interesting test footage of ERA
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and something like Thai Oplot used Microtek’s Nizh inserts for sure, regardless of whether data from their website is obsolete or not.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
ohhh ok. That clears up a lot, I was still a bit confused when you said later but what were the last tanks that had T-84 in their name?
Did Pakistan ever trial the T-80UK?🤔
Object 478DU1-DU9 were all named T-84. The DU9 is the initial production version, was renamed later to BM Oplot (zr 1999/2000) but was originally T-84. The Oplot-M is Object 478DU9-1, Oplot-T is Object 478DU9-T. Neither had the T-84 designation. The only other T-84 would be the T-84-120 Yatagan, a prototype with NATO 120mm gun, 120mm AT-11 ATGM, modern mounted autoloader (NATO-styled), blowout panels, etc.
afaik no the UK was not trialled
i doubt this was named the T-84. if anything, T-84 designation was used from beyond that.
such as Obj478BE
Object 478DU was the first with the T-84 designation as far as I’m aware, as it used the new T-84 Hull. The Object 478D and before were T-80UDs.
that is strange i thought the T84 name was limited to the new welded turret holders
that means the pakistani T-80UDs are all T-84s lol