Where's the T-80?

[gunnersman]

It just occurred to me that there is the T-72 and the T-90...but where is the T-80?  I did a quick search on Wikipedia.  Apparently it is still in service. A quick search here did not reveal anything. It must be an obvious answer I know nothing about if nobody on this forum has said anything about it. I can't believe I am the first person to wonder this. I would have thought it would be as prominent as the T-72, at the very least. 

Is it strictly stationed in Battalions up farther north away from the Ukrainian theater? 

[BTR]

Long story short: T-80's are out of luck.

[gunnersman]

Thanks BTR!

 

That kinda breaks my heart a little bit (It feels weird to say that about a war machine I have no real connection with). I have played many a tank sim against the T-80, starting with Microprose's "M1 Tank Platoon". 

[MikeyD]

I've got yer T-80 right here!

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=942_1336414070

[Sublime]

Nice all in russian. Great.

[gunnersman]

Nice all in russian. Great.

Cooy. Paste. Google translate. (Poet and didn't know it).

It's a short article.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Long story short: T-80's are out of luck.

 

Do not give up on the flying tank just yet.

 

Yes, a few years ago it seemed that Defense Ministry under Serdyukov has finally gotten the upper hand over General Staff and Chief Auto-Armored Forces Directorate in its long struggle to kill T-80 in the name of standardization and fuel economy. All T-80s were slated to be put in reserve by 2015. However, the dwarves dug too greedily the replacement process was organized too hastily, and several units had T-80BVs replaced not with T-72B3s, but with regular old T-72Bs - a noticeable downgrade in terms of fire accuracy, mobility and serviceability. This resulted in a wave of formal and informal complaints from the troops. When Serdyukov was replaced by Shoigu, who is much more restrained and catious in his approaches, and who seemingly holds more respect for the soldiers' opinion, the process of T-80 replacement seemed to slow down or be halted altogether.

 

One indication is a recent interview with the deputy commander of the 4th guards Kantemirovskaya tank division, where he indicates that they are actively rearming with "T-80E" (likely a misspelling of T-80U-E1: surplus T-80UD turret gets a modified FCS with 2nd gen. "Plisa" gunner TI sight and is dropped into T-80BV hull with a modernized glacis (improved composite filaments structure + "Kontakt-5") and modified GTD-1250 gas turbine engine (turbochargeable to 1400-1500 hp)). Also, it seems (could not find official confirmations, but some people connected with tank repair plants were confirming it on several military forums) that 600 T-80BVs of the Eastern military district are slated for technical status repair (i.e. anything not functioning up to specifications will be repaired, but no complete overhaul) and minor modernization (so far the digital communications suite and improved engine were mentioned) - apparently this modification is called T-80BA.

 

My guess from all this is that MOD ultimately decided not to rush things, and replace T-80BV/BA only with superior performance T-72B3. As the T-72B service fleet upgrade is about halfway through, it should take about 2-3 years for production capacity for T-80 replacement to be available. As for the more advanced T-80U-E1 and T-80UA (T-80U with improved FCS with 2 gen. gunner TI sight (likely also "Plisa") and other upgrades), which are similar or superior to T-72B3, perhaps they would be left in service all the way until replacement by "Armata"-based vehicle.

 

The winds can change again, though, so we shall see. This and next year's exercises should prove quite informative.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[Stagler]

Meh, we might see T-80 in module. Im sure all the old cold war fans would be dying to be able to take the 1980s kit to town in CMBS. Only one unit is equipped with T-80UE at the moment and they will be first to receive T-14 apparently.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Meh, we might see T-80 in module. Im sure all the old cold war fans would be dying to be able to take the 1980s kit to town in CMBS. Only one unit is equipped with T-80UE at the moment and they will be first to receive T-14 apparently.

 

Considering that this unit (4th TD) is the largest armored fist in the Russian armed forces, and itself alone has about as many serviceable tanks (248 in 2 tank regiments) as the entire Ukrainian armed forces, and furthermore is located within about 2 days march (or 1 day train lift) from Ukrainian border, then its inclusion in CMBS might be quite reasonable indeed.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[Stagler]

Ukraine also have T-80UD in inventory I believe, inclusion of one in module might see the inclusion of other - for similar modelling purposes if nothing else.

[gunnersman]

I've got yer T-80 right here!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=942_1336414070

That's kind of a wierd video. Almost German noir like, but without the wierd music.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Ukraine also have T-80UD in inventory I believe, inclusion of one in module might see the inclusion of other - for similar modelling purposes if nothing else.

AFAIK, most of the UD ended up in units stationed in Russian SFSR (2nd gds MRD alone should have gobbled up almost a third of the production run), and the majority of 150-200 T-80s listed in Ukrainian reserve are BV. But that reminds me - T-80 already is in CMBS (kind of): for most intents and purposes, BM "Oplot" can be thought of as T-80UDUM.

[Nerdwing]

I wonder how history will remember the T-80.  It was a nightmare of the Cold War and extremely capable in later variants especially, but circumstance and the unfortunate misuse in Chechnya seems to have really condemned the tank.  Will the perception trickle down to poor views in retrospect of the T-64, which was for its time an exemplary (revolutionary, maybe?) tank yet used in an environment for which it was unintended against more advanced armaments suffered noticeably?  

Edited March 6, 2015 by Nerdwing

[MikeyD]

I rather recall people at the time thinking T-80 was an example of the Russians shooting themselves in the foot. Envious of the Abrams so they dropped a helicopter turbine into a tank. What could go wrong? 

Edited March 6, 2015 by MikeyD

[Krasnoarmeyets]

I rather recall people at the time thinking T-80 was an example of the Russians shooting themselves in the foot. Envious of the Abrams so they dropped a helicopter turbine into a tank. What could go wrong?

So envious that they went back in time and rolled T-80 out 4 years before M1?

As for "historical memory" - you can always turn it either way you want, choosing what to put into spotlight and what to avoid. For its designers it was a great technical exercise. For the generals it was a useful tactical tool. For the sustainment departments it was a logistical challenge. For its crews it was a reliable high performance vehicle that did everything that was needed and more. For the Ural transport machinebuilding design bureau it was a dangerous competitor. The elephant has many sides.

Furthermore, I do not think T-80's story is over just yet. Its forefather T-64 was all but written off as 'the tank that never went to combat'* (if you discount some minor engagements in Transnistria) up to last summer...

P.S.:

* - On the other hand, though, that is not such a bad title for any weapon system at all. Let's hope that there will come a time when all weapons would be able to claim it, and war and violence will ultimately be relegated to pages of history and fiction...

Edited March 6, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The T-80 sort of lost its chance to be what the late model T-72/T-90s are today.  It was a handy thing to blame for terribad tank employment in Chechnya, had it rather than the T-72 been better loved it'd have seen more use, but barring some pretty outlandish circumstances, it looks likely to be simply the emblem of back when the Soviets were strong and the specter of global warfare seemed as close as it's been since 1945.  

 

Re: T-64

 

Yeah but it's not really...like the history of the T-34/Sherman/MK IV tanks was most relevant circa 1940ish-1955.  After that point they're more or less relevant because they're a tank in places/services that lack other tanks, vs something that's notable because of its good performance.  If you swapped the T-64 for similar vintage T-72s, or even very late model T-55 upgrades, the history would be more or less the same.  

[BTR]

Do not give up on the flying tank just yet.

 

 

I personally think it's a shame that their replacement process has ground to a halt. Was it a good tank? Yes, but it isn't relevant anymore with much better options available for the total cost of ownership.  

 

In retrospective, do I think that unified T-80 fleet would be better than a unified T-72 fleet? Perhaps, but we are not there so I'd much rather get rid of a non-standard platform. 

[Alexey K]

USSR had three major types of MBT in service simultaneously: T-64, T-72 and T-80 all sharing basicly same characteristics. It was expensive mistake.

 

The reason why T-72/90 line has won is IMO the same why Sukhoi has won over MiG. UVZ (developer and manufacturer of T-90) has better adapted chaotic crisis ("Russian democracy", you know  ) and better sold their equipment to foreign customers. Development and modernization of T-90 series were largely funded by Indians who wanted their "Bishma" tank.

These contracts helped UVZ to keep afloat in virtual absense of goverment orders. 

Edited March 6, 2015 by Alexey K

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Besides, the T-80 is kind of here - it's the Ukranian T-84 and the BM Oplot which are variants of the T-80UD. See P99 of the manual. As Alexey says the T-80 is no longer in service in the Russian army and he offers an interesting insight into why. Essentialy it seems to be moey and government corcts.

Edited March 6, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Krasnoarmeyets]

I personally think it's a shame that their replacement process has ground to a halt. Was it a good tank? Yes, but it isn't relevant anymore with much better options available for the total cost of ownership.  

 

In retrospective, do I think that unified T-80 fleet would be better than a unified T-72 fleet? Perhaps, but we are not there so I'd much rather get rid of a non-standard platform.

At this point, so far down the line, I do not think there is that many additional exploitation costs associated with it - there are stocks of spare parts already, and repair factories have been tuned to working with it. Also, it may be said that T-80 is "region-standardized" - it is the prevalent platform in the north-west and far east, with gas turbine offering better exploitation parameters in the cold environment. Therefore, it can be allowed to continue to serve until a better replacement arrives, which is still a few years away (we still have about 800-900 T-72B/BA to go through before turning to T-80BV).

Besides, one additional benefit to keeping T-80 fleet in operation is that it gives additional incentive to keep working on gas turbine engines. It seems that LKZ and Klimov have been quietly tuning GTD-1250 and continuing exploration of prospective GTD-1500, so if Armata's X-diesel does not work out, there would be an alternative.

USSR had three major types of MBT in service simultaneously: T-64, T-72 and T-80 all sharing basicly same characteristics. It was expensive mistake.

I would agree in part - yes, from economics viewpoint, T-64 production should probably have been discontinued when T-80B arrived. But there are other considerations of military nature to keep in mind - the groups of forces and western MD rearmament was going at full pace in order to stay ahead of NATO, and stopping the 75th factory to retool it for T-80 production might not have been acceptable. Similarly, in ideal world, T-72 should have been just a T-64 with a more produceable engine (or, even better, T-64 should have had a better engine from the start), but in reality by the time T-64's suspension issues were worked out, UKBTM already had an entirely different running train for the T-72, for which the 183rd factory was already retooled. With hordes of T-54/55/62 demanding replacement in SA's second-line units, and in Warsaw Pact allies' and third world clients' armies, production had to start ASAP, economics be damned. Everything for the frontline, everything for victory.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

With hordes of T-54/55/62 demanding replacement in SA's second-line units, and in Warsaw Pact allies' and third world clients' armies, production had to start ASAP, economics be damned. Everything for the frontline, everything for victory.   

 

Which is sort of ironic when you think about it.

 

In general there's just not much reason to bring back the T-80 though.  In the wider sense as we look at all 80's vintage tanks, they have mostly become more or less things in which we hang more modern equipment on until they're sufficiently new to make it another 5-10 years.  And looking at the state of the T-80 fleet, and comparing it to the T-72/90 branch, effectively the only way the T-80 becomes economical:

 

1. Simply any tank will do, the Germans have already taken St Petersburg this time!

 

2. There's some inherent advantage to the T-80 that offsets the cost and difficulty of bringing sufficient numbers back to operational status.  

 

Neither one of these are true at the moment,and the various upgrades post 2000 or so have almost universally been oriented on the T-72/90 range, and there is money in cranking out more of those upgrades, even if the Russian government doesn't bite, there's still dozens of users for things that'll work on a T-72 or T-90, which underwrites a lot of the design of such systems, even if they're not entirely satisfactory for Russian models, interim designs are totally something that can be offered for export.  There just isn't much to recommend putting more time and effort into the T-80 except in the absence of more modern T-72/90 platforms (as cited in the "receiving T-72Bs" example, although that says interesting things about the ability of the Russian military to arm itself, and the level of politics in hardware).  

[Krasnoarmeyets]

There just isn't much to recommend putting more time and effort into the T-80 except in the absence of more modern T-72/90 platforms (as cited in the "receiving T-72Bs" example, although that says interesting things about the ability of the Russian military to arm itself, and the level of politics in hardware).

Well, UVZ has produced 270 T-72B3 in 2013 and 294 in 2014, so the normal rate for their production would seem to be ~300/yr. They can perhaps bring it up to ~500/yr through concentrating all efforts, but since they also prepare for "Armata" production and have export contracts there is not much sense in that. Meanwhile, the repair factories can work from the other end, upgrading T-80s that are still in service, so that total interim rearmament would be finished in half the time (i.e. when UVZ finishes with upgrading ~1500 service T-72s, it would not have to replace ~1000 service T-80s, and can concentrate resources on "Armata" production). Edited March 6, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[BTR]

At this point, so far down the line, I do not think there is that many additional exploitation costs associated with it - there are stocks of spare parts already, and repair factories have been tuned to working with it. Also, it may be said that T-80 is "region-standardized" - it is the prevalent platform in the north-west and far east, with gas turbine offering better exploitation parameters in the cold environment. Therefore, it can be allowed to continue to serve until a better replacement arrives, which is still a few years away (we still have about 800-900 T-72B/BA to go through before turning to T-80BV).

Besides, one additional benefit to keeping T-80 fleet in operation is that it gives additional incentive to keep working on gas turbine engines. It seems that LKZ and Klimov have been quietly tuning GTD-1250 and continuing exploration of prospective GTD-1500, so if Armata's X-diesel does not work out, there would be an alternative.

 

Comfort does not equate better use, at least to me. Total cost of ownership is an arguable parameter. I think having two platforms (with a slightly outrageous number of modifications), even so far down the line is driving it up, but I have no hard data on that. Just like with T-64 ending service with T-80 introduction, T-80 should have ended service with T-72B3 entering our forces. The only place Turbine might really make a difference might be the arctic, but that is also arguable. 

 

I hope that GDT-1500 never takes off. Not because it's bad tech, but having turbines on tanks is a little like building submarines out of titanium (K-222), something no country could afford. 

[Krasnoarmeyets]

As a matter of principle, we have to keep some jet tanks in until "Abrams" is dieselized or is put out of service.

[BTR]

That's a fair point.