PROJECT'85 TOPIC

[Danickas 0]

This "little squares" are reactive armour and they cover all important parts of tank and that "hole" isnt another canon its as i think the electro-optic system "Sztora"

[Onebitlink 0]

Why do they need IR search lights? I was told the russians couldnt afford night vision stuff so it wouldnt be much use!

What do the squares do then?

[Onebitlink 0]

Thanks for the reply Danickas that clears it up for me!

[NSX 8]

@Onebitlink

Oh, bad that I'm late. Thnx 2 Universal 4 telling everything.

Quote[/b] ]Why do they need IR search lights? I was told the russians couldnt afford night vision stuff so it wouldnt be much use!

Yours news are out of date. Try to read something freshier than early 90s newspapers. But in overall - yes. You've heard that right - they can't afford any good stuff, so they prefer to use reconaissance kamikaze-bears. Operator use his "balalaika" control device to guide these deadly creeatures straight onto enemy tanks.

[Onebitlink 0]

Whoa? So like, as in a propper grizzly bear with explosives strapped to it?

They have to train the bears to do this first? How do you mean there 'remote controlled'? Do they put things in there heads?

Sorry for all the questions, im intrigued!

[Imshi-Yallah 0]

OneBit...on the public server you told us you were ex Spetznatz?

[vilas 477]

western countries had propaganda about their "modern" equipement, but looking at Malvinas war on Discovery channel - UK soldiers were surpised that Argentinians had NV goggles, while UK soldiers were not equipped in NV goggles

also in "cold war" before Abrams tank entered service, NATO was weaker, M60 tank was 20 tones heavier than T72 (so harder to move in mood, weak bridges) but T72 was stronger, had stabilised barrel and auto-loader

so... i think some of western-countries citizens should know more about ColdWar technic ;]

also - US special forces had some MP5SD, some M3 Greasegun silenced, while in almost every quasi-recon unit we had silencers for AKMS

so special forces of west could operate fire on 25-50 meters (pistol bullet) while eastern soldiers could operate on bigger distance

in western forces snipers were not popular, in Polish army there was 1 SVD on 24 soldiers (3 teams), even if our marksmans were not as trained as US special snipers, we had much more quasi-snipers ;]

but no more offtopic :]

[Mr_Tea 0]

OneBit...on the public server you told us you were ex Spetznatz?

I heavily doubt that.

If he`s an ex spetznatz, he would have known the things he asked about.

To know the own, and the "enemy`s" vehicles is something even normal soldiers learn.

[Benoist 0]

Interesting map, where is it? Poland?

How is going to be the map, I didn't find any info about it.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

western countries had propaganda about their "modern" equipement, but looking at Malvinas war on Discovery channel - UK soldiers were surpised that Argentinians had NV goggles, while UK soldiers were not equipped in NV goggles

also in "cold war" before Abrams tank entered service, NATO was weaker, M60 tank was 20 tones heavier than T72 (so harder to move in mood, weak bridges) but T72 was stronger, had stabilised barrel and auto-loader

so... i think some of western-countries citizens should know more about ColdWar technic ;]

also - US special forces had some MP5SD, some M3 Greasegun silenced, while in almost every quasi-recon unit we had silencers for AKMS

so special forces of west could operate fire on 25-50 meters (pistol bullet) while eastern soldiers could operate on bigger distance

in western forces snipers were not popular, in Polish army there was 1 SVD on 24 soldiers (3 teams), even if our marksmans were not as trained as US special snipers, we had much more quasi-snipers ;]

but no more offtopic :]

In the Falklands war it was actually the other way around.

The Argies whined that they had been beaten through

superior technology, and specifically mentioned night viz

kit. It turned out that they actually had better, more modern,

night viz equipment than the British and it was issued to

them on a much higher scale.

Compared to mid 1980s NATO counterparts, the T-72 also

had poor ergonomics, very poor engine and gun-barrel

durability and the autoloader restricted loading time (and the

total number of rounds carried). Eastern bloc tanks looked

good on paper but not so much in reality, for a variety of

reasons.

The poster above is perhaps confusing thermal imaging with

image intensifying. WP tanks in the mid 1980s had no thermal

imaging equiment and relied on image intensifiers (hence the

IR searchlight).

Western tanks have had stabilized guns since the late 1940s.

One of the first was the British Centurion Mk III which

entered service in 1948. Its gunnery control system was the

Metrovick FVGCE No. 1 which enabled it to engage area

targets while on the move. It could also track pinpoint

targets on the move and engage them at the "short halt".

Western special forces have had silenced assault rifles

available, if required, since at least the mid 1960s. They

were used extensively by U.S. special projects units in the

Vietnam war for example. Western armies have had silenced

weapons in their armouries since the mid 1940s.

The preponderance of "marksmen" in WP armies was more a

function of a lower emphasis on individual marksmanship in

the training of the infantry than any "superior doctrine".

Oh BTW I got kicked out of the Spetznaz for bein' too hard.

[Shadow NX 1]

As ex-commander of the kremlin guard i just want to say that Onebitlink, you sig is too big.

Just saying, before a moderator does.

Aside of that i like the discussion on the last pages even if its a bit offtopic.

[ingram 258]

Nice news there...looks like now Ingram is deciding whose screenshots to send to newsmakers? By any chance, maybe you can send some of mine too, heh?

No problem. I haven't decided so don't be mad NSX

Someday Deadeye wrote me on ICQ if I could submit some screens so I sended him my folder with P85 screens.

[Shadow NX 1]

In such cases please inform me or Vilas before.

I wasnt to happy with some of the older screens that arent really showing current status.

[ingram 258]

NSX I wrote You a PM about the buildings you showed on Your last screen.

Could you send me them for some screen work? I would like to make some pics with the current status and some action ones.

Shadow, I'm gonna ask you today or vilas if I get this building about screens which I want to send to Deadeye because he showed some of my older ones.

NSX, can I also send him some of Your work?

[vilas 477]

on PM gentelmen :P

here we can announce news :P

edit: work on MG-3 begins, maybe we will do Bundeswehra to fight against NVA in second release, now guerillas will get those G-3 and MG-3

i just think how it should be feeded

giving ammo-box under like in OFP models would be a nonsense because in real gun empty cases/shells (don't know english word) are going out on the bottom side

MG-3 was feeded from the belt and box carried by soldier or from 50 rounds drums (like MG-42)

so for game purpose probably i will give 50 rnd-drums

[LordNeuro*Serbia* 0]

Plz plz make a room for SA6 or kub-m aa sistem. Those were the pick of his karier. And nedles too say u gays r making great job. Keep up the good work.

[Danickas 0]

As the project 85 team said basic vehicles first.

[thesun 14]

u gays r making great job

But to be on topic, you're really doing a good job here. CW and WWIII was always my favourite theme

[ingram 258]

Some new teaser pic.

Soviet column ambushed in the city of Bydgoszcz. Place known as Wzgorze Wolnosci (Liberty Hill)

Click

[Onebitlink 0]

OneBit...on the public server you told us you were ex Spetznatz?

Imshi - that isn't somthing for open discussion my friend

Back on thread, the sniper rifle looks very good! What scope will you have on it?

[the_shadow 0]

vilas, since you make a MG3, do a Mg42 aswell and give it to your rebels/partisans/guerillas

i know that there are still many MG42´s in use around the world.

and i have heard rumours that some MG3´s are actually modified MG42´s (rebarreled and modified in some parts)

[vilas 477]

as far as i know MG-3 is reballered MG-42 with different flash-hider and extra-sight more

as far as i know many MG-3 are in the third world because Turkey, Iran and Pakistan manufactered it in large numbers

MG42 was widely used in Yugoslavia with STG-44

but than I should do STG-44 too (which is my favourite weapon) but i will stay in Project'85 only with MG-3, MG42 (on those textures and changed model will bein future update of WW2 addon)

[NSX 8]

@Ingram

I'll talk to Deadeye myself. Btw, is there any need to brake "no more than 100 kb per pic" rule? There're even 200 kb pieces in your post...

@vilas

I got official permission for us to use P44 houses on our maps. However, it's only beta, there'll be full pack later including minor city objects.

[Serclaes 0]

as far as i know MG-3 is reballered MG-42 with different flash-hider and extra-sight more

Not entirely correct. The MG-3 as being the german "maschinengewehr 3" has 3 main differences to the MG-42:

- The "NATO Brake"

The MG-42 had a ROF which was not constant but far above the MG-3: around ~1200 rounds/minute and ~1500 max) which created a very scary noise. The MG-3 has been limited to 750 rounds/minute (simply by replacing a steel part with a spring).

- The NATO calibre

The MG-42 used 7,92x57mm as calibre because the Kar98 had the same round. But we all know the NATO uses 7.62x51mm so the mg3 has a 7.62mm bore

- The outfiled swastikas.

Those are the differences i know, these don't exclude your statements

[hoz 0]

Ingram please respect the image size rules