Re: MBT's
 

1. Even Russian sources say the T-72B3 has a NEW FCS. Many components make up a complete FCS system one I've spoken of recently is the issue concerning the Italian GALAX GALILEO FCS(See Page 29 Post 282). The ARIETE C1 has only certain components of the system on board vs. the full system on the CENTURO. The difference in this case is mostly in the TI/GSR values 40 versus 50 (When submitted later.). The T-72B2 does not possess a "Hunter-Killer" mode of operation, this is the difference in the COMPLETE FCS that the T-72B3 has that capability.

2. I am willing to concede the RELICT vs KONTACT-5 issue however as I noted the whole turret issue still stands in regards to the ERA configuration. Having re-read the army-recognition.com (AR) data and Russian defensenet.com blog (DN) 1. They know some other form of protection is under the KONTACT-5 plates to account for the configuration differences from the other T-72 variants. The first AR reports there is a 20mm layer of applique armor (Very effective normally think MERKEVA as that's a key part of its protection.) around the turret, The DN site believes it to be RELICT on the glacis area of the turret.

3. First with ARENA-E simply think of the TROPHY system by comparison. Which this tank does have.

4. I still stand by the Main Gun as well. Refer back to the original Post for that and the newer AR ref I submitted recently.

I submit things like the word "new" and "A picture(s) is worth a thousand words."...
http://www.siberianinsider.com/russi...2b3-tanks.html
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/768012
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

And I'll save the JANE'S for later if needed.

Pic:
Attachment 13371
Note on closest tank of 9 on the turret front facing you what appears to be an IR light used by the SHTORA system. This is not unusual as the Russian Army has started to use their armor defensive systems in a "hybrid configuration" the ref touches on this below concerning the SHTORA system. On the turret top you can see the commanders "hunter killer" panoramic site. And finally on the back of the turret you can clearly see the large can shaped radar of the ARENA-E system.

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

And since it seems some things might have been missed when the above ref was used to start this conversation, let me post a couple of direct quotes from it. It would seem this goes back to one of my PITA issues I've posted on before.

1. "Refurbished and upgraded T-72B3 tanks are fitted with new engine, new gunners sight, new fire control systemm and have some other improvements. Now this MBT has a hunter-killer capability."

2. "The tank has new fire control system and new ballistic computer. Gunner uses new Sosna-U sight with thermal imager. This sight has day/night and all weather combat capability. The T-72B3 has a hunter-killer capability even though it lacks commander's panoramic sight. Vehicle commander can select a target and lay the gun and let the gunner complete all the aiming and firing process. During that time commander looks for the next target. The tank is also fitted with new digital radio system."

2a. "lacks commander's panoramic sight"-It doesn't anymore/see pic above again/many initial refs left the door open for "down the road" upgrades. That time has already come and gone. Those tanks pictured went West at the time of the article-who's West of Russia and slightly to the South? The T-72B3 is the frontline tank there.

Sorry for the crankiness (Well to a degree anyway :angel) but...
forget about it...good night!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Suhiir thanks for your suggestion about the JPEG, from how many months ago now? Well to Don's shun-grin here's that pesky poster, but this time thanks to Suhiir, I can finally as I discovered last May tie up the Turkish heavy armor issue with the below supporting data from SIPRI. I also wanted to demonstrate what I feel is a very practical use of this data for you game developer folks out there and others involved in the equipment business. I must apologize for not adjusting the document before printing it out because some of what got chopped off is any improvement on the tanks made before they shipped to Turkey mostly with the improvements made by the Germans with the M-48 tanks (Optics/some FCS) well some of you know how I am with some "tech y things" :pc: and :typing:. I was already a ref-nazi but the Turkish armor situation was in bad shape when all I wanted to do was add the M-60T which lead to the proverbial "rabbit-hole" (I better stop there Don's probably getting bad flashbacks about now! ;)) but I have to thank him for pushing on the matter and thank Suhiir and IMP for their sometimes "hidden" online and offline moral support-THANKS! Sometimes (Rarely) the simplest ref can yield the most results in this case again the "poster" with the documents provided below and all the refs I've already submitted. I can honestly say that the Turkish Heavy Armor boils down to it now with minor tweaks we already applied to the newer tanks already submitted. My concern was with the older tanks to include the continued use of the German LEOPARD 1 tanks. I will in the EDIT phase provide the Post covering the background and source of the "Poster"

Poster...
Attachment 13379

SIPRI Data...
Attachment 13380 Attachment 13381
Attachment 13382

Go to the website to see how they gather their data and what they do.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

But of course the EDIT clock strikes again...but here's if you will the "edited" version I transferred to the "home" thread here...Pg. 7 Post 169 if you want to see the original one or see how we interact in putting this together from my perspective and helping each other lose a little more hair faster than Don and I would like, please go to the Patch Post Thread and follow the process. For the topic at hand it'll be on Pg. 7 Post 65.
On the previous pages in the above mentioned Thread, look for the Patch submission concerning I believe the M60A1 RISE MBT I believe many might find that process useful in some considerations/why some decisions on equipment are made. I was personally (And at times still.) at the time on maybe not "steep" learning curve but, certainly a "hilly" one. Sometimes even when good work is submitted, a little humility and understanding can go a long way to later getting more of what your seeking done down the road providing you are still doing your homework.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Always nice when you can find a definitive source as opposed to the usual "find six sources where four use one of the other two as their source and the two that have other sources disagree".

Re: MBT's
 

How true sometimes I feel like my head will implode before it explodes!! :soap: :banghead: :censor: :fire: French 105mm artillery! That'll be years our lives Don and I will never get back or least it felt like that at times.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

HMmm make that for this Thread Page 17 Post 169-sorry!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

OK after this I'm taking a break. But I'm learning to use my printer for all the other things I can do and if I'm to trying to show the benefit of this site at least from my perspective I need to do a better job getting the info to you, after all you deserve that much. So these I checked them and they're good. A couple of highlights are...
1. At the end of the German section it validates the data I provided concerning the conversion of the LEOPARD 2A4 tanks to the Turkish LEOPARD 2NG (Better than the Singapore upgrade to some degree.).

2. On the last page U.S. section you'll see the M-60 tanks used for the Turkish M-60T (Similar to the Israeli SABRA, but with an updated FCS.) anyway all the data below now...

Attachment 13383 Attachment 13384

Attachment 13385 Attachment 13386

I'm done in have a good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I was walking through the park one day when...well this is no musical, so to the topic at hand recently posted about. I was interested in the stories coming out of the Ukraine about them capturing a couple of T-72B3 tanks. What happened was within a month of that story some backed off and said they were T-72B1 tanks but more reliable reporting identified them as T-64BV tanks; no big deal the main tank of the Ukrainian Army is an advanced version of this tank (They are currently modernizing them further now) very plausible with the loss of bases in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Then further analysis from Intel agencies were released and other evidence surfaced from news sources and from personal videos (Most famous the BUK-2 launcher being trucked across the border back into Russia minus one SAM in July after the Malay/Indonesian passenger jet was shotdown.) when it noted a "ghost" from the past has reappeared. The "ghost" was the very Russian T-64BV. One site (Ukraine at War) even showed what was identified and to me looks like a T-64A on a Russian transporter parked in rebel held territory in Eastern Ukraine (They were nice enough to provide a satellite pictures as well.). Both possible as Russia along with the Ukraine (Also having produced more of them and again being the largest operator of the type.) still have vast numbers of them in stock still. If the Ukrainian authorities are correct they traced the T-64BV tanks back an active armored unit in the St. Petersburg area in Russia. From here I'll leave you with my thoughts and a couple of points about the tanks.

My thoughts and points...
* This tank was never exported think about that for a moment compared against all other Russian types you can think of.
You'll at least understand that below in the background section from some pretty reliable sources; I never realized how revolutionary this tank was in its development at its prime. As a side the Ukraine is reported to be ready to export to the Congo advanced T-64BM1/or 2 tanks making them the first export customer of the the type.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...Tanks-DR-Congo

* The T-64 base model never really went away per say. Most of them would survive to become the T-64R version which was about the 4th mod in the series. Versions would go out of service but the tanks themselves seemed to just keep evolving. You can see the potential issues here for us.

* There is credible evidence that Russian T-64BV saw combat service in the first Chechen War and the 2008 border incursion into Georgia. The sources below indicate these captured and otherwise documented sightings etc. of the Russian T-64BV tanks shows/or describes them as well maintained.

* I believe the T-64BV is still in service with the Russian military in some capacity. Though I don't feel it's in any frontline capacity; That job has fallen to the improved T-72 types notably the B3 and possible B4 yet to come (ARMATA will I feel be the driver of this type if it becomes operational. The ARMATA is though on track and on time.),T-90 and the ARMATA when it enters service in a couple of years.

* Currently it's being reported the remaining and unpopular T-80 tanks will be removed from service by the end of 2015. The T-72B3 was designated as it's replacement when developed and MANY will be converted to the B3 standard, some estimates run up to or more than a thousand.

* 1991 Russia reportedly scraps around 10,000-20,000 tanks to include leftover WWII stock, T-54 - T-64 tanks.
2005 6,000 tanks reportedly T-54 - T-64 and T-80.
2012 unknown thousands T-55/T-64/some T-72 and T-80.
These numbers would include SPAA and APC types as well.

One background source below well, some people like him some don't. I don't care about the game data but, what I know is his research on equipment is good and for me verifiable. Keep it in that vain of "background" information.

Background...
http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/russian_tanks.html
http://tanknutdave.com/the-russian-t-64-mbt/
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Ta...003044001.aspx

The following are top notch.

Analysis...
http://www.janes.com/article/40139/u...t-near-donetsk
http://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalan...an-source-4c62

This is as good as anywhere...some economics (What you thought I wouldn't do this!?!)
http://www.janes.com/article/47013/a...rends-for-2015

All in all not a bad way to end the year I think, this should keep you busy for a bit. For me back to work this afternoon, so I want to wish you all a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! And please have fun but also please be safe out there as well.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Concerning the ARMATA from the Main Forum (FYI: RIA NOVOSTI) new info at the bottom as indicated.

As noted elsewhere the best we can do is mark our calendars for 9 May and hopefully we'll get our first look, providing of course we "see it" at all. I don't know how many remember me posting the "first look" of the T-95 (In the MBT Thread) a few years back, what we saw was a covered tank on a transporter. My wish list for the ARMATA is to see a reliable interior cutaway for the purpose of seeing if the crew will have access to the gun area. As noted the ARMATA is to have a fully automated turret , so you would understand my concerns here though, it would make sense to me that the crew as necessary would have an interior access hatch to the interior to take manual control if required. Can't remember but doesn't the MERKAVA IV have an armored crew compartment as well? Anyway that's my real world/game world concerns.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/armata.htm

T-95
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.htm

BLACK EAGLE (My first post in the MBT Thread I believe.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm

My feeling in the ARMATA will be a hybrid of a new design with many attributes from the BLACK EAGLE. Even the T-95 was to have been a "lesser" tank then the BLACK EAGLE, the T-95 was designed to be a cheaper version of it. It is very important to remember the time frame of development of these two tanks as compared to the ARMATA, simply stated the economy has been much improved and Russia's ongoing commitment to modernize the military by 2020

To answer an earlier question, of curiosity the T-90AM is not listed in the variant section of ref. one. However as noted the T-90AM was Russian forces designated while the T-90MS was for export. However Russia has both as the T-90MS was an improved model over the T-90AM due to customer modifications. This is not the first time this has happened Mi-24 and T-50/PAF-FA also come to mind as posted else where. To these tanks the info will be in the Patch/or MBT Threads when I submitted them.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90ms_tagil.htm

I will move this post into the MBT Thread at a later date.

Regards,
Pat
__________________
"If something is not impossible, there must be a way of doing it." - Sir Nicholas Winton

New Info Starts here...
Russia now concerned about the ARMATA Rubles increases, we call it the F-35 here...
http://www.janes.com/article/45974/r...mata-mbt-costs

Russians claim to be arming the ARMATA with an ATGM unknown to the West, or as I've designated it "The Super Whama Dime Thingy Magigy that goes ZOOM BANG PooOOP!!" :rolleyes: however, seriously they have already fielded the replacement to the I believe it was the IGLA MANPAD SAM so I give some credence to the claim. I'll post the other later during this house cleaning.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...w_missile.html

Now for the headache :sick: but something just isn't right about this so everyone "stand-down" for now. But those Germans...
http://www.janes.com/article/46904/g...eopard-2a7-mbt
Is there a difference between this and the LEOPARD 2A7+? That's the issue. At worst a date change, I don't remember when we had it enter service when submitted a couple of years ago.

And finally about 2 or 3 pages back I posted on my MBT work list the following. Well an early win again on this subject matter of tanks for Military-Today for getting the jump on everyone for the following that I can now submit as an ADD for China. First the original data followed by the new info. What's important is I have a baseline tank to build upon when submitted from the article.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...light_tank.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua...t_0201153.html

It looks like "Thunder Birds Are A GO!"

Well I'm going to enjoy the rest of my weekend with the Granddaughter who'll hopefully scare the rest of this Flu out of system!!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Before anyone says anything the granddaughter is asleep!?! Alright here's what happened with the LEOPARD 2A7+ in late 2010 KMW was to start the conversion of 200 LEOPARDS to the LEOPARD 2A7+ standard. That obviously didn't happen because if you remember I had posted on a 200 tank deal from Germany to Saudi Arabia which after languishing for over a year the German Government finally canceled the deal. This slowed production of the tanks for the Bundswaher. Those KMW links are dead now (And you think the internet is so good, well it s...s as a librarian.) It seems the 200 Bundswehr tanks are being upgraded and the original ATTICA FCS has been upgraded in that time as well and as already reported in this thread last year as noted at the end of ref 3 below. Recommended action...
1. Change LEOPARD 2A7+ Start date to either 6/15 or 10/15.
2. Change LEOPARD 2A7+ TI/GSR to 50 vice current 45 based on improved ATTICA system vs. ATTICA when submitted.
3. Copy latest one/or two LEOPARD 2A6 UNIT(s) in the game as NEW UNITS to reflect addition of the complete ATTICA FCS with TI/GSR 50. Dates to reflect 1/15-12/20 or latest 6/15-12/20 as these upgrades have been also ongoing for at least a year. Have seen no other information to suggest any other upgrades to these tanks were considered/or done.
http://www.janes.com/article/46904/g...eopard-2a7-mbt
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germa...scription.html
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...n-battle-tank/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm


Normally I'd be pissed about this but we went with what we had.

So simply I'm just going to say THANKS-JANE'S!!!!

Don I'll get UNIT numbers to you in the early evening have somewhere to be in the morning.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
Got LEOPARD 2A7+/UNIT 267 and LEOPARD 2A6/UNIT 037 as the best fit. That UNIT 037 seemed the best fit and should be extended on it's own until 12/20 vice 12/14, did I miss a LEOPARD(s) 2A6 until 12/20 somewhere else in the German OOB? If so sorry but, I didn't see it. They should have them that long and beyond.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Just waiting for the meds to kick in so I don't hack myself to sleep, found the other LEOPARD 2A6 it would be UNIT 277 again both should be pushed out until 12/20 and copied and added as new units with ATTICA FCS as noted in the previous two posts. Those UNIT numbers stuck in my head for some reason, due to recent tank deal we just entered in the last Patch-for Poland maybe?
Anyway they've kicked in and I'm done though I expect to now be counting LEOPARDS in my sleep!
Have a good night and day!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Better Leopards then being a Soviet boomer sailor counting Seawolves.

Re: MBT's
 

True but, I'd them now be rather having nightmares over the VIRGINIA Class Boats. One of standard responses to those I see on the base who say "I'm/We're just livin the dream at the Bay" is "Well even a Nightmare is a Dream" it's a work thing.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

See this in the APC Thread as a continuation of a discussion there.

Getting this into the home Thread so I can TRACK THESE DEVELOPMENTS FOR SUBMISSION PURPOSES.

Now you know why I've used this site (OPLOT/OPLOT-M) and have kept it but, the "boys" from Ukraine I'm sure have contacts or use the site themselves. Any way I show the history tank section this might be of some general use especially dealing with pre and WWII tanks. The site is rich in data after all this plant has been making tanks for over 75 years. The cautionary note here is dealing with the upgrades available that the data fields are looked at completely so as not to miss items such as gun upgrades and protection benefits (With tested values.)of items such as ERA like NOZH etc. You have to remember they are in the business to make money and have been very successful in the export business in countries like Thailand and Iraq.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/tank...?page=history5

I don't know where we're at with the Ukrainian tanks but the last one I submitted was the OPLOT-M and modifications to the OPLOT. So I suspect at least a couple of these will need to be submitted. Further I will move this post to it's home thread later just wanted to wrap this "chain of events" up here.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72ua1.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64e.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm
(JANE'S (And others.) has reported the two above as in service, there are reports of a T-64B2M as well FCS upgrades probably in line with the T-84 below. Also it seems the T-72UA1 MIGHT BE in service as well though they have better options in the field now.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64bm_bulat.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm
(For reference to the previous ref above.)

A note on NOZH is that it has very similar characteristics of the same armor package used on the MERKAVA. It is in essence a further development of KONTACT-5 which Russia a couple of years ago (In MBT Thread.) accused the Ukraine of stealing. As noted it improves protection especially when used in conjunction with "conventional" ERA. Right now not many reports of Ukrainian T-72 or OPLOTs being used actively in the current crisis. Same for reports that the T-72BM3 is operating within the Ukraine sightings thus far have been confirmed as newer T-64 variants and possible older T-72 types. However the T-72BM3 has been confirmed on being seen inside the Russian border with the Ukraine. Again some of this is in the MBT Thread.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Seems the Leopard 2A7+ should have a 12.7mm AAMG and no 40mm GL.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm

Re: MBT's
 

..and we may have been mislead when it was released as to the turret shape...... what we have in there now may not be the 2A7 but an add on package..... this needs further digging

Re: MBT's
 

Does this LEO 2A7+ discussion have anything to do Posts 309 (Bottom of.) and 310? To get to the root of this issue also Pg. 9/Post 84 Item A6 (I was just there in looking for the Post # those KMW links are dead w/404 Error Code.) will be important as this drove the original submission I think. But I offered what I think happened in the previous two posts noted. Also within the last two weeks the German Govt. voted not to sell any military equipment to Saudi Arabia. I had already posted on the fact (w/refs.) that the much discussed deal of the purchase of 200 LEOPARD 2A7+ was killed by the Govt. about a year ago or more now. Except for the JANE'S article in the bottom of Post 309, not much on this.

Refs we didn't have at the time but in the quick...they can be armed with either the 7.62mm/40mmGL or 7.62mm/12.5mm secondary armament...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germa...scription.html
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...n-battle-tank/
and again...
http://www.janes.com/article/46904/g...eopard-2a7-mbt

Qatar is supposed to get ~200 of these tanks next year late.

When was the LEOPARD 2A7+ put in the OOB?

Back sort of, nothing an excellent day/night in Savannah/a surprise room upgrade/a very good dinner/a fine Irish folk singer and a handful of "Imperial Pints" couldn't cure to clear my head and doing it with CINCLANTHOME-Priceless.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

This is getting ridiculous chasing this stuff back and forth on a thread with 318+ posts......"Pg. 9/Post 84 Item A6".... THERE IS NO POST 84 ON PAGE 9...... PAGE 9 posts run 161 - 180 but there is a page 5post 84 item A6 and the LEOPARD 2A7+ was put in THREE YEARS AGO.... oh yeah NOW I REMEMEBER why we said were were taking a sabattical

Re: MBT's
 

Do we have a page setup difference of some kind? I see in this thread Page 9/Post 84/11-17-10,03:40AM/with Posts 81-90 on that page. I actually had two tabs opened so I won't mess up that information. The way I see Page 5/Posts 41-50/w/Post 41/05-22-10,10:58PM/From John (IMP)/Clarifying an earlier Post of getting back on topic in the first post. And speaking of that, the reason I asked when the 2A7+ was entered, was because of the way I wrote up the A7 submission as if the 2A7+ was already in the game and I had no back up on that piece of equipment because of the system crash I had earlier this year that also cost me two years of future submission work as well due to time and armor related priority in what I did submit over the last couple of years. Bottom-line...Posts 309 (Bottom), 310 & 318 is ALL that's needed to fix this issue.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Quick recap (for Don et al.): Finnish 2A6s to be delivered early, OOB dates still stand correct.

First batch of Finnish 2A6s from Netherlands will be delivered in May 2015, approximately 20 vehicles.
Helsingin Sanomat newspaper, in Finnish
That "2A7 doesn't differ much from 2A6" is what puzzles me a bit, as I'm under impression that 2A7 should have better armor.

Other stuff from the article in short:

• The tanks are delivered in operational condition
• The FDF personnel have already been trained to the system in Netherlands

Re: MBT's
 

Finnish tanks your welcome! ;) About what's being the LEOPARD 2A7+ PITA here's KMW if nothing else seems to work including this PC MAYBE A WORD FROM OUR "SPONSOR" KMW builder of the LEOPARD Series will, then again who knows.
http://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-ve...formation.html
http://www.kmweg.com/fileadmin/user_...RD_2_A7_EN.pdf

The new FCS discussed (To include sights) is the much reported in this Thread ATTICA System which also as reported, already being installed on the later model LEOPARD 2A6 tanks as well. On the passive armor, think next generation passive armor that was used on the LEOPARD EVOLUTION tanks. The most recent user of a slightly similar system (Developmental if you will for the 2A7+.) was Turkeys LEOPARD-2T we entered about 3-4 years back I think and was developed with KMW support.
http://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-ve...formation.html

Sorry for the frustration but Mozilla and my mouse/keyboard are not playing well together and I lost 40 mins of work in providing "Jake's" final reply in the APC Thread concerning the BRADLEY's gun op/ammo. The mouse decided to close the tab on me. This Spring my PC will be retired and my mouse and keyboard will suffer a VERY SLOW DEATH. I'll miss XP SP3 and 8.1 here I come ready or not or 10 which is developing rapidly. God help us all!?! I'd consider APPLE but they change OS's like flies land on xxit or better refs don't update stories of delays until they REALLY come out with the gear and then tell you "oh by the by it was delayed" case in point this above topic. I look forward to going back to work tomorrow, "reindeer games" look pretty good at this moment.

Good Night AND Have a good week!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

That "2A7 doesn't differ much from 2A6" is what puzzles me a bit, as I'm under impression that 2A7 should have better armor.

There is all kinds of added armour on the 2a7

Re: MBT's
 

Pat I see this post as page 17 post 324...... what do you see it as ?

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
I see your last as Page 33/Post 324. Off to the "rain locker" and work!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I see a long lost friend is back and since this next is on my list I'd appreciate some in house data on the MAG'ACH SPIKE NLOS as the data is limited it flared up on the web and has now quietly gone away. See Pg.28 Post 280/Pg.29 Post 281 for background.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

About Ukraine OOB: I suggest that T64BM Bulat should be in first line tanks and not in obsolete tanks with -5 points. Then I also suggest that in Ukraine OOB a non upgraded T64BV Cold War era legacy should be there, because they are actually in service and fighting

Re: MBT's
 

I started this with something I thought would be easy, well there I go thinking again :doh: !?! The tanks I'm talking about are Taiwan's CM-11/or H-48 "BRAVE TIGER" these tanks just recently have been modified to carry an ERA package of French origin and NOT as must have been reported at some point the Israeli "BLAZER" ERA package. This needs some further investigation on my part to narrow down the French ERA.
http://www.janes.com/article/48422/i...n-s-cm11-tanks
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/...tanks-get.html
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threa...-tanks.326500/
And for the new units here are some Pics:
Attachment 13469 Attachment 13468

Before I go any further, it is important to note that Taiwan's American made tanks were unmodified when shipped to Taiwan. Therefore using the game ENCYCLOPAEDIA the below information is drawn on that data as well.

Further background is that the CM-11 is a "hybrid" MBT the hull is from the M-60A3 while the turret is from the M48A5 but with modifications such as the Cupola .50 cal has been replaced by an unprotected .50 Cal M2. (Plus it has a roof mounted sighted 7.62mm.) plus smoke dischargers. I'm assuming this modified turret is the reason for the difference in the protection numbers from the standard M-48A5 turret when these units were entered. When fielded in 1990 it also retained the full M-60A3 TTS FCS. Below is the only ref I can find that shows the placement of the ERA in question...
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-mike/m...a/cm11era.html
Click on the second from the left bottom image. This from a Taiwanese or Chinese site.

The next issue deals with the fact that the CM-11 might have received another upgrade to the FCS with something between the M60A3TTS and M1A1. The TTS has a game FC of 35 the M1A1 FC is 40, I did not get the Stabilizer numbers sorry. The LFR is good as is. So in conclusion is the wiggle room is between what adjustment between the FC and Stab. numbers are necessary. One possible option is to give it EITHER the full FC or Stab. increase only. This issue does make sense to me to improve their FCS in that all attempts to get the M1A1 have failed and that Taiwan was seeking another source for an advanced MBT (200 Units) both from America and internally due the the rough mountainous center of the country and stress that a heavy MBT would be on road network infrastructure. This upgrade would also buy America a little political breathing room with both Taiwan and China (They REALLY didn't like the fact that we upgraded Taiwan's PATRIOT's to the PAC-3 version.). Given all the data and supposition I believe the best time for an improved CM-11 is about JAN/2005 or JAN/2010 either would fit the political/military exercises and a rising more aggressive China of that time frame and continuing currently. Look for key words in these refs...
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Ta...002634001.aspx
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=219

Two other issues...
All the Taiwanese M60A3TTS tanks FC need to be changed to 35 vice 30 as currently shown, this will make them equal to the U.S. counterpart as noted at top.

Also in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA for Taiwan the notes you made for the reason you put the M1A1ROC appear in the second M60A3TTS listed on the first page. I'll assume this M1A1ROC is locked out by the note above?

Pics for the base CM-11 from Taiwan below...
Attachment 13470 Attachment 13471
Attachment 13472

An older but still relevant article on Asian armor...
http://www.defencereviewasia.com/art...-TANKS-IN-ASIA

And finally the most current in depth view of Taiwan's military arms situation to include all U.S. arms status...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ization-04250/

"Hey Don how about an ERA upgrade to the CM-11?" I should've known that something that simple would lead to all this above :rolleyes:!?! Don I'll save you the trouble I know just the thing to deal with me right now-:tough: :censor:
:pc: :fire: :viking: I think that about covers it. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
Something else he might wish is for me to do sail away!!

CM-11 UNITS 380/381/545/546
M60A3TTS UNITS 022/023/027
CM-12 UNITS 385/386 UPDATED M-48A5 with complete TTS FCS installed hope I beat the clock!!!!

Re: MBT's
 

The clock was this close...

Taiwan tanks in question...
CM-11 UNITS 380/381/545/546
M60A3TTS UNITS 022/023/027
CM-12 UNITS 385/386 UPDATED M-48A5 with complete TTS FCS

Those CM-11 pictures are for the OOB as well if you wish. The current pictures look like M-48 or early M-60 ones.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Well the @/?!*%$ mouse struck again and closed all my TWO tabs!
OK, I'm good now...The ERA for the CM-11 ERA has been solved and it didn't take too long as their are only a couple of companies working for the DGA (It basically coordinates French industry.) in charge of Frances defense needs. Anyway Ref. 1 provides the background and the name of the parent company. Of note the picture in the upper right was "the hook" look familiar? It should, it's pictured in Post 328 above.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3845.html

Next this took a little longer but here's the SNPE subsidiary that handles ERA and other explosive type products. Two items below are quoted from the "Uses" tab, one concerns the AMX-30B2 which I believe we left in service for the French (This reenforces that.) a couple of years ago when this tank came up for discussion concerning the French but, I believe primarily the Greek/Cyprus use of them. Next is of immediate concern to us with the capabilities of this ERA on the M60 Series. Bold is mine in the write up...
1. "AMX30: GIAT Industries/EURENCO products have been selected by the French Army for the reactive armor protection of the French AMX-30B2 tanks equipping the FAR (Force d'Action Rapide)."

2. "M60: Reactive armors can enhance protection levels against modern shaped charge (HEAT) weapons, such as: RPG-7, 105 mm HEAT tank ammunition and BASIC-TOW missiles. They are able to defeat shaped charge weapons up to 1000 mm nominal penetration."

For the below ref from the Home Page click on "Reactive Armor Kits" in the Lower Right. Then in the Upper Left Click on "Composition, Advantages and Uses" in order as shown for the progression of the data. They are short.
http://www.insensitive-munitions.com/en/index.html


Before the mouse strikes again-good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I wanted to further ensure I had identified the correct ERA for the Taiwanese CM-11 as noted in the previous 3 (328-330) posts. This of course would involve the AMX-30B2 but more specifically the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS which this MBT is named for by the addition of the BRENNUS ERA (At 400mm equivalency.) package. I can confirm the ERA package I identified for the CM-11 is correct as posted above. The issue I came across deals with the fact that the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS looks to have remained in service longer than 12/2005 as currently in the game, however that game date is correct for the AMX-30B2. The need for the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS and apparent extended service is directly linked to two separate but directly related link to the LECLERC MBT. The issues are first the delay of the operational capability of the LECLERC due to technical and the economic issues France was dealing with during this tanks developmental phase. France was forced to provide a stop gap measure which lead to the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS ERA packaged MBT. The second appears to be tied to the development of the LECLERC MARS MBT which first appeared and was retro-fitted (LECLERC "standard" MBT.) between 2005-2008. A further requirement seems to be tied to Frances need to maintain them also for the Rapid Action Force/French: Force d'action Rapide (FAR as it's better and simply known by.) Though I've seen a couple of sources to indicate the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS was out of service by 12/2008 I believe along with most I've found concerning this MBT that 12/2010 is not an unreasonable end date. All do agree that the numbers were drastically reduced by this time as the last of the LECLERC MARS would have been retro-fitted and returned to the field with the "bugs" teethed out certainly by 12/2010. So I recommend...
FRANCE/AMX-30B2 BRENNUS/UNITS 027 & 028/CHANGE END DATES/DEC 2010 vice DEC 2005.//

The following provides crystal clear pictures to distinguish between the ERA on the CM-11 ERA and the AMX-30B2 BRENNUS as these last four Posts cover. Also provides good background information on other improvements made to the type. Also by the way, they have 45 of these MBT's to sell if you have a mind to take care of any "road rage" issues in your morning commute!?! ;)
http://www.flanderstechsupply.com/im...esentation.pdf

Don would agree with the fact I'm done "looking" at things here, besides I just want to play my game. Darn Russians played me to a draw in my second game of Norway vs. Russia, this is the 3rd Campaign and many battles that I've faced the T-72B3 if you've not encountered this MBT yet, do not under estimate, it will be at your peril!

Don it's fighting as submitted and expected.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I will offer my thinking to this next question below. There is no doubt in my mind these two tanks will be new to the Chinese OOB (Or will need modification.), the TYPE 99AZ and TYPE 99KM. What I'm requesting from the tankers in the community is whether or not the TYPE 99 pictured at the bottom appears to be the TYPE 99KM with the 155mm MG. I feel myself it's the TYPE 99AZ with the standard but improved 125mm MG. What concerns me though is that the thermal sleeve looks longer and "fatter" and muzzle appears larger as well. It could be the angle of the bottom photo, not sure. Will try to find better pics and dig deeper however, I just would appreciate for now a "gut check" from the tanker community as I'm dealing with some time sensitive issues at the moment-thank you in advance!!

Pics:
Attachment 13546
Standard TYPE 99/125mm

Attachment 13547
TYPE 99AZ/125mm or KM/155mm

If I get any responses, 7 is the magic number no more needed after that please!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Looking at the pics, and doing a bit of measuring, I think the thermal sleeve and muzzle are the same, it's just the angle of the bottom picture.
The upper one is an almost "side" perspective whereas the lower is closer to 45 degrees, this the parallax makes the portions closest to the camera seem larger.

My OPINION anyway.

Re: MBT's
 

As I stated I feel the same. I was in a hurry as noted when I came across this tank issue. I still haven't had the time to find better pictures. And I'm trying to find better evidence about the TYPE-99KM many say they have it already in the field at least in limited numbers, some say 2020 or just before before it gets fielded. But the real find for me is that I actually found a site that will allow me to get the LECLERC issue finally settled with the dates I needed on the improved LECLERC types in armor and TI/GSR improvements so I'm happy with that and it only took a year and half bonus all around!! :cheers:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Well it looks like the Russians are going to parade about 6-8 new systems in the May Day parade. I've been tracking most for some time now but, the next and one I'm about to post in the APC Thread I've been tracking and posting on since they were just rumors.
Before I do the question is where are we going to put them?
Given the thread most have figured out this is about the ARMATA T-14 officially speaking...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo...ino_range.html

What can be inferred by these pictures? Basically the following in my option from years of tracking this since the BLACK EAGLE in Post #1...
1. This is as advertised a new platform and not an extended hull T-72 modified unit that includes the T-90 series of tanks. The "clean" appearance does suggest a new armor package has been developed for this tank again as suggested in the past by some.

2. The new road wheel set also indicates a new design as well with seven per side vice the standard six per used on Russian tanks now. And unlike N. Korea's PYOONG(?) (It had seven also as I remember.) stretch T-64/T-72 I again stand by my thinking that we're seeing a brand new platform as promised by the Russian Military at the outset of this project.

3. I can confirm a 125mm and that it is of a new type as well. The barrel does appear a little longer in the top picture notice the tank in the background right side it would appear that the thermal sleeve is more forward then normal also though covered, the flash/muzzle suppressor also seems to indicate a different shape/appearance. These are indicators that possibly it will definitely use a new ATGM or a highly modified current ATGM such as the new KORNET-EM. There was some talk of an optional 152mm as pictured in the above post on the Black Eagle. It is "rumored" that Russia might still field them in very limited numbers as a "tank destroyer" but if done we won't see it before games end.

4. The turret does look new and not of the "standard" Russian ones on their T-72/T90 tanks however I do not believe this to be laid out as on the last set of artist conception drawings everyone got "jazzed up" about a couple of months ago in this thread. It does appear the a RO mini-gun or AGL is mounted on the turret as well. It's also designed to carry up to a 30mm AC.

Won't have time now for the APC post but in the short run, the BOOMERANG is alive it looks like a slightly longer Patria AMV 8x8.

Have a good night-I can't wait to see how wrong I am!?! ;)

It won't be submitted until fielded (Or at least within 6 months.) that's the standard set between the "Boss" and myself .

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

In this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50717 I've uploaded some early pics of new platforms.
Here are additional T-14 pics.
There're few things that can be taken as certain (or rather estimated) about this construction.
First and most important - 3 men crew with unmanned turret. The crew is housed in a compartment separated from the rest of the hull, especially from the ammuniton storage.
Gun - it is a 2A82 125 mm or some modification of it. 152 mm was rather shelved for now. There're rumours ciculating on polish forums that Armata could be using some new ammunition, based on Grifiel 152 mm family.
Weight is estimated between 55-60 tons.
Engine - possibly an A-85-3A or modification of it (power estimation - between 1500 and 2000 hp).
New active protection system - Afganets (softkill and hardkill).
FCS, visuals - unknown, with rumours of gsr use.

Re: MBT's
 

Additional pics of T-14, T-15, Kurganets 25 and Koalitsya. They're from training before V-Day in Alabino.
Looking at the crew of T-14 gives a good perspective its size - this thing is huge, much bigger than T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 family.

Re: MBT's
 

It will be a bigger MBT ~10 tons heavier than a T-72,~7 more than a T-80 and finally ~4 more than a T-90. The consistent range I've seen puts the fully equipped troop carry btwn. 6-8. The ref. below has the best uncovered view seen so far and is consistent with earlier posted pictures down to the road wheel count. The Russians will have the final "say" on what we'll ten days concerning ARMATA but I'm expecting at least a covered turret but, maybe Mr. Putin will prove me wrong!?! A little reverse physiology in case he checks out our forum!?! :p
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/armata.htm

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

All vehicles are expected to be fully presented at the V-Day parade at Moscow. On April 30'th the will be a night rehearsal at Moscow but I don't think there would be any changes and new equipment will be still covered. Russians are keeping a tight grip on informations (apparently all the published pics were controlled leaks).

Re: MBT's
 

I'm waiting for the Army Technology website to catch up (From APC Thread.) as historically they are good about providing measurements on the equipment they add under their "Projects" section. Am I to understand the plan is to have a patch in 2016? If so please let me know so I can get these things off my work list. We didn't have this when I submitted the Japanese TYPE 10 providing the ref. in case you see something different but understand this MBT is no "light weight" and generally falls in the middle of the various Top 10 lists out there, TI/GSR 50 if not done so has been on that list for awhile now as well, measurements in second sub para if I recall.
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...ttle-tank-mbt/

Will be out of town in about oh my my-6hrs. best get some sleep, and you get better. This could be my biggest submission for around the world yet!! Another all continent and thread package. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

THEORETICALLY there likely will be a 2016 patch but I'm learning not to make long range plans.( and feeling compelled to get a patch assembled "just in case" has so far not ended well for me this year)

Re: MBT's
 

FASTBOAT; I checked my go-to forum for English Language Chinese Defense stuff: China Defense Forum:

http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php

They have a 74-page thread devoted to the ZTZ-99 family (ZTZ-99 is the official chinese name of the 'Type 99'); and they have your "Chinese TYPE 99AZ or KM with 155mm MG.jpg (2 of 2)" on Page 68 of it, with a posting date of 25 August 2014.

The only things about it that the community commented on was that the CITV-clone and laser rangefinder / millimetric radar rangefinder above the main gun were covered by canvas for security reasons.

There's no ZTZ-99AZ or ZTZ-99KM with a 155mm main gun; nope.

What there IS is a development program for a 140mm tank gun ---it's been referenced in chinese documents, and back in 2005/2006, images of a ZTZ-98 or ZTZ-99 (unsure as to which version) with a 140mm gun appeared on the internet.

It's been a while since I checked CDF; but here's the quick and dirty:

A few more images of the early ZTZ-99 prototypes (including one with ATGMs on the side of the turret) have appeared.

The PLA does field-uparmoring of vehicles -- in a CCTV documentary; they showed engineer troops attached to armor units adding Heavy ERA to their ZTZ-59Bs (Type 59 was redesignated).

More information have appeared on interior shots of ZTZ-99 allowing more accurate armor estimates; as well as better details of just what is in that long bustle.

Rumors of a bustle autoloader in development for the ZTZ-99 have been so far unfounded.

Production of ZTZ-99 continues; more units are being re-equipped with it and it's achieving maturity with the PLA Armored Corps; but lately the hot focus of AFV development seems to have shifted onto lighter units; such as that new mystery light tank.

Re: MBT's
 

Mark,
Thanks saves me sometime! I'll still build on this though I've come to the same conclusion. I don't think these failed larger/up gunned MBT's are due to engineering failures as much as the role of armor and combat have changed since the Cold War where the enemy on ethier side had thousands of tanks at their disposal and they wouldn't be very practical in an urban enviroment. And yes that's one of the mods on my list to add the turret mounted ATGW to the type. Also on my list is one of the earlier types (89?) has been modernized to include the addition of a two tubed SAM system mounted on the turret. Plus the light 120mm MBT's that have been fielded since the beginning of this year. I'll be a very busy man this summer and as much time as I'm allowed SHOULD Andy and Don decide to proceed as per the post previous to yours. I personally miss the Sino-Defense site but for some unknown reason they dropped all their MBT data including the archive data though they still cover the aeronautical stuff.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Over at Secret Projects Forum, STEALTHFLANKER did some math for us on the T-14 Armata:

Re: MBT's
 

You mean this (see attached)?

Speculation on what exactly it IS armed with is wavering between 125mm and 105mm.

It first showed up in 2011 on the boards, and even now; in Q2 2015; a lot is really unknown about it.

What really confuses things for China Watchers is the Chinese Military Industrial Complex's own indigenous development (on their own) of various vehicles for the export market.

For example, MBT-3000 (VT4) is basically an exportized ZTZ-99; and there are whole prototypes which get built to chase an export market; then die and go nowhere; like the old AAI RDF/LT light tank.

Re: MBT's
 

Looks like it, posted it awhile back in this forum. Military-Today had the first data I came across on this tank-be advised I'm not where I can get to my computer for a few days yet but, Army-Recognition and JANE's has confirmed this tank. The refs showed the tanks on rail cars being shipped West apparently, now who could be there? India, these tanks would be ideal for ops in the mountainous area along their respective borders due the condition of the road network there that can't currently support India's ARJUN tanks and barely their T-90S ones. But as I've just been reminded by you know who, I'm on vacation so I'll post what I've got when I get home, before I hear from someone else as well!?!
Now if only we could get our ball teams to find their winning ways again!?!

Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I have been asked why I track some of these items for as long as I do even after I submit something-the answer is simply boils down to patience the ARJUN and Indonesian LEOPARD issues come to mind as fairly recent issues. So about that T-14/ARMATA:
http://www.janes.com/article/51469/r...our-revolution

Attachment 13754

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

As reported, submitted and entered in the game a little follow up and closure of the books on this next...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._15051512.html

Kind of goes allow with what I mentioned in my last post.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I owe this answer to Mark from a couple of posts ago concerning basically my work list for the PLA tanks for the next patch within the next couple of years.

TYPE 99: This concerns the addition of the ATGM.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo...d_missile.html
http://www.janes.com/article/48782/c...-type-99-tanks

My JANE's source is in the 404 cat. on this topic for now-sorry. Posted anyway in case it "clears up".

TYPE 98 (Vice 89 from my earlier response.): These tanks are just recently started mounting a tube launched MANPAD/SAM.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo...e_missile.html

Light Tank: Some speculation that this isn't the TYPE 99 derivative (Can't remember it's designation off hand.) partly because it comes with a 105mm MG that however can fire and is supposedly equipped with an ATGM. No definitive proof that the TYPE 99 version went into production. Re-posting first source to report this tank again as well.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...light_tank.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua...t_0201153.html

Here are my concerns though with this tank...
1. That gun sure looks like a 125mm to me, at 30-35 tons (1/2 weight of an ABRAM's) and compared against the Japanese TYPE 10 at about 45 tons w/120mm, I feel right about this. It also looks very similar (If not the same.) as the TYPE 99 125mm.

2. Can anyone guess where I'm going next? Look at the turret that screams TYPE 99 to me all day long. So yes I believe this to be the TYPE 99 derivative.

3. I further feel based on the timeline to support my last from #2 above matches the known development of the TYPE 99 derivative. I think Ref. 2 got the gun data confused with the ZBD-2000 Light AMPHIB tank posted below which does have a 105mm and was developed along a similar time-frame.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...light_tank.htm

Bottomline: Though confident in my analysis, I still have some research to do here before it gets submitted.

Now to try to get back to sleep!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Been sort of wondering why we haven't seen much of main gun launched MPADs.

While I'm no weapons engineer it seems it'd be pretty easy to come up with a heat targeting version. A couple sensors on the outside of the tank to lock the target then a rocket launched (the sudden acceleration of a gunpowder launched one would probably destroy the missile) could be sent down range. Probably of limited value vs aircraft due to the limitations of traverse and elevation (and that's probably why it hasn't been done) but should be great vs helos.