|
Re: MBT's
Those are definitely M1A2 SEP3 tanks in that picture. So this next Ref. ties it all into the picture. Particular attention should be made to paras 6, 8 & 10...
https://www.army.mil/article/222100/...ased_lethality Excerpts from the above Ref. from... Para 6: "2-8 CAV just came off the mission of Atlantic Resolve in Europe. During their 9-month deployment, they conducted large amounts of tactical and live fire training." Para 8: "The Soldiers from 2-8 Cav. have been extremely motivated and their candid input has been critical to USAOTC's effort to provide meaningful data to Army Evaluation Center who will evaluate the effectiveness, suitability and survivability of the M1A2 SEPv3." Para 10: "It's cool for these crews to have been able to test these new systems since they already have SEPv2 experience and now they'll acquire a few new certifications before the actual tank is fielded." Still in OPEVAL and PLEASE note the date of the above Ref. And again from my submission post to change the START date (It was in the game from 2016/or 2017.) for the SEP 3 this was my "hammer" Ref. to make the change. Article is from this past Dec. https://www.army.mil/article/214733/...proving_ground Long night hitting the rack. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Copied my last to the proper Thread. Sorry for any confusion.
So a bit of news then back to bed-sinuses loving it!?! :rolleyes: Iran: Just a bit of news on the KARRAR looking to be on track for this year sometime it appears. See para. 3 of first Ref for an assessment. https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...ered_soon.html They were feeling confident last Summer. https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...ar_moscow.html The tank. https://www.armyrecognition.com/iran..._12203176.html http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Iranian_Tanks.php Finally clear and back to the rack! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I would ask that no one reads more into this Ref. except to that TAIWAN has taken the step to "officially" ask the U.S. to purchase over 2 Billion dollars in arms. In this case to buy 108 M1A2 ABRAMS, 66 F-16V (Currently the most advanced type.), 1,240 TOW, 409 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 250 Stinger man-portable air defense missiles (Newest mode.).
They've already once asked for those tanks and fighters and they were denied them. For them to publicly announce this is an indication they see an opening here maybe due to our current relations with China. I feel to this might be their best shot to get those tanks and jets. But the cost could politically too high to manage. https://www.armyrecognition.com/june...to_taiwan.html Indonesia: Has placed an initial order for 18-20 "Tiger" Medium Tanks that they co-developed with FNSS of Turkey. I believe the USA has shown some interest in this tank as well to support airborne and rapid deployment troops with. They apparently are 2-3 years out from FOC, that being said, this tank will be available ~2012/2022. https://asiapacificdefencenews.com/i...d-with-turkey/ https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2019/0...r-135-million/ Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Very similar in concept and design to the Korean K21. Same gun it seems too
|
Re: MBT's
I agree, the South Korean one I know is being considered as an "off the shelf" expediate model along with a couple of other options if they go that way.
And it seems I got a little "dyslexic" in my last post, it should have read "~2021-2022". Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
The problem with jamming is it makes you an easily pinpointed target. So the real question is how would US anti-radiation missiles fare?
|
Re: MBT's
No idea and cannot find the article just remember the guy said the US needs to catch up it was the most intense EW environment on the planet.
|
Re: MBT's
Getting a little off topic, but, to help out one of my "mates" out here from the very start I'll leave you with the following...
01/2015: https://www.afcea.org/content/united...tronic-warfare 02/2016: Mentions issue of Ukraine artillery being targeted by their radio/cell phone transmissions. https://www.nhregister.com/nationwor...c-11337367.php (Originally published by The Washington Post 08/2017: https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-report...ber-commander/ 11/2018: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/co...ars-of-neglect (Note related stories at bottom.) 06/2019: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-warfare-61052 (Think Tank used as part of ABRAMS submission process) Ah yes MBT Thread so...;) Israel: The MERKAVA IVM BAREK/Windbreaker (To us.) The first para (Ref. 1) might be of some use here as I believe we've "flipped/flopped" on when Israel started using APS on their tanks, if I'm mistaken, my apologies in advance due to my current situational schedule. Also seems they've got at least on the turret a newer passive armor and also towards the bottom, what might be some useful data on LAHAT. https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap...the_world.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...a_warfare.html For contrast to maybe help in establishing a "degree of separation" the following... The MERKAVA Mk IV: https://www.armyrecognition.com/isra..._identifi.html Looks like sometime FOC 2010 of APS TROPHY backed up by this Ref. as well. Don't know if Gingertanker addressed this or not. He's a VERY busy man!!) Oh if you watched the news last night in the Med, the Cold War is back!! AHhhh the memories how easy it would've been to send a Mk-48 down "the range"!?! CBS News carried it, probably on You Tube now, but Russian Destroyer closing the gap on USN Cruiser while Russian sailors sun bathe on the helo deck. Wonderful! I'm done here and I intend to enjoy the rest of my weekend with a I can't wait to see in full digital everything...GODZILLA!! :D Have a good something somewhere!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Guess I got my stories crossed, the Med incident involved a U.S. plane being "buzzed" close aboard three times happened before the ship incident which occurred in the Philippine Sea a couple of days later. This is still for now an "uptick" in these types of actions which during the Cold War especially in the Med where this happened routinely. I wouldn't call it an escalation (Unless it continues in a more compressed manner in time.) as much as "we're still here" as a reminder.
Watch and read the report, though this one has the Russians "catching some rays" on the helo deck... https://news.usni.org/2019/06/07/nav...nsafe-maneuver OR... Watch and listen to the report... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4_jwqFJYB0 Sorry for the earlier confusion. Oh I better do this to...:p POLAND: Looking to develop a "Tank Destroyer" capability. https://www.defence24.com/polish-arm...al-contractors Also... GERMANY is going to continue to maintain them as POLAND is still moving forward with the LEOPARD PL Program. I wonder how much help they'll be receiving from Germany on the LEOPARD PL!?! :rolleyes: https://www.defence24.com/polish-ger...support-system Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I'm watching several tank programs VERY closely as most of you know. Of them I feel at this time only four of them will make the game before the games end date. And they are in order of my assessment the following...
1. M1A2 SEP3/2.Indias ARJUN Mk 1A (That might narrowly beat the ABRAMS.) both within the next year./3. France with the new LeClerc SCORPIAN XLR and 4. UK CHALLENGER 2 Black Knight (These will be close as well.). The following marks a milestone of sorts for my fourth selection. I to STRONGLY AGREE with the word "could" from the bottom of the article. Also including the "data sheet sort of", for the tank as well. https://www.armyrecognition.com/june...t_venture.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/dvd_...ack_night.html The next is a "code word" of sorts as well... I intend to enjoy my (Our.) first weekend off in four months I hope you all enjoy yours!! Happy Fathers Day!! At least to the U.S. contingent. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I must say your efforts are commendable Pat. But, I also must say, you and Don suck at "retirement". Lol. Get off and stay off the forums for a while. Enjoy the "break" or "retirement", you guys deserve it. This place does not need monitored by you guys. You stated your intentions and those that don't understand that can post away and not get answered by you guys but the senior forum rats. Lol. Get outta here already. Lol
|
Re: MBT's
I not rat!
I Fairy ! |
Re: MBT's
...ok...and senior forum "fairy"
|
Re: MBT's
Dat rite! :D
|
Re: MBT's
I SEE CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED HERE! I'm pretty sure that post said I would retire from the game in 2025 (Late.)/2026 (Very Early.) under the following conditions...
1) That'll be the last year for submissions as the game ends in 2025. I plan to submit Patch's, and you know where, until that time with or without formal patches being released. My last post brings up those possibilities as I've laid it out. I feel there is some equipment already in for current or later start dates that might not see the light of day. I know many of you can and would tutor those who can't adjust your own games OOB's should you desire to do so with the information I will endeavor to provide. I might need that help myself. Bottom-line for me if it hasn't reached FOC I'm DELETING it. 2) Those dates also meet my time horizon. Social Security shows I've been working since I've been 14. Experience has shown if you come "To All Stop" you'll "STOP" not long after. I intend to "Spin Down" over time so my body and mind can make a healthier adjustment. I do have a plan, which quite honestly, some of you "old timers" should already know. I am by definition a planner, that includes for the unexpected as well as much as I will have control of that situation. I like it when "nautical" terms can be useful!?! :capt: So my apologies in advance, but, you'll just have to get used to me being around for awhile longer!?! :) :D :p :doh: It's not become a job to me yet, however I do have to get ready for work. I hope you all have a GREAT WEEK! Regards, Pat :capt: Pat |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Things are still tracking along for the U.S. Airborne forces as they are heading towards a "Rendezvous with Destiny" (101st) as it's ready to go "All the way!" (82nd) in providing fire support to it's troops on the ground. These are by way of an update to a story I've been tracking for awhile. There is a possibility that we could see the Army's final choice at FOC in the final year of the games time table. The first was reposted to the site given more recent updates from other sources.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo..._division.html https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...ts-formations/ It looks like they'll try to arm it with the 105mm (Preferred.), has to meet the requirement for a C-17 GLOBEMASTER III to be able to air drop two of them and weigh no more then 40 tons. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...obemaster-iii/ That airdrop video is always fun to watch! In the meantime, and here's a switch, U.S. Airborne troops will be using "second hand" USMC LAV-25 A2 (I believe this is the same one I submitted for the last patch with improved FCS & TI/GSR inline with the USMC FEP for their M1A1 tanks.) which is a lot better than what they had which, was nothing, since the SHERIDAN's were deactivated in 1997. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...mored-vehicles Time for lunch and off to work-"TGIF" (Mine anyway!)!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The LAV is a good vehicle for the Airborne. They have to deal with many of the same issues the USMC does. Size/volume, mass, etc.
|
Re: MBT's
I think the way to do this is to remind everyone that when a major power sells a piece of equipment the buyer does not expect to get all the "perks" of that piece of equipment that the seller enjoys. I provide a couple of examples:
1. AH-64E GUARDIAN/or APACHE GUARDIAN: The foreign sales versions DO NOT have the same FCS that the USA ones are equipped with. The ones TAIWAN and INDIA etc. have gotten are equipped with the same FCS system that the AH-64D APACHE LONGBOW is equipped with and we're converting to the "E". 2. ABRAMS: Foreign sales AMBRAMS are not shipped with the DU armor we have on ours now. This would again included the FCS and more in this case. 3. With more to come, the RUSSIAN T-90M is a better tank then the foreign sales T-90MS. Don't get me wrong, the T-90MS is a very good tank, but it's not the T-90M. 4. The FCS should cover TI/GSR*FC*LRF*STABILZER these are the Sub-Systems that make up the FCS. The total package is what I consider when I submit my numbers for a piece of equipment. Sometimes these issues get lost out here and is why when doing OOB work, you have to always keep these differences in the back of your mind. Copy from the supplier and modify it, especially for more current versions of say the ABRAMS by way of an example. So I'm excited by the next bit of news as TAIWAN has just gotten over a major hurdle the get what is called the M1A2T. But this is a "cautionary tale" as they've been here before. That being said, I think it's the best shot they've had in about 20yrs to get the ABRAMS. From DID with the full article following as Ref. 2: https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sale...o-m1a2t-abrams https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-02834/ Hitting the rack. Have a great day!! ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
In general I'd assume sales to other countries are a generation, or two, behind whatever the seller currently uses. With a few exceptions for "good buddy" nations.
|
Re: MBT's
Poland has a new program for returning to active duty retried T-72 in years 2019-2025 old stock T-72 build in Poland in eighties will be modernised, to New standard T72M2 here is a description (google translator) from original manufacturer site Bumar-Łabędy with nice photos
https://translate.google.pl/translat...o-standardu-m2 This modernised old T-72 will be close to PT-91 Twardy standard :rolleyes: Contract signed https://translate.google.pl/translat...899_1_0_0.html |
Re: MBT's
This first one (Defence24 is a dedicated Polish site that also provides a European/World perspective as well.) I'm sure I had posted on last year as an FYI issue. The second one has been based on postings for almost 3yrs now which to my latest understanding is to move forward.
https://www.defence24.com/legislatio...in-battle-tank https://en.ukrmilitary.com/2018/04/z...oland-t72.html The following further outlines the possible scope of the project it contains the "nitty-gritty" of the details: https://www.defence24.com/pdf/?artic...in-battle-tank And just because... The next in paras 3 & 4 give us some current formation numbers, Which I believe are good within the game now based on a "quick look" only. But it's good to see there appears to be money to support these types of ongoing training given their budgetary conditions. https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...assesment.html Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Well I needed something to do. We're all taking a break from the last two nights of "activity's" so...
I was going to wait on this until I got home and again had access to to my files and the game but, what the heck!?! I think we'll just call it the T-64BM-2017 it is an improved model over the current T-64BM "BULAT" as currently in the game. First what I'm comfortable at this time. 1. The T-64BM-2017 is more advanced then the T-64BV-1/T-64BV1M and T-64BM "BULAT" as listed below by "game usage" factors. A. Improved FCS, it has been upgraded with a very sophisticated 3rd GEN system. What makes this system much improved primarily is the fact it's designed to be much less vulnerable to either man-made interference along the IR Spectrum or those caused on the battlefield such as explosions, muzzle flash etc. it blocks them. We don't factor those into the game, however, this goes straight to the "heart of the matter" to the level of again, the sophistication of this system. We have this and so do the top tanks in the world. Another "key phrase" is it's an all weather capable system. B. Improved Protection, the tanks above use (And a couple of others.} use NOZH/NIZH armor protection system. The references are strongly leading me to believe this is a newer Gen version of the same. I feel very comfortable, pending other evidence to the contrary, it wasn't fitted with the DUPLET System which is currently carried onboard the OPLOT-M. C. Communications, The radio should be on par with the OPLOT-M. I believe you can thank us for that. It also has a very modern NAVSAT System get allows for encrypted BSM comms. D. Has a remote 12.7mm RWS. Conclusions at this point... 2. A. Improved FCS, I see a TI/GSR 45 for this MBT. I'm not convinced at this point it has the same FCS as the OPLOT-M. Again w/o the game available, I believe there is room for a minor "bump" in both LRF/STABILIZER numbers. A compromise between the T-64 BULAT and OPLOT-M. B. Protection, I again see a compromise between the two tanks or I believe the T-84 OPLOT might work as it had an earlier version of DUPLET I believe on that tank. C. Start Date 10/2018. Don as you might remember we ran out of time for this MBT for the last patch mostly due to the fact I didn't have enough information at the time to my any assessments on the improvements to that MBT. https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...t-64_mbts.html https://www.janes.com/article/86319/...upgraded-t-64s https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-def...t64-tanks.html https://defence-blog.com/army/russia...er-t-72b3.html https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_...cs/udr-02-2017 For the last, if the Ref. doesn't come up right, look for pages 14-15. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
As a side note very early this morning I took a look at the numbers and more resources concerning the T-64BV BULAT/T-64BV BULAT 2017 and come up what I believe would be good "numbers" for the latter. I took my references/notes and came up with the numbers based on the current T-64BV BULAT and OPLOT-M.
Also I discovered that for sure the T-64BV BULAT 2017 apparently has 360' APS onboard as well as it's predecessor (Though I'm still looking into that.). The APS is based on the same system that, and I hope your sitting down for this next, that the Ukraine sold to Turkey! Like diarrhea", Turkey just won't go away. I can confirm that the "PULAT" APS is mounted on their M-60 TTS and LEOPARD A1 tanks. Not sure about the M-48/LEORARD A4 tanks. At this point there's just as much to support "both sides of the coin" on them. I believe the M-60T already had it (APS) when submitted. Was going to add it at the end of Taiwan F-16V post I just submitted until I saw how long it got!?! :dk: Keeping something short, that'll be the day!?! :D Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
https://www.janes.com/article/88384/...in-battle-tank
Yes but the 60T in game has a passive VRRS system and PULAT is a CIWS type active system so that needs changing |
Re: MBT's
If some of you might remember I "celebrated" in a Post here, that Turkey unseated India as the #1 PITA. They won't be unseated anytime soon.
This is not an unheard of situation, however it's still Turkey we're talking about. Here's the "quick and dirty". 1. The modernization program consists of 2 separate programs running in parallel. 1.a. M60T has been upgraded to the M60T1. Status: Near Completion/or Completed. 1.b. M60A3 TTS has been upgraded to the M60TM. Status: About to begin/or Early stage production. 1.c. It's starting to look like most or all of the components used on the ALTAY FCS is used on these "modernized" tanks. Not unusual as the ABRAMS and BRADLEY FCS's have the same core components on theirs. Still running this down Refs are scant. Ref. provided below best so far. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY!! I missed this on the first read myself about the "parallel programs". That info appears at the very bottom of the Ref. https://www.militaryimages.net/threa...es.6788/page-16 Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Great photos there
|
Re: MBT's
2 Attachment(s)
Chinese (VT5) ZTQ-15 "Type 15" Light Tank
VT-5 is the export designation, it was unveiled in 2016 at an air show. VT-5 / ZTQ-15 info It has apparently entered service with the PLA, being seen in large quantities at the 70th Anniversary of Founding of PRC Parade (albeit in desert camo). |
Re: MBT's
I do like top views but I think this is what we have in the game now as the ZTQ 99
|
Re: MBT's
Mark & Don I believe I have an article or two to support this, unfortunately, I'm still on vacation and can't access my files. Will be home tomorrow and will check them once we're unpacked and settled in.
Regards, Pat Why wait!?! The Diplomat reported on an article dated 02Jan2019 that the Chinese "MND" held a press conference on 27Dec2018 that the tank had gone into service earlier that month. I'll post that story tomorrow along with what I have if related to this situation. Pat |
Re: MBT's
First off I already had/have this on my list for submission as I'm still in the Patch Post submission mood.
As usual with these things of "One thing leads to another."-again!?!, there's another associated Chinese tank issue to be addressed. I've come to the conclusion based on these refs and couple of others, that DEC 2018 should be the START date for the TYPE 15/ZTQ-15 these are interchangeable designations we ourselves have them in the game both ways which now makes me wonder if there are not duplicate tanks in the OOB. I have not looked into this and quite frankly at this point I really, really don't want to for what I might find. There are too many questions still lingering at this point such as Ammo loadout in general and it's also capable of firing an ATGW but, does have it/or carry it? 1. What I know is we'll need two models, a "light" and "heavy" version. In other words one w/o Composite add on armor and ERA and one with it. 2. It carries a 105mm HP MG and will fire Hybrid and Standard rounds/35mm GL turret mounted next to the MG and a 12.7mmMG. 3. It does have APS. 4. Concerning TI/GSR I feel 40 as minimum but, leaning towards 45. 5. FCS/STABILZER will be improved based I what I feel the is the final best TI/GSR number for submission and as compared against their newest models in the game. It has to reflect "Apples to Apples" in the end. 6. This is a light tank and the armor should be treated accordantly being around 30-35 tons. It will be fast, but, how fast I'm not settled on as the engine sizes go from 750 - 1200hp for Chinas tank, and NOT VT-5 export version for engine size as of now. 7. Bottom-line, officially China as normal, isn't being to forth coming on any of it's military equipment. https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/chin...htweight-tank/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/chin...ection-system/ https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...on_system.html The last is to establish ascendency on where Army Recognition checked it's sources with. A note on the Editor/Writer the name sounded very familiar to me and I couldn't quite place it until this morning. Many of you from my earlier days here might remember a website I used from Germany that beat JANE's to the punch among others in the Defense Industry News business, DEF News. He's that guy and there never was an issue with their work we ever found. They just couldn't in the end compete (For advertising money.) with the one's I use now. One of the last stories they reported on ahead of the others was England getting rid of their GR.8/9 HARRIERS.. The links are still shown throughout the treads, but of course, the links are now dead. Establishing prominence is all. So I'm looking at the related articles and came across the next ref. I read it of course and found after looking elsewhere (OOB), we seem to be missing two tanks, the TYPE 96A/ZTZ-96A (2nd GEN) and the newest (As of 2016.) version TYPE 96B/ZTZ-96B (3rd GEN). Now I typed in all of the above and came up with nothing. I did see UNIT 038 TYPE 96G, to be truthful, I haven't had a chance to determine if this is a specialized "Command" version or other. If not, I have my TYPE 96A/ZTZ 96A start point. And finally, and if true there's more work here, well I'll just quote from the below ref... “The PLA will use it to replace the old tanks such as the Type-59 and Type-69 models.” The PLA operates over 5,000 Type 59 and Type-69/79 models of all variants, manufactured. Again this ref from 2016. https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/meet...ew-tank-force/ And if you're counting, China became the largest single tank owner in 2016/2017. Well I'm going to enjoy what's left of this evening and said "screw it" to going back to work tomorrow to be with you know who instead. Only worked 2 days last week and will only work 3 days this week. man life's good and I'm just going to ease my way back into it!!?!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Pat
Two things in one parapraph
1/ Dec 2018 had already been changed by me when this issue was first raised based on the info provided 2/ There was no ZTQ-15 in the Chinese OOB until I changed units 47 and 48 to reflect that ZTQ-99 was incorrect......there also is no "Type 15" in the Chinese OOB or any other OOB and the same thing goes for the ZTQ-15 except in my master OOB so how could "we have them in the game both ways" when no one but me has my master OOB's ??? If you are going to say things like that you need to include the unit number of the unit and the nation you are referring to |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
P.S. Dealing with as many OOB/units as you do I'm still in awe of your LACK of mistakes/typos. |
Re: MBT's
I see I'll have to go about this in a different manner.
First off I'm fully aware that the TYPE-15/ZQT-15 is not in the OOB. This is why I put my 7 points/issues out there for it's later submission. Though I did see the "naming error" for them in the OOB. And 3/4 of those points would still be valid based on what I saw. Secondly my search was first related to finding out whether or not both or either of these following where in the OOB the TYPE-96A/ZTZ-96A and TYPE-96B/ZTZ-96B. They were not and as I indicated would need to be addressed. Thirdly during the my search for the above, is when I noticed that in the Chinese OOB we have tanks listed as TYPE or ZTZ followed by their number and letter designation. As soon as you open the OOB you can't miss this. They should all be TYPE whatever as explained in more detail below. I'm NOT suggesting this be changed, but it would be more accurate. So my concern was whether or not there was a possibility of duplicates in the OOB because of the TYPE and ZTZ designations being "criss- crossed" for the same tank. By example is there both a ZTZ-99A and a TYPE-99A in the OOB? If so, for "the sake of argument" there was one, it would 1) Be confusing to a player and if you will the AI as these both would be the same tank! 2. Simply a duplicate to be removed. Chinese designations goes as follows... TYPE = A specific weapon/model from a tank down to even personal weapons in the case of the Chinese. I.E. TYPE-99A MBT. ZTZ/ZQT/PHZ/VT = Designate the weapon system as a whole (And there are several more but, these are the most important to us.) so ZTZ = Med./Heavy Tanks/ZQT = Light Tanks/PLZ = Self Propelled Artillery/VT = Export armor. PLA uses TYPE and I strongly suspect the ZTZ designation is more a industry (Including on some defense sites in reporting initially.) one for development through acceptance by MND and the PLA. Instead of ZTZ, Russia uses "OBJECT ###" before it gets it's T-## designator once accepted. In the three refs. from the "Diplomat" in my last post, TYPE always was ahead of ZTZ/or ZQT or whatever. In the following ref(s) you'll see the Chinese tanks identified as TYPE-## and VT/MBT-3000 (No longer called this it is just VT-4 now.) for export. http://www.military-today.com/tanks.htm http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/China.php https://www.militaryfactory.com/armo...tary-tanks.asp https://armyrecognition.com/china_ch..._11408171.html https://www.defencetalk.com/al-khali...-market-16471/ Japan and Taiwan do the same thing by TYPE. Hopefully I've clarified my concerns from my last post. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Fast,
I'll let you determine if this guy knows what he's talking about, but he seems to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOc_...ist=WL&index=9 |
Re: MBT's
I believe the video definitely "paints" a pretty accurate picture of the T-90 series overall. I have my Daughter and Family getting here in a few minutes from Va., but I'll have more to say about that video in a few days but, mostly to do about the T-90M and how it'll affect the ARMATA.
I'll just say there's a new "top dog" in the Russian Army and it won't be the ARMATA. Thanks again that video was a good show! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Oh they'll probably have a few ARMATAs around to show off. But as a primary (in terms of numbers) MBT, I'd agree it'll be something else.
I sorta think of the ARMATA as a Russian King Tiger. |
Re: MBT's
2 Attachment(s)
Where to start?
I guess I'll tackle the T-14 ARMATA first. The good news thus far anyway, is that we should see this tank before games end. The bad news is Russia will be nowhere near the 2300 units it desired in a defense review I believe from the Summer of 2014. Planned production was to have run from 2015 - 2019. The ARMATA should have or is about to start the OPEVAL around this time. A total of 100 will be built. One must remember and as I submitted for the last patch a date change for the M1A2 SEP3 (It's just easier to remember it that way at this time.) an article from the USA that reported that the MBT was 3.5 years into it's OPEVAL and still going on at this point (Earlier in the year (Winter?) as posted it was deployed to Europe for further testing and coordination of Ops with our and NATO units. As I'm in the habit of pointing out at times it was more about money, developmental and other technical issues and finally the sanctions imposed on Russia after it invaded the Crimea in Ukraine. I was going to recommend a date change to JAN 2022 but, I see Don has changed it to JUN 2021 which is a good date I feel for what it's worth. Concur with the same for the T-15 as well. It will "posted" with "1st Guards Tank Regiment of 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division, garrisoned in Moscow and part of Russia’s Western Military District." That means home defense of MOSCOW. The only issue I see and I'm putting in this thread vice the APC one for now, is because these refs. refer to it in the T-14 discussion. Serious consideration should be made for adding a T-15 with the 57mm MG. This looks to be how the main variant will be armed. I already posted on this I'm pretty sure in the APC Thread and as I indicated again, it's in these refs. as well. I hope you'll take the time to click on the links within these articles as I have, for perspective and a better understanding of the "big picture". I now remember the German website this editor/writer (The Diplomat) ran in my earlier days of posting this "stuff" and some might remember it as well, DefPro.com may it RIP. I'll try to get these in date order... https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/russ...n-battle-tank/ https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...perations.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...n_service.html (The trials were delayed a year, until now as already noted.) https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/russ...rials-in-2019/ What's going to be their most capable tank in the field? I first posted on this MBT late in 2017 or early in 2018 I believe, having first been spotted participating in a Russian exercise. The T-90M which I've been watching from the start. It is currently still in trials so a date change will be required. https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...uisitions.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ...res_video.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...sian_army.html (From the ref. Dated FEB 2018, "According to the Russian Company Uralvagonzavod, the latest modernization of the main battle tank T-90, called T-90M will enter in service with the Russian army in the next few months.") https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/russ...rials-in-2019/ https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...ew-t-90m-tank/ (This last ref. from this past SEP. indicates the Russian Army did not receive it's first T-90M until JUN 2019.) https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25...y#.Xav6qm5Fzoo (This ref. SEP 2019 is saying they just got their first one in SEP.) This is why I to love OOB work because "a good time will be had by all", if not, there will be consequences for all in involved. Fun is mandatory around here. All others "need not apply". :rolleyes: ;) :D and of course :doh:!!!!!! I recommend new START DATE: RUSSIA/T-90M/UNIT 059/START JUN 2020 vice OCT 2018.// This should get the job done, hopefully. Pics: Attachment 15819 Attachment 15820 Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Going back to the posts associated with the T-90 series tanks You Tube video, one of the major improvements is in the sensor area both the T-90/T-90A (And some countries export version T-90S as submitted last year as well.) have the SHOTORA warning/jamming system onboard, they look like the "eyes" of the those tanks mounted on both sides of the turret.
Still a very good warning/jamming system but, as you can see vulnerable to weapons or heavy shell firing where mounted. Now look at the pictures I posted for consideration (As I've stated before I like to see equipment moving/or doing something vice being static.) for the T-90M from my last post. On the forward leading edge on each corner of the turret (You'll see this looking at both pictures.) you'll see the "bump" that's for the APS/Warning system. Good luck taking that out without pretty much a direct hit. It's also supposed to be equipped with the same gun and quite possibly also the same FCS (This bears further investigation but, would make perfect sense that it does to me.)as on the T-14/ARMATA , better more powerful engine etc. etc. Those are probably the most important differences along as well being better protected (Almost forgot about that!) from the T-90/T-90A/T-90S and finally the closest to it but, "no cigar" the T-90MS. Well I did say had more input on Suhiir's video. Later this week why the T-50 renamed SU-57 might need to be put in the "non game user" category or deleted. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
Unit#036 T-72B (88-92), #077 T-72B (88-25),#494 T-72B KMT-6 (85-25), and #495 T-72B KMT-7 (88-25) VS Unit#049 T-90 (93-99), Unit#564 T-90 KMT-6 (93-25), and Unit#858 T-90 (93-99) This is most definitely not the case. In fact it's armor is better then the T-72BM (1997). Also the active protective system effectively negates the reactive armor on the turret front facing. Additionally at 1:42 he says the original T-90 had no thermal sights, again not the case in the OOB. Also most T-80s didn't start getting thermal sights till 1992. At 2:08 he states the T-90 used the same engine as the T-72B, again most definitely not reflected in the OOB. ALL these points are why I brought this video up in the first place. Isn't it nice how we Marines insure Sailors doesn't get bored :D |
Re: MBT's
Just because someone posts a video and makes a claim does not mean it is gospel truth without some other source to back that claim up. ALL armour values in this game for active units are guesstimates because no nation anywhere posts honest, verifiable stats. It could be we have overstated the protection of the T-90 but it could also be the T-72B's values are understated. It could also be that what we have is as good as it gets
So........"he says the original T-90 had no thermal sights, again not the case in the OOB"...... that's nice now get me another source that agrees with him. It could be that the original T-90 prototype did not have thermal sites.....or not...... prove it with sources that backs up this claim and don't expect someone else to do the work for you......if you want to question something like this do your own leg work. He also has less than complimentary comments about the Abrams Sep and the T-14 and the Merkava should we knee-jerk OOB changes based on those videos too ? If you dig into " Redeffect" https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAN...XQ6M1Jdg/about It shows Location: North Korea That could be true or not or posted like that just for a giggle-----just like all the info presented |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Here's an minor example of the kind of conflicting information we have to deal with
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...0887aeed9a75e4 BHISHMA https://post-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxN...png?type=w1200 BHEESHMA Most sources report the name as Bhishma, None report T-90 bheeshma except that photo |
Re: MBT's
Guys for now and BE CAREFUL HOW YOU READ THESE PLEASE I take from the best I have on these tanks again for now. I have tires to get for my car and the daughter and family just left to go back to Virginia which leaves me with an emotional CINCLANTHOME right now.
I ask your patience but in the meantime I provide some light reading all of which I spent a couple of hours into the early morning already reading myself and still "digesting". http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-90S.htm http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/ Very technical data he gives real numbers. Both the T-72BU and T-80U gave "birth" to the T-90 so next is the best I found when considering the "depth" of the issue so far. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...a/T-90_MBT.php The next is falling into line with the rest, but understand, I just now gave this a "quick read" please take this into account. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm (Don you will note in here concerning INDIA (SURPRISE/SURPRISE!! :rolleyes: they use both names. I also believe I brought this up for the last Patch submissions for all the Indian tank adjustments I submitted. Refer to my last post in the Jet Thread for the specific Posts.) What I see now is... 1. Possibly STEEL (T-90) probably is the same as the T-72BU which at the time appears to have been the "pinnacle" of T-72 development when they moved onto the T-90. 2. T-90 did have thermal NV sites that falls somewhere between 800M to 1000M effective range. 3. Does the game T-90 reflect the KONTACT-5 values we use for that particular ERA? If not we have an issue there quite obviously. I gotta get myself together and get going!!!!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Good luck, and happy (information) hunting!
I'd like nothing better then to have you prove the guy has no idea what he's talking about, because if is correct there's a lot of work needed. |
Re: MBT's
Who's Irish out here!?! Suhiir (Both these in good natured way I'm sure! ;) is basically doing what a tour bus Driver did to me in Dublin Oct. 2016. And as I have 7 tabs opened and the Russian OOB in hot standby well, you're all just going to have read the story now (This is the mandatory fun for all part from my last Jet Thread Post.) We are on a the tour bus in it's final run of the day to make the final tour of the day.
Me: Do you think you can make to Kilmainham Gaol (Pronounced: Jail.) before the last tour starts that we have tickets for? Driver: After a few seconds, Are ya challenging me mann!?! Well Are ya challenging me mann!?! Me: Yes I am challenging you!?! Driver: Well mann, DO YOU ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE then!?! Me: Why is he asking me this I'm thinking!?! Driver repeats the question again before I finally realise this is what they do here (Later confirmed.) so...Me: Mann, I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE AND GOD HELP US GETTING THERE!!! We all had a good laugh, and God help the tourist that didn't get to the last 3 or 4 P/U points when the bus arrived. The tour had just barely begun with us having a final laugh, handshake and a Manley man bear hug! NOW with that memory I'm ready to go. I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE!! So... A lot of people out are going to have to decide whether to go with the "Video Guy" or my best analysis with the information I have at this point. I can't do better than that. :dk: T-90: 1. "Video Guy" is wrong as I already noted the T-90 has the armor of the T-72BU (Which would later be designated T-90.) with parts of the FCS of the T-80U. What's he missing? Well 2 MBT's that were very important to the T-72BU (I should note Tank Encyclopedia has a picture of the T-72BU.) development. These are the... T-72B obr.1989g The model 1989 had an improved Kontakt-5 ERA armor, and a “Dolly Parton” composite armor extended on the turret sides. T-72B obr.1990g Upgraded version with a new FCS coupled with a cross-wind sensor and the V-92S2 engine (not systematic). it also had an improved commander cupola sight. The T-72BU was developed from this version, giving birth to the T-90. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...oviet_T-72.php It does have Kontakt-5 ERA as I noted earlier today. Also Shtora-1 countermeasures system which as I mentioned last night/early this morning still a very effective system. Included is the “Nakidka” thermal/radar/optical shroud. Night Vision: Early batches TO1-KO1 Buran-PA with TPN-4-49-23 passive/active II (target id range 1.2/1.5 km) (Mine This has two modes of Operation. Also it's ONLY used and effective at Twilight and Dawn or if you will Ambient Skylight. https://issuu.com/ufobject/docs/russ...ons_catalog/91 Later batches ESSA (Thales Optronique Catherine-FC TI) (Mine: As used on the T-90A and the T-72 "White Eagle", check *Nicaragua*/Venezuela OOB when I submitted that MBT about 2-3 years ago, I believe with TI/GSR 45. Might be in Russian OOB as well from the same time.) Commander (Mine so here's the PITA, I recommend TI/GSR 15 this is the average of two values given below for the T-90/ONLY. PNK-4S complex includes TKN-4S Agat-S day/night sight (target id range 800 m (day)/700 (night) Driver TVN-5 IR night viewer (These above values are ALL OVER THE WEB for the T-90.) So mister "Video Man" is wrong. He's failure to identify those two missing tanks was were he failed in his "video exercise" I will still give him the :p award however, though I'll concede depending on these two factors, 1. How did he conduct his "word" search and 2. What limitations does he have on web access. I know already not everyone is equal in their access or capability to gain access at the server or other equipment outside of their PC. Some the observations were good. I've seen occur in the Forum as well. What's left is I need to see if a "break point" exists between the "earlier batch's" as noted above, to something before the T-90A. See I'm not such a B**T**D after all. :angel T-72: *http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...oviet_T-72.php http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm T-90: *http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...a/T-90_MBT.php http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm *https://world-defense.com/threads/t-...tle-tank.4380/ http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/ * Denotes best for armor values. I used some of my other refs as well to include armyrecognition/armyguide etc, It's all come basically to the same conclusions. I've spent almost 5 hours on this, I'm done. I have to figure out how my PELTOR TAC 300 noise canceling hearing protection works. After this exercise, I'll be more then ready to get that/maintain my expert qual again on the range starting in the morning!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Thanks for the clarification!
(This is why you should always seek out an "expert.) |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
There is one overall vision, not one for the gunner and one for the commander. When they differ we go with the best value no matter what nation it is ok ...... "Early batches" target id range 1.2/1.5 km) in game terms that is exactly what the game has now for the T-72BM and the T-80U from the same era...... the T-90 has been given a full 40 I assume because at the time it was assumed the flagship tank would get the best ..... that can change for the early T-90's easily enough but I want to make sure I'm not simply interpreting what you are suggesting I have already given it the same FC as the T-80 from the same era....35 ( up from 30 ) Not too sure where "TI/GSR 15" fits in but there is no way I am giving 15 to a T-90 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.