if i squint hard enough i might just see a T-80BV??

[desertsaint101]

Just wondering if any of you know of a good stand-in for a T-80/bv (NOT the T-80U if possible as it seems a little OP of the scenario i am making) have i also mentioned that i am also willing to stand on my head and squint

cheers in advance

Desert.

[Marko]

Just wondering if any of you know of a good stand-in for a T-80/bv (NOT the T-80U if possible as it seems a little OP of the scenario i am making) have i also mentioned that i am also willing to stand on my head and squint

cheers in advance

Desert.

Try the T-72 BV variant it can use the AT-11.

[cobrabase]

Just wondering if any of you know of a good stand-in for a T-80/bv (NOT the T-80U if possible as it seems a little OP of the scenario i am making) have i also mentioned that i am also willing to stand on my head and squint

cheers in advance

Desert.

T-72BV was also SLIGHTLY better armored than the T-80BV. : )

[ijozic]

T-72BV was also SLIGHTLY better armored than the T-80BV. : )

Sorry for stating the obvious here, but is it still called like this ("BV") in the game?

[Gibsonm]

Sorry for stating the obvious here, but is it still called like this ("BV") in the game?

No.

There's T-72B and T-72B(early).

If you do a search I think you'll find a recent multi-page thread where the differences were discussed ad nauseum (along with the various names used for different models).

[Marko]

No.

There's T-72B and T-72B(early).

If you do a search I think you'll find a recent multi-page thread where the differences were discussed ad nauseum (along with the various names used for different models).

Correct but I was always led to believe the V designation was added if reactive armour was

Fitted to the tank and the K designation for a command tank.

Were these Nato designations or Soviet.

[Gibsonm]

Well I suspect the answer to your question is buried somewhere in the aforementioned thread.

It certainly seemed to go all over the place and I think at some point we found out who the foreman on one of the shifts was at the respective plant.

[Marko]

Well I suspect the answer to your question is buried somewhere in the aforementioned thread.

It certainly seemed to go all over the place and I think at some point we found out who the foreman on one of the shifts was at the respective plant.

Guess I will have to bin all those Steven Zaloga books I bought .LoL

[Damian90]

Suffix "V" meaning Vzrivnoy (explosive) was added only to tanks that were never designed with ERA installation in mind.

These tanks were T-55 series like T-55AMV, T-62 series like T-62MV, T-64 series like T-64AV and T-64BV, T-72 series like T-72AV, and T-80 series like T-80BV.

However all these were designed prior 80's so also prior widepsread use of ERA.

Later tanks that were designed with ERA in mind, dos not have any letter indicating that ERA was added.

This is why T-72B is just T-72B, it does not matters if it have "Kontakt-1", "Kontakt-5" or "Relikt ERA", vehicle was designed with ERA installation in mind, thus suffix indicating it's installation is not nececary.

However in case of these tanks, additional letters or numbers in designation code may appear, however this additions, indicate improvements and modifications other than ERA.

For example T-72B is basic model, however there is also T-72B1 which does not have 9K120 guidance system for 9M119 missile.

There is T-72B2 which is the most advanced variant, but it was never manufactured, also known previously as T-72BM "Rogatka".

And finally T-72B3 which most major modification, is new day/thermal sight "Sosna-U". There are also rumors about T-72B4 which adds panoramic sight for commander, and this variant is in development, sometimes it is also called T-72B3M in some news reports.

In the same scheme applies T-80U, T-80UD and their modifications, and of course T-90 series.

[Blahrmor]

That's helpful.

It's easy to get a basic picture of the various WP tanks, but sifting through the various suffixes and what they mean regarding capabilities seems to be a nightmare.

On that note, do the gun launched ATGMs use the same fixed 8x sight? I have no idea how you'd hit something at the proclaimed ranges with that.

[Damian90]

Only T-72B have fixed sight. And let's be honest, T-72 series prior the most recent modifications, did not had especially capable FCS, sometimes in Russian nomenclature it was not even called a real FCS but just a sighting system.

However T-64B, T-80B, T-80U/UD, T-90, T-90A have real FCS that can even calculate lead, and all these tanks have sights with different magnifications, I believe mostly around 10-13x.

T-72 series were allways, just a simpler, mobilization tanks, these tanks received most goodies last, or never were intended for upgrades.

Original T-90 was attempt to improve T-72B design, with elements of T-80U/UD like FCS or improved commander cupola with remotely controlled MG.

However which is important to note, T-90 or Object 188, was not the last word that UKBTM design bureau intended to say, in paraller there was designed other, more advanced tank, codenamed Object 187.

This veicle was intended to have completely new hull design, breaking with tradition of hull based on T-64 design, actually it's hull at some prototypes was more similiar to M1 and Leopard 2 in it's frontal part.

Also this vehicle had new, welded turret, this turret might be a common link between T-90A turret, and Ukrainian welded turret installed on various tanks from T-84 series.

Object 187 had also new ERA, codenamed "Malachit" which I suspect might be a predecessor of "Relikt" ERA.

In the end however, 187 was more expensibe than 188, and project had been cancelled. All builded prototypes are stored at Kubinka proving grounds and tank museum, however are not avaiable for general public because Russian goverment still consider them classified. However UKBTM design bureau, was trying to take one of prototypes and renovate it for their museum, and there is still hope that perhaps Kubinka tank museum will renovate at least one prototype, because recently all these vehicles were taken from open and are now stored under roof.

Overall history of soviet tanks is very interesting, although it is really a pity that there are no, really good books in english about them, there is great literature, but only in russian, and relatively hard to purchase AFAIK.

[Gibsonm]

Here we go again.

I'm sure this was all covered previously what less than 2 months ago.

[Damian90]

Well yeah. But hey, not everyone read old topics. So sharing some knowledge is not a bad thing.

[Gibsonm]

So maybe just post a link to the previous thread (got to take less time than typing it all out again - or do you just have in a Word document and "copy and paste" each time?)

[Damian90]

I just like typing.

[Gibsonm]

Fair enough.

[Damian90]

However, if someone have enough time, I strongly advise to use translator, and read these russian language forums, a lot of informations, and a lot of guys with great knowledge about soviet, russian and ukrainian armor, there is also a lot of informations from other countries around the globe. I also write there, and some guys there knows english, so if someone is interested, can just ask about specific subject.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/

*Other good thing is that administration there aims for objective informations sharing, so there is no or very weak typical Russia sTronK!!!1111!!!! crew or similiar trolls. :heu:

[Blahrmor]

It's pretty funny, actually. There's a heap of armor estimates on the tanks and penetration data for the 125mm guns, but stuff regarding the FCS and whatnot is markedly absent in comparison (at least the finer details anyway). The latter stuff being just as important as the others. The same with finer automotive details, like how the T-72 can barely move backwards.

[MDF]

Well yeah. But hey, not everyone read old topics. So sharing some knowledge is not a bad thing.

Maybe put these kind of excellent details on the wiki page for the T-72? Or maybe a combined wiki page for Soviet/Russian armor?

[Assassin 7]

However, if someone have enough time, I strongly advise to use translator, and read these russian language forums, a lot of informations, and a lot of guys with great knowledge about soviet, russian and ukrainian armor, there is also a lot of informations from other countries around the globe. I also write there, and some guys there knows english, so if someone is interested, can just ask about specific subject.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/

*Other good thing is that administration there aims for objective informations sharing, so there is no or very weak typical Russia sTronK!!!1111!!!! crew or similiar trolls. :heu:

Thanks for the link

[desertsaint101]

sorry for the late reply, cheers for all the information i will be sure to read it all thoroughly, when i next get some R&R.

[Damian90]

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/274891.html

Meanwhile Russians present new subvariant of T-72B3 with panoramic TC sight.

Seems that this can be T-72B3M mentioned some time ago.

[dejawolf]

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/274891.html

Meanwhile Russians present new subvariant of T-72B3 with panoramic TC sight.

Seems that this can be T-72B3M mentioned some time ago.

took the russians only 49 years to see the benefits of a panoramic sight.

[MDF]

Isn't a panoramic sight merely one that can rotate 360 degrees? If so, didn't the T-72M have one? Sure, it lacks a thermal camera, and the vertical elevation extents are limited, but it is stabilized. Seems like a decent "80% solution".

[dejawolf]

Isn't a panoramic sight merely one that can rotate 360 degrees? If so, didn't the T-72M have one? Sure, it lacks a thermal camera, and the vertical elevation extents are limited, but it is stabilized. Seems like a decent "80% solution".

it's certainly a lot cheaper, but thats about it.

traversing 360 degrees you have to get out of your seat and stand on top of it,

which is not easily done in the cramped TC spot of the T-72.

you also have to pull around a large heavy cupola with a big 12.7mm machine gun attached to it which means quick target acquisition is a bit of a challenge.

as for the TKN-3, it's not stabilized it's got lousy 4x magnification,

it has limited hunter-killer, and no override functionality, so if the gunner is incapacitated, the TC won't be able to fire the gun..