I’m fine with them having the T-80U with the Agava-2 but at least change it to the T-80UM and fix up the little things with it.
As for the “T-80BV”, yeah it’s bad. Give it its armor plate and remove the Agava from it or at least make it the specific prototype that equipped it and give us a real T-80BV. Idk man, we’ll see what happens.
That’s the point. This all-in-one system is beyond stupid.
An event T-80BV would be an amazing choice for Agava-1
BMP-3 modernisation by Diehl. For Germany since it was never bought and is quite different from the original BMP-3.
Or not.
Why not?
If you want more T-80s, ask for more T-80s. Zero reason to remove existing ones.
Lmao, good luck on this one
That’s… Exactly what I did.
The “existing ones” aren’t T-80s.
They are
Ah, sorry. Let me rephrase.
The T-80B is currently 4 T-80s that is worse in every single way than the 1985 production model.
The T-80U in-game is 3 T-80s with the most outlandish qualities that overinflate its BR to the point of irrelevancy.
The tree would be better off without them. It’s not as if we have 5 premium T-80s in the Russian tree alone that are legitimately true-to-life.
The T-80B is the 1980 model, and a modification adds the Agava thermals it was tested with in the 80’s.
And the T-80U is the 1985 model, and a modification adds the Agava thermals it was fitted with at some point.
Modifications commonly change specific builds of the same vehicle. Challengers, BMP’s, M1128’s, etc.
Its not.
The T-80B is the only tech tree 10.7. The only others are event vehicles.
And the T-80U is the 2nd best USSR tech tree tank currently ingame. Outside of that, you need either the premium T-80UE-1 or squadron T-80UK.
So no.
There is no “1980 model” of the T-80B, even then that wouldn’t explain the D-81-3 instead of D-81K (of which would only be able to load 3BM22 at best)… Nor the additional armor plating, the armor package, nor the thermal system.
The Agava-2 was tested in '87, not 1980.
The T-80U would be the 1985 model if it had the 1000TF… And no, Agava wasn’t “fitted at some point”, it was explicitly used by newly-produced 1989 T-80Us.
Of which no excuse can be used that these were “modified” vehicles, especially when you look at other modifications, such as the 4 M48s and 9 M60s in Israel alone or 7 Abrams in the American tree… Yknow, the one sole competitor to the T-80? The Abrams? Of which there are almost 4x more in the TT?
No M1128 has an erroneous gun, armor profile, GPS-III, or an entirely incorrect engine.
The biggest issue with the Challenger and its “modifications” is that the premium Desert Storm variant doesn’t have ERA… Which isn’t a historical mistake, it was a modular upgrade to the vehicle, not a full production standard that was entirely skipped over for the sake of laziness.
It most definitely is. Worse armor in every aspect (hull and turret), lacking GTD-1400… If you don’t classify “armor and mobility” as everything, not too sure what else can save you.
Thanks for proving my point further!
Then again, 2K22, exists.
No, it isn’t. The top two are already the T-90M and T-80BVM, followed by the '292, T-80UK, T-80UE-1, the T-72B3, then you can finally argue as to whether or not the T-90A beats the T-80U.
Once again, the entire presence of the 6 exclusive T-80s argues in favor of me.
Its the model fitted with the 1100 HP GTD-1000TF engine, which began in 1980.
Before that T-80’s had the 1000 HP GTD-1000T.
Both were fitted to the same 1980 model in 1985, to keep them up a bit with the model 1985 which had a redesigned armour profile. Its still the same model 1980.
Fitted to the same model in the 80’s, still the model 1980.
I didn’t say 1980, I said the 80’s. I didn’t know the exact year. They were fitted to the model 1980 tank.
You’re right, I wrote the wrong year, its the 1986 model.
It was the old model. The more comprehensive T-80U upgrades around the timeframe also had digital fire control upgrades, which causes some people confusion over the term “T-80UM”, like the term “BMP-3M”.
I’m talking more the Challenger 2 (Dorchester 2E modification), and Challenger 2 (2F) (Dorchester 2F modification)
Its not. Exact same turret, but different hull composition. In practice though, you still aim for the exact same spots, so the added protection is meaningless. The welded 30mm plate was able to keep pretty close to the 1985 hull composites.
It doesn’t, both have the same 1100 HP GTD-1000TF, except the 1985 model tank is heavier. So the 1980 model is actually a bit faster.
What the 1980 model also has over the 1985 is the Agava thermals. Which is a massive benefit.
That the T-80B shouldn’t be removed?
It is.
T-80BVM, T-80U-E1, T-80UK, T-80U. And then with the right maps, even the T-80UM-2.
Followed by the T-90M, T-72B3M, T-72B3
3 of which are in the tech tree, 2 of those you want to remove, lmao.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Going forward lets try to stay on topic, and avoid insulting others.
Same as any other 10.7’s. The M1A2 really shouldn’t be 11.7, but USA players are… well you know…
They were. The whole point of the 30mm welded applique plate was to offset the difference to the new 50-35-50-35-50 armour array used on the model 1985.
When the T-80BV arrived in 1985 with the improved armour array, the obsolescent T-80B could not be left behind, so there was a need to bring its standard of protection up to the level of the new T-80BV without changing the armour layout entirely as that was not possible without dismantling the tank hull. Once again, the solution was to weld additional armour onto the existing array, but this time, the new appliqué armour plate was 30mm thick.
Would be the 2A46-2, which would just be a tooltip rename, still the same shells.
Unless the 1985 refit also changed the cannon to keep with the 1985 model, couldn’t say with certainty.
One of them is on display at Alabino, its the 1980 model, minus the 30mm UFP welded applique plate.
They did, you’ll notice the digital hotwire crosswind sensor on some T-80U modernisations, while the basic Agava one retains the old 1B11 anemometer
The quartz turret appeared in T-80’s around the model 1978, and was retained all the way through the model 1980, T-80BV (1885), Object 292 and the T-80BVM. Its one of the most consistent parts of the T-80B series.
Nope, the T-80B turret was unchanged until the T-80U, swapping over to cellular polymer.
Which was a pretty similar composite material, but wasn’t cast permanently into the turret like the quartz was.
In theory it could have been, but I can’t find any conclusive evidence it was. Only the 1980 model.
No, no it shouldn’t.
I didn’t say it was, I said it was the 2nd best tech tree vehicle, as in researchable.
4th best once you include premiums and squadron vehicles.
Still not.
Should probably tell that to the guy dictating other peoples’ opinions, but sure
Disagreeing with you is not dictating other peoples opinion.
Don’t play the T-80B and T-80U if you don’t want to, but don’t assume other people agree with you. A lot of players like playing them and want to keep playing them.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
