MBT's

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First respond to RC4, Many different types of equipment will be given to "combat" units for OPEVAL, R&D etc. purposes, however< that does not mean that piece of equipment has been "adopted", "inducted", "fielded", "FOC" or any other term different countries may use and to my "chagrin" choose to use.

By way of example if you wish, go to the "Patch Thread" and in the submissions (MBT's) there were dates changes due to some of the following reasons that equipment I've found were "operational" in the game due to the fact they "signed an MOU", "signed a contract", "production has started", "first units delivered to country or service branch" and on a rare occasion, someone saying they're "getting it" and they "got it" in the game and it's found that it never really happened due to "contract cancellation", "project cancellation", "can't afford it" and for reasons that fit everything in between.

So when I or anyone comes across with an article from a respectable source(s) (And personally for me doesn't include WiKi or Wiki Military) from especially the government that bought the equipment for the military branch saying they've inducted that piece of equipment on "X" date I'm posting that because it saves Don and I a lot of work up front vice on the backside.

And on my side of the fence, I don't have to deal with the issues I listed above.

This not a "slam" it's just in the case of those VT-4 tanks we have a solid source and date for them in the OOB, which I'm sure by now Don has already taken care of and hopefully won't require any rework like INDIA, USA ABRAMS and now the GERMAN LEOPARDS.

Now...

The "Sniper Detection System" we in very "loose" terms have it in the game, the sound data base, so on a Submarine we add detection gear and from many different sources we can get acoustic signatures and I'll stop there as you can look up what I just described, anymore then that, someone might decide to "deep six" me!?!

Same principle is applied to land equipment so equipped. Sound attenuates at certain frequencies and decibels based on environmental conditions. Just like we can detect a target by it's "acoustic signature" all you need is a good database, means of detection and some processing power. All of which an APC can support (And some tanks). For a Sniper it'll be able pull out a single shot from background and the frequency range used by sniper weapons in the database and you don't necessarily have to be "spot on" to a particular weapon.

They are are tied into the weapons systems which will "slew" the weapon to the "close proximity" of where the detection system and FCS computed the shot came from.

The TERREX APC from Singapore was I believe the first operational platform to have this system onboard. It also was one of my very early posts in the APC Thread I believe during "field tests" the accuracy of the system was within less than a "handful" of meters.

Supposedly newer systems are "tighter" then that now. They have what we "umbrella" now as part of "situational awareness" on land equipment.

Regards,
Pat

[RC4]

The first batch of VT4 that started arriving Pakistan are 176, second will be 120 tanks, it will take some time to the Chinese to build these, sources say 5 years

Total AK-1 production will be 220 tanks

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Light tanks where we were, where we thought we were going and where we think the future lies. Part I

Where we were...
Our last operational "light tank" (Of which we did some work on a few years ago, was corrected and I believe we added one based on feedback.) was the M551 Sheridan you loved it or hated it, but, it ended up having a long service life despite it's many faults.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m551_sheridan.htm

Where we thought we were going...
A little on the heavy side for a light tank (41T) it's not out of line for that class even by todays standards. The JAGUAR was a joint project between U.S. and China, when the U.S. saw China's role as a "buffer state" against the Soviet Union. It "melded" the technologies of all 3 nations and successfully "pulled it off" until the Cold War ended and the market was "over run" with high quality cheaper MBT options. This was for it's time a very advanced tank whose armor is still classified and never been released.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm

The next was a private venture from Cadillac Gage intended for the export market. However articles started to appear that the U.S. Army was looking at the STINGRAY as a possible replacement to SHERIDAN under the AGS Program. It was dropped. Thailand is currently the only operator of this tank. We also updated this tank and after presenting enough at least some anecdotal and other evidence, we also decided to enter the STINGRAY II as well for a variety of reasons you can research in this thread and Patch one.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...light_tank.htm

The following two also competed in the U.S. Army AGS Program. I'll start with the Expeditionary Tank Prototype with an Electronics Pkg. that was considered one of the most advanced in the world on a tank at that time. Though it would lose in the final pairing, it still lives on today as the turret used on the M1128 Stryker MGS.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...onary_tank.htm

Who won the AGS competition, one of the most controversial tanks I ever heard about as it was in the news quite a bit at the time. The United Defense (Later FMC) tank CCV-L/then XM8 and finally the M8 BUFORD. Though the winner, it would ultimately be a loser as it's two predecessors were when Congress told the Army to cancel the AGS Program for a variety of budget and design issues associated in the costs and development in trying to launch a tank program. What is amazing is this tank is still viable in todays conflict environments and is still being offered. It had so pluses and minuses as taken from the below ref.
On the plus side:
1) M8 Buford uses combined aluminum and steel armor. Modular titanium add-on armor, including ERA packages can be added if necessary.

2) A fully-stabilized M68A1 105 mm rifled gun, or a Rheinmetall XM35 gun, fitted with an autoloader and fire control system. Fire control system is similar to that, used on the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. Autoloader holds 19 to 21 rounds and provides a maximum rate of fire in 12 rounds per minute. Other projectiles are stowed near the driver. Gun can be loaded manually in case of emergency.

3) The M8 Buford can be airdropped from a C-130 transport aircraft or larger. The C-130 can carry one vehicle, while the C-141 (Mine-Now retired.), C-17 and C-5 can carry two, three and five respectively.

On the minus side:

1) The M8 Buford is a relatively thin-skinned vehicle, designed to support infantry from covered position and to fight in areas where it is not going to run into main battle tanks.

2) During the trials it appeared that the ammunition compartment failed to contain the reaction of the ammunition, when hit by anti-tank weapons.

Now what? Well part of that future still lies with this tank, however in an improved version which I hope to update with as a Part II. But before I go I'll leave you with something I didn't know and a "glimpse into the future" in order...

A similar design was the British VFM 5 light tank, developed by Vickers. It was based on the XM8. The VFM 5 was a simplified alternative of the XM8, intended for export customers. However it received no production orders.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vfm_5.htm

In 2015 an updated version of the M8 was revealed by BAE Systems. This light tank is still being proposed for various customers.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m8_buford.htm

And we now know it's been updated again for the current Army Light Tank competition. All I have on that by later tonight hopefully. And I have a lot.

Have a good whatever today and a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Light tanks where we were, where we thought we were going and where we think the future lies. Part II

What Could've Been: This is a "side show" to note "that actions can have consequences" in this case for Turkey. Early on in the MTF Program, there was thought given to buy a light tank "off the shelf" one of which was the KAPLAN Light Tank. But things went South fairly quickly when Turkey was "courting" Russia to buy armaments, in particular the S-400P SAM System.

Though the U.S was pressuring Turkey to back off, they continued negotiations and when they announced they purchased the S-400P, the U.S. withdrew the F-35A at that point and dropped the KAPLAN for consideration by the U.S. Army.

Washout: Turkey fielded the S-400P this past Summer.

U.S. Army drops KAPLAN for Light Tank consideration.

Turkey and Lockheed Martin both loss out on F-35A sale in which, if I'm not mistaken, would've made Turkey the largest importer of the F-35A. KAPLAN...
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/kaplan.htm

Where we're going...Right now still in industry trials between BAE and General Dynamics. I'm simply going to split these up by company from oldest to newest. Some of the older article I've already posted in here, however, given the timeline to come after this section, I intend to delete these from my files.

U.S. ARMY...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo..._division.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weap...k_in_2020.html
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ies-to-us-army

BAE...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-tank-program/
(YES THAT LONG AGO. )
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...eral-dynamics/
https://www.armyrecognition.com/apri...f_us_army.html

GENERAL DYNAMICS... https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...f_us_army.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/janu...t_vehicle.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/apri...r_program.html

This is pretty much the latest news to this point.

Where we think the future lies...
In a "perfect world" the references agree about the following concerning the MTF Program.

Decision sometime in 2022 of who wins.

When Army units are planned to receive them, somewhere between 2024 - 2025. This does not necessarily imply FOC. That implies OPEVALS and the clock keeps on ticking.

But I'm sure someone will want it in the game now.

In the meantime, I've been tracking it for about 4 years now, so what's another 4-6 years!?!

Hittin the rack!!

Regards,
Pat

[RC4]

Originally Posted by RC4

The first batch of VT4 that started arriving Pakistan are 176, second will be 120 tanks, it will take some time to the Chinese to build these, sources say 5 years

Total AK-1 production will be 220 tanks

No APS Hardkill system installed
BTA-4 APFSDS
GP-5 ATGM w/5000m range
FY-4 ERA
RCWS
9 rounds per min
Shippment of 24 Tanks arrivrd in June
1st complete 44 VT4 Regiment (6th Lancers) in 20/09/20
US$ 859 million for 176 VT4s (4 Regiments-2 Brigades)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Back home. Followed the conversation concerning N. Koreas "new" tank. It would've been nice to have Marcello's as I personally, have to acknowledge the fact he was the "master" when it came to North Korea in this forum. And the "tripartite" effort to fix and dissect the latest tank(s) and other equipment for a few years back was a challenge, of which I appreciated that he let me into "his world". Don will correct me I hope, but, I believe Marcello pretty much built that OOB and did a GREAT job of it.

One must not forget those who've done so much for this game. And he did, even if we didn't always see "eye to eye".

Well the following continues that discussion, and I have to agree with the points and the assumptions made in the following article.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...14_armata.html

Those tanks "look" cleaner then when the Russians first showed off the T-14. They somewhat look like the "skins" people were putting on their cars a few years back. And as Don pointed out the Diesel fumes coming off those tanks were either demonstrating they smoke screen capability (Which is of a poor quality.) or that those engines are of a poor quality and badly maintained. I vote for the latter, but, that's just me.

Finally let me ask the following...When was the last time you saw a tank where the paint scheme didn't match on the whole tank to include the "side skirts"? Well for me never. Also I bring your attention to the front of the tank at the "corner" where it appears it's starting to "wrap around" towards the front of the tank, however, the "side skirt" seems to maintain a "linear" straight line.

It just doesn't "look" right to me.


https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...14_armata.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/ko...mystery-170660

I've things to catch up on and been on the road for 8-9 hours with all the usual stops. So until next time, well, next time!?!

Regards,
Pat

[RC4]

Pak vt4

[Suhiir]

Might find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfq7d4kFP1E

The comments about tank-infantry telephones and infantry support of armor in urban environments were particularly interesting I thought.

Also the comments about the change in emphasis from projecting power/control over land that can be used to support future operations to projecting power/control over the sea and air space.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I must say "Kid you done good!", I watched both Parts 1 & 2 and I heard a word I've put out here for so many years in it's many other forms as well through...economics it does rule the world.

So many good points I even heard 1 AD Battalion w/1 RSV Battalion (USMC MBT's) in the discussion also what I and many others that know more then I do support at a minimum level. And that conversation towards the end did conclude that thought the CORPS might find itself in a land war down the road with a what then discussion.

Also from Part 2 was the the comparison from the 1930's concerning the USMC (And in reality what most major powers, was "lighten up" on armor. Except of course Germany.) when they "lightened up" in the Pacific and were relying on heavy artillery and the Battleships of the the Navy to be applied against an aggressor in the region.

We of the Navy still remember Dec. 7 1941. It's ingrained in us.

One can wonder are we coming to "full circle" and "doomed to repeat the past", I don't think so. So the USMC will rely on the USN again to provide "over the horizon" ship to whatever the target missiles.

I guess we better get started on building more ships!
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...sign-2030-plan

I also liked the story about the USMC M1A1 tanks that rolled ashore in Somalia in "The MOAG" without ammo but cruised the streets and everyone was well behaved. It was all part of a discussion on the psychological aspect of having tanks by those that have and those that don't.

1 from USA Tank School, 2 from RAND probably this countries top political and military "think tank" and the "Professor".

No light weights there.

I'll be reviewing the ones he has on the UK armor situation. The first he is talking to the same gentle from the Defense Committee that was in the APC Post from last night.

Maybe I can gain some further insights.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Personally I think getting rid of the tanks is a mistake.

I think the new Commandant is a bit to fixated on air and sea control. Neither of which have EVER been USMC missions (with the exception of air control during Guadalcanal). The Marines are to there seize and control those unsinkable aircraft carriers for the Navy and Army to exploit.

The penny packet Defense Battalions during the 1930's were speed bumps. They couldn't hold vs a determined amphibious assault (i.e. Wake and Guam). No reason to think a 2030s one will fare any better.

The other issue is modern MBTs are quickly becoming near immune to ATGMs. You need something that can hit them with a nice sabot. Without tanks the USMC has no such capability.

The following discusses the entire force restructuring issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSkBsJ1s-Vc