|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
When ever you feel ready to answer the previous post (Also MBT Thread Pg. 22 Posts 213 & 215 would be helpful to you as well.), feel free at your convenience to do so. Lists are started too a small degree as the Ophthalmologists have owned my summer...again!! THANKS! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Yes, Pat. If a tank has vision capabilities equal to the later Merkavas then naturally they should get the higher values.
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
I'm going to try to simplify my inputs in how they are organized. First will be the "ADD" "CHANGE" or now(?) "MODIFY" then "DELETE" AT THE END. When I first started the Change and Modify sub categories worked, but now with most resources going to updating existing equipment those sub categories are starting to bleed over on each other. Do you have a "mental" working word preference for either "CHANGE" OR "MODIFY" ? I know it's a minor detail, but it's mental gym I don't want to deal with anymore...but that's just me!?! Been a bit of a PITA to sit and read or get anything done on the computer these last 3 weeks or so, but I get my real glasses back tomorrow. Hope to have the HELO inputs within the next couple of weeks posted here. I have downloaded and will submit a formal request about the USA M101 105mm used by the French which will go out in tomorrow's mail to the Ft. Sill Museum along with the copy of the email I recieved from the Royal Artillery Museum in England. The Ft. Sill site also provided the following link that I've heard of from various different sources of as well and will pursue. http://www.lovettartillery.com/index.html For GP the blow does list the French HM2/AMX 105/50 from the Email mentioned above... http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...sp?armor_id=96 So there's your update. Thanks and Take Care! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Tracked Stryker-:The pendulum swings back.?
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/milit...s-seen-at-jblm |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
5 Attachment(s)
Well it's been a couple of years I think since anything has been done with helicopters. Some of this was meant to have done a while ago but was put off to cover other areas. I just picked up from where I left off and continued the work. Don I ask for your patience as I hope I haven't duplicated any issues already addressed. It's been a tough year and hard for me to focus, literally. What's not here of importance? 1. Date change for India CH-47F still in evaluation with contract unsigned though this is India Heavy Lift Helo winner. 2. India again pending final contract agreement on the AH-64D APACHE. 3. Taiwan WILL be the first export customer of the AH-64E. So what's a AH-64E? 4. Last fall the USA had officially designated the APACHE Block III the AH-64E. These will lead the HELOS for the 2013/2014 Campaign.
Speed issues I leave to you Don just threw out some rough numbers but faster is faster. This magnifier is a PITA so let's get started... HELOS… A1. SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/APR 2011/ROOIVALK Mk I/RESET/ADD/EW 8/TI/GSR 60/FCS +Current factors//The Mk I has undergone significant changes beyond just avionics and engine upgrades that lead to the safety issues that grounded the ROOIVALK for 1 ½ years (See C6 below.). With the improvements to targeting systems above the systems to the above ROOIVALK the TI/GSR rating should be extended out to 60 as DENAL is no light weight when it comes to such FC/Targeting systems. Also with improved engines and avionics it’s faster, more maneuverable and a little more “stealthy” with improved IR dampeners and defensive capabilities then its predecessor so an EW improvement should be made as well. http://www.dod.mil.za/news/news%2020...20apr11%20.htm http://www.saairforce.co.za/news-and...ivalk-block-1f http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23380/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...tional-355117/ http://www.deagel.com/news/South-Afr...000008623.aspx http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news115257.html Attachment 12209 A2. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/JUN 2013/PUMA HC2/RESET/Use UNIT 574/ADD/2X7.62mm Minigun Rds UKN/EW 6/TI/GSR 40 or 50/Speed increased by ~10 hexes above current movement allowance per turn.// The focus of the RESET was to replace the engines which now generate 35% more power, replaced the cockpit controls, electronics/defensive suites with reconditioned airframes. Also refs talk about it now being able to carry twice the payload. However, I don’t know how that equates to extra troops or not. The PUMA almost became a victim of the UK’s SDR cuts, but the continued need (Afghan Ops.) to increase the available types of transport helos that can operate at higher altitudes, more varied terrain, climatic conditions and it just being cheaper then buying new helos kept the upgrade program alive. http://www.publications.parliament.u...71213w0005.htm http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...784/#more-3784 http://www.helihub.com/2009/09/30/eu...ion-programme/ http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/puma8069.xml http://www.helihub.com/2011/06/24/fi...orce-puma-mk2/ http://www.helihub.com/2011/09/30/ra...s-of-puma-ops/ http://www.defpro.com/news/details/37257/ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...heets/Puma.htm http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/puma.cfm A3. USA/USMC/ADD/JAN 2007/MH-47G CHINOOK/USE UNIT 293/C6/P34-50 (Depending on equip.)/Port and Starboard mounted 2xM134 7.62 mm Miniguns just aft of the cockpit & 2xM240G 7.62mm at the last set of windows Rds UKN/ADD Refueling boom to the Starbrd. Side of the nose./Based on date requested with upgrades done to this point TI/GSR 60/EW 8/FC 6/FF 6/STAB. 5 or 6//As noted above trying to get one ”current” model in for each OOB to save a couple of slots as more is to come (Also see C8 below.). SOCOM is at the top of the Special Ops “food chain” with JSOC and the various military branches having their own “SOCs”. The 160th SOAR “Night Stalkers” (Under USASOC.) of Somalia and Bin Laden raid fame provide the bulk of helo operational support to the SEALS, Green Berets and Rangers amongst others. These are probably the most advanced transport helos in the world. Of the at least 4 helos known to have been involved in the Bin Laden raid raid it wasn’t the helos that attracted the neighbors (Not until a MH-60S crashed anyway.) but the gun fire. Boeing turned over the first CH-47G/MH-47G to the Army in mid summer of 2004 in Philadelphia Pa. The first combat mission was flown in Feb. 2007 another reason for the above date. The last SLEP (RESET) MH-47E conversion to MH-47G was turned over to SOCOM on Mar. 4 2011. SOCOM is to receive a handful of new build birds still and has requested more to meet future operational needs. http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/mil...h47e/index.htm http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/mil...G_overview.pdf http://www.guncopter.com/mh-47g/ http://www.socom.mil/News/Pages/fina...Paircraft.aspx http://www.socom.mil/sordac/PEO/Rota...G_Chinook.aspx http://nightstalkers.americanspecial...ters/mh-47.php http://www.americanspecialops.com/ph...ranger-sov.php http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mi...dex.php?Page=1 A4. FRANCE JAN 2005/BRAZIL JUN 2012/MAYLAYSIA JUNE 2013/INDONESIA JUN 2014/ THAILAND JUNE 2015/ADD/EC 725 “SUPER” COUGAR/C5 P26/2 x FN MAG 60-30 250/or 1000Rd “Drums”/Optional 2 x 20mm POD mounted GIAT Cannons 180Rds/or 2 x 68mm THALES/or FORGE ZEEBRUGGE 19 Rd Rocket Launchers/TI/GSR 60/EW 8/Advanced composite add on armor is available and is used by the French. Mexico (The largest or next user of the EC 725.) supposedly has it also though not in the game. Malaysia’s are being reported to being equipped in the same manner as the French versions. Adjust armor ratings as you see fit for FRANCE and MAYLASIA/USE FRENCH UNIT 516 AS BASE//Concerning Thailand they have been very good about getting the equipment they have ordered, however, there are mixed reports about whether the contract has actually been signed or not. Based on this information I’ll leave it to you whether you wish to add it to Thailand’s OOB. This represents the Special Ops/CSAR version for the countries listed. The other COUGARS listed in the game are the “older” version AS 532 (Still in production.) which has a longer fuselage that allows it to carry additional troops, less advanced and slower, its primary function is as a troop transport. The EC 725 is a further development of the AS 532 to provide a faster (324km/hr/or205mph) more versatile multi-function platform. A lot of effort was made in the protection of this helo to include updated active and passive defensive systems such as laser warning systems, use of composite materials that signifitcally reduces its Radar and IR signatures. Also features a fully digitally equipped cockpit, SATCOM/NAVSAT systems to support “nap of the earth’ flying with full day and night flying capabilities and more powerful and reliable engines, because of this, the armor kit has little effect on overall speed and lift capabilities. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec725/ http://www.airrecognition.com/index....sk=view&id=331 http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Missions_174.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/laad_...1_1404116.html. http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...25-helicopters http://helihub.com/2012/12/04/royal-...twelve-ec725s/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...copters-04959/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...issions-07542/ Attachment 12205 Attachment 12206 Attachment 12207 A5. KENYA JAN 2010/CAMBODIA JAN 2014/ADD/Z-9WA/USE CHINESE UNIT 490//The Chinese Z-9 is licensed built by Harbin Aircraft (HAMC) from the French Aerospatiale (Eurocopter.) AS 365N/DAUPHIN II helicopter. Kenya was the first export customer for the Z-9WA. This helicopter represents a reasonable balance in transport and attack capabilities, which is why this helicopter is finding and filling a niche in both the African and Asian markets. The previous version of the Z-9WA has been exported to the game countries of Laos and Pakistan. The one thing in common with these export customers is they all have unrest within and near their borders. http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/helicopter/z9.asp http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/...ifications.asp http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htp.../20100115.aspx http://www.9abc.net/archives/15281 http://www.kenyacentral.com/general/...d-afmadow.html (See sentence just above picture on left mid article.) http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...7JM0XI20110822 http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...-Cambodia.html http://www.khmernews.com/view/air-fo...s-in-2013/5124 http://www.phnompenhpost.com/2012122...dia-bound.html A6. IRAQ JAN 2006/CHINA JAN 2009/AFGANISTAN DEC 2010/INDIA JAN 2012/C3 P36/ADD/Mi-17-V5/USE RUSSIAN UNIT 355 AS MODIFIED BELOW//This helicopter is the export version of the Russian Mi-8MTV5 and each represents the most advanced version of the type now flown. This version is nick named the “NIGHT NOCH” or Night Owl and was designed to fully support both day and night operations under all weather conditions and operate at higher altitudes and terrain. This is why the U.S. bought these helos for both Iraq and Afghanistan. C1. RUSSIA/Mi-8MTV-5/UNIT 355/CHANGE/START DATE TO JAN 2000/INCREASE SPEED/10% GRATIS/EW 5/TI/GSR 40//As pointed out above these are the most advanced version of the Mi-8/Mi-17 helos. The current start date reflects the time the helo was still in final development and on the air show circuit. The major changes this model(s) received over previous ones are a all new digital cockpit giving this helo full night and all weather flight capabilities. An armored cockpit with all electrical and fluid systems similarly protected. New engines which allowed for high altitude ops, increased lift capabilities along with speed. A newer version is being tested now with newer more powerful engines. Refs cover A6 and C1. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mi8-17-hip/ http://www.mi-helicopter.ru/eng/index.php?id=254 http://www.army-technology.com/news/...-in-july-2012/ http://www.defpro.com/news/details/29594/ http://www.defpro.com/news/details/32530/ C2. USMC/MV-22/UNIT 599/CHANGE/End Date to JUN 2009/ADD M240G 7.62mm Rds UKN./As it operates as a helo it was given the MG noted for ground suppression as most helos have. Designed to swing out from the bulkhead into firing position on approach and take off. See below refs. C3. USMC/MV-22/UNIT 650/CHANGE/Dates to JAN 2009 - DEC 2020/ADD BAE GAU-17 7.62mm Minigun Rds UKN & Maintain current .50 cal./This is an auto retractable ball turret, mounted @ the bottom of the fuselage centerline. It has an integrated FCS to include advanced FLIR and target optic systems which are RO by a crew member operated "game system" and in the cockpit as well, as one of the videos show a FLIR target screen in there. This will cause an increase in vision to about 30 minimum I would think. This is in addition to the rear ramp MG already carried on board this unit which was mounted about this same time. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/ http://www.military-today.com/helico..._22_osprey.htm http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-cv-22s-04618/ http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22480/ Attachment 12208 C4. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 322 & 323/CHANGE Dates to SEP 2008 – DEC 2010/HS to 3 vice 0/ADD TI/GSR 40./UNIT 322 replace APKWS II ASM with HYDRA 70./The UH-1Y and AH-1Z share a commonality of parts at about 85% to reduce maintenance costs. With the advanced FLIR and BRITE Star TI systems onboard and the fact that they did not go operational until the date shown, these units should have the same TI/GSR of UNITS 320& 321. Also of note the rotors and engine housing area has the same protection against 23mm rounds as the AH-1Z (See UNIT 172.) as noted in the refs. Ref #2 has good replacement photos for UNITS 320 - 323 vice the current shown UH-1N. C5. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/CHANGE HS to 3 vice 0 as noted above./UNIT 320 replace 50 cal M2HB with GAU-21 50 cal./UNIT 321 replace HYDRA 70 with APKWS II ASM/The CORPS was “all in” by this time with the APKWS II ASM. See refs 7-10 below concerning GAU-21 50cal with Night Sights. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...program-03541/ http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Chronol...early/2008.htm http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/uh1y-huey/ http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...ty-helicopter/ http://somd.com/news/headlines/2006/4123.shtml http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index..../story_ID/9574 http://www.asdnews.com/news/30989/GA...with_UH-1Y.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0109-mcn01.htm http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...gau21_010410w/ http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M3M_MG.htm http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=11442 http://www.deagel.com/news/Upgraded-...000009578.aspx http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/ This last ref provides an outdate on the APKWS II ASM with the new Mk 152 warhead that will also be used on the HARRIER and A-10besides the USMC helos, to be fielded in 2012. C6. SOUTH AFRICA/ROOIVALK/UNITS 189, 190 and 899 - 902/CHANGE End Date to NOV 2009./This helo is very advanced featuring 4th Gen integrated image intensifier and FLIR systems, TopOwl sight display for integrated weapons system control. This helo is considered “stealthy” even by today’s standards. All the areas thus covered and in the refs were improved upon with the Mk I below but, the problem wasn’t with the design capabilities of the ROOIVALK but in the unreliability of it’s engines (Primarily with the gear box.), safety (5 helos lost to accidents/crashes.), high cost of maintenance, obsolescence of ground support equipment and facilities and budget woes to the point that the ROOIVALK was put into storage. This was an embarrassment to the military and government which hoped to showcase this helo at the World Cup in the hopes of generating international sales. The only question I have here is should the TI/GSR be improved for the above units? Also note that the last two refs deal with the Non MK I ROOIVALK. http://www.defpro.com/news/details/18049/ http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-ah2-rooivalk/ http://www.military-today.com/helico...2_rooivalk.htm C7. USA/AH-64A APACHE/UNITS 907 & 935/CHANGE End Date to JUL 2012/All USA AH-64A models have now either been sold off or have been RESET to the AH-64D BLK II model. In service since 1985 this model has had a very successful run from the start of its career during the Cold War to the present. Amongst others, it was a game changer in land warfare and played its part in changing the Soviet mindset to more defensive tactics during the 1980’s. The last sixteen units to be converted belonged to the National Guard and where flown to the Boeing Mesa AZ. Plant in May 2012 for conversion. http://asc.army.mil/web/access-army-...he-helicopter/ http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=8737045 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...uration-02972/ (See the Contracts and Key Events section in above ref Sep 25/12 and Jan 11/12 entries.) http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...he-helicopter/ http://www.military-today.com/helico...64a_apache.htm C8. USA/MH-47/UNIT 293/Change name to MH-47E/Change End Date to JAN 2010/ADD to USMC OOB/See A3 above to include refs.//First change to simplify any future info that might cause a change to that particular helo. Second allows for the last couple of helos to be removed from service and prepped for the SLEP (RESET) Program and flight evaluations before being turned over to SOCOM as noted above on MAR 4, 2011. Third the “ADD“ allows the Player and AI ready access to the MH helos that would in reality be used by the USN SEALS, Special Boat Unit and to a somewhat lesser degree USMC MARSOC units such as Force Recon/Sniper/or Sniper Recon/DAP etc. where Marine/Naval air units are not available. Covered in related refs above. D1. EAST GERMANY (DDR)/DELETE/Mi-24W/UNITS 125 & 907//The DDR LSK/LV never operated this variant of the Mi-24. The LSK/LV only operated the MI-24D/P models of this attack helicopter. D2. GERMANY/DELETE/Mi-8T/UNIT 327.//These helos were either sold off or scrapped. It should be pointed out here that the only East German piece of military equipment to see active service in Germany after reunification was the MIG-29. This is to include the “rumored” use of the T-62 (See MBT Thread Post #238.) or the Mi-24P of which You Tube and others show flying in Luftwaffe colors (See Jets and Planes but… Thread Post #96.) during test and evaluation flights ONLY. Except as noted East German equipment over time met the same fate as these Mi-8T helos. Many thanks again to GORDON and LTCol. Stefan Petersen Luftwaffe Reserve and EUROFIGHTER Pilot extraordinaire. This is it, I'll post pictures in a couple of days. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
C3. USMC/MV-22/UNIT 650/CHANGE/Dates to JAN 2009 - DEC 2020/ADD BAE GAU-17 7.62mm Minigun Rds UKN & Maintain current .50 cal.
It's NOT a GAU-17 (that's the 5.56mm version) but the GAU-19 (the 50cal version) that the USMC uses, no clue about the USAF. C4. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 322 & 323/CHANGE Dates to SEP 2008 – DEC 2010/HS to 3 vice 0/ADD TI/GSR 40./UNIT 322 replace APKWS II ASM with HYDRA 70. As a general rule the UH-1 will use "left over" rockets (in this case Hydra 70's) while the AH-1's use whatever is the latest and greatest. C5. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/CHANGE HS to 3 vice 0 as noted above./UNIT 320 replace 50 cal M2HB with GAU-21 50 cal. Currently WinSPMBT doesn't model the GAU-21, a GAU-19 can be used. |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Well I don't understand the confusion with the refs already provided concerning "C3" in the Helo Patch Post over what the GAU-17 is and that it was chosen for use by both the USMC, USAF and more importantly SOCOM for the use on board the OSPREY. SO MORE REFS ARE PROVIDEVED. The CNET ref does mention that the GAU-19 was "once contemplated". As the GAU-17 3 barreled 7.62mm ball turret already came in at 800lbs, I'm sure it was a major factor in it be chosen over the GAU-19 50 Cal. "Mini Gun" and I suspect flight issues were a concern as well. Again as submitted it still maintains it's ramp mounted 50 Cal. and I'm also convinced after this exercise, that the TI/GSR should be at 40 now as well.
http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/200...ing_s6_p2.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-9946496-42.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-systems01.htm http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/prod...eet_65220.html Now I shall let the Flu continue to KMA. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Why do not add full armed MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B) in WinSPMBT? The UAV in the game are not well represented.. it can carry up to 14 Hellfires!
|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
That's on my list to investigate....and one of the things to look at is the size. The Predator is no size zero UAV |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
I promised myself I wouldn't get involved with this years ago when I came here, I have enough on my plate already so let's consider this a "Baton" for someone. i like them and we are way behind on this piece of gear as many third world countries in the game currently are using them in the real world. So I hope this helps with the immediate question at hand. There are 52 of this type of equipment addressed on this site. What I like about these guys are they list country users with dates they got them much like the Army version of this site. I've used both for refs regularly and they are GOOD. On the weapons side REAPER up to 4 HELLFIRE II Missiles with either two GBU-12 or EGBU-12 Laser Guided Bombs AND a 500lb. GBU-38 JDAM or a 800lb. payload. Other weapons configurations are listed as well. Dimensions are noted as well. Good reading with regular updates on thier articles.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p.../predator-uav/ Gotta go before I get in trouble!! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
I've already dealt with the Reaper and it's now in the game with the correct payload which BTW, can be up to 14 Hellfires when you leave the bombs at home. At 615 points, it's not cheap
As for UAV's in general...... I am not loading up the OOB's with every type available. The ones that just look around are "good enough" as a generic "UAV". EDIT- your link does not work. I tried three time and got "404 Error: File not found" every time Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Looks like the link is correct, but the site is broken.
About half the articles are missing, including the entire UAV category. |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
When you get the 404 ERROR and read the sentence below it click on "Industry Projects" then look for "By Category" section middle of the page, the UAV family is at the bottom of the list. Just did that 3 times and it works. They might be updating articles or maintaining the site not unusual for these guys mostly happens around 1am EST but can happen at other times. Now it appears you can't link to any of the individual "projects" so go back to the bold and you'll just have to be patient. It will come back. ;) And can I now respectfully request that we get back to the purpose of this thread of why it's here and who it's for see Post #1. Thank You!!
Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
Regards luigim |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Yes, that's what " it's now in the game " means
|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
Yes, probably, it's working OK now |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
It's the below ref item to work which will obviously affect the USA as well and will require more research on the USA side though I already possess some info on the AH-64E (The most advanced helo flying.) or the Tank Patch we discussed via PM. Might be able to do both but no promises to meet the deadline you gave me. The ref is from Heli Hub that vetted (The ref.) and reports that Taiwan will get the AH-64E (This is the APACHE Block III for some others who don't follow Helo news.) in OCT. 2013. have seen reports on this already and the crews/ground support are already training here. I have posted news on this in the HELO Thread. The source is good and it would mean the USA is further along then I thought. Point the way and I'll go down the road you want, it doesn't matter to me. http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNe...D=201301120021 http://helihub.com/ Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Pat, your source clearly says
Quote:
Therefore the "AH-64D Apache" in slot 916 is in fact an AH-64E and that has been corrected and one has now been added to the Taiwan OOB. What I value most in information is accuracy and brevity. Now, if I could find a "one stop shopping" list of autocannon ammo loads for every Attack Helo that uses them I'd be a really happy camper.... Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Yes I would concur about UNIT 916. I think though the EW rating should at least be 10, it is faster then any APACHE built previous to it and the TI/GSR again from the refs, I believe it will be higher as well. Will post it with the tank items we discussed earlier and you can or not "tweak it" as needed.Quick notes from the refs...
1. First USA Combat Squadron being stood up now in JAN. 2013. 2. Nickname established as the AH-64E APACHE "GUARDIAN" so the UNIT 915 (And others of the type.) are the last of the "LONGBOW" helos. 3. This is neat, the FCS incorporates two sensors that will pick up small arms fire (Day/or Night) and auto slew (or manual tell the WO.) to engage the target(s). 4. From direct USA refs, during attack trials in an AA environment UNIT 915D suffered loses and none were lost by UNIT 916E. Taiwan... 1. Is training on their own AH-64E helo(s) (Some say they have 2 now, will have 6 min. by OCT. 2013.) 2. Getting these as a compromise for getting the Blk 50/52 F-16. Will be armed as UNIT 916 but I don't think in the improved version I'm suggesting above except in the speed category. Something to consider. Off to work. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Yeah I had already changed the EW and speed to match the spec in that article. TI/GSR stays at 60 for now. We don't need to get too carried away.
|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
PLEASE, PLEASE folks and any future visitors read POST #1, I would personally appreciate that. May I suggust the MBT or SPA/SPAA Threads or a new one? Thank You again, this is a working Thread to discuss new equipment for the Patches I submit for the game to give Andy and more Don a chance to discuss them as NOT to waste their and my time etc. in submission of equipment. If you've noticed I don't specialize in a country or region when submitting equipment thus it has and can cause issues to arise outside the normal "Can we enter X Tank because of..." concerns.
Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
Still had the UK HUSKY Recon/Scout Light MRAP on my list. I believe from my notes I had to provide evidence of it's combat use etc. and I thought you replied that you started some work on it. A little beat to crap right now and getting ready for bed :yield: after organizing my "crib notes" and refs after work tonight for the final push on the last handful of tank items to be posted with the rest by Monday afternoon at latest. My notes referenced Posts #109 and #110 of the MRAP Thread for HUSKY. Whenever is good for you just let me know if you need any further info or if I need to "Tail End Charlie" the HUSKY with the MBT list. Thanks for your patience and the extra time!! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
5 Attachment(s)
Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013. The first two items “real” purpose will be to provide a litmus test of real world technology meets game play realities. I can only provide the raw data and offer my interpretations of the information. Helo A7 and MBT A1 are there because they’re real and a decision will have to be made by Don and Andy in what direction this info will ultimately take the game in as the end date approaches. It is out of my hands but, we have arrived at a crossroads. What’s not here that some maybe expected? Yes you might be right if you guessed the Russian T-90AM/MS (Export version.). Why? Simply I have data and stats of all sorts, what I don’t have are production and acquisition dates for anyone including the Russians. So it’ll wait and hopefully I’ll get that info later this year. I will not throw a “Hail Mary” and enter it hoping I’ll be close to getting it right (or wrong.) there’s been too much of that already here by others in the past. Also the SAA OLIFANT now there’s a project and that’s why ~30 minutes ago I thought this can wait until next years campaign as well. Again I traveled the world and saw nothing now how does that happen!?! And please remember Post #1 for all others. Thank You!
Helos Cont… A7. USA JAN 2013/TAIWAN OCT 2013/ADD/APACHE AH-64E GUARDIAN/Use UNIT 916/EW 10 or 12/TI/GSR 60-80/Speed 10-15%+// Well to say this is the most advanced AH out there would be an understatement, it is a game changer in the real world and in the end probably in the game upon further evaluation of the information provided. If not now (TI/GSR) later as more information comes to light. I start with quotes concerning the performance of the AH-64E over the AH-64D from ref. 3 Col. Shane Openshaw APACHE Project Manager, "I had the opportunity to fly a Block III Apache a week ago and I will tell you the performance of the aircraft is tremendous," Openshaw said. "It's fast, strong and capable. We have also made improvements to the target acquisition platform. The backbone of the aircraft is an open-system architecture with improved mission command and interoperability." Also from Ref. 4 (It also address foreign sales most importantly Taiwan.), During testing last year, operators in the E model were able to counter realistic air defense threats in demonstrations at Naval Air Station China Lake, Calif., says Col. John Lynch, attack helicopter manager at Army Training and Doctrine Command. He says the helicopters were able to maintain their positions and maneuver as needed and had power margin while the Block II Apaches were “shot down” in similar exercises. “The Block III absolutely frustrated these folks that operate these [air defense] systems,” he says. The added power is due in part to improved composite main rotor blades that are six inches longer and feature a new tip design for improved aerodynamic performance as well as improved General Electric T700-GE-701D engines, Koopersmith says. The first ref. as most know by now found out (About the site.) will be in subscriber and or outdate phase still by time this is posted. But once available will be an outstanding source concerning the AH-64E. The last ref. is useful as a check of countries that fly the AH-64A/D models. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-signed-02480/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...o-come-380875/ http://www.defpro.com/news/details/26074/ http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34196/ http://www.army.mil/article/77128/Ap...well_in_tests/ http://www.army.mil/article/90221/Up...or_production/ http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...roduction.html http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....-01-511015.xml http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/post_1023.html http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...-now-guardian/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ization-04250/ http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/new...php?id=2120011 http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/n...che-attack.htm http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/mil...h64d/index.htm BONUS Read: http://www.army-technology.com/featu...k-helicopters/ Pics: For Turkey T-129 Kenya/Cambodia Z-9 AH Attachment 12396 Attachment 12398 France/Brazil/Malaysia/Indonesia/Thailand EC 725 Attachment 12397 MBT’s… A1. USA/ADD/JAN 2012/M1A2 SEP V2/USE/MODIFY UNIT # with CROWS II .50 CAL/TI/GSR 50-70.// The Army is currently operating with only three types of ABRAMS tanks. These are the M1A1 SA (These are the ones IRAQ is using.) models used by the Army Reserve and National Guard, the M1A2 SEP and now the M1A2 SEP V2. The “heart” of the V2 is the complete redesign of the new FCS and associated systems. There are engine and associated system upgrades as well more to efficiency and improved maintenance capabilities. Not clear as to any improvement in speed though, which is probably fine as is. The CROWS II system carries 5 times more ammo then previous machine gun systems carried of the .50 Cal class. These tanks are projected to be operational until 2050. The issue here will be “how far” so I’ll start with a quote from Commander of the 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 63rd Armor Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Henderson off Ref. 1 below …"The optics [system] has finally caught up with the ammunition," Henderson added. And…"The ammunition has always been able to kill at extended ranges but the previous optics did not allow us, in some cases, to positively identify targets beyond 3,000m." The new FCS now does this but, more on that below. All associated systems will need to be improved from FC, LRF (?) & STAB. The current BRADLEY’s have the same system as well, there is a new variant with the “BUSK” pkg I’ll submit next year to include this FCS pkg. The minimum from the quote above puts the game range at 60+ the maximum based on a couple articles I’ve read would take this out to 4500yds or 4115.800m which = 82.296 hexes. The article in ref 1 does mention 4000yds as well. I’m more concerned with the “positively identify targets beyond 3,000m.” part, I feel the time has come and we can’t ignore the reality of this situation. This will be the “MERKVA 4b” crossroads point of when that was advanced to TI/GSR 50 awhile back. Reference two will address the new M829E4 Kinetic Round that will push the “Vision” that I believe is already there now out to the 70+/- range, then what do we do? http://www.army-technology.com/news/...aded-vehicles/ http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...ts/SA_0911.pdf http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2430.html http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/ A2. TANZANIA/ADD/OCT 2012/TYPE 59G/RESET/MG Chinese 125mm SB w/Rds UKN/12.7mm and 7.62mm w/Rds UKN// The tanks were shipped to China and RESET and during that time China has set maintenance facilities in Tanzania to support these tanks and other Chinese weapons systems bought there. The TYPE 59G represents the apex of the TYPE 59 development. The 125mm MG with auto loader is based on the Russian 2A46M 125mm MG. The turret appears to be the same one that’s on the new Chinese TYPE 96G. Based on that it would appear then also it is carrying the same EW system as the TYPE 96 which is similar to the Russian Shtora-1. It has been up armored with a new and heavier turret to support the MG, electronic and electrical systems have also been updated to include a new FCS and it also supposedly received new more powerful engines to provide the power needed for all the new systems onboard and the AC required to keep them cool. AC in tanks is just like AC in Subs, its there for the electronics first and crew comfort hopefully in a close second. This is probably true as the original engines would have problems in this area and in dealing with the extra weight and the need for additional speed as well. Note: It would appear this improved version of the Chinese TYPE 96 is not in the OOB as shown in Ref. 6 below. See UNIT 026. The refs refer to “the new TYPE 96”. http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rica&Itemid=55 http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...9g_271211.html http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59.asp http://www.armyrecognition.com/china..._pictures.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/china...igence_uk.html A3. SWEDEN/ADD/OCT 2004/STRV 122B/Use UNIT 358 and modify per below as needed// The big issue here is protection over the base German Leopard tanks that the STRV-122A and STRV-122B design modifications are derived from. First a breakdown of the STRV Series. The STRV-121 is a Leopard 2A4 as used by Germany at the time of purchase by Sweden in 1994 and 1995 they are both interchangeable. The first STRV-121 became operational in Feb 1994 and are in storage dates range from late 2006 TO 2010. Ref. 1 does not currently list them, see C1 below. The STRV-122A is a “German” Leopard 2A5 but that’s where the comparison ends. The Swedes had the STRV-122 frontal and side armor improved upon by adding a 3rd Generation add on armor to include glacial armor and the turret and spall liner installed. The major area in armor improvement was in the top protection for instance the turret hatches are just over 20cm in thickness. After extensive testing the Swedes decided on a geared system for opening them at even severe angles. Another major upgrade is the replacement of standard German smoke grenade launchers with the Gallix System. The Gallix System is essentially a soft-kill active defense system with a few extra wrinkles. The system uses nine grenade launcher tubes on either side of the turret, both of which can be rotated from +45 degrees to -5 degrees, independently of each other. (Standard elevation is 30 degrees, if none other is selected.) The Gallix System also includes sensors atop the turret to detect and warn of incoming targeting lasers and active IR targeting systems. The system can be set to launch one or more smoke grenades (either standard smoke or IR-obscuring smoke) automatically if lasers or IR targeting is detected, or the commander can choose to launch them at his command. Any of the grenade tubes can also be loaded with antipersonnel close-defense grenades (similar to the tactical buckshot or flechette rounds of grenade launchers); these must be fired by the commander (there is no provision for automatic firing of these grenades). Other types of grenades that can be used in the Gallix System include HE-Blast grenades and fragmentation grenades; again, these must be fired deliberately by the commander. They became operational in late 1997. See C1 below. The STRV-122B has been further upgraded in a joint project with Germany and later the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. After extensive testing by the Swedes in the ability of the LEO to withstand IED and advanced RPG attacks. KMW did the work resulting in the German LEO 2A6M (30 modified with 20 to be later leased by Canada to support their Afghan Ops.) and STRV-122B (14 modified at this time.). Out of this project came additional improvements such as an armor plate on the bottom/lower front (See pic below.) for increased protection against IEDs, all around add armor, new improved spall liner throughout the interior, an improved vision system by better protecting the vision heads, vision blocks, rear camera, and the laser designator apertures, and improved better protected ammo storage as well. Per Ref. 1 the EVO package will be on the MBT 122B+ (Sounds like LEOPARD 2A7+ doesn’t it?). Note Ref. 1below is an official Swedish Defense source. Tank issues start on page 14. http://ointres.se/2012-02-21_Lindstrom_IAV%202012.pdf http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/ http://www.haaland.info/armour/index...-stridsvagn122 http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=457 http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35969/ http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_...d_0706121.html http://pmulcahy.100megs3.com/tanks/swedish_tanks.html Pic: Attachment 12399 A4. INDONESIA/ADD/JAN 2013/LEOPARD 2A6/Refurbished/Use GERMAN UNIT 033// I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time here. I’ve posted on this tank deal for over a year or so already in the MBT Thread. Made some allowance for further training and logistics concerning the start date. Basically this was part of a move to better defend the country against the expansion of the Chinese military and the perceived threat it might have on the region and some local issues. This tank deal was started with the Dutch shortly after they took their LEO’s out of service and decommissioned their heavy armored units. See pg. 7 POST #65 C4 of this Thread. Anyway the Dutch parliament had issues over the (MOD and heads of Government supported the sale.) sale due to the Human Rights issues surrounding Indonesia. Indonesia had already evaluated several tanks and wanted the LEO’s and Germany stepped in ready to sell and support them once in country. The decision as I posted in the RE: SWEDISH Thread was easy in that the current LEO 2A6 was too advanced and expensive. Which left me with several options of which German UNIT 033 the best sense by date of service, time in storage and cost per unit based on the deal made and units ordered initially (Currently the order was increased to 103-105 units depending on source.) I further removed UNITS 034 and 035 for the same reasons as the current active German units. We will never know which one they got for sure without the release of specific contract information. I could only review the “calculus” of the information at hand and previous deals made to come to this conclusion. Part of the reason the Germans allowed for more tanks is the final negotiation of contract talks for the sell of MARDER 1A3 APCs in the last ref below but that’s for next year along with many other APC items I have. So much for brevity…anyway here are the refs in historical order...sort of. http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1612112.html http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/172/1256722/ http://www.army-technology.com/news/...2a6-mbts-deal/ http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/07/...-german-tanks/ http://www.defensie.nl/english/lates...ds_with_a_bang http://www.army-technology.com/news/news120180.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...r_1003121.html http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56 http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...y_1409124.html C1. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-121/UNITS 357 & 358/End Date to DEC 2010/ Refs per A3 above.// The STRV-121 had for several years faced inactivation due economic strains in the country after the STRV-122A became operational. I have been unable to find any information that any have been sold off at this time though, due to the current time crunch I’m under to get this out, I haven’t spent any time to dig hard on that issue. They are however without a doubt out of service and I feel pending better information and as per Ref 1 of A3 above feel comfortable with this information. C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-122/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/Change to STRV-122A/Modify per A3 above/Refs per A3 above.// Most of the STRV-122 units are to be upgraded by the end of this year. It is unclear but likely they will include many of the changes made to the STRV-122B. It is “rumored” to be getting a new FCS as well which is why (If I remember correctly.) it’s on my list for the tank TI/GSR improvement over current game numbers as posted in the MBT Thread. C3. IRAN/CHANGE/ZULFIFAR/UNIT 030/ZOLFIGAR 1// C4. IRAN/CHANGE/ZULFIFAR 2/UNIT 032/ZOLFIGAR 3// The army recognition site reposted all the info they had on these tanks. Normally these do this when they have gotten more information on a piece of equipment. With Iran being one of the more secretive countries we deal with (N. Korea comes to mind as well.) you have to take advantage of any information that might come to light in this case, for these tanks. The ZOLFAGAR 2 is in the game and should be modified per C4 above. The ZOLFAGAR 2 is a prototype test bed that leads to the development of the ZOLFAGAR 3. Only 2 to 4 depending on source are known to exist and are extensively used in military parades to show off Iran’s technical prowess. Everything else I’ve gleamed from this is that 1) Seems to be new info on the ZOLFAGAR 1 FCS and 2) Iran is equipping the ZOLFAGER 3 with a new FCS. I don’t think we’re talking TI/GSR as much as an improvement in the other FCS factors we use. Of course this would mean an additional UNIT to be added, but I’m not quite sure of that for now. Maybe you’ll see something in the refs to change your mind however given your normal work load and what I’m dumping on you, this should have the lowest priority from this list and could wait until next year if needs be. http://www.army-technology.com/proje...rmainbattleta/ http://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_...res_video.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_...res_video.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...s_0809121.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...k_0402134.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...l_1204121.html http://www.military-today.com/tanks/zulfiqar_1.htm http://www.military-today.com/tanks/zulfiqar_3.htm C5. THAILAND/CHANGE/OPLOT/UNIT 019/CHANGE DATE to JUN 2013//We swaged the last date as well however it wasn’t enough to overcome some contract then finally some production delays caused by 40 customer requested modifications to their OPLOT tanks. A revised May delivery date is set. This should fix it. Also you can DELETE UNIT 999 they are defiantly getting the OPLOT base tank and not the OPLOT-M. http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua...d_0501121.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua...d_0701131.html APC Development… R1. ADD/RUSSIA/JAN 2010/BTR-82/C3 P7 Both/TI/GSR 50 (3Km) Both/Weapons Turreted 14.5mm w/500Rds and coupled coaxial 7.62mm w/2K Rds/6 Smoke Dispensers and EW Both/BTR-82A/Weapons 2A72 30mm cannon w/500Rds and coupled coaxial 7.62mm w/2K Rds//These are Russia's most advanced APCs. It will replace the BTR-70/80 series APCs. It is supposed to be fully amphibious. The 30mm ammo of the BTR-82A is supposedly a high density ramjet type projectile to allow it to inflict greater damage on targets. I keep coming up with 500 Rds for the 30mm on the NET. Sounds almost like the UK/French case mounted 40mm round of the FRES. Better armor protection then any BTR-80 variant. Protection to the level of the BTR-90M for armor? http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...res_video.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html http://www.deagel.com/Wheeled-Armore...000348008.aspx Pic: Attachment 12400 Sorry internet connection got loose and had to redo everything again. Just another case of :pc: !! Thanks for the opportunity and extra time Don. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
About IRAN C3 & C4, meant to change the spelling back to what's in the game, just really the numbers need to added and or changed. It appears either spelling is acceptable depending on the source refs. Sorry! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
That would be correct...sorry. It should have read...
C1. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-121/UNITS 357 & 359/End Date to DEC 2010/ Refs per A3 above.// Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
1 Attachment(s)
Don,
Concerning the MBT PP ITEM A1. Forgot to input a UNIT number for you to use/modify. Was thinking you could use UNIT 637 modify it to maybe save a slot. It's listed as an Obsolete Tank, however I can't remember if those type units served a purpose or not? Armor would have to be brought up to the levels of UNITS 318 & 649. I'll present it below to cut and paste it later when I transfer this info to the MBT Thread later if you use it. A1. USA/ADD/JAN 2012/M1A2 SEP V2/USE/MODIFY UNIT #637 with CROWS II .50 CAL/TI/GSR 50-70.// Also the refs indicated that all other current SEP tanks would be designated as the M1A2 SEP V1. This will make it easier to identify any future upgrades to these tanks without taking them to the M1A2 SEP V2 standard. I can only find 2 other SEP tanks that are in game use currently as of JAN 2012. So... C2. USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP/UNITS 318 & 649/Change to M1A2 SEP V1//Per Refs provided for A1. above. More concerned with active service at the time the SEP V2 got fielded then you having to add two more of the SAME tanks in the OOB for a needed name change. Pic: Attachment 12401 Sorry I missed this last night :doh: !! But my heads clearer now... I had a good day today concerning the eye, get'em checked folks!?! ;) Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
First I know I didn't give you much lead time this year and from what I've seen and predicted earlier last year came to pass in that both Andy and you would be busy with some of the more technical aspects of the game. So with that in mind, first I want to address the TI/GSR issue because I AM CONFIDENT that one or two people out there are wondering what might my reaction be for the AH-64E and M1A2 SEP V2, well none really, when submitting equipment I'm the "defence lawyer" for it I've dug up the evidence the best I can and "interviewed" people (THOSE DARN....(Enough dots.) FRENCH 105mm howitzers come to mind right about now.) also in some cases. But I also understand their are mitigating circumstances (Playability etc.) involved and secondly their are other aspects of a piece of equipment that can be increased as well. So to the AH-64E and M1A2 SEP V2 I'm happy with the result overall. They served my stated purpose in the inputs to set the "benchmark" for the equipment I'm going to submit for the 2013/2014 campaign regarding TOW ITAS and SNIPER, LITENING and other similar targeting pods for both jets and planes to a lesser degree.
TO ANDY, DON, SUHIIR and anyone else you all did a fine job last/this year and I thank you all. However I know Don was scrambling at the end so though I'm the one that normally gets caught in these issues...Don would you like me to post my review of the items I found from what I submitted here or hold off until I submit my inputs for next year? They a are few and mostly date and other minor issues. Look at the bright side no smileys in the text!?! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Later..... try September
|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
I fully understand as I see my "smaller" plate half full already and I've been following the "post release" posts closely. As I've said a job well done to everyone! And after the news of the day I certainly don't want to seem critical which would not have been my intent anyway. So for the forum/game world I'll focus on some positives below... HELOS UK PUMA HC2, FRANCE and others for SUPER COUGAR, RUSSIA Mi-8MTV and IRAQ and others Mi-17V5 all get TI/GSR 50 but the real winner was the USA UNIT 275 MH-47G. Though I asked for it's inclusion into the USMC OOB I can understand from a slot and real life issue why it wasn't put there, after all as pointed out in the PP and elsewhere the 160th SOAR Air Regiment is an Army unit assigned to SOCOM. So you SEAL users save those SUPPORT Points and keep it real and those guys safe!! Also Don did clarify UNIT 293 to positively identify it as a SOAR bird MH-47E. AH side the AH-64E looks great! But I was very happy to see the South African ROOIVALK's especially UNITS 895-897. MBTs All tanks submitted were entered and or changed (Helos also.) but of note Iran will be tougher now with the improved UNIT 032 ZOLFIGIR 3 based on newer info found on the complete series of these tanks. While looking at the new BTR-82 I noticed UNIT 090. Though I was going to ADD this tank as posted next year, Don couldn't wait yes the T-90AM UNIT 059 is in! What is of real importance here to me was the TI/GSR. You'll just have to go to the MBT Thread Posts #213-#215 and #227 (Note the Dates.) and do some checking. There are some new challengers out there now. This highlights the reasons for maintaining good notes. THANK YOU Don!! APCs/MRAPs New USA BRADLEY's as noted from the above Posts and elsewhere, UNITS 898/899 were a surprise also and look great! As do Russia's BTR-82/82A UNITS 060 & 207 respectively. And where I would've submitted it last year in the MRAP section, I forgot to add it after it was requested to be looked into. After doing that there was some debate of it getting in at all as it appeared to just be a utility vehicle. The task given was to find proof of it's use in combat, once done, Don added it to his work list for this patch as one of the first pieces of equipment to make his list. The UK got it's HUSKY TSV UNIT 060 and it looks GREAT. That's the second year in a row Dons done that concerning the UK for me. THANKS AGAIN! See the MRAP Thread Posts #104-113. I believe cbreedon started this on a separate HUSKY Thread. French OOB, SPA/SPAA and I believe one other Thread The French 105mm field guns I believe has come to a successful conclusion if not a reasonable compromise. May that PITA RIP in 12/96!?! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Hey Pat, here's something for you.
Confirm or deny this claim: "Uganda received 44 T-90SA in 2011 " http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product889.html claims 100 Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Saw this just before getting ready for work. I will tell you this is much like the issue I had with Ethiopia getting the T-90S if you remember from about 1 1/2 years ago. This is early and except for Greece have had no time for OOB checks. I can only confirm the following so far...
1. Not looking good for UPDF having the T-90S or T-90SA. Some sites question whether they even operate the T-72. I feel confident they do operate the T-72 but which one is my issue. 2. Can confirm they still operate the T-55 and T-62. Also strong evidence to support that most if not all of the T-55 tanks operated have been upgraded to the T-55AM by 2012. Start date sometime in late 2010 (Fall) to mid 2011. 3. A multitude of good sources speak of a sell of the T-90S to Greece. However due to Greek finances the deal was reduced to a purchase of around 50 T-80 tanks. Neither is in the Greek OOB at this time. Just note it for now I'm not done here until above gets resolved. 4. Can only confirm that ALGERIA and possibly Venezuela (Does operate the T-90S.) operate the T-90SA. Again early in this process as well. There is some difference in the type but enough for game purposes is yet to be determined. 5. This is an update. T-72 tanks might have come from the UKRAINE which supposedly undercut the RUSSIANS. Had this and I might as well give it to you now. Note the date and last sentence. http://www.army-technology.com/news/...a-turkmenistan The above site (Yours) is good normally and one of the few to track contracts. Though I have one other that does as well. For others a lessons learned session... Issue with most sites is updating of their equipment libraries same sites will outstrip them on the news side of the house which is where they make their money, just something to keep in the back of your mind when basing decisions on one or two sites for equipment. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Never mind my feelings on the source, but how confident and for the sake of argument do Andy and you feel about SIPRI? Not giving you both anything as I want an unbiased assessment on the question and no I'm not playing any games here. I'm too tired for that and it's late and I need some sleep before another lovely day at work.
Thank you! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
No source is perfect though I would say Janes has the best reputaion in my mind. SIPRI is a suplimental source like a lot of sources.
Re Greece I thought that tank purchase fell through and the US was offering used M1's ? This is why we REALLY don't like to put things in the game until someone actually sees them rolling down the road. Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
HAVE TO HURRY!! Yes correct on Greece. Uganda looks like T-90S not T-90SA. Give me at least a day I'll post what I found on their site. Duty calls. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Well I owe everyone an answer regarding Dons question concerning Uganda and the T-90S.
First to clarify I made an error concerning them having the T-72, they don't (T-55AM-2 and T-62), I confused Uganda with Sudan. As some might remember within the last 4 months or less in the Sudan OOB Thread there was a discussion related to whom had the T-72 during the Sudanese Civil War of which I at the time used SIPRI source data. So again I turned to them as so very few Western sources concern themselves about African arms deals. I REALLY HATE TO HARP ON THIS SUBJECT BUT I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THIS IS WHY I NEVER LIKE TO SINGLE/DOUBLE SOURCE ANY EQUIPMENT ISSUES. Are there exceptions yes when a quick response is needed but, I always follow up with more UNLESS otherwise requested. In my mind I grade my sources i.e. SIPRI B+ why? Who are they? Where do they get their info from? Is their info consistent with my A sources to include Govt./or Military etc. over time? Do they provide industry real news items as their primary means of support with an equipment data (ED) base and how often do they report the news and update the ED?. And more. Bottom line I chose them carefully and don't pull them out of my "DONKEY" though some might think me one. It takes time and has it's costs as well. SIPRI is a very well respected "Think Tank" and embedded in Africa and do vet their outside sources as best as anyone can. So SIPRI says Uganda has 38/39 T-90S tanks. Along with Army-Guide and the related Army-Tech story already posted I believe they do have them. I took the time to randomly check some other transactions of equipment I submitted over the years and they are certainly "close enough for government work". Since I'm a fair and balanced guy see the refs below. And please read the intro, any legitimate site will tell where they got their data from and list their sources as well. That's why DEFPRO, Defense Industry Daily (DID) and Army-Tech I give an A+ to. A B source. http://www.deagel.com/equipment/r1a000369raw.htm Background http://www.sipri.org/about You can access database info on from here on armament transactions back to 1950 for all weapons or by type i.e. armor as above provided, arty, combat aircraft etc. http://www.sipri.org/databases SIPRI is on the rise with me before I had to search by article query now the database side I hope will make my life easier in bk checking on equipment status after it's in the game such as the OPLOT date change for Thailand by other sources as posted. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
For everyone else...
Refer to MBT Thread Posts #213-#215 Pg. 22 & #227 Pg. 24 (Concerning the Chinese TYPE 99.) Don, I know this is the start of your "downtime" so if nothing else just consider this a "tickler file" from me until you're ready to respond down the road. Poking around I noticed you took action on the tanks listed in those posts. My question pertains to the following tanks in regards to the TI/GSR... 1. CHALLENGER 2 from about 2006/2007 would've req. a new unit. No increase in TI/GSR or FCS/RR. 2. LEOPARD 2A7+ No increase in TI/GSR. The next two do "appear" to have increased FCS/LR numbers over last year but, I didn't record all of those numbers before loading Patch 7.0 (That's on me.) for all the tanks I listed in the above posts. 3. OPLOT-M unfortunately the manufacturer only lists the specs for the OPLOT and not the OPLOT-M which is not surprising as the OPLOT-M is not for export which we learned from the Thailand tank deal. 4. LECLERIC Wasn't expecting a TI/GSR increase here as noted, but again looks like the FCS/LR was increased, if it was it would have been warrented to do so as the FCS certainly would've supported it. Just asking if I need to provide further info for the next patch or not. NO HURRY AND OR WORRIES HERE/ENJOY LIFE A LITTLE BEFORE YOU FEEL THE NEED TO ANSWER THIS. BESIDES I'VE BEEN DIRECTED TO DO SO MYSELF IF YOU CATCH MY MEANING!?! THANKS!!! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
3/ OPLOT-M--no change from v6 4/ LECLERIC --no change from v6 Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
Thanks for getting back! I'll revisit this later in the year. First two will be easy. My headache will be how to deal with the following after I look into it further. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2593.html ATTICA I believe is what was installed on the LEO 2A7+ which is why it made my list. Again I'll need to verify this from my notes. For the last two I do feel good about the OPLOT-M but the LECLERIC might be moved into the "club" later as I'm seeing data concerning the, and please people going strictly by memory here for the name and spelling, the "CARINE" system. But now my need is for some sleep. Thanks again Don. Everyone have a good night/day!! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
The LECLERC newer FCS was IRIS put on the LECLEC T9 variant. See more in the MBT Thread.
Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
At your leisure only please, would like your thoughts on the following... 1. INDIA: ADD/MiG-29K/As you know this is the Russian Naval version. India just last month commissioned it's first INA Squadron. They will operate off the INS VIKRAMADITYA which Russia is due to deliver later this year, however as you know as well they could operate off any military airfield. Do you think it worth our time? 2. Tank vision issue...Are you willing to do 45 TI/GSR? Last I posted on FRANCE's LECLERC (FCS IRIS) and ITALY's ARIETE (FCS GALILEO) I felt reasonably sure that the newer versions of these tanks should have the 50 TI/GSR we've started to update in the last patch on some other tanks. The following are my main concerns right now, LECLERC is simply a ref. issue w/a 50/50 split on those that support 40 and those that support 50 in TI/GSR. ARIETE is to a lesser degree about refs. but more a technical one dealing with the FCS, specifically the ARIETE only uses components of the GALILEO system. In contrast the CENTAURO uses the full system which makes sense as part of it's intended mission is long range RECON/Surveillance and I'll be requesting the type to be bumped up to 50 TI/GSR in the next PP in this thread. The compromise is the only way I can reconcile these two tanks at this time. By the same token I do understand the possible future of the proverbial "opening of the flood gates". Thanks in advance! Also saw your last in the APC Thread. Just like you to put those two BRADLEYS together so I'd miss at least one. Well you gotta blame someone after all!?! ;) Have a great weekend! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
OK
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
Can the use of the dual purpose grenade launchers on the Swedish STRV-122/122B be activated in the last available weapons slot to fire off (In real life by the tank commander manually.) either buckshot/flecette, HE-blast or fragmentation grenades? This is a unique feature of the Gallix System dual purpose launchers installed on these tanks (And others.) which can be loaded internally. This does not go without precedence in the real world or game world in regards to the 60mm mortars carried on Israeli (MERKAVA 4b) and Turkish tanks (M-60T). We chose to have the LAHAT added instead for the latter two if you remember. As far as I can find out Sweden is the only country using those type of 80mm grenades of the ten or so that are available for use with these launchers. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
It would be similar to the Nahverteidigungswaffe ( NahVtdgW weapon 151 ) in the WW2 German OOB
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
Andy |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
As posted it is the GALIX Self Defence System. And yes it was first used by the French on the LECLERC MBT in JAN 1992. The next is taken from the first ref. below...
"Status Production. In service with France (Leclerc МВТ), Saudi Arabia (8x8 Piranha LAV), Italy (Ariete МВТ and Centauro (8 x 8) tank destroyer/armoured car), Sweden (CV 90 family and Strv 122 МВТ) and United Arab Emirates (Tropicalised Leclerc МВТ and variants)." Again I can only confirm (For now.) that the Swedes are using the weaponized grenades as noted in Post 143 above. This ref. would also "suggust" that the Swedish CV-90 would have the same defensive capibilities as afforded to the STRV-122/122B weapons slot permitting. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product719.html http://www.nexter-group.com/en/produ...ponent&print=1 If you give me the green light on these grenades, I can submit it with the changes I have to make on these tanks anyway. My confusion in how I submitted my info and then corrected it combined with your workload managed to screw up the STRV-121/122 issues submitted in the last patch. The STRV-122/122B would still retain it's defensive smoke (Anti-IR etc.) abilities, they are equipped with sixteen grenade launchers, with eight to a side by a row of six and below two off set aft of the center mark of the above row. Of course they are turret mounted. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Go ahead. If we can fit them it they should be there
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product719.html Quote:
The question now is what year where they installed on the non French vehicles |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
Thank you! Concerning launcher install dates and Grenade types...Sweden we know at least for the STRV-122/122B. The CV90 types should be cut and dry as well. And I don't think the others should be that difficult based on GALIX availability date vs armor availability dates for the units in question with the possible exception of the Italian ARIETE. And the other issue for the other countries did they go the same route as the Swedes in choice of grenades? Again except for the STRV-122/122B I can't confirm the use of those grenade type(s) on any other platform to include the Swedish CV90 types. Launcher verification installation is again I think easily done though. Also I've sat on this issue for awhile concerning the reorganization of Dutch artillery units that occurred this past January 2013. I need to get it to you now so you have the lead time if needed to act on this. The ref is straight from the Dutch MOD. http://www.defensie.nl/english/lates...id_combination These might be of some interest for game developers, though if you've paid attention over the last two years you'll have figured out these are pre May 2011 and then (-) the LEOs, pre Jan 2013. Don't wait too long though, they might actually decide to update the site!?! :rolleyes: http://www.defensie.nl/english/lates...ds_with_a_bang http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/...obile_brigade/ http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/...nised_brigade/ http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/...nised_brigade/ http://www.defensie.nl/english/army/...ommando_corps/ Note CV90-35NL ratio to the YPR-765 (M-113) should have increased over the last couple of years. If the time table holds the YPR-765 should be fully phased out by the end of this year. I'll wait for MOD to make that announcement before I take any action on it. Gotta hit the rack!! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
Hope you had a great weekend! CINCLANTHOME just wanted everyone to know she can "hang with the boys" as we both rode (30min.) in the turret of a fully restored original M8 across a field through the mud and puddles with mud in our faces and a little on our cloths in a light rain on 24 Aug before our ballgame that night. What amazed me is how fast it accelerated to it's top speed of 56mph. That was a good lead in to get you into the WWII frame of mind with item one below as it could cross over into both games if acted upon. So... 1) I just finished reading the final installment of Pulitzer Prize (For book one.) winning author Rick Ackinsons "Liberation Trilogy" in it he spent ~three full pages ( 458-462) of the Battle of the Bulge section discussing code name 'Posit" better known as the "VT" or "T-98" fuze. It's first use was in AA in the early 40's, then for the same purpose in the Pacific by the USS HELENA in Jan. 1943 to bring down a Japanese plane. For eighteen months the rounds with the fuze could only be used at sea or in friendly territory for fear of a dud falling into enemy hands. This fuze was the reason for the high degree of success it saw against the V-1 over London during the "second blitz and in Antwerp "...-British officials considered them up to five times more effective than time-fuzed rounds-...". SHAFE with approval of the "Charlie-Charlies" in the Fall of 1944got approval to supply U.S. artillery units with them on Christmas. HERBSTNEBEL changed that, IKE released them immediately to the 12th Army Group, just over 200,000 would be used a small faction of all rounds however, it would represent a 1/4 of all heavy rounds fired during the Battle of the Bulge (Mostly 155mm.). It used radio signals to detect the ground or other targets as well as the occassional Air AO if a shell came by to close. it would explode at 50 to 75 feet above ground and was highly effective against log re-enforced bunkers both in test and in battle as reported by both sides. A single 155mm airburst reportly could shred every square foot within a 75yd. diameter. Among a few such from both sides to include Patton himself, I end with the following for you to further consider this for the games...During tests in North Carolina a senior Army general was qouted "the most important new development in the ammunition field since the introduction of high explosive projectiles." The situation from the German prospective as reported bt one was "pure manslaughter," and "The devil himself could not escape." About the time of the battle 2 million fuzes a month would be produced at a cost of $20 each. If not addressed and it is decided to do so, recommend these be assigned to 155mm units only though AA units did have them in June 1944 to protect the Mulberries and later after the fall of Antwerp I cannot find any evidence to suggust they used them in the AA role anywhere else on the continent at least not until the Bulge but think January 1945 better. Taken all together in his "notes" section he sites almost a full page of military and other ref. sources (NOTES / 763 & 764.) 2) Are you ready for TARGETING pods? These are as prolific as the weapons carried on the planes. If allowed though in real life it would be well in excess of this number, thinking 80 vision a feel good number at least should be 60 "podless" for some planes to say we recognize this technology but also the improved air to ground electronics out there for the last few years. An example of this (And has to be added.) the South Korean F-15K(?) they got a couple of years ago and have chosen to order more of over the F-35 (ouch!) just recently. I would not try to add new units for the "major players" if it can be avoided it'll take longer but date changes just might work this could be for next year for most units however one or two would have to be addressed unless South Korea wouldn't be an issue. Why South Korea? Because in both deals every jet bought was equiped with a SNIPER Pod matched to it. 3) Russian UNIT 059 T-90AM the MG is correct as is the TI/GSR but, that gun is not the standard one mounted on the T-90 series it has been improved upon. I offer the same main ref. again of which others support the following, this taken from the armament section...Well it won't let me cut/paste so basically the changes made the techinical dispersion was reduced on average by 15% of all types of shells thus increasing the effective range of fire. I'm not sure if it matters here or not as I'm not sure how to quantify that range increase number. I'm sure the ~15% number above doesn't = to a ~15% increase in range. http://www.armyrecognition.com/index...k=view&id=5230 At your leisure-THANKS! Regards, Pat |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.