Polish OOB 5.5
 

It's time to start suggestions on the Polish OOB.

Main sources for AFVs:
- J. Magnuski: "Wozy bojowe LWP 1943-1983" (AFVs of the Polish People's Army)
- article J. Kajetanowicz: "Polskie wojska pancerne i zmechanizowane w latach 1955-1990" in Poligon nr.3/2010 (Polish armoured and mechanized weapons 1955-1990)
- article J. Kajetanowicz: "Prace nad rozwojem sprzętu pancernego w Polsce - przegląd lat 1955-1990" in Poligon nr.5/2010 (Works upon AFV development in Poland)

001 PT-76 - commissioned from 1958 (now: 1/56) [Poligon 5/2010] - needs date change in formation #08. Standard ammo load included 10 AP, 5 sabot and 5 Heat instead of 10AP, 10 Heat [Russian Tekhnika i vooruzhenie 9/2008]

019 PT-76B - variant B was bought in 1962 (now: 1/77) [Poligon 5/2010]. Should be used until 1975 (now: 12/96), then replaced with new variant with DShK and improved vision. Ammo load as above.

702 Marynarka PT-76 - should be named just PT-76B. This name makes no sense (literally "Navy PT-76"), for no Polish amphibian tanks were used by the Navy - landing units belonged to the Army. It should be Polish-modified variant with added DShK AAMG and vision=15-20, used from 1972 (now 1/75) [Poligon 5/2010]. Withdrawn by 1992 (now: 12/96). Machine gun should be #64 PKT instead of #62 SGMT (introduced in PT-76B since 1967 - though it's actually worse weapon in the game...). Icon should be ordinary green 2680, as color photos confirm, not grey.

Weight of PT-76s actually was 14 t (10). I know, that some tanks in the game have exact weight, some not, but I'll try to point out differences from real weight, especially, that same tanks in the OOB happen to have different weights. It might be ignored, if it's considered not important.


002 T-34/85 (Med.tank) - early T-34/85s definitely didn't use Heat rounds - should be replaced with 5 Sabot (in fact, according to quoted Russian source, standard load was 36 HE, 14 AP, 5 sabot - which does not seem practical in tank game). Weight should be 32t (22), like in Russian oob and unit #11.

011 T-34/85 M1 (Obs.tank) - better way of writing is "T-34/85M1" - in fact it could be named just "T-34/85M", because M1 and M2 were only project codes (often found in books, though), and a designation was just M [Poligon 5/2010]. Crew of M variant should be 4.

(I don't know if it fired BK-2/BK-2M Heat rounds, but this is their only chance...)

650 T-34/85 M1 (Obs.tank) - as above. It is doubful, if it fired earlier Heat ammunition, before BK-2. I suggest to arm it as #653 below, with no Heat.

653 T-34/85 M1 (Med.tank) - in fact, M1 modification was introduced only in 1960 (now 1/51). It could be renamed just "T-34/85" and became a tank with slightly improved post-war ammunition of "367" series (see thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=48212 ). Then, it should have crew 5(4), RF 3 (2) and ROF 7(6), like unit #002 (there's no reason for lower RF and ROF in this unit)

I suggest to arm it with #230 85mm D44 Gun 69 with no Heat, or #231 modified as below.

By the way: weapon #231 85mm D44 ATG could have increased Sabot penetration. Now it is identical as 85mm ZiS S-53 (AP 12, Sabot 16), while according to that Russian page http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/T...O/SuPTO034.htm , max penetration of APCR BR-367P was 210@500m (AP was similar - 119mm). Even older APCR BR-365P pierced 180@100m.

013 T-34/76 M1943 - better name is just T-34/76 (designation M1943 is used only in modern books, wasn't used in service and is redundant, since we have only one T-34/76). Weight should be some 28t (21)

Special variants:

250 T-34/85 PT54 - Speed of T-34 with mine roller was stated in Soviet sources only at 25 km/h [Poligon (Russian) 2/2002]. Possibly ammo should be redistributed to more balanced load, like a standard tank, or is there some rule concerning rollers? Anyway, early T-34/85 didn't use Heat. Weight should be 32 - plus 8t of roller.

Lowering speed should concern all tanks with heavy rollers PT-34 (5 ton), PT-54 (8 ton), KMT-5 (7 ton). KMT-4 and 6 were just blades.

251 T-34/76 PT34 - weight 28t + 8 (21), speed as above.

413 PT-34 - I can't see a difference (but a wrong LBM of T-34/85) from #251 T-34/76 PT34, and it seems redundant. Besides, PT-34 was not a proper name for a vehicle, only for a roller.

418 T-34/76 BTU - weight should be some 30 with dozer (21)

419 T-34/85 PT34 - I think there's no reason why it couldn't be used from 1946 (now: 1/50). Notes on ammo and speed like unit 250, but weight - some 32+5 t (22).

766 T-34/85 BTU - weight should be some 33 with dozer (22). No Heat ammo on early tanks.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I thought I have made it clear in other posts at other times that "weight" is and abstraction in the game had has NOTHING to do with how much something like a tank weighs so just IGNORE weight. The ONLY use tank "weights" are is to determine how many might fit into a landing craft so any weight above 27 means one tank fits, anything below 27 means two tanks fits.

IDK when people "decided" this meant how many tons a tank weights but it should be obvious it's not as the upper limit a unit can weigh and still be transportable is 55 because 255 is the highest number the game can use. If you follow the weight= actual weight logic once you get to "56 ton tank" you will never be able to transport it in anything in the game.

So don't bother cluttering up your report with "weight" issues and it will be easier for me to get through


Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Michal

Please explain what I am to make of reports like this.....


and then this

In the first case you are suggesting unit #19 "Should be used until 1975 ....then replaced with new variant with DShK and improved vision.


OK one ends 12/75 the next with the DShK and improved vision starts 1/1976... that seems simple enough but then you say #706, the Navy PT-76, shouldn't be a Navy PT-76 and should be green not grey ( OK. fair enough so far but I'm hoping Blazej will show up to defend his OOB ) but then you say it should be a PT-76B and it should start 1972 with the improved vision and the DShK and that contradicts what you wrote in the line above saying the improved version with the improved vision and the DShK should start after 1975.

So what's correct Michal ?? 1972 or 1976 ??? You've already quibbled about a 2 year difference in the start date of Unit 1 then a few lines later give me inconsistent info for virtually the same vehicle. I'm happy to make the corrections to imporve the OOB but we're not off to a great start here as you told me to start one new unit at two different start dates

Please fully review your "corrections" for inconsistencies like this before posting them.

Thank you



Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

It's best to put a stop to bad habits early

The CORRECT way to write that would have been to note down how THIS unit is to be armed then when you get to the next one refer back to that. NOT the other way around as you have done here. Why should I have to look up info from an item further down on the list than I am working on ? All that does is slow down an already slow and tedious process

Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

PLEASE do NOT put in links refering to other posts on this forum for info. I work from a list that does not use active links and am frequently off line while working and I'm not happy about having to log on then waste precious time wading through a series of posts to (maybe) figure out what you want. If you want something, write it down in the post you are asking for it


Thank you


Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

OK, feel free to point out how to make your work easier.

As for weight - I didn't even think to check it, but I saw two T-34/85s weighing 22 and 32, so... Of course, I can ignore it in the future.

BTW: I'm not suggesting to change it, but the easiest way to overcome problem of max weight 55 would be to assign 55 to all tanks above 54 tons.

Sorry, I haven't made it clear enough. The source says, that the tanks were modified in 1972-1975 years, so I took 1972 as the first date of the modified tank, and 1975 as the last date of unmodified one.

As for icon - I've checked it again. Indeed, J. Magnuski wrote, that seaborne landing vehicles are painted in "grey-steel". On the other hand, color drawings in books, like Magnuski's "Czołg pływający PT-76" TBiU series, always depict green tanks, with landing division's badges. The problem is, that color photos show tanks in some drab shade, rather green than grey, but hard to be named with certainty due to film quality or lighting conditions. Everybody can see a color, which he'd like to see... So we might keep it, until we're 100% sure.

As for Blazej "defending his OOB" - if he has a sources for doubtful issues, that's perfect ;)

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

T-54/55 family

003 T-54B - there's no sign, that T-54B was used in Poland. Especially it isn't mentioned in the quoted book nor articles on Polish post-war armoured units and AFV development. Basic tank, produced since 1958 in Poland was T-54A, then replaced with T-55. It is doubtful, than some insignificant and unnoticed number of T-54B was bought abroad instead of buying a licence to production. To be removed IMO.

004 TO-54, 007 TO-55, 021 TO-34 - should be removed with corresponding formation 11. Poland never had flame tanks (TO-54 and TO-55 were non-numerous variants BTW).

005 T-55A (64-73) - produced and used from 1968 only (now 1/64, which is correct for basic T-55) [Poligon 3/2010]. Soviet T-55A has FC=7 (now:5). CMG should be #64 PKT.

Heat ammo was never such numerous in Soviet tanks, at least early ones (now: 15 HE, 15 AP, 13 Heat). I suggest 20 HE, 15 AP, 8 Heat as closer to truth.
(In fact, according to Tekhnika i vooruzhenie 9/2008, Soviet standard load for T-55 was 22 HE, 15 AP and 6 Heat, but this is tank-heavy game... You decide)

006 T-55AM Merida (86-94) - Fire control is much underrated (15) - Soviet T-55AM with Volna FCS and T-72A have 20, Czech T-55AM with Kladivo FCS has 25. Polish Merida FCS was more advanced, than Volna and T-72M1's system, and not worse than Kladivo. It had among others digital computer, wind and temperature sensor, adjustments for pressure, barrel wear, propellant temperature etc. I think that it should have also double number of SD/VIRSS - it has 16 tubes in all (now: SD 1, VIRSS 1). Speed was reportedly lower due to weight - some 16 (18).

008 T-55AM Merida (Obs. tank, 95-102) - as 006

012 T-54A (56-67) - vision should be 10, like in Soviet tank (now: 20) - basic version had no night vision devices, maybe only for a driver. FC in Soviet OOB is only 3 (5) (though I don't insist it should be lowered to such small value ;)

There should be no Heat - spinless 3BK5 was introduced in the USSR only in 1961 (I suspect, that in Poland a couple years later), and there was no earlier Heat round for D-10 gun mentioned in Russian sources. In Tekhnika i Vooruzhenie 10/2008 monograph on T-54 there is ammo for T-54A quoted: 20 HE, 14 AP.

The article in Poligon 3/2010 implies, that T-54A was used from 1957 only (now 1/56), but there is no explicit statement. Personally I'd change it - seems, that they were used in divisions only from 1957.

014 T-54AM (68-73) - it's better to change to AM1 modification, with increased ammo load (AM was just a modification of A with additional fuel tanks, AM1 had further improvements, like rotating turret floor, increased ammo load, modernized drive, deep wading kit, etc - period from 68 is OK) [Poligon 5/2010].
They don't explain "increased" ammo load regarding this variant, but it should be most probably 43 rounds, like T-55 produced at the same time (I suggest 22 HE, 15 AP, 6 Heat).
There is no mention, if this modification received night vision gear - probably not yet. FC should probably be the same as T-54A.

028 T-55U (74-81) - it was T-54A modernized to T-55A standard - ammo load should be 43 (now 34). I suggest 20 HE, 15 AP, 8 Heat (now: 16,9,9). CMG could be still #62 SGMT, if it worked well... (there's no info in available sources)

(In fact, there aren't known any peculiar game-relevant differences between T-55A, T-55U, T-55M - all were in the same standard, differing in details and lack of anti-radiation lining on T-55U. Available sources don't tell however, if sights were changed.)

211 T-55M (82-85) - modernized T-55. I suggest 19 HE 9 Heat (now: 15/13).

651 T-55AM Merida (Obs.tank, 95-102) - there seems no difference from unit 008 - redundant?

654 T-55U (Obs. tank, 82-92) - ammo load should be 43 (now 34) (I suggest add 4 HE and 3 AP). CMG could be still #62 SGMT.

656 T-55M (Obs.tank 86-99) - I suggest 19 HE 9 Heat (now: 15/13)

714 T-55 (58-73) - produced in Poland from 1964 only [Poligon 3/2010] (now 1/58 - BTW, this date would be impossible, since T-55 in Soviet OOB appears in 1/58, and in fact commissioned in 5/58).
Basic model T-55 had no AAMG (confirmed by photos), but still retained SGMT BMG.

717 T-55M (74-81) - I suggest 19 HE 9 Heat (now: 15/13)

720, 721 T-54 (55-60, 58-68) - I've found information, that in 1955 there was bought only 1 T-54 as a pilot model [Militaria i Fakty 2/2003]. There's no sign of using greater number, especially in quoted articles on Polish post-war armoured units and AFV development. There's also no mention on T-54 being a subject of subsequent modernization, like T-54A/AM. To be removed IMO.


Special variants:


210 T-55/BTU Dozer - T-55 were used from 1964 only (now: 1/60-12/61). Maybe it should be changed to T-54A, and made available until early 70s (then ammo load 34, DShK AAMG, vision=10, stabilizer=1, FC=3?).

217 T-54A PT-54 - stabilizer should be 1 (0), FC 3 (2), and ammo load 34 (20 HE, 14 AP) (now 43). Road speed with PT-54 heavy roller was in fact only 30 km/h [Tekhnika i Vooruzhenie 10/2008]
Probably used from 1/57 (now: 1/56) - see #012.

218 T-55A KMT-5 - since this tank is HE-oriented, better ammo distribution is regulation Soviet: 22 HE, 15 AP, 6 HEAT (now 30 HE, 13 Heat). Or is there a rule, that mine rollers should have HE and Heat only?.. Speed with KMT-5 roller should be below 40 km/h.

219 T-55AM2P KMT-6 - Polish designation was T-55AM, but it might be renamed AMS - engineer's dedicated variant with mine plough (and MCLC). FC - like 006 Merida. Part of Heat rounds should be replaced with AP or Sabot. CMG should be #64 PKT.

225 T-55/BTU Dozer - T-55 were used from 1964 only (now: 1/62-12/67). Basic variant had no AAMG. Part of Heat rounds should be replaced with AP (now: 10).

226 T-55A USCz-55 - most of Heat rounds should be replaced with AP (now: 16!). CMG should be #64 PKT.

227 T-55AMS USCz-55 - FC - like 006 Merida. Part of Heat rounds should be replaced with AP or Sabot.

I'm not going to attack this OOB, only to improve (and correct it) :D

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

If you have a source clarifying the export or lack thereof of the flamethrowr variants, it is going to be worth its weight in gold.

HEAT issue varied widely across countries, years and situation. There is nothing wrong with a lowish HEAT loadout if no info is available, since HEAT was indeed expensive and often issued in limited quantities, but it should be noted that as far the T-54/55 are concerned BK-5/BK-5M was for a long time the only ammo that stood a chance to penetrate postwar western MBTs head on; as such there was an incentive to increase it.

BK-5 may have been available since 1958 to USSR. Yugoslavia supposedly did get some in 1961.

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

When there is a discrepancy between a unit in the Russian OOB and an identical unit in any other OOB the Russian OOB info shall be deemed correct.

The Russian OOB was extensively reworked a couple years ago but unit updating did not extend to customer states because there simply wasn't enough time to do that. So yes, if there are differences in the Polish or Czech or East German or whatever nations units for an identical Russian one then the Russian info should be used.

It's been my intent to make those corrections when time allows but I keep getting piled on and never get the chance so it's going to be done in increments

PLEASE NOTE---none of that applies to ANY 125mm gun/ammo issue. That work has already been done and Russia uses combinations of Sabot and HEAT not found in other OOB's. AND the correct ammo for Russian supplied main guns has already been made to customer states. What I am refering to is FC or RF or stabilizers mainly


Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

As for flamethrower tanks: unfortunatley, Russian sources don't tell explicitly, that "they weren't exported". They only don't tell anything about their export, which also may be some hint. There were made only 110 TO-54, and TO-55 wasn't numerous either (no exact data are given).

That's why I pick these discrepancies.

By the "correct ammo" you mean penetration values for specific guns only?..

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I shall endeavor to be more clear in the future

In SP "ammo" differences and improvements are reflected by the stats in the "weapon" or "gun" so in this case I was refering to the distribution of different HEAT and SABOT ammo types ( like BM-9 or BK-12 etc etc etc etc) to the Russian and other states using the 125mm gun and NOT the distrubution of HEAT and Sabot or HE etc ammo to the UNIT itself.

Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Well, production numbers are already a start and certainly lean heavily towards them not being exported to everyone and his uncle. Generally I tend to be cautious on such matter, as proving the absence of something is always harder than the reverse. So far I have only asked for the T-62 flamethrowers to be removed from the OOBs I focused on, as I got info that no such variant was mass produced and likely not even designed.

That being said there is always the possibility that a nation or two got delivery of such niche equipment, therefore I asked.
It appears that North Korea possibly got some OT-34s based on the 1943 model for example but I have yet to verify it.

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I have already removed the T-62 flame tanks from any OOB that used them.

If someone discovers they actually did exist I'll put them back in.

Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

M. Baryatynski doesn't list such T-62 variant in his "Sovetskaya bronetankovaya tekhnika 1945-95" vol.1.
As for OT-34 in Korea - delivering wartime surplus, made in 1170 units, is more likely, than TO-54/55.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Well we've certainly run into this problem before. Unfortunately it would seem that the older the equipment the harder it is to find tangible and reliable information on it unless your dealing with historical issues associated with wars. So with that in mind and with the understanding that a couple of these refs are relevant to the current discussion going on in the other two threads from yesterday, I shall attempt to "muddy the waters" a little on the flame tank issue at hand for the T-62 or if you will the OT-62. Bottom line I think we're left with a conundrum.

First; I've put this out there elsewhere probably in the MBT thread but the USA felt the Soviets had this tank as it appears in INO534 Edition D Lesson 1; Note the TERMINAL LEARNING OBJECTIVE Section before moving on.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n0534/lsn1.htm

Second; A useful site you've seen before from me and some others, but before you start go right to the bottom and read his Source section first. Alright please!
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-62.html

Third; Side note info on OT-54 and OT-55.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/tanks/ot-54.php
WHEN IN DOUBT GO TO THE BUILDER. Below and at the bottom right you can see the only prototype left of "OBJECT 483" from above.
http://tankmuseum.ru/p2.html

Fourth; Though now in the Ukraine it was one of the PRIMARY tank plants used by the Soviet Union/Russia. The others are in Kirovsky (No longer making them.) and currently the three major tank assembly plants in Russia are KharTcov, Nizhniy Tagil (Developer of the T-62.) and Omsk. These guys below built most of them based on it's location to the "front lines" and other factors. Explore it lots of good info here especially clicking on the tank types for all the standard version info along side the let us show you what we can do with them now stuff in the upgrade packages section. Vehicles section will show you all the tanks built under "Russian influence".
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/index.php?page=m1

Well I'm of before I get in trouble!! Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

We discussed this in the past on tanknet (likely in some other thread as well IIRC). The conclusion was that somebody (likely at Jane's) at some point, likely during the Cold War, must have assumed that since flamethrower variants had been produced for the T-34/54/55 then the T-62 must have had it too. This turned out to be a faulty assumption.

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Note however that OT-34s were made throught the war, so it is not a given that there were many more of them at the end of the WW2 than OT-54/TO-55 at the end of their production run.

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I should clarify, I meant the ref itself not the current "OT-62" or other flamethrower tank discussions. I believe I posted that ref for overall Russian tank general info and for you game designers. My only conclusion is 1) Like my service JANES was a great resource, but let me ensure everyone they had non-public versions as well. 2) Our primary resources were all intel driven military resources as the first source document was were JANE'S was one component of. 3) I believe therefore they had them though the OT-54 and OT-55 versions were somewhat more readily available. Bottomline overall maybe not enough of them to make a game difference except to add some flavor to the game. And Lord only knows this is the only forum I have time for and on that note duty calls soon.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Yes, but 309 were made in 1942, 478 in 1943, 383 in 1944, so more than a half should survive until the end. Then 331 OT-34/85 were made. They were replaed in units just with OT-54.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Back to the main subject - we came to PT-91 Twardy... I must say, that there is a problem with this tank.

First, we should keep in mind, that after a fall of communism, funding for the Polish Army was always scarce, Polish tanks weren't used in any conflicts in that period (including Iraqi and Afghan missions), and a situation in Europe is calm, so there was a natural tendency to save money on tanks...

Armour issue:
We have three versions of PT-91 in the game, with different armour: HF/TF steel 40/40, 55/59 and 60/65. In fact, all articles in the Polish military press since prototype presentation in 1993 agree, that all PT-91s present similar level of basic protection, as T-72M1, and the only change is ERA (among others, in Nowa Technika Wojskowa (nTW) 5/93, 4/98, 5/99, 8/99, 9/2007 - especially thorough are last two). Despite a hull was redesigned, but its shape and technology obviously remained the same, as in T-72M1. The Poles didn't carry works on own modern multi-layer front armour by that time - there was no such need in the 80s, because there was a fresh licence to produce T-72M1, regarded as a modern tank, and there were plans to replace it with T-72S (pity, that a licence wasn't bought before fall of communism).

Main improvement of PT-91, enhancing its capabilities over T-72M1, were to be ERA and new fire control system and vision devices (among other improvements was VIRSS system with laser warning system, a bit stronger engine, better ergonomics and crew's safety, modern firefighting system). The only element said to be strengthened, was bottom (against mines - I guess it has no effect in the game).

A production of new PT-91s lasted only in 1995-1997 years, and it is known, that they weren't later modernized in any significant way (not counting stronger engine in two dozen vehicles PT-91M). After this date, further PT-91 were obtained in a way of modernizing T-72M1 tanks in 1998-2002, obviously retaining their hulls and turrets. New and modernized tanks are virtually not distinguished, and all are named just "PT-91" tanks (modernized T-72s are designated in documents PT-91MA1, but it is never used in practice). Definitely their basic armour structure wasn't changed during the service, which would be difficult and expensive, if possible. Article in nTW 9/2007 says explicitly, that even tanks of modernized variant for Malaysia retained basic armour on T-72M1 level, despite new works on multilayer armour carried in Poland.

There were published many articles in military press, suggesting a need of PT-91's modernization. All agree, that armour protection isn't very good, but as tanks are getting old, nobody views armour strengthening to be feasible (earlier some enthusiastic authors suggested a whole new turret, with 120mm gun at best). There are suggested instead other ways to enhance the tank's capabilities, like (in order of cost/effect) new ammunition, new stabilizer, newer model of 125 mm gun, new engine and transmission, eventually new fire control system (all these things were in fact applied to the Malaysian export PT-91). As a result of limited funds, none of these proposals were accepted so far. It looks like the MoD waits until the tanks happily live their lifespan without any scars and the problem gets solved...

Therefore, all PT-91s in the game, from the beginning, should have the same armour - basically the same as T-72M1. As for sides, only rubber skirts were replaced with tin ones. It also should apply to Malaysian PT-91.

However, as for T-72M1 itself, I don't know, if it shouldn't have the same armour, as Russian T-72A1.

By the way, there is a possible inconsistency in the Russian OOB. I assume, that T-72A1 (designation not used in Russian sources) is a late production "Dolly Parton" model of T-72A. In the game it has weaker TF steel armour (40 vs 45), though (it has stronger turret from other sides and TF heat armour 57 vs 56). Is it assumed, that a ceramic core worsened AP resistance? But if T-72A is the model without the ceramic core, it shouldn't have much better HEAT resistance, than steel armour. T-72A1 also has thicker HF steel armour: 40 vs 34 (I understand, due to welding of an additional plate), but no change against Heat: 45. I'm writing it in this topic because of a possible impact on Polish tanks.

ERA issue

I'm afraid, that Polish ERAWA isn't advanced ERA, unlike Soviet Kontakt-5. According to an article by its designer A. Wisniewski, it decreases penetration of HEAT rounds by 50-70% (ERAWA-1) or over 70% (ERAWA-2) and sabot rounds by 30-40% [nTW 2-3/94].
You must decide, if it's "advanced ERA" in game terms - it doesn't stop sabot round as a rule, only decreases its penetration. Maybe it is a justification to increase basic steel armour to values similar to #010 PT-91A1 Twardy (60/65 steel armour)?... But then, isn't it double protection: increased armour and advanced ERA?
Maybe a number of ERA should be increased?

Contrary to Soviet T-72s and most other tanks with ERA, ERAWA bricks on PT-91 are more numerous, tightly fitted and very thoroughly cover hull's and turret's front and forward part of sides and roof, with few gaps.

The same applies for Malaysian tank.

Gun issue

Unfortunately, as for now PT-91s use only obsolete and poor models of Soviet ammunition from the 70s - first generation used with T-72. The best APFSDS is steel BM-15 (apart from it, worse BM-9, 12, 17), the only HEAT are BK-12 and BK-14.

In 1998 there was shown more modern APFSDS Pronit Ryś, with Israeli tungsten core - but reportedly only a small party of 1000 were made, due to unsatisfactory penetration (500-540 mm RHA, worsening in frost), and they aren't used in practice. There were also developed one or two Polish rounds, but didn't reach production stage.

There were no new Heat rounds bought nor even proposed and it seems, that no development nor import in this field is planned. As for now, there are no announced plans to buy new APFSDS in following years, but it is possible.

So, tanks with old guns should be available from beginning until end. There should be option with Pronit APFSDS, but old Heat, maybe from 1999 - maybe it should have several Pronit available as Sabot, and more BM-15 as AP?

There is however one more option I think of. In case of a "real" war threat in Europe, it may be assumed, that Poland would hastily buy some modern 125mm ammo in Israel or Ukraine (or even Russia - although many players may view Russia as a "natural" enemy in such hypothetical scenario). Such tanks could be available as option, and marked as "PT-91 (wartime)" or similar.

Conclusion
To sum up, I think, that there should be 4 tanks PT-91:
1 - basic model, basing upon #018, available all the time

2 - basic model with Pronit sabot ammo, from some 1999 (gun may replace #161 125mm PO-1 Gun, with old sabot as AP, new 50-54 penetration sabot and old Heat, definitely no "multi-charge Heat")

3 - hypothetical wartime model, with improved gun, available from?... (gun may be, say, #130 125mm PO-2 Gun or #131 125mm PO-1+ Gun, or modified one, although obtaining of "multi-charge Heat" is doubtful)

All Polish PT-91s should have FC 35, and stabilizer 3 (the later wasn't improved since T-72M1 and is most often criticized element). AAMG should be #17 NSVT. Survivability might be improved over T-72M1 (new firefighting system). All should have more SD - 24 tubes in total (now: 2 SD, 2 VIRSS).

4 - assumed modernized model, from some 2014, with same armour, improved gun, stabilizer 4-5, FC maybe 40-45 (if PT-91 are modernized at all, it is doubtful, that FCS will be completely changed to something new, like Savan-15). Obtaining of any new Heat rounds during normal modernization is doubtful, especially multi-charge Heat (rather Sabot ammo).

Passing on to peculiar units:

009 PT-2001 Twardy - to be removed. Around 2002 there were analyses of arming PT-91 with 120 mm Rheinmetall gun, and making it more unified with Leopard 2, but it was definitely abandoned.

010 PT-91A1 Twardy - a supposed modernized variant with front armour 60/65, improved gun PO-1+, stabilizer 4 and improved FC 45, available from 110.
There are no such tanks in 112, and there's no official designation PT-91A1, so the modernized tanks shouldn't be named this way.

It can be made one of proposed modernized variants - but maybe rather this unit, high in OOB, should be removed, and units 342, 408, 409 should be converted instead.

018 PT-91 Twardy - basic variant. It should be available until 120 (now: 12/96). Notes on armour and gun in introduction part. AAMG should be #17 NSVT, stabilizer 3.

342 PT-91A1 Twardy - a supposed modernized variant with front armour 60/65, improved gun PO-2, stabilizer 4, FC 45, available from 110. To be changed to something else.

343 PT-94 Goryl - fictitious tank, existing only in sketches from early 90s.
If any new tank will be developed (and bought) by the Army, it will rather be light FSV with 120mm gun...

408 PT-91A1 Twardy - a supposed modernized variant with front armour 60/65, improved gun PO-1+, stabilizer 4, FC 40, available from 101. To be changed to something else.

409 PT-91 Twardy - a supposed modernized variant with front armour 55/59, improved gun PO-1, stabilizer 4, available 97-100. To be changed to something else.

442 PT-2001 Twardy - to be removed - as 009

Special vehicles
209 PT-91 KMT-6 (Minecl.veh) - basic variant, notes as #018. Ammo should be redistributed (now: 30 HE, 14 Heat)

222 PT-91A1 KMT-6 (Minecl.veh) - a supposed modernized variant with front armour 55/59, improved gun PO-1, stabilizer 4, available from 1/97 - to be changed according to tanks above. There's no official designation PT-91A1.

228 PT-91A1 KMT-6 (Minecl.veh) - a supposed modernized variant with front armour 60/65, improved gun PO-1+, stabilizer 4, available from 1/101 - to be changed according to tanks above

234 PT-91A1 KMT-6 (Minecl.veh) - a supposed modernized variant with front armour 60/65, improved gun PO-1+, FC 45, stabilizer 4, available from 1/110 - to be changed according to tanks above.

Regards
Michał Derela

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Be careful in regards to the Malaysian version those tanks were ordered to the customer specifications as was posted with numerous refs in a Patch Post. That's why it was entered in their OOB as it is. You have to be careful about "same" units when discussing export units or other variations. By example M-60 Series M-60 TTS, M-60 2000, M-60 SABRE and M-60T off the top of my head all different in weapons, armor protection, sensors and general capabilities to varying degrees.
MBT Thread Page #9 Posts #84 & #89 M.5 I believe there was some follow up on the PT-91 in the Patch Post as well but I leave that to you to check if you want.
And let's not even talk about the LEO or ABRAMS variations. The UK, FRANCE, ITALY and ISRAEL (And a couple of others.) did it right and kept their own for the most part thank God for that in game terms! Just trying to help as others have done for me here as well, Just read my first posts in the MRAP Thread.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

That's why I'm basing upon a Polish article claiming, that basic protection of Malaysian tanks remained the same, despite works carried by Bumar upon a composite armour. ERA was probably only improved in decreasing weight (and possibly increasing efficiency). Thanks to the customer specifications it received better FCS, gun and stabilizer, engine and transmission, ammo, and several other improvements. Of course, the information on armour may be challenged. Main point of interest in these thread are Polish PT-91s anyway.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I bought up the Malaysian issue partly because Poland is about to or is just starting to upgrade their T-72M1 and PT-91 tanks. The work will not be done however by BUMAR who did not get the bid but, WZM. The first 20 of 40 PT-91 and 10 of 20 T-72M1 upgraded units are to be operational by NOV. 2012. I have been following developments and have other refs ready. Was thinking the Malaysian model as in the game might meet the new standard after rechecking the values again for verification. What are your first impressions of that thought? I will further research this that's just me and it keeps the research and conclusions independent this will include trying to identify ERA types for determination of where it falls on old vs. new scale. This is a big deal for WZM as they are primarily known for their work with APCs. It should be noted from their website they have ties with RHEINMETALL this could be the key to the tank work as well considering again WZM primary manufacturing role to this point and the timeline involved. Some might need to use your translator program for ref #2.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1912116.html
http://www.wzm.pl/go.live.php/PL-H36...ow-t72-m1.html

Currently not known what will be done, as much as it will and what can be done i.e. Malaysia's PT-91 PANDADUR.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I haven't heard about upgrade plans yet - there's no such information even on Polish MoD page News section, and no talk on it on Polish forums. But, according to a quoted WZM page, 20 T-72 tanks aren't going to be modernized, just overhauled (remont konserwacyjny - "conserving overhaul") (BTW, WZM first of all was repair plant - only in recent years they got to production of vehicles).

Anyway, it doesn't change my conclusions much, that there are no upgraded tanks by now, and the earliest date will be 2013 - IF the tender is assigned. Life showed, that many announced plans of modernization or buying new equipment for the Polish Army were postponed or abandoned eventually... As for now, we doesn't know details of upgrade. I bet, that they won't touch armour anyway, and focus on FC-gun issue rather.

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Modernization of T-72M1 basic armor is likely to be difficult. The glacis can probably be upgraded without excessive problem, by undoing the welds and replacing the inner layers, but the turret front has the composites cast in according to the sources. Therefore you would have to machine away a significant chunk of the armor. More costly/troublesome than it is probably worth.
The T-72B/S is much more upgrade friendly.

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Pibwl,
As noted this will bear further watching then. I'll put this off until the 2012/2013 campaign then and see what comes of it. In the mean time in the spirit of cooperation here's all I have on the topic. Note the first three use the words "modernization" and "upgrade" last two cover the ERA issue maybe not as bad as you think but the armor itself seems more the issue on the surface of it. That's why I'm still leaning towards the PT-91M standard if these get upgraded as indiciated. Also Marcello is correct it would take a complete RESET to improve the armor really for ethier of these tanks and it can be done look at the LEO major overhauls done to date by the RESET programs used.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1912116.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...rope&Itemid=57
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...2m1-pt-91-mbts
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...ainbattletank/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt91_twardy.htm

And who says I can't play nice with others!?!

I'll be :capt: this as it develops.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

After all the deletions requested what we end up with in the Polish OOB is two ( 2 ) PT-91's plus two duplicate mine clearer's with KMT-6 all with various minor corrections suggested including matching the M1 armour but NOT upgrading the M1 to A1 status. I went through this a year or so back and am not doing it again. The "inconsistency in the Russian OOB" was a simple typo that has now been rectified.

One uses the "old ammo" up to 1999 and the other uses a part load of Pronit sabot and a part load of the old sabot as AP. There will not be any hypothetical wartime model or assumed modernized model. It's getting VERY OLD putting in "future models" only to have them evaporate so when there is an announcement that any new modernization is actually in the works, let me know but after requesting all these deletions I'm not really very open to adding in replacement guesses.

These PT-91 change leaves much of the M1 upgrades in question but I assume they are next ???

Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

:da:just whistles quietly to herself as she contemplates the EFV :smirk:

(the proposed Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle the USMC wanted to replace the LVTP-7/AAVP-7).

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

......and the other thing that REALLY PISSES ME OFF are people who use examples of future units from other OOB's to justify something they think should be in their pet OOB. I AM FED UP WITH THIS CRAP. We added things a few years ago becasue some thought it would be "kewl" to have things still on the drawing board in the game so that players could play the game 10 years in advance and have all these new wonderful toys to play with then as time goes by all these new toys are sitting on the scrap heap and we have to pull them out but one left in some OOB or another that hasn't been scrapped suddenly becomes an excuse to add more crap into the OOB's ( that we will have to pull out later and we end up with ....."Yeah but the GERMAN OOB had this or the RUSSIAN OOB has that"

TOO FRIGGING BAD.

The EFV is GONE. It was GONE the last release. We added it as a "courtesy". It's still in the USMC OOB renationalized JUST IN CASE the project is revived but it DOES NOT SHOW UP IN THE GAME. The Su-47 Berkut is in the Russian OOB and the Altay is in the Turk OOB...... it will probably die as well but I'm leaving that alone but the days of adding upgrades in thinking that it's "enevitable" are over and as the years pass and they don't come about they will be pulled as well but I have MORE THAN ENOUGH to do ATM without making more work for myself.

Shall I pull the F-35's out until we know they are actually being used operationally ?

I just gutted the PT-91's from the Polish OOB becasue someone elses previous guesses about what "might" happen didn't come to pass so why would I put in new guesses ??

Now Suhiir..... I realize you were not asking for anything you were just pointing out what has happened so this was not directed at you per se but as a general venting of frustration on the way things like this go. NOR is it aimed directly at Michal. He just happened to be the last person to bring up " future upgrades ". This particular venting has been building for awhile



Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

...I wasn't even going to take this (rightful) criticism at my direction - one of my main motives to correct the Polish OOB (and therefore, to appear here), was to remove units, that should have been in the Polish inventory long ago according to the OOB, but aren't, or sci-fi ones ;)

Thanks for clearing this. I only thought, that if we already have 4 or so future PT-91s, and someone made an effort to put them there, it would be reasonable to keep one or two, downgraded to something more probable (with basic armour, better stabilizer, gun and FC)...

As for T-72 - you assume right, they're coming (although not too extensive) :D

Cheers
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Time for T-72

015 T-72 - AAMG should be #17 NSVT (now DShK). Speed 22 is too high (60 km/h, Soviet one has 20). Basic model was never a numerous tank in Poland - should have radio code 1.

Soviet basic T-72 has FC 15 (Polish 10) - I don't know if the difference is justified, since basic T-72 hadn't very advanced FC anyway and I haven't heard if it was simplified on machines exported to Warsaw pact. According to Russian monograph by M. Baryatynski, T-72s exported to Poland, Czechoslovakia, GDR "almost didn't differ" from Soviet ones. Those to Arab countries and India had different turret front construction.

016 T-72M - AAMG should be #17 NSVT. Produced and used from 1981 (now: 1/80) [Poligon 3 and 5/2010]. In fact available until today (until around 2015 - now 12/99), though from some 1995 it may be "obsolete tank". Speed 21 is too high (60 km/h, Soviet one has 20).

In fact, they had no SD (1) - only a possibility to make a smokescreen by injecting fuel into a hot exhaust (introduced in Russian tanks since T-55). Same for Russian early T-72.

017 T-72M1 - AAMG should be NSVT. SD should be around 4 (like Russian T-72A - it has 2x6 tubes) (now: 1). It should be available until 2020 (now: 12/96). Speed 25 is much too high (others: 20). Vision should be 20 (30), as in T-72A.

402 T-72M1 - It could be variant with some Pronit Ryś sabot rounds, mentioned in PT-91 post, available from some 1999 until 2020 (now: 1/97-12/100). Comments for AAMG, SD, speed as above. Correct pic is 29257 (now it's PT-91). It has too high ROF 7 (others: 6). Vision 30 might be OK (there were developed new passive sights in Poland...)

403 T-72M1 - further modernized variant with PO-1+ gun - to be removed, or made a hypotetical "wartime" model with better gun. It is unlikely, that T-72M1s will be modernized in Poland in other way, than converting to PT-91.

711-713 T-72M1Z - T-72M1 converted to PT-91 standard. Official (not used in practice) name of this tank is PT-91MA1, and it is commonly regarded just as "PT-91". No difference in game terms - IMO redundant.

Mineclearing tanks:

220 T-72M KMT-6 - used until some 2015 (2020). Ammo should be probably redistributed (30 HE, 14 Heat). AAMG should be #17 NSVT. Speed should be 20(21).

221 T-72M1 KMT-6 - it should be standard model with D81T 75 gun at best, available from 1986 (now: PO-1 gun, 1/97). Ammo distribution, AAMG, speed as above. SD should be around 4 (2). ROF should be 6(7).

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Yes, we know that. It's why unit 15 has no SD but I will remove it from the M as well


Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Not sure if it is the right thing to reply here or start a new thread in the scenario forum but here goes :- Scenario 140 Follow-On Forces Attack will probably have to be modified as it uses the TO-62 units CB0,1,2. If it would be of help I could do a search for any other instances.

Regards, Warwick

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Thanks but I always check every sceanrio before release as SOP so this will be dealt with when I'm finished work on the OOB's

Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

A little offtopic: if scenarios can be changed in newer releases, it would be good to replace in tutorial BRDM Shmel launchers (which aren't known to be ever used in action, and probably weren't used by Iraq) with common BRDM-2 Malyutka. The US wins anyway ;-)

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

...I was reluctant to report this, but Polish T-72M1 have FC 25 (also Slovak, East German, Iraqi and maybe others), while Soviet T-72A and Czech T-72M-1 have 20, what might be more appropriate in fact...

If we want to be overly precise with PT-91, there could be earliest model without TI, vision 30, available from 1995, radio code 1 (some 35 tanks) and basic model with vision 40, available from around 1996.

To end with medium tanks: Leopard 2

Polish Leopards have different turret armour, than Leopard 2A4 in German OOB.

020 Leopard 2A4 - SD should be definitely more (now: 1). German one has SD 2, but it has 16 tubes, so it seems too low.

022 Leopard 2A4+ - it should have more SD I think (apart from 1 SD and 2 VIRSS). According to a Polish military forum NFoW, Polish Leopards don't use HE ammo as for now (although it was developed in Poland).

023 Leopard 2A4P - Leo 2 with Lahat missile, available from 1/112. There are no pronounced plans to buy such missiles, despite advertising in the Polish press, and if something is going to be bought, new ammunition and modernized FC are more probable... To be removed as for now IMO.

396 Leopard 2+Dozer - there's no sign of using Leopard dozers in Poland (consulted with NFoW forum).

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Going deeper:

024 BRDM-2 Malutka2,
033 BRDM-2 Malutka - this should be the same vehicle, firing 9M14P Malutka-P missiles (#155), named "BRDM-2 Malutka", or better "BRDM2 Malutka-P" (vehicle's designation was 9P133). Poland didn't use early 9P122 BRDM-2 with 9M14M Malutka missiles, but it uses Malutka-P from early 70s. It carries 14 missiles (now: 12) according to Polish MoD page and Russian sources (as unit 383 in Russian oob).

There are two units currently, 033 in 1/70-12/104 with wrong armament (ordinary Malutka #145) and vision=0 and 024 in 1/100-12/120 with correct armament and vision=20. One vehicle would be enough IMO, because as far as it is known, they weren't modernized in any way. Besides, in 2000 it was an obsolete system and wouldn't be modernized at that time. Vision=0 is correct (a soldier at one forum wrote, that it was good vehicles, but "blind as a mole" at night). Missiles could be fired and guided at night, but a target had to be noticeable in sights.

I have no precise start date ("early 70s"), but according to an article in Tekhnika i Vooruzhenie 10/2000 (http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/T...R/PturR010.htm ), despite it was commissioned in the USSR in 1969, but first 17 were produced only in 1971, and bigger production ran from mid-72. Therefore, a realistic date in Poland would be 1/73.

By the way: unit 384 BRDM-2 MalutkaP in Russian OOB might need change of date at least to 1971 (now: 1/69) and from 10 to 14 missiles (according to a quoted page, 14 was standard, but even 18 missiles could be carried in overload).

One of these Polish units could be replaced with a new unit BRDM-1 Malutka, or just BRDM Malutka (9P110 vehicle) - used in limited number (radio code 1). Details are lacking, but it must have been used from around 1968 until around 1980 (commissioned in the USSR in 1963). Data like unit 382 in Russian oob, but according to a quoted page, it also carried 14 missiles (6 + 8 reloads). A proper icon is 2331 (though it would be worth to erase lines suggesting open hatches in rear part - it had elevating hatch. Here are some photos http://cris9.narod.ru/rva_9p110.htm


025 SU-100 - apparently weren't used in Poland in any significant number. In 1949 there existed only two "pattern vehicles" [Poligon 3/2010]. In 1955, a total number of 51 SU-85 and SU-100 is given, what corresponds with 50 SU-85 and 2 SU-100 in 1949 [same source]. In 1960 there are mentioned only 43 SU-85. Despite Magnuski in his book (from 1984) wrote in general, that 2 were acquired in 1945 and "bigger numbers of SU-100" were bought in late 40s and 50s, but he didn't give any details, and it is doubtful in a view of numbers above, from newer sources. There is no information on further import of SU-100, only of heavy SP-guns and SU-76s. So, it should have radio code 3 at best (if not be removed).

027 JSU-152 - correct name is ISU-152. Extinct from inventory before 1960 [Poligon 3/2010] (say, 1959 - now: 12/65). It didn't typically use Heat ammo - at least half of them should be AP.

029 ASU-85 - according to J. Magnuski, they were used during manoeuvres in 1963 and withdrawn some time before 1983 (say, 12/80 - now: 1/66-12/86). Needs date change of formation 14 as last unit.

For information: gun's designation in ASU-85 was D-70 (it could be changed, since Poland doesn't use D-48 gun in other applications).

030 BRDM-1 Trzmiel - could be named just BRDM Trzmiel (2P27 vehicle). They were withdrawn by 1989 (now: 12/94).

According to Russian sources (among others Shirokorad's article http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/T...R/PturR003.htm ) they carried only 6 missiles (3 + 3 reloads - now: 8 - for all countries). Proper pic is 29057 - for BRDM-1 Shmel in all countries (current one 11031 is 2P32 Falanga). I've also found correct icon with 3 missiles: 2945 (though it would be worth to erase a rear line, suggesting open hatch - it had two-part hatch, opening to sides, unlike BRDM-1 with Falanga missiles, same for 2946 desert one).

031 BRDM-1 Falanga - should be removed - Poland never used BRDMs with Falanga missiles (unless somebody finds a source). According to Russian sources, there's no sign of their export at all.

032 BRDM-2 Fal.-M1 - should be removed (as 031)

034 BRDM-2 Konkurs (9P148 Konkurs) - used from 1984 only (now: 1/79) [Technika Wojska Polskiego - Polish Military Equipment - semi-official MoD 1998 book]. Rare piece of equipment - radio code should be 1. Correct icon is 2342 or 2324.

According to all Russian sources and Polish MoD page, it carries 15 missiles Konkurs (for all countries). Its weapons is overstated - it should be replaced in the file with standard 9M113 Konkurs (like weapon 166 from Russian oob), instead of 9M113M KonkursM with more penetration (not used in Poland) [same book].

035 MT-LB/82, 036 2S12 SPM - should be removed, with corresponding formations 16, 37, 238 - Poland never used SP-mortars. First such vehicles are planned on Rosomak APC chassis, but don't exist as for now.

037 Krab - as for now, only 2 prototypes and 1 serial vehicle are used. It should be given radio 3 in fact in that period (now: from 1/107). The program has been postponed for years, probably by 2013 there will be 6 more built at last.

038 2S7 Piwonia - more proper name is original 2S7 Pion (in all publications, among others in semi-official Technika Wojska Polskiego. "Piwonia" is a Polish translation of flower name, not used in practice). Used from 1986 until spring of 2006 [Poligon nr 06/2009] (now: 1/87-12/120). Very rare piece of equipment (8 pieces). Crew was 7 (probably for all countries). I don't know if it's good idea, but the crew had RPG-7 and AK rifles as a standard for self-defence.

039 2S1 Gozdzik - they have no AAMG.

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

AA systems (beginning):

040 Loara SPAAG - still there exist only 1 or 2 vehicles... very rare, though might be used in combat. Radio code should be 3 - it rather won't be numerous by 2020. It should have some SD (now:0 - it has 12 tubes). Speed is officially given as 60 km/h (now: 23). Date is OK.

041 BTR-40A - there's no evidence, that this variant was used in Poland (not a mention in Magnuski's book, nor a photo of a Polish vehicle). Personally, I'd remove it. At least its availability should be limited to 1955-1979 (BTR-40 were bought in 1955, for sure they weren't used since the 1980s) (now: 1/53-12/105).
Needs change of formations nos 4, 18 - earliest unit should be #042

Speaking of SPAA guns:
415 GAZ-AAMG - there's no sign of such vehicles, nor quadruple Maxims used in Poland. Personally, I'd remove it. Its weapon would be also useless.

It might be replaced with new unit M17 - variant of US M16 MGMC shipped to the USSR. Not a common vehicle, though - some 16 were left after the war. The question is, how long they were combat worthy, and how much ammo they had. I'd say, some 1949, maximum 1952 would be a good ending date. It is known, that they were used until late 50s, but in a pure APC role.
It would need separate formations, with a gap before unit 042.

By the way: #399 ZSU M-16 in the Russian OOB should be in fact renamed M-17, since original M-16s weren't shipped to the USSR.

042 ZSU-57-2 - date 1/59 is OK

043 ZSU-23-4 Szylka - still used, probably until 1/115 at least (now: 12/105) (start 1/68 is OK)

044 SA-8a Gecko - proper name is Osa-AK. It should have 6 missiles (now 4). Used from 1980 only [Polish Military Equipment] until 1/120 (now: 1/76-12/110) (according to other sources, used even from 1981 or 1984). Icon should be 1849 - it was a variant with 6 containers.

045 SA-9 Gaskin - should be named Strzala-1 (or Strela-1 - Soviet name) or 9K31 Strzala-1. Used until some 1997 at best - not present in Polish Military Equipment book from 1998 (now: 12/104).

046 SA-13 Gopher - should be named Strzala-10M (or Soviet name Strela-10M). Used from 1982 [Pol.Mil.Equip.] (1/80) (according to other sources, even from 1988). Should be very rare - only 4 vehicles used. According to Raport 6/2000, they were to be withdrawn in 2000 (now 12/104).

047 SA-2 Guideline - proper name is SA-75 Dwina (or Soviet SA-75 Dvina). Used from 9/1959 - http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autor...75wolchow.html (first 2) - more realistic date 1/60 (now 1/57 - their production was only starting in 1957 in USSR).
Needs change of formation 20, as the earliest unit.

048 SA-3 Goa - proper name is S-125 Newa. Introduced in 1969 (1 for training) or 1970 (operational) - http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/pzr_s125m.html (now 1/63). Initially twin launchers were used only (until late 1970s).

Quadruple launchers appeared with S-125M Newa, from mid-70s only (probably 1973 - same source) - there should be made two units. Initial twin launchers and quadruple from mid-70s concern all countries - S-125M was commissioned in the USSR in 1971.

049 SA-4 Ganef - proper name is 2K11 Krug. Date is OK.

050 SA-6 Gainful - proper name is 2K12 Kub. Used from 1974 only (now 1/73) - http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autor...ata_59_85.html

...

060 SA-13 Strela-10 - to be removed - they were withdrawn before 2005 [Raport 6/2000] (now 1/105) - see unit #46

061 SA-2 Guideline - proper name of later variant is S-75M Wolchow. Used from 1964 [http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autorze/eksport_pzr.html and Polish Military Equipment] (now 1/84) until 2001 (now 1/97).
The only difference from the unit 047 is better radar 110, but Russian S-75 Volkhov, available from 1/62, has 105. In fact, it should have more improvements over SA-75, but I'm not going to twiddle with it, at least this year...

...

074, 076 SA-5 Gammon - proper name is S-200 Wega (or Russian Vega). Very rare - only two units near the seaside (maybe radio code 3). Delivered in late 86, operational from 1987 (http://infowsparcie.net/wria/o_autor...ata_59_85.html - now 1/86)

Regards,
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

AFVs to trucks

051 BTR-40 (Gun APC) - should be used until some 1965 (now: 12/60) (especially, that BRDM-1 should be available from 1963 and it would make a gap)

052 BRDM-1 (Gun APC) - 12.7 mm MG wasn't used in Poland on BRDM-1 (according to Zaloga, only some Soviet BRDMs were armed this way). It's never seen on photos of Polish vehicles. The only armament should be SGMT (correctly named SGMB - for all countries).
Better name is just BRDM (there were names BRDM and BRDM-2), but BRDM-1 could be. Used from 1963 (now: 1/61) [Poligon 3/2010]

053 BRDM-2 (Gun APC) - used from 1966 until now - 1/115 at least (now: 1/67-12/105) [Poligon 3/2010].
Soviet BRDM-2s in that period (#698, 699) have vision 15 (this one 20). In fact, it has no night gun sights at all [confirmed in Raport 9/2010].

054 OT-62 - proper name in Polish service is TOPAS. Speed in fact is 60 km/h (now 18), it could carry 16 men (112).
In fact, it carried no fixed weapons, only troop section's PK LMG, but this is relatively minor issue (now: SGMT AAMG).

They were used only by the 7th Naval Landing Division, not as ordinary APC, so maybe it should be class Heavy Amphib, like units #417 and #703. Used from 1963 (now 1/64) [Poligon 5/2010] until some 1991 (now 12/96 - definitely not that long). Better pic is 29091 (11057 is probably BTR-50, mirrored in addition)

All formations using APC (track) should start with BWP-1 (BMP-1) only (1/73), and earlier ones should be deleted. There were no tracked APC in Poland before BWP, apart from landing units, mentioned above. There could be created separate naval infantry formations in 1963-1991, with Heavy amphibs.

055 SKOT-2A - used as APC only until some 1991 (now: 12/104 - definitely not that long).

056 BTR-152- in bigger number used only from 1955 (now: 1/52) (there were only 6 in 12/54) [Poligon 3/2010]. Weapon used was actually #53 SGMT AAMG.

All formations using APC (wheel) should be available in 1955-1991 only.

057 BTR-50PK - Poland never used BTR-50s - to be removed.

058 OT-65 FUG (Gun APC) - proper name in Poland was just FUG or FUG D422 (OT-65 was Czechoslovak designation). Used from 1963 until some 1985 only (now: 1/66-12/95) [Poligon 3/2010]. It carried no fixed armament - only could carry crew's LMG. A second one should be added as a Scout vehicle? (like BRDMs)

059 BTR-152K - "hardtop" variant, used in Poland in small number, from late 50s, say 1959 (now 1/55 - it was produced in the USSR from 1957 only). Radio code should be 1. Armament should be SGMT or PKT AAMG.

...

062 BTR-50P - Poland never used BTR-50s. To be removed.

063 MT-LB (prime mover) - Poland definitely never used MT-LB as a prime mover - only in several special variants. To be removed IMO or changed to something else.

Apart from numerous prototypes, only 5 types of vehicles on MT-LB base were used in Poland in any significant numbers:
- WPT Mors (ARRV, which doesn't seem relevant to the game),
- TRI Hors (engineers' recce vehicle, which I'll describe later)
- TI Durian (engineers' carrier, which I'll describe later)
- basic vehicle for drivers' training
- different command and control vehicles

064 BWP-1 - should carry only 4 missiles.

065 BWP-1 - it should have the same 9M14 missiles as above, not semi-automatic 9M14P. There weren't modified in any way, especially in 1999 (the missiles would be obsolete anyway at that time). With correct missiles, the only difference from the unit above is radio and camouflage (introduced around 1990).

066 Heavy Truck - much better picture is 29169 (KrAZ truck) (Poland didn't use 2-axle heavy truck like 11067)

067 ZIS - better - more universal name seems ZiS/ZiL 6x6 or ZiS/ZiL truck (covering models 151, 157, 133). ZiS 151 production started only in 1948 (1/46). If it's ZiL, ending date could be late 80s. (12/59)

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I hope there's a "Part 2" to that last post.......


Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Would you like all APCs etc at once, or units in order?

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Well, if I'm going to make changes it helps to have one chunk at a time that ties up loose ends. If the info comes over two or three days that's fine but as it stands now the end dates for wheeled APC's is undetermined .... you say 1991 but I have units that go to 2004 and that means either starting 1/92 or 1/2005 the motorized engineers are walking to work so if somethings a work in progress tell me it's a WIP and I'll wait for part 2

Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

So, here we continue with APC (Wheel)

438 BTR-152K - it's meant to be older APC with radio code 3 in a period after introduction of SKOT (from 1/65). However, hardtop 152K apparently wasn't numerous variant in Poland (I've seen only one photo, of drivers' training vehicle) and basic open-top BTR-152 would be still more probable. Anyway, they were used in that role not later, than until end of 70s (now 12/90).

565 SKOT-2 - open turret-like mounting suggests, that it had AAMG, not TMG (the following unit with similar turret type has AAMG). According to part of sources, it was #53 SGMB AAMG, not PKT.
It was not numerous transitional version, used as APC probably only until end of 60s, possibly even converted to DShK variants (below) by 1966 (now: until 12/90 - definitely not that long)

566 SKOT-2 - books claim, that DShK mounting was introduced after 7.62mm version (above) - 1/65 would be realistic (now 1/64). It was a temporary measure and not numerous model and was replaced by a turreted version - I'd say, until mid-70s (now 12/90).

567 SKOT-2A - turreted version was produced and used only from 1967 [Poligon 3/2010 and a Czech book on Skot] (now: 1/64). It could carry only 10 soldiers (like unit #55) (now 115)

055 SKOT-2A represents later entry with radio 91. It should rather be 90 - in spite of introduction of SKOT-2AP in 1972, SKOT-2A remained most numerous version. In fact, there's no reason for two separate units #55 and 567, if not a better radio chance in 55...

568 SKOT-2AP - SKOT as APC was used only until some 1991 (now 12/104) - wheeled APC were withdrawn during reductions of army in 1990-1991 years, following Cold War's end.

572 KTO Rys - despite numerous prototypes, it was bought by the Polish Army only in medevac variant. Usage of Rys as APC in the future is highly improbable. (Rys aka Lynx is a Polish proposal of deep modernization of SKOT, with 70% new parts)

574 SKOT-2A AT-3 - variant with Malutka missiles, available in the game in 72-73. It was under development in early 1970s. J.Kajetanowicz wrote, that "it wasn't adopted on larger scale and only a small number were given to the army". Photos of such vehicles are in fact known only from one parade. According however to a Polish article on Skots in Model 4/2000 magazine, the missiles on racks weren't operational, turrets had no internal equipment for firing missiles, and "according to witnesses, electric wires were just hanging inside turrets", and they were dismounted afterwards. To be removed IMO.


For a longer time than APC there were used (or still are) unarmed command radio variants of SKOT, but I think it's no use to add one?

I suggest to create separate variants of SKOT and BTR-152 for engineers and AT platoons, for example class 251 APC.
- BTR-152 could be used in 1955-1975
- SKOT could be used in 1968- some 1997 (1968 was a date of adoption of SKOT-Art for ATGM and artillery, the engineer version appeared several years after). In fact it was unarmed - possibly only had a provision for PK LMG mounting, if the troops carried one...

There should be created engineer's carrier TI Durian in the same class, based upon MT-LB, armed with NSVT AAMG, SD (8 tubes), used from around 1997 until 2020 (move class: track), speed 60 km/h, carry 109. It should swim a bit faster, than MT-LB thanks to hydrojets. It could replace one of MT-LBs.

I wonder, if a plain truck shouldn't be put in the same class, which is probably most numerous engineers' vehicle at present...


Purge of Class APC (track):

407 MT-LB-23M Krak - single prototype from early 1990s, abandoned.
(I've seen it on that MSPO defence industry salon, where this photo was taken...)

416 OT-62 AP - variant with single 14.5mm KPV TMG was definitely not used by Poland (I don't know, if it existed at all)

422 MT-LB-WAT - this is probably supposed to be a variant with SKOT-2AP turret from late 80s, existing in one prototype. Never used.

440 BWP-2 (BMP-2) - used from only 1/89 (now: 1/80) [Poligon 3/2010]. It carries only 4 missiles (like in Russian OOB). We have identical unit 676 available from 1/89 - one of these could be removed.

441 PT-8 - I've never heard about such vehicle. There's no mention on it in available sources, quoted before. Internet doesn't help either. The photo shows some roofless modification of T-34. If it existed, it sure wasn't used in the Polish army in 1954-1965 in any noticeable number.

504 BWP-2000 - didn't go beyond prototype stage, abandoned long ago.

670 M113GA1 - a batch of M113GA1 were acquired from Germany with Leopard tank regiment, used only as medevac and support vehicles. Not used as APC.

676 BWP-2 - duplicate of 440. (with correct first date though)

677 BWP-1M Puma - despite many talks and demonstrators during last 20 years, BWP-1s didn't undergo any serious modernization, and it's becoming doubtful. Polish Puma program itself was cancelled in 2009 http://www.altair.com.pl/start-3598

678 BWP-1M Puma+,
679 Puma RCWS-30 - as above.

Some BWP-1s are being fitted with passive sights and better radios during refits in 2000s, so maybe one of them should be replaced with plain BWP-1 with vision 30, radio 90, available from, say, 2000.

BTW: speed of 064 and 065 BWP-1 should be only 22 (now 24), like in Russian OOB.

PS: sorry for adding much work with formations, but there were really no tracked APC in Poland before BWP-1 (not counting special purpose Topas for landing units only).

Regards,
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Speaking of class 251 APC - the only unit:

457 Rys M-98 - as I've indicated above, Ryś mortar carrier remained a prototype and it seems, that Ryś family (sadly) has no future. 98mm mortars are carried by Humvees or trucks.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I'm wondering, what will be better:
1 - to create new units BTR-152, SKOT (unarmed), TOPAS and TI Durian under one common class to carry RCL guns, mortars, ATGM, engineers, Inf. SAM - which will need only one common formation for each of these weapons/teams, or:

2 - to use ordinary APCs to carry these things. There won't be needed duplicate units of different class, but there will be needed separate formations for APC (wheel), Heavy Amphib and whatever class TI Durian will have.
A drawback of such variant is, that in fact SKOTs used for carrying support weapons or engineers were unarmed, unlike APCs.

Now we have formations concerned: 214 (APC(W) with RCL), 215 (APC(W) with guns), 226, 228, 251 (APC(W) with ATGM), 227, 229 (APC(T) with ATGM), 241 (APC(T) with Inf.SAM), 250 (APC(W) with RCL and ATGM). Maybe I skipped something.

Usage:

SKOT was used to carry RCL guns, ATGM, mortars, engineers, most probably also Strela teams. In these roles it would be used until no later, than 1991, maybe even no later, than 1990 - apart from engineer carriers (until some 1996/97).
Earlier these roles were fulfilled by BTR-152, plus it could tow guns.

TOPAS could carry 2 mortars 82mm. I assume, that it carried also Strela, ATGMS and engineers in landing units (what other vehicle could do it in landing units?) - until no later, than 1995.

TI Durian can carry engineers - from some 1997

BWP-1 is probably used to carry Strela, I don't know how about ATGM (a former soldier suggested to me, that portable ATGMs were used by mountain or airborne troops rather, since each BWP-1 was fitted with own ATGM launcher).

As for now, I leave Rosomak apart - which could be included as well, but only from 2005 (basic unarmed version - not IFV - carries ATGM, probably also Inf.SAM).
BTW, I wonder if MRV classes for Rosomaks are correct - why not just APC(W)? (like US Strykers for example)


By the way, some date corrections of what I wrote above:

054 OT-62 (TOPAS) - according to vague sources, they were kept as long, as 1994-95, when former landing units were finally dissolved (now: 12/96). I wrote some 1991, but 1995 seems a better date as for now.
There are problems with ending dates of most units, since they are usually not given clearly in publications, so it's often based upon best knowledge, but liable to be changed, when better data are found.

058 OT-65 FUG - I've found other, more reliable starting year: 1965 (now 1/66, I wrote 1963 - a previously used source mentioned FUG together with BRDM-1 from 1963, while this year the production was only starting in Hungary).

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Which proves the point about the utter futility of doing this over and over and over as new "vague sources" are found. The two years from now somebody else comes along and their new "source" says it should be 1996 again.

There's a fine line between accuracy and obsessiveness. I want to encourage error reporting but I want to DISCOURAGE obsessing over details like this.

If you have info that shows we have the date running to 2020 and it went OOS 2005 then I want to know about it but don't concern yourself too much with a year here or that becasue AS YOU HAVE ALREADY PROVED.....sources differ and with much of this stuff hard info is hard to find and a lot of these "experts" are just guessing too.

Don

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I understand your point. I agree, that 1995 or 1996 for a withdrawal date isn't much difference indeed, but in this case it is sure, that all units, that used Topas were disbanded in 1995 or before.
By "vague sources" I meant in this case article in Polish Wikipedia with a statement, that the 7th Coastal Defence Brigade was disbanded in 1995 due to reaching exploitation limits of Topas and PT-76. It would suggest, that they were used until the brigade's end; unfortunately, with no reference to support it. According to other articles, in 1994 there were disbanded most (if not all) brigade's battalions.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

I've found, that in 2009 Polish MoD ordered a batch of HE ammunition, what would need also slight FCS modification. According to a Polish military magazine http://polska-zbrojna.pl/index.php?o...owe&Itemid=165 there was a meeting in November 2011 between tankers and ammunition designers and producers, to prepare putting the ammo into service. Chief of training of the 10th Brigade claimed, that "probably soon" HE ammunition will be commissioned.

So, I suggest to keep #022 with VIRSS but without HE (from 1/106, as it is now, though I don't know, when actually Polish Leos received VIRSS) and #023 from some 6/112 with HE but without Lahat.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

Going farther, Inf-RR, Inf-AT, Inf-ATGM and misc. guns:

068 B10 Recoilless (inf-RR) - according to sources, used in Poland from mid-1950s (1/55 is quite likely) until 1980s at best (now: 1/50-12/99. 1/50 is impossible, since it was accepted by the Soviets in 1954). It was gradually replaced with SPG-9 and I'd say, that latest date of B-10 in units should be no later, than 12/79 - definitely not after 1989. Secondary weapons should be SMG (eg. 006) instead of rifle. Better picture IMO is 29396.

In 1994 it was reported as withdrawn - although they are apparently still kept in warehouses, and 4 were sold in 2009 to Afghanistan!

373 SPG-82 RR - there's no sign that such weapon was ever used in Poland.

First date of formations 79 and 214 should be changed according to unit #68 (1/55 also corresponds with an introduction of BTR-152).


069 B11 Recoilless - better pic is 29442 or 29397.

070 SPG9 Recoilless - used from 1968 (now 1/71) (http://www.militarium.net/viewart.php?aid=137 , other written sources confirm "late 60s"). Still in limited service, possibly until 120 (now 12/94).
Basic version should have vision 0 - there was other version SPG-9N with night sights (it could be created as a new unit). Better secondary weapon is newer 029 rifle. According to Polish sources, standard crew is 4 men (3).

071 RPG-7 - standard ammo load is 5, like in Russian OOB (8) (or is it for more fun?).

In fact, early RPG-7 used PG-7V round with 260mm penetration, then RPG-7V introduced PG-7VM round with 300-330mm penetration in 1969 (in Poland since 1972). A round with 500mm penetration is PG-7VL (apparently still fired from RPG-7V), in Russia since 1977. There is however no sign, that Poland used anything more advanced, than PG-7VM with 330mm penetration, produced in Poland and still being a main infantry AT weapon (dates from article in Polish http://www.militarium.net/viewart.php?aid=440 ).

Speaking of RPG-7:
169, 212 RPG-7V Team - there's no sign of usage of PG-7VL rounds with 500 penetration. Unit 169 differs from 212 only in having too much ammo.

If we change unit 71 and its weapon to standard early RPG-7 with penetration 260mm, then unit 169 and its weapon could be changed to standard RPG-7V with 330mm penetration, available from 1972 until 120.
The other may be armed with weapon 152 RPG-7MT - Polish tandem Heat round, ready for production in 2007, but with unclear status. Weapon's class however should be changed to multi-charge Heat.

073 Fagot ATGM - used only from 1979 (1/76) [nTW 3/2005], until some 115-120 (1/90) - next unit has a different rifle, but AKMS rifles rather won't be wiped out soon.
For 4 missiles and launcher there was required 3-men crew (now 2 men) (according to Soviet sources, some 26 kg launcher and 13 kg each missile).

075 Spike ATGM - crew is 3 (2) [Polish MoD page http://www.wp.mil.pl/pl/strona/205/LG_59_150/ ] (it sure is needed to carry launcher and 4 missiles)

215 Factoria ATGM - development of Fagot, definitely not used in Poland.

287 Fagot ATGM - 3-men crew (see unit 73).

288 Fagot ATGM - 3-men crew (as above). Most probably will be used until 120 (115).

488 Malutka-2 ATGM - Malutka-2 was a Russian recent export proposal with twin Heat, definitely not bought by Poland. This unit should be in fact ordinary Malutka ATGM. Its weapon should be just normal #145 Malutka - #155 Malutka-P is a semi-automatic version for SP-launchers (it can be used from ordinary launchers, but in manual mode, without increased accuracy). It should be available from 105 (now 1/99) (after unit #72) until not later, than 115 (now 120). Radio should be 91 or even 93 - totally obsolete now.

561 Factoria ATGM - development of Fagot, definitely not used in Poland.

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB 5.5
 

OK Michal, let's review what you wrote

The B10 Recoilless was:

a/ Used."until 1980s at best "

b/ "should be no later, than 12/79 "

c/ "definitely not after 1989"

d/ "In 1994 it was reported as withdrawn - although they are apparently still kept in warehouses"


Would you like another chance to make that MORE confusing and inconsistent ? :)

To recap what you have told me--- It should be taken OOS in 1979 but it was used until the 80's but no later than 1989 but it was listed as officially withdrawn in 1994 but they are being kept in warehouses and some have been sold.

FYI...they now exist in the OOB until 1989 or until you can come up with information that doesn't contradict itself 5 times

<snip>



Yes we know about the early round. If you look at the OOB's the early RPG-7 round does not exist anywhere because that conserved unit and weapons slots in the Russian OOB that were and are in very short supply and , like the Panzerfausts in SPWW2 that have been blended into one so the stock "RPG-7" is represented as the 330mm penetration version in all OOB's. It only served for a short time before the improved version and this saved a lot of unit slots in a lot of OOB's and we didn't think the added penetration earlier made a whole lot of difference in the game so it's an amalgamation


Don