T-80 Thread

>>32311876
>not the T-64
Pleb.

>>32311876
>not the T-64, Chieftain or M60A3

Get out and stay out.

>>32311892
> Actually liking Chieftains
Fucking hang yourself Britbong lover grabastic piece of amphibious shit.

>>32311876
how is this better than a t-72b3?

>>32312038
> T-72
> Being better than anything
What is this meme ? Only decent T-72 is T-72A for it's time and if counted , not even mass produced overly expensive T-72B2 Rogatka.

>>32312038

It isn't.

It's got an ancient and obsolete FCS which is barely an FCS (more like an aiming complex), active night vision etc.

The T-72B3 has a proper FCS, while still lacking a much needed hunter-killer functionality.

File: 148057152.jpg (50KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x480px

>>32311889
*spontaneously combusts*

>>32312038
it was avaliable 35 years earlier

>>32311913
SEETHING

>>32311876
>Dumb-ass vatnik scum blaming tank for shitty tactics.
There was nothing wrong with the tank itself.It was the retards who decided to drive it into Grozny in parade formation that was the fucking problem.

File: W3NXkv3yAaU.jpg (604KB, 2047x1323px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 2047x1323px

>>32311876

the chronology of russian tanks is confusing af

why so many

why does the t80 exist

why still use upfitted t72s

>>32315151
>why so many

Different purposes.

>why does the t80 exist

It was a failed attempt to create a better tank than the T72. They went back to the T72 afterwards.

>why still use upfitted t72s

The same reason we still use M1's.

>>32311913
KYS

>>32315233

M1A1 under soviet naming convention would have been called the M2.

The M1A2 would have been called the M3.

The reason the Soviets had so many tanks is because of the influence the Soviet factory runners had.

It was hard to stop projects once they started.

>>32315546

That's utterly false.

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1998/JUL_AUG/ArmorJulyAugust1998web.pdf

go to page 21 and read the article.

Co-production of T-64, T-72, and T-80 was pretty much purely due to politics. Malyshev, Uralvagonzavod, and Omsktransmash all designed their own tanks, and all 3 had different patrons in the Politburo to champion for "their" tank.

In the end, all 3 got made because the Soviets want more fucking tanks, and each plant was too stubborn/proud to make the "other" tank.

>>32312095
The T-72B's did actually constitute a threat, not a huge one, but one large enough to spur further development of AT weapons (ATGM and KE ammunition).

Some interesting reading: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf

>>32316655
That's nice, but we're talking nomenclature here. A higher mark does not necessarily indicate an upgrade.

>>32316769
That's not necessarily true either.

T-72 was has a higher number than T-64, but at most points of their service life, T-64 was the "better tank".

In 1979, T-64B was better than T-72A
In 1985, T-64BV was better than T-72B

T-64 benefited from sharing the same turret ring as T-80, which meant upgrades designed for T-80 can be fit onto the T-64 as well. Today, the T-64BMs used by Ukraine are equal to or slightly better than the T-72B3 used by Russia, but worse than the T-90A.

T-64 was the most compact out of the three, with a smaller opposed cylinder engine that was notoriously unreliable.

T-72 was the most conventional and economical, with the traditional diesel engine.

T-80 was supposed to be the "best" tank, with a high performance gas turbine engine.

The gun and armor for all 3 tanks are basically the same. T-64 and T-80 have slightly faster autoloaders and were prioritized for electronics upgrades over T-72.

In practice, the T-64's reliability limited it's deployment outside of the USSR. T-80 turned out to be such a fuel hog that one of the last upgrades it got was a conventional diesel engine, making it essentially a T-72 with a faster autoloader.

Then electronic advances meant T-72 could have nearly the same gun and sensors as T-64B and T-80. But that means it also got more expensive and ate into the T-72 price premium over the other two.

All 3 tanks got extremely samey near the end.

Why don't they upgrade the T-55 by giving it the same hull and turret as the T-72?

>>32317740
so a brand new tank but with a smaller 100m gun? why anon?

>>32317740
T-55's design was extremely limited in terms of gun caliber upgrades. Too small to mount a new gun without severe tradeoffs. A new tank design was needed.

>>32317740
>the same hull and turret as the T-72?
So, a T-72?
That is probably a good way to scam some African or Middle Eastern countries.

File: T-72_5.jpg (504KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1200x900px

>>32311876

>>32311876
>>32311913
>gas turbine tanks
>good