RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[reconteam 19]

8 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

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

I thought the T-64B and T-80B had what was essentially the same armor scheme which is estimated to be roughly equal to that of the T-72A?

 

I've also heard the T-64BV and T-80BV besides for the addition of explosive reactive armor had some improvements to their composite armor. But that raises a few other questions. Were all BV models new build tanks? Were older B models upgraded with ERA but no integral armor changes? Did they share the same designation then?

 

There are so many sources with different information on the minute differences between T-64, T-72, and T-80 variants that it is a nightmare to study if you ask me.

[Bukain 86]

13 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

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.

You seem like a good teacher 😄.

But i think the Soviet Union was at least better than Russian Federation.

Can't deny that nato capitalists have very good at innovations, and much efficient at R&D 🙂 part of that being they usually have more productive human resources. 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Bukain

[Damian90 697]

11 hours ago, dragon01 said:

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. 

 

Ah but the story is far more complex.

T-72 was actually more expensive than T-64.

I do not have data table at the hand now, but T-64 and T-64A was cheaper than T-72 and T-72A.

And T-72 was kinda created illegaly against orders from the Soviet goverment and MoD. Original order was for UVZ to develop T-64A variant with V-45 diesel engine instead of 5TDF that was problematic at that time. However UVZ engineers decided to act against orders and modify the tank using their components developed for their previous failed designs like Object 167.

It is very long and complex story.

 

7 hours ago, reconteam said:

I thought the T-64B and T-80B had what was essentially the same armor scheme which is estimated to be roughly equal to that of the T-72A?

 

I've also heard the T-64BV and T-80BV besides for the addition of explosive reactive armor had some improvements to their composite armor. But that raises a few other questions. Were all BV models new build tanks? Were older B models upgraded with ERA but no integral armor changes? Did they share the same designation then?

 

There are so many sources with different information on the minute differences between T-64, T-72, and T-80 variants that it is a nightmare to study if you ask me.

 

T-64B and T-80B only shared the same fire control system, autoloader and 9K112 Kobra ATGM system. However armor type was different, T-64B used it's own variation of Combination K armor, T-80B and T-72A used their own, simpler armor design, but all these armor offered roughly similiar protection, simply Combination K was more efficent and thus T-64B turret armor was slightly thinner in terms of physical thickness, while providing the same protection as slightly thicker T-80B and T-72A.

 

As for armor upgrades, yes there were armor upgrades but for the hull front only. T-64BV's and T-80BV's that were earlier basic B's, received 30mm HHS plate on the glacis plate. New build BV's of both tanks, had revised front hull armor design. New build T-80BV used same hull armor as T-80U/UD.
 

2 hours ago, Bukain said:

You seem like a good teacher 😄.

But i think the Soviet Union was at least better than Russian Federation.

Can't deny that nato capitalists have very good at innovations, and much efficient at R&D 🙂 part of that being they usually have more productive human resources. 

 

 

😉

 

Was Soviet Union better? Not really, they had more money than Russian Federation. Current situation of RU R&D is simply result of lack of money. They simply can't replace their entire tank fleet with T-14's. They can't manufacture as many T-90M's as they wish.

Contrary to US that just recently started production of new M1A2SEPv3's with production rate of a full ABCT (Armored Brigade Combat Team) per year, so a full US Army ABCT will be each year rearmed with new tanks. Imagine that.

[dragon01 902]

TBH, replacing the whole mess with T-14, if they could pull it off, would probably be more economical in the long run. The problem is, of course, the money that is (or rather, isn't) available right now for that purpose. Then again, that they made the T-14 at all is quite impressive, though the paradigm, while interesting, is untested.

 

BTW, could someone check the side armor on Bradleys? I did some tests recently, and they seem far too resistant to HEAT. The standard M2A3 variant seems to be able to take Kornet and Metis missiles without any apparent damage, nevermind anything that can be fired from a gun. On the other hand, I've been able to disable (not blow up) it from the side with a concentrated burst of 30mm AP. I know Bradley is well protected, but this seems really odd. In all cases, the vehicle was hit around center of mass. Another thing I found out, even with the turret "disabled" (red), I was still able to move it around and fire, no problem.

[Damian90 697]

19 hours ago, dragon01 said:

TBH, replacing the whole mess with T-14, if they could pull it off, would probably be more economical in the long run. The problem is, of course, the money that is (or rather, isn't) available right now for that purpose. Then again, that they made the T-14 at all is quite impressive, though the paradigm, while interesting, is untested.

 

BTW, could someone check the side armor on Bradleys? I did some tests recently, and they seem far too resistant to HEAT. The standard M2A3 variant seems to be able to take Kornet and Metis missiles without any apparent damage, nevermind anything that can be fired from a gun. On the other hand, I've been able to disable (not blow up) it from the side with a concentrated burst of 30mm AP. I know Bradley is well protected, but this seems really odd. In all cases, the vehicle was hit around center of mass. Another thing I found out, even with the turret "disabled" (red), I was still able to move it around and fire, no problem.

 

If you hit Bradley to the side, the armor will be pierced, however keep in mind there is a lot of empty space inside, thus even if armor is pierced, vehicle take only cosmetic damage. This is one of niuances of realistic armor/projectile interaction.

[dragon01 902]

I was trying to hit the engine. The 30mm AP killed it after a few shots, HEAT impact in roughly the same area did not.

 

Also, an impact on the turret seems to have no effect on the vehicle's combat performance. Even with "Turret" in the red, it seems to work just fine.

[Damian90 697]

Hmmm, did you tested only with RHS and RHS weapons, and only the newest version?

[dragon01 902]

Latest dev, RHS-only, the only other mods being CBA and 3den Enhanced (it's just too darn useful to turn off). RHS launchers, naturally, tested the Kornet, Metis and the tube-launched missiles from BMP-3. The 30mm was also on the BMP-3. Shots were placed roughly center of mass (slightly forward of the point sparks come from when the engine gets killed), from the right side and at a slight angle. 30mm worked, missiles didn't. Of course, there is a chance I simply missed the engine with the missiles and not with the cannon. 

[yevgeni89 163]

I love the french lizard pattern you gave the tanoan rebels , any chance they make it onto a uniform without a scarf ? 

[Damian90 697]

17 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Latest dev, RHS-only, the only other mods being CBA and 3den Enhanced (it's just too darn useful to turn off). RHS launchers, naturally, tested the Kornet, Metis and the tube-launched missiles from BMP-3. The 30mm was also on the BMP-3. Shots were placed roughly center of mass (slightly forward of the point sparks come from when the engine gets killed), from the right side and at a slight angle. 30mm worked, missiles didn't. Of course, there is a chance I simply missed the engine with the missiles and not with the cannon. 

 

Check it now, dev version was upgraded and problem should be solved, hopefully.

[dragon01 902]

It works now. 🙂 @Vasily.B, it turns you were right about the Bradley. Try it now, it can now be disabled with ATGMs and HEAT rounds, and I once managed to get it to explode with a single Metis hit. I even managed to defeat a BUSK III version with a BMP-1, though you'd generally need to get a drop on the Bradley to achieve that, and be a crack shot with the Malyutka (it will succumb to the cannon, but it can take a while, and it may perforate you with AP before that happens). Turret hits seem to be very effective now, often killing two crew members and causing the remaining one to bail out.

[reyhard 2082]

Right or not he is still person non grata here

[dragon01 902]

Well, if he didn't report his own issues with Bradley, I probably wouldn't have thought to investigate more closely. So there's that. Credit is when credit's due, I was just a bit more rigorous in my testing (but then, I do have some experience hunting bugs).

[reyhard 2082]

7 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Well, if he didn't report his own issues with Bradley, I probably wouldn't have thought to investigate more closely. So there's that. Credit is when credit's due, I was just a bit more rigorous in my testing (but then, I do have some experience hunting bugs).

http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=5279 I would rather recommend report all such bugs there instead.

[Richards.D 761]

Some official pictures of the new M-ATV, including the SOF version which we just got injected:

[Devastator_cm 434]

maybe a dumb question but what are those black flag kind of things are used for? 🙂 Other MRAPs have that thingy as well

[NAS_Juno 66]

44 minutes ago, Devastator_cm said:

maybe a dumb question but what are those black flag kind of things are used for? 🙂 Other MRAPs have that thingy as well

 

Rhino early detonation system.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Passive_Infrared_Defeat_System

 

Creats a heat signature in front of the MRAP and would detonate IED's early.

[Devastator_cm 434]

wow nice thing 🙂

[gatordev 219]

3 hours ago, Richards.D said:

Some official pictures of the new M-ATV, including the SOF version which we just got injected:

 

That looks great.  I know you've been slowly adding stuff to the SOCOM category in the editor.  I'm not smart enough about Ranger-type uniforms to know the answer to this...Are you guys at a point where creating actual SOCOM squads is as "simple" as using your SOCOM Rifleman and changing loadouts (obviously with config changes on your end to name them differently)?  I understand the focus before was on conventional units, but wasn't sure if we've reached a turning point.  Not sure if there's anything else added in the config for that SOCOM rifleman you already have (and that I could use to build custom squads).

[Richards.D 761]

12 minutes ago, gatordev said:

 

That looks great.  I know you've been slowly adding stuff to the SOCOM category in the editor.  I'm not smart enough about Ranger-type uniforms to know the answer to this...Are you guys at a point where creating actual SOCOM squads is as "simple" as using your SOCOM Rifleman and changing loadouts (obviously with config changes on your end to name them differently)?  I understand the focus before was on conventional units, but wasn't sure if we've reached a turning point.  Not sure if there's anything else added in the config for that SOCOM rifleman you already have (and that I could use to build custom squads).

Not really. The SOCOM Rifleman is basically a placeholder class so that something can crew the vehicles. There's really nothing to make a team, except MARSOC which is doing alright. 

[HBAOplus 14]

Some planes can not bring up the GPS display even though the player carried a gps item. Its wired to pilot a aircraft without a nav screen, do we have any  workaround?

[HBAOplus 14]

On 4/23/2019 at 10:06 PM, HBAOplus said:

Hi everyone, the M203 on M4A1 Block II is missing its front sight when optics are mounted on the rifle, which makes me unable to lay down grenades fire. Any workaround, please?

I'm using stable branch.

some pics:
https://imgchr.com/i/EEcI78
https://imgchr.com/i/EEc4nP
https://imgchr.com/i/EEcfXt

On 4/23/2019 at 11:36 PM, da12thMonkey said:

There's no immediate workaround for that. Weapon animation sources cannot be conditional of other sources.

If we added an animation to unfold the sight again when the GL muzzle is selected so that it was up when optics are attached, it would then be folded forward when there is no optic attached.

Unless we model a quadrant sight for the side rail some day, you'll just have to put up with it

 

Hi, I just thought that, could we make the front sight of the  M4A1 Block II(GL version) always unfold(like M16A4) as a compromise, so that we could use the M203‘s leaf sight?

Edited September 24, 2019 by HBAOplus
add info

[bolo861 166]

5 hours ago, HBAOplus said:

 

Hi, I just thought that, could we make the front sight of the  M4A1 Block II(GL version) always unfold(like M16A4) as a compromise, so that we could use the M203‘s leaf sight?

In my oppinion it wouldn t be elegant solution. more realistic thing to do is to leave it as is, real pros aim 40 mike mike by guestimate anyway. If you look at photos of M4A1 Block II with M203 in the wild, then you ll see that operators rarely even carry bracket sight for 203 GL because they lay it by MK1 eyeball anyway and it saves weight and real estate on the 6 o clock rail, leaving it to mount more essential kit like a PEQ box.

 

Regards.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

12 hours ago, HBAOplus said:

 

Hi, I just thought that, could we make the front sight of the  M4A1 Block II(GL version) always unfold(like M16A4) as a compromise

It's not really a compromise, since there will be a whole other set of people who don't like the front sight being up when they are trying to use optics for regular shooting of the rifle (i.e. the way they are using the rifle 90% of the time), and would nag us to change it back to how it works currently.

We're largely impartial about which way would have been better. The current way was probably just the simplest to do in terms of implementation since it's already there and done for the non-M203 M4B2s and both are for the most part sharing a common model.cfg animation programming and model setup. We can only pick one way to do it, and which ever way we choose is going to run contrary to the preferences of some people. So it's probably not worth our while deviating from what was the most simple implementation.

[General Yudenich 114]

On 9/23/2019 at 6:23 PM, Richards.D said:

Some official pictures of the new M-ATV, including the SOF version which we just got injected:

 

 

 

 

 

It's certainly very cool, but... What for? We already have these vehicles in the original ARMA 3... Wouldn't it be better not to waste your time on what is already in the game, and focus on the new content?

Edited September 26, 2019 by Dedmen
Removed images. Rule 14