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
9 Likes
Neither of which are true, as the very earliest this could have been produced in 1982.
I didn’t catch that with what you had said.
There is? Temp and pressure were read via the 1B12, in which head/tail winds was largely irrelevant to focuses of the time.
That’s what it does on all Catherine or Kalina systems, which must be a godsend.
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.
It isn’t. Gorbunov’s assessment of the T-80UM detailed a new ceramic insert for the hull array.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The idea was cost-effective ways of modernising. Replacing the FCS completely is more expensive than retrofitting in DVE-BS sensors.
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.
Which again, the same profile as the 1986 model. The only thing the Agava T-80U changed was the night sight.
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.
What’s the point of all this T-80 talk? We all know Abrams is gallons of JP-8 better
1 Like
Apparently the T-80B and T-80U ‘need’ to be removed from the game.
He personally doesn’t like playing them so noone gets to play them.
Pressure is dealt with via 1B12, as said.
DVE-BS does indeed deal with newer wind headings, though that’s effectively it.
The vehicle didn’t need to be “torn down”, Omsk produced a little under 700 T-80s from 1989-1997.
I’m not talking about the T-80Us featuring Agava, I’m talking about 1992 spec T-80UMs… Of which a new hull was devised.
The “one in game” is quite literally a copy/paste T-80U. So much so that the original TPN-3 was erroneously placed on the vehicle.
Do you have anything showing a T-80U was sent to Sweden without Agava?
1 Like
They don’t?
Never once said that, but go off.
Boowomp x1
1 Like
I made a typo, its 1B14, not 1B12, and its just an ambient temp sensor.
You said “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.”
It has the armor profiles from 1985, because that’s what the Agava T-80U is.
Because it is the same tank, it really didn’t need any major changes other than the name.
But then the other T-80U Sweden tested had the TPN and not the Agava, so its not completely out there.
https://tanks.mod16.org/2015/04/09/report-from-terrain-trials-with-t-80u/
the Swedish army borrowed two Russian T-80U’s and subjected them to a number of trials.
The footage quality from the trials isn’t the greatest, but around the 6:57 timestamp, there’s footage of the 2nd T-80U, with TPN and an IR spotlight.
Earlier in the video, the other T-80U doesn’t have the IR spotlight, and has the more distinct Agava sight housing.
Similar to the Stryker…but not American