Russian T-80 Main Battle Tank - Review 

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

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

@@jayjay53313 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

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

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'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

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 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.

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

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.

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

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!"

Me too

Lol... Bruh?

Isn't this already pornhub?

@@vanderwallstronghold8905 If you like your girls thicc and armor-plated then it is.

@@NorthForkFisherman Yes. I love my girls thicc and armor plated

The T-62M is better, although the T-55 is more versatile.

@Nonya Business you just replied to a comment from 3 years ago

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.)

Yet, a year later there are already no more T-80U's and almost no T-80's at all.

​@@GalinPanchev12000 were built

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Na verdade eles estão construindo mais.

@@viniciusdomenighi6439 more built. more destroyed.

This video is 7 years old...?

I dont think they’re bad its just maintenance.

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.

Was the Stridsvagn mass produced?

​@@elhistoriero1227nobody said mass production, Matsimus says "first production tank"

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.

russia keeps T80 BVM for the arctic region.

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.

yes T80BV gets modernized to T80BVM

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!

USERZ123 how about their blood type?

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.

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.

Yeah, they only have a few of their upgraded T-84s and a handful of captured T-80BVs

Tim de Boer Those rounds are really hard to load so he thinks that there definitely is a need for an autoloader

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

Strv 103B diesel, turbine is an addition, a hybrid.

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.

phgoil darude sandstorm

This is 2 years old but. "Interloper kevin macleod"

T 80 was produced in Russia, Omsk. I worked in this plant one year from 09.1983 to 12.1984.

You sure are...

yep it started with a T-64 with a gas then after testing they changed the suspension and reenforced the hull mostly to support the new engine

Golvan The Great And Powerful lame.

dammit he replied

he busted ur ass booooi

I guess you still have to learn that Western tanks burn all the same...

@@ДокторЯдоnot really, like sure they can be destroyed but they don’t evaporate their crew nearly as much as the Russian one.

@@James-9999 If something can instantly detonate the entire payload of the tank, it kills its crew along the way. Western or Eastern design, doesn't matter.

@@ДокторЯдо no. western tanks have blow out pannels that prevent the crew from being vaporized. That's a philosophy. the russia doesn't care about human life. civilized countries do care.

@@nicoedel5606 That is not true, neither Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 have blow out pannels for their ammo storage, in fact, both Challenger 2s that have been destroyed popped their turret, you can also find photographs of the exact same thing happening to a leopard 2.

Peter Edy Priyanto how have you got access to this video??.....

Refreshed the youtube, got your channel from recommended videos list, watched your videos on your playlists, subscribed, watch your playlist again, and hit the jackpot. That is all.

Peter Edy Priyanto hmmm it's was private so that's odd

Through the power of (Matra R.550) Magic.

Matsimus Gaming Something you kids call, "RU-vid subscription"

james smith How tho?

james smith what the hell, this came out ten minutes ago

james smith HOW?!?!?!? HOW !?!?! AM I IN THE FUTURE?!?!?!

Did you really have a time machine!!!

this was up 2 days ago tho