MBT's

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don already well understands all this, he's just happy that I listened to him about year ago on (That post is out here somewhere.) of "breaking up my thoughts" as my brain tends to work quicker then my fingers at times over the years. = !

Because I understand the economics of weapons systems etc. I'll just say my "two cents" already includes the cost of inflation and project cost over runs.

Regards,
Pat

Sorry. I meant to say more than two cents a smoking gun pointing directly to Saudi as proxy in the Syrian rebellion, with tacit US approval if not down right complicity.

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

After spending so many years tracking a piece of equipment, it's good to maybe be able to finally say "I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel." though in my minds eye it still seems very dim down there given this tanks developmental history as well, though still not as bad the Indian ARJUN which took over thirty years to develop.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/augus..._13108164.html

As some know I've been watching developments from these "guys" as well for sometime and have posted on this equipment already. Consider this an update on a more highly motivated and better trained military since NATO came to help.
http://www.defence24.com/435182,ukra...ational-guard#

And finally something I'm waiting for Italy to "pull the trigger on" any day now (I'm feeling very optimistic-aren't I!?!)
but I can hope!
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centauro_2.htm

We take what we can get, when we can get it.

Regards,
Pat

[dmnt]

Pictures from Polish PT-16 MBT, Anders IFV and Leopard PL
https://twitter.com/GrantTurnbull_/s...14310602719232

[DRG]

Originally Posted by dmnt

Pictures from Polish PT-16 MBT, Anders IFV and Leopard PL
https://twitter.com/GrantTurnbull_/s...14310602719232

PT-16 is only a proposal

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt_16.htm

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don is correct. We will likely see this tank because as I posted a few months back, this is a joint proposal with the UKRAINE. What is not clear is whether or not Poland will actually get these for themselves. Why? The big reason is about 4-5 years ago I believe for Malaysia they got from Poland a spec built PT-91 TWARDY improved MBT's which are better still then the PT-16. The one glaring thing that stands out to me is the fact that the PT-16 still stores the ammo in the crew spaces, whereas this was corrected in the Malaysian tank. I can't remember if the ammo was stored in an armored locker or storage with blow out panels and it was equipped with a better FCS suite and electronics package in general.

This ref has just been updated this week.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt_16.htm

Also to save time some guys a short time back where discussing things similar to the next...
http://www.military-today.com/bases/...tary_caves.htm

Edit; Found it (PT-91M) on FASTBOAT Thread Page 3/Post 30 (28 & 29 related) on 11-29-10, 06:15 PM
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/pt91_twardy.htm

LOOK UNDER VARIANTS SECTION...
"PT-91M Pendekar export version supplied to Malaysia. This MBT is fitted with improved 125 mm gun, S-1000 engine, new hydropneumatic transmission, French fire control system, new communication system and some other changes."

That FCS would be the SAGEM system as carried on the LECLERC.

All from memory ladies and gentlemen, anyone for chess?!?

That was my big one to modernize Malaysia's OOB, THAT'S THE KIND OF WORK I TRULY LIKE DOING OUT HERE.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

These guys are normally pretty good (ref). The video might be useful as well (ref 1). I think the data here might be better then what we had when I submitted this tank in 2010. With that Commanders site it would give the PT-91M tank a minimal "hunter killer" capability. We might need to consider a quick second look at it just to ensure we got it right.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3431.html
http://defence-blog.com/army/malaysi...new-tanks.html
http://www.janes.com/article/57177/u...-polish-pt-91s

Video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVJuL4ZPaHo

JANE'S ref seems to indicate that the Polish have them as well, that's news to me so now "the plot thickens"!?!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Alright here's my breakdown of the existing issues game wise concerning both the Polish PT-91 vs. the Malaysian PT-91M as follows...

1. PT-91M (1000hp) is 10km/h faster on the road than the PT-91 (850hp). How this translates to off road performance is beyond the scope of my knowledge in the calculus used within the game but I would think the 10km/h road speed difference would be seen in the game.

2. PT-91M has the wrong MG. This could've been based on what we had at the time, not sure though.
The PT-91 should have the following MG..."The main cannon is also fitted with a Stelectro-hydraulic gun stabilization system, providing higher accuracy and fire on the move capability. The vehicle has a new autoloader and can carry 42 rounds of 125mm ammunition. The fire control system can select up to 6 different types of ammunition to be fired from the 125mm 2A46M (D-81TM) smoothbore cannon, which has an elevation of -6 to +13 degree‘s, which is considerably less than Western tanks."

By contrast the PT-91M has the following...
"A new improved 2A46MS main cannon. The breech block has been redesigned to make it more symmetric, decreasing the resistance of the recoil break whilst the projectile is moving in the barrel, removing the recoil break axis below the main cannon axis in the azimuth plain, using two recuperators acting against each other and placing them above the main gun axis. This has increased first hit probability by 23% over the original 2A46M main cannon."

3. Spacing is the worst enemy of any ERA protection system. ERAWA has to be thought about much in the same way we think of the later MERKAVA variants.
First it's a hybrid ERA, referred to as ERA Armor.

Simply ERAWA has no spacing gaps which in of itself improves overall protection.

Third which I was unaware of, did you know there was a "light" laminate armor barrier sandwiched between the steel armor and the ERAWA for both the PT-91 and PT-91M? Just like that Israeli tank above though not as good as the MERKAVA.

3a. A reassessment in protection, is probably needed based on the above for both the PT-91 and PT-91M. However that being said, further consideration has to be given to the PT-91M based on the following..."An improved version of the Erawa ERA (possibly increasing the weight as its explosive is larger)."

This improved version has been identified as ERAWA 2 for the PT-91M of Malaysia as also noted in ref. 2 below.

4. Both have "hunter killer" capability normally simply and loosely defined as it's ability to hit a target while on the move and rapidly move to the next target.

This ref(s) are representative of others in encapsulating the other refs data for the purpose of this post.
http://tanknutdave.com/the-polish-pt...dy-qhardq-mbt/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/polan..._pictures.html

Bonus ref. of related topic...
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspo...and-pt-16.html


It's very late!! Time to hit the rack before something else hits me!?!

Regards,
Pat

[MarkSheppard]

Not sure where this goes. New Russian UGV breaking into the public eye:

http://www.janes.com/article/63562/n...es-for-service

A new Russian unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) has been unveiled at the Army 2016 military technical forum.

Designated as an unmanned combat ground vehicle (UCGV), the Vikhr (Whirlwind) is based on the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).

"The fully modular combat UCGV is based on the BMP-3, as this IFV features a reliable and easy-to-maintain chassis. However, it can be integrated with other types of armoured combat vehicles with a combat weight of 7-15 tonnes, for instance, modified BMP-1 and BMP-2 IFVs, Ural heavy trucks, or BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers [APCs]," an industry source told IHS Jane's . He added that Vikhr is intended for fire support and combat reconnaissance on the battlefield.

The vehicle is equipped with an advanced remote-control sensor package device that includes electo-optic suite an automatic target tracking device, a laser rangefinder, a thermal imager, and a ballistic computer.

Vikhr is armed with a stabilised 30 mm Shipunov 2A72 automatic cannon, a coaxial 7.62 mm Kalashnikov PKT/PKTM machine gun, and six ready-to-launch 9M133M Kornet-M (AT-14 Spriggan) anti-tank guided missiles.

"The 2A72 main gun of the Vikhr robotic system can be replaced by single or twin-barrel 23 mm 2A14 anti-aircraft cannon, 12.7 mm NSVT or Kord heavy machine guns, or a 30 mm GSh-6-30K six-barrel naval automatic cannon. The vehicle can use surface-to-air missiles of Igla [SA-18 Grouse] or 9K333 Verba man-portable air defence systems, as well as Shmel-M reactive flamethrowers. We can also integrate foreign artillery systems with the Vikhr vehicle," the source said.

According to official data, Vikhr has a combat weight of 14.7 tonnes, a payload capacity of 4 tonnes, an operating range of 600 km, a maximum road speed of 60 km/h, a swimming speed of 10 km/h, and can be remote controlled to a distance of 10 km. The vehicle's combat module weighs 1,450 kg.

Meanwhile, it appears the Uran-9 UGV that broke surface a year ago (google it) is getting close to actual service with the Russian Ground Forces. But who knows.

[DRG]

http://defense-update.com/20151231_r...at-robots.html

Those control vehicles look vulnerable if you can find them-------- I wonder how close they have to be to the robots.......

[IronDuke99]

I have heard recently experienced tank officers who have grave concerns about situational awareness in a crewed armoured vehicle that depends entirely on screens (ie, you cannot stick your head up and look around) so I would imagine that a remote controlled vehicle has got to be even worse.