Talk armour and tank addons

[munger 25]

I've also heard something about that before, but I don't understand how the tank could know where it was being hit from unless it had some kind of extremely sophisticated sensor package which somehow monitored the entire shell of the tank for pressure or heat or something like that. Certainly not something you would expect a T-62 to be equipped with.

[hellfish6 7]

I remember hearing something about that when I was a Dragon gunner, but I don't remember reading about it anywhere either. IIRC, it was the T-72s that had that capability, though, not T-62s. I think Chinese tanks had these features as well.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

Talking of armoured addons..seen the DKM POTW?

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]Hey Sigma any chance we might see a Stryker APC based off of your LAV-25?   But... with Slat armor?

Why would I base it on my LAV-25? It's nowhere near the same vehicle. . . (well, it's got 8 wheels, has the same general layout and is made by GDC/Mowag, but beyond that it's not. . .)

Why wouldn't I make it out of my LAV-III, which actually is the same vehicle, minus the 25mm turret?

Well, unless somebody can come up with a good way to do the stryker's remote MG turret properly, it's damn near impossible. Beyond that, I think in order to do the Stryker properly, you'd have to have a script that made the remote MG too inaccurate to use while the vehicle was in motion.

-------I've never heard of such a system on the T-62, at least not on any of the in-service variants.

There are systems like Shtora, Drozd and Arena, of course, which are sophicticated detection and countermeasures systems. . . and Arena may well have been (though I'm pretty sure it wasn't) tested on the T-62 (Drozd was tested on the T-55), but certainly not on an in-service version, AFAIK.

The main arena testbed is the T-80 series of course, and it exists on several other vehicles as well (BMP-3, a certain T-72 variant) . . . It uses a millimeter wave radar to detect incoming warheads and destroys them with explosive cassettes. . . but it doesn't point the gun to do this. . .  and it does it *before* impact, and not after. Shtora has a sophisticated laser detection system, and it does point the turret, but it does this after it's lased, and proceeds to pop thermal spoofing smoke and blast the target with its emitters. . . Neither of them do what you've described. . . I could be missing something though. . .

[hellfish6 7]

Come to think of it, I do remember reading something about the Chinese Type 98 that has a sensor that detects a laser rangefinder and turns the turret to face the threat.

A quick check turned this info up:

Quote[/b] ]The system includes what appears to be a laser warning receiver (LWR - the dome-shaped device on the turret roof behind the commander's position), that warns the crew that their tank is being illuminated by an enemy range-finding or weapon-guidance laser. The turret of the tank can then be traversed to face the direction of the enemy threat, and the laser self-defence weapon (LSDW - the box-shaped device on the turret roof behind the gunner's position), can be employed against the source of the enemy laser.

From: Sinodefence.com

[miles teg 1]

Ah... sorry I didn't take a close look at the differences between the LAV-25 and the Stryker. To me all the LAV's look rather similar.... kinda like the differences between the Russian BTR series...a hatch moved here, an exhaust moved there... ect...

As for the problem making a remote turret, couldn't there just be a gunner station similar to your other LAV's but with the gunner's body below the turret?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[hellfish6 7]

I think that would cause problems with the optics - namely, there isn't a scope for the gunner in wheeled vehicles. They essentially use a normal window to aim, and that window has to have an outside view.

Would it be possible to make the gunner invisible but somehow on the turret, and then place a dummy gunner inside the vehicle? That way you might be able to get away with simulating a remote turret. Just a thought.

[miles teg 1]

Ah I see... Hmm... the invisible dummy gunner sounds like a good idea... kinda like the AI tanks that just have one crew member to cut down on CPU usage. I'm not sure how they do that but that's like one of the oldest tank addons that I remember.

So maybe that might work very nicely. I usually don't play the gunner on APC's anyways. Usually in my missions the player is riding along with the infantry in the back while the APC's or IFV's provide fire support.

The main reason why I'd like to see the Stryker with slat armor is just because it would be nice to have more APC's like that in OFP that can survive at least one or two hits from RPG's. Plus if Sigma models the slat armor, it should fit his Canadian LAV-III's as well as I imagine they'd use it also if they were in high threat area where they faced almost certain attack from RPG's and because its simple and inexpensive armor to put on it.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Bobby - CSLA team 0]

I have not heard about such a system which automatically turn turret into direction of shaped charge HIT. There can be system which turn turret into direction of enemy threat (laser beam - guidance or distance meter) but I don't see any advantage of the system, unless it can be overriden by TC (without override this would be more annoying than helpful). What is possible and is commonly used is laser beam warning system. Via this system smoke grenades can be controlled (they can spoil laser beam).

Normally T-62 lay the turret upside down in about 20 meters distance after RPG hit.

Reason for this instuction in training could be to force AT teams to take cover immediately after shot.

[stgn 39]

2 videos with T80 - good for inspiration with making tank addons

http://www.army.lv/Tehnika/T-80/T-80.MOV

http://www.roe.ru/video/t80u.wmv

Now this is why I like the abrams, shit it must be hell to be a gunner in that tank and even whit gunstablistation I could emagion that you if the tank suddenly boundsed you could shot over you taget.

M1A2 Abrams video:

Long video

Short video

STGN

[JAP 2]

Hey all,

Sigma as you know i love your stuff

I got one suggestion ... dunno if it s possible.

Seeing the MMP Marder has cammo you can put on i was thinking a little further then that.

Isnt it possible to include a function on tanks to dig in ?

Esp. T72's and the T-55's. Would be cool if you could drive the tank, halt, select option "dig in" in command menu and the tank gets dug in providing extra protection to the chasis of the tank and make it harder to hit it.

I know it could be a problem with groundtextures but it would really be nice to have an option like that ... if at all possible.

Cheers

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]Now this is why I like the abrams, shit it must be hell to be a gunner in that tank and even whit gunstablistation I could emagion that you if the tank suddenly boundsed you could shot over you taget.

M1A2 Abrams video:

Perhaps you're missing the inherent advantage of what you see of the T-80U in those videos.

The key there is the T-80 series' mobility. The T-80U is about 2/3 the size of the M1, and it weighs about 2/3 as much (45 tons as opposed to 70 tons). It has a turbine engine that generates the same (1500hp) amount of horsepower.

Basically, the T-80U moves like a sportscar over rough ground, accelerates like a demon, and gets airborne over just about any obstacle. . . All this adds up to a very difficult tank to hit on open ground.

The M1, on the other hand, has a more sedate style to it, and tends to rely more on its armour protection than its mobility (they both rely on both, and in armour protection they're comparable, but while the M1 is very mobile, the T-80U beats it in mobility hands down.

Take a look at those videos again, and imagine yourself as an RPG grenadier or a tank gunner trying to draw a bead on the tank. . .  (this is one major problem the Iraqis had. They used their tanks like pillboxes and dug them in, instead of maneuvering them and fighting like an actual armoured force. Which isn't to say that a T-55 or an old T-72M is an especially mobile tank, but anything's better than sitting still.)

Incidentally, as a T-80 gunner, do you think you're going to spend a lot of time engaging targets at full speed while jumping over stuff, or are you going to *slow down a bit and try and get a stable shot*?

[coporal_punishment 0]

Hey all,

Sigma as you know i love your stuff  

I got one suggestion ... dunno if it s possible.

Seeing the MMP Marder has cammo you can put on i was thinking a little further then that.

Isnt it possible to include a function on tanks to dig in ?

Esp. T72's and the T-55's. Would be cool if you could drive the tank, halt, select option "dig in" in command menu and the tank gets dug in providing extra protection to the chasis of the tank and make it harder to hit it.

I know it could be a problem with groundtextures but it would really be nice to have an option like that ... if at all possible.

Cheers

I like your idea buy in reality digging takes hours to do and tanks are only dug in when enemy isn't around hence Sigma can you make some static tanks.

[stgn 39]

Perhaps you're missing the inherent advantage of what you see of the T-80U in those videos.

The key there is the T-80 series' mobility. The T-80U is about 2/3 the size of the M1, and it weighs about 2/3 as much (45 tons as opposed to 70 tons). It has a turbine engine that generates the same (1500hp) amount of horsepower.

Basically, the T-80U moves like a sportscar over rough ground, accelerates like a demon, and gets airborne over just about any obstacle. . . All this adds up to a very difficult tank to hit on open ground.

The M1, on the other hand, has a more sedate style to it, and tends to rely more on its armour protection than its mobility (they both rely on both, and in armour protection they're comparable, but while the M1 is very mobile, the T-80U beats it in mobility hands down.

Take a look at those videos again, and imagine yourself as an RPG grenadier or a tank gunner trying to draw a bead on the tank. . .  (this is one major problem the Iraqis had. They used their tanks like pillboxes and dug them in, instead of maneuvering them and fighting like an actual armoured force. Which isn't to say that a T-55 or an old T-72M is an especially mobile tank, but anything's better than sitting still.)

Incidentally, as a T-80 gunner, do you think you're going to spend a lot of time engaging targets at full speed while jumping over stuff, or are you going to *slow down a bit and try and get a stable shot*?

I see what you mean but if you have to slow down before you can shot proplery then it only helps driving fast when on retreat(which by the way is the most dangerous thing to do on a battel field as might get you enemy in your back). And while the T80 is bousing over the battel field, the abram moving at full speed can get a nice clean aim on the T80 and shot it if it slows down or gets too close(where the abrams gunner easly can take it out whitout woring about the boundsing. and since tank engagements offen is head on head the abrams can easly shot on the front of the T80 which will problery kill the tank or give the crew a nasty expirence. And why should the gunner "sleep" while the tank is driving, then it could be to late if the comander sudenly says tank 1 o'clock.

STGN

[JAP 2]

Hey all,

Sigma as you know i love your stuff  

I got one suggestion ... dunno if it s possible.

Seeing the MMP Marder has cammo you can put on i was thinking a little further then that.

Isnt it possible to include a function on tanks to dig in ?

Esp. T72's and the T-55's. Would be cool if you could drive the tank, halt, select option "dig in" in command menu and the tank gets dug in providing extra protection to the chasis of the tank and make it harder to hit it.

I know it could be a problem with groundtextures but it would really be nice to have an option like that ... if at all possible.

Cheers

I like your idea buy in reality digging takes hours to do and tanks are only dug in when enemy isn't around hence Sigma can you make some static tanks.

Yeah i know it takes hours hehe.

A static one seems the best solution as you stated.

But i just want a decent dug in tank or something to drive it into. Cant find any sandbunker for a tank ... although i recall seeing pics from one.

If any of you have a link ... i d apreciate it !

Cheers

[Ironsight 1]

Yeah i know it takes hours hehe.

A static one seems the best solution as you stated.

But i just want a decent dug in tank or something to drive it into.  Cant find any sandbunker for a tank ... although i recall seeing pics from one.

If any of you have a link ... i d apreciate it !

Cheers

You can use sandbags to build around a tank (little bit crappy though)

I know what you mean about digging in tanks, what we need is something like a M88 Recovery Vehicle who can dig holes so you can ride your tank in it, does anyone know if this is possible? I don't think so myself, I think this is an OFP Engine limit.

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]I see what you mean but if you have to slow down before you can shot proplery then it only helps driving fast when on retreat(which by the way is the most dangerous thing to do on a battel field as might get you enemy in your back). And while the T80 is bousing over the battel field, the abram moving at full speed can get a nice clean aim on the T80 and shot it if it slows down or gets too close

I suspect you're seeing a disadvantage that isn't there.

Look at the videos, notice that the T-80 is exclusively driving on bad, bumpy roads and broken ground, while the M1 is driving almost exclusively on well-tended smooth dirt roads. The M1 would encounter the same problems in those conditions.

When I said 'slow down to take a good shot', I meant that the M1 on similar terrain would have to do this also. The T-80 is not known to have any more trouble with gun stabilization than the M1, and indeed it doesn't. The problems it has with its gun are that it is elevated for the autoloader after it fires (taking it off the target line about 3 degrees, briefly, for the autoloader to load the ammo . .  you can see this in the videos; after a shot the gun seems to bounce about a lot, particularly on uneven ground, because it's off the stabilization system) and that it will not significantly de-elevate on a reverse slope (you can see this when the tank's front end pitches up. this is because the tank's profile is so low, the gun obviously won't traverse through the glacis plate, and the breech contacts the top of the turret) Again, I think you're imagining a disadvantage that doesn't exist.

[stgn 39]

Quote[/b] ]I see what you mean but if you have to slow down before you can shot proplery then it only helps driving fast when on retreat(which by the way is the most dangerous thing to do on a battel field as might get you enemy in your back). And while the T80 is bousing over the battel field, the abram moving at full speed can get a nice clean aim on the T80 and shot it if it slows down or gets too close

I suspect you're seeing a disadvantage that isn't there.

Look at the videos, notice that the T-80 is exclusively driving on bad, bumpy roads and broken ground, while the M1 is driving almost exclusively on well-tended smooth dirt roads. The M1 would encounter the same problems in those conditions.

When I said 'slow down to take a good shot', I meant that the M1 on similar terrain would have to do this also. The T-80 is not known to have any more trouble with gun stabilization than the M1, and indeed it doesn't. The problems it has with its gun are that it is elevated for the autoloader after it fires (taking it off the target line about 3 degrees, briefly, for the autoloader to load the ammo . .  you can see this in the videos; after a shot the gun seems to bounce about a lot, particularly on uneven ground, because it's off the stabilization system) and that it will not significantly de-elevate on a reverse slope (you can see this when the tank's front end pitches up. this is because the tank's profile is so low, the gun obviously won't traverse through the glacis plate, and the breech contacts the top of the turret) Again, I think you're imagining a disadvantage that doesn't exist.

Okay but as you said your self the Abrams is much heavyer than the T80 and look at the start of the second T80 video it is driving on somthing that looks like a dirt road and still boundsing alot If it where the abrams I don't think it would look quit the samme tho I can not be sure.

but offcause eny tank commander would come boundsing in on the battel field so there problery aint a problem here.

STGN

[Sigma-6 29]

That road at the beginning of the first video is exactly what I was talking about. The road is a very bumpy, poorly graded, loose surface. The tank is doing that for the same reason any other tank (including an M1) would on that road. (though, by virtue of its lightness (an asset, BTW), the T80U does get a bit more air.

[Tannethal 0]

Is a real stabilisation possible with OFP?

Just as in real life point the gun and it would stay there regardless of speed and direction of the tank.

The commanders optics seem to be independant of tank movement yet not from turret traverse. Everytime assigning the gunner a target that's off the G-LOS, the commanders sight is shifted when the turret traverses to pick up the target.

In HAWKs Challenger1 the gunners optic didn't elevate only the gun barrel did.

Any way of implementing that to a limited extend for traverse movement too?

So might it be possible to have realistic lead computing, keep the target in the sights and the gun is traversed slightly to add lead and elevated/depressed to compensate range?

Idealy this would be combined with a lasing script?

yeah i'm dreaming

Second to that in most tank and IFV addons the field of view for the gunner is far too broad. Hence in the LEOPARD 2A4 even in low magnification the gunner wouldn't see a single piece of the tanks gun barrel. Unfortunately OFP engine doesn't let us switch between hi and low magnification without a glitch.

S!

[Gen.Carnage 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now this is why I like the abrams, shit it must be hell to be a gunner in that tank and even whit gunstablistation I could emagion that you if the tank suddenly boundsed you could shot over you taget.

This is why i urge every addonmaker that is building a tank(pack) to implement the suspension scripts we released with black eagle.

Firing gun when braking or accelerating will often result in a miss.

The overall accuracy of the tank equipped with realistic suspension goes down with roughly 10..20%

Even tho real life gun stabilizers may easily compensate for it, i believe in the game ofp it's making things just a little more interesting, and ofcourse adds some real eyecandy.

By the way, the suspension script / method isnt limited to tanks, also cars/boats and planes can be equipped with it, on boats it can be made to look VERY realistic.

[aj_addons 0]

yeah the suspension script is good idea just needs a slight tightening up in that it seems a bit to floaty for my likeing but very good never the less

[Gen.Carnage 0]

sure, but since the suspension is adjustable for each individual addon this won't be a problem.

When we invented this feature we were working on the black eagle, which was actually a disadvantage, because the BE doesnt jump up and down as much, but we wanted it still to be visible, so we gave it a bit more than it would irl.

The tunguska with suspension will be much more 'floaty' as you call it

We will also upgrade the vitapc pack with the feature in due time, and those who have seen actual BMP footage will know that that particular APC allmost does a 'wheelie' when the driver pulls away in a hurry.

I know of stories of the old centurions crushing a towed car when the driver puts it in reverse gear when at maximum speed... that tank can literally 'stand on it's nose' when braking.

[munger 25]

I really liked the stabilisation effect on the Black Eagle, and since the only up-to-date tank pack so far released is the RHS T-64 pack, hopefully it isn't too much to ask that future releases such as the other RHS tank packs and the BAS desert pack include this feature. If it's achieved through scripting only there's no reason why the next T-64 pack (if an updated version is due to be released) cannot also include it.

[Gen.Carnage 0]

wrong, some small models changes are also needed, so it will mean redownloading the whole addon again.