The FASTBOAT Patch page.

[DRG]

I mentioned that TAIWAN has a big issue so…
TAIWAN/CHANGE/MIA1 ROC/UNIT 025/NEVER DELIVERED/FMS NOT APPROCVED/CHANGE IN GAME STATUS TO UNAVAILIBLE/RECOMMEND SAME AS REQUESTED FOR OLIFANT Mk-2B BASED ON THE SAME THREE POINTS NOTED ABOVE.

Pat, I feel certain that this has been discussed before. Open that unit up in the game or MOBHack......what do you see ? If you have the latest version of the OOB which seems that you do not you will see it named M1A2 Abrams-P and if you look at the unit class it is in you will see it along with one other tank in the "Prototype Tank" formation that can only be found if you dig it out of the Misc folder so yes, it could be removed but what's the point ?

What is bothersome to me is you reported it as "MIA1 ROC" and it's name was changed last release BUT it has been in a Prototype tank formation since 2008(!!) on the off chance someone might want to play "what if"......though admittedly that is doubtful. I can only assume these are old notes and you did not check the latest OOB's before posting them here

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

To Taiwan, yes it was and I had no issues. You will also find a couple of more like that as well soon like the CHANGE(S) made to the Ukraine's OPLOT- M and Thailand's OPLOT-T (Now) from the last patch.

The point of this exercise again is for me to get all those individual posts across almost 12 to 14 pages of them back together and grouped.

Even you said you printed out what I posted (I haven't yet, but will.) and it sounds like you "rediscovered" the SADF OLIFANT information from your Post #230 of the previous page bottom.

That's why this Thread has been here all these years because it's "Homeplate" or "Ground Zero" for the my inputs to you and others of what "might be" coming.

What happened in the 2017/2018 (Lesser extent and already fixed in this Thread properly.) and 2018/2019 Campaigns was a mess and reminds me of how I first started out which then was only with a handful of inputs by posts and easily managed.

However I seem to remember a call from "some of those close to me here" and one I recognized myself all those years ago, that due to gradual and steady increase of submissions that I had to organize myself in a more concise manner. Again the reason for this Thread.

All that went to **** during these last two campaigns and especially the 2018/2019 one as you know.

My final analogy, I promise.

When you build a car and please for some of you reading, the basic concept if you will , is you start with the Frame (This Thread) add the Engine (Thread Posts) continue to the Body (Our discussions etc. of the Patch Posts in this Thread as needed.) then we prep it for delivery to the showroom by Detailing and Inspecting the car fully (This you and Andy putting the Patch Release together). And finally off to the Showroom where the excited and anxious customers can't wait to see the new car!!

Oh yeah the customers is us!

So finally (And there was much celebration. ) in the 2018/2019 Campaign, the Engine came first without the Frame of the car, kinda makes it's tough to build the car that way, let alone drive it.

As already posted before I added that "Patch Post", I apologize for any inconvenience and confusion this may have caused, however...

I respectfully, would like to build that 2019/2019 Campaign Car right, before I move onto what will probably be the late model 2019/2021 Campaign Car.

And again this is to me the reference point "Home Plate", "Frame" or "Library" whichever you prefer, even "PITA" has worked here in the past and that's OK to! .

I intend to enjoy the rest of this evening as CINCLANTHOME just stopped in and see 1917 tomorrow. I love my weekends, though sometimes they don't seem long enough!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
This by way of a status report.

First to INDIA: I see you had already entered the ARJUN MK 1-A, along with that tank there'll be changes to the ARJUN in general. Nothing major overall but I'll be looking to get the ARJUN itself removed as this is more and more appearing to have been named ONLY for the test bed units. So the ARJUN Mk-1 is looking to be the first operational type, which had 14 improvements made to it based on the OPEVALs before going into production..

Also, and I've brought this up several times over the years, but with newer information in doing the build for the ARJUN Mk-1A (And yes I see you already added it.) it looks like LAHAT is dead.

The reasons are two fold 1) We knew it was plagued by technical difficulties for years and 2) It doesn't fit India's tactical operational needs. Simply this is due to the fact LAHAT is designed as a long range engagement weapon which doesn't "turn on" until it's further down range, where Israel wants it to operate. Anything closer it'll let the MG deal with it.

India wants a ATGW it'll engage targets at a closer range if need be, this is a preference versus a need. Their MG is very close to being as good as the CHALLENGER 2 MG.

They are currently testing an ATGW to meet their needs.

USA - Still sorting through the ABRAMS posts, there just was so many pages of data, a couple "back and forth" posts as I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.) etc. etc.

FRANCE - I see you fixed the MMP ATGW that had the 0 Vis. to 60 TI/GSR. That was what I had as well.

RUSSIA - Have some date changes concerning the T-80BV Series of tanks. Already researched.

But to give you something to do ,
CHANGE/SOUTH KOREA/K2 PIP/UNIT 033/TI/GSR 55/or 60 (I can see this clearly, but, I leave it to your discretion.)/vice/TI/GSR 40/FC 55/vice/FC 50/MIGHT REQUIRE LATER START DATE//The K2 PIP is the "Top Dog" in the K2 Series of tanks.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/moder...ck-panther.php

Now I'm going to watch APOCALYPSE NOW in 4K. Ride of the Valkyries by Richard Wagner will never have sounded better to me then it will on my YAMAHA 4k HTS. Plus the DOORS AND Soundtrack, it's going to be a good night!

CINCLANTHOME is going to LOVE THIS!!

Good Night!! Back to the GRIND tomorrow.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well as usual when I start looking into something I uncover more issues of which in this case are minor compared to many others we've encountered out here. The issues are with SOUTH KOREA with their more recent armor.

I'll set it up in my normal format later as I sense the "clock is ticking" (And NO I DON'T HAVE ANY INSIDE INFORMATION OF ANYTHING TO COME.)

So Don don't have a "heart attack" (Or for that matter anyone that follows my posts.) at my "briefness" if you will.

First, I get it concerning K1-88 UNITS 021-023, though I think two can be combined into one unit, maybe.

Second, I would strongly recommend changing the name of the KIA1 UNIT 024 to either K1A1/A2 or K1A1/2. I highlighted the first one as I'm seeing it described as such in more of the refs. The K1A2 was another improved model but, and I agree with many of the refs. that the improvements were "minor in nature" as to not warrant a separate unit. We did the same with the Russian T-72B3/B4 as I recall about three years back.

Third, Is there a reason the K2 UNIT 025 is not armed with the KSTAM munition? They have them and this tank was designed to fire it. Some people are calling it an ATGW, I STRONGLY disagree, it's designed to be fired at a higher elevation and the refs are describing/or comparing it to firing a mortar or artillery. Further the description of KSTAM much more reminds me of the STRIX the very effective SWEDISH (?) 120mm Anti-Tank top attack mortar round. The picture of it even resembles the STRIX and looks more like a "mortar" round in the below ref. The below is taken from the same ref. and is a composite of other refs.

"Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition (KSTAM), sort of fire-and-forget semi-autonomous ammunition that operates at 2–8 km (1.2–5.0 mi), launched in a mortar-type high trajectory."
https://weaponews.com/weapons/653540...tle-tanks.html

Also concerning the K2, I'm trying to confirm whether or not South Korea has already started to field "KAPS" (APS) on those tanks. And yes, I see you equipped it as such. For everyone else KAPS was one of the improvements slated for the K2 PIP.

Fourth, The T-80ROK UNIT 029 and BMP-3ROK UNIT 061 were retired last year. I thought I posted this last summer or early fall. But for the sake of argument based on the dates of the refs. being in the March/April 2019 timeframe, I believe JUN 2019 would work well or DEC 2019 if you want to be more conservative about the END date.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/ht.../20190406.aspx

Fifth, From what little is out there to include HYUNDAI/ROTEM (Which doesn't even mention the K2 PIP.) website, I believe a better START date for K2 PIP UNIT 033 would be JAN 2023.

Most every ref. talks about the K2 PIP being a "few years away". The first para says it all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalPower...ement_program/

But I'll be more optimistic about the K2 PIP based on the political situation on the peninsula and the world in general.

Regards,
Pat


POSTSCRIPT: Added on 2/6/2020 1155 Here's a short STRIX video I posted when we addressed this weapon a few years back. Again KSTAM (Though improved.) uses basically the same technology with also radar technology.

STRIX has long been rumored to use either a Video or Radar to supplement the IR seeker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhd1d2sW_3I
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-pre...ld-leadership/

[DRG]

IN reply to each point you made

First.....it is good enough as it is with three progressions
Second...Done
Third....Done
Forth... Done
Fifth....Done

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.

Not sure Don wants to hear this if it has anything to do with the armor values.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I was simply making the point as to why I'm holding off getting the ABRAMS data into this thread. You of all people know well, that my submissions start in this thread. That did not happen in 2018/2019.

You have with all due respect, no idea how many hours and refs. I had to spend and go through just to post what I did on the ABRAMS, and it started with a request from I don't know who to look into the USMC M1A1 FEP.

I found two separate ABRAMS in the game that were actually the same tank. Dates were messed up, a couple using production dates vice FOC one's. Most of those errors were in this game BEFORE Don and Andy stepped in.

I actually submitted numbers for the FEP at least 2 times as data "bled over" from the USMC and USA.

I have disciplined myself to do "deep searches" on any piece of equipment I submit, to avoid rework for everyone else and myself. As Col. Kurtz said "...the horror, the horror." well I've seen enough of that here.

I would love to have one Patch Campaign go smoothly to the point that the equipment submitted didn't lead down a "rabbit hole" affecting other units, just one year. I don't see it happening because I suspect there are more, if you will, "relics" left to be found.

I do love "order in my world" and I accept the challenge that "chaos" brings to life. It's the spice of life.

So no, I think you missed the point I made completely from that post.

I have no idea what Don used of my submission for the FEP or any other ABRAMS or equipment I posted into the MBT Thread during 2018/2019.

You might better understand if you went through those eight or more pages just on ABRAMS in the MBT Thread. Start around Page 87 or so.

I deviated from my mode of operations. I ignored this thread, for the sake of getting equipment in the game or modified. That'll never happen again.

I own that. Now I'm paying the price for that "tactical error" but, at least it's at my pace around CINCLANTHOME and work and training.

So I end with what you posted with now the complete sentence to put it all in context for the portion you used.

From Post #233
"USA - Still sorting through the ABRAMS posts, there just was so many pages of data, a couple "back and forth" posts as I flushed newer information (USMC FEP as an example.) etc. etc."

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

I assure you I very much value your work.

But the trouble (as always) when dealing with contemporary (and sometimes past) equipment is getting solid data. For as "simple" as WinSPMBT may appear to some, those that deal with the actual data that defines units know it's anything but behind the scenes. A simple date change may effect multiple OOBs and several scenarios which may then require updating.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

If your in no rush I'll keep going as I'm doing with the time I have. But as a "heads up" just spent the last couple of hours reverifying my data and trying to "stay on point" in the brevity department.

We'll see how that worked out in the INDIA section (Which I referred to above.) with what others I have to this point for Part 2 of this Thread.

It will be concerning the first tank I offered for India and one of the first I posted so long ago-yes-the ARJUN (Series.). Nothing too earth shattering with the biggest changes to the ARJUN Mk-1A.

I'm done.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

SPMBT/MBT’s Part 2
I hope to finish the rest of the 2018/2019 MBT data with this Part 2 (2/16/2020 I will need a Part 3.). Again I realize some of what will be posted here has been acted on but, then this is not why they appear here as I noted in an earlier. All the below sourced from the MBT Thread.

From Page 81 Post 802
A1. ALGERIA/ADD/JUN 2018/T-90SA/COPY UNIT 027/WITH SHTORA-1//
Article is from May, its indicating system is already installed on some tanks. June seems like a safe month, however, if you wish to be more conservative then I recommend NLT OCT.

C1. ALGERIA/CHANGE/UNIT 027/T-90S/TORD T-90SA//
All Algerian T-90S (Standard export version.) were modified somewhat for desert warfare to include, I know, AC (But remember folks AC isn't for the crew but for the electronics.) and therefore designated T-90SA.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._53005161.html

From Page 81 Post 808/I wanted to keep these together.
This follows the "tact" as I discussed last week or whenever I posted PART I. I just pulled this off the "wire" so again Croatia will have to wait, as this article impacts both Brazil and will "dove tail" to Uruguay. I know not many players probably play these OOB's but, that doesn't mean we (I) should ignore them, after all my motto is "One World One OOB". Let's get to it...

BRAZIL/CHANGE/M-41C CAXIAS/UNIT 007/END DATE 12/1996 VICE 12/2025// There is some evidence to support this date when the first LEOPARD tanks went into service for the Brazilian Army. These tanks were used for training purposes both before (Earlier mods.) and up to, for the sake of argument, concerning the month, 12/2009 as deemed obsolete. So that last date gives you an out however I'm feeling 80% sure of the date as submitted. I know it's not the best, but the current situation isn't correct.

Now we "dove tail"...

URAGUAY/ADD/M-41C CAXIAS/USE BRAZILIAN UNIT 007/START DATE 12/2019/LEAVE NAME UNCHANGED FOR NOW/REDESINATION UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME/WHEN ANNOUCED (IF) IT'LL BE EASIER TO FIND AND FIX// I've not seen anything on name change or any upgrades to at least the current M-41UR BULLDOG that has slightly better armor numbers. These tanks will by Brazil be fully maintained before delivery.

These tanks will replace the last of the M-24 CHAFFEE tanks in service with the Uruguayan Army. So...

URAGUAY/CHANGE/M-24UR CHAFFEE/UNIT 005/END DATE 06/2019 VICE 12/2015// I feel that's a good overall date, it generally takes a little longer to "pull something out than put it in" and this will allow more than enough time to retrain the M-24 crews to man the "new" M-41C Brazilian received tanks.

I think that about covers it and I need to get ready for work. Again, a "composite" ref.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/nove...ayan_army.html

From Page 81 Post 810
News first then we'll take a journey into the OOB.
FYI HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-84A4 SNIPER and M-84D TO BE UPGRADED TO THE M-95 DEGMAN LEVEL//TRACKING/GUESS/SHOULD HAVE UNITS UPGRADED AND IN THE FIELD BY 10/2020/IF THIS HOLDS TRUE, THAT WOULD MARK THE END DATES FOR THOSE TWO M-84 VARIENTS// Budget was approved in 02/2018. Assume work has begun if budget is on the Calendar year, if not and they are on a standard Fiscal year, work should have started around 10/2018 or 11/2018.

FYI/HEADLINE/CROATIA/M-95 DEGMAN/APPARENTLY THEY SEEK TO UPGRADE IT TO MEET NATO STANAG REQUIRMENTS. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLABRATING WITH SWISS RUAG TO DEVELOP A SMALL CALIBAR (L44?) 120mm MG TO ALSO MEET NATO REQUIRMENTS/TRACKING/THEY ARE ON A UNKNOWN TIMELINE TO GET THIS DONE FROM NATO/GUESS/06/2021//

I'm to do this in as close to the listing in the OOB as possible.

First CROATIAN M-84 progression/hierarchy: M-84, M-84A (Both out of Service.), M-84A4 SNIPER, M-84D and M-95 DEGMAN.

YUGOSLOVIA (Built in the State of CROATIA) developed the M-84 as an improved version of the SOVIET era T-72M1M export version. This build issue will cause a start date change for one tank, but, if not you at least know what I was thinking at the time.

Alright here we go...

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 008/TI/GSR 40 VICE VISION 35/DELETE LAHAT/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 12.7mm HMG//Based on the refs to be provided with the builder one provided directly below, the argument can be made that this tank has a DETECTION RNG. OF >4000m/RECOGNITION RNG. >2000m it is considered an advanced 2nd GEN System. LAHAT was never exported to CROATIA and no site I've come across (And I don't use WIKI anything.) mentions any CROATIAN tank being armed with the LAHAT. Further ref. is also directly below the first one as they are exclusive to this tank. Dates covered 1990 - 2017 for SIPRI search.
Finally I chose this tank because the ERA is where it should be.
http://ddsv.hr/download/Tenk_Degman_engleski.pdf
All optional equipment was acted upon to include FCS & 1200HP German engine etc.
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade...e_register.php

Israel "Delivered" "Weapon" "Order" "Delivered"
R: Croatia 2 Hermes-450 UAV 2006 2007 2
8 UT-25/UT-30 IFV turret 2017 HRK94 m ($14.8 m) deal; UT-30MK2 version for 6 AMV IFV; delivery planned 2018

Reporting to SIPRI is governed by Treaties and International Law among the factors they use.

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84 & M-84A/UNITS 012 & 013/END DATE 12/2007 VICE 12/2025//All previous active T-84 mods were upgraded to the M-84A4 SNIPER standard by 2008.

CROATIA/DELETE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT O15//If anything these might have represented the two prototype tanks that were produced and not put into service.

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-84D/UNIT 020/DELETE 12.7 M2 (SLAP)/ADD 12.7mm M2 CROWS RWS//

CROATIA/DELETE/M-84D/UNIT 021/REDUNDANT TO UNIT 020/AGAIN NO LAHAT//

CROATIA/CHANGE/M-95 DEGMAN/UNIT 023/USE MODIFIED UNIT 008 IF ADAPTED AS BASE/DELETE 12.7mm M87 AAMG/ADD Samson RWS 40mm AGL//

CROATIA/DELETE/M-94 DEGMAN/UNIT 024/REDUNDANT//

I can find no evidence that any of these tanks had a "mid-life" upgrade of any kind. Besides other factors, this drove some of the above.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...nks_fleet.html
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/33033
http://tanknutdave.com/the-yugoslavi...r-m-84-series/
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armo...p?armor_id=629

Ref. 3 does a nice job of breaking these tanks down but more importantly along with Ref. 4 to a lesser degree, discuss the various mods across the countries that operated the M-84.

Doing the best I can.

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-1/UNIT 020/CHANGE/END JAN 2025//
This MBT is still very much in service, currently with the 43RD Tank Regiment in western India.
https://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-the-ar...et-yet-1797209
https://www.janes.com/article/80893/...pacific-es18d3
(This Ref. 1 near the bottom discusses the fact that LAHAT failed testing and in meeting India’s tactical requirements. India will develop their own ATGW. Ref. dated Jan 2018.)

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-1A/UNIT 021/CHANGE/START JAN 2021/VISION/TI/GSR 50/REMOVE LAHAT/FC 50/STABILIZER 6/ERA (All) 18/ROF 7/USES SAME RWS AS ARJUN Mk-2/TRACK WIDTH MINE PLOUGH (TWMP) SEEMS TO BE STANDARD/BASE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNITS 022/023//
This MBT was delayed. As you will have noted from the above refs. They both end up talking about the Mk-1 to the MK-2 (Only in ref. 2). The ARJUN MK-1A has incorporated 72 out of the ~97 improvements the Army has required for the ARJUN Mk-2. The above changes are what’s on the ARJUN Mk-2 at this time. None of the above are items of issue currently delaying the ARJUN Mk-2. The tank will make its public appearance at DefExpo India 2020, I believe on 20 Feb.

A separate issue appears to be that this MBT is also (Can be.) equipped to fire both a Thermo Baric (TB) and Penetration Cum Blast (PCB) round.

Can those rounds be modeled?

https://www.newindianexpress.com/sta...y-2073063.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nat...n-2073023.html
https://weaponews.com/news/65357533-...able-bull.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/dece...roduction.html

INDIA/CHANGE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNIT 022/ROF 7/If the above TB and or PCB rounds can be modeled, then this MBT should also have those rounds//

INDIA/DELETE/ARJUN Mk-2/UNIT 023/NO LAHAT/WITH OPTION 2 FOLLOWING BELOW/CHANGE/ROF 7//Alright Option 2, retain this MBT until such time as India needs to develop its own ATGW. But remove it from regular play if retained.

New pictures will be submitted for UNITS 021/022 as they currently reflect the ARJUN Mk-1/Mk-2. In outward appearance they're the same. Also added a better (Maybe.) ARJUN Mk-1 picture as well. It'll be the last one.

Trying this in a separate post.

STATUS UPDATE for ARJUN Mk-2: The weight of the ARJUN Series has been one of the biggest issues concerning the Army from the start. The update here is that they just very recently announced they have redesigned the chassis and reduced the overall weight by 3 tons. I know the newer more effective ERA on this tank (And on the Mk-1A.) shed another ton just about. This makes me hopeful that we will actually see this MBT in the game.

From Page 85 Post 849
JAPAN/ADD/TYPE 16 MCV 8x8/START 06 2017/C4/SPEED 100km/h (62.1 mph)/4x2 GRENADE LAUNCHERS TURRET MOUNTED/RADIO 91/TI/GSR 50/MODIFIED L7 105mm/L52 JSW/ROUNDS 55 SEE REF. 1 FOR TYPES/RS COAX Type 74 7.62mm/RS Mid Turret 12.7mm M2HB HMG/FCS 50/LASER R/F 22/STABILISER 6/SURVIBILITY 5/STEEL/HEAT USE ITALY B1-B CENTAURA UNIT 030/ERA NONE MENTIONED/SUBMITTED AS UPARMORED VERSION//The design was based on the SADF ROOIKAT and ITALY's CENTURO. The MCV was designed to replace the TYPE 74 MBT of which that process has already begun. Due to cost issues of the TYPE 10 during development and sanctions limiting the JGSDF to 600 tanks, the MCV was seen as a cheap alternative to supplement their tank branch. First off the FCS is believed to be derived from the TYPE 10. The MG is similar to the one used on the TYPE 74 but, modified with the addition of integrated thermal sleeve and fume-extractor the importance of this goes to the MG STABILITY has already been discussed with the recent SADF submissions (Added as submitted in Part 1.). It does feature a unique muzzle brake/compensator, consisting of rows of nine holes bored into the barrel in a spiral formation see picture on Ref. 1. I've not seen that on any MBT MG to date.
Researched contemporary peer game units SOUTH AFRICA ROOIKAT II UNIT 017, ITALY B1-B CENTURO UNIT 030, JAPAN TYPE 10 UNIT 022 & TYPE 74 KAI UNIT 027. Like the TYPE 10 the ARMOR/STEEL composition and thickness are CLASSIFIED. The same as a side note concerns the TYPE 10 ammo, all we know is that we've (USA) has noted "it is highly effective". I've not come across anything to indicate that the MCV ammo is, I will assume it is of a high quality and effective though.
Relying heavily on Refs. 1 & 2 because they are NEWER and RELIABLE. The next is the same but not updated.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...n-type-16-mcv/
https://www.janes.com/article/74061/...ility-dsei17d4
(NOTE LAST PARA & Mr. Foss of JANE'S is a well known writer.)
For further info:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/japa...res_video.html
(NOTE Shows JAPAN as a USER not PROTOTYPE.)

From Page 94 Post 940:
RUSSIA/T-90M/UNIT 059/START JUN 2020 vice OCT 2018.// This should get the job done, hopefully. I first posted on this MBT late in 2017 or early in 2018 I believe, having first been spotted participating in a Russian exercise. The T-90M which I've been watching from the start. It is currently still in trials so a date change will be required. (Follow the ref. chain below as they have now been updated.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/july...uisitions.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russ...res_video.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...sian_army.html
(From the ref. Dated FEB 2018, "According to the Russian Company Uralvagonzavod, the latest modernization of the main battle tank T-90, called T-90M will enter in service with the Russian army in the next few months.")
https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/russ...rials-in-2019/
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...ew-t-90m-tank/
(This last ref. from this past SEP. indicates the Russian Army did not receive its first T-90M until JUN 2019.)
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25...y#.Xav6qm5Fzoo
(This ref. SEP 2019 is saying they just got their first one in SEP 2019.)

From Page 93 Post #924
UKRAINE/ADD/T-64 BULAT M17/COPY UNIT O32 T-64BM BULAT/CHANGE/START JUN 2018/EW 2 APS/RADIO 90/VISION TI/GSR 45/FC 45/STABILIZER 5/ERA HF 16/HS 16/HR 0/TF 16/TS 16/TR 0/TOP 16/USED UNITS 032 T-64BM BULAT/UNIT 063 T-84 OPLOT+/UNIT 064 T-84 OPLOT-M AS BASELINE UNITS //First off it looks like UNIT 032 should also be equipped with the same EW as the T-64 BULAT M17. The T-64 BULAT’s are the main frontline tanks in Ukraine’s Eastern sector and were in need of further modernization based on combat experience, even though they showed themselves as more than a match against the rebel’s T-72 tanks. I don’t think up to the ERA numbers there’s any problems here. And I really feel very comfortable about those ERA numbers as this represents a much improved NOZH (KNIFE) ERA. It essentially falls between NOZH II and the DUPLEX ERA’s. I’ll have to find my original posts on this tank as I think they had better information in them.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/febr...mor_plant.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-russia-112166
https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...t-64_mbts.html
https://www.janes.com/article/86319/...upgraded-t-64s
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-def...t64-tanks.html
https://defence-blog.com/army/russia...er-t-72b3.html
https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_...cs/udr-02-2017 (See pages 13–14 and 16–17 for this ref.)

From Page 71 Post 702
CHANGE/UNIT 538/ABRAMS M1A2 SEP V3/START DATE 4/117 to 5/120//
Prototypes (6) to the USA by end of this month, or Oct. (From the time this was posted.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/sept...tle_tanks.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/unit..._11710154.html

From Page 71 Posts 703/704
USA/ADD/JAN 2018/M1A2 SEP V2/COPY UNIT 517/CHANGE EW 0 TO EW 2/4 TROPHY/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS// (My edit “today”, this was/is a tough decision the RWS was addressed and fixed per Post 704. The issue is TROPHY. Under an “urgent equipment order” while TROPHY was finishing testing, the USA decided to equipment ONE combat brigade with it prior to a rotational deployment to Europe. But in the game you just can’t equip a brigade you have to equip the whole fleet. This just isn’t reality, so to copy the above UNIT 517 wouldn’t be a waste of time to get ahead of the TROPHY issue, which might happen by years end or the next year. But it shouldn’t be game ready now and I don’t think it is.)
ALSO...
USA/CHANGE/UNITS 517 M1A2 SEP V2 & 538 M1A2 SEP V3/CHANGE 50 CAL AAMG TO 50 CAL CROWS II RWS.//
When submitted in Patch Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign 18 February 2013 under MBT's...A1 M1A2 SEP V2 the unit was submitted to have the 50 CAL CROWS II RWS. For all the Patch Posts I've submitted, I've maintained a hard copy of each. When the Patch comes out I do a line item check against what I submitted and what actually was put in. Reading from my "crib" notes in the margin are the following...
"TI/GSR 50" with check mark and "THANKS 898/899 NEW BRADLEY" (A reminder which I posted to Don later.) this tells me it was originally put in the game with the CROWS II RWS. Am I off base here and I missed it then? Or was it changed afterwards? I think however there's a performance difference between the two 50 CAL weapons in the game. A note about the ref., in the title it does say..."...tanks fitted with..." and not "will be" "soon to be" "in the future" "expected to be" "planned to be" etc. etc.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/octo...on_system.html
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/...sraeli-trophy/
https://scout.com/military/warrior/A...ecti-101454662
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/06/...h-chief-hints/

The last two USA UNITS represents the start of the ABRAMS nightmare. I have had to go back OVER 30 Pages of Posts to “Recapture” this data and to see if there have been any updates to what I’ve posted thus far. I haven’t find any yet to date except where noted in () other than attached to the refs.

I’m pretty sure the Algerian, Japanese, Ukrainian (With a compromise on the ERA with Don.), and possibly the USA units have been addressed.

I have not the time to verify the OOB’s, sorry, we’re going into a third week of two major security exercises as announced for planning purposes for delayed base access for those with base access.

The whole team has done really well in the first exercise, it’s time to finish strong on the next one.

But again, as far as I can find all the above is still correct and relevant.

I had taken a few hours to list everything posted thus far and what will now end with a PART III.

And this ONLY covers the MBT’s. I found doing this “donkey backwards” that I posted A LOT of inputs across the Threads. But this will be the longest of them all by far I think.

At least I won’t have to put them back into their “Home Threads” like I normally do!

Before anyone says anything about that last sentence, just let me live in that pretend world of “ignorant bliss” please!?! Yeah "donkey backwards", someone just shoot me if it happens again!?!


Regards
Pat