|
Re: MBT's
We continue by going backwards again first...
FINLAND: There is an issue here besides a minor name change to Finland's UNIT 021 LEOPARD 2A6, it should be renamed as LEOPARD 2A6FIN. That was the easy part, it turns out the Finn's bought those tanks from the NETHERLANDS, I reference UNIT 037 LEOPARD 2NLA6. Part of the agreement was, that those tanks were to be further upgraded from the 2NLA6 standard prior to Finland taking delivery of them. At a minimum Finland's UNIT 021 in operational capabilities should be an exact copy of the Netherland's UNIT 037. It also appears from the next that the START should be either APR/or JUN 2016. I quote "Colonel Rainer Peltoniemi, commander of the Häme Armoured Battalion, added that the Finnish Army had begun training with the Leopard 2A6 very quickly, starting in 2016. “It has been excellent to see how these tanks were introduced into operational use in such a short time,” Peltoniemi said,..." This is why I favored APR over JUN, they've already operated the LEOPARD's for years and are a highly professional service. What is unknown to me at this time is simply, were there any other combat related upgrades made to those tanks besides what's listed (NON-STARTERS) in the "teaser" article from JANE's? I'll look further into this but, I stand by the matching/merging of those units as essentially direct copies at this time. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...rd-2a6fin-mbts Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Tried to get this out early this morning but, exprienced log-in issues.
My focus is simply to close the loop concerning the LEOPARD 2A6FIN. The previous/last post is an important part of this process. I can say without a doubt in my mind that, operationally speaking, the Dutch LEOPARD 2NLA6 and the Finnish LEOPARD 2A6FIN are the same tanks. So a direct copy will work in this case into Finland's OOB. Units noted in my last. Several other items were bought along with the tanks to include the trainers (Which were the only item to be later upgraded by THALES. The trainers will be completely made current. The advantage for the Finnish Army is should they decide to further upgrade these tanks in the future, the crews will be able to train on the new systems before they are put into the tanks.), Ammo and Engineer tanks. Also in the search for any further upgrades to the LEOPARD 2A6FIN, the only other item that came up was that Finland will be buying additional ammo for these tanks from Israel during this and next year. I did not save that article as again I don't think there's that much difference between the ammo made by Elbit Land Systems (Formally IMI.) and Rheinmetall of Germany where the Dutch bought theirs from. But most of this buy is for HE 120mm tank ammo. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...rd-2a6fin-mbts (Bottom para with the upgrades made, again non-game issues.) But a two week earlier ref brings up the next issue, this concerning UNIT 024 LEOPARD A24S it would appear, well let me do it this way first from the next ref... "The Leopard 2A6s will replace the Finnish Army’s Leopard 2A4s as the main battle tank of the Finnish Army. The Leopard 2A4s have been moved into reserve or training units following the delivery of Leopard 2A6s, with the exception of 12 that were converted into combat engineering and bridging vehicles, and will remain in frontline service. The Finnish Army will retain them (2A4s-mine) for driver training and as a source of spare parts for the Leopard 2A6s." So... OP#1: If we accept the following from above, "The Leopard 2A6s will replace the Finnish Army’s Leopard 2A4s as the main battle tank of the Finnish Army." AND assuming the last batch (OCT. 2019.) became operational by JAN. 2020 then I recommend UNIT 024 LEOPARD 2A4S END date be changed to JAN. 2020 vice DEC. 2025. OP#2: But if we go with the next sentence from above, "The Leopard 2A4s have been moved into reserve or training units following the delivery of Leopard 2A6s (Which delivery?-Mine), with the exception of 12 that were converted into combat engineering and bridging vehicles, and will remain in frontline service." As I go on in the below para, it's anyone's guess. Given the ambiguity of those two statements, I rather would want to go with OP#1 and be "SAFER THEN SORRIER", I feel it's the best option as I can't find anything to support the same for an earlier date for withdrawal of the Finnish LEOPARD 2A4S from frontline service. I can even see and support NLT JUN. 2020 as well if you think it best. Certainly the LEOPARD 2A6FIN (Last batch received last OCT. 2019.) would've been fully integrated into the Finnish Army by last month and there haven't been any articles to the contrary, I came across in my search on both these tanks. https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/10...a6s-delivered/ An early article concerning the first delivery. You'll notice the information has stayed consistent from May 2015 through essentially NOV. 2019. https://world-defense.com/threads/fi...herlands.2134/ Now I'm off to bed, before someone thinks, it's with my head for not going to bed sooner!?! :D Almost forgot we'll need another LEOPARD 2A6FIN with HE ammo as they got that from the Dutch and the buy from Elbit Land Systems will primarily consist of HE ammo as also. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I've stated many times I like to see equipment doing things vice sitting looking like a "static" display. With that in mind and from Finnish source's, I have 4 of the LEOPARD 2A6FIN and 1 of the LEOPARD 2A4FS. if there is a desire.
TO BE CORRECTED EVENTUALLY Well it's TGIF for me, the last couple of days were rough with a our wonderful humidity and temps heat index 102 - 112 for the last 2 weeks, blah!!! :cool: (I wish!) Well something didn't quite go right I'll have to fix this later. :cold: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Well first THANK YOU to Don for taking care of the technical glitch associated with the picture of the last post!!
So as I was conducting my search for more "action packed" pictures of the Finnish LEOPARD 2A4/2A6FIN (Of which I found some good ones of. ;)), won't you know I would come across some very interesting news concerning their LEOPARD 2A4. I was so very happy I did based on my last posts. :rolleyes: Though I did leave an out of JUN 2020 END, I really didn't think it necessary until the below two refs from Feb/Mar 2020 where the "star" of the show (NATO Exercise Cold Response 2020.) for Finland was...yes the LEOPARD 2A4. Anyone for DEC 2020!?! I'm at a momentary loss for a "Simile" at the moment after that last! :dk: (Sorta.) Anyway... https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=3491 https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/fin...-response-2020 (COVID-19 strikes in a separate exercise!?!) UKRAINE: I think I'll "kick the tires" with this Ref, I like what my "snoopy around" is showing so far. It offers a really good look at the upgraded T-80BV tanks I think we just got the last patch. https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=3663 Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
1 Attachment(s)
I'm going to skip ahead a bit because of the subject matter of one of the refs below. Quite frankly I'm surprised somewhat that nobody hasn't already "jumped" on this story and it's a good thing because I'd be forced to take "the wind out of your sails" which is never fun for me.
I will be focused on ABRAMS on this post. First off what's being done to them to stave off obsolesce issues and where we're at, from 5/20... https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap...ce_issues.html We're still handing out ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V2 from 8/19... https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...onversion.html The rest generally revolve around the ABRAMS M1A2 SEP 3/M1A2C... Strike Shield APS anyone, anyone? From 12/19... https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...u.s._army.html Cooling down the the TI from 5/20... https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...ams_tanks.html First Brigade to get M1A2C SOoooNn from 5/19... https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...ered_soon.html Don't get to excited because a year later... https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...tle_tanks.html Refer back to Ref.1 if you have any questions first please on the last item. A little history. While tracking the ABRAMS SEP V2 for submission, I had to wait for sometime because the USA equipped around 8 Brigades before that tank reached FOC. That's not to say the M1A2C won't be fast tracked (Though the record already shows it hasn't.) and brought to FOC sooner. However I'm feeling much more comfortable about the revised START Date I submitted for the last Patch based on these Refs as submitted. The following are for GP and of minor (Or more?) interest... The longest running and comprehensive Ref on ABRAMS (Among many others.) https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-02834/ Well the USA buys foreign, specifically from the UKRAINE again, in 2003 we bought over a year 4 T-80UD tanks. So in 3/18 were getting ready to buy a OPLOT-M. If you read the article carefully, you'll understand the future value to the UKRAINE concerning potential advances in their armor development. https://world-defense.com/threads/us...tle-tank.5352/ This in no way unusual I've personally seen what I swore was a MERKAVA being transported up I-26 West about 45 minutes East of Columbia, S.C. about 4-5yrs ago. And don't think the Russians didn't take an interest in the "diluted" IRAQI M1A1 tanks we sold them. And so it goes round and round again. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The reason Don took down the tank picture in Post 1053 was because if you went to "save as" it linked back directly to my PC's saved "Picture" file. Not good!
Never had a problem attaching pictures to my posts before 2 July 2020 when MS determined we're all to have EDGE Chromium and their hearing about it in their forum pages. So these are from my IMGUR account. What I'm first posting are all from Finnish sources. I noted we would need probably 2 LEOPARD 2A6FIN units in the OOB and now I see the wisdom of doing the same for the current LEOPARD 2A4AS in the OOB as well. 1 each in an anti-tank role and 1 each in a general purpose role as I believe the current UNIT 021 LEOPARD 2A4AS is modeled with 10 HE rounds. This makes sense in that the primary mission of their tanks is to take out the other guys tanks. But as noted in my last Finnish post, they've made a huge buy in primarily HE 120mm Ammo from ELBIT Land Systems (Again formally IMI.) The first two are LEOPARD 2A4s with their Winter Camo...https://i.imgur.com/TPYEd9c.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/wbpKwqA.jpg Primary LEOPARD 2A4 pictures for submission... https://i.imgur.com/oR8MkQh.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/31M1u96.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/0SFXh2f.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/esnxVtY.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/8SGIdXr.jpg My preference in order of photos is 5, 4 and 2. Now for what I expect will be for the 2 LEOPARD 2A6FIN tank submission... https://i.imgur.com/qWgCJhm.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/t7MpVS7.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/Cb151CK.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/kL70XZV.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/ZMfO0Cs.jpg My preference in order of photos is 2nd Row left, and really about a tie for the Top photo or 2nd Row Right. And that's that and back to the "grind" later this afternoon. Have a good night, it's only 0130 CINCLANTHOME will wonder if I'm feeling alright going to bed so soon!?! Hope this was of some use. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
This next wasn't what I planned on posting on, however, in many ways this is potentially of more significance. Besides the French/German MGCS (Which like ARMATA we probably won't see but, has caused the "stir" with the issue below.) the significance falls in the potential of us possibly seeing the 130mm/L51 on an existing platforms before games end.
France: LeClerc XLR Germany: LEOPARD 2A6 and up (Should it happen, more likely the 2A7) Japan: TYPE 90 S. Korea: K2 Turkey: ALTAY (Won't happen since they started buying Russian "frontline" equipment. This has already killed their F-35 deal.) USA: ABRAMS M1A1 (I should think the M1A2 but, the article didn't mention it.) UK: CHALLENGER 2 LEP (Which I feel has the best shot of getting it within the games time horizon. The upgrade as I understand it offers the 130mm/L51 as an option.) I can't find the video the next points to, but note they had updated this article. It should look familiar to you and it was the tank I just posted last. However other refs say it's a modified LEO hull. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...mm_cannon.html The next is from last year it covers the issues of up-gunning tanks, logistics considerations and more. You would do yourself a dis-service by not taking a look at it concerning this topic, in my opinion. The "More To Read" section has a couple of really good articles you will find "somewhat" related to this which I'll "pull out" concerning the T-14 ARMATA. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ew-tank-design The situation really hasn't changed in the last two years, in fact the economics have gotten worse. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...esigns-instead The article is relevant because Russia did follow through since the above by producing the T-72B3/B4, T-80BVM, T-90MS (Export) and T-90M the last benefitted the most from the ARMATA development I think we did a good job of replicating in the game. It's late and it's my "TGIF" today, so good what ever...!! ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I checked the thread and the conversation had already started back on 24 March 2020 and Suhiir gave a good argument why the USMC could get away with not having them due to support from attack helos and artillery. She unfortunately doesn't have a "crystal ball" and I'm pretty she's not a "witch" (You don't float on water do you!?! And be careful I did watch that "documentary" by MP concerning "The Holy Grail" therefore if you (If you were a witch.) float like wood and wood burns what you do with a witch? You burn it!!! Now back to our normal programming.) so therefore could foresee that's not going to be the case.
I will start from the beginning and pull a couple of quotes from each as needed. 24 March 2020: https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...e-corps-tanks/ This article is worth your time to read as you'll get some answers to the question, WHY? "The Marines are eliminating all four tank battalions, including three active duty and one reserve battalion equivalent. 21 July 2020: https://www.military.com/daily-news/...attalions.html "All of 4th Tanks' six companies, along with its battalion headquarters, are expected to deactivate by the end of 2021, Hollenbeck said." (Maj. Roger Hollenbeck, a spokesman for Marine Forces Reserve.) 29 July 2020 0745: https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ision_lot.html "from Marine Corps Combat Development Command: “The Marine Corps is redesigning the 2030 force for naval expeditionary warfare in actively contested spaces, fully aligning the service with the direction of the" National Defense Strategy, it said. To prepare itself for naval expeditionary warfare in contested areas and adapt its means to Chinese or Russian units, the Marine Corps has started to implement its plans to get rid of law enforcement battalions, tank battalions and associated military occupational specialties, and all bridging companies by 2030, according to the announcement that was released March 23. Additionally, the service intends to reduce the number of infantry battalions from 24 to 21; artillery cannon batteries from 21 to 5; amphibious vehicle companies from 6 to 4; and cut tiltrotor (MV-22 Osprey), attack and heavy lift squadrons. The blueprint of the plan calls for a total force reduction of approximately 12,000 personnel over a 10-year period, a decline of slightly less than 7 percent relative to the current structure." "The Marine Corps plans to deactivate Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264; Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462; Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469; Marine Wing Support Groups 27 and 37; 8th Marine Regiment Headquarters Company; and 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines. It also intends to realign 1st Battalion, 8th Marines to 2nd Marines, and 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines to 6th Marines, while deactivating and relocating Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367 to Camp Pendleton, California. The Corps is canceling the activation of 5th Battalion, 10th Marines, but its assigned batteries will realign under the existing 10th Marine Regiment structure. The service expects to reduce the number of F-35B and F-35C primary aircraft authorized per squadron from 16 to 10, the announcement said." You take away the training units in the beginning, the rest is sure to follow. 01 August 2020: https://militaryleak.com/2020/08/01/...a1-tank-units/ "...2nd Tank Battalion left Camp Lejeune, N.C., for the last time this week as part of the service’s sweeping modernization plan that envisions a more agile force..." "Tank units on the East and West coasts shuttered this month and began hauling their armor to military depots." West Coast: "And the service isn’t dallying. Early this month, the 1st Tank Battalion at Twentynine Palms, Calif., said goodbye to its tanks. Weeks later, Alpha Company, 4th Tank Battalion cased its colors down the road at Camp Pendleton, the first of the Marine Corps Reserve battalion’s six companies expected to do so by the end of 2021. Last week, some 200 West Coast-based Abrams tanks, M-88 Recovery Vehicles and other equipment began moving through the Corps’ logistics base in Barstow, Calif., enroute to Army depots in California and Alabama. Hundreds of Marines in tank units will be able to change specialties or transfer into the Army to continue serving as tankers, and those with at least 15 years of service may apply for early retirement." East Coast: On the East Coast, 2nd Tank Battalion’s Charlie Company cased its colors last Friday, where company commander Capt. John Fergerson recalled the role its tanks played in the second battle for Fallujah in Iraq in 2004. The decision to do away with tanks does not diminish their value in past conflicts, the service’s top officials have said. They just won’t be a part of the Corps’ future. The tank units aren’t the only ones packing up. Three combat logistics units in California, North Carolina and Japan also shut down this summer, along with an engineer support battalion and Marine wing support group, both based in California. The 4th Battalion will be the last Armor Unit to case their colors, which Company will have that "honor" to be last has not been announced that I'm aware. At the rate this is accelerating, we have an End Date of DEC 2021 for all USMC Armor based on numerous reliable web sources. Putting all the "Ouh Ra Ra" stuff aside and knowing how my Dad felt about his time in Armor, I won't begrudge any one of those folks if they took the Army offer, not one bit. There's nothing to read into this it's pretty cut and dry and anyone who's served in the U.S. Military knows how fast things can move when the upper C of C is motivated and the CORPS is obviously motivated about Plan 2030. The 1st refs offers the reasons logic for why but, as quoted from the interview, in the same breath along with China, mentions Russia. Russia will unlikely be an issue to U.S. interests in Asia or the Pacific. However the Baltic and North Sea would be contested and the CORPS would play a major role in "holding the line" especially as with everything else that happened this week, POTUS is talking about pulling around 12K troops out of Germany and bringing about 1/2 them back home and reassign the rest to diffrent European countries. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...l-regrettable/ There is a thought process by the "experts" that the Army can provide the Armor, sure if we have some there in Europe (And remember we just put some back a few years ago after taking them home as well.) I support the thoughts of some that the CORPS should at least keep the 4th Reserve Battalion at full strength and move it to the East Coast so it's available if needed, to go to Europe. Things can change as we're in a Presidential election cycle, if not, then we'll know the outcome before the next Patch. But again, as it stands now, CORPS Armor final flag will be cased by DEC 2021. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Di...-usmc-to-army/ I thought some might want to see what the CORPS has to say. ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
By deactivating the reserve battalion last the Corps save itself a LOT of money on maintenance and consumables because they're only in use once a month (for the most part) but maintains the ability to field armor if needed.
There are significant problems with maintaining such a force structure in the long run tho. Around half of USMC reservists are prior active duty and when the active tanks go away so does that pool of already trained/experiences manpower. Then there's the issue of the elimination of bridging units, and the fact that reserve units rarely get to actually train in amphibious operations. So for all intents and purposes once the last active duty tank battalion is deactivated so is USMC armor. So the question is ... When is the last active duty tank unit due to be deactivated? |
Re: MBT's
Concerning Active Tank Battalions, and based on what the refs have shown us thus far, it's taken the CORPS 4 months to deactivate the 1st Marine Tank Battalion and the 2nd MTB had one of it's four companies deactivated.
I feel at this pace and allowing for slight delays at the Army Depots to accept (The "yard" might be full to some degree because of the USA ABRAMs that are awaiting modernization to the M1A2C (SEP 3) standard.) anymore tanks. My instinct is telling me, March 2021 for active duty deactivation, give or take a month. Otherwise no official date has been set. I still think we should use the given date. It strikes me odd that it appears they're in a hurry to deactivate the "active" units but then "drag their feet" on the reserve component another year. Again there is discussion within the CORPS and outside of it to save the 4th Tank Battalion. I'd prefer the "wait and see attitude" and just simply make one change instead of two or more in the game. And there's still the potential things could change after the November elections as well. I know it's still going to happen, until I submit my last Patch Submission, but I'm just really tired of "chasing dates" and last years ABRAMS rework is coming to mind right now. So on this one my heads really at what I expressed in the previous two sentences above. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
The active units probably consume considerably more of it. Something like 2/3rds of US Abrams will be in mothballs rather than active, made a bit over 8,000 if memory serves correctly. |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Yep, messing with "Formations" and "Picklists" ain't fun.
|
Re: MBT's
John...
I just lost my "beautiful" dissertation, I'll just will you with the final thought I had before "poof" and it disappeared. Not money directly, however, more redirecting it from tanks to support newer weapons systems outside the norm. Simply my concern and again others within of retired from the Marines is Russia. The ground will be different it will be a land war after they land and I don't see Russia giving up their tanks because the Marines gave up theirs. I don't see them repeating what the Germans did at Dunkirk with their tanks. I resubmit this article again because it gives a good overview of the decision to move ahead with PLAN 2030 concerning the Marine Corps force restructuring, future operations and likely new weapons systems they'll use for air and sea denial in retaking any islands captured by China. https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...e-corps-tanks/ Back to the GRIND. Have a good day! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I have no doubt that there will be a USMC warehouse somewhere that will have a couple dozen squired away " just in case"
|
Re: MBT's
I am wondering how the ideas of "drone" tanks are going pan out.
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
But the problem isn't really the tanks themselves but people that know how to operate them effectively and the support (bridging, fuel, ect.) needed to make them useful. Tanks have ALWAYS been viewed as primarily infantry support in the USMC not anti-armor. With the fancy new optics, drones, GPS, precision weapons, etc. in that role they can be pretty well replaced by other assets. It's sort of a question if the increased use/cost of replacing precision munitions is offset by the money saved from disbanding the tanks. And then there's the "minor" problem of what happens if the US can't seize/maintain air superiority. But such a situation would effect the US Army, and it's tanks, far more then the USMC. |
Re: MBT's
I would think air superiority would be dictated more "locally (To include who the enemy is." then say even "tactically" or "strategically" as some things really haven't changed much since the Cold War. The general feeling was that "air superiority" wouldn't really be achieved fully due to the West's perceived and otherwise technology advances in aircraft against the East's average or better aircraft with a distinct quantitative advantage. It'd be a wash.
That's not all my opinion, as much form declassified military and intelligence documents some of which I posted a few years back in someone's thread. I really don't see how much has changed in this regard from the Cold War, we didn't build enough F-22 fighters but we have enough for "local" air superiority in well planned op. The Russian T-50 PAK/FA will never reach the maturity it was initially designed for because they can't afford it after, of all countries, India backed out of the deal because Russia wouldn't make the necessary design changes to where that fighter could've been much more competitive in combat against the F-22. So what'll they do? Like in the Cold War fill the skies with aircraft in the quantitative advantage they still enjoy today. So what are we going to do, well, it's long overdue but we'll be fielding SHORAD systems in the USA and USMC within the next couple of years or sooner. This will fill an anti-air gap we've been vulnerable to for a very longtime. On the tanks let there no doubt that the USA is getting/got those tanks back, if you read the refs closely, they technically and otherwise speaking, already have 200 of them. These are continuations of what I've already posted but from JANE's... https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...le-divestiture https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ks-to-soldiers Now if I was one for "conspiracy theories", I'd say PLAN 2030 was a misinformation plot to lull the Chinese and Russians into thinking "Bring on those Marines with no tanks, we'll show them!!" But what's really happening is both services recognize the fact that the USMC armor needed to be more fully modernized to face the newer tanks out there. So we tell the world "No more tanks for the USMC." they transport to the very USA depots that are building what? That's right the M1A2C (SEP 3). So the USMC will get their tanks back at parity in type, they'll be forward deployed in crates marked as "Farm Tractors" and such :cool: (Don't laugh the Russians, Cubans and Chinese have been caught doing the same thing, though a longtime ago. :eek:) until we need them. Of course due to the classified nature of this project, we'll still likely need to END them in the game as already noted...Thought I heard a knock at my door!?!...and I can't say much more about this, hope you'll all understand this. ;) Don be careful you almost had this figured with that "warehouse" remark, they don't like people that get "to close to the truth", just saying!! :shock: So a long day and still have things to do before I hit the rack!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I'm "bouncing around" I know, but, just think of it as "Alphabet Soup" for now and in the future. Because the next concerns IRAN and a tank I'll be submitting for the next patch or whenever Andy and Don feel like one is necessary.
Alright some background. Iran received the T-72M which is the export version of the Russian T-72A. I have had numerous discussions in the Threads concerning the fact that the "Big Boys" essentially don't share their toys with their "Friends" for numerous reasons mostly falling under "security" in some manner. So the next is a perfect example of that. The main differences between the T-72A and T-72M is that, 1) No Composite Armor and 2) It has a lesser FCS also. They (Iran) however upgraded theirs in Russia to the T-72BM which added ERA blocks for a 1.7% increase in protection over the standard T-72M. Also the MG is the 125mm D-1 which will remain unchanged in the latest modification below. So Iran has upgraded them to the T-72S. What I like about the first ref. is I have 2 pics showing each MBT in a similar angle. The last four paras of ref 1, breakdown what's new so, starting there. The aspect I'm using is looking at the front of the MBT... 1. MG unchanged as noted above. Ammo I believe is unchanged as well, with 45 total of which 22 are the carousel. 2. RWS is a 12.7mm with optics package not clearly shown in ref 1 but, it's there. 3) It is definitely fitted with a new FCS. I see 2 different mirrors in the "sight housing" note the RED mirror is the LR (On the RS) and the CLEAR for the TI/GSR. It would appear this set up allows for a "hunter killer" mode of operation as well. If the KARRIN(?) is sitting at TI/GSR 45, I would expect the same for this MBT. 4) ERA is definitely of a newer GEN then the current model. If you look at the top picture (New MBT.) notice the ERA Blocks are more "rectangular" then the "box" ones on the bottom picture. 5) You can clearly see the side skirts have new armored plates attached to them and the Slat Armor is protecting the rear engine area. What's not pointed out... 6) The new MBT has a GPS/Weather Mast extended on the turret center rear, this tells me the FCS is fairly advanced. Both of these have a direct correlation to the FCS performance, i.e. If the FCS knows where you're at that data will enable the system to accurately and faster provide a firing solution to the target. The Weather Mast function will allow the FCS to develop a better firing solution by correcting for windage and humidity etc. that could affect the accuracy of the projectile in hitting the target otherwise. 7) Note the grenade launchers are of a newer type as well. I would think a better self protection version on this MBT. 7a.) Look very closely at the front right of the turret/upper slope/just to the left of the ERA Block, that's a LASER warning system. I'll bet the house on it. ;) You can just make out the same on left side (Extreme front edge of the turret as well. That'll give it at least a min of 180` protection out to around 230` - 240` warning protection based on the angle they are mounted on the front turret. I'm not seeing any on the rear at this time which of course would indicate a full 360` LASER warning detection capability. The current model doesn't have this as far as I can tell. Of course as it's related to ATGW. There you have it, it might be operational now, I will need to look further into this and a couple of other issues. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...tle_tanks.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ttle_tank.html I'm going to enjoy the rest of my last day day off before you know what starts again with a "newbie" as a partner. :D I always have to train the new guys, you'd think the Lt. knows what I'm doing, boy, have I got him fooled!! :eek: :rolleyes: Whenever! Whatever! Wherever! :p Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Some pictures that offer a better view
I thought Iran fitted their homemade ERA your saying that has been upgraded again? https://i.imgur.com/RRBpMqo.png https://i.imgur.com/mPGORKp.jpg |
Re: MBT's
Caught me as I was getting ready to call it a night. But yes, that is a newer Gen ERA on that MBT. I feel your pictures shows that more clearly as compared to the current T-72 used by Iran. They still look a little longer top to bottom, or as I described them, more "rectangular" versus "square" which is better than "boxy".
With that being said, I'm not sure if it's the same as being used on the KARRIN (And please relying on memory for the name.) currently which was to have had a newer ERA Pkg. as well. It might be the same, just haven't had the chance to compare the T-72S pictures against it yet, which was one of those issues I eluded to in my last Post. So again a less then handful of items to check, however, it's a tank I know I can submit for the next Patch as I noted as well. That's the "big deal" for me. I'm doing the best I can, but, I'm getting tired of chasing dates for tanks in my mind won't see the "light of day" in our game such as the ALTAY (Which the "clock" is still on 0 month of the 18, Turkey expects it'll take to get it fielded once they figure out the engine issues. I've posted on this already.) and ARMATA which the T-90M has possibly killed COVID-19 not withstanding for that or any other outstanding programs we're tracking at the moment. The F-35 and other Programs are barely managing to stay on track or possibly be canceled (AJAX.). The new WARRIOR upgrade might be another "nail in the AJAX coffin" but we might get resolution on AJAX by Mid/Late Fall of his year. I don't think for F-35 concerning FOC we're going to get beyond the USMC and Israel having them before 2025. And if we do it's going to very late game wise in 2024/2025 and to me that's a lot of slots for something we're going to get maybe for only a short period of time. And FOC/Fielding/Fully Operational etc. has always been the "Gold Standard" for the game since I've been involved with it concerning equipment. I gotta go! Regards, Pat :capt: ALSO: Note the spacing between the blocks, the gap is much tighter on the T-72S as compared to the below tank on my last. That greatly increases the efficiency of the ERA blocks which again suggests next GEN. I just had to check that last Post again!?! :doh: :doh: |
Re: MBT's
Currently (as best I can determine) the US Navy intends to keep the F-18E/F for the air superiority role (primarily). And use the F-35C as it's attack/strike aircraft.
|
Re: MBT's
Well my "confusion" on VIRSS and CIWS came up again, however I guessed right and checked the game manual also. ;) So I took a look at the Russian T-72B3/B4 UNIT 697.
Before I get to the "why" of the matter, lets go back I believe 3/or4 years ago. I was working on the B3 when I believe the Russians in the "submission" year moved on to the B4 (So we're talking about a 2 year time span overall.) when Don and I had some on & offline conversations about this tank issue as it concerned the OOB in terms of slots left with equipment that were still being developed at the time (And still now.) that felt we were going to get entered by games end. The differences were noted with minimal conflicts equipment wise that we settled. We decided in the interest of the game and players to build a hybrid i.e. the T-72B3/B4 UNIT 697. All I can tell you is the AI really likes this tank. I also feel again as before it's one of the best tanks we've gotten into the game since I started this work anyway, because of the process involved and we left nothing out. But Russia is Russia and therefore they are always "tweaking" their tanks, due to the ARMATA issue. They added APS to the T-72B3M or if you like, as both are used, the T-72BM/T-72B4. There were some other changes to include a new engine increased armor protection including ERA. We have already allowed incorporated those changes with our "hybrid" tank as in the game now as noted above. I feel after taking some time looking into this matter I see no reason to change or add a new unit at this time. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...b3m_tanks.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ..._pictures.html A bonus from my "confusion" research comes from the USMA on one of the reoccurring topics that keeps coming up every couple of years, "On Killing Tanks" a very worth while article that's current from March 23, 2020. https://mwi.usma.edu/on-killing-tanks/ Well CINCLANTHOME and the Daughters show should be over and as her and the son-in-law (And I actually like him!?! :D) are heading back in the morning to Va., I'm going to say have a good night all!?! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Ever since the start of WW II (and a bit before in the Spanish Civil War) there has been an on-going "war" between infantry and armor.
One or the other gains an advantage, the other counters it. This isn't going to stop anytime soon, if ever. The BIG issue (from my prospective) is cost. A Sherman tank cost $33,000 in 1942, a TOW missile (just the missile) cost $93,640 in 1984. This is one of the reasons we don't see the "classic" Russian horde anymore, it's just to expensive to field large amounts of top tier equipment. This is why many "first world" nations are developing/fielding less expensive armor units to supplement their "top tier" ones. This creates a bit of a problem for WinSPMBT because it's several hundred (thousand?) "pick lists" do not, and cannot, allow it to effectively generate battles with few "top tier" armor units and multiple "2nd rate" ones. A tank is a tank is a tank to the pick lists. Rarity codes can somewhat alleviate this BUT would require multiple version of the same tank with different rarity codes ... which the vast majority of OOBs just plain don't have room for. |
Re: MBT's
The following 2 articles are a carry over from my most recent post in the Fastboat Patch Thread from earlier today. These are not "BS" and please take them on face value and not so much about the main topic but, for the "big picture" as regards mostly to the second article.
These are the latest I can find from official sources... USMC: At Fort Knox, Company E, 4th Tank Battalion on 24 Aug. 2020 "cased" their colors. As I've already posted from the USMC all the tanks are going back to the ARMY Depot stations to be likely refitted as either to the M1A1 SA/RESET M1A2C (Production of the M1A2 SEP V2 was completed about ~3/4 years ago.) standards. These are the only tanks the USA is fielding at this time (Or about to.). https://www.army.mil/article/238443/...ation_ceremony USA: This is from 8 Sep. 2020 and addresses one of the major hurdles in delaying both the F-35 which is obviously a much more complex "machine" (And still ongoing.) but was also a cause for delay with the M1A2C. Well apparently the USA has reached a "milestone" completion of the onboard "logistics/diagnostics" software and supporting equipment. There's still a way to go, but this is a big step. https://www.army.mil/article/238848/...lth_monitoring Concerning TROPHY, like in 2018 with the M1A2 SEP V2, it appears the USA intends to do the same with the M1A2C by fielding a Combat Brigade/or Regiment with TROPHY first before the rest of those tanks get them at a later date. Well I'm going to enjoy the rest of my evening off before going back to you know where tomorrow :mean:, alright maybe not that bad after August-maybe!?! :cool:-yeah maybe!?! TAKE CARE!! Regards, Pat :capt: FORGOT: Don the Japanese MCV-16 is playing like a "champ" in my Long Campaign against Russia. In my first battle, I lost 3 out of 6 but I almost broke even with them achieving 2 kills on the T-72B3/B4. The AI loves buying those tanks!!-OUT. |
Re: MBT's
New Pakistani VT4 (Al-Haider?) delivered to 6th Lancers from 6th Armoured Division
#1 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968 |
Re: MBT's
More on APS TROPHY and ABRAMS SEP V2, the following shows our tanks as mentioned in Europe for exercise Defender Europe 2020 which I believe is being held in Hungry. The best part of this we have the pictures to go along with the articles concerning this topic for a change.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ion_system.html After about a six month delay due to COVID-19, Thailand has received the last of it's VT-4 tanks along a second batch of ...just read the ref. :D https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...rom_china.html PLEASE BE SURE YOUR SEATED FOR THE NEXT STORY (I thought I'd never see the day!?!)! Well after over a decade or so, it appears that India and Israel have finally solved the problem with the ARGUN MK-1/ARJUN MK-1A/ARJUN MK 2 MG and LAHAT issues that plagued ARJUN MK-1 so badly it was scrapped for that tank. Part of the fix was achieved by mounting a new/modified MG (Same.) on those other two tanks. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...rjun_tank.html Finally since some of us still need to work for a living :rolleyes:, Poland and how things might be changing. Poland as I've posted, has been trying to be a partner with France and Germany for a "handful" of years in the development of the "Eurotank" which there appears to be no interest in inviting Poland to the "party". This is possibly jeopardizing the LEOPARD PL. So what's Poland to do!?! Easy get one of the other best tanks in the world the K2. South Korea saw an opening caused by the above situation and has moved fast to fill the void by offering the K2 PL. The model of which was shown recently at MSPO 2020 in Poland. It's getting late but key differences is in the Commanders Sight, improved armor and cage/slat armor around the engine compartment on the K2 PL. Most of the rest you can "gleam" from the article I've posted below. But wait a minute the LEOPARD PL is the modernization of the current 128 LEOPARD 2A4 tanks Poland has. You are correct! South Korea is offering a totally new platform and the process is proceeding. Something about too many "older" tanks. :cool: ;) I've already started the breakdown between the two K2's but, I will worry about the rest later, until at least a contract and production begins first. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...me-of-covid-19 https://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo...4_version.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo...lish_army.html https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...n-battle-tank/ A teaser, what should it be? HMmmm! :p Somebody is about to receive a very advanced version of the LeCLERC and it's NOT coming from France. Only one other country operates them besides France and they've decided to donate 80 of them to the soon to be third operator of them. Simply the UAE to JORDAN. That's for next time. I'm out, almost literally. :yawn: Good Night/or Morning! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Did not see that one coming with Poland
|
Re: MBT's
Well I won't be rushing it into the OOB just yet. It's one thing to have a parts supplier next door and another to have one on the other side of the globe
|
Re: MBT's
I concur as I stated, too many other things going on right now anyway for me to do anything but track the progress of the K2 PL. I think Germany and possibly France, either or both "dropped the ball or missed the ball" on this opportunity.
But there is another view as well the Polish Zloty favors better against the South Korean Won then it does against the EU Euro. Bottom-line: Increased buying power for Poland. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
well one good thing about it is there is more info about the K2 than when I built the Icon for it so there will be a slight revision of it in the next update
|
Re: MBT's
I've been tracking the progress for the LEOPARD 2A7V since just before I submitted the LEOPARD 2A7. It was hoped by various sources to be in service by earliest 2019 or more so 2020, well as most know that didn't happen.
However now we have a year at least and probably literally (Fall, I feel.) based on ref. 2 from the Bundeswehr website and that is currently 2021. I believe the base for our projected built will have to be the A7. Also the versions that are getting upgraded as not to embarrass my self by submitting an MBT that's not better then it's processors which the A7V will be a marked improvement of. Those would be the our best in game A6 (To be determined.), the A6M A2 which I believe we don't have but appears what we thought was a "test bed" actually isn't (I'll be looking more closing into this.) and a number of the latest A4'S will be upgraded. What I know high points: 1) New MG L55A1 (This more for the A4 upgrade.) for continuity of the A7V Program. 2) Increased turret front and rear armor values (Note the glacis on front and extended rear of the turret.) 3) New FCS all around (All in game factors i.e. LRF etc.) w/TI/GSR 60. 4) MRAP 7. 5) Fully compatible with NATO/German Ammo to include the newer DM 11 MP round. 6) FYI: 20 are in operational testing at this time since 2017. However I'm not inclined to put too much into this at this point, it's already slipped by a year or two. However Russia is building up it's forces in the Crimea and that may be incentive enough to move this upgrade along. On the tank... https://militaryleak.com/2019/03/26/...r-german-army/ https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/aktuell...-2-a7v-2628236 Just because and note reference source under the title... https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/germa...a7-mbt.348679/ I find this to be interesting and it provides links the rest of the articles covering the 40yr. history of the LEOPARD. But for is the listing of current LEOPARDs in active service at the end of 2019. And he's showing like the A7 I submitted, there appears to be the same number (20) of the A6MA2 MBTs. I'm getting that ABRAMS feeling about the LEOPARDS as I'm typing this. https://www.joint-forces.com/feature...t-at-40-part-6 I THINK IT'S TIME FOR MY WALK!!:banghead: :vroom: Regards, Pat :capt: UPDATE: After dessert :D, I figured I just had to finish this up some more, so where numbers and active types are given, the immediate ref. above MATCHS to the following below. I'll being going into the German OOB later just not tonight, might be some date changes and a couple of additions ahead. http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=148 Now it's time for that walk in the rain, at least I'm not the "Wicked Warlock of the East", so I won't melt!?! |
Re: MBT's
1 Attachment(s)
Last VT4 MBT delivered to Thailand, and first VN1 Wheeled APCs to Thailand as well
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...rom_china.html A series of pictures that were published on Thai online social media in mid-September, likely taken at the Horse Guards Cavalry Center, Adisorn Camp, Saraburi Province, showed a significant number of VN1 8x8 APCs transported from China to Thailand, Defense Studies reports. So, this indicates that the Royal Thai Army is in the process of receiving delivery of the VN1 Phase 2 wheeled vehicles that were ordered in 2019 for an amount of 2,251,928,086 baht ($ 66,233,179). The contract was for 3 VN1 APC armored vehicles, 12 120mm SM4A grenade launchers, and 9 units of VS27 8x8 Recovery Vehicles, 12 Reconnaissance and Command Vehicles (VE36), 3 VN1 Ambulances and 3 maintenance vehicles, 1 mechanical equipment and 1 electrical equipment maintenance vehicle, and various ammunition. In December 2019, the Royal Thai Army received VN1 Phase 1 wheeled vehicles for an amount of around 2,300 million baht ($ 68 million) ordered in 2017. The contract concered 34 VN1 armored personnel carriers, 2 VS27 recovery vehicles, 1 mechanical tool maintenance vehicle and 1 electrical equipment maintenance vehicle. The number of vehicles ordered for the VN1 8x8 family was 75 units. China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) released a video promoting the tests of the VN1 8x8 armored vehicle with a UW4B remote turret of the Thai Army. Overall, weapons were tested including a 30mm automatic gun, a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, a 40mm grenade launcher and a Red Arrow 73D missile launcher in China, where Thailand was the first export customer to order the VN1 with a remotely controlled turret. But there is no antitank missile launcher. It is expected that the VN1 8x8 wheeled vehicle will enter service at the 10th Cavalry Regiment (M.K. 10), the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, the 1st Cavalry Brigade, which is understood that M.K. 10 has changed level from Cavalry Reconnaissance Battalion to Armored Cavalry Battalion. The next batch of the VN1series will be delivered by M.K. 10, previously stationed in BTR-3E1 8x8 APC Ukraine. As well as transporting the VN1 Phase 2 wheeled vehicle, NORINCO has also delivered the last VT4 main battle tank to Thailand. As scheduled, the tank was originally scheduled for delivery in early 2020 but it was postponed to September 2020 due to the coronavirus outbreak in China. According to the documents of the Royal Thai Army Ordnance Department, on December 20, 2019, the Thai Army plans to procure VT4 tanks, phase 4, consisting of 10 VT4s and 1 simulator for training, all this for an amount of 1,662,375,000 baht ($53,625,000) The Royal Thai Army has managed 28 units of VT4 tanks for Phase 1 in 2016, Phase 2 for 10 tanks and 1 maintenance vehicle in 2017, Phase 3 with 14 tanks in 2018 and phase 4 with 10 tanks, totaling 62 MBTs, inducted in the 6th Cavalry Battalion and 21st Cavalry Battalion, 6th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Cavalry Brigade. |
Re: MBT's
I might as well post what I had as well then, but on the surface not too much work involved here overall (STRYKER copy U.S. one is all for instance.) and it shows again as I mentioned in the most recent post in the "Green and White Papers Thread" how much the neighbors (And near ones.) of China are taking the "potential threat" they represent to the region. Again, eyes on India and China. Thailand...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...her_items.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...rom_china.html (Again as Mark just posted.) Plus... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ne_forces.html Also tracking... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ial_tests.html Finally we won't be out done as well... https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific...om-us-1.598731 https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_..._carriers.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...8_armored.html https://www.pattayamail.com/thailand...rom-u-s-264229 And since THAILAND liked them so much... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe..._vehicles.html Mark always does a GREAT job out here. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
do we have that in the OOB under a different name?
|
Re: MBT's
The answer is no for the VN-1 and STRYKER M1126. I played with the "names" and did the "line item scroll".
The Stryker I knew wasn't in as I ran out time last year concerning it and also to allow time for the to become operational. The VN-1 until the this past Feb (The first Ref I had/held and posted earlier tonight.) was the first I knew of that APC. VT-4 we handled is in. The "SPIDER"/or "Black Widow" (?'s by memory) is being evaluated as I posted also earlier in my last as well. And the last Chinese Light Tank also from my last post is "down the road" as well. VN-1 is on my list as is STRYKER. STRYKER for sure is going to be a simple copy over item from USA OOB. w/50 Cal. onboard. Just have to ensure no add on armor was ordered etc., I don't believe this to be the case though. VN-1 should be in the "same boat" as above, providing the Chinese version is in the OOB, which I can't check at this time. You might have your answer from me on that in the morning when you get up. Ref just to show and as we've seen "on the wire" seem happy to leave their equipment as designated from the supplier. STINGRAY/OPLOT-T etc. etc. and as the national paper above has as well. https://www.nationthailand.com/news/...ernal_referral Regards, Pat :capt: 290052 UPDATE: 1) From above, that would be the BLACK WIDOW SYPDER which is locally designed and built. It will be under going testing and evaluation for at least a year per the ref I posted. 2) The Chinese version of the VN-1, is designated as the ZBL-08 Western designated as TYPE 08. It is NOT in the Chinese OOB using the same methods as above for the VN-1. We will have to build both of them. The VN-1 for Thailand will have the turreted 30mm Auto Cannon. I don't think they'll have the HJ-73C series ATGW which the Chinese have on theirs. The MG might be the 7.62mm, have to check. Has 6 grenade launchers. The Chinese TYPE 08 will present us with a couple of options such as the base APC w/12.7mm and IFV as above to include the HJ-73C series ATGW which is the minimum we probably want to have. Another possibility as long as it doesn't fall into the realm of fantasy, would be one with the 105mm L7 onboard-your call, once I verify it exists. Back to work later today, 34th in the mountains of N Ga. in 12 days!! But who the .... is counting!! That Submariner thing just come through sometimes in these situations!?! So while I'm here Germany and the LEOPARDS what I've found and am thinking at this moment. 1) Those two refs from those German writers seem to be holding up to "scrutiny" thus far. And I've been checking. 2) How bad is it? Not too bad, but I'm somewhat sure it wasn't all if any "self inflicted" "pre-me" or since to establish a rough timeline. What I'm seeing as I've seen to many times out here, are issues you guys inherited from the previous "owners", so yes "ABRAMS" all over again this year. Tanks entered on production years, improper designations (How can you modify a tank with RL upgrades when you have ~20 called 2A6!?! Which one do you fix?), well I'm fixing them, my minds set to the task, because the "clock" is running on the game. 3) Unit 263 wonderful only need to verify it has the exact FCS that's on the in game LEOPARD 2A7. Redesignate it and done. 4) I'm hoping this will be as simply as I hope from a mid-look (More than a "quick look" and less then, well you know. ;)) My plan is to take the newest/latest by date LEOPARD 2A5 and extend it out to 2025 after a modification review is done. 5) I'm not pulling punches, so why those idiots entered about 4/5 LEOPARD 2A6 EX MBT's is beyond me. Someone help me here Russia has the T-90A and several foreign countries we entered in about 6 at least of the following, last year designated T-90S. Do you see where I'm heading here!?! If not, the German designation "EX", like the Russian "S" are for Export tanks only. I'm feeling better already but not as good as I will in 12 days (I sense a reoccurring theme here. :D)!! 6) My plan for the those LEOPARD 2A6 EX tanks to get them redesignated (As noted above UNIT 263), upgraded as required and delete the rest as unused to include any stragglers. Generally the "EX" versions generally, seem to be the "newer 2A6" in the OOB, therefore in theory, they should be the easiest to modify up or down. This my priority for the coming 2020/2021 Campaign. I hate that these things just happen along and have as it appears has been in the game for this long. But as Don pointed out with the OOB "game equipment" count Post of last year around or just after the last patch, finding this kind of thing is almost like playing the lottery. Thanks for letting me vent, I appreciate it in advance. :) I'm out!! Going "deep under" the covers, I hope you all have a great day!! Already signed out once and it ain't happening twice! However I'll leave you with my "E-M-E JOE" :D :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
.......and maybe someone can tell me what the difference is between a NORINCO ZBL-08 (Type 08)8x8 Wheeled Modular Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) and a ZBD-09 or ZBL-09 or Type 07P 8x8 Armoured infantry fighting vehicle becasue https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.w...-09-ifv-china/ claims the ZBL-09 = VN-1 IFV |
Re: MBT's
What I see is the ZBL-08 seems to have a slightly different turret and a rear hatch vice ramp of the ZBL-09. The ZBL-09 also uses a Ukrainian 30mm vice the local 30mm Auto Cannon of the ZBL-08 to "CLOSE THE LOOP".
Otherwise it looks exactly the same to same specs on armor protection up 12.7mm AP along the frontal arc and 7.62mm AP on the sides. Does have add on armor pkg. provide protection up to 25mm and I believe it 14.5mm (Whatever the standard is for that weapon.) on the sides. http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm https://www.militaryfactory.com/armo...?armor_id=1189 Those refs have plenty of pictures of each and they pretty much look the same to me. The other version that you and I pointed out on our "Type Units" are "simple" APC with 12.7mm MG. My time is up!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I found an Icon (2441) that was not being used ( much to my surprise )that fit's the definition of "good enough" about as good as you can get for that vehicle and it's dimensions. A new custom one would hardly be noticably different
|
Re: MBT's
I'll try and condense things down for you.
NORINCO apparently began developing a 8x8 APC in the 1990s; and the first prototypes started doing road testing in 2006. In 2008, NORINCO went-semi public and promoted them for export as VN1. A year later, in the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China Military Parade in 2009; a lot were seen and it was later disclosed that the 162nd Division in the Jinan Military Region got a few of them in June 2009; and generally many sources gave it the designation ZBL-09. (aka Type 09) family. But then we have a Chinese language source that says they're actually designated ZBL-08s; and in other sources, I have seen references to "Type 07" (which may have been for a preproduction prototype spotted in 2007). Wikipedia lists it as the Type 08 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_08 And it has spawned a huge amount of subvariants (look at the Wiki) What I think is causing the confusion is that NORINCO is "rapidly iterating" the basic design -- and is willing to change the chassis/layout more than a typical western company would for each variant. Known confirmed chassis designs within the family: IFV Variant (ZBL-08 IFV, PLL-05 Mortar Carrier, PLL-09 SP Howitzer, ZTL-11 Assault Gun, Assault Breacher [mine plow], Bridge Builder, Armored Recovery Vehicle) NOTE: I have seen two different designations for the 105mm Assault Gun variant -- ZTL-09 and ZTL-11. Apparently the Chinese Marine Corps got the first mass production assault guns in 2017, and then in 2020, the Regular Army got their assault guns. APC Variant (taller crew compartment) (ZSL-08 APC, Armored Cargo Vehicle) Armored Recon Vehicle (Two versions, one appears to use a slightly modified IFV chassis, while another version uses the APC chassis). Command Variant (even taller crew compartment) (Command Vehicle, Communications Vehicle, Armored Ambulance, NBC Recon Variant, EW Vehicle) Anti-Air Recon Vehicle (Unique Chassis Variant) Engineering Vehicle (Unique Chassis Variant) Other export sales of this chassis family are: ST-1: Basically, an export-only variant of the ZTL-11 Assault gun using a 105mm L7 clone. Nigeria had bunch of them delivered in 2020, along with VT-4 MBTs: https://www.deagel.com/news/n000019796 BEIJING, Apr. 10 -- The first batch of 17 military vehicles consisting of VT-4 main battle tanks (MBT), ST-1 wheeled tank destroyer and two types of self-propelled howitzers bought by the Nigerian Army (NA) from the China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) arrived at the Apapa Ports on April 8, 2020. The NA made this emergency purchase to strike Boko Haram Terrorists (BHTs) in northern Nigeria. There's a export version 155mm Howitzer on the chassis (SH-11) but nobody has bought it yet. |
Re: MBT's
Don are you thinking along the same lines that I am to avoid redundancy that maybe we have 2 Chinese variants TYPE 08/09 APC (With 12.7mm MG) and TYPE 08/09 IFV (With the turreted Chinese 30mm AC)?
We can do the same with the VN-1 as well since the sites I've found for both, refer to the export version of each as the VN-1. We did this with the T-72B3/B4 and nobody's complained about that in the intervening years since we included it in the game. Just a thought and it might lessen the workload by a couple of "degrees" especially as I posted the differences between the 2 are inconsequential. PAKISTAN: Has only confirmed plans to induct the VT-4. From JANE's, "No details were provided as to when the tank will be officially inducted or how many units have been (or will be) ordered." That puts this tank at least a year out. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...in-battle-tank Another for the above Pakistan I believe I posted on but is in my MBT Folder is now inducted, the Al-Khalid-I MBTs. Have tracking this and originally thought induction would during the 4th "calendar" Qtr. of this year or latest, 1st of 2021. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...-khalid-i-mbts GERMANY: More on the LEOPARD 2A7V with some "projected" dates. The process has already started on the conversions to the type. I'm looking at first unit FOC in/by OCT. 2021. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ttle_tank.html Good Night!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
No , what I was thinking was just make it the 09 and leave it at that but I suppose TYPE 08/09 works too
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm says in one part "Main gun 30 mm cannon" and further down " Infantry fighting vehicle, fitted with a smaller turret and 25 mm cannon. and if you want to see a rather awsome 3D rendering..... https://www.artstation.com/artwork/yybPR |
Re: MBT's
Sounds like the USMC plans a fire support variant of the ACV with a 30mm cannon as well.
Currently ZERO information on such a vehicle existing beyond the "We'd like X." stage. If they continue a 25mm (comparable with LAV-25 ammo) seems more probable unless there are plans to up-gun the LAV which I've heard nothing about. |
Re: MBT's
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
For example, NORINCO has shown off a VN-1/Type 08 prototype with a 30mm turret similar to that on the ZBD-03 Airborne IFV. (I think this is where the confusion comes from) http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch...lternative.jpg But what was actually selected for production by the Chinese military for the Type 08 8x8 IFV was a variant of the Type 05 Amphibious IFV turret. http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZBD-05.jpg ZBD-05 Amphibious IFV used by PLA(N) Marine Corps http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/ZBL%2008%20IFV.jpg ZBL-08 IFV in parade Notice the very similar gun layout/turret layouts? Photos of variants we know are in service are: http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/122mm%20SP.jpg http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/122mm%20SP%202.jpg 122mm Self Propelled Howitzer http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/35mm%20AA%201.jpg http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/35mm%20AA%202.jpg 35mm SP-AA You can see how they haven't hesitated to modify the chassis for the SPAA version for easier drivability and logistics (loading ammo), since it won't be in direct line of sight combat. |
Re: MBT's
And the Basic APC version appears to have a taller roof in the troop compartment
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/moder...-09/ZBL-09.jpg |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
VN1 APC in venezula - 500 kb JPG Decent top view of the APC variant there. Also shows the size difference between the old BTR and the new generation of wheeled APCs quite well. EDIT: Decent top view of the ZTL-09 / ZTL-11 Assault Gun: 500 kb JPG of Assault Gun Assault gun in PLA(N) Marine Corps Colors |
Re: MBT's
You'll see the 25mm version of the TYPE-09 if you scroll through the picture gallery from the same ref. I posted earlier and has since been noted. Or as I just checked the bottom 2 pictures on the right.
"This ZBL-09 has a crew of three and capacity to carry 7 to 10 troops." http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbl_09.htm The TYPE-08 which apparently proceeded the "09" by a year (2008) has what we might consider a "standard" looking 30mm Auto Cannon vice what looks like a "Gatling" type on the "09". This below is where the VN-1 is developed from the VP-10. http://www.military-today.com/apc/vp10.htm Also you see the pictures to the right, in this case the top 3. You'll see it's mounting a standard looking 30mm Auto Cannon vice what the "09" is carrying. Though the turret for the TYPE 08 appears to be the same or "slightly" different look on the front, the VP-10 30mm looks to be the same one mounted on the TYPE-08. Also what's in common with the TYPE 08 and VN-1, is the following... "The baseline VP10 armored personnel carrier is operated by a crew of 2, and carries 12 dismounts. Note the difference as I posted above for the TYPE 09. And my Chinese supplement w/APC types below the tanks. What I didn't like seeing is the foreign operators of countries we have in the game, other then Pakistan, that might not have any of these at all. GERMANY: LEOPARD work has started. Late Post and major sinus headache, time to go! T -10 Days to go! Regards, Pat :capt: |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.