MBT's [Archive] - Page 4 - .com.unity Forums

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 17th, 2017, 05:07 AM

The following are to be an update and FYI future.
issue.

1) T-14 further confirmation that the T-14 won't be operational until earliest 2018+ and second ref. acts as an updated tech/data for the T-14 which makes this the second or third update thus far. Still showing as a prototype tank.
"What makes the 2018-2027 armaments program so special is the conversion of experimental products still in the testing phase into serial ones. This applies to Armata, the T-14 main battle tank, the frontline aviation system (T-50/PAK-FA - Mine), the new generation long-range aircraft and many other items, he said. (Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin - Mine)"
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2017_global_defense_security_news_industr y/new_russian_program_to_supply_t-14_armata_main_battle_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-14_armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_ sheet_specifications_information_description_pictu res.html

2) T-90S Looks like Russia is finally going to sell this tank to Iraq in the near future. Good thing we didn't sell them our top tier ABRAMS now that the Russians are "nosing" around. The contract is now in the implementation phase.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2017_global_defense_security_news_industr y/russia_implements_contract_with_iraq_for_t-90s_tank_supplies.html

3) Well we'll likely not see this game wise even if it does get done as currently planned, but India has apparently woken up to the fact they can't do the multi-purpose Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) on their own. That's progress for them. Theirs LONG been distrust from the Army concerning DARDO their developmental group that produced the ARJUN MkI and soon the MkII tanks. Notice who one of the four they're interested in is. ;) as recently discussed in my last above.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2017_global_defense_security_news_industr y/india_started_project_to_acquire_new_tank_to_repla ce_t-72_mbt.html

4) BTR-60PB - Concerning the ref. below, the information concerning the use of the T-54A is incorrect. There is no record of them (Cuba) receiving the T-54 in any variant. They did receive the following from the SIPRI database from the Soviet Union (Yes they make that distinction from Russia.)
(25) T-55 Tank O-1981 D-1981 (25) Second-hand; incl some T-54T ARV That was the last T-55 shipment to Cuba.

Also while I'm on it this is the other BTR-60 variant Cuba received...
(10) BTR-60P APC O-(1984) D-1985-1986 (10) BTR-60PU-12 CP version; for use with 9K35 (SA-9) SAM systems

Other tanks ordered were the IS-2/SU-100/T-34/85/PT-76 and as also already mentioned the T-62 as ordered in 1984 and delivered btwn 1984-1988 (Last and final shipment to Cuba from the Soviet Union. With NONE from Russia.)
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/cuban_fsv.htm
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/594807/30195841

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

luigim

November 28th, 2017, 07:58 AM

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-russias-massive-tank-22539?page=2

blazejos

December 3rd, 2017, 07:56 PM

Interesting photo of recycled old fuel barrel on polish T-72

http://d.wiadomosci24.pl/g2/3a/8e/d8/161937_1285768456_8f3a_p.jpeg

Also polish modification of Su-76 from late 50 for ammo/support vehicles with DshK used in SU-76 batteries.

http://imgur.com/9UaQedE.jpg
http://imgur.com/WsfOY90.jpg

Bulgarian modification of PZIV with Su-76 gun from cold war
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kUOMg-jLQrg/Up03QkYUs4I/AAAAAAAAABE/vCf7cUmQZco/s1600/Pz4-Zis3.jpg
http://en.valka.cz/files/pz_iv__-_su76_785.jpg
http://en.valka.cz/attachments/9328/11683680cf6.jpg

http://airgroup2000.com/gallery/albums/userpics/12122/DSC_0221.jpg

Polish prototype of T-54ATGM build with better protection against ATGM. On turret added wire protection and screens on sides and front.
http://i.imgur.com/hTzmPFW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/b1bUa3I.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Jc0ZiNE.png

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 3rd, 2017, 10:57 PM

I wouldn't think it much matters(?) game wise in terms of how many of the Cromwell tanks could've been reused after the "Battle of Happy Valley" since it appears the ones they got had successfully been attacked by the use of pole charges by the Chinese.
At best I wouldn't think more than a handful (Though one below suggests 12 were reused.), but what an interesting piece of history that as these articles suggest has been forgotten about on the other side "of the pond" as well. In order of mentioning the CROMWELL tanks specifically...
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/slaughter-at-happy-valley-28506063.html
From the next...
"Some saw service in the Korean War with the 7th RTR and the 8th King’s Royal Irish Hussars." Also the mod section shows a CROMWELL of 1950 in the 7th RTR paint scheme.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/A27M_Cruiser_MkVIII_Cromwell.php
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/04/07/captured-cromwell-tanks-in-the-korean-war/
Taken from the above...
http://hosungw.blogspot.com/2015/03/british-cromwell-tank-used-by-north.html

More of the battle and remembrance...
https://www.royal-irish.com/stories/royal-ulster-rifles-korea
https://www.royal-irish.com/events/royal-ulster-rifles-are-ordered-withdraw-after-battle-chaegunghyon-korea
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/recalling-role-of-irish-soldiers-in-tragic-korean-war-battle-of-happy-valley-1.1372892
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/ulster-veterans-revisit-scene-of-korean-battle-1-5084140
http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Society/view?articleId=107569

If I may...
It seems that what I had onboard was "disrupted" enough to have been rendered dead by my security protocols, well pretty much anyway and it wasn't going anywhere. But not wanting to show up on the search for this culprit on this site, as happened to one of our long time contributors, I for my piece of mind and if needed here should my IP Address had of come up as well, spent $150.00 (So Merry Christmas to my PC!) to be sure, my protocols were good resulting in no malicious malware or viruses. Just some registry issues that needed some attention that were starting to cause some very minor performance issues (Need to get a better Registry Cleaner I suppose.) Got other things done for the price as well hardware wise etc. Bottom-line well worth the price of being a good citizen on this forum.

So to everyone that reported this issue my thanks as it made me more aware of mine! :clap:

Andy and Don what more needs to be said, but, thanks again for keeping use in the loop and making my PC happy with it's Christmas present though, early!?! :clap:

Mr. Brooks I haven't forgotten your wonderful staff and your personal involvement a handful of years back in taking care of me that allowed me to "Get BACK IN THE GAME ;)" That being said it's hard enough in this business (Or any now.) competitive as it is, to deal with something like this out of nowhere, so again I have the pleasure to thank your staff and you for doing all that could've been done to make things right again in our world. :clap:

It's a good day when I can use some "Smilies"!! :D

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 3rd, 2018, 02:50 AM

Something new from one of my oldest refs. and New Year Last Year in Review or if you will, NYLYR HMmmm, what you call a liar from NY!?! Anyway here's Part 1...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/top_12_most_read_articles_on_army_recognition_of_2 017_part_1.html

The next is a "crossover" item though the new BTR-4 variant looks really good, it's what's said about the T-72AMT's ATGW the LUCH that caught my eye as a farther conformation of it's performance as I posted several months back on Ukraine's latest ATGW's. Also I'll post the Data Sheets for both of these pieces of equipment, generally speaking, when they run an article like this those sheets are likely to have been updated.
Located at bottom of ref. 1..."...developed by State Kyiv Design Bureau ‘Luch’. This missile uses a semi-automatic guidance from laser beam and can penetrate 750 mm of armour at a range of 5 km."
[B]https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/ukraine_defense_industry_new_products_btr-4mv1_apc_t-72amt_mbt.html

The BTR-4MV1 and T-72AMT Data Sheets...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/arms_and_security_2017_online_show_daily_news/the_btr-4mv1_is_presented_for_the_first_time_in_ukraine_at _arms_security_2017.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/arms_and_security_2017_online_show_daily_news/the_t-72amt_made_by_ukroboronprom_showcased_at_arms_and_ security_2017.html

Not what I was expecting but a small plus anyway.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 3rd, 2018, 08:11 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 3rd, 2018, 08:55 AM

I think it'll boil down to which missile we chose to give that tank or just use two slots for the AMT armed with KOMBAT & LUCH weapons. The night vision upgrade is also addressed in an "army recognition" video posted below.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+t-72amt&view=detail&mid=031DDD86B7D4785B075B031DDD86B7D4785B075B&FORM=VIRE

And to make things interesting we're going to supply them with JAVALINS and that made the national news in both print and media here.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

MarkSheppard

January 9th, 2018, 09:04 PM

First photos of Thailand's new VT-4 MBTs:

dmnt

January 10th, 2018, 09:50 AM

A LOT of conflicting info regarding the T-72AMT...

http://www.janes.com/article/73097/ukroboronprom-unveils-t-72amt

claims 550 mm pen for the Kombat ATGM..

The T-72AMT has been adapted to fire the 125 mm Kombat (Combat) gun-fired laser-guided missile, which is capable of penetrating 550 mm of armour

..other sources say 750

the gunner has now also a night vision sight used to fire anti-tank guided missile able to penetrate 750 mm armor at the distance of 5 km.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/t-72-amt-main-battle-tank/

I read the text in the first link (don't know if it has been updated since you wrote your post)

...gun-fired laser-guided missile, which is capable of penetrating 550 mm of armour itself protected by explosive reactive armour (ERA).

that it is 550 mm after ERA and 750mm mentioned elsewhere is penetration without ERA. Sometimes I see numbers like that listed for USSR ammunition such as for PG-7VR:

http://www.military-today.com/firearms/rpg_7.htm
"PG-7VR is a 64/105-mm tandeam HEAT rocket. It has effective range of 100 m against tanks and 200 m against stationary targets. It penetrates up to 600 mm of armor behind ERA and 750 mm without ERA;"

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 10th, 2018, 01:46 PM

Ukraine is no longer using Russian ATGM tank launched weapons, they've already developed at least four different such weapons and are using their Russian versions for testing and research purposes. Will have to find what thread I posted all their current tank launched missiles in later. Not sure if it's in this thread or a somewhat more recent other thread, but, it so posted. And somewhat hurriedly answered in my last post. My time is up!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 11th, 2018, 03:48 AM

From two posts ago, my apologies, LUCH is the design company. Alright I'll do it to me, for you - :doh:!

How to do this? First you must read the provided info, what it is, the purpose of, different calibers available of the type, most provide charts and platforms used on.

I'm splitting up the main ref, which will be at the bottom of this. The sources are the Ukraine's sales and defense industry sites as both are together on the site. The following are taken from that site and treated individually.

1. The 30mm ZTM-1 automatic cannon and the ZTM-2 have become the main weapon of choice for the Ukraine intended for APC/ACV/AIFV/IFV (Specific application equipage shown. This applies to all the rest as well as posted.) and attack helos as noted. Ukraine has mounted these with the associated turrets and others as indicated within this article. Currently in service.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/28-30-mm-avtomaticheskie-pushki-ztm-1-i-ztm-2

2. The man-portable anti-tank guided missile system SKIF this is their "Heavy Hitter" at 130mm and 152mm calibers. This is a general all around system from anti-personnel to bunker busting. Pretty impressive from some videos I've seen. Coming into or recently has entered service.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/31-nosimiy-protivotankoviy-raketniy-kompleks-skif

3. The anti-tank missile system BARYE designed to be used with the SHKVAL turret (Like #1 above.) on the platforms as noted. Currently in service.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/34-protivotankoviy-raketniy-kompleks-barer

4. “CORSAR” light portable missile system close in support system in service with Max. Rng. of 2500m.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/137-legkiy--protivotankoviy--raketniy--kompleks--korsar

5. “Bar’er-V” helicopter antitank missile system as currently used on their attack helos. This is an upgrade issue for the Ukraine OOB on their helos. This is a long range, heavy 130mm ATGM with a very high hit probability. In service.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/138-vertoletniy-protivotankoviy-raketniy--kompleks-barer-v

6. The anti-tank precision-guided missile R-111 STUGNA designed for 100mm/115mm platform weapons as noted in the article. In service.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/29--visokotochniy-vistrel-s-upravlyaemoy-raketoy-kalibra-100-mm-stugna

7. The anti-tank guided missile systems KOMBAT and KONUS these are the "main events" with the difference being simply that KOMBAT is fully operational in the platforms as listed in para. This is where the Russian REFLEX & BASTION are also addressed in comparison and otherwise. A very effective system that is getting a lot of attention. This missile will be if I remember correctly, be part of the Pakistani deal with the Ukraine to update the 300+ T-80UD tanks Pakistan bought from the Ukraine.
KONUS is also available to meet 120mm NATO standard tank guns. Though it also supports the Ukraine's T-84-120 YATAGAN which is in service as a Test Bed platform. It should be noted, at the time it was considered one of the more advanced MBT's in the world. Both in service.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/33-protivotankovie-vistreli-s-upravlyaemoy-raketoy-kombat-i-konus
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84_yatagan.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2807.html

It's getting late the next three weapons cover the 100mm/105mm and 115mm ATGM systems. REFLEX should've been phased out of front line service by this past year. Here's the main ref.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi

Alright already touched on this and it'll touch I believe on the topic that the U.S. has lifted the restriction on the Ukraine to buy from defense contractors (U.S.)...
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-sending-anti-tank-missiles-to-ukraine-2017-12
https://warisboring.com/american-anti-tank-missiles-are-heading-to-ukraine/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-presented-47m-deal-arm-ukraine-russia/story?id=51235203
http://fortune.com/2017/12/23/trump-approves-javelin-missiles-ukraine/

A couple of the refs. above do make the distinction of the "old" versus the "newer" systems. Of the above systems outlined, I believe the "SKIF" to be the oldest (DEC 2008.) though it's been updated. Remember nobody in the West wants to see the Ukraine back under Russian control. They've been receiving a lot of management, engineering and technical assistance before and more so since the Russian incursion.
http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/05/26/ukrainian-weapons-what-local-factories-are-producing-for-the-army/#arvlbdata
http://www.usubc.org/site/aerospace-defense-industry/top-10-weapon-systems-made-in-ukraine
https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/nato-to-offer-more-aid-to-ukraine-but-no-offensive-weapons-1.354534

Isn't wonderful how conflict spurs innovation? :rolleyes:

I've got a busy day later this morning before work, so, Good Night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 11th, 2018, 08:14 AM

1. The 30mm ZTM-1 automatic cannon and the ZTM-2 have become the main weapon of choice for the Ukraine intended for APC/ACV/AIFV/IFV (Specific application equipage shown. This applies to all the rest as well as posted.) and attack helos as noted. Ukraine has mounted these with the associated turrets and others as indicated within this article. Currently in service.
https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/vooruzhenie-i-boepripasi/28-30-mm-avtomaticheskie-pushki-ztm-1-i-ztm-2

I'll go through all this BUT.......

The State Enterprise Research and Engineering Complex ‘Precision Mechanics Plant’ in Kamyanets-Podilsky has launched series production of a comprehensive range of hand gun and artillery weapons, including the 30mm ZTM-1 automatic cannon (similar in its outlay design and performance capabilities to the Soviet-designed 30mm 2A72 automatic cannon) and the ZTM-2 automatic cannon (Ukrainian designed equivalent of the Soviet-vintage 2A42).

So ZTM-1 = 30mm 2A72 and ZTM-2 = 2A42 so what I am going to do is rename the existing weapons NOT create 2+ dozen duplicates using the same two weapons under a different name

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 11th, 2018, 11:39 AM

Though still a PITA by degrees, I didn't expect it to be more than what you're doing concerning the ZTM. My concern was to straighten out the what I was seeing as the convoluted mess the whole ATGM/ATGW Ukrainian issue seemed to "nose diving" into. I hope that mission was accomplished to a satisfactory level. Thanks!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 3rd, 2018, 04:13 AM

Don,
Figured I'd put this here some pictures for you to consider for the Turkish M-60T. I got a little nostalgic and looked back into my first official Patch submission in "The FASTBOAT Patch page" on Pg.1 Post 3 Item A4 and below to M2 and the others below that.. I looked at the bottom of M2 and saw all those posts listed there and it took me a minute to realize they're posts from the this thread on the M-60T but, how confusing it must've been to see that and scratch your head and ask "OK for what Thread does he want me to look at!?!".

What a great upgrade project that was that IMI put together for that tank (They RESET 170 M-60A1 tanks to beyond the M-60A3 TTS. It had a 120mm L44 SB MG installed, NEW advanced FCS/KNIGHT III optics as carried on MERKAVA 4 and "the kicker" was it also was equipped with the same ceramic applique armor as the MERKAVA 4 as well, along with that, it also had Israeli ERA bolt on kits, which is some of the best in the world. These by definition (RESET) were brand new tanks.

But this is where my Turkish nightmare would begin. In fact I'll have to fix it again.

I hope I've improved since then, I liked the way my last flowed especially since that one which is like watching a tennis match, ADD, CHANGE, MODIFY (And isn't that the same as changing it? Well I didn't make that connection until later.) and DELETE. It would start again maybe in a different random order. :doh: No wonder Don would lose some hair back then!?!

Well anyway it could use a couple of new pictures as I believe we have two M-60T tanks in the game. So I'll leave you with 4 or 5 to chose from and these are Turkish and NOT Israeli M-60 SABRE series of tanks. That was the other confusing thing I remember concerning the M-60T people kept wanting to add that "SABRE" when the M-60T was truly a stand alone version built admittedly from some of the better aspects of the Israeli M-60 SABRE and made better as noted above concerning the MERKAVA aspects of it.

It's late here are those pictures and folks don't let me slip back "to the old days"...;)
15172 15173
15174 15175

A little something for when I'm ready to tackle the TURKISH MBT RABBIT HOLE!! One big PITA!! And I ain't talking about the kind you eat! And they still use LEOPARD 1 tanks!!
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Turkish-Tanks.php
https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/04/21/turkish-m60-tank-survives-isis-kornet-missile/
http://defense-update.com/20171026_m60_upgrades.html

Note Para 4 of the last ref. I found the comparison of ops between Turkey's LEOPARD 2A4 and M-60T most interesting.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 3rd, 2018, 08:56 AM

Ah !..... so the ERA blocks go onto the turret top, turret front and hull front......nothing on the sides. That make a slight difference to the unit. That " 4 o'clock " graphic was most informative. The other photos I have seen and have others taken during the same events in the game now. The branch in the rabbit hole is this.......would that ERA be second generation advance ERA?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 3rd, 2018, 12:03 PM

I am sure the ERA was of a very advanced type for that time period of late 2005 until completion of deliveries in 20`0.

Please don't forget it had the MERKAVA 4 hybrid ceramic applique tiles over steel applied as well. That's what I'm not sure was addressed when I submitted the tank for modification in my first patch submission back in 2011. If I'm wrong please disregard, it's been a longtime since I've looked in on or played the Turkish OOB. I believe that's what's used on those side skirts with a possible ERA layer over them, BUT it's definitely not just steel.

Israel was willing to do this because Turkey was looking to have 300 - 350 of their M-60A1 tanks brought up to the M-60T standard. IMI had already prepped the packages and are still warehoused to be used by another buyer or if Turkey still wants them of which there has been some "chatter" due to current operations that they might and amid many reports (included in my last post here as indicated.) that the combat effectiveness has been better than their LEOPARD A24 tanks which is surprising.

I'm glad it'll get some new pics, found a video on the M-60T concerning that hybrid armor however, it's in German I think. The one we had I agree at the time didn't clearly bring in the detailed look we normally like to have and it's just sitting there. Things that move should look like they are in their "working environment" and be nationalized where possible and is why I culled those pictures in my last submission last month.

If I can get that final question we have hanging on the other tank discussed, I'll add it as an edit here.

UPDATE: Turkish M-60T did get the SABRE III upgrade as reported by Israel to the UN and as SIPRI has recorded it.
"Israel
R: Turkey 468 Navigator APC 2009 2010-2015
(468) BMC-350-16 Kirpi version
170 Sabra-3 Tank (2002) 2005-2010 (170) $688 m deal; Turkish M-60A1 tanks rebuilt to Sabra-3; Turkish designation M-60T"

So who do you believe? I believe this, Israel reported this to the UN per the current arms transfer treaties in effect. Remember the upgrade was done in Israel therefore by treaty they have to report the export of arms to another country and there are other verification systems in place as well. I know this goes against the grain of most refs (SABRE II) including from the site below, but, I've seen some to support the SABRE III upgrade as well. And what motive would Israel have to reporting something different when it can be easily rebutted by the arms experts that monitor these things?

Just let me say it for you ~!@#$%* PITA oh what a PITA. My sediments exactly when dealing with my favorite tank countries as noted. :D:p:rolleyes:

Also I see clues in the following ref for the M-60T this from 2017 as a NEW Italian upgrade pkg. for the M-60 which might need to be watched for as well. Israel hasn't released anything like this concerning the M-60T upgrade that I've been able to find. But again it might provided some insight even just about looks the same.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Italy/leonardo-m60a3-upgrade-solution/

I wish we can upload word documents here without copying from them.

I haven't found anything thus far to support the T-60A3/A3 TTS ERA
(Israel did have the M-60A3 BLAZE which had an ERA pkg.), however this might've "muddled" the issue and will require follow-up
(Did I mention along with India, that Turkey is my next favorite tank country to deal with? :rolleyes:) I might've posted this already not sure. It's as you'll see operationally motivated.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/01/31/turkey-launches-500-million-tank-upgrade-contest/

I need a little quite time before work I have a nice peaceful post today such as a "Friday" should be at times.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 3rd, 2018, 06:01 PM

The bottom line here is I have not found ANY photos of Turkish M60's with ERA blocks except the M60T so the units in the game now that have it that are not M60T's are changed to TTS's without ERA which I do know for certain they did get.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2018, 03:28 AM

I agree that's the right course concerning the M-60A3/A3TTS. I couldn't find any pictures either from before I posted my last and up to a few minutes ago.

Also I have translated the following from the lower right corner where the date is located for each tank...HIZMETE GIRIS TARIHI

GOOGLE = DATE OF SERVICE INPUT
FreeTranslations.org = HIZMETE AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTRANCE
MS = Date of entry to the service
stars21.com/translator/turkish_to_english.html = service entry date

Turkish government source with Turkish assigned dates when those tanks entered service. This will be a key component to fixing the Turkish OOB amongst a handful of other refs. I can't wait!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
15176

DRG

February 4th, 2018, 07:54 AM

I'll go through that again and make any adjustments required. I see right off that the Leo 1 dates are way out of line and it does not appear they ever received any 1A1 or 1A2's.....only A3's so that's a big change for formations as well the modernization program ended in 2009 so unit 37 never happened....that was added before the 2008 economic crash and never removed ( but we don't get info like that easily......)

DRG

February 4th, 2018, 11:03 AM

........well THAT was "fun"....:re:

Some units/ formations were close.....some not so much ...some were in too soon, some not soon enough sometimes by nearly a decade but from the info you passed on as well as some I found it's ( NEARLY...)all straight now in the OOB's.....now I have to cross check the picklists to see what the damage is and fix that ( more "fun" ). I was also able to re-organize some of the unit classes a bit.

ONE nice bit of info I did find was the Leo 1 upgrades that were done seems to have produced a tank not unlike the Canadian C2.... and it now has a name....Leo 1T Volkan.

CORRECTION.... the name is good but the similarity to the C2 is in question now......this is SUCH FUN........:doh:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2018, 02:06 PM

Good.

I didn't decide to translate that graphic until sometime after I submitted that first patch. The references I had at the time were "all over the map" but not as bad as I found the Turkish OOB which I'm sure of "was inherited" when Andy and you took over. If I would've known about SIPRI and that Graphic (And translated it.) except for the ALTAY and LEOPARD 2T we more than likely wouldn't have had to go through this exercise.

I have to be honest, and say that the SIPRI Data when used with that Graphic as I posted here somewhere already, were right on. Yes SIPRI doesn't tell when they entered service but, by them giving you the #'s, dates ordered and delivered, what was delivered, how was it modified/or not and country designation of it in this case the M-60T Modified to the SABRE III, and me allowing for the opeval/training time needed I would've felt confident of FOC+. The Graphic would've just sealed the deal. It was this realization a little over a year ago that first put the spark back in me to think about doing this work again. That it didn't have to take so many refs to finally fix that OOB and make it right. With the other RL issues that were going on at the time and the Turkish and SANDF Armor issues weighing on me, well instead of it being my AUSTERLITZ they made it my WATERLOO. So much time wasted to some degree but not a total wash because you have to start somewhere.

Problem was in the timing of that submission, the format as I posted earlier this week (Even I after all these years looking at it again thought "I know it was my first time but, God it was like trying to follow the bouncing ball ALL OVER THE PLACE!?!). And again not having those resources at the time.
A simple translated graphic, who would've known! :doh:

That issue was hopefully fixed in the last submission the format was straight forward and I think everyone could figure out where I was going. You can have all the right references in the world but if it can't be presented correctly, you bought more work for yourself.

Don if anymore loose ends come up, just turn on the "BAT LIGHT"!! You know where the "switch" is at.

Amazing what a good nights rest will do, and I needed it. Those "Reindeer Games" what a joy!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: I almost forgot, can you guess whose APC graphic I came across this week while looking into the M-60 tanks???? :rolleyes:

And HELL NO I'M NOT POSTING IT ETHIER!! IT CAN WAIT!! :p ;) :doh: :D

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2018, 04:28 PM

The "Bat Light" came on. The Turkish APC modernization program graphic. The dates in the upper left denotes the timeframe involved when those APC's were updated and put into service. Again as in the MBT Graphic, this is from their "DOD" equivalent component.
15177

Someone's across the street. I call it "under cover posting"! :shock: :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 6th, 2018, 12:49 AM

This is probably more back up as anything as this point...

1. Turkey:
1. You had an issue with the LEOPARD-1T thinking it close to the CANDF C2 I think you were going to back off that. Recheck my hardcopy files of my Patch Submissions and the net to verify those notes were still viable. It seems they are so, the only upgrade it received was for the 3rd GEN ASELAN VOLKAN FCS.

The LEOPARD-1T was the operational test bed for the system which is meant for the ALTAY. You can think of the system as...
Level 1 - Test Bed units.
Level 2 - The 170 LEOPARD-1T upgrade completed NOV 2009.
Level 3 - ALTAY w/TI/GSR 50(?) which I'm also finding that the LEOPARD 2A4 tanks have it as well.

If you think about and remember these were bought solely for the LEOPARD-2T (Similar to the German LEO-NG.) project. This makes perfectly good sense to me, as it's a major upgrade the LEOPARD-2T will have and still feel have in limited numbers like the one German Battalion of the LEOPARD-2A7 that's fully operational. This is actually new info to me based on tonight's work concerning the LEOPARD-2A4.

VOLKAN FCS is a fully stabilized dual axis modern all-weather FCS. It can fire on the move with a high first hit probability, I should think a very easy 40 TI/GSR, LRF w/Battlefield Management System (BSM) integration, which in game terms I'll assume would be limited to the radio.

With the above LEOPARD-1T/LEOPARD-1A3T1/ALL M-60A1/A3/T/M-48A5TI/M-48A5T2 will be operational through 2025. This is due to the delays caused by the ALTAY which at this point is 3-4 years behind schedule and counting. The only one I'm not sure of is the M-48T5 that entered service in 1982 on whether it's still active.

Again only backup.

Now for some news and it ain't good...

Well Russia is at it again and I've said before, the ARMATA is going to late now maybe even later. You don't spend money on recapitalization of "older" equipment if your latest and greatest is say within 2 - 3 years or less of FOC+. BUT Russia HAS...

2. Russia The T-90M which is a slightly improved version of the Export T-90MS. The T-90M should be in the field by this Summer, my feeling is closer to OCT 2018 if no issues arise at the last minute. Here's what I have...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/new_t-90m_mbt_tank_will_enter_in_service_with_russian_ar my.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-90m_model_2017_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data _sheet.html

3. Iraq: I don't know if this is an add or not-Strike That! Now an ADD, they just received their first T-90S tanks on 1 FEB. If we use the USA model for tank school I had posted about a year back, figure somewhere around 8 months until FOC+, so around OCT 2018. Should cover enough tanks to field a unit/op eval and training. Was thinking JAN 2019 however, they do have an extensive history in the use of Russian tanks. Let's call the "benefit of the doubt" which will more then likely bite me in the tail. :angel
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russia_has_started_the_delivery_of_t-90s_mbt_tanks_to_iraq.html

Ukraine: The other masters of upgrading existing tanks is also at it again. JANE's reporting they have now the T-72MP this should be a very competitive tank against the latest Russian counterpart versions. Apparently this tank has taken many of the elements they were going to put into the T-72/120 NATO version. Points not to miss in the article...

1. Who helped them with it.

2. Added 4 tons to the weight of the tank mostly in armor protection. That's about the weight I believe was added to make the Russian
T-72B3/B4.

3. JANE's estimate of the frontal turret armor equivalent.

I would expect this tank to at FOC+ by years end, however, we need more information on this tank before we take any action I feel.
http://www.janes.com/article/76473/kharkov-morozov-design-bureau-unveils-new-t-72-upgrade

I wish the Russian would SLOW DOWN, I had already posted a couple of times about this situation arising. Those slots we got rid of (T-80 mods(?) I think it was) last year are going to fill right up.

Had a very busy but productive day, I think I'll see if I can find that "Hunting Hitler" episode I forgot to ask CINCLANTHOME to record for me.

Good Whatever wherever you are!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 6th, 2018, 08:45 AM

DRG

February 6th, 2018, 09:34 AM

That T-72MP is......

developed and marketed as an upgrade package for the T-72M

just let me know if anyone actually buys the thing.....

DRG

February 6th, 2018, 09:46 AM

Pat..... a job for you or anyone else....Is the Greek M48A5 MOLF still in service...... if I find the info on my own I'll post a "nevermind"

DRG

February 6th, 2018, 09:52 AM

Many things Turkish

http://theafteractionreview.boards.net/thread/3579/turkish-armed-forces-enforcement-units?page=4

and yes a M48T5 Tamay ARV is an M88
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5466/29960502393_0dc4acb759_b.jpg

Aeraaa

February 6th, 2018, 10:00 AM

Pat..... a job for you or anyone else....Is the Greek M48A5 MOLF still in service...... if I find the info on my own I'll post a "nevermind"

Yes it is. It is still in service in the islands' garrisons as a QRF.

Btw, regarding Turkish armor, before the Syrian intervention the composition of armor used to be in general like this:

1st Army mechanized infantry formations=Leo-1 variants
1st Army armored formations=Leo-2 variants
Rest of Land forces armored formations=M60T and some M60A3
Rest=M60A3, M48 variants

With some exceptions of course.

Now things have been more muddled, since Leo-2s have been deployed in Syria as well, but the general trend is like this more or less.

DRG

February 6th, 2018, 10:25 AM

Always nice to find a good photo for "inspiration":D

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15178&stc=1&d=1517927088

DRG

February 6th, 2018, 10:43 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 6th, 2018, 11:30 AM

Don,
1. To clarify the para 4 concerning the VOLKAN FCS where I had the TI/GSR 40 is for the LEOPARD-1T if I confused you there. Meant to "flip it" with the para 2 on that systems 3 different levels above it in Post #773 and forgot. Sorry if caused any confusion.

2. Thanks for the M-48T5 resolution, just ran out of time there, but I see it got you to Greece and not as a tourist. It was well answered though. Another "Rabbit Hole" just a little smaller than most. ;)

3. Russia the T-90M is not for export, it's going into the Russian Army only. I now seem to remember something about this tank, maybe it was posted in the development stage. Will check FIREFOX files I transferred over. My army recognition ref 1 has a good photo as well.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/new_t-90m_mbt_tank_will_enter_in_service_with_russian_ar my.html

I have verified that the T-90M was used in ZAPAD 2017 last SEP per the ref above. It was the largest Russian Exercise since the Cold War which made international News and gave concern to NATO. I found a picture of in the exercise in my search.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-plans-huge-zapad-2017-military-exercises-belarus-n788741
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/09/13/100000-troops-will-engage-in-russias-zapad-2017-war-games/?utm_term=.37fcf9f63a90
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/zapad-2017-nato-should-be-keeping-eye-russias-training-20540
15179
15180 15181

I'm sticking with my OCT 2018 date for now as posted in my last.
No better way to opeval a tank than to put it into a major exercise, especially of that scope.

Alright back to work today.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: THIS IS WHY I SHOULD EAT SOMETHING BEFORE I POST. SORRY DON WRONG TANK WRONG COUNTRY IN MY REPLY ABOVE. :doh: OK THE T-72MP IS FOR THE UKRAINIAN ARMY, HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING TO SUGGUST THEY'LL TRY TO EXPORT IT-YET. WILL KEEP MY EYE ON IT.

Well at least we have another picture of the Russian T-90M!?! :up:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 9th, 2018, 02:54 AM

FYI: Another ZAPAD 2017 Heavy armored Russian unit apparently was also evaluated there. The ref is saying, a Russian military source is indicating that the BMPT TERMINATOR-2 will be received by the Russian Army That would put it inducted into the Army by APR 2018.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/latest_bmpt_terminator_tank_support_vehicles_for_r ussian_army_in_2018.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/bmpt-72_terminator_2_tank_support_armoured_fighting_veh icle_technical_data_sheet_specifications.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 20th, 2018, 04:06 AM

Well the following very good pieces are dealing with some of the issues Europe is having concerning MBT modernization or development. These pieces exam the choices that Norway and Poland face in this issue. The "Driver" is of course Russia who has moved West already and is steadily moving further North as well into the Artic Zone.
http://www.defence24.com/armoured-forces-in-norway-at-the-crossroads-new-main-battle-tank-or-leopard-upgrade-programme
http://www.defence24.com/mbt-for-poland-without-involvement-of-the-polish-industry

I've already reported on the French and German cooperation in the LEOPARD 3/or yes, LEOCLERC.

South Korea has straightened out their K-2 issues and have recently started the production of the 2nd batch of 100 tanks. They will have 300 total upon completion of, for now, the 3rd and final batch of 100 K2 tanks.

Russia of course will have the ARMATA but not in the numbers originally proposed but, in enough numbers that Europe is certainly concerned about them. And this is I get to officially say, "I told you so." It'll be 2021 or later before Russia fields the tank. From the ref. below...

"The Russian Defense Ministry plans to sign major contracts to procure Armata-based armor after 2020. "Acceptance tests will begin this year and will continue up to the end of 2019. We have to reach the finish with new samples in 2020 and will then decide on major serial contracts," Borisov said."

And if that wasn't enough...

"The Main command of the Russian Ground Forces has announced in May 2017, that the 1st tank regiment of Taman division will be the first unit to be rearmed with new-generation Armata T-14. That will happen after 2020 when the new tank passes government acceptance tests and becomes operational. At present the regiment is armed with T-72B3."

Don and I will leave it as a surprise unless he feels it necessary to do otherwise, but our tank issue of a couple of weeks ago continued behind the scenes, it would involve several countries, I think it was three continents, several tanks having started with what we thought were small issues with a T-55 which would lead to one country having I believe 3 whole series of tanks deleted because folks decided we needed them because they were planned to be modernized or bought. Problem was no one ever followed up on them and they ALL died on the vine. And that was just one country. To be fair, a couple were inherited from "SP" the rest however, were not.

Not how I for my part, thought I'd "see the world". Here's your ref...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russia_two_battalions_of_t-14_armata_mbt_tanks_will_enter_in_service.html

Elsewhere the...

The U.S. has recently just started to field the M1A2 SEP V3 and has approved funding for the development of the M1A2 SEP V4 more on that later.

Turkey appears to be getting back on track with the ALTAY and as already posted, will have ANOTHER, like the above ARMATA pushed back fielding date.

Iran well they're about to field their latest MBT it looks like possibly later this year, the already posted KARRAR which looks like a T-72MS but here's what a Russian tank expert thinks about it...

"According to military experts, the Karrar MBT is based on the chassis of the Soviet-made T-72 but fitted with a new turret. The design of the tank seems to be very similar to the Russian-made T-90MS. According to retired Major General Vladimir Bogatyrev, the Karrar is a copy of the Russian-made T-90MS, the most advanced modification of the T-90 family but it uses some features of the American M1 Abrams and British Challenger 2. Russian military expert suggested that, in terms of certain military capabilities, the Karrar is unlikely to match the Russian T-90."

Hhmmmm, So given the last sentence of the last, if it's probably not as good as a T-90, it must have used the worst attributes of the M1 ABRAMS and CHALLENGER 2 and we know how bad those tanks are. :rolleyes:

That being said this tank is a quantum leap for Iran and I'm thinking for what little it's worth, probably not as bad as our Russian expert thinks.

So for you geography types, looking at the map and the current nature of the political scene, someone is looking rather contained at least within the next 5 to 10 yrs anyway. Time will tell.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/iran_karrar_home-made_tanks_to_be_delivered_soon.html

Before I forget but, they're friends (Trying to contain China.) and India was only left out of this well because, they're India. Such potential with their heavy armor but, I wonder if we'll see the ARJUN Mk II or FMBT before the games end. The former is "World Class" and the latter if completed could be a "Top 5" contender.

Anyway off to bed and back to work later today. I hope EVERYONE has a GREAT DAY!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 4th, 2018, 05:51 PM

Found something I wasn’t expecting to see, so to ease my mind, is South Korea’s K1 MBT still in service? I’m 4hrs from my PC and can’t get to the game. Had to get to bed when I came across an article concerning the K-series of tanks. Many thanks in advance!! Just want to give my brain a rest and then this is floating around inside of it. :sick:

Regards,
Pat
:p this to show what the iPad won’t let me do!

DRG

March 4th, 2018, 05:58 PM

Found something I wasn’t expecting to see, so to ease my mind, is South Korea’s K1 MBT still in service?
Regards,
Pat
capt:

Yes, it is

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 4th, 2018, 06:13 PM

Don,
THANKS! Found an article dealing with an upcoming modernization for all three K-tanks. Base K1 should be around until games end, Your reply assures me of that.

Will post it mid-week when we get back. No hidden work just some FYI stuff. And Turkey with Germany concerning the continuing the circus surrounding the Turkish LEOPARD tanks. Another example of how things can change on a dime and back again!?! :rolleyes:

AGAIN Thank You!

Regards,
Pat
:)

RC4

March 7th, 2018, 01:43 PM

Portuguese Army retires M60A3TTS in March 2018
https://scontent.flis5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28795313_1876611635707066_3099595102798750008_n.jp g?oh=df0f73218229217d4acaa537345b22a7&oe=5B052641

Thanks

Suhiir

March 8th, 2018, 11:50 PM

Russian tanks for dummies !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oAv9ugRx2g
NOTHING here (probably) Fast Tough hasn't already covered.

Suhiir

March 9th, 2018, 10:23 PM

And just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water sailor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEibU7NiR-M

DRG

March 9th, 2018, 11:22 PM

:doh::re:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 10th, 2018, 03:11 AM

I shall endeavor to post my response to Suhiir's last two posts in the following manner.

On the first post...
Sometime ago my posts concerning the T-80 where picked up online. I was contacted by a group about 6-8 months ago via a PM in our forum. I was asked if they could use the information I posted and if I had any additional information concerning the T-80 that would help in the development of the video as posted. I always can provide further information concerning a particular topic and did so in this case. :D As Suhiir astutely pointed out in her post with the video, there is no probably, as I'm fully aware of my extensive knowledge of Russian tanks and in particular the more high tech versions which the T-80 represented at the time.

I'm sure EVERYONE found that information useful and helpful. My apologies to everyone for the fact that, try as I am, I couldn't get them to change that stupid video for one more focused on the T-80. :bs: :ahh: Yes it was that frustrating. :cold:

Concerning the second post...
Yes I was outed here, I had come across some information concerning the further development of the ABRAMS beyond the SEP V4. I wanted to post it, however, I needed to verify the data. After some further research, I notified the parties involved that unfortunately the data was incorrect. The first concern I picked up on was the fact that everyone knows or should know, that an increase of 1mm to the main gun is insufficient to increase armor penetration by 1000mm. Using the math formula for Thermal Dynamic Mass Expansion Coefficient Theorem (TDMECT), that to achieve 1000mm extra armor penetration you need to increase the shells performance by a minimum of 27% and increase the bore from 120mm to 123mm (124mm would be better by my calculations. :D)

The narrator for that video was just pissed off after spending 3 days in the production of it until I notified the group of my extensive research and results from my calculations using TDMECT.

So there you have it, with , again, my apologies. I was lead to believe these videos, especially the second, wouldn't see the "light of day" but instead it saw the "moonlight of night".

A most embarrassing situation. :o

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 12th, 2018, 11:47 PM

Some NEWS and other FYI items:

1. This next site is a resource and should provide a simple example of one of the tank issues we worked on in preparation for the Patch release. I hope you find it useful.
http://www.patton-mania.com/index.html

2. Australia: Armor upgrades coming to the Army.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/australia_tank_and_armour_upgrades_planned.html

2. Croatia: We've been down this road with the rumors of an upgrade coming to their M-84 tank, but this time I give credence to this latest report.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/croatia_plans_to_upgrade_its_m-84_main_battle_tanks_fleet.html

3. Germany: Has come to an agreement with SAAB to supple camo packages for the LEOPARD 2A7V. Few companies can do a better job with this product then SAAB, says volumes if Germany is using them.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/saab-supply-camouflage-systems-german-leopard-2-a7v-tanks/

4. Iraq: I believe I might've posted this already, but, if not this will be the last time. Iraq gets it's first batch of T-90S tanks.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russia_has_started_the_delivery_of_t-90s_mbt_tanks_to_iraq.html

5. Poland: First Poland wants in on the German/French LEOCLERC
tank.
http://www.defence24.com/mbt-for-poland-without-involvement-of-the-polish-industry
Next the PT-91 TWANDY receives new TI sights for the tanks equipped with the upgraded SKO-1T DRAWA-T FCS. Something to address next year.
http://www.defence24.com/pco-delivers-thermal-vision-systems-for-the-twardy-mbt

6. Russia: I know I posted about the Russians getting this tank during our OOB work, however I don't remember if I posted the tech sheet for it.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-90m_model_2017_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data _sheet.html

7. Thailand: Ukraine keeping it's promise under the revised contract. This matter is now closed as far as I'm concerned. The only news will be if the Thai's find the OPLOT-M and order more. Also seeing "hints" that they might be tracking the outcome of Pakistan's evaluation of the new OPLOT-P.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/production_of_oplot-t_mbts_for_royal_thai_army_almost_complete.html

8. Turkey: So Don, guess what we'll be adding to the Turkish tanks next year, and it was a "hot topic" in the forum? I know your brain is nearing the "mush point" yes, finally APS. I would say at a minimum this will go on the LEOPARDS and M60T tanks.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/turkish_active_protection_system_akkor_pulat_to_eq uip_tanks_in_syria.html

Why Don and I love Turkey so much...
From this past January...
http://dieselgasoil.com/news/germany-freezes-upgrade-of-turkish-leopard-tanks-amid-afrin-op-govt-spokesman/
About 2 weeks later...
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180120-reports-germany-likely-to-approve-tank-upgrades-for-turkey/

Finally Otokar submitted which built the ALTAY prototypes has submitted it's second and final proposal to build the ALTAY when it goes into serial production. Two other Turkish companies have also submitted bids for that contract. Decision to come later in the Spring or Summer if not delayed by well, something.
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/otokar/pressreleases/otokar-submitted-best-final-offer-altay-serial-production/

9. USA: Well we're evaluating a couple of light tank options for the Airborne and the BCT in Europe. This will be our first light tank since the SHERIDON M-551. I think this will be a better tank, however, they better bring on the armor upgrade package. Hopefully in order of date.
http://www.leonardodrs.com/sitrep/q3-2016-ausa-annual-meeting-expo-special-edition/army-looking-to-bring-big-firepower-in-a-new-small-combat-vehicle-package/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2016_show_daily_news_tv_coverage_report/general_dynamics_presents_new_griffin_technology_d emonstrator_of_light_tank_for_u.s._airborne_troops _10410161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/saic_continues_to_test_vehicle_for_us_army_mobile_ protected_firepower.html

Now you see how long I keep things. ;)

Anyway this is enough for now did a good file clean out which is always a good thing.

Have a good night or morning!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
http://www.army-technology.com/news/us-army-receives-bae-proposal-mpf-vehicle-development-test/

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 13th, 2018, 05:01 AM

For clarification concerning Thailand, by my indicating there might be a possibility that they might order more OPLOT-M tanks, I meant to say, should they find that it out performs the Chinese MBT 3000/VT-4 tanks they've received.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

RC4

May 12th, 2018, 09:05 AM

Paraguay retires last M4 Sherman in April, acording to Janes
http://www.janes.com/article/79476/paraguayan-army-retires-last-m4-shermans-from-service
Thanks

DRG

May 12th, 2018, 09:45 AM

So now Paraguay has no tanks................. except for a handful of Stuarts

RC4

May 13th, 2018, 04:08 AM

They should be retiring the Stuarts too. Their job is to train the army in Anti-tank warfare, thats their use.
Their real AFV is the EE9 Cascavel, its 90mm NR478A2 HEAT supplied by Brazil is enouth to the Bolivias SK105 tanks, against Argentina/Brazil they must invest in modern ATGMs.
Thanks

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 11th, 2018, 01:20 AM

These refs. both sourced from IHS JANE's shows in 2014, 10 Stuarts were pulled from storage, modified with new engines and the M2 50 Cal. vice the original 30 Cal.
https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/01/01/paraguay-keeping-m3-stuart-and-m4-sherman-tanks-in-service/
http://ww2live.com/en/content/world-war-2-m3-stuart-light-tank-and-m4-sherman-going-back-service-mostly-operational

Concur on the SHERMAN's can't find anything saying the STUART's are coming out of service anytime soon.

Still trying to track stuff when I can.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

RC4

June 11th, 2018, 04:11 PM

Some of the Stuart received a M20 75mm RCL instead of the M2HB.
Thanks

DRG

June 11th, 2018, 06:49 PM

Some of the Stuart received a M20 75mm RCL instead of the M2HB.
Thanks

Which is already in the OOB as unit 5.......

RC4

June 12th, 2018, 04:32 PM

Yes, and the introdution of the M2HB too. I was just showing a foto
Thanks

DRG

June 12th, 2018, 05:47 PM

now entered......

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 5th, 2018, 09:58 PM

Well like I said back in early June, trying to keep up on tracking these issues and I see it's been quite here for a while when there's so much happening in this area. So consider this FYI with some minor changes for some starting with the first entry. I will not due to time issues be able to finish this tonight. Consider this Part I. I will do this alpha by country. As a reminder an "ADD" is assumed with End Date DEC 2025 unless otherwise noted. Also what might be requested again are minor issues so, the refs submitted represent a "composite" taken from other refs. If this was a new piece of gear I would as always "bombard" Don as the record has shown with many more refs.

1. I don't remember if ECM devices contribute to EW ratings for tanks. I would think some minor adjustment would be made only for the fact if so equipped they tend to tie into the countermeasures on board in timing the proper launch protocols for the inbound threat. So I'm going with that for now...

A1. ALGERIA/ADD/JUN 2018/T-90SA/COPY UNIT 027/WITH SHTORA-1//
Article is from May, it's indicating system is already installed on some tanks. June seems like a safe month, however, if you wish to be more conservative then I recommend NLT OCT.

C1. ALGERIA/CHANGE/UNIT 027/T-90S/TORD T-90SA//
All Algerian T-90S (Standard export version.) were modified somewhat for desert warfare to include, I know, AC (But remember folks AC isn't for the crew but for the electronics.) and therefore designated T-90SA.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/algerian_t-90_tanks_receive_shtora-1_jammer_53005161.html

FYI HEADLINE/AUSTRILIA/MIA1 TO BE UPGRADED TO THE MIA2 LEVEL/HAVE ALREADY SEEN ARITICLES TO INDICATE THEY WILL ALSO GET TROPHY INSTALLED/TRACKING/GUESS/SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH UNITS UPGRADED AND IN THE FIELD BY OCT 2022//
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/australia_tank_and_armour_upgrades_planned.html

With 5 minutes to spare I leave you to spend time with CINCLANTHOME.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

luigim

November 11th, 2018, 06:41 AM

https://defence-blog.com/army/turkish-army-to-receive-250-modern-altay-main-battle-tanks.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3RfT02AgWOggH-0FM3R_F2nB2O71Ti8D-o3BIg8W-8OFLurs6VxCE44s8

DRG

November 11th, 2018, 08:50 AM

Aeraaa

November 11th, 2018, 08:58 AM

OK 18 months from now is the new start date ( May 2020 )....this is the third or fourth revision for that tank IIRC. The first hint that this tank was under development was in winspmbtV4 ( 2008 ) and the start date then was set for 2016.

And the first plan was a grand one for 1000+ Altays. Turks are even worse than Russians in setting realistic goals.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 12th, 2018, 10:59 PM

Unintended PART II...

Well I'll take some responsibility for not having suggested a new date myself, however, I needed more data which didn't become available until after mine and CINCLANTHOME had to get and take over the planning of my last boats 25th Ann.

A brief I promise, history...I can't even remember when I first submitted a change to this tank (I don't believe I submitted it w/o checking hard copies.) in the very beginning. This MBT (And OOB which Don and I worked on together last year or year before and fixed-we hope.) along with a couple of others have been a real PITA!! Once the Germans and Austria (Engines) got involved after the South Koreas stepped seemed to have a good relationship with Turkey. They experienced some technical (All) as well as financial issues (Turkey) which I believe caused the first date change. The second and third were caused by Germany first, then Austria next to pull out due to human rights issues and the purge after the attempted coup. Germany was thinking about getting back in the game but backed off after Turkey invaded part of Syria and started operations of a limited scale against the Kurds.

The real "Big Hurt" was two fold Austria not supplying the engine and the Government pressing OAKAR to come off the coat per unit for the ALTAY. This was difficult for OAKAR to do as they developed the tank and bore the cost to do so.

The result has been an almost two year delay in rebidding the contract between three of Turkeys largest defense contractors to build it and develop a home grown 1500hp they've never attempted before. The contract issues have just been completed this summer I believe in June.

To one extent or another this is all covered in my refs. below and selected posts I'm supplying. To be sure, there are many more Posts before those selected concerning the ALTAY (May it, the ARJUN and ARMATA "RIP" someday!)

The date submitted is from the time frame of the original contract
as will be shown in quotations below.

Based on the information I'm submitting I don't see that MBT in service until JUN 2021. Most of the operational testing regarding the engine and most importantly the ability of it to act as a functioning Power Pack is out the window. The prototypes are all using the Austrian and German Power Packs-they now and they can't legally copy them (Germany and Austria have not given licensing to do so.) and if they do copy them you can forget seeing them in this game as they just might be tied up in court that long.

And finally if my date is wrong and it's sooner than later, well, good for the game and won't it be nice to change a date to the left for a change!?! Glass half full kind've guy really!?! :D

POSTS See TURKEY: #783 FEB 20th and #792 MAR 12th 2018.

And...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/bmc_from_turkey_won_contract_to_produce_altay_mbt_ main_battle_tank.html

"Previously, in the 2017-2021 Strategic Plan published by the SSM, the primary date for the first Altay Main Battle Tank entering service was set for 2020. According to the plan, the first 15 tanks will be put into service in 2020, while 20 tanks will be delivered in 2021."

http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industr y/contract_for_mass_production_of_turkish_altay_tank _mbt_will_be_inked_soon.html

"According to Turkish defense industry sources, the mass production of the Altay MBT could started in late 2019 or early 2020." The rest of para 2 reads as the above quote does.

Didn't want to get "out of order" but felt I had to as much of my time as well as Don's has gone into all things Turkey!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 13th, 2018, 02:36 AM

This acts as a supplement to the previous Post.
And just that fast, we get the following...
Contract signed at the end of last week for 250 ALTAY MBT's. First 40 will be produced followed by the rest with no time frame given. This is the same pattern when OTOKAR (Spelled right this time.) had the original contract. The first batch were the "test beds".
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/turkey_bmc_has_received_contract_to_produce_250_al tay_mbts.html

That's what I get for reading the "papers" so late.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 20th, 2018, 04:36 PM

PART III

This follows the "tact" as I discussed last week or whenever I posted PART I. I just pulled this off the "wire" so again Croatia will have to wait, as this article impacts both Brazil and will "dove tail" to Uruguay. I know not many players probably play these OOB's but, that doesn't mean we (I) should ignore them, after all my motto is "One World One OOB". Let's get to it...

BRAZIL/CHANGE/M-41C CAXIAS/UNIT 007/END DATE 12/1996 VICE 12/2025//. There is some evidence to support this date when the first LEOPARD tanks went into service for the Brazilian Army. These tanks were used for training purposes both before (Earlier mods.) and up to, for the sake of argument, concerning the month, 12/2009 as deemed obsolete. So that last date gives you an out however I'm feeling 80% sure of the date as submitted. I know it's not the best, but the current situation isn't correct.

Now we "dove tail"...

URAGUAY/ADD/M-41C CAXIAS/USE BRAZILIAN UNIT 007/START DATE 12/2019/LEAVE NAME UNCHANGED FOR NOW/REDESINATION UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME/WHEN ANNOUCED (IF) IT'LL BE EASIER TO FIND AND FIX//. I've not seen anything on name change or any upgrades to at least the current M-41UR BULLDOG that has slightly better armor numbers. These tanks will by Brazil be fully maintained before delivery.

These tanks will replace the last of the M-24 CHAFFEE tanks in service with the Uruguayan Army. So...

URAGUAY/CHANGE/M-24UR CHAFFEE/UNIT 005/END DATE 06/2019 VICE 12/2015//. I feel that's a good overall date, it generally takes a little longer to "pull something out than put it in" and this will allow more then enough time to retrain the M-24 crews to man the "new" M-41C Brazilian received tanks.

I think that about covers it and I need to get ready for work. Again, a "composite" ref.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/brazil_donates_25_m41_light_tanks_to_the_uruguayan _army.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 21st, 2018, 06:29 AM

Don,
My apologies first off, before I left to get ready for work on the last post, I know I rechecked it and still missed the now fixed and in bold intended date shown below. I just had DEC in my head from the previous Brazil entry I guess!?! :doh: Sorry I know how very busy you are right now. At 0500 I must be more awake now!?! :rolleyes:

URAGUAY/ADD/M-41C CAXIAS/USE BRAZILIAN UNIT 007/START DATE 1/2019/LEAVE NAME UNCHANGED FOR NOW/REDESINATION UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME/WHEN ANNOUCED (IF) IT'LL BE EASIER TO FIND AND FIX//.

This allows for almost 4 months to get these 25 tanks ready for delivery and into the field.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 25th, 2018, 03:35 PM

PART IV redux after losing first @ 0400.

News first than we'll take a journey into the OOB.
FYI HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-84A4 SNIPER and M-84D TO BE UPGRADED TO THE M-95 DEGMAN LEVEL//TRACKING/GUESS/SHOULD HAVE UNITS UPGRADED AND IN THE FIELD BY 10/2020/IF THIS HOLDS TRUE, THAT WOULD MARK THE END DATES FOR THOSE TWO M-84 VARIENTS// Budget was approved in 02/2018. Assume work has begun if budget is on the Calendar year, if not and they are on a standard Fiscal year, work should have started around 10/2018 or 11/2018.

FYI/HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-95 DEGMAN/APPARENTLY THEY SEEK TO UPGRADE IT TO MEET NATO STANAG REQUIRMENTS. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLABRATING WITH SWISS RUAG TO DEVELOP A SMALL CALIBAR (L44?) 120mm MG TO ALSO MEET NATO REQUIRMENTS/TRACKING/THEY ARE ON A UNKNOWN TIMELINE TO GET THIS DONE FROM NATO/GUESS/06/2021//

I'm to do this in as close to the listing in the OOB as possible.

First CROATIAN M-84 progression/hierarchy: M-84, M-84A (Both Out of Service.), M-84A4 SNIPER, M-84D and M-95 DEGMAN.

YUGOSLOVIA (Built in the State of CROATIA) developed the M-84 as an improved version of the SOVIET era T-72M1M export version. This build issue will cause a start date change for one tank, but, if not you at least know what I was thinking at the time.

Alright here we go...

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 008/TI/GSR 40 VICE VISION 35/DELETE LAHAT/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 12.7mm HMG//Based on the refs to be provided with the builder one provided directly below, the argument can be made that this tank has a DETECTION RNG. OF >4000m/RECOGNITION RNG. >2000m it is considered an advanced 2nd GEN System. LAHAT was never exported to CROATIA and no site I've come across (And I don't use WIKI anything.) mentions any CROATIAN tank being armed with the LAHAT. Further ref. is also directly below the first one as they are exclusive to this tank. Dates covered 1990 - 2017 for SIPRI search.
Finally I chose this tank because the ERA is where it should be.
http://ddsv.hr/download/Tenk_Degman_engleski.pdf
All optional equipment was acted upon to include FCS & 1200HP German engine etc.
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

Israel "Delivered" "Weapon" "Order" "Delivered"
R: Croatia 2 Hermes-450 UAV 2006 2007 2
8 UT-25/UT-30 IFV turret 2017 HRK94 m ($14.8 m) deal; UT-30MK2 version for 6 AMV IFV; delivery planned 2018

UT-30MK2 as highlighted should be delivered by now.

Reporting to SIPRI is governed by Treaties and International Law among the factors they use.

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84 & M-84A/UNITS 012 & 013/END DATE 12/2007 VICE 12/2025//All previous active T-84 mods were upgraded to the M-84A4 SNIPER standard by 2008.

CROATIA/DELETE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT O15//If anything these might have represented the two prototype tanks that were produced and not put into service.

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84D/UNIT 020/DELETE 12.7 M2 (SLAP)/ADD 12.7mm M2 CROWS RWS//

CROATIA/DELETE/M-84D/UNIT 021/REDUNDANT TO UNIT 020/AGAIN NO LAHAT//

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 023/USE MODIFIED UNIT 008 IF ADAPTED AS BASE/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 40mm AGL//

CROATIA/DELETE/M-94 DEGMAN/UNIT 024/REDUNDANT//

I can find no evidence that any of these tanks had a "mid-life" upgrade of any kind. Besides other factors, this drove some of the above.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/croatia_plans_to_upgrade_its_m-84_main_battle_tanks_fleet.html
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/33033
http://tanknutdave.com/the-yugoslavian-former-m-84-series/
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=629

Ref. 3 does a nice job of breaking these tanks down but more importantly along with Ref. 4 to a lesser degree, discuss the various mods across the countries that operated the M-84.

Doing the best I can. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 1st, 2018, 11:15 PM

Don,
For your own good PLEASE before you get to the neat word in bold, get up and go shoot your gun or get your favorite beverage before you go past STOP here!!!

Well here we go again with the NOW and new #1 PITA OOB. Yes TURKEY has with this ref. below, officially surpassed INDIA for that coveted title!! :tur: :first: :clap: :party: !!!!

It's bad enough that TURKEY can't manage to get the ALTAY developed near or on time and with the loss of German and Austrian support, it will have to a limited level restart the OPEVAL process as I've already discussed a few posts back.

So here's the "brilliant" plan instead they're going to have three different versions the ALTAY T1, ALTAY T2 (Detect a pattern here!?!) and finally the ALTAY T3 (For now!?!).

But maybe, and it kills me to say this, it might just be a little "brilliant" because it'll allow them more time to develop systems that they're currently having issues with and that might also still be in development. The continued development of the T-72 comes to mind some what.

It appears the big jump in technology will come in the ALTAY T2, which means we'll have to pay attention a little more closely to this process.

For myself and Don I see down the road more of this...:dk: :banghead: :ahh: :bs: :censor: :pc: and since this is a family orientated forum, other things I just can't go into here!?!
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/turkey_altay_t3_version_mbt_main_battle_tank_will_ be_fitted_with_unmanned_turret.html

Don really likes those "ANEMIA" things above or whatever the Hell you call them things!?!?!

After this post it looks like a good time to watch Monty Pythons "Meaning of Life" to get a little perspective!!!! :rolleyes: There's one of those :censor: things again!!!! :doh:

It's a wonderful world, isn't it!?! ;) :D Where are those things coming from!?! :doh: Again stop it now!! Obviously somebody got some sleep just wait until I get a hold of him it'll be the :fire:
squad for him!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 7th, 2018, 04:46 PM

Just a little something to "chew upon" while I'm at work until the "wee hours" of tomorrow morning. Some news on IDF MERKEVA "WINDBREAKER" and most surprisingly to me, was the selection made by for the UKRAINE the T-72K over the OPLOT-M. They're taunting the fact it has the NOZH ("KNIFE") ERA pkg. which was developed for the OPLOT-M.

Given the choice between the two and w/o hesitation, I'd choose the OPLOT-M "All Day Long" and well into tomorrow!
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/analysis_top_15_most_modern_main_battle_tanks_mbts _in_the_world.html

Gotta Run!! Have a great weekend!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 9th, 2018, 02:59 AM

Alright I need a favor from at least 3 to 5 "research testers" and what I'm asking for will require 11, 13 or 15 tanks per side you choose, though a mix would be great. They are the Russian T-72B3/B4 versus the Ukrainian OPLOT-M. You my choose the terrain type or simply just have them fight it out on the flat. The Russian AI will buy those tanks every time and normally in the first battle.

Also this is something above my technical abilities and most importantly my hours at work since July have finally caught up to me (:sick:) and I desperately need sleep before I go back to work Tue.

Why? Though I've had my share of tank losses against the AI, it seems like I'm losing a higher amount of OPLOT-M tanks against the above opponent versus other types used by different countries I've played. Note again my campaigns are long involving 15 to at odd intervals to 29(+/=) battles.

Results? What I expect to see is roughly a 2:1 or possibly as high as 3:1 advantage in kills by the T-72B3/B4.

What they say. I'm not implying the OPLOT-M is some kind of "super tank", however, it's been very consistently ranked in the "Top 10" lists of several sources dealing with tanks. It's nearest competitor in the region for comparison sake is the current updated T-90A (I'm not talking about the T-90AM.)
I'm posting a ref. below, but basically the OPLOT-M has a slightly better FCS/Vision+ and a better ERA package with NOZH-2.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ukraines-tough-t-84-oplot-m-tank-wont-fight-russia-being-17817?page=0%2C1

What I suspect? I'm guessing here, but it could be the ammo. Some of it was pretty old and or dated. But after "somebody" blew up three ammo dumps in the Ukraine in 2017, they have been apparently been importing (Some suggest as early as 2016 from the Czech Republic or Bulgaria. SIPRI does not track ammunition.).) heavier ammo. They lost their factory to the Russians when they took over the Crimea. A new modern facility is to open up and start production by late Spring or early Summer 2019.
https://frontnews.eu/news/en/6987/Ukraine-will-build-a-new-factory-for-the-production-of-ammunition
https://censor.net.ua/en/news/371078/ukraine_to_see_construction_of_new_ammunition_plan t_in_2016_ukroboronprom

Please feel free to post your results here. And only up to the first five respondents please. Your interpretation of the results would be most welcomed as well.

Well that's been enough "head bobbing", so good night/morning and enjoy the rest of your weekend.!!

And thank you in advance!!

Andy and Don PLEASE sit this one out! I would like to think, that you'll "keep your noses to the grindstone" so you both can enjoy the holidays this year!! And if you both don't mind, what you guys have gotten me over the years has been fine for Christmas, however, if you can manage it this year, give me the same for Christmas but, just larger PLEASE!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Imp

December 9th, 2018, 09:10 AM

Hi Pat

Game stats
Both use identical main gun and ammo
Oplot missile has worse penetration cannot bother T-72 from the front
T-72 missile has a very small chance against the Oplot hull can ignore.
Missile defence is identical.

Oplot has slightly better fire control and vision.
Range finder stabilizer identical.
Standard settings Russia has better Experience so Oplot will be less accurate overall.

Oplot has better turret front by enough at correct range will make a difference against AP and superb HEAT protection, no ATGM will penetrate turret front.
Oplot hull is marginally weaker vs AP, not going to be a problem in most cases only a small range where its more vulnerable. could run AP calc if wanted to find the range.

Oplot ERA package is worse 5/5 vs 8/6
Therefore Oplot is likely to stop none or 1 round maybe 2. T-72 has a good chance of stopping the first round and may stop several.

Oplot strengths weakness vs T-72
From the front if hull down its virtually invincible, Top attack ATGMs (not T-72s)are the only threat.
Oplot can penetrate T-72 turret at about double the range T-72 can penetrate its turret. Be around 1000 + 2000m respectively. Closer for a certainty say 700 + 1700m run AP calc if you want the exact figures.
It cannot take advantage of extra vision range unless that presents a side shot as it wont penetrate and experience difference will make it less accurate at that range, still good hit chance though.
Fighting at 1000 > 1700m gives it the edge as it can kill with hull and turret hits while T-72 needs a hull hit.
T-72 has a good chance of absorbing 1 or 2 shots with its ERA while the Oplot only has a 50-50 chance of stopping a shot.

My normal buy order is infantry, APCs if separate, tanks, ATGMs could move ATGMs up one place if want I buy them there due to limited shots.
This way tanks only op fire if threat is still active limiting distraction, also causes suppression to the target aiding tank survivability
Also if APC has a cannon infantry and APC can trigger the ERA reducing the chance of the tanks shot being negated.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 9th, 2018, 01:55 PM

John,
As always thank you! And I still see you haven't lost your touch for the details.

Well three things come to my attention immediately...

1) In a sense my thought concerning the ammo was directed if you will, at the wrong ammo, that being said, I think you have something there about the ATGM. And I believe this might be a true assessment.

2) I have to admit that I never gave much thought to "experience" from the onset of the game of those tanks. This would explain some of my earlier in game losses. These losses would be progressive throughout the game only getting marginally better as the campaign progresses due to the loss of the crews from the start. You're starting over every time with a new tank and crew.

That I should've seen, but didn't. And that's coming from the guy who's constantly bringing it up when newer players are seeking help etc. :doh: John thank you for reminding me!

3) Now after one test I believe we've found the leading "culprit" the ERA. So going back to the ref. I provided concerning the comparison between the T-90A (Russia "default" UNIT 860) and the OPLOT-M (UKRAINE "default" UNIT O64) that article pointed out that the ERA was in favor of the OPLOT-M.

So is it possible to at least increase the ERA of the OPLOT-M to achieve parody with the T-90A as in the game now? Or to give it the edge the article suggests? Some more perspective...
http://news.kievukraine.info/2018/06/could-ukraines-t-84-tank-take-on-worlds.html

I think it a fair one given where it's coming from and I'm seeing anything that "The National Review" ref from my last post didn't point out. Of note though from the above is the main gun comparison to it's Russian counterpart and the results of Malaysian tests between the base T-84 versus the T-90S which that the T-84 was at near parody with the T-90S.

John thank you!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 9th, 2018, 04:57 PM

I should have ended (And had planned to but got called away.) "Item 2) from my last Post" with the following only because like I missed the "experience" issue, it should have ended with...

"This situation would now call for a tactical change in how I use the OPLOT-M against any opponent due to the base "experience level" of the crew. It's too easy to get caught up in how good the MBT is and as John brought up, and forget about how good the crew is that's operating the tank at the time.

Options include better terrain masking, ambush, maneuver to better achieve a disabling or kill shot, concentrated fire by more than one OPLOT-M to the nearest threat tank to at least reduce it's morale at mid to max. range or worse.

Reality would suggest however a combination of part or all of the above would be needed and maybe more."

Certainly we can all learn more and also remind ourselves about what we might have forgotten or to be kinder, overlooked, because some of us are "experienced players".

I have light bulbs to change out in the bathroom, CINCLANTHOME can make my Sundays so hard for me!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Aeraaa

December 9th, 2018, 05:46 PM

@FASTBOAT: are you asking for a 10 to 15 encounter battle between the T-72B3/B4 and the T-84? I can do this, but I'll post the results next weekend, as I'm a little busy this week.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 9th, 2018, 07:02 PM

Aeraaa,
First thanks for volunteering! I like "tie breakers" which is how I set my campaigns as I mentioned earlier so...

1) For each side 11, 13 or 15 tanks each.

2) Just 1 battle would suffice I believe, but if you have the time 3 might be better to "flush out" any game anomalies.

3) The "kill ratio" would be good info as well in general and for me to be able to verify my own data collection is what I suspect it is.

But I leave that to the tester, it however, would be useful to know how many battles were used to collect the data for trend analysis purposes.

Thanks Again!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Imp

December 9th, 2018, 08:08 PM

Pat terrain will make a big difference as mentioned if Oplot is hull down for instance. Also Oplot has a pretty good ammo loadout and accuracy so if it gets a chance it could fire at range. No chance of destroying but will hopefully trigger ERA.
If terrain allows one group can strip ERA safely at ranges over 2500m and possibly draw fire then other group pops out at closer range to kill.
AP Artillery is also effective at striping ERA although its pot luck what facing it hits.

You need to be warry of getting into a tank duel with any vehicle with ERA 7+ as it will probably survive the first shot. Its a bit like playing WWII where they quite often survive the first hit except the return fire is a lot more accurate.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 9th, 2018, 10:18 PM

John,
I agree hull down tanks have that advantage. Very rarely do I do that even against an assault...1) I can't always entrench my units. 2) I prefer to find fairly defensible terrain with decent fields of fire with over watch units where possible, I like my units to have "an out" and maneuver them to set up for the next shot or two.

As to the artillery issue, I've used my artillery (155mm HE or similar) as you've suggested in that manner for a longtime now. And your right it does work.

I know it works because I've seen it happen to me many, many times against me when the AI will pound the crap out of a critically important position or other, and if you will, to the both of us. This might be helpful in regards to an idea Don mentioned in passing, which to be honest, I don't think is necessary at this point.

These are both observed in the game turn and checked against my UNIT stats again using conventional artillery only:
1. Tanks destroyed - Rare
2. Tanks Disabled - Less Often
3. Tanks lose MG capability - Less Often
4. Tanks lose Secondary weapons - Often
5. Tanks lose TI-GSR/Sensors/Comms - Often/Often/Rare
6. Tanks Morale effected- Always, however your more experienced units might hold the line here but if the support troops have been hammered, you might have no choice but to withdraw and regroup. By having to do that means, the enemy has achieved a certain level of success to some degree. They will be suppressed, retreating or routed it just may take a little longer then other UNITS.

It might take one good salvo from many arty units or several from a couple of arty units. I can't tell you how many times I've had to pull a tank(s) back off the line because all they are is a "mobile pillbox".

I think the arty is fine in game, if my units could leave you feedback, I think they would agree.

Now somehow giving the AI supply capability would be great, but, that to my mind would be the much harder thing to do I think.

All I've played is against the AI for the last 15yrs. or so maybe longer and always long campaigns as I've described, how many battles has that been!?! I observe, it's what I do. It comes in handy here, when I served and especially now in my work, we just call it "Situational Awareness" and we harp on it constantly.

For what they are worth, those are my personal observations.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

jivemi

December 11th, 2018, 04:34 AM

OK, after 3 meeting engagements in mostly level, lightly wooded terrain (random each time) on a 110X120 map with 41 visibility here are the results:

Test one: Russian first player, 13 T-72B3/B4s vs 12 Oplot-Ms (sorry that's even but Oplots are more expensive): each side lost 9 tanks. Draw.

Test two: Ukrainians first player, 13 Oplots vs 13 T-72s, 3 Oplots lost to all 13 T-72s, Ukrainian marginal win.

Test three: Russia first, 13 T-72s to 13 Oplots, honors even again as both sides lost 11 tanks.

Russian crews have perhaps a 10-point experience advantage although they still seemed to miss fairly often. Envars had a couple kills while the Kombats had none. Last battle an Oplot platoon was on higher elevation but hull down didn't help, maybe 'cuz only 2 tanks had LOS through a tree line at any one time to the Russians' 3 or 4.

Dunno if this proves anything but it was fun to watch the AI slug it out with heavy armor. Cheers!

zovs66

December 11th, 2018, 03:35 PM

So I had some time and ran a quick test with these parameters:

https://i.imgur.com/wYgk58Z.png

And the ending result (I as the Russians) vs AI Marginal Victory:

https://i.imgur.com/zpW6xxV.png

As you can see I lost 5 tanks to 12. It was pretty tough but over by turns 5-7.

zovs66

December 11th, 2018, 03:45 PM

Oh for the Ukrainians I purchased a tank company:
T-84 Oplot-M (x13)

and for the Russians a tank company:
T-72/3M/B4 (x13)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 11th, 2018, 03:45 PM

jivemi,
First Thank you for your time as well!!

Well that was interesting! And I have to add, unexpected. So I draw the following conclusions from this test...

1) It still would seem to support the refs submitted that the ERA for the OPLOT-M must be revised which, I believe Don does as well to at least parody to the Russian T-90A as noted in my last evaluation.

2) The overall results though, 2 Draws & 1 Marginal Victory tank on tank does really surprise me.

3) The above "2)" needed to stand alone. The AI as be set to "Tank Heavy" will generally have more tanks overall and sometimes even at the start. Not to give away too much in case I ever play a PEMB, I always start from a "combined arms" minus air support in the beginning.

To get to 1:1 or 2:1 kill ratios using these tanks I don't think I ever achieved that with these tanks fighting against each other, certainly not early in my long campaigns. I have had early battle draws rarely, won many marginal victories and an occasional decisive victory's.

I think how I'm getting these is though my tanks are getting beaten up or worse, they must be doing just enough damage to where my APC's and Infantry have just enough in them to start taking them out later in the battles, not all of them mind you, but for long enough and with loss of other units, that the "Battle Clock" runs out of time on the Russians.

This says a lot for the "Combined Arms" way of thinking and planning. But it also speaks to the fact, that as I posted, I need to "husband" these tanks a little more and change my tactics as I already noted. They need to "live to see another day" in my way of playing.

As a note I have found playing these two countries in the present day very challenging based on what the UKRAINE has to work with. You might also find the same, if not, then I'm really "hosed up"!?!

So this was useful.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 11th, 2018, 04:08 PM

ASL,
Thank you also! I think my last evaluation posts are still relevant, however...

1) WELCOME TO MY WORLD!! That's more along the lines I'm seeing things. That's almost a 2.5:1 kill ratio in favor of the Russians. That sounds about right to me.

2) Maybe I'm not that "hosed up" after all!?! Time will tell. ;)

Now I have to get ready for work it's gonna be cold out there tonight!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

zovs66

December 11th, 2018, 04:55 PM

No worries, you can call me ASL, but it's really zovs66 or Don :)

ASL = Advanced Squad Leader

RC4

December 11th, 2018, 06:14 PM

M41C delivered to Uruguay in 7 Dec 2018.
Article with vídeo
http://www.defesanet.com.br/leo/noticia/31422/Diplomacia-Militar----EB-doa-25-M41C-ao-Exercito-Uruguaio/
Thanks

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 12th, 2018, 05:08 AM

Don,
Thank You for correcting me! ASL Advanced Squad Leader, well imagine that!?! :doh:

This would be a good time to be "Going Deep, Deep, Deep." :D :p

Got off early/going to bed earlier!!

RC4,
Thanks for the follow-up! I believe the 01/2019 Start Date will hold up well as submitted, based on your information! I like it when people follow up on something!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Aeraaa

December 16th, 2018, 08:51 AM

OK, the first of several tests:

Test#1. Human controlled Russian tank company of T72BM3/4s vs. AI controlled Ukrainian tank company of T-84 Oplot-Ms. Both companies have 13 tanks in total. Terrain is normally random generated terrain 80*60 hexes in size. Meeting engagement. 5 engagements total.

Results:

Russian casualties Ukrainian casualties result
3 9 MV
1 7 DV
3 9 MV
1 8 MV
2 9 MV

Average:
2 8.4

Comments: The tanks are quite evenly matched. Below 800 meters, destruction is highly likely even with frontal hits. Skill is the most important factor, since I can use terrain to conduct ambushes and AI just moves forward.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 18th, 2018, 04:46 PM

Aeraaa,
If I'm reading your last post correctly, those numbers are indicating a greater than 4:1 Kill Ratio in favor of the Russians. Do you remember or keep track of the ATGW's used by each side and result, i.e. kill or other? I'm looking at the results as the Russians being the "former" and the Ukrainians being the "latter" on your "chart".

This result to some degree almost puts me back to square one, in regards to conventional ammo issue or now maybe even steel armor.

We already know the ERA is lower then it should be for the OPLOT-M which should at a minimum be as good as the T-90A if not slightly better. I did not however, compare the steel armor between the two tanks.

I did however indicate I was seeing loses at 3:1 or higher in my first post leading to these tests.

Don't get me wrong, the T-72B3/B4 is a darn good tank and plays as expected, however, at least on paper, it's specs are not as good as the T-90A in the game or "RW". And this is the tank most refs compare the OPLOT-M to on a regular basis in it's at parody or "slightly" better than the T-90A.

It has to be one of the two above as mentioned or I'm missing something else. I don't know it this point.

I'm open to anyone else's thoughts after this test, even if it looks like I'm chasing a "red herring" in a manner of speaking.

Otherwise, I'm sticking with my original evaluations as posted. I'll have to look into this closer when I can - as I need to be in the shower now.

Thank You for your time in running the test and again the same to everyone else that ran one.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Aeraaa

December 19th, 2018, 09:04 AM

@FASTBOAT: I cannot recall exactly, but I estimate that out of 42 total Ukrainian tanks knocked out, 3 or 4 were from ATGM hits. All of my 10 losses were from cannon shells, not ATGMs. So ATGM effectiveness can be seen as minimal, which is hardly surprising considering both tanks have very thick composite armor, ERA and active defense systems.

Surprisingly, I believe that I knocked out around 35-40% of the Ukrainian armor by HEAT shells. The main reason is I've managed to hit many tanks to the sides and even rear at one occasion. I have to remind that the fact that I commanded the Russians had a profound impact on the final result. Since I'm quite experienced in the game and can safely say much more competent than the AI, I can use the terrain to my advantage better, create conditions for flanking shots etc. Whenever the two tanks threw punches at each other frontally, it was my estimation that they are altogether equal beasts, with T-84 probably being slightly better (but IMHO the T72 is more cost effective overall).

Regarding ERA, many of my main gun rounds were stopped by the Oplot's ERA. Whether they were HEAT rounds or KE rounds I do not know.

To have a clearer picture I will make two more tests: one in which terrain is wide open (so no behind forest ambushes for me) and one in which I command the Ukrainians.

PS: Yes you got it correct, Leftmost side is the Russian casualties, then Ukrainian casualties, then result (MV marginal victory, DV decisive victory). The average K:D is indeed slightly better than 4:1 in favor of Russia.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 19th, 2018, 04:03 PM

Aeraaa,
Thank you1 I would be interested to see the results of the other two tests when you get a chance.

1) The ATGW issue follows as I've posted, I would've hoped for better results w/KOMBAT but, this is a "newer" area of weapons development for them, so I believe it's still functioning as should in the game from what I can find, bottomline, it should be more effective against slightly older tanks and APC's.

2) Still stand by recommendations concerning the OPLOT-M ERA, that being said, I believe Don has taken care of it or is at least strongly considering my recommendations as posted.

3) Took sometime this morning to compare the T90-A to the OPLOT-M in game against some further reading from other than the refs. already posted on the matter.

My recommendation as follows is based on the fact that the turret for the OPLOT-M was built for the same knowing against modern tanks and ATGW they would have to make it better than what they already have in the field.

So compared to the T-90A UNIT 051 I would request the following for consideration of the OPLOT-M UNIT 064 turret...
STEEL: TR 14/TOP 8/or 10. T-90A TR 16/TOP 8
HEAT: TR 20/TOP 12 T-90A TR 24/TOP 12

4) I'm not a "gun" guy per say as far as the mechanics in the game is concerned, however, I would request a second look at the KBA-3 main tank gun as compared to the Russian 2A46M-1 to see if there is an issue here in PEN and the other factors that might come into play. Again I realize this might be the "red herring" as I last posted but, I would be more comfortable knowing I can rule this out or not.

I would request that someone who has knowledge on the above Main Gun matter maybe could look into this for me, as I know Don is scrambling by now.

And now I have to get ready for work. Thank You all in advance.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

December 19th, 2018, 10:21 PM

There seem to be two schools of thought concerning main guns and ATGMs.

For the most part Russia seems to see ATGMs as "the major" anti-armor weapon, why they put them on everything, and even fire them from their tank main guns. The US on the other hand, while acknowledging that helo's can't carry 120mm guns or GAU-8's (the A-10's gun), seem to feel the gun on the Abrams is the primary anti-armor weapon.

Now this may well be a tech issue, for Russia it's easier to build missiles then mass produce M256 quality guns and ammunition.

Imp

December 20th, 2018, 06:00 AM

Pat, Don game stats Oplot-M is marginally better overall in all areas except ERA.
Only oddity is armour rear turret heat which I am guessing is wrong and should be 5-10 higher.

Updating ERA if that's decided should sort it out.
Enticed by this I tried a game using the T-64 Bulat, cower in fear if the ERA stops my shot my armour wont stop his.

On the tank gun they are identical with identical ammo. From memory Russia now fields an updated 125mm gun as have Ukraine. I don't think the performance is any better what has improved is the accuracy, something to do with how the old gun was mounted I think.
If this is true there may be a case for falsely reducing the old guns accuracy, 11 instead of 13 possibly.
Western tanks are normally 1 size bigger than USSR so should not hinder them much.

zovs66

December 20th, 2018, 08:31 AM

So I did another test, this time as the Ukrainians, same perimeters as last time.

Preferences:
https://i.imgur.com/NLItrVm.png

Outcome:
https://i.imgur.com/m3uqncR.png

zovs66

December 20th, 2018, 08:42 AM

On both tries as the human I got a MV.

On both games I saw a few ATG kills. In this one I lost 2 of my Oplat's to stupid aggressive moves. The AI lost at least 6 to stupid moves.

As the Ukrainian I felt the main gun was better at killing things especially close range.

From a players perspective (tainted by the fact that I am a big time WW2 buff/player) I felt that the ATG just gave me an additional shot with a chance to kill the enemy armor (another words I just hit F and let both weapon systems rip).

My instincts are telling me that if two humans duked it out with these parameters it would be a draw or going to the better player. So currently what I experienced as a player it seemed balanced for human vs. human but if I were to create a scenario where the player is versing the AI, I have to give the AI some serious help. Maybe attach another platoon to the AI's tank company and set each formations way points and maybe stagger things with some reaction points. Or to force the human to be more aggressive, set the VH further back or help the AI with death traps.

One thing is for sure, fun and fast in MBT both games were over by turn 6 or 8.

Fun too...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 28th, 2018, 03:14 AM

Well I have an issue I believe, I've sorted out, maybe. It concerns the Russian T-80 Series. One will be an "ADD" the other a "CHANGE" Of the "START" as it's at least a year early. The issue is that the Russian T-80B/BV/U tanks received an upgrade. As the T-80BV is a real tank and is already in the game, I purpose that the upgraded tank be entered as the T-80BV1.

NOW THE ABOVE WILL BE LIMITED TO DATE CHANGES FOR THE FOLLOWING 3 TANKS AFTER DEEPER RESEARCH AND RE-READING THE ARMY REC. REFS. (THE WORDING WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING AT FIRST.)

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80B/UNIT 621/END DATE 12/1992 VICE 12/1985//
All T-80B tanks in service were upgraded to the T-80BV until production ceased on that tank in 1992. I cannot find any reference to the existence of the T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676 as entered in the game of which I believe are redundant to the T-80B.

DELETE/RUSSIA/T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676/CANNOT VERIFY THEY EXIST//
As noted above and as indicated by the refs. shown and others in a deeper web search.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BV/UNIT 039/END DATE 12/2025 VICE 12/1992//
I can't seem to find anything to say these tanks are no longer in service. I fully understand a great many of them are in storage, but again the refs provided for this tank and others seem to indicate many are still operational and they are the platform from which the T-80BVM are derived from. View "Variants" section of ref. 1. Ref. 2 shows Russia still using them at bottom of ref. "Users" section.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm
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

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BVM/UNIT 046/START DATE 10/2018 VICE 06/2017//
Date based on following from ref. 1 "Russia’s T-80BV main battle tank has been upgraded to T-80BVM standard to feature the capability of firing depleted uranium shells, the Defense Ministry said in the bulletin ‘The Russian Army in Comparison’ published on 20 December." Also note last para from ref. 1 which addresses some of what I submitted above.
Ref. 2 production begins in March 2018.
Ref. 3 Dated 02 July 2018, identifies the first units to equipped with the T-80BVM.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russian_t-80bvm_tanks_able_to_fire_depleted_uranium_shells.h tml
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/uralvagonzavod_starts_production_of_t-80bvm_tank_upgrade_of_t-80_mbt.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indust ry/russia_arms_itself_for_the_arctic.html

Others on the T-80...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-80.php
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-80U.htm
(For the above see production chart on first page.)

Don't ask these things just have a way of finding me!! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 1st, 2019, 11:54 PM

There'll be more on this later but, in the following one of the pictures is wrong. Can you figure out which and why? A little background, I knew there were issues with India and Turkey in their tanks, which I believe with the help of Don we've largely have corrected over the last few years. Like the other two, South Africa has the same situation. These all were meant to be addressed in my next Patch Post that never happened now about five years ago. I've come to South Africa very recently to figure out what I couldn't. There was my problem I over analyzed the situation in fact, I've had the below ref in my favorites for about 6-7 years now and earlier tonight I found the "ghost" that held me back, but now, I have the key to the solution, so again and realizing you have more information than I had, what is wrong with the pictures below. I'll give any 24 hours from the posting time to solve it.

For Don there will only be very minor changes involved here.

Due note the copyright has been updated for 2019 which means there's been no "equipment" changes.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm

It's just so obvious to me now, it's a good thing it wasn't a poisonous snake!

Now back to "Platoon".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 3rd, 2019, 05:07 AM

What's wrong is the middle picture, it's showing a Olifant Mk-1B there is no Olifant Mk-2B in service so the issue is a typo. A web search for the Olifant Mk-2B will get you the Olifant Mk-1B.

The pinnacle of the Olifant series lies in the Olifant Mk-2 this model benefited from the TDD demonstrator which was conceived to combat the heavier tanks that were appearing in Africa mainly the T-72 variant's. The advantage here with the Olifant Mk-2 is besides the current DENEL 105mm GT-7 MG, the turret is designed and has been tested to also use the 105mm GT-8 and LIW 120mm MG. Currently the GT-7 MG is what's carried onboard the MK-2 (Apparently the Mk-1B has it now as well.) as this gun is quite capable of taking out any T-72 currently operating in Africa.

Now should Ethiopia get pissed off with South Africa then you'll see them break out those 120mm MG's and mount them as they would more effective against the T-90S tanks Ethiopia has.

It is my understanding that the remaining 18 (26 were converted to the Mk-2.) Olifant Mk-1B turrets were also back fitted to carry the other two MG's as well, but I'm not ready to confirm that at this time.

The current tanks in service with SADF are the OLIFANT Mk-1A, Mk-1B and the Mk-2. Concerning the Olifant Mk-1A, I again offer the previous ref. plus another from SADF showing it being involved in an exercise in May 2017 pictured bottom right of that ref., notice the "skirts" are missing for one.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
http://www.army.mil.za/news/news_2017/feb_17/acd_17.htm
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6255:fact-file-the-olifant-main-battle-tank

A word about the last website if you want to know what's going on in Africa you have to use this site they source from JANE's, DID etc. plus do a lot of their own reporting as well.

Their breakdown as provided above on the OLIFANT MBT is the best I've seen so far on one site. I knew the OLIFANT Mk-1A had a mid-life upgrade done but wasn't sure when it occurred this ref. provided that date plus all that was done during it.

Gotta hit the rack!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 14th, 2019, 12:11 AM

I will endeavor here to fix the South African current tank situation that I’ve put off for almost seven years now though the problem isn’t as daunting now as it seemed back then as also posted. I looked back on this year and I saw more in the MBT and APC area submitted by several posts, so for FYI ONLY PURPOSES, I’ve decided to pull together from those posts, a “Patch Post” covering the 2018/2019 Campaign and possibly for the 2017/2018 Campaign as time allows. They have always served me as a tool to see what got in or not and to see if something got missed such as what happened to about seven countries concerning the missing (Now done.) standard equipped FN MAG 60-30 MG (Port/Starboard mounted.) on the H225M Cougar helicopters. I also believe we were finally able to add this helo to Thailand as I finally had more data to fully confirm the deal as compared to when I originally submitted it in my last “official” Patch Post five years ago, this last was fixed in 2017/2018 upgrade.

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1A/UNIT 005/START DATE 01/1985 vice 01/1983/END DATE 12/1987 VICE 12/1998/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm SA83//A note about the gun issue as quoted from Ref 3 “The Olifant Mk 1A was originally equipped with a 105mm L7 rifled gun barrel originally sourced from Israel. Later on, an improved South African produced GT3B semi-automatic quick firing gun manufactured by Lyttleton Engineering Works (LEW) was fitted.” Also note in anticipation of facing the Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks, SADF did acquire the 1O5mm APFSDS-T round (In 1988 around a year after they had received the APFSDS M-111 @ 390mm of RHA.) which in combat proved highly effective against those tanks. This was considered the first true African tank very suited to its environment with the High Pressure GT3B proven to be very accurate at 2km. Besides an extensive reference list it also provides some interesting combat data to prove this tank was deadly against its adversaries. It would also prove to be an embarrassment the Soviet (Combat Advisors), Cuban and Angolan FAPLA troops. Operation Hooper would see in that successful Op, 21 T-55 tanks destroyed to 1 damaged Olifant Mk1 and 1 destroyed Ratel. Troops 4 SANF killed to 480 casualties to the enemy during this Op during the South African Border Wars 1966 - 1989.

SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/OLIFANT Mk-1A/COPY UNIT 005/CHANGE/START DATE 01/1988/END DATE 12/2025/CHANGE/AMMO 105mm APFSDS-T/PENETRATION 580mm OF RHA/LRF MIGHT NEED TO BE INCREASED FROM 16/REFS INDICAITE THE LRF WAS ACCURATE OUT TO 10km//I know ammo is a consideration and given the difference between the two most current of the APFSDS rounds (1987-1988) in regards to Penetration levels this warrants the above request. It would suggest as well that the ammo is more powerful now.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
http://www.army.mil.za/news/news_2017/feb_17/acd_17.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/Olifant_MkI.php
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6255:fact-file-the-olifant-main-battle-tank

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1B/UNIT 006/START DATE 10/1991 vice 01/1991/END DATE 12/2025 vice 12/2015/VISION 35 OR 40 (Or TI/GSR 35 see below)/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm GT7/STABLELISER 4 vice 3/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 4/STEEL HF 28 vice 24 (Note Mk-1A UNIT 005 is at 26)/STEEL TF 24 or 25//The FCS was considered a very advanced for the time when the tank came online in 1991. That the vision should be increased is not the real question here as it is much improved over the OLIFANT Mk-1A. The real question is should it have TI/GSR added to it? I’m on the fence about this based on the refs below, my “gut” tells me it might be good enough, however, it also tells me based on the tanks that had it at that time, it should be TI/GSR 35 if it is decided to change the VISION to that standard, I don’t see enough to warrant more than that. The gun did have mounted on it an IR/White Light Searchlight as well. I asked for the slight STABLELISER increase based on ref.2 as quoted “A new thermal sleeve and fume extractor helped improved sustained accuracy when firing and reduce barrel droop due to heat by as much as 70%-90%.”, that’s a significant change. Concerning SURVIABILITY the Mk-1B also had a double armored bottom added to the hull. The STEEL requests are based on the refs which noted that the armor protection was increased on the areas noted above.
It is important to note that 44 OLIFANT Mk-1A were upgraded to this standard starting in 1991, but, the similarities end there, this MBT was built from the experiences gained during the Border War of 1966 – 1989 and they were RESET. Development started in 1981/82 when the concern was whether the Soviet Union would supply Cuba or the Angolan forces with the T-72A series tanks which didn’t happen. The tank was built for African combat, this tank was even equipped with two internal water tanks (50.5 Liters each.) just to sustain the crew in the field. The turret bustle was added for the same reason for crew equipment with the added design bonus that the turret was better balanced decreasing by 10s the 360 traverse time to 16s over the Mk-1A turret.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/olifant-mk1b-main-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6255:fact-file-the-olifant-main-battle-tank
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/olifant_mk1b.htm
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2/UNIT OO8/START DATE 10/2005 vice 01/2007/SPEED DISCREPENCY SEE BELOW//The upgrade of 26 OLIFANT Mk-1B tanks to the Mk-2 started in 2005, it is reasonable to assume a handful were in the field by that time. Production ran until the end of 2006/early 2007 depending on source. The SPEED issue needs to be resolved for both UNIT 006 and UNIT OO8. They both use the same Continental 29 Liter V12 Turbo Charged diesel engine, the difference is that the Mk-2 engine develops 190hp more but, the additional weight of the Mk-2 doesn’t allow so much for an increase in SPEED, but it does increase P/W Ratio and much better 25% increase in Acceleration. The advertised speeds for both tanks are 58Km/h or 36mph on the road. This is in the end a very highly advanced tank with full “Hunter Killer” capabilities and up to date electronics. There is one discrepancy which goes to the main gun ref. 2 with communications as noted in the “Bibliography” from 2017 indicates this tank also carries the GT3B MG, however, ref 3 (Bottom) via an email in 2006 states the following “GlobalSecurity.org insists the tank is fitted with a Denel GT8 gun but Denel informs this weapon was developed but never produced. The Olifant is therefore fitted with the GT7. Email communication between author and Denel spokesman Sam Basch, August 14, 2006.” I know which I’m inclined to go with, however, I leave it up to you whether you wish to change the main gun or not.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/south-africa/Olifant-mk2-main-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6255:fact-file-the-olifant-main-battle-tank

Summary:
The final question here is, do we add another Mk-1A & Mk-1B ~2010 with improved ammo that they should have now? Why? DENEL after the embargo started to sell their top quality ammo and other technology worldwide. But due to mismanagement and corruption, in 2005 Rheinmetall bought 51% controlling interest in DENEL munitions now called Rheinmetall Denel Munitions. Hensoldt did the same with DENAL Optronics operations. I don’t see those two major players sitting on their “laurels” and not improving their products over what was there. Maybe I’m wrong, just a thought.
https://www.africandefence.net/denel-the-saudi-and-qatari-offers/

While doing research on this over the years and considering the political situation at the time these tanks were developed, the South Africans found a way to overcome the very real war they were in for 23 years (As noted above.) to meet the perceived threat of the T-72M and T-72A series tanks. As it was pointed out, again above, the T-55 & T-62 were no match against them even by the ones crewed by the Cubans. I think a fair amount of this is also due to the professionalism of the SADF crews and ultimately the military (In the game-EXPRIENCE.) as a whole, they were in most battles were outnumbered by the combined Cuban and Angolan forces with Soviet advisors. Another point of interest was that many of the tank battles were fought within 150yds. due to the terrain.

Also about the tank guns, Israel supplied upgraded versions of the famous British RB 105mm L7 when South Africa wanted to improve their CENTURIAN tanks to the Israeli Sho’t tanks. This would lead to the OLIFANT. Later development would lead to the GT3B, GT7, IWI (?) GT8 Prototype and 120mm L52.
The GT3B is in service and with the exception of the GT8, the rest are supposedly available or can be produced in numbers if needed rapidly. All the 105mm guns are considered “High Pressure” (Before it became a “thing” as it is now.) Semi-Automatic Quick Firing.
It was also very interesting to find that Israel supplied South Africa with ammunition to include it’s tank ammo from possibly the late ‘60s but certainly the 70’s – ‘ 90s if not longer.

I hope I didn't miss anything, can't think of a better way to spend the day off!?! :rolleyes: Research/Research then the best part :pc:, someday day maybe I'll get to this :typing:? Your right no fun in that!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 15th, 2019, 02:35 AM

A final note on SOUTH AFRICA if I may…
SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2B/UNIT 007/COPY REVISED UNIT 008/CHANGE STABILISER TO 6 vice 5/OPERATIONAL STATUS NOW KNOWN/GUN IS READY AND TESTED/POSSIBLE STORAGE OR READY FOR PRODUCTION/TANK NOT FIELDED//I’ve already proven that the Mk-2 Series was designed to carry any of the RB 105mm GT MGs plus the LIW (Thanks Don.) RB 105mm GT8 Prototype or 120mm/L52 MG. As discussed via PM I found credible information that GIAT Industries of France calibrated with DENEL to develop the LIW tank guns listed above. GIAT should ring a bell for some of you “tank nuts” out here, they made the guns (And more.) for the French LeCLERC MBT. It was also noted the characteristics of the LIW 120mm/L52 are a “close” match to the LeCLERC MG. It is important to remember the issue/limitation here is with the OLIFANT Mk-2 FCS though very good it’s not as good as the LeCLERC FCS. This is not my area of expertise per say that being said is why I requested a modest increase in the STABILISER number. Based on the guns reported performance and pedigree should the STABILISER number be slightly higher than requested? And within the limitations I’ve stated above, would the better gun effect any other of the numbers related to the revised OLIFANT Mk-2B would have?

Don is a smart man and I feel he knows I wouldn’t waste my time on a tank that’s not operational if I didn’t see something of value in it concerning the game or the players. So 1) The tanks already in the game, yes it needs to match the hopefully revised UNIT 008, it’s the same tank only the gun has changed. 2) South Africa if it arms the tank with this gun, which could happen for many reasons nothing to do with either an internal or external threat, then it’s ready to go and you “flip the switch to on”. 3) The tank obviously can’t be “game ready” as it isn’t now, however, I thought there was a way to allow Campaign and Scenario designers to “unlock it” for their use w/o it being available within the game this I see can have a more immediate impact for the developers.

Finally concerning the possibility of adding new OLIFANT Mk- 1A/1B and now maybe Mk-2 tanks in the 2010 time frame from my last post, I came across this article for what looks like the replacement for the M111 APFSDS round as taken from the ref below Para 3, Dated 18 August 2011… “The Denel-developed M9718 105mm APFSDS round is 0.950m long, weighs 18.5kg and is fired at a chamber pressure of between 350 to 400 MPa to a combat range of 3km. The safety range is 30km. Dispersion at 3km is within 0.3x 0.3m and penetration is 450mm RHA. The tracer is visible to 3km.” again the older M111 APFSDS penetration was 390mm RHA which makes the M9718 APFSDS better by +60mm RHA. If you decide to add those tanks from 01/2010 - 12/2025 they would also retain the APFSDS-T round as well with PENETRATION 580mm OF RHA as discussed in the last post for the second entered OLIFANT Mk-1A on.
The last couple of paras might be useful concerning the ROOIKAT AFV ammo as well.
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18165:r968m-for-olifant-rooikat-ammo
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/CC01%20-%20Rooikat.html

I mentioned that TAIWAN has a big issue so…
TAIWAN/CHANGE/MIA1 ROC/UNIT 025/NEVER DELIVERED/FMS NOT APPROVED/CHANGE IN GAME STATUS TO UNAVAILIBLE/RECOMMEND SAME AS REQUESTED FOR OLIFANT Mk-2B BASED ON THE SAME THREE POINTS NOTED ABOVE.//All foreign countries can request U.S. made military arms via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program this includes for both donated and weapons to be paid for. This ensures that our weapons industry does not sell our weapons to foreign powers not friendly to the U.S. or that might let the technologies involved with these systems fall into the wrong hands. It also provides cover for the government in sales that could cause a potential international political issue. All sales have to be approved by several agencies and finally by the U.S. State Department, Congress and by the President of the United States. A recent example of this had to do with the sale of the current most advanced version of the JAVELIN ATGW the JAVELIN JV to the UKRAINE which went operational/fielded on 06/2018 and how it might affect the situation on the ground there. Those above tanks have been requested about three times since around 2000. Instead of the tanks we sold them the JAVELIN BLK 1 and later JAVELIN JV (The BLK1 units were later updated to the JV.) I will provide refs that TAIWAN is now requesting the M1A2 ABRAMS. Ref. 1 from DID will bring you up to date on the current situation with the U.S. and TAIWAN arms situation and remember, DID lists their refs at the end and with links within the articles. This is an ongoing article. Ref. 2 has that “grab your attention” headline that gets folks all excited out here that they’re buying it and that’s the ONLY reason I’m posting this to provide a possible example of how that tank made it in here in the first place. From Ref. 3 (To include Ref. 1) will provide better reporting. Bottom-line no ABRAMS here yet.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/taiwans-unstalled-force-modernization-04250/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/taiwan-will-buy-us-m1a2-abrams-tanks-to-counter-beijings-invasion-threat_2587925.html
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/05/26/taiwan-plans-to-buy-120-m1a1-abrams/
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/22898/Taiwan_Plans_to_Buy_108_M1A2_Abrams_Tanks#.XD13XHd Fzoo
https://defpost.com/taiwan-buy-us-m1a2-abrams-main-battle-tanks/
(See para 7 of this ref there’s news within the news there. I've seen this info else where too.)
https://www.janes.com/article/81684/taiwan-seeking-to-buy-m1a2-abrams-mbts-from-us
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2168484/us-weapons-taiwan-wants-bolster-its-defences

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2019, 04:58 AM

Well to start I've given this some thought for a long time to settle this issue since the testing of the Ukrainian OPLOT-M and the results tended to line up as I expected and as the refs. I dug up in my evaluations would show, what I perceived as weaknesses that shouldn't have existed did. I submitted the following two tanks into the game below, so again, I had to take the time to reevaluate them without being biased in my decision making process. I relied on my evaluations from the recent testing done, looked at the feedback I received from others, rechecked old refs. and found new ones and checked my conclusions against it's peer Russian T-90A UNIT 050, it's main rival T-72B3M/B4 when I play the against the AI. I now fully understand why the AI picks this tank not just occasionally, but just about ALWAYS! I really feel this is one of the better tanks we've ever entered, not only based on how it plays in the game but, in the fact try as I may and given what it's done to my OPLOT-M tanks, I can't find NOTHING wrong with it as presented in the game.

But to fully understand a tank when doing what I propose to do below by giving Don "my" firm numbers for submission, you have to go deeper. I looked at it's predecessors, other contemporaries and one of the best tanks during the period of operations of this tank as listed below.

As with the two already listed these next where also used to evaluate my numbers for STEEL/HEAT/ERA & STABILISER as submitted below. They are (The ones I've submitted or changed will have "*" by the name.) THAILAND *OPLOT-M (T) UNIT 019, UKRAINE T-84 UNIT 059, RUSSIAN *T-80BMV UNIT 046, SWEDEN *STRV-122A UNIT 358 (This tank was chosen because it is my firm belief there is no better "TOP" protected tank in the world. Acted as a check against me as the others did. This came about from tests conducted on their stock of Russian tanks with STRIX which proved devastating to them. Also these LEOPARD tanks were made to order for SWEDEN and NOT stock tanks. The "STEEL" for the turret hatch alone was increased just shy of 2 feet thick which means the surrounding "TOP" area has to be even thicker as all hatches are recessed to avoid such issues as over pressurization etc.. no different then on a Submarine and verified by my co-worker "JAKE" (Helped us on some BRADLEY issues we were looking into in the past.) the ABRAMS/BRADLEY Driver/Gunner extraordinaire. For further see the FB Patch Thread "Patch Post #2 for the 2013/2014 Campaign"), USA M1A2 SEP V1 UNIT 318, M1A1HA+ UNIT 484, *MIA2 SEP V2 UNIT 517,and *M1A2 SEP V3.

So...
UKRAINE/OPLOT-M/UNIT 064/CHANGE/STEEL/HF 75 vice 72/HR 10 vice 8/TOP 10 vice 7/HEAT/110 vice 104/HS 45 vice 40/TR 20 vice 18/ERA/HF 20 vice 15/HS 18 vice 15/TF 20 vice 15/TS 18 vice 15/TOP 20 vice 15/STABILISER 6 vice 5//My key tanks here where the T-84, OPLOT=M (T), T-90A, T-72B3M/B4, T-80BMV and STRV-122A. We know or should know the following by now, the T-90A is it's peer tank, the tank was RESET to the "-M" with the Hull strengthened and the Turret was newly built for this tank, ERA is better than the T-90A and the KBA3 MG has a first round hit probability tested to at least 94%. All this was born out in the evaluations during testing from the refs supplied in the posts and more as described above.

From the tests the average Kill RATIO stands at 3:1 loss favoring the T-72B3M/B4. All the issues have already have been covered with the solutions to help counter the situation and acknowledged.
PG. 82 Posts 813/814/815 (Last Para) and 816.
PG. 83 Posts 824 and 830
PG. 84 Post 832.

Something happened with the next Tank that I haven't figured out yet. I tried finding my posts concerning it when I submitted it, but, I couldn't though I'm sure I just missed them in my search. I'm sure a part of the answer lies in those related Posts.

THAILAND/OPLOT-M/UNIT 019/CHANGE/NAME/OPLOT-T vice OPLOT-M/STABILISER 4 vice 3/STEEL-HEAT-ERA to match UKRAINE OPLOT-M UNIT 064 AS REVISED ABOVE// Though at the time, OPLOT-M was primarily used in referring to this tank, I'm assuming to avoid confusion. The refs. are using OPLOT-T now as has the THAI Army for sometime now. The only difference between these tanks were a small handful of internal issues i.e. AC (Ukraine would add this feature to based on THAI feedback to theirs.) and other tropical related matters. I believe the lesser FCS related numbers are probably good assuming the Ukrainians didn't clear them to receive the full FCS to the level of their own "home" tanks. This is not an unusual practice in the arms trade. That being said, if it's decided to fully match the hopefully revised Ukrainian OPLOT-M then I see no real issue there either.

A final note, I REALLY want to thank everyone for their personal time given to running those tests and providing me with your feedback.

It made the extra work in research etc. to get to this point well worth it and I could've have done that without you!!!

Also I had come across some new information after the testing that might've altered mine a couple of others impressions concerning the Ukrainian KOMBAT ATGM. We believed it was operating as it should, the new information was passed to Don for probably a 3rd look by then, and he kindly took the extra look and reverified our conclusions of the KOMBAT.

Thank You for that!

Well I'm pretty beat right now so a Good Morning or Night to you and have a great week everyone!

Regards,
Pat

luigim

January 21st, 2019, 08:34 AM

Just for info.

Here we can see a photo with the M1A2SEPv3 tank protoype equipped with Trophy APS https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-army-upgrade-100-abrams-tanks-m1a2-sepv3-configuration.html

In game we have only Army SEPv2 with Trophy but the Army and Marine Corps are upgrading the existing M1A2SEPv2 tanks (and M1A1 Marine variants )in service now, so we can guess with a reasonable degree of certainty that the most advanced tank in US service M1A2C will receive - or will be factory-equipped with, when fielded, the same upgrade -->http://www.deagel.com/news/US-Army-and-US-Marine-Corps-Order-Trophy-Active-Protection-Systems-for-Abrams-Tanks_n000018530.aspx
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/37053
https://www.leonardodrs.com/news-and-events/press-releases/leonardo-drs-and-rafael-to-provide-additional-trophy-active-protection-systems-for-us-army-and-marine-corps/

https://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/Focus-Area-4-Modernization-Technology/Part-3-Ground-Combat-Tactical-Vehicles/M1A1-Vehicle-Protection-System/

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2017/pdf/army/2017aps.pdf

Here some other news, the new name for SEPv3 is M1a2C

https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/new_designations_for_upgraded_m1a2_sepv3_and_sepv4 _abrams_main_battle_tanks.html

https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/gcs-m1-abrams-main-battle-tank/

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2019, 02:00 AM

I was going to post along with the SADF tank upgrades the fact that we needed to make changes to the USA OOB concerning the M1A2 ABRAMS SEP V4 that at the time I thought I saw there...must've been REAL tired when that happened. The good news we'll likely see that tank in the game I'm thinking around mid/end 2023. Six prototypes have just or are very to be ordered with evaluations to start in 2021.

In preparation of the above exercise I was going post refs that more importantly showed the USA is going to the process of updating the USMC M1A1 ABRAMS to the SEP V3 (No timeline given.) and have the M1A1 tanks equipped with the TROPHY APS which should start in about a year with M1A2 (Likely SEP V3 first.) versions. So I'm just going to data dump my files here as I know what I'll need for the future already. I'll start with the best and longest running ref on the ABRAMS out there...

First the Tank:
https://www.army.mil/article/172984/fighting_our_nations_wars_one_50lb_round_at_a_time (OP TEST EVALUATION UNIT?)
https://www.army.mil/article/194952/army_rolls_out_latest_version_of_iconic_abrams_mai n_battle_tank (NOTE THE TOPIC AND DATE OF ARTICLE.)
https://www.army.mil/article/214733/latest_and_greatest_m1_tank_tested_at_us_army_yuma _proving_ground (NOTE TESTING AND DATE OF ARTICLE)

THEY'RE STILL TESTING THE M1A2 SEP V3 ABRAMS AFTER 2.5 YRS!

That last stuck in my head for some reason last week, now I realize it wasn't about SEP V4 as noted above but, the SEP V3 which along with DID article I can't post now (508 Resource Limit Reached.)

APS:
http://armyrecognition.com/march_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/lockheed_martins_tank_protection_technology_for_us _army_vehicle_testing.html
https://www.army-technology.com/news/us-army-vehicles-use-lockheeds-maps-technology/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/iai_active_protection_system_for_us_m1_abrams_tank s.html
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a28576/us-army-tanks-to-get-active-protection-systems-by-2020/
https://www.army-technology.com/news/northrop-grumman-anti-tank-guided-munitions/

Other Protection Projects:
https://www.army-technology.com/news/steel-foam-composite-offers-lightweight-blast-protection/

And the USA is testing the NEW MIA1 SA just up the road from me at Ft. Stewart. This should be an improvement on the M1A1 SA tanks we shipped to IRAQ a few years back which I submitted at the time.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/first_tests_of_the_new_m1a1-sa_abrams_mbt_done_by_the_us_army.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a1_sa_situational_awareness_main_battle_tank_tec hnical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.ht ml

We don't have them operational just got the DID article you REALLY need to read the "August 03/17:" entry.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/digital-abrams-the-m1a2-sep-program-updated-02834/

I'm checking the OOB after this. And my notes, something not right to me now. Obviously I was away too long and lost track of things.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2019, 02:33 AM

Alright figured it out. I didn't submit this tank, I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and from my copy as it appeared on FB Patch Post Thread PG3 Post #123 MBTs...A1., this was a very important time as this was where I pleaded my case to increase to 50 the TI/GSR for armor we would also extend this to the newly updated BRADLEY UNITS 898/899 that just became available.

The USA is correct so...
USA/M1A2 SEP V3/UNIT 538/CHANGE/START DATE 06/2020 vice 10/2017/MBT IS CURRENTLY STILL IN FIELD/OP EVAL TESTING//The date currently entered is when the first six production models came off the line. These would eventually (And more obviously.) and as the refs are showing, went to the USA units assigned to test it. The significance of the DID entry I pointed to makes sense as it indicated the first 45 of these tanks would be completed, I believe it was in March this year. You'll note the rest of the upgrade completion dates go beyond my "recommended" one above. The test and Prototypes would fill a unit by then or maybe a little earlier. I've already deleted all the refs. before I realized we had a problem here, so you'll have to use my last post and those refs supplied as a start point. Due note the latest is from the Army website as are 2 others.

The other telling line from DID was this...
Now I can't get to it of course but briefly that we're about to deploy a unit to Europe with the M1A2 SEP V2 with the APS. It's on the first page in the first 3-4 paras if I remember.

Clock ticking accidently posted incomplete.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 22nd, 2019, 11:09 AM

CORRECTION FYI USA unit 538 is now "M1A2C"

Suhiir

January 22nd, 2019, 03:09 PM

The good news we'll likely see that tank in the game I'm thinking around mid/end 2023.

In preparation of the above exercise I was going post refs that more importantly showed the USA is going to the process of updating the USMC M1A1 ABRAMS to the SEP V3 (No timeline given.) and have the M1A1 tanks equipped with the TROPHY APS which should start in about a year with M1A2 (Likely SEP V3 first.) versions. So I'm just going to
My understanding is most (if not all) USMC M1A1 FEPs have the mounts for Trophy (which was deployed in the Corps in 2016). It's more a matter of if they have enough systems and deem it necessary to deploy therm (there ARE side effects to nearby infantry to consider).

As to a USMC SEP V3, I'd bet on the US Army getting all it's V3's before the USMC sees a single one, and since it'll be 2023 before they even start it'll be outside the current 2025 end, date so it's a non issue.

P.S.
That foam North Carolina is developing sounds interesting. My question is, tho it's obviously lighter, how much volume of it is needed? A tank with 3m thick armor may be as well protected as a current one but it's hardly practical.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2019, 04:10 AM

The CORPS can only hope. TROPHY will be a big help. Also there is the real chance they could bring them up to the SEP V1 or SEP V2 versions just to get them modernized and more combat capable. SEP V2 was a major step forward, I saw enough from that tank to approach Don about the TI/GSR issue SEP 2 can do better than 50 but I knew SEP V3 was being developed and TI/GSR 60 I felt would come with that tank.

The good thing is SEP V2 allowed us to revaluate some of the tanks in the game to get them TI/GSR 50 w/FCS not long after SEP V2 was submitted. It's good we can follow RL to and get into GL considering game limitations due to map size etc. but that's why we have terrain features even in the dessert.

It's scary to think that with the SEP V3 being able to identify vice recognize a target to +5000 yds./accordantly target the same/then shoot and kill it at that distance is just amazing to me.

I'll be the optimist and say we'll see the SEP V3/M1A2C by the date I submitted (4yr point in Testing/Opeval) based on current data that means we won't see the SEP V4/M1A2D until late 2025.

Oh don't you ARMATA, ALTAY and ARJUN Mk-2 get your hopes up to high either if any of those tanks get to FOC by 2023 you'll be doing real good. ARMATA isn't set to start THE OPEVAL process until 2021. If they are as diligent as the USA has been with the M1A2C to this point, then ARMATA won't be operational until late 2024. I honestly feel the ALTAY since they're sort of "back to the drawing board" as I posted are looking at late 2024/early 2025 themselves. As for India and the ARJUN Mk-2 I've spent a "career" trying to figure out what they're trying to do with their tanks. I will say this, if they ever field that tank before 2026, to be added in the game for 2025, well I just might retire than. Well actually kind of our plan for me anyway!?! But seriously India will you do something please!?!

But I can say this w/o a doubt, the CORPS will get an improved tank. And for 2019 there will be NO NEW ARMATA/ALTAY/ARJUN Mk2/M1A2D/OPLOT-P/T-REX/AND OTHERS,but, Russia will get the following instead...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/russian_ground_troops_will_receive_over_450_tanks_ and_armored_vehicles_in_2019.html

The T-72 mods we've already accounted for with our "hybrid" if you will T-72B3M/B4 and if you haven't followed along lately, it's a "kick ***" tank. The T-90M and T-90MS I covered this past year and longer on the MS which for the Russians will better then the one's exported to KAZITSTAN.

Well off to bed-Good Night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2019, 02:07 AM

First my apologies in advance for going beyond my stated plans for submissions, I just felt that the first item should be entered as it seems to have been lost in the "news" cycle somehow. I do feel good though about the first two items overall. I'm cautious about the last, however, if not now soon as the supporting Refs. will show. I can accept that this if time allows and not otherwise convinced, might still be worth the effort because it is coming if not already here (The numbers run from 6 to 15 units already built.), it'll be ready when it gets fielded and maybe can be made available for the "what if" scenario and campaign developers as previously discussed for a couple of other tanks already submitted. I leave that to Don to decide.

JAPAN/ADD/TYPE 16 MCV 8x8/START 06 2017/C4/SPEED 100km/h (62.1 mph)/4x2 GRENADE LAUNCHERS TURRET MOUNTED/RADIO 91/TI/GSR 50/MODIFIED L7 105mm/L52 JSW/ROUNDS 55 SEE REF. 1 FOR TYPES/RS COAX Type 74 7.62mm/RS Mid Turret 12.7mm M2HB HMG/FCS 50/LASER R/F 22/STABILISER 6/SURVIBILITY 5/STEEL/HEAT USE ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030/ERA NONE MENTIONED/SUBMITTED AS UPARMORED VERSION//The design was based on the SADF ROOIKAT and ITALY's CENTAURA. The MCV was designed to replace the TYPE 74 MBT of which that process has already begun. Due to cost issues of the TYPE 10 during development and sanctions limiting the JGSDF to 600 tanks, the MCV was seen as a cheap alternative to supplement their tank branch.
First off the FCS system is believed to be derived from the TYPE 10. The MG is similar to the one used on the TYPE 74 but modified with the addition of integrated thermal sleeve and fume-extractor the importance of this to MG STABILITY has already been discussed with the recent SADF submissions. It does feature a unique muzzle brake/compensator, consisting of rows of nine holes bored into the barrel in a spiral formation see picture on Ref. 1. I've not seen that on any MBT MG to date.
Researched contemporary peer game units SOUTH AFRICA ROOIKAT II UNIT 017, ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030, JAPAN TYPE 10 UNIT 022 & TYPE 74 KAI UNIT 027. Like the TYPE 10 the ARMOR/STEEL composition and thickness are CLASSIFIED. The same as a side note concerns the TYPE 10 ammo, all we know is that we've (USA) has noted "it is highly effective". I've not come across anything to indicate that the MCV ammo is, I will assume it is of a high quality and effective though.
Relying heavily on Refs. 1 & 2 because they are NEWER and RELIABLE. The next is the same but not updated.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern-japan-type-16-mcv/
https://www.janes.com/article/74061/japan-shows-afv-systems-capability-dsei17d4
(NOTE LAST PARA & Mr. Foss of JANE'S is a well known writer.)
For further info:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/japan_japanese_army_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicles/mcv_8x8_maneuver_combat_vehicle_105mm_gun_technica l_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html
(NOTE Shows JAPAN as a USER not PROTOTYPE.)

Pics: Note the front 4 wheels are the steering ones for this highly maneuverable and fast vehicle.
15653 15654

Alright I'm quitting while ahead, last night I didn't quite get this far and hit the wrong button, yes another :pc: moment and no it wasn't that :haha: at that particular moment!?! Well alright sometimes you just have to :D and move on.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 29th, 2019, 04:27 AM

The CORPS can only hope. TROPHY will be a big help. Also there is the real chance they could bring them up to the SEP V1 or SEP V2 versions just to get them modernized and more combat capable.
As I understand it all the USMC M1's have been upgraded to M1A1 Heavy Common Firepower Enhancement Package (M1A1HC FEP) status so are pretty much on par with the SEP V2 already. The differences are fairly insignificant.

Sorry it took so long to respond to this, I missed the post :mad:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2019, 01:47 PM

Here's what I found in the limited time I have right now before everything up to going to work. It seems the USMC M1A1HC FEP falls somewhere closer to being in between the USA SEP V1 and SEP V2. Also the "big push" to get the tanks closer to the SEP V3 started about 2015 - 2025 ten modernization program. Obviously this got somewhat delayed but, the APS will appear as the first step in that process.

Concerning the M1A1HC FEP it appears the ONLY improvements are to the NBC System and TI/GSR per REF. 1. That being said I recommend the following: 1) FOC mid 2014. 2) TI/GSR 50/STABILISER take the average of SEP V1 and SEP V2 apply to this tank. I don't even know if the M1A1HC FEP is in the game or what those values above are. I leave you to do that leg work.

No armor improvements as suggested in REF. 2 that I can find in the time I have today. That by REF. 1 will be in the final phase during SLEP.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fndiastorage.blob.core. usgovcloudapi.net%2Fndia%2F2005%2Fcombatvehicle%2F wednesday%2Fusmc.ppt
https://www.quora.com/What-M1A1-Abrams-variant-does-the-USMC-use-and-how-does-it-stack-up-against-the-US-Armys-M1A2-Abrams-SEP-models-Does-the-Army-have-a-more-advanced-tank-or-are-they-about-the-same

I gotta get ready for work!!! Don if you see this please look two posts back #849 please.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 31st, 2019, 03:54 AM

The M1A1HC FEP deserves more of my time. When I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 I quoted from one of my Refs from the Col. in charge of the program basically this... "We now have a FCS that can see and identify a target almost as far as our ammo can kill it." it'd be easier to find it in the Fastboat Patch Thread then the MBT one if you're interested. But this was one of my "lynch pin" items I suggested to break the TI/GSR 40 barrier.

And now you the player have it but on more than one tank as Don and any of you that follow my work, I came to realize after going back and I believe I reviewed something like 20 different MBT's world wide and dug into their FCS's as much as I could, who assisted them in the research if it applied etc. etc. (It's all in the MBT Thread between 3 and 4 years back I think.) Many got to 50 some at 45 and some stayed where they were at and couple saw a slight reduction and all backed by the Refs. I had at the time.

This is where I would normally when I get in the mood to start my lecture on properly researching (Oh here he goes again :rolleyes:!) etc. etc. etc. however, let's just do this for now...

As much as I would like to help the CORPS I can't pull things out of arse only from the web, so, concerning the M1A1HC FEP you get no armor upgrade, you should be able to keep the TI/GSR 50 and if Don agrees based on the following below and reading what the math is telling me as well, I feel more than comfortable in saying it should have the same FCS numbers as the SEP V2.

Before I start, it is important to remember that FEP is all about the FCS and associated support systems. Now I can start...

USMC/CHANGE/M1A1HC FEP VARIENTS/UNITS 467, 468 & 469/START 06/2012 vice 01/2008/TI/GSR 50 vice 45/FC 60 vice 55/UNIT 468 MRAP 7 vice SURVIBILITY 6/SAME MBT AS UNITS 467 & 469//I've backed off the start date from yesterday after reviewing the chart from Ref. 1 of the same post and some other data this morning. I really feel anything before 2010 is too early, I could be wrong however, based on what's out there, I don't see it UNLESS it can be found in the Annual USMC Chronological History. I used that on the LAV-AD if you remember. I don't see anything to warrant a STABLISER increase at this point, if you do based on the following quote from Ref. 1 below, I have no real problem with it as I'm "more on the fence about it than off of it" concerning it. I have a good understanding of "over the horizon" targeting so I was somewhat impressed by this next.

"FEP (Firepower Enhancement Package) – USMC
The FEP upgrade was awarded to DRS Techologies for the GEN II TIS destined to the US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks. This system comprises a 480 x 4 SADA (Standard Advanced Dewar Assembly) detector, an eyesafe laser rangefinder, a north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver. These enable the new Far Target Locate (FTL) targeting solution capability. This subsystem provides accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000 m with a 114 feets (35 m) Circular Error of Probability. This system extends the firing range into uncharted territories, a below-horizon capability with the earth curvature taken in account in what it is barely a “direct fire” anymore."

That is some of the most powerful wording I've seen for any FCS I've looked into to date. I'll leave it at that.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php
(Above follows some of the very few that are out there.)
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fepsrdrev4.htm

Suhiir now stop bringing things to my attention if you would, just like a MARINE to try to improve their lot!?!

Well it was a long cold night out there checking "things" and I'm ready for the rack!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 31st, 2019, 07:34 PM

That was pretty much my understanding too.

The USMC acquired it's M1s/M1A1's between Nov 1989 (211 MBTs) and 2008 (44 MBTs used to increase the size of the two active duty tank battalions by one tank company each plus some for maintenance float). By FY 2009 the entire fleet of USMC M1A1s had received the FEP upgrades (US military Fiscal Years are the year prior to the date, thus FY 2009 is calendar year 2008).

The FEP was an improvement to the fire control and vision systems not armor, stabilization, or survivibility.

Starting around 2013 all USMC M1A1 FEPs began rotating thru the rebuild cycle at Anniston Army Depot, and an unknown (but fairly small) number were upgraded from M1A1 to M1A1 Heavy Common (thus more armor). Around 2015 M1A1s and LAVs started receiving improved thermal sights. Trophy mountings/electronics etc. were added around 2016. And AIDATS (improvements to the commanders .50cal) around 2018.

So a change from 2008 to 2009 for the FEP would seem reasonable. And FASTBOAT undoubtedly knows FAR more about vision and fire control systems then I do so his figures of TI/GSR 50 and FC 60 should be considered accurate.

But as with many units in WinSPMBT ... how many incremental upgrades are required before a new unit needs to be introduced? Does it make more sense to have a unit that starts before a specific upgrade is fielded incorporate that upgrade then wait several years before cumulative upgrades require the introduction of a new unit?

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608067.pdf

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 1st, 2019, 01:55 PM

Well I found the UNLESS for the date change for the M1A1 FEP the good news is my MARINE friend was off on the original START date by a year or more. USMC FEP was completed by FY 09 or if you will OCT 2008 for ALL 403 M1A1 ABRAMS the CORPS had at that time.

There is however "fallout" from this program, it is absolutely important that ALL things ABRAMS come from the USA first. With the last in mind, the USA had also contracted DRS to do the same/similar upgrades for them around 2001-2003 timeframe. With the AMBRAMS that started with the M1A2 SEP and M3A3 BRADLEY plus HUMEVEE (Recon/ARTY OBS) I would think. Not worried about the last right now. Of the rest I've identified 2 ABRAMS SEP/SEP V1 and 3 M3A3 BRADLEY's

My thinking right now for the USA is a compromise in dates to make this work WITHOUT ADDING new units for the USA and doing what makes sense for the upgrade as well. I believe a simple shift of one year to 1.5yrs of the START for those units will accomplish what is needed. I've identified the particular units already however, I want to do another check to ensure I didn't miss anything and to think this through again I already foresee this affecting the BRADLEY BUSK units to a very minor degree as well.

My initial thoughts w/o date right now for USA is as follows: SEP/SEP V1 TI/GSR 50 and no others. M3A3 BRADLEY TI/GSR 45 & FC 22 and no others. BRADLEY BUSK FC 22 and nothing else.

I have to get ready for work NOW!

Will have this submitted in the next couple of days.

That's what I get for changing my search criteria!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

MarkSheppard

February 2nd, 2019, 11:25 AM

The Royal Thai Army seems to have received a good enough quantity of NORINCO VT-4 MBTs to do this promo photo.

The VT-4 is basically a ZTZ-99 turret/gun mounted on a ZTZ-99A chassis and cooled down for export for sale as a "budget" tank to nations who want something better than a 1985 T-72; but not as expensive as a M1A2/T-90/LeClerc etc.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 3rd, 2019, 04:51 AM

1. About the VT-4 for Thailand UNIT 020...

From SIPRI (Slightly Modified Format)
Supplier/ No Year(s) Year No.
recipient (R) ordered ordered delivered Comments
China
R: Thailand 28 VT-4 Tank 2016 2017 28 THB4.9 b ($140 m) deal
34 Type-07P/VN-1 IFV 2017 THB2.3 b ($58 m) deal; delivery planned by 2020
10 VT-4 Tank 2017 THB2 b ($58 m) deal

We based date on late 2017 delivery a posted and for training. Also I believe they received those additional tanks in latter part of 2018. Should be posted in here.
https://www.janes.com/article/85735/thailand-looks-to-procure-more-vt-4-tanks-from-china/
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20916/China_Delivers_28_VT4_Battle_Tanks_to_Thailand_in_ US_150_Million_Deal#.XFas13dFzoo

UPDATE:
USMC M1A1 FEP: Looking more like JUN/OCT 2009. Sources showing FOC closer to end of production.

BRADLEY M3A3: Still holding at 3 UNITS. Holding at TI/GSR 45 reducing my initial call on FC to 22 vice 25.

BRADLEY M3A3 BUSK: 3 UNITS no change to current TI/GSR 50 FC 25 vice current 20. The BUSK besides the Armor got also a COMPLETLY new FCS. I believed these got submitted with the M1A2 SEP V2. I've found a VERY close relationship between the SEP tanks to the BRADLEY, especially in the area of electronics.

M1A2 SEP/MIA2 SEP V1: Of all the above, this was the worst PITA of them all. The information just kept overlapping, in fact the SEP V1 I only saw in a small number of references as compared to articles going from SEP to SEP V2. I've spent a lot more time on this issue than I cared to as the submission clock is winding down and my focus was elsewhere at the time. It's OK, CINCLANTHOME knows only to well when I get a "mission" in my head I'll do it until there's no more to do.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a2_sep.htm
(Though the START DATE is 1999(?), that is correct for when the contract was awarded for 1 M1A2 SEP MBT.) I hope you see the point I'm trying to make here, this was the ONLY one where I ran into with this date that at least DID had a question mark.

That being said as far as I'm concerned at this moment, I believe you'll get a slot back in the USA OOB. I'll take a closer look at UNITS 316/317 and go from there. The start date is the issue to be resolved I'm thinking it'll fall somewhere between JUN 2004 - JAN 2008. End date will be DEC 2025 as I don't think they'll be updated to the SEP V3 before games end due to the push to get the M1A1 and the soon to be operational "new" M1A1 SA upgraded first. The contracts are being awarded if you will, oldest to newest and somewhere in there the USMC M1A1 FEP as well.

And I was just getting ready to fix some T-90S tanks that need fixing. That'll be easy compared to this.

John how about that JANE's!?! :D Maybe for CHRISTMAS? ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2019, 02:26 AM

First sorry the table didn't transfer over from SIPRI the way I set it up prior to hitting the "Submit Reply" concerning Thailand's VT-4 MBT's.

Now on to the other issues from this past week, consider this the source and view the previous as additional information.

I have to go with Fully Operational Capability (FOC) many people want to use (And have.) Initial Operating Capability (IOC) the difference between the two is huge. When in IOC the manufacturer is working whatever branch to work out the bugs. This process normally ends with the OPEVAL where the branch is putting the equipment through it's paces. This will normally lead to modifications at times. Once the OPEVAL is completed this is when that piece of equipment will normally go into Full Rate Production (FRP) and depending on the branch will transition to FOC once a magic number is reached or in to the case of the first to tanks below, when production is completed and many things can drive this decision such as minor equipment upgrades (Think software updates or issues concerning all F-35 types.) or replacement or maybe a different engine (ALTAY) etc. etc.
This is for context before I continue below.

Also note I have to use the M1A2 SEP V2 for balance against the next two tanks as well. I don't know what data was used for them, however, we had a lot of data to work from for the M1A2 SEP V2 when it was submitted and except for the date change I submitted for the M1A2 SEP V3 that tank looks good at present.

USMC/CHANGE/M1A1HC FEP VARIENTS/UNITS 467, 468 & 469/START 10/2009 vice 01/2008/TI/GSR 50 vice 45/STABILISER 7 vice 6/UNIT 468 MRAP 7 vice SURVIBILITY 6/SAME MBT AS UNITS 467 & 469// The FEP was a major upgrade to the M1A1 tanks the USMC operated. The contract was awarded on FEB 05, 2005 for the manufacture and installation of the of the subsystems making up the FEP package. The FOC was reached as submitted above. I cannot find any information to support any other date but, it should be noted however I found enough to change the date last submitted and after digging deeper, I will gladly in this instance "eat a little crow" concerning that last submission that "I didn't see it before 2010..." at least based on the data I had then.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608067.pdf
(Pg. 6/Para B. Note they used JANE's 2013 ref.))
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=156
(Para 4)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/49891/marines-launch-m1a1-firepower-upgrade-(dec.-6).html
Paras 1 & 6)
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheon-receives-121m-to-enhance-usmcs-lavs-m1-tanks-01874/
(Covers both programs as of 2006.)
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-marine-corps
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength
(For context only. One of the very few "think tanks" that grade militaries and specifically are the only to do so for ours. The second will get you to the other branch's.)
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/september-2000-online/tank-gets-new-sight/
(This last ties in the FEP and SEP programs. And as normal USA first.)

The DID Ref above lead me to this next UNIT(s) as they definitely fit the timeframe needed for the FEP upgrade.

USMC/CHANGE/LAV-25 A2 (CS)/UNIT 993/LAV-25A2/UNIT 061/TI/GSR 45 vice 40/FC 22 vice 25/Laser R/F 20 vice Range Finder 15 & 14 respectively/Of course ARTY & AT units wouldn't receive this upgrade// This is a "smaller package" as compared to the BRADLEY and size matters with this kind of equipment, that being said they're better then what they are now and it fits the FEP package well. I don't think I missed any other UNITS.

You'll forgive me I hope as the LAV updates and verification threw me off track and as I was up well into what is now, yesterday morning and as I've got to take care of a couple of other issues before I hit the rack, I'll just say Good Night or morning wherever you may be!!.

Hopefully I'll get to the ABRAMS & BRADLEY units later today or Tuesday evening as I have the "fight course" that morning/afternoon.

Don if you desire more on the FEP LAV let me know but, I believe a couple of the others mention it as well. The DID Ref confirms the money was allocated and funded.

As a reminder and as recently posted M1A2 SEP V3/M1A2C OPEVAL is at 2.5+ yrs. and still going on. The ARMATA if still on schedule and from Russian Ministry of Defense as posted will start it's OPEVAL around mid to late 2021. I might just be right on that one given the SEP V3 above.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 6th, 2019, 02:54 AM

Well let's see if I can finish the rest of the "Project". I have come to the conclusion as already mentioned that the M1A2 SEP/M1A2 SEP V1 are the same tank. The ABRAMS of itself is nothing more then what Win10 is and that's a baseline "product" with continuous updated versions of itself. In looking into the SEP the following other AMBRAM's were either running parallel with or during it's development such as TUSK, AIM and SEP V2 AND I believe there was a fourth one as well. Again the M1A2 SEP V2 will be the driver for how far I can go without going there all the way. I wish to give you Some of what I've been dealing with trying to straighten what's turned into an ABRAMS "MESS" through the fault of NO ONE OUT HERE!! At the end of this I'll discuss what my next action will be once the submission clock runs out on me or before. Also...
The following is taken from DID it might help clear up some wording I use out here...In referring to the extensive work going on with the BRADLEY...
"Unlike RESET programs, designed to replace all defective or worn parts and restore/service a vehicle back to pre-combat condition, remanufacture is a complete rebuild designed to return it to full “zero miles” condition, and install upgrades."

Now the nightmare wraps up I hope!?! With...

Welcome to my world over the past week now from DID under M1A2 SEP: Additional Background section, by way of example...

"The M1A2 SEP is a formidable upgrade package, but it was missing a small but crucial item. Troops in Iraq and elsewhere are also clamoring for a phone on the outside of the tank that will let them talk to the vehicle crew. This was common as far back as World War 2, and its lack is hampering coordination on the modern battlefield – especially in urban areas. A General Dynamics representative noted that future M1A2 Abrams TUSK (Tank Urban Survivability Kit) vehicles will have this feature, but the SEP v1 tanks did not. And continues right into the next para with...

M1A2 SEP Version 2 configuration, which is just beginning to appear, fixes this." And continues...

Now correct me if I'm wrong, the above para was talking about M1A2 SEP and ended in the same para with the M1A2 SEPv1 right!?! Anyway...

USA/CHANGE/RESET/M1A2 SEP/UNITS 316 & 647/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP MCRS/UNITS 653 & 654/ALL/START OCT 2008/END DEC 2025/TI/GSR 50 vice 40/FC 55 vice 50/STEEL HF 70 vice 65/HS 18 vice 12/HR 10 vice 9/HEAT TF 150 vice 147/TS 50 vice 48// Unlike the M1A1 FEP, the M1A2 SEP received a 3rd GEN armor upgrade this includes a D/U pkg. as well. I threaded the needle for FOC based on the conflicting data. However it should be noted it's NOT out of line based on what I posted concerning the M1A2 SEP V3 almost being 3 yrs. into it's OPEVAL as we speak. Also the last order placed for the SEP was in mid/late 2005. That being said, I leaned a little more on the following from DID (Last Ref.) entries AUG 29/08 and JUN 20/05. Overall the SEP program to date must viewed as incremental improvements in all areas. And I really like the picture, things should be seen doing things.

USA/DELETE/M1A2 SEP V1/UNITS 318 & 640/SAVE THE PICTURE WE HAVE LATE MODEL ABRAMS "FLOATING IN THE SKY" THAT CAN USE IT/For the reasons stated above and below within the Refs. I have seen Refs to indicate the M1A1 AIM being tagged with V1 and V2 attached to the name. Also M1A1 AIM were all REMANUFACTED tanks for the record.

USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP V2/M1A2 SEP 2-T/UNITS 517 & 537 RESPECTIVLY/FC 55 vice 50/BASED ON M1A2 SEP V3 FC 60/NOTE I MISSED UNIT 537 WHEN I SUBMITTED REVISED START FOR UNIT 517 (06/2020 I BELIEVE FROM POST 845) SHOULD MATCH// Again we see the progression more clearly now between the variants.
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1996/MAY_JUN/ArmorMayJune1996web.pdf
(In 1996 the plan, pg. 11 and see Fig. 3 pg. 14.)
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY1999/pdf/army/99m1a2.pdf
(In 2000 testing issues and failures experienced during and beyond 1999.)
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2002/pdf/army/2002AbramsM1A2SEP.pdf
https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2001/1_JanFeb/articles/10_Abrams_Modernization_Keeping_Best_Ahead_of_Rest _200101.pdf
(2001 Another overview and analysis.)
(In 2002 testing continues with minor issues, progress being made.)
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=534
(2003 Commanders CITV. Cap. & Production Plan.)
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh/22.pdf
(2005 Conversion moves on it will be seen FOC not until Units in "PROGRAM STATUS" are fully equipped.)
https://www.gd.com/news/press-releases/2006/12/us-army-awards-general-dynamics-305-million-abrams-improved-sep-reset
(2006 Last of M1 tanks to be upgraded to SEP expect 2009 final delivery to units for FOC.)
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/abrams.htm
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/digital-abrams-the-m1a2-sep-program-updated-02834/
(After a 3rd/4th time or more, I've got a little more clarity on the date issue (Above 2 Refs in particular.) and I believe the M1A2 SEP V1 as noted under the M1A2 SEP V2 section. I'm starting to think what really happened here with most not reporting this version while a SMALL handful do is the program (M1A2 SEP V1) started and went straight into the M1A2 SEP V2 program. It is the only thing that makes sense here.)

I fear there is more work here however, Don unless you have issue with anything posted so far, I really would like to be done with the ABRAMS.

One of my Co-workers "KEN" was a Tank Commander of the M1A1 a year after they got fielded and fought in Iraq (Even had a picture of an Iraq soldier they captured.) he's retired Army and I had some questions for him. Anyway he told me when I once tried to get some info from Ft. Benning (Armor School) I went to the wrong base.
I will try to contact the "home" of Army Armor in Ft. Knox. As some have already seen, I've done this before successfully concerning armor w/Austria, Australia and Germany. France did let me down concerning the 105mm issue (And what fun that was for Don and I!?!) we had. Anyway this has been hanging on my PC for over two days now it's time to get it off of here, I don't remember what my screen saver looks like!?! :eek: :shock: and awe!

A final note did anyone notice a pattern with the Refs.? Just from what I posted was 12 yrs. for SEP to get into the field. Not bad when you consider ARJUN Mk I took over 30yrs. to get there! These things take time!

Good something to you all, it's been a long day and the "Red Man" is down again!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 6th, 2019, 10:02 AM

I fear there is more work here however, Don unless you have issue with anything posted so far, I really would like to be done with the ABRAMS.

Trust me.....I'm OK with it and as done with it as you are.......maybe more so

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 6th, 2019, 12:47 PM

CORRECTION!!!!

This was my :doh: moment early this morning.

See below for corrected version...

USA/DELETE/M1A2 SEP V1/UNITS 318 & 649/SAVE THE PICTURE (UNIT 318) WE HAVE LATE MODEL ABRAMS "FLOATING IN THE SKY" THAT CAN USE IT// As it was originally posted UNIT 640 is the M551(CS) - sorry.

One thing we like are pictures so...
USA/CHANGE PICTURE/M1A2/UNIT 637/REPLACE WITH UNIT 318 PICTURE//I personally enjoyed that when Don let me get all those USN SKYHAWK pictures replaced mostly in Australia and Israel, F-105 for the Swiss. Also helos for Australia, Switzerland and all the countries that used the French SAR/SPEC OP helo we just updated a year or two ago with the missing MG's. That's almost relaxing compared to the rest!

Don sorry for the "screwup" caught it while looking for the "floating tank" ABRAMS pictures.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 6th, 2019, 04:54 PM

Yeah, I figured out the 640 = 649 thing PDQ......

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 7th, 2019, 02:53 AM

I had saved and looked at about 5 each of the M1A1 AIM & MIA1 SA pictures and I have to be honest the one below will work for both as we've already done in the game. I've just not come across one like this with a river crossing with combat gear, soldiers good background all the elements are there.

USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP V2/UNITS 517 & 537/M1A1 AIM/UNIT 636/M1A1 SA/UNIT 886/DELETE CURRENT PICTURES/REPLACE WITH PICTURE AS SUBMITTED BELOW//

15666

Is there a reason why the pictures are so big when submitted on a post lately?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 7th, 2019, 09:28 AM

The photo was interesting Pat but I found a better copy to work from (http://www.omnia.ie/index.php?navigation_function=2&navigation_item=bca481debdc7c15eac851cb68bf4464b&repid=2)

and that is a great photo of an Abrams it shows the photo was taken Dec 31 1995 so it's an Abrams a decade before the SEP

Mobhack

February 7th, 2019, 01:30 PM

The IFOR stencil on the side skirts is a clue as to the date as well..

zovs66

February 7th, 2019, 01:37 PM

That pic was taken 4 years and 5 months after I got out of the Army. We never used/had the yellow reflector tape and we never used a flag like that in the turret.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 7th, 2019, 03:04 PM

I knew it was older picture I thought from around the late 80's very early 90's by the tank, uniforms and M-16, I just really liked the picture.

Maybe for some of the "older" tanks that have "dup" pictures?

But thanks!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

February 7th, 2019, 04:51 PM

It is a nice picture.

And the flag isn't attached, just the loader showing off a bit I'd guess ;)

DRG

February 7th, 2019, 07:37 PM

I removed the flag in editing

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15667&stc=1&d=1549582621

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 8th, 2019, 02:39 AM

And a fine job you did!! Looks good and I like it! I didn't even pay attention to the IFOR on the skirt. that puts the picture at Winter of 95/96. IFOR was replaced a year later by SFOR which ran a couple of years after my military retirement 04/05 I believe. Worked with a couple of guys that ended up over there. They told me that "Watch Your Step" had a whole new meaning over there.

Thank You!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2019, 03:53 AM

Why do I receive this every time after my session is timed out and it directs to log in again which I do and this message comes up...

Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.

You do what it says and everything is gone. This time it was my fault because I copied the above message and with Win10 you can kiss your previous copy goodbye with no hope of recovery.

You really don't want to know why I'm asking this question at this hour of the morning.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 12th, 2019, 08:20 AM

Pat the simple solution is to write your submission in your email program then when you are happy with it copy and paste into the forums and then you won't get timed out and lose things

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2019, 01:16 PM

I appreciate it, it's just very aggravating is all. Will try to get that data out tomorrow morning after work tonight concerning the T-90S. I would find out thru SIPRI Uganda also received Russian T-55AM-2 tanks but I couldn't find them in the OOB, did I miss something? SIPRI did indicate they were transshipped via Belarus. I see the Czech's had one of that name, but these where to have been updated with Kontiak-5 etc. I will present an option from one of my Refs. concerning the matter if nothing else presents itself.

Thanks again, I just had to walk away and regroup and my focus is on today, it'll be a big one at work with a new guy on top of it.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 12th, 2019, 02:32 PM

no AM-2's with Kontiak in the Uganda OOB but there will be once you fill me in on a date

DRG

February 12th, 2019, 03:01 PM

Sometime before 2013 it seems and they have seen better days......
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15669&stc=1&d=1549998038

......and better maintenance......

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 13th, 2019, 02:49 PM

T-90S/T-90MS/T-55AM-2 status...

1. Have identified nine "bullet" info data points. Done

2. Identified all operators required changes. Done

3. India must confirm STEEL and HEAT why they are, what they are, go figure. :rolleyes: Can confirm T-90MS is wrong. For now I know the START is incorrect by at least three years, also need to confirm ERA I am sure it should reflect Reliak and not Kontiak-5.

4. UGANDA T-55AM-2 START 06/2010. The picture you last submitted made me immediately think ERA looks more like Kontiak-1 then Kontiak-5. Have a good source chosen for this will evaluate and send on my recommendation for you to evaluate with it.

5. I'm NOT going to wait on the T-90S India issue to resolve itself before the clock runs out on me if it can't be done quickly.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 13th, 2019, 03:31 PM

These things are looking a BIT rough.......

https://i.imgur.com/ho6rKE1.png

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 14th, 2019, 03:14 AM

Please use the first picture!! Obviously UGANDA has some major maintenance issues, anyway more to follow, however I recommend for now the following:
UGANDA/ADD/T-55AM-2/COPY/RUSSIAN T-55AMV/UNIT 016/START 06/2010/DELETE ATGM/THEY DIDN'T ORDER IT//The T-55AMV was the next upgraded version in the T-55 series from it's predecessor the T-55AM-1. The ERA is definitely Kontaik-1 which is what the T-55AMV had. The only ATGM ordered between 2005-2017 was the advanced KORNET-E/START 01/2014 IF YOU'RE FEELING "FROGGY"!?!.

It'll be reposted with more data when I submit the T-90 stuff.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 14th, 2019, 01:31 PM

6/2010 is what I had already tentatively entered and I had not included ATGM. The ERA is single digit values now

I thought that second photo was great if you wanted a " well used" look. I will make a note not to buy second /third hand T-54/55's from Uganda......:D

OTOH a master modeller could have a field day with that photo to work from

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 16th, 2019, 02:58 AM

The T-90S is the export version of the Russian T-90. A total by this fall of 5 export countries will operate the T-90S India (Advanced type.), Algeria, Uganda, Iraq and this fall Vietnam (Standard type.) Data Points…

1. ROSOBOROEXPORT is the Russian State run military equipment sales unit.

2. The Night Vision specs for the base model are Detection Rng. 800m and Identification Rng. 700m.

3. ERA standard is Kontakt-5 and the numbers look right for this pkg.

4. All export units ordered have the SHTORA-1 “Soft Kill” System as far as I can tell.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html

5. Standard equipped FCS does not support ATGM ops.

6. Only again, Russia and India have the advanced FCS/Optics the French made “CATHERINE”/”ESSA” systems and are capable of conducting ATGM ops. The first system is the same as used on the T-72 White Eagle tanks that Laos has just received, and is entered in the game for Nicaragua and Russia from someone, by someone else.

7. In my opinion the Ugandan T-90S is the closest to the standard I see, and will act as the base unit.

8. Where I used SIPRI for verification the time period was from 2005 – 2017 which covered all the issues involved. That raw information will be provided for each country below.

9. I’ve tried to verify a few times by now any evidence to support the fact that these other countries might be using one of the advanced systems as noted in #6 above, I’ve been unsuccessful in doing so.

10. START dates are good unless otherwise noted.

UGANDA/CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 031/EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice 30/MG 125mm D81T 00 vice 125mm Gun 00//The base.
(44) T-90S Tank 2010 2011 44

IRAQ/ CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 035/ EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/DELETE M119M INVAR/FCS DOES NOT SUPPORT/FC 30 vice 35/STABILISER 5 vice 4/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 6// To further verify this I used SIPRI the only Russian ATGM imported by IRAQ was both the AT-6 & AT-14.

ALGERIA/CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 027/ EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/DELETE M119M INVAR/FCS DOES NOT SUPPORT/FC 30 vice 35/STABILISER 5 vice 4/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 6//To further verify this I used SIPRI the only Russian ATGM imported by Algeria was both the AT-4 & AT-14.
185 T-90S Tank 2006 2006-2008 185 $1 b deal
(120) T-90S Tank 2011 2012-2013 (120) $470 m deal
(200) T-90S Tank (2014) 2015-2016 (200)

NORTH VIETNAM/CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 033/START 10/2019 vice 06/2018/ EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/DELETE M119M INVAR/FCS DOES NOT SUPPORT/FC 30 vice 35/STABILISER 5 vice 4/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 6//First shipment arrived in Hanoi in 01/02/2019. To further verify this I used SIPRI and no Russian ATGM were imported by VIETNAM.
64 T-90S Tank 2017 Incl T-90SK version
https://www.janes.com/article/85463/first-t-90s-mbts-arrive-in-vietnam
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-deadly-t-90s-tank-export-hit-heres-what-it-can-do-40962

India will need further investigation I don’t understand why the STEEL and HEAT numbers do not match the above. I believe the current numbers are incorrect for the T-90S for India.

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90MS/UNIT 039/START 01/2022 vice 01/2019//SIPRI has no data on contracts (See VIETNAM above showing contract date.) or this tank in the time period (2005-2017) noted above. I believe they were signed in the fall of 2018. But this is India who stopped the ARJUN Mk 2 for the “desire” to acquire this tank as far back as 2012.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indias-future-main-battle-tank-will-come-without-life-saving-active-armour-1640749
(2016-No APS system mounted per above.)
https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/india-to-deploy-massive-tank-army-along-border-with-pakistan/
(2017-Still thinking about getting them.)
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/01/17/india-wants-defensive-upgrades-for-its-new-russian-tanks/
(2017 We’ll try to develop our own APS.)
Then there’s nothing.
I also checked almost 2yrs. worth of articles from BROADSWORD run by a retired Col. of the Indian Army and currently a reporter with a major Indian newspaper, with negative results.
https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/

Additional Refs. to support the above…
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/CC05%20-%20T-90.html
(General data at top of page worth overview look. Scroll down to the T-90A section read general descriptor, then click on each T-90A and T-90S tab with the focus being on “Night Vision” upper right.)
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/tanks/t-90s/
(See para 7 not exactly a ringing endorsement of the onboard FCS optics. Again as demonstrated above except for India’s T-90S tanks, the others listed don’t have ATGM system support or even ordered them. Do note India is not “off the hook” on this matter. Those tanks will be treated as a separate issue, because after all, it is India and tanks we’re talking about here.)
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/tanks/t-90ms/
(See para 2, note the use of “…multispectral sights…”, that is a ringing endorsement and I truly hope everyone understands why and what the difference means.)

Bonus tank due to search of the above.
UGANDA/ADD/T-55AM-2/COPY/RUSSIAN T-55AMV/UNIT 016/START 06/2010/DELETE ATGM/THEY DIDN'T ORDER IT//The T-55AMV was the next upgraded version in the T-55 series from its predecessor the T-55AM-1. The ERA is definitely Kontaik-1 which is what the T-55AMV had. Understand specs are ready for inclusion.
(23) T-55AM-2 Tank 2009 2009 23 Second-hand; delivered via Belarus
1000 9M133 Kornet/AT-14 Anti-tank missile 2010 2012-2013(1000) Kornet-E version
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/CC05%20-%20T-55.html

Miscellaneous Refs.
https://www.defencetalk.com/raytheon-to-equip-193-marine-tanks-with-night-vision-sensors-2307/
http://www.deagel.com/Armored-Vehicles/M1A1-Abrams_a000516002.aspx
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/army/2015m1a2sep3.pdf
http://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2007/MAY_JUN/ArmorMayJune2007web.pdf
(A very good article on the differences between UK & USA Armor tactics and training.)

Back to India later. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 16th, 2019, 03:00 PM

I also adjusted ( if required.... ) the ammo loads after the ATGM was removed and the armour values for the India ones have been harmonized with the others

ALSO............ you need to go back, check your notes then check what the game actually does and be clearer

CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 035/ EW 2 VIRSS vice 0

EW 2 = CIWS 2 shots so do you want active systems or passive system? Passive methinks so if you want passive systems with 2 shots it is NOT EW 2.....its EW 4

I A**-U-ME you want 2 VIRSS in which case it needs to be reported as EW 4 (VIRSS) vice 0

This is sorta-kinda like

" If they fire one, we'll fire one"

" ONE FIRED SIR! "

and

" what we have here is a failure to communicate...."

if you ask EW be 2 that's active CIWS-- writing EW 2 VIRSS isn't clear give the way the game is set up and the way this was reported

I'm betting that was written late in the evening......:)

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2019, 03:30 AM

Don,
Passive EW 4, and to be honest you schooled me here, which is absolutely fine. I always manage to get the two confused, so as much as I'd like to blame it on that 2-3am in the morning my time, I can't at least not this time.

I'm still going to look into that armor issue (India) for my own peace of mind but, I feel putting them in line with the rest will turnout not to be a premature move.

I hope to post on my mystery tank later today after I look to see if there is any further news on it once I'm done here.

I will follow-up with a "formal request" for Ukraine having gone operational with the JAVELIN-JV last June and Uganda with the KORNET-E as submitted in my last post above. I think I'm winding down. After the tank and those ATGM's, I have 2 pieces of SPA and 1 ammo supply unit for Brazil. The deal is done and units delivered. They will be units copied over from the USA which I have yet to identify what unit # they are.

If you feel like doing and Icon, China put into service a "CAESAR" type SPA which is also in service now (Last few months.) recently. I have others in the arty world that will also basically be copied over from other OOB's.

These arty issues can wait if you are "at the wall" sooner then what we talked about, just let me know.

Thanks again for straightening me out, like I've always said "you never stop learning" and now with life's imparted wisdom, "if you do, you'll stop listening" anyway just let me know and thanks again.

Time for a little research before bed.

To all a GOOD MORNING, AFTERNOON or NIGHT! Isn't our Global reach Great!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 17th, 2019, 09:23 AM

I will follow-up with a "formal request" for Ukraine having gone operational with the JAVELIN-JV last June and Uganda with the KORNET-E as submitted in my last post above. I think I'm winding down.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Not just Uganda needs the Kornet I have discovered
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/

OPERATORS

Russia, Syria, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India, Morocco, Algeria and Greece

some we have already in the game.........some we don't. I am looking into that now. The Saudi's, in the game anyway, do not have infantry ATGM teams in the game they are either lumped in as Inf AT or mounted on vehicles so I'm looking into what they may have attached the Kornet to......... and Wiki claims Eritrea had 80 Kornet-E's were delivered in 2005 quoting Sipri as the source and there is considerably more listed and sourced on that list including the Iran and NK knock-offs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet

<sigh.......> I think I see where my day is headed......

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2019, 11:35 AM

Sorry for opening a "can of worms" leave it go I'll make a quick search of it using SPIRI data base so you can keep on whatever else you're doing. The database covers every class of weapons to include ammunition.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 22nd, 2019, 05:30 AM

First off this is not here to piss anyone off. This is to finish what I started because that's what I do, in fixing the Russian T-90S export situation as posted in this Thread on Page #88/Post #879 from that post...

"India will need further investigation I don’t understand why the STEEL and HEAT numbers do not match the above. I believe the current numbers are incorrect for the T-90S for India."

UNGANDA/T-90S/UNIT 031/AS REVISED on Page #88/Post #879/THIS IS THE BASELINE T-90S MODEL//

SIPRI data supplied as reference points to support the timeframe of the below. These are from Russia to India. India also "kit" builds their own T-90S Series UNITS. India is the largest user of the T09S Series tanks.

FOR INDIA...

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90S BHISHMA/UNIT 036/START JUN 2002 vice JAN 2004/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/NO EW INDIA DID NOT ORDER SHORTORA-1/CHANGE/FC**STABILSER**SURVIABILITY**STEEL**HEAT PER REVISED UGANDIAN UNIT 031 AS SUBMITTED (UNDERSTAND STEEL & HEAT DONE)//
SIPRI 310 T-90S Tank 2001 2001-2006 (310) $600-700 m deal (incl 55% advance payment); reaction on Pakistani acquisition of 320 T-80UB tanks; 186 assembled from kits in India

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90S+BHISHMA/UNIT 037/NO EW INDIA DID NOT ORDER SHORTORA-1/SURVIABILITY**STEEL**HEAT PER REVISED UGANDIAN UNIT 031 AS SUBMITTED (UNDERSTAND STEEL & HEAT DONE)//These would represent the ones equipped with FRENCH THALES "CATHERINE" TI/GSR and supported FCS integration equipment.

INDIA/ADD/T-90M BHISHMA/COPY CURRENT INDIA T-90S+BHISHMA/UNIT037/START JUN 2010/ADD/EW SWEDDISH LEDS-150 APS 3 SHOTS/MG 125mm 2A46M-5 Rapira vice 125mm D81T 88/FC 45 vice 40/STABLISER 5 vice 4/ERA 16/16/0/16/16/0/16 KANCHAN ERA vice current 14 KONTAKT 5 ERA//All other current numbers for the "copied" UNIT 037 especially in the STEEL and HEAT areas are good as the armor package was improved for this version.
SIPRI 347 T-90S Tank 2007 2008-2012 (347) INR49 b ($1.2 b) deal; incl 223 assembled in India

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90MS/UNIT 039/NAME T-90MS BHISHMA II vice T-90MS/DATE CHANGE ALREADY SUBMITTED PER Page #88/Post #879//
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/India/T-90S_Bhishma.php
http://tanknutdave.com/indian-t90-bhishma-tank/

INDIA/CHANGE/ARGUN Mk II & ARGUN Mk II+/UNITS 022 & 023/START JAN 2023 vice CURRENT// I really don't think these will make it in the game at all in the "RW". I would say DELETE them, however, in India things "can change on a dime"

This completes the T-90S Series fixes. If these don't get in this year it's OK, AFTERALL this is INDIA we're talking about!?! :rolleyes: :shock:

My mission is complete and my word is kept per the top para 2.

I just want to point out the whole ABRAMS, T-90S M109 SPA issues happened by accident. The valid USMC M1A1 FEP (Suhiir thank you!) was a valid issue that needed to be addressed.

However going back to the to the rest they started with valid issues as well the T-90S for VIETNAM I think it was and the M109A5/A5+ for BRAZIL.

We would find that in most cases, the issues stemmed from already game entered equipment errors from when Andy and Don "took over control" of the game, misidentified photos that were submitted which caused if you will "UNIT confusion and misinformation", equipment submitted based on Prototype and or Initial Low Rate production dates instead of FOC (In some cases I would've been THRILLED if they used IOC dates because they were that XXXXXX XX, i.e. M109A6 PALIDAN WAS OVER 10 YEARS EARLY) and not to Pontificate :angel: :rolleyes: on the issue I will just end with plain laziness in not checking sources.

It's been a good year, it would've been more enjoyable and fruitful equipment wise if we didn't have so much rework to do.

I hope you all have a great weekend!! :D

For CINCLANTHOME and myself it'll be "Play Ball" on Spring Trng Opening Day!! :cool:

GOOD NIGHT where ever you are!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

RC4

February 22nd, 2019, 05:18 PM

Thank you, there is a lot of work to be done in the ORBAT issues.
I dont have much time to help, if I would it would take some 3 months to give information.
Its disapointing to play a Pakistan-India scenario and lost to India with weapons they dont have.

Thanks

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 23rd, 2019, 02:00 AM

Thank You.

I've stated it many times and the body of work represents I feel, a "world view" of the game.

The Pakistani and Indian situation represents one of the top three flashpoints in the world. Also it represents the one with the greatest risk of potentially going nuclear.

Pakistan is looking into a multi-national tank deal with the
Ukraine for the OPLOT-P (Improved OPLOT-M version.), China for the VT-4 and Turkey for the ALTAY.

For themselves from a source (Global Security)...
"The Al Khalid tank is based on the Chinese Norinco Type-90-II Main Battle Tank (MBT). This is a Pakistani built tank, all of it except its engine is made in Pakistan. The engine is a Ukrainian one."

They've had strong ties with China and the Ukraine for a very long time.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

MarkSheppard

February 24th, 2019, 10:50 AM

First images of M1A2C with Active Protection Systems:

https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-arme-releases-first-image-of-new-m1a2c-tank-with-active-protection-systems.html

The U.S. Army on Friday released the first detailed images of the next version of the Abrams tank with active protection systems.

The new images – made at U.S Army Yuma Proving Ground revealed the M1A2C Abrams main battle tank with the Rafael Advanced Defence Systems-developed Trophy HV hard-kill active protection systems (APSs).

The M1A2C (also know as M1A2 SEPv3) is the latest variant of Abrams tanks in production, which concluding testing at the Yuma Proving Ground, one of the largest military installations in the world.

This version rectifies many of the space, weight and power issues identified during Operation Iraqi Freedom and will be the foundational variant for all future incremental upgrades. In addition to having improved survivability, the Abrams M1A2C can host any mature technology the Army deems operationally relevant. Improvements focus on increasing the electrical power margin, Vehicle Health Management Systems, integrated counter-improvised explosive device protection, a new Auxiliary Power Unit, embedded training and an ammunition data link.

It is the most reliable Abrams tank ever produced, will decrease the Army’s logistic burden, and leads the Army in enterprise-level connectivity to maintenance and supply systems.

The M1A2C is equipped Trophy APS that eliminates enemy threats, such as rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles.

The Israeli government first developed the Trophy technology and the U.S. Army began developing the system for the Abrams about two years ago.

Production of the system would be a collaboration between General Dynamics Land Systems, Leonardo DRS and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. General Dynamics Land Systems is the Abrams tank Original Equipment Manufacturer; Rafael is the Original Equipment Manufacturer of the Trophy Active Protection System and is in partnership with Leonardo DRS.

MarkSheppard

February 24th, 2019, 10:53 AM

It looks to me that they also added a "glacis" applique plate to the frontal turret armor of the M1A2 as well...

DRG

February 24th, 2019, 02:52 PM

https://defence-blog.com/news/turkey-equip-tanks-new-high-tech-protection-system.html

It's already assumed on the Altay and perhaps put on other tanks as well but the Altay development mirrors the Arjun....it may happen.....someday

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 25th, 2019, 12:13 AM

See Post 844/Pg. 85(?) on APS current status last ref. from Jan 19, 2019 shows successful test. Money is forth coming for more systems and start of Low Rate Production. But again the SEP V3 is still in OPEVAL Status with our latest FOC date already submitted in the same Post above I believe that this might include APS testing in this process, but not likely since that post refers to the manufacturers testing. I would expect we’ll see the MBT first again hopefully as resubmitted again.

I’m getting that “What are you doing look”, I’ll just wish everyone a good night and go back on vacation.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 26th, 2019, 10:47 PM

When I saw this I about had a "heart attack" that they did this so quietly without word leaking out is amazing in it's own right, however, INDIA knowing I've been watching and being critical of them must have done this to show me what they can do and shut me up!?! :rolleyes: :D

What they've apparently done is, I believe and pending further research, is taken the top 14 of the over 96 improvements the ARMY demanded DRDO to make for the ARJUN Mk 2 to come up with the ARJUN Mk 1-A going into production (118) this year with the trials completed. And the ARMY said OK!?! Somebody must've got "somebody drunk" or something!?!
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/new_upgraded_arjun_mark_1-a_main_battle_tank_will_enter_in_service_with_indi an_army.html

I know what it was, they saw my last post finishing out the T-90S tank issue ending it with INDIA, that they were so happy with it that this was my reward for all those years I've been covering INDIA for the game, I'm truly honored by this!?! :o :cool: :D ;)

I should've started sooner with the very first MBT Post, maybe they would've inducted the full ARJUN Mk 2!?! by now :doh:

Oh Well, take what you can get, I suppose.

I think I'll celebrate my victory with a very good and loud 4K movie, that'll make CINCLANTHOME happy!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 2nd, 2019, 02:07 AM

THIS IS MORE ABOUT CLEANING OUT MY FILES...

The next two are files I used also in sorting through the in game ABRAMS issues encountered which Don has well in hand now. The first one is the most important one focusing on the M1A2 SEP V3/M1A2C, what's important about is how closely it's tracking in the "RW" and was a key ref. in the submitting of the revised FOC date. I don't know how I didn't post it then.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/army/2015m1a2sep3.pdf
http://tanknutdave.com/the-us-abrams-series/

Also Vietnam is wasting no time in starting training on the first batch of T-90S tanks it received this last January. I'd say for the time being, the revised FOC date submitted is right on track.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/vietnamese_troops_to_master_t-90s_main_battle_tanks.html

I can't believe they're still using the T-34/85 in an operational status.

And finally for the M1A1 FEP, another that got away that was useful in helping establish a timeline for this tank...
https://www.defencetalk.com/raytheon-to-equip-193-marine-tanks-with-night-vision-sensors-2307/

This last I don't remember if I posted it or not, I believe what I did post was the USMC assessment as an add on to the M1A1 FEP submission, anyway, here's the "Full Monty" if your in curious sort of state. Again this from a well respected "Think Tank".
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/an-assessment-of-us-military-power

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

March 2nd, 2019, 05:29 PM

This last I don't remember if I posted it or not, I believe what I did post was the USMC assessment as an add on to the M1A1 FEP submission, anyway, here's the "Full Monty" if your in curious sort of state. Again this from a well respected "Think Tank".
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/an-assessment-of-us-military-power

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
Your "little" Full Monty resulted in:

UNITS
Unit# 140 F/A-18A Hornet - Dates 07/83-06/89, Speed=19, Vision=25, Weapon#2 215 HE=2, Weapon#3 209 HE=2, Weapon#4 200 HE=2
Unit# 141 F/A-18C Hornet - Dates 07/89-06/118, Radio=90, Vision=40
Unit# 142 F/A-18C Hornet - Dates 07/89-06/118, Vision=40, Weapon#2 200 HE=3, Weapon#3 185 HE=3
Unit# 143 EA-6Bic Prowler - Dates 03/98-06/109
Unit# 149 F/A-18C Hornet - Rename "F/A-18D Hornet", Dates 07/89-12/125, Vision=40, Weapon#2 199 HE=4, Weapon#3 199 HE=4
Unit# 216 F/A-18A+ Hornet (NEW UNIT - Copy of Unit# 140) - Dates 01/90-06/118, Speed=19, Vision=25, Weapon#2 213 HE=2, Weapon#3 0 HE=0, Weapon#4 0 HE=0
Unit# 219 F/A-18D Hornet - UC=223, Dates 07/89-12/125, Radio=90, Vision=40, Weapon#2 185 HE=3, Weapon#3 203 HE=3, Weapon#4 185 HE=3
Unit# 574 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, EW=11
Unit# 575 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, EW=11
Unit# 583 F-35C Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125
Unit# 584 F-35C Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, EW=10
Unit# 585 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, EW=10, Weapon#2 178 HE=13, Weapon#3 178 HE=13
Unit# 586 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, Speed=15, EW=10
Unit# 587 EF-35C Ferret - Dates 07/118-12/125, Speed=18, EW=13, Weapon#2 194 HE=2, Weapon#3 197 HE=2, Weapon#4 197 HE=2
Unit# 592 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, EW=10
Unit# 593 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, EW=10
Unit# 594 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125, EW=10
Unit# 904 F/A-18A Hornet - Rename "F/A-18B Hornet", Vision=25, Dates 07/83-12/89, Speed=19, Weapon#2 199 HE=3, Weapon#3 199 HE=3
Unit# 905 F/A-18C Hornet - Rename "F/A-18D Hornet", Dates 07/89-12/125, Vision=40, Weapon#2 209 HE=4, Weapon#3 208 HE=4, Weapon#4 208 HE=4
Unit# 931 F/A-18E Hornet - Rename "F/A-18F Hornet*", Radio=91
Unit# 932 F/A-18E Hornet - Rename "F/A-18E Hornet*", Radio=91
Unit# 933 F/A-18F Hornet - Rename "F/A-18E Hornet*", UC=223, LBM=13344, Dates 03/112-06/118, Radio=91, Weapon#2 178 HE=13, Weapon#3 178 HE=13, Weapon#4 0 HE=0
Unit# 936 F/A-18B Hornet (NEW UNIT - Copy of Unit# 904) - Speed=19, Vision=25, Dates 07/83-12/89, Weapon#2 209 HE=2, Weapon#3 208 HE=3, Weapon#4 208 HE=3
Unit# 940 E/A-18G Growler - LBM=56017, Dates 07/109-12/128

Hope you're happy :eek:

(( Thanks ))

DRG

March 2nd, 2019, 05:57 PM

:mean::mean::mean:And those will be the LAST changes we make. Just changing the first three aircraft on that list BUGGERED 6 SCENARIOS !!

AND 2 CAMPAIGNS !!
:mean: :mean: :mean: :mean:

What EXACTLY is the road to HELL paved with ???

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 5th, 2019, 11:26 AM

There was a "meeting of the minds" I will simply leave it as that with a BIG Thank You to Don.

This Thread has always meant "Homeplate" to me and I'm grateful to get back to business here.

I will be adapting some format changes to this and the other Threads I post on along the lines of one of my best resources, Defense Industry Daily (DID) in the way their articles are formatted.

My first will one back will deal with the OPLOT-M early campaign performance and something I've not seen the AI do in the multiple x many campaigns I've played as Ukraine vs. Russia over the years, nothing bad, just different in it's (AI) MBT picks I've seen in my current campaign.

Don again thank you!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 6th, 2019, 02:41 AM

Concerning the Ukrainian OPLOT-M I will first start with a question.

When I have put together my "core" units in a generated campaign (I always normally assign the AI as many points as I allocate for myself.), does the AI in picking it's units have "intel" on the likely units I have or possibly will operate with? Or is it simply the "law of averages" has finally caught up to me?

I've often wondered about this but, to be honest, I never gave it any thought until what I saw in my current long campaign Ukraine vs. Russia first two games (2nd still in play.) a change in it's MBT picks as will be addressed below last.

First to the platitudes and they are well deserved. I long suspected the OPLOT-M wasn't performing as it should especially as it's listed in so many "Top 10" lists worldwide concerning MBT's.

Bottom-line, my tanks were getting killed at a ratio of 3:1 as the testing would prove as well on average. The main opponent and most of the time ONLY MBT was the Russian T-72B3/B4 one of the best tanks we've entered into this game. It was right from the start as it is now..

The issues were...ARMOR/ERA/STABILISER/AMMO and the KOMBAT ATGM. KOMBAT though looked (3 times that I'm aware of.) at by Don and as I suspected also, was working as it should.

For more see Pg. 82 Post 813 through Pg. 85 Post 842 of my final thoughts and changes proposed in my submission to fix the OPLOT-M.

I'm a reference "nut" though some might use a different word or set of words to describe me. ;) The following were my references I'm indebted to them all for assisting me on such short notice and as the submission clock was winding down, or so I (And Don.) thought at the time. :rolleyes:

They are Aeraaa, jivemi, John (Imp), zovs66 and of course Don.

THANK YOU all for your patience, time, efforts and conclusions.

The payoff...Submitted my recommendations in the last post as noted above./Don accepted them as submitted./Added to the OOB's (Thailand's would get about 3 changes as well.)./Verified as submitted.

Game results achieved my first marginal victory in the first game of this series of campaigns. Always set to "HARD". Notable events were my first hit probabilities now reflect the refs. at 94% so the Stabilizer adjustment is (I couldn't resist the next.) "dead on target". The Armor and ERA adjustments are also working as discussed in the refs. and as for all items, as noted over the years. Though discussed in the posts, I have no idea if the KBA-3 MG or ammo were adjusted.

I'm finally getting kills I never got even with KOMBAT though, only against one tank. I'm not over confident, I have also adjusted some tactics as discussed during the evaluations, however they alone cannot overcome the fact that the OPLOT-M is finally acting like a Top 10 tank should, it has finally arrived.

Now to the "why" of the lead in question above at the start. The direct peer Russian MBT is the T-90A/T-90M/T-90MS as later articles suspect for the latter two as well. The cited OPLOT-M advantages are overall are in STEEL (Turret built for the OPLOT not the standard T-84 one.)/ERA/FCS.

First game I have in my "core" 6 OPLOT-M tanks the Russian AI had on the field 4 T-72B3/B4 tanks and here's where the difference is now, 2 T-90A tanks that I've never seen on the field vs Ukraine before and 1 T-72M(?) newer version that I got my KOMBAT kill with. AI set to tank heavy though with plenty of artillery, mortars, infantry (foot) and those "darn" ATGM teams it ALWAYS likes to buy!?!

I actually thought to myself, Where did those T-90 tanks come from?

Just thought it unusual is all.

Before I move on the Ukrainian JAVELIN as entered is operating as it should as well.

Now for FYI and concerning Russia. Given the topic or event from this first ref. and it represents others I found, what's NOT mentioned in it? There are a variety of possible reasons I could list, however since the first prototype was unveiled, it hasn't missed a "May Day" event. The second reports the Russian tanks buys for this year, that above item is missing here as well, as published in January.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/over_130_weapon_systems_to_roll_through_red_square _during_victory_parade.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/russian_ground_troops_will_receive_over_450_tanks_ and_armored_vehicles_in_2019.html

It's good to be "home".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

May 6th, 2019, 08:04 AM

The game does not "know" what you are buying. its purchase routine is based solely on its picklist and radio codes influenced in part by its random number generator

RC4

May 7th, 2019, 04:42 PM

Arjunk Tank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=385&v=aMOY8PIh9q8

Suhiir

May 22nd, 2019, 09:49 AM

Nice vid on modern tank armor and ammo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0p_Rr6gUtM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 2nd, 2019, 02:59 AM

Some of this is updates, news etc. I haven't had much time to deal with game issues since the end of February and next Friday I'll have a better idea in the direction we'll be heading. So during this moment I'll endeavor to bring some of the world tank issues up to date the best I can and clean up some files as I go.

When I submitted the T-90 submissions for the last patch, I came across this, but am not sure if I posted it or not. I "tagged it" for the Algerian T-90 tanks and others that were actually equipped with them. SHTORA-1 is still a very viable system and this just has some good data points to it.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html

BULGARIA: Attributed to JANE's, they look to be upgrading some of their T-72M1 tanks. My impression is this will be focused more on improving the FCS based on the info below. Usually when you get into LRF issues other components of a FCS will need to upgraded as well generally speaking. My assessment this will be accomplished by mid 2020 at latest.
https://armyrecognition.com/december_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/bulgaria_to_overhaul_t-72m1_mbts_and_upgrade_armored_vehicles.html
https://www.janes.com/article/85139/bulgaria-invests-in-its-t-72-tanks

FRANCE: I think it very possible we might see this next tank as early as mid to late 2022, though I feel mid 2023 might be more realistic. Someone needs to start a "pool" here!?! Anyway these refs. I'll be holding onto as I see them as actionable down the road.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/french_army_to_order_100_modernized_leclerc_xlr_ta nks_in_defense_budget_2019-2025.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/main_battle_tank_heavy_armoured_france_french_army/leclerc_scorpion_xlr_mbt_main_battle_tank_technica l_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_1070417 1.html

GERMANY/NETHERLANDS: This one I forgot about, the LEOPARD 2A6MA2 this represents the first fully digital LEO 2A6 tank. They reached FOC it seems last Summer of 2018, but more data is needed before submission is done, especially concerning any other new capabilities.
https://www.army-technology.com/news/german-army-takes-delivery-modified-leopard-2-a6ma2-battle-tanks/

The next concerns the upgrading of LEO A6 to the LEOPARD 2A7V currently planned for 2026. Germany is unlike some other countries that come to mind right now, I feel there is a possibility of seeing this tank at some point in 2025 even if only for a few months or less. As always I'll be watching for further developments.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/german_army_to_modernize_leopard_2_a6_purchase_pzh _2000_155mm_ammunition.html

Why I saved this escapes at this moment, as I submitted several posts on this tank a few years back, I haven't had the time to check the OOB, but I suspect possibly it never got in it in the first place. Another possibility is that this Ref. wasn't available OR it has been updated given the date of it as 19 May 2019. FOC was in 2014/2015.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/leopard_2a7_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_pi ctures_video.html

HUNGARY: This next is a TANK!! Yes they are getting (Contracts are signed.) the LEOPARD 2A7+ along with a couple of other armored vehicles. I'm really feeling FOC 2021 on this deal. We'll see.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/kmw_to_deliver_leopard_2a7_and_leopard_2a4_mbts_pz h2000_to_hungary.html

Last one as I'm in a post shower relaxed state after a "lovely" day in the "field" making rounds in this 100+ degree Spring Day!!

SOUTH KOREA: This concerns the K2 which the Turkish ALTAY is based from and the Russians wish some of the ARMATA was too!! Well maybe not, however, though they solved the transmission issue FINALLY after two years+, this is one of the reasons I'm still not sure we'll see the other two tanks in the game. I posted this when it happened without a "whimper" from the "audience", am I the only one that doesn't find it strange the Russian didn't include the ARMATA in the last May Day parade? Especially after being in the previous 3 or 4 since it appeared as a prototype. To me this is good and we haven't heard a "peek" about the ARMATA in several months now since they acknowledged they were having several technical issues with it.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_industr y/hyundai_rotem_k2_tank_production_resumes_after_2-year_delay.html

The good news is at least they're getting 106 more then originally planned for as they're concerned someone wants to draw down our forces there because we're such good friends with the North now.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/106_additional_k2_black_panther_mbts_main_battle_t anks_for_south_korean_army.html

K1 to K1A1 anyone!?! The thing here is to watch for the end of service life of the K1.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/south_korea_good_news_about_the_k1_k1a1_and_k1a2_m bts.html

Done we have a busy week ahead of us so until next time, have a great week everyone one!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 5th, 2019, 01:58 AM

Those are definitely M1A2 SEP3 tanks in that picture. So this next Ref. ties it all into the picture. Particular attention should be made to paras 6, 8 & 10...
https://www.army.mil/article/222100/2_8_cav_tests_abrams_upgrades_demonstrates_increas ed_lethality

Excerpts from the above Ref. from...
Para 6: "2-8 CAV just came off the mission of Atlantic Resolve in Europe. During their 9-month deployment, they conducted large amounts of tactical and live fire training."

Para 8: "The Soldiers from 2-8 Cav. have been extremely motivated and their candid input has been critical to USAOTC's effort to provide meaningful data to Army Evaluation Center who will evaluate the effectiveness, suitability and survivability of the M1A2 SEPv3."

Para 10: "It's cool for these crews to have been able to test these new systems since they already have SEPv2 experience and now they'll acquire a few new certifications before the actual tank is fielded."

Still in OPEVAL and PLEASE note the date of the above Ref.

And again from my submission post to change the START date (It was in the game from 2016/or 2017.) for the SEP 3 this was my "hammer" Ref. to make the change. Article is from this past Dec.
https://www.army.mil/article/214733/latest_and_greatest_m1_tank_tested_at_us_army_yuma _proving_ground

Long night hitting the rack.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 5th, 2019, 07:06 AM

Copied my last to the proper Thread. Sorry for any confusion.

So a bit of news then back to bed-sinuses loving it!?! :rolleyes:

Iran: Just a bit of news on the KARRAR looking to be on track for this year sometime it appears. See para. 3 of first Ref for an assessment.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/iran_karrar_home-made_tanks_to_be_delivered_soon.html

They were feeling confident last Summer.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/iranian_tanks_compete_with_russian_and_serbians_at _army_games_near_moscow.html

The tank.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_iranian_army_heavy_armoured_main_battle_tank_ uk/karrar_striker_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data _pictures_video_12203176.html
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Iranian_Tanks.php

Finally clear and back to the rack!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 7th, 2019, 01:30 AM

I would ask that no one reads more into this Ref. except to that TAIWAN has taken the step to "officially" ask the U.S. to purchase over 2 Billion dollars in arms. In this case to buy 108 M1A2 ABRAMS, 66 F-16V (Currently the most advanced type.), 1,240 TOW, 409 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 250 Stinger man-portable air defense missiles (Newest mode.).

They've already once asked for those tanks and fighters and they were denied them. For them to publicly announce this is an indication they see an opening here maybe due to our current relations with China.

I feel to this might be their best shot to get those tanks and jets. But the cost could politically too high to manage.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indust ry/us_to_sell_over_usd_2_billion_worth_of_m1a2_abrams _and_missiles_to_taiwan.html

Indonesia: Has placed an initial order for 18-20 "Tiger" Medium Tanks that they co-developed with FNSS of Turkey. I believe the USA has shown some interest in this tank as well to support airborne and rapid deployment troops with. They apparently are 2-3 years out from FOC, that being said, this tank will be available ~2012/2022.
https://asiapacificdefencenews.com/index.php/2019/05/18/indonesia-orders-first-batch-of-tanks-co-produced-with-turkey/
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2019/04/16/indonesia-buys-between-18-20-harimau-tiger-medium-tanks-for-135-million/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

June 7th, 2019, 06:23 AM

Very similar in concept and design to the Korean K21. Same gun it seems too

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 7th, 2019, 01:35 PM

I agree, the South Korean one I know is being considered as an "off the shelf" expediate model along with a couple of other options if they go that way.

And it seems I got a little "dyslexic" in my last post, it should have read "~2021-2022".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Imp

June 7th, 2019, 06:08 PM

Suhiir

June 8th, 2019, 01:29 AM

The problem with jamming is it makes you an easily pinpointed target. So the real question is how would US anti-radiation missiles fare?

Imp

June 9th, 2019, 02:51 PM

No idea and cannot find the article just remember the guy said the US needs to catch up it was the most intense EW environment on the planet.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 9th, 2019, 09:36 PM

Getting a little off topic, but, to help out one of my "mates" out here from the very start I'll leave you with the following...

01/2015:
https://www.afcea.org/content/united-states-playing-catch-electronic-warfare

02/2016: Mentions issue of Ukraine artillery being targeted by their radio/cell phone transmissions.
https://www.nhregister.com/nationworld/article/US-lags-behind-Russia-China-in-electronic-11337367.php
(Originally published by The Washington Post

08/2017:
https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/technet-augusta/2017/08/10/us-is-outgunned-in-electronic-warfare-says-cyber-commander/

11/2018: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16712129/electronic-warfare-ew-spending-up-but-falling-short-of-making-up-for-years-of-neglect
(Note related stories at bottom.)

06/2019:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-military-getting-very-serious-about-electronic-warfare-61052
(Think Tank used as part of ABRAMS submission process)

Ah yes MBT Thread so...;)

Israel: The MERKAVA IVM BAREK/Windbreaker (To us.) The first para (Ref. 1) might be of some use here as I believe we've "flipped/flopped" on when Israel started using APS on their tanks, if I'm mistaken, my apologies in advance due to my current situational schedule. Also seems they've got at least on the turret
a newer passive armor and also towards the bottom, what might be some useful data on LAHAT.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/israeli-made_merkava_ivm_windbreaker_one_of_the_most_prote cted_tank_in_the_world.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indust ry/new_israeli-made_merkava_mk4_barak_tank_used_in_guerrilla_warf are.html

For contrast to maybe help in establishing a "degree of separation" the following...

The MERKAVA Mk IV:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/israeli_israel_main_batlle_tank_uk/merkava_4_iv_main_battle_tank_israeli_army_israel_ pictures_technical_data_sheet_description_identifi .html
Looks like sometime FOC 2010 of APS TROPHY backed up by this Ref. as well. Don't know if Gingertanker addressed this or not. He's a VERY busy man!!)

Oh if you watched the news last night in the Med, the Cold War is back!! AHhhh the memories how easy it would've been to send a Mk-48 down "the range"!?! CBS News carried it, probably on You Tube now, but Russian Destroyer closing the gap on USN Cruiser while Russian sailors sun bathe on the helo deck. Wonderful!

I'm done here and I intend to enjoy the rest of my weekend with a I can't wait to see in full digital everything...GODZILLA!! :D

Have a good something somewhere!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 10th, 2019, 12:22 AM

Guess I got my stories crossed, the Med incident involved a U.S. plane being "buzzed" close aboard three times happened before the ship incident which occurred in the Philippine Sea a couple of days later. This is still for now an "uptick" in these types of actions which during the Cold War especially in the Med where this happened routinely. I wouldn't call it an escalation (Unless it continues in a more compressed manner in time.) as much as "we're still here" as a reminder.

Watch and read the report, though this one has the Russians "catching some rays" on the helo deck...
https://news.usni.org/2019/06/07/navy-russian-destroyer-put-u-s-cruiser-at-risk-with-unsafe-maneuver

OR...

Watch and listen to the report...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4_jwqFJYB0

Sorry for the earlier confusion. Oh I better do this to...:p

POLAND: Looking to develop a "Tank Destroyer" capability.
https://www.defence24.com/polish-army-to-purchase-tank-destroyers-13-potential-contractors

Also...

GERMANY is going to continue to maintain them as POLAND is still moving forward with the LEOPARD PL Program. I wonder how much help they'll be receiving from Germany on the LEOPARD PL!?! :rolleyes:
https://www.defence24.com/polish-german-memorandum-leopard-mbt-support-system

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 16th, 2019, 03:19 AM

I'm watching several tank programs VERY closely as most of you know. Of them I feel at this time only four of them will make the game before the games end date. And they are in order of my assessment the following...

1. M1A2 SEP3/2.Indias ARJUN Mk 1A (That might narrowly beat the ABRAMS.) both within the next year./3. France with the new LeClerc SCORPIAN XLR and 4. UK CHALLENGER 2 Black Knight (These will be close as well.). The following marks a milestone of sorts for my fourth selection. I to STRONGLY AGREE with the word "could" from the bottom of the article. Also including the "data sheet sort of", for the tank as well.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indust ry/uk_competition_and_markets_authority_approves_rhei nmetall_and_bae_systems_military_vehicle_joint_ven ture.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/dvd_2018_show_daily_news_coverage/dvd_2018_bae_systems_displays_challenger_2_lep_nic knamed_black_night.html

The next is a "code word" of sorts as well...

I intend to enjoy my (Our.) first weekend off in four months I hope you all enjoy yours!!

Happy Fathers Day!! At least to the U.S. contingent.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

oragus

June 17th, 2019, 10:19 AM

I must say your efforts are commendable Pat. But, I also must say, you and Don suck at "retirement". Lol. Get off and stay off the forums for a while. Enjoy the "break" or "retirement", you guys deserve it. This place does not need monitored by you guys. You stated your intentions and those that don't understand that can post away and not get answered by you guys but the senior forum rats. Lol. Get outta here already. Lol

Suhiir

June 17th, 2019, 02:33 PM

I not rat!
I Fairy !

oragus

June 17th, 2019, 03:01 PM

...ok...and senior forum "fairy"

Suhiir

June 17th, 2019, 08:07 PM

Dat rite! :D

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 18th, 2019, 12:32 PM

I SEE CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED HERE! I'm pretty sure that post said I would retire from the game in 2025 (Late.)/2026 (Very Early.) under the following conditions...

1) That'll be the last year for submissions as the game ends in 2025. I plan to submit Patch's, and you know where, until that time with or without formal patches being released. My last post brings up those possibilities as I've laid it out. I feel there is some equipment already in for current or later start dates that might not see the light of day. I know many of you can and would tutor those who can't adjust your own games OOB's should you desire to do so with the information I will endeavor to provide. I might need that help myself. Bottom-line for me if it hasn't reached FOC I'm DELETING it.

2) Those dates also meet my time horizon. Social Security shows I've been working since I've been 14. Experience has shown if you come "To All Stop" you'll "STOP" not long after. I intend to "Spin Down" over time so my body and mind can make a healthier adjustment. I do have a plan, which quite honestly, some of you "old timers" should already know. I am by definition a planner, that includes for the unexpected as well as much as I will have control of that situation.

I like it when "nautical" terms can be useful!?! :capt:

So my apologies in advance, but, you'll just have to get used to me being around for awhile longer!?! :) :D :p :doh:

It's not become a job to me yet, however I do have to get ready for work.

I hope you all have a GREAT WEEK!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
Pat

scorpio_rocks

June 18th, 2019, 02:18 PM

Experience has shown if you come "To All Stop" you'll "STOP" not long after. I intend to "Spin Down" over time so my body and mind can make a healthier adjustment. I do have a plan, which quite honestly, some of you "old timers" should already know. I am by definition a planner, that includes for the unexpected as well as much as I will have control of that situation.

Good advice for many aspects of life!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 6th, 2019, 12:11 PM

Things are still tracking along for the U.S. Airborne forces as they are heading towards a "Rendezvous with Destiny" (101st) as it's ready to go "All the way!" (82nd) in providing fire support to it's troops on the ground. These are by way of an update to a story I've been tracking for awhile. There is a possibility that we could see the Army's final choice at FOC in the final year of the games time table. The first was reposted to the site given more recent updates from other sources.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/light_armored_unit_activated_in_the_82nd_airborne_ division.html
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/01/01/new-in-2018-army-looks-to-add-a-light-tank-to-its-formations/

It looks like they'll try to arm it with the 105mm (Preferred.), has to meet the requirement for a C-17 GLOBEMASTER III to be able to air drop two of them and weigh no more then 40 tons.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1529726/c-17-globemaster-iii/

That airdrop video is always fun to watch!

In the meantime, and here's a switch, U.S. Airborne troops will be using "second hand" USMC LAV-25 A2 (I believe this is the same one I submitted for the last patch with improved FCS & TI/GSR inline with the USMC FEP for their M1A1 tanks.) which is a lot better than what they had which, was nothing, since the SHERIDAN's were deactivated in 1997.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24543/armys-newest-airborne-unit-gets-second-hand-but-air-droppable-usmc-lav-25-armored-vehicles

Time for lunch and off to work-"TGIF" (Mine anyway!)!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

July 6th, 2019, 10:53 PM

The LAV is a good vehicle for the Airborne. They have to deal with many of the same issues the USMC does. Size/volume, mass, etc.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 12th, 2019, 02:55 AM

I think the way to do this is to remind everyone that when a major power sells a piece of equipment the buyer does not expect to get all the "perks" of that piece of equipment that the seller enjoys. I provide a couple of examples:

1. AH-64E GUARDIAN/or APACHE GUARDIAN: The foreign sales versions DO NOT have the same FCS that the USA ones are equipped with. The ones TAIWAN and INDIA etc. have gotten are equipped with the same FCS system that the AH-64D APACHE LONGBOW is equipped with and we're converting to the "E".

2. ABRAMS: Foreign sales AMBRAMS are not shipped with the DU armor we have on ours now. This would again included the FCS and more in this case.

3. With more to come, the RUSSIAN T-90M is a better tank then the foreign sales T-90MS. Don't get me wrong, the T-90MS is a very good tank, but it's not the T-90M.

4. The FCS should cover TI/GSR*FC*LRF*STABILZER these are the Sub-Systems that make up the FCS. The total package is what I consider when I submit my numbers for a piece of equipment.

Sometimes these issues get lost out here and is why when doing OOB work, you have to always keep these differences in the back of your mind. Copy from the supplier and modify it, especially for more current versions of say the ABRAMS by way of an example.

So I'm excited by the next bit of news as TAIWAN has just gotten over a major hurdle the get what is called the M1A2T. But this is a "cautionary tale" as they've been here before. That being said, I think it's the best shot they've had in about 20yrs to get the ABRAMS. From DID with the full article following as Ref. 2:
https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/taipei-economic-and-cultural-representative-office-united-states-tecro-m1a2t-abrams
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/digital-abrams-the-m1a2-sep-program-updated-02834/

Hitting the rack. Have a great day!! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

July 12th, 2019, 08:47 PM

In general I'd assume sales to other countries are a generation, or two, behind whatever the seller currently uses. With a few exceptions for "good buddy" nations.

blazejos

July 24th, 2019, 07:51 AM

Poland has a new program for returning to active duty retried T-72 in years 2019-2025 old stock T-72 build in Poland in eighties will be modernised, to New standard T72M2 here is a description (google translator) from original manufacturer site Bumar-Łabędy with nice photos
https://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbumar.gliwice.pl%2Fstrefa-militarna%2Fo%2Fmodernizacja-pojazdow-typu-t-72-do-standardu-m2

This modernised old T-72 will be close to PT-91 Twardy standard :rolleyes:

Contract signed
https://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wnp.pl%2Fprzemysl-obronny%2Fczolgi-t-72-do-remontu-i-modyfikacji-umowa-podpisana%2C349899_1_0_0.html

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 24th, 2019, 12:04 PM

This first one (Defence24 is a dedicated Polish site that also provides a European/World perspective as well.) I'm sure I had posted on last year as an FYI issue. The second one has been based on postings for almost 3yrs now which to my latest understanding is to move forward.
https://www.defence24.com/legislation/polish-thermal-vision-systems-for-the-t-72-main-battle-tank
https://en.ukrmilitary.com/2018/04/zahyst-poland-t72.html

The following further outlines the possible scope of the project it contains the "nitty-gritty" of the details:
https://www.defence24.com/pdf/?article=polish-upgrade-programme-for-the-t-72-main-battle-tank

And just because...
The next in paras 3 & 4 give us some current formation numbers, Which I believe are good within the game now based on a "quick look" only. But it's good to see there appears to be money to support these types of ongoing training given their budgetary conditions.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indust ry/british_royal_tank_regiment_annuall_crew_tests_and _troop_assesment.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 15th, 2019, 10:22 PM

Well I needed something to do. We're all taking a break from the last two nights of "activity's" so...

I was going to wait on this until I got home and again had access to to my files and the game but, what the heck!?!

I think we'll just call it the T-64BM-2017 it is an improved model over the current T-64BM "BULAT" as currently in the game.

First what I'm comfortable at this time.
1. The T-64BM-2017 is more advanced then the T-64BV-1/T-64BV1M and T-64BM "BULAT" as listed below by "game usage" factors.
A. Improved FCS, it has been upgraded with a very sophisticated 3rd GEN system. What makes this system much improved primarily is the fact it's designed to be much less vulnerable to either man-made interference along the IR Spectrum or those caused on the battlefield such as explosions, muzzle flash etc. it blocks them. We don't factor those into the game, however, this goes straight to the "heart of the matter" to the level of again, the sophistication of this system. We have this and so do the top tanks in the world. Another "key phrase" is it's an all weather capable system.

B. Improved Protection, the tanks above use (And a couple of others.} use NOZH/NIZH armor protection system. The references are strongly leading me to believe this is a newer Gen version of the same. I feel very comfortable, pending other evidence to the contrary, it wasn't fitted with the DUPLET System which is currently carried onboard the OPLOT-M.

C. Communications, The radio should be on par with the OPLOT-M. I believe you can thank us for that. It also has a very modern NAVSAT System get allows for encrypted BSM comms.

D. Has a remote 12.7mm RWS.

Conclusions at this point...

2.
A. Improved FCS, I see a TI/GSR 45 for this MBT. I'm not convinced at this point it has the same FCS as the OPLOT-M. Again w/o the game available, I believe there is room for a minor "bump" in both LRF/STABILIZER numbers. A compromise between the T-64 BULAT and OPLOT-M.

B. Protection, I again see a compromise between the two tanks or I believe the T-84 OPLOT might work as it had an earlier version of DUPLET I believe on that tank.

C. Start Date 10/2018.

Don as you might remember we ran out of time for this MBT for the last patch mostly due to the fact I didn't have enough information at the time to my any assessments on the improvements to that MBT.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/lviv_armored_plant_modernizes_ukrainian_t-64_mbts.html
https://www.janes.com/article/86319/ukraine-receives-upgraded-t-64s
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-defense/2637976-ukroboronprom-shows-upgraded-t64-tanks.html
https://defence-blog.com/army/russian-expert-says-about-ukrainian-t-64-tank-superiority-over-t-72b3.html
https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr-02-2017

For the last, if the Ref. doesn't come up right, look for pages 14-15.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 20th, 2019, 08:58 PM

As a side note very early this morning I took a look at the numbers and more resources concerning the T-64BV BULAT/T-64BV BULAT 2017 and come up what I believe would be good "numbers" for the latter. I took my references/notes and came up with the numbers based on the current T-64BV BULAT and OPLOT-M.

Also I discovered that for sure the T-64BV BULAT 2017 apparently has 360' APS onboard as well as it's predecessor (Though I'm still looking into that.).

The APS is based on the same system that, and I hope your sitting down for this next, that the Ukraine sold to Turkey! Like diarrhea", Turkey just won't go away. I can confirm that the "PULAT" APS is mounted on their M-60 TTS and LEOPARD A1 tanks. Not sure about the M-48/LEORARD A4 tanks. At this point there's just as much to support "both sides of the coin" on them. I believe the M-60T already had it (APS) when submitted.

Was going to add it at the end of Taiwan F-16V post I just submitted until I saw how long it got!?! :dk:

Keeping something short, that'll be the day!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

August 22nd, 2019, 06:17 AM

https://www.janes.com/article/88384/idef-2019-pulat-aps-displayed-on-m60-main-battle-tank

Yes but the 60T in game has a passive VRRS system and PULAT is a CIWS type active system so that needs changing

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 23rd, 2019, 01:22 AM

If some of you might remember I "celebrated" in a Post here, that Turkey unseated India as the #1 PITA. They won't be unseated anytime soon.

This is not an unheard of situation, however it's still Turkey we're talking about. Here's the "quick and dirty".

1. The modernization program consists of 2 separate programs running in parallel.

1.a. M60T has been upgraded to the M60T1. Status: Near Completion/or Completed.

1.b. M60A3 TTS has been upgraded to the M60TM. Status: About to begin/or Early stage production.

1.c. It's starting to look like most or all of the components used on the ALTAY FCS is used on these "modernized" tanks. Not unusual as the ABRAMS and BRADLEY FCS's have the same core components on theirs.

Still running this down Refs are scant. Ref. provided below best so far. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY!! I missed this on the first read myself about the "parallel programs". That info appears at the very bottom of the Ref.
https://www.militaryimages.net/threads/turkish-military-forces.6788/page-16

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

August 23rd, 2019, 07:07 AM

Great photos there

MarkSheppard

October 13th, 2019, 07:11 PM

Chinese (VT5) ZTQ-15 "Type 15" Light Tank

VT-5 is the export designation, it was unveiled in 2016 at an air show.

VT-5 / ZTQ-15 info (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)

It has apparently entered service with the PLA, being seen in large quantities at the 70th Anniversary of Founding of PRC Parade (albeit in desert camo).

DRG

October 13th, 2019, 07:56 PM

I do like top views but I think this is what we have in the game now as the ZTQ 99

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 13th, 2019, 09:24 PM

Mark & Don I believe I have an article or two to support this, unfortunately, I'm still on vacation and can't access my files. Will be home tomorrow and will check them once we're unpacked and settled in.

Regards,
Pat

Why wait!?!

The Diplomat reported on an article dated 02Jan2019 that the Chinese "MND" held a press conference on 27Dec2018 that the tank had gone into service earlier that month. I'll post that story tomorrow along with what I have if related to this situation.

Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 14th, 2019, 11:18 PM

First off I already had/have this on my list for submission as I'm still in the Patch Post submission mood.

As usual with these things of "One thing leads to another."-again!?!, there's another associated Chinese tank issue to be addressed.

I've come to the conclusion based on these refs and couple of others, that DEC 2018 should be the START date for the TYPE 15/ZTQ-15 these are interchangeable designations we ourselves have them in the game both ways which now makes me wonder if there are not duplicate tanks in the OOB.

I have not looked into this and quite frankly at this point I really, really don't want to for what I might find.

There are too many questions still lingering at this point such as Ammo loadout in general and it's also capable of firing an ATGW but, does have it/or carry it?

1. What I know is we'll need two models, a "light" and "heavy" version. In other words one w/o Composite add on armor and ERA and one with it.

2. It carries a 105mm HP MG and will fire Hybrid and Standard rounds/35mm GL turret mounted next to the MG and a 12.7mmMG.

3. It does have APS.

4. Concerning TI/GSR I feel 40 as minimum but, leaning towards 45.

5. FCS/STABILZER will be improved based I what I feel the is the final best TI/GSR number for submission and as compared against their newest models in the game. It has to reflect "Apples to Apples" in the end.

6. This is a light tank and the armor should be treated accordantly being around 30-35 tons. It will be fast, but, how fast I'm not settled on as the engine sizes go from 750 - 1200hp for Chinas tank, and NOT VT-5 export version for engine size as of now.

7. Bottom-line, officially China as normal, isn't being to forth coming on any of it's military equipment.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-inducts-new-lightweight-tank/
https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/chinas-vt5-lightweight-tank-to-be-fitted-with-active-protection-system/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/chinese_vt5_type_15_light_tank_to_get_added_active _protection_system.html

The last is to establish ascendency on where Army Recognition checked it's sources with. A note on the Editor/Writer the name sounded very familiar to me and I couldn't quite place it until this morning. Many of you from my earlier days here might remember a website I used from Germany that beat JANE's to the punch among others in the Defense Industry News business, DEF News. He's that guy and there never was an issue with their work we ever found. They just couldn't in the end compete (For advertising money.) with the one's I use now. One of the last stories they reported on ahead of the others was England getting rid of their GR.8/9 HARRIERS.. The links are still shown throughout the treads, but of course, the links are now dead.

Establishing prominence is all.

So I'm looking at the related articles and came across the next ref. I read it of course and found after looking elsewhere (OOB), we seem to be missing two tanks, the TYPE 96A/ZTZ-96A (2nd GEN) and the newest (As of 2016.) version TYPE 96B/ZTZ-96B (3rd GEN).

Now I typed in all of the above and came up with nothing. I did see UNIT 038 TYPE 96G, to be truthful, I haven't had a chance to determine if this is a specialized "Command" version or other.

If not, I have my TYPE 96A/ZTZ 96A start point.

And finally, and if true there's more work here, well I'll just quote from the below ref...
“The PLA will use it to replace the old tanks such as the Type-59 and Type-69 models.” The PLA operates over 5,000 Type 59 and Type-69/79 models of all variants, manufactured. Again this ref from 2016.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/meet-the-backbone-of-chinas-deadly-new-tank-force/

And if you're counting, China became the largest single tank owner in 2016/2017.

Well I'm going to enjoy what's left of this evening and said "screw it" to going back to work tomorrow to be with you know who instead.

Only worked 2 days last week and will only work 3 days this week. man life's good and I'm just going to ease my way back into it!!?!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

October 15th, 2019, 08:00 AM

Pat
Two things in one parapraph

that DEC 2018 should be the START date
for the TYPE 15/ZTQ-15 these are interchangeable designations we ourselves have them in the game both ways which now makes me wonder if there are not duplicate tanks in the OOB.

1/ Dec 2018 had already been changed by me when this issue was first raised based on the info provided

2/ There was no ZTQ-15 in the Chinese OOB until I changed units 47 and 48 to reflect that ZTQ-99 was incorrect......there also is no "Type 15" in the Chinese OOB or any other OOB and the same thing goes for the ZTQ-15 except in my master OOB so how could "we have them in the game both ways" when no one but me has my master OOB's

???

If you are going to say things like that you need to include the unit number of the unit and the nation you are referring to

Suhiir

October 15th, 2019, 09:21 PM

2/ There was no ZTQ-15 in the Chinese OOB until I changed units 47 and 48 to reflect that ZTQ-99 was incorrect......there also is no "Type 15" in the Chinese OOB or any other OOB and the same thing goes for the ZTQ-15 except in my master OOB so how could "we have them in the game both ways" when no one but me has my master OOB's

???
Nice to hear you're only human after all :D

P.S.
Dealing with as many OOB/units as you do I'm still in awe of your LACK of mistakes/typos.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 16th, 2019, 01:19 AM

I see I'll have to go about this in a different manner.

First off I'm fully aware that the TYPE-15/ZQT-15 is not in the OOB. This is why I put my 7 points/issues out there for it's later submission. Though I did see the "naming error" for them in the OOB. And 3/4 of those points would still be valid based on what I saw.

Secondly my search was first related to finding out whether or not both or either of these following where in the OOB the TYPE-96A/ZTZ-96A and TYPE-96B/ZTZ-96B. They were not and as I indicated would need to be addressed.

Thirdly during the my search for the above, is when I noticed that in the Chinese OOB we have tanks listed as TYPE or ZTZ followed by their number and letter designation. As soon as you open the OOB you can't miss this. They should all be TYPE whatever as explained in more detail below. I'm NOT suggesting this be changed, but it would be more accurate.

So my concern was whether or not there was a possibility of duplicates in the OOB because of the TYPE and ZTZ designations being "criss- crossed" for the same tank.

By example is there both a ZTZ-99A and a TYPE-99A in the OOB?

If so, for "the sake of argument" there was one, it would 1) Be confusing to a player and if you will the AI as these both would be the same tank! 2. Simply a duplicate to be removed.

Chinese designations goes as follows...
TYPE = A specific weapon/model from a tank down to even personal weapons in the case of the Chinese. I.E. TYPE-99A MBT.

ZTZ/ZQT/PHZ/VT = Designate the weapon system as a whole (And there are several more but, these are the most important to us.) so ZTZ = Med./Heavy Tanks/ZQT = Light Tanks/PLZ = Self Propelled Artillery/VT = Export armor.

PLA uses TYPE and I strongly suspect the ZTZ designation is more a industry (Including on some defense sites in reporting initially.) one for development through acceptance by MND and the PLA.

Instead of ZTZ, Russia uses "OBJECT ###" before it gets it's T-## designator once accepted.

In the three refs. from the "Diplomat" in my last post, TYPE always was ahead of ZTZ/or ZQT or whatever.
In the following ref(s) you'll see the Chinese tanks identified as TYPE-## and VT/MBT-3000 (No longer called this it is just VT-4 now.) for export.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/China.php
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/chinese-military-tanks.asp
https://armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/type_99a_99_a2_ztz-99a_main_battle_tank_china_11408171.html
https://www.defencetalk.com/al-khalid-type-98-and-t-90-continue-to-dominate-world-tank-market-16471/

Japan and Taiwan do the same thing by TYPE.

Hopefully I've clarified my concerns from my last post.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

October 16th, 2019, 02:51 AM

By [B]example is there both a ZTZ-99A and a TYPE-99A in the OOB?

No and as of 5 minutes ago there are no ATZ ( etc ) either

Suhiir

October 17th, 2019, 05:37 AM

Fast,

I'll let you determine if this guy knows what he's talking about, but he seems to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOc_hJqdLks&list=WL&index=9

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 19th, 2019, 02:03 AM

I believe the video definitely "paints" a pretty accurate picture of the T-90 series overall. I have my Daughter and Family getting here in a few minutes from Va., but I'll have more to say about that video in a few days but, mostly to do about the T-90M and how it'll affect the ARMATA.

I'll just say there's a new "top dog" in the Russian Army and it won't be the ARMATA.

Thanks again that video was a good show!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

October 19th, 2019, 04:45 AM

Oh they'll probably have a few ARMATAs around to show off. But as a primary (in terms of numbers) MBT, I'd agree it'll be something else.

I sorta think of the ARMATA as a Russian King Tiger.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 20th, 2019, 02:22 AM

Where to start?

I guess I'll tackle the T-14 ARMATA first. The good news thus far anyway, is that we should see this tank before games end. The bad news is Russia will be nowhere near the 2300 units it desired in a defense review I believe from the Summer of 2014. Planned production was to have run from 2015 - 2019. The ARMATA should have or is about to start the OPEVAL around this time. A total of 100 will be built.

One must remember and as I submitted for the last patch a date change for the M1A2 SEP3 (It's just easier to remember it that way at this time.) an article from the USA that reported that the MBT was 3.5 years into it's OPEVAL and still going on at this point (Earlier in the year (Winter?) as posted it was deployed to Europe for further testing and coordination of Ops with our and NATO units.

As I'm in the habit of pointing out at times it was more about money, developmental and other technical issues and finally the sanctions imposed on Russia after it invaded the Crimea in Ukraine.

I was going to recommend a date change to JAN 2022 but, I see Don has changed it to JUN 2021 which is a good date I feel for what it's worth. Concur with the same for the T-15 as well.

It will "posted" with "1st Guards Tank Regiment of 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division, garrisoned in Moscow and part of Russia’s Western Military District." That means home defense of MOSCOW.

The only issue I see and I'm putting in this thread vice the APC one for now, is because these refs. refer to it in the T-14 discussion. Serious consideration should be made for adding a T-15 with the 57mm MG. This looks to be how the main variant will be armed. I already posted on this I'm pretty sure in the APC Thread and as I indicated again, it's in these refs. as well.

I hope you'll take the time to click on the links within these articles as I have, for perspective and a better understanding of the "big picture".

I now remember the German website this editor/writer (The Diplomat) ran in my earlier days of posting this "stuff" and some might remember it as well, DefPro.com may it RIP.

I'll try to get these in date order...
https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/russia-will-not-mass-produce-t-14-armata-main-battle-tank/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/russia_t14_armata_mbt_high_price_does_not_affect_u vz_operations.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russia_two_battalions_of_t-14_armata_mbt_tanks_will_enter_in_service.html
(The trials were delayed a year, until now as already noted.)
https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/russias-t-14-armata-battle-tank-to-begin-state-trials-in-2019/

What's going to be their most capable tank in the field? I first posted on this MBT late in 2017 or early in 2018 I believe, having first been spotted participating in a Russian exercise. The T-90M which I've been watching from the start. It is currently still in trials so a date change will be required.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indust ry/russian_mod_intensifies_military_acquisitions.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-90m_proryv-3_model_2017_mbt_main_battle_tank_pictures_video.h tml
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/new_t-90m_mbt_tank_will_enter_in_service_with_russian_ar my.html
(From the ref. Dated FEB 2018, "According to the Russian Company Uralvagonzavod, the latest modernization of the main battle tank T-90, called T-90M will enter in service with the Russian army in the next few months.")
https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/russias-t-90m-main-battle-tank-to-complete-state-trials-in-2019/
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-army-gets-first-new-t-90m-tank/
(This last ref. from this past SEP. indicates the Russian Army did not receive it's first T-90M until JUN 2019.)
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25586/First_of_Modernized_T_90M_Tanks_Delivered_to_Russi an_Army#.Xav6qm5Fzoo
(This ref. SEP 2019 is saying they just got their first one in SEP.)

This is why I to love OOB work because "a good time will be had by all", if not, there will be consequences for all in involved. Fun is mandatory around here. All others "need not apply".
:rolleyes: ;) :D and of course :doh:!!!!!!

I recommend new START DATE: RUSSIA/T-90M/UNIT 059/START JUN 2020 vice OCT 2018.// This should get the job done, hopefully.

Pics:
15819 15820

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 20th, 2019, 04:53 PM

Going back to the posts associated with the T-90 series tanks You Tube video, one of the major improvements is in the sensor area both the T-90/T-90A (And some countries export version T-90S as submitted last year as well.) have the SHOTORA warning/jamming system onboard, they look like the "eyes" of the those tanks mounted on both sides of the turret.

Still a very good warning/jamming system but, as you can see vulnerable to weapons or heavy shell firing where mounted.

Now look at the pictures I posted for consideration (As I've stated before I like to see equipment moving/or doing something vice being static.) for the T-90M from my last post.

On the forward leading edge on each corner of the turret (You'll see this looking at both pictures.) you'll see the "bump" that's for the APS/Warning system. Good luck taking that out without pretty much a direct hit. It's also supposed to be equipped with the same gun and quite possibly also the same FCS (This bears further investigation but, would make perfect sense that it does to me.)as on the T-14/ARMATA , better more powerful engine etc. etc.

Those are probably the most important differences along as well being better protected (Almost forgot about that!) from the T-90/T-90A/T-90S and finally the closest to it but, "no cigar" the T-90MS.

Well I did say had more input on Suhiir's video.

Later this week why the T-50 renamed SU-57 might need to be put in the "non game user" category or deleted.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

October 20th, 2019, 09:22 PM

Well I did say had more input on Suhiir's video.
One point he raised in the video (at 0:38) it that the bese armor of the T-90 (1992) had the same armor as the T-72B (1989), which has the same armor as the T-72B (1985).

Unit#036 T-72B (88-92), #077 T-72B (88-25),#494 T-72B KMT-6 (85-25), and #495 T-72B KMT-7 (88-25)
VS
Unit#049 T-90 (93-99), Unit#564 T-90 KMT-6 (93-25), and Unit#858 T-90 (93-99)

This is most definitely not the case. In fact it's armor is better then the T-72BM (1997).

Also the active protective system effectively negates the reactive armor on the turret front facing.

Additionally at 1:42 he says the original T-90 had no thermal sights, again not the case in the OOB. Also most T-80s didn't start getting thermal sights till 1992.

At 2:08 he states the T-90 used the same engine as the T-72B, again most definitely not reflected in the OOB.

ALL these points are why I brought this video up in the first place.

Isn't it nice how we Marines insure Sailors doesn't get bored :D

DRG

October 21st, 2019, 02:14 AM

Just because someone posts a video and makes a claim does not mean it is gospel truth without some other source to back that claim up. ALL armour values in this game for active units are guesstimates because no nation anywhere posts honest, verifiable stats. It could be we have overstated the protection of the T-90 but it could also be the T-72B's values are understated. It could also be that what we have is as good as it gets

So........"he says the original T-90 had no thermal sights, again not the case in the OOB"...... that's nice now get me another source that agrees with him. It could be that the original T-90 prototype did not have thermal sites.....or not...... prove it with sources that backs up this claim and don't expect someone else to do the work for you......if you want to question something like this do your own leg work. He also has less than complimentary comments about the Abrams Sep and the T-14 and the Merkava should we knee-jerk OOB changes based on those videos too ?

If you dig into " Redeffect"

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCANk4DCsImDX3wlXQ6M1Jdg/about

It shows Location: North Korea

That could be true or not or posted like that just for a giggle-----just like all the info presented

Suhiir

October 21st, 2019, 04:18 AM

Just because someone posts a video and makes a claim does not mean it is gospel truth
I know, and that's exactly why I dropped it into Fastboat's lap. He has access to sites/sources I certainly don't, and a passion for tanks. My original question was ... Is this reliable? Because if it is it calls for some unit revisions.

DRG

October 21st, 2019, 09:20 AM

Here's an minor example of the kind of conflicting information we have to deal with

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9ae14b0b18d2afc18b0887aeed9a75e4

BHISHMA

https://post-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxNzA4MzBfODAg/MDAxNTA0MDUyOTczNDM2.RfOWA3QFMzFpVChg-vVnmLzI0kuFcK3l1LgNXdwdyfog.5fhH6PERXEnM917n1SZLs6 TLkGdb2HfImjMEMKEPJ9sg.PNG/2017083001010008298_%EC%A3%BC%EB%A0%A5%EC%A0%84%EC %B0%A8_T-90S.png?type=w1200

BHEESHMA

Most sources report the name as Bhishma, None report T-90 bheeshma except that photo

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 21st, 2019, 12:05 PM

Guys for now and BE CAREFUL HOW YOU READ THESE PLEASE I take from the best I have on these tanks again for now. I have tires to get for my car and the daughter and family just left to go back to Virginia which leaves me with an emotional CINCLANTHOME right now.

I ask your patience but in the meantime I provide some light reading all of which I spent a couple of hours into the early morning already reading myself and still "digesting".
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-90S.htm
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
Very technical data he gives real numbers.

Both the T-72BU and T-80U gave "birth" to the T-90 so next is the best I found when considering the "depth" of the issue so far.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/T-90_MBT.php

The next is falling into line with the rest, but understand, I just now gave this a "quick read" please take this into account.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
(Don you will note in here concerning INDIA (SURPRISE/SURPRISE!! :rolleyes: they use both names. I also believe I brought this up for the last Patch submissions for all the Indian tank adjustments I submitted. Refer to my last post in the Jet Thread for the specific Posts.)

What I see now is...
1. Possibly STEEL (T-90) probably is the same as the T-72BU which at the time appears to have been the "pinnacle" of T-72 development when they moved onto the T-90.

2. T-90 did have thermal NV sites that falls somewhere between 800M to 1000M effective range.

3. Does the game T-90 reflect the KONTACT-5 values we use for that particular ERA? If not we have an issue there quite obviously.

I gotta get myself together and get going!!!!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

October 21st, 2019, 03:07 PM

Good luck, and happy (information) hunting!

I'd like nothing better then to have you prove the guy has no idea what he's talking about, because if is correct there's a lot of work needed.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 21st, 2019, 10:56 PM

Who's Irish out here!?! Suhiir (Both these in good natured way I'm sure! ;) is basically doing what a tour bus Driver did to me in Dublin Oct. 2016. And as I have 7 tabs opened and the Russian OOB in hot standby well, you're all just going to have read the story now (This is the mandatory fun for all part from my last Jet Thread Post.) We are on a the tour bus in it's final run of the day to make the final tour of the day.

Me: Do you think you can make to Kilmainham Gaol (Pronounced: Jail.) before the last tour starts that we have tickets for? Driver: After a few seconds, Are ya challenging me mann!?! Well Are ya challenging me mann!?! Me: Yes I am challenging you!?! Driver: Well mann, DO YOU ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE then!?! Me: Why is he asking me this I'm thinking!?! Driver repeats the question again before I finally realise this is what they do here (Later confirmed.) so...Me: Mann, I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE AND GOD HELP US GETTING THERE!!! We all had a good laugh, and God help the tourist that didn't get to the last 3 or 4 P/U points when the bus arrived. The tour had just barely begun with us having a final laugh, handshake and a Manley man bear hug! NOW with that memory I'm ready to go.

I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE!!

So...

A lot of people out are going to have to decide whether to go with the "Video Guy" or my best analysis with the information I have at this point. I can't do better than that. :dk:

T-90:

1. "Video Guy" is wrong as I already noted the T-90 has the armor of the T-72BU (Which would later be designated T-90.) with parts of the FCS of the T-80U. What's he missing? Well 2 MBT's that were very important to the T-72BU (I should note Tank Encyclopedia has a picture of the T-72BU.) development.

These are the...
T-72B obr.1989g
The model 1989 had an improved Kontakt-5 ERA armor, and a “Dolly Parton” composite armor extended on the turret sides.

T-72B obr.1990g
Upgraded version with a new FCS coupled with a cross-wind sensor and the V-92S2 engine (not systematic). it also had an improved commander cupola sight. The T-72BU was developed from this version, giving birth to the T-90.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/soviet_T-72.php

It does have Kontakt-5 ERA as I noted earlier today.

Also Shtora-1 countermeasures system which as I mentioned last night/early this morning still a very effective system. Included is the
“Nakidka” thermal/radar/optical shroud.

Night Vision:
Early batches
TO1-KO1 Buran-PA with TPN-4-49-23 passive/active II (target id range 1.2/1.5 km) (Mine This has two modes of Operation. Also it's ONLY used and effective at Twilight and Dawn or if you will Ambient Skylight.
https://issuu.com/ufobject/docs/russian_weapons_catalog/91

Later batches
ESSA (Thales Optronique Catherine-FC TI) (Mine: As used on the T-90A and the T-72 "White Eagle", check *Nicaragua*/Venezuela OOB when I submitted that MBT about 2-3 years ago, I believe with TI/GSR 45. Might be in Russian OOB as well from the same time.)

Commander (Mine so here's the PITA, I recommend TI/GSR 15 this is the average of two values given below for the T-90/ONLY.
PNK-4S complex
includes TKN-4S Agat-S day/night sight (target id range 800 m (day)/700 (night)

Driver
TVN-5 IR night viewer
(These above values are ALL OVER THE WEB for the T-90.)

So mister "Video Man" is wrong. He's failure to identify those two missing tanks was were he failed in his "video exercise" I will still give him the :p award however, though I'll concede depending on these two factors, 1. How did he conduct his "word" search and 2. What limitations does he have on web access. I know already not everyone is equal in their access or capability to gain access at the server or other equipment outside of their PC. Some the observations were good. I've seen occur in the Forum as well.

What's left is I need to see if a "break point" exists between the "earlier batch's" as noted above, to something before the T-90A.

See I'm not such a B**T**D after all. :angel

T-72:
*http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/soviet_T-72.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm

T-90:
*http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/T-90_MBT.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
*https://world-defense.com/threads/t-90-main-battle-tank.4380/
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

* Denotes best for armor values.

I used some of my other refs as well to include armyrecognition/armyguide etc, It's all come basically to the same conclusions.

I've spent almost 5 hours on this, I'm done. I have to figure out how my PELTOR TAC 300 noise canceling hearing protection works. After this exercise, I'll be more then ready to get that/maintain my expert qual again on the range starting in the morning!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

October 22nd, 2019, 10:21 AM

Thanks for the clarification!

(This is why you should always seek out an "expert.)

DRG

October 22nd, 2019, 02:44 PM

<SNIP-SNIP>

Night Vision:
Early batches
TO1-KO1 Buran-PA with TPN-4-49-23 passive/active II (target id range 1.2/1.5 km) (Mine This has two modes of Operation. Also it's ONLY used and effective at Twilight and Dawn or if you will Ambient Skylight.
https://issuu.com/ufobject/docs/russian_weapons_catalog/91

Later batches
ESSA (Thales Optronique Catherine-FC TI) (Mine: As used on the T-90A and the T-72 "White Eagle", check *Nicaragua*/Venezuela OOB when I submitted that MBT about 2-3 years ago, I believe with TI/GSR 45. Might be in Russian OOB as well from the same time.)

Commander (Mine so here's the PITA, I recommend TI/GSR 15 this is the average of two values given below for the T-90/ONLY.
PNK-4S complex
includes TKN-4S Agat-S day/night sight (target id range 800 m (day)/700 (night)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

As usual with issues like this I have to work within the code framework of the game or change the code and THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

There is one overall vision, not one for the gunner and one for the commander. When they differ we go with the best value no matter what nation it is

ok ...... "Early batches" target id range 1.2/1.5 km) in game terms that is exactly what the game has now for the T-72BM and
the T-80U from the same era...... the T-90 has been given a full 40 I assume because at the time it was assumed the flagship tank would get the best ..... that can change for the early T-90's easily enough but I want to make sure I'm not simply interpreting what you are suggesting

I have already given it the same FC as the T-80 from the same era....35 ( up from 30 )

Not too sure where "TI/GSR 15" fits in but there is no way I am giving 15 to a T-90

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 22nd, 2019, 07:16 PM

I'm so pissed right now!!!

I'm going to be REAL brief right now as I've spent hours again in trying to answer the question.

First I can't emphasize how many references I've looked at over the last 24+hrs.

The bottom-line is I come up with the same answer "over and over again"

Breath!

Night Vision/Early batches
TO1-KO1 Buran-PA with TPN-4-49-23 passive/active II (target id range 1.2/1.5 km)
Those distances are limited by lighting conditions as stated in ref. 1. Which "ambient" "twilight" or "skylight" before Sunrise and after Sunset. And not in the "Dark of Night", leaving you, depending where you are at on the planet and the time of year, from <1hr. to ~1.5hrs. before or after the celestial event has occurred on average. Read the end of first para and "Basic Characteristics" Line Item #6 from Ref. 1.
https://issuu.com/ufobject/docs/russian_weapons_catalog/91
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

Commander Sight:[/B] Is a 1st GEN TI limited to the distances highlighted below. From Ref. 1 and all that have been posted or not.
PNK-4S complex includes TKN-4S Agat-S day/night sight (target id range 800 m (day)/700 (night)
https://issuu.com/ufobject/docs/russian_weapons_catalog/92rmor.kiev.ua/
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

I "split" the difference between the two distances from the Commanders Sight (750m) to get the TI 15 distance.

Of the advantages the T-80U had over the T-90 was in the FCS & VISION, remember all these and other refs. make it clear the T-90 only used certain parts of the T-80U FCS. They als state for the most part excepting VISION the T-80U FCS was on par with the LEOPARD 2 of the time.

I cannot in "good conscience" and in keeping with the current game TI/GSR stats, see the T-90 having TI/GSR of more then 25-30.

The equipment just does not support it.

To be brutely honest I'll quote Ruger Hauer from the end of "Blade Runner-Tears in the Rain"...“I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”

That line holds true during this evolution it would turn our world "upside down" when it comes to VISION for the earlier years the 1st and some 2nd GEN sights were available.

I will say this much since this was the focus of the this evolution, the West had the advantage in VISION, FCS and to some degree REALIBILITY of their Tanks. The East had more powerful MG's and as it would turn out "better" ammo then we thought at the time, also to some degree they were also "better" PROTECTED as well.
Another one:
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html

I'm spent. Lost everything looking for another Ref. earlier. And darn after losing last night. but, having a bonus evening off with CINCLANTHOME because of the range this morning, consider me "Out to, well, Dinner for the rest of the night."

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Mobhack

October 22nd, 2019, 08:11 PM

The magic number for thermal imaging in the game is 40 - anything less and the thing cannot see through smoke. So if it is a thermal sight, it is at least 40.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 22nd, 2019, 09:33 PM

Andy,
I was starting to wonder about a game limitation issue about the TI/GSR VISION. I would then in this case(s) rather see the T-90 with TI/GSR 40 then say VISION 30.

This simply because it penalizes the "UNIT" with Thermal Sights regardless of "TYPE" and more importantly for me, is simply the game does such an excellent job in simulating LOS.

I can "stand down" on the issue and I have a better understanding of the game parameters dealing with TI/GSR.

I would be curious for a very simple explanation of where you or Don feel the upper limit is with Aided (IR and related.) non TI VISION is for MBT's for my own edification.

And before someone says something, when Andy (Which this is rare.) or Don, calls I tend to answer the call.

Besides I just enjoyed watching "Charlie Brown-The Great Pumpkin" (As an update, that B**T**D "The Red Baron" shot Snoopy down again!!) and "The Toy Story-Scary Halloween" life is now complete.

Though it was 90 degrees inside that range, my record remains intact, I really like my Beretta. :D

Now for shower to remove the "lead"!?! ;)

Andy thanks for taking the time.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

October 22nd, 2019, 09:40 PM

As Don said, the magic number for TI in WinSPMBT is 40, nothing less.

We'd like to see shorter range options but this isn't going to happen because it would REQUIRE a special "TI" toggle to differentiate between TI and normal night vision. Right now the code looks something like "Is vision => 40, if yes then TI, if no then normal night vision".

Since I've never seen the game code I can't be 100% sure of this, but as a programmer that's certainly the "simple" solution I'd use. Andy can correct me if I'm wrong (and he's in the mood).

Mobhack

October 23rd, 2019, 03:19 AM

As I said above - the code uses the magic number of 40 or more to be thermal or radar and so it sees through smoke. There is no qualifier to the vision number for IR, white light, LLTV, image intensifier, thermals, or radar Otherwise that would be available in Mobhack). Just the one hard baked number.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 25th, 2019, 01:20 AM

First good to see the site back up!! I had a hard typing out those last 2 or 3 posts. It kept hanging up on me. I do see on my screen the Post Icons list has been changed and it seems, expanded. Anyway...

Secondly and again, thank you Andy. In asking the question about IR etc. and not being a software programming type, I just didn't know how deep into the code the other electronic factors dealing with VISION are written into it.

Totally clear to me after your second post to me.

Thank You!

Regards,
Pat

Mobhack

October 25th, 2019, 06:30 AM

Note that there are no headlights either - you can drive your 200MPH supercar at full blast lights out down a windy forest dirt track with no problems in the pitch dark in the SP universe, it has some weird physics:D

Edit to add - and you can hang a 90 degree turn at 200MPH, suddenly come across Farmer Giles on his pony and trap and stop without turning them into pate as well...

For those who have to rationalise, maybe just think of a daylight turn as 5 "administrative minutes" rather than a minute or so (to allow for real life units not all moving in synch, all the hurry up and wait amd "4 Alpha, this is 3 bravo, say again all after.. ".

And any night move (vis under 10) - count that as say 15 administrative minutes to add to your campaign time clock.

After all - I could programme in a 50% move deduction for visibility less than 500 yards, but most players would say "to heck with all that" and edit the start map selection to vision >10 and never play "night rules" battles (most probably already avoid such anyway I'll bet).

Aeraaa

October 25th, 2019, 02:44 PM

Note that there are no headlights either - you can drive your 200MPH supercar at full blast lights out down a windy forest dirt track with no problems in the pitch dark in the SP universe, it has some weird physics:D

^And grunts with amazing physical condition. I mean, they can theoretically move at a steady 18 kms/h (if always on road) for approx. 14 kms and fight just as well as if they were fully fresh. :D

Don't get me wrong, I still love the game. But you do have to use your imagination and don't take everything as literal.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 28th, 2019, 06:31 AM

A little restless right now, so I as I just posted on the KH-15 in the Problems w/ the Russian OOB, I figured before I lay back down let me look at the "Main Battle tank section. So one last time the T-90 MBT presented in 3 different versions. As you "click" on those different versions you'll see note changes for the engine, night vision and remarks sections of the chart.

As pointed out in the last patch submissions, some countries did update their T-90S tanks and were supported by the refs. submitted.

Sorry I forgot about this site, they're actually pretty good at what they do for what you can actually click on and see stats for.
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/CC05%20-%20T-90.html

I noticed in the other thread it seems we're "double clicking" on the "Edit" button again.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 5th, 2019, 03:30 AM

How come do I see RC4 has posted something (Community Forum/The Camo Workshop and WinSPMBT sections.) in this thread but, there's no post shown in TO&Es or when I open the Thread???

Am I having a :doh: moment, as I've NEVER seen this before?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

THIS WAS FOR THE JETS THREAD. SOMETHING IS APPARENTLY UP WITH THE SITE AGAIN AS I RECIEVED A MESSAGE FROM MS THAT THE SITE WAS EXPRIENCING TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT SHRAPNEL IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM WHEN TRYING TO POST THIS IN THAT THREAD. WHEN TRYING TO REPOST IT, I RECIEVED A MESSAGE THAT "THE POST WAS A DUPLICATE OF ONE I POSTED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE MINUTES" but THERE'S NO POST IN THE JETS THREAD.

DRG

November 5th, 2019, 05:14 AM

Yes I get that as well and I have alerted Shrapnel they may have a problem

Tim Brooks

November 5th, 2019, 07:46 AM

We are testing the forums.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 12th, 2019, 12:53 AM

While looking for an answer concerning the VCI T-20 (So far Crew 3/Carry 6/8 4x4/6x6 (One source indicating they carried a Sniper Team. Also Global Security is reporting it with a 25mm turret.)) in the French OOB Thread, I came across this multi-sourced document that might be of some interest to the Forum. Acknowledgements are on the last past page to include JANE's and other well respected sources. This was a industry prepared document in preparation of a Defense Industry Show.

List is by country, region and or continent.
http://rfventures.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Armoured-vehicles.pdf

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Post Script: The above mentioned 25mm turret is for the VBCI/VCI sub unit. Para 7 & 8 is where this is detailed and more.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/vbci-frances-wheeled-apc-04100/

Now I'm done.

Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 24th, 2019, 07:39 PM

A little change of pace but, something I think for the time period involved, it would've been fun to have a handful of these running around our "game board" so with that I leave you with a little light reading on one of those "what ifs" that never made it.

The French ELC EVEN Twin 30mm and 90mm Tank Destroyer.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/elc-even/

Pic:
Well I can't seem to get the picture to show up here, though it copied into "My Pictures" perfectly fine. But I really like the ELC EVEN 90mm picture in the ref. as compared to the Citroen 2CV.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 25th, 2019, 10:51 PM

Well I reported on the Russian T-90M/T-90MS (Export) about 3yrs. ago or more. The T-90MS was the first to see service in I believe Kazakhstan.

One of the first sightings while still on trials of the T-90M was in late 2017/or early 2018 (Which I posted on.) and the tank (UNIT 059) has a start date of 10/2018 which by my best estimate at this time should be 10/2020 or 01/2021.

Why haven't I brought this up sooner? Well I believe I have by simply stating along the lines of "it was to early" and quite frankly, I didn't have enough information to do any "good" tread analysis to recommend a change concerning the date. I think, I now do.

I think Don generally feels the same as I do about chasing "START" dates for equipment in the game. Though the issues that have plagued the following and others we had no control over, and there are still plenty of them for each of these tanks that are still ongoing, all we can do is react, correct and keep our fingers crossed.

So again here appear the ALTAY, ARJUN Mk 2 and ARMATA (T-14). I'm not seeing ANY news on these tanks "directly" not even anything closely to what I'm posting below for the T-90M even for months. This situation is causing me to "stick to my guns" that none of the above with possibly the exception of the ALTAY will reach FOC before 06/2023.

I'd rather given the choice from just even a psychological POV, that it's like being in the desert and seeing an oasis that you never seem to reach, I'd rather move it back in time, knowing I have already drank the water before moving on. If you follow me. Maybe the "fine tuning" of dates might be the only thing that gets done in 2026 for the last possible patch, so maybe we have until then to find out for sure. But they're not in service now.

Anyway...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russia_to_start_deliveries_of_t-90m_main_battle_tanks_to_troops.html

Upon careful review of the above ref, you'll note two other different topics within the same article as well.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

November 27th, 2019, 03:55 AM

Start (and sometimes end) dates are always "fun".

Base it on the first operational deployment?
Base it on the first full unit equipped?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 28th, 2019, 04:18 AM

Here's something for everyone. I've downloaded the Russian deck, though I wish they would've orientated the cards differently.

So Happy Thanksgiving (U.S) and for everyone else, an early Merry Christmas!!
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/new_u.s._army_training_playing_cards_available_via _army_recognition.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

P.S. My system is CLEAN (Just did my monthly MS Malicious Software scan two days ago for instance and other security checks.), when I clicked on the thread I was redirected to a site saying my Flash Player is outdated (BIG RED FLAG THERE!!) and a home improvement site. Just saying not very nice.

Mobhack

November 28th, 2019, 10:11 AM

P.S. My system is CLEAN (Just did my monthly MS Malicious Software scan two days ago for instance and other security checks.), when I clicked on the thread I was redirected to a site saying my Flash Player is outdated (BIG RED FLAG THERE!!) and a home improvement site. Just saying not very nice.

I too am getting random tabs opening and only on these forums.

I downloaded Opera, transferred bookmarks etc and uninstalled firefox - still happening

I downloaded chrome, uninstalled Opera, went to shrapnel site on chrome and attempted to enter my username etc - BANG - redirect to another spam site appears in a new tab.

Trying to navigate around the forums, occasional spam new tab, various sites or "utilities" offered.

So - open up a virtual machine running UBUNTU Linux, so absolutely no connection to anything on the main box, navigate to these forums using Firefox on there, and again as I tried to enter my details on the login section - WHAM! - a new tab pops up wit unwanted crap.

I had run 2 different anti--viruses on the box in between each new browser install, no results.

The only common denominator is trying to access these forums, so my unfortunate conclusion is that there is some sort of hijack code exploit running on the server:hurt:

DRG

November 28th, 2019, 10:11 AM

< I had mentioned that Andy had some problems too but he beat me to the post >

FWIW I have had no issues at all but I DL'd and ran the MS Malicious Software scanner and my computer came back clean but I have a number of other checks for these kind of attacks running and have not had any in quite awhile

Don

Suhiir

November 29th, 2019, 02:17 AM

Can't say as I have had any issues.

Win 10, Firefox, Spybot.

KAreil

November 29th, 2019, 04:09 AM

I also get random tabs opened when clicking anywhere (not some button) on the forum, e.g.

https://special-offers.online/lp/common/arb/

Maybe the admins should move this conversation to a new thread?

DRG

November 29th, 2019, 08:48 AM

Shrapnel has found the problem and is working on it but the timing with the Thanksgiving Holiday meant they were closed yesterday so the good news is this is in the process of being corrected

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2019, 12:51 PM

Looks like Tim and his crew got it fixed. Got "straight through" with no redirections as of this writing.

THANKS TO EVERYONE IN INVOLVED!! :clap:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Mobhack

November 29th, 2019, 02:12 PM

It has popped up several times as I tried to reply to this post, and when I tried to post. So some work needed still, unfortunately.

zovs66

November 29th, 2019, 04:17 PM

It has hit me in my browser (chrome). But on my iPhone using chrome it works fine (no pop up redirects).

Mobhack

November 29th, 2019, 06:57 PM

Seems to be fixed now - went to various posts all over the forums, no pop up tabs opening.

Aeraaa

November 29th, 2019, 08:16 PM

I still have it.

troopie

November 29th, 2019, 09:40 PM

I had it happen in Firefox. But in IE it doesn't happen.

troopie

DRG

November 30th, 2019, 09:07 AM

Try clearing your browsers cache

DRG

November 30th, 2019, 09:08 AM

I still have it.

Which browser are you using?

Aeraaa

November 30th, 2019, 11:05 AM

I still have it.

Which browser are you using?

MS Edge. But it's OK now, problem solved for me as well.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 1st, 2019, 03:46 PM

Well as most know, I "generally" don't waste our time by posting items that aren't relevant. I believe this information is, however, I'm still on the fence as to how relevant it'll be in the end. I'm still working it on a "part time" basis which happened to be today.

What I know is there are 10-12 of these tanks (Should sound familiar to you concerning another Ukrainian tank now in the game.) and I posted on this early this year as they were paraded in Kiev.

The other important event is that the KMDB site is back up for access, it was restricted when the trouble began with Russia (Native language only and very basic equipment data.) but was still up at the time we were looking at the OPLOT-M and reevaluating a couple of other tanks (Yes we do that like it or not at times.)

So without any more fanfare...
https://morozov.com.ua/en/bronetankovaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/tanki/razrabotki/yatagan/

I believe after reading this again from the "Think Tank" the re-evaluated OPLOT-M we entered in the last patch, is I think right based on this one review overall.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-ukraines-t-84-tank-take-the-worlds-best-fight-26287
https://morozov.com.ua/en/bronetankovaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/tanki/razrabotki/oplot/
https://morozov.com.ua/en/bronetankovaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/

Got things to do (Playing at bachelor with my "budding" Oscar the almost 20 year old turtle who I can't even go out on the town with because he's "underage", that's a bummer!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

POST SCRIPT:
I was just curious about what info was included under the "MODERNIZATION" section of the main site (Ref. 4 above.)
As both YAGATAN & OPLOT-M are better then what they had when the site was "restricted", however, not the case for the "older" tanks. There's some good data which "POSSIBLY" lead to some modification or "NOT", but very useful none the less. I give you the BM BULAT this IS NOT the Ukrainian Army's most modern version as I posted on a few months back the BM BULAT 2017.
https://morozov.com.ua/en/bronetankovaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/tanki/modernizaciya/bulat/

Got laundry to fold before they disturb my sleep in the morning to Re-Reinstall our new interior doors, Just don't tell CINCLANTHOME, it's a Secret project while she's in Va. So SSHHHhhhh! ;)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 5th, 2019, 02:13 AM

Here we go again! Being redirected to "UPDATE FLASH PLAYER" same issue as last. My rig is clean.

Obviously these people are "Night Stalkers", happened on the main forum ("Move" Thread from Paulo.) and in the TO&Es MBT Thread.

My BITDEFENDER Total Security Suite had todays random scan showing no infection (It does them daily randomly.) going to do an off line scan, if it picks something up I'll report it.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

December 5th, 2019, 05:17 AM

Have you cleared your browser's cache since last time?

DRG

December 5th, 2019, 10:06 AM

I emailed Tim at Shrapnel and he acknowledged that "They got to us again" but they have now put additional safeguards in place and hopefully this problem will not re-appear

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 5th, 2019, 11:48 PM

Don,
Just got home...As a matter of routine I always clean out several caches on a daily basis and in preparation of any security checks I'm going to run on my rig.

No issues at my end.

Thank you again and Tim and his crew!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

zovs66

December 22nd, 2019, 02:06 PM

I found this to be an interesting read.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20191219.aspx

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 23rd, 2019, 01:07 AM

Well I'll buy that author of the above article a beverage of their choice!

And don't none of you get too excited about those 15 tanks or so, they'll be in field testing for sometime to come as I've already posted on in this thread from and as quoted from high ranking officials from Russia's MOD & Army.

How about that "ECONOMICS" lesson? Enough said there, except to say I factor this in when submitting "START" dates of equipment. I can account for this data easily enough with my resources.

Given the above, I'm not that good to account weapons programs being cancelled or delayed in production. To those issues and unless it's out there before submission, Don and I can only get frustrated (Just a little bit!?!) and react to the situation. We've seen plenty of that over the years and quite frankly, I fear there'll be more to come including the T-14 and the OTHER USUAL SUSPECTS.

We do what we can with what we have. You just gotta roll with it.

I'll be working the Holidays (Again.) this year, but, I want to wish all of you the very best of the season no matter how you celebrate them!!!!!!

Again that was both a good find and article.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

December 23rd, 2019, 02:13 AM

All I'll say is we somehow manage to afford aircraft and ships ... most of which cost far more then a tank. Maybe we'll have smaller tank formations in the future (the US has already reduced a platoon from 5 tanks to 4). Not every tank needs to be top-of-the line, for instance the Russians use the BMP-3 with a 100mm main gun and the US the Stryker M1128 with a 105mm main gun for infantry support.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 23rd, 2019, 03:09 AM

You simply can't compare the two economies. For 2019 the U.S. is tracking to retake the #1 (GDP per capita (Nominal) ($) #8.) spot while China looks to drop back too #2 (GDP per capita (Nominal) ($) #70.) mostly caused by the "trade war" started this past summer.

Russia's situation is much worse and based on the Sunday morning news program is likely to get even worse after the holidays when Sen. Graham (SC) is apparently going to introduce further stricter sanctions on Russia.

Russia is tracking to close out 2019 with a ranking of #11 (GDP per capita (Nominal) ($) #66.)

I are "Bubblehead Investor" :doh: :p and these things matter to varying degrees when putting your future on the line or buying military equipment etc. etc. and so on and so forth.
http://www.statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php

Please note their source in the header.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 27th, 2020, 06:33 PM

I've been very hesitate to post anything concerning the following new tank for Poland, except for it's attempts to be a part of the "consortium" with Germany and France.

As the first ref. states from Poland will show, the "new" LEOPARD (Assumed.) imitative is not likely to start before 2035. This will not work from the stand point of equipment obsolescence and because no decision has been forthcoming about Poland joining the others in the development of the new "LEOPARD".

So an interim solution had to be found, but again I had nothing "solid" to warrant it being posted until, now. It appears it'll be called the K2PL for now and what is still being discussed is what will it's final configuration going to look like.

I'll be tracking that.

So here's the rest. The first is from Poland and Army Recognition is actually out of Belgium and not France (Figured this out sometime back but, needed a way to work it into the conversation. :D) as I originally thought.
https://www.defence24.com/could-poland-build-a-future-main-battle-tank-with-the-south-korea-analysis
(Above from December 2019 as translated.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2020_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/south_korea_could_sign_a_deal_with_poland_for_the_ sale_of_800_k2_main_battle_tanks.html

Also as looking into other refs. for the above I found this instead from JANE's. The Ukraine is receiving (Has) the first 15 tanks with a full tank battalion fitted out by February of the T-72AMT. JANE's covers most of the improvements in their "limited free" article.
https://www.janes.com/article/93929/first-t-72amts-delivered-to-ukrainian-armed-forces

Someone is waiting on me for dinner. If you need more on the T-72AMT let me know.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Postscript: I checked my MBT file and found the following as it appears I'd been tracking the T-72 AMT from the Ukraine for awhile.
From August 2017:
https://armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/t-72amt_main_battle_tank_ukroboronprom_for_ukrainian _army_12908175.html
From August 2018:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/new_t-72amt_main_battle_tank_starts_live_firing_campaign _in_ukraine.html
https://morozov.com.ua/en/bronetankovaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/tanki/modernizaciya/t-72/

I've included the last to offer some prospective on the upgrades already provided for T-72 modifications from the Ukraine. This is good data from the stand point that all three modernization programs are compared against the stats of the T-72 side-by-side.

Note: That the T-72AMT IS NOT addressed in the ref., as it's a "newer" upgrade/or modernization program.