MBT's

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

No worries, there's a reason I posted that here, it would get attention sooner then later.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

For anyone interested in armor penetration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y284jJHu-fY&list=WL&index=3

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First off this is the second time on the site in the last hour or so that I haven't been redirected concerning updating my Flash Player.

Thank You Don and Shrapnel Games team!!

From this Thread on Page 94 Post #940 and as recently submitted in the 2018/2019 Patch Post Campaign Part 2, It looks like my "best guess" for FOC of the T-90M START, should be real close to RL based on the below ref. taken from Russian Sources in the MOD.

I was surprised though to see there're only talking about 15 tanks for this year. I had believed they would field at least somewhere around 50 this year.

The T-14, as I report is still on track for OPEVAL testing to begin by Summer of this year. They are hoping for FOC by end of 2021. And I have a bridge to sell you as well!?!

You will note in the last para, they left themselves a handful of "outs" why it might be delayed further. If we're at now about 4 years into OPEVALING the M1A2 SEP V3 (I know M something something.), well you know where I'm heading with this for the T-14.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2020_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/plans_for_delivery_of_t-90m_and_t-14_tanks_to_the_russian_armed_forces.html

We're done with the "Reindeer Games" (And did very well!), that we're taking a few days off for some Spring Training B-BALL!!!

So in the meantime, I hope everyone has a GREAT WEEKEND!!

And for Don, I'll have the last of MBT's submitted in Part 3 by Tuesday night next.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I was wondering why I hadn't seen anything recently concerning the M1A2C (SEP 3) except for electronic issues and of course TROPHY.

We already know (Or should know.) that the M1A2C has and overall improved armor over the M1A2 SEP 2.

Well according to the next (And whatever else I can find in the time I have before work.) is that the USA has decided within the last couple of months to add STEEL plated armor to the turret.

The result is this will be the heaviest ABRAMS to serve the Army. It apparently will add tons of weight to the tank affecting turret operations. As the article implies this will require a new turret motor.

For now, I highly recommend, we leave this alone.

What I now know, and as a reminder this article isn't even 2 weeks old, we'll need a date change of at least a year possibly two by my estimation, a fairly substantial STEEL turret revision and possible look at the ammo as this tank will be at present the only one currently able to fire the new kinetic round that was designed for it.

I'm sure it just won't be just "plain old" steel plates. I suspect these plates will be manufactured to the specs of what's already used on the tank and acting as a "second skin" if you will.

Ever changing and always a headache! As one of my CO's used as his mantra "Change is a constant."
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/army-has-special-plans-its-new-m1a2c-tank-117576
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/gcs-m1-abrams-main-battle-tank/
(This last is dated.)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

I will GLADLY "leave this alone" as this has got " future corrections" written all over it

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I figured as much. I was absolutely thrilled when I came across that myself.

And the world just keeps on turning!

How "wonderful" for us! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just a little something I came across while reading my "morning papers", it concerns the use of German tanks by Norway during the Post WWII era.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/norwegian-armor-stridsvogn-stormkanon-kw-iii/

Esigenza C3
And something for you "scenario guys" (Though someone might have done it already?), the purposed invasion of Malta. The article does include plans and additional references at the bottom of the article.

If nothing else it does make for interesting reading to include the fact that the Japanese directly assisted in the planning, something I wasn't aware of until I read this. Something different on at least here, a "lazy" Sunday.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/category/articles/tactics/

And yes I know this is better suited WinSPWW2. But I don't think I've posted more then 5 or 6 times on there and I figure someone here can bring it up to someone there if they think it's worthwhile.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

There is a lot of irony in that you may have provided the last photo for a unit I add to SPWW2 with that Esigenza C3 article......

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I'm glad that in this case and for a change, I found something that didn't involve us going to "Battle Stations" to fix something or another! ;) :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: I didn't realize their were more articles under the one I posted such as the Battle for Verba Russia. Interesting.

[DRG]

Those days are drawing to a close........

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Not to hard to "read between the lines" of your last! After all I seem to remember there wasn't even supposed to be a release this year.

We can only take and appreciate what we can get, while we can get it.

So I'll just THANK ANDY and YOU in advance.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well for once or very rarely, India has managed NOT to let me down. I submitted changes to the ARJUN Mk-1A (Post 240 in FASTBOAT Patch Page.) which was a "new" item for this upcoming Release.

Well India is ordering 118 of the ARJUN Mk-1A, FINALLY they've done something that'll have an impact on their armor.

Still standing by that MBT as submitted by Post #240 as noted above. It might even be on target to meet the FOC date I picked.

However that MBT picture IS NOT a ARJUN Mk-1A but is in fact the ARJUN Mk-1.

Anyway...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/indian_army_to_at_tast_finally_order_118_arjun_mar k_1a_main_battle_tanks.html

Anyway got reassigned to another "special project" from the one I started with last week. You love that "ping pong" ball feeling! And yes I remember I volunteering for this almost a month ago.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[zovs66]

You know I just read that article a few days ago, and while I did not know that the pic was a Mk-1 vs. a Mk-1A I was thinking man I need to create a scenario for that tank lol.

Have these (or the Mk-1's) been used in combat? If so do you have a source so I can use that to create a scenario? If not I'll need some kind of hypothetical scenario idea.

Anyway thanks for sharing the link.

[DRG]

Everyone can take a deep breath and relax. All the pics of that tank and the Ajeya's in the game are correct now

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

They have not. They are currently posted in the Western desert portion with Pakistan and are meant for conflict against them. The T-90S and soon T-90MS (All addressed in the Patch Post/MBT Threads for this year.) will be used to fight on the borders with Pakistan and China.

It should be noted that Israeli's Military and IMI reps evaluated the ARJUN Mk-1 and "dubbed" the tank as the "Desert Ferrari" which is in the refs provided, coming from them, that's high praise considering they have the MERKAVA which must be something like a Bugatti Veyron (I wait for the day I'll have a couple of Million Dollars lying around to have one of those to take to work!)

Even Chinese MOD reps thought the tank very capable.

The revised Arjun Mk-1A will be much better as I think Don stayed with it as submitted.

Last Day of the special assignment and the last day to wake up at that ungodly hour of 5am. :p Who does that anyway!!! :doh: Back to 9 or 10am Friday morning! :D Sometimes I'm just going to bed then-it's all just crazy to me.!! :D

Wasn't worried about the pictures as we straightened that out, but it's sure misleading for "someone" else. Hate when refs do that! :doh:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[zovs66]

I hope I am not hijacking this thread and I know this won’t make the patch (or if it’s even applicable), but thought that it was interesting and wanted to share (also did not know where to post this, so this seemed like a good choice).

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-helicopter-killing-army-artillery-cannon-destroys-target-at-39-8-miles.amp

Some quotes:

“The new weapon in development, called Extended Range Cannon Artillery, not only preserves the GPS-guided precision attack options characteristic of present-day artillery, but also extends attack ranges from roughly 30km (18.6 miles) out to nearly 70km (43.5 miles).“

And:

“The new ERCA cannon, fired from a prototype self-propelled howitzer called the M1299, features a longer barrel and new, self-described “super-charged” propellant. The first operational systems are slated for delivery to the Army by 2023.”

It seems it’s still a 155mm artillery round being delivered, just at a very extreme range. Any other thoughts or links on this?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You'll find all sorts of artillery issues and submissions in the SP and SPAA Developments Thread.

Also I see Mark Shepard posted on the same system in that Thread, Post #149 from a different source.

I would like to point out as well we had some "very lively" but on point discussions in two separate Threads. They were highly informative and covered artillery issues besides Cluster Munitions.

The following are the Thread Titles in the TO&E Forum:
Cluster Munitions after CCM? (Page 4) This one would lead to major changes in the game concerning CM. Based on the Treaty signed by certain countries it was found in the game that they were still using them. Well not anymore.

Disclaimer: That was all Don's fault and NOT anyone else that might have or might not have contributed to that Thread.! :p Just Sayin!!:shock:

There are a couple of Threads on Page 6 or 7.

CM arty modeling (Page 10) Excellent discussion here that as I recalled branched out to effects of artillery against armor if not mistaken.

They are plenty throughout this Forum.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This is the best place to let you know that two weeks ago SIPRI had updated all their tables to reflect the transactions that occurred in 2019. From the ref. this is how they see the info can be used.

It has proven to be a very valuable tool over the last handful of years and has very useful in dispelling claims that "X" country has "Y" equipment. In those cases I go there first which afterward "fine tunes" my web search to verify SIPRI's data. So far they're "batting a thousand" for you baseball fans.

"The current version was published on 9 March 2020.

The database can be used to address a range of questions, including:

Who are the suppliers and recipients of major conventional weapons?

What weapons have been exported or imported by specific suppliers or recipients?

How have the relationships between different suppliers and recipients changed over time?

Where do countries in conflict get their weapons from?

How do states implement their export control regulations?

Where are potentially destabilizing build ups of weapons occurring?

What is the relationship between access to natural resources and arms transfers?"

https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[zovs66]

So this is the second article I have read on this. Why would the Marines do this? Of curse I am based, I am an old tanker.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/amp31915295/marine-corps-tanks/

[Imp]

Hi Pat its always interesting to look & tells you who the big boys are. Many countries while they might have high end equipment purchase very few of them.
Have you found any sites that cover ammo sales for tanks? Mainly type of AP rounds sold.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John: First, good to hear from you, though I know you "lurk in the background" most times.

Global Security is one site I've used in the past. The link below will take you directly to their munitions tab.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/index.html

This will be a "live" post as I try to recover a couple of more sites for you.
The next is very limited but none the less might still be useful. It has been more useful to me dealing with some MBT/APC issues to include some I just "resubmitted" in my Patch Post. Again linked directly to ammo section.
https://weaponsystems.net/menu/74
https://panzerworld.com/anti-tank-ammunition

A little Industry sites I've found useful in my research...
https://elbitsystems.com/media/Catalog-Tanks_16_Web.pdf
http://www.mecar.be/content.php?langue=english&cle_menus=1156856627
https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/large-caliber-ammunition/
https://rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/weapons_and_ammunition/ammunition_disposal_plants/index.php

Again I've used most if not all of these over the years. I have deferred most of the ammo issues to Don over the years as well for my submissions, mainly because I feel he has some very good resources of his own to use.

However that doesn't excuse me from doing "my due diligence" before I offer my thoughts and to have an intelligent "conversation" on the matter.

I dig and read all I can because you can't "BS" this crowd!?! ;)

But Global Security is at top for a reason. :D

Back to my "normal watch routine" tomorrow-Thank God!

Hope this helps John!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John, sorry I went back to your post and reread it. Unfortunately I've never come across a site that tracks ammunition sales like SIPRI tracks armament sales.

Military-Today/Tank Encyclopedia do a real good job in noting ammo types used for the equipment they list.

Take the above and combine it with the manufacturers (And their Press/or News releases.) I posted in my last post, that might get you closer.

Otherwise I just normally see that type of data posted randomly on the various websites I use on a daily basis.

I did try for over an hour to find something of more value to you than what I just posted above, however, I was unsuccessful.

The only one I think covers that is Janes in their "Sustainment & Procurement" publication which, as you know comes with a "hefty" price tag.

Sorry.



Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[zovs66]

Pat,

Could you shed some light on why the USMC is going to shred their Tanks?

I am biased and just can't imagine the Marines with Tanks...

Thanks

[DRG]

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/marines-to-reduce-force-by-12-000-decrease-artillery-units-and-get-rid-of-tanks-in-10-years-1.623471

and

https://taskandpurpose.com/

Just FYI.......

[Suhiir]

Pat,

Could you shed some light on why the USMC is going to shred their Tanks?

I am biased and just can't imagine the Marines with Tanks...

Thanks
Currently each USMC Division has one (yes one) tank battalion.

The "problem" is they're big and HEAVY, thus hard to transport. None of the LCMs can carry one, the WW II LSTs (Landing Ship Tank) have pretty much gone the way of the Dodo. The only thing currently available to ferrying them ashore is the LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion) and it can barely carry an M1A1 (60 ton cargo capacity, 75 tons if the sea is calm).

So you pretty much need a cargo ship, and a port facility to get them ashore.

This doesn't mesh well with the USMCs mission as a rapid reaction/deployment force. The USMC has ALWAYS seen tanks as an infantry support unit not an anti-armor one. They have Helos and ATGMs for dealing with vehicles simply because they have so few tanks chances are they won't be where they're needed to counter opposition armor.

So the plan is to disband three of the four tank battalions; keeping one (probably with 1st MarDiv in California, they're the "desert" division). The money saved not buying/maintaining tanks can be used for other things (keep in mind the USMC has a tiny budget compared to the other US service branches).

As to cutting back on artillery, well, as much as Don HATES it the USMC has relied on "flying artillery" since WW II. The US Navy (and it's carriers) is suppose to achieve local air superiority (without it amphibious landings are impossible) so Marine Air is ground attack, necessary SEAD and escort aircraft, NOT "air superiority fighters". This is why the USMC is so insistent on the Harrier and F-35B (STOVL), we don't expect to have access to the nice huge paved runways the US Air Force needs. And we can (and do) land on any old road (or flat field) and refuel/rearm off trucks, no fixed facilities for the opposition to target.

The other piece of this is helos, for the size of it's ground combat formations the USMC has a very high proportion of helos (only pure AirCav formations have more). Each infantry battalion is generally supported by four AH-1Zs and two UH-1Ys (primarily observation) and enough MV-22s and CH-53s to helolift an infantry company plus it's (non-tank/AAV) assets, so there's always a helo close at hand to deal with armor or dump a load of rockets on a soft target. Again, land anywhere, drive fuel and ammo trucks up, refuel/reload, and you're back in the fight.

[Imp]

Thanks Pat I thought as much. I have a feeling higher end ammo is more readily sold nowadays to selected friends but its hard to verify.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I think we're closer to "Apples to Apples" in relation to equipment sales and ammo sales as you've suggested.

A recent example as I submitted is a single item further revision to the OPLOT-T as compared to the OPLOT-M. Or T-90M versus T-90MS. These are things I have to keep in mind constantly in dealing with equipment issues.

A more practical one would deal with the ABRAMS, the last thing we need is to have a country running around with one of our tanks and it would fall into the hands of the enemy opposing that government. We saw this happen in Iraq when some of those ABRAMS got into the Iranian backed militias.

I'm sure Iran benefitted from those tanks however, but they didn't get our DU Armor tech, FCS etc. and they also didn't get our latest (Or near to.) ammo types either. I f I had to guess they probably got something on the level of mid to late 90's or early 2K tech.

We have enough of those tanks stockpiled to support our needs for modernization or export sales.

So yes "friends to friends" but not always including ammo. :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well time to get the ball "rolling" if a little slowing.

Brazil after aggressively starting a military modernization program in the mid-2000's that continued for a little over ten years (Which we've kept pace with in the OOB.), seems ready to do it again with a focus on a new MBT in the 50 ton or less category and as outlined in the first ref. below.

I have taken the liberty of first reading this article, then going to the military-today website that as most know has a pretty robust list of modern and current tanks.

I have culled from that website the following tanks that fit the weight and MG (120mm) requirements plus most of the other requirements per ref 1. which is from JANE's and is thus perishable.
https://www.janes.com/article/95218/brazilian-army-releases-requirements-for-its-new-mbt-project

The tanks.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_90.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm
(There seems to be discussion that it can be retrofitted to a 120mm MG.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84_yatagan.htm
(As you might recall I posted articles this past Fall showing them on military parade. It is estimated they operate 13 to 15 of these tanks at this time which is about the same number when we entered the OPLOT-M. Also these are modernized from the time this article was first posted.)

I feel Japan would consider such an opportunity if it arose, however I feel the odds are against it but, I'm definitely not saying it couldn't happen either. I t would provide added income to help support their continuing modernization program as well if the order was large enough.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I've had a few people, and posts on other forums, question why Japan went with the Type 10 (48 tons fully loaded) as their MBT.

The answer is very simple: Roads, bridges, and sealift.
Japan is a VERY mountainous nation, narrow roads, lots of bridges, and like the US they won't be able to drive to the battle (unless they're invaded) so any, and everything needs to be transported, probably via ship.

[Imp]

I've had a few people, and posts on other forums, question why Japan went with the Type 10 (48 tons fully loaded) as their MBT.

The answer is very simple: Roads, bridges, and sealift.
Japan is a VERY mountainous nation, narrow roads, lots of bridges, and like the US they won't be able to drive to the battle (unless they're invaded) so any, and everything needs to be transported, probably via ship.

Also remember it’s a defence force Japan does not fight overseas.so it’s a sensible idea they can deploy in the majority of places mainly as infantry support. Should someone try to land normal MBT they could probably meet them on the beaches. Around half the bridges in Japan cannot support a 60 ton vehicle.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As a continuation of the above conversations, I found some interesting data that supports the discussion to this point.

Also as I keep my eyes open to the world on matters concerning the game, I found some interesting news concerning Nigeria that has taken delivery of what will be one of the most advanced tanks operating in Africa.

Nigeria is at the forefront of Sub-Sahara countries trying to modernize their armies.

Now back to Japan, first from ref. 1...
This really also includes the TYPE-74/TYPE-90 as well as the TYPE-10 the ref is about, this under Mobility.
"A feature carried over from both the Type 74 and Type 90 is the Hydropneumatic Active Suspension. This is seen as a ‘must-have’ feature by Japanese strategic heads, given the Japanese countryside’s mountainous terrain. The suspension allows the tank to ride higher or lower depending on the terrain type, tilt left or right, or raise and lower the front or rear of the tank. This increases the elevation or depression angle of the gun, giving the ability to fire over a ridge line without presenting a target for an enemy vehicle.
(Somewhere in this Thread on the TYPE-10, I posted a picture of the tank at about a ~35 degree angle going over a wall on the right side of the tank.)
This suspension also has another use. A bulldozer blade can be mounted on the bow of the vehicle. When the front of the tank is fully depressed, this blade serves as a way to clear out debris from a firing position or help to carve out a new one.
A similar system was incorporated on the Swedish Strv. 103, or S-Tank."

Next...
"Deployment Capabilities
One of the issues with the Type 90 Kyū-maru Main Battle Tank was its weight of 50.2 tons. Due to weight limits of many roads and bridges in some of the more rural areas of Japan, the Type 90 was only deployed in Hokkaido.
A requirement of the Type 10 was that it was much lighter, and it achieved that. Unloaded, which is how it would be transported, it only weighs 40 tons, as previously mentioned. This means that 84% of Japan’s 17,920 bridges are now passable with the Type 10, compared to only 65% of the Type 90, and a meager 40% for the average western tank."

So there you have.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Japan/type-10-hitomaru
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tk_x.htm

Highlights:
"Vehicle has a sloped modular ceramic composite armor similar to the Leopard 2A5. Its side profile is similar to the Leclerc."

"Autoloader is located in the turret bustle (More on this w/TYPE 90 below.) The autoloader is more advanced than on the previous Type 90 MBT."

"The Type 10 fires newly developed armor-piercing ammunition."

"The Type 10 main battle tank is also fitted with a state-of-the-art semi-active hydropneumatic suspension. The tank can "sit", "stand", "kneel" or to "lean" in any direction. This feature gives a number of advantages, especially operating in mountainous terrain."

On TYPE-90...
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Japan/Type-90_Kyu-Maru http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_90.htm

Highlights:
"The Type 90 is among the best MBTs in the world. Furthermore for a period of time it was the most expensive production MBT."

"The Type 90 has an all-welded hull and turret. Its composite armor has superior resistance qualities."

"However autoloaders of the Cold War era Soviet main battle tanks had one common problem as the ready-to-use ammunition was stored in the main compartment, rather than a separate compartment. In this case once the armor is penetrated it can trigger detonation of onboard ammunition. Japanese designers addressed this problem by relocating the autoloader in the turret bustle with blow-out panels. So ready-to-use ammunition is separated from the crew. Autoloader of the Type 90 tank holds 20 rounds, stored in the turret bustle that are ready to fire."
(Rest are stored in the Front Hull area.)

"At the time it was one of the most advanced fire control systems in the world. It gives a high first round hip probability and, accurate mobile firing. Furthermore it has hunter-killer engagement capability, which enables to engage multiple targets rapidly. This feature was new at the time when this tank was introduced."
With development of the TYPE 10, supposedly, the FCS has been further updated.)

" Fire control system of the Type 90 is reportedly more advanced than those used on the French Leclerc, German Leopard 2A5 and American M1A2 Abrams.

The TYPE 10 is meant to supplement the TYPE-90. Though the TYPE 10 can take out any modern MBT, due to the specialized AP round it can only fire, it's not really designed for that purpose, this is why the TYPE-90 will stay in service until replaced.

On TYPE 74...
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/Japan/Type-74_MBT.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_74.htm
Highlights:
"This tank uses a number of best features of contemporary Western designs, placing it in the same class as the M60 Patton and Leopard 1. However it saw widespread use only in 1980s, when more capable Western designs were introduced. So the Type 74 was generally out-dated even before it entered service"

"A cast turret of the Type 74 is broadly similar to that of the French AMX-30. This main battle tank is armed with a fully-stabilized 105 mm rifled gun. It is the British L7 gun, manufactured in Japan under license. Prototype of the Type 74 was fitted with an autoloader, however it proved too complex and expensive, and was removed. Initially the Type 74 used HEP rounds. These were later upgraded to APFDSD and HEAT-MP. A total of 55 rounds are carried for the main gun"

"Fire control system of this main battle tank was very advanced. For the first time in the world a tank was fitted with advanced computer for ballistic calculations. It also had a laser rangefinder. In service tanks were later upgraded with infra-red imagers."

"Vehicle has a hydropneumatic suspension, allowing this MBT to "sit", "stand", "kneel" or to "lean". This feature was incorporated from the canceled German-US MBT-70 design. The driver can adjust the suspension to suit the type of terrain."

There you have it. All quotes taken from Military-Today

Nigeria:
They received the first shipment of VT-4 tank(s), SH-5 6x6 105mm SPA and ST-1 light tanks. This supplemented by Russian equipment recently (Ref. 1 Para 9) received as well. Also from ref. 1 the crews have already been trained in China on their use. Once CORNA-19 dissipates, China is to send along F/U trainers.
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/featured/nigerian-military-receives-tanks-artillery-from-china/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/china_delivers_vt4_tanks_sh5_howitzers_8x8_st1_tan k_destroyers_to_nigerian_army.html
https://defence-blog.com/army/nigeria-receives-vt4-main-battle-tanks-from-china.html
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2020/04/mil-200410-pladaily01.htm

I would expect the Chinese equipment to be operational by Oct-Dec timeframe if the shipments are on schedule.

If it applies: Happy Easter!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Keep in mind the Japanese military is primarily a defensive force. In recent years they've been having (heated) discussions about permitting their forces to operate outside Japans national territory and take part in NATO/SEATO operations.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don, not feeling ready to "bounce" the "resubmissions" against the OOB's as of yet, (I'm thinking.)...done..., I hope this will only affect a few (Hopefully NONE) others out here, CINCLANTHOME has lost a close friend that she's known since she was 7 years old last Wed in upstate N.Y. a couple of hrs. NW of the "Big Apple" to CORNA-19.

It has made her a little more "hyper-sensitive" concerning my job on the base, especially as we have a handful+ of confirmed cases onboard, which is public information.

She understands I have a duty and responsibility to do my part and therefore I will. I couldn't have asked for a more supportive "team member" if I tried and we are a team. Yeah, besides she let's me "hang" with all of you and what can go wrong there, even with the good, bad or indifferent. ;)

So the Admin side will have to wait a bit.

However a good campaign of Japan versus Russia after my last post well, just seems in order.

I have to say I'm more then pleased at how you represented the TYPE 16 MCV, looks absolutely fabulous!!

Thanks for the support, I'm sure the rest is in order when I get to it.

Again I know some of you might deal with this before it's over but again, I hope not.

We intend to be stronger then it and also know we'll all get through this thing. It is unique to our time.

So I leave you with a reminiscence from my youth below. I think it's better then singing "Happy Birthday" three times in my humble opinion.

Kind of remember this childhood song about something we should all be doing. It goes something like this with a little help from the folks below to maintain your timing, and you ONLY have to sing it twice (I do what I can to help.)...
:party:
WASH, WASH, WASH YOUR HANDS gently in the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. Yes it is! :doh: :p :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Pat.

Sorry to hear about your wife's friend. You are the first person I know that has known anyone who knew anyone that had Covid let alone die from it.

The TYPE 16 MCV uses the VB1 Centauro / Vextra / Rooikat series of Icons because they are nearly identical top down though the 16's hull should be a bit longer and the front end less angled but at the time I was just looking for something "close enough" and that fit the bill but I *may* give it, it's own Icon.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15982&stc=1&d=1586702457

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
We thank you. Like I said given my work environment and her lose, it just brought it all a little to close to home.

I meant what I said about the TYPE 16 MCV. I truly believe we got the stats as good as we can get pending (Which I hope won't be pending at all.) further newer data.

The following might be of some interest from the 3D drawings and some data on the gun and ammo, which I'm sure you already had anyway and might be of some value to others though.
https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-type-16-mcv

I have set up one of my long campaigns (23 Battles) with my core made up of a platoon each of TYPE 90 and TYPE 16 MCV supported by 2 TYPE 96 Mech platoons with artillery support.

Player 2 & 4 Russia/3 China. First battle against China "Meeting Engagement" jungle environment.

I'll report my impressions in this thread on the TYPE 16 MCV after a handful of battles have been fought.

Hitting the shower, getting "all excited" about that at home haircut to come later today. CINCLANTHOME showed me a picture of Cousin IT from Adams Family walking in the house, caption read
"This is what we'll all look like after the CORNA VIRUS goes away after the barbershops reopen!", can't wait that long and it just wouldn't look good in our BDU's!?! :rolleyes:

Anyway again to all-Happy Easter!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Don,
CINCLANTHOME showed me a picture of Cousin IT from Adams Family walking in the house, caption read
"This is what we'll all look like after the CORNA VIRUS goes away after the barbershops reopen!"
Male pony tails and buns will be the new style!

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First to the last post: That ain't happening!?! :D

I usually get a "Flat Top", but needs to know his business when you get one of those. My Marine "buddy" will appreciate the fact that my barber is a Ret. Marine (Though their really isn't such a thing!) but like the rest of the country, the barbershops are closed.

So after Easter Dinner my son had brought over his clippers and armed with a copy (Front Cover) of the movie "JARHEAD" used the picture of actor Jake G. and followed along.

The end result, I'll be looking "Bxx Axx" when I go back to work tomorrow with "Dam Fine" looking "Jarine" haircut!!!! And of course a professional looking BDU uniform (Thanks CINCLANTHOME!) to boot!!! :cool: :p

So after 6 hours on the phone to straighten out a couple of issues/dinner and a nice walk, I came across the following ref below. Don knows well that over the years if the information shows up, I post any data I get concerning equipment we've worked on together to get the game, when it actually goes into FOC or is so very close, as we don't need to change the dates on it.

This is the case below.

I would direct you first to either this thread Page 94/Post 940 (In 10/19) or The Fastboat Patch Page Thread (TFPPT), Page 24/Post 240 (All reviewed again BEFORE resubmission). Though I believe there were a couple of others involved, the date issue has always been a problem out here (Just look at the three pages and a couple of other separate (One dealing with the K2 PIP) ones in TFPPT almost 90% of what was submitted required a date change at minimum.

So Don join me in a "victory lap" concerning the Russian T-90M, I couldn't got it better if I "Was a fly on the wall"!!

I'm standing by the START, they'll be equipped plenty enough by then based on the ref. below, the "party has started".
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/russian_army_has_taken_deliver_of_new_t-90m_proryv_main_battle_tanks.html

Hard Work/Good Data/Interpolating It/Taking your TIME with it/Drawing a Unemotional but Rational Conclusion of the Data to make a Decisive Decision Concerning it/Then of course being able to convince Don! :D

Going to enjoy the rest of my "off" evening!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[MarkSheppard]

GD has unveiled their entry for the US Army Light Tank Competition:

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-mobile-protected-firepower-general-dynamics-submission

On Thursday, General Dynamics Land Systems unveiled its light tank candidate for the service's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program during a visit from Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to the defense contractor's Detroit facility.

The Army had previously selected GDLS and BAE Systems in December 2018 to deliver 12 MPF prototypes apiece to the service for operational testing and evaluation under two rapid prototyping contracts that totaled more than $750 million.

...

GDLS's MPF offering combines the tried-and-true M1 Abrams turret design with a chassis that's based on designs developed for the company's AJAX family of light armored vehicles.

According to Army Recognition, the turret architecture showcased during McCarthy's visit on Thursday uses a M1A2 Sep V3 fire control system and Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) married to an 105 mm cannon and a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun.

....

BAE had in March 2019 showcased an MPF technology demonstrator that, based on the M8 Armored Gun System, comes equipped with an 'Iron First' active protection system, Defence Blog reports.

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

It'll all get cancelled! :angel

[Imp]

Its horrific the cost of US cancelled or delayed military projects is more than many countries defence budget. I particularly love the delays cost by states wanting the jobs in their state.These can easily add 20% to the cost it would have been far cheaper to give the workers benefit. Generating reports for a couple of mil on a problem instead of tackling it is another great one.

[RC4]

FASTBOAT TOUGH

Pakistan just leacked receiving first of 298 VT4 improved with new FY-IV ERA, claimed at defeating new Tandem Warheads.
Absolutly confirmed by two Pak Army Officers


Credit to @LKJ86 from Chinese Defence Forum Section


Latest VT4 battle tanks delivered to foreign buyer: report
Source:Globaltimes.cn Published: 2020/4/27 2:24:48


A Thai army's newly purchased Chinese-manufactured VT4 main battle tank deploys during a simulated warfare exercise at the Royal Thai Army Cavalry Center in Saraburi Province, Thailand, in 2018. File Photo: IC


China is delivering two customized VT4 main battle tanks to an undisclosed foreign buyer.

Transported by trucks, two VT4 tanks left for their destination following a launch ceremony, Weihutang, military affairs column affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Friday, citing a video released by the Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group under the state-owned China North Industries Group (NORINCO).

The tanks are not the standard VT4 version and instead are equipped with a different turret boost design. The front design features a new explosive reactive armor, Weihutang said.

This upgraded VT4 offers enhancements with extra protection capabilities, the report said, citing military experts.

Further details on the deal have not been released, such as the purchase amount, overall value, and client name.

Also known as the MBT3000, the VT4 is a new generation of made-for-export combat tank designed for the international market, Weihutang said, noting that it is one of the most popular Chinese weapons available and has been sold to Thailand and Nigeria.

The VT4 is equipped with a 125-millimeter smoothbore gun, can fire armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS), high explosive anti-tank cartridges, and missiles with a 5-kilometer range.

Equipped with a China-made 1,200-horsepower diesel-fueled engine and a hydromechanical drive system, the VT4 can travel at a maximum speed of 70 kph and a maximum cross-country speed of 50 kph.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1186834.shtml


Congrats for Pakistan, they get the most latest version of VT-4 MBT



Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition
POSTED ON FRIDAY, 24 APRIL 2020 15:41


According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) VT4 is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.


Chinese VT4 main battle tank with ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the hull. (Picture source China Defense Blog)

The VT4 MBT (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).

The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.

The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.

The hull and turret of the VT4 are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.


Close view of the ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the VT4 main battle tank (Picture source China Defense Blog)

Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.

Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.

A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.

Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.


Chinese-made ERA armour level (Picture source Twitter)

https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...armour_against_tandem_warhead_ammunition.htm l

[RC4]

Fotos during testing in 2018

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

What they've done essentially, with the Chinese designations for ERA "FY-4" is add 10mm more, to each of the two armored steel plates that make up the ERA "panel/case". The term used to describe the plates (And please from memory.) is "flyer/orflyers" which when struck, will shift to break up the jets causing disruption to the warhead thus reducing it's penetration into the RHA armor.

Earlier versions and the Chinese model from the ref below in general follows the history of ERA which started with just Steel plates.
Paras 4-6 get to the issue.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/chinese_vt4_tanks_fitted_with_fy-iv_era_explosive_reactive_armour_against_tandem_wa rhead_ammunition.html

There are three other types (That I'm familiar with, NERA, NxRA and SLERA. These have their advantages and many consider them to be better and or superior to ERA. What can't be denied is they're all much lighter. The following covers these in an easy manner, I hope is at the end of the article, you'll see were it's sourced from.

Also though, as I've heard of the technology involved I couldn't remember the names they are also in this article as I've just read it.

So under "Reactive armor technologies under development for battle tanks" you'll find what you want, if you want it.
https://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/23376863/AMP15909p037.pdf/cd957a6c-123e-47a4-8cee-e94395d1bb3f

The above comes from the USA Research community, note the sources at the end of each article.

I just don't know yet how much of a difference those 10mm's are going to make a difference. are we talking as a matter of increasing the ERA package as in the game now for the VT-4, by a factor of 10%, 15% or 20% I just don't have the information now to make a "good educated guess". I am pretty sure that it probably won't be more then 20% - 25% at best.

And I'm not "keen" on that 25% until I break out my calculator. :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Karagin]

GD has unveiled their entry for the US Army Light Tank Competition:

So they are trying the XM8 AGS again? Wow...they tried once in the 90s with this.

[RC4]

Regarding French 105mm Guns
French guns are designated “Canon 105mm” or CN105, I suggest in game “CN105mm” this way everyone would understand it is a French gun.
As for sub-types, we have:
- “Gun F1 81”(L/56) for the French AMX30. I suggest the name “CN105mm Mle67” to all of them. Has the OCC F1 Mle60 HEAT round, from 1993-98 it received the OFL105G2 APFSDS and the from 1999 the OFL105F2 DU APFSDS (developed in 1995)

- “CN D1504” (L/44), Argentinian “FTR” is a similar gun made under licence (used by Paraguay too). Also, Austrian SK105 “Gun F 65”. I suggest the name “CN105mm Mle57” to all of them. The Israel “CN D1” (L/51) is D1508 (Chile too). They are all the same guns, accuracy should change to all users from 11 to 14.

- “Gun G1” it’s the “CN105mm Mle57” (L/44) with a modified muzzle brake to fire the new OFL105G1 APFSDS

- “Gun F3 78” (L/48) of the AMX10RC is the “CN105mm F2 78”, it was introduced only in 1981 and its APFSDS OFL105F3 was introduced only in 1987. From 2010 it was updated to AMX10RCR with a new “CN105mm G2” (L/50)
The Argentina SK105A1 in game have a “Gun F3 78”, that’s bad info, all SK105A1/2 have the “CN105mm G1”. The Austrian Army SK105s have “G2” and “G3” guns shown, Brazilian SK105A2S have “G2”, but that’s not right, it was G1 all the time

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

MAY TANK NEWS AND YES I'M TRACKING THEM ALL with a couple of extras.

ARGENTINA: The Nahuel DL43 is already in the game. This shows some rare pictures of the tank with an interesting background story.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/nahuel-dl-43/

BRAZIL: Looking for a tank at 50 tons w/ a low recoil 120mm MG. As the poster suggests, the T-84-120 Yagatan (Ukraine) is ready made and has been updated w/ the OPLOT-M FCS for UKRAINE's use as I posted late last Fall. If selected the FCS should look kike THAILAND's OPLOT-T as revised again in the last patch. Also Japan is mentioned in the 2nd ref, I wonder why? :rolleyes:.
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44508
(Janes link is dead (Which is what I had.) as I've said those are perishable.)
https://monch.com/mpg/news/land/6884-brazilian-requirements-for-new-tank-and-fire-support-vehicle.html
(This reports a 8x8 FSV as well.)

Also requiring follow-up (Which will probably be fielded first.), BRAZIL is further looking into upgrading their LEO2A5-BR tanks.

CHINA: They have deployed the TYPE-15 in the Tibetan Region, as expected. This tank would be at the forefront of any action against India in that region and surrounding areas due to road conditions in that region.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industr y/chinese_army_ztq15_or_type_15_main_battle_tank_now _deployed_in_tibet_region.html

ALSO: An older story (AUG 2016) that however due to costs of the TYPE-99 Series of tanks still holds true now. This article is on the what was then to come, the TYPE-96B tank.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/meet-the-backbone-of-chinas-deadly-new-tank-force/

CROATIA: This next again as above is just good information that's tracks most of what's known on M-95 DEGMAN it was a newer source I crossed checked against others that had "snippets" of newer data in it. This tank like most from the last submission to the patch was a resubmission from the pervious year that appeared originally ONLY in the MBT THREAD and put "back to together" in the Patch Post Thread as
Parts 1-3 for the last game patch. I made some minor adjustments based on this and newer information to that tank from when it originally was posted the previous year.
https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-m-95-degman

CZECH REPUBLIC: 30 T72M4CZ will be upgraded by 2023 with new components and electronics to include the FCS among others. Also they be able to fire the new EPpSV-97 APFSDS round that pierces 540 mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) at 2,000 m. I can see this in effect by JUN 2021 with enough units to establish "roughly" a company of these tanks pending no delays or cancellation of the program (COVID-19 is already delaying several armored programs or worse at this time, as will be shown as I post those articles.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indust ry/army_of_the_czech_republic_to_upgrade_some_30_t-72_mbts_by_2023.html

It's time "I squared myself away" before I just might not!?! No worries, that won't happen because of you know who!! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

My time has been limited as of late and it's back to work today I endeavor to do the best I can with the time I have, there's lots going on across the Threads I've stated. Going backwards slightly first.

News and Guesses...

CHINA: We start with the TYPE-15, which the PLA plans have 300 of, is to receive an APS System. This will also be offered on the export version VT-4. I found this of interest in ref. 1, "Next to the 105-millimeter tank gun, the [ZTQ-15] is reportedly armed with a 35-millimeter grenade launcher and a 12.7-millimeter machine gun.", I might've missed it as modeled in the game, however, I rather get more information on this.
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

There has been nothing more on this since ref.2 that's popped up on the APS System. I therefore wish to see more data on this.

FRANCE: Of the 6 major MBT Projects that are on going this will be one of the few we'll actually see get in the game, my thinking at this point is, we'll see the LeClerc XLR in the Summer or Fall of 2021. Also to be addressed, will be improved Armor, FCS and I'm "on the fence" concerning TI/GSR, I see an improvement but, it's more about how much.
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/september_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/french_army_accelerates_modernization_of_land_forc e.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

FRANCE/GERMANY: The MBT we won't see, the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS.) MBT. This is a joint venture project started in 2012. The MBT is expected to be available prior to 2035 when it's believed that both the LeClerc and LEOPARD 2 will essentially become obsolete. This is the same tank Poland was trying to get involved with as I've posted on for a little over a year now.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/france_and_germany_agree_on_new_main_ground_combat _system_mgcs_mbt.html

And with that I'm done for now, have a great day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

With a purpose in mind, for now I'm only going to post this website before I continue with going through my MBT Folder. This website was instrumental in my ability to see the LEOPARD A27 UNIT 267 get into the game. It provided me with definitive "proof of life" they existed to include the unit operating them and some great pictures during an exercise.

It also shows the LEOPARD's currently in service and others as prototypes. This includes and or mentions two that went out of active service in 2004 and 2008 (Though 15 of each would continue in training operations up to 2018.) which of course would be the LEOPARD 2A4/2A5 tanks.

I'm tracking the LEOPARD 2A7V development currently. The first to be updated to the standard will be the LEOPARD 2A7 as they can obviously be upgraded and fielded the fastest. The rest will come from a mix of mostly stored LEOPARD 2A4 rounded out with some LEOPARD 2A6 MBT's.

What's at issue is the modernization was to have started in 2019 running through 2023 for a total of about or slightly less then 250 tanks.

I'm still searching for something more solid to verify this.

I'm going to contact the site owner to see if I can work out a "little something" and see if he has anything more to offer concerning the LEOPARD 2A7V.

Not like I haven't done it in the past, and as some know I have been mostly successful and managed to get the information requested. So a request to their MOD won't be out of the question, I'll just have to gauge/evaluate the situation at the time.
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=148

He has some great shots of the STRYKER 30mm which I'll post under the main site.
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=28
http://tank-masters.de/?cat=4
Stroll down to 21 FEB.
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=810

I remember having issues trying to link back to this site quite awhile back and thought it a dead site. But while looking into the LEOPARD 2A7/A7V a couple of nights back, there it was about 3 pages into my search. It made me a very happy "researcher" knowing it's back in my "tool box".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As I turn 41 again for the 20th time, I thought I'd leave you with some news before we're off to Savannah for a couple of days with our masks in hand.

As will happen I occasion, I'll be going backwards to start before picking up where I left off in my last "NEWS" post.

BRAZIL: Well if Turkey can do it so can Brazil, however theirs will be more of an extensive upgrade then Turkeys. LEOPARD 1A5BR fleet to get various upgrades for all 220 tanks. ACTIONABLE
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/brazilian-army-seeks-to-update-its-leopard-1a5br-mbts
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=brazil+to+upgrade+leopard+1a5br+tanks&docid=13894157431656&mid=4DE91E7F1BCF8BCDA8694DE91E7F1BCF8BCDA869&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

GERMANY: Old but relevant news. Expansion.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/german_army_increases_its_military_power_with_new_ tank_battalion.html

G1: The LEOPARD 2A6 contribution to the fielding of the LEOPARD 2A7V. This I brought up in my last post. The ref is also indicating the first delivered batch of the 2A7V was to have been handed over by late 2019. Also apparently they are now going to have 329 2A7V tanks vice the original order of 225. Just became ACTIONABLE.

G2. The first LEOPARD 2A6MA2 was turned over in April 2018 as dated in the below ref. ACTIONABLE
https://www.army-technology.com/news/german-army-takes-delivery-modified-leopard-2-a6ma2-battle-tanks/
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=6790

G3: This next deals with DENMARK receiving 44 LEOPARD 2A7 tanks by 2022. This also "bleeds over" to the 2A7V, in that the ref offers more supporting data to the upgrade of this model. Based on the current data I hold to this point, I see no reason why we can't just copy the current GERMAN 2A7 over to DENMARKS OOB.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/denmark_and_germany_to_receive_latest_kmw_leopard_ 2a7_main_battle_tank.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/leopard_2a7_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_pi ctures_video.html

GERMANY/HUNGRY and QATAR: This doesn't apply to GERMANY, they went the route of the 2A7 and now the 2A7V as noted above. I also provide the following additional info for this section only...
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=264
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=280

What HUNGRY (Will get)/QATAR (Have already) is the "watered down" version, the "giveaway" for me was the following from the first ref...
"The gunner’s station is fitted with an EMES 15 stabilized main sight and a FERO Z18 auxiliary sighting telescope." Germany is beyond that with ATTICA and I believe, SRATUS being the newest FCS which the Germans use.
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
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/rheinmetall_to_manufacture_main_armament_and_hulls _for_hungarian_pzh_2000_self-propelled_howitzer_and_leopard_2a7_mbt.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/leopard_2a7_mbt_main_battle_tank_urban_operations_ data.htmlACTIONABLE TRACK W/SIPRI.

I need some sleep!!

Take Care!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Digital communication and Blue Force Tracking is the only upgrade to the LEOPARD 2A6MA2 and it might be a big deal in RL but it changes nothing in the game

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I concur, I was "sitting on the fence" about it for the same reasons. More an exercise of "testing the winds" when just before going to bed, I flashed back to one of our very first submission "discussions" that focused on an M-60 RISE variant I felt we needed at the time to fill in a RL "tank gap" for historical accuracy.

So yes it's a nice to know thing but, not worth the effort to put it in the game as it has "no added value".

The ability to reflect upon one's action is a gift not to be ignored. ;)

Before I find I have "no added value" I better get off of here and get ready to head up the road!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

We continue by going backwards again first...
FINLAND: There is an issue here besides a minor name change to Finland's UNIT 021 LEOPARD 2A6, it should be renamed as LEOPARD 2A6FIN.

That was the easy part, it turns out the Finn's bought those tanks from the NETHERLANDS, I reference UNIT 037 LEOPARD 2NLA6. Part of the agreement was, that those tanks were to be further upgraded from the 2NLA6 standard prior to Finland taking delivery of them.

At a minimum Finland's UNIT 021 in operational capabilities should be an exact copy of the Netherland's UNIT 037.

It also appears from the next that the START should be either APR/or JUN 2016.

I quote "Colonel Rainer Peltoniemi, commander of the Häme Armoured Battalion, added that the Finnish Army had begun training with the Leopard 2A6 very quickly, starting in 2016. “It has been excellent to see how these tanks were introduced into operational use in such a short time,” Peltoniemi said,..."

This is why I favored APR over JUN, they've already operated the LEOPARD's for years and are a highly professional service.

What is unknown to me at this time is simply, were there any other combat related upgrades made to those tanks besides what's listed (NON-STARTERS) in the "teaser" article from JANE's?

I'll look further into this but, I stand by the matching/merging of those units as essentially direct copies at this time.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/finland-receives-final-batch-of-leopard-2a6fin-mbts

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Tried to get this out early this morning but, exprienced log-in issues.

My focus is simply to close the loop concerning the LEOPARD 2A6FIN. The previous/last post is an important part of this process.

I can say without a doubt in my mind that, operationally speaking, the Dutch LEOPARD 2NLA6 and the Finnish LEOPARD 2A6FIN are the same tanks. So a direct copy will work in this case into Finland's OOB. Units noted in my last.

Several other items were bought along with the tanks to include the trainers (Which were the only item to be later upgraded by THALES. The trainers will be completely made current. The advantage for the Finnish Army is should they decide to further upgrade these tanks in the future, the crews will be able to train on the new systems before they are put into the tanks.), Ammo and Engineer tanks.

Also in the search for any further upgrades to the LEOPARD 2A6FIN, the only other item that came up was that Finland will be buying additional ammo for these tanks from Israel during this and next year. I did not save that article as again I don't think there's that much difference between the ammo made by Elbit Land Systems (Formally IMI.) and Rheinmetall of Germany where the Dutch bought theirs from. But most of this buy is for HE 120mm tank ammo.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/finland-receives-final-batch-of-leopard-2a6fin-mbts
(Bottom para with the upgrades made, again non-game issues.)

But a two week earlier ref brings up the next issue, this concerning UNIT 024 LEOPARD A24S it would appear, well let me do it this way first from the next ref...
"The Leopard 2A6s will replace the Finnish Army’s Leopard 2A4s as the main battle tank of the Finnish Army. The Leopard 2A4s have been moved into reserve or training units following the delivery of Leopard 2A6s, with the exception of 12 that were converted into combat engineering and bridging vehicles, and will remain in frontline service. The Finnish Army will retain them (2A4s-mine) for driver training and as a source of spare parts for the Leopard 2A6s." So...

OP#1: If we accept the following from above, "The Leopard 2A6s will replace the Finnish Army’s Leopard 2A4s as the main battle tank of the Finnish Army." AND assuming the last batch (OCT. 2019.) became operational by JAN. 2020 then I recommend UNIT 024 LEOPARD 2A4S END date be changed to JAN. 2020 vice DEC. 2025.

OP#2: But if we go with the next sentence from above, "The Leopard 2A4s have been moved into reserve or training units following the delivery of Leopard 2A6s (Which delivery?-Mine), with the exception of 12 that were converted into combat engineering and bridging vehicles, and will remain in frontline service." As I go on in the below para, it's anyone's guess.

Given the ambiguity of those two statements, I rather would want to go with OP#1 and be "SAFER THEN SORRIER", I feel it's the best option as I can't find anything to support the same for an earlier date for withdrawal of the Finnish LEOPARD 2A4S from frontline service. I can even see and support NLT JUN. 2020 as well if you think it best. Certainly the LEOPARD 2A6FIN (Last batch received last OCT. 2019.) would've been fully integrated into the Finnish Army by last month and there haven't been any articles to the contrary, I came across in my search on both these tanks.
https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/10/30/final-finnish-leopard-2a6s-delivered/

An early article concerning the first delivery. You'll notice the information has stayed consistent from May 2015 through essentially NOV. 2019.
https://world-defense.com/threads/finland-has-taken-delivery-of-the-first-20-leopard-2a6-mbts-from-the-netherlands.2134/

Now I'm off to bed, before someone thinks, it's with my head for not going to bed sooner!?! :D

Almost forgot we'll need another LEOPARD 2A6FIN with HE ammo as they got that from the Dutch and the buy from Elbit Land Systems will primarily consist of HE ammo as also.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I've stated many times I like to see equipment doing things vice sitting looking like a "static" display. With that in mind and from Finnish source's, I have 4 of the LEOPARD 2A6FIN and 1 of the LEOPARD 2A4FS. if there is a desire.

TO BE CORRECTED EVENTUALLY

Well it's TGIF for me, the last couple of days were rough with a our wonderful humidity and temps heat index 102 - 112 for the last 2 weeks, blah!!! :cool: (I wish!)

Well something didn't quite go right I'll have to fix this later. :cold:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well first THANK YOU to Don for taking care of the technical glitch associated with the picture of the last post!!

So as I was conducting my search for more "action packed" pictures of the Finnish LEOPARD 2A4/2A6FIN (Of which I found some good ones of. ;)), won't you know I would come across some very interesting news concerning their LEOPARD 2A4. I was so very happy I did based on my last posts. :rolleyes:

Though I did leave an out of JUN 2020 END, I really didn't think it necessary until the below two refs from Feb/Mar 2020 where the "star" of the show (NATO Exercise Cold Response 2020.) for Finland was...yes the LEOPARD 2A4. Anyone for DEC 2020!?!

I'm at a momentary loss for a "Simile" at the moment after that last! :dk: (Sorta.)

Anyway...
https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=3491
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/finland-withdraws-cold-response-2020
(COVID-19 strikes in a separate exercise!?!)

UKRAINE: I think I'll "kick the tires" with this Ref, I like what my "snoopy around" is showing so far. It offers a really good look at the upgraded T-80BV tanks I think we just got the last patch.
https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=3663

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm going to skip ahead a bit because of the subject matter of one of the refs below. Quite frankly I'm surprised somewhat that nobody hasn't already "jumped" on this story and it's a good thing because I'd be forced to take "the wind out of your sails" which is never fun for me.

I will be focused on ABRAMS on this post. First off what's being done to them to stave off obsolesce issues and where we're at, from 5/20...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/m1a2_abrams_main_battle_tanks_need_solutions_to_al leviate_obsolescence_issues.html

We're still handing out ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V2 from 8/19...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/u.s._combat_team_receives_first_m1a2_sepv_2_abrams _tanks_following_armor_conversion.html

The rest generally revolve around the ABRAMS M1A2 SEP 3/M1A2C...
Strike Shield APS anyone, anyone? From 12/19...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/rheinmetall_strikeshield_active_close-in_protection_system_selected_for_testing_by_u.s._ army.html

Cooling down the the TI from 5/20...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industr y/meggitt_defense_systems_will_delivered_thermal_man agement_system_for_m1_abrams_tanks.html

First Brigade to get M1A2C SOoooNn from 5/19...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_industr y/first_brigade_of_m1a2_sep_v3_abrams_mbts_delivered _soon.html

Don't get to excited because a year later...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industr y/us_army_3rd_battalion_8th_cavalry_receives_first_m 1a2_sp_v3_m1a2c_main_battle_tanks.html

Refer back to Ref.1 if you have any questions first please on the last item.

A little history. While tracking the ABRAMS SEP V2 for submission, I had to wait for sometime because the USA equipped around 8 Brigades before that tank reached FOC. That's not to say the M1A2C won't be fast tracked (Though the record already shows it hasn't.) and brought to FOC sooner. However I'm feeling much more comfortable about the revised START Date I submitted for the last Patch based on these Refs as submitted.

The following are for GP and of minor (Or more?) interest...

The longest running and comprehensive Ref on ABRAMS (Among many others.)
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/digital-abrams-the-m1a2-sep-program-updated-02834/

Well the USA buys foreign, specifically from the UKRAINE again, in 2003 we bought over a year 4 T-80UD tanks. So in 3/18 were getting ready to buy a OPLOT-M. If you read the article carefully, you'll understand the future value to the UKRAINE concerning potential advances in their armor development.
https://world-defense.com/threads/us-reaches-deal-with-ukraine-to-supply-one-oplot-main-battle-tank.5352/

This in no way unusual I've personally seen what I swore was a MERKAVA being transported up I-26 West about 45 minutes East of Columbia, S.C. about 4-5yrs ago.

And don't think the Russians didn't take an interest in the "diluted" IRAQI M1A1 tanks we sold them.

And so it goes round and round again.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The reason Don took down the tank picture in Post 1053 was because if you went to "save as" it linked back directly to my PC's saved "Picture" file. Not good!

Never had a problem attaching pictures to my posts before 2 July 2020 when MS determined we're all to have EDGE Chromium and their hearing about it in their forum pages. So these are from my IMGUR account.

What I'm first posting are all from Finnish sources. I noted we would need probably 2 LEOPARD 2A6FIN units in the OOB and now I see the wisdom of doing the same for the current LEOPARD 2A4AS in the OOB as well. 1 each in an anti-tank role and 1 each in a general purpose role as I believe the current UNIT 021 LEOPARD 2A4AS is modeled with 10 HE rounds. This makes sense in that the primary mission of their tanks is to take out the other guys tanks. But as noted in my last Finnish post, they've made a huge buy in primarily HE 120mm Ammo from ELBIT Land Systems (Again formally IMI.)

The first two are LEOPARD 2A4s with their Winter Camo...https://i.imgur.com/TPYEd9c.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/wbpKwqA.jpg

Primary LEOPARD 2A4 pictures for submission...
https://i.imgur.com/oR8MkQh.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/31M1u96.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/0SFXh2f.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/esnxVtY.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/8SGIdXr.jpg

My preference in order of photos is 5, 4 and 2.

Now for what I expect will be for the 2 LEOPARD 2A6FIN tank submission...
https://i.imgur.com/qWgCJhm.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/t7MpVS7.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/Cb151CK.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/kL70XZV.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/ZMfO0Cs.jpg

My preference in order of photos is 2nd Row left, and really about a tie for the Top photo or 2nd Row Right.

And that's that and back to the "grind" later this afternoon.

Have a good night, it's only 0130 CINCLANTHOME will wonder if I'm feeling alright going to bed so soon!?!

Hope this was of some use.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This next wasn't what I planned on posting on, however, in many ways this is potentially of more significance. Besides the French/German MGCS (Which like ARMATA we probably won't see but, has caused the "stir" with the issue below.) the significance falls in the potential of us possibly seeing the 130mm/L51 on an existing platforms before games end.

France: LeClerc XLR

Germany: LEOPARD 2A6 and up (Should it happen, more likely the 2A7)

Japan: TYPE 90

S. Korea: K2

Turkey: ALTAY (Won't happen since they started buying Russian
"frontline" equipment. This has already killed their F-35 deal.)

USA: ABRAMS M1A1 (I should think the M1A2 but, the article didn't mention it.)

UK: CHALLENGER 2 LEP (Which I feel has the best shot of getting it within the games time horizon. The upgrade as I understand it offers the 130mm/L51 as an option.)

I can't find the video the next points to, but note they had updated this article. It should look familiar to you and it was the tank I just posted last. However other refs say it's a modified LEO hull.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2020_global_security_army_indust ry/rheinmettall_unveils_new_leopard_tank_mbt_with_130 mm_cannon.html

The next is from last year it covers the issues of up-gunning tanks, logistics considerations and more. You would do yourself a dis-service by not taking a look at it concerning this topic, in my opinion.
The "More To Read" section has a couple of really good articles you will find "somewhat" related to this which I'll "pull out" concerning the T-14 ARMATA.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26170/france-tests-huge-140mm-tank-gun-as-it-pushes-ahead-with-germany-on-a-new-tank-design

The situation really hasn't changed in the last two years, in fact the economics have gotten worse.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22600/russia-cant-afford-its-new-t-14-armata-tanks-turns-to-updated-older-designs-instead

The article is relevant because Russia did follow through since the above by producing the T-72B3/B4, T-80BVM, T-90MS (Export) and T-90M the last benefitted the most from the ARMATA development I think we did a good job of replicating in the game.

It's late and it's my "TGIF" today, so good what ever...!! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I checked the thread and the conversation had already started back on 24 March 2020 and Suhiir gave a good argument why the USMC could get away with not having them due to support from attack helos and artillery. She unfortunately doesn't have a "crystal ball" and I'm pretty she's not a "witch" (You don't float on water do you!?! And be careful I did watch that "documentary" by MP concerning "The Holy Grail" therefore if you (If you were a witch.) float like wood and wood burns what you do with a witch? You burn it!!! Now back to our normal programming.) so therefore could foresee that's not going to be the case.

I will start from the beginning and pull a couple of quotes from each as needed.

24 March 2020:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a31915295/marine-corps-tanks/
This article is worth your time to read as you'll get some answers to the question, WHY?
"The Marines are eliminating all four tank battalions, including three active duty and one reserve battalion equivalent.

21 July 2020:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/07/21/marine-corps-begins-shutdown-of-all-tank-battalions.html

"All of 4th Tanks' six companies, along with its battalion headquarters, are expected to deactivate by the end of 2021, Hollenbeck said." (Maj. Roger Hollenbeck, a spokesman for Marine Forces Reserve.)

29 July 2020 0745:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2020_global_security_army_indust ry/last_usmc_m1_abrams_tank_to_be_transported_off_of_ exercise_support_division_lot.html

"from Marine Corps Combat Development Command: “The Marine Corps is redesigning the 2030 force for naval expeditionary warfare in actively contested spaces, fully aligning the service with the direction of the" National Defense Strategy, it said. To prepare itself for naval expeditionary warfare in contested areas and adapt its means to Chinese or Russian units, the Marine Corps has started to implement its plans to get rid of law enforcement battalions, tank battalions and associated military occupational specialties, and all bridging companies by 2030, according to the announcement that was released March 23. Additionally, the service intends to reduce the number of infantry battalions from 24 to 21; artillery cannon batteries from 21 to 5; amphibious vehicle companies from 6 to 4; and cut tiltrotor (MV-22 Osprey), attack and heavy lift squadrons. The blueprint of the plan calls for a total force reduction of approximately 12,000 personnel over a 10-year period, a decline of slightly less than 7 percent relative to the current structure."

"The Marine Corps plans to deactivate Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264; Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462; Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469; Marine Wing Support Groups 27 and 37; 8th Marine Regiment Headquarters Company; and 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines. It also intends to realign 1st Battalion, 8th Marines to 2nd Marines, and 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines to 6th Marines, while deactivating and relocating Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367 to Camp Pendleton, California. The Corps is canceling the activation of 5th Battalion, 10th Marines, but its assigned batteries will realign under the existing 10th Marine Regiment structure. The service expects to reduce the number of F-35B and F-35C primary aircraft authorized per squadron from 16 to 10, the announcement said."

You take away the training units in the beginning, the rest is sure to follow.

01 August 2020:
https://militaryleak.com/2020/08/01/us-marine-corps-shuts-down-m1a1-tank-units/

"...2nd Tank Battalion left Camp Lejeune, N.C., for the last time this week as part of the service’s sweeping modernization plan that envisions a more agile force..."

"Tank units on the East and West coasts shuttered this month and began hauling their armor to military depots."

West Coast:
"And the service isn’t dallying. Early this month, the 1st Tank Battalion at Twentynine Palms, Calif., said goodbye to its tanks. Weeks later, Alpha Company, 4th Tank Battalion cased its colors down the road at Camp Pendleton, the first of the Marine Corps Reserve battalion’s six companies expected to do so by the end of 2021. Last week, some 200 West Coast-based Abrams tanks, M-88 Recovery Vehicles and other equipment began moving through the Corps’ logistics base in Barstow, Calif., enroute to Army depots in California and Alabama. Hundreds of Marines in tank units will be able to change specialties or transfer into the Army to continue serving as tankers, and those with at least 15 years of service may apply for early retirement."

East Coast:
On the East Coast, 2nd Tank Battalion’s Charlie Company cased its colors last Friday, where company commander Capt. John Fergerson recalled the role its tanks played in the second battle for Fallujah in Iraq in 2004. The decision to do away with tanks does not diminish their value in past conflicts, the service’s top officials have said. They just won’t be a part of the Corps’ future. The tank units aren’t the only ones packing up. Three combat logistics units in California, North Carolina and Japan also shut down this summer, along with an engineer support battalion and Marine wing support group, both based in California.

The 4th Battalion will be the last Armor Unit to case their colors, which Company will have that "honor" to be last has not been announced that I'm aware.

At the rate this is accelerating, we have an End Date of DEC 2021 for all USMC Armor based on numerous reliable web sources.

Putting all the "Ouh Ra Ra" stuff aside and knowing how my Dad felt about his time in Armor, I won't begrudge any one of those folks if they took the Army offer, not one bit.

There's nothing to read into this it's pretty cut and dry and anyone who's served in the U.S. Military knows how fast things can move when the upper C of C is motivated and the CORPS is obviously motivated about Plan 2030.

The 1st refs offers the reasons logic for why but, as quoted from the
interview, in the same breath along with China, mentions Russia.

Russia will unlikely be an issue to U.S. interests in Asia or the Pacific. However the Baltic and North Sea would be contested and the CORPS would play a major role in "holding the line" especially as with everything else that happened this week, POTUS is talking about pulling around 12K troops out of Germany and bringing about 1/2 them back home and reassign the rest to diffrent European countries.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/08/02/german-defense-minister-planned-us-troop-withdrawal-regrettable/

There is a thought process by the "experts" that the Army can provide the Armor, sure if we have some there in Europe (And remember we just put some back a few years ago after taking them home as well.)

I support the thoughts of some that the CORPS should at least keep the 4th Reserve Battalion at full strength and move it to the East Coast so it's available if needed, to go to Europe.

Things can change as we're in a Presidential election cycle, if not, then we'll know the outcome before the next Patch.

But again, as it stands now, CORPS Armor final flag will be cased by DEC 2021.
https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2293758/railops-transports-divested-tanks-and-other-heavy-equipment-from-usmc-to-army/

I thought some might want to see what the CORPS has to say. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

By deactivating the reserve battalion last the Corps save itself a LOT of money on maintenance and consumables because they're only in use once a month (for the most part) but maintains the ability to field armor if needed.

There are significant problems with maintaining such a force structure in the long run tho. Around half of USMC reservists are prior active duty and when the active tanks go away so does that pool of already trained/experiences manpower. Then there's the issue of the elimination of bridging units, and the fact that reserve units rarely get to actually train in amphibious operations.

So for all intents and purposes once the last active duty tank battalion is deactivated so is USMC armor. So the question is ... When is the last active duty tank unit due to be deactivated?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Concerning Active Tank Battalions, and based on what the refs have shown us thus far, it's taken the CORPS 4 months to deactivate the 1st Marine Tank Battalion and the 2nd MTB had one of it's four companies deactivated.

I feel at this pace and allowing for slight delays at the Army Depots to accept (The "yard" might be full to some degree because of the USA ABRAMs that are awaiting modernization to the M1A2C (SEP 3) standard.) anymore tanks.

My instinct is telling me, March 2021 for active duty deactivation, give or take a month. Otherwise no official date has been set.

I still think we should use the given date. It strikes me odd that it appears they're in a hurry to deactivate the "active" units but then "drag their feet" on the reserve component another year.

Again there is discussion within the CORPS and outside of it to save the 4th Tank Battalion.

I'd prefer the "wait and see attitude" and just simply make one change instead of two or more in the game.

And there's still the potential things could change after the November elections as well.

I know it's still going to happen, until I submit my last Patch Submission, but I'm just really tired of "chasing dates" and last years ABRAMS rework is coming to mind right now. So on this one my heads really at what I expressed in the previous two sentences above.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

I still think we should use the given date. It strikes me odd that it appears they're in a hurry to deactivate the "active" units but then "drag their feet" on the reserve component another year.
Money shortage?
The active units probably consume considerably more of it.

Something like 2/3rds of US Abrams will be in mothballs rather than active, made a bit over 8,000 if memory serves correctly.

[DRG]

I'd prefer the "wait and see attitude" and just simply make one change instead of two or more in the game.

That is EXACTLY what is going to happen. That kind of change requires code adjustment AND a picklist change and that isn't going to happen until the fat lady sings because that is not going to be done based on assumptions then redone based on fact.

[Suhiir]

Yep, messing with "Formations" and "Picklists" ain't fun.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John...
I just lost my "beautiful" dissertation, I'll just will you with the final thought I had before "poof" and it disappeared.

Not money directly, however, more redirecting it from tanks to support newer weapons systems outside the norm.

Simply my concern and again others within of retired from the Marines is Russia. The ground will be different it will be a land war after they land and I don't see Russia giving up their tanks because the Marines gave up theirs.

I don't see them repeating what the Germans did at Dunkirk with their tanks.

I resubmit this article again because it gives a good overview of the decision to move ahead with PLAN 2030 concerning the Marine Corps force restructuring, future operations and likely new weapons systems they'll use for air and sea denial in retaking any islands captured by China.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a31915295/marine-corps-tanks/

Back to the GRIND. Have a good day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

I have no doubt that there will be a USMC warehouse somewhere that will have a couple dozen squired away " just in case"

[Karagin]

I am wondering how the ideas of "drone" tanks are going pan out.

[Imp]

I am wondering how the ideas of "drone" tanks are going pan out.
Okay vs a low tech opponent but high tech jammed or even control taken over.

[Karagin]

I am wondering how the ideas of "drone" tanks are going pan out.
Okay vs a low tech opponent but high tech jammed or even control taken over.

That is them in a nutshell, but they are being pushed as the next best thing for the military. Drone and automated everything. What year did SkyNet go online again??:D

[Suhiir]

I have no doubt that there will be a USMC warehouse somewhere that will have a couple dozen squired away " just in case"
Barstow most likely.

But the problem isn't really the tanks themselves but people that know how to operate them effectively and the support (bridging, fuel, ect.) needed to make them useful.

Tanks have ALWAYS been viewed as primarily infantry support in the USMC not anti-armor. With the fancy new optics, drones, GPS, precision weapons, etc. in that role they can be pretty well replaced by other assets.

It's sort of a question if the increased use/cost of replacing precision munitions is offset by the money saved from disbanding the tanks.

And then there's the "minor" problem of what happens if the US can't seize/maintain air superiority. But such a situation would effect the US Army, and it's tanks, far more then the USMC.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I would think air superiority would be dictated more "locally (To include who the enemy is." then say even "tactically" or "strategically" as some things really haven't changed much since the Cold War. The general feeling was that "air superiority" wouldn't really be achieved fully due to the West's perceived and otherwise technology advances in aircraft against the East's average or better aircraft with a distinct quantitative advantage. It'd be a wash.

That's not all my opinion, as much form declassified military and intelligence documents some of which I posted a few years back in someone's thread.

I really don't see how much has changed in this regard from the Cold War, we didn't build enough F-22 fighters but we have enough for
"local" air superiority in well planned op. The Russian T-50 PAK/FA will never reach the maturity it was initially designed for because they can't afford it after, of all countries, India backed out of the deal because Russia wouldn't make the necessary design changes to where that fighter could've been much more competitive in combat against the F-22.

So what'll they do? Like in the Cold War fill the skies with aircraft in the quantitative advantage they still enjoy today.

So what are we going to do, well, it's long overdue but we'll be fielding SHORAD systems in the USA and USMC within the next couple of years or sooner. This will fill an anti-air gap we've been vulnerable to for a very longtime.

On the tanks let there no doubt that the USA is getting/got those tanks back, if you read the refs closely, they technically and otherwise speaking, already have 200 of them.
These are continuations of what I've already posted but from JANE's...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/usmc-moving-ahead-with-ground-vehicle-divestiture
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-delivering-m1a2c-abrams-tanks-to-soldiers

Now if I was one for "conspiracy theories", I'd say PLAN 2030 was a misinformation plot to lull the Chinese and Russians into thinking "Bring on those Marines with no tanks, we'll show them!!"

But what's really happening is both services recognize the fact that the USMC armor needed to be more fully modernized to face the newer tanks out there. So we tell the world "No more tanks for the USMC." they transport to the very USA depots that are building what?

That's right the M1A2C (SEP 3). So the USMC will get their tanks back at parity in type, they'll be forward deployed in crates marked as "Farm Tractors" and such :cool: (Don't laugh the Russians, Cubans and Chinese have been caught doing the same thing, though a longtime ago. :eek:) until we need them.

Of course due to the classified nature of this project, we'll still likely need to END them in the game as already noted...Thought I heard a knock at my door!?!...and I can't say much more about this, hope you'll all understand this. ;)

Don be careful you almost had this figured with that "warehouse" remark, they don't like people that get "to close to the truth", just saying!! :shock:

So a long day and still have things to do before I hit the rack!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm "bouncing around" I know, but, just think of it as "Alphabet Soup" for now and in the future. Because the next concerns IRAN and a tank I'll be submitting for the next patch or whenever Andy and Don feel like one is necessary.

Alright some background. Iran received the T-72M which is the export version of the Russian T-72A. I have had numerous discussions in the Threads concerning the fact that the "Big Boys" essentially don't share their toys with their "Friends" for numerous reasons mostly falling under "security" in some manner.

So the next is a perfect example of that. The main differences between the T-72A and T-72M is that, 1) No Composite Armor and 2) It has a lesser FCS also. They (Iran) however upgraded theirs in Russia to the T-72BM which added ERA blocks for a 1.7% increase in protection over the standard T-72M. Also the MG is the 125mm D-1 which will remain unchanged in the latest modification below.

So Iran has upgraded them to the T-72S. What I like about the first ref. is I have 2 pics showing each MBT in a similar angle.

The last four paras of ref 1, breakdown what's new so, starting there. The aspect I'm using is looking at the front of the MBT...

1. MG unchanged as noted above. Ammo I believe is unchanged as well, with 45 total of which 22 are the carousel.

2. RWS is a 12.7mm with optics package not clearly shown in ref 1 but, it's there.

3) It is definitely fitted with a new FCS. I see 2 different mirrors in the "sight housing" note the RED mirror is the LR (On the RS) and the CLEAR for the TI/GSR. It would appear this set up allows for a "hunter killer" mode of operation as well. If the KARRIN(?) is sitting at TI/GSR 45, I would expect the same for this MBT.

4) ERA is definitely of a newer GEN then the current model. If you look at the top picture (New MBT.) notice the ERA Blocks are more "rectangular" then the "box" ones on the bottom picture.

5) You can clearly see the side skirts have new armored plates attached to them and the Slat Armor is protecting the rear engine area.

What's not pointed out...

6) The new MBT has a GPS/Weather Mast extended on the turret center rear, this tells me the FCS is fairly advanced. Both of these have a direct correlation to the FCS performance, i.e. If the FCS knows where you're at that data will enable the system to accurately and faster provide a firing solution to the target. The Weather Mast function will allow the FCS to develop a better firing solution by correcting for windage and humidity etc. that could affect the accuracy of the projectile in hitting the target otherwise.

7) Note the grenade launchers are of a newer type as well. I would think a better self protection version on this MBT.

7a.) Look very closely at the front right of the turret/upper slope/just to the left of the ERA Block, that's a LASER warning system. I'll bet the house on it. ;)
You can just make out the same on left side (Extreme front edge of the turret as well. That'll give it at least a min of 180` protection out to around 230` - 240` warning protection based on the angle they are mounted on the front turret. I'm not seeing any on the rear at this time which of course would indicate a full 360` LASER warning detection capability. The current model doesn't have this as far as I can tell. Of course as it's related to ATGW.

There you have it, it might be operational now, I will need to look further into this and a couple of other issues.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_august_2020_global_security_army_indu stry/iran_unveils_new_production_line_to_modernize_t-72_mbts_main_battle_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2020_global_security_army_indust ry/iran_irgc_unveils_new_armored_personnel_carriers_a nd_upgraded_t-72m_main_battle_tank.html

I'm going to enjoy the rest of my last day day off before you know what starts again with a "newbie" as a partner. :D I always have to train the new guys, you'd think the Lt. knows what I'm doing, boy, have I got him fooled!! :eek: :rolleyes:

Whenever! Whatever! Wherever! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

Some pictures that offer a better view
I thought Iran fitted their homemade ERA your saying that has been upgraded again?
https://i.imgur.com/RRBpMqo.png
https://i.imgur.com/mPGORKp.jpg

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Caught me as I was getting ready to call it a night. But yes, that is a newer Gen ERA on that MBT. I feel your pictures shows that more clearly as compared to the current T-72 used by Iran. They still look a little longer top to bottom, or as I described them, more "rectangular" versus "square" which is better than "boxy".

With that being said, I'm not sure if it's the same as being used on the KARRIN (And please relying on memory for the name.) currently which was to have had a newer ERA Pkg. as well. It might be the same, just haven't had the chance to compare the T-72S pictures against it yet, which was one of those issues I eluded to in my last Post.

So again a less then handful of items to check, however, it's a tank I know I can submit for the next Patch as I noted as well. That's the "big deal" for me.

I'm doing the best I can, but, I'm getting tired of chasing dates for tanks in my mind won't see the "light of day" in our game such as the ALTAY (Which the "clock" is still on 0 month of the 18, Turkey expects it'll take to get it fielded once they figure out the engine issues. I've posted on this already.) and ARMATA which the T-90M has possibly killed COVID-19 not withstanding for that or any other outstanding programs we're tracking at the moment.

The F-35 and other Programs are barely managing to stay on track or possibly be canceled (AJAX.). The new WARRIOR upgrade might be another "nail in the AJAX coffin" but we might get resolution on AJAX by Mid/Late Fall of his year.

I don't think for F-35 concerning FOC we're going to get beyond the USMC and Israel having them before 2025. And if we do it's going to very late game wise in 2024/2025 and to me that's a lot of slots for something we're going to get maybe for only a short period of time.

And FOC/Fielding/Fully Operational etc. has always been the "Gold Standard" for the game since I've been involved with it concerning equipment.

I gotta go!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

ALSO: Note the spacing between the blocks, the gap is much tighter on the T-72S as compared to the below tank on my last. That greatly increases the efficiency of the ERA blocks which again suggests next GEN. I just had to check that last Post again!?! :doh: :doh:

[Suhiir]

Currently (as best I can determine) the US Navy intends to keep the F-18E/F for the air superiority role (primarily). And use the F-35C as it's attack/strike aircraft.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well my "confusion" on VIRSS and CIWS came up again, however I guessed right and checked the game manual also. ;) So I took a look at the Russian T-72B3/B4 UNIT 697.

Before I get to the "why" of the matter, lets go back I believe 3/or4 years ago. I was working on the B3 when I believe the Russians in the "submission" year moved on to the B4 (So we're talking about a 2 year time span overall.) when Don and I had some on & offline conversations about this tank issue as it concerned the OOB in terms of slots left with equipment that were still being developed at the time (And still now.) that felt we were going to get entered by games end.

The differences were noted with minimal conflicts equipment wise that we settled. We decided in the interest of the game and players to build a hybrid i.e. the T-72B3/B4 UNIT 697. All I can tell you is the AI really likes this tank. I also feel again as before it's one of the best tanks we've gotten into the game since I started this work anyway, because of the process involved and we left nothing out.

But Russia is Russia and therefore they are always "tweaking" their tanks, due to the ARMATA issue.

They added APS to the T-72B3M or if you like, as both are used, the T-72BM/T-72B4. There were some other changes to include a new engine increased armor protection including ERA.

We have already allowed incorporated those changes with our "hybrid" tank as in the game now as noted above. I feel after taking some time looking into this matter I see no reason to change or add a new unit at this time.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_august_2020_global_security_army_indu stry/russian_tank_division_in_the_urals_receives_modern ized_t-72b3m_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-72b3m_t-72b4_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_pictures. html

A bonus from my "confusion" research comes from the USMA on one of the reoccurring topics that keeps coming up every couple of years, "On Killing Tanks" a very worth while article that's current from March 23, 2020.
https://mwi.usma.edu/on-killing-tanks/

Well CINCLANTHOME and the Daughters show should be over and as her and the son-in-law (And I actually like him!?! :D) are heading back in the morning to Va., I'm going to say have a good night all!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Ever since the start of WW II (and a bit before in the Spanish Civil War) there has been an on-going "war" between infantry and armor.

One or the other gains an advantage, the other counters it. This isn't going to stop anytime soon, if ever.

The BIG issue (from my prospective) is cost.
A Sherman tank cost $33,000 in 1942, a TOW missile (just the missile) cost $93,640 in 1984. This is one of the reasons we don't see the "classic" Russian horde anymore, it's just to expensive to field large amounts of top tier equipment. This is why many "first world" nations are developing/fielding less expensive armor units to supplement their "top tier" ones.

This creates a bit of a problem for WinSPMBT because it's several hundred (thousand?) "pick lists" do not, and cannot, allow it to effectively generate battles with few "top tier" armor units and multiple "2nd rate" ones. A tank is a tank is a tank to the pick lists. Rarity codes can somewhat alleviate this BUT would require multiple version of the same tank with different rarity codes ... which the vast majority of OOBs just plain don't have room for.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The following 2 articles are a carry over from my most recent post in the Fastboat Patch Thread from earlier today. These are not "BS" and please take them on face value and not so much about the main topic but, for the "big picture" as regards mostly to the second article.

These are the latest I can find from official sources...

USMC: At Fort Knox, Company E, 4th Tank Battalion on 24 Aug. 2020 "cased" their colors. As I've already posted from the USMC all the tanks are going back to the ARMY Depot stations to be likely refitted as either to the M1A1 SA/RESET M1A2C (Production of the M1A2 SEP V2 was completed about ~3/4 years ago.) standards. These are the only tanks the USA is fielding at this time (Or about to.).
https://www.army.mil/article/238443/fort_knox_bids_farewell_to_final_armor_unit_at_mar ine_tank_company_deactivation_ceremony

USA: This is from 8 Sep. 2020 and addresses one of the major hurdles in delaying both the F-35 which is obviously a much more complex "machine" (And still ongoing.) but was also a cause for delay with the M1A2C. Well apparently the USA has reached a "milestone" completion of the onboard "logistics/diagnostics" software and supporting equipment. There's still a way to go, but this is a big step.
https://www.army.mil/article/238848/abrams_demonstration_proves_concept_for_enterprise _level_system_health_monitoring

Concerning TROPHY, like in 2018 with the M1A2 SEP V2, it appears the USA intends to do the same with the M1A2C
by fielding a Combat Brigade/or Regiment with TROPHY first before the rest of those tanks get them at a later date.

Well I'm going to enjoy the rest of my evening off before going back to you know where tomorrow :mean:, alright maybe not that bad after August-maybe!?! :cool:-yeah maybe!?!

TAKE CARE!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FORGOT: Don the Japanese MCV-16 is playing like a "champ" in my Long Campaign against Russia. In my first battle, I lost 3 out of 6 but I almost broke even with them achieving 2 kills on the T-72B3/B4. The AI loves buying those tanks!!-OUT.

[RC4]

New Pakistani VT4 (Al-Haider?) delivered to 6th Lancers from 6th Armoured Division
#1
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

More on APS TROPHY and ABRAMS SEP V2, the following shows our tanks as mentioned in Europe for exercise Defender Europe 2020 which I believe is being held in Hungry. The best part of this we have the pictures to go along with the articles concerning this topic for a change.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2020_global_security_army_indust ry/us_army_deploys_in_germany_m1a2_sep_v2_main_battle _tanks_fitted_with_trophy_aps_active_protection_sy stem.html

After about a six month delay due to COVID-19, Thailand has received the last of it's VT-4 tanks along a second batch of ...just read the ref. :D
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_i ndustry/thai_army_takes_delivery_of_vn1_phase_2_and_last_v t4_mbt_from_china.html

PLEASE BE SURE YOUR SEATED FOR THE NEXT STORY (I thought I'd never see the day!?!)! Well after over a decade or so, it appears that India and Israel have finally solved the problem with the ARGUN MK-1/ARJUN MK-1A/ARJUN MK 2 MG and LAHAT issues that plagued ARJUN MK-1 so badly it was scrapped for that tank. Part of the fix was achieved by mounting a new/modified MG (Same.) on those other two tanks.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_i ndustry/india_has_successfully_test-fired_gun_launched_anti-tank_missile_from_arjun_tank.html

Finally since some of us still need to work for a living :rolleyes:, Poland and how things might be changing. Poland as I've posted, has been trying to be a partner with France and Germany for a "handful" of years in the development of the "Eurotank" which there appears to be no interest in inviting Poland to the "party".

This is possibly jeopardizing the LEOPARD PL. So what's Poland to do!?! Easy get one of the other best tanks in the world the K2. South Korea saw an opening caused by the above situation and has moved fast to fill the void by offering the K2 PL. The model of which was shown recently at MSPO 2020 in Poland. It's getting late but key differences is in the Commanders Sight, improved armor and cage/slat armor around the engine compartment on the K2 PL. Most of the rest you can "gleam" from the article I've posted below.

But wait a minute the LEOPARD PL is the modernization of the current 128 LEOPARD 2A4 tanks Poland has. You are correct! South Korea is offering a totally new platform and the process is proceeding. Something about too many "older" tanks. :cool: ;)

I've already started the breakdown between the two K2's but, I will worry about the rest later, until at least a contract and production begins first.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/mspo-2020-defence-exhibition-in-the-time-of-covid-19
https://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo_2020_news_official_show_daily/mspo_2020_polish_army_unveils_leopard_2pl_tank_mbt _modernized_version_of_2a4_version.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo_2020_news_official_show_daily/mspo_2020_hyundai_rotem_from_south_korea_unveils_k 2pl_main_battle_tank_for_polish_army.html
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/09/09/hyundai-rotem-eyes-polish-contractors-for-work-on-battle-tank/

A teaser, what should it be? HMmmm! :p Somebody is about to receive a very advanced version of the LeCLERC and it's NOT coming from France. Only one other country operates them besides France and they've decided to donate 80 of them to the soon to be third operator of them. Simply the UAE to JORDAN.

That's for next time. I'm out, almost literally. :yawn:

Good Night/or Morning!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

Did not see that one coming with Poland

[DRG]

Well I won't be rushing it into the OOB just yet. It's one thing to have a parts supplier next door and another to have one on the other side of the globe

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I concur as I stated, too many other things going on right now anyway for me to do anything but track the progress of the K2 PL. I think Germany and possibly France, either or both "dropped the ball or missed the ball" on this opportunity.

But there is another view as well the Polish Zloty favors better against the South Korean Won then it does against the EU Euro.

Bottom-line: Increased buying power for Poland.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

well one good thing about it is there is more info about the K2 than when I built the Icon for it so there will be a slight revision of it in the next update

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I've been tracking the progress for the LEOPARD 2A7V since just before I submitted the LEOPARD 2A7. It was hoped by various sources to be in service by earliest 2019 or more so 2020, well as most know that didn't happen.

However now we have a year at least and probably literally (Fall, I feel.) based on ref. 2 from the Bundeswehr website and that is currently 2021.

I believe the base for our projected built will have to be the A7. Also the versions that are getting upgraded as not to embarrass my self by submitting an MBT that's not better then it's processors which the A7V will be a marked improvement of. Those would be the our best in game A6 (To be determined.), the A6M A2 which I believe we don't have but appears what we thought was a "test bed" actually isn't (I'll be looking more closing into this.) and a number of the latest A4'S will be upgraded.

What I know high points:
1) New MG L55A1 (This more for the A4 upgrade.) for continuity of the A7V Program.

2) Increased turret front and rear armor values (Note the glacis on front and extended rear of the turret.)

3) New FCS all around (All in game factors i.e. LRF etc.) w/TI/GSR 60.

4) MRAP 7.

5) Fully compatible with NATO/German Ammo to include the newer DM 11 MP round.

6) FYI: 20 are in operational testing at this time since 2017.

However I'm not inclined to put too much into this at this point, it's already slipped by a year or two. However Russia is building up it's forces in the Crimea and that may be incentive enough to move this upgrade along.

On the tank...
https://militaryleak.com/2019/03/26/rheinmetall-to-upgrade-leopard-2-tank-to-standard-2a7v-for-german-army/
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/aktuelles/mediathek/test-neuer-kampfpanzer-leopard-2-a7v-2628236

Just because and note reference source under the title...
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/germany-receives-first-leopard-2a7-mbt.348679/

I find this to be interesting and it provides links the rest of the articles covering the 40yr. history of the LEOPARD. But for is the listing of current LEOPARDs in active service at the end of 2019. And he's showing like the A7 I submitted, there appears to be the same number (20) of the A6MA2 MBTs.

I'm getting that ABRAMS feeling about the LEOPARDS as I'm typing this.
https://www.joint-forces.com/features/31652-bundeswehr-leopard-2-mbt-at-40-part-6

I THINK IT'S TIME FOR MY WALK!!:banghead: :vroom:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

UPDATE: After dessert :D, I figured I just had to finish this up some more, so where numbers and active types are given, the immediate ref. above MATCHS to the following below. I'll being going into the German OOB later just not tonight, might be some date changes and a couple of additions ahead.
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=148

Now it's time for that walk in the rain, at least I'm not the "Wicked Warlock of the East", so I won't melt!?!

[MarkSheppard]

Last VT4 MBT delivered to Thailand, and first VN1 Wheeled APCs to Thailand as well

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_i ndustry/thai_army_takes_delivery_of_vn1_phase_2_and_last_v t4_mbt_from_china.html

A series of pictures that were published on Thai online social media in mid-September, likely taken at the Horse Guards Cavalry Center, Adisorn Camp, Saraburi Province, showed a significant number of VN1 8x8 APCs transported from China to Thailand, Defense Studies reports.

So, this indicates that the Royal Thai Army is in the process of receiving delivery of the VN1 Phase 2 wheeled vehicles that were ordered in 2019 for an amount of 2,251,928,086 baht ($ 66,233,179). The contract was for 3 VN1 APC armored vehicles, 12 120mm SM4A grenade launchers, and 9 units of VS27 8x8 Recovery Vehicles, 12 Reconnaissance and Command Vehicles (VE36), 3 VN1 Ambulances and 3 maintenance vehicles, 1 mechanical equipment and 1 electrical equipment maintenance vehicle, and various ammunition.

In December 2019, the Royal Thai Army received VN1 Phase 1 wheeled vehicles for an amount of around 2,300 million baht ($ 68 million) ordered in 2017. The contract concered 34 VN1 armored personnel carriers, 2 VS27 recovery vehicles, 1 mechanical tool maintenance vehicle and 1 electrical equipment maintenance vehicle. The number of vehicles ordered for the VN1 8x8 family was 75 units.

China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) released a video promoting the tests of the VN1 8x8 armored vehicle with a UW4B remote turret of the Thai Army. Overall, weapons were tested including a 30mm automatic gun, a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, a 40mm grenade launcher and a Red Arrow 73D missile launcher in China, where Thailand was the first export customer to order the VN1 with a remotely controlled turret. But there is no antitank missile launcher.

It is expected that the VN1 8x8 wheeled vehicle will enter service at the 10th Cavalry Regiment (M.K. 10), the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, the 1st Cavalry Brigade, which is understood that M.K. 10 has changed level from Cavalry Reconnaissance Battalion to Armored Cavalry Battalion. The next batch of the VN1series will be delivered by M.K. 10, previously stationed in BTR-3E1 8x8 APC Ukraine.

As well as transporting the VN1 Phase 2 wheeled vehicle, NORINCO has also delivered the last VT4 main battle tank to Thailand. As scheduled, the tank was originally scheduled for delivery in early 2020 but it was postponed to September 2020 due to the coronavirus outbreak in China.

According to the documents of the Royal Thai Army Ordnance Department, on December 20, 2019, the Thai Army plans to procure VT4 tanks, phase 4, consisting of 10 VT4s and 1 simulator for training, all this for an amount of 1,662,375,000 baht ($53,625,000)

The Royal Thai Army has managed 28 units of VT4 tanks for Phase 1 in 2016, Phase 2 for 10 tanks and 1 maintenance vehicle in 2017, Phase 3 with 14 tanks in 2018 and phase 4 with 10 tanks, totaling 62 MBTs, inducted in the 6th Cavalry Battalion and 21st Cavalry Battalion, 6th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Cavalry Brigade.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I might as well post what I had as well then, but on the surface not too much work involved here overall (STRYKER copy U.S. one is all for instance.) and it shows again as I mentioned in the most recent post in the "Green and White Papers Thread" how much the neighbors (And near ones.) of China are taking the "potential threat" they represent to the region. Again, eyes on India and China. Thailand...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/thai_army_buys_more_chinese_ifvs_ammunition_and_ot her_items.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_i ndustry/thai_army_takes_delivery_of_vn1_phase_2_and_last_v t4_mbt_from_china.html
(Again as Mark just posted.)

Plus...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_i ndustry/thailand_chooses_chinese-made_vn16_105mm_amphibious_light_tank_for_its_mari ne_forces.html

Also tracking...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2020_global_security_army_indust ry/royal_thai_army_takes_delivery_of_new_black_widow_ spider_8%C3%978_armored_vehicle_for_trial_tests.ht ml

Finally we won't be out done as well...
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/thailand-becomes-first-nation-to-buy-strykers-from-us-1.598731
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_industr y/thai_army_to_buy_and_receive_refurbished_u.s._m112 6_stryker_armored_personnel_carriers.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/next_month_thailand_will_receive_a_first_batch_of_ american_stryker_8x8_armored.html
https://www.pattayamail.com/thailandnews/army-receives-first-10-stryker-vehicles-from-u-s-264229

And since THAILAND liked them so much...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_i ndustry/thailand_orders_more_us_stryker_8x8_armored_vehicl es.html

Mark always does a GREAT job out here.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

do we have that in the OOB under a different name?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The answer is no for the VN-1 and STRYKER M1126. I played with the "names" and did the "line item scroll".

The Stryker I knew wasn't in as I ran out time last year concerning it and also to allow time for the to become operational.

The VN-1 until the this past Feb (The first Ref I had/held and posted earlier tonight.) was the first I knew of that APC.

VT-4 we handled is in.

The "SPIDER"/or "Black Widow" (?'s by memory) is being evaluated as I posted also earlier in my last as well.

And the last Chinese Light Tank also from my last post is "down the road" as well.

VN-1 is on my list as is STRYKER. STRYKER for sure is going to be a simple copy over item from USA OOB. w/50 Cal. onboard. Just have to ensure no add on armor was ordered etc., I don't believe this to be the case though.

VN-1 should be in the "same boat" as above, providing the Chinese version is in the OOB, which I can't check at this time.

You might have your answer from me on that in the morning when you get up.


Ref just to show and as we've seen "on the wire" seem happy to leave their equipment as designated from the supplier. STINGRAY/OPLOT-T etc. etc. and as the national paper above has as well.
https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30375608?utm_source=category&utm_medium=internal_referral

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

290052 UPDATE:

1) From above, that would be the BLACK WIDOW SYPDER which is locally designed and built. It will be under going testing and evaluation for at least a year per the ref I posted.

2) The Chinese version of the VN-1, is designated as the ZBL-08 Western designated as TYPE 08. It is NOT in the Chinese OOB using the same methods as above for the VN-1.

We will have to build both of them.

The VN-1 for Thailand will have the turreted 30mm Auto Cannon. I don't think they'll have the HJ-73C series ATGW which the Chinese have on theirs. The MG might be the 7.62mm, have to check. Has 6 grenade launchers.

The Chinese TYPE 08 will present us with a couple of options such as the base APC w/12.7mm and IFV as above to include the HJ-73C series ATGW which is the minimum we probably want to have. Another possibility as long as it doesn't fall into the realm of fantasy, would be one with the 105mm L7 onboard-your call, once I verify it exists.

Back to work later today, 34th in the mountains of N Ga. in 12 days!! But who the .... is counting!! That Submariner thing just come through sometimes in these situations!?!

So while I'm here Germany and the LEOPARDS what I've found and am thinking at this moment.

1) Those two refs from those German writers seem to be holding up to "scrutiny" thus far. And I've been checking.

2) How bad is it? Not too bad, but I'm somewhat sure it wasn't all if any "self inflicted" "pre-me" or since to establish a rough timeline.

What I'm seeing as I've seen to many times out here, are issues you guys inherited from the previous "owners", so yes "ABRAMS" all over again this year. Tanks entered on production years, improper designations (How can you modify a tank with RL upgrades when you have ~20 called 2A6!?! Which one do you fix?), well I'm fixing them, my minds set to the task, because the "clock" is running on the game.

3) Unit 263 wonderful only need to verify it has the exact FCS that's on the in game LEOPARD 2A7. Redesignate it and done.

4) I'm hoping this will be as simply as I hope from a mid-look (More than a "quick look" and less then, well you know. ;)) My plan is to take the newest/latest by date LEOPARD 2A5 and extend it out to 2025 after a modification review is done.

5) I'm not pulling punches, so why those idiots entered about 4/5 LEOPARD 2A6 EX MBT's is beyond me. Someone help me here Russia has the T-90A and several foreign countries we entered in about 6 at least of the following, last year designated T-90S. Do you see where I'm heading here!?! If not, the German designation "EX", like the Russian "S" are for Export tanks only.

I'm feeling better already but not as good as I will in 12 days (I sense a reoccurring theme here. :D)!!

6) My plan for the those LEOPARD 2A6 EX tanks to get them redesignated (As noted above UNIT 263), upgraded as required and delete the rest as unused to include any stragglers.

Generally the "EX" versions generally, seem to be the "newer 2A6" in the OOB, therefore in theory, they should be the easiest to modify up or down.

This my priority for the coming 2020/2021 Campaign. I hate that these things just happen along and have as it appears has been in the game for this long. But as Don pointed out with the OOB "game equipment" count Post of last year around or just after the last patch, finding this kind of thing is almost like playing the lottery.

Thanks for letting me vent, I appreciate it in advance. :)

I'm out!! Going "deep under" the covers, I hope you all have a great day!!

Already signed out once and it ain't happening twice! However I'll leave you with my "E-M-E JOE" :D

:capt:

[DRG]

2) The Chinese version of the VN-1, is designated as the ZBL-08 Western designated as TYPE 08. It is NOT in the Chinese OOB using the same methods as above for the VN-1.

We will have to build both of them.

The VN-1 for Thailand will have the turreted 30mm Auto Cannon. I don't think they'll have the HJ-73C series ATGW which the Chinese have on theirs. The MG might be the 7.62mm, have to check. Has 6 grenade launchers.

The Chinese TYPE 08 will present us with a couple of options such as the base APC w/12.7mm and IFV as above to include the HJ-73C series ATGW which is the minimum we probably want to have. Another possibility as long as it doesn't fall into the realm of fantasy, would be one with the 105mm L7 onboard-your call, once I verify it exists.


I can see if we already have an icon that is "close enough" for the Vn-1 / Type 8 and if not I will adapt one that will and I am making notes of these things as they pop up as best I can but I gotta say....... my enthusiasm has hit bottom and IDK if there is enough rebound left. The neverendingness is getting old. ( way old....)

.......and maybe someone can tell me what the difference is between a NORINCO ZBL-08 (Type 08)8x8 Wheeled Modular Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) and a ZBD-09 or ZBL-09 or Type 07P 8x8 Armoured infantry fighting vehicle becasue

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/zbl-09-ifv-china/

claims the ZBL-09 = VN-1 IFV

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

What I see is the ZBL-08 seems to have a slightly different turret and a rear hatch vice ramp of the ZBL-09. The ZBL-09 also uses a Ukrainian 30mm vice the local 30mm Auto Cannon of the ZBL-08 to "CLOSE THE LOOP".

Otherwise it looks exactly the same to same specs on armor protection up 12.7mm AP along the frontal arc and 7.62mm AP on the sides.

Does have add on armor pkg. provide protection up to 25mm and I believe it 14.5mm (Whatever the standard is for that weapon.) on the sides.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=1189

Those refs have plenty of pictures of each and they pretty much look the same to me.

The other version that you and I pointed out on our "Type Units" are "simple" APC with 12.7mm MG.

My time is up!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

I found an Icon (2441) that was not being used ( much to my surprise )that fit's the definition of "good enough" about as good as you can get for that vehicle and it's dimensions. A new custom one would hardly be noticably different

[MarkSheppard]

I'll try and condense things down for you.

NORINCO apparently began developing a 8x8 APC in the 1990s; and the first prototypes started doing road testing in 2006.

In 2008, NORINCO went-semi public and promoted them for export as VN1.

A year later, in the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China Military Parade in 2009; a lot were seen and it was later disclosed that the 162nd Division in the Jinan Military Region got a few of them in June 2009; and generally many sources gave it the designation ZBL-09. (aka Type 09) family.

But then we have a Chinese language source that says they're actually designated ZBL-08s; and in other sources, I have seen references to "Type 07" (which may have been for a preproduction prototype spotted in 2007).

Wikipedia lists it as the Type 08

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_08

And it has spawned a huge amount of subvariants (look at the Wiki)

What I think is causing the confusion is that NORINCO is "rapidly iterating" the basic design -- and is willing to change the chassis/layout more than a typical western company would for each variant.

Known confirmed chassis designs within the family:

IFV Variant (ZBL-08 IFV, PLL-05 Mortar Carrier, PLL-09 SP Howitzer, ZTL-11 Assault Gun, Assault Breacher [mine plow], Bridge Builder, Armored Recovery Vehicle)

NOTE: I have seen two different designations for the 105mm Assault Gun variant -- ZTL-09 and ZTL-11. Apparently the Chinese Marine Corps got the first mass production assault guns in 2017, and then in 2020, the Regular Army got their assault guns.

APC Variant (taller crew compartment) (ZSL-08 APC, Armored Cargo Vehicle)

Armored Recon Vehicle (Two versions, one appears to use a slightly modified IFV chassis, while another version uses the APC chassis).

Command Variant (even taller crew compartment) (Command Vehicle, Communications Vehicle, Armored Ambulance, NBC Recon Variant, EW Vehicle)

Anti-Air Recon Vehicle (Unique Chassis Variant)

Engineering Vehicle (Unique Chassis Variant)

Other export sales of this chassis family are:

ST-1:
Basically, an export-only variant of the ZTL-11 Assault gun using a 105mm L7 clone. Nigeria had bunch of them delivered in 2020, along with VT-4 MBTs:

https://www.deagel.com/news/n000019796

BEIJING, Apr. 10 -- The first batch of 17 military vehicles consisting of VT-4 main battle tanks (MBT), ST-1 wheeled tank destroyer and two types of self-propelled howitzers bought by the Nigerian Army (NA) from the China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) arrived at the Apapa Ports on April 8, 2020. The NA made this emergency purchase to strike Boko Haram Terrorists (BHTs) in northern Nigeria.

There's a export version 155mm Howitzer on the chassis (SH-11) but nobody has bought it yet.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don are you thinking along the same lines that I am to avoid redundancy that maybe we have 2 Chinese variants TYPE 08/09 APC (With 12.7mm MG) and TYPE 08/09 IFV (With the turreted Chinese 30mm AC)?

We can do the same with the VN-1 as well since the sites I've found for both, refer to the export version of each as the VN-1.

We did this with the T-72B3/B4 and nobody's complained about that in the intervening years since we included it in the game.

Just a thought and it might lessen the workload by a couple of "degrees" especially as I posted the differences between the 2 are inconsequential.

PAKISTAN: Has only confirmed plans to induct the VT-4.

From JANE's, "No details were provided as to when the tank will be officially inducted or how many units have been (or will be) ordered." That puts this tank at least a year out.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/pakistan-confirms-plans-to-induct-chinese-made-vt4-main-battle-tank

Another for the above Pakistan I believe I posted on but is in my MBT Folder is now inducted, the Al-Khalid-I MBTs. Have tracking this and originally thought induction would during the 4th "calendar" Qtr. of this year or latest, 1st of 2021.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/pakistan-army-inducts-first-batch-of-al-khalid-i-mbts

GERMANY: More on the LEOPARD 2A7V with some "projected" dates. The process has already started on the conversions to the type. I'm looking at first unit FOC in/by OCT. 2021.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_i ndustry/first_trial_tests_for_new_german_army_leopard_2a7v _main_battle_tank.html

Good Night!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

No , what I was thinking was just make it the 09 and leave it at that but I suppose TYPE 08/09 works too

[DRG]

maybe we have 2 Chinese variants TYPE 08/09 APC (With 12.7mm MG) and TYPE 08/09 IFV (With the turreted Chinese 30mm AC)?

Just to make this more confusing and contradictory that it already is.....

http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm

says in one part "Main gun 30 mm cannon"

and further down

" Infantry fighting vehicle, fitted with a smaller turret and 25 mm cannon.

and if you want to see a rather awsome 3D rendering.....

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/yybPR

[Suhiir]

Sounds like the USMC plans a fire support variant of the ACV with a 30mm cannon as well.

Currently ZERO information on such a vehicle existing beyond the "We'd like X." stage.

If they continue a 25mm (comparable with LAV-25 ammo) seems more probable unless there are plans to up-gun the LAV which I've heard nothing about.

[MarkSheppard]

Just to make this more confusing and contradictory that it already is.....

http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm

says in one part "Main gun 30 mm cannon"

and further down

" Infantry fighting vehicle, fitted with a smaller turret and 25 mm cannon.

Or the writers of military-today saw one-off versions marketed and got very confused.

For example, NORINCO has shown off a VN-1/Type 08 prototype with a 30mm turret similar to that on the ZBD-03 Airborne IFV. (I think this is where the confusion comes from)

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/VN1%20with%2030mm%20autocannon%20turret%20alternat ive.jpg

But what was actually selected for production by the Chinese military for the Type 08 8x8 IFV was a variant of the Type 05 Amphibious IFV turret.

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZBD-05.jpg
ZBD-05 Amphibious IFV used by PLA(N) Marine Corps

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZBL%2008%20IFV.jpg
ZBL-08 IFV in parade

Notice the very similar gun layout/turret layouts?

Photos of variants we know are in service are:

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/122mm%20SP.jpg
http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/122mm%20SP%202.jpg
122mm Self Propelled Howitzer

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/35mm%20AA%201.jpg
http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/35mm%20AA%202.jpg
35mm SP-AA

You can see how they haven't hesitated to modify the chassis for the SPAA version for easier drivability and logistics (loading ammo), since it won't be in direct line of sight combat.

[DRG]

And the Basic APC version appears to have a taller roof in the troop compartment

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/China/ZBD-09/ZBL-09.jpg

[MarkSheppard]

And the Basic APC version appears to have a taller roof in the troop compartment

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/China/ZBD-09/ZBL-09.jpg

Venezuela bought the basic APC export VN1 version a few years back:

VN1 APC in venezula - 500 kb JPG (http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/VN1_Venezula.jpg)

Decent top view of the APC variant there.

Also shows the size difference between the old BTR and the new generation of wheeled APCs quite well.

EDIT:

Decent top view of the ZTL-09 / ZTL-11 Assault Gun:

500 kb JPG of Assault Gun (http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZTL09-11%20Assault%20Gun%20PLA.jpg)

Assault gun in PLA(N) Marine Corps Colors (http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZTL09-11%20Assault%20Gun%20PLAMC.jpg)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You'll see the 25mm version of the TYPE-09 if you scroll through the picture gallery from the same ref. I posted earlier and has since been noted. Or as I just checked the bottom 2 pictures on the right.
"This ZBL-09 has a crew of three and capacity to carry 7 to 10 troops."
http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm

The TYPE-08 which apparently proceeded the "09" by a year (2008) has what we might consider a "standard" looking 30mm Auto Cannon vice what looks like a "Gatling" type on the "09".

This below is where the VN-1 is developed from the VP-10.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vp10.htm
Also you see the pictures to the right, in this case the top 3.

You'll see it's mounting a standard looking 30mm Auto Cannon vice what the "09" is carrying. Though the turret for the TYPE 08 appears to be the same or "slightly" different look on the front, the VP-10 30mm looks to be the same one mounted on the TYPE-08. Also what's in common with the TYPE 08 and VN-1, is the following...
"The baseline VP10 armored personnel carrier is operated by a crew of 2, and carries 12 dismounts.

Note the difference as I posted above for the TYPE 09.

And my Chinese supplement w/APC types below the tanks. What I didn't like seeing is the foreign operators of countries we have in the game, other then Pakistan, that might not have any of these at all.

GERMANY: LEOPARD work has started.

Late Post and major sinus headache, time to go!

T -10 Days to go!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well nothing about any "new" tanks so that's another year lost. But possibly related..."Tornado-G 122 mm MRLs fired an unspecified new rocket with a warhead that detaches in-flight and descends by parachute."

That leaves me wondering how good can that be for tanks or any other target? I'm thinking not very good at all. :D
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/new-russian-military-equipment-used-during-kavkaz-2020-exercise

Also my missing last ref. from Post 1100.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/China.php

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[MarkSheppard]

You'll see the 25mm version of the TYPE-09 if you scroll through the picture gallery from the same ref. I posted earlier and has since been noted. Or as I just checked the bottom 2 pictures on the right.

"This ZBL-09 has a crew of three and capacity to carry 7 to 10 troops."

http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm

The TYPE-08 which apparently proceeded the "09" by a year (2008) has what we might consider a "standard" looking 30mm Auto Cannon vice what looks like a "Gatling" type on the "09".

Fastboat, I went and looked at the pages using EDGE and got these two images:

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZBL_08_Prototype_1.jpg

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZBL_08_Prototype_2.jpg

The turret on these prototypes of the Type 08 is... the same as installed on:

ZBD-03 Airborne IFV

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZBD-03_AIFV_Closeup.jpg

and

Type 86G IFV (Upgraded Type 86 BMP-1 with new turret)

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/Type86G_Closeupo.jpg

The gun on both the ZBD-03 and Type 86G Turret is a 30mm cannon....but here's where your erroneous information began, courtesy of http://www.military-today.com

http://www.military-today.com/apc/zlc_2000.htm

The ZLC-2000 was an early prototype designation for the ZBD-03 (Type 03) Airborne IFV; and Military-Today.com says:

Vehicle is fitted with a one-man turret, armed with 25 mm cannon.

When if you go to ChinaDaily (which is a chinese source with the .cn designator), when in an afterthought in an article on the delivery of a new wheeled vehicle to the PLA Airborne Corps they said:

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202005/12/WS5eb9e969a310a8b241154e57.html

Before the new asset, the only armored combat hardware in the PLA Air Force's paratroop units was the ZBD-03 airborne infantry fighting vehicle, which runs on tracks instead of wheels.

The 8-metric ton ZBD-03 is believed to have been in service for more than 10 years. It is armed with a 30-mm-caliber gun and a single missile rail launcher used to fire anti-tank missiles.

Observers said the Air Force is waiting for Norinco to provide the new generation of airborne tracked combat vehicle to replace the ZBD-03.

China Daily is an English-language daily newspaper owned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party. You can't get more "official" than that.

And regarding the "Gatling-type" cannon; it's actually a single barrel autocannon contained within a barrel support structure.

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/BarrelShroud.jpg

You traditionally find these support structures on autocannon intended for anti-aircraft work, since they allow the barrel to be more rigid during rapid fire (and thus more accurate).

This below is where the VN-1 is developed from the VP-10.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vp10.htm

Your source says:

China's army uses a broadly similar ZBL-09 armored personnel carrier, which is proposed for export as the VN1.

Additionally it says that the VP10 was "first observed in 2014". The VN1 was first offered by NORINCO for export in 2008.

Some VP10 prototypes showed up in Chinese web forums being evaluated by the PLA back in 2016.

Currently it's a "idea vehicle" searching for a buyer; like so many things that show up at Defense Expos.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I turn back to the UK the CHALLENGER 2 and more as it pertains to the ongoing MOD Defense Review, which I now understand will be released in November.

The tank is under a lot of scrutiny it's too old which is true in that it hasn't seen a major upgrade since 1998.

The last one considered I thought I'd be submitting for this patch, until I've found no documentation it ever got "off the ground"...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/thales-uk-supplying-new-ti-camera-for-challenger-2-tanks

So what's to be done or otherwise proposed? The following will fill you in. This tank I thought was going to get in the game within the next two years, with time lost over the political/military crisis and COVID-19 it's now at least 3 years out if at all, to FOC.
Here's the upgrade plan...
https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/hm-forces/challenger-2-upgrade-on-offer-from-bae-systems/
Last I heard, MOD was leaning toward the Smoothbore MG.

More Governmental concerns "all around" and the "considerations" after...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/25/ellwood-aims-fire-at-n0-10-over-tank-plan-i-see-no-defence-strategy
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53909087

What's the "big picture"? Well for the current and future land programs the following covers that.
This from the end of this past July. Which means the NET date I gave yesterday is NOT EVEN CLOSE I quote...
"The programme has experienced significant technical problems, with a current in-service date of 2024 (originally planned for 2017)" and the "beat goes on"...
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27467/UK_s_Challenger_Tank__Outmatched__by_Russian_Armat a_MBT__Parliamentary_Committee#.X3gNbhSSmUl

To contrast the above latest update I give you one from Jan 2020 prior to further Mechanical/Technical, COVID-19 and the current Defense Review. First with some quotes...
"...according to an MoD source. “The seventh Ares vehicle has entered the final stages of testing and will be delivered to the Household Cavalry Regiment in the coming months,” said the source."

That 7th one is the first to be delivered just this past week. The first 6 are "test beds".

Same MOD source...“No 40 mm turreted Ajax has yet been delivered to the army.” This goes back to the CT-40 gun issues and FCS problems they are having. I have to state the obvious but, of course the "test beds" (6 Units) have them.

The Numbers Game... "The first Ajax squadron is expected to require 20-25 Ajax family vehicles, including a mobility reconnaissance support, turreted reconnaissance, command, engineer, recovery, and repair variants before it can declare IOC."
A long way to go yet.

And finally..."An MoD spokesperson told Jane’s on 15 January, “our target for Ajax initial operating capability remains July 2020”.
Well someone "spiked" the tea, because "they sure as poop
:angel missed that one. Hot or Cold, I never "spike" mine. :rolleyes:

WASHOUT:
1) AJAX significantly delayed or possibly worse, cut.

2) AJAX ARES seems thus far not to be in danger yet. Program still in development with first unit having been received to military. Probably FOC I'd think around mid 2021.

3) BOXER on track no issues and w/BOXER CT-40 (German designed CT 40mm) could replace the WARRIOR CSP.

4) CHALLENGER 2 LEP upgrade on hold to start possibly in 2021 or possibly worse, cut.

5) WARRIOR CSP program is apparently on track and partially due to configuration difference between it and the AJAX, WARRIOR CSP has not seen as many problems with the 40mm. Issue could be cut in favor of the BOXER CT-40 or without replacement.

It isn't pretty but it's where we're at.

Almost forgot, there is some "supposition" on the web regarding the CHALLENGER question that the UK is negotiating or is about to with Germany and France to be part of the "EUROTANK" project. If so we'll hear about within a few months after the Defense Review results are known.

Regards'
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Update on GERMAN LEOPARDS: This is as I feared it would be, it will be the "ABRAMS" for 2020/2021.

1. I won't be submitting any of the Commanders tanks as they are very rare ICO of Germany they only have two, so that cuts out one or two types.

2. I always thought the 2A5/2A6 shared the same armor values it appears that isn't true as well. The 2A6 apparently has a 3rd GEN Ceramic armor package onboard. So I believe in game terms, that means increased HEAT values, yes/no?

3. 2A6 EX is definitely the export version, that being said I will proceed to build upon those already in the OOB and transform to the current nomenclature units in service at this time to include the 2A6M and about 3 more 2A6 types.

I do not intend to deal with any LEOPARD before the 2A5, certainly not this year or ever God willing. Part of that reasoning thus far anyway, comes from the fact that the 2A5 tanks look good and that so far I haven't found any "incremental" upgrades to warrant any changes or additions to that series.

So I'll stick to my initial plan of using the last 2A5 in game one to come out of service and put it back into service until 2025. They are currently being used for training, but I have it on good word, as they are maintained at full combat readiness, Germany will use them to defend their country. And if you looked at a couple of refs I already posted on their total tank force, you'd understand why. I personally was caught off guard by the numbers, Poland and Ukraine have larger heavy armor forces among others.

However and I had a feeling this would happen, I have thus far found 2 foreign export countries tanks that need modifying as follows...

4) FINLAND they have the wrong tank. Finland's 2A6 tanks came from the Netherlands unmodified, in other words the 2A6NL, which as it turned out they themselves did a minor upgrades not a handful of years before they got out of the heavy armor business (It is rumored/believed they still maintain 20-25 tanks in storage.).
This fortunately is an easy fix by copying Dutch UNIT 037
over to Finland's UNIT 021 with a new picture as well, since they border the "Bear" they deserve that much!?!

5) SPAIN they did what SWEDEN did with the STRV 122 by having their tanks modified to their Specs, beyond the German standard. Except Spain ordered more tanks then Sweden and didn't have as much to spend on them overall, however, they spent what they had wisely on increasing the armor levels of their tanks (2A6E) along the Frontal Arc. It might be more than just a "gratis" 10% increase, this needs further evaluation.

6) This also means I have to look at the rest (Foreign/Export) but, I think it based on a "quick look" I haven't found anything in the export market that might require a change especially going back to the Chilean tanks we modified so many years ago now. Where does the time go!?!

On a side note and you'll love this, the other night while organizing my folders I decided (Bad Move!) to see what I had if anything in my Mozilla Firefox folder that MS was nice enough bring over when I switched to OS Win 8+.

Would you believe I found "stuff" from 2015 and earlier!?! So after deleting "news" and "related" items such as early start to some equipment now in, I was left with basically "hard core" equipment articles.

So the first 2 I opened up are from 2015 then I stopped, why? Would it surprise anyone out here with my "penchant" for finding things, that both those pieces of equipment have NOT been entered in the their respective OOB's! I'm thinking "OH WHAT WONDERFUL DAY!!". :rolleyes: And I have more in the file! I think I'll avoid that file!?! :doh: :D :cool: :p

Well I see it's getting really late and someone's likely to kick my
:deadhorse:!

So I bide you all "Bonne journée/Bonne soirée" until next time. if there is a next time!?! :eek:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[RC4]

Good visual details of VT4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BNSyYct0X4&feature=emb_logo

Pak Army sources told the requirment is for 1000 Tanks in 6 batches.
It came first for testing in January 2018, then sent back for modification, engine failed twice.
Came back again in 2019 with improvements.

They have a modified turret with bigger Armour, no APS system, ATGM missiles and a new APFSDS from Ukraine.

[DRG]

4) [B]FINLAND they have the wrong tank. Finland's 2A6 tanks came from the Netherlands unmodified, in other words the 2A6NL, which as it turned out they themselves did a minor upgrades not a handful of years before they got out of the heavy armor business (It is rumored/believed they still maintain 20-25 tanks in storage.).
This fortunately is an easy fix by copying Dutch UNIT 037
over to Finland's UNIT 021 with a new picture as well, since they border the "Bear" they deserve that much!?!

Pat

IDK what version of the OOB's you are looking at but the only difference between Netherlands UNIT 037 and Finn UNIT 021 is the addition of passive ATGM defence. Everything else is the same except the Finns have more recent ammo ( gun ) AND they already have their own photo

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
All due respect there are a couple of other differences. First I'm running both current versions of the games, specifically Version 14 SPMBT.

I have found nothing to show that Finland has modified the X-Dutch 2A6NL of which Finland took final delivery of them just last year.

They got a GREAT BARGAIN for those tanks from the Dutch...
1) Training Simulators
2) Ammo
3) 10 year maintenance support
4) They were completely maintained to spec at the point of sale.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/snow-leopards-dutch-sells-their-remaining-tanks-to-finland-020936/ From the ref...

"...to buy 100 Leopard 2A6NL external link main battle tanks, plus spare parts for 10 years, combat simulators, maintenance simulators, special tools and testing equipment, and ammunition."

They didn't need to modify them as the Dutch upgraded them throughout their time with their Army.

And I still can't find anything saying Finland did any modification to them once they got them and dear God I can't believe about to write this, that includes checking Wiki and Wiki Military :sick:.

But I did find this titled "Armor: Finland Upgrades It Leopards"
Talking about going from the dated 2A4 to the 2A6 tanks, which we all can agree is a major upgrade.

The only current owner of the EX-Dutch A26NL I can find doing anything to upgrade those tanks is Portugal. Portugal bought theirs several years earlier (2008) which were not to the standard that Finland bought in 2014 and started receiving in 2015. That work will be carried out from 2026-2030 for Portugal.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/20200122.aspx

Simply the GUNS are different as is the STABILZER higher for the 2A6NL. Again I can't find any proof the Finns modified those tanks, especially with the package deal I noted above.


Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Again Pat.... The ONLY ( only ) difference between that Dutch Leo and the Finn is the passive ATGM equipment and a slightly more recent ammo and the ammo upgrade is perfectly legitimate given the difference in time between the Dutch Leo and the Finn version so FC, RF . TI and ammo load are all the same.

Now....if you are saying nope, nada m no way to the Finns adding passive ATGM defence then I will remove it but it's on all the other Finn Leos so why would they leave it off that one ?

[Mobhack]

I skipped back the last few pages, but could not see any mention of Hungary's new Leo 2 purchase?

Anyway - 44 of these being manufactured, plus some older ones for interim/training.

https://defbrief.com/2020/07/28/hungary-receives-first-leopard-2-tanks/

[DRG]

Wonderful

It would appear these are the 1a4 trainers so not "OOB worthy" ATM

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Andy I just haven't gotten around to posting them yet. Hungry has actually 2 LEOPARD issues going on at this time.

First they are getting 12 completely refurbished German LEOPARD 2A4 tanks of which the Primary purpose is to used for training crews on much newer tank to come next para. Secondary purpose would be combat, in light of the 2-3 year gap between models.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2020_global_security_army_indust ry/new_hungarian_leopard_2a4_mbt_main_battle_tanks_di splayed_in_germany.html
https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=3602
https://militaryleak.com/2020/07/30/germany-delivers-first-upgraded-leopard-2a4hu-main-battle-tanks-to-hungary/

Second well now you know is the LEOPARD 2A7+ which has the "URBAN" Protection System add on armor package. First of these are due to start being delivered in 2023 and completed sometime in 2025. So somewhere by mid-2024 latest for FOC. They should have enough for a full company by then.

We'll just have to track this.
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
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/rheinmetall_to_manufacture_main_armament_and_hulls _for_hungarian_pzh_2000_self-propelled_howitzer_and_leopard_2a7_mbt.html
https://www.defence24.com/hungarian-leopard-mbts-unveiled-what-was-the-cost-analysis
https://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/leopard_2a7_mbt_main_battle_tank_urban_operations_ data.html

As you can see I've been tracking this since December 2018.

I didn't post these earlier because we've seen to much happen around here with equipment to include "Deals going South" for a variety of reasons. Also I wanted to avoid the "bandwagon" syndrome as well. That has cost us a lot of rework out here and our time we have left, is too valuable to lose to things under those circumstances.

I'm being called.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: The following is a "clarification" about the LEOPARD 2A7+. As I started this LEOPARD Project, I've noticed that some websites are indicating that Germany is a "user of" or other assorted similar descriptions. All true in reality but not so much in context.

Germany/KMW do have them, only 2 of them as follows...
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=280
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=264

Remember as I've posted, Germanys next tank is the LEOPARD 2A7V.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

After duty called, I'm back to "Independent Ops" so...

Don,
Below is what I'm seeing as the difference between the Dutch LEOPARD 2A6NL UNIT 037(Tank #!) and the Finns LEOPARD 2A6 UNIT 021(Tank #2)

What is it that I'm missing when looking at what I see in the game as the differences between the 2 tanks.

I see the following differences in the same areas when I pull them up in my game Version 14.

DUTCH TANK #1
EW: 0
WEAPONS: 120mm L55 WG 01/7.62mm FN CMG/7.62mm FN AAMG
STABILISER: 6

FINNISH TANK#2
EW: 4
WEAPONS: 120mm L55 WG 06/7.62mm MG3 CMG/7.63mm MG3 AAMG
STABILISER: 5

Help to understand please what I'm missing.

Again I bring up the DID reference as it's totally in compliance with others concerning the tank deal for the LEOPARD 2A6 between the Netherlands and Finland as signed in 2014 with deliveries between 2015 and 2019.

"What’s left of the Dutch tank fleet has been sold to Finland. The Finnish Minister of Defence just approved the proposal to buy 100 Leopard 2A6NL external link main battle tanks, plus spare parts for 10 years, combat simulators, maintenance simulators, special tools and testing equipment, and ammunition. At EUR 200 million, that’s less than EUR 2 million per tank. The Finns don’t have a huge tank force, and the new vehicles will become the country’s entire front line tank fleet after they’re delivered between 2015 – 2019."

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/snow-leopards-dutch-sells-their-remaining-tanks-to-finland-020936/

That above, all pertains only to the LEOPARD 2A6 tanks. Again "what a hell-of-va deal" at only 2 million Euros per Tank.

Now I really need some TOP GEAR so as to relax the rest of my "Saturday" off. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

The "problem" is I have been updating the OOB's as info comes but I DO NOT keep a running list of changes I make...if I did I would have walked away from this years ago.

The Finn OOB in my master game now has the SAME data as the Dutch one ( as I have said multiple times already ) and that includes the stabilizer so somebody......maybe it was you..... already reported that discrepancy and it was changed after the last release and I say again the upgrade to newer "gun" ( AMMO) is in my mind perfectly acceptable and the MGs are irrelevant to gameplay.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First, Thank You! I appreciate the clarification.

Personally speaking I wish sometimes I wasn't so "ANAL" about things except for fact you have to be very careful and pay attention at work, we refer to it as "situational awareness" and I'll be ready to "stand down" somewhat from that to within the next six years.

It's so bad, a couple of weeks ago, my partner made the comment said I reminded him of a CYLONE because like the "red eye dot" moving continually back and forth, he noticed my head and eyes do the same thing.

He assured me it was a compliment.

I feel like I'm running a marathon with the OOB work my self, not since my first and maybe second Patch Submissions have I had so much work.

This year is like those were, where I have items for every thread I started out here. :sick:

I'll probably have to "cherry pick" items this year, hopefully not.

My "plan of attack" I'm leaning towards, is to take 2 items/topics from each folder that matches to it's corresponding Thread in the Game. That way I lighted the load across the whole board to maintain some balance.

As I indicated 3 or 4 Posts back, I went into my MOZILLA FIREFOX folder that Win 8 (At the time carried over.) carried over a few nights ago. What I found were some equipment news that have been become OBE over time, deleted some other non-related files and got down to equipment files only.

I'm assuming that most of this has already been addressed, was I wrong! :doh: The very first 2 files require a DATE change and the ADDING of a new piece of equipment. Needless to say I STOPPED THERE!?!

Those files were from 2014/2015 timeframe.

The lesson here is unless somebody wins the lottery and is nice enough to hire some support staff solely dedicated to maintaining and updating our games, I have to be honest enough to say we'll never be able to outdate EQUIP/DATES/ADD/DELETE/SOFTWARE etc. at a 100%. There's too much happening right now "NEWS" wise, and I don't see much of a let up for at least the next 2 years unparticular.

Some will be hopefully easy the equipment in some cases have been in the OOB's for years and we just "punt" them out a couple of more years into the future, where in the end they'll get in or what.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's now official, PAKISTAN has just confirmed induction of the VT-4 tank today. This will be an easy one, so that means START OCT 2020. This induction follows 2 months after the al-Khalid-I was inducted in the 3rd week of August.

The al-Khalid-I, will be submitted with the German LEOPARDS as my first two tank submissions using the 2 Per Thread Plan (2PTP :D) I discussed in my last post to include all my Threads.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_ind ustry/pakistan_officially_confirms_norinco_vt4_mbt_induc tion.html

Why those two? Because I know they exist and are at FOC.

I've already started working the "rough" numbers for this MBT.

Unless someone "blows my cover" I'll be "holding my cards" the rest of the way. I've vented and I THANK YOU for allowing that, now it's time to go to work.

Something until now I didn't know existed from ISRAEL the Sabrah 105mm light tank based on tracked platform ASCOD 2 from GDELS.

This being offered for the Philippine Army's Light Tank Acquisition Project, which is in competition with Hanwha Systems K21-105 and Otokar Arma 105 light tanks, and Pindad Harimau Light Tank.

Some good competition there, this will be interesting to watch over the next year or so.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_ind ustry/elbit_systems_from_israel_offers_sabrah_light_tank _for_philippines_light_tank_acquisition_project.ht ml

Side note for to be posted in the APC Thread later...BULGARIA has chosen the PATRIA AMV XP to fulfil it's APC requirements after Phase 2 of the procurement process has just been completed. It's PATRIAs to lose in starting Phase 3 with the field tests and negotiations to come.

This a much improved version of the AMV which is considered one of the worlds best APCs at least in the "wheeled" category.

I might just come back and copy this, as I see, I can't just make a simple announcement. Surprise, Surprise. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The following falls under the category of "Don't Shoot the Messenger" even if the "messenger" has discussed this numerous times over the last handful of years. Now we have the most forth coming and definitive article to date on the status of the T-14 ARMATA. And it doesn't look good. So by Para...

Para 1: "Russia is beginning to train operators of vehicles on Armata platform."

"The first cadets will be enrolled in 2021 and will graduate as T-14 tank platoon commanders."

Para 2: "Sources in the Defense Ministry said..."

"The first enrolment is scheduled in 2021, however the time may change." I believe this last means later then
earlier.

"Omsk Armor Engineering Institute will train experts in the overhaul and operation of Armata family. The training will take four years and the first graduates will come to operate Armata in the army in 2025-"2026."

Para 8: "T-15 is undergoing trials."

The intervening paragraphs are generally dealing with and ensuring that both the operators and engineers are fully trained on the ARMATA platforms in the use and maintenance of the systems.

I have to respect the decision of the Russians in this matter. These are the most advanced land combat systems they've ever designed. And reading "between the lines" they have concerns about the abilities of their military to operate and maintain these systems.

By taking their time in the training and cross training to come, they are ensuring the integrity of the systems (ARMATA Platforms) and "professionalism" of their operators and maintainers.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_ind ustry/russia_begins_training_operators_of_t-14_and_t-15_armata_vehicles.html

FYI SERBIA: Has decided to upgrade their M-84AS tanks.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/serbian_serbia_army_main_battle_tank_heavy_armoure d_vehicles_uk/m-84as_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_spe cifications_pictures_video_10207162.html

They will be upgraded to the T-84AS1 version "down the road" The ref. is also saying...
"Miloradović emphasizes and says that this is not the end of the development process « because we are simultaneously working on phase two, designated as an upgraded M-84 AS2 tank, which includes several more new subsystems that will additionally and significantly enhance the capabilities of our tank units »..."

I have to think the T-84 AS1 is around 1.5 years out. The T-84 AS2 I'd say is possibly within 2 years out at it's earliest.

Alright I'm tired, time to call it a night! Have a good one, everyone!?! :)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[RC4]

It's now official, PAKISTAN has just confirmed induction of the VT-4 tank today. This will be an easy one, so that means START OCT 2020. This induction follows 2 months after the al-Khalid-I was inducted in the 3rd week of August.

The al-Khalid-I, will be submitted with the German LEOPARDS as my first two tank submissions using the 2 Per Thread Plan (2PTP :D) I discussed in my last post to include all my Threads.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_ind ustry/pakistan_officially_confirms_norinco_vt4_mbt_induc tion.html

Why those two? Because I know they exist and are at FOC.

I've already started working the "rough" numbers for this MBT.

Unless someone "blows my cover" I'll be "holding my cards" the rest of the way. I've vented and I THANK YOU for allowing that, now it's time to go to work.

Something until now I didn't know existed from ISRAEL the Sabrah 105mm light tank based on tracked platform ASCOD 2 from GDELS.

This being offered for the Philippine Army's Light Tank Acquisition Project, which is in competition with Hanwha Systems K21-105 and Otokar Arma 105 light tanks, and Pindad Harimau Light Tank.

Some good competition there, this will be interesting to watch over the next year or so.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_ind ustry/elbit_systems_from_israel_offers_sabrah_light_tank _for_philippines_light_tank_acquisition_project.ht ml

Side note for to be posted in the APC Thread later...BULGARIA has chosen the PATRIA AMV XP to fulfil it's APC requirements after Phase 2 of the procurement process has just been completed. It's PATRIAs to lose in starting Phase 3 with the field tests and negotiations to come.

This a much improved version of the AMV which is considered one of the worlds best APCs at least in the "wheeled" category.

I might just come back and copy this, as I see, I can't just make a simple announcement. Surprise, Surprise. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Regarding Pakistani VT4s, I have allready mensioned "6th Lancers of 6th Armoured Division" from Pak Army source, replacing Al-Zarrar on the "Ist North Strike Corps", the Al-Zarrars will cascade to the Armoured Regiments of the Infantry Divisions at North.

As to the modernization of Portuguese Leo2A6, as a stop-gap we are allready using tablets on the turret and off-line GPS for navigation.
The crews have been complaining about the air-conditioning system on the Portuguese hot summer.

[MarkSheppard]

The new MPF is under test at aberdeen proving ground now:

US Army recently conducted trials of the General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) MPF light tank at Aberdeen Test Center.

MPF is a light tracked vehicle (light tank) intended to provide large caliber direct fire for Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). As part of MPF program, both BAE Systems and General Dynamics will deliver 12 prototypes each to the Army in 2020.

Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light tank will undergo Pre-Production Test and Soldier Vehicle Assessment soon. The 3rd BCT, 82nd Airborne Division will test MPF during the Limited User Training in the future (around FY21).

The basic turret of GDLS MPF is welded aluminum alloy construction which is equipped with applique armor and spaced armor. The vehicle is armed with 105mm M35 rifled gun and 7.62mm M240B coaxial machine gun.

The powertrain is in the front of the vehicle and exhaust system at the rear. The cooling system and exhaust system are redesigned. The Horstman In-Arm hydropneumatic suspension of each side consists of six road wheels. According to some sources, GDLS MPF maybe has been equipped with Allison transmission and American domestic diesel engine.

The crew of four consists commander, gunner, driver and loader. The Raytheon Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) is located forward of the commander's weapon station. The new Safran PASEO panoramic stabilized electro-optical sight gives the commander better DRI capability.

Metravib Pilar V Acoustic Gunshot Detection System has been selected for GDLS MPF light tank. The Pilar V is located at the rear of the turret. The system can cue tank crews while threats coming.

That last bit is interesting. You fire a shot, and the tank will localize your location and either relay it to the infantry squad accompanying the tank, or automatically slew the tank's turret to the location so that they can eliminate you by fire. That kind of changes the dynamic for snipers and other "ambush" predators on the battlefield.

http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/MPF-1.jpg
http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/MPF-2.jpg

[Suhiir]

That last bit is interesting. You fire a shot, and the tank will localize your location and either relay it to the infantry squad accompanying the tank, or automatically slew the tank's turret to the location so that they can eliminate you by fire. That kind of changes the dynamic for snipers and other "ambush" predators on the battlefield.
It may when there's only one (or two) snipers. But amid the hail of gunfire that's a typical squad (or larger) sized firefight I doubt a sniper would be noticed by the system.

[Imp]

I think its been around for quite a while its probably come of age now due to advances in computing power much like tank Active Protection Systems.
Smaller, lighter & most importantly gives you the information fast.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First respond to RC4, Many different types of equipment will be given to "combat" units for OPEVAL, R&D etc. purposes, however< that does not mean that piece of equipment has been "adopted", "inducted", "fielded", "FOC" or any other term different countries may use and to my "chagrin" choose to use.

By way of example if you wish, go to the "Patch Thread" and in the submissions (MBT's) there were dates changes due to some of the following reasons that equipment I've found were "operational" in the game due to the fact they "signed an MOU", "signed a contract", "production has started", "first units delivered to country or service branch" and on a rare occasion, someone saying they're "getting it" and they "got it" in the game and it's found that it never really happened due to "contract cancellation", "project cancellation", "can't afford it" and for reasons that fit everything in between.

So when I or anyone comes across with an article from a respectable source(s) (And personally for me doesn't include WiKi or Wiki Military) from especially the government that bought the equipment for the military branch saying they've inducted that piece of equipment on "X" date I'm posting that because it saves Don and I a lot of work up front vice on the backside.

And on my side of the fence, I don't have to deal with the issues I listed above.

This not a "slam" it's just in the case of those VT-4 tanks we have a solid source and date for them in the OOB, which I'm sure by now Don has already taken care of and hopefully won't require any rework like INDIA, USA ABRAMS and now the GERMAN LEOPARDS.

Now...

The "Sniper Detection System" we in very "loose" terms have it in the game, the sound data base, so on a Submarine we add detection gear and from many different sources we can get acoustic signatures and I'll stop there as you can look up what I just described, anymore then that, someone might decide to "deep six" me!?!

Same principle is applied to land equipment so equipped. Sound attenuates at certain frequencies and decibels based on environmental conditions. Just like we can detect a target by it's "acoustic signature" all you need is a good database, means of detection and some processing power. All of which an APC can support (And some tanks). For a Sniper it'll be able pull out a single shot from background and the frequency range used by sniper weapons in the database and you don't necessarily have to be "spot on" to a particular weapon.

They are are tied into the weapons systems which will "slew" the weapon to the "close proximity" of where the detection system and FCS computed the shot came from.

The TERREX APC from Singapore was I believe the first operational platform to have this system onboard. It also was one of my very early posts in the APC Thread I believe during "field tests" the accuracy of the system was within less than a "handful" of meters.

Supposedly newer systems are "tighter" then that now. They have what we "umbrella" now as part of "situational awareness" on land equipment.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[RC4]

The first batch of VT4 that started arriving Pakistan are 176, second will be 120 tanks, it will take some time to the Chinese to build these, sources say 5 years

Total AK-1 production will be 220 tanks

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Light tanks where we were, where we thought we were going and where we think the future lies. Part I

Where we were...
Our last operational "light tank" (Of which we did some work on a few years ago, was corrected and I believe we added one based on feedback.) was the M551 Sheridan you loved it or hated it, but, it ended up having a long service life despite it's many faults.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m551_sheridan.htm

Where we thought we were going...
A little on the heavy side for a light tank (41T) it's not out of line for that class even by todays standards. The JAGUAR was a joint project between U.S. and China, when the U.S. saw China's role as a "buffer state" against the Soviet Union. It "melded" the technologies of all 3 nations and successfully "pulled it off" until the Cold War ended and the market was "over run" with high quality cheaper MBT options. This was for it's time a very advanced tank whose armor is still classified and never been released.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm

The next was a private venture from Cadillac Gage intended for the export market. However articles started to appear that the U.S. Army was looking at the STINGRAY as a possible replacement to SHERIDAN under the AGS Program. It was dropped. Thailand is currently the only operator of this tank. We also updated this tank and after presenting enough at least some anecdotal and other evidence, we also decided to enter the STINGRAY II as well for a variety of reasons you can research in this thread and Patch one.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/stingray_light_tank.htm

The following two also competed in the U.S. Army AGS Program. I'll start with the Expeditionary Tank Prototype with an Electronics Pkg. that was considered one of the most advanced in the world on a tank at that time. Though it would lose in the final pairing, it still lives on today as the turret used on the M1128 Stryker MGS.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/expeditionary_tank.htm

Who won the AGS competition, one of the most controversial tanks I ever heard about as it was in the news quite a bit at the time. The United Defense (Later FMC) tank CCV-L/then XM8 and finally the M8 BUFORD. Though the winner, it would ultimately be a loser as it's two predecessors were when Congress told the Army to cancel the AGS Program for a variety of budget and design issues associated in the costs and development in trying to launch a tank program. What is amazing is this tank is still viable in todays conflict environments and is still being offered. It had so pluses and minuses as taken from the below ref.
On the plus side:
1) M8 Buford uses combined aluminum and steel armor. Modular titanium add-on armor, including ERA packages can be added if necessary.

2) A fully-stabilized M68A1 105 mm rifled gun, or a Rheinmetall XM35 gun, fitted with an autoloader and fire control system. Fire control system is similar to that, used on the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. Autoloader holds 19 to 21 rounds and provides a maximum rate of fire in 12 rounds per minute. Other projectiles are stowed near the driver. Gun can be loaded manually in case of emergency.

3) The M8 Buford can be airdropped from a C-130 transport aircraft or larger. The C-130 can carry one vehicle, while the C-141 (Mine-Now retired.), C-17 and C-5 can carry two, three and five respectively.

On the minus side:

1) The M8 Buford is a relatively thin-skinned vehicle, designed to support infantry from covered position and to fight in areas where it is not going to run into main battle tanks.

2) During the trials it appeared that the ammunition compartment failed to contain the reaction of the ammunition, when hit by anti-tank weapons.

Now what? Well part of that future still lies with this tank, however in an improved version which I hope to update with as a Part II. But before I go I'll leave you with something I didn't know and a "glimpse into the future" in order...

A similar design was the British VFM 5 light tank, developed by Vickers. It was based on the XM8. The VFM 5 was a simplified alternative of the XM8, intended for export customers. However it received no production orders.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vfm_5.htm

In 2015 an updated version of the M8 was revealed by BAE Systems. This light tank is still being proposed for various customers.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m8_buford.htm

And we now know it's been updated again for the current Army Light Tank competition. All I have on that by later tonight hopefully. And I have a lot. ;)

Have a good whatever today and a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Light tanks where we were, where we thought we were going and where we think the future lies. Part II

What Could've Been: This is a "side show" to note "that actions can have consequences" in this case for Turkey. Early on in the MTF Program, there was thought given to buy a light tank "off the shelf" one of which was the KAPLAN Light Tank. But things went South fairly quickly when Turkey was "courting" Russia to buy armaments, in particular the S-400P SAM System.

Though the U.S was pressuring Turkey to back off, they continued negotiations and when they announced they purchased the S-400P, the U.S. withdrew the F-35A at that point and dropped the KAPLAN for consideration by the U.S. Army.

Washout: Turkey fielded the S-400P this past Summer.

U.S. Army drops KAPLAN for Light Tank consideration.

Turkey and Lockheed Martin both loss out on F-35A sale in which, if I'm not mistaken, would've made Turkey the largest importer of the F-35A. KAPLAN...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/kaplan.htm

Where we're going...Right now still in industry trials between BAE and General Dynamics. I'm simply going to split these up by company from oldest to newest. Some of the older article I've already posted in here, however, given the timeline to come after this section, I intend to delete these from my files.

U.S. ARMY...
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.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/82nd_airborne_infantry_soldiers_to_test_light_tank _in_2020.html
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/bae-systems-gdls-behind-on-light-tank-prototype-deliveries-to-us-army

BAE...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23455/bae-us-armys-light-tank-program/
(YES THAT LONG AGO. :D)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a25619083/us-army-light-tank-bae-general-dynamics/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/light_tank_project_of_bae_systems_for_mobile_prote cted_firepower_mpf_program_of_us_army.html

GENERAL DYNAMICS... https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/general_dynamics_unveils_griffin_ii_light_tank_for _mobile_protected_firepower_of_us_army.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2020_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/general_dynamics_land_systems_releases_first_pictu re_of_new_mpf_combat_vehicle.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/general_dynamics_unveils_light_tank_for_us_army_mp f_mobile_protected_firepower_program.html

This is pretty much the latest news to this point.

Where we think the future lies...
In a "perfect world" the references agree about the following concerning the MTF Program.

Decision sometime in 2022 of who wins.

When Army units are planned to receive them, somewhere between 2024 - 2025. This does not necessarily imply FOC. That implies OPEVALS and the clock keeps on ticking.

But I'm sure someone will want it in the game now. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, I've been tracking it for about 4 years now, so what's another 4-6 years!?! :p

Hittin the rack!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[RC4]

The first batch of VT4 that started arriving Pakistan are 176, second will be 120 tanks, it will take some time to the Chinese to build these, sources say 5 years

Total AK-1 production will be 220 tanks

No APS Hardkill system installed
BTA-4 APFSDS
GP-5 ATGM w/5000m range
FY-4 ERA
RCWS
9 rounds per min
Shippment of 24 Tanks arrivrd in June
1st complete 44 VT4 Regiment (6th Lancers) in 20/09/20
US$ 859 million for 176 VT4s (4 Regiments-2 Brigades)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Back home. Followed the conversation concerning N. Koreas "new" tank. It would've been nice to have Marcello's as I personally, have to acknowledge the fact he was the "master" when it came to North Korea in this forum. And the "tripartite" effort to fix and dissect the latest tank(s) and other equipment for a few years back was a challenge, of which I appreciated that he let me into "his world". Don will correct me I hope, but, I believe Marcello pretty much built that OOB and did a GREAT job of it.

One must not forget those who've done so much for this game. And he did, even if we didn't always see "eye to eye".

Well the following continues that discussion, and I have to agree with the points and the assumptions made in the following article.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_ind ustry/north_korea_unveils_new_main_battle_tank_using_des ign_of_russian_t-14_armata.html

Those tanks "look" cleaner then when the Russians first showed off the T-14. They somewhat look like the "skins" people were putting on their cars a few years back. And as Don pointed out the Diesel fumes coming off those tanks were either demonstrating they smoke screen capability (Which is of a poor quality.) :rolleyes: or that those engines are of a poor quality and badly maintained. I vote for the latter, but, that's just me. :p

Finally let me ask the following...When was the last time you saw a tank where the paint scheme didn't match on the whole tank to include the "side skirts"? Well for me never. Also I bring your attention to the front of the tank at the "corner" where it appears it's starting to "wrap around" towards the front of the tank, however, the "side skirt" seems to maintain a "linear" straight line.

It just doesn't "look" right to me.
16149

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_ind ustry/north_korea_unveils_new_main_battle_tank_using_des ign_of_russian_t-14_armata.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/north-koreas-new-main-battle-tank-one-giant-mystery-170660

I've things to catch up on and been on the road for 8-9 hours with all the usual stops. So until next time, well, next time!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[RC4]

Pak vt4

[Suhiir]

Might find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfq7d4kFP1E

The comments about tank-infantry telephones and infantry support of armor in urban environments were particularly interesting I thought.

Also the comments about the change in emphasis from projecting power/control over land that can be used to support future operations to projecting power/control over the sea and air space.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I must say "Kid you done good!", I watched both Parts 1 & 2 and I heard a word I've put out here for so many years in it's many other forms as well through...economics it does rule the world. ;)

So many good points I even heard 1 AD Battalion w/1 RSV Battalion (USMC MBT's) in the discussion also what I and many others that know more then I do support at a minimum level. And that conversation towards the end did conclude that thought the CORPS might find itself in a land war down the road with a what then discussion.

Also from Part 2 was the the comparison from the 1930's concerning the USMC (And in reality what most major powers, was "lighten up" on armor. Except of course Germany.) when they "lightened up" in the Pacific and were relying on heavy artillery and the Battleships of the the Navy to be applied against an aggressor in the region.

We of the Navy still remember Dec. 7 1941. It's ingrained in us.

One can wonder are we coming to "full circle" and "doomed to repeat the past", I don't think so. So the USMC will rely on the USN again to provide "over the horizon" ship to whatever the target missiles.

I guess we better get started on building more ships!
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-navy-checks-inventory-to-help-us-marine-corps-implement-force-design-2030-plan

I also liked the story about the USMC M1A1 tanks that rolled ashore in Somalia in "The MOAG" without ammo but cruised the streets and everyone was well behaved. :D It was all part of a discussion on the psychological aspect of having tanks by those that have and those that don't.

1 from USA Tank School, 2 from RAND probably this countries top political and military "think tank" and the "Professor".

No light weights there.

I'll be reviewing the ones he has on the UK armor situation. The first he is talking to the same gentle from the Defense Committee that was in the APC Post from last night.

Maybe I can gain some further insights.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Personally I think getting rid of the tanks is a mistake.

I think the new Commandant is a bit to fixated on air and sea control. Neither of which have EVER been USMC missions (with the exception of air control during Guadalcanal). The Marines are to there seize and control those unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Navy and Army to exploit.

The penny packet Defense Battalions during the 1930's were speed bumps. They couldn't hold vs a determined amphibious assault (i.e. Wake and Guam). No reason to think a 2030s one will fare any better.

The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.

The following discusses the entire force restructuring issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkBsJ1s-Vc

[DRG]

The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.

Which is why top attack ATGM are so important. Tanks cannot be made immune everywhere

[Imp]

Personally I think getting rid of the tanks is a mistake.

I think the new Commandant is a bit to fixated on air and sea control. Neither of which have EVER been USMC missions (with the exception of air control during Guadalcanal). The Marines are to there seize and control those unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Navy and Army to exploit.

The penny packet Defense Battalions during the 1930's were speed bumps. They couldn't hold vs a determined amphibious assault (i.e. Wake and Guam). No reason to think a 2030s one will fare any better.

The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.

The following discusses the entire force restructuring issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkBsJ1s-Vc

Have to agree while tanks may not be the first thing on the beach you need to be able to land them quickly if needed. Relying on the Army to supply them is risky bureaucrats could delay things & as you say top tier armour is becoming invulnerable to ATGMs.
My view its where they decided to cut the cost to spend more on weapons with reach.
Replacing artillery batteries with longer range missiles looks good on paper but I bet the cost to use them in action has jumped - shell vs missile.
Near peer could probably intercept the missile easier than the shell as well. Putting faith in planes for ground attack against other than structures & infrastructure is also risky ground units are far more effective even today.
Not to mention cost you can buy & maintain several tanks for the cost of a high end fighter.

[MarkSheppard]

Well now this is oddball:

https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2020/11/philippine-army-orders-light-tanks/

The Philippine Army appears to be preparing to introduce mobile protected direct fire capabilities, often classified as “light tanks” or “assault guns” to its force. It has not had a “tank” since the M-41 Walker Bulldog in the 1950s.

Currently the closest it has had are the Scorpion CVRT and locally modified M113 APCs both with the same a low velocity 76 mm L23A1 gun turret. However, the Army recently announced it’s award of a US$196 million contract to Elbit Systems under its Light Tank Acquisition Project.

Under the contact Elbit will integrate its Sabra 105mm gun turret system on both eight ASCOD tracked and ten Pandur wheeled armoured vehicle chassis provided by General Dynamics European Systems.

The Sabra uses an automatic loader with a ready capacity of 12 rounds. The gun can fire standard NATO ammunition including HESH, HEAT and APFSDS anti-tank rounds. Details of the fire control system have not been revealed, however, it is anticipated to draw on Elbit’s line of advanced digital thermal sights and controls.

The Sabra has further been displayed with a roof mounted panoramic sight. It was also reported proposed with Elbit’s C4 system, including a Battle Management System (BMS), and the Combat NG fire control and command system both of which are already in service in the Philippine Army.

The mix of tracked and wheeled platforms suggest that the ASCOD versions may be employed with the Army’s M113 equipped units and the Pandurs with its wheeled IVECO Brazil Guarani armoured vehicle units. Indeed a second contract has also been provided to Elbit for an additional 28 of the later with a .50 remote weapons station under the Wheeled APC Acquisition Project. These Elbit contracts follow previous contracts to the company for adding it’s ORCWS to Army M113A2s.

The Light Tank Project as been on going since 2015 and has included consideration of candidates from Korean Hanwha, Belgium’s Cockrill, Turkey’s Otokar, Indonesia’s PT Pindad, and Elbit with GDELS.

http://maxdefense.blogspot.com/2020/10/philippine-armys-light-tank-and-wheeled.html?m=1

So basically:

Light Tank Project:

18 x Sabrah ASCOD 2 (Tracked) Tanks
10 x Sabrah Pandur II 8x8 Wheeled Tanks
1 x ASCOD 2 Command Vehicle
1 x ASCOD 2 Armored Recovery Vehicle

All tanks to be equipped with Elbit 105mm turret.

APC Project:
28 x IVECO Guarani 6x6 APCs (12.7mm / 40mm AGL manned turret)

Option to mount RWS with 12.7mm HMG.

[MarkSheppard]

Information on Japanese MBTs, if Andy and Don want to take a stab at refining the Japanese OOB:

Tanks. Being Tanks on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/tanksbeingtanks/photos/a.1170607662997977/1865780353480701

English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_74

Japanese Wikipedia thru Google Translate
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/61%E5%BC%8F%E6%88%A6%E8%BB%8A
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/74%E5%BC%8F%E6%88%A6%E8%BB%8A
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AC%AC1%E6%A9%9F%E7%94%B2%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9% 9A%8A

Japanese Websites thru Google Translate
http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/61SHIKI.htm
http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/74SHIKI.htm
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/06df27c4e71cadb6ab4e3fb2e07e69975f331b87

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

Type 61 MBT
All remaining Type 61s were retired in 2000 (Heisei 12) due to the increasing deployment of Type 90 MBT. Over 39 years of service, no major improvements were made; only minor ones such as infrared searchlights and smoke grenade dischargers.

Ammunition used in the Type 61 MBT was:

M318A1 APCBC, 910 m/sec muzzle velocity, 189mm RHA @ 1,000m.
M431 HEAT
M71 HE

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

Type 74 MBT

At the end of March 2020 (Reiwa 2), the JGSDF only has about 136 x Type 74 MBTs left.

At the present rate of retirement of 40~ vehicles a year, the Type 74 will be fully retired by about 2023.

When it first entered service, it had an analog ballistic computer, this was upgraded over the years to a fully digital system.

There are several variants of the T74:

Type 74 first mod (74式戦車 初期生産型) aka Mod A
Initial production model.

Type 74 mod B (74式戦車 B型)
Improved FCS, can fire two types of APDS rounds and Type 75 High explosive Plastic rounds (HEP/HESH). Ammo racks modified to fit APFSDS? Most of the initial (Mod A) version was upgraded to this variant.

Type 74 mod C (74式戦車 C型)
About 50 to 60 vehicles were made alongside the Mod B. The main "tell" is the two-color dark green/brown camouflage, whereas Mod A/B operated in single color olive drab. No real information on what changed besides color.

Type 74 mod D (74式戦車 D型)
The 105mm L7 gun was upgraded with a thermal sleeve. All prior tanks were eventually upgraded with this.

Type 74 mod E (74式戦車 E型)
Most widespread variant of the Type 74, with an improved FCS that can handle the newer Type 91 HEAT-MP round that replaced the Type 75 HEP. About 80% of all prior tanks were upgraded to the E Model.

Type 74 mod F (74式戦車 F型)
This variant has the attachments to use the Type 92 mineroller. ~10 or less of this variant exist.

Type 74 mod G/Kai (74式戦車 G型/改)
This was a 1990s modernization program intended to extend the life of the Type 74. The FCS was modernized, applique side skirts were attached and the gunner received a thermal sight. The suffix "Kai" meaning refurbished/upgraded was also used for these.

Because of the immense cost (100~ million yen per vehicle), only the prototype and four other vehicles were completed; due to the cost issues. Essentially, if 500 of the existing 893~ Type 74 MBTs had been upgraded, the total cost would have been 50~ billion yen, or about equal to 60~ Type 90 MBTs. With the post-Cold War era of the 1990s in sight, the JGSDF chose to spend the money instead on brand new Type 90s.

All four operational Type 74G/Kai tanks were assigned to the JGSDF Fuji School (Combined Training) Brigade and then later to the JGSDF 1st Armored Training Unit. The Type 74G left JGSDF service on 25 March 2019 when the JGSDF 1st Armored Training Unit was abolished.

Ammo for Type 74

The ammuntion used by the Type 74 was:

L28A1 APDS imported from UK; muzzle velocity of 1,478 m/sec; 240mm RHA @ 1000m. Initial loadout 1974 onwards.

M735 APFSDS, built under license in Japan. 1,500 m/sec muzzle velocity, 359mm RHA @ 1000m and 318mm @ 2000m. Began to be used from 1984 onwards.

Type 93 APFSDS, built by Daikin Industries. First indigenous sabot round by Japan. 1,500 m/sec muzzle velocity, estimated 414 mm RHA @ 2,000m. Produced from 1993 onwards.

Type 75 HEP is a license built US M393 HEP, albeit using a brass cartridge case instead of the American M393's steel. Can penetrate 120-150mm RHA.

Type 91 HEAT-MP. Said to have greater penetration than US M456 HEAT which has 360-425mm RHA penetration.

[DRG]

Found this source while looking into the post above that may be of interest to some.

https://bulletpicker.com/index.html

The first objective of this site was to post and offer a collection of public domain technical manuals and ordnance related books (whose copyrights have expired) scanned as PDF files. This collection went public in late May, 2016.

I haven't gone through all of it ( it would take days ) it, unfortunately, does not deal with penetration data so much as just about everything else but if you want to know what a particular munition looks like and what kind of propellant and primer was used as well as Chamber pressure and Velocity this has that

[MarkSheppard]

I'm looking around and from the War Thunder (I know, I know I know) forums at:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/503514-fold-the-type-74f

claims that the Type 74D with thermal sleeve on the gun was introduced in 1987.

Regarding ammunition:

It appears that the L28xx family of ammunition by the UK was also German DM13 under license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7

IOC for L28 ammo was 1959; so looks to me like you could use the following base guns for the Type 74 (with adjustments)

UK OBAT 007 Weapon 095 -- 105mm L7 UK59
for initial Type 74 IOC with L28A1 APDS and Type 75 HEP.

US OBAT 012 Weapon 098 - 105mm M68 78
for 1984 onwards Type 74 with M735 APFSDS built under license in Japan, but keeping the Type 75 HEP/HESH warhead from UK OBAT 007 Weapon 095 -- 105mm L7 UK59; resulting in the following values:

(see attachment)

Germany OBAT 044 Weapon 99 - 105mm L7 WG81
for 1993 onwards Type 74 with Type 93 APFSDS and Type 91 HEAT-MP. (It appears Type 91 HEAT did not enter service until 1993. I guess Japan waited until both rounds came into service to upgrade their ballistics computers with the drag values.)

The estimated 414mm RHA @ 2,000m given in some sources for Type 93 APFSDS is very close to the penetration given for DM13 in 1979 (220mm RHA @ 2 km @ 60 deg = 440mm RHA); so it makes sense to just use DM13 values.

[MarkSheppard]

Another Japanese page (http://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/74.htm) claims:

Type 74B: 1984 -- Improved FCS to support Sabot Rounds.

Type 74C - 1987. Two color camouflage

Type 74D - 1987. Thermal Sleeve.

Type 74E: - 1991; Improved FCS to support Type 91 HEAT-MP in 1991.

Type 74F - 1993, Mine Roller.

I'll leave it up to you as to how to integrate the differing claims between my prior research posts.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Looks like Marks info is pretty much "spot on" concerning the TYPE 74 MBT. Just some points with additional data from some other sources the first of which is a "conglomerate" of several different ones in one "comprehensive" format with additional independent supporting ones also offered.

Background: The first post war indigenous tank built by Japan was the TYPE 61 which was meant to address the "shortfalls" of the USA tanks they inherited the CHAFFEE which the Japanese liked as it well suited their terrain issues but sorely lacked in firepower even against T-34/85 tanks as shown in Korea. The other (And the number varies from 250 -300 tanks. Versus several hundred CHAFFEES.) was the Sherman tank of the "Easy Eight" variant (M4A3E8) which had it's own issues also to include the terrain were maneuver was a problem.

The doctrine adopted was simply to combine light armor, solid firepower and, most importantly, the ability to traverse rough terrain. This doctrine still guides them today to a degree, but improved upon based on their potential adversary-RUSSIA as we've seen starting with the TYPE 90.

The TYPE 61 was already obsolete when it was fielded. Which lead to the development of the TYPE 74. Many sites attribute the TYPE 74 as the first tank to have a Ballistic FC Computer and to address the terrain issue, it has a hydropneumatic suspension, allowing this MBT to "sit", "stand", "kneel" or to "lean" (Still used today.). This feature was incorporated from the canceled German-US MBT-70 design. The driver can adjust the suspension to suit the type of terrain on "the fly" which is a big advantage to the Japanese even today.

Unfortunately, and only slightly so compared to the TYPE 60, the TYPE 74 was shortly after being fielded in 1980 also pretty much out dated. With Russia in continuing to develop the T-72 and later the T-80, Japan saw the need to develop a new tank which started in 1977 as the
TK-X. It would be known as the TYPE 90 which took 13 years to be fielded.

I have to respectfully disagree with Mark, math (Though 200 are still in service. See Army Rec ref. first below.) aside I see the the TYPE 74 Mod E "[B]sticking around" much closer to games end due to COVIDs economic impact and other factors as noted below to include very recent Russian activity right "next door".

This tank is a "survivor" first the TYPE 90 was to replace it in the mid-late 90's but, the Cold War ended and Defense Budgets were cut world wide and many international MBT development projects also were cut.

Russia and a "rising" China would bring about the development of the TYPE 10 which was also to replace the the TYPE 74 and also the TYPE 90. All that planning was laid waste in 2008/2009 in the world wide economic crash, soaring developmental costs and delays in getting the TYPE 10 in the field. The cost per tank just soared.

Japan has just in the last couple of years started making more TYPE 10 tanks at a much slower pace. What will replace the TYPE 74 will be the MCV-16 I submitted for the last patch (And fielded this year if I remember correctly.) which Don entered. Production of which will be at a modest rate which is why I see the TYPE 74 sticking around longer, again, along with the Russian issue from above.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industr y/army_of_japan_to_acquire_more_local-made_type_10_main_battle_tanks_mbts.html


Highlights below for the TYPE 74...

Main Gun: Japanese designation is the L/51 produced in Japan based on the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm rifled gun (Specifically the A3 version.) but modified by Japan to have the characteristics more closely resembling the USA M68 105mm rifled gun. It was therefore not a copy of the L7.

Initial ammo:
L28A1 APDS (imported from Britain, 240mm penetration at 1km)
Type 91 HEAT
Type 75 HEP-T (license-produced M393 HEP)

Armor:
Mantlet: 195mm
Turret front: 120mm
Turret side: 110mm
Turret rear: 60mm
Turret top: 40mm
Hull upper frontal plate: 40mm at 75 degrees
Hull mid frontal plate: 80mm at 65 degrees
Hull lower frontal plate: 80mm at 55 degrees
Hull side: 35mm
Hull rear: 25mm

It’s worth noting that several “patterns” of this tank were produced over the years:

Type 74 initial production model (roughly 400 were built)

Type 74 Mod B with an improved FCS and the ability to fire APFSDS rounds (all initial production models were upgraded to this pattern)

Type 74 Mod C is basicallyMod B, but with actual camouflage instead of the standard khaki color

Type 74 Mod D features a thermal sleeve for the gun (everything older was gradually upgraded to Mod D)

Type 74 Mod E features another upgrade to its FCS and the ability to fire Type 91 HEAT-MP rounds instead of the older Type 75 HEP loadout, this is the last major pattern and most of the older vehicles were gradually upgraded to Mod E

There were two more patterns developed:

Type 74 Mod F with a mine-clearing device (around 10 vehicles built)

Type 74 Mod G, also known as Type 74 Kai (or Type 74 Improved) with improved night-fighting equipment and protection, consisting of additional spaced armor and a rudimentary soft-kill APS (laser warning receiver connected to its smoke grenade launchers, deploying smoke automatically as soon as the vehicle is targeted by a laser)
Of the Type 74 Mod G only four vehicles built as prototypes before it was decided this program was not economically feasible.
https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-type-74
(Again above compresses data from TankNut, National Interest ("Think Tank"), Military Factory and other sites.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_74.htm
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/Japan/Japanese_Cold_War_tanks.php
(To supplement Dons need to get his ICON "fix" in.) :D
https://www.facebook.com/tanksbeingtanks/posts/2599673606758035

What this about Russia...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2020_global_security_army_in dustry/russian_t-72b3_tanks_to_defend_kuril_islands_against_amphibi ous_assault_and_small_warships.html
https://news.yahoo.com/time-solve-kuril-islands-dispute-233000316.html

I guess they "fear" Japan is going to invade them!?! :rolleyes:

COVID and Economic Impact: The following was originally posted in the Int. Defense Green and White Paper Thread Post #61 last week this quote taken from the ref below as was posted last week as indicated.
"The pandemic has wiped around 20 years’ worth of growth off of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."
https://www.army-technology.com/features/global-britain-must-step-up-uk-defence-secretary/

If your an investor, it could be 10 years to recover fully (World Economies) if you listen to the experts. I'm hoping for half that, Thank You very much!?! ;)

Dinner!!!!! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[MarkSheppard]

A big reason the Type 74 hung on is logistics:

http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/shin-ampobouei2010/dai5/siryou1.pdf

Bridge Passage Rate in Japan based off of 17,920 bridges in Japan; extracted from that PDF via Google Translate:

Foreign MBT (60 tonnes): 40% of bridges in Japan (M1A2 and Challenger II, 62 tons; Merkava Mk 4, 65 tons)
Type 90 MBT (50 tonnes): 65% of bridges in Japan
Type 10 MBT (44 tonnes): 84% of bridges in Japan

Using Curve Expert Professional software, I estimated through various equations the passage % of the Type 74 -- many of them were in excess of 100%. A more reasonable estimate would be:

Type 74 MBT (38 tonnes): 90-95% -- taking into account that 83,775 lbs (38 tonnes) is still pretty heavy; many of the residential bridges I drive over as part of my work have a weight limit of around 38,000 lbs.

Also, for fun, here's what Pat mentioned:

Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle (26 tonnes / 57,320 lbs) -- you can see why the Japanese are going for a Heavy Mobile Wheeled Tank system -- it'll be cheaper and faster to move around than even the Type 74 MBT.

Also highly likely is that new 105mm ammo will be developed for the Type 16 MCV to offset the smaller calibre main gun.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well with a couple of exceptions from my last, oh how we like to repeat ourselves. :o :doh:

See Page 104/Post #1031.

On MCV-16 as submitted...

See Page 85/Post #849

How time flies, and I thought it was just last year.

I love chasing my tail. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[blazejos]

Poland has first Leopards 2PL from may 2020 in military units mdernisation is for 2A4 but also 2A5. Also has starting upgrades for older T-72 to new T-72M1R variant

Tekst pochodzi z Magazynu Militarnego MILMAG.
Przeczytaj więcej na: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.milmag.pl/news/view%3Fnews_id%3D4450&usg=ALkJrhgO4s5zGzqxrmhQ8syBKZgQcVmA9w
Here article

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.milmag.pl%2Fnews%2Fview%3Fnews _id%3D4450

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
Please hold off on the Polish LEOPARDS. Yes they got a handful in the beginning of the the Summer (29 May 2020/2 MBT's). They just received some more to outfit in total, I believe a Companies worth. Still looking at implications to the FCS. Will see a TI/GSR increase to 45 I'm thinking at present. Trying to tie up a couple of "loose ends" with these tanks.

Might as well "dump" my folder on the topic now I suppose. These don't include what I've already posted in this thread concerning development etc. Oldest to Newest...
https://www.defence24.com/polish-german-memorandum-leopard-mbt-support-system
(German support March 11, 2019)
(You gotta get up earlier in the morning, to get the worm!?! ;))

https://www.defence24.com/breakthrough-polish-army-takes-delivery-of-leopard-2pl-tanks
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industr y/polish_army_receives_its_first_modernized_leopard_ 2pl_mbt_main_battle_tanks.html
https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=4526
(Got 2 more on the way.)

https://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo_2020_news_official_show_daily/mspo_2020_polish_army_unveils_leopard_2pl_tank_mbt _modernized_version_of_2a4_version.html
(Could have 12 by years end.)

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2020_global_security_army_in dustry/more_leopard_2pl_tanks_to_be_inducted_in_polish_ar my.html
(Hope to have 7 more from Polish industry by the end of the year. Awaiting delivery of 6 from Germany "as soon as possible".) (Total now at 11 MBT's)

Looking hard at above ref. picture apparently taken at the factory. I'm specifically looking at the Turret Top/Sides& Frontal armor as these saw improvement.

If they get at least 4 more tanks from either source as noted from the last ref. this year, I recommend START JAN 2021 if not, START APRIL 2021.

We won't see it, but since France and Germany won't let Poland in on their new tank, then maybe Italy and SPAIN will...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2020_global_security_army_in dustry/poland_might_jointly_develop_a_main_battle_tank_to _replace_italian_c1_ariete.html
https://www.defence24.com/will-poland-build-a-main-battle-tank-with-italy-and-spain-political-decisions-are-the-key

CINCLANTHOME will kick my xxx for this! (OK! it's more like staying up until early in the morning, then what I said above. :p

Anyway off to bed, going to get "fat" on THANKSGIVING Day Dinner at lunch before work. Hopefully the tryptophan won't make me sleepy on post, they don't like kind've thing where I work!?! :D

For those that do, have a Happy Thanksgiving Day! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The following is already on my work list. We entered it for Nicaragua about 4 years back I believe. Need to verify Uruguay and Laos (Though we might have got that one.) against OOB.

Also need to make no improvements have been made, if not, we can just copy over from Nicaragua. ;)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2020_global_security_army_in dustry/serbian_army_unveils_its_new_acquisition_of_russia n_t-72b1ms_white_eagle_main_battle_tanks.html

Have more refs in my folder no time now! Above "hot" off the press.

Gotta get ready for work!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Karagin]

https://www.army-technology.com/features/using-ugvs-for-decoy-and-deception-digital-concepts-engineering/

So how would we mimic these?

[Karagin]

https://www.army-technology.com/news/russia-trials-lotos-self-propelled-artillery-gun/

Air-droppable....now that is a new twist.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Those systems are very much in the early phases of development. I believe there was a discussion a few years back also concerning the use of lasers, which is a little further along in development.

I believe the "outcome" of that discussion might be the same for "Bot-Tanks" etc., that we don't see them.

I can only imagine the programing/software potential issues that would have to be overcome, but the more pressing issue is time, we're running out of it and we have have guarantee that Andy and Don will want to see this to the end.

The last submissions and "possible" patch would be due by February 2026 at latest to get any new equipment in that entered service in 2025. And there'll be other OOB issues as well.

And just as important is the in some cases, extreme lack of slots available in some of the OOB's. We came up with a solution a few months ago to free up some slots in the USA OOB by moving the
"Gunships" into the GREEN OOB.

From what I'm reading on the subject whether it's air, land or sea based combat antonymous or "piloted" remotely equipment, they won't reach practical application until the late 2020's to mid 2030's.

By that time we'll be reminiscing about the "good ole days" sipping our favorite beverages and God willing, enjoying our retirement.

Which in small part for me means, actually being able to enjoy playing the game without worrying about "One World One OOB (OWOO)", allocation of my personal time (And you can read into that what you want.), working for a living to get to retirement, investing for it etc. etc. and most importantly giving back to CINCLANTHOME who puts up with me especially this time of year in doing "my projects".

And then there's always "C and C" and "Red Alert" for that stuff.

Lasers and Robots as weapons don't really do much for me anyway, besides that's nothing new, I saw that in STARS WARS back in 1977. It's "old news" now!?! :p



Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Karagin]

Maybe in the US OOB cut back the National Guard units....

[DRG]

Removing any unit, especially ones that have been there since the early days is a PITA and in the case of the gunships will require (IIRC) a couple dozen scenarios to be reworked and none of that is a non trivial " oh-we-can-farm-that-out-to- interested-players" type of thing so *IF* it gets done *I* get to do it and it will need to be a day I'm really motivated to do so and those are scarcer than they used to be.

Not to mention writing up an explanation in the game guide only half the players( if we're lucky )will have read so that means explaining on the forums again and again why someone cannot find them when they remember using them in the past.

Open up Scenhack, click on the SQL tab and enter this

select distinct ScenNum, uclass, sTitle, Unit,uName from sData where uName like "%Natl%"

[DRG]

And just as important is the in some cases, extreme lack of slots available in some of the OOB's. We came up with a solution a few months ago to free up some slots in the USA OOB by moving the
"Gunships" into the GREEN OOB.

......which *seemed* a "good idea" ATT but the flaw in that idea is that the Green OOB already has it's own Gunships which would conflict with the US ones unless the US ones were added over top of the existing Green ones and any Green or USA gunship would be one = the other

[Suhiir]

And just as important is the in some cases, extreme lack of slots available in some of the OOB's. We came up with a solution a few months ago to free up some slots in the USA OOB by moving the
"Gunships" into the GREEN OOB.

......which *seemed* a "good idea" ATT but the flaw in that idea is that the Green OOB already has it's own Gunships which would conflict with the US ones unless the US ones were added over top of the existing Green ones and any Green or USA gunship would be one = the other
Since gunships (if I'm not mistaken) are not in the picklists and can only be purchased during scenario design I don't see a real problem with US and non-US gunships in the Green OOB.

[DRG]

Since gunships (if I'm not mistaken) are not in the picklists and can only be purchased during scenario design I don't see a real problem with US and non-US gunships in the Green OOB.

Green is a non specific OOB and yes, Gunships are not a picklist item there is still the issue of all the known scenarios that currently use them from the USA OOB and an unknown number of campaign scenarios.

I know how much work is involved with this because we've already done it in the past when all the wonderful "future weapons" that had been added to the USA OOB back near the beginning had to be stripped out when most never made it past the field testing stage but in that case, there were few "what-if future" scenarios made that used them.

Gunships OTOH are used in scenarios that cover a number of years and it's not just a matter of repurchasing them from the Green OOB. Each scenario that uses them needs to be checked to see if they are set up to be available at the start of the game or are re-enforcements and if they have been targeted and if yes, at what turn and where so when they are re-bought from the Green OOB they can be set up the same way.

There is way more to this than simply copying all the gunship units and all their weapons and moving them to the Green OOB

[Suhiir]

There is way more to this than simply copying all the gunship units and all their weapons and moving them to the Green OOB
I never meant to imply it was easy, merely that mixing US and non-US units in the Green OOB shouldn't be an issue.

More then most around here I know how much "fun" OOB changes are.

For those interested it took probably 1000+ hours work on my part to rebuild the USMC OOB and picklists, and probably another 100 or more for Don to check and correct alredy existing scenarios.

Doable, yes.
Easy, hell no!

[DRG]

First the units need to be set up in Green, then the weapons if they are not already in the OOB and once that is done I can look at the scenarios that use them and it would be way easier if I could use Scenhack to do it and normally I could but changing aircraft units in Scenhack cancels any missions so each scenario needs to be checked to see if the SD planned a mission and the where and when.

Right now I have the units copied and when I have time for the next step I will get the weapons sorted out and then take a look at the scenarios so if any of the campaign designers reading this recall a campaign that had these things let me know or even if someone played a campaign and remembers seeing them it would save searching through all the campaign scenarios

[DRG]

An interesting video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHxGO9pTpw8

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

That was useful!

What I got from it was...

1. It's confirmed that LAHAT launcher system carries 12 missiles with a semi-carousal auto loader, the system is more compact then I thought and appears might not in fact impact other main gun ammo supply. This of course might affects in real terms the Indian ARJUN Mk-1A and certainly the most recent versions of the Israel's MERKAVA. At 4:05 point.

2. ABRAMs never has the armor penetrated by an ATGW. RPG's is another story, until TUSK came along.

3. CHALLENGER 2 are we possibly under representing it's armor? If I remember (Should've made a "real" note.) correctly one took 15 RPG hits with no armor penetrations' during Iraqi Freedom Ops.

4. Looks like from the video South Koreas K2 is also equipped now with the KASAM II Smart Top Attack ammo. I believe with the modifications we made last year to the K2 PIP we allowed for this ammo. The ref. last para offers some performance data...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/south-koreas-k2-black-panther-tank-ready-war-it-doesnt-come-cheap-173046

5. LeClerc is really fast!

Don't think I missed anything, but, I'm sure someone will tell me if I did.!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

That was useful!
3. CHALLENGER 2 are we possibly under representing it's armor? If I remember (Should've made a "real" note.) correctly one took 15 RPG hits with no armor penetrations' during Iraqi Freedom Ops.

The questions are

which RPG
which part of the tank was hit


The way we have the Challenger II set up it has more than enough armour to take repeated hits with RPG-7 front and side. RPG-7 IIRC was the most common used by the Iraquis

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
They had more of them then most others in Iraq, I believe it to have mostly been on the sides I read many years ago.

We're good then on CHALLENGER 2 then.

And you've just shown some in the community there's other factors in the testing of equipment before they get entered in the game.

More to it then, "I think we should have this in the game." lots more indeed.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

The questions are
which RPG
which part of the tank was hit

Take what that guy posts in videos with a pinch of salt.

Nowadays with add on armour packs its nearly impossible to estimate what package will be used in actual combat.
Modern vehicles with heavy packages seem virtually immune to RPG 7s.
Forget the Challenger this warrior took 12 RPG 7 hits

[DRG]

Johnson Beharry(VC)Good example





On approach to the beleaguered squad, the platoon noticed an unusual sight in front of them. The roads were clear of all traffic, all cars, and there was not a single civilian in sight. With the clear sign of an ambush ahead, the platoon commander ordered a halt of all vehicles to assess the situation. It was too late; they had already entered the kill zone. At that moment, Beharry’s lead vehicle was hit with multiple RPG strikes. In an instant, the platoon commander and the gunner in Beharry’s Warrior were incapacitated.

With the column taking heavy damage and completely on his own initiative, Beharry closed the driver’s hatch and decided to push through the ambush, freeing the rest of the platoon to follow behind him.

With no idea as to whether the rest of the crew was alive or dead, he continued to push until he hit a barricade placed on the road. At that point, his vehicle was hit again with multiple RPGs filling the cabin with thick smoke. Obligated to open the hatch and expose his head to the heavy rain of small arms fire, he continued to drive the column forward to safety straight through the barrier. At one point, Beharry himself took a 7.62mm bullet directly to the head which became miraculously lodged in his helmet.

Finally making his way to the outpost, he dismounted the vehicle still under heavy small arms fire and began to evacuate his crew. He then remounted his burning vehicle and moved it to a strategic position in order to defend against the enemy. Eventually collapsing from exhaustion, Beharry was done for the day, but not for the war.

One More Ambush

After returning from medical treatment, Beharry was back in action by June. On the 11th of that month, Beharry’s Warrior was called to cut off an enemy mortar team in the middle of the night. Winding his way through the dark city streets, he once again found himself in the one place he didn’t want to be. Another ambush rained down upon him from the rooftops and it was once again up to him to lead his men out of trouble. However, it was at this moment an RPG struck just six inches from his head resulting in a significant head injury. As rockets continued to strike the vehicle, his commander and crew were again out of the fight.

we might take a look at the Warriors numbers again though....

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The below comes from those "rediscovered" folders that cover all the threads I started a longtime ago. These predate my current PC and when I was using Mozilla Firefox. I mentioned these not long ago because I found equipment that never got submitted for the game.

This ref. was written by then (Summer of 1980.) Paul F. Gorman Major General, USA. Released in March 2004 (Still redacted.) by whom not sure. And a final release by the CIA on July 29, 2014.

This assessment is from the prospective of the USA. It DOES NOT paint a "pretty picture" of our capabilities against Russian Armor. From similar documents on the topic from the CIA's own assessments (That I posted in the forum somewhere several years back.) one of the reasons the Soviets never attacked NATO was though they recognized their armor advantage, they felt it was negated by NATO's perceived advantage in high quality ATGW's.

We just did a good job of keeping our mouths shut.

The first ref. is a cleaner larger font article from the above mentioned 2014 release. Stay with this one, however, read the notes of the below one-please.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000624298.pdf

The next is the 2004 release. It's the one I had in those files. Posting it because some of the graphs are easier to read i.e. Page 7 graphs are better here then in the above version.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf

Notice the document numbers are different on reach release.

This is a very interesting read if you wish to do so.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This a boiling down to "reading the tea leaf's" when it comes to a lot of equipment we deal with including the M1A2C (SEP V3). My "brain" has been busy so I can't remember what the revised date I threw out was but, the game START of JUN 2020 wasn't correct.

But it thrills me to no end to keep tracking these things until FOC is achieved. We are about at the 4 year mark now almost it appears based on the following army.mil articles below we still have a bit to go. But I see a "faint light on the horizon", because now I know what Division will be first fully equipped and that'll be the 1st Cav. Div. Ft. Hood, TX. and the process has begun.

The article is from Sep 17, 2020 on the occasion of the Divisions 99th Anniversary. Now knowing how our military "loves" to mark sometimes major new equipment news with major unit anniversaries when they present themselves such as a 100th one, I think we might see FOC in JAN 2022.
https://www.army.mil/article/239141/first_team_celebrates_99_years

New we move to November 18, 2020 and the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team , 1st Cavalry Division, “Black Jack” s the first command to receive the Next Generation Automatic Test System or NGATS which the M1A2C and newer BRADLEY's will be equipped with. This will allow a unit to maintain their equipment and repair them quicker in a "running" battle if you will.
https://www.army.mil/article/241069/black_jack_brigade_becomes_first_unit_equipped_wit h_next_generation_automatic_testing_system

All these type of issues are what's needed to get, if you will, to the "end product". Again the "tea leaf's" are suggesting START JAN 2022.

Well for the CORPS as I posted a couple of days ago, "no news is good news" for concerning their tanks.

I just went through their .mil site and the following official DOD website, which will link you to the USMC current force structure.. I'm sure you do the same for the USA if you want.
https://www.defense.gov/Experience/Military-Units/Marine-Corps/

Alright here's the ARMY...:p
https://www.defense.gov/Experience/Military-Units/Army/

Now I'm off to bed, some of us still need to earn a living!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: So I had to have a Protein/Fiber bar with a glass of ice cold milk, should've skipped it and kept on going to towards bed!?! The brain turned on again and made me find the following from 07 DEC 2020 which details the USMC plan to allow 1yr. early out for those holding the 4 MOS's for their tankers.

Based on that information, that would probably have the tanks gone by JAN 2022-JUN 2022 timeframe at latest.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2020/12/07/corps-to-release-marine-tankers-from-contracts-a-year-early/

Now to get some sleep!

[Suhiir]

Well for the CORPS as I posted a couple of days ago, "no news is good news" for concerning their tanks.
I can see where the 3-man Fire Team might be a "good" idea due to the ACVs smaller passenger capacity BUT the standard 4-man team allows for 2x "Buddy Teams" and ye olde pup tent takes two halves so a 3-man team doesn't work. Also foxholes in the USMC are typically 2-man so you only lose half a Fire Team to a grenade I assume the 3-man team = a 3-man foxhole ... not good.

But I'm no longer active duty, nor was I ever a general ... so ...

[DRG]

.........the "tea leaf's" are suggesting START JAN 2022.

(sigh........)

OK.... we have two M1A2C in the OOB's.

u538 which is the one without Trophy that only ran to 6/22 and u537 which is the Trophy version with runs to the end of the game.

If the start date is being pushed back 18 months then methinks u538 is a waste of space and should be deleted because they all should (?) be equipped with Trophy by then and u537 should have the 1/22 start date.

:dk:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

About the USMC I get that, I believe I came across a ref. where the 1st(?) MEU was experimenting with larger small size units i.e. 15 to a platoon. It's I believe still ongoing and might or might not be part of PLAN 2030.

Sorry I didn't get those UNIT numbers to you for the M1A2C :doh:, but I have to agree with your logic. Had a busy and long day yesterday and by time I was finished the "first time" with my last post I was done.

Uncased a new Wi-Fi/3.1 USB printer, CINCLANTHOME asked me to take Christmas off this year, the first requested one in 10 years and made a 4 day weekend so I can play with my new (But don't which one.) 32" 1500R curved gaming monitor!

Done with flat screens HAaaRrrVARD Medical School (One of the very best in this country.) did a long term study and found they are much better for your eyes as they approximate the eyes natural 165 degree peripheral angle of your eyes.

So a 1500R or the new 1000R from SAMSUNG this (At about 170 degrees.) are best. Mine won't be the SAMSUNG because the monitors in the price point I wanted to be in didn't get overwhelming reviews.

Your health tip for the day. :D

Time for my walk and relax before work as I have the late post today.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

From April 10, 2020 concerning Nigeria. It was on my list, if you want me to scratch it off let me know so I can delete from my worklist and files. As I mentioned in the forum across a couple of threads, I wasn't going to post on articles of equipment that I knew would be available for the Patch from 2020.

Again let me know so I can move on to the next thing, please. From my files, I hadn't a chance yet to cross reference these any further, if you need me to do that across my normal refs let me know.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/china_delivers_vt4_tanks_sh5_howitzers_8x8_st1_tan k_destroyers_to_nigerian_army.html
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/featured/nigerian-army-reveals-new-acquisitions/

No word from Germany, I'm going to give that one more shot. If I don't get a response, I'll proceed on my own as I have in my head already given it some thought on how to move forward.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

P.S. Might as well provide these as I'm tracking on the program as I feel we might just "barely" see the following become operational before "we turn out the lights"!?! The 82nd has been chosen to evaluate the prototypes...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_december_2020_global_security_army_in dustry/us_soldiers_of_82nd_airborne_to_test_pre-production_of_new_mobile_protected_firepower_light _tanks.html
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-soldiers-preparing-to-evaluate-light-tank-prototypes

It's possible I might've missed it, but given COVID events of the last month and currently in the UK, I haven't seen anything of value concerning the Defense Review. What hasn't changed is my views on AJAX as already discussed in the APC Thread.

USMC looks like the MBT's will be gone by Dec. 2021 at latest. Seriously thinking about END Dates for all USMC MBT's with exception of the M1A1 FEP ones, for DEC 2020 based on units that have "cased their colors".
No mention in any articles already posted that anything other then the M1A1 has been turned over to the USA. Those tanks were transported to USA Depots for conversation to M1A2C within less then a month after those units cased their colors.

I further base this on the fact that what the USMC ordered and received in the M1A1 FEP would match with about how many tanks they should have left currently.

That is all for now, going to enjoy the rest of what has been a busy weekend for us.

Good Night!!

P.S.S
Well almost, now 2314 after an enjoyable (Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow.), I checked my papers and found the following, I had reported on the LAOS tank deal a couple of years back with Russia. So lets just call this "Something Old That's New Again"...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_january_2021_global_security_army_ind ustry/russian_army_trains_drivers_on_world_war_2_t-34_tanks.html

Also (Today) this confirms Mark's source on Nigeria's first use of their VT-4 tanks in combat.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_january_2021_global_security_army_ind ustry/first_combat_use_of_chinese_made_vt4_tanks.html

Now for real, Good Night!

[Suhiir]

About the USMC I get that, I believe I came across a ref. where the 1st(?) MEU was experimenting with larger small size units i.e. 15 to a platoon.
15 to a squad, currently 13, they were considering 12 (with a 3-man HQ team vs the current 1, i.e. Squad Leader).

A platoon is 3x Squads + a HQ element (usually 4-man).

[Suhiir]

USMC looks like the MBT's will be gone by Dec. 2021 at latest. Seriously thinking about END Dates for all USMC MBT's with exception of the M1A1 FEP ones, for DEC 2020 based on units that have "cased their colors".
No mention in any articles already posted that anything other then the M1A1 has been turned over to the USA. Those tanks were transported to USA Depots for conversation to M1A2C within less then a month after those units cased their colors.
Holding off on this till mid 2021 ... they can still change their minds, not like it hasn't happened (often) before.

[DRG]

Right now I have not touched the end date for USMC MBTs at all for the exact same reason and any decision on what to do ( if anything ) will be held back until early March of this year. A lot could happen after Jan 20th

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

When the USMC tank issue first came up, I also recommended we wait. As I indicated, "I was thinking about..." that's because articles started popping up around Nov/Dec 2020 indicating they will be gone as soon as the last quarter of FY 2021 (Jul-Sep 2021) or first quarter of FY 2022 (Oct-Dec 2021) just reporting is all I'm doing.

TURKEY-ALTAY: We still haven't reached 0 month for this tank (As some might remember as I posted, Turkey is thinking 24 months from production start to delivery of the first tank.. Based on the following, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
https://raillynews.com/2020/05/The-engine-problem-of-the-altay-main-battle-tank-is-resolved/

As the below refs. will show the engine problem wasn't solved as the above indicates.

They still haven't worked out the issues of the engine or transmission as of right now. The first ref. indicates they hope to start trials with the engine sometime later this year.

Also no word on the transmission which is no surprise if you haven't finalized your engine design.

I don't intend to submit another date change for this tank, it can wait until next year. that'll put the ALTAY out to late 2024 into 2025 sometime if at all.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/11/19/turkey-in-talks-with-south-korea-to-salvage-altay-tank-program/
Those talks fell through.
https://yetkinreport.com/en/2020/12/18/producer-of-turkish-tank-altay-split-in-lack-of-foreign-support/
https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/01/15/altay-tank-indigenous-engine-trials-among-turkish-presidency-of-defense-industries-plans-for-2021/

They should've left the Kurds in Syria alone (Pissing off the EU.) and more importantly, they never should've bought those S-400 Systems from Russia now fielded this past Fall. Due to that the we cut cut them off from the F-35 and associated technologies (And moved it out of the country.) and as for South Korea, they dropped out of the program a few years ago and won't go back as relations with us are more important to their long term stability in dealing with North Korea and China.

UK Defense Review: This has been pushed back until February 2021. So CHALLENGER 2/WARRIOR CSP and possibly AJAX are still in limbo.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-delays-programme-decisions-on-armoured-vehicles

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Alright I need to get the ball rolling on this ASAP based on the following couple of refs.

Russia (Like the rest of the World.) is getting hit hard from leaked and other sources with COVID-19, apparently their vaccine isn't proving to be as affective as advertised by the government which, here it is known to be one of the top cyber hack issues from the breach we suffered, that they were trying to get (Vaccine Data) as was disclosed last last month early.

Economy still wrecked from the above and from the "Oil War" they were in for many months with Saudi Arabia until a "truce" of sorts was agreed to about the November time frame. If you wondered why your gas was so cheap for about 6-8 months. ;)

I noticed the words "full rate production" and no time frame for when this year it would start production were given either in the first ref.

Also for that scenario Russia vs. Ukraine 2022, I offer the following as well from ref 1...
"The T-14 Armata is the next generation of MBT that will enter into service (We know that but, when?) with the Russian army. according to Russian military sources, the first batch of 100 T-14 (These are the Prototype and Test Beds.) tanks could be delivered and deployed with the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division in 2021."

1. Forget the 200 I thought possible by end of 2022.

2. They might not make it at all by then beyond those 100. If they get to the 2nd Guards.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_december_2020_global_security_army_in dustry/russia_to_start_serial_production_of_t-14_armata_tank_and_t-15_ifv.html

This above mentions the fact they're going to attempt this while the "trials" are still ongoing, so think about this, they want to build the the T-14/T-15 while their still trying to figure out how to fix them in the first place!?! They need to consult with Turkey and India and ask them how that worked with the ALTAY and ARJUN. It didn't, it delayed one by a couple of years and the other is still "scratching their heads" as well.

So by extension and as I've posted on regularly over the years, they to are suffering from the same technical issues that Turkey is having with the ALTAY, further compounded by problems revolving around certain electronic packages to include but not limited to the FCS.

You must remember the following:
1. This is Russia first from the ground-up tank design in decades. They take time even the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS took years and years to from design to FOC.

So what is Russia doing in the meantime? Well here's what the Russian Army is getting in 2021 along with what they got in 2019/2020 first...
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
(I have to reverify my submission on the T-90M as UNIT 059 has START of JUN 2020.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russian_northern_fleet_tank_battalion_fully_rearme d_with_t-80bvm_tanks.html
(T-80BMV in the North.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/russian_eastern_military_district_motor_rifle_unit s_to_operate_upgraded_t-80_tanks.html
(We're good here, these for the Eastern District for China to ponder.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/russian_army_has_received_t-90m_main_battle_tanks_and_bmpt_fire_support_vehicl es.html
(We're GOOD on the T-90M, I used this for the tank as submitted I believe, BUT kept it for the IFV. Now in my APC/IFV folder.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industr y/russian_army_to_receive_over_120_t-72b3m_tanks_in_2020.html
(This fits our "hybrid" UNIT 697, I think we're good here, as you read further down the article.)

And finally for 2021...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_january_2021_global_security_army_ind ustry/russian_army_to_receive_over_400_armored_vehicles_ in_2021.html
(No T-14/T-15.)

What I think will be needed is to change the T-15 UNIT 346 START to JUN 2022 (Matches current T-14 date.) vice JUN 2021. These 2 armor units are bound together at least mechanically and by some other subsystems.

Now you folks know how long I keep my "poop", though now I have deleted the GP News stuff.

How I love "house keeping"!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

What I think will be needed is to change the T-15 UNIT 346 START to JUN 2022 (Matches current T-14 date.) vice JUN 2021. These 2 armor units are bound together at least mechanically and by some other subsystems.[/QUOTE]


...........and I assume 374 as well ??

[DRG]

This above mentions the fact they're going to attempt this while the "trials" are still ongoing, so think about this, they want to build the the T-14/T-15 while their still trying to figure out how to fix them in the first place!?! They need to consult with Turkey and India and ask them how that worked with the ALTAY and ARJUN. It didn't, it delayed one by a couple of years and the other is still "scratching their heads" as well.

So by extension and as I've posted on regularly over the years, they to are suffering from the same technical issues that Turkey is having with the ALTAY, further compounded by problems revolving around certain electronic packages to include but not limited to the FCS.

You must remember the following:
1. This is Russia first from the ground-up tank design in decades. They take time even the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS took years and years to from design to FOC.

On top of that it's a huge departure in design for them and it will determine how they are deployed.

The T-72 is 7.2 ft(2.19 m ) high

The T-90 is 7.3 ft (2.225 m ) high

The M1 Abrams is 8 ft (2.44 m) high

The T14 Armata is 10 ft (3.3 m)

That's a BIG difference to adjust to after 2 generations of tanks that are shorter than most of their opponents and it makes the vehicle a much bigger target

OTOH the Leo 2A6 is 9.8 ft (3.0 m) high and that caught me by surprise as my main focus in Icon building is only width and Lenght. I hadn't paid attention to height but still..... the Russians are used to tanks a Meter shorter than the T-14. That thing stands out like a 10 year old in a kindergarten class............ or a Moose in a herd of cattle.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FMilitaryPor n%2Fcomments%2F5cp4hu%2Ft14_armata_and_t98_side_by _side_size_comparison%2F&psig=AOvVaw116IMXBd8028VI_AX3jw7w&ust=1611068243346000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCLi9kYTfpe4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAN

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yes that would mean Russian UNIT 374 as well, so congratulations on passing the SPMBT Awareness Check (SAC)!!!!

So for the rest of you, be careful so you too don't get SAC'd!?! :D

About UNIT 374 as far as I know they haven't committed to the 57mm yet but, I know however, I do have a couple of articles in my APC/IFV folder concerning the issue and that it is currently being strongly considered. I'll be watching it, since I keep my "poop" for so long.

So Don, please tell me that the "older" German LEOPARD tanks up to the A6 are mostly legacy ones from before you guys took over the game. I'm assuming they are based on the dates but, if I'm asking, you already know then, I'm finding a mess.

For instance LEOPARD 2A5 UNITS 031 & 032 looks like they can be deleted as they are to early by at least a year or more. UNITS 270 & 271 are closer but, it's looking like they might be early by about 6 months at least as well. From my sources with a very tight or exact same date from one of my sources:
"The first Leopard 2A5 was handed over on 30th November 1995."

If I understand it correctly, those LEOPARD 2A5 tanks UNITS 032/271/274 & 275 with the (S) represent ones with the Steel plates added on the "belly" for mine protection. If that is correct, than the issue is they didn't have that added on to them as far as I can tell to this point. It was from the lessons learned from the German KFOR Ops with the LEOPARD 2A4/2A5 tanks, which is why the LEOPARD 2A6M had the modification done as noted above and as follows again representative of my sources:

"Lessons learned from Bundeswehr operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, where its forces were confronted with an extreme mine threat, the transformation of the Bundeswehr into an operational army, and the increase in out-of-area deployments made it necessary to improve the mine protection of the Leopard 2A6.
Between 2004 and 2008, therefore, a total of 70 Leopard 2A6 tanks were modified to 2A6Ma. These vehicles were equipped with a mine protection kit, which included a mine protection belly plate under the hull and a belt seat for the driver attached to the hull roof."

We are familiar with this because as you might remember Don and I fixed Canadas LEOPARD issue that would cumulate with the addition of the 2A6M (That they returned to Germany.) when they received both the LEOPARD 2A6MCAN/2A4MCAN tanks.

I ask for you to do nothing until it's sorted out. This will be done as separate submission for Germany as I've come across some minor I hope APC/IFV issues as well, though again, minor compared to the tanks.

So I leave you with these thoughts...
1. Play CANADA!!!!

2. How is it that this kind of situation keeps following me lately, year after year!?! :D



Oh, that's right, OWOO/or OWOOB (If you prefer.) for those in the know. ;) Alright I love a challenge as well! :p :D

Anyway have "house" things to do with CINCLANTHOME so HAVE A GREAT DAY!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

The Leo dates were based on what info was available at the time they were entered and have little to do with SP2. If they are wrong and you have hard info now that wasn't available before then make a list.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's not much of a problem the biggest thing as always, is reading the material through to catch things like the "xyz training battalion received the LEOPARD on..." followed by nothing or something like on my last Post concerning the German LEOPARD 2A6M 80 were converted between 2004 and 2008. Based on nothing more and turning that into a simple math problem, Means 80 over 4yrs = 20 a yr. tells me the first Tank Company was likely equipped by OCT-DEC 2004 = DEC 2004 to allow for any unforeseen delays reported or not.

Sometimes that's all we can do and where later information does come out, that simple has fallen on the date within a couple of months, spot on or at worse within 6 months which is the "swag" Don and I have used for years. That being said and not every conversation on those matters appear in here, we fix it anyway which happened I believe at least twice last year.

I've built tanks faster and submitted them for the game then trying to find out when they actually were put into service.

Think about that for a moment and how many times we've had to do that over the years.

Also we get, OMG! They got their first xyz tank therefore they're at FOC!!! Or as we've dealt with over the last 2-3 yrs. legacy inherited equipment at FOC as prototypes. :cold:

Well at least hopefully, I'll have one tank to modify for the Patch as a diversion. :cool:

:rant::rant::rant::rant::rant::rant: YAY TEAM!! :banana:

Will it ever stop!?! :doh:

Time to move on, there I said it. :clap: :p

EM-ME-JOES make me well, happy!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Or trying to separate active vs reserve unit equipment. Does a reserve unit not having X piece of gear count as not being FOC?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You have to separate a Command/Unit out from Equipment they are two distinct separate categories where the terms IOC = Initial Operating Condition and FOC = Full Operating Condition mean the same thing.

When I reported to COMSUBGRU TEN in Oct. 1989 we were in IOC at the time. After manning, extensive training, evaluated exercises, coordinated operations, testing etc. etc. right down to the CACO (Who had the job of informing next-of-kin somebody wasn't coming home, which means you're put in the freezer with the food if underway, of which I've known a couple that made that ride.) it was very intense and the pressure was on. And we had an Admiral just upstairs in case we needed encouragement, which we never did as we're self motivated (That's what it means to be on a "boat".)

We had a couple of exercises to prepare us for our "alternate" command responsibility as COMSUBLANT ALT. it was no less important then our "primary" mission that the SSBN's met their training and operational requirements. The final phase for us to reach FOC culminated with a 24/7 two week ALTEX where we took over all aspects of Submarine Ops, upon completion and shortly there after, we FOC in MAR/APR 1990 on time, on schedule as there is no finishing early as the process is highly structured.

You can substitute any infantry, air whatever into the above. The bottom-line is you "fight" with what you have and fall back on your training.

So the last above and to answer your question, no IOC/OPEVAL/FOC when discussing new equipment has no bearing on in this case, NG Units because IOC/OPEVAL (Mission Training/Requalification etc.)/FOC (Unit deemed Combat Ready.) is a function of training, maintaining of current equipment assigned etc. etc.

We would call it EXPRIENCE and Morale. You only enhance that when the NG Unit finally does get that piece of equipment that completed the same process more or less except in simplest it means something different at the end, [/B]is there added value, does it work, is it reliable in the field, will it increase our units combat efficiency, will it support our mission and I can go on and on.[/B]

It doesn't matter what branch or component you served in, if all the above didn't worked, then for us in combat, you might have enough to tell your "maker" how you love your family before you are "atomized" by the extreme pressure or you have a fish come out of your mouth like in "The AYBSS" you're shallower water.

Loved the movie, but the "boat" going down was about as real as I've seen on film. I remember holding CINCLANTHOME's hand when I put the "death grip" to it during that part of the move, it felt that real.

Anyway, again two separate and distinct processes. I liked the question it was a fair one to ask.

I've learned if someone's asking the question, someone else was thinking about it.

It's late and time to hit the rack, the weekend will be over as drive through the gate later this afternoon. Gotta love the "Wonderful World of Work!".

Regards
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

I have now adjusted the 2a6 / 2a6m leos as best I can. As for 31 and 32 / 270 & 271.... yeah that's a bit odd and it's been like that for years.
I need to run scenario checks and depending on whats not used if any then these will be whittled down

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I don't have much time as this is a workday for me, however, the next provides somewhat of a clearer picture for a timeline for some Russian equipment and confirms some of my own beliefs as posted on the matter. It covers a broad range of land equipment that Don and I have been tracking for many years now, with at least one that pre-dates the T-14, the K-17 Bumerang.

This is NOT set in stone, it just gives us a better "tracking tool" then what I've seen in a longtime for this many platforms.

The source is Russian MOD, Deputy Defence Minister Alexey Krivoruchko on 30 DEC 2020. JANE's reporting.

"The military will also receive 94 fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, including 22 Su-57 multirole combat aircraft, ahead of schedule through 2024. Maybe 2025.

In 2022 the MoD is planning to complete the development of the T-14 Armata main battle tank, T-15 Armata, B-11 Kurganets-25, and K-17 Bumerang infantry fighting vehicles, B-10 Kurganets-25 and K-16 Bumerang armoured personnel carriers, the T-16 armoured recovery vehicle, the Koalitsiya-SV 152 mm self-propelled howitzer, and a number of advanced combat stations for tracked and wheeled combat platforms, according to Krivoruchko. “We are planning to complete trials of the S-500 air defence system and to adopt it and to accept the Voronezh very-high-frequency radar into service,” he said."

If they stay on schedule, I can see FOC for some of this equipment by mid-2023. A lot of this will be driven by when serial production begins, combat units get equipped and when MOD announces FOC.

Now we shift dates accordingly and "sit and wait" for the Russians to just "get the job done".
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/russian-mod-received-2700-weapon-systems-in-2020

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

I guess we wait and see. We had the Sukhoi Su-57 but it did not enter production until 2019 so it's got a 2020 start now

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yeah, as JANE's pointed out in the caption below the picture, that was the only Su-57 they have as photographed in 2020.

The bottom-line here is, and as we and others have stated over the years, again is we have to be patient enough to "hold the line" for equipment to NOT be entered into the game until FOC.

Every review of this game I've ever read has given "kudos" to the games for their authenticity, realism and the fact it's constantly updated.

Feedback from players, most recently for me going back to the last patch we did all that work on concerning India's tanks and I paraphrase...

"It's finally good to play against India, knowing I'm not fighting against tanks they don't have or haven't received yet."

That to me was a powerful statement.

We put it out there and I feel for any number of reason I could list, but won't, we need to stand by it.

Just last night at turnover, my relief was running late by a few minutes, knowing it was my "Friday" he said I got it, before I could respond another person told him, "He's not going to let you relieve him without giving you a clean turnover." Which is what he got.

We are in the same position now, to give these games a "clean over" before we hang it up.

It'll be painful, more so for others than me as I'm under no illusions about that. However these pieces of equipment are like MP's were to me in my first patch submission, they took up slots and served no real purpose purpose in the game. The difference here is they where "real" units already fielded, while these others aren't.

The standard I was asked from the beginning has been FOC, these other issues personally have put me behind in getting equipment in the game that are or have been modified to the point the game and players would benefit from them being entered in the game.

That was no :bs: when I stated a couple of times out here I have new or modified units dating back to at least 2015 that I can't get entered in the game because I've come across other issues that needed fixing over at least the last 3-4 years on existing units. The work has to be done though and it cannot be ignored.

I will be honest, personally I find it all to very frustrating and going against my innate sense of organization and detail. Sometimes that frustration has "spilled over" and I apologize for that to those affected, however, I will not apologize for the person I am because of it, it's served me very well in my military career and in life.

I am but one of many "advisors" out here and fully understand that role, so in the end I will fully support the "chain of command" on any decisions made for the games, because at least they'll listen to us in the first place.

So another :rant: :rant: is over and I must move on from here, after all it is 2021 and we have nowhere to go but up from here!?! ;)

Oh that's right, this is the MBT Thread so...
AUSTRALIA: If they can get ahead of schedule (And they have on a couple of programs.) with this we might see these in the last year of the game.
https://armynews.partica.online/army-news/september-17-2020/news/strengthening-our-armour

BRAZIL: Will be watching this one closely as Brazil has been stepping up the modernization of their military in the last few years across the board. In regards to these tanks, if the economy can support it, I can foresee possibly them having enough to support a combat unit by mid-2024 at earliest. A lot will depend on if they get foreign support from Germany or Israel to make it possible.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/brazilian-army-seeks-to-update-its-leopard-1a5br-mbts

CHINA: First live fire shots of the VT-4.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indust ry/chinese_mod_releases_first_pictures_of_type_15_mbt _gun_shots.html

GERMANY: Increasing it's armor units and testing a new 130mm MG.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/new-german-panzer-battalion-receives-first-leopard-2a6s
https://militaryleak.com/2020/07/31/rheinmetall-tests-of-new-130-mm-smoothbore-gun/

I'm excited about the next for both countries. Also since hopefully next year I can submit my build version of the LEOPARD 2A7V, awesome is all I can say! Be wearying here the article to my "American mind" seems to contradict itself from what it says in the beginning versus how it ends concerning Denmark. I'll just qoute the beginning...
"Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has handed the latest versions of the Leopard 2 (OK, 2A7 and or 2A7V) over to Denmark and Germany."

"Both nations are receiving comparable variants of the Leopard 2A7 main battle tank."

"The Danish army will receive a total of 44 Leopard 2A7 vehicles by 2022."

There is no confirmation from either military on how this is progressing and I want to know is it for Denmark the 2A7 or using the articles own words "variant of", which leaves it open a variant of the 2A7V.

So bottom-line, this is NOT ACTIONABLE as their is a lack of data for the dates and type involved as noted.

DENMARK and GERMANY:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/denmark_and_germany_to_receive_latest_kmw_leopard_ 2a7_main_battle_tank.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I meant to add this in my last but, my original link wasn't working. So back to Denmark the following provides the current force structure of the Danish Army from the Danish Army down to the size of a Section.. Could be of use for many reasons by many people.
https://forsvaret.dk/en/organisation/army/structure/
https://forsvaret.dk/en/

INDIA: For FYI ONLY, this might have been a hold over from my submission of the India OOB rework from last year or year before. This was among the many tanks we fixed.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/india_to_buy_464_t-90ms_main_battle_tanks.html

DRDO has offered two light tank options to counter the Chinese VT-4 in the Himalayas. And wouldn't you be surprised to know the Indian Army is resistant to even that proposal!?! Here's what I think of that! :doh: :doh: :D
Currently I don't feel there's any chance of seeing these before games end in any form.
Anyway...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/analysis_focus_army_defence_military_industry_army/drdo_offers_two_options_to_develop_an_indian_light _tank.html

KUWAIT: I have to be honest I let this one "fall between the cracks" however, that being said the only transaction SIPRI shows from 2015-2019 (2020 due in Feb.) is between 2014-2015 for deliveries of 33 BMP-3 units. There are no newer articles concerning the acquisition of them or to current status of the purchase. The T-90MS started trials in 2015 in Kuwait and was excepted over the competition. Just have to keep an eye on this.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/kuwait_delays_acquisition_of_russian_t-90ms_tanks.html

I conducted a web search concerning Kuwait before posting to make sure.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This is the first news in over a year, however, Turkey has gone back to the drawing board and modified the ALTAY. Specifically concerning the turret and adding a 360 Hard-kill/Soft-kill APS. I believe we already have it with a 12.7mm RWS, if not, it does now.

The turret is definitely, as the article indicates, been up armored though I don't see anything to indicate anything more then a minor or slightly improved increase of our current in game tank numbers.

I need to see more pictures of this newer version of the ALTAY to be sure of those numbers.

And more importantly, there still is no timeline given as far as the evaluation, production or if you will, induction of the ALTAY.

TRACKING...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_january_2021_global_security_army_ind ustry/company_bmc_from_turkey_unveils_new_design_for_ind igenous_altay_main_battle_tank.html

Edited for clarification.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Interesting. It looks like they are turning it into a Leclerc / K2 look-a-like

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

That's right, remember this did start out as cooperative project with South Korea based on the K2. Of course the Germans were involved as well but, it was when they lost the Austrians (And Engine/Transmission with them.) that things went really bad for them with the ALTAY as we well know now.

The Russians it is "rumored" supposedly were offering some assistance to Turkey to overcome some of the engineering and technical aspects of developing a 1500hp engine (Might be Turbine, don't remember, but more complex if so.) and doing the same on a transmission as well.

I agree that turret does make it look like a K2 to my mind.

Now just have to wait for them to announce it's at "0 month" once there, we're looking at 18-24 months after that, by their own admission as posted.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

The Icon for it right now seems close enough until final details emerge

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I agree about the ICON though, I realize you were making a "statement" there.

What struck me, was how much the turret was modified from the picture submitted for the tank currently in the game versus how it looks now from my last ref.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Just an update.

The 1st, 2nd, and 4th USMC tank battalions have been deactivated.
The 3rd still has no indication as to when, or even if, it will be deactivated.

Given that 3rd is in Okinawa, close to both North Korea and Taiwan, it sort of makes sense to keep it around till last .... IF they cut it at all. Then there are the M1's aboard the pre-positioned ships (Diego Garcia and such) which also have not been deactivated.

[DRG]

It does appear there has been a shift in the way USMC is structured and deployed but the fact that one battalion is not being deactivated indicates to me that from the perspective of this game nothing needs to change drastically in regards to armor availability

[Suhiir]

Maybe make tanks x1 radio class units post 2020 would be all I'd suggest.

BUT that would require duplicate units with different dates. And probably changes to the picklists (formation availability %), not really worth the trouble unless there's some other reason to mess with the picklists.

[DRG]

X1 does not make the formation rare only the unit and if they are all x1 nothing changes.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well one of my favorite countries strikes again as I was concerned that nothing was posted on the following since I submitted it last year on it's further development. Well true to course India has managed "once again" to defy their own expectations and "drop the ball" on a tank project. They just got one!!

So...
INDIA/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START/JUN 2022/vice JAN 2021/CHANGE/FC 50/vice 45/SAME FCS as ARJUN Mk-2/STEEL/HF 56/HR 9/TF 86/TS 30/TR 18/TOP 10/HEAT/HF 84/HS 48/HR 18/TF 138/TS 46/TR 30/TOP 18// This is the interim tank to what some in India will lead to the final version as the ARJUN Mk-II. The compromise was to make this tank lighter which my numbers above most certainly do in the overall weight reduction. However, it was still to be better protected then the ARJUN/ARJUN Mk-1 which now it is. Regarding the FCS it was always meant to have the same system as the ARJUN Mk-11 which why the above tank has the ATGW capability. I'm just using this ref to quote from as it's consistent with what's already been posted concerning the ARJUN Mk-1A

"The Arjun Mk-1A is an upgraded version of the Arjun Mark 1 offering more firepower, protection, and mobility. The hull and turret of Arjun Mk.1A have been modified (You can include protection in this as well. And this IS NOT derived from interpretation.) to give a lower silhouette making detection more difficult,..." Also the last para touches on protection again and the FCS with a "note" compared to the ARJUN Mk-II.

I would highly recommend adding a copy of the above as it can fire other useful rounds (Less the ATGW at this time.) to enhance it's combat capability as these rounds are already available.
"...with one 120 mm rifled gun able to fire APFSDS (kinetic energy penetrator) rounds, HE, HEAT, High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) rounds at a rate of 6–8 rounds per minute. the gun of the Arjun is also capable to fire Israeli developed semi-active laser-guided LAHAT missile (But are not using LAHAT, however they are working with Israel on developing their own ATGW.). The Arjun can carry 39 rounds in special blast-proof canisters."

and...
"...while it also supports the newly developed Thermo-Baric (TB) and Penetration-cum-Blast (PCB) ammunition."
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_february_2021_global_security_army_in dustry/indian_prime_minister_modi_hands_over_indigenous_a rjun_mk-1a_tank_to_army.html

Sorry can't ignore the news here and the evitable it's India and "what else is new" regarding them.

Well I just got the "look" a short time ago which means I'm out!?!

Regards
Pat
:capt:

Corrected the STEEL tord TF 86 vice TR 86 above. See below Posts.

[DRG]

So...
INDIA/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START/JUN 2022/vice JAN 2021/CHANGE/FC 50/vice 45/SAME FCS as ARJUN Mk-2/STEEL/HF 56/HR 9/TR 86/TS 30/TR 18/TOP 10/HEAT/HF 84/HS 48/HR 18/TF 138/TS 46/TR 30/TOP 18//
Regards
Pat
:capt:


???! You mean TF of course

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Crap!! :doh: Why yes that would be correct.

Would you believe I think the error was caused as I'm about midway through Edmund Morris's final Vol III of his biography on Theodore Roosevelt (TR), COLONEL ROOSEVELT" at this time!?!

Ok, probably best to go with with the following as I was in a hurry to take care of another matter, so... can you guess what's coming!?! That's right!! :typing: :pc:!!

THANKS!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Are we being watched too? The next story is actually calling out one of the most popular online tank games out there for modeling a French tank that didn't exist but, the game claims it did to include full developmental info on the tank.

The worst we can be accused of is that we've had prototype equipment that's gotten into the game.

However, we've done an outstanding job of getting rid of them/or nullifying them in game play (Brazils Osorio and MB-3 Tamoyoas which I identified a few years back that never got out of the prototype stage.) as they've been uncovered.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/osorio.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mb3_tamoyo.htm

So here's how the "other guys" did it...
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/batignolles-chatillon-bourrasque-fake-tank/

They almost did a creditable job.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

FYI: This story is continuing to "track" as I've posted from USMC sources and my others. I had myself projected DEC 2021 as the end cate for what should be the M1A1 FEP.

The USMC is saying they'll be turned over by SEP 2021 (The end of the 2021 Fiscal Year.) which from a budgetary point of view makes absolute sense as they'll be free of any financial burden associated with those tanks.

Of about the 130 tanks that remain most are in forward deployed storage or onboard maritime prepositioning ships. From Ref. 2...
"At the time of the initial overhaul announcement, the Corps had 452 tanks at its disposal. By December 2020, 323 had been transferred to the Army. (As I reported last year.) The *remaining tanks were scheduled for transfer by 2023 (Which obviously isn't the case anymore.), which included tanks in overseas storage and aboard maritime prepositioning ships, according to Marine Corps Systems Command."

Don't let anyone "get their panties in a wad" except again, these are the newest I've seen thus far this year. And again without deviation, are still tracking by date as reported in 2020 from all sources.

It'll take a "miracle" to save them at this point. We'll know by this spring/summer when the Defense Authorization Bill is readied for FY22. Ref. 1 The date. Ref. 2 A post-mortem, the CORPS w/o tanks...
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2020/12/28/new-in-2021-the-final-year-for-marine-corps-tanks/
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/03/22/goodbye-tanks-how-the-marine-corps-will-change-and-what-it-will-lose-by-ditching-its-armor/

I know how people feel about this, so don't shoot the messenger! :p

TRACKING

By-The-By, Turkey to begin field trials of the ALTAY later this month with a couple of PROTOTYPES. So April should be 0 month on their projected 18 month clock to production.

That's providing their engine/transmission and power pack can hold up.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Bet ya 10$ next Commandant brings them back.

Current one to focused on a single scenario,

[Imp]

I am going to throw an oddball question at you Suhiir if I may.

If the army was called on to support the Marine Core with tanks would they actually be able to use them in the role the Marines wanted. I am guessing the armies tactics are not the same when it comes to armour.

[Suhiir]

I am going to throw an oddball question at you Suhiir if I may.

If the army was called on to support the Marine Core with tanks would they actually be able to use them in the role the Marines wanted. I am guessing the armies tactics are not the same when it comes to armour.
There's a major difference in the role each views tanks filling.
The US Army sees them as primarily an anti-armor asset the USMC as infantry support. Both of course use them for each role, but it's a matter of how well trained they are for each.
Can they do it? Of course. Can they do it well? Doubtful.
Also I don't see the US Army willingly handing over a tank unit. They already have formation/task assignments in the US Army and I know I'd be VERY reluctant to retask them were I Army brass.

Also there's the "minor" fact that US Army and USMC SOPs are different. I've worked with the US Army enough to know that I don't understand, or agree with, many of theirs and I'm sure they feel the same. The main issue is fire doctrine. The US Army uses fire volume, the USMC accuracy. The USMC doesn't have the logistic assets to support the amounts of ammo the US Army uses. Most US Army troops have never worked with (or probably seen) Marines and have no idea what our SOPs for "little" things like tank-infantry cooperation and communications are. In the US Army infantry supports armor, the armor commander is in charge, in the USMC the infantry commander is always in charge.

During Gulf 1 I was with the division HQ of 2nd MarDiv which had "Tiger Brigade" (2nd Div US Army) attached to it and they operated as an independent command, because it made far more sense then trying to integrate them. They were given a task, flank security, they did it well. But they did it their way, in their sector, and other then our HQ talking to their HQ we had little to do with each other. I did find it amusing after the "war" when they came over looking for 2nd MarDiv unit patches to sew on their uniforms as the last unit they were in combat with and we had to inform they we didn't have, or make, them (a USMC 2nd MarDiv patch exists, it's official, but you have to buy it from civilian sources).

[Karagin]

I am going to throw an oddball question at you Suhiir if I may.

If the army was called on to support the Marine Core with tanks would they actually be able to use them in the role the Marines wanted. I am guessing the armies tactics are not the same when it comes to armour.
There's a major difference in the role each views tanks filling.
The US Army sees them as primarily an anti-armor asset the USMC as infantry support. Both of course use them for each role, but it's a matter of how well trained they are for each.
Can they do it? Of course. Can they do it well? Doubtful.
Also I don't see the US Army willingly handing over a tank unit. They already have formation/task assignments in the US Army and I know I'd be VERY reluctant to retask them were I Army brass.

Also there's the "minor" fact that US Army and USMC SOPs are different. I've worked with the US Army enough to know that I don't understand, or agree with, many of theirs and I'm sure they feel the same. The main issue is fire doctrine. The US Army uses fire volume, the USMC accuracy. The USMC doesn't have the logistic assets to support the amounts of ammo the US Army uses. Most US Army troops have never worked with (or probably seen) Marines and have no idea what our SOPs for "little" things like tank-infantry cooperation and communications are.

During Gulf 1 I was with the division HQ of 2nd MarDiv which had "Tiger Brigade" (2nd Div US Army) attached to it and they operated as an independent command, because it made far more sense then trying to integrate them. They were given a task, flank security, they did it well. But they did it their way, in their sector, and other then our HQ talking to their HQ we had little to do with each other. I did find it amusing after the "war" when they came over looking for 2nd MarDiv unit patches to sew on their uniforms as the last unit they were in combat with and we had to inform they we didn't have, or make, them (a USMC 2nd MarDiv patch exists, it's official, but you have to buy it from civilian sources).

Yes, you guys do things differently, but not that much on some levels. in 2006 I was with 4ID DivArty, we had MRLS units out supporting Marines and it was a joint effort. Our Alpha Battery was attached and fell under the Marine control. They worked well enough together to get the missions done.

The patch thing you brought up, the Amry likes its patches, yes we do, so for those guys coming to ask for them they were doing it on the idea that your QM aka supply issue patches like ours do.

One thing both sides need to work on is being able to talk to each other over the networks, the biggest issue I dealt with was the fact that no one could effectively communicate clearly since it was like two groups speaking two different languages. Made for some interesting times.

[Suhiir]

One thing both sides need to work on is being able to talk to each other over the networks, the biggest issue I dealt with was the fact that no one could effectively communicate clearly since it was like two groups speaking two different languages. Made for some interesting times.
Not just different languages but comm gear that can't talk to each other. This has been a serious on-going issue when US service branches need to talk to each other. Due to the close cooperation the USMC has with it's own air assets and the US Navy we can all communicate with each other (A USMC platoon commander, and often squad leader, can talk to aircraft, artillery, and ships). The US Army frequently can't talk to the US Air Farce except via their USAF air controller and his one, one, radio.

[Karagin]

One thing both sides need to work on is being able to talk to each other over the networks, the biggest issue I dealt with was the fact that no one could effectively communicate clearly since it was like two groups speaking two different languages. Made for some interesting times.
Not just different languages but comm gear that can't talk to each other. This has been a serious on-going issue when US service branches need to talk to each other. Due to the close cooperation the USMC has with it's own air assets and the US Navy we can all communicate with each other (A USMC platoon commander, and often squad leader, can talk to aircraft, artillery, and ships). The US Army frequently can't talk to the US Air Farce except via their USAF air controller and his one, one, radio.

Email always seemed to work, till certain folks started reading more into those. However, you are right, for all the wonderment we do need to fix that issue of communication, the networks SHOULD be able to merge and talk at all levels.

[Imp]

Pretty much what I thought. Send email how several armies have shown the capability to track mobile phones now & send artillery that way very rapidly.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You need only to go back a 3-4 years or more and ask how that worked out for the Ukrainians. It didn't, as Russian COMINT and SIGINT systems compromised a cell phone app that was developed by a Ukrainian Artillery Officer. It ended up on You Tube and that's all the Russians needed. There were many bad days for Ukrainian artillery being counter-batterie in a couple of instances before even firing a shot, before they figured out they were hacked.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-hacking-proves-lethal-after-ukrainian-military-app-compromised/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170514/15060437365/russian-military-apparently-using-cell-tower-spoofers-to-send-propaganda-directly-to-ukrainian-soldiers-phones.shtml
https://www.voanews.com/europe/sinister-text-messages-reveal-high-tech-front-ukraine-war
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/russia-ukraine-2013-2016-application-new-type-warfare-maximizing-exploitation-cyber-io-and
https://www.ausa.org/articles/russia-gives-lessons-electronic-warfare

Here's some tank news to go with the thread from Australia concerning their ABRAMS...
https://armynews.partica.online/army-news/september-17-2020/news/strengthening-our-armour

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

Sorry for straying off topic & hijacking your post Pat as ever though you come through.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John,
No need sir!?!

But the Ukraine situation provided both a current combat situation as well within time. Just felt the need to wrap it up with pertinent data in regards to the posts.

You have a great weekend!! As always, I value your thoughts and insights.

Lunch/Shower and Work!

Everyone have a wonderful weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Yes, there is a serious downside to everyone using the same system and codes if the other side knows what they are.

[Karagin]

Yes, there is a serious downside to everyone using the same system and codes if the other side knows what they are.

Agreed, but different branches of an armed force SHOULD (yes, there's that word, very bad word) be able to talk to each other on all levels of Command and Control, but more importantly at the tactical level that all deal with.

High tech doesn't mean much when you can't get your point across and wonder why your supply depot is fighting off two companies of enemy infantry and your sector is quiet.

[Karagin]

Seems that Brits are keeping their armor:

https://www.tankroar.com/2020/10/16/british-army/

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yes but at a cost. The UK currently operates 227 CHALLENGER 2 tanks. All were planned to have been upgraded to the CHALLENGER 3 now that the Defense Review has been completed only 150 will be upgraded. Local papers are suggesting the remaining 77 are to be scrapped, which I believe would both a tactical and longer term a strategic error to do so.

I've already detailed a CHALLENGER 3 model. This tank will mark a significant change in the MG from previous decades by mounting a 120mmSB L/55 (This might change.).
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-army-tank-numbers-drop-to-148-from-227/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-future-uk-main-battle-tank-fleet/

WARRIOR CSP is dead. Current WARRIOR will be around until games end which should coincide with RL replacement by the BOXER which is on track for IOC AGAIN IOC in 2025 under an accelerated program.

This will now cause a game issue, I looked further into one our WARRIORs 2-3 years ago and found it never got past the prototype stage. I didn't bring it up due to the WARRIOR CSP getting "kicked around" at the time. I'll be putting it up for deletion in next years patch based on this new information.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warrior-upgrade-scrapped-but-remaining-in-service/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-looking-to-accelerate-introduction-of-boxer/

The tendency of industry with a weapons procurement program that's facing review at "the highest level", is to slow investment and development (i.e. the WARRIOR CSP costs already incurred from above ref. of 430 Million Pounds. Which now is a loss.).

My point is, CHALLENGER 3 and AJAX will be affected by delays further due to COVID, this Defense Review (And it's decision to delay the release of the findings by almost 4-5 months.) and the ongoing technical issues with AJAX, as well documented in the threads.

What we need to do is watch and track these programs and not get ahead of ourselves.

I stand by what I said of some of these programs years ago, that it's likely some just won't see the "light of day" or better Full Operational Capability FOC..

HELD THIS UNTIL NOW...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-defence-command-paper-british-army-to-be-cut-to-72500-by-2025

I'm on the 5 yard line, I need some sleep to come up with a plan :ghug: to get across the goal line later today to score a TGIF completion. :doh: ;) :p :cool: :shock: NO CHEERLEADERS HOWEVER... :party:

Have a great weekend everyone!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm posting this here for widest dissemination because of the current TO&E this article provides as follows for a French SGTIA (tactical combined arms sub-grouping). This UNIT is discussed at the bottom of the article. Now please, I haven't checked this against the OOB as I have important things to take care of after this is posted.

Go to paras above (The big one.) and we know currently a French MBT Platoon is made up of 6 Leclerc tanks, Recon Platoon 8 VBCI IFV and so on as the "puzzle" comes together.

Maybe useful maybe not :dk:, but these type of articles are rare when they discuss TO&E matters.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2021_global_security_army_indus try/french_army_starts_nato_bold_eagle_exercise_in_est onia.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

OMG!, we're getting real close now! A major milestone has just been completed after almost 1.5yrs.

I'll just let you read it, I've got lunch coming before I have to get ready for work.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_may_2021_global_security_army_industr y/latest_iteration_of_m1_abrams_main_battle_tank_wra ps_up_testing_at_us_army_cold_regions_test_center. html

After following this for SOooo long, it's good to know we'll see something NEW!

Recommend no change to current timeline.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

One of tanks I thought we see by games from a list (My list.) I posted in here 2-3 years will now be "scratched" from it. I have some notes already developed for submission of this tank, which I'll keep "in the it'll take a miracle now" file, but I'm confident we won't see as the quote from the ref concerning dates uses the words "planned for", I speak of the CHALLENGER 3 the article is dated from today.

The killer quote...
"Full Operating Capability for the tank is planned for 2030, with initial operating capability (IOC mine.) expected by 2027."

The article also gives a little more data on the operational aspects of the CHALLENGER 3 as well. At the current rate of development, this won't be the only tank not to make it by DEC. 2025.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_may_2021_global_security_army_industr y/united_kingdom_orders_148_challenger_3_main_battle _tanks_from_rheinmetall_bae_systems_land.html

Have to get ready for work and get my J&J shot at "high noon" tomorrow. I really hate needles!?! :(

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[cbreedon]

A few years down the line but....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HzhqGa2Mac

[DRG]

Copy unit 63.

Change the following
Speed 33 ( if 60MPH is indeed accurate )
TI/GSR 60
Stabilizer 7
And betting EW = 2
Icon 1998
and you have a Challenger 3

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

There's more: First this is who's been contracted to do the work back around 2017/2018, Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land. This should be enough to tell you the MG isn't going to be the same.

The turret will be of a new design and up armored. Also the British will be arming the CHALLENGER 3 with a 120mm SB (Why you new need the "new" turret.) with new loading system.

Also the hull will be receiving a new modular armor system as well, which might be very similar to the one the LEOPARD 2A7V might be getting ;), that I mentioned in my emails to Ralph Zwilling.

Again I will hold onto my model until and if and when things should change,however, don't hold your breath.

That timeline came from MOD.

How long, this long from my files from 2018 to present...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/challenger_2_life_extension_project_lep_assessment _phase_to_end_in_2018.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/team_challenger_2_offers_world-leading_thermal_imaging_technology_for_challenger_ 2_tank_upgrade.html
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/decision-on-challenger-2-tank-upgrade-to-be-taken-in-2021/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-reveals-details-about-challenger-2-medusa-upgrade/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53909087
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2020_global_security_army_indust ry/rheinmetall_bae_systems_challenger_2_lep_main_batt le_tank_candidate_for_uk_mod_s_life_extension_proj ect.html
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-delays-programme-decisions-on-armoured-vehicles
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/25/ellwood-aims-fire-at-n0-10-over-tank-plan-i-see-no-defence-strategy
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_may_2021_global_security_army_industr y/united_kingdom_orders_148_challenger_3_main_battle _tanks_from_rheinmetall_bae_systems_land.html

Additional reading the UK has it's own Plan 2030...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-in-a-competitive-age/defence-in-a-competitive-age-accessible-version
(Chapter 7.)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-future-uk-main-battle-tank-fleet/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/contract-awarded-for-148-challenger-3-tanks/
"The programme will commence in 2021, with an expected in-service date of 2027."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9555373/Army-receive-148-lethal-battle-tanks-Europe.html
"The army is expected to receive the first tanks by 2027 and the full fleet by 2030." (This falls in line with IOC/FOC Dates.)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmdfence/659/65907.htm
(This I found to be a very interesting read.) :cool:

It's a done deal from what I can see, I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this.

2027 for either IOC or FOC shouldn't be on anyone's calendar.

I started tracking this as early as 2017 and whenever I posted that list in this thread 2-3 years ago, I thought for sure the CHALLENGER 3 was a shoe in for something possibly as early as 2024 or certainly by mid 2025.

Some people have completely disregarded the economics and the effects that COVID-19 has added to those "stressors" already emplace prior to it in many of the worlds major economies.

You have factor these things into the equation concerning weapons development. Beyond the technical issues encountered, A couple case studies include the Russian ARMATA (The "oil war" with Saudi Arabia last year as one example.) and the shortage of F-35 engines that will curtail operations and development until 2023 (COVID-19 Cited here for this situation.) and finally SADF the BADGER will be submitted for deletion due to economic and corruption reasons and I have plenty of refs to support it. One I submitted a longtime ago in a galaxy far...anyway it's DOA for game purposes now.

I don't deal in fantasies unless I'm watching say "The Game of Thrones" or some such. I invest and take a "world view" of things and therein lays one of the "tenants" of how things get done.

In context to CHALLENGER 3, at one point the whole fleet of CHALLENGER 2 tanks was to be modernized. Then it was reduced somewhat, depending on source, to 200 -250.

And now they'll get only 148 and will scrap 250 CHALLENGER 2 tanks. I understand why they won't sell them, they could remove internal and some external equipment to protect proprietary technical information but, it would be difficult to do the same with the armor and still make the tank affordable to a foreign buyer.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

Copy unit 63.

Change the following
Speed 33 ( if 60MPH is indeed accurate )
TI/GSR 60
Stabilizer 7
And betting EW = 2
Icon 1998
and you have a Challenger 3

I would say 60mph is theoretical emergency road use only its more a product of better acceleration which would be very useful.
How are they going to keep the tracks on.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Nothing I haven't already posted on CHALLENGER 3, EXCEPT, now we know specifically which Rheinmetall MG it'll carry. The MG will the 120mm/L55A1 which is their latest fielded version.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_may_2021_global_security_army_industr y/british_challenger_3_tanks_to_be_fitted_with_rhein metall_120mm_smoothbore_gun.html

On tracks:
https://www.treehugger.com/rubber-tracks-make-military-vehicles-more-efficient-durable-and-quieter-4857100
http://www.combatreform.org/bandtracks.htm

It's well documented that the ABRAMS and limited other tanks can get to 60 mph on the road or smooth off road conditions. But as John pointed out, this is more about acceleration then maintained "sustained" speed of advance on the road. This will change and it's almost here now (German LEOPARD 2A7) where "rubber" tracks will allow for sustained "higher speeds" during road ops. The articles above go into more detail on this.

CHALLENGER 2 currently has a 1200hp engine at a top rated speed of 56kmh/34.78mph.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/challenger_2.htm

CHALLENGER 3 will get at least a new 1500hp engine and possibly larger. There are designs for a 1800hp tank engine, of which Turkey for one, tried pursuing for the ALTAY.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[cbreedon]

Copy unit 63.

Change the following

Icon 1998
and you have a Challenger 3
Hi DRG

I don't see icon 1998 in the game

[Karagin]

This is what I get when I enter icon1998 picture below.

[DRG]

This is what I get when I enter icon1998 picture below.

That's the one and it's in Icon0005.shp and it's been there since WinSPMBTv1.

Copy the other info and the armour from the Leo A7 and you'll be as close as we can know right now to a Challenger 3

[cbreedon]

Ugh Thanks!

I was thinking he meant the LBM file...

[Karagin]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/05/12/army-ditching-all-of-its-stryker-mobile-gun-systems.html/amp

The Army announced Wednesday that it is planning to divest all of its Stryker Mobile Gun Systems by the end of fiscal 2022.

Seems they are saying bye-bye to Stryker MGS, citing, according to the article, that the gun is obsolete and that the autoloader is not working as designed.

Pros or Cons aside, this was going to happen from day one really. The Stryker was rushed to get to Iraqi, I was part of 3rd Brigade 2nd ID when we went in 03/04 and the vehicle systems were all still going through teething issues.

So we will see what they replace it with or how many new ATGM versions of the Stryker they go with.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As Kerrigan has pointed out, this is now a done deal. The Stryker Mobile Gun Systems (MGS) will be retired by the end of fiscal year 2022/OCT 2022 at the latest. It was the first USA "tank" to have an auto loader which caused nothing but problems for the army.

It never received the improvements it's other peers did such as the V-Hull and the now standard Double V-Hull. The current gun can't even come close to matching the performance of the newer "high pressure" 105mm guns that are in operation such as Japan's MCV HP 105mm.

It served it's purpose for it's time, but it never achieved it's hoped for full capabilities. So I leave it to the USA for the official announcement...
https://www.army.mil/article/246274/army_announces_divestiture_of_the_stryker_mobile_g un_system
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/army-to-retire-older-stryker-vehicle-variant-1.673274
(The propaganda paper.) ;)

This affects UNITS 354/642/682/683 and I believe that's all of them.

Lastly, I remember very early on that I made a compelling "argument" that for "BIG ARMY USA, that having MP units served no real purpose in the game, and for other larger armies in general. I remember as well it was agreed to DELETE them TO OPEN THOSE SLOTS up for all the new equipment we saw coming "down the pike", which both happened.

During the above search however, I came across MP UNITS 106-109 , did we miss these by chance???

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Lastly, I remember very early on that I made a compelling "argument" that for "BIG ARMY USA, that having MP units served no real purpose in the game, and for other larger armies in general. I remember as well it was agreed to DELETE them TO OPEN THOSE SLOTS up for all the new equipment we saw coming "down the pike", which both happened.

During the above search, however, I came across MP UNITS 106-109 , did we miss these by chance???

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

The problem is they are used in two scenarios ( correction... Three ) and that is probably why they were left alone whenever it was mentioned in the past but I'll look into it

Now removed and scenarios adjusted

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Better do this thing "about" right...
BRAZIL to modernize some of it's tanks. I'm TRACKING this.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/brazilian-army-seeks-to-update-its-leopard-1a5br-mbts

Now a little something different again from my world as we all get ready to start that summer "malaise". I have actual copies of the following documents on hand and though they are UNCLASSIFIED I never posted them. However, they are open sourced now, so 3 years+ of my life onboard the USS PROVIDENCE SSN-719, starting in 1986...

Quick facts for 1986...Volunteered from my 2nd boat the the USS JOHN C. CALHOUN SSBN-630G to fill an "urgent" manning request while we were conducting a refueling overhaul in CNSY (Charleston Naval Shipyard, South Carolina)/
Reported onboard 14 Feb. (That's why this was our favorite command.) PROVIDENCE is the Fleets first VLS boat./
Met CINCLANTHOME on 16 Aug. and we were married on 11 Oct. (5 days were all we had. First movie with her and at that time, her kids...ALIEN!/
The week before Christmas (Remember we work on the boat import as well.) I come home from work, ask about her Drs. appt. and she sits me down to tell me she's pregnant. For you young guys out there DO NOT provide the following response "How did happen?!!?", boy was that a mistake!?!
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/archives/command-operation-reports/ship-command-operation-reports/p/providence-ssn-719-v/pdf/1986.pdf

1987 Quick facts LANTSUBASWEX 2-87 was the largest NATO ASW exercise to date and currently as I understand it./I would qualify Submarines on 18 May (Our sons 10th Birthday.)/And would be left import for the only time in my career, to be there for our sons birth on 13 Aug (Tragically we would lose him to a pool drowning in 20 Aug 1989.)
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/archives/command-operation-reports/ship-command-operation-reports/p/providence-ssn-719-v/pdf/1987.pdf
(You can see the actual SINKEX pictures on my profile page if you want.)

Two days after we "out chopped" from the MED, this happened...
https://ww31987.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/the-southern-flank-d6-15-july-1987-part-ii/

I give you the rest below...
1988 we stand up and certify the VLS System/
That Dec inspection in PEV started out as a port visit which we were told was cancelled as we were entering port to pick up our "esteemed guests"
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/archives/command-operation-reports/ship-command-operation-reports/p/providence-ssn-719-v/pdf/1988.pdf

Our final year 1989. In my/our time on PROVIDENCE we would be apart 89% of the time. It was our favorite command/We still maintain contact with a handful of couples and crew on the boats FB Page/It represented some of our best times and in this year, our most tragic event we've ever experienced. We are both stronger for it and in Oct. we celebrate our 35th. I would be left in on 5 May with TAD orders to COMSUBDEVRON 12 Ops Dept. until I executed my PCS orders to COMSUMGRU TEN down here with a report date in OCT.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/archives/command-operation-reports/ship-command-operation-reports/p/providence-ssn-719-v/pdf/1989.pdf
(We were supposed to pull into Portsmouth England in '87 before "chopping" into the Med. however, when LANTSUBASWEX 2-87 was completed the Soviets sent several boats into the area, we responded in kind (Several others lost port calls as well.) while we sat in a box until it was time to enter the Med as we had a special "appointment" to keep. :tough: :dk: ;))

A little something to keep you occupied.

To see how a command can have a positive affect visit the following and search under American subs. That sailor would be me and it would be signed at my retirement in 2002 by my C.O. Captain Terry Tehan Ret. USN (Was promoted when he departed the boat at the Change of Command.) when he attended as my guest speaker (Boy can I tell you some stories about him!! Best C.O. I ever had.)...
http://subart.net/
(In the 'sold out" section bottom.)


Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Better do this thing "about" right...
BRAZIL to modernize some of it's tanks. I'm TRACKING this.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/brazilian-army-seeks-to-update-its-leopard-1a5br-mbts




Regards,
Pat
:capt:

an interesting compare/contrast article attached to that...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/boxer-awaits-firing-trials-with-john-cockerill-defense-c3105-turret

with the recent decision to terminate the Styker MGS


The turret is armed with a 105 mm high-pressure rifled gun fed by an automatic loader, with this version fitted with stabilised day/night sights for commander and gunner, enabling hunter/killer target engagements while stationary or moving..

[MarkSheppard]

The current gun can't even come close to matching the performance of the newer "high pressure" 105mm guns that are in operation such as Japan's MCV HP 105mm.

That's because Big Army tried to save money (TM) by simply using surplus M68 105mm Rifled Guns left over from the M1/M60 programs.

[MarkSheppard]

Thailand has reportedly received the first of it's new VN-16s (Export version ZTD-05 105mm Amphibious Tank)

Jane's a bit back said:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/royal-thai-navy-selects-norinco-for-aav-requirement_12275

that the procurement was for 3 vehicles, with a second batch of 3 "likely" to come later.

[DRG]

I *think* this is what we have as the Type 2000 in the Chinese OOB.

??

It had been named ZBD-04 MGS then ZBD-2000 then in 2020 Type 2000. The date fits for the ZBD-05

[MarkSheppard]

I *think* this is what we have as the Type 2000 in the Chinese OOB.

??

It had been named ZBD-04 MGS then ZBD-2000 then in 2020 Type 2000. The date fits for the ZBD-05

This is because Chinese weapons development is confusingly mixed with different signals coming from them at different points in development; with people making up names as they see new prototypes or equipment; and Chinese manufacturers themselves flack marketing names.

The big difference is that unlike in the West, where you can tell that the M60-120S (put Abrams turret on M60 hull) is a private venture, nobody is quite sure who is sponsoring what until it appears in quantity in Peoples Liberation Army service.

Let's go to Chinese Wikipedia:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBD-05%E4%B8%A4%E6%A0%96%E6%AD%A5%E5%85%B5%E6%88%98%E8 %BD%A6

In the first half of 2000, the army The China North Industries Group Corporation put forward the request for the development of new amphibious armored vehicles.

This is where everyone gets the "ZBD-2000" and "Type 2000" stuff from; because that's when the first developmental prototypes appeared, or the initial concept came from.

It was finalized in 2005 and used to replace the Type 63 amphibious armored vehicle family. The armored vehicle family includes four types, one is the ZTD-05 amphibious assault vehicle , used for beach impact, the second is the ZBD-05 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle, and the third is the 05 type amphibious armored command vehicle developed on the basis of the second . The fourth type developed on the basis of the first type is the 05 type amphibious armored rescue vehicle .

Production of the first "operational" units began in 2005 era; hence the family's designations:

ZBD-05 Amphibious IFV
ZTD-05 Amphibious Assault Vehicle (aka amphibious light tank)

These designations (ZBD/ZTD/etc) date back to 1987, when the PLA General Staff issued "Regulations on the Naming of Weapons and Equipment of the Armed Forces" 《全军武器装备命名规定》, which changed things from the old "Type XX" series; in which "Type 56" in small arms meant:

Type 56 7.62 mm semi-automatic rifles
Type 56 7.62 mm submachine guns
Type 56 7.62 mm light machine guns

The new 1987-onwards designations are generally revealed only after an item has entered service, because the designations themselves tell you exactly what the item is.

Back to the ZBD-05:

The ZBD-05 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle made its first public appearance at the parade on the 60th anniversary of the National Day of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 2009.

Going to another Chinese Wiki page:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZTD-05%E5%85%A9%E6%A3%B2%E7%AA%81%E6%93%8A%E8%BB%8A

The ZTD-05 amphibious assault vehicle made its first public appearance at the 60th Anniversary of the National Day of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 2009.

and

According to the official development notice of the 05 car issued by relevant departments in December 2003. The Type 05 amphibious fighting vehicle is actually four models: the first is an amphibious armored assault vehicle, equipped with a 105mm low recoil rifled gun ; the second is an amphibious armored infantry fighting vehicle, equipped with a 30mm cannon; it is based on the second type. The third type is an amphibious armored command vehicle; the fourth type is an amphibious armored rescue vehicle based on the first type. It is mainly used for island offensives. During the landing operation phase of the campaign, it performs the task of consolidating the landing field.

So let's review from Chinese Sources we get the timeline as being:

1.) NORINCO based on some prototypes or drawings, in mid-2000 submits a proposal for a modern amphibious vehicle family.

2.) The PLA General Staff approves development of the amphibious vehicle family in December 2003.

3.) The Amphibious vehicle family is type classified and adopted officially by the PLA in 2005.

4.) It doesn't get publicly revealed to the world (officially) until the October 1, 2009 parade.

[blazejos]

In subject of tanks I d'like to add about polish modernisation of old T-72 from storages usually M1 variant

This new tank after rebuilding is called T-72M1R

So what is that. In geostrategical context Poland now need many tanks and fast. That is why army give local industry a green light to modernization of older models usually T-72M1 from storages build in 70s/80s
They are already in use since 2020 by 18th Mechanized Division
https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/18dz/articles/aktualnosci-w/2021-03-041-czogisci-z-lublina-oddali-pierwsze-strzay/

What was modernised in T-72M1R?

New Engine W-46-6 573 kW
New electric installation with accumulators
manufacturer PCO add new observation devices (PNK-72 Radomka instead of TWNE-4B)
for commander (POD-72 Liswarta instead TKN-3)
Periscope PCT-72, with thermovision 3rd generation KLW-1 Asteria for gun crew (instead of TPN-1-49-23).
New caterpillars and basket in rear of tower for tools.


In case of armour none was added so that is still T-72M1 but with better optics/electronics and reliability and communication.

https://milmag.pl/2021/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/mspo2020_leopard2pl_01.jpg
https://www.defence24.pl/upload/2021-03-05/qpi65c_T72M1R19bz2.jpg
https://www.defence24.pl/upload/2021-03-05/qpi669_T72M1R19bz6.jpg

Text about this tank https://en.topwar.ru/180612-modernizacija-s-goloj-bronej-polskie-voennye-osvaivajut-novye-tanki-t-72m1r.html

A description of future vehicles now considered by Polish Army T-72M1R is also there
https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10283-poland-armed-forces-modernization/page/6/#comments

[DRG]

https://bydgoszcz.wyborcza.pl/bydgoszcz/7,48722,26972663,senator-brejza-pyta-o-czolgi-t-72-do-dzialan-rownorzednych.html?disableRedirects=true


The vehicle received new, passive sighting and observation systems and encrypted communication, as well as several other small improvements. The delivery of these machines started at the end of 2019. By the end of 2025, there should be at least 230 of them.

The changes did not include the armament, protection or armor systems of the vehicle, which maintains its usefulness on the modern battlefield at a level at least debatable.

[blazejos]

That's true first time T-72M1R were delivered in December 2019

There also exist T-72R which is older model modernised with the same parts.[ (I'm not certain about this)

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://zbiam.pl/artykuly/pierwsze-t-72-zmodyfikowane-w-labedach-przekazane-wojsku/


Manufacturer Bumar Łabedy S.A official press note
https://www.bumar.gliwice.pl/news/zmodyfikowane-t-72-dotarly-do-lublina

Here some additional articles
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://www.defence24.pl/mspo-2020-zmodyfikowany-t-72-czyli-niewidoczne-zmiany

That's true they are another critical articles that changes are too small. I suppose that this that is fast and dirty modernisation which is result that situation in Europe is deteriorating.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://www.konflikty.pl/aktualnosci/relacje/mspo-spektakularna-porazka-polskiej-zbrojeniowki/

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://www.magnum-x.pl/artykul/modernizacja-wojsk-pancernych

[DRG]

Found this year old article while digging around for a decent photo

https://www.defence24.pl/kto-dostarczy-nowa-amunicje-do-t-72


There is a chance that armored units equipped with T-72 tanks will receive modern ammunition. Five entities signed up for the technical dialogue conducted by the Armament Inspectorate for the new anti-tank sub-caliber ammunition for the Polish T-72 and PT-91 Twardy tanks.

[blazejos]

Found this year old article while digging around for a decent photo

https://www.defence24.pl/kto-dostarczy-nowa-amunicje-do-t-72


There is a chance that armored units equipped with T-72 tanks will receive modern ammunition. Five entities signed up for the technical dialogue conducted by the Armament Inspectorate for the new anti-tank sub-caliber ammunition for the Polish T-72 and PT-91 Twardy tanks.

That is standard T72M1 without basket on rear turret!

Here is famous basket :) biggest visible mod
https://i.imgur.com/niz9UKh.jpg

Here are photos of T-72M1R from Field deploy
http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/home/articleshow/33745?t=Ogniowy-debiut-zmodyfikowanych-czolgow-T72# (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/home/articleshow/33745?t%3DOgniowy-debiut-zmodyfikowanych-czolgow-T72%23)
https://zbrojni.blob.core.windows.net/pzdata2/Images/76987

Here is official military data about this tank also in English

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--JiaPyksAQg/X56wutwMT4I/AAAAAAABN8w/ZzP07sjAZL04VthojZfYU08mOZkjf9zLwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1620/jlzkVsq.jpg

And nice photos of interiors of T-71M1R with focus on modernised devices they are on photos
https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/2020/11/t-72m1r-upgraded-t-72mm1-for-polish-army.html

And info with photos about new modernized tanks for army
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://www.defence24.pl/kolejne-t-72-ida-do-wojska

In this last article is photo and description that Bumar modernizing also WZT-2 & WZT-3 recovery tanks to standard WZT-2M & WZT3M don't know what is a spectrum of this modernisation but maeaby is similar to this devices which we have in T-72M1R

WZT-3M
https://www.defence24.pl/upload/2021-04-12/qrgdmt_Zrzutekranu20210412o15.31.21.png

[blazejos]

Found also data about optoelectronics devices from
PCO (Przemysłowe Centrum Optyki - Industrial Optics Center)

Their products
https://pcosa.com.pl/en/home/

POD Liswarta https://pcosa.com.pl/en/pod-72-liswarta-2/

PNK Radomka
https://pcosa.com.pl/en/pnk-55-72-radomka-drivers-night-vision-periscope/

Thermal Periscopes
https://pcosa.com.pl/en/modernisation-sets-for-armoured-vehicles/

KLW-1 Asteria
https://pcosa.com.pl/en/klw-1-asteria-thermal-camera/

[blazejos]

BTW niece photos of PT-91M Pendekar Malaysian model of polish PT-91 Twardy on proving ground.

https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2020-11-20T09:56:00%2B04:00&max-results=10&start=189&by-date=false

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--8wwh30HsyY/X7EGiIIvycI/AAAAAAABOjE/iLFmIqwdw8kFoZT4BBWTnr6yfP7NxLOIwCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h364/125182496_4030286320333586_4540165016501828176_o.j pg

This photos is a proof that Malaysian has also an engineering mine clearing devices for their MBT look on first tank on photo. Don't know if that is Polish or Russian made device but probably they are interchangeable between t-72 family
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FashRJ4xIKA/X7EGfELqCEI/AAAAAAABOiU/2IAVjjTQgqoRVlbF8Buz0_ySA2iTuci1wCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h432/124604317_4030286497000235_7370761540496638405_o.j pg

[blazejos]

There is a chance that armored units equipped with T-72 tanks will receive modern ammunition. Five entities signed up for the technical dialogue conducted by the Armament Inspectorate for the new anti-tank sub-caliber ammunition for the Polish T-72 and PT-91 Twardy tanks.[/QUOTE]

There is also more about this modern ammunition for T-72/PT-91 called 120x570mm APFSDS https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10283-poland-armed-forces-modernization/?do=findComment&comment=212028
https://i.imgur.com/DndcfZq.jpg

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm thinking there's a fair shot we'll see these upgraded Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) Leopard 1A5BR tanks before games end based on this newer article from the one I posted around a month or two ago. This upgrade program is part of a longer term initiative to strategically
upgrade their armor between 2020-2039.

This current program is meant to extend the operating life of the Leopard 1A5BR by 15 years.

We now also have a better picture in regards to the extent of the planned upgrades along with a couple optional ones which I feel will be made considering the "neighborhood" they're in.

What I don't know is will they seek a new tank from outside the country which are what the "rumors" say will happen or develop their own tanks like they did with the following below. They know how to do it but, what killed the programs were time in development, no export orders and most importantly cheaper foreign tanks.

Both the TAMOYO and OSORIO never got past the PROTOTYPE Stage.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/brazil-to-launch-tender-for-modernising-leopard-1a5br-mbts
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mb3_tamoyo.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/osorio.htm

For you Vietnam Vets, 2 days until I catch "The Freedom Bird"!!
Though I concede the fact your I'm sure felt better.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[blazejos]

Modernisation program "Wilk" in Poland which my be consider a way in which direction MBT's evolution and usage my go in next 20/30 years in this country. This tank is consider as a replacement for older and most numerous T-72/T-72M1 and PT-91 "Twardy" and also mentioned earlier T-72M1R. Leopards after future modernisations will be kept in units.

There are consider such options


Domestic tank Wilk
Designed by OBRUM IV generation 60t tank. Two man crew and remote turennt. Designed in some way similarly to T-14 Armata thick armour on front of hull and light armour in torrent. Armour with use of polish technology designed for PT-91 and also of german IBD Deisenroth, AMAP-B technology composites. Active defense system ASOP is planed in cooperation with Ukrainians - ASOP hard-kill "Zasłon". Also soft-kill SSP-1 OBRA-3 Picture (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-crg2kjR7Zt8/WGeAPtp9d-I/AAAAAAAAAc4/C4-1B2VllRo-tsmj_3SJDfhtVjZcIiQKQCLcB/s640/obra.png) and reactive armour based on polish experiences with ERAWA-3. As we talk about gun here is considered Rheinmetall 120mm Rh 120 LLR L/47 or Rheinmetall 130 mm Rh 130 L/51

Early graphic of projected tank
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3E5_L4zweek/WGd_M_av28I/AAAAAAAAAcg/mwjxFRrPQAQYKBLBcbf2WDHoEwkYkvNNQCLcB/s640/wilk.jpg

https://2s14.blogspot.com/2016/12/gepard-i-wilk-przyszosc-polskich-wojsk.html


M1 Abrams tank
American government offers used Abrams definitely M1 variant

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://www.defence24.pl/abramsy-oficjalnie-proponowane-polsce



K2PL
South Korea offers their K2 Black Panther in version K2PL with better turrent and hull armour than their variant which will be manufactured in Poland together with transfer of technology and know-how. They are already involved in production of K9 Thunder chassis for polish Krab.

based on https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10283-poland-armed-forces-modernization/page/6/
South Korea offers full technology transfer and polonization. K2PL itself is newly designed, better turret and hull for K2 Black Panther subsystems. South Korea offers to fund R&D phase and provide Poland with preferential credits to build production capabilities in Poland. Besides that this offer includes large cooperation in terms of both military and civilian industry. K2PL is considered as one of the favorites, also because South Korea is investing a lot in Poland, including large Ion-Lithium batteries factory and new Central Airport Hub

also Czech army is interested in cooperation with Poland during production and introduction of K2PL probably as (K2CZ) to their armed forces.

https://i.imgur.com/eaXAfWu.jpg


Altay MBT

Turkey also offers their main MBT
https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10283-poland-armed-forces-modernization/page/6/

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just a quick shout out...
UK MOD has decided the CHALLENGER 3 WILL be equipped with the TROPHY APS after all.

I'm on the IPad so you'll have too go to the armyrecognition.com site for today's news to get the story or wait until I get home.

Regards,
Pat
Alright then just imagine the Captain Emo-G-Ine here!

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm posting the following as it provides a simple overview of what makes a post WWII/Cold War/Modern MBT a GEN 1-3 version and speculates on what might constitute a 4th GEN MBT. But my main purpose is the available and various color schemes of these tanks offered and many other combat vehicles as well. I'm sure somebody will find this useful. :dk:
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern-tanks.php

Still getting back into the "groove" at work...lots changed in the time I was gone.

Got things to take care of, have a good night/morning and as always a GREAT Day!!

I haven't forgotten about the articles I said I'd post while gone, however still tracking down some further information to confirm a tank I thought we'd see before games end apparently will now, not make it after all.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

So I posted this list of MBT's several years ago I believe there was 10 total, I thought might make it by games end 2020. But as you'll see, a couple would've made that deadline but for the extension to 2025.

I'll list them from memory though, I might fall short by a couple.

1. MERKAVA IVB -OPERATIONAL

2. ABRAMS M1AC (SEP 3) - IOC; expected FOC Mid 2023
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/lawmakers-question-us-armys-decision-to-cut-abrams-upgrade-funding-and-jltv-in-fy-2022

3. ALTAY -PROTOTYPE; 18 MONTH countdown clock is still at 0. DOUBTFUL

4. ARMATA - PROTOTYPE; what happens here affects the IFV version as well. Russia has shifted assets to the very capable T-90M. At best 2024. DOUBTFUL

5. K2 PIM - OPERATIONAL, but in very limited numbers.

6. LEOPARD-A7V Improved - PROYOTYPE; will transition with new designation. Also more likely to a transitional tank first. Assets moving towards joint development MBT with France, possibility UK and Netherlands. Looking in from the outside Poland. Possibly late 2023 or 2024.

7. LeClerc XLR (Scorpion Program); RESET, French are accelerating the whole Program. If EVERYTHING falls into place, FOC might be reached by Late 2023-Mid 2024.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/france-awards-leclerc-upgrade-contract-to-nexter

8. There's been talk of a new Chinese MBT I believe briefly touched on in my last Post. DOUBTFUL or 2025 at best. The focus is to build up the NAVY and AIR FORCE at present for continued POWER PROJECTION.

9. I can't remember.

10.The focus of this discussion; CHALLENGER 3 - RESET; From MOD, IOC 2027/FOC 2030. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO STATE THE OBVIOUS HERE. With IOC already at 2027, things tend to shift more to the "RIGHT" then come to the "LEFT of NEVER."
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-awards-rbsl-challenger-3-contract
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2021/05/challenger-3-armoured-vehicle-programme
https://euro-sd.com/2021/05/articles/exclusive/22904/challenger-3/
https://www.forces.net/news/challenger-3-what-will-armys-upgraded-main-battle-tank-be
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-57025266

That should cover it.

Todays my Monday-I'm out!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FIXED SPELLING ERROR. :)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Now I remember what #9 should've (Though not the reason I'm up at this "ungodlily" hour. :D) been in my last post.

Of course and how could I even forget :rolleyes:...

9. INDIA!! - ARJUN Mk II "The Ferrari of the Desert" - Probably the best tank they'll have with possible exception of their T-90MS. Currently a compromise was reached between DRADO and the Army with the acceptance of the interim ARJUN Mk 1A which is a "world class" tank. It might need a date change though however. To ARJUN Mk II I believe they will get this tank (It's the transitional tank to their indigenous "Future Tank Program".) but I believe it'll be DOUBTFUL (Finally got that spelling right.) we'll see it see it in the game.

Back to bed!!

How could I forget INDIA!?! :shock:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Export version of the M1A2C (SEP 3) anyone?

Australia has already begun the process. Actually, initially they were looking at both the M1A2C or the M1A2 "SPEC" version modified to their needs. It seems now, it's the M1A2C from which Congress is pending approval of the foreign sales deal.
https://armynews.partica.online/army-news/september-17-2020/news/strengthening-our-armour
"Initial operational capability is expected in 2025, with rollout to brigades expecting to be complete by 2026." NOTE: This ref. is from 9/20.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2021_global_security_army_indus try/australian_army_to_expand_m1a1_abrams_mbt_fleet_wi th_u.s._acquisitions.html
"According to the Military Balance 2020, Australia currently has 59 M1A1 (AIM) configuration tanks (hybrids with a mix of equipment used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps but ***without depleted uranium layers in armor).*** NOTE: Where indicated with ***, provides a PERFECT example of what I've been talking about for years. The "Big Boys" DON'T FULLY SHARE THIER TOYS-REASON-OPSEC.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-approves-potential-usd168-billion-sale-of-heavy-armoured-combat-systems-to-australia
NOTE: State Department approval.


Poland it appears is leaning towards the same tank themselves, Though the ref besides their own sources, also comment on an interview conducted by Defense24. I follow this site and didn't see the article but it was released end of day by "ArmyRec", so it just might not have been processed in time by the "others" yet.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2021_global_security_army_indust ry/poland_to_possibly_buy_m1a2_abrams_tanks_to_replac e_its_t-72_pt-91_mbts.html

No we won't see them.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[blazejos]

Today 14.07.2021 was made a decision in Poland.
Poland will buy ASAP M1A2 ABRAMS SEPv3 and first tanks will be in next year 2022.

Official governmental website google translator because as for now no English version of this info

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=https://www.gov.pl/web/obrona-narodowa/abramsy-dla-polski-wojska-ladowe-zostana-wyposazone-w-250-nowoczesnych-czolgow

[DRG]

So the question is does this have the same DU armour as the US version and if no how are they going to be built without it in a year...?

The next question is what shells are being supplied for the main gun.

As Pat noted above.............. The "Big Boys" DON'T FULLY SHARE THEIR TOYS-"

and I have a feeling that will apply in this case but exactly where and how is the other part of the question

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I pointed this out specifically in my last post under Australia. The answer simply NO DU Armor for ANY foreign user of the ABRAMS.

When the Iranian militia were operating the Iraqi M1A1 SA tanks, and yes, we wished they hadn't but we really weren't that concerned about it because no OPSEC issues were compromised. If it were, trust me, their would've been any thing left of those handful of tanks they had except scrap.

That's why we've always recovered our tanks from the battlefield. This applies to all the major tank producing countries.

We never sell our Submarines (Though Russia has sold some out dated nukes to India.), Our foreign sale ships go into the shipyard and get completing stripped of our advanced FC, Sonar, Radar etc. etc.

UK did the same when OMAN bought a couple of hundred CHALLENGER 2 tanks w/o their advanced armor. OMAN actually upgraded the armor package on most of their "fleet" just a few years back.

We buy (As well as others.) Russian equipment all the time. And they buy ours. Except we don't buy them from each other. Hell we've even bought about 2 or 3 OPLOT-M tanks from the Ukraine just in the last couple of years that I know I posted in here.

Why would Israel always turn around and improve the jets we sell them if it were the "top shelf" USAF version? That's the first thing they did as they started to get their F-35's in country. Their "U.S." F-35 were/are getting upgraded to the F-35i improved Israeli version.

There's only about ten countries that could be considered major producers of heavy armor in the world, They keep the first tier tanks for themselves and always have. We're very happy to sell you a second tier or third tier version of our tank but, you won't get our Armor Package, FCS, Electronics, Comms, Ammo or our latest Powerplants and Packs. At best you'll be a couple of Generation behind.

However, you'll buy the tank anyway because you don't have the Industrial capacity, Financial resources, Technical know how plus it's better than what your using now, and I can go on and on, to build one yourself.

Foreign sales develop capital for the seller to advance their own technologies and future projects.
https://www.defence24.com/polish-army-abrams-mbts-for-4-battalions-of-the-18th-mechanized-division-financing-outside-the-mods-budget

That's the English version above.

This is still pending full U.S. Foreign sales approval. Those tanks will need to be RESET to remove all sensitive Armor components etc. etc. There'll be integration issues at Poland's end, not least of which will be training T-72/PT-91 crews.

Let's NOT get ahead of ourselves here!!!!

We just don't have stripped down versions of these tanks laying around.

Poland has never operated these tanks. However, Australia has. What's my point here?

1. Crews are trained on ABRAMS.

2. Australia put their request in first and is ready to stroke the check.

3. China is the bigger threat then Russia.

4. 2 & 3 will ensure Australia get theirs first and will reach FOC also first.

5. We would do well to follow the Australian timeline as laded out in the refs I posted in my last.

I've been watching these things for a very long time, and I hate it when we feel the need to "jump the gun" on these projects to more often then not, have to turn around and change it, delete it or something else.

We're not in a race out here and I'm getting tired of all the rework we've had to do over especially these last few years, when I have years worth of equipment that is already in service but not in the game. I'm just simply ending this with...

WHY ARE WE LETTING THIS HAPPEN TO OURSELVES?!?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

That was my point... how DO you remove the DU armour? I have no idea how it's installed and one year from announcement to delivery is just too quick unless this is something that's been in the works for a few years already.

Announcements of intent are all well and good but I only get interested (generally.... there have been lapses ) .... when it's delivered and made operational so these are not going into the Polish OOB until that happens