To take advantage of the better engine and reverse gear on the former and the better turret and optics on the latter?

How hard would it be?

>better turret
it still fucking explodes
>better optics
those were imported from abroad and new-production T-90s have really bad optics

It could be done, but that would still be ruined by the same component restrictions and incompetence of use as any other tank. The T90 has good optics because they're French ones, which they cant get anymore. An improved engine amounts to very little if its driven solo into an open field to get shelled.

>>64064908
The 'being able to back up faster than the speed of smell' is the useful part of the t-80.

>reverse
Comparable to some WWII-1950s western tanks. The BMV-4 is the only soviet vehicle with reverse after they cancelled the heavy tanks.

>>64064886 (OP)
T-90 is literally T-72 with T-80 FCS.

>>64064905
nearly no tanks have full ammo isolation, only Merkana, Abrans, T-14 do
optics are not cutting edge but adequate for the job, you don't need the performance of an aircraft targeting pod

>>64065286
>Merkana, Abrans
What about the Leonard, Ariene, and Lenerc?

>>64064886 (OP)
>To take advantage of the better engine and reverse gear on the former and the better turret and optics on the latter?
Various versions of the T-80 are equal or even better than the T-90, T-90 only has it beat in one way, it is still in extensive production (and use)
>How hard would it be?
It would not really be worth it as the T-90 has a different, larger turret and also uses an engine still in production, not to mention many parts would simply be incompatible. They look similar, but arent. Soviet equipment is sometimes weird like that.

>>64065594
All of them have ammo stored in a rack without blow-out pannels. The leo at least has insensitive propelants that just start burning instead of exploding when being hit along with a near-instantaneous fire suppression system so the hull ammo rack isn't really a worry.
>but what about these turki-
Those are of the 2A4 variant and lacks said fire suppresion system and using insensitive propelants is too advanced for the roaches.

>>64064886 (OP)
You really should be asking
>can Russia...
rather than
>should Russia...
The answer is no, by the way.

>>64065286
Leclerc, Challenger 3, K2, Altay, all have fully isolated ammo compartments.

>>64065286
there's a difference between full ammo isolation, compartmentalized separate ammo storage, regular cased shells scattered around the tank and fucking TNT-laced charges neatly sitting right in the center of the tank compartment waiting for a spark to send the turret into orbit.

>>64064886 (OP)
>russsia
>make
you brown people are so cute

>>64065286
Merkava does not have full ammo isolation. Hull ammo is in armored bins but if they pop it'll cook the crew.
Only tank in the world with all ammo behind blowout panels is the Abrams.

Russia literally just gave up on tanks entirely like this summer

>meanwhile, in the /k/astle

>>64065286
You are a third world ape

>>64064886 (OP)
>better turret and optics on the latter
T-80BVM has the same optics and they were only good because they got them from France
Russia is using uncooled optics in T-90 and T-80 at the moment

>>64065773
>Leclerc
has hull-stowage next to the driver
>Challenger 3
has hull stowage on both sides of the driver
>K2
has hull stowage next to the driver

>>64064886 (OP)
You don’t need to replace the whole turret to get better optics. Just upgrade the optics, which isn’t that hard assuming you can produce those components in appropriate amounts.

Armored hull stowage is a nice idea, but it's not really that important, in the greater scheme of things. Ultimately, you can just not fill it. Or fill the inner tubes with live rounds, and the outer ones with inert dummies, as extra protection. After all, it's not like you're going to pull out rounds from the hull bin into the ready rack during the boog. Hull stowage was intended for prolonged operations away from supply points. Besides, as we've seen, both Leos and Abrams were lost in similar numbers to ATGMs, artillery and drones, despite the theoretical differences.

>>64064886 (OP)
New T-90s/T-72 refurbs no longer have access to French optics and thermals so it's not that big of a difference anymore, better to just keep the T-80 and T-72/90 production lines separate. IDK if they have thermals at all anymore, considering that most T-72s in Russian inventory didn't even have them to begin with and that was before the war started.
None of this matters because they're all getting turned into cope sheds which would be lucky to have a jammer, let alone any other electronic equipment.
>>64065286
>>64065756
Your spelling could use some work. Also, it's not quite the same as the Abrams, but most tanks can just down load or not load their hull ammo compartments if they're not protected by blowout panels so it's really primarily a problem with the carousel autoloader. Same goes for the Challenger 2 but at least it's protected by wet stowage and the Challenger 3 does have blowout panels for the turret rack.
>>64065827
When was the last combat footage of a confirmed Russian tank with a functioning main gun and ammo? I can't even remember but the drop off in recorded tank losses in the last year is massive.

>>64066499
both sides arent using tanks anywhere they can be easily seen, let alone to attack anything. Tanks either fire in arc from trenches like artillery or serve as slightly heavier transport some miles behind the frontline

Which is the better tank? T-90M of T-80BVM

>>64067283
My brain says T90M but my hearth says T80BVM.

>>64065827
Can't say the latest since I don't follow their losses so meticulously but the last large organised armoured push we saw was during the battle of Avidivka. And that was spring/summer of 2024.

The T-80 has the problem of still using a cast turret, unlike the T-84.

>>64067283
The T-80BVM has had a better field performance in Ukraine, sooo

>>64067283
T-90M should on paper be better than the T-80BVM due to more modern electronics and better optics which is actually what matters most in modern tanks, but as with everything puccian the T-90Ms currently produced are heavily downgraded due to electronics and optics being lost tech for puccians, so the second that their srockpile of french optics dried up they got worse than those on the T-80BVM, removing the one edge it had over it.
>tldr
Pre-2022 T-90M > T-80BVM
Post-2022 T-90M < T-80BVM

Arent they working on a New Variant of the T-90 Called T-90M2?

I Heard that theyre gonna finally fix the fucking reverse speed.

>>64067810
And it will probably end up like every single one of their procurments.
>da tovarish new tank is in production
>5000000 yearly production)))))))
>n-no you may not see it blyat, trust the tzar

>>64067357
IIRC there have been a few minor combined-arms attacks since then - I want to say there was some footage earlier this or late last week where the Ukies posted a kill tally that was mostly golf carts but still included a handful of armor.

>>64066499
>IDK if they have thermals at all anymore
They have a visibly inferior domestic camera. that looks like uncooled dogshit.