|
Re: MBT's
now entered......
|
Re: MBT's
Well like I said back in early June, trying to keep up on tracking these issues and I see it's been quite here for a while when there's so much happening in this area. So consider this FYI with some minor changes for some starting with the first entry. I will not due to time issues be able to finish this tonight. Consider this Part I. I will do this alpha by country. As a reminder an "ADD" is assumed with End Date DEC 2025 unless otherwise noted. Also what might be requested again are minor issues so, the refs submitted represent a "composite" taken from other refs. If this was a new piece of gear I would as always "bombard" Don as the record has shown with many more refs.
1. I don't remember if ECM devices contribute to EW ratings for tanks. I would think some minor adjustment would be made only for the fact if so equipped they tend to tie into the countermeasures on board in timing the proper launch protocols for the inbound threat. So I'm going with that for now... A1. ALGERIA/ADD/JUN 2018/T-90SA/COPY UNIT 027/WITH SHTORA-1// Article is from May, it's indicating system is already installed on some tanks. June seems like a safe month, however, if you wish to be more conservative then I recommend NLT OCT. C1. ALGERIA/CHANGE/UNIT 027/T-90S/TORD T-90SA// All Algerian T-90S (Standard export version.) were modified somewhat for desert warfare to include, I know, AC (But remember folks AC isn't for the crew but for the electronics.) and therefore designated T-90SA. http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._53005161.html FYI HEADLINE/AUSTRILIA/MIA1 TO BE UPGRADED TO THE MIA2 LEVEL/HAVE ALREADY SEEN ARITICLES TO INDICATE THEY WILL ALSO GET TROPHY INSTALLED/TRACKING/GUESS/SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH UNITS UPGRADED AND IN THE FIELD BY OCT 2022// https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...s_planned.html With 5 minutes to spare I leave you to spend time with CINCLANTHOME. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
|
Re: MBT's
OK 18 months from now is the new start date ( May 2020 )....this is the third or fourth revision for that tank IIRC. The first hint that this tank was under development was in winspmbtV4 ( 2008 ) and the start date then was set for 2016.
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Unintended PART II...
Well I'll take some responsibility for not having suggested a new date myself, however, I needed more data which didn't become available until after mine and CINCLANTHOME had to get and take over the planning of my last boats 25th Ann. A brief I promise, history...I can't even remember when I first submitted a change to this tank (I don't believe I submitted it w/o checking hard copies.) in the very beginning. This MBT (And OOB which Don and I worked on together last year or year before and fixed-we hope.) along with a couple of others have been a real PITA!! Once the Germans and Austria (Engines) got involved after the South Koreas stepped seemed to have a good relationship with Turkey. They experienced some technical (All) as well as financial issues (Turkey) which I believe caused the first date change. The second and third were caused by Germany first, then Austria next to pull out due to human rights issues and the purge after the attempted coup. Germany was thinking about getting back in the game but backed off after Turkey invaded part of Syria and started operations of a limited scale against the Kurds. The real "Big Hurt" was two fold Austria not supplying the engine and the Government pressing OAKAR to come off the coat per unit for the ALTAY. This was difficult for OAKAR to do as they developed the tank and bore the cost to do so. The result has been an almost two year delay in rebidding the contract between three of Turkeys largest defense contractors to build it and develop a home grown 1500hp they've never attempted before. The contract issues have just been completed this summer I believe in June. To one extent or another this is all covered in my refs. below and selected posts I'm supplying. To be sure, there are many more Posts before those selected concerning the ALTAY (May it, the ARJUN and ARMATA "RIP" someday!) The date submitted is from the time frame of the original contract as will be shown in quotations below. Based on the information I'm submitting I don't see that MBT in service until JUN 2021. Most of the operational testing regarding the engine and most importantly the ability of it to act as a functioning Power Pack is out the window. The prototypes are all using the Austrian and German Power Packs-they now and they can't legally copy them (Germany and Austria have not given licensing to do so.) and if they do copy them you can forget seeing them in this game as they just might be tied up in court that long. And finally if my date is wrong and it's sooner than later, well, good for the game and won't it be nice to change a date to the left for a change!?! Glass half full kind've guy really!?! :D POSTS See TURKEY: #783 FEB 20th and #792 MAR 12th 2018. And... http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...ttle_tank.html "Previously, in the 2017-2021 Strategic Plan published by the SSM, the primary date for the first Altay Main Battle Tank entering service was set for 2020. According to the plan, the first 15 tanks will be put into service in 2020, while 20 tanks will be delivered in 2021." http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2...nked_soon.html "According to Turkish defense industry sources, the mass production of the Altay MBT could started in late 2019 or early 2020." The rest of para 2 reads as the above quote does. Didn't want to get "out of order" but felt I had to as much of my time as well as Don's has gone into all things Turkey!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
This acts as a supplement to the previous Post.
And just that fast, we get the following... Contract signed at the end of last week for 250 ALTAY MBT's. First 40 will be produced followed by the rest with no time frame given. This is the same pattern when OTOKAR (Spelled right this time.) had the original contract. The first batch were the "test beds". https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...ltay_mbts.html That's what I get for reading the "papers" so late. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
PART III
This follows the "tact" as I discussed last week or whenever I posted PART I. I just pulled this off the "wire" so again Croatia will have to wait, as this article impacts both Brazil and will "dove tail" to Uruguay. I know not many players probably play these OOB's but, that doesn't mean we (I) should ignore them, after all my motto is "One World One OOB". Let's get to it... BRAZIL/CHANGE/M-41C CAXIAS/UNIT 007/END DATE 12/1996 VICE 12/2025//. There is some evidence to support this date when the first LEOPARD tanks went into service for the Brazilian Army. These tanks were used for training purposes both before (Earlier mods.) and up to, for the sake of argument, concerning the month, 12/2009 as deemed obsolete. So that last date gives you an out however I'm feeling 80% sure of the date as submitted. I know it's not the best, but the current situation isn't correct. Now we "dove tail"... URAGUAY/ADD/M-41C CAXIAS/USE BRAZILIAN UNIT 007/START DATE 12/2019/LEAVE NAME UNCHANGED FOR NOW/REDESINATION UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME/WHEN ANNOUCED (IF) IT'LL BE EASIER TO FIND AND FIX//. I've not seen anything on name change or any upgrades to at least the current M-41UR BULLDOG that has slightly better armor numbers. These tanks will by Brazil be fully maintained before delivery. These tanks will replace the last of the M-24 CHAFFEE tanks in service with the Uruguayan Army. So... URAGUAY/CHANGE/M-24UR CHAFFEE/UNIT 005/END DATE 06/2019 VICE 12/2015//. I feel that's a good overall date, it generally takes a little longer to "pull something out than put it in" and this will allow more then enough time to retrain the M-24 crews to man the "new" M-41C Brazilian received tanks. I think that about covers it and I need to get ready for work. Again, a "composite" ref. https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...ayan_army.html Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Don,
My apologies first off, before I left to get ready for work on the last post, I know I rechecked it and still missed the now fixed and in bold intended date shown below. I just had DEC in my head from the previous Brazil entry I guess!?! :doh: Sorry I know how very busy you are right now. At 0500 I must be more awake now!?! :rolleyes: URAGUAY/ADD/M-41C CAXIAS/USE BRAZILIAN UNIT 007/START DATE 1/2019/LEAVE NAME UNCHANGED FOR NOW/REDESINATION UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME/WHEN ANNOUCED (IF) IT'LL BE EASIER TO FIND AND FIX//. This allows for almost 4 months to get these 25 tanks ready for delivery and into the field. Regards, Pat :capt: . |
Re: MBT's
PART IV redux after losing first @ 0400.
News first than we'll take a journey into the OOB. FYI HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-84A4 SNIPER and M-84D TO BE UPGRADED TO THE M-95 DEGMAN LEVEL//TRACKING/GUESS/SHOULD HAVE UNITS UPGRADED AND IN THE FIELD BY 10/2020/IF THIS HOLDS TRUE, THAT WOULD MARK THE END DATES FOR THOSE TWO M-84 VARIENTS// Budget was approved in 02/2018. Assume work has begun if budget is on the Calendar year, if not and they are on a standard Fiscal year, work should have started around 10/2018 or 11/2018. FYI/HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-95 DEGMAN/APPARENTLY THEY SEEK TO UPGRADE IT TO MEET NATO STANAG REQUIRMENTS. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLABRATING WITH SWISS RUAG TO DEVELOP A SMALL CALIBAR (L44?) 120mm MG TO ALSO MEET NATO REQUIRMENTS/TRACKING/THEY ARE ON A UNKNOWN TIMELINE TO GET THIS DONE FROM NATO/GUESS/06/2021// I'm to do this in as close to the listing in the OOB as possible. First CROATIAN M-84 progression/hierarchy: M-84, M-84A (Both Out of Service.), M-84A4 SNIPER, M-84D and M-95 DEGMAN. YUGOSLOVIA (Built in the State of CROATIA) developed the M-84 as an improved version of the SOVIET era T-72M1M export version. This build issue will cause a start date change for one tank, but, if not you at least know what I was thinking at the time. Alright here we go... CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 008/TI/GSR 40 VICE VISION 35/DELETE LAHAT/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 12.7mm HMG//Based on the refs to be provided with the builder one provided directly below, the argument can be made that this tank has a DETECTION RNG. OF >4000m/RECOGNITION RNG. >2000m it is considered an advanced 2nd GEN System. LAHAT was never exported to CROATIA and no site I've come across (And I don't use WIKI anything.) mentions any CROATIAN tank being armed with the LAHAT. Further ref. is also directly below the first one as they are exclusive to this tank. Dates covered 1990 - 2017 for SIPRI search. Finally I chose this tank because the ERA is where it should be. http://ddsv.hr/download/Tenk_Degman_engleski.pdf All optional equipment was acted upon to include FCS & 1200HP German engine etc. http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade...e_register.php Israel "Delivered" "Weapon" "Order" "Delivered" R: Croatia 2 Hermes-450 UAV 2006 2007 2 8 UT-25/UT-30 IFV turret 2017 HRK94 m ($14.8 m) deal; UT-30MK2 version for 6 AMV IFV; delivery planned 2018 UT-30MK2 as highlighted should be delivered by now. Reporting to SIPRI is governed by Treaties and International Law among the factors they use. CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84 & M-84A/UNITS 012 & 013/END DATE 12/2007 VICE 12/2025//All previous active T-84 mods were upgraded to the M-84A4 SNIPER standard by 2008. CROATIA/DELETE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT O15//If anything these might have represented the two prototype tanks that were produced and not put into service. CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84D/UNIT 020/DELETE 12.7 M2 (SLAP)/ADD 12.7mm M2 CROWS RWS// CROATIA/DELETE/M-84D/UNIT 021/REDUNDANT TO UNIT 020/AGAIN NO LAHAT// CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 023/USE MODIFIED UNIT 008 IF ADAPTED AS BASE/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 40mm AGL// CROATIA/DELETE/M-94 DEGMAN/UNIT 024/REDUNDANT// I can find no evidence that any of these tanks had a "mid-life" upgrade of any kind. Besides other factors, this drove some of the above. https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...nks_fleet.html https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/33033 http://tanknutdave.com/the-yugoslavi...r-m-84-series/ https://www.militaryfactory.com/armo...p?armor_id=629 Ref. 3 does a nice job of breaking these tanks down but more importantly along with Ref. 4 to a lesser degree, discuss the various mods across the countries that operated the M-84. Doing the best I can. ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Don,
For your own good PLEASE before you get to the neat word in bold, get up and go shoot your gun or get your favorite beverage before you go past STOP here!!! Well here we go again with the NOW and new #1 PITA OOB. Yes TURKEY has with this ref. below, officially surpassed INDIA for that coveted title!! :tur: :first: :clap: :party: !!!! It's bad enough that TURKEY can't manage to get the ALTAY developed near or on time and with the loss of German and Austrian support, it will have to a limited level restart the OPEVAL process as I've already discussed a few posts back. So here's the "brilliant" plan instead they're going to have three different versions the ALTAY T1, ALTAY T2 (Detect a pattern here!?!) and finally the ALTAY T3 (For now!?!). But maybe, and it kills me to say this, it might just be a little "brilliant" because it'll allow them more time to develop systems that they're currently having issues with and that might also still be in development. The continued development of the T-72 comes to mind some what. It appears the big jump in technology will come in the ALTAY T2, which means we'll have to pay attention a little more closely to this process. For myself and Don I see down the road more of this...:dk: :banghead: :ahh: :bs: :censor: :pc: and since this is a family orientated forum, other things I just can't go into here!?! https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...ed_turret.html Don really likes those "ANEMIA" things above or whatever the Hell you call them things!?!?! After this post it looks like a good time to watch Monty Pythons "Meaning of Life" to get a little perspective!!!! :rolleyes: There's one of those :censor: things again!!!! :doh: It's a wonderful world, isn't it!?! ;) :D Where are those things coming from!?! :doh: Again stop it now!! Obviously somebody got some sleep just wait until I get a hold of him it'll be the :fire: squad for him!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Just a little something to "chew upon" while I'm at work until the "wee hours" of tomorrow morning. Some news on IDF MERKEVA "WINDBREAKER" and most surprisingly to me, was the selection made by for the UKRAINE the T-72K over the OPLOT-M. They're taunting the fact it has the NOZH ("KNIFE") ERA pkg. which was developed for the OPLOT-M.
Given the choice between the two and w/o hesitation, I'd choose the OPLOT-M "All Day Long" and well into tomorrow! https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap...the_world.html Gotta Run!! Have a great weekend!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Alright I need a favor from at least 3 to 5 "research testers" and what I'm asking for will require 11, 13 or 15 tanks per side you choose, though a mix would be great. They are the Russian T-72B3/B4 versus the Ukrainian OPLOT-M. You my choose the terrain type or simply just have them fight it out on the flat. The Russian AI will buy those tanks every time and normally in the first battle.
Also this is something above my technical abilities and most importantly my hours at work since July have finally caught up to me (:sick:) and I desperately need sleep before I go back to work Tue. Why? Though I've had my share of tank losses against the AI, it seems like I'm losing a higher amount of OPLOT-M tanks against the above opponent versus other types used by different countries I've played. Note again my campaigns are long involving 15 to at odd intervals to 29(+/=) battles. Results? What I expect to see is roughly a 2:1 or possibly as high as 3:1 advantage in kills by the T-72B3/B4. What they say. I'm not implying the OPLOT-M is some kind of "super tank", however, it's been very consistently ranked in the "Top 10" lists of several sources dealing with tanks. It's nearest competitor in the region for comparison sake is the current updated T-90A (I'm not talking about the T-90AM.) I'm posting a ref. below, but basically the OPLOT-M has a slightly better FCS/Vision+ and a better ERA package with NOZH-2. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...817?page=0%2C1 What I suspect? I'm guessing here, but it could be the ammo. Some of it was pretty old and or dated. But after "somebody" blew up three ammo dumps in the Ukraine in 2017, they have been apparently been importing (Some suggest as early as 2016 from the Czech Republic or Bulgaria. SIPRI does not track ammunition.).) heavier ammo. They lost their factory to the Russians when they took over the Crimea. A new modern facility is to open up and start production by late Spring or early Summer 2019. https://frontnews.eu/news/en/6987/Uk...-of-ammunition https://censor.net.ua/en/news/371078..._ukroboronprom Please feel free to post your results here. And only up to the first five respondents please. Your interpretation of the results would be most welcomed as well. Well that's been enough "head bobbing", so good night/morning and enjoy the rest of your weekend.!! And thank you in advance!! Andy and Don PLEASE sit this one out! I would like to think, that you'll "keep your noses to the grindstone" so you both can enjoy the holidays this year!! And if you both don't mind, what you guys have gotten me over the years has been fine for Christmas, however, if you can manage it this year, give me the same for Christmas but, just larger PLEASE!! :D Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Hi Pat
Game stats Both use identical main gun and ammo Oplot missile has worse penetration cannot bother T-72 from the front T-72 missile has a very small chance against the Oplot hull can ignore. Missile defence is identical. Oplot has slightly better fire control and vision. Range finder stabilizer identical. Standard settings Russia has better Experience so Oplot will be less accurate overall. Oplot has better turret front by enough at correct range will make a difference against AP and superb HEAT protection, no ATGM will penetrate turret front. Oplot hull is marginally weaker vs AP, not going to be a problem in most cases only a small range where its more vulnerable. could run AP calc if wanted to find the range. Oplot ERA package is worse 5/5 vs 8/6 Therefore Oplot is likely to stop none or 1 round maybe 2. T-72 has a good chance of stopping the first round and may stop several. Oplot strengths weakness vs T-72 From the front if hull down its virtually invincible, Top attack ATGMs (not T-72s)are the only threat. Oplot can penetrate T-72 turret at about double the range T-72 can penetrate its turret. Be around 1000 + 2000m respectively. Closer for a certainty say 700 + 1700m run AP calc if you want the exact figures. It cannot take advantage of extra vision range unless that presents a side shot as it wont penetrate and experience difference will make it less accurate at that range, still good hit chance though. Fighting at 1000 > 1700m gives it the edge as it can kill with hull and turret hits while T-72 needs a hull hit. T-72 has a good chance of absorbing 1 or 2 shots with its ERA while the Oplot only has a 50-50 chance of stopping a shot. My normal buy order is infantry, APCs if separate, tanks, ATGMs could move ATGMs up one place if want I buy them there due to limited shots. This way tanks only op fire if threat is still active limiting distraction, also causes suppression to the target aiding tank survivability Also if APC has a cannon infantry and APC can trigger the ERA reducing the chance of the tanks shot being negated. |
Re: MBT's
John,
As always thank you! And I still see you haven't lost your touch for the details. Well three things come to my attention immediately... 1) In a sense my thought concerning the ammo was directed if you will, at the wrong ammo, that being said, I think you have something there about the ATGM. And I believe this might be a true assessment. 2) I have to admit that I never gave much thought to "experience" from the onset of the game of those tanks. This would explain some of my earlier in game losses. These losses would be progressive throughout the game only getting marginally better as the campaign progresses due to the loss of the crews from the start. You're starting over every time with a new tank and crew. That I should've seen, but didn't. And that's coming from the guy who's constantly bringing it up when newer players are seeking help etc. :doh: John thank you for reminding me! 3) Now after one test I believe we've found the leading "culprit" the ERA. So going back to the ref. I provided concerning the comparison between the T-90A (Russia "default" UNIT 860) and the OPLOT-M (UKRAINE "default" UNIT O64) that article pointed out that the ERA was in favor of the OPLOT-M. So is it possible to at least increase the ERA of the OPLOT-M to achieve parody with the T-90A as in the game now? Or to give it the edge the article suggests? Some more perspective... http://news.kievukraine.info/2018/06...on-worlds.html I think it a fair one given where it's coming from and I'm seeing anything that "The National Review" ref from my last post didn't point out. Of note though from the above is the main gun comparison to it's Russian counterpart and the results of Malaysian tests between the base T-84 versus the T-90S which that the T-84 was at near parody with the T-90S. John thank you! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I should have ended (And had planned to but got called away.) "Item 2) from my last Post" with the following only because like I missed the "experience" issue, it should have ended with...
"This situation would now call for a tactical change in how I use the OPLOT-M against any opponent due to the base "experience level" of the crew. It's too easy to get caught up in how good the MBT is and as John brought up, and forget about how good the crew is that's operating the tank at the time. Options include better terrain masking, ambush, maneuver to better achieve a disabling or kill shot, concentrated fire by more than one OPLOT-M to the nearest threat tank to at least reduce it's morale at mid to max. range or worse. Reality would suggest however a combination of part or all of the above would be needed and maybe more." Certainly we can all learn more and also remind ourselves about what we might have forgotten or to be kinder, overlooked, because some of us are "experienced players". I have light bulbs to change out in the bathroom, CINCLANTHOME can make my Sundays so hard for me!?! :rolleyes: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
@FASTBOAT: are you asking for a 10 to 15 encounter battle between the T-72B3/B4 and the T-84? I can do this, but I'll post the results next weekend, as I'm a little busy this week.
|
Re: MBT's
Aeraaa,
First thanks for volunteering! I like "tie breakers" which is how I set my campaigns as I mentioned earlier so... 1) For each side 11, 13 or 15 tanks each. 2) Just 1 battle would suffice I believe, but if you have the time 3 might be better to "flush out" any game anomalies. 3) The "kill ratio" would be good info as well in general and for me to be able to verify my own data collection is what I suspect it is. But I leave that to the tester, it however, would be useful to know how many battles were used to collect the data for trend analysis purposes. Thanks Again! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Pat terrain will make a big difference as mentioned if Oplot is hull down for instance. Also Oplot has a pretty good ammo loadout and accuracy so if it gets a chance it could fire at range. No chance of destroying but will hopefully trigger ERA.
If terrain allows one group can strip ERA safely at ranges over 2500m and possibly draw fire then other group pops out at closer range to kill. AP Artillery is also effective at striping ERA although its pot luck what facing it hits. You need to be warry of getting into a tank duel with any vehicle with ERA 7+ as it will probably survive the first shot. Its a bit like playing WWII where they quite often survive the first hit except the return fire is a lot more accurate. |
Re: MBT's
John,
I agree hull down tanks have that advantage. Very rarely do I do that even against an assault...1) I can't always entrench my units. 2) I prefer to find fairly defensible terrain with decent fields of fire with over watch units where possible, I like my units to have "an out" and maneuver them to set up for the next shot or two. As to the artillery issue, I've used my artillery (155mm HE or similar) as you've suggested in that manner for a longtime now. And your right it does work. I know it works because I've seen it happen to me many, many times against me when the AI will pound the crap out of a critically important position or other, and if you will, to the both of us. This might be helpful in regards to an idea Don mentioned in passing, which to be honest, I don't think is necessary at this point. These are both observed in the game turn and checked against my UNIT stats again using conventional artillery only: 1. Tanks destroyed - Rare 2. Tanks Disabled - Less Often 3. Tanks lose MG capability - Less Often 4. Tanks lose Secondary weapons - Often 5. Tanks lose TI-GSR/Sensors/Comms - Often/Often/Rare 6. Tanks Morale effected- Always, however your more experienced units might hold the line here but if the support troops have been hammered, you might have no choice but to withdraw and regroup. By having to do that means, the enemy has achieved a certain level of success to some degree. They will be suppressed, retreating or routed it just may take a little longer then other UNITS. It might take one good salvo from many arty units or several from a couple of arty units. I can't tell you how many times I've had to pull a tank(s) back off the line because all they are is a "mobile pillbox". I think the arty is fine in game, if my units could leave you feedback, I think they would agree. Now somehow giving the AI supply capability would be great, but, that to my mind would be the much harder thing to do I think. All I've played is against the AI for the last 15yrs. or so maybe longer and always long campaigns as I've described, how many battles has that been!?! I observe, it's what I do. It comes in handy here, when I served and especially now in my work, we just call it "Situational Awareness" and we harp on it constantly. For what they are worth, those are my personal observations. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
OK, after 3 meeting engagements in mostly level, lightly wooded terrain (random each time) on a 110X120 map with 41 visibility here are the results:
Test one: Russian first player, 13 T-72B3/B4s vs 12 Oplot-Ms (sorry that's even but Oplots are more expensive): each side lost 9 tanks. Draw. Test two: Ukrainians first player, 13 Oplots vs 13 T-72s, 3 Oplots lost to all 13 T-72s, Ukrainian marginal win. Test three: Russia first, 13 T-72s to 13 Oplots, honors even again as both sides lost 11 tanks. Russian crews have perhaps a 10-point experience advantage although they still seemed to miss fairly often. Envars had a couple kills while the Kombats had none. Last battle an Oplot platoon was on higher elevation but hull down didn't help, maybe 'cuz only 2 tanks had LOS through a tree line at any one time to the Russians' 3 or 4. Dunno if this proves anything but it was fun to watch the AI slug it out with heavy armor. Cheers! |
Re: MBT's
So I had some time and ran a quick test with these parameters:
https://i.imgur.com/wYgk58Z.png And the ending result (I as the Russians) vs AI Marginal Victory: https://i.imgur.com/zpW6xxV.png As you can see I lost 5 tanks to 12. It was pretty tough but over by turns 5-7. |
Re: MBT's
Oh for the Ukrainians I purchased a tank company:
T-84 Oplot-M (x13) and for the Russians a tank company: T-72/3M/B4 (x13) |
Re: MBT's
jivemi,
First Thank you for your time as well!! Well that was interesting! And I have to add, unexpected. So I draw the following conclusions from this test... 1) It still would seem to support the refs submitted that the ERA for the OPLOT-M must be revised which, I believe Don does as well to at least parody to the Russian T-90A as noted in my last evaluation. 2) The overall results though, 2 Draws & 1 Marginal Victory tank on tank does really surprise me. 3) The above "2)" needed to stand alone. The AI as be set to "Tank Heavy" will generally have more tanks overall and sometimes even at the start. Not to give away too much in case I ever play a PEMB, I always start from a "combined arms" minus air support in the beginning. To get to 1:1 or 2:1 kill ratios using these tanks I don't think I ever achieved that with these tanks fighting against each other, certainly not early in my long campaigns. I have had early battle draws rarely, won many marginal victories and an occasional decisive victory's. I think how I'm getting these is though my tanks are getting beaten up or worse, they must be doing just enough damage to where my APC's and Infantry have just enough in them to start taking them out later in the battles, not all of them mind you, but for long enough and with loss of other units, that the "Battle Clock" runs out of time on the Russians. This says a lot for the "Combined Arms" way of thinking and planning. But it also speaks to the fact, that as I posted, I need to "husband" these tanks a little more and change my tactics as I already noted. They need to "live to see another day" in my way of playing. As a note I have found playing these two countries in the present day very challenging based on what the UKRAINE has to work with. You might also find the same, if not, then I'm really "hosed up"!?! So this was useful. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
ASL,
Thank you also! I think my last evaluation posts are still relevant, however... 1) WELCOME TO MY WORLD!! That's more along the lines I'm seeing things. That's almost a 2.5:1 kill ratio in favor of the Russians. That sounds about right to me. 2) Maybe I'm not that "hosed up" after all!?! Time will tell. ;) Now I have to get ready for work it's gonna be cold out there tonight!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
No worries, you can call me ASL, but it's really zovs66 or Don :)
ASL = Advanced Squad Leader |
Re: MBT's
M41C delivered to Uruguay in 7 Dec 2018.
Article with vídeo http://www.defesanet.com.br/leo/noti...cito-Uruguaio/ Thanks |
Re: MBT's
Don,
Thank You for correcting me! ASL Advanced Squad Leader, well imagine that!?! :doh: This would be a good time to be "Going Deep, Deep, Deep." :D :p Got off early/going to bed earlier!! RC4, Thanks for the follow-up! I believe the 01/2019 Start Date will hold up well as submitted, based on your information! I like it when people follow up on something!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
OK, the first of several tests:
Test#1. Human controlled Russian tank company of T72BM3/4s vs. AI controlled Ukrainian tank company of T-84 Oplot-Ms. Both companies have 13 tanks in total. Terrain is normally random generated terrain 80*60 hexes in size. Meeting engagement. 5 engagements total. Results: Russian casualties Ukrainian casualties result 3 9 MV 1 7 DV 3 9 MV 1 8 MV 2 9 MV Average: 2 8.4 Comments: The tanks are quite evenly matched. Below 800 meters, destruction is highly likely even with frontal hits. Skill is the most important factor, since I can use terrain to conduct ambushes and AI just moves forward. |
Re: MBT's
Aeraaa,
If I'm reading your last post correctly, those numbers are indicating a greater than 4:1 Kill Ratio in favor of the Russians. Do you remember or keep track of the ATGW's used by each side and result, i.e. kill or other? I'm looking at the results as the Russians being the "former" and the Ukrainians being the "latter" on your "chart". This result to some degree almost puts me back to square one, in regards to conventional ammo issue or now maybe even steel armor. We already know the ERA is lower then it should be for the OPLOT-M which should at a minimum be as good as the T-90A if not slightly better. I did not however, compare the steel armor between the two tanks. I did however indicate I was seeing loses at 3:1 or higher in my first post leading to these tests. Don't get me wrong, the T-72B3/B4 is a darn good tank and plays as expected, however, at least on paper, it's specs are not as good as the T-90A in the game or "RW". And this is the tank most refs compare the OPLOT-M to on a regular basis in it's at parody or "slightly" better than the T-90A. It has to be one of the two above as mentioned or I'm missing something else. I don't know it this point. I'm open to anyone else's thoughts after this test, even if it looks like I'm chasing a "red herring" in a manner of speaking. Otherwise, I'm sticking with my original evaluations as posted. I'll have to look into this closer when I can - as I need to be in the shower now. Thank You for your time in running the test and again the same to everyone else that ran one. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
@FASTBOAT: I cannot recall exactly, but I estimate that out of 42 total Ukrainian tanks knocked out, 3 or 4 were from ATGM hits. All of my 10 losses were from cannon shells, not ATGMs. So ATGM effectiveness can be seen as minimal, which is hardly surprising considering both tanks have very thick composite armor, ERA and active defense systems.
Surprisingly, I believe that I knocked out around 35-40% of the Ukrainian armor by HEAT shells. The main reason is I've managed to hit many tanks to the sides and even rear at one occasion. I have to remind that the fact that I commanded the Russians had a profound impact on the final result. Since I'm quite experienced in the game and can safely say much more competent than the AI, I can use the terrain to my advantage better, create conditions for flanking shots etc. Whenever the two tanks threw punches at each other frontally, it was my estimation that they are altogether equal beasts, with T-84 probably being slightly better (but IMHO the T72 is more cost effective overall). Regarding ERA, many of my main gun rounds were stopped by the Oplot's ERA. Whether they were HEAT rounds or KE rounds I do not know. To have a clearer picture I will make two more tests: one in which terrain is wide open (so no behind forest ambushes for me) and one in which I command the Ukrainians. PS: Yes you got it correct, Leftmost side is the Russian casualties, then Ukrainian casualties, then result (MV marginal victory, DV decisive victory). The average K:D is indeed slightly better than 4:1 in favor of Russia. |
Re: MBT's
Aeraaa,
Thank you1 I would be interested to see the results of the other two tests when you get a chance. 1) The ATGW issue follows as I've posted, I would've hoped for better results w/KOMBAT but, this is a "newer" area of weapons development for them, so I believe it's still functioning as should in the game from what I can find, bottomline, it should be more effective against slightly older tanks and APC's. 2) Still stand by recommendations concerning the OPLOT-M ERA, that being said, I believe Don has taken care of it or is at least strongly considering my recommendations as posted. 3) Took sometime this morning to compare the T90-A to the OPLOT-M in game against some further reading from other than the refs. already posted on the matter. My recommendation as follows is based on the fact that the turret for the OPLOT-M was built for the same knowing against modern tanks and ATGW they would have to make it better than what they already have in the field. So compared to the T-90A UNIT 051 I would request the following for consideration of the OPLOT-M UNIT 064 turret... STEEL: TR 14/TOP 8/or 10. T-90A TR 16/TOP 8 HEAT: TR 20/TOP 12 T-90A TR 24/TOP 12 4) I'm not a "gun" guy per say as far as the mechanics in the game is concerned, however, I would request a second look at the KBA-3 main tank gun as compared to the Russian 2A46M-1 to see if there is an issue here in PEN and the other factors that might come into play. Again I realize this might be the "red herring" as I last posted but, I would be more comfortable knowing I can rule this out or not. I would request that someone who has knowledge on the above Main Gun matter maybe could look into this for me, as I know Don is scrambling by now. And now I have to get ready for work. Thank You all in advance. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
There seem to be two schools of thought concerning main guns and ATGMs.
For the most part Russia seems to see ATGMs as "the major" anti-armor weapon, why they put them on everything, and even fire them from their tank main guns. The US on the other hand, while acknowledging that helo's can't carry 120mm guns or GAU-8's (the A-10's gun), seem to feel the gun on the Abrams is the primary anti-armor weapon. Now this may well be a tech issue, for Russia it's easier to build missiles then mass produce M256 quality guns and ammunition. |
Re: MBT's
Pat, Don game stats Oplot-M is marginally better overall in all areas except ERA.
Only oddity is armour rear turret heat which I am guessing is wrong and should be 5-10 higher. Updating ERA if that's decided should sort it out. Enticed by this I tried a game using the T-64 Bulat, cower in fear if the ERA stops my shot my armour wont stop his. On the tank gun they are identical with identical ammo. From memory Russia now fields an updated 125mm gun as have Ukraine. I don't think the performance is any better what has improved is the accuracy, something to do with how the old gun was mounted I think. If this is true there may be a case for falsely reducing the old guns accuracy, 11 instead of 13 possibly. Western tanks are normally 1 size bigger than USSR so should not hinder them much. |
Re: MBT's
So I did another test, this time as the Ukrainians, same perimeters as last time.
Preferences: https://i.imgur.com/NLItrVm.png Outcome: https://i.imgur.com/m3uqncR.png |
Re: MBT's
On both tries as the human I got a MV.
On both games I saw a few ATG kills. In this one I lost 2 of my Oplat's to stupid aggressive moves. The AI lost at least 6 to stupid moves. As the Ukrainian I felt the main gun was better at killing things especially close range. From a players perspective (tainted by the fact that I am a big time WW2 buff/player) I felt that the ATG just gave me an additional shot with a chance to kill the enemy armor (another words I just hit F and let both weapon systems rip). My instincts are telling me that if two humans duked it out with these parameters it would be a draw or going to the better player. So currently what I experienced as a player it seemed balanced for human vs. human but if I were to create a scenario where the player is versing the AI, I have to give the AI some serious help. Maybe attach another platoon to the AI's tank company and set each formations way points and maybe stagger things with some reaction points. Or to force the human to be more aggressive, set the VH further back or help the AI with death traps. One thing is for sure, fun and fast in MBT both games were over by turn 6 or 8. Fun too... |
Re: MBT's
Well I have an issue I believe, I've sorted out, maybe. It concerns the Russian T-80 Series. One will be an "ADD" the other a "CHANGE" Of the "START" as it's at least a year early. The issue is that the Russian T-80B/BV/U tanks received an upgrade. As the T-80BV is a real tank and is already in the game, I purpose that the upgraded tank be entered as the T-80BV1.
NOW THE ABOVE WILL BE LIMITED TO DATE CHANGES FOR THE FOLLOWING 3 TANKS AFTER DEEPER RESEARCH AND RE-READING THE ARMY REC. REFS. (THE WORDING WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING AT FIRST.) CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80B/UNIT 621/END DATE 12/1992 VICE 12/1985// All T-80B tanks in service were upgraded to the T-80BV until production ceased on that tank in 1992. I cannot find any reference to the existence of the T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676 as entered in the game of which I believe are redundant to the T-80B. DELETE/RUSSIA/T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676/CANNOT VERIFY THEY EXIST// As noted above and as indicated by the refs. shown and others in a deeper web search. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BV/UNIT 039/END DATE 12/2025 VICE 12/1992// I can't seem to find anything to say these tanks are no longer in service. I fully understand a great many of them are in storage, but again the refs provided for this tank and others seem to indicate many are still operational and they are the platform from which the T-80BVM are derived from. View "Variants" section of ref. 1. Ref. 2 shows Russia still using them at bottom of ref. "Users" section. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ..._13007173.html CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BVM/UNIT 046/START DATE 10/2018 VICE 06/2017// Date based on following from ref. 1 "Russia’s T-80BV main battle tank has been upgraded to T-80BVM standard to feature the capability of firing depleted uranium shells, the Defense Ministry said in the bulletin ‘The Russian Army in Comparison’ published on 20 December." Also note last para from ref. 1 which addresses some of what I submitted above. Ref. 2 production begins in March 2018. Ref. 3 Dated 02 July 2018, identifies the first units to equipped with the T-80BVM. https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...um_shells.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap..._t-80_mbt.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...he_arctic.html Others on the T-80... http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-80.php http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-80U.htm (For the above see production chart on first page.) Don't ask these things just have a way of finding me!! ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
There'll be more on this later but, in the following one of the pictures is wrong. Can you figure out which and why? A little background, I knew there were issues with India and Turkey in their tanks, which I believe with the help of Don we've largely have corrected over the last few years. Like the other two, South Africa has the same situation. These all were meant to be addressed in my next Patch Post that never happened now about five years ago. I've come to South Africa very recently to figure out what I couldn't. There was my problem I over analyzed the situation in fact, I've had the below ref in my favorites for about 6-7 years now and earlier tonight I found the "ghost" that held me back, but now, I have the key to the solution, so again and realizing you have more information than I had, what is wrong with the pictures below. I'll give any 24 hours from the posting time to solve it.
For Don there will only be very minor changes involved here. Due note the copyright has been updated for 2019 which means there's been no "equipment" changes. http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm It's just so obvious to me now, it's a good thing it wasn't a poisonous snake! Now back to "Platoon". Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
What's wrong is the middle picture, it's showing a Olifant Mk-1B there is no Olifant Mk-2B in service so the issue is a typo. A web search for the Olifant Mk-2B will get you the Olifant Mk-1B.
The pinnacle of the Olifant series lies in the Olifant Mk-2 this model benefited from the TDD demonstrator which was conceived to combat the heavier tanks that were appearing in Africa mainly the T-72 variant's. The advantage here with the Olifant Mk-2 is besides the current DENEL 105mm GT-7 MG, the turret is designed and has been tested to also use the 105mm GT-8 and LIW 120mm MG. Currently the GT-7 MG is what's carried onboard the MK-2 (Apparently the Mk-1B has it now as well.) as this gun is quite capable of taking out any T-72 currently operating in Africa. Now should Ethiopia get pissed off with South Africa then you'll see them break out those 120mm MG's and mount them as they would more effective against the T-90S tanks Ethiopia has. It is my understanding that the remaining 18 (26 were converted to the Mk-2.) Olifant Mk-1B turrets were also back fitted to carry the other two MG's as well, but I'm not ready to confirm that at this time. The current tanks in service with SADF are the OLIFANT Mk-1A, Mk-1B and the Mk-2. Concerning the Olifant Mk-1A, I again offer the previous ref. plus another from SADF showing it being involved in an exercise in May 2017 pictured bottom right of that ref., notice the "skirts" are missing for one. http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm http://www.army.mil.za/news/news_2017/feb_17/acd_17.htm http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank A word about the last website if you want to know what's going on in Africa you have to use this site they source from JANE's, DID etc. plus do a lot of their own reporting as well. Their breakdown as provided above on the OLIFANT MBT is the best I've seen so far on one site. I knew the OLIFANT Mk-1A had a mid-life upgrade done but wasn't sure when it occurred this ref. provided that date plus all that was done during it. Gotta hit the rack! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I will endeavor here to fix the South African current tank situation that I’ve put off for almost seven years now though the problem isn’t as daunting now as it seemed back then as also posted. I looked back on this year and I saw more in the MBT and APC area submitted by several posts, so for FYI ONLY PURPOSES, I’ve decided to pull together from those posts, a “Patch Post” covering the 2018/2019 Campaign and possibly for the 2017/2018 Campaign as time allows. They have always served me as a tool to see what got in or not and to see if something got missed such as what happened to about seven countries concerning the missing (Now done.) standard equipped FN MAG 60-30 MG (Port/Starboard mounted.) on the H225M Cougar helicopters. I also believe we were finally able to add this helo to Thailand as I finally had more data to fully confirm the deal as compared to when I originally submitted it in my last “official” Patch Post five years ago, this last was fixed in 2017/2018 upgrade.
SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1A/UNIT 005/START DATE 01/1985 vice 01/1983/END DATE 12/1987 VICE 12/1998/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm SA83//A note about the gun issue as quoted from Ref 3 “The Olifant Mk 1A was originally equipped with a 105mm L7 rifled gun barrel originally sourced from Israel. Later on, an improved South African produced GT3B semi-automatic quick firing gun manufactured by Lyttleton Engineering Works (LEW) was fitted.” Also note in anticipation of facing the Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks, SADF did acquire the 1O5mm APFSDS-T round (In 1988 around a year after they had received the APFSDS M-111 @ 390mm of RHA.) which in combat proved highly effective against those tanks. This was considered the first true African tank very suited to its environment with the High Pressure GT3B proven to be very accurate at 2km. Besides an extensive reference list it also provides some interesting combat data to prove this tank was deadly against its adversaries. It would also prove to be an embarrassment the Soviet (Combat Advisors), Cuban and Angolan FAPLA troops. Operation Hooper would see in that successful Op, 21 T-55 tanks destroyed to 1 damaged Olifant Mk1 and 1 destroyed Ratel. Troops 4 SANF killed to 480 casualties to the enemy during this Op during the South African Border Wars 1966 - 1989. SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/OLIFANT Mk-1A/COPY UNIT 005/CHANGE/START DATE 01/1988/END DATE 12/2025/CHANGE/AMMO 105mm APFSDS-T/PENETRATION 580mm OF RHA/LRF MIGHT NEED TO BE INCREASED FROM 16/REFS INDICAITE THE LRF WAS ACCURATE OUT TO 10km//I know ammo is a consideration and given the difference between the two most current of the APFSDS rounds (1987-1988) in regards to Penetration levels this warrants the above request. It would suggest as well that the ammo is more powerful now. http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm http://www.army.mil.za/news/news_2017/feb_17/acd_17.htm http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...lifant_MkI.php http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1B/UNIT 006/START DATE 10/1991 vice 01/1991/END DATE 12/2025 vice 12/2015/VISION 35 OR 40 (Or TI/GSR 35 see below)/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm GT7/STABLELISER 4 vice 3/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 4/STEEL HF 28 vice 24 (Note Mk-1A UNIT 005 is at 26)/STEEL TF 24 or 25//The FCS was considered a very advanced for the time when the tank came online in 1991. That the vision should be increased is not the real question here as it is much improved over the OLIFANT Mk-1A. The real question is should it have TI/GSR added to it? I’m on the fence about this based on the refs below, my “gut” tells me it might be good enough, however, it also tells me based on the tanks that had it at that time, it should be TI/GSR 35 if it is decided to change the VISION to that standard, I don’t see enough to warrant more than that. The gun did have mounted on it an IR/White Light Searchlight as well. I asked for the slight STABLELISER increase based on ref.2 as quoted “A new thermal sleeve and fume extractor helped improved sustained accuracy when firing and reduce barrel droop due to heat by as much as 70%-90%.”, that’s a significant change. Concerning SURVIABILITY the Mk-1B also had a double armored bottom added to the hull. The STEEL requests are based on the refs which noted that the armor protection was increased on the areas noted above. It is important to note that 44 OLIFANT Mk-1A were upgraded to this standard starting in 1991, but, the similarities end there, this MBT was built from the experiences gained during the Border War of 1966 – 1989 and they were RESET. Development started in 1981/82 when the concern was whether the Soviet Union would supply Cuba or the Angolan forces with the T-72A series tanks which didn’t happen. The tank was built for African combat, this tank was even equipped with two internal water tanks (50.5 Liters each.) just to sustain the crew in the field. The turret bustle was added for the same reason for crew equipment with the added design bonus that the turret was better balanced decreasing by 10s the 360 traverse time to 16s over the Mk-1A turret. http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...n-battle-tank/ http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank http://www.military-today.com/tanks/olifant_mk1b.htm https://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/ SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2/UNIT OO8/START DATE 10/2005 vice 01/2007/SPEED DISCREPENCY SEE BELOW//The upgrade of 26 OLIFANT Mk-1B tanks to the Mk-2 started in 2005, it is reasonable to assume a handful were in the field by that time. Production ran until the end of 2006/early 2007 depending on source. The SPEED issue needs to be resolved for both UNIT 006 and UNIT OO8. They both use the same Continental 29 Liter V12 Turbo Charged diesel engine, the difference is that the Mk-2 engine develops 190hp more but, the additional weight of the Mk-2 doesn’t allow so much for an increase in SPEED, but it does increase P/W Ratio and much better 25% increase in Acceleration. The advertised speeds for both tanks are 58Km/h or 36mph on the road. This is in the end a very highly advanced tank with full “Hunter Killer” capabilities and up to date electronics. There is one discrepancy which goes to the main gun ref. 2 with communications as noted in the “Bibliography” from 2017 indicates this tank also carries the GT3B MG, however, ref 3 (Bottom) via an email in 2006 states the following “GlobalSecurity.org insists the tank is fitted with a Denel GT8 gun but Denel informs this weapon was developed but never produced. The Olifant is therefore fitted with the GT7. Email communication between author and Denel spokesman Sam Basch, August 14, 2006.” I know which I’m inclined to go with, however, I leave it up to you whether you wish to change the main gun or not. http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...n-battle-tank/ http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank Summary: The final question here is, do we add another Mk-1A & Mk-1B ~2010 with improved ammo that they should have now? Why? DENEL after the embargo started to sell their top quality ammo and other technology worldwide. But due to mismanagement and corruption, in 2005 Rheinmetall bought 51% controlling interest in DENEL munitions now called Rheinmetall Denel Munitions. Hensoldt did the same with DENAL Optronics operations. I don’t see those two major players sitting on their “laurels” and not improving their products over what was there. Maybe I’m wrong, just a thought. https://www.africandefence.net/denel...qatari-offers/ While doing research on this over the years and considering the political situation at the time these tanks were developed, the South Africans found a way to overcome the very real war they were in for 23 years (As noted above.) to meet the perceived threat of the T-72M and T-72A series tanks. As it was pointed out, again above, the T-55 & T-62 were no match against them even by the ones crewed by the Cubans. I think a fair amount of this is also due to the professionalism of the SADF crews and ultimately the military (In the game-EXPRIENCE.) as a whole, they were in most battles were outnumbered by the combined Cuban and Angolan forces with Soviet advisors. Another point of interest was that many of the tank battles were fought within 150yds. due to the terrain. Also about the tank guns, Israel supplied upgraded versions of the famous British RB 105mm L7 when South Africa wanted to improve their CENTURIAN tanks to the Israeli Sho’t tanks. This would lead to the OLIFANT. Later development would lead to the GT3B, GT7, IWI (?) GT8 Prototype and 120mm L52. The GT3B is in service and with the exception of the GT8, the rest are supposedly available or can be produced in numbers if needed rapidly. All the 105mm guns are considered “High Pressure” (Before it became a “thing” as it is now.) Semi-Automatic Quick Firing. It was also very interesting to find that Israel supplied South Africa with ammunition to include it’s tank ammo from possibly the late ‘60s but certainly the 70’s – ‘ 90s if not longer. I hope I didn't miss anything, can't think of a better way to spend the day off!?! :rolleyes: Research/Research then the best part :pc:, someday day maybe I'll get to this :typing:? Your right no fun in that! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
A final note on SOUTH AFRICA if I may…
SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2B/UNIT 007/COPY REVISED UNIT 008/CHANGE STABILISER TO 6 vice 5/OPERATIONAL STATUS NOW KNOWN/GUN IS READY AND TESTED/POSSIBLE STORAGE OR READY FOR PRODUCTION/TANK NOT FIELDED//I’ve already proven that the Mk-2 Series was designed to carry any of the RB 105mm GT MGs plus the LIW (Thanks Don.) RB 105mm GT8 Prototype or 120mm/L52 MG. As discussed via PM I found credible information that GIAT Industries of France calibrated with DENEL to develop the LIW tank guns listed above. GIAT should ring a bell for some of you “tank nuts” out here, they made the guns (And more.) for the French LeCLERC MBT. It was also noted the characteristics of the LIW 120mm/L52 are a “close” match to the LeCLERC MG. It is important to remember the issue/limitation here is with the OLIFANT Mk-2 FCS though very good it’s not as good as the LeCLERC FCS. This is not my area of expertise per say that being said is why I requested a modest increase in the STABILISER number. Based on the guns reported performance and pedigree should the STABILISER number be slightly higher than requested? And within the limitations I’ve stated above, would the better gun effect any other of the numbers related to the revised OLIFANT Mk-2B would have? Don is a smart man and I feel he knows I wouldn’t waste my time on a tank that’s not operational if I didn’t see something of value in it concerning the game or the players. So 1) The tanks already in the game, yes it needs to match the hopefully revised UNIT 008, it’s the same tank only the gun has changed. 2) South Africa if it arms the tank with this gun, which could happen for many reasons nothing to do with either an internal or external threat, then it’s ready to go and you “flip the switch to on”. 3) The tank obviously can’t be “game ready” as it isn’t now, however, I thought there was a way to allow Campaign and Scenario designers to “unlock it” for their use w/o it being available within the game this I see can have a more immediate impact for the developers. Finally concerning the possibility of adding new OLIFANT Mk- 1A/1B and now maybe Mk-2 tanks in the 2010 time frame from my last post, I came across this article for what looks like the replacement for the M111 APFSDS round as taken from the ref below Para 3, Dated 18 August 2011… “The Denel-developed M9718 105mm APFSDS round is 0.950m long, weighs 18.5kg and is fired at a chamber pressure of between 350 to 400 MPa to a combat range of 3km. The safety range is 30km. Dispersion at 3km is within 0.3x 0.3m and penetration is 450mm RHA. The tracer is visible to 3km.” again the older M111 APFSDS penetration was 390mm RHA which makes the M9718 APFSDS better by +60mm RHA. If you decide to add those tanks from 01/2010 - 12/2025 they would also retain the APFSDS-T round as well with PENETRATION 580mm OF RHA as discussed in the last post for the second entered OLIFANT Mk-1A on. The last couple of paras might be useful concerning the ROOIKAT AFV ammo as well. http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...t-rooikat-ammo http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsyste...20Rooikat.html I mentioned that TAIWAN has a big issue so… TAIWAN/CHANGE/MIA1 ROC/UNIT 025/NEVER DELIVERED/FMS NOT APPROVED/CHANGE IN GAME STATUS TO UNAVAILIBLE/RECOMMEND SAME AS REQUESTED FOR OLIFANT Mk-2B BASED ON THE SAME THREE POINTS NOTED ABOVE.//All foreign countries can request U.S. made military arms via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program this includes for both donated and weapons to be paid for. This ensures that our weapons industry does not sell our weapons to foreign powers not friendly to the U.S. or that might let the technologies involved with these systems fall into the wrong hands. It also provides cover for the government in sales that could cause a potential international political issue. All sales have to be approved by several agencies and finally by the U.S. State Department, Congress and by the President of the United States. A recent example of this had to do with the sale of the current most advanced version of the JAVELIN ATGW the JAVELIN JV to the UKRAINE which went operational/fielded on 06/2018 and how it might affect the situation on the ground there. Those above tanks have been requested about three times since around 2000. Instead of the tanks we sold them the JAVELIN BLK 1 and later JAVELIN JV (The BLK1 units were later updated to the JV.) I will provide refs that TAIWAN is now requesting the M1A2 ABRAMS. Ref. 1 from DID will bring you up to date on the current situation with the U.S. and TAIWAN arms situation and remember, DID lists their refs at the end and with links within the articles. This is an ongoing article. Ref. 2 has that “grab your attention” headline that gets folks all excited out here that they’re buying it and that’s the ONLY reason I’m posting this to provide a possible example of how that tank made it in here in the first place. From Ref. 3 (To include Ref. 1) will provide better reporting. Bottom-line no ABRAMS here yet. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ization-04250/ https://www.theepochtimes.com/taiwan...t_2587925.html https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/05/2...0-m1a1-abrams/ http://www.defenseworld.net/news/228...s#.XD13XHdFzoo https://defpost.com/taiwan-buy-us-m1...-battle-tanks/ (See para 7 of this ref there’s news within the news there. I've seen this info else where too.) https://www.janes.com/article/81684/...s-mbts-from-us https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...r-its-defences Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Well to start I've given this some thought for a long time to settle this issue since the testing of the Ukrainian OPLOT-M and the results tended to line up as I expected and as the refs. I dug up in my evaluations would show, what I perceived as weaknesses that shouldn't have existed did. I submitted the following two tanks into the game below, so again, I had to take the time to reevaluate them without being biased in my decision making process. I relied on my evaluations from the recent testing done, looked at the feedback I received from others, rechecked old refs. and found new ones and checked my conclusions against it's peer Russian T-90A UNIT 050, it's main rival T-72B3M/B4 when I play the against the AI. I now fully understand why the AI picks this tank not just occasionally, but just about ALWAYS! I really feel this is one of the better tanks we've ever entered, not only based on how it plays in the game but, in the fact try as I may and given what it's done to my OPLOT-M tanks, I can't find NOTHING wrong with it as presented in the game.
But to fully understand a tank when doing what I propose to do below by giving Don "my" firm numbers for submission, you have to go deeper. I looked at it's predecessors, other contemporaries and one of the best tanks during the period of operations of this tank as listed below. As with the two already listed these next where also used to evaluate my numbers for STEEL/HEAT/ERA & STABILISER as submitted below. They are (The ones I've submitted or changed will have "*" by the name.) THAILAND *OPLOT-M (T) UNIT 019, UKRAINE T-84 UNIT 059, RUSSIAN *T-80BMV UNIT 046, SWEDEN *STRV-122A UNIT 358 (This tank was chosen because it is my firm belief there is no better "TOP" protected tank in the world. Acted as a check against me as the others did. This came about from tests conducted on their stock of Russian tanks with STRIX which proved devastating to them. Also these LEOPARD tanks were made to order for SWEDEN and NOT stock tanks. The "STEEL" for the turret hatch alone was increased just shy of 2 feet thick which means the surrounding "TOP" area has to be even thicker as all hatches are recessed to avoid such issues as over pressurization etc.. no different then on a Submarine and verified by my co-worker "JAKE" (Helped us on some BRADLEY issues we were looking into in the past.) the ABRAMS/BRADLEY Driver/Gunner extraordinaire. For further see the FB Patch Thread "Patch Post #2 for the 2013/2014 Campaign"), USA M1A2 SEP V1 UNIT 318, M1A1HA+ UNIT 484, *MIA2 SEP V2 UNIT 517,and *M1A2 SEP V3. So... UKRAINE/OPLOT-M/UNIT 064/CHANGE/STEEL/HF 75 vice 72/HR 10 vice 8/TOP 10 vice 7/HEAT/110 vice 104/HS 45 vice 40/TR 20 vice 18/ERA/HF 20 vice 15/HS 18 vice 15/TF 20 vice 15/TS 18 vice 15/TOP 20 vice 15/STABILISER 6 vice 5//My key tanks here where the T-84, OPLOT=M (T), T-90A, T-72B3M/B4, T-80BMV and STRV-122A. We know or should know the following by now, the T-90A is it's peer tank, the tank was RESET to the "-M" with the Hull strengthened and the Turret was newly built for this tank, ERA is better than the T-90A and the KBA3 MG has a first round hit probability tested to at least 94%. All this was born out in the evaluations during testing from the refs supplied in the posts and more as described above. From the tests the average Kill RATIO stands at 3:1 loss favoring the T-72B3M/B4. All the issues have already have been covered with the solutions to help counter the situation and acknowledged. PG. 82 Posts 813/814/815 (Last Para) and 816. PG. 83 Posts 824 and 830 PG. 84 Post 832. Something happened with the next Tank that I haven't figured out yet. I tried finding my posts concerning it when I submitted it, but, I couldn't though I'm sure I just missed them in my search. I'm sure a part of the answer lies in those related Posts. THAILAND/OPLOT-M/UNIT 019/CHANGE/NAME/OPLOT-T vice OPLOT-M/STABILISER 4 vice 3/STEEL-HEAT-ERA to match UKRAINE OPLOT-M UNIT 064 AS REVISED ABOVE// Though at the time, OPLOT-M was primarily used in referring to this tank, I'm assuming to avoid confusion. The refs. are using OPLOT-T now as has the THAI Army for sometime now. The only difference between these tanks were a small handful of internal issues i.e. AC (Ukraine would add this feature to based on THAI feedback to theirs.) and other tropical related matters. I believe the lesser FCS related numbers are probably good assuming the Ukrainians didn't clear them to receive the full FCS to the level of their own "home" tanks. This is not an unusual practice in the arms trade. That being said, if it's decided to fully match the hopefully revised Ukrainian OPLOT-M then I see no real issue there either. A final note, I REALLY want to thank everyone for their personal time given to running those tests and providing me with your feedback. It made the extra work in research etc. to get to this point well worth it and I could've have done that without you!!! Also I had come across some new information after the testing that might've altered mine a couple of others impressions concerning the Ukrainian KOMBAT ATGM. We believed it was operating as it should, the new information was passed to Don for probably a 3rd look by then, and he kindly took the extra look and reverified our conclusions of the KOMBAT. Thank You for that! Well I'm pretty beat right now so a Good Morning or Night to you and have a great week everyone! Regards, Pat |
Re: MBT's
Just for info.
Here we can see a photo with the M1A2SEPv3 tank protoype equipped with Trophy APS https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-ar...iguration.html In game we have only Army SEPv2 with Trophy but the Army and Marine Corps are upgrading the existing M1A2SEPv2 tanks (and M1A1 Marine variants )in service now, so we can guess with a reasonable degree of certainty that the most advanced tank in US service M1A2C will receive - or will be factory-equipped with, when fielded, the same upgrade -->http://www.deagel.com/news/US-Army-a...000018530.aspx https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/37053 https://www.leonardodrs.com/news-and...-marine-corps/ https://www.candp.marines.mil/Progra...ection-System/ http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...my/2017aps.pdf Here some other news, the new name for SEPv3 is M1a2C https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...tle_tanks.html https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-i...n-battle-tank/ |
Re: MBT's
I was going to post along with the SADF tank upgrades the fact that we needed to make changes to the USA OOB concerning the M1A2 ABRAMS SEP V4 that at the time I thought I saw there...must've been REAL tired when that happened. The good news we'll likely see that tank in the game I'm thinking around mid/end 2023. Six prototypes have just or are very to be ordered with evaluations to start in 2021.
In preparation of the above exercise I was going post refs that more importantly showed the USA is going to the process of updating the USMC M1A1 ABRAMS to the SEP V3 (No timeline given.) and have the M1A1 tanks equipped with the TROPHY APS which should start in about a year with M1A2 (Likely SEP V3 first.) versions. So I'm just going to data dump my files here as I know what I'll need for the future already. I'll start with the best and longest running ref on the ABRAMS out there... First the Tank: https://www.army.mil/article/172984/...ound_at_a_time (OP TEST EVALUATION UNIT?) https://www.army.mil/article/194952/...in_battle_tank (NOTE THE TOPIC AND DATE OF ARTICLE.) https://www.army.mil/article/214733/...proving_ground (NOTE TESTING AND DATE OF ARTICLE) THEY'RE STILL TESTING THE M1A2 SEP V3 ABRAMS AFTER 2.5 YRS! That last stuck in my head for some reason last week, now I realize it wasn't about SEP V4 as noted above but, the SEP V3 which along with DID article I can't post now (508 Resource Limit Reached.) APS: http://armyrecognition.com/march_201...e_testing.html https://www.army-technology.com/news...ps-technology/ https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...ams_tanks.html https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...stems-by-2020/ https://www.army-technology.com/news...ded-munitions/ Other Protection Projects: https://www.army-technology.com/news...st-protection/ And the USA is testing the NEW MIA1 SA just up the road from me at Ft. Stewart. This should be an improvement on the M1A1 SA tanks we shipped to IRAQ a few years back which I submitted at the time. http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...e_us_army.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/unite...res_video.html We don't have them operational just got the DID article you REALLY need to read the "August 03/17:" entry. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-02834/ I'm checking the OOB after this. And my notes, something not right to me now. Obviously I was away too long and lost track of things. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Alright figured it out. I didn't submit this tank, I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and from my copy as it appeared on FB Patch Post Thread PG3 Post #123 MBTs...A1., this was a very important time as this was where I pleaded my case to increase to 50 the TI/GSR for armor we would also extend this to the newly updated BRADLEY UNITS 898/899 that just became available.
The USA is correct so... USA/M1A2 SEP V3/UNIT 538/CHANGE/START DATE 06/2020 vice 10/2017/MBT IS CURRENTLY STILL IN FIELD/OP EVAL TESTING//The date currently entered is when the first six production models came off the line. These would eventually (And more obviously.) and as the refs are showing, went to the USA units assigned to test it. The significance of the DID entry I pointed to makes sense as it indicated the first 45 of these tanks would be completed, I believe it was in March this year. You'll note the rest of the upgrade completion dates go beyond my "recommended" one above. The test and Prototypes would fill a unit by then or maybe a little earlier. I've already deleted all the refs. before I realized we had a problem here, so you'll have to use my last post and those refs supplied as a start point. Due note the latest is from the Army website as are 2 others. The other telling line from DID was this... Now I can't get to it of course but briefly that we're about to deploy a unit to Europe with the M1A2 SEP V2 with the APS. It's on the first page in the first 3-4 paras if I remember. Clock ticking accidently posted incomplete. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
CORRECTION FYI USA unit 538 is now "M1A2C"
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
As to a USMC SEP V3, I'd bet on the US Army getting all it's V3's before the USMC sees a single one, and since it'll be 2023 before they even start it'll be outside the current 2025 end, date so it's a non issue. P.S. That foam North Carolina is developing sounds interesting. My question is, tho it's obviously lighter, how much volume of it is needed? A tank with 3m thick armor may be as well protected as a current one but it's hardly practical. |
Re: MBT's
The CORPS can only hope. TROPHY will be a big help. Also there is the real chance they could bring them up to the SEP V1 or SEP V2 versions just to get them modernized and more combat capable. SEP V2 was a major step forward, I saw enough from that tank to approach Don about the TI/GSR issue SEP 2 can do better than 50 but I knew SEP V3 was being developed and TI/GSR 60 I felt would come with that tank.
The good thing is SEP V2 allowed us to revaluate some of the tanks in the game to get them TI/GSR 50 w/FCS not long after SEP V2 was submitted. It's good we can follow RL to and get into GL considering game limitations due to map size etc. but that's why we have terrain features even in the dessert. It's scary to think that with the SEP V3 being able to identify vice recognize a target to +5000 yds./accordantly target the same/then shoot and kill it at that distance is just amazing to me. I'll be the optimist and say we'll see the SEP V3/M1A2C by the date I submitted (4yr point in Testing/Opeval) based on current data that means we won't see the SEP V4/M1A2D until late 2025. Oh don't you ARMATA, ALTAY and ARJUN Mk-2 get your hopes up to high either if any of those tanks get to FOC by 2023 you'll be doing real good. ARMATA isn't set to start THE OPEVAL process until 2021. If they are as diligent as the USA has been with the M1A2C to this point, then ARMATA won't be operational until late 2024. I honestly feel the ALTAY since they're sort of "back to the drawing board" as I posted are looking at late 2024/early 2025 themselves. As for India and the ARJUN Mk-2 I've spent a "career" trying to figure out what they're trying to do with their tanks. I will say this, if they ever field that tank before 2026, to be added in the game for 2025, well I just might retire than. Well actually kind of our plan for me anyway!?! But seriously India will you do something please!?! But I can say this w/o a doubt, the CORPS will get an improved tank. And for 2019 there will be NO NEW ARMATA/ALTAY/ARJUN Mk2/M1A2D/OPLOT-P/T-REX/AND OTHERS,but, Russia will get the following instead... https://www.armyrecognition.com/janu...s_in_2019.html The T-72 mods we've already accounted for with our "hybrid" if you will T-72B3M/B4 and if you haven't followed along lately, it's a "kick ***" tank. The T-90M and T-90MS I covered this past year and longer on the MS which for the Russians will better then the one's exported to KAZITSTAN. Well off to bed-Good Night! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
2 Attachment(s)
First my apologies in advance for going beyond my stated plans for submissions, I just felt that the first item should be entered as it seems to have been lost in the "news" cycle somehow. I do feel good though about the first two items overall. I'm cautious about the last, however, if not now soon as the supporting Refs. will show. I can accept that this if time allows and not otherwise convinced, might still be worth the effort because it is coming if not already here (The numbers run from 6 to 15 units already built.), it'll be ready when it gets fielded and maybe can be made available for the "what if" scenario and campaign developers as previously discussed for a couple of other tanks already submitted. I leave that to Don to decide.
JAPAN/ADD/TYPE 16 MCV 8x8/START 06 2017/C4/SPEED 100km/h (62.1 mph)/4x2 GRENADE LAUNCHERS TURRET MOUNTED/RADIO 91/TI/GSR 50/MODIFIED L7 105mm/L52 JSW/ROUNDS 55 SEE REF. 1 FOR TYPES/RS COAX Type 74 7.62mm/RS Mid Turret 12.7mm M2HB HMG/FCS 50/LASER R/F 22/STABILISER 6/SURVIBILITY 5/STEEL/HEAT USE ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030/ERA NONE MENTIONED/SUBMITTED AS UPARMORED VERSION//The design was based on the SADF ROOIKAT and ITALY's CENTAURA. The MCV was designed to replace the TYPE 74 MBT of which that process has already begun. Due to cost issues of the TYPE 10 during development and sanctions limiting the JGSDF to 600 tanks, the MCV was seen as a cheap alternative to supplement their tank branch. First off the FCS system is believed to be derived from the TYPE 10. The MG is similar to the one used on the TYPE 74 but modified with the addition of integrated thermal sleeve and fume-extractor the importance of this to MG STABILITY has already been discussed with the recent SADF submissions. It does feature a unique muzzle brake/compensator, consisting of rows of nine holes bored into the barrel in a spiral formation see picture on Ref. 1. I've not seen that on any MBT MG to date. Researched contemporary peer game units SOUTH AFRICA ROOIKAT II UNIT 017, ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030, JAPAN TYPE 10 UNIT 022 & TYPE 74 KAI UNIT 027. Like the TYPE 10 the ARMOR/STEEL composition and thickness are CLASSIFIED. The same as a side note concerns the TYPE 10 ammo, all we know is that we've (USA) has noted "it is highly effective". I've not come across anything to indicate that the MCV ammo is, I will assume it is of a high quality and effective though. Relying heavily on Refs. 1 & 2 because they are NEWER and RELIABLE. The next is the same but not updated. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...n-type-16-mcv/ https://www.janes.com/article/74061/...ility-dsei17d4 (NOTE LAST PARA & Mr. Foss of JANE'S is a well known writer.) For further info: https://www.armyrecognition.com/japa...res_video.html (NOTE Shows JAPAN as a USER not PROTOTYPE.) Pics: Note the front 4 wheels are the steering ones for this highly maneuverable and fast vehicle. Attachment 15653 Attachment 15654 Alright I'm quitting while ahead, last night I didn't quite get this far and hit the wrong button, yes another :pc: moment and no it wasn't that :haha: at that particular moment!?! Well alright sometimes you just have to :D and move on. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
Sorry it took so long to respond to this, I missed the post :mad: |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.