Red Hammer Studios

[Shadow NX 1]

The armor values are created from the real values, you take all values you have, sides, front, back and so on then find the middle of these values, as OFPs engine not allows you to create different hit zones.

Sigma also works very close with BAS and they will use the same system for the newer stuff ( the AT4 was really a bit strong ).

[r1c0cH3T 0]

To temper your male hormones, I've decided to balance out my previous reply with this:

Shames on yas all!

WOAH!!!

Anyway, back to the tank:

Nice tank... When is the T55's gonna be released

[Finnish soldier 0]

well the ukrainians build the tank. The question is if they can afford it for their army? I doub't it and if they can then only few of them. There is a far better chance that the russians buy some of them and use them.

Well Russians don't have lot of money either there are about 200 T-90 when there are 10000 T-55, 8000 t-62, 4000 t-64, 9000 t-72 and about 5000 T-80.

[nyles 11]

The armor values are created from the real values, you take all values you have, sides, front, back and so on then find the middle of these values, as OFPs engine not allows you to create different hit zones.

Sigma also works very close with BAS and they will use the same system for the newer stuff ( the AT4 was really a bit strong ).

See, and this is really the problem for me: In comparision to what is the AT4 too strong? I think it is kinda annoying to have it fire 2 JAM AT4 missiles to kill a single crappy bmp. Same with the LAW.

Now if I understand you correctly, BAS will make their AT4 even less powerful, right?

The problem really is here to see to what damage values, the armour values are comparable to.

[Eviscerator 0]

Now if I understand you correctly, BAS will make their AT4 even less powerful, right?

No, BAS are committed to using JAM and the JAM M136 damage will not be lowered.

[Dauragon 0]

Now if I understand you correctly, BAS will make their AT4 even less powerful, right?

No, BAS are committed to using JAM and the JAM M136 damage will not be lowered.

then increase your armor values rhs

[theavonlady 2]

Now if I understand you correctly, BAS will make their AT4 even less powerful, right?

No, BAS are committed to using JAM and the JAM M136 damage will not be lowered.

then increase your armor values rhs  

Set shields to full power!

[lee_h._oswald 0]

When is the T55's gonna be released

no release date yet but soon  ;)

---

Soon can mean everything.

MfG Lee

[Sigma-6 29]

An M1A1 would simply not stand a chance against a T-80UK, let alone an Oplot.

That much is pretty simple to explain if you read thousands of pages of doctrine and technical descriptions. (those who disagree will likely have not done that)

An M1A2, on the other hand, stands on pretty even ground, provided it gets the first shot, and even then, since the Oplot and the M1 series fire the same ammo, that's a dubious advantage. Really, the best US DU round and the best Russian Tungsten penetrators are basically head-to head, and believe it or not (I know, it's difficult for people who got off on M1A1s killing 30-40 year vintage tanks), the newest Russian HEAT round will kill an M1A1 from the front pretty easily with a single shot.

I agree that it's irritating that people think Eastern tank development stopped in 1982. . . it most certainly didn't, and it's still forcing NATO's card. Personally, as a Canadian, I find it embarassing that Westerners overestimate their own armour so much; it illustrates that we don't even know much about our own equipment, let alone the other guy's.

[m21man 0]

Technology wise, they stand on even ground. But, since Russian tanks frequently seem to have been designed with 4 foot high crewmen in mind, the crew is squashed together and their performance levels are reduced quickly. Western tanks normally are more spacious (For tanks, I mean. They're still cramped), so the crew are more effective.

[Milkman 1]

Sigma, I do not think that it is westerners lack of knowledge on our MBTs, but out lack of knowledge on eastern MBTs. There is very little reliable information on them, and because they have never gone head-to-head with each other. That is something that will probably never happen so all we can do is guess. I don't think either country has a competitor's tank to test their tanks ability on. Even then, some would still be in denial.

PS: What is the big difference in armour between the M1A1 and the M1A2 SEP?

[m21man 0]

Had they ever gone head-to-head in a large battle, we'd have been nuclear french fries.

[Milkman 1]

That is what I mean, and since we are not going to nuke each other, the chances of ever seeing them in battle is nil.

[Supah 0]

I agree that it's irritating that people think Eastern tank development stopped in 1982. . . it most certainly didn't, and it's still forcing NATO's card. Personally, as a Canadian, I find it embarassing that Westerners overestimate their own armour so much; it illustrates that we don't even know much about our own equipment, let alone the other guy's.

I know what you mean. Same goes for Fighter jets. Allot of people think MiG-29's and Su-27's dont stand up to western fighters. Well they are just as good and in some tasks even better. Its just that the wests picks its fights wisely and fights countries who's airforces are trained no better then you High Schools Cheerleading squad at air combat. Put a good pilot in a MiG-29 and he can take any western fighter on

[Guest ####]

If you are talking about a face to face battle between two pieces of equipment then both sides have opprotunities to win. However wars are not fought by one unit alone and it is the interaction between various types of units and their support that wins wars.

A prime example of this is the Russo-Finnish war. Finland had totally outdated armour, Finnish infantry had to rely on either killing tanks by getting in really close with Satchel charges and Molotov cocktails or using the infamous "Motti's" and the winter to starve the crews and turn the tanks into very expencive pillboxes.

[bonko the sane 2]

A bit offtopic but its related to Russian Hardware:

I have this crazy video of a SU-37 doing some crazy stunts (the quality could be better but oh well)

Its about 2MB,if anyone wants it just PM me and ill mail it.

[Shadow NX 1]

Youre sure the aircrafts are no Su-27?

Cause the Russian knights use them.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Just looking a stupid movie in TV.

What type is that tank?

MfG Lee

[blackdog~ 0]

I'm probably wrong.. but maybe a T-62?

Something that starts with T

[hellfish6 7]

T-72. I'm sure Sigma-6 could tell you which specific version.

Edit: What movie is that from?

[lee_h._oswald 0]

"Queen's Messenger"

USA movie from year 2000.

Absolutly idiotic, the tank was not able to hit a stolen btr and was stopped cause he drove straight into an ural wreck....

MfG Lee

[Acecombat 0]

T-72. I'm sure Sigma-6 could tell you which specific version.

Edit: What movie is that from?

I think we have it in OFP too ican easily see its outline matching the ones we have dont know which , have to open OFP to find out , buti guess its not the Iraqi version , ita bit different then that.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I think T72M1, but not sure.

MfG Lee

[Shadow NX 1]

Yes thats also my thought, a T-72M1 widely exported, only thing it has our version doesnt has is the shield.

[Sigma-6 29]

Looks like a T-72M1 to me.

Anyway, yeah. . . We do know quite a bit about Eastern tanks, in fact.

One prime example of something we know is what Kontakt-5 will do, because it's been purchased and tested, and old T-72s mounted with it are effectively impenetrable on the Frontal arc in testing against US 120mm Sabots.

Initially, most US analysts refused to believe that this meant Russia had a tank they couldn't kill under notmal frontal attack contitions as early as 1985 (T-80U), but the Germans were first to confirm it. In their testing, DM-53 rounds were *shattered* by the K-5 boxes. (for your info, the DM-53 is the German Tungsten 120mm round. same gun as the Abrams)

Currently, the T-90M (with the new composite welded turret) has base armour that is easily as strong as the M1A1 and also mounts K-5 on 80%+ of its frontal arc. A series of tests involving Kornet missiles were utterly unable to penetrate even the older T-90 from the front. Question: would a Kornet kill and M1A1? Answer: yes. The crew might survive, but the vehicle would be a total writeoff.

We also know that it was the Russians who first perfected APFSDS for the T-62. Also, they continue to field Tungsten rounds that compete with US DU rounds. (and the Germans field Tungsten rounds that are more effective than US DU rounds). [DU has a lower specific gravity than Tungsten, which means it's lighter, but it's given to the US military for free by the Government, where Tungsten is very expensive. DU is also slightly more pyrophoric than Tungsten (it burns at a lower temperature), but the weight difference nearly equalizes this]

The Oplot though, is a different story entirely. . . the Russian T-72, T-64, and T-80 have low profiles and weigh half what a US tank does, with the same horsepower. Problem is, the ammo is held in a carousel (which feeds the autoloader) below the crew in a cramped turret. . .  When the tank is penetrated, the ammo cooks off and kills the crew, boosting the turret into the air.

Oplot fixes all of these problems and more. It has a faster autoloader mounted in a turret bustle at the back of the turret (like the M1), and the ammo and crew are separated. The bustle has blowout panels on top (like the M1) so that cookoffs explode harmlessly out the top. The turret is also larger and taller, with more interior space, and the autoloader removes the requirement for space for a loader as a crew member. That and the fact that the Oplot's main gun is 1 NATO 120mm smoothbore and fires the same ammo as the Leo2 and the Abrams. . . and also sports K-5 armour (mentioned earlier) over its composites and carries the Shtora active protection suite. . . well. . . you get the idea.

The difference between the M1A1 and the M1A2 SEP is mainly the addition of the CITV (Commander's independent Thermal viewer) and other internal systems. It's got the new commander's station (mounted on newer M1A1s) and several other little tweaks.

The armour difference is not a change in thickness, but in material and amounts to the equivalent of roughly 200mm of rolled homogeneous steel (but it's composite) vs. KE.