The FASTBOAT Patch page.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

New advanced Driver THERMAL sight, game enhancement I don't know unless it helps w/target acquisition somehow.

Not likely.

3. New Commanders target/weapons stabilization system. This sounds like a plus to FC?

I am not the greatest living expert about the abrams, but the above sounds like it is talking about the commander MG which is a RWS in some versions. An improvement there should not affect main gun FC, so it does nothing game wise.

SA/ED adds blue force locator and another electronic enhancement that I can't remember at the moment but is given I think in the first ref to cover the USA M1A1 SA/ED.

Again it does not register. You already get blue force locator by default with the game mechanics, even if you are playing with afghan militia circa 1949.

Really, a lot of significant improvements in real life simply mean nothing as far as the game is concerned. Belly armor? It isn't an adjustable parameter. Air conditioning? Cannot be simulated. Lower fuel consumption? Irrilevant. It is a issue of game scope, mechanics etc.

In addition to the above there is a question of economy. Aside from shortage of units slots which make fitting every single Abrams variant and subvariant, and there are quite a few of them (a result of the overlapping of various modernization programs), not practical there is also the issue of worth.
In principle for example I could still have added a small number of additional pages of suggested improvements to the iraqi OOB ground units, but it would have been a case of extra work for diminishing returns, the basics for a decently accurate gameplay having already been covered.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Simply put, I care about armor, sensors and weapons and presenting this information, you can be assured that unlike our congress concerning certain legislation I do read through every ref I provide to pull out the "nuggets" that are real world issues, how that information is integrated into the game is beyond my technical knowledge and I'm sorry for that. The IED and Mine issue is DOA now that Don has explained this to me earlier, however "all around armor protection" means just that, since last I checked RPGs are launched from above ground and not from under it. And finally since it was brought up as well, I could careless about AC, except when it's for 55 days straight here when it was well over a 100 w/the humiture for everyday. But rest assured my computer with the game and every unit in it was very comfortable! Now I have work to do.

Don,
Concerning the LEOPARDS:
1. Leo A4M CAN let's look at it visually:




The Leo A4M CAN pics you have as I've submitted them. It's clear that the Leo A4M CAN is at least upgraded to the Leo A5 standard. However it would seem based on this next official govt. ref I managed to find it could have been upgraded all the way to the Leo A6M CAN level in armor protection. It would also then have the 120mm L55 as well. Please note the
28 March 2009 update.
http://casr.ca/doc-loi-leopard-tank.htm

2. The Turkish Leo A1T Unit 033, have not found anything solid on an armor upgrade, but it would make sense for as long as they've operated them and the huge investment they've made in the "big picture" (For clarification of others.) FC system they just installed on these last year. Maybe a gratis 10% might not be to unreasonable but that's your call. In the mean time I've emailed this question for all their Leo tanks to the following Turkish Govt. ref as given to support the FC issue as submitted already.
http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/Sayfalar/default.aspx

3. Finally on the Turkish Leo 2A4T Unit 039 no information on any further armor upgrades as these tanks were delivered from Germany already to Turkish specs. However again the Aselan FC system was also installed on these as already submitted so the logical conclusion is it was better then what they came with from Germany or else, why bother?

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
A further picture on the Leo A4M CAN for analysis.

Armor yes but based on the angle and parallax I'm thinking 120mm L44 still.

Photo analysis lots of info and something I did while watching our "friends".

Sometimes when a man has nothing else left but his wit, if used properly, it can be a potent weapon. Or not!

Good Night All!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don,
A further picture on the Leo A4M CAN for analysis.
Attachment 10636
Armor yes but based on the angle and parallax I'm thinking 120mm L44 still.

Photo analysis lots of info and something I did while watching our "friends".

Sometimes when a man has nothing else left but his wit, if used properly, it can be a potent weapon. Or not!

Good Night All!

Regards,
Pat

I agree it does look like that may be an L44 but that website you provided ( http://casr.ca/doc-loi-leopard-tank.htm ) does say they are all to be up-gunned to the L55. The angle of the tank does make determining gun length a bit tricky and it's too bad it wasn't taken 20 feet to the right.

In game terms if the 2A4's are upgraded to the 2A6M standard there is no point in having a separate 2a4 because in the game we assume it's going to be fully combat ready not stripped down for training unless there is some kind of difference but that same website does say

At the same time, any reserve Leopard 2 A4+ can be fitted with the extra armour to become a Leopard 2 A6M and, thus, be ready for deployment into any war zone.

If you zoom in on that photo you can see three Leo 2's in the background on the road just under the gun barrel of the tank in the foreground and they are in standard green camo. This one may be a prototype showing what the conversion will turn it into but the gun hasn't been upgraded ( WAG ). What's interesting also is the partial slat armour at the rear rather than the full cage I've seen in photos of the Afghan mission tanks and how it appears to be flush with the forward side skirts which would suggest a significant side hull armour upgrade to the fighting compartment areas

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
I was thinking along the same lines, that is a solid ref, and it had the right numbers also in regards too how many tanks were to be converted over to the Leo 2A4M CAN. I have seen the 20/20 split for the tank in other places between the CAF & Bundeswehr this could be a production issue and maybe a little "tit for tat" since the Leo 2A6M CAN were initially given on loan to the CAF. I do believe as well they are to the Leo 2A6M CAN standard. Some modifications were done to the Leo 2A4M CAN from lessons learned in combat with the Leo 2A6M CAN which is probably what we're seeing. With the Leo 2A6M CAN in the game, like the USA M60A1 R/P unless you have room for the Leo 2A4M CAN in Canada's slots, we can move on until some slots might get cleared later down the line.

Regards,
Pat