T-34\85

And again, you're focusing on SGDs and nothing else. Jane's is also one of the informed sources that rightly calls the "T-72B1 = super T-72B" bullcrap, so I don't see why you're picking and choosing. Not to mention that this: Doesn't say *where* on either side of the turret, so I don't see why you think this helps you (though there was an early T-72B that had such) though this was never the sole part of my argument- the visuals of the armour package are much more important, and the screenshots don't reflect this. Fact also reamins that most T-72Bs seen have them on the turret sides, not on either side of the main gun.

That is not a "Russian" source. Just because it has a ".ru" doesn't mean that the information cut and pasted there is necessarily of Russian origin, as amply demonstrated by aeronautics.ru. I'll trust Vasiliy Fofanov and Jane's over that inaccurate drivel any day- the elementary "T-72B1" and "T-72BV" mistake gives it all away. I suggest you email him. Not the most important visual difference. The thicker armour with the cut-out bottom is most important. Furthermore, while some T-72Bs have indeed been seen with front mounted SGDs, they are very rare. How does this source prove your argument? It doesn't. The T-72B is differentiated from other versions by visual differences. In particular, the Yugoslav M-84 has very little to do with the T-72B. The Germans never had T-72Bs, so I don't see how you think this is relevant. Only one of those tanks you see on that page is a T-72B- the top one. In actual fact, it may be a T-72S, the export version of the T-72B, since the pic originates from the Army Technology website. The rest are T-72Ms and T-72M1s. That's a vague statement. The T-72B is what it's important, all it's identifying features. You're just obsessing over SGDs. Bunch of photos, actually- some of which are T-72Bs, and some of which aren't. So? The turret armour is still too thin, and using a T-72B from the early 80s of which very few real pictures exist (all of your front mounted SGDs being T-72Ms and T-72M1s) makes little sense and just serves to confuse. [ March 10, 2005, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: T-34\85 ]

This is an interesting example of the contradictions and errors you'll find on the internet that I referred to in the K-V thread: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/armored_vehicles/t-72a_m.htm Notice that the pages are scans from Jane's AFV identification handbook (I have a more current version), and confirm that T-72B1 is just a T-72B without the ATGM. However, the same page also cut and pastes from the website sources claiming the T-72B1 is some sort of improved T-72B. Guess which one is correct?

See my reply to you Those sources are in serious error. Assuming the T-72B1 is some sort of super T-72B is a classic mistake. Hang out at tanknet.org, email knowledgable people, get a look at some good source material, the first site you see on the internet is no substitute for that.

Those listings are in error. For example, the T-72B1 is identical to the T-72B except that its cheaper. The "1" denotes that is is not equipped with the very expensive Svir/Refleks ATGM system. This also applies to the T-64B and the T-62M, for example (except that they were equipped with the Kobra and Sheksna ATGM systems, respectively)- they had cheaper versions known as T-64B1 and T-62M1. In addition, there's no such thing as a "T-72BV". Just another peculiar "gotcha!" of Soviet tank designations. There is of course a T-72AV and T-80BV, but the T-72B was intended to mount Kontakts ERA in battle from the start, and so never got a seperate "v", according to Vasiliy Fofanov. In truth, the T-72A was the "Dolly Parton". The T-72B was the "Super Dolly Parton".

? I find it hard to believe Soviet infantry were forbidden of doing so given how often they did it.

http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/t-72b.htm A good one. Looks like T-72Bs on parade in the USSR (the T-72B was never exported outside the USSR, of course) There's also this one, a good closeup of the turret with the much thicker armour very obvious: http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-72B/T-72B_Russe_06.jpg

The T-72B has never employed Kontakt-V ERA. That's only for the T-72BM. The T-72B has been equipped with Kontakt ERA, however, that's first generation kit only useful against HEAT charges. Of course, nowadays in T-72B pics in Chechnya and such you'll never see a T-72B without Kontakts, so it's odd its not in the screenshots, but then again,see the thread I made about the in-game model not being a T-72B.

The T-72B looks different from that. It does not have smoke grenade launchers across the front of the turret like the model in the game, it's SGDs are along the sides. It also should have much thicker frontal armour with "cutouts" near the bottom to allow the turret to turn. A simple google image search for T-72Bs should reveal the discrepancy.

What, the JS-3 not having textures will make people not buy the game?

The T-44 and JS-3 still don't get their models Oh the wait is killing me ....

We must stop bumping this thread. I suggest that everyone on the entire board take part in a census on this thread on whether we should be bumping it :cool:

That's not semantics. You committed the false cause logical fallacy. And to assert that Citadel failed only because it was called off is utterly incorrect. Do you intend to backup your claim that with any evidence?

Nay, it will only be the uber-patch when the T-44 and JS-3 are given their models

Funny thing ... I have a book that you can probably get discount from anywhere ... Inside the Soviet Army ... 1990-91 book and obviously didn't sell as well as it was supposed to considering the fall of it subject matter ... but I swear to god there was a modern pic in there of a German Shepherd and its trainer ... the dog had what looked like a bomb pack on its back and some sort of trigger in its mouth. Dont know what it was ......