Re: MBT's
 

That's perfect Pat......exactly what I needed..........thanks. This change gives added protection to vehicles that should have it but we didn't have a way before this....now there is

.......and the game now goes to 2025:D..........we're not done yet.........

Re: MBT's
 

Re: MBT's
 

Oh Gee thanks Don and Andy (I know he's to blame as well?)!?! Well I did plan on my last submission for 2021, what's another five years!?! Did you guys come up with a slot solution? Still for the six country UAE OOB to go away and maybe migrate the air assets from the tighter OOB's into it. Whether you call them "support" or "allies" it'd be about the same. Now I'll shut up!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

we are exploring options. We still aren't at critical mass yet

Re: MBT's
 

Sorry Don my :pc: didn't allow me the time to finish my "PS" (CRAP!) so here I go again...

GERMANY: Please consider the CURRENT ONLY 2A6 tanks for the survivability improvement. It appears Germany started adding mine protection in production of the 2A5 however not to the level you're looking at as suggested. However the ARMOR SITE (And the LEOPARD section has been referenced by many of my Defense sites as being the best on the web concerning the LEO.) indicates that the LEOPARD 2A6 had improved mine protection over it's predecessor. This is located just underneath the LEOPARD 2A6 "tag line" on the site.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
However and in fairness FRADO under the LEOPARD 2A7+ did specifically mention the IED protection for that tank which certainly does warrant the enhanced protection level. It's just my gut feeling it might fit the current again only 2A6 tanks since after all Germany did build the LEOPARD 2A6M-CAN and their own 2A6M with IED's in mind. But I'm flexible in which ever way you choose to go with the German 2A6 because this after all isn't a "FREE-FOR-ALL" topic.

USA: To be clear the following are improvements to the current M1A2 SEP V2 in order of importance for the M1A2 SEP V3 1) New single munition AMP (It is now in production.) round. 2. IFLIR this will cause some rethinking as I hinted to would come when we had come to the last "cross roads" decision on TI/GSR when I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and the AH-64E GUARDIAN this is a game changer and might be better than Germany's ATTICA system. All I can suggest for now is to ask you to please read my Post #389 on my Page #39 where I address these first two issues in some detail.
3) Enhanced CROWS system with improved situational awareness and accuracy. 4) Increased armor protection what I can find out thus far is they've improved the DU armor protection it makes good reading about how much stronger it is to steel armor by weight. 5) Increased mobility. 6) Enhanced software to support AMP and other improvements.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_..._11210157.html

My METS are on and I'm watching the game!?! I'll check in later if there are any more issues.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I feel as not many tanks use DU armor an explanation should be given for the ABRAMS survivability. First would you sell equipment to a country with all the "bells and whistles" you have on your "toys"? I would hope not. We don't export our DU armor (Uranium 235/or 238 I believe.) buy below shows what can happen without the DU armor applied.
http://www.janes.com/article/39550/i...osses-revealed

Further data and I didn't realize the USA still fielded the M1A1 for frontline service, in this case the M1A1 SA with 120mm/40 rounds.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2013/12.pdf
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/ar...-future-fight/
(Under protection section for those in a hurry for 2nd ref.)
http://content.time.com/time/nation/...897176,00.html

I hope this might be enough for our ABRAM tanks to warrant the increased protection to include the current versions of the USMC M1A1 tanks as well.

Well good night/morning later today is a day with CINCLANTHOME.

Don will try to get you the additional Russian units to you hopefully later tonight.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Why the most recent USMC Abrams have 1 shot of VIRSS, it's obviously not that same as the ATGW jamming system but as close as WinSPMBT can come.

Re: MBT's
 

VIRSS and CIWS are handy short acronyms. One covers "passive ATGM defences" and the other covers "active ATGM defences" so we could add in different selections but the end result would be the same as one or the other of the above........ That said, a VIRSS system gets used up but I think the system you are refering to would not be

Re: MBT's
 

Hard kill solutions include ARENA, TROPHY which actually falls include a special category as a "close in" hard kill solution. Soft Kill systems though normally paired with hard kill solutions (Example here are the ABRAMS that rely on soft kill plus, smoke grenades and the advanced DU armor package.) act very similar to ECM on the advanced jets of the last 20 years or so, about when these systems first became available. These in some cases will automatically launch smoke grenades. Hard kill ones have been around a little longer as ref one touches with a system put on the T-55. It should be noted in the "real world" the tank turret will automatically be slewed in the direction of the threat to point the most protected part of the turret to the threat, launch countermeasures (grenades, chaff etc.) and target and shoot at the aggressor while stationary or on the move.

https://www.benning.army.mil/magazin...996_3/pf03.pdf
Under this search with google atgw "soft kill" and "hard kill" solutions for armor protection look for the below...
Terms of Reference (TOR) - Under Secretary of Defense for ...
http://www.acq.osd.mil/mibp...Active..._CPP_Oct06.doc on first page 3rd or 4th one down.

Excerpt taken from ref. 2 above...

"Active Protection Systems (APSs) for Vehicles
Active protection systems are survivability concepts intended to provide protection to armored vehicles that equals or exceeds that of massive, passive armors at only a fraction of the vehicle weight. Conceptually, an APS can improve survivability by defeating incoming anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), RPGs, tank-fired high-explosive antitank missiles, tank-fired kinetic energy (KE) rounds, indirect fire — including bomblets and mortars, and guided top-attack threats. Vehicle armor must still provide protection against threats that cannot be addressed by the APS. These threats include small arms, mines and explosive fragments, including the residual shrapnel effects resulting from an active protection engagement.

The operational concept of active protection requires the application of advanced sensor, data processing, armor, and weapon technologies as an integrated system on the vehicle. Active protection system's components will include threat detection, tracking systems, signal processing systems, countermeasures systems and base armor, used for structural and residual threat defeat.

A variety of sensors including radar, IR and laser detection systems will be employed on board the vehicle to provide the capability of detecting and tracking multiple munition and directed-energy weapon threats. A typical sensor subsystem includes a threat warner, or cueing sensor, and a tracking sensor.
The threat warner identifies a threat and then, through data processing, hands it over to the tracking sensor. The tracking sensor then determines the incoming threat’s size, shape and vector. Signal and information processing technologies use the tracking data to enable the selection of countermeasures automatically or by the vehicle commander, calculate the firing solution and deploy the countermeasure.

The critical component of an APS is its countermeasure. Countermeasures include not only active protection but electronic devices, obscurants, decoys, and other technologies for hit and detection avoidance. Upon detection of a threat, the system enables the vehicle commander to select the most appropriate countermeasure or defensive tactics to avoid a hit (when engaging anti-tank missiles or threats at medium/long range). Or, the system automatically activates countermeasures, when necessary (primarily against high velocity missiles and kinetic energy threats or RPGs at short range.

The development of an enhanced commander's decision aid (CDA) is being pursued, for optimal utilization of the new defensive measures. Such systems will feed from the vehicle's sensors, as well as from off-board data sources, and will rapidly process the information, classify threats and recommend appropriate countermeasures.

Active Protection Systems commonly consist of an array of soft- and hard-kill techniques.
Soft-kill methods, similar to Electronic Counter-Measures (ECM) in aircraft, seduce and confuse an incoming missile, by using decoys, smoke and electro-optical signals, infrared or laser jamming."

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

You have a point, but as Fastboat pointed out there are active components to the system so I'm not entirely sure which of VIRSS and CIWS would best represent the system nor how many "shots" the VIRSS should have if it was used.

Let me know what you think and I'll incorporate it.

Re: MBT's
 

OK, what models get the DU and when ?

Re: MBT's
 

Well my posts on the ABRAMS were meant for the new survival rating 7, in my last Post #406 on the ABRAMS, I sought to relay the importance of DU armor as why I listed it on the earlier list in Post #400 of tanks. Consider the ABRAMS in the second criteria I used for listed tanks again for the increased survival rating 7. This has been on my mind for years but I let it go for my own reasons. First DU armor is about 65% - 75% denser then lead depending on the ref. also I've read on average DU is at least 2.5 times stronger by weight as compared to modern MBT Steel armor. So is there room for armor improvement if DU armor was never factored into the ABRAMS tanks in the game. Then I guess the answer is yes.
So to answer your question the first tank to have DU armor was the USA M1A1HA (HA=Heavy Armor with DU added into the tiles.) in June of 1988 assigned to units in Germany (You must remember East Germany was the only Warsaw Pact country to field Soviet manned T-80 tanks.). All previous versions M1/M1A1/M1A1IPIM relied on advanced Steel and Ceramic tiles only. M1/M1A1 would slowly be upgraded to the M1A1HA standard. In months before the Gulf War the USMC would "borrow" 60-80 M1A1HA tanks (Again depending on source.) By late 1995 early 1996 most to all M1A1 tanks would have DU armor tiles installed work was about to finish up on a 2nd Gen DU armor around the same time.
So key points about the refs...
Ref. 1 The armor protection level tables are a key to understanding this DU issue as development of the ABRAMS progresses.
Ref. 2 Page #47 is to the point for this discussion with related battle reports. You also get a really good preview of the book concerning the M1/M1A1.
Ref. 3 Backs up the rest but, what's interesting here is how the M1/M1A1 armor packages affected the UK and Germany armor decisions.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=97...abrams&f=false
http://tanknutdave.com/the-us-abrams-series/

What happened to the M1A1HA was simply in the old question of "what's in a name", as the M1/M1A1 tanks got upgraded they simply by numbers overtook the M1A1HA original tanks and just commonly where called the M1A1 or like the current USA version M1A1SA.

Regards,
Pat

Checked the web to include the proverbial Top 10 lists lots using DU rounds but as I thought the ABRAMS is the only one openly showing the use of DU armor.

Re: MBT's
 

And for armor purposes the USMC M1A1HC is the same as the US Army M1A1HA. There are differences in the vision and computer systems, and as mentioned the USMC uses an ATGM system the Army doesn't.

Re: MBT's
 

You've quoted Prado before and I DO understand the desire to have higher armour values and I'm NOT saying there won't be an adjustment but look at the Estimated Armor Protection Levels he posts and you see we aren't all the way into the weeds here

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Re: MBT's
 

Yes you know me I do take the time to actually read my refs otherwise I might make myself look real stupid out here something that I hardly ever do!?! :rolleyes: I did give you the out and am more concerned and hopefully have made the case for ABRAMS to get the increased survivability to 7 increase. And it's hard for me to sit at my desk and look at the raw data to include comparing the OOB ABRAMS to the better of about 6 contemporary tanks from other OOB's across time. I don't know what calculus is used to drive the armor values for the game. Is an honest reassessment warranted based on what we now either knew/or know about DU armor qualities that's your call and I know it'll be done honestly and within game parameters if you proceed. My feeling is an increase allowing for DU armor is somewhere in the 5% to 8% range but I'm a raw numbers guy so if you take the M1A1HA table 1991 vs M1A1 table 2002 getting an average of the numbers involved and compare them against the first two tables and rounding the differences by % you get the following increase in protection by % from 1991 to 2002...
Turret- KE/+28% HEAT/+20%
Glacis- KE/0% HEAT/+17%
Lower Front Hull- KE/+11% HEAT/+4%

And since you can do anything you want with numbers by taking all of the above %'s you come up with an overall increase in protection of +13% between the M1A1HA of 1991 to the M1A1 of 2002. If you take that 13% increase for that time period (As you would need to recalculate between all the tables.) the range I've offered above might not be too much off in allowing for just the DU armor improvements. The rest would represent steel armor etc. improvements. That time period as already noted would represent the transition from DU armor of the 1st Gen to 2nd Gen.

Well I've done enough damage here for one morning not meant to piss off anyone but I can get a little analytical at times just ask (Or feel sorry for.) CINCLANTHOME and my Co-workers!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

We did add armour increses roughly in that time period but really didn't take DU into account. I have NOT...stressing the word NOT here..... checked this theory yet but my first test will be to look back at the increases we did make and multiply by 2.5 and see how that fits with Prado's estimates. 2.5 being the estimated added density of the DU over normal armour plate steel........then I'll compare those numbers with the results that you suggest....then maybe I'll add them all up and average the whole mess and see what I get

We have from the beginning striven to be fair to all parties with these estimates because the few people who really know how what the protection levels of modern tanks are..........they aren't talking, so all we can do is go with "best guess estimates" (BGE).

Don

Re: MBT's
 

Besides crunching numbers as I did on those tables as posted,2.5 is the best number I could find for strength over steel armor. We take what source/science info is available and as Don says we just have to do the best we can with it because none of us will be around when and if ever this data becomes declassified. Even with the numbers I used it was based on the average of what was given-we'll never be 100% precise with issues dealing with armor protection and ECM, these are things where there are too many variables associated with them. Things like guns and ammo are more tangible items that are easier to "guess" at because of the proliferation of data out there. Doing a search on DU armor for instance yielded a MUCH HIGHER rate of hits on DU ammo and associated health risks from them then anything to with armor protection data. Sometimes to have to think about these things like a rumor..."If there's smoke out there the truth is somewhere in between." or the less precise "If there's smoke, there must be a fire." depending in what part of the country your from.
Search for yourself you'll see what I'm talking about.

Don thank you and if I can help with the calculus let me know including crunching Prado's tables.

Time to think about work after a walk.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Unless I am looking at the wrong units all figures are within the ranges he quotes.
If anything turret KE errs to the high end of his estimates.

Re: MBT's
 

I'm not so sure ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-u...20m1a1&f=false

I've also read (tho I can't find the reference) that even with other M1s firing at them it's often taken several hits to destroy disabled M1s.

Re: MBT's
 

That doesn't mean there wasn't penetration just that the the ammo storage baffles were doing what they are supposed to do

and as well if we compare in game Desert Storm era T-72's and their ammo vs game Abrams and their armour you are going to get the historical result. There is no way you get a kill shot on an abrams on the frontal arc and the Abrams can chew through Iraqi T-72's until their ammo runs out

Re: MBT's
 

and how thick are those DU plates Pat?

Re: MBT's
 

probably HERE

Re: MBT's
 

Is there a REPUTABLE website that gives estimates for the T80 -T-90 line like Prado does for the Abrams ?

Right now ( I'm still checking and still looking at things so everyone please don't get your knickers in a knot)...but I think.....perhaps....where things started to go wrong where armour values are compared was the jump for HEAT front hull protection for the T-80UM and that spilled over into later models and into the T-90. Those vehicles rely on reactive armour which we model but I'm thinking the HEAT values maybe too generous

( this is when everyone on this side of the pond agrees....and everyone on the other disagrees. I'm just going to sit back and watch.......)

Re: MBT's
 

In Post #412 my second ref. though it shows written by Henry Wilson copyrighted in 2015 is what appears to be an updated version of Micheal Greens book you referenced with a co-author copyrighted in 2005. I have provided my ref again below see page 48/bottom/under-"Into Combat with the M1A1 HA Tank"/about three paragraphs of reading continuing onto page 49. Not only does he talk about non-penetration hits from Iraqi tanks but friendly fire from our own tanks on the frontal array/or the whole front facing part of the tank.
https://books.google.com/books?id=97...abrams&f=false

It seems when I checked the ref from here it opens to page #49 where you'll find the above info, must be that I copied the ref from that point.

Understand you can't "copy" from these sites due to copyright law.

To your question for me, that I know will be classified however there should I think be "estimated" data out there. So I'll do the best I can.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

This might be it...lower front hull looks about 1" thick as does the add on to the left turret face


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1445525651

Re: MBT's
 

post 412 is a good example of why sometimes I loose focus reading your posts

When THIS would be more readable

and yes I know there are time limits ....that's why I write long posts in my email program first then check them over, check spelling ( sometimes.....) then cut and paste them to the forum when I'm happy with it and that way you don't get locked out of editing and can take all the time you need to write the post..... I can edit anything at anytime and a message appears when it was done ( like this one ) but that function is not available to the average poster

Just saying Pat ..........I have less and less time to take in all the info....RL has been ganging up on me and is getting more complicated so I skim or cut and paste things like this to my "list" for later study but when I do that the web links are usually lost and I DO appreciate the time and effort you make here but sometimes you are giving a thirsty man a drink with a firehose :).and it's hard to take in fully when it's all in a big lump of info

Re: MBT's
 

1) I'll try to do better but, I think I'm SLOWLY a little better-maybe!?! :rolleyes:

2) Must remember any of this type (ceramic tile, composite, applique etc.) is like a "stew" of many ingredients are involved (to include fire retardant features.) to make it all work. The prime ingredient seems to fall in the 10mm-30mm (Against imagine that 30mm to lesser AP type rounds.) 60mm thickness is attributed to tiles that have a special alloy aluminum balls inserted into it to further distribute energy and better defeat the warhead. So that 1"-2" thickness overall plus obviously lighter weight might just be in the ballpark. Most modern (and I suspect DU as well) use Tungsten Steel (LEO/CHALLENGER 2/LECLERC and many others.) which is supposed to be almost (a relative term.) as strong as DU. I believe we again use it to a lesser quantity/thickness with DU for the ABRAMS as TUNGSTEN IS VERY EXPENSIVE in comparison to the number of tanks involved. This combination is the edge for the ABRAMS I believe, not a huge one but enough to make a difference I suspect by %. Also we produce/store vast amounts of this material compared to the rest of the world through our weapons and nuclear energy programs as a "waste" by product which DU comes from for ammo and armor use.

3) Same armor tables same source. LEO covers LEO 2A4/5/6.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-90S.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

A note on these tables, they only consider RHAe (Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent) protection levels against KE and Chemical (HEAT) rounds.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

P.S. You'll never know when you might find yourself in a BIG desert! :D

Re: MBT's
 

Please remember, however, that there is a big difference between "destroyed" in game terms (no longer capable of fighting - these tanks were already at that point) and "totally destroyed" (so nothing falls into enemy hands - as page 104/5 of ref).

Re: MBT's
 

These any good?
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html

Re: MBT's
 

1) There seems to be just a "little" confusion about the armor protection tables I submitted from the armorsite.com website concerning the ABRAMS and later in Post #227 for the LEOPARD 2A4/5&6, T-80UM and T-90/90S. The tables for the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS only take into consideration STEEL armor (RHAe) it does not consider any added composite armor applications i.e. DU for the ABRAMS. I have found general parity between the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS is RHAe as those tanks have developed (And I'm not surprised by this.). Please read the note within the box under those RHAe values as they clearly support my above comments.

2) Concerning the SOVIET/RUSSIAN tanks, they do include in the tables both RHAe and ERA (In those cases KONTAKT-5.) to make up the total armor protection values. Note: Russia has moved from KONTAKT-5 (Though still in heavy use.) to RELICT-9.

3) The ARMATA/or T-14 has something newer in ERA as yet undisclosed officially by name.
http://www.janes.com/article/52464/r...as-new-gen-era

4) This issue that concerns Don to some degree will in some cases some of the Soviet era and current Russian tanks might be "over protected" I do know one thing is for sure neither side of this discussion will be pandered too and a fair and honest review will be done for again both sides of this issue. I think after a cursory review some Russian tanks might benefit due to the ERA in the area of protection against HEAT (Chemical.) rounds.

5) As I've pointed out with my use of the defenseindustrydaily.com (DID) website and can be used as a single sourced site as they always list their sources at the bottom of the article. I don't know PRADO but, I like his work on the Armor Site because he does the same-lists all his refs at the bottom-look at them-he's smart enough to use in country sources, though, KMDB (Kharkiv Morozov Design Bureau (Designer of the T-34, T-64 series and other tanks.) it is now in the UKRAINE.
Ref 1 Main site.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/index.php

Ref. 2 is taken from the "Upgrade Packages for Vehicles..." H1 refers to the frontal arc of the hull while H2 covers the side of the tank notice in the below the increase in protection with the added ERA package they offer as part of their T-72 up grade program. Their upgrade program consists of the following T-72 mods they developed the T-72AG, T-72MP and the T-72-120 NATO compliant version also offered below.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/t72m2.php
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/t72-120.php
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/kbm2.php

But now I digress somewhat, point being sometimes in the "hustle and bustle" (There's a song there.) of our lives we get in a hurry and not only miss things but miss out on things as well, I missed the above KONTAKT-5 item myself until I went back to check on it again earlier. So this goes for me as well!?! :shock: and :doh: but since my work week is now over things will get better. ;)

And here's the song, I just like it. Makes me thankful for a certain someone when I get home! :p
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video...t=mozilla&tt=b

Alright DON, I'll stop now! Good Night for me and well...good day to everyone else!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Change the above "Post" TORD Post #427 vice #227-sorry editor clock again.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

The thought that perhaps we'd been too generous with later Russian tank protect was premature speculation.

In many cases there have been increases in protection in the OOB's and that goes for the western tanks as well. If I had to sum it up it would be to say we were far too conservative in the amount of protection we gave the newer generation tanks all around.. I've looked at a number of sources not just Prado. Some numbers we used were closer than others but the general trend in the next set of OOB's will be upwards in regard to protection levels. in some cases, dramatic jumps, in others not so much but in the end this is all speculation from us and the "real experts". The best of the best tanks have not come directly head to head and if we are lucky they never will.

All tanks are vulnerable some place. Catch an Abrams or Challenger or Leo or T-90 or T-14 or Merkava in the side with modern ammo and there will be a hull breach. There HAS TO BE because the newer penetrators are just too good and you cannot armour a tank all around like you armour the front hull and turret and still be mobile


Don

Re: MBT's
 

Not entirely sure about that Pat, for sure Russian takes into account the ERA as its part of the armor package.
I would have thought though the RHAe given for the second ABRAMS included DU.
If not the turret benefited from DU plus 200 RHAe of composite armor.

Further down just above armor levels for M1A2 SEP it says
One thing that looks a bit strange is the turret HEAT protection for the LEO
KE Hull - Turret 600 - 900 approx.
HEAT Hull - Turret 750 - 1800 approx.
So 50% more KE protection yields 150% more HEAT protection.
The sharp slope must be very effective at defeating HEAT.
Turret is

Re: MBT's
 

With any of this it's open to interpretation and I'm sure if I gave the job of estimating in game armour values to 20 people I'd get 20 different results and the above example

I read 900 KE protection and 1800 HEAT protection as double the HEAT protection not 1.5 X .............150 % of 900 is 1,350

There is a considerable amount of material added to the front turret of the Leo2

Re: MBT's
 

Good points all however,

1) The tables on armorsite.com do make a clear distinction, if you look to the upper left corner box below the "title" of each table it will show the tank in question. The Russian T-80UM and T-90/90S are the only ones to indicate the table values include BOTH RHAe and ERA in these cases KONTAK-5. The para below the values again emphases the tables only use RHAe values and in the last sentence states "Modern composite (CHOBHAM) may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy then RHA of the same thickness." that's the "out" and or "disclaimer" for the tables.

2) As I've already stated math can be a deceptive thing but we all generally know about "the law of averages". My issue hasn't really been about RHAe (Steel Armor) as much as it's about Composite Armor such as the DU issue and unfortunately I suspect many more just if you think about any modern tank built over the last 20-25yrs. And to be clear ERA is not Composite Armor. Similar function (ERA) but different methodology to achieve results but not as good.

3) We think so far that Composite Armor is about 2.5 times stronger than RHAe. I went and crunched the numbers between the M1A1HA and M1A1 and by applying "the law of averages" can mathematically show that as compared to the M1A1HA the M1A1 RHAe was 13% stronger overall. But I left myself an "out" in ...

"I did give you the out and am more concerned and hopefully have made the case for ABRAMS to get the increased survivability to 7 increase. And it's hard for me to sit at my desk and look at the raw data to include comparing the OOB ABRAMS to the better of about 6 contemporary tanks from other OOB's across time. I don't know what calculus is used to drive the armor values for the game. Is an honest reassessment warranted based on what we now either knew/or know about DU armor qualities that's your call and I know it'll be done honestly and within game parameters if you proceed. My feeling is an increase allowing for DU armor is somewhere in the 5% to 8% range but I'm a raw numbers guy so if you take the M1A1HA table 1991 vs M1A1 table 2002 getting an average of the numbers involved and compare them against the first two tables and rounding the differences by % you get the following increase in protection by % from 1991 to 2002...
Turret- KE/+28% HEAT/+20%
Glacis- KE/0% HEAT/+17%
Lower Front Hull- KE/+11% HEAT/+4%

And since you can do anything you want with numbers by taking all of the above %'s you come up with an overall increase in protection of +13% between the M1A1HA of 1991 to the M1A1 of 2002. If you take that 13% increase for that time period (As you would need to recalculate between all the tables.) the range I've offered above might not be too much off in allowing for just the DU armor improvements. The rest would represent steel armor etc. improvements. That time period as already noted would represent the transition from DU armor of the 1st Gen to 2nd Gen."

At the time I assumed that, as you have too have a starting point/theory with math/science that a simple formula was needed that was conservative in it's assumptions-simply take the RHAe percentage improvement and "dumb it down" some I.E. my 5-8% improvement to the M1A1 over the M1A1HA and as we don't have a separate column to show Composite Armor the only thing to do is apply it the STEEL and HEAT current values.

This is not fun nor is it easy, I somewhat wish I hadn't brought it up (This is no pity party either-so don't think about it. :p )but most issues out here that need fixing are never fun and always seem to turn into a PITA much like a few years ago between a few of us out here when we spent as much time for about two years cleaning up the OOB's as we did adding or changing equipment (MP's anyone?).

Certain people call me "The Senator" because they enjoy the "status quo" and I to shake it up a little as we have little room for mistakes at work. I'm not trying to be "The Senator" here, maybe "PROVOCATEUR" :D

If I can help I will but I must move on after all I still owe someone some possible Russian ICON work at some point.

I think it's time for a nice walk. Anyone have a pier, it's kind've warm out there!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

HEAT jumped from 750 to 1800
600 KE gave 750 HEAT in the older model, looks reasonable
900 KE gives 1800 HEAT in the newer model, HEAT is twice as effective as the KE?

Re: MBT's
 

Just out if intrest Pat & just looking at front KE as represented in game.

Unit 23 M1A1 (HA) T-67 H-60
Unit 203 M1A1HA+ T89 H61

Turret is by maths a 32% increase, hull not a lot.
So if I understand you correctly hull is what could do with a slight boost.

Re: MBT's
 

The actual STEEL as in what the tanks are made of might be correct. My concern (now apparently) is that the armor doesn't seem to take into consideration the increased protection offered from the Composite Armor (CA) (DU/TUNGSTEN/Specialized ALUMINUM/KEVLAR etc. either separately or in combination.) tiles they are built with. Again ERA is not CA these are separate applications that can be used in combination but, are still not the same.

I do know that the M1A1HA+ did have it's frontal armor array improved over the M1A1HA. Array implies multiple facets and the sources I looked at indicated those improvements related to the CA and DU backing tiles. Now I wonder, are we spinning our wheels here? But I think Don said this issue wasn't considered in assigning armor values to the games current armor.

Well you'll probably be thankful for this answer versus the one I just lost.

Remember when writing long you have to log back in again normally not an issue your post well, posts. If however you log incorrectly, you can re-log in however if you didn't know before, you will lose your post. Well that's 45 minutes I'll never get back-oh well tomorrows another day!

John will be grateful and Don wishes it would've happened to a post meant for him!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Since the real data on modern tanks is unknown or classified as hell all we can really do it look over the instances where they have been in battle and take a best guess. Of course even finding accurate battle data can be challenging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dno0cGn-A
Stuff like this only bears a passing resemblance to real data. OK they hit a tank and there was a lot of dust kicked up by the explosion, but what condition was the tank in afterwards?

Re: MBT's
 

I was looking into some data for a Serbian tank, when I came across this. I didn't check the Russian OOB here or the one for WinSPWW2 as quite frankly I'm beat. The tank in question is the T-34-85-l the first source below is reporting this tank as a fake tank and to their credit, admitted they initially bought into it as well. They stress all the points I continually bring up here i.e. read and review, multi-source and find conscious, submit and as Don is well aware followup on to make adjustments as required, most recently the development of the ADF HAWKEI for over six years now and India's ARJUN tank that still has a issue or two to be addressed. The last two refs. support the correct variants of the T-34-I hope!?!
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww...Fake_Tanks.php
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerk...an-service.htm
http://www.soviet-empire.com/1/military/tanks/t34/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

I'm not sure if it's the right thread, but I post anyway. In Turkey OOB there is an error because Leopard 2A4 are sobstituted by Leopard 2T since 2011, but this is not the reality. For now, only Leopard 2A4 are in service and no Leopard2T, maybe in the future

According to the Military Balance 2014 (I can send you the entire book if you need) these are Turkish tank forces now

MBT 2,504: 325 Leopard 2A4; 170 Leopard 1A4; 227 Leopard
1A3; 274 M60Al; 658 M60A3; 850 M48A5 Tl/T2 (2,000
more in store)

It seems that in 2011 the contract was won, but there aren't sources in the web that proof that the upgrade was completed.

I think that the best solution is to postpone leopard2A4 retire to 2020 and put Leo 2T in prototype tank maybe?

And about Altay tank I have some doubts, I think it will be fielded after next years.

The Military Balance 2014 says: "Four initial prototypes by 2014
for approx USD500m. To be
followed by an order for 250
units following testing"

If you send me PM with your email I can send you the military balance 2014, one of the best sources about current military in the world. There is a section of current equipment and a section about pending contracts for every nation.

According to defenseindustrydaily, this is similar to The Military Balance

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...project-05012/

Re: MBT's
 

From SIPRI the following tanks are still in service as previously noted here by luigim and my submissions from the 2010/2011 patch campaign.
Current inventory includes ~3000 (Multiple/non WIKI sources.) tanks of which the bulk of these are the improved M-48/M-60 series tanks ordered from the mid 50's -90's. As ordered/or donated, M-48-2850/M-48A5-20/M-60A1-274/M-60A3-658/LEO 2A4-350/
LEO 1A3-230/LEO 1A1-170 (These these tanks acted as the test beds for what was at the time 3rd Gen FCS for the ALTAY FCS developmental program.)

Notes:
1. These tanks have been modified since Turkey got them making rudimentary upgrades to them with time some with enhanced TI/GSR and the newer ones not so, i.e. none above 40 TI/GSR but with more stable FCS's.

2. When the the LEOPARD-2T was submitted I submitted refs that indicated the LEO-2A4 tanks were already in the assembly line being converted to act as the final test bed for the ALTAY and to give Turkey an intermediate tank until the ALTAY came on line. But it looks it didn't happen, so the prototype/999 unit might be appropriate as noted.

3. The answer to the above #2 lies with the ALTAY developmental issues and money. The LEO-2T it appears to have died on the vine around the time FNSS and ROTAM were having cost issues involving technological transfer and other related matters and KMW concerning the German power plants and the eventual decision by Turkey to go it's own way in the development of a power-plant.

4. The ALTAY was already in the OOB as the BLACK PANTHER what I submitted was a name change after verifying it's status five years ago. Currently it's looking like 2017 mid year.

5. With recent events with Russia and quite frankly the tension has always been there between these to countries I see the following A. ALTAY gets stepped up. B. 2T will come into fruition before 2020. C. Those older tanks aren't going anywhere any time soon. Turkey is very likely wanting to maintain that 3000 tank advantage. Modern technology in FCS, munitions and mechanics/systems will and are keeping those tanks in the field now and into this games "new" future.

Don I believe you already have the SIPRI data and that tank poster coincide very nicely to each other.

It was a very good catch.

Regards,
Pat

Re: MBT's
 

Another little suggestion to improve the game's future OOB.

The proposed T90AM (or MS) tank, according to

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90ms_tagil.htm

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html

http://www.army-technology.com/proje...n-battle-tank/

has an "opto-electronic screening system"

"The self-protection of T-90MS includes also an automatic screening system which can create an automatic aerosol screen laying in the direction of enemy's anti-tank means with active laser emission."

I think it refers to the classic VIRSS system.

Thank you

Re: MBT's
 

Every once in awhile I get the opportunity to "close the door" on an item I got to submit, this is the case for the next item. You gotta love the Germans, all taken care of as promised. I hope you'll note the turret section and notice the advanced FCS components mounted, it confirms for me anyway, the German units I recommended to use for the recipient of these fine machines.
It just validates the time and effort put into these submissions when I can see a final result.
http://www.janes.com/article/56481/p...s-from-germany

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

One might suspect the Poles are tired of being invaded/subjugated.

Re: MBT's
 

A lot has changed in 70 years.......Germany sending tanks to Poland used to mean something quite different than the subject of this article......however from a more cynical POV by sending these tanks to Poland they are strengthening and deepening their buffer with Russia. It wasn't that long ago that a heathy % of the population expected a NATO / WP conflict at any time and it thankfully did not occur. ( Pink Floyds " The Wall"......" mother do you think they'll drop the bomb ? " and "Two suns in the sunset " from "The Final Cut" is all about the fears and paranoia of the Cold War and that was written" only" 32 years ago.) Steel Panthers 2 was originally , primarily designed to "what if" all of that so from that POV Germany is expanding it's border defenses using Polish crews in German tanks and the irony is really thick.

further--------- http://www.defence24.com/239167,poli...-by-the-poles#

Don

Re: MBT's
 

I'll be giving this some thought over the coming year, however, I did bring this issue up when and before I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and the AH-64E GUARDIAN, the issue is where do we set the upper limit for TI/GSR and when will we come to the understanding that some OOB's will just have a technological advantage over other ones or do we limit ourselves to "parity" to some degree. A couple of + years ago I indicated this decision point would come up sooner then later (We started the increase of TI/GSR from 40 TO 45/or 50 for many MBT's and APC's.) and now it's almost upon us again to figure out what direction to go. In those intervening years Germany has developed the ATTICA FCS (Already being retrofitted to the LEO 2A6 and will be on the LEO 2A7+.) and now IFLIR will be installed on the M1A2 SEP V3 coming to an ARMY base near you-sooner than expected. My first thought is "parity" sets the limit for armor at TI/GSR 55 enough to recognize for now, Germany's and the U.S. technological advantage while still not being an overwhelming advantage in the game (Real world we're seeing well beyond that as noted already in previous posts.) and I'm leaning towards "parity" because we do have game issues and limitations plus, with the extension of the game, I feel we need to save the "60" for when the new next best FCS comes out. Just my thoughts for what's not that far down the road/or already here. Anyway, posted on this already now the contract is signed.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...116121510.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/unite..._11710154.html

The next will "shake up" the region a little but certainly it'll be a major improvement to this countries armored capabilities...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._41612152.html

Well the "body count" is in and I'm still standing so good night and have a good weekend-some of us will be working-take care!! PM to follow soon.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Seems that some t90s are in Syria too for syrian crewman training purposes ( a lot of photos around the internet).. But the reality is that Syria will cease to exist in actual forma. There will be a alauistan coastal and down to the lebanese border state ( heritage of former Syria), a Kurdistan between Iraq and Turkey and a sunnistan aka ISIS. Time to upgrade mujaheddin OOB too..

Re: MBT's
 

The only downside to the ranges extending is it tends to make you use wider maps.
A difference of just a few hexes in vision aids makes a huge difference if you have a weapon that can take advantage of firing undetected with lower global visibility.
Early Chieftains come to mind with 22 hex vision vs the 20 of Russian tanks.
Against an advancing Russian tank that's 3 shots you can let off before it can see you & take one.

Re: MBT's
 

In short have to agree with John, the map issue was what I had in mind also. But on balance the player(s) will still have LOS issues to contend with as well given the battlefield environment and would those factors act as an equalizer overall to the extended vision issue? It's again something that some thought has to be given to over the next year or so. I don't propose these things lightly and try to think it through the best I can, it's as always, trying to find a fair balance between "real world" vs. "game world" is all. And I really gotta go!!

Regards,
Pat