.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)

FASTBOAT TOUGH January 15th, 2019 02:35 AM

Re: MBT's
A final note on SOUTH AFRICA if I may…
SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2B/UNIT 007/COPY REVISED UNIT 008/CHANGE STABILISER TO 6 vice 5/OPERATIONAL STATUS NOW KNOWN/GUN IS READY AND TESTED/POSSIBLE STORAGE OR READY FOR PRODUCTION/TANK NOT FIELDED//I’ve already proven that the Mk-2 Series was designed to carry any of the RB 105mm GT MGs plus the LIW (Thanks Don.) RB 105mm GT8 Prototype or 120mm/L52 MG. As discussed via PM I found credible information that GIAT Industries of France calibrated with DENEL to develop the LIW tank guns listed above. GIAT should ring a bell for some of you “tank nuts” out here, they made the guns (And more.) for the French LeCLERC MBT. It was also noted the characteristics of the LIW 120mm/L52 are a “close” match to the LeCLERC MG. It is important to remember the issue/limitation here is with the OLIFANT Mk-2 FCS though very good it’s not as good as the LeCLERC FCS. This is not my area of expertise per say that being said is why I requested a modest increase in the STABILISER number. Based on the guns reported performance and pedigree should the STABILISER number be slightly higher than requested? And within the limitations I’ve stated above, would the better gun effect any other of the numbers related to the revised OLIFANT Mk-2B would have?

Don is a smart man and I feel he knows I wouldn’t waste my time on a tank that’s not operational if I didn’t see something of value in it concerning the game or the players. So 1) The tanks already in the game, yes it needs to match the hopefully revised UNIT 008, it’s the same tank only the gun has changed. 2) South Africa if it arms the tank with this gun, which could happen for many reasons nothing to do with either an internal or external threat, then it’s ready to go and you “flip the switch to on”. 3) The tank obviously can’t be “game ready” as it isn’t now, however, I thought there was a way to allow Campaign and Scenario designers to “unlock it” for their use w/o it being available within the game this I see can have a more immediate impact for the developers.

Finally concerning the possibility of adding new OLIFANT Mk- 1A/1B and now maybe Mk-2 tanks in the 2010 time frame from my last post, I came across this article for what looks like the replacement for the M111 APFSDS round as taken from the ref below Para 3, Dated 18 August 2011… “The Denel-developed M9718 105mm APFSDS round is 0.950m long, weighs 18.5kg and is fired at a chamber pressure of between 350 to 400 MPa to a combat range of 3km. The safety range is 30km. Dispersion at 3km is within 0.3x 0.3m and penetration is 450mm RHA. The tracer is visible to 3km.” again the older M111 APFSDS penetration was 390mm RHA which makes the M9718 APFSDS better by +60mm RHA. If you decide to add those tanks from 01/2010 - 12/2025 they would also retain the APFSDS-T round as well with PENETRATION 580mm OF RHA as discussed in the last post for the second entered OLIFANT Mk-1A on.
The last couple of paras might be useful concerning the ROOIKAT AFV ammo as well.

I mentioned that TAIWAN has a big issue so…
TAIWAN/CHANGE/MIA1 ROC/UNIT 025/NEVER DELIVERED/FMS NOT APPROVED/CHANGE IN GAME STATUS TO UNAVAILIBLE/RECOMMEND SAME AS REQUESTED FOR OLIFANT Mk-2B BASED ON THE SAME THREE POINTS NOTED ABOVE.//All foreign countries can request U.S. made military arms via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program this includes for both donated and weapons to be paid for. This ensures that our weapons industry does not sell our weapons to foreign powers not friendly to the U.S. or that might let the technologies involved with these systems fall into the wrong hands. It also provides cover for the government in sales that could cause a potential international political issue. All sales have to be approved by several agencies and finally by the U.S. State Department, Congress and by the President of the United States. A recent example of this had to do with the sale of the current most advanced version of the JAVELIN ATGW the JAVELIN JV to the UKRAINE which went operational/fielded on 06/2018 and how it might affect the situation on the ground there. Those above tanks have been requested about three times since around 2000. Instead of the tanks we sold them the JAVELIN BLK 1 and later JAVELIN JV (The BLK1 units were later updated to the JV.) I will provide refs that TAIWAN is now requesting the M1A2 ABRAMS. Ref. 1 from DID will bring you up to date on the current situation with the U.S. and TAIWAN arms situation and remember, DID lists their refs at the end and with links within the articles. This is an ongoing article. Ref. 2 has that “grab your attention” headline that gets folks all excited out here that they’re buying it and that’s the ONLY reason I’m posting this to provide a possible example of how that tank made it in here in the first place. From Ref. 3 (To include Ref. 1) will provide better reporting. Bottom-line no ABRAMS here yet.
(See para 7 of this ref there’s news within the news there. I've seen this info else where too.)


FASTBOAT TOUGH January 21st, 2019 04:58 AM

Re: MBT's
Well to start I've given this some thought for a long time to settle this issue since the testing of the Ukrainian OPLOT-M and the results tended to line up as I expected and as the refs. I dug up in my evaluations would show, what I perceived as weaknesses that shouldn't have existed did. I submitted the following two tanks into the game below, so again, I had to take the time to reevaluate them without being biased in my decision making process. I relied on my evaluations from the recent testing done, looked at the feedback I received from others, rechecked old refs. and found new ones and checked my conclusions against it's peer Russian T-90A UNIT 050, it's main rival T-72B3M/B4 when I play the against the AI. I now fully understand why the AI picks this tank not just occasionally, but just about ALWAYS! I really feel this is one of the better tanks we've ever entered, not only based on how it plays in the game but, in the fact try as I may and given what it's done to my OPLOT-M tanks, I can't find NOTHING wrong with it as presented in the game.

But to fully understand a tank when doing what I propose to do below by giving Don "my" firm numbers for submission, you have to go deeper. I looked at it's predecessors, other contemporaries and one of the best tanks during the period of operations of this tank as listed below.

As with the two already listed these next where also used to evaluate my numbers for STEEL/HEAT/ERA & STABILISER as submitted below. They are (The ones I've submitted or changed will have "*" by the name.) THAILAND *OPLOT-M (T) UNIT 019, UKRAINE T-84 UNIT 059, RUSSIAN *T-80BMV UNIT 046, SWEDEN *STRV-122A UNIT 358 (This tank was chosen because it is my firm belief there is no better "TOP" protected tank in the world. Acted as a check against me as the others did. This came about from tests conducted on their stock of Russian tanks with STRIX which proved devastating to them. Also these LEOPARD tanks were made to order for SWEDEN and NOT stock tanks. The "STEEL" for the turret hatch alone was increased just shy of 2 feet thick which means the surrounding "TOP" area has to be even thicker as all hatches are recessed to avoid such issues as over pressurization etc.. no different then on a Submarine and verified by my co-worker "JAKE" (Helped us on some BRADLEY issues we were looking into in the past.) the ABRAMS/BRADLEY Driver/Gunner extraordinaire. For further see the FB Patch Thread "Patch Post #2 for the 2013/2014 Campaign"), USA M1A2 SEP V1 UNIT 318, M1A1HA+ UNIT 484, *MIA2 SEP V2 UNIT 517,and *M1A2 SEP V3.

UKRAINE/OPLOT-M/UNIT 064/CHANGE/STEEL/HF 75 vice 72/HR 10 vice 8/TOP 10 vice 7/HEAT/110 vice 104/HS 45 vice 40/TR 20 vice 18/ERA/HF 20 vice 15/HS 18 vice 15/TF 20 vice 15/TS 18 vice 15/TOP 20 vice 15/STABILISER 6 vice 5//My key tanks here where the T-84, OPLOT=M (T), T-90A, T-72B3M/B4, T-80BMV and STRV-122A. We know or should know the following by now, the T-90A is it's peer tank, the tank was RESET to the "-M" with the Hull strengthened and the Turret was newly built for this tank, ERA is better than the T-90A and the KBA3 MG has a first round hit probability tested to at least 94%. All this was born out in the evaluations during testing from the refs supplied in the posts and more as described above.

From the tests the average Kill RATIO stands at 3:1 loss favoring the T-72B3M/B4. All the issues have already have been covered with the solutions to help counter the situation and acknowledged.
PG. 82 Posts 813/814/815 (Last Para) and 816.
PG. 83 Posts 824 and 830
PG. 84 Post 832.

Something happened with the next Tank that I haven't figured out yet. I tried finding my posts concerning it when I submitted it, but, I couldn't though I'm sure I just missed them in my search. I'm sure a part of the answer lies in those related Posts.

THAILAND/OPLOT-M/UNIT 019/CHANGE/NAME/OPLOT-T vice OPLOT-M/STABILISER 4 vice 3/STEEL-HEAT-ERA to match UKRAINE OPLOT-M UNIT 064 AS REVISED ABOVE// Though at the time, OPLOT-M was primarily used in referring to this tank, I'm assuming to avoid confusion. The refs. are using OPLOT-T now as has the THAI Army for sometime now. The only difference between these tanks were a small handful of internal issues i.e. AC (Ukraine would add this feature to based on THAI feedback to theirs.) and other tropical related matters. I believe the lesser FCS related numbers are probably good assuming the Ukrainians didn't clear them to receive the full FCS to the level of their own "home" tanks. This is not an unusual practice in the arms trade. That being said, if it's decided to fully match the hopefully revised Ukrainian OPLOT-M then I see no real issue there either.

A final note, I REALLY want to thank everyone for their personal time given to running those tests and providing me with your feedback.

It made the extra work in research etc. to get to this point well worth it and I could've have done that without you!!!

Also I had come across some new information after the testing that might've altered mine a couple of others impressions concerning the Ukrainian KOMBAT ATGM. We believed it was operating as it should, the new information was passed to Don for probably a 3rd look by then, and he kindly took the extra look and reverified our conclusions of the KOMBAT.

Thank You for that!

Well I'm pretty beat right now so a Good Morning or Night to you and have a great week everyone!


luigim January 21st, 2019 08:34 AM

Re: MBT's
Just for info.

Here we can see a photo with the M1A2SEPv3 tank protoype equipped with Trophy APS https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-ar...iguration.html

In game we have only Army SEPv2 with Trophy but the Army and Marine Corps are upgrading the existing M1A2SEPv2 tanks (and M1A1 Marine variants )in service now, so we can guess with a reasonable degree of certainty that the most advanced tank in US service M1A2C will receive - or will be factory-equipped with, when fielded, the same upgrade -->http://www.deagel.com/news/US-Army-a...000018530.aspx



Here some other news, the new name for SEPv3 is M1a2C



FASTBOAT TOUGH January 22nd, 2019 02:00 AM

Re: MBT's
I was going to post along with the SADF tank upgrades the fact that we needed to make changes to the USA OOB concerning the M1A2 ABRAMS SEP V4 that at the time I thought I saw there...must've been REAL tired when that happened. The good news we'll likely see that tank in the game I'm thinking around mid/end 2023. Six prototypes have just or are very to be ordered with evaluations to start in 2021.

In preparation of the above exercise I was going post refs that more importantly showed the USA is going to the process of updating the USMC M1A1 ABRAMS to the SEP V3 (No timeline given.) and have the M1A1 tanks equipped with the TROPHY APS which should start in about a year with M1A2 (Likely SEP V3 first.) versions. So I'm just going to data dump my files here as I know what I'll need for the future already. I'll start with the best and longest running ref on the ABRAMS out there...

First the Tank:
https://www.army.mil/article/172984/...ound_at_a_time (OP TEST EVALUATION UNIT?)
https://www.army.mil/article/194952/...in_battle_tank (NOTE THE TOPIC AND DATE OF ARTICLE.)
https://www.army.mil/article/214733/...proving_ground (NOTE TESTING AND DATE OF ARTICLE)


That last stuck in my head for some reason last week, now I realize it wasn't about SEP V4 as noted above but, the SEP V3 which along with DID article I can't post now (508 Resource Limit Reached.)


Other Protection Projects:

And the USA is testing the NEW MIA1 SA just up the road from me at Ft. Stewart. This should be an improvement on the M1A1 SA tanks we shipped to IRAQ a few years back which I submitted at the time.

We don't have them operational just got the DID article you REALLY need to read the "August 03/17:" entry.

I'm checking the OOB after this. And my notes, something not right to me now. Obviously I was away too long and lost track of things.


FASTBOAT TOUGH January 22nd, 2019 02:33 AM

Re: MBT's
Alright figured it out. I didn't submit this tank, I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and from my copy as it appeared on FB Patch Post Thread PG3 Post #123 MBTs...A1., this was a very important time as this was where I pleaded my case to increase to 50 the TI/GSR for armor we would also extend this to the newly updated BRADLEY UNITS 898/899 that just became available.

The USA is correct so...
USA/M1A2 SEP V3/UNIT 538/CHANGE/START DATE 06/2020 vice 10/2017/MBT IS CURRENTLY STILL IN FIELD/OP EVAL TESTING//The date currently entered is when the first six production models came off the line. These would eventually (And more obviously.) and as the refs are showing, went to the USA units assigned to test it. The significance of the DID entry I pointed to makes sense as it indicated the first 45 of these tanks would be completed, I believe it was in March this year. You'll note the rest of the upgrade completion dates go beyond my "recommended" one above. The test and Prototypes would fill a unit by then or maybe a little earlier. I've already deleted all the refs. before I realized we had a problem here, so you'll have to use my last post and those refs supplied as a start point. Due note the latest is from the Army website as are 2 others.

The other telling line from DID was this...
Now I can't get to it of course but briefly that we're about to deploy a unit to Europe with the M1A2 SEP V2 with the APS. It's on the first page in the first 3-4 paras if I remember.

Clock ticking accidently posted incomplete.


DRG January 22nd, 2019 11:09 AM

Re: MBT's
CORRECTION FYI USA unit 538 is now "M1A2C"

Suhiir January 22nd, 2019 03:09 PM

Re: MBT's

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 844365)
The good news we'll likely see that tank in the game I'm thinking around mid/end 2023.

In preparation of the above exercise I was going post refs that more importantly showed the USA is going to the process of updating the USMC M1A1 ABRAMS to the SEP V3 (No timeline given.) and have the M1A1 tanks equipped with the TROPHY APS which should start in about a year with M1A2 (Likely SEP V3 first.) versions. So I'm just going to

My understanding is most (if not all) USMC M1A1 FEPs have the mounts for Trophy (which was deployed in the Corps in 2016). It's more a matter of if they have enough systems and deem it necessary to deploy therm (there ARE side effects to nearby infantry to consider).

As to a USMC SEP V3, I'd bet on the US Army getting all it's V3's before the USMC sees a single one, and since it'll be 2023 before they even start it'll be outside the current 2025 end, date so it's a non issue.

That foam North Carolina is developing sounds interesting. My question is, tho it's obviously lighter, how much volume of it is needed? A tank with 3m thick armor may be as well protected as a current one but it's hardly practical.

FASTBOAT TOUGH January 23rd, 2019 04:10 AM

Re: MBT's
The CORPS can only hope. TROPHY will be a big help. Also there is the real chance they could bring them up to the SEP V1 or SEP V2 versions just to get them modernized and more combat capable. SEP V2 was a major step forward, I saw enough from that tank to approach Don about the TI/GSR issue SEP 2 can do better than 50 but I knew SEP V3 was being developed and TI/GSR 60 I felt would come with that tank.

The good thing is SEP V2 allowed us to revaluate some of the tanks in the game to get them TI/GSR 50 w/FCS not long after SEP V2 was submitted. It's good we can follow RL to and get into GL considering game limitations due to map size etc. but that's why we have terrain features even in the dessert.

It's scary to think that with the SEP V3 being able to identify vice recognize a target to +5000 yds./accordantly target the same/then shoot and kill it at that distance is just amazing to me.

I'll be the optimist and say we'll see the SEP V3/M1A2C by the date I submitted (4yr point in Testing/Opeval) based on current data that means we won't see the SEP V4/M1A2D until late 2025.

Oh don't you ARMATA, ALTAY and ARJUN Mk-2 get your hopes up to high either if any of those tanks get to FOC by 2023 you'll be doing real good. ARMATA isn't set to start THE OPEVAL process until 2021. If they are as diligent as the USA has been with the M1A2C to this point, then ARMATA won't be operational until late 2024. I honestly feel the ALTAY since they're sort of "back to the drawing board" as I posted are looking at late 2024/early 2025 themselves. As for India and the ARJUN Mk-2 I've spent a "career" trying to figure out what they're trying to do with their tanks. I will say this, if they ever field that tank before 2026, to be added in the game for 2025, well I just might retire than. Well actually kind of our plan for me anyway!?! But seriously India will you do something please!?!

But I can say this w/o a doubt, the CORPS will get an improved tank. And for 2019 there will be NO NEW ARMATA/ALTAY/ARJUN Mk2/M1A2D/OPLOT-P/T-REX/AND OTHERS,but, Russia will get the following instead...

The T-72 mods we've already accounted for with our "hybrid" if you will T-72B3M/B4 and if you haven't followed along lately, it's a "kick ***" tank. The T-90M and T-90MS I covered this past year and longer on the MS which for the Russians will better then the one's exported to KAZITSTAN.

Well off to bed-Good Night!


FASTBOAT TOUGH January 29th, 2019 02:07 AM

Re: MBT's
2 Attachment(s)
First my apologies in advance for going beyond my stated plans for submissions, I just felt that the first item should be entered as it seems to have been lost in the "news" cycle somehow. I do feel good though about the first two items overall. I'm cautious about the last, however, if not now soon as the supporting Refs. will show. I can accept that this if time allows and not otherwise convinced, might still be worth the effort because it is coming if not already here (The numbers run from 6 to 15 units already built.), it'll be ready when it gets fielded and maybe can be made available for the "what if" scenario and campaign developers as previously discussed for a couple of other tanks already submitted. I leave that to Don to decide.

JAPAN/ADD/TYPE 16 MCV 8x8/START 06 2017/C4/SPEED 100km/h (62.1 mph)/4x2 GRENADE LAUNCHERS TURRET MOUNTED/RADIO 91/TI/GSR 50/MODIFIED L7 105mm/L52 JSW/ROUNDS 55 SEE REF. 1 FOR TYPES/RS COAX Type 74 7.62mm/RS Mid Turret 12.7mm M2HB HMG/FCS 50/LASER R/F 22/STABILISER 6/SURVIBILITY 5/STEEL/HEAT USE ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030/ERA NONE MENTIONED/SUBMITTED AS UPARMORED VERSION//The design was based on the SADF ROOIKAT and ITALY's CENTAURA. The MCV was designed to replace the TYPE 74 MBT of which that process has already begun. Due to cost issues of the TYPE 10 during development and sanctions limiting the JGSDF to 600 tanks, the MCV was seen as a cheap alternative to supplement their tank branch.
First off the FCS system is believed to be derived from the TYPE 10. The MG is similar to the one used on the TYPE 74 but modified with the addition of integrated thermal sleeve and fume-extractor the importance of this to MG STABILITY has already been discussed with the recent SADF submissions. It does feature a unique muzzle brake/compensator, consisting of rows of nine holes bored into the barrel in a spiral formation see picture on Ref. 1. I've not seen that on any MBT MG to date.
Researched contemporary peer game units SOUTH AFRICA ROOIKAT II UNIT 017, ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030, JAPAN TYPE 10 UNIT 022 & TYPE 74 KAI UNIT 027. Like the TYPE 10 the ARMOR/STEEL composition and thickness are CLASSIFIED. The same as a side note concerns the TYPE 10 ammo, all we know is that we've (USA) has noted "it is highly effective". I've not come across anything to indicate that the MCV ammo is, I will assume it is of a high quality and effective though.
Relying heavily on Refs. 1 & 2 because they are NEWER and RELIABLE. The next is the same but not updated.
(NOTE LAST PARA & Mr. Foss of JANE'S is a well known writer.)
For further info:

Pics: Note the front 4 wheels are the steering ones for this highly maneuverable and fast vehicle.
Attachment 15653 Attachment 15654

Alright I'm quitting while ahead, last night I didn't quite get this far and hit the wrong button, yes another :pc: moment and no it wasn't that :haha: at that particular moment!?! Well alright sometimes you just have to :D and move on.


Suhiir January 29th, 2019 04:27 AM

Re: MBT's

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 844374)
The CORPS can only hope. TROPHY will be a big help. Also there is the real chance they could bring them up to the SEP V1 or SEP V2 versions just to get them modernized and more combat capable.

As I understand it all the USMC M1's have been upgraded to M1A1 Heavy Common Firepower Enhancement Package (M1A1HC FEP) status so are pretty much on par with the SEP V2 already. The differences are fairly insignificant.

Sorry it took so long to respond to this, I missed the post :mad:

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 PM.

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