Why is the T-72B at 10.3 when the T-72B (1989) is at 10.3?
the difference between the two is the original has contact-1 ERA while the (1989) has the superior contact-5 ERA.
The first one for obvious reasons and the second one for obvious reasons.
The 1989 still uses a old FCS, which means in War Thunder language: terrible gun control, slow vertical and horizontal drive in addition: mobility overall and doesn’t have thermal imager,
And it seems that if a vehicle has thermal imager is enough to be higher BR like M60A2 TTS and Type 74 (G) which both have variations without thermal imager but still a BR difference.
Honestly the T-72B 1989 isn’t too much of an upgrade over the the T-72B 1985.
It screams “wow T-90 armor!!” but in reality the K5 has worse coverage than the K1 (mostly help deal with stock HEAT grinders) and in my experience, majority of the hits I received were middle of turret, the driver port, and LFP which the K5 doesn’t do much to help.
1 Like
Yeah, '89 really should be 10.7
2 Likes
Definitely not with that zoom level.
1 Like
Unlike the Chinese one which doesn’t but shares a BR.
Which doesn’t matter too much.
The areas covered by Kontakt-5 on the T-72B '89 are also virtually impenetrable on the T-72B '87.
All of the standard weakspots are identical on the two models.
Minor correction, we don’t have the T-72B '85 in War Thunder, we have the '87.
I’m shocked, truly shocked.
Someone who doesn’t play the T-72B whatsoever thinking it’s undertiered.
What are the diffs of 87 and 85?
T-72B '85 has a glacis array consisting of varying thickness HHA plates with air gaps.
T-72B '87 uses the same glacis array that the T-90, T-72B '89 and T-90A use, this incorporates reflective plates.
Spoiler
1 Like
Cause their permanent armor is the same, and Kontakt 5 doesn’t change anything in-practice.
80mm more temporary armor doesn’t change the fact most rounds aren’t penning the 520mm permanent armor to begin with.