Re: MBT's
 

If true that would be a game changer

Also.........The US OOB has one ( 1 ) drone and it's unarmed so there will be additions.... just what they are is TBD..........FORTUNATELY we have the extention OOB in place so we can add many more...... the first unit in the extentions was the M10..........grumble

Re: MBT's
 

That means the M10 *may* not be pulled completly out of the game........they could end up anywhere doing what they we designed to do or becoming dust magnets locked in a warehouse

Re: MBT's
 

Here's what I wanted as expressed in my last post.

The next two items read the same but, I posted them for context.

First as the upper Chain of Command received it...
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/...initiative.pdf

Last also from the army.mil News section which I first saw.
https://www.army.mil/article/285100/...ion_initiative

First the M1E3 appears to be safe.

For now, except as already noted so from the above...
"We will cancel procurement of outdated crewed attack aircraft such as the AH-64D, excess ground vehicles like the HMMWV and JLTV, and obsolete UAVs like the Gray Eagle."

So, we will not be producing and or buying any more of those systems and other systems TBA in the future.

From the quote I highlighted the ones most in danger of being withdrawn from active service.

"We live in interesting times. "

I'm not worried about AMPV as it was already fielded by the USA and we further adjusted the START date accordantly as posted. We have no backup plan (Except autonamious systems still being evaluated.) or "whiff" of another armored unit to replace it or to transport our troops in.

As noted, we'll have to be "eyes on" for certainly the next few months or more.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Just came across ;)this a few minutes ago, I'll call this the "Don't fall in!?!" article. I think most will catch my meaning ;) as it relates to the information I passed along to Don yesterday in the APC Thread for the timeline posts. Anyway...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...e65a8f60&ei=42

The next has no game impact however it most certainly has potential real life consequences.

We have decided at the end of last week or earlier to not allow Australia to send their M1A1 Abrams to the Ukraine one of the reasons is stating we don't think they want them however, Ukraine did address the issue that they do want them on the web. Besides they figured out how to better protect the "Top" (Another issue that was brought up by us.) a few months back and we haven't seen anything in a while about drones taking them out.

I guess they managed the situation quite well and without our help. They must've been paying attention to what the Israelis have been doing for decades, making our equipment better then when they got them to include more recently their F-35I.

Before I post this I'm sticking to my START for these tanks as I recently posted they are still training and qualifying on these tanks. Further the only ref that matters is the Australian "REAL" Army newspaper I subscribe to. Para 6 of the following mentions the delay in shipping.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...-tank-squadron
https://kyivindependent.com/transfer...media-reports/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...k-in-australia
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...abrams-ukraine

It's a wonder how these things come along to support a point I made in a post so for a further example here's the following...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/focu...ted-smart-fuse

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: Alright was heading to bed when I realized I forgot the following. This is the reason why the K2 PIP was "killed" 2-3 years ago. First the K2 had many of the systems incorporated into the tank when the decision was made to improve the K2 and be able to build a larger tank force quicker which also included modernizing the K1 to the K1A2.

This also lead to the K3 planning which I started posting on about a year ago at least. When I saw this article there was another obvious reason to get it posted, which Don will most certainly pick up on. Read Para 2 very slowing. and the rest of the article will certainly show this tank has a long way to go. VLS on a tank MAYBE-WOW!
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...3-stealth-tank
(Now corrected in here as well-thanks Don. Cut the end "k" when made bold early this morning.)

Re: MBT's
 

registers-the-design-of-south-koreas-future-k3-stealth-tan[/url][/b]k[/quote]

The link cut the K off the end in link above

This is the corrected one

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...3-stealth-tank

Re: MBT's
 

Perhaps a little clarity on the Russian T-54 tank usage.

And based on the ORNX numbers for the T-54/55 tanks I feel they both are being used as indirect artillery support as the below video suggests for the T-54.

I base this on the current ORNX numbers for all reporting items they cover to show that a total of only 14 of the above tanks have been reported.

Unless you want them as artillery units MAYBE you might just want to save yourself a couple of Russian slots. Neither have been upgraded for the current war.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news...on/vi-AA1AKE7Z
(This is less than a day old.)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...ian-T-55-tanks

To better support the "MAYBE" by contrast I looked to the next tanks which would be the T-62 and up. Again from ORNX.

5 T-62 Obr. 1967: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (1, captured)

2 T-62 Obr. 1972: (1, destroyed) (1, abandoned)

135 T-62M: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6 and 7, and so forth...

46 T-62M Obr. 2022: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, and so forth...

36 T-62MV: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed) (7, and so forth...

The above fall under the SOVIET banner to indicate they had only minor improvements made to them if at all.

10 T-62MV Obr. 2022: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, and so forth.

39 Unknown T-62: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, and so forth...

The above two fall under the RUSSIAN banner.

And note this is why almost a 100% of my refs to include the "vaunted" JANES use this site as the data is verifiable and more importantly to me and I'm sure most legitimate of the refs like is if it's in the "Unknown" category there is no guessing of which model it is so it is what it is which is again "Unknown" period.

Wasn't going to do this but here you go after this this you're on your own to check deeper this for "GP"...

3 T-64A: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (1, damaged)

92 T-64BV: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed) (7, and so forth...

2 T-64BVK: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed)

1 Unknown T-64: (1, destroyed)

All above SOVIET era again.

All after start with T-72 "URAL" at (1) and goes way up after that as you can imagine.

I would think again T-54/55 would be wasted slots again in the current war unless used as indirect artillery and Russia all ready has enough of that to include a new system that just came on line.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html

My final point is also for all the articles saying that the T-54/55 tanks have fought in all these battles over the last almost two years just doesn't wash with reality of the numbers lost for both types especially as compared to the T-62/64 tanks that arrived on the front about the same time.

Also you can find online some indicating that both the T-55 is very similar to the T-62 even the main gun design are about the same. This also includes the size of both tanks. The one way to distinguish a difference is I believe it was that they have the same number of road wheels however unlike the T-55 the front roadwheel is separated from the rest and on the T-62 the gaps between the roadwheels that increase towards the rear roadwheel (Hopefully I believe that's how it was and I didn't "reverse" the tanks .).

My recommendation and your call.

I'm staying "independent" in the tanks I'm working on however, and we've discussed this many times over the years and that is are we going to keep TI/GSR at 60 for tanks etc. due to game map constrictions and overall all game play?

I have NO PROBLEMS with this as is just wanted to see where your thinking is on the matter. You can answer here or PM me if you wish for this topic.

THANKS!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

US Army Reevaluates Tank Warfare Strategy Amid Drone Threats:
https://armyrecognition.com/news/arm...-drone-threats

Re: MBT's
 

I read that article so I guess that means that hopefully we won't get into a shooting war in the next 5-10 years when we might have enough autonomous systems out there to lead the charge.

As I don't have much faith in the leadership at DOD at the moment, they should be well aware (Or are not discussing it.) that as reported that the TROPHY launchers are being adjusted lower than the current angle of 55 degrees to both offer protection against drones and ATGW weapons. The initial testing showed TROPHY was "somewhat" effective but obviously not effective enough.

Israel did however find that IRON FIST in testing was highly efficient (They claimed 100% though I'm not "handing my hat on that" and would've felt better with 90% + just guessing on my part.) out to a distance of 1.2km and I've not seen anything to dispute that range.

Germany has the SHIELD system which in the video I posted discussing all of this showed a FUCHS running a course with many anti-tank weapons being fired at it from both sides. None got through.

Further in regards to Germany there now is some speculation that the LEOPARD 2A8 might get SHIELD instead of TROPHY. It'll be awhile before we see the 2A8 get to FOC so this will have to be tracked closely.

EW is not a factor as the newer tanks already have at least 2 to 4 masts already on them that can integrate an EW anti-drone capability and if I had to choose the IFF mast would be my choice for reasons I can't go into here even for when I was active-that should tell you something right there. MAYBE! ;)

Again a wonderful article.

Regards,
Pat
:capt: