>less shitty than the known tanks
unlike tha T-90MS, this one actually has the ammo in a cassete in the turret bustle, so that's an imideate improvement.
Better than T-90A it seems, not exactly a high bar though.
It's better in almost every way than the T-72B[udget cuts]3M and is roughly equivalent to the Russian T-90M in combat potential. It's an excellent tank, but it still has a few major disadvantages compared to newer Russian "premium" tanks. The biggest thing holding the design back is the KBA-3, which is a clone of the 40 year-old 2A46M with the chrome liner removed. The gun has a considerably shorter lifespan than the 2A46M-5, while simultaneously having a wider CEP and lower muzzle energy. The autoloader hasn't seen many changes either, being the same MZ used in the T-80UD, vertically stored propellant and all. While it enjoys a few advantages ove th t-90M in mobility, protection and certain other features like it's multi-fuel engine, I would say the T-90M is very, very slightly superior crew competency nonwithstanding. Unfortunately for the T-90M, Russia doesn't train it's crews properly, so this advantage likely wouldn't matter all too much.
https://i.imgur.com/yg2agHo.jpg
I'm obsessed with this tank, I think it's really cool and a genuine improvement over the T-80 design. It's just a shame that not a lot of them have been made, especially the more advanced variants like the BM or Yatagan. From what I've heard its interior electronics could be better, but it's got a solid design principle, and It could be transferred onto other soviet tank designs, namely the T-72 family.
One thing that's been annoying me is information on the autoloader. Wikipedia states that a new Bustle-Mounted autoloader was incorporated into the first "Oplots" when the welded turret was introduced, but I can't find any information that corroborates that, at least not in English. The only documentation I have found for the bustle autoloader is from the 120 Yatagan variant. I don't know if you guys might know where I could find more information about that, first hand accounts would be great.
Ukraine has a very small number but they made 50 BM Oplot-Ts for the Thai army and the difference between them is apparently minor, so they can be produced in numbers. I think the issue for Ukraine was a lack of funding.
Unfortunately, the bustle-mounted autoloader was only impemented on the Yatagan, the T-84 series still uses the conventional MZ carousel. Which is a shame, seeing what a leap forward in design it was. Maybe after Ukraine finishes Russia off, something like it could be designed in the future.
>Unfortunately, the bustle-mounted autoloader was only impemented on the Yatagan
Yeah, I had a feeling that was the case. Later on I found an image of a BM turret with the autoloader so it's obviously the case they aren't bustle mounted. Someone should really get on Wikipedia about that, it's causing a lot of disinformation.
I'm obsessed with this tank, I think it's really cool and a genuine improvement over the T-80 design. It's just a shame that not a lot of them have been made, especially the more advanced variants like the BM or Yatagan. From what I've heard its interior electronics could be better, but it's got a solid design principle, and It could be transferred onto other soviet tank designs, namely the T-72 family.
One thing that's been annoying me is information on the autoloader. Wikipedia states that a new Bustle-Mounted autoloader was incorporated into the first "Oplots" when the welded turret was introduced, but I can't find any information that corroborates that, at least not in English. The only documentation I have found for the bustle autoloader is from the 120 Yatagan variant. I don't know if you guys might know where I could find more information about that, first hand accounts would be great.
Ukraine has a very small number but they made 50 BM Oplot-Ts for the Thai army and the difference between them is apparently minor, so they can be produced in numbers. I think the issue for Ukraine was a lack of funding.
Poland did something similar with their upgraded PT-91, the PT-97: >"Initially, two variants with a traditional layout were considered: one with a 120 mm smoothbore Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun and a mechanized ammunition rack in the turret bustle, the other with a 125 mm gun and a T-72 style autoloader system." >https://warspot.net/266-can-poland-into-tanks
Too bad Poland let their indigenous, post-Communist military industry rot after the 1990s as they had a bunch of really cool designs (such as the Anders). Oh well, at least Korea is helping them rebuild it.
The T-64/T-80 series was always superior to the T-72/T-90 series of tanks, however because Ukraine is/was a corrupt, incompetent shithole like Russia they were never able to turn the T-84 into an export hit due to poor build quality, and being unable to meet production deadlines. Poorer countries instead bought the T-90 (and now Chinese tanks) over the T-84 because Ukraine was unable to get their shit together.
At one point, they made a T-84 chambered in 120mm NATO for Turkish tank trials: >https://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84_yatagan.htm
>At one point, they made a T-84 chambered in 120mm NATO for Turkish tank trials
is it likely that they will order a bunch of those after the war? Seems like a great way to get industri back up and at the same time get more NATO standardized hardware into the army
might be likely for some conversions but like with poland, if they are able to get something like an M1 or Leopard 2 there probably won't be any reason for building new hulls.
>Seems like a great way to get industri back up and at the same time get more NATO standardized hardware into the army
It is hard to say what they will do after the war because they will have such a mismatch of various gear from NATO to USSR/Russia and not only that, there will be most likely very little money for the military. Secondly, whatever was left of the Ukraine arms industry has been finally destroyed after the state left it to rot since the mid 00s.
What I am getting at is that Ukraine after this conflict, for the next decade or two, is going to most likely just continue to use the gear that was given to them while replacing anything they are lacking with NATO gear.
might be likely for some conversions but like with poland, if they are able to get something like an M1 or Leopard 2 there probably won't be any reason for building new hulls.
>if they are able to get something like an M1 or Leopard 2 there probably won't be any reason for building new hulls.
I wonder if they will bother because they will literally have hundreds of "modern" T-72s-T-90s after this conflict including all the various other vehicles that use their hulls (i.e. SPGS).
Pretty cool tank made on a better chassis than the T-90, unfortunately, the factory can't produce it even dozens a year. That's why it was decided to modernize the T 64 instead.
It's not about cost, it is produced on a small scale like sports cars. The company does not have the opportunity to invest in mass production lines. And investing public money in this does not make sense, as it will give at least some result in ten years
Perhaps my favorite modern tank. This war has made me feel like a bandwagoner but Ukrainian stuff is just neat. Modernizing Soviet ideas, now with a little Western thinking mixed in.
It's a completely different tank to the T-80, even if it branched of the T-80UD. T-84 uses the 6TDF diesel engine not a gas turbine of T-80U.
The T-84 has a 7 speed forward, 5 speed reverse transmission compared to 5 speed forward 1 speed reverse.
This means the T-84 a much better reverse speed of 31km/h
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This means the T-84 a much better reverse speed of 31km/h
Must be a luxury for Soviet/Russian tank operators. Any idea if the T-55/T-62 had terrible reverse speeds?
2 years ago
Anonymous
almost every tank built prior to the late 1970s had terrible reverse speeds even most western ones
transmissions just weren't there
2 years ago
Anonymous
T-55/62 had around the same reverse speed as the Pattons/Centurion/Chieftain of around 10kph which is much better then T-64/72/90 and equal to T-80
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wait wait, the T-90 has terrible reverse speeds as well?
almost every tank built prior to the late 1970s had terrible reverse speeds even most western ones
transmissions just weren't there
Huh, never knew that. Thanks
2 years ago
Anonymous
nta but I'm pretty sure they use the same transmission
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, even new T-90M which has a automatic transmission, but the gear ratios are the same
2 years ago
Anonymous
Russians never figured out how to do two things with their tanks following the collapse of USSR
- how to make an actual transmission
- how to improve the armor composition of their tanks without increasing actual thickness of the plate OR using ERA
Which is why they keep hyping up every new generation of ERA instead of talking about internal improvements to armor array like Western countries do
2 years ago
Anonymous
transmissions are hard, too many moving parts requiring precision manufacturing
2 years ago
Anonymous
Even with the new automatic transmission, they only bothered to give it one reverse gear kek. I can't imagine why they decided to do that, given that Russian tankers gripe about the T-72's reverse speed all the time, but it just makes it that much shittier for ground forces trying to use isis-American tactics like shoot-and-scoot, withdrawing from ambushes to avoid being burned alive, etc.
https://i.imgur.com/BRfA8sE.jpg
Russians never figured out how to do two things with their tanks following the collapse of USSR
- how to make an actual transmission
- how to improve the armor composition of their tanks without increasing actual thickness of the plate OR using ERA
Which is why they keep hyping up every new generation of ERA instead of talking about internal improvements to armor array like Western countries do
This has more to do with budget cuts and negligence than any actual lack of good designs. Russia's newer tanks have prettty much the same NERA-slabs as western designs, although some sources claim they're backed by steel instead of ceramics. The issue is that RuZZia can't actually produce new designs in numbers, because it's cheaper to just keep shitting out T-72Bs with the same reflective plate NERA in use since 1986 and plaster even older and shittier tanks with better ERA. Supposedly if it's protection was great in the mid 80's, it's good enough for today. Which is why so many crews go home in coffins.
In cars yes, but in tanks automatic is for people who don't want to fricking die because they couldn't switch into reverse fast enough, because the gearbox was shit to begin with and poorly maintained on top of that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Does that mean it also has clutch? Or is it like semi auto?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, I know for a fact there is a clutch.
And even then, knowing the "quality" of soviet manufacturing and russian maintenance, I bet my grandpa's fricking John Deere 720 he got in the 50s, with it's hydro-matic transmission from the 40s, has a better shift-time and experience than any fricking russian tank.
Pricey, too. There are rumours at mil forums, that Bumar Łabędy once asked Youkies for license/ cooperation. Turned out, they demanded as much as for Leopard 2A5.
Yeah I always wondered why Poland went with the Leopard 2 when they had their own production lines but they probably wanted something more modern than a tricked out T-72 variant.
I'm still of the opinion that you can trick out the shitviet tanks into being less shit or even ok, but you'd be changing so much you may as well be designing a new tank, and at that point procuring an existing allied design is probably just the better, easier option.
It's basically soviet era tank, shame that more modern Ukrainian tank wasn't produced after few experimental machines. Molot/Nota was much superior to this one.
>It's basically soviet era tank, shame that more modern Ukrainian tank wasn't produced
Last time ukies had both the opportunity and desire to modernize in light of being wary of russians was under the Kuchma in the late 90', not much could be done then tbhhonest. Next time they fill the need would be right after their treasury got gutted clean by russian puppets, government went into political chaos and they had a war going in their most industrial region, so no tanks for you.
Right now I somewhat doubt Ukraine has much future in tank building, afaik right now their biggest potential lies in drones (they apparently have some of the best cost / effective indigenous designs at the moment) and somewhat in rockets and missiles probably (they have somewhat decent engines for them at least).
I've never heard of it and the russian tanks I have heard of are shit, so there's no way it's less shitty than the known tanks.
>less shitty than the known tanks
unlike tha T-90MS, this one actually has the ammo in a cassete in the turret bustle, so that's an imideate improvement.
It's better in almost every way than the T-72B[udget cuts]3M and is roughly equivalent to the Russian T-90M in combat potential. It's an excellent tank, but it still has a few major disadvantages compared to newer Russian "premium" tanks. The biggest thing holding the design back is the KBA-3, which is a clone of the 40 year-old 2A46M with the chrome liner removed. The gun has a considerably shorter lifespan than the 2A46M-5, while simultaneously having a wider CEP and lower muzzle energy. The autoloader hasn't seen many changes either, being the same MZ used in the T-80UD, vertically stored propellant and all. While it enjoys a few advantages ove th t-90M in mobility, protection and certain other features like it's multi-fuel engine, I would say the T-90M is very, very slightly superior crew competency nonwithstanding. Unfortunately for the T-90M, Russia doesn't train it's crews properly, so this advantage likely wouldn't matter all too much.
Unfortunately, the bustle-mounted autoloader was only impemented on the Yatagan, the T-84 series still uses the conventional MZ carousel. Which is a shame, seeing what a leap forward in design it was. Maybe after Ukraine finishes Russia off, something like it could be designed in the future.
>Unfortunately, the bustle-mounted autoloader was only impemented on the Yatagan
Yeah, I had a feeling that was the case. Later on I found an image of a BM turret with the autoloader so it's obviously the case they aren't bustle mounted. Someone should really get on Wikipedia about that, it's causing a lot of disinformation.
It's good, but there's less than 20 produced
I'm obsessed with this tank, I think it's really cool and a genuine improvement over the T-80 design. It's just a shame that not a lot of them have been made, especially the more advanced variants like the BM or Yatagan. From what I've heard its interior electronics could be better, but it's got a solid design principle, and It could be transferred onto other soviet tank designs, namely the T-72 family.
One thing that's been annoying me is information on the autoloader. Wikipedia states that a new Bustle-Mounted autoloader was incorporated into the first "Oplots" when the welded turret was introduced, but I can't find any information that corroborates that, at least not in English. The only documentation I have found for the bustle autoloader is from the 120 Yatagan variant. I don't know if you guys might know where I could find more information about that, first hand accounts would be great.
Ukraine has a very small number but they made 50 BM Oplot-Ts for the Thai army and the difference between them is apparently minor, so they can be produced in numbers. I think the issue for Ukraine was a lack of funding.
Here's a cross-section of Yatagan's layout.
Noice.
I love the galaxy note 9 so much
Says "preorder your GalaxyNote9 now" to give you an idea of the date of this image.
Poland did something similar with their upgraded PT-91, the PT-97:
>"Initially, two variants with a traditional layout were considered: one with a 120 mm smoothbore Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun and a mechanized ammunition rack in the turret bustle, the other with a 125 mm gun and a T-72 style autoloader system."
>https://warspot.net/266-can-poland-into-tanks
Too bad Poland let their indigenous, post-Communist military industry rot after the 1990s as they had a bunch of really cool designs (such as the Anders). Oh well, at least Korea is helping them rebuild it.
Forgot my pic
oh man it’s like an alternate universe Ariete
they should prioritize this project or get back to making Oplot M when the russian threat is gone
the huge EO sight hides the fact that the display is actually pretty tiny
RedEffect has a good video on it:
The T-64/T-80 series was always superior to the T-72/T-90 series of tanks, however because Ukraine is/was a corrupt, incompetent shithole like Russia they were never able to turn the T-84 into an export hit due to poor build quality, and being unable to meet production deadlines. Poorer countries instead bought the T-90 (and now Chinese tanks) over the T-84 because Ukraine was unable to get their shit together.
At one point, they made a T-84 chambered in 120mm NATO for Turkish tank trials:
>https://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84_yatagan.htm
>At one point, they made a T-84 chambered in 120mm NATO for Turkish tank trials
is it likely that they will order a bunch of those after the war? Seems like a great way to get industri back up and at the same time get more NATO standardized hardware into the army
might be likely for some conversions but like with poland, if they are able to get something like an M1 or Leopard 2 there probably won't be any reason for building new hulls.
>Seems like a great way to get industri back up and at the same time get more NATO standardized hardware into the army
It is hard to say what they will do after the war because they will have such a mismatch of various gear from NATO to USSR/Russia and not only that, there will be most likely very little money for the military. Secondly, whatever was left of the Ukraine arms industry has been finally destroyed after the state left it to rot since the mid 00s.
What I am getting at is that Ukraine after this conflict, for the next decade or two, is going to most likely just continue to use the gear that was given to them while replacing anything they are lacking with NATO gear.
>if they are able to get something like an M1 or Leopard 2 there probably won't be any reason for building new hulls.
I wonder if they will bother because they will literally have hundreds of "modern" T-72s-T-90s after this conflict including all the various other vehicles that use their hulls (i.e. SPGS).
>take all "modern" T-72s-T-90s
>sell them to Arab states
>for money made set up T-84 factory line
ez
Pretty cool tank made on a better chassis than the T-90, unfortunately, the factory can't produce it even dozens a year. That's why it was decided to modernize the T 64 instead.
Oplot is Armat tier.
>really gud on paper
>only handful ever built, intended for export market
>too expensive for national production.
Apparently its better armored than Armata without as much oomph.
>can't afford your own best tank
Sad, tbqh.
Upgrade T64 which Ukraine has plenty to Bulat - 1M, new Oplot 10M. During wartime which would you take 10 upgraded T64s or one Oplot?
history kind of rhymes, doesnt it?
It's not about cost, it is produced on a small scale like sports cars. The company does not have the opportunity to invest in mass production lines. And investing public money in this does not make sense, as it will give at least some result in ten years
Perhaps my favorite modern tank. This war has made me feel like a bandwagoner but Ukrainian stuff is just neat. Modernizing Soviet ideas, now with a little Western thinking mixed in.
Better than T-90A it seems, not exactly a high bar though.
Jesus Christ that looks straight from the early 70s...
?t=50
Check out that reverse speed, already superior to any Russian tank.
>already superior to any Russian tank.
Russia has T-80s too you idiot.
T-80s reverse speed of 11kph is still bad. Not horrendous like T-64/72/90, but still bad
It's the same as the T-84, which is just a T-80.
He said the T-80 is on par with the T-90, which is false. The T-90 is just a T-72 with some extra bits.
It's a completely different tank to the T-80, even if it branched of the T-80UD. T-84 uses the 6TDF diesel engine not a gas turbine of T-80U.
The T-84 has a 7 speed forward, 5 speed reverse transmission compared to 5 speed forward 1 speed reverse.
This means the T-84 a much better reverse speed of 31km/h
>This means the T-84 a much better reverse speed of 31km/h
Must be a luxury for Soviet/Russian tank operators. Any idea if the T-55/T-62 had terrible reverse speeds?
almost every tank built prior to the late 1970s had terrible reverse speeds even most western ones
transmissions just weren't there
T-55/62 had around the same reverse speed as the Pattons/Centurion/Chieftain of around 10kph which is much better then T-64/72/90 and equal to T-80
Wait wait, the T-90 has terrible reverse speeds as well?
Huh, never knew that. Thanks
nta but I'm pretty sure they use the same transmission
Yeah, even new T-90M which has a automatic transmission, but the gear ratios are the same
Russians never figured out how to do two things with their tanks following the collapse of USSR
- how to make an actual transmission
- how to improve the armor composition of their tanks without increasing actual thickness of the plate OR using ERA
Which is why they keep hyping up every new generation of ERA instead of talking about internal improvements to armor array like Western countries do
transmissions are hard, too many moving parts requiring precision manufacturing
Even with the new automatic transmission, they only bothered to give it one reverse gear kek. I can't imagine why they decided to do that, given that Russian tankers gripe about the T-72's reverse speed all the time, but it just makes it that much shittier for ground forces trying to use isis-American tactics like shoot-and-scoot, withdrawing from ambushes to avoid being burned alive, etc.
This has more to do with budget cuts and negligence than any actual lack of good designs. Russia's newer tanks have prettty much the same NERA-slabs as western designs, although some sources claim they're backed by steel instead of ceramics. The issue is that RuZZia can't actually produce new designs in numbers, because it's cheaper to just keep shitting out T-72Bs with the same reflective plate NERA in use since 1986 and plaster even older and shittier tanks with better ERA. Supposedly if it's protection was great in the mid 80's, it's good enough for today. Which is why so many crews go home in coffins.
no wonder the russians can't catch any: shoot and scoot game is too strong for them to comprehend
>shoot and scoot game
I wish me homie could :'(
Are those, levers, in a T-90?
Top is T-90, now compare both to the driver's station of a T-80U.
Kinda looks the same.
jesus frick, no wonder the one driver in the angry shouting russian vid fricked up his maneuver, they don't even have automatic transmission
but automatic is for pussies
In cars yes, but in tanks automatic is for people who don't want to fricking die because they couldn't switch into reverse fast enough, because the gearbox was shit to begin with and poorly maintained on top of that.
Does that mean it also has clutch? Or is it like semi auto?
No, I know for a fact there is a clutch.
And even then, knowing the "quality" of soviet manufacturing and russian maintenance, I bet my grandpa's fricking John Deere 720 he got in the 50s, with it's hydro-matic transmission from the 40s, has a better shift-time and experience than any fricking russian tank.
is that a fricking fan for your balls?
Man my Mercedes doesn't even have a fan for my balls.
knowing russian standards it probably chops your nuts off though...
is that kind of steering lever in the Oplot even ergonomic?
i sat in the drivers position of a t72 once and it was fricking awful. i cant even imagine trying to drive that piece of shit.
you should see how tank biathlon drivers crank the levers in that cramped compartment
Jeez, is that the Iron fricking Lung irl?
It has red lips like a prostitute
Well it's a T-80, so it's definitely better than a T-72 and probably better than a T-90.
Superior to any T-72, on par or slightly superior to the T-90M.
>T-90 is better than T-80 because the number is higher
Like that time the US downgraded from the M4 Sherman to the M1 Abrams right?
Anon please re-read what he posted.
Careful, you'll summon the ghost of Pierre Sprey
neat tank considering how poor Ukraine was in 2008.
Pricey, too. There are rumours at mil forums, that Bumar Łabędy once asked Youkies for license/ cooperation. Turned out, they demanded as much as for Leopard 2A5.
Yeah I always wondered why Poland went with the Leopard 2 when they had their own production lines but they probably wanted something more modern than a tricked out T-72 variant.
I'm still of the opinion that you can trick out the shitviet tanks into being less shit or even ok, but you'd be changing so much you may as well be designing a new tank, and at that point procuring an existing allied design is probably just the better, easier option.
> 4k dakka cartridges on the NATO wannabe
why though
Is that Iron sights on a tank?
muzzle reference system
It's basically soviet era tank, shame that more modern Ukrainian tank wasn't produced after few experimental machines. Molot/Nota was much superior to this one.
>It's basically soviet era tank, shame that more modern Ukrainian tank wasn't produced
Last time ukies had both the opportunity and desire to modernize in light of being wary of russians was under the Kuchma in the late 90', not much could be done then tbhhonest. Next time they fill the need would be right after their treasury got gutted clean by russian puppets, government went into political chaos and they had a war going in their most industrial region, so no tanks for you.
Right now I somewhat doubt Ukraine has much future in tank building, afaik right now their biggest potential lies in drones (they apparently have some of the best cost / effective indigenous designs at the moment) and somewhat in rockets and missiles probably (they have somewhat decent engines for them at least).