2s6m tunguska released

[Stag 0]

"Precious Abrams?" that sounds like a freudian slip.

Not my precious Abrams. If I put any item into a game, it will be there because I know that the time has been taken to make the specification as close to real world as possible. If the Russians were to produce a tank with a gun that would kill an Abrams in one shot, I would want it in the game, to find the best way to deal with it.

If you want to build Abrams killers, why not just do a model of a concept vehicle, rather than taking an existing design and turning it into something it patently is not? It is a lightly armoured, anti-aircraft point defence vehicle. its missiles have no surface to surface capability, and while its quad 30mm cannon would probably rip a lightly armoured vehicle to shreds, the only thing it would get out of attacking the frontal armour of ANY MAIN BATTLE TANK FROM 1945 ONWARDS would be a bill for the paint job.

If you can prove otherwise, post the links.

By the way, I can find no evidence that ADATS is armed with turret mounted .12.7mm MG, and again, that Paladin chassis is ridiculously overarmoured.

The smallarms DKM produce are excellent, but you cannot convince me that the config of your AFV's exist anywhere outside your wishfull thinking.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Precious Abrams?" that sounds like a freudian slip.

Not my precious Abrams. If I put any item into a game, it will be there because I know that the time has been taken to make the specification as close to real world as possible. If the Russians were to produce a tank with a gun that would kill an Abrams in one shot, I would want it in the game, to find the best way to deal with it.

If you want to build Abrams killers, why not just do a model of a concept vehicle, rather than taking an existing design and turning it into something it patently is not? It is a lightly armoured, anti-aircraft point defence vehicle. its missiles have no surface to surface capability, and while its quad 30mm cannon would probably rip a lightly armoured vehicle to shreds, the only thing it would get out of attacking the frontal armour of ANY MAIN BATTLE TANK FROM 1945 ONWARDS would be a bill for the paint job.

If you can prove otherwise, post the links.

By the way, I can find no evidence that ADATS is armed with turret mounted .12.7mm MG, and again, that Paladin chassis is ridiculously overarmoured.

The smallarms DKM produce are excellent, but you cannot convince me that the config of your AFV's exist anywhere outside your wishfull thinking.<span id='postcolor'>

if you aren't happy with the other's work , just change what you don't like by yourself

sure it's easy to cristicise somebody else's work ... but just quit whining , not everybody has big .CPP editing knowledge or talent , the DKM models are excellent , there are only a few minor glitches with the .cpp that you could easily fix by yourself

[Gen.Carnage 0]

and you are not bothered by the shilka BIS made is able to destroy an abrams?

The vulcan m113 can kill a t80 in game if it gets the time to do so too

exactly the same goes for the tunguska, but since it just HAS more firepower than above two it will do it faster.

Ofcourse a tunguska would steer clear from enemy MBT's irl, that is NOT THE POINT.

in this game low calibre weapons will tear down the armor of any other vehicle, in comparison to that, the tunguska has more firepower than any other comparable tanks and will do this faster.

Whether or not it would be able to do it in real life discussion is utterly futile, this gun is much heavier than the shilkas cannons and we gave it its power relative to that.

How realistic would a F-14 that is impossible to shoot down be?

tunguska is the answer to that, take it or leave it.

im not going into any more comments about its firepower, ofp doesnt have any realism as it comes to firepower after all.

Example: the rheinmetall smoothbore 120mm cannon loaded with sabot round would destroy 2 t-72 tanks in a single shot IRL.

in ofp it takes 3 hits or so to destroy one, so stop talking about realism.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 25 2002,12:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How realistic would a F-14 that is impossible to shoot down be?

tunguska is the answer to that, take it or leave it.

im not going into any more comments about its firepower, ofp doesnt have any realism as it comes to firepower after all.

Example: the rheinmetall smoothbore 120mm cannon loaded with sabot round would destroy 2 t-72 tanks in a single shot IRL.

in ofp it takes 3 hits or so to destroy one, so stop talking about realism.<span id='postcolor'>

agreed

[Stag 0]

Yes I probably can, but we were asked what we thought, and I'm telling him.

Neither the Tunguska nor the ADATS is ready to be put in a serious simulation, which is a crying shame. From General Carnage's post before mine, it seems pretty obvious that their purpose is not to produce accurate models, but to just produce another super weapon. Good for them! But I won't be using it, and I can't believe that anybody interested in serious simulation would either.

Hats off to DKM for producing good models. Telling them why they aren't producing great models isn't whining. Do you have anything to add to the argument proving one side or other, or are you being irrelevant?

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I probably can, but we were asked what we thought, and I'm telling him.

Neither the Tunguska nor the ADATS is ready to be put in a serious simulation, which is a crying shame. From General Carnage's post before mine, it seems pretty obvious that their purpose is not to produce accurate models, but to just produce another super weapon. Good for them!  But I won't be using it, and I can't believe that anybody interested in serious simulation would either.

Hats off to DKM for producing good models. Telling them why they aren't producing great models isn't whining. Do you have anything to add to the argument proving one side or other, or are you being irrelevant?<span id='postcolor'>

they asked for your thoughts , you gave them .... , so why persisting in this endless discussion ?

[Stag 0]

Why? what is wrong with getting as close to realism as possble?

I agree about the shilka, not to mention the number Taiwan Workshop's Mk.19 grenade launcher do on an MBT. The fact is, that as I've stated before, both armour and anti-armour values need upping considerably to counteract the damage done by fragmentation/rapid fire weapons.

Really, I'd love the Tunguska and ADATs in the game; but for what they are; Tunguska, lethal to aircraft at any range, but requiring deployment behind the line for protection. ADATS, similar, but requiring risker deployment forward because of its anti-armour capability.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Oct. 24 2002,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I probably can, but we were asked what we thought, and I'm telling him.

Neither the Tunguska nor the ADATS is ready to be put in a serious simulation, which is a crying shame. From General Carnage's post before mine, it seems pretty obvious that their purpose is not to produce accurate models, but to just produce another super weapon. Good for them!  But I won't be using it, and I can't believe that anybody interested in serious simulation would either.

Hats off to DKM for producing good models. Telling them why they aren't producing great models isn't whining. Do you have anything to add to the argument proving one side or other, or are you being irrelevant?<span id='postcolor'>

they asked for your thoughts , you gave them .... , so why persisting in this endless discussion ?<span id='postcolor'>

ah, you're going for "irrelevant" then.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and you are not bothered by the shilka BIS made is able to destroy an abrams?

The vulcan m113 can kill a t80 in game if it gets the time to do so too

exactly the same goes for the tunguska, but since it just HAS more firepower than above two it will do it faster.

Ofcourse a tunguska would steer clear from enemy MBT's irl, that is NOT THE POINT.

in this game low calibre weapons will tear down the armor of any other vehicle, in comparison to that, the tunguska has more firepower than any other comparable tanks and will do this faster.

Whether or not it would be able to do it in real life discussion is utterly futile, this gun is much heavier than the shilkas cannons and we gave it its power relative to that.

How realistic would a F-14 that is impossible to shoot down be?

tunguska is the answer to that, take it or leave it.

im not going into any more comments about its firepower, ofp doesnt have any realism as it comes to firepower after all.

Example: the rheinmetall smoothbore 120mm cannon loaded with sabot round would destroy 2 t-72 tanks in a single shot IRL.

in ofp it takes 3 hits or so to destroy one, so stop talking about realism.<span id='postcolor'>

I tried the F14, but concluded it's all but useless in OFP. Still the SA19's should be able to blow it out of the sky, likewise the guns should be able to deal with it if it gets into range. if even the Shilka can't take it down, then there's another model which needs more attention.

[Sefe 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,15:23)</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 is rediculous.

Here's a schematic of the GAU-8A:

You can see that half of it's length is just the magazine. And when you compare those pics you'll see the reason why:

These are 30 mm lightweight rounds, fired by an Apache M230 automatic cannon:

This is a 30 mm DU round to be fired by a GAU-8A cannon:

Just to say "same caliber + same rate of fire = same performance against armoured targets" simply ignores basic physics. A GAU-8A round is a kinetic energy round. That means the armour penetration effect is simply achieved by the kinetic energy of the shell, not by explosion effects. The formula for kinetic energy is

E(k) = 1/2 * m * v^2

E is the energy, m is the mass and v is the velocity. Hence the kinetic energy is increasing with the mass and the velocity. That's the reason why AP rods are made of DU or tungsten carbide, those materials are very dense (while being hard enough to penetrate armour) and therefore combine high weight and a low volume. And the propellant charge is that big to give the projectile a high velocity. The additional effect of DU is that it's self-incidentary. Ie., while penetrating the armour the rod ignites and releases a spray of fire to the inside of a tank that either kills the crew or makes the tank catch fire.

In AA-guns you usually use self-destruct fragmentation rounds and a proximity fuse. Ie. they explode when they are close to the target and release fragments that can penetrate the relatively thin armours in aircraft. It's absolutely neglectable if the round explodes at 100 m or at 4000 m, because the effect is achived by the fragments, not by the velocity of the shell. The only thing that the gun has to do is to get the shell to it's target (while the GAU-8A also has to give the shell as much kinetic energy as possible - that explains it's massive dimensions).

Due to their fragmentation effects, AA shells have no armour piercing and no incidentary effects. Maybe you can load the Tunguska with AP rounds but due to the considerably smaller propellant charge, it's much less effective than the GAU-8A ammo. You can't even penetrate the front armour of the M1 with the GAU-8A. Shooting at an M1 with AA fragmentation rounds is as good as throwing rocks.

And as for the missile firepower, the SA-19 missile has a warhead weight of 9 kg. And this is also a fragmentation warhead, ie. there's no armour piercing effect - in contrast to a LAW that uses a HEAT (= high explosive anti-tank) warhead. So three missile shots to crack an M60 surely isn't realistic. And that the aircraft is thrown back by the shockwave may be spectacular but don't you wonder how 9 kg of explosives (most likely it's much less than 9 kg of explosives - don't forget the fragments that are also in the warhead) can have such an effect on a multi-ton aircraft?

If that doesn't convice you that the Tunguska is too powerful, I'd suggest this sample mission (try it, it's real fun). Set up a duel west vs. east.

West: 4 x M1A1, 2 x M60, 2 x Vulcan, 1 x Apache

East: 3 x T-80, 1 x T-72, 1 x Shilka, 1 x Hind

Play the mission and you'll watch how east gets busted by west. Now replace the Shilka by a Tunguska and play the mission a few times. In about 80 % of the cases the east will now win. Even if the Tunguska would be realistic (which it isn't), every mission maker with the slightest sense of mission balance wouldn't use the Tunguska in his missions.

[Speeeedy 0]

tryed the test of Sefe...tryed it ones, tryed it twice....hell i tryed it 5 times....but he is right doing this test you notice the gun of the tunguska is way to powerfull against tanks

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its missiles have no surface to surface capability,<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the video go here: http://www.rusarm.ru/comp.htm> Click on "video", scroll to the very bottom, the video for the tunguska is at the bottom left.<span id='postcolor'>

If you look closely, you can see it launching a missile at a surface target

[Gen.Carnage 0]

try that same equasion with the tunguska beeing blown up after one hit?

as said before, its armor was too heavy and is corrected.

[Sefe 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 25 2002,17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">try that same equasion with the tunguska beeing blown up after one hit?

as said before, its armor was too heavy and is corrected.<span id='postcolor'>

Have you tried the mission? The Tunguska isn't even being shot at.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

not beeing shot at?

you must still be running 1.46?  since the tunguska sees the targets first, it will engage first (of the land vehicles)

at a range of 900 m i can start firing at one abrams, but wont even get the chance to finish that one off, since i expose myself by firing, the three abrams immediately react by destroying me.

*edit* to please you i did this so called test with the new tunguska 10 times, 9 times the west won with varying losses, all russians were destroyed.

the one time they lost was coz they were unlucky when the apache fell on top of an abrams, and blocked the fire of another abrams.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Oct. 24 2002,18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its missiles have no surface to surface capability,<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the video go here: http://www.rusarm.ru/comp.htm> Click on "video", scroll to the very bottom, the video for the tunguska is at the bottom left.<span id='postcolor'>

If you look closely, you can see it launching a missile at a surface target<span id='postcolor'>

I see what you mean, but I've also read the specifications of the vehicle on that site. It's obviously at least approved by the manufacturer's as a demonstration tool, yet it makes no mention of dual capability, which to me would seem to be a major selling point.

Ground target, or low-flying drone?

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see what you mean, but I've also read the specifications of the vehicle on that site. It's obviously at least approved by the manufacturer's as a demonstration tool, yet it makes no mention of dual capability, which to me would seem to be a major selling point.

Ground target, or low-flying drone?<span id='postcolor'>

Ground target indeed. You'll notice they don't mention the guns having a capability against surface targets either, people who are familiar with the type of radar tracking the Tunguska uses would naturally assume dual capability is possible.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

<snip>

The Tunguska-M1 vehicle carries eight 9M311-M1 surface-to-air missiles. The missile (NATO designation SA-19 Grison) has semi-automatic radar command to line-of-sight guidance, weighs 40kg with a 9kg warhead. It is 2.5m long with a diameter of 1.7m and wingspan of 2.2m. The missile's maximum speed is 900m/s and can engage targets travelling at speeds up to 500m/s. Range is from 15 to 6,000m for ground targets and 15 to 10,000m for air targets.

Two twin-barrel 30mm anti-aircraft guns are mounted on the vehicle. These guns have a maximum firing rate of 5,000 rounds per minute and a range of 3,000m against air targets. This extends to 4,000m against ground targets.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Eviscerator 0]

well, we may as well stop, its pretty clear DKM only want to make the models and arent interested in making it realistic or playable against, its certainly not fun to play against at the minute, (which it should be, ie hugging the trees so the radar cant spot you and flying over while the only get a shot or two at you), instead, one shot flips any chopper/plane, ill certainly be sticking to the shilka in missions i play...

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Oct. 25 2002,19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, we may as well stop, its pretty clear DKM only want to make the models and arent interested in making it realistic or playable against, its certainly not fun to play against at the minute, (which it should be, ie hugging the trees so the radar cant spot you and flying over while the only get a shot or two at you), instead, one shot flips any chopper/plane, ill certainly be sticking to the shilka in missions i play...<span id='postcolor'>

If you don't like it, don't download it. For one I feel that the G36 isn't much fun to play against, and I don't have the choice of not downloading it...it's in virtually every mp server I go.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Oct. 24 2002,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see what you mean, but I've also read the specifications of the vehicle on that site. It's obviously at least approved by the manufacturer's as a demonstration tool, yet it makes no mention of dual capability, which to me would seem to be a major selling point.

Ground target, or low-flying drone?<span id='postcolor'>

Ground target indeed. You'll notice they don't mention the guns having a capability against surface targets either, people who are familiar with the type of radar tracking the Tunguska uses would naturally assume dual capability is possible.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

<snip>

The Tunguska-M1 vehicle carries eight 9M311-M1 surface-to-air missiles. The missile (NATO designation SA-19 Grison) has semi-automatic radar command to line-of-sight guidance, weighs 40kg with a 9kg warhead. It is 2.5m long with a diameter of 1.7m and wingspan of 2.2m. The missile's maximum speed is 900m/s and can engage targets travelling at speeds up to 500m/s. Range is from 15 to 6,000m for ground targets and 15 to 10,000m for air targets.

Two twin-barrel 30mm anti-aircraft guns are mounted on the vehicle. These guns have a maximum firing rate of 5,000 rounds per minute and a range of 3,000m against air targets. This extends to 4,000m against ground targets.

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Cool. I stand corrected. Though there's still no mention of any ability to destroy MBTs with its guns.

[Eviscerator 0]

"if you dont like it then dont download it"

this phrase is used far too often, i was looking forward to a tunguska being released, now no-one else will make one as they probably wont get the model better than DKM, i cant modify the .cpp because then it would mess up any online play, unless someone makes a cpp addon for it by changing the characteristics/names and not including the p3d in the file (would make sure that people had the DKM tunguska and then both options to play with, also i dont think it would have to be made with DKM inputas you wouldnt be modifying their model/textures) which i dont have the time to do myself, i hope someone does this though...

[Gen.Carnage 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"if you dont like it then dont download it"

this phrase is used far too often, i was looking forward to a tunguska being released, now no-one else will make one as they probably wont get the model better than DKM, i cant modify the .cpp because then it would mess up any online play, unless someone makes a cpp addon for it by changing the characteristics/names and not including the p3d in the file (would make sure that people had the DKM tunguska and then both options to play with, also i dont think it would have to be made with DKM inputas you wouldnt be modifying their model/textures) which i dont have the time to do myself, i hope someone does this though...

--------------

Ballistic Addon Studio Modeller

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<span id='postcolor'>

are you publicly urging people to rip off our model?

man thats low....

[Eviscerator 0]

no, youve clearly misunderstood, what im urging is an 'extra' to the addon, which would create a realistic version while not modifying any of your work, how is that ripping your model off?

[Gen.Carnage 0]

you are even implying ppl dont need to ask permission.. i call that ripping off

[Eviscerator 0]

they dont need to ask permission, it wouldnt need to have any of DKM's work in the file, all it would need is a .cpp in a pbo, ive also heard claims you are emailing BIS because i have gave criticism about this and the Bronco (both unrealistic cpp issues)