MBT's

[DRG]

That's perfect Pat......exactly what I needed..........thanks. This change gives added protection to vehicles that should have it but we didn't have a way before this....now there is

.......and the game now goes to 2025..........we're not done yet.........

[DRG]

Pat, sorry if you've gone over this but in a nutshell what's being added to the V3 besides the new sabot

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Oh Gee thanks Don and Andy (I know he's to blame as well?)!?! Well I did plan on my last submission for 2021, what's another five years!?! Did you guys come up with a slot solution? Still for the six country UAE OOB to go away and maybe migrate the air assets from the tighter OOB's into it. Whether you call them "support" or "allies" it'd be about the same. Now I'll shut up!!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

we are exploring options. We still aren't at critical mass yet

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Sorry Don my didn't allow me the time to finish my "PS" (CRAP!) so here I go again...

GERMANY: Please consider the CURRENT ONLY 2A6 tanks for the survivability improvement. It appears Germany started adding mine protection in production of the 2A5 however not to the level you're looking at as suggested. However the ARMOR SITE (And the LEOPARD section has been referenced by many of my Defense sites as being the best on the web concerning the LEO.) indicates that the LEOPARD 2A6 had improved mine protection over it's predecessor. This is located just underneath the LEOPARD 2A6 "tag line" on the site.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
However and in fairness FRADO under the LEOPARD 2A7+ did specifically mention the IED protection for that tank which certainly does warrant the enhanced protection level. It's just my gut feeling it might fit the current again only 2A6 tanks since after all Germany did build the LEOPARD 2A6M-CAN and their own 2A6M with IED's in mind. But I'm flexible in which ever way you choose to go with the German 2A6 because this after all isn't a "FREE-FOR-ALL" topic.

USA: To be clear the following are improvements to the current M1A2 SEP V2 in order of importance for the M1A2 SEP V3 1) New single munition AMP (It is now in production.) round. 2. IFLIR this will cause some rethinking as I hinted to would come when we had come to the last "cross roads" decision on TI/GSR when I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 and the AH-64E GUARDIAN this is a game changer and might be better than Germany's ATTICA system. All I can suggest for now is to ask you to please read my Post #389 on my Page #39 where I address these first two issues in some detail.
3) Enhanced CROWS system with improved situational awareness and accuracy. 4) Increased armor protection what I can find out thus far is they've improved the DU armor protection it makes good reading about how much stronger it is to steel armor by weight. 5) Increased mobility. 6) Enhanced software to support AMP and other improvements.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_..._11210157.html

My METS are on and I'm watching the game!?! I'll check in later if there are any more issues.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I feel as not many tanks use DU armor an explanation should be given for the ABRAMS survivability. First would you sell equipment to a country with all the "bells and whistles" you have on your "toys"? I would hope not. We don't export our DU armor (Uranium 235/or 238 I believe.) buy below shows what can happen without the DU armor applied.
http://www.janes.com/article/39550/i...osses-revealed

Further data and I didn't realize the USA still fielded the M1A1 for frontline service, in this case the M1A1 SA with 120mm/40 rounds.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2013/12.pdf
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/ar...-future-fight/
(Under protection section for those in a hurry for 2nd ref.)
http://content.time.com/time/nation/...897176,00.html

I hope this might be enough for our ABRAM tanks to warrant the increased protection to include the current versions of the USMC M1A1 tanks as well.

Well good night/morning later today is a day with CINCLANTHOME.

Don will try to get you the additional Russian units to you hopefully later tonight.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

MARINES: I know it's been done, just not sure to which current versions yet. However are we aware of the fact that the USMC tanks are equipped with a ATGW jamming device?

Why the most recent USMC Abrams have 1 shot of VIRSS, it's obviously not that same as the ATGW jamming system but as close as WinSPMBT can come.

[DRG]

VIRSS and CIWS are handy short acronyms. One covers "passive ATGM defences" and the other covers "active ATGM defences" so we could add in different selections but the end result would be the same as one or the other of the above........ That said, a VIRSS system gets used up but I think the system you are refering to would not be

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Hard kill solutions include ARENA, TROPHY which actually falls include a special category as a "close in" hard kill solution. Soft Kill systems though normally paired with hard kill solutions (Example here are the ABRAMS that rely on soft kill plus, smoke grenades and the advanced DU armor package.) act very similar to ECM on the advanced jets of the last 20 years or so, about when these systems first became available. These in some cases will automatically launch smoke grenades. Hard kill ones have been around a little longer as ref one touches with a system put on the T-55. It should be noted in the "real world" the tank turret will automatically be slewed in the direction of the threat to point the most protected part of the turret to the threat, launch countermeasures (grenades, chaff etc.) and target and shoot at the aggressor while stationary or on the move.

https://www.benning.army.mil/magazin...996_3/pf03.pdf
Under this search with google atgw "soft kill" and "hard kill" solutions for armor protection look for the below...
Terms of Reference (TOR) - Under Secretary of Defense for ...
http://www.acq.osd.mil/mibp...Active..._CPP_Oct06.doc on first page 3rd or 4th one down.

Excerpt taken from ref. 2 above...

"Active Protection Systems (APSs) for Vehicles
Active protection systems are survivability concepts intended to provide protection to armored vehicles that equals or exceeds that of massive, passive armors at only a fraction of the vehicle weight. Conceptually, an APS can improve survivability by defeating incoming anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), RPGs, tank-fired high-explosive antitank missiles, tank-fired kinetic energy (KE) rounds, indirect fire — including bomblets and mortars, and guided top-attack threats. Vehicle armor must still provide protection against threats that cannot be addressed by the APS. These threats include small arms, mines and explosive fragments, including the residual shrapnel effects resulting from an active protection engagement.

The operational concept of active protection requires the application of advanced sensor, data processing, armor, and weapon technologies as an integrated system on the vehicle. Active protection system's components will include threat detection, tracking systems, signal processing systems, countermeasures systems and base armor, used for structural and residual threat defeat.

A variety of sensors including radar, IR and laser detection systems will be employed on board the vehicle to provide the capability of detecting and tracking multiple munition and directed-energy weapon threats. A typical sensor subsystem includes a threat warner, or cueing sensor, and a tracking sensor.
The threat warner identifies a threat and then, through data processing, hands it over to the tracking sensor. The tracking sensor then determines the incoming threat’s size, shape and vector. Signal and information processing technologies use the tracking data to enable the selection of countermeasures automatically or by the vehicle commander, calculate the firing solution and deploy the countermeasure.

The critical component of an APS is its countermeasure. Countermeasures include not only active protection but electronic devices, obscurants, decoys, and other technologies for hit and detection avoidance. Upon detection of a threat, the system enables the vehicle commander to select the most appropriate countermeasure or defensive tactics to avoid a hit (when engaging anti-tank missiles or threats at medium/long range). Or, the system automatically activates countermeasures, when necessary (primarily against high velocity missiles and kinetic energy threats or RPGs at short range.

The development of an enhanced commander's decision aid (CDA) is being pursued, for optimal utilization of the new defensive measures. Such systems will feed from the vehicle's sensors, as well as from off-board data sources, and will rapidly process the information, classify threats and recommend appropriate countermeasures.

Active Protection Systems commonly consist of an array of soft- and hard-kill techniques.
Soft-kill methods, similar to Electronic Counter-Measures (ECM) in aircraft, seduce and confuse an incoming missile, by using decoys, smoke and electro-optical signals, infrared or laser jamming."

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

VIRSS and CIWS are handy short acronyms. One covers "passive ATGM defences" and the other covers "active ATGM defences" so we could add in different selections but the end result would be the same as one or the other of the above........ That said, a VIRSS system gets used up but I think the system you are refering to would not be

You have a point, but as Fastboat pointed out there are active components to the system so I'm not entirely sure which of VIRSS and CIWS would best represent the system nor how many "shots" the VIRSS should have if it was used.

Let me know what you think and I'll incorporate it.