|
Re: MBT's
Well nothing about any "new" tanks so that's another year lost. But possibly related..."Tornado-G 122 mm MRLs fired an unspecified new rocket with a warhead that detaches in-flight and descends by parachute."
That leaves me wondering how good can that be for tanks or any other target? I'm thinking not very good at all. :D https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...-2020-exercise Also my missing last ref. from Post 1100. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/China.php Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch...rototype_1.jpg http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch...rototype_2.jpg The turret on these prototypes of the Type 08 is... the same as installed on: ZBD-03 Airborne IFV http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch...FV_Closeup.jpg and Type 86G IFV (Upgraded Type 86 BMP-1 with new turret) http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch...G_Closeupo.jpg The gun on both the ZBD-03 and Type 86G Turret is a 30mm cannon....but here's where your erroneous information began, courtesy of http://www.military-today.com http://www.military-today.com/apc/zlc_2000.htm The ZLC-2000 was an early prototype designation for the ZBD-03 (Type 03) Airborne IFV; and Military-Today.com says: Vehicle is fitted with a one-man turret, armed with 25 mm cannon. When if you go to ChinaDaily (which is a chinese source with the .cn designator), when in an afterthought in an article on the delivery of a new wheeled vehicle to the PLA Airborne Corps they said: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/2020...241154e57.html Quote:
And regarding the "Gatling-type" cannon; it's actually a single barrel autocannon contained within a barrel support structure. http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/BarrelShroud.jpg You traditionally find these support structures on autocannon intended for anti-aircraft work, since they allow the barrel to be more rigid during rapid fire (and thus more accurate). Quote:
China's army uses a broadly similar ZBL-09 armored personnel carrier, which is proposed for export as the VN1. Additionally it says that the VP10 was "first observed in 2014". The VN1 was first offered by NORINCO for export in 2008. Some VP10 prototypes showed up in Chinese web forums being evaluated by the PLA back in 2016. Currently it's a "idea vehicle" searching for a buyer; like so many things that show up at Defense Expos. |
Re: MBT's
I turn back to the UK the CHALLENGER 2 and more as it pertains to the ongoing MOD Defense Review, which I now understand will be released in November.
The tank is under a lot of scrutiny it's too old which is true in that it hasn't seen a major upgrade since 1998. The last one considered I thought I'd be submitting for this patch, until I've found no documentation it ever got "off the ground"... https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...lenger-2-tanks So what's to be done or otherwise proposed? The following will fill you in. This tank I thought was going to get in the game within the next two years, with time lost over the political/military crisis and COVID-19 it's now at least 3 years out if at all, to FOC. Here's the upgrade plan... https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/h...m-bae-systems/ Last I heard, MOD was leaning toward the Smoothbore MG. More Governmental concerns "all around" and the "considerations" after... https://www.theguardian.com/politics...fence-strategy https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53909087 What's the "big picture"? Well for the current and future land programs the following covers that. This from the end of this past July. Which means the NET date I gave yesterday is NOT EVEN CLOSE I quote... "The programme has experienced significant technical problems, with a current in-service date of 2024 (originally planned for 2017)" and the "beat goes on"... https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27...e#.X3gNbhSSmUl To contrast the above latest update I give you one from Jan 2020 prior to further Mechanical/Technical, COVID-19 and the current Defense Review. First with some quotes... "...according to an MoD source. “The seventh Ares vehicle has entered the final stages of testing and will be delivered to the Household Cavalry Regiment in the coming months,” said the source." That 7th one is the first to be delivered just this past week. The first 6 are "test beds". Same MOD source...“No 40 mm turreted Ajax has yet been delivered to the army.” This goes back to the CT-40 gun issues and FCS problems they are having. I have to state the obvious but, of course the "test beds" (6 Units) have them. The Numbers Game... "The first Ajax squadron is expected to require 20-25 Ajax family vehicles, including a mobility reconnaissance support, turreted reconnaissance, command, engineer, recovery, and repair variants before it can declare IOC." A long way to go yet. And finally..."An MoD spokesperson told Jane’s on 15 January, “our target for Ajax initial operating capability remains July 2020”. Well someone "spiked" the tea, because "they sure as poop :angel missed that one. Hot or Cold, I never "spike" mine. :rolleyes: WASHOUT: 1) AJAX significantly delayed or possibly worse, cut. 2) AJAX ARES seems thus far not to be in danger yet. Program still in development with first unit having been received to military. Probably FOC I'd think around mid 2021. 3) BOXER on track no issues and w/BOXER CT-40 (German designed CT 40mm) could replace the WARRIOR CSP. 4) CHALLENGER 2 LEP upgrade on hold to start possibly in 2021 or possibly worse, cut. 5) WARRIOR CSP program is apparently on track and partially due to configuration difference between it and the AJAX, WARRIOR CSP has not seen as many problems with the 40mm. Issue could be cut in favor of the BOXER CT-40 or without replacement. It isn't pretty but it's where we're at. Almost forgot, there is some "supposition" on the web regarding the CHALLENGER question that the UK is negotiating or is about to with Germany and France to be part of the "EUROTANK" project. If so we'll hear about within a few months after the Defense Review results are known. Regards' Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Update on GERMAN LEOPARDS: This is as I feared it would be, it will be the "ABRAMS" for 2020/2021.
1. I won't be submitting any of the Commanders tanks as they are very rare ICO of Germany they only have two, so that cuts out one or two types. 2. I always thought the 2A5/2A6 shared the same armor values it appears that isn't true as well. The 2A6 apparently has a 3rd GEN Ceramic armor package onboard. So I believe in game terms, that means increased HEAT values, yes/no? 3. 2A6 EX is definitely the export version, that being said I will proceed to build upon those already in the OOB and transform to the current nomenclature units in service at this time to include the 2A6M and about 3 more 2A6 types. I do not intend to deal with any LEOPARD before the 2A5, certainly not this year or ever God willing. Part of that reasoning thus far anyway, comes from the fact that the 2A5 tanks look good and that so far I haven't found any "incremental" upgrades to warrant any changes or additions to that series. So I'll stick to my initial plan of using the last 2A5 in game one to come out of service and put it back into service until 2025. They are currently being used for training, but I have it on good word, as they are maintained at full combat readiness, Germany will use them to defend their country. And if you looked at a couple of refs I already posted on their total tank force, you'd understand why. I personally was caught off guard by the numbers, Poland and Ukraine have larger heavy armor forces among others. However and I had a feeling this would happen, I have thus far found 2 foreign export countries tanks that need modifying as follows... 4) FINLAND they have the wrong tank. Finland's 2A6 tanks came from the Netherlands unmodified, in other words the 2A6NL, which as it turned out they themselves did a minor upgrades not a handful of years before they got out of the heavy armor business (It is rumored/believed they still maintain 20-25 tanks in storage.). This fortunately is an easy fix by copying Dutch UNIT 037 over to Finland's UNIT 021 with a new picture as well, since they border the "Bear" they deserve that much!?! 5) SPAIN they did what SWEDEN did with the STRV 122 by having their tanks modified to their Specs, beyond the German standard. Except Spain ordered more tanks then Sweden and didn't have as much to spend on them overall, however, they spent what they had wisely on increasing the armor levels of their tanks (2A6E) along the Frontal Arc. It might be more than just a "gratis" 10% increase, this needs further evaluation. 6) This also means I have to look at the rest (Foreign/Export) but, I think it based on a "quick look" I haven't found anything in the export market that might require a change especially going back to the Chilean tanks we modified so many years ago now. Where does the time go!?! On a side note and you'll love this, the other night while organizing my folders I decided (Bad Move!) to see what I had if anything in my Mozilla Firefox folder that MS was nice enough bring over when I switched to OS Win 8+. Would you believe I found "stuff" from 2015 and earlier!?! So after deleting "news" and "related" items such as early start to some equipment now in, I was left with basically "hard core" equipment articles. So the first 2 I opened up are from 2015 then I stopped, why? Would it surprise anyone out here with my "penchant" for finding things, that both those pieces of equipment have NOT been entered in the their respective OOB's! I'm thinking "OH WHAT WONDERFUL DAY!!". :rolleyes: And I have more in the file! I think I'll avoid that file!?! :doh: :D :cool: :p Well I see it's getting really late and someone's likely to kick my :deadhorse:! So I bide you all "Bonne journée/Bonne soirée" until next time. if there is a next time!?! :eek: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Good visual details of VT4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BNS...ature=emb_logo Pak Army sources told the requirment is for 1000 Tanks in 6 batches. It came first for testing in January 2018, then sent back for modification, engine failed twice. Came back again in 2019 with improvements. They have a modified turret with bigger Armour, no APS system, ATGM missiles and a new APFSDS from Ukraine. |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
IDK what version of the OOB's you are looking at but the only difference between Netherlands UNIT 037 and Finn UNIT 021 is the addition of passive ATGM defence. Everything else is the same except the Finns have more recent ammo ( gun ) AND they already have their own photo |
Re: MBT's
2 Attachment(s)
Don,
All due respect there are a couple of other differences. First I'm running both current versions of the games, specifically Version 14 SPMBT. I have found nothing to show that Finland has modified the X-Dutch 2A6NL of which Finland took final delivery of them just last year. They got a GREAT BARGAIN for those tanks from the Dutch... 1) Training Simulators 2) Ammo 3) 10 year maintenance support 4) They were completely maintained to spec at the point of sale. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...inland-020936/ From the ref... "...to buy 100 Leopard 2A6NL external link main battle tanks, plus spare parts for 10 years, combat simulators, maintenance simulators, special tools and testing equipment, and ammunition." They didn't need to modify them as the Dutch upgraded them throughout their time with their Army. And I still can't find anything saying Finland did any modification to them once they got them and dear God I can't believe about to write this, that includes checking Wiki and Wiki Military :sick:. But I did find this titled "Armor: Finland Upgrades It Leopards" Talking about going from the dated 2A4 to the 2A6 tanks, which we all can agree is a major upgrade. The only current owner of the EX-Dutch A26NL I can find doing anything to upgrade those tanks is Portugal. Portugal bought theirs several years earlier (2008) which were not to the standard that Finland bought in 2014 and started receiving in 2015. That work will be carried out from 2026-2030 for Portugal. https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/20200122.aspx Simply the GUNS are different as is the STABILZER higher for the 2A6NL. Again I can't find any proof the Finns modified those tanks, especially with the package deal I noted above. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Again Pat.... The ONLY ( only ) difference between that Dutch Leo and the Finn is the passive ATGM equipment and a slightly more recent ammo and the ammo upgrade is perfectly legitimate given the difference in time between the Dutch Leo and the Finn version so FC, RF . TI and ammo load are all the same.
Now....if you are saying nope, nada m no way to the Finns adding passive ATGM defence then I will remove it but it's on all the other Finn Leos so why would they leave it off that one ? |
Re: MBT's
I skipped back the last few pages, but could not see any mention of Hungary's new Leo 2 purchase?
Anyway - 44 of these being manufactured, plus some older ones for interim/training. https://defbrief.com/2020/07/28/hung...opard-2-tanks/ |
Re: MBT's
Wonderful
It would appear these are the 1a4 trainers so not "OOB worthy" ATM |
Re: MBT's
Andy I just haven't gotten around to posting them yet. Hungry has actually 2 LEOPARD issues going on at this time.
First they are getting 12 completely refurbished German LEOPARD 2A4 tanks of which the Primary purpose is to used for training crews on much newer tank to come next para. Secondary purpose would be combat, in light of the 2-3 year gap between models. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...n_germany.html https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=3602 https://militaryleak.com/2020/07/30/...ks-to-hungary/ Second well now you know is the LEOPARD 2A7+ which has the "URBAN" Protection System add on armor package. First of these are due to start being delivered in 2023 and completed sometime in 2025. So somewhere by mid-2024 latest for FOC. They should have enough for a full company by then. We'll just have to track this. https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...o_hungary.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...d_2a7_mbt.html https://www.defence24.com/hungarian-...-cost-analysis https://www.armyrecognition.com/germ...ions_data.html As you can see I've been tracking this since December 2018. I didn't post these earlier because we've seen to much happen around here with equipment to include "Deals going South" for a variety of reasons. Also I wanted to avoid the "bandwagon" syndrome as well. That has cost us a lot of rework out here and our time we have left, is too valuable to lose to things under those circumstances. I'm being called. Regards, Pat :capt: EDIT: The following is a "clarification" about the LEOPARD 2A7+. As I started this LEOPARD Project, I've noticed that some websites are indicating that Germany is a "user of" or other assorted similar descriptions. All true in reality but not so much in context. Germany/KMW do have them, only 2 of them as follows... http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=280 http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=264 Remember as I've posted, Germanys next tank is the LEOPARD 2A7V. |
Re: MBT's
After duty called, I'm back to "Independent Ops" so...
Don, Below is what I'm seeing as the difference between the Dutch LEOPARD 2A6NL UNIT 037(Tank #!) and the Finns LEOPARD 2A6 UNIT 021(Tank #2) What is it that I'm missing when looking at what I see in the game as the differences between the 2 tanks. I see the following differences in the same areas when I pull them up in my game Version 14. DUTCH TANK #1 EW: 0 WEAPONS: 120mm L55 WG 01/7.62mm FN CMG/7.62mm FN AAMG STABILISER: 6 FINNISH TANK#2 EW: 4 WEAPONS: 120mm L55 WG 06/7.62mm MG3 CMG/7.63mm MG3 AAMG STABILISER: 5 Help to understand please what I'm missing. Again I bring up the DID reference as it's totally in compliance with others concerning the tank deal for the LEOPARD 2A6 between the Netherlands and Finland as signed in 2014 with deliveries between 2015 and 2019. "What’s left of the Dutch tank fleet has been sold to Finland. The Finnish Minister of Defence just approved the proposal to buy 100 Leopard 2A6NL external link main battle tanks, plus spare parts for 10 years, combat simulators, maintenance simulators, special tools and testing equipment, and ammunition. At EUR 200 million, that’s less than EUR 2 million per tank. The Finns don’t have a huge tank force, and the new vehicles will become the country’s entire front line tank fleet after they’re delivered between 2015 – 2019." https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...inland-020936/ That above, all pertains only to the LEOPARD 2A6 tanks. Again "what a hell-of-va deal" at only 2 million Euros per Tank. Now I really need some TOP GEAR so as to relax the rest of my "Saturday" off. ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The "problem" is I have been updating the OOB's as info comes but I DO NOT keep a running list of changes I make...if I did I would have walked away from this years ago.
The Finn OOB in my master game now has the SAME data as the Dutch one ( as I have said multiple times already ) and that includes the stabilizer so somebody......maybe it was you..... already reported that discrepancy and it was changed after the last release and I say again the upgrade to newer "gun" ( AMMO) is in my mind perfectly acceptable and the MGs are irrelevant to gameplay. |
Re: MBT's
First, Thank You! I appreciate the clarification.
Personally speaking I wish sometimes I wasn't so "ANAL" about things except for fact you have to be very careful and pay attention at work, we refer to it as "situational awareness" and I'll be ready to "stand down" somewhat from that to within the next six years. It's so bad, a couple of weeks ago, my partner made the comment said I reminded him of a CYLONE because like the "red eye dot" moving continually back and forth, he noticed my head and eyes do the same thing. He assured me it was a compliment. I feel like I'm running a marathon with the OOB work my self, not since my first and maybe second Patch Submissions have I had so much work. This year is like those were, where I have items for every thread I started out here. :sick: I'll probably have to "cherry pick" items this year, hopefully not. My "plan of attack" I'm leaning towards, is to take 2 items/topics from each folder that matches to it's corresponding Thread in the Game. That way I lighted the load across the whole board to maintain some balance. As I indicated 3 or 4 Posts back, I went into my MOZILLA FIREFOX folder that Win 8 (At the time carried over.) carried over a few nights ago. What I found were some equipment news that have been become OBE over time, deleted some other non-related files and got down to equipment files only. I'm assuming that most of this has already been addressed, was I wrong! :doh: The very first 2 files require a DATE change and the ADDING of a new piece of equipment. Needless to say I STOPPED THERE!?! Those files were from 2014/2015 timeframe. The lesson here is unless somebody wins the lottery and is nice enough to hire some support staff solely dedicated to maintaining and updating our games, I have to be honest enough to say we'll never be able to outdate EQUIP/DATES/ADD/DELETE/SOFTWARE etc. at a 100%. There's too much happening right now "NEWS" wise, and I don't see much of a let up for at least the next 2 years unparticular. Some will be hopefully easy the equipment in some cases have been in the OOB's for years and we just "punt" them out a couple of more years into the future, where in the end they'll get in or what. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
It's now official, PAKISTAN has just confirmed induction of the VT-4 tank today. This will be an easy one, so that means START OCT 2020. This induction follows 2 months after the al-Khalid-I was inducted in the 3rd week of August.
The al-Khalid-I, will be submitted with the German LEOPARDS as my first two tank submissions using the 2 Per Thread Plan (2PTP :D) I discussed in my last post to include all my Threads. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...induction.html Why those two? Because I know they exist and are at FOC. I've already started working the "rough" numbers for this MBT. Unless someone "blows my cover" I'll be "holding my cards" the rest of the way. I've vented and I THANK YOU for allowing that, now it's time to go to work. Something until now I didn't know existed from ISRAEL the Sabrah 105mm light tank based on tracked platform ASCOD 2 from GDELS. This being offered for the Philippine Army's Light Tank Acquisition Project, which is in competition with Hanwha Systems K21-105 and Otokar Arma 105 light tanks, and Pindad Harimau Light Tank. Some good competition there, this will be interesting to watch over the next year or so. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...n_project.html Side note for to be posted in the APC Thread later...BULGARIA has chosen the PATRIA AMV XP to fulfil it's APC requirements after Phase 2 of the procurement process has just been completed. It's PATRIAs to lose in starting Phase 3 with the field tests and negotiations to come. This a much improved version of the AMV which is considered one of the worlds best APCs at least in the "wheeled" category. I might just come back and copy this, as I see, I can't just make a simple announcement. Surprise, Surprise. :rolleyes: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The following falls under the category of "Don't Shoot the Messenger" even if the "messenger" has discussed this numerous times over the last handful of years. Now we have the most forth coming and definitive article to date on the status of the T-14 ARMATA. And it doesn't look good. So by Para...
Para 1: "Russia is beginning to train operators of vehicles on Armata platform." "The first cadets will be enrolled in 2021 and will graduate as T-14 tank platoon commanders." Para 2: "Sources in the Defense Ministry said..." "The first enrolment is scheduled in 2021, however the time may change." I believe this last means later then earlier. "Omsk Armor Engineering Institute will train experts in the overhaul and operation of Armata family. The training will take four years and the first graduates will come to operate Armata in the army in 2025-"2026." Para 8: "T-15 is undergoing trials." The intervening paragraphs are generally dealing with and ensuring that both the operators and engineers are fully trained on the ARMATA platforms in the use and maintenance of the systems. I have to respect the decision of the Russians in this matter. These are the most advanced land combat systems they've ever designed. And reading "between the lines" they have concerns about the abilities of their military to operate and maintain these systems. By taking their time in the training and cross training to come, they are ensuring the integrity of the systems (ARMATA Platforms) and "professionalism" of their operators and maintainers. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe..._vehicles.html FYI SERBIA: Has decided to upgrade their M-84AS tanks. https://www.armyrecognition.com/serb..._10207162.html They will be upgraded to the T-84AS1 version "down the road" The ref. is also saying... "Miloradović emphasizes and says that this is not the end of the development process « because we are simultaneously working on phase two, designated as an upgraded M-84 AS2 tank, which includes several more new subsystems that will additionally and significantly enhance the capabilities of our tank units »..." I have to think the T-84 AS1 is around 1.5 years out. The T-84 AS2 I'd say is possibly within 2 years out at it's earliest. Alright I'm tired, time to call it a night! Have a good one, everyone!?! :) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
As to the modernization of Portuguese Leo2A6, as a stop-gap we are allready using tablets on the turret and off-line GPS for navigation. The crews have been complaining about the air-conditioning system on the Portuguese hot summer. |
Re: MBT's
The new MPF is under test at aberdeen proving ground now:
Quote:
http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/MPF-1.jpg http://www.alternatewars.com/Scratch/MPF-2.jpg |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
I think its been around for quite a while its probably come of age now due to advances in computing power much like tank Active Protection Systems.
Smaller, lighter & most importantly gives you the information fast. |
Re: MBT's
First respond to RC4, Many different types of equipment will be given to "combat" units for OPEVAL, R&D etc. purposes, however< that does not mean that piece of equipment has been "adopted", "inducted", "fielded", "FOC" or any other term different countries may use and to my "chagrin" choose to use.
By way of example if you wish, go to the "Patch Thread" and in the submissions (MBT's) there were dates changes due to some of the following reasons that equipment I've found were "operational" in the game due to the fact they "signed an MOU", "signed a contract", "production has started", "first units delivered to country or service branch" and on a rare occasion, someone saying they're "getting it" and they "got it" in the game and it's found that it never really happened due to "contract cancellation", "project cancellation", "can't afford it" and for reasons that fit everything in between. So when I or anyone comes across with an article from a respectable source(s) (And personally for me doesn't include WiKi or Wiki Military) from especially the government that bought the equipment for the military branch saying they've inducted that piece of equipment on "X" date I'm posting that because it saves Don and I a lot of work up front vice on the backside. And on my side of the fence, I don't have to deal with the issues I listed above. This not a "slam" it's just in the case of those VT-4 tanks we have a solid source and date for them in the OOB, which I'm sure by now Don has already taken care of and hopefully won't require any rework like INDIA, USA ABRAMS and now the GERMAN LEOPARDS. Now... The "Sniper Detection System" we in very "loose" terms have it in the game, the sound data base, so on a Submarine we add detection gear and from many different sources we can get acoustic signatures and I'll stop there as you can look up what I just described, anymore then that, someone might decide to "deep six" me!?! Same principle is applied to land equipment so equipped. Sound attenuates at certain frequencies and decibels based on environmental conditions. Just like we can detect a target by it's "acoustic signature" all you need is a good database, means of detection and some processing power. All of which an APC can support (And some tanks). For a Sniper it'll be able pull out a single shot from background and the frequency range used by sniper weapons in the database and you don't necessarily have to be "spot on" to a particular weapon. They are are tied into the weapons systems which will "slew" the weapon to the "close proximity" of where the detection system and FCS computed the shot came from. The TERREX APC from Singapore was I believe the first operational platform to have this system onboard. It also was one of my very early posts in the APC Thread I believe during "field tests" the accuracy of the system was within less than a "handful" of meters. Supposedly newer systems are "tighter" then that now. They have what we "umbrella" now as part of "situational awareness" on land equipment. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The first batch of VT4 that started arriving Pakistan are 176, second will be 120 tanks, it will take some time to the Chinese to build these, sources say 5 years
Total AK-1 production will be 220 tanks |
Re: MBT's
Light tanks where we were, where we thought we were going and where we think the future lies. Part I
Where we were... Our last operational "light tank" (Of which we did some work on a few years ago, was corrected and I believe we added one based on feedback.) was the M551 Sheridan you loved it or hated it, but, it ended up having a long service life despite it's many faults. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m551_sheridan.htm Where we thought we were going... A little on the heavy side for a light tank (41T) it's not out of line for that class even by todays standards. The JAGUAR was a joint project between U.S. and China, when the U.S. saw China's role as a "buffer state" against the Soviet Union. It "melded" the technologies of all 3 nations and successfully "pulled it off" until the Cold War ended and the market was "over run" with high quality cheaper MBT options. This was for it's time a very advanced tank whose armor is still classified and never been released. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm The next was a private venture from Cadillac Gage intended for the export market. However articles started to appear that the U.S. Army was looking at the STINGRAY as a possible replacement to SHERIDAN under the AGS Program. It was dropped. Thailand is currently the only operator of this tank. We also updated this tank and after presenting enough at least some anecdotal and other evidence, we also decided to enter the STINGRAY II as well for a variety of reasons you can research in this thread and Patch one. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...light_tank.htm The following two also competed in the U.S. Army AGS Program. I'll start with the Expeditionary Tank Prototype with an Electronics Pkg. that was considered one of the most advanced in the world on a tank at that time. Though it would lose in the final pairing, it still lives on today as the turret used on the M1128 Stryker MGS. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...onary_tank.htm Who won the AGS competition, one of the most controversial tanks I ever heard about as it was in the news quite a bit at the time. The United Defense (Later FMC) tank CCV-L/then XM8 and finally the M8 BUFORD. Though the winner, it would ultimately be a loser as it's two predecessors were when Congress told the Army to cancel the AGS Program for a variety of budget and design issues associated in the costs and development in trying to launch a tank program. What is amazing is this tank is still viable in todays conflict environments and is still being offered. It had so pluses and minuses as taken from the below ref. On the plus side: 1) M8 Buford uses combined aluminum and steel armor. Modular titanium add-on armor, including ERA packages can be added if necessary. 2) A fully-stabilized M68A1 105 mm rifled gun, or a Rheinmetall XM35 gun, fitted with an autoloader and fire control system. Fire control system is similar to that, used on the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. Autoloader holds 19 to 21 rounds and provides a maximum rate of fire in 12 rounds per minute. Other projectiles are stowed near the driver. Gun can be loaded manually in case of emergency. 3) The M8 Buford can be airdropped from a C-130 transport aircraft or larger. The C-130 can carry one vehicle, while the C-141 (Mine-Now retired.), C-17 and C-5 can carry two, three and five respectively. On the minus side: 1) The M8 Buford is a relatively thin-skinned vehicle, designed to support infantry from covered position and to fight in areas where it is not going to run into main battle tanks. 2) During the trials it appeared that the ammunition compartment failed to contain the reaction of the ammunition, when hit by anti-tank weapons. Now what? Well part of that future still lies with this tank, however in an improved version which I hope to update with as a Part II. But before I go I'll leave you with something I didn't know and a "glimpse into the future" in order... A similar design was the British VFM 5 light tank, developed by Vickers. It was based on the XM8. The VFM 5 was a simplified alternative of the XM8, intended for export customers. However it received no production orders. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vfm_5.htm In 2015 an updated version of the M8 was revealed by BAE Systems. This light tank is still being proposed for various customers. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m8_buford.htm And we now know it's been updated again for the current Army Light Tank competition. All I have on that by later tonight hopefully. And I have a lot. ;) Have a good whatever today and a great weekend! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Light tanks where we were, where we thought we were going and where we think the future lies. Part II
What Could've Been: This is a "side show" to note "that actions can have consequences" in this case for Turkey. Early on in the MTF Program, there was thought given to buy a light tank "off the shelf" one of which was the KAPLAN Light Tank. But things went South fairly quickly when Turkey was "courting" Russia to buy armaments, in particular the S-400P SAM System. Though the U.S was pressuring Turkey to back off, they continued negotiations and when they announced they purchased the S-400P, the U.S. withdrew the F-35A at that point and dropped the KAPLAN for consideration by the U.S. Army. Washout: Turkey fielded the S-400P this past Summer. U.S. Army drops KAPLAN for Light Tank consideration. Turkey and Lockheed Martin both loss out on F-35A sale in which, if I'm not mistaken, would've made Turkey the largest importer of the F-35A. KAPLAN... http://www.military-today.com/tanks/kaplan.htm Where we're going...Right now still in industry trials between BAE and General Dynamics. I'm simply going to split these up by company from oldest to newest. Some of the older article I've already posted in here, however, given the timeline to come after this section, I intend to delete these from my files. U.S. ARMY... https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo..._division.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap...k_in_2020.html https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ies-to-us-army BAE... https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-tank-program/ (YES THAT LONG AGO. :D) https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...eral-dynamics/ https://www.armyrecognition.com/apri...f_us_army.html GENERAL DYNAMICS... https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...f_us_army.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/janu...t_vehicle.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/apri...r_program.html This is pretty much the latest news to this point. Where we think the future lies... In a "perfect world" the references agree about the following concerning the MTF Program. Decision sometime in 2022 of who wins. When Army units are planned to receive them, somewhere between 2024 - 2025. This does not necessarily imply FOC. That implies OPEVALS and the clock keeps on ticking. But I'm sure someone will want it in the game now. :rolleyes: In the meantime, I've been tracking it for about 4 years now, so what's another 4-6 years!?! :p Hittin the rack!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
BTA-4 APFSDS GP-5 ATGM w/5000m range FY-4 ERA RCWS 9 rounds per min Shippment of 24 Tanks arrivrd in June 1st complete 44 VT4 Regiment (6th Lancers) in 20/09/20 US$ 859 million for 176 VT4s (4 Regiments-2 Brigades) |
Re: MBT's
1 Attachment(s)
Back home. Followed the conversation concerning N. Koreas "new" tank. It would've been nice to have Marcello's as I personally, have to acknowledge the fact he was the "master" when it came to North Korea in this forum. And the "tripartite" effort to fix and dissect the latest tank(s) and other equipment for a few years back was a challenge, of which I appreciated that he let me into "his world". Don will correct me I hope, but, I believe Marcello pretty much built that OOB and did a GREAT job of it.
One must not forget those who've done so much for this game. And he did, even if we didn't always see "eye to eye". Well the following continues that discussion, and I have to agree with the points and the assumptions made in the following article. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...14_armata.html Those tanks "look" cleaner then when the Russians first showed off the T-14. They somewhat look like the "skins" people were putting on their cars a few years back. And as Don pointed out the Diesel fumes coming off those tanks were either demonstrating they smoke screen capability (Which is of a poor quality.) :rolleyes: or that those engines are of a poor quality and badly maintained. I vote for the latter, but, that's just me. :p Finally let me ask the following...When was the last time you saw a tank where the paint scheme didn't match on the whole tank to include the "side skirts"? Well for me never. Also I bring your attention to the front of the tank at the "corner" where it appears it's starting to "wrap around" towards the front of the tank, however, the "side skirt" seems to maintain a "linear" straight line. It just doesn't "look" right to me. Attachment 16149 https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...14_armata.html https://nationalinterest.org/blog/ko...mystery-170660 I've things to catch up on and been on the road for 8-9 hours with all the usual stops. So until next time, well, next time!?! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
1 Attachment(s)
Pak vt4
|
Re: MBT's
Might find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfq7d4kFP1E The comments about tank-infantry telephones and infantry support of armor in urban environments were particularly interesting I thought. Also the comments about the change in emphasis from projecting power/control over land that can be used to support future operations to projecting power/control over the sea and air space. |
Re: MBT's
I must say "Kid you done good!", I watched both Parts 1 & 2 and I heard a word I've put out here for so many years in it's many other forms as well through...economics it does rule the world. ;)
So many good points I even heard 1 AD Battalion w/1 RSV Battalion (USMC MBT's) in the discussion also what I and many others that know more then I do support at a minimum level. And that conversation towards the end did conclude that thought the CORPS might find itself in a land war down the road with a what then discussion. Also from Part 2 was the the comparison from the 1930's concerning the USMC (And in reality what most major powers, was "lighten up" on armor. Except of course Germany.) when they "lightened up" in the Pacific and were relying on heavy artillery and the Battleships of the the Navy to be applied against an aggressor in the region. We of the Navy still remember Dec. 7 1941. It's ingrained in us. One can wonder are we coming to "full circle" and "doomed to repeat the past", I don't think so. So the USMC will rely on the USN again to provide "over the horizon" ship to whatever the target missiles. I guess we better get started on building more ships! https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...sign-2030-plan I also liked the story about the USMC M1A1 tanks that rolled ashore in Somalia in "The MOAG" without ammo but cruised the streets and everyone was well behaved. :D It was all part of a discussion on the psychological aspect of having tanks by those that have and those that don't. 1 from USA Tank School, 2 from RAND probably this countries top political and military "think tank" and the "Professor". No light weights there. I'll be reviewing the ones he has on the UK armor situation. The first he is talking to the same gentle from the Defense Committee that was in the APC Post from last night. Maybe I can gain some further insights. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Personally I think getting rid of the tanks is a mistake.
I think the new Commandant is a bit to fixated on air and sea control. Neither of which have EVER been USMC missions (with the exception of air control during Guadalcanal). The Marines are to there seize and control those unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Navy and Army to exploit. The penny packet Defense Battalions during the 1930's were speed bumps. They couldn't hold vs a determined amphibious assault (i.e. Wake and Guam). No reason to think a 2030s one will fare any better. The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability. The following discusses the entire force restructuring issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkBsJ1s-Vc |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
My view its where they decided to cut the cost to spend more on weapons with reach. Replacing artillery batteries with longer range missiles looks good on paper but I bet the cost to use them in action has jumped - shell vs missile. Near peer could probably intercept the missile easier than the shell as well. Putting faith in planes for ground attack against other than structures & infrastructure is also risky ground units are far more effective even today. Not to mention cost you can buy & maintain several tanks for the cost of a high end fighter. |
Re: MBT's
Well now this is oddball:
https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2020...s-light-tanks/ Quote:
So basically: Light Tank Project: 18 x Sabrah ASCOD 2 (Tracked) Tanks 10 x Sabrah Pandur II 8x8 Wheeled Tanks 1 x ASCOD 2 Command Vehicle 1 x ASCOD 2 Armored Recovery Vehicle All tanks to be equipped with Elbit 105mm turret. APC Project: 28 x IVECO Guarani 6x6 APCs (12.7mm / 40mm AGL manned turret) Option to mount RWS with 12.7mm HMG. |
Re: MBT's
Information on Japanese MBTs, if Andy and Don want to take a stab at refining the Japanese OOB:
Tanks. Being Tanks on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/tanksbeingt...65780353480701 English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_74 Japanese Wikipedia thru Google Translate https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/61%E5%...88%A6%E8%BB%8A https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/74%E5%...88%A6%E8%BB%8A https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AC...82%B2%E9%9A%8A Japanese Websites thru Google Translate http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/61SHIKI.htm http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/74SHIKI.htm https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/06...7e69975f331b87 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Type 61 MBT All remaining Type 61s were retired in 2000 (Heisei 12) due to the increasing deployment of Type 90 MBT. Over 39 years of service, no major improvements were made; only minor ones such as infrared searchlights and smoke grenade dischargers. Ammunition used in the Type 61 MBT was: M318A1 APCBC, 910 m/sec muzzle velocity, 189mm RHA @ 1,000m. M431 HEAT M71 HE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Type 74 MBT At the end of March 2020 (Reiwa 2), the JGSDF only has about 136 x Type 74 MBTs left. At the present rate of retirement of 40~ vehicles a year, the Type 74 will be fully retired by about 2023. When it first entered service, it had an analog ballistic computer, this was upgraded over the years to a fully digital system. There are several variants of the T74: Type 74 first mod (74式戦車 初期生産型) aka Mod A Initial production model. Type 74 mod B (74式戦車 B型) Improved FCS, can fire two types of APDS rounds and Type 75 High explosive Plastic rounds (HEP/HESH). Ammo racks modified to fit APFSDS? Most of the initial (Mod A) version was upgraded to this variant. Type 74 mod C (74式戦車 C型) About 50 to 60 vehicles were made alongside the Mod B. The main "tell" is the two-color dark green/brown camouflage, whereas Mod A/B operated in single color olive drab. No real information on what changed besides color. Type 74 mod D (74式戦車 D型) The 105mm L7 gun was upgraded with a thermal sleeve. All prior tanks were eventually upgraded with this. Type 74 mod E (74式戦車 E型) Most widespread variant of the Type 74, with an improved FCS that can handle the newer Type 91 HEAT-MP round that replaced the Type 75 HEP. About 80% of all prior tanks were upgraded to the E Model. Type 74 mod F (74式戦車 F型) This variant has the attachments to use the Type 92 mineroller. ~10 or less of this variant exist. Type 74 mod G/Kai (74式戦車 G型/改) This was a 1990s modernization program intended to extend the life of the Type 74. The FCS was modernized, applique side skirts were attached and the gunner received a thermal sight. The suffix "Kai" meaning refurbished/upgraded was also used for these. Because of the immense cost (100~ million yen per vehicle), only the prototype and four other vehicles were completed; due to the cost issues. Essentially, if 500 of the existing 893~ Type 74 MBTs had been upgraded, the total cost would have been 50~ billion yen, or about equal to 60~ Type 90 MBTs. With the post-Cold War era of the 1990s in sight, the JGSDF chose to spend the money instead on brand new Type 90s. All four operational Type 74G/Kai tanks were assigned to the JGSDF Fuji School (Combined Training) Brigade and then later to the JGSDF 1st Armored Training Unit. The Type 74G left JGSDF service on 25 March 2019 when the JGSDF 1st Armored Training Unit was abolished. Ammo for Type 74 The ammuntion used by the Type 74 was: L28A1 APDS imported from UK; muzzle velocity of 1,478 m/sec; 240mm RHA @ 1000m. Initial loadout 1974 onwards. M735 APFSDS, built under license in Japan. 1,500 m/sec muzzle velocity, 359mm RHA @ 1000m and 318mm @ 2000m. Began to be used from 1984 onwards. Type 93 APFSDS, built by Daikin Industries. First indigenous sabot round by Japan. 1,500 m/sec muzzle velocity, estimated 414 mm RHA @ 2,000m. Produced from 1993 onwards. Type 75 HEP is a license built US M393 HEP, albeit using a brass cartridge case instead of the American M393's steel. Can penetrate 120-150mm RHA. Type 91 HEAT-MP. Said to have greater penetration than US M456 HEAT which has 360-425mm RHA penetration. |
Re: MBT's
Found this source while looking into the post above that may be of interest to some.
https://bulletpicker.com/index.html Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
1 Attachment(s)
I'm looking around and from the War Thunder (I know, I know I know) forums at:
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.p...d-the-type-74f claims that the Type 74D with thermal sleeve on the gun was introduced in 1987. Regarding ammunition: It appears that the L28xx family of ammunition by the UK was also German DM13 under license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7 IOC for L28 ammo was 1959; so looks to me like you could use the following base guns for the Type 74 (with adjustments) UK OBAT 007 Weapon 095 -- 105mm L7 UK59 for initial Type 74 IOC with L28A1 APDS and Type 75 HEP. US OBAT 012 Weapon 098 - 105mm M68 78 for 1984 onwards Type 74 with M735 APFSDS built under license in Japan, but keeping the Type 75 HEP/HESH warhead from UK OBAT 007 Weapon 095 -- 105mm L7 UK59; resulting in the following values: (see attachment) Germany OBAT 044 Weapon 99 - 105mm L7 WG81 for 1993 onwards Type 74 with Type 93 APFSDS and Type 91 HEAT-MP. (It appears Type 91 HEAT did not enter service until 1993. I guess Japan waited until both rounds came into service to upgrade their ballistics computers with the drag values.) The estimated 414mm RHA @ 2,000m given in some sources for Type 93 APFSDS is very close to the penetration given for DM13 in 1979 (220mm RHA @ 2 km @ 60 deg = 440mm RHA); so it makes sense to just use DM13 values. |
Re: MBT's
Another Japanese page (http://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/74.htm) claims:
Type 74B: 1984 -- Improved FCS to support Sabot Rounds. Type 74C - 1987. Two color camouflage Type 74D - 1987. Thermal Sleeve. Type 74E: - 1991; Improved FCS to support Type 91 HEAT-MP in 1991. Type 74F - 1993, Mine Roller. I'll leave it up to you as to how to integrate the differing claims between my prior research posts. |
Re: MBT's
Looks like Marks info is pretty much "spot on" concerning the TYPE 74 MBT. Just some points with additional data from some other sources the first of which is a "conglomerate" of several different ones in one "comprehensive" format with additional independent supporting ones also offered.
Background: The first post war indigenous tank built by Japan was the TYPE 61 which was meant to address the "shortfalls" of the USA tanks they inherited the CHAFFEE which the Japanese liked as it well suited their terrain issues but sorely lacked in firepower even against T-34/85 tanks as shown in Korea. The other (And the number varies from 250 -300 tanks. Versus several hundred CHAFFEES.) was the Sherman tank of the "Easy Eight" variant (M4A3E8) which had it's own issues also to include the terrain were maneuver was a problem. The doctrine adopted was simply to combine light armor, solid firepower and, most importantly, the ability to traverse rough terrain. This doctrine still guides them today to a degree, but improved upon based on their potential adversary-RUSSIA as we've seen starting with the TYPE 90. The TYPE 61 was already obsolete when it was fielded. Which lead to the development of the TYPE 74. Many sites attribute the TYPE 74 as the first tank to have a Ballistic FC Computer and to address the terrain issue, it has a hydropneumatic suspension, allowing this MBT to "sit", "stand", "kneel" or to "lean" (Still used today.). This feature was incorporated from the canceled German-US MBT-70 design. The driver can adjust the suspension to suit the type of terrain on "the fly" which is a big advantage to the Japanese even today. Unfortunately, and only slightly so compared to the TYPE 60, the TYPE 74 was shortly after being fielded in 1980 also pretty much out dated. With Russia in continuing to develop the T-72 and later the T-80, Japan saw the need to develop a new tank which started in 1977 as the TK-X. It would be known as the TYPE 90 which took 13 years to be fielded. I have to respectfully disagree with Mark, math (Though 200 are still in service. See Army Rec ref. first below.) aside I see the the [b]TYPE 74 Mod E "sticking around" much closer to games end due to COVIDs economic impact and other factors as noted below to include very recent Russian activity right "next door". This tank is a "survivor" first the TYPE 90 was to replace it in the mid-late 90's but, the Cold War ended and Defense Budgets were cut world wide and many international MBT development projects also were cut. Russia and a "rising" China would bring about the development of the TYPE 10 which was also to replace the the TYPE 74 and also the TYPE 90. All that planning was laid waste in 2008/2009 in the world wide economic crash, soaring developmental costs and delays in getting the TYPE 10 in the field. The cost per tank just soared. Japan has just in the last couple of years started making more TYPE 10 tanks at a much slower pace. What will replace the TYPE 74 will be the MCV-16 I submitted for the last patch (And fielded this year if I remember correctly.) which Don entered. Production of which will be at a modest rate which is why I see the TYPE 74 sticking around longer, again, along with the Russian issue from above. https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...anks_mbts.html Highlights below for the TYPE 74... Main Gun: Japanese designation is the L/51 produced in Japan based on the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm rifled gun (Specifically the A3 version.) but modified by Japan to have the characteristics more closely resembling the USA M68 105mm rifled gun. It was therefore not a copy of the L7. Initial ammo: L28A1 APDS (imported from Britain, 240mm penetration at 1km) Type 91 HEAT Type 75 HEP-T (license-produced M393 HEP) Armor: Mantlet: 195mm Turret front: 120mm Turret side: 110mm Turret rear: 60mm Turret top: 40mm Hull upper frontal plate: 40mm at 75 degrees Hull mid frontal plate: 80mm at 65 degrees Hull lower frontal plate: 80mm at 55 degrees Hull side: 35mm Hull rear: 25mm It’s worth noting that several “patterns” of this tank were produced over the years: Type 74 initial production model (roughly 400 were built) Type 74 Mod B with an improved FCS and the ability to fire APFSDS rounds (all initial production models were upgraded to this pattern) Type 74 Mod C is basicallyMod B, but with actual camouflage instead of the standard khaki color Type 74 Mod D features a thermal sleeve for the gun (everything older was gradually upgraded to Mod D) Type 74 Mod E features another upgrade to its FCS and the ability to fire Type 91 HEAT-MP rounds instead of the older Type 75 HEP loadout, this is the last major pattern and most of the older vehicles were gradually upgraded to Mod E There were two more patterns developed: Type 74 Mod F with a mine-clearing device (around 10 vehicles built) Type 74 Mod G, also known as Type 74 Kai (or Type 74 Improved) with improved night-fighting equipment and protection, consisting of additional spaced armor and a rudimentary soft-kill APS (laser warning receiver connected to its smoke grenade launchers, deploying smoke automatically as soon as the vehicle is targeted by a laser) Of the Type 74 Mod G only four vehicles built as prototypes before it was decided this program was not economically feasible. https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-type-74 (Again above compresses data from TankNut, National Interest ("Think Tank"), Military Factory and other sites.) http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_74.htm https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw..._War_tanks.php (To supplement Dons need to get his ICON "fix" in.) :D https://www.facebook.com/tanksbeingt...99673606758035 What this about Russia... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe..._warships.html https://news.yahoo.com/time-solve-ku...233000316.html I guess they "fear" Japan is going to invade them!?! :rolleyes: COVID and Economic Impact: The following was originally posted in the Int. Defense Green and White Paper Thread Post #61 last week this quote taken from the ref below as was posted last week as indicated. "The pandemic has wiped around 20 years’ worth of growth off of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)." https://www.army-technology.com/feat...nce-secretary/ If your an investor, it could be 10 years to recover fully (World Economies) if you listen to the experts. I'm hoping for half that, Thank You very much!?! ;) Dinner!!!!! :p Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
A big reason the Type 74 hung on is logistics:
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/shi...i5/siryou1.pdf Bridge Passage Rate in Japan based off of 17,920 bridges in Japan; extracted from that PDF via Google Translate: Foreign MBT (60 tonnes): 40% of bridges in Japan (M1A2 and Challenger II, 62 tons; Merkava Mk 4, 65 tons) Type 90 MBT (50 tonnes): 65% of bridges in Japan Type 10 MBT (44 tonnes): 84% of bridges in Japan Using Curve Expert Professional software, I estimated through various equations the passage % of the Type 74 -- many of them were in excess of 100%. A more reasonable estimate would be: Type 74 MBT (38 tonnes): 90-95% -- taking into account that 83,775 lbs (38 tonnes) is still pretty heavy; many of the residential bridges I drive over as part of my work have a weight limit of around 38,000 lbs. Also, for fun, here's what Pat mentioned: Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle (26 tonnes / 57,320 lbs) -- you can see why the Japanese are going for a Heavy Mobile Wheeled Tank system -- it'll be cheaper and faster to move around than even the Type 74 MBT. Also highly likely is that new 105mm ammo will be developed for the Type 16 MCV to offset the smaller calibre main gun. |
Re: MBT's
Well with a couple of exceptions from my last, oh how we like to repeat ourselves. :o :doh:
See Page 104/Post #1031. On MCV-16 as submitted... See Page 85/Post #849 How time flies, and I thought it was just last year. I love chasing my tail. :rolleyes: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Poland has first Leopards 2PL from may 2020 in military units mdernisation is for 2A4 but also 2A5. Also has starting upgrades for older T-72 to new T-72M1R variant
Tekst pochodzi z Magazynu Militarnego MILMAG. Przeczytaj więcej na: https://translate.googleusercontent....8syBKZgQcVmA9w Here article https://translate.google.com/transla...news_id%3D4450 |
Re: MBT's
Don,
Please hold off on the Polish LEOPARDS. Yes they got a handful in the beginning of the the Summer (29 May 2020/2 MBT's). They just received some more to outfit in total, I believe a Companies worth. Still looking at implications to the FCS. Will see a TI/GSR increase to 45 I'm thinking at present. Trying to tie up a couple of "loose ends" with these tanks. Might as well "dump" my folder on the topic now I suppose. These don't include what I've already posted in this thread concerning development etc. Oldest to Newest... https://www.defence24.com/polish-ger...support-system (German support March 11, 2019) (You gotta get up earlier in the morning, to get the worm!?! ;)) https://www.defence24.com/breakthrou...pard-2pl-tanks https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...tle_tanks.html https://www.milmag.eu/news/view?news_id=4526 (Got 2 more on the way.) https://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo...4_version.html (Could have 12 by years end.) https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...lish_army.html (Hope to have 7 more from Polish industry by the end of the year. Awaiting delivery of 6 from Germany "as soon as possible".) (Total now at 11 MBT's) Looking hard at above ref. picture apparently taken at the factory. I'm specifically looking at the Turret Top/Sides& Frontal armor as these saw improvement. If they get at least 4 more tanks from either source as noted from the last ref. this year, I recommend START JAN 2021 if not, START APRIL 2021. We won't see it, but since France and Germany won't let Poland in on their new tank, then maybe Italy and SPAIN will... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...c1_ariete.html https://www.defence24.com/will-polan...ns-are-the-key CINCLANTHOME will kick my xxx for this! (OK! it's more like staying up until early in the morning, then what I said above. :p Anyway off to bed, going to get "fat" on THANKSGIVING Day Dinner at lunch before work. Hopefully the tryptophan won't make me sleepy on post, they don't like kind've thing where I work!?! :D For those that do, have a Happy Thanksgiving Day! :D Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The following is already on my work list. We entered it for Nicaragua about 4 years back I believe. Need to verify Uruguay and Laos (Though we might have got that one.) against OOB.
Also need to make no improvements have been made, if not, we can just copy over from Nicaragua. ;) https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...tle_tanks.html Have more refs in my folder no time now! Above "hot" off the press. Gotta get ready for work!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
|
Re: MBT's
|
Re: MBT's
Those systems are very much in the early phases of development. I believe there was a discussion a few years back also concerning the use of lasers, which is a little further along in development.
I believe the "outcome" of that discussion might be the same for "Bot-Tanks" etc., that we don't see them. I can only imagine the programing/software potential issues that would have to be overcome, but the more pressing issue is time, we're running out of it and we have have guarantee that Andy and Don will want to see this to the end. The last submissions and "possible" patch would be due by February 2026 at latest to get any new equipment in that entered service in 2025. And there'll be other OOB issues as well. And just as important is the in some cases, extreme lack of slots available in some of the OOB's. We came up with a solution a few months ago to free up some slots in the USA OOB by moving the "Gunships" into the GREEN OOB. From what I'm reading on the subject whether it's air, land or sea based combat antonymous or "piloted" remotely equipment, they won't reach practical application until the late 2020's to mid 2030's. By that time we'll be reminiscing about the "good ole days" sipping our favorite beverages and God willing, enjoying our retirement. Which in small part for me means, actually being able to enjoy playing the game without worrying about "One World One OOB (OWOO)", allocation of my personal time (And you can read into that what you want.), working for a living to get to retirement, investing for it etc. etc. and most importantly giving back to CINCLANTHOME who puts up with me especially this time of year in doing "my projects". And then there's always "C and C" and "Red Alert" for that stuff. Lasers and Robots as weapons don't really do much for me anyway, besides that's nothing new, I saw that in STARS WARS back in 1977. It's "old news" now!?! :p Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Maybe in the US OOB cut back the National Guard units....
|
Re: MBT's
Removing any unit, especially ones that have been there since the early days is a PITA and in the case of the gunships will require (IIRC) a couple dozen scenarios to be reworked and none of that is a non trivial " oh-we-can-farm-that-out-to- interested-players" type of thing so *IF* it gets done *I* get to do it and it will need to be a day I'm really motivated to do so and those are scarcer than they used to be.
Not to mention writing up an explanation in the game guide only half the players( if we're lucky )will have read so that means explaining on the forums again and again why someone cannot find them when they remember using them in the past. Open up Scenhack, click on the SQL tab and enter this select distinct ScenNum, uclass, sTitle, Unit,uName from sData where uName like "%Natl%" |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
| 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.