+1
Amazing suggestion, especially with the well made models for the Oplot-P in both variants.
I really hope this gets implemented, especially if they can do it as revenue share with the user models.
1 Like
УПМ - УКРАЇНСЬКІ ПЕРЕДОВІ МІКРОТЕХНОЛОГІЇ ІМЕНІ В.О.ХИТРИКА(UAM). UAM - UKRAINIAN ADVANCED MICROTECHNOLOGIES NAMED AFTER V.O. KHITRYK. Once again. The company was founded in 2018 (registered in 2017). Duplet and Knife (KhSChKV-34, KhSChKV-19) - adopted for service in 2003. That’s all, no other elements are used on Oplots, especially those presented by HKChPWSH - which in fact do NOT exist, and if they do exist, please show me a photo of the HKChPWSH elements (I’ll tell you right away that you won’t find them).
+1. Should have been this one as squadron and not a cheap ahh C&P.
@Yoshi_UA calm down lad. To begin with, author may not be or was not concerned so much with the depth of the state of Nizh/Duplet ERA in the game. To be frank, I wouldn’t say the subject of ERA manufacturer (Microtek/UAM) matters that much simply because numbers of one another match most of the time. The only important difference is how these numbers are represented: with inclusion of specific projectiles divided by efficiency (UAM’s brochure) or general compilation of efficency against KE/CE projectiles (Microtek’s sources).
Not to say it doesn’t affect efficiency of current Oplots, and any tank with Nizh ERA in general, but I wouldn’t really blame author given the density and ambiguousity of the subject.
1 Like
The author pointed to non-existent dynamic protection. It only exists in visualizations and brochures. Therefore, since the figures were given in brochures, this raises doubts. There were no tests, videos, or photos of HKChPWSH elements on the Internet. This company (UAM) appeared in 2018, which already contradicts logic. It is necessary to indicate the correct manufacturer and its elements, and only then will it be a good and correct offer.
Maybe we can still get this one in the future. Disappointed we didn’t get it from the beginning, but I still really want it! +1
4 Likes
so apparently “microtek” might be getting overshadowed by UAM (Ukrainian advanced microtechnologies). Even Mircoteks website and data seems out of date while UAM is new and seems to be offering the same ERA modules with their own improvements.
Nizh
is offered as the upgraded Nizh-1M AKA KhSChKV-19A
While Duplet
is offered as the Duplet-2M
These upgrades to preexisting packages seem to be done by UAM. Regardless of whether or not people agree, this company is real as is pointed out by the facts of the establishment of their business and their apparent usage on the following vehicle:
True.
However
The problem is: Microtek is indeed the company that should be reviewed when it comes to specs of ERA, because brochures for UAM do indeed describe UAM’s Nizh inserts specifically, not Microtek’s.
We haven’t seen UAM produce any Nizh inserts as all photos of existing Nizh inserts were of Microtek’s production (to differentiate the producer, you gotta look at the markings on the insert, in which case “БЦКТ” stands for Microtek, and “Ukrainian Advanced Microtechnologies” stands for UAM).
Oplot-M/T/P were all designed and produced before UAM was created, and something like Thai Oplot used Microtek’s Nizh inserts for sure, regardless of whether data from their website is obsolete or not.
For the matter of fact, all photos of Nizh we have are of Microtek’s origin. Even in 2022/23 there were photos of Microtek’s produced Nizh insert and not UAM’s:
Thus it is fair to assume that UAM has their own types of Nizh inserts which have their own characteristics, and Microtek has their own. All Oplots were to be outfitted with Microtek’s Nizh simply because UAM has not only not existed at the time to offer their product, but their product in question was supposedly never produced or used outside of tests etc (hence we have a fairly accurate data for every type of projectile).
Furthermore
The greater problem is data selection for in-game representation. Microtek doesn’t provide clarity to what kinetic projectiles were used for Nizh/Duplet ERA estimations in order to achieve said numbers.
I.e. there is info on the fact that Nizh reduces KE penetrative capabilities by 80%, however what is that kinetic penetrator – no one really knows. Because we know for the fact that older APFSDS round like 3BM15/17 would be surely entirely defeated by Nizh, however something like 3BM42/DM33 would be more resistant to Nizh ERA (to be exact, model 34 insert) and thus have greater residual penetration (there are photos of said trials).
TL;DR: due to Microtek not offering more specific data while also using some marketing techniques (there were other presentations from Microtek covering Nizh/Duplet, which tbh were clearly overestimating their inserts’ efficency), devs took the easiest way that involves usage of the product with similar name and that more or less correlates with trials (more on that in Oplot armor topic) to justify the armor of the tank that was produced before ERA manufacturer and their products existed.
3 Likes
its really confusing and moreso interesting that UAM uses the Oplot-P pictures on their website as if they contributed to its development. i should re-confirm the exact development date of the Oplot-P standard. it was post Al haider program so there is that. but the exact date might be hard as development =/= display date
Yeah that threw me off too initially, however we know the Oplot P prototype was produced at least as back as 2017 since we have a video of it from then.
Additionally, we know from the UAM website that the company started its operations in 2018.
So what SRC said does line up. Oplot P definitely does not use UAM’s ERA.
1 Like
Is there anyone who is actually confused on why it is just called the BM Oplot in-game? Like it is obviously just the Russians denying that it is a Ukrainian made tank and they don’t want to even say it exists. That was the theory anyway, why are they like this?
According to some, the official designation of it in UA documents is the BM-Oplot hence why.
although the full designation is the T-84 BM Oplot-M or if we want to go full technical, it even has an objeckt 478DU something something designation
the russian cope is another issue entirely i hope
But they always want to say BM Oplot, not even mentioning the T-series heritage
then it should be correct to assume that Microtek was the supplier although according to rumours they seem to be now defunct?
regardless, id like to see which company is the future supplier seeing as the new 1M and 2M packages are lighter even if a bit weaker.
i the oplot wants to have any hope of competing with the best of the modern era, it needs better composites
well that part is true cope lol
overnationalism is bad regardless or who or where it comes from
(as in probably most russians arent like this (WT extremists))
1 Like
Pretty sure upgraded T-84s are just BM Oplot / Oplot-M.
ye but i think he meant that the russians wont use the term T-84 or T prefix because they want to deny them being a part of the best soviet tanks heritage (T-80) when clearly the hull is the exact same.
1 Like
^^
Also I’m pretty sure the Russians do call it the T-84, atleast the early versions (which is its proper desig)
I know some but say a leader of Slug (snail) doesn’t like the fact that Ukraine is a country then they might go changing things as they please. Maybe this same person invented the Kh 38MT
1 Like
Only the early versions are called T-84 though, some being called the T-80UD still (USA). Only later versions are BM Oplot, which are the ones we have in game (Oplot-M/T).
2 Likes
Both T-84 and BM Oplot relate to the same family of vehicles: Object 478DU project.
Object is a factory designation for prototype ground vehicles that is also retained when project goes further (e.g. Object 478DU is a prototype T-80U with diesel engine, and Object 478DU9-P is BM Oplot-P); it’s an index provided by Main Armored Vehicle Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of USSR (I used word-to-word translation for this bit).
T-84 is a designation of Object 478DU from DU1 to DU4/5. BM Oplot is a designation of Object 478 from DU8 to DU9s. It is worth mentioning that some early 478DUs are also referred to as T-84A (early 478 that used Soviet/Russian components) and T-84U (later 478 that used Ukrainian systems, ERA and turret). And BM Oplots were also referenced by year model: zrz. 1999 (technically T-84U), zrz. 2002 (BM Oplot), zrz. 2007/9 (BM Oplot-M). But at the end of the day early models of Object 478DU should be called T-84s while later models BM Oplots.
The only formidable reason why BM Oplot and T-84 can be considered separately is because early T-84s used Nizh or Kontakt-5 ERA, and BM Oplots have their UFPs redesigned for two layers of ERA (“Duplet”) instead of a single one.
2 Likes