WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Since v13 is scheduled to be the last upgrade for WinSPMBT I figured we could use a thread for ONLY OOB corrections/fixes.

DO NOT POST QUESTIONS OR START DISCUSSIONS IN THIS THREAD

Let this be the place to quickly, and easily find OOB updates.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

OOB#13 USMC

Unit# 141 F/A-18C Hornet - Radio=90
Unit# 216 F/A-18A+ Hornet - Weapon#2 213 HE=2
Unit# 574 F-35B Ltng II - Dates 07/118-12/125
Unit# 585 F-35B Ltng II - EW=10

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

OOB#13 USMC

WEAPONS
Weapon# 086 M27 ACOG - HE Kill=3

UNITS
Unit# 172 AH-1Z Viper - EW=9
Unit# 173 AH-1Z Viper - EW=9
Unit# 192 AH-1Z Viper - EW=9, Weapon#2 AP=12, Weapon#4 0 HE=0
Unit# 661 M-ATV SF Gat - Weapon#1 HE=36 AP=9 , ROF 9
Unit# 668 L-ATV SF Gat - Weapon#1 HE=36 AP=9
Unit# 964 Polaris MRZR - Crew=1, Radio=0

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Unit# 964 Polaris MRZR - Crew=1, Radio=0 :doh:

There is ONE unit in that unitclass so there is only ONE unit that can be picked so that the unit is set up as 90, 91, 92 or even 93 is irrelevant...... unless you are suggesting it should not have a radio at all which in that case we have a :doh::doh:.... of course a modern Marine unit would have radio communication.

Radio codes are only used for AI picks to ensure a unit is not picked by the AI excessively so in some cases units are given restrictive X1 codes just so they are not picked over and over simply becasue of the way the AI runs through the list to select a unit and in some cases they are given 92 so they DO get picked more often so it's a game design issue which in this case is a non - issue as it's the ONLY unit available.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

I'm sure the passengers in the MRZR have the typical squad/platoon comm systems. But that's the passengers, it doesn't have built-in comm ... it also makes the unit cheaper :D
( Also it makes it impossible to use the unit as a cheap FO. )

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

OOB#13 USMC

UNITS
Unit# 489 PB Mk.IV - Dates 1/89-8/115

Unit# 539 PB Mk.VI SOC - Rename "PB Mk.VI"
Carry=113
Speed=26
Weapon#2 145 HE=120 AP=0
Weapon#3 145 HE=120 AP=0

Unit# 524 (NEW UNIT Copy Unit# 539)
Unit Class=197
Weapon#4 125 HE=72 AP=27

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Done

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

While you are playing about with the boats...... I cannot find any info at all on unit 488 (SPB Mk.III) it uses the same photo as the PBR Mk.II. Googling "SPB Mk.III" or just "SPB" retrieves nothing worthwhile

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_sc_pbr3.htm

lists a PBR Mk III in service 1968 - 1973 but that date may be manufacturing they do say there was some "discarding" of those boats in the late 1980's which would kinds-sorta fit with the date range for U488 now so this may just be a mistype.....PBR / SPB.....IDK but I do know when we released the Windows version of the game U488 was a PBR Mk.II. That said another source says PBR's were only made as Mk I and Mk II.........don'tcha just love OOB work.....?

https://www.militarymachinesofameric...ver--pbr-.html

* turn your sound on when you check that webpage :)....... I hadn't heard Fortunate Son in ages

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

The US Navy really wasn't all that interested in patrolling rivers, they felt it was the US Armies problem. But, when you get orders you say "Aye, aye, Sir!"

The first attempt (the PBR I, Aug 1965) was just civilian pleasure boat with guns. The Mk II (1967) was a slightly upgraded version of the Mk I. All Mk Is and all but 27 Mk IIs were transferred to Vietnam in 1973.

The PBR Mk III was developed in 1979 and featured an aluminum (vice fiberglass) hull and replaced the twin 50s of the Mk I & II with a 40mm.
http://www.warboats.org/mk3.htm

There is CONSIDERABLE confusion regarding the PBR Mk IV (or Mk VI depending on how you look at it). The US Navy replaced the "Patrol Boat River" with the "Patrol Craft Fast" (and re-designated existing PBRs to PCFs) in 1994. One's and two's of various designs were obtained (and evaluated), but there really was no "standard" Mk VI. Their primary function was SEAL support, but were used for riverine operations as well. SEALs traveled on any form of surface transport available, often resorting to taping lawn furniture to the deck of the available craft.

In 1995 the Navy adopted the "Special Operations Craft Mk V" which was specifically designed for SpecOps/SEAL support. These boats have a VERY limited patrol duration and they were intended as ship-to-shore transports not "Patrol Boats".

In 2014 the "Patrol Boat Mk VI" (A.K.A. the "SAFE Boat Mk VI") was adopted with a 5-day patrol duration and can be configured for either patrol duties or SEAL insertion.

So there was "officially" no PBR Mk IV. The "Patrol Boat Mk IV or VI" is "officially" the 4th in the series but it's also the 6th. As the "SOC Mk V" isn't "officially" a "Patrol Boat".

Confused yet?

And on that topic ...

Unit# 488 SPB Mk.III:
Weapon#1 57 HE=64 AP=16
Weapon#2 55 HE=90 AP=0

Use any LMB and Icon you like as these are non-standard boats.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

This might help from the guys that rode them. Also any drawings or pictures can be clicked on and enlarged. Further bottom right pictures of ref 1 show PB MK III in additional weapons config. it appears in the drawings, they show the "standard" weapons config.
http://warboats.org/mk3.htm
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-...15ef?zoom=true
https://picryl.com/media/a-starboard...at-unit-e4105e

As of 2015 the PB MK VI is the "standard bearer" for the USN.
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_d...&tid=2600&ct=4
https://www.naval-technology.com/pro...-patrol-boats/
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...4818&FORM=VIRE

Here's the main website for "warboats" above...
http://www.warboats.org/
http://www.warboats.org/vietnamboats.htm

In my current capacity I'm still qualified as a "Coxswain" on the 34-foot Dauntless Sea Ark Patrol Boats and for a short time a 40-ft Patrol Boat w/ twin Cummins turbo-charged diesel engines. That baby could "ride the waves" but she was a maintenance bear. We no longer "provide" those services and at times I miss it.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Just did it quickly but it seems "close enough" with the offset bridge

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1567952114

2X normal size

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Always more fun when you're doing the things you really like doing!! ;)

Icon looks good for on the fly, if I tried something like that on the fly or any other time, well, it'd look like a fly alright, a "swatted/splattered" one that is!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

There is a problem with icon 2806 in SPMBT generic P-47D looks that insted of transparent color around aircraft is there ugly gray.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

I will look into this......

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Do you mean this one ?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1569971678

Looks OK to me

Anyone else see this.... look at Iran before 1960 they have them as does the USA before 1955

And in the game..... no grey.....REBOOT your game Błażej

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1569972014

These are all the units in MBT that use that Icon
NationID NationName name slot graphic wintergraphic desertgraphic lbm unitclass
10 Iran P-47D 121 2806 2806 2806 263 44
12 USA P-47N 938 2806 2806 2806 263 44
12 USA P-47N 937 2806 2806 2806 263 44
12 USA P-47N 866 2806 2806 2806 263 223
12 USA P-47N 591 2806 2806 2806 263 44
21 Taiwan P-47D 126 2806 2806 2806 263 44
32 Turkey Republic P-47D 510 2806 2806 2806 263 44
32 Turkey Republic P-47D 509 2806 2806 2806 263 44
34 Italy Republic P-47D 513 2806 2806 2806 263 44
41 Yugoslavia / Serbia Republic P-47D 709 2806 2806 2806 263 44
41 Yugoslavia / Serbia Republic P-47D 710 2806 2806 2806 263 44
41 Yugoslavia / Serbia Republic P-47D 711 2806 2806 2806 263 44
42 Green Grounded Plane 613 2806 2806 2806 263 26
42 Green P-47N 134 2806 2806 2806 263 44
48 Brazil Republic P-47D 910 2806 2806 2806 263 44
48 Brazil Republic P-47D 131 2806 2806 2806 263 44
48 Brazil Republic P-47D 132 2806 2806 2806 263 44
49 Cuba Republic F-47D 157 2806 2806 2806 263 44
59 Chile P-47D 131 2806 2806 2806 263 44
59 Chile P-47D 132 2806 2806 2806 263 44
73 Portugal F47 Thunderbolt 122 2806 2806 2806 263 44
82 Ecuador P-47D 130 2806 2806 2806 263 44
84 Nicaragua P-47N 136 2806 2806 2806 263 44
85 Peru P47 Thunderbolt 132 2806 2806 2806 263 44
85 Peru P47 Thunderbolt 133 2806 2806 2806 263 44
85 Peru P47 Thunderbolt 134 2806 2806 2806 263 44

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Great that you checked that deeply but I found something like this in mobhack. I'm just courius meaby there is some Hue of transparent colour which is interpreted by game as transparent but slighty diffrent by mobhack? You have the same darker gray around P-47 in your mobhack? My mistake is that I don't checked this in game :doh: before reporting so thanks that you done this so well. I stil play on old WinXP I'm courious that mobhack has the same problem on others systems?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1570047808

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

It works fine on other systems I would update all your drivers or as you seem to be having issues your video card might be dying.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Not seen in my copy of Mobhack - running Windows 10.

At least - if that is Cuba - cant read the pixillated photo even if I put my reading glasses on!

Read the Mobhack help on "TransparentColour" - use your browser's search function to find that. It's from the old days when apparently some monitors did not work with the colour, depending on the Windows colour palette chosen. Or if in 16-bit colour mode, choose 32 bit high colour.

But it will only be a problem if all the shapes in Mobhack are showing a similar grey background!. If it is just that shape, something is up with it alone - for your particular monitor settings.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Looks fine to me too.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

and me as well

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1570070794

It is interesting that the background grey on your screenshot is so much darker than what I have been used to seeing in mine for the past few years.....what version of MOBHack is that ? I think your grey is the result of using XP. Are there any other Icons that show that grey square for you ?



I just checked the shp file and that Icon uses the standard pink RGB 255/225/225 all the rest use as the background transparent colour

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1570108961

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

that is new version Mobhack 3.0
and game updated with recent patch in 2019
32bit colour depth Intel Q965 motherboard build in chipset graphics standard Intel chipset drivers

I playing now with transparent color in mobhack and when change transparency to 77 gray is correct and all looks perfect. Then I save OOB in file close program and open mobhack again and I have dark gray like before around icon 2806. What is funny this is only issue whith that one particular icon and only I found this in SPMBT and is in various OOBs looks like by strange combination of OS and meaby graphical driver? but why only with that one icon meaby some small code glith? to be honest have no idea. But from this what you all found propably is related in some way to WinXP and not affecting game at all so more propably something in mobhack code and this icon is in some way special?? Finally if not really afecting game and not on others windows versions is not much worth investigation.

Default colour and look in Mobhack
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1570113276

after changing transparency to 77 looks like should but after restarting mobhack problem comes back
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1570113300

I made small experiment changed transparency colour from 256 to 0 in mhMBT.ini
all icons now looks diffrent but similar haven't a black component but this one with P-47 is really special her behaviour is different all background is now there black so my theory is that from some reason Mobhack works with that icon diferentt than with the rest.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

And as I said in my previous email I checked the background colour and it was exactly what I expected it to be...the same RBG as all the rest and if others had reported the same thing I would agree there is a problem we need to look into but they don't.......why your's acts that way is a mystery but you know how to enter Icons into Shp files so take that one out, save it, reapply the palette then rebuild the SHP file (Icon0052.shp) and see if that changes anything......at my end I see nothing to change

"just for fun....." I checked the MBT MOBHack code for that Icon (5206, -1), // 2806 ) and it is set up EXACTLY as the ones before and after it are.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Try setting your windows colour scheme to a different one, and see if the same thing happens. If it goes away, it may be something in the windows colour scheme you have set - maybe a custom colour? - but why only that one SHP should have a problem I do not know, I would expect all backgrounds to be the strange colour not just the one.

BTW - I just spun up the windows XP virtual machine for Mobhack (Delphi) development, copied all the SHP files and OOBS to be sure they are current and fired up Mobhack - no funny background for the Cuban P-47. Colour set to the maximum for windows XP (32-bit).

So I surmise that the problem is something local to your machine. No idea what it could be, either.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Damned if I know how I misses this one for so long:

Unit# 464 M1A1HC TUSK FEP - Weapon #3 237, Weapon#4 145 HE=90
Unit# 844 M1A1HC TUSK FEP - Weapon#4 145 HE=90

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

It's 463 and 464....there is no 844.

Done

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Sorry ... was looking at my "working" copy not the default OOB.
JUST change 464, leave 463 as is,

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

OOB #13 USMC

Unit# 488 SPB Mk.III - Rename "PBR Mk.III"
Unit# 489 PB Mk.IV - Rename "PCF Mk.IV"
Unit# 539 PB Mk.VI - Rename "PCF Mk.VI"

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Unit# 528 PB Mk.V SOC - Rename "PCF Mk.IV"

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Of topic but interesting

https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-co...ampaign=buffer

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Yup.
People just don't stop to think sometimes. GPS aside some people have been to 29 Palms enough to recognize the location from the background terrain. And this is even more the case if you're fighting in some foreign country that's someone elses backyard.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

I noted that the latest version of M1A1 HC FEP (Unit 465 and similars) in USMC (OOB 13) has better specs (on fire control, 60 vs 55, and penetration values of M256 Gun with 2016 specs) than US (OOB 12) M1A2C/SEP V3 (Unit 537).

Maybe we should improve M1A2C/SEP V3 values, because it has the 2003 version of M256 gun and ammo, I think the correct gun is the M256 16 like the USMC M1A1 HC FEP

Thanks

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

538 is the M1A2 SEP V3-T and it has 60/60 TI/FC AND it has the 2016 version of the gun. You are looking at the wrong unit

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

I explain now the question better, sorry.

I reinstalled the game on my newly formatted notebook and I noted the error when playing a 2025 year scenario.

We have unit 538 M1A2SEP V3 in USA OOB that has the correct specs, and it starts in 2017 stops in 2020.

So we have unit 537 M1A2C, the successor of the SEPV3 now, that in game starts in 2018 and stops in 2025, that has incorrect specs, exactly the same specs as the older unit 517 M1A2SEPv2 that starts in 2012 and stops in 2025.

You can easily compare unit 517, 537 and 538.

I think this is definitely an OOB error during the last update, also internet resources say that M1A2SEP V3 and M1A2C are the same thing, so it can be a free slot (we were discussing the thing last year).

https://www.armyrecognition.com/unit..._11710154.html

https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-i...n-battle-tank/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...2c-tank-111396

https://taskandpurpose.com/m1-abrams-tank-m1a2c

https://www.businessinsider.com/army...m-2019-10?IR=T

I think the Marines are receiving the APS with January 2019 contract

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Glad to know I didn't screw up the various Abrams variants.

It was a bit of a nightmare trying to figure out how the USMC FEP variants differed from the USA A2's (v1 thru v3) compared to each other. To be honest it's 90% "educated" guesswork because little detailed factual data is available on the public record.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

There was talk of putting Trophy on USMC M1A1's.....any info on that ?

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

https://www.leonardodrs.com/news/pre...ed-to-us-army/

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/...ssile-defense/

https://www.dsiac.org/resources/news...ey-and-stryker

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-missiles.html

All the sources say the same: Trophy for both Army and Marines Abrams

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

I KNOW it's been done, the question is how widespread?

I'm of the impression the USMC acquired several Trophy systems but they're not general issue. That is to say those Abrams in Iraq/Afghanistan have them but those in CONUS and afloat do not.

Probably a budget issue, now that the US military budget has increased they'll probably acquire more.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Well, you just got a M1A1HC FEP-T starting 2019 as a RC 91 as an MBT and CS MBT

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

The U.S. Army is still testing the application of the APS system. I've already posted on this issue this past year when I submitted all the ABRAMS issues in the MBT Thread which I'm still working on in putting into the Patch Thread, which now seems to be more important that I get this done by reading these posts.

I guess I should identify what the test bed is to establish a possible timeline when they might be ready. As I already submitted, the MBT in question is the M1A2C (Formally the M1A2 SEP 3) which might reach FOC this Fall (I believe I submitted OCT 2020.) as a best guess.

Because the U.S. Army received around 250 TROPHY units doesn't mean they have them certified for use. There is a high degree of anticipation that they should work without any major configuration or operational modifications needed to support the ABRAMS.
https://news.am/eng/news/498095.html

I DID FIND THIS: "Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems was contracted to add the system to an Armor Brigade Combat Team’s M1A2 SEPv2 at a cost of close to $10 million with an expected completion date by the end of March 2019."
This Brigade of tanks was to prepared for rotational deployment to Europe.

However I haven't been able to find anything yet to support it was installed as noted above at that time or after, this includes whether they where actually deployed with it to Europe.

To the BRADLEY, the IRON FIST system due to budget and minor operational testing issues, is at a minimum months behind schedule in getting the systems installed on those platforms compared the ABRAMS.

The STRYKER program will also be delayed to the fact that the ARMY has decided to evaluate the IRON FIST against a German System. Evaluations starts this Summer I believe.

I provided so many refs even from the Army to show in regards to the ABRAMS in particular, that FOC is generally established when X-number of brigades have them, in other words, at their operational combat strength.

About ABRAMS FEP, when I was asked to look into this (And that started the ball rolling on all things ABRAMS last year.), my biggest issue was the speculation that it included armor improvement plan (Some early refs suggested this possibility.) as well. I can't tell you how many hours I put into just that tank alone sorting through the data. The answer was simple and stared me right in the face ready? USMC A1M1 FEP or Firepower Enhancement Program that is all.
Concerning the APS. when comes to the USMC tanks, those improvements follow the ARMY that funds them.

Taking the last sentence of the above para into account, I feel that the USMC might have a platoon or company testing them due to the unique operating environment they'll be transported in and possibly used.

But I can't find it if that's the case though I didn't do a "deep search" into the matter. However, I'll stake my reputation on the fact I strongly believe the USMC will see TROPHY at near pace to the ARMY's full acceptance of that system. But it did take years to get the FEP upgrades, again of which I had many good official refs to.

It might not be worth much but, I feel we just need let this work itself out when the ARMY says it's fully operational which so far it hasn't done.

The M1A2C once operational will most likely be equipped with TROPHY from the start.

Also I just remembered that the BRADLEY is to be equipped with a smaller version of TROPHY, this was another reason for it's delay.

No permanent change to my normal schedule, just had the "fight course" today. Sixty and "Still Going Strong Baby"!?! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Postscript: This falls in line with what I've posted and have seen taken from the below ref.
"Last year, the Army chose Trophy APS for its Abrams tanks, as did the Marine Corps. The Army expects to equip four armored brigade combat teams by late 2020."

That coincides to the timeline/or date I submitted for the M1A2C/SEP 3 FOC.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...ound-vehicles/

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Add a TUSK and an MCBS, those two are more likely to be the targets of concentrated ATGM fire.

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Pretty much my understanding as well.
The FEP upgrade was NOT an armor upgrade, merely a targeting, fire control, and vision systems upgrade. That said, while they were upgrading the fire control systems they also upgraded any M1A1s that were not already the HC (Heavy Common) variant to that variant. And upgraded all of them to the latest (at the time) HC variant, armor wise.

As to Trophy, yes, some systems were acquired, and deployed in the Mid East, how many I'm unsure, but the USMC didn't have that many tanks over there so probably enough for most, if not all of them. And, yes, it was basically live fire field testing. I wouldn't expect general employment until the US Army adopts them (buy them in bulk via the US Army contract).

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

And before you ask, I copies the armor ratings for the M1A1HC from US Army unit# 886 M1A1 SA which does not have the uranium armor layer (or so I'm led to believe).

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Well with due respect, this answer might be a good news/bad news situation.

The USA has been using DU Armor since 1988 which pretty much covers the operational period of the M1A1. That's the "good news"!

The bad "bad news" possibly, is that your USMC (And I hope to you know who, this doesn't apply to the USA M1A1 MBT's) MBT's armor ratings might be under valued as compared to their Army versions.

The term MIA1 SA is applied as the M1A1 Situational Awareness and that's where that comes in.

The export versions of all models of the ABRAMS DO NOT come with DU armor. Though by example IRAQ got the improved M1A1 SA as well.

It's why the Iraqis had such a hard time killing ours, which he mentions with the stats which I believe was 18 damaged from all reasons and 9 of those were beyond repair.

I also posted about the USA training with the M1A1 SA just up the road from me at Ft. Stewart, Ga. around Mar/Apr timeframe this past year.

This ref. as I've posted often and pointed when it shows up elsewhere is still considered "the go" to ref. for ABRAMS. And it isn't bad for the rest it covers as well. It's well done and well researched which is why it's in my favorites.
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/...ite/abrams.htm
(Look under M1A1 "PROTECTION" section.)
https://www.army.mil/article/17811/a...lt_at_anniston
https://www.businessinsider.com/army...s-tanks-2018-4
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/201...6151522947894/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2EdlLYV6qs
https://www.armyrecognition.com/unit...res_video.html
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...m-more-lethal/
(Last sounds like FEP to me.)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Postscript: Seeing stuff saying the FEP is the top tier tank for the USMC now.

But just happened upon this which about 4 or 5 paras down discusses the differences between the USA and USMC tanks such as the USMC tanks are built with a "deep fording" capability. Could come in handy when "hitting the beach" I would think.
https://www.army.mil/article/1699/ar...o_marine_corps

Anyway I'm beat now and my "bonus" night home won't be wasted, so I'm off to the rack!

Good Night or Good Morning!!

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

The problem is I don't have any solid information concerning the "HC" version of the M1A1, does it have DU or is it the same as the export version which doesn't? I haven't seen anything referring to the export versions as HA, HC, or anything else that leads me to believe they're anything but the latest version of non-DU armor.

On the assumption (I did in a previous post mention "educated guesses") looking at the first M1A1 (1987) and the M1A1(HA) (1989) and the M1A2's from 2010 and 2017 the M1A1 SA sort of split the difference so I went with that. Might be I should have used the 2010 M1A2's armor values (since I assume all US Army M1's a "heavy armor").

*shrugs*

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Alright short and sweet, I gotta get my walk in before work.

1) M1 - Think we're all good here. CHOMBHAM Armor/Same MG as LAST M-60 series but with more advanced ammo.

2) M1A1 - Same armor as above (Slightly improved.)/Performance and "Ride" upgrades and the first to have the 120mm MG.

3) M1A1 HA (Heavy Armor) USA (First to have DU Armor. As used in the Gulf War 1991.), M1A1 HC (Heavy Common) USMC and the M1A1D are the same tank!! This is as the armor values are concerned in the 2002 time period. That time period should fall into the 2nd GEN DU Armor period for the U.S.

In fact the Armor Site even shows them together!!! Why do I even bother posting these refs????? :confused: :p :D

But what I verified is separate from that site.

4) The M1A1 FEP has HC 3rd Gen DU Armor. Match that to it's corresponding USA ABRAMS and you'll get a better handle on where the armor values stand for the M1A1 FEP.

NO POOPEY when I say start your search with the M1A2 SEP.

USMC HC 3rd Gen DU Armor might be a good search point to start from.

I'm walking!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

From what I can see and understand what is in USMC and USA after a couple of minor corrections is good enough. I had added a new additional Abrams Icon for the Trophy versions in all three seasons

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Because like me you're a nit-picker?

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

With FASTBOATs info we have:

Unit# 463 M1A1HC TUSK FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=105/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/14/0/0/14/14/0
Unit# 464 M1A1HC TUSK FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=105/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/14/0/0/14/14/0
Unit# 465 M1A1HC FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=105/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/0/0/0/0/0/0
Unit# 466 M1A1HC FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=105/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/0/0/0/0/0/0
Unit# 467 M1A1HC FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=105/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/0/0/0/0/0/0
Unit# 468 M1A1HC FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=105/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/0/0/0/0/0/0
Unit# 469 M1A1HC MCBS FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=165/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/0/0/0/0/0/0
Unit# 561 M1A1HC MCBS FEP - Armor Steel=65/12/9/90/30/15/8 HEAT=165/69/30/162/52/33/16 Reactive=0/0/0/0/0/0/0

Time to "properly" armor the USMC! (i.e. reduce it)

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Do you have any idea what a PITA it is to read 8 full armour ratings packed together like that???

It's done...........DO NOT change your mind..........

Re: WinSPMBT v13 Corrections
 

Hey!
I was happy with it as was, it's FASTBOATs fault, he's the one that found and linked the data together :D