MBT's

[Aeraaa]

@FASTBOAT: I cannot recall exactly, but I estimate that out of 42 total Ukrainian tanks knocked out, 3 or 4 were from ATGM hits. All of my 10 losses were from cannon shells, not ATGMs. So ATGM effectiveness can be seen as minimal, which is hardly surprising considering both tanks have very thick composite armor, ERA and active defense systems.

Surprisingly, I believe that I knocked out around 35-40% of the Ukrainian armor by HEAT shells. The main reason is I've managed to hit many tanks to the sides and even rear at one occasion. I have to remind that the fact that I commanded the Russians had a profound impact on the final result. Since I'm quite experienced in the game and can safely say much more competent than the AI, I can use the terrain to my advantage better, create conditions for flanking shots etc. Whenever the two tanks threw punches at each other frontally, it was my estimation that they are altogether equal beasts, with T-84 probably being slightly better (but IMHO the T72 is more cost effective overall).

Regarding ERA, many of my main gun rounds were stopped by the Oplot's ERA. Whether they were HEAT rounds or KE rounds I do not know.

To have a clearer picture I will make two more tests: one in which terrain is wide open (so no behind forest ambushes for me) and one in which I command the Ukrainians.

PS: Yes you got it correct, Leftmost side is the Russian casualties, then Ukrainian casualties, then result (MV marginal victory, DV decisive victory). The average K is indeed slightly better than 4:1 in favor of Russia.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Aeraaa,
Thank you1 I would be interested to see the results of the other two tests when you get a chance.

1) The ATGW issue follows as I've posted, I would've hoped for better results w/KOMBAT but, this is a "newer" area of weapons development for them, so I believe it's still functioning as should in the game from what I can find, bottomline, it should be more effective against slightly older tanks and APC's.

2) Still stand by recommendations concerning the OPLOT-M ERA, that being said, I believe Don has taken care of it or is at least strongly considering my recommendations as posted.

3) Took sometime this morning to compare the T90-A to the OPLOT-M in game against some further reading from other than the refs. already posted on the matter.

My recommendation as follows is based on the fact that the turret for the OPLOT-M was built for the same knowing against modern tanks and ATGW they would have to make it better than what they already have in the field.

So compared to the T-90A UNIT 051 I would request the following for consideration of the OPLOT-M UNIT 064 turret...
STEEL: TR 14/TOP 8/or 10. T-90A TR 16/TOP 8
HEAT: TR 20/TOP 12 T-90A TR 24/TOP 12

4) I'm not a "gun" guy per say as far as the mechanics in the game is concerned, however, I would request a second look at the KBA-3 main tank gun as compared to the Russian 2A46M-1 to see if there is an issue here in PEN and the other factors that might come into play. Again I realize this might be the "red herring" as I last posted but, I would be more comfortable knowing I can rule this out or not.

I would request that someone who has knowledge on the above Main Gun matter maybe could look into this for me, as I know Don is scrambling by now.


And now I have to get ready for work. Thank You all in advance.


Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

There seem to be two schools of thought concerning main guns and ATGMs.

For the most part Russia seems to see ATGMs as "the major" anti-armor weapon, why they put them on everything, and even fire them from their tank main guns. The US on the other hand, while acknowledging that helo's can't carry 120mm guns or GAU-8's (the A-10's gun), seem to feel the gun on the Abrams is the primary anti-armor weapon.

Now this may well be a tech issue, for Russia it's easier to build missiles then mass produce M256 quality guns and ammunition.

[Imp]

Pat, Don game stats Oplot-M is marginally better overall in all areas except ERA.
Only oddity is armour rear turret heat which I am guessing is wrong and should be 5-10 higher.

Updating ERA if that's decided should sort it out.
Enticed by this I tried a game using the T-64 Bulat, cower in fear if the ERA stops my shot my armour wont stop his.

On the tank gun they are identical with identical ammo. From memory Russia now fields an updated 125mm gun as have Ukraine. I don't think the performance is any better what has improved is the accuracy, something to do with how the old gun was mounted I think.
If this is true there may be a case for falsely reducing the old guns accuracy, 11 instead of 13 possibly.
Western tanks are normally 1 size bigger than USSR so should not hinder them much.

[zovs66]

So I did another test, this time as the Ukrainians, same perimeters as last time.

Preferences:


Outcome:

[zovs66]

On both tries as the human I got a MV.

On both games I saw a few ATG kills. In this one I lost 2 of my Oplat's to stupid aggressive moves. The AI lost at least 6 to stupid moves.

As the Ukrainian I felt the main gun was better at killing things especially close range.

From a players perspective (tainted by the fact that I am a big time WW2 buff/player) I felt that the ATG just gave me an additional shot with a chance to kill the enemy armor (another words I just hit F and let both weapon systems rip).

My instincts are telling me that if two humans duked it out with these parameters it would be a draw or going to the better player. So currently what I experienced as a player it seemed balanced for human vs. human but if I were to create a scenario where the player is versing the AI, I have to give the AI some serious help. Maybe attach another platoon to the AI's tank company and set each formations way points and maybe stagger things with some reaction points. Or to force the human to be more aggressive, set the VH further back or help the AI with death traps.

One thing is for sure, fun and fast in MBT both games were over by turn 6 or 8.

Fun too...

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I have an issue I believe, I've sorted out, maybe. It concerns the Russian T-80 Series. One will be an "ADD" the other a "CHANGE" Of the "START" as it's at least a year early. The issue is that the Russian T-80B/BV/U tanks received an upgrade. As the T-80BV is a real tank and is already in the game, I purpose that the upgraded tank be entered as the T-80BV1.

NOW THE ABOVE WILL BE LIMITED TO DATE CHANGES FOR THE FOLLOWING 3 TANKS AFTER DEEPER RESEARCH AND RE-READING THE ARMY REC. REFS. (THE WORDING WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING AT FIRST.)

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80B/UNIT 621/END DATE 12/1992 VICE 12/1985//
All T-80B tanks in service were upgraded to the T-80BV until production ceased on that tank in 1992. I cannot find any reference to the existence of the T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676 as entered in the game of which I believe are redundant to the T-80B.

DELETE/RUSSIA/T-80B1/UNITS 622 & 676/CANNOT VERIFY THEY EXIST//
As noted above and as indicated by the refs. shown and others in a deeper web search.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BV/UNIT 039/END DATE 12/2025 VICE 12/1992//
I can't seem to find anything to say these tanks are no longer in service. I fully understand a great many of them are in storage, but again the refs provided for this tank and others seem to indicate many are still operational and they are the platform from which the T-80BVM are derived from. View "Variants" section of ref. 1. Ref. 2 shows Russia still using them at bottom of ref. "Users" section.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80b.htm
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ..._13007173.html

CHANGE/RUSSIA/T-80BVM/UNIT 046/START DATE 10/2018 VICE 06/2017//
Date based on following from ref. 1 "Russia’s T-80BV main battle tank has been upgraded to T-80BVM standard to feature the capability of firing depleted uranium shells, the Defense Ministry said in the bulletin ‘The Russian Army in Comparison’ published on 20 December." Also note last para from ref. 1 which addresses some of what I submitted above.
Ref. 2 production begins in March 2018.
Ref. 3 Dated 02 July 2018, identifies the first units to equipped with the T-80BVM.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...um_shells.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap..._t-80_mbt.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...he_arctic.html

Others on the T-80...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/T-80.php
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-80U.htm
(For the above see production chart on first page.)

Don't ask these things just have a way of finding me!!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

There'll be more on this later but, in the following one of the pictures is wrong. Can you figure out which and why? A little background, I knew there were issues with India and Turkey in their tanks, which I believe with the help of Don we've largely have corrected over the last few years. Like the other two, South Africa has the same situation. These all were meant to be addressed in my next Patch Post that never happened now about five years ago. I've come to South Africa very recently to figure out what I couldn't. There was my problem I over analyzed the situation in fact, I've had the below ref in my favorites for about 6-7 years now and earlier tonight I found the "ghost" that held me back, but now, I have the key to the solution, so again and realizing you have more information than I had, what is wrong with the pictures below. I'll give any 24 hours from the posting time to solve it.

For Don there will only be very minor changes involved here.

Due note the copyright has been updated for 2019 which means there's been no "equipment" changes.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm

It's just so obvious to me now, it's a good thing it wasn't a poisonous snake!

Now back to "Platoon".

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

What's wrong is the middle picture, it's showing a Olifant Mk-1B there is no Olifant Mk-2B in service so the issue is a typo. A web search for the Olifant Mk-2B will get you the Olifant Mk-1B.

The pinnacle of the Olifant series lies in the Olifant Mk-2 this model benefited from the TDD demonstrator which was conceived to combat the heavier tanks that were appearing in Africa mainly the T-72 variant's. The advantage here with the Olifant Mk-2 is besides the current DENEL 105mm GT-7 MG, the turret is designed and has been tested to also use the 105mm GT-8 and LIW 120mm MG. Currently the GT-7 MG is what's carried onboard the MK-2 (Apparently the Mk-1B has it now as well.) as this gun is quite capable of taking out any T-72 currently operating in Africa.

Now should Ethiopia get pissed off with South Africa then you'll see them break out those 120mm MG's and mount them as they would more effective against the T-90S tanks Ethiopia has.

It is my understanding that the remaining 18 (26 were converted to the Mk-2.) Olifant Mk-1B turrets were also back fitted to carry the other two MG's as well, but I'm not ready to confirm that at this time.

The current tanks in service with SADF are the OLIFANT Mk-1A, Mk-1B and the Mk-2. Concerning the Olifant Mk-1A, I again offer the previous ref. plus another from SADF showing it being involved in an exercise in May 2017 pictured bottom right of that ref., notice the "skirts" are missing for one.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
http://www.army.mil.za/news/news_2017/feb_17/acd_17.htm
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank

A word about the last website if you want to know what's going on in Africa you have to use this site they source from JANE's, DID etc. plus do a lot of their own reporting as well.

Their breakdown as provided above on the OLIFANT MBT is the best I've seen so far on one site. I knew the OLIFANT Mk-1A had a mid-life upgrade done but wasn't sure when it occurred this ref. provided that date plus all that was done during it.

Gotta hit the rack!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I will endeavor here to fix the South African current tank situation that I’ve put off for almost seven years now though the problem isn’t as daunting now as it seemed back then as also posted. I looked back on this year and I saw more in the MBT and APC area submitted by several posts, so for FYI ONLY PURPOSES, I’ve decided to pull together from those posts, a “Patch Post” covering the 2018/2019 Campaign and possibly for the 2017/2018 Campaign as time allows. They have always served me as a tool to see what got in or not and to see if something got missed such as what happened to about seven countries concerning the missing (Now done.) standard equipped FN MAG 60-30 MG (Port/Starboard mounted.) on the H225M Cougar helicopters. I also believe we were finally able to add this helo to Thailand as I finally had more data to fully confirm the deal as compared to when I originally submitted it in my last “official” Patch Post five years ago, this last was fixed in 2017/2018 upgrade.

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1A/UNIT 005/START DATE 01/1985 vice 01/1983/END DATE 12/1987 VICE 12/1998/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm SA83//A note about the gun issue as quoted from Ref 3 “The Olifant Mk 1A was originally equipped with a 105mm L7 rifled gun barrel originally sourced from Israel. Later on, an improved South African produced GT3B semi-automatic quick firing gun manufactured by Lyttleton Engineering Works (LEW) was fitted.” Also note in anticipation of facing the Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks, SADF did acquire the 1O5mm APFSDS-T round (In 1988 around a year after they had received the APFSDS M-111 @ 390mm of RHA.) which in combat proved highly effective against those tanks. This was considered the first true African tank very suited to its environment with the High Pressure GT3B proven to be very accurate at 2km. Besides an extensive reference list it also provides some interesting combat data to prove this tank was deadly against its adversaries. It would also prove to be an embarrassment the Soviet (Combat Advisors), Cuban and Angolan FAPLA troops. Operation Hooper would see in that successful Op, 21 T-55 tanks destroyed to 1 damaged Olifant Mk1 and 1 destroyed Ratel. Troops 4 SANF killed to 480 casualties to the enemy during this Op during the South African Border Wars 1966 - 1989.

SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/OLIFANT Mk-1A/COPY UNIT 005/CHANGE/START DATE 01/1988/END DATE 12/2025/CHANGE/AMMO 105mm APFSDS-T/PENETRATION 580mm OF RHA/LRF MIGHT NEED TO BE INCREASED FROM 16/REFS INDICAITE THE LRF WAS ACCURATE OUT TO 10km//I know ammo is a consideration and given the difference between the two most current of the APFSDS rounds (1987-1988) in regards to Penetration levels this warrants the above request. It would suggest as well that the ammo is more powerful now.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
http://www.army.mil.za/news/news_2017/feb_17/acd_17.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...lifant_MkI.php
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-1B/UNIT 006/START DATE 10/1991 vice 01/1991/END DATE 12/2025 vice 12/2015/VISION 35 OR 40 (Or TI/GSR 35 see below)/MAIN GUN 105mm GT3B vice 105mm GT7/STABLELISER 4 vice 3/SURVIABILITY 5 vice 4/STEEL HF 28 vice 24 (Note Mk-1A UNIT 005 is at 26)/STEEL TF 24 or 25//The FCS was considered a very advanced for the time when the tank came online in 1991. That the vision should be increased is not the real question here as it is much improved over the OLIFANT Mk-1A. The real question is should it have TI/GSR added to it? I’m on the fence about this based on the refs below, my “gut” tells me it might be good enough, however, it also tells me based on the tanks that had it at that time, it should be TI/GSR 35 if it is decided to change the VISION to that standard, I don’t see enough to warrant more than that. The gun did have mounted on it an IR/White Light Searchlight as well. I asked for the slight STABLELISER increase based on ref.2 as quoted “A new thermal sleeve and fume extractor helped improved sustained accuracy when firing and reduce barrel droop due to heat by as much as 70%-90%.”, that’s a significant change. Concerning SURVIABILITY the Mk-1B also had a double armored bottom added to the hull. The STEEL requests are based on the refs which noted that the armor protection was increased on the areas noted above.
It is important to note that 44 OLIFANT Mk-1A were upgraded to this standard starting in 1991, but, the similarities end there, this MBT was built from the experiences gained during the Border War of 1966 – 1989 and they were RESET. Development started in 1981/82 when the concern was whether the Soviet Union would supply Cuba or the Angolan forces with the T-72A series tanks which didn’t happen. The tank was built for African combat, this tank was even equipped with two internal water tanks (50.5 Liters each.) just to sustain the crew in the field. The turret bustle was added for the same reason for crew equipment with the added design bonus that the turret was better balanced decreasing by 10s the 360 traverse time to 16s over the Mk-1A turret.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...n-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/olifant_mk1b.htm
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/

SOUTH AFRICA/CHANGE/OLIFANT Mk-2/UNIT OO8/START DATE 10/2005 vice 01/2007/SPEED DISCREPENCY SEE BELOW//The upgrade of 26 OLIFANT Mk-1B tanks to the Mk-2 started in 2005, it is reasonable to assume a handful were in the field by that time. Production ran until the end of 2006/early 2007 depending on source. The SPEED issue needs to be resolved for both UNIT 006 and UNIT OO8. They both use the same Continental 29 Liter V12 Turbo Charged diesel engine, the difference is that the Mk-2 engine develops 190hp more but, the additional weight of the Mk-2 doesn’t allow so much for an increase in SPEED, but it does increase P/W Ratio and much better 25% increase in Acceleration. The advertised speeds for both tanks are 58Km/h or 36mph on the road. This is in the end a very highly advanced tank with full “Hunter Killer” capabilities and up to date electronics. There is one discrepancy which goes to the main gun ref. 2 with communications as noted in the “Bibliography” from 2017 indicates this tank also carries the GT3B MG, however, ref 3 (Bottom) via an email in 2006 states the following “GlobalSecurity.org insists the tank is fitted with a Denel GT8 gun but Denel informs this weapon was developed but never produced. The Olifant is therefore fitted with the GT7. Email communication between author and Denel spokesman Sam Basch, August 14, 2006.” I know which I’m inclined to go with, however, I leave it up to you whether you wish to change the main gun or not.
http://www.army.mil.za/equipment/wea...ant_equipm.htm
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...n-battle-tank/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...in-battle-tank

Summary:
The final question here is, do we add another Mk-1A & Mk-1B ~2010 with improved ammo that they should have now? Why? DENEL after the embargo started to sell their top quality ammo and other technology worldwide. But due to mismanagement and corruption, in 2005 Rheinmetall bought 51% controlling interest in DENEL munitions now called Rheinmetall Denel Munitions. Hensoldt did the same with DENAL Optronics operations. I don’t see those two major players sitting on their “laurels” and not improving their products over what was there. Maybe I’m wrong, just a thought.
https://www.africandefence.net/denel...qatari-offers/

While doing research on this over the years and considering the political situation at the time these tanks were developed, the South Africans found a way to overcome the very real war they were in for 23 years (As noted above.) to meet the perceived threat of the T-72M and T-72A series tanks. As it was pointed out, again above, the T-55 & T-62 were no match against them even by the ones crewed by the Cubans. I think a fair amount of this is also due to the professionalism of the SADF crews and ultimately the military (In the game-EXPRIENCE.) as a whole, they were in most battles were outnumbered by the combined Cuban and Angolan forces with Soviet advisors. Another point of interest was that many of the tank battles were fought within 150yds. due to the terrain.

Also about the tank guns, Israel supplied upgraded versions of the famous British RB 105mm L7 when South Africa wanted to improve their CENTURIAN tanks to the Israeli Sho’t tanks. This would lead to the OLIFANT. Later development would lead to the GT3B, GT7, IWI (?) GT8 Prototype and 120mm L52.
The GT3B is in service and with the exception of the GT8, the rest are supposedly available or can be produced in numbers if needed rapidly. All the 105mm guns are considered “High Pressure” (Before it became a “thing” as it is now.) Semi-Automatic Quick Firing.
It was also very interesting to find that Israel supplied South Africa with ammunition to include it’s tank ammo from possibly the late ‘60s but certainly the 70’s – ‘ 90s if not longer.

I hope I didn't miss anything, can't think of a better way to spend the day off!?! Research/Research then the best part , someday day maybe I'll get to this ? Your right no fun in that!

Regards,
Pat