 22 February 2015 18: 07
          +2
          Quote: Dagen
          Unless Leopard 2 of all MBTs of that time had the same specific power (27).

          But if you take into account that part of this power goes to the cooling system (something in the region of 2 hundred horses), and the diesel engine, in contrast to the turbine, shows its maximum power in a rather narrow speed range (with a decrease in speed, the power decreases), then the conclusion will not be so clear. I mean, Leo is not a rival to the 80 ke in terms of energy availability.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 22 February 2015 18: 42
            0
            Leopard Transmission
          2. Lord of Wrath
            Lord of Wrath 22 February 2015 19: 48
            +1
            Quote: Bad_gr

            But when you consider that part of this power goes to the cooling system (something in the 2 area of ​​hundreds of horses)

            That is)) less power-to-weight ratio? laughing
        2. Lord of Wrath
          Lord of Wrath 22 February 2015 19: 45
          +1
          Quote: Dagen
          This later modification caught up to 27.

          What are you))
          The engine as it was AGT-1500 and remained. And M1 is the lightest version of 54 tons
          M1A1 is already 61 ton. The further the harder it is.
          Is it difficult to divide one into the other?
          1. Days
            Days 23 February 2015 14: 11
            +3
            Your truth, power supply on the contrary fell. The very first M1 also coincided in terms of power supply with the T-80U. Only in 1998, the comparison was already with the M1A2.

            And in any case, the T-80U has a fairly high power supply, the highest in the world, along with the Leopard. So in this matter everything is correctly written in the article.
  9. MolGro
    MolGro 22 February 2015 08: 21
    0
    All these moans that it is better t 72 or t80!
    Pointless as they will be replaced by the Armata tank!
    1. Disant
      Disant 22 February 2015 09: 52
      +10
      Of course, I’m not a Professor, but here immediately there are a lot of questions for you:
      - for what year and at a certain percentage replace the fleet
      - are you sure that by this year nothing will change and the replacement will occur regularly
      -
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 22 February 2015 20: 24
      +6
      Quote: MolGro
      Pointless as they will be replaced by the Armata tank!

      Yeah, under ten thousand cars (in total) will be replaced by several hundred Armats.
      Not funny .
      request
  10. tchoni
    tchoni 22 February 2015 08: 29
    +4
    Greater torque (more than 2 times), developed by a gas turbine engine, eliminates the need to install an automatic transmission.
    I didn't really understand how this is achieved .... Perhaps we are talking about high established speeds? I sincerely believed that at low speeds the gas turbine frankly "does not pull" due to the design features

    The T-80U has a significantly lower level of visibility of exhaust gases (2-3 times), and, therefore, a higher level of noise and heat masking.
    Oh oh from the turbine, even dual-circuit gas is quite hot .....
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 22 February 2015 18: 16
      +3
      Quote: tchoni
      ... I sincerely believed that at low revs the gas turbine frankly "does not pull" due to the design features

      On the contrary. A turbine in a wider speed range retains its power, and therefore there is no need to put a large number of gears.
      In this regard, the most controversial tank engine is the T-64 engine. Almost the same thing if the engine from a passenger sports car was stuck in a truck.
  11. Disant
    Disant 22 February 2015 08: 42
    +15
    Great tank. Powerful. Smooth. Fast.
    And the operators, who apparently have not yet read this article, I think, will confirm all this. And yet, the main drawback of this engine / tank / is not its fuel consumption, but its high cost of manufacture and one small nuance: the turbine blades instantly burn when driving errors, it is enough for the driver to start moving incorrectly with the onboard ones locked (correct if not)
    And the blades are not being repaired !! , only the factory, the whole engine is being replaced. And these blades will burn as long as you do not tap the mechanics of the next salmon on the head with a key.
    I think this is being treated, you just need to attach a little thought not on the head with a key, but apply a few thoughts from our developers when developing the next tank with a gas turbine engine. It's not hard
    1. Blondy
      Blondy 22 February 2015 09: 31
      +2
      I think this is being treated, you just need to attach a little thought not on the head with a key, but apply a few thoughts from our developers when developing the next tank with a gas turbine engine. It's not hard.

      Yeah, it’s not difficult, but for some reason no one can still do such blades in our world, at least in aircraft engines. There is some kind of special chrisatlantic structure. The Chinese tried, as usual, one to one, to rip off - and zilch, it does not work.
      1. Disant
        Disant 22 February 2015 09: 46
        +3
        So I wrote - a tank with a gas turbine engine, not a scapula
        The blades burn in certain modes with a certain combination of controls
        You just need to "think out" a couple of locks on the controls. Maybe even just mechanical
    2. Portoss
      Portoss 22 February 2015 10: 22
      +14
      Quote: Disant
      : the turbine blades instantly burn when driving errors, it is enough for the driver to move incorrectly with locked onboard (correct if not)

      During 2 years of service in our tank battalion (40 battle tanks) not a single shoulder blade was burned. The same was with the training, although they drove them in the tail and mane. (GSVG 1985-1987).
    3. flanker7
      flanker7 22 February 2015 20: 35
      +7
      Such a problem has long been absent due to the presence of locks.
      During the 86-88 service, the Zampotech told us that this was on the very first series of the 80s at the end of the 70s.
      Someone here earlier said that the T-80 is the best Soviet tank.
      Absolutely SO. Briefly and comprehensively.
      1. GSVG
        GSVG 22 February 2015 21: 26
        +2
        GSVG 85-90. I agree. Happy holiday !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! drinks
  12. Barakuda
    Barakuda 22 February 2015 08: 57
    +27
    The joke is that when it flies at you, it is almost inaudible. I’ll tell you a terrible impression.
    And on arable land as rushing, words can not describe .. Ferrari off-road .. yes
    1. Klim2011
      Klim2011 22 February 2015 10: 06
      +6
      It’s for sure, and as it passes you by, it whistles like a Nightingale the Robber wink
    2. Portoss
      Portoss 22 February 2015 10: 27
      +7
      Quote: Barracuda
      The joke is that when it flies at you, it is almost inaudible. I’ll tell you a terrible impression.
      And on arable land as rushing, words can not describe .. Ferrari off-road ..

      We somehow collected a blackberry on a tank director. Looked around - 50 meters 3 T-80U tanks are standing. We did not hear how they approached. They could crush us as partridges.
      1. gjv
        gjv 22 February 2015 12: 14
        +4
        Quote: Portoss
        We somehow collected a blackberry on a tank director. Looked around - 50 meters 3 T-80U tanks are standing. We didn’t hear how they approached.

        Quote: Barracuda
        The joke is that when it flies at you, it is almost inaudible

        Quote: Klim2011
        It’s for sure, and as it passes you by, it whistles like a Nightingale the Robber

        The joke in this is almost inaudible in the field and on the primer. It is audible how it whistles, it becomes precisely when it’s already passing by and will go forward. And then, if there is no wind. And if the wind is standing on the windward side of it, then you can hardly hear it near, unless you specifically listen.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  13. sergei loginov
    sergei loginov 22 February 2015 08: 58
    +15
    Dear forum users, happy holiday !!!
    1. Barakuda
      Barakuda 22 February 2015 09: 05
      +4
      Oh, thanks soldier I thought to start thumping on Monday, it’ll be early. drinks
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 22 February 2015 20: 56
        +2
        Quote: Barracuda
        Oh, thanks soldier I thought to start thumping on Monday, it’ll be early. drinks

        Already, and rolled over 80 identity!
        drinks
    2. Private27
      Private27 22 February 2015 10: 03
      +2
      Sergey, what kind of flag do you have? Happy Holiday!
      1. Astrahanec
        Astrahanec 23 February 2015 12: 05
        0
        Uzbekistan
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Homo
    Homo 22 February 2015 09: 27
    +6
    And since when has EFFICIENCY become the main indicator of military equipment? Usually, "savings" are used by traders to increase profits and fill their pockets. If all other indicators are high, then "efficiency" goes through the forest.
    1. Hon
      Hon 22 February 2015 12: 21
      0
      always was
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 22 February 2015 15: 18
        +5
        Quote: Hon
        always was

        that the army, that the fleet were never cheap, and yes, combat effectiveness and profitability are diametrically opposed.
        with this economy, you can go to the point of absurdity, like in a competition of armor and shell, a shell almost always wins, plus anti-tank weapons are much cheaper (more economical for the budget) cost of the tank, and if we recall the survival time of the tank on the battlefield, then it’s generally a guard.
        Z.Y. profitability is an excuse for peacetime, which is scored on the eve of and during the war, and now we don’t have time to say that it is very peaceful.
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 22 February 2015 21: 00
        +1
        Quote: Hon
        always was

        When comparing, at least approximately, equivalent samples.
        It is not a determining indicator in all other cases.
        hi
  16. poplar in Kiev
    poplar in Kiev 22 February 2015 09: 52
    +1
    the author completely forgot to point out other significant shortcomings --- and this is the complete non-repairability of the engine! except for tightening a couple of clamps the mechanic can do nothing! I know that they bring 2-3 engines for repair to us on KADVI every time! Often always there should be replacement engines, in case of engine failure on a combat vehicle, and the number of engines to replace is approximately 30%. In addition, a fairly large staff of repair rooms with skilled workers --- well, and in the field, the repair goes like a special military unit, a bunch of cars and special equipment !!
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 22 February 2015 11: 06
      +11
      Absolutely true: the gas turbine engine is not repairable in the field - only a modular replacement. And this is its main "relative" drawback. However, given the fact that modern anti-tank weapons cause such damage to a tank that it is no longer possible to restore it, now, by and large, it does not matter whether it will be possible to repair the engine after being damaged in battle or not. The same is true for transitions-aggregate replacement, if it is done simply and quickly, it is preferable. But in peacetime, and in minor conflicts there, yes, the operation of a diesel engine is still cheaper than a gas turbine, due to its somewhat greater efficiency and the possibility of repair in artisanal conditions.
      1. Hon
        Hon 22 February 2015 12: 25
        +2
        in most cases, these lesions are ordinary holes, and if the CD did not detanate i.e. the tank did not turn to pieces, it is returned to service after repair. honestly repair is possible in the field
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. GSVG
      GSVG 22 February 2015 21: 29
      +2
      Not true. Our "textbooks" were repaired HOWEVER !!! Happy Holidays !!! drinks
    4. gjv
      gjv 25 February 2015 18: 12
      +1
      Quote: poplar in Kiev
      the author completely forgot to point out other significant shortcomings --- and this is the complete non-repairability of the engine! except for tightening a couple of clamps, the mechanic can do nothing!

      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Absolutely true: the gas turbine engine is not repairable in the field - only a modular replacement. And this is its main "relative" drawback.

      There are a lot of orders for the repair of diesel engines in the BTRZ. Where were the wizards of the mechanics? What will they do in the field, besides "tightening a couple of clamps", on a diesel engine? Will the cylinder liner be honed?
      How many spare filters, glow plugs, fuel pumps and injectors, oil, temperature and pressure sensors are on board?
    5. The comment was deleted.
  17. foma2028
    foma2028 22 February 2015 10: 23
    +4
    I recommend the rather interesting book "The main battle tank of Russia. A frank conversation about the problems of tank building". authors E. Babylon, O. Kuraksa, V. Nevolin
    In turn, in this book many mythical advantages of GTD and T-80U are debunked.
    Much has been written about the participation of t-80 in the Greek tender, etc.
    book link
    http://хлопотов.рф/osnovnoj-boevoj-tank-rossii-otkrovennyj-razgovor-o-problemax-
    tankostroeniya-xnumx
    http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3238498
    1. GSVG
      GSVG 22 February 2015 21: 33
      0
      And it’s better to sniff it yourself, try it, see ... Happy holiday !!! drinks
  18. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 22 February 2015 11: 16
    +11
    Quote: foma2028
    I recommend the rather interesting book "The main battle tank of Russia. A frank conversation about the problems of tank building". authors E. Babylon, O. Kuraksa, V. Nevolin
    In turn, in this book many mythical advantages of GTD and T-80U are debunked.

    it is quite logical to expect this from representatives of UVZ, otherwise they could not write otherwise. since their attitude to the gas turbine engine and, in particular, to the T-80 is more than biased, this publication cannot and is not the ultimate authority in this matter.
    1. foma2028
      foma2028 22 February 2015 11: 43
      0
      Any point of view is subjective / biased to one degree or another.
      I think that this short article is also not the ultimate authority.
      It is unfortunate that the author did not describe in detail a number of reasons why the official export of these machines was limited to Cyprus and South Korea.
  19. Concealer
    Concealer 22 February 2015 11: 28
    +2
    Quote: Native grandfather
    For reference: for the operation of a gas turbine engine, colossal volumes of atmospheric PURE air are required in comparison with a conventional internal combustion engine, which greatly eliminates all the advantages of a gas turbine engine over a diesel engine in dusty areas.
    Back to the article. The article does not say a word about the creep of GTE. The GTE chain was originally developed for aircraft, but there is no dust on top.

    Fact. A gas turbine engine fails under conditions of high dustiness, and cannot be repaired. But now we have effective cleaning systems in every home, for example, a cyclone vacuum cleaner. And then there was no effective technology.

    Quote: Siberia 9444
    Or maybe a diesel generator. The transmission of the 2 electric engine will be removed, the tank will be torn from its place so that the panamas will fly off. And that winter Duc is possible and a pre-heater and control as on the machine. The resource of the engine will increase 2 times as you turn one generator. Diesel engines are all poisonous now, you can refuel at any "puddle" with any tractor. Although I may be wrong, as I served in the "queen of the fields"

    The requirements for the power supply of the tank are only growing, and the excess energy on board will definitely not be superfluous. The all-electric tank is clearly superior to the ordinary. And the dynamics will allow you to evade even missiles. In this direction, you need to move. Automation systems and power supply.
    Yes, the cost and technical complexity of the tank will increase, but both survival and firepower will increase. We are now making tanks for a completely different war, and the versatility of the tank needs to be increased.
    1. foma2028
      foma2028 22 February 2015 11: 47
      +3
      ... And the dynamics will allow you to evade even missiles ???
      It seems that even an airplane is not so easy to dodge modern missiles.
    2. Roman 57 rus
      Roman 57 rus 22 February 2015 18: 40
      0
      I agree with you, the mobility of the tank depends on the power supply, and mobility is a very useful thing in battle.
  20. fa2998
    fa2998 22 February 2015 11: 31
    +4
    Probably this discussion about uneconomical engines is an expensive operation in PEACE TIME. If a gas turbine engine is in combat an effective green light. The war will deduct everything. I am an amateur (not a tanker), they can correct me, but you can learn how to drive mechanics using economical engines. hi
  21. Pate
    Pate 22 February 2015 11: 33
    +3
    I think if this tank was bad, then Cyprus and South Korea did not buy it, I saw a d / f about this tank, where the designers told me that before letting the series go, the tank went several thousand kilometers. the commercial for this tank says that its engine can run on different types of liquid fuel.
    1. foma2028
      foma2028 22 February 2015 12: 55
      +1
      Several thousand kilometers of mileage is one thing, everyday operation in peacetime is another, and war is quite another. Well, the commercial is actually something ... "spherical tank in a vacuum"
  22. KKND
    KKND 22 February 2015 13: 19
    +2
    The main disadvantage of a gas turbine engine in front of a diesel engine is the cost of about 10-30 times more than a diesel engine.
    Regarding dustiness, I can say the following: the problem is solved effective installation of an air filtration system (approximately 3 times larger in volume than on a diesel engine) as on the "Abrams".
    Pay attention to the pictures in the article MTO "Abrams" is much more than MTO "T-80" with a capacity of 1500 and 1250 hp. By what means? The air filtration system in the T-80 cleans 97-98% of the air, and on the Abrams it is 100%
    For hurray patriots, I can cite as proof that the Abrams fought in Iraq in desert conditions with very strong dust storms in which visibility was such that the crew was guided by GPS and thermal imagers.
    The problem of engine maintainability is partially solved by designing the MTO in a single block, as on the Abrams, with the subsequent replacement of the entire block in 30-40 minutes.
    PS Cheers patriots can minus.
  23. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 22 February 2015 13: 22
    +1
    Several against "bypassed" by the author. The author forgot to point out that a turbine is ten times more expensive than a diesel engine. The turbine requires, albeit more rare, but more qualified service than a diesel engine, not to mention repairs. In addition, there is now a diesel engine of 1000hp. and the superiority of the turbine was not apparent. Russia has approx. 6000 t-80, much more.
    Of the advantages - omnivorousness and easy start-up in the cold, of course you can’t argue, well, the driver’s driver is more comfortable working.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 22 February 2015 15: 46
      +3
      but it’s not necessary to build, it is necessary to upgrade part of them at least to the T-80U-M1 “BARS” and let them continue to be stored, because 2 valves will rivet 000-10 years ...
      according to expenses, they are not considered during the war, for that they immediately recall those who screamed the most about saving and, as a rule, their end is sad.
  24. Aqela
    Aqela 22 February 2015 13: 42
    +5
    An eerie number of typos and / or CRO errors dramatically reduces the value of this article. Afflicted crying
    1. SOKOL777
      SOKOL777 22 February 2015 23: 30
      0
      Quote: Aqela
      Afflicted


      It’s noticeable in the face on the avatar ... Smile, Happy Holiday!
  25. Argon
    Argon 22 February 2015 14: 08
    +3
    Let's take into account that the T-80-tank was created for a certain (rather specific) task - to "jump" to the Atlantic, in a limited atomic war. It is unlikely that in those conditions all the shortcomings of the GTE in terms of resources, labor intensity of regulations were of priority importance. the tank should become an "intelligent board" and the cost of a separate sample is limited; it is quite obvious that a gas turbine engine is too expensive (about 1/10 in relation to a diesel engine) for the main tank (mass car). At the same time, its advantages are so obvious that they allow (rather large part of experts) consider it more suitable for use in armored vehicles than a diesel engine. However, there are a number of types where a gas turbine engine could have a decisive impact on both the layout and the fighting qualities of the vehicle. For example, "Heavy BMP" - ideally it is a tank with a troop compartment, but for it you still need to "carve out" the volume, preferably without leaving the MGH MBT. Or the BM flamethrower-GTE will increase both maneuverability (up to operational noah) and release a certain amount of booked volume. Moreover, these types of equipment, due to their specificity, will be produced in relatively small quantities.
    1. gjv
      gjv 22 February 2015 15: 08
      +1
      Quote: Argon
      it is obvious that the gas turbine engine is too expensive (about 1/10 in relation to the diesel engine) for the main tank (mass vehicle).

      Absolutely not obvious
      The average cost of Leopard-2 tanks (diesel), exported by Germany in 2006-2009, amounted to $ 10,38 million, in 2010-2013. - 9,92 million dollars.
      The average cost of Abrams tanks (GTE), exported by the United States in 2006-2009, amounted to 7,18 million dollars., In 2010-2013. - 12,88 million dollars.
      Abrams was cheaper than a diesel Leopard, then it went up in price. What percentage of the cost of the tank is on the engine? Who needs an engine without a tank? But Leopards also take, but they also take the more expensive Abrams. On the basis of what do they pay more (note - the difference is not 10 times or even many times) for Abrams with a gas turbine engine?
      The larger tanks T-72, T-80 and T-90S are also taken, only at a price three to four times lower. It turns out that the price of the tank does not really depend on the gas turbine engine or diesel.
      1. Argon
        Argon 22 February 2015 16: 56
        +2
        I mean its cost, and the cost of weapons on the "white market" is a very conditional thing, since part of the funds is returned to the buyer in the form of other preferential contracts, investments, political concessions, etc. (even the actual amount of the contract is usually not disclosed) And I would not recommend that you operate with these figures in the future. In 85g, the V-46 engine cost the MO at 10700r, and the power unit (sBKP) T-80 at 113800r. The percentage of individual systems, tank units from the total cost is a rather interesting indicator it shows in which direction is the development going. For example, in the "Leopard-1" 60% was the power unit, and in "Leopard-2" (the first) 55% were the hull and tower.
        1. gjv
          gjv 24 February 2015 18: 28
          0
          Quote: Argon
          I mean its cost, and the cost of weapons on the "white market" is a very conditional thing ... (even the actual amount of the contract is usually not disclosed) And I would not recommend that you use these figures in the future. In 85g, the B-46 engine cost MO in 10700r, and the power unit (sBKP) T-80 in 113800r. The percentage of individual systems, units of the tank from the total cost is a rather interesting indicator, it shows in which direction the development is going. For example, in "Leopard-1" 60% is the cost of the power block, and in "Leopard-2" (the first) 55% are the hull and turret.

          Do not spill words appeal (Spelling dictionary). Since 1985, time has really passed. Already in 30 years it has come to 2015. The leopard is certainly an interesting car, bought and the information on it is more open - all the same German ("panimay-sh-shh!" lol ). But it's diesel. The modern Leopard 2A6 costs $ 2, and the even more modern Leopard 660000A2 + costs $ 7. And the engine is the same - here and "operate", here and interest. Although it was about the advantages and disadvantages of a gas turbine engine in our tanks. Therefore, the correct comparison - with Abrams - tank $ 37, engine $ 870967,7 = 12%. Against this background, it is quite interesting, abstracting from 631578,95 and not too lazy to look for more objective information, to compare contemporary domestic.
          Diesel engine V-92S2. Purchase No. 31401156492 10 pcs. for UVZ, PRICE 39907391,8 / 10 = 3 (990 - excluding VAT) rubles.
          Electronic auction dated 27.03.2014/0173100000814000335/16 No. 53209851,2 16 pcs. for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation PRICE XNUMX / XNUMX = 3 325 615,70 rubles.
          GTD-1250 gas turbine engine (unit 219-02-SB 19 !) Purchase No. 31400863517 30 pcs. (with set onboard tool) for 103 BTRZ PRICE 110000000,0 / 10 = 3 666 666,7 rubles. The difference with the diesel = 10%. Not 10 times.
          Now do not be lazy to calculate the% of diesel in the T-90 ($ 3) and the% of the GTE in the T-400 ($ 000).
          It's time to stop ss ... sya,
          Quote: Argon
          that a gas turbine engine is too expensive (about 1 \ 10 in relation to a diesel engine)
          fellow !
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 24 February 2015 18: 46
            0
            Quote: gjv
            The difference with the diesel = 10%. Not 10 times.

            Well, why are you doing this, a man so sincerely broadcasting that everyone already knows that, and you are bawling him and face about the facts. Not humanely!
            lol
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  26. Bagnyuk
    Bagnyuk 22 February 2015 14: 12
    -3
    what can I talk about ... all our tanks immediately fall into a blast furnace after hitting any ingots, and the tower flies 50 meters ..... it’s clear that these are suicide vehicles .. it’s necessary for rams to think of putting the poor crew directly in the open gunpowder .. let them drive themselves like that .. but over the hill everything is fine in this regard .... especially among the Jews .... and here we are ... sucks ....
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 22 February 2015 15: 47
      +2
      Quote: Bagniuk
      but over the hill everything is fine in this regard .... especially among the Jews .... and here it is ... sucks ....

      amerikosov also norms ???
  27. fomkin
    fomkin 22 February 2015 14: 31
    0
    I burn with curiosity what engine the T-14 will have. Is the modernized B-2?
  28. Bugor
    Bugor 22 February 2015 14: 44
    +4
    Bagnyuk, it seems to me that you have gone too far. Watch at least a video from Syria. A lot of them. And such, where, when hit in the tower, the tank unfolds the cannon and sends an answer with a caliber larger than 7.62. And those where the tank, engulfed in fire, continues to operate. Do not watch only the video where the immobilized !!! the tank is fired, and a quite lively commander, and a mechanical driver, jump out of it. Alas, a driver without a leg.
    There is such a concept: tactics of application. Without cover, the tank is zero. Infantry without a tank is almost zero. I’m not talking about air support.
  29. Peacemaker
    Peacemaker 22 February 2015 15: 42
    -2
    Attention moderators! The typo in the article:
    understand the attitude of HAM
    The ratio of HAM to t80 does not. It relates to the amount of time from the last meal by his crew, who in order not to die of hunger, can still eat a piece of ham hidden by fur with water =) Why did the USSR have two main janks? Many said: squandering! It was such a big grandmother! And it's all about the advantages and disadvantages of both types of engines. GTD is not terrible, so the whistles served closer to the north and in Germany because it is the fastest, so that the enemies know: if we give, we will catch up and once again ... Diesel is unpretentious and delve into the mud and heat of its element. So he served where there is a lot of it: dirt. Are you setting an abram here as an example? Nobody wants to buy it from GTD because of its stiffness! Diesel hotz all! Americans away from security do not fight. Not like the Russians who need to make terror in the rear of the enemy at a depth of not less than 500 km. T 80 is afraid of heat, heights, dust. Abrams, no better. I went stalled. I cleaned the filters, drove off ... If I’m not mistaken, the dimensions of MT 80 are smaller, not because it’s worse, but because there is a cyclone vacuum cleaner system in which the suction power does not depend on the filling of the filter bag like an abrams. The T 80 is a good tank, but it has its own areas of application in which it has no equal. Koreans are smart people. They wouldn’t buy the bad. Especially the USSR when the USA ally shoves into its insolent abrashka. And the big price has nothing to do with it! In Korea, the air is proper, there is no dust and heat too. For GTD the most. If the armata will be with the GTD and diesel, right! In the Arctic, GTD. In the mountains of heat and dirt, diesel.
    1. GSVG
      GSVG 22 February 2015 21: 35
      0
      Ham is okay too! smile Happy Holidays! drinks
    2. gjv
      gjv 26 February 2015 17: 44
      0
      Quote: Peacemaker
      Are you setting an abram here as an example? Nobody wants to buy it from GTD because of its stiffness! Diesel hotz all!

      Australia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq - so no one?
      T-80U bought Yemen and Cyprus. But it would be bad if the above-mentioned ?!
      Cambodia would also buy, but because of the price, I preferred to take the T-55, but twice as much.
      Another thing - India - was able to afford 1657 T-90s, and then to save more than half they assemble themselves from machine kits.
    3. gjv
      gjv 26 February 2015 17: 44
      0
      Quote: Peacemaker
      Are you setting an abram here as an example? Nobody wants to buy it from GTD because of its stiffness! Diesel hotz all!

      Australia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq - so no one?
      T-80U bought Yemen and Cyprus. But it would be bad if the above-mentioned ?!
      Cambodia would also buy, but because of the price, I preferred to take the T-55, but twice as much.
      Another thing - India - was able to afford 1657 T-90s, and then to save more than half they assemble themselves from machine kits.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 26 February 2015 18: 23
        0
        Quote: gjv
        T-80U bought Yemen and Cyprus ....
        And South Korea.
  30. Jew Russian
    Jew Russian 22 February 2015 16: 11
    +1
    I have not read everything, perhaps someone has already answered, the diesel engine has one more disadvantage, the higher the ambient temperature, the lower the power of the engine itself. The temperature and the ability to start a diesel engine is worse, both in the heat and at very low temperatures, all problems are solved by roundabout ways of preheating, the engine warming up the fuel, in general, measures, in the heat a sharp drop in power, all this is deprived of the gas turbine engine, but there is something else in production, it stands in times more diesel even order, you need both engines, Soviet money T-72 20000 rubles. T-80 250000 rubles. I don’t think the ratio has changed, but all the same, the tanks were produced like these, both are needed. I hope that the modularity of the new Armata tank platform takes into account the need to install two types of engines.
  31. Cynic
    Cynic 22 February 2015 16: 30
    0
    Most of all I like it when, with foam at the mouth, they prove the superiority of tanks, the modern level of equipment, over the eighties.
    Yes, I want to remind you about the Thais, about the supply of which machines they signed a contract, do not remind? laughing
  32. tundra
    tundra 22 February 2015 17: 14
    0
    Is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars. You can endlessly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of tanks. Well, do not forget about the unification of those military. This USSR could allow the luxury of having three types of tanks and engineering vehicles based on them. Even if they suddenly decide to manufacture cars with gas turbine engines and cancel the diesel engine, which is very very expensive and unlikely, their production is likely to be deployed at UVZ with a 99% probability. However, the factory and the production base are better preserved than in Omsk. The Omsk plant, before the transfer of the T80 pr-va there, was always secondary. The T-55s were also spanking engineering machines, while the engineer and the T80 didn’t have enough frauds, they gave it to UVZ. UVZ and in Soviet times, and now it is the most powerful tank in the world, the conveyor of which is worth it.
  33. drags33
    drags33 22 February 2015 18: 25
    +3
    The article is VERY interesting and informative. But in technology there are no solutions with only advantages or disadvantages - each thing has two sides of the "coin" and the disadvantages / advantages are closely and dialectically interconnected. I remember it was already carried out integrated assessment tank s diesel and gas turbine engine. And such was made CONCLUSION: for sandy areas (such as desert) with a hot climate, it is more rational to use DIESEL on the tank, and for a cold climate in the absence of a sandy landscape, GTD has indisputable advantages. As a dvigatelist, I absolutely agree with this conclusion !!! This conclusion is truly the result. INTEGRATED assessment. And to argue that it is better to diesel or gas turbine engine, abstractly (in isolation from operating conditions), is absolutely pointless ...
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 22 February 2015 20: 28
      0
      Quote: drags33
      what is better diesel or gas turbine engine

      As everyone sharply forgot that both the T-80U and the T-80UD existed, by the way, the latter developed, but unfortunately not in Russia.
      hi
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 23 February 2015 10: 06
        0
        Quote: Cynic
        As everyone sharply forgot that both the T-80U and the T-80UD existed, by the way, the latter developed, but unfortunately not in Russia.

        Petersburgers also had a T-80 variant with an X-shaped diesel engine (object 219rd), but it did not receive development.

  34. andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 22 February 2015 18: 27
    +1
    I always considered the T-80U not only a beautiful, but an excellent tank. And in fact, the Soviet school was definitely no worse than the western one and each stage tank represented a transition to the next stage of improvement. By the way, tanks with a gas turbine engine still have an undeniable advantage - they start faster in winter than diesel ones.
  35. EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 February 2015 19: 37
    -7
    1) GTE is many times more expensive than diesel. That is why, in principle, there are no engineering vehicles based on the Abrams or T-80.
    2) The mobility of the connections on the T-80 is not only not higher, but even lower than that of the T-72, it is necessary to refuel more often.
    3) GTE is generally effective on airplanes, when you have to fly for hours in a straight line in one mode, but not on armored vehicles, where you can simply fly at max. speed is needed far less than standing.

    Minus.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 22 February 2015 20: 33
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      Minus.

      It is clear that we read the forum, but for some reason we heard opponents about the car of the 80s!
      And about how the car could become now, modernizing, you somehow missed.
      I said _
      Quote: Cynic
      Most of all I like it when, with foam at the mouth, they prove the superiority of tanks, the modern level of equipment, over the eighties.

      hi
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 22 February 2015 21: 01
      +6
      Quote: EvilLion
      1) GTE is many times more expensive than diesel. That is why, in principle, there are no engineering vehicles based on the Abrams or T-80.


  36. viacheslav77
    viacheslav77 22 February 2015 19: 38
    0
    I don’t believe the dynamics, give me the numbers of how long it takes to set 40 km / h from 0. Provided that at the beginning both engines are idle.
    Shl. Let me ask you, what is the likely enemy in a "cold climate"?
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 22 February 2015 20: 38
      +2
      Quote: viacheslav77
      Let me ask you, what is the likely enemy in a "cold climate"?

      Allow me, in response, to ask me already, is the Arctic only the Russian Federation or is there someone else who has territories?
  37. koroed
    koroed 22 February 2015 21: 59
    -19%
    Maybe someone heard the expression: they burn like matches, they are torn like firecrackers? This is about Soviet tanks with gas turbine engines, in which, like a layer cake, ammunition is located interspersed with fuel compartments. This is how the Israeli general spoke of Soviet tanks after the Doomsday War of 1973, when the obsolete English centurions of 1946 onwards shot at the then-most modern Soviet tanks provided by the USSR to Egypt, and even equipped with night vision devices that the Israelites did not It was. One of the reasons is the high combustibility of GTE fuel. When hit, the fuel detonated and exploded along with the ammunition, the Egyptians, at the sight of burning torches from the tanks, their comrades jumped out of these coffins and fled from the battlefield, and the Israelis in horror refused to land in the captured equipment, this most important MINUS crosses everything so beautifully the author of the article describes the advantages and prospects of a gas turbine engine, it’s better to slowly on a diesel engine, you’ll be more whole, you will have to set fire to diesel fuel, you should try. The Israelis in that war burned a bunch of Soviet tanks, leaving an indelible spot on the prestige of Soviet tank building.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 22 February 2015 22: 17
      +5
      Quote: koroed
      when obsolete English centurions shot like a dash at the then most modern Soviet tanks provided by the USSR to Egypt, and even equipped with night vision devices that the Israelis did not have. One of the reasons is the high combustibility of GZTD fuel.

      Are you raving
      When was this war?
      In Soviet times, they didn’t deliver 64 matches even to the Warsaw Treaty countries, and only 80 matches ...
      In general, you have a severe case of self-abasement, just humiliate yourself, do not try to attach others to crawling in the mud on your knees in front of the Great West _
      1. koroed
        koroed 23 February 2015 01: 07
        -9
        3. “The terrible defeat lowered the reputation of Soviet tanks of the T-54/55 generation below the plinth. Tal also poured oil into this business. In one interview, he described them very unflattering:“ they burn like matches, burst like firecrackers. ”This characteristic stuck like a gallop When, after the collapse of the USSR, some independent countries, which got too many of these tanks, tried to sell them, they were taken very badly, even at bargain prices. " Israel Tal, an Israeli general, about Soviet tanks, I'm not a specialist in tank building, GTEs appeared only on the T-80, here I am sorry, but the tanks are Soviet, they burned both in the Arab-Israeli wars and in Iraq when their abrams were burned in batches, according to Israel Tal, here is the link http://army-news.ru/2012/11/pochemu-nekotorye-nashi-generaly-ne-lyubyat-otechest


        vennye-tanki /,
      2. koroed
        koroed 23 February 2015 01: 36
        0
        Yrael Tal, an Israeli general about the 55 tanks in the war of the loan day, here is the link http://army-news.ru/2012/11/pochemu-nekotorye-nashi-generaly-ne-lyubyat-otechest
        vennye-tanki /, I'm not special in tanks, I’m sorry, the GTD appeared on t 80, but a review of Soviet tanks that burned in both the Arab-Israeli wars and Iraq, in a desert storm operation when Abrams burned Soviet tanks in packs, Israel Tal gave accurate. Here is another link youtube.com/watch?v=mt4vZ63NAuM
    2. family tree
      family tree 22 February 2015 22: 24
      +5
      Quote: koroed
      This is about Soviet tanks with gas turbine engines, in which, like a layer cake, ammunition is located interspersed with fuel compartments. So about the Soviet tanks spoke Israeli general after the Doomsday War 1973 when the obsolete English centurions of 1946 onwards, as they shot at the then-most modern Soviet tanks provided by the USSR to Egypt, and even equipped with night vision devices that the Israelites did not have. One of the reasons is the high combustibility of GTE fuel.

      Israeli General Beauty! Three years before the release of the 80s, he began to shoot from the Centurions, in advance, so to speak, in Egypt, the first 80s were sold in 1997, it turns out, already 24 years before they became visible, finally Maladians! Do not, I understand, the space-time continuum, advanced science what , where do we go repeat
      1. koroed
        koroed 23 February 2015 01: 10
        -5
        “3. The terrible defeat lowered the reputation of Soviet tanks of the T-54/55 generation below the plinth. Tal also poured oil into this business. In one interview he described them very unflattering:“ they burn like matches, burst like firecrackers. ”This characteristic stuck like a gallop When, after the collapse of the USSR, some independent countries, which got too many of these tanks, tried to sell them, they were taken very badly even at bargain prices "Israel Tal, Israeli general, about Soviet tanks, I'm not a specialist in tank building, GTEs appeared only on t-80, here I am sorry, but the tanks are Soviet, they burned both in the Arab-Israeli wars and in Iraq, when their Abrams were burned in batches, according to Israel Tal, here is the link http://army-news.ru/2012/11 / pochemu-nekotorye-nashi-generaly-ne-lyubyat-otechest
        vennye-tanki /, here's another link youtube.com/watch?v=mt4vZ63NAuM
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 23 February 2015 14: 30
          +2
          Quote: koroed
          I'm not special in tank building, gas turbine engine appeared only on the t-80, here I apologize, but the tanks are Soviet, burned like

          This is some kind of pestilence _ Not a specialist, BUT I KNOW WHAT WORSE.
          But in fact, this confirms the old saying _ Only those who are worse than us think badly of us.
          For example _
          http://btvt.narod.ru/2/t55inwar.htm
          This is an official, not officially _ With an indicative, in a sense, fight conducted due to shouts of good intentions
          Quote: koroed
          “Burn like matches, burst like firecrackers”
          , the tank unit, staffed only by Soviet instructors, in the oncoming battle, utterly defeated the numerically superior units of the attacking. Hmm, after that everyone was sent to their homeland, as they say to avoid ... The enemy was very annoyed by the demonstration of who is who, in fact.
          Moreover, because of the date of birth, he taught just the 55th, then retrained for the 62nd, and worked from the 80th.
          So, for you these are words, but for me it is life. And will you teach me life based on the fabrications of the Israeli general?
          Already said
          Quote: Cynic
          Are you raving

          laughing
    3. SSeT
      SSeT 25 February 2015 21: 41
      0
      Eat Koru, smoke manuals, dumbass
  38. oleeeg
    oleeeg 22 February 2015 22: 36
    +1
    I liked the article very much! I myself understand little in tanks :-)
    In my life (now I’m 50), I met with three guys (one of them is an officer), who during the service had to face eighty, everyone was delighted with them.
    I think that both diesel and turbine should have the right to coexist in the troops. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
  39. family tree
    family tree 22 February 2015 23: 25
    0
    Murmansk, then along the Northern Sea Route oporniki build, just to strengthen, ten months winter, the rest spring and autumn, no, summer also happens, but this day, for some reason, never falls on a day off recourse Just for GTdeshek, firstly frost, secondly, there is no dust in winter, beauty fellow Happy New Year! drinks
  40. L10n77
    L10n77 23 February 2015 00: 05
    +2
    As an engineer who operated both gas-turbine engines and diesel engines, I can confidently declare a gas-turbine engine better, but in case of serious malfunctions, it can only be repaired at the factory, this is the only drawback of a gas-turbine engine, otherwise the diesel engine does not even have a chance.
  41. voldemar_k
    voldemar_k 23 February 2015 03: 16
    -3
    The main thing in technology, especially in military, is the cost of operation (or rather, the cost-effectiveness ratio). This includes fuels and lubricants, spare parts and the cost of the "unit" itself. A tank with a gas turbine engine has the same power plant cost as a helicopter, and a more advanced one with a heat exchanger will be even more expensive. Do not forget about the fuel, not only about the fact that it is needed 2 times more, but also about the fact that its delivery to the place of hostilities significantly increases all costs and risks. Despite the fact that a tank has no right to be more expensive than a helicopter - it is too vulnerable for infantry, do not forget that a successful turn on the tracks from a large-caliber machine gun can immobilize it, and a shot from an RPG-7 can destroy it, therefore, unfortunately, tanks are consumable , only very expensive. So, no matter how good the GTE is, only very rich countries can afford tanks with it, and then, rather, as "cool toys for big boys." They are not suitable as a mass instrument for "continuing politics."
  42. Peacemaker
    Peacemaker 23 February 2015 04: 40
    +1
    Thank you for your comments, the topic is interesting. Happy holiday to all! In particular, thank you for the cons. I admit: I froze. I will try to fix it =)
  43. archangelxxi
    archangelxxi 23 February 2015 11: 02
    -2
    Information from the site http://topru.org/7672/armata-pervye-izobrazheniya/

    Yes, the T-80U is the best spherical tank in a vacuum. Or if you choose a tank sitting on the couch in front of the monitor.

    In real life, their use in Chechnya was a failure, as well as attempts to sell them for export - the tanks cheerfully rushed ahead of the audience at all exhibitions, but almost no one bought them, except for small batches in Cyprus and South Korea (the latter bought them in mainly in order to see how they are made, and to tear something useful for themselves, and didn’t even buy it - but agreed to take into account the USSR’s debt to South Korea).

    Why is that? Because the T-80 is actually a bad tank.

    With all the advantages of a gas turbine engine, the whole world refused to use them on tanks - and this is not just so. Only the ancient M1 Abrams remained on the serial gas turbine engine, on which the Allison gas turbine engine was used only because the USA could not create a decent tank diesel, and they were not allowed to buy MT803 from the Germans from Congress. The consequences of this decision, the United States still disentangle.

    One of the main drawbacks of a gas turbine engine is not even excessive fuel consumption, and not a huge air consumption, which causes problems with its filtration in dusty conditions. No, the main drawback of a gas turbine engine is its price.

    The price of the gas turbine engine GTD-1250 is 6 times higher than the serial 2TD-4,5E diesel engine, and more than 84 times higher than the B-1-72 (T-10) engine.

    TEN TIMES. In the USSR, everyone didn’t give a damn about this, as well as fuel consumption - but since then the Ministry of Defense has learned to count money.

    Yes, formally, the operating time of the GTD-1250 before being removed from the car is approximately twice as high as that of the V-84-1 diesel engine - only GTD fans are silent that the V-84 is undergoing relatively inexpensive overhaul, and the GTD-1250 is being written off. As a result, the total B-84 resource is much higher than that of a gas turbine engine.

    Actual fuel consumption, l / km 6,83 and 4,01 - respectively for the T-80U and T-90A.

    Sorry - but the difference is more than half. This means that to supply fuel for tanks with a gas turbine engine, you will need twice as many tankers (do not forget - they also eat fuel) and twice as much equipment and soldiers to cover them.

    The maximum engine air consumption, kg / s 4,4 and 1,2, respectively, for the T-80U and T-90A.

    Roughly speaking, a gas turbine engine requires a four times larger air filter. It is clear that this is unacceptable, so the filter size is reduced at the cost of poor air purification. Hence the problems with the operation of a gas turbine engine in a dusty environment.

    In addition, forcing a tank with a gas turbine engine is the forcing of water barriers along the bottom. Diesel tanks can force small rivers on the move - a diesel engine has enough air available in the tank body to slip through. With GTE this will not work.

    Resource before the first overhaul, m / h 1000 and 700 - respectively for the T-80U and T-90A.

    As you can see - now the difference is not even doubled. And the price of the overhaul of the GTD-1250 is so horse-drawn that few people do it.

    The volume of MTO, m3 2,8 and 3,1, respectively. As you can see, the difference is 10%, that is, it is not particularly significant.

    But God bless them, with GTE. For all other solutions, the T-80 is the ideological successor of the ukropsky T-64 and suffers from all of the same sores - a similar stupid loading mechanism with a vertically standing ammunition, in addition, rollers not blocked from the side due to their small diameter, weakened side projections, weakened VLD in the center forehead, and so on. Therefore, they burned like candles in Chechnya.

    But at the test site, yes - the T-80 tank is very pleasant in driving and shooting at fixed shields. Still, at the Kirzavod they coolly taught the Khokhlyatsk division to drive normally. Unfortunately, they could not eliminate the innate accuracy of the design and layout. And they did not solve the issue with the price.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 23 February 2015 13: 49
      +2
      Quote: archangelxxi
      In real life, their use in Chechnya was a failure

      Have you been there or talked with those, listened to those who were there?
      Moreover, your nickname, as it were, does not indicate in which office you are the archangel, judging by the content of the commentary, then, I think, the office of the Lightbringer.
      hi
      1. archangelxxi
        archangelxxi 25 February 2015 10: 25
        -1
        Dear, my nickname should not be attached. And at the beginning of the post I wrote that the link from the site:
        Information from the site http://topru.org/7672/armata-pervye-izobrazheniya/
        By the way, I advise you to read http://btvt.narod.ru/ there is a lot of information on armored vehicles and its real use in battles.
        ------
        It should be noted that under these conditions the T-72 tank proved to be the most enduring. As for the T-80 tank, in Chechnya there were reported cases of explosion of ammunition with the defeat of the hull side and the cumulative jet hit the shells. This was due to the vertical position of the ammunition in the conveyor automatic loader. At the same time, the upper cut of the road roller, which in this case played the role of the anti-cumulative screen, was below the level of the conveyor.
        During the second Chechen campaign, the T-80 tanks did not take part in the hostilities.
        ------
        Link to the article http://btvt.narod.ru/2/t-80inaction/t-80inaction.htm
        + http://btvt.narod.ru/2/t72istoria.htm
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 25 February 2015 11: 30
          0
          Quote: archangelxxi
          there is a lot of information on armored vehicles and its real use in battles.

          As I understand it, quite specific, right?
          Concerning _
          Quote: archangelxxi
          the T-72 tank proved to be the most tenacious. As for the T-80 tank, in Chechnya there were recorded cases of an explosion of the ammunition when the side of the hull was damaged and a cumulative jet fell into the shells.

          Politely speaking, the author of this statement DOES NOT FRIEND with terminology, which causes sufficient doubt in his competence and, most importantly, such accusations, almost one in one, are now being expressed BY WELCOMERS to seventy-two in Syria. A video from Syria confirming these statements before ... and even higher.
          So these authors and well-wishers would go, hmm, in general, far and forever.
          And you find, such as hot, facts just think about them.
          By the way, like Grachev, in Chechnya he expressed his highest displeasure with the fact that the eighties lost their course and were surrounded only able to hold out for THREE HOURS!
          Think you are one of those who agree with him, or what?
          1. archangelxxi
            archangelxxi 26 February 2015 16: 41
            0
            You know, Comrade Cynic, you have never given a single normal comment. And honestly, all that you said is a beautifully constructed vocabulary "diarrhea", and nothing more.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 26 February 2015 19: 23
              0
              Quote: archangelxxi
              everything you said is vocabulary beautifully constructed "diarrhea"

              So I myself am surprised at this, maybe I read something, not that
              You are familiar _ How he comes around, so he responds.
              hi
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 25 February 2015 19: 37
          0
          Quote: archangelxxi
          By the way, I advise you to read http://btvt.narod.ru/

          Quote: archangelxxi
          Link to the article http://btvt.narod.ru/2/t-80inaction/t-80inaction.htm
          + http://btvt.narod.ru/2/t72istoria.htm

          Tarasenko writes there. A lot of lies.
    2. Astrahanec
      Astrahanec 23 February 2015 14: 21
      0
      Ukrainian product, not Khokhlyat. do not bend over.
    3. Ze Kot
      Ze Kot 24 February 2015 21: 41
      +1
      Quote: archangelxxi
      dill T-64


      SOVIET! SOVIET T-64 !!!
      1. archangelxxi
        archangelxxi 25 February 2015 10: 25
        -1
        Sorry if that, but Information from the site http://topru.org/7672/armata-pervye-izobrazheniya/.
  44. archangelxxi
    archangelxxi 23 February 2015 11: 03
    0
    A little excursion into the history:

    The presence of the USSR at once three "main" battle tanks - T-64, T-72 and T-80 traditionally causes ridicule. Nonetheless, it was not headache or someone else's malice that was the reason.

    The presence of a suitable engine, powerful enough and compact is the main problem when creating any tank. After World War II, in the development of the line of domestic four-stroke diesel engines V-2, it was not possible to make a decisive breakthrough. The increase in specific power was urgently needed while reducing the size of the power plant. The post-war T-54 and T-55 were not sensations in this regard. A real breakthrough in tank engine building promised to be the development of a family of two-stroke diesel engines with opposed cylinders 4TD (subsequently becoming 5TD, 6TD and so on) based on an aircraft diesel engine "borrowed" from defeated Germany. A. Morozov made a bet on this engine when creating a new medium tank, which later became the T-64. However, the delay in the development of the engine and, accordingly, the tank, was not even calculated for years - decades. The tank, for various reasons, could not achieve the required reliability, the series was delayed. Tanks T-64 could not equip even parts of the first echelon. The army all this time continued to use the T-55, which, in comparison with the renewed tank fleet of NATO, was becoming more and more “cardboard”. Life required a “backup” option. As such, the T-64 was supposed to come out, but with the B-45 engine, not as powerful and compact as the Kharkov 5TDF. But the B-45 was the heir to the same B-2, which means it was simpler and cheaper. The Uralvagonzavod was to master the new tank, “Object 172”, which for the time being was producing the T-54 and T-55 tanks and their direct descendant, the T-62. The mass production of UVZ, the largest producer of tanks in the USSR, was supposed to compensate for the shortage of qualitatively new vehicles in the army.

    The prospect of becoming Kharkov's “apprentice” again (as was already the case with the development of the T-54) did not inspire UVZ designers. Having criticized many of the HCBM's technical solutions, primarily the lightweight "openwork" undercarriage, the "vertical" design of the automatic loader and the 115-mm cannon, they convinced the customer of the need for changes.
  45. The comment was deleted.
  46. archangelxxi
    archangelxxi 23 February 2015 11: 04
    +1
    It was not “Morozovsky” “Object 172” that went into production at UVZ, but “Object 172M” by Kartsev and Venediktov, with its own undercarriage, a horizontal-type loading mechanism and a 125-mm cannon. The tank received a new designation - T-72. However, the Ural machine throughout the Soviet period was considered a backup relative to Kharkov. New items were introduced first on the T-64, and only after the passage of time - on the T-72. This happened with combined reservation, missile weapons, dynamic defense, fire control system. Of course, the most serious lag was laid in the power of the power plant.

    Even in conditions of gradual development and development of the T-64, the severity of problems with the tank power plant did not decrease. The two-stroke diesel engine, despite the enormous money spent on its development, was very difficult to improve, and in terms of the level of service required it remained the same “aviation” one. A further increase in power was becoming more and more problematic. The only plant in the USSR could produce them and the only one could repair them.

    The solution to this problem in the 60s seemed obvious - to install a gas turbine engine (GTE) on the new main battle tank. Back in 1968, the government decree read: "... To consider the creation of a tank with a gas turbine engine as the most important state task."

    GTE on the tank "prescribed" the Leningrad SKB-2 under the leadership of General Designer Nikolai Popov. At the "facility 219" it was possible to solve a number of problems during operation of the turbine in a ground combat vehicle, first of all to create a reliable dust cleaning system. However, with a small amount of dust in the air passing through the engine, I had to put up with it, as well as with large volumes of pumped air and increased fuel consumption.

    As a result, for the tank at the NGO named after V. Ya. Klimova was created GTD-1000T with a capacity of 1000 hp, which was able to "fit" into the engine-transmission department (MTO) with a volume of only 2,8 cubic meters. For example, for comparison, at that time, in 1976, a 72-horsepower B-780 diesel engine in a MTO with a volume of 46 cubic meters was installed on the T-3,1.

    Leningraders were also dissatisfied with the Kharkov chassis on small-diameter rollers with internal shock absorption, which, with such a powerful engine, began to “crack” and ... made the “Object 219 Specification 2” tank its own, that is, the third version of the chassis on larger (but smaller than T-72) rollers with normal rubberization, and effective depreciation. At the same time, the Leningrad machine inherited an automatic loader from the Kharkov machine, similar solutions to armor protection, and initially - the design of the tower.

    The tank, called the T-80, and transferred for production to the Omsk Transmash, eventually got the role of the tank of the first line, previously intended for the T-64. The tank, gradually improving through the basic versions of B and BV, received a new gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1250 hp, a built-in dynamic protection, a new turret with a qualitatively different combined reservation and the most advanced FCS - 1A45.

    Kharkiv's reputation with a long fuss with the "promising" T-64 damaged very badly. As a result, the T-80 has now been handed over for the development of KHKBTM. Nevertheless, finally, the push-pull diesel engine increased to 1000 hp and 6TDF power by the efforts of Kharkiv managed to “break through” the customer for installation on the most advanced version of the “eightieth” - T-80U. The T-80UD tank, the D-diesel, was the last tank developed in the USSR.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 23 February 2015 14: 40
      0
      And why, after reading your comments, _
  47. maxsvistok
    maxsvistok 23 February 2015 12: 53
    +1
    Well, there is no prophet in his own country, and according to the results of the very comparative tests of the end of 80, it was not T64 that won, not T72, but he was incomparable T80
  48. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 23 February 2015 13: 03
    +3
    Thus, the T-80U tanks did not exhaust their modernization capabilities.

    Surely even half.
    It’s just that in the 90s, UVZ pulled out state orders for its cars from their mouth, as they were cheaper to manufacture for one of the main units (diesel engine).
    At the same time, do not forget to grab from the 90s on the T-80 FCS, as well as KUV and equipment for the workplace of the tank commander, including a remotely controlled ZPU.
    Due to the termination of funding of the ROC, the St. Petersburg and Omsk design bureaus were forced to abandon work on ob.640.
    Presumably, this happened not without the help of "Western partners" from Sweden, who in the mid-90s paid a "visit" to Omsk and St. Petersburg.
    They were shown 80s and factories at their prospect. It is not known how many secrets could leak from the Russian Federation related to gas turbine tanks in the ROC.
    Maybe this is a coincidence, but after these "visits" (in a short time) the Omsk plant practically stopped working, and the St. Petersburg one too. And work on ob. 640 was of course also stopped.
    And about 640 according to the project and design, it surpassed the development of UKBTM of that time by an order of magnitude.
    Considering the fact that near the military-industrial complex then "effective managers" of the 90s (such as Gaidar, Chubais and Co.) were wiped out, it can be assumed that it was they who largely influenced the fact that the production of tanks with gas turbine engines ceased to exist in Russia ...
    Likewise, EBN "helped" this because he was from the Urals.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 23 February 2015 13: 49
      0
      Quote: wanderer_032
      It’s just that in the 90s, UVZ pulled out state orders for its cars from their mouth, as they were cheaper to manufacture for one of the main units (diesel engine).

      according to 1988

      The cost of the T-80U tank is 824 thousand rubles, including the engine - 104 thousand rubles.
      The cost of the T-72B tank is 271,1 thousand rubles, including the engine - 15 thousand rubles.
      ".. It turns out an interesting picture: for the amount required for the production of one T-80U tank, it was possible to build three T-72B tanks. Therefore, Yuri Kostenko introduced another indicator into the calculation of VTU - the cost - and received the following figures: if the VTU of the T -80U equals 1,25, then the T-72B tank - 3,38. In other words, within the framework of the criterion "efficiency - cost" T-72B is 2,7 times higher than the T-80U. ... "
      http://topwar.ru/32030-samyy-voyuyuschiy-tank-t-72-uroki-oboronnogo-proekta.html

      Quote: wanderer_032
      Do not forget to grab on the T-90 MSA from 80-ki, as well as ....

      The MSA for all tanks (and for the T-64, in particular) was made by one Russian enterprise, and the tank factories only adapted them to the design features of their tanks. The tank factories themselves did not. The T-64 and T-80 were the most progressive (thanks to the support at the top). T-72, in this respect was deprived. Saying that the T-90 began to put MSAs with the T-80 is fundamentally wrong.
    2. yehat
      yehat 24 February 2015 19: 45
      0
      I will say more, t34 also did not exhaust the possibilities of modernization. for example, he could be taught to swim.
  49. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 24 February 2015 23: 19
    0
    Quote: yehat
    I will say more, t34 also did not exhaust the possibilities of modernization. for example, he could be taught to swim.


    This is unlikely ... With a mass of 32 tons ...
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 25 February 2015 03: 37
      +1
      Quote: The Cat
      It is unlikely

      So on the capabilities of the T-55 no one has any questions? laughing
      1. archangelxxi
        archangelxxi 25 February 2015 10: 30
        -1
        In general, I think it is right that ultimately UVZ became the main supplier of MBT, as it is clearly seen what result we obtained by placing high-tech industries in the border republics during the Soviet era.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 25 February 2015 11: 35
          0
          Quote: archangelxxi
          In general, I think it is right that ultimately UVZ became the main supplier of MBT, as it is clearly seen what result we obtained by placing high-tech industries in the border republics during the Soviet era.

          This is you, in relation to the BTT (maybe UVZ and missiles release not naya), about Siberia?
          hi
        2. gjv
          gjv 25 February 2015 20: 13
          0
          Quote: archangelxxi
          in border republics

          Yes, Petersburg and Omsk were for 1995 Moscow as border republics.
          Apparently therefore, the T-72 in 1995 cost $ 1000000, and the T-80U - nothing (time to Moscow nothing rolled back request ).
          Quote: Bad_gr
          according to 1988
          The cost of the T-80U tank is 824 thousand rubles, including the engine - 104 thousand rubles. The cost of the T-72B tank is 271,1 thousand rubles, including the engine - 15 thousand rubles.

          T-72S that year was already shown to all foreign foreign military representatives.
          T-80 at that time was "SS" -ovskiy. All ZOR plant workers made "hay mowers" (trailed to the Belarus tractor).
          Distillation to the landfill only at night on conveyors, under a tarp, machine gunners on a trailer.
          At the closed range - closed territory - behind three rows of barbed wire there is a beautiful meadow with small tubercles - underground caponiers.
          Night trials. Day trips are extremely rare - during the day everything is "covered and covered", no one is visible on the territory.
          Night guard - women with pistols and carbines. And huge shepherd dogs run between rows of barbed wire.
          Security of state secrets - pleasure is not free. And it contained all this plant for this money. fellow
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 25 February 2015 20: 35
            0
            Quote: gjv
            All ZOR plant workers made "hay mowers" (trailed to the Belarus tractor).

            Hmmm, stunning awareness.
            wassat
            Quote: gjv
            At the closed range - closed territory - behind three rows of barbed wire there is a beautiful meadow with small tubercles - underground caponiers.

            Yeah, straight Black, not Light.
            Quote: gjv
            Day trips are extremely rare - during the day everything is "covered and covered", no one is visible on the territory.

            And then, cadets of combined arms and tank schools studied in stealth mode.
            wink
            1. gjv
              gjv 25 February 2015 21: 30
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              And then, cadets of combined arms and tank schools studied in stealth mode.

              Cool. My stealth is on the avatar. Hello gentlemen, comrade tankers! hi
              Quote: Cynic
              Yeah, straight Black, not Light.

              Yes, a beautiful Bright Glade, not straight, but a lawn with tubercles
              Quote: Cynic
              mind boggling awareness

              Unfortunately... fellow Maybe it’s not worth the regrets ...
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 25 February 2015 21: 59
                0
                Quote: gjv
                Maybe it’s not worth the regrets ...

                By itself . You are absolutely not in the subject.
                hi
                1. gjv
                  gjv 26 February 2015 13: 32
                  0
                  Quote: Cynic
                  You are absolutely not in the subject.

                  Absolutely agree. The real ones in this thread are those who sign the advice notes.
                2. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. Ze Kot
        Ze Kot 25 February 2015 11: 06
        0
        If the T-55 suited everyone, then there would be no further vehicles.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 25 February 2015 11: 38
          0
          Quote: The Cat
          If the T-55 would suit everyone

          In any technique, it’s not a matter of _ arranging, not arranging. Case _ have money or not!
          laughing
  50. looker-on
    looker-on 25 February 2015 19: 05
    0
    Quote: ATATA
    Quote: Tol100v
    If you face the truth, fuel consumption for Russia is not a critical indicator

    If, in the conditions of Russia, more fuel would fit into a tank tank, or into a tanker of a fuel truck than in other countries, then fuel consumption would not be critical, but since mileage is limited not only by the flow rate, but also by the volume of the tank, the flow rate even in Russia Critical for the mileage at a single gas station.


    Fiercely plus
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 25 February 2015 20: 05
      +1
      Quote: looker-on
      If, in the conditions of Russia, more fuel would fit into a tank tank, or into a tanker of a fuel truck than in other countries, then fuel consumption would not be critical, but since mileage is limited not only by the flow rate, but also by the volume of the tank, the flow rate even in Russia Critical for the mileage at a single gas station.

      Fiercely plus

      What is there to "add furiously"?
      According to other tests, when driving at high speeds, the T-80 consumes less fuel than the T-72. In addition, the tank is not always in motion - most of the time it is in position. In this case, the T-80 uses the APU, and the T-72 main engine - while the fuel consumption of the T-72 is higher.
      Here too: I don’t know how now, but more recently, the cost of kerosene (the main fuel of the T-80) was 4 times lower than the cost of diesel fuel. From here - for the same amount spent on the purchase of fuel, the T-80 will leave much further than the diesel tank.
      1. SSeT
        SSeT 25 February 2015 21: 56
        0
        EXACTLY! all "remote controllers" stubbornly ignore the OPERATIONAL speed of advance, stupidly insisting that the T-72 is slowly but far away on all its built-in tanks, periodically pouring them from feed barrels. And then! then "go to the gas station!" fools were generals, relying on the advanced T-80, and not on the reserve T-72
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 25 February 2015 22: 05
          0
          Quote: SSeT
          fools were generals

          Are there few examples?
          Quote: SSeT
          and not on the reserve T-72

          And when did he get this proud title?
          belay