MBT's

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Same thoughts as with APC and other threads started. Will focus on the new and major mods (Such as Jordan's PHEONIX program.)only. Trying to keep up with new armor packages etc. would be an absolute nightmare!
So here's a quick update on the long awaited Russian T-95:
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news81146.html
Take note of the key word "Could".
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think at least the turret will look similar to the NEW one that was designed for the "BLACK EAGLE" in the joint Russian and S. Korean venture that never got past the 2 prototypes that were built. Why? It's the only modern Russian tank/turret that was designed recently (And be in a 8 to 12 year drawing board to production window for the T-95.) to carry the 152mm gun that I can find.
Here it is:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm and for further development background:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-95.htm and yes I noted the 25 years development process.

BLACK EAGLE and POSIBLE T-95 Pic:
9783 9784

Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

I would like to know, about the T-95, where are they going to fit the rounds and how many. Unless the size of the tank increases or the crew gets even smaller, are we talking about less than 10 rounds?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well if the defencetalk.com purported picture of the T-95 is right, I can't shake the feeling the development of the
BLACK EAGLE continued. This wouldn't be the first military hardware that suffered that fate, went into a "Black Hole" and was brought back later in a further developed stage. Let's remember the turret for the BLACK EAGLE was of a completely new design. Also there were some reports that the BLACK EAGLE turret was unmanned as well. IF we assume dt.com somehow managed to get a T-95 pic and compare it to the known BLACK EAGLE pic the only difference I can see is the side mounted track armor. If it quacks it must be a duck. We'll see. As most know I'll keep digging, in the meantime here's another short article.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.htm
I would think the load out would be similar to the BLACK EAGLEs and others in the neighborhood of 30-40 rounds.
Hey if a guy named "Boris" comes around asking questions we could be on to something here!?!
Have a Great Weekend!
Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

I am sorry but where are you going to fit 40 rounds of 152mm? It seems highly unlikely there is room for that.

As for the black eagle photo, it looks shopped to me. Not only that, but they both look they are from the same type of tank.

[Imp]

To fit what we consider a normal load the turret would have to be unmanned or telescopic ammo would have to be used. An 152 AP shell will be a lot bigger than a 122 one so much so I think probably no choice but to have an auto loader.

[Cross]

Looks like Israel are starting to deploy their new 'Trophy' anti-missile system on Merkava MBTs.

article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_tanks_of_the_future




Cross

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

One thing we were always taught was in any situation there's a solution, and not to "...give up until the ... water is coming in the people tank!" So to overcome the 152mm storage issue is not a problem, we (I) just have to think about the last (served until 1996.) "modern" era tank that was armed with a 152mm gun, carried 20 rounds plus 9 ATGW and weighed in at slightly more then 1/4 the current weight of a front line MBT. So with pics:):clap: I present the last Light Tank to serve with the USA.
USA/1968/M551 Sheridan/C4/152mm (20Rs),MGM-51 Shillelagh (9),
AA 12.7mm (1KRs) & 7.62mm (3KRs).
The design was "innovative" and served it's purpose to a degree but it had many issues which lead it to be replaced by the M60A1 and eventuaaly the M3 Bradley for the Recon role.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m551_sheridan.htm
Pics:
9807 9808
9809 9810

Hope those that observe Easter and to everyone else that you all had a great weekend!
Regards,
Pat

[thatguy96]

The 152mm gun on the M551 (along with the different gun used on the M60A2) used a set of squat, combustible case rounds. The HEAT round was only intended to engage tanks at ranges shorter than the MGM-51 missile. In fact, its range was so sub-par that it created a range gap between it and the minimum range of the missile. This was one of the many problems with the system.

The rounds were between 20 and 27 inches long. By comparison, the rounds for the 120mm gun in the M1A1 Abrams and subsequent variants range from 36 to 40 inches. The MGM-51 missile is of a similar length.

So, while it might be closer to 20-25 rounds in whatever tank that might mount such a gun, its definitely not going to be 40.

I personally think this is going to continue to be myth. They keep having to come up with new numbers as every tank that does come out is basically just a T-72 derivative. The gun keeps changing size too. From 135mm to 152mm. This is what the T-90 was predicted to be initially too. I really doubt the T-95 will be any different. Nothing has come of the large bore projects the Chinese are supposedly working on either.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

ARJUN from INDIA last month entered operations against a like sized unit of Indian T-90s (14 unit Indian Tank Squadron.)the outcome could very well determine the future of India's indigenous tank industry. India had an independent foreign (And rumored as being a major tank maker.) analysis done on the ARJUN where it was determined that it was a top tier MBT. The ARJUN's main gun is supposed to be as good as the UK's CHALLENGER II 120mm RB main gun. The fire control system supposedly allows for a 90% hit probability as reported by several sources while firing on the move. It has also successfully fired the LAHAT munitions and will be equipped with it. The ARJUN has been in development for about 25yrs plagued by numerous issues the biggest being designing an engine that can handle the extremes in India's frontiers from desert to very cold mountainous regions. To solve the problem they purchased a 1400hp power plant from GERMANY which is built in country. It is speculated that it has been brought up to a MKII production configuration of the tanks now being fielded from the earlier MKI prototypes. The ARJUN is currently limited to 124 units assigned to the 43rd Armored Regiment (AR) with the 75th AR being equipped by the end of this month.
For your further review:
INDIA/ARJUN/2009/C4/120mm RB (39Rs), 12.7mm (3KRs) and
7.62mm (3KRs)
Sources oldest to newest (Hopefully!):
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arjun.htm,
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1391.html,
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news68434.html,
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news75850.html
and LAHAT http://defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm
Pics (Untouched hopefully!?!):
9934 9935
Gotta finish setting my defences against a N. Korean assualt. Have a great weekend everyone!!
Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

My god that is an ugly colour!

[Marcello]

I would like to know, about the T-95, where are they going to fit the rounds and how many. Unless the size of the tank increases or the crew gets even smaller, are we talking about less than 10 rounds?

Well, let's not exaggerate. What I have read lists 34-36 rounds as planned storage for the 152mm armed tanks (T-95, Molot etc.), which seems reasonable.
Chances are that we will never know, the latest word is that the ax has fallen on the T-95.

I personally think this is going to continue to be myth. They keep having to come up with new numbers as every tank that does come out is basically just a T-72 derivative.

Thing is, nobody is interested im something better than that.
The export customers have lined up in droves to buy it because it provides a very cost effective follow on to the T-72/T-55 and 60's western tanks which make up their tank fleets. Since most of them already operates T-72M there is also a bit of commonality. Anybody with the cash and desire for something better generally either buys western or make their own. By comparison the "better" T-80s attracted very limited interest, the only big sale was ukrainan T-84s to Pakistan and even then only because they could not obtain T-90 in first place.
As for Russia itself T-90s and modernized T-72s are sufficient against what the georgians or chinese can deploy.
T-95 would be really needed only against western MBTs but, even if we assume a confrontation (say, something along the lines of Georgia) with the West that does not end with Topol and Trident exchanges, contesting the air will have the priority and tank on tank egagements may not even take place.

[thatguy96]

Thing is, nobody is interested im something better than that.
Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

[Marcello]

Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Well, it is a bit of a risk. Should customers start to demand in something radically better than T-90 the russian will not have anything ready in the pipeline. To be sure, this isn't going to happen tomorrow but development of a new MBT isn't instantaneous either.
I suppose that they came to the conclusion that the T-90 market niche and lack of interest in high end russian designs will last long enough to enable them to cook something new at leisurely pace. Which isn't unreasonable but they are taking a calculated risk, even if a limited one.
One has also to wonder how far advanced T-95 development was, it is possible that it was caught in the collapse halfway and never fully finished. I would not want to be foreign customer to sign for a delivery contract only to find out I have to shell out more and more money and wait for years for it to be ironed out. T-90 at least is tried and true.

[Wdll]

Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Well, it is a bit of a risk. Should customers start to demand in something radically better than T-90 the russian will not have anything ready in the pipeline. To be sure, this isn't going to happen tomorrow but development of a new MBT isn't instantaneous either.
I suppose that they came to the conclusion that the T-90 market niche and lack of interest in high end russian designs will last long enough to enable them to cook something new at leisurely pace. Which isn't unreasonable but they are taking a calculated risk, even if a limited one.
One has also to wonder how far advanced T-95 development was, it is possible that it was caught in the collapse halfway and never fully finished. I would not want to be foreign customer to sign for a delivery contract only to find out I have to shell out more and more money and wait for years for it to be ironed out. T-90 at least is tried and true.


For a second there I thought you were talking about the F-35 lol.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Next up will be the Turkish M60T which has been updated to the SEBRA MKII or MIII standard. In SP we have the M60A3 IMI ST which I understand is upgraded to the MKI standard. Others conflict on the M60T if it's the A1 or A3 that's been updated. Some Israeli papers report the A1 was updated. Outward difference between A3 SEBRA MKI and A1 (MOST POINT TO THIS.)
M60T is the MG cupola was kept. Just emailed IMI for clarification on the M60T. Below is a picture of the M60T. Again I'm awaiting clarification from IMI.
Pic:
10065
Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

Is this photoshopped? The turret feels a bit touched.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Couldn't say not in my area of expertise. All I can tell you is that the picture is on the IMI website and is used on the defence-update.com site reporting the delivery of the last of 170units converted to the M60T mod.
Additional Pics:
10074 from http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/index.php?PHPSESSID=kdh56qpchf1vlalo1uhjpd3f35&
and 10075 10076
10077 from
http://mil.fznews.com.cn/wjjq/2007-6-8/200768yscerfymoo12827.shtml a Chinese site.
Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

Perhaps it's just my imagination.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Where's IMP? John thought you might find (and others of course!) this interesting as I recall you did some reporting on India's
T-90's. Doing a source check I was wondering what news there was on India's "competition" between the ARJUN and their T-90's. Based on this article the ARJUN did better then expected, as predicted by the evaluation conducted on the ARJUN by the as yet unnamed foreign major tank manufacturer. This just could really shake things up for India's Army not to mention their POSSIBLE export potential. Will follow this, see original post #9 (?)on pg. 1. Here's the update:
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news82347.html
Also no reply from IMI on the email I sent about the Turkish M60T. Might have to go with what I got and all of you be the judge.
Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Forgot to mention if we're to see the T-95 look to the IDELF 2010Military Expo on 30 June - 04 July in Zhukovsky, Russia. MANY sources point to a Military Expo early this summer and this is the most likely one currently scheduled.
Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

Where's IMP? John thought you might find (and others of course!) this interesting as I recall you did some reporting on India's
T-90's. Doing a source check I was wondering what news there was on India's "competition" between the ARJUN and their T-90's. Based on this article the ARJUN did better then expected, as predicted by the evaluation conducted on the ARJUN by the as yet unnamed foreign major tank manufacturer. This just could really shake things up for India's Army not to mention their POSSIBLE export potential. Will follow this, see original post #9 (?)on pg. 1. Here's the update:
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news82347.html
Also no reply from IMI on the email I sent about the Turkish M60T. Might have to go with what I got and all of you be the judge.
Regards,
Pat

The Arjun may have done better than expected and additional ones will be likely purchased but I doubt the indian Army will do a full 180°on its T-90/T-72 based procurement plans.
And, to be honest, the choice of an indigenous rifled 120mm instead of a NATO ammunition compatible 120mm smoothbore or a
125mm is an unwise move. It means that new developments in the field of tank ammunition cannot be leveraged directly and developing new rounds forn a small number of tanks will be rather unattractive.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I agree about the gun compatibility issue but, this could be a case of we just don't know yet also. It almost seems from the tone of the article(s) that India was surprised by the ARJUN's performance given the extremely long developmental process that took place to get it to this point. The ARJUN was designed to replace India's 2400 T-72 tanks and to save the cost of modernizing them, though this process has been ongoing over the last couple of years or longer. Not a munitions expert but, doesn't England have the same issue with the Challenger II MBT as it uses a rifled 120mm main gun or (SB vs. RB) does that matter?
Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

I agree about the gun compatibility issue but, this could be a case of we just don't know yet also. It almost seems from the tone of the article(s) that India was surprised by the ARJUN's performance given the extremely long developmental process that took place to get it to this point. The ARJUN was designed to replace India's 2400 T-72 tanks and to save the cost of modernizing them, though this process has been ongoing over the last couple of years or longer.

As far as I know the indian Army never liked the Arjun and resisted it at every step, they preferred the T-72/T-90.
It was the industry which pushed it.
Now, the latest rounds of trials might have changed that a bit, so that more than 124 might be built and perhaps a few less
T-90 but I doubt the difference will be by an order of magnitude.


Not a munitions expert but, doesn't England have the same issue with the Challenger II MBT as it uses a rifled 120mm main gun or (SB vs. RB) does that matter?
Regards,

Yes, it matters to the point that the british published plans to regun the Challanger with standard smoothbores some time ago, precisely for this reason. And keep in mind that the Challanger series is in service in a couple of others countries in addition to the UK, something the Arjun probably will not achieve. Yet it still isn't a pool large enough to make ammunition development and production an economical proposition.

[Imp]

Hi Pat not really being following but I dont think they were surprised at all, at least people in the know seemed pretty confident it would do well.
The ammo thing is crazy though especially if you are going to have 2 MBTs shared ammo has got to be a priority both logisticaly & development wise.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This will require some patience however I think in regards to the M60T I've "threaded the needle" on it to be able to present this to all of you. Further info are on posts #15 and #17 of this thread. I believe this will support the Turkish M60A3 IMI ST currently in WinSPMBT with the first source for background info. The next two will support the further upgrades done to the M60A1 or as designated for Turkey as the M60T. The M60T will need to be added to the game from what I can tell. Let's get started as I've spent more time on this then most others due to some confusion in sources between the M60A3 or M60A1 being the Turkish M60T.
Turkey/M60T/2007/C4/120mm SB 42Rds, 7.62mm 6KRds, 12.7mm 900Rds and a 60mm Mortor./
SABRA was designed to be a further upgrade to IDF M60A3 but was relegated to the export market with the further development of the MERKAVA MBTs. The SABRA Mods used many features from the MERKAVA MBTs from armor pkgs, weapons, electronics to suspension systems. Important to note on SABRA MKII & MKIII in upper left the designation of the M60A1 in those sources.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1801.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4281.html and
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3217.html
Further sources to support M60A1 as M60T:
Unofficial Turkish military site:
http://www.turkishworld.multiservers.com/equipment.html
Oldest to newest timeline articles:
http://www.tanksim.com/topic7.htm
http://www.elbitsystems.com/newsRoomPressRin.asp?id=86&pr=1&textfield=&s_year=2004&s_month=All
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136893
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/546/ and
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/april/turkish_tank_15042010.html
Based again on these with a through read of the articles the
M60T is at the SABRA MKIII Mod. What is certain is on the surface of it the M60T should at a minimum be a better protected and more maneuverable MBT then the M60A3 IMI ST. The date for fielding the M60T is subjective but I believe is correct from what I could piece together. Note Columbia's interest in the M60T something to watch for.
Pics simply for comparison purposes:
10110 10111
Still no word from IMI, though Elbit systems source helps.
Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Indian MOD announced a restructuring of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), among the projects to be continued will be the ARJUN MKII and AKASH MKII MBT programs.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15208/
Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

The Indians do seem to get there on the R&D front which seems to have been noticed by Russia to can see them angling for more cooperation in the future.
Yes they take a bit longer but thats probably down to spending.
What they do need to do is improve quality control on manufacturing as that does seem there downfall.
In fact most nations with a potentialy hostile neighbour at least one seems to do pretty well with home grown stuff. Israel, North Korea to name but two.
The bonus to this is also the equipment is designed for your enviroment & in North Koreas case while money is puting a temporary hold on play they are fast catching the big hitters. If there new IFV is anything as good as its supposed to be can see that being a big export at the costs they are talking about. Probably like a Korean car not the best does the job but lacks the finnesse that makes it great. But it only costs 1/3rd the price and there cars are getting better but remaining cheap. Some of their small arms stuff looks really nice to of course a lot of it looks based on USA stuff just tweaked a bit.
Funny thought I had modern small arms use of plastics to keep weight down & compact designs some look more like toy guns than toy guns ever have.
Some support weapons look like modern art all sweeping lines curved tripods etc.
Functional as no sharp edges & curve allows flex to help absorb recoil.

[Marcello]

Yes they take a bit longer but thats probably down to spending.
What they do need to do is improve quality control on manufacturing as that does seem there downfall.

Most emerging industrial powers have similar issues. A long, long time ago japanese exports were cheap, not so good stuff too. When I hear people talking about how the chinese or others will never be able to make anything on par with the West I can't help but :re:
Just wait some more years...

In fact most nations with a potentialy hostile neighbour at least one seems to do pretty well with home grown stuff. Israel, North Korea to name but two.

I suspect you are confusing North Korea with South Korea. North Korea is a dying country with a devastated economy. To the extent they are still producing military hardware, in limited quantity and even then only thanks to their codified "Military First" policy, it is almost exclusively modified variants of obsolete soviet and chinese vehicles and weapons.

[Imp]

I suspect you are confusing North Korea with South Korea

Indeed always get the 2 the wrong way round

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As I thought, I had a feeling about this and ...well anyway India wasting no time, they've just ordered an additional 124 ARJUN tanks these will be of the MKII variety. All current 124
MBTs are and will be fitted to the MKII version as well with upgraded armor packages and top ERA added to the Russian T-90 standard or better as is suggested by some.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15266/
Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

The ammo thing is crazy though especially if you are going to have 2 MBTs shared ammo has got to be a priority both logisticaly & development wise.

Actually two MBTs with different main gun is pretty manageable and in any case spares would be different, so you need a separate logistical line anyway.
A 60 tons (weights here are given as approximation), "western style" MBT could actually be a decent choice to supplement a fleet of 45 tons russian style MBTs, perhaps using the former for attritional armor vs armor battles, while ther latter could be used for infantry support, deep penetrations in the enemy rear or where terrain (bridge capability etc.) is unsuitable for heavy tanks.
Thing is, it would make sense to use a standard 120mm smoothbore, instead of some home brewed gun whose ammunition is not compatible with anything else in the world.

Coincidentally the results of the Challenger regunning tests have been published: the german smoothbore fit without problem, its ammunition however could not be stored without a very major internal reworking.
Bottom line, the existing tooling and supply contract will be used to ensure continued production, so that the british tankers will not be forced to shout "Bang" at the sight of enemy tanks.
But as far as developing and producing updated ammo... Well given the looming fiscal issues of the UK and military priorities it is likely to happen at some point between never and never.

[DRG]

Hi Marcello, do you have an internet link to the Chally Smoothbore tests ?

Don

[Mobhack]

Hi Marcello, do you have an internet link to the Chally Smoothbore tests ?

Don

Tanknet thread here: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=31585

- The German S/B Gun fits the CR2 fine
- However the ammo stowage for single piece rounds would be a problem (big job)
- 120mm rifled ammo is still in production however. At least for now.

- New Con/Lib government in power, so everything is up for grabs, a very big axe is going to be swung on all public spending, to include defence.

Andy

[Wdll]

The whole thing is absurd. Defense spending is very low in all western countries, apart from USA. I don't know, perhaps it's just me who sees conspiracy theories against the West.

Cutting military spending (UK) is even more crazy with the UK actively engaged in conflicts. Meh.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Sorry I missed this but, ARJUN 12.7mm should have read 1KRds vice 3KRds.
Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

ARJUN making news again. Note para three that discusses it's performance versus the T-90, I found the 30% number interesting, though not so surprising at least for now, India's commitment to the T-90. If the performance was that good I'd be fixing some bridges regardless of the political issues involved with my "new friends". Also the mention of the MKII, as noted earlier.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15370/
I do feel it'll get to 500 units regardless within two years, but we'll see!?!
Regards,
Pat

[gila]

The whole thing is absurd. Defense spending is very low in all western countries, apart from USA. I don't know, perhaps it's just me who sees conspiracy theories against the West.

Cutting military spending (UK) is even more crazy with the UK actively engaged in conflicts. Meh.

It's all irevelant on how many tanks or how good they are anyway.
No.Korea has nuclear weopens and aggresivly sunk a ship today http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/south.korea.sunken.ship/index.html?section=cnn_latest warning if retaliations are coming they will use them,then there is Iran flexing her muscles:mad:
Sorry for taking this to a political level.

[rfisher]

I'm certainly not defending North Korea here, but I think your comment feels a little one-sided. Firstly, the sinking was back in March, not today. And to call it aggressive suggests there is no precendent for the incident. The truth however, is that there are often scuffles between the two Koreas over this area, and it was only a matter before something like this happens. South Korea will defend itself by saying that its ship was on its side of the Northern Limit Line, but that is a meaningless statement for the North Koreans, as they don't officially recognise the NLL.
Opposing forces always bait each other across disputed borders for all sorts of reasons (testing defences for instance) and I'm sure the military on both sides know that stuff like this will inevitably happen (hell, it's often the reaction they are seeking!)
The political reactions in the press however, depicting aggressors and victims, is pure PR.
The BBC report includes this line:

"It was a "surprise military attack from North Korea [that came] while South Korean people were resting late at night", President Lee Myung-bak said. "

Really? I'm sure there are more military minded people here than me, but I find it hard to believe that a warship patrolling on one of the 'hottest' borders in the world would ever normally be as passive and vulnerable as that statement suggests.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Hey, anyone for tanks with some small commentary?
Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

Say what?

[Imp]

I think Pats refering to getting back on topic as in "tanks with a small commentary"

[Marcello]

I think Pats refering to getting back on topic as in "tanks with a small commentary"

Speaking of which the north korean P'okpoong-ho may have been unveiled at last:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm

It appears to be a somewhat different beast than expected: an incremental improvement of the Ch'onma-Ho series rather than the T-72 derivative suggested by the rumor mill.
I will eventually suggest the OOB changes in the North Korea thread.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I was trying to find some info on the Yugoslav ammo question when I came across this from the USA Vehicle Recognition (Threat Armor) as taught in November 1995 to our young Infantry Officers at Fort Benning, GA. You designers etc. might find this information very useful on the "threat" MBTs and APCs up to that point we faced. This is the most complete listing I've come across to this point, it shows all the stats, varients broken down by countries etc. and more. I hope this benefits someone!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0534/index.html
Got stuff coming in the next couple of days, take care!
Enjoy the rest of your weekends as I start mine!!
Regards,
Pat
P.S.
John if you read this no harm intended but, it wasn't as it was 60yrs. ago but I'll take the 1-1 tie!?!

[Imp]

Course I am reading but brain must be slightly adled what was the following a refrence to?
"John if you read this no harm intended but, it wasn't as it was 60yrs. ago but I'll take the 1-1 tie!?!"

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John,
Was referring to the first meeting and yesterdays World Cup match results between U.S. vs England.
And since I'm here someone had a 40th birthday this past week any guesses, he's not shy especially when pressed into service!!
Happy Birthday MERKAVA!!:birthday::cheers: So I digress.
Staying on subject, the MERKAVA 4 will replace all other IDF MBTs over the years with Israel's renewed commitment to the program (It was in jeopardy within the last few years.) This next talks about the changes to the MERKAVA 4 with up gunned
120mm main gun, armor package and TROPHY system. These are rolling off the assembly line now with fielded MER 4s to be upgraded over time.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/june/merkava_40_years_interview_09062010.html and more on the TROPHY System:
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/june/israeli_aps_09062010.html
Some pics:
10207 10206 10208
Watched the YOUTUBE video and was surprised how compact the TROPHY System is.
Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

Was referring to the first meeting and yesterdays World Cup match results between U.S. vs England

Hmmn yes one nation moves forward the other well erm, can you guess which is which ;)

Do think the Merk wins the tank style awards hands down:)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Though I've been on T-95 watch as it was to be unveiled later this month, it appears the program is dead. I submit the following it gets a one obituary is this first article about midway down.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100603/159294042.html,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A5d47479a-23ea-41cc-9a0d-2e8de47fbf49,
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1350456 and
http://www.rosprom.org/news3216.html.
Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

One wonders what you did in the Navy if you can read cryllic or you use the translator programs of course.

[Marcello]

Though I've been on T-95 watch as it was to be unveiled later this month, it appears the program is dead. I submit the following it gets a one obituary is this first article about midway down.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100603/159294042.html,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A5d47479a-23ea-41cc-9a0d-2e8de47fbf49,
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1350456 and
http://www.rosprom.org/news3216.html.
Regards,
Pat

I would argue that considered the threats Russia can face the balance of firepower, protection, mobility, logistical footprint and pricetag offered by the late models of T-90 is perfectly adequate to satisfy current and next future russian needs.
About the only issue I can find in the T-90 line is insufficient protection of the ammunition; though I vaguely recall they may have added individual containers for the spare rounds it is still not good enough in my book, yet not enough to warrant switching to a different tank.
The T-95 is really needed only to match/exceed the latest western MBTs, otherwise it is useful for technological development and keeping something boiling on the plate in case something better is actually needed.
But most customers interested in high tech tanks and with the cash to spare either buy western (Saudi, UAE etc.) or, as increasingly is the case, develop their own (India, South Korea).
The T-80 line died in Russia. Nobody was interested in developing the Black Eagle. I can't imagine anybody forking money for the T-95, especially if not even the russian army buys it.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

General purpose "cheat" article as already posted on the APC and MRAP threads.
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature90405/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This pairs up to the one I just posted on the APC thread but dealing with NATO MBTs as taught by the USA. Again should be useful in fact checking and again for developers etc. What I REALLY like about the three I've posted is the variant and user country listings on these. Yes I know these are older.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0535/ch1.htm

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

A quick question as it's getting close to submitting my first list of recommendations of new equip. etc. for the game.
The MERKAVA 4 has a carry capacity of eight soldiers from several sources and one specifically states "in lieu of ammo supply" which makes sense. Would it, if it can even be done, be worth it to allow this carry capacity once all the ammo supply is used up? This would happen once the tank is down to it's final ten (Or eleven if you assume one loaded.) rounds which the "revolver" loader holds. A final push to the objective or falling back on defensive positions (Some might call this retreating, I like to think of it as "a reassessment of the tactical situation", yeah you're right retreating!) come to mind. The troops would enter/exit through the rear hatch that was designed for this purpose as well. The MERKAVA 4 is the only one of the type I can find that has this ability, which again makes sense since NAMER is a MERKAVA 4 without the turret.
Pics:
10330 and 10331

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

Pretty sure this & a Ukraine stretched tank used to be included in OOBs which could carry internal passengers. Either can or it cant though cant switch as ammo reduces & think the practice might have died out at least for the Merkerva. If I remember Hezbollah killed their first Merk with a shot in town fired through/at the rear hatch. Later Ambush with ATGMs also showed some problems but mainly flawed tactics tanks stood up pretty well to them still running despite side penetrations in many cases but proved none to healthy for passengers. Seem to remember if the blast did not get them the tanks fire suppresion system did.

[Marcello]

The MERKAVA 4 has a carry capacity of eight soldiers from several sources and one specifically states "in lieu of ammo supply" which makes sense. Would it, if it can even be done, be worth it to allow this carry capacity once all the ammo supply is used up? This would happen once the tank is down to it's final ten (Or eleven if you assume one loaded.) rounds which the "revolver" loader holds.

I see one problem with that: how is ammunition stored?
Presumably it is not just strapped all over the place, or we would have seen more tanks blown up during the war.
It must be inside some sort of containers, which would still take up space even after the rounds inside are removed.
Of course those containers can be removed but how much time does it take? Is it something that can be done on the fly or does it take some time?

The MERKAVA 4 is the only one of the type I can find that has this ability, which again makes sense since NAMER is a MERKAVA 4 without the turret.
Pat

From what I have read it does not. It shares components but it is not just a plain Merkava hull without turret.

[Imp]

Marcello as you said think its a pre planned tactic tanks start ammo light & act as transport more realisticly for a half squad. Ukraine if I remember was supposed to be able to carry a Mech Squad but very cramped shoe horned between fighting & engine compartment.
Game terms played with Merkerva modified that way & quite efficent having your own recce unit inboard.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I don't know how to use the quote "thingy" (Don't need to thanks!) so I'll just use my "memory stick".

To the MERKAVA 4:
1) Yes they do containerize the ammo for the reasons stated to minimize the affects of a hit in the prevention of cooking off the rest.

2) Of the 48 rounds carried again the auto loader "revolver" holds ten, one in the breech and one source I believe to be army-recognition.com seems to hint at some ammo stored in the turret. And it also explains the purpose of the "aft" (Had to slip in a NAVY term!) chains as shown in the troop unloading picture to cause premature detonation of incoming munitions that to me is pretty cool, Gotta love "KISS"!

3) GENERALLY speaking don't 8 personnel make up a squad in most armies? But the point being we are leaving out another weapon that is standard issue on this tank to justify it's use as a "heavy" APC (But not equipped with it in WinSPMBT.) the breech loaded turret mounted 60mm mortar that fires primarily HE rounds out to 2400m (Please see my earlier MERKAVA 40th Birthday post and references.) I understand the MERKAVA 4 carries 24 mortar rounds to include illumination rounds as well. So whether the picture depicted is a training situation or a combat one it's clear the tank is being used for that purpose. Anyone that has or is serving regardless of branch knows we always prepare for the real thing. When not training we ate, slept (A little!) trained some more and "field day-ed" and made the brass shiny for the BRASS. I just don't know if that role is practical for the game, but I find the possibilities interesting none the less. Given the resources you better believe I'm the type to use those options against my enemies.

NAMER
1) I stand corrected, I confused chassis for hull, and yes it does use several components of the MERKAVA 4 which it's design was derived from. Also they are both made at the same production facility but more on that in the APC thread later.

And finally THANK YOU (ALL) for your input, I find the process interesting and well worth the effort to communicate with in all honesty I think intelligent folks of varying backgrounds from different parts of the world. But please just don't get me started on that whole CM artillery thing again, OK!?!

Everyone have a good night and a better day!!
Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

But please just don't get me started on that whole CM artillery thing again, OK!?

Dont know what you are talking about

On the mortar design decision I think due to 4 weapon slots as Merk carries several MGs like most of their APCs, big on supporting power for infantry.
Conjecture here not looked but the mortar was fitted originaly to the MK1 externaly then changed to external fire on later marks.
It is probably used with HE more for defending the imediate area round the tank possibly at range as an extra weapon vs ATGM teams. Otherwise ranged firing probably restricted to specialist shells beyound games capability like IR maybe even a Para Camera nowadays.
Upshot lets say it has 12-15 rounds of HE
Pros & Cons
Gains an extra splash damage weapon but has few shots vs the extra MG with lots of shots.
From a lethality point of view esp taking into acount its enviroment the MGs are the better bet due to ammo load.
Game wise these tanks are idealy suited to CS duties in open ground leading the advance they are a real pain in the ...
Pop smoke (multiple dischargers) suppress the infantry without recieving fire while theirs unloaded behind the smoke screen & only now go to check what the tanks missed.
Very very effective & going back to carrying troops if no APCs are available 2 tanks in the platoon could carry a squad between them they can scout for the units the tanks missed. The other thing they seemed to use this for was a heavy patrol, unload the infantry & let them go for a wander with the tank as backup if they found something.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

If weapons slots are limited, I agree I'll take the MG's over the mortar. I assume ammo slots are limited as well? Concern here is for the LAHAT ATGM which the MERKAVA 4, M60T and ARJUN carry. Can I get a firm "slot" count for weapons and ammo types so as not to waste everyone's time (Including mine.) on these issues. Still think the "Heavy APC" option would be fun to have if there's room for it!?!
As this is leading to the "list" thing, I'm thinking of submitting it on a separate thread to cover all the main topics I'm dealing with. Will maintain the format as worked out last year. Also to save time can I "cut and paste" my sources from previous posts to the "list" with the reader still being able to link to the site for the article?
Thanks in advance!!
Getting a little sentimental, so here's a pic because there's nothing like coming home!
10360

Have a good night!!
Regards,
Pat

Saw MERKAVA thread and saw your post that combining an MBT with infantry could confuse the AI.

[Marcello]

It is quite simple.
There four weapon slots, therefore a max of four distinct weapons. The first weapon slot has four ammunition slots, HE/AP/Sabot/HEAT.
The other three weapon slots have only HE/AP.
The names don't have to be taken too much literally: Sabot can represent both arrowhead and actual discarding sabots rounds or simply different sabot types depending on the weapon stats.
And via a software trickery you can have AP rounds in the last three slots representing HEAT wrheads.
The max number of rounds that an ammo slot will hold is 255.
There is other stuff, such as being able to fire SAM at ground units etc. but the above is most of it.

It is somewhat limited, in that you have to fudge to represent non standard ammunition such as flechette or HESH, barrel fired ATGMs have to be treated as an extra weapon etc. but it has always been that way. It is sufficient to represent most of the tanks most of the time but nothing more, I suppose it was done for sake of memory/CPU/programming/budget/whatever back in the days.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I know this is on another thread but, since I posted on this as well here well you know...
The following site shows two videos from "Future Weapons" on Discovery Channel. The first one validates that the "Merk" from the beginning was designed for the role of carrying infantry on board and acting as an ambulance. I recognize this is secondary to crew survivability. The second video is well worth watching as as covers the updated capabilities of the "modernized" MK IV with it's new ammo round. Note Germany is fielding a new round similar to this on the latest version of the LEOPARD 2A7+ which is being done now as well. I'll have more on both for my first submission for the "Fall Campaign". Enjoy the videos, they're safe my computer didn't blow up!!
http://autos.kosmix.com/topic/Merkava

Regards,
Pat

Still searching for better interior shots.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Add on, in the second video note pan shot to rear compartment looks like "jump seats" along the interior hull. Also note load sequence could the ammo be stored between a inner and outer hull space? This would provide for crew protection similiar to submarine design with an outer hull than pressure hull (The people tank.) for protection. I agree from the other thread it'd be nice to hear from an IDF tanker.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This first source does a nice overview table comparison between all MERKAVA mods. And does backup as several other sources "kevineduguay1's" info on the location of fuel storage and it's secondary purpose and it seems the same for the ammo storage containers that I believe are embedded into the interior wall which if we think about it makes sense because every source I've come across says the same thing about the design being driven by and for crew survivability so why impede the crews egress with open ammo storage? I'm sorry but I think that at least where the MERKAVA III and IV are concerned and for what it's worth, that these tanks are fully capable of carrying their full ammo load plus troops and or litters as many legitimate sites mention throughout their articles. This tank requires us to think outside the box a little (ME TOO!) it's the only modern MBT like this currently serving in the world with this design. So before some of you (Including my self!) have "CM ARTY :rolleyes::shock:" flashbacks here is that first ref.
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/Mekava.htm
The next one is from one of my regular tried and true sources please take note of the second vid at about the 2:50 mark it'll show an interior shot of loaded combat troops exiting during the combat training already in progress.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1602
And finally I promise :yield::faint:, how many times have we looked into equipment and because of some kind of design modification or other it's either increased or it seems in most cases decreased the ammo supply of that vehicle? Not one source I've found or posted has even hinted of that with this MBT. With that I'll say tonight or morning (Kind of both for me right now.) to you and have a wonderful day! HEY RG-41 anyone?

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

I agree from the other thread it'd be nice to hear from an IDF tanker.

Regards,
Pat


We had a guy posting as "Gingertanker" and I've sent him a PM but no reply so far. What is odd is that AFAIK he never brought this issue up and one would think it would have been one of the first things he would have mentioned when he was posting here.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

FASTBOAT,

Thank you.:)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm really thinking about doing a "CM ARTY" incoming salvo on this whole MERKAVA 3&4 (I'm really not fully convinced of this capability pre MERK 3.) issue with troop carrying capacity. I think because of my submarine background, I have no problem visualizing this concept. You think we're comfortable on a fast attack submarine where I slept with our food and walked on it in berthing for months at a time? You think because the the temp. was maintained at ... (sorry that's a no go.) a very comfortable level it's for crew comfort? After several weeks our manners go from "excuse me" to "get the ... outta of my way". I can pack for you guys (Drives my wife crazy sometimes.) EVERYTHING you'll need in a sea-bag to fit a six foot long (And I'm taller.) rack that's about six inches deep for 7-8 month's underway, and as a special bonus if your not qualified, it'll be three guys between two racks for the duration. You'd be utterly amazed at where and how we stow our equipment and supplies and maintain total silence in the water. And on our newest class of SSN (Virgina Class.) it's even worse in berthing they have a little more then two feet across to the next bunk can you imagine Battle-stations being manned in less then five minutes coming out of a dead sleep in that? We did it most everyday, sometimes several times a day, and my brothers still do it. Does anyone see or recognize the point I'm trying to make here? Let's review just a couple of points about the MERK 3&4.
1. More so w/MERK4 but 3 as well, they were designed around crew survivability.

2. Ammo is containerized and stored aft to the sides of the hatch to facilitate escape.

3. Fuel is stored between an inner and outer hull to protect against HEAT rounds and the like.

4. Conjecture on my part let's call it "visualization", knowing where the ammo is stored, after the eleven rounds are expended, does the gunner run aft to get more rounds one at a time in the heat of battle? I think not, just because we only had four torpedo tubes doesn't mean we only had four torpedo's. we had a system of racks and hydraulics to load more. Doesn't it make sense if they can store fuel between hulls that they can't load shells in the same manner to the ten round "revolver"?

5. Secrecy, I can understand it about the electronics etc., but why the rear compartment? Again conjecture, but maybe #4 above might not be too far off?

6. I've brought this up before and it's in the "Art of War" somewhere too, but, we have to think out of the box until recently we haven't fought in a truly urban in environment since WWII on a consistent basis. How about your own countries? Aren't we all playing catch up with our equipment to meet this current threat? Look at the net, how many of your countries land weapons programs have suffered because of this? And I'm not talking because of the economy either. Now think about the wars and conflicts Israel has been involved with since 1948, and please people I know this isn't all inclusive I'll give you the Sinai etc. but, the "body of the work" I think they're ahead of us in the "lessons learned" department to some extent.

7. See threads #60 - #62 above.

Finally troops in tanks they can do that I believe.

Respectfully Submitted to ALL with a good night!!
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This will be one of about six MBTs I'll be making a push for this year. This tank has been misrepresented by type (Though even a nationally published Israeli paper identifies it's origin correctly.), been misnamed, I think under armored etc. and just needs a second look within the game. It has gone through a "zero mile" upgrade (A term used by several sources in describing other programs.) which means they've been completely stripped down to "parade rest" reworked and completely upgraded from the inside out. Again this and others will be submitted on "the list" from me within I hope a couple of weeks to a month. This first candidate owes it's modernized pedigree to a lesser extent from the IDFs SABRA but more so to the MERKAVA 3 (BAZ from some sources.) and MERKAVA 4 (Armor, FC and Tracks etc.).
The Turkish M-60T. The first article comes from one the first sources to report on the M-60T Israeli/Turkish joint effort.
http://defense-update.com/wp/20100903_turkish_m60t_debu.html as Turkey celebrates it's "Victory Day" earlier this month.
The next one has a nice overview of Turkish forces overall; but note the comments by the M-60A3 TTS and more importantly the one's by the M-60A1 RISE/Passive (Which might be another Turkish OOB issue for their M-60A1 tanks?) this source is backed up by others already presented in this thread.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2324.html

And since everyone loves a parade:party:here's a pic:
10479
For further background on this thread concerning the M-60T please refer to PG.2 Posts #15 & #17, PG.3 Post #25 and
PG.6 Post #58.

Regards,
Pat
:capt: (Kind of reminds me partly of my "old" job.)

[Imp]

You wouldnt guess it was an M-60 would you.

[DRG]

It's too bad you weren't around a few years ago. One of our main playtesters had been a crew chief on a Boomer way back when( which, incidentally, was his callsign ).

Don

[EJ]

Pat,
Great info; I love reading your material. You always back it up with proven sources. Keep contributing!

Don OR Andy,

Any chances the Merk 4 will get major upgrades to it's current capabilities?

[kevineduguay1]

FASTBOAT,

The ammo loadouts for Merkava MkI and MkII with a full 8 man squad aboard was stated as 14 rounds. (Tanknet) The funny thing is that the ready rounds for those Mks is 6 on the floor of the turret basket. So if the back space is filled with infantry then the other 8 rounds in two 4 round containers are somewhere in the turret area.
The MkIII has a 5 round ready magazine that I think is mounted on the floor of the turret basket.
The 10 round Magazine of the MkIV is in the turret bussle. The bussle on the MkIV is larger than the other Mks. Not quite Abrams large but large.
Im starting to wonder how many rounds are stored in the turret bussle.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Here's a video from IMI of Israel of the M-60T MKI (2004) as it was going through initial developmental trials and testing for the Turkish Army in Israel. And it has some relaxing music as it's shooting at targets and ends the debate on the M-60A1 being the Turkish platform; though Turkey plans to update it's M-60A3 tanks to the M-60T standard as the ALTAY MBT program has been delayed for various reasons. The ALTAY is similar to S. Korea's (Partnered w/Turkey in the ALTAY program.) K2 MBT. First ALTAY prototypes for evaluation not expected until 2013 at present. It could be one of the last new tanks to make into the game before it "expires" in 2020.
Anyway for your viewing pleasure about 5 min. long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC1dQ3IS2Rk&feature=related

A short video of the M-60T I believe getting ready for the Victory Day Parade. Maybe you experts might see something useful in it's makeup as shown (Remember I do Subs!?!). < then 1 min. long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU1vrUEoqgc&NR=1

Also research into this or other topics has lead to some natural "off shoots" such as the M-60A1 RISE/PASSIVE was the main MBT of the USMC until they recieved their M1 ABRAMS and served with the CORPS in Desert Storm. This is an end date issue in the game. Turkey actually got their M-60A1 MBT'S from the CORPS when the U.S. "donated" the tanks to them.

Hope your weekends are going well!! Mine's just starting!!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

At AAD 2010 being held @ Cape Town SA the question is being asked if the SADF might be seeking a new MBT, you decide, and I'll track this.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/aad_2010_defense_actualites_news_pictures_video/new_main_battle_tank_for_south_african_armed_force s_leopard_2a4_bulat_oplot_yatagan_olifant_mk_2_aad .html

Enjoy your weekends!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

For the purpose of my list of inputs for the next patch, are the USMC M60A1 RISE tanks meant to be the same as the
M60A1 RISE/PASSIVE tanks? The "PASSIVE" was a slightly later upgrade. The answer will possibly affect two other countries. For other folks that included myself, the M60A1 RISE was an engine improvement program similar to the current M1A1 TIGER engine improvement program. The PASSIVE part of the M60A1 RISE/PASSIVE added a "STARLIGHT" targeting system.

Pic: 10573
Source:
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m60.html scroll down about four pictures to the one above with explanation.

Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Combined. The engine upgrade does nothing game wise

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I was looking into something else and came across this website (Again!) and started reading. This series of articles concerning India's MBT program just sounds so typical of what's happening everywhere in the weapons procurement area. We know the results as posted to this thread already about the duel in the desert between the ARJUN and T-90 (The T-72's though originally to also participate were withdrawn as you'll see why if you read the articles here posted and earlier on this thread.) and that the ARJUN is in further production also to include the MKII production to have moved up to next year vice 2012. Though posted on this site the author also wrote these for the Business Standard. I hope you find these worth reading, so here's a lessons learned on how not to run a weapons program.
1. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/duel-in-desert-comparative-trials-in.html

2. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/rather-than-buying-more-arjun-tanks.html

3. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/t-90-tank-piercing-armys-armour-of.html

Bonus:
4. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/t-90-tank-piercing-armys-armour-of.html

5. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/03/arjun-tank-outruns-outguns-russian-t-90.html
Please take note of the comparison chart at the top of the article it looks like they took the best of what's offered by what most people would consider the top five tanks in the world.

Very interesting at least to me anyway and in line with what most of my other resources have said as well concerning the "broader bigger picture" on this subject.

TAKE CARE!!

Regards,
Pat
Always watching, listening, reading and learning.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I stayed with the site as posted previous to this noting that some major international stuff is posted as well but, looking for more on ARJUN. These next three articles except for orders and upgrades, about close the loop on presenting the arms procurement cycle. If your following along then you'll appreciate the last article as it's "the icing on the cake" for the procurement process and typical to move onto "the next best thing." so good reading to you.

1. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/04/army-to-order-more-arjun-tanks.html this marks the immediate move to the MKII and eventual back fit to all the MKI tanks as posted already to the thread.

2. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/05/it-is-important-even-historic-day-for.html IMOD release on procuring an additional 124 ARJUN's. Based on the above article that should make the ARJUN MKII available by Jan. 2012.

3. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/08/fmbt-future-army-tank-worth-rs-100000.html

I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekends as mine is just starting.

John if you reading per some of our earlier comments, "CINCLANT HOME" has declared this my "social network" so I have a little more freedom to carry on!

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

CINCLANT HOME

:)
Could be a keeper

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John,
Just passed 24yrs. wouldn't trade her for even a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport, not for even two of them! As discussed will present VIRSS to simulate HITFIST. Still working on the "list" but things like the M60T issue has taken me down the M60 tank series "rabbit hole" and slowing the whole process up. Sometimes the "net" isn't all that helpful and just full of conjecture. As you might say I'll "muddle" through it and will make the call, present it and see what happens. Anyway back to it for a little longer.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

For the purpose of my list of inputs for the next patch, are the USMC M60A1 RISE tanks meant to be the same as the
M60A1 RISE/PASSIVE tanks? The "PASSIVE" was a slightly later upgrade. The answer will possibly affect two other countries. For other folks that included myself, the M60A1 RISE was an engine improvement program similar to the current M1A1 TIGER engine improvement program. The PASSIVE part of the M60A1 RISE/PASSIVE added a "STARLIGHT" targeting system.

Pic: 10573
Source:
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m60.html scroll down about four pictures to the one above with explanation.

Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Pat

I'll second Don on this.
From my own research while revising the USMC OOB I found the difference between the M60A1 RISE (1979) and the M60A1 RISE/Passive (ca. 1983) to be negligible in WinSPMBT terms. What I called the M60A1 RISE/ERA in my OOB revision (ca. 1988) is the upgrade to the M60A1 RISE due to the addition of the ERA system.
Not that Don needs me to second him :angel But I've found a second opinion does help verify what we already know.

[RoPlayer]

This seems to be the best spot to to raise the following possible issue.

I have noticed that the Chinese ZTZ-99/Type 99 lags somewhat behind the times in-game, in terms of fire control and possibly ERA/APS. More specifically, I am talking about the ZTZ-99A1 and ZTZ-99A2.

Public sites such as sinodefence, army-technology or armyrecognition mention fire control improvements both for the A1 and A2. A1 is mentioned to possess some kind of ERA while A2 is mentioned to have an Active Protection System. What specialized sites like Jane's have to say about this, I do not now, I don't have a subscription.

Still,it stands out that a Fire Control value of 40 remains constant between ZTZ-99,ZTZ-99A1 and ZTZ-99A2. This is contrasted by the improvement of the armor scheme, as does the improvement of the main gun's penetration.

Would it be over-estimating the capabilities of the ZTZ-99A1 and A2 if I were to propose the standard FC improvement increment of 5 between eras? 45 for A1, 50 for A2?

Also, would ERA on A1 and A2 and an APS on A2 merit a good look, or is it just hype without base?

[Imp]

Game already
base & A1 already have 1 shot of VIRSS A2 gets 2
A2 already has advanced ERA

[Wdll]

This seems to be the best spot to to raise the following possible issue.

I have noticed that the Chinese ZTZ-99/Type 99 lags somewhat behind the times in-game, in terms of fire control and possibly ERA/APS. More specifically, I am talking about the ZTZ-99A1 and ZTZ-99A2.

Public sites such as sinodefence, army-technology or armyrecognition mention fire control improvements both for the A1 and A2. A1 is mentioned to possess some kind of ERA while A2 is mentioned to have an Active Protection System. What specialized sites like Jane's have to say about this, I do not now, I don't have a subscription.

Still,it stands out that a Fire Control value of 40 remains constant between ZTZ-99,ZTZ-99A1 and ZTZ-99A2. This is contrasted by the improvement of the armor scheme, as does the improvement of the main gun's penetration.

Would it be over-estimating the capabilities of the ZTZ-99A1 and A2 if I were to propose the standard FC improvement increment of 5 between eras? 45 for A1, 50 for A2?

Also, would ERA on A1 and A2 and an APS on A2 merit a good look, or is it just hype without base?

I wouldn't mind seeing such a change. As it is, the top Chinese MBTs are way too expensive and provide too little. IMO it would be better to either increase the capabilities/stats of them or decrease the price. I can't see how Chinese tanks can be so much more expensive than (I think) all their Western counterparts.

[DRG]

All tanks use the same cost calculator factors so walk through all the variables and you'll find the answer

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

For your comments sorry for delay in transferring this.

First installment for the 2011 patch. If no end date is given assume 2020 for current game.
MBTs
Add:
A1. USA/JUN 2010/M1A1 SA/ED/RESET/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above existing M1A1 ABRAM levels. Improved electronics and sensors, improved armor against IEDs and mines and can be in theater upgraded with the urban TUSK pkg. Recommend base and mirror unit w/TUSK up armor pkg.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/1078m-to-reset-and-produce-the-first-155-m1a1sa-tanks-02535/
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/03/05/17811-armys-saed-m1-variant-built-at-anniston/A2.
IRAQ/DEC 2010/M1A1 SA/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above existing M1A1 ABRAM levels. As above w/o the advanced ERA pkg. and BFT program.
Recommend base and mirror unit w/TUSK up armor pkg.
Please note these refs to include some bleed over info to both types.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M1-Abrams-Tanks-for-Iraq-05013/#more-5013
http://www.usf-iraq.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=25684&Itemid=128
http://www.dapss.com/mpi-news/0709/0709C-iraq.htm
http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-tanks-going-to-iraqi-army-1.89069
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/M1A1-Abrams_a000516002.aspxC1.

C1.Change: IRAQ/M1A1M to M1A1 SA per refs. above.

A3. USA/JAN 1977 – DEC 1986/M60A1 RISE Passive/C4/RB 105mm L51 M68 w/63 Rds, M240 7.62mm w/5.9 Rds & M85 12.7mm w/900 Rds.The USA developed the ERA packages late in the life of this tank but, never to be used them. The development of the M60A3, M60A3 TTS and the dawn of the M1 stopped this. The USMC actually got them from the USA stocks during Desert Shield prior to combat operations. RISE Passive was the pinnacle of the M60A1 MBT.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60a1.htm
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M60.html
Post #73.
Pics:

A4. TURKEY/JUN 1991 or JAN 1994/M60A1 RISE Passive/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above existing M60A1 RISE Passive levels, with ERA. These are the USMC tanks that were donated to Turkey. The confusion in the dates comes from the net, I found a document that I couldn't recover that showed Congress did not approve the release of the more advanced M60 series tanks for export until 1993. I will attempt to recover this if possible, for now, I can only say I saw it. I feel the JAN 1994 date is best for all foreign M60 advanced tanks (M60A1 RISE Passive and M60A3 TTS). From what I can tell Turkey is the only country to have recieved the M60A1 RISE Passive tank, all other U.S. serviceable units were upgraded to the M60A3 & TTS versions when these became available to the USA. NOTE: ALL M60 series tanks are still in service with the Turkish army. If not change of end dates are required to 2020. See M60T below refs to support this if needed.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2324.html
http://www.turkishworld.multiservers.com/equipment.html
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Modern_equipment_and_uniform_of_the_Turkish_Army

C2. Change: USA (If added.) , USMC & TURKISH (If added.)/M60A1 RISE to M60A1 RISE Passive or just M60A1 Passive based on Posts #73 and #74 to avoid confusion and identify the most important mod to the M60A1.

A5. CANADA/NOV 2010/LEOPARD 2A4M CAN/RESET/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above existing LEOPARD 2A4 levels.
The improvements are primarily in all around armor protection against IEDs and mines. And some sensor upgrades. Don't know but is the thermal site on the turret pictured below on the frontal view new as well?
http://www.kmweg.de/2922-YWt0X3BhZ2U9MSZkb209ZG9tMSZsPWVuJm5ld3NfaWQ9NTYxNj c-~rechte-navi~pressemitteilungen~news_detail.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18620/
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr101018_1_n.shtml
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/10/11/kmw-delivers-the-first-of-20-leopard-2-a4m-tanks-to-canadian-forces-tanks-headed-to-afghanistan.aspxPics:

A6. GERMANY/JAN 2011/LEOPARD 2A7+/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above existing LEOPARD 2A6 levels. The improvements are primarily in all around armor protection against IEDs and mines, sensors, remote operated secondary weapons station and munitions.
http://www.kmweg.de/21874-bD1lbg-~PRODUKTE~kettenfahrzeuge~LEOPARD_PSO~leopard_pso. html
http://www.kmweg.de/2922-YWt0X3BhZ2U9MSZkb209ZG9tMSZsPWVuJm5ld3NfaWQ9NDMwMD E-~rechte-navi~pressemitteilungen~news_detail.htmlA more detailed account use page advance for both above. Note links to left for LEOPARD 2A4M CAN and DINGO 2 purchase for later post. Also German LEOPARD 2A6 tanks will be RESET to this standard during major depot maintenance. Also provides update to countries such as Netherlands having updated all their A5's to A6 levels.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm A very good site I believe from someone who is a member of our forum. Also addresses upgrades of these tanks i.e. 2A4 to 2A5 from other countries, has this issue (For the longer term.) been looked into for the game?
Post #60 Should provide a working basis for the German multi-purpose munition as well off those videos. The video on the left if I remember goes into more detail on the IDF APAM-T M1171 round.
Pic:

A7. INDIA/JAN 2012/ARJUN MK II/As in the game with LAHAT. Mods needed per refs above existing ARJUN levels. Will have LAHAT ATGM, added two tons of additional armor of a hybrid ceramic type also will add next gen ERA to the turret, auto loader and improved sensors and electronics.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/India-Plans-to-Cap-Arjun-Tank-Production-04984/#more-4984
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/05/21/Future-of-Indias-Arjun-tank-looks-secure/UPI-94101274452185/
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Today/22-Army-Orbat.html Official Army website, might be of some interest though it looks like it hasn't been updated in several months.

M1. Mod: INDIA/MAY 2009/ARJUN MK1/As in the game with LAHAT and date change as indicated. Mods needed per refs above existing ARJUN levels. Of LAHAT and date change there is no doubt, however as I stated in my "mission statement" I'm no expert in converting raw data into game data and just have to rely on my instincts of what I'm reading. With that in mind, I believe the ARJUN might deserve another look based upon the above refs and previous posts provided below. TI/GSR looks good at 40, just not sure of armor or FC based on the refs and the way it outperformed the T-90S in every category. When I read that the armor is similar to the venerable Challenger 2, the wheels start turning in a novice like me. NOTE: All ARJUN MK1 tanks will be upgraded to the MKII standard during major depot maintenance and I would not think much before mid to late 2013 as the current order of the 124 MK11 tanks starts winding down, will track this.
Posts: #9, #19, #36, #75 and #76 some bleed over (#75L) for MKII as well.

M2. Mod: TURKEY/JAN 2007 - DEC 2009/M60T/RESET/As in the game with 60mm mortar 15 to 25 RDs and date change as indicated. Net conflicts here based on rounds carried on MERKAVA 4 and SABRA. They are for all tanks here internally mounted and tied into both sensor and FC for suppression (or elimination ) of ATGM teams, snipers and infantry.
TURKEY/JAN 2010/M60T/RESET/As in the game with LAHAT 6 - 10 RDs and date change as indicated. Mods needed per refs above existing M60A3 IMI ST levels as currently named in the game. Though the TI/GSR is less then the MERKAVA 4 but supposedly has the same FC unit installed is of a lesser issue than I believe it's armor ICON defense numbers. Most of these references presented or already posted refer back to having many of the systems of the MERKAVA 4 installed such as FC, sensor and other electronic upgrades, weapons and armor (My focus is on the frontal turret and hull area.). The source will illustrate this reasonably well, it's the IMI press release on delivery of the last M60T to Turkeys MOD. Please the note the close up shot of the M60T, that armor looks the same as on the MERKAVA 4. I just feel it deserves another look is all. LAHAT again net conjecture go low or go mid would be my guess high might be advertising.
http://www.imi-israel.com/vault/documents/upgraded%20m-60a1.pdf
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2324.html
Posts: #15, #17, #25, #66 and #71.

C3. Change: TURKEY/M60A3 IMI ST to M60T per refs and posts above.

C4. Change: TURKEY/End Date to JUN 2009/M60A1/ As in the game. Mods needed per refs above for M60T. I feel this a good approximate time that the last of the Turkish M60A1 tanks would have had to start the RESET process to the M60T.

C5. Change: TURKEY/End Dates to DEC 2020 as needed./M60 series/ As in the game. Mods needed per A4, M2 and C3 their refs above if not already done.

M3. Mod: TURKEY/JUN 2008 - DEC 2020./LEOPARD A1T and A4T UPGRADE/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above LEOPARD A1T & A4.
Rough guess on the start field date, upgrade was completed in NOV 2009. I've also seen some blog information to suggust the A1T recieved some armor upgrades as well, it makes sense considering the investment in this system, however unless I missed it I can't provide you with anything concrete. Your call on the armor.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4375359&c=EUR&s=LAN
http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/projects/land/BattleTanks/Sayfalar/Leopard1A1A1A4T.aspx
http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=79&lang=en

C6. Change: TURKEY/ End Dates to DEC 2020 as needed./LEOPARD series up to and including A4T/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above LEOPARD A1T. The LEOPARD A1 T is the first version purchased by Turkey and just completed a major overhaul of it's FC and associated systems in NOV 2009.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2324.html
http://www.turkishworld.multiservers.com/equipment.html

M4. Mod: Israel/2010/MERKAVA 4b/As in the game with TROPHY system 6-10 shots. Mods needed per refs above MERKAVA 4b . These sources would lead you to believe it has an even newer version of hybrid armor. This is one reason I didn't also use the armor request for the M60T to be compared to the 4b. What's not in doubt is that the first IDF Battalion to operate with the improved MERKAVA did so about two weeks ago with the TROPHY system installed. TROPHY shots again net conjecture go low or go mid would be my guess high might be advertising. This close in protection system might be hard to model in the game but, have brought this up with John (Imp) and thought that VIRSS as the game uses it might be a short term solution to getting it in the game. The troop carrying issue well that's been discussed to infinitive but, I guess the only option you is a heavy apc. My feeling carry 6 so more ammo is available. Your call.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0610/eurosatory_2010_13062010_merkava.html#more
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18649/ MERKAVA 4 w/TROPHY exercise.
http://www.eurosatory.mod.gov.il/merkava.htm#topPage
http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/eurosatory2010/sections/daily/day2/merkava-mk-iv-breaks-cove.shtml
Posts: #45, #60 (With video fm "Future Weapons show.), #61, #62 and #65. Troop issue #52 and #56. Pics:

C7. Change: TURKEY/2012 to 2015/BLACK PANTHER to ALTAY/As in the game. Many of the refs for the M60T make mention of some of the issues and delays in the ALTAY MBT program. Best estimates are that the ALTAY prototypes will be ready by 2013 and barring any major teething problems fielded by 2015. Picture is good as compared to current 3D renderings on the net for the ALTAY.

C8. Change: USA/Dates as follows for all types of Sheridan's/As in the game. Mods of dates needed per refs for SHERIDAN all types.
A. M551/JAN 1968 to JAN 1977/ Base model.
B. M551 TWO BOX (M551 CS in the game.)/JAN 1969 - JAN 1977/Modified for operations in Vietnam. Kit installed for turret and weapons stabilization after removing missile components (Except pwr. sup. & rate sensor.) w/no missiles. These modifications allowed for the increase of 152mm FLECETTE rounds and MG ammo stowage. This end date (Otherwise 1975 your choice.) allows for 2yr. overlap in conversion to;
C. M551A1/JAN 1975 - DEC 1988/This added the ANVVG-1 LRF (Some indicate ANNVG-1 LFR.) For info and clarification before I move on you need to know the following: In FY 1980 The SHERIDAN was phased out by the regular ARMY. In FEB 1984 the Arkansas NG retires the SHERIDAN, it would be the only NG unit to have used them. However the 82nd AB Div. (AIRBORNE, ALL THE WAY!! for those who served.) convinced the ARMY to keep them which they did.
D. ADD/M551A1 TTS/JAN 1989 - JULY 1997/UPGRADED with the ANVSG-2B TTS (Some indicate ANNSG-2B TTS.) These tanks again saw combat in Panama and Desert Storm with a better combat reputation then it had in Vietnam with the 3-73 Armor Batt. of the 82nd AB Div., in JULY 1997 they were finally retired to be used at NTC CA.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M551.html
http://www.82armor.com/82nd_armor.htm This source was leaned on more because I'll go with the men and woman who've served and used the actual gear every time if the info can be corroborated with others.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60a3.htm Same system as on M551A1 TTS.
Post: #7

D1. DELETE: TURKEY/M1A2T FNSS/Due to political reasons this was DOA. Current ref. shows who has what in the ABRAMS foreign market.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

D2. DELETE: TURKEY/T-84 YATAGAN/Though it was one of four tanks tendered, Turkey went with the LEOPARD 2A4. The YATAGAN has only been exported to one country, Pakistan.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm
TRANSFER (?) to Pakistan, I'm a little tired right now but went back to check and didn't see it there unless I just forgot the Pakistani name for it.

D3. DELETE: INDIA/MBT-EX KARNA/Meant for export but DOA when ARJUN was delayed.
http://frontierindia.net/tank-ex-ideal-t-72-upgrades
I think this might be the worst of it, I hope! If again any additional info is needed please again ask by the numbers. All seems in order and I really hate rabbit holes now!?!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Good Morning!
I like to keep my refs handy in my "favorites" it's easy for me to hold them, get them, paste them and when finished delete them. So here's a couple of news items I've been holding until after I got my first patch page for 6.0 (?) posted. Now it's time to filter out more in preps for the next post.
1. With the cooperation between Israel and Turkey having gone so well until a few months ago, it was thought that Turkey would be the first country to benefit from the export of the MERKAVA and possibly the TIGER APC. It might've offered Turkey a cheaper alternative to pursuing the ALTAY program (The first test prototypes are not expected until 2013.) but things have chilled after the GAZA resupply incidents this past summer in which at one eight Turkish citizens were killed by Israeli forces. Also earlier this week Turkey removed from their "Red Book" several countries not friendly to Israel such as Syria further straining relations. Now it seems Columbia is now mentioned as a front runner, only time will tell.
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000598168
The Red Book issue:
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/695/
But maybe perception isn't reality, you be the judge.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4577398

2. Ukraine to upgrade Peru's T-55 tanks, welcome the TIFON-2.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18826/
Pics;
10637 10638
10639

Don't want to be timed out!!
Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The M551 SHERIDAN has come up many times in this thread and elsewhere. It was the last light tank to serve the U.S., though the need was expressed by the Army in particular the Airborne who didn't want to lose the close support option they offered. There were three contenders I'm just going to use one source which is good enough for this purpose. All were killed due to cost, delays and at the time political considerations. One got all the glory (I remember hearing quite a bit about it even in the national news at the time.) because it was so technically advanced, the second would provide the gun & mount for the MGS and the last would be the only one to see the light of day but not with the U.S. and is still in service today in an upgraded version, it's also in WinSPMBT in both versions.
1. For the Glory the M8 BUFORD:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m8_buford.htm
Pic: 10640

2. The Contributor the EXPEDITIONARY (Also very advanced.):
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/expeditionary_tank.htm
Pic: 10641

3. The Protector the STINGRAY:http://www.military-today.com/tanks/stingray_light_tank.htm
Pics: 10642 it's offspring:
10643 and 10644

Take care all and good night!
Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Boy those pics of the TIFON-2 (T55M8A2 TYPHOON.) well let's just say "stunk to all high heaven" these should be better with a little more info as well on the tank. I guess everyone is worrying about "keeping up with the Jones" in this case Venezuela who just recently completed another arms deal with Russia to include the T90S supposedly. They also are in line to get the S-300 systems that were destined to go to Iran until Russia called off the deal to comply with the recent UN sanction's.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t55_tifon2.php
Pics:
10645 Does someone recognise the IFV in the background?
10646

Have great day! Got to get ready to make a buck or two!
Regards,
Pat

[Mobhack]

1) first, assume the tank being photographed to be at the manufacturer's plant. Therefore the APC is one of theirs, too.

2) Then a quick click on the various APC links on the web site you quoted, and the "BTR-4" linky seems to be the beast in question.

looks like another proposal looking for sales - since it is not something I recognise as being in service anywhere, nor does the manufacturers site mention any customer.

Cheers
Andy

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Info here for comments as desired, these were just posted for submission for the next patch.
MBT- yes I found one more from my notes from the beginning of the year. For continuities sake in the MBT section will continue "number" system where left off.
A8. UKRAINE/JUN 2010/OPLOT-M/ADD 9K119M REFLEX (NATO Des. AT-11 SNIPER-B #Missiles UKN/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above existing OPLOT levels. I'm allowing a one year delay in the fielding date to avoid duplication in these tanks w/o Zaslon and with it now to save a slot unless you have room for both. This tank is slowly coming off the production lines but is a major improvement defensively to all other Ukrainian tanks. It features a new third generation ERA known as Nosh-2 which is equal to the current Russian Kontakt 5 ERA and some claim superior to it, plus side skirt protection was added. Also it has the Shtora countermeasure system and it was fitted with the Zaslon APSystem as well. Also it has improved sites, FC and situational awareness.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/articl...hp?forumID=608 They know tanks they built them for the Soviet Union.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84armament.php Please use the links, though based on the original OPLOT they are helpful especially about the stats on the 125mm KBA3 SB main gun.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3009.html The Shtora-1.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-...m-Ukraine.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3705.htmlAs currently on Ukraine’s T-84 and T-84 YATGAN. Notice no mention of the OPLOT (Lower left.) which was available when the YATAGAN was produced, the logical conclusion is the OPLOT must have Nosh-2 system or it just could be an omission for the base Nosh system.
http://www.milparade.com/digest.php?...fnum=95&lang=1 A Russian source a short note 3/4 of the page down. Seems to say the Ukrainians "borrowed" the base system of the time and further developed it.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3706.html More on Zaslon.
Pics: I guess they don't copy over sorry, already deleted off my computer see PATCH POST.


M5. Mod: POLAND & MALAYSIA/PT-91 TWARDY UNITS 009, 010 & 018 & PT-91M PENDEKAR UNIT 500/As in the game. Mods needed per refs above existing PT-91 & PT-91M levels./Intentionally looked liked Malaysia was missing the base PT-91 TWARDY but after many nights of research and in dealing with other related issues to Malaysia I'm now satisfied that the PT-91M is it's only MBT to date. The army-guide.com contract section is a great tool, though it caused some confusion as noted below. Have seen no data on Polish Units 009 & 010 however, based on the refs it seems that Poland’s Unit 018 and Malaysia's Unit 500 are under protected based on info concerning the ERA pkgs on both. Other issues are quick noted in the below refs also concerning the improved PT-91M. However through some reading between the lines it became apparent to me not to add the PT-91 to Malaysia though at the same time I feel they have more (~110 from many sources.) PT-91M MBT's then shown by some refs.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/contracts.php Enter country from menu note for Malaysia it shows both versions contracted for, this started the "ball of confusion" as MANY sites supported that info. Add the PT-91 & PT-91M totals and I believe the number of tanks was 106.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product179.html For PT-91 TWARDY
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3431.html Please note Para 7 about the main gun as it might affect the PT-91M PENDEKAR as it's in the game for Malaysia as UNIT 500.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt91_twardy.htm Please note Para 2 and the bottom of the ref in the variant section covering the PENDEKAR.

C9. Change: MALAYSIA/UNIT 500/PT-91M to PT-91M PENDEKAR.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well as I see it now we are down to the following as probably the last brand new designed tanks that will get into the game and I am willing to list them in the order they'll likely to appear in the real world and ours.
1. Japan the TK-X or TYPE-10 is ready to go. With the economic situation this tank was put on the back burner. Now thanks to N. Korea and the growing influence of China, it'll probably get into production within the next couple of years or sooner. Also Japan is seeking much closer ties with S. Korea and Australia which is now seen as a key defensive partner in the region.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tk_x.htm
Pic:10706

2. Turkey the ALTAY which I've posted on in conjunction with the M60T. Sources say it's still on track for prototypes by 2015 and fielding by mid 2016.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/altaymainbattletank/
Pic:10707

3. India The FMBT is due in 2020. India has been very active in regards to weapons development and procurement (AKASH, ARJUN MKI and MKII etc.) logically you would think due to it's neighbor to the west and the issue with Kashmir. But that would be wrong to some degree, they're looking north to China as well. They've built just recently two more air bases in the north and are looking to build more. The ARJUN MKII is meant to counter an armored threat from there as well until the FMBT comes on line.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20291/ It's not much.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/ The BROADSWORD homepage an excellent source for Indian military and international affairs.
Pic:10708 Obviously an ARJUN pictured but the write up indicates some of the technology to be used with the
ARJUN MKII and FMBT.
10709

Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

Eh, I thought the Turkey-Korea future MBT was recently cancelled...

[DRG]

That "FMBT" sure looks like the old "Black Eagle"

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I agree ALTAY was in jeopardy at one time. When relations were on a much better footing with Israel before the start of the
M60T program and others, Israel even then saw a partner in an unfriendly neighborhood that politically would as act as an influence in the relations between Israel with Syria and to some extent Iran. This cooperation had made Turkey the leading country to receive the MERKAVA 4 with that tank why move on with the ALTAY? It would've been the cheaper alternative vs. taking a tank off the drawing board. There were of course other political factors in play as well (As Turkey announced they were going forward with ALTAY early last Spring.) and the MERKAVA deal was DOA before the events of this past summer which made the international news when 8 Turks were killed by IDF forces which further eroded relations between the two nations. All this has been already reported on in this thread. So the bottom line Columbia is now the leading candidate for the export version of the MERKAVA 4 and Turkey is moving ahead with the ALTAY. And Israel and Turkey are trying to "mead fences" at this time.

I thought the FMBT looked somewhat familiar, but I think two factors are in play as a generalization in design:
1. What do we base the new design on and make it ours?
2. How often will the design change due to political and military realities before we even see the final prototype design?

Back slooowwwlly to the final list.

Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

I did some further check, I was wrong. The ALTAY is still alive as a program.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As a Mod (M4) I addressed in the first "patch post page", the trophy system is one step closer to be fitted on all MERKAVA 4 tanks, though it is already installed on many as this article and others I've posted have indicated. What I found interesting and don't recall having seen before mentioned, is that the culprit that caused the IDF tank losses in 2006 is also mentioned in this article and it wasn't by RPGs as suspected by some. Sorry you'll just have to read it though it's about 3/4 of the way down.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/717/?SID=61ea001bf490b64a3538694681e25619

Canada to get 40mm GL's and get all the Dutch LEO 4 tanks just purchased (100) by Rheinmetall to the LEO 2A4M CAN standard. An issue I've had to re-address again.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20708/

Have presents to wrap have a good night...well morning!

Regards,
Pat

[Wdll]

Eh, I thought it was well known that the losses were due to the Kornet atgm which magically appeared outside of Syria.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

IDF announces successful training deployment of the TROPHY system.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20742/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I've been talking about TROPHY for awhile and now the IDF is fielding it along the border after HAMAS successfully fired a KORNET (AT-14) at a MERKAVA 4 on the border earlier this month.
This was on my first "patch post" as a mod to the MERKAVA 4. I'll be posting my "economy subscription" version of the article from my ref.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw101229_1_n.shtml
I hope everyone has a Happy New Year!!!!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just a little tank news:

1. ARJUN MKII ready for trials in June.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news107583.html

2. LEO 2 A4M CAN deployed note gun definitely looks like the
120mm L44.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21760/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This is the raw data only as submitted from the last patch post I submitted. It's been my policy to repost these into their "home" threads for comment or not.

MBT's AGAIN!?!Don might have to rethink the MBT Item A6: CANADA/NOV 2010/LEOPARD 2A4M/RESET/Came across this article on 6 DEC 2010. The Leopard 2A6M tanks Canada leased from Germany are being returned (Now) after all. This might change the complexion of the Q&A discussions we had concerning this issue. This was on the first patch page submitted.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news102921.html The last line says it all where things are headed, but that's for next year I would think.
UPDATE ALERT 12/07/10! I went back to the Canadian source I put in Post #21 of this thread. But I also want to draw your attention to Post #22. Here are the two points gleamed from this source.
1. Keep the LEOPARD 2A6M: 40 of the 100 Dutch tanks will be RESET to this standard therefore the return to Germany of the 2A6M tanks is a wash. 20-40 will be upgraded to 2A4M standard above what they got from the Germans. The rest will fall into utility conversions.
2. Might have to reconsider adding the 2A4M as it does have the 120mm SB L44 vice the L55 gun as I thought in Post#22. So we're left with a LEO 2A4M with the protection level of a LEO 2A6M with an improved 120mm L44 main gun.
http://casr.ca/doc-news-kmw-leopard-2a4m.htm
Para 1 will also link you to the Dutch tank deal within the site if desired.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/

C10. Change: UKRAINE/OPLOT/UNITS 061-063/Add 9K119M REFLEX
(NATO Des. AT-11 SNIPER-B) 6 Missiles. Noticed from refs that ATGW load has no affect on conventional ammo loads from refs. Must be due to size that addition of these doesn’t take up that much room as compared to conventional rounds. Am under the impression from further looking into other countries platforms this is just about a "universal truth" across the board.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84armament.php
http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/ukrainian_tanks.html
See bottom of the page. And yes I saw the number if it is 100% correct, however six works as that's what's in the game now for the T-84 tanks as well. Changing the number to 5 missiles would not only affect the Ukrainian tanks but would spill over to Russian ones (T-80 and T-90 series.) as well and any one who uses them outside the Ukraine and Russia that has the ATGW. I say Das Vydonia to a couple of rolls of toilet paper and keep the six packs instead!

Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

C10. Change: UKRAINE/OPLOT/UNITS 061-063/Add 9K119M REFLEX
(NATO Des. AT-11 SNIPER-B) 6 Missiles. Noticed from refs that ATGW load has no affect on conventional ammo loads from refs. Must be due to size that addition of these doesn’t take up that much room as compared to conventional rounds. Am under the impression from further looking into other countries platforms this is just about a "universal truth" across the board.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84armament.php
http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/ukrainian_tanks.html
See bottom of the page. And yes I saw the number if it is 100% correct, however six works as that's what's in the game now for the T-84 tanks as well. Changing the number to 5 missiles would not only affect the Ukrainian tanks but would spill over to Russian ones (T-80 and T-90 series.) as well and any one who uses them outside the Ukraine and Russia that has the ATGW. I say Das Vydonia to a couple of rolls of toilet paper and keep the six packs instead!

Regards,
Pat

Probably numbers were not accounted for.
The barrel fired ATGMs take about as much space as a conventional round, it cannot be squeezed in "somewhere", the "somewhere" on a T-64/72/80 is very small.
I remember an east german tanker listing the items that were packed inside a T-72, it was nothing to write home about.
Just about 300 rounds for the 12.7mm could be carried internally, coax ammo load is a quarter of that which can be carried by the Abrams (though made up by the HE rounds and the Abrams coax storage isn't usually filled up 100% due to feed issues), only a very small quantity of food (they could not even squeeze in some soup cans as done on T-55s) etc.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don and I did discuss this issue in the patch thread and it was a :doh: moment for me. Again though I only presented the "raw data" here and any specifics Don had issues with were addressed in the various (3) patch posts I submitted in that thread. The basic issue I had here was I didn't fully make the connection with weapons slots/ammo types to the total ammo load of a peculiar vehicle etc., something so obvious that I just missed it.
Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Japan finally to get the TK-X or TYPE-10 as it will be designated by the JDF. This is an update from the original posting off this site. The date for the game unit (Japan 022.)
This is considered the most advanced tank in the world with the Korean K-2 "BLACK PANTHER" a close second. It has an advanced armor system to rival it's bigger brethren and an advanced AP round that gives it's Japanese modified and made SB 120mm L-44 a much "bigger punch" then what they originally got from the Germans. The gun was slightly modified to support the highly classified new AP round. Except to say they have the round is all I can find out about it without getting into speculative blog thoughts. This was one of the R&D issues that has delayed this tank besides the faltering Japanese economy.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tk_x.htm
This gets a pic:
10849

Why now, see this on the Asian situation. Russia for instance will place one of the new French built MINSTREL Carriers off the Kurile Islands. China and Russia are turning up the heat for counties like Japan, S. Korea, India, Australia, others in the region and by default the U.S.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22049/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

News of the past week. Had a few extra minutes.

1. IDF MERK fired upon and TROPHY defeats it.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22462/

2. TROPHY completes successful U.S. evaluations as the military seeks to improve it's armor protective systems.
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110301_trophy_osd_test.html

3. UK continues to reduce it's armored forces. The SDSR cuts are going deeper then planned as will be shown in the Jet thread later. Once you start cutting sometimes it goes deeper than planned this seems to be the case now with the UK MOD.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw101229_2_n.shtml

4. This is for you weapons guys, as good as any place to put this. The science of metallurgy moves on.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22570/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's news of the last week, but is it an issue to be included on my next list? I thought also last fall or there abouts, there was some discussion of getting a decent picture of the ABV. Anyway here it is.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22666/
Pic:
10889
USMC ABV from the article source.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm good now here in the MBT world. First off I've avoided the blogs in general as opinions without the references presented in general are like ..., everyone has one, thus my allergy cold right now just isn't fun! There isn't much out there in the "main" so I did what I could. I offer the following based on my general background, an overview based on the refs and photos presented below.
1. I believe the M-2002 to be based on the T-62.
The lines just don't quite look right to me to be derived from the T-72 unless from an earlier version (How's that for CYA?)

2. It does have an IR sight I'm thinking similar to the M60A1 RISE/Passive, not sure that it's as good as the M60A3 TTS system though, which many thought was better than the first sites used on M1.

3. I'm going for 2 for 2 on the main gun (#1 was the 120mm L44 on the LEO 2A4M CAN.) it's a 115mm SB. That's my interpretation of the photos. It just has a "thinner" look to it. And note closely the photos of the T-62 in the first ref the imager mounted to the right of the main gun as well.

Those are my thoughts on the topic on the quick. And as always please take the time to read these first. As always the refs are presented so you can form your own thoughts on the matter.

A. On the T-62.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product165.html

B. The M-2002.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/m-2002.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=391
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5342772&amp;c=POL&amp;s=TOP
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/triservice/jdw/jdw101125_2_n.shtml
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm

See the MBT patch posts this thread or the patch posts themselves for more info on items 2 and 3 above.

Pics:
10903 10904

10905 10906

10907

Thank You for your time! Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

[Roman]

I'm good now here in the MBT world. First off I've avoided the blogs in general as opinions without the references presented in general are like ..., everyone has one, thus my allergy cold right now just isn't fun! There isn't much out there in the "main" so I did what I could. I offer the following based on my general background, an overview based on the refs and photos presented below.
1. I believe the M-2002 to be based on the T-62.
The lines just don't quite look right to me to be derived from the T-72 unless from an earlier version (How's that for CYA?)

2. It does have an IR sight I'm thinking similar to the M60A1 RISE/Passive, not sure that it's as good as the M60A3 TTS system though, which many thought was better than the first sites used on M1.

3. I'm going for 2 for 2 on the main gun (#1 was the 120mm L44 on the LEO 2A4M CAN.) it's a 115mm SB. That's my interpretation of the photos. It just has a "thinner" look to it. And note closely the photos of the T-62 in the first ref the imager mounted to the right of the main gun as well.

Those are my thoughts on the topic on the quick. And as always please take the time to read these first. As always the refs are presented so you can form your own thoughts on the matter.

A. On the T-62.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product165.html

B. The M-2002.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/m-2002.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=391
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5342772&amp;c=POL&amp;s=TOP
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/triservice/jdw/jdw101125_2_n.shtml
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm

See the MBT patch posts this thread or the patch posts themselves for more info on items 2 and 3 above.

Pics:
10903 10904

10905 10906

10907

Thank You for your time! Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

Hi Pat. I do not know technical questions about armaments.
But it can be very interesting to learn.
You know a lot about this subject. You think that this tank has thermal sensors and laser sights?
I ask because designers have taken these features in the latest patch.

[DRG]

The changes were made on Marcello's recommendation and Marcello has done more work sorting the NK OOB out that anyone

There used to be two of those tanks, unit 25 and 26. There is NO change to the sights from the previous version , even the upgraded version, so IDK where you got the idea that had changed this release.. it was downgraded LAST release from what was there in previous releases but there has been no change to FC this release.

The TI version was deleted leaving unit 25 re-organized as an upgraded T-62. If you look at the post he made on the North Korean Errors report thread there is a very clear photo of the tank and there is no way it's based on the T-72 or T-90.

EVERY article on that tank is based solely on conjecture. This is our version and we've been *VERY* generous giving it a 125mm gun. I think Pat's correct and it's still using the 115mm gun. There is no reason to believe the North Koreans are anything more than what they appear to be. They are not hiding high tech up their sleeves


Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Thanks for the compliment, however I'm no expert, I am however a "researcher" or "reporter" if you will (i.e. CM ARTY debate.). I agree it has an old tech laser range finder that was mounted on the T-62M1 but it also still retains the same
old tech IR searchlight system as I discussed in my previous post. This system is crude as compared to even the thermal sights that were available 15 to 20 years ago. And since many of you know I like my pictures and prefer apples to apples and not apples to oranges, here you go.
First up is the Russian T-62M1:
10913

The North Korean M-2002 "POKPOONG-HO":
10914

As you can see the laser range finder is the same as the Russian tank mounted on the mantle of the gun as is the IR searchlight.

More on the T-62 and variants:
http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Land/Armored_Combat_Vehicles/afvs.htm#t-62
http://www.armyrecognition.com/chars_de_combat_russie/t-62_t62_description_pictures_gallery_main_battle_ta nk_t-62_russian_army_russia.html
You'll have to use your translator software but it supports the equipment as discussed to this point.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-62.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-62-specs.htm
See the ref immediately above under "FIRE CONTROL". The short answer is yes it has both, crude by today's standards sort of the USA SHERMAN tanks going against a German TIGER, it was then and now would have to be a battle of numbers and maneuver for it to be successful especially with a 115mm with no ATGW weapons
(T-62M1 did not support this, however the T-62M did though without the laser finder.) that's what refs do!

If asked I do my best to get back.

Regards,
Pat :sick:

P.S.
A bit under the weather and since there were only a handful of "news of the last week" stories I'll post them next week. Have some Spring Trng Baseball to get to and If I'm not better by Monday CINCLANTHOME might respond in the following manner since I'm on vacation (Yes, Don I hear you sighing a sound of relief!?!):
10915
You haven't lived until you've experienced one of those!

[DRG]

The current P'okpoong-ho in the game has the same RF rating as the Russian T-62M1 but with a much more optimistic assumption regarding it's fire control capabilities and it's Vision rating puts it on par with a T-62M1V so it's already pushing the reality envelope somewhat.

As for the gun I took Marcellos suggestion for calibre and comparing photos of a T-72's 125mm gun with some of the side shots of the NK tank it *could* be a 125 gun on the NK tank but it does have the look of a 115 between the extractor and the muzzle

Now that I have better photos there will be a better Icon for it in the next patch

Don

[Marcello]

Sorry if I have not replied before but I lacked the time.
The recommendations I made for the last patch in regards to the
P'okpoong-ho were based not on the so called M-2002 which appeared in spring 2010 but on this vehicle.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8236/3f420e58.jpg

It can be easily seen that it is a different line of development from M-2002: driver sits on the centerline like in a T-72, different armor configuration etc. The gun may be a 125mm, as opposite to the almost certainly 115mm of the M-2002.

[Marcello]

Now in regards to the other issues. The design lineage of the
M-2002 is definitively the T-62, little doubt about. The design lineage of the above vehicle is not clear, it could be T-62 or T-72. Remember however that before 2010 we had very little and conflicting information on the new NK tank. There were for example vague reports about a Ch'onma-Ho V upgunned with 125mm gun and a T-90 based P'okpoong-ho.

In regards to fire control it is a safe bet that it is not top end stuff by current standard. However if you pay attention to both vehicles you can see what looks suspiciously like a meteorological mast for cross wind measurement. This suggest a level of sophistication in the FC higher than that fitted to T-62M1 and such, even if the laser rangefinder feeding it has not been miniaturized. The IR searchlight means only that no TI is fitted and that active illumination is felt to be necessary to get at least certain ranges. Soviet era tanks, from T-55 to T-80U all carried them but the night sights were different and had different ranges/capabilities.

Lastly I suggested the modifications to be based on the above vehicle rather than the M-2002 because I thought a 125mm tank was more useful and the M-2002 proper could wait some future version.

[Mobhack]

Now in regards to the other issues. The design lineage of the
M-2002 is definitively the T-62, little doubt about. The design lineage of the above vehicle is not clear, it could be T-62 or T-72. Remember however that before 2010 we had very little and conflicting information on the new NK tank. There were for example vague reports about a Ch'onma-Ho V upgunned with 125mm gun and a T-90 based P'okpoong-ho.

In regards to fire control it is a safe bet that it is not top end stuff by current standard. However if you pay attention to both vehicles you can see what looks suspiciously like a meteorological mast for cross wind measurement. This suggest a level of sophistication in the FC higher than that fitted to T-62M1 and such, even if the laser rangefinder feeding it has not been miniaturized. The IR searchlight means only that no TI is fitted and that active illumination is felt to be necessary to get at least certain ranges. Soviet era tanks, from T-55 to T-80U all carried them but the night sights were different and had different ranges/capabilities.

Lastly I suggested the modifications to be based on the above vehicle rather than the M-2002 because I thought a 125mm tank was more useful and the M-2002 proper could wait some future version.

And the MANPADS shown can also be ignored, since there is no way to put EW (as ECM) on a non-AAA specialist unit class. (The EW field is used for CIWS etc on AFV unit classes).

Andy

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I've been sitting on the fence with this information for almost three weeks now, wondering if I should pull the trigger on this or not. And thinking on the additional training courses I took outside of my career path and a saying we had in the submarine force at the time (Sorry not even going to try too be coy about that one!?!), well consider the trigger slowly squeezed as I'm going for a more accurate shot.

1. Further analysis of the North Korean POKOONG-HO (Storm) also referred to as the M-2002 which was the codename given given by the West when it's identification was confirmed in 2002. See the refs as posted in this thread Post #106 on page 11.

A. I'm still convinced it's carrying a 115mm main gun and as such have gone to the Russian tank gun manufacturers site. The largest gun they offer is a 120mm to meet NATO Specs for countries needing to upgrade their T-62 tanks upon entering into NATO. It would be similar to the IMI "short" MG251 120mm initially put in IDF MERK 3s and SABRA tanks. The Turks got the improved MG253 on the M60T to meet their requirements.
This first ref shows the MG251, note the cutaway drawing upper right showing the gun inside the slightly larger M60 turret and now imagine it inside the slightly smaller T-62 turret, it'll work as the Russians again have and are doing this also with a much lower recoil 120mm vs a standard 120mm. If the Russians could have fitted a 125mm in a T-62 I'm guessing they would have thus eliminating the need for the T-64 which did have a 125mm mounted and was the "bridge" to the T-72. The next two refs are from the Russian tank gun maker.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3608.html
See bottom, other info might be of value for you "designers".
http://www.artillery-mz.com/en/update/about/
About the guns.
http://www.artillery-mz.com/en/products/04/115/

2. That the turrets thus far shown from all sources to date belong to T-62 tanks there is no doubt about this. To this extent I joined an engineering website to get the following:

10994 10995
10996 10997

3. Differences we know:
T-62 T-72
Driver Left Side Center-line
TC Same Right Side
115mm smooth. 125mm compression rings with
segmented look.
Road wheels 5 6 Here's the rub notice the pictures from the previous post this would suggust the
[B]STORM is a hybrid of some sort. So here's the fork in the road BLOGS aside of the refs I normally use and other reputable refs about 20 - 25 total I found only one that says North Korea even has any more then a handful of T-72 tanks. I'm not even going down that road, however I believe the hull is a "stretched" one which we know has happened in design before most notably by the Turks with their M113A APC's. so now I give over to an expert as much as person can be on North Korea. As you know or should know JANE'S is considered probably the #1 source of military information out there better then some government sources, I know we had the newest Naval editions every year on board every boat and staff command I served at for what's worth. And not just anyone can contribute to them without being an expert in the field. This gentle still does that and has done so since 1984. So likes mix it up a little more. First his main site which could again be useful to some dealing with North Korean equipment etc. the rest concern the "STORM".
http://www.kpajournal.com/
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-04.pdf
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-06.pdf
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-07.pdf
YES I READ ALL THESE REFS AS I NORMALLY DO, BUT THE LAST I PRESENTED THE FOLLOW UP ONE'S AS WELL TO BE FAIR AND BALANCED. I COULD HAVE EASILY HAVE STOPPED WITH THE FIRST ONE. YOU'LL UNDERSTAND IF YOU READ THEM THROUGH.

I don't think the "125mm" shown in some pictures seem right the "segment" and "ring" count compared to the Russian 125mm seems off and the gun length still seems doesn't look right in comparing the "flash suppressors". And let's not forget that gun mounted laser sight that only the T-62M1+ had. This is a vexing problem in the difference in pictures with exception of the turrets about the gun. Deception could be the answer they've been caught in that trap many times in the past. Regardless we know one thing for sure without numbers this tank is not a real threat to tanks like the K1+, K2 or M1A1+ tanks (I hope!?!).
T-72 check the gun, turret and hull you decide.
Pic:
10998

Hey it's late, time for bed!!!!

Regards,
Pat

In MARCELLO'S POST #111 does that look a plug at the end of the gun? Here we go!?! I need some sleep- Good Morning or Night!!

[DRG]

I agree the gun looks more like a 115mm than a 125mm and it could very well be that a P'okpoong-ho is a further modified Ch'onma-Ho with a missle as this would be the next step in development instead of a great leap in a new direction.

My guess is the "plug" ( more a dust cover than a plug ) at the end of the gun is there to keep the gun clean on parade and/or dress it up a bit

All the KPA references come back Page Not Found

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yes it is a further development as both are derived from the
T-62M1. Before logging in just now, I clicked on those sites and they came up, maybe the site was down? The one thing I have learned is that in dealing with North Korean equipment it seems worse then trying to find out something about the Chinese and that's still tough. Later I can now present an item concerning the South Korean K2, thank goodness!

Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

A. I'm still convinced it's carrying a 115mm main gun


And few dispute this as far this vehicle is concerned.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4914/pokpunghopokpoonghom200.jpg


If the Russians could have fitted a 125mm in a T-62 I'm guessing they would have thus eliminating the need for the T-64 which did have a 125mm mounted and was the "bridge" to the T-72.

Actually reality is far more convoluted. The T-64 was not meant to be a bridge to the T-72, despite what the number in the designation might suggest. The T-64 was supposed to be the successor of the T-55 in the role of primary MBT for the soviet army. However such sophisticated, designed from scratch vehicle created several problems. The first was delays in the development. Then cost, reliability and producibility issues.
This forced the adoption of the T-62, basically an evolved T-55 modified to accept a bigger gun, as initial stopgap measure. While eventually some problems of the T-64 were fixed others could not be. This led designers to incorporate some of the T-64 features into an evolution of the T-62, which gave birth to the T-72.
A good evolutionary diagram of the design process that led from the T-62 to the T-72 can be found here.

http://www.t-72.de/html/versuchspanzer.html

As far upgunning goes I have seen prototypes and proposals of even T-55s upgunned with 125mm guns. Granted, they looked like a marriage made in hell but point being, integrating a 125mm gun in a design based off the T-62 is probably not impossible and in a sense it has already been done.
Now it is perfectly possible that the gun on the round turreted vehicle is still a 115mm. After all with the thermal jacket is hard to tell. Bear in mind however that there are several 125mm gun models around, I honestly do not remember if there are outer differences in the thermal jacket but it seems at least a possibility.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'll agree with the last, and have "heard" of some of the same in the up gunning of those Russian tanks as well, the one that comes to mind for me though was the attempt I believe by the Danes to mount a 140mm on a LEO. Though I'm sure it would've been deadly but it just looked ungainly on a LEO for some reason.
:confused: Took a few minutes to go back and check...right continent, fairly close (That "horseshoes and hand grenades" saying comes to mind now!?!) country wise, but it was the Swiss and Germans. :doh: Swiss on the more recent Pz87WE-140 program and the Germans working on the 140mm under the KWS III Program. Look under the
"THE IMPROVED LEOPARD 2 - LEOPARD 2 A5 KWS II" section of the following for Germany:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
Apparently a newer 140mm was revisited again in 1999 as well:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf
The Swiss here:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1645.html
Pics:
11001 11002

Have great end of the week!!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

I'm going to point out the obvious here but the turret of the tank in post 111 is not the same as the tank in post 117. Not even close so lets back up and identify each and go forward from there.

It would seem that we originally assumed the P'okpoong-ho was the M-2002 but now it seems the P'okpoong-ho is a development of the Ch'onma-Ho ( that would be the photo in post 111 ) and the M-2002 ( whatever it's called ) is something different and we don't have it in the game ATM

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don will answer later-work! But in the quick refer to Post #106 or see below PO'OONG-HO and M-2002 are one in the same. M-2002 was the western "codename" assigned when indentified in 2002. It was easier for me to use that name at the time.
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065926029&pu=1&rd=janes_com
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5342772&c=POL&s=TOP
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5342772&c=POL&s=TOP

Have to go!!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Well then.......if "PO'OONG-HO and M-2002 " are one in the same then perhaps you or Marcello can explain why photo in post 111 shows a totally different turret than the tank in the photo in post 117. That was the subject of my post.... those are not photos of the same tank so which one is the P'okpoong-ho ( or however you like to translate Korean in to English ). If it's the photo in 111 then in cannot be 117 , it's that simple.

If 117 is the P'okpoong-ho then 111 is NOT the P'okpoong-ho. All the changes we made this last release were based on 111 being the P'okpoong-ho and if the M-2002 and the P'okpoong-ho are one in the same then what is 117 ???? One has a cast turret the other welded.

What I suspect is the photo in 111 is an early Ch'onma-Ho and it was mis-identified as a P'okpoong-ho . If not then we are right back to the original observation...... 117 has a totally different turrent and if 111 is the P'okpoong-ho then what is 117 ?



Don

[DRG]

compare and contrast the turret in 117 with the Chinese Type 90. I would suggest that whatever 117 is, it shares a close relationship with things Chinese.



Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

1. I believe what is pictured in Post #111 is the
Ch'onma-Ho III (Pegasus or Sky Horse as all mods are referred too.). The Ch'onma-Ho I & II should be mods to the (Same as the
T-62A.) T-62M. The Ch'onma-Ho III is married more closely to the T-62M 1975 as pictured in Post #111. Ch'onma-Ho IV & V are based on the T-62M 1975 with add on ERA packages and improved armor and FC. The Ch'onma-Ho V is also rumored to have a 125mm main gun, like the P'OKPOONG (However you want to spell it depending on ref used.).
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=392
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-62.html

2. P'OKPOONG is a stand alone tank with no known variants as attributed to the Ch'onma-Ho above. The T-62M1 series was the first to have the turret bra we see on the P'OKPOONG-Ho as the refs from my last post (And as I suggested earlier as well.) suggust with a stretched hull. It is more likely as suggested by article and pictures derived more closely from the T-62M1 as noted first in Post #109. The second ref makes the further analysis that there is a resemblance to the Chinese
Type85-II (I don't see it.) and hull of the Romanian TR-85M1 and TR-800.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=391
http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-06.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-85.htm

3. I offer this separately, one it has the typical ammo load out for a T-62 regardless of type. Some might recognize I've used this site many times, it's a Russian site, well anyway I hope it makes a difference here!?!
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product165.html

Regardless I'm off to bed, so...

Спокойной ночи мои друзья!

С уважением,
Стандартный
:capt:

[DRG]

OK, I think we may be narrowing this down.

Don

[Marcello]

1. I believe what is pictured in Post #111 is the Ch'onma-Ho III

The driver closer (or on) the centerline and others details rule out this possibility. Whatever this vehicle is...

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8236/3f420e58.jpg
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/16/manpad.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/323/nkmanpad.jpg

it is not a straight T-62 knock off. Still based upon perhaps but not really a north korean T-62M 1975

These are supposed to be "Ch'onma-Ho III/IV" .

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3479/chonmahoiiipropaganda15.jpg

Former soviet up armored T-62 for comparison.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9153/t62mafghannationalarmy9r.jpg

Clearly they have tanks that are similar in conception to the
T-62M1. But the two new tanks types shown during the last parade are somewhat different.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Not necessarily disagreeing with the last, but I think what the refs and all this have shown is...

1. We are probably dealing with a 115mm vs. a 125mm main gun.

2. That the tanks are, and in some cases are heavily modified versions of the 5 different or so T-62 tanks made during it's production run I feel is an acceptable conclusion based on all the refs submitted thus far. Anything else would have serious ramifications to the game had it been proved these were based on the T-64 or T-72 tanks in both offensive power (125mm, FC etc.) or defensive attributes also associated with those tanks as compared to the T-62 line overall.

Got to work and it might hit 90+ today, what Spring!?!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Let's get back to the photo in post 117 shall we ?

Here's what we know

It is North Korean
It is NOT in any way the same turret as is shown in post 111

Maybe Kims messing with the West's heads by putting two different turrets on the same hull and sending them out on parade but if the photo in post 111 is indeed a P'okpoong-ho ... what is 117 ?

Don

[Marcello]

Maybe Kims messing with the West's heads by putting two different turrets on the same hull and sending them out on parade but if the photo in post 111 is indeed a P'okpoong-ho ... what is 117 ?
Don

Hulls are definitively not the same.
Round turret tank uses centerline driver.
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/9488/chonmaupgradeoct201043eun.jpg

I bet this is what was referred as "Ch'onma-Ho V upgunned with 125mm gun" in the rumors a few years ago. Clearly however it is not just a Ch'onma-Ho III/IV with bigger gun. At a minimum it was substantial redesign, if not a new vehicle altogether.

This one would be the M-2002/whatever.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4914/pokpunghopokpoonghom200.jpg

Note the driver position.

Why they developed two designs is unclear but even the soviets made a mess with the
T-64/72/80 development. Maybe the square turret type is a more conservative development focused on improving armor protection, while the round turret type is the more radical design featuring improved firepower, with all the difficulties mastering the 125mm gun and related systems would entail. But it is pure speculation.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I think I've figured things out, so bear with me here.
1. Remember in Post #114 I talked about road wheels this will be important.
2. Also all the refs I've submitted and that have thus far been submitted have the origins of Cho and Po as the T-62 are we agreed here?
3. There is no record by reliable sources to indicate the North Koreans got any other newer tanks from Russia before relations broke down and NK turned to China for support. NK did receive full production licensing for the T-62 (For all variants.) from Russia as well as the production capacity to build them.
4. We are dealing with some mislabeled photos from different sources it looks like.
5. Again there are no known variants for the Po.
6. We know there are five variants of the Cho.
7. I haven't used those extra skills in a very long time as mentioned before, but after reading the last post and reviewing the pictures I found some differences.
8. Is as important as any we must remember with #3 above that NK has depending on whose number you wish to reference, they have from 1800 to 2600 T-62 tanks of all types total. So we will see standard tanks in basic design that will be slightly modified and updated from the base Russian models.

Ready:
A. Post #117 is the Po see the pic below from Post #106 top right tank. a. Note smoke grenade layout 2 slightly forward of the back 2 forming a "box". b. On the right forward corner, forward of the smoke grenades, an object resembling a "horn". c. Note the front top hull area. d. My picture submitted in Post #106 & #109 (And below.) for the Po match #117 and further shows the stretched hull indicated from my refs (JANES etc. so on and so forth.) with six road wheels.
Pics:
11027 11028

B. I want everyone to look at the same items as in A. above this is a mislabeled pic from many sources describing this tank as the Po. I think it's the Cho V. At a GLANCE and as I presented it to the left of the Po pic from Post #106, it looks like the same tank. Again I hit on the road wheels, there are
only five of them plus the differences of no "horn", dis-chargers are in a vertical line up and the front hull is different notice the replacement trend pieces, single headlight versus duel ones for the Po. Below I have re-posted what I now believe is the Cho V with the add on turret armor as compared to the Russian T-62M1. I did not relabel the pictures to illustrate the above point about them.
Pics:
11029 11030

C. Marcellos own posting (#125) identifies our other tanks as the Cho III/or IV from I assume his ref the way he wrote it up, so we all should be good there. Photo 4 are the later T-62 tanks that had the add on ERA and these are placed exactly as they were by the Russians on the, and please don't beat me up here, T-62E that was used in Afghanistan I believe, just Google it or something. Photo five looks just like the Russian T-62M1 as modified slightly by NK. But focus on the turret lines.
It could be a straight up T-62M1 or Cho V, hard to tell without more of a frontal view.

D. Understand I'm in no way trying to say these are the same as their Russian counter parts except for many of the older tanks. Some items I've read suggust the "break" from the Soviet era tank with NK upgrades occurred at the Cho III (And I don't care to debate this point personally just passing along a consensus of what I read.). That the Po is a further development and more capable tank then the Cho V I think is a logical conclusion.

E. I don't know what more I can do here, I wish I could have spotted these latest differences in the photos sooner-sorry. I've given the best possible refs I can to include JANES etc. which support most of what I've submitted especially concerning the Po. I think I'll take some of those "over sight" ARJUN tanks in there and just kill a bunch of Cho and Po tanks. I'm ready to move onto the following:
11033

CINCLANTHOME is going to have my...for this if I'm not up to greet the granddaughter in the morning!! Good Night well missed that, Good Morning!

Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

11029

Personally I have the impression that this is just a III/IV with added armor screens. If you look closely at the coax port area you can see a V chaped armor section surrounding it, not well covered by the armor screen. This is identical to the same section in the picture of the III/IV. I would guess it is a modest improvement of the III/IV, perhaps a retrofit of existing vehicles.

[DRG]

Referring to post 129 , in the the first set of photos the left image seems to show a different turret than the right with the left seeming to show straighter front turret armour and a welded turret side but on closer examination when enlarged the "straight" effect to the right of the drivers head appears to be the result of the compression effects of a powerful telephoto lens and these are indeed, the same tank.


Sooooo...... if this is indeed a variation of the same tank, as it appears to be, which one is the P'okpoong-ho and if it's the photo of the tank we based the last changes on why doesn't it have add on armour ?


Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

All I can say for sure is that the photo on the right is without a doubt from the references submitted to date the Po. If nothing else, we know the Po is a stretched version mod of the T-62 line, refer to the road wheels 6 vs. 5 for the other tank which I thought to be the Cho V. I married the photo on the left to the Po one on the right in Post #129, Section "Ready...", and Para A. as listed because the turrets did look the same to me except for the coloration issue. The only issue I had of any minor concern was I couldn't see the hull to get a front view lower down and get a road wheel count as noted in the beginning of that Post and in Para B. The photos I've posted were taken in Oct. 2010.

So...

1. The photo on the right is the Po, I'm 100%+ on that, even the refs that think the Po has a 125mm state it has a stretched hull.

2. If we assume the photo on the left isn't the Po turret the only thing that makes sense is that what I think is the Cho V (Para B.) must be the Cho IV as Marcello suggests (I think it's still newer than the Cho III-sorry.). I will concede that point, if done the logical conclusion is that the hull has to belong to the Cho V.

3. Again only the Po has the stretched hull, thus six road wheels.

4. I'll present this don't know if it helps, but it also shows the left photo as the Po.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.timshp.lima-city.de/Content/Tanks/NKTankERA.png&imgrefurl=http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/ccboard/view-recentlist%3Fstart%3D120&usg=__wdYM0kfK6s_IidDFtierY19b0T8=&h=258&w=468&sz=156&hl=en&start=29&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=kGPBw3dr9GDTqM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCh%2527onma-ho%2BIV%2Btank%26start%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26r lz%3D1T4SUNA_enUS294US295%26ndsp%3D21%26tbm%3Disch&ei=WaqjTZiLFIjLgQf_3LzLCA

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Change #2. to read "turret" vice "hull" last sentence. And to clear up Marcello thought the other tank from Para B. to be either the
Cho III or IV in Post #129.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

.....and to be very clear exactly what post and photo are you refering to when you write ." The photo on the right is the Po". I was refering to post 129 the first set of photos. I really am not sure which one you are referring to. my post or 129 or one other

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Post #129, first set (top most) of photos, one on the right, full tank shot, road wheel count 6, is the Po.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

OK, don't want to ASSUME..... ;)

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
Not to worry that "word" has bitten us all in the as.ume at one time or another.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

The next issue is the gun. Why stretch the hull by at least 2 feet unless you are putting a bigger turret on it to hold a bigger gun.

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I really thought that gun issue was settled. Back to
Post #129 pictures, let's please ignore the top left non - full shot one, except for some "cosmetic" differences the turrets are the same as are the guns, all views are very similar in regard to angle of approach and size of the photos between the Po (TR),
Cho (LL) and Russian T-62M1 (LR) or for that matter any other pictures submitted or refs including again even Russian tank gun maker. That's a 115mm.

From a couple of the refs we're talking about a 2 meter increase in length. Again this is supposed to be their most advanced tank to date. These aren't my notions only but come from reading from a myriad of reference sources for this forum and my own personal readings from my modest "library". So...

1. Yours is a very good point, however I've noted my thoughts already.

Here's other possibilities...
2. Larger engine installed to increase speed and generate more power in both torque (Terrain is an issue here more so then in Eastern and Western European battlefields the T-62 was designed to fight in.) and literally to power the additional AC and power supplies needed for the more modern combat systems carried on board.

3. As noted above Power and distribution panels (Now we're talking my shh...) and cooling systems (Fans, chill water (Yes they come that small and smaller.) systems both or stand alone but, one of them for sure to support updated FC, Targeting and other newer on board computer systems. Starting to fill up that space now but there's more.

4. Improved NBC systems.

5. Fire suppression system(s).

6. Increased fuel capacity some refs submitted suggested this as a possibility as well makes sense with number #1.

7. Along with #5 increased ammo stowage also hinted at.

8. Added road wheels (Means added suspension.) with a stretched hull provides for a more stable gun platform, ride, mobility, obstacle clearing and maneuverability coupled with #1.

9. We've seen this before without necessarily adding road wheels but slightly extending the hulls by degrees to accommodate larger engines for most of the reasons above and more. Look at the following examples and think about the improvements made in combat efficiency in transition from the M-60, M-60A1, M-60A3,
M60A3 TTS, IDF Ma-BACH/SABRA series and finally M60T. Or if I remember 750hp to 1200hp (Might be higher for M60T don't remember.) And the final example was the engine upgrade (TIGER Program.) for the early M1 & M1A1 tanks to increase performance and support system upgrades.

10. How about that K2 at the bottom of Post #129? If I ever get to it!?!

Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

to power the additional AC and power supplies needed for the more modern combat systems carried on board.

AFAIK proper air conditioning in relation to combat systems is usually provided only to support the TI sight and these tanks are apparently not fitted with TI.
The remaining systems, can easily do without although naturally cooling systems are needed for the engine and such heat generating systems. While Korea can get hot in summer it is not a desert and even in that case heavy AFVs are typically given little or no AC.
I suspect that the extra roadwheel set in the new "boxy" tanks is to support the extra weight, largely due to the armor increase. Probably same reason the dedicated Black Eagle hull got the seventh roadwheel set.
Maybe they were designed to be protected against 105mm ammo or such, though increase in fuel/armor may have been included as well.

[DRG]

It does seem like a lot of effort just to make a slightly more advanced target for 120mm guns

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yes it does, but I think most of us have seen worse from our diverse backgrounds. I think as suggested and I believe Marcello was saying as well, we just need to "KISS" when it comes to the Po. Bigger engine, faster, more maneuverable, more mobile, longer range, increased power generation, up-armored and maybe more ammo. These things again make sense given the terrain there and with it's neighbors. The only unknown for me is not what we can see but, what we can't. Considering the Po is NKs "most advanced" tank, have they managed to keep up appearances but managed to improve the internal components, say as an example, the gun mounted laser range finder to make it more capable? This is again the only question for me concerning Po. And unless someone can get one of these tanks we might never know, however given Marcello's avatar I nominate him to go in there and get us one, if you watched the show you'd understand why I volun...nominated Marcello!?! I'd go but I have to work later today-sorry!

Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

It does seem like a lot of effort just to make a slightly more advanced target for 120mm guns

Don

The south korean army has about 500 tanks equipped with 120mm guns and still 1900 or so K1 and M48 fitted with 105mm.
The K2 will eventually displace the M48, but not exactly overnight and the 105mm K1 are going to stay. There are some Abrams in the USFK but overall the 120mm tanks are probably going to be a third or less of the total tank force for the time being. Clearly a tank proof against 105mm guns would still have an advantage in many tactical situations.

[DRG]

Well consider this. If the PO was designed to take on 105mm rounds what we have modeled in the game needs more armour before it can fullfil it's role.

ANYTHING we do in regards to this tank is going to an "educated WAG" The best pen from a SK M48A5K is 45. The best pen from a K1A1 is 85. If Kim figures most of his potential oppositing is M48's and this tank can stand up to them then I need to boost front hull and turret armour up by 20%. I have no problem doing that assuming we can agree that is prudent.

That would put a PO just a touch above a T-72M1 in armour ( or a touch below a T72B when reactive is applied ) which may ( or not..) be reasonable

Don

[DRG]

The south korean army has about 500 tanks equipped with 120mm guns and still 1900 or so K1 and M48 fitted with 105mm.
The K2 will eventually displace the M48, but not exactly overnight and the 105mm K1 are going to stay. There are some Abrams in the USFK but overall the 120mm tanks are probably going to be a third or less of the total tank force for the time being. Clearly a tank proof against 105mm guns would still have an advantage in many tactical situations.



.....and HOW MANY Po's are there realistically ?? I'll be wildly optimistic and say it's considerably below the total of 120 mm armed tanks in the SK armoury and even if it's 3 or 4 hundred ( which it won't be ) the SK solution to the 120 /105 gun "imbalance" is to adopt the "Firefly" model of tank distribution and there will always be a 120 around to slice and dice the PO's.

The NK strength is arty, not tanks. The Po seems more of a propaganda exercise.

Don

[Marcello]

.....and HOW MANY Po's are there realistically ?? I'll be wildly optimistic and say it's considerably below the total of 120 mm armed tanks in the SK armoury and even if it's 3 or 4 hundred ( which it won't be ) the SK solution to the 120 /105 gun "imbalance" is to adopt the "Firefly" model of tank distribution and there will always be a 120 around to slice and dice the PO's.
The NK strength is arty, not tanks. The Po seems more of a propaganda exercise.
Don

Well, if you recall Russia kept buying tiny amounts of T-80s and T-90s back in the 90's even when the economy was in the gutter.
Ukraine buys the odd modernized T-64 from Morozov every other year. Iran has its indigenous AFV program that will have replaced the existing fleet by the 22nd or 23rd century etc.
Why are such things done? Various reasons: attempts to keep production lines open (which at least in the T-90 case paid off handsomely), bureaucratic inertia, the idea that limited modernization is better than no modernization at all, propaganda etc.
That being said even a single "èlite" tank battalion could make a difference in, let's say, a coup attempt.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The Po tanks to date are assigned to the 105th Seoul Ry-Kyong Guards Div. a very famous unit known as the 1st Armored Div. that made it's mark during the Korean War. They are believed to operate ~250 Po tanks. It is not known of any further production except for replacement units, remember this program has been around quite a few years. I re-offer the following Para 4 down for current discussion is representative of other refs submitted except maybe to extent of up armored the Po is:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=391

Jane's 25 Nov. 2010 reports that of the K1 tanks, 484 are
KIA1 120mm variants. K2 production was to reach ~680 tanks, cut to 500, cut again to possibly only 100. However the number appears to be back possibly ~500 again due to recent incidents with NK and the surge in China's defence spending as I've been regularly "reporting" on. From Post #120:
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065926029&pu=1&rd=janes_com
Will have more on this later this weekend-I hope!?!

For an excllent read on the Korean War see THE COLDEST WAR by David Halberstam. Besides the "war" it covers the political issues as well in depth and sets the tone and understanding for todays relationship between China and North Korea and Russia and the U.S. interests in the area and it's roots.

Have to get ready for work have a good day all!!
Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Finally made it to the news of LW+!

1. First up the ARJUN finally gets deployed to it's AOR with the 75th Tank Regiment one two regiments equipped with ARJUN.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news112960.html

2. Concerning the K2 specifically S. Korea's UNIT 025 & 033.
A. Is the CIWS (Close In Weapons System) the same as the APS (Active Protection System), I think yes? Shots are right @ 2.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23219/

B. Is the Gatling gun shown in the picture below mounted on the units above, and does it look larger then a 7.62mm?

C. The news is after a year of delays in dealing with power pack issues (This issue also had effected the K21 as well.) the K2 could be restarting production this year or next. Not recommending any change in fielding date yet just not enough info yet. Something I'm watching. Will provide one of three that say production for this year and one for next. Jane's would put the number of K1 tanks at ~1050, see last post on K2 numbers also from Jane's and a couple of others.
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery/ROTEM-K2-MBT-Korea-South.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5579792&c=FEA&s=SPE
Reading the above it seems like some tanks are already built before production was stopped just awaiting installation of the power packs and completion of the operational tests on going through August w/o reading too much between the lines.
So it looks like JAN. 2013 or sooner maybe. Prototypes are at around 25 units of which some might be early production units.
For GP:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=289
Pic:
11074

3. Thailand looking for tanks (200 Medium type.) and other newer equipment. These new tanks once identified would replace the
M-41 based STINGRAY tanks.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article1005426.ece/Thai-military-seeks--1bn-for-new-weapons-purchases.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product929.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/stingray_light_tank.htm

Pic:
11075 11076

4. Say goodbye to 60 Dutch LEO's and more from "DID".
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/080411_2.htm

FOLLOW UP HERE! :capt:

Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

I found this video, showing both north korean tank types the discussion has been about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHywkooSmzA&feature=related

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

News from LW+

1. To Marcello's video in the previous post first THANKS! and second 115mm all the way.

2. Back to the ARJUN this next site has listed it as NEW to their equipment list. It has a little more info on armor type and capabilities. Though it still doesn't disclose which country was quoted as touting the ARJUN as one of the worlds best tanks from the earliest posts I submitted, I think the field is narrowed down considerably from my much earlier thoughts on the subject. Elbit of Israel and KMW of Germany apparently played a much larger role in the development of the ARJUN then was publicly revealed earlier. I think we have enough information to agree that at the very least it's a very capable tank in it's own right especially after the way it performed against the T-90S last year. ARJUN MKII will be developed with 95 new upgrades.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/arjun-mbt/

3. Related to the above, the ARJUN MKII is on track to begin trials this June.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news107583.html

4. DAPA South Korea giving indigenous engine maker until October to fix the problems or the engines and transmissions are coming from Germany. K2 pushed back to 2013 now because of the technical issues involved to date.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news114282.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k1/

5. Haven't had a chance to check if it's in already but, Ukraine to field the new STUGNA-P ATGW.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110420/163616103.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_ukrainian_army_vehicle_missile_system_uk/stugna_stugna-p_anti-tank_guided_missile_technical_data_sheet_specifica tions_description_information.html#identification

6. Dutch disband 2 LEO Tank Battalions due to budget cuts.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23767/

TRACK FOR DATES! :capt:

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Thailand apparently has chosen to buy 200 Ukrainian OPLOT tanks according to the following newspapers to replace it's current fleet of M41A3 tanks. Many tanks were considered such as the K-1 (The preferred front runner by the Thai Army.), T-90S and LEOPARD 2A4. These tanks would supplement the existing M60A3 tanks which might see some further modifications themselves, though those sources aren't solid. I believe this would the first export customer for the OPLOT. No dates available at this time, so I'll have to hold off on submitting the tank for the game, and also there is the question of will the military force the issue of it's apparent preferred choice the K-1+ as this has the 120mm in keeping with the other tanks above. This has also lead me to check Thailand's game status for receipt of the CEASAR SPA (Ordered in 2006 as first export customer, with order complete in 2010.) and BTR-3E3 APC (Delivered starting last Sep. 2010.) Still no press release from the manufacturer either of the OPLOT sale.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2011/03/thailand-buy-200-oplot-mbts.html
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/101075/
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/228666/new-ukraine-tanks-leave-soldiers-riled
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Newsfeed/Article/128875739/201103281408/Thailand-plans-buying-200-Ukrainian-Oplot-tanks.aspx
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/index.php

THIS REQUIRES CLOSE FOLLOW UP!! :capt:
Again these are notes to self.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The apc should read BTR-3E1 sorry! Both CAESAR and the BTR-3E1 will be on the add list for Thailand.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

..already done


Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Thanks, will remove from the list BTR-3E1 and CAESAR and post the info I have for both to appropriate threads. Holding OPLOT info until I get something with good dates on it. It's been a good year for Thailand and S.E. Asia in general game wise. Thanks again!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Again cleaning the system to better see my refs for PP#1 2011/2012, Besides it's been a little quite around here.

1. A little more insight into the ARJUN MK I, note the "blueprint" drawing which is the first I've seen with pics galore!!
http://www.armyrecognition.com/india_indian_army_tanks_heavy_armoured_vehicles_uk/arjun_mk-i_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specificat ions_information_description_intelligence.html

2. ARJUN MK II tanks have been sighted and we're on track! The first is an updated rendering and I believe it to be accurate. Reminds me of a LEO 2A6 K2 PANTHER.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/india_began_trials_of_the_new_upgraded_local_made_ arjun_mk-ii_main_battle_tank_1006113.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5783994&c=LAN&s=ASI

3. 120mm rounds getting smarter and smarter.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/25364/

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Re : ARJUN MK II

I've been burnt by drawings in the past so a photo is best but *if* that rendering is accurate it seems similar in many ways to the Japanese Type 10 but without the width restrictions

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well maybe we just have a "confused" tank!?! I would think if they have a couple of these running around and are initially satisfied with it's performance we'll have pictures by the late Fall to show it off, just my opion, but we have time to get it right.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Ethiopia has purchased 200 T-72 tanks which will be a combination of the T-72AG/MP upgrades (See last refs.) from the Ukraine unfortunately I have no date information at present so therefore I will not submit the information on the current Patch Post in progress. It'll rest here until I have a date. These tanks are from Ukraine's stock as production of the OPLOT-M slowly grinds along. I'm trying to keep my refs safe, as I'm in the habit of maintaining them in my "Favorites". Don I hope this is not an inconvenience to refer you to a specific post for data when the relevant information becomes available. This tank has been referred to also as the T-72B and is capable of firing the ATGW weapon and is state of the art for a current T-72. Last two refs cover the FCS and Weapons.
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110610_ethiopia_t72.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/ethiopia_will_buy_200_modernized_t-72_main_battle_tanks_from_ukraine_for_over_100_mil lion_1006111.html
http://en.rian.ru/business/20110609/164533812.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/201106120043.html
http://www.ukrspecexport.com/index/catalogue/t/armor/lang/eng
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72ag.php
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72mp.php
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72msavan15.php
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72m3.php

These will be much better than their current T-72 tanks. Could these be Ukraine UNIT O34 T-72BV tanks that just came off the field but upgraded as the refs suggust? And does the SAVIN 15 FCS rate a higher VISION (Or TI/GSR.) then 30 based on the info provided above?

Regards,
Pat

Follow up for delivery date to put in a Patch Post.
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Couldn't sit on this potential deal it is both big in what is being offered and in the political fallout that might result if approved. As far as the licensed tanks from Spain are concerned I think they are capable of making the 2A6 but it just might be the 2A5, sorry just don't remember off hand. This is a hot topic right now, just providing a sample from the sites I use regularly.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/846/?SID=75649aa27c182a489602662631e870cf
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7010886&c=MID&s=LAN
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110705_leopard-saudi-arabia.html

2. Knew this was coming for a time and it's been mentioned in the refs I've provided for the ARJUN since the start. Now India has decided to proceed with it the T-72M1 upgrades despite how controversial it's been both inside and outside of military circles. I have no data as yet to what extent they'll be upgraded to yet. I'll await info from the "Broadsword" site as well.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/indian_army_is_performing_summers_trial_with_modif ied_version_russiant-72_main_battle_tank_0107111.html

3. Peru going in another direction and apparently the road isn't leading to China.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1944:peru-army-decides-against-chinese-mbt-2000-purchase&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58

4. Finally not a game factor but representative of the issues facing Asia. In this case a matter of "good will" from one of the poorest countries on the planet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/bangladesh_army_will_purchase_44_new_main_batle_ta nks_mbt-2000_type_90-ii_from_china_0107113.html

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Alittle tank and ammo news.

1. The ARJUN MKII trials must be off to a good start, with only half the upgrades in place thus far in the prototypes, IMOD has gone gone ahead and ordered 248 ARJUN MKII tanks. I don't want to say I told you so...yes I do about a year ago. 500 tanks were needed to make the project viable financially though it was in doubt at the time due to pressures from the Army not to buy the the tank. They had no choice after the "duel in the desert" last summer when it ran circles around the newest T-90S tanks from Russia. The T-72's were withdrawn before the competition.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news123677.html

2. More on the German/Saudi LEOPARD 2A7+ tank deal.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news123424.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Desert-Leopards-Germany-Selling-Heavy-Armor-to-the-Saudis-06993/

3. Tank ammo gets more high tech one I addressed in the last Patch, the USA one is newer. First is from DID as well.
http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=67056
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Next-Gen-120mm-Tank-Killer-ATKs-M829E4-AKE-06995/


Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

1. Maybe India won't upgrade those T-72 tanks after all as noted here last week.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120063&c=FEA&s=SPE

2. This will be posted on the APC thread as well. Covered this once before, but K2 backed up to 2013, which I believe was addressed. Will check.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120065&c=FEA&s=SPE

3. Again as above for posting. Not every one's interests necessarily cross over.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120071&c=FEA&s=SPE

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well it would seem I've come full circle back to my very first post on this thread but, instead of dealing with the full
tank (BLACK EAGLE & T-95) my concern and where I need YOUR help is for non-blog & non-wikipedia source information concerning Russia's "newest" ERA package which is just now starting to be applied to their T-90 tanks. Of this information I'm good with, that it was developed for BLACK EAGLE and to have replaced KONTAKT-5, one of the best ERA tiles out there, on the T-95 I'm there. However to ask Don to apply what little information I have that it's 30-50% (From above sources.) more effective then KONTAKT-5, well "I" can't find any real "technical" data for the RELIKT ERA tiles to submit that. At best I'll err on the conservative side of 10%-20% for submission. So for you Russian tank folks this is your opportunity. I need this info within the next 36 hours please as I'm quite frankly two months behind schedule from posting the first PP for 6.0, sorry!

By way of update dropping avaition for the first PP. Had some Land Equip. issues come up over the last month or two so the focus will be there on PP #1 (Is anyone else getting the urge too...never mind!?!) and am re-verifying data entered already going back to April/May time-frame.

Here's an interesting piece of info I came across, this Janes article really made the rounds on the blogs etc. and it's worth noting some of the comments.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?127544-Jane-s-Impenetrable-Russian-Tank-Armour-Stand-Up-to-Examination

Again thanks in advance for any support here, this is really the last piece of the puzzle I need for PP...well I really don't want to say it...but now I gotta go!!

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

In game terms Pat Kontac change probably makes little diffrence, might possibly want to increase the number by one for some units / facings but not worth worying about to much.
I do remember reading the original tests by Rheinmetal & their amazement at how good it was & sudden effort to produce a new gun & move ammo tech forward

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John good to hear from you, I just found it interesting that RELIKT is supposedly 3 to 5 times more effective than KONTAKT-5. Given that, it would seem a first, second or more "first" kill opportunity mathematically decreases significantly. The big difference with RELIKT over most other ERA packages is that it truly does give top turret protection much as the ERA package for the newer IDF MERKAVA 4 (And installed on older ones during Maint. Depot work.) and TDF M-60T. I am also assuming the software in the game accounts for the ERA getting blown off as well until you get to the point of steel after so many hits in the same area? Hope you found the article interesting as I found one or two others in my search that supported the same conclusions to similar degrees. Not to worry after I get cleaned up will be taking advantage of an empty house while CINCLANTHOME is camping with family and friends to finish up #1 for 2012.
This video is good in describing the various protection systems of the modern tank and it's from Russia with subtitles for those that need it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h4uUfYnXUw

Also of note their are several videos out now to show the BLACK EAGLE being tested and the T-95 though still not fully in "focus" enough to give you an idea of it's appearance and some capability mostly that they did not go with the 152mm as you'll see on the BLACK EAGLE videos.

Regards,
Pat

[whdonnelly]

While not an MBT, I wonder if any of your sources have more info on this Scimitar upgrade?

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/UparmouredVehiclesBeginAfghanistanOperations.htm

Thanks
Will

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Will and other interested parties,
For the SCIMITAR this is as good as any place for it as I will not start a Recon Thread and wish someone would take up the UAV cause since there's been so MANY new UAV's out there now with many new users. I'm pontificating thus digressing-sorry!?! I will say upon further reading I will need to address this in my next Patch Post. We are looking at 1. RESET units.
2. Up armored/slat armor. 3. ERA. 4. Redesigned hull which equates to increased crew survival (Along w/1-3 of course.)
5. Increased performance I.E. speed and maneuverability etc.
6. Improved Thermal Sights (TI/GSR). 7. Date extension as required to 2020 (+ in real life if you read the refs carefully.)
8. And Marcello's and my favorite, for those who've followed along in the past, AIR CONDITIONING!!!!
Anyway from my sources...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/scimitar_cvrt_mark_2_tracked_reconnaissance_armour ed_vehicles_begin_afghanistan_operations_1809113.h tml
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news130269.html
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery-Upgrades/British-Army-CVR-T-Armour-Upgrades-United-Kingdom.html
(John you need to get that fund raising campaign going!?!)
http://www.military-today.com/apc/fv107_scimitar.htm
(As noted before because they have good info, lead on new equipment and have great pictures to build off on, though sometimes slow on updating, but in this case it's to our advantage.)

Pic:
11332 11333

These will provide a useful comparison to the "new"
SCIMITAR MKII. And there are some differences if you look carefully beyond the obvious slat armor.

From a little extra research...
http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_11181594242.html
http://rokuth.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/the-old-made-new-cvrt-mkii-scimitar-mk2/
DON'T NORMALLY LIKE blog sites but, he provides some good videos as well.

Also the first article/post was from a regular source of mine as well the "DID" site, Defence Industry...another excellent site that provides regular updates to their articles.

So Will, I hope this helped? My case is presented here as well, so the Patch Post will be easier per agreement-thanks Don for that concession! And I'm off to bed!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

Oh erm yes every time there is some money in the kitty it seems to develop its own cause & fritter away, still the drinks cabinet is looking well stocked.

[whdonnelly]

Pat,
Great stuff. I love this vehicle and often use it in ambush scenarios to shred the AFVs, being fast and much lower cost than the M2 or M3 Bradleys,and allows me to save the tanks and their precious ammo for other tanks. The vision upgrade was the improvement I was most concerned with, so naturally that part gave me the hardest time finding information.
Thanks a lot,
Will

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I was able to go back with the segments from the first Patch Post of 2011/2012 and word tech them and fix some errors, so these are all cleaner then the PP. I was in the mind set of just getting it done, and it showed in the MBT section where it shows I just dragged this out for three months on research, work and other issues. Of course there will be some news at the end but as most times for pics you'll have to go back to the Patch Post. Aviation heavy turned into Land heavy over the course and as such I'll still have a couple of these to present on PP Part II BEFORE the Aviation cycle. So...

This is the first Patch Post for the 2011/2012 campaign. Mostly I'll be revisiting a couple of items from the last campaign, but as such things tend to work out, in researching one topic it invariably leads down a different path or as I like to say "I'm going down the rabbit hole again." that starts right off with my first item. For those that recently started on the topic in the last couple of months, see how the issues with Turkeys LEOPARD 1 tanks lead to other issues. Again I respectfully request that all well intentioned inputs not be posted here, this is for Don, Andy and others who are directly involved with the patch to raise any issues with what I've submitted. I just don't have the time at present with especially work etc. to lose my focus and present the information I have to present and answer any questions from the "Bosses". As I've already indicated this will be aviation heavy just not much else going on out there and though some major deals are pending "supposedly" such as ARMA 6x6 which just this past week signed (OTAKAR) a second contract with another or same unknown country, the 200 OPLOT tank deal with Thailand and the Ethiopian 200 T-72 (AG) (What's with the Ukraine and the # 200 with these deals?) upgraded tank deal both with unknown transaction dates, I just can't in good conscience submit them yet. If no end date is given it will be DEC 2020. Post referrals are again within the topic thread unless noted otherwise. So let's get started by the threads:

MBT’s
1. The matter of the Turkish LEOPARD tanks needs some updating as the record will show; this is to include a significant increase in service life, partially to allow for the M60T development program and just the need to keep and update their newer tanks to allow for the retirement of the former U.S. M48 series tanks they hold. But more importantly all three LEOPARD 1 series tanks bought by Turkey (As well as the LEO 2A4 tanks later.) would prove invaluable as test beds for the ALTAY indigenous tank program, specifically in regards to the ASALEN VOLCAN FCS. The LEOPARD 1 series would incorporate what is considered the MK I FCS w/2nd Gen TS which prompted my Patch Post TI/GSR ? in Posts #49 & #50. Note: The order of upgrades below is simply an educated guess based on the fact that it would make sense to upgrade the older tanks first and leaving the more capable tanks in the field as the upgrade progresses. All we have are the start and end dates of the upgrade from the Turkish government and other sources. The LEO 2A4 would constitute the further improvement of the VOLCON FCS to include the EAGLE EYE TS this would be the MK II system. These tanks would constitute the 1T and 2T sets. The ALTAY will incorporate the MK III system when it comes online. The ASALEN program started in 2002 and ended in 2009, so the end dates should be close based on the number of tanks upgraded, I'm allowing for production time as these are almost taken back to a RESET condition as extensive turret and rewiring work had to be done to include internal hull work as well for additional cooling and rewiring required by the updated systems as well. The previous follows the same logical conclusions as to the start dates when the 1T versions first became available. *There are some "rumors" that some armor work was done as well on the LEO 1 tanks but I can not support that, however the LEO 2A4 were supposeitly updated to the LEO 2A5 level by KMW before leaving Germany at Turkeys request, this is likely, however it's your call. All Turkish LEOPARD tanks came from German stock.

C1. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A3T1/UNIT 035/CHANGE/DATES to SEP 1982-DEC 2020/As noted above in Para. / Total ordered 77 MBT + 4 ARV. All operational units NOT converted to the LEOPARD-1T.

C2. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A1/UNIT 033/CHANGE/To LEOPARD-1A1A1/JUN 1991-JUN 2004/Use GERMAN UNIT 012/The 1A1A1 had a heavier armor package on it in particular around the turret. I can find no evidence that these tanks arrived in Turkey prior to 1990. However as with all the Turkish LEOPARD tanks they are still in service today and into the foreseeable future unless noted otherwise. Total ordered 80 MBT, All operational units CONVERTED to the LEOPARD-1T see A1.

A1. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A1A1-1T/JUN 2006-DEC 2020/USE Turkish UNIT 037 for TI/GSR, FC, RF, & STAB. This is to maintain continuity in the VOLKAN FCS MK I upgrade program & GERMAN UNIT 012. /These were the first to be upgraded with the VOLKAN FCS MK I. Only 171 LEOPARD I Series tanks were converted to this standard, see below as to why. Again only the LEOPARD-A1A1 and A1A4 made up the LEOPARD-1T

A2. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A4T1/JUN 1990-JUN 2007/USE German UNIT 023. /German unit 023 is the best match as the TI/GSR value matches the above unit (C1) to reflect the upgrade to the Carl Ziess EMES-12A3 FCS which Germany also put on their LEO 1A4 tanks. Total ordered 150 MBT. All converted to the LEOPARD-1T.

C3. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A3T2/UNIT 037/CHANGE/To LEOPARD-1A4-1T/JUN 2007-DEC 2020/USE German UNIT 023 for ARMOR and WEAPONS. /
Note: As of 9/4/2011 I've come back to fix this section again, but as I noted above in error* and correctly below* (Back in June.) the armor levels were not updated for the LEOPARD-1T upgrade program as it only dealt with the addition of the VOLKAN FCS MK1. This situation there for doesn't allow for adding just a LEOPARD-1T because the two tanks used retained their original armor levels which is why A1 & C3 are the way they are to show the tank it was derived from and to identify it as the LEOPARD-1T by adding the -1T at the end. It was really the only practical way I could see to show the transition from origin to finished product.

D1. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A2/DELETE/Turkey did not buy this version of the LEOPARD.

* I'm putting in a break here to remind everyone that these are "living" documents with information changing due to newer sources etc. becoming available. Here is an example of how this works, almost three weeks just on the above and the process to finish the LEOPARD issues below, this was brought up in a thread. So...

The LEOPARD 1 tanks did not receive any armor upgrades during the 1T program it was simply for the VOLCAN MK I FCS. Also ref 1 is supported by pic (Poster.) as regards to the dates presented above. Am splitting the refs at this point to avoid confusion between the FCS marks for Turkey’s LEO tanks.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product152.html
Focus on Variant section A1 TO A14 and Turkey section near bottom.
http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/content/article/75
See Turkey section at bottom.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard.htm
http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/projects/land/BattleTanks/Sayfalar/Leopard1A1A1A4T.aspx
From the Undersecretariat for Defense Industry, the office is responsible for procurement, R&D and the coordination of government. private and joint defense industry companies.
http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=79&lang=en Aselsan is government owned. VOLKAN FCS MK I.
Pic:
11336
Is posted here as a reference which I came across while researching the LEOPARD-2T. Also from the Undersecretariat for Defense Industry, responsible for procurement, R&D and the coordination of government. private and joint defense industry companies. This shows not only accurate dates (HIZMETE GIRIS TARIHI = SERVICE ARRIVAL DATE.) but also the unit designation within the Turkish military. Note the date of MAY 2010 Rev. 2. As you'll see the 2T below does not match the picture here.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4375359&c=EUR&s=LAN

A3. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-2A4/JAN 2006-DEC 2008/USE GERMAN UNIT 030/Turkey requested no mods be done by ether KMW or MAK in Germany. All these tanks would end up being RESET to the LEOPARD-2T standard as shown next. Relaying on the fact that the M-60T and LEOPARD-1T series were finishing completion of their programs, Turkey started to feed all 298 MBT ordered into the assembly line for upgrade. This is all ALTAY program driven.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1645.html
Lower left contract section.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/germany-to-sell-298-leopard-2-tanks-to-turkey-01473/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/Pic ref above.

M1. TURKEY/LEOPARD-2A4T/UNIT 039/MODIFY/To LEOPARD-2T/Dates to JUN 2011-DEC 2020/Main Gun 120mm L44 to 120mm L55 with turret mounted RWS 12.7mm, or optional 7.62mm or 40mm AGL. /Armor as required/All TI/GSR & FCS info as required. /NEW ICON. /
All 298 tanks were taken off the line to be RESET with many of the features that will be found on the ALTAY tank. The pictures speak for themselves especially the one showing the LEOPARD-2T along side a LEOPARD-2A4. We have seen how far a LEO 4can be upgraded just look to Canada with the LEOPARD-2A4M CAN and Chile with the LEOPARD-2A4CHL among others. Again this tank will incorporate the ASELAN VOLCAN MK II FCS. It needs to be remembered they are receiving some cooperation from Israel
(M60T with KNIGHT III FCS as carried on late model MERK 3 and early MERK 4 tanks also with part of the current model MERK 4 armor package.), Germany in the LEOPARD support area and the technical licensing with S. Korea with the K-2. They have all the tools, money and technical support needed internally and externally to make things happen. Not "flag waving" here, as most know I've been following Turkey and a handful of other countries MBT development for quite sometime, if you will, because "that's where the action is" in new tank development. Except for the FCS (Might be better?) info, I would recommend the armor set at a level equal to the newest current German LEOPARD-2A6 UNIT 277 or 267 if splitting the difference, unless you can get something more out of the refs and pics I've submitted. This tank could be that good and it is the build from for the ALTAY using some of the armor tech for that MBT.
http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=79&lang=en VOLKAN FCS MK II.
http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=55&lang=en EAGLEEYE FCS.
http://vimeo.com/23746043
I understand the connection limitations you had with your computer but this video plays clean and covers the LEOPARD-2T upgrade pretty well mixing real video of the tank with computer generated images.
http://www.turkishjournal.net/index.php/news/turkey/4002-aselsan-modernizes-leopard-2-tanks.html
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=aselsan-modernizes-leopard-2-tanks-2011-05-06
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/835/?SID=db08fe1884341d73aa106ee4ca41a52a
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/landwarfareintl/idef-2011-new-turkish-leopard-2-upgrade-solution/9013/
Pics:

M2. CHILE//LEOPARD-2A5/UNIT 028/MODIFY/To LEOPARD-2A4CHL/Main Gun 120mm L44 to 120mm L55/Armor levels to the LEOPARD-2A6. German UNIT 037 would be a good fit, better then UNIT 035 that came off the line in 2008./These tanks were 2A4 tanks modified by KMW in Germany at Chiles request to the 2A6 level. See M1 lead in Para.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1645.html
Para. 6.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
See Para. 5 & 11. Also supports M1. above.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/more-leopard-2s-for-sale-sold-04316/
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/Leopard-2-A4_a000451001.aspx
http://www.leopard2.com/variants/

C4. NETHERLANDS/LEOPARD-2NLA6/UNIT 038/CHANGE/End Date MAY 2011./A victim of hard times, at the height of the Cold War the Dutch had almost 1,000 MBT's and what was left were 63 LEOPARD-2NLA6 tanks. The CV-90 will serve as the backbone of their "armor" with a heavy reliance on their AH's for anti-tank support. A proud tradition has passed from their armed services of almost 90 years with recent deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Also they will be selling their COUGAR helos as well along with the LEOPARD tanks, how about it Canada, need more LEOPARDs?
http://www.defensie.nl/english/latest/news/2011/05/26/48183133/Dutch_tank_history_ends_with_a_bang
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24905/
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news120180.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/125640/netherlands-first-in-europe-to-give-up-tanks.html

R1. INDIA/ARJUN/ARJUN+1/UNITS 020 & 021/REMINDER/CHANGE/HF HEAT value. /I can't seem to locate the Posts involved but what I believe what you considered was something between 82-87./To the poster who caught the error, my apologies for not remembering your "name" please feel free to remind me here when posted, it was a good catch that I missed as well.

R2. NORTH KOREA/P'okpoong-Ho/UNIT 025/REMINDER/CHANGE/Main Gun to 115mm/Up armor to T-72 (?)/See MBT thread Posts...never mind Pages 10 - 15./I believe we did settle on the gun issue (Pg. 11 Post #108.) but based on the posts we had the discussion about why the extra 2m length (Pg.14 Post #139.) and extra set of road wheels. Your thinking and I agree based on "hints" in the refs suggest besides having a larger engine (Fact.) it was probably up armored as well. Your thinking was something in the line of a T-72 (Pg. 15 Post #144.) though the "Po" was derived from T-62M1 tank. Thanks again to Marcello for his inputs. On to something else this is giving me "day mares" before I go to bed for the "nightmares" within the hour, in fact I'm stopping here!?!

News...
1. ARJUN MKII apparently will not be fielded until 2015 and it will be the most expensive tank in the world at close to 8 million US dollars making it more expensive than the ABRAMS (Which currently holds that title.) which is around 6.2 million a copy. Arjun MkII will be around ten tons heavier then the MKI (2.5 for the ERA pkg. alone.)
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/08/antony-says-arjun-mk-ii-will-cost-rs-37.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/27433/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/27210/

2. Poland to offer the the urban combat PT-72U produced by BUMAR.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2209:poland-bumar-offers-pt-72u-for-urban-operations&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57

3. Iran getting set for the production of the ZULFIQAR-3. Also note the ZULFIQAR-2 are only test beds. I think this could be a game issue if that's the case.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/iran_displays_new_generation_of_zulfiqar_tanks_dur ing_military_parade_september_22_2011_2209113.html

4. Thailands OPLOT deal with the UKRAINE moving forward as contract for the first tanks was signed almost two weeks ago.
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/business/bus_general/detail/112098/
http://www.ukrainebusiness.com.ua/news/3727.html

5. Indoesia to upgrade it's AMX-13 tanks.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2213:indonesia-army-to-upgrade-amx-13-tanks&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56

6. For this last, Russia is going on a massive spending spree to upgrade it's army this is to include armor in a major way. I'll start by saying the BLACK EAGLE (Post #1-#5.) is not dead...yet. A choice will be made ethier for it or the T-95 so that production can begin in 2014. Also the T-90 will be upgraded as well by the T-90M and T-90AM (Same tank?) which I still have to sort out as I'm finding info for both. The T-90M would fir the Posts #162 -#164.
T-95/or T-99...
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110910/166687063.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/russian_army_is_planning_to_equip_armoured_units_w ith_new_generation_main_battle_tank_2014_1009111.h tml
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news129617.html

T-90...
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2042:russia-upgraded-t-90-with-new-era-protection&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-90_mbt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_speci fications_information_description_pictures.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2216:kazakhstan-army-mulls-t-90am-buy&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/

Well that's it here! Time to hit the rack to avoid any "sea state" issues.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well a little news and updates.

1. First up the Polish ANDERS, it has successfully been tested on another weapons system, the Belgian CT-CV 105mm cannon. So for those keeping score that's the Bushmaster 30mm, RUAG 120mm and now the CT-CV 105mm. I'm thinking a contract within the year, possibly the Netherlands after retiring their LEO's last May or to an Asian country.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/polish_anders_multipurpose_combat_platform_with_th e_belgian_cmi_defence_ct-cv_105_mm_canon_2309113.html
Pic:
11349

2. The "new" Russian T-90S, I believe I've got it figured out that the T-90M will be the Russian version with the T-90AM the export version, as suspected in an earlier post (About 2 or 3 back, I think.), so here's latest the ref, it's the best look at the tank I've seen thus far. I believe I might submit this for the next Patch Post (#2). This also has the newer ERA package also discussed in this thread as will be used on the either the T-95 or T-99 "BLACK EAGLE" of which no decision has yet been announced on which will[B] go into production.
[B]http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/the_new_upgrade_of_russian_t-90_main_battle_tank_unveils_at_russian_expo_arms_2 011_0210111.html
Pic:
11350

3. I find the Greek M1A1 thread very interesting, but have not seen anything yet either to support it from my sources plus, DOD, DOA or Stars and Stripes. However I'll keep a watch out for it as well. This ref has been updated to reflect the current export deals such as 1. Saudi Arabia upgrades, 2. Egypt's additional tanks they are to get and 3. Iraq's final 126 tanks (Out of 140.)and 7 TRVs will be delivered by this December on time. Please note the "Operator" section upper left. Again this ref is updated.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

But if I may, why would they note Australia's M1A1 tanks under the DU Armor protection section? Did that question ever get resolved last year about this time dealing with that issue?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Wdll]

Greece is not going to pay, it is not buying the M1A1s. The only thing to pay is any repairs and the shipping of the vehicles to Greece. It's not a new issue. It's a on going issue for months now and the url I linked to was just the latest.

Regarding the Australian M1A1's, I don't follow what they do so I can't comment on that.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Is this just wrong of me to put this article with accompanying video in this thread? Hard to say, but what the heck. Please read the article first, I've heard rumors of the incident and I think I might've posted something already about the IDF's new and classified ATGW which this was purported to be, whatever it was no one walked away from it.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/video-of-purported-israeli-hit-on.html
When ready to watch the video do so in full screen to appreciate the effectiveness of the ATGW. For the crew a horrible way to go, at least we knew if it was our time it would be relatively quick under all that pressure. The beginning of THE ABYSS still makes me cringe at times.

2. The hidden Indian T-90S situation exposed, the real reasons why India has had production issues in making the T-90S.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/t-90-tank-technology-transfer-supply-of.html

With Christmas around the corner how about some cheap armor as Europe is tighting the belt before you know we'll be back in the good old days of the Cold War as Russia continues double digit growth in defense spending of around 12% over the next three to four years.

3. Indonesia wants to buy German LEO 2A6 tanks.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/921/?SID=7ed1b8ec271e3de57b2766aa1f6885a0

4. Austrian armor fire sale and the end of the line for the SAURERS by 2014.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2572:austria-mod-to-phase-out-majority-of-tanks-inventories&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57

Regards,
Pat

[scJazz]

Is this just wrong of me to put this article with accompanying video in this thread? Hard to say, but what the heck. Please read the article first, I've heard rumors of the incident and I think I might've posted something already about the IDF's new and classified ATGW which this was purported to be, whatever it was no one walked away from it.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/video-of-purported-israeli-hit-on.html
When ready to watch the video do so in full screen to appreciate the effectiveness of the ATGW. For the crew a horrible way to go, at least we knew if it was our time it would be relatively quick under all that pressure. The beginning of THE ABYSS still makes me cringe at times.
*SNIP*

Regards,
Pat

Look closer... after the typical wow neat explosion moment I was all like... "hey Syrian Tank with angular turret!":confused:

Read the comments on the blog :)

Swedish ATGM test on a Centurion.

[Suhiir]

Fairly typical tank kill actually. wasn't even a catastrophic kill. I've seen plenty if Iraqi tanks with the turret laying 10m from the hull; and one T-62 where the turret had hit the ground gun barrel first and stuck - looked like a giant lolly stuck in the ground.

[Marcello]

With Christmas around the corner how about some cheap armor as Europe is tighting the belt before you know we'll be back in the good old days of the Cold War as Russia continues double digit growth in defense spending of around 12% over the next three to four years.

This should be taken in context: Russia went throught more than a decade of very low spending for a very large force structure. This had all the kind of consequences: top of the line interceptors cannibalized for parts to keep some others flying, ICBMs nearing expire date, production lines shut down and specialized workers fire,inventories of all the kind of items thinning out, research slowed down etc. The system consumed all of his fat an quite a lot of muscles too.
In all likelyhood the existing force could absorb a great deal of spending with relatively few immediate and visible effects: nominal numbers of many weapons systems in particular are still going to decrease for a while as the retiring of older systems outpaces new production.

[Suhiir]

I always love the folks screaming about the defense budget here in the USA.
About 50% of it is pay and maintenance (food, housing, etc.) for the troops and can't be cut unless they cut the overall size of the armed forces.
And we're currently involved in low intensity (at least to the folks not being shot at) wars which create additional "can't be cut" expenses.

But let's not reality interfere with the rose-colored-glasses view of how things "should" be.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This is a continuation of Post #141 Item 1. concerning the difficulties India has run into in the transfer of technology and licensing issues in the building of the T-90S in India. Below is part two of the article posted focusing on the "bottom-line" effects on the issues noted above.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/part-ii-armys-delayed-orders-halts-t-90.html

The next gives us a little more insight on not only the current status of the ARJUN MK II but it's capabilities as well, though a date change might be in order as well as adding ERA. Overall 93 modifications will be made over the existing ARJUN MK I to include ERA of a new type. These are "heavy" tanks in line with the ABRAMS, with both MK's coming in at over 60 tons or 20 tons heavier then the T-90S. Refs in order as published.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/heavier-more-lethal-arjun-tank-poised.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/upcoming-modifications-on-arjun-mark-ii.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/large-orders-can-make-arjun-tank.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/improving-arjuns-already-great.html

As a reminder I'm not much for "Blogger" sites, however he writes for the well respected Business Standard covering both domestic and international defense matters and served as a Col. in the Indian Army, those are my standards. Also though to be honest I haven't dug into it hard, there seems to be no further updates on the Turkish ALTAY, South Korean K2 or Japanese TK-X/TYPE 10 (Pound for pound considered by many as the most advanced tank in the world.) tanks the only other NEW tanks in development.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Pat..... as I have mentioned I am up to my ears in work so save me the read because you've obviously already done that and give me a HINT what you think a.....

"date change might be in order as well as adding ERA"

...means

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Not so much for you as me to follow up on, just didn't leave my normal to "Follow up..." note with the :capt: above the Regards like done in the past. Somebody last night :rolleyes: left his jacket in the car and Mother Nature got him wet, windy and cold within the first hour of being on post. Jacket did arrive later but too late to do much good the rest of the way. Like nukes never mess with Mother Nature!! Just wanted some tea and get under the covers until I got it into my head to post. Sorry for the clerical error.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

No problem , all I was hoping for was it's a ahead of schedule or two years behind type of thing.

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
Alright here's what I've got thus far on Indias ARJUN. Will add it to the top of the list as we discussed in our last couple of PM's concerning the OPLOT issue to finish the year with or start with for next year. It looks like the JAN 2012 date for UNIT 022 (MK II) came from Page #8, Post #75 Item #2, which is gone now because the BROADSWORD site was updated. The intro is still there but the IMOD article itself is what contained the 2012 date. However what I need to nail down now is whether a better date isn't JUN 2013 or JAN 2015 from newer updated articles. Though within our "swag" as discussed previously concerning date changes UNIT 021 (MK I+) w/LAHAT might benefit from a JAN 2010-Jun 2010 date change however, for sure the "Ceramic tile" ERA will need to be added for both units above and since we're on topic the Turkish M-60T also, though I know for sure it used the same "tile" ERA as the latest MERK IV though even some refs already posted thought it might be the same as used on the newer MERK4b (I don't see it.) which has a newer more effective variant on it. So the bottom line, carry on with yours, I'll stop with the Helos and get back to this and the other land vehicles as discussed and have it ready for late "production". The list can be taken ALA' CARTE as you see fit. Jets... will a be now a project definitly for next year. The bomber issue (And other types.) must be addressed with the pods now carried over the last handful of years as the target aquistion aspects cannot be ignored.

And to keep my word that when I saw something break on this topic...
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2641:greece-government-considers-us-free-mbt-offer-again&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57

Well like Elmer Fudd, I guess I'll be going down that "rabbit hole" again to hunt those "wascally wabbits"!?!
Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

[gila]

All this is just "suppposed" pipe dreams if they have money thing.
Is getting boring, until it's actual purchashing of those things ,Show the proof or shut up!
I mean i could claim I am an Iraqi bomber pilot,and have B-2 bomber with nukes ready,would you bealive it? ;)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

If the last was directed towards my views 1. Don't read them. 2. The bomber issue has been discussed going back now for 2 years at least with the person(s) responsible for making the decisions around here. I have been unable to to post them because priority is given to armor, arty, helos then aircraft since that's really game priority here, though I know all inputs are encouraged. 3. Those bombers have had this equipment for longer then when I first raised the question by years. 4. The economics are affecting the game, see the last patch post for the Dutch tank situation, the countries in the game already assigned the F-35 that might not not see them because of the clamour to get in these planes (And other equipment.) before they're even off the drawing board and the realities of the actual production cycle as driven in most cases as much by developmental issues as economic ones. And let's not forget the armor fire sale going on in Europe and trying to track where it's going, again, as noted above by example. My window for adding equipment as agreed upon is within a 2 year window of expected operational status based on refs as always provided. Like the CM arty issue a while back I guess I need to "provide a taste" of the refs sitting in my favorites so in a sense I'll have put up and now... well I'll leave that part to your imagination. And this on my workday "Friday" - thanks for that!

1. Look under features:
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83

2. Don't know if this can be game supported or not, but am following development.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news123198.html

3. Watch one of the videos to the right, one shows a cockpit display from 25NM out from the target yet it appears the pilot is on short approach to it. In the last note the table at bottom.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Sniper/index.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sniper-targeting-pods-hitting-the-mark-0562/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/atp.htm

I can "put up" more if you want. By the way, though the shift in the USAF is towards the SNIPER the B-52 flies with the advanced LITENING Pod primarily. Oops one more, where do they all come from!?! :rolleyes:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ATP-SE-LITENING-Strikes-as-USAF-Splits-Future-Targeting-Pod-Orders-06614/
Look at everyone who has them.
Have to go to work, have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Re:MALD-J

The B-52's in the game already enjoy a subsantial EW bonus though not to the Level of the B-1 or B-2

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

If given the opportunity in the next 1 1/2 months I would like to put this issue to bed. Please refer to Post #158, if anyone has a legitimate source i.e. well respected major newspaper or military/defence websites showing that the Ukraine is going to or have shipped these tanks to Ethiopia please let me know in this thread. I will not entertain Wiki type or Blog site information. My hope is that something will or did pop up in Europe that I missed. Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Pat

[dmnt]

If given the opportunity in the next 1 1/2 months I would like to put this issue to bed. Please refer to Post #158, if anyone has a legitimate source i.e. well respected major newspaper or military/defence websites showing that the Ukraine is going to or have shipped these tanks to Ethiopia please let me know in this thread. I will not entertain Wiki type or Blog site information. My hope is that something will or did pop up in Europe that I missed. Thank you in advance.


BBC confirms it in Ukrainian: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/news/2011/06/110610_ethiopia_tanks_rl.shtml

Machine translation here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=uk&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fukrainian%2Fnews%2F 2011%2F06%2F110610_ethiopia_tanks_rl.shtml&act=url

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

dnmt,
Thank you but, I already have several refs dealing with the signing of the contracts which are included in the post already submitted. The piracy incident in Somalia occurred many years ago in the first shipment of T-72 tanks, but have nothing to do with the tanks in question now which are of a much more recent level of modification for the T-72. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS THOUGH.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Ooooh Canada...! A little help with the words here please...anyway Canada continues to attempt to corner the market on the LEOs with a slight twist though. Also this answers the question as to what happened to most of the Swiss LEOs RHEINMETALL bought. A good read on Canada's recent move towards heavy armor and the LEO. Looks also like more LEO 2A4M CANs are finally going to get done from the former Dutch 2A4 tanks bought by Canada. We got these in just last year and it is one of the better 2A4 upgraded tanks out there and are battle tested as well.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/#leopard-contracts-reports-canada

Watch Asia for LEO developments along with parts of Africa. ;)

Also in the house cleaning mode this came up a couple of months ago and it looks like the upgrades are good in the game but I believe Don needed a new icon and updated picture. Here's the article for those following the UK WARRIOR progress.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/WCSP-Britains-Warriors-to-Undergo-Mid-Life-Upgrade-05967/

RHIENMETALL DM-11 for ABRAMS.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/28611/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You know who you are and this was the quickest way to answer, dinner in T(-)5mikes. Everyone this is good info.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraqi-Security-Forces-Order-of-Battle-July-2011-06975/
Look to all the follow on articles.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M1-Abrams-Tanks-for-Iraq-05013/
Look at OCT 14/10 AND 26/09. All you seek is here. I know you look in best I can do on short notice hope this is useful to you and others. A bit of mystrey is always fun!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well if I were a betting man I'd say the F-35 has a better chance to get into the game now than the Indian FMBT. ALTAY and K2 should be fine especially in the case of the latter. ARJUN MKII as is the new Turkish LEO-2T, represent the final bridge to reach those goals for their respective countries. It does not however help the Indian cause that we're not likely to see the ARJUN MKII before JUN. 2013 or JAN. 2014 vice the current game start date as based on the best info we had at the time of submission. Delay the test bed you delay everything after it. So with all this in mind here's the latest on FMBT due in 2018 but NOW POSSIBLY 2020 OR OUT.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/01/fmbt-part-i-army-dithers-over.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/01/fmbt-part-ii-indias-future-main-battle.html

And maybe the civilians can do it better, a most unusual tank design contest. Maybe I'll give it a shot...
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/01/great-indian-tank-design-challenge.html

On the bright side it might be the first new tank for SPMBT BEYOND 2020 AND TO INFINITY!, yeah it is a rather long name, isn't it!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Try - To Infinity and Beyond :rolleyes:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As always I bring them to their homes from the Patch Page Thread.

MBT…
By time this gets posted; the following issues are being resolved for all OPLOT units including Thailand’s: 1) Will get the KBA-3 125mm vice the current 120mm L55 Sw01. 2) Thailand will receive the modified Ukrainian UNIT 063 OPLOT with
the NOZH-2 ERA as carried on the OPLOT-M. 3) Thailand’s fielding date will be JAN 2013. 4) This completes the OPLOT package not all was passed via PM. 5) The refs. are for everyone else and is how I've always operated, it’s my standard, and lord knows I've harped about that enough in the forum. So below completes my entries for the 2011/2012 campaign, Patch Post #2...

C4. UKRAINE/OPLOT (T-84)/UNIT 061/CHANGE/120mm L55 Sw01 to the 125mm KBA-3/ERA equal to value of UNIT 062/Start Date to JAN 2000./The only “OPLOT” tanks to carry the 120mm were produced as demonstrators for the Turkish MBT competition
in 2000 though the actual tank was the export version better known as the YATAGAN (KERN2-120) which was designed to meet NATO standards. All OPLOT MBT’s have ERA installed on them. The OPLOT MBT was offered to Greece in 1998 and Malaysia in 2000 with both the YATAGAN and OPLOT offered. Greece went with the Leopard and Malaysia went with a heavily modified PT-91 TARWDY. The OPLOT entered service with the Ukrainian Army in 1999 according to the manufacturer. Seems to be a split with the 1999 date and when it was first seen in 2001 in a military parade in Kiev with the refs available. The Greek tender is well documented which would support the 1999 date. The armor of the OPLOT is multi-layered, with many surfaces having ceramic/steel/aluminum sandwich-type applique armor. A lesser form of this armor is also found on the turret roof and hull floor. The standard ERA is still the Kontakt-5-type ERA of the T-80UD, but the lugs allow for the mounting of virtually any ERA in the former Soviet/Warsaw Pact inventory, as well as allowing for new forms of ERA in the future. The hatches for the commander and gunner are much more armored, and have hydraulic assists to help the crew open and close the now-very heavy hatches. Like the T-80UD, the OPLOT uses both the Varta and Shtora-1 active protection systems, and have the same thermal and radar signature suppression design features.

D3. UKRAINE/OPLOT (T-84)/UNIT O62/DELETE/This MBT does not fit with the refs provided above or below and is redundant to UNITS 061 & 063.

C5. UKRAINE/OPLOT (T-84)/UNIT 063/CHANGE/120mm L55 Sw01 to the 125mm KBA-3/Start Date to JAN 2011/ERA to the level of UNIT 064/By 2010 the decision was made to significantly decrease production of the OPLOT in favor of the OPLOT-M. Further it was decided an easy and inexpensive method to provide an upgrade to the OPLOT was simply to add the NOZH-2 ERA which could be done in the maintenance depots thus not interfering with the OPLOT-M production which would not be fielded until
JUN 2011. Click on first ref. upper left for further system info; note KBA-3 info provided in second ref. and finally evaluation info as described in C4 above. On the last scroll down about 1/2 way.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84.php
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84armament.php
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84participation.php
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

C6. UKRAINE/OPLOT-M/UNIT 064/CHANGE/120mm L55 Sw01 to the
125mm KBA-3/Increase EW to 5 or 6 VICE 2./The OPLOT-M is considered one of the best protected tanks in the world for the reasons below and should reflect that in the EW rating increase over the above current OPLOT units (EW 4) to which this tank is a much improved version of. The OPLOT-M has an actual ECM system as well as IFF and IRCM system based on their aircraft counterparts; these degrade radar users’ attempts at detection by one level and users of IR-guided weapons by two levels. The ERA of the OPLOT is the more advanced Nozh-2, which protects against both tandem HEAT warheads and provides some protection against AP and KE-type rounds. Machine gun ammunition is somewhat increased over the OPLOT. The OPLOT-M uses the 1200-horsepower turbocharged 6TD-2E, which gets better fuel mileage and emits a much less-obvious exhaust plume with the advantage that it’s faster. The OPLOT-M has a 10kW APU, versus the 8kW APU of the other models of the OPLOT.
* NOTE the KT 12.7 12.7mmMG is a remote operated weapon on all OPLOT versions*
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot_mbt.php
http://www.ukrspecexport.com/index/c...lang/eng/id/42
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

A4. THAILAND/ADD/JUN 2012(NOW JAN 2013)/OPLOT (T-84)/USE UKRAINE UNIT 063/Some refs point to the OPLOT-M as being the tank being bought by Thailand, if true I would think it to be a “dumbed” down version since the technology is new and probably proprietary. This is why I think Ukraine UNIT 063 will cover this situation with the side skirts added. Date chosen based on early production rate of ten units per year for OPLOT-M from manufacturer site. This seems reasonable based that the tank is in production as noted and the initial Thai order of 49 tanks is to be completed by DEC 2013.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4221.html
See the following for further information; Post #151 Page 16, Post #169 NEWS Item #4 from MBT section of Patch Post #1 for 2011/2012 submitted in SEP last year.

After my request in C6. from the Patch Page Thread above a little one on one from Don in Armored Vehicle EW 101:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

.........The OPLOT-M is considered one of the best protected tanks in the world for the reasons below and should reflect that in the EW rating increase over the above current OPLOT units (EW 4) to which this tank is a much improved version of.


Pat, you need to spend some time poking around MOBHack.

For tanks there are 4 "EW" settings

EW 1 & 2 = "CIWS" which is the closest and shortest abbreviation we could put in there to indicate active defence systems. EW 1 gives you one active defence measure, EW 2 gives you two.


EW 3 & 4 = "VIRSS" which is the closest and shortest abbreviation we could put in there to indicate passive defense measures like "Visual and Infrared Screening Smoke"

There is nothing above "EW"4 and 1 is not less than four, just different AND ( what follows seems to have confused people in the past so I'll explain it again ) it's a ONE EVENT DEAL so popping a VIRSS cloud ONLY AFFECTS THE INCOMING MISSILE that tripped that event. It does not linger like a normal smoke cloud and it does it that way because that's the only way we could find to bend this code to simulate this.


Quote:
If a vehicle has VIRSS and a ATGM is fired the game runs a routine to determine if the VIRSS was successful in diverting the missile or not for that , and only that, missile. The "smoke" is just an animation so you know that VIRSS has fired. So "VIRSS" in the game is a code routine the game runs when a vehicle equipped with "VIRSS" detects a ATGM launch.

So "EW" 3 gets you one "VIRSS" shot and "EW"4 gets you 2

"EW" 1 gets you one Trophy / Arena type active defense against an incoming missile and "EW" 2 gets you two

There is no EW 5 or 6


Don

You can always learn something new around here, that's I keep coming for regular dose of...:rolleyes:, :mad:, :o, :shock:, :re:, :doh:, :banghead:,
:fire:,:fight: but mostly for all the :cheers:,:party:,,:rock: and finally just to keep my :capt: on things.
I really hate self inflicted wounds!?! Have a good night everyone!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

From various photos (and export data) the T-72M's purchased by Iraq from Russia did not have smoke discharges.

However, apparently the Iraqi upgrade to the "Lion Of Babylon" version added them.

Photo #1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/dailypix/militarypix/fresh/more/more/even%20more/more/will%20it%20ever%20end/IMG_2587.jpg)
Photo #2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/dailypix/militarypix/fresh/more/more/even%20more/more/will%20it%20ever%20end/051112-A-7969G-011.jpg)

I can't seem to find any data on HOW MANY received this upgrade however.

[DRG]

......see anything that indicates now many smoke rounds are fired to obscure the tank when SD are available??


Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I would think one is the answer. I give you a USA FM ref. again tables 19 and 21 are your focus. Note safety distances for accompanying infantry in combat at 50M and for training at 100M. Browsing the web and going back to the earliest and therefore minimum coverage we're looking at about 30M to ~75 DEPENDENT on grenade type used. Most modern IR/LASER disruption types are ~50M+ as the tables above will indicate as they would release solid and chemical materials that might injure supporting troops again as noted above.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/appc2.HTM

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

......see anything that indicates now many smoke rounds are fired to obscure the tank when SD are available??

Don

Nada.
But going off the photos I'd have to say one as well.

[Marcello]

From various photos (and export data) the T-72M's purchased by Iraq from Russia did not have smoke discharges.

However, apparently the Iraqi upgrade to the "Lion Of Babylon" version added them.



Suhiir, those in the pictures are almost certainly the ex hungarian T-72s Iraq purchased a few years ago, rather than those which were purchased/assembled under Saddam. Neverthless a lot of pre 2003 iraqi T-72s sported smoke dischargers, so mine is just an academic point.
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2443/bmp120destruido620if333.jpg
Here is one for example.

In regards to the specific versions. T-72M1 has smoke discharges by default.The T-72M is more murky as some do not have them and some apparently do (if they are in fact M), that's the sort of things manufacturers love to tinker with so it is hard to be 100%sure.
Unfortunately I am not familiar with the operation of the Type 902 series of smoke dischargers used on T-72s, so I have no idea if there are multiple firing options, but salvo fire is the norm with such systems.

Here is for example a description of the M250 smoke grenade launcher (mounted on the Abrams) operations, as can be found here (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/launchers.html).

Pressing one of two push switches in the turret sends an electrical charge to the dischargers. Dischargers are wired to fire grenades from alternate barrels. Pressing one push switch launches a salvo of six grenades (three from each discharger). Pressing both switches launches a salvo of twelve grenades.

[Suhiir]

I brought it up mostly because in the current version of the Iraq OOB none of the T-72 variants have smoke discharges.
Sot it was more of a - Which versions should have them? - question.

[DRG]

I brought it up mostly because in the current version of the Iraq OOB none of the T-72 variants have smoke discharges.
Sot it was more of a - Which versions should have them? - question.



REALLY ??

Now that is interesting.

What version of the Iraqi OOB are you looking at ?

Please open MOBHack then the Iraqi OOB then I would like you to check each T-72 , including the Iraqi modified variants, and then list for me the unit numbers of every T-72 or variant of the T-72 in the Iraqi OOB that do not have smoke discharger's.

Don

[Suhiir]

OK.
I win the STUPID award for the year.

For some unexplainable reason I was looking at the "EW" rating not "Smoke Dischargers" when I was trying to figure out why the AI never seemed to use smoke when I was testing a scenario.

Don ==> Suhiir :crazy: :hammer: :tough: :fish:

[DRG]

:doh:

Nah..... you wouldn't even make the top ten......although that EW line isn't anywhere near the SD line........:smirk:


:)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

So let's tally up the score thus far over the last couple of weeks in this thread...
Me 0 :confused:
Suhiir 0 :confused:
And the winner is... EW with 2pts.!! :rolleyes:
Boy after 2011 I think we can all use a vacation! :cool:
If we can't laugh at ourselves once in a while, this just would
too much like a job, and I already have one of them!?! :happy:

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Jobs?
That's a 4-letter word, didn't your mother tell you not to use those in polite company?
Wait...
Squids and Jarheads ... we're the ones our mothers warned us about ...

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Suhiir,
AMEN TO THAT!!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well things have been a little quite "up on in here" as they say down here. Minor change to my postings to help me keep track of some of these issues that aren't on my active list for the Patch Post Thread.
Anyway first up, Ukrainian APS and ERA that drove my OPLOT PP for both Ukraine and Thailand (Yes this is a little bit of house cleaning too.). Also in Gallery section note Poland's use of these systems for ANDERS and ROSOMAK. Last marks the progression from the T-80UM to OPLOT/YATAGAN, A VERY GOOD REFERENCE POINT FOR THE TANKS COVERED.
http://fcct-microtek.com/c_zaslon.html
http://fcct-microtek.com/b_duplet.html
http://fcct-microtek.com/a_knife.html
http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm
FYI-SUBMITTED FOR PP 2011/2012 SUPPORT.

Well it's been covered already about Russia's military expansion and modernization program (Not to mention major increase in arms sales.), some months ago I reported that a decision was pending by the Army to commit to ether further development of the BLACK EAGLE or T-95 which I've been tracking for two years now and constitute my first two posts to this thread. Well the result will now be the ARMATA which has a very good chance to be Russia's first non-legacy tank in a very long time. It will keep the 152mm MG with improvements. As a side note the Russian tank gun manufacturer site I've posted here in the past, is now "forbidden" for me to access...Hmmm! Anyway Prototype by 2013 and expected fielding in 2015. This tank is still under a cloud of controversy with the Asst. Deputy Director questioning the cost vs procuring advanced LEOPARDS that are now available...hope he likes his new post in Siberia!?!
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/32525/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/the_new_russian_main_battle_tank_protype_armata_wi ll_be_completed_by_2013_1702122.html
TRACK FOR LATER SUBMISSION IN THE PP.

Well they're making it sound like the T-90S is a new tank or something however, and while maintaining it's current designation (For now.), these are actually going to be RESET T-90S tanks to fill the void until the ARMATA joins the Army. Azerbaijan has committed to buying these tanks.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/the_new_upgrade_of_russian_t-90_main_battle_tank_unveils_at_russian_expo_arms_2 011_0210111.html
TRACK FOR LATER SUBMISSION IN THE PP.

Don picked up on this from an earlier post and was looking into the MG issue I raised. MIGHT be changed if justified. This is Romania's MBT.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tr-85-mbt/
FYI

A part of the Russian arms deals mentioned. Algeria will get the
T-90C I have to verify the type against what they have already in the game.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrussia-to-supply-t-90-tanks-to-algeria-turkmenistan/
VERIFY TYPE; POSSIBLE SUBMISSION TO PP.

Well if Europe doesn't want them others do...the LEOPARD PROBALY going to Indonesia.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsindonesian-leopard-mbt-procurement-plan-faces-criticism/
TRACK FOR LATER SUBMISSION IN THE PP

Tanzania getting the new TYPE-59G.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2011_army_military_defence_news_uk/army_of_tanzania_is_now_equipped_with_a_new_chines e_main_battle_tank_type_59g_271211.html
ADD IN NEXT PP.

WARRIOR upgrade program. I had a question about this and Don responded as it's covered in the game, I believe a new picture and ICON was needed however. I don't remember if this ref was a part of that question or just my poor "housekeeping" anyway it'll be gone in a minute.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/906/?SID=534cef3c172e9713004df6d89509dbc9
FYI.

This is what happens to some tanks, in this case most to all of the Swiss LEOPARD tanks, they are being converted to the BPz 3 BUFFEL (BUFFALO) ARV and being sold to Canada. See contract section.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/
FYI.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Before I post this update concerning the the RESET upgraded T-90S, I must apologize to whdonnelly (Will) and some others, I was asked to provide any additional information I had concerning the SCIMITAR MKII, See Pg. 17 Posts #165 & #166, as these were RESET units with significant upgrades I said I would enter these on my next Patch Post. Unfortunately I will offer no other reasons except that I simply forgot to do it. However rest assured that it will be item one on the MBT list for the 2012/2013 campaign, this came up as a result of the next item. I do want to point out that I actually recieved a couple of PMs concerning my post on the SCIMITAR MKII as well, it's the only piece of equipment that I've said or have put on the PP lists for submission to generate that kind of interest, more for sentimental reasons I think. And why not it's better protected and has already saved lives, see the last two refs below. So again my apologies and here's some more info for you.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_kingdom_british_army_light_armoured_vehicle/scimitar_mk_2_mark_ii_cvrt_technical_data_sheet_de scription_information_specifications_pictures.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/29625/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/british_soldiers_have_survived_a_strike_of_ied_in_ afghanistan_with_new_upgraded_scimitar_mk2_0811112 .html
Pic:
11741 11742

11743

Alright now here's the update for the T-90S RESET it will apparently be faster with a modified new engine, have both a new FCS and ERA that was mt for the T-95, with other refinements as well. I think it safe to consider this MBT much like the new Turkish LEOPARD-2T (Or "NG" Next Generation by commercial name.) the final stepping stone for the Turks to the ALTAY and for the Russians to the ARMATA. We'll soon get a look at the T-90S RESET at the end of the month in India.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/33309/

DON'T DROP THE BALL ON THIS AGAIN!! For 2012/2013 Campaign.
:capt:

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First a little self incrimination; I had and knew this :pc: information already and even reported on it in an earlier post on pg.17 :doh: :banghead the "new" RESET T-90S is the T-90MS. Again the end notes are reminders to my self as I ready myself for the 2012/2013 campaign. This next site gives us our first real good look at the T-90MS as displayed last Sept. It'll be 1500kg heavier then current T-90 variants in the Russian Army bringing the weight up to 48 tons, the carousel loaded 40 round 125mm 2A46M-5 has been modified to the point it will have increased range, a new FCS, a "newer" modified version of the RELIKT ERA, APS, RWS MG with range to 1500m, improved weapons storage to increase crew survival and more you'll just have to read on it. What I want to see is whether or not any more modifications are made from this when shown in India at the end of the month. There have been rumors that a deal is in the making with India to upgrade their T-90S tanks to the MS standard, both sides deny this, and India wasn't happy with the way the Russians have treated them over the T-90S situation as I've posted on here earlier from the BROADSWORD site. And India is committed to the ARJUN and FMBT Programs as well plus the fact the Army's modernization program is reduced per the ref below last. Also this confirms for me this the bridge to the ARMATA.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-90ms_main_battle_tank_data_sheet_specifications_in formation_specifications_pictures.html
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120217/171360722.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/03/army-modernisation-slow-navy-air-force.html
TRACK AND ADD.

2. Russia to also make improvements to 170 T-72B MBTs to include a new ERA (RELIKT), FCS, COMMS and engine. They've modified a tank plant just for this purpose. I believe this more an upgrade then RESET program and yes there is a difference. I would look to the
T-90MS for the FCS and COMMS equipment.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/russian_army_began_to_modernize_its_fleet_of_main_ battle_tanks_t-72b_0903123.html
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120217/171360722.html
TRACK AND ADD.

3. Update on the Algerian tank deal; the T-90C is not in the OOB but they have the T-90S. So the T-90C (As posted earlier with a newer ref.) will be a...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/algeria_will_buy_120_additional_t-90_main_battle_tanks_to_russia_1802122.html
TRACK AND ADD.

4. The Indonesian Govt. is starting to sound like the Indian Govt.
now; Is it the LEO or not (It is now, I think!)? The Dutch had the inside track but...Is it the Dutch or the German LEO's? Somebody please make up your mind, that felt good and here's the update.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/indonesian_army_considers_the_german_leopard_2a2_m ain_battle_tank_as_the_best_offer_1003121.html
TRACK AND ADD.

5. Peru in pursuit of a newer and heavier MBT originally chose the Chinese MBT-2000 to fill the need, however, yes they changed their mind. They've decided after extensive tests between the LEO 2A6, OPLOT T-84, T-90S and MBT-2000, to go with the T-90S as it was felt it better suited the terrain and could afford to spend a little more. The T-90S will replace the Peruvian T-55 tanks which was considered for an upgrade, however their neighbors are going bigger and better..
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/peruvian_army_discards_the_chinese_mbt-2000_for_the_russian_t-90_better_for_areas_in_peru_1303124.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3000:peru-army-discards-chinese-mbt-2000-opts-for-t-90s&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58
TRACK AND ADD.

6. And on those :censor: :eth T-72 tanks from the Ukraine, I've managed to identify the type as the T-72AG. The "when" is still a mystery. I'll keep at it.
TRACK AND ADD...SOMEDAY!

Well if I don't show any progress on my other hobby, I might find myself "IN THE DEEP DARKS" with CINCLANTHOME!?!

It's sooo good to know the 2012/2013 campaigh is already off to an early start for me!?! :rolleyes:

Enjoy your weekends!!!!!!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

My God already back checking data and this is a "zinger" but might save unnecessary work later ;). It seems we have a Russian cyrillic language issue, which indicates that the T-90S and T-90C are one in the same! Wait for it, it gets better the T-90S/C is also sometimes referred to as the T-90E as well on the net, though not "officially". And you wonder why some of us get frustrated out here dealing with this stuff. The following is representative of many I've found addressing this issue. It's also again a darn good site. See the Variant section second para. Go to a Russian site such as Army Guide that I use and you'll pull up the T-90C. Maybe one of our friends from St. Peters-burg can chime in and confirm this.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-90S.htm

So no new tanks for Algeria just T-90S for NOW per OOB.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

IDF fielding a new defensive ATGW system. Sounds like a sense, point and shoot system such as the LEOPARD-2T, ARJUN MKII and other newer MBTs are getting equiped with and or upgraded too now. Will keep an eye on it.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3038:israel-idf-equips-with-new-laser-based-atgm-defense-systems-&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56

Did I mention the LEOPARD-2T and ALTAY above? They both look great in 6.0! The work seems to have paid off, GREAT JOB EVERYONE!!! What you thought I'd wait to Christmas!?! Get outta heerre! Good Night EVERYONE!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Will/whdonnelly and PM others,
If you haven't already looked, check the UK OOB UNITS 635 & 636. You'll find Christmas came early, while I was browsing through a couple of OOBs, somebody fixed my missed "oops" and saved me some work. Don the SCMITAR MKII looks good all the way around. Thanks for the "pick up" on those units. As CINCLANTHOME would say, I can now "give your (my) brain a rest"!

Regards,
Pat

[whdonnelly]

Thanks, to you and whoever else helped, that's good stuff!
Will

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

OOB EQUIPMENT UPDATE: As I've done in the past, I try my best for any equipment submitted in a Patch Post and as refs become available to update it's status if game entered. This helps validate my ref sources and other info submitted for a piece of equipment. Now you know the why (And you won't see that again!:rolleyes:) So... Turkish ALTAY on track game fielding date 1/2016 is right on target.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/timetable-unveiled-for-turkeys-defense-boost.aspx?pageID=238&nID=16950&NewsCatID=345

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well for those that have been following along in the Patch Page Thread I had a question concerning weapons rng. (4,000m+) and the TI/GSR to match that ability. We know the Max. TI/GSR is 50 held by the Merkava 4/4b. I openly eluded to 3 OOB's, 3 MBTs and 1 IFV. I indicated more time to evaluate the information was needed and I am now prepared to present my findings w/% of certainty of increasing the TI/GSR to a minimum of 50 and adding to the list.
1. USA M1A2 SEP V2 and the current BRADLEY. 100%
2. Russia T-90MS (Also test bed for the ARMATA.) 100%
3. ARJUN MKII 95%
ADD:
Some of these are based on the fact that delays in some programs can be linked with technologically advances made during the delays for an improved weapons platform for any branch of service.
4. Turkey ALTAY 100%
5. Russia ARMATA 100%
These next two are under rated except by what the publications say about them. I believe based on their lack of "history" in this area there's a bit of a bias out that goes contrary to what they write about these tanks.
6. South Korea K2 85-90%
7. Japan TYPE 10 (TANK X.) 85-90%

I've already posted on all these and the info is throughout the thread. Don will get more specifics info later in the Fall if needed.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/digital-abrams-the-m1a2-sep-program-updated-02834/#more-2834
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34936/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5230
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/59049-t-90-ms/
http://en.rian.ru/video/20120329/172467162.html
http://defense-update.com/20120329_international-debut-for-the-russian-t-90ms-tank-upgrade-at-defexpo-2012.html
Will have to post later the info I have that the USA 2ND HBCT already fully been reequipped with the M1A2 SEP V2 and improved BRADLEY, site is done for maintenance.

Re posting this site for you designers.
http://www.the-blueprints.com/

MODIFY UNITS AS NEEDED.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Here's the article showing that the USA 2nd HBCT (Heavy Brigade Combat Team.) is operating with the new M1A2 SEP V2 and improved
M2A3 BRADLEY. The improvement allows for positive target identification from ~3000m+ currently to ~4000m+ and as noted the optics/FCS has now caught up the capabilities of the ammo at over 4000m lethality. I will be posting soon that the current U.S. TOW is in final evaluation status with much improved optics/FCS as well. The range has also been increased to double the current advertised range, it might be fielded this or early next year.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsus-armys-2nd-hbct-upgraded-vehicles/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I need to step back on my last two posts and point out what factors I'm looking at to get to the assumptions of why those tanks listed thus far and to be listed below should probably have their TI/GSR ratings increased to 50. So what are my baselines? Well first off the MERKAVA 4/4b a tank well discussed in the past in this forum that has caused a person or two to get banned for their "over enthusiasm" on the topic at the time, but as most agree is a very formidable weapon and easily in the top ten in the world as are some of the ones listed already and to come below. The other is now the M1A2 SEP V2 so I have a baseline of known MBTs and capabilities. What are those capabilities? Simply this can the tank identify a target out to ~4000m+ and can it hit it using either conventional ammo or missiles if so equipped or with both. I will list a tank below that I thought without even looking would easily have made it into the group however, it can only identify a target to 2500m with a target recognition range of 5000m. I hope you caught the difference in terms and recognize what each means. I don't presume to know the criteria that Don has used, this is an independent study if you will of the information I (As well as you can find.) have found through my sources. Now you know how I got there and here's the rest...
8. UK CHALLENGER 2 with TOGS II ~2006 @ 100%.
9. UKRAINE OPLOT M @ 100%.
10. GERMANY LEOPARD 2 A7+ @ 100%. Note: The late model A6 versions are unknown at this time and to further complicate matters the latest foreign versions as well though off the top of my head I suspect the Swiss and Swedish versions might be in play(?).
11. France LECLERC @ 0%. The last known upgrade was ~2006+ with a second generation system as described above coinciding with one of the refs as supplied below. Second generation I know limits the TI/GSR to 40 unless additional info is found, this was discussed between Don and myself concerning a couple of tanks about two years ago (M60T?) in the Patch Page Thread.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/
So this is my work list, some might be in the game already others as noted require a further look as this is preliminary at this time.
And before it gets brought up, China from what LITTLE is out there is at mid level second generation at best for now.

VERIFY AND SUBMIT MODS AS NEEDED.

If I hurry I can get ~6hrs before work, sooo much better then when I was on the (das) boat!?! Have a great day all!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt: He sails on again!! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The news keeps coming so along with it the work list to some extent...

1. About ARJUN MKII I agree with the updated start date. I might be looking at a date change for ARJUN though, but I'm not ready to "pull the trigger" on that yet and not here either. But some issues have come up. The big one being Russia is trying to push the T-90MS over the ARJUN MKII. As you might or not remember the Indian Army set up a head to head competition between the ARJUN and T-90S (Platoon or Company of each, can't remember.) over a period of a month with the surprising result (It performed better then expected by it's Army supporters and Developers.) re-soundly beat the T-90S in all categories. The push is for the same with the updated versions of each. Thus far the ARJUN MKII is doing very well in the current evaluation process that included ~100 upgrades all together.
Also LAHAT and TROPHY addressed here.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/upcoming-modifications-on-arjun-mark-ii.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/the_indian-made_main_battle_tank_arjun_mk_ii_will_perform_a_w eek_firing_tests_in_may_2012_0705121.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/04/russia-displays-modernised-t-90-at.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/india_will_equip_its_main_battle_tank_arjun_with_t he_israeli_lahat_laser-guided_missile_0204122.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3090:india-arjun-tank-gets-israeli-laser-beam-riding-120mm-shells&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/indian-made_main_battle_tank_arjun_will_be_equipped_israe li_trophy_active_protection_system_0504122.html
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE INDIA MOD ARJUN TIMELIME JUST SEE THE HEADLINES FOR MY CONCERNS WITH MKI DATE. MORE ON WHY AND WHAT HAPPENED LATER.
http://www.india-defence.com/focus-14
TRACK FOR MODS.

2. Keeping the only plant open in the U.S for tank production, don't worry Congreess stepped in on this one.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34981/
FYI.

3. RTA COS reviews the OPLOT though I must say it looks like the "M" to me as we discussed was a possibility when I submitted it for 6.0 and I see provision is already in place should it be.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/demonstration_in_ukraine_with_the_t-84_oplot_main_battle_tank_for_a_delegation_of_thai _army_2303122.html
TRACK TYPE & FYI.

4. Iran equipping ZOLFAGER with new FCS. Also I believe the ZOLFAGAR 2 is in the game and should be deleted as it's only a prototype test bed.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/zulfiqarmainbattleta/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/latest_iranian-made_zolfaqar_main_battle_tank_will_be_equipped_wi th_new_modern_fire-control_1204121.html
MOD ZOLFAGAR 3 w/FCS DELETE ZOLFAGAR 2.

5. This caused a stir in India.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120328/DEFREG03/303280001/Leaked-Letter-Reveals-India-8217-s-Military-Weaknesses
FYI.

6. Russia scrapping a lot of "T's" from the Army. Dates could be an issue here for current inventory in both the Army and OOB.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120323/172346264.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3052:russia-army-to-scrap-old-t-tanks&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
TRACK & FYI.

7. The push is on for the SAF to find a new tank. I believe last year I noted they were looking into LEO 2A4, T-90S, OPLOT and one other that escapes my mermory now, but should in this thread. This still comes from the "You think!" catagory. The OILFANT is to under gunned and thin skinned for the neighborhood it's surrounded by.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3152:s-africa-army-requires-new-battle-tank&catid=36:africa&Itemid=55
FYI & TRACK.

8. Armor and Jets going into storage in Austrialia, yep budjet cuts again.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3238:australia-planned-cuts-to-include-phase-out-of-aircraft-armor&catid=39:oceania&Itemid=66
FYI.

9. Indonesian human rights issues could stop sell of Dutch LEO to that country.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3240:indonesia-dutch-pm-opposes-export-of-tanks-&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
TRACK & FYI.

10. Italian CENTAUROS to Russia? Could happen they have already ordered the LMV (See MRAP Thread.).
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120512/173407220.html
TRACK & VERIFY Italian GUN TYPES.

As of 1 JUNE I'm shutting down the "news" side of things in all "my" threads to focus on the Patch Page inputs. As many know, if you have an issue or piece of equipment you want looked into, I'll answer and do my best to help. So it begins (Not that it really ended.) this news format was intended to help me stay organized and it gives you a view of my work list and how things change. Update #1 HELOS 3/4 done from last year to now. Jets will be next with VISION issues to be asked and hopefully addressed as SNIPER, LITENING and Russian and Chinese systems are prolific now. That's just one mans thoughts. So I'm ready for Don too be :tough: :mad: :re: but hopefully :rolleyes: :) once in awhile as long as I don't do too much of these
:doh: :banghead: :pc: :deadhorse: well one can hope anyway ;)!! So to start the 2012/2013 Campaign I promise NO EQUIPMENT INPUTS FOR NEW ZEALAND!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[gingertanker]

i havent been here for a long time and now i saw a pm regarding some questions about merkava. i looked around the thread and saw some heated discussion. if someone can write shortly what the main points of content were, i will try and help. ofcourse my intimate knowledge is with the Mk II, not with the merkava mk IV. But i have seen them operate and i know very very well the tactical ideas behind the design.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well welcome back then! The hot topic of two years ago now I believe, had to do with how many combat troops the MERKAVA was able to carry internally. As I recall the number ranged from 2 to 8 combat troops depending on who chimed in on the topic and the source material presented. I think I settled on 6 even though I presented info that indicated 8 as well. When that was addressed in the 5.0 or 5.5 Patch the carry went from 0 to 4which seems a reasonable solution to the issue pending further definitive information. See Patch Page Thread Post #3 Item M4. Also see the MERKAVA Thread currently resting on Page 5 of TO&Es. More recently and in the last couple of posts I used the MERKAVA and the newest version of the ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V2 to start a conversation/investigation on other tanks whose vision should be increased to 50 (Like the MERKAVA currently.) based on known current FCS on board those other tanks.

Regards,
Pat

[gingertanker]

Ok...So, i can accurately reply about the merkava mk II, and if i makae mistakes, they will be very minor and the result of changing my position and not having been in a merk for some 4 years now.

The "corridor" or "back-corridor", as we call the rear entrance of the merkava was originally installed to allow easy bail-out for tank crews. it replaced bailing out from the turret hatches, and allows the crew to mount/dismount the tank quickly and without climbing up and being exposed to enemy fire. this is effective to the point that in the Mk IV, the quick mount drill is done by the rear corridor, not by hatches.

to the left and right of the corridor are the main ammo stocks, made of 12(im almost certain about this, if im wrong dont kill me), 4 round milspec-fire resistant polymer cases. they are capable of being assembled and dissassembled, so you can choose to have more or less ammo cases. in maximum capacity they hold, as noted 12X4 round=48. in addition 6 rounds are carried in a rack just under and to the left of the gun, near the loaders legs. these are used for quick loading, with the 4 round cases in the back used to refill the 6 round rack or if needed load to the gun. There is also a possibilty, almost always used for white phosphorus rounds, to stack rounds in the lower front area of the hull, just outside the turret ring, in(up to 3) removable 2 round up-right polymer cases. this is meant for the WP, which is far more accurate if allowed to stand upright before firing, for technical reasons i cant be arsed to spicify right now.

so, the corridor is placed in the center rear of the hull, with 6 4 round packs to eahc side. it is roughly(dont take me to court) 1.6-1.75 meters long, and allows a man to more or less lay, allthough probably will have to bend his knees to fit in properly. it would be a hard press for 4 infantry troops to fit there, and almost impossible if you consider their gear. I would say 2 easily with full gear, 3 with some of the gear in the rear outside storage. 4 would be possible, but so severly unconvinient that they would arrive half dead to the combat area. i think in the merkava 4 its a little roomier, so i imagine they could do 4 guys with some discomfort and alot of good will.

but! the ammo stocks can be very easily removed, and with one side removed you could have 24 rounds left in the tank and easily carry 6 men or maybe more. with all rear ammo removed you can fit in two strectchers with wounded and 2-4 medical team. so lets assume for the best mix of troop and ammo(Mk II), you could have only 24 rounds in the rear+6 ready to fire+6 in upright cases=total 36! and still carry 6 men easily in the back. 36 rounds aint that bad. i would assume(although i dont know for sure), that the same is true for mk IV, only probably less rounds, possibly 24-26, because 120mm is bigger.

hope this clears some things up.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yes this helps and backs up the points that were brought up as the topic was being addressed in the MERKAVA Thread from the crew issues, ammo reduction and a couple of others related to trying to get the numbers to work in fact I believe the picture I submitted in Patch Page Post #5 shows 4 soldiers exiting the MERKAVA IV while it's engaged. It sounds like 4 is reasonable to you as well? Also I thought the MERKAVA IV is about a meter longer then previous Mks as well, but would need to go back and check to make sure.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

From another IDF tanker see the photos related to this current discussion scroll down to -1/2 to 3/4+ down these are the best interior shots of the MERKAVA I've seen to date and read the captions please. A very interesting site, however, to maintain full combat capabilities I'm thinking let's leave well enough alone, Don has struck the right balance here. To further specialize these tanks for combat troop operations would for now take up precious equipment slots. However who here doesn't think I'll revisit this in the 2019/2020 campaign? Well those that answered wrong haven't been paying attention, it's paper filed now as well.
http://www.supervideo.com/MXCD-ROMOS.htm

Regards,
Pat

[gingertanker]

what weapons slots need be taken? the weapons that do not fit in the slots are the 0.5 M2HB and the 60mm mortar. The mortar is nearly useless for SPMBT use, the way it is used by tank crews is irrelevant in the game. the 0.5(12.7mm) was originally placed on the Merks for training, but later was found to be usefull for operations in urban terrain such as gaza. in a realy war, even a small scale one like lebanon, the 0.5 is usually removed or at least not used.Winspmbt is not a tank simulator, and there are many weapons used by the tank crew its simply cannot simulate with only 4 slots. other than the 12.7mm and the 60mm, dont forget that we also use handgrenades at short ranges, white phosphurs smoke grenades to attack close range infantry, and even our personal rifles if needed, fired from the commanders hatch. This is not improvisation, i am talking about drills by the book. the game cannot simulate all this.

actually as merkava commander the stranest thing for me is that in the game, a tank cannot run over infantry. cant tell you how many times i was thinking to my self that a pesky inf unit in the same hex as one of my tanks would have simply been run over and pivoted to death in real life.this is also a drill in the idf, which the game cannot simulate.

[DRG]

Yes this helps and backs up the points that were brought up Also I thought the MERKAVA IV is about a meter longer then previous Mks as well, but would need to go back and check to make sure.

Regards,
Pat

Acording to Military today.....no

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/merkava_mk3.htm

Hull length 7.97 m
Width 3.72 m
Height 2.66 m



http://www.military-today.com/tanks/merkava_mk4.htm

QUOTE" The latest Merkava Mk.4 is slightly larger than the Mk.3. "

and these are the dimensions they give.....

Hull length 7.6 m
Width 3.72 m
Height 2.66 m

They also claim the Mk 3 holds 50 rounds. It's why getting the "right" info is a challenge sometimes

Don

[gingertanker]

as i recall from the few times i was in a merkava mk IV, the corridor is actually the same length or slightly shorter than previous models. it is however slightly wider and taller.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I was talking about equipment slots as in adding additional tanks to the OOB. We understand about the weapons slots as I was educated on this by others out here (Thank You!) on the limitations when I first started submitting equipment to the game. I remember getting hung up on that when I submitted the Turkish M60T (SABRA variant.) concerning the 60mm mortar. I'm more concerned about TROPHY being back fitted to the MERKAVA III series (BAZ) as it appears that program has been accelerated based on yesterdays website posting, that means they've finished with the MERK IV back-fits as well. To the length issue, I saw that last night as well from that and other sites, couldn't remember for sure without checking back myself. Will have to look into the TROPHY issue though.
It looks like the monsoon season will be extended this year!?! :rolleyes: ;)

Regards,
Pat

[gingertanker]

ahhhh. i get what you say.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well everyone seems to have survived Beryl, just a lot of yard work earlier between the rain. Anyway this what's left of my MBTs...
1. Already reported on the new M1A2 SEP V2 as an ADD, this is the VISION 50 TI/GSR version. So it follows that the now called
M1A2 SEP V1 would be converted (Probably a as time allows game name change to be submitted?). So a possible end date change should be DEC. 2014 or JUN 2015 which allows for a seven month program delay or our "swag". lower LEFT FOR REF INFO SOURCE (GD.).
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2430.html
ADD SEP V2 FOR SEP MODIFY NAME AND CHANGE END DATE.

2. As reported yesterday in the APC Thread, Columbia after a couple of years, is again up for consideration by Israel to be the MERKAVA's FIRST foreign customer.
TRACK.

3. If you've been following along in this thread and the Patch Page one, I'll be submitting several tanks for vision increases to 50 based on published and manufacturer info. Some tanks didn't make the list because of the use of 2nd GEN FCS which is limited to 40 TI/GSR. LECLERC fell into this category, which frankly surprised me me at the time. Does it make it a bad tank? NO IT DOESN'T, one reason is that the FCS (Now I fall back on memory.) can track and target six tanks within I believe a minute-that's decent fighter poop there! And here's another for the same reason from a respected site covering that country out of the UK.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type99-system.asp
FYI.

Well that was easy enough, and I just recieved a message from my Comm CTR. that the rains are letting up and those TYPE 99's are approaching my Thai troops sector with heavy mech. infantry support. Have to get to the CP before Gen. AI hits me with his arty.
He likes his arty! ;)

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I want to now finish out this thread with the last of the work list items.

1. Sweden also adding EVO to STRV 122 as noted in the last APC Post concerning the CV-9040.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=457
http://www.haaland.info/armour/index.php/swedisharmour/swedishtanks/63-stridsvagn122
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35969/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/german_company_ibd_presents_evolution_concept_for_ mbt122_tank_and_cv9040_infantry_armoured_0706121.h tml
http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/mbt-evolution.html
ADD.

2. IDF changing armor tactics.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsidf-new-warfare-technique-tanks
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35908/
FYI.

3. It never hurts, as new people come in and old ones misplace it!?!
I'll keep it, don't worry, be happy! Sounds like it could be a song!?! :rolleyes:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0534/lsn1.htm
FYI.

4. Scandinavian Armour site.
http://www.haaland.info/armour/
FYI.

5. Tanzania TYPE-59 modernization should be completed now. Based on this as dated it was nearing completion. Reported on this earlier in the thread in Post 205 pg. 21 when started, work done by the Chinese.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3362:tanzania-type-59-modernization&catid=36:africa&Itemid=55
MODIFY/ADD.

6. Morocco requesting U.S. assistance to upgrade it's M1A1 tanks to M1A1 SA level. We'll do it too...any betters out that we won't!? ! :)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Uncle-Sams-Sale-M1-Tanks-for-Morocco-07435/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/morocco_has_requested_a_possible_enhancement_and_r efurbishment_of_200_m1a1_abrams_tanks_2006123.html
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsmorocco-requests-us-upgrade-m1a1-abrams-tanks/
TRACK/MODIFY.

Tank news/work list now completed.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Alright now I know of about three people out here when they get wind of this are going to start clamoring to get the ANDERS in the game again. However this is a cautionary tale when words like "expected" are used. Well "I'm not asleep at the switch" yet and as some know I've been tracking the ANDERs development for sometime. I would expect these to be the NATO spec ANDERs with the RAUG 120mm or the Belgain CMI CT-CV 105mm. We'll see. Well guess what? Tracking it still...
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3828:poland-mod-orders-1000-new-tanks&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/anders-multirole-combat-vehicle/

And a bonus for Don and all the rest...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/india_is_developing_a_new_recovery_vehicle_based_o n_the_new_arjun_mark_ii_main_battle_tank_0308122.h tml

And since some are having an ERA moment...the MK II ERA is of an advanced gen NERA type which is very effective against TANDEM warheads (TOW, RPG-29 etc.) The ERA adds about 2.5 tonnes (Olympics in the UK sorta thing.) which is included in the overall weight and is also mounted on the side skirts as well.

Gotta see a man about a flat top, watch some more of the OG and have a wonderful day at work!?! Everyone have a wonderful weekend!

Well the ref did say "tanks" and of different varients, I think part of this could include the heavier stuff like the Dutch LEO's, the Indonesian deal fell through, however, the recent deal with Germany didn't.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Because information is sometimes perishable even on the net, I better put a status on this for the 2013/2014 campaign. So with the above post on the ANDERS MBT I'll add the following...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/polish_army_plans_to_acquire_1_000_new_main_battle _tanks_and_tested_new_polish_tank_anders_0608126.h tml
http://www.armyrecognition.com/belgium_belgian_light_heavy_weapons_uk/ct-cv_weapon_system_105_120_mm_turret_armoured_armore d_cockerill_gun_vehicle_design_development_prod.ht ml

In the first ref is a picture of the ANDERS MBT from EUROSTATORY 2012. Note the simulated firing of the FALARICK ATGM in the picture. These Medium tanks will also be equipped with Israels TROPHY System.
TRACK/ADD

Here's some news to help clear the que all FYI...
1) TROPHY beats off another ATGM attack, so far since being equipped with it the IDF TROPHY 6 ATGM/RPG 0, that should be about right...
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3836:israel-trophy-foils-atgm-attack-in-ghaza&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56

2) Something I've had my eye on for over a year now, getting even more interesting last month, it'ds here for a reason you'll just have to read for yourselves...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Desert-Leopards-Germany-Selling-Heavy-Armor-to-the-Saudis-06993/

3) ARJUN MKII, we'll just wait but, they're saying it'll be ready sooner. However like someone else I know date changes can be a PITA and we've changed this one twice already I believe. I'm good to leave it alone until we get closer.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsindia-begins-developmental-trials-arjun-mkii-mbt

4) OPLOT-M gets the "tech" treatment at last...
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/oplot-m-main-battle-tank-ukraine/

5) Does this mean Russias new MBT the ARMATA is in trouble and will go the way of the BLACK EAGLE or T-95? I don't think so for now anyway as the Russian Army for the most part seems to think it's time to go in a new direction with a new design...
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120703/174384885.html

6) Taiwan wants 200 new tanks, where will they come from. A prediction if we don't do it maybe a look will be given to the Ukraines OPLOT-M. Thailand is very happy with theirs and they would hold their against anything China has now.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newstaiwan-considering-used-abrams-mbt-purchase-us
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/taiwan_is_considering_the_purchase_of_200_american _main_battle_tanks_2307124.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Posting this now as the site pulled it from their archives based on the contract news of the past week, This will save sometime later. This will be my last on ANDERS until the contract gets signed,
http://www.armyrecognition.com/poland_polish_tanks_heavy_armoured_vehicles_uk/anders_120mm_light_tank_expeditionary_technical_da ta_sheet_specifications_description_pictures_video .html

I made mention of this in the previous post concerning the Russian cuts in R&D and offered my thoughts concerning the ARMATA, here's an update and a little something extra...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/russian_army_could_receive_new_main_battle_tank_mb t_armata_for_testing_in_2013_0908121.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_she et_specifications_information_description_pictures .html


Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I seem to remember a few +months back I believe someone (Don?) asked a question concerning smoke grenades for tanks and their effectiveness. I think the question was settled as I recall relating to coverage area and range. Below is the info as it applies to the VARTA system as equipped on the OPLOT. This will either reinforce the answers given then (To include mine.) or cause maybe a closer look and slight adjustment. Key points are highlighted.

http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/index.php

SPECIAL PROTECTION MEANS

Optronic countermeasures system

To improve the tank protectability, the Varta optronic countermeasure system is integrated in the tank.

The optronic countermeasure system provides:

•confusing of the guidance systems of ATGM by putting out laser jamming covering the horizontal plane of ±18° relative to the main gun tube and ±2° in the vertical plane
•jamming of the ATGM guidance systems that use laser illumination of targets, semi-automatic laser guided homing projectiles as well as artillery systems equipped with laser range-finders by activating the remote fast-deploying aerosol screens in a sector of ±45° relative to the main gun tube
Optronic jamming station

Time of readiness 6 h (unlimited in combat conditions)
Time of uninterrupted operation 6 (в боевых условиях не ограниченно)
Sector of setting the light interferences relatively the gun:
in elevation ±2 degrees
in azimuth (relative to the gun barrel axis) ±20 degrees

Aerosol screen laying system

Mode of operation automatic, semiautomatic, manual
System reaction time in auto mode less than 0.5 s
Coverage sector by four laser emitters:
in azimuth 360 dg
in elevation -5 to +25 dg
Qty of launchers 12
Grenade caliber 80 mm
Screen laying range at least 50 m
Applicable grenade:
time for laying the screen not more than 3 s
average area covered by a grenade 10x15 m
effective screen duration time 60 s

A little news...
1. As the picture shows the MERKAVA tank deal for Columbia is now dead. Columbia was to have been the first export customer for the MERKAVA.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4153:colombia-tank-tender-axed-ifv-tender-accelerated&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58

2. Indonesia's LEO deal with the Dutch has ended as well. However the LEO A6 is the MBT of choice. It should be somewhat easy to figure out where they are getting them from, if not it'll be on the Patch Post.

3. TROPHYS all around!! Well if your a MERKAVA. They are actually moving at a rapid pace to get them installed on all their MBTs. B)The next is more see what happens when "Can't we all just get along?". C) A little something about a pulse cannon.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3589:israel-armored-brigade-completes-merkava-mbt-upgrading-with-trophy-aps-&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4144:israel-mod-to-launch-vehicular-active-protection-suite-tender-&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/israeli_military_is_drawing_plans_future_main_batt le_tank_with_electromagnetic_pulse_cannon_1307124. html

4. Well the next isn't the best image I've seen of the ARJUM MKII, hopefuly it'll go up from here. Evaluations are on going as of late June/early July.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/new_arjun_mk-2_unveils_by_combat_vehicles_research_development_ establishment_of_india_1808124.html

Have a great weekend!!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I've been doing some research concerning the Warsaw Pact that will represent my first Patch Post. While conducting that research I came across this CIA assessment of Soviet tanks, possible use against NATO, composition of Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries to include Non Soviet Warsaw Pact (NSWP) and more. Along with the USA field recognition document posted again below as well, you designers ought to have variable "field day" with this info. The first and others I'll use for the Patch Post come off the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) CIA website. They are in PDF format though they have another format available but you'll have to go to the site for that. Also if using PDF, USE THE DOCUMENT PAGE NUMBERS-NOT THE PDF ONE, that's because the first pages are blank where routing info and notes would've appeared. These refs compliment each other though there are five years in difference between them. Oldest first. Enjoy!
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261345/DOC_0000261345.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0534/lsn1.htm

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The McMahon Line was established almost a hundred years ago and has been disputed over since, it lead to a border war 1962 between India and China and there have been other incidents since. This area is still considered "hot" even today between them. China has been spending huge amounts of capital in infrastructure both in rail and road transport. China has had some "firsts" in this area themselves in troop deployments but more importantly military exercises (Which Broadsword has covered in detail as well.), but for me this is about India's push for and desire to attain the T-90MS (Which is on my list.) and the first time armor has been deployed to this area as described, for some this is good reading, for others this could be a "catalyst" for a scenario or campaign Note also in the article the armor unit formation data which might be of some use as well.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2010/08/india_and_chinas_territorial_disputes
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/09/in-first-india-tank-brigades-to-defend.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/09/roads-to-readiness-defending-china.html

Thought about the scenario etc. forum but it didn't seem to fit there, so enjoy the tank talk. But like the MMRCA,CH-47F, To SPA OR NOT (They just cancelled a 4th tender, though they managed to get down to 2 contenders this time.), AH-64D "LONGBOW" and finally the ARJUN II we might see the T-90MS...SOMEDAY!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I was using these as part of a "research" project I was working on. I did not want to waste these resources so I intend to post them on both the Jets and Planes...and MBT Threads. The information has been verified by history and newer documents released from other sources. They serve to both inform and to assist the game designers out there. Posted twice as not everyone has the same shared interests.
The below are from the CIA, released ten to twenty years later from date of the reports, classified Secret to Top Secret. All are PDF formatted.
CIA AIR...
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261313/DOC_0000261313.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000278545/DOC_0000278545.pdf
CIA LAND/AIR...
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001099668/DOC_0001099668.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261340/DOC_0000261340.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261345/DOC_0000261345.pdf

Regards,
Pat

[PN79]

I've been doing some research concerning the Warsaw Pact that will represent my first Patch Post. While conducting that research I came across this CIA assessment of Soviet tanks, possible use against NATO, composition of Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries to include Non Soviet Warsaw Pact (NSWP) and more. Along with the USA field recognition document posted again below as well, you designers ought to have variable "field day" with this info. The first and others I'll use for the Patch Post come off the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) CIA website. They are in PDF format though they have another format available but you'll have to go to the site for that. Also if using PDF, USE THE DOCUMENT PAGE NUMBERS-NOT THE PDF ONE, that's because the first pages are blank where routing info and notes would've appeared. These refs compliment each other though there are five years in difference between them. Oldest first. Enjoy!
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261345/DOC_0000261345.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0534/lsn1.htm

Regards,
Pat

I consider interesting that CIA judgment about czechoslovak tank force was about 2000 tanks less than in reality. There were 4585 tanks in 1st July 1988 and that number is without several hundreds of T-34 still in storages but officially disbanded and waited for scrapping.

[DRG]

It's one reason why old documents/reports like this should be be taken with a grain of salt. 25 year old "intelligence analysis" is only useful as a curiosity.

When we started this project, these type of things were all we had to work from which is why OOB work continues to be an ongoing project and why people dig up "weird" errors sometimes


Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

That report was one of the older ones posted but dealt with total force units by the countries without accounting for the Soviet tank divisions within a country which in some cases would easily double or +triple the number of tanks in any given Warsaw Pact country. What was important in posting these documents was the fact that the strategic and tactical planning and the overall types of equipment involved in carrying out those plans has been shown by later Russian released documents and ones from other sources (Governmental and or Military.) have in most cases supported that analysis. But the bottom line here is generally speaking this isn't a game of how many as much as what equipment and tactics. For that reason it was posted as a tool for game designers and a reasonable start point for equipment and general information, I.E. how interesting would it be to play East Germany with Russian T-80 tanks involved, which ware only posted there. Poland even had some Russian equipment that was unique to there as well as in Czechoslovakia to support the mission requirements of those fronts.
But as Don has pointed out yet again if the documentation isn't thoroughly read through, incomplete, or from dubious sources and or is otherwise misunderstood as happened to me in looking into the Warsaw Pact as will be discussed below, these issues cause long term game equipment problems, because the other item Don didn't mention is how much equipment got into the game while in the developmental stages or just because some blog or other started with "I heard (Or saw somewhere that...) that...". I would take the time to read it all as I did and see how time and better Intel changed some of the data and note the transition from the offensive mindset to the defensive one of the mid 80's.

This issue has come up in the past here in the "East German OOB" Thread and other places and references (To include the USA among others.) of did East Germany operate the T-62. Though the thread used overall some "lesser" sources but provided the majority of the data, and though far from perfect myself, I dug into a matter further to get the "final answer" (Yeah right!?!). So I directly contacted the German National Tank Museum which is run both by the city of Munster Germany and the BUNDSWEHR it is located on the site of the BUNDSWEHR Officer and NCO Armor training grounds and school...

T-62 MBT‏
9/20/12 Reply ▼Reply
View profileTo panzermuseum@munster.de
From: patrick conklin ()
Sent: Thu 9/20/12 2:33 AM
To: panzermuseum@munster.de

Good Morning!
I've been doing some research I whether or not the DDR NVA was equipped with the Soviet T-62 MBT. Except for a U.S. Army field recognition training manual supported by JANES (1990/1991) of Soviet/Warsaw Pact Armor, the preponderance of evidence suggests that only Soviet Forces stationed in the DDR used them. So I felt the matter was settled until, I came across a well known European travel guide online service that supposedly shows what's described as a "Soviet made T-62 tank that was in the service of the East German Army". I could not make out the nationality marking on the turret, though the tank numbers look Soviet to me. Can you clarify this for me? Was the NVA equipped with the T-62 MBT?
I hope you can help as I know you are the German National Tank Museum. Thank You for your time and patience!! If you reply please do so in a separate email as some replies seem the get "redirected" before getting to me.
Have a Great Day!!

Regards,
Pat Conklin USN/SS Ret.
"Im Unterseekraftstolz läuft tief! Aber mit jenem gleichen Stolz vergessen wir nie um unsere Kameraden noch auf ewiger Patrouille."

The bottom line full final response...

AW:‏
10/16/12 Reply ▼Reply
From: Ralf Raths (@deutsches-panzermuseum.de)
Sent: Tue 10/16/12 7:29 AM
To: patrick conklin

Hi Pat,
I answer your mail regarding the T-62 – that’s more my field than Julias.
You’re right – the T-62 was never officially issued to the Nationale Volksarmee. This is the reason why this tank has the Red Star as a marking and not the sign of the GDR.
So, organisationally it doesn’t belong in this area, but of course no tank museum would be complete without showing this design, so we placed it inside the row of T-models to show the big leap in gun technology.

Best wishes
Ralf Raths

I hope you noted the wording after "never", that wording indicates where the confusion started with this item in the past possibly. So there you have it no DDR T-62 tanks, sometimes you have to go the extra mile or two!?! And do me a favor read the whole thing please! Thank You!! Maybe they can answer the TIGER tank speed question(s) as well!?!
Now about that French 105mm arty, a PITA if ever there was one, but not forgotten...

Here's the website...
http://www.panzermuseum-munster.de/?page_id=1273

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well still dealing with some issues, but I felt these items warranted posting. I have a couple of updates and if you will a "validation" of an item submitted last year or the year before that Don added, it's good to have consistent references and the first item points that out.
1. Don the 3D rendering can now be replaced maybe by one of these pictures now but unless you have an issue with it the ALTAY Icon is probably good as it stands. The first two prototypes are on time and already out on the test range. One is being used for on and off road testing the other will test the weapons systems. The next two prototypes will incorporate any improvements noted after the initial trials are completed. Full rate production is still planned for early 2015. South Korean
K2 tech went into the ALTAY as well as lessons learned from the
M60T Project with Israel (SMI) and the LEOPARD-2T project. Note it has sixteen grenade launchers mounted.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/turkey_defence_company_otokar_presents_first_proto type_of_national_main_battle_tank_altay_2211124.ht ml
12152 12153

12154 12155

12156 This last because I've not seen many good pictures of the T-129 we entered a couple of years back but to check what start date we gave them as is obvious they're flying here. Though I think we had them operational this past summer if memory serves.


2. After the disappointment of the BLACK EAGLE (152mm MG) and the T-95, this is a case to paraphrase "Lots of news is good news" the ARMATA is going to provide the basis for many different platforms. The T-90MS is the test bed for the ARMATA and will probably be the last modification of the T-90 as well. The ARMATA prototype is still on track for early or mid 2013 and it will be unveiled at a military exhibition.
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121122/177676314.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/russia_will_develop_new_artillery_and_air_defense_ systems_based_on_armata_tank_platform_2311121.html

3. Flash...ARJUN MKII news is a little "hush hush" but fragments coming out suggust the on going evaluations are going well. If successful enough (More then originally planned for.) tanks might be ordered to retire the T-72 tanks. The T-90S as built in India will likely stay around. Based on the problems India was having with Russia in getting some of the parts needed to complete building the T-90S, India is still mulling over the idea of getting a licensing agreement to also build the T-90MS.
Flash...Nov. 9th Indonesia reaches agreement to build a light tank in a joint venture with Russia.
Flash... Russia to design and build a new IFV for it's Airborne Forces. Expected to be fielded in 2015/2016.

Today was a good day all around, I hope your weekends are as well!!

Regards,
Pat

[luigim]

I think that Zulfiqar 2 needs to be deleted from the OOB, like you said in the previous post, because it's only a test bed, and Zulfiqar 3 has to be added.

http://iranmilitarynews.org/2012/09/11/iran-repeats-that-its-upgrading-zulfiqar-tanks-to-meet-modern-threats/

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/zulfiqar_3.htm

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/zulfiqarmainbattleta/

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/zulfiqar_2.htm

Regards, luigim

[luigim]

First question: are you sure that there isn't in service a version of M1A2 TUSK with APDSFS rounds ( 20 SABOT 20 HEAT normal combat load) that would be classified in game in the normal MBT section and not the Urban Tank section?
I think that ERA armor would be useful in pure armor combat, and TUSK is a field installable kit that allows tanks to be upgraded without need to be recalled to a maintenance depot.

Second question: I read in this link
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2011/16.pdf

and in this link

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm

that M1A2 SEP has 42 round instead of 40 ( in the game is 40).


Thanks.

[luigim]

Another question: in the USA OOB Cavalry Troop has 5 Morale and Experience Mod, while Cavalry Tank Section has no morale or exp mod; Cav Tank Section is in fact the same as MBT Platoon. Maybe there is an error and it needs to be updated with +5 Morale and Exp Mod?

Regards

[DRG]

Another question: in the USA OOB Cavalry Troop has 5 Morale and Experience Mod, while Cavalry Tank Section has no morale or exp mod; Cav Tank Section is in fact the same as MBT Platoon. Maybe there is an error and it needs to be updated with +5 Morale and Exp Mod?

Regards

It's been corrected

Don

[DRG]

First question: are you sure that there isn't in service a version of M1A2 TUSK with APDSFS rounds ( 20 SABOT 20 HEAT normal combat load) that would be classified in game in the normal MBT section .

It's designed for urban combat that's why it's armed with the really big shotgun

[DRG]

Second question: I read in this link
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2011/16.pdf

and in this link

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm

that M1A2 SEP has 42 round instead of 40 ( in the game is 40).


Thanks.


It's somewhat amazing that considering how long the M1A2 has been in the OOB's with the wrong ammo load and how many people play that OOB that you are the first to spot and report it

Good catch

ON THE OTHER HAND there are a lot of websites reporting the A2 carries 40 rounds including

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product429.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a2_abrams.htm
Don

[luigim]

Rainy sunday in Perugia, Italy.

That's why I'm critic-looking to the OOB.

Remember to add the right ammo number to the incoming ( in the next patch) SEP v2 tank.

I suggest an add:

Ukraine is upgrading its T64B to T64BM Bulat.

Here are the links:

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64bm_bulat.htm

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmbulatmbt/

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_218.html

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well as most know I've been tracking the ARJUN MKI/MKII for a long time now. But since I was "side-lined" for a few months I lost track of the trials of the MKII around mid/late summer of 2012. After the MKI utterly destroyed the T-90S in trials in the summer of 2010 (Indian MOD pulled their T-72 tanks before the trials to avoid embarrassment, SEE MORE IN THIS THREAD.) I was looking forward to the results. Today since the Patch work is done (Thanks Don!) at my end for this year, to look into it. Well MOD/Army politics has gotten in the way along with economics as well. It took 35 years for India to get to the ARJUN, how many to the MKII? Who knows? I'm not proposing any date change etc. for the ARJUN MKII and the program is not dead. Also the purchase of the T-90MS (AM-Russian.) is old news if you've been following this Thread. The source is good and used many times by me and the Business Standard he writes for is an old and well respected news agency for you newer folks. In order...
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/11/army-scuttles-arjun-trials-to-push.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/11/army-proposes-to-scrap-future-main.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/11/general-indifference.html

These are good reads that provide valuable insight how things work. Like the F-35 grounded again this Friday. Turbine fan stress cracks in the engine that should be good for a few months delay or longer a parallel though for different reasons but no less political or economic..

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

A useful site I subscribe to to get full download privileges and it's free. So while looking beyond the one good ref I have (Happens a lot with smaller countries unfortunately when dealing with equipment. And yes the work never really stops it seems!?!) concerning Argentina getting the first of it's updated TAM tanks from Israel, I came across this that some might find helpful Again this is the sample offered follow the directions if you want the rest.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105269884/Jane-s-Tanks-and-Combat-Vehicles-Recognition-Guide

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Unlike the Helo inputs, Don did have some feedback on the below items more about UNIT #'s etc. then the "nuts n bolts" of the equipment as presented. So you'll find a cleaner version here then was posted originally in The Patch Thread.
Otherwise nothing new here.

Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013. The first two items “real” purpose will be to provide a litmus test of real world technology meets game play realities. I can only provide the raw data and offer my interpretations of the information. Helo A7 and MBT A1 are there because they’re real and a decision will have to be made by Don and Andy in what direction this info will ultimately take the game in as the end date approaches. It is out of my hands but, we have arrived at a crossroads. What’s not here that some maybe expected? Yes you might be right if you guessed the Russian T-90AM/MS (Export version.). Why? Simply I have data and stats of all sorts, what I don’t have are production and acquisition dates for anyone including the Russians. So it’ll wait and hopefully I’ll get that info later this year. I will not throw a “Hail Mary” and enter it hoping I’ll be close to getting it right (or wrong.) there’s been too much of that already here by others in the past. Also the SAA OLIFANT now there’s a project and that’s why ~30 minutes ago I thought this can wait until next years campaign as well. Again I traveled the world and saw nothing now how does that happen!?! And please remember Post #1 for all others. Thank You!

MBT’s…
A1. USA/ADD/JAN 2012/M1A2 SEP V2/USE/MODIFY UNIT #637 with CROWS II .50 CAL/TI/GSR 50-70.//
The Army is currently operating with only three types of ABRAMS tanks. These are the M1A1 SA (These are the ones IRAQ are using.) models used by the Army Reserve and National Guard, the M1A2 SEP V1 and now the M1A2 SEP V2. The “heart” of the V2is the complete redesign of the new FCS and associated systems. There are engine and associated system upgrades as well more to efficiency and improved maintenance capabilities. Not clear as to any improvement in speed though, which is probably fine as is. The CROWS II system carries 5 times more ammo then previous machine gun systems carried of the .50 Cal class. These tanks are projected to be operational until 2050. The issue here will be “how far” so I’ll start with a quote from Commander of the 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 63rd Armor Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Henderson off Ref. 1 below …"The optics [system] has finally caught up with the ammunition," Henderson added. And…"The ammunition has always been able to kill at extended ranges but the previous optics did not allow us, in some cases, to positively identify targets beyond 3,000m." The new FCS now does this but, more on that below. All associated systems will need to be improved from FC, LRF (?) & STAB. The current BRADLEY’s have the same system as well, there is a new variant with the “BUSK” pkg I’ll submit next year to include this FCS pkg. The minimum from the quote above puts the game range at 60+ the maximum based on a couple articles I've read would take this out to 4500yds or 4115.800m which = 82.296 hexes. The article in ref 1 does mention 4000yds as well. I’m more concerned with the “positively identify targets beyond 3,000m.” part, I feel the time has come and we can’t ignore the reality of this situation. This will be the “MERKVA 4b” crossroads point of when that was advanced to TI/GSR 50 awhile back. Reference two will address the new M829E4 Kinetic Round that will push the “Vision” that I believe is already there now out to the 70+/- range, then what do we do?
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...aded-vehicles/
http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...ts/SA_0911.pdf
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2430.html
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

A2. TANZANIA/ADD/OCT 2012/TYPE 59G/RESET/MG Chinese 125mm SB w/Rds UKN/12.7mm and 7.62mm w/Rds UKN//
The tanks were shipped to China and RESET and during that time China has set maintenance facilities in Tanzania to support these tanks and other Chinese weapons systems bought there. The TYPE 59G represents the apex of the TYPE 59 development. The 125mm MG with auto loader is based on the Russian 2A46M 125mm MG. The turret appears to be the same one that’s on the new Chinese TYPE 96G. Based on that it would appear then also it is carrying the same EW system as the TYPE 96 which is similar to the Russian Shtora-1. It has been up armored with a new and heavier turret to support the MG, electronic and electrical systems have also been updated to include a new FCS and it also supposedly received new more powerful engines to provide the power needed for all the new systems onboard and the AC required to keep them cool. AC in tanks is just like AC in Subs, its there for the electronics first and crew comfort hopefully in a close second. This is probably true as the original engines would have problems in this area and in dealing with the extra weight and the need for additional speed as well. Note: It would appear this improved version of the Chinese TYPE 96 is not in the OOB as shown in Ref. 6 below. See UNIT 026. The refs refer to “the new TYPE 96”.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rica&Itemid=55
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...9g_271211.html
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59.asp
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china..._pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china...igence_uk.html

A3. SWEDEN/ADD/OCT 2004/STRV 122B/Use UNIT 358 and modify per below as needed//
The big issue here is protection over the base German Leopard tanks that the STRV-122A and STRV-122B design modifications are derived from. First a breakdown of the STRV Series. The STRV-121 is a Leopard 2A4 as used by Germany at the time of purchase by Sweden in 1994 and 1995 they are both interchangeable. The first STRV-121 became operational in Feb 1994 and are in storage dates range from late 2006 TO 2010. Ref. 1 does not currently list them, see C1 below.
The STRV-122A is a “German” Leopard 2A5 but that’s where the comparison ends. The Swedes had the STRV-122 frontal and side armor improved upon by adding a 3rd Generation add on armor to include glacial armor and the turret and spall liner installed. The major area in armor improvement was in the top protection for instance the turret hatches are just over 20cm in thickness. After extensive testing the Swedes decided on a geared system for opening them at even severe angles. Another major upgrade is the replacement of standard German smoke grenade launchers with the Gallix System. The Gallix System is essentially a soft-kill active defense system with a few extra wrinkles. The system uses nine grenade launcher tubes on either side of the turret, both of which can be rotated from +45 degrees to -5 degrees, independently of each other. (Standard elevation is 30 degrees, if none other is selected.) The Gallix System also includes sensors atop the turret to detect and warn of incoming targeting lasers and active IR targeting systems. The system can be set to launch one or more smoke grenades (either standard smoke or IR-obscuring smoke) automatically if lasers or IR targeting is detected, or the commander can choose to launch them at his command. Any of the grenade tubes can also be loaded with antipersonnel close-defense grenades (similar to the tactical buckshot or flechette rounds of grenade launchers); these must be fired by the commander (there is no provision for automatic firing of these grenades). Other types of grenades that can be used in the Gallix System include HE-Blast grenades and fragmentation grenades; again, these must be fired deliberately by the commander. They became operational in late 1997. See C1 below.
The STRV-122B has been further upgraded in a joint project with Germany and later the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. After extensive testing by the Swedes in the ability of the LEO to withstand IED and advanced RPG attacks. KMW did the work resulting in the German LEO 2A6M (30 modified with 20 to be later leased by Canada to support their Afghan Ops.) and STRV-122B (14 modified at this time.). Out of this project came additional improvements such as an armor plate on the bottom/lower front (See pic below.) for increased protection against IEDs, all around add armor, new improved spall liner throughout the interior, an improved vision system by better protecting the vision heads, vision blocks, rear camera, and the laser designator apertures, and improved better protected ammo storage as well. Per Ref. 1 the EVO package will be on the MBT 122B+ (Sounds like LEOPARD 2A7+ doesn't it?). Note Ref. 1 below is an official Swedish Defense source. Tank issues start on page 14.
http://ointres.se/2012-02-21_Lindstrom_IAV%202012.pdf
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
http://www.haaland.info/armour/index...-stridsvagn122
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=457
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35969/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_...d_0706121.html
http://pmulcahy.100megs3.com/tanks/swedish_tanks.html
Pic:

A4. INDONESIA/ADD/JAN 2013/LEOPARD 2A6/Refurbished/Use GERMAN UNIT 033//
I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time here. I've posted on this tank deal for over a year or so already in the MBT Thread. Made some allowance for further training and logistics concerning the start date. Basically this was part of a move to better defend the country against the expansion of the Chinese military and the perceived threat it might have on the region and some local issues. This tank deal was started with the Dutch shortly after they took their LEO’s out of service and decommissioned their heavy armored units. See pg. 7 POST #65 C4 of this Thread. Anyway the Dutch parliament had issues over the (MOD and heads of Government supported the sale.) sale due to the Human Rights issues surrounding Indonesia. Indonesia had already evaluated several tanks and wanted the LEO’s and Germany stepped in ready to sell and support them once in country. The decision as I posted in the RE: SWEDISH Thread was easy in that the current LEO 2A6 was too advanced and expensive. Which left me with several options of which German UNIT 033 the best sense by date of service, time in storage and cost per unit based on the deal made and units ordered initially (Currently the order was increased to 103-105 units depending on source.) I further removed UNITS 034 and 035 for the same reasons as the current active German units. We will never know which one they got for sure without the release of specific contract information. I could only review the “calculus” of the information at hand and previous deals made to come to this conclusion. Part of the reason the Germans allowed for more tanks is the final negotiation of contract talks for the sell of MARDER 1A3 APCs in the last ref below but that’s for next year along with many other APC items I have. So much for brevity…anyway here are the refs in historical order...sort of.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1612112.html
http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/172/1256722/
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...2a6-mbts-deal/
http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/07/...-german-tanks/
http://www.defensie.nl/english/lates...ds_with_a_bang
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news120180.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...r_1003121.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...y_1409124.html

C1. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-121/UNITS 357 & 359/End Date to DEC 2010/ Refs per A3 above.//
The STRV-121 had for several years faced inactivation due economic strains in the country after the STRV-122A became operational. I have been unable to find any information that any have been sold off at this time though, due to the current time crunch I’m under to get this out, I haven’t spent any time to dig hard on that issue. They are however without a doubt out of service and I feel pending better information and as per Ref 1 of A3 above feel comfortable with this information.

C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-122/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/Change to STRV-122A/Modify per A3 above/Refs per A3 above.//
Most of the STRV-122 units are to be upgraded by the end of this year. It is unclear but likely they will include many of the changes made to the STRV-122B. It is “rumored” to be getting a new FCS as well which is why (If I remember correctly.) it’s on my list for the tank TI/GSR improvement over current game numbers as posted in the MBT Thread.

C3. IRAN/CHANGE/ZULFIFAR/UNIT 030/To ZULFIFAR 1//
C4. IRAN/CHANGE/ZULFIFAR 2/UNIT 032/To ZOLFIFAR 3//
The army recognition site reposted all the info they had on these tanks. Normally these do this when they have gotten more information on a piece of equipment. With Iran being one of the more secretive countries we deal with (N. Korea comes to mind as well.) you have to take advantage of any information that might come to light in this case, for these tanks. The ZULFIFAR 2 is in the game and should be modified per C4 above. The ZULFIFAR 2 is a prototype test bed that leads to the development of the ZULFIFAR 3. Only 2 to 4 depending on source are known to exist and are extensively used in military parades to show off Iran’s technical prowess. Everything else I've gleamed from this is that 1) Seems to be new info on the ZOLFAGAR 1 FCS and 2) Iran is equipping the ZOLFAGER 3with a new FCS. I don’t think we’re talking TI/GSR as much as an improvement in the other FCS factors we use. Of course this would mean an additional UNIT to be added, but I’m not quite sure of that for now. Maybe you’ll see something in the refs to change your mind however given your normal work load and what I’m dumping on you, this should have the lowest priority from this list and could wait until next year if needs be.
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...rmainbattleta/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_...res_video.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_...res_video.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...s_0809121.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...k_0402134.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...l_1204121.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/zulfiqar_1.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/zulfiqar_3.htm

C5. THAILAND/CHANGE/OPLOT/UNIT 019/CHANGE DATE to JUN 2013//We swagged the last date as well however it wasn't enough to overcome some contract then finally some production delays caused by 40 customer requested modifications to their OPLOT tanks. A revised May delivery date is set. This should fix it. Also you can DELETE UNIT 999 they are defiantly getting the OPLOT base tank and not the OPLOT-M.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua...d_0501121.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua...d_0701131.html

C6. USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP/UNITS 318 & 649/Change to M1A2 SEP V1//
Per Refs provided for A1. above. More concerned with active service at the time the SEP V2 got fielded then you having to add two more of the SAME tanks in the OOB for a needed name change.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

For some reason these refs work on the Patch Thread for the M1A2 SEP V2 as submitted for the next patch. They however aren't working on the previous above post for some reason after I transferred that info here to the topic "home thread". They are important to the discussion so here they are in working order...
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsus-armys-2nd-hbct-upgraded-vehicles/
http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2011/9/Documents/SA_0911.pdf

Regards,
Pat