Monkey Models

[John Kettler]

Would you believe there's a pretty good Wiki on this important topic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model

It came up while I was trying to again find a marvelous discovery. Someone in one of the comment threads on a YouTube modern Russian tank video took someone else's head off in the debate with a withering first person observation. The decapitating poster had been to the T-72 factory in Nizhniy Tagil, gone to the design offices, pulled the specs and carefully compared the export models, feature for feature, with the homeland models. Not even close! Much equipment standard on the homeland models wasn't even fitted, and what was, was clearly inferior in performance. The above Wiki says there's about a 50% difference in KE armor penetration alone for a monkey model T-72 vs. a homeland one.

Jackpot! See comments by vumpsh in this T-64 training vid thread.

This thread argues the famous T-72 blown to smithereens by a Javelin was not only a monkey model but that the U.S. cheated by packing it with explosives. Don't know myself, but my former boss used to work at Naval Weapon Center, China Lake, and he told me a fascinating story about one of those big firepower demonstrations in which planes roll in and drop their ordnance on a bunch of old military vehicles deployed tactically. The oddest thing happened. Seems the target array exploded before the bombs got there! Somebody wanted a fail safe in case of duds, but the, er, backup system jumped the gun.

Here's a great discussion of a T-90 deal with Pakistan. Also included is an astute assessment of Russian weapon exports, who gets what, of which capability, and why. Color me unimpressed with the effective range of the FLIR on the T-90S, though it may be okay for more cluttered environments where long range gunnery's impossible. In the desert, the tank would likely die like Saddam's T-72s, killed ( in this case, even while FLIR equipped), before they could fire a shot. Of course, this assumes we can get through the armor!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171239/posts

Here's a good discussion not just of the AFV monkey model issue, but of what live fire testing found, the limits of countermeasure systems, fire control issues and of something that won't make M1A2 operators happy.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-62614.html

AS-14b KEDGE/Kh-29L (laser guidance)

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=263&linkid=1682

AS-14b KEDGE/Kh-29T (TV guidance)

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=263&linkid=1681

There's also one with an IIR seeker, the Kh-29D, and it's exportable!

Let me put this into perspective for you. The big version of the Maverick (Maverick Alternate Warhead), used by the Marines for CAS, sports a 300 lb. blast/frag warhead. A Kh-29 of any stripe is carrying a 250 kg bomb as the core of a 320 kg warhead = 704 lbs.

India has not only issues over monkey models and tweaks needed in consequence, but a raging debate of the T-90S versus the Arjun, complete with allegations of sabotage and test rigging. Scenario writers thinking about India vs. Pakistan would do well to read this.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/south-asian-defense-topics/45576-drdo-tries-ram-arjun-tanks-down-army-throat.html

What's worse than a monkey model? A Lion of Babylon completely misused!

http://www.movietome.com/users/raven28256/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25322843

Nor are such monkey model distinctions confined to AFVs. Algeria's on the warpath about monkey model MiG-29s.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20080220.aspx

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

I read a small article awhile ago about Hungary once testing their license-produced 105mm APFSDS against a T72 hull. Apparently the hull used wasn't one of the middle-east 'monkey models' because the standard KE round failed to penetrate either the hull or the turret. Infantry AT HEAT (AT4?) didn't do very much better. It took an experimental long rod penetrator to get through.

In the game, would you agree that the 'poor' quality bottom-of-the-barrel T72B does a pretty good job of representing a 'monkey model'? its certainly no übertank

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Now you know why we went to the Rheinmetall 120mm and HA! Live fire tests found our 105 firing the best round we had couldn't get through a T-72 but their 125 nicely penetrated vanilla M1s. The situation was even scarier on the HEAT front. That's why there was a crash equipment exchange and familiarization before the "Hail Mary" was launched in Desert Storm. Had we fought the same battles with the original gear, it might've been ugly indeed, for we were multiply vulnerable even to export weaponry.

The gear we crash fielded in a multibillion dollar armor/antiarmor get well program, though, did everything one could hope for.

Can't offer you a rational answer to your question because I've never played the game. Have lampshade 800 MHz dual boot IMac which couldn't run the game even if the promised OS X version was out. Am eying an Intel iMac, but the funds aren't here yet.

Meanwhile, my former field of expertise has its uses here.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Just to let you know, I'm running happily on a Bootcamped imac.

[flamingknives]

MikeyD, what version of windoze are you running?

[Holman]

Just to let you know, I'm running happily on a Bootcamped imac.

Is that a monkey model?

[MikeyD]

Bootcamp only runs Windows XP. Oops! my mistake, the outdated beta Bootcamp I'm using only runs XP. The new 'official' Bootcamp can run Vista too (I just looked it up). I'm running XP and so far am as happy as a clam.

[Lampshade111]

The M833 105mm APFSDS (in service during the mid 1980s) could penetrate most T-72s in the Warsaw Pact inventory at the time. It would probably run into trouble against the T-72B and T-80B/U but it could deal with any Iraqi tank. The original M1 or M1IP would still devastate the Iraqis.

The differences in the monkey models are often exaggerated a bit. The export versions were usually a model behind what the Russians were using at the time, although the fire control and composite armor were somewhat simplified compared to the tank the export model was based on. For example the T-72M was pretty much an original T-72 but with a laser range finder and a few things found on the T-72A the Russians were using at the time. The T-72M1 was very similar to the T-72A but at the time these were becoming common Russian T-80Bs were entering service, soon to be followed by the T-72B.

The Kh-29 would certainly knock out or destroy an Abrams with a good hit as it is a huge missile. While the Maverick is quite a bit smaller it is still large compared to most missiles such as the Hellfire or TOW. Expecting any tank to survive a direct hit from either the Kh-29 or AGM-65 (or a 500 pound LGB or JDAM) is rather foolish. The USAF, USN, and Army air defense systems are supposed to prevent this however.

Most of what the Iraqis had were original (export) T-72s. Although they had some T-72Ms and T-72M1s. Their home built model was supposed to be comparable to the T-72M. They may have also used some captured M-84ABs which formerly belonged to Kuwait. At one point (after the war I think) the Russians were going to sell the T-72S (export version of T-72B) to the Iraqis but this never occured.

[Buq-Buq]

John Kettler:

I'm not here to bash hell out of you, especially since I don't know you from Adam, and you sound like a well-meaning sort of guy. But you appear to be stating something as fact in your original post

Someone in one of the comment threads on a YouTube modern Russian tank video took someone else's head off in the debate with a withering first person observation. The decapitating poster had been to the T-72 factory in Nizhniy Tagil, gone to the design offices, pulled the specs and carefully compared the export models, feature for feature, with the homeland models. Not even close! Much equipment standard on the homeland models wasn't even fitted, and what was, was clearly inferior in performance. The above Wiki says there's about a 50% difference in KE armor penetration alone for a monkey model T-72 vs. a homeland one.

that stretches what is actually said in your link so far that it completely changes its meaning. At http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYFcIK7m0o4, poster "vumpsh" states:

"You don't have to "believe stories", smart one. If you look at the Nizhny Tagil Ural Vagon Zavod factory records and specs, you see that there are special T-72 modifications for export, and they do not carry the same electronics and equipment as the russian tanks. Their guns are of older models and don't fire the same range of ammo. Some can't fire missiles. They aren't truly downgradings-just stuff like laser rangefinders, IR targeting, ERA, were mounted only on domestic models. Thats a fact."

No where in this quote does it say that he personally walked into the Nizhny Tagil factory and viewed plans for the T-72. No where. His post is just so much hearsay — his own opinion. And it says nothing about his ability to access to the Nizhny Tagil factory, or that he has actually done such a thing.

Now I'm not commenting on the other things that you've spoke at great length about in your post, because I haven't had the time to track them all down and view/read them for what they actually say. But honestly, after discovering how you have twisted what this guy actually said, I'll be treating your posts with considerable caution, if I read them at all. You have truly blown your credibility out of the water, at least with me.

Mark

[John Kettler]

Buq-Buq,

You can do as you like, of course, but what other reasonable conclusion can be drawn? This is clearly an argument being made from authority.

In the first sentence, it could just as easily have been phrased to read "You don't have to take the monkey model stories on faith," which implies direct factual knowledge. The second sentence clearly implies the writer has not only done exactly what's described, but is advocating the other party bestir himself and do the same. Note also that he didn't use the conditional forms "if you were to look" and "you might see" or "you might expect to see." No, the tenses chosen imply the writer has in fact done exactly what he's advocating the other party do. Were I making an argument that the key to the mystery was in the specs at the T-72 factory in Nizhniy Tagil, I would've said something like: " Rather than speculate, why not make a trip to Nizniy Tagil or, at least, contact the PR people for the factory with a formal request for comment on the matter?" I certainly wouldn't have done what vumpsh did, for to do so would, in my mind, automatically create the presumption that I'd in fact seen the documents in question, a bad thing if I hadn't.

Regards,

John Kettler

[The_Red_Rage]

Why is it exactly so hard to believe that downgraded models are used for export? Isn't the whole point of investing billions into research and development to stay ahead of everyone by having unique technology?

[John Kettler]

The_Red_Rage,

Am not sure whether you're specifically addressing someone, or whether you're simply asking a question and commenting thereon. I'm not saying the policy isn't sound, though the word is getting out and at least some customers have wised up. What I'm trying to show is twofold: A) We in the West, the U.S. in particular, tend to have a highly skewed notion of how good Russian combat gear is based on seldom seeing the real deal in action, especially against us; We need to make sure real world capabilities are properly depicted in the advanced Russian exports coming in the Marine module and in the apparently in the planning stages new modern NATO vs. Russia game.

If you're referring to Buq-Buq's comments, I'm taking heavy flak for supposedly misstating what a poster said, in turn jeopardizing my perceived overall credibility. For reasons clearly and explicitly stated in my reply, not only do I disagree, but I think I called it on the nose. Vumpsh's answer simply wasn't phrased as a hypothetical.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

jeopardizing my perceived overall credibility

No danger there. BB is merely the latest to see through your veneer.

[Lampshade111]

Like I said, the export tanks were not really "downgraded" and were rather just older models with older ammunition than what the Russians were using at the time. Production quality might have been slightly lower but besides for that the designs for the export tanks were pretty similar to one of the Russian models. Fire control systems on the basic T-72/A/M/M1 was quite poor compared to the T-80 and T-64. Only with the T-72B/S and post Cold War upgrades (like some T-72M1s in the game) did this improve.

As for the Javelin hitting that T-72 in that video, yeah it was probably packed with explosives but only to simulate the effects of the full load ammunition and fuel going off. This does not always happen right away however (or at all if no fires are started.) Yet when it does it looks something like that.

[Buq-Buq]

John:

I wouldn't put too much time into worrying about your "perceived overall credibility" with me. Your initial post, and now your reply to my "heavy flak", have convinced me that your ability to draw reasonable conclusions from available information is wacked. Not in a good way.

Enjoy your gaming experience!

Mark

[John Kettler]

Buq-Buq,

You mean this sort of reputation damaging, sweeping assertion isn't heavy flak? If it isn't, what is?

"Now I'm not commenting on the other things that you've spoke at great length about in your post, because I haven't had the time to track them all down and view/read them for what they actually say. But honestly, after discovering how you have twisted what this guy actually said, I'll be treating your posts with considerable caution, if I read them at all. You have truly blown your credibility out of the water, at least with me."

On the one hand, you're saying you're not commenting because you haven't checked what was actually said in the other items I cited. This didn't stop you, though, from first flat out stating I'd twisted what the man said, nor from saying you'd "treat all" my "posts with caution, if I read them at all. You have truly blown your credibility out of the water, at least with me."

My response was to carefully and precisely detail why I said what I said, to include the underlying basis in logic. I note with fascination that you failed utterly to address the points I made, that you contradicted your own position in your initial reply, have returned to the fray and are again jabbing at me. I rather doubt you'd appreciate having your reputation assailed in this manner were the shoe on the other foot!

Had I been given the exact same information that got you so exercised in the first place during my days as a Soviet Threat Analyst, I would've phrased my analysis differently, but the bottom line would've been very much the same: "Information source vumpsh presented indicated source has had considerable access to the T-72 specifications at UVZ Nizhniy Tagil, as evidenced by source's detailing the specific differences between homeland versions and monkey models of the T-72 MBT in such areas as....Analysis of context indicates source was speaking, not in terms of hypotheticals, but from the perspective of one who has done exactly what's being suggested by source. " Of course, I would also have stated this was an

unconfirmed report!

You may or may not like my conclusion, let alone how I got there, but I used to do this for a living (11 years and change), and the then Soviet ground forces, especially tanks, were a big part of my turf, especially when I was at Hughes, Missile Systems Group, maker of the TOW, Maverick and many more. Important decisions rested, and I had a brother right on the firing line in the Fulda Gap in a Bradley, on how well I did my job. I took it in deadly earnest, and no one, be he company officer, admiral, general or spook, EVER said I didn't know what I was talking about, that my logic was faulty, or so much as hinted that anything I ever said made everything else I said suspect or automatically rejected. To the contrary, I was so cutting edge that I uncovered black projects, inadvertently revealed critical U.S. vulnerabilities by simply asking one logical question after another, and would've exceeded program classification in another case had the customer confirmed our threat laydown. As a general rule, I went into my briefings armed not only with the briefing, but detailed questions expected to arise as a result and the answers to them. I've left rooms full of important people stunned and had my arm vigorously pumped by pros from the military and the Intelligence Community following my briefings.

Given the above, I don't take kindly at all to being characterized in the manner you did. You could've asked, "How did you conclude that from this?" You didn't, instead coming directly at me with wild accusations and sweeping dismissive generalizations. Life circumstances may change, but who we are ultimately comes down to our reputations. I value mine and refuse to let you cavalierly trample it for no good reason.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Buq-Buq]

John:

Bud! Don't take it so hard! It's only my opinion . . . and hell, I've only got 60 posts here, compared to your what? Six thousand? And your resumé; well that speaks volumes. What is one guy that has no respect for your opinion, compared to all those other people?

My advice to you — if you value your reputation in my eyes so much — is to not say stupid things. Don't make leaps that can't be substantiated, and then present them as fact.

I didn't attempt a line-by-line rebuttal of your points in Post #10 because it was a fools' errand. It would be a ridiculous situation; you would only go on and on about how your assumptions are the only possible interpretation of his comments, and I would continue to bash my head against the rock of your obstinance. What's the point? I would end up just getting down into the mud with you.

"I'd like to have an argument, please."

The thing that disturbs me about your assumptions is that apparently you were at one time a "Soviet Threat Analyst" . . . well, that and the fact that you can't see anything wrong with the leap that you made between what "vumpsh" actually said and your summation thereof. My opinion is that your logic is faulty. So my bottom line is this: I've seen an example of how you interpret information; your defense of your position has only put you deeper into the hole. In my book, unfortunately, you have no credibility whatsoever. Other people — to include Combat Mission Forum members, and the various company officers, admirals, generals and spooks that you impressed with your abilities in the past — are free to think differently about the situation; I'm sure that they can draw their own conclusions based on the information available.

Damn, now look at that: I've got mud on my pants . . .

Mark

[cool breeze]

A nice thing about logic is its not really a matter of opinion. It seems to me very clear that John was correctly paraphrasing what the qoute said and he explained it well. Bug-bug, youd sound smart instead of lazy and mean if youd explain how his logic is faulty.

[Buq-Buq]

cool breeze:

If you want an explanation, go back and read Post #9 of this thread.

If you believe that "vumpsh" said that he had actually been to the factory and looked at the drawings based on what he said in his YouTube post, then your logic is faulty as well.

Read it. It says nothing about his ability to access the factory, or that he has actually done such a thing. There is a huge difference between what "vumpsh" wrote and what John (in his original post) says he wrote. John's representations are false and misleading. Read it!

S**t! I've getting mud all over now!

Mark

[cool breeze]

yeah, but for "Vumpsh" to not be lying he must have done this investigative task himself or else talked to someone who has. I know its not quite the same as saying he did it himself but its close.

[ChrisND]

yeah, but for "Vumpsh" to not be lying he must have done this investigative task himself or else talked to someone who has. I know its not quite the same as saying he did it himself but its close.

It's nowhere near the same. Vumpsh could be completely correct. Or he could be talking out of his ass. It is foolish to take on face value a statement from Youtube comments with absolutely nothing solid to back it up, or attempt to read into it for that matter. Kettler's interpretation of what he said borders on deception. Of course, for Kettler, this type of thinking and "evidence" is par for the course. If you don't believe me, ask the bulletin board veterans some of the things he has professed here, or Google his name.

[Buq-Buq]

cool breeze

Have you never considered the possibility that "vumpsh" was just speaking that way to make it appear that he knew more than the other posters on that thread?? That perhaps he was just being boastful? And using perceived knowledge to silence the other voices? My God, but you're gullible.

You haven't a clue, do you?

And the only fool more stupid than you is me, 'cause here I am waist-deep in mud, right where I said I wouldn't go. Serves me right.

Mark

[JonS]

If you don't believe me, ask the bulletin board veterans

John Kettler is more FOS than the Nock Nevis is full of oil.

He is also more intellectually dishonest than anyone I've ever known.

The first would be forgiveable were it couple with even a hint of humour. The second is unforgiveable.

[cool breeze]

but the issue here isn't vumpsh's credibility but whether John was missleading in his summary of the meaning of vumpsh. We all know its only a youtube comment so it could be a lie. My point is John was accurate to say that this guy claims to know the details of the factory documents.

[JonS]

My point is John was accurate to say that this guy claims to know the details of the factory documents.

The problem is that that isn't a very accurate representation of what John said, now is it?