Ukraine Ground Forces Tree

The fact that the textolite layer was replaced with an ERA layer does not mean that it has become less strong.

There are still the same 3 layers of steel.

image

1 Like

T-80UD with Drozd APS is literally BM Oplot 2000(Obj 478DU9) , just exported to U.S.

1 Like

I’ll shut up

So now we are backtracking on previous statements?
Things are looking bleak for your argument…

Anyhow, namecalling is also quite revealing.
I am by no means a “ukraineboo”, I am simply calling out what is clearly wrong.
Yes, I do think Ukraine should be an independent tree, but I have also stated that I don’t think it is the best option to be the next independent tree. In fact, in regards to potential trees that I look positively towards this would be on the lower end.

5 Likes

This, right here. It’s more or less my opinion.

I do think the Ukraine tree is good however due to it being a partial tree I don’t want to see it soon.

Not until we see the 5-10 Rank 1 possible trees still and the better partial tree options.

2 Likes

“усовершенствованной конфигурации танка - Т-84У”
https://web.archive.org/web/20151211095308/http://morozovkmdb.com/rus/body/history4-19.php

1 Like

This one looks more like DU7 from Malaysian MBT tender, where PT-91M Pendekar was chosen

Well congrats on wasting your time on compiling the list from outdated TT image. Now do this over again with updated tech tree (still WIP), which you would’ve noticed if you actively participated in the thread discussion.

But the fact that you labeled “T-64BV” as simple clone of “T-64” or denying the tree from having Gepard 1A2 (which saw actual combat and fulfilled its purpose only in AFU) tells me that no arguments will change your mind and I really shouldn’t waste time on another passing tree hater either.

7 Likes

There’s the thing called “gameplay assumption” in War Thunder - many things simply emulated from known data and added to the game. Form of BM44U1 is known and probably also some specs, so it can be added if there will be a good reason for it.

When we discussed “Kombat” anti-tank missile performance here in the thread, someone pointed out in the manner of “we already have Kobra in the game, it’s basically the same”. So nothing stops devs doing the same with BM44U1.

The other thing to point out: 3BM60 “exists” only in really small numbers. No one actually seen them used in combat or captured them in significant numbers (aside from one known photo of trophy). Yet in the game anyone can load full rack with it and shoot away infinitely. And I seriously doubt that devs dismantled “Svinets” or fully simulated its real life performance.

1 Like

Sure, they can do it, but in my opinion that will be just another can of worms and another case of discussion of how effecient it would be IRL based on assumptions, just another things for people to argue about.

One is HEAT and other is Kinetic, HEAT value is simply set by devs, but the APDSFS has to have most of its values preset just to determine it’s effectiveness.
I am fine with implementing it, but, again thats just a can of worms.

Point still stands as the point was made without the ERA in general, as if it was set off by previous shots.
Meaning, T-84 will have slightly less effectiveness versus KE than T-80BV/U but at the same time will be much prone to HEAT.
Though, I am mistaken about HSTV-L point, I admire that.

1 Like

You’re confusing me

T-84 will have the same 3 layers of steel even without an ERA

image

3 Likes

As I have said, yet without ERA (as in case of it being shot out) the protection against KE will be slightly less , against HEAT it will be worse.
What is the part that confuses you?

The initial point was talking about a case without ERA to begin with.

Let’s talk in personal correspondence

I was at work, I didn’t have time…but literally I wrote “it looks like this” in the picture 478DU2 in Abu Dhabi in 1995…but outwardly they are not much different…
478DU4/Variant of the T-84 for the Greek tender in 1998.

Spoiler

img 12
img 11

1 Like

Good idea, good post, very good research, but unfortunately for now at least Ukraine tech tree would be a bad idea and we all know why

In the magazine “Equipment and Armament” number 12-2007 there is a review article by Tarasenko about Armored Vehicles of Ukraine for that period, it’s about everything…

1 Like

Thanks

1 Like

This is a project (roadmap), in the future the Oplot-M.
1.Oplot-M in a single copy was adopted in 2009 under the full name (which is rarely used)-"Improved BM tank “Oplot”…In the “folk art” T-84U or T-84M…The improved one is written with this letter-УU)…
2. As I wrote above, in relation to 478DU9, such a designation was not officially used…

What’s better… Kharkov’s website, or @btvtnarodru17?

We aren’t talking about the Oplot-M, are we? You can still argue that’s an 84U, but that’s a further upgrade of the base DU9, which was referred to as the T-84U.
No T-84 is referred to as the T-84M except for a 1-off drawing of some Moderna-esque abomination that seemed as if it was straight from Ural in the late '90s.
Yes, as I quoted… T-84U. The improved one being the 478DU9[-1].

See the attached link in the comment you’ve replied to.