As I’ve said, 10.0+
What do higher than gen 1 thermals have to do with the T-80B?
So you actually cant name any at that BR range or what?
1 Like
What?
Look at them yourself, I’m not going back to my computer to baby-step you through looking at a tree.
The amount listed are 10.0+ vehicles with thermals. If you don’t trust me on it, you can count yourself.
1 Like
So you cant name any of them gotcha. Just say so.
Absolutely irrelevant to the argument OP made?
4 Likes
You mean the experimental sight that was integrated to couple T80B’s?
This is an experimental feature, although we do have countless experimental features or vehicles in this game but that doesnt change the fact T80B shouldnt have Thermal sights normally.
7 Likes
When did I say I couldn’t name any of them?
What part of
Did you fail to understand.
Experimental sight? Agava had its maximum production figures from 1983-1985, where it was standard issue for T-80B '1983s. Agava-2’s max production was from 1992-1995, where its primary use was in T-80Us.
Where is the issue here?
Kindly refer to
Or
Or even
I think you get the point…
4 Likes
If you could, you would name them, simple as.
Argument OP made wasnt “T-80B doesnt have thermals”.
Argument was “T-80B has bad thermals”,
hence me asking what NATO MBT at BR range of 10.0 to 11.0 has higher than gen 1 gunner thermals, as they are pretty much a standard at that BR range.
And since T-80 is MBT and not a light tank or fire support vehicle, were comparing gunner thermals on MBTs, not on light tanks or fire support vehicles.
3 Likes
Again, I’m not listing 49 vehicle names at my own expense. You have eyes, you can look just like I did.
Nobody said the T-80B doesn’t have thermals?
1 Like
Then why do you keep saying there are 49 vehicles with thermals above 10.0 when thats not an argument i made?
1 Like
İssue is you didnt give me any sources and the information i see about T80B’s indicates it was a experimental feature for it.
Would you kindly share your source on that.
Yea no.
2 or 3 T80B’s that has Thermal sights doesnt prove anything in that regard especially since all of them are just showcase figures.
1 Like
no no no remember this is gaijin favoritism, when the Russian tanks get something that only a few T80s had, all of them get it, yet people keep bringing up " only fives abrams had D.U in U.S Army school , no american tanks get them " this is gaijin and their non-stop russian bias machine.
3 Likes
See this is why i generally call people who keep defending russian vehicles in this game lying, disingenuous hypocrites. Gaijin does nothing but hand hold the entire russian tech tree giving its vehicles " modifications " that turn their tanks into completely different variants or giving them vehicles that don’t exist ( yak 141 ) for example. The T80 never fielded thermals it was an experiment, yet all t80s in the game get a upgrade.
Meanwhile the Abrams 5 Army tanks with D.U Hulls seemingly get ignored, where the same level of fairness here hmm? Why don’t abrams get a upgrade like the T80 and other russian vehicles hmm?
7 Likes
There aren’t sources clearly defining its rarity, and the '1983 T-80B itself existed in small numbers. The primary point of it was to implement a newer 2A46M-1 instead of the 2A46-2 / 81K, as well as implemented an autoloader capable of 56cm munitions.
“Its existence doesn’t prove that it exists, it’s only there for display!!1!”
Yeah, you don’t say? I’d be surprised if I saw a Chechen relic in anything but a display. I’d add more to the list, though the footage and images claiming to be 1980s T-80Bs are so grainy that you can barely clarify its 1G42.
1 Like
No 1983 armor pattern… Despite the gun, the thermals, the engine, and the ammo, I’d at least expect to see it using its realistic armor profile.
I’m seeing a lot of “boo hoo” so I’ll just skip this part. Fun not reading it!
The T-80B did field thermals, and it’s on the godawful amalgamation of variants we see in-game. Everything about it is that of the 1983 T-80B, yet it still holds the armor profile of the prior 1978 model.
Because they weren’t production upgrades. They were purely used for testing purposes, and that was it. Unlike the M1A1HA → M1A1HC, the one-off models that did test the hull configurations weren’t accepted as an industry standard.
The 1983 T-80B was.
2 Likes
XP-50, M247, MBT70. Neither of those vehicles worked IRL, but they do ingame.
The Abrams hull armor was literally buffed to the point that the UFP can ricochet all APFSDS in existance, but you sure aren’t going to talk about that.
4 Likes
Hell, they’ve even been compensated in armor to reflect domestic packages, too. Basing the armor off the Swedish tests using EAP-2, they took the claimed effectiveness of HAP over EAP and applied that in-game.
To cry about it being an export package is hilarious, since the in-game abrams has more protection than the export packages.
2 Likes