Jump to content

BM Oplot needs its ammo choice fixed


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sounds like you need a new hobby if this one makes you that upset.

See now? Building a company of Oplots takes less time than CMBS expansion

Somehow with a friend who introduced the series of СM discussed that it would be better to make a game about a hypothetical conflict between the Treaty of Warsaw and NATO in 1980-1985. I think many wo

Posted Images

Are you under the impression that the Oplot is in service with Ukraine?  If so you are living in cloud cuckoo land......To date they've built around fifty, all of which are due for delivery to Thailand, the Ukrainian military has exactly no Oplots whatsoever, never has had any, probably never will.  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Are you under the impression that the Oplot is in service with Ukraine?  If so you are living in cloud cuckoo land......To date they've built around fifty, all of which are due for delivery to Thailand, the Ukrainian military has exactly no Oplots whatsoever, never has had any, probably never will.  :rolleyes:

I'm just wondering why you have this vendetta against having the Oplot in the game. You have no issue with the T-90AM being in the game or with the Syrians having BMP-3s in Shock Force, because it suits your modding fantasies. But, when it comes to the Oplot it's all "remove it from the game!," "hardly ever built, all going to Thailand!, never will serve in Ukraine anyways!", and on and on. Like I've said, if you hate it that much, just ignore the fact it's even in the game. 

Not to mention, you seem to have wilfully ignored @Haiduk's post here.

EDIT: and no, I am not under the impression that the Oplot is in active service with Ukraine - just like I am not under the impression about a number of other units in the game being in active service. BFC made an educated guess about what would be in service when Black Sea was conceptualized, and I'm perfectly fine with that. 

Edited by LukeFF
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, even after what @LukeFF said don't forget that the game is set along an alternate timeline where the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is triggered because of their entry into NATO that included increased military spending on Ukraine's part prior to that trigger. So, in game terms the Ukrainien's ramped up production earlier and were using them for their own units as well as selling them.

The fact that does not match what actually happened is not a reason to remove equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Not to mention, you seem to have wilfully ignored @Haiduk's post here.

No, I agreed with it, here:

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

To date they've built around fifty, all of which are due for delivery to Thailand, the Ukrainian military has exactly no Oplots whatsoever, never has had any, probably never will.  :rolleyes:

Interestingly Wikipedia is now suggesting that the Ukrainian army 'may' take delivery of 10 Oplot in 2018 (there do currently seem to be about that number of partially completed tanks floating around in the factory, they've shown up in a few images now), whether they make it into service remains to be seen. 

But mostly I was teasing.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to partially agree with Sgt.Squarehead, it would have made a lot more sense if Battlefront had included T-72s and/or T-80s instead of the BM Oplot. And yes this also goes for the T-90MS.
This is particularly true for the timeframe that the game takes place in. 

I suppose the inclusion of the BM Oplot and T-90MS was made for balance reasons, as the Abrams would be too OP otherwise - which I still think it is. 

Edited by AtheistDane
Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I really was mostly teasing (still am), it's OK to have Oplot in a hypothetical scenario I guess (what bugs me is that all the Ukrainian campaigns seem to feature them), but TBH I'd much prefer to be struggling along with T-64BVs (and the few Bulats whose Nozh hasn't blown them to pieces) against 'official' separatists (ie: my beloved UnCons) with T-72s, Russian 'Volunteers' and so on.....Hopefully we'll see all of the above (and some T-80s, and the VVS) in future modules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You wish!  ;)

I guess the Ukraine just stopped making them because they felt like it?  Or perhaps the massive numbers of Oplot being produced would make them redundant?  :lol:

 

 

I'd say the above to an extent for sure; but perhaps more importantly the less complex T-64 (with all its pre-existing facilities and spare parts) was more than sufficient for a military stuck in a frozen conflict of patrols and small dismounted actions. 

Consider: The real mechanized maneuver petered out late 2014/early 2015 and hasn't really flared up again. Material losses needed to be made good and the reality of the situation is they don't need anything complex on the front lines. Why stretch your facilities ironing out production irregularities for a modern tank that you don't need at present, and when BMP-2s , other intermediate AFVs, and artillery needed to be produced yesterday.

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know.....But where's the fun in that?  ;)

Nozh does appear to be more than a little violent when it goes off, but it does at least appear to work (if perhaps not exactly as advertised).....Whether it is still being used on new vehicles, we really don't know as new vehicles (other than Thailand's Oplots) are pretty thin on the ground it seems (IIRC the most recent Ukrainian T-72 upgrade has Nozh, but again, I've no idea if it will be built in significant numbers).

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I guess the Ukraine just stopped making them because they felt like it?

Ukraine should write without "the". This is first. 

Second. What do you mean "stopping making them"? This is about Bulat or Nozh ERA ? BM Bulat was "emergency project" for support of KhKBM and Malyshev's tank plant. Upgrading to Bulats was finished in 2011, last 9 tanks were completed in 2012, but army hasn't money to buy it. They were bought only in 2014. The war showed main weak points of the tank - weak engine, which overheting, abscence of modern IR sights and hard of initiated ERA blocks replacing in field conditions. Army needed many tanks on NOW, so was assumed logical decission that will be more cheaper to repair mothballed T-64BV, then upgraded its to Bulat level. Nozh ERA is expancive thing, in 2014-2015 there was many other needs and there is huge number of FREE K-1 ERA was stored. If you open White Book 2016, you see that for this year 17500 new blocks of  ERA were bought. According to T-64BV modernization program, among other things, K-1 will be substituted on Nozh, but in K-1 boxes for easy replacing.

The myth about "Nozh", wich after initiation is destroying whole tank and killing a crew it's a fake - Khlopotov (or someone else) posted photos of Bulats, which blew up on mines or were hit by large-caliber artillery shell or MLRS  with detonation of ammunition, and jumped for joy "Ahaha ! Look at this silly tank! One shell and all ERA blocks make BOOOM  with complete tank destruction !"

I just post these photos of Bulat and T-64B1M (upgraded T-64B1 for Congo with Nozh). First got HEAT shell from T-72B mod.1989 during Debaltsevo, second was hit by ATGM. As you see, after Nozh work tanks still in service, crew also looks quite alive %). Most of Bulat's losses was because of mines and artillery shells, especially in Novosvitlivka-Khriashchuvate in the nd of July 2014, other important reason - low motivation and training level of 1st tank brigade crews. In many cases, when tank was damged, they just bailed out and didn't fight for saving of the tank. As result a fire expanded, reached ammunition and tank detonated or in better case just burnt out.  

By the way K-1 is more dangerous  - was many happens (among both sides), after 125 mm HE shell hit a tank, K-1 set fire (but didn't explode) and sometime caused burning out of the tank, if crew couldn't extinguish fire by own forces.  

original.jpg

 364811_original.jpg

Edited by Haiduk
Link to post
Share on other sites

1,5 years ago, during the game, enemy tanks actually fired HEAT shells and ATGM with direct fire. No shell harmed my tank, it worked REA protection and active protection "Arena". A couple of months ago the situation repeated itself, I even seem to have written whether it is possible to force the AI to shoot selected shells.And then they told me that it would complicate the micromanager.

1,5 года назад во время игры танки противника фактически прямой наводкой стреляли кумулятивными  снарядами и противотанковыми ракетами .Ни один снаряд не нанёс вреда моему танку, срабатывала динамическая защита и активная защита "Арена" . Пару месяцев назад ситуация повторилась , я даже вроде бы писал можно ли принудительно заставить ИИ стрелять выбранными снарядами .И мне тогда ответили что это усложнит микроменеджер .

 

Edited by HUSKER2142
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2017 at 5:41 AM, AtheistDane said:

I have to partially agree with Sgt.Squarehead, it would have made a lot more sense if Battlefront had included T-72s and/or T-80s instead of the BM Oplot. And yes this also goes for the T-90MS.
This is particularly true for the timeframe that the game takes place in. 

I suppose the inclusion of the BM Oplot and T-90MS was made for balance reasons, as the Abrams would be too OP otherwise - which I still think it is. 

If we start all being Cpt. Hindsight in here - Battlefront depicts BM Oplots (that are more or less just around the corner and beyond prototype stage in reality and 2017 ain't over yet) but doesn't give Ukrainians UAVs (which the army uses extensively since 2014), thermal vision (which is more or less a thing now on a ground troop level) and has troops wearing dubok camo which nobody wears in the timeframe in reality.

Battlefront did a well-informed guesstimate but even then, with Oplots, depicted Ukrainian army to be weaker than it should be given improvements in the past 3 years. And that's with a real-life conflict getting localized instead of a bigger invasion which would most likely hurry up things even further.

The roster for everyone is more than adequate and it is certainly not fantasy like Il2 1946

Edited by kraze
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was humorous, and wildly optimistic to give Ukraine all of these newer weapons systems such as the Oplot and BTR-4 when really T-72s and BMP-1s would better reflect how things have played out in actuality.

8 hours ago, kraze said:

Battlefront did a well-informed guesstimate but even then, with Oplots, depicted Ukrainian army to be weaker than it should be given improvements in the past 3 years. And that's with a real-life conflict getting localized instead of a bigger invasion which would most likely hurry up things even further.


I know this comes up in every thread, but the conflict in Ukraine is frozen because of decisions made in Moscow not Kiev. The state of the Ukrainian Army in 2017 is illusory as they could be put to flight as easily in 2017 as 2014. I know that technology is great for public consumption, but the Russian Army could be in Kiev in days, with or without UAVs or thermals at the platoon-company level. That has not come to pass for strictly political reasons, and Ukraine should know that they are in effect not much different than Brave Little Belgium in 1914 or Poland in 1939. Valiant, but ultimately irrelevant in the larger political theatre.

Edited by DougPhresh
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

I think it was humorous, and wildly optimistic to give Ukraine all of these newer weapons systems such as the Oplot and BTR-4 when really T-72s and BMP-1s would better reflect how things have played out in actuality.

 

 

Likewise for Russia.  Could replace T-90AM with T-72B and BMP-3M/2M with BMP-1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...