M1A2 SEP V2 doesnt have better LFP armour

There most definitely was an Agava-M1.

Yes, and I said quite clearly that the T-80U used the Agava-M1 complex… I don’t understand how people like you fail to understand basic sentences.

You must not do enough research. KBTM even notes the Agava-M1, both within the Nocturne system and the base T01-P02T complex I’ve already given.

If you want to talk about Agava-2 alone, that wasn’t produced as a single unit since 1987. No lone unit of Agava-2 coincided with 1A43 beyond the final run of T-80Us, and was only incorporated into 1A45T systems on 80UMs.

Agava is a sight, not a complex, but something like

is a complex, and it recieving T or -1 doesnt mean it changed, it could be anything including just dfifferent mount for a T-90 for example, which it (TO1-P02T, complex that includes Agava 2 for early T-90 and T-90K tanks, same way how TO1-P02 is Agava 2 for T-80U variants, same way how 1A45T is T-90 complex that while 1A45 is T-80U/D complex) literally is.

state your sources

One mention of Agava-M1 I could find is a T-80 vietnamese wiki page that uses this as it’s source, but it somehow fails to connect Т01-П06 being Nocturne and not Agava-M1, the very same source it uses proves vietnamese wiki wrong.
Other mention is from russian website detailing how Agava-M1 is a system that includes Agava 2 and 9K119M complex, ADDITIONALLY it mentions it while talking about T-80UM, the very same tank to use Agava 2 and not Agava M1, it also states it’s index wrong, stating its Object 219AT, with Object 219AT being given to T-80U modernisation programm that never got past project state.

Then there’s russian “Alphapedia” that mentions Agava-M1 being a sight talking about T-80UM, additionally stating it’s year of introduction wrong while making a note Agava 2 (its real sight) is optional, then you have a bunch of English sites and notes just copy pasting that source in English.

Then you have Army Recognition stating Agava-M1 is a sighting complex, however doesnt state name of sight and then gets a lot of mistakes regarding T-80U’s variants in general.

Then there’s Army Guide stating Agava-M1 to be a sight of T-80UM.

Funny how in it’s own language Agava-M1 makes a single appearance on a tank that always realistically had Agava 2, additionally Agava-M1 being made after the Agava-2 has been tested, and adopted into army and production, you have russians here struggling to get one thermal they tested 5 years ago into production while these foreign (with one sketchy russian source) websites think there was room for Agava-M1 (thinking that it is it’s own sight and not a complex)

Then, the only somewhat okay source, russian army tech journal is the only normal mention of Agava-M1, stating it to be a complex of thermal sight and other things like 9K119M being a part of new T-80UM tank.

So out of all of these only one applicable source stating Agava-M1 being not even a sight but a complex containing thermal sight.

What I am discussing is Agava-M1 never existing as a sight, but a complex that uses Agava 2, which refering to Agava 2 as Agava M1 is missleading, as majority knows it by Agava 2 and its history as Agava 2 sight. I believe me stating multiple “sources” aka sketchy websites stating Agava-M1 to be either complex or a sight proves that it’s best to refer to Agava 2 as it’s sight name and not state complex it’s used in.

Funny to see the corpse of an Abrams thread being used to talk about stuff with actual sources to be found tbh

The curse of all US equipment threads, to just become a thread about another nation’s vehicles.

4 Likes

lol