Russians are Restarting T-80 Production and have increased The Reverse Speed??
2023 ж. 15 Қыр.
293 657 Рет қаралды
Russians have recently announced that they will be restarting the production of the T-80 tanks. This came as a surprise to many, since there have been no new T-80 tanks produced for well over 20 years...
Patreon: / redeffect
Outro: "face away" - svard
I can’t wait to play all these modified and upgraded Russian and Ukrainian tanks in War Thunder in a few years. 😆
Wonder how the T-84 Oplot M will perform
Imagine kamazake drone causing chaos
T-80BVM (2023) with cope rack when Gaijin?
@@joshuamueller3206Probably when they add Kamikaze drone, Like the Drone with Missiles
@@nishantgupta2137 uav with c4 strapped to it
Gaijin: say no more Next gaijin update: the T80 bvm reverse speed was increased to 25 in RB and 30 in AB
Nah man, those newer T-80s are gonna be Premium lol.
@@randomka-52alligatorthatis34 or maybe a event vehicle unless it would be a low enough BR
How long after the update before some Russian soldier posts classified documents to win an argument over some minute detail of the upgrades.
Nah bro, they will force you to grind for a new version t-80bvm 2.0☠️
@@randomka-52alligatorthatis34 I think one version with a special feature may be added as a premium, squad or event vehicle But I think that suck version may be added as T-80 BVM (2023) like the T-72 B
Would actually be pretty insane if their new t80 production has those bustle auto loaders. That turret looks sick af.
I agree it looks like something out of a sci-fi movie
That's probably my favorite looking prototype of a Soviet/Russian design.
that turret is ugly af
@@ishitrealbad3039still prettier than your mum with a makeup 😢
Tanks are kind of hard to look ugly.
"starting a tank production line from the 80s doesn't make sense" It does when the alternative is a refurbished T55.
Alternative is t90m
@@user-me5oq3kl4h its not an alternative, t90m production is already at max capacity russia can output, so only thing to do is refurbish old crap or make new crap, and looks like old crap is starting to run dry
the production line is actually a line refurbishing all the old T-80 put in storage after the 1st Chechen war
To be fair Whatever reason they got, more tanks is never a bad thing when you're at war
Army needs a balanced supply. So more tanks only good if other positions are filled as well.
It's a question of whether or not it's a worthwhile effort; Like the T-80 is a 50 year old redesign of a tank from the early 60's and has been out of production for 22 years and doesn't share common parts with the T-72 series or T-14 series. Sure you can "modernize" it by changing up the munitions, optics and some other parts but the reality is that these tanks were discontinued for a reason and restarting production would only serve to undermine production of more modern tanks.
Considering cost, yes it is. Better to have 10 well suplied and reliable tanks with a well trained crew than 20 tanks which is not reliable and poorly suplied with a bad crew.
@@guitarhausdoesntknowwhatac3285 well if you consider that their industry is unable to produce the new designs in sufficient numbers, going back to the t80 may not be the worse idea when they have nothing better.
@@heyhoe168 well russia certainly has the capacity to fill all their spots, with male adult soldiers too!
Guess we will see yet another T-80 in War Thunder.
Another tank in WT that can take 50 shots and not get destroyed? No thanks the BVM is already unkillable enough, i don't need another tank to shit on my attempts to kill it.
well they are fun to play
@@saucyinnit8799skill issue
@@michaelramos3429 shush i shoot the position of the ammo a lot of times and it doesn't explode. Or just that my 3BM42 doesn't want to work
Don't forget more grist for the War Thunder forum classified documents mill.
Aint no way they discovered you can have multiple reverse gears
i never understood the problem. Just put in a reverse cog utilizing all the forward gears, just backwards.
even kv1 had multiple reverse gears kv-1s specifically
@@matevasas the problem is that the russians have been using the same engine for 80 years now and just supercharged the hell out of it. And due to braindrain they are unable to create a new engine.
@@mrfun177 Tell me, did they figure out how Putin blew up NS (since your TV is stuck on CNN).
@@mrfun177lol you watched lazer pig? 😂😂
I actually love the idea of a T-90M-T-80 hybrid. Also if that anti drone systems works as they said, than that is a really nice touch
It doesn't. Ukraine has already found away around it
@@user-ee7bz3ip2b Lol
@@user-ee7bz3ip2bthey found a way around something that isn’t really used yet? They’re either psychics or liers
Maybe they finally realized about the problems of the reverse speed?
They probably realized that was a problem from day one, I'd say they finally started caring.
T-80 tanks don't have problems with the Reverse speed. The ones which do are the T-72s and T-90s.
The T-80 has a fine reverse speed. It's the T-72 and T-90 platforms that have a terrible reverse speed, but they can't fix them So they're modifying the T-80 (which doesn't need fixing) and hoping that no one can tell the difference.
@@moritamikamikara3879 two nukes were not enough
@@moritamikamikara3879the T-90M was fixed already, it's reverse speed is on par with the T-80 series, the T-90 and the exportation variants (the ones with S on the name) are the ones who aren't upgraded.
i think going with T-90M turret for the new produced T-80's would be a good idea it would also mean they could give the same treatment to T-80BVM's and T-80U in Russian service.
Still baffles me that they modernized the t80bv over the u
@@Andre-yy3enwould be interesting if they were able to successfully produce the t80 black Eagle
@@pabcu2507Black Eagle would probably be “too expensive” for them to produce. Russia wants bang for the buck.
I don't know if I remember correctly, but isn't the t80u cast turret and the t80bv a welded turret which allows for a much easier modification and modularity of adding on additional armor and ERA for protection. I think that's why.@@Andre-yy3en
@@Andre-yy3en T-80U is already a decent tank compared to what Russias most likely enemy (Ukraine) had at the time they decicded to upgrade those tanks. It makes more sense to have many tanks that are just good enough (T-80U + T-80BVM) instead of a few very good ones (upgraded T80U) + a lot of obsolete tanks.
RIP to the T-14. It’s time for Russia to unveil their new perfect tank. The T-728090M+
Dead end projects are hardly new in military procurement. I do think they might still field them as "heavy tanks" in really small numbers though. The Abrams X and Leopard 51 will probably share similar fates.
Nah, T-14 is not dead. It is produced in small numbers, tested in combat and improved based on combat experience. The thing is that it still has a lot of problems. And it won't probably be widely used in this war. Maybe, maaaaaybe it will be used next year. But it is a just maybe. Right now it is slowly introduced to the army for the army to get used to it.
Russia has been releasing basically newer variants of T-72 for decades now.
@@neverknowsbest2879t 14 tested in combat lmao??😂
You're thinking of the terminator BMP. There have been zero armata sightings in combat.@@neverknowsbest2879
The T-80 was never really a bad design, nor was its gas turbine. It was mainly blamed for high losses in Chechnya where, surprise, jet fuel burns when hit with explosives. Also, I think Russia is realizing the benefits of the gas turbine in that, sure they're more expensive in initial investment, but they're easier on field maintenance (which, given the drone threat, the less downtime, the better). And it's not like Russia is hurting for fuel anytime soon
Well the fuel consumption at idle is worse on a gas turbine but putting an Apu on it could solve that issue
If the Russians were aware that Kerosene burns much hotter than diesel and diesel is very difficult to ignite, why did they continue to use the fuel causing the demise of their tanks "It's not like Russia is hurting for fuel anytime soon. Even a war this close, within miles of your border the Russians do absolutely struggle with logistics. How exactly can you transport supplies to front line troops with the constant threat of Ukrainian strikes as far as 300 or more miles?
@@Austin-cx2xe All those tanks were designed in the Soviet times and this causes two problems; 1. They were built for a completely different fighting doctrine. A tank as a unit was not supposed to be damaged badly enough for this to happen, because of armour, massive numerical advantage and speed of assault. And when that happened, there were many more. In 1980s Soviet doctrine a company was supposed to attack for 7 minutes and be replaced by another. Whole Warsaw Pact trained like this. High speed assault for 7 minutes and you're done. A development of late-war T-34s fighting style, which in turn originated from Bystry Tank doctrine. 2. The Soviet Union worked like a large corporation where stupid ideas of management sabotage efforts of everyone under them. The best example of that is the famous T-34. On paper it looked great for it's time, but in reality even special-built units hardly had any part or system that worked properly. This was because Soviet authorities gave engineers specifications that were impossible to meet with available Soviet technology. So they made it to just cut it. On paper. Even the engine which is praised by historians, and looks modern even for today's standards, had terribly short lifespan because they sacrificed block stiffness and cooling system capacity to save weight. It's possible something similar happened with T-80. Just like in corporations, for Soviets the most important thing was to meet and exceed the targets (usually by sacrificing unmeasured metrics). My grandfather was an engineer in mining industry in 'communist' Poland. Once they asked him to dig another mine shaft for the 25th anniversary of the Polish Unified Worker's Party. He said he could dig the shaft but there is no time to seal it so it would be flooded by underground waters. They told him to dig it then and let it be flooded. My best guess is that they used Kerosene as 'temporary' measure to meet required specifications as their main concern was to have a symmetric response to Abrams' engine. They built Buran space shuttle just to have a symmetric response to STS although they believed American shuttle was completely nonsensical unless used for kidnapping enemy spacecraft.
@@piotrmalewski8178 Buran's such a funny once since it had one of the best thought out engine and booster systems but it's all setup for the sake of this goofy payload/shuttle.
It's just that getting fuel to the tank will need to be ramped up. Making it harder on the logistics chain.
if they started serializing the Burlak that would be very interesting,especially if it could reverse at 25 kmh. I'd def like a video discussing the implications if this became a thing!
Burlak and Provyv 2 are very promising for all Russian tank modernization program at that time, including all of T 80, 72 and 90. Then Serdyukov came and destroy almost everything lol. He even want to replace all existing Russian tanks with Leopard 2A6 (which is a good tank, don't get me wrong, but how the f you wanna do that when you have such a great basis and facility to produce domestic tank?).
i want t80 black eagle , that 90s niga can tear apart modern NATO or russian tanks
@@mr.waffentrager4400 Ayo i didnt know about the niga version of t90??
@@_MEATGRINDER it has black in the name obviously also it's a version of t-80 not t-90 with kaktus era more Armor and ability to mount 152mm gun with longer apfsds and better gas turbine than the t-80u
@@mr.waffentrager4400 It makes sense for the blackniga version to have Big Black Barrel and sharp penetrating APFSDS
Yooooo! We're so back! T-80s are returning to production! Out of all the MBTs, the T-80BVM and Leopard 2A7 are ontop of my list of the sexiest ones out there.
A7? Honestly, weird choice, the A4 looked so much better.
@@saucyinnit8799Nah im with him on this. A7 looks sexyer than a4
@@tadejloncar eh, odd choice but i respect your opinion.
@@saucyinnit8799 A4 is goddang box XD
The two ugliest tanks out there.
I have witnessed the RPG mesh on a tank. In reality, it is not too difficult to enter or exit the tank with that mesh in place. The mesh consists of multiple screens that hang down from the cage's roof, meaning there are gaps between these screens that the crew can lift and maneuver through. Of course, compared to a regular tank without this mesh, it is more challenging to get in and out, but clearly, this is a situational solution on the battlefield, and it's better than having no protection at all.
It makes no difference
I never thought I would live to see a truly industrial ground war where countries would be deciding what the "good enough" tank that they can produce at the fastest pace is. Nor did I think the day would come that the Russians would have wasted there gigantic stockpile of cold war tanks and started making more cold-war era tanks.
like it or hate it, the tank era is about to undergo tremendous change. Drones has shaken up the modern battlefield so much and everything need to be remapped
But you knew ww3 is coming, right? This war is just a distant echo of what will come next. Real industrial centers of the world are desperately preparing for the clash for a few years now.
I don't really want to have an arguement with anyone about it, but claiming the newest variants of t72 t80 or t90 tanks are cold war era tanks is only the case if we admit that basically all of natos tanks are also cold war era tanks. Abrams, challenger, leopard all of them are from the cold war we just upgrade them, same as the russians. We can't have it both ways either everyone uses cold war era tanks or we admit that upgrades and varaints are not the same as the original.
@@mortvaldAs I've always said before, Light and Medium tanks will make a comeback. A lot of countries are starting to invest in them too even the US. Maybe the era of MBT might be coming to an end soon.
@@90enemies will? You mean came back decades ago? Heavy IFVs like Bradley or BMP-3 are pretty much light tanks.
The BEST Soviet-era tank! No debate.
agreed T 72 vs T 89 No diff
T80uk.
also the most expensive one lol
Soviet era T80Us are goat
@@jeffzkiller3590 i mean it was meant to be expensive. The T-80s were considered the "Elite tanks" as they were Given to Guard Tank and Motor Rifle Divisions while the T-72 was just the dirt cheap effective tank for everyone else.
Good for them, I am sure they will be delivered on time like the 2000 T-14 Armata that were delivered by 2020.
Ole motor pool will be full of them, all invisible.
Hey genius, do you know what the "14" in T-14 stands for? 2000, you mug!
Russia has 146 million people, while being the largest country. How difficult and costly do u think it is to modernize such country? Hitler was the first to realize that roads [or connection between cities for jobs etc.] means progress. Anyone comparing NATO vs Russia cant have a high IQ.
@@fatdaddy1996 That's either a shit joke or a shit insult i can't figure out which
@@notaspy1227 All-spectrum camouflage.
If I had to guess _why:_ Sanctions means no new tooling, new machinery, etc. So you can't add a new T-72 line (be that 72 _or_ 90) But I bet there's a bunch of old T-80 tooling in a shed somewhere and due to the catastrophic attrition they're experiencing, this is their one and only chance. He'll, they might even have _several_ mothballed T-80 lines.
Probably. I just think they are in for a rude awakening when they realize that letting complex machinery sit in storage pretty much makes them almost useless without repairs... which is running back into problem number one you said.
Depends. If Russians go full military economy like in WWII, they can produce virtually anything except for post-90s semiconductors which is not terribly big problems since military hardware uses older chips anyway. What will suffer the most is their cability to produce modern avionics.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 Their biggest problem here might be if they have enough staff able to comprehend old blueprints even if everything was well documented. NASA had to reverse-engineer their own F-1 engine because documentation did not contain information obvious for engineers in 1960s and if I remember some welding method used in F-1 is not used anymore.
Edit 2: While the tank moves faster at around 2:50, at around 20 om/h, but that portion can also be fake and simply sped up. Considering in the majority of the video the tank goes at around 11 km/h, it seems most sensible to assume that it's the tank's reverse speed. The tank shown in the video around 3:38 can go through the lenght of its hull, which I don't know about the variants but google says 7 meters, in around 2.35 seconds. This means that the reverse speed comes at around 11 km/h. If the tank was 7.4 meters long and passed through its own penght at 2.2 seconds, which was the fastest time I could measure, the reverse speed comes to 12 km/h.
while thats less than half of what they claim its still almost 3 times more than 4 - so definitly an improvement
@@hattimounattimou8258 thats a t-80, the very first t-80s from 1980s have the same 11 km/h reverse speed. its the t-72 series that only go 4km/h on reverse.
@@SicilianSSFRand the T-90 but it is pretty much a modified T-72
Yeah, my measurements and calculations have given me very similar figures
@@SicilianSSFR i see, why even bother trying to lie about it then if the point is to just increase production numbers?
Should at least increase the reverse speed on the t90m
The engine and transmission are 1 unit, and they kept it small to fit a low profile tank. Increasing reverse speed means (usually) more reverse gears, and those then need to fit inside that small unit. Other option is other ratio, more speed less torque, which can create other problems. It would probbaly be easier to (partially) redesign the entire engine unit than add on reverse gears.
They would need to rip out the engine and redesign the entire engine layout of the tank for that because of the transmission.
Well, they should increase the base armor of the t80, unless APS gets added
@@jamegumb7298Then why don’t they redesign the engine unit, I think it would be a whole lot more cheaper to do it then restarting a production line that’s off like for over 20 years?
they did
Another possibility is that they might try to revive the Object 640 Black Eagle design since it was a continuation of the T-80U line plus it had the benefit of also having a bustle auto-loader like the Burlak turret which would solve the 2 main issues with the carrusel it’s vulnerability to ammo detonation and the size restrictions to the size of projectiles that it can accommodate.
True, i think the T-95 Black Eagle would be better than the Armata, but i also think there should be more focus on firepower, for an example, the reload should be 2-3 seconds and make some sort of "rapid-fire" tank and also arm it with high-caliber guns like the ones on the Terminator, this should add unbelievable amounts of firepower on the tank.
@@eliasziad7864 I dont think the Black egale was ever called T-95. Nobody was calling it T-95 when it first appeared. I only heard people calling it this way in the 2020s.
The Black Eagle is possibility one of the most baddest looking tanks out there. Straight out of a Sci-fi movie. Aw, if only Russia has the budget to make it work.
@@eliasziad7864 *Object 640 most the time reload speed isn’t that important
T-95 was a social media name
They won’t care if the tank is still relevant in 10 years. They care if they can have them within a year
T-80 might actually be Russia's best tank because of its mobility, despite its age. T-90 has been produced because its engine design makes it a lot cheaper, but disregarding cost the T-80 engine is more powerful. Restarting new T-80 production might also have some kind of synergy with the refurbishment of stored old T-80s.
Nah, T-90M is better at this point. The T-80's autoloader is an Achilles heel for the design.
@@burningphoneix You may very well be right, but the "verdict" depends on how much one values the mobility difference vs. the other things.
@@burningphoneix They may go for the Black Eagle variant (competition prototype to what eventually evolved into T-14) with munition stored behind the turret which also somewhat protects the engine if they consider T-80 as a product for the long run, or they may not care because of how long usually Russian tanks survive in Ukraine and just need more disposable metal on the frontline... Frankly, if they actually give a damn, they would start using an active hard kill protection system on all of their newly produced/upgraded tanks able to deal with top attack munition (Russia developed multiple variants for army and exports) that would give Russia's tankers some reasonable chance to survive and this was prior to war considered but at this point, I am not sure if it would change anything other than delaying inevitable. Perhaps when considering that Russia at this point likely expects to just punish Ukraine and scare the rest of their buffer puppet states from separatism, even that may be enough but again it's likely too late for that and Russia is likely just prolonging conflict to not lose its face or hoping that Western sentiment for Ukraine will wear off as total supporting bills become too high...
t80 is a tank designed for extreem cold as well as combat at condition with high amount of radioactive particles in the air.
T-90 engine design - cheaper ??? T-90 has a turbine engine.
Maybe they're using the T-80 more so they could repurpose the T-72 variants for other use like TOS-1 MRLS, mine-clearing, or Terminator.
It's because Uralvagonzavord production lines are full up producing T-90Ms and refurbishing T-72Bs into T-72B3s so they're utilizing Omsktransmash's existing T-80 production lines to increase the overall number of tanks produced. That's why I don't think they're going to use T-90 turrets: They're restarting T-80 production to relieve pressure on the T-90 supply chain.
I don't think any of those variants are better than just having a regular T-72, especially when all of those are intended to support offensives and Russia hasn't really had any success on the offensive since the start of the war. A T-72 in a prepared position is solid for defensive operations but a mine clearing vehicle can't really do anything on the defense.
Several reasons: 1. The T-14 Armata is too expensive and not combat proven 2. The T-90M, whilst more expensive, doesn't really perform too much better than T-80 3. Their stockpile is sure on the lows right now, they need to build relatively cheap tanks to replace the losts asap
T-80s are not cheap tanks. Coupled with the upgrades to BVM. Its quite expensive. One of the most expensive ones next to the T-90M.
@@pilotman9819 yeah, but i mean a lil bit cheaper than T-90 still
Stockpiles are still full. Omsk factory does nothing but modernises the t80s
“Stock piles running out” is a propaganda narrative. The Soviets had tanks to last a decade long war.
@@user-me5oq3kl4h It is not a stockpile if the tank first needs to go to a factory to become service worthy.
It would be a good idea if they based more upgrades on the t-80u. That turret plus relict era would make for great protection, couple that with modern fcs and better reverse speed then it would become of the best tanks in their arsenal
Keep up the great content RE. I always enjoy getting a notification that you have a new video up.
>their other tank although OmskTransMash is now under uralgovnozavod, in USSR there was a long-lasting rivalry between all 3 tank designer bureaus(KHKBM is the third) so them bragging about T-80 being better than uralgovnozavod tank isnt surprising
I mean russia is the most corrupt nation in europe with ukraine in a close second
@@Andre-yy3en Isn't Ukraine the most then Belarus or Moldova?
Leningrad Kirov Plant also produced T-80 tanks (better than Omsk versions in some opinions).
The problem with jammers is it isn't hard to design a drone to home in on the jammer. or once a target is acquired lock on the target with a lazar and home in on that.
Its a "better than nothing" kind of deal. If the jammers stop some drones which they will, then thats good
It's still an improvement over allowing an FPV drone to hit the vehicle where the operator wants it to.
@@billyparker5974 A warning system alone isn't enough to protect, you need some sort of countermeasure.
@@billyparker5974 I think your giving Russia too much credit. Russia access to sophisticated electronics is limited so equipping the majority of their tanks / IFVs is not very likely to happen. Crude jammers would just blast away at the most common com bands. To effectively jam by switching channels you still would have to hit that band frequently. ( I'm a retired electronic field service Engineer)
Then why not just put the jammer on something like an ERA brick?
You know what this means guys?.....More T80 series for Warthunder!
World's #2 military:- "You know those tanks we were building 20 years ago?" "Da" "We need more"
Worlds #1 military: - You know those tanks we were building 20 years ago? “Yes” “We need more of them” “Sorry chief, only modernisation of old shit”
Restarting the production of older hardware usually means : they need quick and reliable replacements. The production lines, tooling exist, tanks have been made for years and it´s easier to restart the process then to retool, reequip for different hardware that will then come with it´s on quirks you have to fix. After all the t80 isn´t a bad tank as such, if you put some effort into upgrading it it can be a viable front line tank again. Sure the crew survivability in case of a hull penetration is rather low but bbc is a favourite thing in russian tanks for years. The real question is, how much do they invest in upgrading.
However it also means that the current (newest mature) models are facing parts shortages, otherwise it would make far more sense to expand already existing production lines for those models than to restart older/mothballed production lines.
@@obliviouz The lines were stopped for a long time. Spare parts were taken on sotck models.
@@obliviouz As I see they need more thanks and T80 are made by a different company not the one making the T90 and T14, also take in account that T90 hull are used for other weapons like the thermobaricn missiles launcher and the "Terminators" so having a new facillity making new hulls is not a bad idea. Also this means they are preparing for a long war and they see the need of more powerfull tanks to maneuver in the mud and this "new" tanks will get to the battle field in around a year.
@@EPortillo5000No one is producing T-14s nor the BMP-Ts, those wunderwaffen are so few and far between they couldn't even make a cameo in the big parade (Despite doing nothing that other platforms don't already do far better, I mean FFS the BMP-T has two cannons because russian engineers are so useless they cannot figure out an auto-loader that can switch ammo types). What they should be doing is firing up T-34 facilities again, because having taken more than 2,300 visually confirmed tank losses (As a note Ukraine started the war with 1,800 and visually confirmed losses are only 1/2-1/3rd of actual losses so they've most likely lost more than 6,000 total tanks meaning russia has lost more tanks than any other country in the world fields) they kind of need to get more metal in the field and if they are going to push tanks that missed WW2 by less than a decade (Like the T-54/T-55 which are on the visually confirmed loss list BTW) they might as well go just a few more years backwards.
@@demomanchaos so russia is kicking ukraine's ass with no tanks and soldiers equipped with rusty ak-47s and shovels? You're pathetic
cant wait for one T-80 being produced a month
Still more than the Production of Oplots
Lima Tank Plant in Ohio is currently refurbishing old M1A1s at a rate of 1 per month.
Because if you knew real numbers, you would shit your pants.
@@user-me5oq3kl4h yeah no, Russian numbers are nothing to worry about
@@burningphoneix still more than whatever russia is doing
Some people fail to realize that a well updated T80 is more capable than a T90.
But how?
In terms of mobility not armor
@@starship9629 it just is.
@@emirbenaissa3441 That's so convincing
@@starship9629 yep
The abrams tank is a design from the 70s. And first of them delivered in 1980. That would make them ? Oh yes 43 year old now.
Reason why Red made that comment about how old the T80 is, is because there are even plans for the replacement of the Abrams now for something newer.
With the cope cage, how are you supposed to move the larger commander NSVT gun? For example at 05:07 you can see what I mean
I’ve never seen that MG used effectively in combat anyways. If it’s not radio controlled it’s just there for show
@@alphanomad511 Well it's there for a reason, it's meant to be used, you will most likely sometime end up in a situation where you have to use it, and the cope cage will be in its way.
There is still space for it to move, just in a smaller arc than it might normally, they could just put the supports for the cage wider if they wanted to use the MG. Depends on who built the panel I guess.
Maybe they intend to turn the turret to the left before firing it? Although that would cause mobility issues and stop the main gun from firing.
@@kwlkid85 Why would turning the turret cause the main gun to stop firing?
I'm not sure if it's just me or is the cope cage support blocking the .50cal's horizontal traverse?
No one actually ever uses that thing in the midddle of combat
@@alphanomad511then why even install it in the first place?
@@coolT21323 Because it looks cool.
Well, Oplot suffer the same issue when the CITV block the 50 cal
@@alphanomad511 Russia clearly trains their tank crews to use them.
Now, will we ever see a T80 engine slapped in a T90M
To race in Formula 1?
I swear with all of these russian tank footage videos the turret is spinning non stop. first the footage of T14's and now this.
I swear, 3.5 moths of Ukrainian "counteroffensive" and their men still get blown up by mines in the gray zone far from the 1st line of defence
@@starship9629Bro what does this have anything to do with the tank turret spinning?
I saw old T-80U footage of it spinning its turret around. Guess it's just a Russian tank thing, like firing a gun while having the tank fly through the air off a ramp.
Think they do this to show off the rotation speed and capabilities, "look guys, this thing rotates and can retarget really fast." Koreans filmed their K2 doing this as well as other maneuvers, but they didn't do this on the move like the t80 is doing here.
They finally realize the cheap one isn't good enough so they use the best Soviet era tank ever produce
The IS-9 needs a comeback.
@@AakeTraaknot really if the destruction of the leopard 2 and challenger 2 go, the heavier the tank don't really work out well if anything the t80 coming back because of its speed and maneuverability, that and Red made it clear that the old t72 platform has reached it limited, but their more to make out of the t 80 and Ukraine t 84 oplot being base of the t 80 show it pontential
Doing things on the cheap and expecting to get results in real time doesn't always work. If you consider all the downgraded junk the Soviets use to flog to its client states would turn into fodder. The issue really stems from WW2 when Russia would produce thousands of T34 's on the cheap to overwhelm the enemy: this may if worked then but today perhaps not.
t-10 with welded turret and 152mm when
@@123456qwful how about they use some kind of Frankenstein technique, like changing their t80 turret with t90m turret,
You Can calculate the speed on the video by taking markings using the tank measeruments as referece and calcutating the Time it take the tank to go to from marking 1 to 2 and use the speed formula
Go ahead
I did some rough math, and i turns out that it is driving at around 20 km/h: Using as a reference the little white post / plant on the right side of the road at 3:11, when the frontmost part of the tank was aligned with it i started counting up to when its rearmost section reached it. It took around 1.8 seconds. I suppose the tank is 9.9 meters long. This means that it has travelled 9.9 meters in 1.8 seconds, which gives us a speed of 5.5 m/s or 19.8 km/h.
Did a little math could be very off but timing the T-80 at 3:23.00 (middle of the bush and back of tank) to the same spot of the bush with the front of the tank. Using D = S × T rearranged S= D/T were D= 7m (hull length) T= ~2.13 (what I got could be off a little) S= 7/2.13 S= ~3.28m/s or ~11.808Km/h could be like 15km/h cause I'm putting like no effort in making sure this is 100% correct, but 25 is a bit much
that's a fancy way of saying that it's another piece of trash rusty old soviet garbage can. same as everything else in their arsenal of rusty that their vodka breadline commie empire ever managed to come up before collapsing into individual vodka republics while desperately attempting to stay keep up with the united states... which of course ended exactly the way that you would expect coming from a failed third world authoritarian communist shitole
It's amazing that they think lying about the speed somehow makes it faster
Damn, they improved the copecage into a straight up coperoof
Next they'll make it a copebunker.
@@Master10k2 You were right. They did make the copebunker
you have to love the 2nd added death trap for the crew on the top of the tank !
Interesting how some of the new "cope cages" are completely covered, like a jail cell. Brings a new meaning to "cope" cage.
The cope cage is now a crew cage.
5 years from now, Gaijin will add this tank as a T-80BVM (2023) and it's a premium.
Holy shit. They're restarting the reproduction of a 50 year old tank?
Probably just gonna retrofit current models.
@@sam8404 Like upgrades?
leopards,abrams challys were all designed in the 80's so yeah it aint that wierd
@@ivanivanovich8624 like the bvm variant not the t80 b variant
@@powerkingez9682 I thought they were designed mid 1990s but i guess i was wrong
At 25 km/h it would take 1.43 seconds to travel 32.5 feet (the length of a T80). It seems it’s taking about 2.5 to 3.2 seconds in the video, putting the speed around 11 to 15 km/h
Tanks for the video, informative as usual.
Well, I can't wait for a T-80/90M to be added in War Thunder
@@pilotman9819 Seems like you don't understand what I'm saying. What I mean by T-80/90M is the idea of mounting T-90M turret on T-80, so the new tank will be called as T-80/90M.
The fact that the cope cage some bolts have washers and others don’t makes me question the workmanship quality. If you claim 100% effectiveness but your constructions team doesn’t have enough washers…… I know it’s a nit picking but it caught my attention and makes me wonder what else on this tank might not be right…
@@billyparker5974 I’m not saying that the cope cages we see now aren’t jury rigged. but in this case it’s factory standard so what’s going on here? Why are they missing something as simple as a washer
Probably installed in the field and and not in a factory. Simple as that.
The most intresting thing Is the anti drone part, it's still new i think but a really nice idea
One of these days, or decades, they'll get aroubd to fixing the reverse speed on the T90s... Probably... Possibly...
They won’t. There is no space in the hull for bigger transmission. It’s not an easy thing to do for any transmission, even harder for a tank one.
I'm not surprised by this since the tech for the tank already exists, which can be produced in large numbers because the facilities and materials exist to do so, also you can expand on the platform and modernize it, kind of like how the merkavas hulls are re-used for APCs.
Seriously, what about the machineguns when the cope cages are one?! T-80 for example, its machinegun is on the commanders optic and its going to stop the commander from seeing anything!
We live in truly scary yet fascinating time. It was a matter of time for this modernization take place, took too long in my opinion, yet it’s effectiveness remains to be seen.
Ww3 has started and there is no coming back
This isn't a modernization though.
Imagine in the end they (re)starting production of the Obj. 640 Black Eagle aswell
Russia: Creates an omnidirectional jammer that blocks the radio frequency of the drones. Ukraine: Changes the radio frequency of the drones.
very funny bit it's not true. Ukraine steals the money
Thank you for another well-researched video! Russian bloggers are saying just about the same thing; the new T-80 variant will most likely use the T-90M's turret, while the hulls will be built from scratch. They also attribute the restart of T-80 production (from scratch) to the huge numbers of older T-80s in open-air storage; These tanks' hulls are in poor condition and even if repaired, the tanks will still be outdated. That being said, the engines can be refurbished relatively easily, meaning that the Russian army essentially has a nearly endless supply of gas turbine engines (and an endless supply of gas to power them 😎).
Good point! Gas engine also make less noise and smoke. Harder to be spot by scouts or drones.
@@mikes989 I was just going to comment that 😅
@@thomaslacornette1282Yet as evidenced by the US Abrams, gas turbines produce much more heat, which among other things makes the tank easier to spot by aerial and space-based surveillance.. -)
@@TheNihiliant Maybe but i don't think every drones is equipped with thermal detector ( that is pretty expensive), a drone can put put down quite easily. Most artillery/infantry drones are just like commercial drones. And the engine is hot when tank moving... still your point is valid indeed. Just add a layer of Aluminium paper... XD
@@TheNihiliant Indeed a bigger drone can detect them with thermal detector but it has to avoid Russian anti air defense.
A while back i saw a video of shoigu visiting a factory that produced BMP-3s and T-90Ms and plant manager said they solved an issue that was keeping back production . I wouldnt be surprise if we really see a T-80bv hybrid with T-90M hardware in it
There is no reason to produce a different support equipment for 2 tanks. Engine and turret might be mechanically incompatible, but radio/optics/ballistic CPU will definitely be unified.
highly doubt we will see a tank with T-90M hardware in it due to the fact that the Russians can't get the T90M hardware due to the sanctions. The T90M uses 20 year old French Nightvision and so on.
@@mrfun177 Catherine FC hasn't been used for a while, it was replaced by PNM-T which is domestic.
@@samsniper2000 Even if Catherine FC was still used. The deal with Thales was for full Transfer of Technology of the components so Russians could've continued to make them if they wanted to.
This war really has been the death of the T-72 tank series
Not really. T-80s aren't outperforming T-90Ms.
@@burningphoneix and the T-90Ms have been dying en masse so that doesn't inspire much confidence for the poor saps that have to crew them.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 It isn't. There's been a total of 41 T-90M losses per Oryx. Opposition media have estimated UVZ production capacity at around 250 new T-90M tanks per year (not refurbished old stock) which means the Russian Army has more T-90Ms now than it did at the start of the war even if it's overall number of AFVs has decreased due to the loss of many obsolescent tanks. For a tank in a high intensity environment, the losses are pretty small. The US Army lost 23 M1A1 Abrams just fighting in the First Gulf War alone.
Mounting what is essentially a sunshade over a tank is an absolutely death trap If the support holding the thing up is Shot out it will essentially collapse on top of the tank trapping the crew also it denies them the use of a more control machine gun..
Makes sense, Russia is one of the major tank producing nations of the world, and yet their most modern tank T 90 can be outwalked while reversing. Reverse speed and acceleration are one of the most important aspects of mobility, it's just laughable.
Soviet doctrine cause these problems with T-72/90 platform because "tanks should go only forward!", reverse speed was only for parking. Of course, engineers could solve this transmission problem, but military officials didn't care about reverse speed. Even now some old era generals don't care about it while war showed its importance for faster escaping in battles. All these stupid military colonels and generals (most of them didn't participate any real combat, sitting whole their career in cabinets) think that their opinions are more important than opinioms of actual tank crews that are at Ukraine now 😂 BTW T-72/90 reverse speed will not be changed till the end of current war - no time for such changes now.
Except Ukraine shows how unimportant it is in the Eastern theatres. It's not saving the NATO tanks from piling up wrecks. More would be better, but it was a conscious sacrifice they made to keep the tank as small as possible.
@@dodgex6592 That's not why they did that and that is not Soviet doctrine.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 except that maybe 6 +- western tanks were actually destroyed even according to redeffect. And it's important enough to mentioned by every Ukrainian tanker driving wester tanks and by Russians themselves on the video you were just watching. You can see hundreds of burned out and captured T 72s and if you are an idiot you will say 5 leopards got destroyed so reverse speed is no biggie.
@@ingloriuspumpkinpie9367there’s also like 5000 T series tanks in this war fighting each other compared the like at max 200 western tanks
For the reverse speed, a T 80 is 7 meters long ( let's say 8 with the added armor ) if you look at the time he take to clear is own lenght you have a little less than 3 seconds, so roughly 3 meters per second. Converted in km/h you have 10.8, so no change there ^^
That's over 2 times faster than 5 km/h.
Yup, 1.43 seconds if it were doing 25 km/h
Nah, the moment of video where you trying to count reverse speed is jot about 25 km/h. If you could watch original video you would understand it
@@DzinkyDzinkThe T-80’s reverse speed was always around 11kph. You’re thinking of the T-72, whose reverse speed is 4-5kph.
@@xentherida that is exactly what I was comparing.
couple of years later they'll announce a brand new tank. The mighty T25 and it's basically what they did to the T72 to become the T90 lmao
What happened to all those tanks the Russians have in storage? if this article is true then it would suggest that the vast majority of those tanks are in such bad neglect that its not worth bringing them back into operation.
i think there trying to get everything they can... and referbishment numbers might drop, as they would presumably start with the least worst tanks...
They are taken out of storage and modernised.
I saw one estimate that 30% could be used with little effort, 30% need serious rework, and the rest are likely only good for spare parts. Twenty years of freeze-thaw cycles is a bitch to deal with for any vehicle.
Most articles about those stockpiles just repeated Soviet Era numbers without ever bothering to check whether they still held true. Russia has been decommissioning tanks by the hundreds every year since then and many of their largest storage yards have been closed because as it turns out it's not exactly cheap to store thousands of tanks that you aren't using. The Soviet Union was only doing it because they were expecting to fight WW3 and assumed scenarios with massive loss numbers due to tactical nuclear strikes, and they were also preparing to survive a nuclear apocalypse so having a ton of older lower tech tanks hanging around made sense. The Soviet Union also had the largest conscription system in the world and could actually call up the manpower necessary to put all of these tanks into service in a relatively short time. Despite what some Russia fanboys might say the Russian ministry of defense isn't dumb enough to waste money on massive inactive stockpiles it doesn't need and can't use and like everyone else after the Cold War started decommissioning surplus equipment. They didn't rationalize quite as well as the US so many of their mothballed tanks still decayed beyond use but there was an attempt, and it might have gone somewhere if Russia hadn't decided to do the geopolitics equivalent of speeding into a wall.
Something redeffect continously keeps "forgetting" to mention is that it's not just a simple matter of "okay lets make the reverse speed 30km/h" Transmissions are notoriously very difficult to build, add to that the limited space for transmissions in T series tanks and you have a massive issue. The T80 somewhat solves this by likely having more space for the transmission due to its smaller engine, but even countries like south Korea struggled to produce transmissions for their tanks despite the help of Germany. So the choice for Russia was either to restart the production of t80 tanks (which is what they're doing) or build a completely new tank from scratch in MUCH smaller numbers (which they're also attempting) But regardless you can't just get rid of your thousands of existing t72 tanks overnight, and while reverse speed is nice to have, it has a relatively small impact on the capability of a modern tank. Is it worth another 1 million dollars per tank? Is it worth having 30% less tanks? And yes if the T80 production is being started from scratch it most likely will have improved base hull and turret armor. Probably not the same turret as the t90 because I don't see why that would help with production, but I don't think it'll be a bustle autoloader either, likely a similar system to the t90M with a separate turret ammo storage and an armored carousel. Those have mostly proven to have pretty good survivability while keeping the costs down. You fight wars with the equipment you have, not the equipment you want. I'm sure the Ukrainian soldiers using maxim machine guns will understand that...
Ikr. This isn't a "Monday issue this week and have it solved by Friday this week".
Russia made the reverse speed mistake when building the T-72 and again when they chose it as the basis for T-90 and again when they stopped T-80 production.
The funnier part with the transmission issue is that they have had 30 years to think on and work on solutions for it, even if the only improvements are incremental...
@@drderper They didn't think they actually would have to go into reverse.
Excellent comment, not sure the "impartial" Redeffect will appreciate it though 👍
T-80BV and T-80U hulls are identical if you forget the ERA and the improved engine on the U. Paired with relikt it’s not bad, but they should definitely use a better ufp layout like the one on the T-90M. As for the turret, IIRC the welded one from the T-90M is easy to make but electronics production is slow. If that wasn’t the case we would probably see way more T-90M’s, and using such turrets with cheaper electronics would be kind of a waste. What they should do instead is use the T-90A turrets (since they’re no longer the latest but still decent) paired with relikt, 1pn96 (the cheaper thermal sight) and the AZ autoloader (the one from T-72’s). You would end up with a tank that has all the benefits of the T-80 (better engine and reverse) without the drawbacks (tall ammo carrousel, obsolete armor).
If I remember correctly the regular T-80BV had a armour layout closer to the the T-64BV but with the M upgrade got the T-80U hull armour layout.
@@jellevandervelde704 I don’t think so, all the BVM does is slap ERA on top of T-80BV’s. It doesn’t change the ufp layout. Also, the T-80B(V) is closer in armor layout to the T-72A: it uses quartz filler in the turret. The T-64B(V) uses ultraporcelain balls instead, which IIRC turned it to be about as effective but way more expensive. I don’t remember the hull layout but it is different from the T-80
No, the T-80U's frontal sandwich has better composition.
@@maplearrow1842 You could be right, I thought the T-80BV went from 2 plates of steel with a layer of textolite to 3 layers of steel with textolite in between like the T-80U when they got the M upgrade.
@@JAnx01 Okay correction: newly built T-80BV’s (not B’s upgraded with ERA and the appliqué) have the same layout as early T-80U’s. Late ones replace textolite layers with ceramic. And the T-90M is probably better than that because the T-72B ‘89 and T-90A both have a layout that is on par if not slightly better.
Increased weight due to the addons requires a more powerful engine to maintain mobility hence the turbine engine. However, this does not help logistics as turbines are much more thirsty compared to diesels of the same output.
Nice, keep pumping out those targets!!!
No one think will a T-80BVM tank be decent in next 10 years. They need these tanks NOW. By the way, the tank on 3:25 goes back with a 12.3 km/h speed.
Glad to hear the T80s getting some love.
Knowing the length of the tank and using the bushes by the road as a static marker it should be possible to calculate how fast the tank being followed by the car is moving in the video clip starting at 2:50
TBH mounting ERA on the cope cage seems to be a great cost effective idea at least on paper. And we all know Russians excel at cost effective solutions to sophisticated problems when put under enough pressure.
Russia announcing that they "start working" on something has little credibility. Of course they would like to produce actual new tanks rather than having to refurbish increasingly desolate stockpiles, but whether they actually have the capabilities to do so is a completely different matter.
They absolutely do have the capability to produce new tanks. We've seen new T-90Ms roll off the assembly line at UVZ.
@@burningphoneix I think more clarification is needed here. They can produce new tanks... just not fast enough to replace the losses they suffer each and every week.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 Perhaps, but that was not what the poster he is saying.
Да просто у нас их очень много на консервации. Я видел это видео. Пока завод занимается только тем, что снимает их с консервации и модернизирует. Производство новых танков находится под вопросом.
That sudden extra burst of speed can come in handy for getting in and out of trouble.
I guess they had a chance to test both types in combat and got a feedback from the troops.
I was looking through the WarThunder and though T-80U was way way more quicker for a heavy line then T72B3 who was medium!
I think in War Thunder both the T72 and T80 are classified as mediums. No such thing as a "heavy" tank nowadays. They just put the T80 in the heavy line to create a better narrative arc for the research grind I guess. Both of these tanks really originated from the design of the T55. Also T80 and T72 basically have the same weight IRL.
@@channeldud actually, all Western MBTs like Leopard II, Abrams, Challenger, K2, etc. are heavy tanks in denial, thus expensive, complicated, heavy - not effective in this war. Hell, even newest IFVs of the West weight about the same as Russian MBTs
@@mrobocop1666 K2 is South Korean so I think you need to update your geography, but also what the fuck are you smoking claiming that they aren't effective and do you even know what a heavy tank is? It's not about the literal weight it's about the doctrinal roles, MBTs more or less merged the doctrinal roles of Medium and Heavy tanks when it turned out that mediums were doing the job of the heavies better anyways.
I always believed modern tanks were likely too expensive for attrition based warfare. Or on other words, not fighting glorified farmers. Remember posing the question a while back to the reply of "war will never be like that again."
Russia is literary fighting wheat farmers, and they are still not performing as expected.
@@drunkenpumpkins7401 Lol both sides have large amounts of hastily trained units. No tank, Russian or Western, is performing as expected. Mostly because neither side can achieve optimal conditions for them, only difference is T72 is cheaper to replace. It's just a messy war, don't know why everyone has to meme-ify it.
@@channeldudpeople act like the nature of war isn’t chaos and destruction! No one knows anything in this fog and there’s death everywhere.
I mean this isn't really comparable since Russia isn't a major power. An actually relevant power like China or the US would probably be able to ramp up production to the numbers needed for a major war if one hit, and the US and most of NATO is in fact ramping up production. But I mean this is like expecting Sweden to keep itself supplied during a war.
@@hedgehog3180 That's bait, though in case it isn't. Russia is a Major power, or at least was militarily. They are still in I'd believe the top 5 powers in the world. If they are still a superpower is debatable. Though if we even just look at US elections, it's proof they matter quite a bit.
The reason they are starting the T-80, is that they have 3,000 units mothballed. That will need minimum time to get on t5he front line. The most important/expensive part the motor. Can be in service in minimum time.
I remember seeing 1 T-90M with ERA attached to the RPG net and the lower front plate.
It's preparation for the war in the arctic
Exactly. I'm surprised Redeffect didn't realise this
Slapping on a bunch of additional armor makes it go faster... Sounds like Russian physics.
They probebly red-lined the engine, and there was no ammo in the hull, and they drain most of the fule to make it lighter....
@@kirgan1000having a full load wouldn't make the top speed less it would only make it accelerate slower
Of course comrade, if you lie you can do literally anything!
This war definitely highlighted the need for some serious active protection systems
Changing the turret for modern one might be the most reasonable option. Turret is where most of the fighting capability and protection lies. T-80 hull is still adequate, but turret is obsolete.
They're probably trying to set up parallel lines in order to increase overall production, with UralVagonZavod probably at capacity making ~200 tanks a year they hope to increase overall numbers by tapping OmskTransMash's underutilized facilities left over from the Soviet days. My personal idea as to what they'll build is probably a T-80BV obr. 2024, not as good or with as many upgrades as a T-80BVM but something that they can build in large numbers, like ~300 by 2025 because right now they realize they are in a war of attrition and need cheap disposable tanks. Because honestly ~500 new tanks a year will probably be enough combined with their stockpiles to sustain the war. Maybe post-war they'll make a T-90M2 that has the T-90 turret on a T-80 chassis with the gas turbine but right now I don't know because they're struggling to produce T-90M fast enough i.e. more than ~100 a year, so having a whole new production line that also needs those same components is probably not a terribly great idea. Then again I don't know what their bottleneck is, maybe they have hundreds of turrets but they're struggling to make chassis. Any way we'll see.
It's much more than 200 a year. It's at least 100 new tanks a month of a T72B3 T90M mix, and at least 300 a month restored.
@@Mortablunt Restoret vs produced. Two main bottlenecks are engine&transmission and barrel&breech. The production peaked last year with stockpiled parts. No amount of workers make new ones skilled, imported parts to appear in greater quantities(smuggling has it limits) and machines also wear out.
totally agree on all your points
@@MortabluntYeah sure are those 4800 new tanks in the room with us right now? No country in the world has this capacity. Especially Russia which needs to import/ smuggle a ton of vital parts
@@heyho4770 It is certainly more believable than "Russia can't arm itself without stealing dishwashers."
The most probable reason is due to Russia still retaining the machinery to make t-80 parts. The bottleneck for tank production is the heavy machinery required to make tanks. Evidently they have some machines that cannot aid in T-90 production but would be useful for T-80 produciton. This also informs us that Russia is struggling to increase T-90 production.
Not surprised in the slightest. Russia is gonna be severely crippled in its military industry for at least a decade. No real “new” designs are gonna be designed either, as the brain drain from their I’ll advised mobilization has left them with a lack of R&D people and the sanction prevent them from getting higher quality electronics in the numbers they need. They can buy cheap Chinese shit, and they can buy smaller batches of shit smuggled in… but that won’t be enough to mass produce anything… let alone the electronically dependent. Tanks.
T-90 production is slow due to a lack of electronics, Russia doesn't have the capacity to increase production themselves and is relying on smuggled western parts for a lot of them, though not the literal chips themselves always but sometimes more base components.
Afiak the anti drone system looks like the anti "ied" system used on many US vehicles. It just blocks all common radio waveforms
You could easily calculate the velocity of the tank. We know it’s length. See how long it takes to travel it’s length frame by frame. We have the perfect side profile shot for it
I have heard that the T80 has no armor plate behind the road wheels and that the ammo storage was directly behind the thin steel hull. When Russia used them in Chechnya, a lot of T80s were lost in urban fighting to old RPG7s that hit the tank in this vulnerable area. If true, this is a fatal flaw in the design.
Your information is wrong. Update it.
Nonsense really. Better actually than other T series tanks. They were attacked from top positions that´s all.
@@a.m.armstrong8354your comment is dumb. Fix it.
Restarting production will take some time. There's a reason why the US industry keeps their manufacturing plants running, despite the high cost. As for the upgrades (especially the reverse speed), they appear to be a morale boost or a marketing gimmick, since you cannot increase the speed without altering the gear ratio.
Are you kidding? US doesn't keep any manufacturing going, because everything is produced by profit-driven private industry, who shut down production lines when they have no orders. Why do you think we can't get something as simple as artillery shells to Ukraine in any appreciable number and had to go around the world begging other countries to give up their stock, and had to start supplying old cluster shells? The New Atlas has a lot of videos on this very topic going back to the start of the conflict.
Did this dude just say.. bro, hear this out, it's utterly crazy, but they may just alter the gear ratio to increase reverse speed. Insane, ain't it?
@@Iberny3 you need the short gear ratio to help it get going if its in ground that causes alot of drag (plus the extra armour thats bolted on wouldnt help), so yes they could probably change the ratio, but it would struggle more in difficult situations.
@@specialingu What more could it struggle if it’s getting obliterated by not being able to retreat?
They have been modernizing the T-80 fleet for over a decade so they already had most of the production line set . And they started the expansion of the plant a year ago so new T80 will arrive soon.
Gaijin is just licking their lips at the possibilities right now. Anyone want to bet $10 that the new T-80 is just called the T-80M and uses a resized T-90M turret?
T-80 line is still there, it wasnt disassembled, thats why. Only part that is missing is cast turrets production line, new T-80s will have new turret.
The problem with all red effect videos is that they assume Russians are competent. They just take whatever they have and send it, upgrades are an afterthought. They've sent ununpgraded T-62 obr 1967s and they've bolted down ERA to T-72 Urals to serve alongside T-72B3 (2016)s.
Not really. There's only been one T-62 Obr.1967 ever seen in the war and it was probably a shipment mistake. Otherwise they're T-62Ms or M Obr.2022. The vast majority of lost Russian tanks are T-72B3s/T-80BVMs/T-90Ms
@@burningphoneix Idk why, but my comment got deleted. Anywho, your claim is unsubstantiated. i.postimg.cc/yxw0SFD6/1001-T-62-Obr-1967-capt.jpg The Russians have indeed sent T-62s from the 60s to the front. as They have with T-55As Plus, they've bolted T-72 Urals with kontakt. Just don' be afraid of contradicting your views when presented with the truth.
They increased the reverse speed in order to escape Ukrainian tractors and recovery vehicles before capture.
500+k dead Ukrainians, keep coping.
Please comrade Red Effect, tell us the outro music's name, it's so good the little riff. Love your vids man. So sorry about what happened with Lazer pig and all. Who would think he was a backstabbing kind of person. Wish you well.
I'd say that the ERA on the lower hull will affect the ability to trench and dig in if it blocks the use of the dig tool.