Red Hammer Studios

[ag_smith 0]

One thing makes me wonder, what's a probability of having tank engagment at 5000m ? Other than in flat, open desert, of course? I guess it's extremly low, especially in European environment.

[AKM 0]

There are too many variables for someone to say that a particular type of tank can kill another. There are only likelihoods.

OFP is not a tank simulator. It cannot represent all possible variables; ERA bricks, the more recent ERA that is more effective against DU APFSDS ammunition, dual-HEAT style warheads, the effect of HEAT on any vehicle sans a Spall Liner, HESH ammo, etc.

Russian tanks recieved a lot of modern ammunition. Thus a T-62 could engage and destroy a M1A2/SEP, using the modern rounds.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

There are too many variables for someone to say that a particular type of tank can kill another. There are only likelihoods.

OFP is not a tank simulator. It cannot represent all possible variables; ERA bricks, the more recent ERA that is more effective against DU APFSDS ammunition, dual-HEAT style warheads, the effect of HEAT on any vehicle sans a Spall Liner, HESH ammo, etc.

Russian tanks recieved a lot of modern ammunition. Thus a T-62 could engage and destroy a M1A2/SEP, using the modern rounds.

Indeed, there are many variables. But I do not think that saying that one tank have some chances to eliminate second, and no chances to kill third one, is not only likehoods.

The thickest protection of front arc of the most of modern tanks is, just like almost full arc protection of Merkavas, a response of conditions on battlefields and situations that occured in the past. There are some "usual" engagements ranges for tanks, and there are some situations (urban combat with much chances for tank to be hit from side or above) that seems not usual. So when we compare two particular types of tanks, knowing estimated firepower (round type, FCS quality, stabilisation systems etc.) with level of protection (using imperfect, but good enough to give some idea RHA equivalent, knowing about some antifire systems, spall liners etc.) there is some chance to find the winner. Simulations like that, firstly based on estimates and equivalents, secondly on battleexperiences gave a small chance to do that. And it is not only likehood - there are people, f.e. armour constructors - for who it is not only a hobby.

I agree that OFP is not tanks simulator. Probably there is no even army simulator that can represent ALL variables of battlefield. But with support of people who like their hobby and know some game mechanics there is a chance to make OFP as close to the more sophisticated simulators as it is possible. At least in armour protection and firepower aspects - to make front arc of modern MBTs immune to the most of rounds and projectiles (so Gedis` Reflex would be enough to kill M1 or M1A1, but not M1A1HA/HC or M1A2) and sides (without ERA) vulnerable even against Faustpatrone. There are still some variables in OFP armor configs and models, that could be use.

...which new T62 rounds you were talking about? AFAIR there are some new tandem rounds, but penetration of 750 mm RHA + ERA would not be enough for SEP from the front. Maybe top-attack? Any good info?

[ag_smith 0]

I think this simulator is as close as you can get to RL when speaking about probabilities.

With extremly simple 2d graphics, Point of Attack 2 requires at least 2.5GHz CPU. This may give you a rough idea of how complex computations are involved...

Wish it was OFP...

[Gedis 0]

well yea, front armor is strongest tanks armor, but in T-90 vs. Abrams, analitics didn't counted old M1, IPM1, M1A1, they counted M1A1HA/C, M1A2, SEP and FEP upgraded abrams tanks...

starting from M1A1HA and all other Abrams versions were filled with DU armor plates on the tower front and on the sides of suspension and this versions first battle was in 1991 Desert Storm...

well newest T-62 version could destroy abrams if it had missiles lauched form it's gun first than Abrams would detect it... but i don't really know that T-62 115mm gun is changed to 125mm, though if Iran has upgraded T-62 with 125mm, so it could be real...

and what about simulations, ofp is good enough for me

[Przezdzieblo 0]

I think this simulator is as close as you can get to RL when speaking about probabilities.

With extremly simple 2d graphics, Point of Attack 2 requires at least 2.5GHz CPU. This may give you a rough idea of how complex computations are involved...

Wish it was OFP...

LOL. And I wish not :P Too many strange numbers... and it is still based on estimates  

Do not get me wrong - I have not wet dreams after I see, let say, Penetrator Hardness in Brinnel scale and see examples of M829A2 penetration against pink Sherman cast hull  But I also do not see such difficulties AKMS were talking about. Tactical use of tank models (f.e. outflank manoeuvre after which a tank platoon can destroy a strenghtened tank company) is up to players and missionmakers. But I think there is a chance for modellers to give their models localised parts which would differ with armour protection and on one hand prevent that one "Ubertank" would kill all others within few seconds without a scratch, on the other allow single infantrymen to kill mobility or heavy dammage MBT. And it looks like OFP give a chance to do that, with mentioned before localised parts and some other (armorStructural) values.

Well, really this is that RHS doing. T54/T55 seems nicely balanced both against superpowerfull BIS AT weapons and some little weaker new models. Idea that model made would be used by some players and confronted against another models - which needs some compability - is, fortunately - "Ubertank"-unfriendly. The question is how to make addon compatible, by which OFP values, and where to find a "base", good start. IMHO BIS values are here not the best.

AKM`s post sounds pessimistic but work of RHS (that which was, fortunately, published) - not. And I hope there would be some chance to armorvalues agreement before few mods, that big part of OFP community is waiting for, appear. This is a way I see JAM and CAVS - not just flaming around about which tank or round is better and why Russian are bad and American great (or on the contrary) - but how to squeeze OFP and found it`s limits - and be as close to battlefield simulation as ever.

Gedis, please, one small link to anything about this new wonderfull 115 mm round... In straight comparisons and data of f.e. 3UBK23-2 I see nothing special.

[ag_smith 0]

and it is still based on estimates

... and it's gonna stay that way forever. You have to live with it, that nobody's gonna collect all the tanks and rounds from all around the world in one place and perform scientific research of penetration effects in all possible conditions. It's not goning to happen. That's the reason for which we'll never know accurate data.

All the data available out there on the internet is ALWAYS somehow biased and inaccurate.

That's why I think that making exact science out of it is pure stupidity. I agree with what you said in your first paragraph, however in regard to CAVS, it's clear that you'll never get to the point where the results are unquestionable. Not that I want to discourage you guys from working on it, just trying to offer a new look at it.

[Gedis 0]

Przezdzieblo, i was talking not about new 115mm gun, but about 125mm gun :P

T-62 deep tuning

but in real, this t-62 is equiped with 120mm gun...

correct info about T-62M (morozov)

I found that there is T-62 with 125mm gun, it is called T-67

but even if it is so good, i can't defend against abrams du rounds, if T-90 some how could outstand it, so t-62 couldn't for sure...

T-62 was developed to fight M-60's off, not abrams

[MontyVCB 0]

well tank warfare has progressed to the stage where the T90 and its western counter-parts are more or less on equal footing, its all about detection, targeting and firing. who shoots and hits first wins. crew training is vital more than ever and that is when the NATO crews are slightly better than their eastern counterparts.

[AKM 0]

Part of the problem is that Westerners (Myself included, until two, three years ago) always underestimate Russian armour and it's capabilities. It's generally because of the everpresent bias.

Przezdzieblo, I should have been more careful in the wording of what I said. What you mean by "Localized damage" (IE: Side armour being weaker than frontal armour) and the "simulation" of ERA bricks through representation in the config files, is taking place, yes. No worries.

[Gedis 0]

and westerners underestimate russian armor just because what russian build armor did in middle east and etc.

did nothing good what they were build for...

because for other countryes russians sold ONLY EXPORT VERSIONS, how many times i need to say these things?

My oppinion, very real:

Russian plan was and still is going by the plan to trick nato countryes, while NATO think russian weapons are not modern not harmfull for NATO expensive products, russians have huge surprise for them

[CanadianTerror 0]

And here I thought Russia did such a good job in Afghanistan with all that "Russian Superiority"

[soul_assassin 1750]

And here I thought Russia did such a good job in Afghanistan with all that "Russian Superiority"

tables usually turn in the direction of the people who know the place better and use unconventional methods, just like what is happening in Iraq. And by the way especially in russia it is now a generaly accepted fact thet Afghanistan, just like Vietnam with USA was a mistake, and did more harm that all the good that couldve come out of it in the first place.

[AiRBLaDE 0]

I never thought of Afganastan being like vietnam until now. That's intrusting.

to get back on topic here ....

so is there any progress with the infantry or weapons pack?

Im not pushing for release but it would be nice to have some modern day Russian soldiers other than ORCS.

Any screenies ?

[Przezdzieblo 0]

AKM, I am trying to be as much careful as I can, sorry if missed something. RHS made a lot of good work (there were localised parts in T64 pack AFAIR) and probably would do more.

I am interested in level of simulaton of ERA bricks... did you made 200-300 cells and is it work?

Part of the problem is that Westerners (Myself included, until two, three years ago) always underestimate Russian armour and it's capabilities. It's generally because of the everpresent bias.

That is why better way is trying to find some good East www sources (f.e. Vasili Fofanov page), hobbists (not hobbits) or people, who`s job is finding that data. Some early estimates about Russian tank of people like S. Zaloga may be wrong, but probably not because of researchers bias... But nevermind, without straight examples idea is hard to discuss. I saw underestimates on East "side", too.

Gedis,

AKM wrote about new ammo for T62 (not about new ammo for new guns for modernised T62s... btw, how many modernisations like T62M appeared last years? Did you saw "upgraded" T55? And "universal" turret with Rapira gun for T54-T55? How many of these plans turn into flesh and will become something more than a prototype?).

You are wrong that all East tanks estimated are made with data of "monkey" versions. Not for all people T72A looks just like T72B and there are people who knows why Super Dolly Parton is better than Dolly Parton.

Heavy ERA and APS like Arena are very nice invents - and American knows about it. Probably there would be now surprise.

I found that there is T-62 with 125mm gun, it is called T-67

May I guess... rare prototype? (Iraqis had T55 - or rather type 69 tank - with 125 mm, too. Prototypes of "neverweres" does not count )

but even if it is so good, i can't defend against abrams du rounds, if T-90 some how could outstand it, so t-62 couldn't for sure...

It depends. What DU ammo, which T90 (cast turret? welded turret? with K5? without? with Shtora placed on K5 or instead of?), what distance, what angle of hit, etc. Probably the newest rounds (M829A3) could make it at 2000 m, older rounds - not neccesary. See Russian rounds vs armour tests --> http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

ag_smith, you underestimate :P people

See tank pages like

http://www.knoe.odgw.net/military.htm

see naval pages like

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm

sometimes is more data that mind can catch

The reasons that all those simulations are estimated are probably more simple - allways there would be some accidental changes.

Science researches in OFP modelling is not my point. My point is that OFP needs good "base" - and standard BIS values are not the best - and upgrading the simulation is possible. And only way would be some mutual agreement in finding that "base". Estimated values could be found can support this idea.

And what I said in post that started that OT - it seems like there is chance to make simulation better. And even if we cannot deal with all variables - and nobody can - effect could be good.

[fat_al 0]

Any updates on the infantry?

Thanks...

[Stanislav Kozrov 0]

I never thought of Afganastan being like vietnam until now.  That's intrusting.

to get back on topic here ....

so is there any progress with the infantry or weapons pack?

Im not pushing for release but it would be nice to have some modern day Russian soldiers other than ORCS.  

Any screenies   ?

i think there will be no screens cuz they want to keep it as surprise all we can do is to wait and expect next 9th

[AiRBLaDE 0]

Quote[/b] ]i think there will be no screens cuz they want to keep it as surprise all we can do is to wait and expect next 9th

That'll be the day....

[Jezz 0]

heres kenji on some stuff about the t-62 and its upgrades, roughly edited for better english

Quote[/b] ]

the orignal T-62A first appeared in the early 1960s, it was orignaly intended as a replacement for t-54/t-55 but never fully acheived this aim. It carried numerous improvements over the t-55 most notable being its smooth bore 115mm main gun which allowed the firing of apfsds sabot. This was mounted in a new turret which is far rounder than that of the t-55 giving it more structural strength and armour. The main gun also had one of the first shell ejection systems where after the main gun was fired, the spent shell is then ejected through a hatch in the rear of the turret, as a result the tank could not fire its main gun with out exposing its crew to possible nbc contaminate(early version only offered nuclear protection). Though it is possible that the ejection system may be deactivated and the shell removed manuelly but this increases reload time significantly. One of the stranger things about the orignal t-62A was that unlike the t-55/t-54 it did not have a dshk mounted on the loaders hatch. As a result the loaders hatch sat flat against the turret roof and was not raised like the loaders hatch on the t-55 this as a result added much to the dome like shape of the t-62A's turret. A few years later another version of the T-62A was produced for export but also for home use so as to keep the same production line the only difference between this newer t-62A (which i will refer to as "A late") was that the A late recieved a new slightly modifed turret which differend from the origanal t-62A in that its loaders hatch was now raised from the main shape of the hull similar to that of the t-55. this was done so as to allow the A late to have a dshk mounted as many export customers did not like the idea of it not being present on the orignal t-62A and it was seen that more orders would be placed if the gun was added. the A late also had a new engine deck to allow for easier acess and maintence to the engine but this had no effect on performance

The t-62M series was produced as a result of the soviet armys requirements in afghanistan in the mid 1980s. The M varient recieved numerous improvments over the previous A versions. The most obivous difference was that of the armour package it recieved which included an additonal slab of applique armour on the glacial plate, sideskirts to predetonate AT heat rounds away from the main hull armour thus decreasing the effectivness of the weapon. Additional armour was also fitted to front of the turret, often reffered to as eyebrow armour or horseshoe armour. This armour almost doubles the thinkness of the turret across the front 180 degree's adding much need protection against heat/apfsds. the T-62M also recieved a new laser range finder and designator mounted coaxialy above the main gun. The M also recieved an improved fire control system and stabilisation impoveing acuracy. The M also gained the ability to fire the sheksna AT missile which is laser guided and has an acurate range between 4000m to 5000m depending on source, with a penetration value of 650mm(again depend on source but most often quoted). There are two different versions of the t-62M one it the T-62M and the other the T-62M-1. The -1 denotes a new engine which was installed to improve the tanks power to wieght ratio which on the M was rather power as result of the added wieght. It is is the T-62M-1 version that i make but it will becalled just T-62M to stop confusion with the T-62M1 which is a different tank.

The T-62M1 is often seen as the export varient of the T-62M, this partly due to that i have never seen or heard of M1's being in russian service. The T-62M1 is very similar in look to the T-62M but is missing the laser range finder, fire control system improvement and the ability to fire sheksna which the M varient had. like the M varient there was also an other version which was designated the T-62M1-1 agian the -1 denoting a new engine.

The t-62MV appeared around the same time as M and M1 varients. It has all the same fire control and missile upgrades which the M varient has but instead has an additional ERA armour package instead of the horseshow/eyebrow and slab armour which the M and M1 varients had. The ERA on the T-62MV is mounted in a similar fashion to that of the t-80BV being mounted directly onto the turret front in a clam shape fashion.

There Have also been several field upgrades of the T-62 one of which is the famous fence or slat armour which is often fitted to t-62s which are likly to be engaged by AT missiles. It is often fitted to T-62M's which have had there sideskirts highly damaged, so rather than just remove them and leave the side of the tank unprotected fence armour is fitted to provide roughly the same protection. It is also often fitted to the rear quarters of the T-62 turret either side of the shell ejection hatch to provide protection to the rear of the turret, This is rather good idea consider there is an amuntion rack right behind comander. fence armour if sometimes added to A and MV versions but the sideskirts are not removed on the MV as that is where ERA is mounted. fence armour has few advantages namely it is cheap and provides good stand off protection against traditonal single war head AT missiles. It can also be fitted in the feild by anyone who is competent in welding so does not require it to be return to the factory to be fitted. Fence armour has mone major flaw in that it provides zero protection agaisnt apfsds and tandem heat round but it is unlikly that a traditional sideskirt would offer anymore protection. T-62A's both late and orignal versions have been fitted with ERA in a similar fashion to that of the MV but it is mounted in a different fachion instead it is most likely mounted using the ERA package the T-64BV uses as the ERA is mounted on a bracket which is mounted slightly off of the turret in a similar fashion to that of the t-64BV. strangly on adding the additional ERA the head lights to the right of the drivers hatch is removed unlike the MV which keeps its lights. this version also does not have side skirts but instead the era is mounted on trelis covering only a partial section of the tanks side. Im not entirly sure if this upgrade has its own designation as i have never seen it called anything else other than T-62A or had people mix it up with the MV varient.

now on to guns all russian t-62's as far as i know still mount the orignal 115mm main gun, one thing that can often mislead people to thinking other wise is that some of the newer models are fitted with an addiotnal thermal sleve which can make the gun look similar to that 125mm which later soviet tanks field. The orignal apfsds was not particularly powerful especially compared the modern rounds which are used now. the most modern 115mm round is a new tungsten round with a penetration of about 700mm but I have still to find more than a few sources on this round. the previous round the BM-4 is estimated to have about 500mm to 600mm penetration. Both of these rounds may have poor penetration values by modern standards but will still penetrate the side armour of most modern mbts abrams inclued. There have been 3 other guns that have been fitted to the t-62 that i know of one is a french smooth bore 120mm giat, another is a british rifled 115mm. Morozov produce a heavily modernized t-62 which has numerous improvements one of which being the fitting of the 125mm smooth bore gun which the t-64,t-72,t-80,t-90 use this allows ammo comparity with these models and also greatly increases its killing power and range. this is due to the fact that it can now fire any of the latest 125mm amunition which anyother tank with the same gun has. So in theory morozov t-62 v abrams it almost who hits first, but abrams would most likely still win sub 3000m.

I not claim be expert i only right about from what i read so i may be incorrect in few areas so i sorry if i am, if anyone have any info on 115mm modern tungsten round i will be very happy ^_^ or if the T-62A ERA upgrade has its on designation ^_^

[Gedis 0]

Kenji, very good text, that should be read by all ofp comunity...

It conferms my knolidge, that there is 120 and 125mm gun instaled...

And again export versions, russians don't gave good upgraded tanks to other countryes, jup, thats 100% true...

Well, anti-russian tank boys, what do you think now?

Seems that all RHS, even Kenji are hidding something from us, no pictures, no status... I think soon BI forum will be lighted with their new addons like christmas tree I'm always prepared for that

P.S. hope that some of you will listen to what said Kenji, because it looks like I'm nothing for someone...

[hellfish6 7]

Well, anti-russian tank boys, what do you think now?

Well... let's have Russia invade someone and get comparative data.

[raedor 8]

Well, anti-russian tank boys, what do you think now?

Well... let's have Russia invade someone and get comparative data.

good idea. where could russia invade? i think we'd get the best comparative data when they invade the USA

[h - 169]

Quote[/b] ]i think we'd get the best comparative data when they invade the USA

yeah, just hit the beach that has only that one police officer patrolling for miles of that coast

(shown in Farenheit 9/11 if someone doesn't get it... )

[hellfish6 7]

Well, anti-russian tank boys, what do you think now?

Well... let's have Russia invade someone and get comparative data.  

good idea. where could russia invade? i think we'd get the best comparative data when they invade the USA  

Hmm... I remember sitting in junior high algebra class wishing Soviet paratroopers would invade so I could get out of school. Ah, "Red Dawn" was a great movie.

China might be an interesting enemy for ther Russians.

[raedor 8]

Quote[/b] ]i think we'd get the best comparative data when they invade the USA

yeah, just hit the beach that has only that one police officer patrolling for miles of that coast

(shown in Farenheit 9/11 if someone doesn't get it... )

oh yes, that'd give a less bloody d-day.

@hellfish: right, china is closer to the russian mainland. so it is cheaper to get all the old rusty tanks over there.