BTR

Doesn't seem to have thermal jacket atm though.

Kommersant wrote that there is a potential they might cut the numbers, meaning this is undecided and might be a lobbying intent to cut costs. In any case, we need to see Bumerang now.

7 roadwheels! Era-long fight has been solved .

Following this, looks really interesting.

Sorry, yeah, I'll release during this weak. It's end of Q1, meaning I am very busy at work atm.

What do you mean next to nothing? Overlords with Gatlings were anti-infantry kings.

T-14 is already in Alabino btw, but all spotters attempting to take a picture of it have been shot.

Ah, makes sense then.

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly, but: Su-25SM: Typical load 1340kg's Max battle load: 4340kg's

Which one do you prefer? 1- 2-

Thermobaric would make it exceedingly anti-infantry. Currently 9M119F1 fills that role with HE warhead without taking away anti-vehicle role. Video here at the bottom.

That beats my vintage .

Сборник нормативов по боевой подготовке сухопутных войск. Для мотострелковых, танковых, парашютно-десантных, десантно-штурмовых и разведывательных подразделений. Книга 1. Министерство обороны СССР. Воениздат. 1984 г. In other words, a compendium of military training standards for land army. For motor-rifle, armored, para-dropped, air-mobile and recon formations. Book 1 published by USSR MoD in 1984.

The burden of proof is on Zaloga here. His numbers are quite interesting considering a stationary T-55 was required to eliminate a target in 7 seconds and be able to fire again in 14 seconds and that longest time allowed on one position was 13 seconds by norm. Now if we realize, that popping targets on the move show up for a total of 70~80 seconds and are supposed to be engaged on the move as well, 60 seconds is the least acceptable passing level for any crew in any tank at any distance between 2100—1800 in the least favorable conditions.

Question, what's your opinion on those pesky little flags on the side of Urk vehicles? I haven't seen them used IRL, but do they help you in-game?

It really isn't that much bigger than Msta...

That's a fair point.

Comfort does not equate better use, at least to me. Total cost of ownership is an arguable parameter. I think having two platforms (with a slightly outrageous number of modifications), even so far down the line is driving it up, but I have no hard data on that. Just like with T-64 ending service with T-80 introduction, T-80 should have ended service with T-72B3 entering our forces. The only place Turbine might really make a difference might be the arctic, but that is also arguable. I hope that GDT-1500 never takes off. Not because it's bad tech, but having turbines on tanks is a little like building submarines out of titanium (K-222), something no country could afford.

I personally think it's a shame that their replacement process has ground to a halt. Was it a good tank? Yes, but it isn't relevant anymore with much better options available for the total cost of ownership. In retrospective, do I think that unified T-80 fleet would be better than a unified T-72 fleet? Perhaps, but we are not there so I'd much rather get rid of a non-standard platform.

Long story short: T-80's are out of luck.

Isn't the APFSDS tungsten? According to what General Dynamics tell that is. Linky.

Exactly, I fully anticipate it to remain on T-90 chassis until the end of service of that platform. With Msta/-M being on the same chassis there is just not enough incentive to migrate it over.

Well, not quite, but for all interested, these are first proper pictures ever of Coalition-SV mobile artillery system:

Ah, Cassad. Love him or hate him he's got some insight. Predicted annexation of Crimea and the breakout of civil wars in Ukraine.

I think the M2 has 25mm APFSDS-T in game which does attribute higher penetration.