MBT's [Archive] - Page 2 - .com.unity Forums

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 21st, 2013, 02:08 AM

Some more Spring cleaning to "unmask" my working refs for the coming campaign.

1. Don't know if the end result will be the ANDERS ,however it is likely. Polish industry getting together to ensure the end product will be made in Poland.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2013_army_military_defense_industry_news/bumar_leader_of_main_battle_tank_construction_cons ortium_to_create_new_tracked_platform_2502131.html
FYI.

2. Submitted some changes two or three years ago to Chile's LEO 2A4CHL which needed to be brought up to the LEO 2A6 standard as I recall. The issue here will be if Chile upgrades the proposed LEO 2A5 if bought to the CHL level or not. But in either case it still might require an ADD of either a LEO 2A5CHL (With the same numbers of the 2A4CHL.) or do the calculus again to figure out which LEO 2A5 they'll buy if not modified. And you thought equipment submissions were easy to make!?!
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6143:chile-army-negotiates-leopard-2-a5-buy&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58
TRACK/ADD.

3. Well in this case the calculus paid off, Indonesia is getting the LEO 2A6. I had held off in submitting it sooner as there were many reports at the time that it might be the LEO 2A4 with the REVOLUATION Kits (Making them similar in looks and attributes to Singapores and Turkeys (Added last year.) upgraded LEOs). This was one of the few sites to report it as LEO 2A6 tank from the start as indicated in the first ref. In an earlier commentary I felt that Indonesia after losing the Dutch LEO deal wouldn't take a couple of steps back for 2A4s, when the Dutch tanks were 2A6 marks. The last ones show the order was increased to 163 tanks. The MARDER I'll address separately elsewhere.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/indonesia_and_germany_on_the_way_to_increase_coope ration_in_the_defence_area_1007125.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/indonesia_has_decided_to_buy_100_leopard_2a6_tanks _from_germany_with_delivery_2012_0307121.html
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-receives-approval-export-used-german-tanks-indonesia
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6586:indonesia-german-leopards-order-confirmed&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
FOLLOW UP.

4. Saudi Arabia looking at Turkey for a future ALTAY buy possibly. Somebody won't be happy about that!?!
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/saudi_arabia_could_be_interested_to_buy_the_future _turkish_main_battle_tank_altay_uav_anka_2804132.h tml
TRACK.

5. One last time to mark the end of an era. I don't believe it was posted here the first time, but in a different thread.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-germany-1.214977
FYI.

6. Peru will try again for new tanks. Hey there's those Dutch LEOs again, won't the Parliament ever let the Government and Military sell those tanks!?! It would put them on par with Chile next door if I remember my geography correctly.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6677:peru-main-battle-tank-tender-re-launched&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58
TRACK.

Well except for Peru possibly, another S. American country that recieved a significant upgrade of their tanks from a middle eastern country and some minor fixes on tanks items I submitted in the last PP, that's all I foresee in the tank world for the coming campaign. It'll be SPA/SPAA Light, APC medium and Jet/Plane heavy as that area has been neglected for a couple of years now.

Have a good night and it's back to the salt mines tommorrow.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 2nd, 2013, 08:44 PM

A while back Don was looking for answers on the BTR-80 series APC. The discussion had more to do with the BTR-90 which lead to the BTR-82 variants getting in on the last patch. So refer to Post #256 concerning the LECLERC above. Verbiage is another PITA in the equipment submission world i.e. BLOCK...,Mk..., Mod...and Variant etc. can be confusing. All mean about the same but, what's worse is when you have a good ref. in front of you that's proven to have been useful in the past and you don't further explore all it offers to see if anything else might be useful to you on it in the future. ICO LECLERC my question is now answered, and it's a good thing that ref I held wasn't a snake or CINCLANTHOME would've found me slumped over my desk long ago!?! :party: Hey who put that in here!??!
So here's the answer and some might find this sight of some use especially as a quick ref. also note the "RELATED" section at the bottom has more info on associated weapons of the main "system" discussed.
http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=CC05 - Leclerc

Regards,
Pat
:capt: Maybe the spyglass was a bit fouled up!??!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 14th, 2013, 01:10 AM

If you have been to the #15 Australian OOB Queries Thread by TDR then there's nothing new here except a couple of date edits. Work list item for the next Patch Post.

OK using government and mainstream local sources mainly. I'll try to post these in time order. Highlights are as follows...
1. ADF initially evaluates M1A2, LEOPARD 2 and CHALLENGER 2 ~2002.
2. Settles on the M1A1 AIM as it became available these tanks will all be RESET in the U.S.
3. U.S. Congress informed of potential foreign sales request in 2004 it gets approved later.
4. ADF starts training crews by early 2006. Darwin will be the point of entry later that year of two shipments in September and December of that year.
5. I can dig deeper however I feel it unnecessary, ADF announces it will retire their LEOPARD 1A3 (In service since 1976.) tanks before the M1A1 AIM becomes operationally ready. Further the ADF states the LEOPARD 1A3 will be retired at the beginning of 2007 and that the M1A1 AIM will become operational by mid-2007. So based on this let's make life easy here, I recommend the following all LEOPARD 1A3 (And any other LEO based unit.) have an END DATE of JAN 2007. As for the M1A1 AIM I recommend a START DATE of AUG 2007. The ABRAMS I believe has that now, as the discussion seems embedded in my head from the past somewhere in this forum, maybe the MBT Thread(?) though I've checked elsewhere.
6. A quick note on the Ammo issue one of the ADF refs below specifically mentions the capability of the M1A1 AIM to be able to fire the Tungsten round and makes no mention of the D/U round at all.
7. Don my work list or yours? If on mine, like the Pave Low issue I will need to transfer this into it's "home" thread for my tracking. No worries TDR the credit is yours.

Bear with me again on the timeline here...
MARCH 10, 2004 A very good read on the process.
http://defence.gov.au/minister/hillt...currentid=3643
MAY 21, 2004 This order would be filled as requested below.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressRelease...alia_04-12.pdf
NOV. 16, 2005
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...1-tanks-01489/
FEB 17, 2006
http://defence.gov.au/minister/Nelso...CurrentId=5413
AUGUST 30, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...816945773.html
SEPT. 14, 2007
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1111114419632
SEPT. 16, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1111117494039
MAY 14, 2010
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/down...514b/index.htm
Hope this is good enough though, I have my normal refs if needed.

Now about those Pack 105's, well first let me enjoy the rest of my day off here while I consider whether this will turn into the still unanswered though compromised French 105 issue.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 14th, 2013, 07:46 AM

Pat, I'm not leaving a gap in the tank formations even if the Australians did in reality. The Leos will go OOS July 2007 and the M1A1's enter service Aug 2007.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 15th, 2013, 02:21 AM

Don,
First I have to ask, is there a reason why the links in my last post here come up with an error message after being copied from another thread where the links (Refs) work fine? Did I do something wrong?
Anyway understand about the dates, it'll save me some work! However the pic of the ADF M1A1 PIM sitting inside a building seems well...a little depressing. ;) Was going to submit these also for consideration as replacement pic options for ADF UNITS 26, 88 & 89.

Pics:
12530 12531

12532 12533

12534

This last was off a tank modeling site. The color scheme is the current one in use as the pictures show from late last year taken by the ADF.

A little photo analysis test...
Let's see who can first figure out what's different about these pictures but, yet the same. It might be in all the pictures or not!?!

Regards,
Pat

TDR

June 15th, 2013, 08:45 AM

passing comment:

Firstly the pics are taken in QLD not NT, obvious in some respects, the ground and vegetation. Hence only one place, Shoalwater Bay.

From what I can see some/most have the red kangaroo on the side of the turret. But it looks like one doesn’t. Hard to tell.

Depending on the time frame some of the M1A1s did not have the disruptive pattern camouflage but still had the original sand type colour.

DRG

June 15th, 2013, 11:24 PM

Pat. No idea why the links were a problem

DRG

June 16th, 2013, 12:26 AM

Auscamo m1a1

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 16th, 2013, 02:03 AM

TDR...The work week is over with another successful qual (And the job security that comes with.) @ the range in maintaining my "expert" status with the "tools of the trade". The lack of proper sleep however over taxed my brain in the photo analysis challenge, my apologies. Understanding I have the advantage of the original pictures on my PC vs what I attached to the post, both left hand pics are the same tank as identified by the # located on the lower left side of the hull.

Don... Thanks about the reference/link issue just seems strange though. Also the ICON for the ADF M1A1 AIM SA looks really good to me anyway. Hope you'll use it. Also hope the pictures were of some use. Out of curiosity, does the size of the picture file I (Or anyone else.) download then post have any bearing on whether you can use them or not?

Also have recieved a couple of PMs, let's just leave at I'm really piss poor about checking that. So my apologies to the both of you. I will respond shortly.

Got curious about the AUSCAM scheme looks like JUN 2010 would make a good start date. The ref is from a defence newspaper dated 27 MAY 2010.
http://digital.realviewtechnologies.com/default.aspx?iid=36515&startpage=page0000007

Finally to all you Dads out there where ever you might be, have a Happy Fathers Day!!!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 16th, 2013, 09:12 AM

Don... Thanks about the reference/link issue just seems strange though. Also the ICON for the ADF M1A1 AIM SA looks really good to me anyway. Hope you'll use it. Also hope the pictures were of some use. Out of curiosity, does the size of the picture file I (Or anyone else.) download then post have any bearing on whether you can use them or not?
Regards,
Pat

The size of the photo does not matter though we don't need a 5 MB photo just to make a 160x80 LBM. Those ones you posted were fine and I've used one.

What I DON'T want are resized photos someone has "adjusted" to fit the 160x80 format. They are usually screwed up becasue they don't maintain the original aspect ratio and the photo looks squashed.

You don't do that so no worries

Don

Roqueviera

September 8th, 2013, 03:52 PM

Will you add the Leopard 2 PSO?
it's a pretty cool looking tank :)

Mobhack

September 8th, 2013, 07:46 PM

Will you add the Leopard 2 PSO?
it's a pretty cool looking tank :)

It is merely a technology demonstrator. Therefore its of absolutely no importance to the game, Until someone actually fields the thing.

Andy

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 9th, 2013, 10:17 PM

Technically speaking it is in the game the PSO would lead directly to the LEOPARD 2A7+ about four years later, and is in the game as submitted ~three years ago now I believe. It's in this thread and the Patch Post one as well. I believe Oman(?) just bought some (~200 I think.) and the Saudi deal I think is on hold for now last I checked but is in my "tickler" to check back on. In this thread see Page 9/Post 84/Item A6. Look in German OOB for UNIT 267.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/leopard_2a7__main_battle_tank_urban_operations_dat a_sheet_specifications_information_description.htm l

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 1st, 2013, 02:37 PM

Well it's no secret that I like this site for 1) Articles direct from the sources (Like DEFPRO that I miss.) and 2) The somewhat "nasty habit" when I post something on equipment (Most recently concerning the BMP2/3 issues of a couple of weeks ago.) of updating their equipment data, how dare they when Don and others are looking in to verify my comments!?! So when I came across a basic "Top Ten" tanks list from them it's worth a look. Surprizes a couple, though more true of older tanks, speed is still a survival factor today so the surprizes in the Speed catagory where #2 OPLOT-M and #3 Z-99 but weight is a factor. The #1 LEO 2A7+ and #4 ABRAMS round out the top four in this catagory. Anyway it's light reading...
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-top-10-main-battle-tanks/

Regards,
Pat

-Luc-

February 25th, 2014, 11:05 PM

Hi,

Here's something special:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33705&catid=74&Itemid=30

Thank you!
-Luc-

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 26th, 2014, 12:15 AM

Been tracking this for a short time, but felt I didn't have enough data to submit them. Good info I didn't have and the source is pretty good about covering African military issues which I've used a couple of times my self. If you don't mind I'll add it to my "collection" or I'll trade you for it with the following.
1. U.S. armor is back in Europe, I knew they'd miss us a little bit anyway. It'll represent a prepositioned combined arms Battalion sized unit. It's all about the "Bear" I'm sure.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/united_states_army_come_back_in_europe_with_m1a2_m ain_battle_tanks_and_m2a3_bradley_ifv_0202143.html

Regards,
Pat

scorpio_rocks

February 26th, 2014, 02:26 AM

1. U.S. armor is back in Europe, I knew they'd miss us a little bit anyway. It'll represent a prepositioned combined arms Battalion sized unit. It's all about the "Bear" I'm sure.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/united_states_army_come_back_in_europe_with_m1a2_m ain_battle_tanks_and_m2a3_bradley_ifv_0202143.html

hehe - is it just me or does the Abrams look "wrong" in that camo scheme? Just so used to seeing it in desert tan, I guess. :doh:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 31st, 2014, 01:50 AM

As has been my normal practice; all my submissions (2013/2014 Campaign) are brought back to their "home" thread. Everything here has been acted upon and verified pretty much as submitted. As always I thank Don for his time and patience with me in this area. Soon to start a long campaign with the "fixed" and improved STRV-122 MBT's vs. Russia with the newly added T-72B3 (If the AI picks it.) This is important to me to thank all of you for respecting the intent of the Patch Thread as it was important to my focus...again THANK YOU!! The items in the "..." starting with C1. below were reminders for what was submitted in the 2013/2014 Campaign from last year. I will assume that this format was acceptable and hopefully time saving to some degree.

MBT’s…
C1. TANZANIA/CHANGE/UNIT 023/TYPE 59G/START DATE TO OCT 2012 VICE JAN 2005//
“A2. TANZANIA/ADD/OCT 2012/TYPE 59G/MG Chinese 125mm SB w/Rds UKN/12.7mm and 7.62mm w/Rds UKN// “ Is EW an issue here as well with this type system as follows?
“The turret appears to be the same one that’s on the new Chinese TYPE 96G. Based on that it would appear then also it is carrying the same EW system as the TYPE 96 which is similar to the Russian Shtora-1.”
Also I have some info to support submitting a new TYPE 96A to the Chinese OOB, hopefully below and as was mentioned previously. “Note: It would appear this improved version of the Chinese TYPE 96 is not in the OOB as shown in Ref. 6 below. See UNIT 026 (My update…Chinese OOB). The refs refer to “the new TYPE 96.”
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rica&Itemid=55
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...9g_271211.html
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59.asp
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china..._pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china...igence_uk.html

C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/STRV-122/HEAT TOP TO 20 VICE 16/UNITS 31, 353, 356 & 358/STRV 122 & STRV 122B/STEEL 12 VICE 8//
“C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-122/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/Change to STRV-122A/Modify per A3 above/Refs per A3 above. //
Most of the STRV-122 units are to be upgraded by the end of this year.” Haven’t seen anything on this last however, I really haven’t had a chance to thus far to follow up on the STRV-122. Also for context on C2;
“A3. SWEDEN/ADD/OCT 2004/STRV 122B/Use UNIT 358 and modify per below as needed//
The big issue here is protection over the base German Leopard tanks that the STRV-122A and STRV-122B design modifications are derived from. First a breakdown of the STRV Series. The STRV-121 is a Leopard 2A4 as used by Germany at the time of purchase by Sweden in 1994 and 1995 they are both interchangeable.”
“The STRV-122A is a “German” Leopard 2A5 but that’s where the comparison ends. The major area in armor improvement was in the top protectionfor instance the turret hatches are just over 20cm in thickness. After extensive testing the Swedes decided on a geared system for opening them at even severe angles.” Here’s what we know first from the STRIX posts, that the Swedes did extensive testing on the T-72 tanks they had and we posted videos showing some of that. It would’ve been a bad day for Russian T-72 crews but the lessons learned from that were built into the STRV-122A tanks while being built in Germany. That was a good day for Swedish crews. Again 20cm/200mm is almost 2ft thick which also means the surrounding steel is thicker as the hatch is recessed. I strongly feel that this is one of the most protected tanks out there in regards to where the top of the turret is concerned and the turret in general. All I have to offer based on the numbers and from personal experience in my submarine career dealing with our hatches in not letting water into “the people tank” at several hundreds of pounds per sq. inch and that I have not in any research for any tank seen information pointing out the thickness of and operation of the top hatch, I feel the STEEL issue might warrant further consideration. The STRV-122B was not modified with additional top protection but is correct for what should’ve been the HEAT TOP number for the STRV-122 series of tanks in general all along.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2019.html

C3. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNITS 31, 353, 356 & 358/STRV-122 & STRV-122B/ADD/GALIX Self Defense System with 6 HE FRAG 80mm grenades/As discussed in the Patch Thread on Posts 143-149//
The STRV Series of tanks have 16 launchers, 8 to a side in a 6/2 configuration. As noted below I still have no evidence of any other country user that has weaponized their launchers.
From Post 143 “Can the use of the dual purpose grenade launchers on the Swedish STRV-122/122B be activated in the last available weapons slot to fire off (In real life by the tank commander manually.) either buckshot/flechette, HE-blast or fragmentation grenades? This is a unique feature of the Gallix System dual purpose launchers installed on these tanks (And others.) which can be loaded internally.” and “As far as I can find out Sweden is the only country using those type of 80mm grenades of the ten or so that are available for use with these launchers.”
What to do about the other country users will require more work. Weapons slots might prevent it in a couple as was the case with the MERKAVA and M-60T in regards to the 60mm Mortars we know they have. I will pursue this if Andy and you want me to but it’ll have to be for next year on my end.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product719.html
http://www.nexter-group.com/en/produ...ponent&print=1

C4. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNIT 358/STRV 122/END DATE TO JAN 2020 VICE DEC 2010//
C5. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNIT 359/STRV 121/END DATE TO DEC 2010 VICE JAN 2020//
As noted in my last update post, this is why I proof read my work when possible, to catch what I almost missed in the two entries above.

New Items:

A1. RUSSIA/ADD/OCT 2013/T-72B3/125mm SB 2A46M-5/TI GSR 40-45/ARENA E APS/RELIKT ERA//
The following is taken from the last ref. below Post #749…
“Yeah its weird, other stupid thing is the non-automatic sight cover.
Good summary of T-72B3 upgrade: -overhaul of T-72B or B1
-new autoloader(for "Svinets" APFSDS) -new 125mm 2A46M5 gun
-new FCS, and new gunner main sight "Sosna-U"(same sight on T-90MS) 1A40 used as a backup
-new radiostation R-168-25U-2 -commander sight TKN-3MK with "duplication" mode

T-72B4 as we know will add the commanders panoramic sight (same as T-90MS) as well as battle management systems.”

Pretty much falls in line with what I can find out about these tanks. The FCS is very much in line with existing T-90S models I would think with improvement of T-90MS components as noted above. Also of interest is the “Svinets” APFSDS round, seeing reports that testing has recently been completed and MOD is ready to field this round now. Don’t know status of this round however, I believe you might have better access in ammo sources then me generally. It should be pointed out that ARENA E is not effective against tank rounds but is supposed to be effective against Arty AP rounds besides RPGs and ATGM. Also this version of the T-72 is protected with RELIKT ERA which is claimed to be twice as effective as the last version of KONTAKT ERA designated KONTAKT-5 which still is in use. As a side note Russia has already developed it’s next gen ERA called KAKTUS which I believe will be used on the ARMATA MBT.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131...ded-Tanks.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob...k_1510132.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130...-Ministry.html
http://defense-update.com/20131106_t...eployment.html
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busine...ar/491336.html
http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=779&p=2
http://www.russiadefence.net/t1868p7...ces-photosnews
http://defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
Pic:

FINLAND/ADD/JUN 2015/LEOPARD 2A6FIN/USE NETHERLANDS UNIT 037//
The contract was approved on 19 JAN, I’m using the “SWAG” on the date and it should be close with deliveries starting in 2015. So after about 2 yrs. the Dutch LEOPARD 2NLA6 tanks finally have a home. As in Asia concerning China’s military build up, some countries in Europe are taking a look at their militaries as well due to the increases seen in Russia’s own increased defense spending. Finland not only bought the last of the active Dutch tanks at the time of retirement tanks (75) but, also cut into the last of their stockpiled ones (25) as well. No indications of any modifications that I can find or is hinted at. That’s what made these and the next two items so attractive to the buyer here and below, these tanks are fully modernized, well maintained and cheaper than modernizing existing stock or buying new as the refs discuss.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...rlands-4161095
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.janes.com/article/31818/f...opard-2a6-mbts
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...k_2012134.html
http://dalje.com/en-economy/finland-...h-tanks/495328
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...inland-020936/
http://defense-update.com/20140119_f..._leopards.html
http://www.janes.com/article/32619/f...om-netherlands

A3. POLAND/ADD/APR 2014/LEOPARD 2A5/USE GERMAN UNITS 272 & 273/ORDERED 105/NOTE: THOUGH POSSIBLE I ERRED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION IN NOT CHOOSING UNITS 274 & 275. YOUR CALL HERE//
A4. POLAND/ADD/APR 2014/LEOPARD 2A4/USE GERMAN UNITS 268 & 269/ORDERED 14//
Pretty much for the same reasons above for Finland, Poland is also pushing hard to modernize its military. Again some “SWAG” but this deal is sealed as well. Contracts were signed in mid 2013 with deliveries to start in 2014 and be completed by 2015. Also this should to some degree answer the question about what Poland was going to do platform wise and this could end or at a minimum delay them in seeking a “Medium” tank solution as has been discussed.
The issue here in choosing the German tanks I did was based on the information from the refs themselves that indicated that the Polish MOD would NOT have to do any modernization on these tanks. I also took into account the LEOPARD 2A4 tanks ordered would be of a later mark then Poland ordered from Germany and received in 2000. I did not include the 18 Bergepanzer 2 armored recovery vehicles (ARVs) that are part of this contract as I don’t believe they serve a game purpose.

C4. POLAND/CHANGE/UNIT 020/START DATE TO JUN 2000 VICE OCT 2002//
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.janes.com/article/29260/p...s-from-germany
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...-tanks-germany
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-tanks-019466/
http://www.defenceiq.com/amoured-veh...rmany-further/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 31st, 2014, 03:16 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 16th, 2014, 01:39 AM

Didn't feel this was truly an "After Action Report" as much as an update...The Swedish STRV-122A performs well with the GALIX System as I watched it being used in action against attacking Russian troops. As I hoped the AI did go with the T-72B3 right off in the first battle (And only thus far w/24 to go.) for all it's tanks. It looks good and performs well as expected-thank you!! Still looking into the GALIX weaponized status for France, Italy and the couple of other users of the system still with no luck.
Well this was something new I came across on one of my "first look" references when I reloaded it. I like these guys for the reason I'm posting the below; they get ahead of the "big boys" at times. This is on my list and reminds me of another tank also below. You'll note the lines are very similar.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/new_chinese_light_tank.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm

Regards,
Pat

dmnt

April 16th, 2014, 03:49 AM

Well I stated there were concerns from Finland and Poland about Russian future "Sabre Rattling" based on it's ongoing military expansion well, the future has arrived as it seems they are flexing their muscles beyond Ukraine now. The now is in Scandinavia. As I noted concerning Finland buying the Dutch LEOPARD's and Poland buying the same from Germany it would seem their purchases were justified. Just a little food for thought with the following...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/finland-frets-russia-launches-military-drills-its-doorstep-n67866

For the NBC news source Finnbay, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnbay

Slightly off-topic (it gets better in next paragraph), but I had the urge to elaborate. Finland's purchase was decided earlier, negotiations had started already last year and is covered by the basic budget of the FDF. It is true that the change of modus operandi in Russia has been noted but so far it's all in political speech and discussion about the benefits of joining NATO and the drawbacks of it. One comedian said on TV in a humor program that "We could join NATO so we'd have someone to protect us when Russia attacks Finland because we joined NATO." However the ATACMS purchase cancel has two possible roots, the cost savings imposed by the government and easing of Russian perceived threat from getting both Leos and ATACMS rockets at the same time.

I covered this MBT issue in another post: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=824435&postcount=4

Finns had a choice between modernizing the current tanks, buying brand new from Germany or getting them used at Honest Dutchman's Used Cars and Tanks. Last one was considered to be most cost effective.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 17th, 2014, 04:39 AM

I have read your post and found it interesting and even checked your other one you linked to your last from the 8th of this month as well. So what more can I say then thank you for backing me up on my information submitted in "The FASTBOAT Patch Page" (TFPP) Thread Post #172 and please note the date; Look under "New Items" and for this topic the "A2" submission and please read it carefully. Also it was re-posted in this it's "home" thread above in #274. The easy part is saying "I think I'll submit this piece of equipment..." for any reason you choose to end that sentence with. The hard part is in researching the hard data and do all the checks and balances to try to submit and present that piece of equipment to Don and ultimately everyone else out here in a manner to advocate for it, highlight the main points, present the references and finally write it up to an international audience where even in the English speaking nations how an idea is presented by the use of a term can have a different meaning. Perfect example there was an item about armor penetration a short time ago that an APC was protected up to 14.7mm rounds in the U.S. that would generally mean to include the 14.7mm round; elsewhere it seems that means it would not include that round. So we either have a communication issue or one of reaction vs research before reaction to a topic. But it's all good, we both contribute and help like many others out here but please understand that I actually do read my references so I can take those steps outlined above because I know Don and others out here will read them as well. Look at the TFPP Thread especially the earlier posts and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do I get it right all the time? No, Indonesia's LEOPARD deal I tracked that for over two years, everybody including JANE's was reporting they would get the 2A6 even after the Dutch deal fell through. Before the German deal was reported it was still 2A6 tanks, then maybe 2A4 from an undisclosed European country but still 2A6 tanks maybe from Germany you see the pattern here? Well LEOPARDS was right, Germany would be right but the 2A6 WOULD BE WRONG. Even as they were being shipped it was still being reported that the 2A6 was on the way. So guess what LEOPARD is on my list for Indonesia when I get the green light to submit equipment again? Yeah the 2A4 improved and modified Indonesian tank.
A long way around to make a point I know but who wasted their time more to make a point? I don't know and quite frankly I don't care.

Well I should post a tank issue here so, here's one I've been dealing with for years also; DRDO in India is ready to have the ARJUN MKII fielded in 2016 if the Army might want the tank before the LAHAT issue is resolved. DRDO is working very closly with ELBIT of Israel to get the techincal issues resolved. The last discusses some more detailed aspects of the tank we haven't I believe looked at yet for the game as currently entered.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Poor-Israeli-parts-delay-Arjun-Mk-II/articleshow/29514617.cms
http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=54792
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/indian-made_arjun_mk_ii_main_battle_tank_could_enter_in_s ervice_with_the_indian_army_in_2016_2303144.html
http://jewishvoiceny.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6813:israeli-hand-in-indias-new-tank&catid=99:defense&Itemid=282

Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 18th, 2014, 12:02 AM

Well I feel comfortable with this site to post this. I've been tracking this story for a long time now, but it appears Germany might be backing away from one of the largest tank deals in many years. I do know for certain the deal was on the verge of being of completion with the contracts to have been finalized by this summer also as reported in this thread the tanks in question were to be the LEOPARD 2A7+. Originally S.A. was going to purchase an advanced version of the 2A6 w/modifications numbering I believe around 500 tanks. All that changed with the development of the 2A7+ and of course this would've guaranteed that S.A. would've enjoyed armor superiority in the region for many years.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9757:saudi-arabia-leopard-deal-cancelled-report&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsgermany-likely-to-cancel-leopard-2-tank-sale-to-saudi-arabia-4214642

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 21st, 2014, 10:01 PM

Well equipment is what I do here so...
So what's hitting the news right now is a previously unidentified Israeli tank that is on my work list along with the M113 SPIKE NLOS platform the TAMUZ. This was going to be part of an "update" on what I'm working for this thread but, I couldn't wait.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/israeli_army_uses_main_battle_tank_magach_5_fitted _with_12_spike_anti-tank_missile_launchers_2107143.html

13046
Note NLOS antenna
near side aft end of
the turret.

13047
As noted in header.

13048
SPIKE NLOS launcher
up. Holds 12 missiles.

13049
TAMUZ

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 22nd, 2014, 02:13 AM

Didn't have chance to include any info on the SPIKE NLOS in Post 280, so I put some info here below. However note that the system will attack laser designated targets by the time it was actually fielded and or exported; some articles as late as the summer of 2012 indicated that feature would be available at a later date. Also it does carry different warheads depending on the mission and combat environment.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/6/1026.pdf
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israel_israeli_armi_light_heavy_weapons_uk/spike_nlos_rafael_electro-optically_guided_missile_israel_israeli_army_pictu res_technical_data_sheet.html
http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/spike-nlos-takes-out-rocket-team/2477197733001/

I might have to go with this alone as I haven't heard from GingerTanker since late winter.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 30th, 2014, 02:54 AM

Well I wasn't going to do much around here but I'm coming out of my hole a little sooner then some. However recently some eye surgery "my team" has been putting off for a couple of plus years can no longer be pushed back. I'll be out of commission from the end of next month to the mid-point+ of Sep. So take care of them and get them checked yearly. I know that'll break a couple of my co-workers hearts :rolleyes:. But well-they better just enjoy the break while they can :p. So here's what I'll working/tracking with some news.

What if...
Well a lot of new tanks and designs post cold war died on the vine simply because of the massive goult of tanks that flooded the market or were just given away after the Cold War. These are for you designer folks.
France...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mars_15.htm

This might be a case of when or how soon vs. what if due to the continued crisis in the Ukraine. The BTMP-84 would be only the second tank in the world to be troop capable in transporting 5 fully armed troops vs the 8 the MERKAVA IV can hold.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/btmp_84.htm

First off I've only done a cursory check of the OOB's so let's just call this "the official/unofficial work list" for the time being. If it's on here it's ready or very close within a couple of years to be fielded/or modified.

Light Tanks...
China...
http://www.military-oday.com/tanks/new_chinese_light_tank.htm

Medium Tanks...
Iran...Let's take something old and make it better but still obsolete. The SABALAN.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sabalan.htm

Israel...MEGACH SPIKE NLOS.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/israeli_army_uses_main_battle_tank_magach_5_fitted _with_12_spike

Engineering...
Finland I didn't see this in the OOB so here you go...
http://www.military-today.com/engineering/patria_hmbv.htm
They now have added an engineering section to the website that might be worth a look for some.

Changes...
Canada/Denmark...Vision upgrade: "Canada’s Leopard 2A6CANs and Denmark’s Leopard 2A5s will install ATTICA in both commander and gunner’s sights, creating the ability to seamlessly pass views from commander to gunner with no change in quality." ATTICA is a game changer as used on the LEO 2A7+. I thought I still had the article, but, the German later model LEO 2A6 tanks have already received the ATTICA system as well. That article I suspect is within this thread. These tanks will have TI/GSR 50.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/#2011–2014

India...ARJUN MKI with LAHAT start date moved to 2017. Might effect MKII as well. Gun vs. LAHAT issues that DRDO hopes to have resolved by early 2016.

South Africa...Minor tweaks remain for OFILANT tanks some corrected in last patch.

Turkey...Remember this? 13063
Well I made the comment in this thread or elsewhere I thought that the whole Turkish tank issue was as easy as this diagram showed with minor tweaks for the later tanks entered about 2 or 3 Patches ago. Well it is and I have the documentation from SIPRI to prove it. Mostly from the import of tanks from Germany and the USA. This situation is in this thread and or the FB Patch Page thread.

I'll finish out the TI/GSR updates I started work on a couple of years ago. We managed to get some tanks addressed in the last Patch I believe it was. Tanks of note for the next batch will be @50 TI/GSR: UK-CHALLENGER 2 latest mod, Russian ARMATA (If ready.), Italy CENTURO TD and Ukraine OPLOT-M (Though this might have been fixed already.).
45-50 TI/GSR 45-50: France LECLERC again latest mod. This tank has really vexed me on this issue and it art of 2 yrs to resolve it's FCS capabilities. This is why I'll say now and based on some ups done in the last couple years I'd go with 50 as noted on the lead in (And you think this is easy.)
TI/GSR 45: Italy refuses to upgrade the ARIETE to the C2 upgrade (This would be @50.) The current ARIETE C1 can only be rated at TI/GSR 45 at best. Why? It only uses certain components of the GALILEO FCS, whereas the CENTURO TD uses the full GALILEO FCS. I thought the LECLERC was bad, this took the cake in trying to track down which components of the GALILEO FCS it used. It would be a generous 45 and still might be a "game day decision" when all said and done. The Italians again in the current defense budget shot down the C2 upgrades but did decide to buy ~250-300 each of the CENTURO series (Heavy on the TD model.) and the VBM FRECCIA IFV.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/ariete.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vbm_freccia.htm

News...
China designing a new MBT...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/china_could_launch_the_development_of_new_main_bat tle_tank_using_stealth_technologies_2907146.html

Germany... As a continuation of the German/Saudi tank deal posted earlier here's the primary source I didn't have at the time.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/desert-leopards-germany-selling-heavy-armor-to-the-saudis-06993/

India also moving forward a new MBT sometime in our lifetime. However have heard the active protection system discussed here will be on the ARJUN MKII.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/india_will_soon_develop_new_main_battle_tank_with_ protection_against_modern_ammunition_2907142.html

Indonesia got the first of the "now again" LEO 2A6 and MARDER 1A2 upgraded IFV. Might need a date change here not sure. Thought we settled on Oct. this year, if so, we're in the 6 month "swag" we've discussed in the past. Leaving the tank alone as I'm not chasing the 2A4 (Which were reportedly upgraded to the 2A6 level anyway.) vs. the 2A6 as is in the game now after much discussion.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/indonesia_takes_first_delivery_of_26_german-made_leopard_2a6_tanks_and_26_marder_1a2_aifv_2706 142.html

Israel was to have have sold the MERKAVA IV to Columbia a couple of years ago making them it's first export customer, however the deal fell through. Now it appears there's another player out there as yet unidentified. Tracking this "tightly" but I think Columbia might be back in it. Though another country "lingers" in my mind as well.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/israel_plans_to_sell_for_the_first_time_its_mekava _iv_main_battle_tank_to_foreign_army_0707142.html

USA improvements coming to the M1A2 SEP V2 to include an IED ECM device and a new armor package for practical game purposes first of them will be in the field in 2017.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/u.s._army_research_and_development_for_main_battle _tank_m1_abrams_under_ecp_program_0411121.html[/B]

Please remember I never single source these are representative of others I use. Enough said and back to work later today.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

July 30th, 2014, 09:37 AM

engineering...
finland i didn't see this in the oob so here you go...
http://www.military-today.com/engineering/patria_hmbv.htm
they now have added an engineering section to the website that might be worth a look for some.

the heavy mine breaching vehicle (hmbv) was developed in finland by patria to meet operational requirements of finnish defense forces. sometimes this vehicle is referred as leopard 2r

unit 358

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 1st, 2014, 03:27 AM

Well I can't use my current eye situation or blame it on a cataract since the last one was done in 5/07 and I can't even fall back on
"First off I've only done a cursory check of the OOB's..." since I did say "Finland I didn't see this in the OOB so here you go...". So it would appear that I've been done in by my own words and worse my own ref., would a smudge across glasses be viable at this point!?! How about I didn't feel well :puke:. Didn't think so either; I guess there's no way out of this but to take the :doh: now and thank you for saving me from wasting my time on the matter down the road! ;)

My own ref what's the world coming to!?!
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 5th, 2014, 02:03 AM

I remember when the Dutch had this many tanks not so long ago and now have none. The SDSR (or just SDR) plan of 2010 spelled out the cuts to the British military which is known as "the future force 2020", many of the cuts since have gone deeper then the SDSR original plan by way of the related story below concerning the state of their armored units. And some have just not made sense such as the billions of pounds spent to refurbish the RAF/RN HARRIER GR.7 and GR.9 fighter-bombers which, the USMC ended up buying at well below "bargain basement prices" so that we would have plenty of spare parts for our USMC AV-8B HARRIERS. The best example for me is that, the RN had to press ahead with the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers because it was more expensive to stop and scrap them then to just finish them off. I bet the RN wishes they had kept their HARRIERS now since a money making decision was made to redesign them with the traditional "jump" deck. Anyway here's your tank story...
The one and only...Royal Tank Regiment...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/british_army_reduces_its_armed_forces_to_just_one_ tank_regiment_despite_the_tensions_in_ukraine_0308 .html

I'll have to do some checking but the TES mod might be a good start point for the CHALLENGER 2 TI/GSR upgrade as discussed recently and in the past.

On SDSR 2010...
https://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

On the Carriers...
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships/future-ships/aircraft-carrier
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/

This last will "unlock" at a later date just us members get a first look at the updates/rewrites before the general release on the site.

The HARRIER issue I covered from the start in the Jets and Planes Thread if you desire further reading.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 3rd, 2014, 02:51 AM

Well the article below is an easy read on the direction some Eastern European Countries are taking and have been preparing to do prior to the Ukrainian crisis. Some of this I've addressed separately already in other threads but the below bundles it all nicely together. The nasty "economics" issue pops up that some people don't like here but, this is one "real world" that does effect/or impact the game in equipment terms i.e. and in general how many prototype pieces of equipment got into the game that have been removed over the years? Let Don, Andy, others and myself count the hulks and fuselages on the field of "I saw it here or there..." instead of "the budget was approved for the..." and "it is operational/or fielded". Anyway all Russia has done was spur on the "fence sitters" to get off the fence and isn't Article 5 going to be a pain for them as well.
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurerussian-aggression-spurs-eastern-european-vehicle-modernisation-4387406/

Just in case it's needed...
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

October 4th, 2014, 01:19 AM

Yep, nice to have a capable enough self defense force that you won't overrun before you allies can react. Or at least one capable of putting up enough of a fight a potential enemy has to bring a few significant formations to bear, and moving them into position telegraphs possible intent.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 13th, 2014, 02:34 AM

Anyone please...Is there a way to copy a word document to this thread that has both standard text AND columned text without having to go through the tedious process of trying to reorganize the columns once copied over? Feeling REALLY stupid that I can't manage this. If someone knows a way, well, by all means take advantage of the situation at my expense. I feel the document is worth that much!!:pc: The document is from SIPRI.

Thanks.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

October 13th, 2014, 03:06 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 16th, 2014, 01:51 AM

Suhiir,
Thanks for your last suggestion but, it looks like I'll have to do it the old fashioned way of printing it and scanning from my printer to "My Pictures" file. And since I'd feel bad about people looking just to see this some news would be appropriate here...

1. Most people know I like my mil-tech and a U.S. company has about reached the "Holy Grail" of armored hull design and protection.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/alcoa_manufactures_new_hull_for_combat_vehicles_im proved_protection_.html

2. Ah yes war is good (Sort of.) with a little help from the West financially Ukraine's defense industry is humming along and there's plenty of jobs to go around which is spurring along some technology developments as well and verifies Russia's claims that Ukraine had somehow gotten the "formula" for the very advanced KONTAKT ERA. Russia is not happy about this now and when I posted this in here somewhere of their suspicions of this a year ago or more.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/ukrainian_armed_forces_receives_modernized_and_ove rhauled_military_vehicles.html

3. Ah but there's always a flip side and it would seem the situation will not allow for Russia to back down from the ARMATA tank like they did with the BLACK EAGLE or the T-95. I don't say this lightly but I feel this MBT will keep people awake at night. In my humble opinion the ARMATA will be what the ABRAMS was when it came upon the scene. This is Russia's first new tank design from the ground up in decades.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/russian_army_could_receive_32_armata_latest_genera tion_of_main_battle_tanks_in_2015_1210145.html

Easy reads on the above tanks to include the first one I posted in this thread the BLACK EAGLE the main picture shown I believe is the prototype with the 152mm SB MG.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/armata.htm

Now I feel better that you hopefully didn't waste all your time here.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 16th, 2014, 09:14 AM

The official said three Armata (http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_she et_specifications_information_description_pictures .html) prototypes were currently being tested, and production of the tank would start even before the end of the R&D work.

never the best way to do things unless you are desperate ..sounds like Putin wants a new tank NOW

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 16th, 2014, 11:21 AM

Don,
I would have to agree on all counts. It does match the timeline we had discussed for these tanks though as well when I first started tracking them. Maybe Putin has streamlined the "graft" system to make it happen as projected.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 20th, 2014, 08:50 PM

Well to lay the ground work for the following on where the USA is heading with it's armor by compass and figuratively consider these more as supplements to what I've already posted in here. Don and I have already addressed the issues of the M1A2 SEP V2 and the improved BRADLEY with new FCS components. The second ref takes us beyond those improvements as both these platforms will be around for roughly another 15 and 30 years respectively.
The Compass...
http://www.janes.com/article/44483/ausa-2014-us-army-looks-to-increase-european-activity-set-equipment

The Near Term Future (NTF-us military folks love them acronyms. ;))...
http://www.janes.com/article/44473/ausa-2014-army-outlines-upcoming-combat-vehicle-choices

My computer time is up have a good night.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 20th, 2014, 09:24 PM

Last should've read 30 and 15 years...vice 15 and 30 years...sorry
for the confusion.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 20th, 2014, 07:22 PM

Having a rough recovery so, I thought with a little time to kill I'd provide the following updates. On the DID refs provided below, related issues are in bold within the articles and at the bottom are Related Articles from this and other defense related sites and a further News section from related local and international news sources. This is a "one stop" reference source better than WiKi-anything.

Poland: The continued Russian encroachment into the Ukraine and pressures elsewhere have accelerated the pace of deliveries of the updated LEO 2A4 and 2A5 MBT's. The first covers the (second) deliveries the last the same and a comprehensive look at Poland's heavy armor situation. For my part moving up the fielding date to Oct this year vice Jan 2015 might be appropriate based on Poland's long experience with the LEO and in keeping with historical data for a scenario developer-Russia openly attacks Ukrainian forces with rebel supporting units. With the blessing/support of NATO Poland sends troops into the Ukraine to stabilize the Western portion of the country.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/poland_receives_another_batch_of_leopard_2a5_main_ battle_tanks.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/buy-from-the-pros-poland-adds-more-german-tanks-019466/

Also as of today (for real) oil hit a 4yr low too close at $78 a barrel, Russia needs oil at $100 a barrel to sustain it's economy at current/future spending levels. Oil is projected to continue to drop, at $68 a barrel this will tip Russia into a
re-cessation. If this wasn't bad enough now Germany's Merkel has now spoken out against Putin this in the ref below.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/merkel-putin-central-europe-028564//

South Korea/Turkey: As above I've posted on this years ago. The ALTAY was designed from the K-2 during this period of cooperation the S. Koreans started to develop the improved K-2 called the XK-2. Some of the XK-2 improvements made it into the ALTAY however S. Korea is seeking to improve the tank further which ironically is based on the ABRAMS, anyway as you might imagine this has lead to problems. Also not in the update at top but in the first para of the article is what I had already known about the LEO1 and early LEO2 MBT's; that they are still in service with the Turkish Army. These tanks were the test beds for the LEOPARD-1T (LEO 2A4) and ALTAY for the FCS (On LEO1) and other improvement on the older LEO2 tanks refer to the following post in this thread Pg.17 Post #169or the Fastboat Patch Thread. Again the "Poster" was right.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-signs-deal-with-s-korea-for-altay-tank-project-05012/

13329
This will be submitted with the SIPRI data previously mentioned.

The Turkish MBT situation has been greatly clarified since the above post in later ones as soon as within the last six months. I've spent more time on the Turkish armor issue then any other and I expect a final resolution (I hope.) on my first Patch input. The data is good to show the progression of Turkish armor after WWII though I could've presented it in a less confusing manner back then.

Regards,
Pat

luigim

December 25th, 2014, 02:47 PM

Merry Christmas.

One little thing. I don't know if this is the correct thread. I knew that T72B3 was the cheap upgrade version to some Rogatka standards of the T72B. In this game Rogatka is weaker than T72B3. Can you explain me why? Or maybe I'm confused.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

"The T-72B3 is a recent Russian upgrade of the ageing T-72B tanks. It can be seen as a low-cost alternative to the T-72B2 Rogatka upgrade to keep older T-72B tanks operational."

DRG

December 25th, 2014, 05:00 PM

It's all very well to quote he first line but what about

"T-72B3 tanks are fitted with new engine, new gunners sight, new fire control system and have some other improvements"

"....autoloader of the T-72B3 has some modifications and can use newly-developed munitions. "

and the later versions have a more powerful engine

The Rogatka has better EW the B3 has better firecontrol and the cost in game is virtually the same. The only thing really "weaker" is the reactive armour and as I recall at the time the B3 was fitted with more up top date reactive panels....... Personally both these tanks do the same job with only a 1 % difference in cost so maybe you could elaborated on what your problem with this is??

Don

DRG

December 25th, 2014, 05:07 PM

That said if one of the "diggers" of info could confirm the ammo carried in the Rogatka and the B3.... one source says the B3 carries 45 rounds http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 26th, 2014, 04:49 AM

Very very tired and I had to look in here...why???
Please go to Page 28 Post 274 Item A1 It has the best gun in the T-72 class (Same as T-90/T-90MS), the new ammo is fielded, best optics, TI, FCS of any T-72 and best protected. Below ref. says ammo at 36 rounds total with 22 ready rounds. Was supposed to have RELIKT ERA (Same as T-90MS.) however the below also suggests KONTACT-5 HOWEVER the reports suggest "a different ERA configuration on the turret...better protection...". I believe it might be RELIKT as the configuration is different from other T-72 mods especially around the turret area.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-72b3_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifi cations_information_description_pictures_video.htm l
http://www.janes.com/article/27920/russian-t-72-mbt-gets-enhanced-protection

I really like http://www.military-today.com/index.htm it's always been one of the first places I look but the above I feel is better. That being said this is a Ukrainian site and the UKRAINE has built as many or more T-72 tanks then the Russians. So could the second ref mean 36 conventional rounds + four missiles? I don't know and I haven't reread the refs provided in the above post either.

The brain and eyes are tired so for now I'm done. Will look into the ammo issue more later. But while still coherent, two long campaigns Sweden vs. Russia and currently Norway vs. Russia guess what tank the Russian AI likes to now use? :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

Tomas

December 27th, 2014, 03:52 AM

I've checked the OOB file and the differences between B2 ("Rogatka") and B3 T-72 variants.

My ideas:
-Both tanks should have same FC as they both use same FCS - Sosna-U.
-Rogatka should definitely have stronger reactive armor than B3, as it uses third generation Relikt instead of the Kontakt-5 on B3.
- Regarding the EW, Shtora-1 on Rogatka is correctly represented by the VIRSS, but i think that the B3 should have EW removed altogether. Some webs claim that there's Shtora-1 or even ARENA-E installed, but photos of fielded Russian tanks don't have any of these components installed (missing radar, missing IR sensors, missing laser sensors).

T-72B3 walkaround:
http://btvt.narod.ru/5/t72b3m/t72b3m.htm

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 28th, 2014, 02:56 AM

1. Even Russian sources say the T-72B3 has a NEW FCS. Many components make up a complete FCS system one I've spoken of recently is the issue concerning the Italian GALAX GALILEO FCS(See Page 29 Post 282). The ARIETE C1 has only certain components of the system on board vs. the full system on the CENTURO. The difference in this case is mostly in the TI/GSR values 40 versus 50 (When submitted later.). The T-72B2 does not possess a "Hunter-Killer" mode of operation, this is the difference in the COMPLETE FCS that the T-72B3 has that capability.

2. I am willing to concede the RELICT vs KONTACT-5 issue however as I noted the whole turret issue still stands in regards to the ERA configuration. Having re-read the army-recognition.com (AR) data and Russian defensenet.com blog (DN) 1. They know some other form of protection is under the KONTACT-5 plates to account for the configuration differences from the other T-72 variants. The first AR reports there is a 20mm layer of applique armor (Very effective normally think MERKEVA as that's a key part of its protection.) around the turret, The DN site believes it to be RELICT on the glacis area of the turret.

3. First with ARENA-E simply think of the TROPHY system by comparison. Which this tank does have.

4. I still stand by the Main Gun as well. Refer back to the original Post for that and the newer AR ref I submitted recently.

I submit things like the word "new" and "A picture(s) is worth a thousand words."...
http://www.siberianinsider.com/russian-defense-ministry-to-get-several-hundred-t-72b3-tanks.html
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/768012
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

And I'll save the JANE'S for later if needed.

Pic:
13371
Note on closest tank of 9 on the turret front facing you what appears to be an IR light used by the SHTORA system. This is not unusual as the Russian Army has started to use their armor defensive systems in a "hybrid configuration" the ref touches on this below concerning the SHTORA system. On the turret top you can see the commanders "hunter killer" panoramic site. And finally on the back of the turret you can clearly see the large can shaped radar of the ARENA-E system.

For review...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

And since it seems some things might have been missed when the above ref was used to start this conversation, let me post a couple of direct quotes from it. It would seem this goes back to one of my PITA issues I've posted on before.

1. "Refurbished and upgraded T-72B3 tanks are fitted with new engine, new gunners sight, new fire control systemm and have some other improvements. Now this MBT has a hunter-killer capability."

2. "The tank has new fire control system and new ballistic computer. Gunner uses new Sosna-U sight with thermal imager. This sight has day/night and all weather combat capability. The T-72B3 has a hunter-killer capability even though it lacks commander's panoramic sight. Vehicle commander can select a target and lay the gun and let the gunner complete all the aiming and firing process. During that time commander looks for the next target. The tank is also fitted with new digital radio system."

2a. "lacks commander's panoramic sight"-It doesn't anymore/see pic above again/many initial refs left the door open for "down the road" upgrades. That time has already come and gone. Those tanks pictured went West at the time of the article-who's West of Russia and slightly to the South? The T-72B3 is the frontline tank there.

Sorry for the crankiness (Well to a degree anyway :angel) but...
forget about it...good night!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 29th, 2014, 11:27 PM

Suhiir thanks for your suggestion about the JPEG, from how many months ago now? Well to Don's shun-grin here's that pesky poster, but this time thanks to Suhiir, I can finally as I discovered last May tie up the Turkish heavy armor issue with the below supporting data from SIPRI. I also wanted to demonstrate what I feel is a very practical use of this data for you game developer folks out there and others involved in the equipment business. I must apologize for not adjusting the document before printing it out because some of what got chopped off is any improvement on the tanks made before they shipped to Turkey mostly with the improvements made by the Germans with the M-48 tanks (Optics/some FCS) well some of you know how I am with some "tech y things" :pc: and :typing:. I was already a ref-nazi but the Turkish armor situation was in bad shape when all I wanted to do was add the M-60T which lead to the proverbial "rabbit-hole" (I better stop there Don's probably getting bad flashbacks about now! ;)) but I have to thank him for pushing on the matter and thank Suhiir and IMP for their sometimes "hidden" online and offline moral support-THANKS! Sometimes (Rarely) the simplest ref can yield the most results in this case again the "poster" with the documents provided below and all the refs I've already submitted. I can honestly say that the Turkish Heavy Armor boils down to it now with minor tweaks we already applied to the newer tanks already submitted. My concern was with the older tanks to include the continued use of the German LEOPARD 1 tanks. I will in the EDIT phase provide the Post covering the background and source of the "Poster"

Poster...
13379

SIPRI Data...
13380 13381
13382

Go to the website to see how they gather their data and what they do.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 30th, 2014, 12:16 AM

But of course the EDIT clock strikes again...but here's if you will the "edited" version I transferred to the "home" thread here...Pg. 7 Post 169 if you want to see the original one or see how we interact in putting this together from my perspective and helping each other lose a little more hair faster than Don and I would like, please go to the Patch Post Thread and follow the process. For the topic at hand it'll be on Pg. 7 Post 65.
On the previous pages in the above mentioned Thread, look for the Patch submission concerning I believe the M60A1 RISE MBT I believe many might find that process useful in some considerations/why some decisions on equipment are made. I was personally (And at times still.) at the time on maybe not "steep" learning curve but, certainly a "hilly" one. Sometimes even when good work is submitted, a little humility and understanding can go a long way to later getting more of what your seeking done down the road providing you are still doing your homework.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

December 30th, 2014, 12:18 AM

Always nice when you can find a definitive source as opposed to the usual "find six sources where four use one of the other two as their source and the two that have other sources disagree".

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 30th, 2014, 12:27 AM

How true sometimes I feel like my head will implode before it explodes!! :soap: :banghead: :censor: :fire: French 105mm artillery! That'll be years our lives Don and I will never get back or least it felt like that at times.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 30th, 2014, 01:13 AM

HMmm make that for this Thread Page 17 Post 169-sorry!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 30th, 2014, 02:40 AM

OK after this I'm taking a break. But I'm learning to use my printer for all the other things I can do and if I'm to trying to show the benefit of this site at least from my perspective I need to do a better job getting the info to you, after all you deserve that much. So these I checked them and they're good. A couple of highlights are...
1. At the end of the German section it validates the data I provided concerning the conversion of the LEOPARD 2A4 tanks to the Turkish LEOPARD 2NG (Better than the Singapore upgrade to some degree.).

2. On the last page U.S. section you'll see the M-60 tanks used for the Turkish M-60T (Similar to the Israeli SABRA, but with an updated FCS.) anyway all the data below now...

13383 13384

13385 13386

I'm done in have a good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 31st, 2014, 02:43 AM

I was walking through the park one day when...well this is no musical, so to the topic at hand recently posted about. I was interested in the stories coming out of the Ukraine about them capturing a couple of T-72B3 tanks. What happened was within a month of that story some backed off and said they were T-72B1 tanks but more reliable reporting identified them as T-64BV tanks; no big deal the main tank of the Ukrainian Army is an advanced version of this tank (They are currently modernizing them further now) very plausible with the loss of bases in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Then further analysis from Intel agencies were released and other evidence surfaced from news sources and from personal videos (Most famous the BUK-2 launcher being trucked across the border back into Russia minus one SAM in July after the Malay/Indonesian passenger jet was shotdown.) when it noted a "ghost" from the past has reappeared. The "ghost" was the very Russian T-64BV. One site (Ukraine at War) even showed what was identified and to me looks like a T-64A on a Russian transporter parked in rebel held territory in Eastern Ukraine (They were nice enough to provide a satellite pictures as well.). Both possible as Russia along with the Ukraine (Also having produced more of them and again being the largest operator of the type.) still have vast numbers of them in stock still. If the Ukrainian authorities are correct they traced the T-64BV tanks back an active armored unit in the St. Petersburg area in Russia. From here I'll leave you with my thoughts and a couple of points about the tanks.

My thoughts and points...
* This tank was never exported think about that for a moment compared against all other Russian types you can think of.
You'll at least understand that below in the background section from some pretty reliable sources; I never realized how revolutionary this tank was in its development at its prime. As a side the Ukraine is reported to be ready to export to the Congo advanced T-64BM1/or 2 tanks making them the first export customer of the the type.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140217/DEFREG01/302170026/Ukroboronprom-Deliver-T-64-Tanks-DR-Congo

* The T-64 base model never really went away per say. Most of them would survive to become the T-64R version which was about the 4th mod in the series. Versions would go out of service but the tanks themselves seemed to just keep evolving. You can see the potential issues here for us.

* There is credible evidence that Russian T-64BV saw combat service in the first Chechen War and the 2008 border incursion into Georgia. The sources below indicate these captured and otherwise documented sightings etc. of the Russian T-64BV tanks shows/or describes them as well maintained.

* I believe the T-64BV is still in service with the Russian military in some capacity. Though I don't feel it's in any frontline capacity; That job has fallen to the improved T-72 types notably the B3 and possible B4 yet to come (ARMATA will I feel be the driver of this type if it becomes operational. The ARMATA is though on track and on time.),T-90 and the ARMATA when it enters service in a couple of years.

* Currently it's being reported the remaining and unpopular T-80 tanks will be removed from service by the end of 2015. The T-72B3 was designated as it's replacement when developed and MANY will be converted to the B3 standard, some estimates run up to or more than a thousand.

* 1991 Russia reportedly scraps around 10,000-20,000 tanks to include leftover WWII stock, T-54 - T-64 tanks.
2005 6,000 tanks reportedly T-54 - T-64 and T-80.
2012 unknown thousands T-55/T-64/some T-72 and T-80.
These numbers would include SPAA and APC types as well.

One background source below well, some people like him some don't. I don't care about the game data but, what I know is his research on equipment is good and for me verifiable. Keep it in that vain of "background" information.

Background...
http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/russian_tanks.html
http://tanknutdave.com/the-russian-t-64-mbt/
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/T-64_a003044001.aspx

The following are top notch.

Analysis...
http://www.janes.com/article/40139/ukraine-captures-russian-t-64-mbt-near-donetsk
http://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalanceblog/blogsections/2014-3bea/august-ca01/pro-russia-separatist-tank-variant-supports-russian-source-4c62

This is as good as anywhere...some economics (What you thought I wouldn't do this!?!)
http://www.janes.com/article/47013/analysis-five-key-global-defence-budget-trends-for-2015

All in all not a bad way to end the year I think, this should keep you busy for a bit. For me back to work this afternoon, so I want to wish you all a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! And please have fun but also please be safe out there as well.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 5th, 2015, 10:01 PM

Concerning the ARMATA from the Main Forum (FYI: RIA NOVOSTI) new info at the bottom as indicated.

As noted elsewhere the best we can do is mark our calendars for 9 May and hopefully we'll get our first look, providing of course we "see it" at all. I don't know how many remember me posting the "first look" of the T-95 (In the MBT Thread) a few years back, what we saw was a covered tank on a transporter. My wish list for the ARMATA is to see a reliable interior cutaway for the purpose of seeing if the crew will have access to the gun area. As noted the ARMATA is to have a fully automated turret , so you would understand my concerns here though, it would make sense to me that the crew as necessary would have an interior access hatch to the interior to take manual control if required. Can't remember but doesn't the MERKAVA IV have an armored crew compartment as well? Anyway that's my real world/game world concerns.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/armata.htm

T-95
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.htm

BLACK EAGLE (My first post in the MBT Thread I believe.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm

My feeling in the ARMATA will be a hybrid of a new design with many attributes from the BLACK EAGLE. Even the T-95 was to have been a "lesser" tank then the BLACK EAGLE, the T-95 was designed to be a cheaper version of it. It is very important to remember the time frame of development of these two tanks as compared to the ARMATA, simply stated the economy has been much improved and Russia's ongoing commitment to modernize the military by 2020

To answer an earlier question, of curiosity the T-90AM is not listed in the variant section of ref. one. However as noted the T-90AM was Russian forces designated while the T-90MS was for export. However Russia has both as the T-90MS was an improved model over the T-90AM due to customer modifications. This is not the first time this has happened Mi-24 and T-50/PAF-FA also come to mind as posted else where. To these tanks the info will be in the Patch/or MBT Threads when I submitted them.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90ms_tagil.htm

I will move this post into the MBT Thread at a later date.

Regards,
Pat
__________________
"If something is not impossible, there must be a way of doing it." - Sir Nicholas Winton

New Info Starts here...
Russia now concerned about the ARMATA Rubles increases, we call it the F-35 here...
http://www.janes.com/article/45974/russia-expresses-concern-over-armata-mbt-costs

Russians claim to be arming the ARMATA with an ATGM unknown to the West, or as I've designated it "The Super Whama Dime Thingy Magigy that goes ZOOM BANG PooOOP!!" :rolleyes: however, seriously they have already fielded the replacement to the I believe it was the IGLA MANPAD SAM so I give some credence to the claim. I'll post the other later during this house cleaning.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/russias_armata_next-generation_main_battle_tank_to_be_equipped_with_a_ new_missile.html

Now for the headache :sick: but something just isn't right about this so everyone "stand-down" for now. But those Germans...
http://www.janes.com/article/46904/germany-receives-first-leopard-2a7-mbt
Is there a difference between this and the LEOPARD 2A7+? That's the issue. At worst a date change, I don't remember when we had it enter service when submitted a couple of years ago.

And finally about 2 or 3 pages back I posted on my MBT work list the following. Well an early win again on this subject matter of tanks for Military-Today for getting the jump on everyone for the following that I can now submit as an ADD for China. First the original data followed by the new info. What's important is I have a baseline tank to build upon when submitted from the article.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/new_chinese_light_tank.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2015_global_defense_security_news_industry/china_has_developed_new_light_tank_for_operations_ in_mountainous_region_as_the_tibet_0201153.html

It looks like "Thunder Birds Are A GO!"

Well I'm going to enjoy the rest of my weekend with the Granddaughter who'll hopefully scare the rest of this Flu out of system!!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 6th, 2015, 12:48 AM

Before anyone says anything the granddaughter is asleep!?! Alright here's what happened with the LEOPARD 2A7+ in late 2010 KMW was to start the conversion of 200 LEOPARDS to the LEOPARD 2A7+ standard. That obviously didn't happen because if you remember I had posted on a 200 tank deal from Germany to Saudi Arabia which after languishing for over a year the German Government finally canceled the deal. This slowed production of the tanks for the Bundswaher. Those KMW links are dead now (And you think the internet is so good, well it s...s as a librarian.) It seems the 200 Bundswehr tanks are being upgraded and the original ATTICA FCS has been upgraded in that time as well and as already reported in this thread last year as noted at the end of ref 3 below. Recommended action...
1. Change LEOPARD 2A7+ Start date to either 6/15 or 10/15.
2. Change LEOPARD 2A7+ TI/GSR to 50 vice current 45 based on improved ATTICA system vs. ATTICA when submitted.
3. Copy latest one/or two LEOPARD 2A6 UNIT(s) in the game as NEW UNITS to reflect addition of the complete ATTICA FCS with TI/GSR 50. Dates to reflect 1/15-12/20 or latest 6/15-12/20 as these upgrades have been also ongoing for at least a year. Have seen no other information to suggest any other upgrades to these tanks were considered/or done.
http://www.janes.com/article/46904/germany-receives-first-leopard-2a7-mbt
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/leopard_2a7__main_battle_tank_urban_operations_dat a_sheet_specifications_information_description.htm l
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard-2-a7-main-battle-tank/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm

Normally I'd be pissed about this but we went with what we had.

So simply I'm just going to say THANKS-JANE'S!!!!

Don I'll get UNIT numbers to you in the early evening have somewhere to be in the morning.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 6th, 2015, 01:31 AM

Don,
Got LEOPARD 2A7+/UNIT 267 and LEOPARD 2A6/UNIT 037 as the best fit. That UNIT 037 seemed the best fit and should be extended on it's own until 12/20 vice 12/14, did I miss a LEOPARD(s) 2A6 until 12/20 somewhere else in the German OOB? If so sorry but, I didn't see it. They should have them that long and beyond.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 6th, 2015, 02:27 AM

Just waiting for the meds to kick in so I don't hack myself to sleep, found the other LEOPARD 2A6 it would be UNIT 277 again both should be pushed out until 12/20 and copied and added as new units with ATTICA FCS as noted in the previous two posts. Those UNIT numbers stuck in my head for some reason, due to recent tank deal we just entered in the last Patch-for Poland maybe?
Anyway they've kicked in and I'm done though I expect to now be counting LEOPARDS in my sleep!
Have a good night and day!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 6th, 2015, 07:35 PM

Better Leopards then being a Soviet boomer sailor counting Seawolves.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 6th, 2015, 08:06 PM

True but, I'd them now be rather having nightmares over the VIRGINIA Class Boats. One of standard responses to those I see on the base who say "I'm/We're just livin the dream at the Bay" is "Well even a Nightmare is a Dream" it's a work thing.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 20th, 2015, 03:40 AM

See this in the APC Thread as a continuation of a discussion there.

Getting this into the home Thread so I can TRACK THESE DEVELOPMENTS FOR SUBMISSION PURPOSES.

Now you know why I've used this site (OPLOT/OPLOT-M) and have kept it but, the "boys" from Ukraine I'm sure have contacts or use the site themselves. Any way I show the history tank section this might be of some general use especially dealing with pre and WWII tanks. The site is rich in data after all this plant has been making tanks for over 75 years. The cautionary note here is dealing with the upgrades available that the data fields are looked at completely so as not to miss items such as gun upgrades and protection benefits (With tested values.)of items such as ERA like NOZH etc. You have to remember they are in the business to make money and have been very successful in the export business in countries like Thailand and Iraq.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/tanks/a-20.php?page=history5

I don't know where we're at with the Ukrainian tanks but the last one I submitted was the OPLOT-M and modifications to the OPLOT. So I suspect at least a couple of these will need to be submitted. Further I will move this post to it's home thread later just wanted to wrap this "chain of events" up here.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72ua1.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64e.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm
(JANE'S (And others.) has reported the two above as in service, there are reports of a T-64B2M as well FCS upgrades probably in line with the T-84 below. Also it seems the T-72UA1 MIGHT BE in service as well though they have better options in the field now.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64bm_bulat.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm
(For reference to the previous ref above.)

A note on NOZH is that it has very similar characteristics of the same armor package used on the MERKAVA. It is in essence a further development of KONTACT-5 which Russia a couple of years ago (In MBT Thread.) accused the Ukraine of stealing. As noted it improves protection especially when used in conjunction with "conventional" ERA. Right now not many reports of Ukrainian T-72 or OPLOTs being used actively in the current crisis. Same for reports that the T-72BM3 is operating within the Ukraine sightings thus far have been confirmed as newer T-64 variants and possible older T-72 types. However the T-72BM3 has been confirmed on being seen inside the Russian border with the Ukraine. Again some of this is in the MBT Thread.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

February 2nd, 2015, 05:46 PM

Seems the Leopard 2A7+ should have a 12.7mm AAMG and no 40mm GL.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm

DRG

February 2nd, 2015, 06:47 PM

..and we may have been mislead when it was released as to the turret shape...... what we have in there now may not be the 2A7 but an add on package..... this needs further digging

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 3rd, 2015, 09:26 PM

Does this LEO 2A7+ discussion have anything to do Posts 309 (Bottom of.) and 310? To get to the root of this issue also Pg. 9/Post 84 Item A6 (I was just there in looking for the Post # those KMW links are dead w/404 Error Code.) will be important as this drove the original submission I think. But I offered what I think happened in the previous two posts noted. Also within the last two weeks the German Govt. voted not to sell any military equipment to Saudi Arabia. I had already posted on the fact (w/refs.) that the much discussed deal of the purchase of 200 LEOPARD 2A7+ was killed by the Govt. about a year ago or more now. Except for the JANE'S article in the bottom of Post 309, not much on this.

Refs we didn't have at the time but in the quick...they can be armed with either the 7.62mm/40mmGL or 7.62mm/12.5mm secondary armament...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/leopard_2a7__main_battle_tank_urban_operations_dat a_sheet_specifications_information_description.htm l
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard-2-a7-main-battle-tank/
and again...
http://www.janes.com/article/46904/germany-receives-first-leopard-2a7-mbt

Qatar is supposed to get ~200 of these tanks next year late.

When was the LEOPARD 2A7+ put in the OOB?

Back sort of, nothing an excellent day/night in Savannah/a surprise room upgrade/a very good dinner/a fine Irish folk singer and a handful of "Imperial Pints" couldn't cure to clear my head and doing it with CINCLANTHOME-Priceless.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 4th, 2015, 12:58 AM

This is getting ridiculous chasing this stuff back and forth on a thread with 318+ posts......"Pg. 9/Post 84 Item A6".... THERE IS NO POST 84 ON PAGE 9...... PAGE 9 posts run 161 - 180 but there is a page 5post 84 item A6 and the LEOPARD 2A7+ was put in THREE YEARS AGO.... oh yeah NOW I REMEMEBER why we said were were taking a sabattical

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2015, 03:14 AM

Do we have a page setup difference of some kind? I see in this thread Page 9/Post 84/11-17-10,03:40AM/with Posts 81-90 on that page. I actually had two tabs opened so I won't mess up that information. The way I see Page 5/Posts 41-50/w/Post 41/05-22-10,10:58PM/From John (IMP)/Clarifying an earlier Post of getting back on topic in the first post. And speaking of that, the reason I asked when the 2A7+ was entered, was because of the way I wrote up the A7 submission as if the 2A7+ was already in the game and I had no back up on that piece of equipment because of the system crash I had earlier this year that also cost me two years of future submission work as well due to time and armor related priority in what I did submit over the last couple of years. Bottom-line...Posts 309 (Bottom), 310 & 318 is ALL that's needed to fix this issue.

Regards,
Pat

dmnt

February 4th, 2015, 03:29 AM

Quick recap (for Don et al.): Finnish 2A6s to be delivered early, OOB dates still stand correct.

First batch of Finnish 2A6s from Netherlands will be delivered in May 2015, approximately 20 vehicles.
Helsingin Sanomat newspaper, in Finnish (http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1422937706796)
First Leopard 2A6 tanks that Finland bought will be shipped to port of Hanko in May. It is a batch of about 20 vehicles from the purchase from Netherlands.

Finland bought a year ago a hundred 2nd hand Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks. The total price was about 200 million euros. They will replace little by little the currently used Leopard 2A4 models which Finland currently has 139 units.

According to military personnel the new tank has improved firepower and maneuverability.
-- -- --
First conscripts to lay their hands on them will be conscripts of July 2016.
-- -- --
Training with old tanks will cease in 2017. After that they will be used in reserve training.
"We are also prepared to utilize 2A6s earlier. In case of urgent need we can re-train 2A4 operators into 2A6 equipment.", says Colonel Jukka Valkeajärvi.
-- -- --
There is already a newer model of Leopard tank family, 2A7.

"Germany has couple dozens of them and they are ordering more. There's little changes externally compared to 2A6", says Valkeajärvi.

"The differences are mostly fire control system and further improvements to night operation capability."

That "2A7 doesn't differ much from 2A6" is what puzzles me a bit, as I'm under impression that 2A7 should have better armor.

Other stuff from the article in short:

The tanks are delivered in operational condition
The FDF personnel have already been trained to the system in Netherlands

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2015, 04:38 AM

Finnish tanks your welcome! ;) About what's being the LEOPARD 2A7+ PITA here's KMW if nothing else seems to work including this PC MAYBE A WORD FROM OUR "SPONSOR" KMW builder of the LEOPARD Series will, then again who knows.
http://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-vehicles/main-battle-tanks/leopard-2-a7/product-information.html
http://www.kmweg.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Press_Releases/Press_Release_Handover_LEOPARD_2_A7_EN.pdf

The new FCS discussed (To include sights) is the much reported in this Thread ATTICA System which also as reported, already being installed on the later model LEOPARD 2A6 tanks as well. On the passive armor, think next generation passive armor that was used on the LEOPARD EVOLUTION tanks. The most recent user of a slightly similar system (Developmental if you will for the 2A7+.) was Turkeys LEOPARD-2T we entered about 3-4 years back I think and was developed with KMW support.
http://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-vehicles/main-battle-tanks/leopard-2-a7/product-information.html

Sorry for the frustration but Mozilla and my mouse/keyboard are not playing well together and I lost 40 mins of work in providing "Jake's" final reply in the APC Thread concerning the BRADLEY's gun op/ammo. The mouse decided to close the tab on me. This Spring my PC will be retired and my mouse and keyboard will suffer a VERY SLOW DEATH. I'll miss XP SP3 and 8.1 here I come ready or not or 10 which is developing rapidly. God help us all!?! I'd consider APPLE but they change OS's like flies land on xxit or better refs don't update stories of delays until they REALLY come out with the gear and then tell you "oh by the by it was delayed" case in point this above topic. I look forward to going back to work tomorrow, "reindeer games" look pretty good at this moment.

Good Night AND Have a good week!!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 4th, 2015, 08:08 AM

That "2A7 doesn't differ much from 2A6" is what puzzles me a bit, as I'm under impression that 2A7 should have better armor.

There is all kinds of added armour on the 2a7

DRG

February 4th, 2015, 08:08 AM

Pat I see this post as page 17 post 324...... what do you see it as ?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2015, 01:53 PM

Don,
I see your last as Page 33/Post 324. Off to the "rain locker" and work!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2015, 01:50 AM

I see a long lost friend is back and since this next is on my list I'd appreciate some in house data on the MAG'ACH SPIKE NLOS as the data is limited it flared up on the web and has now quietly gone away. See Pg.28 Post 280/Pg.29 Post 281 for background.

Regards,
Pat

luigim

February 12th, 2015, 06:00 AM

About Ukraine OOB: I suggest that T64BM Bulat should be in first line tanks and not in obsolete tanks with -5 points. Then I also suggest that in Ukraine OOB a non upgraded T64BV Cold War era legacy should be there, because they are actually in service and fighting

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2015, 01:28 AM

I started this with something I thought would be easy, well there I go thinking again :doh: !?! The tanks I'm talking about are Taiwan's CM-11/or H-48 "BRAVE TIGER" these tanks just recently have been modified to carry an ERA package of French origin and NOT as must have been reported at some point the Israeli "BLAZER" ERA package. This needs some further investigation on my part to narrow down the French ERA.
http://www.janes.com/article/48422/images-confirm-era-fit-on-taiwan-s-cm11-tanks
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/taiwan-c-11-brave-tiger-tanks-get.html
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/images-confirm-armor-upgrades-for-taiwans-m48h-tanks.326500/
And for the new units here are some Pics:
13469 13468

Before I go any further, it is important to note that Taiwan's American made tanks were unmodified when shipped to Taiwan. Therefore using the game ENCYCLOPAEDIA the below information is drawn on that data as well.

Further background is that the CM-11 is a "hybrid" MBT the hull is from the M-60A3 while the turret is from the M48A5 but with modifications such as the Cupola .50 cal has been replaced by an unprotected .50 Cal M2. (Plus it has a roof mounted sighted 7.62mm.) plus smoke dischargers. I'm assuming this modified turret is the reason for the difference in the protection numbers from the standard M-48A5 turret when these units were entered. When fielded in 1990 it also retained the full M-60A3 TTS FCS. Below is the only ref I can find that shows the placement of the ERA in question...
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-mike/mike-number-us/m60_series/cm11era/cm11era.html
Click on the second from the left bottom image. This from a Taiwanese or Chinese site.

The next issue deals with the fact that the CM-11 might have received another upgrade to the FCS with something between the M60A3TTS and M1A1. The TTS has a game FC of 35 the M1A1 FC is 40, I did not get the Stabilizer numbers sorry. The LFR is good as is. So in conclusion is the wiggle room is between what adjustment between the FC and Stab. numbers are necessary. One possible option is to give it EITHER the full FC or Stab. increase only. This issue does make sense to me to improve their FCS in that all attempts to get the M1A1 have failed and that Taiwan was seeking another source for an advanced MBT (200 Units) both from America and internally due the the rough mountainous center of the country and stress that a heavy MBT would be on road network infrastructure. This upgrade would also buy America a little political breathing room with both Taiwan and China (They REALLY didn't like the fact that we upgraded Taiwan's PATRIOT's to the PAC-3 version.). Given all the data and supposition I believe the best time for an improved CM-11 is about JAN/2005 or JAN/2010 either would fit the political/military exercises and a rising more aggressive China of that time frame and continuing currently. Look for key words in these refs...
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/CM11_a002634001.aspx
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=219

Two other issues...
All the Taiwanese M60A3TTS tanks FC need to be changed to 35 vice 30 as currently shown, this will make them equal to the U.S. counterpart as noted at top.

Also in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA for Taiwan the notes you made for the reason you put the M1A1ROC appear in the second M60A3TTS listed on the first page. I'll assume this M1A1ROC is locked out by the note above?

Pics for the base CM-11 from Taiwan below...
13470 13471
13472

An older but still relevant article on Asian armor...
http://www.defencereviewasia.com/articles/204/MAIN-BATTLE-TANKS-IN-ASIA

And finally the most current in depth view of Taiwan's military arms situation to include all U.S. arms status...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/taiwans-unstalled-force-modernization-04250/

"Hey Don how about an ERA upgrade to the CM-11?" I should've known that something that simple would lead to all this above :rolleyes:!?! Don I'll save you the trouble I know just the thing to deal with me right now-:tough: :censor:
:pc: :fire: :viking: I think that about covers it. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
Something else he might wish is for me to do sail away!!

CM-11 UNITS 380/381/545/546
M60A3TTS UNITS 022/023/027
CM-12 UNITS 385/386 UPDATED M-48A5 with complete TTS FCS installed hope I beat the clock!!!!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2015, 02:02 AM

The clock was this close...

Taiwan tanks in question...
CM-11 UNITS 380/381/545/546
M60A3TTS UNITS 022/023/027
CM-12 UNITS 385/386 UPDATED M-48A5 with complete TTS FCS

Those CM-11 pictures are for the OOB as well if you wish. The current pictures look like M-48 or early M-60 ones.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 18th, 2015, 01:54 AM

Well the @/?!*%$ mouse struck again and closed all my TWO tabs!
OK, I'm good now...The ERA for the CM-11 ERA has been solved and it didn't take too long as their are only a couple of companies working for the DGA (It basically coordinates French industry.) in charge of Frances defense needs. Anyway Ref. 1 provides the background and the name of the parent company. Of note the picture in the upper right was "the hook" look familiar? It should, it's pictured in Post 328 above.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3845.html

Next this took a little longer but here's the SNPE subsidiary that handles ERA and other explosive type products. Two items below are quoted from the "Uses" tab, one concerns the AMX-30B2 which I believe we left in service for the French (This reenforces that.) a couple of years ago when this tank came up for discussion concerning the French but, I believe primarily the Greek/Cyprus use of them. Next is of immediate concern to us with the capabilities of this ERA on the M60 Series. Bold is mine in the write up...
1. "AMX30: GIAT Industries/EURENCO products have been selected by the French Army for the reactive armor protection of the French AMX-30B2 tanks equipping the FAR (Force d'Action Rapide)."

2. "M60: Reactive armors can enhance protection levels against modern shaped charge (HEAT) weapons, such as: RPG-7, 105 mm HEAT tank ammunition and BASIC-TOW missiles. They are able to defeat shaped charge weapons up to 1000 mm nominal penetration."

For the below ref from the Home Page click on "Reactive Armor Kits" in the Lower Right. Then in the Upper Left Click on "Composition, Advantages and Uses" in order as shown for the progression of the data. They are short.
http://www.insensitive-munitions.com/en/index.html

Before the mouse strikes again-good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 23rd, 2015, 11:37 PM

I wanted to further ensure I had identified the correct ERA for the Taiwanese CM-11 as noted in the previous 3 (328-330) posts. This of course would involve the AMX-30B2 but more specifically the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS which this MBT is named for by the addition of the BRENNUS ERA (At 400mm equivalency.) package. I can confirm the ERA package I identified for the CM-11 is correct as posted above. The issue I came across deals with the fact that the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS looks to have remained in service longer than 12/2005 as currently in the game, however that game date is correct for the AMX-30B2. The need for the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS and apparent extended service is directly linked to two separate but directly related link to the LECLERC MBT. The issues are first the delay of the operational capability of the LECLERC due to technical and the economic issues France was dealing with during this tanks developmental phase. France was forced to provide a stop gap measure which lead to the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS ERA packaged MBT. The second appears to be tied to the development of the LECLERC MARS MBT which first appeared and was retro-fitted (LECLERC "standard" MBT.) between 2005-2008. A further requirement seems to be tied to Frances need to maintain them also for the Rapid Action Force/French: Force d'action Rapide (FAR as it's better and simply known by.) Though I've seen a couple of sources to indicate the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS was out of service by 12/2008 I believe along with most I've found concerning this MBT that 12/2010 is not an unreasonable end date. All do agree that the numbers were drastically reduced by this time as the last of the LECLERC MARS would have been retro-fitted and returned to the field with the "bugs" teethed out certainly by 12/2010. So I recommend...
FRANCE/AMX-30B2 BRENNUS/UNITS 027 & 028/CHANGE END DATES/DEC 2010 vice DEC 2005.//

The following provides crystal clear pictures to distinguish between the ERA on the CM-11 ERA and the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS as these last four Posts cover. Also provides good background information on other improvements made to the type. Also by the way, they have 45 of these MBT's to sell if you have a mind to take care of any "road rage" issues in your morning commute!?! ;)
http://www.flanderstechsupply.com/images/Brennus%20presentation.pdf

Don would agree with the fact I'm done "looking" at things here, besides I just want to play my game. Darn Russians played me to a draw in my second game of Norway vs. Russia, this is the 3rd Campaign and many battles that I've faced the T-72B3 if you've not encountered this MBT yet, do not under estimate, it will be at your peril!

Don it's fighting as submitted and expected.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 30th, 2015, 02:21 PM

I will offer my thinking to this next question below. There is no doubt in my mind these two tanks will be new to the Chinese OOB (Or will need modification.), the TYPE 99AZ and TYPE 99KM. What I'm requesting from the tankers in the community is whether or not the TYPE 99 pictured at the bottom appears to be the TYPE 99KM with the 155mm MG. I feel myself it's the TYPE 99AZ with the standard but improved 125mm MG. What concerns me though is that the thermal sleeve looks longer and "fatter" and muzzle appears larger as well. It could be the angle of the bottom photo, not sure. Will try to find better pics and dig deeper however, I just would appreciate for now a "gut check" from the tanker community as I'm dealing with some time sensitive issues at the moment-thank you in advance!!

Pics:
13546
Standard TYPE 99/125mm

13547
TYPE 99AZ/125mm or KM/155mm

If I get any responses, 7 is the magic number no more needed after that please!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

March 31st, 2015, 01:49 AM

Looking at the pics, and doing a bit of measuring, I think the thermal sleeve and muzzle are the same, it's just the angle of the bottom picture.
The upper one is an almost "side" perspective whereas the lower is closer to 45 degrees, this the parallax makes the portions closest to the camera seem larger.

My OPINION anyway.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 31st, 2015, 12:53 PM

As I stated I feel the same. I was in a hurry as noted when I came across this tank issue. I still haven't had the time to find better pictures. And I'm trying to find better evidence about the TYPE-99KM many say they have it already in the field at least in limited numbers, some say 2020 or just before before it gets fielded. But the real find for me is that I actually found a site that will allow me to get the LECLERC issue finally settled with the dates I needed on the improved LECLERC types in armor and TI/GSR improvements so I'm happy with that and it only took a year and half bonus all around!! :cheers:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 13th, 2015, 03:48 AM

Well it looks like the Russians are going to parade about 6-8 new systems in the May Day parade. I've been tracking most for some time now but, the next and one I'm about to post in the APC Thread I've been tracking and posting on since they were just rumors.
Before I do the question is where are we going to put them?
Given the thread most have figured out this is about the ARMATA T-14 officially speaking...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_pictures_of_next_generation_of_russian-made_t-14_armata_main_battle_tank_at_alabino_range.html

What can be inferred by these pictures? Basically the following in my option from years of tracking this since the BLACK EAGLE in Post #1...
1. This is as advertised a new platform and not an extended hull T-72 modified unit that includes the T-90 series of tanks. The "clean" appearance does suggest a new armor package has been developed for this tank again as suggested in the past by some.

2. The new road wheel set also indicates a new design as well with seven per side vice the standard six per used on Russian tanks now. And unlike N. Korea's PYOONG(?) (It had seven also as I remember.) stretch T-64/T-72 I again stand by my thinking that we're seeing a brand new platform as promised by the Russian Military at the outset of this project.

3. I can confirm a 125mm and that it is of a new type as well. The barrel does appear a little longer in the top picture notice the tank in the background right side it would appear that the thermal sleeve is more forward then normal also though covered, the flash/muzzle suppressor also seems to indicate a different shape/appearance. These are indicators that possibly it will definitely use a new ATGM or a highly modified current ATGM such as the new KORNET-EM. There was some talk of an optional 152mm as pictured in the above post on the Black Eagle. It is "rumored" that Russia might still field them in very limited numbers as a "tank destroyer" but if done we won't see it before games end.

4. The turret does look new and not of the "standard" Russian ones on their T-72/T90 tanks however I do not believe this to be laid out as on the last set of artist conception drawings everyone got "jazzed up" about a couple of months ago in this thread. It does appear the a RO mini-gun or AGL is mounted on the turret as well. It's also designed to carry up to a 30mm AC.

Won't have time now for the APC post but in the short run, the BOOMERANG is alive it looks like a slightly longer Patria AMV 8x8.

Have a good night-I can't wait to see how wrong I am!?! ;)

It won't be submitted until fielded (Or at least within 6 months.) that's the standard set between the "Boss" and myself .

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Paulus_PAK

April 15th, 2015, 05:48 AM

In this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50717 I've uploaded some early pics of new platforms.
Here are additional T-14 pics.
There're few things that can be taken as certain (or rather estimated) about this construction.
First and most important - 3 men crew with unmanned turret. The crew is housed in a compartment separated from the rest of the hull, especially from the ammuniton storage.
Gun - it is a 2A82 125 mm or some modification of it. 152 mm was rather shelved for now. There're rumours ciculating on polish forums that Armata could be using some new ammunition, based on Grifiel 152 mm family.
Weight is estimated between 55-60 tons.
Engine - possibly an A-85-3A or modification of it (power estimation - between 1500 and 2000 hp).
New active protection system - Afganets (softkill and hardkill).
FCS, visuals - unknown, with rumours of gsr use.

Paulus_PAK

April 21st, 2015, 01:22 AM

Additional pics of T-14, T-15, Kurganets 25 and Koalitsya. They're from training before V-Day in Alabino.
Looking at the crew of T-14 gives a good perspective its size - this thing is huge, much bigger than T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 family.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 21st, 2015, 02:05 AM

It will be a bigger MBT ~10 tons heavier than a T-72,~7 more than a T-80 and finally ~4 more than a T-90. The consistent range I've seen puts the fully equipped troop carry btwn. 6-8. The ref. below has the best uncovered view seen so far and is consistent with earlier posted pictures down to the road wheel count. The Russians will have the final "say" on what we'll ten days concerning ARMATA but I'm expecting at least a covered turret but, maybe Mr. Putin will prove me wrong!?! A little reverse physiology in case he checks out our forum!?! :p
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/armata.htm

Regards,
Pat

Paulus_PAK

April 21st, 2015, 04:39 AM

All vehicles are expected to be fully presented at the V-Day parade at Moscow. On April 30'th the will be a night rehearsal at Moscow but I don't think there would be any changes and new equipment will be still covered. Russians are keeping a tight grip on informations (apparently all the published pics were controlled leaks).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 11th, 2015, 03:01 AM

I'm waiting for the Army Technology website to catch up (From APC Thread.) as historically they are good about providing measurements on the equipment they add under their "Projects" section. Am I to understand the plan is to have a patch in 2016? If so please let me know so I can get these things off my work list. We didn't have this when I submitted the Japanese TYPE 10 providing the ref. in case you see something different but understand this MBT is no "light weight" and generally falls in the middle of the various Top 10 lists out there, TI/GSR 50 if not done so has been on that list for awhile now as well, measurements in second sub para if I recall.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/type-10-tk-x-main-battle-tank-mbt/

Will be out of town in about oh my my-6hrs. best get some sleep, and you get better. This could be my biggest submission for around the world yet!! Another all continent and thread package. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

May 11th, 2015, 09:39 AM

THEORETICALLY there likely will be a 2016 patch but I'm learning not to make long range plans.( and feeling compelled to get a patch assembled "just in case" has so far not ended well for me this year)

MarkSheppard

May 12th, 2015, 07:06 PM

FASTBOAT; I checked my go-to forum for English Language Chinese Defense stuff: China Defense Forum:

http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php

They have a 74-page thread devoted to the ZTZ-99 family (ZTZ-99 is the official chinese name of the 'Type 99'); and they have your "Chinese TYPE 99AZ or KM with 155mm MG.jpg (2 of 2)" on Page 68 of it, with a posting date of 25 August 2014.

The only things about it that the community commented on was that the CITV-clone and laser rangefinder / millimetric radar rangefinder above the main gun were covered by canvas for security reasons.

There's no ZTZ-99AZ or ZTZ-99KM with a 155mm main gun; nope.

What there IS is a development program for a 140mm tank gun ---it's been referenced in chinese documents, and back in 2005/2006, images of a ZTZ-98 or ZTZ-99 (unsure as to which version) with a 140mm gun appeared on the internet.

It's been a while since I checked CDF; but here's the quick and dirty:

A few more images of the early ZTZ-99 prototypes (including one with ATGMs on the side of the turret) have appeared.

The PLA does field-uparmoring of vehicles -- in a CCTV documentary; they showed engineer troops attached to armor units adding Heavy ERA to their ZTZ-59Bs (Type 59 was redesignated).

More information have appeared on interior shots of ZTZ-99 allowing more accurate armor estimates; as well as better details of just what is in that long bustle.

Rumors of a bustle autoloader in development for the ZTZ-99 have been so far unfounded.

Production of ZTZ-99 continues; more units are being re-equipped with it and it's achieving maturity with the PLA Armored Corps; but lately the hot focus of AFV development seems to have shifted onto lighter units; such as that new mystery light tank.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 13th, 2015, 05:00 PM

Mark,
Thanks saves me sometime! I'll still build on this though I've come to the same conclusion. I don't think these failed larger/up gunned MBT's are due to engineering failures as much as the role of armor and combat have changed since the Cold War where the enemy on ethier side had thousands of tanks at their disposal and they wouldn't be very practical in an urban enviroment. And yes that's one of the mods on my list to add the turret mounted ATGW to the type. Also on my list is one of the earlier types (89?) has been modernized to include the addition of a two tubed SAM system mounted on the turret. Plus the light 120mm MBT's that have been fielded since the beginning of this year. I'll be a very busy man this summer and as much time as I'm allowed SHOULD Andy and Don decide to proceed as per the post previous to yours. I personally miss the Sino-Defense site but for some unknown reason they dropped all their MBT data including the archive data though they still cover the aeronautical stuff.

Regards,
Pat

MarkSheppard

May 13th, 2015, 08:04 PM

Over at Secret Projects Forum, STEALTHFLANKER did some math for us on the T-14 Armata:

I attempted to do some "educated guess" On Armata's weight using nominal ground pressure as basis. Based on some photos i managed to get some rough estimates on Armata's track parameters as follows :

Track Pitch :160 mm
Track Width : 550 mm
Roadwheel diameter :700 mm
Number of roadwheel axles :7
Length of track contact surface with ground :5.25 m

If the Armata have similar "mobility" as T-72A tank with NGP of 78 kN/Sqm it would weigh around 46000 Kg If mobility is similar as T-90S with NGP of 92kN It would weigh 54000 Kg.

MarkSheppard

May 13th, 2015, 08:55 PM

Plus the light 120mm MBT's that have been fielded since the beginning of this year.

You mean this (see attached)?

Speculation on what exactly it IS armed with is wavering between 125mm and 105mm.

It first showed up in 2011 on the boards, and even now; in Q2 2015; a lot is really unknown about it.

What really confuses things for China Watchers is the Chinese Military Industrial Complex's own indigenous development (on their own) of various vehicles for the export market.

For example, MBT-3000 (VT4) is basically an exportized ZTZ-99; and there are whole prototypes which get built to chase an export market; then die and go nowhere; like the old AAI RDF/LT light tank.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 13th, 2015, 11:54 PM

Looks like it, posted it awhile back in this forum. Military-Today had the first data I came across on this tank-be advised I'm not where I can get to my computer for a few days yet but, Army-Recognition and JANE's has confirmed this tank. The refs showed the tanks on rail cars being shipped West apparently, now who could be there? India, these tanks would be ideal for ops in the mountainous area along their respective borders due the condition of the road network there that can't currently support India's ARJUN tanks and barely their T-90S ones. But as I've just been reminded by you know who, I'm on vacation so I'll post what I've got when I get home, before I hear from someone else as well!?!
Now if only we could get our ball teams to find their winning ways again!?!

Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 15th, 2015, 07:50 PM

I have been asked why I track some of these items for as long as I do even after I submit something-the answer is simply boils down to patience the ARJUN and Indonesian LEOPARD issues come to mind as fairly recent issues. So about that T-14/ARMATA:
http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution

13754

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 16th, 2015, 12:17 AM

As reported, submitted and entered in the game a little follow up and closure of the books on this next...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/finland_has_taken_delivery_of_the_first_20_leopard _2a6_mbts_from_the_netherlands_15051512.html

Kind of goes allow with what I mentioned in my last post.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 19th, 2015, 05:32 AM

I owe this answer to Mark from a couple of posts ago concerning basically my work list for the PLA tanks for the next patch within the next couple of years.

TYPE 99: This concerns the addition of the ATGM.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/china_to_equip_type-99_main_battle_tanks_with_next-generation_laser-guided_missile.html
http://www.janes.com/article/48782/china-to-put-125-mm-atgm-in-service-on-type-99-tanks

My JANE's source is in the 404 cat. on this topic for now-sorry. Posted anyway in case it "clears up".

TYPE 98 (Vice 89 from my earlier response.): These tanks are just recently started mounting a tube launched MANPAD/SAM.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/chinas_has_upgraded_its_home-made_type_98_main_battle_tank_with_manpads_air_def ense_missile.html

Light Tank: Some speculation that this isn't the TYPE 99 derivative (Can't remember it's designation off hand.) partly because it comes with a 105mm MG that however can fire and is supposedly equipped with an ATGM. No definitive proof that the TYPE 99 version went into production. Re-posting first source to report this tank again as well.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/new_chinese_light_tank.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2015_global_defense_security_news_industry/china_has_developed_new_light_tank_for_operations_ in_mountainous_region_as_the_tibet_0201153.html

Here are my concerns though with this tank...
1. That gun sure looks like a 125mm to me, at 30-35 tons (1/2 weight of an ABRAM's) and compared against the Japanese TYPE 10 at about 45 tons w/120mm, I feel right about this. It also looks very similar (If not the same.) as the TYPE 99 125mm.

2. Can anyone guess where I'm going next? Look at the turret that screams TYPE 99 to me all day long. So yes I believe this to be the TYPE 99 derivative.

3. I further feel based on the timeline to support my last from #2 above matches the known development of the TYPE 99 derivative. I think Ref. 2 got the gun data confused with the ZBD-2000 Light AMPHIB tank posted below which does have a 105mm and was developed along a similar time-frame.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/zbd_2000_light_tank.htm

Bottomline: Though confident in my analysis, I still have some research to do here before it gets submitted.

Now to try to get back to sleep!!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

May 19th, 2015, 06:22 PM

Been sort of wondering why we haven't seen much of main gun launched MPADs.

While I'm no weapons engineer it seems it'd be pretty easy to come up with a heat targeting version. A couple sensors on the outside of the tank to lock the target then a rocket launched (the sudden acceleration of a gunpowder launched one would probably destroy the missile) could be sent down range. Probably of limited value vs aircraft due to the limitations of traverse and elevation (and that's probably why it hasn't been done) but should be great vs helos.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 19th, 2015, 10:58 PM

Something was bugging me about the Chinese TYPE 98 ref., I forgot about the Polish ZSU-34-4MP w/GROM MANPAD shown in pic before the bottom one and Russia's ZSU-34-4 w/SA-18 "GROUSE" MANPAD shown in bottom pic of ref. Note the difference in mounting, launcher and radar between the two. More work maybe will have to check those OOB's. Hate when something gets into my head at times. Hate that ingrained questioning attitude we got repeatedly taught maybe, that's why I'm sitting at my desk and not at the bottom of the "deep dark sea"!?! ;)
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/chinas_has_upgraded_its_home-made_type_98_main_battle_tank_with_manpads_air_def ense_missile.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

May 20th, 2015, 01:06 AM

At least you get to live in relative comfort at the bottom of the sea.
Trade ya for a mud filled foxhole.

MarkSheppard

May 29th, 2015, 05:20 PM

Some more Armata stuff. This is a long beast. Plus a concept drawing of what the interior could look like.

shahadi

May 29th, 2015, 07:03 PM

At least you get to live in relative comfort at the bottom of the sea.
Trade ya for a mud filled foxhole.

Not a fair deal, Suhiir. Reading this post after being drawn here by MarkSheppard's post (I try to read his stuff), it brought to mind my boyhood fascination with subs. I remember in the 8th grade two boys immigrated to the US from Germany. I questioned them incessantly after Wofgang told me their dad served on a U-boat. Most recently, I read Rick Campbell's The Trident Deception, fascinating submarine story interwoven into a complex geopolitical/military thriller. You don't live in relative comfort at the bottom of the sea, any sea, even the Red Sea. Although official crush depths are secret, given published test depths, the crush depth or collapse depth is no where near the bottom of any sea on earth. Maybe, the sub would lay on the edge of undersea mountainous cliff but certainly not at the bottom with a live crew.

In the book, The Trident Deception, an axiom of sub warfare was stated in general terms as; "one crew lives, the other crew dies." A torpedo hit sends her to the bottom, she and her crew dies.

So, keep your foxhole along with all your "dope and beer."

-----

Suhiir

May 30th, 2015, 06:42 PM

I once had a job that required me to board subs (after all someone has to deliver the list of which sailors/civilian techs are allowed aboard) so while I've never been at sea (or under it) I have seen/been about everywhere in one (minus a couple special areas) chasing down the commanding officer to hand deliver my list.
I'll take the sub ANY day. Sure they have their drawbacks but so does steel rain.

shahadi

May 30th, 2015, 08:13 PM

A boat at mooring is kinda like the USN Reserve Sub fleet... there was one at Alameda in the 60's, I think she was decommissioned in '70, the Parche, maybe, I seem to recall her name. Anyway, even those boats, during "weekend cruise" had nothing but drills and drills and drills. There's a drill for every scenario, apart from torpedo, missile, and battle drills, there's emergency, electrical, nuc, ventilation, and all sorts of drills. A lot of work to practice to kill the other guy before he kills you, or to slip silently, quietly, through the dark blue seas. Imagine the drills at sea.

Take the "dope and beer" and be happy.

-----

Suhiir

May 31st, 2015, 04:56 AM

I have more time at sea then most sailors I know (tho not aboard a sub), believe me I know shipboard drills. Plus the ones we Jarheads did and the sailors got out of the way or got run over.

DRG

May 31st, 2015, 07:07 AM

This thread has drifted off topic so lets put the life in a trench vs life in a sub issue to bed now.....OK ?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 1st, 2015, 03:30 AM

Haven't looked in for awhile, I see a diversion is needed. I can say the following 800ft, +20 knots, many hundreds of pounds+++ per square inch, "Crazy Ivan" was for real, slept with our food (7 month deployment), been places I can never talk about and been places I can, hoped to never die like the guys did on the THRESHER, SCORPION, BONEFISH (Had a friend/crewman who was on the BONEFISH during her last voyage.) and the KURSK (We could've saved them but they wouldn't let us-"national pride" led to suffocation-that one hurt if you could've seen what we could.), been shot at on the range with the new MK-48 ADCAP - not fun either as it's "whizzing" around you and finally missed the hell out of CINCLANTHOME and the kids with 12 years under the sea.
But you want to know what was the scariest thing of all!?! Yep, the Germans and French are going to try again to jointly develop an MBT together to replace the LEOPARD 2 and LECLERC tanks. The last attempt was unsuccessful leading to the separate development of the LEOPARD and for France the interim AMX-30/AMX-30B2 BRENNUS and eventually LECLERC.

And no, we will not see this tank in this game...
http://www.janes.com/article/51850/germany-looks-towards-leopard-2-replacement

And finally here's a surprise!!!!...
http://www.janes.com/article/51269/arjun-mbts-out-of-action-due-to-spares-shortage

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

June 1st, 2015, 07:44 AM

:doh:

Suhiir

June 1st, 2015, 09:20 AM

Yep, the Germans and French are going to try again to jointly develop an MBT together to replace the LEOPARD 2 and LECLERC tanks. The last attempt was unsuccessful leading to the separate development of the LEOPARD and for France the interim AMX-30/AMX-30B2 BRENNUS and eventually LECLERC.

Given their history of cooperation I'd bet on another unsuccessful joint venture.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 1st, 2015, 11:50 PM

Strictly the News here...well probably anyway...

ALGERIA: Making those T-90S tanks...
http://rbth.com/news/2015/02/20/contract_for_licensed_assembly_of_200_t-90_tanks_in_algeria_signed_43883.html

FRANCE: What will allow me to fix the LECLERC in the French OOB this site provided the "missing link" to connect the dots and make the vision issue much clearer. And a little JANE's to bring it up to date never hurts either.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/NEW/modern/France/AMX-56_Leclerc.php
http://www.janes.com/article/49928/french-leclerc-mbts-receive-eur330-million-upgrade

GERMANY: Not liking what they see in the East say, We want a 100 more on the line...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/army_of_germany_to_increase_power_of_its_armoured_ forces_with_100_additional_leopard_2_mbts.html

ISRAEL: Making sure they stay in the field...
http://www.janes.com/article/50053/israeli-mod-doubles-merkava-4-namer-component-orders

PAKISTAN: Looking to China again for an MBT to keep up with India...TRACKING...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/pakistan_might_acquire_china_north_industries_corp oration_s_vt-4_main_battle_tank.html

POLAND: Poland to restart the LEOPARD 2PL program again, see what Russia started? This was a dead program after the purchase of their newest LEOPARD's this past year. Of note Poland is very active in the Ukraine currently...TRACKING...
http://www.janes.com/article/49119/poland-rejigs-leopard-2pl-upgrade-programme

RUSSIA: "Go East T-72B3", Russia continues it's deployment to the Eastern Military District to modernize it's armor there.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/russia_s_eastern_military_district_to_get_new_batt le_tanks.html
But what's good for the East is also good for the West...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/russian_western_military_district_about_to_receive _upgraded_t-72b3_main_battle_tanks.html

THAILAND: The Ukraine's T-84 OPLOT-M tanks keep rolling in...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/second_batch_of_five_t-84_oplot-m_main_battle_tank_for_thailand_army_ready_to_be_d elivered.html

TURKEY/INDONESIA: They are to unveil a joint venture Med. MBT later this year...TRACKING...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/first_two_prototypes_of_turkish-indonesian_medium_tank_should_be_unveiled_in_2015_ 270420153.html

UKRAINE: Ukraine to bring back into service the T-72 in a NATO standard model speculation is it'll be similar to Poland's PT-91. It should be more advanced though given Ukraine's technological advances in the last few years as posted in this thread...TRACKING THIS AND THE NEXT...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/ukroboronprom_ready_to_modernize_300_t-72_mbt_to_meet_nato_standards.html
And let's not forget the T-64B...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/ukroboronprom_to_deliver_updated_t-64b_main_battle_tanks_to_the_ukrainian_army.html

UK: Says "yes we still can..."
http://www.janes.com/article/50131/british-army-completes-exercise-to-validate-armour-deployability

U.S.: The M1A2 SEP 2 conversions to continue...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/general_dynamics_wins_contract_to_convert_addition al_abrams_tanks_to_m1a2_sep_v2_configuration.html

This concludes the All World OOB view one Country and OOB at a time. :)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 14th, 2015, 03:54 AM

Don,
If it's not too much of an inconvenience, I would be interested to know when the Italian ARIETE MBT was entered into the game. I'm trying to get a "sense" of what drove the submissions at the time. My concerns are:
1. Looks like fielding date needs to be shifted to the right by two years.

2. There was no further development of the ARIETE MBT after the ARIETE C1. Due to many factors including economic, the ARIETE tanks never took the next steps in development of the type. However as I posted in this thread 3-4 (The "vision" list.) years ago I felt I have the data to support a TI/GSR 45 and MAYBE 50.
My plan is to A) Modify one of the current C1+/C2 tanks with the improved TI/GSR. B) Keep the most advanced C2 MBT, update the TI/GSR to 50 and recommend putting it in slot 999/or the "safe" until/if Italy comes up with the funding by this games last patch input in 2021 to release it for use. C) And finally, submit all other ARIETE C1+ and C2 tanks for deletion.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ariete/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/ariete.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Italy/Ariete-MBT.php
http://www.armyrecognition.com/italy_italian_main_battle_tank_char_de_combat/ariete_iveco_oto_melara_main_battle_tank_italian_a rmy_italia_description_pictures_identificatio.html

Though the last is in French, there is no mention of any other "C" type and none is listed in the "variants" section.

3. Related to the above and for FYI, the Italians are doing what say Poland and some others, by maintaining a respectable heavy
armor presence but relying on lighter armored anti tank platforms such as the CENTAURO. The news here is that the CENTAURO this month has started field tests with a 120mm SB 45 Cal. MG the turret can also carry the 105mm RG 51 Cal. MG as well. It will presented to the Army in the fall.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/first_prototype_of_cio_s_centauro_2_armoured_vehic le_about_to_start_testing_phase_2705151.html

Off to the rack...good night...and again enjoy the rest of your weekends!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 14th, 2015, 10:02 AM

Pat ,I have NO IDEA what "Looks like fielding date needs to be shifted to the right by two years" is supposed to mean so just tell me clearly what needs to be changed and why and I will look into it. Open up the Italian OOB with MOBHack and find the unit numbers of the one you want removed or altered

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 14th, 2015, 11:48 AM

I'm not going to piecemeal these items I'm working, was just curious is all how the tanks got in with the current dates. However, after looking further into to it, the answer simply is it got put in at least two years earlier then the Italian Army took delivery of the first ARIETE sometime in 1995 as corroborated by the refs., I posted in the last thread. I need to figure out what month in 1995 they got their first tank to determine a more realistic (Could be as late as 1996.) start date than the current one of 1993. This is simply a case as we've dealt with out here too many times, of someone submitting a piece of equipment, years before a country fielded/made operation that piece of equipment.
So please I got this and I'll finish it in my usual manner to minimize your work at your end. As you can see this still needs fine tuning and was something that's been on my list to work for at least the last two++ years now.
This provided a little more detail as to what happened then the others on the upper right of the page when opened...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Italy/Ariete-MBT.php

I'll be more careful to rephrase my questions in the future, trust me right now we don't need this, life strikes again.

Enjoy your weekend.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 14th, 2015, 11:59 AM

Pat, the start date for the Ariete C1 in the latest OOB's is 3/1998 not 1993 so you see my confusion?? However 3/98 shifted back two years would be 1996.

What's the OOB date on your INFO tab ? ....should be May 2015

EDIT- Just checked OOBs back to windows Ver 1 ..... the Ariete C1 has never been 1993 start date. It started out 1/98 then it was adjusted to the 3/98 we have now sometime between V1 and V3.5 and your are correct "right now we don't need this"......but here we are.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 14th, 2015, 01:51 PM

How to turn an "8" into a "3" and make yourself look like an *** :doh:...
1. Stand a post in SE Ga. in around 100 degree temp & 95% humidity for over eight hours.

2. Wear a certain garment that's guaranteed to raise your core temp by another 10-15 degrees and somehow make you feel heavier.

3. Have a small glass of CINCLANTHOME's fresh made iced green tea and mint at ~1:30am.

4. Feel like you got a second wind after catching yourself doing the newly popular 80's/90's "head bob" and trying to post at 4am.

My apologies...We'll need to get it to them changed for around 2 to 3 years earlier. Forgot about the C3 and others in the OOB. I'll take a look at them as the best and latest version would probably be the one to hold onto if any future development is done on the C1.

I gotta get ready for work!! Again sorry for the mess!! Hopefully I would've caught it when work started in earnest, but thank you for pointing it out.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 14th, 2015, 04:36 PM

:D sounds like "fun"

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 6th, 2015, 12:51 PM

I've said it before, if your not looking here first your missing out. They struck first again, this tank is already on my list and it looks like I reported (And others on the web.) on it before it became declassified this year and recently. No wonder someone out here couldn't answer my questions on it awhile back, he couldn't. It apparently had the ultimate camouflage and was kept secret for thirty years. The timeline certainly makes sense as compared to what I found out about the TAMMUZ /SPIKE NLOS that's mounted on the M113 APC.
I'm just glad the MOSSAD didn't come knocking on my door!?! :p
Gotta go back to work so...
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/pere.htm

Always has been my first look "build" from site. Now I have a very good start point.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 16th, 2015, 04:29 PM

Posted some Win 10 issues in that thread. Started to recover my source websites and came across this for you...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/russian_army_t-14_armata_main_battle_tank_set_for_operational_tes ts_in_2016.html

If this holds we'll be likely looking at late 2017/early2018 again if this holds.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 21st, 2015, 09:39 PM

This just couldn't wait and the admission made quite frankly under the current political situation surprises me. This might revive Rheinmetall Group 120mm L55 SB gun if that hint helps anyone identify the MBT in question to this point.
http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata

I think what will happen here is MOD will do the weapons upgrade they have two main options I see... 1) The above German MG with the advantage of being able to use NATO rounds, or 2) Look to India's ARJUN 120mm RB (New) MG. Don't laugh this is probably one of the best 120mm guns out there right now with India using fin-stabilized rounds which greatly increases the effectiveness of the MG. This would allow the UK too not have to retool their MBT munitions facility(s). Remember as I noted when submitting this tank where they got got a lot of there development help from...Germany (Rheinmetall Group), Israel (ELBIT/RAFEAL), France (NEXTAR) and some think we might've provided help as well.

With that comes possibly a new FCS, however the current FCS has plenty of room to grow and support the new gun. Armor should be fine against the ARMATA as the CHALLENGER 2 is considered one of the safest tanks out there already. If they would've mounted the 152mm a lot tanks might be in trouble though, Russia is considering integrating or standing up separate "tank killer" units with the 152mm.

We'll probably see a push in the NATO countries to hurry along the APS and other similar systems within the next 2-3 years.

And finally I can see tank launched ATGW's (LAHAT) coming to NATO as well for extended range kills. As far as I can confirm right now only the U.S., Germany and Israel have a standard 120mm round with confirmed kills out to and beyond 4500m with unassisted rounds in case I have to be more concise.

My thoughts and only time will tell but, rest assured I'll be TRACKING this all. After all isn't that what I do? ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

September 21st, 2015, 11:46 PM

Paulus_PAK

September 24th, 2015, 03:59 AM

Technicalities are uncertain, but new NATO tank could be named Chaleoclerc.
;-)

Imp

September 25th, 2015, 07:38 AM

It's rather amusing watching the main guns on western tanks get progressively larger and larger.

37 > 75 > 90 > 105 > 120 > ?

The question is when do we hit the point where armor-mobility-internal ammo supply dictate "stop".

I think we are there now, going larger has to be a last resort.
150mm would drastically cut ammo loads & would require an autoloader due to the weight unless another workaround was found.

cbo

September 26th, 2015, 07:34 AM

It's rather amusing watching the main guns on western tanks get progressively larger and larger.

37 > 75 > 90 > 105 > 120 > ?

The question is when do we hit the point where armor-mobility-internal ammo supply dictate "stop".

You forgot the 50mm range (German 5cm guns, British 6-pdr) :)

It could be argued, that in terms of caliber, not much have happened since the 1950ies. After all, British, German and US tanks all had guns in the 90mm range in 1945 (84mm, 88mm, 90mm) and the Germans were toying with the idea of a 105mm tank gun in 1944/45. IIRC first US projects involving a 105mm tank gun was in 1950, the British about the same time and both the US M103 and the British Conqueror sported 120mm guns in the early 1950ies.

So it could be said that in terms of firepower, the West have just been fiddling for the last 60 years :)

The Russians have probably shown the way forward, if you want a bigger gun - you need to use the entire turret for gun and ammo and use an autoloader. Which again moves us back 60 years to some of the 1950ies diesel-punk designs sporting unmanned turrets and autoloaders :)

Suhiir

September 27th, 2015, 08:36 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 27th, 2015, 01:03 PM

I offer the below site as many defense websites some of which I use describe it as the best website for data in particular on the LEOPARD but, overall considered very thorough in it's research. It makes my next point for me under the "firepower" section of each tank they list in progression of development. You can't just talk about the gun size without the discussion being married to the ammunition the gun is using. Simply put the difference between the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 and 120mm L55 is about 200-300m/s this equates very simply to penetration on the target. But as tank ammo has progressed beside the advantage of urban combat use, is the reason the L44 is still competitive to the L55. The progression of the gun and end of the Cold War is why Germany and Sweden dropped their 140mm LEOPARD gun programs. The ammo just has not caught up in technology for the bigger caliber guns as it has for the 120mm types. This is not to say development is stagnant in this area it's just not a priority is all. We still maintain a 140mm gun option for the ABRAMS (Guess who makes that gun?) but it's on the "back burner" at best. If you read carefully about the ARMATA it fields the same gun as the T-90MS as I submitted about three years ago, this was the operational test bed for the ARMATA. The concern about the ARMATA is that it will suppositely carry a new as yet unidentified tank round. This is the issue concerning the West. But I again would suggest that you pick a tank you like and follow it's development and focus on the "firepower" section at each stage of your tanks progression.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html

This I hope will offer some perspective to this discussion and he uses very reliable sources for his research.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 28th, 2015, 09:24 PM

A continuation of my last last and yes I did read the whole thing if you will for both a "reality" and "relevance" check against what's currently going on. Some of this is already in the field now with the USN already operationally mounting a laser on a ship and advanced development of a "rail" gun. Why bring up the NAVY? If the NAVY is doing it what do you think DARPA is doing for the ARMY? So about ARMOR magazine, well it's focus is to keep the USA Armored forces informed on various topics related to armor as PROCEEDINGS keeps the USN community informed on Naval issues. Again considering it's almost twenty years old they were pretty much on the mark and should give you an idea how long these things take from the thought, R&D, testing, procurement, low rate production, op eval, acceptance, full rate production to fielding. I think that pretty much covers what's involved. Here's your article...
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5fcs97.pdf

Where we're at now...
http://www.army.mil/article/98946/Army_developing_new_120mm_AMP_tank_round/
http://www.army.mil/mobile/article/?p=124313

If you go to where I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 in the Fastboat Patch Page or this Thread one of the refs has more details in it about this round and one other I believe. I believe the source was the Picatiney Arsenal in PDF format.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

September 29th, 2015, 05:32 AM

I suspect one of the main reasons the USN gets to play with lasers and mass drivers is ships have lots of space and power available.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 30th, 2015, 03:45 AM

Not as big as you would think nor as power hungry at 30kw, though more efficient than most lasers at 35% you can see we have a way to go to reach 100% potential but it's coming next year in making strides to get there. About midway down of the picture shown "bow on" (For any Navy folks out here having been a Contact Coordinator-I'll call it about a 35 degree Port Angle on the Bow.) center-line just above the bridge and not much larger then the PHALANX system just below and to the right (Port Side.) as you look at the picture.
http://news.usni.org/2014/12/10/u-s-navy-allowed-use-persian-gulf-laser-defense

But this is the MBT Thread so let me give something along those lines...

Well we're slowly bringing back some heavy armor to Europe.
http://www.defence24.com/246262,us-abrams-main-battle-tanks-headed-towards-bulgaria-to-deter-the-russian-aggression#
http://www.defence24.com/249301,polish-ministry-of-defence-us-armys-equipment-will-be-sent-to-poland-next-year#

Taiwan feels the time is right to formally request the purchase of 120 M1A1 tanks after years of sitting on this request. A stronger Taiwan would now be more in the interests of the U.S. and our Asian allies especially in the South China Sea area where China is building islands to claim them as territories and the legal issues that come with that and plus the military expansionism associated with those islands.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/taiwan_plans_to_purchase_120_american-made_m1a1_abrams_tanks_to_replace_old_m60a3_mbt_13 005152.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 7th, 2015, 03:15 AM

The answer as to the direction Poland wants to take it's heavy armor as I've reporting is now becoming more clear. The LEOPARD 2PL will take Poland's 2A4 tanks apparently to the 2A6 level (The Canadian's spec built excellent 2A6M variant has been mentioned.) once completed, Poland will take the fairly new bought 2A5s and apply those upgrades to them as well. This is the same successful strategy Turkey used in it's LEOPARD upgrade program TO the 2T.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/buy-from-the-pros-poland-adds-more-german-tanks-019466/

For those out there hoping for the new Polish indigenous tank this truly is a set back out past this games current status. The writing was the wall anyway for the last 5 yrs. or so when Germany started to flood the market (Dutch as well.) with inexpensive, modernized and well maintained LEOPARDS. Poland's second batch of 14 2A4s/105 2A5s plus supplies, trainers etc. for only EUR 180 million is extremely cheap to the point that the deal I estimate was at least 3x(+) less expensive then the R&D to Prototype stage for a new indigenous design.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 9th, 2015, 03:18 AM

Well this is kind've like that "mystery meat" you would get in a bowl of soup, in a casserole or on your plate. It looks familiar, smells like something you should know and might even taste like something you've had before but your just not sure. The point is and this isn't to start a food discussion, that we have some information concerning Russia's new armor being applied to their latest equipment it's something but we're just not really sure what it is-yet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/armata_kurganets-25_and_boomerang_s_fighting_modules_has_been_reinf orced_with_vst-2_armor_40710151.html
http://www.rusbiznews.com/news/n2658.html

And that's about it for now on VST-2.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 9th, 2015, 09:20 AM

All we can ever do is guess armour levels until someone puts a round or missle into one since that info is not published

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 15th, 2015, 02:38 AM

Well the next is always a subjective matter, however I overall have to agree with the lineup and these guys seem to get very reliable data about Russian and Eastern European equipment in particular (They're based out of the Ukraine.). Notable movement is the K2 to #2/ARMATA first time listed at #5. In regards to the K2 MANY refs are now really "onboard the bandwagon" concerning the K2. The previous list is in this thread about a year/year 1/2 back.
http://www.military-today.com/tankstop_10_main_battle_tanks.htm

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 15th, 2015, 08:05 AM

I'll take a deeper look at that info in a month or so but for now I have adjusted the K2 gun stats to match the 2A7's. Overall though I think we are close with most of this but I will review this more closely before the next patch

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 16th, 2015, 01:19 PM

Yes I believe a second look might definitely be worth the time as more data has come to light especially considering the KSTAM round they carry also, due to production delays it's my understanding the K2 has been back fitted with the "hard-kill" APS intended for the second gen K2 PIP tank, compliments the "soft-kill" equipment onboard already as standard equipment. Numbers vary and I believe the truth of it is closer to a 100 K2 tanks by now of somewhere between 40 to 100 K2 tanks in service. Refs hopefully in order of newest/technical data top to bottom. Last has a very good video especially at the end in it's fording abilities.
These are to assist you when ready!!

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2311.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/south_korea_korean_tanks_and_heavy_armoured_uk/k2_black_panther_main_battle_tank_hyundai_rotem_te chnical_data_sheet_description_information_identif ication_intelligence_pictures_photos_images_video_ sou.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k2-black-panther-main-battle-tank/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/k2_black_panther_mbt.htm
http://tanknutdave.com/the-republic-of-koreas-k2-black-panther-mbt/

Regards,
Pat

MarkSheppard

October 16th, 2015, 08:40 PM

Not really a MBT; but eh. We don't get much US Army armor lately....

http://www.janes.com/article/55223/ausa-2015-army-defends-high-cost-for-up-gunned-stryker

The army is working to up-gun 81 Strykers with 30 mm cannons on remote weapon systems and others with Javelin anti-tank missiles, a long-considered upgrade that was pushed through an operational need statement from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based at Vilseck in Germany. Service leaders approved the plan in April and now testing and integration work remains.

The cost per system appears particularly high (about USD5 million per vehicle), and according to Heidi Shyu, the army's acquisition executive, this is partly schedule driven because it is through an urgent need statement that is seeking the upgrade as soon as possible. It is also for only 81 systems, so the limited quantity drives up per-unit costs. The price includes a design and integration element as well, she added.

These lethality upgrades are not for the heavier armoured Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) vehicles, and rather are for the original flat-bottom configuration, although a Stryker engineering change proposal (ECP) effort may eventually include a 30 mm weapon for the DVH, Shyu said. "If we want more Strykers to have this capability beyond the 81 [requested in Europe], we will start a programme of record to do that," she said, noting that the cost could be lower with a procurement of thousands of units.

------------

TBH; given past experience with US program cancelations; and the full state of the US OOB; I'd hold off until this actually does enter service.

MarkSheppard

October 16th, 2015, 08:47 PM

From AUSA 2015; looks like the ECP Abrams has an official name: M1A2 SEP v3.

Who knows if it will actually IOC.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 17th, 2015, 01:37 AM

Well I believe the SEP V3 will see service within the next two years. You must remember we have only 1 tank factory in this country, we can't afford to lose the expertise or manufacturing capability. The new Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP)/M829E4 (This 5th GEN round will soon be type-classified as the M829A4) round is ready for production which means the current fleet of M1A2 SEP V1/V2 tanks will see them first. I'll assume the game engine won't allow for these three separate modes of operation and therefore we'll need to maintain the current AP, HE etc. categories however what is clear is the round (And this will be the only one carried on the ABRAMS.) will need the PEN values to be increased. There is no doubt in my mind that this round will have a "brain" onboard for how else can it defeat advanced AERA/or APS defense systems, it, has to have some kind laser jamming device on it of some kind. This is not beyond our current munitions capabilities concerning technologies along these lines when you consider Germany/Israel have already fielded an AMP munition of their own or the KSTAM munition for South Korea's K2 that acts more like an ATGW than a "normal" tank round (KSTAM is a shoot and forget, top attack, self adjusting round with a radar for ground/obstacle avoidance and target acquisition.) The other issue is the IFLIR, if you remember we had a discussion when I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 & AH-64E GUARDIAN about the TI/GSR values (These are in this/or PATCH threads.) a couple of years ago, this is just laying the ground work for a "cross roads" decision on how far is too far within the context of the game. I see only really two options at this point 1)We can choose to ignore this but, feel more comfortable about the tanks we've already adjusted out to TI/GSR 50 (And I still have a couple of more to go.) or 2)Accept the fact that for the last handful of years left in the game we'll have less then a handful of OOB's whose tanks can see further then the rest but as we left it a couple of years ago I wouldn't want to see anything beyond a 55 or 60 value as it would take away from the games core objectives for the players-to have some fun and to use that "mush pot" inside our skulls. Let's face it and using the M1A2 SEP V2 as the perfect example-when submitted you'll see a quote from the Col. in charge of the SEP V2 Program who basically said "we finally have a FCS system that allows us to see the target beyond/at the range of our current ammo...", that confirmed (battle/or tested) kill range for the ammo was 4500m which means the SEP V2 could identify (not see but identify-there is a difference here.) a target to 4500m+ or a TI/GSR of 90-95 enough said.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/general_dynamics_land_systems_displays_m1a2_sepv3_ most_advanced_digital_main_battle_tank_11210157.ht ml

Our "Paras" have been wanting this for years now and they just might get it...our own light tank that can be air dropped. There is interest in this from the governmental side to get our Airborne troops back this ground support in the ongoing "asymmetrical" environment the military has been operating in.
My prediction-games end.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/bae_systems_presents_the_project_of_expeditionary_ light_tank_able_to_be_airdropped_by_c-130_11310152.html

Not where it goes but, since Mark posted it here's one from this past JUN. I was saving and by way of an update the European theater STRYKER's upgrade has been approved the USA is trying to get more upgraded but not likely the whole fleet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/u.s._approves_budget_to_upgrade_stryker_8x8_armour ed_with_30mm_cannon_remote_weapon_station_11006151 .html

Yes tracking this all.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

October 17th, 2015, 03:07 AM

In future years, the USMC M1A1 fleet will undergo modifications necessary to maintain combat relevance and readiness. The USMC M1A1 Abrams latest generation of upgrades include: Stabilized Commander's Weapon Station; Abrams Suspension Upgrade; Ammunition Data Link; Generation IV Abrams Ammunition Rack; and the Abrams Integrated Display and Targeting System.

The Multiple Purpose High Explosive Round was procured in 2009 and provides the capability to engage a wide array of target sets in three modes of operation: air burst; point detonation; and delayed detonation. The Ammunition Data Link allows the Tank Commander to select a mode of operation on the Multiple Purpose High Explosive Round while it is in the breach.

The Generation IV Abrams Ammunition Rack improves the ammunition handling safety aspects of the tank as well as increasing the high explosive round storage capacity by 50%.
================================================== ===========================

Perhaps a minor increase in the HE value of the 120mm might be in order as well, but not worth worrying about until the M829A4 gets implemented.

As to improved survivablity .. they're already at 6, the highest value WinSPMBT allows.

Suhiir

October 17th, 2015, 03:12 AM

LAV-AT Modernization. LAV-AT program replaces the obsolete Emerson 901 turret and M220E3 TOW to restore operational availability.

LAV Survivability. Self-sealing fuel systems for the mission role variants will begin production in 4th Qtr FY15. Mine protected seating developmental work to be completed in 2d Qtr FY14.
================================================== ==========================

The current version of the LAV is 5, perhaps 6 is justified BUT I'd think that should be reserved for the M1A1.

DRG

October 17th, 2015, 11:15 AM

.

As to improved survivablity .. they're already at 6, the highest value WinSPMBT allows.

we will be looking into adding a 7 to the survival number series to give various new generation tanks ( the Leo 2a7 comes to mind ) added mine protection cabability similar to making them MRV class and that 7 would cover other added crew protection making it far less likely to behave like T-72's so more likely to disable and most of the crew bail out in the event of a hull breach than catastrophic detonation.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 17th, 2015, 11:20 AM

Quick status of the M829E4/M829A4 (Field version.), it is in low rate production now/USA to decide on status of the continued use of DU rounds by MID FY16 (Mar/Apr 2016) though DU will still be used to enhance armor protection due to greater protective abilities over steel. Included USA ref on current status of our ammo across the board from 30mm to 120mm from 2014.
https://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/release.asp?prid=53
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2015/07/20/New-tank-ammunition-enters-production-for-US-Army/6161437423579/
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/WedPaulHill.pdf

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 18th, 2015, 11:20 AM

I need list.....anyone can chime in this is not specifically for Pat....... of modern MBT's or APC's that have been upgraded for added mine protection .....the Leo 2A7 comes to mind for one. We need to know what else has been

BECAUSE...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13934&stc=1&d=1445182745

Thanks

Don

DRG

October 18th, 2015, 02:14 PM

German 2A7
Canadian 2A4M and 2A6M
Swedish Strv 122M
later Merkavas would qualify
T-14 Armata and I *think* maybe the BMP Armata as well

...........all seem to be fitted with bottom armour specifically to counter IEDs etc

anything like that on the newer Abrams ?

DRG

October 18th, 2015, 03:06 PM

This is interesting........... Japanese Type-10 gun stabilizer demo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMvAnQJHjc

scorpio_rocks

October 18th, 2015, 05:19 PM

Would the "BDD" armour package for T-62M (includes belly armour for anti mine protection) count?

how about:
T-80U (T80UD, T-80UK, T80uM1) anti-mine/IED armour, drivers seat suspended from roof, etc
T-84

DRG

October 18th, 2015, 06:04 PM

Certainly worth considering

Imp

October 18th, 2015, 06:08 PM

This is interesting........... Japanese Type-10 gun stabilizer demo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMvAnQJHjc

The zoomed in camera guy could have done with that stabiliser. Quiet an eye opener very smooth transitions.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 18th, 2015, 06:12 PM

NOT REPEATING ANY YOU'VE LISTED THUS FAR AS THEY ARE CORRECT. My criteria was simple from my sources 1) It had to say it was protected as demonstrated below for the OPLOT-M and barring that 2) There was a strong enough indication in the source material to suggest it's there without me having to think "about it" that is why I wrote up the Indian ARJUN Mk 2 and Japan's TYPE 10 the way I did.

UK: Though I would think "size" matters to some degree in what your looking for here. CHALLENGER 2 definitely.
https://defense-update.com/features/2008/sept08/1809082_britichurgentoperationalrequest_armoredveh icles_ridgeback_mastiff_vixen_rwmik_jackal_panther .html

Germany: LEO 2A4 EVOLUTION, LEO 2A6M (Though in limited numbers.) and LEO 2A6-PSO.

Israel: NAMER (Remember what's derived from and it's current and ongoing operational environment.)

USA: M1A2 TUSK, M1A2 SEP V1 (The 2 tanks in the OOB have to be extended out to 2020 vice 2015.), M1A2 SEP V2 and the SEP V3 as they come on line. Hot off the press:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a2_sep_v2_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_ specifications_pictures_video_11610155.html

Also new ammo is now in full rate production as discussed in my last 2 or 3 posts here:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/ausa_2015_orbital_atk_awarded_$105_million_in_cont racts_for_medium_large_caliber_ammunition.html

MARINES: I know it's been done, just not sure to which current versions yet. However are we aware of the fact that the USMC tanks are equipped with a ATGW jamming device?

SWEDEN: Current STRV tanks, people forget they were in the "sxxt" as well and learned from it.

FRANCE: Well this, the SADF and Turkey might be the extent of my contribution this year and it will become obvious as I list the following LECLERC/AMX-56 tanks, LECLERC EMAT S3 series (2004-2010)- LECLERC T-10/T-11.

UKRAINE/THAILAND: OPLOT-M and because no one will believe or be shocked by this I give you the following:
"The Oplot tank can withstand an explosion of up to 10kg trinitrotoluene (TNT) under the tank track and up to 4kg TNT under the driver's compartment." - Army Technology
10kg of trinitrotoluene makes a "BIG BOOM"!!

INDIA: This is on a little less firm ground however with the added 1.5T of armor improvement (Making this the heaviest tank in the world.), I would would think the ARJUN Mk 2 is a viable candidate.

JAPAN: TYPE 10 though maybe to a lesser degree in the same situation as mentioned above for the ARJUN Mk 2.

TURKEY: LEOPARD T2 (Next Generation) that's right this tank is considered by many to be "superior" to any current LEOPARD 2A6 tanks when this was fielded. However my sources do not allow for the ALTAY or South Korean K2 to be a part of this discussion.

I've gone through my tank sources to get this far though I have to admit I wish I had a JANE's. A couple of surprises for me though was the T-90MS and ARIETE (Based on Italy having sent combat ground troops over seas.) but, if you take a look you'll notice most listed were deployed to IRAQ/or AFGHANISTAN at some point.

Also as I mentioned above I feel size/mass does matter here so I wouldn't most APC/IFV types would fit in the direction your going as suggested by a couple of others out here. The newer MRAP's however would definitely fit the criteria but that's for later.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

October 18th, 2015, 06:52 PM

That's perfect Pat......exactly what I needed..........thanks. This change gives added protection to vehicles that should have it but we didn't have a way before this....now there is

.......and the game now goes to 2025:D..........we're not done yet.........

DRG

October 18th, 2015, 07:12 PM

Pat, sorry if you've gone over this but in a nutshell what's being added to the V3 besides the new sabot

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 18th, 2015, 07:15 PM

Oh Gee thanks Don and Andy (I know he's to blame as well?)!?! Well I did plan on my last submission for 2021, what's another five years!?! Did you guys come up with a slot solution? Still for the six country UAE OOB to go away and maybe migrate the air assets from the tighter OOB's into it. Whether you call them "support" or "allies" it'd be about the same. Now I'll shut up!!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 18th, 2015, 07:32 PM

we are exploring options. We still aren't at critical mass yet

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 18th, 2015, 08:32 PM

Sorry Don my :pc: didn't allow me the time to finish my "PS" (CRAP!) so here I go again...

GERMANY: Please consider the CURRENT ONLY 2A6 tanks for the survivability improvement. It appears Germany started adding mine protection in production of the 2A5 however not to the level you're looking at as suggested. However the ARMOR SITE (And the LEOPARD section has been referenced by many of my Defense sites as being the best on the web concerning the LEO.) indicates that the LEOPARD 2A6 had improved mine protection over it's predecessor. This is located just underneath the LEOPARD 2A6 "tag line" on the site.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
However and in fairness FRADO under the LEOPARD 2A7+ did specifically mention the IED protection for that tank which certainly does warrant the enhanced protection level. It's just my gut feeling it might fit the current again only 2A6 tanks since after all Germany did build the LEOPARD 2A6M-CAN and their own 2A6M with IED's in mind. But I'm flexible in which ever way you choose to go with the German 2A6 because this after all isn't a "FREE-FOR-ALL" topic.

USA: To be clear the following are improvements to the current M1A2 SEP V2 in order of importance for the M1A2 SEP V3 1) New single munition AMP (It is now in production.) round. 2. IFLIR this will cause some rethinking as I hinted to would come when we had come to the last "cross roads" decision on TI/GSR when I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and the AH-64E GUARDIAN this is a game changer and might be better than Germany's ATTICA system. All I can suggest for now is to ask you to please read my Post #389 on my Page #39 where I address these first two issues in some detail.
3) Enhanced CROWS system with improved situational awareness and accuracy. 4) Increased armor protection what I can find out thus far is they've improved the DU armor protection it makes good reading about how much stronger it is to steel armor by weight. 5) Increased mobility. 6) Enhanced software to support AMP and other improvements.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/general_dynamics_land_systems_displays_m1a2_sepv3_ most_advanced_digital_main_battle_tank_11210157.ht ml

My METS are on and I'm watching the game!?! I'll check in later if there are any more issues.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 19th, 2015, 03:06 AM

I feel as not many tanks use DU armor an explanation should be given for the ABRAMS survivability. First would you sell equipment to a country with all the "bells and whistles" you have on your "toys"? I would hope not. We don't export our DU armor (Uranium 235/or 238 I believe.) buy below shows what can happen without the DU armor applied.
http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed

Further data and I didn't realize the USA still fielded the M1A1 for frontline service, in this case the M1A1 SA with 120mm/40 rounds.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2013/12.pdf
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/armor-key-to-the-future-fight/
(Under protection section for those in a hurry for 2nd ref.)
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897176,00.html

I hope this might be enough for our ABRAM tanks to warrant the increased protection to include the current versions of the USMC M1A1 tanks as well.

Well good night/morning later today is a day with CINCLANTHOME.

Don will try to get you the additional Russian units to you hopefully later tonight.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

October 19th, 2015, 08:39 AM

MARINES: I know it's been done, just not sure to which current versions yet. However are we aware of the fact that the USMC tanks are equipped with a ATGW jamming device?

Why the most recent USMC Abrams have 1 shot of VIRSS, it's obviously not that same as the ATGW jamming system but as close as WinSPMBT can come.

DRG

October 19th, 2015, 05:29 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 19th, 2015, 07:22 PM

Hard kill solutions include ARENA, TROPHY which actually falls include a special category as a "close in" hard kill solution. Soft Kill systems though normally paired with hard kill solutions (Example here are the ABRAMS that rely on soft kill plus, smoke grenades and the advanced DU armor package.) act very similar to ECM on the advanced jets of the last 20 years or so, about when these systems first became available. These in some cases will automatically launch smoke grenades. Hard kill ones have been around a little longer as ref one touches with a system put on the T-55. It should be noted in the "real world" the tank turret will automatically be slewed in the direction of the threat to point the most protected part of the turret to the threat, launch countermeasures (grenades, chaff etc.) and target and shoot at the aggressor while stationary or on the move.

https://www.benning.army.mil/magazine/1996/1996_3/pf03.pdf
Under this search with google atgw "soft kill" and "hard kill" solutions for armor protection look for the below...
Terms of Reference (TOR) - Under Secretary of Defense for ...
www.acq.osd.mil/mibp...Active_Protective_Systems_CPP_Oct06.doc on first page 3rd or 4th one down.

Excerpt taken from ref. 2 above...

"Active Protection Systems (APSs) for Vehicles
Active protection systems are survivability concepts intended to provide protection to armored vehicles that equals or exceeds that of massive, passive armors at only a fraction of the vehicle weight. Conceptually, an APS can improve survivability by defeating incoming anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), RPGs, tank-fired high-explosive antitank missiles, tank-fired kinetic energy (KE) rounds, indirect fire — including bomblets and mortars, and guided top-attack threats. Vehicle armor must still provide protection against threats that cannot be addressed by the APS. These threats include small arms, mines and explosive fragments, including the residual shrapnel effects resulting from an active protection engagement.

The operational concept of active protection requires the application of advanced sensor, data processing, armor, and weapon technologies as an integrated system on the vehicle. Active protection system's components will include threat detection, tracking systems, signal processing systems, countermeasures systems and base armor, used for structural and residual threat defeat.

A variety of sensors including radar, IR and laser detection systems will be employed on board the vehicle to provide the capability of detecting and tracking multiple munition and directed-energy weapon threats. A typical sensor subsystem includes a threat warner, or cueing sensor, and a tracking sensor.
The threat warner identifies a threat and then, through data processing, hands it over to the tracking sensor. The tracking sensor then determines the incoming threat’s size, shape and vector. Signal and information processing technologies use the tracking data to enable the selection of countermeasures automatically or by the vehicle commander, calculate the firing solution and deploy the countermeasure.

The critical component of an APS is its countermeasure. Countermeasures include not only active protection but electronic devices, obscurants, decoys, and other technologies for hit and detection avoidance. Upon detection of a threat, the system enables the vehicle commander to select the most appropriate countermeasure or defensive tactics to avoid a hit (when engaging anti-tank missiles or threats at medium/long range). Or, the system automatically activates countermeasures, when necessary (primarily against high velocity missiles and kinetic energy threats or RPGs at short range.

The development of an enhanced commander's decision aid (CDA) is being pursued, for optimal utilization of the new defensive measures. Such systems will feed from the vehicle's sensors, as well as from off-board data sources, and will rapidly process the information, classify threats and recommend appropriate countermeasures.

Active Protection Systems commonly consist of an array of soft- and hard-kill techniques.
Soft-kill methods, similar to Electronic Counter-Measures (ECM) in aircraft, seduce and confuse an incoming missile, by using decoys, smoke and electro-optical signals, infrared or laser jamming."

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

October 19th, 2015, 07:52 PM

VIRSS and CIWS are handy short acronyms. One covers "passive ATGM defences" and the other covers "active ATGM defences" so we could add in different selections but the end result would be the same as one or the other of the above........ That said, a VIRSS system gets used up but I think the system you are refering to would not be

You have a point, but as Fastboat pointed out there are active components to the system so I'm not entirely sure which of VIRSS and CIWS would best represent the system nor how many "shots" the VIRSS should have if it was used.

Let me know what you think and I'll incorporate it.

DRG

October 19th, 2015, 09:16 PM

I hope this might be enough for our ABRAM tanks to warrant the increased protection to include the current versions of the USMC M1A1 tanks as well.

Regards,
Pat

OK, what models get the DU and when ?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 19th, 2015, 11:49 PM

Well my posts on the ABRAMS were meant for the new survival rating 7, in my last Post #406 on the ABRAMS, I sought to relay the importance of DU armor as why I listed it on the earlier list in Post #400 of tanks. Consider the ABRAMS in the second criteria I used for listed tanks again for the increased survival rating 7. This has been on my mind for years but I let it go for my own reasons. First DU armor is about 65% - 75% denser then lead depending on the ref. also I've read on average DU is at least 2.5 times stronger by weight as compared to modern MBT Steel armor. So is there room for armor improvement if DU armor was never factored into the ABRAMS tanks in the game. Then I guess the answer is yes.
So to answer your question the first tank to have DU armor was the USA M1A1HA (HA=Heavy Armor with DU added into the tiles.) in June of 1988 assigned to units in Germany (You must remember East Germany was the only Warsaw Pact country to field Soviet manned T-80 tanks.). All previous versions M1/M1A1/M1A1IPIM relied on advanced Steel and Ceramic tiles only. M1/M1A1 would slowly be upgraded to the M1A1HA standard. In months before the Gulf War the USMC would "borrow" 60-80 M1A1HA tanks (Again depending on source.) By late 1995 early 1996 most to all M1A1 tanks would have DU armor tiles installed work was about to finish up on a 2nd Gen DU armor around the same time.
So key points about the refs...
Ref. 1 The armor protection level tables are a key to understanding this DU issue as development of the ABRAMS progresses.
Ref. 2 Page #47 is to the point for this discussion with related battle reports. You also get a really good preview of the book concerning the M1/M1A1.
Ref. 3 Backs up the rest but, what's interesting here is how the M1/M1A1 armor packages affected the UK and Germany armor decisions.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=97CgCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=m1a1ha+abrams&source=bl&ots=Xm-Uov89Nu&sig=GnfQJCnpkgOQzbHmgQcwbduPzVo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCDgKahUKEwjigrSjg9DIAhWKlA0KHfpLCTQ#v =onepage&q=m1a1ha%20abrams&f=false
http://tanknutdave.com/the-us-abrams-series/

What happened to the M1A1HA was simply in the old question of "what's in a name", as the M1/M1A1 tanks got upgraded they simply by numbers overtook the M1A1HA original tanks and just commonly where called the M1A1 or like the current USA version M1A1SA.

Regards,
Pat

Checked the web to include the proverbial Top 10 lists lots using DU rounds but as I thought the ABRAMS is the only one openly showing the use of DU armor.

Suhiir

October 20th, 2015, 02:53 AM

And for armor purposes the USMC M1A1HC is the same as the US Army M1A1HA. There are differences in the vision and computer systems, and as mentioned the USMC uses an ATGM system the Army doesn't.

DRG

October 20th, 2015, 02:49 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 21st, 2015, 04:46 AM

Yes you know me I do take the time to actually read my refs otherwise I might make myself look real stupid out here something that I hardly ever do!?! :rolleyes: I did give you the out and am more concerned and hopefully have made the case for ABRAMS to get the increased survivability to 7 increase. And it's hard for me to sit at my desk and look at the raw data to include comparing the OOB ABRAMS to the better of about 6 contemporary tanks from other OOB's across time. I don't know what calculus is used to drive the armor values for the game. Is an honest reassessment warranted based on what we now either knew/or know about DU armor qualities that's your call and I know it'll be done honestly and within game parameters if you proceed. My feeling is an increase allowing for DU armor is somewhere in the 5% to 8% range but I'm a raw numbers guy so if you take the M1A1HA table 1991 vs M1A1 table 2002 getting an average of the numbers involved and compare them against the first two tables and rounding the differences by % you get the following increase in protection by % from 1991 to 2002...
Turret- KE/+28% HEAT/+20%
Glacis- KE/0% HEAT/+17%
Lower Front Hull- KE/+11% HEAT/+4%

And since you can do anything you want with numbers by taking all of the above %'s you come up with an overall increase in protection of +13% between the M1A1HA of 1991 to the M1A1 of 2002. If you take that 13% increase for that time period (As you would need to recalculate between all the tables.) the range I've offered above might not be too much off in allowing for just the DU armor improvements. The rest would represent steel armor etc. improvements. That time period as already noted would represent the transition from DU armor of the 1st Gen to 2nd Gen.

Well I've done enough damage here for one morning not meant to piss off anyone but I can get a little analytical at times just ask (Or feel sorry for.) CINCLANTHOME and my Co-workers!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

October 21st, 2015, 07:13 AM

We did add armour increses roughly in that time period but really didn't take DU into account. I have NOT...stressing the word NOT here..... checked this theory yet but my first test will be to look back at the increases we did make and multiply by 2.5 and see how that fits with Prado's estimates. 2.5 being the estimated added density of the DU over normal armour plate steel........then I'll compare those numbers with the results that you suggest....then maybe I'll add them all up and average the whole mess and see what I get

We have from the beginning striven to be fair to all parties with these estimates because the few people who really know how what the protection levels of modern tanks are..........they aren't talking, so all we can do is go with "best guess estimates" (BGE).

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 21st, 2015, 12:17 PM

Besides crunching numbers as I did on those tables as posted,2.5 is the best number I could find for strength over steel armor. We take what source/science info is available and as Don says we just have to do the best we can with it because none of us will be around when and if ever this data becomes declassified. Even with the numbers I used it was based on the average of what was given-we'll never be 100% precise with issues dealing with armor protection and ECM, these are things where there are too many variables associated with them. Things like guns and ammo are more tangible items that are easier to "guess" at because of the proliferation of data out there. Doing a search on DU armor for instance yielded a MUCH HIGHER rate of hits on DU ammo and associated health risks from them then anything to with armor protection data. Sometimes to have to think about these things like a rumor..."If there's smoke out there the truth is somewhere in between." or the less precise "If there's smoke, there must be a fire." depending in what part of the country your from.
Search for yourself you'll see what I'm talking about.

Don thank you and if I can help with the calculus let me know including crunching Prado's tables.

Time to think about work after a walk.

Regards,
Pat

Imp

October 22nd, 2015, 06:41 AM

You've quoted Prado before and I DO understand the desire to have higher armour values and I'm NOT saying there won't be an adjustment but look at the Estimated Armor Protection Levels he posts and you see we aren't all the way into the weeds here

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Unless I am looking at the wrong units all figures are within the ranges he quotes.
If anything turret KE errs to the high end of his estimates.

Suhiir

October 22nd, 2015, 07:20 AM

DRG

October 22nd, 2015, 07:39 AM

I'm not so sure ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-ugxN7VKWiEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=multiple+hits+needed+to+destroy+m1a1&source=bl&ots=w0humhL3fH&sig=L4QEv81AWXvUAutcQtgxSf7UwN8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMIsOKjqfrVyAIVB_djCh1QUwb8#v=on epage&q=multiple%20hits%20needed%20to%20destroy%20m1a1&f=false

I've also read (tho I can't find the reference) that even with other M1s firing at them it's often taken several hits to destroy disabled M1s.

That doesn't mean there wasn't penetration just that the the ammo storage baffles were doing what they are supposed to do

and as well if we compare in game Desert Storm era T-72's and their ammo vs game Abrams and their armour you are going to get the historical result. There is no way you get a kill shot on an abrams on the frontal arc and the Abrams can chew through Iraqi T-72's until their ammo runs out

DRG

October 22nd, 2015, 07:48 AM

Besides crunching numbers as I did on those tables as posted,2.5 is the best number I could find for strength over steel armorRegards,
Pat

and how thick are those DU plates Pat?

DRG

October 22nd, 2015, 07:55 AM

I'm not so sure ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-ugxN7VKWiEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=multiple+hits+needed+to+destroy+m1a1&source=bl&ots=w0humhL3fH&sig=L4QEv81AWXvUAutcQtgxSf7UwN8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMIsOKjqfrVyAIVB_djCh1QUwb8#v=on epage&q=multiple%20hits%20needed%20to%20destroy%20m1a1&f=false

I've also read (tho I can't find the reference) that even with other M1s firing at them it's often taken several hits to destroy disabled M1s.

probably HERE
(https://books.google.ca/books?id=M1P6jT8_yrgC&pg=PA104&dq=multiple+hits+needed+to+destroy+m1a1&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAmoVChMI7suD9oHWyAIVRnE-Ch1HNAzH#v=onepage&q=multiple%20hits%20needed%20to%20destroy%20m1a1&f=false)

DRG

October 22nd, 2015, 10:45 AM

Is there a REPUTABLE website that gives estimates for the T80 -T-90 line like Prado does for the Abrams ?

Right now ( I'm still checking and still looking at things so everyone please don't get your knickers in a knot)...but I think.....perhaps....where things started to go wrong where armour values are compared was the jump for HEAT front hull protection for the T-80UM and that spilled over into later models and into the T-90. Those vehicles rely on reactive armour which we model but I'm thinking the HEAT values maybe too generous

( this is when everyone on this side of the pond agrees....and everyone on the other disagrees. I'm just going to sit back and watch.......)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 22nd, 2015, 10:46 AM

In Post #412 my second ref. though it shows written by Henry Wilson copyrighted in 2015 is what appears to be an updated version of Micheal Greens book you referenced with a co-author copyrighted in 2005. I have provided my ref again below see page 48/bottom/under-"Into Combat with the M1A1 HA Tank"/about three paragraphs of reading continuing onto page 49. Not only does he talk about non-penetration hits from Iraqi tanks but friendly fire from our own tanks on the frontal array/or the whole front facing part of the tank.
https://books.google.com/books?id=97CgCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=m1a1ha+abrams&source=bl&ots=Xm-Uov89Nu&sig=GnfQJCnpkgOQzbHmgQcwbduPzVo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCDgKahUKEwjigrSjg9DIAhWKlA0KHfpLCTQ#v =onepage&q=m1a1ha%20abrams&f=false

It seems when I checked the ref from here it opens to page #49 where you'll find the above info, must be that I copied the ref from that point.

Understand you can't "copy" from these sites due to copyright law.

To your question for me, that I know will be classified however there should I think be "estimated" data out there. So I'll do the best I can.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

October 22nd, 2015, 10:54 AM

This might be it...lower front hull looks about 1" thick as does the add on to the left turret face

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13940&stc=1&d=1445525651

DRG

October 22nd, 2015, 11:01 AM

In Post #412 my second ref.

post 412 is a good example of why sometimes I loose focus reading your posts

Well my posts on the ABRAMS were meant for the new survival rating 7, in my last Post #406 on the ABRAMS, I sought to relay the importance of DU armor as why I listed it on the earlier list in Post #400 of tanks. Consider the ABRAMS in the second criteria I used for listed tanks again for the increased survival rating 7. This has been on my mind for years but I let it go for my own reasons. First DU armor is about 65% - 75% denser then lead depending on the ref. also I've read on average DU is at least 2.5 times stronger by weight as compared to modern MBT Steel armor. So is there room for armor improvement if DU armor was never factored into the ABRAMS tanks in the game. Then I guess the answer is yes.
So to answer your question the first tank to have DU armor was the USA M1A1HA (HA=Heavy Armor with DU added into the tiles.) in June of 1988 assigned to units in Germany (You must remember East Germany was the only Warsaw Pact country to field Soviet manned T-80 tanks.). All previous versions M1/M1A1/M1A1IPIM relied on advanced Steel and Ceramic tiles only. M1/M1A1 would slowly be upgraded to the M1A1HA standard. In months before the Gulf War the USMC would "borrow" 60-80 M1A1HA tanks (Again depending on source.) By late 1995 early 1996 most to all M1A1 tanks would have DU armor tiles installed work was about to finish up on a 2nd Gen DU armor around the same time.
So key points about the refs...
Ref. 1 The armor protection level tables are a key to understanding this DU issue as development of the ABRAMS progresses.
Ref. 2 Page #47 is to the point for this discussion with related battle reports. You also get a really good preview of the book concerning the M1/M1A1.
Ref. 3 Backs up the rest but, what's interesting here is how the M1/M1A1 armor packages affected the UK and Germany armor decisions.

When THIS would be more readable

Well my posts on the ABRAMS were meant for the new survival rating 7, in my last Post #406 on the ABRAMS, I sought to relay the importance of DU armor as why I listed it on the earlier list in Post #400 of tanks.

Consider the ABRAMS in the second criteria I used for listed tanks again for the increased survival rating 7. This has been on my mind for years but I let it go for my own reasons. First DU armor is about 65% - 75% denser then lead depending on the ref. also I've read on average DU is at least 2.5 times stronger by weight as compared to modern MBT Steel armor. So is there room for armor improvement if DU armor was never factored into the ABRAMS tanks in the game. Then I guess the answer is yes.

So to answer your question the first tank to have DU armor was the USA M1A1HA (HA=Heavy Armor with DU added into the tiles.) in June of 1988 assigned to units in Germany (You must remember East Germany was the only Warsaw Pact country to field Soviet manned T-80 tanks.). All previous versions M1/M1A1/M1A1IPIM relied on advanced Steel and Ceramic tiles only. M1/M1A1 would slowly be upgraded to the M1A1HA standard. In months before the Gulf War the USMC would "borrow" 60-80 M1A1HA tanks (Again depending on source.) By late 1995 early 1996 most to all M1A1 tanks would have DU armor tiles installed work was about to finish up on a 2nd Gen DU armor around the same time.

So key points about the refs...

Ref. 1 The armor protection level tables are a key to understanding this DU issue as development of the ABRAMS progresses.

Ref. 2 Page #47 is to the point for this discussion with related battle reports. You also get a really good preview of the book concerning the M1/M1A1.

Ref. 3 Backs up the rest but, what's interesting here is how the M1/M1A1 armor packages affected the UK and Germany armor decisions.

and yes I know there are time limits ....that's why I write long posts in my email program first then check them over, check spelling ( sometimes.....) then cut and paste them to the forum when I'm happy with it and that way you don't get locked out of editing and can take all the time you need to write the post..... I can edit anything at anytime and a message appears when it was done ( like this one ) but that function is not available to the average poster

Just saying Pat ..........I have less and less time to take in all the info....RL has been ganging up on me and is getting more complicated so I skim or cut and paste things like this to my "list" for later study but when I do that the web links are usually lost and I DO appreciate the time and effort you make here but sometimes you are giving a thirsty man a drink with a firehose :).and it's hard to take in fully when it's all in a big lump of info

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 22nd, 2015, 12:19 PM

1) I'll try to do better but, I think I'm SLOWLY a little better-maybe!?! :rolleyes:

2) Must remember any of this type (ceramic tile, composite, applique etc.) is like a "stew" of many ingredients are involved (to include fire retardant features.) to make it all work. The prime ingredient seems to fall in the 10mm-30mm (Against imagine that 30mm to lesser AP type rounds.) 60mm thickness is attributed to tiles that have a special alloy aluminum balls inserted into it to further distribute energy and better defeat the warhead. So that 1"-2" thickness overall plus obviously lighter weight might just be in the ballpark. Most modern (and I suspect DU as well) use Tungsten Steel (LEO/CHALLENGER 2/LECLERC and many others.) which is supposed to be almost (a relative term.) as strong as DU. I believe we again use it to a lesser quantity/thickness with DU for the ABRAMS as TUNGSTEN IS VERY EXPENSIVE in comparison to the number of tanks involved. This combination is the edge for the ABRAMS I believe, not a huge one but enough to make a difference I suspect by %. Also we produce/store vast amounts of this material compared to the rest of the world through our weapons and nuclear energy programs as a "waste" by product which DU comes from for ammo and armor use.

3) Same armor tables same source. LEO covers LEO 2A4/5/6.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-90S.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

A note on these tables, they only consider RHAe (Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent) protection levels against KE and Chemical (HEAT) rounds.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

P.S. You'll never know when you might find yourself in a BIG desert! :D

scorpio_rocks

October 22nd, 2015, 12:40 PM

I'm not so sure ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-ugxN7VKWiEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=multiple+hits+needed+to+destroy+m1a1&source=bl&ots=w0humhL3fH&sig=L4QEv81AWXvUAutcQtgxSf7UwN8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMIsOKjqfrVyAIVB_djCh1QUwb8#v=on epage&q=multiple%20hits%20needed%20to%20destroy%20m1a1&f=false

I've also read (tho I can't find the reference) that even with other M1s firing at them it's often taken several hits to destroy disabled M1s.

probably HERE
(https://books.google.ca/books?id=M1P6jT8_yrgC&pg=PA104&dq=multiple+hits+needed+to+destroy+m1a1&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAmoVChMI7suD9oHWyAIVRnE-Ch1HNAzH#v=onepage&q=multiple%20hits%20needed%20to%20destroy%20m1a1&f=false)

Please remember, however, that there is a big difference between "destroyed" in game terms (no longer capable of fighting - these tanks were already at that point) and "totally destroyed" (so nothing falls into enemy hands - as page 104/5 of ref).

scorpio_rocks

October 22nd, 2015, 12:51 PM

Is there a REPUTABLE website that gives estimates for the T80 -T-90 line like Prado does for the Abrams ?

These any good?
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm)

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html
(http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 25th, 2015, 03:22 AM

1) There seems to be just a "little" confusion about the armor protection tables I submitted from the armorsite.com website concerning the ABRAMS and later in Post #227 for the LEOPARD 2A4/5&6, T-80UM and T-90/90S. The tables for the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS only take into consideration STEEL armor (RHAe) it does not consider any added composite armor applications i.e. DU for the ABRAMS. I have found general parity between the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS is RHAe as those tanks have developed (And I'm not surprised by this.). Please read the note within the box under those RHAe values as they clearly support my above comments.

2) Concerning the SOVIET/RUSSIAN tanks, they do include in the tables both RHAe and ERA (In those cases KONTAKT-5.) to make up the total armor protection values. Note: Russia has moved from KONTAKT-5 (Though still in heavy use.) to RELICT-9.

3) The ARMATA/or T-14 has something newer in ERA as yet undisclosed officially by name.
http://www.janes.com/article/52464/russia-s-t-14-armata-mbt-has-new-gen-era

4) This issue that concerns Don to some degree will in some cases some of the Soviet era and current Russian tanks might be "over protected" I do know one thing is for sure neither side of this discussion will be pandered too and a fair and honest review will be done for again both sides of this issue. I think after a cursory review some Russian tanks might benefit due to the ERA in the area of protection against HEAT (Chemical.) rounds.

5) As I've pointed out with my use of the defenseindustrydaily.com (DID) website and can be used as a single sourced site as they always list their sources at the bottom of the article. I don't know PRADO but, I like his work on the Armor Site because he does the same-lists all his refs at the bottom-look at them-he's smart enough to use in country sources, though, KMDB (Kharkiv Morozov Design Bureau (Designer of the T-34, T-64 series and other tanks.) it is now in the UKRAINE.
Ref 1 Main site.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/index.php

Ref. 2 is taken from the "Upgrade Packages for Vehicles..." H1 refers to the frontal arc of the hull while H2 covers the side of the tank notice in the below the increase in protection with the added ERA package they offer as part of their T-72 up grade program. Their upgrade program consists of the following T-72 mods they developed the T-72AG, T-72MP and the T-72-120 NATO compliant version also offered below.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/t72m2.php
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/t72-120.php
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/kbm2.php

But now I digress somewhat, point being sometimes in the "hustle and bustle" (There's a song there.) of our lives we get in a hurry and not only miss things but miss out on things as well, I missed the above KONTAKT-5 item myself until I went back to check on it again earlier. So this goes for me as well!?! :shock: and :doh: but since my work week is now over things will get better. ;)

And here's the song, I just like it. Makes me thankful for a certain someone when I get home! :p
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=60%27S+SONG+IT%27S+A+FIVE+A+CLOCK+WORLD&vid=7e438477985a474d51b6950586a80f01&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN. oPRBkL8eprQXdLux3pwafw%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D206%26w% 3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx2 vgez_the-vogues-five-o-clock-world_music&tit=The+Vogues+-+Five+O%26%2339%3BClock+World&c=3&h=206&w=300&l=134&sigr=12bsb90jm&sigt=113b10si3&sigi=12lse9v7i&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch %3Fp%3D60%2527S%2BSONG%2BIT%2527S%2BA%2BFIVE%2BA%2 BCLOCK%2BWORLD%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-002%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13j9bcoor&ct=p&age=1188553893&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

Alright DON, I'll stop now! Good Night for me and well...good day to everyone else!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 25th, 2015, 03:58 AM

Change the above "Post" TORD Post #427 vice #227-sorry editor clock again.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

October 25th, 2015, 07:58 AM

1)
4) This issue that concerns Don to some degree will in some cases some of the Soviet era and current Russian tanks might be "over protected" I do know one thing is for sure neither side of this discussion will be pandered too and a fair and honest review will be done for again both sides of this issue. I think after a cursory review some Russian tanks might benefit due to the ERA in the area of protection against HEAT (Chemical.) rounds.

The thought that perhaps we'd been too generous with later Russian tank protect was premature speculation.

In many cases there have been increases in protection in the OOB's and that goes for the western tanks as well. If I had to sum it up it would be to say we were far too conservative in the amount of protection we gave the newer generation tanks all around.. I've looked at a number of sources not just Prado. Some numbers we used were closer than others but the general trend in the next set of OOB's will be upwards in regard to protection levels. in some cases, dramatic jumps, in others not so much but in the end this is all speculation from us and the "real experts". The best of the best tanks have not come directly head to head and if we are lucky they never will.

All tanks are vulnerable some place. Catch an Abrams or Challenger or Leo or T-90 or T-14 or Merkava in the side with modern ammo and there will be a hull breach. There HAS TO BE because the newer penetrators are just too good and you cannot armour a tank all around like you armour the front hull and turret and still be mobile

Don

Imp

October 25th, 2015, 09:09 AM

DRG

October 25th, 2015, 09:43 AM

With any of this it's open to interpretation and I'm sure if I gave the job of estimating in game armour values to 20 people I'd get 20 different results and the above example

KE Hull - Turret 600 - 900 approx.
HEAT Hull - Turret 750 - 1800 approx.
So 50% more KE protection yields 150% more HEAT protection.

I read 900 KE protection and 1800 HEAT protection as double the HEAT protection not 1.5 X .............150 % of 900 is 1,350

There is a considerable amount of material added to the front turret of the Leo2

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 25th, 2015, 01:53 PM

Good points all however,

1) The tables on armorsite.com do make a clear distinction, if you look to the upper left corner box below the "title" of each table it will show the tank in question. The Russian T-80UM and T-90/90S are the only ones to indicate the table values include BOTH RHAe and ERA in these cases KONTAK-5. The para below the values again emphases the tables only use RHAe values and in the last sentence states "Modern composite (CHOBHAM) may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy then RHA of the same thickness." that's the "out" and or "disclaimer" for the tables.

2) As I've already stated math can be a deceptive thing but we all generally know about "the law of averages". My issue hasn't really been about RHAe (Steel Armor) as much as it's about Composite Armor such as the DU issue and unfortunately I suspect many more just if you think about any modern tank built over the last 20-25yrs. And to be clear ERA is not Composite Armor. Similar function (ERA) but different methodology to achieve results but not as good.

3) We think so far that Composite Armor is about 2.5 times stronger than RHAe. I went and crunched the numbers between the M1A1HA and M1A1 and by applying "the law of averages" can mathematically show that as compared to the M1A1HA the M1A1 RHAe was 13% stronger overall. But I left myself an "out" in ...

"I did give you the out and am more concerned and hopefully have made the case for ABRAMS to get the increased survivability to 7 increase. And it's hard for me to sit at my desk and look at the raw data to include comparing the OOB ABRAMS to the better of about 6 contemporary tanks from other OOB's across time. I don't know what calculus is used to drive the armor values for the game. Is an honest reassessment warranted based on what we now either knew/or know about DU armor qualities that's your call and I know it'll be done honestly and within game parameters if you proceed. My feeling is an increase allowing for DU armor is somewhere in the 5% to 8% range but I'm a raw numbers guy so if you take the M1A1HA table 1991 vs M1A1 table 2002 getting an average of the numbers involved and compare them against the first two tables and rounding the differences by % you get the following increase in protection by % from 1991 to 2002...
Turret- KE/+28% HEAT/+20%
Glacis- KE/0% HEAT/+17%
Lower Front Hull- KE/+11% HEAT/+4%

And since you can do anything you want with numbers by taking all of the above %'s you come up with an overall increase in protection of +13% between the M1A1HA of 1991 to the M1A1 of 2002. If you take that 13% increase for that time period (As you would need to recalculate between all the tables.) the range I've offered above might not be too much off in allowing for just the DU armor improvements. The rest would represent steel armor etc. improvements. That time period as already noted would represent the transition from DU armor of the 1st Gen to 2nd Gen."

At the time I assumed that, as you have too have a starting point/theory with math/science that a simple formula was needed that was conservative in it's assumptions-simply take the RHAe percentage improvement and "dumb it down" some I.E. my 5-8% improvement to the M1A1 over the M1A1HA and as we don't have a separate column to show Composite Armor the only thing to do is apply it the STEEL and HEAT current values.

This is not fun nor is it easy, I somewhat wish I hadn't brought it up (This is no pity party either-so don't think about it. :p )but most issues out here that need fixing are never fun and always seem to turn into a PITA much like a few years ago between a few of us out here when we spent as much time for about two years cleaning up the OOB's as we did adding or changing equipment (MP's anyone?).

Certain people call me "The Senator" because they enjoy the "status quo" and I to shake it up a little as we have little room for mistakes at work. I'm not trying to be "The Senator" here, maybe "PROVOCATEUR" :D

If I can help I will but I must move on after all I still owe someone some possible Russian ICON work at some point.

I think it's time for a nice walk. Anyone have a pier, it's kind've warm out there!!

Regards,
Pat

Imp

October 25th, 2015, 09:10 PM

Imp

October 25th, 2015, 09:31 PM

Just out if intrest Pat & just looking at front KE as represented in game.

Unit 23 M1A1 (HA) T-67 H-60
Unit 203 M1A1HA+ T89 H61

Turret is by maths a 32% increase, hull not a lot.
So if I understand you correctly hull is what could do with a slight boost.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 26th, 2015, 12:13 AM

The actual STEEL as in what the tanks are made of might be correct. My concern (now apparently) is that the armor doesn't seem to take into consideration the increased protection offered from the Composite Armor (CA) (DU/TUNGSTEN/Specialized ALUMINUM/KEVLAR etc. either separately or in combination.) tiles they are built with. Again ERA is not CA these are separate applications that can be used in combination but, are still not the same.

I do know that the M1A1HA+ did have it's frontal armor array improved over the M1A1HA. Array implies multiple facets and the sources I looked at indicated those improvements related to the CA and DU backing tiles. Now I wonder, are we spinning our wheels here? But I think Don said this issue wasn't considered in assigning armor values to the games current armor.

Well you'll probably be thankful for this answer versus the one I just lost.

Remember when writing long you have to log back in again normally not an issue your post well, posts. If however you log incorrectly, you can re-log in however if you didn't know before, you will lose your post. Well that's 45 minutes I'll never get back-oh well tomorrows another day!

John will be grateful and Don wishes it would've happened to a post meant for him!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

October 26th, 2015, 04:01 AM

Since the real data on modern tanks is unknown or classified as hell all we can really do it look over the instances where they have been in battle and take a best guess. Of course even finding accurate battle data can be challenging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dno0cGn-A
Stuff like this only bears a passing resemblance to real data. OK they hit a tank and there was a lot of dust kicked up by the explosion, but what condition was the tank in afterwards?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 4th, 2015, 04:57 AM

I was looking into some data for a Serbian tank, when I came across this. I didn't check the Russian OOB here or the one for WinSPWW2 as quite frankly I'm beat. The tank in question is the T-34-85-l the first source below is reporting this tank as a fake tank and to their credit, admitted they initially bought into it as well. They stress all the points I continually bring up here i.e. read and review, multi-source and find conscious, submit and as Don is well aware followup on to make adjustments as required, most recently the development of the ADF HAWKEI for over six years now and India's ARJUN tank that still has a issue or two to be addressed. The last two refs. support the correct variants of the T-34-I hope!?!
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/T-34-85-I_Fake_Tanks.php
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-t-34r-soviet-t-34-in-german-service.htm
http://www.soviet-empire.com/1/military/tanks/t34/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

luigim

November 24th, 2015, 04:14 PM

I'm not sure if it's the right thread, but I post anyway. In Turkey OOB there is an error because Leopard 2A4 are sobstituted by Leopard 2T since 2011, but this is not the reality. For now, only Leopard 2A4 are in service and no Leopard2T, maybe in the future

According to the Military Balance 2014 (I can send you the entire book if you need) these are Turkish tank forces now

MBT 2,504: 325 Leopard 2A4; 170 Leopard 1A4; 227 Leopard
1A3; 274 M60Al; 658 M60A3; 850 M48A5 Tl/T2 (2,000
more in store)

It seems that in 2011 the contract was won, but there aren't sources in the web that proof that the upgrade was completed.

I think that the best solution is to postpone leopard2A4 retire to 2020 and put Leo 2T in prototype tank maybe?

And about Altay tank I have some doubts, I think it will be fielded after next years.

The Military Balance 2014 says: "Four initial prototypes by 2014
for approx USD500m. To be
followed by an order for 250
units following testing"

If you send me PM with your email I can send you the military balance 2014, one of the best sources about current military in the world. There is a section of current equipment and a section about pending contracts for every nation.

According to defenseindustrydaily, this is similar to The Military Balance

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-signs-deal-with-s-korea-for-altay-tank-project-05012/

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2015, 10:43 PM

From SIPRI the following tanks are still in service as previously noted here by luigim and my submissions from the 2010/2011 patch campaign.
Current inventory includes ~3000 (Multiple/non WIKI sources.) tanks of which the bulk of these are the improved M-48/M-60 series tanks ordered from the mid 50's -90's. As ordered/or donated, M-48-2850/M-48A5-20/M-60A1-274/M-60A3-658/LEO 2A4-350/
LEO 1A3-230/LEO 1A1-170 (These these tanks acted as the test beds for what was at the time 3rd Gen FCS for the ALTAY FCS developmental program.)

Notes:
1. These tanks have been modified since Turkey got them making rudimentary upgrades to them with time some with enhanced TI/GSR and the newer ones not so, i.e. none above 40 TI/GSR but with more stable FCS's.

2. When the the LEOPARD-2T was submitted I submitted refs that indicated the LEO-2A4 tanks were already in the assembly line being converted to act as the final test bed for the ALTAY and to give Turkey an intermediate tank until the ALTAY came on line. But it looks it didn't happen, so the prototype/999 unit might be appropriate as noted.

3. The answer to the above #2 lies with the ALTAY developmental issues and money. The LEO-2T it appears to have died on the vine around the time FNSS and ROTAM were having cost issues involving technological transfer and other related matters and KMW concerning the German power plants and the eventual decision by Turkey to go it's own way in the development of a power-plant.

4. The ALTAY was already in the OOB as the BLACK PANTHER what I submitted was a name change after verifying it's status five years ago. Currently it's looking like 2017 mid year.

5. With recent events with Russia and quite frankly the tension has always been there between these to countries I see the following A. ALTAY gets stepped up. B. 2T will come into fruition before 2020. C. Those older tanks aren't going anywhere any time soon. Turkey is very likely wanting to maintain that 3000 tank advantage. Modern technology in FCS, munitions and mechanics/systems will and are keeping those tanks in the field now and into this games "new" future.

Don I believe you already have the SIPRI data and that tank poster coincide very nicely to each other.

It was a very good catch.

Regards,
Pat

luigim

December 1st, 2015, 06:16 AM

Another little suggestion to improve the game's future OOB.

The proposed T90AM (or MS) tank, according to

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90ms_tagil.htm

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-90ms_main_battle_tank_data_sheet_specifications_in formation_specifications_pictures.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t-90ms-main-battle-tank/

has an "opto-electronic screening system"

"The self-protection of T-90MS includes also an automatic screening system which can create an automatic aerosol screen laying in the direction of enemy's anti-tank means with active laser emission."

I think it refers to the classic VIRSS system.

Thank you

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 12th, 2015, 03:33 AM

Every once in awhile I get the opportunity to "close the door" on an item I got to submit, this is the case for the next item. You gotta love the Germans, all taken care of as promised. I hope you'll note the turret section and notice the advanced FCS components mounted, it confirms for me anyway, the German units I recommended to use for the recipient of these fine machines.
It just validates the time and effort put into these submissions when I can see a final result.
http://www.janes.com/article/56481/poland-receives-final-leopard-2a5-mbts-from-germany

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

December 12th, 2015, 05:48 AM

One might suspect the Poles are tired of being invaded/subjugated.

DRG

December 12th, 2015, 08:02 AM

One might suspect the Poles are tired of being invaded/subjugated.

A lot has changed in 70 years.......Germany sending tanks to Poland used to mean something quite different than the subject of this article......however from a more cynical POV by sending these tanks to Poland they are strengthening and deepening their buffer with Russia. It wasn't that long ago that a heathy % of the population expected a NATO / WP conflict at any time and it thankfully did not occur. ( Pink Floyds " The Wall"......" mother do you think they'll drop the bomb ? " and "Two suns in the sunset " from "The Final Cut" is all about the fears and paranoia of the Cold War and that was written" only" 32 years ago.) Steel Panthers 2 was originally , primarily designed to "what if" all of that so from that POV Germany is expanding it's border defenses using Polish crews in German tanks and the irony is really thick.

further--------- http://www.defence24.com/239167,polish-leopards-commanded-by-the-germans-german-grenadiers-commanded-by-the-poles#

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 18th, 2015, 04:04 AM

I'll be giving this some thought over the coming year, however, I did bring this issue up when and before I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and the AH-64E GUARDIAN, the issue is where do we set the upper limit for TI/GSR and when will we come to the understanding that some OOB's will just have a technological advantage over other ones or do we limit ourselves to "parity" to some degree. A couple of + years ago I indicated this decision point would come up sooner then later (We started the increase of TI/GSR from 40 TO 45/or 50 for many MBT's and APC's.) and now it's almost upon us again to figure out what direction to go. In those intervening years Germany has developed the ATTICA FCS (Already being retrofitted to the LEO 2A6 and will be on the LEO 2A7+.) and now IFLIR will be installed on the M1A2 SEP V3 coming to an ARMY base near you-sooner than expected. My first thought is "parity" sets the limit for armor at TI/GSR 55 enough to recognize for now, Germany's and the U.S. technological advantage while still not being an overwhelming advantage in the game (Real world we're seeing well beyond that as noted already in previous posts.) and I'm leaning towards "parity" because we do have game issues and limitations plus, with the extension of the game, I feel we need to save the "60" for when the new next best FCS comes out. Just my thoughts for what's not that far down the road/or already here. Anyway, posted on this already now the contract is signed.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/general_dynamics_awarded_a_contract_for_us_army_to _upgrade_m1a2_sep_v2_to_m1a2_sep_v3_116121510.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a2_sep_v3_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_ specifications_pictures_video_11710154.html

The next will "shake up" the region a little but certainly it'll be a major improvement to this countries armored capabilities...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/iran_confirms_its_intention_to_purchase_russian-made_t-90_tanks_41612152.html

Well the "body count" is in and I'm still standing so good night and have a good weekend-some of us will be working-take care!! PM to follow soon.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

luigim

December 18th, 2015, 05:04 AM

Seems that some t90s are in Syria too for syrian crewman training purposes ( a lot of photos around the internet).. But the reality is that Syria will cease to exist in actual forma. There will be a alauistan coastal and down to the lebanese border state ( heritage of former Syria), a Kurdistan between Iraq and Turkey and a sunnistan aka ISIS. Time to upgrade mujaheddin OOB too..

Imp

December 18th, 2015, 11:08 AM

My first thought is "parity" sets the limit for armor at TI/GSR 55 enough to recognize for now, Germany's and the U.S. technological advantage while still not being an overwhelming advantage in the game (Real world we're seeing well beyond that as noted already in previous posts.) and I'm leaning towards "parity" because we do have game issues and limitations plus, with the extension of the game, I feel we need to save the "60" for when the new next best FCS comes out. Just my thoughts for what's not that far down the road/or already here

The only downside to the ranges extending is it tends to make you use wider maps.
A difference of just a few hexes in vision aids makes a huge difference if you have a weapon that can take advantage of firing undetected with lower global visibility.
Early Chieftains come to mind with 22 hex vision vs the 20 of Russian tanks.
Against an advancing Russian tank that's 3 shots you can let off before it can see you & take one.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 18th, 2015, 01:48 PM

In short have to agree with John, the map issue was what I had in mind also. But on balance the player(s) will still have LOS issues to contend with as well given the battlefield environment and would those factors act as an equalizer overall to the extended vision issue? It's again something that some thought has to be given to over the next year or so. I don't propose these things lightly and try to think it through the best I can, it's as always, trying to find a fair balance between "real world" vs. "game world" is all. And I really gotta go!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 30th, 2015, 01:24 PM

I just couldn't wait on this, I'll call it "Something Old, Something New( Again!)" ...
http://www.janes.com/article/56911/paraguay-keeping-m3-stuart-m4-sherman-tanks-in-service

Amazing!

Have a Happy New Year!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

December 30th, 2015, 02:15 PM

"operational trainers" but still nice to see they are still in use

Suhiir

December 30th, 2015, 08:23 PM

Good use for em.
Maybe the US Army should consider it. I know the US Navy used the "Yellow Peril" from 1935-1961 for basic flight training.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 5th, 2016, 03:26 AM

Well as I write this I'll be checking back and forth to the now separate folders I put together in FIREFOX to cover the various threads I started out here for the same reasons-trying to organized. Some of these I've been tracking for awhile like this very first status update. Just assume I'm tracking these, why would I put it anyway!?!

1) Poland: They have reached a final decision their LEO 2A4 tanks will now be upgraded to the LEOPARD PL.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/buy-from-the-pros-poland-adds-more-german-tanks-019466/
http://www.janes.com/article/56972/poland-orders-128-upgraded-leopard-2pl-main-battle-tanks

2) U.S.: The new ABRAMS round is going into production among others. I've posted on this round for a couple of years on/off, tested to have an almost 100% kill rate at greater than 4500yds/or meters, can't remember which-sorry!
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/ausa_2015_orbital_atk_awarded_$105_million_in_cont racts_for_medium_large_caliber_ammunition.html

3) Israel: The IDF will by the end of 2016 mark the end of era for the MERKAVA Mk II tanks after 33yrs. of operational/training service. As a side note as the article mentions it all MERKAVA Mk IV tanks have been equipped with the TROPHY system for about two years now, it also will will become it's training tank as well when the MERKAVA Mk II is retired.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/israel_about_to_retire_its_last_merkava_mark_ii_ma in_battle_tanks_23011151.html

4) Turkey: Will be watching this closely not as it concerns the ALTAY but to see if they put this system on some of their older tanks as they did with the LEOPARD-1T-VOLKAN 171 tanks that were equipped with the 3rd GEN FCS intended for the ALTAY. Aselan would further improve on that FCS to a 4th Gen (Have to be careful w/ these Gen numbers, for instance in the U.S. ABRAMS is considered to have an improved 3rd Gen system. Or as I like to think of it-a headache trying to keep up with it!?!) level planned for the LEOPARD-2T and ALTAY. VOLKAN if you haven't gathered, is the name given to the FCS.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/aselsan_to_develop_akkor_active_protection_system_ for_turkish_altay_main_battle_tank_20212151.html

Well can't give you all of it, what fun would there be in that?

Back to work later today, hope you all have a great week!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Concerning ref 2) above have verified, cut & pasted it several times but it keeps putting a "space" in the word "contract" very strange. Other than that you can copy to do a search for the story or go to the site in the news section by month to get it there. Sorry for any inconvenience!

DRG

January 5th, 2016, 09:15 AM

Link 2 is broken

Suhiir

January 8th, 2016, 02:40 AM

Couldn't find the article concerning the new Abrams ammo but I did find this.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/general_dynamics_awarded_a_contract_for_us_army_to _upgrade_m1a2_sep_v2_to_m1a2_sep_v3_116121510.html

General Dynamics is working closely with the Army to improve the survivability, maintainability, fuel efficiency, power generation and network capability of its fleet of Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

“Projected for full rate production within the next two years, the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 will provide the Army with the tank they need to dominate the battlefields of the future,” said Donald Kotchman, vice president of Tracked Combat Vehicles for General Dynamics Land Systems.

The M1A2 SEPv3 production process will begin with a pilot program of six tanks before moving into full-rate production.
Work will be performed by existing employees in Anniston, Ala.; Tallahassee, Fla.; Lima, Ohio; and Scranton, Pa.

The M1A2 Abrams SEP V3 (System Enhanced Package) is a modernized version of the M1A2 SEPV V2 main battle tank which has a number of upgrades in the areas of survivability, maintainability, full efficiency and network capability. In October 2015, the M1A2 SP V3 was presented for the first time at AUSA, defense exhibition in Washington D.C.

The M1A2 SEP V3 is equipped with a new improved entire IED capability electronic warfare build on the vehicle. This tank will be fitted with (IFLIR) Improved Forward-Looking Infrared to identify target. The IFLIR uses long- and mid-wave infrared technology in both the gunner’s primary sight and the commander’s independent thermal viewer.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 14th, 2016, 11:01 PM

Mystery solved!! Well by accident anyway. Don I don't know if you remembered the several posts I made about an Ethiopian tank deal for 200-250 modernized T-72 tanks about 3 years ago in this Thread. At the time I was vexed because I couldn't identify the exporter though if I remember correctly, Russia was named in some of the refs. We decided to take no action on the matter. Well the exporter was the Ukraine and the tank is the "new" T-72UA1. What brought this about is I've been tracking reports that the T-72 (And now their T-80 with improvements.) have already entered the field for the Ukraine as verified now. Also the below ref. that I hope will have some minor at least use, that also in 2013 the DRC would be receiving the T-64BV1 w/o ATGW capability as pointed out in the article below and for you readers please note from whom this ref is from. PLEASE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION ON THESE YET-THERE ARE ISSUES INVOLVED.

Which means-yes-it's time for "ONE WORLD-ONE OOB"!! :D

What are the issues?
1. The Ukrainian T-72UAI (A new tank variant.) does carry one the Ukraine's newer (Modified.) ATGW and FCS for the 9M119 SVIR which is a laser guided with a range 100m-4000m. I need to verify dates and whether Ethiopia also received the ATGW capability. Data sheet provided below as this tank received significant protection improvements as well. The Ukraine did upgrade the warheads electronics for accuracy and a "better all weather" capability.

2. Ukrainian T-80 received life cycle improvements in the performance area as well in protection, however, seeing some evidence of possible as yet unidentified weapons improvements. Whether that means an upgraded MG or FCS or both or none is unclear at this time. And I'd to get a better handle on the dates here as well.

3. The DRC T-64BV-1, I would feel better about verifying it's ATGW capabilities as well and settle on a good date.

4. Verify the status of the Ukrainian T-64BV & T-64BM BULAT are carrying ATGW's.

5. Seeing much to indicate the T-64BM BULAT in combat capability and protection it is equal to the Russian T-90 in those regards electronically to include FCS, TI/GSR, Laser warning systems and APS. Need to look into this more.

The only step I see that can be addressed now is #4.

https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr-02-2014/19
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ukrainian_army_main_battle_tank_heavy_armoured/t-72ua1_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specif ications_pictures_ukraine_army.html
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Ukrainian-Tanks.php
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3666.html

I can use a break, so good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 20th, 2016, 11:57 PM

Is it getting "colder" around here or, is it just me?
http://www.defence24.com/328660,poles-involved-in-the-strong-europe-tank-challenge

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

March 21st, 2016, 03:01 AM

While I haven't actually looked, and I'm sure they have more, my first thoughts were ... "Do Denmark and Sweden even have a platoon of MBTs?" :)

scorpio_rocks

March 21st, 2016, 04:08 AM

Looks like UK military couldn't even afford to send anyone :(

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 21st, 2016, 09:36 PM

Sweden has the "home" designed modified German built LEOPARDS STRV-121/122A & 122B tanks which were submitted for modification in the game 2/or 3yrs. ago. Changes were accepted and made by Don.

Denmark has actively been selling off their heavy armor however, unlike the Netherlands they didn't sell off all their armor. They started their "fire sale" mostly between roughly 2009-2012 time frame. By about that time the Dutch had pulled them out of service and sold them. This was covered extensively in this thread and in my patch inputs and was game fixed. Denmark was slower to start the sell off as noted above and saw the rise of Russia and held the line with the best they had left the result of which follows. They maintain one Armor (Heavy) Battalion (In Holstebro.) w/51 LEO 2A4/40 LEO 1A5 (Modernized.) w/60 in storage.

UK Yes I agree about the UK they would have done well I believe but, they can't make it I suspect because they are deployed in East Europe.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 21st, 2016, 11:50 PM

Well I thought something might be off about Denmark concerning the use of the LEO 1A5 so I recovered the source and missed it's date. So the best way to fix it was just to go to Denmark's MOD site who like many others of the region are very free and open to the status of their military. So the answer really is they have 57 LEO 2A5 tanks in operation. From their MOD you might find PDF pages 10-12 of some use. The others after will give you a complete list as well of the rest of their armed forces as of 2011. Note and as I've posted, Denmark is in the process of down selecting a replacement for their M-113 APC's. It'll be one of the largest deals of the type in Europe in many years.
http://www2.forsvaret.dk/eng/About/Facts/Documents/Facts_And_Figures_UK.pdf

Sorry for any inconvenience and confusion on the matter. The rest is correct in the above post. Denmark's OOB concerning these tanks is good as well.

General sites...
http://www2.forsvaret.dk/eng/Organisation/TheDanishArmy/Pages/TheDanishArmy.aspx
http://www.fmn.dk/eng/Pages/Frontpage.aspx

There was a thread of talk of NATO and others. In one of my replies I indicated the recent agreements to form such an organization of the Scandinavian countries, though I couldn't remember the name of it. That name is NORDEFCO, the below
is the MOD announcement (2016-01-13 16:15) of their chairmanship of that organization in it's second year also who's in it, the rotation and who can't chair it.
http://www.fmn.dk/eng/news/Pages/danish-chairmanship-of-nordefco.aspx

Well that was a long correction! Good Night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

IronDuke99

March 22nd, 2016, 06:21 AM

UK Yes I agree about the UK they would have done well I believe but, they can't make it I suspect because they are deployed in East Europe.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Indeed the truth...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 22nd, 2016, 11:07 AM

A quick one and done, a deeper analysis of what will be accomplished in the Polish LEOPARD 2PL upgrade program...
http://www.defence24.com/312490,leopard-2pl-programme-showcased-modernization-package-for-the-polish-main-battle-tanks

Have a great day! It's back to the "grind" today.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

dmnt

March 23rd, 2016, 02:25 AM

Sweden has the "home" designed modified German built LEOPARDS STRV-121/122A & 122B tanks which were submitted for modification in the game 2/or 3yrs. ago. Changes were accepted and made by Don.

As I stated here (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=51110) earlier the Swedish Army has got rid of Strv 121 and/or converted them to engineering vehicles and spare parts in 2014. Strv 122 is still used, there's about 120 of them in use.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 23rd, 2016, 03:04 AM

First I would say please go to Page 28 Post 274 Item A1 then go to Page 30 Post 299 and look at the previous shorter posts that proceeded 299 and note the dates of each. WHY? Because of the following ref. which even with my "bad" eye I can see a repeat of that event coming. Someone will come across this ref. or similar and get all excited that the Russians are getting an upgraded T-72B3M/B4 tank. Well I hope you looked at data from those posts very closely, because, the mod I just mentioned from the below ref. is no different then the data we had for the T-72B3 when submitted two years ago. So unless Don wants to do a name change here, the "new" T-72B3M/B4/or T-72B4 is the same as the T-72B3 that incorporated all of the improvements mentioned below and a couple of more not mentioned below. However I have no faith in that I "short circuited" a repeat of the above events from Dec. 2014.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/new_upgraded_t-72b3m_main_battle_tank_also_called_t-72b4_will_enter_in_service_with_russian_army_12003 162.html

The simple breakdown (Before I have one.) :rolleyes: is...
1. Late 2012 data received on the upgraded T-72 to be called T-72B3.
2. Investigated, researched then submitted in Mar. 2013 to become UNIT 697 in the Russian OOB.
3. The controversy appears in Dec. 2013, all is resolved.
4. Somewhere along the line T-72B3 has become the T-72B3M.
5. Now we have the T-72B3M that's also the T-72B4 better known as the T-72B3M/B4 (PLEASE SOMEBODY SHOOT ME NOW! :doh:)
6. Maybe the name change isn't such a bad idea now!?! It was almost harder to keep it straight the second time around as the first time above!?!

But whatever we call it, IT'S THE SAME TANK WITH THE SAME CAPABILITIES AND UPGRADES.

Someone will still do it anyway. :shock:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

March 23rd, 2016, 11:29 PM

A rose by any other name ...

MarkSheppard

March 26th, 2016, 10:13 PM

In case you're confused by the various Marks of Centurions...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 26th, 2016, 11:04 PM

And I thought the Le Clerc and Abrams was bad!?!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 2nd, 2016, 04:06 AM

What I'm watching for now...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2016_global_defense_security_news_industr y/iran_manufactured_a_new_tank_named_karrar_and_plan s_to_upgrade_its_emad_missile_31002163.html

With the exception of what would become the Russian ARMATA starting with Post #1 on the BLACK EAGLE, the ARJUN Project might succeed it as the longest on going developmental program I've been tracking. With that being said India has been dealing with the "concept" of the ARJUN Mk1 for over 40 yrs. now. These tanks overall are very good, though I would consider the ARJUN Mk2 as excellent based on the almost 200 improvements made to it. What we have below has given me some new information concerning the both the ARJUN Mk I & ARJUN Mk II.

ARJUN Mk I...
1. They continue to seem to have issues with the LAHAT. I have seen nothing to indicate that they have abandoned the project. This has to be some kind of FCS issue. I was going to recommend taking the LAHAT firing Mk I out of game play until this issue is finally settled but life side tracked that three years ago, however, with the game extension out to at least 2025 it would seem this is still a viable option vice deleting it all together.

2. I was surprised to see it seems like the KANCHAN ceramic tiles were added on this tank though I need to verify (Verified as baseline KANCHAN during edit window. It now has the improved version as dicussed below for the Mk II.) it wasn't already accounted for when submitted. What's new also is we didn't have the information "directly" believing that KANCHAN can resist APFSDS rounds.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/india_indian_army_tanks_heavy_armoured_vehicles_uk/arjun_mk-i_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specificat ions_information_description_intelligence.html

ARJUN Mk II...

1. They have worked out the LAHAT issue on the Mk II and is operational though the Mk II isn't yet.

2. Taken from ref 2 below..."The all-round protection has been enhanced with improved (This is the key word and tells me again of advanced development and they upgraded the ARJUN Mk I to carry it as well above the "baseline" product it had.) KANCHAN armour, a modular composite armour developed by India. It has been described as being made by sandwiching composite panels between Rolled homogeneous armour (RHA). This armour is able to defeat APDS and HEAT rounds and is believed to withstand APFSDS." The structure is described as being very similar to what's on the ABRAMS. It can't be ruled out that they might not be using "DU" in the manufacture of the KANCHAN armor.

3. It has an highly advanced self protection system which is better then what I believe was initially intended but, this program was delayed and certain sectors of the ARMY have been against the ARJUN tank program in general from the start. The delay just offered extra time for the technology to improve and I believe that's what we're seeing here.
As taken from ref. 2... "To increase the self-protection of the Arjun Mk-II, a laser warning and countermeasure system (ALWACS) developed in collaboration with the Israeli Company Elbit Systems is mounted on each side of the turret. The four ALWACS elements are mounted at each corner of the turret to provide 360-degree coverage."
http://www.armyrecognition.com/defexpo_2016_show_daily_news_coverage_report/defexpo_2016_live_demonstration_arjun_mk_i_and_mk_ ii_mbt_-_kestrel_8x8_apc_-_tata_motors_4x4_apc_13003161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/india_indian_army_tanks_heavy_armoured_vehicles_uk/arjun_mk_ii_2_main_battle_tank_technical_data_shee t_specifications_pictures_video_intelligence.html

Finally on the APC and MRAP side we finally get to see what the KESTREL APC looks like from ref. 1 (MkII section.) above ...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/india_indian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/kestrel_8x8_amphibious_armoured_vehicle_platform_t echnical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video. html

Also from ref. 1 the TATA Motors 4x4 MRAP already in the field.

There was a lot posted on this from the start some might find the process interesting and informative.

Alright my Tornado watch duties are over while the family sleeps and I'm off to bed-one more watch to go. Hope you all have a great weekend!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 3rd, 2016, 03:15 AM

I was looking in to see what was going on, looked at my account, explored the site and then decided to look in on the stats section that I literally haven't done in many years and was deeply affected by what I saw. When I started this thread (And the others.) it was my intention at the time it would start my deeper involvement in these wonderful games (Especially WinSPMBT) by at first just "reporting" on equipment developments etc. Of course they all have gone beyond that now. I never thought it would generate the various discussions of all kinds that have been had on here or the others.

I took a few minutes to let what I saw soak in, and what it meant at it's core to me.

I wear my emotions on "my sleeve" (Something CINCLANTHOME has always "appreciated" these almost 30yrs.) and am proud of that. So please with no replies, thanks or similes (Don really dislikes them!?!).

Know that to everyone out here I feel honored, grateful, gratified but mostly deeply humbled by you allowing me to do what I do and by the support given to carry on out here whether we agree or disagree with each other.

Thank You All.

And good night.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

I figured I better put a tank "something" out here so I don't get in too much trouble for the above. Post #1 dealt with the Russian BLACK EAGLE so now I leave you with a legendary and newly revived Russian Tank Army...
http://www.janes.com/article/57828/russia-completes-reformation-of-1st-guards-tank-army

And you can bet the West was excited by that!?!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 5th, 2016, 01:16 AM

What I find interesting is that we get a little better picture of what tanks the Russians have in storage and that the T-80 tanks are in service (There was a lot of discussion whether they were or not in the field or in storage.) which has been verified. It should be noted that the Ukrainians took their T-80BW tanks out of storage last Spring and they to are in the field now as well with their ERA upgraded to the KONTAKT 5 which is what the OPLOT has, and much better than what it had before. Also there upgrades made to the power-plants and possibility the FCS however that has not been confirmed. And as an adjunct to my last post, the Russians are in the process of standing up a new infantry and heavy mechanized division in the Southern Military District.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_deployed_2950_main_battle_tanks_in_four_mil itary_districts_tass_3010416.html
http://www.defence24.com/238175,t-80-tanks-for-the-ukrainian-army#

Note: The immediate above ref. refers to "rumors" concerning the T-72 return to service, that has since been long confirmed and has been posted on already. However if you missed it below are one of my refs. on it.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ukrainian_army_main_battle_tank_heavy_armoured/t-72ua1_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specif ications_pictures_ukraine_army.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Imp

April 7th, 2016, 02:32 AM

Know that to everyone out here I feel honored, grateful, gratified but mostly deeply humbled by you allowing me to do what I do and by the support given to carry on out here whether we agree or disagree with each other.

Hi Pat keep it up your our "deep miner" find stuff many of us wouldn't, I follow this religiously but don't post often. Its an information thread and in most cases we just need to let you run with it to get to the bottom of things so no need for "filler" from me.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 7th, 2016, 03:29 AM

John,
Thank you! You, my Marine buddy and that Canadian guy have been there from the very start supporting and challenging me along with the original "MRAP gang". There have been others (Thank You as well.) the ones I really liked digging into were the requested ones in that period 3-5 years ago I found those to be most rewarding. Speaking of which that Canadian guy can find some answers to his question I missed in the SPA/SPAA Thread in the APC Thread.

Better put a tank something in again there was some discussion on these "somewhere" and I don't believe I posted this there. Point is these were a "little more" wide spread then was discussed in where ever "somewhere" was. So this was my quick search result...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/canada/kangaroo-series/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

April 7th, 2016, 08:10 AM

Since when is a Kangaroo classified as a "tank"?

One would think after all the research you've done you'd know what a "tank" is by now.

Squids ...

This should be moved to the APC thread!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 8th, 2016, 02:30 AM

Well let's see how nimble I can be of foot...
A. It has tracks and armor, doesn't it!?!

B. The already modified KANGAROO could be modified into a tank-right?

C. Aaahhh Yyuupp you might have a point there. :doh:

D. Both A and B.

Well as we used to say "When in doubt, Charlie out!". Well that doesn't help me here either now does it?

So much for being nimble but then I do wear a size thirteen boot. :D

Thank You Suhiir!

Regards,
Pat
There will be no "Captain" here tonight just another...:cool: :doh:!

EpoletovSPR

April 10th, 2016, 10:09 AM

Movie in Russian.
But a lot of interesting and detailed about T-14 "Armata"! :up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCGdvMkDlVc&nohtml5=False

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 10th, 2016, 12:12 PM

This is something a little different that I came across while looking in on the site, enjoy!
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Mexico/Narco_Tanks

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

April 10th, 2016, 06:42 PM

This is something a little different that I came across while looking in on the site, enjoy!
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Mexico/Narco_Tanks

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

I rather expect that sort of thing from a civilian, according to most of them the M16A1 is a machine-gun since it's capable of full-auto.

MarkSheppard

April 13th, 2016, 09:29 PM

It's that time of the year again!

http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node%2F650

Victory Day Parade first open rehearsal 11th April 2016 in Alabino - first photos.
------------------

No top down photos, but the 3/4 perspective stuff is useful, in that it can show what's normally concealed by turrets, etc on the hull.

dmnt

April 16th, 2016, 12:33 PM

Didn't see this one here mentioned:
Janes: Swedish armour set for USD300 million upgrade (http://www.janes.com/article/59183/swedish-armour-set-for-usd300-million-upgrade#.Vw_UiN8un4M.twitter)

After the upgrade, due to be completed in 2023, the 77 Stridsvagn (Strv) 122A MBTs being modified will be designated Strv C, with 11 upgraded Strv B MBTs being renamed Strv D.

The second contract, worth SEK1.55 billion (USD190 million), will see BAE Systems conduct work to upgrade 262 CV90 IFVs between 2018 and 2020. Alongside replacing the TCCS with the new BMS, this work is to include the replacement of the CV90's existing Ksp m/39 (M1919A4) coaxial machine guns with the Ksp m/59 (FN MAG) and refurbishing their chassis.

FO, AA and recovery CV90 venhicles will also receive thermal image cameras to CV9040C IFV standard as well as fire control system updates.

On Swedish army site (in Swedish) there's not much additional information: https://www.fmv.se/sv/Nyheter-och-press/Nyheter-fran-FMV/FMV-renoverar-Forsvarsmaktens-stridsvagnar-och-stridsfordon/

Edit: Found a more detailed link even though it's just a blog post: http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.fi/2016/04/swedens-armor-upgrades.html

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 21st, 2016, 01:46 PM

Well I so I saw something about the OPLOT/OPLOT-M on the patch release thread. Sometimes people can't seem to get behind the idea that a "lesser" country can develop or if you will, build upon and improve an existing tank. The numbers I'll post later from a well respected tank site we maybe put some of that in context dealing with Rha values against certain types of ammo. Remember for us we'll "never really know the truth" we can only deal with the data we can get, which for the MERKAVA is really nothing. My comparison numbers will be OPLOT to ABRAMS. I can promise you, those numbers will surprise some out here.

For now this is all the time I have...
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-top-10-main-battle-tanks/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/top_10_main_battle_tanks.htm

Best I can do for now-work calls!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

IronDuke99

April 21st, 2016, 10:43 PM

I doubt that any military in the world tells more of the truth about kit and what it can do than they have to. Of course some will under, and others over, state.

Estimates are often the best one can do with in service stuff. FASTBOAT TOUGH, and the game seems to do a pretty good job on the whole.

luigim

April 22nd, 2016, 03:24 AM

T90MS Tagil is less protected than T90A now. I think you added some protection to T90A in the new patch and forgot to add to T90MS tagil :)))

FASTBOAT, I'm not saying that a less developed country (technologically in MBT area Ukraine is not less developed than Russia) can't develop a modern tank, I'm saying that the data of the frontal arc is not correct.

T84 first version was basically a T80UD with some adds (same chassis and turret base armor)

T84 Oplot M Is a "new" tank but the added protection is basically some added "composite" armor ( rubber between steel and alloy) and Duplet ERA (we can guess it's on par with T90MS and Armata, so A10 in game value) and is very very way behind Leopard and Abrams modern armor.

So I think that in T84 Oplot armor value must go down and ERA must go up.

Here some photos that justify what I'm saying ( ERA and T80 same chassis and base armor)

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/61-ukrainian-armor-oplot-m-t-64m-bulat-and-other/

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 22nd, 2016, 11:57 AM

I'm not totally disagreeing with you on the OPLOT/OPLOT-M however, it's just in my nature to get specifics. To suggest just the term MERKAVA is a very "broad stroke" and generality given how many variants of the MERKAVA tank were still in service at the time the OPLOT was being developed. I will grant you that unless given further new information to the contrary that I really don't expect to happen, compared to the MERKAVA 4/4b if the OPLOT/OPLOT-M are on par or better we do have an issue to address and your conclusion to reduction of steel armor and increase in ERA I believe would be very valid. I did post in here a couple+ years ago that Russia openly accused the Ukraine of industrial spying in stealing "very sensitive" secrets linked to a new ERA it was developing. Well folks I don't know about you but the only new tank the Russians have developed that would require new ERA in the above time frame was the ARMATA.

I'll still post the data I have as I feel it won't be a wasted exercise and some might find it interesting. But I find it curious that on the same token I can find data on the OPLOT family turret protection levels "all day long" but none on the rest, very much like the MERKAVA where so far I can't find anything on their armor protection levels. No surprise there but, maybe I'm just looking for it in all the wrong places.

You can see the initial input of the OPLOT-M and OPLOT improvements in both this thread and the PATCH Thread (It'd be easier to find there I believe.) if interested to see where our heads were at during that time.

Have to get ready for work-have a great day/or evening!

Regards,
Pat

MarkSheppard

April 22nd, 2016, 04:00 PM

Remember for us we'll "never really know the truth" we can only deal with the data we can get, which for the MERKAVA is really nothing.

Actually, we have quite a lot of information on MERKAVA.

Photos attached were taken in 1993.

MarkSheppard

April 22nd, 2016, 04:01 PM

Final half of 1993 MERKAVA Pictures.

MarkSheppard

April 22nd, 2016, 04:04 PM

But I find it curious that on the same token I can find data on the OPLOT family turret protection levels "all day long" but none on the rest, very much like the MERKAVA where so far I can't find anything on their armor protection levels.

It's because UKR was/is/ trying to sell OPLOT internationally for the last decade or two; so they had to reveal broad performance specifications in order to make the sales.

Israel, on the other hand, has no interest in exporting the Merkava; so estimates of armor have not been publicized widely.

So essentially, if you want to make Merkava estimates; you need to actually do a lot of number crunching and analysis of known items about it; and drawings/photographs of it.

MarkSheppard

April 22nd, 2016, 05:02 PM

Case in point: I can get detailed specifications, including cutaway drawings of the armor layout showing what types of armor material and where along with estimates of HEAT resistance for a 1980s M-60 Patton upgrade that was proposed by a defense contractor in a JANES' affiliated book published about 1983; since they were hoping to sell the tank (or advertise their experience in armor design).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 23rd, 2016, 03:07 AM

Look to POST #282 under the "NEWS" section and then see Israel that's from 2014. I did also post the news from 2012 when the deal was first considered for Columbia. Everything will eventually be for sale, Israel faced a financial crunch and was/is looking for a way to finance the development of the MERKAVA replacement. A stop gap and further development of the MERKAVA 4, of course was the MERKAVA 4b.

Don has mentioned this himself, but, when the data is "shaking" or incomplete there remains only one really good and tangible source for us to consider, battlefield performance. In most cases we can get very good data on items like AT weapons because everyone is selling them including Israel with the LAHAT for example. We generally can start putting the jigsaw puzzle together at that point using what we have to include the pictures etc. etc. it's not an exact science but, I'll put our time, effort and work that we put into these things against ANYONE else out there (Though on the whole I feel Paul Macaulay does a pretty good job as well in this area.) in equipment game "construction" if you will. This includes the many times I've contacted certain MOD's and museums to get answers we needed. The only real failure there was in dealing with the French over a certain piece of artillery I'd prefer no one bring up (As I sorely remember it well.) that we spent over three years trying to find. Finally Don and I took what we had and I feel came up with a very good conclusion to the matter.

For me these truisms remain the same no WIKI anything, no Blogs with the exception of a rare couple i.e. Arm Chair General however they are taken by me with a "huge grain of salt" that though have at times lead to more traditional sources I've missed in my own searches for the "truth" (Couldn't resist the line from one of my favorite shows! ;)) and the most important I feel has helped me enjoy a very high % of successful equipment submissions into the game, multi-sourced corroborated references which each submission.

I mentioned years ago in the Patch Thread, that basically I prepare myself as the Defense Attorney for each item I've submitted while, Don is the Prosecutor, Jury and Judge. I wouldn't have that relationship any other way and hope it doesn't change. The day I'm not challenged in some way in that arena is the day I promise I'll stop submitting equipment, for the challenge represents a "checks and balances" to the work, value added for the game and players and when insistent a wonderful "check the ego at the door" to see the light. All of this is in the Patch Thread so people can have a window into the process (Another reason why I ask no one else submits any comments during the submission phase until I repost the equipment into it's "home thread".) that quite frankly I didn't see or understand when I and Don started on "our journey" out here.

Oh yeah this is the MBT Thread so I leave you with a "One World One OOB" tank something plus a bonus for you inventive Campaign/Scenario types...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/first_prototype_of_cio_s_centauro_2_armoured_vehic le_about_to_start_testing_phase_2705151.html
http://www.janes.com/article/59701/uk-and-france-activate-joint-expeditionary-force

And Mark I don't know how this stuff stays in my head once I've "touched" a topic except to say it just does like at the beginning of this again the topic not the Page/Post#'s-I wouldn't even want to be that good!?! :rolleyes: Just be glad your not CINCLANTHOME because she has to deal with it almost everyday!?! :eek:

I little tired, starting to ramble and have to get some sleep for tomorrow is my TGIF. :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

IronDuke99

April 23rd, 2016, 03:42 PM

Mobhack

April 23rd, 2016, 04:37 PM

IronDuke99

April 24th, 2016, 08:08 AM

http://www.janes.com/article/59701/u...itionary-force

Let us hope UK votes to leave the anti-democratic EU in the June referendum, and then such excersises will not be the slippery slope to a Euro Army for a Euro Super State.

Political rants are completely off-topic for these forums.

There are other websites where you can express any such opinions.

I am sorry you think this is a mere political rant, but actually it is something a lot of British soldiers could actually end up fighting against, if it continues in something close to the way it has been going, the EU needs to, vastly, scale down its ambitions or it may well face something more than just political opposition.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 25th, 2016, 11:07 PM

Well this will require a look to see if the next is still in service within the game. Done... they have the ASU-57 but my search for the ASU-85 reveals that it'll need to be an ADD. The article sourced from JANE's, indicates they received them in 1970 (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI data.) but, also by the title that at some point they must have been taken out and reactivated back into service again-not unusual-but needs to be verified. The 15km speed increase will allow it to get to the front earlier if required to do so, due to their roughly 2,000yr. history of friendship with China, OK not true. They were subjugated to the Chinese for centuries. Anyway background on both...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/vietnamese_army_back_into_service_the_old_soviet-made_asu-85_self-propelled_anti-tank_gun_12404161.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/01/402572349/ask-the-vietnamese-about-war-and-they-think-china-not-the-u-s

For the uninitiated NPR is well respected in this country. Learned much from FRONTLINE whether you want to or not. It's good to have my "head out of the sand" and sand just seems to get everywhere on you especially with your head in it. Absolute PITA to get it out of your ears!?! :D

Before I forget, yes, this is a "One World One OOB (OWOO-Somehow I like that-you can even say it three times fast!!!)" post.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

April 26th, 2016, 07:14 AM

The ASU-85 was transported by the large Mi-6 "Hook" helicopter that the Vietnam People's Air Force also operated until the early 1990s.

Anyone have any info if they replaced those with something else ?

The article sourced from JANE's, indicates they received them in 1970 (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI data.)

No the Janes article says

An informed source has told IHS Jane's that these were delivered following China's brief war with Vietnam in 1979.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 1st, 2016, 04:19 PM

About the ASU-85 for Vietnam JANE's had a "little" clearer picture and analysis.
http://www.janes.com/article/59688/dsa-2016-vietnam-may-update-soviet-era-asu-85s

Well history has it's place here on sites where that makes a difference. It was thought these tanks showed up after the 1979 war with China. Well the flaw in in looking for the deal between Russia and Vietnam would be technically unfeasible. Russia wasn't 'Russia' in 1979 but...come on now...the Soviet Union. It would turn out Vietnam got the ASU-85 in 1960. Remember this site relies heavily on UN mandatory arms transfers reports by member nations. This from SIPRI...

Recipient/ Year Year(s) No.
supplier (S) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/
or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments

Viet Nam
S: Soviet Union (300) T-34/85 Tank (1954) 1955-1960 (300) Second-hand
(50) SU-85 Self-propelled gun (1960) 1960-1961 (50) Probably Second-hand

Sorry system wouldn't transfer word saved rft. file onto here.

I was going to post more but it's family dinner day. I'll post a tank issue later tonight that touches on the topic of what us "equipment" folks out here like to consider when submitting our submissions to Don.

Gotta Go!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 1st, 2016, 10:32 PM

Alright, REGARD the JANE's ref. at the top of my last post.
DISREGARD the rest, the data is good, however, there's a difference (Name.) between a SU-85 they received as noted above and the ASU-85 of which SIPRI has no record of. I searched against all the WARSAW PACT countries and their post Cold War country names and to cover my xxx I limited my to Viet-Min *France/Vietnam (Yes it gets that detailed.) as Recipient country/Left Supplier country blank/Searched for Armoured Vehicles and the database pulled up all the transactions that might've occurred from ALL countries in the database. No ASU-85 is shown. ASU-57 is as second hand with deliveries between 1970-71 as we have it in the game and recent refs have indicated. This leaves only two viable options because the numbers match perfectly to the SU-85 shipment from 1960.

1. Did SIPRI not get the numbers? And as JANE's indicates that they were shipped when Vietnam received their T-62/T-55/T-54 tanks. Why hide those tanks when you reported the other shipments? JANE's quote from below ref.
"The Soviet ASU-85s were part of larger shipments of T-62/55/54 tanks, BMP-1 armored personnel carriers and artillery that allowed the VPA to convert its 304th, 308th and 320th Infantry Divisions into Mechanized Infantry Divisions, or Motorized Rifle Divisions in Soviet terminology."
http://www.janes.com/article/59688/dsa-2016-vietnam-may-update-soviet-era-asu-85s

or...

2. Did the SU-85 get modernized at some point. I bring this up as SIPRI and the UN don't require such reporting. Do note though that SIPRI does/will report any upgrades to equipment that the seller makes or the buyer requests, Turkey is an example of this with their LEOPARD tanks they got from Germany.

The below is the last recorded armor deal the Vietnamese made.

Israel
R: Viet Nam (150) RAM APV (2006) 2006-2009 (150) For police; RAM-2000 version

So if we look at the SIPRI data on Armored Vehicle transfers based on the JANE's information we would get the following...

A1) (200) T-62 Tank (1978) 1978-1979 (200) Probably from Czechoslovakian production line or Second-hand

A2) (150) BMP-1 IFV (1979) 1979-1981 (150) My note: From the Soviet Union.

To allow for the Post China Conflict A2 would be the better fit.

The below reflect the rest of the transactions as noted above from JANE's from newest back. All will be from the Soviet Union.

B1) (600) T-55 Tank (1973) 1973-1975 (600) Aid

B2) (25) ASU-57 Self-propelled gun (1970) 1970 (25) Probably second-hand
My Note: Added for context.

B3) (500) T-54 Tank (1969) 1970-1972 (500) Aid (incl for use in war in South Vietnam)

B4) (50) SU-85 Self-propelled gun (1960) 1960-1961 (50) Probably Second-hand

These simply represent the earliest possible transfer dates, unless again you allow for modernization of the SU-85. The issue would have to be to determine any obvious difference in size and weight of the regular Army SU-85 against the Airborne version ASU-85. And from there guns and road wheels (Though as we saw from North Korea a few years back these can be modified and hulls lengthened. Look in the North Korean thread that MARCELLO has done such great work in a very tough OOB to manage and maintain.)

I'll look into the modernization issue to see if it's possible you would have to initially assume that an airborne tank is lighter then it's Army counter part, but, I did say assume. This I hope will not be the French 105mm artillery issue all over again. Since it's not in the OOB yet I'd rather cover all the bases and get it right.

One issue that seems to be consistent concerning the ASU-85 is they probably did see limited use and where put into storage as noted. The pictures in the refs. are consistent with the ASU-85 so I don't really that, they don't have them.

Why all this effort for one unit, first you all expect it, it'll (HOPEFULLY!) avoid issues down the road and finally as my closest "friends" (Even the MARINE one. :p) know - It's how I roll. ;)

The other stuff can wait until I can find out more.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

May 1st, 2016, 11:18 PM

There are advantages to being an anal retentive nit picker if one works in intelligence.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 2nd, 2016, 02:27 AM

Alright remember me talking about the weight issue? The WWII SU-85 tank Vietnam received in 1960 weighs in at 29.8 tons vs. the SU-85/ASU-85 weighing in at 15.4+ tons. There's more of course but the following points can be cleared up.

1) Not the to be confused with the WWII SU-85 SPA (Yes the Russians designated them BOTH SU-85 if you didn't note that above.) though from the below ref. you can see it looks very much like the SU-85M produced in 1945 as shown near bottom right. So this rules out modernization again back to weight etc.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_SU-85.php

2) So I can't find anything to suggest they fought in the Chinese Conflict of 1979, however, there's plenty to suggest they were bought to secure their borders after the conflict. At this point I wouldn't have any problem allowing for training that JUNE 1980 to be a reasonable time for these tanks to have been fielded. I've used this site (1st. one.) before and I believe it might be Russian. Last used when I submitted the BTR-82A.
http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=CC02%20-%20ASU-85
https://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/rusothasu85.htm

3) The issue will be when were they taken out of service and stored? When did they reenter service?

A) The first would be more difficult but could possibly be aligned when the Russians took them out of service+ so something around 1995 if we "cobble" everything together. Not unprecedented in the game, if you look at the South African OOB I was able to convince Don to do this with the ROOKIVALK AH for a variety of reasons you'll find in the HELO Thread. The below ref. does support it being out of service with the first post shown from this Russian site (Yes I know it's a "Blog" some are however better than others and are a last resort for me but, information is "light" concerning Vietnam with these tanks.) and near the bottom you'll see it discussed in SEPTEMBER 2015.
http://www.russiadefence.net/t3581-vietnam-people-s-ground-forces

A1) In service date earliest I suspect would be JUNE 2014 however, JANUARY 2015 would be better and would cover that 6 month "SWAG" we have used many times in the past for equipment items of this nature and challenges.

B) Leave it alone once entered, also not unprecedented in the game where we know equipment has been warehoused/stored. The STRIX issue falls into this category. There were other issues in the "decision tree" but a key one was the "argument" that with your potential enemy is armor heavy, are you going to let one of your best anti-tank weapons sit in a warehouse if they attack? There's enough military types out here that I think would agree that you get them into the field ASAP. Given Vietnam's limited resources (And some of those other posts are correct on the economics involved.) that the ASU-85 could be considered for "exception" as well.

So that's it for me.

Regards,
Pat
:capt: