Re: MBT's
 

The more "near term" issue and something I was going to bring up a couple of years ago is I believe we should enter the current leased tanks in the Dutch OOB.

By the terms of the lease and a treaty that's in place the Dutch can use those tanks at any time for the defense of the Netherlands. Remember they are crewed by Dutch tankers. Given the times; this logically would make sense, and this is a wargame.

The Dutch realized not long after they got rid of their tanks that they had made a miscalculation, hence the lease deal with Germany.

Though initially the plan was for the Dutch to buy back those tanks from Germany and then donate them to the Ukraine, that didn't happen.

The Germans were hesitate about doing this because the Dutch have leased the most current version of the LEOPARD 2A6MA2.

What the Dutch and Denmark did was to order new LEOPARD 2A4 tanks too donate to the Ukraine instead.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...tanks-for-kyiv

Germany would send the Ukraine 16 slightly older versions of the LEOPARD 2A6 as I submitted and addressed for last year's submission.

SUMMARY:

NETHERLANDS/ADD/LEOPARD 2A6M2/START JUN 2018/END DEC 2025/COPY/GERMAN/LEOPARD 2A6M/UNIT 037. // By June 2018 the German/Dutch 44 Battalion would've been equipped with 40 tanks. The tanks they received were the LEOPARD 2A6M2 (Ref. 3 below.) . This same tank would serve as the "bridge" for the 2A7/2A7V. I believe they still operate these tanks presently but will need to verify this through my German sources. This is supported by the below refs.

Next in quotes from Ref. 1

"The Netherlands transferred to Germany the last 18 stored Dutch Leopard 2A6s. The Germans upgraded the tanks to the 2A7 standard then formed a new squadron under the German army’s Tank Battalion 414. A hundred Dutch soldiers joined the battalion, somewhat easing the German army’s manpower shortage.

The battalion is under German command but, in wartime, could support Dutch troops as part of a wider NATO operation. In effect, the Netherlands is leasing some of the tanks it once owned. "

The other 120 Dutch LEOPARD 2A6 tanks went to Finland I believe we made happen in the game.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=65d2ca4035f1
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/w...pean-army.html
https://www.army-technology.com/news...tanks/?cf-view

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

???

Pat.... did you look at the Netherlands OOB unit 038??

That is the exact same tank as "GERMAN/LEOPARD 2A6M/UNIT 037."

Only the start date is slightly different because I gave the Dutch the updated version because there was NO POINT not to

.......and it's the 414th not 44th

https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...needs-funding/

https://english.defensie.nl/organisa...anised-brigade

Re: MBT's
 

https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/...29181864595810

(video of FPV drone smoking up an abandoned T-54-3.)

Re: MBT's
 

ROTFLMAO

I'm not even surprised

I am NOT adding this as a new unit for this year. T-54-3 is already in the Russian OOB and if anyone wants one they can build a scenario with one easily enough

Re: MBT's
 

We just came out of a Navy wide 2-week exercise plus prep prior to it. Dec saw us involved in another one week one even more important than the above which rolls around every 2-3 years and is considered the "mother of them all" that involved 3 months of prep just about.

On that one we scored 100% in all areas (We're contract armed security along w/Bangor WA. there are no others left in the military we're pretty "niche".) and DON military/Civil Service Police scored a 95% that made us #1 in this cycle.

Best we've done but it all meant no "peace for the weary" and Spring Training Opening weekend this Sunday will be the cure.

So yes, I checked the OOB by nomenclature name (refs.) and visual check yesterday morning revealed it was right under the "NL" LEO's but when I posted it was "invisible".

To make matters worse I realized we discussed this about 2-3 years ago by my notes and noted it as "fixed". :doh:

It seems to have confirmed my decision (Early Nov.) NOT to submit any submissions this year for the next patch as I saw the direction work would take and my need for normalcy away from work.

Things were interesting enough last year and though all was resolved, and a lot was accomplished I didn't feel like going through that again and felt it might've gotten worse had I tried this year.

I respect the working relationship very much and I just prefer to keep it that way. What I have can wait.

I've sketched out my plan and I won't have the final piece of the puzzle until mid-March or so. And hope to post the results of my "research" sometime in Apr./May.

Sorry for the confusion; and I'm like a couple of my co-workers are just going to enjoy the "after-glow" of our 100% and results as just concluded.
https://www.usff.navy.mil/Exercises/...Solid-Curtain/

We worked hard for it over the last 5+ months and maintain our vigilance but to also decompress a notch or two.

Yes, I take my job seriously and I can assure you we don't get paid "Mall Cop" pay. ;) :p :D

And as I said that starts Sunday with my best friend in the Universe CINCLANTHOME.

Have a great weekend everyone!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

It might be worth adding this tip for scenario designers:

Go into the Scenario Editor:

Set your battle date to sometime modern (2022-2024):

Buy your initial Russian HQ + force; hit DONE.

Buy initial Ukrainian HQ and force; HIT DONE.

Spin the battle date back to 1955 or so (after selecting another nation for Ukraine).

Buy all the T-54A and T-54-3 (or obsolete kit) you need for your Special Military Operation Russians in 2024. Hit DONE.

Spin the battle date back to 2024 and select Ukrainians again.

You now got your obsolete units in the scenario (this trick only works for stuff built in the scenario editor though)

Re: MBT's
 

Another "trick" I use often is:

Even if your battle is intended to be a "Meeting engagement" or "Advance" you can switch it to an "Assault" if you want some, but not all of one side "dug in" or you want to add a few mines/dragons teeth/wire/etc. to one side or another. After you buy and deploy the mines etc. and/or deploy ONLY the units you want "dug in" switch it from "Assault" back to "Meeting" or "Advance".

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
Understand the "clock" is fast winding down but, this just came across reading my "Sunday Papers" it would appear the Ukrainians just very recently added "wire cage armor" to all of their CHALLENGER 2 tanks on the sides and lower half of the front hull.

Ref. has very good pictures of both. If reporting it now would think FEB. "probably" a good START month for them.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...n_threats.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

In game terms it adds nothing. It may make them feel safer though.

Slat in-game makes any armour it is placed on 35 HEAT protection and assumes that is more than what it was but the Chally already has more than that. Making the side heat 35 would be a 15 cm DOWNGRADE in protection

The only area it would benefit is the rear hull and that photo does not show it and the caption is "wire cage armor mounted on the sides of the hull." not the rear. Find me a photo of it across the back an I will make the rear hull 35. Even the early Challys had more Heat side armour than 35

Re: MBT's
 

I found your last very useful since I wasn't aware of the relationship between "slat" and HEAT armor in the game.

No worries then, that "slat" isn't mounted on the rear as I checked that against other sources because when I read the article, I found it strange they didn't mount it on the rear much like we dealt with on the T-55S last year ++ (Slat).

Added after posting.

Speaking of the T-55S the Russians appear to have a very effective precision 152mm round. The drone was "painting" the tank for the round but, it's the angle of attack that caught my attention.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...0ba084d28b4935

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Slat armour is designed to defeat RPG's and in game terms, it gives HEAT protection where in many cases there wasn't any HEAT protection before .....like an M113

The only thing that slat armour might do on a Chally is IMHO.. stop an RPG from messing up the Chobham which is a HELL of a lot more expensive and rare in Ukraine than steel slats which are almost a dime a dozen

So it does serve a purpose just not one the game covers.....cheap armour protecting the expensive and hard-to-replace armour

A secondary purpose of that slat might be as a place to stuff foliage for camouflage

ALSO look at any photo of slat on other vehicles.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...4uPGQ&usqp=CAU
https://www.warwheels.net/images/Mastiff3mod%20(1).jpg

There is a space/gap between the slat and the hull ( Like Schürzen in WW2 though it was there more to slow down AT rifle rounds)



. There is no gap on that photo of the Chally
https://www.armyrecognition.com/imag...ts_925_001.jpg

Re: MBT's
 

Wondered why they didn't "space" it on CHALENGER like they did on the T-55S (Though the gap isn't as much as some but, it's there. Most likely time constraints possibly.).

Good info-Thanks!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

The following is "off topic" but I thought it something different to offer a break from the ordinary and fill space while we await the patch.

What you'll see Fast Attack Submarines performing SINKEX's with MK-48 torpedoes and Harpoons including air launches of the Harpoon.

OSPREY Ops landing and takeoff from a Carrier (CVN-70 Carl Vinson).

Coastal USN interdiction vessel and the

USMC conducting training a "take down" of a vessel at sea.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/webc...28062fd&ei=168

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Well, this next makes me reminisce about our "long lost" N. Korean
resident expert Marcello who'll you'll find in this thread in the early stages of it concerning N. Korea and others.

So, N. Korea has unveiled an improved version of the M2020.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...14_armata.html

The new version has appeared in "counter wargames" to the one we just wrapped up with the S. Koreans I believe it was just this past week.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...peninsula.html

I've had a long day as it was time for my annual weapons qual.

For now, though I see a couple of issues of non-concern for the K1A2 or K2 tanks due to the fact that I agree with the above ref. that it looks like N. Korea built both the M2020 AND M2024 using rivets on the hull and at least the forward part of the turret.

The older method pre-dating WWII was to build them using the "cast method" more modern tanks currently use the "wielded method" as it's more efficient and stronger.

In WWI rivets were used but it wasn't a big deal since hardly anything was available to counter them. However, they were also used in ship building most famously on the Titanic.

Bottomline, you couldn't pay me enough to take either one into battle.

The below ref. will show this clearly in the top picture if you "blow it up". These tanks I feel are however probably more capable than their current fleet of tanks in service from what I can see so far.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ef814db&ei=33#

As a note of possible future concern is that their main tank factory has in the last 3-4 years or doubled in size.

I need some rack time so Good Whatever!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Pat

As usual, it's the middle of the night

Two things I need.

(1)Are these the "rivets" you spoke of ? ( Red arrow )

https://i.imgur.com/CUJxgFv.png

If yes that does not looks like it might be anything but add on spaced or NK composite armour. At least those ones have the look of something real and not sheet metal Potemkin tanks as in the previous links of them driving on parade.

Especially in that location where "mud guard" might be a better description

(2) How did Kim Boy Dumpling ( Blue arrow )
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/...=428&s=33&d=33

actually get through the drivers hatch?

Re: MBT's
 

To the "RED" I strongly believe so as the ref. first analysis also suggests.

To the "BLUE" lots of grease with a quick change to a matching outfit. :D

This can all wait we need more info I've got the main gun and ATGW fairly figured out but need more time for the rest.

Again, these are not for a parade these both have been seen in numbers enough for us to enter in a large exercise.

Now to work.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I totally agree with one comment on https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/new-north-korean-mbt/ in regards to the ones shown on parade

Re: MBT's
 

As you know I like those guys you've ref'd and have many times used them for refs. for my submissions.

Alright seems you want to pick my brain a little more, OK, the number of road wheels seems reminiscent to an issue that came up of another possible T-72 variant the three of us were discussing (As posted in my last.) many years back in this thread involving an extended version of the T-72 with some other possible improvements.

They've got larger engines that would more than adequately fit and support a heavier extended T-72.

What would be the quickest way to put together a "shell" made of steel plates and keep costs down and produce them quickly?

Cut your Steel, spot weld as needed and assemble the pieces and securing the plates with-rivets. A Jigsaw Puzzle if you will.

Yes, I'm suggesting a "shell" might be overlayed onto the hull and installed around the turret. It would be easy to produce, assemble, mount and shape.

There were stories to indicate a similar process also occurred with the T-14 ARMATA to get it out there for propaganda purposes both at home and abroad. I feel to a degree that this "might" be the case with the M2020/2024.

This is just one possibility running around inside my head.

I had and Marcello I believe used the same website that focused solely on N. Korea. I need to review those posts for the website and refresh my memory on what was discussed at that time as I feel it'll lend clarity to what we are discussing currently.

But I can't assume that there's nothing here either. The above is my worst case would these tanks be a possible game changer. Yes, but for N. Korea mostly but not the world.

It's getting late and in 11 hours I'll be knocking out the first of my 7.5 miles.

Those leads I seek are in those posts and so is that website if still up.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

ALRIGHT PAGES 11-15 THIS THREAD SOME OF MY WORST CASE ABOVE DISCUSSED IN THOSE PAGES FOR A COUPLE OF TANKS TO INCLUDE MARCELLO AMONG OTHER ITEMS. KPA JOURNAL WAS THE SITE LAST ARTICLE RELEASE DEC 2013. Signed up for newsletter still active so took a shot however site is unsecure so be CAREFUL however I have very robust anti-virus software so I got in and out fast. We'll see if I get a response

Done playing-gotta pay the bills later. ;)

Re: MBT's
 

Alright got just a little bit of time here as I really would like to enjoy the rest of this night before going back to work Tue.

1. I'm able to safely get to the KPA Journal site without issues. The links are still good to the most recent tanks N. Korea was operating with full analysis at the time of each that we were trying to decode ourselves between Don, Marcello and myself at the time.

2. Time to meet the man:
https://www.csis.org/people/joseph-s-bermudez-jr
His resume is most impressive and it always "bugged" why his name sounded familiar. After reading the above I found out why it was his writing for JANEs in particular IHS Markit (formerly the Jane's Information Group) on material unrelated to this topic or Thread. There are few that can rival his current employer in the world as well.

3. KPA Journal seems to be "live" but not updated since Dec. 2013 for his last publication. He did respond at the time to a couple of inquiries from me regarding the tanks in question at the time which as some here know is not something I haven't done in the past with some success in the past except for France. I see there's an email on the site maybe I'll take a shot.

4. From this Thread again, Pages 11-14 are in play. In particular POST 114 PG. 12. I've started to read again refs 2-4 of that post as it relates to the tanks.

5. So far since my post from a couple of days ago I'm convinced there is definitely some metal work been done to the M2020/2024 tanks.
I'm also taking a hard look at the masts of the tank in particular a GPS and Weather masts that are critical part of any modern FCS.

I have time to figure this out. Just as I feel the T-14 ARMATA is more a "Paper Tiger" (Not necessarily saying it's a bad tank but, I don't think it's much better or as good as the T-90M 2023.) I feel the M2020/2024 tanks won't be much better in fact I feel they'll be worse.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

The "opus" could be coming. ;)

Re: MBT's
 

British Intelligence is declaring that the T-14 ARMATA has officially entered service with the Russian Army this month.

They will likely be attached to the 1st Guards Tank Army that's responsible for the security of the Moscow Region.

They will not be deployed or used in the current and ongoing war in the Ukraine from the above and Russian MOD.

This is to avoid capture and or destruction as it would involve national embarrassment. Also cited are its expense to build and maintain. Further the logistical support for the ARMATA is not yet set in place.

The other reason is the reported low reliability of the tank overall as even reported by the Russian MOD and posted in this thread and elsewhere.

I fully understand now that we have a firm date the fixes will be made for the START date, however we also already know for all practical purposes the armor is NOT as good as thought and neither is the MG.

The issue stems from the reported facts that the T-90M employed the T-14 armor elements on the sides and turret and was equipped with the same MG. A small number are rusty hulks in the Ukrainian countryside and about 5 were captured and safely out of the country to be reverse engineered. Just like has been reported Russia is doing with the abandoned BRADLEY they showcased in MOSCOW.

We just need to fine tune it at some point.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...o_service.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Pat note also the roof and other parts of the T-14 you will see rivets similar to the ones you were pointing out on the NK vehicles

https://www.armyrecognition.com/imag...ce_925_001.jpg


ALSO if you watch that video at the end the close ups of the T-14 have a "tinny" look like the NK "tanks" on parade and my feeling on this is what we might be seeing there and on the NK tanks is a thin protective skin over the composite armour AND the "rivets" are in plain view

Finally.............ANY armour values we assign to this and virtually every other MDT are estimated and ask 100 people to submit their estimates what you are going to get is 100 different estimates

So "fine tune" to your heart's content it is just one more "opinion" based on pure guesswork and the only way we will ever get hard data for it is when someone puts a hole in one and true experts fully evaluate the hulk AND THE TRUE DATA IS RELEASED.

It is also leaping to conclusions to assume that because the T-90M employed SOME OF THE T-14 armour elements on the sides and turret means that converts 100% to the armour on the T-14

The same has been true for YEARS with the US versions of the Abrams...... all guesstimates

Re: MBT's
 

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/PYH20240321012400315

Re: MBT's
 

I have to say this has been the "quietest" pre-release of a patch in many, many years.

So, with that in mind, maybe room for this? :dk:

SPAIN/CHANGE/M-60A3 TTS/UNIT O26/END/MAR 2024 VICE JAN 2025. //
The last Company of these tanks belonged the Marines of the Third Mechanized Landing Battalion (BDMZ-III). The Army divested theirs when they received the LEOPARD E tanks. Some are surprised they were not donated to the Ukraine, however at the current asking price (Possibly with negotiation could be lower.) and the relatively low cost to modernize, it's still possible they could get there.
The delay in retiring them was due to funding for the "DRAGON VCR 8x8" armored vehicle. There is speculation that both the Army and Marines will be armed with the DRAGON 120.
https://en.topwar.ru/239498-tanki-st...m60a3-tts.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...id/ar-BB1kP0Yr
(BOTH GP)
https://www.outono.net/elentir/2023/...0a3-tts-tanks/
(Good background and date information in here.)

Modernization:
https://www.leonardo.com/en/news-and...moured-vehicle
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/produc...28&printmode=1
(PLUS, THE OPTIONS OFFERED BY Israel and Turkey.)

DRAGON VCR 8x8:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...n_program.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

That is actually a big change. It retires the last unit class 13 vehicle in that OOB which retires the formations as well

Re: MBT's
 

Kind've validates my decision to back off well, "last" year for submissions then. One "simple" date change and the world goes to poop.

Sorry for the extra work.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Not really that much work just somewhat significant to the OOB as three formations disappear after that date. Anyone who might play regularly as Spain will notice

Re: MBT's
 

https://twitter.com/NAMELESS_JSDF/st...92716367221064

For the Japanese OBAT:

Re: MBT's
 

I have to get up in just a few hours for an eye appointment so, I'm just going to just hit the highlights.

1. Romania in May will start field and live firing tests of the export version of the South Korean K2.

If these tests are successful it'll lead to a final contract for 300 units.

There is NO TIMELINE for deliveries. And based on the below probably our ready built export version won't make it in the game due to the following.

2. As I've already posted, South Korea has already started a 4th batch of K2 tanks comprising of 150 units. Deliveries are to start from 2024 - 2028. There is fallout from this.

A. It now looks like the M48A3K/A5K will be around until the deliveries are completed.

Yeah, I know based on what we had at the time (Info.) I believe we have started phasing them out. If we went END for the M48A3K in DEC. 2024, I would recommend leaving it as such.

The M48A5K I believe was set for END DEC. 2025.

B. The K2 production was supposed to have ended after the 2nd batch was delivered.

Then I reported a 3rd batch was approved with final deliveries having been completed last Fall.

C. The story ends here with the "death nil" for the K2 PIP we worked on about 4-5 years ago. Don and I had been discussing its deletion as recently as last year.

He'll correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe we held off due to the fact that at the time of working last year's Patch we didn't have a final decision on moving forward on the 4th batch from South Korea.

That changed at the end of last year when it was announced. We can SAFELY Delete the K2 PIP now.

South Korea is already looking beyond the "PIP" as I believe I posted already and is still about to or recently has finished the production run for the heavily modernized K1A2 as submitted last year. I've used it and it's playing as expected.

Don I gotta get to the rack or else someone won't be very happy with me. ;)

I'll get you those Unit numbers later today early evening.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...quisition.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Pat

There is no M48A3K in the SK OOB and there never has been------- A5K only although on some websites it is named M48A3K/A5K

Re: MBT's
 

Yeah, I see that now as well Army Rec. combined the names also "tord"
M48A3K/A5K and they got me. :doh:

I had myself confused with UNIT 015 M48A3. Thanks!

So, UNIT 020 M48A5K is good as is.

About UNIT 033 K2 PIP let us leave it alone for this year because of the following.

What I referred to as the K2 PIP replacement is designated the K3 with this ref. next. Notably it'll have 130mm MG with a prototype by 2030. From my files last JUN 2023.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...atle_tank.html

Then I just found this dated FEB 2024.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-deadly-209733
I have LOW CONFIDENCE in this as it does not fit the TIMELINE in regard to the 4th production batch of the K2 as noted a couple of times in this thread between 2024 -2028 with also the K3 PROTOTYPE by 2030.

We'll know about PIP by the end of this year.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Well, we won't see them in time, but they are newsworthy none the less.

I speak of the CHALLENGER 3 and M10 BOOKER.

Britain has just received its last PROTOTYPE (8th) at the end of last week. The test plan requires all eight must complete their evaluations successfully before they proceed with initial production (Might be driven by lessons/costs learned from the continuing evaluation of the AJAX.) as the focus will be different for each unit i.e. gunnery and protection evaluations etc. etc. (Though all will be evaluated overall as well.) and consolidation of all the data as needed to be incorporated into all the PROTOTYPES (Except maybe for the 1 or 2 involved in the armor evaluation.)

Initial operating capability (IOC-mine.) is expected in 2027, while full operating capability is scheduled in 2030 (FOC-mine.) . From Ref.3 below.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c25r15dj9n9o
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...llenger_3.html
https://www.army-technology.com/proj...bt-uk/?cf-view

The USA did the opposite by receiving their first M-10 PROTOTYPE this past week. Though the 2nd ref. is a little "exuberate" in fielding by FY-2025 (Oct. 2024.) the reality is that the 82nd Airborne "All the Way! " w/o production delays of the PROTOTYPES will START OPEVALS late this year.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2024_global_security_army_indus try/us_army_takes_delivery_of_first_production_m10_boo ker_mobile_protected_firepower_light_tank.html[/url]
[url]https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2024_global_security_army_indus try/us_army_awards_technical_support_contract_to_gener al_dynamics_for_m10_booker.html

We'll miss this one by a couple of years as well.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

That's a funny one, it's basiacally evolution of 21st century tank:

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/colo...606579_900.jpg

Re: MBT's
 

If anyone finds good data on hull length and width post it please. I can guess based on the photo but I don't want to ( been there------done that then redid it.......which I will again )

Rough WIP compared to Abrams
https://i.imgur.com/dY6zylU.png
https://i.imgur.com/8UT4RNj.png


a few more tweaks until we have some solid dimensions ( 4x )
https://i.imgur.com/ZKRmSAw.png

Re: MBT's
 

"The M10 Booker light tank has the following dimensions:

Length: 24.9 feet (approximately 7.6 meters)
Width: 11.2 feet (approximately 3.4 meters)
Height: 9.2 feet (approximately 2.8 meters) "

From an MSN article from Oct. 13, 2023, titled "New Gem for the U.S. Army. The light tank M-10 Booker."

I'm unable to retrieve this article from MSN. I get the following message when I try; "This page no longer exists. New search page will load automatically. "

I get re-directed to the current MSN page. It's the only one I've seen with these measurements.

My "Copilot" puts it on top (The same article.) as well in its search as well.

At least I can say I found it first that's why I'm the Pilot. :p

Sorry best that I can do.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I was 1 pixel short on hull length. Width was 2 pixels too wide but I included added side armour and IDK if those dimensions of of standard hull or not.......all things considered.. "close enough" but an easy tweak makes it better.

Now I just need to confirm where the engine is and any air intakes

Re: MBT's
 

FRONT Mounted engine.
https://militaryview.com/m10-booker-mpf/
(#5)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/unit...tank_data.html

TI/GSR 60 based on FCS has "Hunter Killer" capability.

Can have modular armor packages.

WORK!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

It also says.................. so don't expect it to go toe to toe with a T-90

My WAG is these are support units for Bradleys and it sounds like they have comparable armour though the Booker is 10 tons heavier that might all be in the gun and turret.........time will tell

Re: MBT's
 

We are watching how all this develops......it might proliferate further......or not

3x normal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=7510aa416e3f

https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1715878062


I know that is not exactly how they look but without the cage, it looks like a house with a gun barrel and there are many variations on the basic design anyway and the cage makes it stand out

https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1715952351

This is an APC....... all are still WIP and may or may not end up in the game as well. The important point is it is instantly recognizable for what it is even though it may not be exactly like the the " real thing"

https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1715951744

The "trick" is finding the right variation
https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1715951864https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1715952049

Re: MBT's
 

The Bookers are nearing completion as I find more photos showing details
3x normal --WIP

https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1715952824



If anyone wants to run a game with a Booker right now, borrow a Thai ASCOD LT 105. It's not too far off. Both are built from many of the same design components and while that was entered nearly two decades ago based on IDK what info and while it was enough to build an Icon and unit for it I am not finding any evidence the Thais ever bought it so that's a new can-o-worms I just opened. It appears they are still using the Scorpion!:doh:

That said, it would not be too far off to say the Booker design is 2 decades evolved from the work done on the LT105

Re: MBT's
 

The following shows current for 2024. That being said the OPLOT-T is missing. There was some talk almost a year ago to suggest the Ukraine might want them back using the allied weapons and reconstruction "super fund". I haven't seen anything to verify that's the case.

STINGRAY II also missing from the list, which at the time caused me to get a headache in verifying they had it. We finally settled on getting it into the OOB by a "little more than a thread" if I recall.

Scorpion had a major upgrade in 2011 that improved FCS to include the TI/GSR how much I'm not sure of at the moment.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/mode...-thai-army.php

Been extremely busy especially these last 9 weeks or more that has now involved my Congressman (Soon my Senator as well.) dealing with an issue concerning possibly 100's of retired veterans.

On the upside my PSA is still going down by more than 1/2 since it peaked at 10 (Which is not good.). I asked my specialist about it seems he and his partner have no medical explanation for it. it seems I'm the first they've had with this situation. Of course! :doh:

Take care of yourselves!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

https://www.army-technology.com/news/news130202-html/

I gave it

Ti/GSR 40
FC 20
RF 22

Start date 6/111

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
Thanks, seems those numbers are more than reasonable.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

It is what I expect a " major upgrade" in 2011 that improved FCS to include the TI/GSR would be

I can see why the Thais like them and want to keep them.
One-- they are paid for.
Two-- they are small and have adequate firepower and because they are small ( 8 tons with low ground pressure) they can go places heavier vehicles cannot plus the Average Thai Male is under 5 and a half foot tall and weights 150 pounds...... good fit for a Scorpion

Re: MBT's
 

That weird new North Korean MBT seems to have possibly entered limited service:

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/ch-on...n-better/98052

The name can be discerned from the background in the rough time frame of around 24:58 in this video:

https://youtu.be/x2uIsZsmCNE?si=LqBrOHsI3mEuYuON

where Kim visits a military institute.

Re: MBT's
 

If you see any more info on this...a top view would be great...... post it please

Re: MBT's
 

These might help first breaks it down equipment wise from their analysis and second bottom picture I think will be about as close to a "top down" as we'll get. Can't recall ever seeing a true "top down" on any of the newer NK tanks.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...-the-cheonma-2
https://armyrecognition.com/news/arm...an-t-14-armata

Got places to be.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

If anyone finds a reliable source that gives the length and width of the hull that would be helpful

Based on what little we have seen and various descriptions this is a very, VERY WIP first attempt

https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1717338190

v3

https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1717347288

Re: MBT's
 

Hardly anything out there but, this is the best I can find.
Overall Length: Approximately 12.4 feet (3.78 meters) 1.
Overall Width: Approximately 7.4 feet (2.25 meters) 1.
Overall Height: Not explicitly mentioned in the available sources.
Specifications:
Mass: Greater than 50 tons (estimated to be around 55 tons) 23.

That being said I think that's crap. We know they are building T-62/64 hulls and have "added" on to them to get some of the recent tanks they've come up with. It is thought they can now produce a limited number of T-72 hulls.

And if you account for only the weight issues the T-72 makes the most sense here as they averaged around 45 tons to the NK M2024 is thought to be more than 50 tons with most "pointing" it at 55 tons.

You could get there with the T-64 at 38 long tonnes/42 short tonnes but looking at the pictures from one of the refs I'm looking at of the engine compartment; I'm now thinking "Hmmm" I'll post it so you can take a look and it sits better in that lower profile that the M2024 seems to also have.

See what you think and remember the Ukrainians had gotten a 1200 HP engine into their newest versions.
https://tank-afv.com/coldwar/ussr/T-64.php

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I will agree with you on that

A T-55a hull was 6.2m so 3.78 is way off unless the NK's are CONSIDERABLY smaller than I thought they were

I suppose one way to measure would be to estimate the size of "Dear Leaders" head and then scale it from that but it's not really reliable :shock:

What this appears to be is something of a hybrid design like they took the Abrams ( and there was some chatter that they had one courtesy of ISIS ) and the T-14 . The raised engine compartment is reminiscent of the Abrams and it is a way to shoehorn a larger engine in

Eventually we will get better numbers and the T-72 theory is sound. That "society" will never invent anything new but they will adapt other peoples designs to their needs

My guesstimate hull is the same width as a T-72/T-90 but a bit longer and has 7 road wheels as does the Armata.... T72/90 have 6 so it's kinda a T-14/ Abrams mash up for the hull and something closer to a western style turret

Re: MBT's
 

HOW could I resist??

https://forum.shrapnelgames.com/atta...1&d=1717361423

Thats 11 with room on each side with 1/2 each so 12 kimheads wide
Google "How wide is the average male adult head"
Get "Average human head measures 6-7 inches in width"

Lets say 11" with the padded helmet 11" x 12 = 132" = 11 foot = 22 pixels wide which is right in the ballpark when using a kimhead scale

T-72 3.89 m (12 ft 9 in)
T-14 Armata is 3.5m wide which is 11.4829 ft