The FASTBOAT Patch page. [Archive]

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 15th, 2010, 01:11 AM

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.aspx

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:
10616

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.aspx
Pics:
10617 10618

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.html
A 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:
10619 10620

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 great length the only option is a heavy APC 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

thatguy96

November 15th, 2010, 01:50 AM

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;
The Technical Bulletin for the "Special Configuration" is dated May 1969, and a change was made in September 1969 to add in armor to the vehicle's underbelly to help protect against mines. I also wouldn't have though there would have been any M551s in Vietnam after the pullout of major ground forces, especially as none were turned over to the ARVN. I would suggest these vehicles were demodified as soon as they returned to the States or where ever else they were headed, though I really can't quickly find anything to back that up.

This (http://www.eaglehorse.org/4_ftx_gunnery/equipment/m551_sheridan/sheridan7.htm) source also states that the M551 was still being "washed out" of the majority of the active Army in 1978 and into 1979.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 15th, 2010, 01:59 AM

For the previous post additional Pics:
10623 LEOPARD 2A7+ Remote weapons station.
10624 USMC M60A1 RISE Passive as donated to Turkey.
10625 Turkish M60A1 converted to the M60T like the difference between night and day.
10621 This discussion was almost as bad as the "CM Arty" thing but, it needs addressing though to some extent.
10622 It is a beautiful machine and it can carrying luggage or camping gear for those long trips.

Gentlemen please let me know when it's safe for me to delete the refs used in the previous post from my favorites list. It'll save me time and keep me organized for the next push. Many thanks!!

I've pushed the "social network" theme to the limit somewhat this week and today in particular so I'll just say good night!?!
No worries all's good!! To all have a great week!!!!

Regards,
Pat

P.S.
Understand I'm a little tired here and I do appreciate the additional info but, PLEASE READ POST #1!! THANK YOU!

DRG

November 15th, 2010, 09:33 AM

Gentlemen please let me know when it's safe for me to delete the refs used in the previous post from my favorites list. It'll save me time and keep me organized for the next push. Many thanks!!

I'm not sure what you mean here. If the reference links are posted on the forum why would you need a backup in your favourites list ?

A couple of things though........ as much as complete information is nice to have anything that has "improvements are primarily in all around armor protection against IEDs and mines" has no change in game terms as either something is a MRV or not as we cannot set it up as "slightly more mine resistant" so any armour improvements in that regard on existing vehicles means nothing in game terms beyond *maybe* an increase in the survival number but 6 is the limit

You have waded though considerable amounts of information to get these summaries but now I have to wade though the summaries. Yesterday I worked through four pages of notes on the to do list submitted by various people and that consumed 6 hours. That used to be a "normal" day for me working on the game. Unfortunately I don't have that luxury this year for a number of reason I won't go into beyond it involves a close elderly relative in hospital but in some cases just figuring out what people want me to change takes all the time I have available to work in a given day.

The bottom line is I will endevour to address these issues as time permits but there will be times I'm going ask you WTF this or that means or just skip it if I'm pressed for time

Don

P.S.... Knowing the game unit numbers speeds things up considerably

DRG

November 15th, 2010, 09:51 AM

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.

There is no t-84 in the Pakistani OOB and so far the only info I have found is 320 were contracted to be sold to them and other source says " Not T-84 Pakistan dosen't have it"

so I'll just hold off on this until less conflicting info is found

Don

DRG

November 15th, 2010, 10:03 AM

Understand I'm a little tired here and I do appreciate the additional info but, PLEASE READ POST #1!! THANK YOU!

Yeah, I read post #1 and I don't have time to send PM's. This is the only thread you need to post changes to this next patch and from time to time, as noted, there is a good possibility there will be questions. Marcello's Iraqi thread is a good example of how that works successfully

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 15th, 2010, 04:07 PM

AMX

November 15th, 2010, 05:03 PM

Open to all for this question!
Alright before CINCLANTHOME gets back, this unit number thing, I've looked and obviously am missing it! So I open the game, go to the encyclopedia, click on USA, click on M1A1 and it brings it up, now what? Is it the Icon number? This is to help Don and Andy especially in the areas of CHANGE or MOD to a particular unit. Might have at least two more pages the length of the last. No response please from Don and Andy you have other things to do!!
Thanks for your help!! Please by steps after all I are bubblehead! I think I hear footsteps, gotta go!!!!

Thanks Again!!!
Regards,
Pat
First, in the game launcher (not the actual game), go to the "Misc" tab, and set the option "Show ID Numbers" to "Yes"

Then, start the game, and run the scenario editor (ID numbers don't show in the encyclopedia).

Note that every unit (and every formation, for that matter) has a number in front of its name now.

DRG

November 15th, 2010, 05:12 PM

This is going to be a two part answer and question

First. There are no unit numbers listed in the encyclopedia anywhere. You can see unit numbers when purchasing *IF* you have "Show ID Numbers" = YES found in the Game Options screen under the MISC tab. If that is set to yes you will see formation numbers to the left of the formations of the purchase menu and to the left of the units after you select a formation you want. As I recal that is set to NO as default. For obvious reason I have it on all the time. "Normal" players rarely need to know that info.

The very, very best way to get the info I need to eliminate the guesswork about which unit people my be refering to is by using MOBHack. I assume ( yes... we all know what ASSUME stands for.....) that anyone working with OOB issues would be using MOBHack not the game as there are all kinds of ways to find and change things quickly built into MOBHack. So that brings me to the second part of this post

You say at the very start.....

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/...a-tanks-02535/
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/03/05...t-at-anniston/

OK....... in the USA OOB in the game there are 5 M1A1's still in service in 2010. Two are MCBS and I'm not concerned with those. That leaves three and all are already upgrades above a "standard" M1A1

#484 = M1A1HA+ Abrams ( a standard MBT )
#636 = M1A1 AIM ( National Guard formations )
#650 = M1A1HA+ Abrams ( CS )

#484 is already up to M1A2 standards so I don't know what mods I should make to "Mods needed per refs above existing M1A1 ABRAM levels " unless the M1A1's have been upgrade to M1A2 SEP levels and if that's the case the M1A2 SEP is right there in the game.

Don

DRG

November 15th, 2010, 07:17 PM

Here's another one

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/milita...ound/m60a1.htm
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M60.html
Post #73.

How would a M60A1 RISE Passive in game terms differ in any significant way than a M60A3 Patton ( USA unit #19 ) ?

Compare this to the USMC M60A1 Rise <Passive> ( USMC unit #19 by total coincidence ).

Aside from the one point stabilizer difference and the one point difference in cost ? Could it be that these A3's are suppose to be A1 RISE and the TTS is the only real A3as seems to be suggested here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60a3.htm

???

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 15th, 2010, 09:47 PM

Don,
To the M1A1 SA/ED & Iraqi SA, thank god I didn't delete my refs yet as I think I missed one to put in. I saw some mention of an advanced
M1A1 tank to be designated M1A1M. It appears that the M1A1 SA/ED (SA) is the bridge to that tank. Please refer to I believe A2 ref 1 and I think it was 3. The M1A1M is not the M1A1 AIM as this is treated separately in this ref I believe I forgot to supply. It seems the three differences I see from other M1A1 tanks is;
1. New advanced FLIR sight (Possible increase to TI/GSR in line w/MERKAVA 4?).
2. New advanced Driver THERMAL sight, game enhancement I don't know unless it helps w/target acquisition somehow.
3. New Commanders target/weapons stabilization system. This sounds like a plus to FC?
This ref, about mid way down, right side has a M1A1 SA drawing you can click on to show the enhancements at a glance. SA/ED adds blue force locator and another electronic enhancement that I can't remember at the moment but is given I think in the first ref to cover the USA M1A1 SA/ED.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/ Look to para next to gunners station picture to right side.
We've touched on this no new tanks means too many variations of existing ones. I assure everyone it'll be my mission to cut out the crap (Can I say that? Well I guess I did!) in these countries to make room. Hope this helped some.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 15th, 2010, 10:01 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 15th, 2010, 11:13 PM

DRG

November 16th, 2010, 09:09 AM

Don,
Here's a quick possible solution for the M60A1 issue to get the RISE/Passive in. I used the USA encyclopedia page 1, there are two M60A1 tanks on that page with the following info.
1. JAN 1962 - DEC 1973 HE 18, AP 0, SABOT 20 and HEAT 25.

2. JAN 1974 - DEC 1984 HE 18, AP 0, SABOT 25 and HEAT 20.

If ammo load-out is the only issue here that I can see at a quick look and all other factors are the same, then why not just have one M60A1 JAN 1962 - DEC 1984 with the ammo load-out as desired, though latter from above would be best against the Warsaw Pact tank heavy units of the day. Is this a possible area of economy in the game to open further slots? Already looking in the 2nd or 3rd (If needed.) post to recommend deletions (About 10) for the U.S. alone.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Pat

Pat..... You REALLY ( really ..) have to start working with MOBHack and using that as references. I really ( really ..) do not have time to stop what I'm doing, open the game, go to the encyclopaedia, guess which items you are referring to ......( because if you have the CD version to the game, and I hope you do, there are a dozen different way to filter the entries and I can only ASSUME which way you are doing it ).....then open up MOBHack and try to find them. ( really.....). Looking through the encyclopaedia for information to make corrections that will ultimately be made in MOBHack just does not cut it

However, in this case those two units ( units 16 and 18 in the US OOB.... I think ! ) have a GUN upgrade not just rearranging the ammo ( weapons 95 and 96 ) that increases Sabot Pen by 5 and sabot range by 10 which has the effect of increasing sabot pen further at closer ranges so neither of those units can , should, or will be deleted.

Don

DRG

November 16th, 2010, 10:02 AM

Don,
Submitted the US Army M60A1 RISE/Passive only because I saw it as an omission. That tank represented the pinnacle of the M60A1 series. Just filling the gap between the M60A1 to M60A3 tanks for the US Army. I'd rather trade an "extra" variation of the
M60A1 by deletion to get this one in because it's vision would be better than any M60A1.

Regards,
Pat

Pat, here's where a bit of time with MOBHack would clarify how things are done and why this wasn't included in the US OOB

You want the RISE Passive in the game from 1977 to the end of 1986. However, "game reality" intrudes on real reality.

There is a gun upgrade ( ammo really but that's the way the game works.....we upgrade the whole gun ) in the game in 1978. It is not practical to add a unit for one year with the older gun simply because we are running out of slots in the USA OOB and in 1979 the M60A3 enters service which gives better FC and a better gun stabilizer. So , to be practical about it we could add the RISE passive in 1978 with the ammo/gun upgrade and leave it in service until 1984 ( when the next gun ammo upgrade occurs) but it would only be a really useful upgrade for one year.....1978.

In a perfect world where I would have unlimited unit slots available I would add your RISE Passive in 1977 with the older ammo then add another one in 1978 with the newer one but the game reality is there are only 36 empty slots left in the USA OOB and using up one or two for tank that only gives a small FC and stabilizer increase for a very shot period of time isn't really pactical

Don

DRG

November 16th, 2010, 12:36 PM

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.aspx
Pics:
10617 10618

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.htmlPat

RE the various armour upgrades being made to the former German Leo 2a4's

Is there any source that even hints ( a little bit )that these may be close or more or less effective than say .......... the armour package on the 2a6's ? Most of this is a WAG at the best of times but we try to make changes based on some concrete information besides.. " well, they say they've upgraded beyond what it was in the mid 90's in Germany so lets add 10% more all around just becasue".

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 16th, 2010, 12:39 PM

Don,
I agree with your points, we'll stop (I'll) chasing our "tails" on the U.S. Army M60A1 RISE/Passive for the sake of historical accuracy (This is not a knock!), let's I strongly agree let it go.
Also for the sake speed I wanted to get responses back to you, so sorry for the extra work on your part to this point. But when I had a few moments I did go to MOHACK and what a great tool! I like the unit search mode and you'll be glad to know that I've already have started converting my other recommendations to come to this mode. I don't know what everything is I'm looking at (Time issue for now.) is but enough to get you what you need.
As a preview for the CHANGE category to come are USMC SPOOKY Unit 573 and LAV-AD Unit 050 or 054, or both, that I'll have to sort out with the encyclopedia. A simple Yes or No response if I'm on the track with these would do in tagging these items for you when get them posted with the info I have on them. As I've indicated many more CHANGE(s) and
DELETE(s) to come in next post.

Thanks again for reducing some of the BLISS in INGORANCE!
Time to get ready to start my work week have great day all!

Regards,
Pat

Marcello

November 16th, 2010, 04:53 PM

New advanced Driver THERMAL sight, game enhancement I don't know unless it helps w/target acquisition somehow.

Not likely.

3. New Commanders target/weapons stabilization system. This sounds like a plus to FC?

I am not the greatest living expert about the abrams, but the above sounds like it is talking about the commander MG which is a RWS in some versions. An improvement there should not affect main gun FC, so it does nothing game wise.

SA/ED adds blue force locator and another electronic enhancement that I can't remember at the moment but is given I think in the first ref to cover the USA M1A1 SA/ED.

Again it does not register. You already get blue force locator by default with the game mechanics, even if you are playing with afghan militia circa 1949.

Really, a lot of significant improvements in real life simply mean nothing as far as the game is concerned. Belly armor? It isn't an adjustable parameter. Air conditioning? Cannot be simulated. Lower fuel consumption? Irrilevant. It is a issue of game scope, mechanics etc.

In addition to the above there is a question of economy. Aside from shortage of units slots which make fitting every single Abrams variant and subvariant, and there are quite a few of them (a result of the overlapping of various modernization programs), not practical there is also the issue of worth.
In principle for example I could still have added a small number of additional pages of suggested improvements to the iraqi OOB ground units, but it would have been a case of extra work for diminishing returns, the basics for a decently accurate gameplay having already been covered.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 17th, 2010, 03:43 AM

Simply put, I care about armor, sensors and weapons and presenting this information, you can be assured that unlike our congress concerning certain legislation I do read through every ref I provide to pull out the "nuggets" that are real world issues, how that information is integrated into the game is beyond my technical knowledge and I'm sorry for that. The IED and Mine issue is DOA now that Don has explained this to me earlier, however "all around armor protection" means just that, since last I checked RPGs are launched from above ground and not from under it. And finally since it was brought up as well, I could careless about AC, except when it's for 55 days straight here when it was well over a 100 w/the humiture for everyday. But rest assured my computer with the game and every unit in it was very comfortable! Now I have work to do.

Don,
Concerning the LEOPARDS:
1. Leo A4M CAN let's look at it visually:
10631 10632

10633 10634

10635 The Leo A4M CAN pics you have as I've submitted them. It's clear that the Leo A4M CAN is at least upgraded to the Leo A5 standard. However it would seem based on this next official govt. ref I managed to find it could have been upgraded all the way to the Leo A6M CAN level in armor protection. It would also then have the 120mm L55 as well. Please note the
28 March 2009 update.
http://casr.ca/doc-loi-leopard-tank.htm

2. The Turkish Leo A1T Unit 033, have not found anything solid on an armor upgrade, but it would make sense for as long as they've operated them and the huge investment they've made in the "big picture" (For clarification of others.) FC system they just installed on these last year. Maybe a gratis 10% might not be to unreasonable but that's your call. In the mean time I've emailed this question for all their Leo tanks to the following Turkish Govt. ref as given to support the FC issue as submitted already.
http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/Sayfalar/default.aspx

3. Finally on the Turkish Leo 2A4T Unit 039 no information on any further armor upgrades as these tanks were delivered from Germany already to Turkish specs. However again the Aselan FC system was also installed on these as already submitted so the logical conclusion is it was better then what they came with from Germany or else, why bother?

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 17th, 2010, 03:52 AM

DRG

November 17th, 2010, 08:51 AM

Don,
A further picture on the Leo A4M CAN for analysis.
10636
Armor yes but based on the angle and parallax I'm thinking 120mm L44 still.

Photo analysis lots of info and something I did while watching our "friends".

Sometimes when a man has nothing else left but his wit, if used properly, it can be a potent weapon. Or not!

Good Night All!

Regards,
Pat

I agree it does look like that may be an L44 but that website you provided ( http://casr.ca/doc-loi-leopard-tank.htm ) does say they are all to be up-gunned to the L55. The angle of the tank does make determining gun length a bit tricky and it's too bad it wasn't taken 20 feet to the right.

In game terms if the 2A4's are upgraded to the 2A6M standard there is no point in having a separate 2a4 because in the game we assume it's going to be fully combat ready not stripped down for training unless there is some kind of difference but that same website does say

At the same time, any reserve Leopard 2 A4+ can be fitted with the extra armour to become a Leopard 2 A6M and, thus, be ready for deployment into any war zone.

If you zoom in on that photo you can see three Leo 2's in the background on the road just under the gun barrel of the tank in the foreground and they are in standard green camo. This one may be a prototype showing what the conversion will turn it into but the gun hasn't been upgraded ( WAG ). What's interesting also is the partial slat armour at the rear rather than the full cage I've seen in photos of the Afghan mission tanks and how it appears to be flush with the forward side skirts which would suggest a significant side hull armour upgrade to the fighting compartment areas

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 17th, 2010, 11:29 AM

Don,
I was thinking along the same lines, that is a solid ref, and it had the right numbers also in regards too how many tanks were to be converted over to the Leo 2A4M CAN. I have seen the 20/20 split for the tank in other places between the CAF & Bundeswehr this could be a production issue and maybe a little "tit for tat" since the Leo 2A6M CAN were initially given on loan to the CAF. I do believe as well they are to the Leo 2A6M CAN standard. Some modifications were done to the Leo 2A4M CAN from lessons learned in combat with the Leo 2A6M CAN which is probably what we're seeing. With the Leo 2A6M CAN in the game, like the USA M60A1 R/P unless you have room for the Leo 2A4M CAN in Canada's slots, we can move on until some slots might get cleared later down the line.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 21st, 2010, 03:38 AM

Don,
Not in a hurry for an answer as like you I have plenty to do but; We know GD won the FRES-SV competition (APC thread.) with the ASCOD-2 variant w/CITW 40mm, it will be unaffected by the latest British MOD defence review, though due to the cuts the rest of the FRES program could be frozen or dropped. FRES-SV is expected to be fielded by 2015, would use June 2015 for initial field date to account for delays. I would need to comb the UK OOB as I think some related units might be in it that would need to be deleted. I have plenty of refs already posted with some more on standby. Currently going through threads to "bounce" what needs adding to the next post against my master list. Also to save time I have a handful of issues that pertain to aircraft and helos along the lines of these two examples: 1. B-52's are now (Recently started.) receiving major upgrades electronically to increase ECM and Countermeasures for use against threats. 2. British PUMA's (Also recently started.) are getting substantially more powerful engines installed amongst some lesser mods, in game terms for this it would mean an increase in speed/or distance travelled. Are these issues worth pursuing to you, before I go any further with them?
THANKS!
Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 21st, 2010, 12:02 PM

Any FRES units that should be deleted use MOBHack to give me the unit numbers. I have adjusted all dates to 6/115

I'm still amazed the B-52's are flying....'nough said, but if you find any info that gives an equivalency such as the EW will be equivant to that used by a B-1 or a B-2 let me know.

If the engine upgrade for the puma makes a real difference to the speed it should be changed but it would have to be >1 point. Lot's of times engine upgrades only really increase fuel economy or ease of maintenance and real world speed stays about the same but if it adds 10kph to the top speed it would be worth considering

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 21st, 2010, 08:40 PM

Don,
Just got back, thanks for the reply. Don't worry I'm now MOBHack trained (Yes I hear you all-Thank God about time!) at least for the unit numbers.
1. You got it.
2. B-52's at least for another 25+/- about 5yrs. depending on sources.
3. They talk about increased lift which normally leads to increased tilt both combine in layman's terms to speed. These will be new engines if memory serves. I'll have quick notes as normal.
4. Of things to come same for USA Apache they will be extended for a projected 30yrs. upgrade info to be submitted (Block III.) which should make it equal to or on the plus side of the COMANCHE (AH-X) which will be on my Delete part of my HELO section along with others. We've come a long way since that program was cancelled almost 7yrs. ago.
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/rah66_comanche.htm
Pic:
10649
Thanks Again!
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 25th, 2010, 03:56 AM

Don,
Was working on the PARS variants for Malaysia (3 of 12 for consideration, others info is to sketchy to present now or not needed.) and ended up finding so far one MBT and up to maybe three APC types missing as well, have all the info, some typed in now. Looking into possibility of one or two more tanks missing as well but won't get bogged down here searching for them. One APC to delete and yes I'm using MOBHACK. Just wanted to give you a quick update no response needed-still working it. I guess I tripped into another "rabbit hole"!?!
Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 28th, 2010, 11:08 PM

Open to all for this question.
Hope everyone had a great weekend!?!
I have saved the pictures of equipment to "My Pictures", so no URL picture data. Is there another work around to getting more then 5 pictures to a post? Such as maybe logging out of the account and back in again? I am prepared to enter the rest on a separate post as I've had to do this before, if there's no other way. This next post is picture "heavy".
Thanks in advance!

Don,
The issue with Malaysia after a week+ I believe is now resolved. This is to include the MBT situation. The APC section has gone longer then anticipated, the "rabbit hole" issue again with equipment and net "false trails". Did my best to sort through some conflicting info but, I think the result is now good. Will treat this as a separate post to be released by mid week hopefully as my spare time allows. Count is currently:
MBT; Add 1, Mod 1 & Change 1.
APC; Add 8, Delete 1 & Change 1 so far. Got more to do,this is just an update, no response needed.
Regards to ALL,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2010, 07:15 PM

Don,
Even being prepared doesn't prepare you! Just finished about an hour ago, here it is with one more to come later.

Again 2020 end dates for all unless otherwise noted. Dates based on when fielded by refs or determination (SWAG) where there's conflict in the refs. within guidelines as previously discussed by PM or Post. This was a tough one. Rabbits everywhere!?!

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/article/article.php?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-Armour-and-Artillery-Upgrades/Ukrinmash-TShU-17-optronic-countermeasures-system-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?year=2009&month=5&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:
10657 10658 10659

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.

APC Development...
A1. MALAYSIA/MCV PARS/JUN 2012/C4 P7/DENAL EMAK 30mm Cam Gun
210(65 ready.) Rds & MG4 Coax 7.62mm 1.6KRds (800 ready.)/Though the PARS are manufactured in Turkey (DENAL is S. African.) Malaysia will be the first country to purchase them after what was a long and grueling competition between it and the Swiss PARANHA IIIC and the Polish ROSOMAK. It is fully amphibious and Malaysia has fully equipped and protected these vehicles leaving out no optional equipment etc. such the FC targeting "AUTO TRACKING" as is available by the DENAL source. Turkey and the UAE are still evaluating the PARS. I will address a couple of variations.
http://www.denellandsystems.co.za/products_mcv_full_description.
html Primary as it covers all aspects of the vehicle.
http://www.denellandsystems.co.za/products_amict_full_description.html
Pics:
10660 10661

A2. MALAYSIA/APC PARS/JUN 2012/C2 P12/RO 12.7mm 2K Rds or RO 40mm AGL 40 Rds /Malaysia has ordered 275 units in 12 variations. Would add both APC types; ammo load based on similar APC weapon types.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2711.html Note contract info lower left of page.
See Page 5 Post #45.
Pics:

D1. Delete: MALAYSIA/PIRANHA III/UNIT 030/As noted above it lost along with the ROSOMAK per refs and posts above to the PARS.

The following share the same refs., with some having specific additional refs as added. Turrets single manned unless noted differently. All purchased from FNSS of Turkey. Modified in armor to some extent (10% gratis?) over Turkeys units to meet Malaysia’s needs. What's not at issue is the number of additional smoke and 76mm grenade launchers added as the pictures for all show as compared to their Turkish counterparts. Also will provide Turkish counterpart unit numbers as they might apply for further info concerning ammo loads etc. A little "SWAG" on dates (Within a year except for ADNAN SP 120mm.) to group these together and to allow for earlier and follow on order deliveries.

A3. MALAYSIA/ADNAN 50 APC (Added 50 to avoid confusion w/A4)/JAN 2003/C2 P11/Turreted 12.7mm 2K Rds./
Pic:

A4. MALAYSIA/ADNAN AGL APC/JAN 2003/C2 P11/Turreted SAGO AGL 40 Rds./
Pic:

A5. MALAYSIA/ADNAN AIFV/JAN 2003/C2 P11/SHARPSHOOTER Turreted BUSHMASTER MKII M242 25mm UKN Rds w/COAX 7.62mm UKN Rds./Turkish
ZMA AIFV UNIT 176.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/data/151/uruning/uruning24.html About the SHARPSHOOTER Turret w/specs, this info might cause review of Turkish UNIT 176 capabilities and manning?
Pic:

A6. MALAYSIA/ADNAN ATGW/JAN 2003/C3/BAKTAR SHIKAN MSL System 8-12 Missiles & 7.62mm UKN Rds./ This is a Pakistani system very similar to the Chinese RED ARROW 8 system in capabilities..
Pic:

Not entered under SP/SPAA section to keep same named units together.
A7. MALAYSIA/ADNAN SP 81mm/JAN 2003/C5/81mm 114 Rds & 12.7mm 2K Rds./Turkish ZHA AMV-81 UNIT 073.
Pic:

A8. MALAYSIA/ADNAN SP 120mm/JUN 2010/C5/120mm 80 Rds & 12.7mm 2K Rds./Turkish ZHA 120mm UNIT 076. If the Turkish ZHA AMV-81has a C5 shouldn't the ZHA 120mm manning be the same and not at the current C4? It is important to note that the ADNAN SP 120mm is mounted on the AVC-S (Stretched M113A3.) that's why I used 80Rds vice 68 - 74Rds. as on some others.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/data/151/uruning/uruning21.html
Pic:

C1. Change: MALAYSIA/UNITS 042 & 232./KIFV to MIFV/The KIFV is the South Korean version.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1416.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/acv-s/
http://www.fnss.com.tr/v1.6/index.php?conmenu=56
http://kbmyaf.byethost18.com/TDM_Equip.htm A little dated from 2009 but a good general over view w/great pictures.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/contracts.php Go to Select customer drop down window.

C2. Change: UK/UNIT 602/JAN 2015/ADD P7 (Carry)/FRES CVR(T) to FRES-SV/The FRES program required the ability to carry troops into combat. All other aspects of the FRES Program are on hold General Dynamics (See the GD UK site.) was to still compete for the other variants if and when bids are reopened. The only part of the program approved was for the utility vehicles (FRES-U) but was later revoked by MOD to pursue FRES-SV. The units to be deleted (As mentioned.) fell victim to a restart of the program such as has occurred with the U.S. GVC (See posts #47 & #48.) which was supposed to be reopened under tighter budget requirements and focused developmental restraints this month, however all has been quiet on that front here as well so far.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-issues-several-fres-transformational-armored-vehicle-contracts-01130/#other Program was revoked to focus on FRES-SV.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_kingdom_british_army_light_armoured_vehicle/ascod_2_sv_fres_program_scout_armoured_vehicle_dat a_sheet_description_information_specifications_uk. html Shows C3/P7.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1593 Again mentions carry ability.

Posts: Page 1: #1 & Page 4: #33 & #38.
Pics:

D2. DELETE: UK/UNITS 275, 329, 414 & 423/These are the FRES-U series vehicles that initial contracts were awarded for then revoked by BMOD to pursue FRES-SV per refs and posts.

A9. IRAQ/BTR-4/JAN 2011/C3 P8/Integrated PARUS RO turret w/30mm 360 Rds, 30mm AGL 150 Rds, 7.62mm 1200 Rds & Either KONKURS or BARRIER (BARYER) ATGW 4 missiles./ Iraq started to get these delivered in Oct 2010, training was started in Ukraine in SEP 2010. Allowing for the fielding of trained units w/ JAN 2011 date. Also Iraq only to get the combat GROM weapons module configuration (Utility versions ordered as well.).
POST: Page 6: #53. Associated ("the rabbit hole" thing again.) linkage to this:

A10. UKRAINE/BTR-4 GROM/JAN 2010/C3 P8/Integrated PARUS RO turret w/30mm 360 Rds, 30mm AGL 150 Rds, 7.62mm 1200 Rds & Either KONKURS or BARRIER (BARYER) ATGW 4 missiles./

A11. UKRAINE/BTR-4 BAU/JAN 2010/C3 P8/Integrated PARUS RO turret w/Twin 23mm 400 Rds & 7.62mm 2K Rds/
Has the BAU weapons module. As these are for export did not include the SHKVAL weapons module for Ukraine decided to go "heavy" and "light". SHKVAL is the same as the same as the GROM -2 missiles and +800 Rds of 7.62mm. To allow for the heavier armored version; change to P7 for carry.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraqi-Security-Forces-Order-of-Battle-2010-0708-06501/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraqi-Security-Forces-Order-of-Battle-2010-09-10-06608/ Update shows GROM configuration and others.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_4.htm I know it says sometime in 2009, but I'm more comfortable w/JAN 2010. If you want to change it no sooner then
JUN 2009.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_ukrainian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle/btr-4_wheeled_armoured_personnel_carrier_vehicle_ukrai nian_army_ukraine_description_pictures_technic.htm l NOTE: Unless I misread the bottom of the "Protection" section GROM is already better protected up to 30mm rounds out of the gate before up armoring it with no lose to carry.
Pics:

Alright I'm taking a break here to enjoy the rest of my last day off with CINCLANTHOME. Status for APC... left to do BOXER IFV status, ARMA 6x6 status, NAMER Iron Fist Mod and BRADLEY ERA Armor Mod. Then onto MRAPs and the rest. Will delete refs once I know they've posted safely form "My Favorites", also to avoid the timeout issues as this has been posted on use WordPad or Notebook (This came the support folks @ Shrapnel Games THANKS!!), I highlight my points, print it, when done copy to thread post highlight off printed version (Highlighting doesn't transfer.).

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2010, 07:29 PM

All,
Pics:
A3. ADNAN 50 APC/10667

A4. ADNAN AGL APC/10668

A5. ADNAN AIFV/10669 10670

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2010, 07:38 PM

All,
Pics:
A6. ADNAN ATGW/10671 10672

A7. ADNAN SP 81mm/10673 10674

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2010, 07:45 PM

All,
Pics:
A8. ADNAN SP 120mm/
10675 10676
10677

C2. FRES-SV for modeling and game?/10678 10679

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2010, 07:54 PM

All,
Last one for page 2 inputs.
Pics:
A9. BTR-4 & A10. BTR-4 GROM/
10680 10681

A11. BTR-4 BAU/10682

Don't remember (Though in refs.) All BTR-4 models are fully amphibious.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2010, 10:14 PM

Don,
Just realized that the first ref for A1. MCV PARS was not put in right by me-sorry! Here it is below:
http://www.denellandsystems.co.za/products_mcv_full_description.html

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 30th, 2010, 08:52 AM

Take a long break Pat. I'm already up to my ears

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 30th, 2010, 12:52 PM

Don,
THANKS! I haven't been able to play WinSPMBT since AUG. to finish off my campaign in progress. Will work the last slowly and it'll allow me to back check a couple of things. Currently looking at about 20-25 deletions across about 5 (US @ ~ 10) major player countries of course supported by refs. Just let me know when you're ready for me to post what should be my last one (I think?) for this patch season. I believe you posted last year at the end of FEB. to cut it off for the 5.5 patch, will use that as my timeline unless you tell me otherwise. I'll still check in here for when you get to the list as just posted for any questions you might have. Going to "copy" these and put them into their appropriate threads and catch up on some news while I'm in here. By the way fully supported the move you made in the artillery area to open slots and you know how I feel about arty. THANKS to everyone for the time and effort you all put into making the game more accurate, streamlined and better to play even the folks I might make mumble things under their breath!?! Everyone take care! My computer is asking me "Do you want to play a game?" still good movie tag line! Don no responce needed TAKE CARE.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 1st, 2010, 02:37 AM

Don,
No reply needed however, wanted to fix this before you got to it too prevent any rework. Left out Coax 7.62mm on ADNAN 50 and 12.7mm on ADNAN AGL plus changed manning due to the SACO 40mm turret.
A3. MALAYSIA/ADNAN 50 APC (Added 50 to avoid confusion w/A4)/JAN 2003/C2 P11/Turreted 12.7mm 2K Rds & Coax 7.62mm UKN Rds./
A4. MALAYSIA/ADNAN AGL APC/JAN 2003/C3 P9/Turreted SAGO MK19 Mod 3 AGL 40 Rds & Coax 12.7mm UKN Rds./
You can in Post #31 in the picture see the MG on the right side of the turret looking at the pic ADNAN AGL. Sorry for the omission again just wanted to prevent rework. I'm done here (Regarding the last submission.) except for Q&A as needed. SNAFU! God Bless Me!?! Darn Cold!!
THANKS!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2011, 08:49 PM

Patch Post #3 Part 1 & 2 and last for the 2010 Input Campaign. Maintaining "number" item order for topics continued from last two Patch posts on topics previously covered. Again using fielded dates for these units. End dates are 2020 unless otherwise noted. All post references unless otherwise noted, are within the subject discussed below.
In many ways this is more of a "living document" you'll see breaks where I've stopped and started, and information has changed within even a span of a day or less, but this is to be as accurate as possible and to give Don the best info possible to make his decision on a particular item getting in, put off pending further info or not getting in at all. To make my case stronger I was aggressive in trying to find units to be deleted, as trade offs to getting something in, and to clear out some of the last of the developmental units or programs that never came to be fielded for one reason or another. Also in the Helo area I went for economy in providing an all around solution to meet all threats in the field and keep them flying throughout by use of ammo resources within the game. This avoids having 3 or versions of the same helos, we're just running out of slots too fast, and as long as Don and Andy can keep this going, we're still looking at 8 to 9 yrs. worth of patches before we've reached the end of this game. Helos is one area, planes are a little tougher and as are tanks but their might be room for some economy there as well. Other areas develop much slower and are better managed for the foreseeable future. What I see for this is priority to deletions, changes, mods and if time allows the additions this is more then fair as I know where the boss(es) are in the patch. So for next year; deal with left over units that didn't get in, get answers I have to questions of implementation for AC-130U SPOOKY, B-52, A-10 and APACHE that have had major electronic upgrades recently, my refs are ready and have been. Also looking at ARMA 4x4, MATADOR that just recently had buyers and TEJAS, these all will lead off the 2011 Input Campaign. Finally to Don for allowing me to finish this and to everyone (And some know who you are.) that have supported my efforts, provided advice and kept "my head in the game", and most importantly to those that have taken the time out of their busy days too read what I've posted. THANKS! Don I'll answer questions dealing with this list as needed on this thread. Submitting this as parts 1 through 3 for picture management and character issues.

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!

APC Development...Continued.

M1. MOD: TURKEY/ACV-S IFV 30/JAN 2008/C3 P1O/30mm w/800Rds & Coax 7.62mm w/2.2KRds./ Originally when I entered this I thought to put it in as an "Add", however after thinking about it for a few days I've changed it to a "Mod" because the refs though from solid sources leave me with some doubt as to them serving with Turkey even after watching a FNSS production line video of them being built. I might be conservative here but my confidence level is at 85%+ that Turkey has them. This applies too M2 below as well.

M2. MOD: TURKEY/ACV-S IFV 25 ATGW/JAN 2008/C3 P10/25mm w/900Rds & Coax 7.62mm w/2.2KRds also 8 TOW B ATGW/ As noted above.

A12. ADD: SAUDI ARABIA/ACV-S IFV 30/JUN 2007/C3 P10/30mm w/800Rds & Coax 7.62mm w/2.2KRds/ This is definite though it was only a small order of 10 - 20 units.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/data/151/uruning/uruning21.html Even within the Turkish Army these represent only a total of about 200 out of 2,200 that were converted from the M113A units Turkey has. I would feel these would've been "up protected" as shown by this ref. A12 was done so without a doubt against 30mm Rds with Spall liners.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/data/151/uruning/uruning16.html ACV-S IFV 30 and 25 ATGW variants.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1287781534/last-1287824423/Modern+equipment+Of+Turkish+defence+industries
Pic:
10781

A13. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR 12.7/JUN 2012/C2 P9/RO 12.7mm w/1.5KRds/ These APCs are to replace the aging fleet of the EE-11 Erutu class APCs developed in the mid 70's. Will address some of the types to be fielded here. Brazil will be buying these in the top of the line configuration for all types at the 30mm protection level, fully amphibious (There's a no brainier look at the geography.) and with all the bells and whistles in the sensor and targeting department this is to include the UT-30 turret and others. Brazil’s economy is the fastest growing one in the western hemisphere and in the top five in the world. They are also sitting on well over of a trillion dollars worth of new oil off the coast making it the second largest oil field in the world (Ref. 60 Minutes.), you can afford to modernize especially when your neighbor is getting billions in military aid from Russia. Will try to track down actual Brazilian name for the type (They like using names of snakes.) but, will improvise name with weapon type carried for now to get these in as this is a done deal. All refs will be added at the end.

A14. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR UT30/JUN 2012/C2 P9/RO UT-30 30mm w/250KRds & Coax 7.62mm w/1KRds/ This is a highly versatile turret developed by ELBIT Systems. Per the refs this turret has no affect on crew or carry as most systems similar to this also have none as well. Ref. for this turret provided here also to include an excellent article on APC turrets as well.

A15. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR UT-30AT/JUN 2012/C2 P9/RO UT-30 30mm w/250Rds w/Coax 7.62mm w/1KRds and 4 SPIKE ATGW/ The Brazilian Marines are to get this weapons version also, as well as the Army with the following exception, the Marine VBTP-MR UT-30AT will be an 8x8, increase carry to C12 for the Marine 8x8 and this could be low, also again as with all types it'll be fully amphibious.
http://elbitsystems.com/Elbitmain/files/UT30.PDF Again this is being bought fully equipped and protected. Adjust size as needed as set by your system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4a8ODHNbuA A short video 1:41 in length worth watching and it might help in modeling it.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2059.html This and the next deal with the contract awarded for the UT-30 RO turrets.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21010/

And as I did with Malaysia’s ADNAN, I will include the SP mortar units here as well as follows:

A16. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR 81M/JUN 2012/C4/81mm w/114Rds & RO 12.7mm w/2KRds.

A17. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR 120M/JUN 2012/C5/120mm w/70Rds & RO 12.7mm w/2KRds.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/v/vbtp_mr_130409.html
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/475/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ivecovbtpmr/
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vbtp_mr.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/brazilian_army_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicle_uk/vbtp-mr_vbtp_iveco_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_technical_d ata_sheet_description_information_uk.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4269.html
Pic:
10782

After a delay of a couple of years, Sweden will finally get its PATRIA AMV's. As a reminder I'm only interested in when units are fielded (or operationally assigned to units etc.), so yes I noted that deliveries of the first batch of AMV's will be completed near years end 2013 however, do take note it also states they will be operational by early 2014. As much of this was in the works before the court challenges and allowing for Swedish efficiencies that's why I'm recommending JAN 2014 which I have on good authority is well within the 6 month "swag (or wag)" of not changing dates. This was just a reminder for those "newer to the site".
A18. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV APC/JAN 2014/C2 P10/RO PML 127 OWS 12.7mm turret w/2.5KRds.

A19. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV IFV/JAN 2014/C3 P9/LAV 30 turret w/ATK BUSHMASTER 30mm w/175 Rds & coax 7.62mm w/2KRds./

A20. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV ATGW/JAN 2014/C3 P8/ LAV 30 turret w/ATK BUSHMASTER 30mm w/175 Rds & coax 7.62mm w/2KRds. and 8 TOW ATGW/

As with the VBTP-MR 81mm & 120mm above will list the AMV AMOS below as the AMV is a new platform for Sweden. All will be transferred to the SPA/SPAA section further on to keep things in order.

A21. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV ATMOS/JAN 2014/C3/AMOS Twin Barreled Turreted 120mm Mortar w/56Rds (Split the difference of 50-60Rds.), 12.7mm w/1.2KRds & 7.62mm w/2KRds.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2220.html About the
LAV-30 Turret.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2219.html About the LAV-30 TOW Turret.
http://www.gdls.com/classic/systems/lav30-tow.html About the LAV-30 TOW Turret from the manufacturer.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product665.html About the BUSHMASTER II.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/amos.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tillery/amos.htmSweden-Picks-Patrias-AMV-as-its-Wheeled-APC-05579/ First article that covers the whole project etc.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/
http://www.military-today.com/apc/patria_amv.htm
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20055/ Legal.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20707/ Legal.
Pic:

M3. MOD: USA/BRADLEY/JAN 2011/UNITS 006, 305-306, 309, 655, 664, 666 (Yikes!) & 668/ As in the game add a new tech ERA/ARA package and upgrades below.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-us-armys-bradley-remanufacture-program-updated-02835/#more-2835 Please note APR 06 '09 & SEP 22 '08 as these affect the above units. Others in the game were out of service by 2008 - 2009. But the big issue here is the ARA protection and "belly steel" for IED protection (I don't know what their 0 - 6 protection level is.).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gdrafaels-reactive-armor-equips-us-military-updated-02451/ This is one of those seek peek articles but gets what you need though, and it is definitely one of the most advanced and new ERA/ARA packages out there.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20012/ This covers the ERA upgrade.
Pic:
10783

M4. MOD: ISRAEL/NAMER/JUN 2011/UNITS 087 & 088/ As in the game add HITFIST APS with 4 shots (From 2 launchers.) Similar to the TROPHY system it has been developed by the IDF for its APCs. Of note is the fact that it has been tested by the U.S. Army this past fall as well. With the NAMER to be manufactured in the U.S. soon, I won't think it too long before we see these systems on our armor as well. Not unusual between the two allies as Israel was the only country to be considered to get the AH-X (See HELO section.) outside the U.S. had the program succeeded.
http://defense-update.com/features/2009/june/idf_aps_090609.html
http://defense-update.com/wp/20100929_iron_fist_osd.html This also covers the U.S. test.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/june/israeli_aps_09062010.html# In the 3rd Para. discussing IRON FIST is where it mentions the two twin launchers to be mounted on the NAMER.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4468294&c=FEA&s=SPE Discusses how the TROPHY and IRON FIST systems work at bottom.
http://www.prlog.org/10258921-idf-selects-imis-iron-fist-active-protection-system-for-the-new-namer-heavy-apc.html
Pic:
10784

DELETE: USMC/EFV/UNIT 189/ Was the USMC program cut by the SECDEF on 06 Jan. 2011 in an effort to reduce the defense budget by now 80 - 90 Billion dollars btwn now and FY 2016. The CORPS will reconsider its AMPHIB options, this again as the EFV gets cancelled on the 40th anniversary of their current ones. I will provide posts for this as it was just recently done last week.
Posts: Page 9; #83, #85 & #86.

This is a bonus that was helpful with some of the above.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/68973-briefing-stick-your-guns.html This would be an excellent source to check against APCs current in the game or for you game designers. The article is legitimate from Jane’s as I've read from the author and have read a small portion of it from the "free view" section. Nice that somebody can afford the subscription price!?! Well CINCLANTHOME wouldn't authorize the expenditure anyway.

MRAPS and a couple...

A1. ADD: ROMANIA/MAXXPRO DASH/JAN 2011/C3 (Including gunner.)
P6/Turreted 12.7mm w/2KRds/ They will receive 60 units on loan from the U.S., 20 of which are brand new with 40 refurbished and upgraded to meet the newer specs of units now operating in theater by the U.S. These are the better protected more maneuverable U.S. versions since initially deployed in
2007. Expect Romania to keep these as a "thank you" for serving with the coalition. First units were delivered in Oct 2010 (8) they should have most by now and be trained in their use as well that's why JAN 2011.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18551/
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2010/US-to-supply-MRAPs-to-Romanian-troops-in-Afghanistan.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/more-mraps-1200-maxxpro-mpvs-from-navistar-03344/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/maxxpro-dash/specs.html

A2. ADD: NIGERIA & UN/GILA/JAN 2008/C2 P10/Turreted 12.7mm UKN Rds & RM 7.62mm UKN Rds./As noted by the post this again is a CASSPRI on steroids with, much better all around armor protection and mobility. DENAL in fact this past summer has just released the new CASSPIR 4 to compete against the GILA. Also the company website lists that seven countries operate the GILA if I use the AU countries that have supplied troops to DARFUR they would be Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda. Though on the post I gave my best guess (Angola and Kenya had troops there at the time of the refs as posted.) of who else has them I can't find anything concrete on them or of any listed above except Nigeria. Only Senegal "reappears" from the first post to now. Nigeria and UN (Canada selected these over the CASSPIR and others in the procurement process for UNADIM.) are the only ones I can say I'm sure of.
Post: Page 8; #75 for pictures as well.

A3. ADD: UK/OCELOT/JUN 2011/P6/RM 12.7mm w/2KRds/The problem here is that a team of six get to and fight from this vehicle, there is no crew per say, I don't know how you can make this work? Won the UK MOD completion in the LPPV program beating out the Supacat SPV 400.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20095/
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news103743.html
Posts: Page 7; #68, Page 8; #79 and Page 9; #84 for pictures as well.

TRANSPORT FOR U.S. ...UPDATE!

D1. DELETE: ITALY/MEADS/UNIT 182/The reason for deletion is that the MEADS is about 4 - 5 years out from being fielded providing there are no delays in testing and as follows. This program is under so much pressure that if any one of the three legs holding this up falters (U.S. 58%, Germany 25% & Italy 17% of funding.) this program is probably done. As I noted in the "JET..." thread it was not mentioned in the JAN 06, 2011 speech by SECDEF Gates as one of the programs to be cut, also no news out of the other two partners of any move thus far to do likewise with their defense budgets even though they are making major cuts as well in defense spending. Lockheed Martin is also pushing hard against it (MEADS) as well with the major success seen in the PATRIOT (Upgrade.) PAC 3 missile. But this could survive all because of the cancellation guarantees that could run into the 100's of millions of dollars at the point of termination in development. It should be noted however that the program has been very successful to date. This will allow for a mobile platform to be properly modeled as this is NOT a static system! Also each mobile launcher will have a dedicated ammo unit paired with it, and will actually be bought as a unit in this manner such as the ARCHER SPA System and the USA with PALIDAN.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/FMTV-2010-2015-Oshkosh-Wins-The-Re-Compete-05744/#more-5744 FMTV based on this to be the new launcher, supply and component platform.
http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_fmtv.php
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536282295062968.html?K EYWORDS=meads
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN2726097420101027
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/34b-development-contract-signed-for-meads-0639/#conops
Posts: Page 1; #6 & #7, Page 2; #11, #12, #15, #17 & #18.
Pic:
10785
D2. DELETE: USA & USMC/HUMRAAM/UNITS 816 & 513 Respectively/Program cancelled on 06 Jan. 2011 by SECDEF Gates.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/726/?SID=24ede0b1fd75b16e725f3882e1791d50 SECDEF Gates kills SLAMRAAM & EFV etc.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=a5890d4c88e3a554bc4e54039fc1f966&_cview=0 Dated: 02 Sep. 2010 @ 1041. This is to show how long ago and fast a program dies. This document is the final solicitation notice to incorporate the FMTV as the launcher platform and complete the testing to final system operational demonstration of SLAMRAAM as it goes into low rate production.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=2df4b13807f935362d062bb84e01415a&_cview=0 Dead. Dated: 22 Sep. 2010 @ 0909.
Posts: Page 2; #16 & #20.

S-400 TRIUMF Page 4 TO&EsC1.

C1. CHANGE: RUSSIA/S-400 TRIUMF/UNIT 295/Fielded date to JAN 2010 vice JAN 2007/This program suffered from delays as well and I suspect was entered based on developmental data. This is mounted on a mobile platform as well as it should be. Will transfer this info to the SPA/SPAA thread when done here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-400.htm As of 2007 it was not deployed due to technical issues. Some reported it had but as this touches on it there was confusion in the west between the S-400 and an upgraded version of the S-300 early on as well.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/12012/ S-400completes trials in Nov. 2009 as reported in Dec. 2009.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/14918/ This article would almost suggest a later date then I have given above based on production and combat launch testing to not have been completed/or started until this past fall. I still like the date above as Post #1 supports this as well as the AUSA (Which in the updated section supports Post #1.) source I used recently in the Jet... thread.
Post: Page 1; #1.
End Part 1

Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2011, 10:03 PM

Part 2 Start for 2010/2011 patch input.

SP & SPAA...

A1. ADD: NORWAY/ARCHER/JAN 2012/Per SWEDISH UNIT 416/This is a joint venture between the two countries. First operational units not due for delivery until OCT. 2011 again allowing for small delays and training w/JAN 2012. It should be noted as in the Post below; these are manufactured and sold with a matching ammo carrier as shown in the pictures of the post. Can maybe this be addressed at a later time within the game?
Don't know what the technical issues are to do this.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Sweden-Norway-to-Cooperate-on-Archer-Artillery-Project-05142/#more-5142 Does the M 151 RO MG system need to be added? See "ARCHER SYSTEM" Para with pic.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/9306/ Covers joint deal w/delivery date.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/8490/ Announces prototype is ready. See related article links at bottom.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/archerhowitzer/
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2819.html See links at bottom of article.

C1. CHANGE: SWEDEN/ARCHER/Fielded date of JAN 2012 vice JAN 2010/ See notes and refs for A1 above.
Posts: Page 1; #5 & #6 and Page 2; #16.

C2. CHANGE: FINLAND/AMV AMOS/UNITS 335 & 348/Fielded dates to JAN 2013 vice Jan 2008. /The below source though not complete does start to mention contract issues. The Jan 2008 date was about the time the Swedes were having their legal issues with PATRIA as mentioned above in the APC section for the AMV. Also it's my understanding that the AMOS and NEMO systems are from the start capable of direct fire support out of the box, wouldn't it make sense to delete FINNISH UNIT 335 based on that and ensure that the SWEDISH AMV AMOS is a copy of FINNISH UNIT 348? Note dates are only 1yr. apart.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Both-Barrels-Finnish-Order-Launches-Patrias-AMOS-Mortar-Turret-06692/ Note it says "initial order" for the AMOS.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20563/ Specifically mentions that amendments were made to the original 2003 contract.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news105201.html Again as above.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/proposer_une_news_48.html Again as above. I'm convinced that issues with the contract existed and I'm willing to bet it had to do with PATRIAs legal issues in Sweden as part of the cause in the delay as well. If you go to the equipment side of a couple of the above sites they support what's in the OOB however those obviously have not been updated to reflect the news side of these sites from this past Dec. of 2010 when PATRIA released the press notice.

A2. ADD: UAE (GULF STATES an issue for later.) & SYRIA/PANTSYR-S1/JAN 2007 & JAN 2009 respectively./As per RUSSIAN UNIT 414./These are among the six countries mentioned in the refs to have received these SPAA units, but are the only ones I can find firm dates for. The other countries are India sometime around mid 2007 - 2008, Algeria in ~2008 and Jordon & Libya ~2010 late - 2011 late. I will find what I can but this will be for next year.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/newsflash/algeria_libya_set_to_buy_russian_pantsir-s1_short-range_air_missile_defense_systems_russia.html About Algeria and Libya.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/ Please don't mix up contract dates with delivery dates. Note country and expected users mentioned.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/pantsir_ pantsyr_s1_sa-22_greyhound_air_defense_missile_gun_system_techni cal_data_sheet_specification.html See country user list bottom.
http://defense-update.com/products/p/pantsir.htm Mentions India in the last line. Will make contact with BROADSWORD site to see if I can't get some independent confirmation on this.
Post: Page 1; #4 & #8.

M1. MOD: RUSSIA/PANTSYR-S1/UNIT 414/Name as shown vice S1 PANTSYR/Fielded date from JAN 2008 to JAN 2010./ This is a highly capable SPAA unit that Russia exported before they made it operational for their Air Force. Per the post below they are using the more advanced SA-22 discussed. Name change based on refs. and the headache I got trying to verify status in the game, the last is the funny part!?!
http://www.armyrecognition.com/newsflash/russian_armed_army_forces_receive_the_first_10_new _air-defense_systems_pantsir_s1_sa-22_greyhound.html Russian operational induction in 2010.

M2. MOD: USMC/LAV-AD BLAZER/UNIT 54/Change end date to JUN 2004 vice DEC 2001/Modify TI/GSR to 45 and EW to 5 as Unit 50 currently shows and possible 25mm ammo load maybe increased?/Both units shared the same BLAZER turret. What really hurt this unit was its low production rate with only 17 total units made. Spares (electronic components) were already very expensive and made more so by the limited numbers. By permission I work with retired USMC GySGT. C. Vanderaa who was a gunner in the test unit evaluating the LAV-AD and he informed me there was one circuit board they had that cost just over 100K, ONE CARD. But he loved them just as any who served with them or were supported by them as they were used for fire support during the spring and summer of 2003 during OIF. Check the blogs for yourself. The 25mm is the same as used by the USMC Harriers and AC-130U SPOOKY w/APDU rounds as well I understand. UPDATE 01/20/2011: Relieved the "Gunny" and he commented the following 1) BLAZER turret underwent only minor changes. 2) Explained "Vision" to him in game terms, he noted the systems FC and Vision were very sensitive and far reaching because one of the parameters in the design had to be the very fast and accurate response to "pop up" helos at close in and extended ranges. It was simply a matter of who shoots first wins. So ECM, FC & TI/GSR were very advanced for the time. 3) APDU were the preferred rounds carried on board to meet APC etc. threat, and he specifically mentioned to have the ability to take down the HINDS quickly if encountered and to take out fortified positions and anyone defending them which was very adept in during OIF. He got to see them in action in OIF and they were glad to have them. Apparently according to him they exceeded expectations locally in the ground support role. Ammo is an issue to be addressed based on this and below.
http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/2003/Messages03top55.aspx Note RMKS/1.C. the 4th LAV (AD) Platoon was the HQ Platoon. This message is dated on 241500Z NOV 2003, almost two months into FY04; this is why I chose JUN 2004 vice APR 2004 (Mid point for FY04.). The latest date possible would be SEP 2004as OCT 2004 would start FY 2005.
http://www.angelfire.com/tx6/lav_ad/index.html
Capt. Whit Houston’s site, the last CO to command the LAV-AD Company when they cased their colors.
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/jasonm/ Sgt. Jason Millett’s site, he served with Capt. Whit Houston during his tour as CO prior to, and during OIF until the unit cased its colors. You'll need a little patience to download his video but for those of you that served they'll see those kids weren't much different then when we did our time, enough said there. Towards the end are pictures of the 25mm rounds I mentioned above, if not APDU, they are certainly a modified AP round of some sort, I'll check with the "Gunny". Also a great song by "Three Doors Down" it sets the tone for the video and situation and reminds me of my own long deployments away from family but still surrounded by "family" under the waves.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/gau-12.htm To support the above and APDU rounds, though on the HARRIER, I understand this was standard for the LAV-AD for the same purpose against air and light armored targets. Might this affect the current ammo penetration value given for the unit?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lav-ad-specs.htm Note ammo load (out) is this an issue for the game unit?
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Golden_Age/GAW_LAV.htm From some game site (UKN) but the info on the technical side (Non game.) is correct. Might be of some value for you developers as well.
http://www.generaldynamics.com/ No reference to the LAV-AD off the current site in the Land Systems section.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM LAV-AD combat night action during OIF note comment section. Play it loud and in full screen and thank God you’re not on the receiving end! Short about 1 mike. Also answers the wheel spin effect in some pictures, that was brought up in the MRAP thread I believe, in the second comment called "stroboscopic effect”, who says we can't learn something new once in awhile?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XooFmPUt6aA General Dynamics Aerospace video on the LAV-AD BLAZER in action. Short about 1.5 mikes.
Added new pics because the one shown in the game is the export version with the MINSTREL System:
Pic:
10786 10787

D1. DELETE: USMC/LAV-AD BLAZER/UNIT 50/ The LAV-AD BLAZER was taken out of service as the official USMC document will show above in M2 among other refs as well. This version I trust shows it with the STRINGER BLK II missile which had its funding stripped and was cancelled in 2002, it never was fielded. LAV-AD was eventually replaced by the HUMVEE AVENGER platform.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/blazer/ Supports info above in M2 as well.

Helo News game...

I'm going to start this a little differently see APC Page 7 Post #69 for a moment, read it carefully please, then carry on. In hindsight maybe I should've polled the issue, the only response I got came from Suhiir on Post #70. But I'm taking my shot here based on the fact no one took the opportunity to "kill" the idea since I posted it, so here goes. This applies to the USMC AH-1Z, USA AH-64D BIII and Turkish T129 AKAK for now as they are new platforms. Multi-missioned and armed in one package as normally equipped configuration per the refs and pictures offered.

Here's comes the "rub" as discussed above. As this is a work in progress the "rub" is where I left off a day ago. I thought, I would find more to delete here but there's less. I have had to make some guesses here as the USMC AH-1 helos never got designated past I believe it was the AH-1T (Only one if I remember.) in the game. So I offer the following solution. The AH-1W came into service in 1985, I'm sorry but I didn't have time to track them all down and I had to check them all manually to find 1. Which were the latest AH-1W helos to establish the "bridge" to the AH-1Z? & 2. Were the AH-1Z helos entered based on the projected earlier delivery dates? I hope I did, here goes:

A1. ADD: USMC/AH-1Z VIPER/JUN 2011/C2/M 179 20mm AG w/750Rds, 8 AGM-114L LONGBOW HELLFIRE ATGW, 2 x 2.75 Laser Guided AFPKWS (LGA) 19 Shot Rocket Pods and (2 AIM-9 SIDEWINDER AAM dropping these as I now see more clearly the game limited weapons slot issue with the helos.)/ Picture below shows this configuration. Also the USA doesn't get the LGA as they dropped the program. The PDF Pocket Guide is a must here in the Protection and TSS sections in particular. Armor protection up to 23mm rounds in the rotor section and it keeps flying is substantial as an example. Recommend that TI/GSR 60, increase FC and survivability such as IR dampeners were greatly improved and armored engine surfaces (AH-1W as depicted by M3 has been modified to this standard as well.) as compared to
UNITS 502 & 503 below.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18440/ Bell announces that on Sep. 24, 2010 NAVAIR deems the AH-1Z operationally ready.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20163/ Approved for full rate production Nov. 28, 2010.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20437/ As above from Bell.
http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/bellAH-1Z.cfm Overview and I highly recommended checking out the PDF Pocket Guide in upper left for more detailed info.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/ Excellent info on the AH-1W and AH-1Z. This needs addressing especially as these are tied into the TSS system above and with the AH-1W as well, just a recommendation anyway.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/ Deployed on AH-1W helos now. USA dropped the program the USN was smarter here to finish it, and who says we don't take care of the Marines!?! Well sometimes anyway!?!
http://www.deagel.com/news/APKWS-Guided-Rocket-Ready-for-Production-and-Deployment_n000007266.aspx Production ready. Accuracy to within 0.75M vice I believe the unguided accuracy was between 5M to 10M.
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0410/news/apkws_cobras_009042010.html As above.
Posts: APC Thread Page 7; #69, Page 8; #70; #71 & 75. USMC Aircraft... thread (All threads page 3) Post #5. From this thread Page 1; Posts #1; #4; #7 &9.

Believe these to be the AH-1W and AH-1Z.

M1. MOD: USMC/AH-1/Use UNIT 502 to model the above A1.
ADD AH-1Z VIPER.

D1. DELETE: USMC/AH-1/UNIT 503/As noted above.

M2. MOD: USMC/AH-1/UNIT 501/AH-1 to AH-1W/End date from DEC 2005 to DEC 2010./

M3. MOD: USMC/AH-1/UNIT 500/AH-1 to AH-1W/JAN 2010 to DEC 2020 vice JAN 2000 to DEC 2005/ This is the bridge unit to the AH-1Z as an improved AH-1W, REMEMBER as noted in the refs above most airframes are going to come from the AH-1W. These are improved above the levels as they exist in the game now and slightly "dumbed down" from the AH-1Z helos. Weapons same, TI/GSR 45-50, FC+, Protection etc. Though some improvements have started as noted not will be included until these are sent to be finally fully refitted and RESET to the AH-1Z thus effectively ending the AH-1W series after 2020.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/19155/ AH-1W target system upgrade.
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/ah1_hueycobra.htm
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/AGM-114L-Longbow-Hellfire_a001111006.aspx Overview of the HELLFIRE "LONGBOW".
Pics:
10788

A2. ADD: TURKEY/T129/JUN 2012/C2/Vulcan TM197B 20mm w/500Rds, 8 SPIKE ER ATGW, 2 x 2.75 Laser Guided CIRIT 19 Shot Rocket Pods/ Based on the (is) Italian A129I Helo. The A129"MONGOOSE" has been in service since 1989 and is battle tested most recently in IRAQ. It was chosen over the SAAF (DENAL) AH-2A ROOIVALK in the final round of completion. Turkey had to reopen it's AH Helo competition over the long delays in the AH-1Z program. Turkey opted out of that program in 2004, which was the only export customer for the AH-1Z.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-shortlists-2-attack-helicopters-updated-02397/ Full program background.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/agusta/ Same as above with more technical info.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/690/ Additional order.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/10114/ Maiden flight.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/7722http://www.roketsan.com.tr/programs_eng.php?id=5 About Turkish CIRIT.
http://www.roketsan.com.tr/programs_eng.php?id=6 About Turkish ATGW LARAT.
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/a129_mangusta.htm First of its kind in Europe.
Pics:
10790

D2. DELETE: TURKEY/AH-1Z/UNITS 484 - 487/ As noted above.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-1z.htm Last section covers the above.

A3. ADD: USA/APACHE AH-64D BIII/JAN 2012/C2/30mm w/1.2KRds, 8 AGM-114L LONGBOW HELLFIRE ATGW & 2 x 2.75 AFPKWS 19 Shot Rocket Pods picture provided./The Block III takes the APACHE certainly to and beyond the levels of the AH-X COMANCHE except in the area of stealth. The advances in electronics and bandwidth are far beyond what was achieved in the 6 - 8 years since the AH-X program was killed. The debate has already started (Some a handful of years ago.) as to which is better the AH-64D Block III or AH-1Z. I'd say it's too close to call. What I don't doubt is when they come on line, 1 will be #1 and the other #2 and #2 isn't so bad when you're on the same side.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/
http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Helicopters/Block-III-AH-64D-Apache-Longbow_a000519004.aspx
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-64d-3.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apache-block-iii-program-kicks-off-as-contract-signed-02480/#ah-64d-block-III-helicopter Poor mans preview.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/10/25/47148-army-enters-low-rate-production-for-block-iii-apache/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/19087/ Approves low rate production.
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/AGM-114L-Longbow-Hellfire_a001111006.aspx Overview of the HELLFIRE "LONGBOW".
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/arrowhead-mtads-pnvs-sensor-system-06461/#more-6461 Details some of the sensor issues I brought up above.
Pic:
10789

So now we say goodbye too:

D3. DELETE: USA/AH-X (COMANCHE)/UNITS 274 - 276 & 916/As noted above.

D4. DELETE: ISRAEL/AH-X (COMANCHE)/UNIT 283./As above.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=49
http://air-attack.com/page/62/RAH-66-Comanche.html
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/rah66_comanche.htm

End Part 2

Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2011, 11:04 PM

Start Part 3
HELOS Con't:

A4. ADD: NEW ZEALAND/NH 90 TTH A109 /JUN 2011/C3 P20/With its roll on - roll off ramp it can also accommodate a single vehicle up to 2.5 tons. The TTH has "nap of the earth" flying ability. There is supposed to be work done or being done to accommodate MG's for protection.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/new-zealand-selects-nh90-helicopter-0466/#more-466 Breakdown of the RNZAF NH-90 program.
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/nh_90.htm
Pic:
10791

AC-130U TIME TO...

C1. CHANGE: USMC/AC-130U SPOOKY/UNIT 573/Name AC-130U SPOOKY to AC-130U+4 SPOOKY/End Date to DEC 2010 vice DEC 2020/In the eyes of the USAF this was a failed attempt to remove the 25mm and 40mm and replace it with the 30mm. This was conversion was only done on 4 of the 17 operational SPOOKYS. Part of the reason the conversion was due to the maintenance and ammo requirements of the 25mm and 40mm. The other, the 30mm was found to be inaccurate and thus "operationally unsuitable" The USMC has other thoughts about this (30mm) but you'll have to wait until my first Patch Post for 2012 to find out why.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u-4.htm Great overview of the issue at hand and at the bottom is the reason I started the thread in the first place.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-spookier-spooky-30mm-at-a-time-03023/ Detailed background on the project.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71

A1. ADD: USA/AC-130H SPECTRE/JAN 1998 - DEC 2020/Use USA UNIT 564for the base./These never stopped flying and are in service (8) for the foreseeable future. This "new" unit is at least electronically comparable to the
current AC-130U (TI/GSR etc.). However and if time allows before the deadline, the AC-130 will be advanced further electronically and in weaponry (VIPER STRIKE ATGW) as well with information I have.
If not I'll present it for next year. It willbe next year.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=71
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130h.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130-specs.htm Comparison between SPECTRE and SPOOKY. Note weapons and ammo info.
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/ac-130_spectre.pl As immediately above.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ac130.html Gets into the electronic issue in greater detail.
http://spectre-association.org/historySpectre.htm A little history from the guys who flew them.
Pic:
10792

Jets and Planes but...

A1. ADD: EQUADOR/CHEETAH C/JAN 2011/Use SOUTH AFICAN UNITS 154& 336 for the base./Retired by the SAAF in 2008, the planes have been maintained in storage for surplus sales purposes. Used JAN 2011 since Ecuador has been involved with these planes in both South Africa and at home for over a year.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20518/ Reports the buy.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Cheetahs-and-Mirage-50s-for-Ecudaor-05832/Does the same and details it as well. It'll show these to be upgraded versions of the CHEETAH C as well.
Pic:
10793

A2. ADD: THAILAND/GRIPEN C (TRAF JAS 39C)/OCT 2011/Use SWEDISH UNITS 327- 329 for the base./These are brand new fighters. The GRIPEN C is the single seat 4th generation interceptor version.
http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/JAS-39C-Gripen_a000532001.aspx A good quick look.

A3. ADD: THAILAND/GRIPEN D (TRAF JAS 39D)/OCT 2011/Use SWEDISH UNITS NONE(?) for the base./As above except that the GRIPEN D is the two seat 4th generation fighter-bomber version with heavier payload.
http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/JAS-39D-Gripen_a000532002.aspx As above. The rest below cover the deal plus more for both.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/thailand-buying-jas-39-gripens-awacs-04022/#more-4022 When you can get the full articles they're hard to beat.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20615/ SAAB comes to Thailand in partnership deal.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20612/ Thailand orders more GRIPEN C fighters.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-for-Thailand/ Click on tabs at top for further info.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/ Homepage that'll allow you too find info on all current user nations.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen/Gripen/Technical-specifications/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/jas_39_gripen.htm Though older, provides good background info note chart to left (Normal feature of site.) weapons section.
Pic:
10794

D1. DELETE: RUSSIA/Su-47 BERKUT/UNIT 170/This is strictly a prototype/demonstrator craft.
Pic:
10795

C1. CHANGE: RUSSIA/Su-50/UNIT 963/Name to either Su PAK FA or
Su-50 PAK FA vice Su-50./This might avoid confusion with the T-50 that was the prototype and puts it in line with net searches as normally known simply as PAK FA.
Posts #3; #5 and #9.

Miscellaneous items to include a couple of deletions.

D1. DELETE: USA/MERCENARIES & MP SQUAD/UNITS 725 & 726 and
106 - 109 respectively./ I had hoped this search would've yielded more then this but I searched the game world pretty thoroughly and within the my thoughts on the matter as posted below.
Posts: APC thread Page 7; Posts #66 - #68.

1/23/2011 That's it!! :hide: :cheers:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 24th, 2011, 12:32 PM

68.

ADD: NEW ZEALAND/NH 90 TTH A109 /-

THERE IS NO NEW ZEALAND IN THE GAME PAT

68.
1/23/2011 That's it!! :hide: :cheers:

:yield:

now go a take a nice Loooooooooooong break please and remind me never to say " I guess that's about it........" ever again.....:wave:

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 24th, 2011, 09:33 PM

Don,
Sorry that was a breakdown in my notes. I missed the "crib note" to myself :doh: not to post it here. After the "push" over the last week and a halve and my last two weekends off, I just wanted to get it done as discussed and early and it got by. My apolizies and sorry for the inconvenience. It's back to the news.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 27th, 2011, 08:46 AM

[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.

Pat, the Morozov reference you provided clearly states

The Oplot has a total of 40 rounds of separate loading ammunition (projectile and charge) of which 28 rounds are placed in the automatic loader............< snip >.........The missiles are stowed in the automatic loader in the same way as conventional ammunition.

so the missiles are not added to the ammo total they are PART OF the ammo total.

Don

DRG

January 27th, 2011, 10:08 PM

[M3. MOD: USA/BRADLEY/JAN 2011/UNITS 006, 305-306, 309, 655, 664, 666 (Yikes!) & 668/ As in the game add a new tech ERA/ARA package and upgrades below.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-us-armys-bradley-remanufacture-program-updated-02835/#more-2835 Please note APR 06 '09 & SEP 22 '08 as these affect the above units. Others in the game were out of service by 2008 - 2009.

Pat......... "Others in the game were out of service by 2008 - 2009"

When is 006 OOS ?? looks like 1995 to me

and 655 ?? Looks like 1989 to me as does 664

In the end you're going to get 2 new Bradleys with the upgrade ERA package

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 28th, 2011, 02:32 AM

Don,
Sorry for not responding sooner, dealing with the issues of "observers" at work recently. Not afraid to admit my errors and item 1. might be a teaching moment for others new to interpreting the "table" of info shown for a particular unit in Mobhack.
1. I understand it has to be done the way shown for weapons slots, what I didn't realize or better, make the connection, is that though all shell types were broken down by AP, HE etc. and with how many shells make up each, it is only part of the sum total of ammo if ATGWs are equipped as well. Though listed separately they will be combined with the shell count to get to that units total ammo load-out. So the OPLOT will have a combination of shells equal to 34 + 6 ATGW for a total of 40.
Got it.

2. That was just plain stupid on my part, I read the :censor: month as the year near as I can tell-sorry. Thanks for the gain though, at least the info was good enough (Small victory.) for the addition.

Maybe I need a day job like most normal people?

Thanks for not blasting me out of the water to badly, had enough to deal with other places earlier tonight. And people have said life will be better after a military career, I need to move that "censor" smiley down here as well!?!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 28th, 2011, 08:39 AM

No problem Pat. The info you provide is generally clear enough just occasionally things get a little mixed up which isn't surprising given the mass of data we both end up sifting through and that you are relatively new to MOBHack

I'm slowly hacking my way through it entering data and building new Icons where applicable. Good thing I'm retired. I used to have to work this into normal work schedule.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 29th, 2011, 02:00 PM

I will be on hiatus with the "news" unless something earth shattering comes up. It's time to start on Part 1 of 3 Patch Posts for next year as discussed with the boss to avoid him having to :yield: and me having to :hide: as the info was compressed into 3 months for the last patch. But it was a more successful campaign then I could have hoped for, thanks Don, Andy and everyone else.
What to expect:
1. It'll be ref heavy, as expected by most.
2. There will be some items revisited based mostly on the fact I didn't understand Mobhack unit utilities in the earlier posts that gave Don a headache at times and he just plain ran out of time on those items, mostly from the MBT section.
3. At least with the first Post a very light spattering to cover the MBT, APC, SP&SPAA and other threads. Just not much happening there.
4. It will be avaition heavy due to the news surrounding China and Venezuela and how it's affecting their neighbors. Also with mods to existing units that I just ran out of time with myself.

I apolize in advance to everyone, as you see most of my posting is done after work and when not on my days off. Please as I asked in the very first Post of this thread I need to limit contact on these Posts to Don and Andy not out of disrespect to anyone out there but for the sake of time management and to maintain my focus as things have changed in the last few weeks for me at work. So with CINCLANTHOMEs blessing (Sort of!?!) I hope to have this first one posted by the end of June.
In the meantime I recommend the following defence news sites:
http://www.army-technology.com/
http://www.defpro.com/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

THANKS EVERYONE!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 6th, 2011, 03:33 PM

Don,
A couple of questions for you when you get the chance.

1. What TI/GSR value do you typically assign to a modern (Circa 2002/2003 with upgrades during installation process.) 2nd Gen integrated FCS Thermal Sight with full day/night capability?

The next is an opinion issue if we're thinking along the same lines in the interpretation of the data.

2. Does a government source "trump" all others? The issue at hand is I have many refs to support (One that's VERY thorough on the LEO 1 developmental timeline and who bought what with specific dates.) Here's the specific issue Turkey LEO 1A1 (Unit 033.) many say the Turks didn't buy this one until much later (If at all.) but, actually bought the LEO 1A1A1 with improved armor protection. The government source only refs the LEO 1A1 and 1A4 (Simplification of model designations?) for modernization. Providing my best sources for your opinion (Note: Based on the purchase dates I'm personally leaning towards the 1A1A1 vice 1A1.) or I'll carry on and submit to the patch what I have, which ever way you wish me to proceed for #2.
http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/projects/land/BattleTanks/Sayfalar/Leopard1A1A1A4T.aspx
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product152.html
See under Variants LEO 1A1A1, 1A3 & 1A4 (These were designated Leopard T1.) near bottom see Turkey where the LEO 1A1A1 deal is mentioned.

Thanks!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 7th, 2011, 07:46 AM

1- 40

2- NO SOURCE should be considered infalible. If there is a wide range of opinion there's probably a reason for it ( like the basic info isn't very good to begin with )

In that case we pick a reasonable date then wait and see who complains then take that info and decide if it's worthwhile changing or not

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 7th, 2011, 11:23 AM

Don,

1. Thanks!

2. I believe the government in this case as stated "over simplified" the types and "combined" them if you will based on ref 2. Will proceed with the preponderance of the evidence I have, after all you know how I feel on the topic of "reliable" refs.

Thanks Again!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 13th, 2011, 04:34 PM

Mobhack

June 14th, 2011, 02:43 AM

Don,
On the "boats" the only dumb question was the one not asked, so with that in mind and when you get a chance, in the MobHack Unit page does the term "Survivability" under all the FCS info refer to:
1. Turret and FCS survivability or;
2. Overall tank/or crew survivability or;
3. None of the above/other.

A simple # answer will do. Will continue with the work and edit as I need to later.
Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Pat

2

See the Mobhack help file, search for the section entitled "survivability" in the design information and standards section.

(It should have a paragraph in the unit tab section, but it has apparently been missed)

Andy

DRG

June 14th, 2011, 07:40 AM

SURVIVABILITY

Survivability (aka "S") ratings range from 0-6. At the low end are fragile units, while at the upper end are a few units with a reputation for taking a lot of serious punishment. Survivability is directly tied into other factors such as armour rating -- as it doesn't come into play unless the armour has been penetrated.

The S rating is very powerful, but it's weak link is the armour rating of the unit. High armour ratings and high S makes for a very powerful unit. Very low armour ratings and high S only makes the unit tough against large caliber MGs and small caliber AA. Catastrophic penetration bypasses the S rating. Catastrophic penetration is 10pts pen greater than was needed for penetration.

The closest answer is 2/ but I will add for the longest time many players thought ( and some still do...) that rated crew survival only. It does affect crew survival but it's mainly how tough the tank is overall. The tougher and better made the tank, the better the crew survival

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 14th, 2011, 11:23 AM

Andy and Don,
Thank you for the "time saver" answer! It all makes sense, had to make sure though.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 4th, 2011, 10:13 PM

Don,
At your convience can you answer the following as I'm wrestling with a couple of issues here.

1. By way of update I am in the SPA and SPAA thread with the final entries to be the Russian TORANDO MLRS and MEADS. What that means is the Helos are next, as I go in order of the threads as started, my question is this, do you foresee any reason for an AH to have a TI/GSR beyond 60 (60x50m=3000m?) given the limitations of the "board" size normally used within the game system?

2. The EFV (USMC UNIT 189) is designated as being "UNKNOWN" can a player still use it? Was going to put the EFV up for deletion again or do you want to go one more cycle? Since MEADS was improved in the last patch with the mobile launcher for Italy (ITALY UNIT 182) will submit MEADS as an add for the USA and Germany the largest contributors financially, but by the same token knowing what we know thus far should not the MEADS program also be put in the "UNKNOWN" category, or do we wait a couple of years?

Regards,
Pat

DRG

July 5th, 2011, 07:37 AM

1/ not at this time

2/ Units re-nationalized to one of the "unknowns" CANNOT be accessed by the player and will not show up in the game. The MEADS unit does not appear in the game until 2016 and is irrelavant to the current date. *IF* it is fully cancelled by 2016 we will remove it. If not , we will enter it into any nations OOB that uses it but there is REALLY no need to fuss over it's status as known or unknown. There have already been 10x more posts about MEADS than it deserves at this time. It's a WIP weapons system that may or may not be ready for service 5 years from now..maybe.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 5th, 2011, 12:02 PM

Don,
Pretty much as I thought then. I'm sure others have benefited from this information as well, it's god to have a "teachable moment". For MEADS like the F-35 will try to keep it to milestones.

RRegards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 15th, 2011, 02:06 AM

Suhiir

July 18th, 2011, 06:02 PM

Don,
For background to this question see Pg.5, first Post, Item C1 this thread.
The USMC have since about the early Fall of 2010 been using their MC-130 refueling planes as "light gunships" (HARVEST HAWK.) with "roll on roll off" weapons and support equipment. Before I put time into this I want to know given the slot limitations of the USMC & USA (The Air Force is doing the same with their light tankers.) do we want to go there knowing that we have the SPOOKY and SPECTRE (Fixed in the last patch.) until the current game runs out in 2020. Also note we will probably see a new SPOOKY before 'games end" using the C-130J Spec ops planes if the budgetary issues can get worked out. I can go either way as this was an item I just ran out of time with last year, my refs are in place. Sorry the pace has been slow though about done with land equipment, just lot's going on everywhere.

Regards,
Pat

Shussssssh !!!!!!

By mandate/law ONLY the US Air Force is permitted to operate cargo and gunship aircraft.

The USMC is ONLY permitted to operate refueling aircraft.

The fact that on occasion the discountable internal refueling tanks are occasionally left behind and cargo is loaded or that weapons mounts may be part of that cargo are merely coincidence. The USMC KC-130 is solely a refueling aircraft.

The USAF does not allow the USMC to operate any cargo or gunship aircraft. :smirk:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 18th, 2011, 06:53 PM

Got you, but, the question remains is it worth adding to the game given the slot limitations? I do know this that the SPOOKY's just completed a major upgrade that I suspect at a minium will increase the TI/GSR to 50 if not more. And likewise will or should cause a plus in FC as well, remember these are considered precision fire platforms even to danger close inside 100m. That mod will be submitted. So again, to HARVEST HAWK or not, ready to go ethier way. Here's a taste and note the program has been expanded since the first ref. And as you should know this next ref is very through.
http://www.dvidshub.net/news/60315/kc-130j-harvest-hawk-takes-new-role-afghanistan
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Harvest-Hawk-Aims-to-Arm-USMCs-KC-130J-Aerial-Tankers-05409/

In the meantime, all OSPREY's to get moded with a new weapon ststem under the Helo section of the PP.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

July 20th, 2011, 11:43 PM

My vote would be don't add it.

It's a very limited availability very limited use weapons system.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 21st, 2011, 01:14 AM

I agree, we're the only country operating truly modern gunships at this time and I've started to feel like the "Soup Nazis" of slot resources, thanks to some, and you know who you are!?! For Italy and a couple of other countries that might follow suit with their
C-27J aircraft (See Jets and Planes...thread Post #42, #4.) that'll be a different story if and when they get there. There will be another issue I will address for both SPECTRE and SPOOKY beyond what I've eluded to already that might cause a bit of a stir. So hopefully I'll get there by the first week of August because I'm submitting what I have at that time regardless as I expect some Q&A right from the very first set of items submitted. Thanks for looking at this item for me as I know the work you've put into the CORPS for the game.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

July 21st, 2011, 09:31 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 6th, 2011, 01:46 AM

Patch Post #1 for the 2011/2012 campaign. I respectfully request that all well intentioned inputs not be posted here, this is for Don, Andy and others directly involved with the patch.

MBTs
The matter of the Turkish LEOPARD tanks needed updating as the refs will show, this is to include increases in service life, to allow for the M60T development and to keep and update their newer tanks to retire the M48 tanks. More importantly all LEOPARD 1 tanks bought by Turkey (As well as the LEO 2A4.) would prove invaluable as test beds for the ALTAY tank program, specifically in regards to the ASALEN VOLCAN FCS. The LEOPARD 1 series would incorperate MK I FCS w/2nd Gen TS which prompted my TI/GSR ? in Posts #49 & #50. Note: The order of upgrades below is simply an educated guess based on the fact that it maDe sense to upgrade the older tanks first and leaving the newer 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 incorperate 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 availble. *There are some "rumors" that some armor work was done as well on the LEO 1 tanks but I can not support that. 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

A1. 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 practicle way I could see to show the transition from orgin 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 recieve any armor upgrades during the 1T program it was simply for the VOLCAN MK I FCS . Also ref 1is 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 Turkeys LEO tanks.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product152.html
Focus on Varient 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 Defence Industry, the office is responsible for procurment, R&D and the cordination of government. private and joint defence industry companies.
http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=79&lang=en Aselsan is government owned. VOLKAN FCS MK I.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4375359&c=EUR&s=LAN

Pic:11276 Pic is posted here as a reference which I came across while researching the LEOPARD-2T. Also from the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry, responsible for procurent, R&D and the cordination of government. private and joint defence 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.

A4. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-2A4/JAN 2006-DEC 2008/USE GERMAN
UNIT 030/Turkey requested no mods be done by ethier 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 4 can 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 recieving some coorperation 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 techinical licensing with S. Korea with the K-2. They have all the tools, money and techincal 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 but 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:
11277

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/
Pic:
11278

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 relience 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 Afganistan. 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 80-85./To the poster who caught the error, my apolizies 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 lenght (Pg.14 Post #139.) and extra set of road wheels. Your thinking and I agree based on "hints" in the refs suggust besides having a larger engine (Fact.) it was was probaly 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 "daymares" before I go to bed for the "nightmares" within the hour, in fact I'm stopping here!?!

APC Development and...
Was going to post about the German BOXER but as the fielded date falls within just less then six monthes as agreed to a couple of years ago with Don I won't. See Pg. 11 Post #104 for further details. Also still going to hold off on the ARMA 6x6 however I found a source that says Bahrain has bought them for their Army NG Here is the ref for ARMA and they are the first to report it on these type of sites that I can find. This will be transferred to this thread later as always for all PP segments..
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1929:bahrain-turkish-arma-ifv-contract-signed&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56.
This will be brief:

R1. THAILAND/BTR-3E1 IFV/REMINDER/ADD per Posts #105 (Data in normal PP Unit Format.) - #107./The additional 126 units were ordered but it always helps when the exporter (Ukraine) throws in free units to "sweeten the pot", I'd just settle for some free gas myself!?!
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news121016.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/thailand_preparing_the_purchase_of_an_additional_b atch_of_121_btr-3e1_armoured_vehicles.html
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery-Upgrades/Kyiv-Design-Bureau-Bar-er-Anti-Tank-System-Ukraine.html

A1. ADD/KUWAIT/DESERT CHAMLEON/JAN 2011/C3 P7/RMTS Bushmaster 30mm Rds UKN as Primary Weapon and 12.7mm Rds UKN versions./This is a very versitile turret that is field changeable to carry a range of weapons from a 5.62mm to a 40mm cannon. The USMC is looking at the vehicle but more the turret as a possible upgrade to the LPPV-7 as the EFV is now dead. The turret is U.S. made.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_army_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/desert_chameleon_6x6x6_armoured_vehicle_personnel_ carrier_data_sheet_specifications_information_uk.h tml
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/01/14/Kuwait-receives-new-armored-vehicles/UPI-20771295027994/
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929027&pu=1&rd=janes_com
http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/tags/armored-personnel-carriers/
Posts #93 & #94.

D1. POLAND/BWP-2000/UNIT 442/DELETE/The BWP-2000 program was developed in the early 90's and cancelled by the end of the 90's by Poland. Only two prototypes were built. This program would eventually lead Poland to develop the ANDERS IFV which however suffered the same fate as the BWP-2000 and itself was cancelled in 2010. What killed ANDERS was the economy and the fact that Poland was already contracted therefore committed to the ROSOMAK 8x8 of which 800 were ordered. No further development is underway for the BWP-2000. The ANDERS IFV and Light Tank versions are being marketed for foriegn sales at this time.
ROSOMAK is fielded and still under delivery status until I believe 2013.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1015.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/poland_polish_army_land_ground_forces_uk/poland_polish_army_land_ground_forces_military_equ ipment_armoured_vehicle_intelligence_information_d .html
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=25654
Post #1 last unit before "NEW UNITS".
http://aus.krakow.pl/army/polish-combat-platform-xxi-century/new-polish-light-tank-concept-and-a-new-family-of-vehicles
See lead in para on ANDERS Light Tank status and note last sentence in the first full para below for BWP-2000. Note the word "demonstrator" is used to describe both pieces of equipment.
Also see THREAD "Polish Anders AFV" currently on Pg. 1 of threads Posts #5 - #12 to include the first few sentences of Post #13 with focus on the refs.

D2. USMC/EFV/UNIT 189/DELETE/Though I brought up the "UNKNOWN" issue as to what it meant, I just can't ignore the reality of the situation at this point given the refs already presented in the last past PP #2 I think, but also since and as presented below. We'll not only need the slot for the likely "improved" AAV-7A1 but also for it's eventual replacement. Here's another example for some (present company excluded) about putting in future systems some have asked about, the work involved in putting the unit "together", at some point changing the status in this case twice if deleted, and making room for the replacements. I believe this is what happened with the above D1 unit as well.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14179 The Commandant.
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1540 Para 2 & 3 starting w/Secretary Gates...
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Efficiency_Justification_Book.pdf
Pg. 10.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63557
Para 7.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/02/defense-marines-ideas-for-new-vehicles-022111/
http://www.marines.mil/community/Documents/MarineCorpsConnection/e-mail%201-14-11/index.html
First two articles are both worth a look, though second is on topic.

MRAPS
Nothing much happening here right now except for the below item. The sector has been very busy in the area of orders for existing equipment. The only other new piece of equipment to fit this catagory is Paramounts MATADOR & MAURADER (Pg. 8 Posts #75 & 76.) however Aberbazan is not in the game and they are currently the only operators of these vehicles which some have dubbed "the best in their class". The deal with Jordan never got done. See Posts # for further information.

A1. ADD/NORWAY/DINGO 2/JAN 2011/C1 P7/ARROWS-300 FULL SYSTEM ROT w/40mmHV AGL Rds UKN & M3S 12.7mm w/300RDs./See Ref 3 which shows the turret as described and ordered by Norway./The DINGO 2 is a much improved version of the DINGO 1 that's better protected and much more mobile.
http://defense-update.com/wp/20101029_dingo_norway.html
http://www.kmweg.de/2922-YWt0X3BhZ2U9MSZkb209ZG9tMSZsPWVuJm5ld3NfaWQ9NjA0Mz k-~rechte-navi~pressemitteilungen~news_detail.html
http://www.kmweg.de/2922-ZG9tPWRvbTEmbD1lbiZuZXdzX2lkPTU4Njc4-~rechte-navi~pressemitteilungen~news_detail.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/dingo2protecetedvehi/
http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/arrows-300series-advanced-reconnaissance-remotely-operated-weapon-system.html
Also Pg.6 Post #51.

A2. ADD/UK/HUSKEY/JUN 2009/P4 RECON-SPEC OP versions/RWS 12.7mm w/UKN Rds./C2 P2 for Transport, Command or Ambulance versions. Also known as the MXT. The Recon-Spec Op versions are uparmored from the others and since all retain the bed portion of the vehicle besides extra fuel and other gear to cause the enemy some havoc, I'm sure there's plenty of room for ammo, I would think 1500 - 2000 Rds would not be unreasonable in this case. This vehicle represents the third in the triad of better protected vehicles UK MOD had sought to lower the casuality rates of the ones used prior to them which is why Ref. A is where it's at.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6695154.ece
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/husky-tsv/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/husky-tsv/specs.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Navistars-MXT-Makes-Breakthrough-in-Britain-05178/#more-5178
http://www.defencetalk.com/work-begins-on-husky-vehicles-for-british-army-17274/
Pics:
11279

Well I did say this was a living document...

A3. ADD/POLAND/ZUBR/JUN 2011/C2 P10/RWS 12.7mm or optional 7.62mm and 30mm AGL w/UKN Rds./SPro 4 grenade dispensers./This vehicle is availble in four varients two of which will be addressed here. The ZUBR has protection against 12.7mm rounds and arty shell splinters. Also it has a tow capcity of 3,300lbs
(1500kgs) a feature not normally mentioned in the refs. Blast protection against up to 8kg. It is also air portable.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/zubr-apc/
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=451
http://www.military-today.com/apc/zubr_mrap.htm
Pic:
11280

SPA and SPAA...
Just a couple of items here with a reminder.

M1. FINLAND/M270 MRLS/DEC 2011/UNIT 557 & 554(?)/MODIFY/Finland has only been operating the system since 2007. This upgrade provides for Precision Fire FCS, GPS Targeting, extends ordance options and ranges.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/MFC_051811_Lockheed_Martin_Receives_45.3_million.h tml
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24639/
http://www.deagel.com/news/Finnish-Army-to-Upgrade-22-M270-MLRS-Rocket-Artillery-Systems-Precision-Fires-Capability_n000008771.aspx
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/
http://www.asdnews.com/news/30848/Finland_-_M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System_Upgrade.htm
Pics:

A1. ADD/RUSSIA/TORNADO MRLS/APR 2011/C2/6 or 12 ML 300mm SMERCH Rockets/These are updated versions of the SMERCH rocket that are GPS guided. It can carry multiple munitions types and can still launch the unguided versions. The key here is the improved operability of the system from the launcher which is much more manueverable, air mobile and much easier and faster to reload. This is the replacement for the BM-21 GRAD which is taking place at this time. The Max. range is 70km and 90km with a specilized rocket.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_vehicles_system_artillery_uk/tornado_cv_9a52-4_mrls_multiple_rocket_launcher_system_data_sheet_ specifications_information.html
See Page 3 Post #30 Item #2

A2. ADD/FINLAND/NASAMS II FIN/JAN 2015/C 4/6 Multiple Launcher AIM 120 AMRAAM/USE UNIT 551 TRUCK/Modify UNIT 559 accordly./The truck used in UNIT 551 looks like the SISU 8x8 that will be the primary carrier for the system. This system will be more advanced then shown by UNIT 559 which was probaly based on NASAMS as used by the Norweigns for the past ten years. I also believe the Norweign system is mobile as well but might not get to it this first time around and I think they also use the same truck as well. Most Refs below were pulled from the "Transport for U.S. Patriot..." thread Pgs. 3 & 4. As you can see I built on to this one, didn't expect to see it, and missed it at first.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23345/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Finland-Updating-Its-Air-Defense-Systems-05398/
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4313048
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/smd09/slamraam/index.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/sisu_defence_delivered_the_1st_batch_of_nasams_fin _air_defence_vehicle_to_finnish_army_0804113.html
http://www.sisudefence.fi/node/29
http://www.sisudefence.fi/product/8x8

A3. ADD/POLAND/ZUBR P/APR 2011/C2/RWS POPARD SAM w/12 PZR GROM-2 AA missiles./To be honest I'm making an educated guess on GROM loadout based on size and payload capacity of the ZUBR-P and size of the missile. Retains towing capcity.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/zubr-apc/
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=451
http://www.military-today.com/apc/zubr_mrap.htm
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Land-Based-Air-Defence/Grom-Poland.html
Pic:

R1. THAILAND/CAESAR/REMINDER/ADD per Post #32 (DATA already in PP format.)./USE FRANCE UNIT 050 or 051./Post #7 provides additional background information.

R2. SAUDI ARABIA/CAESAR/REMINDER/ADD per Post #32 (DATA already in PP format.)./USE FRANCE UNIT 050 or 051./Post #7 provides additional background information.

Alright had a good Labor Day weekend hope you did as well!?! Cleaned it up (Again!), kicked the tires and added some options (Sorry Top Gear is on!).

Regards,
Pat
Monday, 05 September, 2011 23:47:48

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 6th, 2011, 02:07 AM

PP#1 2011/2012 add on. Had 1.5 hrs almost of heavy editing to make the last fit due to length. Here are the additional pictures.

MBTS
M1. LEOPARD-2T
11283 11284

MRAP
A2. HUSKEY
11282

SPA and SPAA
M1. M270 MRLS
11285

A3. ZUBR P
11281

Now I'm tired, so good night and have a GREAT Day!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 6th, 2011, 02:50 AM

Don,
I guess I was more out of it then I thought. In the MBT section the second A1. should read A2.. This is to avoid confusion with the below para. Also A4. should also read A3.
Had made some changes to better consolidate the inputs and forgot to re-letter the section. Feel free to fix if you have that ability. Hittin the rack.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 8th, 2011, 02:54 AM

All,
A quick note, it seems that the defencenews.com site after changing to it's new look did not link their older articles to their archive system. The affect of this is of course that basically anything used as a ref before ~ August appears to be useless including most off this last Patch Post. Any saved articles off the current site seem to be "recalled" without any problems thus far. Sorry for any inconvenience just noticed this issue a short time ago while researching some items for my next submission. Not seeing any problems with the army-techonlogy.com site in this area as they've just upgraded their site a couple of days ago. So it's not your computers.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 21st, 2011, 02:24 PM

Don,
In regards to MBT Post #151 OPLOT to Thailand, I intend to move forward with it. As reported the contracts were formally signed about a month ago, this next ref provides me with the contract dates I needed will use JAN 2012 or JUN 2012 which ever you like best, closeout for the contract is 2013. Total units 49. Will be on my next patch post (#2).
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4221.html

Click on note for COMBAT missile shell, Thailand is getting them as well.

Got to get ready for the daughters wedding rehearsal, have a great weekend!!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 21st, 2011, 12:41 AM

Don,
I have solid information to support that the SPECTRE/SPOOKY
AC-130 gunships have a normal 200 meter attack radius and can track and attack three separate targets simultaneously, will the current codex support this within the game? If code limited I'll just highlight the information, but if the game will support it I'll need to further "word tech" it to justify the change and your time to make it happen when submitted. There might be some information as already submitted from last years Patch Post and or the "old" SPOOKY thread I had, will try to reenter the posts as an edit before the 30 min. clock runs out. I'm not there yet, my focus is to tie up a couple of loose ends in the MBT, APC and MRAP world first (About six more units in four countries.) and the HELOS in the next post, once that's done I know how to make contact to discuss Patch Post #3 or put this off again as #1 for next year to include this topic item.
As always thanks for your time.

See JETS & PLANES...Post #21 first two items.
TO&E Page 3 Upper 1/3 AC-130U Time to Upgrade? thread.
Ahh Hell why not since people liked it!
11489 11491

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 21st, 2011, 08:41 PM

The code is set up to circle and area and fire into it. That's it

Don

Suhiir

November 21st, 2011, 09:59 PM

They certainly circle the target hex and fire into it, and given the number of weapons on the aircraft and the number of times they fire one would expect them to obliterate everything in the target hex. Sadly this has not been the case in my experience. I used them several times in Vietnam era scenarios and counted myself lucky if they caused one or two casualties to a squad and only recall a single instance where one destroyed a vehicle. But as with anything I'm sure others have seem them decimate regiments single-handedly.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 21st, 2011, 11:55 PM

Don,
To be clear...
1. Target hex orbit circle cannot be expanded out 200 meters around the hex.

2. Can only attack one target per turn while on the game screen.

3. Will have to rethink options for submission to include at the extreme recommending deletion based on normal operational orbit while attacking targets which is at ~5NM. There are other enhancements I can move forward with though as well. But I like them.

Suhiir,
It is my understanding that the 7.62mm twin Gatling guns carried on AC-47 "Puff the Magic Dragon" could drop a round every square foot along it's "run line" a few feet deep/wide. Things got better with the more capable AC-119 SHAWDOW and STINGER gunships leading to SPECTRE. Basically "Pops" and his friends @ the VFW were grateful to be able to have fond memories of some of what "Puff" did in the field over there, and are my reference for how effective they were at removing small trees, bushes and mowing down the grass and anything that moved in it. I guess based on that it's almost the perfect yard maintenance tool (Though expensive!) and will keep that annoying neighbor in check as well!?! Anyway might need to rethink these a little on target effectiveness. Can see Jets and Planes already slipping into the abyss of next year.
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapbooks/shdwphotopages/shdwphl003.htm
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapbooks/shdwphotopages/shdwphl008.htm
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapbooks/shdwphotopages/shdwphl055.htm
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapbooks/shdwphotopages/shdwphl056.htm
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapbooks/stgrphotopages/stgrphl003.htm
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapbooks/stgrphotopages/stgrphl006.htm

Enjoy!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 26th, 2011, 01:17 AM

Don,
This is at your leisure to answer, just something I "stumbled upon", is there a difference between the
Rifled 100mm D10T Ro95 game carried on Romania's TR-85M1 NATO upgraded tank vs Rifled 100mm A308? This pertains to UNITS 17 & 18. Also I can thus far find no reference to a MK II type as Unit 18 represents pending further investigation on my part. For everyone else here's one of my refs to show the tank in question which is a highly modified T-55 brought up to NATO standards with exception of the main gun.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tr85m1.htm
Pic:
11593

Regards,
Pat

DRG

December 26th, 2011, 10:10 AM

Yes, 100mm D10T Ro95 = 100 mm A308 gun

Yes, 100 mm A308 gun is an adaption of the M1977 gun

Yes I will be looking into the stats for both as one or both may need adjusting

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 7th, 2012, 03:58 AM

About ERA, a quick question do you differentiate between the various types out there, to include also NERA and SLERA types?
My thinking is simply this, if I know the type would it be useful to you for me to add it as a ref (Or two.) and in the write up to any MBT/APC or even MRAP submitted? Of course I would do this for NO ADDITIONAL COST! For instance NERA is what will be on the ARJUN MK II.

For others some background info below;
http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm

Where NERA at the time of this article would rate about a 3 or 4 in ERA qualities only in 2004 today with technical advances made since it would today rate be closer to 6 or 7 GENERALLY speaking.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 8th, 2012, 12:09 PM

Pat..... there is early ERA ( <10 ) and advanced ERA >9 and that is it. We generally increase the number of charges for "more advanced" types so the Arjun Mk II in the current working set of OOB's has an 18 ERA rating

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 8th, 2012, 03:12 PM

Don,
I think I follow that older tanks etc. will have the negative factor applied while newer ones will have the positive factor applied if we keep this in the KISS frame of mind for guys like me. What I'll simply do is provide the info as to type (If any applied to the tank or other.) without comment and let you do the math. This way there'll be a record of it to avoid or minimise any further discussion of a piece of equipment down the road. In another words I'll try to make the package more complete as I started doing to include ATGW self protection equipment last year.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 12th, 2012, 04:20 AM

Don,
1. Started on the items as discussed, if you have time for them at the start of next month. I know!?! ;)
2. Need clarification of the following like myself this could be a "teachable moment" for others as well; just finished OPLOT issues for Ukraine and Thailand. Using Ukraine Units 061-063. What is meant by the following:
061 OPLOT (V)
062 OPLOT (R)
063 OPLOT (VR)
For the record recommending 062 for deletion for other reasons beyond the lettering question, and think one more for redundancy reasons unless those letters mean something I'm missing looking at Mobhack Editor.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 12th, 2012, 08:50 AM

061 OPLOT (V)-------- Has VIRSS , NO reactive armour
062 OPLOT (R)-------- Has reactive armour, NO VIRSS
063 OPLOT (VR)------ Has both reactive armour AND VIRSS

This allows them to be bought in any configuation

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 13th, 2012, 02:40 AM

Note to self-listen to CINCLANTHOME more often. :clap: You see I've been told not too over analyze things when the answer is right in front of me at times. :shock: So with that in mind-thanks Don! :doh:

Regards,
Pat

gila

January 14th, 2012, 09:47 PM

It makes alot sense,if you consider the world economics,there will be little improvements if any at all in arms development.

France just lost it's high credit rating also,expect the the rest of Euro's will soon follow

There is serious debate on the US congress floor and those that want to take command in the white house, on serious decreasing of defense spending,and more on making more jobs,but this is maybe purely political camoflage.

DRG

January 22nd, 2012, 04:19 PM

A1. ADD/RUSSIA/TORNADO MRLS/APR 2011/C2/6 or 12 ML 300mm SMERCH Rockets/These are updated versions of the SMERCH rocket that are GPS guided. It can carry multiple munitions types and can still launch the unguided versions. The key here is the improved operability of the system from the launcher which is much more manueverable, air mobile and much easier and faster to reload. This is the replacement for the BM-21 GRAD which is taking place at this time. The Max. range is 70km and 90km with a specilized rocket.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...formation.html
See Page 3 Post #30 Item #2

In game terms the differences between that and the existing Smerch are too minor to bother with.

Don

DRG

January 22nd, 2012, 04:38 PM

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.

and.......

However as with all the Turkish LEOPARD tanks they are still in service today

...Pat, there are ammo upgrades made which means it's a waste of time to simply extend Turk Leo 1s to 2020 because the older versions are carrying old ammo and that's why the Leopard 1A3 T2 is set up to run alone from 1/110 with the latest ammo upgrade. If the T1 versions are indeed still in service then they need to be copied and have the latest gun added into weapon slot 1 but with all the change this and change that I'm not clear on when you are suggesting the Leo 1's first made it to Turkey. It *appears* to be SEP 1982

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2012, 05:18 PM

Don,
The Turkish LEO 1 tanks are definitely still in service of this I have no doubts about at all based on the volume of refs pointing to it besides what I supplied. However if you feel the issue is similar to the M-60 Rise issue of a couple of years ago which also dealt with ammo and gun issues, 1) We can leave it as is like back then or 2) Maybe increase the service life as you feel comfortable doing based on your current info and notes to reduce your work load. The other Turkish LEO issues are more important to me and to be perfectly honest for the weeks put into just that "rabbit hole" and with all due respect; I'll have to break out my entrenching tools!?! ;) See Pg. 1 Post #3 A3. and Pg.2 Posts #14 - #17 (Didn't remember until I just checked previous; on Turkish LEO Pg. 1 Post #3 M3. - C6.) in this thread as a reminder of that M-60 situation, as always I'll defer to your decisions since based on the body of the work submitted in this area of my passion for the game I really can't complain about the overall results I've had thus far. For this I'm grateful for in doing the above and maintaining a professional working situation.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 22nd, 2012, 10:36 PM

I'm going to go over all the Leo 1 changes again tomorrow because after all the add-this-change-that-delete-this-add-that there appears to be some serious problems with T1 units going to 2020 but no T2's

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2012, 01:44 AM

Don,
Three weeks on the first half alone a month off for the middle section and start of the last probably 7-8 to weeks alone between life issues just to get through the volume of refs to get about a 90+% consensus of all the sources. Bottom line it was the toughest equipment issue to date for me and there fore I would prefer you not to get bogged down here based on everything else on your plate. The last two Turkish LEO issues are easier to deal with and are more straight forward I hope and think. Would rather the other items on PP #65 go first as they are also more to the point if you will. And did I mention about three pages of legal paper with the complete Turkish LEO OOB UNITS on it as well to compare against those refs!?! :banghead Ping Pong balls come to my mind right now or better a tennis match. The clock ticks on unfortunitly and it can wait besides after today on here and there I owe CINCLANTHOME a day away from the house with a nice dinner and I know you can relate. If we have time at the end we can hit it and as the CORPS would say "GIT SUM" ALONG WITH SOME :cheers: while we're at it. So as I save the following for motivaition and aimed at this issue I leave with this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM

Followed by a fine Irish song and one for the Scotsman across the pond as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdxgn0rzPfA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do_o5CCXE9Y&feature=player_embedded

I love the pipes that's why I had them at my retirement. I hope you all will enjoy the interlude.

Now I ramble so off to the shower and a good nights sleep.
After...

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 23rd, 2012, 02:53 PM

From post #65

A4. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-2A4/JAN 2006-DEC 2008

M1. TURKEY/LEOPARD-2A4T/UNIT 039/MODIFY/To LEOPARD-2T/Dates to JUN 2011-DEC 2020

Am I to ASSUME that the 30 month gap that exists between A4 and M1 is there because ......

" Turkey started to feed all 298 MBT ordered into the assembly line for upgrade"

......but left NONE available for operational use during that time ??

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2012, 09:25 PM

Don,
Yes. I had to take what info I had including that picture ref. from MAY 2010, again posted below from their Defence Directorate in charge of R&D, Procurement etc. for those dates.
11617

Two other things drove that decision to go with the dates as well...

1. The LEO A1 and A3 series MBT's just completed the last of their upgrades with the ASELAN FCS MK I System in 2009.

2. The M60T RESET Program was also finishing up around that time as well.

The only option and I believe you might have it in the back of your head as well for the A4, is to extend the end date to either DEC. 2009 or NO later then JUN. 2010. I have to tell you I was totally "locked on target" with the whole LEO issue and refs at hand and had to have a little faith in something at that point. But I am open to the above as well if it'll serve the game a little better.

Off topic to an extent and now for next year, you'll see the same sort of thing with SAAF ROOKIVAK helo that was grounded then RESET over 18 months.

As a reminder for others the LEO A4 were bought with no mods from Germany because of the huge capital investment being made to totally RESET all 298 of these tanks. Providing the ALTAY program stays on track these LEO-2T tanks represent the final step to reaching that goal.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 23rd, 2012, 09:56 PM

OK

Found this shot below the one posted the other day.

Information is not clear but I suspect the tank beside the basic 2A4 is the Altay and what's in the parade is the Leo 2T.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11618&d=1327370166
One thing is clear they are not the same tank and the top photo beside the 2A4 is more refined. I picked up that photo from a Turkish blog. Needless to say, I don't read Turkish so I don't know what the text said that accompanied it and now I cannot find the website again....

However... if the top photo is indeed the Leopard 2T ( Next generation )then what are the ones in the parade........

AH HA !!

http://military21.blogspot.com/

It **appears** that the lower photos is a parade of Singaporean Leopard 2SG and they were ( I'm guessing ) Used to compare to the 2T

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11619&stc=1&d=1327373901

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 24th, 2012, 12:16 AM

Don,
Gave me a scare there! Yes top photo compared LEOPARD-2T to the Turkish LEOPARD-2A4. I don't know if it was mentioned but, yes the LEOPARD-2T is also known as the LEOPARD-2NG (Next Generation-Trade name.). Below are more photos to offer a different prospective for the Icon, these were taken at IDEF 2011.
11620 11621

This is a mock up of the ALTAY from the same show.
11622

As a side note going back to the "poster" showing all the Turkish tanks look at the LEOPARD-2A4, what's missing from all the others?
The standard Turkish practice of adding the "T" designator to their tanks. Could be relevent to our earlier discussion on dates maybe or not.

Before I forget from the gun/tank maker of OPLOT.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/kba3.php

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2012, 06:20 PM

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/catalogue/t/armor/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.

To start the 2012/2013 campaign some MBT fix issues M60T, ARJUN MKII, APC ADDs to include one from the first year I submitted equipment inputs, MRAP ADDs again new equipment, HELOS are off to a good start already thank god before...well use your imagination there and the big JETS and Planes project which I have the info for again...as previously described. BUT FIRST DOWN TIME WITH CINCLANTHOME IS NEEDED and time off from life in general. So if you live in a state bordering NC and feel an earthquake sensation in a couple of weeks or so...don't worry it's only me "stumblin n bumblin" down the ski slope, IF THERE'S ANY SNOW LEFT!?!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 30th, 2012, 12:52 AM

.........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.

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

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 30th, 2012, 10:54 AM

Don,
The CINCLANTHOME "over analyzing" discussion comes to mind again from an earlier post. The last was...let's call it a former occupational issue and leave it at that. Thank you for the clarification on behalf of myself and others who'd honestly say "I didn't know that." I will refer to last post as an update to the beginning of 2011/2012 PP#2 before putting it into it's "home" thread.
THANKS!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2012, 03:14 PM

Don,
I saw the reply to Suhiir on the USAF/USMC thread and was just wondering from a layman's point of view if this OPED couldn't be an option to relieve some of the OOB slot issues that exist in some of the more proliferate defence spending countries such as the U.S., Russia and China and others. Given I would assume that we have eight years worth of equipment left to put into the game, and besides the possible need to cull the more critical countries of redundant equipment including the possibility of removing fighter types of aircraft to only direct ground support types (And yes everyone that pains me to suggust it.) such as the A-10, F-15, Hornet, B-52, B-1 and B-2 in the current era by example. This can be argued as feasible, I've personally have read many documents that have suggested during the "Cold War" the Fighter issue would've cancelled each other out for air combat reasons and would've only played a minor or no had no role in the ground war, again I'm just trying to offer long term solutions here. Secondly I see that there are 7 R&D slots, could we not on a "as needed" basis use three of them in a regional plan as follows 1. The AMERICAS slot from Canada down to S. America and within that OOB assign X number of slots to cover the expected needs of Canada etc. again as needed based on that counties "home" OOB slot availability. 2. Europe 3. Asia and possibly 4. Africa maybe at the end of the cycle. Entry into this "club" would have to be restricted by priority of new equipment, RESET, or other major modification not covered by the RESET standard. Again these are just food for thought but, I'll just throw this out there again given the choice as an air commander tasked with a ground support mission what would I rather use given the option between F-16's and F-15's for the mission? I would do the following my F-16's would sweep the skies of the enemy, while my more capable with a larger payload F-15's took care of the ground support mission and would still be more then capable of fighting on it's way home if required to do so.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102
There is almost a 50,000lb difference in the Max. takeoff Wts. which isn't all for fuel and favors the F-15 Strike Eagle.

I don't like short term fixes as they don't take into account the long term ramifications of the initial problem at hand. In the Silent Service from day one it is instilled into us "that the only stupid question is the one not asked." So I'm asking and will gladly become put of the solution. Like current Defense Spending in most countries I'm not afraid to break out the scalpel "to cut the budget" and that goes for all the other countries in the game as well.

However I do recognize some smaller countries have to use fighter types in a multi role fashion that the F-16 fills the niche for again by example, but then again most of them aren't or don't have a pending slot issue at this time or are likely to in the future.

Just some thoughts on a cold beautiful day in SE GA.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 12th, 2012, 03:49 PM

The short answer is there are other solutions that we have had under discussion for some time

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 23rd, 2012, 10:49 PM

Don,
The bold part is the heart of the question for you. The rest you pretty much know about already. I don't need an immediate answer as I know this is Andy's and YOUR down time. This question covers a little of what was discussed in the last two posts in this thread about of equipment slots. As a reminder to others, Russia that I posted elsewhere is down to ~25 slots and the probably near the same for the USA. However technology moves (As does the news.) on and I'll be posting issues dealing with both items just noted in the MBT Thread within the week. So the related question is this, what TI/GSR value would be given a unit that can see and fire beyond 4000m? My thinking is this at least 50 based on the IDF MERKAVA 4 series tanks now in the game that have that very capability. Until I post, I'm looking at possibly 3 countries, 1 MBT & IFV and 1 MBT for each of the other two countries. I'm not playing a game (Or the game either.) here for others, I just need to verify the info for country three first. Country One has just fielded theirs, Two will within the next two years and three will be longer. My Thai troops don't need me yet as the monsoons are still occurring!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

DRG

April 24th, 2012, 08:35 AM

Right now, for ground units tanks max out at 50 and some few specialized scout / FO units getting 60. Bumping tanks to 60 has never been discussed because there has been no real reason to

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 24th, 2012, 11:59 AM

Don,
I'll post what I have and you guys will have to make the final determination, but as I indicated, TI/GSR 50 is my thinking minimum based on this new information.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 20th, 2012, 08:53 PM

Don,
No immediate reply is required.

In this thread I asked the question (See posts #49 & #50.) of what rating for VISION TI/GSR would be assigned a tank with a modern 2nd GEN FCS and the answer was 40. I know you've seen my post concerning the vision being increased to 50 on MBTs based on them being able to identify and hit a target out to 4000m. Not having this range information, would you have an issue if it is equipped with a verifiable 3rd GEN FCS (These started to appear in a reliable form ~2005.) and submitted for a particular tank? Italy's ARIETE MK II comes to mind as I just came across it today. I would like to clear this issue up as item #1 on the MBT input for the 2012/2013 Campaign. With the number of tanks thus far named, I would like to get ahead on this to research and supply specific FCS info from the manufacturer as well when submitted.
Everything else I feel is at hand, I just need to pull it together from the last two years (Jets) and threads posted thus far, a little :cool: with some :rolleyes: and I hope nothing too much more!

Thanks in advance!!!!
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 6th, 2012, 11:11 PM

Don,
When ever you feel ready to answer the previous post (Also MBT Thread Pg. 22 Posts 213 & 215 would be helpful to you as well.), feel free at your convenience to do so. Lists are started too a small degree as the Ophthalmologists have owned my summer...again!!
THANKS!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

August 7th, 2012, 12:32 AM

Yes, Pat. If a tank has vision capabilities equal to the later Merkavas then naturally they should get the higher values.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 4th, 2012, 04:51 PM

Don,
I'm going to try to simplify my inputs in how they are organized. First will be the "ADD" "CHANGE" or now(?) "MODIFY" then "DELETE" AT THE END. When I first started the Change and Modify sub categories worked, but now with most resources going to updating existing equipment those sub categories are starting to bleed over on each other. Do you have a "mental" working word preference for either "CHANGE" OR "MODIFY" ? I know it's a minor detail, but it's mental gym I don't want to deal with anymore...but that's just me!?!
Been a bit of a PITA to sit and read or get anything done on the computer these last 3 weeks or so, but I get my real glasses back tomorrow. Hope to have the HELO inputs within the next couple of weeks posted here.
I have downloaded and will submit a formal request about the USA M101 105mm used by the French which will go out in tomorrow's mail to the Ft. Sill Museum along with the copy of the email I recieved from the Royal Artillery Museum in England. The Ft. Sill site also provided the following link that I've heard of from various different sources of as well and will pursue.
http://www.lovettartillery.com/index.html
For GP the blow does list the French HM2/AMX 105/50 from the Email mentioned above...
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=96
So there's your update.

Thanks and Take Care!

Regards,
Pat

whdonnelly

November 5th, 2012, 12:59 PM

Tracked Stryker-:The pendulum swings back.?
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/military/2012/10/24/new-design-adds-20-tons-tracks-to-the-wheeled-strykers-seen-at-jblm

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 14th, 2013, 10:50 PM

Well it's been a couple of years I think since anything has been done with helicopters. Some of this was meant to have done a while ago but was put off to cover other areas. I just picked up from where I left off and continued the work. Don I ask for your patience as I hope I haven't duplicated any issues already addressed. It's been a tough year and hard for me to focus, literally. What's not here of importance? 1. Date change for India CH-47F still in evaluation with contract unsigned though this is India Heavy Lift Helo winner. 2. India again pending final contract agreement on the AH-64D APACHE. 3. Taiwan WILL be the first export customer of the AH-64E. So what's a AH-64E? 4. Last fall the USA had officially designated the APACHE Block III the AH-64E. These will lead the HELOS for the 2013/2014 Campaign.
Speed issues I leave to you Don just threw out some rough numbers but faster is faster. This magnifier is a PITA so let's get started...

HELOS…
A1. SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/APR 2011/ROOIVALK Mk I/RESET/ADD/EW 8/TI/GSR 60/FCS +Current factors//The Mk I has undergone significant changes beyond just avionics and engine upgrades that lead to the safety issues that grounded the ROOIVALK for 1 ½ years (See C6 below.). With the improvements to targeting systems above the systems to the above ROOIVALK the TI/GSR rating should be extended out to 60 as DENAL is no light weight when it comes to such FC/Targeting systems. Also with improved engines and avionics it’s faster, more maneuverable and a little more “stealthy” with improved IR dampeners and defensive capabilities then its predecessor so an EW improvement should be made as well.
http://www.dod.mil.za/news/news%202011/april%2011/rooivalk%201%20apr11%20.htm
http://www.saairforce.co.za/news-and-events/920/139-changes-maketh-a-rooivalk-block-1f
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23380/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-africa-accepts-first-five-upgraded-rooivalks-for-operational-355117/
http://www.deagel.com/news/South-African-Air-Force-Takes-Delivery-of-First-Upgraded-Rooivalk_n000008623.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news115257.html
12209

A2. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/JUN 2013/PUMA HC2/RESET/Use UNIT 574/ADD/2X7.62mm Minigun Rds UKN/EW 6/TI/GSR 40 or 50/Speed increased by ~10 hexes above current movement allowance per turn.// The focus of the RESET was to replace the engines which now generate 35% more power, replaced the cockpit controls, electronics/defensive suites with reconditioned airframes. Also refs talk about it now being able to carry twice the payload. However, I don’t know how that equates to extra troops or not. The PUMA almost became a victim of the UK’s SDR cuts, but the continued need (Afghan Ops.) to increase the available types of transport helos that can operate at higher altitudes, more varied terrain, climatic conditions and it just being cheaper then buying new helos kept the upgrade program alive.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071213/text/71213w0005.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/britain-prepares-to-modernize-its-puma-helicopters-03784/#more-3784
http://www.helihub.com/2009/09/30/eurocopter-and-uk-military-sign-contract-for-royal-air-force-puma-life-extension-programme/
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/puma8069.xml
http://www.helihub.com/2011/06/24/first-flight-of-upgraded-royal-air-force-puma-mk2/
http://www.helihub.com/2011/09/30/raf-celebrates-40-years-of-puma-ops/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/37257/
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/Puma.htm
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/puma.cfm

A3. USA/USMC/ADD/JAN 2007/MH-47G CHINOOK/USE UNIT 293/C6/P34-50 (Depending on equip.)/Port and Starboard mounted 2xM134 7.62 mm Miniguns just aft of the cockpit & 2xM240G 7.62mm at the last set of windows Rds UKN/ADD Refueling boom to the Starbrd. Side of the nose./Based on date requested with upgrades done to this point TI/GSR 60/EW 8/FC 6/FF 6/STAB. 5 or 6//As noted above trying to get one ”current” model in for each OOB to save a couple of slots as more is to come (Also see C8 below.). SOCOM is at the top of the Special Ops “food chain” with JSOC and the various military branches having their own “SOCs”. The 160th SOAR “Night Stalkers” (Under USASOC.) of Somalia and Bin Laden raid fame provide the bulk of helo operational support to the SEALS, Green Berets and Rangers amongst others. These are probably the most advanced transport helos in the world. Of the at least 4 helos known to have been involved in the Bin Laden raid raid it wasn’t the helos that attracted the neighbors (Not until a MH-60S crashed anyway.) but the gun fire. Boeing turned over the first CH-47G/MH-47G to the Army in mid summer of 2004 in Philadelphia Pa. The first combat mission was flown in Feb. 2007 another reason for the above date. The last SLEP (RESET) MH-47E conversion to MH-47G was turned over to SOCOM on Mar. 4 2011. SOCOM is to receive a handful of new build birds still and has requested more to meet future operational needs.
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/mh47e/index.htm
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/mh47e/docs/MH-47G_overview.pdf
http://www.guncopter.com/mh-47g/
http://www.socom.mil/News/Pages/finalMH-47GSLEPaircraft.aspx
http://www.socom.mil/sordac/PEO/RotaryWing/Pages/MH-47G_Chinook.aspx
http://nightstalkers.americanspecialops.com/helicopters/mh-47.php
http://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/night-stalkers/mh-47-ranger-sov.php
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/michael_block/mh-47g_soa/index.php?Page=1

A4. FRANCE JAN 2005/BRAZIL JUN 2012/MAYLAYSIA JUNE 2013/INDONESIA JUN 2014/
THAILAND JUNE 2015/ADD/EC 725 “SUPER” COUGAR/C5 P26/2 x FN MAG 60-30 250/or 1000Rd “Drums”/Optional 2 x 20mm POD mounted GIAT Cannons 180Rds/or 2 x 68mm THALES/or FORGE ZEEBRUGGE 19 Rd Rocket Launchers/TI/GSR 60/EW 8/Advanced composite add on armor is available and is used by the French. Mexico (The largest or next user of the EC 725.) supposedly has it also though not in the game. Malaysia’s are being reported to being equipped in the same manner as the French versions. Adjust armor ratings as you see fit for FRANCE and MAYLASIA/USE FRENCH UNIT 516 AS BASE//Concerning Thailand they have been very good about getting the equipment they have ordered, however, there are mixed reports about whether the contract has actually been signed or not. Based on this information I’ll leave it to you whether you wish to add it to Thailand’s OOB. This represents the Special Ops/CSAR version for the countries listed. The other COUGARS listed in the game are the “older” version AS 532 (Still in production.) which has a longer fuselage that allows it to carry additional troops, less advanced and slower, its primary function is as a troop transport. The EC 725 is a further development of the AS 532 to provide a faster (324km/hr/or205mph) more versatile multi-function platform. A lot of effort was made in the protection of this helo to include updated active and passive defensive systems such as laser warning systems, use of composite materials that signifitcally reduces its Radar and IR signatures. Also features a fully digitally equipped cockpit, SATCOM/NAVSAT systems to support “nap of the earth’ flying with full day and night flying capabilities and more powerful and reliable engines, because of this, the armor kit has little effect on overall speed and lift capabilities.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec725/
http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331
http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Missions_174.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/laad_2011_news_pictures_video_defense_exhibition/helibras_eurocopter_group_presents_the_ec725_couga r_helicopter_for_brazilian_army_laad_2011_1404116. html.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newshelibras-brazilian-ec725-helicopters
http://helihub.com/2012/12/04/royal-malaysian-air-force-receives-first-two-of-twelve-ec725s/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Brazil-Signs-1B-Production-Deal-for-Cougar-Helicopters-04959/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Thailand-Orders-Eurocopters-EC725-for-SAR-Missions-07542/

12205 12206

12207

A5. KENYA JAN 2010/CAMBODIA JAN 2014/ADD/Z-9WA/USE CHINESE UNIT 490//The Chinese Z-9 is licensed built by Harbin Aircraft (HAMC) from the French Aerospatiale (Eurocopter.) AS 365N/DAUPHIN II helicopter. Kenya was the first export customer for the Z-9WA. This helicopter represents a reasonable balance in transport and attack capabilities, which is why this helicopter is finding and filling a niche in both the African and Asian markets. The previous version of the Z-9WA has been exported to the game countries of Laos and Pakistan. The one thing in common with these export customers is they all have unrest within and near their borders.
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/helicopter/z9.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/helicopter/z9-specifications.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20100115.aspx
http://www.9abc.net/archives/15281
http://www.kenyacentral.com/general/34220-how-kdf-captured-afmadow.html
(See sentence just above picture on left mid article.)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/cambodia-china-helicopters-idUKL4E7JM0XI20110822
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Sentinel-Security-Assessment-Southeast-Asia/Air-force-Cambodia.html
http://www.khmernews.com/view/air-force-to-get-12-chinese-helicopters-in-2013/5124
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/2012122060391/National/choppers-cambodia-bound.html

A6. IRAQ JAN 2006/CHINA JAN 2009/AFGANISTAN DEC 2010/INDIA JAN 2012/C3 P36/ADD/Mi-17-V5/USE RUSSIAN UNIT 355 AS MODIFIED BELOW//This helicopter is the export version of the Russian Mi-8MTV5 and each represents the most advanced version of the type now flown. This version is nick named the “NIGHT NOCH” or Night Owl and was designed to fully support both day and night operations under all weather conditions and operate at higher altitudes and terrain. This is why the U.S. bought these helos for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

C1. RUSSIA/Mi-8MTV-5/UNIT 355/CHANGE/START DATE TO JAN 2000/INCREASE SPEED/10% GRATIS/EW 5/TI/GSR 40//As pointed out above these are the most advanced version of the Mi-8/Mi-17 helos. The current start date reflects the time the helo was still in final development and on the air show circuit. The major changes this model(s) received over previous ones are a all new digital cockpit giving this helo full night and all weather flight capabilities. An armored cockpit with all electrical and fluid systems similarly protected. New engines which allowed for high altitude ops, increased lift capabilities along with speed. A newer version is being tested now with newer more powerful engines. Refs cover A6 and C1.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mi8-17-hip/
http://www.mi-helicopter.ru/eng/index.php?id=254
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsafghan-army-to-receive-russian-mi-17v-5-helicopters-in-july-2012/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/29594/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/32530/

C2. USMC/MV-22/UNIT 599/CHANGE/End Date to JUN 2009/ADD M240G 7.62mm Rds UKN./As it operates as a helo it was given the MG noted for ground suppression as most helos have. Designed to swing out from the bulkhead into firing position on approach and take off. See below refs.

C3. USMC/MV-22/UNIT 650/CHANGE/Dates to JAN 2009 - DEC 2020/ADD BAE GAU-17 7.62mm Minigun Rds UKN & Maintain current .50 cal./This is an auto retractable ball turret, mounted @ the bottom of the fuselage centerline. It has an integrated FCS to include advanced FLIR and target optic systems which are RO by a crew member operated "game system" and in the cockpit as well, as one of the videos show a FLIR target screen in there. This will cause an increase in vision to about 30 minimum I would think. This is in addition to the rear ramp MG already carried on board this unit which was mounted about this same time.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/bellboeing_v_22_osprey.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/baes-turret-to-trial-in-cv-22s-04618/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22480/
12208

C4. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 322 & 323/CHANGE Dates to SEP 2008 – DEC 2010/HS to 3 vice 0/ADD TI/GSR 40./UNIT 322 replace APKWS II ASM with HYDRA 70./The UH-1Y and AH-1Z share a commonality of parts at about 85% to reduce maintenance costs. With the advanced FLIR and BRITE Star TI systems onboard and the fact that they did not go operational until the date shown, these units should have the same TI/GSR of UNITS 320& 321. Also of note the rotors and engine housing area has the same protection against 23mm rounds as the AH-1Z (See UNIT 172.) as noted in the refs. Ref #2 has good replacement photos for UNITS 320 - 323 vice the current shown UH-1N.

C5. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/CHANGE HS to 3 vice 0 as noted above./UNIT 320 replace 50 cal M2HB with GAU-21 50 cal./UNIT 321 replace HYDRA 70 with APKWS II ASM/The CORPS was “all in” by this time with the APKWS II ASM. See refs 7-10 below concerning GAU-21 50cal with Night Sights.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/snakes-rotors-usmc-h-1-helicopter-program-03541/
http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Chronologies/Yearly/2008.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/uh1y-huey/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/uh1y-huey-utility-helicopter/
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2006/4123.shtml
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/9574
http://www.asdnews.com/news/30989/GAU-21_deploys_with_UH-1Y.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2011/01/mil-110109-mcn01.htm
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2010/01/marines_gau21_010410w/
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M3M_MG.htm
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=11442
http://www.deagel.com/news/Upgraded-H-1-Helicopters-with-Integrated-Cockpit-Deploy-for-the-First-Time-as-a-Unit_n000009578.aspx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/
This last ref provides an outdate on the APKWS II ASM with the new Mk 152 warhead that will also be used on the HARRIER and A-10besides the USMC helos, to be fielded in 2012.

C6. SOUTH AFRICA/ROOIVALK/UNITS 189, 190 and 899 - 902/CHANGE End Date to NOV 2009./This helo is very advanced featuring
4th Gen integrated image intensifier and FLIR systems, TopOwl sight display for integrated weapons system control. This helo is considered “stealthy” even by today’s standards. All the areas thus covered and in the refs were improved upon with the Mk I below but, the problem wasn’t with the design capabilities of the ROOIVALK but in the unreliability of it’s engines (Primarily with the gear box.), safety (5 helos lost to accidents/crashes.), high cost of maintenance, obsolescence of ground support equipment and facilities and budget woes to the point that the ROOIVALK was put into storage. This was an embarrassment to the military and government which hoped to showcase this helo at the World Cup in the hopes of generating international sales. The only question I have here is should the TI/GSR be improved for the above units? Also note that the last two refs deal with the
Non MK I ROOIVALK.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18049/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/denel-ah2-rooivalk/
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/denel_ah2_rooivalk.htm

C7. USA/AH-64A APACHE/UNITS 907 & 935/CHANGE End Date to JUL 2012/All USA AH-64A models have now either been sold off or have been RESET to the AH-64D BLK II model. In service since 1985 this model has had a very successful run from the start of its career during the Cold War to the present. Amongst others, it was a game changer in land warfare and played its part in changing the Soviet mindset to more defensive tactics during the 1980’s. The last sixteen units to be converted belonged to the National Guard and where flown to the Boeing Mesa AZ. Plant in May 2012 for conversion.
http://asc.army.mil/web/access-army-retires-last-a-model-apache-helicopter/
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8737045
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/115b-contract-to-remanufacture-129-apaches-to-ah64d-longbow-configuration-02972/
(See the Contracts and Key Events section in above ref Sep 25/12 and Jan 11/12 entries.)
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ah64-apache-helicopter/
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/boeing_ah_64a_apache.htm

C8. USA/MH-47/UNIT 293/Change name to MH-47E/Change End Date to JAN 2010/ADD to USMC OOB/See A3 above to include refs.//First change to simplify any future info that might cause a change to that particular helo. Second allows for the last couple of helos to be removed from service and prepped for the SLEP (RESET) Program and flight evaluations before being turned over to SOCOM as noted above on MAR 4, 2011. Third the “ADD“ allows the Player and AI ready access to the MH helos that would in reality be used by the USN SEALS, Special Boat Unit and to a somewhat lesser degree USMC MARSOC units such as Force Recon/Sniper/or Sniper Recon/DAP etc. where Marine/Naval air units are not available. Covered in related refs above.

D1. EAST GERMANY (DDR)/DELETE/Mi-24W/UNITS 125 & 907//The DDR LSK/LV never operated this variant of the Mi-24. The LSK/LV only operated the MI-24D/P models of this attack helicopter.

D2. GERMANY/DELETE/Mi-8T/UNIT 327.//These helos were either sold off or scrapped. It should be pointed out here that the only East German piece of military equipment to see active service in Germany after reunification was the MIG-29. This is to include the “rumored” use of the T-62 (See MBT Thread Post #238.) or the Mi-24P of which You Tube and others show flying in Luftwaffe colors (See Jets and Planes but… Thread Post #96.) during test and evaluation flights ONLY.
Except as noted East German equipment over time met the same fate as these Mi-8T helos.

Many thanks again to GORDON and LTCol. Stefan Petersen Luftwaffe Reserve and EUROFIGHTER Pilot extraordinaire.

This is it, I'll post pictures in a couple of days.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 15th, 2013, 04:43 AM

C3. USMC/MV-22/UNIT 650/CHANGE/Dates to JAN 2009 - DEC 2020/ADD BAE GAU-17 7.62mm Minigun Rds UKN & Maintain current .50 cal.

It's NOT a GAU-17 (that's the 5.56mm version) but the GAU-19 (the 50cal version) that the USMC uses, no clue about the USAF.

C4. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 322 & 323/CHANGE Dates to SEP 2008 – DEC 2010/HS to 3 vice 0/ADD TI/GSR 40./UNIT 322 replace APKWS II ASM with HYDRA 70.

As a general rule the UH-1 will use "left over" rockets (in this case Hydra 70's) while the AH-1's use whatever is the latest and greatest.

C5. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/CHANGE HS to 3 vice 0 as noted above./UNIT 320 replace 50 cal M2HB with GAU-21 50 cal.

Currently WinSPMBT doesn't model the GAU-21, a GAU-19 can be used.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 17th, 2013, 02:29 AM

Well I don't understand the confusion with the refs already provided concerning "C3" in the Helo Patch Post over what the GAU-17 is and that it was chosen for use by both the USMC, USAF and more importantly SOCOM for the use on board the OSPREY. SO MORE REFS ARE PROVIDEVED. The CNET ref does mention that the GAU-19 was "once contemplated". As the GAU-17 3 barreled 7.62mm ball turret already came in at 800lbs, I'm sure it was a major factor in it be chosen over the GAU-19 50 Cal. "Mini Gun" and I suspect flight issues were a concern as well. Again as submitted it still maintains it's ramp mounted 50 Cal. and I'm also convinced after this exercise, that the TI/GSR should be at 40 now as well.
http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/2009/issue_01/evolving_s6_p2.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-9946496-42.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/10/mil-071002-bae-systems01.htm
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/products/mission-equipment/BAE-Remote-Guardians-Join-Osprey-Fleet_65220.html

Now I shall let the Flu continue to KMA.

Regards,
Pat

luigim

January 27th, 2013, 09:20 AM

Why do not add full armed MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B) in WinSPMBT? The UAV in the game are not well represented.. it can carry up to 14 Hellfires!

DRG

January 27th, 2013, 09:43 AM

Why do not add full armed MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B) in WinSPMBT? The UAV in the game are not well represented.. it can carry up to 14 Hellfires!

That's on my list to investigate....and one of the things to look at is the size. The Predator is no size zero UAV

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 27th, 2013, 08:19 PM

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved with this years ago when I came here, I have enough on my plate already so let's consider this a "Baton" for someone. i like them and we are way behind on this piece of gear as many third world countries in the game currently are using them in the real world. So I hope this helps with the immediate question at hand. There are 52 of this type of equipment addressed on this site. What I like about these guys are they list country users with dates they got them much like the Army version of this site. I've used both for refs regularly and they are GOOD. On the weapons side REAPER up to 4 HELLFIRE II Missiles with either two GBU-12 or EGBU-12 Laser Guided Bombs AND a 500lb. GBU-38 JDAM or a 800lb. payload. Other weapons configurations are listed as well. Dimensions are noted as well. Good reading with regular updates on thier articles.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/

Gotta go before I get in trouble!!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 28th, 2013, 08:28 AM

I've already dealt with the Reaper and it's now in the game with the correct payload which BTW, can be up to 14 Hellfires when you leave the bombs at home. At 615 points, it's not cheap

As for UAV's in general...... I am not loading up the OOB's with every type available. The ones that just look around are "good enough" as a generic "UAV".

EDIT- your link does not work. I tried three time and got "404 Error: File not found" every time

Don

AMX

January 28th, 2013, 09:05 AM

Looks like the link is correct, but the site is broken.
About half the articles are missing, including the entire UAV category.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 28th, 2013, 11:41 AM

When you get the 404 ERROR and read the sentence below it click on "Industry Projects" then look for "By Category" section middle of the page, the UAV family is at the bottom of the list. Just did that 3 times and it works. They might be updating articles or maintaining the site not unusual for these guys mostly happens around 1am EST but can happen at other times. Now it appears you can't link to any of the individual "projects" so go back to the bold and you'll just have to be patient. It will come back. ;) And can I now respectfully request that we get back to the purpose of this thread of why it's here and who it's for see Post #1. Thank You!!

Regards,
Pat

luigim

January 28th, 2013, 12:50 PM

DRG

January 28th, 2013, 01:46 PM

Yes, that's what " it's now in the game " means

DRG

January 28th, 2013, 02:32 PM

They might be updating articles or maintaining the site

Yes, probably, it's working OK now

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 28th, 2013, 10:37 PM

Don,
It's the below ref item to work which will obviously affect the USA as well and will require more research on the USA side though I already possess some info on the AH-64E (The most advanced helo flying.) or the Tank Patch we discussed via PM. Might be able to do both but no promises to meet the deadline you gave me. The ref is from Heli Hub that vetted (The ref.) and reports that Taiwan will get the AH-64E (This is the APACHE Block III for some others who don't follow Helo news.) in OCT. 2013. have seen reports on this already and the crews/ground support are already training here. I have posted news on this in the HELO Thread. The source is good and it would mean the USA is further along then I thought. Point the way and I'll go down the road you want, it doesn't matter to me.
http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aIPL&ID=201301120021
http://helihub.com/

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 29th, 2013, 09:12 AM

Pat, your source clearly says

The U.S. Army took delivery of its first AH-64E only at the end of 2011

Therefore the "AH-64D Apache" in slot 916 is in fact an AH-64E and that has been corrected and one has now been added to the Taiwan OOB.

What I value most in information is accuracy and brevity. Now, if I could find a "one stop shopping" list of autocannon ammo loads for every Attack Helo that uses them I'd be a really happy camper....

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2013, 01:36 PM

Yes I would concur about UNIT 916. I think though the EW rating should at least be 10, it is faster then any APACHE built previous to it and the TI/GSR again from the refs, I believe it will be higher as well. Will post it with the tank items we discussed earlier and you can or not "tweak it" as needed.Quick notes from the refs...
1. First USA Combat Squadron being stood up now in JAN. 2013.
2. Nickname established as the AH-64E APACHE "GUARDIAN" so the
UNIT 915 (And others of the type.) are the last of the "LONGBOW" helos.
3. This is neat, the FCS incorporates two sensors that will pick up small arms fire (Day/or Night) and auto slew (or manual tell the WO.) to engage the target(s).
4. From direct USA refs, during attack trials in an AA environment UNIT 915D suffered loses and none were lost by UNIT 916E.

Taiwan...
1. Is training on their own AH-64E helo(s) (Some say they have 2 now, will have 6 min. by OCT. 2013.)
2. Getting these as a compromise for getting the Blk 50/52 F-16. Will be armed as UNIT 916 but I don't think in the improved version I'm suggesting above except in the speed category. Something to consider.

Off to work.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 29th, 2013, 06:46 PM

Yeah I had already changed the EW and speed to match the spec in that article. TI/GSR stays at 60 for now. We don't need to get too carried away.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 10th, 2013, 02:35 PM

PLEASE, PLEASE folks and any future visitors read POST #1, I would personally appreciate that. May I suggust the MBT or SPA/SPAA Threads or a new one? Thank You again, this is a working Thread to discuss new equipment for the Patches I submit for the game to give Andy and more Don a chance to discuss them as NOT to waste their and my time etc. in submission of equipment. If you've noticed I don't specialize in a country or region when submitting equipment thus it has and can cause issues to arise outside the normal "Can we enter X Tank because of..." concerns.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 16th, 2013, 04:08 AM

Don,
Still had the UK HUSKY Recon/Scout Light MRAP on my list. I believe from my notes I had to provide evidence of it's combat use etc. and I thought you replied that you started some work on it. A little beat to crap right now and getting ready for bed :yield: after organizing my "crib notes" and refs after work tonight for the final push on the last handful of tank items to be posted with the rest by Monday afternoon at latest. My notes referenced Posts #109 and #110 of the MRAP Thread for HUSKY. Whenever is good for you just let me know if you need any further info or if I need to "Tail End Charlie" the HUSKY with the MBT list. Thanks for your patience and the extra time!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 18th, 2013, 11:34 PM

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!

Helos Cont…

A7. USA JAN 2013/TAIWAN OCT 2013/ADD/APACHE AH-64E GUARDIAN/Use UNIT 916/EW 10 or 12/TI/GSR 60-80/Speed 10-15%+//
Well to say this is the most advanced AH out there would be an understatement, it is a game changer in the real world and in the end probably in the game upon further evaluation of the information provided. If not now (TI/GSR) later as more information comes to light. I start with quotes concerning the performance of the AH-64E over the AH-64D from ref. 3 Col. Shane Openshaw APACHE Project Manager, "I had the opportunity to fly a Block III Apache a week ago and I will tell you the performance of the aircraft is tremendous," Openshaw said. "It's fast, strong and capable. We have also made improvements to the target acquisition platform. The backbone of the aircraft is an open-system architecture with improved mission command and interoperability."
Also from Ref. 4 (It also address foreign sales most importantly Taiwan.),
During testing last year, operators in the E model were able to counter realistic air defense threats in demonstrations at Naval Air Station China Lake, Calif., says Col. John Lynch, attack helicopter manager at Army Training and Doctrine Command. He says the helicopters were able to maintain their positions and maneuver as needed and had power margin while the Block II Apaches were “shot down” in similar exercises. “The Block III absolutely frustrated these folks that operate these [air defense] systems,” he says. The added power is due in part to improved composite main rotor blades that are six inches longer and feature a new tip design for improved aerodynamic performance as well as improved General Electric T700-GE-701D engines, Koopersmith says.
The first ref. as most know by now found out (About the site.) will be in subscriber and or outdate phase still by time this is posted. But once available will be an outstanding source concerning the AH-64E. The last ref. is useful as a check of countries that fly the AH-64A/D models.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apache-block-iii-program-kicks-off-as-contract-signed-02480/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-army-fields-first-ah-64e-unit-but-more-improvements-to-come-380875/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/26074/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34196/
http://www.army.mil/article/77128/Apache_Block_III_helicopter_performs_well_in_tests/
http://www.army.mil/article/90221/Upgraded_Apache_helicopter_OK_d_for_production/
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/10/26/us-army-prepares-for-full-rate-ah-64e-production.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_26_2012_p03-01-511015.xml
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/post_1023.html
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-army-ah-64e-is-now-guardian/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/taiwans-unstalled-force-modernization-04250/
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2120011
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2013/01/13/367209/Apache-attack.htm
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/index.htm

BONUS Read:
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featuregunship-special-the-top-attack-helicopters/
Pics:
For Turkey T-129 Kenya/Cambodia Z-9 AH
12396 12398

France/Brazil/Malaysia/Indonesia/Thailand EC 725
12397

MBT’s…
A1. USA/ADD/JAN 2012/M1A2 SEP V2/USE/MODIFY UNIT # 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 is using.) models used by the Army Reserve and National Guard, the M1A2 SEP and now the M1A2 SEP V2. The “heart” of the V2 is 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/newsus-armys-2nd-hbct-upgraded-vehicles/
http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2011/9/Documents/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?option=com_content&view=article&id=3362:tanzania-type-59-modernization&catid=36:africa&Itemid=55
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
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59.asp
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/type_59_wz120_main_battle_tank_mbt_technical_data_ sheet_specifications_description_pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/ztz96a_type_96a_96g_main_battle_tank_technical_dat a_sheet_information_description_intelligence_uk.ht ml

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. 1below 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:
12399

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/december_2011_army_military_defence_news_uk/indonesian_army_to_purchase_american_helicopter_ah-64_and_german_leopard_main_battle_tanks_1612112.ht ml
http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/172/1256722/
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsindonesian-army-german-leopard-2a6-mbts-deal/
http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/07/after-dutch-hesitation-indonesia-buys-german-tanks/
http://www.defensie.nl/english/latest/news/2011/05/26/48183133/Dutch_tank_history_ends_with_a_bang
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news120180.html
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
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
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/arrival_in_canada_of_surplus_main_battle_tank_leop ard_2a4_of_royal_netherlands_army_1409124.html

C1. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-121/UNITS 357 & 358/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/ZOLFIGAR 1//
C4. IRAN/CHANGE/ZULFIFAR 2/UNIT 032/ZOLFIGAR 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 ZOLFAGAR 2 is in the game and should be modified per C4 above. The ZOLFAGAR 2 is a prototype test bed that leads to the development of the ZOLFAGAR 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 3 with 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_iranian_army_heavy_armoured_main_battle_tank/zulfiqar_zolfaqar_1_main_battle_tank_technical_dat a_sheet_specifications_description_pictures_video. html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_iranian_army_heavy_armoured_main_battle_tank/zulfiqar_3_zolfaqar_main_battle_tank_technical_dat a_sheet_specifications_description_pictures_video. html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/iranian_army_will_continue_to_optimize_local_made_ zulfiqar_tank_against_modern_threats_0809121.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2013_army_military_defense_industry_news/iran_unveils_its_new_home-made_optimized_zulfiqar_zolfaqar_main_battle_tank_ 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 swaged 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/january_2012_army_military_defense_industry_news/ukraine_will_deliver_49_main_battle_tanks_t-84_oplot_to_thailand_0501121.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2013_army_military_defense_industry_news/ukraine_will_deliver_its_first_batch_of_t-84_oplot_main_battle_tanks_to_the_army_of_thailand _0701131.html

APC Development…

R1. ADD/RUSSIA/JAN 2010/BTR-82/C3 P7 Both/TI/GSR 50 (3Km) Both/Weapons Turreted 14.5mm w/500Rds and coupled coaxial 7.62mm w/2K Rds/6 Smoke Dispensers and EW Both/BTR-82A/Weapons 2A72 30mm cannon w/500Rds and coupled coaxial 7.62mm w/2K Rds//These are Russia's most advanced APCs. It will replace the BTR-70/80 series APCs. It is supposed to be fully amphibious. The 30mm ammo of the BTR-82A is supposedly a high density ramjet type projectile to allow it to inflict greater damage on targets. I keep coming up with 500 Rds for the 30mm on the NET. Sounds almost like the UK/French case mounted 40mm round of the FRES. Better armor protection then any BTR-80 variant. Protection to the level of the
BTR-90M for armor?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...res_video.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html
http://www.deagel.com/Wheeled-Armore...000348008.aspx
Pic:
12400

Sorry internet connection got loose and had to redo everything
again. Just another case of :pc: !!

Thanks for the opportunity and extra time Don.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 19th, 2013, 01:33 AM

Don,
About IRAN C3 & C4, meant to change the spelling back to what's in the game, just really the numbers need to added and or changed. It appears either spelling is acceptable depending on the source refs.
Sorry!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 19th, 2013, 09:35 AM

C1. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-121/UNITS 357 & 358/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.

The problem here Pat is unit 358 is not a Strv 121

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 19th, 2013, 07:39 PM

That would be correct...sorry. It should have read...
C1. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-121/UNITS 357 & 359/End Date to DEC 2010/ Refs per A3 above.//

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 20th, 2013, 12:58 AM

Don,
Concerning the MBT PP ITEM A1. Forgot to input a UNIT number for you to use/modify. Was thinking you could use UNIT 637 modify it to maybe save a slot. It's listed as an Obsolete Tank, however I can't remember if those type units served a purpose or not? Armor would have to be brought up to the levels of UNITS 318 & 649. I'll present it below to cut and paste it later when I transfer this info to the MBT Thread later if you use it.
A1. USA/ADD/JAN 2012/M1A2 SEP V2/USE/MODIFY UNIT #637 with CROWS II .50 CAL/TI/GSR 50-70.//

Also the refs indicated that all other current SEP tanks would be designated as the M1A2 SEP V1. This will make it easier to identify any future upgrades to these tanks without taking them to the M1A2 SEP V2 standard. I can only find 2 other SEP tanks that are in game use currently as of JAN 2012. So...
C2. 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.

Pic:
12401

Sorry I missed this last night :doh: !! But my heads clearer now...
I had a good day today concerning the eye, get'em checked folks!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 15th, 2013, 04:01 PM

First I know I didn't give you much lead time this year and from what I've seen and predicted earlier last year came to pass in that both Andy and you would be busy with some of the more technical aspects of the game. So with that in mind, first I want to address the TI/GSR issue because I AM CONFIDENT that one or two people out there are wondering what might my reaction be for the AH-64E and M1A2 SEP V2, well none really, when submitting equipment I'm the "defence lawyer" for it I've dug up the evidence the best I can and "interviewed" people (THOSE DARN....(Enough dots.) FRENCH 105mm howitzers come to mind right about now.) also in some cases. But I also understand their are mitigating circumstances (Playability etc.) involved and secondly their are other aspects of a piece of equipment that can be increased as well. So to the AH-64E and M1A2 SEP V2 I'm happy with the result overall. They served my stated purpose in the inputs to set the "benchmark" for the equipment I'm going to submit for the 2013/2014 campaign regarding TOW ITAS and SNIPER, LITENING and other similar targeting pods for both jets and planes to a lesser degree.
TO ANDY, DON, SUHIIR and anyone else you all did a fine job last/this year and I thank you all.
However I know Don was scrambling at the end so though I'm the one that normally gets caught in these issues...Don would you like me to post my review of the items I found from what I submitted here or hold off until I submit my inputs for next year? They a are few and mostly date and other minor issues. Look at the bright side no smileys in the text!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

April 15th, 2013, 07:57 PM

Later..... try September

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 16th, 2013, 01:54 AM

Don,
I fully understand as I see my "smaller" plate half full already and I've been following the "post release" posts closely. As I've said a job well done to everyone! And after the news of the day I certainly don't want to seem critical which would not have been my intent anyway. So for the forum/game world I'll focus on some positives below...
HELOS
UK PUMA HC2, FRANCE and others for SUPER COUGAR, RUSSIA Mi-8MTV and IRAQ and others Mi-17V5 all get TI/GSR 50 but the real winner was the USA UNIT 275 MH-47G. Though I asked for it's inclusion into the USMC OOB I can understand from a slot and real life issue why it wasn't put there, after all as pointed out in the PP and elsewhere the 160th SOAR Air Regiment is an Army unit assigned to SOCOM. So you SEAL users save those SUPPORT Points and keep it real and those guys safe!! Also Don did clarify UNIT 293 to positively identify it as a SOAR bird MH-47E.
AH side the AH-64E looks great! But I was very happy to see the South African ROOIVALK's especially UNITS 895-897.

MBTs
All tanks submitted were entered and or changed (Helos also.) but of note Iran will be tougher now with the improved
UNIT 032 ZOLFIGIR 3 based on newer info found on the complete series of these tanks.
While looking at the new BTR-82 I noticed UNIT 090. Though I was going to ADD this tank as posted next year, Don couldn't wait yes the T-90AM UNIT 059 is in! What is of real importance here to me was the TI/GSR. You'll just have to go to the MBT Thread Posts #213-#215 and #227 (Note the Dates.) and do some checking. There are some new challengers out there now. This highlights the reasons for maintaining good notes. THANK YOU Don!!

APCs/MRAPs
New USA BRADLEY's as noted from the above Posts and elsewhere, UNITS 898/899 were a surprise also and look great! As do Russia's BTR-82/82A UNITS 060 & 207 respectively.

And where I would've submitted it last year in the MRAP section, I forgot to add it after it was requested to be looked into. After doing that there was some debate of it getting in at all as it appeared to just be a utility vehicle. The task given was to find proof of it's use in combat, once done, Don added it to his work list for this patch as one of the first pieces of equipment to make his list. The UK got it's HUSKY TSV UNIT 060 and it looks GREAT. That's the second year in a row Dons done that concerning the UK for me. THANKS AGAIN! See the MRAP Thread Posts #104-113. I believe cbreedon started this on a separate HUSKY Thread.

French OOB, SPA/SPAA and I believe one other Thread
The French 105mm field guns I believe has come to a successful conclusion if not a reasonable compromise. May that PITA RIP in 12/96!?!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

April 16th, 2013, 09:07 AM

Hey Pat, here's something for you.

Confirm or deny this claim:

"Uganda received 44 T-90SA in 2011 "

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product889.html

claims 100

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 17th, 2013, 01:56 AM

Saw this just before getting ready for work. I will tell you this is much like the issue I had with Ethiopia getting the T-90S if you remember from about 1 1/2 years ago. This is early and except for Greece have had no time for OOB checks. I can only confirm the following so far...
1. Not looking good for UPDF having the T-90S or T-90SA. Some sites question whether they even operate the T-72. I feel confident they do operate the T-72 but which one is my issue.
2. Can confirm they still operate the T-55 and T-62. Also strong evidence to support that most if not all of the T-55 tanks operated have been upgraded to the T-55AM by 2012. Start date sometime in late 2010 (Fall) to mid 2011.
3. A multitude of good sources speak of a sell of the T-90S to Greece. However due to Greek finances the deal was reduced to a purchase of around 50 T-80 tanks. Neither is in the Greek OOB at this time. Just note it for now I'm not done here until above gets resolved.
4. Can only confirm that ALGERIA and possibly Venezuela (Does operate the T-90S.) operate the T-90SA. Again early in this process as well. There is some difference in the type but enough for game purposes is yet to be determined.
5. This is an update. T-72 tanks might have come from the UKRAINE which supposedly undercut the RUSSIANS. Had this and I might as well give it to you now. Note the date and last sentence.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrussia-to-supply-t-90-tanks-to-algeria-turkmenistan

The above site (Yours) is good normally and one of the few to track contracts. Though I have one other that does as well.
For others a lessons learned session...
Issue with most sites is updating of their equipment libraries same sites will outstrip them on the news side of the house which is where they make their money, just something to keep in the back of your mind when basing decisions on one or two sites for equipment.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 17th, 2013, 03:26 AM

Never mind my feelings on the source, but how confident and for the sake of argument do Andy and you feel about SIPRI? Not giving you both anything as I want an unbiased assessment on the question and no I'm not playing any games here. I'm too tired for that and it's late and I need some sleep before another lovely day at work.
Thank you!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

April 17th, 2013, 08:34 AM

No source is perfect though I would say Janes has the best reputaion in my mind. SIPRI is a suplimental source like a lot of sources.

Re Greece I thought that tank purchase fell through and the US was offering used M1's ?

This is why we REALLY don't like to put things in the game until someone actually sees them rolling down the road.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 17th, 2013, 01:37 PM

Don,
HAVE TO HURRY!! Yes correct on Greece. Uganda looks like T-90S not T-90SA. Give me at least a day I'll post what I found on their site. Duty calls.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 19th, 2013, 02:25 AM

Well I owe everyone an answer regarding Dons question concerning Uganda and the T-90S.
First to clarify I made an error concerning them having the T-72, they don't (T-55AM-2 and T-62), I confused Uganda with Sudan. As some might remember within the last 4 months or less in the Sudan OOB Thread there was a discussion related to whom had the T-72 during the Sudanese Civil War of which I at the time used SIPRI source data. So again I turned to them as so very few Western sources concern themselves about African arms deals.
I REALLY HATE TO HARP ON THIS SUBJECT BUT I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THIS IS WHY I NEVER LIKE TO SINGLE/DOUBLE SOURCE ANY EQUIPMENT ISSUES. Are there exceptions yes when a quick response is needed but, I always follow up with more UNLESS otherwise requested.
In my mind I grade my sources i.e. SIPRI B+ why? Who are they? Where do they get their info from? Is their info consistent with my A sources to include Govt./or Military etc. over time? Do they provide industry real news items as their primary means of support with an equipment data (ED) base and how often do they report the news and update the ED?. And more. Bottom line I chose them carefully and don't pull them out of my "DONKEY" though some might think me one. It takes time and has it's costs as well.
SIPRI is a very well respected "Think Tank" and embedded in Africa and do vet their outside sources as best as anyone can.
So SIPRI says Uganda has 38/39 T-90S tanks. Along with Army-Guide and the related Army-Tech story already posted I believe they do have them. I took the time to randomly check some other transactions of equipment I submitted over the years and they are certainly "close enough for government work". Since I'm a fair and balanced guy see the refs below. And please read the intro, any legitimate site will tell where they got their data from and list their sources as well. That's why DEFPRO, Defense Industry Daily (DID) and Army-Tech I give an A+ to.
A B source.
http://www.deagel.com/equipment/r1a000369raw.htm

Background
http://www.sipri.org/about

You can access database info on from here on armament transactions back to 1950 for all weapons or by type i.e. armor as above provided, arty, combat aircraft etc.
http://www.sipri.org/databases

SIPRI is on the rise with me before I had to search by article query now the database side I hope will make my life easier in bk checking on equipment status after it's in the game such as the OPLOT date change for Thailand by other sources as posted.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 29th, 2013, 09:00 PM

For everyone else...
Refer to MBT Thread Posts #213-#215 Pg. 22 & #227 Pg. 24 (Concerning the Chinese TYPE 99.)

Don,
I know this is the start of your "downtime" so if nothing else just consider this a "tickler file" from me until you're ready to respond down the road.
Poking around I noticed you took action on the tanks listed in those posts. My question pertains to the following tanks in regards to the TI/GSR...
1. CHALLENGER 2 from about 2006/2007 would've req. a new unit.
No increase in TI/GSR or FCS/RR.
2. LEOPARD 2A7+
No increase in TI/GSR.
The next two do "appear" to have increased FCS/LR numbers over last year but, I didn't record all of those numbers before loading Patch 7.0 (That's on me.) for all the tanks I listed in the above posts.
3. OPLOT-M unfortunately the manufacturer only lists the specs for the OPLOT and not the OPLOT-M which is not surprising as the OPLOT-M is not for export which we learned from the Thailand tank deal.
4. LECLERIC
Wasn't expecting a TI/GSR increase here as noted, but again looks like the FCS/LR was increased, if it was it would have been warrented to do so as the FCS certainly would've supported it.

Just asking if I need to provide further info for the next patch or not.

NO HURRY AND OR WORRIES HERE/ENJOY LIFE A LITTLE BEFORE YOU FEEL THE NEED TO ANSWER THIS. BESIDES I'VE BEEN DIRECTED TO DO SO MYSELF IF YOU CATCH MY MEANING!?! THANKS!!!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

April 30th, 2013, 10:48 AM

The next two do "appear" to have increased FCS/LR numbers over last year but, I didn't record all of those numbers before loading Patch 7.0 (That's on me.) for all the tanks I listed in the above posts.
3. OPLOT-M unfortunately the manufacturer only lists the specs for the OPLOT and not the OPLOT-M which is not surprising as the OPLOT-M is not for export which we learned from the Thailand tank deal.
4. LECLERIC
Wasn't expecting a TI/GSR increase here as noted, but again looks like the FCS/LR was increased, if it was it would have been warrented to do so as the FCS certainly would've supported it.

Regards,
Pat

3/ OPLOT-M--no change from v6

4/ LECLERIC --no change from v6

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 2nd, 2013, 02:41 AM

Don,
Thanks for getting back! I'll revisit this later in the year. First two will be easy. My headache will be how to deal with the following after I look into it further.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2593.html
ATTICA I believe is what was installed on the LEO 2A7+ which is why it made my list. Again I'll need to verify this from my notes.
For the last two I do feel good about the OPLOT-M but the LECLERIC might be moved into the "club" later as I'm seeing data concerning the, and please people going strictly by memory here for the name and spelling, the "CARINE" system.
But now my need is for some sleep.
Thanks again Don.
Everyone have a good night/day!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 3rd, 2013, 12:00 PM

The LECLERC newer FCS was IRIS put on the LECLEC T9 variant. See more in the MBT Thread.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 2nd, 2013, 02:18 AM

Don,
At your leisure only please, would like your thoughts on the following...
1. INDIA: ADD/MiG-29K/As you know this is the Russian Naval version. India just last month commissioned it's first INA Squadron. They will operate off the INS VIKRAMADITYA which Russia is due to deliver later this year, however as you know as well they could operate off any military airfield. Do you think it worth our time?

2. Tank vision issue...Are you willing to do 45 TI/GSR? Last I posted on FRANCE's LECLERC (FCS IRIS) and ITALY's ARIETE (FCS GALILEO) I felt reasonably sure that the newer versions of these tanks should have the 50 TI/GSR we've started to update in the last patch on some other tanks. The following are my main concerns right now, LECLERC is simply a ref. issue w/a 50/50 split on those that support 40 and those that support 50 in TI/GSR. ARIETE is to a lesser degree about refs. but more a technical one dealing with the FCS, specifically the ARIETE only uses components of the GALILEO system. In contrast the CENTAURO uses the full system which makes sense as part of it's intended mission is long range RECON/Surveillance and I'll be requesting the type to be bumped up to 50 TI/GSR in the next PP in this thread. The compromise is the only way I can reconcile these two tanks at this time. By the same token I do understand the possible future of the proverbial "opening of the flood gates".

Thanks in advance! Also saw your last in the APC Thread. Just like you to put those two BRADLEYS together so I'd miss at least one. Well you gotta blame someone after all!?! ;)

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 2nd, 2013, 03:32 AM

OK

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 28th, 2013, 10:06 PM

Don,
Can the use of the dual purpose grenade launchers on the Swedish STRV-122/122B be activated in the last available weapons slot to fire off (In real life by the tank commander manually.) either buckshot/flecette, HE-blast or fragmentation grenades? This is a unique feature of the Gallix System dual purpose launchers installed on these tanks (And others.) which can be loaded internally. This does not go without precedence in the real world or game world in regards to the 60mm mortars carried on Israeli
(MERKAVA 4b) and Turkish tanks (M-60T). We chose to have the LAHAT added instead for the latter two if you remember. As far as I can find out Sweden is the only country using those type of 80mm grenades of the ten or so that are available for use with these launchers.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

July 29th, 2013, 01:34 AM

It would be similar to the Nahverteidigungswaffe ( NahVtdgW weapon 151 ) in the WW2 German OOB

Don

Mobhack

July 29th, 2013, 09:45 AM

It would be similar to the Nahverteidigungswaffe ( NahVtdgW weapon 151 ) in the WW2 German OOB

Don

Or the GALIX already fitted on the French Leclercs?.

Andy

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 29th, 2013, 02:21 PM

As posted it is the GALIX Self Defence System. And yes it was first used by the French on the LECLERC MBT in JAN 1992. The next is taken from the first ref. below...

"Status
Production. In service with France (Leclerc МВТ), Saudi Arabia (8x8 Piranha LAV), Italy (Ariete МВТ and Centauro (8 x 8) tank destroyer/armoured car), Sweden (CV 90 family and Strv 122 МВТ) and United Arab Emirates (Tropicalised Leclerc МВТ and variants)."

Again I can only confirm (For now.) that the Swedes are using the weaponized grenades as noted in Post 143 above. This ref. would also "suggust" that the Swedish CV-90 would have the same defensive capibilities as afforded to the STRV-122/122B weapons slot permitting.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product719.html
http://www.nexter-group.com/en/products/item/306-galix-self-defence-system-for-armoured-vehicles?tmpl=component&print=1

If you give me the green light on these grenades, I can submit it with the changes I have to make on these tanks anyway. My confusion in how I submitted my info and then corrected it combined with your workload managed to screw up the STRV-121/122 issues submitted in the last patch. The STRV-122/122B would still retain it's defensive smoke (Anti-IR etc.) abilities, they are equipped with sixteen grenade launchers, with eight to a side by a row of six and below two off set aft of the center mark of the above row. Of course they are turret mounted.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

July 30th, 2013, 08:34 AM

Go ahead. If we can fit them it they should be there

Don

DRG

July 30th, 2013, 08:55 AM

It would be similar to the Nahverteidigungswaffe ( NahVtdgW weapon 151 ) in the WW2 German OOB

Don

Or the GALIX already fitted on the French Leclercs?.

Andy

And the UAE Leclercs in the Gulf States OOB

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product719.html

Production. In service with France (Leclerc ), Saudi Arabia (8x8 Piranha LAV), Italy (Ariete and Centauro (8 x 8) tank destroyer/armoured car), Sweden (CV 90 family and Strv 122 ) and United Arab Emirates (Tropicalised Leclerc and variants).

The question now is what year where they installed on the non French vehicles

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 31st, 2013, 03:36 AM

Don,
Thank you! Concerning launcher install dates and Grenade types...Sweden we know at least for the STRV-122/122B. The CV90 types should be cut and dry as well. And I don't think the others should be that difficult based on GALIX availability date vs armor availability dates for the units in question with the possible exception of the Italian ARIETE. And the other issue for the other countries did they go the same route as the Swedes in choice of grenades? Again except for the STRV-122/122B I can't confirm the use of those grenade type(s) on any other platform to include the Swedish CV90 types. Launcher verification installation is again I think easily done though.

Also I've sat on this issue for awhile concerning the reorganization of Dutch artillery units that occurred this past January 2013. I need to get it to you now so you have the lead time if needed to act on this. The ref is straight from the Dutch MOD.
http://www.defensie.nl/english/latest/news/2013/01/25/48202610/Mortars_and_artillery_a_rock_solid_combination

These might be of some interest for game developers, though if you've paid attention over the last two years you'll have figured out these are pre May 2011 and then (-) the LEOs, pre Jan 2013. Don't wait too long though, they might actually decide to update the site!?! :rolleyes:
http://www.defensie.nl/english/latest/news/2011/05/26/48183133/Dutch_tank_history_ends_with_a_bang
http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/units/11_airmobile_brigade/
http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/units/13_mechanised_brigade/
http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/units/43_mechanised_brigade/
http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/units/commando_corps/
Note CV90-35NL ratio to the YPR-765 (M-113) should have increased over the last couple of years. If the time table holds the YPR-765 should be fully phased out by the end of this year. I'll wait for MOD to make that announcement before I take any action on it.

Gotta hit the rack!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 2nd, 2013, 10:14 PM

Don,
Hope you had a great weekend! CINCLANTHOME just wanted everyone to know she can "hang with the boys" as we both rode (30min.) in the turret of a fully restored original M8 across a field through the mud and puddles with mud in our faces and a little on our cloths in a light rain on 24 Aug before our ballgame that night. What amazed me is how fast it accelerated to it's top speed of 56mph. That was a good lead in to get you into the WWII frame of mind with item one below as it could cross over into both games if acted upon. So...
1) I just finished reading the final installment of Pulitzer Prize (For book one.) winning author Rick Ackinsons "Liberation Trilogy" in it he spent ~three full pages ( 458-462) of the Battle of the Bulge section discussing code name 'Posit" better known as the "VT" or "T-98" fuze. It's first use was in AA in the early 40's, then for the same purpose in the Pacific by the USS HELENA in Jan. 1943 to bring down a Japanese plane. For eighteen months the rounds with the fuze could only be used at sea or in friendly territory for fear of a dud falling into enemy hands. This fuze was the reason for the high degree of success it saw against the V-1 over London during the "second blitz and in Antwerp "...-British officials considered them up to five times more effective than time-fuzed rounds-...".
SHAFE with approval of the "Charlie-Charlies" in the Fall of 1944got approval to supply U.S. artillery units with them on Christmas. HERBSTNEBEL changed that, IKE released them immediately to the 12th Army Group, just over 200,000 would be used a small faction of all rounds however, it would represent a 1/4 of all heavy rounds fired during the Battle of the Bulge (Mostly 155mm.).
It used radio signals to detect the ground or other targets as well as the occassional Air AO if a shell came by to close. it would explode at 50 to 75 feet above ground and was highly effective against log re-enforced bunkers both in test and in battle as reported by both sides. A single 155mm airburst reportly could shred every square foot within a 75yd. diameter.
Among a few such from both sides to include Patton himself, I end with the following for you to further consider this for the games...During tests in North Carolina a senior Army general was qouted "the most important new development in the ammunition field since the introduction of high explosive projectiles." The situation from the German prospective as reported bt one was "pure manslaughter," and "The devil himself could not escape." About the time of the battle 2 million fuzes a month would be produced at a cost of $20 each.
If not addressed and it is decided to do so, recommend these be assigned to 155mm units only though AA units did have them in June 1944 to protect the Mulberries and later after the fall of Antwerp I cannot find any evidence to suggust they used them in the AA role anywhere else on the continent at least not until the Bulge but think January 1945 better.
Taken all together in his "notes" section he sites almost a full page of military and other ref. sources (NOTES / 763 & 764.)

2) Are you ready for TARGETING pods? These are as prolific as the weapons carried on the planes. If allowed though in real life it would be well in excess of this number, thinking 80 vision a feel good number at least should be 60 "podless" for some planes to say we recognize this technology but also the improved air to ground electronics out there for the last few years. An example of this (And has to be added.) the South Korean F-15K(?) they got a couple of years ago and have chosen to order more of over the F-35 (ouch!) just recently. I would not try to add new units for the "major players" if it can be avoided it'll take longer but date changes just might work this could be for next year for most units however one or two would have to be addressed unless South Korea wouldn't be an issue. Why South Korea? Because in both deals every jet bought was equiped with a SNIPER Pod matched to it.

3) Russian UNIT 059 T-90AM the MG is correct as is the TI/GSR but, that gun is not the standard one mounted on the T-90 series it has been improved upon. I offer the same main ref. again of which others support the following, this taken from the armament section...Well it won't let me cut/paste so basically the changes made the techinical dispersion was reduced on average by 15% of all types of shells thus increasing the effective range of fire. I'm not sure if it matters here or not as I'm not sure how to quantify that range increase number. I'm sure the ~15% number above doesn't = to a ~15% increase in range.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5230

At your leisure-THANKS!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 5th, 2013, 02:46 AM

Well later that morning I went back and checked the South Korean OOB and of course the F-15K was in there, when I don't know and it doesn't matter now. I believe the info will at least support a "CHANGE" in the VISION & EW rating. What's sad is that I've not submitted anything formally in a "PP" in over 2.5 years (Except the Mig-29 issue of last year.).

Don sorry if I sent you on a "wild goose chase" concerning the
F-15K.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

September 5th, 2013, 08:33 PM

no problem, i won't be starting work on the oobs for a month or more

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 3rd, 2013, 03:57 AM

Don't get too excited, just an update to say the work has started in earnest. Don't expect too much mostly fixes to inputs for the current patch as I submitted last year. Most of those issues were self inflicted that carried over to other items and caused confusion. You will see a minor format change this year due to the nature of the errors and for the sake of time to maybe get to other equipment as I have alot to address. Fear not and remember I'm a "world traveler" when it comes to equipment. I will keep my word to a couple of folks out here and get those couple of items in as Don has already posted a response to them earlier in the year in those threads I.E. The D.H. 103 HORNET and Australian M777. I've had to focus on other non health issues (You're not going to get rid of me that easily!) over the past several months. What this thread is about is where my true passion lies to the game and where I feel an obligation to give all I can. Everywhere else I can just be a PITA! ;)

"In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Something I look at everyday on my wall from my last command at retirement from someone I truely admire.

Anyway we'll see what happens and it'll give WH Donnelly time to see if anything needs adding in the UK OOB. :D

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 4th, 2013, 02:15 AM

Patch Post #1 for 2013/2014
Well it has been another hectic year. The object here is to fix mistakes from last year from my Patch Posts on Pages 11/POST #105 (1) and 13/Post #123 (2) of this thread. Some of this was self inflicted which cast a net of confusion over some other equipment issues. Also I don’t think I’ll accomplish everything I hoped to this year but I promised I would address a couple of issues that were requested by you folks out there and they will be recognized as I get to them. For reasons of time, I will not reinvent the wheel here and will copy from the original posts. That info will be in quotations with the Thread Post noted if not from one of the above. Any items from the above refs will be indicated with either the (1) or (2) as shown above next to the original equipment item requiring action. All DEFPRO references will be removed. This will also show the importance once again in tracking equipment entered with follow up use of references in tracking said equipment to the field such as in A3 and Some Helo News below.

HELOS…
C1. SOUTH AFRICA/ ROOIVALK Mk I /CHANGE/UNITS 895 & 896/START DATE 4/2011 VICE 1/2006/END DATE 1/2020 VICE 11/2009/EW 8 VICE 6/REF UNIT 897/RADIO 92 FOR UNITS 189, 897 & 901 PARITY ISSUE WITHIN DATES FOR ROOIVALK AND ROOIVALK MK1//
(1) ”A1. SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/APR 2011/ROOIVALK Mk I/RESET/ADD/EW 8/TI/GSR 60/FCS +Current factors// The Mk I has undergone significant changes beyond just avionics and engine upgrades that lead to the safety issues that grounded the ROOIVALK for 1 ½ years…”
http://www.dod.mil.za/news/news%202011/april%2011/rooivalk%201%20apr11%20.htm
http://www.saairforce.co.za/news-and-events/920/139-changes-maketh-a-rooivalk-block-1f
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-africa-accepts-first-five-upgraded-rooivalks-for-operational-355117/
http://www.deagel.com/news/South-African-Air-Force-Takes-Delivery-of-First-Upgraded-Rooivalk_n000008623.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news115257.html

A1. USMC/ADD/JAN 2007/MH-47G CHINOOK/USE USA UNIT 275/RECOMMEND USING SLOT 728 DIRECTLY ABOVE THE SEAL UNITS//
(1) ”A3. USA/USMC/ADD/JAN 2007/MH-47G CHINOOK/USE UNIT 293/C6/P34-50 (Depending on equip.)/Port and Starboard mounted 2xM134 7.62 mm Miniguns just aft of the cockpit & 2xM240G 7.62mm at the last set of windows Rds UKN/ADD Refueling boom to the Starbrd. Side of the nose./Based on date requested with upgrades done to this point TI/GSR 60/EW 8/FC 6/FF 6/STAB. 5 or 6//…The 160th SOAR “Night Stalkers” (Under USASOC.) of Somalia and Bin Laden raid fame provide the bulk of helo operational support to the SEALS, Green Berets and Rangers amongst others….”
Please you know I have been as pro active about the slot issue as anyone to include volunteering to cull the fighters out of OOB’s that are TACAIR heavy. But in this case and the next one below I feel we do the player and AI wrong in not having these birds, they are after all the primary source and means of their operational transport in this case the SEAL’s and other specialized USMC units. Also how many times have we had to address the ALLIES option over the years? With this item we could at least use the machine gun simile on them!?!
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/mh47e/index.htm
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/mh47e/docs/MH-47G_overview.pdf
http://www.guncopter.com/mh-47g/
http://www.socom.mil/News/Pages/finalMH-47GSLEPaircraft.aspx
http://www.socom.mil/sordac/PEO/RotaryWing/Pages/MH-47G_Chinook.aspx
http://nightstalkers.americanspecialops.com/helicopters/mh-47.php
http://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/night-stalkers/mh-47-ranger-sov.php
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/michael_block/mh-47g_soa/index.php?Page=1

A2. USMC/ADD/JAN 1994-JAN 2010/MH-47E CHINOOK/USE USA UNIT 293/RECOMMEND USING SLOT 727 DIRECTLY ABOVE THE SEAL UNITS//
(1) “C8. USA/MH-47/UNIT 293/Change name to MH-47E/Change End Date to JAN 2010/ADD to USMC OOB/See A3 above to include refs.//First change to simplify any future info that might cause a change to that particular helo. Second allows for the last couple of helos to be removed from service and prepped for the SLEP (RESET) Program and flight evaluations before being turned over to SOCOM…”
Again for the reasons noted above and also use those refs here to.

A3. MALAYSIA JUN 2013/THAILAND JUN 2015/ADD/EC 725 “SUPER” COUGAR/C5 P26/USE FRENCH UNIT 520//
(1) “A4. FRANCE JAN 2005/BRAZIL JUN 2012/MAYLAYSIA JUNE 2013/INDONESIA JUN 2014/
THAILAND JUNE 2015/ADD/EC 725 “SUPER” COUGAR/C5 P26/2 x FN MAG 60-30 250/or 1000Rd “Drums”/Optional 2 x 20mm POD mounted GIAT Cannons 180Rds/or 2 x 68mm THALES/or FORGE ZEEBRUGGE 19 Rd Rocket Launchers/TI/GSR 60/EW 8/Advanced composite add on armor is available and is used by the French. Mexico (The largest or next user of the EC 725.) supposedly has it also though not in the game. Malaysia’s are being reported to being equipped in the same manner as the French versions. Adjust armor ratings as you see fit for FRANCE and MAYLASIA/USE FRENCH UNIT 516 AS BASE//Concerning Thailand they have been very good about getting the equipment they have ordered, however, there are mixed reports about whether the contract has actually been signed or not. Based on this information…”
The French, Brazilian and Indonesian UNITS have a Carry 119 as opposed to 126. Is this due to weapons configuration issues? Malaysia seems to have been missed and has ordered more of these helos since last year. In regards to Thailand as noted above we had some concerns here about the contract; it was signed finally in the late spring or early summer after being delayed. I feel comfortable with this deal being good now.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec725/
http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331
http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Missions_174.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/laad_2011_news_pictures_video_defense_exhibition/helibras_eurocopter_group_presents_the_ec725_couga r_helicopter_for_brazilian_army_laad_2011_1404116. html.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newshelibras-brazilian-ec725-helicopters
http://helihub.com/2012/12/04/royal-malaysian-air-force-receives-first-two-of-twelve-ec725s/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Brazil-Signs-1B-Production-Deal-for-Cougar-Helicopters-04959/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Thailand-Orders-Eurocopters-EC725-for-SAR-
Missions-07542/

C2. USMC/CHANGE/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/HS RATING TO 3 VICE 0//
(1) “C5. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/CHANGE HS to 3 vice 0 as noted above./UNIT 320 replace 50 cal M2HB with GAU-21 50 cal./UNIT 321 replace HYDRA 70 with APKWS II ASM//The CORPS was “all in” by this time with the APKWS II ASM. See refs 7-10 below concerning GAU-21 50cal with Night Sights.”
As was noted in the intro this was a case of too much going on. This was paired with another similar entry originally directly above (Item C4) “C5”. The TI/GSR issue was corrected for all the UNITS involved here. The HS issue was missed in the “fog of war”, again these are all built the same in airframe and electronics. Concerning the GAU 21 it has been proven both on the range and in combat evaluations to be at least a 1/3 more accurate then the previously and now not used M2HB. Suhiir I believe has this weapon in her USMC OOB. It’s just something to consider for next year at least.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/snakes-rotors-usmc-h-1-helicopter-program-03541/
http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Chronologies/Yearly/2008.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/uh1y-huey/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/uh1y-huey-utility-helicopter/
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2006/4123.shtml
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/9574
http://www.asdnews.com/news/30989/GAU-21_deploys_with_UH-1Y.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2011/01/mil-110109-mcn01.htm
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2010/01/marines_gau21_010410w/
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M3M_MG.htm
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=11442
http://www.deagel.com/news/Upgraded-H-1-Helicopters-with-Integrated-Cockpit-Deploy-for-the-First-Time-as-a-Unit_n000009578.aspx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/
This last ref provides an outdate on the APKWS II ASM with the new Mk 152 warhead that will also be used on the HARRIER and A-10besides the USMC helos, to be fielded in 2012.Note: I believe 2013/2014 as of this writing will be better for HARRIER use will back check for next year.

C3. SOUTH AFRICA/ROOIVALK/UNIT 188/CHANGE End Date to NOV 2009/DONE/YES SEE BELOW DONE//
(1) “C6. SOUTH AFRICA/ROOIVALK/UNITS 189, 190 and 899 - 902/CHANGE End Date to NOV 2009.//This helo is very advanced featuring 4th Gen integrated image intensifier and FLIR systems, TopOwl sight display for integrated weapons system control.” And from the end of the Para…” The only question I have here is should the TI/GSR be improved for the above units? Also note that the last two refs deal with the Non MK I ROOIVALK.”
Well a little teamwork helped here with Don understanding where I was going with this originally without me asking the question; if you will; I was asking. Huh? With time in some cases newer information comes to light or was missed in the beginning. As I’ve noted in the past this was a very, very advanced helo ahead of it’s time. Focus on 4th Gen and my original question at the end. As I said Don knew where I was heading so all the above UNITS had the TI/GSR increased to 50. Except for UNIT 190 because well, it was a empty slot!! Thanks Don!!
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/denel-ah2-rooivalk/
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/denel_ah2_rooivalk.htm

NEW ITEMS…
A4. IRAQ/Mi-35M/ADD/JAN 2014/USE RUSSIAN UNIT 943 with weapons variations as you see fit//
A5. BRAZIL/Mi-35M/ADD/APR 2010/USE RUSSIAN UNIT 943 with weapons variations as you see fit//
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mi-35m-hind-e/
A6. IRAQ/Mi-28NE/ADD/JAN 2014/USE RUSSIAN UNITS 370-373//
These will share the refs below. This deal was in the making for about two years now and I have been tracking it since Iraq approached the U.S. about buying the APACHE AH-64D and later “rumors” surfaced of interest in the GUARDIAN AH-64E. Apparently due to the instability within Iraq and for security issues related to the technology and other factors the deal never really got done. So Iraq turned to Russia which in trying to expand it’s influence again into the Middle East. A deal was struck in 2012 and almost came apart in early 2013 amid charges of corruption. This issue was resolved early this past summer. There was articles saying the training cycle was disrupted and deliveries were started in 10/2013 and will be completed by the end of this year for 40 of the above helos. I’m holding off on the Ka-52 ALLIGATOR and PANTSIR-S1 AA Systems; until further information becomes available on delivery dates.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2013_news_defence_security_industry_military/iraq_confirms_order_russian-made_combat_helicopter_mi-28ne_pantsir-s1_air_defense_system_0306131.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131017/184210687/Iraq-Taking-Delivery-of-Russian-Arms-under-2012-Contract.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131108/184584753/Iraq-Takes-Collection-of-First-4-Russian-Helicopter-Gunships.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/11/08/Iraq-takes-first-delivery-of-Russian-helicopters-in-43-billion-deal/UPI-70551383926479/
http://www.janes.com/article/29741/iraq-starts-taking-delivery-of-russian-mi-35-helicopters
http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2013/11/15/iraq-gets-first-shipment-of-russian-helicopters/
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8485:iraq-iaf-incepts-initial-batch-of-mi-35-attack-helicopters&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56

Well that went alright…I hope!?! And no Helo issues were noted on the second Patch Post from last year.

Some Helo news…
Have I mentioned the importance of following up before…I guess it can get old but…
From last year in the second Patch Post concerning the GUARDIAN AH-64E; Taiwan is on track as submitted. The second batch should have or shortly will arrive by this writing.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8454:taiwan-army-incepts-ah-64e-apaches&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newstaiwanese-army-receives-first-apache-helicopter-batch-from-us

Regards,
Pat
December 4, 2013

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 4th, 2013, 06:47 AM

Don,
Concerning the IRAQI Helos (A4 & A6), there was no reported disruption in the training during the temporary breakdown of the deal as discussed. I didn't catch the wording error when I realized that Brazils OOB didn't have the Mi-35M. I could've sworn it was in the OOB when it was orginally discussed and submitted ~3 years ago and I checked it I thought as being there. Mad scramble for the ref and submission insued "before the (edit) clock ran out" on the matter.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 4th, 2013, 07:35 AM

Don,
Clock ran out while researching the BRAZIL HIND. It's in there as properly local named AN-2 SABRA UNIT 903. However it should be upgraded and for IRAQ added using the RUSSIAN UNIT 943 as just submitted. Have articles that were posted in the HELO Thread saying Russia was going to buy and or update it's current fleet of Mi-24 HIND's based on the fact the Mi-35M was more advanced.
http://airheadsfly.com/tag/russian-helicopters/feed/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hind/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russia-details-plan-to-buy-1000-military-helicopters-356827/
http://mymodelplanes.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/renewal-of-military-helicopter-force-for-russia/ See bottom as reported by avaitionweek.com
http://www.sldinfo.com/russian-air-power-on-display-a-comprehensive-buildup/

Bought 40 of them.

Back to bed, new days off are throwing me off my game here.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

December 5th, 2013, 12:27 AM

For my part I use:
MH-53J (01/86-09/108, 2x M134, 1x50cal)
MH-47G (10/108-12/120, 2xM134, 2xM240)

And added the 12.7 GAU-21 HMG (copied from Weapon#183/Canada OOB#30).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 7th, 2014, 09:10 PM

Don,
I'm giving you what I have on the following unit for submission with my 2nd PP now as I feel you might be in a better position to answer the ammo side of this unit and how you want to handle the TI/GSR issue. If you find more than I can on the round by time I submit the full submission all the better! If this round is ready to be fielded later (Or sooner.) this year it will have ramifications regarding the T-90AM/MS and ARMATA. Concerning the TI/GSR I see max. 45 here if that. If the T-72B4 comes to fruition we'll definitely be at TI/GSR 50 as that tank is supposed to have the full FCS of the T-90AM/MS. And yes everyone there is a T-72B1 which I stumbled upon researching this tank and the refs are tripping over themselves on in reporting the B3.-I'm not interested in it at this time as my "sketch" has been drawn for this next submission already.
Still rough but good enough for this...

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

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

Pretty much falls in line with what I can find out about these tanks. The FCS is very much in line with existing T-90S models I would think with improvement of T-90MS components as noted above. Also of interest is the “Svinets” APFSDS round, seeing reports that tesdting has recently been completed and MOD is ready to field this round now. Don’t know status of this round however, I believe you might have better access in ammo sources then me generally.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131106/184555420/Russia-to-Boost-Armor-Units-in-Far-East-With-Upgraded-Tanks.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/20th_armoured_guards_brigade_russian_army_has_take n_delivery_of_new_t-72b3_main_battle_tank_1510132.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130908/183267227/Russian-Army-Received-over-100-Tanks-in-2013---Defense-Ministry.html
http://defense-update.com/20131106_t72b1_deployment.html
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/270-upgraded-t-72b3-tanks-for-army-this-year/491336.html
http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=779&p=2
http://www.russiadefence.net/t1868p735-ground-forces-photosnews

This require a little more thought and work than anything I have in the MBT area so far. My headache I'm working through is the LAHAT issue for ARJUN MKI after reading some reports of the ARJUN MKII final trials report with only two hits one being problems firing the LAHAT from the ARJUN MKII. Now you see my concern with MKI.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 7th, 2014, 10:17 PM

Don,
I forgot/was called away so I didn't get to post these pictures from the next to last ref. from the last post. I'm sure you'll find a use for them.
T-72B3...
12800 12801

12802 12803

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 19th, 2014, 03:52 AM

Don,
Is the South African 105mm SA83 the homegrown improved version of the 105mm L7 UK73 as shown as being used by UNIT 004 OLIFANT MK1? I have as you know put off work on these units for a couple of years now. However it's time to address the issues for all the OLIFANT units in the OOB. Things I see are in dates (production vs service), main guns and system development leading to the deletion of at least one unit. Working it.
I have in the meantime a better pic for your consideration for the OLIFANT MK1A as shown in Angola in early 1988.
12815
Off the grid until the next PP.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 19th, 2014, 08:25 AM

There has already been some work done. Units 7 and 9 are gone ( renationalized so they won't show up in the game for now )

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 19th, 2014, 01:04 PM

Don,
Will assume gun question answer is a yes then. References made mention of an improved 105mm L7. Please DO NOT throw away SANDF UNIT 007 yet. Here's what I'm seeing...UNIT 008 should be renamed the OLIFANT MK2. I believe the MK2 falls more between these units (007 & 008) in armor protection. This tank took many of the systems primarily upgrades in armor and FCS from the defunct TTD tank project. No 120mm MG is in service with the SANDF. In the MBT Thread 2 or 3 years ago; South Africa hosted the International Armored show. At that time the following tanks were considered OPLOT-M, LEO 2A4 (Favored.) and the T-90S. However they couldn't overcome the economic realities to buy them or as shown last year to even keep the ROOIVALK flying for the 1.5 years it was grounded. The OLIFANT MK2B needs to be resolved against the MOD website below that shows they have the MK2B.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tank_technology_demonstrator.htm

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 20th, 2014, 08:42 PM

Don,
There will be a OLIFANT MK2B. I'll be using UNIT 007 as a baseline unit and have modified numbers on paper. Have a "clearer direction and map" to follow now on all the units, thanks!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2014, 04:13 AM

CINCLANTHOME and I saw the "Piano Man" in concert who put us both back in a "New York State of Mind" which is always a good place to be (As we used be from there.) anyway it cleared my head a bit as again like last year work and life have a way of getting ahead of you at times.
So here's my thinking...I'm running out of time so like SUN TZU says you must have a strategium in war so here's mine.
1. Sense Don (And I'm sure Andy.) need a break and the sooner I can get this final data to him the better and better means the end of the month. But I have some requests and the following also acts as an update to some degree.
2. Don here's what I request from you please and as discussed to some degree already...
A. South Africa: OLIFANTS will wait until next year unless something drasically changes. Contacted Paul Mulcahy to get permission to copy his non game data about the OLIFANTS it's rock solid info (And matches mine.) and if you ever watched me type it'd drive you to drink or wishing you could put me out of my misery or both. Anyway it'd save me a ton of time right now. So again UNIT 007 I will modify to be ethier the OLIFANT MK2 or MK2B. Also for FYI that MBT represents as is now, only prototype built with the new DENAL turret. About UNIT 009 you can lock it out of play or delete it, however, transfer the Picture and Icon to UNIT 007.

B. Poland: Will be getting new tanks from Germany, got it covered already. However when checking the OOB I've found issues again in brief...UNIT 020 that tank is too new and I will submit an older version that fits the time line better also the good news is they'll get it two years earlier. The current date is when deliveries were completed. About UNIT 022 and UNIT 023 I do not believe they exist. I came across one Polish forum off TankNet that one person commented UNIT 023 would be upgraded to that units level in 2016. I do not see this (Most refs concur.) if Poland has the funds they are more likely to update the 2A5 (Ooopps let the cat out of the bag!?!) to the 2A6M CAN spec.

C. FINLAND: Also about done, they bought ALL the remaining LEOPARD 2A6NL tanks. Those MBT's finally got a new home. I like a happy ending.

D. PROMISES: 1. First to myself, one of my very first equipment submissions fell through the cracks before I started the PP format in 2010. I will get those "Aussie" M113 mods in-easy cut and paste from older posts. Names I've forgotten but will mention thread starter and poster in PP so...
2. M777 155mm to the "Aussies" also.
3. De Havilland HORNET 2 varients for the RAF and 1 for the RN. RN version saw combat during the Malay Crisis as well and the UK had the carriers at the time. These last two as well will be similiar to #1 in workload just have to track down my posts from the threads and refs are ready to go.
4. If I've forgotten a promise made to someone else on some other piece of equipment this past year you better let me know by weeks end and point me to the Thread and Post please!!

E. DFYI: Don got a little passionate about one of the STRV-122 fixes from last year. I'll to cut it down if I can but; from Fabio Prados' ARMOR SITE which a couple of my refs have cited as being one of the best on the LEOPARD 2 Series MBT, I leave you with this to see where I'll be heading with the requested changes Top Turret HEAT 10/STEEL 10...
Sorry won't let me Cut/Paste.
Focus on 1st sentence Para 2. Also Para 3 in full with focus on the turret. This site is one of many to also back my Polish LEOPARD stance as well.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

I had fun today, well yesterday now, and it's good to take an extra day away from work but, I need some sleep as it's back to work later this evening.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 23rd, 2014, 08:36 AM

*IF* you happen to stumble upon any solid info on if / when the Poles are going to retire the T-72 let me know but don't turn that into a new project, it's not that important ATM.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2014, 12:30 PM

Don,
I believe from my refs they talk about 2016. Supposedly they'll hold on to the T-72M1 a little longer. There is debate concerning modernizing the T-72 over keeping the PT-91 TWARDY and regrets over not updating them to the PT-91M or better. If I can work it in I will, but low on my radar at the moment as well. I'll transfer that info along with the OLIFANTS to a new Word document for the 2014-2015 campaign. The plan is to place these new tanks into the frontline units to where the PT-91/T-72M (And in reserve units also for the latter.) are at the bottom. T-72 to storage or sold off.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 23rd, 2014, 01:29 PM

No worries. When they make up their minds we can change the end date in the OOB's it's really not that big a deal

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 26th, 2014, 03:09 AM

Don,
What is the difference between the Polish LEOPARD 2A4 120mm L44 WG01 main gun and the German LEOPARD 2A4 120mm L44 WG87 main gun? This will affect my Polish UNIT 020 decision at my end. I'm currently inclined to change it out with German UNIT 029 vice German UNIT 030 that the current Polish tank most resembles. But this gun issue well, just doesn't make sense. One of the other issues is the fact that like the MiG-29 that was donated, these tanks might have been as well (Or sold VERY CHEAPLY.) as compared to the other countries that bought the LEOPARD 2A4 from both Germany and the Netherlands at the end of the Cold War.
Don't need an immediate answer will start on other areas of the list to finish it up.
Thanks!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 26th, 2014, 11:38 AM

Pat....... some things I understand need explaining but this one should be obvious to even a newbie

The "GUN" is the AMMO. Take a look at the sabot range and penetration data of the two. The 01 is more up to date AMMO for the GUN than the 87 that's why the Poles have newer ammo for an older model Leo.. because that's what would be available for use in that gun when they received the tanks.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 4th, 2014, 11:13 PM

Don,
First to be honest, I didn't know about the ammo issue when I asked about the gun. Just not something I keep up with in that regard. Now for an update: I just finished my last write up. All the "promises" are done- Australian M113AS4*, M777A2 155mm* and UK HORNET aircraft with four varients (2 RAF/2 RN). Poland UNIT 20 will leave alone except for date change, not enough difference between the two oldest German LEO 2A4 tanks to make a difference when I checked. The other two Polish LEO 2A4 tanks discussed I still don't believe thay have but no time to check. Lock them out, allow continued play but don't delete them. The * above indicates other outside associated issues I put into the write ups-all for next year.
What's left: 1. Refs are ready but need to plug into the items requested. 2. I need to proof my work. 3. And a couple of things that I know always just seem to come up, not to worry not taking on anything else. I have to go got a call and I need a break for a bit.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 10th, 2014, 06:04 AM

Don,
Well first off God help me, already started on the Patch Post for the 2014/2015 Campaign in two documents with items not completed for this input. Someone shoot me now!! ;) Anyway #2 for this year I think is done and just printed out so I can copy it here from "Word". Hopefully by later today if not, tomorrow. To prepare you, my only issue of concern with this input again from last year will be the STRV-122/122B HEAT TOP & STEEL. So as not to "skew" your thinking with my recommended numbers here, I'll give you the following info to independently think about this.
1. Based around submarine hatch design and what I've read in dealing with external and interior pressures a tank hatch would be designed along similiar lines. Recessed towards the center with an armor plate to flush mount and seat it to the hull. The surrounding steel would be thicker.

2. Hope my math is correct in conversion...the hatch is 20cm thick (Known) or 200mm or ~22.5 inches. The surrounding steel (Turret top in this case.) should be about double that.

3. Sweden in getting these tanks built for them specifically had the turrets built thicker. Though not specifically stated, there's enough "smoke" out there to indicate this was a direct result of the STRIX program and test results. I know the turret in general is better protected than any German Leopard 2A5. The overall top turret protection is among the best in the world from the refs, I would say at least to the standard of a late model Leopard 2A6 to 2A7+ in range.

So again respectfully , I would request as you do anyway, give this some independent thought in case I've gotten myself too close to the issue. Just striving to be as accurate as possible in converting my thoughts to game numbers here.

It was an exceptionally tough week at work so thank you for your patience!

I really need to hit the rack!! Good Night/Morning All!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 10th, 2014, 05:28 PM

Patch Post #2 for the 2013/2014 Campaign.
Again the object here is to fix mistakes from last year from my Patch Posts. Based on the first input already submitted, this will address MBT issues from Page 13/Post #123 of this thread. Some of this again was self inflicted which cast a net of confusion over some other equipment issues. Again I plan to deal with the promised issues that were requested by you folks out there and they will be recognized as I get to them in this input my last for the year. Again for reasons of time, I will not reinvent the wheel here and will copy from the original posts. Assume all issues come from the above Post, if I use other related Threads /or Posts they will be noted separately. All previous info will again be in quotations. Also all DEFPRO references will again be removed. This will also show the importance once again in tracking equipment entered in the game. Hopefully the STRV issue will be resolved after I caused some confusion concerning them last year. There will be some new items below as well. Let’s start…

MBT’s…
C1. TANZANIA/CHANGE/UNIT 023/TYPE 59G/START DATE TO OCT 2012 VICE JAN 2005//
“A2. TANZANIA/ADD/OCT 2012/TYPE 59G/MG Chinese 125mm SB w/Rds UKN/12.7mm and 7.62mm w/Rds UKN// “ Is EW an issue here as well with this type system as follows?
“The turret appears to be the same one that’s on the new Chinese TYPE 96G. Based on that it would appear then also it is carrying the same EW system as the TYPE 96 which is similar to the Russian Shtora-1.”
Also I have some info to support submitting a new TYPE 96A to the Chinese OOB, hopefully below and as was mentioned previously. “Note: It would appear this improved version of the Chinese TYPE 96 is not in the OOB as shown in Ref. 6 below. See UNIT 026 (My update…Chinese OOB). The refs refer to “the new TYPE 96.”
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3362:tanzania-type-59-modernization&catid=36:africa&Itemid=55
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
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59.asp
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/type_59_wz120_main_battle_tank_mbt_technical_data_ sheet_specifications_description_pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/ztz96a_type_96a_96g_main_battle_tank_technical_dat a_sheet_information_description_intelligence_uk.ht ml

C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/STRV-122/HEAT TOP TO 20 VICE 16/UNITS 31, 353, 356 & 35/STRV 122 & STRV 122B/STEEL 12 VICE 8//
“C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-122/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/Change to STRV-122A/Modify per A3 above/Refs per A3 above. //
Most of the STRV-122 units are to be upgraded by the end of this year.” Haven’t seen anything on this last however, I really haven’t had a chance to thus far to follow up on the STRV-122. Also for context on C2;
“A3. SWEDEN/ADD/OCT 2004/STRV 122B/Use UNIT 358 and modify per below as needed//
The big issue here is protection over the base German Leopard tanks that the STRV-122A and STRV-122B design modifications are derived from. First a breakdown of the STRV Series. The STRV-121 is a Leopard 2A4 as used by Germany at the time of purchase by Sweden in 1994 and 1995 they are both interchangeable.”
“The STRV-122A is a “German” Leopard 2A5 but that’s where the comparison ends. The major area in armor improvement was in the top protectionfor instance the turret hatches are just over 20cm in thickness. After extensive testing the Swedes decided on a geared system for opening them at even severe angles.” Here’s what we know first from the STRIX posts, that the Swedes did extensive testing on the T-72 tanks they had and we posted videos showing some of that. It would’ve been a bad day for Russian T-72 crews but the lessons learned from that were built into the STRV-122A tanks while being built in Germany. That was a good day for Swedish crews. Again 20cm/200mm is almost 2ft thick which also means the surrounding steel is thicker as the hatch is recessed. I strongly feel that this is one of the most protected tanks out there in regards to where the top of the turret is concerned and the turret in general. All I have to offer based on the numbers and from personal experience in my submarine career dealing with our hatches in not letting water into “the people tank” at several hundreds of pounds per sq. inch and that I have not in any research for any tank seen information pointing out the thickness of and operation of the top hatch, I feel the STEEL issue might warrant further consideration. The STRV-122B was not modified with additional top protection but is correct for what should’ve been the HEAT TOP number for the STRV-122 series of tanks in general all along.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2019.html

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

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

New Items:

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

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

Pretty much falls in line with what I can find out about these tanks. The FCS is very much in line with existing T-90S models I would think with improvement of T-90MS components as noted above. Also of interest is the “Svinets” APFSDS round, seeing reports that testing has recently been completed and MOD is ready to field this round now. Don’t know status of this round however, I believe you might have better access in ammo sources then me generally. It should be pointed out that ARENA E is not effective against tank rounds but is supposed to be effective against Arty AP rounds besides RPGs and ATGM. Also this version of the T-72 is protected with RELIKT ERA which is claimed to be twice as effective as the last version of KONTAKT ERA designated KONTAKT-5 which still is in use. As a side note Russia has already developed it’s next gen ERA called KAKTUS which I believe will be used on the ARMATA MBT.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131106/184555420/Russia-to-Boost-Armor-Units-in-Far-East-With-Upgraded-Tanks.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/20th_armoured_guards_brigade_russian_army_has_take n_delivery_of_new_t-72b3_main_battle_tank_1510132.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130908/183267227/Russian-Army-Received-over-100-Tanks-in-2013---Defense-Ministry.html
http://defense-update.com/20131106_t72b1_deployment.html
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/270-upgraded-t-72b3-tanks-for-army-this-year/491336.html
http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=779&p=2
http://www.russiadefence.net/t1868p735-ground-forces-photosnews
http://defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
Pic:
12856

A2. FINLAND/ADD/JUN 2015/LEOPARD 2A6FIN/USE NETHERLANDS UNIT 037//
The contract was approved on 19 JAN, I’m using the “SWAG” on the date and it should be close with deliveries starting in 2015. So after about 2 yrs. the Dutch LEOPARD 2NLA6 tanks finally have a home. As in Asia concerning China’s military build up, some countries in Europe are taking a look at their militaries as well due to the increases seen in Russia’s own increased defense spending. Finland not only bought the last of the active Dutch tanks at the time of retirement tanks (75) but, also cut into the last of their stockpiled ones (25) as well. No indications of any modifications that I can find or is hinted at. That’s what made these and the next two items so attractive to the buyer here and below, these tanks are fully modernized, well maintained and cheaper than modernizing existing stock or buying new as the refs discuss.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsfinland-to-buy-leopard-2a6-tanks-from-netherlands-4161095
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9015:finland-ex-dutch-leopard-2-tanks-procurement-&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://www.janes.com/article/31818/finland-negotiating-for-dutch-leopard-2a6-mbts
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/finland_to_purchase_100_dutch_leopard_2a6_mbt_and_ m270_rocket_launchers_from_denmark_2012134.html
http://dalje.com/en-economy/finland-buying-dutch-tanks/495328
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/snow-leopards-dutch-sells-their-remaining-tanks-to-finland-020936/
http://defense-update.com/20140119_finland_buys_dutch_leopards.html
http://www.janes.com/article/32619/finland-to-buy-used-leopard-2a6-main-battle-tanks-from-netherlands

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

C4. POLAND/CHANGE/UNIT 020/START DATE TO JUN 2000 VICE OCT 2002//
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6913:poland-government-consolidate-40-firms-to-establish-polish-defense-holding&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6914:poland-government-to-allocate-40b-for-armed-forces-modernization-over-the-next-decade&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://www.janes.com/article/29260/poland-to-buy-116-leopard-2s-from-germany
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8404:poland-army-selects-leopard-2-again&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newspoland-leopard-2-tanks-germany
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/buy-from-the-pros-poland-adds-more-german-tanks-019466/
http://www.defenceiq.com/amoured-vehicles/articles/poland-buys-119-leopard-tanks-from-germany-further/

PROMISES MADE:
PM1. AUSTRALIA/ADD/M113AS4 APC/JAN 2008/C2 P10/12.7mm w/1200 Rds//
PM2. AUSTRALIA/ADD/M125AS3 AM/JUN 2008/C5/81mm Mortar w/114Rds//
PM3. AUSTRALIA/ADD/M113AS4 ALV/Ordnance Carrier/C2/12.7mm w/1200Rds//
I’m allowing for the delays in the program here before these got fielded. M113AS4 it was developed under the Land 106 Program that started in 1992 and would be completed with the final delivery of the M113AS4 by DEC 2012. The first 4 units would be delivered on NOV 15, 2007 and the ADF (7th Bn.) would get 16 by the end of that year being fully operational. Let there be no doubt here, the Australians use these as direct fire support ACAV units in support of their infantry and tanks. They are improved versions of the USA M113A3 with many improvements to include engines to keep up with the tanks, armor (Up to 14.7mm.) and IED protection and handling as they have an extra set of road wheels and therefore are stretched.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Australias-M113-APC-Family-Upgrades-05133/
http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113as4.htm

PMC1. AUSTRALIA/CHANGE/UNIT 319/M125A1/END DATE TO NOV 2009 VICE DEC 2020//
I’ll have work here to do for next year. The below ref from MOD points out that the M113A1 finished their last operation in East Timor in OCT 2009. Also one of the three pictured below is a “veteran” of the Vietnam War. We’ll need to extend several of the units out to the above date where weapons and ammo won’t cause any issues. Have no time for that now-sorry.
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=9834
http://armynews.realviewdigital.com/?iid=31673&xml=defencenews_army.xml

Refer to the APC Thread for further info if desired in Posts 45 and 134-136. This one was for me 3 years later.
Pic:
12857

PM4. AUSTRALIA/ADD/JUL 2011/C8/M777A2 155mm w/Rockwell FIRESTORM DTCS/AMMO XM1156 GPS FUZE KITS (EXCALIBUR) and DIEHL/RHEINMETALL SMArt 155 AT Rds//
This much like the LAND 106 (M113AS3/4) the LAND 17 (Artillery Replacement Program) was also plagued by numerous delays. The purpose of the program was to retire the 105mm M2A2, L119 HAMEL 105mm FG and M198 155mm (Addressed below). This weapon is considered in the “ultra-light weight” category. The A2 is the newest version of the piece. Also the system is so user friendly that it can be operated by a crew of 5 though, as noted above 8 is the standard crew for all users of the M777. The FIRESTORM DTCS (Digital Terminal Control System) will allow for instant targeting coordination that will include a tablet PC, a laser range finder, a laser target designator, a real-time video downlink receiver, a manpack radio, and the firm’s Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR).
Both the USA and USMC have already been equipped with the FIRESTORM DTCS package for their M777 pieces. It should be pointed out at this juncture that there are only two versions of the M777 as taken from Ref 1 as follows; “The systems fitted with the digital fire control system are designated M777A1, and those with the software update which allows the firing of the Excalibur projectile, M777A2. M777A2 received full material release in July 2007, clearing the upgrade for fielding. All M777A1 systems will be upgraded to the A2 standard.” This is in reference the U.S. so changes need to be made to both the USA and USMC OOB’s (Ref 2) and possibly Canada as well. The ADF site (Ref 1) no longer shows any other artillery being used in active service. The LAND 17 Phase 2 (Or 1C.) part of the program was also delayed and finally cut due to budget issues in May 2012. This program was to chose an SPA option for the ADF. The Australian 105mm has been retired, the L119 HAMEL 105mm has a battery on active service at their Artillery School and there are indications they along with the M198 155mm are in service with the Australian reserve forces. I have feelers out for information in Australia at this time so this and the above issues can wait until next year.
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Artillery/M777-Howitzer
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-a-450m600m-land-17-artillery-replacement-gets-goahead-01928/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/australian_army_signed_a_contrat_for_acquisition_o f_digital_terminal_control_systems_0606122.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/australian_ministry_of_defence_announced_the_purch ase_of_19_155mm_towed_howitzers_m777a2_1610122.htm l
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/get-smart-control-for-aussie-artillery-03911/
http://www.military-today.com/trucks/mack_mc3.htm
Refer to the #15 Australian OOB Queries Thread by TDR for further info if desired in Posts 6, 12 and 15.
Pics for Game UNIT Picture from ADF files:
12858 12859

12860

PM5. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1955/HORNET F.Mk.1/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets// The HORNET F.Mk.1 was a further improvement upon the famed MOSQUITO. These planes actually flew before the end of WWII but not in numbers to be assigned in combat squadrons. Shared by all versions they had a bullet proof laminated canopy, armored cockpit, nose section and gun panel section underneath. Aerodynamically the HORNET was superior to the MOSQUITO which along with the improved RR Merlin engines made this the fastest prop fighter. It to in combat in Malay; would prove to be as accurate or more so in getting weapons on the target for which the MOSQUITO was legendary in doing so during WWII. The HORNET F.MK.1 would have “shorter legs” than it’s successors but was still superior as compared to the SPITFIRE, P-51 and early jets with or without drop tanks. Interestedly the F.Mk.1 would only end up operating out of the UK.

PM6. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1956/HORNET F.Mk.3/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The HORNET F.Mk.3 would represent the pinnacle in design and performance of the type upon which all further types would be based. The range would be increased to 3000 mi. and maneuverability further improved upon with the introduction of a dorsal fin to the tail section. These planes would validate the type in combat (May 1951-May 1955) during the Malay Crisis of 1950 - 1960. These planes replaced the latest and last versions of the SPITFIRE and TEMPEST Squadrons already stationed there at the start of the conflict.

PM7. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1947 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET F.Mk.20/C1/SPD 468mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The SEA HORNET F.Mk.20 actually was derived from the F.1 but would be improved to the F.3 modifications as that plane was coming to fruitarian. As the name would indicate this plane was built for the RN. The big differences from the RAF types was that it had folding wings, arresting equipment and wing modifications to slow the plane down for carrier landings. The speed decrease is due to the fact that the RN required the type to carry 3 cameras; in the case of the F.20 and NF.21 below, located 1 centerline and 2 angled side looking in the tail this added about 500lbs to the overall weight of the aircraft. However it’s interesting to note that except for the loss of some speed, these modifications had apparently little to no effect on the SEA HORNET overall performance. The first ref below has comments made by the military test pilot Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown that flew the SEA HORNET during the evaluation process. Captain Brown apparently still holds the record for flying the greatest number of different aircraft types.

PM8. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/JAN 1949 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21/C2/SPD 457mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21 was modified to carry the ASH radar system. This version was considered an “all weather” fighter due to its status as a night fighter. Even though it had an elongated nose to house the radar and carried a radar operator; it seems from the refs and blogs I visited online, again the only issue this brought about was a further reduction in speed only as noted above for the SEA HORNET F.Mk.20. The radar operator faced aft with a small canopy “bubble” that could be ejected to allow the operator to parachute out of his “cockpit”. His was located about midway in the fuselage.
http://www.livingwarbirds.com/de-havilland-hornet.php
http://dhhornet50.net/
http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/post-war-military-aircraft/hornet/hornet.html
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/havilland_hornet.php
http://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/british-aircraft/de-havilland-hornet.php
http://www.airpowerworld.info/other-fighter-planes/de-havilland-hornet.htm
http://britains-smallwars.com/malaya/reg.html#raf
Refer to the British OOB Thread by IMP for further info if desired in Posts 6 - 12 as brought to light by Gud. The last ref might be VERY useful for you designer types.

As always some of these inputs lead to further issues which I’ll address next year as these are extensions of this work above and as previously submitted. What I couldn’t fix and doesn’t need fixing this year please until I can further verify it is of course the ARJUN Mk 1 w/LAHAT, the FLIP-FLOP of sources (Sometimes same ones.) that started showing up in late 2012 into 2013 concerning the Indonesian is it a LEO 2A6 or LEO 2A4 and a couple of videos that showed the tanks as 2A4 types late models. For next year lots of Jets, APC/IFV and SPA/SPAA (One dating back to 1995 to be added) for next year as well.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 10th, 2014, 07:06 PM

OK got it. That's all for this year

Thanks

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 10th, 2014, 08:21 PM

Don,
You'll get no argument out of me. I feel done. But a lot of ground was covered elsewhere this year also especially in the APC world. It was a productive year equipment wise. If any issues come up with this last input let me know. Otherwise like everyone else, I'll look forward to the Patch to see what you and Andy have come up with. In the meantime I can always count on India too keep me busy...
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9214:india-rafale-negotiation-stall-over-license-and-tech-transfer-issues&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
Somethings never change!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 10th, 2014, 10:30 PM

Pat, I was burnt out 4 weeks ago. I don't even want to THINK about OOB's for about a half year. This year has been the worst grind in 16 years of doing this. I just want to get through your list then spend the next few weeks looking things over so today was the last day for new things for both games no exceptions.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 11th, 2014, 12:48 AM

Don,
Understand. I should send you a "care package" of some good Belgium Brew that seems to help "set me right" now and again!?! :D

Only six more to go!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

February 11th, 2014, 07:58 AM

This year has been the worst grind in 16 years of doing this.

Don

I'll take partial responsibility for making this year a "worst grind".

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 18th, 2014, 11:45 PM

Well it isn't a funeral; Don and Andy enjoy the break. It's well desevered after all these years of dedicated work. But I can't wonder if someone isn't sending me a message as well. Got back from vacation over the weekend, get on the computer, it's coming up and crashs hard. I lost the OS and everything associated with it. Including years of past and future game data. So even with a very good UPS and surge protector it's still no defense against Mother Nature. The upside is the machine will be leaner and meaner and by dumping the partition so I could rebuild the OS etc. I might've even gotten rid of a virus or other malware or two also-who knows!?! Fortunatly I can see most of it in my minds eye and the pressures off now. My focus will be the 2014/2016 Campaign and less on the news-afterall the minds eye is still perishable data. And that starts shortly. I will search the threads for items like the Hornet/Sea Hornet as those are the things I like to take on and as I have a "World OOB" view of the game I'll just post it here if alright when the time is right.

Lesson here is to turn the computer off and unplug it if your not home to answer the UPS warning to shut down your system. So ends that debate of do you leave it on or turn it off. That's the consumer tip of the day.

So again Don and Andy enjoy your time to sort out your lives and take the time to smell the roses.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 13th, 2014, 01:38 AM

Don,
Obviously we have all the time in the world for the two items I have a question about below-let's just say you get real bored one day before you feel the need to respond. Besides I'm slowly thinking about starting my lists soon to catch up on the items I've let go by for the last three years or so on some equipment. I'm still recovering data lost to my computer issue of this past winter. Anyway...Do you see a need for the following to pieces of equipment? I will provide a brief reason why to consider each however I'm not going to expend too much energy on them at this time as noted above.
First up the Russian BTR-82AM designed for use by the Russian Marines. It's set up would be similar to the BTR-82A w/30mm cannon we put into the game for the 2011/2012 patch. It is fully amphibious and Russia claims and the ref below says it can operate/be deployed from dozens of miles from sea.
Availability: Now. It's another "nail in the coffin" for the BTR-80 series.
Who benefits: Not knowing what game loaded maps (I understand options exist i.e. Map Gen.) are currently available for Russian amphibious assaults; impact for the normal player and AI is nominal. This would on the surface of it would benefit the designer folks most in amphibious assaults for campaigns or scenarios I feel.
Issues: Easy to copy the BTR-82A to make this unit and would give the Russian Marine units a dedicated IFV. The slot issue is the real concern here. Would I give up a slot for this vs. the ARMADA, no though I have a certain jet in mind that really needs to go away I've been beating you up about for the last four years or so. But Russia is getting a upgraded version of the PANTSYR also within the next two years or less as well. Unless you see another way, though I like this UNIT, at the same time I can see this more as being added in the final 2020/2021 Patch to close out the game if slots allow. If a solution to the slot issue presents itself earlier, then we should take a look at it sooner.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/russian_army_units_in_abkhazia_will_receive_a_tota l_of_80_new_btr-82am_naval_armoured_vehicles_06051.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/btr-82a_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_technical_d ata_sheet_specifications_description_pictures.html

Finally the Oerlikon Skyshield ground-based short-range air defense system.
Availability: Now.
Who benefits: Everyone. To include the three countries using it. This is a very sophisticated system and at least for South Africa and Indonesia probably one of their most advanced, at least, short ranged AA/SAM systems.
Issues: None concerning the slot issue for the current user countries. Workload in creating the units and at my end the normal research especially in determining the means of transport each country uses for the firing units.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_artillery_vehicles_systems_uk/skyshield_oerlikon_ground-based_short_range_air_defense_system_cannon_missil e_technical_data_sheet_.html

TAKE CARE!!!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 5th, 2015, 05:43 PM

I'm ready to start work here to clear my bookmarks out and give my brain a rest from years old data I kept after my former PC crapped out on me a couple of times. I've put off equipment to take care of the priority needs of the "major" OOB's, now it's time to catch up the less or smaller ones a little such as Iran, Iraq, S. Korea and Brazil to name just a few. I'll try a pace of one or two items every couple of days.

1. Don I will change the format of the my submissions still within the "home" thread titles but separate the page into sections of ADD, Modify (Weapons, TI/GSR etc.), CHANGE (Now being more administrative in nature I.E. dates, crew size etc.) and DELETIONS in the order you wish otherwise I'll leave as shown here. Also no longer will I use those terms for each single item as I've done in the past, it should save both of us some time. Synopsis will still be done as normal, I'll try better to keep too main points and maybe be briefer. OK, I hear everyone already laughing, but, I'll give it a try anyway. Any other modifications you want let me know here please.

2. Finally we've had a real good history of getting equipment in that some forum members had asked me to look into and submit to Don. We're thus far at a 100% inclusion rate thus far. So again thank you for the requests and of course to Don for getting them in there. So I'm open to them again however, you need to provide me with a start point that I can build on. This offer ends on 25 September. You'll know where to put them shortly.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 24th, 2016, 03:52 PM

Well the last post sure as poop fell through since everything seems in "flux" all the time around here. Folks I'll just say when it shows up here you'll be the first to notice though a handful of you know the signs that something is finally "afoot" the two years since my last input sure has felt more like it was double that. Anyway my real purpose here...

Just downloaded the new Patch 10b (It shows as 10 in the game is that correct?) and I see the gunships are still in. I have changes in this area such as the SPECTRE was retired from combat operations last year (Some will be used as laser weapons test platforms.) plus...
http://www.janes.com/article/51851/afsoc-retires-its-last-ac-130h-spectre-gunship

The new AC-130 "GHOSTRIDER" gunship will join the "SPOOKY" operationally 3-6 months after the next years Patch which will need to entered plus...

JORDAN has operated the CN 235/295 "Pocket Gunships" for a while now so there's a couple of ADDS plus the same as an "update" version to carry new weapons as shown next...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/apkws-rockets-delivered-to-jordan-for-cn235-gunships-419663/

I don't want to "spin my wheels" here if these gunships are going away as I truly thought was going to happen this year based on the various posts concerning this very topic. If the matter is still being looked at concerning how they work in attack mode within the game great, But would request a little guidance on how to proceed as I believe that the CN 235 will involve more "players' such as Italy etc.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jordans-pocket-gunships-cn-235s-converting-06778/
https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/defense-electronic-systems/ac-235/docs/AC-235_Fact_Sheet.pdf
https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/defense-electronic-systems/ac-235/docs/AC-235_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The last has "live" weapons on target firing video. And yes those are HELLFIRE missiles on there which both of ours wil carry a well.

I'll await further guidance when the New Patch Release Hangover (NPRH)" is well...over. :doh: (Did he really just post that!)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 18th, 2016, 01:17 AM

As a reminder I would request that the "normal rules" of this thread would please be respected as noted in Post #1/Para #1-Thank You.

In the next month or so Andy and Don will embarking on another several months of putting together the next patch pulling together the many issues related to the game over the last year. Many others will more directly contribute as well and I only wish I was amongst them. Maybe I can pull something together towards the end if Don "green lights" me, we'll see.

This time of year is always difficult for all involved with it and it means personal sacrifice at times. We don't always agree and that's fine as long as we don't give up and continue the "fight" to keep our games at the fore front of this genre.

It is my hope the below, which was brought to my attention from a co-worker (In my section alone we have at least 130+ years of retired military experience and other 20 years on top of that from a couple of veterans also in the section.) will set the tone and when needed provide some relief by those that need it.

As this next deals with possible future DOD applications that might have ramifications across the board covering everything from vehicle self protection/defense, offensive countermeasures, crew and passenger integrated protection systems, combat vehicle medical field support, advanced comms and frontline HQ support. This is currently in reality, a commercial venture that is truly showing promise that has gotten the interest of the DOD recently. This falls under a broad based program simply known as either MIT/or MITT.

Of course I'll be tracking it as news of it is available and the DOD decides to act upon the whole "system" as a whole or dissect it into the parts it wishes to pursue as MIT/or MITT at it's core is a modular system.

Again the last sentence of para three is the driver here and hopefully MIT/or MITT will fill that niche as we see the future of battlefield technology yet to come.

About that Patch, normally mid-March to mid-April for release providing no major issues are involved. Just saying!?! ;)

Again for all the hard work that's been done and the rest to come, this video shows the commercial uses, the DOD press conference is at the end of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gERED8htKM

20 and a wake up.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

September 18th, 2016, 08:21 AM

We definately need a trunk monkey here ........

Suhiir

September 18th, 2016, 04:47 PM

We definately need a trunk monkey here ........
My only question is ... who is it going to target ...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 24th, 2017, 12:13 AM

Alright before I start, we have a lot of new or more active folks in the forum since I last put anything in here. So please, before anyone else decides to post a response here, I would urge you to Read the following first...
Post #1 Pg. 1, if still unsure, Post #121 Pg. 13 and finally Post #182 Pg. 19. THANK YOU!! This is where Don and I "hash it out" or he just plain "challenges me". But also where Andy can chime in as he sees fit, should he desire. All you have to do is just read anything Don has responded in here too understand the relationship going on here. I kind've touch on it in Post #180 Pg. 18. For my small contribution to the game over the years I wouldn't have it any other way. I've noticed when "life" was kicking us around and Don and Andy got a little better hold of their situations and came back sooner than I but, Don still entered some equipment I had only posted on, I'll just leave it at that.

Now for the business at hand which I hope will be addressed for the 2017/2018 Campaign or following one. For everyone else when I'm done here this portion will be copied over to the MBT Thread for anyone else to comment on as they see fit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At your leisure if I missed a point of concern you wish me to further consider as well, please do so and post it here if you will. Otherwise until LATER this year, I'll consider this matter closed for now.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a2_sep_v2_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_ specifications_pictures_video_11610155.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/u.s._army_will_begin_the_development_of_m1a2_abram s_sep_v4_main_battle_tank_11302171.html

Something else I'm TRACKING...
http://www.janes.com/article/64383/ausa-2016-us-army-s-new-tank-programme-takes-shape

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

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 24th, 2017, 12:44 AM

Don previous post is for you. Everyone else the main issue is posted in the MBT Thread. Wanted to get the Threads in ascending order if you will.

Thank you!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 8th, 2018, 09:30 PM

I had thought it far longer then I just saw since I posted anything out here. But the SEP V3 is in and the rest, well I just don't know. That's something I've not done before when posting anything in this thread - ever - not to follow up when the Patch comes out.

So today happened to cost me $3400.00, for a new water softener, 10 yr. termite treatment, insurance deductible since someone decided to hit CINCLANTHOME's POV while it was happily sitting in a parking space minding it's own business (hit and run) and renewing my U2 membership.

So I'm thinking how can I make this a better day!??! Well...

Don,
I know this is a crappy time to ask but, it's always been in my window for this kind of thing, yes, but not so much as I normally would do but, maybe a step in the right direction. So here I go!!

I'm asking if you'll give me until Sunday (evening.) next to submit a mini Patch Submission? Here's what I see...

1. One helicopter already submitted (2013) for six countries. Problem missing primary weapon/slot(s) are available to add/one will need a 1 yr. shift to the left also for FOC+ (One turned out to be a month early that's OK well within our 6 month "SWAG" we've always used in the past. The rest on time. That's Research and Time & Effort.) I like that "RTE", sounds very...well...like military speak!?! :D

2. You (And some others out here.) know how I "feel" when I see a trend starting, and I see one now that I'd like to get fixed again as was addressed several years back. The concern is for the AH-64E and ensuring that foreign sales AH-64E birds DO NOT reflect the USA one's, not directed to you, based on a sense of the postings I've seen concerning this matter. I'm asking you to trust me on this one as I'm real close to tying this up to present the matter for your consideration. These will be minor fixes but, a degree of separation must be made.

3. I have a tank in mind which is significant to the country of concern and the geographic area as a whole. This will change the countries strategic position within the region due to the type and numbers ordered. It might even get some more players interested in this area or group of surrounding countries in the current era. This is an existing MBT from another country also in the region.
A simple ADD.

I of course will submit these if given the "green light" in my normal format for this thread. Might be useful for some others to a degree in simplifying submissions in the future, based on what I've read out here. Sorry this is kind've how I get when the juices are flowing. It's in the last work para below and is not personal, I just have a "good sense" of what's going on especially this time of year.

Patch's are what you call a female dog. So again "hats off" to Andy and Don.

That's about it. And as always you know I'm available as a "hound dog" as I've been asked to do in the past a handful of times.

For everyone else, it's not a big thing, if I get my "S**T TOGETHER maybe it'll be sooner then later, but, I feel much better about saying that now than I have in a very long time.

So many new people out and that's REALLT GREAT!! But that being said PLEASE read POST #1 there are "house rules" here mostly to keep my "head clear" and Don's to maintain his sanity. If you delve into this thread a little you'll understand what I'm talking about. THANK YOU!!

So it's my last night off, someone's playing for a National Championship and someone's got a complete 4K system...hmmm...I think Blade Runner 4K is what I'll do next, well after I renew my U2 thing. ;)

Good Night everyone, even those that are already, well, sleeping!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

And wouldn't you know it, the TRUNK MONKEY from above is gone!?! I really liked the TRUNK MONKEY it made me laugh. :(

DRG

January 9th, 2018, 04:45 AM

sure... no problem

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 14th, 2018, 04:15 PM

I hate to ask though I'm dedicated to this now, but as you'll see next, you'll partially understand why. I'm requesting a one day extension if possible though not only for the following reason but I had to research data lost.

The why is, I went to open my planes and jets folder that had about 100 files in it and now there are only 2 in it. I don't know or understand why but over 5 years of data are now apparently lost. Quite frankly though my mind is focused on the matter at hand, I'm almost afraid to check the others at this time and won't until this is done first for obvious reasons.

Any thoughts how I might find this data within Win10 at a basic level would be appreciated though, I expect the worst. This is the only info I can provide...

1. Had Mozilla Firefox after my PC issues before the holidays, I switched to MS EDGE as my browser and transferred my bookmarks over without incident. Did a precheck of my refs in preps for this project, and the files were all there Fri. late, last night they were all gone but the two mentioned. So this issue is open to answer here for anyone that has experienced the same or that might have a basic fix for me. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!!

Don also so I saw the M551 Thread in TO&E's with Andy's answer concerning the location of the AAMG in Slot 4. Currently the 6 helos (Same type.) I mentioned already have two weapons on them that can stay (These are considered "heavy lift" helos so can easily handled all weapons assigned w/o any issues.

That being said, the weapon is FN MAG 60-30 MG x 2 which also as I had noted was it's primary weapon. There is one weapon mounted on each side of the helo (Will provide pics.) just behind the cockpit.
15090 Added in edit to assist you.

Not knowing the calculus involved, do those two machine guns just take one slot because they're the same weapon or one slot for each?

So at this point it would be useful in answering this question with the following unit to represent the rest requiring updates France/UNIT 520//. also France and Malaysia are the only ones I'm aware that have ordered the up armor pkg., I'll assume the HS armor value of 3 vice 2 for the other countries involved represents that upgrade? If so then that issue is resolved for me.

Thank you! I'm really sorry to be a bother.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Mobhack

January 14th, 2018, 05:06 PM

WC4 AAMG in slot 4 - now fixed in code so its not treated as a bow gun.

Re loss of files - do you have anything set up to "archive" files - they may have been zipped up and squirrelled away by some utility programme, if you have such on your machine.

Also - check your deleted files folder, on the off chance you or some "utility" removed them, they might be found lurking in there!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 16th, 2018, 02:30 PM

Don this is where I'm at all jet/plane & helo inputs done. The following will be my only MBT submissions to be submitted and what's left for to finish.

1. 1 name w/vision CHANGE

2. 1 vision CHANGE for the same tank as above but for a different country.

3. 1 ADD unless you tell the VT-4 for Thailand has already been entered by you for the next patch.

4. And finally my current "headache" Brazil EE-T1 ORSORIO UNIT 600 I might've been the cause of this as if and others might remember, sometimes I'd post a "what if" tank with other news etc. I believe you'll find I did this for this tank in the MBT Thread.

Here's the issue I've found several refs are saying this tank never got beyond the prototype stage. Army-Guide and maybe a couple of more say they do have. Please if you still have your note on this tank can you tell your source data please.

4A. Brazil EE-T2 ORSORIO UNIT 601 this one the refs seem to agree upon as never getting out of the prototype stage. It's really ashamed though, the Brazilian Army held off on a buy decision unless the tank generated international attention in the form of a buyer. That would eventually became Saudi Arabia that was looking for 300 tanks at the time. If bought the per unit price would've been much less making it an attractive buy for the Brazilian Army. As it turned out, this tank outperformed the ABRAMS (And this is well documented.) very handling in overall performance. In one of the more "shady" defense contract deals made, Saudi Arabia backed out of the intent to buy contract in favor of the ABRAMS this decision was solely based on their long term political interests. In that regard it's obvious it was the right decision.

So this boils down to the same question on how it got in.

I'm thinking 2 DELETES here otherwise.

Got to get ready for work have a late post today. Midnight before I can get home before I can respond to this.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 16th, 2018, 03:33 PM

3/ it's already in

4/ I just went through this with someone else.( it must be " Brazil Month...":doh: ). please go look at the UC they are and then look at the formation they are in ......."Engesa Tank Company"

Then open up THE GAME instead of MOBHack and read the formation information.

Engesa Tank Company*
*
Prototype and initial production tanks for your use in hypothetical scenarios. Enough of these tanks were produced to field a company of various models should the need have arisen (for example, if Brazil was invaded). They can also be used in hypothetical scenarios where, for example, the USA did not intervene when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia would then have completed the planned purchase of 318 Osorios to use against Iraq.*
*
Engesa was formed as a private firm in 1963. Initially, it was involved in renovating World War II-vintage tanks. Engesa built wheeled APC's, such as the EE-11 Urutu amphibious APC, the EE-9 Cascavel armoured reconnaissance vehicle, the EE-17 Sucuri tank destroyer, and the EE-3 Jararaca scout car, in addition to a wide range of other products. The EE-11 Urutu armoured troop carrier is an amphibian that can also be used by naval forces. It is still used by the Brazilian Army. It made a success in the international sales market, and is in service in a number (over 20) of Armies worldwide, in addition to the Brazilian Army.*
*
Engesa's APC's were all based on a new proprietary suspension system, called "Engesa Boomerang". This ingenious suspension system, along with many other modifications, expanded the life span of many otherwise obsolescent World War II-vintage vehicles.*
*
Engesa embarked on an ambitious tank project with the goal of selling a modern tank to Saudi Arabia, and thereby winning more contracts worldwide. The prototype tanks went through several stages and finished an initial production run for trials. The Osorio was accepted for testing by Saudi Arabia and others, but Desert Storm intervened. The resulting close ties between Saudi Arabia and the USA led the Saudis to purchase M1 Abrams. Shortly thereafter Engesa filed for bankruptcy.*
*
Engesa has been dismembered, with some of its companies sold to private interests, and ordnance-related firms taken over by the state and integrated with the Industria de Material Belico do Brasil (IMBEL - Brazil's Industry of War Weapons and Equipments).*

There will be NO removal of that unit:down:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 17th, 2018, 02:01 AM

When I saw those tanks my reaction was as noted in my last. I did see the post leading up to your last, I didn't have to read it because I recognized as soon as I saw it. So I'll :doh: you back and raise you a :deadhorse: minus the beat down but very much feeling like what's on the ground!?!

Thanks for the response, keeping those refs for another look at these later because those reports of the Saudi opeval against the ABRAM was eye opening. I want to dig into a little deeper. Glad they can serve a purpose.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 17th, 2018, 05:16 AM

Patch Post #1 for the 2017/2018 Campaign

Well to start especially with the first Brazilian jets below in particular and others, those items go back about five years or more by time this gets posted. Why? First tracking the development of the item or lead time if you will until operational. Priorities associated with the game like armor and major OOB related mostly. Personal and related issues-life in general. So this is more about my philosophy of…One World One OOB at a Time (OWOOT…well that was interesting!?!) which is why I’m starting here with this thread. Unfortunately I’ve lost within the last few days I’ve somehow lost over a 100 files relating specifically to my Jets and Planes folder. So sorry for the delay these issues were in my head as I said for many years and in my last couple of years of submitting my Patch Posts I indicated how far behind I was letting these things go. I’ll do my best, because my goal here among others is to try to generate some interest outside of the ordinarily/or usual suspects played out here. You will note a more streamlined format (On the UNIT info page as you look at it go TOP to BOTTOM and LEFT to RIGHT is how I’ll try to present the data. I’m maintaining the past practice of not including END DATES for new and existing units if they meet or exceed the current games one. A note on the CHANGE items, mentally think of it as CHANGE too, this shortens things where I entered the data fields etc. with “vice” in between them. Finally I’m using a different font (Calibri 11 see I remembered!) to hopefully make things easier for Don, Andy and myself. Also I’ll be submitting new country pictures for these items below as needed and via follow up posts to this. As you go along you’ll understand why.
Since it’s been awhile and we have many new folks out here (WHICH IS GREAT!!) over the last couple of years, I would again ask your patience and understanding in that these submissions are for your viewing only while under this thread. This is to expedite any issues between us concerning equipment getting into the game. As always I migrate these back to their “home” threads after all issues have been addressed, and Don is satisfied as is or the patch has been released, after which you can comment as you wish.
I will thank everyone for your support and encouragement over these last few years at the end of this submission it’s just a little special THANK YOU!?! So this is the first one about 4yrs. and if Don’s ready, let’s get started…

JETS PLANES BUT NO UAVS HERE.
ADD:
A1. Brazil/SEP 2016/DEC 2025/Embraer A-1M AMX/EW 6/TI-GSR 40/2x DEFA 540 30mm/LGB capable/Ref. UNIT 148 as weapons option/FC 16/RF-Does have Range Finder value at your discretion//. Though work started in 2008 however, the world market situation slowed the cash flow in this program. The prototypes were made fully operational and the FAB did receive they’re first A-IM in SEP 2013 with 16 more at various stages of modernization but, I’m basing my FOC+ as indicated above as that was a date a ref. pointed to as delivery of additional aircraft. The A-1 cannot compete against the A-1M as this was an extensive and very expensive upgrade for the number of planes involved (43). It should be noted that Israel’s ELBIT was the lead initially in the upgrade of the planes avionics and advanced electronic systems.
https://dialogo-americas.com/en/articles/first-modernized-brazilian-amx-1m-make-inaugural-flight-march
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/amx-fighter-bomber/
https://embraer.com/global/en/news#/2452-Embraer-entrega-o-primeiro-caca-A1-modernizado
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Elbit-Enhancing-AMX-Aircraft-Avionics-for-Brazil-05151/
http://www.deagel.com/news/First-Upgraded-AMX-A-1M-Fighter-Jet-Handed-Over-to-Brazilian-Air-Force_n000011864.aspx

A2. Israel/JAN 2005/DEC 2015/A-4N SKYHAWK II AYIT (EAGLE)/EW 4/TI-GSR 30-35 (Possible 40.)/2x 20 mm COLT Mk 12/Normal Configuration – Drop Tanks/6 Mk 82 500lb bombs and 2 LAU-131 rocket pods/Optional Pkg. - 8 Mk 82 500lb bombs/2 Mk 80 250lb “Fire Cracker” bombs/FC+ (?)/RF-Does have Range Finder value at your discretion//. Before I make my case for this plane, I noticed that the pictures for UNITS 308-311 are all USN ones and ICO of 311 not an A-4N as that has The “humpback” on it. I already have IDF pictures for 311 and this one if entered. Alright here we go…By 2005 the IAF realized the life span of their A-4 was coming to an end. By 2008 the search was on for its replacement which included the possibility of using their F-16A/B that I believe were coming out of service around that time. By 2014 that replacement was being integrated though initially they were purposely stripped down versions when bought (See ref. 5).
These planes received the above noted improvements plus others to cover other avionic aspects in regard to the planes performance. This is in the realm of an advanced trainer that is designed (Like many others T-50 ROK, L-15 China, YAK-130 Russia and M346 Italy etc.), that is fully combat ready. In looking into this matter, it can be interpreted that they might’ve been used for such purpose, after all once advanced training is completed it’s on to their final assignments. But we’ve been down this road before (STRIX etc.) so my case is really above the fact that if “push came to shove” Israel wouldn’t hesitate to use them or any other nation that operates a smaller AF similar to the geo-political environment they are in. I think this is something to consider.
The 4th ref. is was the best I could find on the IAF A-4 weapons configurations. The 5th ref. indicates combat missions into Lebanon in 2006. The 6th ref a book on the combat history in chapter 7 is about operations in Syria and Lebanon. The chapters are in chronological order. The 7th ref is an IAF source on their aircraft. What I find unusual here is that the AYIT is not listed under the trainer section (Click on decade time lime.) however its replacement is. The last two discusses the new trainer and the IDF upgrades including weaponing of them.
http://www.aviobook.com/military/4X_FIGHTERS/4X.FIGHTERS.ENG.html
http://iaf.org.il/4428-45751-en/IAF.aspx
From para 4 “…as it took part in every Israeli campaign ever since it entered service…”
http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/jet-warbird-news/israeli-air-force-retires-a-4-48-years-service.html
http://www.moddb.com/mods/idf-fight-for-independence/news/a-4-skyhawk-the-israeli-ayit
http://a4skyhawk.info/article/israeli-ayits-skyhawks-combat
https://ospreypublishing.com/israeli-a-4-skyhawk-units-in-combat
http://iaf.org.il/9031-en/IAF.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsalenia-roll-outs-israels-first-m-346-master-aircraft-4202966/
http://www.iaf.org.il/4462-49374-en/IAF.aspx
Pic:
15095

CHANGE:
C1. Brazil/UNIT 153/F-5EM/Start DATE SEP 2006 FOC+/EW 8 Rafael Litening III /TI-GSR 40+ (?)/Rafael Litening III/1x 20mm M39 1 cannon removed to accommodate additional air/ground radar + other sensors/FC 22+?//First I feel these planes from the start should’ve been around 40 TI-GSR as they stand w/o the pods. Also more of the pods had been received since the below ref first reported on them. By Sep 2006 13 F-5EM and 1 F-5FM were operational (However, “An official ceremony on 21 September 2005 at Canoas marked the service entrance (FOC) of the Embraer F-5EM with the first operational unit: 1°/14 GAv "Pampa" at Canoas AB.” But they were designated to conduct op evals. This goes to an earlier discussion concerning FOC vs. FOC+. These are probably the most advanced versions of the type being flown now. Depending on how the GRIPEN NG purchase goes (Tentative first delivery late 2019.), these planes might stay in service until 2030. Some refs do point to 2020, however it took a year to op eval these planes and they already flew the F-5 prior. Now we know that’s not going to happen. Again Israel and also Italy played a key role in its development. The difference maker to some extent was the decision to buy the more capable Italian radar vs. their first choice. My first ref does an excellent job of tying the rest in I’ve supplemented it with. But I’m under a self-imposed time limit so…I end on the following question, do we want to ADD the F-5FMtwo seater and should we not consider also an additional F-5EM in a different weapons configuration? And this can wait or after this is submitted and depending on your workload, I can fire off an addendum to this Patch Post if you want it for the next Patch.
http://www.the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info/AirForces/BrazilUpgrades.html
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Brazil-Finishing-F-5BR-Fleet-Upgrade-Program-06837/
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/143302/embraer-delivers-upgraded-f_5em-to-brazil.html

C2. Israel/UNITS 308-311/A-4E/F/H/N to include “AYIT” at end of name/See A1//.

C3. Israel/UNIT 311/A-4N SKYHAWK II AYIT/End DATE DEC 2008/2x 20 mm COLT Mk 12/Normal Configuration – Drop Tanks/6 Mk 82 500lb bombs and 2 LAU-131 rocket pods/Optional Pkg. - 8 Mk 82 500lb bombs/2 Mk 80 250lb “Fire Cracker” bombs//. I think it well worth to equip jets/planes as full as possible with ordnance in cases like this when other changes are needed and we have sources available to support the claim. And I’m not however suggesting we do a major check of aircraft in the game, as a user of them, most already are “fully” loaded. This again was a random opportunity that presented itself. The 4th ref is from a 1965 USMC orientation film. You’ll see one of the single mission load outs at the start of the video and you’ll need to pause it, it’s only 30s long. The last is for informational and entertainment value. It has some great combat footage. Note: From A2, that refs 2 and 5-7 apply here as well.
http://a4skyhawk.info/article/israeli-ayits-skyhawks-combat
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/a4_skyhawk.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBAjBHJCM-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMM_jf6Lwc
Pic:
15096

C4. USA/UNIT 851/AC-130H SPECTRE/END DATE MAY 2015//
Keeping this simple, she’s flown off into the sunset. OK retired.
Note: Holding off on the new AC-130J GHOST RIDER. Could possibly become operational this year however, the USAF had to scrap one due to a “Training Mishap” I don’t intend to enter the AC-130W due primarily to slot issues, unless someone tells me otherwise. That being said the AC-130J GHOST RIDER is a much more capable platform which will be equipped with anti-tank missiles and PGB’s.
http://www.cannon.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/589815/air-commandos-retire-final-ac-130h-spectre-gunship/

FYI: During the YOM KIPPER War the A4 suffered moderate/heavy losses, if you looked at the ref 5, you’d have noticed near the bottom a picture showing the jets nozzle almost blown off. You’ll notice on later pictures and the ones I submitted, they actually rebuilt and extended the nozzle which in turn greatly reduced its IR heat signature.

HELO News game related.
ADD:
A1. Thailand/JUN 2015/SUPER COUGAR H225M/COPY REVISED Brazil UNIT 129/UNDER “CHANGE” see C1 FOR FURTHER DATA//

CHANGE:
C1. France UNIT 520 UP ARMORED/Malaysia UNIT 664 UP ARMORED/Brazil UNIT129 also START DATE JUN 2011/Indonesia UNIT 129/TO SUPER COUGAR H225M/ADD PORT AND STARBRD FN MAG 60-30 MG w/ 250 or 1000RD DRUMS/LEAVE ALL OTHER STATS AS IS/EXCEPT AGAIN Brazils new start date above// What simply happened here is that Eurocopter was bought out by Airbus which caused the name change, trying to avoid any future confusion for this helo. I noted in the case of France and Malaysia (Armor upgrade pkg.) the HS value is 3 vice 2 for all the others. Is this a good number in your mind for those two countries? Or might 4 be better? I defer to you as I know you always back check these submissions. The below refs are the only live links from HELO Thread Pg. 3/Post #26/A4 as originally submitted. For Thailand getting it, Brazils new start date and helo name change per updated ref 1.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec725/
You’ll be DIRECTLY taken to updated version w/H225M.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-signs-1b-production-deal-for-cougar-helicopters-04959/
Not updated since JAN 05, 2012.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/thailands-hawk-family-helicopters-05690/
Pic: This is for France.
15097

C2. Malaysia/UNIT 324/S-61A4 NURI/END DATE DEC 2025// These were to be replaced by the SUPER COUGAR H225M. See C1 above ref 1. From the next ref you’ll see where I’m heading with this. Taken from this ref 1 para 9/1st sentence “AgustaWestland also intends to bid for the replacement of the Malaysian air force’s Sea King S-61A4 helicopters, offering the AW101 as an alternative to the Eurocopter EC 725.” Much later…However after some confusion (Was there a base model and a later “NURI” updated version?) and chasing a ghost helo I have fixed the above and removed a copy request below no longer there. Alright the S-61A4 NURI is receiving a modernization pkg. which appears to have just begun or is about to. This is why I requested the above date change. It will obviously at a later date require a new unit and possibly a later date change to mark the retirement of the current unit, should it occur before 2025. I haven’t found any newer refs on that upgrade status of this helo.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2008-02-20/agustawestland-sees-asia-getting-even-better
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2013/02/no-plan-to-dispose-of-nuri-helicopters.html
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-helicopter/lima-2017-airod-lines-three-aircraft-upgrades/

FYI: I need more time to put together the information I need to come up with a viable solution the export version of the AH-64E GUARDIAN. I’m looking at a hybrid version of both the USA AH-64D (Latest mod.) and the current AH-64E. I believe I know what the needs are but need to figure out which countries it would be applied to. I know for the “hybrid” applies to India which actually a couple of years ago lead me to this issue, but what about say Britain, Taiwan (They got them first and already have them.) and ROK. I need to resolve this. I’ll work on it, let you know when it’s ready and let you decide if it can be worked in or not for the next patch.

MBT’s
CHANGE:
C1. Ukraine/UNIT 064/OPLOT-M/TI-GSR 50// Several years back around the time I submitted the AH-64E GUARDIAN and ABRAMS SEP V2 I posted some questions regarding the whole TI/GSR issue as these were getting more advanced and how to make them work within the game. At the time we set the upper limit at 60 which given our battle ground size currently is more than viable. I compiled a list of tanks based on further research of their FCSystems by memory (I believe the list included 10 or so tanks. All this was posted in the MBT Thread. and with their updated numbers, Japan TYPE 10/50, Britain CHALLENGER 2 TES/50, Latest German LEOPARD 2A6/60 (ATTICA), Russian ARMATA/60.
Then I had 3 that required a “deeper” look the French LeClerc, Ukraine OPLOT-M and Italian ARETE. The first two made it by ~200m and the ARETE was “on the money” at 40 (2 or 3 upgrade pkgs. were put together, but all fell through.). I guess I never brought theOPLOT-M back into the spotlight?
Now the lights are on.

C2. Thailand/UNIT 019/OPLOT-T/TI-GSR 50//
Well blame the Russian incursion in the Ukraine. They did receive all the tanks ordered this past fall. But due to the Ukraine’s defense issues the orders had slowed down significantly. Once the initial concerns over the tank having an auto loader, they’ve since been very impressed with the tank and its reliability. The crisis came along and forced Thailand to look elsewhere to fulfill its 250 modern tank role. As Don has indicated you’ll see the Chinese VT-4 in the next patch as the tank chosen to fill the gap. I still feel there will be a showdown between the two tanks. This situation was actually good for the Ukraine as they went from 10 OPLOT-M tanks to estimates now at around 150 -200 tanks in the field now and maybe an opportunity depending on the performance of the VT-4, to get back into Thailand to sell them more OPLOT’s or the improved version that we might see in the game.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2015/04/ready-for-another-five-tanks-oplot-t.html
https://asian-defence-news.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/5-more-oplot-t-tanks-delivered-to.html
https://land.dfns.net/2017/12/12/royal-thai-army-receives-five-more-oplot-tanks/
Pics: Second is a RTA VT-4.
15093 15094

All pics are of national origin.

4:15am and I am so dead!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 17th, 2018, 10:18 AM

On the list...........

DRG

January 18th, 2018, 01:06 PM

4:15am and I am so dead!?![/B] ;)

Been there........done that.........

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 19th, 2018, 02:38 AM

Pic supplement #1 for the 2017/2018 Campaign

We've had a few of those, I even managed to slip into the bed undetected, how do I know this? When I did wake up, I wasn't asked the dreaded question "So what time did you come to bed this morning?". For you younger folks if you are asked this, you might be able to shave a few minutes off your answer but, know you're busted!!

Alright one thing I do know about Don was he really likes making Icons and updating pictures when he can. Regarding Icons I'll leave that to him and the several others of you who have the talent to do that. But I like the picture "work" myself as well I feel the equipment and those using them, should be shown in their "working" environment and by nationality if it allows. I also like movement in the pictures I've submitted over the years, because that's what the game is about movement constantly forward using all the compass bearings (Some knew that was coming!) and not "static displays" if it can be avoided. Those are what you find in museums etc.

Alright here are the first of my submissions as a supplement to my Patch Post in order of submission:

A1. Embraer A-1M AMX The left one being my favorite and titled as such for context. These I know are the A-1M AMX, there aren't many pictures available of the newer type and you can tell the older ones apart by the A1 on the tail also, where these pictures are located within the below ref as well in the A-1M AMX section.
https://spark.adobe.com/page/LzMQV/
15101 15102

C1. Brazil/UNIT 153/F-5EM// This next for the curious is to simply show what I was talking about concerning the nose cone configuration of this as noted. You'll see the 20mm cannon located on the PORT SIDE on the STBD SIDE I think that to be either a cooling intake for the air/ground attack radar or a weather condition sensor for the FCS much as are used on the more modern tanks these days for the same purpose.
15103

C2. Israel/UNITS 308-311/A-4E/F/H/N to include “AYIT” at end of name/See A1//. Here is just an FYI A-4 AYIT configuration chart for these planes. Due the picture limitations I'll post pictures for UNITS 308-310 immediately after this is posted, two of them are from IAF files from the YOM KUPPOR War as annotated.
15105

All others up to this point had pictures already submitted where needed.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 19th, 2018, 03:28 AM

Pic supplement #2 for the 2017/2018 Campaign

Alright the chart got me straight, I'll make a distinction of the following as early and late versions of the AYIT based on the engine nozzle issue I discussed per the refs concerning these planes. This will close out the picture submissions for the Jets and Planes section of my inputs. Again all others already submitted in the Patch Post.

C2. Israel/UNITS 308-311/A-4E/F/H/N to include “AYIT” at end of name/See A1//.

For...
UNIT 308/A-4E SKYHAWK II AYIT (UNSURE) (War)
15106

UNIT 309/A-4F SKYHAWK II AYIT (LATE)
15107

UNIT 310/A-4H SKYHAWK II AYIT (EARLY) (War)
15108

The next is one I bought modified as a two seater to get CINCLANTFLTHOME up to Va. to see the daughters family. It certainly avoids that I-95 traffic!! We can get there in little over and hour vice 9hrs on the road on a good day.
15109

Well at least she (Me too! Shhh!) wishes I had one!?! :D

I'll try to get those helo ones as soon as I can.

I almost forgot again!!! Here's my THANK YOU to everyone...And remember you shouldn't leave home without it!?!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trunk+monkey+videos&view=detail&mid=59E6630EBB7474C9289D59E6630EBB7474C9289D&FORM=VIRE

Good Night everyone!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2018, 03:01 PM

Well this was a tougher than anticipated from making sure it's from the right country (You target your search by country and still manage to everyone else as well.), movement and other details. I tried to choose the best (From Google & Bing images.) for each and I hope I got it close to right. Some countries (Brazil) I couldn't find one with weapons in the following as submitted in the Patch Post. Note I took the time to include Country and UNIT #'s in the pictures, therefore the pictures are in order as you read it from the original submissions below.

Pic supplement #3 for the 2017/2018 Campaign

HELO News game related.
ADD:
A1. Thailand/JUN 2015/SUPER COUGAR H225M/COPY REVISED Brazil UNIT 129/UNDER “CHANGE” see C1 FOR FURTHER DATA//

C1. France UNIT 520 UP ARMORED/Malaysia UNIT 664 UP ARMORED/Brazil UNIT129 also START DATE JUN 2011/Indonesia UNIT 129/TO SUPER COUGAR H225M/ADD PORT AND STARBRD FN MAG 60-30 MG w/ 250 or 1000RD DRUMS/LEAVE ALL OTHER STATS AS IS/EXCEPT AGAIN Brazils new start date above//

A1. Thailand:
15115
C1. France already submitted for the PP.
Malaysia:
15116
Brazil:
15117
Indonesia:
15118

MBT’s
CHANGE:
C1. Ukraine/UNIT 064/OPLOT-M/TI-GSR 50//
15119

This finishes off the pictures pertaining strictly to the Patch Post as noted above.

The following I'll be submitting (Pictures) are to varying degrees associated with this last submission, others are not, i.e. the
USN SKYHAWKS are flying for another country I stumbled into. But those are as your time allows of course, but the products are at least "in the can".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2018, 05:09 PM

These again as indicated are only if you have the time. I'll address each "back story" below together and submit the picture(s) after the comments section, by it's above corresponding number. Again each picture is labeled by Country and UNIT #'s as required.

1. While hunting a better picture for the OPLOT-M UNIT 064 (Submitted) I noticed UNIT 061/T-84 OPLOT had an OPLOT-M picture.

Concerning UNIT 063/OPLOT+ I'd rename it the OPLOT-M which it really is. The older name is confusing and at odds with the refs in general as provided in sequence of development below.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm

2. It seemed on most search's I conducted for the EC 725 now
SUPER COUGAR H225M, pictures of the Swiss COUGAR kept showing up, so I followed the trail. :doh: Why is coming up in my searches? Did the Swiss buy the SUPER COUGAR H225M recently?

Now you know why it took so long to filter through those pictures I submitted in my last Post. I forgot before there was a "Super Cougar" there was a "Cougar" the results where also showing up for them as well which is what the Swiss are using. It's fairly easy to filter them out, they don't have the more advanced nose FLIR turret and if I remember the side window count or configuration was slightly different. Along with a new picture (The one it has appears to be from Brazil.), I recommend the following CHANGE...

Switzerland/UNIT 222/COUGAR AS532 TOW//

3. Australia has the USN flying support missions for them with their A-4 SKYHAWKS. This came up while looking into an helicopter issue I've had on the books for a longtime to be somewhat addressed later with updated pictures at least initially, for the following UNITS 285-287. That's the USN Power Projection World Wide (USNPPWW)! :p

PICTURES BY THE NUMBERS ABOVE...

1. Ukraine/UNIT 061/T-84 OPLOT :
15120

2. Switzerland/UNIT 222/COUGAR AS532 TOW:
15121

3. Australia/UNITS 285-287/A-4G SKYHAWK/As posted in unit number order//:
15122
15123
15124
Those seem to represent either their major Naval Squadrons or their only ones. I've not had the time to check. I thought I had found some great RAAF pictures of them, however, upon closer examination they had KIWI's on the tail section (New Zealand) vice the KANGAROO's (Australia). So yes unlike when I submitted that NH-90 Helo for New Zealand a few years back, at least this time, I stopped myself. :)

What's left are some Australian helo pictures (Tigers) replacing the general shot with ones actually using the weapons assigned them in the OOB. Without digging for more, as presented in number order, a couple of the pictures are set to be used for a couple of units in the OOB.

I also have some really GREAT Swiss F-5 pictures to replace the drawings of the same. One shows a fly by of the Matterhorn, really cool!

Again, I've labeled those by Country and UNIT(s) numbers. Except me going beyond my stated mission goals, I hope the way the data has been presented thus far is easier then in past submissions for all concerned.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2018, 10:32 PM

The home stretch, there was an issue concerning the ADF TIGER Helos and it is my thinking it was a date issue at the time. This came to my attention when if you remember, we had made many corrections concerning ADF Armor and ultimately their TO&E with the help of a serving member of the ADF via email which has all been posted in this Thread and MBT one as well, as again, I migrate these inputs back into their "home" threads once Don has indicated he's done with them or after the Patch gets released.

This would be an appropriate time to maintain Don's sanity at this point how I've generally come across these. It simply has to do with the connection between the things I've already found i.e. Israel's A-4 lead to Australia's A-4 same with the F-5 and so on. But the other thing I always do is manually search the OOB for any copies of the UNIT my focus is currently on or close to that might need a change of some kind.

So for Don, rest assured that after these items are taken care of, I'll stay away from REVIEWING AN FURTHER OOB's!!

So back to...

Australia/UNITS 457-460/TIGER ARH/MULTI-UNIT PICTURES AS NOTED//
15125 15126

Australia/UNITS 461 & 462/TIGER ARH-AT/SINGLE UNIT PICTURES//
15127 15128

This last I've had with the rest, it demonstrates some defensive characteristics of modern helos. And you should've seen the Swiss PUMA one I found releasing their "ANGEL FIRE" trail as it was climbing to clear a mountain. Anyway...
15129

Alright the SWISS ARE NEXT...

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2018, 10:52 PM

I hate drawings for UNITS and I'll reserve any further opinion on the matter, however, I do realize especially for new types of equipment a drawing (SIM or otherwise.) or model might have to stand in for a temporary period of time. Though these would very rare occurrences. but I have pictures!!

Switzerland/UNITS 151-153/F-5E/NEW PICTURES//
15130 15131 15132

I messed up with this one, it's just a COUGAR.:dk: See how they fly...
15133

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2018, 11:33 PM

Sliding into home plate...

To finish off Switzerland...

Switzerland/UNITS 843, 853 & 994/F-5E/NEW PICTURES//
15134 15135 15136

And finally... (To the "MP" fans)-And there was much rejoicing!! :rock: :five: :party: :jam:

This lead to my final issue 15137 and this is...

CREW SERVED
CHANGE:
France/UNIT 121/MMP/TI-GSR 60/ALL WEAPONS VALUES ARE MISSING//
This ATGW is as good as the TOW ITAS from what I can find or at minimum "darn" close. Like you can't really see much space between my fingers close. I have no real problem with the start date but as my ref points out it did go into initial serial production in JUN 2016. Also ref 2 confirms weapons production back in 2013. I backed off this because I thought it a done deal in the FORUM but, than I've been a "ghost" in this facet of ops for a longtime now.
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/06/14/MMP-ground-combat-missile-in-series-production/6751465915683/?spt=slh&or=8
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mmp-frances-new-portable-anti-armor-missile-019729/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mmp-medium-range-missile/
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/mmp-enters-final-qualification-phase/
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-deadliest-anti-tank-missiles-4159253/

Don THANK YOU for the opportunity! HeII I even bet our old deadline! A cause for a celebration in of itself - but I'll refrain from that.

Everyone THANK YOU for allowing this process to occur uninterrupted to this point.

I hope a "hint" of how you can make life a little easier for Don has presented itself here at some level. Equipment issues are in some way the most difficult issue to contend with in having to do the calculus for all the values, based on as much data as can reasonably be digested to reach a fair conclusion. We'll never know the truth of it all, if we did and put it out here, I suspect some of us would be "Making BIG rocks into LITTLE ones". Enough said...

And now I :yield: to the floor.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2018, 01:49 AM

I just had to share these...
15138 15139 15140

15141 15142

It must really "duck" (Or whatever word you prefer.) to be a pilot in the Swiss military!?! :rolleyes:

Got an early start in the morning, much to do so I can enjoy my last day before work!

Good Night!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 22nd, 2018, 11:55 AM

I added the Chengdu J-20 to the game 6/118.....we can work out exact details later

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2018, 01:00 AM

I'm up for it. For "GP" FYI, I started the Jets and Planes...Thread 7yrs ago this month. Concerning the J-20 I reported on it when it first showed, while then SECDEF was in China and they did their famous test flight while he was there and beyond.
On Pages 1-3 I posted stories on it 7 times in Posts #3, #9, #10, #16, #19, #20 and #26. Taking into account my mind hasn't changed too much concerning the J-20 from those early Posts.

Before I express that impression, let me start by saying that Russia has backed off their claim that the T-50/PAK FA is a 5th GEN Fighter. That puts it in the class as a 4th GEN+/or+++ where the current GRIPENS are covered in both "+" categories. This is a huge concession by the Russians. And Russian has been building quality fighters for decades now. Where China is concerned they're fairly new players in the field. I can't dismiss the comparison and it'll have some impact on my thinking.

That being said, I don't play favorites out here and anyone who've followed my discussions concerning the F-35 in general know this. So right at this moment and from what I've seen, I think the J-20 TECHNICALLY sits as if you will, as a 3rd GEN ++ (FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ONLY.) fighter.

Please note for the record in the refs out there, those "+ signs" are ONLY used for 4th GEN fighters.

And it's been a while since I've looked in on the fighter so I'll gladly put the spotlight back on the J-20 and see what's changed since JAN 2011.

For now I believe that is a valid start date for the J-20. I'd be curious to see what they've learned since I first looked in on it. This stuff is right up my alley! :)

And I know exactly the first place to start looking at this from. :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 23rd, 2018, 07:47 AM

Yeah, I love how the armchair experts are so positive what the F-35s capabilities and limitations are when no out outside the manufacturer and the rather small portion of the military that actually flies and maintains them has any real knowledge.

But then what else is new.

I have no doubt you find what the "experts" have to say about the capabilities of American subs just as amusing.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 28th, 2018, 03:48 AM

J-20 Status...

I was going to end this post with the following, however, I feel it needs to start this conversation instead of ending it. So just because it says a jet is STEALTHY does not mean it's a 5th GEN or even a 4th GEN fighter. As I pointed out concerning the IAF A-4 AYIT in my last Patch submission, the simple act of extending the engine exhaust nozzles to reduce it's heat signature by definition makes that plane more stealthy, which again greatly reduced it's losses to IR missiles. Now here's where I'm at concerning the J-20 shofar and where it has lead me as well.

I'm not ready to provide numbers yet. I will concede that the Chinese J-20 fighter is better than an upper tier 3rd GEN fighter (As I thought she was when I first posted on this fighter years ago.) and I'm on the cusp of saying she's a low to mid tier 4th GEN fighter.

I'm still not convinced at this point and time that the J-20 is a 5th GEN fighter. I have provided one of the refs I've looked at to this point. What immediately got my attention was the rear of the plane around the engines in the pictures. They are just screaming "you can shoot me down now", which would be the case as it flies past a SAM site or with a fighter on it's tail.
https://fightersweep.com/6230/analysis-chengdu-j-20-the-chinese-raptor/

The other issue is, the J-20 might STRICKLY just be used as a deep penetration interceptor used to take down aircraft like the P-8 POSIDEAN, AWACS, BOMBERS etc. etc. Though it should be able to fight it's way in and out.

Dogfighting for the J-20 might be an issue to some degree though, it'll be armed with some very effective long and short range Air-to-Air missiles that could to a small degree negate some of those disadvantages.

Though China acquired some plans (Airframe design and some electronics.) of the F-35, it is felt that the key electronics systems haven't been compromised along with the stealth "paint" and other advanced design factors.

Any finally...
Oh I don't doubt I probably missed this in the game manual after three try's in my weary post work environment, so does...

EW for Jets/Planes, is stealth factored into those numbers already, or is that rating based solely on it's electronics and defensive capabilities?

If stealth is factored in, at what % of the whole is used? By example EW 20.

What has become VERY CLEAR is how good the F-22 RAPTOR really is from my research so far. Nothing comes close, the gaps and systems the following abstract talks about have been taken care of. The IRST system and others have been added (Also the F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET will have it. IRST that is.) and I've posted on those improvements for years now to the point we MIGHT need to have an improved version.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

From the above...Is the F-15SE better then we think in the game now? I personally have felt this version of the F-15 certainly was a low to mid level 4th GEN Fighter/Bomber and the only one fitting that description except for possibly the Russian SU-35BM data posted after the excerpt. The embolden is mine.

"[3] Boeing F-15SE ‘Silent Eagle’. This low-signature version of the F-15 Eagle was assessed during the compilation of this NOTAM. Its radar cross section, while claimed to be comparable to the export configuration of the F-35 (This again goes to my long held point out here that we're not in the business of giving up our secrets. This is why I close to figuring out what the export version of the AH-64E should look like.) from nose-on is likely to be substantially inferior from other aspects. Its infrared signature will be similar to the standard F-15 Eagle. Thus, the PAK-FA using radar will detect the Silent Eagle at a range sufficient to launch BVR missiles and at similar or greater ranges to the F-35 for infrared-based engagements. Flying wide sweeps and distributing sensor detections as is done for the legacy Sukhois will enhance radar detections and enable IRST ranging. The advantage the F-15SE Silent Eagle has over the F-35 JSF is that it has the aerodynamic performance and fuel reserves to egress from a dangerous air combat engagement."
https://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35/su-35.htm

So as you can see this issue with the J-20 had no option but to head into the above issues thus far noted.

Also following the J-31 however it looks to have some of the same issues as the J-20.

For comparison...
15156

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 28th, 2018, 09:02 AM

Andy would be able to answer this in more detail but the EW numbers are basically the ability to deal with the EW value of SAM's......if your aircraft has a lessor EW value than the missile being fired at it then the missile has the advantage...if the aircraft EW is higher than the SAM that's being fired at it then the aircraft has a better chance of fending off the missile.

Right now based on all the info I've seen I've given the Chengdu J-20 an EW of 10

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15157&stc=1&d=1517144928

agreed it **appears** to be aimed at LR strikes of support assets and for that it only needs to be stealthy heading right at you. It has 8 HP's and that's why it has 8 " things that go boom"......IGNORE THE COST SHOWN.....I don't run the cost calc until just before the patch ships

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2018, 01:34 AM

Alright had a day of it today, looking no better tomorrow w/a 0745 start. OK, your last post was very helpful and puts things into perspective. I need "to shop" the other key planes I've mentioned already. Focusing more on data type refs than equipment ones. As I mentioned most of this is connected (EW/VISION).

All I need to know is what is my "absolute drop date" to finish this off?

And you know, I fully understand that Andy and yourself are "up against it" certainly by this point.

Given the above date I'll do my absolute best. Early thinking is bumping the J-20 to EW 12. Also going to take a hard look at the F-22 because and this is important, that jet IS the "Gold Standard" for attack aircraft, and will be until and beyond the end of this game as it stands and RL. Game wise to include final Patch work for 2025/2026.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2018, 05:04 AM

Meant this as an edit to my last. In a simple presentation that Don can even appreciate I give you...

Syria...

The Russians have their current best systems there...
https://sputniknews.com/military/201704071052404137-russia-air-defense-syria/

We have our best plane there...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/27/the-f22-syria-deconflicting-not-dog-fighting.html

And some have reported by the use of ELINT that the Russians haven't been able to "paint" them...
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2016/March%202016/0316f22.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol2no1/html/v02i1a06p_0001.htm

And it's also important to remember that the F-22 at this time is the only known fighter to have all around stealth capabilities. All others including the F-35 have frontal only or VERY minimalist side qualities also included. This to include the SU-35 as already mentioned in a previous post here. The PAK-FA/T-50 will fall into this category as mentioned above.

Again this to support my last Post.

Alright 4am here the rack is calling and thank God for "Blue Light" reduction!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 30th, 2018, 10:12 PM

I have to wonder if Don had an alternate motive in having me look into the J-20? I was surprised by some things I saw when reviewing a cross section of fighters and a small grouping of the more advanced bombers in the game.

Do you want to know why the F-22 is the best plane out there and by some considered the only true 5th GEN Fight? The answer is simple-$100 million dollar difference between the next most expensive fighter in the world the F-35B @ ~150 million per unit. Trust me the USAF wishes now that they hadn't backed away from the fighter when they still had a chance to build them for less at the time. They don't have enough of them and only recently (Last hand full of years.) started to ensure that a full logistics supply chain has been reestablished for spare parts.

Here's what I found by JET/EW/TI/GSR which are the key factors relative to the topic and game. But first...
1. CHANGE/USA/UNIT 921/F-35A/EW 12//This would match the others grouped with it (Currently at EW 9) and I believe is the only one I could find with this difference.

2. The J-20 for now is good as is.

3. I will demonstrate what makes a true 5TH GEN Fighter in more detail later. But did you know...

A. From the sources I could find, here are the estimated (Like the X-Files the truth is out there somewhere, but we'll never know it as it's so highly classified.) Radar Cross Sections (RCS) for the F-22 = 0.0001m2/F-35 = 0.001m2/PAK FA/T-50 = 0.4m2. Not the only reason it's not really a 5th GEN Fighter but, not to take my word for it, Here's what India thinks about it. And if you remember I've brought this up before. The big difference is they haven't changed their minds about it as this article is from yesterday. If you read this carefully you might be surprised by who wanted it more on the "stealth" side and who backed away from it. But if you read my previous Posts on the topic, you'll already know the answer. ;)
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/india-russia-5th-generation-fighter-jet-program-road-to-nowhere/

B. One of the other key factors that define a 5th GEN Fighter is it's ability to "Super Cruise". These are very high efficacy engines that allow the F-22 to fly on after burner for much longer period of time. The advantages should be obvious to you from several offensive and defensive reasons. More importantly it also greatly reduces the jets IR signature.

Do you know what other jets do share this capability? Well it's not the F-35 (They tried the F-22 engines on the F-35, well it didn't go well. The engines tore themselves up over time leading to one F-35 to crash. The pilot ejected as I understand it.) , PAF FA or J-20.

Here you go the GRIPEN, EUROFIGHTER and TYPHOON.

So we might need a small "pyridine shift" in how we treat these fighters in regards to EW.

I'm Willing to give this a shot limiting myself primarily were it concerns the 4th GEN + and up aircraft. I simply don't see a need to fix any prior GEN aircraft because of the broad sampling I took of them (Including 4th GEN ones.), I really feel they look good.

What I see is a tiered number system (Block/Spread) concerning EW ratings of these planes. Each Block would cover 5th GEN 16-18/4TH GEN++ 14-16/4th GEN+ 12-14/4th GEN 10-12// These numbers might shift to the left by 1 or 2 but, that's where my heads at now. I'm looking at all aspects of RL EW factors w/o my head exploding.

I have already identified 24 candidates for the project.

Are Andy and you willing to go to EW 18 for the F-22 and B-2?

THIS IS NOT FOR THE UPCOMING PATCH!! If you give me the green light I'll continue my work here.

I leave with a little Fighter GEN 101. Not too old and still good FYI stuff...
15160 15161
15162 15163
15164

I shot expert again earlier today so, I intend to enjoy the rest of this "bonus" evening at home with CINCLANTHOME.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 30th, 2018, 11:02 PM

In general the F-35 has TWO EW ratings, one when clean (internal load only) and another dirty (external load).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 31st, 2018, 01:47 AM

Yes but, we're talking for what maybe less than 30s to launch/drop it's weapons. If those RCS numbers are even close (Based on models tested in labs of outside organizations.) those differences are huge. I'm trying to get the "whole picture" looked at here as much as possible. By example how can s GRIPEN have a EW 6 with what is known about them. The first version JS-39A yes-maybe. The GRIPEN NG absolutely not. I just pointed out the other issue that ties into this. I'm not trying to make it perfect just maybe a little better is all.

Russia within a couple of years will have a player against the threat with the 500 Series SAM and the 400 later mods that are slowly coming onto the field shortly. NATO will have MEADS, PATRIOT PAC3+ etc.

Anyway more graphics...

First up some examples of 3rd GEN Jets for context...
Of course the picture is too big so...
Israeli KFIR/Sweden SAAB 37 VIGGAN "THUNDERBOLT"/USA F-4 PHANTHOM II/China CHENGDU J-7 "FISHBED" (MiG-21)/USA F-4A/B FREEDOM FIGHTER/France MIRAGE F1 and Russia MiG-21 "FISHBED".

Now please note these don't take into account known updates to aircraft shown or newer known information casting doubt on a small number shown. I mostly by posting these wanted to show the complexities in dealing with these GEN destinations. All combined present a more complete understanding of the issues I'm looking at. For instance the F-22 last one of these shows a RED block now GREEN by current available data.
15165 15166
15167 15168
15169

The last two posts were meant to provide a general overview of the issues I'm looking at. I'll offer one more example from Russia. The best operational frontline fighter they have operating at this moment is the Su-35 (This by the way is the fighter chosen for mass production over the PAF FA/T-50 due to it's operational and financial difficulties. They have or soon will have, 12 operational for IOP in a Squadron.), it's EW is rated @ 10. The MiG-29SM EW is rated @ 9. And I hope some of you are paying attention to this because the Su-100 is rated at 0!?! :p

Anyway, I've had my fun for the night! ;) :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 31st, 2018, 07:32 AM

I have to wonder if Don had an alternate motive in having me look into the J-20?

Nope.....no at all

THIS IS NOT FOR THE UPCOMING PATCH!! If you give me the green light I'll continue my work here.

I may be able to generate a list with every aircraft with EW > 5 but I've got a busy day ahead

I shot expert again earlier today so, I intend to enjoy the rest of this "bonus" evening at home with CINCLANTHOME.

Very good.

.

DRG

January 31st, 2018, 08:00 AM

Pat. I just sent you an email with attachments to your hotmail account.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 1st, 2018, 01:56 PM

Data received with many thanks!! Don has indicated the task will involve 1750 UNITS. I will the issues I raised have been accepted to include the higher EW ratings for the F-22 and B-2 bomber. That's the steel-reinforced "glass ceiling" because as these systems get better so do the SAM's as already noted.

I know someone will raise this issue so let me squash it now, SEAD aircraft are purpose built to go in ahead of everyone else. They by definition will have a higher EW rating then the fighter version of the same plane. They trade space for more advanced electronics with the trade off to some measure being weapons capacity and vice versa.

Most aircraft in the game now I feel are where they should particularly of the 60's, 70's and early 80's. However the data received will allow for a further review without a deep time commitment.

And I've just been reminded it's time to hit the shower.

THANKS AGAIN Don!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

February 1st, 2018, 09:56 PM

I'd say your biggest problem is going to be cross-referencing the EW ratings of various AA weapons against aircraft. In almost all cases it's going to be a judgement call on superior/equal/inferior because virtually no solid data is available.

As a baseline I'd look at the air campaign over North Vietnam during the 60's and early 70s. Keeping in mind the NVA gear was probably Soviet Export quality so probably 1 point (maybe 2?) lower then what the CCCP used during the same period and the USAF/USN was top-of-the-line.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 2nd, 2018, 03:16 AM

To demonstrate I'm on it.

Legend of Abbreviations...
MF-Missiles Fired/AC-Aircraft Claimed/AL-Actual Losses and MPAK-Missiles Per Aircraft Kill

1. SA-2 COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS - VIETNAM 1965 - 1973

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Total
MF 109 590 1894 376 16 23 136 2032 72 5248

AC 87 186 411 96 2 2 32 415 62 1293

AL 13 3 61 12 0 1 7 72 3 203

MPKA 8.4 17.3 31 31 (-) 23 19 28 24 26(Avg.)

Sources: DOD and Center for Naval Analyses

2. Weapons Causing All Aircraft Losses
AAA 31%/Small Arms Fire 45%/SAM 9%/MiG 4%/Fratricide 1%/Other/UnKn 10%

Source: Center for Naval Analyses

3. Wild Weasel Losses by Cause 1956 - 1973
AAA 38%/MiG 18%/SAM 38%/Other 6%

Sources: Howard Plunkett Database and Center for Naval Analyses

Note: AAA includes Radar equipped as well.

The above are open source materials. However it would be unfair of me not to say these are also referenced in a absolutely wonderful book...
THE HUNTER KILLERS by DAN HAMPTON Lt.Col. USAF Ret. Credited with 151 Combat Missions with among his other awards, received 4 DFC's with Valor. He also wrote VIPER PILOT.

The book is about how they started, weapons and technologies used about the pilots and the Vietnam War each section has a "time period" actual mission (You felt like you were in the cockpit with them.) which added flavor to the points made. Many of the surviving pilots and operators are a part of the story or have contributed to it.

Hopefully that's my CYA above.

I was going to post this in the XXX Thread but got side tracked with my Patch Submission Post, sorry, but here it is.

Those were 3rd GEN planes with similar GEN missiles and you see above who the main killer was.

Though it needs to be understood, though, it only provides a baseline to start from and not a means to an end.

I think you'll find our SAM's are running fairly close or slightly better then the numbers above. We still have SAM's to come the Russian S-500 for instance.

But PAT we have 5th GEN fighters but what about 4th GEN or 5th GEN SAM Systems? And I would respectfully disagree with you. We do have them already 4th GEN S-300/400, 4th GEN ++ S-400 latest version and 5th GEN is harder, for now though the S-500/MEADS/PATRIOT PAC-3++ so they're here and I believe working fine.

I'm only tweaking and making some correction as I pointed in one of my last posts for instance the GRIPEN and disparities between the Su-35 EW 10 while the MiG-29SM has a EW 9. I haven't settled my "tiering" process but, the Su-35 should have a EW 14 but that's still up for evaluation. Some might be submitted to have a lower EW rating.

I asked for F-22 and B-2 to be raised so my number blocks will allow for expansion if you will i.e. 4th GEN Fighters is broken as 4th GEN/4th GEN+/4th GEN++ and some sources have 4th GEN+++.

Let's assume I find I'm looking at all four break downs for 4th GEN jets and I represent them (EW) as 1, 2, 3, and 4, well that's where the work is.

So using the HORNET, the A/B would be a 1/C/D 2/E/F 3 and E/F w/AESA and IRST a 4.

The tiers would allow a jet like the PAK-FA to cross to a 5th GEN lower tier later if certain issues are upgraded etc. for that plane.

I'm not trying to make this hard on myself, Don or Andy. Apparently my reasons for this as I have already posted, have if nothing else, at least peaked their curiosity to see what direction this takes.

I'll copy all this over to the Jets/Planes Thread so everyone have a "crack at it" but I'll be doing this independently, I'll never get it done by committee. My next step is to establish the tiers (#'s) and assign the GEN's to them. I'll post them when done.

Need some sleep now - Good Night Everyone.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2018, 12:36 AM

Patch Post #2 for the 2017/2018 Campaign

This is a simple supplement of mostly just DATE CHANGES with one EW change as noted below. I hope you can accommodate them. However the subject matters aren't, as you'll read below. Most of these deal with my favorite two OOB's India and Turkey. Enough said here about them.

CHANGES

JETS PLANES BUT NO UAVS HERE.

C5. USA/UNIT 921/F-35A/EW 12// This would match the others grouped with it (Currently at EW 9) and I believe this was the only one I could find with this difference. Submitting here in case it was "lost" from Post #212.

MBT’s

C3. TURKEY/UNIT 614/ALTAY/START DATE JAN 2019// Well I believe this will be the 3rd or 4th time I've submitted a change to this tank since I first submitted it. You can apply the last statement to the ARJUN below as well.

So to ALTAY a brief synopsis, had contract issues, technical issues finally they got worked out, then in 2016 as the program was just starting to come around, they had severe political issues with Austria which dealt a serious blow to the program. The issue was "human rights" based forcing Austria (And Germany in the background.) to back out of the Engine and Power packs they were to supply etc.

This set up an indigenous competition to development the same for the ALTAY the winner was just announced this past week, as I eluded to in my last MBT post I believe. Quote is taken from ref. 1.

"In the Altay serial production race BMC will be competing with FNSS and Otokar, the maker of Altay’s prototypes. Procurement sources say the government’s final decision on the multibillion-dollar serial production contract will likely come later in 2018."

I do expect this to slip, just "the nature of the beast" I guess. Because as you can see I'm only allowing 1 yr. from production to FOC+.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/turkey_bmc_to_develop_engine_for_altay_indigenous_ tank.html
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2018/02/06/bmc-charged-with-developing-turkish-tank-engine-but-it-plans-to-surpass-expectations/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-signs-deal-with-s-korea-for-altay-tank-project-05012/

This last ONLY for context, because I just know someone will read it and get overly excited. :rolleyes: Please note the date of it and remember what you read above. This clearly should demonstrate how easy it is to derail a program and the need to follow up on them. I said years ago and I believe some might remember this, when the game was set to expire in 2020, I felt we'd be lucky to see these 3 tanks in the game based on what I was tracking with them. Here it's 2018 and look where we're at with the ALTAY, ARJUN Mk II and ARMATA. All 3 are game changers in RL, we should all be thanking Andy and Don for giving us the extension so these can get in.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/good-news-for-pakistan-turkeys-new-tank-is-ready-for-mass-production/

C4. INDIA/UNIT 021/ARJUN Mk 1+/START DATE JAN 2020.// Recommend you put this in a status for scenario purposes and taken out of normal game playing status. To me that's all just "PFM" (Might get in trouble if I spelled out what PFM means. :angel) and why Don does that and NOT me!! :D So you'll just love this. It applies to the ARJUN Mk II as well. What's the problem with the LAHAT, well first they had compatibility issues that took about 3 yrs to resolve, than the Indian Army said something along the lines of..."Wonderful that you've fixed the problem, well done, however LAHAT has a minimum Rng. of 1500m's and that is no longer acceptable, we want one that has a minimum Rng. of 1200m's now. So sorry, tea anyone?" Yeah that was about 3 years ago. Seems to coincide with something else HMmmm! The smart ones will figure that out. But you'll all be glad to know that the LAHAT "seems" to be back in again!! :party: Sorry I digress.

C5. INDIA/UNITS 022 & 023/ARJUN Mk II/START DATE JAN 2020.//The Army doesn't want them other factions in the Government do. After ARJUN Mk I soundly defeated all their other tanks (They didn't enter the T-72 variants in service because they already knew what the result would be.) in opeval completion that lasted several months. The next step was the above tank. The main issues were weight, want of a better FCS, in all about, depending on refs. 85-100 improvements. This was accomplished in over the last ~3 yrs or so, and the Army still doesn't want it. They should really rethink that after the EMBRASSMENT they suffered when they choose to enter their T-90S variant in the 2017 Russian Tank Biathlon. India was disqualified because the tank broke down.
The ref. below is the latest and greatest on the matter.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/necessary-changes-made-to-main-battle-tank-arjun-mark-ii-drdo/articleshow/61177561.cms

HELO News game related.

C3. AUSTRILIA/UNITS 457 - 462/TIGER ARH/TIGER ARH-AT/START DATE DEC 2008.// These helicopters have had problems from every user to include several groundings by this country, France and Germany. They are all well documented. Australia received the first of them in late 2004 and had some issues from the start that pushed FOC+ back. The ref. below should be all I need here I believe. It indicates when the first 3 entered Squadron service in Darwin. Also by 2008 I'm sure they had the HELLFIRE Missiles by then as well. Ref.1 is dated NOV/DEC 2008. This has been LONG on my list to get fixed and just got lost along the way until recently-sorry for the inconvenience.
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/w1/jrotor/78/customer.html
https://www.army.gov.au/our-future/modernisation-projects/aviation-projects/arh-tiger

All new and current pics for others good.

I'm only on requests now, should something "pop up".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 12th, 2018, 09:00 AM

some had been done...the rest is done now

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2018, 09:46 PM

Don,
Thanks!

I look forward to seeing what Andy and you have in store for us!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 12th, 2018, 10:34 PM

lots of interesting things..........

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 13th, 2020, 01:16 AM

Well to show how "disjointed" things got this past year and to this present moment, I couldn't even remember if I posted anything that resembled a Patch Post going back to the 2017/2018.

It just seemed to be fragmented posts to me, as what occurred going into the 2018/2019 Patch.

Well I just reviewed the posts and it was better then I thought except for me with one fatal flaw, it wasn't on paper to where I can more easily bounce what got put it as submitted and what didn't so it can be discussed between the parties, which is a rare thing-THANK YOU!

BOTTOMLINE HERE IS, "I NEED TO GET MY SXXT IN ONE SOCK" before I can proceed with anything new.

I know what I want to see as I've posted them and I know what values to assign them as well, however, I need to first go back access 2017/2018 submissions and pull from the threads all the data main issues as to the equipment submissions it self probably w/o all the full writes ups by using only the key points from each submission most likely from the 2018/2019 submissions and get them posted here in an organized manner.

I have no idea what Andy and Don are planning, but it's obvious to me something is afoot, if so I might not get everything done for this next patch, but would ask that I be allowed to finish if you will, what I posted.

But first and foremost I need to see were the equipment stands from the two time periods I noted above.

So you'll (I'll) see the what was done for 2018/2019 and post it here and labeled as such. THESE ARE MY "CHECK POINTS" and "TRACKING POINTS" and at a later date the "library" from which to print them out from.

It's how I organize myself, so my apologies in advance for any inconvenience it might cause. To get my "head back into the game" this is the process needed for me to do it right.

So to start things off...
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT-M17 or T-64 BULAT-2017?//
Major revisions to the T-64 BULAT were conducted in mid/late 2017. Areas affected improved VISION, STABILZATION, ERA and SURVIBILITY. Verifying possible SPEED increase and a couple of other factors.

Just need the name please you'd like to use. I'm leaning towards the first and the UKRAINE IS NO HELP as I've seen two or three different designations for it from various sources since it was announced.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 13th, 2020, 02:25 AM

Patch Post #1 for the 2018/2019 Patch Campaign. Note: I guess I did get started on this to some degree. What you're seeing was as it was submitted in the MBT Thread. I just moved things around a little to put the countries in proper order and added a couple of minor details. So...

I will endeavor here to fix the South African current tank situation that I’ve put off for almost seven years now though the problem isn’t as daunting now as it seemed back then as also posted. I looked back on this year and I saw more in the MBT and APC area submitted by several posts, so for FYI ONLY PURPOSES, I’ve decided to pull together from those posts, a “Patch Post” covering the 2018/2019 Campaign and possibly for the 2017/2018 Campaign as time allows. They have always served me as a tool to see what got in or not and to see if something got missed such as what happened to about seven countries concerning the missing (Now done.) standard equipped FN MAG 60-30 MG (Port/Starboard mounted.) on the H225M Cougar helicopters. I also believe we were finally able to add this helo to Thailand as I finally had more data to fully confirm the deal as compared to when I originally submitted it in my last “official” Patch Post five years ago, this last was in 2017/2018 upgrade. Also I’ll be focusing on the T-90S and ABRAMS issues, like I normally do, they just happened to “pop up” while looking into other issues.

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

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

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1B/UNIT 006/START DATE 10/1991 vice 01/1991/END DATE 12/2025 vice 12/2015/VISION 35 OR 40 (Or TI/GSR 35 see below)/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm GT7/STABLELISER 4 vice 3/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 4/STEEL HF 28 vice 24 (Note Mk-1A UNIT 005 is at 26)/STEEL TF 24 or 25// The FCS was considered a very advanced for the time when the tank came online in 1991. That the vision should be increased is not the real question here as it is much improved over the OLIFANT Mk-1A. The real question is should it have TI/GSR added to it? I’m on the fence about this based on the refs below, my “gut” tells me it might be good enough, however, it also tells me based on the tanks that had it at that time, it should be TI/GSR 35 if it is decided to add in this fashion, I don’t see enough to warrant more than that. The gun did have mounted on it an IR/White Light Searchlight as well. I asked for the slight STABLELISER increase based on ref.2 as quoted “A new thermal sleeve and fume extractor helped improved sustained accuracy when firing and reduce barrel droop due to heat by as much as 70%-90%.”, that’s a significant change. Concerning SURVIABILITY the Mk-1B also had a double armored bottom added to the hull. The STEEL requests are based on the refs which noted that the armor protection was increased on the areas noted above.
It is important to note that 44 OLIFANT Mk-1A were upgraded to this standard starting in 1991, but, the similarities end there, this MBT was built from the experiences gained during the Border War 0f 1966 – 1989 and they were RESET. Development started in 1981/82 when the concern was whether the Soviet Union would supply Cuba or the Angolan forces with the T-72A series tanks which didn’t happen. The was built for African combat, this tank was even equipped with two internal water tanks (50.5 Liters each.) just to sustain the crew in the field. The turret bustle was added for the same reason for crew equipment with the added design bonus that the turret was better balanced decreasing by 10s the 360 traverse time to 16s over the Mk-1A turret. %
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/olifant-mk1b-main-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6255:fact-file-the-olifant-main-battle-tank
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/olifant_mk1b.htm
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2/UNIT OO8/START DATE 10/2005 vice 01/2007/SPEED DISCREPENCY SEE BELOW// The upgrade of 26 OLIFANT Mk-1B tanks to the Mk-2 started in 2005, it is reasonable to assume a handful were in the field by that time. Production ran until the end of 2006/early 2007 depending on source. The SPEED issue needs to be resolved for both UNIT 006 and UNIT OO8. They both use the Continental 29 Liter V12 Turbo Charged diesel engine, the difference is that the Mk-2 engine develops 190hp more but, the additional weight of the Mk-2 doesn’t allow so much for an increase in SPEED, but it does increase P/W Ratio and much better 25% increase in Acceleration. The advertised speeds for both are 58Km/h or 36mph on the road. This is in the end a very highly advanced tank with full “Hunter Killer” capabilities and up to date electronics. There is one discrepancy which goes to the main gun ref. 2 with communications as noted in the “Bibliography” from 2017 indicates this tank also carries the GT3B MG, however, ref 3 (Bottom) via an email in 2006 states the following “GlobalSecurity.org insists the tank is fitted with a Denel GT8 gun but Denel informs this weapon was developed but never produced. The Olifant is therefore fitted with the GT7. Email communication between author and Denel spokesman Sam Basch, August 14, 2006.” I know which I’m inclined to go with, however, I leave it up to you whether you wish to change it or not.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/south-africa/Olifant-mk2-main-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6255:fact-file-the-olifant-main-battle-tank
Summary:
The final question here is, do we add another Mk-1A & Mk-1B ~2010 with improved ammo that they should have now? Why? DENEL after the embargo started to sell their top quality ammo and other technology worldwide. But due to mismanagement and corruption, in 2005 Rheinmetall bought 51% controlling interest in DENEL munitions now called Rheinmetall Denel Munitions. Hensoldt did the same with DENAL Optronics operations. I don’t see those two major players sitting on their “laurels” and not improving their products over what was there. Maybe I’m wrong, just a thought.
https://www.africandefence.net/denel-the-saudi-and-qatari-offers/

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

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

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

Don is a smart man and I feel he knows I wouldn’t waste my time on a tank that’s not operational if I didn’t see something of value in it concerning the game or the players.

So...
1) The tanks already in the game, yes it needs to match the hopefully revised UNIT 008, it’s the same tank only the gun has changed.

2) South Africa if it arms the tank with this gun, which could happen for many reasons nothing to do with either an internal or external threat, then it’s ready to go and you “flip the switch to on”.

3) The tank obviously can’t be “game ready” as it isn’t now, however, I thought there was a way to allow Campaign and Scenario designers to “unlock it” for their use w/o it being available within the game this I see can have a more immediate impact for the developers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Standard equipped FCS does not support ATGM ops.

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

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

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

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

10. START dates are good unless otherwise noted.

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

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

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

UGANDA/CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 031/EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice 30/MG 125mm D81T 00 vice 125mm Gun 00//The base.
(44) T-90S Tank 2010 2011 44
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-deadly-t-90s-tank-export-hit-heres-what-it-can-do-40962

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

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

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

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

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

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90MS/UNIT 039/NAME T-90MS BHISHMA II vice T-90MS/DATE CHANGE ALREADY SUBMITTED PER Page #88/Post #879 which was START 01/2022 vice 01/2019//
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...0S_Bhishma.php
http://tanknutdave.com/indian-t90-bhishma-tank/

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

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

Bonus tank due to search of the above.
UGANDA/ADD/T-55AM-2/COPY/RUSSIAN T-55AMV/UNIT 016/START 06/2010/DELETE ATGM/THEY DIDN'T ORDER IT//The T-55AMV was the next upgraded version in the T-55 series from its predecessor the T-55AM-1. The ERA is definitely Kontaik-1 which is what the T-55AMV had//Understand specs are ready for inclusion.
(23) T-55AM-2 Tank 2009 2009 23 Second-hand; delivered via Belarus
1000 9M133 Kornet/AT-14 Anti-tank missile 2010 2012-2013(1000) Kornet-E version
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/CC05%20-%20T-55.html
Miscellaneous Refs.
https://www.defencetalk.com/raytheon-to-equip-193-marine-tanks-with-night-vision-sensors-2307/
http://www.deagel.com/Armored-Vehicles/M1A1-Abrams_a000516002.aspx
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/army/2015m1a2sep3.pdf
http://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2007/MAY_JUN/ArmorMayJune2007web.pdf
(A very good article on the differences between UK & USA Armor tactics and training.)

All right from back in the day. I was passionate in that segment, a book anyone!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 13th, 2020, 09:44 AM

When I get a day or two with no distractions ( that ain't today or tomorrow ) I will look this over. I just printed out all 5 pages....quite impressive when held in the hand

"Brevity" would be one of those "sock" items:D

DRG

January 13th, 2020, 09:57 AM

So to start things off...
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT-M17 or T-64 BULAT-2017?//
Major revisions to the T-64 BULAT were conducted in mid/late 2017. Areas affected improved VISION, STABILZATION, ERA and SURVIBILITY. Verifying possible SPEED increase and a couple of other factors.

Just need the name please you'd like to use. I'm leaning towards the first and the UKRAINE IS NO HELP as I've seen two or three different designations for it from various sources since it was announced.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Pat Ukrainian Unit 32 is a 2016 upgrade that brings it up to tier 1 levels...... there is some room for improvement but not a lot

We're all just guessing anyway but I don't think no matter what they do it will be equal to a SEP. I can give it a try though and see what I get. I will use T-64 Bulat M17

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 13th, 2020, 05:11 PM

Hope to post my input on the T-64 M17 later tonight. I used for my research the latest T-64 BULAT (Probably same as you sent me.), OPLOT and OPLOT-M (As you sent about the SEP, it won't be an OPLOT-M either.).

About SADF, with all the "fits and starts", it was the culmination of seven years of research that started very confusedly bouncing the OOB against the data, think INDIA here.

Current MBT status as of this writing:
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/security/african-militaries/south-african-national-defence-force/
Armour
191: 177 Olifant 1A/B (Of which 133 in storage) and 26 Olifant Mk 2 (for training)
(The above website is a dedicated all Africa Defense site.)
(This site is missing the Olifant Mk 2B.)
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/weaponsystems/armour/olifant_equipm.htm
(The above is missing the Olifant 1B.
It is very much there and improved as submitted, around 2010 I believe. (Along with the above "missing" tank which also had a ton of references to support their existence, you hopefully will have a better understanding of why I walked away from this SADF issue over that time period I mentioned above.)

Gotta get that "military" haircut (Flat top for my three hairs and a hot towel shave, it's almost heaven!?!)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 13th, 2020, 10:00 PM

SPMBT Patch Post for 2019/2020
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT M17/COPY UNIT O32 T-64BM BULAT/CHANGE/START JUN 2018/EW 2 APS/RADIO 90/VISION TI/GSR45/FC 45/STABILIZER 5/ERA HF 16/HS 16/HR 0/TF 16/TS 16/TR 0/TOP 16/USED UNITS 032 T-64BM BULAT/UNIT 063 T-84 OPLOT+/UNIT 064 T-84 OPLOT-M AS BASELINE UNITS //First off it looks like UNIT 032 should also be equipped with the same EW as the T-64 BULAT M17. The T-64 BULAT’s are the main frontline tanks at Ukraine’s Eastern sector and were in need of further modernization because of this as shown in combat, even though they showed themselves as more than a match against the rebel’s T-72 tanks. I don’t think up to the ERA numbers there’s any problems here. And I really feel very comfortable about those ERA numbers as this represents a much improved NOZH (KNIFE) ERA. It essentially falls between NOZH II and the DUPLEX ERA’s. I’ll have to find my original posts on the this tank as I think they had better information in them. But I hope for now this will do. Please let me know.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/ukraine_-_more_than_100_t-64_main_battle_tanks_modernized_by_kharkiv_armor_p lant.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/fighting-back-how-ukraine-upgraded-its-t-64bm-bulat-tanks-stop-russia-112166

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Postscript: See from MBT Thread, Post #924 Pg. 93 Aug. 15, 2019 10:22pm, this covers the above T-64 BULAT M17. Also ALL the refs are working still which have better information about the tanks modernization. About last ref, it should read pages 13-14 (Engine) and 16-17 (ERA Basic)

Pat

DRG

January 17th, 2020, 03:36 PM

The Oliphant info is great and I was finally able to dig up some good top down views of the main versions and have new Icons for the entire line. The old ones were added as " good enough" guesses as no decent drawings existed a decade ago...... they were close in that they looked like tanks but the reality was quite a bit different for all types

DRG

January 17th, 2020, 11:39 PM

I mentioned that TAIWAN has a big issue so…
TAIWAN/CHANGE/MIA1 ROC/UNIT 025/NEVER DELIVERED/FMS NOT APPROCVED/CHANGE IN GAME STATUS TO UNAVAILIBLE/RECOMMEND SAME AS REQUESTED FOR OLIFANT Mk-2B BASED ON THE SAME THREE POINTS NOTED ABOVE.

Pat, I feel certain that this has been discussed before. Open that unit up in the game or MOBHack......what do you see ? If you have the latest version of the OOB which seems that you do not you will see it named M1A2 Abrams-P and if you look at the unit class it is in you will see it along with one other tank in the "Prototype Tank" formation that can only be found if you dig it out of the Misc folder so yes, it could be removed but what's the point ?

What is bothersome to me is you reported it as "MIA1 ROC" and it's name was changed last release BUT it has been in a Prototype tank formation since 2008(!!) on the off chance someone might want to play "what if"......though admittedly that is doubtful. I can only assume these are old notes and you did not check the latest OOB's before posting them here

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 20th, 2020, 12:15 AM

To Taiwan, yes it was and I had no issues. You will also find a couple of more like that as well soon like the CHANGE(S) made to the Ukraine's OPLOT- M and Thailand's OPLOT-T (Now) from the last patch.

The point of this exercise again is for me to get all those individual posts across almost 12 to 14 pages of them back together and grouped.

Even you said you printed out what I posted (I haven't yet, but will.) and it sounds like you "rediscovered" the SADF OLIFANT information from your Post #230 of the previous page bottom.

That's why this Thread has been here all these years because it's "Homeplate" or "Ground Zero" for the my inputs to you and others of what "might be" coming.

What happened in the 2017/2018 (Lesser extent and already fixed in this Thread properly.) and 2018/2019 Campaigns was a mess and reminds me of how I first started out which then was only with a handful of inputs by posts and easily managed.

However I seem to remember a call from "some of those close to me here" and one I recognized myself all those years ago, that due to gradual and steady increase of submissions that I had to organize myself in a more concise manner. Again the reason for this Thread.

All that went to **** during these last two campaigns and especially the 2018/2019 one as you know.

My final analogy, I promise. ;)

When you build a car and please for some of you reading, the basic concept if you will :D, is you start with the Frame (This Thread) add the Engine (Thread Posts) continue to the Body (Our discussions etc. of the Patch Posts in this Thread as needed.) then we prep it for delivery to the showroom by Detailing and Inspecting the car fully (This you and Andy putting the Patch Release together). And finally off to the Showroom where the excited and anxious customers can't wait to see the new car!!

Oh yeah the customers is us! :shock:

So finally (And there was much celebration. :party:) in the 2018/2019 Campaign, the Engine came first without the Frame of the car, kinda makes it's tough to build the car that way, let alone drive it.

As already posted before I added that "Patch Post", I apologize for any inconvenience and confusion this may have caused, however...

I respectfully, would like to build that 2019/2019 Campaign Car right, before I move onto what will probably be the late model 2019/2021 Campaign Car.

And again this is to me the reference point "Home Plate", "Frame" or "Library" whichever you prefer, even "PITA" has worked here in the past and that's OK to! ;) :p :D.

I intend to enjoy the rest of this evening as CINCLANTHOME just stopped in and see 1917 tomorrow. I love my weekends, though sometimes they don't seem long enough! :cool:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 3rd, 2020, 10:00 PM

Don,
This by way of a status report.

First to INDIA: I see you had already entered the ARJUN MK 1-A, along with that tank there'll be changes to the ARJUN in general. Nothing major overall but I'll be looking to get the ARJUN itself removed as this is more and more appearing to have been named ONLY for the test bed units. So the ARJUN Mk-1 is looking to be the first operational type, which had 14 improvements made to it based on the OPEVALs before going into production..

Also, and I've brought this up several times over the years, but with newer information in doing the build for the ARJUN Mk-1A (And yes I see you already added it.) it looks like LAHAT is dead.

The reasons are two fold 1) We knew it was plagued by technical difficulties for years and 2) It doesn't fit India's tactical operational needs. Simply this is due to the fact LAHAT is designed as a long range engagement weapon which doesn't "turn on" until it's further down range, where Israel wants it to operate. Anything closer it'll let the MG deal with it.

India wants a ATGW it'll engage targets at a closer range if need be, this is a preference versus a need. Their MG is very close to being as good as the CHALLENGER 2 MG.

They are currently testing an ATGW to meet their needs.

USA - Still sorting through the ABRAMS posts, there just was so many pages of data, a couple "back and forth" posts as I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.) etc. etc.

FRANCE - I see you fixed the MMP ATGW that had the 0 Vis. to 60 TI/GSR. That was what I had as well.

RUSSIA - Have some date changes concerning the T-80BV Series of tanks. Already researched.

But to give you something to do :rolleyes: :doh: :D,
CHANGE/SOUTH KOREA/K2 PIP/UNIT 033/TI/GSR 55/or 60 (I can see this clearly, but, I leave it to your discretion.)/vice/TI/GSR 40/FC 55/vice/FC 50/MIGHT REQUIRE LATER START DATE//The K2 PIP is the "Top Dog" in the K2 Series of tanks.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/South_Korea/k2-black-panther.php

Now I'm going to watch APOCALYPSE NOW in 4K. Ride of the Valkyries by Richard Wagner will never have sounded better to me then it will on my YAMAHA 4k HTS. Plus the DOORS AND Soundtrack, it's going to be a good night!

CINCLANTHOME is going to LOVE THIS!! :rolleyes: ;) :cool:

Good Night!! Back to the GRIND tomorrow.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 6th, 2020, 04:12 AM

Well as usual when I start looking into something I uncover more issues of which in this case are minor compared to many others we've encountered out here. The issues are with SOUTH KOREA with their more recent armor.

I'll set it up in my normal format later as I sense the "clock is ticking" (And NO I DON'T HAVE ANY INSIDE INFORMATION OF ANYTHING TO COME.)

So Don don't have a "heart attack" (Or for that matter anyone that follows my posts.) at my "briefness" if you will.

First, I get it concerning K1-88 UNITS 021-023, though I think two can be combined into one unit, maybe.

Second, I would strongly recommend changing the name of the KIA1 UNIT 024 to either K1A1/A2 or K1A1/2. I highlighted the first one as I'm seeing it described as such in more of the refs. The K1A2 was another improved model but, and I agree with many of the refs. that the improvements were "minor in nature" as to not warrant a separate unit. We did the same with the Russian T-72B3/B4 as I recall about three years back.

Third, Is there a reason the K2 UNIT 025 is not armed with the KSTAM munition? They have them and this tank was designed to fire it. Some people are calling it an ATGW, I STRONGLY disagree, it's designed to be fired at a higher elevation and the refs are describing/or comparing it to firing a mortar or artillery. Further the description of KSTAM much more reminds me of the STRIX the very effective SWEDISH (?) 120mm Anti-Tank top attack mortar round. The picture of it even resembles the STRIX and looks more like a "mortar" round in the below ref. The below is taken from the same ref. and is a composite of other refs.

"Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition (KSTAM), sort of fire-and-forget semi-autonomous ammunition that operates at 2–8 km (1.2–5.0 mi), launched in a mortar-type high trajectory."
https://weaponews.com/weapons/65354027-managed-shells-and-missiles-to-main-battle-tanks.html

Also concerning the K2, I'm trying to confirm whether or not South Korea has already started to field "KAPS" (APS) on those tanks. And yes, I see you equipped it as such. For everyone else KAPS was one of the improvements slated for the K2 PIP.

Fourth, The T-80ROK UNIT 029 and BMP-3ROK UNIT 061 were retired last year. I thought I posted this last summer or early fall. But for the sake of argument based on the dates of the refs. being in the March/April 2019 timeframe, I believe JUN 2019 would work well or DEC 2019 if you want to be more conservative about the END date.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20190406.aspx

Fifth, From what little is out there to include HYUNDAI/ROTEM (Which doesn't even mention the K2 PIP.) website, I believe a better START date for K2 PIP UNIT 033 would be JAN 2023.

Most every ref. talks about the K2 PIP being a "few years away". The first para says it all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalPowers/comments/citqpi/rd_k2_black_panther_product_improvement_program/

But I'll be more optimistic about the K2 PIP based on the political situation on the peninsula and the world in general.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

POSTSCRIPT: Added on 2/6/2020 1155 Here's a short STRIX video I posted when we addressed this weapon a few years back. Again KSTAM (Though improved.) uses basically the same technology with also radar technology.

STRIX has long been rumored to use either a Video or Radar to supplement the IR seeker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhd1d2sW_3I
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/news/2000-09/bofors-weapon-systems-strengthens-its-world-leadership/

DRG

February 6th, 2020, 02:55 PM

IN reply to each point you made

First.....it is good enough as it is with three progressions
Second...Done
Third....Done
Forth... Done
Fifth....Done

Suhiir

February 6th, 2020, 07:41 PM

<clip> I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.

Not sure Don wants to hear this if it has anything to do with the armor values.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 7th, 2020, 02:36 AM

I was simply making the point as to why I'm holding off getting the ABRAMS data into this thread. You of all people know well, that my submissions start in this thread. That did not happen in 2018/2019.

You have with all due respect, no idea how many hours and refs. I had to spend and go through just to post what I did on the ABRAMS, and it started with a request from I don't know who :rolleyes: :D to look into the USMC M1A1 FEP.

I found two separate ABRAMS in the game that were actually the same tank. Dates were messed up, a couple using production dates vice FOC one's. Most of those errors were in this game BEFORE Don and Andy stepped in.

I actually submitted numbers for the FEP at least 2 times as data "bled over" from the USMC and USA.

I have disciplined myself to do "deep searches" on any piece of equipment I submit, to avoid rework for everyone else and myself. As Col. Kurtz said "...the horror, the horror." :p well I've seen enough of that here.

I would love to have one Patch Campaign go smoothly to the point that the equipment submitted didn't lead down a "rabbit hole" affecting other units, just one year. I don't see it happening because I suspect there are more, if you will, "relics" left to be found.

I do love "order in my world" and I accept the challenge that "chaos" brings to life. It's the spice of life.

So no, I think you missed the point I made completely from that post.

I have no idea what Don used of my submission for the FEP or any other ABRAMS or equipment I posted into the MBT Thread during 2018/2019.

You might better understand if you went through those eight or more pages just on ABRAMS in the MBT Thread. Start around Page 87 or so.

I deviated from my mode of operations. I ignored this thread, for the sake of getting equipment in the game or modified. That'll never happen again.

I own that. Now I'm paying the price for that "tactical error" but, at least it's at my pace around CINCLANTHOME and work and training.

So I end with what you posted with now the complete sentence to put it all in context for the portion you used.

From Post #233
"USA - Still sorting through the ABRAMS posts, there just was so many pages of data, a couple "back and forth" posts as I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.) etc. etc."

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

February 7th, 2020, 02:06 PM

I assure you I very much value your work.

But the trouble (as always) when dealing with contemporary (and sometimes past) equipment is getting solid data. For as "simple" as WinSPMBT may appear to some, those that deal with the actual data that defines units know it's anything but behind the scenes. A simple date change may effect multiple OOBs and several scenarios which may then require updating.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 10th, 2020, 12:17 AM

If your in no rush I'll keep going as I'm doing with the time I have. But as a "heads up" just spent the last couple of hours reverifying my data and trying to "stay on point" in the brevity department.

We'll see how that worked out in the INDIA section (Which I referred to above.) with what others I have to this point for Part 2 of this Thread.

It will be concerning the first tank I offered for India and one of the first I posted so long ago-yes-the ARJUN (Series.). Nothing too earth shattering :dk: with the biggest changes to the ARJUN Mk-1A.

I'm done.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2020, 12:50 AM

SPMBT/MBT’s Part 2
I hope to finish the rest of the 2018/2019 MBT data with this Part 2 (2/16/2020 I will need a Part 3.). Again I realize some of what will be posted here has been acted on but, then this is not why they appear here as I noted in an earlier. All the below sourced from the MBT Thread.

From Page 81 Post 802
A1. ALGERIA/ADD/JUN 2018/T-90SA/COPY UNIT 027/WITH SHTORA-1//
Article is from May, its indicating system is already installed on some tanks. June seems like a safe month, however, if you wish to be more conservative then I recommend NLT OCT.

C1. ALGERIA/CHANGE/UNIT 027/T-90S/TORD T-90SA//
All Algerian T-90S (Standard export version.) were modified somewhat for desert warfare to include, I know, AC (But remember folks AC isn't for the crew but for the electronics.) and therefore designated T-90SA.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._53005161.html

From Page 81 Post 808/I wanted to keep these together.
This follows the "tact" as I discussed last week or whenever I posted PART I. I just pulled this off the "wire" so again Croatia will have to wait, as this article impacts both Brazil and will "dove tail" to Uruguay. I know not many players probably play these OOB's but, that doesn't mean we (I) should ignore them, after all my motto is "One World One OOB". Let's get to it...

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

Now we "dove tail"...

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

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

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

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

From Page 81 Post 810
News first then we'll take a journey into the OOB.
FYI HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-84A4 SNIPER and M-84D TO BE UPGRADED TO THE M-95 DEGMAN LEVEL//TRACKING/GUESS/SHOULD HAVE UNITS UPGRADED AND IN THE FIELD BY 10/2020/IF THIS HOLDS TRUE, THAT WOULD MARK THE END DATES FOR THOSE TWO M-84 VARIENTS// Budget was approved in 02/2018. Assume work has begun if budget is on the Calendar year, if not and they are on a standard Fiscal year, work should have started around 10/2018 or 11/2018.

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

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

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

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

Alright here we go...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can find no evidence that any of these tanks had a "mid-life" upgrade of any kind. Besides other factors, this drove some of the above.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...nks_fleet.html
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/33033
http://tanknutdave.com/the-yugoslavi...r-m-84-series/
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armo...p?armor_id=629

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

Doing the best I can.

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-1/UNIT 020/CHANGE/END JAN 2025//
This MBT is still very much in service, currently with the 43RD Tank Regiment in western India.
https://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-the-armys-arjun-tank-may-be-its-best-bet-yet-1797209
https://www.janes.com/article/80893/regional-focus-asia-pacific-es18d3
(This Ref. 1 near the bottom discusses the fact that LAHAT failed testing and in meeting India’s tactical requirements. India will develop their own ATGW. Ref. dated Jan 2018.)

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START JAN 2021/VISION/TI/GSR 50/REMOVE LAHAT/FC 50/STABILIZER 6/ERA (All) 18/ROF 7/USES SAME RWS AS ARJUN Mk-2/TRACK WIDTH MINE PLOUGH (TWMP) SEEMS TO BE STANDARD/BASE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNITS 022/023//
This MBT was delayed. As you will have noted from the above refs. They both end up talking about the Mk-1 to the MK-2 (Only in ref. 2). The ARJUN MK-1A has incorporated 72 out of the ~97 improvements the Army has required for the ARJUN Mk-2. The above changes are what’s on the ARJUN Mk-2 at this time. None of the above are items of issue currently delaying the ARJUN Mk-2. The tank will make its public appearance at DefExpo India 2020, I believe on 20 Feb.

A separate issue appears to be that this MBT is also (Can be.) equipped to fire both a Thermo Baric (TB) and Penetration Cum Blast (PCB) round.

Can those rounds be modeled?

https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/dec/09/indigenously-designed-tanker-arjun-reports-for-duty-2073063.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/dec/08/indias-indigenously-designed-arjun-mk-1a-clears-trials-ready-to-go-into-production-2073023.html
https://weaponews.com/news/65357533-in-india-updated-tank-arjun-mk-1a-called-reliable-bull.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/indian_arjun_mk.1a_mbt_ready_to_go_into_production .html

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNIT 022/ROF 7/If the above TB and or PCB rounds can be modeled, then this MBT should also have those rounds//

INDIA/DELETE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNIT 023/NO LAHAT/WITH OPTION 2 FOLLOWING BELOW/CHANGE/ROF 7//Alright Option 2, retain this MBT until such time as India needs to develop its own ATGW. But remove it from regular play if retained.

New pictures will be submitted for UNITS 021/022 as they currently reflect the ARJUN Mk-1/Mk-2. In outward appearance they're the same. Also added a better (Maybe.) ARJUN Mk-1 picture as well. It'll be the last one.

Trying this in a separate post.

STATUS UPDATE for ARJUN Mk-2: The weight of the ARJUN Series has been one of the biggest issues concerning the Army from the start. The update here is that they just very recently announced they have redesigned the chassis and reduced the overall weight by 3 tons. I know the newer more effective ERA on this tank (And on the Mk-1A.) shed another ton just about. This makes me hopeful that we will actually see this MBT in the game.

From Page 85 Post 849
JAPAN/ADD/TYPE 16 MCV 8x8/START 06 2017/C4/SPEED 100km/h (62.1 mph)/4x2 GRENADE LAUNCHERS TURRET MOUNTED/RADIO 91/TI/GSR 50/MODIFIED L7 105mm/L52 JSW/ROUNDS 55 SEE REF. 1 FOR TYPES/RS COAX Type 74 7.62mm/RS Mid Turret 12.7mm M2HB HMG/FCS 50/LASER R/F 22/STABILISER 6/SURVIBILITY 5/STEEL/HEAT USE ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030/ERA NONE MENTIONED/SUBMITTED AS UPARMORED VERSION//The design was based on the SADF ROOIKAT and ITALY's CENTURO. The MCV was designed to replace the TYPE 74 MBT of which that process has already begun. Due to cost issues of the TYPE 10 during development and sanctions limiting the JGSDF to 600 tanks, the MCV was seen as a cheap alternative to supplement their tank branch. First off the FCS is believed to be derived from the TYPE 10. The MG is similar to the one used on the TYPE 74 but, modified with the addition of integrated thermal sleeve and fume-extractor the importance of this goes to the MG STABILITY has already been discussed with the recent SADF submissions (Added as submitted in Part 1.). It does feature a unique muzzle brake/compensator, consisting of rows of nine holes bored into the barrel in a spiral formation see picture on Ref. 1. I've not seen that on any MBT MG to date.
Researched contemporary peer game units SOUTH AFRICA ROOIKAT II UNIT 017, ITALY B1-B CENTURO UNIT 030, JAPAN TYPE 10 UNIT 022 & TYPE 74 KAI UNIT 027. Like the TYPE 10 the ARMOR/STEEL composition and thickness are CLASSIFIED. The same as a side note concerns the TYPE 10 ammo, all we know is that we've (USA) has noted "it is highly effective". I've not come across anything to indicate that the MCV ammo is, I will assume it is of a high quality and effective though.
Relying heavily on Refs. 1 & 2 because they are NEWER and RELIABLE. The next is the same but not updated.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...n-type-16-mcv/
https://www.janes.com/article/74061/...ility-dsei17d4
(NOTE LAST PARA & Mr. Foss of JANE'S is a well known writer.)
For further info:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/japa...res_video.html
(NOTE Shows JAPAN as a USER not PROTOTYPE.)

From Page 94 Post 940:
RUSSIA/T-90M/UNIT 059/START JUN 2020 vice OCT 2018.// This should get the job done, hopefully. I first posted on this MBT late in 2017 or early in 2018 I believe, having first been spotted participating in a Russian exercise. The T-90M which I've been watching from the start. It is currently still in trials so a date change will be required. (Follow the ref. chain below as they have now been updated.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...uisitions.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ...res_video.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...sian_army.html
(From the ref. Dated FEB 2018, "According to the Russian Company Uralvagonzavod, the latest modernization of the main battle tank T-90, called T-90M will enter in service with the Russian army in the next few months.")
https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/russ...rials-in-2019/
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...ew-t-90m-tank/
(This last ref. from this past SEP. indicates the Russian Army did not receive its first T-90M until JUN 2019.)
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25...y#.Xav6qm5Fzoo
(This ref. SEP 2019 is saying they just got their first one in SEP 2019.)

From Page 93 Post #924
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT M17/COPY UNIT O32 T-64BM BULAT/CHANGE/START JUN 2018/EW 2 APS/RADIO 90/VISION TI/GSR 45/FC 45/STABILIZER 5/ERA HF 16/HS 16/HR 0/TF 16/TS 16/TR 0/TOP 16/USED UNITS 032 T-64BM BULAT/UNIT 063 T-84 OPLOT+/UNIT 064 T-84 OPLOT-M AS BASELINE UNITS //First off it looks like UNIT 032 should also be equipped with the same EW as the T-64 BULAT M17. The T-64 BULAT’s are the main frontline tanks in Ukraine’s Eastern sector and were in need of further modernization based on combat experience, even though they showed themselves as more than a match against the rebel’s T-72 tanks. I don’t think up to the ERA numbers there’s any problems here. And I really feel very comfortable about those ERA numbers as this represents a much improved NOZH (KNIFE) ERA. It essentially falls between NOZH II and the DUPLEX ERA’s. I’ll have to find my original posts on this tank as I think they had better information in them.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/ukraine_-_more_than_100_t-4_main_battle_tanks_modernized_by_kharkiv_armor_pl ant.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/fighting-back-how-ukraine-upgraded-its-t-64bm-bulat-tanks-stop-russia-112166
https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...t-64_mbts.html
https://www.janes.com/article/86319/...upgraded-t-64s
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-def...t64-tanks.html
https://defence-blog.com/army/russia...er-t-72b3.html
https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_...cs/udr-02-2017 (See pages 13–14 and 16–17 for this ref.)

From Page 71 Post 702
CHANGE/UNIT 538/ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V3/START DATE 4/117 to 5/120//
Prototypes (6) to the USA by end of this month, or Oct. (From the time this was posted.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...tle_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/unit..._11710154.html

From Page 71 Posts 703/704
USA/ADD/JAN 2018/M1A2 SEP V2/COPY UNIT 517/CHANGE EW 0 TO EW 2/4 TROPHY/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS// (My edit “today”, this was/is a tough decision the RWS was addressed and fixed per Post 704. The issue is TROPHY. Under an “urgent equipment order” while TROPHY was finishing testing, the USA decided to equipment ONE combat brigade with it prior to a rotational deployment to Europe. But in the game you just can’t equip a brigade you have to equip the whole fleet. This just isn’t reality, so to copy the above UNIT 517 wouldn’t be a waste of time to get ahead of the TROPHY issue, which might happen by years end or the next year. But it shouldn’t be game ready now and I don’t think it is.)
ALSO...
USA/CHANGE/UNITS 517 M1A2 SEP V2 & 538 M1A2 SEP V3/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.//
When submitted in Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013 under MBT's...A1 M1A2 SEP V2 the unit was submitted to have the 50 CAL CROWS II RWS. For all the Patch Posts I've submitted, I've maintained a hard copy of each. When the Patch comes out I do a line item check against what I submitted and what actually was put in. Reading from my "crib" notes in the margin are the following...
"TI/GSR 50" with check mark and "THANKS 898/899 NEW BRADLEY" (A reminder which I posted to Don later.) this tells me it was originally put in the game with the CROWS II RWS. Am I off base here and I missed it then? Or was it changed afterwards? I think however there's a performance difference between the two 50 CAL weapons in the game. A note about the ref., in the title it does say..."...tanks fitted with..." and not "will be" "soon to be" "in the future" "expected to be" "planned to be" etc. etc.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...on_system.html
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/...sraeli-trophy/
https://scout.com/military/warrior/A...ecti-101454662
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/06/...h-chief-hints/

The last two USA UNITS represents the start of the ABRAMS nightmare. I have had to go back OVER 30 Pages of Posts to “Recapture” this data and to see if there have been any updates to what I’ve posted thus far. I haven’t find any yet to date except where noted in () other than attached to the refs.

I’m pretty sure the Algerian, Japanese, Ukrainian (With a compromise on the ERA with Don.), and possibly the USA units have been addressed.

I have not the time to verify the OOB’s, sorry, we’re going into a third week of two major security exercises as announced for planning purposes for delayed base access for those with base access.

The whole team has done really well in the first exercise, it’s time to finish strong on the next one.

But again, as far as I can find all the above is still correct and relevant.

I had taken a few hours to list everything posted thus far and what will now end with a PART III.

And this ONLY covers the MBT’s. I found doing this “donkey backwards” that I posted A LOT of inputs across the Threads. But this will be the longest of them all by far I think.

At least I won’t have to put them back into their “Home Threads” like I normally do!

Before anyone says anything about that last sentence, just let me live in that pretend world of “ignorant bliss” please!?! Yeah "donkey backwards", someone just shoot me if it happens again!?!:D :rolleyes: :doh:

Regards
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2020, 01:34 AM

Hopefully this works...
15923

15924

15925

15926

15927

Sending them via alternate method. See previous Post.

And can you delete this worthless post?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 17th, 2020, 11:03 AM

A couple do. most don't. Don't worry about it if I think I need better photos I know how to find them and as well the ones that do show are incorrect.. The second link from the end you have as a 1a is clearly marked II right on the tank's front left fender
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15929&stc=1&d=1581952351

And this link
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/dec/08/indias-indigenously-designed-arjun-mk-1a-clears-trials-ready-to-go-into-production-2073023.html

Also claims the photo is a 1A but it is also clearly marked as a II...... and it's probably the same tank as the other photo

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

Seeing as how convoluted this has become I am going to go out on a limb and say the 1A and the II are the same tank with "1A" being the working prototype name and in reality, what we should have is one unit named Arjun Mk IA/II

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2020, 05:52 PM

I would recommend keeping them separate. A couple of the sources are indicating that the ARJUN Mk-1 will be upgraded to the ARJUN Mk-1A standard during depot over haul as funds become available.

And there are a couple of issues with the ARJUN Mk-2 besides the outstanding "mystery" improvements NOT made on the ARJUN Mk-1A. I don't know how you shed just over 3 tons of weight on the chassis and maintain its overall strength to mount the same body onto it.

Unless they've developed a stronger steel composite we don't know about, it's very possible we could see a "smaller" MBT. As an example just because the Japanese TYPE 10 is a small tank doesn't mean I want to fight against it.

I can quite honestly see the ARJUN Mk-2 "dovetail" right into the LONG hoped for FMBT Program India has wanted, where the ARJUN Mk-2 will become the prototype MBT for that project.

ARJUN was always meant to get them to FMBT. The local political situation and finances have driven them to the ARJUN Mk-1A whether it takes them to the ARJUN Mk-2 is still up in the air, given India's history dealing with these tanks.

Remember it took them 30yrs. just to get them to the ARJUN (Prototype) and about another 3-5 years before we had the ARJUN Mk-1.

It would be more expediate in the mid term and financially sound, to just upgrade the ARJUN Mk-1 to the Mk-1A standard.

We don't need to follow India as much as we need to follow Pakistan. Why?

Remember I posted this within the last couple of years, the Ukraine and Pakistan have already signed the papers to in a sense
co-develop the OPLOT-P. That will drive India's ARJUN/FMBT issue more then the rest of it in my opinion.

Can you just edit the pictures since they'll be B&W anyway? Don't know never tried any of that myself.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

RC4

February 18th, 2020, 05:32 PM

Dont worry, I follow Pakistan. I have a complete changed Orbat for them. I am testing it to get it right.

The Pak government is investing on:
-more Al-Zarrar conversions from T59MII
-Upgrade all their T85IIAP
-Upgrade T80UD/T84 hybrid with some Oplot equipment
-new build Al-Khalid I (improved) (new mechanized Division forming)
-new T125-IIM ammo

Thanks

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 25th, 2020, 04:41 PM

SPMBT Patch Post 2018/2019 Part 3
This I think will be the last MBT resubmission from that same Thread. First the depth some of us go to, too test and or verify our thoughts, sources and concerns. I would like to demonstrate that, as is the case here, for just one MBT. That being Ukraine’s OPLOT-M. I was seeing in game play a 3:1 kill ratio in favor of the T-72B3M/B4 against the OPLOT-M. This would be an incorrect conclusion based on everything we know about these tanks in the end.
From Page 85 Post 842.

A. Para 1 “I relied on my evaluations from the recent testing done, looked at the feedback I received from others, rechecked old refs and found new ones and checked my conclusions against its peer Russian T-90A UNIT 050, its main rival T-72B3M/B4 when I play the against the AI.”

B. Para 3 “As with the two already listed these next where also used to evaluate my numbers for STEEL/HEAT/ERA & STABILISER as submitted below. They are (The ones I've submitted or changed will have "*" by the name.) THAILAND *OPLOT-M (T) UNIT 019, UKRAINE T-84 UNIT 059, RUSSIAN *T-80BMV UNIT 046, SWEDEN *STRV-122A UNIT 358 (This tank was chosen because it is my firm belief there is no better "TOP" protected tank in the world. Acted as a check against me as the others did. This came about from tests conducted on their stock of Russian tanks with STRIX which proved devastating to them. Also these LEOPARD tanks were made to order for SWEDEN and NOT stock tanks. The "STEEL" for the turret hatch alone was increased just shy of 2 feet thick which means the surrounding "TOP" area has to be even thicker as all hatches are recessed to avoid such issues as over pressurization etc. no different than on a Submarine and verified by my co-worker "JAKE" (Helped us on some BRADLEY issues we were looking into in the past.) the ABRAMS/BRADLEY Driver/Gunner extraordinaire. For further see the FB Patch Thread "Patch Post #2 for the 2013/2014 Campaign"), USA M1A2 SEP V1 UNIT 318, M1A1HA+ UNIT 484, *MIA2 SEP V2 UNIT 517, and *M1A2 SEP V3".

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

D. To “my” testers, John (Imp), Aeraaa, zovs66 and jivemi. I THANK YOU!!

NOW TO BUSINESS...

From Page 84 Post 837 This was just one of those issues that just came up out of nowhere…
Well I have an issue I believe, I've sorted out, maybe. It concerns the Russian T-80 Series. One will be an "ADD" the other a "CHANGE" of the "START" as it's at least a year early. The issue is that the Russian T-80B/BV/U tanks received an upgrade. As the T-80BV is a real tank and is already in the game, I purpose that the upgraded tank be entered as the T-80BV1.

NOW THE ABOVE WILL BE LIMITED TO DATE CHANGES FOR THE FOLLOWING 3 TANKS AFTER DEEPER RESEARCH AND RE-READING THE ARMY REC. REFS. (THE WORDING WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING AT FIRST.) (An obvious EDIT "on the fly" at that time. 2/25/2020.)

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

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

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BV/UNIT 039/END DATE 12/2025 VICE 12/1992//
I can't seem to find anything to say these tanks are no longer in service. I fully understand a great many of them are in storage, but again the refs provided for this tank and others seem to indicate many are still operational and they are the platform from which the T-80BVM are derived from. View "Variants" section of ref. 1. Ref. 2 shows Russia still using them at bottom of ref. "Users" section.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ..._13007173.html

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

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

THE NEXT IS DONE.

From Page 85 Post 842
UKRAINE/OPLOT-M/UNIT 064/CHANGE/STEEL/HF 75 vice 72/HR 10 vice 8/TOP 10 vice 7/HEAT/110 vice 104/HS 45 vice 40/TR 20 vice 18/ERA/HF 20 vice 15/HS 18 vice 15/TF 20 vice 15/TS 18 vice 15/TOP 20 vice 15/STABILISER 6 vice 5// My key tanks here where the T-84, OPLOT-M (T), T-90A, T-72B3M/B4, T-80BMV and STRV-122A. We know or should know the following by now, the T-90A is it's peer tank, the tank was RESET to the "-M" with the Hull strengthened and the Turret was newly built for this tank, ERA is better than the T-90A and the KBA3 MG has a first round hit probability tested to at least 94%. All this was born out in the evaluations during testing from the refs supplied in the posts and more as described above.

THAILAND/OPLOT-M/UNIT 019/CHANGE/NAME/OPLOT-T vice OPLOT-M/STABILISER 4 vice 3/STEEL-HEAT-ERA to match UKRAINE OPLOT-M UNIT 064 AS REVISED ABOVE// Though at the time, OPLOT-M was primarily used in referring to this tank, I'm assuming to avoid confusion. The refs. are using OPLOT-T now as has the THAI Army for some time now. The only difference between these tanks were a small handful of internal issues i.e. AC (Ukraine would add this feature to based on THAI feedback to theirs.) and other tropical related matters. I believe the lesser FCS related numbers are probably good assuming the Ukrainians didn't clear them (And they haven't. 2/25/2020.) to receive the full FCS to the level of their own "home" tanks. This is not an unusual practice in the arms trade. That being said, if it's decided to fully match the hopefully revised Ukrainian OPLOT-M then I see no real issue there either.
(This MBT is fine as already corrected. If I was to change one thing however, it might be to reduce VISION TI/GSR 45 vice 50 currently. I leave this to you to decide. 2/25/2020.)

From Page 85 Posts 844/845
USA/M1A2 SEP V3/UNIT 538/CHANGE/START DATE 06/2020 vice 10/2017/MBT IS CURRENTLY STILL IN FIELD/OP EVAL TESTING// The date currently entered is when the first six production models came off the line. These would eventually (And more obviously.) and as the refs are showing, went to the USA units assigned to test it. The significance of the DID entry I pointed to makes sense as it indicated the first 45 of these tanks would be completed, I believe it was in March this year. You'll note the rest of the upgrade completion dates go beyond my "recommended" one above. The test and Prototypes would fill a unit by then or maybe a little earlier. I've already deleted all the refs. before I realized we had a problem here, so you'll have to use my last post and those refs supplied as a start point. Due note the latest is from the Army website as are 2 others.
https://www.army.mil/article/172984/fighting_our_nations_wars_one_50lb_round_at_a_time https://www.army.mil/article/214733/latest_and_greatest_m1_tank_tested_at_us_army_yuma _proving_ground
https://www.army.mil/article/214733/latest_and_greatest_m1_tank_tested_at_us_army_yuma _proving_ground

From Page 86 Posts 858/860 (Note: I have already edited the original data to reflect the correction made in Post 860* for the DELETION, to UNIT 649* vice UNIT 640. 2/24/2090.)

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

USA/DELETE/M1A2 SEP V1/UNITS 318 & 649*/SAVE THE PICTURE WE HAVE LATE MODEL ABRAMS "FLOATING IN THE SKY" THAT CAN USE IT// For the reasons stated above and below within the Refs. I have seen Refs to indicate the M1A1 AIM being tagged with V1 and V2 attached to the name. Also M1A1 AIM were all REMANUFACTED tanks for the record.

USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP V2/M1A2 SEP 2-T/UNITS 517 & 537 RESPECTIVLY/FC 55 vice 50/BASED ON M1A2 SEP V3 FC 60/NOTE I MISSED UNIT 537 WHEN I SUBMITTED REVISED START FOR UNIT 517 (06/2020 I BELIEVE FROM POST 845) SHOULD MATCH// Again we see the progression more clearly now between the variants.
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eA...une1996web.pdf
(In 1996 the plan, pg. 11 and see Fig. 3 pg. 14.)
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...rmy/99m1a2.pdf
(In 2000 testing issues and failures experienced during and beyond 1999.)
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...amsM1A2SEP.pdf
https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2...est_200101.pdf
(2001 Another overview and analysis.)
(In 2002 testing continues with minor issues, progress being made.)
https://www.forecastinternational.co...DACH_RECNO=534
(2003 Commanders CITV. Cap. & Production Plan.)
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh/22.pdf
(2005 Conversion moves on it will be seen FOC not until Units are in "PROGRAM STATUS" are fully equipped.)
https://www.gd.com/news/press-releas...oved-sep-reset
(2006 Last of M1 tanks to be upgraded to SEP expect 2009 final delivery to units for FOC.)
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/...ite/abrams.htm
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-02834/
(After a 3rd/4th time or more, I've got a little more clarity on the date issue (Above 2 Refs in particular.) and I believe the M1A2 SEP V1 as noted under the M1A2 SEP V2 section. I'm starting to think what really happened here with most not reporting this version while a SMALL handful do is the program (M1A2 SEP V1) started and went straight into the M1A2 SEP V2 program. It is the only thing that makes sense here.)

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

From Page 85 Posts 852/857 (Only showing the submission from Post 857. This demonstrates HOW FAST things can change based on newer data. 2/24/2020.) Also note I have to use the M1A2 SEP V2 for balance against the next two tanks as well. I don't know what data was used for them, however, we had a lot of data to work from for the M1A2 SEP V2 when it was submitted and except for the date change I submitted for the M1A2 SEP V3 that tank looks good at present.

USMC/CHANGE/M1A1HC FEP VARIENTS/UNITS 467, 468 & 469/START 10/2009 vice 01/2008/TI/GSR 50 vice 45/STABILISER 7 vice 6/UNIT 468 MRAP 7 vice SURVIBILITY 6/SAME MBT AS UNITS 467 & 469// The FEP was a major upgrade to the M1A1 tanks the USMC operated. The contract was awarded on FEB 05, 2005 for the manufacture and installation of the subsystems making up the FEP package. The FOC was reached as submitted above. I cannot find any information to support any other date but, it should be noted however, I found enough to change the date when first submitted in Post 852 after digging deeper (Updated this last sentence for clarification. 2/25/2020), I will gladly in this instance "eat a little crow" concerning that last submission that "I didn't see it before 2010..." at least based on the data I had then.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608067.pdf
(Pg. 6/Para B. Note they used JANE's 2013 ref.))
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=156
(Para 4)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-(dec.-6).html
Paras 1 & 6)
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...1-tanks-01874/
(Covers both programs as of 2006.)
https://www.heritage.org/military-st...s-marine-corps
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength
(For context only. One of the very few "think tanks" that grade militaries and specifically are the only to do so for ours. The second will get you to the other branches.)
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues...ets-new-sight/
(This last ties in the FEP and SEP programs. And as normal USA first.)

From Page 87 Post 862 (My Pic) and Post 868 (Dons edit of my Pic. It’s a beautiful thing!)
USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP V2/UNITS 517 & 537/M1A1 AIM/UNIT 636/M1A1 SA/UNIT 886/DELETE CURRENT PICTURES/REPLACE WITH PICTURE AS SUBMITTED BELOW//

REALITY: From changes for the ABRAMS SEP and looking at the refs, I ended Post 858 with:
“A final note did anyone notice a pattern with the Refs? Just from what I posted, it was 12 yrs. for SEP to get into the field. Not bad when you consider ARJUN Mk I took over 30yrs. to get there! These things take time!”

This is why I’m pessimistically, optimistic about equipment dates!!

I don’t think I missed anything for the MBT’S for the 2018 – 2019 Campaign put back here where they should've started from in the first place.

Don and I have already addressed for the 2019 - 2020 Campaign the following MBT issues...
Posts 235 – 238 this Thread, covers South Korean K2 PIP (START Chg.).
T-80ROK UNIT 029 and BMP-3ROK UNIT 061 both retired last year, I believe we settled on END DEC 2019.
.
K2 UNIT 032 got a very INTERESTING ammo change.

Also Ukraine to get an improved T-64 BULAT 17

And finally I also submitted changes to the ARJUN Mk-1A for India (Now there's a surprise!!).

All DONE already by Don these last three and I think most from higher above.

Those will be grouped together and submitted to the MBT Thread at a later date.

Didn't feel like going back to work today, when a 4 day work week was a better option.

I'm done with MBT's! For now.

Time to not waste the rest of this "gift" of being home with you know whom!

Regards,
Pat
:capt: