2s6m tunguska released

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Oct. 24 2002,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Will you be adding tracers too to this great addon? One stream of tracers is more better than no tracers at all...<span id='postcolor'>

I agree...if you're in an AC being targeted by this it may at least give you an idea of where you're being fired at from.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Oct. 23 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the only thing that will be turned down is its armor, its firepower is relative to other tanks as in real life<span id='postcolor'>

This problem is really due to the way the OFP engine works. In the game, weapons slowly wear down armour from a fixed value, e.g. the M1A1 has 1000 armour points and every weapon fired at it will reduce these points depending on how many equivalent damage points they do. This is totally unrealistic, yes, but it also means there's no way around vehicles like Shilka's which have extremely fast firing guns, being extremely powerful. Whilst in real life a Shilka's 23mm round would not penetrate Abrams armour (and thus it would take no damage), in the game it will lose however many armour points the 23mm round does in damage. While this damage is negligible if it gets hit once, because of the rate of fire of the Shilka and the number of rounds which will hit the Abrams in a very short time period, the Abrams can be destroyed in seconds. Unless the OFP engine is changed to reflect this inaccuracy (which it won't be), AA vehicles will always be a lot more powerful in the game than they are in reality.  <span id='postcolor'>

I thought about this a bit; the thing to do would be to produce a realism pack in which armour values, AND the damage of dedicated anti-armour weapons is multiplied by at least a hundred. That way, the damage caused by high performance fragmentation/explosive weapons would not be so much of a problem to armoured vehicles. The problem would be getting everyone to agree with it of course.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Oct. 22 2002,14:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Oct. 23 2002,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good work! Good to see the West now have some threats againts their jets. <span id='postcolor'>

SO GODDAMN TRUE. I am anoyed that not even a group of shilkas, planes and choppers are capable to face three F14's. I am realy angry that I cant put the planes into a mission cause they are just tooooooooo strong. From now on modelling for west should be forbidden<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Go ahead and enforce it!

[munger 25]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 24 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Oct. 23 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the only thing that will be turned down is its armor, its firepower is relative to other tanks as in real life<span id='postcolor'>

This problem is really due to the way the OFP engine works. In the game, weapons slowly wear down armour from a fixed value, e.g. the M1A1 has 1000 armour points and every weapon fired at it will reduce these points depending on how many equivalent damage points they do. This is totally unrealistic, yes, but it also means there's no way around vehicles like Shilka's which have extremely fast firing guns, being extremely powerful. Whilst in real life a Shilka's 23mm round would not penetrate Abrams armour (and thus it would take no damage), in the game it will lose however many armour points the 23mm round does in damage. While this damage is negligible if it gets hit once, because of the rate of fire of the Shilka and the number of rounds which will hit the Abrams in a very short time period, the Abrams can be destroyed in seconds. Unless the OFP engine is changed to reflect this inaccuracy (which it won't be), AA vehicles will always be a lot more powerful in the game than they are in reality.  <span id='postcolor'>

I thought about this a bit; the thing to do would be to produce a realism pack  in which armour values, AND the damage of dedicated anti-armour weapons is multiplied by at least a hundred. That way, the damage caused by high performance fragmentation/explosive weapons would not be so much of a problem to armoured vehicles. The problem would be getting everyone to agree with it of course.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a great idea. I think it would work really well. One thing to bear in mind though is that indirect hit damage from these new anti-armour weapons would need to remain at the standard OFP level and only direct damage should have the new very high scores; otherwise one LAW rocket explosion could take out a whole battalion of light armour and troops.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

this is exactly why we released this addon as a beta... anyone who is complaining about one aspect or another: go back and read ALL replies.

you will find that what you might think is stupid, someone else will think is realistic, or vice versa.

Making addons like this will allways give us both good and bad reactions.

Some want more firepower or ammo, others want less, some love the smoke and want more, others dislike it coz its blocking the view, causing lag or whatever etc etc etc.

Realism:

30 mm highspeed bullets or shells, be it armor piercing or high explosive, or plain 'lead balls', fired at atank at 4800 rounds per minute is some punishment i dont think any tank can withstand for more than a few seconds.

The sheer amount of kinetic energy alone will do the job, let alone it beeing armor piercing or have explosive impact.

To give you an idea: the a-10's gun is just touching 4000 rounds per minute.

think about it: nobody is complaining about the 30 mm gun of the apache destroying a tank, this tank has 4 guns of that calibre, with much higher muzzle velocity and above all much higher rof. (each 30 mm gun is doing 1200 rpm, the same as the mg3's rof)

its armor was too high, that will be lowered, but its firepower will stay intact.

If you're in your abrams cruising thru the landscape thinking nothing will harm you when you stumble across a tunguska better make sure that first shot is a hit or you are history.

All those fast west jets definetly needed something to make their lifes more difficult.

Especially west attack helos like apache and cobra didnt have much opposition untill now. (bronco too)

It will take expert flying skills and good tactics to destroy one or two tunguska's from the air.

As in real life, it would be much wiser to send scouts ahead , spot the tunguska(s) and send in blackops for a demolition mission, paint the target with laser so a laser guided missile can destroy it, call in an artillery strike, or kill it with LAW's or Carlgustav or similar.

tracers: there is no possibility to make the smoke and firepoint separate, so, the bullets origin point is also the origin of the smoke, those of you who looked carefully might have noticed it originates in the middle between the barrels.

So not only would you see only one stream of bullets, they would also not come from a gun!

Ontop of that, the aim of the gunner and the actual impact point would be the same as with the adats: offcenter.

besides, tracers that are shot straight at you are near invisible, the light of tracers is directed backwards.

only when they passed you you will see them clearly.

i agree that from the groundview they are missing, but i am not too sad about it for the smoke , aim and double muzzleflashes make up for it.

hehe anyone who saw that avi now knows it is not safe to be a footsoldier and closeby when this baby fires.

[Eviscerator 0]

comparing the A-10's gun to 2 AA guns is a bit unrealistic, the A-10 uses depleted uranium shells, if the tunguska was that good an anti tank vehicle then russia would get rid of all the t-80/90's and replace it with something that can do both ground and air defence, and the saving in money would come in handy to a cash strapped country....so it cant be that good, against aircraft you dont need to have huge powerful shells, just a large volume of fire, even the A-10 cannon would have a hard time destroying any modern battle tank....no matter how bad ofp's damage is you should make it so that it fits in, otherwise any missions with you facing this will be unplayable, you should probably use the shilka round but higher rof as a base, and work from there giving slightly more damage

[Gen.Carnage 0]

do you think quad very high rof guns with automatic shell feeder, radar guidance plus 8 AA missiles are cheaper than a single smootbore gun?

come on now!

[munger 25]

Well the A10 has the advantage of firing its cannon at the top of a tank where the armour is far thinner than the front, sides or even rear; probably about 20mm even on a modern MBT. Compare this to where the Tunguska would fire - almost always the frontal arc or the sides. An M1A1 has the equivalent of about 600mm of steel on the front. Now consider that the A10 cannon can penetrate an absolute maximum of 69mm (source: FAS) from 500m distance (extremely close). That's not going to do a whole lot to the front of an M1A1.

Something I do want to know and is relevant here is this:

When a tank's armour is stated to be able to defeat say, a 105mm sabot round, does that mean that it can defeat just one of these rounds before being badly damaged or does it mean that it can defeat any number of these rounds?

Anyway, don't want to go too off-topic here. Just interested in this sort of thing.

[munger 25]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Oct. 24 2002,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if the tunguska was that good an anti tank vehicle then russia would get rid of all the t-80/90's and replace it with something that can do both ground and air defence<span id='postcolor'>

Not really. Even if the Tunguska was that good against both tanks and aircraft, it's extremely weak armour would make it extremely vulnerable on the battlefield - even a HMG could take it out. Tanks are designed to take as well as dish out.

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,22:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do you think quad very high rof guns with automatic shell feeder, radar guidance plus 8 AA missiles are cheaper than a single smootbore gun?

come on now!<span id='postcolor'>

probably not, but with then having lots of tunguskas instead of lots of tunguskas and lots of tanks would be cheaper, and looking at the information the last post contained i think it should be a lot lower, 68mm would only do enough damage on older tanks and as was said, from the top, the 2A38M also has about a 200m/s disadvantage in muzzle velocity to the gau-8 so there would be less punch to the rounds, the 2s6m should probably be able to take say a bmp out in 6-8 seconds as it has a small amount of armour, remember aircraft have armour of under 100, you dont need all that power

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Oct. 24 2002,22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Oct. 24 2002,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if the tunguska was that good an anti tank vehicle then russia would get rid of all the t-80/90's and replace it with something that can do both ground and air defence<span id='postcolor'>

Not really. Even if the Tunguska was that good against both tanks and aircraft, it's extremely weak armour would make it extremely vulnerable on the battlefield - even a HMG could take it out. Tanks are designed to take as well as dish out. <span id='postcolor'>

well of course, i meant if in real life the tunguska was as dkm have made it that would happen

[munger 25]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Oct. 24 2002,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the 2s6m should probably be able to take say a bmp out in 6-8 seconds as it has a small amount of armour, remember aircraft have armour of under 100, you dont need all that power<span id='postcolor'>

6-8 seconds is probably a bit too long considering how thin skinned BMP's are in reality - a burst from a .50 cal is more than enough to cripple a BMP1 or BMP2 by killing its crew(although not in-game I admit). But still, a 6-8 second burst is a long time with these kind of guns. We're talking several hundred rounds at least. That would probably smash a BMP to pieces.

Also worth considering is that planes aren't necessarily weaker than armoured vehicles. An A10 for example can take a lot of punishment before retreating or crashing. I remember reading about one that lost a quarter of a wing and was riddled with NSVT holes and still managed to get back to base and land. The pilot was fine.

[Vikingo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you're in your abrams cruising thru the landscape thinking nothing will harm you when you stumble across a tunguska better make sure that first shot is a hit or you are history.<span id='postcolor'>

That is the part I like more

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> a burst from a .50 cal is more than enough to cripple a BMP1 or BMP2 by killing its crew(although not in-game I admit).<span id='postcolor'>

Munger -and other forum pals- if you want you can download the Heavy M113 or Heavy M2 Addons and the AI will attack at once any BMP/BMP2 of the battlefield with the M2 without any doubt! I think is fun be inside the BMP and the bullets start to hit the armor and not fun at all when you finally get killed when the bullets penetrate the thin armour LOL

Download them right  here (just click at "bajar Kb" at the right column)

[Eviscerator 0]

well i was talking about ofp again, a bmp has say 250 armour, while the blackhawk has 60 or soso theres no need to have the rounds so powerful

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do you think quad very high rof guns with automatic shell feeder, radar guidance plus 8 AA missiles are cheaper than a single smootbore gun?

come on now!<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but if you are talking about using 30 mikes as ground based tank killer, you really only need the guns, don't you?

If you are just hosing, you wouldn't even need any complicated sighting system; just boresight and hose.

But nobody does that. Instead, there are dedicated, thin skinned tank destroyers like the American M901, British Striker, or Russian BRDM2S. They all use ATGWs.

If they were that good, I'm sure the yanks would have built something packing them for their Airborne or Light Divisions.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

the 30 mm ammo doesnt really have much power, its in its velocity that really determines how much punch it will have

To reach an altitude of 4 km (the max effective range tunguska can use its guns and still have enough power to destroy a plane) you will need a very high muzzle speed, also noting that the 30 mm round allmost weighs a pound....

at close range, this high speed will make it penetrate armor plates, seeing that there will land 40 rounds on roughly the same spot in one second.

the principle is like this, the first round bounces off, heating the armor plate up on its impact point, the second, third, fourth will all bounce off, but in the meantime the armor metal is getting hotter and hotter... and thus weaker and weaker.

and about that bmp... i'm not gonna sit next to you evis, when you let a tunguska fire 500 rounds onto your bmp.

i dont think you would be able to recognise that it ever was a bmp after that... just debris

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,04:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the 30 mm ammo doesnt really have much power, its in its velocity that really determines how much punch it will have

To reach an altitude of 4 km (the max effective range tunguska can use its guns and still have enough power to destroy a plane) you will need a very high muzzle speed, also noting that the 30 mm round allmost weighs a pound....

at close range, this high speed will make it penetrate armor plates, seeing that there will land 40 rounds on roughly the same spot in one second.

the principle is like this, the first round bounces off, heating the armor plate up on its impact point, the second, third, fourth  will all bounce off, but in the meantime the armor metal is getting hotter and hotter... and thus weaker and weaker.

and about that bmp... i'm not gonna sit next to you evis, when you let a tunguska fire 500 rounds onto your bmp.

i dont think you would be able to recognise that it ever was a bmp after that... just debris <span id='postcolor'>

Assumption, or can you prove it?

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 25 2002,01:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the 30 mm ammo doesnt really have much power, its in its velocity that really determines how much punch it will have<span id='postcolor'>

and you know that the GAU-8 has a faster velocity and that the 30mm round it uses is depleted uranium, and the most armour its been able to go through is 68mm(?) as someone else said, and you still think it should be as powerful as youve made it?

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Oct. 25 2002,15:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 25 2002,01:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the 30 mm ammo doesnt really have much power, its in its velocity that really determines how much punch it will have<span id='postcolor'>

and you know that the GAU-8 has a faster velocity and that the 30mm round it uses is depleted uranium, and the most armour its been able to go through is 68mm(?) as someone else said, and you still think it should be as powerful as youve made it?<span id='postcolor'>

Thats one shell, hes sayin u got like 100 shells hittin the same place one makes a hole or a dent or what ever and theres more to follow, at close range it would do sum big dmg but at long range vry little, m1a1 has like a 120mmshell this one fires 30mm shells very fast so it could fire more weight per second than the m1a1 could.

[Eviscerator 0]

no...the A-10 cant penetrate 60mm of steel/whatever armour it was with one shot, it was most likely firing a burst at 4000rpm, which is pretty much what the tunguska does (higher rof, less velocity), anyway there is no need for the tunguska to be this powerful it destroys aircraft in 1-2 hits, flipping the aircraft, why not make it less powerful and more playable to be against or are dkm scared to see their baby hurt?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Isnt this thread going a bit off-topic

[Eviscerator 0]

well....no, the addon is a beta, we are talking about things that we want fixed by the final version

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Then what has the A-10 got to do with it then

[Stag 0]

Comparison. I think it's widely agreed that the GAU-8 is the most powerful airbourne gun system in the world, yet as some people have pointed out before, it stll can't penetrate the frontal armour of even a T72. The GAU-8 uses specialised armour-piercing rounds to do the damage it does, so how can you say that explosive/fragmentation rounds would do far more damage? And remember the GAU-8's muzzle velocity has a little assist from the fact that the aircraft is travelling at 400-500mph.

I hope I don't sound too harsh here. It's a very fine model that you've created. To do it justice wouldn't you want to make SURE that everything is right with it? Get it right, and it will be in widespread use. Get it wrong, It'll just be another target for the AIRWOLF mod to blow away (No offence to them, either).

[Gen.Carnage 0]

as said before, the armor has been lowered, a single LAW or RPG will destroy it now, your precious abrams will kill it with a single shot, but miss that shot and you wont get the time to reload and try again.

This will force you ro use different tactics in game, why should this be a bad idea?

about that need for gunpower evis; don't you think you will need a massive amount of energy to be able to go thru planes armor plates at 4 km altitude? all the way going there the gravityand friction is working against the bullets impact power.

not so in horizontal flight. only airfriction is slowing the bullet down.

the reason a-10 has 38 mm DU rounds is simple; it doesnt have the time to keep its gun trained on target for more than 1..2 seconds, in that time the tank has to be destroyed.

The tunguska now uses approx. 400 rounds to kill abrams