It alright Matsimus. It's not like the Stridsvagn 103 is really well known to begin with, alongside being a tank that used both a Diesel Engine and a Turbine Engine.
@nikola poyukov already the *name* no matismus is an unbiased channel.Red effect is clearly pro-russian/udssr. And Im not an western fanboy I was a tanker in an rumanian battalion
@nikola poyukov No I have watched his videos.You want to tell me that the video about the t-14 isnt biased? Im a big fan of the t-14 platform but comme on..... the fact that you are insulting me shows everybody that Im right as you are an typical russian fanboy. I cant understand why everybody has such an emotional binding with sole weapons. But its never a veteran its always some kid or some punk in the internet.You know why? Because we veterans know our weapons and we try to estimate the weapons of our enemys! If not, we die! My father (who served during the cold war) told me once that the NATO would kick our ass in a war. I got home after an propaganda show in school and said something like: why should we be afraid, our tanks are invulnerable for the Nato. (My father was also an tanker and he first started laughing and then got very seriously as romania only had some old t-72 but mostly t-55) By the way Im not a zigan.
@@Burkutace27 I didn't say the Russians didn't use poor tactics by sending them into an urban areas with out infantry support but it does matter if your vehicle doesn't have the proper armour package to defend against anti tank weapons.
@@paez4779 apart from bad tactic, the T-80B has thin armor in between engine bay and crew compartment. Chechen rebels (ex-Soviet veterans) knew the weakness and fired RPG into engine bay rear. The RPG penetrated engine and armor punching into crew compartment hit ammo storage creating cookoff
@@paez4779 only later further ERA added to cover engine bay door. Militants would launch few RPG rounds at the engine bay door to get through crew compartment
@Andy the Malevolent Except no one really mentions the T80 at all. The reality is, it's not really been much in combat for a long time, while the Abrams has been.
@@TehIdiotOne T-80 saw combat in Chechnya, albeit being sent into urban combat with no infantry support only to be decimated by Chechens with RPG's. The Abrams might have an impressive service record, but has only had to fight T-55's and first gen T-72's from the 70's, not really that impressive when you obliterate 40 year old tanks with your new top of the line MBT's. It's like having a fully equipped Medieval Knight slaughter his way through stone age tribesmen and then praise the Knight on his service performance
When, I was in 1/50 Infantry back in the 1980's were took the T-80 very seriously. Most of all our training was geared to dealing with that big mean and ugly thing. And for those of us who went mechanized a lot of our Bradley training was geared towards engaging the T-80. Thanks for a great video on a true beast of a machine.
Cool looking tank. I saw a T-72 and a Leo 2 side by side at the tank museum in Parola, Finland and was very shocked at how much smaller the T-72 was. T-72 looked very crudely built but cool none the less.
thanks to small dimensions, and internal volume, the Soviet and Russian tanks had the smaller area of necessary booking... and it means, huge weight reduction, in combination with thicker armor... Thanks to the autoloader, it was succeeded to reduce even more internal volume thanks to what it was succeeded to reduce the tower sizes, and it is even stronger to increase armor thickness, without increase in weight of the tank... In the conditions of the Russian climate, the weight of the tank shouldn't exceed, the maximum 50-55 tons... all tanks of bigger weight, in the conditions of the Russian climate won't be able normally to be at war, and will be very quickly destroyed, either will just get stuck, or will fail...) ) The first T-72 versions had the weight of 41,5 tons, at the time of their emergence, couldn't punch them nothing, except uranium shells... After modernization and installation of dynamic protection, the weight of T-72 became 46,5 tons, uranium shells of the first generation have ceased to punch him, he became almost impregnable... Nearly 10 years later, after release of t-72, Americans have created Abrams, and Germans the Leopard-2, created them for defense, against the Soviet t-72, they had guns of the increased caliber and power, but even they could punch t-72, equipped with dynamic protection, only the latest subcaliber shells, or uranium lomika of the second generation (the composition of alloy is changed, he became more plastic, shells of the first generation were strong, but very fragile, and often broke up about strong armor, the second generation is more balanced, has big plasticity and smaller fragility). . For opposition Abramsam and to Leopards-2, has been created by T-90, at external similarity, it is absolutely other tank, even structure of a bronestala absolutely another, and the latest guns with the autoloader, under more powerful and long ammunition, By The Way, these technologies are forbidden for export, even Hindus who have the plant on assembly of t-90, have no manufacturing techniques of armor and trunks of guns, they are forced to buy them from Russia...) At the same time, considerably having increased booking and completely new equipment, T-90 has kept weight category, as at t-72, the weight of 46,5 tons... The latest T-14 "Armata", weighing 50 tons, has a little increased sizes, but, thanks to an uninhabited tower, the internal volume of the tank was reduced almost twice, thickness of armor has increased even stronger, and the necessary area of booking of a tower has decreased thanks to what, has become possible to increase even more, booking of the manned capsule, having increased protection of crew... At the same time, all these Russian tanks remained in admissible weight category, and have huge potential, for armor building, to critical, for the Russian climate, 55 tons... And T-80, by the way, created specially, for military operations in Europe, fast break of defense, and capture or extermination of military of groups... for this purpose creation of the powerful and fast engine, and facilitated, but very strong running gear was required. . Now, thanks to the engine which is capable to be started successfully at extremely low temperatures, to minus 40 degrees Celsius, on T-80 base, in Russia create the Arctic tank troops, sbosobny it is fine to be at war in the conditions of the Arctic, at extremely low temperatures...))
@@СергейПетров-я8й5л Russian tanks don't have thick armor. They're armor is quite shit, actually, which is precisely why they're lightweight, and precisely why they're so heavily angled.
@@morteparla6926 You are ready to offer facts...???) If not, continue to fantasize, but keep your wet dreams to yourself... Here's a real fact, In Europe and the United States, I think the Merkava MK.4, one of the best tanks in the world... But, even many of the Israeli military, in the revelation recognize that the reservation T - 90 is superior to the Israeli tanks... Merkava MK.4, weighs about 70 tons, T-90 weighs 46.5 tons... But, in the ratio of booking to protect 1 cubic meter of space, the T-90 is superior, 1.42 times... This is a fact, and it is available in open sources... You can count the number of armor yourself, divide the weight of the armor into the internal volume,you will get the real average weight of the armor, to protect the volume unit...
The west never truly face any actual Russian tanks, they only faced cheap export version T-72s from Poland and Czechoslovakia that were sold to Iraq. The Iraqis also made their own knockoffs of the T-72. These tanks were no where close to their actual Russian counterparts. The T-80 is an entirely different story. So despite drawbacks of Russian tanks, western tanks also have their drawbacks as well. Interesting video.
@@finnanutyo1153T-80U could stop 1990's DU 120mm rounds from the M1A1 thanks to the Armour and Kontakt-5 ERA. The T-72B3 with the Relikt ERA can stop modern rounds from the Challenger 2 from 500 metres and further out, whilst the T-90 with Relikt can stop it from 200 Metres plus, whilst Russian Gun launched ATGM's can destroy or at least knockout an Abrams from 4km.
@@roadhigher It was the interior armor layout that stopped it. Kontact doesn't stop kinetic rounds, only chemical based explosives. When using kinetic rounds, they add maybe 1-2mm of extra armor, which is pretty much nothing.
@@PugilistCactus Kontakt-5 and Relikt ERA are ''heavy'' ERA, in contrast to earlier ''light'' era like the ROMOR and Kontakt-1 which only stopped chemical munitions, heavy era can provide up to 400mm protection from APFSDS. This is because the ERA is made of Heavy plates sandwiched between an explosive charge, and upon impact the Heavy metal plate is sent outwards into the Kinetic penetrator. This can Shatter the APFSDS preventing it from even hitting the main armour, or can severely degrade the penetration performence by massively slowing it down and deforming it. Several tests in the 1990's have shown that Kontakt-5 can provide up to 390mm of protection from Kinetic rounds, and Relikt is speculated to be about 400mm. This is on top of the Tank's armour itself, which can give tanks like the T-90MS up to a metre of LOS protection in RHA equivelent
The M1A1 designers were impressed with the digital control capabilities of the BIUS engine and other systems via the data transmission channel, but this technology has not been widely used. The design itself is very good and can be improved by adding a separate power unit and digital control systems that reduce fuel consumption and are much more effective in controlling the engine and power consumption.
Abrams is the only American tank equipped with gas trubine - so what tradition are you barking about? Besides turbine engine has less movable parts and requires less maintenance work as opposed to diesel engine and is able to start at subzero temperatures. Besides in 1980s it was the most powerful engine which gave astonishing 1500 HP for such heavy tank - which meant great mobility.
@@kevinguo3127 modern conventional engines have advanced much more since the 1980's being able to produce the proper power for the Abrams that the gas turbine isn't necessary.
Ahha, the sweet video game fear you felt in Armoured Fist, i felt it in Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis. Being in a M1A1, seeing T-72s coming from afar, everything felt allright. Seeing T-80s coming from afar ? OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT....
Played that game for a few thousand hours. Seeing the T-80 appear made no difference to me. It just meant you needed a couple of extra hits. A hit in the right spot would get you a firepower kill or mobility kill and then it was irrelevant even if it otherwise worked. From a distance they always shot low, like all tanks in the game. I bumped the muzzle velocity of the sabot rounds up to 1750 m/s before they started having a decent hit probability at proper ranges.
CaFPhantom11 Being in a M1A1 i didn't care much about the T80.As infantry you didn't stand a chance against the heavily armored T80. A T72 is much easier to destroy with hand held rocket launchers
It depends on the version. T-72B obr. 1989 was frontal immune to M1A1 Abrams which were used during the time in CW. M829A1 round was not able to penetrate the Kontakt-5 of the T-80U and T-72B obr. 1989.
Matsimus Gaming, I have been watching your channel for quite some time already. Especially I was interested in videos about soviet ussian tanks, basically because I’m from Russia myself, and I find it very informative to see the adequate and balanced opinion about our tanks, to find out how people from NATO block countries (let’s call it this way, no offence) see those machines because NATO doctrines and soviet ussian doctrines are so different from each other, especially in tanks business. The content you make, it’s very important to people like me in Russia, keep doing this great job! Wish that in the future there will be more videos about small arms (like the video about sa80)
The T-80U and T-72B obr. 1989 were frontal IMMUNE vs M829A1 from the 120mm which the M1A1 used. M829A2 was another story but this tank round came 1992 (!). :P
@@marvintiger9631 Only from 750 meters or more. (which of course is still scary since that meant that the T-80s and T-72s would be way too close for the NATO doctrine to be effective, it would also mean that the M1s, Leo 2s and Chally 1s would be vulnerable to Soviet sabot types.)
Trackhead95 Yup just like Cascade Falls mission. You get fucking Bradley's and Sheridan's while Russians are just spaming T-80's and 64's just for fun.
Small mistake with the auto-loader: If you don not change the ammunition type (so if you stick to KE in a duel e.G.) it only takes 4-5 seconds. That is a special feature that was introduced with the U version if I remember correctly. Fuel consumption was problematic, yes. But it really wasn't thaaaat bad since unlike the M1 the tank was rather light.
Oh and two tings that actually are problematic: The reverse speed is tremendously low and the tracks are not self cleaning. Also not all T-80s hat thermals, while most of the Leo2 and all of the M1 had.
Reverse speed of T-80U is about 12-13kmh....it isnt fast bat it isnt to slow, compare to T-64 it has only 4kmh...if they put 1 or 2 more reverse speed it will go much faster, but they stick with old type transmission because of reducing cost of tank... T-80U have thermal sights, but not all of them because USSSR broke and they stop put thermal sight in late production of T-80U. Russia have less then 1000 U/UD models (more then 600 are UD model), rest are B and BV models...
Yes, T-80U was much batter tank then M1 in any aspect. Much batter armor protection, batter gun, batter agility and ect....M1A1H have same lvl of armor protection as T-80U...
Nice try with bullshit propaganda - T-80 is worst in every aspect from M1A2 Abrams - it lacks protection (thinner armor, worse armor, needs additional ERA armor), lacks good fire control which limits firing range, the ammo compartment is not separated from crew, the controls are different from T-90 and T-72. Piece of crap that can be utilized by any Abrams.
I was in Baumholder Germany in 1982 to 1984. It was our mission ,as TOW missle crews, to stop as many of these as we could in the event of an invasion. I was in REFORGER 1983. The intelligence community called it Operation Able Archer. You can look it up on wikipedia to see how close we came to a nuclear end.
Nice video, i’m a great fan of russian tanks. I like the fact that you stay neutral about russian mbt’s, i realy like that. You’re the only youtuber who doesnt tell wrong facts about russian mbt’s and doesnt say that russian mbt’s are bad.
Thank you for another enlightening review. I do appreciate your realism concerning the final purpose of tanks and weapons, something to avoid and an unfortunate event in most or all cases. I would appreciate a series about logistics.
Blitz FromBehind Yep - 360 degrees from cameras and sensors - as long as they work. Traditional MBT layout gives 360 degree visibility thourgh periscopes.
From what I've heard, it (S-Tank) had a gas-turbine AND a diesel. So yes the first with a turbine, but the T-80 was the first with only a gas-turbine engine.
its the other way around m8, the gas turbine is much more fueleffective when not in idle so thats why they have diesel for slow manouvers and stationary use
Beleive it or go nuts trying, the Germans were working on a gas turbine for the Panther in 1944. No, they did not get the bugs out either due to lack of high temp metals, same issue as their jets. There was a gas turbine M-48, also experimental but the idea has been around a long time.
T-80 tanks are still modernizing and will be used only with the arctic units! I watched a documentary about the T-80BVM where the engineers working on engine to increase power and fuel economy! They also working on increasing protection and firepower!
yes they are modernizing T80BV tanks into T80 BV(M) tanks. Engine got better fuel consumption and is more reliable, also maintenance intervals have been lengthened
The T-80BVM is a further variant of the T-80BV main battle tank incorporating some improvements and new features introduced with the T-90MS tank. The Russian Armed Forces introduced the T-80BVM in September 2017. The upgraded tank features the Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) and cage armor in several sections as well as rubber side skirts with built-in armor plates. The tank is powered by a GTD-1250TF gas turbine developing a power output of 1,250-hp and a top speed of 70 kilometers per hour. Besides, the T-80BVM features an auxiliary power unit (APU). The weapon system consists of a 2A46M 125mm smoothbore gun, a 12.7mm anti-aircraft cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. The Russian Army plans could call for the upgrade of up to 3,000 gas powered T-80 tanks to the BVM standard to keep them in reserve. These tanks perform better than diesel powered tanks in extreme cold climate such as the Northern of Russia.
HVO.ST it has one big "-" - it is the bad sound, the rest is awsome - all the film you watch mostly fighting and in turms of brutality it makes Saving Private Riyan look like a cartoon for kids)
I had always been fascinated by the speed and elegance of this machine. And though it has its drawbacks, in particular areas where the dust is not an issue, it can provide a nice penetration and firepower.
T-80 is returning ..and reason is the turbine .they are planed to be main force for Arctic army T-72 is planed to be upgraded to level of T-90 and t-90 and t-80 to level armata regarding protection and optic and gun
T-90 is T-80 turret on T-72 chaises ...is the same story one expenciev e tank one cheap tank T-64 T-72 T-80 was the expedience oneT-90 has quality of T-80 and price of T-72 put all reactive armour optic active protection on T-80 and you would have similar tan or better than first series of T-90..for less money
In the fall of 1983 ,sitting at a regimental war game scenario briefing that included my Essex and Kent Scottish Regt defending the alaskan forward shores from hordes of pt-76s backed by t-54s and t-34/85s and a veritable horde of "evil commie" infantry nobody stopped to think "Does Ivan ever invent new things that are competitive?" .The wargame was meant to impart skills and discipline to face an armoured overrun scenario.My Windsor Regt (armoured)friends laughed when i shared the info with them- The Russians have been upgrading stocks to T-80 BVM with full thermal sights and the best new reactive armour suites,They do leave the gas turbine intact.The only lacking feature of T-80 BVM is a commanders thermal suite.
Error 2 minutes in. The Stridsvagn 103 was the first main battle tank to use a gas turbine engine. The Swedes classified it as a MBT and operated it as one in their doctrine even though it didn't have a turret.
A little update on the T-80`s fate in the russian army: MoD right now modernizing and standartizing a bunch of different T-80`s modifications: T-80U-E1, T-80BV and T-80UD. They are getting new rangefinders, REA Relikt-5, radiostation and FCS. New modernization named T-80BVM. So yeah, they are no more in serial production, but they are not going to be dismissed ether, especially when political situation around the North Pole slowly heats up. Tbh - with V92S2 diesel and its 1000 hp T-80`s gas turbine is just to much. With 1000hp T-90`s got enough mobility, and there literally no more reasons for T-80`s to be anywhere except North Pole. Of course it`s kinda sad, especially if you heard tank gas turbine whistling once - you are in love for it forever. But that`s just how real world works :(
@@hermanman8235 don't be so dismissive towards M1, it' is a great war machine. I can only hope that someday our tanks will recieve commander station or gunner station like ones on M1A2 Sep. T-90M gets as close as it can be, and I really hope that it will finally replace T-72 someday.
@@user-vgrau agree.i just want a peaceful world so that everyone can enjoy their 🌞🌞🌞 vodka/beer/liquor without any sadness.happyness and peace that's all I want.thanks for your reply
A nice review although again there are some things that I would mention re the T-80 and was surprised to not hear that would be of interest to viewers. In no particular order apart from the first... 1 - SOVIET NOT RUSSIAN 2 - the use of the T-80 to install a 152mm gun which was successful and has been re-purposed for the T-14 Armata today, (Object 292) 3 - the use of the T-80 to test the 2A82 125mm gun used on the Armata (Object 785) 4 - development of the T-80 into the Black Eagle tank, a precursor to the T-14 alongside the T-95 5 - the T-80's nickname of "The English Channel Tank" due to its performance in soviet exercises (I think the estimate was just over 2 weeks to get to the channel) 6 - The T-80 (Especially U model) is still a very capable tank comparable to the later T-90 (which was meant to blend the T-80 & T-72), though the T-90 is the superior (in chechnya receiving multiple RPG hits and remaining combat effective to name one case) 7 - Withdrawal of the T-80 from Russian service is primarily twofold; one is certainly the fuel consumption issue, the other is parts commonality; with the upgraded T-72s matching T-80 performances, and the 60+% parts shared with the T-90, it saves on running costs and simplifies logistics I haven't found much evidence to support it but I gather the T-80s were at one point (may still be) to be reassigned to the Naval Infantry where the separate logistics train would not cause many problems until full replacement - but that now may be redundant with the BMMP and upgraded T-72s (B3/B3M/B4)
4 - The Black Eagle was not a precursor to the T-14 or T-95. It was a failed attempt by the OMSK plant that never progressed. 'T-95' (Ob. 195) was the precursor to the T-14, from the UVZ plant.
The part in the beginning about the gas turbine is wrong. The Swedish Strv 103(S-tank) was in service between 1967 and 1997 and the A model had a Boeing GT502 TOGETHER with a Rolls-Royce K60. (I don’t know if this was the earliest ether, it just came to mind)
Hey, did you hear that Russia started to modernize its huge old T-80 arsenal to the level of T-80BVM? We've already have a documentary on the new model from "Zvezda" TV channel
Matsimus - First off I really enjoy your videos. I also am a veteran, as I served 10 years in the US army. I did 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afganistan. But my question is do you not like any tank? From the videos I have watched, it seems like you give them all very glowing reviews.
Scud B- The T-80 was a good tank when it came out but isn't a match for modern western tanks such as the Abrams, Challenger 2 or Leo 2. Actually, Russia doesn't have any MBTs that are a match versus western tanks. Even the T-90 wasn't designed to go 1v1 against western tanks. The T-90 is a good tank but still lacks the armor, optics and fire control systems that most western tanks are equipped with. Russia's military doctrine is predicated on using large amounts of tanks to overwhelm their opponents.
Justin Robbins welp! I've seen syrian T-90 got hit by ATGM and that's it...nothing happens. And while an Abrams tank got hit by sudanese ATGM and it went Ka-boom in flames.
It was probably the older model M1-Abrams. Pretty sure no M1A2 Abrams have been destroyed in combat, while many of Russia's inferior T-90s have been knocked out.
Another awesome looking tank. It’s in my top 10 best looking tanks . Fast hits hard may be uncomfortable as heck but it will look as the turret blows off from a hit from an M1A2 SEP . Kidding but not really. Was cool seeing that thing catch some serious air. What a jump. T72-T80-T90 are all cool looking tanks. I’m American so like our home tank the best tank overall M1A2?Abrams .👍
Personally, I disagree that this tank is past its time if you mean that something heavier is needed. For me, this is a special forces /breakthrough tank which can deliver quite the punch from an area considered unpassable. Depending on location and the type of mission, this tank is still a very serious threat to even the most modern of tanks just because it is so light and in the hands of a good tactician, this is a priceless tool.
Sweden did extensive testing of a couple of T-80's in the late 90's (before Russia started harassing Sweden an began it's journey back to Soviet-style rule). It was very capable in winter/arctic conditions. It was tested along with Challenger 2 and the Abrams as a replacement for the 103 (S-tank) along with the completely brutal Swedish S-2000 tank project (which were apparently scrapped before actual functional prototypes. Google the pics/specs). All were beaten by the Leo 2 though. The other ones did not start/run reliably in arctic conditions. The T-80 did, but was deemed to outdated.
Belarus sold all their T-80 to Yemen i think back in the 90's. They operate T-72B mostly and now are modernizing them to T-72B3 (same as russian ones). Russians are currently modernizing their T-80BVs to BVM.
You can argue whatever you want about T-80 vs Abrams, but there is just something about the T-80 that makes me like it more. It looks cooler to me and it has the traits of a tank that I personally like.
I don't understand how Soviet/Russian tanks get so much hate. Whenever people talk about the reliability of these tanks they always mention the Syrian conflict which has Russian style tanks used by different groups. They may not have super cool armor like that of the Abrams tanks, but they have maneuverability, speed, firepower and are fairly light. The Abrams constantly get stuck due to it's weight but has firepower and armor. Maybe I'm just a fan of Russian tanks.
The M1's ground pressure is not much worse, if at all, compared to contemporary MBTs. One thing that is rather unique to the M1, however, is its ability to often get itself unstuck under its own power in situations where contemporary MBTs would need an ARV to assist in recovering the tank.
@@bluntcabbage6042 I'm not sure how true that is but it is very heavy and does in fact get stuck a lot. The wrecker they use to get that thing unstuck is massive as well. While it can go off-road, mud is not something it'll do well in.
@@mohamedbaradji7504 _No_ tank does well in mud. I thought that much was obvious. The M1 is no heavier than its competition (~70 tons) and its ground pressure is on par or better than tanks like the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2.
@@bluntcabbage6042 no, the Bradley IFV can go through mud so can various other tanks (search up tank biathlon). The current Abrams tank has a ground pressure of 15.4 psi (Leopard 2: 11.8 psi Challenger 2: 14.3 psi.) As for it's current competition (Russian tanks) the Abrams has a weight of 69.5 tons(TUSK varies) compared to the 50 ton T80 and 46 ton T90. Both are lighter and have a lower ground pressure than the Abrams.
Wow! The South Koreans really got these tanks? Well at least they have them as educational props to South Korean Army and US Army tankers to where to aim and kill these tanks since the North Korean Soviet style tanks are the same design.
Hardly. They got is as debt repayment and used mostly for training, but I'd say that given they have Marine Force, having BMP-3s and T-80s along is .... kind of game changer, and these are far lighter vehicles than, say, K-2 or M1.
Matsimus is a British military veteran and an honest one. I am one of those Americans who can give credit where it’s due. I despise bias.Matsimus is an honorable man who is not biased.👍🇬🇧🇷🇺🇺🇸
I cant understand the most stupid design of AA machinegun mount. Some versions of T-80 have remote controlled weapon (T-80A), and some ..... have those 3 tubes like the version on video. Heavy Mchinegun is really heavy, and moving it to diferent tube mounting is rather.... dificult, specially if commander do it from position, while he's in the half in the turret (button up).
In Chechnya the Russians haven't used infantry to assist the tanks in an urban environment. Without infantry in a guerrila type war the tank is a sitting duck, a big defenseless target that can be striken from close quarters with small weapons like an RPG.
Good day to you Matt. Have you seen what is being added into War Thunder? If not. Do that now please. And this very tank or tye B and U is being added.
Being a little sarcastic, but why would You Tube hate technical teaching videos...do they just want music videos? They are so well doe. As to be professional indeed. Thank you for all your hard work and wonderful presentations...
There's an Ultimate Factories episode where they showed Abrams MBTs being overhauled after serving in the Middle East, and the turbine blades were literally sand blasted.
Many T-80 in service have diesel engine now. And the reason for T-80 replacement with T-72/T90 is mainly that these machines were produced in CCCP part which is now separate Ukraine. And Ukraine is not exactly in friendly relationship with Russia and is under strong influence of western puppet masters.. so it would be tough to obtain enough spare parts for tanks from them. Considering turbine, these turbines in T-80 have way better filtration system than Abrams resulting in way longer service intervals. btw.
Not russian but soviet. Main factory is placed in Ukraine. And T-80UD, T-84 e.t.c are ukrainian tanks that were prduced after 1990 when USSR collapsed. Russians specialise on T-72/T-90 series.
about Chechen War your totally wrong ;) not much info there is on english, most in russian. They lost soldiers tanks and other vehicles because generals where corrupt. It was like what you get order move to position and enemy already knows what before order was given. when you fight loose guys and the second you can finish enemy positions you get order ceasefire :D when enemy regroup and it happen multiple times you get the point. Also the city itself is big trap with tunnels and firing positions. Idiotic orders from generals to drive stright forward and just die. enemy was just militarized criminals, warlords, islamic believers, also hired professionals. I never heard about tanks in what war not full complected, they had infantry support on what your also wrong :)
A correction for many posters: All T-80s, (meaning T-80, T-80A, T-80B/BK, T-80BV/BVK, T-80U/UK) except for T-80UD, were designed and built in RSFSR, in a city of Leningrad, today Saint Petersburgh. The only T-80 model to have been manufactured in modern-day Ukraine is T-80UD, which later morphed into T-84, T-84-120 Yatahan, T-84U and later BM Oplot.
As a chally 2 crewman this was the tank along with the t72 we was always taught to fear.any scenarios in the Sims would be based on t80 and even in a fictional 3d world it use to give us some shit.
Thanks for watching guys!! Sorry there is a correction, the Swedish S tank was the first gas turbine tank. My bad ;-) were not perfect ;-)
Can you do a review on the Argentinan MBT, the TAM?
It alright Matsimus. It's not like the Stridsvagn 103 is really well known to begin with, alongside being a tank that used both a Diesel Engine and a Turbine Engine.
Not to sound rude but the TAM is considered one of the few modern medium tanks not a MBT.
Matsimus Gaming Well, nice rewiew Dude.
T-80 is the first serial tank to use exclusively gas turbine
Great video! T-80 is really an underrated beast.
RedEffect xD I see you check out his vids too
Good for purging a village
Ah redeffect the russian fanboy channel
@nikola poyukov already the *name* no matismus is an unbiased channel.Red effect is clearly pro-russian/udssr. And Im not an western fanboy I was a tanker in an rumanian battalion
@nikola poyukov No I have watched his videos.You want to tell me that the video about the t-14 isnt biased? Im a big fan of the t-14 platform but comme on.....
the fact that you are insulting me shows everybody that Im right as you are an typical russian fanboy.
I cant understand why everybody has such an emotional binding with sole weapons. But its never a veteran its always some kid or some punk in the internet.You know why? Because we veterans know our weapons and we try to estimate the weapons of our enemys! If not, we die! My father (who served during the cold war) told me once that the NATO would kick our ass in a war. I got home after an propaganda show in school and said something like: why should we be afraid, our tanks are invulnerable for the Nato. (My father was also an tanker and he first started laughing and then got very seriously as romania only had some old t-72 but mostly t-55) By the way Im not a zigan.
I believe this tank got an unfair bad wrap in Chechnya... most of it issues was due to poor tactics in an Urban battle field not from its design..
Bad workman always blames his tools.
@@Burkutace27 I didn't say the Russians didn't use poor tactics by sending them into an urban areas with out infantry support but it does matter if your vehicle doesn't have the proper armour package to defend against anti tank weapons.
@@paez4779 apart from bad tactic, the T-80B has thin armor in between engine bay and crew compartment. Chechen rebels (ex-Soviet veterans) knew the weakness and fired RPG into engine bay rear. The RPG penetrated engine and armor punching into crew compartment hit ammo storage creating cookoff
@@jawarakf The tanks were also sent in with out the added armour package or any reactive armour they had available at the time..
@@paez4779 only later further ERA added to cover engine bay door. Militants would launch few RPG rounds at the engine bay door to get through crew compartment
Russians and Germans make the coolest looking tanks
Forest Rivers No.
The Nutsack Parachute Challenger 2 is my fav looking tank
Savage Panda sorry m8 I agree the challenger 2 looks badass but the armata and leopard revolution looks godlike England - 0 RussiaDeutschland - 1 😂☺️
Forest Rivers Hell nah, m8
bullshit, the M1 Abrams looks much better
People rag on this tank for its fuel consumption, but give the M1A1 a pass for having exactly the same problem. Typical
I've never heard anyone talk about the t-80
Everyone whines about M1's turbines, "eats all the fuel", "IR glowstick", "loud" etc.
@Andy the Malevolent Except no one really mentions the T80 at all. The reality is, it's not really been much in combat for a long time, while the Abrams has been.
@@TehIdiotOne T-80 saw combat in Chechnya, albeit being sent into urban combat with no infantry support only to be decimated by Chechens with RPG's.
The Abrams might have an impressive service record, but has only had to fight T-55's and first gen T-72's from the 70's, not really that impressive when you obliterate 40 year old tanks with your new top of the line MBT's. It's like having a fully equipped Medieval Knight slaughter his way through stone age tribesmen and then praise the Knight on his service performance
@@roadhigher Yeah i don't disagree. Abrams are good vehicles without a doubt, but they haven't really fought any real modern tanks either
When, I was in 1/50 Infantry back in the 1980's were took the T-80 very seriously. Most of all our training was geared to dealing with that big mean and ugly thing. And for those of us who went mechanized a lot of our Bradley training was geared towards engaging the T-80. Thanks for a great video on a true beast of a machine.
What timing, I just read this comment now, a few days after videos were all over the news of a bradley destroying a t-80 with its atgm
Cool looking tank. I saw a T-72 and a Leo 2 side by side at the tank museum in Parola, Finland and was very shocked at how much smaller the T-72 was. T-72 looked very crudely built but cool none the less.
thanks to small dimensions, and internal volume, the Soviet and Russian tanks had the smaller area of necessary booking... and it means, huge weight reduction, in combination with thicker armor... Thanks to the autoloader, it was succeeded to reduce even more internal volume thanks to what it was succeeded to reduce the tower sizes, and it is even stronger to increase armor thickness, without increase in weight of the tank... In the conditions of the Russian climate, the weight of the tank shouldn't exceed, the maximum 50-55 tons... all tanks of bigger weight, in the conditions of the Russian climate won't be able normally to be at war, and will be very quickly destroyed, either will just get stuck, or will fail...) ) The first T-72 versions had the weight of 41,5 tons, at the time of their emergence, couldn't punch them nothing, except uranium shells... After modernization and installation of dynamic protection, the weight of T-72 became 46,5 tons, uranium shells of the first generation have ceased to punch him, he became almost impregnable... Nearly 10 years later, after release of t-72, Americans have created Abrams, and Germans the Leopard-2, created them for defense, against the Soviet t-72, they had guns of the increased caliber and power, but even they could punch t-72, equipped with dynamic protection, only the latest subcaliber shells, or uranium lomika of the second generation (the composition of alloy is changed, he became more plastic, shells of the first generation were strong, but very fragile, and often broke up about strong armor, the second generation is more balanced, has big plasticity and smaller fragility). . For opposition Abramsam and to Leopards-2, has been created by T-90, at external similarity, it is absolutely other tank, even structure of a bronestala absolutely another, and the latest guns with the autoloader, under more powerful and long ammunition, By The Way, these technologies are forbidden for export, even Hindus who have the plant on assembly of t-90, have no manufacturing techniques of armor and trunks of guns, they are forced to buy them from Russia...) At the same time, considerably having increased booking and completely new equipment, T-90 has kept weight category, as at t-72, the weight of 46,5 tons... The latest T-14 "Armata", weighing 50 tons, has a little increased sizes, but, thanks to an uninhabited tower, the internal volume of the tank was reduced almost twice, thickness of armor has increased even stronger, and the necessary area of booking of a tower has decreased thanks to what, has become possible to increase even more, booking of the manned capsule, having increased protection of crew... At the same time, all these Russian tanks remained in admissible weight category, and have huge potential, for armor building, to critical, for the Russian climate, 55 tons... And T-80, by the way, created specially, for military operations in Europe, fast break of defense, and capture or extermination of military of groups... for this purpose creation of the powerful and fast engine, and facilitated, but very strong running gear was required. . Now, thanks to the engine which is capable to be started successfully at extremely low temperatures, to minus 40 degrees Celsius, on T-80 base, in Russia create the Arctic tank troops, sbosobny it is fine to be at war in the conditions of the Arctic, at extremely low temperatures...))
Wait till you compare the Leo 2 to a T-64
yeah, that's my only concern with the new t-14. it's too big.
@@СергейПетров-я8й5л Russian tanks don't have thick armor. They're armor is quite shit, actually, which is precisely why they're lightweight, and precisely why they're so heavily angled.
@@morteparla6926 You are ready to offer facts...???) If not, continue to fantasize, but keep your wet dreams to yourself... Here's a real fact, In Europe and the United States, I think the Merkava MK.4, one of the best tanks in the world... But, even many of the Israeli military, in the revelation recognize that the reservation T - 90 is superior to the Israeli tanks... Merkava MK.4, weighs about 70 tons, T-90 weighs 46.5 tons... But, in the ratio of booking to protect 1 cubic meter of space, the T-90 is superior, 1.42 times... This is a fact, and it is available in open sources... You can count the number of armor yourself, divide the weight of the armor into the internal volume,you will get the real average weight of the armor, to protect the volume unit...
The west never truly face any actual Russian tanks, they only faced cheap export version T-72s from Poland and Czechoslovakia that were sold to Iraq. The Iraqis also made their own knockoffs of the T-72. These tanks were no where close to their actual Russian counterparts. The T-80 is an entirely different story. So despite drawbacks of Russian tanks, western tanks also have their drawbacks as well. Interesting video.
Any modern western mbt would fuck up a t72 or t80 export model or not. That's slso taking into account crew skill also.
@@finnanutyo1153 And a T-72/T-80 would mess up any western tank likewise.
@@finnanutyo1153T-80U could stop 1990's DU 120mm rounds from the M1A1 thanks to the Armour and Kontakt-5 ERA. The T-72B3 with the Relikt ERA can stop modern rounds from the Challenger 2 from 500 metres and further out, whilst the T-90 with Relikt can stop it from 200 Metres plus, whilst Russian Gun launched ATGM's can destroy or at least knockout an Abrams from 4km.
@@roadhigher It was the interior armor layout that stopped it. Kontact doesn't stop kinetic rounds, only chemical based explosives. When using kinetic rounds, they add maybe 1-2mm of extra armor, which is pretty much nothing.
@@PugilistCactus Kontakt-5 and Relikt ERA are ''heavy'' ERA, in contrast to earlier ''light'' era like the ROMOR and Kontakt-1 which only stopped chemical munitions, heavy era can provide up to 400mm protection from APFSDS. This is because the ERA is made of Heavy plates sandwiched between an explosive charge, and upon impact the Heavy metal plate is sent outwards into the Kinetic penetrator. This can Shatter the APFSDS preventing it from even hitting the main armour, or can severely degrade the penetration performence by massively slowing it down and deforming it.
Several tests in the 1990's have shown that Kontakt-5 can provide up to 390mm of protection from Kinetic rounds, and Relikt is speculated to be about 400mm. This is on top of the Tank's armour itself, which can give tanks like the T-90MS up to a metre of LOS protection in RHA equivelent
The Abrams also has a gas turbine, which in standard murican tradition, puts McDonalds to shame with how much fuel it consumes.
The M1A1 designers were impressed with the digital control capabilities of the BIUS engine and other systems via the data transmission channel, but this technology has not been widely used.
The design itself is very good and can be improved by adding a separate power unit and digital control systems that reduce fuel consumption and are much more effective in controlling the engine and power consumption.
Abrams is the only American tank equipped with gas trubine - so what tradition are you barking about?
Besides turbine engine has less movable parts and requires less maintenance work as opposed to diesel engine and is able to start at subzero temperatures. Besides in 1980s it was the most powerful engine which gave astonishing 1500 HP for such heavy tank - which meant great mobility.
That’s why m1a3 is abandoning the gas turbine engine lol
@@kevinguo3127 modern conventional engines have advanced much more since the 1980's being able to produce the proper power for the Abrams that the gas turbine isn't necessary.
T-80s have 2 turbine self-cleaning systems. Abrams dont have one. During desert storm arbamses got stuck after 15 minutes due to dust in trubines.
Ahha, the sweet video game fear you felt in Armoured Fist, i felt it in Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis.
Being in a M1A1, seeing T-72s coming from afar, everything felt allright.
Seeing T-80s coming from afar ? OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT....
Played that game for a few thousand hours. Seeing the T-80 appear made no difference to me. It just meant you needed a couple of extra hits. A hit in the right spot would get you a firepower kill or mobility kill and then it was irrelevant even if it otherwise worked.
From a distance they always shot low, like all tanks in the game. I bumped the muzzle velocity of the sabot rounds up to 1750 m/s before they started having a decent hit probability at proper ranges.
CaFPhantom11 Being in a M1A1 i didn't care much about the T80.As infantry you didn't stand a chance against the heavily armored T80. A T72 is much easier to destroy with hand held rocket launchers
There are newer models of of T-72 on par with T-90 better than basic T-80s.
It depends on the version.
T-72B obr. 1989 was frontal immune to M1A1 Abrams which were used during the time in CW.
M829A1 round was not able to penetrate the Kontakt-5 of the T-80U and T-72B obr. 1989.
Our T-80 UDs are awesome. One reason one of our strike corps is equipped exclusively with them. Now we are upgrading them for future war.
😂😂😂😂
Matsimus Gaming, I have been watching your channel for quite some time already.
Especially I was interested in videos about soviet
ussian tanks, basically because I’m from Russia myself, and I find it very informative to see the adequate and balanced opinion about our tanks, to find out how people from NATO block countries (let’s call it this way, no offence) see those machines because NATO doctrines and soviet
ussian doctrines are so different from each other, especially in tanks business.
The content you make, it’s very important to people like me in Russia, keep doing this great job!
Wish that in the future there will be more videos about small arms (like the video about sa80)
Russian tanks from the t55a and on are all my favorites.
The T-62M is better, although the T-55 is more versatile.
@Nonya Business you just replied to a comment from 3 years ago
Outstanding review. Thanks for being objective and keeping it unbiased Matsimus.
The T-80 is a beautiful tank, I want it to remain operational for many more decades and never need replacing unnecessarily.
Yet, a year later there are already no more T-80U's and almost no T-80's at all.
@@GalinPanchev12000 were built
@@kanestalin7246and rusted away due to improper storage 😅
Damn that thing made us a bit nervous back in the '80s. The '62 was pretty well known, but this thing remained a question mark.
The T-64 was the tank that really remained the question mark lol. It was the most secret tank in history.
The T-80U and T-72B obr. 1989 were frontal IMMUNE vs M829A1 from the 120mm which the M1A1 used. M829A2 was another story but this tank round came 1992 (!). :P
@@marvintiger9631 Only from 750 meters or more. (which of course is still scary since that meant that the T-80s and T-72s would be way too close for the NATO doctrine to be effective, it would also mean that the M1s, Leo 2s and Chally 1s would be vulnerable to Soviet sabot types.)
T-80U from World in Conflict? Anyone? No?
I guess it's just me.
That tank in World in Conflict was OP AF especially en-mass! That was a fun game. :D
finally somebody mentioned it.
Trackhead95 Yup just like Cascade Falls mission. You get fucking Bradley's and Sheridan's while Russians are just spaming T-80's and 64's just for fun.
Ah, the memory.
"Heavy armor here."
"Gas turbines warmed up, drive on!"
"Enemy armor pierced!"
IVE NEVER LEFT PORNHUB SO FAST!
Me too
Lol... Bruh?
Isn't this already pornhub?
@@VanderWallStronghold98 If you like your girls thicc and armor-plated then it is.
@@NorthForkFisherman Yes. I love my girls thicc and armor plated
After waiting for a long time, finally you made an overview about this tank, thank you Matsimus!!! ^_^
Can't wait till you finally get to the t-72 review. Waiting for that one for a long time.
Small mistake with the auto-loader: If you don not change the ammunition type (so if you stick to KE in a duel e.G.) it only takes 4-5 seconds. That is a special feature that was introduced with the U version if I remember correctly.
Fuel consumption was problematic, yes. But it really wasn't thaaaat bad since unlike the M1 the tank was rather light.
Oh and two tings that actually are problematic:
The reverse speed is tremendously low and the tracks are not self cleaning. Also not all T-80s hat thermals, while most of the Leo2 and all of the M1 had.
net split really...in fact it was much batter than m1 abram tanks at almost every level...buying price included.
Reverse speed of T-80U is about 12-13kmh....it isnt fast bat it isnt to slow, compare to T-64 it has only 4kmh...if they put 1 or 2 more reverse speed it will go much faster, but they stick with old type transmission because of reducing cost of tank...
T-80U have thermal sights, but not all of them because USSSR broke and they stop put thermal sight in late production of T-80U.
Russia have less then 1000 U/UD models (more then 600 are UD model), rest are B and BV models...
Yes, T-80U was much batter tank then M1 in any aspect. Much batter armor protection, batter gun, batter agility and ect....M1A1H have same lvl of armor protection as T-80U...
Nice try with bullshit propaganda - T-80 is worst in every aspect from M1A2 Abrams - it lacks protection (thinner armor, worse armor, needs additional ERA armor), lacks good fire control which limits firing range, the ammo compartment is not separated from crew, the controls are different from T-90 and T-72. Piece of crap that can be utilized by any Abrams.
I was in Baumholder Germany in 1982 to 1984. It was our mission ,as TOW missle crews, to stop as many of these as we could in the event of an invasion. I was in REFORGER 1983. The intelligence community called it Operation Able Archer. You can look it up on wikipedia to see how close we came to a nuclear end.
The finest tank produced by the Soviet Union. Advanced and gorgeous.
Nice video, i’m a great fan of russian tanks. I like the fact that you stay neutral about russian mbt’s, i realy like that. You’re the only youtuber who doesnt tell wrong facts about russian mbt’s and doesnt say that russian mbt’s are bad.
I dont think they’re bad its just maintenance.
this tank is a sprinter not a marathon guy.....very fast but needs lots of fuel
I have a miniature of the t-80u, wanted to know more about it and ended up here. Great vid man
"80% accuracy on the move"..... you sounded as surprised as i was xDDD
Thank you for another enlightening review. I do appreciate your realism concerning the final purpose of tanks and weapons, something to avoid and an unfortunate event in most or all cases. I would appreciate a series about logistics.
Russian stalinium tanks!!!
its no longer stalinium ... it's Putinium!
Mister Chief
Can confirm Stalinium is still in widespread use for Russian military armour.
A Soviet Tank otherwise you would be far to vulnerable eh?
Blaze it
WERE ARE NEVER VULNERABLE AS LONG AS WE ARE EQUAL!
oh wait
Mister Chief That stalinium really helps with tossing the turret.
What a way to end the week! I get to come home to my favorite Soviet tank! Thank you Matsimus! Wooo Hooo!!!
Can you do a review about the BTR-80 and its related variants? Thanks...
Storm Shadow Yes please
BTR 80 is just a BTR 70 with a new engine and newly designed doors which are way better
Risto Mladich how about btr 60?
does the something the 70 and 80 , just its older with less power and older systems...
what about btr-82A?
I love Russian MBTs, they have good firepower, great mobility an decent protection. and the T 14 just has great crew protection.
900mm against KE frontally plus 300mm all around the crew module is decent? Kk
Oh and that 900mm is more than any other Russian tank.
Blitz FromBehind ???
Being blind in T14 is indeed "great crew protection".
wino0000006 ironically enough the T-14 has a field of view of 360 degrees.
Blitz FromBehind
Yep - 360 degrees from cameras and sensors - as long as they work. Traditional MBT layout gives 360 degree visibility thourgh periscopes.
Wasn't the swedish S-tank the first with a turbine?
Yeah since 1967
From what I've heard, it (S-Tank) had a gas-turbine AND a diesel. So yes the first with a turbine, but the T-80 was the first with only a gas-turbine engine.
T-80 has gas turbine as main propulsion, whilst the gas turbine on the s-tank is for aux power and aiming the tank whilst stationary.
its the other way around m8, the gas turbine is much more fueleffective when not in idle so thats why they have diesel for slow manouvers and stationary use
Beleive it or go nuts trying, the Germans were working on a gas turbine for the Panther in 1944. No, they did not get the bugs out either due to lack of high temp metals, same issue as their jets. There was a gas turbine M-48, also experimental but the idea has been around a long time.
T-80 tanks are still modernizing and will be used only with the arctic units! I watched a documentary about the T-80BVM where the engineers working on engine to increase power and fuel economy! They also working on increasing protection and firepower!
Ukrainian t84 oplot is also based on t 80
yes they are modernizing T80BV tanks into T80 BV(M) tanks. Engine got better fuel consumption and is more reliable, also maintenance intervals have been lengthened
Maybe cover Yugoslavian M84?
The T-80BVM is a further variant of the T-80BV main battle tank incorporating some improvements and new features introduced with the T-90MS tank. The Russian Armed Forces introduced the T-80BVM in September 2017. The upgraded tank features the Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) and cage armor in several sections as well as rubber side skirts with built-in armor plates. The tank is powered by a GTD-1250TF gas turbine developing a power output of 1,250-hp and a top speed of 70 kilometers per hour. Besides, the T-80BVM features an auxiliary power unit (APU). The weapon system consists of a 2A46M 125mm smoothbore gun, a 12.7mm anti-aircraft cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. The Russian Army plans could call for the upgrade of up to 3,000 gas powered T-80 tanks to the BVM standard to keep them in reserve. These tanks perform better than diesel powered tanks in extreme cold climate such as the Northern of Russia.
russia keeps T80 BVM for the arctic region.
T-80 is featured defending a building in Grozny in a war movie about the First chechen war.
The movie is called "Purgatory"
Watch it.
well, it's a fairly average budget late 1990s russian movie about a war that has tanks, spetsnaz and checens in it. :D
HVO.ST it has one big "-" - it is the bad sound, the rest is awsome - all the film you watch mostly fighting and in turms of brutality it makes Saving Private Riyan look like a cartoon for kids)
Hard film, but caricatured. 18+
This was conceived as anti-war propaganda, but it turned out the opposite.
I had always been fascinated by the speed and elegance of this machine. And though it has its drawbacks, in particular areas where the dust is not an issue, it can provide a nice penetration and firepower.
T-80 is returning ..and reason is the turbine .they are planed to be main force for Arctic army
T-72 is planed to be upgraded to level of T-90
and t-90 and t-80 to level armata regarding protection and optic and gun
Pavol Petik The T-80U is already T-90 level.
.
SCUD B Nop, t-90 has better armour. They made tests with both tanks and more weapons penetrated the t-80
T-90 is T-80 turret on T-72 chaises ...is the same story one expenciev e tank one cheap tank T-64 T-72 T-80 was the expedience oneT-90 has quality of T-80 and price of T-72 put all reactive armour optic active protection on T-80 and you would have similar tan or better than first series of T-90..for less money
i got it from official RF site..ok T90 is T80 turret and T-72 chassis i ment to newest T-90 level
In the fall of 1983 ,sitting at a regimental war game scenario briefing that included my Essex and Kent Scottish Regt defending the alaskan forward shores from hordes of pt-76s backed by t-54s and t-34/85s and a veritable horde of "evil commie" infantry nobody stopped to think "Does Ivan ever invent new things that are competitive?" .The wargame was meant to impart skills and discipline to face an armoured overrun scenario.My Windsor Regt (armoured)friends laughed when i shared the info with them- The Russians have been upgrading stocks to T-80 BVM with full thermal sights and the best new reactive armour suites,They do leave the gas turbine intact.The only lacking feature of T-80 BVM is a commanders thermal suite.
Error 2 minutes in. The Stridsvagn 103 was the first main battle tank to use a gas turbine engine. The Swedes classified it as a MBT and operated it as one in their doctrine even though it didn't have a turret.
Was the Stridsvagn mass produced?
@@elhistoriero1227nobody said mass production, Matsimus says "first production tank"
I was Army Field Artillery in the early 90’s and were we had a healthy respect for the T-80, thankfully I never saw the business end of one.
A little update on the T-80`s fate in the russian army: MoD right now modernizing and standartizing a bunch of different T-80`s modifications: T-80U-E1, T-80BV and T-80UD. They are getting new rangefinders, REA Relikt-5, radiostation and FCS. New modernization named T-80BVM. So yeah, they are no more in serial production, but they are not going to be dismissed ether, especially when political situation around the North Pole slowly heats up.
Tbh - with V92S2 diesel and its 1000 hp T-80`s gas turbine is just to much. With 1000hp T-90`s got enough mobility, and there literally no more reasons for T-80`s to be anywhere except North Pole. Of course it`s kinda sad, especially if you heard tank gas turbine whistling once - you are in love for it forever. But that`s just how real world works :(
T80 are legendary.i am sure its effect are more than enough..m1abram maybe are not his equals.
Thanks for the update 👍👍👍
@@hermanman8235 don't be so dismissive towards M1, it' is a great war machine. I can only hope that someday our tanks will recieve commander station or gunner station like ones on M1A2 Sep. T-90M gets as close as it can be, and I really hope that it will finally replace T-72 someday.
@@user-vgrau agree.i just want a peaceful world so that everyone can enjoy their 🌞🌞🌞 vodka/beer/liquor without any sadness.happyness and peace that's all I want.thanks for your reply
@@hermanman8235 amen!
that intro is the best i have ever seen. i mean slow mo of T80 appearance
A nice review although again there are some things that I would mention re the T-80 and was surprised to not hear that would be of interest to viewers. In no particular order apart from the first...
1 - SOVIET NOT RUSSIAN
2 - the use of the T-80 to install a 152mm gun which was successful and has been re-purposed for the T-14 Armata today, (Object 292)
3 - the use of the T-80 to test the 2A82 125mm gun used on the Armata (Object 785)
4 - development of the T-80 into the Black Eagle tank, a precursor to the T-14 alongside the T-95
5 - the T-80's nickname of "The English Channel Tank" due to its performance in soviet exercises (I think the estimate was just over 2 weeks to get to the channel)
6 - The T-80 (Especially U model) is still a very capable tank comparable to the later T-90 (which was meant to blend the T-80 & T-72), though the T-90 is the superior (in chechnya receiving multiple RPG hits and remaining combat effective to name one case)
7 - Withdrawal of the T-80 from Russian service is primarily twofold; one is certainly the fuel consumption issue, the other is parts commonality; with the upgraded T-72s matching T-80 performances, and the 60+% parts shared with the T-90, it saves on running costs and simplifies logistics
I haven't found much evidence to support it but I gather the T-80s were at one point (may still be) to be reassigned to the Naval Infantry where the separate logistics train would not cause many problems until full replacement - but that now may be redundant with the BMMP and upgraded T-72s (B3/B3M/B4)
4 - The Black Eagle was not a precursor to the T-14 or T-95. It was a failed attempt by the OMSK plant that never progressed. 'T-95' (Ob. 195) was the precursor to the T-14, from the UVZ plant.
Also: the design bureau and company that manufactured T-80 is in Ukraine.
Excellent review! Great job, Max
The biggest advantage of the T-80 is it can actually reverse!
The part in the beginning about the gas turbine is wrong. The Swedish Strv 103(S-tank) was in service between 1967 and 1997 and the A model had a Boeing GT502 TOGETHER with a Rolls-Royce K60. (I don’t know if this was the earliest ether, it just came to mind)
Hey, did you hear that Russia started to modernize its huge old T-80 arsenal to the level of T-80BVM? We've already have a documentary on the new model from "Zvezda" TV channel
yes T80BV gets modernized to T80BVM
Rewatching a lot of your videos, love the amount of information you give and unbiased information.
Nice review, good to see an unbiased review of Russian weapons.
great video as always 👍
I've always thought this tank could have been improved and modernised.
Matsimus - First off I really enjoy your videos. I also am a veteran, as I served 10 years in the US army. I did 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afganistan. But my question is do you not like any tank? From the videos I have watched, it seems like you give them all very glowing reviews.
Justin Robbins he likes the challenger 2. As he is British. He said it in one of his tank review videos.
ArtMan T-80 is worthy Rival to any western tank. He mentioned all of its negatives. There is no reason to be less positive in any of his videos.
Scud B- The T-80 was a good tank when it came out but isn't a match for modern western tanks such as the Abrams, Challenger 2 or Leo 2. Actually, Russia doesn't have any MBTs that are a match versus western tanks. Even the T-90 wasn't designed to go 1v1 against western tanks. The T-90 is a good tank but still lacks the armor, optics and fire control systems that most western tanks are equipped with. Russia's military doctrine is predicated on using large amounts of tanks to overwhelm their opponents.
Justin Robbins welp! I've seen syrian T-90 got hit by ATGM and that's it...nothing happens. And while an Abrams tank got hit by sudanese ATGM and it went Ka-boom in flames.
It was probably the older model M1-Abrams. Pretty sure no M1A2 Abrams have been destroyed in combat, while many of Russia's inferior T-90s have been knocked out.
Another awesome looking tank. It’s in my top 10 best looking tanks . Fast hits hard may be uncomfortable as heck but it will look as the turret blows off from a hit from an M1A2 SEP . Kidding but not really. Was cool seeing that thing catch some serious air. What a jump. T72-T80-T90 are all cool looking tanks. I’m American so like our home tank the best tank overall M1A2?Abrams .👍
I was standing in front of the T-80 facing the tank, its engine was running so quietly that I couldn't hear it.
Find your work fascinating, will follow as much as possible, keep it coming.
I swear I watched this video when it came out, now I'm just watching it again... 😂
Personally, I disagree that this tank is past its time if you mean that something heavier is needed. For me, this is a special forces /breakthrough tank which can deliver quite the punch from an area considered unpassable. Depending on location and the type of mission, this tank is still a very serious threat to even the most modern of tanks just because it is so light and in the hands of a good tactician, this is a priceless tool.
wasn't the Swedish S-tank not the first with a gasturbine engine?
Looks like an incredible tank! Great video!
Type 99 review please
USERZ123 how about their blood type?
Sweden did extensive testing of a couple of T-80's in the late 90's (before Russia started harassing Sweden an began it's journey back to Soviet-style rule). It was very capable in winter/arctic conditions. It was tested along with Challenger 2 and the Abrams as a replacement for the 103 (S-tank) along with the completely brutal Swedish S-2000 tank project (which were apparently scrapped before actual functional prototypes. Google the pics/specs).
All were beaten by the Leo 2 though. The other ones did not start/run reliably in arctic conditions. The T-80 did, but was deemed to outdated.
Can your review the T-72 next?
Belarus sold all their T-80 to Yemen i think back in the 90's. They operate T-72B mostly and now are modernizing them to T-72B3 (same as russian ones). Russians are currently modernizing their T-80BVs to BVM.
What are your thoughts on the new Rheinmetall 130mm smoothbore Matsimus?
Tim de Boer Those rounds are really hard to load so he thinks that there definitely is a need for an autoloader
You can argue whatever you want about T-80 vs Abrams, but there is just something about the T-80 that makes me like it more. It looks cooler to me and it has the traits of a tank that I personally like.
Probably already asked a hundred times: what is the music in the intro?
phgoil darude sandstorm
This is 2 years old but. "Interloper kevin macleod"
I don't understand how Soviet/Russian tanks get so much hate. Whenever people talk about the reliability of these tanks they always mention the Syrian conflict which has Russian style tanks used by different groups. They may not have super cool armor like that of the Abrams tanks, but they have maneuverability, speed, firepower and are fairly light. The Abrams constantly get stuck due to it's weight but has firepower and armor. Maybe I'm just a fan of Russian tanks.
The M1's ground pressure is not much worse, if at all, compared to contemporary MBTs. One thing that is rather unique to the M1, however, is its ability to often get itself unstuck under its own power in situations where contemporary MBTs would need an ARV to assist in recovering the tank.
@@bluntcabbage6042 I'm not sure how true that is but it is very heavy and does in fact get stuck a lot. The wrecker they use to get that thing unstuck is massive as well. While it can go off-road, mud is not something it'll do well in.
@@mohamedbaradji7504 _No_ tank does well in mud. I thought that much was obvious.
The M1 is no heavier than its competition (~70 tons) and its ground pressure is on par or better than tanks like the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2.
@@bluntcabbage6042 no, the Bradley IFV can go through mud so can various other tanks (search up tank biathlon). The current Abrams tank has a ground pressure of 15.4 psi (Leopard 2: 11.8 psi Challenger 2: 14.3 psi.) As for it's current competition (Russian tanks) the Abrams has a weight of 69.5 tons(TUSK varies) compared to the 50 ton T80 and 46 ton T90. Both are lighter and have a lower ground pressure than the Abrams.
Wow! The South Koreans really got these tanks? Well at least they have them as educational props to South Korean Army and US Army tankers to where to aim and kill these tanks since the North Korean Soviet style tanks are the same design.
Hardly. They got is as debt repayment and used mostly for training, but I'd say that given they have Marine Force, having BMP-3s and T-80s along is .... kind of game changer, and these are far lighter vehicles than, say, K-2 or M1.
@@piotrd.4850 I just hope the South Koreans can fight better in the future than what my Dad had to contend with during the Korean War.
I didn't actually thought that this tank existed. Good Job!
Mat, what do you think would win on a 1v1, a Chieftain mk 10 or an M60A1?
Matsimus is a British military veteran and an honest one. I am one of those Americans who can give credit where it’s due. I despise bias.Matsimus is an honorable man who is not biased.👍🇬🇧🇷🇺🇺🇸
"The Russian army is currently and gradually decommissioning T-80 tanks"
I guess that's one way to describe the war in Ukraine.
Na verdade eles estão construindo mais.
@@viniciusdomenighi6439 more built. more destroyed.
This video is 7 years old...?
One of the guys who play airsoft with is a commander of a T-80 (Cyprus 27th tank regiment)
7:29 Whelp... That didn't age well...
This video is absolutely incredible! Great job!
I cant understand the most stupid design of AA machinegun mount. Some versions of T-80 have remote controlled weapon (T-80A), and some ..... have those 3 tubes like the version on video. Heavy Mchinegun is really heavy, and moving it to diferent tube mounting is rather.... dificult, specially if commander do it from position, while he's in the half in the turret (button up).
Michał Madeja Lol every tank have HMG mounted on top even Abrams have M2.And HMG are not that heavy bcs tanks weight is usually from 40t-60t.
In Chechnya the Russians haven't used infantry to assist the tanks in an urban environment. Without infantry in a guerrila type war the tank is a sitting duck, a big defenseless target that can be striken from close quarters with small weapons like an RPG.
Good day to you Matt.
Have you seen what is being added into War Thunder?
If not. Do that now please.
And this very tank or tye B and U is being added.
Being a little sarcastic, but why would You Tube hate technical teaching videos...do they just want music videos? They are so well doe. As to be professional indeed. Thank you for all your hard work and wonderful presentations...
Abrhams also have gas turbines. Gas turbines are very good but they are not good for deserts.
There's an Ultimate Factories episode where they showed Abrams MBTs being overhauled after serving in the Middle East, and the turbine blades were literally sand blasted.
pesshau Danm
Bernardo Grando They are fine in deserts if they have filters. That was the fix for the M1.
well not fixed, but it improved reliability
Bernardo Grando u can easily spot them cause of the hot engine
I love that little video of the Roman soldier and the music it fits quite well together nice work
Many T-80 in service have diesel engine now. And the reason for T-80 replacement with T-72/T90 is mainly that these machines were produced in CCCP part which is now separate Ukraine. And Ukraine is not exactly in friendly relationship with Russia and is under strong influence of western puppet masters.. so it would be tough to obtain enough spare parts for tanks from them.
Considering turbine, these turbines in T-80 have way better filtration system than Abrams resulting in way longer service intervals. btw.
T 80 was produced in Russia, Omsk. I worked in this plant one year from 09.1983 to 12.1984.
Yes, finally! Thanks for reviewing this tank Matsimus.
Could you review the T-62 specifically the M variant sometime? Thanks.
Not russian but soviet. Main factory is placed in Ukraine. And T-80UD, T-84 e.t.c are ukrainian tanks that were prduced after 1990 when USSR collapsed. Russians specialise on T-72/T-90 series.
Thanks for doing these videos man, I love watching these
Can it kill you, yes, do they have lots of them yes, i.e. watch out.
When ever i see any T-80 tank its all ways in mud 😑
Holy crap that thing is fast!
about Chechen War your totally wrong ;) not much info there is on english, most in russian. They lost soldiers tanks and other vehicles because generals where corrupt. It was like what you get order move to position and enemy already knows what before order was given. when you fight loose guys and the second you can finish enemy positions you get order ceasefire :D when enemy regroup and it happen multiple times you get the point. Also the city itself is big trap with tunnels and firing positions. Idiotic orders from generals to drive stright forward and just die. enemy was just militarized criminals, warlords, islamic believers, also hired professionals. I never heard about tanks in what war not full complected, they had infantry support on what your also wrong :)
I don’t know what it is but I’ve always liked the T-80 more than the T-72. Even though the twos aesthetically so similar
pretty good tank the engine got to go
T-80 and M1 Abrams tied for my number one favorite MBTs.
Type 99 China Republic next ples
A correction for many posters:
All T-80s, (meaning T-80, T-80A, T-80B/BK, T-80BV/BVK, T-80U/UK) except for T-80UD, were designed and built in RSFSR, in a city of Leningrad, today Saint Petersburgh. The only T-80 model to have been manufactured in modern-day Ukraine is T-80UD, which later morphed into T-84, T-84-120 Yatahan, T-84U and later BM Oplot.
Russia has a defensive army, they should never have invaded a country
As a chally 2 crewman this was the tank along with the t72 we was always taught to fear.any scenarios in the Sims would be based on t80 and even in a fictional 3d world it use to give us some shit.
The terrorists who were trying to separate from Russia were not afghan veterans. Thy were American backed and trained terrorists.
Excellent documentary, so very interesting, and very well presented. Thank You!
matsimus will never ever reply to this comment
Golvan The Great And Powerful lame.
dammit he replied
he busted ur ass booooi