T12um1 black eagle released

[TermiPete 0]

Perhaps it is a good idea for starters to create a 'central repository' for information just in HTML format as a resource and a home for a smart and consistent way of handling values.

I have a lot of BIS values and some real world data collated in an XLS spreadsheet (Yes I am a sad sack) which is easy to manipulate, distribute and publish.

I also have free hosting and can create user accounts for inidividuals who wish to contribute.

Would anyone like to see this kicked off in this way ? Alternatives?

TP

[cervomix 0]

I just hope it'll be more used than WWII universal armor code, and also that it'll be a real mods cooperation work setting those values instead of a single viewed stuff.

[TermiPete 0]

Too true - the idea of an open database is good but will take more work to prepare and could also be open to abuse(?).

I'd also like to make it clear that I'm not trying to 'own' anything here - i would much prefer if the experienced addon makers did this but I simply want this to happen!

So if I can help kick it off I will, but am quite happy to defer to someone more knowledgeable.

[dm 9]

I just hope it'll be more used than WWII universal armor code, and also that it'll be a real mods cooperation work setting those values instead of a single viewed stuff.

IMHO Sigma is the "daddy" of Tank related issues in OFP. He has worked incredibly hard to obtain the data and info that he has, as well as working hard to get them right ingame. Which makes his values "definative", he is also unbiased in his veiws (clear in the Armour document) which makes him as good a person as any to formulate a universal system.

@TP

Mate, an excellent idea. Spreadsheets are much easier to manipulate than "clumsy" html code, and it also means that newer values can be plugged in to see how they fair against other values.

Nice

[-76-Chavez 0]

Questions is:

Would ppl like it realistic?

Assuming the use of SABOT, every hit in side or back, whether from an old ( T72 / M60) tank or a modern would destroy the tank.

Then, modern vs modern or old vs old tanks would kill each other with the first hit even if it comes to the front armor (think about the distances, its not 2km here, its 300-500m).

The only possibility for the player to get a "second chance" would be to sit in a modern tank and get hit by and old one at the front armor.

I dont think that ppl would like that. Dont get me wrong, i like realistic gaming but we would make the addons "unusable" for most ppl imho.

greetz

[76]Chavez

[TermiPete 0]

I for one say yes!

One has only to look at the success of the FDF Mod and the lengths they have gone to for realism AND consistency - i perceive them to be real purists, and the results have been extremely well received and popular.

I may be wrong, but i think many of us still working on and playing OFP and eagerly awaiting each new addon relish the whole 'simulation' aspect of OFP, and as Sigma says, having to use brain/tactics to deal with brawn/lethality issues.

[brain not always working tho ]

[denoir 0]

The first issue is consistency. With no general accepted standards, the BIS units are as good a reference point as any.

The second issue is that this is a game. The player wants to be alive long enough to play. In reallity in military operations the individual doesn't matter too much. Realistic warfare with tanks, aircraft, ships and infantry are large scale and from the point of view of the individual soldier, the killing is pretty much indiscriminate. A game on the other hand is player-centered. Too much realism will most likely lead to very bad gameplay.

The optimal solution would be the introduction of a standardized system that all mod teams use. A system that goes for realism within the boundaries of OFP and recognizes that this in fact is a game.

[Heatseeker 0]

The second issue is that this is a game. The player wants to be alive long enough to play Too much realism will most likely lead to very bad gameplay.

We should say that to OPF's A.I. cause for some strange reason the machine gunners insist on taking me out from 500m plus and to detect my position imediately after i fire a rpg or a grenade, wouldnt mind to have some more realism in that department .

Now really, about the realism/balance issue i think the best way would be for mod teams to cooperate with eachother, or atleast to compare their units with already existing ones (BIS and unoficial), no need to complicate things too much, DKM did good with this BE tank, its armor is strong but it is a more advanced/modern unit than the 80's stuff that came with OPF.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

"We" are playing a lot of CTI maps using sigma´s tank packs and rhs tanks.

It means that there are some more tanks as in little singleplayer maps.

But, how realistic are those tanks now?

Sometimes you get killed very quick, sometimes you can survive over an hour and longer. Depends on how careful you are, if you have a forward outpost with repair truck, if you are alone, if you have anti air close to you(e.g. shilka) and so on.

The only thing I was wondering about is BAS AT4. Is it overpowered or are the tanks not realistic?!

Thx for every answer.

MfG Lee

[GoOB 0]

In my opinion the BAS AT4 is overpowered indeed. But I don't know what warhead it uses ingame (Even with a HP warhead it "only" penetrates ca. 600mm). But the AT4 shouldn't be capable of rubbing a T72 away as it does now. Some say you would need two three hits to fully knock out a IFV/APC. And it is especially overpowered considering it is reloadable! You could think it's a prototype of the NLAW (MBT LAW)

Ooops off-topic

[DKM Jaguar 0]

This is the only thing I will say on this subject of JAM-type projects.

I beleive the only thing a stand-alone addon should require is itself and OFP. Making someone download another mod's work to be able to use any other addon has a slightly uncomfortable meaning, for me personally.

I do beleive a new standard of values to be created for addon MAKERS is a very nice idea, whereby they follow these true-to-life settings and therefore have some sort of compatability. This would mean there would be no need for extra downloading, as all information could be put on a site some where accessable, for use. However, I have none of thee values to offer, so I feel it is not my place to even mention such a thing.

Also, the teams with this information might not like it to be shared between all teams, which under some curcumstances would be understandable.

[miles teg 1]

In my opinion the BAS AT4 is overpowered indeed. But I don't know what warhead it uses ingame (Even with a HP warhead it "only" penetrates ca. 600mm). But the AT4 shouldn't be capable of rubbing a T72 away as it does now. Some say you would need two three hits to fully knock out a IFV/APC. And it is especially overpowered considering it is reloadable! You could think it's a prototype of the NLAW (MBT LAW)

Ooops off-topic

In real life the AT-4 is not reloadable. It is a disposable anti-tank rocket. Also against the front armor of a tank it definitely won't kill it. During the first Gulf War US Marines in Saudi Arabia launched volleys of AT-4's at a pair of attacking Iraqi T-55's and while it caused them to turn around, the rockets failed to knock out the tanks. On a Russian made T-72 I imagine it probably would penetrate with a side hit, although I'm not sure if it would penetrate the side if the tank had armored side skirts, or whether or not it would penetrate the side of the turret. Sigma knows more about the Russian tanks and could probably give a better answer as to the probability of an AT-4 penetrating the hull armor of a standard T-72. I've fired the AT-4 before but only against old M48 tanks out on a heavy weapons range.

However from reports from both Gulf Wars 1 and 2, the AT-4 most definitely knocks out Russian made IFV's with single shots. Aside from the heavy BMP-4 and up-armored BMP-3's, most of the BMP families are highly vulnerable to hand held AT weapons. Even .50 BMG rounds can penetrate the side armor of BMP1s and BMP2s according to most published reports on their armor levels and battle field dammage summaries.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[DKM Jaguar 0]

 Even .50 BMG rounds can penetrate the side armor of BMP1s and BMP2s according to most published reports on their armor levels and battle field dammage summaries.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

You can make a mess of an M113 with a 7.62 machine gun. Makes me wonder why these things are used if they're so vulnerable.

[ag_smith 0]

(...)

Also, the teams with this information might not like it to be shared between all teams, which under some curcumstances would be understandable.

I see no reason why somebody would be interested in creating addons that are not consistent with anything else, not created by given addon maker. This sounds like pure nonsense to me...  

Edit:typo

[GoOB 0]

In my opinion the BAS AT4 is overpowered indeed. But I don't know what warhead it uses ingame (Even with a HP warhead it "only" penetrates ca. 600mm). But the AT4 shouldn't be capable of rubbing a T72 away as it does now. Some say you would need two three hits to fully knock out a IFV/APC. And it is especially overpowered considering it is reloadable! You could think it's a prototype of the NLAW (MBT LAW)

Ooops off-topic

In real life the AT-4 is not reloadable.  It is a disposable anti-tank rocket.  Also against the front armor of a tank it definitely won't kill it.  During the first Gulf War US Marines in Saudi Arabia launched volleys of AT-4's at a pair of attacking Iraqi T-55's and while it caused them to turn around, the rockets failed to knock out the tanks.  On a Russian made T-72 I imagine it probably would penetrate with a side hit, although I'm not sure if it would penetrate the side if the tank had armored side skirts, or whether or not it would penetrate the side of the turret.   Sigma knows more about the Russian tanks and could probably give a better answer as to the probability of an AT-4 penetrating the hull armor of a standard T-72.   I've fired the AT-4 before but only against old M48 tanks out on a heavy weapons range.  

However from reports from both Gulf Wars 1 and 2, the AT-4 most definitely knocks out Russian made IFV's with single shots.  Aside from the heavy BMP-4 and up-armored BMP-3's, most of the BMP families are highly vulnerable to hand held AT weapons.  Even .50 BMG rounds can penetrate the side armor of BMP1s and BMP2s according to most published reports on their armor levels and battle field dammage summaries.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Yes, I know the AT4 is not reloadable that is one of the reasons why I belive it to be overpowered in game.

But what warheads does the American version of the AT4 (Pskott m86) use? And yes you will probably penetrate the armor of the BMP with an AT4 warhead but generally it should take atleast two hits to fully render it "busted" And of course certain warheads would be able to penetrate the side/rear armor of the T72, but knocking out a T72 with a single AT4 hit wouldn't be all too common.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can make a mess of an M113 with a 7.62 machine gun.   Makes me wonder why these things are used if they're so vulnerable.

I want a PKM that can do that   !

Edit - Though I did once manage to blow up a T-80 with my BTR-60 .

[miles teg 1]

 Even .50 BMG rounds can penetrate the side armor of BMP1s and BMP2s according to most published reports on their armor levels and battle field dammage summaries.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

You can make a mess of an M113 with a 7.62 machine gun.   Makes me wonder why these things are used if they're so vulnerable.

Where did you read or hear about that? If I'm not mistaken the M113 is supposed to be armored to withstand up to 7.62x54 AP rounds. But perhaps I'm wrong as I haven't found specific details on the internet. Only sites that say its armor was designed to stop small arms fire and artillery shrapnel.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

Yes, I know the AT4 is not reloadable that is one of the reasons why I belive it to be overpowered in game.

But what warheads does the American version of the AT4 (Pskott m86) use? And yes you will probably penetrate the armor of the BMP with an AT4 warhead but generally it should take atleast two hits to fully render it "busted" And of course certain warheads would be able to penetrate the side/rear armor of the T72, but knocking out a T72 with a single AT4 hit wouldn't be all too common.

Perhaps, but it all depends on where the round is hit. Also given the nature of HEAT rounds generally any penetration by such a round causes deaths to the crew and/or embarked infantry inside from shrapnel and from the tremendous pressure levels generated inside the armored vehicle. With the BMP1 and BMP2, the ammunition and fuel lay-out is such that almost any penetration is likely to detonate fuel or cargo and cause catastrophic dammage to the vehicle and death to those inside. This was demonstrated many times during the Gulf War and in Chechnya. So I do think that a single hit would likely do the job on a BMP.

On a T-72 again it would depend on where it was hit. I do know for certain that the SMAW AT rocket used by the US Marines is capable of penetrating the side turret armor of a T-72 because I saw a video of Marine clearly blowing a turret off of an Iraqi T-72. Of coarse Sigma mentions that the armor on these was inferior to Russia T-72s, so who knows if it would do the same to a Russian T-72 (without reactive armor).

But again any hit by any HEAT or SABOT rounds and whether or not it knocks out a tank is entirely dependent on where on the tank it hits. If it hits the ammo in a T-72, the tank (and crew) is toast. If a HEAT round penetrates the turret or the central hull section, likely the gunner and commander will either be killed or very badly injured. This is the reason why tank crews in the US wear body armor so as to limit the dammage to the body done from spalling occuring during penetrations of HEAT and Sabot rounds.

One of the nastiest pics I've seen of tank battle dammage was from the first Gulf War where I saw a pic of a T-55 that was hit by a Sabot round from a M1 tank. On one side was a small hole, but on the other side was a larger hole of about 6" to 1 ft diameter. However on that side there were pieces of metal equipment and body parts scattered about in a cone shape from that exit point. Apparently everything inside got sucked out of that little hole...not a good way to die.

Hence the reason why generally ANY penetration by a HEAT or Sabot round is not considered a good thing.

Anyhoo... it would be cool in OFP to have random dammage where sometimes armored vehicles would be knocked out and sometimes they wouldn't with the probability depending on the type of vehicle.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps, but it all depends on where the round is hit.  Also given the nature of HEAT rounds generally any penetration by such a round causes deaths to the crew and/or embarked infantry inside from shrapnel and from the tremendous pressure levels generated inside the armored vehicle.

To say nothing of the spalling (if the tank doesn't have a spall liner, and Iraqi T-72s and T-55s don't). .  in which case the crew is being killed by the acceleration of the tank's own inner armour layers.  

Quote[/b] ] With the BMP1 and BMP2, the ammunition and fuel lay-out is such that almost any penetration is likely to detonate fuel or cargo and cause catastrophic dammage to the vehicle and death to those inside.  This was demonstrated many times during the Gulf War and in Chechnya.   So I do think that a single hit would likely do the job on a BMP.  

On a T-72 again it would depend on where it was hit.  I do know for certain that the SMAW AT rocket used by the US Marines is capable of penetrating the side turret armor of a T-72 because I saw a video of Marine clearly blowing a turret off of an Iraqi T-72.  Of coarse Sigma mentions that the armor on these was inferior to Russia T-72s, so who knows if it would do the same to a Russian T-72 (without reactive armor).  

The side turret armour of a T-72 prior to the B version is going to be quite easy to penetrate. The B and later have this expanded (even without ERA) but even in that case, it's always been standard doctrine to armour tanks for frontal attacks. (because if, say an M1, were armoured all-round with the same thickness as its frontal armour, it would be so heavy it would refuse to move. . . needless to say) The average equivalent armour thickness of a T-72 of nearly any version for the rear and sides (and the turret front below the glacis, in fact) is roughly 200mm.

Quote[/b] ] But again any hit by any HEAT or SABOT rounds and whether or not it knocks out a tank is entirely dependent on where on the tank it hits.  If it hits the ammo in a T-72, the tank (and crew) is toast.   If a HEAT round penetrates the turret or the central hull section, likely the gunner and commander will either be killed or very badly injured.  This is the reason why tank crews in the US wear body armor so as to limit the dammage to the body done from spalling occuring during penetrations of HEAT and Sabot rounds.

Although the M1 is generallyaccepted to have one of the best spall liners in the biz. . .

Quote[/b] ] One of the nastiest pics I've seen of tank battle dammage was from the first Gulf War where I saw a pic of a T-55 that was hit by a Sabot round from a M1 tank.  On one side was a small hole, but on the other side was a larger hole of about 6" to 1 ft diameter.   However on that side there were pieces of metal equipment and body parts scattered about in a cone shape from that exit point.  Apparently everything inside got sucked out of that little hole...not a good way to die.  

Hence the reason why generally ANY penetration by a HEAT or Sabot round is not considered a good thing.

Aye. There's nothing glamourous about being cooked by a spray of liquid steel and flying shrapnel. . .

Quote[/b] ]Anyhoo... it would be cool in OFP to have random dammage where sometimes armored vehicles would be knocked out and sometimes they wouldn't with the probability depending on the type of vehicle.  

OFP already behaves very much like this based on location, believe it or not. The situation depends entirely on what you're being shot at with. It's possible to disable tracks and guns and engines and what have you, under the right conditions.

Thing is, while you are able to, to some degree define locational damage, you can only do this for specific parts of the tank. . .

IE: turret, engine, hull, gun. . . etc. . .

and while I can define a different locational level for a turret hit, it can't be different for the turret rear as opposed to the turret front.

I tried out a method of having tanks more vulnerable from the rear by carefully defining the 'engine' location in the model and lowering the engine's damage level (in OFP if the engine is destroyed, the vehicle is destroyed). This worked only if the enemy were only firing non-explosive rounds. . . anything with a blast radius could trigger damage to the engine from the front. . . .  which was irritating to say the least.

Which is to say that there are currently major limitations to how to do certain types of locational damage. In effect, the frontal armour of a tank is all over it ATM.   If there's another way to get around this, I'm all ears. . .

[miles teg 1]

Yeah apparently the anti-spall liners in the M1's work as something unknown penetrated one of the M1's recently (I think someone posted about that). But the penetration didn't spray shrapnel into the turret...only the projectile entered and then lodged 2 inches on the other side of the turret interior, barely missing one of the crew.

I bet everyone is wondering what that was...although I doubt we'd hear about it because every enemy of the US (or manufacturer of weapons that may be used against the US) is desperately trying to find out what the weapon was. The wierd thing was that it used a metal penetrator like a SABOT round and aside from the metal slug in the RPG7's, I haven't heard of any such AT rocket that has a metal AT penetrator combined with a HEAT warhead or just a stand-alone SABOT round. You know more about these things then I do Sigma. Have you heard of any such man-carried AT rockets aside from the RPG-7 that use a SABOT round or a metal slug as part of the HEAT warhead? I figured that if it was a straight up HEAT round, it would have blasted molten metal and fire all over the interior. From the reports the crew seemed pretty scared as it seemed to have penetrated a part of the tank thought to be RPG proof... or maybe not.

Anyhooo.... that's pretty bad if the T-72 only has 200mm armor on the sides. I guess that's why the Kontact-5 reactive armor is so important eh?

One thing I'm curious about is why the applique armored panels on the M2A2/A3 Bradleys, Warriors, and Zelda APCs/IFVs are able to stop RPG rounds when the armor on many MBT's can't. I know that part of it is because they have space between the panels and the main armor, but also I wonder if it is because they are made of special materials like DU or composites. Apparently these panels are very effective. I'm surprised that the Russians haven't used such panels on their BMP's in Chechnya.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Shadow NX 1]

About that M1

Info

[da_ofp_man 0]

that "something" that penetrated M1 was an variant of RPG-7WR with two or three tandem warheds.it is produced in BAZALT company. so the mith of impenetrable armor of abrams had now found and end.

[miles teg 1]

And you know that beyond a shadow of a doubt??? Do the tandem warheads use penetrating slugs? Why did the explosive portion of the warhead penetrate the tank? However I must say that the splash pattern on the tank near the area of impact does look like a RPG hit or that of some type of HEAT warhead. But I would not rush to judgement that it was a new RPG warhead that the Iraqis may not even have. If that what it indeed was, then I would agree with the Russian title of "Abrams killer" for those new RPG-7 tandem warhead rockets.

But unless you are a munitions expert or know some of the details about this ammunition then I would not rush to judgement. There are other AT weapons possibly responsible.

I was just hoping that perhaps someone here knows some details about Russian AT rockets and their warheads. So far Sigma seems to know the most.

For example is it possible it was an SPG-9 rocket? An AT-3 Sagger missile or a more powerful ATGM?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[TermiPete 0]

Coming back to my hobbyhorse of central vehicle/weapon statistic repository, I would appreciate any links for site containing useful statistics and information on vehicles (besides FAS ).

Currently I am tabling this real world data:

*** VEHICLES ***

Designation/name

Country of origin

Date of introduction

Hull armor (x-y mm)

Turret armor

Speed (max road speed)

Range

Amphibious?

# Crew

# Transport

Weight

Length (w/barrel)

Width

Height (inc weapons)

Night Vision?

IR range

Laser range

Stablised main weapon?

Fire control system

Commander sight system

Gunner sight system

Weapon 1 (type, ammo, elevation)

Weapon 2 (type, ammo)

Weapon 3 (type, ammo)

Weapon 4 (type, ammo)

Information source(s)

Notes

*** WEAPON SYSTEMS ***

Designation/name

Country of origin

Ammo type

Penetration

Min range

Max effective range

Flight time to max range

Speed

Anti-air?

Rounds per minute

Notes

Info source(s)

Vehicles used on

What I would like is a knowledgeable addon maker to provide the list of OFP attributes that we will record for each addon vehicle or weapon. Any volunteers?

TP

[Sigma-6 29]

Doesn't look like a HEAT charge to me, and certainly not like something with a tandem warhead. That entry looks like a Sabot hole, and the surrounding, smaller holes in the interior are explained as smaller pieces of accelerated shrapnel or pieces of the original penetrator as it came apart and lost energy. The entry hole is, again, basically indistinguishable from a Sabot hole, except on many sabot holes you can see where the fins struck. . .

My guess is that was a KE round. Thing is, I don't know of any manportable KE rounds that could have done that. . . a Kornet, per se, would have been able to kill an M1A1 from the front, let alone from under the skirt and through the turret basket (a lot more vulnerable). . . but the Kornet is not a KE warhead, so it wouldn't have had an effect anywhere near what you see there. Had it been a Kornet, the crew would be dead.

That was not a Kornet hit, and to the best of my knowledge (and though there were rumours the Russians had sold them, I heard these rumours were false)  there are no Kornets in Iraq. It's also inconsistent with any other known Russian AT warhead.

Thing is, given the location of the hit, there are a lot of things it could have been. I'd suspect that it would have to be something capable of more than 500mm of penetration, and nowadays, there are a lot of KE rounds that can do that. Thing is. . . to the best of my knowledge, Iraq doesn't have any.

As for your question about the thin applique on the LAV series and the M2/M3, in Canada, we use MEXAS, and it's effective because it's a really novel passive type. It behaves a lot like reactive armour, so in effect, it's really more like a semi-active type. . .

MEXAS image

It's unclear what exactly it's made of. . . (people speculate a lot of things, but while it's not known what the reactive components are, the effect is well known) essentially, the actual reactive process is physically similar to Chobham or old 1st or 2nd gen ERA, except a lot lighter, thinner and more effective at reduced angles of attack. . .  The basic principle is that when struck by a HEAT charge (it's less effective, unlike Chobham or Kontakt-5/Kaktus ERA, against APFSDS), the reactive materials which are sandwiched between two steel plates expand and force the two plates apart. . .

The extremely thin plates in that pic are able, at almost flat slopes (like the side of a Stryker, or a Bradley) to replicate the effect of a 2nd gen ERA array arranged at about 60 degrees. It ain't Kaktus, but it's light, and it'll theoretically protect your AFV from an RPG.

Personally, I'd like to see a ballistic test with my own eyes. . .  The MEXAS Heavy array is even better, supposedly giving This Tank (The Leopard C2, Uparmoured) the ability to withstand a hit from an M829 at 1km.

Bear in mind, the Leopard C2 is essentially a Leopard 1A5, nominally (without the MEXAS on it) with between 200-400mm of frontal protection depending on where and how you hit it, so if MEXAS heavy gives it that kind of capability. . . it's doing something right. . .

Quote[/b] ]What I would like is a knowledgeable addon maker to provide the list of OFP attributes that we will record for each addon vehicle or weapon. Any volunteers?

I have a list right now. . . not quite as exhaustive as what you have there, it mainly deals with armour thickness equivalencies for certain locations (and against certain ammo types where applicable) and the penetration values for ammo types the vehicle uses. . .

I'd have to compile it again though, as I wrote it up for my own use. . . and if I weren't moving 2500km this coming week that'd be no big deal. . . as it is. . .