TR-580 – possible EU tree tier 10?

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

so it happened that Mao89 from EU server sent me a guest article about the Romanian TR-580 project a few days ago. At first, I was skeptical, because this project has two major flaws. First, it is “too new” (the vehicle was designed in 1974) and second, Mao89 proposed a massive frontal hull armor (200mm with an additional plate, with its angle it’s 300mm+, that would never work in WoT).

So, what I did was a bit of research myself. Obviously I can’t speak Romanian, so I will rely on Russian sources (which – when it comes to Soviet bloc tech – are quite accurate). This post is based on a combination of my own and Mao’s text. Most credit goes to him, I will only add some corrections.

tr5801

History

The TR-580 is a second generation MBT. This tank is a variant of the Soviet T-55 design and was built entirely in Romania. The Romanian army built almost 400 of these tanks, 140 of which were exported.

After the events of Prague Spring (Czech: Pražské jaro, Slovak: Pražská jar was a period of political liberalization in Czechoslovakia during the era of its domination by the Soviet Union after World War II. It began on 5 January 1968, when reformist Alexander Dubček was elected First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and continued until 21 August when the Soviet Union and all members of the Warsaw Pact, with the notable exception of Romania, invaded the country to halt the reforms), Romania adopted a new defense doctrine, fearing a possible incursion of the Warsaw Pact troops. On May 13, 1974, a program of building their own tank begins in Romania. The vehicle specifications demands were: Approximately 40 tons, 100 mm gun and an 800 hp engine.

The easiest way to produce it was by modifying the existing T-55 design. The license to build T-55 was not obtained from the Soviet Union, so the engineers had to figure out how to build it from scratch.

The 800 hp engine, similar to the Leopard 1 engine was not obtained either, so the Romanians used a “homemade” version of the old T-55 V12 engine with 580 hp, that was well known at that time.

The first prototype is ready in 1974, and in October, same year, it underwent trials. The trials lasted for 6 months and after several modifications, the second prototype was trialed. Overall, there were no less than 11 prototypes! Because of this, the serial production started in 1977.

Description

The TR-580 used modified T-55 chassis with six roadwheels (unlike the original T-55 that had only five). Between the first and the second roadwheel, there was an empty space, that was similar to the T-54/55 Soviet vehicles. These modifications were made to allow for a bigger engine (the 800 hp one), that however never came.

The gun of this tank was the 100 mm A308. This gun was a variant of the A407 100mm anti-tank gun M1977. The A407 100mm anti-tank gun was the first artillery piece designed in Romania after World War II. The first variant of the gun, the M1975 (M stands for Model) had a semi-automatic horizontal sliding wedge type breech lock. The second variant, M1977, had a more practical vertical sliding wedge breech block. This gun used more types of projectiles, of which I will only mention three (because that’s the maximum we can have in game):

- OF 412 – explosive / incendiary (HE) (similar to the UOF-412 round which carried the 15.6 kg F-412 high-explosive fragmentation shell)
- PBR 412B – armor-piercing with tracer (AP)
- BM 412Sg – subcaliber armor piercing (premium)

Silentstalker: I ran thru some sources and the gun seems to be roughly equal to the Soviet D-10.

tr5802

Some interesting facts from the production process:

- When Romania decided to build its own tank, the relations with Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact “allies” were so cold no help from them on “how to build a tank” could be obtained. Therefore, Romanian government sent their engineers to another communist ally on a different continent: People’s Republic of China. China immediately saw the opportunity to tease the Soviets once again and happily provided all the help and expertise needed

- The biggest problem during the building process were the cast turrets. Their quality was low and first pieces were cracking. The technology of casting the turrets had to be switched and the metalic composition had to be upgraded as well. The end result was worth it: 320 mm of armor + 20 mm additional plates

- The gun had no bore evacuator, termal protection or laser telemetry

The TR-580 was produced from 1974 till 1985, when the 800 hp engine finally became available and the tank with it was redesigned TR-800. Then, after several substantial modifications, another redesignation took place (TR-85M1), but that is well beyond the scope of World of Tanks.

The TR-77 was the export variant with small modifications. It was exported mostly to Egypt in unknown quantities (later it was found out Egypt sold them further to Iraw). Some sources claim that Egypt bought 200 units, other sources say there were only 100. I’ll go with 140 because that’s generally considered to be the correct amount.

In World of Tanks

Silentstalker: Mao89 suggested the entire characteristics of the vehicle. As I mentioned before, I find them a bit controversial. The main problem is the frontal armor. The upgraded versions had massive 200mm frontal plate (100+100mm additional plate) and with the turret, it would be a monster. Of course, there are options. One would be to simply turn it into a heavy tank. Yes, that’s not historical, but if you have a look at the Soviet Object 430U, that’s a medium tank too, yet SerB wrote in the past that if it was ever in the game, it would probably be a heavy tank. This could be the same case. Still, the armor would be way too much even that.

Russian wikipedia shows radically different data on it and I have a lingering suspicion they are wrong, but obviously the additional frontal plate could be removed and the vehicle would turn into a T-55 hull-wise (100mm frontal plate), which would in turn make it much more viable. I am not sure however how much that would influence the weight (3 tons?).

In game, the vehicle could look like this:

Class: medium/heavy
Tier: 10
Weight: 46 tons (43 tons with removed additional frontal plate)
Crew: 4
Hitpoints: 2000

Engine: 580hp V-55
Max. speed: 50 km/h (only obtainable when going downhill)
Power-to-weight: 12,6 (or 13,4) hp/t
Traverse: Mao suggests 52 deg/s
Turret traverse: 40 deg/s

Gun: 100mm A308
Damage: 320/320/420
Penetration: 268/330/50
ROF: 6

Armor:

Here’s where we have a bit of a hiccup. Sources radically differ on what armor the vehicle would have.

Without the additional frontal plate, I believe it’s:

Hull: 100/80/45 (frontal armor: 155mm effective)
Turret: 320/160/65 (this is also a bit dubious, I have the feeling the original cast turret would resemble the T-55 turret also, but I will have a look at it)

Mao89 states:

Hull: 200/90/60
Turret: 320/160/70

Radio: UTR-1 (850m)

All in all, it could be a great tier 10 tank, somewhat resembling the T-55, but of course with its additional twists and turns. Generally it would be slower, but the invulnerable turret would allow for some very interesting tactics.

173 thoughts on “TR-580 – possible EU tree tier 10?”

    • Well, WG said technology matters the most for them, so no smoothbore and fancy reactive armoring and stuff.
      And to be honest this tank was terribly old fashioned by that era’s standards.

      • So to guess at a potential Romanian medium branch, we have:

        FT-17 (most likely not necessary for the European tree)
        R-2, Vickers 6-ton, R-35 or T-60
        Pz.Kpfw. 38t
        Pz.Kpfw. III
        Pz.Kpfw. IV
        T-34/85
        Panther
        T-54
        T-55
        TR-580

        While I’m not sure I like the idea of having that many foreign vehicles, if the Chinese can make it in, the Romanians should be too.

        • what`s Romanian about this tech ? only one tank is Romanian. Except misplaced blind nationalism “I WANT ROMANIAN TANK” in WOT ???

          • To be fair that’s what the Type 59 was until the Chinese tree came around (and the Chinese tree was almost certainly a sellout; I wouldn’t mind it as much if it had more than just two branches on the tech tree half-way down the line, but as it is now it just comes across as sloppy and incomplete).

        • That would be an absolutely retard branch. T-54 as tier 8? T-55 as tier 9? Wtf?

          And Panther researchable from T-34? It makes no sense at all.

          • Those are all tanks the Romanians operated. And is it really any more convoluted than the Chinese branch?

            • I should also point out that the T-54 currently ingame is a combination of several different T-54 prototypes, thus why it has 120mm of armor.

            • It should be pointed out that China is not Romania and the chines branch has other tech until tier V and that is just one day of gameplay. The other tanks are chinese. And for this retarded branch you propose to start with french tank then go to british tank then some german tanks then hop to a russian then back to german then go back to russian …..for the sole purpose of having one retarded crap piece of shit copy-paste tank as tier 10 cuz its “romanian”. Ahahah. Yeah why not.

            • Too high?

              If WoT goes for the historical cr!# than any nation CAN have it’s own tanks. And with the chinese tree the recicled cr!# it’s accepted.

              And considering no1 is forcing you to play them ….

            • so they could create a tank branche for every fucking third world country that changed as much as a headlight of an importet tank?
              china did NOT set an example, only the LOW TIER tanks are of foreign origin, everything tier 5+ are tanks with own characterisitcs, not just some copy paste shit.
              so yes, development time would be spent much better elsewhere.
              also: want romanian tank? buy one of the importet ones, put a romanian flag on it and youre done. ;)

        • China has ENORMOUS MARKET. It is obvious that all sort of exceptions were and will be made to satisfy the Chinese gamers. Even if WG have to invent all the damn tanks they would still make a Chinese branch just because the profit is too damn high! If Romania was 1 billion people and had the largest army ever ..then probably they would have made Romanian branch first and from tier 5 tanks will have stealth tech, diamond armor and fire lazers!

        • To be honest we already got all thoose tanks in other trees except of last one so there is no point of introducing something thats already there.

          • Well, according to this we could add ANY country that ever operated ANY tank. T-54/55 was operated by a shitload of countries, MAKE A BRANCH FOR EVERY NATION EVER OPERATED T-54 HAHAHA.

            Yeah that would make total sense to research the EXACTLY same tanks for different branches just because it was operated by some Romanians decades ago.

            I mean how many Panthers the Romanians had? 15? 10? Even less?

            Geez.

      • That’s out of the question. There can never be a full romanian tech tree. At the start of WW2, romania used imported tanks, mainly from Czechoslovakia and France. When those were lost or outdated, the germans provided some of their tanks. After they changed sides, the soviets gave them some of their tanks. The vehicles you listed had no modification done by the romanians and would fill an entire branch. That’s too much copy paste, even for me that I’m ok with the chinese tech tree.

        All the romanians can offer for the European Tech tree are a few low tier TDs like TACAM T-60 or Maresal (and that’s tier 4 if not lower) and the TR-580 that, even if it was designed in the 70s, its technology was from the 50s.

  2. Interesting.

    Maybe it’s just me but can’t see gun depression/elevation. And tank dimensions. Low depression and a pretty high profile could balance the insane turret, however having FV like gun depression would make it basically invincible.

    • Well in truth the TR-85 design is largely stolen from the T-55 with an attempt to add the Leo1′s powerpack (although West Germany wouldn’t sell so they tried to reverse-engineer that as well), so very poor arc.

    • Lenght (including the gun) = 9.25 m
      Width = 3.30 m
      Height = 2.40 m

      Gun depression/elevation = -5 / +37 (to be confirmed)

  3. What? No TR-85? QQ. I love the tanks my countrymen did. Nice article though! Totally enjoyed reading the whole thing. Nice job finding all these sources and putting them all-togheter.

      • What has the German tree to do with anything? Off topic much?

        This is a proposal for a carbon-copy of a tank which we allready have a handfull of in the game, for a nation which nobody but the Romanians themselves give a damn about.

        • I get pissed off when people complain about copy/paste of soviet tanks but have no issues with copy/paste of german tanks. This has nothing to do with Romanian tanks. I said same thing when people complained about chineese being a copy of soviets.

          Now, back on my first claim. How about E50 and E50M? How about VK 30.01P – VK30.01D – VK30.02D? Or VK 30.02 (M) – Panther – Panther II? Whole German tree is a copy/paste. No one complains about that.

          But people complain of a T-55 copy. Of course there are many copies of T-55, it was the MOST BUILT tank in history for fucks sake.

          But hey, no one complains about german copy/paste of paper tanks.

          • …not really seeing how the 3001P “Porsche Boat” is supposed to copypasta with the Daimler-Benz T-34 copies… though the latter for obvious reasons rather resemble each other. But then again that goes for any “evolutionary” line; think M4 and “Easy Eight” or the A-20 to T-34/85 route (and the T-43 isn’t too much different really). Which is then followed by the “T-line”. Or the KV/Is branches. Or the successive Churchills. Or…
            Well, you get the idea.

          • So, because I attack the most common occurance of blatant copy-paste in WOT I automatically think it’s okay when everyone else does it? Brilliant logic there…

            No, I wish WG prioritised different things alltogether. Like more game modes, historical battles, the updated physics, better looking models just for actual game features.

            And if they feel they desperately need to add more nations/lines they should focus on the Japs, which seems to have a pretty unique flavor alltogether, or fleshing out the British with all their wonky designs, or an EU tree focusing on forexample the Italians or Swedes, both which have some rather unique designs all on their own.

            This is your account, right?
            http://worldoftanks.eu/community/accounts/501931632-Treborn/

            You’ve allready got both the Type 59 and the T-54. If you so desperately need your T-54 fix, why not jump into one of those rather than defend the proposition of adding yet another one?

            • WG added new game modes a while back. As soon as it became an option an awful lot of people couldn’t deselect them fast enough.

            • The tomatoes can barely handle the “two bases, cap one, defend the other” setup. I sincerely doubt if they can handle the other modes any better than was the case back when you couldn’t unselect them.
              Which tended to be in the “painful to watch” territory.

          • kellomies just did a much more elaborate job of pointing out how and why your comparison should not even deserve an answer, evolutionary tech trees and all. noone complains about similarities in one tech tree, be it german or chinese or russian. what people complain about is reusing tanks of one tree in another nations tree.
            but yeah, just go totaly offtopic and blow some steam about those nasty weeraboos in their not so uniquie metal boxes becaus it TOTALY fits here, right?

            • Applying “technical evolution of tanks” in the EU tree that will just be a patchwork of vehicles mostly made from other vehicles already in national trees is dumb. You can’t get a coherent evolution from FT-17 which almost everyone had pre-war to the postwar designs.

              I see a T-55 similar tank, with different chassis, different armor layout, different turret, different gun (potentially), different dynamic characteristics that could be the top of a patchwork EU tree, NOT a national tree.

              As such I see no difference between having different iterations of the same design just with more armor and a bigger engine, a la german E-50M line and having different iterations of the T-55 in the EU tree, which was what half the planet was using at the time.

  6. By a little stretch of imagination, we could make Europanzer the italian tier 10, then we’d have Leo1 prot, Leo1, AMX-30 and Europanzer as copypaste tanks.

    • Really I would expect the Swiss Pz 58/61/68 to take tier 9/10 of the first Eu medium line to be introduced. Basically there are a lot of options for inter-war/WWII to fill up to maybe tier 8 but after that Swiss and Swedish designs are pretty much the only unique “tank tanks” outside of the countries that already have tech trees.

      Europanzer is actually a license-built AMX-30.

  7. It would be hilarious if this actually came into the picture since it’s OLD Fashioned. It’s like a T-55 but it isn’t, though it’s quite funny that the only people that helped the Romanians build this tank was more or less the Chinese.

    Though their should be like 2 Medium Branches of their own favors, this and another Romania and another EU one that isn’t already having their own branch that is…

    I like the Fire Rate it feels like a smaller ‘trolly’ T110E5 that isn’t nerfed with that tumor.

    • i should also add that those tanks are under the categories
      Italy: Euro panzer
      czechoslovakia: T-50/51
      Yugoslavia: M-636D
      schweiz: Pz61

      • well i should have said a attempt to copy or create something equal to the t54/55
        and im reffering to the M-636D

        • copying of T-54 components and subsystems, stuff usually not visible from the outside, but hull is very M47 like, suspension and tracks very T-34 like, turret rear is very M47 like and from the front T-54 – M48 mix. inside a lot of the components are T-54. T-34 or M47 copied or borrowed (taken off other tanks)

  9. Didn’t devs confirmed in one of Q&A’s long time ago that Swiss Panzer 58 and Panzer 61 would take top spots in EU medium line?

    • Its pretty slow to be a medium tanks. If it gets into the game i also see it as a heavy and as far as i am aware EU tree lacks heavy tanks so it would fill the empty spot ^^

    • well actually the eu tree has heavy tanks.
      there is the swedish KRV project (basicly a amx 50b with actual armour) wich could likely cover tier 8-10

      and then there are the polish heavies that could potentially cover tier 4-10 but its highly unlikely that the high tier polish heavies will be added as the info on them… well its wierd
      but if it were to be added it would be a line with a maus like tier 10

  10. interesting that Yugoslavia didnt help… considering that at that time Yugoslavia and Romania were jointly developing a fighter jet J-22/IAR-93… Yugoslavia also already had some technology for modernization of T-55 tanks(for example Igman fire control system (improved Bofors FCS) which later evolved into M-84s FCS).

  12. 320 alpha and 6 RoF only…how about no….fucking t62A and ob140 have 9 RoF…and btw its just another T-54 copy and honestly i’m sick of them

    • You are not forced to play copy-paste tanks…if you dont like them dont play them. And i dont see a problem if they look similar if they have totaly different traits

      • because e-50 and e-50m are used in more than one nations tech tree? are you even capable of forming coherent comparisons or did some e-any just poop on your tank?

  15. Gameplay wise, it looks like a snoozefest of tracks :/

    Low damage, low RoF, armor only at the front, close to nothing on the sides…..slow….
    That’s a lot of boring downsides for having strong frontal armor as only strongpoint.

    That said, I’m all for diversity.
    If someone wants to grind a boring tank, let them.

  16. >Romania
    >different continent
    >China

    …I take it you didn’t score very high in Geography back in school? :/

    • I really hope you’re not American Kellomies, cause the shitslinging potential is enormous here…

      According to the things I was taught, Romania is on the right side of Urals to be in what is generally considered Europe, while China is as Asian as it gets…

      Unless your geography teachers decided Europe and Asia should bond and taught you of their love and friendship(Eurasia)?

      • To be fair, America is…not very good with geography. Hell, many Americans can’t even name all 50 states in the US (I’m an exception to the rule; I’m actually pretty good with geography for the most part).

    • Keep your political bullshit out of this, we’re talking hard geography here. Ever seen a world map? Eurasia is a single continent and as it happens most of China is on the main tectonic plate to boot, the rather obscure Yangtze tertiary plate (which I’m willing to bet money most of you never even heard of before this) nonwithstanding.

      • never go batshittingly arrogant just to prove your admittetly wrong point pls.
        you know what they actually teach in geography about seven continents and stuff? yeah, right, now troll yourself.

        • You’re talking about what’s essentially *political* geography; there’s no *objective* geographical distinction between Europe and the rest of the Eurasian continental landmass.

          I prefer sticking to the hard-science defintion without the “value added” arbitrariness thanks.

        • Where do they teach this stuff? In USA? Heh, no wonder they still use imperial measurements system. Backward cave dwellers. Brits too btw.

      • the american national geographic society and the british one seem to disagree with your handwaving definition. “Continent has more than a physical definition”

    • quick hint- Europe and Asia are continents, Eurasia is something else, dunno how’s it called in english (my best translation would be worldpart, that’s literral translation of the word from my language)

      • Depends on the convention you’re using, but in objective geological and geographical terms Eurasia is a single continent. Given that the separation of Europe from the rest is basically an arbitrary question of ideology (critics talk about Eurocentrism) and the actual division line has AFAIK had the curious tendency of wandering back and forth over time – generally according to the current opinion on Russia – the claim is dodgy at best.

        • not in the terms of e.g. The National Georgraphic Society of America.
          And EVEN IF there are different definitions of “continent” (as there are) you should admit that the OP never was wrong and we cant form any conclusion about his geographical knowledge just by his statement that europe and china are on different continents.
          At least 5 of 7 definitions of continent seem to agree with him here.
          case closed or more nitpicking?

          • *shrug* Essentially arbitrary line in the sand versus scientifically objective definition. Your call.

            • pictured: Kellomies evading the core of the argument: calling op wrong while he isnt, according to stuff that is teached in schools all around the world even today, attacking the op’s education.

            • Pictured: Anon for some bizarre reason assuming school curriculums are always correct.
              Here’s a revelation for you: the things are subjective and political as fuck and to a very large degree propagate the current orthodoxy whatever that may be, whether they realise it or not. Actual experts of the relevant fields, Hell, even erudite laymen will only too often cringe at some of the content.

              You’re basically trying to argue that the fact that a cultural artifact is and has been widely taught in schools makes it objectively correct, which is a blatant ad populum fallacy (as well as an appeal to tradition). Certainly from those premises SS was entirely correct, but as you may have noticed I consider said premises themselves to be wrong.
              (More practically Europeans manage enough smug and self-satisfied navel-gazing already without arbitrarily defining geography to suit such solipsism.)

      • indeed. and as long as those scientists dont chage their mind pluto-style, even kellomies has to admit that he maybe was a little prick right there.

          • you could chose your battles better….nitpicking someone for something there is no actual right or wrong answer (which you already admitted)….not classy.
            showing some retard how his copmparisons between german-tech tree similarities and the proposed romanian stuff blow…an act of beauty.
            ;)

            • I daresay your judgement might betray some partiality regarding the former argument… ;p

              Never let it be said I wasn’t diverse when it comes to pointlessly arguing about obscure shit.

            • A few times you went beyond the call of reason in the Stalin inscriptions deba … shit swinging contest. Mentioning a phrase like “the soviets actually went easy on the Eastern Europeans”, in the context of a discussion about post war consequences for ex-Axis allied countries in Eastern Europe. Ridiculous.

            • What, you want to dig up ancient history? Fine by me.
              See, given what they’d just been through with the Germans – namely attempted total conquest and genocide – it wouldn’t have been particularly odd if the Soviets had been in a seriously vindictive mood against the auxiliaries of the latter as well; look at East Prussia (which rather startled the Soviet leadership and prompted a hasty rollback of the more “bloody revenge” toned propaganda) to get some idea of what *that* might have entailed.
              In the event they were far more interested in practical geostrategic gains and mostly settled for installing hopefully tractable client regimes instead. And down the road half of those proved to be anything but dependable puppets anyway.

            • It’s not about digging out ancient history. We can’t settle anything here more than the historians did. Also, it’s about personal opinions. If you think the Soviet war crimes against the entire Eastern Europe were justified and mild in comparison to the war crimes inflicted by the Axis forces against the Soviet people than that’s your point and I can be glad that you don’t hold an important political office.

              For the Eastern Europeans that was a war nobody wanted but, being in the way between Nazi Germany and the USSR, was hard to stay away from. You might say that they didn’t have to help the nazis, but considering the historical context I think that the instinct for national preservation with any means necessary meant that they had to bow to German pressure. Not like the Western Allies gave these countries much choice. I would be surprised to see a political regime which chooses ethics and not national survival as the guiding principle of it’s policies.

            • In my books “ancient history” is any discussion that’s no longer on the first page of FTR. And I have a policy of not pursuing such further.

              That aside, you just pulled that bit about “justification” out of your ass because I never even used the word. Which is a fallacy called “strawman argument”.

              Second, boo hoo. Be as it may the Central European “Axis Minors” jumped onto the wrongest bandwagon ever and AFAIK engaged in fair bit of quite voluntary nastiness on the side; and what, given the “historical context”, do you *expect* the Soviets to have done when the dust settled? Give them a stern talking-to, tell them not to do it again, and go home to lick their wounds?
              Fat fucking chance.

            • I had the same understanding of “ancient history”, and that’s why I said it wasn’t something to be discussed further on this “old” post page because we won’t reach any conclusions. I just like debating.

              I assumed “justified” was a synonym to what you reiterated now as:
              “given the “historical context”, do you *expect* the Soviets to have done when the dust settled?”
              as in, the soviets were justified in their atrocities by the atrocities done unto them. This is only semantics. You didn’t use “justified”, but I understood it as such. If it was a mistake it was on my part then. My point was that I think the soviets didn’t in any way “go easy” to use your exact wording, on the Axis members. Considering the atrocities committed on both sides, mercy was not to be expected but then again I just want to parallel this to the fate of West Germany. After the War it had to live next to countries that it had ravaged and ruined. It was helped back on it’s feet and integrated into NATO, and finally the western economic block. Although it had been bombed to ashes and every neighbour resented it’s wartime behaviour. Eastern Europe was effectively enslaved by the USSR for decades and that damage is clear even to this day. Is the negative impact of that war comparable to what is Germany experiencing now ?

              I don’t think we can argue about the the bandwagon. It was the worst one to join indeed, but was there any other alternative ? Could any nation located between Nazi Germany and the USSR remain neutral in that time ? When Hitler twisted every arm he could to gather “allies”, and when the British and French assurances were not worth the paper they were written on, what else could they have done ? It’s always easy to judge in hindsight but to me it feels like condemning a man that had to kill to survive.

  17. isn’t this the tank that we actually failed to export to Egypt due to a failure during firing tests (in Egypt), the shell exploded inside the gun killing all crew

    • Yep that’s the one but it was not the tanks fault just the fact that the ammo got “cooked”

  18. Romania didnt have so much tanks in WW2 and they getted them from the Germans(when they fought on Germany side ) and Russians(when they fought on theyr side)….(sorry for my bad english i hope u understand), and thats why the romanians had t34 and panthers in their arsenal..

    • Yeah, Romanians changed sides in both World Wars. Only country that fought in BOTH World Wars on EVERY SIDES.

      • How dumb can you be ?

        Where did Romania change sides in the First World War ?
        In 1916 it entered the war on the side of the Antante. It was overrun, the Russians collapsed behind them, the Allies failed to deliver the promised help and they made an armistice with the Central Powers. In 1918 they reactivated what was left of the army and attacked the Central Powers again concluding the war as a fighting participant. Where throughout this do you see them switching sides ?

          • The same “allies” that carved up the country before the war so that we can be forced into said alliance ?
            Those allies that abandoned us at Stalingrad ?
            The same allies that in retaliation for August 23rd started bombing civilian blocks in all major cities ?
            And them that tried to force in power a regime even more totalitarian and bloodthirsty than the dictator in office at the time.
            It must be those allies that milked our oil industry dry, robbed the railway system, took as much of the harvest each year to only cause a “mild famine” and paid with “German goodwill”.
            How dare we turn our backs on them.
            Is there no honour in the world anymore ?

  19. Well, I think it’s unique enough to be included in the EU tree. Although the idea to build a copy paste branch just to put it at the end seems like a bad idea.

    If it’s slow then make it a heavy. I think the Main Battle Tank=Medium Tank is a stupid idea as almost all post war tanks were called Main Battle tanks, even those that obviously fit another designation. Leopard 1 and the PTA should be light tanks as well.

      • Yeah but most of them where literaly copy pasted tanks with a pack of upgrades such as FCS optics infrared sensors smoke launchers and whatever. These dont count in WOT (except optics)while the added armour of the TR-580 will make it unique to its T-54/55 brothers
        Still i have hope to see it ingame

  20. Two short info.
    1 the most famous thing that came out of romania are gypsies
    2 there will be no standalone copypasta romanian branch. In case of china there is a huge market to explain the copypasta presence. Probably as a part of the eu tree there will be some romanian tanks, but they are not unique enough, or will be popular enough dor their own copypast branch. Would you really like to drive a gypsy tank?

    • The gypsys are not from Romania dumbass search on google , and thats why my country Romania its like that,because the people like u are dumbass and talk even if u dont know…

      • And that’s why our country is like that, because even more people spit back curses in broken English.

        The idea of this post by SS was a tier 10 tank for the EU tree, not an entire Romanian tree in WoT. This has also very little support in the Romanian community. We have a few unique TDs that could make it in the EU tree, but nobody is talking seriously about a full blown tech tree.
        On the other hand, just this T-55 modification into a heavy tank would be awsome. It looks like the T-55, but it can’t play like the T-55 considering the armor, turret and engine. It might be a unique twist as a tier 10 variant. Also, I don’t think WG might shrug back from implementing a unique tank that fits within their technological limits.

  21. So did Eygpt sell them to Iraq or Iran, because as far as I know there is no country named Iraw

  25. Why not just have the European tree branch off from other ones. For example if I went up the german/russian tree I could branch off of those and go up the european tree. This means the european trees would start at higher tiers and would not be accessible at low tiers.

    I think german or french crews should go into tanks on european tree.

    • There is no need for that as there are plenty of low tier tanks for EU. It’s just that Romania is not the country that has them.

  27. Me gusta TR-580 at tier 10 European tech tree. I would love to see it as a tier 10 heavy because i feel it’s more appropriate with its power to weight ratio and they can leave the 200 mms on the frontal plate and they can make the sides paper thin. The gun depression might be close to 0 degrees for what i care but i don’t believe it to be so. But for all tenses and purposes Romania never liked Russia and neither does Russia like Romania so i am pretty sure this tank won’t be in Wot due to the game developers being pro-russian. All in all i love the ideea but it will never stick because screw you romanians attitude in the world

    • I don’t think much *anybody* likes either the Russians or Romanians, but unlike the former the latter can, thankfully, be mostly ignored. :P

    • Wow really Kellomies? Romanians can be ignored? Why is that and tell me all the spicy details :) .I am Romanian so feel free to ignore me if you don’t feel like getting your arse ripped a new one.

      • Because the country, like just about all of East, South and Central Europe, is basically a retarded backwater of preciously little consequence and even less merit? Russia is no better ofc, but it’s blatantly too large and influential to be summarily dismissed.

          • .______.
            So.
            Impressed.

            For the record Tesla doesn’t make Serbia any less a Balkans shithole either.

            • Oh Kellomies, you really are a masterful troll. Either that or a very special kind of self-absorbed twat. I really can’t decide which is more amusing :D
              On one hand you argue about the horrors of the navel-gazing euro-centrism while nitpicking on geography matters nobody really cares about, while on the other you piss upon the ‘insignificant’ peoples of the world from a position of vast intellectual superiority. You must be American, you reek of it.

              Also, check your facts on Tesla. Nationality is not necessarily an indication of one’s origin, nor is one’s birthplace an indication of nationality, especially in the Balkans.

            • *breeeep* Wrong guess, try again. And the only reason I’m not trying to take a piss out of MURRICANS too is a shortage of suitable topics and identifiable marks are so rare here compared to Euro national egomania. :P

              And Cata? What the Hell have you the impression scenic vistas are the slightest bit relevant here, doubly so as I’ve yet to hear of a country that *didn’t* have some to spare.

            • Not that impressive video actually. Not much would change without. The Pen case was highly overstated as the Fountain Pen is just an intermediary step between the the Reed Pen, the Quill Pen and the modern Ballpoint Pen. Not exactly a revolutionary invention. Sure, he rightfully got the credits for invention Insulin, but it would have been invented anyway 50 years later.

      • Kellomies if you’ll ever visit Romania you won’t be dissapointed.And i hope you will visit more of the world before you decide what is a retarded backwater because frankly you seem a little close minded. Good luck and cheers to you! May you learn something new everyday and wonder about how little you know and how much more enlightened you can become!

        • Okay, people, calm down… Every country is a good place, just you have to visit a good place. Every country have a bad face, but more good. Bad reputaion is hard to make a good one. sry, for the typhoos. One day a donkey will get me for all the bad grammar or a grammar nazi will take me.

        • I’ve *been* to several retarded backwaters, and they weren’t any less so up close. Quite the opposite actually since the beggars and whatnot were kinda hard to miss, at least for someone like me who isn’t into rose-colored glasses and sunbathing by the hotel pool with a mojito in hand.

          And as it happens many of my more vivid childhood memories already are *specifically* of traveling abroad. Don’t try to teach your momma to blow eggs, mmmmkay?

          • I guess there is no point of arguing with you.You will always see the hobo hiding in the bushes rather how beautiful the bush is… and sincerely neither am i the type to close a blind eye to beggars and such but everyone has it’s beggars but beggars do not make a country a retarded backwater . Well i don’t really want to know what disturbing images you had in your childhood because they have scared your vision of the world.

            • No. I just refuse to wish away the hobo under the beautiful bush.
              This is called “finding the forest behind the trees”.
              Thing is, you can find beautiful bushes or something equivalent pretty much anywhere – but some places have rather less by the way of stinky hobos living under them than others. The former requires fairly little out of the inhabitants; the latter quite a lot, and to what degree it is achieved speaks volumes of the society in question.

          • I don’t know if you are doing this for the sole purpose of annoying me or you are just an ignorant twat.

            • Ok, so what are you trying to prove exactly? That it’s a nice place where you’d want to live? That it’s beautiful? What exactly because you seem to me like the blind nationalist that likes to lie to himself in order to go to sleep at night thinking that it’s still a good place to be? I’ve been in this shithole you so dearly call Romania and after 2 years all I could say was good riddance. As long as you have a choice, i don’t see why you’d want to stay there, to be honest…

            • I make a point of annoying starry-eyed patriots with perceptivity issues by throwing harsh reality at them every chance I get.

      • They’re the poorest country in the European Union (or at least they were until Greece went bankrupt). They get ignored all the time.

        • didnt Vlad Tepesz come frome Romania? He impaled like 20.000 turks, that gotta count for something, right?
          several of these eastern/southeastern/central(?)european “backwater” countries helped defending Europe against the threat from the east, the poles defending Vienna, Albanias fight and even good ol’ Vlad. ;)
          greetings from the HRE.

          • That was before they fell by the wayside. It’s like saying Guyana is important because they caused the syphilis disaster in Europe

          • The Ottomans were just as bad a shithole backwater – in some ways even worse actually – and functionally irrelevant beyond the regional level after like the early 1500s except inasmuch they kept the Austrians too preoccupied to participate in European power politics as much as they would’ve liked.

        • You are confusing us with Bulgaria. Bit shorter, a bit less of them, a bit poorer, and they talk a Slavic language. Overall very nice people.
          Also, we didn’t get ignored in the lasagne horsemeat scandal :).

  28. That medium tank has incredible armor, but shit DPM and mobility?

    I like that, its something diffrent and not annother T-54 clone (see what i did tharr?)

  29. IMHO I don’t see any point in implementing a tech tree such as Romania.
    If your going to implement Romania then you just open a can of worms where every country ever operating tanks in WW2-1970′s would get a tech tree with all of theh having carbon copies of tanks you already have. the Matilda is bad enough with there being 4? versions.
    A much better idea for a tech tree could be the warsaw pact tree which im sure I saw it mentioned about the warsaw/lend lease tech tree being implemented “when its done, its done” sort of thing

    • Nobody really wants a tech tree for Romania. That would be silly. It’s just that this tank fits the tech wise, it is a tank from a minor European nation and it would fit the problematic tier 10. More end of the line tanks are not bad I say, especially if they are different. Have some German modifications from the Swiss, Swedish original wacky tanks, Italian Leo 1, Romanian/Yugoslav/Czech T-55 modifications. Out of the latter, I think the Romanian fits the tech requirements best, and it should be different gameplay wise from the soviet version.

  31. No. Just NO.
    No to any separate tree that hasn’t been involved as a major part in serious conflict. NO to mediocre trees and NO to copypasta. That is NO to Romanian tree, and NO to Cz/Sk tree i’m afraid, SS.
    Also big NO to putting EU tree, where Allied are mixed with Axis together.
    The only tree i’m for is Israelis – they have tons of interesting modifications and they are literally in constant war from the very beginning.

    • They may have, but their ‘constant war’ is out of the time frame of the game. That is why we will never get the upgunned IDF Shermans nor the Merkava in this game…

    • Oh thank you the producer of WG. Your orders have been noted and they will be applyed in no time.

      Stop going full retard your words are useless, unless you really are in the administration board of WG, but in that case you are you would not bothered to visit this site in first place.

    • You’re as dumb as a plastic bag.

      From wikipedia:

      “On 22 June 1941 Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, attacking the Soviet Union on a wide front. Romania joined in the offensive, with Romanian troops crossing the River Prut. After recovering Bessarabia and Bukovina (Operation München), Romanian units fought side by side with the Germans onward to Odessa, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and the Caucasus. The Romanian contribution of troops was enormous. The total number of troops involved in the Romanian Third Army and the Romanian Fourth Army was second only to Nazi Germany itself. The Romanian Army had a total of 686,258 men under arms in the summer of 1941 and a total of 1,224,691 men in the summer of 1944.[6] The number of Romanian troops sent to fight in Russia exceeded that of all of Germany’s other allies combined.”

      from WoT:

      Dumitru’s Medal – Awarded for the destruction of four enemy self-propelled guns.
      Ion S. Dumitru was a Romanian tank ace. He fought in World War II for just twenty-five days, of which five on the German side, and, after Romania changed sides, twenty days against the Germans. On March 6th, 1945, Dumitru contributed to the destruction of six enemy tank destroyers and capture of a battery [eight pieces] of 150 mm guns.

      Didn’t know much about Romania, but a quick search and there it goes. Results!

      As for the heavy/medium thingie…I’m a little pro and a little against. Whatever WG wants. I don’t mind if they decide to put it in or leave it out.

  32. So…..idiots….idiots everywhere. First of all that branch that everyone is whining about was proposed by a simple reader like you and me, and it was just a guess. The other problem that TR-580 it’s acopy of T-54 it’s a little true, but TR-580 wasn’t made by the original blueprints, but was redrawed and recreated by romanian engineers so it’s likely this thank has other specifications and purpose. And for the fk sake it almost looks like T-54, it’s not identicaly the same thank.

    Ok the other problems, whit the Romanian Branches, and Italian Branches and so on, it is called Europe Combinated Tree, so this means that If we have 1 Tier X Romanian thank and no Tier IX Romanian tank, they will search for a Swiss one, or Italian one, or Bulgarian one, or whatever you whant since is still european,and if you read the “17.9.2013″ that came out today youshould see there this: “- it’s possible that if new interesting vehicles are found for tiers that are already occupied by other vehicles, they will be added as an alternative possibility to go thru (like the Ferdinand/JP2)” so if are more than 1 candidates for Tier X EU branch it’s likely that in time other tanks to be aded too, so stop whining like idiots and stay on the subject.

    • Whit this frontal armor (huge) and that power to weight ratio (KV-5 level power to weight ratio) and that low rate of fire for such alpha damage (6 RoF for 300 damage, for comparison KV-5 has 7 RoF for 300 damage) This tank would play very much diffrently to a T-54. It looks like one, given, but its not a clone tank.

      • Thanks for understandig what I had said. I was more expecting replyes like : “Oh stfu noob”, “Or IT IS a CLONE, blah blah blah, CLONE, again blah blah blah, CLONE”. :)

  33. There already exists a number of USA tank destroyers with 305 mm frontal armor (T95; T110E3), so what’s the big deal about introducing a tank who’s turret armor is +300 mm thick?

    It’s not like the current tier 10 Soviet Object 268 gold ammunition is going to have major issues penetrating this particular Romanian tanks turret: 450 mm penetration versus 320 mm + 20 mm armor.

    What are the known ROOF TOP ARMOR values of this particular Romanian TR-580 and its prototypes?
    Can the present tier 10 artillery penetration the TR-580′s roof top armor with HE, AP, ACPR or not?

    “- The biggest problem during the building process were the cast turrets. Their quality was low and first pieces were cracking. The technology of casting the turrets had to be switched and the metalic composition had to be upgraded as well. The end result was worth it: 320 mm of armor + 20 mm additional plates”

  34. Pingback: WoT - Discutii generale - Page 1229

  35. Pingback: TR-580 – candidat pentru nivel 10 in ramura tehnologica europeana in World of Tanks | WoTRomania