It was built for Pakistan, not for any other nation. Even the Oplot-M testing was intended to see what Changes Pakistan required in their own variant.
It’s a Pakistani tank, where it was tested doesn’t matter.
1 Like
all u sentent was end with the ture what we got in game is T-84 oplot M not P
and it out of topic we talk abount M varian not the P if u wanan t to talk abount P varian
here T-84 BM Oplot-P: Just as my nation, I was built for a purpose
Its not the end of the world if he talks about the oplot-p here.
1 Like
兄弟，what?
Ai?
that not matter when we got in game is T-84 oplot M this is ture ist it ?
and in the game now it T-84 oplot M not P So what u want form it P varian no even in the game ?
and this post discuse abount T-84 oplot M ammunition incoude BTA-4
here list of all Top shell for each vertion they use correct to information // iRL //
T-84 oplot M- 3BM42 “Mango”
T-84 oplot P - 125mm apfsds " naiza "
T-84 oplot T - กระสุนเจาะเรียบ 125 มม. " BTA 4 "
this is was the most Perfect Fit for all
ukrain original verion get they original shell
pakistan get they pototype shell
thailand get they license production shell
T-84 oplot M 3BM42 “Mango” original ukrain shell
T-84 oplot P 125mm apfsds " naiza " pototype shell
T-84 oplot T - กระสุนเจาะเรียบ 125 มม. " BTA 4 " license production
2 Likes
Why can’t the oplot-m use the naiza apfsds?
where the soure for it can use ? No information , No soure ? then it cant use
well we talk base on information not base on imagine
Oplot P have a significant modifi to fit for Pakistan incude they poduct ammunition " naiza apfsds "
Oplot T have a significant modifi to fit for Thailand that incude " BTA 4 " license production
why it fit BTA-4 / becouse thailand dosent order any APFSDS shell form ukrain
and in logic they already have license production 125mm and 105 mm APFSDS shell
they 105 mm spfsds license production form israel and 125mm form china
but no significant detail form the thailand army it self what license production model they got
it was a military secrete information but many one in army tech new and comunity incuse it to be
export version of DTC-10 in that call BTA-4 becouse they have only 1 model that export in 125 mm apfsds shell * thaiis why Oplot T got BTA 4 as they main shell
T-84 oplot M it an original vertion with out any significant modifi only use they normal Ukrain round 3BM42 “Mango” becosue Ukrain still dosent upgrade they tank for they newest shell 3BM42U1
/ it identical to 3BM60 form Russian but it it size to long to fit in original loading stysemin they tank
and becouse that war just began befor they new shell enter a poduction line
here is 3BM42U1
but some one in VK military comunity said thay can use this shell with hand reload
they new ukrain shell model line – 3BM44U1
as u can see how of 3BM44U1 long when compair to normal 3BM42 “Mango”
the black head was the 3BM42 “Mango” gray head was the 3BM44U1
1 Like
Im pretty sure they all use the same autoloader. Im also pretty sure that bta 4 doesn’t actually fit into the t-80s autoloader from what i have heard.
I dont think they modified the autoloaders for the countries they went to. The oplot-t is literally almost the same except it gets different radios and air conditioning. The oplot-p is just made lighter so it has less of the armor.
So im pretty sure the oplot-m, oplot-t, and oplot-p use the same auto loader.
1 Like
The gun and autoloader were not modified, so it is the same for Oplot-M/T/P models.
The only argument that could be made might be historical, where the Oplot-M/P when trialed wouldn’t have used BTA-4 which wasn’t owned by Pakistan at the time. However it is still a round that would be compatible without needing modifications (at least if we trust rumors that Thailand uses it with Oplot-T), which is the reason Gaijin added it in game.
The Oplot-T was not modified to use different ammunitions. All rumors saying they use BTA-4 with them are also saying that modification isn’t needed.
But these rumors are also unconfirmed, with the confirmed Thai service round being 3BM15.
2 Likes
How this thread is not closed? Smh
This is like a 3rd or 4th thread covering Oplots and BTA4, and I don’t get why there is this much of a fuss.
@MAUSWAFFE has clearly explained why Oplot-M in CN TT is 1:1 to Oplot-T found in JP TT. Basically Pakistan trialed 2 Oplot models, these being Oplot-M (the same one that was accepted in Thai army, as UA offered the same composition of systems at first), and then Oplot-P (the other one that was more modified to fit Pakistani meeds after trials that were conducted with Oplot-M).
The reason why BTA4 can be in both tanks is because Oplots share the same carrousel-type autoloader that shares most (if not all) specs of that used in T-80UD. Gaijin just straight up copy and pasted tanks, simply changed the livery, and left it as-is as the concept of providing ammo that technically can be used in a tank exists for a while now (there are many examples).
Now, speaking of rounds:
- while Oplot can use BTA4 round, there is an assumption that the autoloader cannot accomodate it if they are placed next to each other (the tops are too thick), but they can be placed if spaced by 1 projectile, just like it is with 3BM60 round found in Russian tanks, namely in T-80BVM;
- Naiza APFSDS was litteraly created to be fired from 125mm guns of different Soviet tanks and their autloaders, namely T-80UDs, which were sold to Pakistan from UA. I believe @TPS_Hydra has more info on specs as he did a deep research on Pakistani T-80UDs and their derrivatives and respective systems. And as I said, Oplots (any Object 478DU, be it DU1 or DU10) use practically the same autoloaders as T-80UDs, and thus M-model can fire it just like the P- or even T-model;
- 3BM42U1, also sometimes appears as 3BM44U1/2, are all rounds that have never reached production, or even live fire tests. All available info on them suggest that all those rounds are, at best, mock-ups with no actual trial info available to wide public. Therefore, these rounds cannot be added, or, at very best, can be added if we ever see an Ukrainian Oplot/T-84 in-game as this round has never left UA. Also, this round can be loaded in autoloader, as most sources suggest that these rounds were made to be used in older Soviet autloaders with little to no modification required (as UA tank arsenal consisted of wide range of Soviet tanks, composed of different systems), however we cannot say anything for sure as, just like I said, we have 0 info on actual live trials of rounds.
EDIT: Ukraine Ground Forces Tree - #4379 by Savage_SRC
A paragraph in old advertising brochure talking about 3BM42U1 a bit more in detail. It also has a mention of 3BM44U1 round that looks like a further/separate development of 3BM42U1, but in essence share the same fate of never being fired or tested (looking at publicly-available info)
3 Likes
Isnt 3bm44u1 and 3bm42u1 the same?
1 Like
Can’t say for sure. People online refer to 42U1 just like 44U1 and vice versa. But from the exerpt I linked to my previous post, 3BM42U1 and 44U1 are described as separate developments (the only time I saw these two rounds being talked about in the same source)
2 Likes
I mean in the thing you shared it does show 3bm44u1 and 3bm42u1.
Well, probably it is the designation issue. Rounds do indeed look the same, so 44U1 is 42U1.
1 Like
They do look the same unless was 3bm42u1 the early version then updated to 3bm44u1.
Only God knows the truth. The scraps of info available online do not say enough to explain what happened to all those rounds at the end of the day
1 Like
I still wish ukraine atleast made a prototype and maybe made it in a small number for the t-84u they have.
Source* Modify*, it’s getting hard to read these replies ngl…
1 Like
Don’t forget about gatekeeping the right ammo to tank that ‘historically’ fired it too. ;)
M61 APCBC-HE on almost all of our vehicles,
and no Shot SV Mk.1 on our Fireflies.
Nuh uh.
In theory, you might be right.
But as long as Gaijin cherry-picks whatever they want, it is not.
Sometimes, they picks 100% historical accurate loadout for ‘intended nerf’
while others gets ‘what-if’ loadout for ‘intended buff’
Don’t try too hard with those fancy logic terms.
It’s starting to look like a Fallacy Fallacy.
Just because you can name a fallacy doesn’t mean your own argument isn’t crumbling. It sounds more like Sophistry to hide the fact that you’re cherry-picking logic just as much as Gaijin does. :/
2 Likes