>Russia's Ministry of Defense (MoD) is planning to b

File: 1474738859743.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>32093864

This does not seem very plausible. I think they're even trying to phase out the few hundred T-80Us which are more capable then BVs, simply to move away from the T-80 chassis. The T-72B3M is a much more cost effective upgrade that has better automotive qualities and is sufficient for killing Polish Leopard 2A4s or any Ukrainian crap.

If true however, that means their Armata system is a few years late in development.

>>32094285
T-72B3 still have the same 40 year old armor with Relikt on top, giving T-80's the same upgrades will result in a better tank and give them a larger fleet of competetive vehicles.

>>32094339
You have to wait 8 years before saying it have the same 40 year old armor.

The very same thing can be said about the T-80BV or not since there are T-80B's that were upgraded to the T-80BV so you only have to wait 2 years before you could say that some T-80BV are infact using the 40 year old base armor.

>>32093864
>Why does Russia need so many tanks?
to sell them

>>32093864
They cant afford to build new tanks, and thus will try and reactivate older (and less popular tanks) to bolster their numbers on paper. They want to look bigger and scarier on paper, but come off as pathetic.

>>32094339
>T-72B3 still have the same 40 year old armor with Relikt

The B variant came out in the 80s, and there's not Relikt specified in the B3 upgrade.

The T-80 engine is terrible. No one wants to use it.

>>32093864
Russian defence budget is falling to 3.3% of bnp next year from its 4.7% this year. Sanctions and low oil prices have literally decimated their budget, so this is probably because of that.

>>32093864
el oh el if Russia ever thought it would be smart to roll tanks like that in actual combat.

Upgrading and activating T-80s means the T-14 is basically dead in the water.

>>32094874
>They cant afford to build new tanks, and thus will try and reactivate older (and less popular tanks) to bolster their numbers on paper. They want to look bigger and scarier on paper, but come off as pathetic.

Utterly retarded statement by someone who thinks that nation states operate with the same mentality like his 18 year old self.

>>32094707
The point you are sidestepping is that T-80's have significantly better base armor than T-72B's.

>>32094874
This
I can't wait for the T-80BVBBQ2 and the newest frontline fighter jet the Su-27+++€£
Truly this will bring the US and their M1A3 paper tank to their knees

>>32094901
>nation states operate with the same mentality like his 18 year old self
To be honest, russia does act irrational and unpredictable in a manner of a hormone laden teenager trying to mask his homosexual tendencies with machismo and violence.

>>32094903
>The point you are sidestepping is that T-80's have significantly better base armor than T-72B's.

This is a highly dubious assumption, unless you have proofs or technical parameters?

>>32094890
T-72B3's have been getting Relikt instead of Kontakt-5 for the last year or so, likely based on feedback from Ukraine.

Part of the T-80 upgrade includes a new engine, don't be surprised if it is the same 1130HP engine that T-72B3's are getting.

File: 1475887686001.jpg (38KB, 807x689px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 807x689px

>>32094942
>To be honest, russia does act irrational and unpredictable in a manner of a hormone laden teenager trying to mask his homosexual tendencies with machismo and violence.

You're a clueless child. Go sit in the corner.

File: 1479169738640.png (218KB, 300x366px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 300x366px

>>32094915
5 kopeks have been added to your account

>>32094948
Have you never read any Soviet armor tests?

>>32094948

They don't, the glacis is the same and T-72B has a better turret than T-80's except for T-80U.

>>32093864
Russian countryside is very open. Tanks are effective for defending its borders.

>>32094954

>T-72B3's have been getting Relikt instead of Kontakt-5 for the last year or so

I have yet to see a B3 or B3M with Relikt tiles. Any proofs?

>Part of the T-80 upgrade includes a new engine, don't be surprised if it is the same 1130HP engine that T-72B3's are getting.

Still don't see the point of doing such an expensive upgrade. Changing out the engine means you will have to reconfigure the gearbox and all the transmission components. For what benefit? When you have another 2,000 T-72B late models already sitting around rusting and begging for upgrades.

Janes is kinda shitty when it comes to Russian defense industry, I don't believe their claim.

>>32094901
As someone who actually studies Soviet Armor I can tell you many reasons why the T-80 was never viewed as well as the lighter T-72, but the fact that it was never popular among the higher ups or the men who used them means that they aren't bringing them out of retirement because they'd like to, its because they really dont have many options available to them and they're doing this so that they they can be appear stronger (in theory).

>>32094958
The recent foreign excursions by the Russian federation have been incredibly irresponsible, the financial strains incurred as a result of the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing crisis in Ukraine have depleted the Russian financial reserves by 2/3's. They will officially run out of money next year, their irresponsible and aggressive behavior is not unlike a teenager, and soon they will be just as broke as one.

>>32094958
Russian machismo and nervous insults based upon homosexuality is well known.
Nervously goin "N-no u" does not change that.
Just look at the importance russian conscription places in the "hazing" involving homosex and you'll understand.

File: 1479424615001.jpg (155KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1600x960px

>>32094970

No, I have not encountered any such comparisons.

File: 1479143113001.jpg (58KB, 604x457px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 604x457px

>>32095026

That's very cute, now go kill yourself.

>>32094948
Why would a larger, newer, more expensive MBT have worse base armor than an older one?

File: T-80BV armor design.jpg (501KB, 1622x1324px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1622x1324px

>>32094903
>The point you are sidestepping is that T-80's have significantly better base armor than T-72B's.
Nope or should I say, Not really.

First T-80 had the same base armor as the T-72U, T-72 which had the same base armor as the T-64A hull wise (80+105+20). First T-80 had the same turret as the T-64A

The T-80B had two variation of hull armor, either the old school 80+105+20 or 60+105+50 but same different turret compared to the first T-80.

T-80BV built after 1982 most likely have different hull armor then the T-80B, The T-80U which uses a T-80BV hull have the turret from Obiekt 476 which has kinda advance materials compared to earlier tanks.

The T-72B is a rather special since from what I have read and seen it uses spaced armor in the hull from 1984-1989 when the T-72B obr 1989 came out which uses NERA (no real proof yet).

The turret uses NERA which gives it special bulge which you can see on its turret cheeks

>>32095065
Because the main cost for the T-80 comes from its turbine, not armor.

File: USSR_T-72 glacis trought time.jpg (230KB, 1980x984px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1980x984px

>>32095071
T-72's hull armor trough time.

File: 866c74b08f16.jpg (71KB, 640x433px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x433px

>>32095078
Proof for the existence of early T-72B having spaced armor.

File: 1441473999841.jpg (72KB, 604x337px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 604x337px

>>32095086
cracked T-72B3 in tank biathlon in 2015 IIRC with its rather old base armor.

File: 1441474198893.jpg (69KB, 604x403px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 604x403px

>>32095097

>>32095104

File: 1441474735021.jpg (263KB, 1000x858px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1000x858px

>>32095114
Fuck

>>32095016
>I have yet to see a B3 or B3M with Relikt tiles.

They look the same as Kontakt-5.

>Any proofs?

There are better citations but this was the first google gave me.

http://mil.today/2016/Weapons11/

File: Pictures of The Fall of the Soviet Union, 1991 (17).jpg (161KB, 991x601px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 991x601px

>>32095065
>Why would a larger, newer, more expensive MBT have worse base armor than an older one?

Why would you assume that the cost difference comes from a difference in the base armor? The biggest difference in the T-80 and T-72 lines were the propulsion and the fire control - marginally better in the T-80.

And how the hell would you know what the cost of a T-80 is anyway? They were built in the USSR under a command, central economy, I'd be interested to discover what kind of cost metrics you are referring to here...

So little information, yet so much huffing and puffing.

>>32094997
It's open, but these tanks just suck.

>>32095016
Still asshurt that Janes reported what they were told about the PAK FA by manufacturer reps at that expo?

>>32095045
Despite the violent repression suffered, the lgbt community in russia still stands strong and hosts a pride parade which goes to show how ingrained homosexuality is in the russian populance. The large ammount of gay rape in Dedovshchina is also a symptom of this, gay men getting power and a way to express their sexuality without being suspected as gay. The fact that russia in general doesn't take issue with the gay rape also indicates acceptance of the homosexuality as long as it is used as means of expressing power.

File: 1449193060477.jpg (563KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 798x1200px

>>32095127
>They look the same as Kontakt-5.

The tiles have subtly different geometry and mounting.

The source is pretty vague but seems up to date, so I guess we will see these tanks appearing shortly if true.

Any idea if the newest B3 upgrades are getting the modified autloaders for the new long-rod Svinets family of ammo?

>>32093864
Reactivating old tanks in peacetime, when your new tank program is supposedly coming online?

Oh, the implications. So many, so little time.

>>32095097

This image always cracks me up :)

File: 1474231005001.jpg (142KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x960px

>>32095188

2/10, too obvious.

>>32095152
>Why would you assume that the cost difference comes from a difference in the base armor?

True, T-64's were more expensive than T-72's because they had an actual FCS.

>>32095206
All of the B3's have the bigger autoloader that came with T-90A's.

Which brings up the question of if these T-80's can use the new lengthened Svinets.

>>32095253
>All of the B3's have the bigger autoloader that came with T-90A's.

My sources say that the early upgrades mostly didn't have this implemented. Same with the 90A.

>>32093864
T-80 is best tank desu, only reason it performed badly was stupid Ruskies forgetting the basic doctrines of tank warfare during Chechnya.

File: 1449331029176.jpg (158KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x768px

>T-80BV

Still my favorite tonk, IDGAF

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjnSwZ5XWSE

>>32095230
>too obvious
Just like the attempts of russia to hide their homosexual tendencies on the world stage.

http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/15-02-2007/87441-army_prostitute-0/
This is not the behavior of an army confident in its sexuality.

File: T-80BV side skirt (0).jpg (960KB, 2560x1438px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 2560x1438px

>>32095332
It uses god damn steel plates in it side skirt instead of ERA.

>>32095385
And whats wrong with that?

File: T-80BV side skirt (2).jpg (687KB, 1213x2160px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1213x2160px

>>32095595
It does absolute jackshit againt HEAT or KE.

Atleast ERA (kontakt-1) will protect against HEAT with no tandem charge and would be very handy in chechnya even with the russian army being in a extreme shitty state.

But this wont do anything at all. It is so thin that it may even not be there and it is direct bolted into the rubber skirt so it will fall of with ease if hit. Sure the T-72 has also its shit bolted onto the rubber skirt but hell it can atleast take one hit that will saves it ass.

>>32094903
basically just better front armor

>>32095868
The rubber skirt itself is already doing quite a bit.

File: t-72m1_07_of_14.jpg (113KB, 830x600px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 830x600px

>>32096914
The rubber skirt does very little in the modern age and only good for keeping the dust down and shit thrown around by the tracks.

This would do something against HEAT but it is easy to get it damaged by simply driving around where there are bushes and trees and tall grass or branches etc.

>>32096952
why not put steel chains over a rubber skirt or idk actually put actual fucking mounts for heavy gear on the sides. Dear fucking god is that too much to ask..

>>32093864

because one can never have too much dakka

>>32096952
you realise they were made to denote HEAT warheads away from the main armour so that they wouldn't penetrate when hitting at an odd angle.

File: 14693639883060.jpg (141KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 720x960px

>>32093864
Ukraine brought back some of its T-80BVs. They lack protection but from their testing they are hella fast.