MBT's

[DRG]

X1 does not make the formation rare only the unit and if they are all x1 nothing changes.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well one of my favorite countries strikes again as I was concerned that nothing was posted on the following since I submitted it last year on it's further development. Well true to course India has managed "once again" to defy their own expectations and "drop the ball" on a tank project. They just got one!!

So...
INDIA/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START/JUN 2022/vice JAN 2021/CHANGE/FC 50/vice 45/SAME FCS as ARJUN Mk-2/STEEL/HF 56/HR 9/TF 86/TS 30/TR 18/TOP 10/HEAT/HF 84/HS 48/HR 18/TF 138/TS 46/TR 30/TOP 18// This is the interim tank to what some in India will lead to the final version as the ARJUN Mk-II. The compromise was to make this tank lighter which my numbers above most certainly do in the overall weight reduction. However, it was still to be better protected then the ARJUN/ARJUN Mk-1 which now it is. Regarding the FCS it was always meant to have the same system as the ARJUN Mk-11 which why the above tank has the ATGW capability. I'm just using this ref to quote from as it's consistent with what's already been posted concerning the ARJUN Mk-1A

"The Arjun Mk-1A is an upgraded version of the Arjun Mark 1 offering more firepower, protection, and mobility. The hull and turret of Arjun Mk.1A have been modified (You can include protection in this as well. And this IS NOT derived from interpretation.) to give a lower silhouette making detection more difficult,..." Also the last para touches on protection again and the FCS with a "note" compared to the ARJUN Mk-II.

I would highly recommend adding a copy of the above as it can fire other useful rounds (Less the ATGW at this time.) to enhance it's combat capability as these rounds are already available.
"...with one 120 mm rifled gun able to fire APFSDS (kinetic energy penetrator) rounds, HE, HEAT, High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) rounds at a rate of 6–8 rounds per minute. the gun of the Arjun is also capable to fire Israeli developed semi-active laser-guided LAHAT missile (But are not using LAHAT, however they are working with Israel on developing their own ATGW.). The Arjun can carry 39 rounds in special blast-proof canisters."

and...
"...while it also supports the newly developed Thermo-Baric (TB) and Penetration-cum-Blast (PCB) ammunition."
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...k_to_army.html

Sorry can't ignore the news here and the evitable it's India and "what else is new" regarding them.

Well I just got the "look" a short time ago which means I'm out!?!

Regards
Pat


Corrected the STEEL tord TF 86 vice TR 86 above. See below Posts.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

So...
INDIA/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START/JUN 2022/vice JAN 2021/CHANGE/FC 50/vice 45/SAME FCS as ARJUN Mk-2/STEEL/HF 56/HR 9/TR 86/TS 30/TR 18/TOP 10/HEAT/HF 84/HS 48/HR 18/TF 138/TS 46/TR 30/TOP 18//
Regards
Pat

???! You mean TF of course

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Crap!! Why yes that would be correct.

Would you believe I think the error was caused as I'm about midway through Edmund Morris's final Vol III of his biography on Theodore Roosevelt (TR), COLONEL ROOSEVELT" at this time!?!

Ok, probably best to go with with the following as I was in a hurry to take care of another matter, so... can you guess what's coming!?! That's right!! !!

THANKS!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Are we being watched too? The next story is actually calling out one of the most popular online tank games out there for modeling a French tank that didn't exist but, the game claims it did to include full developmental info on the tank.

The worst we can be accused of is that we've had prototype equipment that's gotten into the game.

However, we've done an outstanding job of getting rid of them/or nullifying them in game play (Brazils Osorio and MB-3 Tamoyoas which I identified a few years back that never got out of the prototype stage.) as they've been uncovered.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/osorio.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mb3_tamoyo.htm

So here's how the "other guys" did it...
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/batig...que-fake-tank/

They almost did a creditable job.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

FYI: This story is continuing to "track" as I've posted from USMC sources and my others. I had myself projected DEC 2021 as the end cate for what should be the M1A1 FEP.

The USMC is saying they'll be turned over by SEP 2021 (The end of the 2021 Fiscal Year.) which from a budgetary point of view makes absolute sense as they'll be free of any financial burden associated with those tanks.

Of about the 130 tanks that remain most are in forward deployed storage or onboard maritime prepositioning ships. From Ref. 2...
"At the time of the initial overhaul announcement, the Corps had 452 tanks at its disposal. By December 2020, 323 had been transferred to the Army. (As I reported last year.) The *remaining tanks were scheduled for transfer by 2023 (Which obviously isn't the case anymore.), which included tanks in overseas storage and aboard maritime prepositioning ships, according to Marine Corps Systems Command."

Don't let anyone "get their panties in a wad" except again, these are the newest I've seen thus far this year. And again without deviation, are still tracking by date as reported in 2020 from all sources.

It'll take a "miracle" to save them at this point. We'll know by this spring/summer when the Defense Authorization Bill is readied for FY22. Ref. 1 The date. Ref. 2 A post-mortem, the CORPS w/o tanks...
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...e-corps-tanks/
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...ing-its-armor/

I know how people feel about this, so don't shoot the messenger!

TRACKING

By-The-By, Turkey to begin field trials of the ALTAY later this month with a couple of PROTOTYPES. So April should be 0 month on their projected 18 month clock to production.

That's providing their engine/transmission and power pack can hold up.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Bet ya 10$ next Commandant brings them back.

Current one to focused on a single scenario,

[Imp]

I am going to throw an oddball question at you Suhiir if I may.

If the army was called on to support the Marine Core with tanks would they actually be able to use them in the role the Marines wanted. I am guessing the armies tactics are not the same when it comes to armour.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

I am going to throw an oddball question at you Suhiir if I may.

If the army was called on to support the Marine Core with tanks would they actually be able to use them in the role the Marines wanted. I am guessing the armies tactics are not the same when it comes to armour.

There's a major difference in the role each views tanks filling.
The US Army sees them as primarily an anti-armor asset the USMC as infantry support. Both of course use them for each role, but it's a matter of how well trained they are for each.
Can they do it? Of course. Can they do it well? Doubtful.
Also I don't see the US Army willingly handing over a tank unit. They already have formation/task assignments in the US Army and I know I'd be VERY reluctant to retask them were I Army brass.

Also there's the "minor" fact that US Army and USMC SOPs are different. I've worked with the US Army enough to know that I don't understand, or agree with, many of theirs and I'm sure they feel the same. The main issue is fire doctrine. The US Army uses fire volume, the USMC accuracy. The USMC doesn't have the logistic assets to support the amounts of ammo the US Army uses. Most US Army troops have never worked with (or probably seen) Marines and have no idea what our SOPs for "little" things like tank-infantry cooperation and communications are. In the US Army infantry supports armor, the armor commander is in charge, in the USMC the infantry commander is always in charge.

During Gulf 1 I was with the division HQ of 2nd MarDiv which had "Tiger Brigade" (2nd Div US Army) attached to it and they operated as an independent command, because it made far more sense then trying to integrate them. They were given a task, flank security, they did it well. But they did it their way, in their sector, and other then our HQ talking to their HQ we had little to do with each other. I did find it amusing after the "war" when they came over looking for 2nd MarDiv unit patches to sew on their uniforms as the last unit they were in combat with and we had to inform they we didn't have, or make, them (a USMC 2nd MarDiv patch exists, it's official, but you have to buy it from civilian sources).

[Karagin]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

There's a major difference in the role each views tanks filling.
The US Army sees them as primarily an anti-armor asset the USMC as infantry support. Both of course use them for each role, but it's a matter of how well trained they are for each.
Can they do it? Of course. Can they do it well? Doubtful.
Also I don't see the US Army willingly handing over a tank unit. They already have formation/task assignments in the US Army and I know I'd be VERY reluctant to retask them were I Army brass.

Also there's the "minor" fact that US Army and USMC SOPs are different. I've worked with the US Army enough to know that I don't understand, or agree with, many of theirs and I'm sure they feel the same. The main issue is fire doctrine. The US Army uses fire volume, the USMC accuracy. The USMC doesn't have the logistic assets to support the amounts of ammo the US Army uses. Most US Army troops have never worked with (or probably seen) Marines and have no idea what our SOPs for "little" things like tank-infantry cooperation and communications are.

During Gulf 1 I was with the division HQ of 2nd MarDiv which had "Tiger Brigade" (2nd Div US Army) attached to it and they operated as an independent command, because it made far more sense then trying to integrate them. They were given a task, flank security, they did it well. But they did it their way, in their sector, and other then our HQ talking to their HQ we had little to do with each other. I did find it amusing after the "war" when they came over looking for 2nd MarDiv unit patches to sew on their uniforms as the last unit they were in combat with and we had to inform they we didn't have, or make, them (a USMC 2nd MarDiv patch exists, it's official, but you have to buy it from civilian sources).

Yes, you guys do things differently, but not that much on some levels. in 2006 I was with 4ID DivArty, we had MRLS units out supporting Marines and it was a joint effort. Our Alpha Battery was attached and fell under the Marine control. They worked well enough together to get the missions done.

The patch thing you brought up, the Amry likes its patches, yes we do, so for those guys coming to ask for them they were doing it on the idea that your QM aka supply issue patches like ours do.

One thing both sides need to work on is being able to talk to each other over the networks, the biggest issue I dealt with was the fact that no one could effectively communicate clearly since it was like two groups speaking two different languages. Made for some interesting times.