MBT's

[DRG]

The official said three Armata prototypes were currently being tested, and production of the tank would start even before the end of the R&D work.

never the best way to do things unless you are desperate ..sounds like Putin wants a new tank NOW

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
I would have to agree on all counts. It does match the timeline we had discussed for these tanks though as well when I first started tracking them. Maybe Putin has streamlined the "graft" system to make it happen as projected.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well to lay the ground work for the following on where the USA is heading with it's armor by compass and figuratively consider these more as supplements to what I've already posted in here. Don and I have already addressed the issues of the M1A2 SEP V2 and the improved BRADLEY with new FCS components. The second ref takes us beyond those improvements as both these platforms will be around for roughly another 15 and 30 years respectively.
The Compass...
http://www.janes.com/article/44483/a...-set-equipment

The Near Term Future (NTF-us military folks love them acronyms. )...
http://www.janes.com/article/44473/a...ehicle-choices

My computer time is up have a good night.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Last should've read 30 and 15 years...vice 15 and 30 years...sorry
for the confusion.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Having a rough recovery so, I thought with a little time to kill I'd provide the following updates. On the DID refs provided below, related issues are in bold within the articles and at the bottom are Related Articles from this and other defense related sites and a further News section from related local and international news sources. This is a "one stop" reference source better than WiKi-anything.

Poland: The continued Russian encroachment into the Ukraine and pressures elsewhere have accelerated the pace of deliveries of the updated LEO 2A4 and 2A5 MBT's. The first covers the (second) deliveries the last the same and a comprehensive look at Poland's heavy armor situation. For my part moving up the fielding date to Oct this year vice Jan 2015 might be appropriate based on Poland's long experience with the LEO and in keeping with historical data for a scenario developer-Russia openly attacks Ukrainian forces with rebel supporting units. With the blessing/support of NATO Poland sends troops into the Ukraine to stabilize the Western portion of the country.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob...tle_tanks.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-tanks-019466/

Also as of today (for real) oil hit a 4yr low too close at $78 a barrel, Russia needs oil at $100 a barrel to sustain it's economy at current/future spending levels. Oil is projected to continue to drop, at $68 a barrel this will tip Russia into a
re-cessation. If this wasn't bad enough now Germany's Merkel has now spoken out against Putin this in the ref below.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...urope-028564//

South Korea/Turkey: As above I've posted on this years ago. The ALTAY was designed from the K-2 during this period of cooperation the S. Koreans started to develop the improved K-2 called the XK-2. Some of the XK-2 improvements made it into the ALTAY however S. Korea is seeking to improve the tank further which ironically is based on the ABRAMS, anyway as you might imagine this has lead to problems. Also not in the update at top but in the first para of the article is what I had already known about the LEO1 and early LEO2 MBT's; that they are still in service with the Turkish Army. These tanks were the test beds for the LEOPARD-1T (LEO 2A4) and ALTAY for the FCS (On LEO1) and other improvement on the older LEO2 tanks refer to the following post in this thread Pg.17 Post #169or the Fastboat Patch Thread. Again the "Poster" was right.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...project-05012/


This will be submitted with the SIPRI data previously mentioned.

The Turkish MBT situation has been greatly clarified since the above post in later ones as soon as within the last six months. I've spent more time on the Turkish armor issue then any other and I expect a final resolution (I hope.) on my first Patch input. The data is good to show the progression of Turkish armor after WWII though I could've presented it in a less confusing manner back then.

Regards,
Pat

[luigim]

Merry Christmas.

One little thing. I don't know if this is the correct thread. I knew that T72B3 was the cheap upgrade version to some Rogatka standards of the T72B. In this game Rogatka is weaker than T72B3. Can you explain me why? Or maybe I'm confused.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

"The T-72B3 is a recent Russian upgrade of the ageing T-72B tanks. It can be seen as a low-cost alternative to the T-72B2 Rogatka upgrade to keep older T-72B tanks operational."

[DRG]

It's all very well to quote he first line but what about

"T-72B3 tanks are fitted with new engine, new gunners sight, new fire control system and have some other improvements"

"....autoloader of the T-72B3 has some modifications and can use newly-developed munitions. "

and the later versions have a more powerful engine

The Rogatka has better EW the B3 has better firecontrol and the cost in game is virtually the same. The only thing really "weaker" is the reactive armour and as I recall at the time the B3 was fitted with more up top date reactive panels....... Personally both these tanks do the same job with only a 1 % difference in cost so maybe you could elaborated on what your problem with this is??


Don

[DRG]

That said if one of the "diggers" of info could confirm the ammo carried in the Rogatka and the B3.... one source says the B3 carries 45 rounds http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Very very tired and I had to look in here...why???
Please go to Page 28 Post 274 Item A1 It has the best gun in the T-72 class (Same as T-90/T-90MS), the new ammo is fielded, best optics, TI, FCS of any T-72 and best protected. Below ref. says ammo at 36 rounds total with 22 ready rounds. Was supposed to have RELIKT ERA (Same as T-90MS.) however the below also suggests KONTACT-5 HOWEVER the reports suggest "a different ERA configuration on the turret...better protection...". I believe it might be RELIKT as the configuration is different from other T-72 mods especially around the turret area.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...res_video.html
http://www.janes.com/article/27920/r...ced-protection

I really like http://www.military-today.com/index.htm it's always been one of the first places I look but the above I feel is better. That being said this is a Ukrainian site and the UKRAINE has built as many or more T-72 tanks then the Russians. So could the second ref mean 36 conventional rounds + four missiles? I don't know and I haven't reread the refs provided in the above post either.

The brain and eyes are tired so for now I'm done. Will look into the ammo issue more later. But while still coherent, two long campaigns Sweden vs. Russia and currently Norway vs. Russia guess what tank the Russian AI likes to now use?

Regards,
Pat

[Tomas]

I've checked the OOB file and the differences between B2 ("Rogatka") and B3 T-72 variants.

My ideas:
-Both tanks should have same FC as they both use same FCS - Sosna-U.
-Rogatka should definitely have stronger reactive armor than B3, as it uses third generation Relikt instead of the Kontakt-5 on B3.
- Regarding the EW, Shtora-1 on Rogatka is correctly represented by the VIRSS, but i think that the B3 should have EW removed altogether. Some webs claim that there's Shtora-1 or even ARENA-E installed, but photos of fielded Russian tanks don't have any of these components installed (missing radar, missing IR sensors, missing laser sensors).

T-72B3 walkaround:
http://btvt.narod.ru/5/t72b3m/t72b3m.htm