Ka-50 hokum history..

[S.F.F.R 0]

Find where write 3 seconds

[Cyanide 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ June 27 2002,22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not talking about when the tank is rolling along, firing at targets.  I'm talking about when its sitting perfectly still, without a care in the world, and the loader has to load the cannon as fast as possible.  Are you saying its impossible for him to do it in approximatley 3 seconds?  If so, maybe 4?  I'm sure they can load in 5 seconds.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe in lab conditions but I believe you shouldn't be talking about this here - we're talking about a tank's perfornamce in OFP, other stuff is kinda irrelevant...

Try it yourself - put 2 tank crews @ Intro island and you'll see that the T80 would always get destroyed first, both crews having the same level of skill of course, simply because the M1A1 would fire more shells. As simple as that.

2 Space Alex

And you definitely were not thinking when saying that </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Humans are faster than machines. <span id='postcolor'>

It would've been funny if it weren't SO ridiculous.

My first thought was to try imagine a soldier with a WW1 rifle firing with a better rate than his mate with a morern assault rifle. It's absolutely the same in case of MBTs.

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cyanide @ June 28 2002,05:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ June 27 2002,22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not talking about when the tank is rolling along, firing at targets.  I'm talking about when its sitting perfectly still, without a care in the world, and the loader has to load the cannon as fast as possible.  Are you saying its impossible for him to do it in approximatley 3 seconds?  If so, maybe 4?  I'm sure they can load in 5 seconds.<span id='postcolor'>

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

Try it yourself - put 2 tank crews @ Intro island and you'll see that the T80 would always get destroyed first, soth crews having the same level of skill of course, simply because the M1A1 would fire more shells. As simple as that.

2 Space Alex

And you definitely were not thinking when saying that </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Humans are faster than machines. <span id='postcolor'>

It would've been funny if it weren't SO ridiculous.

My first thought was to try imagine a soldier with a WW1 rifle firing with a better rate than his mate with a morern assault rifle. It's absolutely the same in case of MBTs.<span id='postcolor'>

Ummm... I'm not talking about ingame Cyanide. S.F.F.R. and I were talking about real-life loading speeds.

[Cyanide 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ June 27 2002,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ummm... I'm not talking about ingame Cyanide.  S.F.F.R. and I were talking about real-life loading speeds.  <span id='postcolor'>

OK, even if so: a human reloader would only be able to keep a high reloading rate for a couple of gunshots. If you've ever seen how big and heavy a modern tank's shell is you would understand this.

No matter how strong a person is, a reloading mechanism is better in combat.

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cyanide @ June 28 2002,05:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ June 27 2002,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ummm... I'm not talking about ingame Cyanide.  S.F.F.R. and I were talking about real-life loading speeds.  <span id='postcolor'>

OK, even if so: a human reloader would only be able to keep a high reloading rate for a couple of gunshots. If you've ever seen how big and heavy a modern tank's shell is you would understand this.

No matter how strong a person is, a reloading mechanism is better in combat.<span id='postcolor'>

But arent most of the current generation of auto-loaders still vulnerable and to an extent unreliable in combat conditions? I'm not saying that a loader isnt vulnerable, since he is another crew man that can be injured in combat, but still...

I realize that the rounds are heavy. If I remember correctly, they are like 60 pounds (I am like 90% sure that number is wrong, but I'm 10% sure its right )

But a single round is all it will take to disable or in some cases destroy an enemy tank. The gunner wouldnt have to keep shoving rounds into the cannon because of this. And with the accuracy of modern tanks, both Eastern and Western, neither an autoloader or a manual loader would be under enormous stress, other than combat stress and fatigue of course

[Cyanide 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But a single round is all it will take to disable or in some cases destroy an enemy tank. The gunner wouldnt have to keep shoving rounds into the cannon because of this. And with the accuracy of modern tanks, both Eastern and Western, neither an autoloader or a manual loader would be under enormous stress, other than combat stress and fatigue of course <span id='postcolor'>

a tank battle is not a firing range practice. when a tank is moving around rough terrain (and they do so they would be harder to hit) the firing accuracy obviously drops.

[Aaron Kane 0]

Yes, but many modern Western tanks, such as the M1A1, have stabilized guns which increase accuracy greatly while moving. It doesnt matter how fast you're firing when the enemy can hit you with fewer, more accurate shots.

[DeathShrimp 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ June 28 2002,04:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Eh? I've heard that a good loader can manually reload a cannon in about 3 seconds. <span id='postcolor'>

This is true...a good loader can do this in 3 seconds...

This has been discussed over at OPFEC about AAronAsh's Realism Pack (in which he changed reload times)...I'll post what AAronAsh said...

"The minimun standard is under 5 seconds, and I have done it in 3.5, but there are guys who do it faster... the loader hits the switch (describes loading process)... and does it all in under 3 seconds."

-Quote from an interview with an M1A1 loader in the book "Abrams Company" by Hans & Eric Halberstadt

In any case, a human loader can reload a shell much faster than an automatic loading system, basically cos the Ruskies thought that reload times wouldn't matter if they outnumbered the enemy 4 to 1

[Cyanide 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This has been discussed over at OPFEC about AAronAsh's Realism Pack (in which he changed reload times<span id='postcolor'>

just the name of this addon alone makes me want to throw up. this guy had absolutely no idea as what he was doing. i admire the work he's done with the famous "winter pack" but that "realism" thingy lacks the one thing it was designed for - realism

ok, he changed the config files for NATO stuff - very well, but how about the other side??? he might be a specialist in Western warfare but he doesn't have a slightest idea about Soviet-Russian weapons and armored vehicles!

As a result, this addon does not leave any chance for those playing for the East. Thank god, the BIS version of vehicles is not _that_ far away from reality.

[DeathShrimp 0]

Well by all means enlighten us as to how this addon is flawed...how is his knowledge of military equipment inferior to yours? Please give us some reliable sources of info as well...

I think its very sad to rip into a guy's hard work, no matter what you think of it...

[Cyanide 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well by all means enlighten us as to how this addon is flawed...how is his knowledge of military equipment inferior to yours? <span id='postcolor'>

all I said was that he has not changed the Russian weapons' characteristics to match the real ones. iI don't care about how good his military knowledge is in your opinion but if I see that he changes (i.e. improves) NATO stuff and leaves Eastern units unchanged or even worse off it disgusts me.

He either has no knowledge of Eastern weapons whatsoever or had acces to unreliable sources.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please give us some reliable sources of info as well...<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt you can read in Russian but if you insist I'll find something for you ;)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think its very sad to rip into a guy's hard work, no matter what you think of it...<span id='postcolor'>

leave to me the task of judging his work and expressing my opinion on it, mate :)

[ALDEGA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Humans are faster than machines<span id='postcolor'>

Calculate "50!". The machine will be faster than human

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

It this discussion going to return to the Ka-50/V-80, or has it gone off-topic and deserves to be moved?

[Aaron Kane 0]

So... how about that V-80? I dont have Resistance yet, but I was wondering what kind of weapons does it have? I hope it doesnt share those crappy missiles the Hind uses

[Kasatka 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ June 28 2002,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So... how about that V-80? I dont have Resistance yet, but I was wondering what kind of weapons does it have? I hope it doesnt share those crappy missiles the Hind uses <span id='postcolor'>

Should come with:

12x AT-16 VIKhR ATGMs, 500x 30-mm cannon rounds, and 2x 20-round pods of 80-mm.

As I could see, the rockets are 57mm, and I hear someone saying that with the crapy AT6

Someone could say If this AT6 information is correct?

[Aaron Kane 0]

Eek! God, I hope it doesnt have the same AT-6's, that'd pretty much ruin the chopper IMO!

And according to FAS, the KA-50 doesnt even carry AT-6's... I just hope they do carry a better missle ingame

[Paratrooper 0]

They use the AT-6 in my version.

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ June 29 2002,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They use the AT-6 in my version.<span id='postcolor'>

Damn.... so is the V-80 just a more manuverable Hind pretty much?

[Kasatka 0]

NO WAY... FUCK BIS... WHY... WHY ALWAYS YOU FUCKUP WITH THE RUSSIANS STUFF... SHIT..

NOW I'M ANGRY... FIRST THE 57mm ROCKET.. NOW THE CRAPPY AT-6.. COME ON GIVE ME A BREAK....

Resistance is damn cool.. all graphics and new units.. but you guys don't make any research before make the russians units...

DAMN

[Capt Morgan 0]

Okay let me put it to you this way.

This is in refrence to post three pages ago about M1A1

One just so you know how I can talk about this subject. I spent three years in an armor battalion.

One specs on t80 is that it is slower and the armor is weaker

Reload time with the mecahnical device is also slower then a crew member in m1

Crew member in m1 can reload a gun in less then 4 seconds well trained. You have two speed loads next to the gun. If you have not been in a M1 and seen the setup you would not understand. It really does not take alot to load a round do to the setup. Yes you do get tired after the tenth round but by then if you still have to fire at on coming targets your fucked any way and shouldn't be thier.

Okay t80's loading device is clocked at 6.7 secs. Was clocked at fort knox kentucky proven grounds. Its Armor was ripped open like butter by a sabot round from the 120mm gun of the abrams. Considering the only 105 guns on abrams left are on training vehicles for the military or M1xs that would never go to war. Why bother testing.

Now if you do not know anything about the M1 abrams the vehicle can take a dircet turret hit and side and front armor hit from a 120 mm gun suffering some damage but still being able to function.

So any further questions

Oh and speed. The M1 is the second fast tank on Earth. THe germans can't think of it right now is the fastest. So How do you like me now. BTW T90 is slower then T80 and many of its system are taken out of t72s the tank was built as a temporary solution until another main battle tank can be built to answer the M1.

Okay hope I answered all your questions.

And btw on a side note. IT IS JUST A GAME

[Capt Morgan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kasatka @ June 29 2002,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NO WAY... FUCK BIS... WHY... WHY ALWAYS YOU FUCKUP WITH THE RUSSIANS STUFF... SHIT..  

NOW I'M ANGRY... FIRST THE 57mm ROCKET.. NOW THE CRAPPY AT-6.. COME ON GIVE ME A BREAK....  

Resistance is damn cool.. all graphics and new units.. but you guys don't make any research before make the russians units...  

DAMN<span id='postcolor'>

Okay the At 6 is shit. The missle is radio guided and must stay locked on target.  The signal between the aircraft is only good for about 700 meters then turns to shit.  THis is one system the Russians still have not worked out. I do believe that they have replaced these misiles since then because they sucked and proved unreliable.

So how about you do your research

See this is the research that most of you look at when you see the load out for a k 50

1x 2A42 30-mm cannon [250 HE-Frag + 250 AP]

2 - AT-16 VIKhR ATGM (6 each)

2 - 80-mm rockets (20 each)

2 - Twin 23-mm gun pods [940 rounds]

4 - 500-kg bombs

2 - AA-11/ARCHER AAM

External fuel tanks (500 liters)

This is not what the actual load out was when it first went into service and prototypes where actually tested towards the end of the afghan war. The first aircraft used AT-6s and carried a varried option of side mounted weapons. Production of the aircraft was also put on hold for two years. It also did not go into full production until 1995. Even then the only reason is that Turkish Army and not their own military has a large contract with them

[Kasatka 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Capt Morgan @ June 28 2002,04:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kasatka @ June 29 2002,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NO WAY... FUCK BIS... WHY... WHY ALWAYS YOU FUCKUP WITH THE RUSSIANS STUFF... SHIT..

NOW I'M ANGRY... FIRST THE 57mm ROCKET.. NOW THE CRAPPY AT-6.. COME ON GIVE ME A BREAK....

Resistance is damn cool.. all graphics and new units.. but you guys don't make any research before make the russians units...

DAMN<span id='postcolor'>

Okay the At 6 is shit. The missle is radio guided and must stay locked on target. The signal between the aircraft is only good for about 700 meters then turns to shit. THis is one system the Russians still have not worked out. I do believe that they have replaced these misiles since then because they sucked and proved unreliable.

So how about you do your research<span id='postcolor'>

Hey boddy, the V-80 and now the Ka-50 never used and never use the AT-6 missile... ok... only the Vikhr.....

[Capt Morgan 0]

okay if you say so but the v80 also was still a prototype and the 16 missile was not put into production until after 1990 so explain how the v 80 used this

oh below is the info on the missile if you do not believe me

Notice the date on the bottom of the page 1995

The missile was actually first tested in 1993

miA modification of the Shturm-V family is the Ataka-V family of missiles used on Mi-28 helicopters and on the latest Ka-50 helicopter. The Vikhr antitank missile is also the main weapon of the Su-39. The aircraft is armed with 16 such missiles The Ataka-V family includes several versions, the basic one being the 9M120 with a shaped-charge warhead against armored targets and its improved version being the 9M220. Addition of a second warhead, a demolition warhead, has created the Fugasnaya [High-Explosive] 9M120F. Another version used against airborne targets is the 9A2200 with a rod warhead. All these missiles of the Ataka-V family have semiautomatic radio command guidance and a 6000 m range, the producer quoting a 0.95 probability of a hit. Missiles of the Malutka-Falanga-Shturm-Ataka families were built by the "Mashinostroyenie" Design Bureau in Izhevsk, which had been established by Boris Shavyrin and is now directed by Sergey Niepobiedimyy.

Specifications

Contractor NPO Mashinostroyenie

Entered Service

Total length

Diameter

Wingspan

Weight

Warhead Weight HEAT

Propulsion

Maximum Speed

Maximum effective range 10,000 m

Effective against ground & air targets at converging speeds to 800 km/h.

Penetration 900 mm

Guidance mode Laser Beam Rider SACLOS

Single-shot hit probability 0.95 probability claimed

Sources and Methods

"Survey of Russian Guided Air-to-Ground and Anti-Ship Missiles" by Piotr Butowski, NOWA TEKHNIKA WOJSKOWA March 1995 No 3, pp 15-19 [JPRS-UMA-95-023: 7 June 1995]ssile. I am just wondering.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kasatka @ June 29 2002,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NO WAY... FUCK BIS... WHY... WHY ALWAYS YOU FUCKUP WITH THE RUSSIANS STUFF... SHIT..  

NOW I'M ANGRY... FIRST THE 57mm ROCKET.. NOW THE CRAPPY AT-6.. COME ON GIVE ME A BREAK....  

Resistance is damn cool.. all graphics and new units.. but you guys don't make any research before make the russians units...  

DAMN<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm, I wouldn't have put it so crudely, but i essentially agree with your sentiments.

What's the fun in the game if West can just walk over East with superior equipment? It's not a realistic representation of the real units - OK, NATO equipment might have a slight edge on equivalent Soviet weapons...but not to the degree in the game. Besides, West has so much more variety of equipment ingame also...

Just my opinion. Trust me, as soon as Resistance is available in Austrlia I'll be buying a copy...

[zverushka 0]

Yes, I agree.

Why are the russians portrayed as monsters in the game? All the Americans are good righteous smart people (except for the GI that can't spell jeep ), while the russians in red hammer and original flashpoint where all crazy pschychos.

I'm not a crazy psycho, not anymore more than you guys