Doesn't the T-80 Need to stop moving to fire after all i heard in one of the tanks if it fires while moving it could damage the transmission or something
@TheArbiter138 depends what you've heard about the range, generally it depends on ammunition used and which tank your talking about of course but generally soviet/russian tanks can generally match thier competitors in terms of range
in fact the most modern Russian tank using laser guided ammunition has an maximum effective range of 5-8km where the M1 abrams and the leopard 2 have a maximum effective range on about 3-4km
in fact thats only the maximum effective combat range, it could go further but its difficult because the laser wouldn't be able to see the target because they would effectively be over the horizon . . . .
would be funny to see a tank that could actually fly... not just jump...though the t-80 is an impressive piece of businees i even favour it over the t-90.
@FINwarfare Yeah but all tanks have weak armor there, And nato tanks with large smooth turret are very worse. T80U turret is small, and half of the roof is covered with ERA.
@Qoooba95 Late T80U is superior to T90. Abrams is nothing more modern, exept a new computer... And yes, the T80U will hide in forest border, invisible, it will fire a 6km range 125mm laser guided missile 900mm + era penetration, at the abrams that will never knew what happened once it will be on fire.
@PATRONSKiii man its a bit difficult for me to believe that Russians would design a new type of tank which is T90 and it wouldnt be superior to the previous generation tank T80
@Qoooba95 However, it's true. You have to look at the roots and history of both tanks, and not making an idea on what they are today. T80U came in 1985, T72B in 1983. The T80U was widely superior to all russian tank of the time, and equal level than M1a1, Leo2a4 (even better on some levels : armour and mobility). After collapse and bankrupt 1989-1992, new russia had no more the T80 technopole : kharkov in ukraine. The cost of maintain and spare piece for T80 was too much
@Qoooba95 So, they developped something 100% russian, based on the T72. T72 factory and designer are in ural. At the time, they had the T72BV, a very upgraded T72, with good stuff, reliable as a bolt action rifle, and overall very good for russian needs (no more cold war). The T72BV is however very inferior to T80U for : optics, mobility, crew confort, armour. They decided to make a T80U in a T72B tank, and that created the T72BU, later called T90.
@Qoooba95 The first T90 are different in those point of the T72BV : new turret with better composite armour (still a cast turret), fitted with the reactive armour of the T80U : the kontact-5. Optronic of the T80U were fitted, as well as its barrel 2a46M-1/5. A more powerful diesel engine than T72B, but still not as good as t80 GAS turbine.
other stuff : front hull thicker, with K5 era, and SHTORA jammer on turret.
These first T90 are overall inferior to the modernized T80U
@Qoooba95 The T90 was meant to be a cheap tank, in the T72 style, the T80U still remaining the elite tank awaiting the hypotetical T95. But we can consider later variant of T90 : T90A or T90M better than the T80U. New T90 have better turret welded, improved K5 or relikt armour, a 1000HP diesel engine, thermal sights etc... But it's only true because T80U are getting old, new tank based on T80UD : T84 and T84OPLOT from ukraine are better than T90A.
@Qoooba95 But still, this is true for a marginal comparison 1vs1, again, ukrain produced like 300 or 500 T84, and 20 oplot, and they will never have the production capacity of russia, and the T90 is way cheaper to produce, as a result, a big force of T90A worth better than a small force of T84.
@PATRONSKiii thx for some interesting stuff 'bout both tanks and few historical facts, but i checked up few different sources and they clearly pinpoint the most modern Russian tank title to T90. It's true that they' re both third generation. But T90 is further evolution of T80U, based partially on its components.
T - 80 little marker, a very fast and can also fire missiles (anti-tank guided missiles). He also easier to Abrams, but the armor is much better! And it is a simple and reliable tank.
Hahaha! At first, i finished Saint-Pitersburg State Universaty (Historical faculty) At second, i drink a few alcohol. And In the third on the statistican, every sixth American - the alcoholic.
Hahaha! At first, i finished Saint-Pitersburg State Universaty (Historical faculty) At second, i drink a few alcohol. And In the third on the statistican, every sixth American - the alcoholic.
Hahaha! At first, i finished Saint-Pitersburg State Universaty (Historical faculty) At second, i drink a few alcohol. And In the third on the statistican, every sixth American - the alcoholic.
@lolman706 So true. But just saying, the quality of the T-80 sucks and it's poor. But they have huge numerous amounts of tanks. Just saying, you gotta good point though. But I still think the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 can still take em down.
Hahaha, T-80 the best tank in the world. It kill anyone Abrams or Leopard. 1. It small. 2 Can launch ROCKET! 3. Have nice armor. So what do you think that your tank batter?
i hate when people compare us and iraq's inventory during the gulf war. Iraq had old soviet equpment with old types of shells and rounds, not to mention tank crews from iraq. they used first model of t-72's and old t-62's. in general their inventory was old soviet made. u people compare abrams to t-72, why dont u compare us tanks to the same time when first t-72's came out? do some research, russian kontack-5 ERA composite armour on t-72's wasnt penetrated by guns of 120mm tanks from abrams.
Indeed, while some of the Soviet models of tanks had some flaws, those are greatly exagerated in western media and ignore many of the strengths soviet armor often has (Hello Amphibious capabilities!) People take things at face value and often fail to realize that one model of tank may have very different submodels produced which vary in capability, and that its the crews and leadership that often make up the effectiveness of the machine
No instead they get "Disabled" which means they are useless for combat, get taken home and rebuilt, effectively making it a new tank, That said, those tank losses are to IEDs generally, not enemy fire
That also said though, their opposition has not necessarily been the most top of the range either so its abit give and take, but I think most Abram crews could drive into battle with alot of confidence in their machine
@TEEJAY9920 Yes. 770 has been damaged, 80 M1's been destroyed in action and there was 15 crew deaths ONLY. But most of them were friendly fires so M1 Abrams are pretty good. But the best one is the Leopard 2. The Challenger 2 is good also. It's your opinion. All tanks have their up's and down's so.
I havent seen a Russian tank division ever engage an opponent armed with heavy armor, SCUDs, fighter aricraft, SAMs, and dug in positions while 4000 miles from home, and destroy the 4th largest military in the world (saddams army was russian and chinese technology) but you can hope Americas economy collapses and ends
@asianiinvasion Forgot to mention Saddams army was outdated russian and chinese technology and that the USSR wasnt give its best of its weapons to their allies.Heavy armor?SCUDs?Fighter aircrafts?Looks like you played too much Generals mate.
@alieu156 Because it can't anymore. Just how their satellite-states were able to leave the fallen Soviet Union, because they couldn't fight back anymore.
@CoverandFire1993 It never did. The only foreign war the Soviet Union ever fought was in Afghanistan, ironically against Islamic extremists. Compare that with the number of foreign wars the peace-loving USA has fought all over the world. The US Navy has at least one carrier fleet in every ocean at all times to intimidate less powerful countries. There is no reason to do this unless you want to control other countries. The satellite states left because Gorbachev gave them a referendum.
@alieu156 So your saying the US has carrriers in each oceab to threaten less poweful countries. Which basically means. If that country attacks the USa the Carrier fleet wil attack them? Thats nothing new.
@blackhawk438 That wouldn't be so bad, but the problem is it's not just countries that attack the US that are bombed, but also countries whose governments don't go along with what the US wants them to do. North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia etc. never attacked the USA but they were still bombed. And that's not even counting the smaller conflicts like Panama and Grenada. None of these are wars of self-defence.
@alieu156 North Korea? Oh yeah, they just attacked the south which the americans decided to help when they asked for it. North vietnam, looks like the south also wanted help. Plus they were commited to defending those countries. Yeah has partly to do with governement but thats not the whole trut. Serbiacommited mass genocides which NATo interened in. Just happened to be he US which had a big presence there. But it wasn't speicifically THEM who attacked. Iraq was a mess and mistake. but not other
@blackhawk438 The Afghan government also asked the Soviets to send troops to help them fight the Mujahideen in 1979, who were being armed and funded by the US. So i suppose you think that the Soviets were justified. And the Afghan Government wasn't even set up by the Soviets, it was an independent Communist revolution. South Korea and South Vietnam were both puppet states. South Korea was set up by the US after WW2, and South Vietnam was set up by the French and later backed by the US.
@alieu156 Don't play with me. the soviets had inflitrated the afghan gonverment. many of the officers and high commanders were soviet. They Knew everything going on inside the afghna goverment since it was partly run by the soviets. The issues they enountered got to Moscow before the afghan official reports did. It was a puppet state ok. I have a 500 page book on that. I can give you the name. Belive me it was controlled by the soviets. Not only the US which did that like you tried to show.
@blackhawk438 Sorry to post another coment because I've already put too many on this vid but if the US is so commited to stopping mass genocides then why didn't it intervene in Darfur? That was much worse than Kosovo. And why has the US always taken everyone else's side against the Serbs? It's not just them that commited genocide. How many Serbs live in Kosovo or Croatia or Bosnia today? Not many because they were all forced out. How come they back countries like Indonesia, Israel etc.?
@alieu156 Because everyone hates us for anything we do. We go in a war and people hate on us. Doesn't matter for what cause. Jeez just visit any recent news vdeo. Egypt had a revolution there and I saw more comments hating on the US than about the evolution itsself. Thats why we don't. Your also questioning who we back. Sorry but people would hate us even more if we constantly switched sides.we 'd be hyprcrites and more.
@CoverandFire1993 Fighting back satellite states for russia would mean something like Washington fighting California or Florida. If people of California would vote to separate from US they would do so, and US would not fight back either. This is called democracy, the thing that US was fighting for, all over the world since the civil war.
@covoxer Doesn't the civil war kind of contradict that, since the South wanted to seperate from the North and the North responded by attacking the South and forcing them to remain in the United States?
@alieu156 1. South was not following constitution when declaring secession.
2. South attacked first at Fort Sumter.
3. This was 150 years ago. Not modern USA.
4. If it was today though, South would violate declaration of human rights with their slavery.
To sum it up - there was no democratic voting for secession in Southern States. And I said: "If people of California would vote to...", and: "This is called democracy...". There was no democracy in Southern States either.
Well...russia,s still the enemy of the world so my opinion comes from that contempt i suppose.(I know the T-80,s a big bad toy but im american an have to spit towards the east like all the free people,s) Wouldnt you like to be american too?
Im hungarian, but I almost got the canadian citizenship, after living there 3,5 years
well if I could choose I would be canadian, australian, but not american :D
T-80, T90 is a bad ass tank, probably cheap(relative) to produce in mass numbers, like the T-34-s eventally beat the panzers, you could produce 10 t34-s for 1 tiger
@akeris40000 . . . and at the battle of Kursk the Russians where able to defeat the Germans in large part due to numbers. The Germans had much better tanks (though not fully tested or proven models), but the Russians sacrificed some quality to gain quantity which worked to their advantage.
@beingsmythos Most of the mass produced tanks were T-34's. With large numbers they kept the Wehermacht in stress(most of the kills were Wehermacht,Infantry and artillery). But in terms of tank-tank battle Russians and Germans were kicking each others asses, the Russians (though with monstrous tanks such as ISU-152 and IS-2) mostly relied on strategy(except T-34 relied on numbers), ie ambushes by them were devastating, usually single hits from those tanks can destroy Tigers and even Panthers.
It isn`t less armoured at all. It`s smaller (in all aspects) more compact but not less armoured. The volume/armor ratio is higher in a T80/T90 than any western tank and with K-5 ERA in terms of protection the T80U should be just above the M1A1 Abrams
The West however, has put a great deal of importance on the personal safty of soldiers. So, there planes, tanks, gear and other equipment is safer and more expensive. That is not to say they canot be killed or damaged by a cheap soviet bullet or tank round but its a different mind set.
I mean that alot of Russian (and easten European/Chinese) equipment is built to be reliable and easy to manufacture, field, and maintain. I'm not saying that they are Cheap but They would be of lesser quality than a German Tank round, but no less leathal.
no but they increase it, how many occaisons do you think a tank will jump through the air and fire its cannon in combat, and i know one think from working in a tank workshop, the torsion bar suspension will suffer greatly from the landings, as well as the crew
Good Lord, why cant people just agree that almost all tanks, jets, ships, and guns are equal. They are all capaple at killing people and that is not a great thing. Heck, most cars, TV's, apliances and other everyday things all work the same. The real question is how they are used and who is using them.
The Russian Military has never really put a great deal of though into the personal protection of its soldiers, so they do build less protected, and cheaper military harware.
Yeah but the Abrams was upgraded hundred times since...the T-80 has remained the same, it doesn't even have a computer in it...M1 is better than the T-80, the T-90 is better than M1 (according to me)
thats the same as saying that the 1978 M1 is the same as 1984 m1a1. first of all, the M1 has a 105mm british rifled gun, the M1A1 has a 120mm gun, the same as leo2
ALSO the T-80. first model in 1976, not much different from T-72 except for the chasis. then the T-80B- new gen composite armor, FIRST tank with a gas-turbine engine, and the FIRST tank with reactive armor. T-80U, new turret, fire control system, engine, gun, electronics. T-84 same as T-80U but with computers and RADAR jammers.
are you fucking retarded? seriously, do you need a helmet and floaties when you eat cerial?
T-80 has no computers? are you fucking kidding?? I am seriously trying to grasp how anyone can be that god damn stupid... according to you, unicorns sell news papers, and giant talking napkins are doctors wrapped in people skin i bet huh? atleast according to YOU right? HA go fucking learn something you little dipshit... Let me tell you something, the T-80U and T-90 are better than the Abrams
Sure the gun is stabilized. but still, firing from such a speed is less effective. it's good for show but you won't hit much with it., real tank will move at the most 20 kmh in rough terrain to effectively use their main gun..
Russian tanks are built for offensive fighting on the move, they are fully capable of hitting targets at 2-3km away while going 45kph on a rough terrain. That's why they are built with small turrets and low silhouettes.
ya know your opinion is so jaded by your love for inferior engineering its really amusing. i have trained with alot of soviet equipment when i was stationed in western europe. also with opfor in california. i hope you get the chance to be in one of these rolling coffins when it gets hit by a hellfire, javelin, tow, dragon, or even a lucky shot with a law. mix gas with sand and place on the "T" turrets, they go boom when the ammo heats up. so cramped and small, death traps. u will b dead.
I think this tank is protected better than any other and with acive defense system "Arena" his defense will be un vulnerable. So what im trying to say is that T-80 rocks!
"Automatic loaders suck, seriously. They jam all the time."
your arguments suck
modern russian loaders are reliable and fast (faster than any human loader). Autoloader gives other advantages too (weight/cost efficiency, lower profile, human-factor independence)
An M1 would gobble this up!
TheMike00Jones 1 month ago
@TheMike00Jones and vice versa
NosferatuAaacaado 6 days ago
@NosferatuAaacaado What?
TheMike00Jones 22 hours ago
LOST IN SPACE
jarvy251 1 month ago
In Soviet Russia, T80s mean "quality" and T72's mean "quantity" :)
easterndragon9x 2 months ago
Doesn't the T-80 Need to stop moving to fire after all i heard in one of the tanks if it fires while moving it could damage the transmission or something
TheArbiter138 3 months ago
@TheArbiter138 thats a myth about the T-72, not true really, just somthing else made up by the west to discredit soviet tank design
akeris40000 3 months ago
@akeris40000 what about the range is that a myth to
TheArbiter138 2 months ago
@TheArbiter138 depends what you've heard about the range, generally it depends on ammunition used and which tank your talking about of course but generally soviet/russian tanks can generally match thier competitors in terms of range
in fact the most modern Russian tank using laser guided ammunition has an maximum effective range of 5-8km where the M1 abrams and the leopard 2 have a maximum effective range on about 3-4km
akeris40000 2 months ago
@akeris40000 holy fuck thats far
TheArbiter138 2 months ago
@TheArbiter138 lol quite
in fact thats only the maximum effective combat range, it could go further but its difficult because the laser wouldn't be able to see the target because they would effectively be over the horizon . . . .
akeris40000 2 months ago
master
davidlucasfer 4 months ago
haha you with your Abrams Leopard 2 or T-95 Black Eagle make your Abrams with one shoot done
Americans make exchange the Cannon of Abrams because they not the Soviet tanks could destroy
my Feedback from Germany
JustAk103 6 months ago
pinchi musica de mierda
VREDESBIRD 6 months ago 2
in t80 have wood furnace, your ipod and cd player smokes on the sidelines
XJIOP 8 months ago
Yes ..Demonstration thats the only thing this "tank" can do .
ViciousCritique 9 months ago
i told u u done goofd!
ShadowGKCP 10 months ago
Watch that turret fly when hit....woohoo
flanker271 10 months ago
people and countrie in the woeld perfer russian made stuff cause its cheap and accurate bu not entirely accurate , but economicly cheaper
cammander263 11 months ago
LOL lost In Space!
Sismiques 11 months ago
Beautiful! This tank will really help keep your oppressive masters in power, Russia!
Muad420 1 year ago
T80 is very beautiful tank.. i like russian's tank but.. always russian tanks have low efficiency :(
verdian225 1 year ago
@verdian225 Why do you say that?
999cheetos999 1 year ago
USA really needs new tanks,these kill it I'm sorry to say,beautiful.
25Milimeter 1 year ago
Now did it hit the target?
mgibbs88 1 year ago
would be funny to see a tank that could actually fly... not just jump...though the t-80 is an impressive piece of businees i even favour it over the t-90.
Gotcha1234Mariok 1 year ago
T-80 is one of the best but it has low protection...
hohanas32 1 year ago
abrams is next generation tank - generation after t80. t90 maybe could threat abrams but t80 can hide itself in deep bush :P
Qoooba95 1 year ago
@Qoooba95 No. T80 is a good tank with 125mm Cannon.
Only thing which is bad in T80 is the top of the tank, it has weak armor over there.
I think it's good tank against Abrams.
FINwarfare 1 year ago
@FINwarfare Yeah but all tanks have weak armor there, And nato tanks with large smooth turret are very worse. T80U turret is small, and half of the roof is covered with ERA.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@Qoooba95 Late T80U is superior to T90. Abrams is nothing more modern, exept a new computer... And yes, the T80U will hide in forest border, invisible, it will fire a 6km range 125mm laser guided missile 900mm + era penetration, at the abrams that will never knew what happened once it will be on fire.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii The Abrams has a CD player. And can plug in Ipod. BEAT THAT.
blackhawk438 1 year ago 24
@blackhawk438 bullshit !! it is a tank you stupid what you saw it in your dream !!
TheKifinas 8 months ago
@TheKifinas No It actually does have one...
blackhawk438 6 months ago
It also work as your own graveyard!!
enjoy
tinmaptd 8 months ago
@tinmaptd Least you went down with your ipod
blackhawk438 7 months ago
Damn i wish i have one
tinmaptd 7 months ago
if only to shove it up the ass
yacishincunha 6 months ago
@blackhawk438 I can mod that myself
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@blackhawk438 won't help you much when you're dead!!
MrXclio 6 months ago
@blackhawk438 cv9030 has speakers outside so everyone can enjoy ur music beat that
Jussi453 4 months ago
@Jussi453 Maybe but it would give you away,
blackhawk438 4 months ago
@blackhawk438 And how does that help in combat?
Josetismo 4 months ago
@Josetismo psycological warfare, you don't undestand :P
TheYamacas1101 3 months ago
@TheYamacas1101 :D , listing to music while in the battlefield, you this is the reason they get destroy.
Josetismo 3 months ago
@PATRONSKiii man its a bit difficult for me to believe that Russians would design a new type of tank which is T90 and it wouldnt be superior to the previous generation tank T80
Qoooba95 1 year ago
@Qoooba95 However, it's true. You have to look at the roots and history of both tanks, and not making an idea on what they are today. T80U came in 1985, T72B in 1983. The T80U was widely superior to all russian tank of the time, and equal level than M1a1, Leo2a4 (even better on some levels : armour and mobility). After collapse and bankrupt 1989-1992, new russia had no more the T80 technopole : kharkov in ukraine. The cost of maintain and spare piece for T80 was too much
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@Qoooba95 So, they developped something 100% russian, based on the T72. T72 factory and designer are in ural. At the time, they had the T72BV, a very upgraded T72, with good stuff, reliable as a bolt action rifle, and overall very good for russian needs (no more cold war). The T72BV is however very inferior to T80U for : optics, mobility, crew confort, armour. They decided to make a T80U in a T72B tank, and that created the T72BU, later called T90.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@Qoooba95 The first T90 are different in those point of the T72BV : new turret with better composite armour (still a cast turret), fitted with the reactive armour of the T80U : the kontact-5. Optronic of the T80U were fitted, as well as its barrel 2a46M-1/5. A more powerful diesel engine than T72B, but still not as good as t80 GAS turbine.
other stuff : front hull thicker, with K5 era, and SHTORA jammer on turret.
These first T90 are overall inferior to the modernized T80U
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@Qoooba95 The T90 was meant to be a cheap tank, in the T72 style, the T80U still remaining the elite tank awaiting the hypotetical T95. But we can consider later variant of T90 : T90A or T90M better than the T80U. New T90 have better turret welded, improved K5 or relikt armour, a 1000HP diesel engine, thermal sights etc... But it's only true because T80U are getting old, new tank based on T80UD : T84 and T84OPLOT from ukraine are better than T90A.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@Qoooba95 But still, this is true for a marginal comparison 1vs1, again, ukrain produced like 300 or 500 T84, and 20 oplot, and they will never have the production capacity of russia, and the T90 is way cheaper to produce, as a result, a big force of T90A worth better than a small force of T84.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii thx for some interesting stuff 'bout both tanks and few historical facts, but i checked up few different sources and they clearly pinpoint the most modern Russian tank title to T90. It's true that they' re both third generation. But T90 is further evolution of T80U, based partially on its components.
Qoooba95 1 year ago
0:41 I came
soapy05 1 year ago
Comment removed
soapy05 1 year ago
Comment removed
soapy05 1 year ago
Abrams run away.
Zukhov1945 1 year ago
@Zukhov1945 Nay.. Abrams annihilates T80. im not even going to argue because you're gonna pull fake info out of your ass
asianiinvasion 1 year ago
@asianiinvasion
You're not going to argue because what you wrote is bullshit and you know that
Z971 1 year ago
@asianiinvasion Russia hater troll
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
after this exercise this tank is scrap...
GRATZIANI2002 1 year ago
Yes, indeed:
T - 80 little marker, a very fast and can also fire missiles (anti-tank guided missiles). He also easier to Abrams, but the armor is much better! And it is a simple and reliable tank.
BearSKINS88 1 year ago
OMG :D this is no t80, its a t90 dumpass
r4id1337shitname 1 year ago
@r4id1337shitname OMG first it's DUMBASS with a B like BITCH, and second, the videos shows a T80U, no T90 here, lear your shit before saying shit.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What kind of bullshit? What can you answer to my arguments?
ete0 1 year ago
@sukhoifanfromitaly
What kind of bullshit? What can you answer to my arguments?
ete0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sukhoifanfromitaly What kind of bullshit? What can you answer to my arguments?
ete0 1 year ago
@sukhoifanfromitaly
What kind of bullshit? What can you answer to my arguments?
ete0 1 year ago
T-90 ftw
Zukhov1945 1 year ago
What else Western tank can launch THE ROCKETS? What else Western tank can fire IN THE FLY?!
ete0 1 year ago
this tank look like crap!!!
cowboylionzden 1 year ago
@cowboylionzden
Idiot, this is the best tank in the world!
ete0 1 year ago
@ete0
WTF thats proved you that you are uneducated vodka drinker,you never learned,remmemer after you collapsed!!!!
cowboylionzden 1 year ago
@cowboylionzden
Hahaha! At first, i finished Saint-Pitersburg State Universaty (Historical faculty) At second, i drink a few alcohol. And In the third on the statistican, every sixth American - the alcoholic.
ete0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cowboylionzden
Hahaha! At first, i finished Saint-Pitersburg State Universaty (Historical faculty) At second, i drink a few alcohol. And In the third on the statistican, every sixth American - the alcoholic.
ete0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cowboylionzden
Hahaha! At first, i finished Saint-Pitersburg State Universaty (Historical faculty) At second, i drink a few alcohol. And In the third on the statistican, every sixth American - the alcoholic.
ete0 1 year ago
@sukhoifanfromitaly M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2 take down all the Russian Tank Asses.
MegaStealth101 1 year ago
probably but by the time you destroy one there's antoher 2 already waitting for ya you just get swamped by tanks and other armomr
lolman706 1 year ago
@lolman706 ?
MegaStealth101 1 year ago
even if the leopard and abrams tank destroy 1 t-80 than another 2 replace him it's i'm saying the only way the russian
s beat the abrams and cahllenger is by swamping them with hundreds of tanks
lolman706 1 year ago
@lolman706 So true. But just saying, the quality of the T-80 sucks and it's poor. But they have huge numerous amounts of tanks. Just saying, you gotta good point though. But I still think the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 can still take em down.
MegaStealth101 1 year ago
@MegaStealth101
Hahaha, T-80 the best tank in the world. It kill anyone Abrams or Leopard. 1. It small. 2 Can launch ROCKET! 3. Have nice armor. So what do you think that your tank batter?
ete0 1 year ago
@ete0 !!! YES
BearSKINS88 1 year ago
i hate when people compare us and iraq's inventory during the gulf war. Iraq had old soviet equpment with old types of shells and rounds, not to mention tank crews from iraq. they used first model of t-72's and old t-62's. in general their inventory was old soviet made. u people compare abrams to t-72, why dont u compare us tanks to the same time when first t-72's came out? do some research, russian kontack-5 ERA composite armour on t-72's wasnt penetrated by guns of 120mm tanks from abrams.
andrius2274 1 year ago
@andrius2274
Indeed, while some of the Soviet models of tanks had some flaws, those are greatly exagerated in western media and ignore many of the strengths soviet armor often has (Hello Amphibious capabilities!) People take things at face value and often fail to realize that one model of tank may have very different submodels produced which vary in capability, and that its the crews and leadership that often make up the effectiveness of the machine
DasVivo 1 year ago
Junk
NoShame86 1 year ago
@sukhoifanfromitaly Nothing beats the M1a1 Abrams tank. Not one has ever been desrtoyed
TEEJAY9920 1 year ago
@TEEJAY9920
No instead they get "Disabled" which means they are useless for combat, get taken home and rebuilt, effectively making it a new tank, That said, those tank losses are to IEDs generally, not enemy fire
That also said though, their opposition has not necessarily been the most top of the range either so its abit give and take, but I think most Abram crews could drive into battle with alot of confidence in their machine
DasVivo 1 year ago
Comment removed
MegaStealth101 1 year ago
@TEEJAY9920 Yes. 770 has been damaged, 80 M1's been destroyed in action and there was 15 crew deaths ONLY. But most of them were friendly fires so M1 Abrams are pretty good. But the best one is the Leopard 2. The Challenger 2 is good also. It's your opinion. All tanks have their up's and down's so.
MegaStealth101 1 year ago
@sukhoifanfromitaly show me proof faggot
asianiinvasion 1 year ago
great video
0TrueRussianMan0 1 year ago
Σε υπηρεσία στην Κυπριακή Εθνοφρουρά. Εντυπωσιακό άρμα.
CASIUSGELAEI 1 year ago
Cool Video
witchwheel 1 year ago
wow
Hliana1127 1 year ago
I havent seen a Russian tank division ever engage an opponent armed with heavy armor, SCUDs, fighter aricraft, SAMs, and dug in positions while 4000 miles from home, and destroy the 4th largest military in the world (saddams army was russian and chinese technology) but you can hope Americas economy collapses and ends
asianiinvasion 1 year ago
@asianiinvasion Forgot to mention Saddams army was outdated russian and chinese technology and that the USSR wasnt give its best of its weapons to their allies.Heavy armor?SCUDs?Fighter aircrafts?Looks like you played too much Generals mate.
Zappina 1 year ago
@asianiinvasion That's because Russia doesn't try to control the world and fight foreign wars.
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 Because it can't anymore. Just how their satellite-states were able to leave the fallen Soviet Union, because they couldn't fight back anymore.
CoverandFire1993 1 year ago
@CoverandFire1993 It never did. The only foreign war the Soviet Union ever fought was in Afghanistan, ironically against Islamic extremists. Compare that with the number of foreign wars the peace-loving USA has fought all over the world. The US Navy has at least one carrier fleet in every ocean at all times to intimidate less powerful countries. There is no reason to do this unless you want to control other countries. The satellite states left because Gorbachev gave them a referendum.
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 So your saying the US has carrriers in each oceab to threaten less poweful countries. Which basically means. If that country attacks the USa the Carrier fleet wil attack them? Thats nothing new.
blackhawk438 1 year ago
@blackhawk438 That wouldn't be so bad, but the problem is it's not just countries that attack the US that are bombed, but also countries whose governments don't go along with what the US wants them to do. North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia etc. never attacked the USA but they were still bombed. And that's not even counting the smaller conflicts like Panama and Grenada. None of these are wars of self-defence.
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 North Korea? Oh yeah, they just attacked the south which the americans decided to help when they asked for it. North vietnam, looks like the south also wanted help. Plus they were commited to defending those countries. Yeah has partly to do with governement but thats not the whole trut. Serbiacommited mass genocides which NATo interened in. Just happened to be he US which had a big presence there. But it wasn't speicifically THEM who attacked. Iraq was a mess and mistake. but not other
blackhawk438 1 year ago
@blackhawk438 The Afghan government also asked the Soviets to send troops to help them fight the Mujahideen in 1979, who were being armed and funded by the US. So i suppose you think that the Soviets were justified. And the Afghan Government wasn't even set up by the Soviets, it was an independent Communist revolution. South Korea and South Vietnam were both puppet states. South Korea was set up by the US after WW2, and South Vietnam was set up by the French and later backed by the US.
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 Don't play with me. the soviets had inflitrated the afghan gonverment. many of the officers and high commanders were soviet. They Knew everything going on inside the afghna goverment since it was partly run by the soviets. The issues they enountered got to Moscow before the afghan official reports did. It was a puppet state ok. I have a 500 page book on that. I can give you the name. Belive me it was controlled by the soviets. Not only the US which did that like you tried to show.
blackhawk438 1 year ago
@blackhawk438
O RLY?
Then why couldn't they figure out that a DRA general would turn traitor?
Sismiques 11 months ago
@blackhawk438 Sorry to post another coment because I've already put too many on this vid but if the US is so commited to stopping mass genocides then why didn't it intervene in Darfur? That was much worse than Kosovo. And why has the US always taken everyone else's side against the Serbs? It's not just them that commited genocide. How many Serbs live in Kosovo or Croatia or Bosnia today? Not many because they were all forced out. How come they back countries like Indonesia, Israel etc.?
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 Because everyone hates us for anything we do. We go in a war and people hate on us. Doesn't matter for what cause. Jeez just visit any recent news vdeo. Egypt had a revolution there and I saw more comments hating on the US than about the evolution itsself. Thats why we don't. Your also questioning who we back. Sorry but people would hate us even more if we constantly switched sides.we 'd be hyprcrites and more.
blackhawk438 1 year ago
@CoverandFire1993 Fighting back satellite states for russia would mean something like Washington fighting California or Florida. If people of California would vote to separate from US they would do so, and US would not fight back either. This is called democracy, the thing that US was fighting for, all over the world since the civil war.
covoxer 1 year ago
@covoxer Doesn't the civil war kind of contradict that, since the South wanted to seperate from the North and the North responded by attacking the South and forcing them to remain in the United States?
alieu156 1 year ago
@alieu156 1. South was not following constitution when declaring secession.
2. South attacked first at Fort Sumter.
3. This was 150 years ago. Not modern USA.
4. If it was today though, South would violate declaration of human rights with their slavery.
To sum it up - there was no democratic voting for secession in Southern States. And I said: "If people of California would vote to...", and: "This is called democracy...". There was no democracy in Southern States either.
covoxer 1 year ago
T-80 is a great tank of russia !
JFK332211 1 year ago
Heh...a competent crew in an old german king tiger could walk on this piece "O" de sheet.
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
lol
r u joking?
Gellande 1 year ago
Well...russia,s still the enemy of the world so my opinion comes from that contempt i suppose.(I know the T-80,s a big bad toy but im american an have to spit towards the east like all the free people,s) Wouldnt you like to be american too?
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
no, not american :D
Im hungarian, but I almost got the canadian citizenship, after living there 3,5 years
well if I could choose I would be canadian, australian, but not american :D
T-80, T90 is a bad ass tank, probably cheap(relative) to produce in mass numbers, like the T-34-s eventally beat the panzers, you could produce 10 t34-s for 1 tiger
Gellande 1 year ago
@Gellande
a T-90s costs $2.2 million (ish)
an M1 Abrams costs $6.2 million (ish)
so roughly u could produce 3 T-90s for every 1 M1
akeris40000 1 year ago 15
@akeris40000 The Russians don't care about quality, they care about quantity.
MegaStealth101 1 year ago
@akeris40000 what is "ish"?
juansyttho 11 months ago
@juansyttho
"ish" is sort of ones of those informal words for "near enough" or "roughly"
akeris40000 11 months ago
@akeris40000 . . . and at the battle of Kursk the Russians where able to defeat the Germans in large part due to numbers. The Germans had much better tanks (though not fully tested or proven models), but the Russians sacrificed some quality to gain quantity which worked to their advantage.
beingsmythos 10 months ago
@beingsmythos Most of the mass produced tanks were T-34's. With large numbers they kept the Wehermacht in stress(most of the kills were Wehermacht,Infantry and artillery). But in terms of tank-tank battle Russians and Germans were kicking each others asses, the Russians (though with monstrous tanks such as ISU-152 and IS-2) mostly relied on strategy(except T-34 relied on numbers), ie ambushes by them were devastating, usually single hits from those tanks can destroy Tigers and even Panthers.
999cheetos999 10 months ago
May the winds blow strongly to the west, then.
zip0v 1 year ago
Cool propaganda video tho Gellande.
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
Its not really that well armoured.
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
@mastersduhgree
It isn`t less armoured at all. It`s smaller (in all aspects) more compact but not less armoured. The volume/armor ratio is higher in a T80/T90 than any western tank and with K-5 ERA in terms of protection the T80U should be just above the M1A1 Abrams
stalingradComando 1 year ago
@mastersduhgree dude your comment shows that you are retarded the king tigers 88 couldn`t penetrate the t-80 back armour at 5 meters
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 OH ..okay.I always wanted to be that.Glad i succedded
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
i agree with the russians but not that they atcck chechnya but still its part of russia so its ther own war
chechenets1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well, i hope the wwIII will come very soon in order to we find out which weapon is better.
petrashin1941 2 years ago
Youl be DEAD!!!
Spockkker 2 years ago 6
The West however, has put a great deal of importance on the personal safty of soldiers. So, there planes, tanks, gear and other equipment is safer and more expensive. That is not to say they canot be killed or damaged by a cheap soviet bullet or tank round but its a different mind set.
russellrush101 2 years ago
However in reality even the expensive western toys get damaged/killed by "cheap soviet bullet or tank round".
vtkrey 2 years ago 2
I mean that alot of Russian (and easten European/Chinese) equipment is built to be reliable and easy to manufacture, field, and maintain. I'm not saying that they are Cheap but They would be of lesser quality than a German Tank round, but no less leathal.
russellrush101 2 years ago 3
Yes I agree.
vtkrey 2 years ago
Agreed.
More expensive electronic equipments do not automatically lead to better combat effectiveness
LigerZeroC 2 years ago
no but they increase it, how many occaisons do you think a tank will jump through the air and fire its cannon in combat, and i know one think from working in a tank workshop, the torsion bar suspension will suffer greatly from the landings, as well as the crew
LewisYounger16 1 year ago
Good Lord, why cant people just agree that almost all tanks, jets, ships, and guns are equal. They are all capaple at killing people and that is not a great thing. Heck, most cars, TV's, apliances and other everyday things all work the same. The real question is how they are used and who is using them.
The Russian Military has never really put a great deal of though into the personal protection of its soldiers, so they do build less protected, and cheaper military harware.
see next post.
russellrush101 2 years ago
I'll enjoy the video while you guys argue over something that can NEVER be agreed on.
ea1k1 2 years ago 2
Black Eagle Tank the best
technologyexpert09 2 years ago 2
two things Russians are good at making:
1 weapons
2 vodka
lol
CarloMarx13 2 years ago 3
It's a good tank but it's old...T-90 is way better
bloodz1311 2 years ago
T-80 is no older than abrams.
1978 M1
1978 T80-B
1984 M1A1
1985 T-80U
patrikasLTL 2 years ago
Yeah but the Abrams was upgraded hundred times since...the T-80 has remained the same, it doesn't even have a computer in it...M1 is better than the T-80, the T-90 is better than M1 (according to me)
bloodz1311 2 years ago
thats the same as saying that the 1978 M1 is the same as 1984 m1a1. first of all, the M1 has a 105mm british rifled gun, the M1A1 has a 120mm gun, the same as leo2
ALSO the T-80. first model in 1976, not much different from T-72 except for the chasis. then the T-80B- new gen composite armor, FIRST tank with a gas-turbine engine, and the FIRST tank with reactive armor. T-80U, new turret, fire control system, engine, gun, electronics. T-84 same as T-80U but with computers and RADAR jammers.
patrikasLTL 2 years ago
are you fucking retarded? seriously, do you need a helmet and floaties when you eat cerial?
T-80 has no computers? are you fucking kidding?? I am seriously trying to grasp how anyone can be that god damn stupid... according to you, unicorns sell news papers, and giant talking napkins are doctors wrapped in people skin i bet huh? atleast according to YOU right? HA go fucking learn something you little dipshit... Let me tell you something, the T-80U and T-90 are better than the Abrams
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago 3
Yes, and also you forgot to mention that according to me, your mom is a cheap whore...which is true btw, she does a blowjob for three rubles
bloodz1311 2 years ago
Actually, the Ukranians have upgraded the T-80 to UD standards.
KatariaGujjar 2 years ago
Not really.. the Abrams is older than the T-80U
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
Sure the gun is stabilized. but still, firing from such a speed is less effective. it's good for show but you won't hit much with it., real tank will move at the most 20 kmh in rough terrain to effectively use their main gun..
phadil 2 years ago
Russian tanks are built for offensive fighting on the move, they are fully capable of hitting targets at 2-3km away while going 45kph on a rough terrain. That's why they are built with small turrets and low silhouettes.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
WOOOW!! Very impressive!
danilovsky22 2 years ago
Any Russian tank with Kontakt 5 ERA immediately makes it indestructable by countries that dont have modern AT weapons.
SrbinZaUvek1 2 years ago 7
Because boxocoffee is amerikan so he is extrimely brainwashed.
Fedotof 2 years ago 2
t 80 and t 90 best tanks ever
tonijocevski 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to bad the abrams kicks its ass
boxocoffee 2 years ago
And why exactly does it kick his ass?
vukashin88 2 years ago
In what conflict did the M1 see battle against T-80's?
addys 2 years ago
Flying tank
xwarden2 2 years ago
one of the bests
kozmanamate 2 years ago
T-80 is the first tank with a Gasturbine!!
Jushniykray 2 years ago 2
when will the black eagle be produced to its price? We at the armor school talked about it in the late 90'S
gallomia 2 years ago
t-62 was actually
VladBlok28 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ya know your opinion is so jaded by your love for inferior engineering its really amusing. i have trained with alot of soviet equipment when i was stationed in western europe. also with opfor in california. i hope you get the chance to be in one of these rolling coffins when it gets hit by a hellfire, javelin, tow, dragon, or even a lucky shot with a law. mix gas with sand and place on the "T" turrets, they go boom when the ammo heats up. so cramped and small, death traps. u will b dead.
stinian844 2 years ago
Comment removed
stinian844 2 years ago
layerman45 :) we can, and know! The russians is the BEST IN THE WORLD!!!!
CrysisZeroX 3 years ago 5
I think this tank is protected better than any other and with acive defense system "Arena" his defense will be un vulnerable. So what im trying to say is that T-80 rocks!
rEEZEErB 3 years ago
Great choice of music.
darthgotica 3 years ago
Awesome!!
pucarabravio 3 years ago 2
ehhh that tank is really cool, but in fact turbine tanks are not the way to future... they eat 5 times more fuel, and cost as much as full tank each.
billcavazos
their armor is so good as latest versions of t-72, some of them were hit about 12 times from rpg and still were moving and firing.
265Spike 3 years ago 3
well the abrams witch doesn't use disel engines eat 2 times more then those :D
sfs706868 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They have a really cool turbine engine. But the T-80 armour is too easy to penetrate. Easy to kill.
billcavazos 3 years ago
Mega Power!
vpoRU 3 years ago 4
Russian tanks are the best
layerman45 3 years ago 29
HAHAA, USA is fucked
Vin4enco 3 years ago 23
@Vin4enco Still have the intelect tho.That in itself will defeat the ruskies every time.
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
"Automatic loaders suck, seriously. They jam all the time."
your arguments suck
modern russian loaders are reliable and fast (faster than any human loader). Autoloader gives other advantages too (weight/cost efficiency, lower profile, human-factor independence)
Primorsky 3 years ago 3
im gonna need one of these to pass through traffic if you know what i mean
markuks 3 years ago