The FASTBOAT Patch page.

[DRG]

The change to the Ariete gets rid of a number of speculative versions and it gets an icon upgrade


The old turret was about 18 inches ( RL ) too short. 10 years ago I didn't have a good top view to scale from

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Very well done! What I also like is how you "captured" that unusual leading edge on the frontal arc with that "design" on it.

Pictures from Military-Today site for illustration purposes...


Much improved over current one. Thanks!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I wish to confirm the following "work" issue...
X-Country has both an APC/IFV and MBT with a SURVIVABILTY of 5.

So X-Country will be deploying said equipment above to an IED/Mine environment and decided to add Steel Armor (Plates etc.) to the "bellies" of those units deploying.

Using "KISS", is it safe to assume, that the SURVIVABILTY would increased to 6?

That's my thinking anyway. Just wanting to establish some "groundwork" is all.

Regards,
Pat

[Karagin]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

I wish to confirm the following "work" issue...
X-Country has both an APC/IFV and MBT with a SURVIVABILTY of 5.

So X-Country will be deploying said equipment above to an IED/Mine environment and decided to add Steel Armor (Plates etc.) to the "bellies" of those units deploying.

Using "KISS", is it safe to assume, that the SURVIVABILTY would increased to 6?

That's my thinking anyway. Just wanting to establish some "groundwork" is all.

Regards,
Pat

Having been in Iraq during 03/04 with welded add-on armor aka the Mad Max stuff, I am not sure if it would increase things or not. Not saying it wouldn't raise the survivability but how much is going to be added? Are we talking belly armor only or the whole vehicle?

If it's just the belly then sure I could see it going up to 6 as needed but only for the scenario not as a production run thing, unless that becomes something that is done at the factory.

We learned the hard way the soft vehicles like PLSs and HMMVs etc...need armor. What we got post-welded plate was TARDAC kits of limited ballistic glass and door armor with some armor under the driver and TC sides of the vehicle. Then came the other thins like up-armored 1151s and 1152s.

So if it's for a scenario, I say yes it would, but not for a final run thing.

[DRG]

6 will allow the vehicle and the crew a better chance of surviving over a 5 and a 7 makes the vehicle an MRV

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Thanks! I just wanted to verify no other "variables" came into play and that it was just simple "KISS" involved issue.

Of course I do look at STANAG stats for a given vehicle when the issue pops up.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Lots going on with our house, our Grand Daughter Graduating H.S. (AWESOME!! and with honors!!) which means I'll be "dark for 2 weeks" (And no work!! ) soon and finally trying to get MANY things done in here, so PLEASE, Thread rules apply here. THANK YOU!!

Concerning German OOB work, specifically GTK BOXER. The current weapons systems are the FLW-100 and FLW-200.

Issue: The FLW-100 has a known "BLIND SPOT" on for GTK BOXER caused by a design flaw in the RWS Pedestal Mount. It sits too low.

The fix came with the FLW-200 with a taller Pedestal mount and some other minor improvements.

Both are still in service.

My intended fix is to use a distinction between the two by penalizing the FLW-100 in it's TI/GSR.

Though I can easily justify TI/GSR 60 for both, for now I'm thinking FLW-100 TI/GSR 45 and FLW-200 TI/GSR 50.

If your good with FLW-200 @ TI/GSR 60, I'll make the corresponding change to the other as demonstrated above. Again I can easily support this.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Here's my thinking concerning BOXER FLW-100/200 (And investigating use of FLW-200 Plus w/Dual fed 20mm HE/AP mixed ammo load.)

GTK BOXER A0: Armed with early version FLW-100 12.7mm or 40mm/GSR 40./SURVIBILITY 5

GTK BOXER A1: Armed with improved FLW-100 same weapons/GSR 45/SURVIBILITY 6 & 7. The A1 when they deployed to Afghanistan were fitted by KMW with "belly armor" steel plate (Not in the field.), which will mean 2 additional units, 4 total for the A1 version.

GTK BOXER A2: Armed with improved FLW-200 and as noted above, the FLW-200 Plus./GSR 50/SURVIBILITY 7. Current improved variant, based on "lessons learned" from the BOXER AO/A1 previous deployments to Afghanistan.

1. I'm seeing the addition of up to 6 more BOXERS.

2. There will be date changes to the right for the existing in game units outside of our "Wag", for everyone else, that's 6 months when we have conflicting dates. That being said, these are again driven by when the Training unit first got their FIRST one OR when the combat unit got their FIRST one.

3. I suspect there'll be other modifications as well.

4. From the BUNDESWEHR website, I'll be submitting around 3-5 new combat vehicles NOT currently in the OOB.

5. Some explanation in my last Posts in here on BOXER, I felt that GSR 60 was a legitimate number for the FLW-200 weapon system. After some thought and just reaching a decision earlier today, I decided against it. Why? Rightly or wrongly, that's because that's where our most modern/newest tanks in or about to be in are currently in the game.

I might be corrected on this notion, but I generally see the newest APC/IFV at (At their upper limit #) GSR 50/55 (w/ATGW). HEAVY IFV GSR 55/60 these are normally your "tank killers" with same for all wheeled or tracked "tanks". AH Helos GSR 70. This if you consider ALL aspects of the running game environment and internal operating systems (Mostly Game Code.)

6. I finally with this "sign of life" would ask that PLEASE DO NOT GET AHEAD OF ME ON THIS. I already know, I need to modify the tanks as submitted in the last Patch.

7. This will almost or be in the same vain, be similar to TURKEY, INDIA, MALAYSIA, INDONESIA AND USA/USMC in scope.

However the big difference is at least I knew it was coming. unlike above, it was more a matter of a piece(s) of equipment causing me to go down the rabbit hole in the above countries i.e. M1A1 FEP, LEOPARD 2T (DOA to ALTAY) etc.

All legitimate issues that however, all required "looking back to look forward" I think most know what I mean here.

Time for my WALK!!!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

HOUSE RULES STILL APPLY HERE! IF UNSURE I REFER YOU TO POST #1 Para 1. THANK YOU!!

THIS AS MUCH FOR MY FUTURE TRACKING PURPOSES AS IT IS FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE. As I've already noted some work here.

This does clear up a couple of questions in my head mainly what equipment are the Ukrainian forces training on both Germany and UK? The answer appears to the Heavy Artillery (100 Panzerhaubitze PzH 2000 155mm tracked self-propelled howitzers & AS90 155mm tracked self-propelled howitzers) those countries are providing.

Just thinking "out loud" here wonder if any Ukrainian personnel are learning on the German LEO 1A4/5 or GEPARD. Time will tell.

Also note, not that I ever read anything before I post it, the first UK date should read as February vice March.

U.S. 121 "Phoenix Ghost" unmanned aerial systems, they were originally designed for the USAF sometime before the war and have been modified "slightly" to support Ukrainian operations. As effective as the "Switchblade" has been against heavy armor, it's been "suggested" the "Phoenix Ghost" might more so.
https://fortune.com/2022/04/22/phoen...a-ukraine-war/
https://www.flightglobal.com/militar...431965f1bf988c

The article:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukra...o_ukraine.html

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

I will begin to wade through this later this week........