While comparing cannons of russian and other tanks please don't forget about an ability of soviet/russian machines to launch a laser-guided missile through a barrel.
By the way, the M1 the Leopard II, and the new Challenger are all pretty much the same tank. US, UK, and Germany have cooperated to make the best battle tank in the world. The UK's Chobham armor is a laminate which can defeat HEAT rounds of almost any caliber, whilst the DU core can whithstand the Russian 125mm round at 500 meters. The 120mm Rheinmetall-Borsig cannon is much like its relative, the 75/L70 gun of the panther, killing enemy tanks out to amazing range, 3.5 km for the 120mm gun.
Ah, I see.. *You're* the true expert amongst us by virtue that you had family members that worked in tank factories? The only IDIOT here, is YOU. Shove your Soviet-era propaganda back in your ass, and off our boards - if what you say is true, Iraqi T-72s and T-80s should have destroyed the Abrams in the deserts, but instead, just like WWII, German guns destroyed your pieces of garbage in the desert by the hundreds, no, wait, THOUSANDS, except that this time, they were on American equipment.
you are idiot...t-80 in iraq..hahaha...t-64....with equipment 1970th years..but with this old shit your loses was really nice...near basra in first day 90 m1a2..your armys is shit...all wins in wars based on air...when we go down you cant do really nothing..
Then you are asshole! BIG asshole! VERY BIG asshole! HAHAHAHAH! M1A2 not fight Basra - British fight Basra! M1A2 not in First Gulf war, and no losses in second gulf war! HAHAHAHA! T-80 used by Republican Guard with T-72; they asshole too! Not matter if T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, T-34, T-132, T-2,456,734,974, etc; all based on 125mm autoloading smoothbore cannon make in Kharkova in toilet fabrication factory for easy disposal, HAHAHAHAH! 120mm make by Germans kill 125mm Russki gun, HAHAHA!
you abrams is shit...not effective very expencive peace of shit..ibecose most effective anti-tank missle in iraq was "foggot"..old soviet anti-tank missle 1969..and when us or europe nato dosent matter lose air domination we see second vietnam(250000-300000 kia)..or north korea(100000-150000)..becose if something happend or old shitty tanks will kick your berlin group and after that will kick french group with britain..becose usa always lose europe in ww3 trainings..always..exept maybe 1990ths
Abrams not mine; Corvette mine. "Fagot" is MiG-15 - see post about ASCC. In war, experience make winner; America is great warlord of world; 1.5 million battle-hardened veterans. Russia only have experience in get ass kicked by Afghanistan, poorest nation in world, and Chechnya, bunch of juvenile delinquents who can't even spell! Russia komplex operator so stupid, he sink submarine "Kursk" because he think it American sub - right under his own ship!!! I have to laugh!!! HAHAHAHA!
Next, you can take the rest of your bullshit Soviet propaganda and shove it up your ass, too; any Soviet surface to surface missile was given a name by the ASCC beginning with an "S", such as "Spandrel", "Spigot", "Songster", etc. Names beginning with an "F" were for fighters, but I guess that your all-knowing authority forgot to tell you that. In reality, I don't blame you for being such a hateful, obnoxious asshole; if I had been fed bullshit all my life, I would probably be like you, too.
and dont be asshole....old t-72 wit new technicks and passive and active armor...new chrages its not the same with old t-72 with equipment 1970th...becose your usa damn ass regime(yes just like in old ussr butnot communist its democratic regime)think that your are right and usa have only best..its not true...our country 60 years worked only for army..only army..you dont know numbers..in ussr times we have in europe 3 times more bigger army than all holy nato
HEY!! I NOT ASSHOLE - I IDIOT! YOU SAY THIS! YOU ASSHOLE!! USE CORRECT INSULT, OR I NOT INSULT YOU!!!! Now you not only asshole, but you stupid asshole!!! You say America is democracy?? HAHAHAHAHA! I pay big money for what you smoke!! In democracy, people have power, and in AMerica, people have ZERO power! Nothing!!, Man not have power in America to shoot himself in head - only money have power in AMerica, and people in AMerica have no money, only rich have money!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!
you think something changes..no..europe still suck with 6000 tanks and 8000 mechinfantry and 1800 jets...us..yes its superpower country...11000 tanks 9000 mechinfamtry 3800 jets..russia(now i reapet russia today)its 28000 tanks(t-72 t-80 t-90)31000 mechinfantry(btr-80 bmp-2 bmp-3)3600 jets(mig 29 in different configurations su-27 su-30 su-25)..i dont whant love to us...i what only one thing in you heads...we are not joke..and last we have most biggest WMD weapons reserve(nukes gas biological)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think nothing changes; Russia still make prostitute with big tit, big ass, and hole so big, can deploy entire S-300 komplex inside, and still have room for make landing for MiG-25! See, you not know that I big fan of Russia equipment, and I only break you balls because you send me stupid remark when I say nothing to you. Next time, if man not insult you, not insult him.
i readd all what you right on this page and you all all are dudes and idiots and jackass..you are so stupid you dont know anything in tanks but every one think that he is a professional..good by loser you realu suck
Hey wait. I will respect you opinon. I only have access to english or Italian file about russian tank while you can read also original russian documents in Cyrillic. And I'm boring to listen what american/european guys think about t-72/80/90.
ok..first my 2 uncles work in main russian military base(just like usa pentagon)..mmm..ok..first i will say about abrams..abbrams m1a2 easely destroyed by old ussr rocket Faggot(was made in 1969)..in 2003 near iraq city Basra every one can easy see it..yes t-72 old tank but it much much better then usa m-60 or patton..t-72 not dead mashine for their crue..with nice equpiment and passive and active armor this tank still can fight with all new nato(usa)tanks..
t-80 now main battel tank..we have now more then 10000 t-80 tanks..every one say that t-80 is shit..but noone say that abrams was made against t-80..every one that realy know something know that russia havebest ground army..best in all..russian tanks have best armor(it based on multi-layered armour and to the system of difficult alloys)t-80 with modern equpment still one of the best tanks on the world..i say much-it still best on many parameters ..about t-90..its best tank in the world now..
t-72 is best in middle class tanks..t-80 one of the best..t-90 best..simple..usa abrams can hit by old rockets just like shmel faggot ..i will not speak about konkurs rockets or enother moder rockets..iand i see by my own yeys how t-80 t-90 was hited many times by new usa anti-tank rockets..and..nothing..after hits tank didnt need repair they just ride away .becose russian tanks have very big passive and active defence sistems on thier armor..usa tanks is nude..
I agree with you in many points. I read that the ugpaded (reactive armor) german t-72 used in Nato tests after the soviet collapse was able to resist to the hit of the M1a2, and that testifies the quality of their rective amor. And of-course, the t-72 are better tha the M-60. I think that the t-80 are a very good tank and my only doubt was about his comparison with the t-90, because it's body are not a new tank but a amended version of t-72.
And because Russia sold may T-90 to some country (India, maybe Peru') but don't sold T-80. The only reserves that i have concern the best tank in the world. Honestly I cannot say safely who are the best all time, because each have his strengths or weaknesses, but i think that the 3 best are Leopard3/T90/M1A2. And ok... the efficiency of Us made amor. Maybe the are naked an less protective but remember that M1A2 have 15tonn of amor more than a t-80/90.
becose now weight and the size of armour not so is important..its important from what material this armor was made and how was made..yes we have lighter weight..but we have 125 mm gun..nato 120mm..about guns..russian tanks have 2 type of shells..splinter(against infantry-but its usefull against helicopters too) and subcalibre(anti tank)..usa havent splinter shells.. and its big + to our tanks..yes usa made tanks and shells from light uranium..but it does not give desirable results.
t-90 upgraded t-72?you are joking right?russia sold usa sold..we sold t-80 and t-90..and t-72..man in iraq arbrams was kicked by old faggots and rpgs..man abrams are not best in armor..i think leopard 2 is ass..yes its best europe tank but its big deference between us abrams and nato leopard 2..yes all russian tanks are more lightger then nato..but it give big + to our tanks..our tanks best in mobility speed..we havent so many troubles engine..our tanks have more stronger armor..why?
I read on italian an english wikipedia that the T-90 was originally called "T-72BU (Objekt 188)" and was a direct development of T-72BM.
It have also read that originally the t-72 was deliberately thought as a de-uploaded tank for massive production, and when the project of refurbishment of the Russian army start in the late "90 has been choice to use a "super t-72"
until the financial situation made aviable the condition for a new russian MBT.
nope..abrams engine have power 1500...russiazn 900-850..its mean that russian tank more simple..engine on russian tanks dont eat so much oil just like abrams..in 2003 in iraq before city bagdad usmc tucked thier tanks 4 times..t-90 can do the same jobe by one tucke
if use your sistem t-80 is moder t-64..in old documents project t-80 was t-64msu or msd i dont remember correct..t-72 and t-90 its different tanks..all tanks in the world is mass upgraiding of old tanks..t72 t-64..t-80 t-64..all tanks have old base..
You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. The M-60 was an American beast, through, and through, based on the M-48. The M1 is a cooperative effort by the US (chassis, electronics, and drivetrain), UK (Chobham armor), and Germany (120mm gun made by Rheinmetall-Borsig). The M-60 used an internal combustion engine, whereas the M1 uses a gas turbine, and the M-60 used steel armor with reactive plates later on. The M-60 and the M-1 have about as much in common as a T-34 and a Matilda!
No, he's not joking. But I bet you're joking. Test results show us that Abrams and Leopard 2A6 are the toughest panzers on the planet (equal in strenght and armor). And T-90 indeed is just an upgraded T-72, that has same flaws than T-72. Only difference is the armor planting and according to some sources, export model of T-90 has french aiming system. Mut now Russia has begun working with whole new MBT.
t-72 is t-90...ha...all new tanks based on last...t-72 based on t-64...loepard 2 based on leopard 1....after then tank have mass rebuilding upgrading....in the end tank become new..if you really no something about tank t-90 and t-72 you would know that this tanks havent same things at all..
t-72 after modernisation you can see in old warsaw pact countrys..this is bullshit..in history tanks only twice was build from nothing...british tanks (first tank at all)what used in river Soma in ww1..and t-64..this 2 machinces made revolution in military..just watch 20 century...europe always make something...and in the end always use usa technics..fucking wikipedia..its just like watching cnn or bbc and try find there truth about us.
When did I say that T90 sucks? I just said it has some flaws. Of course it does have flaws. Every single tank on earth have some kind of technical issue, so why so upset? I think that T90 is a decent tank that can match at some level both Abrams and Leopard 2A4 -and A4. But again, russia has begun working with whole new russian MBT. Yes, it will be much better than T90 since it's replacing it. And that tank will match Abrams and Leopard in every aspect.
T-72 better than a T-80? Bullshit. T-80 was the first-line soviet tank and the t-72 was only an exportation tank for the warsaw pact. In the cechen war T-80 had several loses because it was deployed in an urban warfare aganist many afghan veterans. The t-90 are a better
developed version of the t-72, thinked for a massive production but is still less effective than the t-80.
т-80 это украинский танк..тульский танк баран..т-80 отличный танк а вот т-72 гроб на колёсах..т-90 лучше но т-72 курит в углу..его только в третьи страны за бананы продовать и за лояльность..
Soldiers are unhappy with the M4 because of the decrease in muzzle velocity. It is still lethal, the most accurate, and reliable weapon. But with the 16 inch barrel it looses velocity which means penetrating a wall or not. Not aoverheating, as they shoot in 3 round bursts mainly for controll. People have no clue as to what they are taling about here. Iraq had T-80's, i helped rig 3 up for transport in 2004 to be shipped to Saudia Arabia. 2 destoyed, So how do i now, well i climbed all over it.
The T80 is the VERY expensive "version" of the T72, iraq doesn't have a single one... it has a gas turbine (like the M1), night vision and a balistical computer(and other expensive doheckeys), very expensive to buy, even more to maintain operable, it was built to match the M1...
Iraq simply couldn't afford them (they couldn't even afford proper maintenace of the T72's they had)
p.s. you're full of crap, make sure what you write next time...
they could afford them (tanks), Iraq was wealthy country because of oil... but they were unable to prepare qualified support for tanks that advanced.. so they rather bought many cheap and easy to maintain T62 as standard and few export version (later home-build copy of) T72 for "better" republican guard units... the same with planes... many old MiG21 and only few better like MiG25, MiG23/27 etc.. why this crap in waste numbers? it simply was enough to battle their neighbours..
heh.. they have (had) plenty of oil... now US steals it in unbelievable quantity. Only with embargo it was difficult for them to build chemical infrastructure able to produce more than raw oil.. + kuwait was rich country with weak army.. it was easy target.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It matches the Ambrams, LOL. It is a hyped up T-72. And yes Iraq did have T-80's. They had 20 of them purchased from India in 2001. 7 were knocked out by apaches and 5 more from Abrams, 2 Abrams sustained 3 hits which basically bounced off near bagdad in 2003. Apon returning fire the turret of one T-80 flew nearly 50 feet in the air. The remaining crews abandoned there tanks and ran like hell seeing it. They were for the Republican Guard in Baghdad. The 8 left were recovered and held. tin cans.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Us list so far 38 Abrams Tanks in Iraq, all mainly from morter ieds, and usually they just had there traks and rollers blown off.
RPGS, only managed to penetrate one abrams at a close, 10 meter rear shot, and it penetrated the engine compartment. No one was injured. We had another abrams shot out of service by a t-72 with a point blank, lucky shot which knocked, once again, its tracks off. Abrams have scored 2 tank kills with one Sabot round. Thru one turret,a sand dune and thru another
You mean the people who designed and used the T-80, are idiots for using them in urban areas? And what happpens if the enemy is in a town and they have tanks too? You surrender or retreat because your tank is not designed for urban combat? T-80 is a mediocre tank, no excuses.
I'm talking about Chechnia war. Using tanks was a cruel mistake (or a crime) of generals. Bandits' tactik was simple: to hit first tank in column so next ones were jammed in a street to be destroyd. No matter what kind of tank is in such situation a dozen of "peasants" with RPG from windows will finish it.A problem of idiots, not tanks. Tank is NOT an urban weapon, any tank! The world's best tank can't stand dozens of low distance precise RPG's strikes.
I asked you what good is a tank if the enemy is in a town and have tanks too. You have no answer. The Americans and Israelis have no problem using tanks in cities. The T-80 is only usable out in the fields? What a joke.
it is not about tank design. every tank would have problems being alone in an enemy town. that is why tanks should always have infantry support when fighting in an urban area. and that is exactly what went wrong in chechnya. the tanks neither had infantry support nor reactive armour installed because yeltsin thought it would be enough for tanks to roll through grozny to demonstrate russian might.
yes the t-80 was easy to blow up. But it has a neat Turbine engine. Not anything near the quality of the M1Abrams turbine engine but its pretty quick. Guess it doesnt matter if its easy to blow up though...
Oh, you are so right...I wouldnt want to have that shitty american turbine, really. Remember which country was the first one to install a turbine in tanks? Guess not..
The M1Abrams main problem is it's turbine engine, it's a good tank but will never be great because of it. The Americans have discovered that the M1 will slow down an attack because they have to keep it near supply lines, it has huge fuel consumption.
iv been looking for a day but havnt found but i know its definatly on wikipedia coz i found whilst looking at the challenger coz its might be getting the same gun as the leopard 2
but i will keep looking from time to time and if i find it i will give u shout
Сравни, что "натворили" русские алкоголики, и что твой народ. Сравнивать то, хоть, есть с чем? Скажи спасибо, что пришли к вам(не стоило того), а то сидел бы в пещере, до сих пор, компутер бы, в лучшем случае, только на картинке видел.
so2murad, СЛЫШЬ УЕБОК, ТЫ ЕБЛО ТО ПОДЗАВАЛИ. ВСЯ ЕВРОПА СОСАЛА У РУССКИХ И ДАЛЬШЕ СОСАТЬ БУДЕТЕ! ТЫ НЕ ПОПУТАЛСЯ? ТЫ СУКА ВОДКУ ЖРЁШЬ НЕБОСЬ ПО КРУЧЕ ЧЕМ МЫ.
Yeah, it's the way they do size their weapons (152mm,132mm,122mm), small differences. To put a 152mm weapon in a tank makes it way to big. Remove the turret and place it in the hull like the Swedish S tank is possible and might actually work quite well.
Killazer. The T-95 was going to have a 135mm gun. There was no way you could put a 150mm without drastically altering the design. The biggest asset the T-80 has over wester tanks is it's mobility. At 45 tons it is much more easy on the terrain and bridges. Most western tanks weigh 60 to 70 tons. T-80s would shoot them to pieces as they wallowed in the mud. Mobility and a good, big gun. It is light on armor but then it has speed to make up for it.
Also in the first Iraq war Iraqs T-72s were being bombed and torn apart from the air long before they came in contact with any Abrams. Most T-72s that came in contact with Abrams were most likely far from any kind of fighting shape and only came in contact because they had no choice.
Who needs tanks when the USA is going to be defeated yet again against people armed only with AK47's and RPG's? Vietnam and now Afghan and Iraq. And the neo-conservatives want to tangle with a capable foe such as Iran! LMAO!
I know most of the tanks in iraq that were critically hit were stripped for parts and then destroyed by "us". Others were salvaged, but some were hit by Alache and such as a mistake. problem is most iraqui take credit for a destroyed Abram, when in reality we were the ones that destroyed it rather than leave it intact for them to come check out.
But still, Abramses are said to destroy 500-1000 tanks in Iraq campaign. While the fotos from Iraq show that tanks were mostly destroyed by their own crews. They ran out of fuel and ammo. No machine guns on turrets, no auxialiry fuel barrels, hatch covers locked up in opened position. Other tanks were torn apart which is an evidence of airforces job and naval artillery.
I know what the fuck the Air Force did, I was there... but the fact is that most M1 friendly fire were from Apache & Naval Tactical Missiles not from other M1A2's, stop watching "Courage Under Fire" too much, cus nonoe of that shit happened, the best fight they gave the 2AD was a Republican Guard outfit in Medina Ridge... T-80's lit up like a box of matches!
I didn't say anything about friendly fire from Abramses. In case of "immonilization" tanks were "finished" by other tanks. THere was another guy yelling "I was there!!!" we left some comments on burnt down Abrams remains.
Iraq didnt have any T-80 tanks and if it did it didnt have any with the same armor packages and systems used in the upgraded T-80Us. The new T-95 has a 150mm gun and I would bet that could make an Abrams light up like a 'box of matches' as well with a direct hit.
First off... war is utter CHAOS! no matter how well you plan it will never go exactly as planned, I don't care who you are, so considering that we OBLITERATED their armor 6 losses is pretty damned good, specially since no T-72 ever layed a hand on an Abram, those casualties were not all "kills" they were lucky infantry AT hits, and yes the crews survived.
As a third point, I also add that only 12 Abrams' were destroyed in the invasion. Six to friendly fire (a bit of an embarrassment), four to other causes (two of them lucky bastards with RPGs) and two to friendly fire. Those last two were up and running not long after being "taken out" and are still in Iraq to this day.
Is it a statistics or nominal ratings of cannons? The visual contact is limited by different conditions. Tanks are used as a fixed firing point for defensive action. You can't see armoured vehicles in range of 4 km, it's just impossible. Cannons of all contemrporary tanks can hit the target in range of 4000 meters. The difference in killing range is very slight so it's a matter of tactics and way of use that leads to victory. Succes doesn't depend on nominal characteristics only.
In the desert, you can easily see the targets. And T-72's, 55's and Type 69 tanks used by the Iraqis were taken out-I say again, TAKEN OUT, at distances of 4000 meters. That's the beauty of the Abrams' computerized fire-control systems: they can spot targets at a huge distance. Keep in mind that these kills took place at dawn or dusk or in the night when mirages caused by the desert heat did not effect the tanks. During the nighttime the Abrams' simply used night vision and/or infrared.
No, they used shells to hit the Iraqi tanks. The Abrams' themselves spotted the targets. An Abrams gun is extremely powerful-quite capable of hitting a target and killing it at distances of 4 kilometers. I'm sure the T-80 could do the same.
no wonder T72M refer to 1960s and outfitted with 1st gen infrared sights. The best armour piercing ammunition (ЗВБМ9) of Iraqi 125mm cannon was was discarded from Soviet Army in 1973 before introduction of Abrams adn Challenger types. This ammunition was to encounter American M60A3 tanks. Whilst Challengers and Abramses were equipped with heat vision sights, new armour and had new HVAP projectiles with depleted uranium penetrators. These tanks refer to different gens.
it would be the same if M60A3 had to encouner T80U/UK/UD or T90 tanks. I bet ammunition of M60A3 isn't capable of penetrating 3 gen armour and hitting tanks at range of 2000 - 3000 meters provided it's equipped with primary fire control systems (like on T55/54)
4000 meters isnt a hard shot in the open desert. The ability for the shell to penetrate at 4000m is pretty good, but the tanks they were hitting were very old non-upgraded versions of at the best model the T-72.
Tanks are still very vulnerable in cities and built up areas if you are fighting a real opponent with weapons, training, and will to fight.
Well, yes, I suppose you are right about the T-72s, but 4000 meters isn't an easy shot to take in any kind of terrain. It's difficult to see 1000 meters with the naked eye and 3000 meters with a pair of binoculars.
As well, regardless of the age of the tanks being fought, the rounds being used were reasonably modern. When they hit the armor of an Abrams, they caused very little damage. This is because the armor is depleted uranium, and therefore extremely difficult to penetrate.
World war 2 tanks could fire out to 2000-2500 meters with their siting and optics... so im not amazed. The Tiger could probably fire out to 4000 meters although it wouldnt kill anything granted unless it got very lucky.
As for the t-72 not penetrating im not surprised. T-72 would probably have to be at 500 meters to penetrate abrams from the front.
Indeed. That is due to the depleted Uranium armor. And although the Abrams' did suffer some problems in street warfare, the crews learned very quickly to up-armor their rear and sides, although the front was tough enough already.
Keep in mind that the T-72 and the T-80 both share the same Rapira-3 125 millimeter smoothbore gun.
Actually, in 1989 or so the Chobham was replaced with depleted Uranium. Yes, DU is also used in the APFSDS rounds, but Chobham is mostly just used by the British.
They actually has a peace on Discovery Channel about tanks where it was said that Iraq's T72 immobilized Abrams by firing from 1000m. The crew survived. The first account of the tank commander was taken. Keep in mind that Iraq used older ammunition which is not used in Russia anymore.
I still mean to avoid an angry argument (we must bite each others' heads off like civilized people for gods sakes!) but in Basra in 2003 British forces engaged 14 T-72's with 14 Challenger 2's. The Challengers all survived the battle, which was close for tank standards (a few hundred meters), further proof that the air force was not the sole destroying force in that invasion.
As well, (still not meaning to get you angry or start a fight), in one case five Abrams' engaged five Iraqi-built T-72's at a distance of about fifty yards. The Americans sustained no losses, while all five Iraqi tanks were destroyed.
But you are right in one way: several Abrams' have been disabled by RPGs and IED's. Sadly for the Abrams crews, their tank is designed largely for tank-on-tank engagements. Their armor is strong, but not always strong enough.
for tanks 50 yards distance (in metrical system) is the same as if two men were fighting with knifes in the 2 x 2 room. And armour-piercing composite shot from 125mm cannon of old Iraqui T72M and T72M1 were capable of hitting Abrams M1A1 from the range 800 meters (no info on A2 but 50 yards is closer I guess). And it's very close, comsidering that tank battles start at the range of 2000 meters.
That is true. Indeed, at that distance it is like a nose-to-nose knifefight. You clearly are informed of usual tank tactics like distances, and I assure you, the bout did take place.
Keep in mind that the Abrams could knock out a T-72, Russian or Iraqi-made, at distances of 4000 meters or less with a 97% chance of hitting the target and an only slightly smaller chance of knocking the target out.
In a terrible incident, Chechens took out 18 T-80s in a single day. Later on they knocked-out five or six more. Lucky bastards knew how to work their RPGs.
T80s did not have reactive armour in assault of Grozny in 1994 (tragedy happened on December 31, 1994). And went into town without infantry support. Chechens allocated groups of "tank hunters". Each group consisted of RPG-7, sniper and machine-gunner. 10 groups would attack one tank from upper storey wondows at the same time.
it wouldn't be of much help if you were in Abrams in Grozny 1994. Weakest points of every tank turret roof, engine compartment cover and hatches of crew. Tanks are not for urban warfare, they make a good targets in narrow streets without enough space for manouvers enabling use of main gun and coaxial machine-gun. Moreover those T80s were charged with high-flammable avia fuel (the cause is not identified)
they were in Desert. However several Abramses were immobilized by RPG shooters and AT-mines in street battles. Not cavalry but airforces destroyed all T62s, T72s, T55s of Saddam's Guards:-)). Abramses has been located in town outskirts and Bradleys were following infantry which advanced and cleaned out insurgents from the buildings.
I think you may have it a little backwards, IgoRAZ. Well, actually-I mean no offense in saying this-you've got it totally backwards. American tank doctrine is the same as Nazi tank doctrine: the tanks go ahead of the infantry, busting through the defenses while the infantry deal with any remaining pockets of resistance.
Also, don't forget the many, many tank battles against the Republican Guard in the Gulf War. Example: Battle of 73 Easting. All tanks, no air support was used.
T-80 was meant to conquer Europe to get to English Channel in 72 hours. Most of T80s were located in European part of Russia to encounter NATO Leopard tanks, meanwhile all all other military districts were equipped with T-72 tanks of different modification.
the chink tpe-99 is just a fucking rippof of the t-72. the ruskies have always made better tanks than the chinese. the t-80 and t-90 have better frontal armor with era than the chinese piese of shit and better guns.there more feul efficient and more maneuverable.
i aint russian and i am on no one side but is funny how tazzmaniak says "You're russian!!! You're communist!!!!you don't know what's that "human wrights". when he cant even spell human rights. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hitler! stalin! putin! bush! is a childish gay, fooling all people..!!!
russian, american, chinese, uk, muslim, europe, asian country, all world nuke? are weakling shit.!!! asteroid cannot blow up earth, comet&blackhole cannot destroy universe, new & old life forms still alive again.!!!
HOW WEAK..!!! ALL NUKES & WEAPONS OF HUMANS CANNOT EVEN DESTROY EARTH.. very very weak weapons..!!!
earth must be planted of super bomb also the universe must be destroyed...!!!
Very impressive and capable tank! I always admired the Russians for their talent in technology. The Russians are a very simpathetic people. Sadly, their political system is still to corrupt, so that the whole nation suffers. If they manage to improve and stabilise their country, we can expect many amazing things from Russia! I sincerely wish success! Even as Russia was "our" No.1 adversary in my past military days....;-)
russia has a bad reputation due to it's past yet i think it's a underrated nation.. many hidden technologies and culture is kept out of our regular readings.. the majority of the people are simple folks but the political system is still runned like the mafia
yago i guess you r polish i guess, well i must agree that we russians did the staff u mentioned its history yes (and executing fellow officers was a very low cheap act also brutal and cowardly) all nations have cimitted mistakes but still Germany played the biggest role in starting world war 2.
I know the Abram's a better tank along with the Leopard, K2 etc. But, the T-80 will always be my favourite tank. I loved it since I was 6 years old, and I will always love it...^^ Rusky power!
what teh hell i am american (dotn read name) but still i think german tanks will always be better then ours WW2 and Modern and Germany started the 2nd world war i studied this stuff all my life, i should know
This has been flagged as spam show
Romania have some hundreds T-85 modernized today at Nato standards (search on youtube for TR-85 M1) Romanian main battle tank
Danezu28 3 months ago
Comment removed
Danezu28 3 months ago
...ich wolte mal was vom Motor hören und nicht diese bekloppte Musik !!!!!!!
Fenris641 4 months ago
80's tank 80 music perfect
MrXclio 6 months ago
Слава России, и тем кто создает и такую технику
RussoAgento 8 months ago
Beautiful!
Russki08 1 year ago
Hey GUYs. I think tank is good or maybe the best. Don't forget that 2WW win old T34 tanks.
AsylXAM 1 year ago 4
@AsylXAM
Yeah by pure quantity.
bfgguns 1 year ago
While comparing cannons of russian and other tanks please don't forget about an ability of soviet/russian machines to launch a laser-guided missile through a barrel.
RaptorGP 1 year ago
whats this music please?
gangster1912 2 years ago
u lot stop.. give this guy a break.
cosmin989 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ALL T's suck that tank is junk
oppeer 2 years ago
@oppeer U suck!
meffer1111 2 years ago 2
STFU you worthless pce of shit
oppeer 2 years ago
By the way, the M1 the Leopard II, and the new Challenger are all pretty much the same tank. US, UK, and Germany have cooperated to make the best battle tank in the world. The UK's Chobham armor is a laminate which can defeat HEAT rounds of almost any caliber, whilst the DU core can whithstand the Russian 125mm round at 500 meters. The 120mm Rheinmetall-Borsig cannon is much like its relative, the 75/L70 gun of the panther, killing enemy tanks out to amazing range, 3.5 km for the 120mm gun.
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
you too..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
Ah, I see.. *You're* the true expert amongst us by virtue that you had family members that worked in tank factories? The only IDIOT here, is YOU. Shove your Soviet-era propaganda back in your ass, and off our boards - if what you say is true, Iraqi T-72s and T-80s should have destroyed the Abrams in the deserts, but instead, just like WWII, German guns destroyed your pieces of garbage in the desert by the hundreds, no, wait, THOUSANDS, except that this time, they were on American equipment.
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
you are idiot...t-80 in iraq..hahaha...t-64....with equipment 1970th years..but with this old shit your loses was really nice...near basra in first day 90 m1a2..your armys is shit...all wins in wars based on air...when we go down you cant do really nothing..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
Then you are asshole! BIG asshole! VERY BIG asshole! HAHAHAHAH! M1A2 not fight Basra - British fight Basra! M1A2 not in First Gulf war, and no losses in second gulf war! HAHAHAHA! T-80 used by Republican Guard with T-72; they asshole too! Not matter if T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, T-34, T-132, T-2,456,734,974, etc; all based on 125mm autoloading smoothbore cannon make in Kharkova in toilet fabrication factory for easy disposal, HAHAHAHAH! 120mm make by Germans kill 125mm Russki gun, HAHAHA!
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
you abrams is shit...not effective very expencive peace of shit..ibecose most effective anti-tank missle in iraq was "foggot"..old soviet anti-tank missle 1969..and when us or europe nato dosent matter lose air domination we see second vietnam(250000-300000 kia)..or north korea(100000-150000)..becose if something happend or old shitty tanks will kick your berlin group and after that will kick french group with britain..becose usa always lose europe in ww3 trainings..always..exept maybe 1990ths
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
Abrams not mine; Corvette mine. "Fagot" is MiG-15 - see post about ASCC. In war, experience make winner; America is great warlord of world; 1.5 million battle-hardened veterans. Russia only have experience in get ass kicked by Afghanistan, poorest nation in world, and Chechnya, bunch of juvenile delinquents who can't even spell! Russia komplex operator so stupid, he sink submarine "Kursk" because he think it American sub - right under his own ship!!! I have to laugh!!! HAHAHAHA!
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
Next, you can take the rest of your bullshit Soviet propaganda and shove it up your ass, too; any Soviet surface to surface missile was given a name by the ASCC beginning with an "S", such as "Spandrel", "Spigot", "Songster", etc. Names beginning with an "F" were for fighters, but I guess that your all-knowing authority forgot to tell you that. In reality, I don't blame you for being such a hateful, obnoxious asshole; if I had been fed bullshit all my life, I would probably be like you, too.
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
and dont be asshole....old t-72 wit new technicks and passive and active armor...new chrages its not the same with old t-72 with equipment 1970th...becose your usa damn ass regime(yes just like in old ussr butnot communist its democratic regime)think that your are right and usa have only best..its not true...our country 60 years worked only for army..only army..you dont know numbers..in ussr times we have in europe 3 times more bigger army than all holy nato
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
HEY!! I NOT ASSHOLE - I IDIOT! YOU SAY THIS! YOU ASSHOLE!! USE CORRECT INSULT, OR I NOT INSULT YOU!!!! Now you not only asshole, but you stupid asshole!!! You say America is democracy?? HAHAHAHAHA! I pay big money for what you smoke!! In democracy, people have power, and in AMerica, people have ZERO power! Nothing!!, Man not have power in America to shoot himself in head - only money have power in AMerica, and people in AMerica have no money, only rich have money!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
you think something changes..no..europe still suck with 6000 tanks and 8000 mechinfantry and 1800 jets...us..yes its superpower country...11000 tanks 9000 mechinfamtry 3800 jets..russia(now i reapet russia today)its 28000 tanks(t-72 t-80 t-90)31000 mechinfantry(btr-80 bmp-2 bmp-3)3600 jets(mig 29 in different configurations su-27 su-30 su-25)..i dont whant love to us...i what only one thing in you heads...we are not joke..and last we have most biggest WMD weapons reserve(nukes gas biological)
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think nothing changes; Russia still make prostitute with big tit, big ass, and hole so big, can deploy entire S-300 komplex inside, and still have room for make landing for MiG-25! See, you not know that I big fan of Russia equipment, and I only break you balls because you send me stupid remark when I say nothing to you. Next time, if man not insult you, not insult him.
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
iraq actuaaly had more chinese tanks then soviet tanks
smithyboi1000 2 years ago
iraq was bankedrupt so it invaded kuwit
smithyboi1000 2 years ago
i readd all what you right on this page and you all all are dudes and idiots and jackass..you are so stupid you dont know anything in tanks but every one think that he is a professional..good by loser you realu suck
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
Well, could you try to explane something to us?
I am really curious about the opinion of a russian guy.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
what for i must try ?i know what you answer me..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
Hey wait. I will respect you opinon. I only have access to english or Italian file about russian tank while you can read also original russian documents in Cyrillic. And I'm boring to listen what american/european guys think about t-72/80/90.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
ok..first my 2 uncles work in main russian military base(just like usa pentagon)..mmm..ok..first i will say about abrams..abbrams m1a2 easely destroyed by old ussr rocket Faggot(was made in 1969)..in 2003 near iraq city Basra every one can easy see it..yes t-72 old tank but it much much better then usa m-60 or patton..t-72 not dead mashine for their crue..with nice equpiment and passive and active armor this tank still can fight with all new nato(usa)tanks..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
t-80 now main battel tank..we have now more then 10000 t-80 tanks..every one say that t-80 is shit..but noone say that abrams was made against t-80..every one that realy know something know that russia havebest ground army..best in all..russian tanks have best armor(it based on multi-layered armour and to the system of difficult alloys)t-80 with modern equpment still one of the best tanks on the world..i say much-it still best on many parameters ..about t-90..its best tank in the world now..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
t-72 is best in middle class tanks..t-80 one of the best..t-90 best..simple..usa abrams can hit by old rockets just like shmel faggot ..i will not speak about konkurs rockets or enother moder rockets..iand i see by my own yeys how t-80 t-90 was hited many times by new usa anti-tank rockets..and..nothing..after hits tank didnt need repair they just ride away .becose russian tanks have very big passive and active defence sistems on thier armor..usa tanks is nude..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
I agree with you in many points. I read that the ugpaded (reactive armor) german t-72 used in Nato tests after the soviet collapse was able to resist to the hit of the M1a2, and that testifies the quality of their rective amor. And of-course, the t-72 are better tha the M-60. I think that the t-80 are a very good tank and my only doubt was about his comparison with the t-90, because it's body are not a new tank but a amended version of t-72.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
And because Russia sold may T-90 to some country (India, maybe Peru') but don't sold T-80. The only reserves that i have concern the best tank in the world. Honestly I cannot say safely who are the best all time, because each have his strengths or weaknesses, but i think that the 3 best are Leopard3/T90/M1A2. And ok... the efficiency of Us made amor. Maybe the are naked an less protective but remember that M1A2 have 15tonn of amor more than a t-80/90.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
Finally a last consideration. Don't you think that all Russian tank could be defined as "middle" class tank thinking to therir weight?
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
becose now weight and the size of armour not so is important..its important from what material this armor was made and how was made..yes we have lighter weight..but we have 125 mm gun..nato 120mm..about guns..russian tanks have 2 type of shells..splinter(against infantry-but its usefull against helicopters too) and subcalibre(anti tank)..usa havent splinter shells.. and its big + to our tanks..yes usa made tanks and shells from light uranium..but it does not give desirable results.
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
I know - reply on 2 month old post would seem strange - but i could not go pass over your statement about 15t more armor.
You see - not only mass is important but VOLUME it protects
So M1 has 21 cubic meters of armored volume - T-90 has 11,2
63/21=3 48/11,2=4,28
Of cource it is simplification but M1 has 3t per 1 cubic meter to protect - T-90 has 4,28
Actualy even more because T-90 chassis has less mass as so as engine weights only 1050 kg
MarshallJukov 2 years ago 15
Nice consideration.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
t-90 upgraded t-72?you are joking right?russia sold usa sold..we sold t-80 and t-90..and t-72..man in iraq arbrams was kicked by old faggots and rpgs..man abrams are not best in armor..i think leopard 2 is ass..yes its best europe tank but its big deference between us abrams and nato leopard 2..yes all russian tanks are more lightger then nato..but it give big + to our tanks..our tanks best in mobility speed..we havent so many troubles engine..our tanks have more stronger armor..why?
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
I read on italian an english wikipedia that the T-90 was originally called "T-72BU (Objekt 188)" and was a direct development of T-72BM.
It have also read that originally the t-72 was deliberately thought as a de-uploaded tank for massive production, and when the project of refurbishment of the Russian army start in the late "90 has been choice to use a "super t-72"
until the financial situation made aviable the condition for a new russian MBT.
I don't know if this is correct.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
About the engine, i think that all the problem
with the M1A2 are caused by the American industrial lobby.
They want to spend money and make their equipment expensive, because it a good business.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
nope..abrams engine have power 1500...russiazn 900-850..its mean that russian tank more simple..engine on russian tanks dont eat so much oil just like abrams..in 2003 in iraq before city bagdad usmc tucked thier tanks 4 times..t-90 can do the same jobe by one tucke
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
if use your sistem t-80 is moder t-64..in old documents project t-80 was t-64msu or msd i dont remember correct..t-72 and t-90 its different tanks..all tanks in the world is mass upgraiding of old tanks..t72 t-64..t-80 t-64..all tanks have old base..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
ha..abrams was big upgrade of m-60 tank..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. The M-60 was an American beast, through, and through, based on the M-48. The M1 is a cooperative effort by the US (chassis, electronics, and drivetrain), UK (Chobham armor), and Germany (120mm gun made by Rheinmetall-Borsig). The M-60 used an internal combustion engine, whereas the M1 uses a gas turbine, and the M-60 used steel armor with reactive plates later on. The M-60 and the M-1 have about as much in common as a T-34 and a Matilda!
RodentSaurus 2 years ago
No, he's not joking. But I bet you're joking. Test results show us that Abrams and Leopard 2A6 are the toughest panzers on the planet (equal in strenght and armor). And T-90 indeed is just an upgraded T-72, that has same flaws than T-72. Only difference is the armor planting and according to some sources, export model of T-90 has french aiming system. Mut now Russia has begun working with whole new MBT.
Zombibombi62 2 years ago
t-72 is t-90...ha...all new tanks based on last...t-72 based on t-64...loepard 2 based on leopard 1....after then tank have mass rebuilding upgrading....in the end tank become new..if you really no something about tank t-90 and t-72 you would know that this tanks havent same things at all..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
t-72 after modernisation you can see in old warsaw pact countrys..this is bullshit..in history tanks only twice was build from nothing...british tanks (first tank at all)what used in river Soma in ww1..and t-64..this 2 machinces made revolution in military..just watch 20 century...europe always make something...and in the end always use usa technics..fucking wikipedia..its just like watching cnn or bbc and try find there truth about us.
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
you idiot..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
When did I say that T90 sucks? I just said it has some flaws. Of course it does have flaws. Every single tank on earth have some kind of technical issue, so why so upset? I think that T90 is a decent tank that can match at some level both Abrams and Leopard 2A4 -and A4. But again, russia has begun working with whole new russian MBT. Yes, it will be much better than T90 since it's replacing it. And that tank will match Abrams and Leopard in every aspect.
Zombibombi62 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
amerca make 3 best missile rockets can hit and destroy T-80
bestamerica 3 years ago
T-80 it's Ukrainian tank,and T-80 bad shown in Chechen war,T-72 was better,But T-90 is the best
in T-90 shot from RPG-7 and over 7hits ,T-90 could war(Abrams lose control over 1-2 hits from RPG-7)
in T-90 shot from modern rockets,but this tank suffered it too+it can withdraw laser rockets
in T-90
andreyRUS17 2 years ago
T-72 better than a T-80? Bullshit. T-80 was the first-line soviet tank and the t-72 was only an exportation tank for the warsaw pact. In the cechen war T-80 had several loses because it was deployed in an urban warfare aganist many afghan veterans. The t-90 are a better
developed version of the t-72, thinked for a massive production but is still less effective than the t-80.
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago 3
т-80 это украинский танк..тульский танк баран..т-80 отличный танк а вот т-72 гроб на колёсах..т-90 лучше но т-72 курит в углу..его только в третьи страны за бананы продовать и за лояльность..
GUFFYZZZ 2 years ago
O_O I really want to know what gufyyzzz wroten here. Ma è gia assai se capisco l'inglese, figuriamoci il russo!!
ResiduoIncombusto 2 years ago
T 72 is a piece of junk, T-64 and its child the T 80 are better.
beavis1a03 2 years ago
This is not rolling on the ground, it's flying over the ground! Impressive how going through everything this tank...
redraven1189 3 years ago
Soldiers are unhappy with the M4 because of the decrease in muzzle velocity. It is still lethal, the most accurate, and reliable weapon. But with the 16 inch barrel it looses velocity which means penetrating a wall or not. Not aoverheating, as they shoot in 3 round bursts mainly for controll. People have no clue as to what they are taling about here. Iraq had T-80's, i helped rig 3 up for transport in 2004 to be shipped to Saudia Arabia. 2 destoyed, So how do i now, well i climbed all over it.
ltcurry 3 years ago
The T80 is the VERY expensive "version" of the T72, iraq doesn't have a single one... it has a gas turbine (like the M1), night vision and a balistical computer(and other expensive doheckeys), very expensive to buy, even more to maintain operable, it was built to match the M1...
Iraq simply couldn't afford them (they couldn't even afford proper maintenace of the T72's they had)
p.s. you're full of crap, make sure what you write next time...
AKAtheA 2 years ago
they could afford them (tanks), Iraq was wealthy country because of oil... but they were unable to prepare qualified support for tanks that advanced.. so they rather bought many cheap and easy to maintain T62 as standard and few export version (later home-build copy of) T72 for "better" republican guard units... the same with planes... many old MiG21 and only few better like MiG25, MiG23/27 etc.. why this crap in waste numbers? it simply was enough to battle their neighbours..
xmeda 2 years ago
enough? You're kidding, right? Saddam kept saying he had WMD's because he coudn't match the increasing power of Iran...
If they we're so rich, why did they attack kuwait and steal everything they could get theyr hands onto?
Iraq doesn't have that much oil to be "rich" from it, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait do...
AKAtheA 2 years ago
heh.. they have (had) plenty of oil... now US steals it in unbelievable quantity. Only with embargo it was difficult for them to build chemical infrastructure able to produce more than raw oil.. + kuwait was rich country with weak army.. it was easy target.
xmeda 2 years ago
Transorting detroyed, and partially destoyed oned to either Saudi Arabia. Helped load them as a contctacter thats how.
Its no to hard to distinguish a t72 from a t80, or t-85 to 90.
DEE DEE DEE. Especially when you work for a heavy loadimd company that removed over 1,500 destroyed iraqi tanks betwen 2003-2005.
LOL. No t-70's, look in the scrap yard, i beg to differ.
ltcurry 3 years ago
"Transorting detroyed, and partially destoyed oned to either Saudi Arabia. Helped load them as a contctacter thats how"
This does not prove anything. I bet you cant tell difrence between T-55 and T-90.
MokomaSusi 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It matches the Ambrams, LOL. It is a hyped up T-72. And yes Iraq did have T-80's. They had 20 of them purchased from India in 2001. 7 were knocked out by apaches and 5 more from Abrams, 2 Abrams sustained 3 hits which basically bounced off near bagdad in 2003. Apon returning fire the turret of one T-80 flew nearly 50 feet in the air. The remaining crews abandoned there tanks and ran like hell seeing it. They were for the Republican Guard in Baghdad. The 8 left were recovered and held. tin cans.
ltcurry 3 years ago
Are you joking?The side of abrams can be overpunched with old rpg-7.Iraq tankers don't know how to use them properly
Kalashnikovpower 3 years ago 2
"Iraq did have T-80's."
All books and sources in the net dont mention anything about iraqi T-80's. please, tell me what are your sources?
MokomaSusi 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Us list so far 38 Abrams Tanks in Iraq, all mainly from morter ieds, and usually they just had there traks and rollers blown off.
RPGS, only managed to penetrate one abrams at a close, 10 meter rear shot, and it penetrated the engine compartment. No one was injured. We had another abrams shot out of service by a t-72 with a point blank, lucky shot which knocked, once again, its tracks off. Abrams have scored 2 tank kills with one Sabot round. Thru one turret,a sand dune and thru another
ltcurry 3 years ago
iraq never had any t80s
TheguardianofIran 3 years ago 19
They are so good that the only time they saw combat, in Chechnia, they got wiped out by peasants with RPGs
TheMorbius 3 years ago
Tank is not urban weapon!
nikomo37 3 years ago
You mean the people who designed and used the T-80, are idiots for using them in urban areas? And what happpens if the enemy is in a town and they have tanks too? You surrender or retreat because your tank is not designed for urban combat? T-80 is a mediocre tank, no excuses.
TheMorbius 3 years ago
I'm talking about Chechnia war. Using tanks was a cruel mistake (or a crime) of generals. Bandits' tactik was simple: to hit first tank in column so next ones were jammed in a street to be destroyd. No matter what kind of tank is in such situation a dozen of "peasants" with RPG from windows will finish it.A problem of idiots, not tanks. Tank is NOT an urban weapon, any tank! The world's best tank can't stand dozens of low distance precise RPG's strikes.
nikomo37 3 years ago 3
I asked you what good is a tank if the enemy is in a town and have tanks too. You have no answer. The Americans and Israelis have no problem using tanks in cities. The T-80 is only usable out in the fields? What a joke.
TheMorbius 3 years ago
it is not about tank design. every tank would have problems being alone in an enemy town. that is why tanks should always have infantry support when fighting in an urban area. and that is exactly what went wrong in chechnya. the tanks neither had infantry support nor reactive armour installed because yeltsin thought it would be enough for tanks to roll through grozny to demonstrate russian might.
dunkelfalke 3 years ago
in the beggining of this video, I thought the T-80 was a Low-Rider.
joaofga123 3 years ago
any guys have a cam? i have mine in my profile 5
bus310 3 years ago
t-90 is better.Russian T-90 have special equipment on board that leads missiles away .For 54 seconds it has amazed 7 purposes, broken a record
andreyRUS17 3 years ago
billcavazos ---- IT was easy to BLOW up .... SEND COUPLE of ABRAMS to GEORGIA . to see how it is very easy to BLOW it up ... AMEERICAN FUCK ...
aviomaster 3 years ago
T-80 is a hard ass tank youre just an asshole
Geefee12 3 years ago
--- IT is nice machine ... IMAGINE WW-III ... with warsaw pact and Nato ... oooo shit ... Russia has 90.000 tanks ...
aviomaster 3 years ago
yes the t-80 was easy to blow up. But it has a neat Turbine engine. Not anything near the quality of the M1Abrams turbine engine but its pretty quick. Guess it doesnt matter if its easy to blow up though...
billcavazos 3 years ago
Oh, you are so right...I wouldnt want to have that shitty american turbine, really. Remember which country was the first one to install a turbine in tanks? Guess not..
shvaky 3 years ago
The abrams will run out of fuel before it gets to the battle zone. And if it has to fight it will need a gastank right beside it:D
As for the armor its just as easly to destroy with a good shot as any other tank. +the T80 uses an extra live armor which is not show here.
mjufpn 3 years ago
The M1Abrams main problem is it's turbine engine, it's a good tank but will never be great because of it. The Americans have discovered that the M1 will slow down an attack because they have to keep it near supply lines, it has huge fuel consumption.
moncai1 3 years ago
its no way near as good as western tanks
tests taken out against leopard 2s showed that it was gun was not effective beyond 1000m and the leopard could pierce the t80 armour with one shot
mingles12 3 years ago
There were T-80 vs Leo 2 "tests"?, can you link me to some sources I want to see what they did, thanks.
vtkrey 3 years ago
iv been looking for a day but havnt found but i know its definatly on wikipedia coz i found whilst looking at the challenger coz its might be getting the same gun as the leopard 2
but i will keep looking from time to time and if i find it i will give u shout
mingles12 3 years ago
Ok thanks.
vtkrey 3 years ago
had the cold war gone hot in the 80's we would of had some vicious tank battles
tw1nk3rs 3 years ago
ХУЙНЯ РУССКОЕ.А ЧЕ АЛКОГОЛИКИ МОГУТ НАТВОРИТЬ КАЧЕСТВЕННОЕ ?
so2murad 3 years ago
Сравни, что "натворили" русские алкоголики, и что твой народ. Сравнивать то, хоть, есть с чем? Скажи спасибо, что пришли к вам(не стоило того), а то сидел бы в пещере, до сих пор, компутер бы, в лучшем случае, только на картинке видел.
Alexeich87 3 years ago
so2murad, СЛЫШЬ УЕБОК, ТЫ ЕБЛО ТО ПОДЗАВАЛИ. ВСЯ ЕВРОПА СОСАЛА У РУССКИХ И ДАЛЬШЕ СОСАТЬ БУДЕТЕ! ТЫ НЕ ПОПУТАЛСЯ? ТЫ СУКА ВОДКУ ЖРЁШЬ НЕБОСЬ ПО КРУЧЕ ЧЕМ МЫ.
BratanMF 3 years ago 3
Yeah, it's the way they do size their weapons (152mm,132mm,122mm), small differences. To put a 152mm weapon in a tank makes it way to big. Remove the turret and place it in the hull like the Swedish S tank is possible and might actually work quite well.
Scrat335 3 years ago
Killazer. The T-95 was going to have a 135mm gun. There was no way you could put a 150mm without drastically altering the design. The biggest asset the T-80 has over wester tanks is it's mobility. At 45 tons it is much more easy on the terrain and bridges. Most western tanks weigh 60 to 70 tons. T-80s would shoot them to pieces as they wallowed in the mud. Mobility and a good, big gun. It is light on armor but then it has speed to make up for it.
Scrat335 3 years ago
I woul not say that its armor light.
It's a smaller by weight, but stronger than abrams or merkava.
rusbp 3 years ago
Yeah and it has a much easier to fly hull! At least we are not arguing over if the USA is russian territory anymore.....
HunterofDemons 3 years ago
It would be a 152mm if they did put a gun in that range on it.
155-American,NATO
150-WW2,Pre WW2 German.
Dudtz 3 years ago
LOL.
rusbp 3 years ago
Also in the first Iraq war Iraqs T-72s were being bombed and torn apart from the air long before they came in contact with any Abrams. Most T-72s that came in contact with Abrams were most likely far from any kind of fighting shape and only came in contact because they had no choice.
Killazer 3 years ago
Who needs tanks when the USA is going to be defeated yet again against people armed only with AK47's and RPG's? Vietnam and now Afghan and Iraq. And the neo-conservatives want to tangle with a capable foe such as Iran! LMAO!
thegoosebrain 3 years ago
Oh yea, I wanna see that!
GeneralPaccepa 3 years ago
t-80 is best tank on the world
ljubisa88 3 years ago
T-80UM1's really ad vanced and is one of the best tanks in the world
TankAce1 3 years ago
The same was done in Grozny as the tanks ran out of fuel and ammunition the crew members would blow it up, so the insurgents couldn't use them.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
I know most of the tanks in iraq that were critically hit were stripped for parts and then destroyed by "us". Others were salvaged, but some were hit by Alache and such as a mistake. problem is most iraqui take credit for a destroyed Abram, when in reality we were the ones that destroyed it rather than leave it intact for them to come check out.
biggee316 3 years ago
Mass-Media also takes an active part in war.
But still, Abramses are said to destroy 500-1000 tanks in Iraq campaign. While the fotos from Iraq show that tanks were mostly destroyed by their own crews. They ran out of fuel and ammo. No machine guns on turrets, no auxialiry fuel barrels, hatch covers locked up in opened position. Other tanks were torn apart which is an evidence of airforces job and naval artillery.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
yugo tanks are much beter lalalala
KRAJISNIK21 3 years ago
nice tank
AARRA9 3 years ago
I know what the fuck the Air Force did, I was there... but the fact is that most M1 friendly fire were from Apache & Naval Tactical Missiles not from other M1A2's, stop watching "Courage Under Fire" too much, cus nonoe of that shit happened, the best fight they gave the 2AD was a Republican Guard outfit in Medina Ridge... T-80's lit up like a box of matches!
biggee316 3 years ago
I didn't say anything about friendly fire from Abramses. In case of "immonilization" tanks were "finished" by other tanks. THere was another guy yelling "I was there!!!" we left some comments on burnt down Abrams remains.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
Iraq didnt have any T-80 tanks and if it did it didnt have any with the same armor packages and systems used in the upgraded T-80Us. The new T-95 has a 150mm gun and I would bet that could make an Abrams light up like a 'box of matches' as well with a direct hit.
Killazer 3 years ago
First off... war is utter CHAOS! no matter how well you plan it will never go exactly as planned, I don't care who you are, so considering that we OBLITERATED their armor 6 losses is pretty damned good, specially since no T-72 ever layed a hand on an Abram, those casualties were not all "kills" they were lucky infantry AT hits, and yes the crews survived.
biggee316 3 years ago
biqqee316, say HI to air forces which destroyed majority of armoury in Middle East)). Read up discussion between me and jackhenry1925)
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
I really enjoyed your discussion, good work, guys!
GeneralPaccepa 3 years ago
As a third point, I also add that only 12 Abrams' were destroyed in the invasion. Six to friendly fire (a bit of an embarrassment), four to other causes (two of them lucky bastards with RPGs) and two to friendly fire. Those last two were up and running not long after being "taken out" and are still in Iraq to this day.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
Is it a statistics or nominal ratings of cannons? The visual contact is limited by different conditions. Tanks are used as a fixed firing point for defensive action. You can't see armoured vehicles in range of 4 km, it's just impossible. Cannons of all contemrporary tanks can hit the target in range of 4000 meters. The difference in killing range is very slight so it's a matter of tactics and way of use that leads to victory. Succes doesn't depend on nominal characteristics only.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
In the desert, you can easily see the targets. And T-72's, 55's and Type 69 tanks used by the Iraqis were taken out-I say again, TAKEN OUT, at distances of 4000 meters. That's the beauty of the Abrams' computerized fire-control systems: they can spot targets at a huge distance. Keep in mind that these kills took place at dawn or dusk or in the night when mirages caused by the desert heat did not effect the tanks. During the nighttime the Abrams' simply used night vision and/or infrared.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
they used ATGMs to hit the Iraqi tanks? Did they use Bradleys to spot the targets?
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
No, they used shells to hit the Iraqi tanks. The Abrams' themselves spotted the targets. An Abrams gun is extremely powerful-quite capable of hitting a target and killing it at distances of 4 kilometers. I'm sure the T-80 could do the same.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
no wonder T72M refer to 1960s and outfitted with 1st gen infrared sights. The best armour piercing ammunition (ЗВБМ9) of Iraqi 125mm cannon was was discarded from Soviet Army in 1973 before introduction of Abrams adn Challenger types. This ammunition was to encounter American M60A3 tanks. Whilst Challengers and Abramses were equipped with heat vision sights, new armour and had new HVAP projectiles with depleted uranium penetrators. These tanks refer to different gens.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
it would be the same if M60A3 had to encouner T80U/UK/UD or T90 tanks. I bet ammunition of M60A3 isn't capable of penetrating 3 gen armour and hitting tanks at range of 2000 - 3000 meters provided it's equipped with primary fire control systems (like on T55/54)
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
The gun is of German design. The one installed on Leopard tanks
yesdvt 3 years ago
4000 meters isnt a hard shot in the open desert. The ability for the shell to penetrate at 4000m is pretty good, but the tanks they were hitting were very old non-upgraded versions of at the best model the T-72.
Tanks are still very vulnerable in cities and built up areas if you are fighting a real opponent with weapons, training, and will to fight.
Killazer 3 years ago
Well, yes, I suppose you are right about the T-72s, but 4000 meters isn't an easy shot to take in any kind of terrain. It's difficult to see 1000 meters with the naked eye and 3000 meters with a pair of binoculars.
As well, regardless of the age of the tanks being fought, the rounds being used were reasonably modern. When they hit the armor of an Abrams, they caused very little damage. This is because the armor is depleted uranium, and therefore extremely difficult to penetrate.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
World war 2 tanks could fire out to 2000-2500 meters with their siting and optics... so im not amazed. The Tiger could probably fire out to 4000 meters although it wouldnt kill anything granted unless it got very lucky.
As for the t-72 not penetrating im not surprised. T-72 would probably have to be at 500 meters to penetrate abrams from the front.
Killazer 3 years ago
Indeed. That is due to the depleted Uranium armor. And although the Abrams' did suffer some problems in street warfare, the crews learned very quickly to up-armor their rear and sides, although the front was tough enough already.
Keep in mind that the T-72 and the T-80 both share the same Rapira-3 125 millimeter smoothbore gun.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
an abrams has Chobham amror not DU that is used in its sabbot round
Nac56 3 years ago
Actually, in 1989 or so the Chobham was replaced with depleted Uranium. Yes, DU is also used in the APFSDS rounds, but Chobham is mostly just used by the British.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
They actually has a peace on Discovery Channel about tanks where it was said that Iraq's T72 immobilized Abrams by firing from 1000m. The crew survived. The first account of the tank commander was taken. Keep in mind that Iraq used older ammunition which is not used in Russia anymore.
yesdvt 3 years ago
Listen, 4 000 meters good for russians, because russian tank gun shoot not a sheld, but laser- targeting rocket.
rusbp 3 years ago
Yes, but an Abrams can annihilate a target at the same distance with an APFSDS rounds. That's pretty damn impressive.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
I still mean to avoid an angry argument (we must bite each others' heads off like civilized people for gods sakes!) but in Basra in 2003 British forces engaged 14 T-72's with 14 Challenger 2's. The Challengers all survived the battle, which was close for tank standards (a few hundred meters), further proof that the air force was not the sole destroying force in that invasion.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
As well, (still not meaning to get you angry or start a fight), in one case five Abrams' engaged five Iraqi-built T-72's at a distance of about fifty yards. The Americans sustained no losses, while all five Iraqi tanks were destroyed.
But you are right in one way: several Abrams' have been disabled by RPGs and IED's. Sadly for the Abrams crews, their tank is designed largely for tank-on-tank engagements. Their armor is strong, but not always strong enough.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
for tanks 50 yards distance (in metrical system) is the same as if two men were fighting with knifes in the 2 x 2 room. And armour-piercing composite shot from 125mm cannon of old Iraqui T72M and T72M1 were capable of hitting Abrams M1A1 from the range 800 meters (no info on A2 but 50 yards is closer I guess). And it's very close, comsidering that tank battles start at the range of 2000 meters.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
That is true. Indeed, at that distance it is like a nose-to-nose knifefight. You clearly are informed of usual tank tactics like distances, and I assure you, the bout did take place.
Keep in mind that the Abrams could knock out a T-72, Russian or Iraqi-made, at distances of 4000 meters or less with a 97% chance of hitting the target and an only slightly smaller chance of knocking the target out.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
Yep. It's a tragedy considering that they're actually all really good tanks.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
It's a beautiful tank but, after that 1996 Battle of Grozny, I think I'd rather be in an Abrams.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
What happend there?
GeneralPaccepa 3 years ago
In a terrible incident, Chechens took out 18 T-80s in a single day. Later on they knocked-out five or six more. Lucky bastards knew how to work their RPGs.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
A T-80 is such a bad thing to waste.
I looked for a wikipedia page just after you send me the first comment, unfortunetly, due to some unknown problem I can't see it.
GeneralPaccepa 3 years ago
Did you try "Battle of Grozny (1996)"?
If that doesn't work than just look up T-80 tank on Wiki, and it should tell ya about it.
It may have actually been 16, but I'm not sure.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
T80s did not have reactive armour in assault of Grozny in 1994 (tragedy happened on December 31, 1994). And went into town without infantry support. Chechens allocated groups of "tank hunters". Each group consisted of RPG-7, sniper and machine-gunner. 10 groups would attack one tank from upper storey wondows at the same time.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
it wouldn't be of much help if you were in Abrams in Grozny 1994. Weakest points of every tank turret roof, engine compartment cover and hatches of crew. Tanks are not for urban warfare, they make a good targets in narrow streets without enough space for manouvers enabling use of main gun and coaxial machine-gun. Moreover those T80s were charged with high-flammable avia fuel (the cause is not identified)
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
Very well. Still, the Abrams proved itself well in Desert Storm and the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
they were in Desert. However several Abramses were immobilized by RPG shooters and AT-mines in street battles. Not cavalry but airforces destroyed all T62s, T72s, T55s of Saddam's Guards:-)). Abramses has been located in town outskirts and Bradleys were following infantry which advanced and cleaned out insurgents from the buildings.
IgoRAZ12345 3 years ago
I think you may have it a little backwards, IgoRAZ. Well, actually-I mean no offense in saying this-you've got it totally backwards. American tank doctrine is the same as Nazi tank doctrine: the tanks go ahead of the infantry, busting through the defenses while the infantry deal with any remaining pockets of resistance.
Also, don't forget the many, many tank battles against the Republican Guard in the Gulf War. Example: Battle of 73 Easting. All tanks, no air support was used.
jackhenry1925 3 years ago
Don't joke the russians......
rjkampen 4 years ago
T-80 was meant to conquer Europe to get to English Channel in 72 hours. Most of T80s were located in European part of Russia to encounter NATO Leopard tanks, meanwhile all all other military districts were equipped with T-72 tanks of different modification.
IgoRAZ12345 4 years ago 3
the chink tpe-99 is just a fucking rippof of the t-72. the ruskies have always made better tanks than the chinese. the t-80 and t-90 have better frontal armor with era than the chinese piese of shit and better guns.there more feul efficient and more maneuverable.
meatyclaws 4 years ago 2
Actually, it seams that everywhere they are producing after russian blueprints!
Even India, who bought 400 units of the T-90 will produce another 2000 units.
North Korea has bought one of every new tank available. T-72 T-80 T-90...Everything.
GeneralPaccepa 4 years ago
t-90 is the best
Dima100 4 years ago
i aint russian and i am on no one side but is funny how tazzmaniak says "You're russian!!! You're communist!!!!you don't know what's that "human wrights". when he cant even spell human rights. :)
hamudydudy1 4 years ago
Its my oppinion. One thing is obvious...You are not very polite :-)
BugattiVeyron123 4 years ago
are you on drugs zudunow?
bigfatpirate 4 years ago
It is a nice clip and song. What is the name of the song?
amirforman 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hitler! stalin! putin! bush! is a childish gay, fooling all people..!!!
russian, american, chinese, uk, muslim, europe, asian country, all world nuke? are weakling shit.!!! asteroid cannot blow up earth, comet&blackhole cannot destroy universe, new & old life forms still alive again.!!!
HOW WEAK..!!! ALL NUKES & WEAPONS OF HUMANS CANNOT EVEN DESTROY EARTH.. very very weak weapons..!!!
earth must be planted of super bomb also the universe must be destroyed...!!!
zudunow 4 years ago
target tracking system is pretty good.
Xterraman 4 years ago
man muss Panzer auch fahren können
gurugerus 4 years ago
Very impressive and capable tank! I always admired the Russians for their talent in technology. The Russians are a very simpathetic people. Sadly, their political system is still to corrupt, so that the whole nation suffers. If they manage to improve and stabilise their country, we can expect many amazing things from Russia! I sincerely wish success! Even as Russia was "our" No.1 adversary in my past military days....;-)
busyhornet55 4 years ago 4
russia has a bad reputation due to it's past yet i think it's a underrated nation.. many hidden technologies and culture is kept out of our regular readings.. the majority of the people are simple folks but the political system is still runned like the mafia
hbonli 4 years ago
Bad reputation is Good PR (propagand)
We've had bad times. Bad Russia wasn't even worse than other states.. Just has own interests.
Political "system ran as mafia" is the main result of "democratical" reforms on US prescriptions
GenaMatogen 4 years ago 2
topol07,agreed.48819(O.K.)
48819 4 years ago
guys,hallo everyone! 120-th BTZ (Kirchmozer) ..-86.JUST MEMORY IS IMPORTANT.PEACE TO HUMANS.D..TO `"ANIMALS". O.K.
48819 4 years ago
it's like leopard 2 or better :-)
ichbinsdoch 4 years ago
The vid is great!
WWintermute 4 years ago
yago i guess you r polish i guess, well i must agree that we russians did the staff u mentioned its history yes (and executing fellow officers was a very low cheap act also brutal and cowardly) all nations have cimitted mistakes but still Germany played the biggest role in starting world war 2.
topol07 4 years ago
I play Cold War Crisis game, I love the T-80. I know the M1 abram is better but I still love Russian tanks. They have this cool looks.
teng27 4 years ago
I know the Abram's a better tank along with the Leopard, K2 etc. But, the T-80 will always be my favourite tank. I loved it since I was 6 years old, and I will always love it...^^ Rusky power!
WarlordZike 4 years ago
what teh hell i am american (dotn read name) but still i think german tanks will always be better then ours WW2 and Modern and Germany started the 2nd world war i studied this stuff all my life, i should know
ARomanianKid14 4 years ago
Hunter your a fucking idiot. Stop pretending you know anything. The truth is, that "brain" of yours is filled with shit.
eronyn 4 years ago