Re: MBT's
 

Well this next brought back memories of being born in then West Germany and living at Panzer Kaserne in Boblingen just outside of Stuttgart. With my dad being stationed there I grew up around Tanks and SPA they were my "jungle gyms" at the time. Panzer Kaserne was one of two of Nazi Germany's largest armor bases and it continued in that role along with the U.S. Army until around 2000 give or take if I'm not mistaken. So it's only appropriate that our last tanks in Germany should depart from nearby Stuttgart. This is from 4 April 2013. I guess we'll have to simulate bringing heavy armor back over for game purposes now ;)!?!
http://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-...rmany-1.214977

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well this next brought back memories of being born in then West Germany and living at Panzer Kaserne in Boblingen just outside of Stuttgart. With my dad being stationed there I grew up around Tanks and SPA they were my "jungle gyms" at the time. Panzer Kaserne was one of two of Nazi Germany's largest armor bases and it continued in that role along with the U.S. Army until around 2000 give or take if I'm not mistaken. So it's only appropriate that our last tanks in Germany should depart from nearby Stuttgart. This is from 4 April 2013. I guess we'll have to simulate bringing heavy armor back over for game purposes now ;) !?!
http://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-...rmany-1.214977

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

in USA OOB Cav Tank Sec is always the same as MBT platoon.

Why it doesn't have +5 Exp?

Re: MBT's
 

Simple...... it was missed. It will have that mod next year though or you could add it yourself now.

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Every once in a great while the question pops up on different classifications of tanks and their purpose. So this is a little TANK 101. One thing I got from this was I didn't know the French AMX-13 was ATGM capable. And I've already seen this on the net, the term Medium Tank classification is starting to make a comeback in the industry.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2585.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2585.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2634.html
To make the point on "Med." Tanks...
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2611.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2633.html
AMX-13...
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2581.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2560.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2636.html

With the last I could've swore that the British TORTISE came up in conversation ~3yrs. ago give or take. One of the issues I believe dealt with not having a good enough picture on the net at the time. So that picture triggered my memory and the ref started this exercise. So blame the picture!
Anyway have a great week!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I need some independent, verifiable and conclusive information on when the LECLERC T9 variant became operational with the French Army. The IRIS replaced the ATHOS TI with the T9 upgrade. I have a date range of around 5 yrs to close the gap on.
A combination of me missing some data and websites updating their information now makes a clear distinction between recognition and identification ranges now. I can say now with 100% certainty that the LECLERC should be in the "50Club", I just need a better date for the T9. Below is one of the refs I now have to support and provide that data.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/main_...res_video.html

The math is simple 2.5km is 50 hexes.

T10/11 date info would be of some use as well, but I have a better feel for that date.
Thanks in advance for any date data!

Have a great weekend everyone!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Some more Spring cleaning to "unmask" my working refs for the coming campaign.

1. Don't know if the end result will be the ANDERS ,however it is likely. Polish industry getting together to ensure the end product will be made in Poland.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...m_2502131.html
FYI.

2. Submitted some changes two or three years ago to Chile's LEO 2A4CHL which needed to be brought up to the LEO 2A6 standard as I recall. The issue here will be if Chile upgrades the proposed LEO 2A5 if bought to the CHL level or not. But in either case it still might require an ADD of either a LEO 2A5CHL (With the same numbers of the 2A4CHL.) or do the calculus again to figure out which LEO 2A5 they'll buy if not modified. And you thought equipment submissions were easy to make!?!
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rica&Itemid=58
TRACK/ADD.

3. Well in this case the calculus paid off, Indonesia is getting the LEO 2A6. I had held off in submitting it sooner as there were many reports at the time that it might be the LEO 2A4 with the REVOLUATION Kits (Making them similar in looks and attributes to Singapores and Turkeys (Added last year.) upgraded LEOs). This was one of the few sites to report it as LEO 2A6 tank from the start as indicated in the first ref. In an earlier commentary I felt that Indonesia after losing the Dutch LEO deal wouldn't take a couple of steps back for 2A4s, when the Dutch tanks were 2A6 marks. The last ones show the order was increased to 163 tanks. The MARDER I'll address separately elsewhere.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...a_1007125.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...2_0307121.html
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...anks-indonesia
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56
FOLLOW UP.

4. Saudi Arabia looking at Turkey for a future ALTAY buy possibly. Somebody won't be happy about that!?!
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...a_2804132.html
TRACK.

5. One last time to mark the end of an era. I don't believe it was posted here the first time, but in a different thread.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-...rmany-1.214977
FYI.

6. Peru will try again for new tanks. Hey there's those Dutch LEOs again, won't the Parliament ever let the Government and Military sell those tanks!?! It would put them on par with Chile next door if I remember my geography correctly.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rica&Itemid=58
TRACK.

Well except for Peru possibly, another S. American country that recieved a significant upgrade of their tanks from a middle eastern country and some minor fixes on tanks items I submitted in the last PP, that's all I foresee in the tank world for the coming campaign. It'll be SPA/SPAA Light, APC medium and Jet/Plane heavy as that area has been neglected for a couple of years now.

Have a good night and it's back to the salt mines tommorrow.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

A while back Don was looking for answers on the BTR-80 series APC. The discussion had more to do with the BTR-90 which lead to the BTR-82 variants getting in on the last patch. So refer to Post #256 concerning the LECLERC above. Verbiage is another PITA in the equipment submission world i.e. BLOCK...,Mk..., Mod...and Variant etc. can be confusing. All mean about the same but, what's worse is when you have a good ref. in front of you that's proven to have been useful in the past and you don't further explore all it offers to see if anything else might be useful to you on it in the future. ICO LECLERC my question is now answered, and it's a good thing that ref I held wasn't a snake or CINCLANTHOME would've found me slumped over my desk long ago!?! :party: Hey who put that in here!??!
So here's the answer and some might find this sight of some use especially as a quick ref. also note the "RELATED" section at the bottom has more info on associated weapons of the main "system" discussed.
http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=CC05 - Leclerc

Regards,
Pat
:capt: Maybe the spyglass was a bit fouled up!??!

Re: MBT's
 

If you have been to the #15 Australian OOB Queries Thread by TDR then there's nothing new here except a couple of date edits. Work list item for the next Patch Post.

OK using government and mainstream local sources mainly. I'll try to post these in time order. Highlights are as follows...
1. ADF initially evaluates M1A2, LEOPARD 2 and CHALLENGER 2 ~2002.
2. Settles on the M1A1 AIM as it became available these tanks will all be RESET in the U.S.
3. U.S. Congress informed of potential foreign sales request in 2004 it gets approved later.
4. ADF starts training crews by early 2006. Darwin will be the point of entry later that year of two shipments in September and December of that year.
5. I can dig deeper however I feel it unnecessary, ADF announces it will retire their LEOPARD 1A3 (In service since 1976.) tanks before the M1A1 AIM becomes operationally ready. Further the ADF states the LEOPARD 1A3 will be retired at the beginning of 2007 and that the M1A1 AIM will become operational by mid-2007. So based on this let's make life easy here, I recommend the following all LEOPARD 1A3 (And any other LEO based unit.) have an END DATE of JAN 2007. As for the M1A1 AIM I recommend a START DATE of AUG 2007. The ABRAMS I believe has that now, as the discussion seems embedded in my head from the past somewhere in this forum, maybe the MBT Thread(?) though I've checked elsewhere.
6. A quick note on the Ammo issue one of the ADF refs below specifically mentions the capability of the M1A1 AIM to be able to fire the Tungsten round and makes no mention of the D/U round at all.
7. Don my work list or yours? If on mine, like the Pave Low issue I will need to transfer this into it's "home" thread for my tracking. No worries TDR the credit is yours.

Bear with me again on the timeline here...
MARCH 10, 2004 A very good read on the process.
http://defence.gov.au/minister/hillt...currentid=3643
MAY 21, 2004 This order would be filled as requested below.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressRelease...alia_04-12.pdf
NOV. 16, 2005
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...1-tanks-01489/
FEB 17, 2006
http://defence.gov.au/minister/Nelso...CurrentId=5413
AUGUST 30, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...816945773.html
SEPT. 14, 2007
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1111114419632
SEPT. 16, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1111117494039
MAY 14, 2010
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/down...514b/index.htm
Hope this is good enough though, I have my normal refs if needed.

Now about those Pack 105's, well first let me enjoy the rest of my day off here while I consider whether this will turn into the still unanswered though compromised French 105 issue.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Pat, I'm not leaving a gap in the tank formations even if the Australians did in reality. The Leos will go OOS July 2007 and the M1A1's enter service Aug 2007.

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
First I have to ask, is there a reason why the links in my last post here come up with an error message after being copied from another thread where the links (Refs) work fine? Did I do something wrong?
Anyway understand about the dates, it'll save me some work! However the pic of the ADF M1A1 PIM sitting inside a building seems well...a little depressing. ;) Was going to submit these also for consideration as replacement pic options for ADF UNITS 26, 88 & 89.

Pics:
Attachment 12530 Attachment 12531

Attachment 12532 Attachment 12533

Attachment 12534

This last was off a tank modeling site. The color scheme is the current one in use as the pictures show from late last year taken by the ADF.

A little photo analysis test...
Let's see who can first figure out what's different about these pictures but, yet the same. It might be in all the pictures or not!?!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

passing comment:

Firstly the pics are taken in QLD not NT, obvious in some respects, the ground and vegetation. Hence only one place, Shoalwater Bay.

From what I can see some/most have the red kangaroo on the side of the turret. But it looks like one doesn’t. Hard to tell.

Depending on the time frame some of the M1A1s did not have the disruptive pattern camouflage but still had the original sand type colour.

Re: MBT's
 

Pat. No idea why the links were a problem

Re: MBT's
 

Auscamo m1a1

Re: MBT's
 

TDR...The work week is over with another successful qual (And the job security that comes with.) @ the range in maintaining my "expert" status with the "tools of the trade". The lack of proper sleep however over taxed my brain in the photo analysis challenge, my apologies. Understanding I have the advantage of the original pictures on my PC vs what I attached to the post, both left hand pics are the same tank as identified by the # located on the lower left side of the hull.

Don... Thanks about the reference/link issue just seems strange though. Also the ICON for the ADF M1A1 AIM SA looks really good to me anyway. Hope you'll use it. Also hope the pictures were of some use. Out of curiosity, does the size of the picture file I (Or anyone else.) download then post have any bearing on whether you can use them or not?

Also have recieved a couple of PMs, let's just leave at I'm really piss poor about checking that. So my apologies to the both of you. I will respond shortly.

Got curious about the AUSCAM scheme looks like JUN 2010 would make a good start date. The ref is from a defence newspaper dated 27 MAY 2010.
http://digital.realviewtechnologies....ge=page0000007

Finally to all you Dads out there where ever you might be, have a Happy Fathers Day!!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

The size of the photo does not matter though we don't need a 5 MB photo just to make a 160x80 LBM. Those ones you posted were fine and I've used one.

What I DON'T want are resized photos someone has "adjusted" to fit the 160x80 format. They are usually screwed up becasue they don't maintain the original aspect ratio and the photo looks squashed.

You don't do that so no worries

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Will you add the Leopard 2 PSO?
it's a pretty cool looking tank :)

Re: MBT's
 

It is merely a technology demonstrator. Therefore its of absolutely no importance to the game, Until someone actually fields the thing.

Andy

Re: MBT's
 

Technically speaking it is in the game the PSO would lead directly to the LEOPARD 2A7+ about four years later, and is in the game as submitted ~three years ago now I believe. It's in this thread and the Patch Post one as well. I believe Oman(?) just bought some (~200 I think.) and the Saudi deal I think is on hold for now last I checked but is in my "tickler" to check back on. In this thread see Page 9/Post 84/Item A6. Look in German OOB for UNIT 267.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germa...scription.html

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well it's no secret that I like this site for 1) Articles direct from the sources (Like DEFPRO that I miss.) and 2) The somewhat "nasty habit" when I post something on equipment (Most recently concerning the BMP2/3 issues of a couple of weeks ago.) of updating their equipment data, how dare they when Don and others are looking in to verify my comments!?! So when I came across a basic "Top Ten" tanks list from them it's worth a look. Surprizes a couple, though more true of older tanks, speed is still a survival factor today so the surprizes in the Speed catagory where #2 OPLOT-M and #3 Z-99 but weight is a factor. The #1 LEO 2A7+ and #4 ABRAMS round out the top four in this catagory. Anyway it's light reading...
http://www.army-technology.com/featu...-battle-tanks/

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Hi,

Here's something special:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...d=74&Itemid=30

Thank you!
-Luc-

Re: MBT's
 

Been tracking this for a short time, but felt I didn't have enough data to submit them. Good info I didn't have and the source is pretty good about covering African military issues which I've used a couple of times my self. If you don't mind I'll add it to my "collection" or I'll trade you for it with the following.
1. U.S. armor is back in Europe, I knew they'd miss us a little bit anyway. It'll represent a prepositioned combined arms Battalion sized unit. It's all about the "Bear" I'm sure.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...v_0202143.html

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

hehe - is it just me or does the Abrams look "wrong" in that camo scheme? Just so used to seeing it in desert tan, I guess. :doh:

Re: MBT's
 

As has been my normal practice; all my submissions (2013/2014 Campaign) are brought back to their "home" thread. Everything here has been acted upon and verified pretty much as submitted. As always I thank Don for his time and patience with me in this area. Soon to start a long campaign with the "fixed" and improved STRV-122 MBT's vs. Russia with the newly added T-72B3 (If the AI picks it.) This is important to me to thank all of you for respecting the intent of the Patch Thread as it was important to my focus...again THANK YOU!! The items in the "..." starting with C1. below were reminders for what was submitted in the 2013/2014 Campaign from last year. I will assume that this format was acceptable and hopefully time saving to some degree.

MBT’s…
C1. TANZANIA/CHANGE/UNIT 023/TYPE 59G/START DATE TO OCT 2012 VICE JAN 2005//
“A2. TANZANIA/ADD/OCT 2012/TYPE 59G/MG Chinese 125mm SB w/Rds UKN/12.7mm and 7.62mm w/Rds UKN// “ Is EW an issue here as well with this type system as follows?
“The turret appears to be the same one that’s on the new Chinese TYPE 96G. Based on that it would appear then also it is carrying the same EW system as the TYPE 96 which is similar to the Russian Shtora-1.”
Also I have some info to support submitting a new TYPE 96A to the Chinese OOB, hopefully below and as was mentioned previously. “Note: It would appear this improved version of the Chinese TYPE 96 is not in the OOB as shown in Ref. 6 below. See UNIT 026 (My update…Chinese OOB). The refs refer to “the new TYPE 96.”
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rica&Itemid=55
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...9g_271211.html
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59.asp
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china..._pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/china...igence_uk.html

C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/STRV-122/HEAT TOP TO 20 VICE 16/UNITS 31, 353, 356 & 358/STRV 122 & STRV 122B/STEEL 12 VICE 8//
“C2. SWEDEN/CHANGE/STRV-122/UNITS 31, 356 & 358/Change to STRV-122A/Modify per A3 above/Refs per A3 above. //
Most of the STRV-122 units are to be upgraded by the end of this year.” Haven’t seen anything on this last however, I really haven’t had a chance to thus far to follow up on the STRV-122. Also for context on C2;
“A3. SWEDEN/ADD/OCT 2004/STRV 122B/Use UNIT 358 and modify per below as needed//
The big issue here is protection over the base German Leopard tanks that the STRV-122A and STRV-122B design modifications are derived from. First a breakdown of the STRV Series. The STRV-121 is a Leopard 2A4 as used by Germany at the time of purchase by Sweden in 1994 and 1995 they are both interchangeable.”
“The STRV-122A is a “German” Leopard 2A5 but that’s where the comparison ends. The major area in armor improvement was in the top protectionfor instance the turret hatches are just over 20cm in thickness. After extensive testing the Swedes decided on a geared system for opening them at even severe angles.” Here’s what we know first from the STRIX posts, that the Swedes did extensive testing on the T-72 tanks they had and we posted videos showing some of that. It would’ve been a bad day for Russian T-72 crews but the lessons learned from that were built into the STRV-122A tanks while being built in Germany. That was a good day for Swedish crews. Again 20cm/200mm is almost 2ft thick which also means the surrounding steel is thicker as the hatch is recessed. I strongly feel that this is one of the most protected tanks out there in regards to where the top of the turret is concerned and the turret in general. All I have to offer based on the numbers and from personal experience in my submarine career dealing with our hatches in not letting water into “the people tank” at several hundreds of pounds per sq. inch and that I have not in any research for any tank seen information pointing out the thickness of and operation of the top hatch, I feel the STEEL issue might warrant further consideration. The STRV-122B was not modified with additional top protection but is correct for what should’ve been the HEAT TOP number for the STRV-122 series of tanks in general all along.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2019.html

C3. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNITS 31, 353, 356 & 358/STRV-122 & STRV-122B/ADD/GALIX Self Defense System with 6 HE FRAG 80mm grenades/As discussed in the Patch Thread on Posts 143-149//
The STRV Series of tanks have 16 launchers, 8 to a side in a 6/2 configuration. As noted below I still have no evidence of any other country user that has weaponized their launchers.
From Post 143 “Can the use of the dual purpose grenade launchers on the Swedish STRV-122/122B be activated in the last available weapons slot to fire off (In real life by the tank commander manually.) either buckshot/flechette, HE-blast or fragmentation grenades? This is a unique feature of the Gallix System dual purpose launchers installed on these tanks (And others.) which can be loaded internally.” and “As far as I can find out Sweden is the only country using those type of 80mm grenades of the ten or so that are available for use with these launchers.”
What to do about the other country users will require more work. Weapons slots might prevent it in a couple as was the case with the MERKAVA and M-60T in regards to the 60mm Mortars we know they have. I will pursue this if Andy and you want me to but it’ll have to be for next year on my end.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product719.html
http://www.nexter-group.com/en/produ...ponent&print=1

C4. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNIT 358/STRV 122/END DATE TO JAN 2020 VICE DEC 2010//
C5. SWEDEN/CHANGE/UNIT 359/STRV 121/END DATE TO DEC 2010 VICE JAN 2020//
As noted in my last update post, this is why I proof read my work when possible, to catch what I almost missed in the two entries above.

New Items:

A1. RUSSIA/ADD/OCT 2013/T-72B3/125mm SB 2A46M-5/TI GSR 40-45/ARENA E APS/RELIKT ERA//
The following is taken from the last ref. below Post #749…
“Yeah its weird, other stupid thing is the non-automatic sight cover.
Good summary of T-72B3 upgrade: -overhaul of T-72B or B1
-new autoloader(for "Svinets" APFSDS) -new 125mm 2A46M5 gun
-new FCS, and new gunner main sight "Sosna-U"(same sight on T-90MS) 1A40 used as a backup
-new radiostation R-168-25U-2 -commander sight TKN-3MK with "duplication" mode

T-72B4 as we know will add the commanders panoramic sight (same as T-90MS) as well as battle management systems.”

Pretty much falls in line with what I can find out about these tanks. The FCS is very much in line with existing T-90S models I would think with improvement of T-90MS components as noted above. Also of interest is the “Svinets” APFSDS round, seeing reports that testing has recently been completed and MOD is ready to field this round now. Don’t know status of this round however, I believe you might have better access in ammo sources then me generally. It should be pointed out that ARENA E is not effective against tank rounds but is supposed to be effective against Arty AP rounds besides RPGs and ATGM. Also this version of the T-72 is protected with RELIKT ERA which is claimed to be twice as effective as the last version of KONTAKT ERA designated KONTAKT-5 which still is in use. As a side note Russia has already developed it’s next gen ERA called KAKTUS which I believe will be used on the ARMATA MBT.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131...ded-Tanks.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob...k_1510132.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130...-Ministry.html
http://defense-update.com/20131106_t...eployment.html
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busine...ar/491336.html
http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=779&p=2
http://www.russiadefence.net/t1868p7...ces-photosnews
http://defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
Pic:

FINLAND/ADD/JUN 2015/LEOPARD 2A6FIN/USE NETHERLANDS UNIT 037//
The contract was approved on 19 JAN, I’m using the “SWAG” on the date and it should be close with deliveries starting in 2015. So after about 2 yrs. the Dutch LEOPARD 2NLA6 tanks finally have a home. As in Asia concerning China’s military build up, some countries in Europe are taking a look at their militaries as well due to the increases seen in Russia’s own increased defense spending. Finland not only bought the last of the active Dutch tanks at the time of retirement tanks (75) but, also cut into the last of their stockpiled ones (25) as well. No indications of any modifications that I can find or is hinted at. That’s what made these and the next two items so attractive to the buyer here and below, these tanks are fully modernized, well maintained and cheaper than modernizing existing stock or buying new as the refs discuss.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...rlands-4161095
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.janes.com/article/31818/f...opard-2a6-mbts
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...k_2012134.html
http://dalje.com/en-economy/finland-...h-tanks/495328
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...inland-020936/
http://defense-update.com/20140119_f..._leopards.html
http://www.janes.com/article/32619/f...om-netherlands

A3. POLAND/ADD/APR 2014/LEOPARD 2A5/USE GERMAN UNITS 272 & 273/ORDERED 105/NOTE: THOUGH POSSIBLE I ERRED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION IN NOT CHOOSING UNITS 274 & 275. YOUR CALL HERE//
A4. POLAND/ADD/APR 2014/LEOPARD 2A4/USE GERMAN UNITS 268 & 269/ORDERED 14//
Pretty much for the same reasons above for Finland, Poland is also pushing hard to modernize its military. Again some “SWAG” but this deal is sealed as well. Contracts were signed in mid 2013 with deliveries to start in 2014 and be completed by 2015. Also this should to some degree answer the question about what Poland was going to do platform wise and this could end or at a minimum delay them in seeking a “Medium” tank solution as has been discussed.
The issue here in choosing the German tanks I did was based on the information from the refs themselves that indicated that the Polish MOD would NOT have to do any modernization on these tanks. I also took into account the LEOPARD 2A4 tanks ordered would be of a later mark then Poland ordered from Germany and received in 2000. I did not include the 18 Bergepanzer 2 armored recovery vehicles (ARVs) that are part of this contract as I don’t believe they serve a game purpose.

C4. POLAND/CHANGE/UNIT 020/START DATE TO JUN 2000 VICE OCT 2002//
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.janes.com/article/29260/p...s-from-germany
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...-tanks-germany
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-tanks-019466/
http://www.defenceiq.com/amoured-veh...rmany-further/

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well I stated there were concerns from Finland and Poland about Russian future "Sabre Rattling" based on it's ongoing military expansion well, the future has arrived as it seems they are flexing their muscles beyond Ukraine now. The now is in Scandinavia. As I noted concerning Finland buying the Dutch LEOPARD's and Poland buying the same from Germany it would seem their purchases were justified. Just a little food for thought with the following...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukr...oorstep-n67866

Regards.
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Didn't feel this was truly an "After Action Report" as much as an update...The Swedish STRV-122A performs well with the GALIX System as I watched it being used in action against attacking Russian troops. As I hoped the AI did go with the T-72B3 right off in the first battle (And only thus far w/24 to go.) for all it's tanks. It looks good and performs well as expected-thank you!! Still looking into the GALIX weaponized status for France, Italy and the couple of other users of the system still with no luck.
Well this was something new I came across on one of my "first look" references when I reloaded it. I like these guys for the reason I'm posting the below; they get ahead of the "big boys" at times. This is on my list and reminds me of another tank also below. You'll note the lines are very similar.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...light_tank.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

For the NBC news source Finnbay, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnbay

Slightly off-topic (it gets better in next paragraph), but I had the urge to elaborate. Finland's purchase was decided earlier, negotiations had started already last year and is covered by the basic budget of the FDF. It is true that the change of modus operandi in Russia has been noted but so far it's all in political speech and discussion about the benefits of joining NATO and the drawbacks of it. One comedian said on TV in a humor program that "We could join NATO so we'd have someone to protect us when Russia attacks Finland because we joined NATO." However the ATACMS purchase cancel has two possible roots, the cost savings imposed by the government and easing of Russian perceived threat from getting both Leos and ATACMS rockets at the same time.

I covered this MBT issue in another post: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...35&postcount=4

Finns had a choice between modernizing the current tanks, buying brand new from Germany or getting them used at Honest Dutchman's Used Cars and Tanks. Last one was considered to be most cost effective.

Re: MBT's
 

I have read your post and found it interesting and even checked your other one you linked to your last from the 8th of this month as well. So what more can I say then thank you for backing me up on my information submitted in "The FASTBOAT Patch Page" (TFPP) Thread Post #172 and please note the date; Look under "New Items" and for this topic the "A2" submission and please read it carefully. Also it was re-posted in this it's "home" thread above in #274. The easy part is saying "I think I'll submit this piece of equipment..." for any reason you choose to end that sentence with. The hard part is in researching the hard data and do all the checks and balances to try to submit and present that piece of equipment to Don and ultimately everyone else out here in a manner to advocate for it, highlight the main points, present the references and finally write it up to an international audience where even in the English speaking nations how an idea is presented by the use of a term can have a different meaning. Perfect example there was an item about armor penetration a short time ago that an APC was protected up to 14.7mm rounds in the U.S. that would generally mean to include the 14.7mm round; elsewhere it seems that means it would not include that round. So we either have a communication issue or one of reaction vs research before reaction to a topic. But it's all good, we both contribute and help like many others out here but please understand that I actually do read my references so I can take those steps outlined above because I know Don and others out here will read them as well. Look at the TFPP Thread especially the earlier posts and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do I get it right all the time? No, Indonesia's LEOPARD deal I tracked that for over two years, everybody including JANE's was reporting they would get the 2A6 even after the Dutch deal fell through. Before the German deal was reported it was still 2A6 tanks, then maybe 2A4 from an undisclosed European country but still 2A6 tanks maybe from Germany you see the pattern here? Well LEOPARDS was right, Germany would be right but the 2A6 WOULD BE WRONG. Even as they were being shipped it was still being reported that the 2A6 was on the way. So guess what LEOPARD is on my list for Indonesia when I get the green light to submit equipment again? Yeah the 2A4 improved and modified Indonesian tank.
A long way around to make a point I know but who wasted their time more to make a point? I don't know and quite frankly I don't care.

Well I should post a tank issue here so, here's one I've been dealing with for years also; DRDO in India is ready to have the ARJUN MKII fielded in 2016 if the Army might want the tank before the LAHAT issue is resolved. DRDO is working very closly with ELBIT of Israel to get the techincal issues resolved. The last discusses some more detailed aspects of the tank we haven't I believe looked at yet for the game as currently entered.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/29514617.cms
http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=54792
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...6_2303144.html
http://jewishvoiceny.com/index.php?o...nse&Itemid=282

Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well I feel comfortable with this site to post this. I've been tracking this story for a long time now, but it appears Germany might be backing away from one of the largest tank deals in many years. I do know for certain the deal was on the verge of being of completion with the contracts to have been finalized by this summer also as reported in this thread the tanks in question were to be the LEOPARD 2A7+. Originally S.A. was going to purchase an advanced version of the 2A6 w/modifications numbering I believe around 500 tanks. All that changed with the development of the 2A7+ and of course this would've guaranteed that S.A. would've enjoyed armor superiority in the region for many years.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...arabia-4214642

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well equipment is what I do here so...
So what's hitting the news right now is a previously unidentified Israeli tank that is on my work list along with the M113 SPIKE NLOS platform the TAMUZ. This was going to be part of an "update" on what I'm working for this thread but, I couldn't wait.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo...s_2107143.html

Attachment 13046
Note NLOS antenna
near side aft end of
the turret.

Attachment 13047
As noted in header.

Attachment 13048
SPIKE NLOS launcher
up. Holds 12 missiles.

Attachment 13049
TAMUZ

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Didn't have chance to include any info on the SPIKE NLOS in Post 280, so I put some info here below. However note that the system will attack laser designated targets by the time it was actually fielded and or exported; some articles as late as the summer of 2012 indicated that feature would be available at a later date. Also it does carry different warheads depending on the mission and combat environment.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SI...LES/6/1026.pdf
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israe...ata_sheet.html
http://www.military.com/video/operat...2477197733001/

I might have to go with this alone as I haven't heard from GingerTanker since late winter.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well I wasn't going to do much around here but I'm coming out of my hole a little sooner then some. However recently some eye surgery "my team" has been putting off for a couple of plus years can no longer be pushed back. I'll be out of commission from the end of next month to the mid-point+ of Sep. So take care of them and get them checked yearly. I know that'll break a couple of my co-workers hearts :rolleyes:. But well-they better just enjoy the break while they can :p. So here's what I'll working/tracking with some news.

What if...
Well a lot of new tanks and designs post cold war died on the vine simply because of the massive goult of tanks that flooded the market or were just given away after the Cold War. These are for you designer folks.
France...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mars_15.htm

This might be a case of when or how soon vs. what if due to the continued crisis in the Ukraine. The BTMP-84 would be only the second tank in the world to be troop capable in transporting 5 fully armed troops vs the 8 the MERKAVA IV can hold.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/btmp_84.htm

First off I've only done a cursory check of the OOB's so let's just call this "the official/unofficial work list" for the time being. If it's on here it's ready or very close within a couple of years to be fielded/or modified.

Light Tanks...
China...
http://www.military-oday.com/tanks/n...light_tank.htm

Medium Tanks...
Iran...Let's take something old and make it better but still obsolete. The SABALAN.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sabalan.htm

Israel...MEGACH SPIKE NLOS.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo..._with_12_spike

Engineering...
Finland I didn't see this in the OOB so here you go...
http://www.military-today.com/engine...atria_hmbv.htm
They now have added an engineering section to the website that might be worth a look for some.

Changes...
Canada/Denmark...Vision upgrade: "Canada’s Leopard 2A6CANs and Denmark’s Leopard 2A5s will install ATTICA in both commander and gunner’s sights, creating the ability to seamlessly pass views from commander to gunner with no change in quality." ATTICA is a game changer as used on the LEO 2A7+. I thought I still had the article, but, the German later model LEO 2A6 tanks have already received the ATTICA system as well. That article I suspect is within this thread. These tanks will have TI/GSR 50.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...8/#2011–2014

India...ARJUN MKI with LAHAT start date moved to 2017. Might effect MKII as well. Gun vs. LAHAT issues that DRDO hopes to have resolved by early 2016.

South Africa...Minor tweaks remain for OFILANT tanks some corrected in last patch.

Turkey...Remember this? Attachment 13063
Well I made the comment in this thread or elsewhere I thought that the whole Turkish tank issue was as easy as this diagram showed with minor tweaks for the later tanks entered about 2 or 3 Patches ago. Well it is and I have the documentation from SIPRI to prove it. Mostly from the import of tanks from Germany and the USA. This situation is in this thread and or the FB Patch Page thread.

I'll finish out the TI/GSR updates I started work on a couple of years ago. We managed to get some tanks addressed in the last Patch I believe it was. Tanks of note for the next batch will be @50 TI/GSR: UK-CHALLENGER 2 latest mod, Russian ARMATA (If ready.), Italy CENTURO TD and Ukraine OPLOT-M (Though this might have been fixed already.).
45-50 TI/GSR 45-50: France LECLERC again latest mod. This tank has really vexed me on this issue and it art of 2 yrs to resolve it's FCS capabilities. This is why I'll say now and based on some ups done in the last couple years I'd go with 50 as noted on the lead in (And you think this is easy.)
TI/GSR 45: Italy refuses to upgrade the ARIETE to the C2 upgrade (This would be @50.) The current ARIETE C1 can only be rated at TI/GSR 45 at best. Why? It only uses certain components of the GALILEO FCS, whereas the CENTURO TD uses the full GALILEO FCS. I thought the LECLERC was bad, this took the cake in trying to track down which components of the GALILEO FCS it used. It would be a generous 45 and still might be a "game day decision" when all said and done. The Italians again in the current defense budget shot down the C2 upgrades but did decide to buy ~250-300 each of the CENTURO series (Heavy on the TD model.) and the VBM FRECCIA IFV.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/ariete.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vbm_freccia.htm


News...
China designing a new MBT...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...s_2907146.html

Germany... As a continuation of the German/Saudi tank deal posted earlier here's the primary source I didn't have at the time.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-saudis-06993/

India also moving forward a new MBT sometime in our lifetime. However have heard the active protection system discussed here will be on the ARJUN MKII.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...n_2907142.html

Indonesia got the first of the "now again" LEO 2A6 and MARDER 1A2 upgraded IFV. Might need a date change here not sure. Thought we settled on Oct. this year, if so, we're in the 6 month "swag" we've discussed in the past. Leaving the tank alone as I'm not chasing the 2A4 (Which were reportedly upgraded to the 2A6 level anyway.) vs. the 2A6 as is in the game now after much discussion.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_...v_2706142.html


Israel was to have have sold the MERKAVA IV to Columbia a couple of years ago making them it's first export customer, however the deal fell through. Now it appears there's another player out there as yet unidentified. Tracking this "tightly" but I think Columbia might be back in it. Though another country "lingers" in my mind as well.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...y_0707142.html


USA improvements coming to the M1A2 SEP V2 to include an IED ECM device and a new armor package for practical game purposes first of them will be in the field in 2017.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo...m_0411121.html[/b]

Please remember I never single source these are representative of others I use. Enough said and back to work later today.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

unit 358

Re: MBT's
 

Well I can't use my current eye situation or blame it on a cataract since the last one was done in 5/07 and I can't even fall back on
"First off I've only done a cursory check of the OOB's..." since I did say "Finland I didn't see this in the OOB so here you go...". So it would appear that I've been done in by my own words and worse my own ref., would a smudge across glasses be viable at this point!?! How about I didn't feel well :puke:. Didn't think so either; I guess there's no way out of this but to take the :doh: now and thank you for saving me from wasting my time on the matter down the road! ;)

My own ref what's the world coming to!?!
Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I remember when the Dutch had this many tanks not so long ago and now have none. The SDSR (or just SDR) plan of 2010 spelled out the cuts to the British military which is known as "the future force 2020", many of the cuts since have gone deeper then the SDSR original plan by way of the related story below concerning the state of their armored units. And some have just not made sense such as the billions of pounds spent to refurbish the RAF/RN HARRIER GR.7 and GR.9 fighter-bombers which, the USMC ended up buying at well below "bargain basement prices" so that we would have plenty of spare parts for our USMC AV-8B HARRIERS. The best example for me is that, the RN had to press ahead with the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers because it was more expensive to stop and scrap them then to just finish them off. I bet the RN wishes they had kept their HARRIERS now since a money making decision was made to redesign them with the traditional "jump" deck. Anyway here's your tank story...
The one and only...Royal Tank Regiment...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/augus...aine_0308.html

I'll have to do some checking but the TES mod might be a good start point for the CHALLENGER 2 TI/GSR upgrade as discussed recently and in the past.

On SDSR 2010...
https://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu.../dg_191634.pdf

On the Carriers...
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equi...rcraft-carrier
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-01630/

This last will "unlock" at a later date just us members get a first look at the updates/rewrites before the general release on the site.

The HARRIER issue I covered from the start in the Jets and Planes Thread if you desire further reading.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well the article below is an easy read on the direction some Eastern European Countries are taking and have been preparing to do prior to the Ukrainian crisis. Some of this I've addressed separately already in other threads but the below bundles it all nicely together. The nasty "economics" issue pops up that some people don't like here but, this is one "real world" that does effect/or impact the game in equipment terms i.e. and in general how many prototype pieces of equipment got into the game that have been removed over the years? Let Don, Andy, others and myself count the hulks and fuselages on the field of "I saw it here or there..." instead of "the budget was approved for the..." and "it is operational/or fielded". Anyway all Russia has done was spur on the "fence sitters" to get off the fence and isn't Article 5 going to be a pain for them as well.
http://www.army-technology.com/featu...ation-4387406/

Just in case it's needed...
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...exts_17120.htm

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Yep, nice to have a capable enough self defense force that you won't overrun before you allies can react. Or at least one capable of putting up enough of a fight a potential enemy has to bring a few significant formations to bear, and moving them into position telegraphs possible intent.

Re: MBT's
 

Anyone please...Is there a way to copy a word document to this thread that has both standard text AND columned text without having to go through the tedious process of trying to reorganize the columns once copied over? Feeling REALLY stupid that I can't manage this. If someone knows a way, well, by all means take advantage of the situation at my expense. I feel the document is worth that much!!:pc: The document is from SIPRI.

Thanks.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

The only way is to make a .jpg or similar and post it as an attachment photo style. The forum automatically removes all formatting.

Re: MBT's
 

Suhiir,
Thanks for your last suggestion but, it looks like I'll have to do it the old fashioned way of printing it and scanning from my printer to "My Pictures" file. And since I'd feel bad about people looking just to see this some news would be appropriate here...

1. Most people know I like my mil-tech and a U.S. company has about reached the "Holy Grail" of armored hull design and protection.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob...otection_.html

2. Ah yes war is good (Sort of.) with a little help from the West financially Ukraine's defense industry is humming along and there's plenty of jobs to go around which is spurring along some technology developments as well and verifies Russia's claims that Ukraine had somehow gotten the "formula" for the very advanced KONTAKT ERA. Russia is not happy about this now and when I posted this in here somewhere of their suspicions of this a year ago or more.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._vehicles.html

3. Ah but there's always a flip side and it would seem the situation will not allow for Russia to back down from the ARMATA tank like they did with the BLACK EAGLE or the T-95. I don't say this lightly but I feel this MBT will keep people awake at night. In my humble opinion the ARMATA will be what the ABRAMS was when it came upon the scene. This is Russia's first new tank design from the ground up in decades.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob...5_1210145.html

Easy reads on the above tanks to include the first one I posted in this thread the BLACK EAGLE the main picture shown I believe is the prototype with the 152mm SB MG.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/armata.htm

Now I feel better that you hopefully didn't waste all your time here.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

never the best way to do things unless you are desperate ..sounds like Putin wants a new tank NOW

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
I would have to agree on all counts. It does match the timeline we had discussed for these tanks though as well when I first started tracking them. Maybe Putin has streamlined the "graft" system to make it happen as projected.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well to lay the ground work for the following on where the USA is heading with it's armor by compass and figuratively consider these more as supplements to what I've already posted in here. Don and I have already addressed the issues of the M1A2 SEP V2 and the improved BRADLEY with new FCS components. The second ref takes us beyond those improvements as both these platforms will be around for roughly another 15 and 30 years respectively.
The Compass...
http://www.janes.com/article/44483/a...-set-equipment

The Near Term Future (NTF-us military folks love them acronyms. ;))...
http://www.janes.com/article/44473/a...ehicle-choices

My computer time is up have a good night.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Last should've read 30 and 15 years...vice 15 and 30 years...sorry
for the confusion.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Having a rough recovery so, I thought with a little time to kill I'd provide the following updates. On the DID refs provided below, related issues are in bold within the articles and at the bottom are Related Articles from this and other defense related sites and a further News section from related local and international news sources. This is a "one stop" reference source better than WiKi-anything.

Poland: The continued Russian encroachment into the Ukraine and pressures elsewhere have accelerated the pace of deliveries of the updated LEO 2A4 and 2A5 MBT's. The first covers the (second) deliveries the last the same and a comprehensive look at Poland's heavy armor situation. For my part moving up the fielding date to Oct this year vice Jan 2015 might be appropriate based on Poland's long experience with the LEO and in keeping with historical data for a scenario developer-Russia openly attacks Ukrainian forces with rebel supporting units. With the blessing/support of NATO Poland sends troops into the Ukraine to stabilize the Western portion of the country.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob...tle_tanks.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-tanks-019466/

Also as of today (for real) oil hit a 4yr low too close at $78 a barrel, Russia needs oil at $100 a barrel to sustain it's economy at current/future spending levels. Oil is projected to continue to drop, at $68 a barrel this will tip Russia into a
re-cessation. If this wasn't bad enough now Germany's Merkel has now spoken out against Putin this in the ref below.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...urope-028564//

South Korea/Turkey: As above I've posted on this years ago. The ALTAY was designed from the K-2 during this period of cooperation the S. Koreans started to develop the improved K-2 called the XK-2. Some of the XK-2 improvements made it into the ALTAY however S. Korea is seeking to improve the tank further which ironically is based on the ABRAMS, anyway as you might imagine this has lead to problems. Also not in the update at top but in the first para of the article is what I had already known about the LEO1 and early LEO2 MBT's; that they are still in service with the Turkish Army. These tanks were the test beds for the LEOPARD-1T (LEO 2A4) and ALTAY for the FCS (On LEO1) and other improvement on the older LEO2 tanks refer to the following post in this thread Pg.17 Post #169or the Fastboat Patch Thread. Again the "Poster" was right.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...project-05012/

Attachment 13329
This will be submitted with the SIPRI data previously mentioned.

The Turkish MBT situation has been greatly clarified since the above post in later ones as soon as within the last six months. I've spent more time on the Turkish armor issue then any other and I expect a final resolution (I hope.) on my first Patch input. The data is good to show the progression of Turkish armor after WWII though I could've presented it in a less confusing manner back then.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Merry Christmas.

One little thing. I don't know if this is the correct thread. I knew that T72B3 was the cheap upgrade version to some Rogatka standards of the T72B. In this game Rogatka is weaker than T72B3. Can you explain me why? Or maybe I'm confused.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

"The T-72B3 is a recent Russian upgrade of the ageing T-72B tanks. It can be seen as a low-cost alternative to the T-72B2 Rogatka upgrade to keep older T-72B tanks operational."

Re: MBT's
 

It's all very well to quote he first line but what about

"T-72B3 tanks are fitted with new engine, new gunners sight, new fire control system and have some other improvements"

"....autoloader of the T-72B3 has some modifications and can use newly-developed munitions. "

and the later versions have a more powerful engine

The Rogatka has better EW the B3 has better firecontrol and the cost in game is virtually the same. The only thing really "weaker" is the reactive armour and as I recall at the time the B3 was fitted with more up top date reactive panels....... Personally both these tanks do the same job with only a 1 % difference in cost so maybe you could elaborated on what your problem with this is??


Don

Re: MBT's
 

That said if one of the "diggers" of info could confirm the ammo carried in the Rogatka and the B3.... one source says the B3 carries 45 rounds http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

Re: MBT's
 

Very very tired and I had to look in here...why???
Please go to Page 28 Post 274 Item A1 It has the best gun in the T-72 class (Same as T-90/T-90MS), the new ammo is fielded, best optics, TI, FCS of any T-72 and best protected. Below ref. says ammo at 36 rounds total with 22 ready rounds. Was supposed to have RELIKT ERA (Same as T-90MS.) however the below also suggests KONTACT-5 HOWEVER the reports suggest "a different ERA configuration on the turret...better protection...". I believe it might be RELIKT as the configuration is different from other T-72 mods especially around the turret area.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...res_video.html
http://www.janes.com/article/27920/r...ced-protection

I really like http://www.military-today.com/index.htm it's always been one of the first places I look but the above I feel is better. That being said this is a Ukrainian site and the UKRAINE has built as many or more T-72 tanks then the Russians. So could the second ref mean 36 conventional rounds + four missiles? I don't know and I haven't reread the refs provided in the above post either.

The brain and eyes are tired so for now I'm done. Will look into the ammo issue more later. But while still coherent, two long campaigns Sweden vs. Russia and currently Norway vs. Russia guess what tank the Russian AI likes to now use? :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I've checked the OOB file and the differences between B2 ("Rogatka") and B3 T-72 variants.

My ideas:
-Both tanks should have same FC as they both use same FCS - Sosna-U.
-Rogatka should definitely have stronger reactive armor than B3, as it uses third generation Relikt instead of the Kontakt-5 on B3.
- Regarding the EW, Shtora-1 on Rogatka is correctly represented by the VIRSS, but i think that the B3 should have EW removed altogether. Some webs claim that there's Shtora-1 or even ARENA-E installed, but photos of fielded Russian tanks don't have any of these components installed (missing radar, missing IR sensors, missing laser sensors).

T-72B3 walkaround:
http://btvt.narod.ru/5/t72b3m/t72b3m.htm