Re: MBT's
 

Something was bugging me about the Chinese TYPE 98 ref., I forgot about the Polish ZSU-34-4MP w/GROM MANPAD shown in pic before the bottom one and Russia's ZSU-34-4 w/SA-18 "GROUSE" MANPAD shown in bottom pic of ref. Note the difference in mounting, launcher and radar between the two. More work maybe will have to check those OOB's. Hate when something gets into my head at times. Hate that ingrained questioning attitude we got repeatedly taught maybe, that's why I'm sitting at my desk and not at the bottom of the "deep dark sea"!?! ;)
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo...e_missile.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

At least you get to live in relative comfort at the bottom of the sea.
Trade ya for a mud filled foxhole.

Re: MBT's
 

Some more Armata stuff. This is a long beast. Plus a concept drawing of what the interior could look like.

Re: MBT's
 

Not a fair deal, Suhiir. Reading this post after being drawn here by MarkSheppard's post (I try to read his stuff), it brought to mind my boyhood fascination with subs. I remember in the 8th grade two boys immigrated to the US from Germany. I questioned them incessantly after Wofgang told me their dad served on a U-boat. Most recently, I read Rick Campbell's The Trident Deception, fascinating submarine story interwoven into a complex geopolitical/military thriller. You don't live in relative comfort at the bottom of the sea, any sea, even the Red Sea. Although official crush depths are secret, given published test depths, the crush depth or collapse depth is no where near the bottom of any sea on earth. Maybe, the sub would lay on the edge of undersea mountainous cliff but certainly not at the bottom with a live crew.

In the book, The Trident Deception, an axiom of sub warfare was stated in general terms as; "one crew lives, the other crew dies." A torpedo hit sends her to the bottom, she and her crew dies.

So, keep your foxhole along with all your "dope and beer."

-----

Re: MBT's
 

I once had a job that required me to board subs (after all someone has to deliver the list of which sailors/civilian techs are allowed aboard) so while I've never been at sea (or under it) I have seen/been about everywhere in one (minus a couple special areas) chasing down the commanding officer to hand deliver my list.
I'll take the sub ANY day. Sure they have their drawbacks but so does steel rain.

Re: MBT's
 

A boat at mooring is kinda like the USN Reserve Sub fleet... there was one at Alameda in the 60's, I think she was decommissioned in '70, the Parche, maybe, I seem to recall her name. Anyway, even those boats, during "weekend cruise" had nothing but drills and drills and drills. There's a drill for every scenario, apart from torpedo, missile, and battle drills, there's emergency, electrical, nuc, ventilation, and all sorts of drills. A lot of work to practice to kill the other guy before he kills you, or to slip silently, quietly, through the dark blue seas. Imagine the drills at sea.

Take the "dope and beer" and be happy.

-----

Re: MBT's
 

I have more time at sea then most sailors I know (tho not aboard a sub), believe me I know shipboard drills. Plus the ones we Jarheads did and the sailors got out of the way or got run over.

Re: MBT's
 

This thread has drifted off topic so lets put the life in a trench vs life in a sub issue to bed now.....OK ?

Re: MBT's
 

Haven't looked in for awhile, I see a diversion is needed. I can say the following 800ft, +20 knots, many hundreds of pounds+++ per square inch, "Crazy Ivan" was for real, slept with our food (7 month deployment), been places I can never talk about and been places I can, hoped to never die like the guys did on the THRESHER, SCORPION, BONEFISH (Had a friend/crewman who was on the BONEFISH during her last voyage.) and the KURSK (We could've saved them but they wouldn't let us-"national pride" led to suffocation-that one hurt if you could've seen what we could.), been shot at on the range with the new MK-48 ADCAP - not fun either as it's "whizzing" around you and finally missed the hell out of CINCLANTHOME and the kids with 12 years under the sea.
But you want to know what was the scariest thing of all!?! Yep, the Germans and French are going to try again to jointly develop an MBT together to replace the LEOPARD 2 and LECLERC tanks. The last attempt was unsuccessful leading to the separate development of the LEOPARD and for France the interim AMX-30/AMX-30B2 BRENNUS and eventually LECLERC.

And no, we will not see this tank in this game...
http://www.janes.com/article/51850/g...-2-replacement

And finally here's a surprise!!!!...
http://www.janes.com/article/51269/a...pares-shortage

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

:doh:

Re: MBT's
 

Given their history of cooperation I'd bet on another unsuccessful joint venture.

Re: MBT's
 

Strictly the News here...well probably anyway...

ALGERIA: Making those T-90S tanks...
http://rbth.com/news/2015/02/20/cont...ned_43883.html

FRANCE: What will allow me to fix the LECLERC in the French OOB this site provided the "missing link" to connect the dots and make the vision issue much clearer. And a little JANE's to bring it up to date never hurts either.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/NE...56_Leclerc.php
http://www.janes.com/article/49928/f...illion-upgrade

GERMANY: Not liking what they see in the East say, We want a 100 more on the line...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...rd_2_mbts.html

ISRAEL: Making sure they stay in the field...
http://www.janes.com/article/50053/i...component-orders

PAKISTAN: Looking to China again for an MBT to keep up with India...TRACKING...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/novem...ttle_tank.html

POLAND: Poland to restart the LEOPARD 2PL program again, see what Russia started? This was a dead program after the purchase of their newest LEOPARD's this past year. Of note Poland is very active in the Ukraine currently...TRACKING...
http://www.janes.com/article/49119/p...rade-programme

RUSSIA: "Go East T-72B3", Russia continues it's deployment to the Eastern Military District to modernize it's armor there.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...tle_tanks.html
But what's good for the East is also good for the West...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...tle_tanks.html

THAILAND: The Ukraine's T-84 OPLOT-M tanks keep rolling in...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...delivered.html

TURKEY/INDONESIA: They are to unveil a joint venture Med. MBT later this year...TRACKING...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...270420153.html

UKRAINE: Ukraine to bring back into service the T-72 in a NATO standard model speculation is it'll be similar to Poland's PT-91. It should be more advanced though given Ukraine's technological advances in the last few years as posted in this thread...TRACKING THIS AND THE NEXT...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...standards.html
And let's not forget the T-64B...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...nian_army.html

UK: Says "yes we still can..."
http://www.janes.com/article/50131/b...-deployability

U.S.: The M1A2 SEP 2 conversions to continue...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...iguration.html

This concludes the All World OOB view one Country and OOB at a time. :)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Don,
If it's not too much of an inconvenience, I would be interested to know when the Italian ARIETE MBT was entered into the game. I'm trying to get a "sense" of what drove the submissions at the time. My concerns are:
1. Looks like fielding date needs to be shifted to the right by two years.

2. There was no further development of the ARIETE MBT after the ARIETE C1. Due to many factors including economic, the ARIETE tanks never took the next steps in development of the type. However as I posted in this thread 3-4 (The "vision" list.) years ago I felt I have the data to support a TI/GSR 45 and MAYBE 50.
My plan is to A) Modify one of the current C1+/C2 tanks with the improved TI/GSR. B) Keep the most advanced C2 MBT, update the TI/GSR to 50 and recommend putting it in slot 999/or the "safe" until/if Italy comes up with the funding by this games last patch input in 2021 to release it for use. C) And finally, submit all other ARIETE C1+ and C2 tanks for deletion.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ariete/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/ariete.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...Ariete-MBT.php
http://www.armyrecognition.com/italy...tificatio.html

Though the last is in French, there is no mention of any other "C" type and none is listed in the "variants" section.

3. Related to the above and for FYI, the Italians are doing what say Poland and some others, by maintaining a respectable heavy
armor presence but relying on lighter armored anti tank platforms such as the CENTAURO. The news here is that the CENTAURO this month has started field tests with a 120mm SB 45 Cal. MG the turret can also carry the 105mm RG 51 Cal. MG as well. It will presented to the Army in the fall.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2...e_2705151.html

Off to the rack...good night...and again enjoy the rest of your weekends!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Pat ,I have NO IDEA what "Looks like fielding date needs to be shifted to the right by two years" is supposed to mean so just tell me clearly what needs to be changed and why and I will look into it. Open up the Italian OOB with MOBHack and find the unit numbers of the one you want removed or altered

Re: MBT's
 

I'm not going to piecemeal these items I'm working, was just curious is all how the tanks got in with the current dates. However, after looking further into to it, the answer simply is it got put in at least two years earlier then the Italian Army took delivery of the first ARIETE sometime in 1995 as corroborated by the refs., I posted in the last thread. I need to figure out what month in 1995 they got their first tank to determine a more realistic (Could be as late as 1996.) start date than the current one of 1993. This is simply a case as we've dealt with out here too many times, of someone submitting a piece of equipment, years before a country fielded/made operation that piece of equipment.
So please I got this and I'll finish it in my usual manner to minimize your work at your end. As you can see this still needs fine tuning and was something that's been on my list to work for at least the last two++ years now.
This provided a little more detail as to what happened then the others on the upper right of the page when opened...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...Ariete-MBT.php

I'll be more careful to rephrase my questions in the future, trust me right now we don't need this, life strikes again.

Enjoy your weekend.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Pat, the start date for the Ariete C1 in the latest OOB's is 3/1998 not 1993 so you see my confusion?? However 3/98 shifted back two years would be 1996.

What's the OOB date on your INFO tab ? ....should be May 2015


EDIT- Just checked OOBs back to windows Ver 1 ..... the Ariete C1 has never been 1993 start date. It started out 1/98 then it was adjusted to the 3/98 we have now sometime between V1 and V3.5 and your are correct "right now we don't need this"......but here we are.

Re: MBT's
 

How to turn an "8" into a "3" and make yourself look like an *** :doh:...
1. Stand a post in SE Ga. in around 100 degree temp & 95% humidity for over eight hours.

2. Wear a certain garment that's guaranteed to raise your core temp by another 10-15 degrees and somehow make you feel heavier.

3. Have a small glass of CINCLANTHOME's fresh made iced green tea and mint at ~1:30am.

4. Feel like you got a second wind after catching yourself doing the newly popular 80's/90's "head bob" and trying to post at 4am.

My apologies...We'll need to get it to them changed for around 2 to 3 years earlier. Forgot about the C3 and others in the OOB. I'll take a look at them as the best and latest version would probably be the one to hold onto if any future development is done on the C1.

I gotta get ready for work!! Again sorry for the mess!! Hopefully I would've caught it when work started in earnest, but thank you for pointing it out.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

:D sounds like "fun"

Re: MBT's
 

I've said it before, if your not looking here first your missing out. They struck first again, this tank is already on my list and it looks like I reported (And others on the web.) on it before it became declassified this year and recently. No wonder someone out here couldn't answer my questions on it awhile back, he couldn't. It apparently had the ultimate camouflage and was kept secret for thirty years. The timeline certainly makes sense as compared to what I found out about the TAMMUZ /SPIKE NLOS that's mounted on the M113 APC.
I'm just glad the MOSSAD didn't come knocking on my door!?! :p
Gotta go back to work so...
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/pere.htm

Always has been my first look "build" from site. Now I have a very good start point.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Posted some Win 10 issues in that thread. Started to recover my source websites and came across this for you...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/augus...s_in_2016.html

If this holds we'll be likely looking at late 2017/early2018 again if this holds.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

This just couldn't wait and the admission made quite frankly under the current political situation surprises me. This might revive Rheinmetall Group 120mm L55 SB gun if that hint helps anyone identify the MBT in question to this point.
http://www.janes.com/article/54672/d...ussia-s-armata

I think what will happen here is MOD will do the weapons upgrade they have two main options I see... 1) The above German MG with the advantage of being able to use NATO rounds, or 2) Look to India's ARJUN 120mm RB (New) MG. Don't laugh this is probably one of the best 120mm guns out there right now with India using fin-stabilized rounds which greatly increases the effectiveness of the MG. This would allow the UK too not have to retool their MBT munitions facility(s). Remember as I noted when submitting this tank where they got got a lot of there development help from...Germany (Rheinmetall Group), Israel (ELBIT/RAFEAL), France (NEXTAR) and some think we might've provided help as well.

With that comes possibly a new FCS, however the current FCS has plenty of room to grow and support the new gun. Armor should be fine against the ARMATA as the CHALLENGER 2 is considered one of the safest tanks out there already. If they would've mounted the 152mm a lot tanks might be in trouble though, Russia is considering integrating or standing up separate "tank killer" units with the 152mm.

We'll probably see a push in the NATO countries to hurry along the APS and other similar systems within the next 2-3 years.

And finally I can see tank launched ATGW's (LAHAT) coming to NATO as well for extended range kills. As far as I can confirm right now only the U.S., Germany and Israel have a standard 120mm round with confirmed kills out to and beyond 4500m with unassisted rounds in case I have to be more concise.

My thoughts and only time will tell but, rest assured I'll be TRACKING this all. After all isn't that what I do? ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

It's rather amusing watching the main guns on western tanks get progressively larger and larger.

37 > 75 > 90 > 105 > 120 > ?

The question is when do we hit the point where armor-mobility-internal ammo supply dictate "stop".

Re: MBT's
 

Technicalities are uncertain, but new NATO tank could be named Chaleoclerc.
;-)

Re: MBT's
 

I think we are there now, going larger has to be a last resort.
150mm would drastically cut ammo loads & would require an autoloader due to the weight unless another workaround was found.

Re: MBT's
 

You forgot the 50mm range (German 5cm guns, British 6-pdr) :)

It could be argued, that in terms of caliber, not much have happened since the 1950ies. After all, British, German and US tanks all had guns in the 90mm range in 1945 (84mm, 88mm, 90mm) and the Germans were toying with the idea of a 105mm tank gun in 1944/45. IIRC first US projects involving a 105mm tank gun was in 1950, the British about the same time and both the US M103 and the British Conqueror sported 120mm guns in the early 1950ies.

So it could be said that in terms of firepower, the West have just been fiddling for the last 60 years :)

The Russians have probably shown the way forward, if you want a bigger gun - you need to use the entire turret for gun and ammo and use an autoloader. Which again moves us back 60 years to some of the 1950ies diesel-punk designs sporting unmanned turrets and autoloaders :)

Re: MBT's
 

Good point on the 57mm/6-pdr, tho I think only the Brits ever mounted it on a tank.

Re: MBT's
 

I offer the below site as many defense websites some of which I use describe it as the best website for data in particular on the LEOPARD but, overall considered very thorough in it's research. It makes my next point for me under the "firepower" section of each tank they list in progression of development. You can't just talk about the gun size without the discussion being married to the ammunition the gun is using. Simply put the difference between the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 and 120mm L55 is about 200-300m/s this equates very simply to penetration on the target. But as tank ammo has progressed beside the advantage of urban combat use, is the reason the L44 is still competitive to the L55. The progression of the gun and end of the Cold War is why Germany and Sweden dropped their 140mm LEOPARD gun programs. The ammo just has not caught up in technology for the bigger caliber guns as it has for the 120mm types. This is not to say development is stagnant in this area it's just not a priority is all. We still maintain a 140mm gun option for the ABRAMS (Guess who makes that gun?) but it's on the "back burner" at best. If you read carefully about the ARMATA it fields the same gun as the T-90MS as I submitted about three years ago, this was the operational test bed for the ARMATA. The concern about the ARMATA is that it will suppositely carry a new as yet unidentified tank round. This is the issue concerning the West. But I again would suggest that you pick a tank you like and follow it's development and focus on the "firepower" section at each stage of your tanks progression.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html

This I hope will offer some perspective to this discussion and he uses very reliable sources for his research.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

A continuation of my last last and yes I did read the whole thing if you will for both a "reality" and "relevance" check against what's currently going on. Some of this is already in the field now with the USN already operationally mounting a laser on a ship and advanced development of a "rail" gun. Why bring up the NAVY? If the NAVY is doing it what do you think DARPA is doing for the ARMY? So about ARMOR magazine, well it's focus is to keep the USA Armored forces informed on various topics related to armor as PROCEEDINGS keeps the USN community informed on Naval issues. Again considering it's almost twenty years old they were pretty much on the mark and should give you an idea how long these things take from the thought, R&D, testing, procurement, low rate production, op eval, acceptance, full rate production to fielding. I think that pretty much covers what's involved. Here's your article...
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5fcs97.pdf

Where we're at now...
http://www.army.mil/article/98946/Ar...MP_tank_round/
http://www.army.mil/mobile/article/?p=124313

If you go to where I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 in the Fastboat Patch Page or this Thread one of the refs has more details in it about this round and one other I believe. I believe the source was the Picatiney Arsenal in PDF format.


Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I suspect one of the main reasons the USN gets to play with lasers and mass drivers is ships have lots of space and power available.

Re: MBT's
 

Not as big as you would think nor as power hungry at 30kw, though more efficient than most lasers at 35% you can see we have a way to go to reach 100% potential but it's coming next year in making strides to get there. About midway down of the picture shown "bow on" (For any Navy folks out here having been a Contact Coordinator-I'll call it about a 35 degree Port Angle on the Bow.) center-line just above the bridge and not much larger then the PHALANX system just below and to the right (Port Side.) as you look at the picture.
http://news.usni.org/2014/12/10/u-s-...-laser-defense

But this is the MBT Thread so let me give something along those lines...

Well we're slowly bringing back some heavy armor to Europe.
http://www.defence24.com/246262,us-a...an-aggression#
http://www.defence24.com/249301,poli...and-next-year#

Taiwan feels the time is right to formally request the purchase of 120 M1A1 tanks after years of sitting on this request. A stronger Taiwan would now be more in the interests of the U.S. and our Asian allies especially in the South China Sea area where China is building islands to claim them as territories and the legal issues that come with that and plus the military expansionism associated with those islands.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._13005152.html

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

The answer as to the direction Poland wants to take it's heavy armor as I've reporting is now becoming more clear. The LEOPARD 2PL will take Poland's 2A4 tanks apparently to the 2A6 level (The Canadian's spec built excellent 2A6M variant has been mentioned.) once completed, Poland will take the fairly new bought 2A5s and apply those upgrades to them as well. This is the same successful strategy Turkey used in it's LEOPARD upgrade program TO the 2T.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-tanks-019466/

For those out there hoping for the new Polish indigenous tank this truly is a set back out past this games current status. The writing was the wall anyway for the last 5 yrs. or so when Germany started to flood the market (Dutch as well.) with inexpensive, modernized and well maintained LEOPARDS. Poland's second batch of 14 2A4s/105 2A5s plus supplies, trainers etc. for only EUR 180 million is extremely cheap to the point that the deal I estimate was at least 3x(+) less expensive then the R&D to Prototype stage for a new indigenous design.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Well this is kind've like that "mystery meat" you would get in a bowl of soup, in a casserole or on your plate. It looks familiar, smells like something you should know and might even taste like something you've had before but your just not sure. The point is and this isn't to start a food discussion, that we have some information concerning Russia's new armor being applied to their latest equipment it's something but we're just not really sure what it is-yet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._40710151.html
http://www.rusbiznews.com/news/n2658.html

And that's about it for now on VST-2.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

All we can ever do is guess armour levels until someone puts a round or missle into one since that info is not published

Re: MBT's
 

Well the next is always a subjective matter, however I overall have to agree with the lineup and these guys seem to get very reliable data about Russian and Eastern European equipment in particular (They're based out of the Ukraine.). Notable movement is the K2 to #2/ARMATA first time listed at #5. In regards to the K2 MANY refs are now really "onboard the bandwagon" concerning the K2. The previous list is in this thread about a year/year 1/2 back.
http://www.military-today.com/tankst...ttle_tanks.htm

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I'll take a deeper look at that info in a month or so but for now I have adjusted the K2 gun stats to match the 2A7's. Overall though I think we are close with most of this but I will review this more closely before the next patch



Don

Re: MBT's
 

Yes I believe a second look might definitely be worth the time as more data has come to light especially considering the KSTAM round they carry also, due to production delays it's my understanding the K2 has been back fitted with the "hard-kill" APS intended for the second gen K2 PIP tank, compliments the "soft-kill" equipment onboard already as standard equipment. Numbers vary and I believe the truth of it is closer to a 100 K2 tanks by now of somewhere between 40 to 100 K2 tanks in service. Refs hopefully in order of newest/technical data top to bottom. Last has a very good video especially at the end in it's fording abilities.
These are to assist you when ready!!

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2311.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/south...video_sou.html
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...n-battle-tank/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...anther_mbt.htm
http://tanknutdave.com/the-republic-...k-panther-mbt/

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Not really a MBT; but eh. We don't get much US Army armor lately....

http://www.janes.com/article/55223/a...gunned-stryker

The army is working to up-gun 81 Strykers with 30 mm cannons on remote weapon systems and others with Javelin anti-tank missiles, a long-considered upgrade that was pushed through an operational need statement from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based at Vilseck in Germany. Service leaders approved the plan in April and now testing and integration work remains.

The cost per system appears particularly high (about USD5 million per vehicle), and according to Heidi Shyu, the army's acquisition executive, this is partly schedule driven because it is through an urgent need statement that is seeking the upgrade as soon as possible. It is also for only 81 systems, so the limited quantity drives up per-unit costs. The price includes a design and integration element as well, she added.

These lethality upgrades are not for the heavier armoured Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) vehicles, and rather are for the original flat-bottom configuration, although a Stryker engineering change proposal (ECP) effort may eventually include a 30 mm weapon for the DVH, Shyu said. "If we want more Strykers to have this capability beyond the 81 [requested in Europe], we will start a programme of record to do that," she said, noting that the cost could be lower with a procurement of thousands of units.

------------

TBH; given past experience with US program cancelations; and the full state of the US OOB; I'd hold off until this actually does enter service.

Re: MBT's
 

From AUSA 2015; looks like the ECP Abrams has an official name: M1A2 SEP v3.

Who knows if it will actually IOC.

Re: MBT's
 

Well I believe the SEP V3 will see service within the next two years. You must remember we have only 1 tank factory in this country, we can't afford to lose the expertise or manufacturing capability. The new Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP)/M829E4 (This 5th GEN round will soon be type-classified as the M829A4) round is ready for production which means the current fleet of M1A2 SEP V1/V2 tanks will see them first. I'll assume the game engine won't allow for these three separate modes of operation and therefore we'll need to maintain the current AP, HE etc. categories however what is clear is the round (And this will be the only one carried on the ABRAMS.) will need the PEN values to be increased. There is no doubt in my mind that this round will have a "brain" onboard for how else can it defeat advanced AERA/or APS defense systems, it, has to have some kind laser jamming device on it of some kind. This is not beyond our current munitions capabilities concerning technologies along these lines when you consider Germany/Israel have already fielded an AMP munition of their own or the KSTAM munition for South Korea's K2 that acts more like an ATGW than a "normal" tank round (KSTAM is a shoot and forget, top attack, self adjusting round with a radar for ground/obstacle avoidance and target acquisition.) The other issue is the IFLIR, if you remember we had a discussion when I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 & AH-64E GUARDIAN about the TI/GSR values (These are in this/or PATCH threads.) a couple of years ago, this is just laying the ground work for a "cross roads" decision on how far is too far within the context of the game. I see only really two options at this point 1)We can choose to ignore this but, feel more comfortable about the tanks we've already adjusted out to TI/GSR 50 (And I still have a couple of more to go.) or 2)Accept the fact that for the last handful of years left in the game we'll have less then a handful of OOB's whose tanks can see further then the rest but as we left it a couple of years ago I wouldn't want to see anything beyond a 55 or 60 value as it would take away from the games core objectives for the players-to have some fun and to use that "mush pot" inside our skulls. Let's face it and using the M1A2 SEP V2 as the perfect example-when submitted you'll see a quote from the Col. in charge of the SEP V2 Program who basically said "we finally have a FCS system that allows us to see the target beyond/at the range of our current ammo...", that confirmed (battle/or tested) kill range for the ammo was 4500m which means the SEP V2 could identify (not see but identify-there is a difference here.) a target to 4500m+ or a TI/GSR of 90-95 enough said.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_..._11210157.html

Our "Paras" have been wanting this for years now and they just might get it...our own light tank that can be air dropped. There is interest in this from the governmental side to get our Airborne troops back this ground support in the ongoing "asymmetrical" environment the military has been operating in.
My prediction-games end.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_..._11310152.html

Not where it goes but, since Mark posted it here's one from this past JUN. I was saving and by way of an update the European theater STRYKER's upgrade has been approved the USA is trying to get more upgraded but not likely the whole fleet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_..._11006151.html

Yes tracking this all.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

In future years, the USMC M1A1 fleet will undergo modifications necessary to maintain combat relevance and readiness. The USMC M1A1 Abrams latest generation of upgrades include: Stabilized Commander's Weapon Station; Abrams Suspension Upgrade; Ammunition Data Link; Generation IV Abrams Ammunition Rack; and the Abrams Integrated Display and Targeting System.

The Multiple Purpose High Explosive Round was procured in 2009 and provides the capability to engage a wide array of target sets in three modes of operation: air burst; point detonation; and delayed detonation. The Ammunition Data Link allows the Tank Commander to select a mode of operation on the Multiple Purpose High Explosive Round while it is in the breach.

The Generation IV Abrams Ammunition Rack improves the ammunition handling safety aspects of the tank as well as increasing the high explosive round storage capacity by 50%.
================================================== ===========================

Perhaps a minor increase in the HE value of the 120mm might be in order as well, but not worth worrying about until the M829A4 gets implemented.

As to improved survivablity .. they're already at 6, the highest value WinSPMBT allows.

Re: MBT's
 

LAV-AT Modernization. LAV-AT program replaces the obsolete Emerson 901 turret and M220E3 TOW to restore operational availability.

LAV Survivability. Self-sealing fuel systems for the mission role variants will begin production in 4th Qtr FY15. Mine protected seating developmental work to be completed in 2d Qtr FY14.
================================================== ==========================

The current version of the LAV is 5, perhaps 6 is justified BUT I'd think that should be reserved for the M1A1.

Re: MBT's
 

we will be looking into adding a 7 to the survival number series to give various new generation tanks ( the Leo 2a7 comes to mind ) added mine protection cabability similar to making them MRV class and that 7 would cover other added crew protection making it far less likely to behave like T-72's so more likely to disable and most of the crew bail out in the event of a hull breach than catastrophic detonation.

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Quick status of the M829E4/M829A4 (Field version.), it is in low rate production now/USA to decide on status of the continued use of DU rounds by MID FY16 (Mar/Apr 2016) though DU will still be used to enhance armor protection due to greater protective abilities over steel. Included USA ref on current status of our ammo across the board from 30mm to 120mm from 2014.
https://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room...se.asp?prid=53
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...6161437423579/
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/WedPaulHill.pdf

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

I need list.....anyone can chime in this is not specifically for Pat....... of modern MBT's or APC's that have been upgraded for added mine protection .....the Leo 2A7 comes to mind for one. We need to know what else has been

BECAUSE...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1445182745

Thanks

Don

Re: MBT's
 

German 2A7
Canadian 2A4M and 2A6M
Swedish Strv 122M
later Merkavas would qualify
T-14 Armata and I *think* maybe the BMP Armata as well

...........all seem to be fitted with bottom armour specifically to counter IEDs etc

anything like that on the newer Abrams ?

Re: MBT's
 

This is interesting........... Japanese Type-10 gun stabilizer demo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMvAnQJHjc

Re: MBT's
 

Would the "BDD" armour package for T-62M (includes belly armour for anti mine protection) count?

how about:
T-80U (T80UD, T-80UK, T80uM1) anti-mine/IED armour, drivers seat suspended from roof, etc
T-84

Re: MBT's
 

Certainly worth considering

Re: MBT's
 

The zoomed in camera guy could have done with that stabiliser. Quiet an eye opener very smooth transitions.

Re: MBT's
 

NOT REPEATING ANY YOU'VE LISTED THUS FAR AS THEY ARE CORRECT. My criteria was simple from my sources 1) It had to say it was protected as demonstrated below for the OPLOT-M and barring that 2) There was a strong enough indication in the source material to suggest it's there without me having to think "about it" that is why I wrote up the Indian ARJUN Mk 2 and Japan's TYPE 10 the way I did.

UK: Though I would think "size" matters to some degree in what your looking for here. CHALLENGER 2 definitely.
https://defense-update.com/features/...l_panther.html

Germany: LEO 2A4 EVOLUTION, LEO 2A6M (Though in limited numbers.) and LEO 2A6-PSO.

Israel: NAMER (Remember what's derived from and it's current and ongoing operational environment.)

USA: M1A2 TUSK, M1A2 SEP V1 (The 2 tanks in the OOB have to be extended out to 2020 vice 2015.), M1A2 SEP V2 and the SEP V3 as they come on line. Hot off the press:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/unite..._11610155.html

Also new ammo is now in full rate production as discussed in my last 2 or 3 posts here:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/ausa_2015_orbital_atk_awarded_$105_million_in_cont racts_for_medium_large_caliber_ammunition.html

MARINES: I know it's been done, just not sure to which current versions yet. However are we aware of the fact that the USMC tanks are equipped with a ATGW jamming device?

SWEDEN: Current STRV tanks, people forget they were in the "sxxt" as well and learned from it.

FRANCE: Well this, the SADF and Turkey might be the extent of my contribution this year and it will become obvious as I list the following LECLERC/AMX-56 tanks, LECLERC EMAT S3 series (2004-2010)- LECLERC T-10/T-11.

UKRAINE/THAILAND: OPLOT-M and because no one will believe or be shocked by this I give you the following:
"The Oplot tank can withstand an explosion of up to 10kg trinitrotoluene (TNT) under the tank track and up to 4kg TNT under the driver's compartment." - Army Technology
10kg of trinitrotoluene makes a "BIG BOOM"!!

INDIA: This is on a little less firm ground however with the added 1.5T of armor improvement (Making this the heaviest tank in the world.), I would would think the ARJUN Mk 2 is a viable candidate.

JAPAN: TYPE 10 though maybe to a lesser degree in the same situation as mentioned above for the ARJUN Mk 2.

TURKEY: LEOPARD T2 (Next Generation) that's right this tank is considered by many to be "superior" to any current LEOPARD 2A6 tanks when this was fielded. However my sources do not allow for the ALTAY or South Korean K2 to be a part of this discussion.

I've gone through my tank sources to get this far though I have to admit I wish I had a JANE's. A couple of surprises for me though was the T-90MS and ARIETE (Based on Italy having sent combat ground troops over seas.) but, if you take a look you'll notice most listed were deployed to IRAQ/or AFGHANISTAN at some point.

Also as I mentioned above I feel size/mass does matter here so I wouldn't most APC/IFV types would fit in the direction your going as suggested by a couple of others out here. The newer MRAP's however would definitely fit the criteria but that's for later.

Regards,
Pat
:capt: