The FASTBOAT Patch page.

[DRG]

Here's another one

A3. USA/JAN 1977 – DEC 1986/M60A1 RISE Passive/C4/RB 105mm L51 M68 w/63 Rds, M240 7.62mm w/5.9 Rds & M85 12.7mm w/900 Rds.The USA developed the ERA packages late in the life of this tank but, never to be used them. The development of the M60A3, M60A3 TTS and the dawn of the M1 stopped this. The USMC actually got them from the USA stocks during Desert Shield prior to combat operations. RISE Passive was the pinnacle of the M60A1 MBT.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ound/m60a1.htm
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M60.html
Post #73.

How would a M60A1 RISE Passive in game terms differ in any significant way than a M60A3 Patton ( USA unit #19 ) ?

Compare this to the USMC M60A1 Rise ( USMC unit #19 by total coincidence ).

Aside from the one point stabilizer difference and the one point difference in cost ? Could it be that these A3's are suppose to be A1 RISE and the TTS is the only real A3as seems to be suggested here http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ound/m60a3.htm

???

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
To the M1A1 SA/ED & Iraqi SA, thank god I didn't delete my refs yet as I think I missed one to put in. I saw some mention of an advanced
M1A1 tank to be designated M1A1M. It appears that the M1A1 SA/ED (SA) is the bridge to that tank. Please refer to I believe A2 ref 1 and I think it was 3. The M1A1M is not the M1A1 AIM as this is treated separately in this ref I believe I forgot to supply. It seems the three differences I see from other M1A1 tanks is;
1. New advanced FLIR sight (Possible increase to TI/GSR in line w/MERKAVA 4?).
2. New advanced Driver THERMAL sight, game enhancement I don't know unless it helps w/target acquisition somehow.
3. New Commanders target/weapons stabilization system. This sounds like a plus to FC?
This ref, about mid way down, right side has a M1A1 SA drawing you can click on to show the enhancements at a glance. SA/ED adds blue force locator and another electronic enhancement that I can't remember at the moment but is given I think in the first ref to cover the USA M1A1 SA/ED.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/ Look to para next to gunners station picture to right side.
We've touched on this no new tanks means too many variations of existing ones. I assure everyone it'll be my mission to cut out the crap (Can I say that? Well I guess I did!) in these countries to make room. Hope this helped some.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
Submitted the US Army M60A1 RISE/Passive only because I saw it as an omission. That tank represented the pinnacle of the M60A1 series. Just filling the gap between the M60A1 to M60A3 tanks for the US Army. I'd rather trade an "extra" variation of the
M60A1 by deletion to get this one in because it's vision would be better than any M60A1.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
Here's a quick possible solution for the M60A1 issue to get the RISE/Passive in. I used the USA encyclopedia page 1, there are two M60A1 tanks on that page with the following info.
1. JAN 1962 - DEC 1973 HE 18, AP 0, SABOT 20 and HEAT 25.

2. JAN 1974 - DEC 1984 HE 18, AP 0, SABOT 25 and HEAT 20.

If ammo load-out is the only issue here that I can see at a quick look and all other factors are the same, then why not just have one M60A1 JAN 1962 - DEC 1984 with the ammo load-out as desired, though latter from above would be best against the Warsaw Pact tank heavy units of the day. Is this a possible area of economy in the game to open further slots? Already looking in the 2nd or 3rd (If needed.) post to recommend deletions (About 10) for the U.S. alone.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don,
Here's a quick possible solution for the M60A1 issue to get the RISE/Passive in. I used the USA encyclopedia page 1, there are two M60A1 tanks on that page with the following info.
1. JAN 1962 - DEC 1973 HE 18, AP 0, SABOT 20 and HEAT 25.

2. JAN 1974 - DEC 1984 HE 18, AP 0, SABOT 25 and HEAT 20.

If ammo load-out is the only issue here that I can see at a quick look and all other factors are the same, then why not just have one M60A1 JAN 1962 - DEC 1984 with the ammo load-out as desired, though latter from above would be best against the Warsaw Pact tank heavy units of the day. Is this a possible area of economy in the game to open further slots? Already looking in the 2nd or 3rd (If needed.) post to recommend deletions (About 10) for the U.S. alone.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Pat

Pat..... You REALLY ( really ..) have to start working with MOBHack and using that as references. I really ( really ..) do not have time to stop what I'm doing, open the game, go to the encyclopaedia, guess which items you are referring to ......( because if you have the CD version to the game, and I hope you do, there are a dozen different way to filter the entries and I can only ASSUME which way you are doing it ).....then open up MOBHack and try to find them. ( really.....). Looking through the encyclopaedia for information to make corrections that will ultimately be made in MOBHack just does not cut it

However, in this case those two units ( units 16 and 18 in the US OOB.... I think ! ) have a GUN upgrade not just rearranging the ammo ( weapons 95 and 96 ) that increases Sabot Pen by 5 and sabot range by 10 which has the effect of increasing sabot pen further at closer ranges so neither of those units can , should, or will be deleted.

Don

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don,
Submitted the US Army M60A1 RISE/Passive only because I saw it as an omission. That tank represented the pinnacle of the M60A1 series. Just filling the gap between the M60A1 to M60A3 tanks for the US Army. I'd rather trade an "extra" variation of the
M60A1 by deletion to get this one in because it's vision would be better than any M60A1.

Regards,
Pat

Pat, here's where a bit of time with MOBHack would clarify how things are done and why this wasn't included in the US OOB

You want the RISE Passive in the game from 1977 to the end of 1986. However, "game reality" intrudes on real reality.

There is a gun upgrade ( ammo really but that's the way the game works.....we upgrade the whole gun ) in the game in 1978. It is not practical to add a unit for one year with the older gun simply because we are running out of slots in the USA OOB and in 1979 the M60A3 enters service which gives better FC and a better gun stabilizer. So , to be practical about it we could add the RISE passive in 1978 with the ammo/gun upgrade and leave it in service until 1984 ( when the next gun ammo upgrade occurs) but it would only be a really useful upgrade for one year.....1978.

In a perfect world where I would have unlimited unit slots available I would add your RISE Passive in 1977 with the older ammo then add another one in 1978 with the newer one but the game reality is there are only 36 empty slots left in the USA OOB and using up one or two for tank that only gives a small FC and stabilizer increase for a very shot period of time isn't really pactical

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
I agree with your points, we'll stop (I'll) chasing our "tails" on the U.S. Army M60A1 RISE/Passive for the sake of historical accuracy (This is not a knock!), let's I strongly agree let it go.
Also for the sake speed I wanted to get responses back to you, so sorry for the extra work on your part to this point. But when I had a few moments I did go to MOHACK and what a great tool! I like the unit search mode and you'll be glad to know that I've already have started converting my other recommendations to come to this mode. I don't know what everything is I'm looking at (Time issue for now.) is but enough to get you what you need.
As a preview for the CHANGE category to come are USMC SPOOKY Unit 573 and LAV-AD Unit 050 or 054, or both, that I'll have to sort out with the encyclopedia. A simple Yes or No response if I'm on the track with these would do in tagging these items for you when get them posted with the info I have on them. As I've indicated many more CHANGE(s) and
DELETE(s) to come in next post.

Thanks again for reducing some of the BLISS in INGORANCE!
Time to get ready to start my work week have great day all!

Regards,
Pat

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

New advanced Driver THERMAL sight, game enhancement I don't know unless it helps w/target acquisition somehow.

Not likely.

3. New Commanders target/weapons stabilization system. This sounds like a plus to FC?

I am not the greatest living expert about the abrams, but the above sounds like it is talking about the commander MG which is a RWS in some versions. An improvement there should not affect main gun FC, so it does nothing game wise.

SA/ED adds blue force locator and another electronic enhancement that I can't remember at the moment but is given I think in the first ref to cover the USA M1A1 SA/ED.

Again it does not register. You already get blue force locator by default with the game mechanics, even if you are playing with afghan militia circa 1949.

Really, a lot of significant improvements in real life simply mean nothing as far as the game is concerned. Belly armor? It isn't an adjustable parameter. Air conditioning? Cannot be simulated. Lower fuel consumption? Irrilevant. It is a issue of game scope, mechanics etc.

In addition to the above there is a question of economy. Aside from shortage of units slots which make fitting every single Abrams variant and subvariant, and there are quite a few of them (a result of the overlapping of various modernization programs), not practical there is also the issue of worth.
In principle for example I could still have added a small number of additional pages of suggested improvements to the iraqi OOB ground units, but it would have been a case of extra work for diminishing returns, the basics for a decently accurate gameplay having already been covered.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Simply put, I care about armor, sensors and weapons and presenting this information, you can be assured that unlike our congress concerning certain legislation I do read through every ref I provide to pull out the "nuggets" that are real world issues, how that information is integrated into the game is beyond my technical knowledge and I'm sorry for that. The IED and Mine issue is DOA now that Don has explained this to me earlier, however "all around armor protection" means just that, since last I checked RPGs are launched from above ground and not from under it. And finally since it was brought up as well, I could careless about AC, except when it's for 55 days straight here when it was well over a 100 w/the humiture for everyday. But rest assured my computer with the game and every unit in it was very comfortable! Now I have work to do.

Don,
Concerning the LEOPARDS:
1. Leo A4M CAN let's look at it visually:




The Leo A4M CAN pics you have as I've submitted them. It's clear that the Leo A4M CAN is at least upgraded to the Leo A5 standard. However it would seem based on this next official govt. ref I managed to find it could have been upgraded all the way to the Leo A6M CAN level in armor protection. It would also then have the 120mm L55 as well. Please note the
28 March 2009 update.
http://casr.ca/doc-loi-leopard-tank.htm

2. The Turkish Leo A1T Unit 033, have not found anything solid on an armor upgrade, but it would make sense for as long as they've operated them and the huge investment they've made in the "big picture" (For clarification of others.) FC system they just installed on these last year. Maybe a gratis 10% might not be to unreasonable but that's your call. In the mean time I've emailed this question for all their Leo tanks to the following Turkish Govt. ref as given to support the FC issue as submitted already.
http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/Sayfalar/default.aspx

3. Finally on the Turkish Leo 2A4T Unit 039 no information on any further armor upgrades as these tanks were delivered from Germany already to Turkish specs. However again the Aselan FC system was also installed on these as already submitted so the logical conclusion is it was better then what they came with from Germany or else, why bother?

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
A further picture on the Leo A4M CAN for analysis.

Armor yes but based on the angle and parallax I'm thinking 120mm L44 still.

Photo analysis lots of info and something I did while watching our "friends".

Sometimes when a man has nothing else left but his wit, if used properly, it can be a potent weapon. Or not!

Good Night All!

Regards,
Pat