RACS M60A3

[mechastalin 0]

Shtora would also be completely ineffective against IIR guided missiles, such as the Maverick; against video guided missiles, such as the Javelin and Predator; and against radar guided missiles, such as the Hellfire II.

Frankly, I'd be frightened to death to have to face any of those missiles in a Russian tank.

I think any tank in the world would be frightened of those.

[Törni 0]

Well there you go. In order to simulate Shtora somehow in the game we would need to have some kind of list what kind of weapons it jams, how effectively and what it does not have any effect at all etc.

Plus custom animations have to be made too for the defence system. So far there has not been a clear answer to it's effectiveness.

Next thing to discuss about -> I have given T-90 armor value just below M1A1. It's now 850 (BIS Abrams is 900). It is an upgraded T-72 afterall and much lighter in comparison to Western Abrams, Leopard etc. In gane you do not notice much difference (if any).

About the status of various projects:

T-55 pack: Needs some texturing plus some fine tuning+interiors. ETA 1 week.

T-90: About the same if we go without Shtora, with the defence system I guess a while longer (just converted has to tested properly in game).

EDIT: Few observations about tanks:

- Gulf War demonstrated that the T-72 was not frightening anymore. Older T-55s, T-62s etc. had little hope against modern next genaration MBTs.

- What has not been accounted for is the fact that U.S. Nato had a total control of the air and were able to detect and track enemies without them even beign aware of that they had been exposed to the enemy. Terrain did not favor defenders (at least in the desert).

- Russians also realized that they had to do something about their tank designs

- The overall meaning of tanks is dimishing because they are still vulnerable in urban areas, aircraft can destroy tanks etc.

- The wars have changed from the clear struggle at the front lines to hide and seek (mainly because U.S. and her allies are so superior in military might).

- Infantry is still very capable of destroying armor with man-portable rockets and ATGMs.

[mechastalin 0]

Although the T-90s base armor would be around the same as an older Abrams I'd say its main defense is its ERA used to deflect HEAT and sabot rounds which I would say makes it much more likely to survive than the far older M1A1.

Also gulf war was not a very good example for the effectiveness of Russian T-72s. Iraqis had for outdated export models with steel core ammo and half charges of propellant, no match for even older tanks.

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

The deciding factor in any major conflict will always be intelligence. First look, first lock, first shot, first kill. If it can be seen, it can be destroyed.

It didn't really matter what the Iraqis fielded. Once the US forces could target it, it was destroyed. ERA, and active defense systems are no match against AWACs, JSTARS, and JDAM's.

[Törni 0]

Quote[/b] ]Although the T-90s base armor would be around the same as an older Abrams I'd say its main defense is its ERA

Did they do anything about the T-72's nasty tendency to brew up if penetrated? Soviet designs do not usually rank crew survivability very high.

Quote[/b] ]steel core ammo and half charges of propellant

Really? Who's the "tactical genius" behind this great idea?

[LordNeuro*Serbia* 0]

The thing is thet the us is reling on air superiority. But the air superiority geve them good results in Irak-desert and noot a good terein for tank when a enemy have open air for action. But in 1999 the us air strike agenst the Serb army on Kosovo and Metohija show no results what so ever. The terein were were good for heiding armor and placing decoys for striking. The nato air strike on Serbs army 1999 on Kosovo and Metohija show the results of 13 tenks shot. Mostly old t 55 and just a capl of t 72. And Serbia is were smole contry. The nato forces have all sorounding contries for placing the eqwipment and plains. Still the f117 was shot down. Thet the Serb army head beter aa sistems and atllist 60-40 in plains the nato force wil have mouch more losess. Not too menchen contry like Russia or China. So i think the t72 and t 90 cann = fight agenst the us armor.

Sorry for bed englis and going owey from the topic.

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

But in that scenario, those tanks would get owned by superior weapon systems such as the Sensor Fused Weapon, MLRS/ATACMS, and the JSOW-B.

If it doesn't sound like a fair fight, it's probably because it's not. NATO airpower mauled Serbia, because it could.

[Törni 0]

My personal opinion is that older tanks need side or rear shots to have any chance at all in 1:1 armor battle. From front they can disable the gun, jam turret rotation, cripple optics, maybe destroy a track, but that's about it.

125mm russian gun with sabot ammo is still a major threat to Abrams, Leopard 2 etc. They do not wan't to take any chances with them.

Wasn't the western tank design principle that every modern Nato tank should take down 5 Russian tanks before it itself was destroyed? Found it hard to believe that 120mm Rheinmetall gun with sabots would not scratch a T-90.

EDIT: On armor issue:

1) T-90 has composite armor+ERA (still based on T-72) + shtora

2) Abrams has depleted uranium armor+design that aims for crew survivability (or so they at least claim)

[LordNeuro*Serbia* 0]

When u sey Serbia I agree yes dey did, but the thing they were aiming they did not. Like i wrote they strike 13 tanks, and lots of damy targets. U see the nato and US have the military buget about xxy times biger then Serbia, tehnic like in star wors and they shot 13 tanks. Lost the prade of ther air force, and all consider do minimal demig to Serb army. There is the copole articals of bbc and ader reporters from Kosovo and Metohija reporting off Serb army retriting. Lots off the tehnic was pull beck. So u see in war the noing off the terein and good tactic can make the difrense. After all it was a David and Goliath fight.

[Allyc4t 0]

isnt this ment to be about torni's arma addon and not the kosovo war? in any case the US wanted to get through kosovo with minimal casualties and that is documented (u just gotta look). Back on topic. Torni love M60 mate and the T-55 is sounding sweet but if you put a T-90 in i dont think the Shtora would fit in in arma IMO so dont waste time on it.

[Törni 0]

I plan to get them all in game :

- M60A3 update

- T-55 pack

- T-90

What is missing:

1) M60 - some problems with the driver position. Has now a detailed interior

2) T-55 - interiors are under construction plus some texturing to be done

3) T-90 not much testing yet, but seems to be working now. Have to test some more to be sure. Have to write new configs for the AT-missile.

[LoFFeN 0]

Nice news, Törni.

But could you post some screenshots of the T-55 MBT, maybe... *I'm very eager to see how it looks like. *

[ravendk 25]

Missilecrew might use laser rangefinder to get distance to MBT (idiots if they do that!, as using laser rangefinder at that point (or aim it to MBT itself) is very stupid!

Im gonna comment on that.

I cant speak for ohter than me and what i learned in the army...

Abt using a laser on a MBT, normaly you dont point at the tank, you point at stuff close to it, ground, rock, house ect.. The reason is that there is a chance of the MBT having the laser detector thing and antitank crews really dont feel like beeing taken out by the tank they are trying to kill.

Laser rangefinder is allways used befor a shot (again thats just us), in denmark we got a laser rangefinder attached to oure carl gustav and uses it that way.

That beeing said, this is what i learned in 2003. Thiese days in the post could war days modern forces normaly engange couldwar era so potting the dot on the tank isnt that dangorous..

Thats was just my 2 cents

Keep up the good work and its really cool to see this dedication in addonmaking

[Second 0]

Fair enough. Nice to hear someone elses experiences and training they had. Is it necessary to use laser rangefinder to fire that Carl Custav? Is the grenade guided or something so that it needs distance to the target?

@LordNeuro*Serbia*: I have to agree that way your army managed to endure airstrikes and cheat high and costly techology was quite couraging news (this i say with respect)

Okay. I've posted off-topic too much in here already. I shut my mouth now.

[ravendk 25]

Fair enough. Nice to hear someone elses experiences and training they had. Is it necessary to use laser rangefinder to fire that Carl Custav? Is the grenade guided or something so that it needs distance to the target?

@LordNeuro*Serbia*: I have to agree that way your army managed to endure airstrikes and cheat high and costly techology was quite couraging news (this i say with respect)

Okay. I've posted off-topic too much in here already. I shut my mouth now.

No problem.

No the carl gustav can be used with out the rangefinder, even without its scop, using iron sights. The laser rangefinder is a tool to get an accrute range to the target, it works like this. You get the traget, aproximated range and dirrection. Then the helper loads the CG. Then the gunner checks the range with the laser, adjust the range on a nob and yell "Fireing" (in danish "SKUD KOMMER!!!") and BOOM.

BTW a carl gustav is a recoilless rifle - a single shot gun (big ass gun) it is not guide in any way, its basicly a rifle.. just very big.

Back on tropic, any pic of the T- series?

[.COMmunist 0]

After reading a discussion here, I went and found some info on Russian websites and some videos on Youtube about shtora. Manufacturer claims that it would work 70% of a time, so I guess it is not a bad protection.

[canis lupus 20]

its good to see more tanks comming into arma, when you are done with the current projects, I would love to see some armored vehicles with some more equipment on them, like bags and stuff...

[.COMmunist 0]

Here is also a chart from the exhibit on one of the military expo. They claim 80% (0.8 probability), but probably realisticaly it is 70%.

Technical data of the Shtora-1 system:

Probability of aiming canceling in case of thread from:

ATLIS, TADS or PAVE-SPIKEsystems - 0.85

Laser-guided missiles of Maverick or Hellfire types - 0.8

Guided artillery projectiles of Copperhead type - 0.8

El-op designators pointing - 0.8-0.9

Anti-tank guided missiles with television watheads of Maverick, Hellfire types - 0.54

In case of thread from artillery systems with laser rangefinders the use of the Shtora-1 system also reduces probability of artillery round hit into your vehicle from - 0.85 to 0.55

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

Well .COMmunist, If you trust manufacturers claims so much, I suppose you could test it out in battlefield conditions....

I tend to place my trust in what I've seen work in the field. Theory is only theory, until it's actually put to use. For game purposes, an IIR/EO Maverick, Hellfire-K, and Javelin are probably going to eat that tank at least 95% of the time.

[.COMmunist 0]

It has been tested out in the field. I am 33 years old and owe a company. I work in the military industry and often I work with people who designed these weapon systems. Just two month ago I was visiting our business partners in Moscow who developed Konkurs and Kornet missile systems and who build night vision and other sensors for Mi helicopters. These people are former Soviet adisors and all are Colonels and Generals. We did talk to them about Lebanon, Chechnya, Iraq and believe me, these guys know what they are talking about. All that shit that you read on the internet is useless, the real info will NEVER be available to public. I can't say more that that, but Shtora has been used and tried in many instances. It had been tested against Mavericks and Hellfire for sure. Manufacturer claims of 80 - 85% effectiveness is a bit high, my business partners mentioned 70%, so I believe them. So you see my young friend, theory is only theory for you. You are saying that you have seen Shtora work in the field. When and where?

[Sentry 0]

Sentry

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

It has been tested out in the field. I am 33 years old and owe a company. I work in the military industry and often I work with people who designed these weapon systems. Just two month ago I was visiting our business partners in Moscow who developed Konkurs and Kornet missile systems and who build night vision and other sensors for Mi helicopters. These people are former Soviet adisors and all are Colonels and Generals. We did talk to them about Lebanon, Chechnya, Iraq and believe me, these guys know what they are talking about. All that shit that you read on the internet is useless, the real info will NEVER be available to public. I can't say more that that, but Shtora has been used and tried in many instances. It had been tested against Mavericks and Hellfire for sure. Manufacturer claims of 80 - 85% effectiveness is a bit high, my business partners mentioned 70%, so I believe them. So you see my young friend, theory is only theory for you. You are saying that you have seen Shtora work in the field. When and where?

1. Manufacturers are in the business of selling their products, whether they're actually battle proven or not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of battle proven, but it can best be summarized by HAVING BEEN USED IN BATTLE.

2. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you any amount of money that you can't actually prove it works at all, and that you CERTAINLY can't prove it has actually been tested versus Mavericks, and Hellfires. You show me that data from a verifiable source, and I'll never doubt another word you say.

3. I'm older than you, my young, rude, and dare I say- arrogant friend.

4. I never said that I have seen it work, anywhere. You said it works. I asked you to provide data that it does, from a verifiable source.

I HAVE seen what mavericks and Hellfires are capable of doing, on an actual battlefield.

You can go work on number 2 now. Thanks.

[.COMmunist 0]

You had seen Hellfires work agains Shtora? That is my real question. You are saying that you have seen it work in real life against what? Iraqi T-72 that was built in 1979? Is that your REAL experience? I guess I can ask you the same question back. Go find me reliable sources of info of Hellfire and Mavericks working against Shtora 95% of a time my arogant counter-part. That is my point! There is no reliable info available to common public that can reveal the truth about a weapon or counter measure. I am almost certain that people who have access to true information on this subject had never visited BI Forums or even if they did, they could never share this info with us. So, all these conversations about T-90 vs Abrams vs Challenger vs Merkava vs Toyota Corrola are so speculative that all smart people visiting this forum just don't read them anymore. But my real issue here is the fact how western "experts" so quick to dismiss any Russian claim about Russian weapons capability! Everytime somebody says that Russians had developed something, there has to be somebody who always says: I AM SURE these Russian weapons sucks and that my military would wipe them out in no time. Why do people always say that they are sure? They are most likely are not designers of any weapon systems at all, they just bunch of clerks working in the office and reading military net sites. In best case scenario they served a few years as grunds in the military, but never had personal experience fighting with or against modern Russian weapons. So how is that makes everybody in the west so SURE? Thats my real issue here. Btw, the war in Iraq is a terrible way to make any conclusions about Russian hardware. It is the same as Russians would attack some small banana country with T-80U's and T-90's and those poor bastards would fight back in M60 tanks (built in 1970's). T-90 has even longer engagement range that M1A2, so they would wipe those M60's without loses too. After that Russians would go around braging that they just wiped out the AMERICAN tanks and that American tanks suck (but would definately keep quiet on when those M60 were built). You see it all over the internet in the West, American boys keep telling stories about ultimate success against Russian hardware in Iraq (but notice, hardly ever a word about the manufacturing year of those inferior tanks and ammo!

I don't want to pick a fight and I sure dont want to insult anyone, but please understand me too, everytime I come to this forum, some ignorant child is posting that he is sure that Russian weapons suck. It is getting extremely anoying when people who have no access to real intel keep insulting my country and the work of thousands of brilliant people who design these systems. Sometimes I just have to say something.

I did HEAR from those Russian advisors that many of their weapon systems were tested agains modern US weapons. And when I asked them (naturally) where they got the US weapons, they just politely smiled and changed the subject. So, you see, nomatter how much I wish I can show you the facts about Shtora, I also don't have access to real info and all I can do is say what I hear. But I don't claim to be so SURE like many people on this forum like to say.

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

Once again, ( for the life of me, I don't know how to make this easier for you to understand... ) I NEVER stated that I had seen Hellfires, or Mavericks used against tanks equipped with Shtora.

What I said was, "I tend to place my trust in what I've seen work in the field. Theory is only theory, until it's actually put to use." Which quite simply means that if a system has not ever actually been shown to function as advertised under battlefield conditions, it doesn't engender any trust in the men who have to use it in the field- such as myself, for instance.

Now, I have seen what Mavericks and Hellfires can do to tanks, I know these systems work as advertised under battlefield conditions. You, however, cannot provide verifable proof that Shtora-1 works as advertised, because it has never been employed against the threats that we are discussing. In fact, there is NO evidence of it ever being used, successfully or not, against ANY threat on an actual battlefield. If I'm wrong, then you have only to produce the data. I'd love for you to do so.

The rest of your post was unnecessary. No one said that all Russian equipment is useless. I never mentioned Iraq.

I never even mentioned whether or not I was a Westerner. I guess you assume that I am, simply because I dare to doubt YOUR claims that this system is as effective as you claim it to be. ( based on nothing, but third-hand information and advertisements, BTW. ) In fact, you got quite insulting about it, as a matter of fact.

From now on, I'd suggest that you remove your ego, and fanboy perspective from the equation. There's no need to fight for the dignity of the Shtora system, I'm sure it didn't feel at all insulted when I said I'd have to see proof that it actually works as well as the people who are selling it, claim it to be.

I hope you understand me now. I think we've already gone sufficiently off topic, as is.

[.COMmunist 0]

This is not really off topic. The addonmaker asked how effective should he make the Shtora on his T-90. Now, as we been discussing it here, he can tell, that Russians officially had never released results about actual battle tests of Shtora in Chechnya. NATO can't also claim that their Hellfires or Maverics will work against it neither. I have only HEARD from respectable people in my industry that it was battle tested in Chechnya and that it was tested agains US made advanced systems like Hellfire. I can't produce printable source of that, and that is a weakness of my argument here. But you also can't say that you have printable sources stating that Hellfires will penetraye Shtora at ease. However, you did say:

For game purposes, an IIR/EO Maverick, Hellfire-K, and Javelin are probably going to eat that tank at least 95% of the time.

May I ask you then why would you suggest 95% number (not 75% or 50%) ? You have only seen Hellfires work against non-Shtora type protection. Then why would you ASSUME that the results will be the same on a tank protected by Shtora?

So you see, this is an important conversation for the addonmaker. If I were him, I would make it 50% probability. Neither opposing side can really prove the effectiveness or uneffectiveness of Shtora. But both sides keep clinging to their arguments. So, to make it fair for both, this T-90 addon should have 50/50 chance, imo.

Btw, when I was talking about western opinion of Russian equipment, I wasn't talking just about you, don't be offended, I was talking about general attitude on westerners on this forum.