.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)

DRG October 27th, 2020 06:50 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 848838)
The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.

Which is why top attack ATGM are so important. Tanks cannot be made immune everywhere

Imp October 27th, 2020 07:41 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 848838)
Personally I think getting rid of the tanks is a mistake.

I think the new Commandant is a bit to fixated on air and sea control. Neither of which have EVER been USMC missions (with the exception of air control during Guadalcanal). The Marines are to there seize and control those unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Navy and Army to exploit.

The penny packet Defense Battalions during the 1930's were speed bumps. They couldn't hold vs a determined amphibious assault (i.e. Wake and Guam). No reason to think a 2030s one will fare any better.

The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.

The following discusses the entire force restructuring issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkBsJ1s-Vc

Have to agree while tanks may not be the first thing on the beach you need to be able to land them quickly if needed. Relying on the Army to supply them is risky bureaucrats could delay things & as you say top tier armour is becoming invulnerable to ATGMs.
My view its where they decided to cut the cost to spend more on weapons with reach.
Replacing artillery batteries with longer range missiles looks good on paper but I bet the cost to use them in action has jumped - shell vs missile.
Near peer could probably intercept the missile easier than the shell as well. Putting faith in planes for ground attack against other than structures & infrastructure is also risky ground units are far more effective even today.
Not to mention cost you can buy & maintain several tanks for the cost of a high end fighter.

MarkSheppard November 10th, 2020 07:09 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Well now this is oddball:

https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2020...s-light-tanks/

Quote:

The Philippine Army appears to be preparing to introduce mobile protected direct fire capabilities, often classified as “light tanks” or “assault guns” to its force. It has not had a “tank” since the M-41 Walker Bulldog in the 1950s.

Currently the closest it has had are the Scorpion CVRT and locally modified M113 APCs both with the same a low velocity 76 mm L23A1 gun turret. However, the Army recently announced it’s award of a US$196 million contract to Elbit Systems under its Light Tank Acquisition Project.

Under the contact Elbit will integrate its Sabra 105mm gun turret system on both eight ASCOD tracked and ten Pandur wheeled armoured vehicle chassis provided by General Dynamics European Systems.

The Sabra uses an automatic loader with a ready capacity of 12 rounds. The gun can fire standard NATO ammunition including HESH, HEAT and APFSDS anti-tank rounds. Details of the fire control system have not been revealed, however, it is anticipated to draw on Elbit’s line of advanced digital thermal sights and controls.

The Sabra has further been displayed with a roof mounted panoramic sight. It was also reported proposed with Elbit’s C4 system, including a Battle Management System (BMS), and the Combat NG fire control and command system both of which are already in service in the Philippine Army.

The mix of tracked and wheeled platforms suggest that the ASCOD versions may be employed with the Army’s M113 equipped units and the Pandurs with its wheeled IVECO Brazil Guarani armoured vehicle units. Indeed a second contract has also been provided to Elbit for an additional 28 of the later with a .50 remote weapons station under the Wheeled APC Acquisition Project. These Elbit contracts follow previous contracts to the company for adding it’s ORCWS to Army M113A2s.

The Light Tank Project as been on going since 2015 and has included consideration of candidates from Korean Hanwha, Belgium’s Cockrill, Turkey’s Otokar, Indonesia’s PT Pindad, and Elbit with GDELS.
http://maxdefense.blogspot.com/2020/...eeled.html?m=1

So basically:

Light Tank Project:

18 x Sabrah ASCOD 2 (Tracked) Tanks
10 x Sabrah Pandur II 8x8 Wheeled Tanks
1 x ASCOD 2 Command Vehicle
1 x ASCOD 2 Armored Recovery Vehicle

All tanks to be equipped with Elbit 105mm turret.

APC Project:
28 x IVECO Guarani 6x6 APCs (12.7mm / 40mm AGL manned turret)

Option to mount RWS with 12.7mm HMG.

MarkSheppard November 12th, 2020 07:06 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Information on Japanese MBTs, if Andy and Don want to take a stab at refining the Japanese OOB:

Tanks. Being Tanks on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/tanksbeingt...65780353480701

English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_74

Japanese Wikipedia thru Google Translate
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/61%E5%...88%A6%E8%BB%8A
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/74%E5%...88%A6%E8%BB%8A
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AC...82%B2%E9%9A%8A

Japanese Websites thru Google Translate
http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/61SHIKI.htm
http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/74SHIKI.htm
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/06...7e69975f331b87

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type 61 MBT
All remaining Type 61s were retired in 2000 (Heisei 12) due to the increasing deployment of Type 90 MBT. Over 39 years of service, no major improvements were made; only minor ones such as infrared searchlights and smoke grenade dischargers.

Ammunition used in the Type 61 MBT was:

M318A1 APCBC, 910 m/sec muzzle velocity, 189mm RHA @ 1,000m.
M431 HEAT
M71 HE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type 74 MBT

At the end of March 2020 (Reiwa 2), the JGSDF only has about 136 x Type 74 MBTs left.

At the present rate of retirement of 40~ vehicles a year, the Type 74 will be fully retired by about 2023.

When it first entered service, it had an analog ballistic computer, this was upgraded over the years to a fully digital system.

There are several variants of the T74:

Type 74 first mod (74式戦車 初期生産型) aka Mod A
Initial production model.

Type 74 mod B (74式戦車 B型)
Improved FCS, can fire two types of APDS rounds and Type 75 High explosive Plastic rounds (HEP/HESH). Ammo racks modified to fit APFSDS? Most of the initial (Mod A) version was upgraded to this variant.

Type 74 mod C (74式戦車 C型)
About 50 to 60 vehicles were made alongside the Mod B. The main "tell" is the two-color dark green/brown camouflage, whereas Mod A/B operated in single color olive drab. No real information on what changed besides color.

Type 74 mod D (74式戦車 D型)
The 105mm L7 gun was upgraded with a thermal sleeve. All prior tanks were eventually upgraded with this.

Type 74 mod E (74式戦車 E型)
Most widespread variant of the Type 74, with an improved FCS that can handle the newer Type 91 HEAT-MP round that replaced the Type 75 HEP. About 80% of all prior tanks were upgraded to the E Model.

Type 74 mod F (74式戦車 F型)
This variant has the attachments to use the Type 92 mineroller. ~10 or less of this variant exist.

Type 74 mod G/Kai (74式戦車 G型/改)
This was a 1990s modernization program intended to extend the life of the Type 74. The FCS was modernized, applique side skirts were attached and the gunner received a thermal sight. The suffix "Kai" meaning refurbished/upgraded was also used for these.

Because of the immense cost (100~ million yen per vehicle), only the prototype and four other vehicles were completed; due to the cost issues. Essentially, if 500 of the existing 893~ Type 74 MBTs had been upgraded, the total cost would have been 50~ billion yen, or about equal to 60~ Type 90 MBTs. With the post-Cold War era of the 1990s in sight, the JGSDF chose to spend the money instead on brand new Type 90s.

All four operational Type 74G/Kai tanks were assigned to the JGSDF Fuji School (Combined Training) Brigade and then later to the JGSDF 1st Armored Training Unit. The Type 74G left JGSDF service on 25 March 2019 when the JGSDF 1st Armored Training Unit was abolished.

Ammo for Type 74

The ammuntion used by the Type 74 was:

L28A1 APDS imported from UK; muzzle velocity of 1,478 m/sec; 240mm RHA @ 1000m. Initial loadout 1974 onwards.

M735 APFSDS, built under license in Japan. 1,500 m/sec muzzle velocity, 359mm RHA @ 1000m and 318mm @ 2000m. Began to be used from 1984 onwards.

Type 93 APFSDS, built by Daikin Industries. First indigenous sabot round by Japan. 1,500 m/sec muzzle velocity, estimated 414 mm RHA @ 2,000m. Produced from 1993 onwards.

Type 75 HEP is a license built US M393 HEP, albeit using a brass cartridge case instead of the American M393's steel. Can penetrate 120-150mm RHA.

Type 91 HEAT-MP. Said to have greater penetration than US M456 HEAT which has 360-425mm RHA penetration.

DRG November 13th, 2020 08:26 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Found this source while looking into the post above that may be of interest to some.

https://bulletpicker.com/index.html

Quote:

The first objective of this site was to post and offer a collection of public domain technical manuals and ordnance related books (whose copyrights have expired) scanned as PDF files. This collection went public in late May, 2016.
I haven't gone through all of it ( it would take days ) it, unfortunately, does not deal with penetration data so much as just about everything else but if you want to know what a particular munition looks like and what kind of propellant and primer was used as well as Chamber pressure and Velocity this has that

MarkSheppard November 13th, 2020 09:16 PM

Re: MBT's
 
1 Attachment(s)
I'm looking around and from the War Thunder (I know, I know I know) forums at:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.p...d-the-type-74f

claims that the Type 74D with thermal sleeve on the gun was introduced in 1987.

Regarding ammunition:

It appears that the L28xx family of ammunition by the UK was also German DM13 under license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7

IOC for L28 ammo was 1959; so looks to me like you could use the following base guns for the Type 74 (with adjustments)

UK OBAT 007 Weapon 095 -- 105mm L7 UK59
for initial Type 74 IOC with L28A1 APDS and Type 75 HEP.

US OBAT 012 Weapon 098 - 105mm M68 78
for 1984 onwards Type 74 with M735 APFSDS built under license in Japan, but keeping the Type 75 HEP/HESH warhead from UK OBAT 007 Weapon 095 -- 105mm L7 UK59; resulting in the following values:

(see attachment)

Germany OBAT 044 Weapon 99 - 105mm L7 WG81
for 1993 onwards Type 74 with Type 93 APFSDS and Type 91 HEAT-MP. (It appears Type 91 HEAT did not enter service until 1993. I guess Japan waited until both rounds came into service to upgrade their ballistics computers with the drag values.)

The estimated 414mm RHA @ 2,000m given in some sources for Type 93 APFSDS is very close to the penetration given for DM13 in 1979 (220mm RHA @ 2 km @ 60 deg = 440mm RHA); so it makes sense to just use DM13 values.

MarkSheppard November 13th, 2020 09:27 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Another Japanese page (http://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/74.htm) claims:

Type 74B: 1984 -- Improved FCS to support Sabot Rounds.

Type 74C - 1987. Two color camouflage

Type 74D - 1987. Thermal Sleeve.

Type 74E: - 1991; Improved FCS to support Type 91 HEAT-MP in 1991.

Type 74F - 1993, Mine Roller.

I'll leave it up to you as to how to integrate the differing claims between my prior research posts.

FASTBOAT TOUGH November 15th, 2020 04:43 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Looks like Marks info is pretty much "spot on" concerning the TYPE 74 MBT. Just some points with additional data from some other sources the first of which is a "conglomerate" of several different ones in one "comprehensive" format with additional independent supporting ones also offered.

Background: The first post war indigenous tank built by Japan was the TYPE 61 which was meant to address the "shortfalls" of the USA tanks they inherited the CHAFFEE which the Japanese liked as it well suited their terrain issues but sorely lacked in firepower even against T-34/85 tanks as shown in Korea. The other (And the number varies from 250 -300 tanks. Versus several hundred CHAFFEES.) was the Sherman tank of the "Easy Eight" variant (M4A3E8) which had it's own issues also to include the terrain were maneuver was a problem.

The doctrine adopted was simply to combine light armor, solid firepower and, most importantly, the ability to traverse rough terrain. This doctrine still guides them today to a degree, but improved upon based on their potential adversary-RUSSIA as we've seen starting with the TYPE 90.

The TYPE 61 was already obsolete when it was fielded. Which lead to the development of the TYPE 74. Many sites attribute the TYPE 74 as the first tank to have a Ballistic FC Computer and to address the terrain issue, it has a hydropneumatic suspension, allowing this MBT to "sit", "stand", "kneel" or to "lean" (Still used today.). This feature was incorporated from the canceled German-US MBT-70 design. The driver can adjust the suspension to suit the type of terrain on "the fly" which is a big advantage to the Japanese even today.

Unfortunately, and only slightly so compared to the TYPE 60, the TYPE 74 was shortly after being fielded in 1980 also pretty much out dated. With Russia in continuing to develop the T-72 and later the T-80, Japan saw the need to develop a new tank which started in 1977 as the
TK-X. It would be known as the TYPE 90 which took 13 years to be fielded.

I have to respectfully disagree with Mark, math (Though 200 are still in service. See Army Rec ref. first below.) aside I see the the [b]TYPE 74 Mod E "sticking around" much closer to games end due to COVIDs economic impact and other factors as noted below to include very recent Russian activity right "next door".

This tank is a "survivor" first the TYPE 90 was to replace it in the mid-late 90's but, the Cold War ended and Defense Budgets were cut world wide and many international MBT development projects also were cut.

Russia and a "rising" China would bring about the development of the TYPE 10 which was also to replace the the TYPE 74 and also the TYPE 90. All that planning was laid waste in 2008/2009 in the world wide economic crash, soaring developmental costs and delays in getting the TYPE 10 in the field. The cost per tank just soared.

Japan has just in the last couple of years started making more TYPE 10 tanks at a much slower pace. What will replace the TYPE 74 will be the MCV-16 I submitted for the last patch (And fielded this year if I remember correctly.) which Don entered. Production of which will be at a modest rate which is why I see the TYPE 74 sticking around longer, again, along with the Russian issue from above.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...anks_mbts.html


Highlights below for the TYPE 74...

Main Gun
: Japanese designation is the L/51 produced in Japan based on the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm rifled gun (Specifically the A3 version.) but modified by Japan to have the characteristics more closely resembling the USA M68 105mm rifled gun. It was therefore not a copy of the L7.

Initial ammo:
L28A1 APDS
(imported from Britain, 240mm penetration at 1km)
Type 91 HEAT
Type 75 HEP-T
(license-produced M393 HEP)

Armor:
Mantlet: 195mm
Turret front: 120mm
Turret side: 110mm
Turret rear: 60mm
Turret top: 40mm
Hull upper frontal plate: 40mm at 75 degrees
Hull mid frontal plate: 80mm at 65 degrees
Hull lower frontal plate: 80mm at 55 degrees
Hull side: 35mm
Hull rear: 25mm


It’s worth noting that several “patterns” of this tank were produced over the years:

Type 74 initial production model (roughly 400 were built)

Type 74 Mod B with an improved FCS and the ability to fire APFSDS rounds (all initial production models were upgraded to this pattern)

Type 74 Mod C is basicallyMod B, but with actual camouflage instead of the standard khaki color

Type 74 Mod D
features a thermal sleeve for the gun (everything older was gradually upgraded to Mod D)

Type 74 Mod E features another upgrade to its FCS and the ability to fire Type 91 HEAT-MP rounds instead of the older Type 75 HEP loadout, this is the last major pattern and most of the older vehicles were gradually upgraded to Mod E

There were two more patterns developed:

Type 74 Mod F with a mine-clearing device (around 10 vehicles built)

Type 74 Mod G, also known as Type 74 Kai (or Type 74 Improved) with improved night-fighting equipment and protection, consisting of additional spaced armor and a rudimentary soft-kill APS (laser warning receiver connected to its smoke grenade launchers, deploying smoke automatically as soon as the vehicle is targeted by a laser)
Of the Type 74 Mod G only four vehicles built as prototypes before it was decided this program was not economically feasible.
https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-type-74
(Again above compresses data from TankNut, National Interest ("Think Tank"), Military Factory and other sites.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_74.htm
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw..._War_tanks.php

(To supplement Dons need to get his ICON "fix" in.) :D
https://www.facebook.com/tanksbeingt...99673606758035

What this about Russia...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe..._warships.html
https://news.yahoo.com/time-solve-ku...233000316.html


I guess they "fear" Japan is going to invade them!?! :rolleyes:

COVID and Economic Impact: The following was originally posted in the Int. Defense Green and White Paper Thread Post #61 last week this quote taken from the ref below as was posted last week as indicated.
"The pandemic has wiped around 20 years’ worth of growth off of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."
https://www.army-technology.com/feat...nce-secretary/

If your an investor, it could be 10 years to recover fully (World Economies) if you listen to the experts. I'm hoping for half that, Thank You very much!?! ;)

Dinner!!!!! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

MarkSheppard November 15th, 2020 05:58 PM

Re: MBT's
 
A big reason the Type 74 hung on is logistics:

http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/shi...i5/siryou1.pdf

Bridge Passage Rate in Japan based off of 17,920 bridges in Japan; extracted from that PDF via Google Translate:

Foreign MBT (60 tonnes): 40% of bridges in Japan (M1A2 and Challenger II, 62 tons; Merkava Mk 4, 65 tons)
Type 90 MBT (50 tonnes): 65% of bridges in Japan
Type 10 MBT (44 tonnes): 84% of bridges in Japan

Using Curve Expert Professional software, I estimated through various equations the passage % of the Type 74 -- many of them were in excess of 100%. A more reasonable estimate would be:

Type 74 MBT (38 tonnes): 90-95% -- taking into account that 83,775 lbs (38 tonnes) is still pretty heavy; many of the residential bridges I drive over as part of my work have a weight limit of around 38,000 lbs.

Also, for fun, here's what Pat mentioned:

Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle (26 tonnes / 57,320 lbs) -- you can see why the Japanese are going for a Heavy Mobile Wheeled Tank system -- it'll be cheaper and faster to move around than even the Type 74 MBT.

Also highly likely is that new 105mm ammo will be developed for the Type 16 MCV to offset the smaller calibre main gun.

FASTBOAT TOUGH November 15th, 2020 10:03 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Well with a couple of exceptions from my last, oh how we like to repeat ourselves. :o :doh:

See Page 104/Post #1031.

On MCV-16 as submitted...

See Page 85/Post #849

How time flies, and I thought it was just last year.

I love chasing my tail. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03 PM.

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