MBT's

[DRG]

What I think will be needed is to change the T-15 UNIT 346 START to JUN 2022 (Matches current T-14 date.) vice JUN 2021. These 2 armor units are bound together at least mechanically and by some other subsystems.[/quote]


...........and I assume 374 as well ??

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

This above mentions the fact they're going to attempt this while the "trials" are still ongoing, so think about this, they want to build the the T-14/T-15 while their still trying to figure out how to fix them in the first place!?! They need to consult with Turkey and India and ask them how that worked with the ALTAY and ARJUN. It didn't, it delayed one by a couple of years and the other is still "scratching their heads" as well.

So by extension and as I've posted on regularly over the years, they to are suffering from the same technical issues that Turkey is having with the ALTAY, further compounded by problems revolving around certain electronic packages to include but not limited to the FCS.

You must remember the following:
1. This is Russia first from the ground-up tank design in decades. They take time even the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS took years and years to from design to FOC.

On top of that it's a huge departure in design for them and it will determine how they are deployed.

The T-72 is 7.2 ft(2.19 m ) high

The T-90 is 7.3 ft (2.225 m ) high

The M1 Abrams is 8 ft (2.44 m) high

The T14 Armata is 10 ft (3.3 m)

That's a BIG difference to adjust to after 2 generations of tanks that are shorter than most of their opponents and it makes the vehicle a much bigger target

OTOH the Leo 2A6 is 9.8 ft (3.0 m) high and that caught me by surprise as my main focus in Icon building is only width and Lenght. I hadn't paid attention to height but still..... the Russians are used to tanks a Meter shorter than the T-14. That thing stands out like a 10 year old in a kindergarten class............ or a Moose in a herd of cattle.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=...AAAAAdAAAAABAN

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yes that would mean Russian UNIT 374 as well, so congratulations on passing the SPMBT Awareness Check (SAC)!!!!

So for the rest of you, be careful so you too don't get SAC'd!?!

About UNIT 374 as far as I know they haven't committed to the 57mm yet but, I know however, I do have a couple of articles in my APC/IFV folder concerning the issue and that it is currently being strongly considered. I'll be watching it, since I keep my "poop" for so long.

So Don, please tell me that the "older" German LEOPARD tanks up to the A6 are mostly legacy ones from before you guys took over the game. I'm assuming they are based on the dates but, if I'm asking, you already know then, I'm finding a mess.

For instance LEOPARD 2A5 UNITS 031 & 032 looks like they can be deleted as they are to early by at least a year or more. UNITS 270 & 271 are closer but, it's looking like they might be early by about 6 months at least as well. From my sources with a very tight or exact same date from one of my sources:
"The first Leopard 2A5 was handed over on 30th November 1995."

If I understand it correctly, those LEOPARD 2A5 tanks UNITS 032/271/274 & 275 with the (S) represent ones with the Steel plates added on the "belly" for mine protection. If that is correct, than the issue is they didn't have that added on to them as far as I can tell to this point. It was from the lessons learned from the German KFOR Ops with the LEOPARD 2A4/2A5 tanks, which is why the LEOPARD 2A6M had the modification done as noted above and as follows again representative of my sources:

"Lessons learned from Bundeswehr operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, where its forces were confronted with an extreme mine threat, the transformation of the Bundeswehr into an operational army, and the increase in out-of-area deployments made it necessary to improve the mine protection of the Leopard 2A6.
Between 2004 and 2008, therefore, a total of 70 Leopard 2A6 tanks were modified to 2A6Ma. These vehicles were equipped with a mine protection kit, which included a mine protection belly plate under the hull and a belt seat for the driver attached to the hull roof."

We are familiar with this because as you might remember Don and I fixed Canadas LEOPARD issue that would cumulate with the addition of the 2A6M (That they returned to Germany.) when they received both the LEOPARD 2A6MCAN/2A4MCAN tanks.

I ask for you to do nothing until it's sorted out. This will be done as separate submission for Germany as I've come across some minor I hope APC/IFV issues as well, though again, minor compared to the tanks.

So I leave you with these thoughts...
1. Play CANADA!!!!

2. How is it that this kind of situation keeps following me lately, year after year!?!



Oh, that's right, OWOO/or OWOOB (If you prefer.) for those in the know. Alright I love a challenge as well!

Anyway have "house" things to do with CINCLANTHOME so HAVE A GREAT DAY!!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

The Leo dates were based on what info was available at the time they were entered and have little to do with SP2. If they are wrong and you have hard info now that wasn't available before then make a list.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's not much of a problem the biggest thing as always, is reading the material through to catch things like the "xyz training battalion received the LEOPARD on..." followed by nothing or something like on my last Post concerning the German LEOPARD 2A6M 80 were converted between 2004 and 2008. Based on nothing more and turning that into a simple math problem, Means 80 over 4yrs = 20 a yr. tells me the first Tank Company was likely equipped by OCT-DEC 2004 = DEC 2004 to allow for any unforeseen delays reported or not.

Sometimes that's all we can do and where later information does come out, that simple has fallen on the date within a couple of months, spot on or at worse within 6 months which is the "swag" Don and I have used for years. That being said and not every conversation on those matters appear in here, we fix it anyway which happened I believe at least twice last year.

I've built tanks faster and submitted them for the game then trying to find out when they actually were put into service.

Think about that for a moment and how many times we've had to do that over the years.

Also we get, OMG! They got their first xyz tank therefore they're at FOC!!! Or as we've dealt with over the last 2-3 yrs. legacy inherited equipment at FOC as prototypes.

Well at least hopefully, I'll have one tank to modify for the Patch as a diversion.

YAY TEAM!!

Will it ever stop!?!

Time to move on, there I said it.

EM-ME-JOES make me well, happy!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Or trying to separate active vs reserve unit equipment. Does a reserve unit not having X piece of gear count as not being FOC?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You have to separate a Command/Unit out from Equipment they are two distinct separate categories where the terms IOC = Initial Operating Condition and FOC = Full Operating Condition mean the same thing.

When I reported to COMSUBGRU TEN in Oct. 1989 we were in IOC at the time. After manning, extensive training, evaluated exercises, coordinated operations, testing etc. etc. right down to the CACO (Who had the job of informing next-of-kin somebody wasn't coming home, which means you're put in the freezer with the food if underway, of which I've known a couple that made that ride.) it was very intense and the pressure was on. And we had an Admiral just upstairs in case we needed encouragement, which we never did as we're self motivated (That's what it means to be on a "boat".)

We had a couple of exercises to prepare us for our "alternate" command responsibility as COMSUBLANT ALT. it was no less important then our "primary" mission that the SSBN's met their training and operational requirements. The final phase for us to reach FOC culminated with a 24/7 two week ALTEX where we took over all aspects of Submarine Ops, upon completion and shortly there after, we FOC in MAR/APR 1990 on time, on schedule as there is no finishing early as the process is highly structured.

You can substitute any infantry, air whatever into the above. The bottom-line is you "fight" with what you have and fall back on your training.

So the last above and to answer your question, no IOC/OPEVAL/FOC when discussing new equipment has no bearing on in this case, NG Units because IOC/OPEVAL (Mission Training/Requalification etc.)/FOC (Unit deemed Combat Ready.) is a function of training, maintaining of current equipment assigned etc. etc.

We would call it EXPRIENCE and Morale. You only enhance that when the NG Unit finally does get that piece of equipment that completed the same process more or less except in simplest it means something different at the end, [/b]is there added value, does it work, is it reliable in the field, will it increase our units combat efficiency, will it support our mission and I can go on and on.[/b]

It doesn't matter what branch or component you served in, if all the above didn't worked, then for us in combat, you might have enough to tell your "maker" how you love your family before you are "atomized" by the extreme pressure or you have a fish come out of your mouth like in "The AYBSS" you're shallower water.

Loved the movie, but the "boat" going down was about as real as I've seen on film. I remember holding CINCLANTHOME's hand when I put the "death grip" to it during that part of the move, it felt that real.

Anyway, again two separate and distinct processes. I liked the question it was a fair one to ask.

I've learned if someone's asking the question, someone else was thinking about it.

It's late and time to hit the rack, the weekend will be over as drive through the gate later this afternoon. Gotta love the "Wonderful World of Work!".

Regards
Pat

[DRG]

I have now adjusted the 2a6 / 2a6m leos as best I can. As for 31 and 32 / 270 & 271.... yeah that's a bit odd and it's been like that for years.
I need to run scenario checks and depending on whats not used if any then these will be whittled down

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I don't have much time as this is a workday for me, however, the next provides somewhat of a clearer picture for a timeline for some Russian equipment and confirms some of my own beliefs as posted on the matter. It covers a broad range of land equipment that Don and I have been tracking for many years now, with at least one that pre-dates the T-14, the K-17 Bumerang.

This is NOT set in stone, it just gives us a better "tracking tool" then what I've seen in a longtime for this many platforms.

The source is Russian MOD, Deputy Defence Minister Alexey Krivoruchko on 30 DEC 2020. JANE's reporting.

"The military will also receive 94 fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, including 22 Su-57 multirole combat aircraft, ahead of schedule through 2024. Maybe 2025.

In 2022 the MoD is planning to complete the development of the T-14 Armata main battle tank, T-15 Armata, B-11 Kurganets-25, and K-17 Bumerang infantry fighting vehicles, B-10 Kurganets-25 and K-16 Bumerang armoured personnel carriers, the T-16 armoured recovery vehicle, the Koalitsiya-SV 152 mm self-propelled howitzer, and a number of advanced combat stations for tracked and wheeled combat platforms, according to Krivoruchko. “We are planning to complete trials of the S-500 air defence system and to adopt it and to accept the Voronezh very-high-frequency radar into service,” he said."

If they stay on schedule, I can see FOC for some of this equipment by mid-2023. A lot of this will be driven by when serial production begins, combat units get equipped and when MOD announces FOC.

Now we shift dates accordingly and "sit and wait" for the Russians to just "get the job done".
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ystems-in-2020

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

I guess we wait and see. We had the Sukhoi Su-57 but it did not enter production until 2019 so it's got a 2020 start now