Polish OOB 5.5 - Page 3

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #21 January 15th, 2012, 08:40 PM

Be careful in regards to the Malaysian version those tanks were ordered to the customer specifications as was posted with numerous refs in a Patch Post. That's why it was entered in their OOB as it is. You have to be careful about "same" units when discussing export units or other variations. By example M-60 Series M-60 TTS, M-60 2000, M-60 SABRE and M-60T off the top of my head all different in weapons, armor protection, sensors and general capabilities to varying degrees.
MBT Thread Page #9 Posts #84 & #89 M.5 I believe there was some follow up on the PT-91 in the Patch Post as well but I leave that to you to check if you want.
And let's not even talk about the LEO or ABRAMS variations. The UK, FRANCE, ITALY and ISRAEL (And a couple of others.) did it right and kept their own for the most part thank God for that in game terms! Just trying to help as others have done for me here as well, Just read my first posts in the MRAP Thread.

Regards,
Pat

Pibwl · #22 January 15th, 2012, 09:16 PM

That's why I'm basing upon a Polish article claiming, that basic protection of Malaysian tanks remained the same, despite works carried by Bumar upon a composite armour. ERA was probably only improved in decreasing weight (and possibly increasing efficiency). Thanks to the customer specifications it received better FCS, gun and stabilizer, engine and transmission, ammo, and several other improvements. Of course, the information on armour may be challenged. Main point of interest in these thread are Polish PT-91s anyway.

Michal

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #23 January 16th, 2012, 01:49 AM

I bought up the Malaysian issue partly because Poland is about to or is just starting to upgrade their T-72M1 and PT-91 tanks. The work will not be done however by BUMAR who did not get the bid but, WZM. The first 20 of 40 PT-91 and 10 of 20 T-72M1 upgraded units are to be operational by NOV. 2012. I have been following developments and have other refs ready. Was thinking the Malaysian model as in the game might meet the new standard after rechecking the values again for verification. What are your first impressions of that thought? I will further research this that's just me and it keeps the research and conclusions independent this will include trying to identify ERA types for determination of where it falls on old vs. new scale. This is a big deal for WZM as they are primarily known for their work with APCs. It should be noted from their website they have ties with RHEINMETALL this could be the key to the tank work as well considering again WZM primary manufacturing role to this point and the timeline involved. Some might need to use your translator program for ref #2.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1912116.html
http://www.wzm.pl/go.live.php/PL-H36...ow-t72-m1.html

Currently not known what will be done, as much as it will and what can be done i.e. Malaysia's PT-91 PANDADUR.

Regards,
Pat

Pibwl · #24 January 16th, 2012, 05:31 AM

I haven't heard about upgrade plans yet - there's no such information even on Polish MoD page News section, and no talk on it on Polish forums. But, according to a quoted WZM page, 20 T-72 tanks aren't going to be modernized, just overhauled (remont konserwacyjny - "conserving overhaul") (BTW, WZM first of all was repair plant - only in recent years they got to production of vehicles).

Anyway, it doesn't change my conclusions much, that there are no upgraded tanks by now, and the earliest date will be 2013 - IF the tender is assigned. Life showed, that many announced plans of modernization or buying new equipment for the Polish Army were postponed or abandoned eventually... As for now, we doesn't know details of upgrade. I bet, that they won't touch armour anyway, and focus on FC-gun issue rather.

Regards
Michal

Marcello · #25 January 16th, 2012, 06:49 AM

Modernization of T-72M1 basic armor is likely to be difficult. The glacis can probably be upgraded without excessive problem, by undoing the welds and replacing the inner layers, but the turret front has the composites cast in according to the sources. Therefore you would have to machine away a significant chunk of the armor. More costly/troublesome than it is probably worth.
The T-72B/S is much more upgrade friendly.

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #26 January 16th, 2012, 08:52 PM

Pibwl,
As noted this will bear further watching then. I'll put this off until the 2012/2013 campaign then and see what comes of it. In the mean time in the spirit of cooperation here's all I have on the topic. Note the first three use the words "modernization" and "upgrade" last two cover the ERA issue maybe not as bad as you think but the armor itself seems more the issue on the surface of it. That's why I'm still leaning towards the PT-91M standard if these get upgraded as indiciated. Also Marcello is correct it would take a complete RESET to improve the armor really for ethier of these tanks and it can be done look at the LEO major overhauls done to date by the RESET programs used.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1912116.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...2m1-pt-91-mbts
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...ainbattletank/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt91_twardy.htm

And who says I can't play nice with others!?!

I'll be

this as it develops.

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #27 January 17th, 2012, 10:24 AM

After all the deletions requested what we end up with in the Polish OOB is two ( 2 ) PT-91's plus two duplicate mine clearer's with KMT-6 all with various minor corrections suggested including matching the M1 armour but NOT upgrading the M1 to A1 status. I went through this a year or so back and am not doing it again. The "inconsistency in the Russian OOB" was a simple typo that has now been rectified.

One uses the "old ammo" up to 1999 and the other uses a part load of Pronit sabot and a part load of the old sabot as AP. There will not be any hypothetical wartime model or assumed modernized model. It's getting VERY OLD putting in "future models" only to have them evaporate so when there is an announcement that any new modernization is actually in the works, let me know but after requesting all these deletions I'm not really very open to adding in replacement guesses.

These PT-91 change leaves much of the M1 upgrades in question but I assume they are next ???

Don

Suhiir · #28 January 17th, 2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG

It's getting VERY OLD putting in "future models" only to have them evaporate so when there is an announcement that any new modernization is actually in the works, let me know but after requesting all these deletions I'm not really very open to adding in replacement guesses.

Don

just whistles quietly to herself as she contemplates the EFV

(the proposed Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle the USMC wanted to replace the LVTP-7/AAVP-7).

DRG · #29 January 17th, 2012, 05:32 PM

......and the other thing that REALLY PISSES ME OFF are people who use examples of future units from other OOB's to justify something they think should be in their pet OOB. I AM FED UP WITH THIS CRAP. We added things a few years ago becasue some thought it would be "kewl" to have things still on the drawing board in the game so that players could play the game 10 years in advance and have all these new wonderful toys to play with then as time goes by all these new toys are sitting on the scrap heap and we have to pull them out but one left in some OOB or another that hasn't been scrapped suddenly becomes an excuse to add more crap into the OOB's ( that we will have to pull out later and we end up with ....."Yeah but the GERMAN OOB had this or the RUSSIAN OOB has that"

TOO FRIGGING BAD.

The EFV is GONE. It was GONE the last release. We added it as a "courtesy". It's still in the USMC OOB renationalized JUST IN CASE the project is revived but it DOES NOT SHOW UP IN THE GAME. The Su-47 Berkut is in the Russian OOB and the Altay is in the Turk OOB...... it will probably die as well but I'm leaving that alone but the days of adding upgrades in thinking that it's "enevitable" are over and as the years pass and they don't come about they will be pulled as well but I have MORE THAN ENOUGH to do ATM without making more work for myself.

Shall I pull the F-35's out until we know they are actually being used operationally ?

I just gutted the PT-91's from the Polish OOB becasue someone elses previous guesses about what "might" happen didn't come to pass so why would I put in new guesses ??

Now Suhiir..... I realize you were not asking for anything you were just pointing out what has happened so this was not directed at you per se but as a general venting of frustration on the way things like this go. NOR is it aimed directly at Michal. He just happened to be the last person to bring up " future upgrades ". This particular venting has been building for awhile

Don

Pibwl · #30 January 17th, 2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG

NOR is it aimed directly at Michal. He just happened to be the last person to bring up " future upgrades ".

...I wasn't even going to take this (rightful) criticism at my direction - one of my main motives to correct the Polish OOB (and therefore, to appear here), was to remove units, that should have been in the Polish inventory long ago according to the OOB, but aren't, or sci-fi ones

Thanks for clearing this. I only thought, that if we already have 4 or so future PT-91s, and someone made an effort to put them there, it would be reasonable to keep one or two, downgraded to something more probable (with basic armour, better stabilizer, gun and FC)...

As for T-72 - you assume right, they're coming (although not too extensive)

Cheers
Michal