RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[da12thMonkey 1943]

26 minutes ago, sargken said:

I have never heard of this before, was this something that was a standard issue or specialty?

Pattern trialled briefly by some units of 82nd Abn [1][2] and 4th ID [1][2] in Afghanistan in 2009, in an attempt to make UCP less useless in terms of camouflage. The Army saw sense and just adopted a multicam variant (OEF-CP) in the end.

[Poentis.K 125]

32 minutes ago, sargken said:

I have never heard of this before, was this something that was a standard issue or specialty?

it was an experiment to try and change from the UCP everyone was complaining about before switching to OEF-CP (Multicam) ... and eventually OCP
Edit: similar to how the marines were experimenting with Grey T-pattern BDUs

[GordonWeedman 39]

1 hour ago, sargken said:

I have never heard of this before, was this something that was a standard issue or specialty?

Quote from camopedia:

Quote

In 2008-9, as a stop-gap method, the Army issued two different camouflage patterns to selected units operating in Afghanistan. One of these, a variation of the standard UCP called UCP-Delta (UCP-D) incorporated a coyote tan color into the scheme. This pattern was tested only for approximately six months before being discarded.

 

[wsxcgy 1960]

5 hours ago, sargken said:

I have never heard of this before, was this something that was a standard issue or specialty?

was a trial to replace UCP by adding coyote brown into the standard UCP pattern, saw limited use for a deployment or two in Afghanistan.

Edit: failed to see literally 3 other people beat me to the punch, oops.

 

and for the textures, I could see the textures were a bit of a work in progress. didn't mesh too well with the OEFCP stuff already in, lacked the salt and stuff, they kinda looked artificial, like they were built up from materials or something. glad to hear they're still being worked on. those sg boots could use some color tweaks as well, they almost look turquoise, but cool nonetheless.

[Marine1@ 1]

Hey guys i think i found a little bug all russian Mi 8 helicopters have english radio chatters. The Mi 24 and 28 have russian radio chatters.

[b00ce 160]

On 9/7/2019 at 9:14 AM, sargken said:

I have never heard of this before, was this something that was a standard issue or specialty?

It was experimented with in Afghanistan a while back.

[Greensnack 20]

On 9/2/2019 at 3:28 AM, reyhard said:

Perhaps at some point

Alright cool. 

 

[fingolfin 1972]

Just found the Oshkosh M-ATVs in the Devbranch... great work, thank you!

[NAS_Juno 66]

6 minutes ago, fingolfin said:

Just found the Oshkosh M-ATVs in the Devbranch... great work, thank you!

 

Wait wut?

 

(Hurriedly logs on.....)

 

F*** yeah! Oh I'm sending a donation for this bad-boy. THANK YOU, RHS!

[Foxone 1044]

The M-ATV is looking great!!! Can't wait for what the future holds 😃

[jonstyle 49]

Can someone post a pic of it please?😳

[fingolfin 1972]

@jonstyle: One I did for the photography thread.

 

From the arsenal:

[Jono the Cutest 70]

2 hours ago, jonstyle said:

Can someone post a pic of it please?

[LT Flippy 3]

How stable is the dev branch? Are the existing assets also bugged? Is it play at your own risk or heavy WIP but playable?

 

Also omg gloves!?

[fingolfin 1972]

2 minutes ago, LT Flippy said:

How stable is the dev branch? Are the existing assets also bugged? Is it play at your own risk or heavy WIP but playable?

 

Also omg gloves!?

 

Dev branch is very stable. Of course, some stuff is WIP - for example, the ACU textures were quite off for a week or so - but almost no error messages and I haven't had a single crash.

 

BTW, the gloves you see in my picture are Delta Hawks (from his BDU pack).

[Vasily.B 529]

Just came back from COOP.... In bradley i have survived hit from javelin, i couldnt destroy abrams with turret ammo storage hit with TOW (direct hit) and 4 guys have shooted SMAW, M136, RPG 7.... me and friend didnt fired back (from bradley) - guess what - noone have destroyed us. Its definetly wrong, we have been hitted in turret from back, from front (after they guessed that hull is immortal) and finally they have destryed us directly from the rear hit in ramp (with smaw i guess).

EDIT: Another 4 hits with Russian Tanks ATGM's, HEAT BK31 and bradley intact. Even all crew survived, turret seems overarmored too.

[Richards.D 761]

Thanks for the kind words everyone with regards to the M-ATV, I will relay them to Gurdy, who did a crap ton of modelling on it as well, basically the entire Med Poly with a few changes. We'll do some kind of official teaser once I add the other variant this weekend. Cheers!

[Foxone 1044]

13 hours ago, Richards.D said:

Thanks for the kind words everyone with regards to the M-ATV, I will relay them to Gurdy, who did a crap ton of modelling on it as well, basically the entire Med Poly with a few changes. We'll do some kind of official teaser once I add the other variant this weekend. Cheers!

What would this other variant be.... 🤨

[GordonWeedman 39]

4 minutes ago, Foxone said:

What would this other variant be.... 🤨

Maybe the L-ATV/JLTV?

[Foxone 1044]

6 hours ago, GordonWeedman said:

Maybe the L-ATV/JLTV?

Personally hoping for the SOCOM version

[Bukain 86]

It is time to include t-80bvm! 🙂

 

By the way, this question nagging me for couple days now> Does any of you guys know what are the differences between T-90AM, T-90SM/MS, and T-90M(the one Russ start receiving in 2017)? Or is "M" just the "AM"? Russian miliary thinges always nag my head off!

Also what is T-80UE-1 exactly?

 

I mean: you spends hours and hours of lifetime, reading some specifications about particular Russ mil stuff out of your hobby, but then BOOM, there come the spec change, within a week of getting into survive, without any explanation! That makes me go nuts everytime! Changing small pieces and bits of a stuff, then slap up some new designation on the it(usually "M", sometime "N"(night capability?) for heli). And sometime they didn't changed the name! Nothing certain for research and development, even into the surviving phase of Russian miliary equipment. Usually they just switch some stuff with another one(like they did to this poor ka52. Grabbed off the sensor suit out of poor heli's head, stuck up right under the chin(not sure the avionic thinge is the same)). And keep in mind most used to happen in trail phase or surviving phase, within a month from the beginning of that respective phase! It had happened to tanks, helicopter(i.e ka50/2,mi28), fight jets(i.e su-25,migs), etc... Obvious signs of unstable developmental/production's efficiency, and also the bad confidence in available technologies. 

I feel these things only as a person who love reading mil stuffs. I can't imagine how frustrating for modders like you guys who had spent so much time on certain design/texture/details of a mil machine just to end up with invalid one after getting finish all up

Edited September 15, 2019 by Bukain
Russ change zillions of tiny teny pieces and bits on a machine within a week with no significant improvement whatsoever

[Damian90 697]

T-80UE-1 is a hybrid of T-80UD turret and upgraded T-80BV hull to the T-80U standard.

T-90AM is unofficial designation for the initial variant of T-90M. T-90SM is export variant.

Is it frustrating? Depends, besides being part of RHS, one of my real life jobs is being military journalist. I literally spend most of my free time, reading about this stuff and doing research.

I could write more, about these subjects, but I think it's not the place for this.

[Bukain 86]

11 hours ago, Damian90 said:

T-80UE-1 is a hybrid of T-80UD turret and upgraded T-80BV hull to the T-80U standard.

T-90AM is unofficial designation for the initial variant of T-90M. T-90SM is export variant.

Is it frustrating? Depends, besides being part of RHS, one of my real life jobs is being military journalist. I literally spend most of my free time, reading about this stuff and doing research.

I could write more, about these subjects, but I think it's not the place for this.

Thx you. This get rid some of my confusions. Anyway, the frustration is not because of many variants Russia use to have in it's arsenal, it's becuz of the fact i mentioned earlier, they most of the time use to do changing of every tiny teny small pieces and bits of a machine on trail/, in survive, getting stuffs out, switching stuffs up all the time(like into a year or two). 

But i aware that the bad habit(imo) started to happen only after the Soviet Union collapse. Soviet industry as we all know very efficient at what that did/also very clear with what they want. For example the R&D of mig25-31, very inspiration indeed. But now with the Russian federation, not much 😕

 

P.s it'll be a good idea to end my subject here. This is definitely  not the place 😄

[Damian90 697]

10 hours ago, Bukain said:

Thx you. This get rid some of my confusions. Anyway, the frustration is not because of many variants Russia use to have in it's arsenal, it's becuz of the fact i mentioned earlier, they most of the time use to do changing of every tiny teny small pieces and bits of a machine on trail/, in survive, getting stuffs out, switching stuffs up all the time(like into a year or two). 

But i aware that the bad habit(imo) started to happen only after the Soviet Union collapse. Soviet industry as we all know very efficient at what that did/also very clear with what they want. For example the R&D of mig25-31, very inspiration indeed. But now with the Russian federation, not much 😕

 

P.s it'll be a good idea to end my subject here. This is definitely  not the place 😄

 

Ok I will play here a bit of history teacher. 😉

Soviet Union arms industry was far from efficent. Let's take tanks as example.

So you have a T-64, from T-64 evolved T-64A and from T-64A you got T-72 and T-80.

So in late 1960's and early 1970's you have Soviet tank factories, manufacturing 3 different Main Battle Tanks, all 3 of them having similiar combat capabilities, but 3 completely different logistics chains! This is far from efficent, this is complete insanity from logistics and efficency point of view.

And the funniest thing is that these tanks had practicaly same protection levels, yes, T-80 was not better armored than T-72 or T-64A. In fact while T-80 turret was kinda based on T-64A turret, T-80 turret used T-72 composite armor, and T-64A used completely different composite armor. So standarization was minimal if any!

And situation did not improved over time as all these 3 designs were evolving.

So from T-64A evolved T-64B, a first Soviet MBT with modern fire control system and GLATGM capability, then you have T-80B with same FCS, and T-72A which did not had FCS at all.

But T-80B still used T-72A armor, while T-64B had again completely different armor.

Same goes with engines, T-64 series used two stroke, opposed piston diesel 5TD/5TDF, T-72 used older generation V type diesel V-46 and it's modifications, while T-80's used GTD-1000 gas turbines.

All these tanks had different autoloaders, different suspension system.

Some attempt for standarization was made in the 1980's as Kharkiv and Leningrad tank factories wanted to build two variants of the same tank, it was decided to use T-80B as the basis, and so T-80U and T-80UD were created, it's literally the same tank, just with different engines and some other minor differences, like different commander cupola.

Of course this was again a failure, because Nizhny Tagil get in to the whole deal with their upgraded T-72, the T-72B.

So as you can see this Soviet arms industry was far from efficent.

Efficent were NATO member states arms industries, for example when US started making M1 Abrams series, they stopped manufacturing previous M60 series. When FRG started making Leopard 2's, they stopped making Leopard 1's, and so on.

[dragon01 902]

A lot of that, I think was due to Soviet politics, and was hardly limited to tanks. IIRC, T-72 wasn't supposed to go into production at all unless the Cold War had gone hot, but it did (over the objections of T-64's designer), because it was so much cheaper than the T-64. I think that's about the only time the actual tanks' parameters came into this. 🙂

 

NATO, I think, was simply much more business-minded about it.