MBT's

[MarkSheppard]

Damaged MERKAVA showing internal configuration of "special" armor.

The proliferation of digital cameras, plus the last fifteen years of combat around the world has made it possible to see this stuff.

[MarkSheppard]

Some information has been revealed (accidentally) by North Korea on their latest tanks.

LINK to photographs-from-north-korean-atgm-tests (http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/photographs-from-north-korean-atgm-tests.html)

Unit 025 P'okpoong-ho in the NK OBAT is the applicable tank.

It appears that from the picture that the P'okpoong-ho / Chonma-216 / M-2002 tank (same tank, different names from different people) has as much protection as a T-72M1 at least.

Good job Don and Andy, you nailed it. :D :up:

Also in the tank line up photo:

The Chonma-216 is the fourth tank in the frontal row. The [Chonma-] 215 with the same armor and engine is the third tank.

[Oche]

Raytheon - M60 A4S Main Battle Tank Service Life Extension Program promo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFPuYIy3hB8

[MarkSheppard]

The Frontal Turret ERA on the latest Chinese MBTs may not be ERA, but Non Explosive Reactive Armor.

Plus, the last ten years of tanks getting blown up in the Middle East along with recently declassified documents at the British National Archives -- indicate that "Chobham" armor itself may be a really advanced version of NERA.

Anyway; the Chinese "Brezhnev's Brow Module" as described in the attached image appears to be NERA/Ceramic tiles layered over a shell of High Hardness Steel, followed by a hollow space -- the concept apparently being to 'decap' or 'blunt' penetrator heads, followed by imparting yaw on the projectile to snap it, plus standoff space.

My own big takeaway from this is that the Chinese armor modules now look to be very ingenious -- you can easily upgrade the armor on the tanks by simply unbolting the modules, and craning them off; as opposed to having to send an Abrams to a high level depot to have the armor cavities cut open.

[MarkSheppard]

recently declassified documents at the British National Archives -- indicate that "Chobham" armor itself may be a really advanced version of NERA.

To wit (see attached photos).

One drawing is of the MAXIMUM PROTECTION proposal to retrofit CHIEFTAIN with the 1969 or so version of BURLINGTON (precursor to CHOBHAM).

Second drawing is a cutaway of the BURLINGTON side skirt composition. Looks very similar to NERA.

Final photo is of one of the latest marks of ZTZ-99 -- the side turret armor looks very similar to the "MAXIMUM PROTECTION" proposal for Chieftain.

Still, we won't know for sure until someone actually drills a ZTZ-99 to see if it's ERA or NERA. :p

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I don't know how these things "pop into my head" but they do. I was looking into the M-48 tanks Germany sent to Turkey and ended up with the M-67 flamethrower tank. The below ref. is representative of the data I've found concerning the dates of service. It would appear that the M-67 is the the game at least one year early and possibly taken out of service by one year or slightly more. Also this this tank was built on the M-48A1 and M-48A2 platforms my only concern, yet to verify, are the armor protection differences enough to to warrant a change beyond dates? This site was chosen
1. Because of USMC cohort in crime and

2. Because to me anyway I'm seeing what are rare pictures of the USMC tanks in the beginning of their use through at least or better the Korean War.

Please note the references at the bottom when you click on the M-67 section. They include...

1. Standard Military Vehicle Characteristic Data Sheets. Center Line, MI: Army Tank and Automotive Command Reasearch & Engineering Directorate, July 1960.

2. Hunnicutt, R.P. Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, volume 1. Navato, CA: Presidio Press, 1984.

3. Crismon, Fred W. U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1992.

Over 30 years later Mr. Hunnicutt's books are still considered the "Bible" on the Patton tank series.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m67.html
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_of_Marine_Tanks.html

Well I'm going to "chill out" and take a walk before work today. A little bruised and tired from the "O" course earlier and the REDMAN yesterday.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

I have no idea why you question the armour values as they stock M48A1 Patton values

Don

[Suhiir]

The M67A1 (7/57-12/64) was built off an M48A1 (4/55-11/64) and has the exact same armor values.
The M67A2 (7/64-12/73) was built off an M48A3 (7/63-11/78) and has the exact same armor values.
There is no change in armor values between the M48A1 and M48A3.
The USMC did not field the M48A2.

The "bible" for USMC armor is "Marines Under Armor" by Ken Estes (retired Marine and retired history professor at Annapolis), whom I've exchanged a couple e-mails with to clarify things in his book.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Geez!?! What a tough crowd!?! Didn't I say that I had "yet to verify" the armor issue? That would be a yes, as noted in ref. 1 now that I've had a chance to look at it after putting away my gear and hanging up my uniform after just getting home to CINCLANTHOME, yes there is no armor difference.

Also from ref. 1 is this..."The M67A2 was again solely a Marine initiative, and brought the flame tank hull up to M48A3 standard. In addition to the work on the hulls, the M67 turrets were improved to M67A1 standard."

In ref. 2 is the main site that's run by, well, Marine tankers.

So about the M-48A2 well this next shows you had a USMC Lt.Col. who did have one and it's his picture...
14284
This is the attached tagline from the ref. 2 for the picture above..."M48A2 (the track tension idler wheel was cut off of these) Peter Saussy."

He must've been the only one to get one!?! :confused:

14285
This again is the attached tagline from the ref. 2 for the picture above...
Lt. Horner’s platoon, from F/2/5 take cover behind an M67A2 Flame Tank and a M48A3 during the battle for Hue. Photo ?

I did say I looked at the pictures though, that's the "rare" part I mentioned.

Ref. 2 from my previous if you missed it.
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_of_Marine_Tanks.html

I just don't know.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

The USMC did not field the M48A2.



Ref. 2 from my previous if you missed it.
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_of_Marine_Tanks.html

I just don't know.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Interesting..........that link was written by a retired USMC ( born in Canada (https://books.google.ca/books?id=xqbt4iE1iFIC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Lloyd+G.+Reynolds%2Busmc&source=bl&ots=PhuyStJBom&sig=pNgAXgJaUivmQTUHxhZxJuuDC6E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMr5DWg-vMAhUJc1IKHX3pB8wQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=Lloyd%20G.%20Reynolds%2Busmc&f=false) I might add.... ):)

and under "Interwar Marine Tanks" he clearly lists the M48A2.........along with those photos


That said the armour values and those of the M67 are correct in the game which is what I was addressing. Whether the USMC should have the A2 added.......IDK but there is no "game difference" between the A2 and A3 so the if the USMC used it or not is not a "game changer"....more an academic excercise.....maybe they "borrowed" them from the Army....

Don

[Suhiir]

Well what I have is:

"The first Tank Battalion turned over it's M46s and M39s to the Armys 6th Tank Battalion on 17 March [1955] and embarked for Pendelton and a new issue of M48A1 tanks."

"The initial order of M48s in 1952 also reflected 28 of the eventual 74 flame-tank variants, the M67 (formerly T66) ..."

"The flame-tank development remains a singular case of Marine Corps tank procurement of a separate weapon within the Army material system. In November 1949 the Commandant advised the Army that he considered the Armys plans to develop a trailer-type flame-tank unsatisfactory."

"The 421 medium M48A1 tanks would enter the M48A3 overhaul program in December 1962 at a rate of 25 per month, and the Anniston and Red River Army Depots also upgraded the 73 M67A1s [1268 liters of flame fuel] to M67A2 [1457 liters of flame fuel] at the rate of 5 per month."

"USMC inventory M48A3 1967 - Authorized 457 - Possessed 409"

No place in his book is the M48A2 mentioned, but I'll look into it.

[Suhiir]

Other then Mr Lloyd G. Reynolds and some model kits I can't find a single reference to an M48A2 in the USMC. Tho it's possible some of the M48A1s may have actually been M48A2s as they're essentially identical:

"This version, first accepted in 1956, first had and improved powerpack and transmission (a fuel-injected version of Continental’s V-12)
Second, a redesigned rear plate with exhaust louvres, and side hull intake grilles surrounded a solid center area overtop of the exhaust tunnel, greatly improving the infared signature. The more compact design inside the engine compartment allowed to fit bigger capacity fuel tanks, for 335 US gallons (1270L), giving an approximative range of 160 miles or 260 km. Moreover the A2 had a an improved turret control, and relocated engine\’s air cleaners for better access and maintenance. The suspensions also were modified, with a modified compensating idler wheel attachment, double bump spring on the first road wheel arm, and friction snubbers instead of the hydraulic shock absorbers. The second and fourth track return rollers were deleted. The driver\’s steering wheel was enlarged, and the transmission shifter was relocated to the floor on the driver\’s right. It had also a modified personnel heater exhaust pipe, an improved turret control system, and flattened fenders."

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Some of you will note I've done this before, I've sent out a couple of emails to Vietnam era CORPS tanker websites concerning the M-48A2. Below is a ref. I found that shows the Military Museum of Southern New England, Danbury CT. has a M-48A2C (This model primarily equipped with a more efficient main gun.) with distinctive USMC markings on it as shown in the pictures. I doing a further search into the tanks shown here and in my previous post as pictured too see if the serial numbers "hit" on the internet somewhere.
http://preservedtanks.com/Profile.aspx?UniqueID=2379

I love a challenge.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I love a challenge.
Keeps life interesting.

In theory starting in 1962 all USMC M48s were starting an upgrade to A3s, by the time they hit Vietnam in 1965 they probably should have mostly been A3s.
The other possibility would be that the 3rd Tank Bn being located in Okinawa would be last on the upgrade list and some deal was cut with the Army that resulted in the USMC trading un-upgraded M48A1s for Army M48A2Cs which were then fielded until they could be upgraded to A3s.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I think the more proper I now believe USMC M-48A2C was the tank that bridged the gap to the M-48A3 (To include the ARMY.) which needed to be done. The M-48A2/A2C was used by both services it appears with the A2C having improved the main gun capabilities with other improvements over the M-48A1/A2. What seems to have been one of the major factors in further development to the M-48A3 was that both services wanted to get away from the gasoline engines they were using up to that time for many reasons to chiefly include overall safety, fuel economy and reliability. But one thing I'm seeing constantly though when looking at the Amazon/Google online book excerpts that are offered is that I'm reading ...the U.S. Army and Marines... when discussing the M-48A2 it would seem the tank sort of "fell through the cracks" but at the same time is still there. I'm getting rough dates from about 1957-1959 until 1962-1963 for the M-48A2. But for the record my focus is strictly is on verification of use and not dates at this time. If you verify that the rest will fall into place, unless again you're dealing with the French 105mm which as you can see will always be a thorn in my side, and I'll never get those years/research hours back again. :D

But to be clear I don't see this issue related to my "historically being accurate" and other argument I made for getting the M-60A1 RISE PASSIVE entered into the game for the ARMY from Page 8/POST #73 of this thread as I submitted in 2010. For a more detailed explanation and why this thread is if you will "off limits" is to allow for Don and I to hash these issues out in a more focused manner see The FASTBOAT Patch page thread Pages #1-#2. You'll also see the "baby steps" I was taking at the time but I was thankful for the help I got from Don and AMX to get me through those then embarrassing but now funny moments. :doh:

The M-48A2/A2C is as different overall from the M-48A1 as the M-48A3 is to both of the previous mods.

I'm just waiting to hear back as indicated previously.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Here's a very quick update concerning the USMC use of the M-48A2...

1) It seems the only verifiable tank (non-flame tank) the USMC used in Vietnam was the M-48A3.

2) As Suhiir noted, the USMC did receive their tanks from the ARMY, in this case from retired stock as the ARMY transitioned from the M-48 series to the M-60 series.
Note: The M-48A1 were new stock tanks received jointly with the ARMY off the production line.

3) Confirmed (And have re-posted the picture below.) that Lt.Col. George Saussy (Jr.) first does exist and was in command of the 3rd Tank Battalion, 3rd MarDiv. USMC from 12 Aug. 1960 until 8 Jul. 1961. This seems to validate his picture as previously posted.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xqbt4iE1iFIC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Lt.Col.+George+Saussy+USMC&source=bl&ots=PhuzMuHBpg&sig=CGcbKdNDMXEC8avfFwp7vnmenHY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl07fN8_bMAhWJYiYKHXJzB2EQ6AEIHTAA#v=on epage&q=Lt.Col.%20George%20Saussy%20USMC&f=false

14287

4) Have heard back on my inquiry. But my question wasn't answered. I will post the full email when I've received and exhausted that source, as also already posted.

5) Issue I see is a potential that the wrong tanks might be represented with the Vietnam War Campaign and possibly some related scenarios as well, as noted in 1) above. The ARMY however did have some M-48A2/A2C tanks in country early on, but like the USMC no M-48A1 tanks served there.

Though as I had mentioned in 5) above, my true concern again is to verify the use of the M-48A2/A2C or both by the USMC only.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I've found nothing to indicate that the USMC used anything but M48A3/M67A2 in Vietnam proper. It's probable some M48A1s were still in service, especially with the reserve 4th Tank Bn., back in the CONUS.

The real question, for my part, is ... did the USMC ever use significant number of M48A2Cs? They may well have had some, but if the lions share were A1s or A3s I don't feel adding the A2C is worthwhile. Much the same way the USMC did in fact possess 10 x M24s but such a small number isn't worth including in the OOB.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Huge difference between the M-48A1 and M-48A2C here's an excerpt from my first response to my email inquiry...
"The A-1 was a gasoline powered vehicle. The USMC did not have them in-country. In July of 1968, the Army did use some A-1's for a short time. They found out that too many mines caused too many explosions and they moved to the A-3." - Greg Martin

If the ARMY still used them (The A1.) you know the USMC still did also through 1968. The M-48A1 was very venerable to mines as the underbelly around the fuel tank wasn't heavily armored. They were fire death traps much in the way I believe if memory serves the T-62 was.

If it's found the USMC had the M-48A2 and M-48A2C given the option I'd just enter the M-48A2C. And we've had and suspect still to a lesser degree, some limited number units in the game. The Sukhoi S-37 Berkut comes to mind that was finally removed from the Russian OOB within the last 2-3+ years. Best estimates put it at 3 to 5 examples built.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/sukhoi_s37_berkut.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/

I might up the ante later this morning and reach out for some help from the PAO office of the following unit...
http://www.1stmardiv.marines.mil/Units/1STTANKBN/Contact.aspx

I see it starting along the lines of "Good Morning, Sir I'm...
I was wondering if you can help me find...Yes I'm a Retired Submariner...Line goes goes mysteriously dead...Well it might need some polishing, besides I'd hate the thought of the PAO coughing out or spilling coffee on their nice clean uniform :rolleyes: yeah maybe not so much after all!?! :D

Good Ni...or whatever it is as long as it means sleep for me.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Results of phone call #1 to 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd MARDIV at Camp Lejeune, NC...
http://www.2ndmardiv.marines.mil/Units/2ndTankBN.aspx

"Good morning sir,

We spoke on the phone about the M48A2 tank and I did some research for you. The following is a link that should help you. This website is not USMC official, but it does seem credible.

http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_of_Marine_Tanks.html

Respectfully,
Lance Cpl. Damarko Bones
II MEF PAO
(910) 449-8592"

Well if the link looks familiar it should, It's the one I originally posted. He did also verify the picture as authentic from my last post as well and that he was the CO of the unit at the time it was taken. No hesitation on the part of LCpl. Bones in pulling up this site either, it must be in their "favorites" or some such for ready access. We were done in about five minutes.

I'm currently awaiting a response from S-3 Operations to the same question on left on their voice mail (Weird the PAO didn't have voice mail) from 1st Tank Battalion, 1st MARDIV at 29 Palms, CA.
http://www.1stmardiv.marines.mil/Units/1STTANKBN.aspx

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I haven't heard back from Ken Estes yet but did find this:
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41155&hl=m48a2

"I think you forgot some of our conversations, Ray. The USMC was all M48A3 by 1964. It was the army that ran out of them and deployed the A2s to VN for awhile."

"On page 393 of Hunnicutt's Patton, there is a photo of an A2C, belonging to "1st Battalion, 5th Mechanized Division" [???] engaged in Operation Fisher, 6Jan69."

"Mike Green's Armored Warfare in the Vietnam War mentions "a number of M48A2Cs" deployed to Vietnam by the army in 1967 and 1968. [page 14]"

"P96 of Simon Dunston's Vietnam Tracks has a pic of an 11th Cav A2C, very pimped out. Page 90 has distant pic of A2C with 4/12th Cav, along with language suggesting army tank losses brought the A2Cs to Vietnam...."

"Once the war was in full tilt, it was probably difficult for the army to gear up. For the USMC the 421 medium M48A1 tanks would enter the M48A3 overhaul program in December 1962 at the rate of 25 per month, and the Anniston and Red River Army Depots also upgraded the 73 M67A1 to M67A2 at five per month. The 160 M103 heavies [of 218 on hand] cycled through their rebuild beginning in August, 1963 at the rate of 25 per month. I'd say the army was caught unprepared when MACV decided that tanks would be sent to RVN after all. The USMC sent theirs in right away with each brigade or division, but juxtaposed, it meant there was no army support for tanks in VN for the first year+. Our gear on Okinawa was always a bit poor, because it existed at the end of a very long and ineffective USMC supply & maint system chain. Our M48A3s ran out of road wheels in the 30 days according to most people I knew who were early deployers; track shortages followed soon and then all the rest. Of course by 60 days, the USMC ground forces became dependent upon the army CommZ or equivalent in theater. With no army tanks yet in theater, it became horrific, was already so for the poor M-50 Ontos and amtracs. These had never been provisioned properly in the USMC since inserv."

"Later, the USMC transferred all their A3s [originally acquired as M48 and M48A1] to the army for its A5 program. Our payback came when we received 50 and 132 M1A1s in FY94 and 95 from the army [48 common heavy armor, rest 7th year]"

[Suhiir]

When the USMC deployed to Vietnam it took it's M48A3s ... BUT the US Army logistic system in Vietnam apparently had primarily M48A2s.
So when the USMC needed to swap a tank due to battle damage/maintenance the replacement from the US Army was probably an M48A2.

My best guess why we have verifiable photos and such of USMC M48A2s.

[Suhiir]

Heard back from Ken and:

"Well, we are back to recognition matters for the photos. Pappy's comment under the Saussy tank pic refers to the removal of the idler with the M48A2C and later. The photo label does not make it an A2. Hunnicutt is quite clear in his Patton that the A2s had the three return rollers, and since all USMC M48A3s were converted M48A1 tanks, all had the five return rollers, no exceptions. Most decisively is the travel lock on the Saussy M48. It is raised and stands up right behind the turret. The travel locks for the A2 and A3 were at the the very rear of the engine deck. It is an M48A1.

Pappy's other pic with the caption "M48A2 Rear Photo ?" does not seem to be a USMC tank by any markings I can make out. If you blow it up, you see the tank on the left rear displays a star on its turret, most un-USMC except for the Korean War. It does not look like any of the USMC tank parks of the day. Note the missing components of the subject tank. It might even be an M48A3 with the air cleaners stripped away. In short, a parts tank for some unknown unit. I don't know that the M48A2 and the M48A3 rear engine grills are at all different. Do you? Pappy's M48A3 pics from Vietnam are not very clear in the grill detail. Here's some of mine in the attached pic. There is no date on the "A2" photo, nor place. Pappy has been sloppy before on his blog."

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41757

So basically we have a case of poor memory and a mis-labeled picture.

[Suhiir]

I also found this for US Army tank info.

"Now,this is the tank list I have,which is the entire point:

M48A1 (until December 1979?)
M48A3
M48A5 (October 1975-mid '90)
M60 (fall of 1960-1963?)
M60A1 (1963-1972?) (basic version)
M60A1(AOS) (late 1972-1975))
M60A1(RISE) (1975-77?)
M60A1(RISE/PASSIVE) (1977-1997?)
M60A1 ERA (late '80)
M60A2 "Starship" (1974-1981)
M60A3 (May 1979-upgraded with TTS couple of months later?)
M60A3 (TTS) (August 1979-1997)
M1 (1984-1992?)
M1IP (1984-1992?)
M1A1 (August 1985)
M1A1 HA (October 1988)"

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well this next from a reliable reference and sourced from the German Ministry of Defense ought to "shake things up" a little.

The highlights are from the German Ministry of Defense...

"The Germans are planning to upgrade the Leopard 2A4 tanks that remain in storage up to the 2A7 variant, and then to introduce them into the Bundeswehr’s inventory, so that the Army would have 320, instead of 225 tanks at its disposal." - This has been discussed for sometime now. Target dates for modernization are 2017/2018.

"The Germans had decided to procure around 100 additional Leopard 2A4 tanks from the defence industry companies. These tanks had been withdrawn from active use in April 2015." - Now this might have some game bearing, it I think would extend the end date for the latest version of the LEO 2A4. These tanks (In storage now.) would be the modernization platform to the LEO 2A7.

"Besides the stored Leopards, the Bundeshwehr is also willing to introduce 16 Dutch Leopard 2A6NL main battle tanks into active service.
Initially, the Dutch Ministry of Defence was planning to completely withdraw main battle tanks tanks from active service. Nonetheless, ultimately it was decided that a single company would become a part of the German-Dutch armoured battalion, formed within the framework of the Bundeswehr’s 414th Battalion, initially seen as a reserve unit which now has been reactivated." - The Dutch originally intended on selling these tanks as well, however due to questions concerning the potential buyers human rights record, the Parliament nixed the deal. Now the question becomes how do we treat these tanks in the Netherlands OOB? We've already set the precedence with the SADF Denel AH-2 Rooivalk, where as you might recall the "fleet" was grounded and modernized over an 18-24 month period. We set the end date of the AH-2 when officially grounded and added the new modernized version when it "re" entered service. Do we consider the same for the Dutch Leopard 2A6NL?

And you'll love this and I never really doubted it but...

"In order to fully equip the existing units of the Army, including six armoured battalions together with the training units, ca. 320 Leopards are needed. The German Army, at the moment, has a little more than 200 Leopard 2A6 tanks at its disposal, with minor quantities of Leopard 2A7 and Leopard 2A5 platforms complementing the above package." - The bold is mine. This does throw a wrench into the whole LEO 2A7 issue I believe the Germans had at least one or two (I think one to be "more" correct.) companies worth of them before the Qatar and Saudi deals fell through for these same tanks. Those deals were to help pay for the Bundeshwehr to acquire them in numbers. The LEO 2A5 we left in service I believe but, this needs verification.

Beyond the LEO 2A7...
Who knows but cooperation with the French to jointly development a MBT is currently still ongoing to include the forming of a company. But that you'll have to read for yourself. The rest is in the MBT/HELO and Patch Threads as discussed above.

Full article.
http://www.defence24.com/380302,germany-modernization-of-the-leopard-tanks-to-begin-in-2017-ministry-of-defence-rejects-the-rumors-present-within-the-media#

German OOB check results and please check me as I'm trying to beat the clock!!...

***LEOPARD 2A4 recommend UNIT 268 for service date extension to above date 04/2015. Currently at 12/2010, looks like this was the last one in service in the OOB.***

***LEOPARD 2A5 recommend UNIT 275 for service date extension. Appears last two LEO 2A5 (UNITS 273/275) came out of service in 2010.***

***LEOPARD 2A7 still in the game recommend no changes. I thought though at was discussed it would be put into the "HOLD" status when the topic came up whether they had them yet or not. I'm :) leave it.***

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

For now as the Dutch Leos are integrated into what is really a German unit and they are not independent of that organization so....... if someone wants Dutch Leos they can buy 2a6's from the German OOB as "captured"
..........and the 2A7 I have change to a code X3 so it's human player only

[MarkSheppard]

The Germans just unveiled a new 130mm Main Gun intended to; far future, defeat the T14 Armata.

Right now, it has no official use; but maybe RecruitMonty will find this information useful.

MGCS = Main ground combat system = the supposed Leo III MBT.

http://defense-update.com/20160614_rheinmetall-ups-tank-firepower-with-new-130mm-gun.html

The new 130 mm gun is a precondition for the future tank, known as ‘Main Ground Combat System’ (MGCS) being developed by Germany. MGCS is currently being developed by Germany and France as a future replacement for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc main battle tanks, considering the increasing threat posed by Russian systems such as the Armata (T-14) MBTs.

Rheinmetall unveiled the new weapon at Eurosatory 2016.

Rheinmetall unveiled the new L/51 130mm tank gun currently undergoing company testing. The new weapon provides 50 percent improvement in performance, over the current 120 mm cannon. It is intended for use in a new class of main battle tanks. Photo: Noam Eshel, Defense-Update

[Suhiir]

130mm ... so they're outdoing the JagdTiger and Maus ...

I don't know about the rest of you but I've found myself somewhat amused by tank development these last few years.

[MarkSheppard]

I think this is the latest iteration of the FUTURE NATO MAIN GUN effort (not an official name), to find a successor to the 120mm Rheinmetall in much the same way the 120mm Rheinmetall succeeded the 105mm L7 as the "standard" tank gun of NATO.

The earlier 140mm Tank Gun effort in Germany/USA in the late 1980s/Early 1990s was an earlier iteration of this concept.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Can't find the original discussion point from early last month, it might even be in this thread. Anyway the verdict is in concerning the second and most famous photo of the flag raising over IWO JIMA. In short the new claims made in the last few years and the forensic evidence shows that HM John Bradley USN was not at or in that picture (However he is positively identified as being in the first flag raising and picture of that event.) but, that Harold Schultz USMC was. The article speaks for itself.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-in-famous-iwo-jima-photo-misidentified-for-seven-decades/
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/marines-admit-man-in-iconic-iwo-jima-photo-was-misidentified/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Something of interest

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf

among other things.....

....Original armor penetration estimates were 600 mm for BGM-71A/B and 700–800 mm for BGM-71C. However, according to a now declassified CIA study, the true penetration values against a vertical target are much lower—just 430 mm for basic TOW and 630 mm for Improved TOW

[Imp]

Not really surprised I remember the US testing mid 70s weapons against T-72s I think it was after the cold war & confirming what Britain & Germany had told them.
Think it was 3 tanks & they used all ground based antitank weapons & the A-10s cannon, result was all tanks damaged & impared but still battle capable when engaged frontaly.

[MarkSheppard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE1UH4LNMD0&feature=youtu.be&t=106

Iraq has combined a T-55 turret with a 57mm S-60 Flak Gun chassis to create a sort of towed mobile turret (at 1:46 in video)

They've also combined a Humvee with the twin 23mm Weapon station from a BTR-94 (at 0:46).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Things I have my eye on or another way of saying I'm txxxxxxg these...
Iran - It appears they have a new tank running around, and I would concur it's armed with a 125mm MG based on the Russian armor they already possess. It does look somewhat like the T-90MS though I wouldn't expect it to be of the same quality. The tank is named the KARRAR.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/new_iranian-made_karrar_mbt_main_battle_tank_unveiled_by_local _television_footage_12608161.html

Also...
They've improved their M60 tanks as well.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/iran_equips_m60_main_battle_tanks_with_anti-tow_jamming_sytems_51205163.html

Thailand - This topic lead Ukraine to get their act together to produce the T-84 OPLOT M that they had contracted to do.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_could_purchase_russian-made_t-90_or_chinese_vt-4_mbt_to_replace_order_of_t-84_oplot_10501162.html

India - This next shows how long I keep my data and where I left off. This still needs some verification of the development and implementation of these reported improvements to to the ARJUN.
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2013/03/orders-placed-for-arjun-mk1a-mbts.htm

Belarus - This one of my "OWOO" bottom line is they get a enhanced and much improved T-72.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/belarus_will_use_modernized_version_of_t-72b_main_battle_tank_at_tank_biathlon_2016_in_russ ia_tass_11507161.html

Well you'll have to excuse me while "I hit the rack" one more to go. That "rack" is still more comfortable then say a "foxhole" you ground pounders use. :rolleyes: But none of it is as good as the USAF gets!! :shock:

Almost forgot...

CIA - Consider this a bonus. And note the date as 2004 making this one of the newer released sources on this topic.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[shahadi]

Things I have my eye on or another way of saying I'm txxxxxxg these...
Iran - It appears they have a new tank running around, and I would concur it's armed with a 125mm MG based on the Russian armor they already possess. It does look somewhat like the T-90MS though I wouldn't expect it to be of the same quality. The tank is named the KARRAR.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/new_iranian-made_karrar_mbt_main_battle_tank_unveiled_by_local _television_footage_12608161.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

You might find the following interesting as did I: "And the T-90 is tough. In a rare glimpse of the machine in combat in February, an American-made TOW anti-tank missile fired by rebel fighters hit a Syrian T-90 but appeared to only cause minor damage." Source: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/irans-new-karrar-tank-one-the-most-advanced-tanks-the-world-17468.

And the following: "For all the videos coming out of the Syrian civil war, a one minute, 31-second clip of a U.S.-made TOW missile slamming into a T-90 tank got more attention than most. In the video uploaded in February, Russia’s most advanced operational battle tank met one of the United States’ main tank killers on the battlefield." Source: https://warisboring.com/what-a-t-90-tank-looks-like-after-being-hit-by-a-tow-missile-3c1cbeddc65f#.aeve4bu32.

https://sites.google.com/site/mywinspmbt/config/pagetemplates/assets/0-AgpDNlQ-b616UoEB.jpg

"The Research Institute of Steel, a Russian company which makes reactive armor plates for the T-90, was pleased. The crew lived, according to Russian press reports, and the only visible damage was on one of the T-90’s two Shtora transmitters, which hanged limp in the photograph."

I take away that the Russian T-90 is a hybrid of a T-80 turret mounted on a T-72 chassis, so it should not be much of a surprise of an Iranian variant as they plenty of T-72's (or had). Furthermore, the real prize is the reactive armor, do the Iranian produce quality reactive armor, and finally, that Syrian crewed T-90's Shtora's electro-optical jammer either failed to jam the TOW or, it did not switch on when fired upon. Do the Iranians have capable ECM?

As Iran becomes more embedded with Syrian forces and Iraqi forces, what they put on the battlefield is of utmost concern.

=====

[RightDeve]

You might find the following interesting as did I: "And the T-90 is tough. In a rare glimpse of the machine in combat in February, an American-made TOW anti-tank missile fired by rebel fighters hit a Syrian T-90 but appeared to only cause minor damage." Source: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/irans-new-karrar-tank-one-the-most-advanced-tanks-the-world-17468.

And the following: "For all the videos coming out of the Syrian civil war, a one minute, 31-second clip of a U.S.-made TOW missile slamming into a T-90 tank got more attention than most. In the video uploaded in February, Russia’s most advanced operational battle tank met one of the United States’ main tank killers on the battlefield." Source: https://warisboring.com/what-a-t-90-tank-looks-like-after-being-hit-by-a-tow-missile-3c1cbeddc65f#.aeve4bu32.

https://sites.google.com/site/mywinspmbt/config/pagetemplates/assets/0-AgpDNlQ-b616UoEB.jpg

"The Research Institute of Steel, a Russian company which makes reactive armor plates for the T-90, was pleased. The crew lived, according to Russian press reports, and the only visible damage was on one of the T-90’s two Shtora transmitters, which hanged limp in the photograph."

I take away that the Russian T-90 is a hybrid of a T-80 turret mounted on a T-72 chassis, so it should not be much of a surprise of an Iranian variant as they plenty of T-72's (or had). Furthermore, the real prize is the reactive armor, do the Iranian produce quality reactive armor, and finally, that Syrian crewed T-90's Shtora's electro-optical jammer either failed to jam the TOW or, it did not switch on when fired upon. Do the Iranians have capable ECM?

As Iran becomes more embedded with Syrian forces and Iraqi forces, what they put on the battlefield is of utmost concern.

=====

I'm curious to know what exact TOW version is that, aside from "US made....main tank killers", especially if its tandem-charged or not.

From the document "Lessons Learned from the Ukrainian-Russian War" (at the other thread), it seems T-90 is indeed mighty enough to withstand standard single warhead ATGM, but since tandem-charged warhead is quite a rarity on these theaters outside of the producer nations (let alone be used against them!), we can't be quite sure how modern MBTs fare against these specialized anti-reactive armor missiles.

I somehow believe modern MBTs would still not do well against modern anti-tank missiles, i.e with multi-charged warhead.

[Suhiir]

Then there's always the question of just where was it hit? Someplace that would have caused destruction or in a bustle rack?

[shahadi]

Then there's always the question of just where was it hit? Someplace that would have caused destruction or in a bustle rack?

From the article: "We saw the wire-guided missile bob toward the T-90, which was parked on a crest between two low-slung buildings. Then the missile hit the tank’s turret with a tremendous flash which sent up a cloud of smoke. One of the crew members bailed and the video ended."

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I'll throw in my "two sense" here...
1. The T-90 pictured does not appear to have the latest version of the SHTORA Protection System on it which is now in a 2nd GEN and am not a 100% but possibly 3rd GEN currently or under development.

2. That TOW had to be a TOW 2A which was the first of the 2nd GEN TOW Systems.

3. The source (With our approval.) of supple was from Saudi Arabia which received in. never mind from one of my refs (Verified by SIPRI as well.)

"Saudi Arabia signed two foreign military sale (FMS) agreements with the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in December 2013. The first FMS worth $170m covers 750 BGM-71 2B TOW missiles, seven Fly-to-Buy TOW2B missiles, 1,000 BGM-71 2A TOW missiles, seven Fly-to-Buy TOW2A missiles, and the support equipment.

The second FMS worth $900m covers 9,650 BGM-71 2A TOW RF missiles, 4,145 BGM-71 2B TOW Aero RF missiles, 91 TOW-2A Fly-to-Buy missiles, 49 TOW-2B Fly-to-Buy missiles, and the associated equipment."
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/

Kind of obvious to me they received several thousand more advanced TOW systems and the BGM-71 2A is not a training missile because you can buy them separately and they'd be cheaper as well. The date of the sale and delivery to the Saudis and Syrian rebels makes this a "home run" to me.

Rest of the Refs...
http://www.businessinsider.com/syrian-rebels-may-have-used-us-made-tow-missiles-to-kill-russian-officers-in-syria-2016-2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466590/The-moment-Syrian-rebels-fire-60-000-American-missile-4-5million-Russian-tank-missile-WINS.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Trying to beat the edit clock!! :eek: Was trying to find something quick on SHTORA and came across this on the incident being discussed. Read the next VERY CLOSELY if true, though I stand buy what I posted above, I don't know if I should leave it as "those dumb M..... and end it as you choose or just laugh!!!! SUHIIR already knows that answer, me being a retired "Bubblehead", yeah I did both.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-t-90-tank-vs-the-javelin-missile-who-wins-15638

[shahadi]

Well I'll throw in my "two sense" here...
1. The T-90 pictured does not appear to have the latest version of the SHTORA Protection System on it which is now in a 2nd GEN and am not a 100% but possibly 3rd GEN currently or under development.

2. That TOW had to be a TOW 2A which was the first of the 2nd GEN TOW Systems.

3. The source (With our approval.) of supple was from Saudi Arabia which received in. never mind from one of my refs (Verified by SIPRI as well.)

"Saudi Arabia signed two foreign military sale (FMS) agreements with the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in December 2013. The first FMS worth $170m covers 750 BGM-71 2B TOW missiles, seven Fly-to-Buy TOW2B missiles, 1,000 BGM-71 2A TOW missiles, seven Fly-to-Buy TOW2A missiles, and the support equipment.

The second FMS worth $900m covers 9,650 BGM-71 2A TOW RF missiles, 4,145 BGM-71 2B TOW Aero RF missiles, 91 TOW-2A Fly-to-Buy missiles, 49 TOW-2B Fly-to-Buy missiles, and the associated equipment."
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/

Kind of obvious to me they received several thousand more advanced TOW systems and the BGM-71 2A is not a training missile because you can buy them separately and they'd be cheaper as well. The date of the sale and delivery to the Saudis and Syrian rebels makes this a "home run" to me.

Rest of the Refs...
http://www.businessinsider.com/syrian-rebels-may-have-used-us-made-tow-missiles-to-kill-russian-officers-in-syria-2016-2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466590/The-moment-Syrian-rebels-fire-60-000-American-missile-4-5million-Russian-tank-missile-WINS.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Trying to beat the edit clock!! :eek: Was trying to find something quick on SHTORA and came across this on the incident being discussed. Read the next VERY CLOSELY if true, though I stand buy what I posted above, I don't know if I should leave it as "those dumb M..... and end it as you choose or just laugh!!!! SUHIIR already knows that answer, me being a retired "Bubblehead", yeah I did both.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-t-90-tank-vs-the-javelin-missile-who-wins-15638

That's a lot more than two cents.

======

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don already well understands all this, he's just happy that I listened to him about year ago on (That post is out here somewhere.) of "breaking up my thoughts" as my brain tends to work quicker then my fingers at times over the years. Newtons 3rd Law I believe is appropriate here "that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction." or if you will, :typing: = :pc: !

Because I understand the economics of weapons systems etc. I'll just say my "two cents" already includes the cost of inflation and project cost over runs. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[shahadi]

Don already well understands all this, he's just happy that I listened to him about year ago on (That post is out here somewhere.) of "breaking up my thoughts" as my brain tends to work quicker then my fingers at times over the years. :typing: = :pc: !

Because I understand the economics of weapons systems etc. I'll just say my "two cents" already includes the cost of inflation and project cost over runs. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Sorry. I meant to say more than two cents a smoking gun pointing directly to Saudi as proxy in the Syrian rebellion, with tacit US approval if not down right complicity.

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

After spending so many years tracking a piece of equipment, it's good to maybe be able to finally say "I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel." though in my minds eye it still seems very dim down there given this tanks developmental history as well, though still not as bad the Indian ARJUN which took over thirty years to develop.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/otokar_company_from_turkey_to_submit_final_offer_t o_start_mass_production_of_altay_main_battle_tank_ 13108164.html

As some know I've been watching developments from these "guys" as well for sometime and have posted on this equipment already. Consider this an update on a more highly motivated and better trained military since NATO came to help.
http://www.defence24.com/435182,ukraine-new-armament-for-the-army-and-for-the-national-guard#

And finally something I'm waiting for Italy to "pull the trigger on" any day now (I'm feeling very optimistic-aren't I!?!)
but I can hope!
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centauro_2.htm

We take what we can get, when we can get it. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[dmnt]

Pictures from Polish PT-16 MBT, Anders IFV and Leopard PL
https://twitter.com/GrantTurnbull_/status/772714310602719232

[DRG]

Pictures from Polish PT-16 MBT, Anders IFV and Leopard PL
https://twitter.com/GrantTurnbull_/status/772714310602719232

PT-16 is only a proposal

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt_16.htm

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don is correct. We will likely see this tank because as I posted a few months back, this is a joint proposal with the UKRAINE. What is not clear is whether or not Poland will actually get these for themselves. Why? The big reason is about 4-5 years ago I believe for Malaysia they got from Poland a spec built PT-91 TWARDY improved MBT's which are better still then the PT-16. The one glaring thing that stands out to me is the fact that the PT-16 still stores the ammo in the crew spaces, whereas this was corrected in the Malaysian tank. I can't remember if the ammo was stored in an armored locker or storage with blow out panels and it was equipped with a better FCS suite and electronics package in general.

This ref has just been updated this week.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt_16.htm

Also to save time some guys a short time back where discussing things similar to the next...
http://www.military-today.com/bases/norwegian_military_caves.htm

Edit; Found it (PT-91M) on FASTBOAT Thread Page 3/Post 30 (28 & 29 related) on 11-29-10, 06:15 PM
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt91_twardy.htm

LOOK UNDER VARIANTS SECTION...
"PT-91M Pendekar export version supplied to Malaysia. This MBT is fitted with improved 125 mm gun, S-1000 engine, new hydropneumatic transmission, French fire control system, new communication system and some other changes."

That FCS would be the SAGEM system as carried on the LECLERC.

All from memory ladies and gentlemen, anyone for chess?!? :p

That was my big one to modernize Malaysia's OOB, THAT'S THE KIND OF WORK I TRULY LIKE DOING OUT HERE.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

These guys are normally pretty good (ref). The video might be useful as well (ref 1). I think the data here might be better then what we had when I submitted this tank in 2010. With that Commanders site it would give the PT-91M tank a minimal "hunter killer" capability. We might need to consider a quick second look at it just to ensure we got it right.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3431.html
http://defence-blog.com/army/malaysia-is-looking-for-new-tanks.html
http://www.janes.com/article/57177/ukrainian-firms-look-to-upgrade-business-on-polish-pt-91s

Video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVJuL4ZPaHo

JANE'S ref seems to indicate that the Polish have them as well, that's news to me so now "the plot thickens"!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Alright here's my breakdown of the existing issues game wise concerning both the Polish PT-91 vs. the Malaysian PT-91M as follows...

1. PT-91M (1000hp) is 10km/h faster on the road than the PT-91 (850hp). How this translates to off road performance is beyond the scope of my knowledge in the calculus used within the game but I would think the 10km/h road speed difference would be seen in the game.

2. PT-91M has the wrong MG. This could've been based on what we had at the time, not sure though.
The PT-91 should have the following MG..."The main cannon is also fitted with a Stelectro-hydraulic gun stabilization system, providing higher accuracy and fire on the move capability. The vehicle has a new autoloader and can carry 42 rounds of 125mm ammunition. The fire control system can select up to 6 different types of ammunition to be fired from the 125mm 2A46M (D-81TM) smoothbore cannon, which has an elevation of -6 to +13 degree‘s, which is considerably less than Western tanks."

By contrast the PT-91M has the following...
"A new improved 2A46MS main cannon. The breech block has been redesigned to make it more symmetric, decreasing the resistance of the recoil break whilst the projectile is moving in the barrel, removing the recoil break axis below the main cannon axis in the azimuth plain, using two recuperators acting against each other and placing them above the main gun axis. This has increased first hit probability by 23% over the original 2A46M main cannon."

3. Spacing is the worst enemy of any ERA protection system. ERAWA has to be thought about much in the same way we think of the later MERKAVA variants.
First it's a hybrid ERA, referred to as ERA Armor.

Simply ERAWA has no spacing gaps which in of itself improves overall protection.

Third which I was unaware of, did you know there was a "light" laminate armor barrier sandwiched between the steel armor and the ERAWA for both the PT-91 and PT-91M? Just like that Israeli tank above though not as good as the MERKAVA.

3a. A reassessment in protection, is probably needed based on the above for both the PT-91 and PT-91M. However that being said, further consideration has to be given to the PT-91M based on the following..."An improved version of the Erawa ERA (possibly increasing the weight as its explosive is larger)."

This improved version has been identified as ERAWA 2 for the PT-91M of Malaysia as also noted in ref. 2 below.

4. Both have "hunter killer" capability normally simply and loosely defined as it's ability to hit a target while on the move and rapidly move to the next target.

This ref(s) are representative of others in encapsulating the other refs data for the purpose of this post.
http://tanknutdave.com/the-polish-pt-91-twardy-qhardq-mbt/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/poland_polish_tanks_heavy_armoured_vehicles_uk/pt-91_twardy_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_sp ecifications_description_information_pictures.html

Bonus ref. of related topic...
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/08/back-from-dead-anders-and-pt-16.html


It's very late!! Time to hit the rack before something else hits me!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[MarkSheppard]

Not sure where this goes. New Russian UGV breaking into the public eye:

http://www.janes.com/article/63562/new-russian-combat-ugv-breaks-cover-uran-9-readies-for-service

A new Russian unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) has been unveiled at the Army 2016 military technical forum.

Designated as an unmanned combat ground vehicle (UCGV), the Vikhr (Whirlwind) is based on the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).

"The fully modular combat UCGV is based on the BMP-3, as this IFV features a reliable and easy-to-maintain chassis. However, it can be integrated with other types of armoured combat vehicles with a combat weight of 7-15 tonnes, for instance, modified BMP-1 and BMP-2 IFVs, Ural heavy trucks, or BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers [APCs]," an industry source told IHS Jane's . He added that Vikhr is intended for fire support and combat reconnaissance on the battlefield.

The vehicle is equipped with an advanced remote-control sensor package device that includes electo-optic suite an automatic target tracking device, a laser rangefinder, a thermal imager, and a ballistic computer.

Vikhr is armed with a stabilised 30 mm Shipunov 2A72 automatic cannon, a coaxial 7.62 mm Kalashnikov PKT/PKTM machine gun, and six ready-to-launch 9M133M Kornet-M (AT-14 Spriggan) anti-tank guided missiles.

"The 2A72 main gun of the Vikhr robotic system can be replaced by single or twin-barrel 23 mm 2A14 anti-aircraft cannon, 12.7 mm NSVT or Kord heavy machine guns, or a 30 mm GSh-6-30K six-barrel naval automatic cannon. The vehicle can use surface-to-air missiles of Igla [SA-18 Grouse] or 9K333 Verba man-portable air defence systems, as well as Shmel-M reactive flamethrowers. We can also integrate foreign artillery systems with the Vikhr vehicle," the source said.

According to official data, Vikhr has a combat weight of 14.7 tonnes, a payload capacity of 4 tonnes, an operating range of 600 km, a maximum road speed of 60 km/h, a swimming speed of 10 km/h, and can be remote controlled to a distance of 10 km. The vehicle's combat module weighs 1,450 kg.

Meanwhile, it appears the Uran-9 UGV that broke surface a year ago (google it) is getting close to actual service with the Russian Ground Forces. But who knows.

[DRG]

http://defense-update.com/20151231_russian-combat-robots.html

Those control vehicles look vulnerable if you can find them-------- I wonder how close they have to be to the robots.......

[IronDuke99]

I have heard recently experienced tank officers who have grave concerns about situational awareness in a crewed armoured vehicle that depends entirely on screens (ie, you cannot stick your head up and look around) so I would imagine that a remote controlled vehicle has got to be even worse.

[DRG]

I have heard recently experienced tank officers who have grave concerns about situational awareness in a crewed armoured vehicle that depends entirely on screens (ie, you cannot stick your head up and look around) so I would imagine that a remote controlled vehicle has got to be even worse.

OTOH remotely controled vehicles may be handled more aggressively in combat situations, doing things a crewed vehicle might not simply because the remote crews a$$ isn't out there hanging in the breeze and sometimes aggressive action is what tips the balance....or get you killed but if your ten miles back.....c'est la guerre ..... different story than actually being there....

Now imagine these being employed with dedicated armed Drone support.......that makes finding that control vehicle a top priority

Don

[Imp]

Welcome to the world of jaming, however I would expect suspect even if jammed it would switch to a remote sentry program & fire at anything it detects.
As a recon/early warning tool makes sense it can either shoot & scoot or hang in their hopefully unobserved for longer because you dont have to worry about saving your bacon.
Leading an assault do you ignore it so as not to give the game away or take it out. If the former it might now gather valubable information on your positions in its last moments.
I would relay the info from a company of these to a second vehicle/location with a high ranking officer & links to at least ground & artillery units.
An intresting option for some terrain would be small fast vehicle, keep it light just sensors armor vs small arms & something like Trophy for bigger threats. Combined with drones or fit something like a GL that fires cameras on parachutes & it might be deemed cost effective.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

My guys that normally and generally are the first to report many new weapons platforms got a little behind on the next however they've done some comparisons of the next versus other systems which allows for some further perspective on the topic.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2pl.htm

But what I keyed on is this - "However despite all improvements the Polish Leopard 2PL is not as capable as the upgraded Leopard 2A7 upgraded by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, which entered service with the German Army in 2014. The Leopard 2PL looses to Leopard 2A7 in the key areas of protection, firepower, accuracy, and onboard electronic systems."

We debated it and now I think it should be fully integrated into the game for access by the AI. The 2014 date is consistent with about the three or four refs. I found concerning whether or not the LEO 2A7 was serving in the German Army. I believe based on what I had then that it appears that they were operating around 35-50 units. The tanks are assigned to the 2nd Company, 203rd Armor Battalion in Augustdorf, Germany.

So bottomline they've updated the picture and now have filled in the "Entered Service" with 2014 which wasn't done in the past for this tank from this site.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm

Also...

http://tanknutdave.com/the-german-leopard-2-series/
https://warisboring.com/germany-still-loves-its-armored-beasts-994580ac94f2#.8rz47v9m0
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/germany-receives-upgraded-leopard-2-tanks-as-part-of-deal-with-canada
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/159595/germany-modernizes-tank-fleet-with-leo2-a7.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Some LEO 2A7 photos and more...
http://tank-masters.de/?m=201506

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Why I don't jump off things or jump aboard the equipment express...

1. Off things you could twist and or break an ankle. If high enough you might manage to kill yourself.

2. Though much safer, by jumping off and committing to soon on a piece of equipment you might embarrass yourself and and potentially cause rework literally years after the fact. Personally for me that would probably fall in with the ARJUN MK II. and to a lesser extent the ARJUN. I'm not talking about delays caused manufacturing and or technical issues, we have no control over that.

No I'm talking about aesthetics/appearance and equipment. I offer the following, these articles are one year apart and what I see in aesthetics/appearance is the tank has a subtle different different look in the newer article and I'm sure it'll change again in it's final production form, however, the newer (ref./article) indicates to me that the tank is probably slightly better protected.

As to equipment that's a little more "tricky" but I'll give it a shot. In the first ref on the turret it appears (From your perspective.) that on the Left front and rear corners and if you look closely to the right rear corner are mounted what I believe are APS mounts. Also you can see the smoke grenade launchers are extended from the back left (And I'm sure the right side also.) corner as well. Though subtle, it's really a non-starter as the tank in question will have a hunter-killer feature so the Commanders sight is most likely just lowered.

Now to the newer/or 2nd ref. the turret design looks different, no APS mounts, and if you look at the back of the recessed end of the turret that's either a recessed bank of smoke grenade launchers or an APS launcher. My guess is smoke grenade launcher. Why? Because the German Army is still accessing the need for and testing various options for their own armor now. And Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH is doing the design and cooperative work to make this tank a reality for the country involved. Poland is also looking into an APS option but none have selected to date even for testing yet..

Judge for yourselves...
http://www.defence24.com/261471,rheinmetall-on-leopard-2-tanks-modernization-our-proposal-cooperation#
http://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo_2016_news_official_online_show_daily_coverage/mspo_2016_pgz_unveils_leopard_2_pl_prototype.html

Again why I don't jump off high places and onto new equipment if I can avoid it.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/protection_systems/protection_systems_land/index.php

Rosy_L – Rapid Obscuring System

The unique 40mm Rosy_L smoke protection system offers light military and civilian vehicles protection from unexpected attacks, e.g. during patrols or when travelling in convoys. Unlike the conventional smoke protection systems in use, Rosy_L is able to generate dynamic smoke screens as well as spontaneous, large-area and multispectral interruption of the line of sight (LOS). Moreover, its multimission capability represents a sure defence against stream and wave attacks. Due to its integrated IR jamming and decoying capabilities, Rosy_L effectively counters all TV-, EO-, IR-, IIR-, laser- and SACLOS-guided weapons. Rosy_L comprises a basic system with a control device and one to four ROSY launchers per vehicle. By means of a one-click adapter, the system can be quickly mounted to the vehicle without tools, and just as quickly removed and stowed.
The latest version of Rosy is the modular Rosy_Mod. It is designed for small weapon stations and light vehicles of the kind used by special operations forces. Rosy_Mod is integrated directly into the vehicle without a surface-mounted launcher, thus making it undetectable.


..lots of new ideas for smoke

[IronDuke99]

The limits on these type of smoke systems, and active missile defense systems, is how many smoke and/or anti missile rounds can be carried?

Jamming has the advantage of avoiding that limitation, as would area smoke rounds from artillery, but then your own side needs to see too...

[Suhiir]

For the most part US vehicles use an 8-tube 40mm launcher for smoke and carry two reloads.

[IronDuke99]

In the British Army Challanger 2 MBT's carry 2 x 5 smoke grenade launchers and Warrior IFV's, at the moment, 2 x 4 smoke grenade launchers. The new Ajax scout carries 2 x 8.

[DRG]

In the British Army Challanger 2 MBT's carry 2 x 5 smoke grenade launchers and Warrior IFV's, at the moment, 2 x 4 smoke grenade launchers..

which in game terms is 2 smokescreens which is what they get


The new Ajax scout carries 2 x 8.

and the Ajax gets 2 additional VIRSS so in essence gets 4 smokescreens

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Though I don't expect this tank to take 30yrs. to be developed, it'll still have taken almost 20yrs. to get there if you take the ARMATA back to it's roots as the BLACK EAGLE. It is important to remember that the lack of money killed the BLACK EAGLE and the T-95 but, the R&D never stopped that's why the Russians can slip into place the 152mm MG if they wanted to because they've already tested it on the BLACK EAGLE (See Post #1 this thread/It's pictured with the 152mm). You can scratch 2017 as the ARJUN Trophy winning ARMATA won't be delivered to the Russian Army until late/end of 2019. Which pushes operational fielding to about mid-2020.

So without the efforts of Andy and Don extending the end date to 2025, my much earlier predictions would've held up, that we wouldn't see it until the last year or never in the game.

That being said and why I've hoarded my articles etc. etc. was just for this reason-why? Look what's happened to the world price of oil and natural gas, now ask yourself what's Russians two main commodities exports? Oil and natural gas. Russia is losing their you know what for about a year now and the analysts think the market will be soft for another 2 years or so if not longer. Part of the reason is in Persia we have a new supplier of these products who haven't been able to export it since the early 1980's. They've got a lot of bright new shiny toys they'd like to buy.

So back to our ARJUN Trophy winner, which I'm sure will be followed by at least two more of the same, I give you as quoted from TASS the following...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_indust ry/russia_to_receive_first_70_t-14_armata_main_battle_tanks_by_2020_21409161_tass. html

Yep, filing it into my MBT folder with the rest. I invest and it's just a factor among many when I consider a piece of equipment. Someone out here has always held me to a higher standard in my work. You know where to look to see the development or you can just look in the MRAP Thread and ask yourself "doesn't this guy get it?" :doh:

Have a great day!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

Maybe it is just me, but I fail to see the real advantages Armata offers the Russians, taking account of relative costs over late T90's? Given the Russians are not flush with cash, will it ever really see mass production (even if the whole screen viewing thing does work in real war)?

[MarkSheppard]

New tank unveiled by the Chinese.

DISCLAIMER: This is an export tank (hence the VT-5 designation). There's no guarantee that this tank will actually enter service with the PLA(N) as the Chinese Arms industry is very much like the British Arms industry in the 1900s-1960s; where you had Vickers and other private manufacturers developing and selling platforms on their own that were just as advanced (or more) than the ones in actual UK service.

http://www.janes.com/article/65060/norinco-details-vt5-lightweight-mbt

NORINCO details VT5 lightweight MBT

Christopher F Foss, Hong Kong - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
01 November 2016

The Chinese VT5 lightweight MBT has a combat weight of between 33 and 36 tonnes depending on its armour package. It is powered by a 1,000 hp diesel engine. Source: Christopher F Foss

China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) debuted its VT5 lightweight main battle tank (MBT) at Airshow China 2016 in Zhuhai.

The VT5 has been developed specifically for the export market and has a combat weight of between 33 and 36 tonnes, depending on the armour package fitted and measures 9.20 m (gun forward) in length, by 3.30 m (with side skirts) in width, and 2.50 m (turret roof) in height.

The baseline hull and turret is all-welded steel armour to which a modular protection package can be fitted depending on the end user's operational requirements. This can include advanced composite armour, explosive reactive armour (ERA), or a mix of the two.

The example being shown at Airshow China is also fitted with bar/slat armour on the turret sides and either side of the hull. This provides a higher level of protection against rocket-propelled grenades and similar weapons fitted with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead.

Survivability is also enhanced by its compact design and low profile, when compared to the latest generation of MBTs.

The VT5's layout is conventional with the driver at the front, turret in the middle, and compact powerpack at the rear.

The two-person turret has the gunner on the left and the commander on the right. Both are provided with stabilised day/thermal sights incorporating a laser rangefinder, and individual roof hatches. The commander has a panoramic sight which allows hunter/killer target engagements to take.

According to NORINCO the computerised fire-control system (FCS) enables stationary and moving targets to be engaged out to a range of at least 3,000 m. The main armament comprises a 105 mm rifled gun which is fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. This is fed by a bustle-mounted automatic loader with the empty cartridge cases being ejected outside the turret bustle at the rear.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　ihs.com/contact

http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/china-unveils-new-tank-for-mountain-warfare/

China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO), has for the first time publicly displayed an export version of a new lightweight main battle tank (MBT), dubbed VT5, at the China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuha, IHS Jane’s reports.

According to IHS Jane’s, the new MBT has a combat weight of between 33 to 36 tons, a relatively light weight in comparison to other MBTS such as the 43-ton ZTZ-96 (See: “Meet the ‘Backbone’ of China’s Deadly New Tank Force”). The tank’s weight indicates that it could be used for mountain warfare operations to operate in terrains that are inaccessible to heavier MBTs. Like most other light tanks, the VT5 will most likely be used for reconnaissance and infantry support operations.

The tank can reportedly be fitted with advanced composite armor and explosive reactive armor. “The example being shown at Airshow China is also fitted with bar/slat armor on the turret sides and either side of the hull. This provides a higher level of protection against rocket-propelled grenades and similar weapons fitted with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead,” according to IHS Jane’s.

The tank is purportedly armed with a 105 millimeter gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. Similar to guns on other Chinese MBTs, the VT-5’s gun may also be capable of firing laser-guided anti-tank missiles, next to kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. Furthermore, the VT5 is equipped with a state-of-the-art fire control system and features an autoloader like all Chinese tank designs.

The VT5 purportedly is a variant of the so-called ZTQ light tank, pictures of which first emerged in 2010. There is little public information available on the ZTQ tank and it is unclear whether the MBT has already been inducted into the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) or not. The tank is/will likely be deployed along China’s western border including Tibet. It unclear how many ZTQ are and will be in service with the PLA. Some sources indicate that the PLA intends to field as many as 300.

As I reported elsewhere, China has allegedly also produced a new variant of the third-generation ZTZ-96 MBT, the ZTZ-96B. This new tank participated in this year’s International Army Games, organized by the Russian Ministry of Defense, and held this summer near Moscow. The Type 96 MBT series is the mainstay of the PLA’s tank force with more than 2,500 Type 96 MBTs estimated to be in service with the Chinese military.

The VT-5 and ZTQ light tanks appear to be a downsized version of the VT-4/MBT-3000. The VT-4 is based on the Soviet-era T-72 tank design and armed with a 125-mm smoothbore gun. In comparison to the VT-4, the VT-5 will likely boost weaker armor and a less powerful main gun as well as engines.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Things are moving along with the funding possibility for the Italian Army to acquire the new and much improved CENTAURO 2 as first posted on 03 Sep. 2016 in Post 542. If this gets approved and as discussed over the recent years, this I believe would kill any plans to further develop the ARIETE MBT which has seen little improvement over the years. It's again all about the economics and maintaining an agile land force concept.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/italian-parliament-weighs-new-tanks-helicopters
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/italian_army_plans_to_purchase_50_centauro_2_120mm _8x8_mgs_mobile_gun_systems_11610162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/italian_army_italy_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/centauro_2_ii_mgs_120_mm_105mm_anti-tank_8x8_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_spe cifications_pictures_video_10607161.html

And as taken from Post 542.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centauro_2.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I've but a few minutes...Just read "my newspapers" and found the story I've been watching for almost a year. It appears a deal is to be made for the T-90MS for a country in our game. This to me is great because this is a wonderful tank that's needed to counter what "the dragon" to the north has been doing.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2016_global_defense_security_news_industr y/india_ministry_of_defense_plans_to_purchase_467_ru ssian_t-90ms_main_battle_tanks_tass_10711162.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Wdll]

New tank unveiled by the Chinese.

DISCLAIMER: This is an export tank (hence the VT-5 designation). There's no guarantee that this tank will actually enter service with the PLA(N) as the Chinese Arms industry is very much like the British Arms industry in the 1900s-1960s; where you had Vickers and other private manufacturers developing and selling platforms on their own that were just as advanced (or more) than the ones in actual UK service.

http://www.janes.com/article/65060/norinco-details-vt5-lightweight-mbt

NORINCO details VT5 lightweight MBT

Christopher F Foss, Hong Kong - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
01 November 2016

The Chinese VT5 lightweight MBT has a combat weight of between 33 and 36 tonnes depending on its armour package. It is powered by a 1,000 hp diesel engine. Source: Christopher F Foss

China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) debuted its VT5 lightweight main battle tank (MBT) at Airshow China 2016 in Zhuhai.

The VT5 has been developed specifically for the export market and has a combat weight of between 33 and 36 tonnes, depending on the armour package fitted and measures 9.20 m (gun forward) in length, by 3.30 m (with side skirts) in width, and 2.50 m (turret roof) in height.

The baseline hull and turret is all-welded steel armour to which a modular protection package can be fitted depending on the end user's operational requirements. This can include advanced composite armour, explosive reactive armour (ERA), or a mix of the two.

The example being shown at Airshow China is also fitted with bar/slat armour on the turret sides and either side of the hull. This provides a higher level of protection against rocket-propelled grenades and similar weapons fitted with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead.

Survivability is also enhanced by its compact design and low profile, when compared to the latest generation of MBTs.

The VT5's layout is conventional with the driver at the front, turret in the middle, and compact powerpack at the rear.

The two-person turret has the gunner on the left and the commander on the right. Both are provided with stabilised day/thermal sights incorporating a laser rangefinder, and individual roof hatches. The commander has a panoramic sight which allows hunter/killer target engagements to take.

According to NORINCO the computerised fire-control system (FCS) enables stationary and moving targets to be engaged out to a range of at least 3,000 m. The main armament comprises a 105 mm rifled gun which is fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. This is fed by a bustle-mounted automatic loader with the empty cartridge cases being ejected outside the turret bustle at the rear.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　ihs.com/contact

http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/china-unveils-new-tank-for-mountain-warfare/

China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO), has for the first time publicly displayed an export version of a new lightweight main battle tank (MBT), dubbed VT5, at the China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuha, IHS Jane’s reports.

According to IHS Jane’s, the new MBT has a combat weight of between 33 to 36 tons, a relatively light weight in comparison to other MBTS such as the 43-ton ZTZ-96 (See: “Meet the ‘Backbone’ of China’s Deadly New Tank Force”). The tank’s weight indicates that it could be used for mountain warfare operations to operate in terrains that are inaccessible to heavier MBTs. Like most other light tanks, the VT5 will most likely be used for reconnaissance and infantry support operations.

The tank can reportedly be fitted with advanced composite armor and explosive reactive armor. “The example being shown at Airshow China is also fitted with bar/slat armor on the turret sides and either side of the hull. This provides a higher level of protection against rocket-propelled grenades and similar weapons fitted with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead,” according to IHS Jane’s.

The tank is purportedly armed with a 105 millimeter gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. Similar to guns on other Chinese MBTs, the VT-5’s gun may also be capable of firing laser-guided anti-tank missiles, next to kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. Furthermore, the VT5 is equipped with a state-of-the-art fire control system and features an autoloader like all Chinese tank designs.

The VT5 purportedly is a variant of the so-called ZTQ light tank, pictures of which first emerged in 2010. There is little public information available on the ZTQ tank and it is unclear whether the MBT has already been inducted into the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) or not. The tank is/will likely be deployed along China’s western border including Tibet. It unclear how many ZTQ are and will be in service with the PLA. Some sources indicate that the PLA intends to field as many as 300.

As I reported elsewhere, China has allegedly also produced a new variant of the third-generation ZTZ-96 MBT, the ZTZ-96B. This new tank participated in this year’s International Army Games, organized by the Russian Ministry of Defense, and held this summer near Moscow. The Type 96 MBT series is the mainstay of the PLA’s tank force with more than 2,500 Type 96 MBTs estimated to be in service with the Chinese military.

The VT-5 and ZTQ light tanks appear to be a downsized version of the VT-4/MBT-3000. The VT-4 is based on the Soviet-era T-72 tank design and armed with a 125-mm smoothbore gun. In comparison to the VT-4, the VT-5 will likely boost weaker armor and a less powerful main gun as well as engines.

Is it just me, or it looks a bit like a taller CV90?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

If "translated" how would something like this affect the cost calculator for these tanks. I understand this graph is an oversimplification of that process but, is a factor? No reason in particular just curious is all.
14484

The next I guess is for you "what if" scenario folks...

The UK FV215
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/fv215-heavy-gun-tank/

The next is a little more technical that's probably already here somewhere outside the normal game. The German Schmalturm Turret. Just another of those "what ifs".
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/schmalturm-turret/

I like these guys they seem to be very through and provide links and resources for further research. Best of all they present material as posted above which generally you'd be hard pressed to find on your own.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[dmnt]

From Syria, there's some information about North Korean T-55s: http://within-syria.blogspot.fi/2017/01/syrian-t-55-upgrades-north-korean-fcs.html

[MarkSheppard]

Another thing from Syria, the Syrian equivalent of TUSK.

Looks like standard Slat Armor + some sort of composite armor?

Part of me wants to say "concrete", but Syria isn't like Iraq, under relentless sanctions; but probably some low order alumina/ceramic mixture that's cheap enough for Syria to buy in bulk.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This issue has been going on for a very long time in regards to North Korea's involvement in Syria. Those T-54/55 (And other weapons.) tanks have been in Syria since the 70's. It is thought that when the N. Koreans updated the Russian tanks above, they brought the T-55 up to the T-55MV standard which represents a marked improvement over the T-55. It's been reported before that North Korean advisors and troops have been on the ground before. This first and others even apparently has two units involved in the current fighting there of their elite commando units. That particular ref. is considered very reliable in it's reporting of Asian affairs. Others to include staff of JANE's. You'll just have to judge them for yourselves, but, I say guilty as charged by association.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/is-north-korea-fighting-for-assad-in-syria/
https://www.nknews.org/2014/12/n-korean-upgraded-tanks-still-in-use-in-syrian-civil-war/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/25/are-north-koreans-fighting-in-syria-its-not-as-far-fetched-as-it-sounds/?utm_term=.b6917fda31dc
http://38north.org/2013/11/amansourov112513/
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/07/weapons-syrian-war-tanks/129621/
http://tass.com/world/864368

ISIS/DASH and rebels are running around with these tanks as well when a major weapons depot was seized from the Syrian army. It is estimated that fighters from around 86 countries are currently involved there. It truly is a mess over there that I hope we stay out of at least with direct combat troops on the ground-I'm talking "Big Army" involvement here. Syria would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a "Sunday walk in the park." It is sometimes a topic of discussion with the handful of guys I work with that saw combat in one or the other and a couple in both.

It should be further noted North Korea isn't bound by any weapons trade agreements or treaties.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

More but, not much more on China's light tank.
http://www.janes.com/article/66681/china-possibly-equipping-pla-ground-units-with-new-light-tank
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201701051049304602-china-possibly-transporting-light-tank/

Note: From the picture of the ref. 2 you can see it has two turret "blow out" panels. The gun radar is covered on the top of the turret but, I've and others have posted pictures of it uncovered.

It looks like sina.com only archives their articles back around 60 days. Have tried other searches within the site with no luck so far. I'm sure the above two did get the article and "cherry picked" the most important information from it for their articles. I would say the following are settled: 1) MG is a 105mm. 2) It can fire ATGW weapons how many not sure though the TYPE 99 Series normally carry 4 of them onboard. 3) I feel they do have them fielded but I would guess no sooner then mid-2015 from the fragments of information we've gotten to this point. One of these are the fact that China was looking for a tank that could exploit the mountainous terrain should a conflict develop with India and the reports are consistent that that's where these tanks are being shipped to those bordering southern providence's. Even the Indian ref. BROADSWORD has commented on this a couple of times as posted in here.

Working it.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well if I would've looked at one of my regular "newspapers" I could've added this to my last post. My apologies. The good news here is this does start to close the loop concerning the Chinese ZTQ LT a bit more to where it should be feasible to enter it into the game now or "twink it" if it's in already (Haven't had the time to check for it.) and I missed it. We can do this by using the generic ref 1 story that adds a piece to the puzzle when combined with the last two entered yesterday and I had forgotten about the export version that I already had an inkling about from another source :doh: well it was very early in the morning when I posted!?! OK-nobody is buying it, but, that export version is known as the VT5. So that's what ref. 2 is about.

The only issue I have at the moment concerning ref. 2 as it relates to the ZTQ is, that I've not seen pictures of it that the Chinese themselves are using the RWS shown for VT5. What I've seen is the standard 12.7mm RWS as shown in the Thai story.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/ztq_light_tank_with_105mm_cannon_now_in_service_wi the_the_chinese_armed_forces_10401171.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt5_light_weight_main_battle_tank_technical_data_s heet_specifications_pictures_video_11711164.html

Been tracking this for awhile, though the date we have for Thailand receiving the Ukrainian T-84 OPLOT-M is still good, the Russian incursion and support of the "rebels" slowed production of these tanks to the point that Thailand had to look at other options to eventually if I remember correctly, buy ~250 new tanks to finally retire it's M-41 tank fleet that they've been operating for 60 years (Since 1957.) now. I had already posted on this issue and ref. 2 of this story in particular. The Ukraine will full fill this order fully by Oct. 2017. It'll come down to these two tanks I believe if any further orders are made. They'll certainly have an opportunity to test them "head-to-head" under real conditions for awhile I should imagine. Of the I believe four or so tanks (The LEO 2A4 was given a second look again but, the cost was too high again.) they were looking at they chose the Chinese ZT4 or as it's better known as the MBT-3000.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_could_purchase_russian-made_t-90_or_chinese_vt-4_mbt_to_replace_order_of_t-84_oplot_10501162.html

For your consideration and my tracking. I expect the delivery by JUN. 2017 based on training preps we saw concerning the OPLOT-M I would expect them (ZT4) to be fielded by Oct. 2017.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/thailand_has_signed_an_agreement_to_purchase_28_vt 4_main_battle_tanks_from_china_10301176.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt4_mbt-3000_norinco_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet _specifications_pictures_video_uk.html

Going into my "Friday" later today I guess 4am is better than 5am was yesterday-I'm sure the extra hour will keep me sharper on post!?! :rolleyes:

Have a great weekend everyone!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

In Russian game OOB the tank category must be deleter after One date around 2008 ( Georgia conflict), in Georgia conflict There were some t62 ( very few). T55 were scrapped in the 90's and the majority of t62 too, only some remained in service for training purposes. Even t64bv were officially scrapped ( and in game too they were retired) after 2008, but some remained mothballed for secondary purposes ( we all know what happened in Ukraine separatist tank Force). But, again, delete t55 shortly After 91 and t62 around the 2000's. If you play Quick Battle against Russia, computer choose everytime "tanks" category and only some MBT which is unrealistic, the result is a mixed t72 or t90 Force with old tanks retired from service in reality. Regards

[luigim]

Sources: direct source that says scrapping of retired tanks starts in 2011 http://economy.mil.ru/economy/news/more.htm?id=11010744@egNews

If you see various years "military balance" you can see that T55 and T62 are falling year to year

CFE treaty listed around 1000 t55 and t62 but in storage! Pratically waiting 2011 scrapping ( there are some photos too)

Unfortunately a lot of sources about old russian tanks disappeared from the internet, specially russian sources like warfare.be

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/modernization-land-forces-russia-begins-6208-6/

Defencetalk well documented (:doh: from disappeared internet sites) post says that t55 were retired in 1994 - > historically correct because in '94 the old soviet equipment from ex WP countries was totally retired

So two options: retire both tanks in 2011

retire t55 in '94 and retire t62 in 2011 but only because it was in service with MVD ( interior ministry) forces, and only in some cases, for sure t62 saw combat in both chechen wars and 2008 Georgia war, t55 not

The only sure thing we all can see is that fighting in QB's and generated campaigns, Abrams against old russian tanks, in modern times, is unrealistic

[DRG]

OK I've put that on the list to investigate.... This has been a back burner " to investigate " item for awhile for me...thanks for the links and info

[luigim]

OK I've put that on the list to investigate.... This has been a back burner " to investigate " item for awhile for me...thanks for the links and info

Maybe the game Can simulate t55 and t62 MVD troops in their counter infantry role with CS tanks, which Can be left in service until the end of the game.

In the First chechen wars in 94-95 There were some mvd t55 but an entire siberian mobilization army division equipped with t62. In the second chechen war There were apparently no army t55 but only some MVD;There were some army t62.

In 2008 georgia There were army and MVD t62 ( choosed over other tanks by the tankers because they were light and Faster in Mountain terra in) but no army t55.

From 2011 army started scrapping of both but There are some t62 left in MVD caucasus garrisons. No t55 MVD info.

This is the most complete synthesis i can do.

Apparently Russian Army is semplifying its tank line, modernizing t72 to b3-b4, returning in service t80um for the arctic, and producing no more t90 waiting for armata

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

While looking into the T-55/T-62 issue I came across this from the ref. below concerning the T-80...
"But Moscow continued to experiment with its T-80s, adding active protection systems–which use millimeter-wave radar to track incoming missiles before launching explosive countermeasures. The resulting T-80UM-1 Bars was revealed in 1997 but did not enter production, probably again because of budget cuts."

If the above is true, this would free up 9 slots in the Russian OOB with the deletion of the following...UNITS 045-048, 562, 624/625 & 688/689. Normally I hate "rabbit holes" but, if we can legitimately double the current available slots in the Russian OOB then I'll give this my full attention.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550?page=2
(Covers it all nicely plus addresses some things we remarked on concerning those Turkish tanks if you read the whole thing.)
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm
(T-80UM1 "Bars" (Snow Leopard) listed as a prototype along w/T-80UM2 "Chiorny Oriol" (Black Eagle) my first MBT post.)
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-80.php
(Lists T-80UM1 as a perspective tank for export only, none exported.)
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/CC05%20-%20T-80.html
(Only lists up to the T-80UM which puts it line with the rest above.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80um1_bars.htm
(Same shows it was meant only for export and that it never entered Russian service due to the high cost of maintenance and operational costs-it was a true "gas guzzler" as was the whole series in general.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9FG1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=T-80U-M1+Bars+tank&source=bl&ots=eI6wUFEOQv&sig=HdsW8Naq31sBNQsJLzU6cx-CVmw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjerfy0_LHRAhWB7iYKHRYYDKcQ6AEIVzAN#v=on epage&q=T-80U-M1%20Bars%20tank&f=false
(Well known tank analyst who works for guess who? If it starts with a "J" you guessed right!)
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-80.html
(I think the "Bars" is dead by now.)
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=422
(From above..."Sep 1997 Contractor displays T-80UM1 BARS at Omsk" with no further status.)

I'm thinking free up 9 slots unless you need me to find more.

I'm starting to get that feeling of the "hunt" ever so slowly coming back. ;)

I'll see what I can dig up on the T-55/T-62 but, luigim is on track I believe.

On the quick note...

1) T-54/55 - 20 Still on active service through 2000. Current estimate runs @ 100 T-55 tanks held in active reserve (This meaning maintained.) with another 500 in "cold storage".

2) T-62 - From the same author above there were 268 T-62 of all types still in Russian service in 2003/2004.

OMG!, I can get to bed sooner this morning life is indeed good!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

About t80.. One division is actually equipped with t80um and another with t80bv, but for arctic newformed units more t80bv Will be upgraded to UM standard, because gas turbine is better cor cold climates

http://defence-blog.com/army/russia-to-upgrade-fleet-of-t-80-main-battle-tanks.html

So t80um in game must remain, but bars models are not in service

Correct FASTBOAT, but in reality they are in service in MVD troops ( Border troops and COIN troops, Caucasus)!

No Rossjskya armya troops Will be equipped with ancient tank relics i believe! In fact I suggest mantain CS tanks but retire tank models to stop AI t62 spamming :smirk::smirk:

And i posted 2011 official Russian MoD document.

Regards

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

"So t80um in game must remain, but bars models are not in service" That is correct from what I'm finding on both counts.

Further on T-55 which I wanted to add as "3)" to my last post...

"T-55M6 (Low confidence for now. Still think T-55MV was it for the Russians.)

The latest upgrade, both for the Russian army and export, includes a longer chassis with six roadwheels per side, a completely overhauled turret with the 2A46M 125 mm (4.92 in) main gun and autoloader from the T-72B, V-46-5M engine and protection upgraded to the T-80U level. As an option it could receive the 1A40-1 fire control system and ATGM system 9K120 “Svir” (from the T-72B), or A42 and 9K119 “Refleks” (from the T-80U)."

Don't know if we have this or not but, if we do, this information might be valuable as a quick verification of our version if entered. Seeing the same in a couple of other places as well to the above capabilities.

I REALLY gotta call it a night it's my weekend after all!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

I think It never entered in service. T55 with 6 wheels is pure fantasy.. maybe only a prototype. There are some photos in Google images but 2 options: 1.fake/mockup 2.single prototype.

[DRG]

So t80um in game must remain, but bars models are not in service



Correct FASTBOAT, but in reality they are in service in MVD troops ( Border troops and COIN troops, Caucasus)!


NOT according to this link Pat provided
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-80.html

"Bars did not enter serial production" and if they did not enter production how are they in service with MVD troops ?

[luigim]

I'm talking about t55 and t62 not t80 um1 bars. My omission!

[DRG]

I have adjusted the OOB and picklists

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Thank you Don, based on your last I'll consider the T-80UM1 Bars deleted now. I can confirm the following from various sites that still have T-55 data:

1)T-55M5 - This is an “upgrade kit” aimed for export to all previous T-55/T-55A customers. This package includes “Kontakt-5” ERA panels, longer chassis, stabilized TVK-3 and TKN-1SM sights, upgraded main gun stabilization system for the 100 mm (3.94 in) D-10T2S, and the new V-55U engine or V-46-5M as an option for more mobility. The combat weight was less than 40 tons.

2)T-55M6 - This was the last Russian upgrade to the type. I'll post the ref. below but to this next point, I've seen the same mentioned on many other sites. That being said, those that track these things will hopefully see what I saw right off. The turret is NOT a T-55 one but is without a doubt one from a T-72 tank. I only found one site that "hung it out there" to say it's a T-72B turret. I think that to be correct, the time frame would be right and I'm pretty sure the 125mm on the T-55M6 matches the T-72B 125mm. The rest following is not in dispute among the sites and I've already posted this as well.

"The latest upgrade, both for the Russian army and export, includes a longer chassis with six roadwheels per side, a completely overhauled turret with the 2A46M 125 mm (4.92 in) main gun and autoloader from the T-72B, V-46-5M engine and protection upgraded to the T-80U level. As an option it could receive the 1A40-1 fire control system and ATGM system 9K120 “Svir” (from the T-72B), or A42 and 9K119 “Refleks” (from the T-80U)."

The T-55M6 will need to be added to the Russian OOB probably from 1992+/- 2yrs. (Sorry Don I just can't get it much tighter then this, except to say earlier vs later for those dates.) time frame after the T-55MV/T-55AMV and T-80U tanks were fielded.

I would finally add we should only need one unit type, we all know the Russian propensity for having their tanks being able to fire tank launched ATGM. I would just give it the best one from above and call it a day assuming you'll add this tank. In this way we can still maximize the net gain in slots from the T-80UM1 Bars deletion.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/soviet_T-55.php
http://www.russiadefence.net/t2820p90-t-55-and-btr-t-your-views

14516 14517

14518 14519

14515

These should be the correct pictures. The key here is 6 road wheels. Also the static displays are from 2012 no doubt. So are those the "ready stored" ones or something else? Could be reserve component or to attract foreign sales opportunities. Those were taken at a Russian weapons show.

Anyway I'm done for now and CINCLANTHOME is giving me that "Are you going to take a shower" look. ;) :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Pictures are correct!!

[luigim]

Thank you FASTBOAT for the research but I cannot find sources that assess this tank in service or in reserve. To my knowledge, I Can say this t55m6 has the same value as BTR-T upgrade. Only a technology demostrator..

Some years ago they decided to upgrade only t-72 to a modern standard (T72B3 actually), with t90-derived technologies, for spare parts availability and commonality, with the parallel advanced tank program that resulted in Armata Tank.

However I'm asking in Russiadefence forum ( best russian equipment experts)

[DRG]

A spin-off benefit from all that is there will be a new T-80UM icon in the next patch.....

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I don't know how many times I mentioned this site as being my first 1 or 2 I check in dealing with any fighting equipment because quite frankly over the years except for on one occasion when I first used it, it has it never let me down. On I don't how many times again over the years it's been the first to report on and provide data on new or improved equipment. My submissions also over the years are littered with refs from this site. Concerning the T-55M6 it just was the last place I checked so, Don if you'll excuse me, it's time for a little simile beat down...:confused: :tough: :sorry: :soap: :pc: :deadhorse: :puke: :yield: :fire: :censor: I feel better :D but I forgot one :doh:. I won't say that'll never happen again (The smilies.) but in regards to the following it won't.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t55.htm

Though much smaller then it was 1.5 yrs. ago, I should've listened to my "gut" and "stuck by my guns" when I already at the beginning of this conversation posted that the T-55MV was the latest upgrade made by the Russians and made operation in 1985.

Lesson learned slow down and scroll down as it refers to the above ref. You just have to stay humble and be willing to eat some pie once in awhile. :p (Sorry Don don't know how that just got in!?!)

I'm totally satisfied now we can enjoy all those newly opened up slots now, my time wasn't totally wasted now knowing that.

Next!! I'm waiting.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Another thing from Syria, the Syrian equivalent of TUSK.

Looks like standard Slat Armor + some sort of composite armor?

Part of me wants to say "concrete", but Syria isn't like Iraq, under relentless sanctions; but probably some low order alumina/ceramic mixture that's cheap enough for Syria to buy in bulk.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14522&stc=1&d=1484203497

[luigim]

Remember that Durango Valley Russian versin has T80 UM1 Bars in it

[DRG]

Remember that Durango Valley Russian versin has T80 UM1 Bars in it

Already fixed along with the others

[DRG]

further refinement of the Syrian "tusk" and I'm introducing my version of "Sinai Grey" to select Isreali vehicles
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14523&stc=1&d=1484250263
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14524&stc=1&d=1484250307

[luigim]

T-80BV upgrading to T80UM standard? Relikt ERA? Has been confirmed?

Russia is taking seriously the idea of land army modernization

Maybe postpone T80UM retirement date from 2020 to end game 2025

The beauty of your work and of this game is that we already have this upgraded model in game

http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russian_company_uralvagonzavod_has_developed_upgra de_kit_for_t-80bv/u_main_battle_tank_tass_11507162.html

http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2251644.html

http://defense-watch.com/2016/11/15/russia-put-overhauled-t-80-tanks-back-service/

[DRG]

All in all I'm rather pleased with the results of this experiment. The range of colours I'm able to extract from this game palette continues to surprise me still after 18 years. Everything below is game palette......now, that said this ISN'T SP2's original game palette. There have been modifications for winspww2 and winspmbt....and there will be again next patch

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14529&stc=1&d=1484334730

[shahadi]

Where are we with the Iranian Karrar MBT? Is it something new or a souped up T-72 under Russian license?

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As reported almost a year ago, Iran's Defense Minister declared this tank to be a new design built from the ground up. The KARRAR was the reason Iran backed out of a deal with Russia to buy the T-90S which I'd been tracking for months before the above announcement was made. So to keep the timeline intact by date from my files I give you the following...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2016_global_defense_security_news_industr y/uralvagonzavod_is_ready_to_establish_t-90s_licensed_production_in_iran_tass_50302162.html
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

All that only one week apart.

Some hints about the KARRAR I've been watching...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/iran_equips_m60_main_battle_tanks_with_anti-tow_jamming_sytems_51205163.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/iran_tested_its_first_home-made_active_protection_system_aps_mounted_on_zolfa qar_tanks_72510162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2016_global_defense_security_news_industr y/iran_has_developped_advanced_version_of_explosive_ reactive_armour_52612162.html

More in depth look...
http://defence-blog.com/army/in-iran-spotted-new-karrar-main-battle-tank.html
https://southfront.org/new-domestically-made-karrar-main-battle-tank-spotted-in-iran/
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/10/karrar-tank-revealed-to-be-upgraded-t-72.html

Another new tank the TIAM...
http://www.janes.com/article/59551/iran-unveils-tiam-tank
https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/04/13/iranian-tiam-battle-tank/
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/iran-unveils-new-combat-vehicles
http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/iran-reveals-new-main-battle-tank/
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/irans-new-tank-prototype_14.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sabalan.htm

Iran claims both are in service now, however my feeling is somewhere mid-summer this year unless something comes up showing sooner.

Why they didn't buy the T-90S (Or better.) has me baffled as Iran can now with the sanctions removed, afford to buy them in numbers and significantly boost their own armor technological base significantly in the process. I just have to give it a :doh:! Unless we're all missing something here, but, I'm not "feeling that" with this situation.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just something I came across in my readings. I thought the "Chunnel" design was always required to meet this specification in the first place? Maybe I was wrong, but, I guess for the UK (And allies.) better safe than sorry. Story from NBC News originally.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tanks-roll-through-chunnel-as-europe-frets-about-trump-russia/ar-AAm7jvh?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=U270DHP

Syria: Gets more "modern" (Well maybe not so much!?!) armor from Russia. But what they got is probably good enough for the job at hand providing ISIS/DASH and the other militia groups don't steal or take more of them again as had fairly recently occurred.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/russia_has_delivered_new_batch_of_t-62m_main_battle_tanks_and_bmp-1_ifvs_to_syria_11801177.html

Turkey: And didn't I just "tap" these guys for the ALTAY last week? Well here we go again. I estimate this should delay the program 6 months to a year, any takers? They should've just stuck with the S. Korean or German engines when they had the chance. Regardless, I'm watching this.
http://www.janes.com/article/67104/turkey-s-altay-mbt-project-hit-by-engine-technology-transfer-issues

Russia: Just unveiled a new version of the Russia T-90 for export to supplement both the T-90S and T-90MS. Welcome the T-90M. As far as I know Russia and India are still in talks for the latter to be the first customer of the T-90MS. It would appear the claims that Kazakhstan having them "might" not be true. I'll be waiting to see if their are any takers.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/russian_defense_industry_unveils_a_new_export_vers ion_of_t-90_main_battle_tank_named_proryv-3_11501175.html

Nicaragua: This should be a "softball" so I'll present this in a manner not seen since the 2013/2014 Patch inputs were done, if you'll allow me to do so.

A1. NICARAGUA/ADD/OCT 2016/T-72B1 w/WHITE EAGLE FCS Pkg. NOW HAS HUNTER KILLER MODE/USE RUSSIAN UNIT 035 (IF THE ERA REPRESENTS KONTAKT-1 IF NOT USE UNIT 036) AS MODIFIED/IMPROVED 125mm 2A45 w/NEW STABILIZER. APPARENTLY STILL CAN'T LAUNCH ATGW. NORMAL FOR THIS VERSION/RWS 12.7mm NSVT UTES MG AS USED ON THE T-72MS RDS UKN/TI/GSR 45 w/ WHITE EAGLE Pkg./IMPROVE OTHER FCS AREAS AS NEEDED. THIS SYSTEM IS MORE ADVANCED THEN WHAT IS CARRIED ON THE T-72B3./New engine 1000HP this was first seen with the introduction of the T-72B2 ROGATKA in 2006//
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/6-the-soviet-tank-thread-transversely-mounted-1000hp-engines/page-85
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/nicaraguan_armed_forces_to_receive_russian-made_t-72b1_main_battle_tanks_tass_52604162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_supplies_20_t-72b1_main_battle_tank_to_nicaragua_50605161.html
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinexp_uk_071005.pdf (2nd GEN)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centam/ni-army-modernization.htm
https://warisboring.com/nicaragua-binges-on-battle-tanks-3e783e32cac3#.cpj6o3wib
http://survincity.com/2013/04/modernization-of-t-72-tanks-white-eagle-one-of-the/
http://www.russiadefence.net/t2598-russia-nicaragua-military-deals
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

Note some sources seem to indicate that it carries the same gun as the Russian upgraded version without again ATGW (Russians can launch them.) launch capabilities. I feel this makes more sense because the same repair facility given above in the ref. section did the Russian modernization that carried the same gun as indicated in the ADD section.

As a note Russia still operates these tanks and they have seen combat in the Ukraine but are not in the game. They first appeared in the Russian Army in 1985. They are like UNITS 035/or 036 as noted above w/o ATGW capabilities. Must have been a cost cutting measure. The trick here will be to find out other then the below refs, when the Russians first started modernizing these tanks if at all before it would appear around 2012. It would make sense that this is what Nicaragua received based on the below.
http://defense-update.com/20131106_t72b1_deployment.html
http://tank.lviv.ua/en/productions/details/t72b1

Wasn't as easy as I hoped because of the Russian "Rabbit Hole" wasn't the first time and it won't be the last time. So much for the "softball"!?!

Tomorrow I am taking off, finally getting to see "ROGUE" with seats already reserved. Wish I had a piece of that pie!?!

Have a great day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[shahadi]

Any news on the Ukrainian T-Rex tank? I just don't recall seeing anything posted.

=====

[DRG]

As a note Russia still operates these tanks and they have seen combat in the Ukraine but are not in the game. They first appeared in the Russian Army in 1985. They are like UNITS 035/or 036 as noted above w/o ATGW capabilities. Must have been a cost cutting measure. The trick here will be to find out other then the below refs, when the Russians first started modernizing these tanks if at all before it would appear around 2012. It would make sense that this is what Nicaragua received based on the below.
Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Thinking that is what we have in the game as unit 697 but w/o ATGM

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don't know about claims it'll be better than the ARMATA however it could be better than the OPLOT-M which usually makes the lists of someone's "TOP 10" for tanks. They do have a very long history of designing and building tanks and have made huge strides over the last few years in producing world class FCS's and other supporting electronics. The Ukraine has more recently also stepped up their game in areas of ordnance for their tanks and artillery. It's a time of transition for them pushed as it always is by conflict and military border pressures from "you know where". I still feel this area of conflict has to a degree "overshadowed" for now and the foreseeable future the Middle East. Here's what we have with the first reports coming out about a year ago...
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201606041040794397-ukraine-army-new-tank/
http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/01/18/101786/
http://technics.pro/published-a-patent-for-a-new-ukrainian-tank-t-rex/
http://azov.co/en/special-use/59-tank-z-vinosnim-ozbroennyam-t-rex.html
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukraine-reveals-plan-make-new-main-battle-tank.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/ukraine_to_develop_the_t-rex_a_new_main_battle_tank_to_compete_the_russian_ t-14_armata_mbt_12301171.html

Where the idea came from...
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-tour-of-ukraines-mad-max-tank-factory

Selfie anyone?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419046/The-world-s-dangerous-selfie-stick-Ukrainian-soldiers-attach-camera-tank-s-gun-barrel-capture-incredible-footage-patrol.html

Time to lay back down, *&%#$~?! sinuses!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Note: Didn't pursue it that deep (T-72B1) as nothing came up in the search. As you know that's why I like to "type" my equipment (As I just did above) submissions to avoid rework and quickly identify those pieces of equipment when any changes are made to the "base" unit. Not blaming anyone here, just I'm sure that's how it, like many others got into the game a long time ago.

-PJC

[luigim]

In Ukraine Oob There are some tank variants that never entered service like base T84 (only ten units), perhaps with excessive armor values, 110 frontal arc, better than Abrams SEPv3 for a t80b variant! When this unit has only a Kontakt5 comparable armor effectiveness (maybe t80um comparable).

So I propose end date for T84 when Oplot-M enter service and decrease base non oplot T84 armor values to a more realistic value...

only Oplot-M is in active, in small number, service in Ukrainian Tank Forces.

Another error is T80B: it should be moved in reserve tanks.

Since the nineties Ukraine put in reserve all t72 and t80 variants for spare part delivery issues ( majority produced in Russia) and choose instead T64 that composes the core of Ukrainian Tank Forces, because it's entirely Ukrainian made. They have partially modernized It to Bulat standard, then produced very small quantities of T84 then modernized the same chassis to Oplot-M.

Ukrainian tank production is suffering: ageing of designers, tooling and workers. No mass capability production. They are even incapable of substituting their BMP2s, all destroyed in Donbass conflict.

For now TRex tank is only propaganda and a dreamy picture. They are concentrating in Oplot production, with a lot of difficulties due to an inadequate MIC, proof is the cancellation of Thailand order.

[DRG]

RE: T-84 turret armour---------Either you or someone else already brought this up and it's already been adjusted

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First things first: I checked Russian UNIT 697 it shows the T-72B3M/B4 which in itself is it's own tank and I understand what you did here. For further I refer you to Pg.47/Post 466.

The Russian T-72B1 really is just a slightly better T-72B w/o ATGM capability. It does create a little dilemma because if I remember correctly the T-72B, B1 & B2 all became operational in 1985. But there's no denying that the T-72B1 was updated with the "White Eagle" Pkg. and were operational by 2012, have (are seeing) seen combat in the Ukraine and having been deployed to the "Eastern Front" to include a new gun etc. etc. as I posted last night concerning Nicaragua having them as well. This is the tank I propose for Russia. The question again is do we have to enter the original unmodified one?

Ukraine/Thailand: OPLOT-T as both these countries have named it, is on track for Thailand to receive the rest of their order of tanks by late Fall as has been posted by me and widely on the net. Yes production was curtailed for national defense purposes, however a second production line was opened late last Fall to fulfill this order as noted. Since it was brought up and Don certainly knows by now how I follow up on equipment I've submitted (Or related to them.) wouldn't be surprised that again as mentioned yes Thailand was forced to "stop gap" the situation by ordering tanks from China. This had nothing to do about the OPLOT-T's performance, they are very happy with it's performance, but, to simply to meet their immediate national defense requirements.
http://www.uawire.org/news/ukraine-postponed-the-delivery-of-oplot-tanks-to-thailand
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ukraines-tough-t-84-oplot-m-tank-wont-fight-russia-being-17817
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/thailand_has_signed_an_agreement_to_purchase_28_vt 4_main_battle_tanks_from_china_10301176.html

Ukraine: The T-80U and T-80UD (Mostly) are currently in service at around 270 - 275 tanks depending on source. Also the Ukraine never fielded the T-80, they just built them for Russia. It would seem they from Russian feedback (?) and from their own building experiences (?), saw the same flaws with the T-80 and went to their own modified T-80U/UD models as shown in ref. 2 below. The first ref. is from a Russian and I'm assuming a journalist as he posted some pictures of the OPLOT-M. About three posts down he lists the UAF tanks that have seen combat in Eastern Ukraine.
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/61-ukrainian-armor-oplot-m-t-64m-bulat-and-other/
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=422

If the T-80 is in the Ukraine OOB, I don't believe it's ever been fielded. I do believe they had some after the Cold War ended but brought them to the above discussed standards. Note: Only Russian and possibly East German troops operated them (?) however, they were definitely stationed there.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550

Note: Russia has been bringing back the T-80 over the last few months. They've been updating them first before deploying them. All T-80 Russian models were to have been retired by 2015. However given the the current political situation the existing variants, to include the T-80U, will be held in service until 2020 pending arrival in numbers of the ARMATA.
http://www.defense-house.com/defense-news/russian-t-80s-expected-to-serve-until-2020/
http://carnegie.ru/2014/05/25/close-ranks/hbrg

Well it's getting late. I've seen in a couple of defense reporting sites and in a couple of business sites that the Ukraine took a major step in getting it's defense industry straightened out by hiring our recent former head of DARPA we would call that a "coup" in most circles.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/176493/ukraine-hires-former-darpa-chief.html
https://sputniknews.com/military/201608301044784786-us-adviser-for-ukroboronprom-analysis/.

Related recent Ukrainian Posts: Pg.48/Post 472 & Pg.46/Post 457.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Posted today, a lesson in economics for a country in a state of war. This is a good self assessment of Ukraines situation. Consider this a follow up to the last and previous posts where noted.
http://www.unian.info/economics/1739862-ukrainian-mbts-for-thailand.html

More on the T-80, second ref. might address some of the armor protection questions...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-80.php
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

I also believe the T-84 (Sometimes referred to as JUST the OPLOT.) is still in Ukrainian service.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

These armor values ( upper range guesstimates) are clearly referring to Oplot-M tank not base T84, it's pure logic that a 80's turret with rubber "composite" and not DU cannot have Chobham armor RHA. But It has already been correct so ok.

However, I Can only thank you for your steady hard work towards game perfection :)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Talk about all in on the Ukrainian Eastern Front and from the Russian source I've mentioned and if you notice he does use the word "possibly" where noted, gotta be a reporter...
Ukraine: Tanks used by UAF in Eastern Ukraine:
T-64 modifications and versions: A, B, B1, B1V, BV, B1M, BM1M (for Kongo), BM "Bulat";
T-72 modifications and versions: B, BA or BM, possibly UMG, AV, UA1 (for Ethiopia);
T-80, possibly U or UD.

Rebels even better and you'll love this...
List of rebels vehicles is pretty much the same (T-80U/UD was captured, but i didn't saw it in action), with exception of single IS-3, T-55 and T-34-85 and T-72B3.

Ukraine adds a trophy as well a T-72B1...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/53ekxh/captured_russian_t72b1/

What's striking me now is, I was so focused on all these other tank issues of the last couple of days that I never realized how many T-72B1 tanks the Russians are using in the field now. And no, I'm not talking about the "White Eagle"
version they operate along with Nicaragua as already posted. I'll tell/show you the most obvious way to tell the B1 from the B1 "White Eagle" after this unless Don has questions I promise to "move along little doggy" as they might say around Texas and such.
1) 14556 2) 14558

3) 14557

1&2) It should be fairly obvious that the Russians have upgraded these T-72B1 tanks and what sticks out to me is the ERA is of a newer type possibly Kontact-5.

3) Shows one of the Nicaraguan T-72B1 "White Eagle" tanks I chose this shot to more clearly demonstrate "It ain't a White Eagle" w/o the following...
The commanders 360 panoramic sight is mounted on a "stovepipe" as shown on the left/aft side of the turret. This is what gives it a "Hunter Killer" capability. This sets it apart from all the Russian tanks in service that I'm aware of.

Also there's an obvious difference between the Russian "White Eagle" and Nicaraguan version as shown in picture #3 above. The Russian version uses the same RWS AAMG that's mounted on the T-72MS. Nicaraguan still shows a RWS with a standard AAMG.

Good Night or Morning wherever you may be. :)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

More about t80 upgrading

http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russia_ministry_of_defense_plans_to_upgrade_t-80bv_mbt_main_battle_tank_tass_11511161.html

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17660/Russia_To_Modernize_T_80_Main_Battle_Tanks_With_Ne w_Engines__Fire_Control_Systems#.WIvpzfkrKUk

http://defence-blog.com/army/russia-to-upgrade-fleet-of-t-80-main-battle-tanks.html

http://defence-blog.com/army/russian-company-uralvagonzavod-has-developed-upgrade-kit-for-t-80bvu-main-battle-tank.html

http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/26/t80bv-main-battle-tank-enter-service-2017.html

IMHO, we have already this version of t80 in the game and it's T80UM.. and maybe its retire date must be postponed to 2025, if they are spending money in upgrading this cold war era MBT..

but it isn't clear because they are talking about an upgrading pack on par with T72B3, Relikt armor and Sosna FCS.

What do you think about?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well this ref. has made what I've been saying here for awhile about the T-84 in Ukraine use pretty "rock solid" now. Looks like the T-84 to the right is configured to be dozor blade ready. But what I'm looking at is the ERA pkg. on these tanks without the time now to get a closer look, my first reaction to the picture and "second look" if you will, is that the ERA mounted is the NOZH version carried on the OPLOT-M which is of a very advanced type.
http://www.janes.com/article/67465/ukraine-s-donbas-conflict-escalating-into-second-debaltseve
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84protection.php

According to KMDB above it is NOZH ERA. You can access the rest of the stats for the tank through the above ref. upper left in blue. And for the 100th time and this site makes that distinction as well, the T-84 OPLOT (As sold to Pakistan.) and OPLOT-BM/or OPLOT-M (Same MBT) are different tanks. This distinction for some reason continues to cause issues.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

The tanks in the photo are clearly t64bv, Pat!

Jane's error! You Can see the typical turret rear and side..

Typical kontakt1 blocks on the side skirts

https://www.unian.info/war/1758086-not-involved-in-fighting-def-ministry-explains-tanks-in-avdiyivka-video.html

These are the same tanks from the front

[luigim]

Nozh ERA equips T64B1M and BM Bulat, not older T64BV with Kontakt1 in the photo!

T84 is an old model so it's equipped with surplus Kontakt-5 blocks from its T80 Hull or indigenous production Nozh ERA but It makes no difference because Nozh ERA shape is similar to Kontakt-5 shape externally, you can compare the shape of the side turret blocks in the link below to any T72 w.Kontakt5 (BM model 1989 or T72B3 or T90A) http://www.sdtb.kiev.ua/sdtb_defence_en.htm

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm

As you Can see, Nozh equips T64B1M

Duplet ERA that equips OplotM is a different Story: similar to Russian Relikt ERA

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm read here

So let's make clarity:

The tanks in Jane's photo are T64BV with old gen kontakt1

T64B1M and T64BM Bulat and base T84 (read up) with Nozh ERA, similar in appereance to Kontakt-5 so they should have similar values

Oplot-M is equipped with Duplet ERA (Nozh-2) with performance close/same as Relikt ERA

[luigim]

I link other two useful posts

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/61-ukrainian-armor-oplot-m-t-64m-bulat-and-other/& Definitive guide about Ukrainian Tanks


http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/574-explosive-reactive-armor/
Here they talk about Oplot-M's Duplet: it is a multiplayered Nozh ERA

Also must be noted that T64B1M CAN NOT fire ATGM, because it's a T64B1 evolution! But it hase the same protection values of T64BM Bulat.

So IMHO in game: BM Oplot Unit 064 armor values are fine but ERA must go up close to T90MS values
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm

T84 Oplot has same Nozh ERA of T64B1M and T64BM Bulat so for the first same ERA values but higher armor values

But what unit number is this version in game?

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64bm_bulat.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm it says "After the recent Ukrainian upgrade, protection of this tank has been improved. It is fitted with built-in Nozh modular explosive reactive armor. Developers claim that this armor provides protection against tandem warheads and reduces penetration of APFSDS rounds by over 90%. The same armor is used on Ukrainian Army T-64BM Bulat and Oplot main battle tanks. The tank is also fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems."

Unit 053 base T84 is this tank: http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm and it says is equipped with Kontakt5, I suggest values similar to russian T80U

[luigim]

So, looking finally to the game OOB:
IMHO in game we have too much models for T84.

There must be three variants: the first, T84 w. Kontakt 5, (unit 058) from 1999 according to military-today, should disappear when T84 Oplot w. Nozh ERA appears in 2003 (unit 057), then it remains until the end of the game because it's in service in small quantities.

Then appears Oplot-M with Duplet ERA, (unit 064), in 2011

The T84 variants in game without ERA must be deleted.

Also in game we have multiple T80UD units without ERA, and this is an error, because T80UD is nothing more or less of a T80U with a diesel engine, so it should have Kontakt 5 ERA

Sorry for the multiple post, but I write in my free time ( I study medicine in Italy, 8-10h a day of studying so I edit multiple times the posts in my pauses) and this research costed to me circa 2hours

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Lets start this quite not how I intended to, I did have a chance to go back for that "second look" and recheck the JANE's article claim in the picture as last posted by me, and as already pointed out by luigim also confirm they both are T-64BV tanks the key identifier for me was the IR light system mounted on the left front of the turret.

Pictures from KMDB...
T-64BV:14588
T-84:14589

I'm not settled yet on the ERA pkg. as the front turret mounted ERA tiles look longer in length than Kontact-1 (From JANE's article, not as pictured here.) but more similar to NOZH as the T-84 uses. It would be a simple enough upgrade even in the field, "screw them out than screw them back in" however, I won't be able to access that article or any other in this forum, my computer or your computer. You don't have have any issues with your computers and the site is NOT experiencing technical difficulties. It no longer exists.

JANE's IHS 360 has been replaced with JANE's MARKIT. What does it mean? Simply again...
1) All links are dead.
2) All refs that cited JANE's as a source are dead.
3) All preview articles I used for various reasons are no longer available.

I've spent the last couple of days trying to figure out if there is a work around-there isn't, unless, you want to pay for it. And have spent around 30 minutes in deleting files in all areas I normally cover along with keeping some for the benefit of the "subject matter" as like myself with the more obscure OOB's, they covered many topics that my other normal refs didn't for those same obscure countries in regards to equipment issues. My hope is in those cases I can use that information to recoup good data from somewhere else.

So again your computers are fine and the site is not down for maintenance.

Not very happy right now but, I'll get over it.

Posted here simply because most seem "to drop by these here parts" once in awhile.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's all yours...

Don,
I need no specific answer to this issue anytime soon, I have to give this some more serious thought myself as well. Really just focus as I know Andy and you are on giving us the best Patch you can. Platitudes are now done...

Essentially probably the two best Heavy MBT's out there are the M1A2 SEP 3 and the LEOPARD 2A7+ (With the updated ATTICA FCS) which I had proved the Germans do have when I found and posted the results of that search in the MBT Thread.

My concerns of equipment really reached it's height at the time concerning the submission of the M1A2 SEP 2 in Post #123 (Item A1 under the MBT section) & #128 on Pg. 13 the concerns dealt with the significant advances in ammo that had outstripped the capabilities of the TI/GSR optics fitted to the FCS's at the time. You'll find an interesting quote that makes the point very well for me in Post #123 as noted above. And of course the "The 700lb. Gorilla" in the room is addressed as well concerning map sizes, play-ability etc. that just can't be ignored. We would settle on TI/GSR 50. I also started bringing up the fact we're going to have "winners and losers" out here sorry but, that's the price of technology and who's willing and MORE IMPORTANTLY can afford it in the form of R&D.

So now we move on...
I posted the following and if Don acted on it from some my posts or otherwise I'm happy to see it in that would be USA UNIT 538 M1A2 SEP 3 TI/GSR 60 (And I strongly feel LEOPARD 2A7+ should be on par or @ TI/GSR 55 min.), I think that's exactly where that particular tank should be. For planes equipped with SNIPER or any similar pod that's nothing (I've posted video in you can guess where, that shows a jet ~40NM out looking like from the camera it's almost hovering on top of the targets.) as they would say "the skies the limit" but that'll never work for land equipment. LOS will always put limits on land equipment and we have to maintain some sense of proportion within the game as well to keep things on an "even keel".

We move on to the other "700lb. Gorilla in the room" the USA isn't sitting on it's laurels, that's right, and can you guess what's coming!?! Yup, the M1A2 SEP 4, what I'll be thinking about independently is...

1) Do we push the envelop on TI/GSR to say 65?

2) Is there enough room in the other associated FCS's sub systems that can be improved upon?

3) Can the ammo be improved upon as the AIM round is now available and the new Kinetic round is being tested now for this tank to possibly increase hit % and PEN % etc?

4) Still might be an armor issue but, still looking into this.

5) Or a sensible combination of some or all these elements?

6) And finally and most importantly what makes sense for the game.

So right now that's what I'm thinking about. Also take note how quickly they moved from the V2 to the V3. I believe we will definitely see this tank available before games end and sooner than expected based on DOD increased budgets and what Russia and China do over the next couple of years as they test our new "CIC".

At your leisure if I missed a point of concern you wish me to further consider as well, please do so and post it here if you will. Otherwise until LATER this year, I'll consider this matter closed for now.
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
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/u.s._army_will_begin_the_development_of_m1a2_abram s_sep_v4_main_battle_tank_11302171.html

Something else I'm TRACKING...
http://www.janes.com/article/64383/a...me-takes-shape


And again, Andy and Don thank you for all the hard work, and I'm looking forward to the Patch when released.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well first let me start by offering my apologies, I got a little over zealous with my appreciation of the LEOPARD 2A7+, so again, my apologies for any confusion to anyone out here including myself for getting caught in it as well. Germany only has two of them used as R&D tanks in the "Dual Ops" and "Urban Ops" configurations.

1. However, we can allow the AI (3x status was it?) to use the LEOPARD 2A7 as I've found another German website that confirms they are in use by the same unit as I reported on it last September 2016.

2. Well it would seem this past year Germany has another incremental upgraded tank in service that became available this past year. That would be the LEOPARD 2A6+.

3. But they aren't done yet the LEOPARD 2A8 will reach the field somewhere in the 2018/2019 time-frame.

4. STRV-122, I went into great detail when this was submitted by me as a change, I believe, concerning the enhanced armor protection of the turret specifically in regards to top protection. Well apparently it also has a "bomblet protection" system mounted to the turret top as well.

5. I'll re-post the original site that lead me to the "road of clarity concerning the LEOPARD 2A7 last Fall.

6. Finally, a tank you don't hear about the Romanian TR-85M1 BIZONUL the ref below has some great pictures in it through out.

7) The T-14 portion I believe ref 1 below shows some more data on the self protection side of things.

I think most will find these refs interesting to say the least. Don't be afraid "To kick the tires."
http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/leopard2
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=148

Have a great weekend everyone!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

After posting about the Romanian TR-85M1 I was curious if they had advanced in their tank development or were looking into other options. They formally joined NATO in March 29, 2004 after the Romanian Govt. decided to start the process of joining it in 2002. This brings on it's own set of pressures least of which requires the member nations to comply with NATO weapons standards and communications interoperability. That intial result is the above TR-85M1.

If any foreign sales were made we would have heard about by now. So what has been done to this point and what options are being looked at started around 2010 and reached it's peak in early 2014 with the possibility of the TR-84M2 which did not see the light of day. That story follows like we take our forum members as who they say they are (And I do.), then I have to do the same for the "tank commanders" that replied to the below GOOGLE translated information from the Romanian Military website as shown here concerning the TR-85M2...
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/tr-85m2-o-certitudine-cu-multe-necunoscute-2 With the pictures.

Skip to content

First page
Romania
overall
Categories
heroes
Romania supports the Military!

Learn how to support Romania Military site!

Romanian Army supplied TR-85m2 certainty with many unknowns
TR-85m2 certainty with many unknowns Marius Zgureanu January 26, 2013 - 10:49 Romanian military equipment , military weapons , weapon European , weapons Romanian Army , Tank!

As some already know, our venerable TR-85, besides the clear downward T55, is related to the level of certain systems, and other steel colossus, but "more to the west", namely Leopard 1.

After attempts more or less successful to get a first tank Romanian, namely TR-77 580, certain systems and solutions have been "taken over" by industrial espionage 'resulting TR-85, and then, since 1990, Kraus-Maffei in collaboration with the Leopard 1 tank, resulting TR-85M.

In the article written about 1 year ago " Will Romania a new tank? And if so, how it will look "too little we approached the possible evolution's of TR-85, focusing more on me the fleet modernization T55, but also a new tank design inspired by foreign models of modern tanks ...

In the pictures above and in the near future can notice how similar was the profile turret layout galetilori and certain portions of the chassis (with a profile slightly raised above the runway when Leopard1) between versions TR-85 and Leopard 1 A1 / A2. TR-85 seems kind of hybrid between The Soviet T-55 and German Leopard1.

But I said then that an evolutionary direction for TR-85 as a new 120 mm cannon, preferably Rheinmetall L44 / L55, a new engine from 1200 to 1500 hp and increased protection, and even a new turret system Giat, with Self loading or calling in a low-profile turret, like Falcon system (8 projectiles / minute, and the first 3 can be held in 10 seconds http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm ) that would reduce weight up to 10 tons tank, the reserve for adding additional armor.

Giat turret was considered solution and further development of the tank Polish PT-91 TWARDY a T72 improved by a PT-97 version called Cheetah equipped with cannon 2A46 Russian by those from Bumar .

Recently published information about the existence of a clearly defined M2 variants shows that the current turret of TR-85 M1 can smoothly accommodate a 120mm caliber gun, probably German origin ( L-44 ). It is unclear whether the projectile magazine is the same number of shots available - 41 (probably by extending them further into the back of the turret) or will decrease.

In the photos the next can see solutions stretching toward the rear of the turret where both TR-85M and the Leopard 1 A3 to make room for storage of ammunition with superior protection, especially in terms of isolation compartment fighting crew. Also, you can see the similarity between passive thermal vision system at night SAGEM Matis on TR-85M system and night vision systems PZB 200 Leopard 1 A2 / A3.

If Leopard 1 has been considered and developed a variant with 120mm cannon but if it was needed a new turret. Leopard 1A5 turret was initially considered able to receive a 120mm cannon and other optical devices on Leopard2. But subsequently developed a version with additional turret armor - Leopard 1 A6 - which can accommodate 120mm cannon, built one prototype. The project was eventually abandoned in 1987 because there already in service Leopard 2 which was built around the 120mm cannon that have superior performance and protection by design.

An option to keep in mind, if the number of copies TR-85 M2 products to be large enough to purchase a license for production of the gun 120mm in Resita, as the development and improvement and initial alternative cannon Soviet 2A46M (copy Romanian A555) provided for tank TR-125 , so we can provide export both gauges, addressing as many potential markets (like Oplotului Ukrainian) for both. TR-85 and TR-580 upgraded T-55 respectively, similar to a standard T-55AGM.

1000CP and a more compact engine might fit the need and chassis last 2 tanks, TR-580 and T-55AM, or even old motor 8VS-860CP A2T2M of the TR-85M1, with some improvement. Engine TR-85 is one of the reasons why the elongation of the chassis to T-55. T55-AM the Romanian seems to have already received some components of the TR-85 (such as the Cyclop FCS), but does not know whether he passed or is planned to undergo a retrofit similar TR-85M1, even and for eventual export.

Also, although there is information that the tank was tested with an engine Volvo V12 1200CP (which apparently took some swings tabernacle), the current version proposed Colombia contains an aggregate of just 1000CP acceptable by the fact that fit without modifications in slot engine, but with the condition that the weight of the tank M2 will significantly increase after adding armor and other protection systems further so be affected power / weight ratio (hp / ton) which now stands at 17cp / ton, its ideal is an increase by 20hp / t, the initial report of TR-85. As reference, Ukrainian Oplotul receive 26cp / t, with an engine 1200CP, and as M-84AS Serbian and Polish PT-91 stands at 18.5 hp / t (at a total weight of 46t).

As a small aside, M84-AS, although initially licensed product is similar to T-72 T-90, with armor just a little lower but faster (capable of 75 km / h on the road) and more maneuverable. The Serbs had plans to modernize all the 232 M-84 tanks to the standard AS, but apparently not passed 100 pieces, some rumors vehicle and few copies upgraded.

Returning to the TR-85 M2, the fact that the new engine and cannon could be installed without modifications, it is good news in the sense that the whole family TR-85 / M1 could be brought to standard M2 without modifications expensive or complete replacement major components, which means that the price of an upgrade will be basically reduced price rezumandu only weapons, motor, armor and new systems that will be installed and the operation itself.

If we try to guess the future evolution of TR-85 variant M2 and through the other issues (design, armor, systems, table), we should probably take again a look at developments relatives ... more or less distant.

Leopard 1, reached the latest version of the standard A5 series, but the old A3 level was brought to Canadian Forces a new standard - C2:
C2 has mainly armored Additional and some systems taken from Leopard2, such as the targeting ... probably an idea to keep in mind if we have no significant evolution's developed in the country, especially considering the collaboration UM Bucharest with a prestigious German company - Kraus Maffei Wegmann, (KMW).

The new version of TR-85 M2 should benefit from solutions to increase protection liabilities, with new types of armor additional composite and / or NERA to him heightening protection in the field, as well as a significantly improved warning systems and active protection, it is recommended to install a radar system ballistics and have a "hardkill" similar to Trophy. See also the recent article on the subject, taken from Tehnomil " Evolution's, Episode 2 .

At the same time, collaboration with companies from France, Germany or Israel can ensure the evolution of various equipment from TR-85 M2. A similar trend was provided by Israel to the M-60 Patton of the equipping Turkey, resulting in a significant modernization with cannon 120mm and modern equipment, some similar Merkava4 (like drivetrain) but components German (engine MTU 881 KA-501 of 1000CP and transmission Renk) variant called Sabra.

Another noteworthy development has not materialized even in series production, this time for Chinese T55, as Jaguar's from Cadilac Gage Textron. Though provide a more powerful engine Detroit Diesel 8V-92TA, automatic transmission, extra armor plates, new M68 105mm cannon, stabilizer and systems with integrated laser targeting, the project was abandoned after the construction of two prototypes. A similar package can be applied almost entirely of most tanks are in endowment and reserves (how much there) Roman army from T55 to TR-85M1 and for export, instead of turning in scrap vehicles withdrawn from active service but T55 consignments of certain countries.

All these variants solutions should help the TR-85 M2 and tanks already in the inventory can fight at least equals if not to dominate those in the endowment neighbors, from T-55AGM, T64-Bulat, T-72 and T-84 AGL Oplot M to M84AS Ukrainian and Serbian! And that even on their possible developments over the next 5 to 10 years!

TR-85 M2 is a product which could meet the necessary modernization's rapid short-term needs of the Romanian Land Forces, but may have a niche for export. Minimum 5 years from will take the Romanian defense industry to help develop a new generation of tanks, probably only in collaboration with other partner countries, if this is longer desires and we will not disband altogether gun tanks or we will team only import!

Fictional sketch:

In Romania's case, I believe that the current solution, manned by four people, instead of an automatic charging system remains the most appropriate, at least in the next 5-10 years, and TR-85m2 might be best Answer price / capacity combative that can be given Roman army because we can not afford to exploit equipment too sophisticated and expensive nor to be overwhelmed by problems of reliability of systems design ex-Soviet considering that chances are that while conflict outnumbered, we're serious ... K2 Rotem and AMX-56 Leclerc can be considered spearheading the development of modern tanks and may desirable in terms of certain aspects. Romania but only managed to purchase 56 tanks in 15 years costing $ 1.5 million piece ... so a price of 6-8 mil. $ / Piece for a tank and especially high operating costs are impossible to cover in the current economic conditions, budget and political will.

And I hope to see soon, perhaps at the BSDA 2013 even a mock-up if not a TR-85 M2 in "flesh".

Marius Zgureanu

Read:

" Concepts - MLI MLI after the Romanian-84M "

filiation of TR-85 , leopard one , leopard a1a3 , m 60t sabra , m 84 AS serbia , Rheinmetall L44 / L55 , t 55 jaguar , t 55AGMt 5 AMtr 125 , T-72 AGL , T-55AGM , T55 AM , tank Romanian tr 77 580 , tanks romansti , tr pozzze 77 580 , TR-85 m2 , tr 85m1 , TR 85M1 pressure , TR-77 580 , turret Giat , future tanks in Romanian amateur .

Learn how to support Romania Military site!
Cel.ro 182 Comments:

didi74 January 26, 2013 at 11:23

Marius, if the ultimate goal is not well defined, what comes out. I mean like a bomb TR-85M1 who had only partially defined objectives. Anno Domini a tank in 2013 which has just cast turret is a cart on the road, that's the truth.

It must set goals first, then data solutions, not vice versa:
- Front protection> 1000mm RHA APFSDS,> 1200 mm RHA HEAT
- Lateral protective> 1000mm RHA
- 120 mm cannon
- Report to / cp x
- Maximum weight y

Who has the final objective and sees only what came out is ... classic novel.

If you can solve the structure's objectives TR-85, go for it. If not, leave it as is and dad do something else: import T-72 SH (cost <EUR 0.5 million) or M1-Abrams (cost between 0 and 0.5 mil / pcs) or Leopard and modernizes them local.

A're stubborn to modernize something from home had a disability and was behind the design of the moment, it's just plain wrong.
And when it comes to a weapon, accepting a little worse, just because it's designed by the national industry, and it's wrong.

Reply sorin January 26, 2013 at 9:17 p.m.

Total.Viitorul subscribe tank should have thicker frontal armor of 900mm. RPG 29 and 32 pierce 750mm thick armor, maybe even more, that's why I took it as reference thickness.
Both T55 and Leo in January are now especially moral.Daca waste tanks should buy a new tank without having to have too much money, I would rather switch to T84 Oplot.TR our website, be it M2 , I would not tuck into account because it is developed on a platform obsolete, and that does not allow you later, when it is necessary, too many developments.

If you want a tank again, and to us it allow financial, then the cheapest as we engage a country which produces tanks, such as Turkey (at least officially are in friendly relations, cooperation), having operational line production or realize from 0 on a new platform, a modern tank, the environment, together with Kraus-Maffei guys at Wegmann.Stiu as it involves great expense, is necessary to change the production line, the current being adapted to T55 and derivatives its Romanian, and we have no financial bani.Daca not afford one of the two options do not bother to spend the money elsewhere.

Reply IFIM January 26, 2013 at 11:24

An interesting article and well documented. I hope to see as soon inwardly-85-M2, to escape the heavy burden they are only tankman in Romania, I was commander of the tank on all existing types from 1978 to the present, ie T-34, T -55 TR-77-580, TR-85, TR-800, TR-125, TR-85 and T-72 M1. As a tank commander, platoon, company, battalion or unit.

Reply George GMT January 26, 2013 at 12:08

Given this special experience, how would you characterize the T-72 M1 towards modernized ?!

Reply IFIM January 26, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
Great question! 1 August 2001-30 April 2005 while I was commander of the 1st Battalion Tank "Vlad the Impaler" nobody asked me about tanks. At one point, the barracks had 108 tanks of all kinds (except T-34 and TR-77-580), including 30 pcs. 23 T-72 and TR-85 first-M1 manufactured. During the period I ordered the unit in its endowment (the state organization) were 30 T-72, and in addition, up to 40, there were 10 T-55. Subsequently, the organization was changed in TR-85 tanks entered endowment-M1, as we take the factory, and in addition to 54, T-55 and TR-800 upgraded. Even if I repeat, you are the first to ask me a question about tanks, all other care benefits during controls aimed at all sorts of unsuspected aspects, but unrelated to instruction tanks and tanks.

TR-85 M1 or "Buffalo" is well below a modernized T-72 in firepower, mobility and ability to pass obstacles. Armoured protection, taking it layered with some extra armor would be better than T-72, but has a figure almost twice as high. Here at Armoured protection, I put equal sign. About ability to influence the opponent did not speak on the battlefield it is "violin", there are other systems that handle it. It is superior to the M1 I mean, the transmission system and some systems that did not exist in the 70s has a fire control system, thermal imagers room, a sort of smoke grenade launching system and defensive protection and others close but not so significant as to change my opinion.
Between one-M1 TR-85 and T-72, I would I choose the second.
Thank you for the question asked and probably I will respond once it on modest my blog, where I ask myself a few questions, one of which is what had to be disbanded most representative, not to tell the good tank unit in Romania, for over four years, to be restored, but with a lower endowment?

Reply George GMT January 26, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
Please post here blog address. I have lots of questions about tanks, have your time to answer me. The asememnea I would like to send me mail address and blog at: romaniamilitary@gmail.com
Delighted and honored to have among us! Girl abolition battalion equipped with T-72 tanks and reopen equipped with T-55's I have a lot of questions. The answer, most likely, would be incompetent.
T-55 tank already in 2013. totally useless people die in vain in case anything happens.

Reply sorin January 26, 2013 at 9:38 p.m.
If the old T72, modernized, makes ours TR-85-M1, developed after 1989, what to speak of T90MS tank versus tank nostru.Sa not say the army, a new generation tank, his upper T90 MS, which will sweep away loose ours. Sure, if you want to buy Colombians TR-85-M2, then just for them, or export in general (poor countries of the world 3), I repeat, only export, deserves to manufacture.

Reply sorin January 26, 2013 at 9:44 p.m.
Among current Western tanks that would be best for Romania? You for who you choose? T84 Oplot is as powerful as T90 modernized?

Reply sharky January 26, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
as commander of the tank, which is the difference between TR-85 and TR-800 ???

Reply IFIM January 26, 2013 at 3:36 p.m.
Basically, the difference lies only in the product name.

With the now dead TR-85M2 though in design is better then what they have, they clearly understood it would not be much of a match against a newer modern MBT. I do remember the Romanians looking at cheaper options as noted above, however, as is always the case it boils down to simple economics. They just couldn't afford. The West has helped in development of the M1 and in the options for the M2. Building on the M2 proposed design features it now appears since around the late 2013/2014 time frame work has continued to the develop the TR-85M3 which will feature a more modern FCS, 120mm SBMG, Auto loader (Which will reduce the crew size to 3.), additional of add on armor to meet or exceed the expectations noted above for the TR-85M2 and finally a 1400hp engine and power pack. Though I'm taking to next with a "grain of salt" I,m hopeful since ref. 2 has been so good to me for about ten years now with their data, there might be some truth here, and I can't count how many times they've been ahead in reporting new and modernized versions of equipment "even faster than a speeding JANE's" or was that something else!?!
:rolleyes: Bottom line if true, it should put it in a top tier T-72 variant and possibly a T-90.

I'm hoping hoping this is true because it'd be nice to get something in for someone else besides the "usual suspects". Their is a fair amount of chatter from Russian, Chinese, Romanian and other foreign language sites concerning the TR-85M3 so a little help from one of our forum members in that part of the world would be most helpful to me one way or another. Like some players (And that's absolutely fine.) some of our western defense sites don't cover that part of the world to well. If the last two sentences are true in ref. 1, we should see something by years end that being said most of you know what I'll be doing with this MBT w/o saying the "word". From Ref.2: "Some sources report that the a new TR-85M3 is under development. It should be fitted with a more powerful engine. This tank will also have new 120-mm or 125-mm gun, as well as improved armor and updated electronic systems."
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalPowers/comments/4shhz8/event_romanian_tr85m3_revealed/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tr85m1.htm

A little tank news from a hopefully quite place along the "border".

Dinner is ready-and my brain needs food!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Some of you remember from a longtime ago I mentioned the following. In Basic Submarine School in Groton Ct., we were taught almost from the beginning..."The only dumb question is the one not asked.", so some of you won't then be surprised by the next concerning the TR-85M3. Apparently the Gmail account from the Romanian Military site I used really works!!

"---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zgureanu Marius <.com>
Date: 2017-02-27 10:24 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: Fwd: TR-85M3
To: Romania Military <romaniamilitary@gmail.com>

Good morning,
The answer is no, in fact we do not have any information that the Romanian Army would be interested in a new upgrade, exceeding M1, for its battalions of TR-85. There is only one battalion upgraded to M1 standard, so far.
Concerning the article:
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/ tr-85m2-o-certitudine-cu- multe-necunoscute-2

there was a proposal for Colombia, pointing 3 variants: TR-85 "Classical" configuration, TR-85 M1 like (with some minor changes) and there was a more powerful M2 variant (120mm gun, more powerful engine).
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/viitorul-tancului-produs-in-romania-tr-85-tr-85m1-si-tr-85m2

UMB, the tank producer, proposed to the Army a different evolution of the remaining basic TR-85 than M1, but there was no immediate interest in it.

Please point out the article "that suggests the Government placed an order for 48 tanks to be modified to the TR-85M3 standard"!

Best regards,
Rumania Military

On Monday, February 27, 2017 5:38 AM, Romania Military <romaniamilitary@gmail.com> wrote:

Raspunde-i si tu ceva omului
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: patrick conklin <hotmail.com>
Date: 2017-02-27 5:08 GMT+02:00
Subject: TR-85M3
To: "romaniamilitary@gmail.com" <romaniamilitary@gmail.com>

Good Morning! I came across your website concerning a discussion forum on the TR-85M2 and other options for tanks for the Romanian Army. I came across an article that suggests the Government placed an order for 48 tanks to be modified to the TR-85M3 standard. Is this true or has no decision been made to go forward with the project. I understand you might need to use a translation program as I did to convert the topic over to English. I posted the original website in Romanian below for your benefit. Thank you for any assistance you can give concerning my question.
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/ tr-85m2-o-certitudine-cu- multe-necunoscute-2

Regards,
Pat"

Well now that certainly has reduced my workload and I must say I'm a little disappointed with the news. I think that the TR-85M3 could've been a great addition to the game not only for the Romanian OOB, but due to it's supposed export potential and "bang for the buck" we could've seen it elsewhere in the world and in our game by extension.

Based on his last sentence, I owe the man an answer. And just maybe an UNCLAS source of inside information as well. ;)

I promised the CINC I'd be to bed at a decent hour. Besides it's back to work later this afternoon. Have a great day everyone! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well the last couple of days with Marius has proven fruitful, however, as far as the Romanian OOB is concerned, it's settled now that we can DELETE/UNIT 017/TR-85M2//. I think some would find the below email interesting. If you read it very carefully he talks about how to make a better tank on an older chassis but, as important the engineering limitations of such upgrades. In discussing the variations of the ABRAMS leading to the "SEP V Series" I talked about the RESET(ing) of those tanks. The big difference here is the ABRAMS is quite the larger tank (2. below of Marius's email points to this, how we've been able to improve upon the ABRAMS armor.) already compared to the T-55. Simply we've got a lot more time and space to work with where, as Marius points out below with the exception of the Ukraine, he believes with some possible additional minor improvements, that the Romanians pretty much feel for the T-55 the pinnacle of practical design has been reached with the TR-85M1.

I'll later this morning in my reply back for the below ask him to verify the current status of the following...TR-580, T-72M, TR-125 and TR-2000. Also status of any TI/GSR and estimated day/night ranges and are we missing any MBT's or any that are in still in active service but we show as retired.

Now I understand we're probably talking for next year, however, I just want to "strike while the coals are hot" concerning the data.

From Wed, morning 1041am EST...
I don't see how an M3 variant of TR-85 would have been already ordered by the Army.

Back in 2014, the Land Forces were already aware that TR-85 M1 has reached its limitations of improvement, seeing a derivative of TR-125/TR-2000 (Mine) as a more suitable future replacement.

Already, there is no TR-85 M2 variant (only an improvement intention, but it had yet to be implemented and tested).

In order to receive a bigger gun, better engine and extra armor, some tons had to be stripped away somewhere else, because the ground pressure was already high on M1, at its limits and I'm not sure if the tracks can still be widened at a low cost.

1.) The hull of the TR-85 was by design narrower than that of a T-72, so less space to add a better and wider engine - so complicated and only a few options, such as compact MTU 871 Ka-501/Iveco-Fiat MTCA 1200CP engines, and not very cheap.

2.) Already the frontal armor of the TR-85M1, I don't think it exceeds equivalent of 650-700mm RHA (Mine), so in order to exceed 1000mm RHA, add-on armour is not an option: frontal plate and turret plates would need to be removed and replaced with better modern composite armour with mostly the same weight, if we don't want to double the mass of the armour as the weight is restricted.

3.) For a bigger gun, the frontal part of the turret has to be completely reshaped (see also the are of the optical sights on the side of the gun mantlet) - the only example of success of mounting a 125mm gun on a T-55 turret is the Ukrainian Typhoon/AGM package, but I still have doubts as they probably used T-72 autoloader and parts of a T-72 turret, technology that Romanians used only on TR-125. So in order to be sure such upgrade is possible, the real options are Falcon low mass&profile turret or GIAT simplified T-21 turret. Both are not cheap and must also be compatible with the turret ring footprint and turret mass (less than 15 tons) on TR-85. Also, the new gun must be as light as possible, so if 120mm, only L-44 or other light versions with low recoil would be acceptable, so not a lot of punch against new generation tanks and armour.

4.) Under belly explosion protection kit + active protection (as passive armor protection cannot be top of the class) would add other few hundreds kilos on the vehicle's weight.

In the end, we would need to replace almost everything on TR-85 for such upgrade for a high cost and the result will be probably a bit better than mediocre. Just keep in mind that TR-85M1 upgrade costed back in 2002-2004 around 2,3 mil. $/ unit, due also to small numbers (56 machines), but the engine was only improved, the FCS was upgraded, and some add-on armour was installed and received small turret-bustle by cutting the back of the turret. So most of the TR-85 was unchanged.

The full list of challenges upgrading theTR-85 is here:
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/modernizarea-tr-85-mai-este-viabila

With all those constraints, maybe only a limited upgrade would be advisable, by using TR-85 as second-line tank or changing its role to infantry support.

Other options would be to changed it in tank hunter (such as STRV-103) or heavy IFV (BMPT Terminator/Achzarit style ), getting rid of its turret:
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/strv-2020

http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/mli-greu-lego-umb-si-moreni-tema-pentru-acasa

That's was a nice simple explanation on the limits of tank design using an existing chassis.

I need to hit the rack!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First Don THANKS for fixing and keeping the Turkish LEOPARD A1A3-T2 in the game. I remember we had some discussion on this in my somewhat frustrating attempts to try and fix that OOB what a mess it was before I started, Don helped me make it better, but theirs still more to do. The entanglement was caused by Turkey's unapologetic skill in designating their tanks as many as three times or more, what a mess.

Below in this this JANE's link, clink on the "Ankara Advances..." on the Right Center. It talks about the advances made in the APC area which is good FYI on it's own, however, this is the MBT Thread last on checked, so with that in mind, Turkish ALTAY UNIT 614 I believe will slip to the right at least a year now based on the ref. provided no major surprise here as Don and I have discussed this exact thing in the past. We've already done this with the ARJUN MkII at least once and I'm afraid we'll be doing it at least once more again. That's the business we're in.

The issue (Finally :clap: !!) is the ALTAY development was delayed significantly because Turkey had major issues in developing their own power-plant and some lesser technical ones as well. These have been worked out and the MBT just finished two years of trials (Heed this you ARMATA Boosters!?!) on the last day of Feb. 2017. The ALTAY as of this writing and from the below has not been awarded a contract to go into mass production of the accepted version of the ALTAY. The ALTAY UNIT 614 game wise was to be available in Jun 2017 and in real life theirs still and operational acceptance evaluation to be done as well.
http://www.janes.com/defence

Read the para under the pictures in green you'll understand why I presented it in this manner. I've pushed the limit on others but, I wouldn't advise it for anyone else out here to "abuse the view". I will download it myself for my work. On that there are ways. ;)

I linked to a "poster" I had on Turkish tanks and can you guess where it linked to? Me in this Thread. Just saying be careful the web works in mysterious ways.

Alright enough of that in recovering "my poster" I came across the following that some might or might not find useful in their work. Basically these are armor size comparison charts. If someone feels it worthwhile to post this (WWII Chart.) on the WinSPWW2 side please do.

14641 14642

14643 14644

14645

The Turkish MBT one falls right in line with SIPRI database. Those are operational dates as I'd translated when originally submitted.

I wished I'd had the APC one when I did all that work on Malaysia's APC's a few years back. It would've saved some time in writing them up. It's much easier to interpret the data when you have some idea what it looks like though eventually I did manage to find enough pictures for Don to work off and satisfy my standards in presenting the submission of them. I believe that was just over ten vehicles at the time. That"s why Don can't wait for me to get off my arse and start again!?! :rolleyes: Really he lives for those submissions!!

And if your in area of the last stop by and say "Hi!" it's that time for the annual pilgrimage. I know, but, C'mon what fun would it be to tell you where we're seating!?!

Have a great night and there's nothing better then a two day work week!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Some of what I'm...well you know the word by now.

Iran: A year ago I posted that Russia was out (For this part longer back.) and that they had unveiled the totally Iranian made KARRAR MBT. Now it's announced it's in production. What I see...
1. Is what appears to be weather mast (Upside down "cup" one.) this is an indication of a more advanced FCS is carried on board. Weather corrections for heat, humidity (Thickness of the air if you will.) wind etc. are all factors in correcting the shot to target.

2. GPS mast.

3. 12 Smoke grenades, 6 per side.

4. ERA looks similar to a NOZH type as used by Ukraine. Note: Look closely at the side curtains than at the top picture, those are without a doubt ERA plates mounted to the curtain. If you again to the center picture you can make out the bolts/fasteners. I count 12 along the top and what looks like 9 along the bottom row.

5. Slat armor to protect sides around the engine compartment. Also around the rear of the turret to probably to protect ammo storage.

6. LED headlights that an A-10 would 10 or 15 miles out or more based on terrain, for their sake I hope they maintain good night time ops combat discipline!?!

7. It appears the Commanders sight has dual TI (Left) and Optical
IR(?) (Right) sights as shown in the bottom picture.

8. Look to the middle picture that looks like the 360 laser warning system I brought up for one of the Russian tanks about two months back. It's the bell shaped device between the mounted on on the turret aft end.

9. What I don't see... This MBT does not appear to have a "hunter-killer" mode. The "hunter-killer" capability is usually indicated by having an independent Drivers and Commanders sights. The Commanders sight does not appear to operate independently of the turret as on most more advanced MBT's.

10. I don't see any sign of the "new" APS system talked about in the below ref.

My conclusion is that without a doubt this is most likely Iran's most advanced MBT. I suspect the FCS system on the whole is fairly advanced and better than what they've had to this point. It seems reasonably well protected and the ERA looks of a new design for them as I've posted in the past. Mobility is likely pretty good, weight appears to be in the 45 to 50 ton range maybe slightly more with the ERA. I think the engine to be at around the 850hp - 1000hp range. It just doesn't look like it can hold a 1200hp engine, if it does it would an affect upon ammo storage etc. etc. But even with the smaller engine that would be enough power for a MBT of this size, though, I feel it is a larger one.

Here's what you might remember if you followed my posts, they were for about a year considering the T-90S and at a later point the T-90MS before the deal fell through with Russia. They had a couple of tanks at least to evaluate for several months. Russia didn't make to big a deal over the sale falling through. The question that remains is did Iran "borrow" some technology or did Russia offer some technical help to Iran before they pulled out?

I suspect it was a case of a little of both.

All the above is mostly drawn from the last ref. The rest from the others below and other sources.

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
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/iran_tested_its_first_home-made_active_protection_system_aps_mounted_on_zolfa qar_tanks_72510162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2016_global_defense_security_news_industr y/iran_has_developped_advanced_version_of_explosive_ reactive_armour_52612162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/iran_launches_production_line_of_new_karrar_home-made_mbt_main_battle_tank_11201171.html

More one one of my favorite tanks I've submitted...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Japan/type-10-hitomaru

I still wonder if we've maybe "slightly" have under protected this tank. We still have no clue as to it's composition (Steel of a new type technology.) or the APFSDS that was purpose made for this tanks gun. The round is unique to this tank only. All you'll find is that it's a highly advanced round capable of kills at long range. I really think maybe this tank might deserve another look. Just because it's "small" doesn't mean it's not well protected and lethal. I seem to remember this was the thinking about the MERKAVA when it appeared on the scene as well. I have to assume the gun on UNIT 022 equates to a L55 caliber gun.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Japan/type-10-hitomaru

And as I was looking for some info on this site, sometime today they posted this...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/karrar.htm

Well based on what I just read (KARRAR above.), I guess I didn't do too badly overall. I think I'll walk away with a 90% score here. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[scorpio_rocks]

further refinement of the Syrian "tusk" and I'm introducing my version of "Sinai Grey" to select Isreali vehicles
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14523&stc=1&d=1484250263
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14524&stc=1&d=1484250307

Just actually used these in battle - gotta say they look great!! TY!

[DRG]

just curious which ones you are referring to .........the Syrians or the Israelis

[scorpio_rocks]

Oh sorry the Israeli sinai grey stuff.

[DRG]

Yes, the experiment worked well. I could not get much closer to that colour using an actual paint sample wash in 24 bit and there are natural variations in that paint colour anyway

[scorpio_rocks]

I know that what constitutes and / or approximates the colour is an often hotly debated topic on modelling forums. So to pull it off with the limited palette you have to work with is doubly nice!

[DRG]

That colour the Israelis use looks different with age and the conditions it's photographed under but that's nothing compared to the variations in Russian paint colour in WW2. I added a camo M4A2 (76) to the Russian winSPWW2 OOB based on a photo and during research into the colours used I found this



Camouflage Colors
In the fall of 1939, the RKKA adopted a system of camouflage colors to be applied over the Protective Green 4BO base coat. Up to two additional colors could be used:

Dark Brown 6K, sometimes denoted as 6RP, was a dark earth brown similar to FS30117.
Yellow Earth 7K was a light sand color close to FS23578.
Both paints were supplied in form of thick paste that was diluted with gasoline, kerosene or a special drying oil. Differences in the dilution medium and/or the mixing proportions caused significant variations in the final colors.



FULL ARTICLE HERE http://www.4bogreen.com/colors

Also, I am finding there are a LOT wider range of colours and tones that can be produced with the game palette than most people think possible

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Russia has been very busy lately so I'm going to just focus on them here...

1) T-90A (S export version) is being upgraded to the T-90M as noted below
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_indust ry/russia_eyes_major_upgrade_for_its_fleet_of_t-90a_main_battle_tanks_21909163.html

2) Following repayment of Russian debt to South Korea in the late 1990's and early 2000's, some of this equipment is going back to Russia. My concern here is are all those ATGW systems in the ROK OOB?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_indust ry/russia_may_regain_t-80u_main_battle_tank_and_bmp-3_infantry_fighting_vehicle_from_south_korea_11109 161.html

3) ARMATA/T-14 items...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/full-scale_production_of_the_t-14_armata_main_battle_tank_to_begin_in_2018_519071 61.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_indust ry/russia_to_receive_first_70_t-14_armata_main_battle_tanks_by_2020_21409161_tass. html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2016_global_defense_security_news_industr y/uralvagonzavod_from_russia_to_launch_new_productio n_line_of_guns_for_t-14_and_t-90ms_tanks_tass_12711161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russias_rosatom_developing_ammunition_for_advanced _t-14_main_battle_tanks_tass51302171.html

4) The T-72B3 will be the "backbone" of Russian Airborne armored units.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/upgraded_t-72b3_mbt_wil_be_the_backbone_of_tank_companies_of_ russian_airborne_forces_tass_10707166.html

5) T-80U very much alive and active.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russian_t-80u_mbt_proceeded_to_a_gunnery_qualification_test_ tass_7130220171.html

6) Thirty years later and still a frontline tank.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russian_t72-b_tank_crews_launched_a_training_in_armenia_tass_8 1302171.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-72b_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_spec ifications_pictures_video_10207161.html

7) T-90MS getting A LOT of interest from other than India. Not mentioned below is Kuwait as well. They're involved in the same talks with Saudi Arabia.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/the_peoples_army_of_vietnam_pavn_to_acquire_t-90ms_8840606161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_in_talks_with_saudi_arabia_for_the_sale_of_ t-90ms_main_battle_tanks_tass_2103173.html

A bonus some might find interesting post Cold War almost 15yrs. after it ended.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I have many sources of info but, I didn't want anyone to think I pulled the T-90MS story (Post above.) about Kuwait's interest in the tank "outta of my butt" so just released earlier yesterday (Wed.) from one of my main stream sources...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/kuwait_is_interest_to_purchase_russian-made_t-90ms_main_battle_tanks_tass_12203172.html
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.military-today.com/tanks/t90ms_tagil.htm


We entered this tank to the Russian OOB a few years back, as the T-90AM Russian version of the MS. Last two refs. added if any "tweaking" is required before this tank actually sees the "light of day" most likely for India first as they have already signed a contract for if I remember correctly was for 248/9 T-90MS units. But I believe it's still good though honestly it's been about 2 or 3 years since I've looked at it.

I just checked the OOB and I see it's UNIT 059 listed as the MS version which would be incorrect. Also unsupported reports claim Russia is operating a "few" unspecified number of T-90AM tanks (Big difference here is it uses a 20mm secondary weapon.) and the intention is to start building them in 2020. This is very sketchy at this point.

It's good to have sources! ;) And I'll never reveal all of them-sorry-OK not really!?! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Ran out of edit time but for clarification...I had believed we originally entered the T-90AM based on some information we had at the time, which to use the same phraseology as in my last, was "very sketchy" and we kept the tank "ready to go" but not available as I always described them as a 999 UNIT.

If I may suggest the following...
A) Inactivate UNIT 059 and keep it as the build model for the export version T-90MS (SM as sometimes referred to.) until one of those countries actually gets them.

B) Once delivered to the first customer as shown currently or "tweaked" if needed, change UNIT 059 to the T-90AM version as discussed and again in an inactive status until Russia fields it fully as is now planned.

Again the tank is NOT active in any OOB in this game currently. A deal with KAZAKHSTAN fell through about 4yrs. ago.

Russian T-90AM (About as good as there is for now.)...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/T-90_MBT.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
https://southfront.org/russia-military-report-a-tale-of-three-tanks/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Ran out of edit time but for clarification...I had believed we originally entered the T-90AM based on some information we had at the time, which to use the same phraseology as in my last, was "very sketchy" and we kept the tank "ready to go" but not available as I always described them as a 999 UNIT.

If I may suggest the following...
A) Inactivate UNIT 059 and keep it as the build model for the export version T-90MS (SM as sometimes referred to.) until one of those countries actually gets them.

B) Once delivered to the first customer as shown currently or "tweaked" if needed, change UNIT 059 to the T-90AM version as discussed and again in an inactive status until Russia fields it fully as is now planned.

Again the tank is NOT active in any OOB in this game currently. A deal with KAZAKHSTAN fell through about 4yrs. ago.

Russian T-90AM (About as good as there is for now.)...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/T-90_MBT.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
https://southfront.org/russia-military-report-a-tale-of-three-tanks/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

It's is " active " currently in the Indian OOB and was put in a couple years back on speculation it would be in service..... I get bit all the time with stuff like this and it's time I listened to my own advice and NOT ENTER ANYTHING UNTIL ITS ACTUALLY IN SERVICE...so I have little use for any info about " what might be sold to whoever" at all

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I felt kind've bad about the last post by Don. History has shown that at times equipment I've "reported on" has made it into this game without myself actually having had submitted it to Don. As noted in the past many times and speaking ONLY for myself, our arrangement has been simply if there's strong evidence to support it we'll work within a six month "swag' of the expected fielding date based mostly on including the training/certification of the crews for that piece of equipment as I've recently posted in this thread on the U.S. Army training for the Abrams in response to a question from Don. You don't automatically field a unit without training first unless in time of war and the game does this (Or did.) when you upgraded tank Y for tank Z IN YOUR CORE UNITS WITH THE EXISTING CREW, you took a small hit in the crews experience level.

This will be the case when India does get and operate the T-90MS. They have very experienced crews that have operated the T-90S for a very long time now and as a reminder they've licensed built the same also for a very long time.

Status thus far for India is the contract has been signed since last November 2016 as also reported by SIPRI they also confirm reports from the web that the deal is worth just over 2 Billion U.S. for 464 units of the T-90MS. India's MOD is pushing hard to get 64 units directly from Russia for immediate deployment to the Pakistani border as there have been several border clashes involving the killing of Indian soldiers at the border. Well Russia has to build them first. No status of delivery of those tanks yet. I can confirm none were delivered by the end of 2016. You should know I'll be watching for developments. My best guess would be around Oct. 2017 earliest.

To my opening section for now on when I post in any of "my" threads you will see as the lead one of or both of the following "tag lines" FYI and Fielded anything under those "tags lines" well means just that and NOTHING ELSE.

Don my apologies if something I posted lead you to entering the tank in India's OOB.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Not too much off topic I think more information that some players might find useful in game play concerning tactics a very real possibility of a set of or one scenario for the folks that like doing that kind of thing concerning what would end up as a fighting withdrawal of Ukrainian forces. In any case a very good analysis of the Battle of Debal’tseve.

Also a multi use battle analysis of CRUSADER & GAZLALA.

Article on the future of our armor most surprising is where the use of the M113 is projected to be still in service.

Again possibly for the scenario types and from a tactics prospective, "The Role of Reconnaissance Forces in the Counterattack" they even offer one (Scenario) for "food for thought" but use two case studies and break them down and compare the two. They are, Case Study 1: Task Force Kean’s counterattack, 1950 Situation: North Korean attack & Case Study 2: Sharon’s
counterattack, 1973 Situation: Egyptian and Syrian attack.

There is more on armor tactics etc.
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2017/Winter/ARMOR_Winter_2017_edition.pdf
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/

So you thought I would post something other than the real deal!?!
I think I'll keep the second one myself.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well these are FYI as well as updates which will require some minor adjustments. My part for these first two tanks started back with the 2010/2011 Patch Campaign first dealing as a "CHANGE" submission for/to the ALTAY (That was entered in as the South Korean K2 as it was Turkeys plan to buy them from South Korea at the time.) and the ARJUN Mk II for India as an "ADD" that was designed as a much improved version of the ARJUN. But DRADO and the Indian Army just don't get along. The ARJUN completely "destroyed" the Russian tanks and others held in service. The army fearing embarrassment, completely withdraw all their T-72 variants before it started and their best tank the very up to date T-90S didn't stand a chance. Both these tanks have had a series of delays which even after we made some changes in dates mostly, are both going to have to see changes in them again among a couple of other minor changes. Let's begin...

1. TURKEY/ALTAY/UNIT 614/CHANGE/START DATE JUN 2018 VICE JUN 2017.// Well the issue again for this tank is the engine. There have been others in the past but this has been the "big one". What simply happened much like with India was the transfer of technology. South Korea wasn't all about it if you will concerning the more advanced technologies involved. K2 was out. They settled a % is still S. Korean the rest was "Turkey first thinking". So S. Korea was out followed by Japan, Austria, themselves throughout and it seems settled with the Ukraine. It appears full production will start sometime in May 2017.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/mass_production_of_turkish-made_altay_main_battle_tank_mbt_will_start_in_may_ 2017_11204173.html
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/turkey-indicates-ukrainian-preference-for-altay-tank-engine-tech
http://www.armyrecognition.com/turkey_turkish_heavy_armoured_tanks_uk/altay_turkish_main_battle_tank_vehicle_technical_d ata_sheet_specifications_description_pictures_uk.h tml

2. INDIA/ARJUN Mk II/UNITS 022 & 023/CHANGE/START DATE JAN 2020 VICE JAN 2017.// The dates are the priority as there are some other changes to come as well concerning the LAHAT which has been ongoing, they just can't seem to get it to work with the MG & FCS over the last 8 years or so. Suppositely they have had a successful launch using a new ATGW developed by or with the Ukraine. I feel I've spent a "lifetime" dealing with these tanks. I guess it's only appropriate since it ONLY took 30 years from conception to the Mk I to get a tank fielded. :rolleyes:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/07/good-enough-for-china-but-india-spurns.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/06/armys-new-battle-tank-proposal-sets.html
http://www.defencenews.in/article/The-REAL-STEEL-of-India--ARJUN-Main-Battle-Tank-3787
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/indian_arjun_mk2_main_battle_tank_succesfully_test-fired_anti-tank_rounds_81004172.html
http://www.janes.com/article/67714/aero-india-2017-bel-details-rcws-for-arjun-mk-ii
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
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

Welcome to my world which granted is much smaller then Andy's or Don's but all the same sometimes, still a PITA.

All the usual factors involved here development, production, distribution, standing up of units and training them in my decision tree for the above.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You will see this in the SPA/SPAA & North Korean Threads as well. I've been waiting for this data to come out since last Friday. Couldn't tell if the Pokpung-ho was mounting a new double barrelled MG or if it was a Grenade Launcher now that question has been answered. Did some work on this OOB a few years back with Don and the "resident" expert on the subject Marcello. We've had some "interesting" discussions ourselves but, I have always respected his opinions. Don't know what's happened to him but, he made me better when I first decided to start posting out here going back to the start of my MRAP Thread. It will be posted where this belongs but first I need them in my working threads. These are mostly I think minor change issues to existing (Copy) units.

Any information from a reliable source as this is worth it's weight in gold when it concerns North Korea.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/analysis_new_combat_vehicles_and_tanks_at_military _parade_in_south_korea_by_army_recognition_1170417 2.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/26/t80bv-main-battle-tank-enter-service-2017.html

Hot news and cool photo of the new model

[DRG]

Of course we've had a "BV" model in the OOB's since 1985
I guess this will be the T-80BV-U ( upgrade )

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Got some tank news...

Poland...
Several months back I reported on the possibility of Poland getting a Light - Med. tank (Since the named GEPARD.) and them maybe updating the PT-91 (w/Ukraine). For the former it's not looking so good in it's dead (ANDER's all over again some may remember.) and the latter it's off the drawing boards and looks like it's on. Once modernized the tank will be designated the PT-16. We also have an early look at it in ref. 3 below.
http://www.defence24.com/604670,polish-army-to-acquire-new-main-battle-tanks-instead-of-gepard#
http://www.defence24.com/598836,polish-ministry-of-defence-gepard-programme-comes-to-an-abrupt-end
http://armyrecognition.com/poland_polish_tanks_heavy_armoured_vehicles_uk/pt-16_main_battle_tank_mbt_pt-2016_data_pictures_video.html

Germany... I'm coming to appreciate this site as of late and there's good information here on where Germany is headed and likely Poland as mentioned above.
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/07/future-leopard-2-improvments.html

Finally I do track things for sometime...
Russia... As already noted.
http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service

I feel this will happen it's been awful quite on the Russian front concerning the T-14 and given all the pomp n circumstance that has thus far proceeded this tank and the above news about the T-80 this should bode as "a cautionary tale" for you ARMATA enthusiasts. Remember the Russian once they started operating the T-80 didn't even like the tank. It did get better after they got rid of the turbo-charged engine but only by degrees.

A bonus night with CINCLANTHOME and since I re-certified today I'm ready to save lives again!! CPR-First Aid anyone!?! Anyone!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The next site is a little more interested in carrying and tracking the type stories shown below more so then any of the several ones I use on a regular basis.

The first story again, backs others from this site and a couple of others I've posted over the past year. Based on this mounting and consistent documentation and of course my "humble" opinion, I feel at this point and time we have enough to support a more realistic operational service date for the T-14 ARMATA. Currently the Russian T-14 UNIT 170 has an in service date of 6/2018, we've known this was subject to change for sometime, I believe that time is in the next patch. It will take at least a year or more of operational testing/training and production before this MBT is fully operational. I recommend a "tightening" of the date as follows: 6/2020.

As a reminder to everyone as I tracked it that long, India's ARJUN took years before it was operational. I'm not comparing India's issues with ARJUN to Russia's with the ARMATA, but again, they're also having developmental and production issues with their tank that still need to be worked out. And ask yourselves, if everything was alright, why bring back the T-80 which they really didn't care for in the first place? But they are as posted here by myself and others as a "stop gap" until it's ready. Anyway another article "to add to the pile"...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/operational_evaluation_russia_mbt_t-14_armata_start_2019_12106174.html

Support for the question...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_indust ry/russia_may_regain_t-80u_main_battle_tank_and_bmp-3_infantry_fighting_vehicle_from_south_korea_11109 161.html
http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service

And we'll know for sure because this is the other thing they do better on a consistent basis than anyone else to date...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/first_tor-m2u_deployed_in_southern_military_district_2230617 3.html

Just some more food for thought, though speaking for myself I'm getting full. And you know what happens when you eat too much... You :puke:!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I hope you'll humor me to some extent with the following.This exercise is another example of the issues that Don and I just love to deal with when it comes to new equipment.

So by the numbers if you will and this will be the short version as long as you remember we've already had some mileage "down the road" with this MBT prior to 1) below...

1) I would respectfully ask you to visit Post 632/Item 1 and read it.

2) Of course you would do well to read all of the REF. below if your interested in this MBT or the development and procurement of such equipment. But, for the sake of this exercise, and for context, please go to the following section CONTRACTS and KEY EVENTS 2016-2017.

3) Read the April 13/17 entry first.

4) Now read the June 16/17 entry. I have provided below as REF 2 the highlighted portion of this section. As a reminder with this site those highlighted portions link you to a source document.

And if you don't feel like it and you trust me enough here's just a quick break down of 1-4 above.

1) Discussed issues related to the development and production issues for this MBT with multiple refs to support the discussion. Conclusion was to push in service date back to JUN/2018 vice current in service date.

3) Bottom line "All is well!" with serial production to begin in MAY/2017 which makes the JUN 2018 in service date plausible.

4) Magically "All is not well!" and as it would turn out in REF 2. below the same issues I pointed out in POST 632 haven't been fully addressed and the news now is OTOKAR has lost the contract as the single source manufacturer of this MBT, so that Turkey in not accepting the bid, has opened it up to competition which they hope will be concluded by the end of this year.

Don sorry but, prudence now dictates an in service date of no sooner then JAN/2019 or maybe better APRIL/2019.

This is an example of ownership and followup when submitting equipment. Don can correct me and I have all my submissions but, I believe this was submitted by me about 4-5 years ago.

Anyway...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-signs-deal-with-s-korea-for-altay-tank-project-05012/
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/turkey-scraps-sole-source-deal-opening-contest-for-altay-tank-program?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN%20DNR%206.13.17&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup

I'm trying hard to "gear up" but I have to be honest and say besides my personal issues at the time, this type of thing was a minor reason on top of everything else for my "vacation" in doing my submissions.

I can at this time easily and "for real" say-Don I have at least 20 pieces of new equipment for the following countries, this what it is, when they think it'll be in service, here's a ref or two and I even got you some good pictures to go with it.

And as we did a few years, I guarantee you at least five or more would need to be deleted. We've seen it here before.

Oh before I go found this earlier tonight from JANE'S this concerns Russian UNIT 879/BMPT. They are reporting that Russia cancelled the program. If you go with it you got at least one more slot back or more. Para 2 goes directly to the issue.
http://www.janes.com/article/71842/new-russian-bmpt-variant-displayed-in-syria

See what I mean?

JUST TRYING TO "STAY IN MY THREE FOOT WORLD".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

:banghead

YEAH BUT.........is this "new" BMPT actually in Russian service? I have serious doubts. I think they are looking for export customers and this thing fits well with what the Syrian could use right now......but if it doesn't have active ATGM measures it's just a nice shiney new target

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don, simply no on Russia. It's intended for the export market once they cancelled the program. Again from the article Kazakhstan is the only known user.

Given where it's displayed the "new" version (Developed in 2013.) BMPT-72 Terminator 2 it looks like Syria is intended as the possible second customer for the series. I can't think of a better place for a real world op eval at the moment. I'll be watching for developments.

I remember "we" had some discussion on this vehicle in the forum. I don't ever remember coming across anything saying it got canceled myself but, before I go I'm going to do a quick search.

Key words in Ref.1 Para. 1 are... "The BMPT is expected to enter service with the Russian Army during the next couple of years." Ref. 2 for FYI. Ref. 3 confirms/supports the "no go" on the BMPT as reported by JANE'S.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt_72.htm
https://sputniknews.com/military/201607301043784253-russia-new-tank/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

https://sputniknews.com/military/201607301043784253-russia-new-tank/[/B]

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

QUOTE

.........However earlier in April, Oleg Sienko, a senior manager with the manufacturer, Uralvagonzavod Corporation, told RIA Novosti that Russia also plans to develop its tank support fighting vehicle dubbed the Terminator-3 based on the country’s latest Armata tanks.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I did see that as well, and I'll keep an eye out for it however, as you know I go beyond the military to the economic and I personally think they might be over reaching with the BMPT TERMINATOR-3. That's going to be a very expensive toy when compared to everything else Russia is trying to accomplish across the board. Their economy is struggling and crude and gas are down against ruble. They've already been adjusting downward on the total of T-14 tanks from initial buy estimates (Though really not that unusual for most projects including F-35.) and we might see the same for their other ARMATA based projects of which none are inexpensive by their and many other countries standards.

This really will be more about following "the dollars" to see if the BMPT TERMINATOR-3 comes to fruition or not. We do know the previous two TERMINATOR Mods have not as far as Russia is concerned.

If it does before 2025/2026 and given the slot situation, it'll set up for some interesting decision making at that time. Given the current production issues with the T-14 as already outlined, and someone giving me a bit of a handicap, I don't see it fully put into service before Oct. 2022.

Be bold or go home, and since I just got home, I'll just be bold. ;)

For FYI...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/BMPT-terminator.php
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1672730-russia-builds-terminator-3-fighting-vehicle

Again we'll see.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[shahadi]

Russian BMPT-2 has Now Been Handed Over to the Syrians.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14793&stc=1&d=1499278947
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad stands in front of the BMPT-72 at the Russian air base at Hmeymim on June 27, 2017. Source: Reuters

Since less than a week ago, however, the Syrian army has begun operating a solitary BMPT-2. First seen during Assad's visit to Russia's Latakia air base last week, the Russian BMPT-2 has now been handed over to the Syrians.

"Reportedly it will fight with the renowned Liwa al-Quds unit which is headed for a new offensive against ISIS in eastern Hama. Liwa al-Quds ("Jerusalem Brigade") is a unit manned by Palestinian refugees which distinguished itself in the difficult battle for Aleppo city. Uralvagonzavod gets to test its vehicle in battle hoping this will lead to production orders, and the Syrians (Palestinians) get to use a potent Russian experimental weapon." (Scott.net 4 July 2017) (https://www.sott.net/article/355508-Syrian-army-receives-new-Terminator-experimental-armored-vehicle-from-Russia)

"The tragic experience of the Chechen wars demonstrated the necessity to protect tanks that operate in urban conditions. An enemy soldier with a rocket launcher in a city street could blow up a tank that has to negotiate narrow streets. Tanks are also vulnerable in rugged terrain.

On Jan. 1, 1995, a column of the 131st Separate Motor Rifle Brigade was almost totally destroyed during an attack on the Chechen capital Grozny. 22 tanks and 45 armored personnel carriers were lost due to firing by Chechen militants while the column entered the city.

To avoid such tragedies, the Russian military command had started to use the ZSU-23-4 Shilka self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon to protect tanks. These weapons have limitations. The anti-aircraft weapons cannot operate in close contact with the enemy on the ground and they lack the proper systems to detect ground targets.

It’s because of the limitations of Shilka that the first Terminator was invented. The vehicle was designed by Russian company Uralvagonzavod in the late 1990s. It was built using the chassis of the T-90 main battle tank, and was armed with 2A42 automatic cannons, AGS-17 automatic grenade launchers, a PKTM machine gun, and four launchers for ATAKA anti-tank guided missiles.

The main disadvantage of the first Terminator was its high cost, since using the T-90 ‘s chassis for an armored fighting vehicle of this type turned out to be prohibitively expensive.

This version The new machine, BMPT-72 (aka Terminator-2), was built to fix both the major and minor disadvantages of its predecessor. It succeeded by having a mechanism to protect the ATAKA missiles launchers, a new engine, and an advanced fire control system.

But the main change was in the replacement of the expensive T-90 chasses with those of the obsolete T-72 tanks. This made the Terminator-2 more affordable."
(Egorov, Boris 30 June 2017 rbhtn.com) (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rbth.com/amp/792975)

The high costs were noted by Pat in an earlier post. It would appear, if the rbth.com reporting is accurate, the BMPT-2 will be mounted on a T-72 chassis to save rubles, and may as a consequence enter Russian service in lieu of the BMPT-3.

<br>

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

T-72 it is for the T2 the below is the manufacturer site as provided by Tanks Encyclopedia from the "links" section as I had previously posted. In a nutshell much improved technology as you would expect given the developmental histories, much cheaper because of the T-72 chassis as noted (Besides the T-90S/MS is the backbone of their higher end export MBT's and the chassis would be wasted on the TERMINATOR series at this point in time.) and is much better suited to urban combat as T2 has been "powered up", suspension improved, and weighs four tons less making it more agile though, still better protected than T1.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

If Syria buys, which I think they will, as noted, Russia will be watching very closely how T2 performs during it's RL Op Eval.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[shahadi]

If Syria buys, which I think they will, as noted, Russia will be watching very closely how T2 performs during it's RL Op Eval.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

If am not sure Syria can "buy" much of anything given her six years or so of a very bitter anti-insurgency war. Really, it is remarkable the army has not folded years ago, rather than remain resilient with a large compliment of Christian, Druze, and Sunni Muslims within her professional officers. Syria manages to "pay" her army yet she has had little of any control over her gas and oil fields.

So, then it could be that part of the deal is that Syria is "buying" the vehicle via an exchange of rights to gas and oil.
<br>

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Let's not forget that Syria also offers Russia their only Mediterranean Port as well currently. I would bet they miss their anchorages off Libya and ports they had in Egypt during the Cold War. Not that I had any personal knowledge of them, been around them or under them.

Just not something we did. :angel

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'll be quick here, found the following to be very interesting in the details it provided. We finally have an actual count of how many APS munitions at least this system holds. In this case for their tanks (T-84) 8/or 12 or if you will, 2 per launcher. They don't all launch, only if the incoming threat falls within a launchers defensive arc will it fire. But the last should be already understood, this however is the first, unless I've missed it in other systems, that actually tell you how many rounds the launcher contains that again, I'm aware of.
http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/bronetehnika/49-kompleks-aktivnoy-zashchiti-zaslon

Also I reported on this quite some time ago, so the first ref is more of a refresher the real news is in the second ref. Also ref. 2 provides some very useful pictures clearly showing some of the upgrades being made.
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine-upgrades-its-antiquated-t-84-main-battle-tanks.html
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine-is-expected-to-unveil-its-upgraded-t-84-tanks-during-celebration-of-the-26th-anniversary-of-independence.html

Remember as I've had to clear this up in the past the T-84 is NOT the T-84 OPLOT-M/or just OPLOT-M. Don't want anyone to be confused by this as I've seen some media do this as well.

Never go to the "home" page when you're trying to hit the rack (:doh:) but, this is news worthy and something to watch...
http://defence-blog.com/army/russias-uralvagonzavod-to-supply-vietnam-with-64-t-90-main-battle-tanks.html

Have a great day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

For reliable protection, one armored fighting vehicle typically needs from three to six such modules to be installed, each containing two rounds of countermunition and weighing from 50 to 130 kg. In its configuration tailored to battle tanks, the system consists of a control panel housed in the tank turret, and several armored-shell modules, each containing two rounds of dedicated countermunition. Four such modules are arranged symmetrically on both sides in niches atop the tracks for concealment purposes. For detecting incoming threats, each round is fitted with a millimeter-wave radar sensor which continuously emits signals to 2.5m within an arc of 150o-180o in azimuth and -6o to +20o in elevation. Once a potential threat is detected, the system releases a dense cloud of fast-moving splinters in the trajectory path of the incoming threat, creating a 360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle, while a backup munition is automatically deployed ready to fire once the first round is disposed of.


Does this mean only one is fired per threat or multiple launches from various points on the vehicle to create this "dense cloud of fast-moving splinters "

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

What I get is...One launcher with a 150-180 degree arc of detection will fire one round against that inbound threat/then it will "detonate" and provide the platform with a full 360 degree level of protection/the second round in that same launcher will be armed to respond against another inbound threat if launched against the platform if again it still falls within it's arc of detect-ability.

From the ref...
"...system releases a (First round.-mine) dense cloud of fast-moving splinters in the trajectory path of the incoming threat, creating a 360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle, while a backup munition is automatically deployed ready to fire once the first round is disposed of."

Though I don't like that highlighted word where it is...
"360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle,"

My normal backup protocol for this type of situation has already been activated and launched. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

I would assume 2 cover the frontal arc & 2 the rear given the 150-180 coverage arcs.
Potentialy I would say 2 would cover any arc & activate unless they talk to each other & the second does not fire.
Incoming shot from the front angled like so /
Closest sensor fires first on the right front, projectile continues and enters the sensor range for the left front so it would activate unless told not to.
Best case each arc talks to each other & in overlap zones it can respond 4 times if only one fires.
Possibly more likely is 2 times through the same arc, both fire & have one reload.
It could react more if fired on from diffrent arcs.
Assuming 2 shots from the front followed by a third from the side.
The front unit covering that arc would be out of ammo but the rear unit has not triggered yet so has ammo to fire.

This reminds me I would love to know how useful is modern artillery versus modern armour?
Not talking with regards to destroying but its effect on protective systems, vision aids & targeting.
Versus a dug in target I would have thought while it might not destroy it a high overpressure attack such as thermobaric could kill the tech.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Need to get ready for bed but, quickly I hope with ZASLON there would be at least 4 launchers with 2 rounds each so minimum 8 total rounds. Again the way they've written it as I last posted, the launchers threat axis runs from 150-180 degrees of coverage. The round when "detonated" then is supposed to provide 360 protective coverage of the platform from in between the rocket or missile inbound and the platform. I can readily accept that a round fired from either the say the front left or rear left launcher would completely protect the platforms left side to include the deck and top turret. Or better using the same example, having "1/2 dome" covering the left side. I'm just not seeing a full 360 degree protective coverage over the platform.

I hope to get an answer from the source.

So how do you get around a treaty ban on cluster munitions? You develop weapons like STRIX, BONUS which the French are using with all their artillery now and precision guided rounds such as EXCALIBUR so in the case of the U.S. and a handful of others that didn't sign the CM ban treaty, "you can have your cake and eat it too!". :p

So essentially these are very fast and effective top attack weapons if you think about it. This is the reason so much of the
"hunter killer" sensors are using ballistic glass, are mounted in "armored" housing or recessed "within" the turret itself to allow for some side and overhead protection.

Industry has/is addressing these issues already for instance the ARMATA is supposed to have an operating system to counter the above threat when fielded. It will lead to a stalemate (Think about ATGW vs. these systems now, really no difference here. Some get through and some won't.) if you think of NLOS it's a multi-channel/multi-sensor munition just like BONUS. Even STRIX which is the "grandfather" of these systems out of the box was the same as NLOS etc. to lesser degree at the time.

In short yes artillery has gotten better than CM, a 155mm EXCALIBUR round is going to make for a bad day for a tank crew as it goes through a Commanders hatch.

Good hearing from you John and hope all is well.

Anyway back to work later this afternoon.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

Hi Pat all's well in my neck of the woods hope all is good with you, moving to the lakes in 6 months or so & forsaking city life completely.
Follow your posts just try not to comment in to often as mainly its an information thread.

[DRG]

The bottom line question would be ....... in an actual combat situation how many individual threats could the system deal with before running out of counter-measure ammo

[luigim]

Latest T72B3 modification:

Relikt side skirts and SLAT Armor added


http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2533332.html

It says "According to the previously published tender documents, the modification of the T-727B3 with additional protection should include:

Installation of the Sosna-U sight; The target tracking machine; Radio station R-168-25U-2 and a complex of software and hardware AVSKU; Guns of type 2А46М-5-01; Engine V-92S2F (1130 hp) with systems that ensure its operation; The display complex of the driver-mechanic and the rear-view television camera; Caterpillar belts with oblique grooves and driving wheels with improved cleanability; Onboard screens of the hull with integrated modules of dynamic protection of the "Relict" type and screened screens of the projection of the MTO hull; The recruitment of a single spare set of the kit's tank: additional dynamic protection modules in the "soft" casing, increasing the durability of the onboard projection of the hull to anti-tank cumulative means, with the possibility of their equipment and hinge under operating conditions; Dynamic protection modules and trellis screens of the tower, increasing its resistance to anti-tank cumulative means and installed instead of boxes of spare parts for the tower depending on the nature of the task; Refinement of the AZ providing use with products С-1 and С-2; Improvement of the Products in terms of providing anti-mine resistance, at which the specified activity is not performed.

Let us recall that the main designer of the NPK Uralvagonzavod Andrei Terlikov announced in June 2015 at the forum "Army-2015" about the creation of the T-72B3 variant with enhanced protection. "A new set of additional protection has been prepared for the new modification of the T-72B3," Terlikov said. - In the near future, this modification is planned to be launched into batch production. " According to Terlikov, the new modification of the T-72B3 also received a tank diesel engine with a capacity of 1130 hp. "The driver-mechanic received an automated control system that independently warns about injuries and accidents, and the commander's workplace is equipped with a panoramic sight," the representative of Uralvagonzavod added [in fact, the installation of a panoramic sight is not implemented on mass-modernized tanks. - bmpd]. "This modification proved itself from the best side," Terlikov stressed.

According to the information published in the open press, in 2015, NPK Uralvagonzavod received the first contract of the Russian Defense Ministry for major repairs with the modernization of 154 tanks of the T-72B type with reduction to the T-72BZ type with additional protection, with performance of works in 2015 -2017 years. The published documentation indicated that the contractor began to actually perform the work from October 1, 2015. According to the known information, the upgraded T-72BZ tanks with additional protection were started by surrender at the end of 2016.

On March 24, 2017, Reuters released a videotape showing the unloading in Pokrovsky (Rostov region) north of Taganrog near the Ukrainian border with the Russian Army echelon with upgraded T-72B3 tanks with additional protection."

https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/864438035215040512/photo/1

http://www.russiadefence.net/t963p375-t-72-odernisation-and-variants


https://www.facebook.com/1492252324350852/photos/p.1924316431144437/1924316431144437/?type=3&theater

Official Russian MoD source: it says "Two dozens of T-72B3 modernized tanks have been introduced into the motorized rifle formation of the 1st tank army of the Western military district."

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

Video near Ukrainian border.

This B3 Upgrade is real and alive..

[DRG]

What that looks like to me is what we have for unit 697 in the Russian OOB is very close with the exception of the start date exactly 2 years too soon based on when work actually started......though 10/16 seems to be a good enough date for actual service.......does that sound about right?

[luigim]

Unit 697 is very similar but without the addictional Relikt ERA and SLAT coverage..

So in Russian real life OOB there are 1st gen T72B3 ( with less protection) and 2nd gen T72B3 ( with added ERA and SLAT coverage) but without panoramic commander sight

and T72B3 with panoramic commander sight

but I suggest Deleting T72B2 Rogatka which is not in service

[DRG]

there are two kinds of ERA in the game basic using single digit numbers and advanced with double digit numbers....so 697 already has advanced ERA ratings.

panoramic commander sight isn't cover by the game

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

ZASLON Results: Well to say the very least a bit of a disappointment.

Mon July 10, 2017 8:55pm
From: Me
To: EDITED by request
Sir or Madam,
Good Morning! I just have a simple question concerning your ZASLON System. From having read your material, the following taken from your site caught my eye, "For detecting incoming threats, each round is fitted with a millimeter-wave radar sensor which continuously emits signals to 2.5m within an arc of 150o-180o in azimuth and -6o to +20o in elevation. Once a potential threat is detected, the system releases a dense cloud of fast-moving splinters in the trajectory path of the incoming threat, creating a 360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle, while a backup munition is automatically deployed ready to fire once the first round is disposed of." It appears to me just for clarification, that if a launchers sensor picks up a inbound threat to the platform it will fire one round that will provide that platform with a full 360 degree splinter cloud to protect it. The second round in that launcher would act as a back up to any other threat basically from the same general area. So to summarize to counter an inbound threat/launcher fires one round/it disperses a 360 degree "splinter cloud"/it destroys the inbound threat. Is this correct? If it is you have I must say, a very impressive system. I'm doing a little research on APS type systems for a game/weapons online forum and I just wanted to verify I am interpreting your system information correctly. Hopefully you can answer and or clarify this for me as I wish to post accurate information concerning the ZASLON System as long as it does not violate any classified information about it.

Thank You for any assistance you can provide and I hope you have a GREAT Day!

Regards,
Pat Conklin USN/SS Ret.

No reply, maybe they think me a Russian spy? Who knows!?!

Given what we have and if we trust the manufacturers (Remember they are trying to sell this system as well.) information we simply have to say a tank would have a minimum of four launchers a tank is a "box" with four corners after-all.

Simply 4L x 2Ea = 8SC Shots. I believe the most shots any MBT has in the game is 3 in a EW rating for any defensive system onboard.

TROPHY I believe is at least an 8 shot system possibly as high as 12.

Do you see were this is heading? Some people every now and again will still complain about the artillery "routine" which has gotten much better over the years, but, can you imagine waiting on your tanks and those of your opponents going through the "tank defensive routine" on top of that? After all what's the, though much rarer, complaint? The game takes too long.

The "capper" here for me as well is that my "worthy" opponent AI has a distinct disadvantage that I enjoy especially since I believe in Logistics, it might wish it could enjoy it as well but, it can't.

I know (Or think I know.) very simply, that the supply routine will prioritize resupply my of main armament first based on a number of game conditions such as Suppression etc. etc.

Allowing for "game time" every MBT so equipped (EW) should have a minimum of 2 and no more then 4. I actually feel across the board 4 would be ideal as some of the aerosol system can get up to 12 or more shots RW. And as discussed above for a APS type system such again, as TROPHY. It would make it more of a challenge for everyone w/o sacrificing play ability.

As far as ZASLON is concerned, from what's out there, it seems like a very good system overall.

The rest is just food for thought and I'll get a little European here, or the bin for the thought.

Probably screwed that up, it's OK!

A little news I'm tracking...

VIETNAM: Think T-90S/SK (Command version.).
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/vietnam_to_purchase_t-90s_main_battle_tank_russia_uralvagonzavod_1080717 2.html

This was confirmed by JANE'S 360, however they have drastically cut down on their archival lifespan of those articles.

As late as June however they still were considering the T-90MS. Why I try not to "jump the gun" on these things.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/the_peoples_army_of_vietnam_pavn_to_acquire_t-90ms_8840606161.html

UKRAINE: Industry in the the production of armor has been ramping up for sometime now, though it's nice to see fulfill their obligations to Thailand, it's what the first para says about Ukraine's own OPLOT-M tanks that caught my eye.

Related: Pakistan and the Ukraine an "old couple looking to find some magic again" Simply beyond the current plans to upgrade the Pakistani T-84UD tanks it looks like an improved version of the OPLOT-M is on the "near term" horizon.
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine-on-verge-of-signing-new-deal-with-pakistan.html
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukrainian-oplot-m-main-battle-tank-creates-a-sensation-at-ideas-2016.html


Good Night!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

New stuff about T72B3 mod. 2016

http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_army_unveils_new_version_of_t-72b3_main_battle_tank_upgraded_with_additional_arm our_10604172.html

http://www.janes.com/article/70252/russia-shows-off-upgraded-t-72b3-mbts-in-moscow-parade

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2017/05/12/upgraded-t-72b3-shown-in-victory-day-parade/

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.it/2017/04/russian-t-72b3-receive-armor-upgrades.html

[DRG]

I've adjusted the armour ratings based on the photos showing the position of the slat armour. I will probably adjust the Icon as well

[luigim]

Remember that we are talking about a variant of T72B3, the second production batch after 2016-2017

First batch is without extra armor

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Proceed with caution from your JANE'S ref. quote...

1) "The new versions of the T-72B3 seen in the Moscow parade featured a number of survivability upgrades over existing B3 models. (To your main point.) A new explosive reactive armour (ERA) layout fixes some of the vulnerabilities in the existing T-72B3 design and is stated to bring the vehicle to a comparable level of protection as the export (Not the same necessarily as "home" production i.e. an Indian version of the AH-64E DOES NOT have the same capabilities as ours, for it's equipped with a slightly improved LONGBOW FCS vs. ours.) T-90MS. This claim is somewhat optimistic, however, given that the latter vehicle's turret ERA layout is far more compact, with minimal space between modules, as well as these modules being the newer Relikt ERA."

2) "Frontal coverage changes are limited to the addition of a small ERA module to the left of the gun mantlet, covering a location that is fully exposed on the T-72B3. This module appears to only contain a lower and not an upper ERA panel, probably to avoid obstructing the view of the sighting unit located above and behind it."
http://www.janes.com/article/70252/russia-shows-off-upgraded-t-72b3-mbts-in-moscow-parade
https://shop.ihs.com/buy/en/ihs/aerospace-defense-security/land-warfare-platforms--armoured-fighting-vehicles-yearbook

The second ref. is the public version almost anyone can buy. I can ensure you the government sales version will add almost another $2000 USD to the above price as it contains more "stuff" in it. Point being simply, that JANE's is not will to hang their reputation on what they don't actually see as highlighted above from their ref you used. Wording is critical it can "twist" and "alter" the intent of the written and spoken true meaning of a topic.

I've been guilty of the same many times in the past especially in dealing with equipment issues in this forum-as Don will tell you along with a handful of others.

It appears Don is meeting your request but as noted the numbers are set for older versions of ERA vs. current versions.

This STILL gets "lost" out here sometimes but, Russia being one of the more notable OOB's in this category I believe it only has about 10 slots left +/-2 or 3.

2026 is a long way off yet to have very limited slots left for all the new equipment that's yet to come. And as been noted already, I already have current (Some that Don has already entered.), equipment that be operational within 3-4 years and others that should be fielded just after 2020 that I'm tracking now for Russia.

Do you know what my problem is at this very moment! Combined I have more pieces of equipment as noted above, than the Russian OOB has slots!

THAT's something to think about as we move forward.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The following is a blown up photo meant to have accompanied Post #658, it shows a model used to illustrate the new improved OPLOT-M which Pakistan is considering buying for themselves. The Ukraine is doing likewise, as discussed in the same post along with the fact it would seem the Ukraine is starting production of the OPLOT-M again. One obvious improvement is that the grenade launchers are under a "roof" type housing.
14827

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'll keep this brief, I believe we had this discussion already concerning the following...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-80bv_mbt_main_battle_tank_data_specifications_pict ures_video_1300717

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[scorpio_rocks]

Sorry Pat - Bad link

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Thanks! Hopefully this works...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-80bv_mbt_main_battle_tank_data_specifications_pict ures_video_13007173.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Just tested it twice, seems to work-sorry for any inconvenience.

[DRG]

Yes. it's in the game as the T-80BV-U

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Wasn't that something you just added a short time ago? Seems like within the last month as posted by luigim as I recall but, this past couple of months has been a "blur" to me.

Anyway just posted that because it's recent and they normally do a pretty good job putting those "tech sheets' together. I guess I could've just added "For FYI".

Regards
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Wasn't that something you just added a short time ago? Seems like within the last month as posted by luigim as I recall but, this past couple of months has been a "blur" to me.

Anyway just posted that because it's recent and they normally do a pretty good job putting those "tech sheets' together. I guess I could've just added "For FYI".

Regards
Pat
:capt:

Yes it was, I just checked the default OOB's and it's not there..........it all blurs together after awhile but the point is...it's now in the OOB's that will be released next time

[MarkSheppard]

NORINCO shows off the first VT-4 MBTs ordered by Thailand:

http://defence-blog.com/army/norinco-shows-the-first-batch-of-new-vt-4-tanks-ordered-by-thailand.html

The first batch of the VT4 main battle tanks, ordered by the Royal Thai Army, have made their public debut during a capability demonstration and exhibition of Chinese domestically developed arms at a shooting range in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region on Wednesday morning.

The Royal Thai Army has ordered 38 VT4 main battle tanks, equipped with turbocharged diesel developing 1,200hp coupled to an automatic transmission, from China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO Group). With a combat weight of 52 tonnes, the VT4 has a power-to-weight ratio of more than 23hp/tonne.

The VT4 is armed with a 125mm smoothbore gun and fitted with an automatic loader. Secondary armament of VT4 consists of coaxial 7.62-mm machine gun and remote-controlled 12.7mm MG operated by the tank commander.

The first batch of 28 tanks is expected to be delivered in this year, said General Chalermchai Sitthisart, Commander-in-Chief, Royal Thai Army.

[MarkSheppard]

NORINCO has also unveiled the new "GL-5" APS that might be installed on the latest block production of ZTZ-99s -- I wouldn't go putting it in until we see ZTZ-99 photos with APS installed.

http://defence-blog.com/army/china-unveils-gl5-active-protection-system-for-main-battle-tanks.html

By Dylan Malyasov - Aug 16, 2017228
The China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO Group) has shown for the first time its new GL5 active protection system (APS) designed for main battle tanks during the show in Baotou in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region on Wednesday morning.

According to the NORINCO, the new GL5 APS can provide Chinese armour more reliable protection against the threat for the tanks on the battlefields, including light anti-tank weapons, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). The system providing full 360-degree horizontally and 20-degree in vertical direction vehicle protection.

The GL5 APS uses a special radar to detect incoming warheads. Upon detection, a defensive rocket is fired that detonates near the inbound threat, destroying it before it hits the tank or vehicle.

The Norinco’s APS system consists of a multi-mission, fire-control radar that detects and tracks incoming threats and launcher for defensive rockets.

Experts said that the new GL5 active protection system will be installed on the new ZTZ-99 main battle tanks.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Since Mark is on a China kick again ;), here's some other toys I'm watching as well...
There really aren't that many "tank destroyers" out there right now that are really any good a notable exception would be Italy's CENTAURO among a handful of others.
http://www.iveco-otomelara.com/wheeled/centauro8x8.php
Note: I believe Italy is about to get the above as contracts were recently signed. Still have much to verify here though before anyone does anything. I can say from what I've found out thus far concerning that 120mm HPMG, it'll be able to handle anything out there. It is wise to remember a gun no matter how good is only as good as the ammo it uses to reach max. effect on the battlefield. This is why in combination we still see that modern 105mm MG's can still kill modern MBT's. I digress-sorry! :p

China has responded to the task with the ST2.
http://www.janes.com/article/66778/norinco-launches-new-tank-destroyer
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/st2.htm

Also we are to see major upgrades the TYPE 96/96A with the now 96B.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/185812/china-upgrading-type_96-tanks-according-to-tank-biathlon-experience.html
http://csef.ru/en/oborona-i-bezopasnost/505/tank-tip-96b-oczenki-i-sorevnovaniya-6946

Though Russia probably just had a "quite" laugh...
http://defence-blog.com/army/new-chinese-type-96b-tank-just-broke-down-at-tank-biathlon-competition.html

Sorry but my JANE'S links are dead, had 2 on the TYPE 96B-SORRY!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just checked that JANE's link from the above, apparently it works. I might've caught the site during a maintenance period.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[MarkSheppard]

Pat,

I think it is very important to keep in mind HOW China's Military-Industrial Complex works.

There's a lot of prototype kit produced each year by China's MIC; like the ST2:

China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) has expanded its armoured vehicle portfolio with the development of the ST2 tracked 105 mm Tank Destroying Vehicle (TDV), which is understood to have been developed specifically for the export market rather than the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

The PLA(N) recently retired their last gun armed Tank Destroyer, the PTZ-89 on 3 November 2015 from 39th Army Group in favor of more ATGMs; so chances of the ST2 being acquired by the PLA(N) are microscopic.

What does happen is that because labor costs in China are extremely low, it doesn't cost that much to design and build a few prototypes; and sometimes they score on the export market; thanks to China not being so picky what the purchaser is doing -- for example what human rights violations?

Also, the PLA(N) may use export markets to "piggyback" R&DT&E development through an export customer; so what may appear to be a 'dead end' can actually turn out to be productive; like the Pakistani Memorandum on Joint Development for tank development which produced the Type 85-II/Type-90-II/Al Khalid/MBT-2000/VT-1 family of vehicles.

Even though the Chinese version of that family: ZTZ-90 (Type 90) lost out to the ZTZ-96 (Type 96) family for the next generation of PLA tank acquistion, it still got sold decently overseas as MBT-2000/Al Khalid/VT-1.

Known Current Chinese Export Tanks under the current designation system (god, they keep changing their designations every few years) are:

Type 90-II/MBT-2000/Al Khalid --- EXPORT VERSION ----> VT-1

ZTZ-96G ---- EXPORT VERSION ---> VT-2

Type 59 (ZTZ-59) --- Modernized with new turret, 125mm gun, and similar add on armor that modern Chinese tanks have ---> VT-3

ZTZ-99G ---- EXPORT VERSION ---> VT-4

VT-5: Brand new light tank of completely new design. May be NORINCO attempting to recoup costs on a private (or public/private) venture to produce a Type 62 (ZTZ-62) replacement for the PLA(N).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

A better and more current look at the VT-5 in what's probably it's final iteration.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/china_displayed_equipment_available_for_export_818 08171.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt5_light_weight_main_battle_tank_technical_data_s heet_specifications_pictures_video_11711164.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

A little tank news from the Ukraine...
AS a further modification of the T-72B1, they have now developed the T-72AMT (And good luck trying to keep up with all these mods for the T-72 from here and their close friends to the East.). Both refs. say the Army received the first tank this month. The second ref. indicates a 130 T-72'S have already been improved to this mark and are in service. Both agree a unit is operating with them. One is saying they're still finishing testing. So here's what I think...

1) FOC OCT 2017. It "cuts to the chase" of the ambiguity of the issue from these articles. They are as I predicted over a year pressing on with tank production and I posted on this then when they hired and I forgot his name, the American that was in charge of that and more for the USA. In fact also very recently I posted an article that as a side bar mentioned how they had ramped UP production of the OPLOT-M. Ukraine is defiantly selling armor now (Memory "lighting bolt" that article dealt with Pakistan updating their T-84 and possibly looking into buying an updated version of the OPLOT-M that the Ukraine also wants to build about 3 weeks back as I recall.) sells and foreign investment is spurring on production. Anyway...

2) 3rd GEN Night Vision well that means simply the TI/GSR will be greater then 40. The OPLOT-M should be at 50 however I can't determine if this should be rated at 50 or 45.
The next should narrow that decision point down somewhat I think to the higher side.

3) At 5km this ATGW can penetrate 750mm of protected armor. Poland is looking into this ATGW as well that was developed with the help of a small Middle Eastern country. The numbers have been verified by India very recently for the ARJUN Mk II. It sounds similar to the BAR'ER or STUGNA-P weapon now used in a man portable and APC versions in the ARMY. The comparison chart was also very interesting IN REF 1.
http://spetstechnoexport.com/catalogues/494
http://www.defence24.com/361151,ukraine-implements-domestically-manufactured-anti-tank-weaponry

4) Protected by NOZH all the way around which is a highly effective ceramic armor system. There further news here concerning the T-64 BULAT apparently they now have the same system as well. OPLOT-M was the first to receive it.
And because I type so slooow...
"The tank is also hinged with anti-cumulative gratings, reducing the impact of HEAT hits, while protecting the most vulnerable parts of the tank. The engine, transmission and other components are also protected by slat armour to reduce the impact of shaped-charge weapons." from ref 1.

5) Comms very similar to Turkeys ALTAY because it is from them. Believe ALTAY will have a level III system at FOC.

6) More durable mobility and suspension system.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t-72-amt-main-battle-tank
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/186003/t_72-amt%3A-kyiv-armored-plant-implements-combat-experience-in-ato-zone.html

Now I know this next tank will cross someones mind out here, so, let me just quash that thought now. It is not the T-72UA1 that's been available to the export market since 2012 and rumored to be sometime after that in Ukrainian service.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72ua1.htm

However the fact that Ethiopia has been operating them might be of some value here.

3a)/B] I believe I got it looks like it's possibly the [B]KOMBAT ATGW or improved version which I suspect based on the articles I've read concerning India's testing of them for ARJUN. But it does fit the refs. from the beginning of the post.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/33-protivotankovie-vistreli-s-upravlyaemoy-raketoy-kombat-i-konus

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

3) At 5km this ATGW can penetrate 750mm of protected armor. Poland is looking into this ATGW as well that was developed with the help of a small Middle Eastern country. The numbers have been verified by India very recently for the ARJUN Mk II. It sounds similar to the BAR'ER or STUGNA-P weapon now used in a man portable and APC versions in the ARMY. The comparison chart was also very interesting IN REF 1.
http://spetstechnoexport.com/catalogues/494
http://www.defence24.com/361151,ukraine-implements-domestically-manufactured-anti-tank-weaponry
Regards,
Pat
:capt:

WHICH one ?? there are three listed I can see

Corsar ATGM -- 550 mm pen-- range of the missile is defined as 2.5 kilometers

Stugna-P ATGM == up to 800 mm pen -- range up to 4 kilometres

Bar’er -- 800 mm pen tandem hollow-charge -- range 100-5000 m


none show 750mm....... we added "Korsar ATGM" which is the Corsar above last release and I'm not sure why they need the Stugna if they have the Bar’er ( sounds Isreali....... )

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You might've missed my para 3a) at bottom of my last Post (Emboldening didn't take.)(2hr. edit thing) with the extra search time I came across the KOMBAT it states...

Chart at top shows the 750mm penetration at 5000m/5km. Min. range should be 100m still.

"The KOMBAT laser-beam riding precision-guided missile can launch from the 125-mm smoothbore guns mounted on the T-72, T-80UD and OPLOT main battle tanks equipped with fire control systems compatible with it."

"The KOMBAT has four fold-out fins at its extreme rear, and offers an effective range of 5,000 m which it covers in 17 seconds."

"The laser beam is only brought into coincidence with the target (tank or helicopter) for 0.3 seconds prior to impact, effectively leaving the enemy with no time to activate a laser-warning system. At a range of 5.0 km, miss distance does not exceed 0.5 m. The missile has been accepted as standard issue for the Ukrainian Armed Forces."

KOMBAT it is from what I can see from the State run UKROBORONSERVICE and as developed by State Design Bureau Luch in Kyiv, are series produced by the Artem State Joint Stock Holding Company, also based in Kyiv. So this matches the ref. as well. This is their current tank fired ATGW.

ALSO the T-72AMT has the same MG as the OPLOT-M a 125mm A246, this combined with the KOMBAT would strongly support the fact that the T-72AMT has to have an improved FCS to handle that ATGW. The below ref even states that at the start of para. 2.

Again from the bottom of my last Post...
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/33-protivotankovie-vistreli-s-upravlyaemoy-raketoy-kombat-i-konus

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

From LUCH Min Rng. 500m Max Rng 5000m. They also show the T-64 BULAT must be equipped with this as well. The Russian missiles must be no longer on these specific tanks T-64 BULAT/T-72 as noted (Such as AMT)/T-80UD/OPLOT and OPLOT-M.
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/en/production/antitank-guided-missiles-and-guidance-systems/kombat-round-comprising-antitank-guided-missile
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/images/data/Kombat_Eng.pdf

luigim posted on these in Feb. this year, found it on the web.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=51489

Gotta Gooo!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

ALSO the T-72AMT has the same MG as the OPLOT-M a 125mm A246, this combined with the KOMBAT would strongly support the fact that the T-72AMT has to have an improved FCS to handle that ATGW. The below ref even states that at the start of para. 2.
Regards,
Pat
:capt:

http://soha.vn/ukraine-tung-goi-nang-cap-t-72amt-quyet-hat-cang-t-72b3-khoi-thi-truong-xe-tang-the-gioi-20170810154048992.htm

you'll need to run the translator


Ukraine has introduced the new T-72AMT upgrade package, basically it is not so different from the previous T-72AG.
The most significant change was the 6TD-2 turbocharged diesel engine with a capacity of 1,200 horsepower; Added lateral armor as well as turret armor, enhanced contact armor 1 on the front; TKN-ZUM viewfinder for 12.7mm machine gun; 1K-13-49 and TNK-72 viewfinder for the gunner with the head of the car ...

Thanks to a ballistic computer and a laser beam projector, the T-72AMT can fire a Kombat (AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank missile with a range of 5,000 m over the barrel, as well as accurately firing bullets through kinetic energy. Up to 2,500 m in size.



so really its the AG we had in the last update with some tweaks

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don yes I think that would be a good comparison. The difference between the two is in the timing and circumstances of their availability. The AG was more in response to an urgent need to get a better protected T-72 in the field as quick as possible with some other minor improvements.

With the both the slower op tempo then truce holding to some degree over the last few months, you have to look at the AMT as a much better planned/designed out tank with specific goals in mind as already noted. My general feeling is it should just about/or be on par with Russia's T-72B3/4 It certainly has the edge when it comes to the ATGW issue.

Ukraine is no "slouch" when it comes to tank development, munitions, power plants and most importantly protection. We would do well to remember they are a player in the selling of and modification of weapons systems. Also and especially since Russia's incursion into the Crimea, how much foreign technical and investment in the defense industry they've received from many countries.

Also as a side note I think the reason now why the OPLOT-M isn't at the front is because the Ukraine doesn't want to be seen as escalating the situation in Eastern Ukraine. I believe this is why Russia pulled out the few T-72B3 tanks they suppositely had in the region. A little over a year ago the Ukraine only had about 10 OPLOT-M tanks. Today that number appears to be about 40-60 tanks with an improved version ready to be built and to modernize the existing tanks further.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I got excited when I saw the title on the website hoping as they just posted this yesterday (now) it would be one of their "tech sheets" however it's not. Same as we already have with the exception they're reporting that the Ukraine already has 130 of these in the field in the ATO. I think I still like Oct. though, it sounds safer.

So why bother? I thought the pictures in the article would be useful. As you look at the top picture on the left of the MG you can see what appears to be ATGW detector/jammer similar to SHORTORA. Now look center line on the turret top next to the 12.7mm NVS and you'll see the same but smaller. If it is as I suspect, it has to be there to detect top attack ATGW's.

The second picture below clearly shows the slat armor. A bit of a mystery as you look at the same picture is what's the purpose of that housing unit the grenade launchers appear to be riding on, turret aft.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/t-72amt_main_battle_tank_ukroboronprom_for_ukrainian _army_12908175.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I have a catalog of websites I use for equipment only data or the former plus defense news. Well this is one of my equipment only sites I've had for years now and would you BELIEVE they have the audacity to talk about KOMBAT. This should pretty much close the books on that topic to some degree...the nerve of these people :D!!
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/bronetehnika/56-osnovnoy-boevoy-tank-t-84-oplot

Is the T-64BM BULAT better then we think? Maybe after reading this, maybe. What interesting here is that it comes with two separate MG's, both the KBA3 (Same as OPLOT-M.) with a similar FCS as found on the OPLOT-M, T-80U, T-80UD and T-90. With exception of the T-90, all others can fire the KOMBAT. This would again support KOMBAT for this tank as well. The other MG is the 2A46M-1 which is a much improved version of the 2A46 standard MG of many earlier T-72 mods.
It would seem based on earlier refs. the T-64BM BULAT tanks that have this MG (KBA3) can support the KOMBAT as well because the primary driver is the FCS which this tank has.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/bronetehnika/57-osnovnoy-boevoy-tank-t-64bm-bulat

There might be some news here concerning the T-72AG in what was improved including night vision out to 1200m, protection etc. but again the MG is the issue, it does carry the standard 2A46 but also the KBA1. (Plus a NATO 120mm as well though for export mods only.)
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/bronetehnika/59-boevoy-tank-t-72-ag

So what's left is can the tanks with the T-72AG/KBA1 and T-64BM BULAT/2A46M-1 armed tanks support KOMBAT?

Further I've had to deal with this next topic I don't know how many times over the years. It's a minor issue but they seem to "grate' on me the most at times (SORRY.) but for the last time I hope :rolleyes: from the source itself...
"The T-72 upgrade is powered by newly-designed 6TD-series engine which was developed specifically for the T-80UD MBT application otherwise known as OPLOT, replacing a standard 780/840 hp engine equipping the baseline T-72."

So a word about the source ref. here I hope most understand that UKROBORONSERVICE is the marketing side of the Defense Industry in the Ukraine. It would be a very, very bad thing to mislead potential customers of your equipment's capabilities. And I'll leave it at that for any legitimate company in any country.

I'll have to look into this further with those MG's.

Lastly for now anyway below are their weapons offerings except for what I need right now of course!!
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

T-72AG can fire KOMBAT now with the KBA1/KBM1 (Same MG) from the tank manufacturer. Those upgrades were made as recommended in the ref below, but not originally, those upgrades appeared to have happened within the last couple of years (Mid+ 2015) or so. I don't believe they came "out of the gate" with the newer gun or FCS.
"It is possible that the T-72AG retains the original 125mm 2A46 smoothbore gun when being upgraded. However, as the original weapon system errors are considerable when the gun is fired, this leading to a lower tank gun accuracy and to degradation of the performance of the whole weapon system, it would be expedient to replace the current gun with a Ukrainian-made updated 125mm gun designated KBM1 in order to achieve the highest hit probability from the tank weapon system not only in static engagements, but also in moving target or moving-own-vehicle engagements."
Done now.

"The new tank fire-control system can include a missile guidance system, with the 125mm guided missile being able to achieve effective penetration of the armour of all in-service tanks at all reasonable battle ranges. The guided missile equipment is similar to that installed in the Oplot MBT and enables the T-72AG to fire a laser beam-riding missile out to a maximum range of 5,000 m."
That's KOMBAT the Russian missiles (REFLEX series(?) they had and manufactured also just don't have that range.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72m3.php
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/kbm1m.php

A comparison between the T-72 and T-72AG with a reminder of where and who built the T-72 during the Cold War...
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72ag.php

T-64BM BULAT it appears with the 2A46M-1 it cannot fire the KOMBAT ATGW but primarily it's equipped to fire the 9K119 (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) but these have been phased out by now as far as I can tell. And that ATGW isn't listed on any of their manufacturing sites that I can see.

Lastly for real...came across this site which seems very interesting. The site is Ukrainian but I found the following paras from it very interesting and it does seem to substantiate the "rumors" of German help concerning the in the development of the KBA3 MG and possibly the OPLOT-M itself as posted several years back. That particular section starts at paras 15 - 20
http://bintel.com.ua/en/article/opk3/.

[luigim]

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80bvm.htm here is the beast

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

luigim check Post #666 :eek: in this thread, I posted army recognition's tech sheet on the T-80BV there. You might find it useful.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[luigim]

luigim check Post #666 :eek: in this thread, I posted army recognition's tech sheet on the T-80BV there. You might find it useful.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

I'm talking about the new modernized T80BVM version, on par with T90M ( relikt and new fcs)

[DRG]

Which is what the T-80BV-U (upgrade) was supposed to be ( I think ........) it's seems there are upgrades to upgrades reported every month

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2015/10/17/t-90ms-tagil-the-new-improved-version-of-the-best-russian-mbt/

no reactive armour showing on the hull front for the T-90m and most interesting..or perhaps it's that the joins between the reactive are much closer than before


The T-90SM has the latest version of the 2A6M 125mm smoothbore series, the 2A46M-5. The main gun enables the vehicle to fire 4 types of ammunition to engage targets at varying ranges.
1. HEF (High-Explosive Fragmentary) to a range of 12km
2. GM (Guided Missile) the Refleks anti-tank missile to a range of 5km
3. APDS (Armour-piercing discarding sabot) to a range of 3km
4. HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) to a range of 3km



Gee......HEAT range of 3km......that's a bit ( sarcasm ..:re:) shy of what we credit it for now

IF ( if....really BIG "if" ) that is correct that is considerably LESS than we credit the guns performance ...and it's derivatives now

Sabot range of 3 km is 60 in game.....right now the 125mm Gun 05 and the Armatas 125mm Gun 16 is 130......that is a HUGE difference that will need further investigation......IF that info above is indeed correct it has " game changer " written all over it. The ONLY value listed there that matches what we use in the game now is the range of the Refleks

wonderful.......just :censor:ing wonderful......

[DRG]

Can someone get me a definitive ammo loadout for the T-80 series please

This...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80
has data that conflicts with numbers we've used for years

Main
armament
125 mm 2A46-2 smoothbore gun,[10] 36 rounds T-80B, 2A46M-1 with 45 rounds T-80U
9M112 Kobra ATGM, 4 missiles T-80B, 9M119 Refleks ATGM, 6 missiles T-80U[7]

Our load for the 80B is 34 rounds and 6 missiles according to that is should be 36 rounds with 4 missiles so it's at least close but our T-80U is WAY short by 12 rounds 125mm ammo if this info is correct........it currently carries only 33 125mm rounds and 6 ( the correct number ) of ATGM

Now ,I know for certain that none of those numbers we have there were just tossed in but that's what it looks like and I want to get this corrected

.....this is shaping up to be a PITA release already and we haven't really started yet

THIS----http://www.janes.com/article/73927/russian-mod-unveils-t-90m-t-80bvm-mbts

says the BVM carries "an ammunition load of 45 rounds" but many sources roll in the Refkeks into ammo count so is that 45 WITH Refleks or 45 total sabot/HE/Heat with room for 6 extra Refleks.......:confused::eek::mad:

[luigim]

http://www.russiadefence.net/t1791p150-the-t-80s-future-in-the-russian-army

Seems that they have improved front armor for both T80BVM and T90M

[redcoat2]

The U.S. Army is preparing to receive its first six newly-upgraded M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams MBT pilot vehicles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=Fq7wYIvU0ig

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'll give this a shot...
Russia:

T-80 up to T-80UK 40Rds.

T-80B first to carry ATGW AT-8 SONGSTER had very poor accuracy due to MG and FCS.

T-80UK and it seems other command tanks of the series only carried 30Rds which makes absolute sense because of all the additional radio equipment carried onboard.

T-80U and later First to have AT-11 and later AT-11M (Laser Beam rider.) and improved AT-11M-1 currently. 45Rds APFSDS/HEAT/HEF & ATGW. Also these tanks carried both the 125mm 2A46M-1/2A46M-4 (In later models.) MG's.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

Ukraine: They designed and built some these tanks (Not as primary.) You will note they've modified their tanks from Russian standards and use a different ammo type as well. This includes the Pakistani T-80 tanks as well.

T-80UD designed in Ukraine by KMDB carries 45Rds. APFSDS (3VBM17 "MANGO")/HEAT/HE-FRAG & ATGW (AT-11 SNIPER-B)
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t80ud.php

T-84 OPLOT/T-84 OPLOT-M 46Rds. carried. Ammo load-out at very bottom of ref.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot_mbt.php

NOTES: Already switching to KOMBAT ATGW due to better range and accuracy.

Also in regards to the Ukraine in lieu of ref. 2 above for Russia, I will always go with the manufacturer when I can get because as already pointed out recently, they're trying to sell and or upgrade these tanks for export and current users. Pakistan again as noted, has already contracted the Ukraine to do a major upgrade to their T-80UD tanks. It wouldn't surprise me to see the same or similar happen with the Ukrainian tanks in the next couple of years as well.

More then tired right now hope this helps in my current "mindset"-good night!!


Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

OK there will be corrections made

[DRG]

If you find anything on the range of the Russian Sabot and HEAT rounds that would be very helpful.... I want to say that source in post 687 is wrong but maybe its not..and if it's not wrong.....well.......there is much work to do

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

From fprado again and I've seen his site ref'd many times by other defense sites (DID, armyrec. ETC.) to the point I have to give some credence to the data, points to the following...
REFLEKS 9M119/9M119M - 100m - 4000m.

REFLEKS-M 9M119M - 5000m

AMMO - 3000m - 4000m Max. effective depending on type. I would think, but could be wrong, with my very basic understanding of the ammo from the lower end up that'll be HEF > HEAT > APFSDS >/= ATGW.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

Might be useful or not.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

That's all I have time for now.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Is this the same as a HEF round...
125-mm HE-Shrapnel Focused-fragmentation, Ainet
Maximum Aimed Range (m): 5,000
Max Effective Range (m): Day: 4,000
Night: 800-1,300
Tactical AA Range: 4,000-5,000
Armor Penetration (mm): INA

The above is taken for the T-80U from the USA WEG (Worldwide Equipment Guide) starting on page 4-21 you will also note they provide ammo load/typical combat load information. Also Day and Night ranges for the ammo and notes delineate restrictive factors such as imposed by sights etc.

I've posted these in here, probably in this thread(?), this the 1999 version (Mentions the T-80UD as just coming on line for the Ukraine.

Maybe this might prevent some hair pulling!?!
https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/army-rotc/weg.pdf

I'll bet anything there's some JANE's in this data, the format is almost the same as well w/o the pictures.

Starting to feel the reason why I got up, time to read a book (On Brain Boru most interesting person.) and back in the rack!?! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

WEG 2011 Guide...
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll11/id/2089

Just released March THIS YEAR update to 2015 guide.
https://publicintelligence.net/us-army-worldwide-equipment-guide/

Amazon for download offers Land/Air/Sea 2015 (Complete Set)
https://www.amazon.com/Volumes-1-3-Worldwide-Equipment-Update-ebook/dp/B0737FVCRG

WEG 2014:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/304960189/Worldwide-Equipment-Guide-2014-FINAL-Vol-1-Ground-Systems
MIGHT NEED TO SETUP AN ACCOUNT TO DOWNLOAD. I've had one for years just for this kind of information.

WEG 2001: And I'm done now with this...;)
https://archive.org/details/OPFOR_Worldwide_Equipment_Guide

DONE!! Sometimes we forget what's so obvious when compared civilian sources we normally deal with out here. This doesn't include the FM equipment guides myself and others have posted out here. Certainly better for our purposes when they can be used versus the conjecture of BLOGS and especially anything WIKI where any of us can be "experts" and change data on a whim.

[DRG]

I'll take a good look at this in a week or so but a quick look indicated for the 125mm guns both the sabot and HEAT have a max effective range of 3000m....that's 60 in game hexes and FWIW....HALF what we have allowed. My first task will be to figure out why that tiny detail has been overlooked by everyone for nearly 20 years but this is not just an issue with Russian guns......the info for the Chieftain Mk 5 is no different 120-mm APFSDS-T, L23A1Max Effective Range Day: 3,000m.....German Main Battle Tank Leopard 2

120-mm APFSDS-T, DM43--- Maximum Aimed Range(m): 3,500 Max Effective Range Day: INA

120-mm APFSDS-T, US Olin GD120 Maximum Aimed Range: 3,500 Max Effective Range Day: 3,000
Night: INA

120-mm HEAT-MP-T, DM-12A1/US Olin M830 Max Effective Range Day: 2,500

That last one is the US M830 and in game terms that 2500m = 50 hexes

So it would appear, and it truly baffles me how this developed, but every tank gun range is high......so the " good news" is it's not just one type or nation that is out....they ALL are and the other " good news" is the stated Maximum Aimed Range is well within the Maximum Aimed Range that most maps in the game allow anyway so for most games what you get is not any different than RL. That said, it still surprises me that after all these years NOBODY has taken issue with the tank gun ranges...more surprising than that we didn't catch it either...the simple fact is we are allowing, on average, sabot ranges that are double what they are capable of in RL for all nations

[Aeraaa]

I'll take a good look at this in a week or so but a quick look indicated for the 125mm guns both the sabot and HEAT have a max effective range of 3000m....that's 60 in game hexes and FWIW....HALF what we have allowed. My first task will be to figure out why that tiny detail has been overlooked by everyone for nearly 20 years but this is not just an issue with Russian guns......the info for the Chieftain Mk 5 is no different 120-mm APFSDS-T, L23A1Max Effective Range Day: 3,000m.....German Main Battle Tank Leopard 2

120-mm APFSDS-T, DM43--- Maximum Aimed Range(m): 3,500 Max Effective Range Day: INA

120-mm APFSDS-T, US Olin GD120 Maximum Aimed Range: 3,500 Max Effective Range Day: 3,000
Night: INA

120-mm HEAT-MP-T, DM-12A1/US Olin M830 Max Effective Range Day: 2,500

That last one is the US M830 and in game terms that 2500m = 50 hexes

So it would appear, and it truly baffles me how this developed, but every tank gun range is high......so the " good news" is it's not just one type or nation that is out....they ALL are and the other " good news" is the stated Maximum Aimed Range is well within the Maximum Aimed Range that most maps in the game allow anyway so for most games what you get is not any different than RL. That said, it still surprises me that after all these years NOBODY has taken issue with the tank gun ranges...more surprising than that we didn't catch it either...the simple fact is we are allowing, on average, sabot ranges that are double what they are capable of in RL for all nations

There was an exercise made by the Greek army this August in which a Leo-2A6 hit a target at 5800 meters. Granted, the conditions it achieved that were ideal and I do not know if it was a first round hit (it most probably wasn't) but the point is that tank hits at extreme ranges are possible. Wasn't there a Challenger that made an actual combat kill in 1991 at around the same range?

The best solution is to keep the current combat ranges, but make accuracy beyond 3000 meters very low, so a hit in those distances a matter of luck.

[DRG]

Well, that is certainly a solution that preserves what is left of my hair.....:re:

I'm going canoeing for a week starting Saturday and that will give me time to "refect" on this issue

There are some basic " game facts" that put why this has been overlooked for so long into focus......

..... you NEVER get to take a shot at maximum gun LOS range in the game....for one thing, the max visibility is only 90 in scenarios and 99 in generated battles and the chances of getting a dead flat map for 99 + hexes is slim to none so it's really a moot point that the ranges are longer than they should be. Your 5800m Greek example is 116 hexes. An impressive shot to be sure but you'll never make it in the game because 99 ( two digits ) is THE maximum...there CANNOT be more without screwing up every save game and scenario ever made so that is NOT going to change ever.

That said I'm not sure why we ended up with the OOB version of "mission creep" when we all should have known 99 was the LOS limit

Another issue is the penetration data changes based on the max range and last time I checked what we have now was giving pen data at normal combat ranges that fit RL but that will need re-checking

RECHECKED a couple at random and the pen values at published ranges are very close with the current set up

[Mobhack]

The ranges are "high" only because they have to be high in order to get the desired effects at the intermediate ranges due to the high effect of the draw-down in AP values in the code if you used say "3KM" as the max range like it was some sort of atgm.

3km is an effective range, the max sabot range is theoretical. The rounds can go further as in real life, but effect will drop off.

If you took some gun that had say 30cm penetration at the muzzle, and then plonked in 60 hexes max sabot (or AP) range, then looked at the values in APcalc then you would see that your round dives in effect very steeply, and the effect at 20, 40 etc range gates would fall well below the desired effect. Effectively your APDS round would then behave as an APCR/HVAP arrow munition as in ww2 with a rapid fall-off in velocity.

Due to the draw-down effect of the formula baked into the code you must use a max range well beyond the theoretical max effective range so the line goes through the correct data points.

Guns dont stop dead at some theoretical "max effective range" - missiles though will due to wire length, or other fire-control issues.

[DRG]

Thanks for reminding me

I was not having a "good day" and this dropped in my lap like flaming pine pitch......:eek:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Thank you Andy, that's what I tried to show in the below ref. I used in Post #694, the table at the bottom of the ref. On similar tables I've seen, the 2000m/2500m marks seem to represent the average benchmark distance used to determine a shells effectiveness of delivery, burn and ultimately penetration and damage assessment. Though to a lesser degree today, Mother Nature, primarily wind, temp/humidity, lift/drag and gravity. Without a benchmark whether it's ammo, your CPU or Graphics card etc. etc. pick something, you'll never know how the subject compares against another of the same or like type object.

I'm just glad I came across those WEG's as they bear this out as the tanks and ammo have advanced through time. The numbers along the timeline are actually very close regardless of who they belong to. It's the other factors that make the biggest difference on the battlefield such as the MG, FCS, Protection, EW, Experience/Training, ROF shall I go on? Too many to count, but, all that I've listed and the others are damm (As in holding water back.) factored in by Andy and Don. And if I to far off base here I'd appreciate a correction here.

To me range never meant a thing (weapons) in the game unless, we're talking about VISION that's the artificiality I'm concerned with here when it comes to equipment that makes me see "forever". How many times also, have others like myself discussed infinitive the importance of LOS out here in the forums and terrain masking when setting up covering fire etc. and moving your troops around? Only in certain environments (Desert/Plains.) will the ammo be more important in general.

There might be some adjusts to be made but, especially after for me and it makes absolute sense when again you look at the below ref. and Andy's Post, I think we're not as bad off as thought.

You'll if you read the table correctly, will see the difference between expected penetration levels for these rounds versus actual for them at the benchmark 2000m mark. That (On average at around 50mm.) represents the difference between a kill or for the crew a chance to "limp home"-maybe.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

These graphs should hopefully tie this up in a simple manner.
14921 14922

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Here we go...
CHANGE/UNIT 538/ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V3/START DATE 4/117 to 5/120//
Prototypes (6) to the USA by end of this month, or Oct.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2017_global_defense_security_news_indust ry/u.s._army_will_receive_first_m1a2_abrams_sep_v3_mb t_main_battle_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a2_abrams_sep_v3_main_battle_tank_technical_data _sheet_specifications_pictures_video_11710154.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well no one can say I haven't been watching this for some years now, and now it's finally done thanks to the combat experiences of the IDF which I believe finally drove home the need to get this done-the USA has finally got an APS system. When the process started there were I believe upwards of five systems being evaluated. The USA has chosen the TROPHY APS system for the M1A2 SEP V2 (And only for now.) the article is indicating the system has already begun being installed on the tanks.

I recommend the following as I also believe some of those tanks have it as well...
USA/ADD/JAN 2018/M1A2 SEP V2/COPY UNIT 517/CHANGE EW 0 TO EW 2/4 TROPHY/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.// ALSO...
USA/CHANGE/UNITS 517 M1A2 SEP V2 & 538 M1A2 SEP V3/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.//
When submitted in Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013 under MBT's...A1 M1A2 SEP V2 the unit was submitted to have the 50 CAL CROWS II RWS. For all the Patch Posts I've submitted, I've maintained a hard copy of each. When the Patch comes out I do a line item check against what I submitted and what actually was put in. Reading from my "crib" notes in the margin are the following...
"TI/GSR 50" with check mark and "THANKS 898/899 NEW BRADLEY" (A reminder which I posted to Don later.) this tells me it was originally put in the game with the CROWS II RWS. Am I off base here and I missed it then? Or was it changed afterwards? I think however there's a performance difference between the two 50 CAL weapons in the game. A note about the ref., in the title it does say..."...tanks fitted with..." and not "will be" "soon to be" "in the future" "expected to be" "planned to be" etc. etc.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/us_army_m1a2_sep_v2_mbt_tanks_fitted_with_israeli_ trophy_active_protection_system.html
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/missile-defense-for-tanks-raytheon-quick-kill-vs-israeli-trophy/
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Army-Tanks-Strykers-Bradleys-Get-Vehicle-Mounted-Active-Protecti-101454662
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/06/07/us-army-ready-field-israeli-anti-missile-tech-chief-hints/

Maybe going back to my "crib" notes is how I should ease myself "back into the game"?

Confirmed Thailand to get first 28 VT 4 MBT's between 08 -15 Oct. 2017. Still staying with my fielding date as already posted earlier to allow for fitting out and crew training and certification. Updated ref.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_to_receive_the_first_batch_of_28_vt4_main _battle_tank.html

4am time to be "stealthy" as not to risk the wrath of you know who! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

The CROWS was never entered until today..

[Mobhack]

Crows and similar remote weapon stations are simply a TMG (not an AAMG that can get suppressed and lose shots) or regular MG or AGL with stabiliser added to the vehicle (if it did not have it, just 1 usually on say a hummer). And some form of night vision - usually TI, sometimes 30 or so for Image Intensifiers, if the intel points to that. Then stir in some RF and FC.

See for example USA OOB Units #798, 799 (with RWS) and 348, 349, 658, 659 without.

cheers
Andy

[Imp]

Well no one can say I haven't been watching this for some years now, and now it's finally done thanks to the combat experiences of the IDF which I believe finally drove home the need to get this done-the USA has finally got an APS system. When the process started there were I believe upwards of five systems being evaluated. The USA has chosen the TROPHY APS system for the M1A2 SEP V2 (And only for now.) the article is indicating the system has already begun being installed on the tanks.

I recommend the following as I also believe some of those tanks have it as well...
USA/ADD/JAN 2018/M1A2 SEP V2/COPY UNIT 517/CHANGE EW 0 TO EW 2/4 TROPHY/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.// ALSO...
USA/CHANGE/UNITS 517 M1A2 SEP V2 & 538 M1A2 SEP V3/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.//
When submitted in Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013 under MBT's...A1 M1A2 SEP V2 the unit was submitted to have the 50 CAL CROWS II RWS. For all the Patch Posts I've submitted, I've maintained a hard copy of each. When the Patch comes out I do a line item check against what I submitted and what actually was put in. Reading from my "crib" notes in the margin are the following...
"TI/GSR 50" with check mark and "THANKS 898/899 NEW BRADLEY" (A reminder which I posted to Don later.) this tells me it was originally put in the game with the CROWS II RWS. Am I off base here and I missed it then? Or was it changed afterwards? I think however there's a performance difference between the two 50 CAL weapons in the game. A note about the ref., in the title it does say..."...tanks fitted with..." and not "will be" "soon to be" "in the future" "expected to be" "planned to be" etc. etc.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/us_army_m1a2_sep_v2_mbt_tanks_fitted_with_israeli_ trophy_active_protection_system.html
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/missile-defense-for-tanks-raytheon-quick-kill-vs-israeli-trophy/
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Army-Tanks-Strykers-Bradleys-Get-Vehicle-Mounted-Active-Protecti-101454662
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/06/07/us-army-ready-field-israeli-anti-missile-tech-chief-hints/

Maybe going back to my "crib" notes is how I should ease myself "back into the game"?

Confirmed Thailand to get first 28 VT 4 MBT's between 08 -15 Oct. 2017. Still staying with my fielding date as already posted earlier to allow for fitting out and crew training and certification. Updated ref.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_to_receive_the_first_batch_of_28_vt4_main _battle_tank.html

4am time to be "stealthy" as not to risk the wrath of you know who! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Extract from
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1328736/

General Dynamics Land Systems Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan, has been awarded a $9,899,995 modification (P00027) to contract W56HZV-17-C-0067 to support and urgent material release and have first unit equipped on trophy installed on an Armor Brigade Combat Team’s M1A2 SEPv2. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of March 29, 2019. Fiscal 2017 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $9,899,995 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.

Despite being an urgent material release look at the timeframe for completion.
One could argue it could actualy become urgent & get fast tracked though & call me cynical the army seems adverse to using none home grown stuff.
Adding new stuff in general probably the date in most cases should be pushed back 6-12 months.
Country orders 50 whatever recieves first 10 on so & so. Probably used for training does not enter combat service for quite a while.

[Suhiir]

Crows and similar remote weapon stations are simply a TMG (not an AAMG that can get suppressed and lose shots) or regular MG or AGL with stabiliser added to the vehicle (if it did not have it, just 1 usually on say a hummer). And some form of night vision - usually TI, sometimes 30 or so for Image Intensifiers, if the intel points to that. Then stir in some RF and FC.

See for example USA OOB Units #798, 799 (with RWS) and 348, 349, 658, 659 without.

cheers
Andy

Currently the values I've been using for the CROWS system are:
Fire Control = 3
Range Finder = 3
Stabilizer = 1
Vision = 40 (usually)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well modern medium sized tanks are slowly gaining popularity again with the advent of high pressure 105mm guns (Effective range is 4000m) and the ever improving ammo associated with these guns. To spend the added "dollars" to give these tanks and others like them, advanced "hunter killer" systems etc. shows the confidence they have in them to "get the job done" in the field. This I've been watching for a couple of years now. The tank is a joint venture between Turkey and
Indonesia.

Too early to throw out a date for this tank, will just have to be patient with this one for awhile.
[B]https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/first_public_appearance_for_kaplan_mt_medium_tank_ indonesia.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/turkey_turkish_light_armoured_vehicles_uk/mmwt_modern_medium_weight_tank_fnss_105mm_ct-cv_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_vi deo_10412164.html

Now for some much needed sleep, and by the way, my mission to be stealthy was a success! :D Good Night/or Morning!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Crows and similar remote weapon stations are simply a TMG (not an AAMG that can get suppressed and lose shots) or regular MG or AGL with stabiliser added to the vehicle (if it did not have it, just 1 usually on say a hummer). And some form of night vision - usually TI, sometimes 30 or so for Image Intensifiers, if the intel points to that. Then stir in some RF and FC.

See for example USA OOB Units #798, 799 (with RWS) and 348, 349, 658, 659 without.

cheers
Andy

Currently the values I've been using for the CROWS system are:
Fire Control = 3
Range Finder = 3
Stabilizer = 1
Vision = 40 (usually)

Exactly why I never bothered wasting a weapons slot on it for the high end MBT's and such that already have FC/RF/S/V ratings that far exceed those numbers. But I added it this time as a "why not" I'm less concerned with running out of slots than I once was. The "CROWS" in game now has a slightly enhanced HEK value than a normal 12.7

[Suhiir]

The "CROWS" in game now has a slightly enhanced HEK value than a normal 12.7
I wasn't aware you'd improved the HEK (presumably by 1?) and have been using the normal HMG/MMGs for CROWS mounts. Does such a slight increase in HEK actually have a noticeable effect on the weapon?

[redcoat2]

Taiwan is looking at ways to locally upgrade its M60A3 MBTs.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/10/06/giving-up-on-abrams-tank-acquisition-taiwan-moves-to-upgrade-its-m60a3-tanks/

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

We ALWAYS get questions about armor the various types etc. I have pulled from this source many times out here when the topic has come up and as your finding I never could figure out how to get it out, until this evening-again thanks Don.

Armor types and still relevant and this might alter some thinking of armor. I believe it's about as good as we'll get to some degree...
14946

Again as was posted earlier in green/white papers APS systems which belongs here as well.
14947

The next is a little different, you've heard me talk about how economics is the driver for Defense spending in all areas concerned. My purpose originally here had to do with the state of the French Air Force as far as current equipment was concerned (Something triggered the search but, as Don and others know well it always manages to take me on a different related search lost now.). You will get all the numbers, percentages etc. etc. ALL IN PRETTY COLORED GRAPHS!! :D Also though for you that track France or their equipment, a current equipment listing and numbers as of 2016 complied from the end of 2015. Good enough I feel to post it hear because after all this thread gets the most attention of the one's I started out here. Of course I strive to provide a quality product ;), so this is from the French MOD.
14948

I shall now "en devour" to enjoy the rest of the evening!

bonne nuit!

Cordialement,
Patrick
(Same in English as French/No Pat in French for names. You learn something everyday. At least I know now if in France not to introduce myself as Pat as they might wonder why I want to "pat" something!?!)
:capt:

[redcoat2]

There have been comments on Chinese social media that the first batch of VT-4 MBTs has been delivered to the Royal Thai Army (obat 54). Jane's 360 reported that the first batch was due to be delivered this week:

http://www.janes.com/article/74568/royal-thai-army-set-to-take-delivery-of-vt4s

[MarkSheppard]

Taiwan is looking at ways to locally upgrade its M60A3 MBTs.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/10/06/giving-up-on-abrams-tank-acquisition-taiwan-moves-to-upgrade-its-m60a3-tanks/

They also apparently killed efforts to acquire M1 Abrams to pay for this as well. :(

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Taiwan has been trying to get the M1 for almost 10yrs now w/o success. It would seem as far as the Chinese are concerned this would be a "deal breaker" in more ways then one. However it's in the air where Taiwan is making out with a major upgrade package I believe already started or soon to begin for their F-16's and Patriot systems. Naval side is also benefiting as well. For now armor is off the table for us, however, there have been rumors someone might fill that need instead of us. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone from the Middleeast either upfront or behind the scenes helps with those tank upgrades. ;) I have it out here in a couple of threads but, I'd highly recommend you go to the Defense Industry Daily (DID) webside they have a continually updated article covering all aspects of Taiwan's weapons desires and actual acquisitions.

Regards,
Pat

Just went to DID, in the search box, type in "Taiwan" you want the second result "Taiwan's Force Modernization: The American Side." It'll bring you fully up to date as of 5 Sep. 2017 that includes all I've discussed above and more. The F-16 upgrade will bring their F-16A/B fighters up to the top of the line F-16V which is a 4th Gen ++ fighter inline with the GRIPEN NG. Told you China's not happy about this at all.

Not home on my PC and the wife's APPLE AYRE isn't letting me do what I want. I'm sure it's just operator error. :D

[redcoat2]

China has officially confirmed that it has deployed its new light tank (ZTQ / maybe ZTQ-15):

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-10/11/content_33103697.htm

[Imp]

Link to new Russian armour with some very good photos.

http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html

[Pibwl]

Turkey OOB32:

39 Leopard 2T (aka NG): judging from a date, it should be in service for several months. I could not find any info in the net, that they were completed (or even ordered as for now).
Anyway, according to http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2ng.htm and other sources, it still has L44 gun.

BTW: isn't it worth for German 2A6 and 2A7 to be fitted with icons with longer guns, than 2A4?..

Indonesia OOB71:

17 Leopard 2RI - "According to an IHS Jane's report from September 2016, Indonesia had by then taken delivery of 24 Leopard 2 RI MBTs" (now 6/14) http://www.janes.com/article/66604/indonesia-receives-a-further-16-leopard-2-ri-main-battle-tanks
http://defense-studies.blogspot.my/2016/05/indonesian-army-awaiting-arrival-of.html

It doesn't say they have L55 guns, and it would be quite strange (what for in Indonesia?..). I may be wrong, but this film also doesn't show enormous guns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA42gbjjdV8

It apparently bought also ordinary Leo 2A4 from May 2016:
https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/indonesia-receives-first-batch-of-new-german-made-main-battle-tanks/
http://defence-blog.com/army/indonesia-awaiting-arrival-of-german-made-leopard-ri-tank.html

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The ever changing world...This is why you just can't submit a piece of equipment and forget about. I have many times in the past just simply posted a couple of refs. indicating that "X" country received "R" equipment sometimes a couple of years or more later. I have done so regarding this Indonesian tank deal. There was some comprise involved to account for the MBT chosen much of related to the fact most of the information we had pointed to the LEO 2A6, specifically German UNIT 033. Due to the political nature of this deal little information was out there, but, that being said, German UNIT 033 did fit the bill for the upgraded LEO-2RI, because they received the LEO 2A4+ which was/is brought up to the 2A6 standard and with the improvements on that tank the UNIT 033 still works best.

This was submitted in Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 Campaign 18 February 2013. It is in both the Patch Post and MBT (Though at a later date.) Threads if further information is desired. MBT Section/Item A3.

I hope the links are still good, it's late and I'm under the weather right now :sick: and working still-SO-really don't feel like checking that at this time.

I have only kept up on this issue as is provided from my files below and hopefully in the order I got them.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/indonesia-receives-first-batch-of-new-german-made-main-battle-tanks/
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2016/09/delivery-of-leopard-2-ri-mbts-to.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/leopard_2a4_tanks_for_indonesia_will_be_fitted_wit h_the_revolution_urban_warfare_package_12505163.ht ml
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/detail_1408.php
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/05/leopard-2ri-in-production.html

What is clear is that Indonesia DID NOT chose all the options Associated with the LEO REVOLUTION. The last ref speaks for many in that regard so by example you can chose to have either the L44 or L55 MG. Again UNIT 033 was
chosen because the "RI" was to have the L55.

Everyone I'm spent right now so I have to leave it here. Have a Good Night/or Morning!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

CRAP- Almost forgot, this is from earlier this morning...

SIPRI
Transfers of major weapons: Deals with deliveries or orders made for 2010 to 2016.
Note: The ‘No. delivered’ and the ‘Year(s) of deliveries’ columns refer to all deliveries since the beginning of the contract. The ‘Comments’ column includes publicly reported information on the value of the deal. Information on the sources and methods used in the collection of the data, and explanations of the conventions, abbreviations and acronyms, can be found at URL <http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/sources-and-methods>.
Source: SIPRI Arms Transfers Database
Information generated: 19 October 2017

(Had to modify doc. "O" = Ordered. The "R" = Received.)

Year(s) 2010-2016

Germany (FRG)R: Indonesia
2 BPz-2 ARV O2012 R2015 (2)Second-hand; part of EUR216 m deal

3 BrPz-1 Biber ABL O2012 R2015-2016 3 Second-hand; part of EUR216 m deal

3 Buffel ARV O2012 R2016 (3) Second-hand Leopard-2 tank modified to Buffel ARV

61 Leopard-2A4 Tank O2012 R2016 40 Second-hand but modernized to Leopard-2RI before delivery; delivery 2016-2017

42 Leopard-2A4 Tank O2012 R2013-2015 42 Second-hand; part of EUR216 m deal (These should be the as used German UNIT 033 (A4+) tanks as entered already.-PJC)

(42) Marder-1A3 IFV O2012 R2013-2015 (42) Second-hand (possibly modernized before delivery; 8 more delivered for spare parts only); part of EUR216 m deal (As posted later, they were upgraded-PJC)

3 PiPz-1 AEV O2012 R2016 3 Second-hand; part of EUR216 m deal

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Concerning my last post, you can find the data at...
The FASTBOAT Patch page/Page 13/Post 123/MBT Section/Item A4/Most of the refs still good. It shows some of the complexity concerning the LEO issue for Indonesia "follow the bouncing ball" comes to mind also the refs. "dove tail" with where the tanks (Dutch.) ended up.

A couple hours here, a couple hours there, I REALLY hate a !#&*%+ bad cold and the sinus issues associated!!

Back to bed!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/indonesia-receives-first-batch-of-new-german-made-main-battle-tanks/



The Indonesian Army (Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Darat, TNI-AD) has taken delivery of the first eight of 61 Leopard 2A4 third-generation main battle tanks (MBT), according to executives of German defense contractor Rheinmetall, who recently spoke to IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly during a company symposium on land forces.

Rheinmetall is currently in the process of upgrading 61 Leopard 2 MBTs to the so-called Revolution standard, an urban warfare upgrade package that requires a number of specific modifications requested by the Indonesian military to make the tank more suitable for urban combat.

Overall, the TNI-AD had ordered 103 used Leopard 2A4, designated Leopard 2 RI (Republic of Indonesia) specifically outfitted with bustle-mounted air conditioning systems to suit Indonesia’s Indonesia’s tropical climate.


The problem with information about equipment before they are actually delivered is that they are often proved wrong which generates more work correcting what was entered

http://defence-blog.com/army/indonesian-army-has-received-a-new-batch-of-leopard-2-tanks-marder-ifvs.html


t this time, Indonesia has received 14 Leopard 2A4 main battle tank, 6 Marder 1A3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, 2 Leopard ARV armoured recovery vehicle, 2 Leopard AEV armoured engineer vehicle and 1 Leopard AVLB armoured vehicle-launched bridge.

Indonesia has acquired 103 Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks (MBTs), 42 upgraded Marder 1A3 infantry fighting vehicles, and 11 armoured recovery and engineering vehicles from surplus German Army stocks.



I would much prefer getting information like this a month or two after delivery than speculation about what " might " be a year or two before. The OOB has been corrected to reflect the new information

They are not however " graddads 2A4"
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14969&stc=1&d=1508414829

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Remember there were two separate orders/batches (Two orders in 2012.) for these Leopards the first batch was delivered between 2013-2014 these would be covered by the already entered Leopard derived from German UNIT 033 of which they received 42 tanks. Even your source matches by the numbers what SIPRI has reported as 61 tanks to be delivered between 2017-2018 these are the Leopard 2RI tanks and second batch.

Bottom-line is simply CHANGE to add a modified German Leopard Revolution tank as the Leopard 2RI.

Well strike the proceeding sentence as I just checked the OOB. Now recommend the following to fix this problem...

A. CHANGE/UNIT 017 LEOPARD 2RI/START DATE 6/2018 vice 6/2014/This represents the second batch of tanks per OUR refs./The LEOPARD RI is NOT a fully optionally equipped tank as the full GERMAN REVOLUTION version. There should be slight deductions in additional armor and FCS.//

B. ADD/LEOPARD 2A4+/USE GERMAN UNIT 033 as was submitted in 2013 w/o modification./START DATE 6/2014/Again these are to original Batch 1 tanks ordered and delivered btwn 2013-2014 as noted in my last post, the above and the below refs./There were political delays within the German government that could've killed the deal as what happened earlier with the Dutch.//
http://www.dw.com/en/indonesia-tank-deal-raises-moral-questions/a-16357173
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rolling-sales-indonesia-becomes-the-latest-buyer-of-german-tanks-013042/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/indonesia_takes_delivery_first_leopard_2a4_tanks_a nd_marder_armoured_vehicles_from_germany_2509133.h tml
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indonesia-defence-forum.229571/page-164

From ref. 2...
“We are buying Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2 Revolution models that are already modified and have new armaments…. All the political and administrative processes are complete, we are in the production phase…. We can use them as soon as they arrive…. The memorandum of understanding will stipulate the transfer of technology and the provision of spare parts.”

From ref.4 see first couple of entries.

The LEOPARD 2A4+ was the "stepping stone" from LEOPARD 2A4 > LEOPARD 2A4+ > LEOPARD 2 REVOLUTION.

I don't know what more I can add at this point except, I need to get ready for work.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Pat......"GERMAN UNIT 033" is a L55 2A6 not a 2A4. I have not found a single source that indicates 2a4's were fitted with L55's and no source I've found describes Indonesian Leos as anything but 2A4's so the added unit is going to be an L44 2A4

[DRG]

BTW: isn't it worth for German 2A6 and 2A7 to be fitted with icons with longer guns, than 2A4?.



There are at least 21 icons in 4 Shp files

as measured from the front of the extractor to the tip of the barrel it IS longer than the 2A4's....not quite perfect - but "close enough"

So the answer is NO it's not "worth it" unless I have a lot more free time on my hands than I do now.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The LEO 2A4+ (Upgrade pkg. to the 2A6 standard.) and the LEO REVOLUTION can both be upgraded to the L55.

I have to believe they did this with both based on the DID ref. from the C&C of the Indo Army.

See my quote from ref. 2. However if you don't feel comfortable with giving the LEO 2A4+ the L55, then leave it with at least the most advanced German L44 as being the only change made from German UNIT 033 the rest is definitely part of the upgrade pkg.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

OK Pat you show me a source that specifically states the Indonesian 2A4's are fitted with the L55 gun and I will change it

read this

RUAG Leopard 2 Upgrade
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/ruag_leopard_upgrade.htm


"Upgraded tanks retain a 120-mm smoothbore gun of the Pz 87/Leopard 2A4"



Revolution Main battle tank
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/revolution.htm


The Revolution MBT retains a fully-stabilized 120-mm / L44 smoothbore gun of the Leopard 2A4.


FURTHER

Look at the distance between the front of the extractor and the end of barrel of the main gun on the photo in post 721 and this 2A6 L55 in Afganistan

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14971&stc=1&d=1508472719

721...an Indonesian 2A4--- is an L44

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don you're absolutely right they both do have the 120mm L44 MG's which is VERY obvious in the below video ref. I think also we can agree information can change over time. The earlier articles I looked into concerning the LEOPARD 2A4+ upgrade pkg. lead me to believe the configuration would be the same as the LEOPARD 2A6 in this case per GERMAN UNIT 033.

So I dug deeper as I know you expected me to and I'm not only on the wrong tank but country as well concerning the LEOPARD 2A4+. In both my Mozilla/MSN and Google search, I saw some hits for the 2A4+ being the same as the REVOLUTION but those mostly from bloggers and not very many, however, from more traditional sites and some blogs, the LEOPARD 2A4(M)CAN came up repeatedly, of course this being from Canada.

I think this to be correct based on the below video of Indonesian Army units being involved in an exercise with both tanks and the MARDER's they ordered and more.

What struck me is that the LEOPARD 2A4+ turret seemed larger with some subtle differences as well compared to a standard LEOPARD 2A4. The look is definitely more in line with the Canadian 2A4(M)CAN UNIT O35 as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1S5bgcrw2s

Also I'm not so sure about that start date now for the LEOPARD RI as submitted, unless we consider the fact it's part of an operational acceptance trial (From the video above.) which, is very plausible and not unusual for a country to do when they receive new equipment to verify it meets all the contracts specs etc. etc. as agreed to.

Some already know this, but for the newer folks simply there is "NO HARM NO FOUL" here, it's just what we do. Thanks for the "push" it felt good to get back to my "old" standards.

Now for some much needed sleep so that @#$%^&* cold doesn't bounce back on me. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'll assume no issues with my last post. I wanted to get a time frame on the video I submitted in my last post and it was 11 August 2017 this next is from 15 August 2017 as posted. At 1:19 into the video I paused it to get a count of how many LEOPARD 2RI tanks I saw and that number is 8. That makes sense for the first shipped number of LEOPARD 2RI tanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aRnBvX444g

Only doing this to try and "frame" a timeline for you to work from for a start date.

I'm still thinking that they are under an "operational evaluation" period as I discussed in my last post as well.

For what it's worth, I'm not thinking anything before JAN 2018 earliest. I'll stick my neck out further, and suggest that the LEOPARD 2RI should be operational/accepted by JUN 2018 latest.

Concerning the LEOPARD 2A4+, I've done some more checking this morning since my last post, and I have to tell you personally, I'm satisfied that the Canadian LEOPARD 2A4(M)CAN is a 2A4+ and is the correct tank to use for the Indonesian LEOPARD 2A4+. Again as I posted in my last. The start date should still be good as well as JAN 2014.

Just trying to cover my tracks here as best as I can based on my more current data since I submitted the LEOPARD 2A4+ back in 2013.

Hope this was more help than hindrance to you. And it's that time of day again, so I hope all have a good day and weekend.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBi30pDidJE

The Leos are around minute 5

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The movie was good and watched the whole thing. Those RANGERS (Saw the patch on the uniforms.) in the Command Center seemed pretty motivated as did the rest of their troops. So after checking the OOB...

1. Are the RANGERS in the OOB under local named version?

2. Need to add Heavy Sniper teams to the OOB. In sniper portion of the movie looked like that was a BARRET or very similar 50. Cal Heavy Sniper rifle.

3. Something that caught my eye also was, on the MARDER, from a frontal view, it looked like to the left and above the 20mm was a single tube launcher for a SPIKE ATGW. To illustrate, the picture below left shows what I thought I saw in the video. The picture on the right shows the same MARDER by type that's German and you can clearly see the SPIKE Launcher is in the same position.

Indonesian... German...
14987 14988

Maybe I shouldn't have watched the movie!?! :dk:

What I do know somebody better get their "DONKEY" tough day later at work and CINCLANTHOME knows about it. :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

1. Yes

2. OK

3. Interesting....

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Sorry wrong missile, should be MILAN.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/marder.htm

However these are more up to date pictures now I wonder if it's just a TI/GSR gun-site or to a lesser degree of confidence, a laser range finder which it's equipped with as well. The second (Use arrow head scroll right side of picture frame.) seems to show a better view and it looks like there's a glass reflection on that "extension". Didn't copy the picture to avoid any legal issues, nothing says however I can't post the site.
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=296

Arty Observer same turret, offering more views...
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=4787

Going back to SIPRI forgot MILAN is French :doh:...
Alright, had already done a missile search for Germany none transferred btwn 2010-2016. Did the same search for France (MILAN) and Israel (SPIKE) under the "Missiles" category France did indeed have missile transfers during this period in anti-ship
and SAM areas the following is the only armor related missile...I added the "Ordered" and "Delivered" to avoid confusion...
"(136) Mistral Portable SAM (Ordered2012) Delivered 2013-2016/(136) For use with ATLAS launchers on Komodo APC produced in Indonesia."

I think it's a TI/GSR Gun-sight. I can't find anything about Indonesia got them with a portable mounted ATGW system in the limited time I have right now. This after a web search for the same.

Even the one's Jordan just received or are about to receive are not ATGW equipped. But are the same configured ones from Germany as Indonesia got.

I gotta go!! It's my Friday!!!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

already covered in German OOB by unit 53 but I have added a + version to the Marder 1 A5

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It would appear based on Chinese sources in Late June 2017 during a news conference confirmed reports that they were testing their "new" light tank in Tibet. Not sure when this was deemed operational, but, this might change that date. This tank is being developed for high altitude ops, and as I pointed when this tank first appeared on the radar a few yrs. back, it's intended to fight India. Look at the map.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/chinese-military-tests-battle-tank-in-tibet-near-indian-border/articleshow/59369545.cms
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_light_tank_deployed_by_the_chinese_army_in_the _tibet.html
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/china-confirms-deployment-of-new-light-tank/
(Read the article and don't get caught up in it's title. PJC)
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20272/China_Conducts_First_Field_Performance_of_VT_5_Lig ht_Tank
(Kind've missed the mark though with the picture.PJC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQtH4L0LsDM
(VT-5 Export version. With a 1000hp engine and at 30-35 tons it'll fly.PJC)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt5_light_weight_main_battle_tank_technical_data_s heet_specifications_pictures_video_11711164.html

Both are in the final phases of development the VT-5 I believe is a little closer due to it's income potential. Bangladesh apparently is close or has signed a contract to get them.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[redcoat2]

The official Chinese media confirmed that the new light tank was operational earlier this month (see post #716). It might have been operational at the time of the exercise in Tibet.

It is said to be deployed with a unit in Tibet at the moment - and I've read that there are plans to deploy it near the Vietnamese frontier as well. It would be suited to the terrain in both regions.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

All I can say is those articles from the 18th of this month are saying "tested" or "deployed for testing/or similar for the sake of accuracy. PJC", I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here. All the equipment sites I use don't show any country users at this point. And by the way they all are quoting from military spokes person or newspapers.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/new_chinese_light_tank.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vt5.htm
https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt5_light_weight_main_battle_tank_technical_data_s heet_specifications_pictures_video_11711164.html

And...
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/China-is-Developing-a-New-Super-Tank-107470050

From the above and others already submitted...
In June 2017, the Chinese periodical Guancha reported (Like SPUTNIK is for the Russian Military.) that the Xinqingtan (literally “New Light Tank”), a mountain-going tank formerly known by the equally generic appellation ZTQ-105, had entered trials in Tibetan Plateau. The newspaper characterized these as “a show of force designed to deter the Indian military,” while a military spokesman stated on June 29 they were “aimed to test the tank’s performance and are not targeted at any country.”

I don't see how you can read into any of those refs. or equipment sites (Check the Data Blocks) that they are operational at this time. Not unusual to move equipment around different parts of the country when terrain and weather conditions vary so much. Some countries even will go so far, but very rarely, to test equipment in other countries usually for op eval after being down selected by a potential buyer.

It took years of testing for the India's ARJUN tank before it became operational. That tank like the Chinese one visited every part of the country for months at a time to determine where it's potential could be best used. Lord knows I posted enough on that tank and process. It might be worth a little time and research to visit that topic as India was MUCH MORE forth coming on that tank than China will ever be on theirs.

I stand by my original post until someone "can show me the money", well it's that time-have a good day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[redcoat2]

All I can say is those articles from the 18th of this month are saying "tested" or "deployed for testing/or similar for the sake of accuracy. PJC", I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here. All the equipment sites I use don't show any country users at this point. And by the way they all are quoting from military spokes person or newspapers.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/new_chinese_light_tank.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vt5.htm
https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt5_light_weight_main_battle_tank_technical_data_s heet_specifications_pictures_video_11711164.html


I see one of the sources you are quoting is armyrecognition.com. They claimed that the 'Xinqingtan' was in service with the Chinese armed forces back in January this year:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/ztq_light_tank_with_105mm_cannon_now_in_service_wi th_the_chinese_armed_forces_10401171.html

Maybe they were right. Hard to tell. The photos were from unofficial Chinese sources and show a few tanks in Guilin - which indicates that they were being delivered to the PLA's Southern Theatre Command. But they may only have been there for testing in Guangxi Province near the Vietnamese border.

Janes's take on the photos:

http://www.janes.com/article/66681/china-possibly-equipping-pla-ground-units-with-new-light-tank

They claimed that the Chinese were 'possibly' equipping their units with the new tank.

[DRG]

I'll change gears a bit .....

This is for those of you that ( try ) to keep track of what the Russians are working on

I don't want to make any assumptions BUT.......is the T-90M what we represent now as Unit 59 T-90AM Tagil ( but which military-today refers to as the T-90MS Tagil and also goes on to say "T-90M is a proposed upgrade of the Russian Army's T-90 tanks. The T-90M uses a number of similar components as the T-90MS. It was first publicly revealed in 2017. Deliveries might begin in 2018.".....??

or are they separate developments? One thing I did read was the 'M' will use the same gun as the T-14 and I have changed unit 59 to that as well

I **think** they are, in game terms, the same with the gun upgraded

T-90AM=T-90MS=T-90M

??

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This should get you started and again, affiliated with the Ontario Tank Regiment Museum. Look at the "Evolution" section and bottom of article I general status in Russian Army and direction of T-90 family gearing more towards export.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/T-90_MBT.php

T-90A/M/S according to ref. 1 are all the same tank with the "S" denoting export.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-90a_t-90m_mbt_main_battle_tank_russia_technical_data.htm l
http://www.janes.com/article/73927/russian-mod-unveils-t-90m-t-80bvm-mbts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UflYhAsqeWg

That's all I have time for. And you know why!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

I did note the change in the CMG to 12.7 mm and that is now in the game

[Pibwl]

According to Russian Wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-90 :

* T-90AM (obyekt 188AM, program Proryv-2) is a modification of T-90A with new FCS Kalina, improved gun 2A46M-5 with better accuracy, Relikt ERA and remotely controlled 7.62mm AAMG
* T-90MS is an export variant of AM (shown in 2011)
* T-90M (obyekt 188AM, program Proryv-3) is a modification of T-90A. 400 tanks will be "modernized". Gun is 2А82-1М (of T-14 Armata), FCS Kalina.

The same on T-90M is here https://vpk.name/news/173008_t90_poluchit_pushku_ot_armatyi_osnovnomu_ro ssiiskomu_tanku_dobavyat_udarnoi_silyi.html ("T90 will get a gun from Armata...")

It is not clear, if T-90AM is used, T-90M is in plans as for now.

Uralvagonzavod received a contract for a batch of T-90M http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2926028

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Maybe a little help here In Soviet/Russian nomenclature might be helpful.

First from... 7 INTELLIGENCE COMPANY AS PART OF IT'S INTELLIGENCE TRAINING SUPPORT OF 1 (BR) CORPS. This dated from 1988. There is very useful data here other then from pg.1 especially at the very end.
http://www.thortrains.net/downloads/soviettanks88.pdf
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Designations/Russian_Suffixes_Prefixes.htm

It's all about what you call it, the lighter side of it...
https://sputniknews.com/military/201503031019008767/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

This has just come in by way of "reading my papers" finally some news on the ARJUN Mk II. The Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) of India has just completed the 93 improvements the Army tasked them to do to get them to like it more. Weight was one of the major issues among many. It is supposed to be lighter than the ARJUN Mk I but much better protected, which it seems especially with "{improved 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) (A very technologically difficult process.) . This armour is able to defeat APDS and HEAT rounds and is believed to withstand APFSDS."

Do not forget they've had a lot of foreign help from Israel, Germany, France to a lesser degree and it still looks like the U.S. in an unspecified role.

What caught my attention is it seems like the LAHAT is back in play after it being reported the Israelis and Indians couldn't get it to work properly with the 120mmR MG. Testing was successful with a Ukrainian ATGW.

It's been well documented that ARJUN Mk I outperformed all their current main tanks in the op eval trial period to include their improved T-90S. They didn't even involve their T-72 tanks as they're so dated. I foresee them testing ARJUN Mk II against the T-90MS tanks when they get them. Should be interesting. Ref. has been updated to allow for protection, weapons, and other general changes.

To say I've spent a life time with these tanks here would be a bit of an exaggeration, but, and has felt like it at times.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/india_new_modifications_have_been_made_to_arjun_mk _ii_mbt_tank.html
https://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

GOOD NIGHT!! 3AM :doh:!!

[Pibwl]

* T-90M (obyekt 188AM, program Proryv-3) is a modification of T-90A. 400 tanks will be "modernized". Gun is 2А82-1М (of T-14 Armata), FCS Kalina.


..or rather should I write: "the gun according to some statements is going to be 2A82-1M in the future". As for now, T-90M seems nothing more, than unspecified order, and a prototype. According to http://army-news.ru/2017/10/tank-t-90m-texnicheskie-podrobnosti-proekta/ , basing on some official statements, the gun is 2A46M-4 (strange, that not M-5). There is a mention, that the tanks are going to be modernized from earlier variants rather than produced.

As for T-90AM, there is surprisingly little information. There is an article, but without any mention if they are in service https://anaga.ru/t-90am.html Searching for T-90AM in the Russian net, I haven't found any news that they were delivered.

BTW: as I mentioned in other place, there is a small problem with proper rendering of a progress in Soviet 125 mm guns. There were models 2A26 (T-64A, early T-72), 2A46 (T-72A/M1, T-64A?, T-80), 2A46M (T-72B, newer variants of T-80, T-90), 2A46M-1, 2A46M-4 and 2A46M-5 (T-72B3). And each one is said to be an improvement in accuracy... On the other hand, we have all with accuracy 13, and only Armata's gun is 15. Maybe from 2A46M in late 1980s it should be 14? There was probably the biggest improvement between 2A46 and 2A46M, connected with an introduction of symmetric recuperators and reduction of clearance in gun's mechanism.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well “Houston we have a problem” it appears we might be early on the South Korean K2 and are defiantly early on the K2A2 PIP (Black Panther). And it all started with the following so please don’t blame me, because it’s JANE’s fault as per this ref next…
http://www.janes.com/article/74933/dapa-announces-delay-in-k2-mbt-production

Blame the guy who’s holding all those files-he’s a real bassturd!?! I’m only the messenger.

So from the above ref. Para 4 TORD - “An initial batch of 100 K2s – ordered in 2011 with deliveries commencing in 2014 – were fitted with the German MTU 883 diesel engine (@1200hp-mine) and Renk transmission system.”

Also from Para 2. I believe this (The second K2 ordered batch.) refers to the K2 (A2-mine) PIP this would have fit the planned dates for that originally as falling between 2016 and 2020. One of the noted K2 PIP characteristics was a new improved engine with a 1500hp capability + more to include the KAPS (Think IDF TROPHY) “hard kill” system, which has already completed all field testing and is operationally ready to be used.
TORD…
“In an audit submission to the defense committee of the South Korean National Assembly on 13 October, DAPA said the mass production of the additional 100 K2s is now expected to be complete by 2020. Under the initial schedule, announced in late 2014, the production of the second batch of MBTs production was expected to conclude in 2017.”

So I’ve been directed to pull together all the K2 information I have and note the various FOC dates included. I have further been directed to provide changes as necessary to include a comprise FOC date for the K2 based on the body of evidence included. Also please note dates of refs where given and that I had reported on this engine issue which also plagues the Turkish ALTAY (An update included at the bottom from 1 Nov. 2017.) In no particular order…

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/South_Korea/k2-black-panther.php

K2 Development Section Not much help here except – “There was a new bump in 2011, when the Defense Acquisition Program Administration had to admit that the engine would be replaced by the original MTU-890 instead, at least for the first 100, delaying operational introduction until March 2014.”

K2 PIP Section – “This upgrade is intended for the near future (2016-2020) to improve the early batches.”

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2311.html

K2 – Not much help here except under the Contract Section at the bottom of Dec 2014 -2019, but supports below ref. by year.

K2 PIP - Armor and defensive features Section – “As for the initial version of the K2, it will not contain any hard-kill anti-missile defense system. However, the K2 PIP, which is an improved version of the initial version, is slated to be released within the next few years, and will contain either a pair of anti-missile systems.”

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/k2_black_panther_mbt.htm

K2 Para 1 – “Production contract for the first 100 K2 tanks was signed in 2014. In 2016 this first batch of 100 tanks was reportedly delivered and additional tanks were being built.”

K2 PIP – Nothing.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k2-black-panther-main-battle-tank/

K2 – Intro Section - “The tank is expected to enter into service in 2014.”

K2 PIP – Nothing

Turkish Altay - The K2 Black Panther development Section
“The first prototype of the Altay MBT is expected to be ready by 2015.” They about made that-PIC

https://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

K2 – Description Section – “Already in production, the K2 is scheduled to be delivered to the South Korean army between the latter half of 2015 and December 2017.”

K2 PIP - Variants Section -
"K2 PIP: an improved version of the initial production model of the K2 that will be released within the next few years."

Remember I said to make sure to check the posted dates where given. The above was posted on…
“Posted On Monday, 26 January 2015 15:47 (Updated on. - PJC) 25 April 2017”

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

K2- Contract Section -
2011 – 2014
Nov 18/14: XK-2. South Korea’s WON 2+ trillion (about $1.84 billion) XK-2 tank project, which served as the basis for Altay, has experienced delays due to technical difficulties. Acceleration performance has been a particular issue, and the ROK plans to field it with a locally-made engine and transmission by 2017. So far, about 100 K-2 Black Panther tanks have been deployed in Korea. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea to put K-2 combat tank into full service by 2017”.

K2 PIP – Nothing

Turkish ALTAY Latest Update Section (Read all Please.) -
"November 1/17: …Rheinmetall’s potential involvement in Turkey’s Altay tank program could also be in doubt—the firm has formed a joint venture with Turkey’s BMC to bid for the first tranche contract which would see 100-200 Altay units built."

In context to the rest of the para, the revised 2018 date I submitted a couple of months back is now in severe jeopardy. Don to be safe I’m really thinking JAN 2019 now for FOC of the ALTAY. They also tried an indigenous engine like S. Korea, and it hasn’t worked out either. With this political storm now it could be years before it'll see the light of day."

Side note:
The improved K1A1 they will be brought up to the K2 standard minimum, while the K2 will be brought up to the K2A2 PIP standard. This last para only for FYI. I do not foresee any of these first two above tanks coming out of service before games end. Also the K1 and K1A1 data looks fine as is.

Would recommend the following based on all above...

1) South Korea/K2/UNIT 025/START DATE/JUN 2017/VICE JAN 2014//

2) South Korea/K2 PIP/UNIT 033/START DATE/OCT 2018 (80%)/VICE JAN 2014/ADD KAPS Hard Kill/Also is to maintain current Soft Kill System/Can the game support both?/If not, upgrade to KAPS.// South Korea is much further along in fixing their developmental issues than Turkey is in theirs for the ALTAY. Given the current situation on the Korean Peninsula and with China to a lesser degree I feel strongly they will be motivated to get the K2 PIP on line ASAP. I’m basing my above date on these factors. But, I’m also prepared for the fact this could slip into early 2019.

3) Turkey/ALTAY/UNIT 614/START DATE/JAN 2019 (75%)/VICE JUN 2017//As noted in the above refs.

Well I've spent sometime on this yesterday and this morning. If you don't hear from me in the next couple of days, I was unsuccessful in my tactical infiltration into the bedroom and the rack. :hide:

4:30am somebody shoot me!?! Only kidding! Willing to take my chances!! ;)

For the "other guy"...

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Forgot to get something from S. Korea itself. :doh:

The following is from the Korea Defense Network this video (1st one.) from 8/2016 the "payoff" comes at 1:15 into the video/freeze it and you'll see on the turret "X2".

On some of similar videos dated btwn 2014-2015 the marking was on the front hull is "XK2".

This is indicating to me the progression in the op eval portion of the acceptance program.

I think we're on track as submitted or really close to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO86xaYA7j4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozecotPSQ1U

At the very start of the 2nd video you'll see the "XK2" as noted above, this from Nov. 2015.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

What I see are tanks already available for service as of August 2016

so

1) South Korea/K2/UNIT 025/START DATE/JUN 2017/VICE JAN 2014//

is not accurate

military-today has them in service 2016 and that is GOOD ENOUGH for me

[MarkSheppard]

Maybe a little help here In Soviet/Russian nomenclature might be helpful.

....

http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Designations/Russian_Suffixes_Prefixes.htm[/B]

That feeling when someone uses your website in a debate you're in. :D:angel

I really do need to update that page; clean it up a little bit and do another round of Russian Prefixes from what's available on the internets now.

[Pibwl]

That feeling when someone uses your website in a debate you're in. :D:angel

I really do need to update that page; clean it up a little bit and do another round of Russian Prefixes from what's available on the internets now.

Yes, it's always nice ;)

Excuse an offtopic, but here are some mistakes to clean:
- should be "modulnaya" instead of "modurnaya", "bronirovannyi" (or "..yy", depending on transliteration) instead of "bronirovannykh" (the last one is a declination of a basic form),
- "kumulyativnaya" and "kumulyativnyy" is the same, and it means shaped charge, not Armor Piercing Warhead. The first one is feminine form, and the last one - masculine (it depends on a noun with which it is used),
- "kumulyativno-oskolochnyy" is HEAT/FRAG, not AP/FRAG
- "Raketa" (or rather pronounced: "rakyeta") is a missile, but also a rocket
- should be just "zholtyy" instead of "iorzholtyy"

Michal

[MarkSheppard]

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/security/1358839/five-ukraine-tanks-on-way-to-thailand

A new batch of five more tanks from Ukraine will be delivered late this month as the Royal Thai Army has so far received 31 of the Ukraine-made T84 Oplot tanks, according to an army source.

Ukraine was contracted to supply a battalion of 49 T84 Oplot tanks worth 7.2 billion baht in 2011 but was slow to press ahead with production and delivery due to security problems in the country.

So far, 31 Ukrainian tanks have been sent to Thailand and the new batch of five tanks are now heading to Thailand by ship and are expected to reach the country by the end of this month, according to the source.

The final batch of the remaining 13 tanks have already been manufactured and Ukraine is now waiting for an army delegation to travel there to examine the tanks late this month.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Those OPLOT-M tanks then will have arrived almost on time. I had reported that the Ukraine lost the potential order of selling Thailand the additional tanks they required but, that agreement was made to allow the Ukraine to fulfill it's contract obligation with no penalties for breach of contract. They have Russia to thank for that as the on going dispute in the Eastern Ukraine was considered in the contract reevaluation.

The Ukraine as also reported has "cranked up production" of the OPLOT-M to meet it's obligation to Thailand as already reported. But as it's starting to turn out and again reported the Ukraine could be the winner in the end.

1) The only major issue Thailand had with the tank was some in the Army didn't like the fact it had an auto-loader. But as it turns out, Thailand has been very happy with the OPLOT-M thus far. But they needed more tanks and China won the bid. More on that below. The interesting thing here is there is now some speculation that this will set up an op-eval situation between the two tanks as Thailand would like to get 200 new ones in the near term future. So with full production going and with streamlined manufacturing processes in place now (Also reported.) they're making them for themselves now as well, estimates vary somewhat, but on average suggest they're up to around 100 OPLOT-M tanks now from only having 10 within just the last 3yrs. or less. It does leave the door opened a crack (All be it a very small one.) for them to get back in the "game" in Thailand. Something to watch over the next couple of years.

2. Already reported on the following as well, Ukraine getting the contract to do a major over haul of Pakistan's ~300 T-84 tanks. The real news was the fact that Pakistan is also very interested in the successor (T REX concept.) to the OPLOT-M and yes you guessed it, as already reported in this thread as well. Ukraine has already displayed the concept and should have a prototype within the next couple of years or sooner. It will be interesting in the longer term if Pakistan will help this project along (Not really big fans of Russia.) possibly financially or more. Opportunity Knocks.

3. Nothing solid but, there's still some interest in the OPLOT-M in Asia at least enough to test them. And Africa is speculated to be a viable market as well. I'm watching S. Africa in particular as they've been looking for newer tanks for over a decade now. The delay is a sluggish economy and the realization they won't have the money to get the tank they really wanted, the LEOPARD.

So what did Thailand decide to do? Well from my files, oldest first I hope...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_could_purchase_russian-made_t-90_or_chinese_vt-4_mbt_to_replace_order_of_t-84_oplot_10501162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_has_signed_an_agreement_to_purchase_chine se-made_mbt-3000_vt-4_main_battle_tanks_12005163.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/thailand_will_purchase_a_total_of_49_vt4_main_batt le_tanks_from_china_10301176.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_approves_the_purchase_of_10_additional_ch inese-made_vt4_main_battle_tanks_10504172.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/thailand_to_receive_the_first_batch_of_28_vt4_main _battle_tank.html
https://www.bangkokpost.com/archive/first-batch-of-28-china-made-tanks-rolls-in/1340231
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/thailand-to-procure-mbt-3000-tanks-from-china/

The tank...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mbt_3000.htm
https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt4_mbt-3000_norinco_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet _specifications_pictures_video_uk.html
http://tanknutdave.com/the-chinese-mbt-3000-main-battle-tank/
http://www.deagel.com/Armored-Vehicles/VT-4_a003040001.aspx

Allowing for inspection and acceptance, op-eval and some training, I would expect these tanks to reach FOC somewhere between JAN 2018 - MAY 2018.

Note many of the refs above have already been posted in this thread.

Consider this a compressed version containing the relevant files to date.

Regards,
Pat
:capt: