It certainly wasn’t a good time; maintaining or updating military projects wasn’t viable. The T-72 didn’t even receive thermal sights, unlike the T-80. Many things were shelved and abandoned, like the Yak-141, for example, and the Drozd, which wasn’t produced in large numbers. To make matters worse, shortly after, a guy came along with his “Perestroika” and “Glasnost,” which only aggravated everything, but that’s not the point of this topic. Well, goodbye, I have to go.
But it was already an advance, and shortly afterwards the T-64 emerged, which only increased the Soviet armored advantages: 125mm guns, composite armor, and new fire control systems.
The perfect case study is T-72 leading to abrams and Leopard 2, or Mig-25 leading to F-15
Disregarding fact just because it comes from a Pro-NATO user is pathetic, and shows the insecurity and lack of legitimacy within the russian defense industry and it’s fans
You still seem to get very offended when anyone criticises the sloppy quality of RU equipment no?
People are only irritated at the state of Russia in game because their IRL sloppiness isn’t reflected, wouldn’t be so obnoxious is they modelled corruption in factories or supply chains would it,
Wouldn’t be very fun if your LFP fell off because the welds failed, and so on.
I don’t think so, you just like to make everything hostile.
I can acknowledge the equipment of both sides. I don’t have a horse in the race for either nato or the ussr, so i don’t need to rely on propangda of either side.
Horribly biased is the new term for factually correct?
Dm63A1 has an Anti-ERA tip quoted to negate the effects of KE ERA by up to 60%, allowing the main round to do the rest and then penetrate the composite behind, is it not unreasonable to assume that statement applies when KE ERA has proven ineffective in a certain combat theatre?
The KH38MT isn’t in Russian or Foreign arsenals, it hasn’t been fired from an aircraft, nor has it been carried by an aircraft. The arguments for it’s existence come from ‘it’s a modular missile’ and ‘the seeker exists’, so it’s existence is purely theoretical, when this was brought up, you decided to deny it, while offering no sources or evidence to the contrary.
Both of these are, as far as we know, correct assumptions, and they hold more weight than the defending parties due to sources, observations and history