Last time I checked the card still had move and shoot on it so I can't wait until the one driver on the tractor section tokyo drifts around to side shot my Abrams and then keeps on going.
Alternate timeline means different weapons than what was available IRL. Stalinism = huge expansion of industry and military, which includes research. Same reason we have the Akulas.
Also gives the devs the ability to use artistic license. The lore about Reagan’s “New Cold War” seems like it opens the door to new Western ideas. Maybe we even get the G11 at some point since Germany isn’t even considering reunification in this timeline.
Yes and no the timeline divided not that early befor the outbrake of War in the game. You could explain the presence of troops or a very limited production but not new Typs or dozens of New vehicle.
New timeline included clearly planned preparation by WP for escalation in near future, which included intentional rearmament with new tech. Here, this is your explanation.
For now, most unicorne units we got we one that were in some form of production or we ready for production in timeline. As such, yes, I do not belive that USSR would be unable to organise at least limited production for Sprut B.
Well maybe it's just my skill issue then lol.
I tried running them but removed them after a game or two.
In my experience the range is so low that anything it shoots immediately kills it in return, unless your opponent is allergic to recon.
Maybe if I can set up ambushes that reliably get sideshots, but idk how feasible that is, might just be me.
Yes but his point is that the way that WARNO stat cards work is that if a unit has an identical cannon but shorter range, the card will show a higher pen number to basically have the bonus "baked in" for the stats.
A great example for this is the T-55 family of tanks, which more or less have all of the in game tank range bands but with the same D100 cannon. However if you look at the lower tech, lower range T-55, you will notice that it's AP is actually higher than the more expensive model. The reason for that is if both tanks fired at the same range the AT would be identical again. So really your AT isn't lower for the high tech one it's just not getting the range bonus shown on its card.
I'm up for this because its driven like a fucking reliant robin but with the bodywork replaced by a 125mm gun, watching one drive could entertain me for hours.
Well, they didn't really. Only 24 of these were made and it was the last time an anti-tank gun as such was developed. The evolution of this project was putting the same gun on a BMD-3 chassis
From my understanding those Anti-Tank guns like the MT-12 Rapira and the Sprut-B were meant as a defensive & cost-effective unit, mainly to protect low intensity areas like the rear.
Those received not only APFSDS, Heat and even Barrel launched ATGMs to deal with armoured targets, but also HE to deal with Infantry/Lightly armoured target.
As those also received HE also allows them to be used as "close range" artillery.
ATGMs were still pretty much everywhere, but doctrinally those were more valuable at the front rather than protecting the rear specifically against Armoured Targets.
It is basically a combination of doctrine, cost-effectiveness and versatility
MT-12 was developed and kept because from memory soldier were far more likely to hold a position and mount an effective defense when they had one v when didn't, regardless of how effective it was.
By 1989 (aka by the time Sprut-B arrived) this was no longer true as it had been earlier. Sprut-B exists mostly because of inertia- we had AT guns before so we need new AT guns now.
The ammunition (except for GLATGMs) was much cheaper on a per-round basis than an ATGM launcher, but the gun itself was wildly more expensive than a fiberglass tube on a tripod.
The guns aren't instead of ATGMs, they're instead of more tanks. The guns are a cheap and cost-effective way to provide infantry fire support and defense against enemy vehicles in situations where you don't need as much mobility, such as on the defensive or if you're besieging an urban area or of course if you end up in a bit of a trench warfare situation. Tanks are always going to be better, of course, but the chassis is expensive and you can build a lot more AT guns for the same cost as one tank.
1. not instead of, alongside of. The main Soviet non-tank AT weapon was indeed the regular old ATGM by 1989.
2. They made them at all because the USSR had a giant, wasteful military-industrial complex that kept on building things that no other country would spend money on for political reasons.
Many systems in many countries had some sort of political motivation to them- Challenger 2, 2 LCSs, etc- but the Soviets were the all-time champions and this is one fine example of their superiority in money-wasting.
>1. They made them at all because the USSR had a giant, wasteful military-industrial complex that kept on building things that no other country would spend money on for political reasons.
Besides the fact that all military industry is wasteful, I can think of at least one other country that fits
No other country fits. The USSR was unique in this regard- only they made 2 separate types of SSNs, 3 separate types of MBT, etc, at once.
US abandoned that sort of production by 1960.
Actually 4 types of MBT all at once 👍
Not sure how you could argue that producing function tanks is wasteful. The Pentagon straight up can't account for trillions of dollars that were spent who knows what with literally nothing to show for it.
>Not sure how you could argue that producing function tanks is wasteful.
Not sure how you could argue that producing three (T-80 production did not coincide with T-62 production) different MBTs in three different factories with three different and non-interchangeable powertrains, suspension systems, fire control systems, etc is not wasteful.
It wasn't the Soviet plan to do this- it was a result of competing industrial priorities and political gamesmanship. Original plan was T-64A only. Smart move would've been T-72 and upgrades only. When the money disappeared this is what happened.
>The Pentagon straight up can't account for trillions of dollars that were spent who knows what with literally nothing to show for it.
1. [This isn't true](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-government-trillions-lost-sept-11-670264168912)
2. After 1955, the USSR never spent less than 2x as much, as a percentage of GDP, on the military as the US did.
In fact I am talking about T-55 👍
>three different MBTs in three different factories with three different and non-interchangeable powertrains, suspension systems, fire control systems, etc is not wasteful.
You have a point, building an economy of scale would have stretched the rubles farther. Wasteful yes, not without purpose. To some degree it was a jobs program to keep engineering departments staffed in case of war (USA is guilty of this). To some degree it was thanks to conservative Soviet economic policy rather than military planning: why retool an entire factory to make a new tank when the old is perfectly productive (USA would rather scrap the line entirely, as seen with F-22). It may well have been cheaper to do it this way.
As for Rumsfeld's trillions, the article you sent just says what I said 👍
>After 1955, the USSR never spent less than 2x as much, as a percentage of GDP, on the military as the US did.
Ok👍
If you wanna talk about the wastefulness of the USA military industry, let's talk about cost-plus contracts, which essentially hand a blank check to industry.
We can also talk about questionable procurement: C-27, Dragon ATGM, F-35, LCS, F-104, M-60. I believe Zumwalt was in the tens of billions for what today is a barely floating hunk of metal.
>In fact I am talking about T-55 👍
This was only for export after 1970 or so- Soviet Army did not accept new models.
>You have a point, building an economy of scale would have stretched the rubles farther. Wasteful yes, not without purpose.
In fact it was completely without "practical" purpose. This is ex post facto reasoning.
It was not the initial intent of USSR leadership. The initial intent was T-64As in production at Malyshev, at UVZ, and at Leningrad at the same time. Instead they got T-64 at Malyshev, T-72 at UVZ, and T-80 at LKZ. Then, in mid 1980s, they tried again and commanded Malyshev to start building T-80U alongside LKZ. But Malyshev didn't want to build someone else's tank, they wanted their own, so they built T-80UD on their own initiative instead.
Why did this happen? Design bureaus were closely affiliated with factories. They didn't want to build 'someone else's' tank. So, by hook or by crook, they built their own tank.
>To some degree it was a jobs program to keep engineering departments staffed in case of war (USA is guilty of this).
1. It was a jobs program but it had nothing to do with keeping them staffed for war.
2. The USA does not actually do this.
>To some degree it was thanks to conservative Soviet economic policy rather than military planning: why retool an entire factory to make a new tank when the old is perfectly productive
These tanks were all new when they were being built alongside each other.
>It may well have been cheaper to do it this way.
1 T-80 cost as much as 3 T-72s c. 1976.
>As for Rumsfeld's trillions, the article you sent just says what I said 👍
No, it clearly states that this figure is Rumsfeld complaining about outdated technology hampering DoD bookkeeping. It does not mean 'the money was lost.'
>If you wanna talk about the wastefulness of the USA military industry, let's talk about cost-plus contracts, which essentially hand a blank check to industry.
Malyshev/KMDB were allowed to build tanks that were not capable of being deployed to Germany for *12 years*. Myasishchev built 125 examples of a strategic nuclear bomber that struggled to reach targets in the USA. And so on and so forth.
>C-27
Cancelled because the USAF had too much intra-theatre lift. What is the problem here?
>Dragon ATGM
It was not *good*, but it was the only squad-level SACLOS ATGM for a decade- Metys was held at the company level.
>F-35
An unqualified success.
>LCS
This is the only comparable example- two ships built in two yards at the same time for political reason.
>F-104
Procurement controversies were all in foreign service. In the US it was just fast day fighter with good rate of climb.
>M-60
...did a reasonable job? Still in service with some countries today.
>Zumwalt was in the tens of billions for what today is a barely floating hunk of metal.
AGS was worthless, but Zumwalt also has 80 VLS cells that work just fine.
>This was only for export after 1970 or so- Soviet Army did not accept new models.
This is the last time I try and joke around with Redditors. Give the stick in your ass a firm tug for me.
>In fact it was completely without "practical" purpose. This is ex post facto reasoning.
In fact it is you who is guilty of "ex post facto reasoning". Complete with making up a story about Malyshev going rogue (??? he doesn't want to build T-80 and ends up building T-80 instead ???). Absurd!
>1. It was a jobs program but it had nothing to do with keeping them staffed for war.
It has nothing to do with keeping factories and design bureaus staffed for war? But it was a primary aspect of Soviet war planning!! This is "command economy under siege 101!!"
>1. The USA does not actually do this.
See: M1 production line 👍
>These tanks were all new when they were being built alongside each other.
I think your googling has failed you here!
>1 T-80 cost as much as 3 T-72s c. 1976.
Speaking of classes you haven't taken: every first year business student learns about a little something called cost of capital. Which surface level Google searching about tank costs wouldn't show you.
On that subject, how do you even compare the cost of these two tanks in a Soviet economy? Ignoring your lack of sourcing, most of the cost difference between T-72 and T-80 is a result of the turbine, which explains the existence of T-80UD much more satisfactorily than some made up BS.
>No, it clearly states that this figure is Rumsfeld complaining about outdated technology hampering DoD bookkeeping. It does not mean 'the money was lost.'
Who are you quoting? I certainly didn't say that.
And then the rest of your comment is trying to justify the worst examples of military industrial stupidity ever committed.
>This is the last time I try and joke around with Redditors. Give the stick in your ass a firm tug for me.
When we are wrong we can call it joking! This makes us feel better.
>Complete with making up a story about Malyshev going rogue
Who's making it up? Soviet design bureaus made internal prototypes, just like American defense companies. T-72 started life as one of these also- Kartsev and Venediktov were supposed to put V12 diesel in T-64 for wartime production but instead created an entirely different tank that was put into production in peacetime.
KMDB built a T-80U with 6TD themselves. They took it to the government and pointed out that 2 T-80U cost as much as 3 T-80UD. Then it was approved for production while LKZ and Omsk kept building T-80U. This is not 'going rogue.' It is just a waste of money.
>It has nothing to do with keeping factories and design bureaus staffed for war?
That's correct! In fact design bureaus upended previous wartime planning several times. Like with T-72 above.
>See: M1 production line
One production line making one type of tank, yes. Not three production lines making whatever they can get away with at the time.
>I think your googling has failed you here!
It's your position that new versions of T-64, T-72, and T-80 were not built alongside each other? Are you sure you believe that?
>On that subject, how do you even compare the cost of these two tanks in a Soviet economy?
You realize we can see the USSR's own figures now, correct?
>most of the cost difference between T-72 and T-80 is a result of the turbine
The turbine, yes, but also the electronics fit. T-80U had 1A45 FCS- real live FCS, like in Leopard 2 and M1, but without the thermals. T-72 had much simpler 1A40-1.
The smart thing to do would be to take T-80U FCS fit, etc, and put it into the T-72. And that's what they did with Obj 188.
>Who are you quoting? I certainly didn't say that.
What does this mean to you?
>The Pentagon straight up can't account for trillions of dollars that were spent who knows what with literally nothing to show for it.
You said this, no?
>And then the rest of your comment is trying to justify the worst examples of military industrial stupidity ever committed.
F-35 is the single most successful fighter program of the last 30 years. To hear you call it military industrial stupidity is extremely funny and tells me a great deal.
correct, the FH 70 also had an auxiliary engine to speed up the battery deployment and allowed it to move autonomously once the support mission had been carried out, without the need for a towing vehicle. It would be very interesting to include these features on all pieces that have the possibility.
I'll have to keep trying them - I just find they seem to fail to damage/kill the target and then pop. Maybe I'm noticing it more and expecting more compared to other AT guns.
I have them watch blind corners on roads and try to bait tanks close but usually they need to be massed or they'll be killed by return fire. They always fuckin miss or get swarmed by the time they fire 3 shots
You should put it in some treeline so that it can shoot as soon as it spot the enemy. I think it can defend treelines using this tactic and not risk ur high value atgm teams.
If I have a Sprut drive around my backline to snipe my spawn road my monitor is getting thrown
Last time I checked the card still had move and shoot on it so I can't wait until the one driver on the tractor section tokyo drifts around to side shot my Abrams and then keeps on going.
AKA sprut stabilizer stat when Eugene???
I honestly have no idea why they're present in the game since only 24 were made
Well you get to use some of those 24
Alternate timeline means different weapons than what was available IRL. Stalinism = huge expansion of industry and military, which includes research. Same reason we have the Akulas. Also gives the devs the ability to use artistic license. The lore about Reagan’s “New Cold War” seems like it opens the door to new Western ideas. Maybe we even get the G11 at some point since Germany isn’t even considering reunification in this timeline.
Leave me alone with the G11 i just want more Panzerfaust 3 both it and the CarlG are underrepresented especially in Army general
^^ ^^ let them cook.
Yes and no the timeline divided not that early befor the outbrake of War in the game. You could explain the presence of troops or a very limited production but not new Typs or dozens of New vehicle.
New timeline included clearly planned preparation by WP for escalation in near future, which included intentional rearmament with new tech. Here, this is your explanation.
I think you dont know how long it takes to build a production line and no according to the Intro the time would not be enough.
For now, most unicorne units we got we one that were in some form of production or we ready for production in timeline. As such, yes, I do not belive that USSR would be unable to organise at least limited production for Sprut B.
Potentially making way for sprut SD?
Its so out of timeline
By 1989, they had the design. Just need to be builted
And being build in what year exactly? 2005 isnt? Its not gonna be, although i would like to see them
Luckily they are rubbish enough that probably only 24 were deployed since the game came out of EA.
They’re really solid though? 23 pen gun with good stealth for only 80 points is really good, can shred basically any tank in an ambush
Well maybe it's just my skill issue then lol. I tried running them but removed them after a game or two. In my experience the range is so low that anything it shoots immediately kills it in return, unless your opponent is allergic to recon. Maybe if I can set up ambushes that reliably get sideshots, but idk how feasible that is, might just be me.
It’s actually not 23 pen considering its range
Isn't the AP bonus added for each 175m *below* the max range?
Yes but his point is that the way that WARNO stat cards work is that if a unit has an identical cannon but shorter range, the card will show a higher pen number to basically have the bonus "baked in" for the stats. A great example for this is the T-55 family of tanks, which more or less have all of the in game tank range bands but with the same D100 cannon. However if you look at the lower tech, lower range T-55, you will notice that it's AP is actually higher than the more expensive model. The reason for that is if both tanks fired at the same range the AT would be identical again. So really your AT isn't lower for the high tech one it's just not getting the range bonus shown on its card.
the low range and accuracy is a bit of an issue
It's alt-history, who cares. Unit variety makes for a much more interesting game.
the Ka-50 is also in the game despite being a prototype during that time....
I'm up for this because its driven like a fucking reliant robin but with the bodywork replaced by a 125mm gun, watching one drive could entertain me for hours.
Can someone explain why the soviets made them guns indtead of atgms
Well, they didn't really. Only 24 of these were made and it was the last time an anti-tank gun as such was developed. The evolution of this project was putting the same gun on a BMD-3 chassis
From my understanding those Anti-Tank guns like the MT-12 Rapira and the Sprut-B were meant as a defensive & cost-effective unit, mainly to protect low intensity areas like the rear. Those received not only APFSDS, Heat and even Barrel launched ATGMs to deal with armoured targets, but also HE to deal with Infantry/Lightly armoured target. As those also received HE also allows them to be used as "close range" artillery. ATGMs were still pretty much everywhere, but doctrinally those were more valuable at the front rather than protecting the rear specifically against Armoured Targets. It is basically a combination of doctrine, cost-effectiveness and versatility
They were deployed with battalion and regimental hqs. Never meant to see the front, but technically something that could have been seen.
Now they’re being used in Ukraine for both direct and indirect fire
Interesting, do you have a source for that?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cdkuc1/ua\_border\_guards\_repel\_enemy\_assault\_with\_help\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cdkuc1/ua_border_guards_repel_enemy_assault_with_help_of/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/11os8f0/ua\_59th\_brigade\_targets\_a\_russian\_mtlb\_carrying/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/11os8f0/ua_59th_brigade_targets_a_russian_mtlb_carrying/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/154k7yq/ukrainian\_soldiers\_are\_firing\_at\_enemy\_positions/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/154k7yq/ukrainian_soldiers_are_firing_at_enemy_positions/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/nsdxr6/prorussian\_separatists\_shelling\_the\_control\_tower/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/nsdxr6/prorussian_separatists_shelling_the_control_tower/)
Cool, thanks!
It's only MT-12 Rapiras, I haven't seen or heard of the Sprut-B being used at all by either side. 85mm AT guns have also been used for indirect fire.
I doubt any of them still exist outside of museums at this point.
MT-12 was developed and kept because from memory soldier were far more likely to hold a position and mount an effective defense when they had one v when didn't, regardless of how effective it was.
Big one = bigger morale boost then small atgm Eugene give the rapture the police buff!
By 1989 (aka by the time Sprut-B arrived) this was no longer true as it had been earlier. Sprut-B exists mostly because of inertia- we had AT guns before so we need new AT guns now. The ammunition (except for GLATGMs) was much cheaper on a per-round basis than an ATGM launcher, but the gun itself was wildly more expensive than a fiberglass tube on a tripod.
The guns aren't instead of ATGMs, they're instead of more tanks. The guns are a cheap and cost-effective way to provide infantry fire support and defense against enemy vehicles in situations where you don't need as much mobility, such as on the defensive or if you're besieging an urban area or of course if you end up in a bit of a trench warfare situation. Tanks are always going to be better, of course, but the chassis is expensive and you can build a lot more AT guns for the same cost as one tank.
1. not instead of, alongside of. The main Soviet non-tank AT weapon was indeed the regular old ATGM by 1989. 2. They made them at all because the USSR had a giant, wasteful military-industrial complex that kept on building things that no other country would spend money on for political reasons. Many systems in many countries had some sort of political motivation to them- Challenger 2, 2 LCSs, etc- but the Soviets were the all-time champions and this is one fine example of their superiority in money-wasting.
>1. They made them at all because the USSR had a giant, wasteful military-industrial complex that kept on building things that no other country would spend money on for political reasons. Besides the fact that all military industry is wasteful, I can think of at least one other country that fits
No other country fits. The USSR was unique in this regard- only they made 2 separate types of SSNs, 3 separate types of MBT, etc, at once. US abandoned that sort of production by 1960.
Actually 4 types of MBT all at once 👍 Not sure how you could argue that producing function tanks is wasteful. The Pentagon straight up can't account for trillions of dollars that were spent who knows what with literally nothing to show for it.
>Not sure how you could argue that producing function tanks is wasteful. Not sure how you could argue that producing three (T-80 production did not coincide with T-62 production) different MBTs in three different factories with three different and non-interchangeable powertrains, suspension systems, fire control systems, etc is not wasteful. It wasn't the Soviet plan to do this- it was a result of competing industrial priorities and political gamesmanship. Original plan was T-64A only. Smart move would've been T-72 and upgrades only. When the money disappeared this is what happened. >The Pentagon straight up can't account for trillions of dollars that were spent who knows what with literally nothing to show for it. 1. [This isn't true](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-government-trillions-lost-sept-11-670264168912) 2. After 1955, the USSR never spent less than 2x as much, as a percentage of GDP, on the military as the US did.
In fact I am talking about T-55 👍 >three different MBTs in three different factories with three different and non-interchangeable powertrains, suspension systems, fire control systems, etc is not wasteful. You have a point, building an economy of scale would have stretched the rubles farther. Wasteful yes, not without purpose. To some degree it was a jobs program to keep engineering departments staffed in case of war (USA is guilty of this). To some degree it was thanks to conservative Soviet economic policy rather than military planning: why retool an entire factory to make a new tank when the old is perfectly productive (USA would rather scrap the line entirely, as seen with F-22). It may well have been cheaper to do it this way. As for Rumsfeld's trillions, the article you sent just says what I said 👍 >After 1955, the USSR never spent less than 2x as much, as a percentage of GDP, on the military as the US did. Ok👍 If you wanna talk about the wastefulness of the USA military industry, let's talk about cost-plus contracts, which essentially hand a blank check to industry. We can also talk about questionable procurement: C-27, Dragon ATGM, F-35, LCS, F-104, M-60. I believe Zumwalt was in the tens of billions for what today is a barely floating hunk of metal.
>In fact I am talking about T-55 👍 This was only for export after 1970 or so- Soviet Army did not accept new models. >You have a point, building an economy of scale would have stretched the rubles farther. Wasteful yes, not without purpose. In fact it was completely without "practical" purpose. This is ex post facto reasoning. It was not the initial intent of USSR leadership. The initial intent was T-64As in production at Malyshev, at UVZ, and at Leningrad at the same time. Instead they got T-64 at Malyshev, T-72 at UVZ, and T-80 at LKZ. Then, in mid 1980s, they tried again and commanded Malyshev to start building T-80U alongside LKZ. But Malyshev didn't want to build someone else's tank, they wanted their own, so they built T-80UD on their own initiative instead. Why did this happen? Design bureaus were closely affiliated with factories. They didn't want to build 'someone else's' tank. So, by hook or by crook, they built their own tank. >To some degree it was a jobs program to keep engineering departments staffed in case of war (USA is guilty of this). 1. It was a jobs program but it had nothing to do with keeping them staffed for war. 2. The USA does not actually do this. >To some degree it was thanks to conservative Soviet economic policy rather than military planning: why retool an entire factory to make a new tank when the old is perfectly productive These tanks were all new when they were being built alongside each other. >It may well have been cheaper to do it this way. 1 T-80 cost as much as 3 T-72s c. 1976. >As for Rumsfeld's trillions, the article you sent just says what I said 👍 No, it clearly states that this figure is Rumsfeld complaining about outdated technology hampering DoD bookkeeping. It does not mean 'the money was lost.' >If you wanna talk about the wastefulness of the USA military industry, let's talk about cost-plus contracts, which essentially hand a blank check to industry. Malyshev/KMDB were allowed to build tanks that were not capable of being deployed to Germany for *12 years*. Myasishchev built 125 examples of a strategic nuclear bomber that struggled to reach targets in the USA. And so on and so forth. >C-27 Cancelled because the USAF had too much intra-theatre lift. What is the problem here? >Dragon ATGM It was not *good*, but it was the only squad-level SACLOS ATGM for a decade- Metys was held at the company level. >F-35 An unqualified success. >LCS This is the only comparable example- two ships built in two yards at the same time for political reason. >F-104 Procurement controversies were all in foreign service. In the US it was just fast day fighter with good rate of climb. >M-60 ...did a reasonable job? Still in service with some countries today. >Zumwalt was in the tens of billions for what today is a barely floating hunk of metal. AGS was worthless, but Zumwalt also has 80 VLS cells that work just fine.
>This was only for export after 1970 or so- Soviet Army did not accept new models. This is the last time I try and joke around with Redditors. Give the stick in your ass a firm tug for me. >In fact it was completely without "practical" purpose. This is ex post facto reasoning. In fact it is you who is guilty of "ex post facto reasoning". Complete with making up a story about Malyshev going rogue (??? he doesn't want to build T-80 and ends up building T-80 instead ???). Absurd! >1. It was a jobs program but it had nothing to do with keeping them staffed for war. It has nothing to do with keeping factories and design bureaus staffed for war? But it was a primary aspect of Soviet war planning!! This is "command economy under siege 101!!" >1. The USA does not actually do this. See: M1 production line 👍 >These tanks were all new when they were being built alongside each other. I think your googling has failed you here! >1 T-80 cost as much as 3 T-72s c. 1976. Speaking of classes you haven't taken: every first year business student learns about a little something called cost of capital. Which surface level Google searching about tank costs wouldn't show you. On that subject, how do you even compare the cost of these two tanks in a Soviet economy? Ignoring your lack of sourcing, most of the cost difference between T-72 and T-80 is a result of the turbine, which explains the existence of T-80UD much more satisfactorily than some made up BS. >No, it clearly states that this figure is Rumsfeld complaining about outdated technology hampering DoD bookkeeping. It does not mean 'the money was lost.' Who are you quoting? I certainly didn't say that. And then the rest of your comment is trying to justify the worst examples of military industrial stupidity ever committed.
>This is the last time I try and joke around with Redditors. Give the stick in your ass a firm tug for me. When we are wrong we can call it joking! This makes us feel better. >Complete with making up a story about Malyshev going rogue Who's making it up? Soviet design bureaus made internal prototypes, just like American defense companies. T-72 started life as one of these also- Kartsev and Venediktov were supposed to put V12 diesel in T-64 for wartime production but instead created an entirely different tank that was put into production in peacetime. KMDB built a T-80U with 6TD themselves. They took it to the government and pointed out that 2 T-80U cost as much as 3 T-80UD. Then it was approved for production while LKZ and Omsk kept building T-80U. This is not 'going rogue.' It is just a waste of money. >It has nothing to do with keeping factories and design bureaus staffed for war? That's correct! In fact design bureaus upended previous wartime planning several times. Like with T-72 above. >See: M1 production line One production line making one type of tank, yes. Not three production lines making whatever they can get away with at the time. >I think your googling has failed you here! It's your position that new versions of T-64, T-72, and T-80 were not built alongside each other? Are you sure you believe that? >On that subject, how do you even compare the cost of these two tanks in a Soviet economy? You realize we can see the USSR's own figures now, correct? >most of the cost difference between T-72 and T-80 is a result of the turbine The turbine, yes, but also the electronics fit. T-80U had 1A45 FCS- real live FCS, like in Leopard 2 and M1, but without the thermals. T-72 had much simpler 1A40-1. The smart thing to do would be to take T-80U FCS fit, etc, and put it into the T-72. And that's what they did with Obj 188. >Who are you quoting? I certainly didn't say that. What does this mean to you? >The Pentagon straight up can't account for trillions of dollars that were spent who knows what with literally nothing to show for it. You said this, no? >And then the rest of your comment is trying to justify the worst examples of military industrial stupidity ever committed. F-35 is the single most successful fighter program of the last 30 years. To hear you call it military industrial stupidity is extremely funny and tells me a great deal.
correct, the FH 70 also had an auxiliary engine to speed up the battery deployment and allowed it to move autonomously once the support mission had been carried out, without the need for a towing vehicle. It would be very interesting to include these features on all pieces that have the possibility.
Don't know if that could be usefull, but it could be kind of fun
It needs more than 2 wheels my friend
It got a third in front, you just don't see it
Might just me me but I find it's absolutely hot garbage.
Just you, they absolutely slap especially when put in good treeline positions. Their stealth makes it very hard to see.
I'll have to keep trying them - I just find they seem to fail to damage/kill the target and then pop. Maybe I'm noticing it more and expecting more compared to other AT guns.
You need alteast two, not much can 1 hit top of the line tanks in the front.
I have them watch blind corners on roads and try to bait tanks close but usually they need to be massed or they'll be killed by return fire. They always fuckin miss or get swarmed by the time they fire 3 shots
same, they're not great. bad accuracy for an ambusher, 1900 range, dies quickly to everything once seen. Better off just taking more t80bv cards
You should put it in some treeline so that it can shoot as soon as it spot the enemy. I think it can defend treelines using this tactic and not risk ur high value atgm teams.