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Well congrats on wasting your time on compiling the list from outdated TT image.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.
8 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
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
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.
You are probably reading with a translator and the chronology of events escapes you…
1.In this article from the site it is nowhere indicated that 478DU9 is = T-84U…
2. Further, at the beginning of the article it is indicated under what name the T-84 was adopted in 2000…
3. Next comes the description of the roadmap for the improvement of the T-84 under the code T-84U.
4. All these improvements were implemented on 478DU9-1 under the new code Oplot-M…
5.Oplot-M (478DU9-1) was adopted under the name “Improved tank BM Oplot” in 2009 …
6. Respectively, there are-T-84/BM Oplot and BM Improved Oplot…
7. At the bottom of the info site 2001-2007 …
8.BM Oplot.1998-2000 …
Spoiler
- Officially there is no T-84U (Oplot-M) this is the cipher of Development work before adoption…
1 Like
I’m reading it just as it is.
В частности, была внедрена более совершенная тепловизионная система, а также спутниковая система навигационного обеспечения, независимый лазерный дальномер для командира танка, современная система учета изгиба канала ствола и др.
I’d imagine this refers to the previous mention of the T-84U, no? It has superior foreign optics, a commander independent optics + LRF, as well as an MRS attachment on the barrel… All of which were mentioned.
And? The first T-84 to be put into service was done so in 2000, though what does that have to do with the prior statement?
So… What?
No, it’s not like that…The tank was adopted under the name BM Oplot. In 2000, after that, there are no T-84s.
Accordingly, a program is being implemented to improve the BM Oplot tank (Object 478DU9).
- If you really want to have a T-84U, you will find it…so the name of the Object is 478DU???(what are the numbers at the end) and his photo…
1 Like
