I'm not OP, and my specialization is in WW2 Naval gunnery and not land combat. With that said, I believe that the T-80's issues are that it's simply not quite as economic as the T-72 series, uses more fuel, and tended to need much more maintenance because of the gas-turbine engine compared to other Soviet designs. It was mostly for those economic reasons that the Russians dropped it as a developmental base after the fall of the union, as there weren't any funds left to maintain them. With that said, the Tank still had unmatched tactical maneuverability for its time, and I believe its reputation was largely tarnished by how hard the Russian forces got owned by ex-Soviet Chechen forces in the Battle of Grozny. The T-80 series is still getting modernisations though, and I believe the Armata series is a pretty large departure from the T-72/T-90s anyways.
I'm not OP, and my specialization is in WW2 Naval gunnery and not land combat. With that said, I believe that the T-80's issues are that it's simply not quite as economic as the T-72 series, uses more fuel, and tended to need much more maintenance because of the gas-turbine engine compared to other Soviet designs. It was mostly for those economic reasons that the Russians dropped it as a developmental base after the fall of the union, as there weren't any funds left to maintain them. With that said, the Tank still had unmatched tactical maneuverability for its time, and I believe its reputation was largely tarnished by how hard the Russian forces got owned by ex-Soviet Chechen forces in the Battle of Grozny. The T-80 series is still getting modernisations though, and I believe the Armata series is a pretty large departure from the T-72/T-90s anyways.