Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

The home stretch, there was an issue concerning the ADF TIGER Helos and it is my thinking it was a date issue at the time. This came to my attention when if you remember, we had made many corrections concerning ADF Armor and ultimately their TO&E with the help of a serving member of the ADF via email which has all been posted in this Thread and MBT one as well, as again, I migrate these inputs back into their "home" threads once Don has indicated he's done with them or after the Patch gets released.

This would be an appropriate time to maintain Don's sanity at this point how I've generally come across these. It simply has to do with the connection between the things I've already found i.e. Israel's A-4 lead to Australia's A-4 same with the F-5 and so on. But the other thing I always do is manually search the OOB for any copies of the UNIT my focus is currently on or close to that might need a change of some kind.

So for Don, rest assured that after these items are taken care of, I'll stay away from REVIEWING AN FURTHER OOB's!!

So back to...

Australia/UNITS 457-460/TIGER ARH/MULTI-UNIT PICTURES AS NOTED//
Attachment 15125 Attachment 15126

Australia/UNITS 461 & 462/TIGER ARH-AT/SINGLE UNIT PICTURES//
Attachment 15127 Attachment 15128

This last I've had with the rest, it demonstrates some defensive characteristics of modern helos. And you should've seen the Swiss PUMA one I found releasing their "ANGEL FIRE" trail as it was climbing to clear a mountain. Anyway...
Attachment 15129

Alright the SWISS ARE NEXT...

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I hate drawings for UNITS and I'll reserve any further opinion on the matter, however, I do realize especially for new types of equipment a drawing (SIM or otherwise.) or model might have to stand in for a temporary period of time. Though these would very rare occurrences. but I have pictures!!

Switzerland/UNITS 151-153/F-5E/NEW PICTURES//
Attachment 15130 Attachment 15131 Attachment 15132

I messed up with this one, it's just a COUGAR.:dk: See how they fly...
Attachment 15133

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Sliding into home plate...

To finish off Switzerland...

Switzerland/UNITS 843, 853 & 994/F-5E/NEW PICTURES//
Attachment 15134 Attachment 15135 Attachment 15136

And finally... (To the "MP" fans)-And there was much rejoicing!! :rock: :five: :party: :jam:

This lead to my final issue Attachment 15137 and this is...

CREW SERVED
CHANGE:
France/UNIT 121/MMP/TI-GSR 60/ALL WEAPONS VALUES ARE MISSING//
This ATGW is as good as the TOW ITAS from what I can find or at minimum "darn" close. Like you can't really see much space between my fingers close. I have no real problem with the start date but as my ref points out it did go into initial serial production in JUN 2016. Also ref 2 confirms weapons production back in 2013. I backed off this because I thought it a done deal in the FORUM but, than I've been a "ghost" in this facet of ops for a longtime now.
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/201.../?spt=slh&or=8
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...issile-019729/
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...range-missile/
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.w...ication-phase/
http://www.army-technology.com/featu...siles-4159253/

Don THANK YOU for the opportunity! HeII I even bet our old deadline! A cause for a celebration in of itself - but I'll refrain from that.

Everyone THANK YOU for allowing this process to occur uninterrupted to this point.

I hope a "hint" of how you can make life a little easier for Don has presented itself here at some level. Equipment issues are in some way the most difficult issue to contend with in having to do the calculus for all the values, based on as much data as can reasonably be digested to reach a fair conclusion. We'll never know the truth of it all, if we did and put it out here, I suspect some of us would be "Making BIG rocks into LITTLE ones". Enough said...

And now I :yield: to the floor.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I just had to share these...
Attachment 15138 Attachment 15139 Attachment 15140

Attachment 15141 Attachment 15142

It must really "duck" (Or whatever word you prefer.) to be a pilot in the Swiss military!?! :rolleyes:

Got an early start in the morning, much to do so I can enjoy my last day before work!

Good Night!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I added the Chengdu J-20 to the game 6/118.....we can work out exact details later

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I'm up for it. For "GP" FYI, I started the Jets and Planes...Thread 7yrs ago this month. Concerning the J-20 I reported on it when it first showed, while then SECDEF was in China and they did their famous test flight while he was there and beyond.
On Pages 1-3 I posted stories on it 7 times in Posts #3, #9, #10, #16, #19, #20 and #26. Taking into account my mind hasn't changed too much concerning the J-20 from those early Posts.

Before I express that impression, let me start by saying that Russia has backed off their claim that the T-50/PAK FA is a 5th GEN Fighter. That puts it in the class as a 4th GEN+/or+++ where the current GRIPENS are covered in both "+" categories. This is a huge concession by the Russians. And Russian has been building quality fighters for decades now. Where China is concerned they're fairly new players in the field. I can't dismiss the comparison and it'll have some impact on my thinking.

That being said, I don't play favorites out here and anyone who've followed my discussions concerning the F-35 in general know this. So right at this moment and from what I've seen, I think the J-20 TECHNICALLY sits as if you will, as a 3rd GEN ++ (FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ONLY.) fighter.

Please note for the record in the refs out there, those "+ signs" are ONLY used for 4th GEN fighters.

And it's been a while since I've looked in on the fighter so I'll gladly put the spotlight back on the J-20 and see what's changed since JAN 2011.

For now I believe that is a valid start date for the J-20. I'd be curious to see what they've learned since I first looked in on it. This stuff is right up my alley! :)

And I know exactly the first place to start looking at this from. :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Yeah, I love how the armchair experts are so positive what the F-35s capabilities and limitations are when no out outside the manufacturer and the rather small portion of the military that actually flies and maintains them has any real knowledge.

But then what else is new.

I have no doubt you find what the "experts" have to say about the capabilities of American subs just as amusing.

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

J-20 Status...

I was going to end this post with the following, however, I feel it needs to start this conversation instead of ending it. So just because it says a jet is STEALTHY does not mean it's a 5th GEN or even a 4th GEN fighter. As I pointed out concerning the IAF A-4 AYIT in my last Patch submission, the simple act of extending the engine exhaust nozzles to reduce it's heat signature by definition makes that plane more stealthy, which again greatly reduced it's losses to IR missiles. Now here's where I'm at concerning the J-20 shofar and where it has lead me as well.

I'm not ready to provide numbers yet. I will concede that the Chinese J-20 fighter is better than an upper tier 3rd GEN fighter (As I thought she was when I first posted on this fighter years ago.) and I'm on the cusp of saying she's a low to mid tier 4th GEN fighter.

I'm still not convinced at this point and time that the J-20 is a 5th GEN fighter. I have provided one of the refs I've looked at to this point. What immediately got my attention was the rear of the plane around the engines in the pictures. They are just screaming "you can shoot me down now", which would be the case as it flies past a SAM site or with a fighter on it's tail.
https://fightersweep.com/6230/analys...hinese-raptor/

The other issue is, the J-20 might STRICKLY just be used as a deep penetration interceptor used to take down aircraft like the P-8 POSIDEAN, AWACS, BOMBERS etc. etc. Though it should be able to fight it's way in and out.

Dogfighting for the J-20 might be an issue to some degree though, it'll be armed with some very effective long and short range Air-to-Air missiles that could to a small degree negate some of those disadvantages.

Though China acquired some plans (Airframe design and some electronics.) of the F-35, it is felt that the key electronics systems haven't been compromised along with the stealth "paint" and other advanced design factors.

Any finally...
Oh I don't doubt I probably missed this in the game manual after three try's in my weary post work environment, so does...

EW for Jets/Planes, is stealth factored into those numbers already, or is that rating based solely on it's electronics and defensive capabilities?

If stealth is factored in, at what % of the whole is used? By example EW 20.

What has become VERY CLEAR is how good the F-22 RAPTOR really is from my research so far. Nothing comes close, the gaps and systems the following abstract talks about have been taken care of. The IRST system and others have been added (Also the F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET will have it. IRST that is.) and I've posted on those improvements for years now to the point we MIGHT need to have an improved version.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

From the above...Is the F-15SE better then we think in the game now? I personally have felt this version of the F-15 certainly was a low to mid level 4th GEN Fighter/Bomber and the only one fitting that description except for possibly the Russian SU-35BM data posted after the excerpt. The embolden is mine.

"[3] Boeing F-15SE ‘Silent Eagle’. This low-signature version of the F-15 Eagle was assessed during the compilation of this NOTAM. Its radar cross section, while claimed to be comparable to the export configuration of the F-35 (This again goes to my long held point out here that we're not in the business of giving up our secrets. This is why I close to figuring out what the export version of the AH-64E should look like.) from nose-on is likely to be substantially inferior from other aspects. Its infrared signature will be similar to the standard F-15 Eagle. Thus, the PAK-FA using radar will detect the Silent Eagle at a range sufficient to launch BVR missiles and at similar or greater ranges to the F-35 for infrared-based engagements. Flying wide sweeps and distributing sensor detections as is done for the legacy Sukhois will enhance radar detections and enable IRST ranging. The advantage the F-15SE Silent Eagle has over the F-35 JSF is that it has the aerodynamic performance and fuel reserves to egress from a dangerous air combat engagement."
https://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35/su-35.htm

So as you can see this issue with the J-20 had no option but to head into the above issues thus far noted.

Also following the J-31 however it looks to have some of the same issues as the J-20.

For comparison...
Attachment 15156

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Andy would be able to answer this in more detail but the EW numbers are basically the ability to deal with the EW value of SAM's......if your aircraft has a lessor EW value than the missile being fired at it then the missile has the advantage...if the aircraft EW is higher than the SAM that's being fired at it then the aircraft has a better chance of fending off the missile.

Right now based on all the info I've seen I've given the Chengdu J-20 an EW of 10

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1517144928

agreed it **appears** to be aimed at LR strikes of support assets and for that it only needs to be stealthy heading right at you. It has 8 HP's and that's why it has 8 " things that go boom"......IGNORE THE COST SHOWN.....I don't run the cost calc until just before the patch ships

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Alright had a day of it today, looking no better tomorrow w/a 0745 start. OK, your last post was very helpful and puts things into perspective. I need "to shop" the other key planes I've mentioned already. Focusing more on data type refs than equipment ones. As I mentioned most of this is connected (EW/VISION).

All I need to know is what is my "absolute drop date" to finish this off?

And you know, I fully understand that Andy and yourself are "up against it" certainly by this point.

Given the above date I'll do my absolute best. Early thinking is bumping the J-20 to EW 12. Also going to take a hard look at the F-22 because and this is important, that jet IS the "Gold Standard" for attack aircraft, and will be until and beyond the end of this game as it stands and RL. Game wise to include final Patch work for 2025/2026.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Meant this as an edit to my last. In a simple presentation that Don can even appreciate I give you...

Syria...

The Russians have their current best systems there...
https://sputniknews.com/military/201...defense-syria/

We have our best plane there...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-fighting.html

And some have reported by the use of ELINT that the Russians haven't been able to "paint" them...
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...16/0316f22.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...1a06p_0001.htm

And it's also important to remember that the F-22 at this time is the only known fighter to have all around stealth capabilities. All others including the F-35 have frontal only or VERY minimalist side qualities also included. This to include the SU-35 as already mentioned in a previous post here. The PAK-FA/T-50 will fall into this category as mentioned above.

Again this to support my last Post.

Alright 4am here the rack is calling and thank God for "Blue Light" reduction!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I have to wonder if Don had an alternate motive in having me look into the J-20? I was surprised by some things I saw when reviewing a cross section of fighters and a small grouping of the more advanced bombers in the game.

Do you want to know why the F-22 is the best plane out there and by some considered the only true 5th GEN Fight? The answer is simple-$100 million dollar difference between the next most expensive fighter in the world the F-35B @ ~150 million per unit. Trust me the USAF wishes now that they hadn't backed away from the fighter when they still had a chance to build them for less at the time. They don't have enough of them and only recently (Last hand full of years.) started to ensure that a full logistics supply chain has been reestablished for spare parts.

Here's what I found by JET/EW/TI/GSR which are the key factors relative to the topic and game. But first...
1. CHANGE/USA/UNIT 921/F-35A/EW 12//This would match the others grouped with it (Currently at EW 9) and I believe is the only one I could find with this difference.

2. The J-20 for now is good as is.

3. I will demonstrate what makes a true 5TH GEN Fighter in more detail later. But did you know...

A. From the sources I could find, here are the estimated (Like the X-Files the truth is out there somewhere, but we'll never know it as it's so highly classified.) Radar Cross Sections (RCS) for the F-22 = 0.0001m2/F-35 = 0.001m2/PAK FA/T-50 = 0.4m2. Not the only reason it's not really a 5th GEN Fighter but, not to take my word for it, Here's what India thinks about it. And if you remember I've brought this up before. The big difference is they haven't changed their minds about it as this article is from yesterday. If you read this carefully you might be surprised by who wanted it more on the "stealth" side and who backed away from it. But if you read my previous Posts on the topic, you'll already know the answer. ;)
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/indi...ad-to-nowhere/

B. One of the other key factors that define a 5th GEN Fighter is it's ability to "Super Cruise". These are very high efficacy engines that allow the F-22 to fly on after burner for much longer period of time. The advantages should be obvious to you from several offensive and defensive reasons. More importantly it also greatly reduces the jets IR signature.

Do you know what other jets do share this capability? Well it's not the F-35 (They tried the F-22 engines on the F-35, well it didn't go well. The engines tore themselves up over time leading to one F-35 to crash. The pilot ejected as I understand it.) , PAF FA or J-20.

Here you go the GRIPEN, EUROFIGHTER and TYPHOON.

So we might need a small "pyridine shift" in how we treat these fighters in regards to EW.

I'm Willing to give this a shot limiting myself primarily were it concerns the 4th GEN + and up aircraft. I simply don't see a need to fix any prior GEN aircraft because of the broad sampling I took of them (Including 4th GEN ones.), I really feel they look good.

What I see is a tiered number system (Block/Spread) concerning EW ratings of these planes. Each Block would cover 5th GEN 16-18/4TH GEN++ 14-16/4th GEN+ 12-14/4th GEN 10-12// These numbers might shift to the left by 1 or 2 but, that's where my heads at now. I'm looking at all aspects of RL EW factors w/o my head exploding.

I have already identified 24 candidates for the project.

Are Andy and you willing to go to EW 18 for the F-22 and B-2?

THIS IS NOT FOR THE UPCOMING PATCH!! If you give me the green light I'll continue my work here.

I leave with a little Fighter GEN 101. Not too old and still good FYI stuff...
Attachment 15160 Attachment 15161
Attachment 15162 Attachment 15163
Attachment 15164

I shot expert again earlier today so, I intend to enjoy the rest of this "bonus" evening at home with CINCLANTHOME.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

In general the F-35 has TWO EW ratings, one when clean (internal load only) and another dirty (external load).

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Yes but, we're talking for what maybe less than 30s to launch/drop it's weapons. If those RCS numbers are even close (Based on models tested in labs of outside organizations.) those differences are huge. I'm trying to get the "whole picture" looked at here as much as possible. By example how can s GRIPEN have a EW 6 with what is known about them. The first version JS-39A yes-maybe. The GRIPEN NG absolutely not. I just pointed out the other issue that ties into this. I'm not trying to make it perfect just maybe a little better is all.

Russia within a couple of years will have a player against the threat with the 500 Series SAM and the 400 later mods that are slowly coming onto the field shortly. NATO will have MEADS, PATRIOT PAC3+ etc.

Anyway more graphics...

First up some examples of 3rd GEN Jets for context...
Of course the picture is too big so...
Israeli KFIR/Sweden SAAB 37 VIGGAN "THUNDERBOLT"/USA F-4 PHANTHOM II/China CHENGDU J-7 "FISHBED" (MiG-21)/USA F-4A/B FREEDOM FIGHTER/France MIRAGE F1 and Russia MiG-21 "FISHBED".

Now please note these don't take into account known updates to aircraft shown or newer known information casting doubt on a small number shown. I mostly by posting these wanted to show the complexities in dealing with these GEN destinations. All combined present a more complete understanding of the issues I'm looking at. For instance the F-22 last one of these shows a RED block now GREEN by current available data.
Attachment 15165 Attachment 15166
Attachment 15167 Attachment 15168
Attachment 15169

The last two posts were meant to provide a general overview of the issues I'm looking at. I'll offer one more example from Russia. The best operational frontline fighter they have operating at this moment is the Su-35 (This by the way is the fighter chosen for mass production over the PAF FA/T-50 due to it's operational and financial difficulties. They have or soon will have, 12 operational for IOP in a Squadron.), it's EW is rated @ 10. The MiG-29SM EW is rated @ 9. And I hope some of you are paying attention to this because the Su-100 is rated at 0!?! :p

Anyway, I've had my fun for the night! ;) :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Nope.....no at all
I may be able to generate a list with every aircraft with EW > 5 but I've got a busy day ahead


Very good.

.

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Pat. I just sent you an email with attachments to your hotmail account.


Don

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Data received with many thanks!! Don has indicated the task will involve 1750 UNITS. I will the issues I raised have been accepted to include the higher EW ratings for the F-22 and B-2 bomber. That's the steel-reinforced "glass ceiling" because as these systems get better so do the SAM's as already noted.

I know someone will raise this issue so let me squash it now, SEAD aircraft are purpose built to go in ahead of everyone else. They by definition will have a higher EW rating then the fighter version of the same plane. They trade space for more advanced electronics with the trade off to some measure being weapons capacity and vice versa.

Most aircraft in the game now I feel are where they should particularly of the 60's, 70's and early 80's. However the data received will allow for a further review without a deep time commitment.

And I've just been reminded it's time to hit the shower.

THANKS AGAIN Don!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I'd say your biggest problem is going to be cross-referencing the EW ratings of various AA weapons against aircraft. In almost all cases it's going to be a judgement call on superior/equal/inferior because virtually no solid data is available.

As a baseline I'd look at the air campaign over North Vietnam during the 60's and early 70s. Keeping in mind the NVA gear was probably Soviet Export quality so probably 1 point (maybe 2?) lower then what the CCCP used during the same period and the USAF/USN was top-of-the-line.

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

To demonstrate I'm on it.

Legend of Abbreviations...
MF-Missiles Fired/AC-Aircraft Claimed/AL-Actual Losses and MPAK-Missiles Per Aircraft Kill

1. SA-2 COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS - VIETNAM 1965 - 1973

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Total
MF 109 590 1894 376 16 23 136 2032 72 5248

AC 87 186 411 96 2 2 32 415 62 1293

AL 13 3 61 12 0 1 7 72 3 203

MPKA 8.4 17.3 31 31 (-) 23 19 28 24 26(Avg.)

Sources: DOD and Center for Naval Analyses

2. Weapons Causing All Aircraft Losses
AAA 31%/Small Arms Fire 45%/SAM 9%/MiG 4%/Fratricide 1%/Other/UnKn 10%

Source: Center for Naval Analyses

3. Wild Weasel Losses by Cause 1956 - 1973
AAA 38%/MiG 18%/SAM 38%/Other 6%

Sources: Howard Plunkett Database and Center for Naval Analyses

Note: AAA includes Radar equipped as well.

The above are open source materials. However it would be unfair of me not to say these are also referenced in a absolutely wonderful book...
THE HUNTER KILLERS by DAN HAMPTON Lt.Col. USAF Ret. Credited with 151 Combat Missions with among his other awards, received 4 DFC's with Valor. He also wrote VIPER PILOT.

The book is about how they started, weapons and technologies used about the pilots and the Vietnam War each section has a "time period" actual mission (You felt like you were in the cockpit with them.) which added flavor to the points made. Many of the surviving pilots and operators are a part of the story or have contributed to it.

Hopefully that's my CYA above.

I was going to post this in the XXX Thread but got side tracked with my Patch Submission Post, sorry, but here it is.

Those were 3rd GEN planes with similar GEN missiles and you see above who the main killer was.

Though it needs to be understood, though, it only provides a baseline to start from and not a means to an end.

I think you'll find our SAM's are running fairly close or slightly better then the numbers above. We still have SAM's to come the Russian S-500 for instance.

But PAT we have 5th GEN fighters but what about 4th GEN or 5th GEN SAM Systems? And I would respectfully disagree with you. We do have them already 4th GEN S-300/400, 4th GEN ++ S-400 latest version and 5th GEN is harder, for now though the S-500/MEADS/PATRIOT PAC-3++ so they're here and I believe working fine.

I'm only tweaking and making some correction as I pointed in one of my last posts for instance the GRIPEN and disparities between the Su-35 EW 10 while the MiG-29SM has a EW 9. I haven't settled my "tiering" process but, the Su-35 should have a EW 14 but that's still up for evaluation. Some might be submitted to have a lower EW rating.

I asked for F-22 and B-2 to be raised so my number blocks will allow for expansion if you will i.e. 4th GEN Fighters is broken as 4th GEN/4th GEN+/4th GEN++ and some sources have 4th GEN+++.

Let's assume I find I'm looking at all four break downs for 4th GEN jets and I represent them (EW) as 1, 2, 3, and 4, well that's where the work is.

So using the HORNET, the A/B would be a 1/C/D 2/E/F 3 and E/F w/AESA and IRST a 4.

The tiers would allow a jet like the PAK-FA to cross to a 5th GEN lower tier later if certain issues are upgraded etc. for that plane.

I'm not trying to make this hard on myself, Don or Andy. Apparently my reasons for this as I have already posted, have if nothing else, at least peaked their curiosity to see what direction this takes.

I'll copy all this over to the Jets/Planes Thread so everyone have a "crack at it" but I'll be doing this independently, I'll never get it done by committee. My next step is to establish the tiers (#'s) and assign the GEN's to them. I'll post them when done.

Need some sleep now - Good Night Everyone.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Patch Post #2 for the 2017/2018 Campaign

This is a simple supplement of mostly just DATE CHANGES with one EW change as noted below. I hope you can accommodate them. However the subject matters aren't, as you'll read below. Most of these deal with my favorite two OOB's India and Turkey. Enough said here about them.

CHANGES

JETS PLANES BUT NO UAVS HERE.

C5. USA/UNIT 921/F-35A/EW 12// This would match the others grouped with it (Currently at EW 9) and I believe this was the only one I could find with this difference. Submitting here in case it was "lost" from Post #212.

MBT’s

C3. TURKEY/UNIT 614/ALTAY/START DATE JAN 2019// Well I believe this will be the 3rd or 4th time I've submitted a change to this tank since I first submitted it. You can apply the last statement to the ARJUN below as well.

So to ALTAY a brief synopsis, had contract issues, technical issues finally they got worked out, then in 2016 as the program was just starting to come around, they had severe political issues with Austria which dealt a serious blow to the program. The issue was "human rights" based forcing Austria (And Germany in the background.) to back out of the Engine and Power packs they were to supply etc.

This set up an indigenous competition to development the same for the ALTAY the winner was just announced this past week, as I eluded to in my last MBT post I believe. Quote is taken from ref. 1.

"In the Altay serial production race BMC will be competing with FNSS and Otokar, the maker of Altay’s prototypes. Procurement sources say the government’s final decision on the multibillion-dollar serial production contract will likely come later in 2018."

I do expect this to slip, just "the nature of the beast" I guess. Because as you can see I'm only allowing 1 yr. from production to FOC+.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...nous_tank.html
https://www.defensenews.com/industry...-expectations/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...project-05012/

This last ONLY for context, because I just know someone will read it and get overly excited. :rolleyes: Please note the date of it and remember what you read above. This clearly should demonstrate how easy it is to derail a program and the need to follow up on them. I said years ago and I believe some might remember this, when the game was set to expire in 2020, I felt we'd be lucky to see these 3 tanks in the game based on what I was tracking with them. Here it's 2018 and look where we're at with the ALTAY, ARJUN Mk II and ARMATA. All 3 are game changers in RL, we should all be thanking Andy and Don for giving us the extension so these can get in.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/good...ss-production/

C4. INDIA/UNIT 021/ARJUN Mk 1+/START DATE JAN 2020.// Recommend you put this in a status for scenario purposes and taken out of normal game playing status. To me that's all just "PFM" (Might get in trouble if I spelled out what PFM means. :angel) and why Don does that and NOT me!! :D So you'll just love this. It applies to the ARJUN Mk II as well. What's the problem with the LAHAT, well first they had compatibility issues that took about 3 yrs to resolve, than the Indian Army said something along the lines of..."Wonderful that you've fixed the problem, well done, however LAHAT has a minimum Rng. of 1500m's and that is no longer acceptable, we want one that has a minimum Rng. of 1200m's now. So sorry, tea anyone?" Yeah that was about 3 years ago. Seems to coincide with something else HMmmm! The smart ones will figure that out. But you'll all be glad to know that the LAHAT "seems" to be back in again!! :party: Sorry I digress.

C5. INDIA/UNITS 022 & 023/ARJUN Mk II/START DATE JAN 2020.//The Army doesn't want them other factions in the Government do. After ARJUN Mk I soundly defeated all their other tanks (They didn't enter the T-72 variants in service because they already knew what the result would be.) in opeval completion that lasted several months. The next step was the above tank. The main issues were weight, want of a better FCS, in all about, depending on refs. 85-100 improvements. This was accomplished in over the last ~3 yrs or so, and the Army still doesn't want it. They should really rethink that after the EMBRASSMENT they suffered when they choose to enter their T-90S variant in the 2017 Russian Tank Biathlon. India was disqualified because the tank broke down.
The ref. below is the latest and greatest on the matter.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/61177561.cms

HELO News game related.

C3. AUSTRILIA/UNITS 457 - 462/TIGER ARH/TIGER ARH-AT/START DATE DEC 2008.// These helicopters have had problems from every user to include several groundings by this country, France and Germany. They are all well documented. Australia received the first of them in late 2004 and had some issues from the start that pushed FOC+ back. The ref. below should be all I need here I believe. It indicates when the first 3 entered Squadron service in Darwin. Also by 2008 I'm sure they had the HELLFIRE Missiles by then as well. Ref.1 is dated NOV/DEC 2008. This has been LONG on my list to get fixed and just got lost along the way until recently-sorry for the inconvenience.
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/w1/.../customer.html
https://www.army.gov.au/our-future/m...ects/arh-tiger

All new and current pics for others good.

I'm only on requests now, should something "pop up".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

some had been done...the rest is done now

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Don,
Thanks!

I look forward to seeing what Andy and you have in store for us!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

lots of interesting things..........

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Well to show how "disjointed" things got this past year and to this present moment, I couldn't even remember if I posted anything that resembled a Patch Post going back to the 2017/2018.

It just seemed to be fragmented posts to me, as what occurred going into the 2018/2019 Patch.

Well I just reviewed the posts and it was better then I thought except for me with one fatal flaw, it wasn't on paper to where I can more easily bounce what got put it as submitted and what didn't so it can be discussed between the parties, which is a rare thing-THANK YOU!

BOTTOMLINE HERE IS, "I NEED TO GET MY SXXT IN ONE SOCK" before I can proceed with anything new.

I know what I want to see as I've posted them and I know what values to assign them as well, however, I need to first go back access 2017/2018 submissions and pull from the threads all the data main issues as to the equipment submissions it self probably w/o all the full writes ups by using only the key points from each submission most likely from the 2018/2019 submissions and get them posted here in an organized manner.

I have no idea what Andy and Don are planning, but it's obvious to me something is afoot, if so I might not get everything done for this next patch, but would ask that I be allowed to finish if you will, what I posted.

But first and foremost I need to see were the equipment stands from the two time periods I noted above.

So you'll (I'll) see the what was done for 2018/2019 and post it here and labeled as such. THESE ARE MY "CHECK POINTS" and "TRACKING POINTS" and at a later date the "library" from which to print them out from.

It's how I organize myself, so my apologies in advance for any inconvenience it might cause. To get my "head back into the game" this is the process needed for me to do it right.

So to start things off...
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT-M17 or T-64 BULAT-2017?//
Major revisions to the T-64 BULAT were conducted in mid/late 2017. Areas affected improved VISION, STABILZATION, ERA and SURVIBILITY. Verifying possible SPEED increase and a couple of other factors.

Just need the name please you'd like to use. I'm leaning towards the first and the UKRAINE IS NO HELP as I've seen two or three different designations for it from various sources since it was announced.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Patch Post #1 for the 2018/2019 Patch Campaign. Note: I guess I did get started on this to some degree. What you're seeing was as it was submitted in the MBT Thread. I just moved things around a little to put the countries in proper order and added a couple of minor details. So...

I will endeavor here to fix the South African current tank situation that I’ve put off for almost seven years now though the problem isn’t as daunting now as it seemed back then as also posted. I looked back on this year and I saw more in the MBT and APC area submitted by several posts, so for FYI ONLY PURPOSES, I’ve decided to pull together from those posts, a “Patch Post” covering the 2018/2019 Campaign and possibly for the 2017/2018 Campaign as time allows. They have always served me as a tool to see what got in or not and to see if something got missed such as what happened to about seven countries concerning the missing (Now done.) standard equipped FN MAG 60-30 MG (Port/Starboard mounted.) on the H225M Cougar helicopters. I also believe we were finally able to add this helo to Thailand as I finally had more data to fully confirm the deal as compared to when I originally submitted it in my last “official” Patch Post five years ago, this last was in 2017/2018 upgrade. Also I’ll be focusing on the T-90S and ABRAMS issues, like I normally do, they just happened to “pop up” while looking into other issues.

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1A/UNIT 005/START DATE 01/1985 vice 01/1983/END DATE 12/1987 VICE 12/1998/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm SA83//A note about the gun issue as quoted from Ref 3 “The Olifant Mk 1A was originally equipped with a 105mm L7 rifled gun barrel originally sourced from Israel. Later on, an improved South African produced GT3B semi-automatic quick firing gun manufactured by Lyttleton Engineering Works (LEW) was fitted.” Also note in anticipation of facing the Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks, SADF did acquire the 1O5mm APFSDS-T round (In 1988 around a year after they had received the APFSDS M-111 @ 390mm of RHA.) which in combat proved highly effective against those tanks. This was considered the first true African tank very suited to its environment with the High Pressure GT3B proven to be very accurate at 2km. Besides an extensive reference list it also provides some interesting combat data to prove this tank was deadly against its adversaries. It would also prove to be an embarrassment the Soviet (Combat Advisors), Cuban and Angolan FAPLA troops. Operation Hooper would see in that successful Op, 21 T-55 tanks destroyed to 1 damaged Olifant Mk1 and 1 destroyed Ratel. Troops 4 SANF killed to 480 casualties to the enemy during this Op during the South African Border Wars 1966 - 1989.

SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/OLIFANT Mk-1A/COPY UNIT 005/CHANGE/START DATE 01/1988/END DATE 12/2025/CHANGE/AMMO 105mm APFSDS-T/PENETRATION 580mm OF RHA/LRF MIGHT NEED TO BE INCREASED FROM 16/REFS INDICAITE THE LRF WAS ACCURATE OUT TO 10km//I know ammo is a consideration and given the difference between the two most current of the APFSDS rounds (1987-1988) in regards to Penetration levels this warrants the above request. It would suggest as well that the ammo is more powerful now.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
http://www.army.mil.za/news/news_2017/feb_17/acd_17.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...lifant_MkI.php
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1B/UNIT 006/START DATE 10/1991 vice 01/1991/END DATE 12/2025 vice 12/2015/VISION 35 OR 40 (Or TI/GSR 35 see below)/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm GT7/STABLELISER 4 vice 3/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 4/STEEL HF 28 vice 24 (Note Mk-1A UNIT 005 is at 26)/STEEL TF 24 or 25// The FCS was considered a very advanced for the time when the tank came online in 1991. That the vision should be increased is not the real question here as it is much improved over the OLIFANT Mk-1A. The real question is should it have TI/GSR added to it? I’m on the fence about this based on the refs below, my “gut” tells me it might be good enough, however, it also tells me based on the tanks that had it at that time, it should be TI/GSR 35 if it is decided to add in this fashion, I don’t see enough to warrant more than that. The gun did have mounted on it an IR/White Light Searchlight as well. I asked for the slight STABLELISER increase based on ref.2 as quoted “A new thermal sleeve and fume extractor helped improved sustained accuracy when firing and reduce barrel droop due to heat by as much as 70%-90%.”, that’s a significant change. Concerning SURVIABILITY the Mk-1B also had a double armored bottom added to the hull. The STEEL requests are based on the refs which noted that the armor protection was increased on the areas noted above.
It is important to note that 44 OLIFANT Mk-1A were upgraded to this standard starting in 1991, but, the similarities end there, this MBT was built from the experiences gained during the Border War 0f 1966 – 1989 and they were RESET. Development started in 1981/82 when the concern was whether the Soviet Union would supply Cuba or the Angolan forces with the T-72A series tanks which didn’t happen. The was built for African combat, this tank was even equipped with two internal water tanks (50.5 Liters each.) just to sustain the crew in the field. The turret bustle was added for the same reason for crew equipment with the added design bonus that the turret was better balanced decreasing by 10s the 360 traverse time to 16s over the Mk-1A turret. %
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...n-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/olifant_mk1b.htm
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2/UNIT OO8/START DATE 10/2005 vice 01/2007/SPEED DISCREPENCY SEE BELOW// The upgrade of 26 OLIFANT Mk-1B tanks to the Mk-2 started in 2005, it is reasonable to assume a handful were in the field by that time. Production ran until the end of 2006/early 2007 depending on source. The SPEED issue needs to be resolved for both UNIT 006 and UNIT OO8. They both use the Continental 29 Liter V12 Turbo Charged diesel engine, the difference is that the Mk-2 engine develops 190hp more but, the additional weight of the Mk-2 doesn’t allow so much for an increase in SPEED, but it does increase P/W Ratio and much better 25% increase in Acceleration. The advertised speeds for both are 58Km/h or 36mph on the road. This is in the end a very highly advanced tank with full “Hunter Killer” capabilities and up to date electronics. There is one discrepancy which goes to the main gun ref. 2 with communications as noted in the “Bibliography” from 2017 indicates this tank also carries the GT3B MG, however, ref 3 (Bottom) via an email in 2006 states the following “GlobalSecurity.org insists the tank is fitted with a Denel GT8 gun but Denel informs this weapon was developed but never produced. The Olifant is therefore fitted with the GT7. Email communication between author and Denel spokesman Sam Basch, August 14, 2006.” I know which I’m inclined to go with, however, I leave it up to you whether you wish to change it or not.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...n-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank
Summary:
The final question here is, do we add another Mk-1A & Mk-1B ~2010 with improved ammo that they should have now? Why? DENEL after the embargo started to sell their top quality ammo and other technology worldwide. But due to mismanagement and corruption, in 2005 Rheinmetall bought 51% controlling interest in DENEL munitions now called Rheinmetall Denel Munitions. Hensoldt did the same with DENAL Optronics operations. I don’t see those two major players sitting on their “laurels” and not improving their products over what was there. Maybe I’m wrong, just a thought.
https://www.africandefence.net/denel...qatari-offers/

While doing research on this over the years and considering the political situation at the time these tanks were developed, the South Africans found a way to overcome the very real war they were in for 23 years (As noted above.) to meet the perceived threat of the T-72M and T-72A series tanks. As it was pointed out, again above, the T-55 & T-62 were no match against them even by the ones crewed by the Cubans. I think a fair amount of this is also due to the professionalism of the SADF crews and ultimately the military as a whole which in most battles were outnumbered by the combined Cuban and Angolan forces with Soviet advisors. Another point of interest was that many of the tank battles were fought within 150yds. due to the terrain.

Also about the tank guns, Israel supplied upgraded versions of the famous British RB 105mm L7 when South Africa wanted to improve their CENTURIAN tanks to the Israeli SHO’T tanks. This would lead to the OLIFANT. Later deployment would lead to the GT3B, GT7, IWI (?) GT8 Prototype and 120mm L52.
The GT3B is in service and with the exception of the GT8, the rest are supposedly available or can be produced in numbers if needed rapidly. All the 105mm guns are considered “High Pressure” (Before it became a “thing” as it is now.) Semi-Automatic Quick Firing.
It was also very interesting to find that Israel supplied South Africa with ammunition to include it’s tank ammo from possibly the late ‘60s but certainly the 70’s – ‘ 90s if not longer.

A final note on SOUTH AFRICA if I may…
SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2B/UNIT 007/COPY REVISED UNIT 008/CHANGE STABILISER TO 6 vice 5/OPERATIONAL STATUS NOW KNOWN/GUN IS READY AND TESTED/POSSIBLE STORAGE OR READY FOR PRODUCTION/TANK NOT FIELDED//I’ve already proven that the Mk-2 Series was designed to carry any of the RB 105mm GT MGs plus the LIW (Thanks Don.) RB 105mm GT8 Prototype or 120mm/L52 MG. As discussed via PM I found credible information that GIAT Industries of France calibrated with DENEL to develop the LIW tank guns listed above. GIAT should ring a bell for some of you “tank nuts” out here, they made the guns (And more.) for the French LeCLERC MBT. It was also noted the characteristics of the LIW 120mm/L52 are a “close” match to the LeCLERC MG. It is important to remember the issue/limitation here is with the OLIFANT Mk-2 FCS though very good it’s not as good as the LeCLERC FCS. This is not my area expertise per say that being said is why I requested a modest increase in the STABILISER number. Based on the guns performance and pedigree should the STABILISER number be slightly higher? And within the limitations I’ve stated above, would the better gun effect any other of the numbers the OLIFANT Mk-2B currently has?

Don is a smart man and I feel he knows I wouldn’t waste my time on a tank that’s not operational if I didn’t see something of value in it concerning the game or the players.

So...
1) The tanks already in the game, yes it needs to match the hopefully revised UNIT 008, it’s the same tank only the gun has changed.

2) South Africa if it arms the tank with this gun, which could happen for many reasons nothing to do with either an internal or external threat, then it’s ready to go and you “flip the switch to on”.

3) The tank obviously can’t be “game ready” as it isn’t now, however, I thought there was a way to allow Campaign and Scenario designers to “unlock it” for their use w/o it being available within the game this I see can have a more immediate impact for the developers.

Finally concerning the possibility of adding new OLIFANT Mk- 1A/1B and now maybe Mk-2 tanks in the 2010 time frame from my last post, I came across this article for what looks like the replacement for the M111 APFSDS round as taken from the ref below Para 3, Dated 18 August 2011… “The Denel-developed M9718 105mm APFSDS round is 0.950m long, weighs 18.5kg and is fired at a chamber pressure of between 350 to 400 MPa to a combat range of 3km. The safety range is 30km. Dispersion at 3km is within 0.3x 0.3m and penetration is 450mm RHA. The tracer is visible to 3km.” again the older M111 APFSDS penetration was 390mm RHA which makes the M9718 APFSDS better by +60mm RHA. The last couple of paras might be useful concerning the ROOIKAT AFV ammo as well.
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...t-rooikat-ammo
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsyste...20Rooikat.html

I mentioned that TAIWAN has a big issue so…
TAIWAN/CHANGE/MIA1 ROC/UNIT 025/NEVER DELIVERED/FMS NOT APPROCVED/CHANGE IN GAME STATUS TO UNAVAILIBLE/RECOMMEND SAME AS REQUESTED FOR OLIFANT Mk-2B BASED ON THE SAME THREE POINTS NOTED ABOVE.//All foreign countries can request U.S. made military arms via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program this includes for both donated and weapons to be paid for. This issues that our weapons industry does not sell our weapons to foreign powers not friendly to the U.S. or that might let the technologies involved with these systems fall into the wrong hands. It also provides cover for the government in sales that could cause a potential international political issue. All sales have to be approved by several agencies and finally by the U.S. State Department, Congress and by the President of the United States. A recent example of this had to do with the sale of the current most advanced version of the JAVELIN ATGW the JAVELIN JV to the UKRAINE which went operational/fielded on 06/2018 and how it might affect the situation on the ground there. Those above tanks have been requested about three times since around 2000. Instead of the tanks we sold them the JAVELIN BLK 1 and later JAVELIN JV (The BLK1 units were updated to the JV.) I will provide refs that TAIWAN is now requesting the M1A2 ABRAMS. Ref. 1 from DID will bring you up to date on the current situation with the U.S. and TAIWAN arms situation and remember, DID lists their refs at the end and with links within the articles. This is an ongoing article. Ref. 2 has that “grab your attention” headline that gets folks all excited out here that they’re buying it and that’s the ONLY reason I’m posting to provide an example of how that tank made it in here in the first place. From Ref. 3 (To include Ref. 1) will provide better reporting. Bottom-line no ABRAMS here yet.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ization-04250/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/taiwan...t_2587925.html
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/05/2...0-m1a1-abrams/
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/228...s#.XD13XHdFzoo
https://defpost.com/taiwan-buy-us-m1...-battle-tanks/
(See para 7 of this ref there’s news within the news there.)
https://www.janes.com/article/81684/...s-mbts-from-us
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...r-its-defences


The T-90S is the export version of the Russian T-90. A total by this fall of 5 export countries will operate the T-90S India (Advanced type.), Algeria, Uganda, Iraq and this fall Vietnam (Standard type.) Data Points…
1. ROSOBOROEXPORT is the Russian State run military equipment sales unit.

2. The Night Vision specs for the base model are Detection Rng. 800m and Identification Rng. 700m.

3. ERA standard is Kontakt-5 and the numbers look right for this pkg.

4. All export units have the SHTORA-1 “Soft Kill” System.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html

5. Standard equipped FCS does not support ATGM ops.

6. Only again, Russia and India have the advanced FCS/Optics the French made “CATHERINE”/”ESSA” systems and are capable of conducting ATGM ops. The first system is the same as used on the T-72 White Eagle tanks that Laos has just received and is entered in the game for Nicaragua and Russia from someone, by someone else.

7. In my opinion the Ugandan T-90S is the closest to the standard I see, and will act as the base unit.

8. Where I used SIPRI for verification the time period was from 2005 – 2017 which covered all the issues involved. That raw information will be provided for each country below.

9. I’ve tried to verify a few times by now any evidence to support the fact that these other countries might be using one of the advanced systems as noted in #6 above, I’ve been unsuccessful in doing so.

10. START dates are good unless otherwise noted.

ALGERIA/CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 027/ EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/DELETE M119M INVAR/FCS DOES NOT SUPPORT/FC 30 vice 35/STABILISER 5 vice 4/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 6//To further verify this I used SIPRI the only Russian ATGM imported by Algeria was both the AT-4 & AT-14.
185 T-90S Tank 2006 2006-2008 185 $1 b deal
(120) T-90S Tank 2011 2012-2013 (120) $470 m deal
(200) T-90S Tank (2014) 2015-2016 (200)

IRAQ/ CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 035/ EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/DELETE M119M INVAR/FCS DOES NOT SUPPORT/FC 30 vice 35/STABILISER 5 vice 4/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 6// To further verify this I used SIPRI the only Russian ATGM imported by IRAQ was both the AT-6 & AT-14.

NORTH VIETNAM/CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 033/START 10/2019 vice 06/2018/ EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/DELETE M119M INVAR/FCS DOES NOT SUPPORT/FC 30 vice 35/STABILISER 5 vice 4/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 6// First shipment arrived in Hanoi in 01/02/2019. To further verify this I used SIPRI and no Russian ATGM were imported by VIETNAM.
64 T-90S Tank 2017 Incl T-90SK version
https://www.janes.com/article/85463/...ive-in-vietnam

UGANDA/CHANGE/T-90S/UNIT 031/EW 2 VIRSS vice 0/VISION 35 vice 30/MG 125mm D81T 00 vice 125mm Gun 00//The base.
(44) T-90S Tank 2010 2011 44
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...t-can-do-40962

India will need further investigation I don’t understand why the STEEL and HEAT numbers do not match the above. I believe the current numbers are incorrect for the T-90S for India.

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90MS/UNIT 039/START 01/2022 vice 01/2019//SIPRI has no data on contracts (See VIETNAM above showing contract date.) or this tank in the time period (2005-2017) noted above. I believe they were signed in the fall of 2018. But this is India who stopped the ARJUN Mk 2 for the “desire” to acquire this tank as far back as 2012.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indi...armour-1640749
(2016-No APS system mounted per above.)
https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/indi...with-pakistan/
(2017-Still thinking about getting them.)
https://www.defensenews.com/land/201...russian-tanks/
(2017 We’ll try to develop our own APS.)
Then there’s nothing.
I also checked almost 2yrs. worth of articles from BROADSWORD run by a retired Col. Of the Indian Army and currently a reporter with a major Indian newspaper, with negative results.
https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90S BHISHMA/UNIT 036/START JUN 2002 vice JAN 2004/VISION 35 vice TI/GSR 40/NO EW INDIA DID NOT ORDER SHORTORA-1/CHANGEFC/STABILSER/SURVIABILITY/STEEL/HEAT PER REVISED UGANDIAN UNIT 031 AS SUBMITTED (UNDERSTAND STEEL & HEAT DONE)//
SIPRI 310 T-90S Tank 2001 2001-2006 (310) $600-700 m deal (incl 55% advance payment); reaction on Pakistani acquisition of 320 T-80UB tanks; 186 assembled from kits in India

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90S+BHISHMA/UNIT 037/NO EW INDIA DID NOT ORDER SHORTORA-1/SURVIABILITY**STEEL**HEAT PER REVISED UGANDIAN UNIT 031 AS SUBMITTED (UNDERSTAND STEEL & HEAT DONE)//These would represent the ones equipped with FRENCH THALES "CATHERINE" TI/GSR and supported FCS integration equipment.

INDIA/ADD/T-90M BHISHMA/COPY CURRENT INDIA T-90S+BHISHMA/UNIT037/START JUN 2010/ADD/EW SWEDDISH LEDS-150 APS 3 SHOTS/MG 125mm 2A46M-5 Rapira vice 125mm D81T 88/FC 45 vice 40/STABLISER 5 vice 4/ERA 16/16/0/16/16/0/16 KANCHAN ERA vice current 14 KONTAKT 5 ERA//All other current numbers for the "copied" UNIT 037 especially in the STEEL and HEAT areas are good as the armor package was improved for this version.
SIPRI 347 T-90S Tank 2007 2008-2012 (347) INR49 b ($1.2 b) deal; incl 223 assembled in India

INDIA/CHANGE/T-90MS/UNIT 039/NAME T-90MS BHISHMA II vice T-90MS/DATE CHANGE ALREADY SUBMITTED PER Page #88/Post #879 which was START 01/2022 vice 01/2019//
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...0S_Bhishma.php
http://tanknutdave.com/indian-t90-bhishma-tank/

INDIA/CHANGE/ARGUN Mk II & ARGUN Mk II+/UNITS 022 & 023/START JAN 2023 vice CURRENT// I really don't think these will make it in the game at all in the "RW". I would say DELETE them, however, in India things "can change on a dime"

Additional Refs to support the above…
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsyste...0-%20T-90.html
(General data at top of page worth overview look. Scroll down to the T-90A section read general descriptor, then click on each T-90A and T-90S tab with the focus being on “Night Vision” upper right.)
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/tanks/t-90s/
(See para 7 not exactly a ringing endorsement of the onboard FCS optics. Again as demonstrated above except for India’s T-90S tanks, the others listed don’t have ATGM system support or even ordered them. Do note India is not “off the hook” on this matter. Those tanks will be treated as a separate issue, because after all, it is India and tanks we’re talking about here.)
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/tanks/t-90ms/
(See para 2, note the use of “…multispectral sights…”, that is a ringing endorsement and I truly hope everyone understands why and what the difference means.)

Bonus tank due to search of the above.
UGANDA/ADD/T-55AM-2/COPY/RUSSIAN T-55AMV/UNIT 016/START 06/2010/DELETE ATGM/THEY DIDN'T ORDER IT//The T-55AMV was the next upgraded version in the T-55 series from its predecessor the T-55AM-1. The ERA is definitely Kontaik-1 which is what the T-55AMV had//Understand specs are ready for inclusion.
(23) T-55AM-2 Tank 2009 2009 23 Second-hand; delivered via Belarus
1000 9M133 Kornet/AT-14 Anti-tank missile 2010 2012-2013(1000) Kornet-E version
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsyste...0-%20T-55.html
Miscellaneous Refs.
https://www.defencetalk.com/raytheon...-sensors-2307/
http://www.deagel.com/Armored-Vehicl...000516002.aspx
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...15m1a2sep3.pdf
http://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eA...une2007web.pdf
(A very good article on the differences between UK & USA Armor tactics and training.)

All right from back in the day. I was passionate in that segment, a book anyone!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

When I get a day or two with no distractions ( that ain't today or tomorrow ) I will look this over. I just printed out all 5 pages....quite impressive when held in the hand

"Brevity" would be one of those "sock" items:D

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Pat Ukrainian Unit 32 is a 2016 upgrade that brings it up to tier 1 levels...... there is some room for improvement but not a lot

We're all just guessing anyway but I don't think no matter what they do it will be equal to a SEP. I can give it a try though and see what I get. I will use T-64 Bulat M17

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Hope to post my input on the T-64 M17 later tonight. I used for my research the latest T-64 BULAT (Probably same as you sent me.), OPLOT and OPLOT-M (As you sent about the SEP, it won't be an OPLOT-M either.).

About SADF, with all the "fits and starts", it was the culmination of seven years of research that started very confusedly bouncing the OOB against the data, think INDIA here.

Current MBT status as of this writing:
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/securit...defence-force/
Armour
191: 177 Olifant 1A/B (Of which 133 in storage) and 26 Olifant Mk 2 (for training)
(The above website is a dedicated all Africa Defense site.)
(This site is missing the Olifant Mk 2B.)
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
(The above is missing the Olifant 1B.
It is very much there and improved as submitted, around 2010 I believe. (Along with the above "missing" tank which also had a ton of references to support their existence, you hopefully will have a better understanding of why I walked away from this SADF issue over that time period I mentioned above.)

Gotta get that "military" haircut (Flat top for my three hairs and a hot towel shave, it's almost heaven!?!)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

SPMBT Patch Post for 2019/2020
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT M17/COPY UNIT O32 T-64BM BULAT/CHANGE/START JUN 2018/EW 2 APS/RADIO 90/VISION TI/GSR45/FC 45/STABILIZER 5/ERA HF 16/HS 16/HR 0/TF 16/TS 16/TR 0/TOP 16/USED UNITS 032 T-64BM BULAT/UNIT 063 T-84 OPLOT+/UNIT 064 T-84 OPLOT-M AS BASELINE UNITS //First off it looks like UNIT 032 should also be equipped with the same EW as the T-64 BULAT M17. The T-64 BULAT’s are the main frontline tanks at Ukraine’s Eastern sector and were in need of further modernization because of this as shown in combat, even though they showed themselves as more than a match against the rebel’s T-72 tanks. I don’t think up to the ERA numbers there’s any problems here. And I really feel very comfortable about those ERA numbers as this represents a much improved NOZH (KNIFE) ERA. It essentially falls between NOZH II and the DUPLEX ERA’s. I’ll have to find my original posts on the this tank as I think they had better information in them. But I hope for now this will do. Please let me know.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...mor_plant.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-russia-112166

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Postscript: See from MBT Thread, Post #924 Pg. 93 Aug. 15, 2019 10:22pm, this covers the above T-64 BULAT M17. Also ALL the refs are working still which have better information about the tanks modernization. About last ref, it should read pages 13-14 (Engine) and 16-17 (ERA Basic)

Pat

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

The Oliphant info is great and I was finally able to dig up some good top down views of the main versions and have new Icons for the entire line. The old ones were added as " good enough" guesses as no decent drawings existed a decade ago...... they were close in that they looked like tanks but the reality was quite a bit different for all types

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Pat, I feel certain that this has been discussed before. Open that unit up in the game or MOBHack......what do you see ? If you have the latest version of the OOB which seems that you do not you will see it named M1A2 Abrams-P and if you look at the unit class it is in you will see it along with one other tank in the "Prototype Tank" formation that can only be found if you dig it out of the Misc folder so yes, it could be removed but what's the point ?

What is bothersome to me is you reported it as "MIA1 ROC" and it's name was changed last release BUT it has been in a Prototype tank formation since 2008(!!) on the off chance someone might want to play "what if"......though admittedly that is doubtful. I can only assume these are old notes and you did not check the latest OOB's before posting them here

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

To Taiwan, yes it was and I had no issues. You will also find a couple of more like that as well soon like the CHANGE(S) made to the Ukraine's OPLOT- M and Thailand's OPLOT-T (Now) from the last patch.

The point of this exercise again is for me to get all those individual posts across almost 12 to 14 pages of them back together and grouped.

Even you said you printed out what I posted (I haven't yet, but will.) and it sounds like you "rediscovered" the SADF OLIFANT information from your Post #230 of the previous page bottom.

That's why this Thread has been here all these years because it's "Homeplate" or "Ground Zero" for the my inputs to you and others of what "might be" coming.

What happened in the 2017/2018 (Lesser extent and already fixed in this Thread properly.) and 2018/2019 Campaigns was a mess and reminds me of how I first started out which then was only with a handful of inputs by posts and easily managed.

However I seem to remember a call from "some of those close to me here" and one I recognized myself all those years ago, that due to gradual and steady increase of submissions that I had to organize myself in a more concise manner. Again the reason for this Thread.

All that went to **** during these last two campaigns and especially the 2018/2019 one as you know.

My final analogy, I promise. ;)

When you build a car and please for some of you reading, the basic concept if you will :D, is you start with the Frame (This Thread) add the Engine (Thread Posts) continue to the Body (Our discussions etc. of the Patch Posts in this Thread as needed.) then we prep it for delivery to the showroom by Detailing and Inspecting the car fully (This you and Andy putting the Patch Release together). And finally off to the Showroom where the excited and anxious customers can't wait to see the new car!!

Oh yeah the customers is us! :shock:

So finally (And there was much celebration. :party:) in the 2018/2019 Campaign, the Engine came first without the Frame of the car, kinda makes it's tough to build the car that way, let alone drive it.

As already posted before I added that "Patch Post", I apologize for any inconvenience and confusion this may have caused, however...

I respectfully, would like to build that 2019/2019 Campaign Car right, before I move onto what will probably be the late model 2019/2021 Campaign Car.

And again this is to me the reference point "Home Plate", "Frame" or "Library" whichever you prefer, even "PITA" has worked here in the past and that's OK to! ;) :p :D.

I intend to enjoy the rest of this evening as CINCLANTHOME just stopped in and see 1917 tomorrow. I love my weekends, though sometimes they don't seem long enough! :cool:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Don,
This by way of a status report.

First to INDIA: I see you had already entered the ARJUN MK 1-A, along with that tank there'll be changes to the ARJUN in general. Nothing major overall but I'll be looking to get the ARJUN itself removed as this is more and more appearing to have been named ONLY for the test bed units. So the ARJUN Mk-1 is looking to be the first operational type, which had 14 improvements made to it based on the OPEVALs before going into production..

Also, and I've brought this up several times over the years, but with newer information in doing the build for the ARJUN Mk-1A (And yes I see you already added it.) it looks like LAHAT is dead.

The reasons are two fold 1) We knew it was plagued by technical difficulties for years and 2) It doesn't fit India's tactical operational needs. Simply this is due to the fact LAHAT is designed as a long range engagement weapon which doesn't "turn on" until it's further down range, where Israel wants it to operate. Anything closer it'll let the MG deal with it.

India wants a ATGW it'll engage targets at a closer range if need be, this is a preference versus a need. Their MG is very close to being as good as the CHALLENGER 2 MG.

They are currently testing an ATGW to meet their needs.

USA - Still sorting through the ABRAMS posts, there just was so many pages of data, a couple "back and forth" posts as I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.) etc. etc.

FRANCE - I see you fixed the MMP ATGW that had the 0 Vis. to 60 TI/GSR. That was what I had as well.

RUSSIA - Have some date changes concerning the T-80BV Series of tanks. Already researched.

But to give you something to do :rolleyes: :doh: :D,
CHANGE/SOUTH KOREA/K2 PIP/UNIT 033/TI/GSR 55/or 60 (I can see this clearly, but, I leave it to your discretion.)/vice/TI/GSR 40/FC 55/vice/FC 50/MIGHT REQUIRE LATER START DATE//The K2 PIP is the "Top Dog" in the K2 Series of tanks.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/moder...ck-panther.php

Now I'm going to watch APOCALYPSE NOW in 4K. Ride of the Valkyries by Richard Wagner will never have sounded better to me then it will on my YAMAHA 4k HTS. Plus the DOORS AND Soundtrack, it's going to be a good night!

CINCLANTHOME is going to LOVE THIS!! :rolleyes: ;) :cool:

Good Night!! Back to the GRIND tomorrow.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Well as usual when I start looking into something I uncover more issues of which in this case are minor compared to many others we've encountered out here. The issues are with SOUTH KOREA with their more recent armor.

I'll set it up in my normal format later as I sense the "clock is ticking" (And NO I DON'T HAVE ANY INSIDE INFORMATION OF ANYTHING TO COME.)

So Don don't have a "heart attack" (Or for that matter anyone that follows my posts.) at my "briefness" if you will.

First, I get it concerning K1-88 UNITS 021-023, though I think two can be combined into one unit, maybe.

Second, I would strongly recommend changing the name of the KIA1 UNIT 024 to either K1A1/A2 or K1A1/2. I highlighted the first one as I'm seeing it described as such in more of the refs. The K1A2 was another improved model but, and I agree with many of the refs. that the improvements were "minor in nature" as to not warrant a separate unit. We did the same with the Russian T-72B3/B4 as I recall about three years back.

Third, Is there a reason the K2 UNIT 025 is not armed with the KSTAM munition? They have them and this tank was designed to fire it. Some people are calling it an ATGW, I STRONGLY disagree, it's designed to be fired at a higher elevation and the refs are describing/or comparing it to firing a mortar or artillery. Further the description of KSTAM much more reminds me of the STRIX the very effective SWEDISH (?) 120mm Anti-Tank top attack mortar round. The picture of it even resembles the STRIX and looks more like a "mortar" round in the below ref. The below is taken from the same ref. and is a composite of other refs.

"Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition (KSTAM), sort of fire-and-forget semi-autonomous ammunition that operates at 2–8 km (1.2–5.0 mi), launched in a mortar-type high trajectory."
https://weaponews.com/weapons/653540...tle-tanks.html

Also concerning the K2, I'm trying to confirm whether or not South Korea has already started to field "KAPS" (APS) on those tanks. And yes, I see you equipped it as such. For everyone else KAPS was one of the improvements slated for the K2 PIP.

Fourth, The T-80ROK UNIT 029 and BMP-3ROK UNIT 061 were retired last year. I thought I posted this last summer or early fall. But for the sake of argument based on the dates of the refs. being in the March/April 2019 timeframe, I believe JUN 2019 would work well or DEC 2019 if you want to be more conservative about the END date.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/ht.../20190406.aspx

Fifth, From what little is out there to include HYUNDAI/ROTEM (Which doesn't even mention the K2 PIP.) website, I believe a better START date for K2 PIP UNIT 033 would be JAN 2023.

Most every ref. talks about the K2 PIP being a "few years away". The first para says it all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalPower...ement_program/

But I'll be more optimistic about the K2 PIP based on the political situation on the peninsula and the world in general.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

POSTSCRIPT: Added on 2/6/2020 1155 Here's a short STRIX video I posted when we addressed this weapon a few years back. Again KSTAM (Though improved.) uses basically the same technology with also radar technology.

STRIX has long been rumored to use either a Video or Radar to supplement the IR seeker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhd1d2sW_3I
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-pre...ld-leadership/

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

IN reply to each point you made

First.....it is good enough as it is with three progressions
Second...Done
Third....Done
Forth... Done
Fifth....Done

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Not sure Don wants to hear this if it has anything to do with the armor values.

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I was simply making the point as to why I'm holding off getting the ABRAMS data into this thread. You of all people know well, that my submissions start in this thread. That did not happen in 2018/2019.

You have with all due respect, no idea how many hours and refs. I had to spend and go through just to post what I did on the ABRAMS, and it started with a request from I don't know who :rolleyes: :D to look into the USMC M1A1 FEP.

I found two separate ABRAMS in the game that were actually the same tank. Dates were messed up, a couple using production dates vice FOC one's. Most of those errors were in this game BEFORE Don and Andy stepped in.

I actually submitted numbers for the FEP at least 2 times as data "bled over" from the USMC and USA.

I have disciplined myself to do "deep searches" on any piece of equipment I submit, to avoid rework for everyone else and myself. As Col. Kurtz said "...the horror, the horror." :p well I've seen enough of that here.

I would love to have one Patch Campaign go smoothly to the point that the equipment submitted didn't lead down a "rabbit hole" affecting other units, just one year. I don't see it happening because I suspect there are more, if you will, "relics" left to be found.

I do love "order in my world" and I accept the challenge that "chaos" brings to life. It's the spice of life.

So no, I think you missed the point I made completely from that post.

I have no idea what Don used of my submission for the FEP or any other ABRAMS or equipment I posted into the MBT Thread during 2018/2019.

You might better understand if you went through those eight or more pages just on ABRAMS in the MBT Thread. Start around Page 87 or so.

I deviated from my mode of operations. I ignored this thread, for the sake of getting equipment in the game or modified. That'll never happen again.

I own that. Now I'm paying the price for that "tactical error" but, at least it's at my pace around CINCLANTHOME and work and training.

So I end with what you posted with now the complete sentence to put it all in context for the portion you used.

From Post #233
"USA - Still sorting through the ABRAMS posts, there just was so many pages of data, a couple "back and forth" posts as I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.) etc. etc."

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I assure you I very much value your work.

But the trouble (as always) when dealing with contemporary (and sometimes past) equipment is getting solid data. For as "simple" as WinSPMBT may appear to some, those that deal with the actual data that defines units know it's anything but behind the scenes. A simple date change may effect multiple OOBs and several scenarios which may then require updating.

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

If your in no rush I'll keep going as I'm doing with the time I have. But as a "heads up" just spent the last couple of hours reverifying my data and trying to "stay on point" in the brevity department.

We'll see how that worked out in the INDIA section (Which I referred to above.) with what others I have to this point for Part 2 of this Thread.

It will be concerning the first tank I offered for India and one of the first I posted so long ago-yes-the ARJUN (Series.). Nothing too earth shattering :dk: with the biggest changes to the ARJUN Mk-1A.

I'm done.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

SPMBT/MBT’s Part 2
I hope to finish the rest of the 2018/2019 MBT data with this Part 2 (2/16/2020 I will need a Part 3.). Again I realize some of what will be posted here has been acted on but, then this is not why they appear here as I noted in an earlier. All the below sourced from the MBT Thread.

From Page 81 Post 802
A1. ALGERIA/ADD/JUN 2018/T-90SA/COPY UNIT 027/WITH SHTORA-1//
Article is from May, its indicating system is already installed on some tanks. June seems like a safe month, however, if you wish to be more conservative then I recommend NLT OCT.

C1. ALGERIA/CHANGE/UNIT 027/T-90S/TORD T-90SA//
All Algerian T-90S (Standard export version.) were modified somewhat for desert warfare to include, I know, AC (But remember folks AC isn't for the crew but for the electronics.) and therefore designated T-90SA.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._53005161.html

From Page 81 Post 808/I wanted to keep these together.
This follows the "tact" as I discussed last week or whenever I posted PART I. I just pulled this off the "wire" so again Croatia will have to wait, as this article impacts both Brazil and will "dove tail" to Uruguay. I know not many players probably play these OOB's but, that doesn't mean we (I) should ignore them, after all my motto is "One World One OOB". Let's get to it...

BRAZIL/CHANGE/M-41C CAXIAS/UNIT 007/END DATE 12/1996 VICE 12/2025// There is some evidence to support this date when the first LEOPARD tanks went into service for the Brazilian Army. These tanks were used for training purposes both before (Earlier mods.) and up to, for the sake of argument, concerning the month, 12/2009 as deemed obsolete. So that last date gives you an out however I'm feeling 80% sure of the date as submitted. I know it's not the best, but the current situation isn't correct.

Now we "dove tail"...

URAGUAY/ADD/M-41C CAXIAS/USE BRAZILIAN UNIT 007/START DATE 12/2019/LEAVE NAME UNCHANGED FOR NOW/REDESINATION UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME/WHEN ANNOUCED (IF) IT'LL BE EASIER TO FIND AND FIX// I've not seen anything on name change or any upgrades to at least the current M-41UR BULLDOG that has slightly better armor numbers. These tanks will by Brazil be fully maintained before delivery.

These tanks will replace the last of the M-24 CHAFFEE tanks in service with the Uruguayan Army. So...

URAGUAY/CHANGE/M-24UR CHAFFEE/UNIT 005/END DATE 06/2019 VICE 12/2015// I feel that's a good overall date, it generally takes a little longer to "pull something out than put it in" and this will allow more than enough time to retrain the M-24 crews to man the "new" M-41C Brazilian received tanks.

I think that about covers it and I need to get ready for work. Again, a "composite" ref.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...ayan_army.html

From Page 81 Post 810
News first then we'll take a journey into the OOB.
FYI HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-84A4 SNIPER and M-84D TO BE UPGRADED TO THE M-95 DEGMAN LEVEL//TRACKING/GUESS/SHOULD HAVE UNITS UPGRADED AND IN THE FIELD BY 10/2020/IF THIS HOLDS TRUE, THAT WOULD MARK THE END DATES FOR THOSE TWO M-84 VARIENTS// Budget was approved in 02/2018. Assume work has begun if budget is on the Calendar year, if not and they are on a standard Fiscal year, work should have started around 10/2018 or 11/2018.

FYI/HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-95 DEGMAN/APPARENTLY THEY SEEK TO UPGRADE IT TO MEET NATO STANAG REQUIRMENTS. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLABRATING WITH SWISS RUAG TO DEVELOP A SMALL CALIBAR (L44?) 120mm MG TO ALSO MEET NATO REQUIRMENTS/TRACKING/THEY ARE ON A UNKNOWN TIMELINE TO GET THIS DONE FROM NATO/GUESS/06/2021//

I'm to do this in as close to the listing in the OOB as possible.

First CROATIAN M-84 progression/hierarchy: M-84, M-84A (Both out of Service.), M-84A4 SNIPER, M-84D and M-95 DEGMAN.

YUGOSLOVIA (Built in the State of CROATIA) developed the M-84 as an improved version of the SOVIET era T-72M1M export version. This build issue will cause a start date change for one tank, but, if not you at least know what I was thinking at the time.

Alright here we go...

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 008/TI/GSR 40 VICE VISION 35/DELETE LAHAT/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 12.7mm HMG//Based on the refs to be provided with the builder one provided directly below, the argument can be made that this tank has a DETECTION RNG. OF >4000m/RECOGNITION RNG. >2000m it is considered an advanced 2nd GEN System. LAHAT was never exported to CROATIA and no site I've come across (And I don't use WIKI anything.) mentions any CROATIAN tank being armed with the LAHAT. Further ref. is also directly below the first one as they are exclusive to this tank. Dates covered 1990 - 2017 for SIPRI search.
Finally I chose this tank because the ERA is where it should be.
http://ddsv.hr/download/Tenk_Degman_engleski.pdf
All optional equipment was acted upon to include FCS & 1200HP German engine etc.
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade...e_register.php

Israel "Delivered" "Weapon" "Order" "Delivered"
R: Croatia 2 Hermes-450 UAV 2006 2007 2
8 UT-25/UT-30 IFV turret 2017 HRK94 m ($14.8 m) deal; UT-30MK2 version for 6 AMV IFV; delivery planned 2018

Reporting to SIPRI is governed by Treaties and International Law among the factors they use.

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84 & M-84A/UNITS 012 & 013/END DATE 12/2007 VICE 12/2025//All previous active T-84 mods were upgraded to the M-84A4 SNIPER standard by 2008.

CROATIA/DELETE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT O15//If anything these might have represented the two prototype tanks that were produced and not put into service.

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84D/UNIT 020/DELETE 12.7 M2 (SLAP)/ADD 12.7mm M2 CROWS RWS//

CROATIA/DELETE/M-84D/UNIT 021/REDUNDANT TO UNIT 020/AGAIN NO LAHAT//

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 023/USE MODIFIED UNIT 008 IF ADAPTED AS BASE/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 40mm AGL//

CROATIA/DELETE/M-94 DEGMAN/UNIT 024/REDUNDANT//

I can find no evidence that any of these tanks had a "mid-life" upgrade of any kind. Besides other factors, this drove some of the above.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...nks_fleet.html
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/33033
http://tanknutdave.com/the-yugoslavi...r-m-84-series/
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armo...p?armor_id=629

Ref. 3 does a nice job of breaking these tanks down but more importantly along with Ref. 4 to a lesser degree, discuss the various mods across the countries that operated the M-84.

Doing the best I can.

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-1/UNIT 020/CHANGE/END JAN 2025//
This MBT is still very much in service, currently with the 43RD Tank Regiment in western India.
https://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-the-ar...et-yet-1797209
https://www.janes.com/article/80893/...pacific-es18d3
(This Ref. 1 near the bottom discusses the fact that LAHAT failed testing and in meeting India’s tactical requirements. India will develop their own ATGW. Ref. dated Jan 2018.)

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START JAN 2021/VISION/TI/GSR 50/REMOVE LAHAT/FC 50/STABILIZER 6/ERA (All) 18/ROF 7/USES SAME RWS AS ARJUN Mk-2/TRACK WIDTH MINE PLOUGH (TWMP) SEEMS TO BE STANDARD/BASE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNITS 022/023//
This MBT was delayed. As you will have noted from the above refs. They both end up talking about the Mk-1 to the MK-2 (Only in ref. 2). The ARJUN MK-1A has incorporated 72 out of the ~97 improvements the Army has required for the ARJUN Mk-2. The above changes are what’s on the ARJUN Mk-2 at this time. None of the above are items of issue currently delaying the ARJUN Mk-2. The tank will make its public appearance at DefExpo India 2020, I believe on 20 Feb.

A separate issue appears to be that this MBT is also (Can be.) equipped to fire both a Thermo Baric (TB) and Penetration Cum Blast (PCB) round.

Can those rounds be modeled?

https://www.newindianexpress.com/sta...y-2073063.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nat...n-2073023.html
https://weaponews.com/news/65357533-...able-bull.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...roduction.html

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNIT 022/ROF 7/If the above TB and or PCB rounds can be modeled, then this MBT should also have those rounds//

INDIA/DELETE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNIT 023/NO LAHAT/WITH OPTION 2 FOLLOWING BELOW/CHANGE/ROF 7//Alright Option 2, retain this MBT until such time as India needs to develop its own ATGW. But remove it from regular play if retained.

New pictures will be submitted for UNITS 021/022 as they currently reflect the ARJUN Mk-1/Mk-2. In outward appearance they're the same. Also added a better (Maybe.) ARJUN Mk-1 picture as well. It'll be the last one.

Trying this in a separate post.

STATUS UPDATE for ARJUN Mk-2: The weight of the ARJUN Series has been one of the biggest issues concerning the Army from the start. The update here is that they just very recently announced they have redesigned the chassis and reduced the overall weight by 3 tons. I know the newer more effective ERA on this tank (And on the Mk-1A.) shed another ton just about. This makes me hopeful that we will actually see this MBT in the game.

From Page 85 Post 849
JAPAN/ADD/TYPE 16 MCV 8x8/START 06 2017/C4/SPEED 100km/h (62.1 mph)/4x2 GRENADE LAUNCHERS TURRET MOUNTED/RADIO 91/TI/GSR 50/MODIFIED L7 105mm/L52 JSW/ROUNDS 55 SEE REF. 1 FOR TYPES/RS COAX Type 74 7.62mm/RS Mid Turret 12.7mm M2HB HMG/FCS 50/LASER R/F 22/STABILISER 6/SURVIBILITY 5/STEEL/HEAT USE ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030/ERA NONE MENTIONED/SUBMITTED AS UPARMORED VERSION//The design was based on the SADF ROOIKAT and ITALY's CENTURO. The MCV was designed to replace the TYPE 74 MBT of which that process has already begun. Due to cost issues of the TYPE 10 during development and sanctions limiting the JGSDF to 600 tanks, the MCV was seen as a cheap alternative to supplement their tank branch. First off the FCS is believed to be derived from the TYPE 10. The MG is similar to the one used on the TYPE 74 but, modified with the addition of integrated thermal sleeve and fume-extractor the importance of this goes to the MG STABILITY has already been discussed with the recent SADF submissions (Added as submitted in Part 1.). It does feature a unique muzzle brake/compensator, consisting of rows of nine holes bored into the barrel in a spiral formation see picture on Ref. 1. I've not seen that on any MBT MG to date.
Researched contemporary peer game units SOUTH AFRICA ROOIKAT II UNIT 017, ITALY B1-B CENTURO UNIT 030, JAPAN TYPE 10 UNIT 022 & TYPE 74 KAI UNIT 027. Like the TYPE 10 the ARMOR/STEEL composition and thickness are CLASSIFIED. The same as a side note concerns the TYPE 10 ammo, all we know is that we've (USA) has noted "it is highly effective". I've not come across anything to indicate that the MCV ammo is, I will assume it is of a high quality and effective though.
Relying heavily on Refs. 1 & 2 because they are NEWER and RELIABLE. The next is the same but not updated.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...n-type-16-mcv/
https://www.janes.com/article/74061/...ility-dsei17d4
(NOTE LAST PARA & Mr. Foss of JANE'S is a well known writer.)
For further info:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/japa...res_video.html
(NOTE Shows JAPAN as a USER not PROTOTYPE.)

From Page 94 Post 940:
RUSSIA/T-90M/UNIT 059/START JUN 2020 vice OCT 2018.// This should get the job done, hopefully. I first posted on this MBT late in 2017 or early in 2018 I believe, having first been spotted participating in a Russian exercise. The T-90M which I've been watching from the start. It is currently still in trials so a date change will be required. (Follow the ref. chain below as they have now been updated.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...uisitions.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ...res_video.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...sian_army.html
(From the ref. Dated FEB 2018, "According to the Russian Company Uralvagonzavod, the latest modernization of the main battle tank T-90, called T-90M will enter in service with the Russian army in the next few months.")
https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/russ...rials-in-2019/
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...ew-t-90m-tank/
(This last ref. from this past SEP. indicates the Russian Army did not receive its first T-90M until JUN 2019.)
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25...y#.Xav6qm5Fzoo
(This ref. SEP 2019 is saying they just got their first one in SEP 2019.)

From Page 93 Post #924
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT M17/COPY UNIT O32 T-64BM BULAT/CHANGE/START JUN 2018/EW 2 APS/RADIO 90/VISION TI/GSR 45/FC 45/STABILIZER 5/ERA HF 16/HS 16/HR 0/TF 16/TS 16/TR 0/TOP 16/USED UNITS 032 T-64BM BULAT/UNIT 063 T-84 OPLOT+/UNIT 064 T-84 OPLOT-M AS BASELINE UNITS //First off it looks like UNIT 032 should also be equipped with the same EW as the T-64 BULAT M17. The T-64 BULAT’s are the main frontline tanks in Ukraine’s Eastern sector and were in need of further modernization based on combat experience, even though they showed themselves as more than a match against the rebel’s T-72 tanks. I don’t think up to the ERA numbers there’s any problems here. And I really feel very comfortable about those ERA numbers as this represents a much improved NOZH (KNIFE) ERA. It essentially falls between NOZH II and the DUPLEX ERA’s. I’ll have to find my original posts on this tank as I think they had better information in them.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...mor_plant.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-russia-112166
https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...t-64_mbts.html
https://www.janes.com/article/86319/...upgraded-t-64s
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-def...t64-tanks.html
https://defence-blog.com/army/russia...er-t-72b3.html
https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_...cs/udr-02-2017 (See pages 13–14 and 16–17 for this ref.)

From Page 71 Post 702
CHANGE/UNIT 538/ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V3/START DATE 4/117 to 5/120//
Prototypes (6) to the USA by end of this month, or Oct. (From the time this was posted.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...tle_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/unit..._11710154.html

From Page 71 Posts 703/704
USA/ADD/JAN 2018/M1A2 SEP V2/COPY UNIT 517/CHANGE EW 0 TO EW 2/4 TROPHY/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS// (My edit “today”, this was/is a tough decision the RWS was addressed and fixed per Post 704. The issue is TROPHY. Under an “urgent equipment order” while TROPHY was finishing testing, the USA decided to equipment ONE combat brigade with it prior to a rotational deployment to Europe. But in the game you just can’t equip a brigade you have to equip the whole fleet. This just isn’t reality, so to copy the above UNIT 517 wouldn’t be a waste of time to get ahead of the TROPHY issue, which might happen by years end or the next year. But it shouldn’t be game ready now and I don’t think it is.)
ALSO...
USA/CHANGE/UNITS 517 M1A2 SEP V2 & 538 M1A2 SEP V3/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.//
When submitted in Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013 under MBT's...A1 M1A2 SEP V2 the unit was submitted to have the 50 CAL CROWS II RWS. For all the Patch Posts I've submitted, I've maintained a hard copy of each. When the Patch comes out I do a line item check against what I submitted and what actually was put in. Reading from my "crib" notes in the margin are the following...
"TI/GSR 50" with check mark and "THANKS 898/899 NEW BRADLEY" (A reminder which I posted to Don later.) this tells me it was originally put in the game with the CROWS II RWS. Am I off base here and I missed it then? Or was it changed afterwards? I think however there's a performance difference between the two 50 CAL weapons in the game. A note about the ref., in the title it does say..."...tanks fitted with..." and not "will be" "soon to be" "in the future" "expected to be" "planned to be" etc. etc.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...on_system.html
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/...sraeli-trophy/
https://scout.com/military/warrior/A...ecti-101454662
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/06/...h-chief-hints/

The last two USA UNITS represents the start of the ABRAMS nightmare. I have had to go back OVER 30 Pages of Posts to “Recapture” this data and to see if there have been any updates to what I’ve posted thus far. I haven’t find any yet to date except where noted in () other than attached to the refs.

I’m pretty sure the Algerian, Japanese, Ukrainian (With a compromise on the ERA with Don.), and possibly the USA units have been addressed.

I have not the time to verify the OOB’s, sorry, we’re going into a third week of two major security exercises as announced for planning purposes for delayed base access for those with base access.

The whole team has done really well in the first exercise, it’s time to finish strong on the next one.

But again, as far as I can find all the above is still correct and relevant.

I had taken a few hours to list everything posted thus far and what will now end with a PART III.

And this ONLY covers the MBT’s. I found doing this “donkey backwards” that I posted A LOT of inputs across the Threads. But this will be the longest of them all by far I think.

At least I won’t have to put them back into their “Home Threads” like I normally do!

Before anyone says anything about that last sentence, just let me live in that pretend world of “ignorant bliss” please!?! Yeah "donkey backwards", someone just shoot me if it happens again!?!:D :rolleyes: :doh:


Regards
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Hopefully this works...
Attachment 15923

Attachment 15924

Attachment 15925

Attachment 15926

Attachment 15927

Sending them via alternate method. See previous Post.

And can you delete this worthless post?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

A couple do. most don't. Don't worry about it if I think I need better photos I know how to find them and as well the ones that do show are incorrect.. The second link from the end you have as a 1a is clearly marked II right on the tank's front left fender
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1581952351


And this link
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nat...n-2073023.html

Also claims the photo is a 1A but it is also clearly marked as a II...... and it's probably the same tank as the other photo

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/OLbDObb.png[/IMG]

Seeing as how convoluted this has become I am going to go out on a limb and say the 1A and the II are the same tank with "1A" being the working prototype name and in reality, what we should have is one unit named Arjun Mk IA/II

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

I would recommend keeping them separate. A couple of the sources are indicating that the ARJUN Mk-1 will be upgraded to the ARJUN Mk-1A standard during depot over haul as funds become available.

And there are a couple of issues with the ARJUN Mk-2 besides the outstanding "mystery" improvements NOT made on the ARJUN Mk-1A. I don't know how you shed just over 3 tons of weight on the chassis and maintain its overall strength to mount the same body onto it.

Unless they've developed a stronger steel composite we don't know about, it's very possible we could see a "smaller" MBT. As an example just because the Japanese TYPE 10 is a small tank doesn't mean I want to fight against it.

I can quite honestly see the ARJUN Mk-2 "dovetail" right into the LONG hoped for FMBT Program India has wanted, where the ARJUN Mk-2 will become the prototype MBT for that project.

ARJUN was always meant to get them to FMBT. The local political situation and finances have driven them to the ARJUN Mk-1A whether it takes them to the ARJUN Mk-2 is still up in the air, given India's history dealing with these tanks.

Remember it took them 30yrs. just to get them to the ARJUN (Prototype) and about another 3-5 years before we had the ARJUN Mk-1.

It would be more expediate in the mid term and financially sound, to just upgrade the ARJUN Mk-1 to the Mk-1A standard.

We don't need to follow India as much as we need to follow Pakistan. Why?

Remember I posted this within the last couple of years, the Ukraine and Pakistan have already signed the papers to in a sense
co-develop the OPLOT-P. That will drive India's ARJUN/FMBT issue more then the rest of it in my opinion.

Can you just edit the pictures since they'll be B&W anyway? Don't know never tried any of that myself.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Dont worry, I follow Pakistan. I have a complete changed Orbat for them. I am testing it to get it right.

The Pak government is investing on:
-more Al-Zarrar conversions from T59MII
-Upgrade all their T85IIAP
-Upgrade T80UD/T84 hybrid with some Oplot equipment
-new build Al-Khalid I (improved) (new mechanized Division forming)
-new T125-IIM ammo

Thanks

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

SPMBT Patch Post 2018/2019 Part 3
This I think will be the last MBT resubmission from that same Thread. First the depth some of us go to, too test and or verify our thoughts, sources and concerns. I would like to demonstrate that, as is the case here, for just one MBT. That being Ukraine’s OPLOT-M. I was seeing in game play a 3:1 kill ratio in favor of the T-72B3M/B4 against the OPLOT-M. This would be an incorrect conclusion based on everything we know about these tanks in the end.
From Page 85 Post 842.

A. Para 1 “I relied on my evaluations from the recent testing done, looked at the feedback I received from others, rechecked old refs and found new ones and checked my conclusions against its peer Russian T-90A UNIT 050, its main rival T-72B3M/B4 when I play the against the AI.”

B. Para 3 “As with the two already listed these next where also used to evaluate my numbers for STEEL/HEAT/ERA & STABILISER as submitted below. They are (The ones I've submitted or changed will have "*" by the name.) THAILAND *OPLOT-M (T) UNIT 019, UKRAINE T-84 UNIT 059, RUSSIAN *T-80BMV UNIT 046, SWEDEN *STRV-122A UNIT 358 (This tank was chosen because it is my firm belief there is no better "TOP" protected tank in the world. Acted as a check against me as the others did. This came about from tests conducted on their stock of Russian tanks with STRIX which proved devastating to them. Also these LEOPARD tanks were made to order for SWEDEN and NOT stock tanks. The "STEEL" for the turret hatch alone was increased just shy of 2 feet thick which means the surrounding "TOP" area has to be even thicker as all hatches are recessed to avoid such issues as over pressurization etc. no different than on a Submarine and verified by my co-worker "JAKE" (Helped us on some BRADLEY issues we were looking into in the past.) the ABRAMS/BRADLEY Driver/Gunner extraordinaire. For further see the FB Patch Thread "Patch Post #2 for the 2013/2014 Campaign"), USA M1A2 SEP V1 UNIT 318, M1A1HA+ UNIT 484, *MIA2 SEP V2 UNIT 517, and *M1A2 SEP V3".

C. All the Test and Assessment Posts can be found below.
“From the tests the average Kill RATIO stands at 3:1 win favoring the T-72B3M/B4. All the issues have already have been covered with the solutions to help counter the situation and acknowledged.
PG. 82 Posts 813/814/815 (Last Para) and 816.
PG. 83 Posts 824 and 830
PG. 84 Post 832.”

D. To “my” testers, John (Imp), Aeraaa, zovs66 and jivemi. I THANK YOU!!

NOW TO BUSINESS...

From Page 84 Post 837 This was just one of those issues that just came up out of nowhere…
Well I have an issue I believe, I've sorted out, maybe. It concerns the Russian T-80 Series. One will be an "ADD" the other a "CHANGE" of the "START" as it's at least a year early. The issue is that the Russian T-80B/BV/U tanks received an upgrade. As the T-80BV is a real tank and is already in the game, I purpose that the upgraded tank be entered as the T-80BV1.

NOW THE ABOVE WILL BE LIMITED TO DATE CHANGES FOR THE FOLLOWING 3 TANKS AFTER DEEPER RESEARCH AND RE-READING THE ARMY REC. REFS. (THE WORDING WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING AT FIRST.) (An obvious EDIT "on the fly" at that time. 2/25/2020.)

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80B/UNIT 621/END DATE 12/1992 VICE 12/1985//
All T-80B tanks in service were upgraded to the T-80BV until production ceased on that tank in 1992. I cannot find any reference to the existence of the T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676 as entered in the game of which I believe are redundant to the T-80B.

DELETE/RUSSIA/T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676/CANNOT VERIFY THEY EXIST//
As noted above and as indicated by the refs shown and others in a deeper web search.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BV/UNIT 039/END DATE 12/2025 VICE 12/1992//
I can't seem to find anything to say these tanks are no longer in service. I fully understand a great many of them are in storage, but again the refs provided for this tank and others seem to indicate many are still operational and they are the platform from which the T-80BVM are derived from. View "Variants" section of ref. 1. Ref. 2 shows Russia still using them at bottom of ref. "Users" section.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ..._13007173.html

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BVM/UNIT 046/START DATE 10/2018 VICE 06/2017//
Date based on following from ref. 1 "Russia’s T-80BV main battle tank has been upgraded to T-80BVM standard to feature the capability of firing depleted uranium shells, the Defense Ministry said in the bulletin ‘The Russian Army in Comparison’ published on 20 December." Also note last para from ref. 1 which addresses some of what I submitted above.
Ref. 2 production begins in March 2018.
Ref. 3 Dated 02 July 2018, identifies the first units to be equipped with the T-80BVM.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...um_shells.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap..._t-80_mbt.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...he_arctic.html

Others on the T-80...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-80.php
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-80U.htm
(For the above see production chart on first page.)

THE NEXT IS DONE.

From Page 85 Post 842
UKRAINE/OPLOT-M/UNIT 064/CHANGE/STEEL/HF 75 vice 72/HR 10 vice 8/TOP 10 vice 7/HEAT/110 vice 104/HS 45 vice 40/TR 20 vice 18/ERA/HF 20 vice 15/HS 18 vice 15/TF 20 vice 15/TS 18 vice 15/TOP 20 vice 15/STABILISER 6 vice 5// My key tanks here where the T-84, OPLOT-M (T), T-90A, T-72B3M/B4, T-80BMV and STRV-122A. We know or should know the following by now, the T-90A is it's peer tank, the tank was RESET to the "-M" with the Hull strengthened and the Turret was newly built for this tank, ERA is better than the T-90A and the KBA3 MG has a first round hit probability tested to at least 94%. All this was born out in the evaluations during testing from the refs supplied in the posts and more as described above.

THAILAND/OPLOT-M/UNIT 019/CHANGE/NAME/OPLOT-T vice OPLOT-M/STABILISER 4 vice 3/STEEL-HEAT-ERA to match UKRAINE OPLOT-M UNIT 064 AS REVISED ABOVE// Though at the time, OPLOT-M was primarily used in referring to this tank, I'm assuming to avoid confusion. The refs. are using OPLOT-T now as has the THAI Army for some time now. The only difference between these tanks were a small handful of internal issues i.e. AC (Ukraine would add this feature to based on THAI feedback to theirs.) and other tropical related matters. I believe the lesser FCS related numbers are probably good assuming the Ukrainians didn't clear them (And they haven't. 2/25/2020.) to receive the full FCS to the level of their own "home" tanks. This is not an unusual practice in the arms trade. That being said, if it's decided to fully match the hopefully revised Ukrainian OPLOT-M then I see no real issue there either.
(This MBT is fine as already corrected. If I was to change one thing however, it might be to reduce VISION TI/GSR 45 vice 50 currently. I leave this to you to decide. 2/25/2020.)

From Page 85 Posts 844/845
USA/M1A2 SEP V3/UNIT 538/CHANGE/START DATE 06/2020 vice 10/2017/MBT IS CURRENTLY STILL IN FIELD/OP EVAL TESTING// The date currently entered is when the first six production models came off the line. These would eventually (And more obviously.) and as the refs are showing, went to the USA units assigned to test it. The significance of the DID entry I pointed to makes sense as it indicated the first 45 of these tanks would be completed, I believe it was in March this year. You'll note the rest of the upgrade completion dates go beyond my "recommended" one above. The test and Prototypes would fill a unit by then or maybe a little earlier. I've already deleted all the refs. before I realized we had a problem here, so you'll have to use my last post and those refs supplied as a start point. Due note the latest is from the Army website as are 2 others.
https://www.army.mil/article/172984/...ound_at_a_time https://www.army.mil/article/214733/...proving_ground
https://www.army.mil/article/214733/...proving_ground

From Page 86 Posts 858/860 (Note: I have already edited the original data to reflect the correction made in Post 860* for the DELETION, to UNIT 649* vice UNIT 640. 2/24/2090.)

USA/CHANGE/RESET/M1A2 SEP/UNITS 316 & 647/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP MCRS/UNITS 653 & 654/ALL TO/START OCT 2008/END DEC 2025/TI/GSR 50 vice 40/FC 55 vice 50/STEEL HF 70 vice 65/HS 18 vice 12/HR 10 vice 9/HEAT TF 150 vice 147/TS 50 vice 48// Unlike the M1A1 FEP, the M1A2 SEP received a 3rd GEN armor upgrade this includes a D/U pkg. as well. I "threaded the needle" for FOC based on the conflicting data. However it should be noted it's NOT out of line based on what I posted concerning the M1A2 SEP V3 almost being 3 yrs. into its OPEVAL as we speak. Also the last order placed for the SEP was in mid/late 2005. That being said, I leaned a little more on the following from DID (Last Ref.) entries AUG 29/08 and JUN 20/05. Overall the SEP program to date must viewed as incremental improvements in all areas. And I really like the picture, things should be seen doing things.

USA/DELETE/M1A2 SEP V1/UNITS 318 & 649*/SAVE THE PICTURE WE HAVE LATE MODEL ABRAMS "FLOATING IN THE SKY" THAT CAN USE IT// For the reasons stated above and below within the Refs. I have seen Refs to indicate the M1A1 AIM being tagged with V1 and V2 attached to the name. Also M1A1 AIM were all REMANUFACTED tanks for the record.

USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP V2/M1A2 SEP 2-T/UNITS 517 & 537 RESPECTIVLY/FC 55 vice 50/BASED ON M1A2 SEP V3 FC 60/NOTE I MISSED UNIT 537 WHEN I SUBMITTED REVISED START FOR UNIT 517 (06/2020 I BELIEVE FROM POST 845) SHOULD MATCH// Again we see the progression more clearly now between the variants.
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eA...une1996web.pdf
(In 1996 the plan, pg. 11 and see Fig. 3 pg. 14.)
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...rmy/99m1a2.pdf
(In 2000 testing issues and failures experienced during and beyond 1999.)
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...amsM1A2SEP.pdf
https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2...est_200101.pdf
(2001 Another overview and analysis.)
(In 2002 testing continues with minor issues, progress being made.)
https://www.forecastinternational.co...DACH_RECNO=534
(2003 Commanders CITV. Cap. & Production Plan.)
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh/22.pdf
(2005 Conversion moves on it will be seen FOC not until Units are in "PROGRAM STATUS" are fully equipped.)
https://www.gd.com/news/press-releas...oved-sep-reset
(2006 Last of M1 tanks to be upgraded to SEP expect 2009 final delivery to units for FOC.)
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/...ite/abrams.htm
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-02834/
(After a 3rd/4th time or more, I've got a little more clarity on the date issue (Above 2 Refs in particular.) and I believe the M1A2 SEP V1 as noted under the M1A2 SEP V2 section. I'm starting to think what really happened here with most not reporting this version while a SMALL handful do is the program (M1A2 SEP V1) started and went straight into the M1A2 SEP V2 program. It is the only thing that makes sense here.)

USA/CHANGE PICTURE/M1A2/UNIT 637/REPLACE WITH UNIT 318 PICTURE//I personally enjoyed that when Don let me get all those USN SKYHAWK pictures replaced mostly in Australia and Israel, F-105 for the Swiss. Also helos for Australia, Switzerland and all the countries that used the French SAR/SPEC OP helo we just updated a year or two ago with the missing MG's. That's almost relaxing compared to the rest!

From Page 85 Posts 852/857 (Only showing the submission from Post 857. This demonstrates HOW FAST things can change based on newer data. 2/24/2020.) Also note I have to use the M1A2 SEP V2 for balance against the next two tanks as well. I don't know what data was used for them, however, we had a lot of data to work from for the M1A2 SEP V2 when it was submitted and except for the date change I submitted for the M1A2 SEP V3 that tank looks good at present.

USMC/CHANGE/M1A1HC FEP VARIENTS/UNITS 467, 468 & 469/START 10/2009 vice 01/2008/TI/GSR 50 vice 45/STABILISER 7 vice 6/UNIT 468 MRAP 7 vice SURVIBILITY 6/SAME MBT AS UNITS 467 & 469// The FEP was a major upgrade to the M1A1 tanks the USMC operated. The contract was awarded on FEB 05, 2005 for the manufacture and installation of the subsystems making up the FEP package. The FOC was reached as submitted above. I cannot find any information to support any other date but, it should be noted however, I found enough to change the date when first submitted in Post 852 after digging deeper (Updated this last sentence for clarification. 2/25/2020), I will gladly in this instance "eat a little crow" concerning that last submission that "I didn't see it before 2010..." at least based on the data I had then.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608067.pdf
(Pg. 6/Para B. Note they used JANE's 2013 ref.))
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=156
(Para 4)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-(dec.-6).html
Paras 1 & 6)
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...1-tanks-01874/
(Covers both programs as of 2006.)
https://www.heritage.org/military-st...s-marine-corps
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength
(For context only. One of the very few "think tanks" that grade militaries and specifically are the only to do so for ours. The second will get you to the other branches.)
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues...ets-new-sight/
(This last ties in the FEP and SEP programs. And as normal USA first.)

From Page 87 Post 862 (My Pic) and Post 868 (Dons edit of my Pic. It’s a beautiful thing!)
USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP V2/UNITS 517 & 537/M1A1 AIM/UNIT 636/M1A1 SA/UNIT 886/DELETE CURRENT PICTURES/REPLACE WITH PICTURE AS SUBMITTED BELOW//

REALITY: From changes for the ABRAMS SEP and looking at the refs, I ended Post 858 with:
“A final note did anyone notice a pattern with the Refs? Just from what I posted, it was 12 yrs. for SEP to get into the field. Not bad when you consider ARJUN Mk I took over 30yrs. to get there! These things take time!”

This is why I’m pessimistically, optimistic about equipment dates!!

I don’t think I missed anything for the MBT’S for the 2018 – 2019 Campaign put back here where they should've started from in the first place.

Don and I have already addressed for the 2019 - 2020 Campaign the following MBT issues...
Posts 235 – 238 this Thread, covers South Korean K2 PIP (START Chg.).
T-80ROK UNIT 029 and BMP-3ROK UNIT 061 both retired last year, I believe we settled on END DEC 2019.
.
K2 UNIT 032 got a very INTERESTING ammo change.

Also Ukraine to get an improved T-64 BULAT 17

And finally I also submitted changes to the ARJUN Mk-1A for India (Now there's a surprise!!).

All DONE already by Don these last three and I think most from higher above.

Those will be grouped together and submitted to the MBT Thread at a later date.

Didn't feel like going back to work today, when a 4 day work week was a better option.

I'm done with MBT's! For now.

Time to not waste the rest of this "gift" of being home with you know whom!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Pat.

If you have already posted info and I have marked it with "Thanks" DO NOT post it again please --- that "Thanks" means I have dealt with it in the OOB already I just creates confusion and gives me more aggravation to deal with that I don't want or need. The entire M1A2 SEP issue was dealt with ages ago and the only way I can check this is to go back and compare the last release OOB with the new one and it's a PITA. I have NO IDEA if you have altered any details without going through it all again......at this stage I do not want NOR should I need to go back and do something all again and neither do you.....ONCE is enough and this post is IT for this release

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Well to be honest I missed your last post. After dinner I decided to use this as I always had in the past prior to 2018/2019 as a check on what I submitted through this thread first. I just completed that check before reading your last post. This was no fun for me either going through as it would turn out, about 35 pages of posts in the MBT Thread to get Parts 1 - 3 finished in here.

So here's the "wash out" from Part 3 "bounced" against the OOB's, again all were spaced apart in the MBT Thread and not as it appears now...
RUSSIA/CHANGE/T-80B/UNIT 061/END/DEC 1992 vice DEC 1985//
First one listed for Russia I believe.

THAILAND/CHANGE/OPLOT-T/UNIT 019/TI/GSR 45 vice 50//
Under UKRAINE entry.
This was an after thought in the last sentence as submitted in Part 3. I now feel it's the right thing to do given the reductions elsewhere to the FCS of that MBT.

USA/DELETE/M1A2C/FORMALLY M1A2 SEP V3/UNIT 537/REDUNDANT TO UNIT 538//
The FCS numbers don't match to UNIT 538. I stopped there.

USA/CHANGE/M1A2 SEP V3-T/UNIT 538/NAME/M1A2C vice M1A2 SEP V3-T/START/JUN 2020 vice OCT 2017/END/DEC 2025 vice DEC 2020//
Everything else appears to be correct.

About my M1A2 FEP entry you can add UNIT 463. None of the FEP tanks should START before 10/2009 with exception of the ones that came in 2016 as I see they got a new main gun. That's why I ended up changing the date twice to get that final one because I had definitive data to support that second change.

I'm leaving it there. Everything else in Part 3 was good. This again in why I culled all this information. As I noted from the start of this, these are my checks and balances. Part 3 took me less than 10 minutes to reverify the data.

Would've posted this much sooner but, the Son and his family stopped by.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

This is the way the OOB has been set up for weeks for USA 537 .....
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1582720616

.......and 538

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1582720672

538 is the trials version and 537 is the deployment version. If you REALLY feel 538 is inappropriate I can remove it

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Don,
Wasn't aware you used "trial" version tanks in the game.

Alright you've already put the work into this, so I feel that unless you think the "slot" will be needed sooner then later, keep it in.

I'm thinking now, depending on how fast the USA deploys TROPHY, it would make sense to have a M1A2C (SEP 3) (UNIT 538) w/o it onboard.

And let there be no doubts for the "viewing audience" out here, the USA has already determined that this tank will be the first to deploy TROPHY.

New ammo might also "drive" the above in keeping UNIT 538 viable as well.

That'll give the player and AI an option on that tanks deployment in the game.

When it does get to FOC, a simple date change to UNIT 538 and maybe we find a new picture of one kicking up some mud!!!

We have plenty of options here. So again keep it.

I appreciate the feedback.

Time for lunch and back to work.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
 

Fine...... there is now a Sep V3 unit without Trophy and a M1A2C-T that does