I have heard stories from multiweekly operators of the T-72M1 variant, it seems from them (they are East German, operating the East Germans “variant”)they never had an issue with the tank breaking down under daily use, however, real regiments (as they worked in training new recruits) had loads of issues with their vehicles. I feel as if the T-72 was a missed opportunity around the time of the Soviet Union, it could have possibly, with the right upgrades, been the best tank to come out of the USSR near this time period, excluding the T-80. I also have seen videos of the T-72 tank reloading in “the eastern war” (as to not get flagged for bringing politics into this) is much faster than in game, afaik, they aren’t “boosted” autoloaders, but they could be, and in game just doesn’t have this feature. Any other thoughts on incorrect modeling of the T-72
Well, id like it if the 6mm structural steel armor box around the carousel to spall, but thats just every carousel tank in the game.
At the very least later T-72 get a 20mm frontal arc plate mitigating this issue (yes, more armor makes the tank worse because of spalling treshholds)
Yeah, I forgot to mention the spall shield there, most tanks should get them tho.
I assume you mean spall liner?
I mean in some ways thats kinda present in that every spall piece is above a given size in the game
Reload rates are balancing decision not a modelling issue. Most manual loaders are actually faster that auto-loaders, tanks like the Challenger 2 should be about 3 seconds reload time. We have also seen in the “eastern war” that T-72s are highly vulnerable to being destroyed if their ammunition is hit. Which currently isnt modeled in game as they can tank hits to their ammo quite effectively.
Yeah, but there are some vehicles that the turret ring has a 8-10mm steel wall around it, like the Sherman for example.
If that steel is armor plate, then thats just a nerf generally speaking, if its structural steel, its a buff
I suggest looking into variants of Object-187 (pretty sure it is actually the one to be supposedly named T-72BU, not the T-90 (Object-188) being named that before) .
Some info about Object-187
It was made by Ural plant as well at same time Object-188 was being made, theres variant that has 1250hp (there might be actually 1500hp engine, as it does exist, however I cant say if it was sure to be put there)engine, T-90A style turret with T-80U fire and control system (best soviets had in 1985 and until collapse) with Agava 2 (gen 1 thermal seen on T-80U in game) proposed and possibly installed (hard to say due to little info and none can really just go to remaining prototype and check it lol). It also had ERA layout quite similar to BVM but it was Kontakt-5, and side ERA layout like on T-72B 1989.
Thats the best version to ever exist.
Theres also versions that had different engines (840hp,1000hp,1250(or 1500hp gas turbine with transmission of T-80U) 1500hp X layout engine and turrets (its either T-90A style or T-72B style, oh and they had Shtora IIRC)
All of them had a new gun that couldnt use standart 125mm APDSFS due to it havign muzzle break so there were two APDSFS rounds created just for that gun that coupled with that gun being better than 2A46 offered better pen.
Take the info with grain of salt as there sure is info on them but I would not say its a lot of info to describe each variant that existed, though we know for sure that they used T-80U fire control system, new gun, had ERA installed in described pattern, and theres variant with 1250 gasturbine engine.
Seems like some Object 187 also had LWS, just like T-90 do.
Object 187 driving (pretty sure picture comes from some television)
Object 187 with gas turbine engine (you can see that by T-80 style exhaust, you can see T-90A style turret and Shtora mounts.
Three different Object 187 variants with different engines.
Some Object 187 even had a new style for frontal plates, kinda same seen on Leopard 2s, it was used probably for the better protection offering (IIRC i heard someone explain APDSFS work better at more angled plates upon some degree and work less effecient on such angles.
Picture of Object 187 that looks quite close to Object 188, the T-90, you can see different gun though. I think turret here is same on T-72B/T-90.
Practically a better T-90A with a bit worse firepower and fire control system, except it came around 15 years earlier.
To me it looks more like a T-80, but it really doesn’t seem too far from the T-72, honestly, from a exterior standpoint, having the 8 road wheels, the Klimov GTD-1250, and the turret looking like a modified T-80 turret with the T-90’s add on composite. I don’t know the full history, and am not denying the fact it’s a T-72, but to me, it looks like a T-80 upgrade, but like I said, I don’t really know. And yes, the turret looks more T-72 than the T-80
Reload speed is a balancing mechanism used by Gaijin, not historical. Else the Abrams would have consistent 4-5s reloads on all variants (105 or 120).
Its T-72, engine deck with gasturbine and transmission were brought from T-80U, and the whole reason for Object 187 & 188 to exist is to catch uo with T-80 series (with T-80U, the best soviet tank at the time). And the turret is similar later used on T-90A. I have written some history and description i to spoiler.
Forgot to also mention but Object 187 had typical driver hatch weakspot gone, just like Object 640.