Why not the T-80?

There’s a lot of negative things about Soviet and Russian tanks out there. And quite frankly, this video is also going to be about the drawbacks of the Soviet T-80 Main Battle Tank. Now, I could talk about the basic problems, which are actually widely spread amongst a lot of Soviet and Russian Armored Fighting Vehicles, such as the depressing gun depression, the autoloader, or the horrible crew survivability. But I wanted to show you some things which you most likely don’t know about (yet) and therefore present to you something new.
So hello and welcome, and enjoy this video.

[@nemisous83]

1. the TKN-3M was a generation 2 passive night vision tube which is on par with US equivalents like the TVS-4 however most NATO tanks didn't even have a passive night vision periscope for the commander in 1976. the M60A1 RISE was the first US tank to obtain this capability with the M36E1 periscope however the performance wasn't much better than TKN-3M and required additional IR illumination to see past 400 yards. the Leopard 1a4's night vision device was an active IR not passive and the British used active IR for the commander and a gen 1 passive device similar to the PVS-2 starlight scope for the gunner. 2. laser range finders from the 1970's weren't known for being 100% accurate, NATO laser range finders where Ruby based which consumed a lot of power and often would give back false reading or "ghost readings" so gunners where advised to pick which ever range seemed logical. so a 30m margin for error is considered more than acceptable for the standards of the time and even modern laser range finders are around 5 meters margin for error depending if the target is moving. 3. The gunners sight is not directly tied to the gun elevation during the loading cycle once the gunner hits the load switch it disconnects the gunners sight from travel axis of the gun, once loading is complete the gun will elevate or depress to where the gunners is currently aiming thats the main reason countries moved away from coaxial aiming telescopes for top mounted sighting housings to avoid the sight being knocked of target when the gun is elevated to the loading position for the loader. 4. The Soviet Union was largely behind in thermal imaging manufacturing because of the economic recession and later depression of the 1980's, the collapse of the Soviet Union further compounded this problem and thats why the Soviets fell so far behind. However its worth noting that Thermal imagers definitely represented the next phase of tank development early thermal imagers as seen on Leopard 2 and M1 faced the same issue of low resolution as the AGAVA-2 this is why friendly fire incidents where so common in the first gulf war and what spurred the development of better thermal imagers. 5. I think you are misunderstanding the point of the 12.7mm machine gun on soviet tanks. it wasn't really used for anti infantry purposes the point was to shoot at low flying helicopters. Most T-80 commanders would lock the cupola in place and only unlock it to scan the battle field as necessary however the cupola rotates on ball bearings which makes rotating not that difficult no different than the HMMWV turret mounts. 6. the chain reaction of ERA has already been largely debunked both in photos in Ukraine and by independent testing the explosive filler isn't set off by heat but rather compressive force and it requires a lot of compressive force that only HEAT and APFSDS can provide.

[@handsomeivan1980]

Bro unfortunately isn't going to read this I don't think

[@bobiwt]

1. You’re right that the TKN-3M was similar to US equivalents like the TVS-4 and that many NATO tanks didn’t have passive night vision periscopes in 1976. But my point was to talk about the limitations of the TKN-3M in practical use, especially the fact that it was unstabalized and had low resolution, which were significant drawbacks in a dynamic combat environment. 2. You're right, early laser range finders, including those used by NATO, had some errors and other problems. But I'm pretty sure I also mentioned that the error margin was acceptable to some degree because of the estimated tank combat distance during a war in Europe, which was about 1,500 meters, and with APFSDS ammunition, which had a flat trajectory, it was even better. I know I just "debunked" the limitation I presented, but still. You get the point. 3. From what I know, this is not true. And I also haven't found anything that confirms your statement. The sight has dependent stabilization in the vertical plane, with 20 degrees of elevation and 5 degrees of depression. Dependent stabilization means the sight is technically stabilized, but it relies on the cannon's vertical stabilizer. Since the cannon has to elevate by +3 degrees for the loading cycle, the gunner usually loses sight of the target immediately after firing and can't observe the "splash" to adjust the elevation. The commander can see the target, but this isn't a very convenient way to operate. 4. Yeah, that's right. 5. Yes, you're right that the MG was to counter helicopters. But the way the commander would have to use it is still very inconvenient. And in very heated battles between a heli and a tank crew, the commander might have to aim behind him, if the heli changes position. But he can't do this because the MG is mounted on pedestals instead of a ring. 6.After doing some more research it seems like you're right, and I had wrong information. I apologize for that.

[@glalih]

@@bobiwt that much "youre right" points make it worthy of an addon video my brother.

[@bobiwt]

@@glalih You do know acknowledging the other person before making a point is just common in communication, right? I don't mean it provocative.

[@nemisous83]

@@bobiwt 1. yes but you have to remember than stabilized commander sights was also incredibly new and novel the only tank with a stabilized commander sight was the at the time new Leopard 1A4. This is also the time when tank engagements while moving wasn't considered practical because of how long it took to lase the target and lay the gun. 3. I think you are getting confused between the Gunner's NV sight and his primary sight. on the T-64, T-72 and T-80 the NV sight is separate from the gunners primary sight the NV optic has just a simple BDC reticle and is tied to the stabilization of the main gun however the primary sight operates completely independent of the main gun. this would remain this way until adoption Sosna U.

[@thanakornkhumon7365]

Early T-80 is pretty bad ngl. It's more like T-64 with some advance tech for Soviet at that time and more powerful engine. But cost more and require more refuel. While more modern and more powerful T-80U series problem for me is it is too expensive and too complicate even compare to T-80B series. Because of that it never got proper treatment like cheaper T-80B series despite shown so many potential like at one point in Cold War T-80U is one of the most protected tank in the world due to being the first to ever install heavy Explosive Reactive Armor "Kontact-5" and even feature much more modern armor compare to most Soviet tank except T-72B series, it became MBT platform that feature some high tech for Russia after Cold War like T-80UM-1 "Bars" a prototype tank that install Arena Active Protection System, T-80UM2 (prototype with feature KAZT Drozd active protection system), T-80UE-1 (An export T-80U with more armor and thermal for gunner) or even cancelled project Object 460 "Black Eagle" in which use T-80 tank hull but install much safer ammo rack inside the turret. But even it has some problems it is still good tank especially in conventional war scenario in which it was design for

[@osmacar5331]

"T-80" shows T-72A. I think you got something mixed up there. EDIT: so a couple got confused it seems. the thumbnail before was a T-72A, syrian if am not mistaken, now it is a T-80BVM.

[@bobiwt]

Do you mean in the thumbnail?

[@osmacar5331]

@@bobiwt yeup

[@the-nm3xn]

@@osmacar5331 thumbnail is a t80bv unless its been changed

[@bobiwt]

@@the-nm3xn I changed it, it was a T-72 before

[@bobiwt]

@@scantrontheimmortal I changed it

[@Leopardo_2E]

I have heard that despite being the favorite in the 90s, the T-80 is now very disliked by Russian tankists because of how much fuel it guzzles, is this true?

[@bobiwt]

@@Leopardo_2E Well besides the fuel consumption there‘s also a lot of maintenance issues with the turbine engine

[@jonnybravo918]

So glad u keep the quality

[@bobiwt]

@@jonnybravo918 Thank you! I will try to make the videos keep getting better

[@user-gd1yo3sz2q]

Great Content

[@bobiwt]

Thanks!

[@rs5974]

love your vids as always!

[@bobiwt]

Thank you

[@MrUnl33t]

15:25 My guy, you've said nothing! This video could be made into a 1 minute short and none of the actual information would be lost. You've said the most obvious things, such as "using IR spotlight makes tank visible" and provided part numbers of sights, that anyone watching forgot 5 seconds after hearing. I'll say it again: every interesting part of this video, such as dependent stabilisation, can fit into single youtube short.

[@bobiwt]

I'm pretty sure it's not possible to provide that much detail in one yt short. And I'm not making these videos to throw some quick info at you with no context. I like going deep with the information I have, which I simply couldn't do in a yt short. If you like it short, then why don't you copy the transcript and tell Chat GPT to summarize it for you?

[@yguy6885]

Have you considered doing the ground vehicle equivelent to the open skies guy where he talked about the politics and strange incidents around the deisgn of different soviet aircraft

[@bobiwt]

I'm sorry, I don't know who exactly you're talking about. Could you give me the channel link or something?

[@yguy6885]

@@bobiwt apologies the channels name is paper skies

[@bobiwt]

@@yguy6885 Okay so I might do some videos on strange designs and maybe what they had to do with politics, but not only from Soviet vehicles. Also I don‘t think I‘ll ever get really political on this channel because these are just not the type of videos I want to make. The comment section gets political enough for me sometimes 😂 (Look at my last T-72 vid for example)

[@yguy6885]

@bobiwt o sorry not those politics, like the ones you highlighted where the different tank factories were fighting over bmp development, it was really interesting. O sweet, yeah any where you are able to read the original documentation is awesome as it adds so much

[@bobiwt]

@@yguy6885Don‘t be sorry! About the topics you mentioned, yeah sure I can do more of that. That‘s cool and a good idea! Thanks for bringing that up, I appreciate it 😃

[@happymonkey7068]

A very good video Bobi.

[@bobiwt]

Glad you enjoyed it, thanks!

[@Chiboza]

Most problematic thing with T-80 family tanks is engine deck and fuel line that are an FPV magnet. Have to acknowledge that even it is my favorite Soviet tank... :D

[@NikolaDundjerovic]

i think its overall great tank tbh autolader no need for loader small coverable in camo great for russian plains fast agile the only thingg it lacks is safety cus of ammorack and reverse speed everything else in check:)

[@bobiwt]

Well, the reverse speed is still a lot better than with the T-64s, T-72s, and T-90s. Unlike the ones mentioned, the T-80 goes 11km/h in reverse, and the 2023 model of the T-80, the T-80 BVM, goes over 20 km/h in reverse.

[@HenrikFredriksson-oi4lz]

Death coffins - junk😂😂😂😂