|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
They arrived in Germany for testing in Dec 2017 and I have adjusted the date we have in the game now to reflect that. This game is all about " what if" and as of December 2017 there were some for in place for " what if" or are we talking about a different vehicle?
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Just got home. STRYKER DRAGOON was there (2017) for evaluation only IAW with the current contracts with the now 4 industry corporations involved in the current evaluation ongoing process. That FUE is straight from the USA, all I did was convert "Fiscal Quarters" to their corresponding months and calendar year.
This is in "limbo" right now with the congressional investigation currently ongoing. Again WHY did the other 2 companies drop from the evaluation? Congress wants to know is there a problem as yet undisclosed? Is the STRYKER DRAGOON turret not compatible with the vehicle? It is important to understand the USA did the development of this piece of equipment and built it from "off the shelf" parts. What could possibly go wrong there? They are the ones to open it up and chose the defense contractors to further evaluate this equipment because you need industry to mass produce it and develop or improve future and current technologies. Based on my readings of the refs and more STRYKER DRAGOON is looking more "Putting the Cart before the Horse". USA should've set the design parameters and operational requirements. Industry should've designed and submitted the PROTOTYPEs. And we all how the rest goes from there...I suspect an issue with the turret possibly making the platform unstable somehow. All I know for sure is the USA has pushed back the date before it equips the FIRST Army Unit. It sucks but, I can't get around that. I'm back a little later (Why? :rolleyes:)... "Quick bites" with a couple of my questions asked from above now answered below concerning the 2 "dropouts". First PROTOTYPE 26 January 2017 https://www.army.mil/article/177472/...ivered_to_army Competition extended 13 April 2020 Focus on Para #3 https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/20...etition-again/ Add on #1... From this early ref. 2 May 2018. "In FY17, the Army conducted full-up system-level (FUSL) live fire testing of the ICV-D to assess platform survivability against a spectrum of operationally realistic threats. ]Preliminary assessments demonstrate that stowed 30 mm ammunition on the ICV-D represents a unique platform vulnerability that is not present on other vehicles in the Stryker fleet. Underbody protection afforded by the ICV-D is limited due to the flat-bottom Stryker hull. In FY17, the Army also conducted a user excursion using soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) to validate development of gunnery training tables to support the operational test in February 2018 in Germany." The chassis has the Double V-Hull underbody as noted in #3. https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...up_poland.html Add on #2 Current ref. 21 June 2019 " The MCWS program will be carried out in two phases, which will culminate in equipping a Stryker DVH A1 brigade in fiscal 2022, according to the Army." https://sdquebec.ca/fr/nouvelle/foll...stryker-design Add on #3 Current ref. 22 June 2020 "In a call with reporters June 16, Col. Bill Venable, the project manager for Stryker brigade combat teams, fielded questions about the health of the MCWS competition, but declined to identify at this sensitive stage which companies dropped out. He said he is satisfied the Army will have options when it begins the next phase of the MCWS competition on Aug. 10. “I will say this a healthy competition,” Venable said. “We’re going to present a variety of choices to the source-selection authority to evaluate.” “I know that one of the vendors chose to drop out because it wasn’t on a good technical glide path to achieve the requirements of the solicitation ― and the other one was affordability,” Venable added. “They didn’t think the investment required was going to result in a good chance to win.” Leonardo DRS, the developer of the IM-SHORAD system, is among the original competitors for MCWS, along with General Dynamics Land Systems, Kollsman Inc., Raytheon, Pratt & Miller Engineering, and Fabrication Inc. The competitors were each given a Stryker and an XM813 cannon, but they must provide their own turret and fire control system. The next stage for MCWS involves a series of tests, including a live-fire test and an armor test, with results due to an evaluation board in January." That of course being 2021 if it stays on track. https://www.armytimes.com/congress/2...ouse-proposal/ And again with the most updated timetable from Post #498 https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...b-43d052efe123 I really don't know what more I can do or give you at this point. But I have a long evening ahead of me later today and I'm tired so, GOOD Night or Morning where ever you are. ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
An issue with APCs/IFVs for the US, is the Army can't make it's mind up. They were supposed to have removed/replaces all of the 113s with Brads or Strykers, still hasn't happened. Then they were to have everything upgraded firepower wise, that still hasn't happened.
They are still looking at replacing the HMMMVV and MRAPs, or some mix of the two. Along with new trucks to replace the FMTV ones they have currently. It's almost as if they are back to the Inter-War years and trying to figure out what works and what Congress will pay for. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
It's nice to know the Britih army is not alone with its faffing about and p*ssing money away on design stuties and mismanagement. We called it FRES...
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
We call it the MIC aka Military Industrial Complex...aka the contractors that will sell you a $400 toolset that on the civilian side runs about $200. Right before I got out, we were supposed to get the new NVGs aka night vision, and we boxed up all of ours, only to find out that our battalion was not one of the selected to get the new stuff. Fun times... |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Alright something positive, the USMC has approved, via the DOD of course, the fielding of the AVC/APC variant starting in Oct.2020.
So for my USMC buddy, I'm thinking it'll take about 9 months+ to fully equip and turn in their existing equipment. So I'm thinking JUN or OCT 2021 for FOC. Your thoughts on the matter? https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ober_2020.html Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
It says "US Marines to field new ACV Amphibious Combat Vehicle APC variant in October 2020"
and 10/120 is good enough for me |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
I'll add this to my list of things to submit to Don for inclusion in the master files. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well the following provides another "piece of the puzzle" as to why the AJAX and WARRIOR CSP Programs have been delayed. German KMW and Frances NEXTAR are just "waiting in the wings" to offer the BOXER T-40 to replace the WARRIOR CSP and the latter to offer the JAGUAR for the troubled AJAX (The WARRIOR CSP is at this point in development proving to be much less "troublesome" in its development and testing.).
AJAX date change will be needed and I'm thinking NET DEC 2021. They are STILL at only 12 operational test beds, not good. Will need to look more into the WARRIOR CSP (Designed to be operational through 2040.) which is an improved version of the WARRIOR 2000. I've already posted on the AJAX problems even just recently. https://www.army-technology.com/feat...ehicle-delays/ The following are continuing "tidbits" concerning the UK's Defense Review... https://www.army-technology.com/feat...-and-bots-cgs/ https://www.army-technology.com/feat...ntally-change/ Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...late_2020.html
The Russian Army will receive upgraded BMP-2M infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) with a new Berezhok combat module armed with a 30mm gun and a Kornet (NATO reporting name: AT-14 Spriggan) antitank missile system, the Defense Ministry’s press office said. The BMP-2M is an upgraded version of the BMP-2 IFV with the Berezhok combat module. The vehicle transports soldiers and increases their mobility, arms and protection on the battlefield. The Berezhok manned combat module is a turret with a new set of weapons. It has a combined sight with independent stabilization of the visor in two planes. It combines optical, thermal and laser range finders, as well as a missile guiding system. The Berezhok is said to be a cost-effective update, which dramatically increases the firepower of the basic BMP-2 and leaves its protection almost untouched. he turret weighs about 3,250 kg and carries a heavy armament suite integrating a Gryasev-Shipunov 2A42 30 mm automatic cannon, an AGS-30M 30 mm automatic grenade launcher, a Kalashnikov PKTM 7.62 mm coaxial general-purpose machinegun, and four ready-use Kornet-E-family (NATO reporting name: AT-14 Spriggan) ATGMs in two two-cell banks mounted on either side of the turret. The upgraded BMP-2 with the new arms exceeds the organic BMP-2 capabilities 3.8 times. Compared to the baseline BMP-2, the Berezhok is equipped with a far better sensor suite. The turret has received an automatic target tracker and a ballistic computer. According to KBP, the module fires up to two missiles in salvo mode in order to score higher hit probability. The Berezhok increases the capabilities of the BMP-2 IFV fourfold. The upgraded BMP-2M vehicle features a round-the-clock automatic fire control system for Kornet guided missiles to destroy heavily-armored targets at a distance of 8 km (5 mi), as well as air targets. https://militaryleak.com/2020/04/30/...ting-vehicles/ On April 26, 2020, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported a planned delivery of 60 Berezhok-2M IFVs to the units of the Russian Army (Sukhoputniye Voyska). The Russian Army is set to receive more than 60 BMP-2M with the Berezhok combat module. In September 2017, the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Tula-based Instrument Design Bureau (KBP, a subsidiary of state corporation Rostec) signed a contract for the modernization of 540 BMP-2 IFVs airborne infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) to the Berezhok standard. The deliveries of the vehicles were launched in 2018-2019 and the Russian troops are now reported to have received some 30-40 BMP-2M Berezhok weapon systems. The BMP-2M Berezhok station is the updated organic turret of the BMP-2, which carries a modernized armament suite. Compared to the baseline BMP-2, the Berezhok is equipped with a far better sensor suite. The turret has received an automatic target tracker and a ballistic computer. The upgraded combat module features a combined sight with an independent two-axis field-of-view stabilizer, a thermal imager, a laser rangefinder, and a control unit for anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). The Berezhok is said to be a cost-effective update, which dramatically increases the firepower of the basic BMP-2 and leaves its protection almost untouched. The Berezhok turret weighs up to 3,250 kg and carries a heavy armament suite integrating a 30 mm automatic cannon, an automatic grenade launcher, a coaxial general-purpose machinegun, and four ready-use ATGMs in two two-cell banks mounted on either side of the turret. The turret has received an automatic target tracker and a ballistic computer. The detection range for a tank-type target is up to 5,000 m, target identification at night using the thermal channel is possible at up to 3,000 m. The turret is also equipped with independent sights of commander and gunner, allowing them to work in ‘hunter-killer’ mode. The gunner`s sight has four channels: optical, thermal imaging, laser rangefinder and ATGM control channel. The Gryasev-Shipunov 2A42 30 mm has ammunition load of 500 shells. AGS-30M 30 mm automatic grenade launcher can fire three types of grenades, namely, VOG-17M, VOG-30, GPD-30, being able to destroy personnel targets at the distances up to 1700-2100 m. Berezhok can fire five types of Kornet munitions, namely anti-tank tandem-warhead 9M133-1/9M133-2 and anti-personnel thermobaric 9M133F-1/9M133F-2/9M133F-3 missiles. The module has also received 30mm AG-30 automatic grenade launcher (AGL) and six 902B Tucha smoke grenade launchers. 2A42 gun can fire armor-piercing and high-explosive shells, being able to destroy targets at the distances up to 2000 m and 4000 m, respectively. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
This is many ways is an ongoing topic about a "controversial" topic however, this article clears up some of the ambiguity on what's really going on. It's a story of two countries, programs and paths taken. Also with a surprising revelation of who's getting the "Brass Ring" first for an FOC System.
I am speaking of UK & FRANCE/AJAX & SCORPIAN and the CT-40. To save time I'm simply going to quote from the story... Under Heading: CT40 Cannon: proven system or cause of delays? "In recent evidence, given to theDefence Select Committee, General Dynamics Land Systems – UK and Lockheed Martin UK both laid some blame for delays to their programmes at the door of the CT40 cannon." "In France, Nexter’s Jaguar, part of the country’s Scorpion land vehicles programme, uses the same weapon as AJAX and Warrior CSP. Jaguar was contracted in 2014 and is due to enter service at the end of this year." (That is the surprise but "due" isn't the same "will". It just bears closer watching.) "So, why have UK vehicles faced delays while France has progressed at speed?" Under Heading: Same cannon, different subsystems "The adoption of the full system is part of the reason that Nexter has had success with Jaguar, while the UK has faced delays." "In the development of its turret for Warrior CSP, Lockheed Martin did not take all the components from CTA International, instead choosing to develop its own ammunition handling system that feeds from the side rather than the bottom of the weapon." "Nexter added that as a direct result of these trials (2006 & 2008-Mine), the company chose to adopt the entire CT40 system, including all the components listed above. The French company said that Jaguar benefited from the trials by leveraging the risk reduction achieved by the 2006 and 2008 trials." "In the development of its turret, Lockheed Martin told Army Technology that in order to ‘[achieve] required fire control system performance and safety’ the company chose to develop its own ‘integrated systems’ from UK suppliers. The company added that this allowed them to develop a modular system used on both AJAX and Warrior CSP." At an oral evidence session of the UK Parliament’s Defence Select Committee, Francis Tusa Editor of Defence Analysis told MPs: “The problems we have had, in the UK, with the 40 millimetre cased telescoped ammo have not been replicated in France, where they have taken the system, all of it, as designed. It is now in full-scale production. “They now have a turret that would fit if we wanted to, just for the sake of argument (Which the UK is getting.-Mine), put it on to a Boxer. It works absolutely fine. Yes, there have been problems along the way, without a shadow of a doubt, but it works. That is because they (France-Mine) had a much more coordinated approach to the development, design and then how they were going to put it into production.” Under Heading: Problems along the way in the UK To be sure as noted by Francis Tusa Editor of Defence Analysis above there were some minor technical issues with the CT-40, however they were all addressed by 2014. Again the French are well ahead of the UK in the total system as that's how they moved ahead, by keeping it all together, weapon and subsystems. The first few paras deal with the "blame game" from the UK Manufactures Group on the CT-40, Contract issues and miscommunications, I leave these for the reader to discern. Moving on... In its evidence, General Dynamics also said that a ‘stable and defined build standard’ was not realised until the AJAX contract was recast in 2019. Countering both companies’ evidence, the MOD told Army Technology: “Qualification of the weapon has continued in parallel with the development of the platforms. Whilst this did require some change and resultant schedule impact, the slippage due to CT40 was not a significant contributor to the delays in the development of the platforms themselves. “The CT40 design was fixed for cannon production in March 2015 and the interface has not changed; in 2015 CT40 was sufficiently characterised for integration.” "A source also told Army Technology that by 2019 cannon qualifications were done and added that during the development process Lockheed Martin made little effort to work with CTA International, instead preferring to work with the MOD on issues with the cannon as it is supplied as government furnished equipment (GFE)." "Army Technology understands that the MOD mandated the cannon as AJAX and Warrior CSP’s main armament but did not mandate the weapons subsystems, hence Lockheed’s decision to develop its own." Under Heading: What’s next for Warrior, AJAX and Jaguar? "As it stands, all three (Really 4 I have found a couple of articles suggesting the German BOXER T40 has been fully tested, as like the French, they bought the complete system.-Mine) vehicles featuring the CT40 cannon have largely ironed out development issues and are making good progress. Lockheed Martin expects a production contract to be signed for Warrior CSP next year, General Dynamics has finished production of 60 AJAX (12 are in OPEVAL with an active unit.-Mine vehicles, and Jaguar is slated for deliveries late this year." "Nexter for its part is offering the MOD a Boxer MIV module fitted with the turret used on its Jaguar vehicle. The system dubbed Boxer T40 would fill a requirement for direct fire capability for the British Army’s planned STRIKE Brigades (This could kill WARRIOR CSP.-Mine). "A question mark has been placed over the Warrior CSP programme, with one source telling Army Technology that the vehicle is in the most doubt as the UK looks to reassess its forces in an upcoming integrated review of defence security and foreign policy. Earlier this year it was reported by the Times that the UK was assessing options to axe its entire fleet of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) and IFVs." And I'm leaving it there that Defense Review is putting CHALLENGER 2 (And upgrade.), AJAX and finally WARRIOR CSP in doubt. So CHALLENGER 2is in service. AJAX is in OPEVAL, WARRIOR CSP still in finishing touches of development and JAGUAR becoming operational by mid+ - 2021 I'm thinking. The "wildcard" will be the BOXER T40 which I feel could contribute to the end of both AJAX and WARRIOR CSP. The other driver not mentioned is ARIES which if I read it correctly, in one of my most recent refs, is about to start production and will have a RECON version as well. I also see another path for AJAX in that MOD does buy the 60 units as noted above and ends the production run there. We definitely know one thing for sure though and that is AJAX will need a new START, if we allow for a quick with no further issues during the OPEVAL, then I recommend JAN 2022 (Maybe, as I see a smaller path to it OCT 2021) to include an increase in TI/GSR to Min 45/Max50 as well. I don't know what more I can add to this except from my folder of refs that covers segments or more of this full article. https://www.army-technology.com/feat...use-of-delays/ Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Some more diving into the Japanese OBAT:
Units 094 (Type 89) and 095 (Type 89 Kai) may have incorrect Weapon #2. Currently, both have Weapon 158 (Chu-MAT ATGM) as Weapon #2. In all the sources I can find for the Type 89 IFV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Type_89_IFV https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/89%E5%...97%98%E8%BB%8A It is described as having the Type 79 Jyu-MAT ATGM, which is already in the Japanese OBAT as Weapon 157 (Jyu-MAT ATGM). I decided to take a deep dive into Japanese ATGMs since I was already looking at stuff: Sources: http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/japan.html https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/64%E5%...B0%8E%E5%BC%BE https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/79%E5%...B0%8E%E5%BC%BE https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/87%E5%...B0%8E%E5%BC%BE https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/96%E5%...83%86%E3%83%A0 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8...B0%8E%E5%BC%BE https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/01%E5%...B0%8E%E5%BC%BE Random Japanese Trivia Normally, the Acronym for ATGM should be Anti Tank Missile (ATM), but due to social unrest in the 1960s in Japan, since the JGSDF was just getting started, in order to avoid a mistake like ATM = Atom in public perception, the JGSDF decided to call their ATGMs as MAT = Missile Anti Tank. Type 64 MAT / ATM-1 / Internal Kawasaki Designation KAM-3 There were two versions, ATM-1 and ATM-1B. The -1B version had a lengthened warhead section to increase penetration power, but the missile length remained the same. This was a wired MCLOS missile flying very slowly at 85 m/sec. Type 79 Jyu-MAT / ATM-2 / Jyu = Heavy / Internal Kawasaki Designation KAM-9 Basically, it is very similar to BGM-71 TOW, and is in the same role (Heavy MAT / 通称重MAT) but with Japanese operational needs taken into mind, such as having a anti-landing craft mode. Wired SACLOS at 200 m/sec flight speed. Type 87 Chu-MAT / ATM-3 / Chu = Medium / Internal Kawasaki Designation KAM-40 This is in the Middle MAT (中MAT) role, and it was designed to replace the Type 64 MAT for infantry units. Is a Semi Active Laser Homer, with 250 m/sec flight speed. Type 96 MPMS / ATM-4 / Internal Kawasaki Designation KAM-20 This was designed to replace both the Type 87 Medium MAT and Type 79 Heavy MAT in either role; but ended up being in a completely new category as the first Fiber Optic Wire Guided Missile in service in the West. As before, it includes the usual Japanese "anti-landing craft" mode. Due to the extreme cost of the Type 96 MPMS, only a few were procured. Type 01 LMAT / ATM-5 Designed as successor for the 84mm Carl Gustaf M2 as an infantry AT weapon. It's an IR homer which contains the first uncooled IR sensor in a ATGM. It's basically like the Javelin and Spike, but Japanese. MMPM / XATM-6 / Shin-Chu-MAT / Shin = New; so the name means New Medium ATM This is a IR homer / Semi Active Laser Homer with some technology taken from the Type 01 Light MAT. It was first funded in the 2009 budget, and the first infantry units began to receive them in 2011. 84mm Recoilless Rifle (B) / Carl Gustaf M3 Procurement began in the 2012 budget, with preferential deployment to the Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade followed by the 1st Airborne Brigade. In order to distinguish it from the earlier 84mm Recoilless Rifle (Carl Gustaf M2) procured by the JGSDF, the (B) was appended to the name. Unlike the earlier M2, the M3 will not be purely anti-armor, but a multipurpose weapon. Random Note In Japanese Service, the Panzerfaust 3 (Weapon 032 in Japanese OBAT), is named LAM = Light-Weight Anti Tank munition). |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
So Japanese APCs:
Sources https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/60%E5%...94%B2%E8%BB%8A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_6...sonnel_Carrier https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/73%E5%...94%B2%E8%BB%8A https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAV7#%...94%A8%E5%9B%BD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaul...ibious_Vehicle Miscellaneous notes For Japanese IFVs/APCs/Tanks, the most modern stuff is always deployed to Hokkaido to act as deterrence against Soviet operations from the Kuriles. Type 60 APC Because only 338 x Type 73 APCs were built, compared to 430~ Type 60 APCs, the Type 60 continued on until the 2000s, with the following numbers being recorded: 1998: 303 in service 2005: 33 in service 2006: None in Service From the later part of the 1980s, when Type 60s came into the repair shops, they slowly replaced the front bow machine gun from the original 7.62mm M1919 MMG to the 7.62mm Type 74 MMG (Japanese Weapon #069). AAV7 Family In 2013, the JGSDF bought four AAVP7's for reference and testing, followed by orders for 54 more in 2016, for a total of 58 AAVP7s, broken down as: 6 x Command Vehicles (AAVC7A1 RAM / RS) 6 x Recovery Vehicles (AAVR7A1 RAM / RS) 46 x APC Vehicles (AAVC7A1 RAM / RS) Deliveries took place in mid to late 2017 and in March 2018, the new Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade was formed. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Status:
UK: AJAX https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...combat-forces/ The first of 589 Ajax vehicles have been delivered (Not true, that is the number to ordered.) to the Army here and full operating capability is set for 2025. Keep in mind the above and others I've already posted concerning FOC. I'm providing the next for "contrast" to demonstrate how fast equipment dates can change and why Don and I can only do the following. Not for how it's intended here but, as to its otherwise visual impact-:doh: This article was from the beginning of this year, again as a reminder IOC hasn't been achieved let alone by this past July as per this ref. But say it was (IOC) just for "S*its and Giggles", I quote the last para... "However, whatever the doomsters predict, Ajax is late but will enter service to give the British Army a highly advanced digitised vehicle fleet capable of meeting today’s threats on the battlefield in the 2024 timeframe following the completion of the demonstration phase in 2021." https://battle-updates.com/gdls-give...an-nettlefold/ Of course the manufacturer has to put a positive spin on things!!!! :rolleyes: Gotta walk!!! Real quick Australian BOXER in Manufacturer trials that started in mid Oct 2020. Army also just started training with the handful they have. Refs later!! Getting Dark!!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
First clear shots of new NORINCO VN-1 (aka Type 08) 8x8 in Thai service during an exercise. Previously, all we saw of them were on trains with the turrets covered.
From a Thai Facebook page: Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/N0wTlVR.jpg https://i.imgur.com/YbTiFHU.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0GwRB3a.jpg |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
This is the first thing I've seen for the AJAX this year, I believe. And at this time, supports for now the revised date I've already submitted.
I see a larger potential to see this moving to the "right" then moving to the "left" or staying in the "center" as far as dates are concerned for the overall status of the AJAX Program as a whole. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe..._delivery.html UK Defense Review likely to be pushed back again. COVID and other Economic factors (BREXIT) coming into play. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
AUSTRALIA:
I can see where someone (Not Don.) "will get ahead of themselves" on the following, well don't do it, because of the following quoted from the source... "According to a statement published by the Australian Department of Defence on February 13, 2021, Hanwha Defense Australia and Rheinmetall Defence Australia have each delivered three prototype vehicles – two for test and evaluation activities and one for blast testing – as part of the two-year Risk Mitigation Activity." It is possible we can see one or the other by the beginning or middle part of 2024. What they are meant to replace, though it'll still be around at games end. https://www.armyrecognition.com/aust...rier_data.html Who was down selected as the finalists in the Land 400 Phase 3 Program. Lynx KF41: https://www.armyrecognition.com/germ...ored_data.html http://www.military-today.com/apc/lynx_ifv.htm and... Redback AS21: https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...adex_2019.html http://www.military-today.com/apc/nifv.htm (Modified version of the KF-21 Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
The UK Defense Review must be coming close based on the next. Read this closely and you'll see there's discussion of possible contract
renegotiations to drive costs down, see Paras 5 & 6. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...y-defence-cuts Still under the weather, though the weather has gotten better!?! :sick:/:D ZZzzz's! :p Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
About this
https://twitter.com/pmakela1/status/1380938876961820674 Here we can see MT-LBM 6MB (with 30mm autocannon) in Russian service canceled from this game long time ago This post was moved from the MBT thread to the APC thread |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
The MT-LBM-6MB was first added to the V4.5 OOB's in 2009 and in 2014 it was removed ( Ver 8 Unit 801) So far I found the post that suggested it be put in.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=34140 And the post that had them removed... https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/show...6MB#post822740 Post 129 Quote:
Of those Unit numbers listed missing now are: 213 (MT-LBM-6M1A3) 332 (MT-LBM-6M1B2) ( now Kurganets 25 ) 800 (MT-LBM-6MA) 801 (MT-LBM-6MB) 872 is now the MT-LBVM It is too late to get them back in for this release but if I get confirmation info that 213, 332 do or don't exist I will (or won't...) get them back in as well for whenever the next update is released and this time they only get put back in with solid source info but I have added 800 and 801 back into my working OOB's with updated photos and they will get much more correct Icons for the 14.5mm and 30mm versions but right now after a bit of digging it would appear that all of that "remove" info was wrong These two posts have been moved from the MBT thread to the APC thread |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Don,
In the interest of saving you time and aggravation of which I'm sure I'll provide you plenty of in the coming year, I've conducted a search from the following Russian Websites plus the 12 or so of my "normal" go to websites. These of course are concerning the Russian UNITS 213 (MT-LBM-6M1A3) 332 (MT-LBM-6M1B2) (now Kurganets 25) (YOU WON'T HAVE TO MOVE THIS NOW.) First from my vehicle nomenclature initial search... 2008 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...t=38709&page=2 (As you posted.) And https://issuu.com/www.azeridefence.c..._defence_23/43 (Article from May 2016) ZERO RESULTS RUSSIAN SEARCH FOR BOTH UNITS FROM... http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country.htm http://roe.ru/eng/ https://sputniknews.com/ http://mil.today/Russia/ https://tass.com/military-defense https://www.rt.com/news/ MINE, SAME RESULTS... https://www.janes.com/ https://www.defence24.com/ https://www.defenceweb.co.za/ https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense (Just because I can.) ;) https://www.ajaishukla.com/ (BROADSWORD remade, improved the site.) https://www.armyrecognition.com/ (Takes delivery NOT inducts for you wandering eye folks.) https://www.edrmagazine.eu/ https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ https://weaponsystems.net/ https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ http://www.military-today.com https://www.milmag.eu/ http://www.dod.mil.za/SitePages/Home.aspx (OK!, OK!, THIS ONE WAS OVERKILL.) Now based on what I found from searching EVERY source above, that the other 2 UNITS 800 (MT-LBM-6MA) 801 (MT-LBM-6MB), DON'T EXIST ETHIER. This being a somewhat "time consuming" exercise was worth IT to me to "DRIVE HOME A POINT" of which I dare say only those out here who at least know my methods, would fully understand if not appreciate. ;) I will conduct the a "deeper" search of those other 2 UNITS, later, but you'll excuse me if I don't renter my refs again. :D Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Ok, but MTLB 6MB with 30mm autocannon can clearly be seen onto the train.
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
2 Attachment(s)
....What Luigim said.......
and https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/MT-LB.php MT-LBM (izdeliye 6M) Russian IFV, 30 mm autocannon AND..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1618172501 That is a tracked carrier with a turret and a long autocannon and 6 road wheels. An MT-LB has 6 road wheels that look just like those road wheels http://militarytechnics.com/files/96.../4157/MTLB.jpg as does those things whizzing by on the flatcars. If you know of another Russian tracked carrier with 6 roadwheels and a big assed turret with a long autocannon near the middle back end I'm interested to hear what it is. A bmp has 6 but not quite like those but MAYBE what were seeing is a new BMP variant. The BTR-82A has a turret sort of similar but it's more forward on the hull and has tires MAYBE it's all maskirovka , They only have a few protos but move them about on trains to impress people...:re: but what went by on those flatcars looks a lot like.... https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1622896139 |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
The previous to the below, I based that on the search parameters for the first two types, which is why I ended that post with the following...
"I will conduct the a "deeper" search of those other 2 UNITS, later, but you'll excuse me if I don't renter my refs again." Which means I'm keeping an "open mind" to all possibilities. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Alright, UNIT 800 MT-LBM (6M) is good. My first ref. lists a whole Sxxt -ton of variants with one to check the MT-LBVM which mounted a turreted 12.7mm NSVT HMG. It was a further upgrade to the MT-LBV that had wider tracks mounted, ref 1 claims 565mm wider tracks.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armo...sp?armor_id=17 https://www.defencetalk.com/military...lbm-6mb.44879/ (Was assigned to the MT-LBM 6MB 34th Mountain Motor-Rifles Brigade) Notice slight variation in designation for this unit. We get this a lot out here at times, which can be vexing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBG7qWa1xeM (Apparently posted just yesterday!) Seen plenty of pictures and other refs I found independently, which is how I work, If there's others, it supports what has already been presented. Insight: a MAJOR part of responsibilities @ CSG-10 OPCON was to ensure that no operational message concerning our boats or when "exercised" any boats in the big eastern ocean had errors in them, before being released to the recipients by those above me. Only one way that can be accomplished and I used that word above. Any unexpected "bump in the night" several hundred feet underwater is never a good thing. People can die. A little something I've held onto from the last time there were questions about Subs. Before you read the first one, we did I the 4 boats I was on, we had the common decency to at least wait a couple of days on one point of discussion and it happened on a more "individual basis" if you will. The rest is pretty much "spot on" and you never pulled open someone's bunk curtain. Your "bunk" is sacra cent and the berthing area was a "holy place". We slept but, listened for the unusual noises and alarms at the same time. And yes we rested. https://taskandpurpose.com/mandatory...ells-like-sht/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/submarinebubblehead/ (In full disclosure, I'm not a member. Click on "Read More", Do I agree with it, well some of you will already know the answer to that.) :D A little "on edge" maybe due some anxiety CINCLANTHOME was having earlier today-tomorrow is shot day for you know what. I'm waiting on the J&J myself since we got a plane to catch this summer for the GD's H.S. Graduation in whatever form that'll take. That leaves one more I think and it can wait until, maybe tomorrow. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Bubbleheads are a unique group.
And as a group they're some of the most reliable people you'll ever meet. They do any task they're given fast and right. Attention to detail quite literally is a life and death matter for them. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Just a thought backed up by Pats "(Was assigned to the MT-LBM 6MB 34th Mountain Motor-Rifles Brigade)" & "MT-LBV that had wider tracks mounted, ref 1 claims 565mm wider tracks."
What is the terrain like where the fighting is taking place I seem to remember they have very low ground pressure so if its rough going that's another confirmation that they are MT's |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
John,
Here's the Photo Album starting with a great shot of the MT-LBM 6A to start it off. than MT-LB followed by the MT-VBM, scroll to the comments section for the picture description.. Looking at the terrain at their driving facility for 34th Mountain, the steppes of Russia, UKRAINE and or POLAND with their lakes and swamps of Eastern, Northern (On the Russian "extension" border.) and pretty much all of Western Poland "the gateway" to Germany. It's an AMPHIP as well and wider tracks in those types of terrain as you know, would be nothing but a huge advantage for a vehicle of it's size. The pictures certainly demonstrate that clearly to my mind. https://www.defencetalk.com/military...-lbm-6m.47299/ CINCLANTHOME is fine, no reaction, just a sore arm which like most anti virus shots, go into the muscle. Suhiir, thank you for the kind words as your career to some extent would've given you some insight to my world. Some people can't get beyond the "why would you want to do that", my answer simply is because at the start of WWII, that's all we had to take the fight to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. I'm definitely a student of history. https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Feat...ar-ii-victory/ OK! The Submarine Hazardous Duty pay was pretty good too!! :D Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Anyone else think the new "overwatch" (a beefed up Striker) seems like too little too late for the British army (in service 2030!?!) ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ4eNDNY1Zc Shouldn't it be on a boxer hull and isn't Spike NLOS / "Exactor" a better bet? |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Australia LAND 400 UPDATE:
STATUS: Still in coordinated Manufacturers Trials w/Army. Australian Army receives first 25 LANCER BOXER's. DON'T GET TOO EXCITED. QOUTE: "Delivery of the first 25 vehicles enables Army to continue towards Initial Operating Capability on schedule as Rheinmetall moves into the next phase of the LAND 400 Phase 2 program." If the HAWKIE Program is an indication on how the evaluation process will go, we're looking at 2-3 years for FOC earliest. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe..._vehicles.html Gotta Go!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well another update I saw coming but, wish it wouldn't have happened to a program that's ALREADY 4 YEARS BEHIND schedule. I speak of AJAX and quite frankly this is nothing less than embarrassing especially in blaming France for the UK problems with their CITW 40mm when it was the UK that deviated from the loading system design. That I posted on earlier this year in this thread and now again this issue has popped up...
https://www.army-technology.com/news...-safety-risks/ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/m...x-b938510.html IOC in 2021 well in my opinion, good luck with that!?! I've got a beautiful bridge in NYC I'm selling called the "Brooklyn Bridge" for anyone interested!?! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
British procurement "strategy" in the last few decades has been utterly and totally abysmal. You would think it was a script from "Yes Minister" but unfortunately it is actuality, not a comedy show. Oh - perhaps it is meant to be a comedy show!:doh:
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Not being able to go faster than 20MPH is a problem as is not being able to back up over an 8 inch "obstacle"
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Is this vehicle modeled in the German OOB? It's called the Mungo. I didn't see it unless it's called something else in game terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_ESK |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
What is similar and ( sort of .....) serves the same purpose is the Rheinmetall Yak U323 look for MRAV APC in Misc starting 2006 https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausrues...wehr/duro3-yak calls it the Duro 3 Yak |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
UPDATE: UK BOXER
STATUS: Preparatory to construction of first PROTOTYPES. WHEN: Late 2022. First type will be the Mechanized Infantry Version (MIV) coming from Germany. This will be the precursor of a follow on order for 500 BOXER's in if I remember 4 variants. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...tall_plan.html Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
UPDATE: French JAGUAR
Status: French Army has just begun their evaluation of the JAGUAR. The evaluation is being conducted by STAT (Section Technique de l’Armée de Terre, Technical Section of the Ground Force). Analysis: It appears the "manufacturers" testing is now complete or winding down. No further timeline is given. I'm thinking this phase will last about a year. At the end of this it'll go back to NEXTER to make any fixes or modifications the French Army identifies. At that point we can discuss IOC-MAYBE. I don't believe it's intended to reach FOC much before mid-2023 or first half of 2024. The pictures are worth the "price of admission" especially the first inside turret view and the "slat armor" which makes me wonder, is the armor protection not as good as thought!?! These are the first pictures I've seen of the JAGUAR running around with that attached. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...e_vehicle.html UPDATE for UK AJAX. There's "A whole lotta shaken goin on here!!", this from the 9th... https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...us-ajax-issues Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Borsuk APC
Poland nearly finishing tests of new domestic APC [Badger] build by HSW which will be replacement for old BWP-1. As for now three prototypes are build and last was tested during exercises Dragon-21. Borsuk will have new local build turret unmanned ZSSW-30 which is also projected to be used on Rosomak APC equipped in 30mm Mk44S Bushmaster II chain gun, 7.62mm UKM-2000C coaxial machine gun and Spike ATGM launcher in box on right side. Rosomak with ZSSW030 https://i.imgur.com/Es7B8Qh.jpg Borsuk is indeed to be introduced in year 2023/2024 to army and manufactured by Huta Stalowa Wola HSW. https://www.defence24.pl/upload/2021...szczynski1.jpg link to some photos https://www.defence24.pl/borsuk-na-dragonie-21 English language video about this vehicle and intended versions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oRG...e=emb_imp_woyt Nice video showing Borsuk in movment https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo Here ZSSW-30 on Rosomak firing Spikes from tower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRedOnY24pk |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Belorussia arms industry is a little forgotten inside game because the haven't their own OOB but they have capable industry and creating their own equipment different from Russian sources for their own domestic usage and export markets.
Here new Belarusian IFV Volat V2 APC (MZKT-690003) intended sucessor of BMP1/2 based on BTR-80 https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sd_pK7nd3...360/374040.jpg and here source and more photos https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/ |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Aright this is about USA UNIT 339 AMPV I recommend a revised START date of JUN 2023 vice current JAN 2022..
Issues... 1. Production line tooling issues. 2. Other technical testing and equipment issues. 3. Budget cut recommendations (Enacted.) from the Army and Congress to support funding for other modernization programs. 4. Production delays due to COVID-19. Since we're now "officially" in the 4th wave, possible further delay possible. However, I'm NOT basing my recommendation on "possible", it's based on trends and factual data at this time. OVERVIEW: Project started in 2014. The Army was expected to have ~258 Units by 2020.. As of this month the Army has around 35 Units in testing NOW! Current Testing from 23 July 2021... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...d_testing.html First article w/ Overview and first of delays discussed from 04 November 2020.... https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army...ampv-fielding/ Current article discusses contract approved to modify spare parts, if your modifying that means what you have doesn't work!! I quote from the next dated 16 May 2021. "The work, which is is expected to be complete in Jan. 2023, will be performed in York, Pennsylvania, where BAE Systems builds the armored vehicles and its modernized howitzers." "The first fielding for AMPV is projected in the second quarter of FY23 (That means No Sooner THEN JAN - APR 2023, roughly a year after the start of the IOT&E, according to the Army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS)." I believe JUNE 2023 to be a much "safer" START date. https://defence-blog.com/new-deal-mo...tial-fielding/ I read "my papers" and this is how the POOP begins!?! :rolleyes: BEDTIME!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
UPDATES:
UK: AJAX. Things aren't looking very "rosy" at this point and again, another article saying possibly the whole program is in jeopardy. From my ref... “I describe Ajax as a troubled programme. I wish it wasn't, but it is,” Minister for Defence Procurement Jeremy Quin said. “It requires a lot of work from ourselves and our industry partners to get ourselves back on track. We can't be 100% certain that can be achieved.” AJAX will not reach IOC until this issue is resolved. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...rogramme_19116 USA: OMFV (Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle). The USA has chosen the 5 teams that will move onto the Design Phase for the OMFV. This part of the development will will last 15 months to completion before the next phase starts somewhere around the beginning of 2023. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...sign-contracts Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I was actually looking into something that was in no way related to the following. All the Threads I started have matching folders on my PC. However for some reason it didn't make it into the folder, were I to guess, I probably came across this just before having to get ready for work.
Anyway... UK: AJAX UPDATE: You'll all love this, apparently MOD knew about the vibration issue on AJAX since 2017!!! Well obviously they run a secure operation, that is until they go before the Parliament anyway!?! :rolleyes: https://www.army-technology.com/feat...orted-in-2019/ https://twitter.com/FTusa284/status/1405089340196278274 (This as "clicked" on where above underlined "2017".) Note: The above article also notes the vibration caused stabilization issues for the FCS & 40mm, well no poop!! The point is this is an added issue to what I've already posted about the gun design and loading equipment modifications that the UK decided to make. Again this is why the French will field the JAGUAR with the same weapons system without modification well before UK gets to IOC or FOC, if ever as posted in my last. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well it just works out that will be a continuation of my last Post.
National Audit Office (NAO) which is a "Watchdog" organization for the government will be investigating, in effect, what's happened with the following programs; Ajax, Boxer, Challenger, and Warrior (CSV). I quote from Ref.1, "this will enable us to draw out the systemic issues in the [Ministry of Defense's] management of these programmes." The report is due for release on March 2022. That being said, it might be late Summer or Fall based on history concerning the SDR and other related programs. This will no doubt further delay these programs. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/w...fv-programmes/ https://www.ft.com/content/a0fcb652-...e-f84c8d340ab4 I can't believe I've been tracking this for so long now, Contract signed 10yrs ago and the Army should've had these 4yrs ago. Well ARJUN took 30 yrs, maybe the above isn't so bad afterall!?! :rolleyes: This seems the appropriate thread concerning my close friend and co-worker Jake "ABRAMS and BRADLEY Driver Extraordinaire" who some of you might remember was of help to me in submitting updates to those platforms (Especially BRADLEY as he tested the driver and thermal optics systems for the M3 version.) a few years back. He was a combat vet who served in Iraq with 14yrs of service in the Army. I'm sad to say he passed from COVID-19 after 3wks in ICU on 2 Sept (Another close friend and co-worker lost his wife after 8wks in ICU the previous Sunday, also to COVID-19. It was a rough week for the "Team".). The Memorial Service was on Labor Day with him being interned at the Dallas Tx National Military Cemetery with Full Military Honors later that week. I will miss him. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I have a couple of updates; one will require a change to its START
date and the next I believe if already taken for action, will require no change. ISRAEL: The EITAN kind've made us "pull out our remaining hair" a little as Israel tends to be quiet about equipment details until they're fielded. Based on the following ref. representing many reporting the same news, change... ISRAEL/CHANGE/EITAN IFV/UNIT 071/START/10/2022 vice 03/2021// ISRAEL/ADD/EITAN APC/START/10/2022/WEAPON 12.7mm RWS/USE UNIT 071 AS MODEL// ISRAEL/ADD/EITAN APC/START/10/2022/WEAPON 40mm RWS/USE UNIT 071 AS MODEL//I believe this a "safe" early date, but JAN 2023 might be better. :dk: ALL to have "IRON FIST". Investigating use of ATGM on EITAN IFV. Reason for change, from ref. "Allison Transmission received the first production order in September 2021" concerning the transmissions for the EITAN. EITAN wasn't scheduled to be fielded until late/or end of 2021. This transmission order obviously won't support the in game or projected dates. We did the best we could with what information we had at the time. I should point out again, this is a joint U.S. and ISRAELI project. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...g_vehicle.html https://defense-update.com/20200209_eitan-3.html (NOT NOW! But here for context.) If I missed the APCs in the OOB my apologies. UK: AJAX update again, I know I submitted a date change for around mid-2023, this latest from last month is making it look like that date is probably going to be closer than the current UNIT 602 SEP 2022 one. I'm going to post various quotes from this next ref. First the title; obviously in time with the Bond movie release one would guess... "Shaken and stirred: British Army’s Ajax troubles cast a long shadow" and that's the lighter side of the rest. This article as others I've recently posted still casts a very dire possibility it can still be cancelled. They are still being produced at this time. "Twenty-five vehicles were delivered to the British Army by June 2021 but have yet to be accepted into service due to a number of issues related to noise and vibration." "The problems with noise and vibration have pitched Ajax at the centre of a controversy here, with some issue experts comparing the procurement with the decision to cancel the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft in 2010." The NIMROD cancellation caused quite a stir at the time. Ajax vehicles should have been in service by now, but Quin (Procurement Minister. Mine) told Parliament recently that until a long-term solution was found it was “not possible to determine a realistic timescale for declaration of initial operating capability or the later introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service with the Army. ” This issue was brought up in the forum. We might never get the true numbers of personnel involved the below does "frame it" somewhat. "Several hundred personnel have had to undergo possible hearing and vibration injury tests related to the Ajax trials." ARES now involved as well. "Following the authorization of an MoD safety panel, a second ARES armored personnel carrier variant of the Ajax is being added to the small fleet of vehicles now gathering data in an effort to resolve the problems." "The current trials only relate to the noise and vibration issues, and broader testing of the vehicle remains on hold. " So, no IOC or FOC yet this applies to ARES as well. To the reader you would do well to read the article in full. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...a-long-shadow/ Regards, Pat :capt: UPDATE @ 2037 concerning AJAX. From JANE'S those affected and treated for hearing and vibration medical issues is at 310 soldiers and were not acted upon by the British Army. That from an MOD Minister to Parliament. Things are to get nasty. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/l...on-uk-mod-says |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
1 Attachment(s)
Don,
To finish up on Israeli EITAN: 1. What I forgot ... The APC version also has a Pintal Mount MG 7.62mm for the Commander. It's mounted forward of the RWS on the right side. http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan_l1.jpg 2. ATGW ... It's the SPIKE MR, as I remember this has a larger warhead on it than the standard SPIKE. I can't remember if the only difference with the SPIKE LR is just the range. 3. One of the "unknowns" at the time, armor... Frontal Arc protection "up and including" against 30mm AP. The rest "up to and including" against 14.5mm AP. The above values reflect the protection straight from the factory w/o add on protection. It from the start was considered the best protected APC in the world. 4. Also I found that the 30mm w/coaxial 7.62mm, is capable of extremely high elevation to attack skyscrapers in urban combat from lessons learned. Obviously, that being said, it'd be highly effective against helicopters as well. http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm I gotta get to bed-had a long day. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
FULLY REFITTED/PAINTED and UPARMORED BUSHMASTERS (First 20) in the air NOW!
Australia continuing support of Ukraine. They asked for them now they're getting them. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...41c629a2a61abf Someone needs to get in the shower NOW Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
...And the UK is sending Mastiff PPV to Ukraine
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...es-to-ukraine/ It's rare (GIANT UNDERSTATEMENT) to have an OOB that nobody paid much attention to be updated with new weapons and equipment on a daily basis |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.