.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)

luigim February 3rd, 2017 04:42 PM

Re: MBT's
So, looking finally to the game OOB:
IMHO in game we have too much models for T84.

There must be three variants: the first, T84 w. Kontakt 5, (unit 058) from 1999 according to military-today, should disappear when T84 Oplot w. Nozh ERA appears in 2003 (unit 057), then it remains until the end of the game because it's in service in small quantities.

Then appears Oplot-M with Duplet ERA, (unit 064), in 2011

The T84 variants in game without ERA must be deleted.

Also in game we have multiple T80UD units without ERA, and this is an error, because T80UD is nothing more or less of a T80U with a diesel engine, so it should have Kontakt 5 ERA

Sorry for the multiple post, but I write in my free time ( I study medicine in Italy, 8-10h a day of studying so I edit multiple times the posts in my pauses) and this research costed to me circa 2hours

FASTBOAT TOUGH February 6th, 2017 02:23 AM

Re: MBT's
2 Attachment(s)
Lets start this quite not how I intended to, I did have a chance to go back for that "second look" and recheck the JANE's article claim in the picture as last posted by me, and as already pointed out by luigim also confirm they both are T-64BV tanks the key identifier for me was the IR light system mounted on the left front of the turret.

Pictures from KMDB...
T-64BV:Attachment 14588
T-84:Attachment 14589

I'm not settled yet on the ERA pkg. as the front turret mounted ERA tiles look longer in length than Kontact-1 (From JANE's article, not as pictured here.) but more similar to NOZH as the T-84 uses. It would be a simple enough upgrade even in the field, "screw them out than screw them back in" however, I won't be able to access that article or any other in this forum, my computer or your computer. You don't have have any issues with your computers and the site is NOT experiencing technical difficulties. It no longer exists.

JANE's IHS 360 has been replaced with JANE's MARKIT. What does it mean? Simply again...
1) All links are dead.
2) All refs that cited JANE's as a source are dead.
3) All preview articles I used for various reasons are no longer available.

I've spent the last couple of days trying to figure out if there is a work around-there isn't, unless, you want to pay for it. And have spent around 30 minutes in deleting files in all areas I normally cover along with keeping some for the benefit of the "subject matter" as like myself with the more obscure OOB's, they covered many topics that my other normal refs didn't for those same obscure countries in regards to equipment issues. My hope is in those cases I can use that information to recoup good data from somewhere else.

So again your computers are fine and the site is not down for maintenance.

Not very happy right now but, I'll get over it.

Posted here simply because most seem "to drop by these here parts" once in awhile.


FASTBOAT TOUGH February 24th, 2017 12:30 AM

Re: MBT's
It's all yours...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At your leisure if I missed a point of concern you wish me to further consider as well, please do so and post it here if you will. Otherwise until LATER this year, I'll consider this matter closed for now.

Something else I'm TRACKING...

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


FASTBOAT TOUGH February 25th, 2017 03:14 AM

Re: MBT's
Well first let me start by offering my apologies, I got a little over zealous with my appreciation of the LEOPARD 2A7+, so again, my apologies for any confusion to anyone out here including myself for getting caught in it as well. Germany only has two of them used as R&D tanks in the "Dual Ops" and "Urban Ops" configurations.

1. However, we can allow the AI (3x status was it?) to use the LEOPARD 2A7 as I've found another German website that confirms they are in use by the same unit as I reported on it last September 2016.

2. Well it would seem this past year Germany has another incremental upgraded tank in service that became available this past year. That would be the LEOPARD 2A6+.

3. But they aren't done yet the LEOPARD 2A8 will reach the field somewhere in the 2018/2019 time-frame.

4. STRV-122, I went into great detail when this was submitted by me as a change, I believe, concerning the enhanced armor protection of the turret specifically in regards to top protection. Well apparently it also has a "bomblet protection" system mounted to the turret top as well.

5. I'll re-post the original site that lead me to the "road of clarity concerning the LEOPARD 2A7 last Fall.

6. Finally, a tank you don't hear about the Romanian TR-85M1 BIZONUL the ref below has some great pictures in it through out.

7) The T-14 portion I believe ref 1 below shows some more data on the self protection side of things.

I think most will find these refs interesting to say the least. Don't be afraid "To kick the tires."

Have a great weekend everyone!


FASTBOAT TOUGH February 26th, 2017 06:06 PM

Re: MBT's
After posting about the Romanian TR-85M1 I was curious if they had advanced in their tank development or were looking into other options. They formally joined NATO in March 29, 2004 after the Romanian Govt. decided to start the process of joining it in 2002. This brings on it's own set of pressures least of which requires the member nations to comply with NATO weapons standards and communications interoperability. That intial result is the above TR-85M1.

If any foreign sales were made we would have heard about by now. So what has been done to this point and what options are being looked at started around 2010 and reached it's peak in early 2014 with the possibility of the TR-84M2 which did not see the light of day. That story follows like we take our forum members as who they say they are (And I do.), then I have to do the same for the "tank commanders" that replied to the below GOOGLE translated information from the Romanian Military website as shown here concerning the TR-85M2...
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/tr-85m...-necunoscute-2 With the pictures.

Skip to content

First page
Romania supports the Military!

Learn how to support Romania Military site!

Romanian Army supplied TR-85m2 certainty with many unknowns
TR-85m2 certainty with many unknowns Marius Zgureanu January 26, 2013 - 10:49 Romanian military equipment , military weapons , weapon European , weapons Romanian Army , Tank!

As some already know, our venerable TR-85, besides the clear downward T55, is related to the level of certain systems, and other steel colossus, but "more to the west", namely Leopard 1.

After attempts more or less successful to get a first tank Romanian, namely TR-77 580, certain systems and solutions have been "taken over" by industrial espionage 'resulting TR-85, and then, since 1990, Kraus-Maffei in collaboration with the Leopard 1 tank, resulting TR-85M.

In the article written about 1 year ago " Will Romania a new tank? And if so, how it will look "too little we approached the possible evolution's of TR-85, focusing more on me the fleet modernization T55, but also a new tank design inspired by foreign models of modern tanks ...

In the pictures above and in the near future can notice how similar was the profile turret layout galetilori and certain portions of the chassis (with a profile slightly raised above the runway when Leopard1) between versions TR-85 and Leopard 1 A1 / A2. TR-85 seems kind of hybrid between The Soviet T-55 and German Leopard1.

But I said then that an evolutionary direction for TR-85 as a new 120 mm cannon, preferably Rheinmetall L44 / L55, a new engine from 1200 to 1500 hp and increased protection, and even a new turret system Giat, with Self loading or calling in a low-profile turret, like Falcon system (8 projectiles / minute, and the first 3 can be held in 10 seconds http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm ) that would reduce weight up to 10 tons tank, the reserve for adding additional armor.

Giat turret was considered solution and further development of the tank Polish PT-91 TWARDY a T72 improved by a PT-97 version called Cheetah equipped with cannon 2A46 Russian by those from Bumar .

Recently published information about the existence of a clearly defined M2 variants shows that the current turret of TR-85 M1 can smoothly accommodate a 120mm caliber gun, probably German origin ( L-44 ). It is unclear whether the projectile magazine is the same number of shots available - 41 (probably by extending them further into the back of the turret) or will decrease.

In the photos the next can see solutions stretching toward the rear of the turret where both TR-85M and the Leopard 1 A3 to make room for storage of ammunition with superior protection, especially in terms of isolation compartment fighting crew. Also, you can see the similarity between passive thermal vision system at night SAGEM Matis on TR-85M system and night vision systems PZB 200 Leopard 1 A2 / A3.

If Leopard 1 has been considered and developed a variant with 120mm cannon but if it was needed a new turret. Leopard 1A5 turret was initially considered able to receive a 120mm cannon and other optical devices on Leopard2. But subsequently developed a version with additional turret armor - Leopard 1 A6 - which can accommodate 120mm cannon, built one prototype. The project was eventually abandoned in 1987 because there already in service Leopard 2 which was built around the 120mm cannon that have superior performance and protection by design.

An option to keep in mind, if the number of copies TR-85 M2 products to be large enough to purchase a license for production of the gun 120mm in Resita, as the development and improvement and initial alternative cannon Soviet 2A46M (copy Romanian A555) provided for tank TR-125 , so we can provide export both gauges, addressing as many potential markets (like Oplotului Ukrainian) for both. TR-85 and TR-580 upgraded T-55 respectively, similar to a standard T-55AGM.

1000CP and a more compact engine might fit the need and chassis last 2 tanks, TR-580 and T-55AM, or even old motor 8VS-860CP A2T2M of the TR-85M1, with some improvement. Engine TR-85 is one of the reasons why the elongation of the chassis to T-55. T55-AM the Romanian seems to have already received some components of the TR-85 (such as the Cyclop FCS), but does not know whether he passed or is planned to undergo a retrofit similar TR-85M1, even and for eventual export.

Also, although there is information that the tank was tested with an engine Volvo V12 1200CP (which apparently took some swings tabernacle), the current version proposed Colombia contains an aggregate of just 1000CP acceptable by the fact that fit without modifications in slot engine, but with the condition that the weight of the tank M2 will significantly increase after adding armor and other protection systems further so be affected power / weight ratio (hp / ton) which now stands at 17cp / ton, its ideal is an increase by 20hp / t, the initial report of TR-85. As reference, Ukrainian Oplotul receive 26cp / t, with an engine 1200CP, and as M-84AS Serbian and Polish PT-91 stands at 18.5 hp / t (at a total weight of 46t).

As a small aside, M84-AS, although initially licensed product is similar to T-72 T-90, with armor just a little lower but faster (capable of 75 km / h on the road) and more maneuverable. The Serbs had plans to modernize all the 232 M-84 tanks to the standard AS, but apparently not passed 100 pieces, some rumors vehicle and few copies upgraded.

Returning to the TR-85 M2, the fact that the new engine and cannon could be installed without modifications, it is good news in the sense that the whole family TR-85 / M1 could be brought to standard M2 without modifications expensive or complete replacement major components, which means that the price of an upgrade will be basically reduced price rezumandu only weapons, motor, armor and new systems that will be installed and the operation itself.

If we try to guess the future evolution of TR-85 variant M2 and through the other issues (design, armor, systems, table), we should probably take again a look at developments relatives ... more or less distant.

Leopard 1, reached the latest version of the standard A5 series, but the old A3 level was brought to Canadian Forces a new standard - C2:
C2 has mainly armored Additional and some systems taken from Leopard2, such as the targeting ... probably an idea to keep in mind if we have no significant evolution's developed in the country, especially considering the collaboration UM Bucharest with a prestigious German company - Kraus Maffei Wegmann, (KMW).

The new version of TR-85 M2 should benefit from solutions to increase protection liabilities, with new types of armor additional composite and / or NERA to him heightening protection in the field, as well as a significantly improved warning systems and active protection, it is recommended to install a radar system ballistics and have a "hardkill" similar to Trophy. See also the recent article on the subject, taken from Tehnomil " Evolution's, Episode 2 .

At the same time, collaboration with companies from France, Germany or Israel can ensure the evolution of various equipment from TR-85 M2. A similar trend was provided by Israel to the M-60 Patton of the equipping Turkey, resulting in a significant modernization with cannon 120mm and modern equipment, some similar Merkava4 (like drivetrain) but components German (engine MTU 881 KA-501 of 1000CP and transmission Renk) variant called Sabra.

Another noteworthy development has not materialized even in series production, this time for Chinese T55, as Jaguar's from Cadilac Gage Textron. Though provide a more powerful engine Detroit Diesel 8V-92TA, automatic transmission, extra armor plates, new M68 105mm cannon, stabilizer and systems with integrated laser targeting, the project was abandoned after the construction of two prototypes. A similar package can be applied almost entirely of most tanks are in endowment and reserves (how much there) Roman army from T55 to TR-85M1 and for export, instead of turning in scrap vehicles withdrawn from active service but T55 consignments of certain countries.

All these variants solutions should help the TR-85 M2 and tanks already in the inventory can fight at least equals if not to dominate those in the endowment neighbors, from T-55AGM, T64-Bulat, T-72 and T-84 AGL Oplot M to M84AS Ukrainian and Serbian! And that even on their possible developments over the next 5 to 10 years!

TR-85 M2 is a product which could meet the necessary modernization's rapid short-term needs of the Romanian Land Forces, but may have a niche for export. Minimum 5 years from will take the Romanian defense industry to help develop a new generation of tanks, probably only in collaboration with other partner countries, if this is longer desires and we will not disband altogether gun tanks or we will team only import!

Fictional sketch:

In Romania's case, I believe that the current solution, manned by four people, instead of an automatic charging system remains the most appropriate, at least in the next 5-10 years, and TR-85m2 might be best Answer price / capacity combative that can be given Roman army because we can not afford to exploit equipment too sophisticated and expensive nor to be overwhelmed by problems of reliability of systems design ex-Soviet considering that chances are that while conflict outnumbered, we're serious ... K2 Rotem and AMX-56 Leclerc can be considered spearheading the development of modern tanks and may desirable in terms of certain aspects. Romania but only managed to purchase 56 tanks in 15 years costing $ 1.5 million piece ... so a price of 6-8 mil. $ / Piece for a tank and especially high operating costs are impossible to cover in the current economic conditions, budget and political will.

And I hope to see soon, perhaps at the BSDA 2013 even a mock-up if not a TR-85 M2 in "flesh".

Marius Zgureanu


" Concepts - MLI MLI after the Romanian-84M "

filiation of TR-85 , leopard one , leopard a1a3 , m 60t sabra , m 84 AS serbia , Rheinmetall L44 / L55 , t 55 jaguar , t 55AGMt 5 AMtr 125 , T-72 AGL , T-55AGM , T55 AM , tank Romanian tr 77 580 , tanks romansti , tr pozzze 77 580 , TR-85 m2 , tr 85m1 , TR 85M1 pressure , TR-77 580 , turret Giat , future tanks in Romanian amateur .

Learn how to support Romania Military site!
Cel.ro 182 Comments:

didi74 January 26, 2013 at 11:23

Marius, if the ultimate goal is not well defined, what comes out. I mean like a bomb TR-85M1 who had only partially defined objectives. Anno Domini a tank in 2013 which has just cast turret is a cart on the road, that's the truth.

It must set goals first, then data solutions, not vice versa:
- Front protection> 1000mm RHA APFSDS,> 1200 mm RHA HEAT
- Lateral protective> 1000mm RHA
- 120 mm cannon
- Report to / cp x
- Maximum weight y

Who has the final objective and sees only what came out is ... classic novel.

If you can solve the structure's objectives TR-85, go for it. If not, leave it as is and dad do something else: import T-72 SH (cost <EUR 0.5 million) or M1-Abrams (cost between 0 and 0.5 mil / pcs) or Leopard and modernizes them local.

A're stubborn to modernize something from home had a disability and was behind the design of the moment, it's just plain wrong.
And when it comes to a weapon, accepting a little worse, just because it's designed by the national industry, and it's wrong.

Reply sorin January 26, 2013 at 9:17 p.m.

Total.Viitorul subscribe tank should have thicker frontal armor of 900mm. RPG 29 and 32 pierce 750mm thick armor, maybe even more, that's why I took it as reference thickness.
Both T55 and Leo in January are now especially moral.Daca waste tanks should buy a new tank without having to have too much money, I would rather switch to T84 Oplot.TR our website, be it M2 , I would not tuck into account because it is developed on a platform obsolete, and that does not allow you later, when it is necessary, too many developments.

If you want a tank again, and to us it allow financial, then the cheapest as we engage a country which produces tanks, such as Turkey (at least officially are in friendly relations, cooperation), having operational line production or realize from 0 on a new platform, a modern tank, the environment, together with Kraus-Maffei guys at Wegmann.Stiu as it involves great expense, is necessary to change the production line, the current being adapted to T55 and derivatives its Romanian, and we have no financial bani.Daca not afford one of the two options do not bother to spend the money elsewhere.

Reply IFIM January 26, 2013 at 11:24

An interesting article and well documented. I hope to see as soon inwardly-85-M2, to escape the heavy burden they are only tankman in Romania, I was commander of the tank on all existing types from 1978 to the present, ie T-34, T -55 TR-77-580, TR-85, TR-800, TR-125, TR-85 and T-72 M1. As a tank commander, platoon, company, battalion or unit.

Reply George GMT January 26, 2013 at 12:08

Given this special experience, how would you characterize the T-72 M1 towards modernized ?!

Reply IFIM January 26, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
Great question! 1 August 2001-30 April 2005 while I was commander of the 1st Battalion Tank "Vlad the Impaler" nobody asked me about tanks. At one point, the barracks had 108 tanks of all kinds (except T-34 and TR-77-580), including 30 pcs. 23 T-72 and TR-85 first-M1 manufactured. During the period I ordered the unit in its endowment (the state organization) were 30 T-72, and in addition, up to 40, there were 10 T-55. Subsequently, the organization was changed in TR-85 tanks entered endowment-M1, as we take the factory, and in addition to 54, T-55 and TR-800 upgraded. Even if I repeat, you are the first to ask me a question about tanks, all other care benefits during controls aimed at all sorts of unsuspected aspects, but unrelated to instruction tanks and tanks.

TR-85 M1 or "Buffalo" is well below a modernized T-72 in firepower, mobility and ability to pass obstacles. Armoured protection, taking it layered with some extra armor would be better than T-72, but has a figure almost twice as high. Here at Armoured protection, I put equal sign. About ability to influence the opponent did not speak on the battlefield it is "violin", there are other systems that handle it. It is superior to the M1 I mean, the transmission system and some systems that did not exist in the 70s has a fire control system, thermal imagers room, a sort of smoke grenade launching system and defensive protection and others close but not so significant as to change my opinion.
Between one-M1 TR-85 and T-72, I would I choose the second.
Thank you for the question asked and probably I will respond once it on modest my blog, where I ask myself a few questions, one of which is what had to be disbanded most representative, not to tell the good tank unit in Romania, for over four years, to be restored, but with a lower endowment?

Reply George GMT January 26, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
Please post here blog address. I have lots of questions about tanks, have your time to answer me. The asememnea I would like to send me mail address and blog at: romaniamilitary@gmail.com
Delighted and honored to have among us! Girl abolition battalion equipped with T-72 tanks and reopen equipped with T-55's I have a lot of questions. The answer, most likely, would be incompetent.
T-55 tank already in 2013. totally useless people die in vain in case anything happens.

Reply sorin January 26, 2013 at 9:38 p.m.
If the old T72, modernized, makes ours TR-85-M1, developed after 1989, what to speak of T90MS tank versus tank nostru.Sa not say the army, a new generation tank, his upper T90 MS, which will sweep away loose ours. Sure, if you want to buy Colombians TR-85-M2, then just for them, or export in general (poor countries of the world 3), I repeat, only export, deserves to manufacture.

Reply sorin January 26, 2013 at 9:44 p.m.
Among current Western tanks that would be best for Romania? You for who you choose? T84 Oplot is as powerful as T90 modernized?

Reply sharky January 26, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
as commander of the tank, which is the difference between TR-85 and TR-800 ???

Reply IFIM January 26, 2013 at 3:36 p.m.
Basically, the difference lies only in the product name.

With the now dead TR-85M2 though in design is better then what they have, they clearly understood it would not be much of a match against a newer modern MBT. I do remember the Romanians looking at cheaper options as noted above, however, as is always the case it boils down to simple economics. They just couldn't afford. The West has helped in development of the M1 and in the options for the M2. Building on the M2 proposed design features it now appears since around the late 2013/2014 time frame work has continued to the develop the TR-85M3 which will feature a more modern FCS, 120mm SBMG, Auto loader (Which will reduce the crew size to 3.), additional of add on armor to meet or exceed the expectations noted above for the TR-85M2 and finally a 1400hp engine and power pack. Though I'm taking to next with a "grain of salt" I,m hopeful since ref. 2 has been so good to me for about ten years now with their data, there might be some truth here, and I can't count how many times they've been ahead in reporting new and modernized versions of equipment "even faster than a speeding JANE's" or was that something else!?!
:rolleyes: Bottom line if true, it should put it in a top tier T-72 variant and possibly a T-90.

I'm hoping hoping this is true because it'd be nice to get something in for someone else besides the "usual suspects". Their is a fair amount of chatter from Russian, Chinese, Romanian and other foreign language sites concerning the TR-85M3 so a little help from one of our forum members in that part of the world would be most helpful to me one way or another. Like some players (And that's absolutely fine.) some of our western defense sites don't cover that part of the world to well. If the last two sentences are true in ref. 1, we should see something by years end that being said most of you know what I'll be doing with this MBT w/o saying the "word". From Ref.2: "Some sources report that the a new TR-85M3 is under development. It should be fitted with a more powerful engine. This tank will also have new 120-mm or 125-mm gun, as well as improved armor and updated electronic systems."

A little tank news from a hopefully quite place along the "border".

Dinner is ready-and my brain needs food!! :D


FASTBOAT TOUGH February 28th, 2017 01:52 AM

Re: MBT's
Some of you remember from a longtime ago I mentioned the following. In Basic Submarine School in Groton Ct., we were taught almost from the beginning..."The only dumb question is the one not asked.", so some of you won't then be surprised by the next concerning the TR-85M3. Apparently the Gmail account from the Romanian Military site I used really works!!

"---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zgureanu Marius <.com>
Date: 2017-02-27 10:24 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: Fwd: TR-85M3
To: Romania Military <romaniamilitary@gmail.com>

Good morning,
The answer is no, in fact we do not have any information that the Romanian Army would be interested in a new upgrade, exceeding M1, for its battalions of TR-85. There is only one battalion upgraded to M1 standard, so far.
Concerning the article:
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/ tr-85m2-o-certitudine-cu- multe-necunoscute-2

there was a proposal for Colombia, pointing 3 variants: TR-85 "Classical" configuration, TR-85 M1 like (with some minor changes) and there was a more powerful M2 variant (120mm gun, more powerful engine).

UMB, the tank producer, proposed to the Army a different evolution of the remaining basic TR-85 than M1, but there was no immediate interest in it.

Please point out the article "that suggests the Government placed an order for 48 tanks to be modified to the TR-85M3 standard"!

Best regards,
Rumania Military

On Monday, February 27, 2017 5:38 AM, Romania Military <romaniamilitary@gmail.com> wrote:

Raspunde-i si tu ceva omului
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: patrick conklin <hotmail.com>
Date: 2017-02-27 5:08 GMT+02:00
Subject: TR-85M3
To: "romaniamilitary@gmail.com" <romaniamilitary@gmail.com>

Good Morning! I came across your website concerning a discussion forum on the TR-85M2 and other options for tanks for the Romanian Army. I came across an article that suggests the Government placed an order for 48 tanks to be modified to the TR-85M3 standard. Is this true or has no decision been made to go forward with the project. I understand you might need to use a translation program as I did to convert the topic over to English. I posted the original website in Romanian below for your benefit. Thank you for any assistance you can give concerning my question.
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/ tr-85m2-o-certitudine-cu- multe-necunoscute-2


Well now that certainly has reduced my workload and I must say I'm a little disappointed with the news. I think that the TR-85M3 could've been a great addition to the game not only for the Romanian OOB, but due to it's supposed export potential and "bang for the buck" we could've seen it elsewhere in the world and in our game by extension.

Based on his last sentence, I owe the man an answer. And just maybe an UNCLAS source of inside information as well. ;)

I promised the CINC I'd be to bed at a decent hour. Besides it's back to work later this afternoon. Have a great day everyone! :D


FASTBOAT TOUGH March 2nd, 2017 04:19 AM

Re: MBT's
Well the last couple of days with Marius has proven fruitful, however, as far as the Romanian OOB is concerned, it's settled now that we can DELETE/UNIT 017/TR-85M2//. I think some would find the below email interesting. If you read it very carefully he talks about how to make a better tank on an older chassis but, as important the engineering limitations of such upgrades. In discussing the variations of the ABRAMS leading to the "SEP V Series" I talked about the RESET(ing) of those tanks. The big difference here is the ABRAMS is quite the larger tank (2. below of Marius's email points to this, how we've been able to improve upon the ABRAMS armor.) already compared to the T-55. Simply we've got a lot more time and space to work with where, as Marius points out below with the exception of the Ukraine, he believes with some possible additional minor improvements, that the Romanians pretty much feel for the T-55 the pinnacle of practical design has been reached with the TR-85M1.

I'll later this morning in my reply back for the below ask him to verify the current status of the following...TR-580, T-72M, TR-125 and TR-2000. Also status of any TI/GSR and estimated day/night ranges and are we missing any MBT's or any that are in still in active service but we show as retired.

Now I understand we're probably talking for next year, however, I just want to "strike while the coals are hot" concerning the data.

From Wed, morning 1041am EST...
I don't see how an M3 variant of TR-85 would have been already ordered by the Army.

Back in 2014, the Land Forces were already aware that TR-85 M1 has reached its limitations of improvement, seeing a derivative of TR-125/TR-2000 (Mine) as a more suitable future replacement.

Already, there is no TR-85 M2 variant (only an improvement intention, but it had yet to be implemented and tested).

In order to receive a bigger gun, better engine and extra armor, some tons had to be stripped away somewhere else, because the ground pressure was already high on M1, at its limits and I'm not sure if the tracks can still be widened at a low cost.

1.) The hull of the TR-85 was by design narrower than that of a T-72, so less space to add a better and wider engine - so complicated and only a few options, such as compact MTU 871 Ka-501/Iveco-Fiat MTCA 1200CP engines, and not very cheap.

2.) Already the frontal armor of the TR-85M1, I don't think it exceeds equivalent of 650-700mm RHA (Mine), so in order to exceed 1000mm RHA, add-on armour is not an option: frontal plate and turret plates would need to be removed and replaced with better modern composite armour with mostly the same weight, if we don't want to double the mass of the armour as the weight is restricted.

3.) For a bigger gun, the frontal part of the turret has to be completely reshaped (see also the are of the optical sights on the side of the gun mantlet) - the only example of success of mounting a 125mm gun on a T-55 turret is the Ukrainian Typhoon/AGM package, but I still have doubts as they probably used T-72 autoloader and parts of a T-72 turret, technology that Romanians used only on TR-125. So in order to be sure such upgrade is possible, the real options are Falcon low mass&profile turret or GIAT simplified T-21 turret. Both are not cheap and must also be compatible with the turret ring footprint and turret mass (less than 15 tons) on TR-85. Also, the new gun must be as light as possible, so if 120mm, only L-44 or other light versions with low recoil would be acceptable, so not a lot of punch against new generation tanks and armour.

4.) Under belly explosion protection kit + active protection (as passive armor protection cannot be top of the class) would add other few hundreds kilos on the vehicle's weight.

In the end, we would need to replace almost everything on TR-85 for such upgrade for a high cost and the result will be probably a bit better than mediocre. Just keep in mind that TR-85M1 upgrade costed back in 2002-2004 around 2,3 mil. $/ unit, due also to small numbers (56 machines), but the engine was only improved, the FCS was upgraded, and some add-on armour was installed and received small turret-bustle by cutting the back of the turret. So most of the TR-85 was unchanged.

The full list of challenges upgrading theTR-85 is here:

With all those constraints, maybe only a limited upgrade would be advisable, by using TR-85 as second-line tank or changing its role to infantry support.

Other options would be to changed it in tank hunter (such as STRV-103) or heavy IFV (BMPT Terminator/Achzarit style ), getting rid of its turret:


That's was a nice simple explanation on the limits of tank design using an existing chassis.

I need to hit the rack!!


FASTBOAT TOUGH March 6th, 2017 09:27 PM

Re: MBT's
5 Attachment(s)
First Don THANKS for fixing and keeping the Turkish LEOPARD A1A3-T2 in the game. I remember we had some discussion on this in my somewhat frustrating attempts to try and fix that OOB what a mess it was before I started, Don helped me make it better, but theirs still more to do. The entanglement was caused by Turkey's unapologetic skill in designating their tanks as many as three times or more, what a mess.

Below in this this JANE's link, clink on the "Ankara Advances..." on the Right Center. It talks about the advances made in the APC area which is good FYI on it's own, however, this is the MBT Thread last on checked, so with that in mind, Turkish ALTAY UNIT 614 I believe will slip to the right at least a year now based on the ref. provided no major surprise here as Don and I have discussed this exact thing in the past. We've already done this with the ARJUN MkII at least once and I'm afraid we'll be doing it at least once more again. That's the business we're in.

The issue (Finally :clap: !!) is the ALTAY development was delayed significantly because Turkey had major issues in developing their own power-plant and some lesser technical ones as well. These have been worked out and the MBT just finished two years of trials (Heed this you ARMATA Boosters!?!) on the last day of Feb. 2017. The ALTAY as of this writing and from the below has not been awarded a contract to go into mass production of the accepted version of the ALTAY. The ALTAY UNIT 614 game wise was to be available in Jun 2017 and in real life theirs still and operational acceptance evaluation to be done as well.

Read the para under the pictures in green
you'll understand why I presented it in this manner. I've pushed the limit on others but, I wouldn't advise it for anyone else out here to "abuse the view". I will download it myself for my work. On that there are ways. ;)

I linked to a "poster" I had on Turkish tanks and can you guess where it linked to? Me in this Thread. Just saying be careful the web works in mysterious ways.

Alright enough of that in recovering "my poster" I came across the following that some might or might not find useful in their work. Basically these are armor size comparison charts. If someone feels it worthwhile to post this (WWII Chart.) on the WinSPWW2 side please do.

Attachment 14641 Attachment 14642

Attachment 14643 Attachment 14644

Attachment 14645

The Turkish MBT one falls right in line with SIPRI database. Those are operational dates as I'd translated when originally submitted.

I wished I'd had the APC one when I did all that work on Malaysia's APC's a few years back. It would've saved some time in writing them up. It's much easier to interpret the data when you have some idea what it looks like though eventually I did manage to find enough pictures for Don to work off and satisfy my standards in presenting the submission of them. I believe that was just over ten vehicles at the time. That"s why Don can't wait for me to get off my arse and start again!?! :rolleyes: Really he lives for those submissions!!

And if your in area of the last stop by and say "Hi!" it's that time for the annual pilgrimage. I know, but, C'mon what fun would it be to tell you where we're seating!?!

Have a great night and there's nothing better then a two day work week!! :D


FASTBOAT TOUGH March 13th, 2017 11:19 PM

Re: MBT's
Some of what I'm...well you know the word by now.

Iran: A year ago I posted that Russia was out (For this part longer back.) and that they had unveiled the totally Iranian made KARRAR MBT. Now it's announced it's in production. What I see...
1. Is what appears to be weather mast (Upside down "cup" one.) this is an indication of a more advanced FCS is carried on board. Weather corrections for heat, humidity (Thickness of the air if you will.) wind etc. are all factors in correcting the shot to target.

2. GPS mast.

3. 12 Smoke grenades, 6 per side.

4. ERA looks similar to a NOZH type as used by Ukraine. Note: Look closely at the side curtains than at the top picture, those are without a doubt ERA plates mounted to the curtain. If you again to the center picture you can make out the bolts/fasteners. I count 12 along the top and what looks like 9 along the bottom row.

5. Slat armor to protect sides around the engine compartment. Also around the rear of the turret to probably to protect ammo storage.

6. LED headlights that an A-10 would 10 or 15 miles out or more based on terrain, for their sake I hope they maintain good night time ops combat discipline!?!

7. It appears the Commanders sight has dual TI (Left) and Optical
IR(?) (Right) sights as shown in the bottom picture.

8. Look to the middle picture that looks like the 360 laser warning system I brought up for one of the Russian tanks about two months back. It's the bell shaped device between the mounted on on the turret aft end.

9. What I don't see... This MBT does not appear to have a "hunter-killer" mode. The "hunter-killer" capability is usually indicated by having an independent Drivers and Commanders sights. The Commanders sight does not appear to operate independently of the turret as on most more advanced MBT's.

10. I don't see any sign of the "new" APS system talked about in the below ref.

My conclusion is that without a doubt this is most likely Iran's most advanced MBT. I suspect the FCS system on the whole is fairly advanced and better than what they've had to this point. It seems reasonably well protected and the ERA looks of a new design for them as I've posted in the past. Mobility is likely pretty good, weight appears to be in the 45 to 50 ton range maybe slightly more with the ERA. I think the engine to be at around the 850hp - 1000hp range. It just doesn't look like it can hold a 1200hp engine, if it does it would an affect upon ammo storage etc. etc. But even with the smaller engine that would be enough power for a MBT of this size, though, I feel it is a larger one.

Here's what you might remember if you followed my posts, they were for about a year considering the T-90S and at a later point the T-90MS before the deal fell through with Russia. They had a couple of tanks at least to evaluate for several months. Russia didn't make to big a deal over the sale falling through. The question that remains is did Iran "borrow" some technology or did Russia offer some technical help to Iran before they pulled out?

I suspect it was a case of a little of both.

All the above is mostly drawn from the last ref. The rest from the others below and other sources.


More one one of my favorite tanks I've submitted...

I still wonder if we've maybe "slightly" have under protected this tank. We still have no clue as to it's composition (Steel of a new type technology.) or the APFSDS that was purpose made for this tanks gun. The round is unique to this tank only. All you'll find is that it's a highly advanced round capable of kills at long range. I really think maybe this tank might deserve another look. Just because it's "small" doesn't mean it's not well protected and lethal. I seem to remember this was the thinking about the MERKAVA when it appeared on the scene as well. I have to assume the gun on UNIT 022 equates to a L55 caliber gun.

And as I was looking for some info on this site, sometime today they posted this...

Well based on what I just read (KARRAR above.), I guess I didn't do too badly overall. I think I'll walk away with a 90% score here. ;)


scorpio_rocks March 22nd, 2017 09:58 PM

Re: MBT's

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 836586)
further refinement of the Syrian "tusk" and I'm introducing my version of "Sinai Grey" to select Isreali vehicles

Just actually used these in battle - gotta say they look great!! TY!

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 PM.

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