Comments

[hidden]

Updated the tank to include the "T-62M 1972" tag (it refers to the base T-62 that was upgraded to the M variant, the 1972 one is identifiable with the loaders cupola and HMG)

Added the tags; tanks red_army naval_infantry storage_facility (naval_infantry is new, this T-62MV was used in the naval infantry which was common place in the 80s).

[hidden]

Drago7106 said in comment #111:

Updated the tank to include the "T-62M 1972" tag (it refers to the base T-62 that was upgraded to the M variant, the 1972 one is identifiable with the loaders cupola and HMG)

Added the tags; tanks red_army naval_infantry storage_facility (naval_infantry is new, this T-62MV was used in the naval infantry which was common place in the 80s).

great job with tags- is there a better way to tag this "character?" Having one character with two-equal level tags feels a bit imperfect.

[hidden]

Drago7106 said in comment #111:

Updated the tank to include the "T-62M 1972" tag (it refers to the base T-62 that was upgraded to the M variant, the 1972 one is identifiable with the loaders cupola and HMG)

Added the tags; tanks red_army naval_infantry storage_facility (naval_infantry is new, this T-62MV was used in the naval infantry which was common place in the 80s).

Many thanks. I picked this up by chance while going through an old thumb drive I had - tried the best I could with what I could glean from the picture itself.

[hidden]

loughty said in comment #163:

That is actually a T-72...
T-72BM to be exact. the image comes from UVZ 80th Anniversary book.

Refer to my source for the matter, as thats my main argument point for it being moreso a T-90 than a T-72, among some others including (but not limited to) its relation to the Object 187 and what that vehicle was during its development, as well as what it turned into.

I recommend joining the discord server and pinging me (@drago7106og, nickname "Anna") if you want to talk further about the topic to clear up any confusion!

The early T-90s are a nuanced topic, and imo neither of us is wrong here, I just think the T-90 is more accurate.

[hidden]

Drago7106 said in comment #168:

Refer to my source for the matter, as thats my main argument point for it being moreso a T-90 than a T-72, among some others including (but not limited to) its relation to the Object 187 and what that vehicle was during its development, as well as what it turned into.

I recommend joining the discord server and pinging me (@drago7106og, nickname "Anna") if you want to talk further about the topic to clear up any confusion!

The early T-90s are a nuanced topic, and imo neither of us is wrong here, I just think the T-90 is more accurate.

It dosenโ€™t matter if itโ€™s closer to a T-90 or a T-72, the image is of a tank called โ€œImproved T-72Bโ€, and you are wrong if you call it T-90.

[hidden]

Dadumi said in comment #178:

It dosenโ€™t matter if itโ€™s closer to a T-90 or a T-72, the image is of a tank called โ€œImproved T-72Bโ€, and you are wrong if you call it T-90.

I think the way to solve this (and similar cases) is adding another tag like "t-series_russia_experimental" since the topic is too nuanced to be discussed fully in comments, as neither of us are wrong and "Object 188" could just be its stand-alone thing under that new tag. Theres various sources that state its a T-72B, but also that its a T-90 due to its changes, and tagging both isnt really possible when someone comes around (most likely me or another T-tank fan) to make the implications for the newer tags. Let me know what you both thing about it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8