Re: MBT's
 

RE: T-84 turret armour---------Either you or someone else already brought this up and it's already been adjusted

Re: MBT's
 

First things first: I checked Russian UNIT 697 it shows the T-72B3M/B4 which in itself is it's own tank and I understand what you did here. For further I refer you to Pg.47/Post 466.

The Russian T-72B1 really is just a slightly better T-72B w/o ATGM capability. It does create a little dilemma because if I remember correctly the T-72B, B1 & B2 all became operational in 1985. But there's no denying that the T-72B1 was updated with the "White Eagle" Pkg. and were operational by 2012, have (are seeing) seen combat in the Ukraine and having been deployed to the "Eastern Front" to include a new gun etc. etc. as I posted last night concerning Nicaragua having them as well. This is the tank I propose for Russia. The question again is do we have to enter the original unmodified one?

Ukraine/Thailand: OPLOT-T as both these countries have named it, is on track for Thailand to receive the rest of their order of tanks by late Fall as has been posted by me and widely on the net. Yes production was curtailed for national defense purposes, however a second production line was opened late last Fall to fulfill this order as noted. Since it was brought up and Don certainly knows by now how I follow up on equipment I've submitted (Or related to them.) wouldn't be surprised that again as mentioned yes Thailand was forced to "stop gap" the situation by ordering tanks from China. This had nothing to do about the OPLOT-T's performance, they are very happy with it's performance, but, to simply to meet their immediate national defense requirements.
http://www.uawire.org/news/ukraine-p...ks-to-thailand
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...ia-being-17817
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua..._10301176.html

Ukraine: The T-80U and T-80UD (Mostly) are currently in service at around 270 - 275 tanks depending on source. Also the Ukraine never fielded the T-80, they just built them for Russia. It would seem they from Russian feedback (?) and from their own building experiences (?), saw the same flaws with the T-80 and went to their own modified T-80U/UD models as shown in ref. 2 below. The first ref. is from a Russian and I'm assuming a journalist as he posted some pictures of the OPLOT-M. About three posts down he lists the UAF tanks that have seen combat in Eastern Ukraine.
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/in...lat-and-other/
https://www.forecastinternational.co...DACH_RECNO=422

If the T-80 is in the Ukraine OOB, I don't believe it's ever been fielded. I do believe they had some after the Cold War ended but brought them to the above discussed standards. Note: Only Russian and possibly East German troops operated them (?) however, they were definitely stationed there.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...disaster-13550

Note: Russia has been bringing back the T-80 over the last few months. They've been updating them first before deploying them. All T-80 Russian models were to have been retired by 2015. However given the the current political situation the existing variants, to include the T-80U, will be held in service until 2020 pending arrival in numbers of the ARMATA.
http://www.defense-house.com/defense...ve-until-2020/
http://carnegie.ru/2014/05/25/close-ranks/hbrg

Well it's getting late. I've seen in a couple of defense reporting sites and in a couple of business sites that the Ukraine took a major step in getting it's defense industry straightened out by hiring our recent former head of DARPA we would call that a "coup" in most circles.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...rpa-chief.html
https://sputniknews.com/military/201...prom-analysis/.

Related recent Ukrainian Posts: Pg.48/Post 472 & Pg.46/Post 457.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Posted today, a lesson in economics for a country in a state of war. This is a good self assessment of Ukraines situation. Consider this a follow up to the last and previous posts where noted.
http://www.unian.info/economics/1739...-thailand.html

More on the T-80, second ref. might address some of the armor protection questions...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-80.php
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

I also believe the T-84 (Sometimes referred to as JUST the OPLOT.) is still in Ukrainian service.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

These armor values ( upper range guesstimates) are clearly referring to Oplot-M tank not base T84, it's pure logic that a 80's turret with rubber "composite" and not DU cannot have Chobham armor RHA. But It has already been correct so ok.

However, I Can only thank you for your steady hard work towards game perfection :)

Re: MBT's
 

Talk about all in on the Ukrainian Eastern Front and from the Russian source I've mentioned and if you notice he does use the word "possibly" where noted, gotta be a reporter...
Ukraine: Tanks used by UAF in Eastern Ukraine:
T-64 modifications and versions: A, B, B1, B1V, BV, B1M, BM1M (for Kongo), BM "Bulat";
T-72 modifications and versions: B, BA or BM, possibly UMG, AV, UA1 (for Ethiopia);
T-80, possibly U or UD.

Rebels even better and you'll love this...
List of rebels vehicles is pretty much the same (T-80U/UD was captured, but i didn't saw it in action), with exception of single IS-3, T-55 and T-34-85 and T-72B3.

Ukraine adds a trophy as well a T-72B1...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/co...russian_t72b1/

What's striking me now is, I was so focused on all these other tank issues of the last couple of days that I never realized how many T-72B1 tanks the Russians are using in the field now. And no, I'm not talking about the "White Eagle"
version they operate along with Nicaragua as already posted. I'll tell/show you the most obvious way to tell the B1 from the B1 "White Eagle" after this unless Don has questions I promise to "move along little doggy" as they might say around Texas and such.
1) Attachment 14556 2) Attachment 14558

3) Attachment 14557

1&2) It should be fairly obvious that the Russians have upgraded these T-72B1 tanks and what sticks out to me is the ERA is of a newer type possibly Kontact-5.

3) Shows one of the Nicaraguan T-72B1 "White Eagle" tanks I chose this shot to more clearly demonstrate "It ain't a White Eagle" w/o the following...
The commanders 360 panoramic sight is mounted on a "stovepipe" as shown on the left/aft side of the turret. This is what gives it a "Hunter Killer" capability. This sets it apart from all the Russian tanks in service that I'm aware of.

Also there's an obvious difference between the Russian "White Eagle" and Nicaraguan version as shown in picture #3 above. The Russian version uses the same RWS AAMG that's mounted on the T-72MS. Nicaraguan still shows a RWS with a standard AAMG.

Good Night or Morning wherever you may be. :)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

More about t80 upgrading

http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo..._11511161.html

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/176...s#.WIvpzfkrKUk

http://defence-blog.com/army/russia-...tle-tanks.html

http://defence-blog.com/army/russian...ttle-tank.html

http://www.janes.com/article/65580/r...nks-to-service

http://www.strategic-culture.org/new...vice-2017.html

IMHO, we have already this version of t80 in the game and it's T80UM.. and maybe its retire date must be postponed to 2025, if they are spending money in upgrading this cold war era MBT..

but it isn't clear because they are talking about an upgrading pack on par with T72B3, Relikt armor and Sosna FCS.

What do you think about?

Re: MBT's
 

Well this ref. has made what I've been saying here for awhile about the T-84 in Ukraine use pretty "rock solid" now. Looks like the T-84 to the right is configured to be dozor blade ready. But what I'm looking at is the ERA pkg. on these tanks without the time now to get a closer look, my first reaction to the picture and "second look" if you will, is that the ERA mounted is the NOZH version carried on the OPLOT-M which is of a very advanced type.
http://www.janes.com/article/67465/u...ond-debaltseve
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84protection.php

According to KMDB above it is NOZH ERA. You can access the rest of the stats for the tank through the above ref. upper left in blue. And for the 100th time and this site makes that distinction as well, the T-84 OPLOT (As sold to Pakistan.) and OPLOT-BM/or OPLOT-M (Same MBT) are different tanks. This distinction for some reason continues to cause issues.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

The tanks in the photo are clearly t64bv, Pat!

Jane's error! You Can see the typical turret rear and side..

Typical kontakt1 blocks on the side skirts

https://www.unian.info/war/1758086-n...vka-video.html

These are the same tanks from the front

Re: MBT's
 

Nozh ERA equips T64B1M and BM Bulat, not older T64BV with Kontakt1 in the photo!

T84 is an old model so it's equipped with surplus Kontakt-5 blocks from its T80 Hull or indigenous production Nozh ERA but It makes no difference because Nozh ERA shape is similar to Kontakt-5 shape externally, you can compare the shape of the side turret blocks in the link below to any T72 w.Kontakt5 (BM model 1989 or T72B3 or T90A) http://www.sdtb.kiev.ua/sdtb_defence_en.htm

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm

As you Can see, Nozh equips T64B1M

Duplet ERA that equips OplotM is a different Story: similar to Russian Relikt ERA

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm read here

So let's make clarity:

The tanks in Jane's photo are T64BV with old gen kontakt1

T64B1M and T64BM Bulat and base T84 (read up) with Nozh ERA, similar in appereance to Kontakt-5 so they should have similar values

Oplot-M is equipped with Duplet ERA (Nozh-2) with performance close/same as Relikt ERA

Re: MBT's
 

I link other two useful posts

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/in...at-and-other/& Definitive guide about Ukrainian Tanks


http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/in...eactive-armor/
Here they talk about Oplot-M's Duplet: it is a multiplayered Nozh ERA

Also must be noted that T64B1M CAN NOT fire ATGM, because it's a T64B1 evolution! But it hase the same protection values of T64BM Bulat.

So IMHO in game: BM Oplot Unit 064 armor values are fine but ERA must go up close to T90MS values
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm

T84 Oplot has same Nozh ERA of T64B1M and T64BM Bulat so for the first same ERA values but higher armor values

But what unit number is this version in game?

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64bm_bulat.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm it says "After the recent Ukrainian upgrade, protection of this tank has been improved. It is fitted with built-in Nozh modular explosive reactive armor. Developers claim that this armor provides protection against tandem warheads and reduces penetration of APFSDS rounds by over 90%. The same armor is used on Ukrainian Army T-64BM Bulat and Oplot main battle tanks. The tank is also fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems."

Unit 053 base T84 is this tank: http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm and it says is equipped with Kontakt5, I suggest values similar to russian T80U

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

Re: MBT'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.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

It's all yours...

Don,
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.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/unite..._11610155.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru..._11302171.html

Something else I'm TRACKING...
http://www.janes.com/article/64383/a...me-takes-shape


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

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

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."
http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/leopard2
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=148

Have a great weekend everyone!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

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
overall
Categories
heroes
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

Read:

" 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."
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalPower...85m3_revealed/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tr85m1.htm

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

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

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

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).
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/viitor...5m1-si-tr-85m2

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

Regards,
Pat"

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

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

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:
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/modern...i-este-viabila

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:
http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/strv-2020

http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/mli-gr...a-pentru-acasa

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

I need to hit the rack!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT'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.
http://www.janes.com/defence

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

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

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.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru..._31002163.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._72510162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._52612162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march..._11201171.html

More one one of my favorite tanks I've submitted...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...pe-10-hitomaru

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.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...pe-10-hitomaru

And as I was looking for some info on this site, sometime today they posted this...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/karrar.htm

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. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

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

Re: MBT's
 

just curious which ones you are referring to .........the Syrians or the Israelis

Re: MBT's
 

Oh sorry the Israeli sinai grey stuff.

Re: MBT's
 

Yes, the experiment worked well. I could not get much closer to that colour using an actual paint sample wash in 24 bit and there are natural variations in that paint colour anyway

Re: MBT's
 

I know that what constitutes and / or approximates the colour is an often hotly debated topic on modelling forums. So to pull it off with the limited palette you have to work with is doubly nice!

Re: MBT's
 

That colour the Israelis use looks different with age and the conditions it's photographed under but that's nothing compared to the variations in Russian paint colour in WW2. I added a camo M4A2 (76) to the Russian winSPWW2 OOB based on a photo and during research into the colours used I found this

FULL ARTICLE HERE http://www.4bogreen.com/colors

Also, I am finding there are a LOT wider range of colours and tones that can be produced with the game palette than most people think possible

Re: MBT's
 

Russia has been very busy lately so I'm going to just focus on them here...

1) T-90A (S export version) is being upgraded to the T-90M as noted below
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._21909163.html

2) Following repayment of Russian debt to South Korea in the late 1990's and early 2000's, some of this equipment is going back to Russia. My concern here is are all those ATGW systems in the ROK OOB?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._11109161.html

3) ARMATA/T-14 items...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_..._51907161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...9161_tass.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/novem..._12711161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...s51302171.html

4) The T-72B3 will be the "backbone" of Russian Airborne armored units.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_..._10707166.html

5) T-80U very much alive and active.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...130220171.html

6) Thirty years later and still a frontline tank.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru..._81302171.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._10207161.html

7) T-90MS getting A LOT of interest from other than India. Not mentioned below is Kuwait as well. They're involved in the same talks with Saudi Arabia.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_...840606161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...s_2103173.html

A bonus some might find interesting post Cold War almost 15yrs. after it ended.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001066239.pdf

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I have many sources of info but, I didn't want anyone to think I pulled the T-90MS story (Post above.) about Kuwait's interest in the tank "outta of my butt" so just released earlier yesterday (Wed.) from one of my main stream sources...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march..._12203172.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90ms_tagil.htm


We entered this tank to the Russian OOB a few years back, as the T-90AM Russian version of the MS. Last two refs. added if any "tweaking" is required before this tank actually sees the "light of day" most likely for India first as they have already signed a contract for if I remember correctly was for 248/9 T-90MS units. But I believe it's still good though honestly it's been about 2 or 3 years since I've looked at it.

I just checked the OOB and I see it's UNIT 059 listed as the MS version which would be incorrect. Also unsupported reports claim Russia is operating a "few" unspecified number of T-90AM tanks (Big difference here is it uses a 20mm secondary weapon.) and the intention is to start building them in 2020. This is very sketchy at this point.

It's good to have sources! ;) And I'll never reveal all of them-sorry-OK not really!?! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Ran out of edit time but for clarification...I had believed we originally entered the T-90AM based on some information we had at the time, which to use the same phraseology as in my last, was "very sketchy" and we kept the tank "ready to go" but not available as I always described them as a 999 UNIT.

If I may suggest the following...
A) Inactivate UNIT 059 and keep it as the build model for the export version T-90MS (SM as sometimes referred to.) until one of those countries actually gets them.

B) Once delivered to the first customer as shown currently or "tweaked" if needed, change UNIT 059 to the T-90AM version as discussed and again in an inactive status until Russia fields it fully as is now planned.

Again the tank is NOT active in any OOB in this game currently. A deal with KAZAKHSTAN fell through about 4yrs. ago.

Russian T-90AM (About as good as there is for now.)...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...a/T-90_MBT.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
https://southfront.org/russia-milita...f-three-tanks/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

It's is " active " currently in the Indian OOB and was put in a couple years back on speculation it would be in service..... I get bit all the time with stuff like this and it's time I listened to my own advice and NOT ENTER ANYTHING UNTIL ITS ACTUALLY IN SERVICE...so I have little use for any info about " what might be sold to whoever" at all

Re: MBT's
 

Well I felt kind've bad about the last post by Don. History has shown that at times equipment I've "reported on" has made it into this game without myself actually having had submitted it to Don. As noted in the past many times and speaking ONLY for myself, our arrangement has been simply if there's strong evidence to support it we'll work within a six month "swag' of the expected fielding date based mostly on including the training/certification of the crews for that piece of equipment as I've recently posted in this thread on the U.S. Army training for the Abrams in response to a question from Don. You don't automatically field a unit without training first unless in time of war and the game does this (Or did.) when you upgraded tank Y for tank Z IN YOUR CORE UNITS WITH THE EXISTING CREW, you took a small hit in the crews experience level.

This will be the case when India does get and operate the T-90MS. They have very experienced crews that have operated the T-90S for a very long time now and as a reminder they've licensed built the same also for a very long time.

Status thus far for India is the contract has been signed since last November 2016 as also reported by SIPRI they also confirm reports from the web that the deal is worth just over 2 Billion U.S. for 464 units of the T-90MS. India's MOD is pushing hard to get 64 units directly from Russia for immediate deployment to the Pakistani border as there have been several border clashes involving the killing of Indian soldiers at the border. Well Russia has to build them first. No status of delivery of those tanks yet. I can confirm none were delivered by the end of 2016. You should know I'll be watching for developments. My best guess would be around Oct. 2017 earliest.

To my opening section for now on when I post in any of "my" threads you will see as the lead one of or both of the following "tag lines" FYI and Fielded anything under those "tags lines" well means just that and NOTHING ELSE.

Don my apologies if something I posted lead you to entering the tank in India's OOB.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Not too much off topic I think more information that some players might find useful in game play concerning tactics a very real possibility of a set of or one scenario for the folks that like doing that kind of thing concerning what would end up as a fighting withdrawal of Ukrainian forces. In any case a very good analysis of the Battle of Debal’tseve.

Also a multi use battle analysis of CRUSADER & GAZLALA.

Article on the future of our armor most surprising is where the use of the M113 is projected to be still in service.

Again possibly for the scenario types and from a tactics prospective, "The Role of Reconnaissance Forces in the Counterattack" they even offer one (Scenario) for "food for thought" but use two case studies and break them down and compare the two. They are, Case Study 1: Task Force Kean’s counterattack, 1950 Situation: North Korean attack & Case Study 2: Sharon’s
counterattack, 1973 Situation: Egyptian and Syrian attack.

There is more on armor tactics etc.
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eA...17_edition.pdf
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/

So you thought I would post something other than the real deal!?!
I think I'll keep the second one myself.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Well these are FYI as well as updates which will require some minor adjustments. My part for these first two tanks started back with the 2010/2011 Patch Campaign first dealing as a "CHANGE" submission for/to the ALTAY (That was entered in as the South Korean K2 as it was Turkeys plan to buy them from South Korea at the time.) and the ARJUN Mk II for India as an "ADD" that was designed as a much improved version of the ARJUN. But DRADO and the Indian Army just don't get along. The ARJUN completely "destroyed" the Russian tanks and others held in service. The army fearing embarrassment, completely withdraw all their T-72 variants before it started and their best tank the very up to date T-90S didn't stand a chance. Both these tanks have had a series of delays which even after we made some changes in dates mostly, are both going to have to see changes in them again among a couple of other minor changes. Let's begin...

1. TURKEY/ALTAY/UNIT 614/CHANGE/START DATE JUN 2018 VICE JUN 2017.// Well the issue again for this tank is the engine. There have been others in the past but this has been the "big one". What simply happened much like with India was the transfer of technology. South Korea wasn't all about it if you will concerning the more advanced technologies involved. K2 was out. They settled a % is still S. Korean the rest was "Turkey first thinking". So S. Korea was out followed by Japan, Austria, themselves throughout and it seems settled with the Ukraine. It appears full production will start sometime in May 2017.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._11204173.html
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...nk-engine-tech
http://www.armyrecognition.com/turke...ctures_uk.html

2. INDIA/ARJUN Mk II/UNITS 022 & 023/CHANGE/START DATE JAN 2020 VICE JAN 2017.// The dates are the priority as there are some other changes to come as well concerning the LAHAT which has been ongoing, they just can't seem to get it to work with the MG & FCS over the last 8 years or so. Suppositely they have had a successful launch using a new ATGW developed by or with the Ukraine. I feel I've spent a "lifetime" dealing with these tanks. I guess it's only appropriate since it ONLY took 30 years from conception to the Mk I to get a tank fielded. :rolleyes:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/...ia-spurns.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/...osal-sets.html
http://www.defencenews.in/article/Th...ttle-Tank-3787
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._81004172.html
http://www.janes.com/article/67714/a...or-arjun-mk-ii
http://www.armyrecognition.com/india...elligence.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/india...elligence.html

Welcome to my world which granted is much smaller then Andy's or Don's but all the same sometimes, still a PITA.

All the usual factors involved here development, production, distribution, standing up of units and training them in my decision tree for the above.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

You will see this in the SPA/SPAA & North Korean Threads as well. I've been waiting for this data to come out since last Friday. Couldn't tell if the Pokpung-ho was mounting a new double barrelled MG or if it was a Grenade Launcher now that question has been answered. Did some work on this OOB a few years back with Don and the "resident" expert on the subject Marcello. We've had some "interesting" discussions ourselves but, I have always respected his opinions. Don't know what's happened to him but, he made me better when I first decided to start posting out here going back to the start of my MRAP Thread. It will be posted where this belongs but first I need them in my working threads. These are mostly I think minor change issues to existing (Copy) units.

Any information from a reliable source as this is worth it's weight in gold when it concerns North Korea.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._11704172.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

http://www.strategic-culture.org/new...vice-2017.html

Hot news and cool photo of the new model

Re: MBT's
 

Of course we've had a "BV" model in the OOB's since 1985
I guess this will be the T-80BV-U ( upgrade )

Re: MBT's
 

Got some tank news...

Poland...
Several months back I reported on the possibility of Poland getting a Light - Med. tank (Since the named GEPARD.) and them maybe updating the PT-91 (w/Ukraine). For the former it's not looking so good in it's dead (ANDER's all over again some may remember.) and the latter it's off the drawing boards and looks like it's on. Once modernized the tank will be designated the PT-16. We also have an early look at it in ref. 3 below.
http://www.defence24.com/604670,poli...ead-of-gepard#
http://www.defence24.com/598836,poli...-an-abrupt-end
http://armyrecognition.com/poland_po...res_video.html

Germany... I'm coming to appreciate this site as of late and there's good information here on where Germany is headed and likely Poland as mentioned above.
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspo...provments.html

Finally I do track things for sometime...
Russia... As already noted.
http://www.janes.com/article/65580/r...nks-to-service

I feel this will happen it's been awful quite on the Russian front concerning the T-14 and given all the pomp n circumstance that has thus far proceeded this tank and the above news about the T-80 this should bode as "a cautionary tale" for you ARMATA enthusiasts. Remember the Russian once they started operating the T-80 didn't even like the tank. It did get better after they got rid of the turbo-charged engine but only by degrees.

A bonus night with CINCLANTHOME and since I re-certified today I'm ready to save lives again!! CPR-First Aid anyone!?! Anyone!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

The next site is a little more interested in carrying and tracking the type stories shown below more so then any of the several ones I use on a regular basis.

The first story again, backs others from this site and a couple of others I've posted over the past year. Based on this mounting and consistent documentation and of course my "humble" opinion, I feel at this point and time we have enough to support a more realistic operational service date for the T-14 ARMATA. Currently the Russian T-14 UNIT 170 has an in service date of 6/2018, we've known this was subject to change for sometime, I believe that time is in the next patch. It will take at least a year or more of operational testing/training and production before this MBT is fully operational. I recommend a "tightening" of the date as follows: 6/2020.

As a reminder to everyone as I tracked it that long, India's ARJUN took years before it was operational. I'm not comparing India's issues with ARJUN to Russia's with the ARMATA, but again, they're also having developmental and production issues with their tank that still need to be worked out. And ask yourselves, if everything was alright, why bring back the T-80 which they really didn't care for in the first place? But they are as posted here by myself and others as a "stop gap" until it's ready. Anyway another article "to add to the pile"...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_..._12106174.html

Support for the question...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._11109161.html
http://www.janes.com/article/65580/r...nks-to-service

And we'll know for sure because this is the other thing they do better on a consistent basis than anyone else to date...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_..._22306173.html

Just some more food for thought, though speaking for myself I'm getting full. And you know what happens when you eat too much... You :puke:!! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I hope you'll humor me to some extent with the following.This exercise is another example of the issues that Don and I just love to deal with when it comes to new equipment.

So by the numbers if you will and this will be the short version as long as you remember we've already had some mileage "down the road" with this MBT prior to 1) below...

1) I would respectfully ask you to visit Post 632/Item 1 and read it.

2) Of course you would do well to read all of the REF. below if your interested in this MBT or the development and procurement of such equipment. But, for the sake of this exercise, and for context, please go to the following section CONTRACTS and KEY EVENTS 2016-2017.

3) Read the April 13/17 entry first.

4) Now read the June 16/17 entry. I have provided below as REF 2 the highlighted portion of this section. As a reminder with this site those highlighted portions link you to a source document.

And if you don't feel like it and you trust me enough here's just a quick break down of 1-4 above.

1) Discussed issues related to the development and production issues for this MBT with multiple refs to support the discussion. Conclusion was to push in service date back to JUN/2018 vice current in service date.

3) Bottom line "All is well!" with serial production to begin in MAY/2017 which makes the JUN 2018 in service date plausible.

4) Magically "All is not well!" and as it would turn out in REF 2. below the same issues I pointed out in POST 632 haven't been fully addressed and the news now is OTOKAR has lost the contract as the single source manufacturer of this MBT, so that Turkey in not accepting the bid, has opened it up to competition which they hope will be concluded by the end of this year.

Don sorry but, prudence now dictates an in service date of no sooner then JAN/2019 or maybe better APRIL/2019.

This is an example of ownership and followup when submitting equipment. Don can correct me and I have all my submissions but, I believe this was submitted by me about 4-5 years ago.

Anyway...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...project-05012/
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...News%20Roundup

I'm trying hard to "gear up" but I have to be honest and say besides my personal issues at the time, this type of thing was a minor reason on top of everything else for my "vacation" in doing my submissions.

I can at this time easily and "for real" say-Don I have at least 20 pieces of new equipment for the following countries, this what it is, when they think it'll be in service, here's a ref or two and I even got you some good pictures to go with it.

And as we did a few years, I guarantee you at least five or more would need to be deleted. We've seen it here before.

Oh before I go found this earlier tonight from JANE'S this concerns Russian UNIT 879/BMPT. They are reporting that Russia cancelled the program. If you go with it you got at least one more slot back or more. Para 2 goes directly to the issue.
http://www.janes.com/article/71842/n...layed-in-syria

See what I mean?

JUST TRYING TO "STAY IN MY THREE FOOT WORLD".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

:banghead

YEAH BUT.........is this "new" BMPT actually in Russian service? I have serious doubts. I think they are looking for export customers and this thing fits well with what the Syrian could use right now......but if it doesn't have active ATGM measures it's just a nice shiney new target

Re: MBT's
 

Don, simply no on Russia. It's intended for the export market once they cancelled the program. Again from the article Kazakhstan is the only known user.

Given where it's displayed the "new" version (Developed in 2013.) BMPT-72 Terminator 2 it looks like Syria is intended as the possible second customer for the series. I can't think of a better place for a real world op eval at the moment. I'll be watching for developments.

I remember "we" had some discussion on this vehicle in the forum. I don't ever remember coming across anything saying it got canceled myself but, before I go I'm going to do a quick search.

Key words in Ref.1 Para. 1 are... "The BMPT is expected to enter service with the Russian Army during the next couple of years." Ref. 2 for FYI. Ref. 3 confirms/supports the "no go" on the BMPT as reported by JANE'S.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt_72.htm
https://sputniknews.com/military/201...ssia-new-tank/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

QUOTE

.........However earlier in April, Oleg Sienko, a senior manager with the manufacturer, Uralvagonzavod Corporation, told RIA Novosti that Russia also plans to develop its tank support fighting vehicle dubbed the Terminator-3 based on the country’s latest Armata tanks.

Re: MBT's
 

I did see that as well, and I'll keep an eye out for it however, as you know I go beyond the military to the economic and I personally think they might be over reaching with the BMPT TERMINATOR-3. That's going to be a very expensive toy when compared to everything else Russia is trying to accomplish across the board. Their economy is struggling and crude and gas are down against ruble. They've already been adjusting downward on the total of T-14 tanks from initial buy estimates (Though really not that unusual for most projects including F-35.) and we might see the same for their other ARMATA based projects of which none are inexpensive by their and many other countries standards.

This really will be more about following "the dollars" to see if the BMPT TERMINATOR-3 comes to fruition or not. We do know the previous two TERMINATOR Mods have not as far as Russia is concerned.

If it does before 2025/2026 and given the slot situation, it'll set up for some interesting decision making at that time. Given the current production issues with the T-14 as already outlined, and someone giving me a bit of a handicap, I don't see it fully put into service before Oct. 2022.

Be bold or go home, and since I just got home, I'll just be bold. ;)

For FYI...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...terminator.php
http://www.scout.com/military/warrio...ghting-vehicle

Again we'll see.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Since less than a week ago, however, the Syrian army has begun operating a solitary BMPT-2. First seen during Assad's visit to Russia's Latakia air base last week, the Russian BMPT-2 has now been handed over to the Syrians.

"Reportedly it will fight with the renowned Liwa al-Quds unit which is headed for a new offensive against ISIS in eastern Hama. Liwa al-Quds ("Jerusalem Brigade") is a unit manned by Palestinian refugees which distinguished itself in the difficult battle for Aleppo city. Uralvagonzavod gets to test its vehicle in battle hoping this will lead to production orders, and the Syrians (Palestinians) get to use a potent Russian experimental weapon." (Scott.net 4 July 2017)

"The tragic experience of the Chechen wars demonstrated the necessity to protect tanks that operate in urban conditions. An enemy soldier with a rocket launcher in a city street could blow up a tank that has to negotiate narrow streets. Tanks are also vulnerable in rugged terrain.

On Jan. 1, 1995, a column of the 131st Separate Motor Rifle Brigade was almost totally destroyed during an attack on the Chechen capital Grozny. 22 tanks and 45 armored personnel carriers were lost due to firing by Chechen militants while the column entered the city.

To avoid such tragedies, the Russian military command had started to use the ZSU-23-4 Shilka self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon to protect tanks. These weapons have limitations. The anti-aircraft weapons cannot operate in close contact with the enemy on the ground and they lack the proper systems to detect ground targets.

It’s because of the limitations of Shilka that the first Terminator was invented. The vehicle was designed by Russian company Uralvagonzavod in the late 1990s. It was built using the chassis of the T-90 main battle tank, and was armed with 2A42 automatic cannons, AGS-17 automatic grenade launchers, a PKTM machine gun, and four launchers for ATAKA anti-tank guided missiles.

The main disadvantage of the first Terminator was its high cost, since using the T-90 ‘s chassis for an armored fighting vehicle of this type turned out to be prohibitively expensive.

This version The new machine, BMPT-72 (aka Terminator-2), was built to fix both the major and minor disadvantages of its predecessor. It succeeded by having a mechanism to protect the ATAKA missiles launchers, a new engine, and an advanced fire control system.

But the main change was in the replacement of the expensive T-90 chasses with those of the obsolete T-72 tanks. This made the Terminator-2 more affordable."
(Egorov, Boris 30 June 2017 rbhtn.com)

The high costs were noted by Pat in an earlier post. It would appear, if the rbth.com reporting is accurate, the BMPT-2 will be mounted on a T-72 chassis to save rubles, and may as a consequence enter Russian service in lieu of the BMPT-3.

<br>

Re: MBT's
 

T-72 it is for the T2 the below is the manufacturer site as provided by Tanks Encyclopedia from the "links" section as I had previously posted. In a nutshell much improved technology as you would expect given the developmental histories, much cheaper because of the T-72 chassis as noted (Besides the T-90S/MS is the backbone of their higher end export MBT's and the chassis would be wasted on the TERMINATOR series at this point in time.) and is much better suited to urban combat as T2 has been "powered up", suspension improved, and weighs four tons less making it more agile though, still better protected than T1.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

If Syria buys, which I think they will, as noted, Russia will be watching very closely how T2 performs during it's RL Op Eval.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

If am not sure Syria can "buy" much of anything given her six years or so of a very bitter anti-insurgency war. Really, it is remarkable the army has not folded years ago, rather than remain resilient with a large compliment of Christian, Druze, and Sunni Muslims within her professional officers. Syria manages to "pay" her army yet she has had little of any control over her gas and oil fields.

So, then it could be that part of the deal is that Syria is "buying" the vehicle via an exchange of rights to gas and oil.
<br>

Re: MBT's
 

Let's not forget that Syria also offers Russia their only Mediterranean Port as well currently. I would bet they miss their anchorages off Libya and ports they had in Egypt during the Cold War. Not that I had any personal knowledge of them, been around them or under them.

Just not something we did. :angel

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I'll be quick here, found the following to be very interesting in the details it provided. We finally have an actual count of how many APS munitions at least this system holds. In this case for their tanks (T-84) 8/or 12 or if you will, 2 per launcher. They don't all launch, only if the incoming threat falls within a launchers defensive arc will it fire. But the last should be already understood, this however is the first, unless I've missed it in other systems, that actually tell you how many rounds the launcher contains that again, I'm aware of.
http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/bronete...shchiti-zaslon

Also I reported on this quite some time ago, so the first ref is more of a refresher the real news is in the second ref. Also ref. 2 provides some very useful pictures clearly showing some of the upgrades being made.
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine...tle-tanks.html
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine...ependence.html

Remember as I've had to clear this up in the past the T-84 is NOT the T-84 OPLOT-M/or just OPLOT-M. Don't want anyone to be confused by this as I've seen some media do this as well.

Never go to the "home" page when you're trying to hit the rack (:doh:) but, this is news worthy and something to watch...
http://defence-blog.com/army/russias...ttle-tanks.html

Have a great day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Does this mean only one is fired per threat or multiple launches from various points on the vehicle to create this "dense cloud of fast-moving splinters "

Re: MBT's
 

What I get is...One launcher with a 150-180 degree arc of detection will fire one round against that inbound threat/then it will "detonate" and provide the platform with a full 360 degree level of protection/the second round in that same launcher will be armed to respond against another inbound threat if launched against the platform if again it still falls within it's arc of detect-ability.

From the ref...
"...system releases a (First round.-mine) dense cloud of fast-moving splinters in the trajectory path of the incoming threat, creating a 360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle, while a backup munition is automatically deployed ready to fire once the first round is disposed of."

Though I don't like that highlighted word where it is...
"360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle,"

My normal backup protocol for this type of situation has already been activated and launched. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I would assume 2 cover the frontal arc & 2 the rear given the 150-180 coverage arcs.
Potentialy I would say 2 would cover any arc & activate unless they talk to each other & the second does not fire.
Incoming shot from the front angled like so /
Closest sensor fires first on the right front, projectile continues and enters the sensor range for the left front so it would activate unless told not to.
Best case each arc talks to each other & in overlap zones it can respond 4 times if only one fires.
Possibly more likely is 2 times through the same arc, both fire & have one reload.
It could react more if fired on from diffrent arcs.
Assuming 2 shots from the front followed by a third from the side.
The front unit covering that arc would be out of ammo but the rear unit has not triggered yet so has ammo to fire.

This reminds me I would love to know how useful is modern artillery versus modern armour?
Not talking with regards to destroying but its effect on protective systems, vision aids & targeting.
Versus a dug in target I would have thought while it might not destroy it a high overpressure attack such as thermobaric could kill the tech.