Re: MBT's
 

Thank you Andy, that's what I tried to show in the below ref. I used in Post #694, the table at the bottom of the ref. On similar tables I've seen, the 2000m/2500m marks seem to represent the average benchmark distance used to determine a shells effectiveness of delivery, burn and ultimately penetration and damage assessment. Though to a lesser degree today, Mother Nature, primarily wind, temp/humidity, lift/drag and gravity. Without a benchmark whether it's ammo, your CPU or Graphics card etc. etc. pick something, you'll never know how the subject compares against another of the same or like type object.

I'm just glad I came across those WEG's as they bear this out as the tanks and ammo have advanced through time. The numbers along the timeline are actually very close regardless of who they belong to. It's the other factors that make the biggest difference on the battlefield such as the MG, FCS, Protection, EW, Experience/Training, ROF shall I go on? Too many to count, but, all that I've listed and the others are damm (As in holding water back.) factored in by Andy and Don. And if I to far off base here I'd appreciate a correction here.

To me range never meant a thing (weapons) in the game unless, we're talking about VISION that's the artificiality I'm concerned with here when it comes to equipment that makes me see "forever". How many times also, have others like myself discussed infinitive the importance of LOS out here in the forums and terrain masking when setting up covering fire etc. and moving your troops around? Only in certain environments (Desert/Plains.) will the ammo be more important in general.

There might be some adjusts to be made but, especially after for me and it makes absolute sense when again you look at the below ref. and Andy's Post, I think we're not as bad off as thought.

You'll if you read the table correctly, will see the difference between expected penetration levels for these rounds versus actual for them at the benchmark 2000m mark. That (On average at around 50mm.) represents the difference between a kill or for the crew a chance to "limp home"-maybe.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

These graphs should hopefully tie this up in a simple manner.
Attachment 14921 Attachment 14922

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Here we go...
CHANGE/UNIT 538/ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V3/START DATE 4/117 to 5/120//
Prototypes (6) to the USA by end of this month, or Oct.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...tle_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/unit..._11710154.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Well no one can say I haven't been watching this for some years now, and now it's finally done thanks to the combat experiences of the IDF which I believe finally drove home the need to get this done-the USA has finally got an APS system. When the process started there were I believe upwards of five systems being evaluated. The USA has chosen the TROPHY APS system for the M1A2 SEP V2 (And only for now.) the article is indicating the system has already begun being installed on the tanks.

I recommend the following as I also believe some of those tanks have it as well...
USA/ADD/JAN 2018/M1A2 SEP V2/COPY UNIT 517/CHANGE EW 0 TO EW 2/4 TROPHY/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.// ALSO...
USA/CHANGE/UNITS 517 M1A2 SEP V2 & 538 M1A2 SEP V3/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.//
When submitted in Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013 under MBT's...A1 M1A2 SEP V2 the unit was submitted to have the 50 CAL CROWS II RWS. For all the Patch Posts I've submitted, I've maintained a hard copy of each. When the Patch comes out I do a line item check against what I submitted and what actually was put in. Reading from my "crib" notes in the margin are the following...
"TI/GSR 50" with check mark and "THANKS 898/899 NEW BRADLEY" (A reminder which I posted to Don later.) this tells me it was originally put in the game with the CROWS II RWS. Am I off base here and I missed it then? Or was it changed afterwards? I think however there's a performance difference between the two 50 CAL weapons in the game. A note about the ref., in the title it does say..."...tanks fitted with..." and not "will be" "soon to be" "in the future" "expected to be" "planned to be" etc. etc.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...on_system.html
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/...sraeli-trophy/
https://scout.com/military/warrior/A...ecti-101454662
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/06/...h-chief-hints/

Maybe going back to my "crib" notes is how I should ease myself "back into the game"?

Confirmed Thailand to get first 28 VT 4 MBT's between 08 -15 Oct. 2017. Still staying with my fielding date as already posted earlier to allow for fitting out and crew training and certification. Updated ref.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...ttle_tank.html

4am time to be "stealthy" as not to risk the wrath of you know who! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

The CROWS was never entered until today..

Re: MBT's
 

Crows and similar remote weapon stations are simply a TMG (not an AAMG that can get suppressed and lose shots) or regular MG or AGL with stabiliser added to the vehicle (if it did not have it, just 1 usually on say a hummer). And some form of night vision - usually TI, sometimes 30 or so for Image Intensifiers, if the intel points to that. Then stir in some RF and FC.

See for example USA OOB Units #798, 799 (with RWS) and 348, 349, 658, 659 without.

cheers
Andy

Re: MBT's
 

Extract from
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contrac...ticle/1328736/

General Dynamics Land Systems Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan, has been awarded a $9,899,995 modification (P00027) to contract W56HZV-17-C-0067 to support and urgent material release and have first unit equipped on trophy installed on an Armor Brigade Combat Team’s M1A2 SEPv2. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of March 29, 2019. Fiscal 2017 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $9,899,995 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.

Despite being an urgent material release look at the timeframe for completion.
One could argue it could actualy become urgent & get fast tracked though & call me cynical the army seems adverse to using none home grown stuff.
Adding new stuff in general probably the date in most cases should be pushed back 6-12 months.
Country orders 50 whatever recieves first 10 on so & so. Probably used for training does not enter combat service for quite a while.

Re: MBT's
 

Currently the values I've been using for the CROWS system are:
Fire Control = 3
Range Finder = 3
Stabilizer = 1
Vision = 40 (usually)

Re: MBT's
 

Well modern medium sized tanks are slowly gaining popularity again with the advent of high pressure 105mm guns (Effective range is 4000m) and the ever improving ammo associated with these guns. To spend the added "dollars" to give these tanks and others like them, advanced "hunter killer" systems etc. shows the confidence they have in them to "get the job done" in the field. This I've been watching for a couple of years now. The tank is a joint venture between Turkey and
Indonesia.

[b]Too early to throw out a date for this tank, will just have to be patient with this one for awhile.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...indonesia.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/turk..._10412164.html

Now for some much needed sleep, and by the way, my mission to be stealthy was a success! :D Good Night/or Morning!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Exactly why I never bothered wasting a weapons slot on it for the high end MBT's and such that already have FC/RF/S/V ratings that far exceed those numbers. But I added it this time as a "why not" I'm less concerned with running out of slots than I once was. The "CROWS" in game now has a slightly enhanced HEK value than a normal 12.7

Re: MBT's
 

I wasn't aware you'd improved the HEK (presumably by 1?) and have been using the normal HMG/MMGs for CROWS mounts. Does such a slight increase in HEK actually have a noticeable effect on the weapon?