Next patch and beyond wishlist(Everything except Tech Trees) (Part 2)

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@somebody_Else

The T-80B is the 1980 model, and a modification adds the Agava thermals it was tested with in the 80’s.

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.

@somebody_Else

And the T-80U is the 1985 model, and a modification adds the Agava thermals it was fitted with at some point.

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.

@somebody_Else

Modifications commonly change specific builds of the same vehicle. Challengers, BMP’s, M1128’s, etc.

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.

@somebody_Else

Its not.

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.

@somebody_Else

The T-80B is the only tech tree 10.7. The only others are event vehicles.

Thanks for proving my point further!
Then again, 2K22, exists.

@somebody_Else

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.

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.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

There is no “1980 model” of the T-80B

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Nor the additional armor plating, the armor package

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

nor the thermal system.

Fitted to the same model in the 80’s, still the model 1980.

@TheArcticFoxxo

The Agava-2 was tested in '87, not 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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

The T-80U would be the 1985 model if it had the 1000TF

You’re right, I wrote the wrong year, its the 1986 model.

@TheArcticFoxxo

And no, Agava wasn’t “fitted at some point”, it was explicitly used by newly-produced 1989 T-80Us.

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”.

@TheArcticFoxxo

premium Desert Storm variant

I’m talking more the Challenger 2 (Dorchester 2E modification), and Challenger 2 (2F) (Dorchester 2F modification)

@TheArcticFoxxo

It most definitely is. Worse armor in every aspect (hull and turret)

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

lacking GTD-1400

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Thanks for proving my point further!

That the T-80B shouldn’t be removed?

@TheArcticFoxxo

No, it isn’t.

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

@TheArcticFoxxo

Once again, the entire presence of the 6 exclusive T-80s argues in favor of me

3 of which are in the tech tree, 2 of those you want to remove, lmao.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[Hylian_Knights]

Going forward lets try to stay on topic, and avoid insulting others.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

If it were indeed a 1980 T-80B instead of whatever abhorrent abomination it is now, it wouldn’t be facing M1A2s.

Same as any other 10.7’s. The M1A2 really shouldn’t be 11.7, but USA players are… well you know…

@TheArcticFoxxo

No 1980 T-80B had the extra 30mm of hull armor,

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.

T-80

@TheArcticFoxxo

Once again, a 1980 T-80 with a 2A46M-1

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

No, it wasn’t. The 3 sole frontrunners of the Agava fitment of T-80Bs were 1985 spec T-80BVs. Once again, don’t embarrass yourself.

One of them is on display at Alabino, its the 1980 model, minus the 30mm UFP welded applique plate.

@TheArcticFoxxo

No T-80U received “upgrades” to their fire control systems

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

@TheArcticFoxxo

unlike the T-80BV that somehow still has a quartz turret that hadn’t been used for the prior half decade.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

All T-80BVs used the same ceramic-compiled turret as the T-64BV. None were the “same”.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

The 1980 model has 1987 thermals while the 1985 doesn’t?

In theory it could have been, but I can’t find any conclusive evidence it was. Only the 1980 model.

@TheArcticFoxxo

No, that it should be.

No, no it shouldn’t.

@TheArcticFoxxo

You need to be a special kind of delusional to think the base model T-80U is betterthan the T-80UE-1

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

The only anachronistic T-80s in the tech tree are the T-80B and T-80U

Still not.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

Should probably tell that to the guy dictating other peoples’ opinions, but sure

[somebody_Else]

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.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@somebody_Else

Disagreeing with you is not dictating other peoples opinion.

Really? last I remember these were your words.

@somebody_Else

@TheArcticFoxxo

Thanks for proving my point further!

That the T-80B shouldn’t be removed?

@somebody_Else

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.

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.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

From the same guy that says the T-64 is the same as the T-72? Ballsy.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Last I checked Alabino didn’t have any open display T-80Bs… Drive down the road to Kubinka or Krasnogorsk and look at the eithers’ exhibits.

Spoiler

@TheArcticFoxxo

Even the most modern T-80s, from the UK to the EU-1, use the same ballistics calculator.

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.

Spoiler

Spoiler

@TheArcticFoxxo

You’re inconsolable.

Whatever dude, they aren’t getting removed.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

I care for historical accuracy

You’re playing the wrong video game then my dude.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@somebody_Else

Spoiler

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.

@somebody_Else

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 wind sensor. I doubt it was as simple as unplugging the 1B11 and plugging in a hotwire sensor, since the 1B11 only handles crosswinds, and not full meteorological data.

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)

@somebody_Else

The FCS is mostly the same, but had some digital changes like I said, namely the DVE-BS meteorological mast.

I believe even the DVE-BS’s EEC has the same cannon plug.

@somebody_Else

Whatever dude, they aren’t getting removed.

Neither would anything else get added anyway. You’ve seen people when any mention is made of a T-80.

@somebody_Else

You’re playing the wrong video game then my dude.

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.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

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.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

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.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Neither would anything else get added anyway. You’ve seen people when any mention is made of a T-80.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

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.

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.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@somebody_Else

Its either the 1978 or 1980 model T-80B.

With a gun that didn’t exist until 1981?

@somebody_Else

The 1982 is some weird 219A precursor to the 219AS, can’t find conclusive evidence whether it even exists beyond the concept stage.

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)

@somebody_Else

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.

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.

@somebody_Else

That’s in general, Gaijin have been adding very few MBT’s lately.

Good, more chances for the Su-37.

@somebody_Else

Similarly unlikely to see stuff like the T-72M1M’s or T-72B1MS, Gaijin seems to consider those BR’s “done”.

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.

@somebody_Else

They’ll probably come back to them eventually, its still content for keeping the game running.

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.

@somebody_Else

Its a game about historical vehicles, thrown into an ahistorical PvP environment.

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.

@somebody_Else

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.

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.

@somebody_Else

The sources are to keep themselves vehicles historical, but it doesn’t stop them adding prototypes, tech demonstrators, unfinished vehicles, etc.

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”.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

With a gun that didn’t exist until 1981?

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

You can quite easily see it’s not an 80A

That’s what I said.

@TheArcticFoxxo

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.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

more chances for the Su-37.

Maybe.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Which is quite stupid, as the only reason those BRs are “done” is because they’re horrendously compressed

And I agree, but those BR’s haven’t changed substantially in years.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Once again, a 1992 T-80UM would wipe the floor with the T-80U we have in the TT

Would play almost identically, there’s no mechanics where the FCS changes matter.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Thing is though, the Chally Black Night

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.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@somebody_Else

That’s what I said.

What do you mean? You had said the 1982 T-80B is “some weird 219A precursor to the 219AS”.

@somebody_Else

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.

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.

@somebody_Else

Would play almost identically, there’s no mechanics where the FCS changes matter.

Better armor would matter quite a bit.

@somebody_Else

The Chally BN is built to a very specific Challenger 2 build. Similarly, the T-80U is.

So again, it would be quite erroneous and stupid if it were to receive an Rh120.

@somebody_Else

Neither should be removed just because an earlier build exists.

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.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

What do you mean? You had said the 1982 T-80B is “some weird 219A precursor to the 219AS”.

I said its either a 1978 or 1980 model T-80B.

By extension, that also means I’m saying its not an T-80A.

@TheArcticFoxxo

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.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Better armor would matter quite a bit.

Its the same.

@TheArcticFoxxo

So again, it would be quite erroneous and stupid if it were to receive an Rh120.

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.

@TheArcticFoxxo

it’s a matter of "this vehicle in its setup is effectively fiction

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.

[Otrabrok]

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@somebody_Else

I said its either a 1978 or 1980 model T-80B.

Neither of which are true, as the very earliest this could have been produced in 1982.

@somebody_Else

By extension, that also means I’m saying its not an T-80A.

TheArcticFoxxo:

I didn’t catch that with what you had said.

@somebody_Else

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.

There is? Temp and pressure were read via the 1B12, in which head/tail winds was largely irrelevant to focuses of the time.

@somebody_Else

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.

That’s what it does on all Catherine or Kalina systems, which must be a godsend.

@somebody_Else

Or, more likely, the FCS was just changed to accept the new information for its own calculations.

From everything I see, the FCS stayed the exact same. If you mean the FCS elements such as the aforementioned sensors, I’d imagine so. With newer vehicles like the T-90 coming out alongside the later T-80U variants, I’d imagine the now privatized industry wanted to do away with the quite old standardized systems.

@somebody_Else

Its the same.

It isn’t. Gorbunov’s assessment of the T-80UM detailed a new ceramic insert for the hull array.

@somebody_Else

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.

Neither does the early production T-80B have a 2A46M-1, extra hull armor, Kontakt-1, or thermals… Nor does a 1985 T-80B have quartz turrets instead of comp K, the old hull array of the initial production T-80.

You’re right, the T-80U is getting the exact opposite and has armor profiles from 1985 whereas it should have the armor profile of the 1992 T-80U, of which it is.
Instead of gaining anything from it, it loses capability by having a bolstered BR due to its erroneous thermal sights and outdated armor.

The “specific T-80U build” never received Agava-2, that was incorporated in 1992-1997.

@somebody_Else

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.

It isn’t.
The one in Sweden was the one assessed with increased armor protection of the hull, of which we don’t get in-game. That’s what vladimir gorbunov wrote his evaluation of.

[somebody_Else]

@TheArcticFoxxo

Neither of which are true, as the very earliest this could have been produced in 1982.

The Agava tests weren’t new build tanks, they were retrofitted to older tanks. They could have put them on T-34’s if they had wanted to.

@TheArcticFoxxo

There is? Temp and pressure were read via the 1B12, in which head/tail winds was largely irrelevant to focuses of the time.

1B11 is just a crosswind sensor. Checking again, there’s also the 1B12 temperature sensor so slight correction on my other comment, the FCS does handle temperature.

But pressure and head/tailwinds are new with the DVE-BS.

@TheArcticFoxxo

From everything I see, the FCS stayed the exact same. If you mean the FCS elements such as the aforementioned sensors, I’d imagine so. With newer vehicles like the T-90 coming out alongside the later T-80U variants, I’d imagine the now privatized industry wanted to do away with the quite old standardized systems.

The idea was cost-effective ways of modernising. Replacing the FCS completely is more expensive than retrofitting in DVE-BS sensors.

@TheArcticFoxxo

It isn’t. Gorbunov’s assessment of the T-80UM detailed a new ceramic insert for the hull array.

That seems highly unlikely since it would require tearing down the vehicle to replace. Post-soviet modernisations typically work with better ERA, it doesn’t require tearing down the vehicle and rebuilding.

But even if it did, the composite function against APFSDS works on alternating density zones, its probably going to have very little impact on darts, more of HEAT.

@TheArcticFoxxo

whereas it should have the armor profile of the 1992 T-80U, of which it is.

Which again, the same profile as the 1986 model. The only thing the Agava T-80U changed was the night sight.

@TheArcticFoxxo

It isn’t.
The one in Sweden was the one assessed with increased armor protection of the hull, of which we don’t get in-game.

It was the same. Its already ingame, and its the same. Again, it was just the basic 1986 with Agava, and both were sent to Sweden, one with and one without Agava.