Russian T80 how bad is it?

Cluster bombs can clear the battlefield of infantry.

How about remote controlled flamethrower tanks for urban combat?

a reply to: FlyingFox

It's against the Geneva Convention.

Not everybody is a signator of the agreement. Soviet Union was not, and lost many pows in the process.

Doesn't it really matter? We and the other side have developed multiple methods to kill any weaponry yet developed.

Tanks, troops, ships, aircraft. Name it, we can kill it. Again, multiple ways.

It's down to attrition, infrastructure and cost. It's not about 'winning' a war, it's about surviving a war....

a reply to: nwtrucker

To those who fight in them, we believe differently, it is ONLY about winning.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

No argument from me.

REMFs? That's a different story...

US is building to much on weapons like drones tanks ships.
a single mad with the right weapon can take it out.

guerilla warfare has all ways been best.
why do you think the SAS are the best!

a RPG with a ground to air missile
would take any air power down.
and one day soon they will have them.

and what do the big countries do?
keep cutting down on simple solders.

a reply to: buddha

Lasers ,railguns and exotic stuff we don't know comes to mind...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
All tanks suck at urban combat. They're not really designed for it. The T-80 got caught up in the corruption after the fall of the Soviet Union. It's got its issues, but nothing that can't be overcome.

The Israeli Merkava Tank is probably best suited for urban warfare, and is usually considered the best tank as far as survivability.

The Ukrainians have an upgraded version of the T-80, which is called the T-84 Oplot, yet I have not seen any information about whether it has been engaged in the ongoing conflict and how it performs in action.

"In the battle of projectile vs armor,projectile always wins"


It is always easier and cheaper to develop a way to defeat armor than to make armor more resistant to penetration.

Thank you for a very interesting read on Russian tanks, first I knew they had gas turbines for a power pack.

To topic.

The T80 was developed by the Soviets as part of their armoured doctrine of mobility and quantity.

It is no surprise that in they were found deficient in the built up areas of Grozny and other places, far away from the open mobile warfare they were designed to excel in.

However, with reactive armour added and some half decent tank crew and support, they can be made to work with some effect in the type of squalled conflicts going on today.

As a direct contender against modern MBTs e.g. the Chally or Leopard, and modern warfare e.g. a Brimstone missile, they would have problems.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

That does seem like a pretty idiotic design flaw. Plus, as the article pointed out, the Soviets basically had 3 tanks with similar capabilities but not enough cross-compatability for parts.

a reply to: pfishy

Russia DOES have brilliant people there I don't see how they do things like that.
It's a waste of material and time.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

The Soviet superiority mindset actually had a noticeable effect on engineering, design and implementation of quite a few things they produced. One of the biggest failings of the Soviet military infrastructure was the belief that they would not require as much maintenance and repair as Western military equipment because Soviet engineers regularly overdesigned vehicles and equipment by a large margin. Therefore they believed that they did not need as large a store of replacement parts. That may have worked reasonably well for their automotive industry, but is a philosophy all but guaranteed to end in disaster for a military.
Also, the power plant differences, specifically the turbine, did have notable advantages over the traditional diesel engines. Speed, cold-weather startup, etc. That was all mentioned in the article. But they obviously had many shortcomings as well. Perhaps they were put into service with the belief that after practical evaluation these flaws could be redesigned out of them. Who knows.

a reply to: pfishy

As technology in war advances I see them unifying with the US eventually in order to survive.
The largest BOO,BOO was not UP armoring BEHIND the raod wheeels on the hull to a point where a TINY RPG hit can decaiptate the vehicle.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Russia?
By unifying, do you mean allying or actually wanting to become one nation?

a reply to: pfishy

I saw a Sci Fi book of the title "CO-dominion" THEY need adventurous people to develop their natural assets in the colder areas and WE both need them.
They need our independent thinking and WE need thier discipline of culture.
We never were the NATO/UN type any way.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

So, actually unifying under one flag. Hmm. That's something I can honestly say I have never thought of before. You make some valid points.
Having grown up during the late 70s and 80s, and being in my senior year of high school when the Wall came down, I suppose it is an ingrained bias on my part to think this an impossibility. But I think the real obstacle to it would be the Cultural differences and the political stances stemming from or causing them.
Adventurous types can always be had for sufficient compensation. And while we would both benefit from extraction of Russian resources, I am not sure that would be sufficient cause to even spark that conversation. And as far as the cultural aspects of it, a lot of our societal norms would be unusual and possibly very uncomfortable for them, and vise versa. It wouldn't be as much so now as in 1989 for example, but still an extremely difficult adjustment for all involved.

Although tanks have a rotating turret, tanks are designed to fight what is in front of them.

If the modern arms have a weakness, it is that they always assume support.