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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
Should probably tell that to the guy dictating other peoples’ opinions, but sure
1 Like
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.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Really? last I remember these were your words.
I’m not, you’re the one that came in with a disagreement that simply wasn’t needed. You’ve pretty openly admitted that you’ve lost the topic and seemingly don’t understand my point.
I couldn’t care less who likes playing them or who wants to continue playing them, I care for historical accuracy and vehicles that simply aren’t anachronistic in their very setup.
Doesn’t say its the same, they say a lot of the T-64 is covered in other T-72 and T-80 articles, and a full T-64 article is not currently planned.
But with a digital wind sensor supplying the FCS. The FCS is mostly the same, but had some digital changes like I said, namely the DVE-BS meteorological mast. I doubt it was as simple as unplugging the 1B11 and plugging in a DVE-BS, since the 1B11 only handles crosswinds, and not full meteorological data.
Whatever dude, they aren’t getting removed.
You’re playing the wrong video game then my dude.
That isn’t a T-80BV, nor is it a 1980 model T-80. It’s a 1982 model with provisions for nothing more than a splash guard, which was removed.
1A46’s standard 1V517A-01 has a pretty standardized plug that, from what I’ve seen, interfaces with 4 different masts that also work with 1A45 and 1A40 systems. Quite sure it’s simply a plug-and-play.
(revision)
I believe even the DVE-BS’s EEC has the same cannon plug.
Neither would anything else get added anyway. You’ve seen people when any mention is made of a T-80.
What else would there be, if not the company that requires multiple firsthand and secondhand sources to cross examine any information about such vehicles, and even going to such lengths as to outright remove other vehicles from attainment because they’re nonexistent.
2 Likes
Its either the 1978 or 1980 model T-80B. Its definitely not the 1985 like you said were the only ones with Agava’s.
The 1982 is some weird 219A precursor to the 219AS, can’t find conclusive evidence whether it even exists beyond the concept stage.
Doesn’t matter if the plug is the same if the FCS can’t use the data it provides. There would be no reason to replace the sensor if it only took the same crosswind data anyway.
That’s in general, Gaijin have been adding very few MBT’s lately.
Similarly unlikely to see stuff like the T-72M1M’s or T-72B1MS, Gaijin seems to consider those BR’s “done”.
They’ll probably come back to them eventually, its still content for keeping the game running.
Its a game about historical vehicles, thrown into an ahistorical PvP environment.
That means any historical vehicles are available, T-80U, T-80B, Challenger Black Night, TKX, Rad 90, HSTV-L, WZ1001(E) LCT, Leclerc MSC, etc, etc, etc.
The sources are to keep the vehicles themselves historical, but it doesn’t stop them adding prototypes, tech demonstrators, unfinished vehicles, etc.
1 Like
With a gun that didn’t exist until 1981?
The 80A and 80B are two VERY different vehicles. You can quite easily see it’s not an 80A, as well as quite easily see that it lacks the decade-old cannon that the 1980 variant was known for.
About the 219A though, yeah. There were less than half a dozen made, so I wouldn’t put my cards on anything other than Kubinka.
(And yeah, Kubinka does have one. Funnily enough, a rock throw down the road will get your eyes to one)
Which is quite interesting, seeing as the T-80U with the original crosswind sensor and the T-80UK with its mast use the same 1T46 alongside the same 1V516A system.
Might want to look into a reason as to why the sensor was replaced, seeing as it seemingly can’t utilize it.
Maybe, just a thought here, it is indeed able to utilize it as T-80Us also had a separate temperature and humidity hardpoint.
Good, more chances for the Su-37.
Which is quite stupid, as the only reason those BRs are “done” is because they’re horrendously compressed. If the T-72B2 was added at 11.7, it would curbstomp any M1/105 that came in its way… At the same time, it could be added to 12.0 and be worse than the T-90M in most ways.
The fact said content is being rushed through so quickly and without regard to the effects it may have to the BR structure is astonishing.
Ahistorical PvP is needed to deter asymmetric capability, in the same sense that production numbers aren’t taken into account in matchmaking.
That in no way means that vehicle accuracy should be foregone. Once again, a 1992 T-80UM would wipe the floor with the T-80U we have in the TT, much like the T-80UE-1 does at this current moment.
They’re still the same BR too, believe it or not.
Thing is though, the Chally Black Night doesn’t have the Challenger 3’s Rh120 for the sake of having it. The WZ1001(E) isn’t weaving around the battlefield with the WZ-123’s composite inserts.
Then by all means, they should do such. That doesn’t mean that prototypes, tech demos, and unfinished vehicles should be smashed together simply “because”.
1 Like
Its just to show that not only the 1985’s had Agava’s tested.
It wasn’t the only T-80 fitted with them, its just the only surviving one that I know of.
That’s what I said.
Its possible the DVE-BS has some ability to override some of the FCS functions with its own calculations, but its unlikely its something the FCS could do by default. It was designed to just take crosswind data from the 1B11 and use it, not feed back to an external computer.
Maybe.
And I agree, but those BR’s haven’t changed substantially in years.
Would play almost identically, there’s no mechanics where the FCS changes matter.
The Chally BN is built to a very specific Challenger 2 build. Similarly, the T-80U is.
Neither should be removed just because an earlier build exists.
What do you mean? You had said the 1982 T-80B is “some weird 219A precursor to the 219AS”.
I would imagine it could, seeing as 1A46 is fully automatic to begin with.
There isn’t an external computer for 1A46, it’s simply attached to 1T46.
Better armor would matter quite a bit.
So again, it would be quite erroneous and stupid if it were to receive an Rh120.
It isn’t a matter of “there’s something different so it should be removed”, it’s a matter of "this vehicle in its setup is effectively fiction and should be replaced by its historical and chronistic models.
1 Like
I said its either a 1978 or 1980 model T-80B.
By extension, that also means I’m saying its not an T-80A.
Its lead calculation is automatic, but only using information from the laser rangefinder and crosswind sensor. There’s no calculation for temperature, pressure or head/tail winds.
A separate device like the DVE-BS could in theory take the laser and shell information from the FCS, do its own calculations, and then override the FCS’s lead calculation with its own.
Or, more likely, the FCS was just changed to accept the new information for its own calculations.
Its the same.
Which it wouldn’t because the specific challenger 2 build its based on didn’t have that.
Its not like the T-80U is getting Relikt from the T-80BVM or a CITV from the T-90M.
It has Agava thermals from the specific T-80U build its based on.
And again, its not. Its based on a very real historical T-80U build. One of them even ended up in Sweden as a potential export.
1 Like