.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)
-   -   MBT's (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45260)

Marcello February 13th, 2011 05:20 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 770971)
C10. Change: UKRAINE/OPLOT/UNITS 061-063/Add 9K119M REFLEX
(NATO Des. AT-11 SNIPER-B) 6 Missiles.
Noticed from refs that ATGW load has no affect on conventional ammo loads from refs. Must be due to size that addition of these doesn’t take up that much room as compared to conventional rounds. Am under the impression from further looking into other countries platforms this is just about a "universal truth" across the board.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84armament.php
http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/ukrainian_tanks.html

See bottom of the page. And yes I saw the number if it is 100% correct, however six works as that's what's in the game now for the T-84 tanks as well. Changing the number to 5 missiles would not only affect the Ukrainian tanks but would spill over to Russian ones (T-80 and T-90 series.) as well and any one who uses them outside the Ukraine and Russia that has the ATGW. I say Das Vydonia to a couple of rolls of toilet paper and keep the six packs instead!

Regards,
Pat

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

FASTBOAT TOUGH February 13th, 2011 01:30 PM

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

FASTBOAT TOUGH February 20th, 2011 04:23 PM

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

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

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH March 6th, 2011 02:55 PM

Re: MBT's
 
News of the past week. Had a few extra minutes.

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

2. TROPHY completes successful U.S. evaluations as the military seeks to improve it's armor protective systems.
http://defense-update.com/wp/2011030..._osd_test.html

3. UK continues to reduce it's armored forces. The SDSR cuts are going deeper then planned as will be shown in the Jet thread later. Once you start cutting sometimes it goes deeper than planned this seems to be the case now with the UK MOD.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/la...1229_2_n.shtml

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

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH March 13th, 2011 04:00 PM

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

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH March 19th, 2011 03:26 AM

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

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

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

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

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

B. The M-2002.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...prk/m-2002.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=391
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...=POL&s=TOP
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/tr...1125_2_n.shtml
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm


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

Pics:
Attachment 10903 Attachment 10904

Attachment 10905 Attachment 10906

Attachment 10907

Thank You for your time! Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

Roman March 19th, 2011 04:00 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 773395)
I'm good now here in the MBT world. First off I've avoided the blogs in general as opinions without the references presented in general are like ..., everyone has one, thus my allergy cold right now just isn't fun! There isn't much out there in the "main" so I did what I could. I offer the following based on my general background, an overview based on the refs and photos presented below.
1. I believe the M-2002 to be based on the T-62.
The lines just don't quite look right to me to be derived from the T-72 unless from an earlier version (How's that for CYA?)

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

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

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

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

B. The M-2002.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...prk/m-2002.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=391
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...=POL&s=TOP
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/tr...1125_2_n.shtml
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m2002.htm


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

Pics:
Attachment 10903 Attachment 10904

Attachment 10905 Attachment 10906

Attachment 10907

Thank You for your time! Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

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

DRG March 19th, 2011 05:03 PM

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

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

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

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


Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH March 19th, 2011 06:23 PM

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

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

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

More on the T-62 and variants:
http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms.../afvs.htm#t-62
http://www.armyrecognition.com/chars...my_russia.html

You'll have to use your translator software but it supports the equipment as discussed to this point.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/t-62.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t-62-specs.htm

See the ref immediately above under "FIRE CONTROL". The short answer is yes it has both, crude by today's standards sort of the USA SHERMAN tanks going against a German TIGER, it was then and now would have to be a battle of numbers and maneuver for it to be successful especially with a 115mm with no ATGW weapons
(T-62M1 did not support this, however the T-62M did though without the laser finder.)
that's what refs do!

If asked I do my best to get back.

Regards,
Pat :sick:

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

DRG March 19th, 2011 09:07 PM

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

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

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

Don


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2022, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.