T12um1 black eagle released

[TermiPete 0]

Sigma - just 2500km?

Sounds great - just put it together when you can. I'd offer to help you move but I'm on the other side of the planet

Am i right in assuming that OFP has single hull and turret armor values, so there is little point in me recording armor thickness for the different faces?

I'll keep plugging away for the time being.

TP

[da_ofp_man 0]

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>

well the splash patern dosent look like fom an HEAT or SABOT round and I wouldnt tell it if i'd head a support but i had a raport from the place from attack exam by us specialist and then with the fotos of the abrams were shown ours specialist  if you want i can send it to you an email but you have to translatet because its in polish. besides the RPG-7WR is not super new it was design in mid 80' but all the time upgradet.infact the energy of its warhed after penetraiting first flank of the tank was still beeing able to penetratet  tank through.

[miles teg 1]

Hmm... I had a great web site that showed close ups of RPG hits to M1 tanks and the splash pattern was very similar. But unfortunately I can't find where I bookmarked it and I can't find the page on Yahoo. But it had lots of very clear pictures.

At any rate, the blackened circle around the area of impact leads me to believe that it was HEAT warhead with a metal penetrator of some kind (as in the RPG-7).

At rate, I didn't know that Canadian LAV's had RPG resistant armor! Does the US Stryker have this type of Armor? The Stryker has been highly criticized as being "RPG bait" and an armored infantry coffin because of its percieved vulnerability to RPG fire. If they have this new armor on it that would be quite an advance in modern warfare. Apparently they need to stick this stuff on the M1 tanks. If a wheeled APC can carry it, it should be no sweat for a giant M1 tank to carry a little extra weight.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Bergmania 0]

Quote[/b] ]Apparently they need to stick this stuff on the M1 tanks. If a wheeled APC can carry it, it should be no sweat for a giant M1 tank to carry a little extra weight.

The maximum weight of a MBT is around 70 ton (as even the germans found out in WW2) after that the tank won't be able to pass bridges, bog down in soft ground.. etc.. it will just turn into a mobile bunker..

We (Sweden) slapped on 7 ton extra armour on our LEO 2 Imp S MBTs but it still 'only' weight 63 tons..

[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.

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>

I heard that from someone who's done it, a serving soldier.

[Bergmania 0]

Quote[/b] ]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>

I heard that from someone who's done it, a serving soldier.

The 7.62 AP of today is better than the ones in the 60'ies when the M113 began its service

About original M113 anno 1962

The cold rolled alloy hull of the M113 was made from Aluminium, Manganese and Magnesium. It's armour thickness varied from 3/4" to a maximum thickness of 1 1/4". This thickness provided protection from small arms fire and shell fragments, but would not stop a round from the soviet made RPG-7, or withstand the blast from a land mine.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Acualy thats not so bad.. Hi rev engines is more likely to get indirect damage from large caliber explosive rounds.. something that spinns at 7000RPM+ have a tendency to get bent...  and a mobility killed MBT is pretty much useless..

[-76-Chavez 0]

The M113 is 11 tons of armored chocolate paper

Keep in mind that the assumed enemy at this time used 7.62x39mm mainly and that the penetration depends on the distance.

greetz

[76]Chavez

[Sigma-6 29]

still doesn't look like an RPG hit to me. Though, since I assume the initial impact was on the skirt itself, and I didn't see the pattern there (anyone got a pic of the skirt?) I could be wrong. . .

Quote[/b] ]Acualy thats not so bad.. Hi rev engines is more likely to get indirect damage from large caliber explosive rounds.. something that spinns at 7000RPM+ have a tendency to get bent...  and a mobility killed MBT is pretty much useless..

Sure, but a mobility killed tank generally doesn't explode and kill its crew.

The Stryker is supposed to get MEXAS. . .

As for the Stryker, it's more mine-survivable than either the M2 or the M113 which it supplants, and even without MEXAS, it's no less survivable. I find the anti-LAV arguments weak at best. They're tantamount to claiming that a vehicle that is tremendously vulnerable to mines and RPGs and guzzles fuel is superior to a vehicle that is tremendously vulnerable to mines and RPGs and guzzles fuel (though notably less so). M113s are also no less prone to getting stuck in mud, and other types of accidents happen just as often to them.

Seems to me that the issue of defending a light armoured vehicle against attacks from weapons designed to kill MBTs is a weak issue at best. If it kills an M1, it's going to kill your LAV or M113, and personally, given the option of an M113 and a LAV, I'll take the LAV any day of the week. . . particularly if it's the Canadian version with the 25mm cannon. . .

EDIT: I found a pic of the skirt, and indeed, that does look like an RPG hit, it's just that the actual entry is soo small, and were it an RPG, there would be a larger pattern on the skirt and a greater spread inside the tank. . .  question would be, what RPG. . . in fact, there are reports that kills like this one are in fact caused by 23mm DU rounds supplied pre-war by Russia. . .

Also, apparently, the US *is* looking into side applique for the M1. . . so there's another one.

[Lucretius 0]

Isn't the US still using Mark 1 chobham armour with some depleted uranium armour bolted on?

The British challenger II is up to it's 10th generation or something, maybe we should sell some to the yanks

I was reading about a challenger in iraq being hit by 8 RPG's and not recieving any damage whatsoever, however a US abram was hit from the rear by a single RPG and disabled, endangering the lives of it's crew

Perhaps it's time for an upgrade on the M1A1

[edc 0]

That "upgrade" would be the M1A2.

[Sigma-6 29]

Isn't the US still using Mark 1 chobham armour with some depleted uranium armour bolted on?

The British challenger II is up to it's 10th generation or something, maybe we should sell some to the yanks  

I was reading about  a challenger in iraq being hit by 8 RPG's and not recieving any damage whatsoever, however a US abram was hit from the rear by a single RPG and disabled, endangering the lives of it's crew  

Perhaps it's time for an upgrade on the M1A1  

the UK is using side and rear bolt-on applique. That's what's made the difference in flanking attacks.

[Lucretius 0]

i'm assuming that's why the challenger II is so slugish no?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]i'm assuming that's why the challenger II is so slugish no?

Sluggish, but it makes it a tough son of a bitch to kill .

[Lucretius 0]

it needs that 1500hp engine as soon as possible... any news on it's progress?

[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>

I heard that from someone who's done it, a serving soldier.

Ah... and don't always believe "war stories" from old soldiers.

But maybe its true.

To Sigma... Actually the tracked vs. wheeled APC debate is a bit different then you state.

Uparmored M113's are fairly RPG proof. This has been proven in the Israeli Zelda. Likewise the Bradleys and Warriors that have taken hits from RPG-7's with little dammage are further evidence that these panels work and in essence make them heavy APC's that can take survive in combat conditions with heavy presence of RPGs.

The Stryker on the other hand, from recent pics I've seen, has more then just the armor you describe. The ones sent into Iraq have a cage around them that they call "Slat armor". The Marines LAV-25's apparently don't have this, but I haven't seen them patrolling around in these much on the news and I definitely have not seen them in Baghdad. Those and their AAV-7's would almost certainly get destroyed. So only time will tell if that cage armor will actually work against RPG's. But I suspect it will as this concept was used successfully during the Vietnam War on some M113's.

So overall I think that if you take into account this cage armor, then your're right, the arguement is perhaps silly.

But without that armor (like the USMC LAV-25's) it would be toast in Baghdad. The Strykers also use that armor you were talking about so apparently it's not exactly RPG proof on its own if the US Army felt the need to use these anti-RPG cages.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[munger 25]

it needs that 1500hp engine as soon as possible... any news on it's progress?

I wasn't aware of an engine upgrade programme? That's interesting. Which engine is it to have? Gas turbine? Diesel? Will it be a new British powerplant or just use maybe an Abrams or Leopard engine?

Excuse all the questions.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

on the inter-mod compatibility issue, i strongly believe that going for realism instead of playability is the wrong path.

What i do realise, is that there is a 'market' for realistic addons.

I also dont believe that combined ammo into separate addons is the solution to make addons more balanced to eachother.

For vehicles, there is no need to do this on account of reloading issues, ANY ammo source (ammotrucks or ammo storage buildings or whatever holds the ammo) can reload the MOD specific addon.

Only the cost of the ammo determines how fast the truck is drained, and how fast the reload happens.

Also, the sounds we modmakers want to give our addons is highly specific, fo example, the T80 and T12UM1 use same calibre rounds, but no-one will accept and think it is realistic if the firing sound is exactly the same.

Another issue is the reload times, these are also determined by the weapon specific configs, therefor there will allmost allways be a need to redifine it (and thus create a new class)

Alos initial speed, flyingsound, hitdamage and indirecthitdamage, impact sounds, smoke effects and what else is there, dictate all the different ammo and weapon classes.

Trying to get all these factors (im sure im forgetting some) accepted into a single ammo pbo across all mods is near impossible. IMHO it would be a waist of time to even try.

In my view, the best way to go forward with making addons compatible with eachother is the way i stsed earlier;

A- Make them all work in a balanced way with BIS vehicles (the benchmark)

B- Create a second line of the same vehicles that comply to a new realistic standard.

Obviously, point A will be clear to every addon maker.

On point B: DKM is more than willing to stick to any armor and hitdamage values we can agree to in a combined effort to line those out.

The best way to make the addons work in my opinion is: Create addons according to point A and balance them as good as possible with BIS vehicles, and use these classes as basis for the realistic addons, by giving them a new unified classname.

I propose adding 'RA_' to the classname, followed by modtag, then addon/ammo mae.

example:

RA_DKMM_GT12UM

RA_DKMM_BE_Shell125

I'd like to see some thoughts on this from other modmakers...

Carnage

p.s.: RA for 'realistic addon'

[miles teg 1]

Personally my vote is to stick to BIS standards.

Overall they're not bad and everything BIS made in the game and 90% of all addons are geared towards this standard so that is the safest way to go I believe.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Gen.Carnage 0]

you misunderstood.. the line A addons will be BIS compatible, and avalable for playing with.. EXTRA will be the second line.. so you can choose which one to use.

or maybe i wasnt clear enough

[Sigma-6 29]

The strykers in that pic aren't wearing MEXAS (It's not integral, it's applique. . . you bolt it onto pre-existing vehicles), but yes, that spaced armour is proven quite effective against HEAT, it's been used as early as WW2, back then it was called 'bedframe', (because it was first made from bedframes). The USMC LAV-25s have been extensively used in Iraq, and they're not using any applique as far as I have seen.

I don't see though, how the argument is different from what I state. All of what I stated are prime arguments in the debate.

as for the standards issue. . .

I strongly believe that 'dumbing down' addons for 'playability' is the wrong path, and I further think that having two tiers of addon standards is rather pointless. . .

the main argument I would raise is that to think a 'realistic' standard wouldn't be compatible with BIS' previous stuff is simply false. I've said before that my values are about as harmonized with BIS' as they could be. If the high-range numbers BIS used weren't flawed by their own standard (the M1, for example) the rest would still fit in nicely, and I think they do. . .

For example, a T-72M1 has about 400mm of frontal protection, and BIS' T-72 has an armour value of 400. If this is used as a baseline for the use of further real-world numbers, 'realistic' numbers fit in quite nicely with BIS' stuff and very little needs to be changed. (except that you quickly realize that BIS' 1985 era M1A1 is arbitrarily boosed in the armour department and ought to be disregarded. . . and that's the only real discrepancy. It's far and away over the armour values that even the US Army claims it has.)

That said, the only way I can see that a 'playability' over 'reality' argument is tenable is if you. . . say. . . wanted a T-55 to be able to go toe to toe with an M1A2. . . which is patently ludicrous and not even worth discussing. . .  

The reason why I believe that's the only real possible scenario is because the high end tanks ARE ALREADY BALANCED WITH EACH OTHER.

IE: If you take real world values for the M1A2 and the Black Eagle, for example, you'll find that these tanks come out as (theoretically) being roughly equal on the battlefield in any case. Why there would be any need to trump up 'playable' or 'balanced' values, that having been said, is beyond me. Far from making the game more playable, all it really does is confuse people.

Furthermore, I have to disagree with what you say about sounds. The Black Eagle prototypes use a 2A46. A 2A46 sounds like a 2A46. Therefore, the gun sounds the same as a T-80's gun because it's the same gun. If you have it sound different, people might *think* based on a twisted version of 'common sense' that that's more 'realistic'. . . but it's not any more so because they think it. . . a 2A46 is a 2A46 no matter what tank it's mounted on.

I see this in the movies too, personally. . . if anyone saw the film 'the ring'. . .   it was originally an excellent Japanese horror flick, and the beauty of it was in the fact that the mystery was never explained. . .    the American version explained the mystery in dialogue because, in the words of the producers, "we thought the audience wouldn't get it".

So they explained it (now the crowd 'gets it', and now instead of a mystery, they just have a bad movie.)

My point with this parallel is: Do it right. people might not 'get it', but that's their problem. if they can't, they'll learn to. The question of 'Why does the gun sound the same as the T-80?' is quite easily answered with the response 'it's the same gun', if you're conscientious enough to stand by your convictions. . . and if the sound is accurate, and sounds very good, you certainly haven't sacrificed immersion for authenticity.. . . you've enhanced both.

[TermiPete 0]

Sigma - no pressure here as i know you are moving - when are you going to release your personal M60/Abrams set? Keen to get it

And as much as we all love BIS, there sure is some silly stuff in some of the configs (such as the blind Bradley).

TP

[Sigma-6 29]

very soon.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

ok then sigma, let me explain why i think a separate realistic line may be called for...

IRL, a hellfire destroys a tank in a single hit 9 out of 10 times.

A M1A1 sabot round destroys a T72 with a single hit

T55 doesnt stand a chance against an abrams it simply cannot destroy it.(frontal)

A soldier with mp5 cannot even scratch the paint on any tank

T80 kills M60 with single hit

HE rounds dont do much damage to MBT's.

Adats missiles destroy any tank with single hit and can shoot all their missiles in seconds.

etc etc.

In order to get these things to work, it may be necessary to uparmor all vehicles dramatically, in order to diminish the damage taken from side-arms/rifles. Consequently, all heavy weapons need to have their hitdamage increased. and all missiles/shells/bullet models need their weight lowered (to stop the idiotic flipping over without kill of planes and helos in flight)

Also the flipping over of tanks would be removed by lowering the weight of the hitting shell.

I prefer playability over realism, but some don't, and somehow, those ALLWAYS find their way to these forums to state that.

I wouldnt bother thinking up this new line of addons if there werent so many cries for VBS style addons.

About that gun sound, ok thats a bad example, youre right there. but without starting to nitpick, i think you got the idea of what i meant..

on a side note: the ability of tanks to drive thru a 3 foot thick tree while going uphill without even blinking annoys me snotless. but afaik we cannot fix that.

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]IRL, a hellfire destroys a tank in a single hit 9 out of 10 times.

Yep. Best bet as a tanker is to avoid Hellfires. It's possible, you just have to think. And if you're concerned about that as a player, remember: Balance of that type is the responsibility of the *mission designer*. If he doesn't want tanks killed in one shot by hellfires, he doesn't write a mission with hellfires in it. Simple solution.

Quote[/b] ]A M1A1 sabot round destroys a T72 with a single hit.

depends entirely on the T-72. If it's an Iraqi Asad Babyl or a T-72A or T72M1, yeah, it does. if it's a B with ERA, that's dropped a bit, but still the most likely scenario. If it's a T72BM, that's not likely at all. My point is, if you don't want tanks killed in missions in one hit, then don't include in missions tanks that can kill them in one hit. There are a lot of tanks to choose from.

Quote[/b] ]T55 doesnt stand a chance against an abrams it simply cannot destroy it.(frontal)

sure, but however realistic we get, we can't model that anyway, because a tank gun in OFP will always trigger a damaged event. In the case of my M1 pack, the T55 will kill the M1A2 with in excess of eight hits (sometimes as many as 15), and it's not likely he'll get that many anyway, so it's still a moot point. Fact is, if you're writing a mission where you've got M1s and T-55s, it's going to need to be written with the T-55 losing anyway. . . I fail to see your point here.

Quote[/b] ]A soldier with mp5 cannot even scratch the paint on any tank

What's so odd about that?

Quote[/b] ]T80 kills M60 with single hit

Depends on the T-80. A T-80B in early eighties configuration probably won't, and an M-60 in an early nineties configuration will probably kill an early eighties T-80 in a single hit (M900 DU Sabot). Your point here is essentially made invalid by upgrades and multiple versions. Besides, if one tank kills another in one hit, then *don't use that combination of tanks in missions, or write missions with that combination in which one side expects to lose tanks. . .*

This point is further mooted by the fact that you can put the BIS T-55 against the BIS M1, and you'll see that same effect.  M1 kills T-55 in one shot. . .  Those inequalities already exist. In this case 'realism=playability' because you have to figure out how not to get hit, and figure out also how to kill that superior tank. That is FUN, not a fault in playability.

Quote[/b] ]HE rounds dont do much damage to MBT's.

I'm not concerned about realism in things the engine won't allow me to change. if I can't model rear attacks or HEAT vs. APFSDS damage, etc. . . realistically, then I won't. You're right, HE rounds don't do much damage to MBTs. . . either in RL or in OFP. . . beyond the basic concerns about modelling it, this is sort of a given in any case.

Quote[/b] ]Adats missiles destroy any tank with single hit and can shoot all their missiles in seconds.

This is not an argument to make it so ADATS launchers can't do those things. This is an argument to *not use ADATS launchers in missions where you don't want a weapon on the field which can do that*. Mission makers are capable of using their heads.

Quote[/b] ]n order to get these things to work, it may be necessary to uparmor all vehicles dramatically, in order to diminish the damage taken from side-arms/rifles. Consequently, all heavy weapons need to have their hitdamage increased. and all missiles/shells/bullet models need their weight lowered (to stop the idiotic flipping over without kill of planes and helos in flight)

Also the flipping over of tanks would be removed by lowering the weight of the hitting shell.

As I said. . . If I can't change something because the engine won't let me, I don't concern myself with it. I've tried that and it doesn't work. a BIS missile weighs 300 pounds because without that weight it flies all over the place and won't track. The physics engine is just not precise enough to change those things. What I'm concerned with is what *can* be changed, and even in that case, I'm not really concerned with *changing* it as I am with making it reflect what reality it can. . .

IE, Tank A has 400mm frontal protection, so tank A reflects that, and tank B has 700mm of penetration power in its Sabot. . . so tank B reflects that. . . the balance issues are not the concern of the addonmaker in a case like that, they're the responsibility of the *mission designer*.  He has to say to himself. . . "OK. . . I want a stand-up tank battle. . . so what'll I pick. . . well, A T-55AM2 and an M60A3 will probably have a nice even pitch, that'd be a fun action. . .'', and not throw in a bevy of M1A2s.

Furthermore, a small arm cannot damage a tank in OFP in any case. It takes a certain calculated number to trigger a damaged event, and a weapon below a certain power is incapable of triggering one. There is a line you can put in your Init field for a vehicle will display whether a damaged event has been triggered at all, and if so, what number it came up with (a value of 1 or higher destroys the vehicle). If you use it, you'll find that you can blast away all day with an MP5 at a tank and not trigger an event at all. The armour values don't need to be increased, they just need to be mathematically curved out at the low end in order to ensure that small arms can't trigger events against them.

Quote[/b] ]I prefer playability over realism, but some don't, and somehow, those ALLWAYS find their way to these forums to state that.

I wouldnt bother thinking up this new line of addons if there werent so many cries for VBS style addons.

About that gun sound, ok thats a bad example, youre right there. but without starting to nitpick, i think you got the idea of what i meant..

Yes, and I disagreed with it. Incidentally, VBS is terrible. The Coalescent team is practically incompetent, and the USMC has cancelled the contract.

Quote[/b] ]on a side note: the ability of tanks to drive thru a 3 foot thick tree while going uphill without even blinking annoys me snotless. but afaik we cannot fix that.

The physics engine isn't precise enough. However, don't think it odd that a 40 ton T-80U with 1500 HP and killer acceleration might go over a foot and a half thick tree while going uphill. It's pretty standard practise. A comparatively light turbine powered tank does not slow down going uphill; it accelerates. Personally, I'd like to tweak that part of the physics, because it annoys me that the T-80 has trouble climbing hills. . .

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I prefer the "realistic" way.

Please don´t think a tank must be "special" cause it´s used in a mission and a human player is driving it, so he must survive the whole mission with it.

In my CTI, when a player is driving with a T55/T64/T72 deep into the enemys territori and get killed by an abrams.... well, that´s the way it works.

---

If you aren´t carefull, you get killed!

---

Today I managed to knock out 4x bradly, 1x abrams, 2x AAV7, 1x AH64 Apache and 1x Comanche Attack with a T72 era! \o/

I used the buildings in petrovice as cover, so it could be happen.

In CTI you never know what tank/chopper is coming your way, but you can also survive with a "not so good" tank agains a heavier enemy.

MfG Lee