Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Upgraded TAM
Collapse
X
-
Not a bad looking tank. There was some talk here (mostly from me, I think) of the TAM being an option for upgrading Mexico's armor force in a v1.0 T2K timeline. IIRC, it wasn't a popular idea.Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Comment
-
Doesn't look like a Stingray, but reminds me of one. I'm thinking it's basically the same class, IIRC.I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raellus View PostNot a bad looking tank. There was some talk here (mostly from me, I think) of the TAM being an option for upgrading Mexico's armor force in a v1.0 T2K timeline. IIRC, it wasn't a popular idea.I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
It's still (by modern standards) a light tank. The estimates I've seen are that it's probably about equal to a Marder 1A3 for KE protection, though it'll be better against explosive penetrators, since IMI's Iron Wall emphasizes protection against IEDs and RPGs over KE weapons. There's a thermal sleeve on the 2IP that isn't there on the original TAM, so there may be some changes to the FCS as well.
Note that the TAM 2C and TAM 2IP are not the same upgrade. The 2C added an APU, driver's night vision, an Elbit commanders's sight with thermal imaging and laser rangefinding, gunner's sight with Elbit TIFCS, and a laser warning system. The 2IP is the armor upgrade (though there may be some internal upgrades as well, but I haven't seen mention of them). A tank can supposedly receive either upgrade without receiving the other, so one could have a 2C, a 2IP, or a 2CIP (and I have seen one tank marked as a TAM 2CIP, possibly the demonstrator to prove that the 2C could accept the new upgrade).Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2
Comment
-
Originally posted by pmulcahy11b View PostI don't know, sounds logical to me.Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raellus View PostThanks, Paul. I still think it's a good fit. It gives the Mexicans more punch, but it's certainly no world-beater. Its light armor would make it highly vulnerable to LAWs and the like.
Comment
-
Originally posted by copeab View PostIf they found enough sheet steel, they could do something like this:
http://www.mmodelstore.com/g35-029-158.aspxI'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
Originally posted by pmulcahy11b View PostThere aren't any really good T2K rules for shaped charge predetonation, are there Spaced armor rules don't seem to simulate it properly, in my mind. I guess it's up to us...
In T2K terms, it functions similar to compound armor, halving shaped-charge penetration. Differences include:
* Provides some additional armor protection (1)
* When travelling off-road, an Driving:Average roll is required to avoid the standoff armor from being knocked or torn loose
* It can be damaged or destroyed by solid penetrators or normal explosivesLast edited by copeab; 02-05-2018, 01:53 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Dark View PostIt's still (by modern standards) a light tank. The estimates I've seen are that it's probably about equal to a Marder 1A3 for KE protection, though it'll be better against explosive penetrators, since IMI's Iron Wall emphasizes protection against IEDs and RPGs over KE weapons. There's a thermal sleeve on the 2IP that isn't there on the original TAM, so there may be some changes to the FCS as well.
Note that the TAM 2C and TAM 2IP are not the same upgrade. The 2C added an APU, driver's night vision, an Elbit commanders's sight with thermal imaging and laser rangefinding, gunner's sight with Elbit TIFCS, and a laser warning system. The 2IP is the armor upgrade (though there may be some internal upgrades as well, but I haven't seen mention of them). A tank can supposedly receive either upgrade without receiving the other, so one could have a 2C, a 2IP, or a 2CIP (and I have seen one tank marked as a TAM 2CIP, possibly the demonstrator to prove that the 2C could accept the new upgrade).
The hull is the same; I could see raising the turret armor a little due to better sloping (description says its proof vs 20mm all around, but he original already had that) - unless that's applique bolted on; the speed as quoted comes out a little lower than the original TAM, but it is notably more efficient on range (fuel consumption); plus improved stabilization, better night sight equipment, better FCS.
Stab: Good (up from Fair)
IR Targ: A/PIR
FCS: 4 (+1 on 3)
Trav Move: 150/105 km in 4 hours
Cbt Move: 50/35 m per round
Fuel Consumption: 110L in 4 hours
Weaponry:- L7A1 105mm equivalent; uses NATO 105mm ammo
- NATO 7.62mm MG Coax in turret
- NATO 7.62mm MG Coax on open moungt on turret roof
Armor: Suspension = T4
__TF 40 ____HF 35
__TS 25 ____HS 25
__TR 20 ____HR 15
Uncle Ted
Comment
-
That seems much heavier on the non-frontal areas than Paul's TAM (32/6/6 hull and 26/8/8 turret). Given Iron Wall's emphasis on HEAT overmatch, I'd estimate it closer to 35Sp/12Sp/12 and 30Sp/15Sp/15 for the 2IP. I'm also assuming that's a CIP, since it has both armor and fire control upgrades. I think more of them will end up as IP, with the heavier armor but only Fair stabilization, Passive IR, and 3 Fire Control, mostly because Argentina doesn't really need the electronics upgrades in any likely future scenario.
In a T2K scenario, I agree that I could see them selling non-upgraded TAMs to raise funds to upgrade the remaining TAMs to TAM 2 (C/IP/CIP) standard. There was also talk of upgrading the TAM 2 with Rheinmetall's 120mm L/44 (the Leopard 2's early main armament). I'm not sure how well a 31 ton tank would handle its recoil, but it's something to think on.Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2
Comment
-
Spaced Armor question
If the idea of stand-off armor is to pre-detonate the HEAT warhead outside of its optimal detonation distance, what easily-available/manufacturable substance would make the thermal jet even less effective Firebricks (yeah, I know, really heavy). Compressed layers of aluminum foil wrapping fragments of tempered glass (pyrex dishes) Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor Enamelled metal plates (it was tried in WW1 for body armor)
Yes, I know some of these are being pulled out of left field, but if you are an occupant of that vehicle, you may be stretching your brain as to how to survive some overeager marauder or Pact greenie with an RPG or antitank grenade, especially if you've seen some buddies get fragged in their tank or APC."Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WallShadow View PostIf the idea of stand-off armor is to pre-detonate the HEAT warhead outside of its optimal detonation distance, what easily-available/manufacturable substance would make the thermal jet even less effective Firebricks (yeah, I know, really heavy). Compressed layers of aluminum foil wrapping fragments of tempered glass (pyrex dishes) Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor Enamelled metal plates (it was tried in WW1 for body armor)
Yes, I know some of these are being pulled out of left field, but if you are an occupant of that vehicle, you may be stretching your brain as to how to survive some overeager marauder or Pact greenie with an RPG or antitank grenade, especially if you've seen some buddies get fragged in their tank or APC.
Would this actually work I have absolutely no idea. It sounds as though it "might" work but I don't know all the physics involved. I'm also left to wonder about the required thickness of sand to provide that effect (and the subsequent weight added).
I believe his idea was inspired by the use of sandbags on some tanks during WW2 but while I can understand bags of sand would degrade the performance of kinetic projectiles, I'm not convinced that they would degrade a HEAT round enough to stop it causing damage (unless they were stacked thick enough).
Comment
Comment