Panzer Jaeger

Hi again! Started playing OpF once again. Why I ever stopped, don't ask... But one thing has bothered me. Radio communications during battle. I haven't played OpF online (yet...), so I can't comment on that. It must be "software-technical" thing, but why does squadleaders give their orders to their squad (either Ai or player) via radio? This has very bad habit of jamming possible commands that are to be given. There should be an override for squadleader to "shout out" his (or her) orders. Take tank crews for example. Situations change very quickly and that little 5 secs might be crucial to tell your gunner to "T-80, 50m, fire the f****ing gun!!!!" During this time co is having a nice afternoon chat with platoon leader, who has already flown into orbit with his turret... Sorry about harsh language...

Eastern counterpart for M2 machine gun would be called DshK (or something like that). Only new skin for MG... Other good thing would be frontal supporters for PK and M-60. Would reduce recoil thus making it easier to aim long bursts. Naturally preparing the mg would take longer, but effective leverage on defensive missions and fire support missions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aha, ok.. I get now what you meant by 'side of hull'. I am very surprised that they give out that information.. it is usually classified stuff.<span id='postcolor'> I doubt that's classified info. You can get that info from "Jane's". Very respected source of information to anyone whose interrested in it, even between pro's. They contain very much info from present AFV's, airplanes, helicopters etc. Check it out Janes online

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 21 2002,176)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know that the armored IDF hummers here have withstood major roadside detonations, protecting their crews. Besides the "glass" (it's better than glass) being about 2 inches thick, the rest of the passenger cabin is armored with heavy plates - don't know if it's steel or otherwise. No matter. OFP's in 1985 and should take the reality of that time into consideration.<span id='postcolor'> If I remeber correctly, its (the cabin) some sort of laminated kevlar and glasses might be polycarbonate. Which would make sense, 'cause hummer wheigs "only" about 2 tonnes. If cabin would be steel plate armored, it would probably wheigh about 4-8 tonnes, just my speculations. If someone has exact knowledge, feel free to point them to me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Scooby @ Mar. 15 2002,19:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">100 round belt of 7.62x39 rounds weights around 2 kilos. I'd suppose that M60 belt weights around same weight.<span id='postcolor'> So I remembered. Besides ammo cans are heavy they are bulky to be carried around.

Problems with bradley sight are real even in live bradley. It has no rotating sights for commander, instead it has prisms to maximize your view from inside. And the AAMG's for commanders. This feature would be great but if the engine doesn't allow it, what can we do? Smoke dischargers on the other hand would be great. Fire 6 smoke grenades to about 50 meters in front of the tank. Then to charge through the smoke guns blazing hot.... AAAHHH!! Love the smell of diesel in the mornings... BTW. Has anyone noticed when the tanks turn stopped? I don't know about western tanks but I know only on type of "tank" that can turn around its centerpoint (rotating one track forwards and the other track backwards). MT-LB(v) and other variants of it and only in ideal circumstances.

Actually recent ammo fill would weigh about 10 kilos (not including MG). That is alot to run around with, trust me. It's amazing that he didn't get shot to that place, considering if he fired the whole load out from one place. True, it would be great to get your ammo loads "equalized" between soldiers. Which IRL would be normal procedure. Naturally in suitable situation.

Maybe a good way would be to put up a campaign starting from "scracth". Perhaps a platoon of men training, chatting in training center. My idea here would be to create a life for them, girlfriends, wifes, family, friends back home, etc. To get player to know these people, as you would do IRL. Good example would be a movie Saving Private Ryan. Then if one of them would get killed, it would reflect in cutscenes, sending letters to home, recieving them (letters). Then maybe to give a face to your enemy, in form of a prisoner. In addition to hear complaints on food, weather, fatigue, exhaustion, cries from wounded and dying to their wounds. Now when soldier gets hit, he either goes to medic and continues to fight or dies instantly. I think you can figure out what I mean.

Here's a example from commanders view (on T-55 MBT). Nearly all (T-80 is a question mark) russian AFV's use this type of sight on commander view.

I see that the main principle hasn't chaged. But if it works why change it...? Good auxiliary system to laser rangefinders plus with little mind work easy to use.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 07 2002,20:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dont forget to fix the smoke<span id='postcolor'> What's to fix? Only thing would be AT missiles smoke trails and a "barrel roll" to them. And wind to clear to smoke, naturally. Or have you seen tank firing IRL...?

Purpose of camo pattern is to "break" the form. This effect is enhanced with grass and wood branches. Also your face shines in woods like a flashlight (this is why spec ops colour their faces entirely). Pattern naturally depends on surrounding terrain. In middle east you'd be a fool to use "woodscheme" in daylight. Also fully black is not necessarally excelent because its single coloured and possibly even too black. Black with green or something like that might work better.

On MG´s use your bullets trails to correct your aim. If you can see them of course. On assault rifles I position my sight entirely on target and fire few single shots. More accurate than burst or full auto. G36 and steyer are different story...

HEAT fires a cone of metal to armour at speed of less than 6000 m/s. This causes tremendous surface pressure to armour thus causing penetration. This speed is controlled by angles on tip of HEAT round. The speed of penetrationhole caused by copper cone is approx. 2500-3000 m/s depending on shape tip. HEAT acts same way when you pour hot water to cold water.

One nation CAN withstand ANY invasion of stronger, better trained, better equipped but poorly motivated nation. If some nationality has determination to repel any attack, it will do so at any cost. Winter War 1939-1940 (Finland vs. Soviet Union). No one could imagine that Finland would be able to repel that attack, but here we are. I'm not trying to cause any problems, this is just history.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert.. Â now.. desert=long view... Â so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok.. Â boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.<span id='postcolor'> Common terrain?! I can remember two major battles in desert: North Africa WW II, and Desert Storm. There have been many tank battles through out history, but few have taken place in desert. Most of these battles have been fought in towns, villages or in forrests. In most cases in Europe, WW I and WW II. Oh, BTW. Sabot is lighter than HEAT... Aerodynamics has very little effect at these speeds (~1600 m/s = 5760 km/h). Do you think F/A 18 would glide? It needs thurst to stay in air... Once the engines are shutdown, down we go!! Like a rock...

Please refer also to: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/120.htm

Please refer also to: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/120.htm

First, the penetration on DU is not about density. DU is bizarre material because it sharpens when travelling through steel. At op. Desert Storm Abrams' main gun hit the front of T-72 and came out from engineblock!! It zoomed right through ENTIRE TANK!!! Distance about 2 km... BTW, why would they use ATGMs for close combat? (T-80) EVERY MBT is designed to be "one-shot-one-kill", why would they design them otherwise?! MBT is very expensive piece of machinery, why risk it?! T-80 is designed for central-europe. There are lot of forrests and hills so firing ranges are short and small tank is a benefit.

First, the penetration on DU is not about density. DU is bizarre material because it sharpens when travelling through steel. At op. Desert Storm Abrams' main gun hit the front of T-72 and came out from engineblock!! It zoomed right through ENTIRE TANK!!! Distance about 2 km... BTW, why would they use ATGMs for close combat? (T-80) EVERY MBT is designed to be "one-shot-one-kill", why would they design them otherwise?! MBT is very expensive piece of machinery, why risk it?! T-80 is designed for central-europe. There are lot of forrests and hills so firing ranges are short and small tank is a benefit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 12 2002,03:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yea during nam the M-60 had faults in it. so to correct the faults it wen through a serries of upgrades. today the only branch of service that uses the M-60 is the U.S. Marines. btw i didnt know that the M-60 was larger and heavier than the  T-80. and i also didnt know that it had a crew of 4. i thought it had 3. does that mean the Abrams has a crew of 5?<span id='postcolor'> M1 and M1A1 have crew of 4 men, but M1A2 has better firecontrol and autoloader (crew of 3).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 12 2002,03:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yea during nam the M-60 had faults in it. so to correct the faults it wen through a serries of upgrades. today the only branch of service that uses the M-60 is the U.S. Marines. btw i didnt know that the M-60 was larger and heavier than the  T-80. and i also didnt know that it had a crew of 4. i thought it had 3. does that mean the Abrams has a crew of 5?<span id='postcolor'> M1 and M1A1 have crew of 4 men, but M1A2 has better firecontrol and autoloader (crew of 3).

As for penetration of rifle etc. Trees and sandbags in OPF are much to strong. 7.62mm bullet will go through wood like a hot knife through butter. And 5.56mm bullet changes its course when its fired through bushes. Another word on the gunships. They are armoured, yes. But Hind has a titanium "tub" where the pilot and the gunner are located. Everything else, nonprotected. Imagine how much would Hind wheigh if it would be all armoured? Probably close to 40 tons... Same thing on Apache AH-64...

OK. Facts: Main gun T-80 125mm Smoothbore (some are capable of firing ATGM's) M-60 105mm Rifled (Better firecontrol?) Coaxial T-80 PKT (Tank variation of PK) 7.62 mm M-60 M240 7.62mm AAMG T-80 DsHK 12.7mm M-60 M2 12.7mm Weight T-80 46t M-60 60t Speed T-80 70km/h (about 44mph!!) M-60 64km/h (30 mph) Engine T-80(B-model) gasturbine 1100hp M-60 V-12 diesel 750 hp Ammo T-80 45 rounds M-60 63 rounds T-80 is smaller and has 3 men crew (Commander, Gunner and driver) while M-60 is bigger(at least higher) and has 4 men crew (Commander, driver, gunner and loader). M-60 was designed at 60's while T-80 was developed from T-64 (not from T-72!!!) in 1976. I'm not going to say which one is better. Both have "fors" and "againsts". Although I'd prefer to get my tank hide behind bushes and that 125mm smoothbore sounds promising...

OK. Facts: Main gun T-80 125mm Smoothbore (some are capable of firing ATGM's) M-60 105mm Rifled (Better firecontrol?) Coaxial T-80 PKT (Tank variation of PK) 7.62 mm M-60 M240 7.62mm AAMG T-80 DsHK 12.7mm M-60 M2 12.7mm Weight T-80 46t M-60 60t Speed T-80 70km/h (about 44mph!!) M-60 64km/h (30 mph) Engine T-80(B-model) gasturbine 1100hp M-60 V-12 diesel 750 hp Ammo T-80 45 rounds M-60 63 rounds T-80 is smaller and has 3 men crew (Commander, Gunner and driver) while M-60 is bigger(at least higher) and has 4 men crew (Commander, driver, gunner and loader). M-60 was designed at 60's while T-80 was developed from T-64 (not from T-72!!!) in 1976. I'm not going to say which one is better. Both have "fors" and "againsts". Although I'd prefer to get my tank hide behind bushes and that 125mm smoothbore sounds promising...