Can the TR-77-580 fit in WoT?

Article made by SovietTenkDestroyer and of course with a bit of help from me, Seb.


Due to the all of the understandable criticism from some of the vehicles “being too new” or out of the time span, I felt like I had to type this and defend one of my tanks. I’ve seen comments criticizing of my choice of tanks in some of the higher tiers. One of these tanks are the TR-77-580. If you look at the date it was created, you would be mistaken that it was an advanced main battle tank firing APFSDS, composite armor, advanced stabilization, ballistic computers, etc. However, it lacks many of these qualities that were later introduced in other variants and other domestic tanks (TR-85. TR-800/TM-800, and TR-125 (Seb’s favorite tank) ). The reason for the lack of technology can be the fault of Romania itself. Understandably, Romania did not want to participate in the Prague Spring (Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia) which ruined relations with the Soviet Union. (Seb: and because of this Romania had a period of appreciation from the Western powers, through us the USA aquired diplomatic relations with China) This caused Romania to not obtain any Soviet weapon exports (In the end they did obtained some T-72s which were kept in total secrecy) and had to rely on reverse engineering for vehicles such as the TR-125 (reverse engineered version of the T-72 that was a bit stronger) and to gain information from the Chinese in order to spite the Soviets. This happened after the TR-77-580 that was already built and put into service. (Seb: or before, not really sure)



The development of this tank is very sketchy. Very little true information exists. Apparently, development first started in 1974 and finally finished in 1977 in a factory named Mizil Mechanical Plant (now MFA) where it entered into service the same year, hence the name. The goal of the tank was to produce a domestic armored vehicle that Romania can produce with some outside influences (notably, West Germany), such as the engine of the Leopard I, but that never happened. After development was done, the production of these vehicles was transferred to the Mârșa Mechanical Plant. The production of this vehicle moved again to another factory called the Special Heavy Machinery Factory or FMGS for short. The numbers of this tank from 1979 to 1985 reached 200 to 600 built. However, these numbers are debatable. Just by looking at the tank, you may be mistaken that it was either a T-54 or a T-55 if you have a small interest in armored vehicles – However, I’ll explain why this isn’t your average T-54/55 that you’re used to seeing. This is basically a T-55 on steroids with double the armor, lengthened hull, a domestic anti-tank gun that looks similar to the D-10T, and two extra pairs of roadwheels that are smaller in diameter.  Shortly after its introduction, work on the TR-85 started which pushed the TR-77-580 into obscurity. It suffered from lacking quality control in areas such as the quality of the steel – this was however fixed in later iterations.




The armor is greatly improved from the T-55. It featured a staggering 200mm of frontal upper hull armor (two 100mm plates) and 320mm of frontal turret armor with extra 20mm applique. The armor was theoretically better than the M60A1, T-62, Leopard I, and the Chieftain. However, it became quickly outdated with the introduction of the Challenger I, M1 Abrams, Leopard II, etc (the Soviets already had advanced tanks for the time) in the early 80’s. While on paper it was strongly armored, the steel quality was abysmal and suffered cracking for the first few vehicles. Fortunately for the Romanians, the steel formula was improved in the later versions. It also features sideskirts (which are removable) that don’t look thick, but not thin either.



The TR-77-580 is armed with the 100mm A308 which is a variant of the 100mm anti-tank gun (M1977/A307) which also had a naval version (A430). It fired a 100mm  BM 412 Sg ammunition that some sites claim that it is APDS but it’s mainly said to be a form of APFSDS ammunition. This APFSDS came later on when the TR-85 came into service, but I’m not sure if it was used on the TR-77-580. I’m also not sure what Wargaming’s stance on APFSDS ammunition is. For regular armor piercing we have the 100mm BR 412 and its variants. It can serve as regular armor piercing and premium armor piercing while the 100mm BK-412 can serve as HEAT ammunition. For high explosive, we have the OF 412. The 100mm A308 externally looks similar to the 100mm D-10T that is seen on the T-54 and T-55. It is most likely that the 100mm A308/M1975-77 is partially or mainly based on or inspired by the D-10T or from a Chinese anti-tank gun.





During development the TR-77-580 was designed in mind for a German 830-860 hp engine derived from the Leopard I . This was partially the reason why the tank was lengthened and why it has 2 more roadwheels than the T-55. However, for obvious reasons (Romania being a communist nation and Western Germany being a  U.S. ally) they never got the opportunity to implement these engines into their TR-77-580s at first. This engine was later installed on the TR-800/TM-800 and the TR-85. Instead they installed a copy of the T-55’s V-55U engine which put out about 580hp hence the name.  One way you can tell apart the TR-77-580 and the TR-800/TM-800 and the TR-85 is the engine compartment. The engine compartment on the TR-77-580 is similar to the T-54/55 while the TR-800/TM-800 and the TR-85 has an engine compartment that is similar to the Leopard I. For some odd reason, this surprised me even though it shouldn’t for the reasons stated above. Another way to tell the difference between these tanks are the road wheels. The TR-77-580’s road wheels are evenly spaced out while the TR-800/TM-800 and the TR-85 has 2 widely spaced out roadwheels in the front while the back 4 are very close together. The lack of the 860hp engine caused the acceleration to  suffer. Because of this, it was worse than most MBTs for its time with the exception of the Chieftain which it was on par with.





The tank may have saw action against Iran and the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War, and the Iraq War (least likely) by Iraq. Egypt is also said to have purchased TR-77-580s , but it was apparently just a scheme for Iraq to obtain more tanks for their arsenal. Similar to what happened with Palestine, Poland, and Iraq with T-72s. 100-200 TR-77-580s are said to be given to Iraq. It may have possibly have seen action by Romania against Romania. What I mean by this is that it may have saw action by either the regime or by Romanian revolution. Pictures of the Romanian Revolution provide a great insight of Romania’s arsenal.


Extra Bits


Even though this isn’t related to the topic, I just felt like inserting my opinion on Romania’s tank development. At first, Romanian tank development was obviously derived from the Soviet design. It increasingly became more western a little bit before and after the communist regime fell in Romania. You can clearly tell by the turret bustle, suspension, and the engine deck looks. Not only this, but the TR-2000 project and the TR-85M2 are another examples. The TR-2000 was a project in the early 2000’s to construct a new MBT that seems to be based on the TR-125 or the TR-85M1. The turrets and the hulls look very westernized and you can tell that elements of the Leopard II were inserted, considering that the company that was the contractor of the Leopard II co-developed these tanks. I’m not certain what exactly is the TR-85M2. Apparently, it was the name for a TR-85M1 with an Italian Iveco 1200 hp engine but the “M2” might be false.


Will It Work In WoT?

In my opinion, I think it will work whether as a Romanian tier 10, Soviet tier 10, unified Eastern European tree, etc. It will be a tank that has one extreme, but will have to suffer in another area. This will have to be mobility and/or gun performance. Alternatively, if it’s possible, we can just remove one of the two 100mm plates and give it 100mm of hull armor which will make the front look flat. This will lighten the load but it won’t be too significant. We can give it some AP ammo as normal ammunition and HEAT as premium. If we do decide to give it 200mm of hull armor, it’ll have to have low AP penetration with a variant of the 100mm BR 412 such as the BR 412D or BR 412B which I assume it has higher penetration. If the heavily armored version of the TR-77-580 takes place as a tier 10 medium or possibly a heavy, we can also have a tier 9 version with 100mm hull armor firing the same ammunition. If it was possible in real life, it would be a good idea to remove the extra 20mm of applique armor, but it’s still so much that it won’t make too much of a difference. The cupolas are about medium sized and can be hit if you are skilled.


-Basically, a Romanian Object 430U which our Lord and Savior, Serb, wants to implement.

-Enormous amount of frontal armor that can be further increased if angled

-Low-ish penetration in compensation for the large amount of frontal armor

-Mediocre side and rear armor

-Less than average acceleration

-Above average speed limit

-Decent to good gun stats

-Average DPM compared to other medium tanks in it’s tier

-Possibly poor to mediocre terrain resistances

-Soviet medium tank-like camouflage values and alpha


Health points: 1950

Weight: 42-46 tonnes

Speed: 50 kp/h

Engine: 580hp

Power-to-weight: 12.8 hp/t

Hull traverse: 33-44

Turret traverse: 35

Viewrange: 390

Hull: 200/?/?

Turret: 320/?/?

Gun: 100mm A308

DPM: 2600-2650

Penetration: 220-240/260/50 (AP/AP/HE)

Damage: 320/320/420

Aimtime: 1.9-2.1

Accuracy: 0.33

Depression: Mostly likely -5 depression


I think I may have overnerfed it, but these are stats that may look like if such a thing was in WoT. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



“The Saddam Tapes: The Inner Workings of a Tyrant’s Regime. 1978-2001” by Kevin M. Woods, Mark Stout, and David D. Palkki

“Armies of the Gulf War” by Gordon Rottman and Ron Volstad


52 thoughts on “Can the TR-77-580 fit in WoT?

  1. So this was the article you said you prepared, Seb!
    It is a nice read, has a bit too much technical info for my tastes (so many shell types and other numbers, blergh) but otherwise it is quite informative.

    In my personal opinion, it kinda looks like and sounds like (the stats, I mean) the Chinese tier 10 med. What is it, 121 or something?…

    Ehm, anyway. If it gets implemented, which I hope it is, then it definitely should keep the extra frontal armor. It would play sorta like the Japanese heavies: maximum frontal armor, no side armor!
    Alright, I have to sleep now, another day of work awaits me tomorrow… ugh.

    Liked by 1 person

        1. 200mm frontal hull and 320 frontal turret will make it near inpenetrable considering upper frontal plate will then be on par with Maus in thickness, but even more sloped. It could fit as a heavy tank with that kind of armor.
          I’m just a bit scared of it to be perfectly honest, because even t-62a manages to bounce shots of the hull and that only has 100mm.
          With that kind of armor I think mobility will have to suffer, making it a tier 10 Super Pershing.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Tier 10 SPershing, now that’s something my buddy would dig, he loves his Super!
            It would certainly be an interesting and rather unique tank to drive, as it is the same with the actual SPershing.

            Liked by 1 person

              1. Its a warning – AW showed us how bad game can be. And how many things we took for granted are missing there.
                Dont play AW – looking at things – and not anytime time soon.

                Liked by 2 people

                1. Well. Alright. As I stated before, I had no intention to do as much as look at that game.
                  WoT is more than enough for me, especially since its revival.

                  Hmm, for some reasons this interesting question popped up in my mind, I read it on various places:
                  “The last two games you played combined and you live in it. How fucked are you?”

                  Minecraft + World of Tanks… I will build my Hungarian tanks!

                  Liked by 1 person

  2. >I’m also not sure what Wargaming’s stance on APFSDS ammunition is.

    No. Categorical no. APDS is fine, the tier 10 Chieftain’s gold round is actually DU APDS. However, the technological advance–that bit of understanding–that makes APFSDS work moves up the ‘time clock’ of WoT so far as to be on par with the MBT-70, a tank that is most certainly past tier 10.

    However, WoT models AP as how APFSDS works in real life. You could simply say that it is APDS given how Romania likely hadn’t developed a slip ring to use APFSDS in a rifled gun, which works in your favor–but, WoT also likes to be historical, and that means that someone will have to do the research and learn for sure.

    >At first, Romanian tank development was obviously derived from the Soviet design.

    This is incredibly crippling, too. Any novice armor enthusiast can tell that this vehicle isn’t a T-55 clone, but it is still based on their understanding of a T-55/T-72. This is very crippling as well, even if the ‘clone’ aspect wasn’t, because WoT’s most technologically advanced vehicles are all still “technically possible in 1950”. This clearly isn’t. This tank is a better fit for tier 3/4 AW as it sits now.

    >It will be a tank that has one extreme

    Every tank in tier 10 has extremes. FV215b’s gun handling and DPM, T110E5’s combination of speed and armor, Leopard 1’s speed and accuracy, E-50’s armor and accuracy, IS-7’s overall armor and alpha, etc etc. “One extreme” is not enough to balance a vehicle for tier 10.

    Now, WoT uses ‘idealized’ tanks. Autoloaders don’t jam, engines don’t break down, tracks take 15 seconds to repair, so on and so forth. The fact that it was designed on paper to use the 800hp engine means it is certainly an option, depending on how you manage it…

    Soviet, I sent a friend request in-game many days ago, accept it…?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’d like to mention that AW’s tier 3/4 are WoT’s tier 10s.

      While every tank has its extremes, this is more noticable.

      My older brother bought something on my account without my mom’s consent and got a chargeback. Been struggling to pay back $100 dollars because WG’s bank adds an extra $20 (Really owe 1 payment of $20) and only paid back about $40.

      Really shitty thing for my brother to do but he moved away to a university to study.


    1. I wonder, would this also mean that the ‘Hungarian’ (Eastern Block Soviet surplus) T-72M variants would get in the WoT 2.0 as well?
      Some of those tanks are still in reserve…

      I guess it would make a nice ‘lowtier’ premium, or something. As long as it gets to be actually Hungarian.
      Heck we have the T-55A in the game as an East German tank!


  3. Prague Spring was a period of political liberalization in Czechoslovakia and the main reason for Warsaw Pact invasion (also called Operation Danube). It’s all I can say, unfortunately.


  4. I dont think APFSDS is any problem, iirc that is already used on the high tier french meds and lights and judt listed as APDS (even though it should probably follow different rules and have higher pen).

    Anyway right now its looking like WG is willing to accept tanks made up to the mid 70s but anything post late 70s isnt going to work, no matter if its on the same tech level as other wot tanks. I think the basic TR-77-580 (WG will probably prefer to use a earlier prototype though) would work fine in wot. The problem is that there really in nowhere to put it since there is no EU tree and no real chance for a Romanian tree. This means that the best place to put it would be as a tier 10 CW reward tank in the soviet tree, and frankly i think they would need more info on the tank to do that.

    Btw, was there only one model of this tank built before 1979 and is there any info regarding prototypes?


    1. There are some models early as 1974ish, but they’re very alike the current T-55.

      APDS and APFSDS are very alike except that APDS lacks fins which is essential to smoothbore. Fins on rifled barrels increase accuracy.

      A Romanian tree might be possible but we need to do some archive scavenging.


      1. “A Romanian tree might be possible but we need to do some archive scavenging.”

        Frankly i dont see that happening, at least not in the near future. First you would need someone to actually go look in the archives and even then i dont really think there would be much there since romania seems to have purchased or produced its tanks under license rather than building its own.

        I guess its not impossible but keep in mind that first you need somebody at the archives and 2nd that it can take years for you to find that info and that WG will probably move on from WoT soon. It took me over 3 years to get Swedish tanks implimented and i had a lot more to start with.


        1. Not a project that I expect to happen in the next year or so.

          Only a few vehicles are licensed built and those are some APCs. Almost all Romanian tanks are built and some exported (T-55s, ISU-152, SU-76, SU-100, and a couple T-72s). TR-77-580, TR-800/TM-800, TR-85, TR-85M1A, TR-85M1, and TR-125. They never really had any licensed tanks. Maybe the T-55.


          1. All of those vheicles are what i mean when i say licenced. At best they are minor alterations to a existing foreign design. That is not what people want, and for WoT you will need a lot of original designs to be concidered in the first place.


  5. It is supposed to have 200mm frontally only on the upper front plate, right? If the LFP would be 100mm thick, I think it may work. Also turret, are the cupola’s weakspots? Any overmatch spot on the turret (aka 140 turret)? Again, if both of these apply, it can work armor-wise. It’d basically be E50M-like hull and Obj 140-like turret.

    Balance it by:
    – reasonable terrain resistances, but slow hull and turret traverse = can get into position fairly quickly (but slower than any other T10 medium), but struggles when outnumbered/flanked, cannot quickly angle or turn

    – regular T10 MT penetration – nobody is going to play T10 MT with 220-240 pen (struggles against IS-7, E100, E5, Maus, IS-4, Type 5, 260, E75, VKB, and TD’s) and shitty prem round, especially if it has not so amazing mobility

    – either DPM of gun handling has to suffer, I’d suggest something in between – Leo 1/STB like gun handling and E50M like DPM

    In the end you have what’s basically an E5 with weaker lower plate, less HP and worse gun depression (DPM, gun handling, mobility will be similar), alternatively slower E50M with better hull and turret armor but worse gun stats. Medium that can brawl very well but cannot deal with overmatch (due to lowish DPM and slow traverse) and is slow so cannot flex that well.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Well they should go fuck themselves :) Really, it’s in the game from the start (well atleast as long as I remember) and it works fine, tanks can be balanced by other ways. And hiding/knowing and shooting those areas requires skill, so it’s a good mechanic.


          1. Bouncing LT’s and arty with 10mm of armor with your JPE100 is more bullshit. Or do you want to remove 70 degrees autobounce angle too? So the sidescraping is less viable?


            1. its called tracks….,, they like eating shells. Plus why is it 70 degrees ? why not 69 or 68 ? personally, I think auto bounce should be variable, depending a lot more caliber, pen, shell velocity, distance. Also triple over-match, should have a max angle, I mean seriously, how can a 18 cm shell pen 60 mill of armour at 180 degrees, its having pen the Length of that amour the it’s thickness.


  6. Romanian tech tree
    LT+MT/HT : tier 1=R-1, tier 2=R-2,Tier3=R-3, tier 4=T3, tier 5=t4, tier 6-t34-76,Tier 7=T5, tier 8=tr 540, tier 9=t55am2 ,tier 10=tr77
    i have and Td”s line:but i didn”t found tier 9 and 10


    1. If they were cool with copies, this would be my tech tree.

      Tier 1: TACAM R-1
      Tier 2: R-2
      Tier 3: TACAM R-3
      Tier 4: T-3 (Pz. III)
      Tier 5: T-4 (Pz. IV)
      Tier 6: T-5 (Panther)
      Tier 7:
      Tier 8: t-54 or T-55
      Tier 9: TR-77-580 (less armored or prototyped)
      Tier 10: TR-77-580

      Not going to happen apparently.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s