The T-80 is a good tank for conventional military tactical fight, but a bad choice to fight guerrillas as it was exposed in the Chechen war, the Russians had to come up with with the T-90 which is no more than a glorified armor re-enforced, version of the T-80 with better electronics. Don't get me wrong both the T-80 and T-90 are very well fine tuned exceptional tank killers in the battle field but they go the way of merkava when ambushed and shot at from about 50 meters.
if you know that the at-6, at-2/3, at-5 are wireguided with optical cabel...and, stora-m has anti laser and wireguided jammer, both of them, jamming the operator signal to missile on the first phase of sending signal to missile....and one important thing, laser is the primary range finder on all tanks on the world, and stora jamming it, how you can hit something if you can't mesure distance?
A 30mm will just scratch the armor. You need something with more then 800mm of penetration for the newer T-72's/T-80's/T-90, the Apache's M230 is designed for targeting troops and light skinned vechicals.
The Hellfire missiles on the Apache failed to destroy a M1A1 tank, another was fired and it still didn't finish the job. (The reason why the Apache was used, was because it was too hot on the ground for engineers to destroy the abandoned/disabled tank.)
one bmp-1 in platoon where i was stationed (anti air unit), he was hit from above with the 120mm mortar, was only slightly indented on the place where granate was hit....
and do you think 30mm shell will penetrate tank!!!!! tzz-tz-tz
Why does the narrartor say that it has the same style of engine as the M1 when it was the first gas turbine tank? The M1 was built in response to the appearance of the T72 and T80.
@Colfax11000 M1 was built ~1972. T-80 was late 70s. The first gas turbine was a modded T54 American tank prototype (not to be confused with T-54, the T54 prototype had a solar saturn gas turbine and silica armor), first operational tank was the S tank with a dual drive train.
@redreaper2020 Point taken about the T54. However as you say it was only a prototype. I dont think even you would say it is the same as a full production main battle tank. I completely disagree about the M1 though. It was built in 1972. The M1 project was started in 1972. It was mostly completed by 1976 at which point it went into production and further checked for quality control. It was finally delievered and put into service in 1980. A full four years after the T 80 entered service.
@redreaper2020 teach soviet classification, my dear friend. All tanks were divided into three classes. They are:
Light tanks, midle tanks and heavy tanks. Heavy class was changed into MBT's(It was class, not funcion) (After T-64) and was dropped light class(After WW2). Yes, they was MBT's for army, but only because they were
lol, bro. M1's "father" Crysler's XM-1(Had GTE) PROTOTYPE was made in 76, while the T-80 was mass manufactured in the same year(Prototype in 69). And first tank with GTE was soviet object 167
@DEMASkinas no, the first confirmed was the T54 prototype from 1954. There was a panther fitted with a GTE in WW2 as a proof of concept, but no confirmation it actually existed means it might not as well count. However, the T-80 didn't start production until 1976, same year as the XM1 prototype (though the XM815 is before it in about 1971. As usual, the Russian caterpillar tracks were not the best so had to be redesigned.
Soviet really made the best tanks. Of course T-72 is outdated but it still packs a punch! And is actually able to take on a modern NATO Tank, T-62/64 are vintage and nations are still using them! They are however no match for any modern tanks but with upgrades they can actaully stand against most modern tanks!
@DEMASkinas I didn't compare T-62 and T-64 I was putting them besides because they are actually in same family, I put them together because they both can be upgraded to modern standards.
@DEMASkinas I didn't compare T-62 and T-64 I was putting them besides because they are actually in same family, I put them together because they both can be upgraded to modern standards.
@DEMASkinas I didn't compare T-62 and T-64 I was putting them besides because they are actually in same family, I put them together because they both can be upgraded to modern standards.
этих педерастов из НАТО тут у нас покрошат в капусту, если будет только сухопутная война, РПГ - и миллионный Абрасмс - в гавно, для народа раздадут :-) если надо будет
всё сейчас и как раньше решает ядерное оружие
а танки - хоть законструируйтесь :-) война может быть или глобальная (с сс- 20 или подобным) или локальная, как в ливии или ираке, а там уже совсем другие принципы, и мы это проходили :-) так что пидоры из НАТО - тратьте деньги, дальше :-)
@vvsector1 Absolutely correct. And T-84 "Oplot" is far better than T-80U. Initially, T-80UD (a farther of T-84) already had diezel engine that let its son T-84 capitilize on this foundation: better transmission, fire management, thermal vision, battle management system, other things that T-80U does not have...
@NosferatuAaacaado Very funny. Thermal vision sights on T-84 are not bigger than on any Western tank: M1, Leo2, you name it. Proportion what matters: same size sight create impression of bigger unit on a more compact vehicle than on a larger tank. That's the reason. I would kindly ask you to be more attentive to details in the future. Thank you.
@flanker271 i hope you realize that in the big picture small errors in grammar have very little affect on anybody's opinion of anybody but grammar sharks or grammar nazis... such as your self, so you can go shove it...
@Sporora When can Russian Engineers abandon it's Soviet era tank design and really design a tank that is actually on par with the western tanks? Okay, it has hunter-killer capability, stabilized gun and thermal imaging, but: It doesn't have blow-out panels; it's rear half of the side panel is rubber; It uses a T-72 chassis which is cramped, It's gun depression elevation is pathetic, and it's autoloader can load rounds every 8 seconds.....that's an eternity when somebody is shooting at you.
@flanker271 The Russians maybe a bit crude, but the t-series are far less expensive then western counter parts, they also are considerably lighter, and a bit faster, thus are far more maneuverable... also it fires round from the main gun at about the same rate as most modern mbts... its really just personal opinion... i admit there is some downsides of the t-series, but every piece of machinery has a flaw... it really just depends on strategy and situation...
beautiful soviet designs, but can they really compete with the Leclerc, Abrams, Leo 2 or Challenger 2? These soviet tanks are only around 45 tonnes so lesser protection allround. This makes them vunerable, a little bit too much i think.
@omarS54 At Abrams there is no automatic machine reload system and operated ammunition. And Russian tanks have all these systems. Abrams it is good against the peace population. But in tank fight against Russian tanks Abrams will lose.
@phadil no. Actually it's because smaller sillouette is harder to hit. Also it means a tank can be as much as 50% lighter, meaning far less stress of the drivetrain (soviet drivetrains are typically poorer quality than western due to poor alloys). Many USSR bridges were made so T-72s could pass in formation, but western tanks could not because they were heavier. Furthermore, it means less material cost and needed armor for equivalent thickness.
@whishnia that's true 50 years ago before computerized fire control system came into being. Now NATO tank gun are so accurate, they can shoot a beer can from 2 miles away.
@phadil In the Russian tanks there are shells flying on a laser beam. They can destroy the Object moving with speed of 50 miles/h from distance of three miles.
@whishnia that missile will take about 15 seconds to reach 3 miles. a sabot round will take less then a second to reach the same range. think about it. Why did US never use the STAFF munition to engage another tank in combat.
@whishnia I assume you're talking about Krasnopol, which only available for 152 and 155mm guns. too big for tank guns. the only guided missile available for T-80 is 9K119M Refleks. A laser beamrider launch from the tank main gun. it fly at a speed of 340 m/s, while BM-42 Sabot round use in T-80 has a muzzle velocity of about 3000 m/s. see the difference?
Thx for the video, When the reporter talk about the missile , he says that the reflex is lazer guided by the TANK himself , does it means if the T80 is destroy ( so no more lazer ) the Missile will not hit the target or will it still moove to it ?
@lashatotladze depends on what kind of modernization you are refering to there are many different types of upgrade kits avalibale for T-72 users offered by russia, ukraine, czech republic, slovakia and pakistan. But T-90 has the shtora system on board, has kontakt 5 or above ERA, and its base armour isnt homogenous rolled armour like the t-72's. T-90's armour is superior to that of t-72's and is in about the same line as t-80 tanks in terms of armoured protection.
@lashatotladze and in terms of powerplants t-90 has an upgraded version of the V-46 engine with about 10% power output advantage. i wont get into fire control systems since they vary depending on the upgrade kit.. for all you know you might be using a french fire control computer optimized for the t-72 specs, so its hard to discuss without specific data.
@lashatotladze Difference is that the T-90 kills a M1 Abrams faster, let's see 0.001 second faster, because even a FT-17 from 1916 could kill a M1 Abrams
@ITmage I was incorrectly expressed. T90 is most modified tank T72. But updating is very considerable, for its this reason and named the new tank. In T90 the composit reservation, the automated control system and stabilization of a shot and is a lot of, many other things that wasn't in T72. Last T72 has been constructed in 1993, and T90 is constructing since 1992 and to this day. I am sorry for my English. I and couldn't translate some things into English.
@whishnia Yeah, Slav :) I was in air defence later in artilery corps now in infrantry as IT (Tech support) with UAVs and electronic devices, coz i am IT engineer....
T-90 have stora-m jammer, and, i saw that thing in action at Kosovo '99. against american mavericks, hellfire and tow (tv and laser guided), our Serbian M-84 AB2 have the stora-m,,,,missiles with laser and tv guiding misses tanks for about 500-800 meters!! None of tanks with stora aren't hit in the war....second thing, if you thing to hit tank with sabot round you need very precision distance measuring, and stora jam the laser finder, and giving bad measure of distance....
@zberkut12 very true my friend but american tactics we use air first then ground us military in a conventional war will never send armor and ground troops in unless the navy and airforce has softened the targets first. generaly air strikes thunderbolt 2s tank buster will go in hit with the main gun love that thing and helicopters apache and cobras and cruise missles from the ships. then followed by armor and troops after but i think T-90 is a great tank its rugged ugly gets the job done
@jojo51886 air attacks on our armour (kosovo '99.) didn't do anything against our's artillery and tanks, belive me, i was there......couple days A-10 trying to find our positions, and do nothing, after that A10 attack AMBULANCE VEHICLE on the open road with red cross on the roof, and destroy him with cannon!!!!!!
@zberkut12 yea i know very tough fighters in kosovo my causin was in that scrap us army he had to shoot a child who had a bomb vest strapped to him poor child was manipulated, they prolly had wrong coordinates of the artillary and tanks happens alot but trust me that A10 uses depleted uranium rounds which is 1.7 percent thicker then lead it will punch through damn near any armor except chobham but kosovos military is legit i respect them alot
@GAYAN89 Can even kill cause it using PG29V (tandem HEAT), notice that russian tanks have rather weak armor and even ERA is not a obstacle to PG29V. Notice that RPG29 can also use thermobaric missiles (TBG29) but thermobaric one is not a threat to tank. Right... maybe it can only damage things like antennas, sights, commander's MG etc...
6:16 It have gun whitch looks like 2A42 or similar as coaxial automatic cannon. I think that tanks really need 30mm cannon to kill APC without wasting HEAT.
@zberkut12 But TOW is wire guided with optics support (computer tracking flare at the end of the missile and correcting the flight patch). Modern Russian ATGMs are mostly laser guided but some are wire guided. Also all barrel launched ATGMs are laser guided cause wire cannot be leaved in barell, barell launched ATGMs are used mostly in Russia.
Active laser jaming is used only in few versions as well as TIS (ex. some T72M1 version have poor quality TIS, some T80s and T90s have TIS as upgrade).
Ok than what armor m1a1 in front lol 600mm than you realy j*** they have in front 1300-1500 mm heavy armor and nowone can destroy Abrams in front lol PS rassian and urkarainean tanks suckxxxxx
M1A1 has 880 mm real LOS thickness front turret armor.
"1300-1500" is nothing but ADVERTISED number, being only "RHAe" - THEORETICAL EQUVALENT for "steel vs obsolete shaped charge", applicable for a small area under specific conditions, and exaggerated.
Also, by US standard, RHAe means only 50% guaranteed prevention of penetration. Russian standard for all RHAe numbers is 100% guaranteed protection. Feel the difference, as they say.
Numbers in my post are not for shitty CE (T-90 is almost comletely immune to it because of ERA that Abrams does not have), but for KE penetrators resistance.
damn a guided misle system as weapon system ... what happens if amarica and russia wil make 1 supertank ? superior aiming system with guided misle heavy armour high speed ... any1 hear plane in al these ?
My opinion would be something along the lines of the M1A2 TUSK upgraded Abrams to be an equal of the T-90. However regarding predescessors like the T-84, M60, M48, T-80, and other similar US and Russian tanks would be inferior to both the T-90 and M1A2 TUSK Abrams.
@Burdock007 That's why it was the "Economy car." :P Designed for mass-production (and planned to "overwhelm NATO's defenses). But sadly, with its ammunition exposed, it didn't get very far (until the T-72B/B1s were built)
Of course not. Abrams is comparable to 1961 T-62, upgraded accordingly, of course. Some systems of its 1983 upgrade are more advanced than those of M1A2.
T-80 platform is whole generation ahead of Abrams.
@PKSnsk Um, 1961 T-62? Are you smoking? The M1A2 is one of today's best Western tanks, in the world. Heavily protected and very powerful. Please, before making retarded statements, go look up what an Abrams tank is. Comparable to the T-80U.
"One of today's best tanks" is a lame promo cliche, having nothing to do with actual design features.
M1, T-10 and T-62 are the same generation tanks. In general design layout Abrams is most close to T-10 (1954). However, T-10 was long discontinued as obsolete and therefore was never upgraded with composite armor, thermal sights and other bells and whistles, so I compare it to T-62MV+.
Such data is no longer secret - export tank, free market, remember?
Military secrets were around back in 1980-s - e.g., when it turned out, that even second-line, cheap and low-grade T-72, but Soviet domestic version of it - non-export 1985 T-72B - was virtually immune to most modern NATO ammunition of the time - that was quite a surprise.
Nowadays, the true secret is why M1A2 costs four times more than T-90. That's a secret only for US taxpayers, though.
@PKSnsk You, PKSnsk, are total dip-shit idiot, brainwashed by Soviet propaganda. The West armor were 25 years ahead of Soviet/Russkie.Face the facts: armor thickness in mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor equivavalent against Kinetic energy(KE) and Chemical energy (CE).
M1:KE Turret: 400 Glacis: 400. CE Turret & Glacis:700-800. T-80: KE Turret: 280-450 Upper front turret:200 Glacis:335 Lower front hull:210 CE Turret: 330-490 Upper front turret:220 Glacis:420 Lower front hull:210
@noobas00 Today Russkies are behind 10 years:M1A2 SEP V2 TUSK (all the figures are given WITHOUT ERA): KE Turret: 940-960 Glacis:760-790 Lower front hull:580-650 .CE Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:710-1050 Lower front hull:800-970.
T-90S(WITHOUT Kontakt-5 ERA applied to Glacis and Front turret): KE Turret: 720-750 Glacis: 600-640 Lower front hull: 240. CE Turret:780-1050 Glacis: 790-970 Lower front hull: 380.
Of course, the fact that composite armor tanks (T-64) were in production in Russia since 1963, while M1 appeared only in 1980 is Mighty Soviet Propaganda. No doubts here.
50% of M1's frontal projection being a weakened zone is also propaganda.
Those numbers are for T-80 1976-1978 model, they include weakened zones and stand for 100% guaranteed protection (US numbers stand
the USSR yes had a lot more tanks but to counter that NATO went with tons more Choppers and Aircraft it also cost more the run a tank then a aircraft.
@PKSnsk thing is no matter how great the AAA is a aircraft will always get through. not to mention a chopper can hide behind tree's pop up fire some hell fires and pop right back down. then if you have a kowi warrior out there all he needs to do is lock up 10 tanks and pass the info to the apache. and face it nobody puts there mobile AAA in front of there tanks. and lets say a A-10 gets back in there, man are tanks and trucks fucked.
Good for you. Now at least you shoud dump all Tom Clancy crap into the garbage bin where it belongs, right next to your rose-colored glasses that make you imbibe shameless propaganda bullshit (like "A-10 and F-15 extraordinary combat record") in brains-off mode.
The T-80 is a good tank for conventional military tactical fight, but a bad choice to fight guerrillas as it was exposed in the Chechen war, the Russians had to come up with with the T-90 which is no more than a glorified armor re-enforced, version of the T-80 with better electronics. Don't get me wrong both the T-80 and T-90 are very well fine tuned exceptional tank killers in the battle field but they go the way of merkava when ambushed and shot at from about 50 meters.
eloidor 1 week ago
@eloidor T-80? nope. it's using baseline T-72 with improve electronics and reactive armor tiles.
lanunselat 6 days ago
Fun fact about T-80: it was designed in Ukraine not Russia thus its more of a Ukrainian tank.
SAtamanchuk1989 3 weeks ago
if you know that the at-6, at-2/3, at-5 are wireguided with optical cabel...and, stora-m has anti laser and wireguided jammer, both of them, jamming the operator signal to missile on the first phase of sending signal to missile....and one important thing, laser is the primary range finder on all tanks on the world, and stora jamming it, how you can hit something if you can't mesure distance?
zberkut12 1 month ago
yeees, you could use the rock and hit the driver in the eye, and divert tenk in the ambys.... :D :D :D
zberkut12 1 month ago
i like the t 72 the tank low pofile and better it then 120 mm the 125 it bigger
tigertank900 2 months ago
@RIEKSONE
A 30mm will just scratch the armor. You need something with more then 800mm of penetration for the newer T-72's/T-80's/T-90, the Apache's M230 is designed for targeting troops and light skinned vechicals.
The Hellfire missiles on the Apache failed to destroy a M1A1 tank, another was fired and it still didn't finish the job. (The reason why the Apache was used, was because it was too hot on the ground for engineers to destroy the abandoned/disabled tank.)
powmful 2 months ago
one bmp-1 in platoon where i was stationed (anti air unit), he was hit from above with the 120mm mortar, was only slightly indented on the place where granate was hit....
and do you think 30mm shell will penetrate tank!!!!! tzz-tz-tz
zberkut12 3 months ago
you think that 30mm cannon could penetrate TANK!!!!
if you think so, then you are stupid like the ingot :D :D :D
zberkut12 3 months ago
Does anyone know what documentary is this and where i can find it?
RiccardoTheBeAst 4 months ago in playlist Liked
Why does the narrartor say that it has the same style of engine as the M1 when it was the first gas turbine tank? The M1 was built in response to the appearance of the T72 and T80.
Colfax11000 5 months ago
@Colfax11000 M1 was built ~1972. T-80 was late 70s. The first gas turbine was a modded T54 American tank prototype (not to be confused with T-54, the T54 prototype had a solar saturn gas turbine and silica armor), first operational tank was the S tank with a dual drive train.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Point taken about the T54. However as you say it was only a prototype. I dont think even you would say it is the same as a full production main battle tank. I completely disagree about the M1 though. It was built in 1972. The M1 project was started in 1972. It was mostly completed by 1976 at which point it went into production and further checked for quality control. It was finally delievered and put into service in 1980. A full four years after the T 80 entered service.
Colfax11000 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 teach soviet classification, my dear friend. All tanks were divided into three classes. They are:
Light tanks, midle tanks and heavy tanks. Heavy class was changed into MBT's(It was class, not funcion) (After T-64) and was dropped light class(After WW2). Yes, they was MBT's for army, but only because they were
DEMASkinas 4 months ago
@redreaper2020
lol, bro. M1's "father" Crysler's XM-1(Had GTE) PROTOTYPE was made in 76, while the T-80 was mass manufactured in the same year(Prototype in 69). And first tank with GTE was soviet object 167
DEMASkinas 4 months ago
@DEMASkinas no, the first confirmed was the T54 prototype from 1954. There was a panther fitted with a GTE in WW2 as a proof of concept, but no confirmation it actually existed means it might not as well count. However, the T-80 didn't start production until 1976, same year as the XM1 prototype (though the XM815 is before it in about 1971. As usual, the Russian caterpillar tracks were not the best so had to be redesigned.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
It fires a 1980's classic! REFLEX
dempsey088 5 months ago
T-84 and T-80U aren't simple
DEMASkinas 5 months ago
My favorite tank.
EminidisMike 6 months ago
That's a T-90 at the start? Not a T-80? Or has it been upgraded?
Falloutman216 6 months ago
Soviet really made the best tanks. Of course T-72 is outdated but it still packs a punch! And is actually able to take on a modern NATO Tank, T-62/64 are vintage and nations are still using them! They are however no match for any modern tanks but with upgrades they can actaully stand against most modern tanks!
SMGJohn 7 months ago
@SMGJohn
Don't compare T-62 and T-64. T-62 is in middle class, and T-64 is MBT. It's different category. Like IS-2 vs T-34(This tanks are in different classes
DEMASkinas 5 months ago
@SMGJohn
Don't compare T-62 and T-64. T-62 is in middle class, and T-64 is MBT. It's different category. Like IS-2 vs T-34(This tanks are in different classes
DEMASkinas 5 months ago
@DEMASkinas I didn't compare T-62 and T-64 I was putting them besides because they are actually in same family, I put them together because they both can be upgraded to modern standards.
SMGJohn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DEMASkinas I didn't compare T-62 and T-64 I was putting them besides because they are actually in same family, I put them together because they both can be upgraded to modern standards.
SMGJohn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DEMASkinas I didn't compare T-62 and T-64 I was putting them besides because they are actually in same family, I put them together because they both can be upgraded to modern standards.
SMGJohn 5 months ago
@DEMASkinas T-55/T-62/T-64/T-72/T-80 are all MBTs. Just like the Centurion, M-48, etc...it's all nomenclature, not actual function.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
I wish that there would be some tank melee footage around here... Tanks crushing one-another... *sigh* Don't you know how beautiful it is?
Egodraco 7 months ago
этих педерастов из НАТО тут у нас покрошат в капусту, если будет только сухопутная война, РПГ - и миллионный Абрасмс - в гавно, для народа раздадут :-) если надо будет
всё сейчас и как раньше решает ядерное оружие
а танки - хоть законструируйтесь :-) война может быть или глобальная (с сс- 20 или подобным) или локальная, как в ливии или ираке, а там уже совсем другие принципы, и мы это проходили :-) так что пидоры из НАТО - тратьте деньги, дальше :-)
DedKomatoz 7 months ago
What show is this from?
Wadser 7 months ago
Thats a good tank ...
armedziak 7 months ago
@vvsector1 Absolutely correct. And T-84 "Oplot" is far better than T-80U. Initially, T-80UD (a farther of T-84) already had diezel engine that let its son T-84 capitilize on this foundation: better transmission, fire management, thermal vision, battle management system, other things that T-80U does not have...
Alexander1068 8 months ago
@Alexander1068 thermal vision from a submarine is hardly an advantage
NosferatuAaacaado 7 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado Very funny. Thermal vision sights on T-84 are not bigger than on any Western tank: M1, Leo2, you name it. Proportion what matters: same size sight create impression of bigger unit on a more compact vehicle than on a larger tank. That's the reason. I would kindly ask you to be more attentive to details in the future. Thank you.
Alexander1068 7 months ago
OOOOOoooh 5mm's ain't shit!!!
MegaBuster777 8 months ago
whats the armor?
kaynie143 8 months ago
@SFRYUGO it cant be in 80's. look in beginning ( and throughout video) it has a modern Russian
Federation Flag on it. My guess would be 1993-5.
Evilsnowman2213 8 months ago
how old is this video?
Ognjen19 9 months ago
@Ognjen19 lol, this was in the 80s mate. antic bre!
SFRYugo 9 months ago
@vvsector1 :
ohh... now i got.)
anyway, there is not big difference between modernized T-72, T-80oplot,T-90
it's like russian cars "LADA-03", "LADA-06" and "LADA-07" isn't it?
lashatotladze 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!!
omarS54 10 months ago
sounds like a jet liner
TheArbiter138 11 months ago
Soviet POWER!
TagmaTonVaragon 11 months ago
All T-series are garbage
flanker271 11 months ago
@flanker271 your retarded
Sporora 11 months ago
@Sporora Learn some english before you talk shit..."you're" not "your" dumb ass
flanker271 11 months ago
@flanker271 i hope you realize that in the big picture small errors in grammar have very little affect on anybody's opinion of anybody but grammar sharks or grammar nazis... such as your self, so you can go shove it...
Sporora 11 months ago
@Sporora When can Russian Engineers abandon it's Soviet era tank design and really design a tank that is actually on par with the western tanks? Okay, it has hunter-killer capability, stabilized gun and thermal imaging, but: It doesn't have blow-out panels; it's rear half of the side panel is rubber; It uses a T-72 chassis which is cramped, It's gun depression elevation is pathetic, and it's autoloader can load rounds every 8 seconds.....that's an eternity when somebody is shooting at you.
flanker271 11 months ago
@flanker271 The Russians maybe a bit crude, but the t-series are far less expensive then western counter parts, they also are considerably lighter, and a bit faster, thus are far more maneuverable... also it fires round from the main gun at about the same rate as most modern mbts... its really just personal opinion... i admit there is some downsides of the t-series, but every piece of machinery has a flaw... it really just depends on strategy and situation...
Sporora 11 months ago
beautiful soviet designs, but can they really compete with the Leclerc, Abrams, Leo 2 or Challenger 2? These soviet tanks are only around 45 tonnes so lesser protection allround. This makes them vunerable, a little bit too much i think.
peterprm19 1 year ago
there is a little fan inside the tank
robertonio6 1 year ago
Russky!!
jancuk34 1 year ago 6
what documentry is this?
sharkie541 1 year ago
@sharkie541 I'm wondering the same thing; what documentary is this?
redreaper2020 11 months ago
@redreaper2020 after two months of wondering i still have not found out
sharkie541 11 months ago
Interesting documentary piece with superb commentary... Utterly bloody ruined by that breathtakingly shit elevator muzak. WHY?
BallsGolden 1 year ago
Dear santa..
freerun4fun 1 year ago
Lose the music!
CheGueverroIV 1 year ago
Not seen a refleks being fired before. Very cool, unlike the music.
Snyegful 1 year ago
This tank sure knows how to bunny hop, truly a modern tank! Way to survive the 21st century battlefield :P
CrzayMazy 1 year ago
damn stupid music cant here anything(((
delphi88 1 year ago
LOL ABRAMS PWNS T72. T72 SUCKS MAH DICK LOL RUSSIA SUCKS!!
omarS54 1 year ago
@omarS54 At Abrams there is no automatic machine reload system and operated ammunition. And Russian tanks have all these systems. Abrams it is good against the peace population. But in tank fight against Russian tanks Abrams will lose.
whishnia 1 year ago
Russian design their tank to fit into a train flatcar. that's why russian tank are relatively smaller then the western tank.
phadil 1 year ago
@phadil no. Actually it's because smaller sillouette is harder to hit. Also it means a tank can be as much as 50% lighter, meaning far less stress of the drivetrain (soviet drivetrains are typically poorer quality than western due to poor alloys). Many USSR bridges were made so T-72s could pass in formation, but western tanks could not because they were heavier. Furthermore, it means less material cost and needed armor for equivalent thickness.
The flatcar thing is just an added bonus.
redreaper2020 1 year ago
@phadil Russian do the tanks below NATO tanks then in their tank fight it is more difficult to destroy.
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia that's true 50 years ago before computerized fire control system came into being. Now NATO tank gun are so accurate, they can shoot a beer can from 2 miles away.
phadil 1 year ago
@phadil In the Russian tanks there are shells flying on a laser beam. They can destroy the Object moving with speed of 50 miles/h from distance of three miles.
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia that missile will take about 15 seconds to reach 3 miles. a sabot round will take less then a second to reach the same range. think about it. Why did US never use the STAFF munition to engage another tank in combat.
phadil 1 year ago
@phadil I speak about artillery shells with laser system of prompting! Then T90s rokets can destroy enemy tank in 6 miles.
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia I assume you're talking about Krasnopol, which only available for 152 and 155mm guns. too big for tank guns. the only guided missile available for T-80 is 9K119M Refleks. A laser beamrider launch from the tank main gun. it fly at a speed of 340 m/s, while BM-42 Sabot round use in T-80 has a muzzle velocity of about 3000 m/s. see the difference?
phadil 1 year ago
@phadil it's a guidible rocket and it's about 1.5 seconds
donzi1011 1 year ago
i hope its long gun runs head first into a ditch
BuBzIeNYNY 1 year ago
i had no idea t-80 had shtora systems onboard
KOGR11 1 year ago
t-84 the best power of Ukraine! and Spetsnaz!
spetsnazkommando 1 year ago
Thx for the video, When the reporter talk about the missile , he says that the reflex is lazer guided by the TANK himself , does it means if the T80 is destroy ( so no more lazer ) the Missile will not hit the target or will it still moove to it ?
bojo21nes 1 year ago
very nice > can you give me the name of the site that you download this videos from
poolsickness 1 year ago
very nice >
poolsickness 1 year ago
what is the deference between modernaized T-72
and random T-90?
lashatotladze 1 year ago 6
@lashatotladze T-90A the russian version uses kontakt i think?
Geefee12 1 year ago
@Geefee12 Kontakt 5 and shtora. along with composite armor and thicker armor.
shawnshawn426 1 year ago
@Geefee12 Thats right kontakt 5
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@Geefee12 It is all another tank, T-90 is just based on T-72, but it is the best tank in the world today ;)
Zukhov1945 1 year ago
@Geefee12 apart from looks , not much , it follows same philosophy but tank is entirely new.
stormscion 10 months ago
@lashatotladze
T-72 has modernized ERA basically while the latest T-90 has Shotra, Arena, and active camouflage, can fire ATGM and has a stronger gun.
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar :
thanks, yes i saw the deference but T-72 costs less than T-90,
but as i read T-90 can't be shooten for excample by some anti tanks for EXC RPG...
while T-72 will become a trash by this shooting.
but anyway T-90 nor T-72 are not the best,
i prefer merkava, i love this machine it's the best
lashatotladze 1 year ago
@lashatotladze
I think the Leopard 2A6 is better then the merkava while the merkava is superior in terms of safety to the T-90.
Since the Leopard 2A6 beat all Western Tanks in terms of Firepower, armor, mobility.
Kallosar 1 year ago
@lashatotladze depends on what kind of modernization you are refering to there are many different types of upgrade kits avalibale for T-72 users offered by russia, ukraine, czech republic, slovakia and pakistan. But T-90 has the shtora system on board, has kontakt 5 or above ERA, and its base armour isnt homogenous rolled armour like the t-72's. T-90's armour is superior to that of t-72's and is in about the same line as t-80 tanks in terms of armoured protection.
KOGR11 1 year ago
@lashatotladze and in terms of powerplants t-90 has an upgraded version of the V-46 engine with about 10% power output advantage. i wont get into fire control systems since they vary depending on the upgrade kit.. for all you know you might be using a french fire control computer optimized for the t-72 specs, so its hard to discuss without specific data.
KOGR11 1 year ago
@lashatotladze
New armor content+new active armor
new fire control sys.
termal imager (last mod's)
new powerack
active and passive jaming systems
modified main gun
new guided weapon system
= new tank I supose
GenaMatogen 1 year ago
@lashatotladze it's the turret. It used T-72 hull combine with T-80 turret.
77837682 1 year ago
@lashatotladze not an awful lot, they are fairly interchangeable. The main difference is the different armour type and thickness
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@lashatotladze better ERA, thicker armor, better engine. that's about it. The FCS are just as suck as the T-72.
phadil 1 year ago
@lashatotladze Difference is that the T-90 kills a M1 Abrams faster, let's see 0.001 second faster, because even a FT-17 from 1916 could kill a M1 Abrams
SMGJohn 1 year ago
@SMGJohn
I doubt what you say. T-90 is a very capable tank, no doubt. M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams are a good match for a T-90.
m1up 1 year ago
@lashatotladze T-72 is medium tank. T-90 is heavy tank.
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia T72 and T90 are both MBT and weight is almost the same....T72 is 42t T90 is 46t....
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage I was incorrectly expressed. T90 is most modified tank T72. But updating is very considerable, for its this reason and named the new tank. In T90 the composit reservation, the automated control system and stabilization of a shot and is a lot of, many other things that wasn't in T72. Last T72 has been constructed in 1993, and T90 is constructing since 1992 and to this day. I am sorry for my English. I and couldn't translate some things into English.
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia ofc, but they are almost same weight i just wanted to throw light on that info ;). Dont worry i understand.
ITmage 1 year ago
Comment removed
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia ahahh dont make me laugh xD
ITmage 1 year ago
Comment removed
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia "If that else you want to learn about the Russian weapon, address!))" :D
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage If you want more information about russian weapons, then you can ask me. Where are you from?
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia From Serbia xD And i am soldier/officer i work every day with russian equipment :P
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage Slav?! Hello brother! I am from Russia! In what kind of army you are?
whishnia 1 year ago
@whishnia Yeah, Slav :) I was in air defence later in artilery corps now in infrantry as IT (Tech support) with UAVs and electronic devices, coz i am IT engineer....
ITmage 1 year ago
T-90 have stora-m jammer, and, i saw that thing in action at Kosovo '99. against american mavericks, hellfire and tow (tv and laser guided), our Serbian M-84 AB2 have the stora-m,,,,missiles with laser and tv guiding misses tanks for about 500-800 meters!! None of tanks with stora aren't hit in the war....second thing, if you thing to hit tank with sabot round you need very precision distance measuring, and stora jam the laser finder, and giving bad measure of distance....
zberkut12 1 year ago 9
@zberkut12 very true my friend but american tactics we use air first then ground us military in a conventional war will never send armor and ground troops in unless the navy and airforce has softened the targets first. generaly air strikes thunderbolt 2s tank buster will go in hit with the main gun love that thing and helicopters apache and cobras and cruise missles from the ships. then followed by armor and troops after but i think T-90 is a great tank its rugged ugly gets the job done
jojo51886 4 months ago
@jojo51886 air attacks on our armour (kosovo '99.) didn't do anything against our's artillery and tanks, belive me, i was there......couple days A-10 trying to find our positions, and do nothing, after that A10 attack AMBULANCE VEHICLE on the open road with red cross on the roof, and destroy him with cannon!!!!!!
And your strategy agains armour is that?
zberkut12 4 months ago
@zberkut12 yea i know very tough fighters in kosovo my causin was in that scrap us army he had to shoot a child who had a bomb vest strapped to him poor child was manipulated, they prolly had wrong coordinates of the artillary and tanks happens alot but trust me that A10 uses depleted uranium rounds which is 1.7 percent thicker then lead it will punch through damn near any armor except chobham but kosovos military is legit i respect them alot
jojo51886 4 months ago
@zberkut12
are you serious
shtora aint stopping a 30mm cannon from a apache
RIEKSONE 3 months ago
@RIEKSONE normal armor is about 150 mm.. modern tanks have a armor above 200 mm.. the t-54 did atleast so i dunno bro :/
slayer2961 2 months ago
@zberkut12 RPG-29 can hit that :))
GAYAN89 1 month ago
@GAYAN89 Can even kill cause it using PG29V (tandem HEAT), notice that russian tanks have rather weak armor and even ERA is not a obstacle to PG29V. Notice that RPG29 can also use thermobaric missiles (TBG29) but thermobaric one is not a threat to tank. Right... maybe it can only damage things like antennas, sights, commander's MG etc...
6:16 It have gun whitch looks like 2A42 or similar as coaxial automatic cannon. I think that tanks really need 30mm cannon to kill APC without wasting HEAT.
macieksoft 1 month ago
@zberkut12 But TOW is wire guided with optics support (computer tracking flare at the end of the missile and correcting the flight patch). Modern Russian ATGMs are mostly laser guided but some are wire guided. Also all barrel launched ATGMs are laser guided cause wire cannot be leaved in barell, barell launched ATGMs are used mostly in Russia.
Active laser jaming is used only in few versions as well as TIS (ex. some T72M1 version have poor quality TIS, some T80s and T90s have TIS as upgrade).
macieksoft 1 month ago
@lashatotladze You can't hit T-90 with missiles? Maybe?
MrSuurijohtaja 10 months ago
@lashatotladze T-90 - Fast,Agile with some new tech
Russian3600 9 months ago
@lashatotladze New Active Protectionsystems,modernized Firecontrol System,better all-around armor,more mobility & better gun
Thats the main modernizations
Germanyisthebest1 8 months ago
@lashatotladze T90 haves all new and heavily upgraded parts, the only old thing on it is the hull shape.
Aaidas2 7 months ago
@lashatotladze one think,only the shtora things on the t 90,t 72 havent theme!
xXxxWARNINGxXx 6 months ago
Ok than what armor m1a1 in front lol 600mm than you realy j*** they have in front 1300-1500 mm heavy armor and nowone can destroy Abrams in front lol PS rassian and urkarainean tanks suckxxxxx
TheHummel1 1 year ago
@TheHummel1
/facepalm
M1A1 has 880 mm real LOS thickness front turret armor.
"1300-1500" is nothing but ADVERTISED number, being only "RHAe" - THEORETICAL EQUVALENT for "steel vs obsolete shaped charge", applicable for a small area under specific conditions, and exaggerated.
Also, by US standard, RHAe means only 50% guaranteed prevention of penetration. Russian standard for all RHAe numbers is 100% guaranteed protection. Feel the difference, as they say.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@TheHummel1
Numbers in my post are not for shitty CE (T-90 is almost comletely immune to it because of ERA that Abrams does not have), but for KE penetrators resistance.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
damn a guided misle system as weapon system ... what happens if amarica and russia wil make 1 supertank ? superior aiming system with guided misle heavy armour high speed ... any1 hear plane in al these ?
Ghostkiller5555 1 year ago
Out of all the Aircraft downed in the Korean war both Commie and U.N the number is about 2,500. NO where near your made up facts!
BY the way PKSnsk you Changed the subject again :)
I take it your going to do it again. that's what people do when they known there loosing a argument.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Give up your offtopic trolling here. This is a tank thread.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
is the T-80U still in use today (2010) and is it better than the T-90???
Mutterjunge 1 year ago
@Mutterjunge Well, I guess in terms of mobility, yes. The T-90 never went into full production.
Tyco200 1 year ago
@Tyco200
What about the engine and the laser guided cannon shell? are those on the T-90?
Mutterjunge 1 year ago
@Mutterjunge ...Uhm, what did I say about the T-90?
Tyco200 1 year ago
My opinion would be something along the lines of the M1A2 TUSK upgraded Abrams to be an equal of the T-90. However regarding predescessors like the T-84, M60, M48, T-80, and other similar US and Russian tanks would be inferior to both the T-90 and M1A2 TUSK Abrams.
F15pilots 1 year ago
Why is the voice quality so poor???
longlance610 1 year ago
@cloudcityguardian Holy shit...copying and pasting your own comments....somebody please spam this fuck - I'll do the honors of going first.
strizhi 1 year ago
The T-72 is a pile of shit ;/
Burdock007 1 year ago
@Burdock007 That's why it was the "Economy car." :P Designed for mass-production (and planned to "overwhelm NATO's defenses). But sadly, with its ammunition exposed, it didn't get very far (until the T-72B/B1s were built)
Tyco200 1 year ago
@Tyco200
"Exposed ammunition" is one of the lamest propaganda billshits of all time.
Works well as "12 y.o. "tank expert" detector".
PKSnsk 1 year ago
the upgraded T 72, T80's are they the comparable to
Abrhams, or not,
TheSilverSultan4 1 year ago
@TheSilverSultan4
Of course not. Abrams is comparable to 1961 T-62, upgraded accordingly, of course. Some systems of its 1983 upgrade are more advanced than those of M1A2.
T-80 platform is whole generation ahead of Abrams.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@PKSnsk Um, 1961 T-62? Are you smoking? The M1A2 is one of today's best Western tanks, in the world. Heavily protected and very powerful. Please, before making retarded statements, go look up what an Abrams tank is. Comparable to the T-80U.
Tyco200 1 year ago
@Tyco200
"One of today's best tanks" is a lame promo cliche, having nothing to do with actual design features.
M1, T-10 and T-62 are the same generation tanks. In general design layout Abrams is most close to T-10 (1954). However, T-10 was long discontinued as obsolete and therefore was never upgraded with composite armor, thermal sights and other bells and whistles, so I compare it to T-62MV+.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
"is was designed to be cheap and effective" ...too bad it is only cheap :D (just kiddin, pretty good tank for the money)
Cougar545x39 1 year ago
@Cougar545x39
soviet design a tanks which need good armor and firepower and used in larger number...but soviet tanks armor not good like others....
afiqhanifah 1 year ago
@afiqhanifah
FYI Soviet armor for the last 50 years was 25 years ahead of the West.
RHAe
1970: T-64A = 400, M60A3 = 250
1980: T-80B = 550, M1 = 350
1990: T-80U = 800, M1A1HA = 600
2000: T-90A = 900, M1A2SEP = 800
Comprende?
PKSnsk 1 year ago 8
@PKSnsk T-90A has frontal armor = 900 RHAe? i thought it was still a military secret?
Geefee12 1 year ago
@Geefee12
Such data is no longer secret - export tank, free market, remember?
Military secrets were around back in 1980-s - e.g., when it turned out, that even second-line, cheap and low-grade T-72, but Soviet domestic version of it - non-export 1985 T-72B - was virtually immune to most modern NATO ammunition of the time - that was quite a surprise.
Nowadays, the true secret is why M1A2 costs four times more than T-90. That's a secret only for US taxpayers, though.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@Geefee12
It is an estimate, besides, late variant T-72B tanks had RHAe approaching 900mm, so I would believe that the T-90A would have higher protection.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@PKSnsk You, PKSnsk, are total dip-shit idiot, brainwashed by Soviet propaganda. The West armor were 25 years ahead of Soviet/Russkie.Face the facts: armor thickness in mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor equivavalent against Kinetic energy(KE) and Chemical energy (CE).
M1:KE Turret: 400 Glacis: 400. CE Turret & Glacis:700-800. T-80: KE Turret: 280-450 Upper front turret:200 Glacis:335 Lower front hull:210 CE Turret: 330-490 Upper front turret:220 Glacis:420 Lower front hull:210
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
Comment removed
noobas00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noobas00 Today Russkies are behind 10 years:M1A2 SEP V2 TUSK (all the figures are given WITHOUT ERA): KE Turret: 940-960 Glacis:760-790 Lower front hull:580-650 .CE Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:710-1050 Lower front hull:800-970.
T-90S(WITHOUT Kontakt-5 ERA applied to Glacis and Front turret): KE Turret: 720-750 Glacis: 600-640 Lower front hull: 240. CE Turret:780-1050 Glacis: 790-970 Lower front hull: 380.
noobas00 1 year ago
@noobas00
Of course, the fact that composite armor tanks (T-64) were in production in Russia since 1963, while M1 appeared only in 1980 is Mighty Soviet Propaganda. No doubts here.
50% of M1's frontal projection being a weakened zone is also propaganda.
Those numbers are for T-80 1976-1978 model, they include weakened zones and stand for 100% guaranteed protection (US numbers stand
for 50% protection probability, excluding weakened zones). Oh, wait, that's propaganda too.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@noobas00
Anyway, here we have two tanks with comparable protection levels. I won't even take into account ERA first fielded circa 1982.
So why don't you explain me why I should not consider obsolete a tank, that, having roughly same level of protection, weighs 12-16 tonnes more?
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@PKSnsk your forgot the m1a2 TUSK but that's new.
the USSR yes had a lot more tanks but to counter that NATO went with tons more Choppers and Aircraft it also cost more the run a tank then a aircraft.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
M1A2 TUSK is a mod of down-armored M1A2SEP for urban COIN applications only.
To counter planes and choppers (like unarmored Apache) USSR deployed completely impenetrable 6-echelon ground forces air defense.
> "also cost more the run a tank then a aircraft".
WTF?! Aircraft unitary and running costs are MANY TIMES GREATER, which is rather obvious. $20-50 thousand per one hour of flight (F-16, F-22).
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@PKSnsk thing is no matter how great the AAA is a aircraft will always get through. not to mention a chopper can hide behind tree's pop up fire some hell fires and pop right back down. then if you have a kowi warrior out there all he needs to do is lock up 10 tanks and pass the info to the apache. and face it nobody puts there mobile AAA in front of there tanks. and lets say a A-10 gets back in there, man are tanks and trucks fucked.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Why don't you just say "Hi, I am 10 years old, I know nothing about tanks and war, but I think A-10 looks very cool".
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@PKSnsk know a lot more then you buddy. Tanks are in there last days
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Yeah, I get it, you've seen a lot Military Channel shows and played a lot CoD:MW.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@PKSnsk um no, I don't have the Military channel. and I hate Modern warfare.
however I am Joining the USMC and I come from a Military family and spent most my life living on military bases.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950
Good for you. Now at least you shoud dump all Tom Clancy crap into the garbage bin where it belongs, right next to your rose-colored glasses that make you imbibe shameless propaganda bullshit (like "A-10 and F-15 extraordinary combat record") in brains-off mode.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@PKSnsk funny you say it's Propaganda when there is so much proof and records of it. your just pissed and upset that the USA has such fine things
F-15 has a killed record of 104 aircraft since it's service the most out of any modern aircraft to date.
I'm sorry would you like to show me a modern Aircraft that has a better record?
or a Support Aircraft with a better record?
if not don't comment back.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago