T12um1 black eagle released

[DKM Jaguar 0]

well... APC pack is either 2nd or 3rd, probably. lots more to come though

[Guest]

This is a fantastic addon, but I have a strange bug to report. This only happened 3 times out of 10, but I figured I would report it.

I made a group of two "Eagles" with a pair of empty RHS t54's as target practice. After blowing one of the T54s to pieces, I launched a smokescreen, and then, inexplicably, the other tank started firing on me! I think he may be firing at the smoke and hits me instead, but its still a strange phenomenon.

BTW: Is the smoke AI invisible?

[blackdog~ 0]

That's because you killed a friendly tank.

[Heatseeker 0]

Quote[/b] ]It will form part of a mini-campaign using all of our addons on Everon

Now thats some good news. Its always good to return to Everon after all this time, thank god its not another Nogova conflict, i really dont like Nogova .

[DKM Jaguar 0]

Unless you have an extremely beefy computer, major battles are just not realistic on Nogova. It is my decision to make it on Everon AND some missions on Malden. These allow large battles which are more realistic becuase of the number of units which can be put on without huge lag. I like to get missions with a frontline; tanks, troops, helicopters, then a rear echelon with trucks and logistics. It will be possible for the player to break through the frontline and create havoc with the softskin vehicles behind, and in response the enemy will have to take units off the line to deal with the threat you pose. It will make the frontline weaker and mean more friendly units can break through, helping to win the battle. Now the only thing to do is to make it work...

But such battles would not be possible with a large island due to lag.

However, I am looking at island making, so if there's any good tutorials around i would apreiciate being told about them

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]I don't think this is even 100% accurate, because they're probably going to put countermeasures on it like the Arena system. So the back part of the turret is still pretty much all speculation.

The turret bustle on that model is probably pretty accurate assuming that the turret bustle on the Black Eagle is based on that of the Oplot/Yataghan. That model depicts almost exactly the same turret bustle and stowage as those Ukranian versions of the T-80U. It's not speculation.

[miles teg 1]

One thing that is not too accurate is all the speculation about what tank is better, ect.. ect... Unless you have access to classified information or you have seen an T12 in action against an M1A2 then it's just merely speculation about which tank is better. The M1A2 for example has depleted uranium armor which gives it a huge advantage. I have not seen any information that Russia is using any such armor nor is it known for 100% certainty that its rounds will penetrate an M1's frontal armor. During the Iraq invasion, no M1 crews were lost except for one that was blown down an embackment by a massive roadside bomb that flipped it and killed the crew in that fashion. Also reactive armor is not the most effective armor against sabot rounds as it is primarily intended to stop HEAT rounds and to only diminish the effect of sabot rounds.

So while the armament of the T12 may be able to penetrate 1,000 mm of armor, those stats are based on standard armor if I'm not mistaken and not on depleted uranium/composite armor which is quite a bit tougher.

However I don't doubt that the T12 could almost certainly destroy an M1 with a shot to the side of the Abrams as all tank designs tend to have weaker side armor.

Here is one report of such an occurance happening by some unknown weapon:

http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

There is also the possibility that indeed DU armor only offers slightly better protection then regular composite or steel armor and that perhaps the T12's gun would penetrate the frontal armor. But the fact of the matter is that we don't know. What we do know however is that the M1A1 and A2 tanks are both combat proven tanks capable of excellent long range fighting capability and capable of taking a tremendous amount of dammage without killing the crew.

So basically what I'm saying is please don't try to make these tanks "realistic" in terms of guesses and estimations.

I think that DKM rightly made it balanced with the BIS M1 so that the game is enjoyable. I also like that any updates to match the BAS armor will be optional and not replacing the versions that match the BIS tanks. That I think is the best way to please those who want realism vs. those who just want to have fun tank battles.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Sigma-6 29]

A few well known facts to dispel a few of the myths here:

the newest Russian HEAT round will penetrate 800mm+. This is to say nothing of new Sabot types. 800mm is sufficient to penetrate the frontal armour of an M1A1HA under ideal conditions.

An *extended* 125mm 2A46 (so far, fitted only to Ukranian prototype tanks) firing  3BM42M will penetrate the frontal armour of an M1A2 hands down. It is speculated (yes, speculated, but the speculation is rooted firmly in fact) that the Black Eagle will ship with an entirely new (probably smoothbore) gun of a calibre in excess of 150mm, with entirely new ammo types including no-fin-contact Sabots.

While it's true that the older ERA types were designed to defend only against HEAT, Kontakt5 and Kaktus ERA are not intended to defend against HEAT exclusively, they are intended to laterally shatter Western APFSDS penetrators, and Kontakt5 (the older type) has been proven, in ballistic testing on old T-72M1s, by both the Germans and the US Army, to do exactly that. In fact, as early as 1996, the US Army was convinced, based on this testing, that K5 made Russian tanks "Basically immune" to the M829 on the frontal arc. (of course, a lot has changed since then, just as a lot has changed since 1985, when K5 was introduced.) The Black Eagle is covered with Kaktus, the newer type, on about 90% of its frontal arc (K5 only covered 60-80% depending on the tank it was fitted to). Kaktus is a much improved type of Sabot defeating ERA.

Quote[/b] ]So while the armament of the T12 may be able to penetrate 1,000 mm of armor, those stats are based on standard armor if I'm not mistaken and not on depleted uranium/composite armor which is quite a bit tougher.

RHA numbers are based on *equivalencies*.  1000mm of armour refers to the *equivalent* of 1000mm of rolled homogeneous steel, regardless of the composites of which it is composed. They're not based on 'standard armour'. The composite materials are irrelevant, as both the armour thicknesses and the penetration distances are based on 'how thick the armour would have to be to give that amount of protection if it were made of rolled steel'. It is also well known what Chobham composites are composed of, and in tems of ballistic testing. . . Russia has Nuclear reactors too, and thus plenty of spent nuclear fuel, thus it is not difficult to get hold of DU to test its ballistic properties.

I appreciate that you wish to avoid 'speculation' and 'guesses' Miles. What I am saying is that RHS' data have not been based on either.

[Bergmania 0]

Quote[/b] ] that the Black Eagle will ship with an entirely new (probably smoothbore) gun of a calibre in excess of 150mm

IF it ever will ship..

Quote[/b] ]During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict, while inside the protection of the M1A1's armor, by enemy fire. Casualties did occur, but in all known cases, the cause was fratricide from other US weapons. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]IF it ever will ship..

With a per-unit cost as high as it boasts, that's an apt statement.

Quote[/b] ]

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict, while inside the protection of the M1A1's armor, by enemy fire. Casualties did occur, but in all known cases, the cause was fratricide from other US weapons. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

That record has been marred in GW2, however, the M1 series still performed admirably. The crew survivability of the Abrams is often attributed to the ammunition being stored in the turret bustle, separate from the crew compartment, with blowout panels on top of the bustle to redirect ammo cookoffs. This system has been incredibly effective in preventing crew fatalities, and where tanks have been destroyed otherwise, their crews have been able to escape unharmed. No doubt, the M1 is an excellent piece of kit.

Russian tanks, on the other hand, have traditionally had their ammo stored in the crew compartment, and in the case of Russian tanks with autoloaders, (T-64, 72, 80, 90) the ammo has been stored in the crew compartment, under the gunner and commanders' feet, in an autoloader carousel. Penetration of the tank has caused the ammo to cook off, killing the crew and blowing off the turret.

*however* The Oplot/Yataghan and the Black Eagle feature a turret bustle with separate ammunition storage and blowout panels on the roof. This has solved that crew-killing problem in Russian tank design. . . I suppose it could be said that the Soviets were unconcerned with the safety of their crews. . .

[DKM Jaguar 0]

I heard no M1 was lost during the first Gulf war. I beleive your figures more.

[-33ker 0]

I don't know whether this bug already has been reportet, but I can see the tracks through the wall be hind me if I get in as driver.

[shinRaiden 0]

Is it just me, or does it look like that Mother Russia copied the clamshell design style of the turret front from the Merkava 4?

[Sigma-6 29]

It's an entirely different development. The 'clamshell' design you see there is Kaktus Explosive Reactive Armour. It's designed like that not for aesthetic appeal, but because those angles are the most effective for Kaktus' destruction of Sabot penetrators and disruption of HEAT streams. Kaktus is a further development of Kontakt-5 ERA.

The Russian choice for HEAT (and now KE) protection is ERA. Explosive Reactive armour consists of hollow pressed steel

bricks containing two opposed plates of metal covered in plastic explosive. As

a jet from a HEAT round strikes the brick of ERA, the first plate explodes

into the warhead stream, disrupting it and throwing the second plate to bounce

off the tank's hull and explode again into the warhead stream, rendering it

further ineffective. Tanks with this type of armour can be identified by their

coverage of these small square bricks.

First Generation ERA's primary disadvantage was that it could be

detonated by externally induced electrical charges, or by small arms fire.

Second Generation ERA mitigated these disadvantages, and Third Generation ERA,

known as "Kontakt-5" is a different beast entirely, and begins an entirely new

class of ERA which has been still further improved.

Kontakt-5 is a dance of precision in many respects. A lot of care has

been taken to maximize the effectiveness of the shape of the ERA array, and

the composition of the explosive charge. Tanks with K5 are identifiable by the

triangular turret arrays on the front of the tank on either side of the gun,

giving a vaguely clamshell appearance to the turret. K5 was introduced in 1985

on the Russian T-80U type, produced by the Morozov design bureau at Kharkov.

Its effect is functionally identical to that of earlier ERA types as

concerns HEAT (it makes the tank basically impervious to Chemical charges),

but where previous types offered little to no protection against APFSDS, K5 is

nearly just as effective against both types. The KE effect progresses roughly as

follows:

The penetrator approaches the armour, and strikes it at a sharp angle

(due to the arrangement of the armour). As it strikes, the first plate

explodes laterally against it, snapping the tip off, dulling the round, and

redirecting its energy off center (turning it). The second plate snaps back

against the back of the brick, bounces back and explodes against the penetrator (ideally

further along its length) and further redirects it, bends it, misshapes it,

and in the case of a less structurally sound round, shatters it laterally,

rendering it ineffective. The destroyed or redirected penetrator then strikes

the base armour of the tank (in the usual case of the modern Russian tanks

mounted with K5, composite armour usually made of plastics and steel) and

glances off ineffectively.

The KE penetrator of an APFSDS round is

dependent for penetration on the factors of weight, stability, sharpness, and

length. In the ideal (or catastrophic, depending on whose side you're on)

scenario, K5 (and Kaktus) divests the round of all of these properties to the degrees the

round needs them to penetrate the base armour (or in fact, damage it in any real way).

[DKM Jaguar 0]

This is probably a very stupid question, but how effective is thier conventional armour underneath? Do they treat ERA like if it doesn't stop the round then that's it, or do they put a fairly good layer of conventional base armour on as well, just incase the ERA is innefective?

[miles teg 1]

Hmm... I just thought of something for a future version of the T12.... would it be possible to use event handlers and proxies to cause the ERA blocks to disappear as the tank took more and more dammage? If so that might be a very cool idea for tanks that have reactive armor. I'm trying to learn more about proxies and event handlers to do that with an Israeli Centurion (Sho't) tank addon that I'm working on. I have the reactive armor blocks in place, but I just have to learn how to make individual units disappear as the dammage increases.

Anyways that's just a thought. If it would require the turret to be completely redone, maybe it's a bad idea, but for those tank addons where the reactive armor blocks are added to a turret after the turret has been fully made, then it would be a very cool and realistic feature I think.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Sigma-6 29]

You'll find that Reactive armour bricks (especially the K-5 and Kaktus types on the T-80U/T-90/Oplot/BlackEagle) don't actually disappear when they are detonated. In fact, they look much the same as before, beyond being perhaps a bit misshapen and perforated.

Quote[/b] ]This is probably a very stupid question, but how effective is thier conventional armour underneath? Do they treat ERA like if it doesn't stop the round then that's it, or do they put a fairly good layer of conventional base armour on as well, just incase the ERA is innefective?

depends entirely on the tank.

Most of the T-72 types mounted with K-5 (BM, for example) have only the base armour from the T-72B series, which is the 'Dolly Parton' style expanded armour. The T-90 has turret front and glacis armour made from an unknown composite, but it's expected that this is similar in form and function to chobham, in that it's a composite of steel, plastics and ceramics. The 1985-vintage T-80U is known to have inferior base armour to the T-90 (and especially the T-90M, which has an entirely rebuilt turret with an entirely new type of advanced composite armour in it. . . the turret front plates are proportionally about as thick as those on the M1A1/2 for the tank's size.).

The Black-Eagle and Oplot/Yataghan as well as the T-84 also have entirely new turrets. These are similar in design to the welded turret on the M1 series underneath the ERA, and the Composites are quite advanced.

Assuming they are similar in form and function to Chobham, the functioning of which is well understood, this is how they operate if there is no ERA present, and please, bear in mind that this type of armour is not really that difficult to produce, what is difficult is finding exactly the right type of ceramic material.

For a long time the composition and protective action of Chobham was highly classified, but it has since become well known that it is a sandwiching of a special ceramic layer between two layers of steel. The ceramic, when penetrated by a HEAT round, shatters, expanding in the process, and forces the jet of metal back out of the penetration hole in the first steel layer.

Chobham is often currently augmented by the inclusion of a Depleted Uranium mesh layer which serves the dual purpose of increasing the metal mass of the armour, and of disrupting the integrity of the stream of metal (the mesh configuration causes a scattering of the energy).

[miles teg 1]

Ah... oh ok.. I didn't know that.   I thought they just blew off.  Interesting.   How about having texture changes showing them a bit burnt up after reaching a certain dammage level... kinda like the way the T12 (and the BIS tanks) turn dark in some areas as they take dammage in those areas.  I've seen this done in Adammo's US Marine Corp  Vietnam era UH-1 helicopters.  As they take dammage, you see bullet holes on them.  That would probably actually be alot easier then doing the whole proxy thing with reactive armor panels.

But if not that's cool.  It's still a fantastic addon as it is.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[@cero 0]

I don't meen to post unnecessary posts or anything like that, but, bloody hell Sigma, you know your stuff about tanks mate.

Everytime you get inbolved in a topic like that I learn more about tanks than reading anything ellse.

Impressive.

@CERO.

[Judge Rabbi 0]

That T12 looks very familiar...has anyone played Wargasm?

It looks like that Future Battle tank. Perhaps DID knew about it...but thats impossible! This stuff was top secret back then...

[soul_assassin 1750]

That T12 looks very familiar...has anyone played Wargasm?

It looks like that Future Battle tank. Perhaps DID knew about it...but thats impossible! This stuff was top secret back then...

off topic:

was the MP option called Wargy?

sorry just had to say it

[Judge Rabbi 0]

off topic:

was the MP option called Wargy?

sorry just had to say it  

Actually it was called Multiple Wargasms.

No-one brought the game because some stupid guy thought up of THAT name.

It was a fun game, honest!

[Bergmania 0]

Quote[/b] ]No-one brought the game because some stupid guy thought up of THAT name.

It was a fun game, honest!

I did .. and it was alot better than the name.. but it was back in voodoo 1 dayz..

[DKM Jaguar 0]

Look into my eyes, not around my eyes, into the eyes. When I clik my fingers you will return to the intended topic and not discuss wargasm. 3..2...1.. you're back in the room.

(If you've never seen the program Little Britian you probably won't understand, but just return to the topic, please.)

[Bergmania 0]

Ok.. I still think it's to big..

The T-64 is 2.20 high.. and the T12 is lower than 2.20..

BUT the model is Excellent and so is the texture..