Re: MBT's
 

Damaged MERKAVA showing internal configuration of "special" armor.

The proliferation of digital cameras, plus the last fifteen years of combat around the world has made it possible to see this stuff.

Re: MBT's
 

Some information has been revealed (accidentally) by North Korea on their latest tanks.

LINK to photographs-from-north-korean-atgm-tests

Unit 025 P'okpoong-ho in the NK OBAT is the applicable tank.

It appears that from the picture that the P'okpoong-ho / Chonma-216 / M-2002 tank (same tank, different names from different people) has as much protection as a T-72M1 at least.

Good job Don and Andy, you nailed it. :D :up:

Also in the tank line up photo:

The Chonma-216 is the fourth tank in the frontal row. The [Chonma-] 215 with the same armor and engine is the third tank.

Re: MBT's
 

Raytheon - M60 A4S Main Battle Tank Service Life Extension Program promo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFPuYIy3hB8

Re: MBT's
 

The Frontal Turret ERA on the latest Chinese MBTs may not be ERA, but Non Explosive Reactive Armor.

Plus, the last ten years of tanks getting blown up in the Middle East along with recently declassified documents at the British National Archives -- indicate that "Chobham" armor itself may be a really advanced version of NERA.

Anyway; the Chinese "Brezhnev's Brow Module" as described in the attached image appears to be NERA/Ceramic tiles layered over a shell of High Hardness Steel, followed by a hollow space -- the concept apparently being to 'decap' or 'blunt' penetrator heads, followed by imparting yaw on the projectile to snap it, plus standoff space.

My own big takeaway from this is that the Chinese armor modules now look to be very ingenious -- you can easily upgrade the armor on the tanks by simply unbolting the modules, and craning them off; as opposed to having to send an Abrams to a high level depot to have the armor cavities cut open.

Re: MBT's
 

To wit (see attached photos).

One drawing is of the MAXIMUM PROTECTION proposal to retrofit CHIEFTAIN with the 1969 or so version of BURLINGTON (precursor to CHOBHAM).

Second drawing is a cutaway of the BURLINGTON side skirt composition. Looks very similar to NERA.

Final photo is of one of the latest marks of ZTZ-99 -- the side turret armor looks very similar to the "MAXIMUM PROTECTION" proposal for Chieftain.

Still, we won't know for sure until someone actually drills a ZTZ-99 to see if it's ERA or NERA. :p

Re: MBT's
 

Well I don't know how these things "pop into my head" but they do. I was looking into the M-48 tanks Germany sent to Turkey and ended up with the M-67 flamethrower tank. The below ref. is representative of the data I've found concerning the dates of service. It would appear that the M-67 is the the game at least one year early and possibly taken out of service by one year or slightly more. Also this this tank was built on the M-48A1 and M-48A2 platforms my only concern, yet to verify, are the armor protection differences enough to to warrant a change beyond dates? This site was chosen
1. Because of USMC cohort in crime and

2. Because to me anyway I'm seeing what are rare pictures of the USMC tanks in the beginning of their use through at least or better the Korean War.

Please note the references at the bottom when you click on the M-67 section. They include...

1. Standard Military Vehicle Characteristic Data Sheets. Center Line, MI: Army Tank and Automotive Command Reasearch & Engineering Directorate, July 1960.

2. Hunnicutt, R.P. Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, volume 1. Navato, CA: Presidio Press, 1984.

3. Crismon, Fred W. U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1992.

Over 30 years later Mr. Hunnicutt's books are still considered the "Bible" on the Patton tank series.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m67.html
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_...ine_Tanks.html

Well I'm going to "chill out" and take a walk before work today. A little bruised and tired from the "O" course earlier and the REDMAN yesterday.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I have no idea why you question the armour values as they stock M48A1 Patton values

Don

Re: MBT's
 

The M67A1 (7/57-12/64) was built off an M48A1 (4/55-11/64) and has the exact same armor values.
The M67A2 (7/64-12/73) was built off an M48A3 (7/63-11/78) and has the exact same armor values.
There is no change in armor values between the M48A1 and M48A3.
The USMC did not field the M48A2.

The "bible" for USMC armor is "Marines Under Armor" by Ken Estes (retired Marine and retired history professor at Annapolis), whom I've exchanged a couple e-mails with to clarify things in his book.

Re: MBT's
 

Geez!?! What a tough crowd!?! Didn't I say that I had "yet to verify" the armor issue? That would be a yes, as noted in ref. 1 now that I've had a chance to look at it after putting away my gear and hanging up my uniform after just getting home to CINCLANTHOME, yes there is no armor difference.

Also from ref. 1 is this..."The M67A2 was again solely a Marine initiative, and brought the flame tank hull up to M48A3 standard. In addition to the work on the hulls, the M67 turrets were improved to M67A1 standard."

In ref. 2 is the main site that's run by, well, Marine tankers.

So about the M-48A2 well this next shows you had a USMC Lt.Col. who did have one and it's his picture...
Attachment 14284
This is the attached tagline from the ref. 2 for the picture above..."M48A2 (the track tension idler wheel was cut off of these) Peter Saussy."

He must've been the only one to get one!?! :confused:

Attachment 14285
This again is the attached tagline from the ref. 2 for the picture above...
Lt. Horner’s platoon, from F/2/5 take cover behind an M67A2 Flame Tank and a M48A3 during the battle for Hue. Photo ?

I did say I looked at the pictures though, that's the "rare" part I mentioned.

Ref. 2 from my previous if you missed it.
http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_...ine_Tanks.html

I just don't know.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Interesting..........that link was written by a retired USMC ( born in Canada I might add.... ):)

and under "Interwar Marine Tanks" he clearly lists the M48A2.........along with those photos


That said the armour values and those of the M67 are correct in the game which is what I was addressing. Whether the USMC should have the A2 added.......IDK but there is no "game difference" between the A2 and A3 so the if the USMC used it or not is not a "game changer"....more an academic excercise.....maybe they "borrowed" them from the Army....

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Well what I have is:

"The first Tank Battalion turned over it's M46s and M39s to the Armys 6th Tank Battalion on 17 March [1955] and embarked for Pendelton and a new issue of M48A1 tanks."

"The initial order of M48s in 1952 also reflected 28 of the eventual 74 flame-tank variants, the M67 (formerly T66) ..."

"The flame-tank development remains a singular case of Marine Corps tank procurement of a separate weapon within the Army material system. In November 1949 the Commandant advised the Army that he considered the Armys plans to develop a trailer-type flame-tank unsatisfactory."

"The 421 medium M48A1 tanks would enter the M48A3 overhaul program in December 1962 at a rate of 25 per month, and the Anniston and Red River Army Depots also upgraded the 73 M67A1s [1268 liters of flame fuel] to M67A2 [1457 liters of flame fuel] at the rate of 5 per month."

"USMC inventory M48A3 1967 - Authorized 457 - Possessed 409"

No place in his book is the M48A2 mentioned, but I'll look into it.

Re: MBT's
 

Other then Mr Lloyd G. Reynolds and some model kits I can't find a single reference to an M48A2 in the USMC. Tho it's possible some of the M48A1s may have actually been M48A2s as they're essentially identical:

"This version, first accepted in 1956, first had and improved powerpack and transmission (a fuel-injected version of Continental’s V-12)
Second, a redesigned rear plate with exhaust louvres, and side hull intake grilles surrounded a solid center area overtop of the exhaust tunnel, greatly improving the infared signature. The more compact design inside the engine compartment allowed to fit bigger capacity fuel tanks, for 335 US gallons (1270L), giving an approximative range of 160 miles or 260 km. Moreover the A2 had a an improved turret control, and relocated engine\’s air cleaners for better access and maintenance. The suspensions also were modified, with a modified compensating idler wheel attachment, double bump spring on the first road wheel arm, and friction snubbers instead of the hydraulic shock absorbers. The second and fourth track return rollers were deleted. The driver\’s steering wheel was enlarged, and the transmission shifter was relocated to the floor on the driver\’s right. It had also a modified personnel heater exhaust pipe, an improved turret control system, and flattened fenders."

Re: MBT's
 

Some of you will note I've done this before, I've sent out a couple of emails to Vietnam era CORPS tanker websites concerning the M-48A2. Below is a ref. I found that shows the Military Museum of Southern New England, Danbury CT. has a M-48A2C (This model primarily equipped with a more efficient main gun.) with distinctive USMC markings on it as shown in the pictures. I doing a further search into the tanks shown here and in my previous post as pictured too see if the serial numbers "hit" on the internet somewhere.
http://preservedtanks.com/Profile.aspx?UniqueID=2379

I love a challenge.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Keeps life interesting.

In theory starting in 1962 all USMC M48s were starting an upgrade to A3s, by the time they hit Vietnam in 1965 they probably should have mostly been A3s.
The other possibility would be that the 3rd Tank Bn being located in Okinawa would be last on the upgrade list and some deal was cut with the Army that resulted in the USMC trading un-upgraded M48A1s for Army M48A2Cs which were then fielded until they could be upgraded to A3s.

Re: MBT's
 

I think the more proper I now believe USMC M-48A2C was the tank that bridged the gap to the M-48A3 (To include the ARMY.) which needed to be done. The M-48A2/A2C was used by both services it appears with the A2C having improved the main gun capabilities with other improvements over the M-48A1/A2. What seems to have been one of the major factors in further development to the M-48A3 was that both services wanted to get away from the gasoline engines they were using up to that time for many reasons to chiefly include overall safety, fuel economy and reliability. But one thing I'm seeing constantly though when looking at the Amazon/Google online book excerpts that are offered is that I'm reading ...the U.S. Army and Marines... when discussing the M-48A2 it would seem the tank sort of "fell through the cracks" but at the same time is still there. I'm getting rough dates from about 1957-1959 until 1962-1963 for the M-48A2. But for the record my focus is strictly is on verification of use and not dates at this time. If you verify that the rest will fall into place, unless again you're dealing with the French 105mm which as you can see will always be a thorn in my side, and I'll never get those years/research hours back again. :D

But to be clear I don't see this issue related to my "historically being accurate" and other argument I made for getting the M-60A1 RISE PASSIVE entered into the game for the ARMY from Page 8/POST #73 of this thread as I submitted in 2010. For a more detailed explanation and why this thread is if you will "off limits" is to allow for Don and I to hash these issues out in a more focused manner see The FASTBOAT Patch page thread Pages #1-#2. You'll also see the "baby steps" I was taking at the time but I was thankful for the help I got from Don and AMX to get me through those then embarrassing but now funny moments. :doh:

The M-48A2/A2C is as different overall from the M-48A1 as the M-48A3 is to both of the previous mods.

I'm just waiting to hear back as indicated previously.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Here's a very quick update concerning the USMC use of the M-48A2...

1) It seems the only verifiable tank (non-flame tank) the USMC used in Vietnam was the M-48A3.

2) As Suhiir noted, the USMC did receive their tanks from the ARMY, in this case from retired stock as the ARMY transitioned from the M-48 series to the M-60 series.
Note: The M-48A1 were new stock tanks received jointly with the ARMY off the production line.

3) Confirmed (And have re-posted the picture below.) that Lt.Col. George Saussy (Jr.) first does exist and was in command of the 3rd Tank Battalion, 3rd MarDiv. USMC from 12 Aug. 1960 until 8 Jul. 1961. This seems to validate his picture as previously posted.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xq...20USMC&f=false

Attachment 14287

4) Have heard back on my inquiry. But my question wasn't answered. I will post the full email when I've received and exhausted that source, as also already posted.

5) Issue I see is a potential that the wrong tanks might be represented with the Vietnam War Campaign and possibly some related scenarios as well, as noted in 1) above. The ARMY however did have some M-48A2/A2C tanks in country early on, but like the USMC no M-48A1 tanks served there.

Though as I had mentioned in 5) above, my true concern again is to verify the use of the M-48A2/A2C or both by the USMC only.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I've found nothing to indicate that the USMC used anything but M48A3/M67A2 in Vietnam proper. It's probable some M48A1s were still in service, especially with the reserve 4th Tank Bn., back in the CONUS.

The real question, for my part, is ... did the USMC ever use significant number of M48A2Cs? They may well have had some, but if the lions share were A1s or A3s I don't feel adding the A2C is worthwhile. Much the same way the USMC did in fact possess 10 x M24s but such a small number isn't worth including in the OOB.

Re: MBT's
 

Huge difference between the M-48A1 and M-48A2C here's an excerpt from my first response to my email inquiry...
"The A-1 was a gasoline powered vehicle. The USMC did not have them in-country. In July of 1968, the Army did use some A-1's for a short time. They found out that too many mines caused too many explosions and they moved to the A-3." - Greg Martin

If the ARMY still used them (The A1.) you know the USMC still did also through 1968. The M-48A1 was very venerable to mines as the underbelly around the fuel tank wasn't heavily armored. They were fire death traps much in the way I believe if memory serves the T-62 was.

If it's found the USMC had the M-48A2 and M-48A2C given the option I'd just enter the M-48A2C. And we've had and suspect still to a lesser degree, some limited number units in the game. The Sukhoi S-37 Berkut comes to mind that was finally removed from the Russian OOB within the last 2-3+ years. Best estimates put it at 3 to 5 examples built.
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...s37_berkut.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/

I might up the ante later this morning and reach out for some help from the PAO office of the following unit...
http://www.1stmardiv.marines.mil/Uni...N/Contact.aspx

I see it starting along the lines of "Good Morning, Sir I'm...
I was wondering if you can help me find...Yes I'm a Retired Submariner...Line goes goes mysteriously dead...Well it might need some polishing, besides I'd hate the thought of the PAO coughing out or spilling coffee on their nice clean uniform :rolleyes: yeah maybe not so much after all!?! :D

Good Ni...or whatever it is as long as it means sleep for me.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Results of phone call #1 to 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd MARDIV at Camp Lejeune, NC...
http://www.2ndmardiv.marines.mil/Units/2ndTankBN.aspx

"Good morning sir,

We spoke on the phone about the M48A2 tank and I did some research for you. The following is a link that should help you. This website is not USMC official, but it does seem credible.

http://mcvthf.org/History/Evolution_of_Marine_Tanks.html

Respectfully,
Lance Cpl. Damarko Bones
II MEF PAO
(910) 449-8592"

Well if the link looks familiar it should, It's the one I originally posted. He did also verify the picture as authentic from my last post as well and that he was the CO of the unit at the time it was taken. No hesitation on the part of LCpl. Bones in pulling up this site either, it must be in their "favorites" or some such for ready access. We were done in about five minutes.

I'm currently awaiting a response from S-3 Operations to the same question on left on their voice mail (Weird the PAO didn't have voice mail) from 1st Tank Battalion, 1st MARDIV at 29 Palms, CA.
http://www.1stmardiv.marines.mil/Units/1STTANKBN.aspx

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I haven't heard back from Ken Estes yet but did find this:
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index...41155&hl=m48a2

"I think you forgot some of our conversations, Ray. The USMC was all M48A3 by 1964. It was the army that ran out of them and deployed the A2s to VN for awhile."

"On page 393 of Hunnicutt's Patton, there is a photo of an A2C, belonging to "1st Battalion, 5th Mechanized Division" [???] engaged in Operation Fisher, 6Jan69."

"Mike Green's Armored Warfare in the Vietnam War mentions "a number of M48A2Cs" deployed to Vietnam by the army in 1967 and 1968. [page 14]"

"P96 of Simon Dunston's Vietnam Tracks has a pic of an 11th Cav A2C, very pimped out. Page 90 has distant pic of A2C with 4/12th Cav, along with language suggesting army tank losses brought the A2Cs to Vietnam...."

"Once the war was in full tilt, it was probably difficult for the army to gear up. For the USMC the 421 medium M48A1 tanks would enter the M48A3 overhaul program in December 1962 at the rate of 25 per month, and the Anniston and Red River Army Depots also upgraded the 73 M67A1 to M67A2 at five per month. The 160 M103 heavies [of 218 on hand] cycled through their rebuild beginning in August, 1963 at the rate of 25 per month. I'd say the army was caught unprepared when MACV decided that tanks would be sent to RVN after all. The USMC sent theirs in right away with each brigade or division, but juxtaposed, it meant there was no army support for tanks in VN for the first year+. Our gear on Okinawa was always a bit poor, because it existed at the end of a very long and ineffective USMC supply & maint system chain. Our M48A3s ran out of road wheels in the 30 days according to most people I knew who were early deployers; track shortages followed soon and then all the rest. Of course by 60 days, the USMC ground forces became dependent upon the army CommZ or equivalent in theater. With no army tanks yet in theater, it became horrific, was already so for the poor M-50 Ontos and amtracs. These had never been provisioned properly in the USMC since inserv."

"Later, the USMC transferred all their A3s [originally acquired as M48 and M48A1] to the army for its A5 program. Our payback came when we received 50 and 132 M1A1s in FY94 and 95 from the army [48 common heavy armor, rest 7th year]"

Re: MBT's
 

When the USMC deployed to Vietnam it took it's M48A3s ... BUT the US Army logistic system in Vietnam apparently had primarily M48A2s.
So when the USMC needed to swap a tank due to battle damage/maintenance the replacement from the US Army was probably an M48A2.

My best guess why we have verifiable photos and such of USMC M48A2s.

Re: MBT's
 

Heard back from Ken and:

"Well, we are back to recognition matters for the photos. Pappy's comment under the Saussy tank pic refers to the removal of the idler with the M48A2C and later. The photo label does not make it an A2. Hunnicutt is quite clear in his Patton that the A2s had the three return rollers, and since all USMC M48A3s were converted M48A1 tanks, all had the five return rollers, no exceptions. Most decisively is the travel lock on the Saussy M48. It is raised and stands up right behind the turret. The travel locks for the A2 and A3 were at the the very rear of the engine deck. It is an M48A1.

Pappy's other pic with the caption "M48A2 Rear Photo ?" does not seem to be a USMC tank by any markings I can make out. If you blow it up, you see the tank on the left rear displays a star on its turret, most un-USMC except for the Korean War. It does not look like any of the USMC tank parks of the day. Note the missing components of the subject tank. It might even be an M48A3 with the air cleaners stripped away. In short, a parts tank for some unknown unit. I don't know that the M48A2 and the M48A3 rear engine grills are at all different. Do you? Pappy's M48A3 pics from Vietnam are not very clear in the grill detail. Here's some of mine in the attached pic. There is no date on the "A2" photo, nor place. Pappy has been sloppy before on his blog."

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index...howtopic=41757

So basically we have a case of poor memory and a mis-labeled picture.

Re: MBT's
 

I also found this for US Army tank info.

"Now,this is the tank list I have,which is the entire point:

M48A1 (until December 1979?)
M48A3
M48A5 (October 1975-mid '90)
M60 (fall of 1960-1963?)
M60A1 (1963-1972?) (basic version)
M60A1(AOS) (late 1972-1975))
M60A1(RISE) (1975-77?)
M60A1(RISE/PASSIVE) (1977-1997?)
M60A1 ERA (late '80)
M60A2 "Starship" (1974-1981)
M60A3 (May 1979-upgraded with TTS couple of months later?)
M60A3 (TTS) (August 1979-1997)
M1 (1984-1992?)
M1IP (1984-1992?)
M1A1 (August 1985)
M1A1 HA (October 1988)"

Re: MBT's
 

Well this next from a reliable reference and sourced from the German Ministry of Defense ought to "shake things up" a little.

The highlights are from the German Ministry of Defense...

"The Germans are planning to upgrade the Leopard 2A4 tanks that remain in storage up to the 2A7 variant, and then to introduce them into the Bundeswehr’s inventory, so that the Army would have 320, instead of 225 tanks at its disposal." - This has been discussed for sometime now. Target dates for modernization are 2017/2018.

"The Germans had decided to procure around 100 additional Leopard 2A4 tanks from the defence industry companies. These tanks had been withdrawn from active use in April 2015." - Now this might have some game bearing, it I think would extend the end date for the latest version of the LEO 2A4. These tanks (In storage now.) would be the modernization platform to the LEO 2A7.

"Besides the stored Leopards, the Bundeshwehr is also willing to introduce 16 Dutch Leopard 2A6NL main battle tanks into active service.
Initially, the Dutch Ministry of Defence was planning to completely withdraw main battle tanks tanks from active service. Nonetheless, ultimately it was decided that a single company would become a part of the German-Dutch armoured battalion, formed within the framework of the Bundeswehr’s 414th Battalion, initially seen as a reserve unit which now has been reactivated." - The Dutch originally intended on selling these tanks as well, however due to questions concerning the potential buyers human rights record, the Parliament nixed the deal. Now the question becomes how do we treat these tanks in the Netherlands OOB? We've already set the precedence with the SADF Denel AH-2 Rooivalk, where as you might recall the "fleet" was grounded and modernized over an 18-24 month period. We set the end date of the AH-2 when officially grounded and added the new modernized version when it "re" entered service. Do we consider the same for the Dutch Leopard 2A6NL?

And you'll love this and I never really doubted it but...

"In order to fully equip the existing units of the Army, including six armoured battalions together with the training units, ca. 320 Leopards are needed. The German Army, at the moment, has a little more than 200 Leopard 2A6 tanks at its disposal, with minor quantities of Leopard 2A7 and Leopard 2A5 platforms complementing the above package." - The bold is mine. This does throw a wrench into the whole LEO 2A7 issue I believe the Germans had at least one or two (I think one to be "more" correct.) companies worth of them before the Qatar and Saudi deals fell through for these same tanks. Those deals were to help pay for the Bundeshwehr to acquire them in numbers. The LEO 2A5 we left in service I believe but, this needs verification.

Beyond the LEO 2A7...
Who knows but cooperation with the French to jointly development a MBT is currently still ongoing to include the forming of a company. But that you'll have to read for yourself. The rest is in the MBT/HELO and Patch Threads as discussed above.

Full article.
http://www.defence24.com/380302,germ...hin-the-media#

German OOB check results and please check me as I'm trying to beat the clock!!...

***LEOPARD 2A4 recommend UNIT 268 for service date extension to above date 04/2015. Currently at 12/2010, looks like this was the last one in service in the OOB.***

***LEOPARD 2A5 recommend UNIT 275 for service date extension. Appears last two LEO 2A5 (UNITS 273/275) came out of service in 2010.***

***LEOPARD 2A7 still in the game recommend no changes. I thought though at was discussed it would be put into the "HOLD" status when the topic came up whether they had them yet or not. I'm :) leave it.***

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

For now as the Dutch Leos are integrated into what is really a German unit and they are not independent of that organization so....... if someone wants Dutch Leos they can buy 2a6's from the German OOB as "captured"
..........and the 2A7 I have change to a code X3 so it's human player only

Re: MBT's
 

The Germans just unveiled a new 130mm Main Gun intended to; far future, defeat the T14 Armata.

Right now, it has no official use; but maybe RecruitMonty will find this information useful.

MGCS = Main ground combat system = the supposed Leo III MBT.

http://defense-update.com/20160614_r...130mm-gun.html

The new 130 mm gun is a precondition for the future tank, known as ‘Main Ground Combat System’ (MGCS) being developed by Germany. MGCS is currently being developed by Germany and France as a future replacement for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc main battle tanks, considering the increasing threat posed by Russian systems such as the Armata (T-14) MBTs.

Rheinmetall unveiled the new weapon at Eurosatory 2016.

Rheinmetall unveiled the new L/51 130mm tank gun currently undergoing company testing. The new weapon provides 50 percent improvement in performance, over the current 120 mm cannon. It is intended for use in a new class of main battle tanks. Photo: Noam Eshel, Defense-Update

Re: MBT's
 

130mm ... so they're outdoing the JagdTiger and Maus ...

I don't know about the rest of you but I've found myself somewhat amused by tank development these last few years.

Re: MBT's
 

I think this is the latest iteration of the FUTURE NATO MAIN GUN effort (not an official name), to find a successor to the 120mm Rheinmetall in much the same way the 120mm Rheinmetall succeeded the 105mm L7 as the "standard" tank gun of NATO.

The earlier 140mm Tank Gun effort in Germany/USA in the late 1980s/Early 1990s was an earlier iteration of this concept.

Re: MBT's
 

Can't find the original discussion point from early last month, it might even be in this thread. Anyway the verdict is in concerning the second and most famous photo of the flag raising over IWO JIMA. In short the new claims made in the last few years and the forensic evidence shows that HM John Bradley USN was not at or in that picture (However he is positively identified as being in the first flag raising and picture of that event.) but, that Harold Schultz USMC was. The article speaks for itself.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-i...seven-decades/
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/marine...misidentified/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Something of interest

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001066239.pdf

among other things.....

....Original armor penetration estimates were 600 mm for BGM-71A/B and 700–800 mm for BGM-71C. However, according to a now declassified CIA study, the true penetration values against a vertical target are much lower—just 430 mm for basic TOW and 630 mm for Improved TOW

Re: MBT's
 

Not really surprised I remember the US testing mid 70s weapons against T-72s I think it was after the cold war & confirming what Britain & Germany had told them.
Think it was 3 tanks & they used all ground based antitank weapons & the A-10s cannon, result was all tanks damaged & impared but still battle capable when engaged frontaly.

Re: MBT's
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE1U...youtu.be&t=106

Iraq has combined a T-55 turret with a 57mm S-60 Flak Gun chassis to create a sort of towed mobile turret (at 1:46 in video)

They've also combined a Humvee with the twin 23mm Weapon station from a BTR-94 (at 0:46).

Re: MBT's
 

Things I have my eye on or another way of saying I'm txxxxxxg these...
Iran - It appears they have a new tank running around, and I would concur it's armed with a 125mm MG based on the Russian armor they already possess. It does look somewhat like the T-90MS though I wouldn't expect it to be of the same quality. The tank is named the KARRAR.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/augus..._12608161.html

Also...
They've improved their M60 tanks as well.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._51205163.html

Thailand - This topic lead Ukraine to get their act together to produce the T-84 OPLOT M that they had contracted to do.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua..._10501162.html

India - This next shows how long I keep my data and where I left off. This still needs some verification of the development and implementation of these reported improvements to to the ARJUN.
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/...-mk1a-mbts.htm

Belarus - This one of my "OWOO" bottom line is they get a enhanced and much improved T-72.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_..._11507161.html

Well you'll have to excuse me while "I hit the rack" one more to go. That "rack" is still more comfortable then say a "foxhole" you ground pounders use. :rolleyes: But none of it is as good as the USAF gets!! :shock:

Almost forgot...

CIA - Consider this a bonus. And note the date as 2004 making this one of the newer released sources on this topic.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001066239.pdf

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

You might find the following interesting as did I: "And the T-90 is tough. In a rare glimpse of the machine in combat in February, an American-made TOW anti-tank missile fired by rebel fighters hit a Syrian T-90 but appeared to only cause minor damage." Source: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...he-world-17468.

And the following: "For all the videos coming out of the Syrian civil war, a one minute, 31-second clip of a U.S.-made TOW missile slamming into a T-90 tank got more attention than most. In the video uploaded in February, Russia’s most advanced operational battle tank met one of the United States’ main tank killers on the battlefield." Source: https://warisboring.com/what-a-t-90-...65f#.aeve4bu32.

https://sites.google.com/site/mywins...Q-b616UoEB.jpg

"The Research Institute of Steel, a Russian company which makes reactive armor plates for the T-90, was pleased. The crew lived, according to Russian press reports, and the only visible damage was on one of the T-90’s two Shtora transmitters, which hanged limp in the photograph."

I take away that the Russian T-90 is a hybrid of a T-80 turret mounted on a T-72 chassis, so it should not be much of a surprise of an Iranian variant as they plenty of T-72's (or had). Furthermore, the real prize is the reactive armor, do the Iranian produce quality reactive armor, and finally, that Syrian crewed T-90's Shtora's electro-optical jammer either failed to jam the TOW or, it did not switch on when fired upon. Do the Iranians have capable ECM?

As Iran becomes more embedded with Syrian forces and Iraqi forces, what they put on the battlefield is of utmost concern.

=====

Re: MBT's
 

I'm curious to know what exact TOW version is that, aside from "US made....main tank killers", especially if its tandem-charged or not.

From the document "Lessons Learned from the Ukrainian-Russian War" (at the other thread), it seems T-90 is indeed mighty enough to withstand standard single warhead ATGM, but since tandem-charged warhead is quite a rarity on these theaters outside of the producer nations (let alone be used against them!), we can't be quite sure how modern MBTs fare against these specialized anti-reactive armor missiles.

I somehow believe modern MBTs would still not do well against modern anti-tank missiles, i.e with multi-charged warhead.

Re: MBT's
 

Then there's always the question of just where was it hit? Someplace that would have caused destruction or in a bustle rack?

Re: MBT's
 

From the article: "We saw the wire-guided missile bob toward the T-90, which was parked on a crest between two low-slung buildings. Then the missile hit the tank’s turret with a tremendous flash which sent up a cloud of smoke. One of the crew members bailed and the video ended."

=====

Re: MBT's
 

Well I'll throw in my "two sense" here...
1. The T-90 pictured does not appear to have the latest version of the SHTORA Protection System on it which is now in a 2nd GEN and am not a 100% but possibly 3rd GEN currently or under development.

2. That TOW had to be a TOW 2A which was the first of the 2nd GEN TOW Systems.

3. The source (With our approval.) of supple was from Saudi Arabia which received in. never mind from one of my refs (Verified by SIPRI as well.)

"Saudi Arabia signed two foreign military sale (FMS) agreements with the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in December 2013. The first FMS worth $170m covers 750 BGM-71 2B TOW missiles, seven Fly-to-Buy TOW2B missiles, 1,000 BGM-71 2A TOW missiles, seven Fly-to-Buy TOW2A missiles, and the support equipment.

The second FMS worth $900m covers 9,650 BGM-71 2A TOW RF missiles, 4,145 BGM-71 2B TOW Aero RF missiles, 91 TOW-2A Fly-to-Buy missiles, 49 TOW-2B Fly-to-Buy missiles, and the associated equipment."
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/

Kind of obvious to me they received several thousand more advanced TOW systems and the BGM-71 2A is not a training missile because you can buy them separately and they'd be cheaper as well. The date of the sale and delivery to the Saudis and Syrian rebels makes this a "home run" to me.

Rest of the Refs...
http://www.businessinsider.com/syria...n-syria-2016-2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sile-WINS.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Trying to beat the edit clock!! :eek: Was trying to find something quick on SHTORA and came across this on the incident being discussed. Read the next VERY CLOSELY if true, though I stand buy what I posted above, I don't know if I should leave it as "those dumb M..... and end it as you choose or just laugh!!!! SUHIIR already knows that answer, me being a retired "Bubblehead", yeah I did both.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...who-wins-15638

Re: MBT's
 

That's a lot more than two cents.

======

Re: MBT's
 

Don already well understands all this, he's just happy that I listened to him about year ago on (That post is out here somewhere.) of "breaking up my thoughts" as my brain tends to work quicker then my fingers at times over the years. Newtons 3rd Law I believe is appropriate here "that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction." or if you will, :typing: = :pc: !

Because I understand the economics of weapons systems etc. I'll just say my "two cents" already includes the cost of inflation and project cost over runs. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Sorry. I meant to say more than two cents a smoking gun pointing directly to Saudi as proxy in the Syrian rebellion, with tacit US approval if not down right complicity.

=====

Re: MBT's
 

After spending so many years tracking a piece of equipment, it's good to maybe be able to finally say "I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel." though in my minds eye it still seems very dim down there given this tanks developmental history as well, though still not as bad the Indian ARJUN which took over thirty years to develop.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/augus..._13108164.html

As some know I've been watching developments from these "guys" as well for sometime and have posted on this equipment already. Consider this an update on a more highly motivated and better trained military since NATO came to help.
http://www.defence24.com/435182,ukra...ational-guard#

And finally something I'm waiting for Italy to "pull the trigger on" any day now (I'm feeling very optimistic-aren't I!?!)
but I can hope!
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centauro_2.htm

We take what we can get, when we can get it. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Pictures from Polish PT-16 MBT, Anders IFV and Leopard PL
https://twitter.com/GrantTurnbull_/s...14310602719232

Re: MBT's
 

PT-16 is only a proposal

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt_16.htm

Re: MBT's
 

Don is correct. We will likely see this tank because as I posted a few months back, this is a joint proposal with the UKRAINE. What is not clear is whether or not Poland will actually get these for themselves. Why? The big reason is about 4-5 years ago I believe for Malaysia they got from Poland a spec built PT-91 TWARDY improved MBT's which are better still then the PT-16. The one glaring thing that stands out to me is the fact that the PT-16 still stores the ammo in the crew spaces, whereas this was corrected in the Malaysian tank. I can't remember if the ammo was stored in an armored locker or storage with blow out panels and it was equipped with a better FCS suite and electronics package in general.

This ref has just been updated this week.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt_16.htm

Also to save time some guys a short time back where discussing things similar to the next...
http://www.military-today.com/bases/...tary_caves.htm

Edit; Found it (PT-91M) on FASTBOAT Thread Page 3/Post 30 (28 & 29 related) on 11-29-10, 06:15 PM
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt91_twardy.htm

LOOK UNDER VARIANTS SECTION...
"PT-91M Pendekar export version supplied to Malaysia. This MBT is fitted with improved 125 mm gun, S-1000 engine, new hydropneumatic transmission, French fire control system, new communication system and some other changes."

That FCS would be the SAGEM system as carried on the LECLERC.

All from memory ladies and gentlemen, anyone for chess?!? :p

That was my big one to modernize Malaysia's OOB, THAT'S THE KIND OF WORK I TRULY LIKE DOING OUT HERE.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

These guys are normally pretty good (ref). The video might be useful as well (ref 1). I think the data here might be better then what we had when I submitted this tank in 2010. With that Commanders site it would give the PT-91M tank a minimal "hunter killer" capability. We might need to consider a quick second look at it just to ensure we got it right.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3431.html
http://defence-blog.com/army/malaysi...new-tanks.html
http://www.janes.com/article/57177/u...-polish-pt-91s

Video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVJuL4ZPaHo

JANE'S ref seems to indicate that the Polish have them as well, that's news to me so now "the plot thickens"!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Alright here's my breakdown of the existing issues game wise concerning both the Polish PT-91 vs. the Malaysian PT-91M as follows...

1. PT-91M (1000hp) is 10km/h faster on the road than the PT-91 (850hp). How this translates to off road performance is beyond the scope of my knowledge in the calculus used within the game but I would think the 10km/h road speed difference would be seen in the game.

2. PT-91M has the wrong MG. This could've been based on what we had at the time, not sure though.
The PT-91 should have the following MG..."The main cannon is also fitted with a Stelectro-hydraulic gun stabilization system, providing higher accuracy and fire on the move capability. The vehicle has a new autoloader and can carry 42 rounds of 125mm ammunition. The fire control system can select up to 6 different types of ammunition to be fired from the 125mm 2A46M (D-81TM) smoothbore cannon, which has an elevation of -6 to +13 degree‘s, which is considerably less than Western tanks."

By contrast the PT-91M has the following...
"A new improved 2A46MS main cannon. The breech block has been redesigned to make it more symmetric, decreasing the resistance of the recoil break whilst the projectile is moving in the barrel, removing the recoil break axis below the main cannon axis in the azimuth plain, using two recuperators acting against each other and placing them above the main gun axis. This has increased first hit probability by 23% over the original 2A46M main cannon."

3. Spacing is the worst enemy of any ERA protection system. ERAWA has to be thought about much in the same way we think of the later MERKAVA variants.
First it's a hybrid ERA, referred to as ERA Armor.

Simply ERAWA has no spacing gaps which in of itself improves overall protection.

Third which I was unaware of, did you know there was a "light" laminate armor barrier sandwiched between the steel armor and the ERAWA for both the PT-91 and PT-91M? Just like that Israeli tank above though not as good as the MERKAVA.

3a. A reassessment in protection, is probably needed based on the above for both the PT-91 and PT-91M. However that being said, further consideration has to be given to the PT-91M based on the following..."An improved version of the Erawa ERA (possibly increasing the weight as its explosive is larger)."

This improved version has been identified as ERAWA 2 for the PT-91M of Malaysia as also noted in ref. 2 below.

4. Both have "hunter killer" capability normally simply and loosely defined as it's ability to hit a target while on the move and rapidly move to the next target.

This ref(s) are representative of others in encapsulating the other refs data for the purpose of this post.
http://tanknutdave.com/the-polish-pt...dy-qhardq-mbt/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/polan..._pictures.html

Bonus ref. of related topic...
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspo...and-pt-16.html


It's very late!! Time to hit the rack before something else hits me!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Not sure where this goes. New Russian UGV breaking into the public eye:

http://www.janes.com/article/63562/n...es-for-service

Meanwhile, it appears the Uran-9 UGV that broke surface a year ago (google it) is getting close to actual service with the Russian Ground Forces. But who knows.

Re: MBT's
 

http://defense-update.com/20151231_r...at-robots.html

Those control vehicles look vulnerable if you can find them-------- I wonder how close they have to be to the robots.......

Re: MBT's
 

I have heard recently experienced tank officers who have grave concerns about situational awareness in a crewed armoured vehicle that depends entirely on screens (ie, you cannot stick your head up and look around) so I would imagine that a remote controlled vehicle has got to be even worse.