|
Re: MBT's
Quote:
I know how much work is involved with this because we've already done it in the past when all the wonderful "future weapons" that had been added to the USA OOB back near the beginning had to be stripped out when most never made it past the field testing stage but in that case, there were few "what-if future" scenarios made that used them. Gunships OTOH are used in scenarios that cover a number of years and it's not just a matter of repurchasing them from the Green OOB. Each scenario that uses them needs to be checked to see if they are set up to be available at the start of the game or are re-enforcements and if they have been targeted and if yes, at what turn and where so when they are re-bought from the Green OOB they can be set up the same way. There is way more to this than simply copying all the gunship units and all their weapons and moving them to the Green OOB |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
More then most around here I know how much "fun" OOB changes are. For those interested it took probably 1000+ hours work on my part to rebuild the USMC OOB and picklists, and probably another 100 or more for Don to check and correct alredy existing scenarios. Doable, yes. Easy, hell no! |
Re: MBT's
First the units need to be set up in Green, then the weapons if they are not already in the OOB and once that is done I can look at the scenarios that use them and it would be way easier if I could use Scenhack to do it and normally I could but changing aircraft units in Scenhack cancels any missions so each scenario needs to be checked to see if the SD planned a mission and the where and when.
Right now I have the units copied and when I have time for the next step I will get the weapons sorted out and then take a look at the scenarios so if any of the campaign designers reading this recall a campaign that had these things let me know or even if someone played a campaign and remembers seeing them it would save searching through all the campaign scenarios |
Re: MBT's
|
Re: MBT's
That was useful!
What I got from it was... 1. It's confirmed that LAHAT launcher system carries 12 missiles with a semi-carousal auto loader, the system is more compact then I thought and appears might not in fact impact other main gun ammo supply. This of course might affects in real terms the Indian ARJUN Mk-1A and certainly the most recent versions of the Israel's MERKAVA. At 4:05 point. 2. ABRAMs never has the armor penetrated by an ATGW. RPG's is another story, until TUSK came along. 3. CHALLENGER 2 are we possibly under representing it's armor? If I remember (Should've made a "real" note.) correctly one took 15 RPG hits with no armor penetrations' during Iraqi Freedom Ops. 4. Looks like from the video South Koreas K2 is also equipped now with the KASAM II Smart Top Attack ammo. I believe with the modifications we made last year to the K2 PIP we allowed for this ammo. The ref. last para offers some performance data... https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...e-cheap-173046 5. LeClerc is really fast! Don't think I missed anything, but, I'm sure someone will tell me if I did.!?! :D Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
The way we have the Challenger II set up it has more than enough armour to take repeated hits with RPG-7 front and side. RPG-7 IIRC was the most common used by the Iraquis |
Re: MBT's
Don,
They had more of them then most others in Iraq, I believe it to have mostly been on the sides I read many years ago. We're good then on CHALLENGER 2 then. And you've just shown some in the community there's other factors in the testing of equipment before they get entered in the game. More to it then, "I think we should have this in the game." lots more indeed. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Nowadays with add on armour packs its nearly impossible to estimate what package will be used in actual combat. Modern vehicles with heavy packages seem virtually immune to RPG 7s. Forget the Challenger this warrior took 12 RPG 7 hits |
Re: MBT's
Johnson Beharry(VC)Good example
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
The below comes from those "rediscovered" folders that cover all the threads I started a longtime ago. These predate my current PC and when I was using Mozilla Firefox. I mentioned these not long ago because I found equipment that never got submitted for the game.
This ref. was written by then (Summer of 1980.) Paul F. Gorman Major General, USA. Released in March 2004 (Still redacted.) by whom not sure. And a final release by the CIA on July 29, 2014. This assessment is from the prospective of the USA. It DOES NOT paint a "pretty picture" of our capabilities against Russian Armor. From similar documents on the topic from the CIA's own assessments (That I posted in the forum somewhere several years back.) one of the reasons the Soviets never attacked NATO was though they recognized their armor advantage, they felt it was negated by NATO's perceived advantage in high quality ATGW's. We just did a good job of keeping our mouths shut. The first ref. is a cleaner larger font article from the above mentioned 2014 release. Stay with this one, however, read the notes of the below one-please. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0000624298.pdf The next is the 2004 release. It's the one I had in those files. Posting it because some of the graphs are easier to read i.e. Page 7 graphs are better here then in the above version. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001066239.pdf Notice the document numbers are different on reach release. This is a very interesting read if you wish to do so. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
This a boiling down to "reading the tea leaf's" when it comes to a lot of equipment we deal with including the M1A2C (SEP V3). My "brain" has been busy so I can't remember what the revised date I threw out was but, the game START of JUN 2020 wasn't correct.
But it thrills me to no end to keep tracking these things until FOC is achieved. We are about at the 4 year mark now almost it appears based on the following army.mil articles below we still have a bit to go. But I see a "faint light on the horizon", because now I know what Division will be first fully equipped and that'll be the 1st Cav. Div. Ft. Hood, TX. and the process has begun. The article is from Sep 17, 2020 on the occasion of the Divisions 99th Anniversary. Now knowing how our military "loves" to mark sometimes major new equipment news with major unit anniversaries when they present themselves such as a 100th one, I think we might see FOC in JAN 2022. https://www.army.mil/article/239141/...rates_99_years New we move to November 18, 2020 and the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team , 1st Cavalry Division, “Black Jack” s the first command to receive the Next Generation Automatic Test System or NGATS which the M1A2C and newer BRADLEY's will be equipped with. This will allow a unit to maintain their equipment and repair them quicker in a "running" battle if you will. https://www.army.mil/article/241069/...testing_system All these type of issues are what's needed to get, if you will, to the "end product". Again the "tea leaf's" are suggesting START JAN 2022. Well for the CORPS as I posted a couple of days ago, "no news is good news" for concerning their tanks. I just went through their .mil site and the following official DOD website, which will link you to the USMC current force structure.. I'm sure you do the same for the USA if you want. https://www.defense.gov/Experience/M.../Marine-Corps/ Alright here's the ARMY...:p https://www.defense.gov/Experience/Military-Units/Army/ Now I'm off to bed, some of us still need to earn a living!?! :D Regards, Pat :capt: EDIT: So I had to have a Protein/Fiber bar with a glass of ice cold milk, should've skipped it and kept on going to towards bed!?! The brain turned on again and made me find the following from 07 DEC 2020 which details the USMC plan to allow 1yr. early out for those holding the 4 MOS's for their tankers. Based on that information, that would probably have the tanks gone by JAN 2022-JUN 2022 timeframe at latest. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...-a-year-early/ Now to get some sleep! |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
But I'm no longer active duty, nor was I ever a general ... so ... |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
OK.... we have two M1A2C in the OOB's. u538 which is the one without Trophy that only ran to 6/22 and u537 which is the Trophy version with runs to the end of the game. If the start date is being pushed back 18 months then methinks u538 is a waste of space and should be deleted because they all should (?) be equipped with Trophy by then and u537 should have the 1/22 start date. :dk: |
Re: MBT's
About the USMC I get that, I believe I came across a ref. where the 1st(?) MEU was experimenting with larger small size units i.e. 15 to a platoon. It's I believe still ongoing and might or might not be part of PLAN 2030.
Sorry I didn't get those UNIT numbers to you for the M1A2C :doh:, but I have to agree with your logic. Had a busy and long day yesterday and by time I was finished the "first time" with my last post I was done. Uncased a new Wi-Fi/3.1 USB printer, CINCLANTHOME asked me to take Christmas off this year, the first requested one in 10 years and made a 4 day weekend so I can play with my new (But don't which one.) 32" 1500R curved gaming monitor! Done with flat screens HAaaRrrVARD Medical School (One of the very best in this country.) did a long term study and found they are much better for your eyes as they approximate the eyes natural 165 degree peripheral angle of your eyes. So a 1500R or the new 1000R from SAMSUNG this (At about 170 degrees.) are best. Mine won't be the SAMSUNG because the monitors in the price point I wanted to be in didn't get overwhelming reviews. Your health tip for the day. :D Time for my walk and relax before work as I have the late post today. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
From April 10, 2020 concerning Nigeria. It was on my list, if you want me to scratch it off let me know so I can delete from my worklist and files. As I mentioned in the forum across a couple of threads, I wasn't going to post on articles of equipment that I knew would be available for the Patch from 2020.
Again let me know so I can move on to the next thing, please. From my files, I hadn't a chance yet to cross reference these any further, if you need me to do that across my normal refs let me know. https://www.armyrecognition.com/apri...rian_army.html https://www.defenceweb.co.za/feature...-acquisitions/ No word from Germany, I'm going to give that one more shot. If I don't get a response, I'll proceed on my own as I have in my head already given it some thought on how to move forward. Regards, Pat :capt: P.S. Might as well provide these as I'm tracking on the program as I feel we might just "barely" see the following become operational before "we turn out the lights"!?! The 82nd has been chosen to evaluate the prototypes... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ght_tanks.html https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ank-prototypes It's possible I might've missed it, but given COVID events of the last month and currently in the UK, I haven't seen anything of value concerning the Defense Review. What hasn't changed is my views on AJAX as already discussed in the APC Thread. USMC looks like the MBT's will be gone by Dec. 2021 at latest. Seriously thinking about END Dates for all USMC MBT's with exception of the M1A1 FEP ones, for DEC 2020 based on units that have "cased their colors". No mention in any articles already posted that anything other then the M1A1 has been turned over to the USA. Those tanks were transported to USA Depots for conversation to M1A2C within less then a month after those units cased their colors. I further base this on the fact that what the USMC ordered and received in the M1A1 FEP would match with about how many tanks they should have left currently. That is all for now, going to enjoy the rest of what has been a busy weekend for us. Good Night!! P.S.S Well almost, now 2314 after an enjoyable (Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow.), I checked my papers and found the following, I had reported on the LAOS tank deal a couple of years back with Russia. So lets just call this "Something Old That's New Again"... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...-34_tanks.html Also (Today) this confirms Mark's source on Nigeria's first use of their VT-4 tanks in combat. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...vt4_tanks.html Now for real, Good Night! |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
A platoon is 3x Squads + a HQ element (usually 4-man). |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
|
Re: MBT's
Right now I have not touched the end date for USMC MBTs at all for the exact same reason and any decision on what to do ( if anything ) will be held back until early March of this year. A lot could happen after Jan 20th
|
Re: MBT's
When the USMC tank issue first came up, I also recommended we wait. As I indicated, "I was thinking about..." that's because articles started popping up around Nov/Dec 2020 indicating they will be gone as soon as the last quarter of FY 2021 (Jul-Sep 2021) or first quarter of FY 2022 (Oct-Dec 2021) just reporting is all I'm doing.
TURKEY-ALTAY: We still haven't reached 0 month for this tank (As some might remember as I posted, Turkey is thinking 24 months from production start to delivery of the first tank.. Based on the following, that's not going to happen anytime soon. https://raillynews.com/2020/05/The-e...k-is-resolved/ As the below refs. will show the engine problem wasn't solved as the above indicates. They still haven't worked out the issues of the engine or transmission as of right now. The first ref. indicates they hope to start trials with the engine sometime later this year. Also no word on the transmission which is no surprise if you haven't finalized your engine design. I don't intend to submit another date change for this tank, it can wait until next year. that'll put the ALTAY out to late 2024 into 2025 sometime if at all. https://www.defensenews.com/industry...-tank-program/ Those talks fell through. https://yetkinreport.com/en/2020/12/...reign-support/ https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/01...lans-for-2021/ They should've left the Kurds in Syria alone (Pissing off the EU.) and more importantly, they never should've bought those S-400 Systems from Russia now fielded this past Fall. Due to that the we cut cut them off from the F-35 and associated technologies (And moved it out of the country.) and as for South Korea, they dropped out of the program a few years ago and won't go back as relations with us are more important to their long term stability in dealing with North Korea and China. UK Defense Review: This has been pushed back until February 2021. So CHALLENGER 2/WARRIOR CSP and possibly AJAX are still in limbo. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...oured-vehicles Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Alright I need to get the ball rolling on this ASAP based on the following couple of refs.
Russia (Like the rest of the World.) is getting hit hard from leaked and other sources with COVID-19, apparently their vaccine isn't proving to be as affective as advertised by the government which, here it is known to be one of the top cyber hack issues from the breach we suffered, that they were trying to get (Vaccine Data) as was disclosed last last month early. Economy still wrecked from the above and from the "Oil War" they were in for many months with Saudi Arabia until a "truce" of sorts was agreed to about the November time frame. If you wondered why your gas was so cheap for about 6-8 months. ;) I noticed the words "full rate production" and no time frame for when this year it would start production were given either in the first ref. Also for that scenario Russia vs. Ukraine 2022, I offer the following as well from ref 1... "The T-14 Armata is the next generation of MBT that will enter into service (We know that but, when?) with the Russian army. according to Russian military sources, the first batch of 100 T-14 (These are the Prototype and Test Beds.) tanks could be delivered and deployed with the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division in 2021." 1. Forget the 200 I thought possible by end of 2022. 2. They might not make it at all by then beyond those 100. If they get to the 2nd Guards. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe..._t-15_ifv.html This above mentions the fact they're going to attempt this while the "trials" are still ongoing, so think about this, they want to build the the T-14/T-15 while their still trying to figure out how to fix them in the first place!?! They need to consult with Turkey and India and ask them how that worked with the ALTAY and ARJUN. It didn't, it delayed one by a couple of years and the other is still "scratching their heads" as well. So by extension and as I've posted on regularly over the years, they to are suffering from the same technical issues that Turkey is having with the ALTAY, further compounded by problems revolving around certain electronic packages to include but not limited to the FCS. You must remember the following: 1. This is Russia first from the ground-up tank design in decades. They take time even the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS took years and years to from design to FOC. So what is Russia doing in the meantime? Well here's what the Russian Army is getting in 2021 along with what they got in 2019/2020 first... https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...to_troops.html (I have to reverify my submission on the T-90M as UNIT 059 has START of JUN 2020.) https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...bvm_tanks.html (T-80BMV in the North.) https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...-80_tanks.html (We're good here, these for the Eastern District for China to ponder.) https://www.armyrecognition.com/apri..._vehicles.html (We're GOOD on the T-90M, I used this for the tank as submitted I believe, BUT kept it for the IFV. Now in my APC/IFV folder.) https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...s_in_2020.html (This fits our "hybrid" UNIT 697, I think we're good here, as you read further down the article.) And finally for 2021... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...s_in_2021.html (No T-14/T-15.) What I think will be needed is to change the T-15 UNIT 346 START to JUN 2022 (Matches current T-14 date.) vice JUN 2021. These 2 armor units are bound together at least mechanically and by some other subsystems. Now you folks know how long I keep my "poop", though now I have deleted the GP News stuff. How I love "house keeping"!?! :rolleyes: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
What I think will be needed is to change the T-15 UNIT 346 START to JUN 2022 (Matches current T-14 date.) vice JUN 2021. These 2 armor units are bound together at least mechanically and by some other subsystems.[/quote]
...........and I assume 374 as well ?? |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
The T-72 is 7.2 ft(2.19 m ) high The T-90 is 7.3 ft (2.225 m ) high The M1 Abrams is 8 ft (2.44 m) high The T14 Armata is 10 ft (3.3 m) That's a BIG difference to adjust to after 2 generations of tanks that are shorter than most of their opponents and it makes the vehicle a much bigger target OTOH the Leo 2A6 is 9.8 ft (3.0 m) high and that caught me by surprise as my main focus in Icon building is only width and Lenght. I hadn't paid attention to height but still..... the Russians are used to tanks a Meter shorter than the T-14. That thing stands out like a 10 year old in a kindergarten class............ or a Moose in a herd of cattle. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=...AAAAAdAAAAABAN |
Re: MBT's
Yes that would mean Russian UNIT 374 as well, so congratulations on passing the SPMBT Awareness Check (SAC)!!!!
So for the rest of you, be careful so you too don't get SAC'd!?! :D About UNIT 374 as far as I know they haven't committed to the 57mm yet but, I know however, I do have a couple of articles in my APC/IFV folder concerning the issue and that it is currently being strongly considered. I'll be watching it, since I keep my "poop" for so long. So Don, please tell me that the "older" German LEOPARD tanks up to the A6 are mostly legacy ones from before you guys took over the game. I'm assuming they are based on the dates but, if I'm asking, you already know then, I'm finding a mess. For instance LEOPARD 2A5 UNITS 031 & 032 looks like they can be deleted as they are to early by at least a year or more. UNITS 270 & 271 are closer but, it's looking like they might be early by about 6 months at least as well. From my sources with a very tight or exact same date from one of my sources: "The first Leopard 2A5 was handed over on 30th November 1995." If I understand it correctly, those LEOPARD 2A5 tanks UNITS 032/271/274 & 275 with the (S) represent ones with the Steel plates added on the "belly" for mine protection. If that is correct, than the issue is they didn't have that added on to them as far as I can tell to this point. It was from the lessons learned from the German KFOR Ops with the LEOPARD 2A4/2A5 tanks, which is why the LEOPARD 2A6M had the modification done as noted above and as follows again representative of my sources: "Lessons learned from Bundeswehr operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, where its forces were confronted with an extreme mine threat, the transformation of the Bundeswehr into an operational army, and the increase in out-of-area deployments made it necessary to improve the mine protection of the Leopard 2A6. Between 2004 and 2008, therefore, a total of 70 Leopard 2A6 tanks were modified to 2A6Ma. These vehicles were equipped with a mine protection kit, which included a mine protection belly plate under the hull and a belt seat for the driver attached to the hull roof." We are familiar with this because as you might remember Don and I fixed Canadas LEOPARD issue that would cumulate with the addition of the 2A6M (That they returned to Germany.) when they received both the LEOPARD 2A6MCAN/2A4MCAN tanks. I ask for you to do nothing until it's sorted out. This will be done as separate submission for Germany as I've come across some minor I hope APC/IFV issues as well, though again, minor compared to the tanks. So I leave you with these thoughts... 1. Play CANADA!!!! 2. How is it that this kind of situation keeps following me lately, year after year!?! :D Oh, that's right, OWOO/or OWOOB (If you prefer.) for those in the know. ;) Alright I love a challenge as well! :p :D Anyway have "house" things to do with CINCLANTHOME so HAVE A GREAT DAY!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The Leo dates were based on what info was available at the time they were entered and have little to do with SP2. If they are wrong and you have hard info now that wasn't available before then make a list.
|
Re: MBT's
It's not much of a problem the biggest thing as always, is reading the material through to catch things like the "xyz training battalion received the LEOPARD on..." followed by nothing or something like on my last Post concerning the German LEOPARD 2A6M 80 were converted between 2004 and 2008. Based on nothing more and turning that into a simple math problem, Means 80 over 4yrs = 20 a yr. tells me the first Tank Company was likely equipped by OCT-DEC 2004 = DEC 2004 to allow for any unforeseen delays reported or not.
Sometimes that's all we can do and where later information does come out, that simple has fallen on the date within a couple of months, spot on or at worse within 6 months which is the "swag" Don and I have used for years. That being said and not every conversation on those matters appear in here, we fix it anyway which happened I believe at least twice last year. I've built tanks faster and submitted them for the game then trying to find out when they actually were put into service. Think about that for a moment and how many times we've had to do that over the years. Also we get, OMG! They got their first xyz tank therefore they're at FOC!!! Or as we've dealt with over the last 2-3 yrs. legacy inherited equipment at FOC as prototypes. :cold: Well at least hopefully, I'll have one tank to modify for the Patch as a diversion. :cool: :rant::rant::rant::rant::rant::rant: YAY TEAM!! :banana: Will it ever stop!?! :doh: Time to move on, there I said it. :clap: :p EM-ME-JOES make me well, happy! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Or trying to separate active vs reserve unit equipment. Does a reserve unit not having X piece of gear count as not being FOC?
|
Re: MBT's
You have to separate a Command/Unit out from Equipment they are two distinct separate categories where the terms IOC = Initial Operating Condition and FOC = Full Operating Condition mean the same thing.
When I reported to COMSUBGRU TEN in Oct. 1989 we were in IOC at the time. After manning, extensive training, evaluated exercises, coordinated operations, testing etc. etc. right down to the CACO (Who had the job of informing next-of-kin somebody wasn't coming home, which means you're put in the freezer with the food if underway, of which I've known a couple that made that ride.) it was very intense and the pressure was on. And we had an Admiral just upstairs in case we needed encouragement, which we never did as we're self motivated (That's what it means to be on a "boat".) We had a couple of exercises to prepare us for our "alternate" command responsibility as COMSUBLANT ALT. it was no less important then our "primary" mission that the SSBN's met their training and operational requirements. The final phase for us to reach FOC culminated with a 24/7 two week ALTEX where we took over all aspects of Submarine Ops, upon completion and shortly there after, we FOC in MAR/APR 1990 on time, on schedule as there is no finishing early as the process is highly structured. You can substitute any infantry, air whatever into the above. The bottom-line is you "fight" with what you have and fall back on your training. So the last above and to answer your question, no IOC/OPEVAL/FOC when discussing new equipment has no bearing on in this case, NG Units because IOC/OPEVAL (Mission Training/Requalification etc.)/FOC (Unit deemed Combat Ready.) is a function of training, maintaining of current equipment assigned etc. etc. We would call it EXPRIENCE and Morale. You only enhance that when the NG Unit finally does get that piece of equipment that completed the same process more or less except in simplest it means something different at the end, [/b]is there added value, does it work, is it reliable in the field, will it increase our units combat efficiency, will it support our mission and I can go on and on.[/b] It doesn't matter what branch or component you served in, if all the above didn't worked, then for us in combat, you might have enough to tell your "maker" how you love your family before you are "atomized" by the extreme pressure or you have a fish come out of your mouth like in "The AYBSS" you're shallower water. Loved the movie, but the "boat" going down was about as real as I've seen on film. I remember holding CINCLANTHOME's hand when I put the "death grip" to it during that part of the move, it felt that real. Anyway, again two separate and distinct processes. I liked the question it was a fair one to ask. I've learned if someone's asking the question, someone else was thinking about it. It's late and time to hit the rack, the weekend will be over as drive through the gate later this afternoon. Gotta love the "Wonderful World of Work!". Regards Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I have now adjusted the 2a6 / 2a6m leos as best I can. As for 31 and 32 / 270 & 271.... yeah that's a bit odd and it's been like that for years.
I need to run scenario checks and depending on whats not used if any then these will be whittled down |
Re: MBT's
I don't have much time as this is a workday for me, however, the next provides somewhat of a clearer picture for a timeline for some Russian equipment and confirms some of my own beliefs as posted on the matter. It covers a broad range of land equipment that Don and I have been tracking for many years now, with at least one that pre-dates the T-14, the K-17 Bumerang.
This is NOT set in stone, it just gives us a better "tracking tool" then what I've seen in a longtime for this many platforms. The source is Russian MOD, Deputy Defence Minister Alexey Krivoruchko on 30 DEC 2020. JANE's reporting. "The military will also receive 94 fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, including 22 Su-57 multirole combat aircraft, ahead of schedule through 2024. Maybe 2025. In 2022 the MoD is planning to complete the development of the T-14 Armata main battle tank, T-15 Armata, B-11 Kurganets-25, and K-17 Bumerang infantry fighting vehicles, B-10 Kurganets-25 and K-16 Bumerang armoured personnel carriers, the T-16 armoured recovery vehicle, the Koalitsiya-SV 152 mm self-propelled howitzer, and a number of advanced combat stations for tracked and wheeled combat platforms, according to Krivoruchko. “We are planning to complete trials of the S-500 air defence system and to adopt it and to accept the Voronezh very-high-frequency radar into service,” he said." If they stay on schedule, I can see FOC for some of this equipment by mid-2023. A lot of this will be driven by when serial production begins, combat units get equipped and when MOD announces FOC. Now we shift dates accordingly and "sit and wait" for the Russians to just "get the job done". https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ystems-in-2020 Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I guess we wait and see. We had the Sukhoi Su-57 but it did not enter production until 2019 so it's got a 2020 start now
|
Re: MBT's
Yeah, as JANE's pointed out in the caption below the picture, that was the only Su-57 they have as photographed in 2020.
The bottom-line here is, and as we and others have stated over the years, again is we have to be patient enough to "hold the line" for equipment to NOT be entered into the game until FOC. Every review of this game I've ever read has given "kudos" to the games for their authenticity, realism and the fact it's constantly updated. Feedback from players, most recently for me going back to the last patch we did all that work on concerning India's tanks and I paraphrase... "It's finally good to play against India, knowing I'm not fighting against tanks they don't have or haven't received yet." That to me was a powerful statement. We put it out there and I feel for any number of reason I could list, but won't, we need to stand by it. Just last night at turnover, my relief was running late by a few minutes, knowing it was my "Friday" he said I got it, before I could respond another person told him, "He's not going to let you relieve him without giving you a clean turnover." Which is what he got. We are in the same position now, to give these games a "clean over" before we hang it up. It'll be painful, more so for others than me as I'm under no illusions about that. However these pieces of equipment are like MP's were to me in my first patch submission, they took up slots and served no real purpose purpose in the game. The difference here is they where "real" units already fielded, while these others aren't. The standard I was asked from the beginning has been FOC, these other issues personally have put me behind in getting equipment in the game that are or have been modified to the point the game and players would benefit from them being entered in the game. That was no :bs: when I stated a couple of times out here I have new or modified units dating back to at least 2015 that I can't get entered in the game because I've come across other issues that needed fixing over at least the last 3-4 years on existing units. The work has to be done though and it cannot be ignored. I will be honest, personally I find it all to very frustrating and going against my innate sense of organization and detail. Sometimes that frustration has "spilled over" and I apologize for that to those affected, however, I will not apologize for the person I am because of it, it's served me very well in my military career and in life. I am but one of many "advisors" out here and fully understand that role, so in the end I will fully support the "chain of command" on any decisions made for the games, because at least they'll listen to us in the first place. So another :rant: :rant: is over and I must move on from here, after all it is 2021 and we have nowhere to go but up from here!?! ;) Oh that's right, this is the MBT Thread so... AUSTRALIA: If they can get ahead of schedule (And they have on a couple of programs.) with this we might see these in the last year of the game. https://armynews.partica.online/army...ing-our-armour BRAZIL: Will be watching this one closely as Brazil has been stepping up the modernization of their military in the last few years across the board. In regards to these tanks, if the economy can support it, I can foresee possibly them having enough to support a combat unit by mid-2024 at earliest. A lot will depend on if they get foreign support from Germany or Israel to make it possible. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ard-1a5br-mbts CHINA: First live fire shots of the VT-4. https://www.armyrecognition.com/june...gun_shots.html GERMANY: Increasing it's armor units and testing a new 130mm MG. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...t-leopard-2a6s https://militaryleak.com/2020/07/31/...moothbore-gun/ I'm excited about the next for both countries. Also since hopefully next year I can submit my build version of the LEOPARD 2A7V, awesome is all I can say! Be wearying here the article to my "American mind" seems to contradict itself from what it says in the beginning versus how it ends concerning Denmark. I'll just qoute the beginning... "Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has handed the latest versions of the Leopard 2 (OK, 2A7 and or 2A7V) over to Denmark and Germany." "Both nations are receiving comparable variants of the Leopard 2A7 main battle tank." "The Danish army will receive a total of 44 Leopard 2A7 vehicles by 2022." There is no confirmation from either military on how this is progressing and I want to know is it for Denmark the 2A7 or using the articles own words "variant of", which leaves it open a variant of the 2A7V. So bottom-line, this is NOT ACTIONABLE as their is a lack of data for the dates and type involved as noted. DENMARK and GERMANY: https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...ttle_tank.html Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
I meant to add this in my last but, my original link wasn't working. So back to Denmark the following provides the current force structure of the Danish Army from the Danish Army down to the size of a Section.. Could be of use for many reasons by many people.
https://forsvaret.dk/en/organisation/army/structure/ https://forsvaret.dk/en/ INDIA: For FYI ONLY, this might have been a hold over from my submission of the India OOB rework from last year or year before. This was among the many tanks we fixed. https://www.armyrecognition.com/apri...tle_tanks.html DRDO has offered two light tank options to counter the Chinese VT-4 in the Himalayas. And wouldn't you be surprised to know the Indian Army is resistant to even that proposal!?! Here's what I think of that! :doh: :doh: :D Currently I don't feel there's any chance of seeing these before games end in any form. Anyway... https://www.armyrecognition.com/anal...ight_tank.html KUWAIT: I have to be honest I let this one "fall between the cracks" however, that being said the only transaction SIPRI shows from 2015-2019 (2020 due in Feb.) is between 2014-2015 for deliveries of 33 BMP-3 units. There are no newer articles concerning the acquisition of them or to current status of the purchase. The T-90MS started trials in 2015 in Kuwait and was excepted over the competition. Just have to keep an eye on this. https://www.armyrecognition.com/marc...0ms_tanks.html I conducted a web search concerning Kuwait before posting to make sure. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
This is the first news in over a year, however, Turkey has gone back to the drawing board and modified the ALTAY. Specifically concerning the turret and adding a 360 Hard-kill/Soft-kill APS. I believe we already have it with a 12.7mm RWS, if not, it does now.
The turret is definitely, as the article indicates, been up armored though I don't see anything to indicate anything more then a minor or slightly improved increase of our current in game tank numbers. I need to see more pictures of this newer version of the ALTAY to be sure of those numbers. And more importantly, there still is no timeline given as far as the evaluation, production or if you will, induction of the ALTAY. TRACKING... https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ttle_tank.html Edited for clarification. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Interesting. It looks like they are turning it into a Leclerc / K2 look-a-like
|
Re: MBT's
That's right, remember this did start out as cooperative project with South Korea based on the K2. Of course the Germans were involved as well but, it was when they lost the Austrians (And Engine/Transmission with them.) that things went really bad for them with the ALTAY as we well know now.
The Russians it is "rumored" supposedly were offering some assistance to Turkey to overcome some of the engineering and technical aspects of developing a 1500hp engine (Might be Turbine, don't remember, but more complex if so.) and doing the same on a transmission as well. I agree that turret does make it look like a K2 to my mind. Now just have to wait for them to announce it's at "0 month" once there, we're looking at 18-24 months after that, by their own admission as posted. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
The Icon for it right now seems close enough until final details emerge
|
Re: MBT's
I agree about the ICON though, I realize you were making a "statement" there.
What struck me, was how much the turret was modified from the picture submitted for the tank currently in the game versus how it looks now from my last ref. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Just an update.
The 1st, 2nd, and 4th USMC tank battalions have been deactivated. The 3rd still has no indication as to when, or even if, it will be deactivated. Given that 3rd is in Okinawa, close to both North Korea and Taiwan, it sort of makes sense to keep it around till last .... IF they cut it at all. Then there are the M1's aboard the pre-positioned ships (Diego Garcia and such) which also have not been deactivated. |
Re: MBT's
It does appear there has been a shift in the way USMC is structured and deployed but the fact that one battalion is not being deactivated indicates to me that from the perspective of this game nothing needs to change drastically in regards to armor availability
|
Re: MBT's
Maybe make tanks x1 radio class units post 2020 would be all I'd suggest.
BUT that would require duplicate units with different dates. And probably changes to the picklists (formation availability %), not really worth the trouble unless there's some other reason to mess with the picklists. |
Re: MBT's
X1 does not make the formation rare only the unit and if they are all x1 nothing changes.
|
Re: MBT's
Well one of my favorite countries strikes again as I was concerned that nothing was posted on the following since I submitted it last year on it's further development. Well true to course India has managed "once again" to defy their own expectations and "drop the ball" on a tank project. They just got one!!
So... INDIA/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START/JUN 2022/vice JAN 2021/CHANGE/FC 50/vice 45/SAME FCS as ARJUN Mk-2/STEEL/HF 56/HR 9/TF 86/TS 30/TR 18/TOP 10/HEAT/HF 84/HS 48/HR 18/TF 138/TS 46/TR 30/TOP 18// This is the interim tank to what some in India will lead to the final version as the ARJUN Mk-II. The compromise was to make this tank lighter which my numbers above most certainly do in the overall weight reduction. However, it was still to be better protected then the ARJUN/ARJUN Mk-1 which now it is. Regarding the FCS it was always meant to have the same system as the ARJUN Mk-11 which why the above tank has the ATGW capability. I'm just using this ref to quote from as it's consistent with what's already been posted concerning the ARJUN Mk-1A "The Arjun Mk-1A is an upgraded version of the Arjun Mark 1 offering more firepower, protection, and mobility. The hull and turret of Arjun Mk.1A have been modified (You can include protection in this as well. And this IS NOT derived from interpretation.) to give a lower silhouette making detection more difficult,..." Also the last para touches on protection again and the FCS with a "note" compared to the ARJUN Mk-II. I would highly recommend adding a copy of the above as it can fire other useful rounds (Less the ATGW at this time.) to enhance it's combat capability as these rounds are already available. "...with one 120 mm rifled gun able to fire APFSDS (kinetic energy penetrator) rounds, HE, HEAT, High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) rounds at a rate of 6–8 rounds per minute. the gun of the Arjun is also capable to fire Israeli developed semi-active laser-guided LAHAT missile (But are not using LAHAT, however they are working with Israel on developing their own ATGW.). The Arjun can carry 39 rounds in special blast-proof canisters." and... "...while it also supports the newly developed Thermo-Baric (TB) and Penetration-cum-Blast (PCB) ammunition." https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...k_to_army.html Sorry can't ignore the news here and the evitable it's India and "what else is new" regarding them. Well I just got the "look" a short time ago which means I'm out!?! Regards Pat :capt: Corrected the STEEL tord TF 86 vice TR 86 above. See below Posts. |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
???! You mean TF of course |
Re: MBT's
Crap!! :doh: Why yes that would be correct.
Would you believe I think the error was caused as I'm about midway through Edmund Morris's final Vol III of his biography on Theodore Roosevelt (TR), COLONEL ROOSEVELT" at this time!?! Ok, probably best to go with with the following as I was in a hurry to take care of another matter, so... can you guess what's coming!?! That's right!! :typing: :pc:!! THANKS! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Are we being watched too? The next story is actually calling out one of the most popular online tank games out there for modeling a French tank that didn't exist but, the game claims it did to include full developmental info on the tank.
The worst we can be accused of is that we've had prototype equipment that's gotten into the game. However, we've done an outstanding job of getting rid of them/or nullifying them in game play (Brazils Osorio and MB-3 Tamoyoas which I identified a few years back that never got out of the prototype stage.) as they've been uncovered. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/osorio.htm http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mb3_tamoyo.htm So here's how the "other guys" did it... https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/batig...que-fake-tank/ They almost did a creditable job. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
FYI: This story is continuing to "track" as I've posted from USMC sources and my others. I had myself projected DEC 2021 as the end cate for what should be the M1A1 FEP.
The USMC is saying they'll be turned over by SEP 2021 (The end of the 2021 Fiscal Year.) which from a budgetary point of view makes absolute sense as they'll be free of any financial burden associated with those tanks. Of about the 130 tanks that remain most are in forward deployed storage or onboard maritime prepositioning ships. From Ref. 2... "At the time of the initial overhaul announcement, the Corps had 452 tanks at its disposal. By December 2020, 323 had been transferred to the Army. (As I reported last year.) The *remaining tanks were scheduled for transfer by 2023 (Which obviously isn't the case anymore.), which included tanks in overseas storage and aboard maritime prepositioning ships, according to Marine Corps Systems Command." Don't let anyone "get their panties in a wad" except again, these are the newest I've seen thus far this year. And again without deviation, are still tracking by date as reported in 2020 from all sources. It'll take a "miracle" to save them at this point. We'll know by this spring/summer when the Defense Authorization Bill is readied for FY22. Ref. 1 The date. Ref. 2 A post-mortem, the CORPS w/o tanks... https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...e-corps-tanks/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...ing-its-armor/ I know how people feel about this, so don't shoot the messenger! :p TRACKING By-The-By, Turkey to begin field trials of the ALTAY later this month with a couple of PROTOTYPES. So April should be 0 month on their projected 18 month clock to production. That's providing their engine/transmission and power pack can hold up. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: MBT's
Bet ya 10$ next Commandant brings them back.
Current one to focused on a single scenario, |
Re: MBT's
I am going to throw an oddball question at you Suhiir if I may.
If the army was called on to support the Marine Core with tanks would they actually be able to use them in the role the Marines wanted. I am guessing the armies tactics are not the same when it comes to armour. |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
The US Army sees them as primarily an anti-armor asset the USMC as infantry support. Both of course use them for each role, but it's a matter of how well trained they are for each. Can they do it? Of course. Can they do it well? Doubtful. Also I don't see the US Army willingly handing over a tank unit. They already have formation/task assignments in the US Army and I know I'd be VERY reluctant to retask them were I Army brass. Also there's the "minor" fact that US Army and USMC SOPs are different. I've worked with the US Army enough to know that I don't understand, or agree with, many of theirs and I'm sure they feel the same. The main issue is fire doctrine. The US Army uses fire volume, the USMC accuracy. The USMC doesn't have the logistic assets to support the amounts of ammo the US Army uses. Most US Army troops have never worked with (or probably seen) Marines and have no idea what our SOPs for "little" things like tank-infantry cooperation and communications are. In the US Army infantry supports armor, the armor commander is in charge, in the USMC the infantry commander is always in charge. During Gulf 1 I was with the division HQ of 2nd MarDiv which had "Tiger Brigade" (2nd Div US Army) attached to it and they operated as an independent command, because it made far more sense then trying to integrate them. They were given a task, flank security, they did it well. But they did it their way, in their sector, and other then our HQ talking to their HQ we had little to do with each other. I did find it amusing after the "war" when they came over looking for 2nd MarDiv unit patches to sew on their uniforms as the last unit they were in combat with and we had to inform they we didn't have, or make, them (a USMC 2nd MarDiv patch exists, it's official, but you have to buy it from civilian sources). |
Re: MBT's
Quote:
The patch thing you brought up, the Amry likes its patches, yes we do, so for those guys coming to ask for them they were doing it on the idea that your QM aka supply issue patches like ours do. One thing both sides need to work on is being able to talk to each other over the networks, the biggest issue I dealt with was the fact that no one could effectively communicate clearly since it was like two groups speaking two different languages. Made for some interesting times. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.