MBT's

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

In quotes are from my last post, with additional comment below...

"I used the following "primary" units (As there were about 3 more.)"

I looked at a combination (USA/USMC) of 6 M1A1 ABRAMS.)

"IRAQ/M1A1 SA ABRAMS/UNIT 006//USMC/M1A1HC/UNIT 840//USMC/M1A1HC TUSK-T/UNIT 853//"

My FINAL 3 of the 6 original tanks looked at.

"I choose to work with USMC UNIT 840 to minimize the changes and it was simply a better fit."

It hit the "Sweet Spot" of the six that I would use a "base model" to adjust from for a reasonable M1A1 Export model.

USMC issue is a different matter and will need a further look later. Bottomline maybe only a 1/3 at best of the of the M1A1 saw conversion to the FEP series the rest were simple m1a1 tanks and I felt that USMC UNIT 840 fit the bill, which is why I submitted it new END Date. I'm also looking at TI/GSR 45 for UNIT 840 but I need more info to support this.

Appreciate you used my numbers, needless to say I was ready for bed when done.

This just "popped up", but as you'll see if you read SLOWLY there's nothing, I haven't already mentioned concerning its problems over the years already.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ttlefield.html

Now it's time to get ready for you know what.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Yeah but...... you said add the M1A1 but also said the A2 was being sent so what do you want me to call this then ?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

This just "popped up", but as you'll see if you read SLOWLY there's nothing, I haven't already mentioned concerning its problems over the years already.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defe...ttlefield.html


Regards,
Pat

Into date for that thing right now is 6/2024 which IS IN THE FUTURE and when more future has passed it will probably get adjusted AGAIN but for now 6/124 is GOOD ENOUGH

[DRG]

31 are being sent

“The reason for 31 is because that is how many tanks would constitute a Ukrainian Tank Battalion,” an official said. “So we are specifically meeting that requirement.”

Reuters says

31 advanced M1 Abrams

This suggests if they are deployed to an area they will all be deployed together which may make putting them in their own unit class a possibility but that requires adjustment to the picklists so maybe we just leave it up to individual players

[DRG]

We'll see how this plays out

Quoting a Forbes article

But the thousands of M-1A1s and A2s in active U.S. service, or in storage at American arsenals, include the uranium armor. The Pentagon as a matter of policy never has exported these tanks. Instead, when it sells M-1s—say, to Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Poland—it first commissions General Dynamics to build special versions of the tanks without the uranium armor component.

Unless the administration of Pres. Joe Biden can convince a foreign Abrams-user to give up some of its existing tanks, General Dynamics will need to prepare a new batch of uranium-free M-1s—and that could take many months, if not a year or more.

It very well could be that the US agreeing to supply Abrams was what it took to get Germany to release Leos but that does not mean "right away" what is ready "right away" are Leos so the Abrams may be more of a 2024 start date rather than 2023 but we have a couple of months anyway to get a better idea of what actually is going on and try to get better start dates

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
1. M1A2 was a TYPO ON MY PART. We have the RIGHT tank. Post #1498 now corrected.

2. ARMATA START JUN 2024 STILL GOOD. I found the article useful in that it actually seems they were at least close to the Ukraine but more importantly, that it's pretty bad when operationally the forces on the ground found conditions so bad with the ARMATA that they had to be sent back as they were completely unusable.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...abe77c668cb223

3. 31 units makes up the Standard Ukraiian tank Battalion. The plan is to form 3 complete heavy armor Battalions of 1 ABRAMS and 2 of mixed LEOPARDS from donating users likely to be Poland, Finland and or other NATO countries. Sweden might offer up STRV 122 as well.

However, these are well short of the 300 being requested.

Taking the above real-world situation into consideration, and applying to our game world, I'm requesting you give consideration to allowing the player to buy as needed the T-72B3 (83+ Captured) and T-72B3M (100+ Captured) as I submitted to you last week.

4. Push the START date of the M1A1UKR ABRAMS to SEP 2023.

All reports HERE were it matters are indicating a minimum of 4-5 months before they can even leave the U.S. just to prepare the tanks. Also being mentioned it could be a year before they field them.

One of the issues (Of many.) is the fuel type and consumption. If you're unaware the ABRAMS normally uses Jet Fuel. Where the Ukraine is having a hard enough time just to keep Diesel in their tanks for a variety of reasons to include major infrastructure damage to pipelines etc.

From only a logistical standpoint, they have major issues to address in suppling this type of fuel in a war zone. We can do it however we won't be there to do it for the Ukrainians to provide the logistical support this tank needs. IT WILL TAKE TIME. The following addresses these issues and more. So, I really hope you take the time to read these thoroughly to fully understand the situation.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...775d701ae65ec7
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...8e45755f3fa62d
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...55ad53374be61e

Though tied into the above FINALLY in simple terms etc. I found an article that vindicates me on the need for "Export" related tanks from supplier countries and my issue about DU Armor. Halleluiah!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...55ad53374be61e

Don and I reverse roles all the time over the years, we keep each other "in check" which provides balance-sometimes.

This time it appears it's my turn to be the contrarian.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Pat. I have read other reports getting bent out of shape over the " jet fuel" (non)issue and a lot of that comes from the original excuses for not sending them as that MSN report shows....

For weeks, Pentagon officials said publicly that the Abrams tanks weren't suited for the fight in Ukraine, including because of the fuel they need to operate.

"jet fuel" is the preferred fuel in the US Army and that is what gives the very best performance.

BUT.....the engine was designed to be multi-fuel and those "Pentagon officials" would have or should have known the vehicles engine was multi fuel

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/0...1-abrams-tank/

Its 1,500hp Honeywell turbine engine can burn a variety of fuels including diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, and marine diesel. The advantage of a turbine engine versus a diesel engine is that it requires no warm-up period, has less moving parts, and needs no cooling system.

and further about fuel from another source....(slightly edited for clarity)

Pretty much whatever you like - just so long as you have lots of it.

So far it’s the only MBT in mass production with a turbine engine (the Russians did have an attempt at it but gave up). Turbines are really useful as they’re compact, very powerful, and you can feed them pretty much anything so long as it’s a liquid containing hydrocarbons. Cooking fuel, aviation gas, diesel, petrol, methanol, alcohol, you name it

and.........

This is great for the Logistics chaps as they don’t have to worry about providing different fuels for different vehicles and, in extreme situations the tank may be able to procure something locally if fuel is limited. The downside for Logistics is that the Abrams drinks fuel like it’s in the only open bar on judgement day

And that "jet fuel" can be plain old Kerosene so "fuel" for them is not a problem except for how much of it you need ( or if nice short "sound bite" excuse is needed for not sending them )

That all said IMHO and I am not alone, Germany needed to be seen as not be the only ones sending "NATO" MBTs and the US sending Abrams allowed them to say "it's not just us" and it *may* have been the UK agreeing to send Challengers that uncorked that particular bottleneck. Abrams and Challengers will be useful but neither of those will be as potentially plentiful from so many other sources as the Leo and from the info I have read, it's also the MBT with the quickest learning curve to operate and maintain.

[whdonnelly]

I went into Scenario 151 Breaking the Shackles and did some quick substitutions for various 2022 NATO units vs 2022 Russian units. Interesting results. The T-90s look pretty effective but I'm having trouble finding any news source that mentions them being used in any number. Any suggestions?

Will

[DRG]

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html

I have NO IDEA when this was last updated

That lists destroyed Russian tanks.
"Tanks (1646, of which destroyed: 967, damaged: 75, abandoned: 59, captured: 545)"

The T-90 is near the bottom

31 T-90A:
3 T-90S: ( that's supposed to be the "export" version )
10 T-90M:

44 total known destroyed or damaged or abandoned....... that should give you an idea of the numbers used but 10% of your force in the game would IMHO be too many unless you were trying to create an "elite" unit

[whdonnelly]

I was thinking of a mix of 70% T-72 variants and 30% everything else for the Russians. This is too much fun, throwing in K2 and K1A1.

Thanks to everyone for the hard work!

Will