I think this happened because you don’t prove anything you say.
“They weren’t used, others were used.” You have to prove it, not just write it down.
You must clearly demonstrate why other elements should be included.
You can look at Duplet elements and read the name of the element. It is very easy to tell that these elements are different.
It should look like this:
You show the elements of the HSCHKW, then prove that these are the ones used in Oplot-T (not just in BM Oplot, but in Oplot-T).
And only then do you talk about what other data should be used.
UAM was established after the delivery of BM Oplot-T tank was already started to Thailand. It is physically impossible for these tanks to be equipped with UAM’s supposedly 70% lighter but somehow improved Duplet-2M system. Although I will try to find something that confirms the model 34 elements used in Oplot-T.
1 Like
Wellcome to russian bias where every vehicle its OP as F… Oh wait it doesnt
That is “marketing lies”, “misinformation” and other words that are connected by gaijin to that
I don’t know why, but I had a feeling they weren’t going to do the Oplot’s armor right. I didn’t see the developers making the Oplot superior to even the T-80U, and yet they made it even worse than the T-80UD, which is precisely the model the Oplot is based on. It would be like the Leopard 2A7 having less armor than the Leopard 2A4.
1 Like