Like, I said, an independent tree is all we can hope for nowadays. The UK didn’t even get a dedicated ZA air sub-tree because it was full.
Besides the US is the worst country to put Canada in. UK would be fine but they have ZA already.
A Canadian tree would be the perfect second home for Commonwealth or at least take an Australia/ANZAC sub-tree which would be nice as they are also in need of a home
Canada + ANZAC, now we’d be approaching standalone tree. But that would work. Can even add a RNLAF subtree because they operated from Oz under their own colours during WW2. Obviously only for a few gap fillers.
NL also operated NF-5’s, basically CF-5’s. Would be a good premium/event vehicle.
It’s hard to say, but usually on Vehicles with laser warning receivers, it’s very easy to spot them around the vehicle, but on this one it’s hard for me to be confident. Also we just don’t get a good look at the optics either, so its hard to say. I pray that the Russian devs do have access to more info than I do.
Also as for the article, it still doesn’t really help me figure out if the S iglas has an uncaged seeker or not. Currently the Iglas flight prefromance is pretty decent, with it basically being a stinger, however the main problem is that it’s seeker is caged like an early sidewinder, which makes it impossible to lead a target with the missile like you can with a stinger. I’m hoping that if we get the S Iglas, it fixed these problems.
As long as it’s sub 10.0, it’s likely going to be good enough as is. If it gets anything more than the regular Igla, the thing will be impossible for anyone to really dodge at tier without having geography to save the CAS.
Pretty sure info about T-80UD transmission is right. It’s barely reverse faster then T-64B.
Which BR that thing gonna placed lads:
10.3 → Who gonna need it since T-80B gonna dunk it.
10.7 (if it has better armor then T-80B at least) → T-90A yeet it away.
10.0 → Kinda unfair since it’s only draw back is reverse, everything else better then T-72B.
I think they could give it a uncaged seeker without it having to go beyond 9.3-9.7, given that we already have stingers on platforms like the Gepard 1A2(the nato equivalent) and a Ocelot at 9.3.
I’m just unsure if the Igla S has it in not, as most articles are written by people who probably don’t even know what the difference is
10.3 makes the most since to me, as it’s more of a side grade to the T-80B. I think a lot of people underestimate how much that good mobility can help a tank out. And even Gen 1 thermals can be critical in the right situation, like using engine smoke.
Also isn’t really unfair to T-72B as its already at 10.0
I’m still fine with it, 64B/72B is the true side grade for each other, 64B better to snipe, 72B is much more a brawler.
Feel sad when they butchered 9.7 and 5.7 lineup but decrompression still need. Some time it’s annoy to fight Type 10.
It’s just better to add a T-84 at this point lol.
As a premium for sure, Gaijin gonna milk every drop from that tank.
I’m more insteresting to see T-90A with the fully automatic transmission though, they used to test it but UVZ just refuse to eleborate.
My only complaint about the leak thus far is no Naval. The mode desperately needs competition for the Scharnhorst.
What advantages does it has? 15km/h max reverse speed?
Oh it’s true my dude. 10.3, especially with 3BM46, would be a lulzy tanky T-80 at 10.3. At 10.7 it becomes more lineup filler which with the T-90A, 2S6, and the lower tier T-80B at 10.3 would be a really powerful lineup.
The T-72B (1989) is at 10.0, and was basically the vehicle the 80UD was planned to be upgraded alongside. Granted, I think we’ve dispelled the upgraded hull and/or turret armor of the UD’s planned 89 variant, at least as being the same as the base UD, nor the UD that is likely to come with the update. That being said, like the 72B '89, it has Kontakt-5, and a crap transmission. Without anything that fundamentally makes it different, it could even go down to 10.0.
If the UD gets thermals, it should go up, and if it gets 3BM46 it should go up even more. Those two things would honestly be the only things that I’d see taking it up.
3bm46 is too much for 10.3
PLOT TWIST
The T-80UD (Pakistan variant) is for C h i n a.
I mean if the Yak-141 rule applies, they could make a T-84 (early) and give it the planned upgrades the Supreme Soviet had approved as requested for requisition (6TD’s, new transmissions) for what was also an improved edition, intended to be called the T-84, and would be a mid-service, more competitive version of the T-80 to compete for production with the T-72BM (aka Object 188) which was also potentially going to renamed the T-88. It probably wouldn’t have the welded turret work-around that KhTZ had to figure out after the split, so it would still have a T-80U style turret, but with the improved filler and hull arrays of the 1989 proposed edition of the UD. That would really be like the Soviet MBT-2000 at that point and would be seriously fun.
People will call that revisionist, and be sad that a basically Ukrainian tank gets the USSR treatment, but that’s really the absolute furthest gaijin could stretch the tank line if they wanted to without it no longer being historically accurate at all.
I don’t know man, with the T-64 style reverse, assuming it doesn’t have the v.1989 proposed armor layout… if it didn’t get thermals and only got 3BM46, I don’t think that would be so bad.
I’m just remembering that when i play on leo2av i forced to see turms, obj292 and t80ud and 2s38
And it makes me sad
I’m honestly sick of 10.0 after the 292. It’s heavily impacted, and teams fold quicker than even the absolute top of top-tier.
It uses “Hydrostatic transmission”
Basicly no gear index.
In game you have the agility of Type 10.