There was no purpose of keeping few hundreds new tanks (produced since 1985) that served less than a decade? Just, wow.
Who needs those new top of the line T-80UD’s when the storage bases are filled with juicy T-62’s and T-54’s, amirite?
Returning to topic, yesterday some military bloggers remembered about M60 for some reason (perhaps in context of possible future donations), and the M60A3-84 project was discussed again.
This was the project conducted by Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau for Turkey and was basically an upgrade of М60А3 with 120mm gun, Yatagan turret, 6TD engine, some other components from Т-84 and protection systems Nizh\Duplet, Zaslon and Varta.
Cached page from KhKBM.
more images of the project model
5 Likes
New evidence of L27 APFSDS usage on Ukrainian Challenger 2 was seen in recent video report from The Sun.
7 Likes
All modernizations of T-80Us took place from 1990-1992, while the T-72B went from 1990-1996.
The T-80UD was incompatible with these changes, using an entirely (and inferior) different powerplant. There was no reason in keeping them when they would be scrapped or reconverted for use of the new GTD-1250.
To call them “new” is laughable. For the same reason America ditched the Legacy M1 in '96, Russia did the exact same to the T-80UD.
Top of the line… Right. They were capable of firing early '80s ammunition at the best, had a horribly inefficient, underpowered, and problematic powerpack. It’s the same reason why work on the T-72 was invested in while the T-64 was left behind for the T-80. It simply had inferior systems by the time that innovation was implemented, and it lacked the capability to implement them.
2 Likes
I don’t want it, I need it
2 Likes
About adding Ukrainian trees to the USSR.
This is just nonsense, don’t be offended, but by what miracle? Stories about were part of the USSR?
Ok, let’s take a history textbook. Let’s start then with the countries that were under the control of Britain, Portugal, France and so on.
I wrote above about the USA and Britain, let’s add Australia here, but we still have Eastern countries and African countries somewhere.
Let’s add a branch to those because they were under management.
So how do you understand this nonsense.
Surely you realize that said former possessions from other countries are already present in trees in game? Take UK and ZA for example.
2 Likes
I know that they exist, but I said more Globally
I genuinely have no clue what point you’re trying to make then.
2 Likes
I will argue your position regarding the fact that the Tree of Ukraine cannot be added as a sub-tree of the USSR
And if it does?
3 Likes
USSR cant have a sub tree due to the tree limit
6 Likes
It’s obvious you didn’t think this one through, you wouldn’t have to add more lines for it to fit into the tree.
Wouldnt… really be a sub tree then… and if gaijin wanted to add ukraine they could have added the T80UD that ukr made post soviet collapse…
1 Like
You’re right it wouldn’t be, but I suppose it would still be considered as such from the community. Also about the T-80UD from Ukraine is still technically possible, wouldn’t it be a bit better than the premium one we just got.
1 Like
Indeed, it can’t be added because the USSR is already too full for a sub-tree.
That is the true reason, not because of the strange argument you used earlier.
3 Likes
It just seems like if they were to add ukr its odd they danced around giving the UD the Ukr flag and specifically choosing a very specific soviet variant of a later ukr tank
1 Like
it does not need to be as a seperate line tho they can add t-80 like vechicles in t80 line t72 like vechicles in t72 line bmp vechicles in bmp line etc etc
At that point you aren’t speaking of a sub-tree anymore, not with the parameters set by Gaijin as of now.
Even then it isn’t a good option for UA.
4 Likes
-1 because its a Like a russian tree With 3-5 German vehicels
2 Likes