Przezdzieblo

Bobcatt666 RPG blow on tanks side is dangerous for soldiers around, if tank is uparmoured with ERA or not - better not stay close. OTOH I would not be so sure about infantry-unfriendly Abrams ERA. It is said it is similar to those from Bradleys in Iraq. And those from IFV look like this: http://marvingroup.com/mls/images/mlsproducts/bradley_reactive.jpg As you can see it is rather complex "device", not simple ERA cell. There were in WWW some photos of Bradley with one cell hit and blowed. It is possible, that those ERA is not so infantry killer and there are not many splinters when ERA works (I think Russian K5 is infantry-friendly in this aspect, too). So more optimism Vs IEDs there is not much what can be done. Even with uparmoured bottom tanks and tracked vehicles would be vulnerable. The only way to make it invulnerable is to give them wheels and make it much more heavier... STGN --> http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/ and remember, that article`s author mean "taked out of action" instead of translator`s "destroyed". One question - is it possible to make tanks "shiny" in NV in OFP? Using WGL NVG I saw "shiny" AH-1 (BIS Cobra), what looked ok. Maybe because some texture filters or properties?

Gedis, mysteryous missile(read all texts and cycle through all picture pages) mysteryous missile revelation (more questions than previous)conclusion, RPG-7V with new rocket or RPG-22 AFAIR "the mystery projectile" could be even old PG-7V, which jet was able to remain thick after piercing through spaced armour. No AT weapon newer than RPG-7, even if round was from this new ones. There were many discussions around this accident and articles you linked are one of the oldest. Video, blow completely off abrams One sources said all crew was killed, other, that only driver. It is hard to tell was there any ammo explosion, but chance that tank gave crew enough protection that someone could survive this detonation of circa 250 pounds of explosives is not low. Probably better not to think how would behave ammunition if that IED blow under T90... You can even see terrorist with rgp-7(not rpg-7v) same abrams as previos This terrorist with RPG is photoshopped Someone added him - but probably this tank was disabled by RPG. blown off by the sabotage bomb Sorry, but you are completely wrong. This is Abrams Cojone Eh, disabled when riding through speedway near Bagdad when it was hit by RPG in engine room. Turbine cought fire and there was unsuccesful tries to tow this tank. It was destroyed by Americans, with nades dropped inside, one APFSDS in rear of turret which blow ammunition and, eventually, with two Mavericks missiles, which made two holes (one could be seen at photo). Cojone Eh is probably the most (in)famous Abrams in Iraq because of spread of it`s. photos. Few belov: http://www.aeronautics.ru/img....009.jpg http://www.aeronautics.ru/img....001.jpg http://www.aeronautics.ru/img....015.jpg http://www.aeronautics.ru/img....017.jpg http://www.aeronautics.ru/img....018.jpg http://www.aeronautics.ru/img....013.jpg It is obvious that US and General Dynamics' are hiding true facts, numbers and abrams weaknesses, especialy General Dynamics' denyes everything, because they can loose contract with military(well in papers, in real they can't loose contract, because U.S. military at least operates 8000 abrams tanks and who will repair damaged doomed abrams) Well, at first there is no evidence that when "Lesson Learned" appeared American knew that in close future at least two Abramses would be destroyed (not only disabled) by IEDs. They are using DU and playing unfair, but, still I suppose, cannot move in time. Mentioned before document was made after Second War in The Gulf, and before guerillas showed their new (new in Iraq, in Palestina rather comon) methods of dealing with hardware. Probably the best way to find all "fact travestations" of General Dynamics raport would be if you quote parts of "Lesson Learned" and show right places, with which you cannot agree. You showed some photos, good, but any comment (coz photos cannot speak for themselves, sorry, you must help :P)? AFAIR in "LL" there was info about disabled Abramses, GD did not said that there were no casualties in hardware. I wounder how could RPG-29 penetrate abrams armor, when it CAN penetrate T-90 front armor(anti tank missile system is turned off in T-90), RPG-29 straight flying rocket launcher used by single troop, most powerful in the world! RPG-29 probably would not have much problems with penetrating M1-M1A1 thick front armour, but probably would not deal with M1A1HA/HC/M1A2, which armour is better than in older vehicles. If you are talking about T90 front armour penetration you probably remind Russian trials from 20.10.1999. Information about "anti-missile system" turned off is unneccesary, because, if you mean Shtora, it is useless against RPGs, and if you mean Arena, it is expensive and very rare (anyone know how many Russian vehicles have it?). This were trials of 2 T80U (with ERA and without) and 2 T90 (with ERA and stripped). Shtora and Arena trials are different matter (btw see performance of Shtora against Kornet - and 9K135 is not the most modern ATGM today). Eat a sandwich  Here a good article about US Armour in Iraq, by Vasili Fofanov. As it`s Author said term "destroyed" from English translation in orginal Russian version is "take out of action" (vyviesti iz stroya, no Russian letters here, sorry for this not the best transliteration), which not neccessary mean destroyed.

Gedis, there are many no-DU rounds that can easy penetrate old T72Ms and few no-DU rounds, which can be dangerous for new T90s - and Western tanks. DU provides good penetration and more piro effects than tungsten, but new tungsten rounds can make a deeper hole than (in)famous "Silver Bullet". Talking about DU as a cheat is a little... well, nevermind. Just an absurd for me. Shooting plumbum into head of the guys, who cannot see the shooters, using tanks versus poor equipped with AT weapons infantry, using AT-helis against tank calumns without protection of AA systems is a cheat too? Sorry, but RL is not a game nor high-noon western.

AKM, I am trying to be as much careful as I can, sorry if missed something. RHS made a lot of good work (there were localised parts in T64 pack AFAIR) and probably would do more. I am interested in level of simulaton of ERA bricks... did you made 200-300 cells and is it work? Part of the problem is that Westerners (Myself included, until two, three years ago) always underestimate Russian armour and it's capabilities. It's generally because of the everpresent bias. That is why better way is trying to find some good East www sources (f.e. Vasili Fofanov page), hobbists (not hobbits) or people, who`s job is finding that data. Some early estimates about Russian tank of people like S. Zaloga may be wrong, but probably not because of researchers bias... But nevermind, without straight examples idea is hard to discuss. I saw underestimates on East "side", too. Gedis, AKM wrote about new ammo for T62 (not about new ammo for new guns for modernised T62s... btw, how many modernisations like T62M appeared last years? Did you saw "upgraded" T55? And "universal" turret with Rapira gun for T54-T55? How many of these plans turn into flesh and will become something more than a prototype?). You are wrong that all East tanks estimated are made with data of "monkey" versions. Not for all people T72A looks just like T72B and there are people who knows why Super Dolly Parton is better than Dolly Parton. Heavy ERA and APS like Arena are very nice invents - and American knows about it. Probably there would be now surprise. I found that there is T-62 with 125mm gun, it is called T-67 May I guess... rare prototype? (Iraqis had T55 - or rather type 69 tank - with 125 mm, too. Prototypes of "neverweres" does not count ) but even if it is so good, i can't defend against abrams du rounds, if T-90 some how could outstand it, so t-62 couldn't for sure... It depends. What DU ammo, which T90 (cast turret? welded turret? with K5? without? with Shtora placed on K5 or instead of?), what distance, what angle of hit, etc. Probably the newest rounds (M829A3) could make it at 2000 m, older rounds - not neccesary. See Russian rounds vs armour tests --> http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html ag_smith, you underestimate :P people See tank pages like http://www.knoe.odgw.net/military.htm see naval pages like http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm sometimes is more data that mind can catch The reasons that all those simulations are estimated are probably more simple - allways there would be some accidental changes. Science researches in OFP modelling is not my point. My point is that OFP needs good "base" - and standard BIS values are not the best - and upgrading the simulation is possible. And only way would be some mutual agreement in finding that "base". Estimated values could be found can support this idea. And what I said in post that started that OT - it seems like there is chance to make simulation better. And even if we cannot deal with all variables - and nobody can - effect could be good.

LOL. And I wish not :P Too many strange numbers... and it is still based on estimates  Do not get me wrong - I have not wet dreams after I see, let say, Penetrator Hardness in Brinnel scale and see examples of M829A2 penetration against pink Sherman cast hull  But I also do not see such difficulties AKMS were talking about. Tactical use of tank models (f.e. outflank manoeuvre after which a tank platoon can destroy a strenghtened tank company) is up to players and missionmakers. But I think there is a chance for modellers to give their models localised parts which would differ with armour protection and on one hand prevent that one "Ubertank" would kill all others within few seconds without a scratch, on the other allow single infantrymen to kill mobility or heavy dammage MBT. And it looks like OFP give a chance to do that, with mentioned before localised parts and some other (armorStructural) values. Well, really this is that RHS doing. T54/T55 seems nicely balanced both against superpowerfull BIS AT weapons and some little weaker new models. Idea that model made would be used by some players and confronted against another models - which needs some compability - is, fortunately - "Ubertank"-unfriendly. The question is how to make addon compatible, by which OFP values, and where to find a "base", good start. IMHO BIS values are here not the best. AKM`s post sounds pessimistic but work of RHS (that which was, fortunately, published) - not. And I hope there would be some chance to armorvalues agreement before few mods, that big part of OFP community is waiting for, appear. This is a way I see JAM and CAVS - not just flaming around about which tank or round is better and why Russian are bad and American great (or on the contrary) - but how to squeeze OFP and found it`s limits - and be as close to battlefield simulation as ever. Gedis, please, one small link to anything about this new wonderfull 115 mm round... In straight comparisons and data of f.e. 3UBK23-2 I see nothing special.

Indeed, there are many variables. But I do not think that saying that one tank have some chances to eliminate second, and no chances to kill third one, is not only likehoods. The thickest protection of front arc of the most of modern tanks is, just like almost full arc protection of Merkavas, a response of conditions on battlefields and situations that occured in the past. There are some "usual" engagements ranges for tanks, and there are some situations (urban combat with much chances for tank to be hit from side or above) that seems not usual. So when we compare two particular types of tanks, knowing estimated firepower (round type, FCS quality, stabilisation systems etc.) with level of protection (using imperfect, but good enough to give some idea RHA equivalent, knowing about some antifire systems, spall liners etc.) there is some chance to find the winner. Simulations like that, firstly based on estimates and equivalents, secondly on battleexperiences gave a small chance to do that. And it is not only likehood - there are people, f.e. armour constructors - for who it is not only a hobby. I agree that OFP is not tanks simulator. Probably there is no even army simulator that can represent ALL variables of battlefield. But with support of people who like their hobby and know some game mechanics there is a chance to make OFP as close to the more sophisticated simulators as it is possible. At least in armour protection and firepower aspects - to make front arc of modern MBTs immune to the most of rounds and projectiles (so Gedis` Reflex would be enough to kill M1 or M1A1, but not M1A1HA/HC or M1A2) and sides (without ERA) vulnerable even against Faustpatrone. There are still some variables in OFP armor configs and models, that could be use. ...which new T62 rounds you were talking about? AFAIR there are some new tandem rounds, but penetration of 750 mm RHA + ERA would not be enough for SEP from the front. Maybe top-attack? Any good info?

Would there be any standarisation? All in addonmakers` hands ;) Things you are talking about would need much more complex researches, both real tanks equipment and OFP config mechanisms. Hard task. But for the start, important things about tanks: day sights type and quality - "normal", telescopic sight (probably with range-finding scale) - sight and optical rangefinder (f.e M47, T72) - sight and laser rangefinder (f.e. M60A3, T72A), probably should differ because of generations (TPD-K1 today is really obsolete), type of laser ray etc. night sights and quality - no night sight (so in game crew with no NVG) - active night sight - passive night vision - image intensifiers (1, 2, 3 generations, do all crew members have one etc.) - TI sights (again, generations, quality, who from crew has and who has not etc.) Fire Control System - no FCS - FCS present; generations, quality, complexity etc. - day-only "hunter-killer" (f.e. Challenger 2) - day-night "hunter-killer" (f.e. M1A2 SEP, Leclerc) Camouflage values? Another not easy one. Anti-radar camo would be modified because of tanks shape (f.e. Challenger 2 turret was modeled to reduce radar image of tank), some paint with radiowaves absorbent (PT-91 Twardy ), small thermal signature (NOT Abrams ) and small size. So there would probably appear new list of factors, similar for those SPQR made for `AS`...

And more... http://www.knoe.odgw.net/military.htm Guy put into it a lot of work.

If something on betatest is wrong, blame the system, not me btw, where did you have found on fas.org or globalsecurity.org those values about effective area of OG-7?? Trying to find any comparations of APERS performances of 0,250 kg grenade, 0,5 kg "mortar" rifle grenade and anti-personel projectiles like 2 kg OG-7... it could be in sq meters and any proposal, how someone, who cannot count, would count it to have nice INDIRDMG range value  One more www source about RPG-7 http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl02-e.htm It seems that guns.ru now support not only guns

Lol, I feel guilty now Few things: - there is important voice, that splitting DIR/INDIR DMGs is not neccesarry - so you can make some (DIR DMG) values more simple, without counting. To find INDIR DMG counting is still needed, sorry. So DIR DMG = 100% penetration (in case of AT-only) INDIR DMG = let it be those 5% (of real penetration) - probably life of soldiers with Russian AT-weapons would not be so pink. Even with the newest, powerful RPG round it might be remembered that: - RPGs are not the most accurate weapon - 4,5 kg projectiles is heavy one, so AT soldier would have only 2-3 (so maybe those rounds would occupy 2 slots) -AFAIR first PG-7 could penetrate ~260 mm RHAe, modernised one could do about 300 (and I do not remember if it has another designation, f.e. PG-7M or something; maybe PG-7V is one more modernisation of standard PG-7 round; it is more than possible that so called Third World still uses standard PG-7 round, pen. 260 mm and some limited APERS effect). - West side have Abramses :P RPG hit in 3rd generation tank could not eliminate it with high crew casualties, Russian tanks, which construction is based on 2+ generation vehicles family are much more vulnerable... - but to simulate it it is task for CAVS.

Gedis i realy don't think that even sep abrams(without depleted uranium rouns) could outstand t-90... DU rounds are like cheats... i hate them, not because it's death for T tanks, because they are toxic for enviroment. Russians also has DU rounds on their tanks, but they never used them in war like americans, just because they are humans! Yes, sep's armor fascinates me, but also, it's depleted uranium... leapard-2, leclerk, chalender-2, they are good tanks and good armor, T-90 could wipe these tanks out, but when it comes to abrams, i hate it!!! besides, germans were testing t-72 armor with 105mm best gun they had, yeah and it proved that t-72 armor can stand against 105mm for 95% Â and it was T-72m (export version!!!), what to say about T-72 not export version, or even T-90... ah... i know who will burn out sep to hell, it's black eagle! yeah... :P finaly, no more abrams as the undefeatable power... to canadian terror, but they haven't done it, while americans from desert storm till now, operation iraq freedom, uses DU rounds Well, I suppose that if Russian have any targets for their DU rounds, they would probably use it. But shooting to guerilla infantry with APFSDS seems not to be right way of using those AT ammo. You can try to see other reasons (ecology, human rights etc.), but do not ignore that obvious one. T90 with ammo from `80s could wipe all modern tank (probably PzKpfw V Panther would have a chance too), but not from front. There is some probability that round will find weak spot in heavy tank armour, but even then chance that Abrams will blow to pieces with all crew dead is not as high as that in T90 penetrated by M829A3... T72M could withstand much, but not the newest one 105 mm ammo could penetrate more than 500 mm RHAe at 2000... and today, when new light 105 mm guns are developed very soon will appear much more better ammo. T72M is a history, sorry. Black Eagle... you mean those new Russian tank, which will not be produced? Â well, but fact is fact, that DU is toxic... i'm not talking about nuclear arsenal which is huge on both sides and not talking about it's testings... just depleted uranium rounds... you guys, think it's modern weapon, i think it's unhealthy weapon used in war... don't know how to say... no other nato or not nato countryes don't use this kind of rounds in war and i support them... about chernobyl, i don't think you don't know what means comunism... lets get back to thread... i just waiting your tank packs, to destroy with them as much as possible abrams tanks... i hate cheats, so let them all be destroyed Usually weapons is unhealthy... DU is toxic, MIGHT BE dangerous because of some small quanities of non-depleted Uranium, but RPG jet or pieces of APFSDS that penetrated armour and armour splinters ARE lethal. Bad influence of DU is still a matter of researches. But if someone saying about DU as a reason of so called Balkan syndrome or health problems of soldiers after DS, must remember that at modern battlefield there are many other unhealthy factors - f.e. radiowaves. Â British also use DU rounds, AFAIR French too. but i will agree with you all (this time) that T tanks are the worst world tanks ever build, they have very bad handling, armor, targeting systems and weaponary... now you are satisfied? ?? Well, in late `60s T72 and T64 were probably the most powerfull tanks in the world. But we have 2005 today... A propos Challenger 2, I am still waiting for uparmoured Chally 2 with teddybear on TC`s sight Â

AKM Actually, the only Russian tanks that have a chance in Hell of smoking an M1, M1A1, or M1A2 SEP from the front, are the T-80 series. A T-80BV could probably take an M1, but a M1A1 needs a T-80U to take it down, under the best conditions possible, and the M1A2 works of the ratio of Two (2) T-80UM1 tanks to one (1) M1A2 SEP. So 2:1. Fortunately, the Russians have these kinds of numbers.  In game? Or in RW? M1 today is really obsolete and could be KOed by frontal hit from all Soviet tanks firing new APFSDS ammo from mid `80s. But frontal armour of M1s is still immune to PG7 and other not very sophisticated HEAT missiles. If any Te-es is firing BM42, it could be dangerous for M1A1s (frontal hit still). Mid and late `80s Soviet round have penformances enough to make problems for Abramses. But not all Soviet tanks were equipped with new ammo, 2nd line units probably still had not better ammo than Iraqis in `91. When new DU inserts in M1A1HA, M1A1HC and M1A2 appeared probably even the newest Russian tanks firing obsolete ammo have not much chance against better armoured US tanks. I did not heard any new ammunition like BM42M (which reached probably the limits of T72-T80-T90 weapon and still could be not enough to kill SEP) was in line yet. So ratio 2-1 for T80UM1 vs M1A2 SEP might be too optimistic. OTOH even with K-5 ERA T80s and T90s could be KOed by long succesors of "Silver Bullets". So all depends which ammo RHS tanks would be equipped with. Other conditions, quality of FCS and crew are another thing, not easy to simulate. M1A2 SEP electronics is better than the newest T90s (with Agava-2; still no chances to "hunter-killer"), M1A1`s could be compared with those from T80Us. RHS, will make their armor standards (and way it is simulate in config?) compared to M1A2 SEP? (btw, did you noticed some small discussion about proposed common armour standards, which probably could better simulate OFP armour thanks to game mechanics researches?) Sigmas tanks are getting older and older, OFP community waits for new high quality Russian tank addons Gedis it shows that abrams is not so strong... but realy sad pictures... It shows only that there is nothing couldn`t been spoiled  Pages you linked are interesting, but it look similar to some strange news about 80 Abramses destroyed in Iraq since 2003... Counting of totally destroyed tanks from M1 family is much more harder than f.e. T72s or T80s. I read that 63 of those 80 "destroyed" Abramses were back in line after refits. T72 in which exploded ammo is only a wreck. Much per cent of all more than 1000 Abramses in Iraq where dammaged. But the most important is that in the most cases their crews survived and vehicle were able to return for duty soon. Even with the newest anti-fire and anti-explosion systems in Russian tanks be a member of crew in the moment of hit is much more hazardous. Abramses dammaged by PG-7s sometimes were finally destroyed, but by own crews or airforces. Just find a photo of tank named Cojone Eh, which were dammaged by RPG, then set on fire by US troops, hit by another Abrams (with ammo explosion) and eventually hit twice by Mavericks missiles - and looks still like a tank. I see no chances that even the newest T90 could survive something like that without loosing it`s shape...

Indeed, odd   Any idea why less lethal "on paper" (lower DIRDMG values, almost none INDIRDMG) round is more lethal? I see some plan in those `AS` values, could you tell about it? It looks like you made some system with those data (f.e. anti-spall liners, hydraulics, anti-explosion systems and of course armour type) with some "touchable" values. Please, give some explanation how `AS`=9.4 or 4.7 appeared. Ok, no splitting  So, in case of AT-only weapons the most of it`s power have to be simulate by DIRDMG. INDIRDMG probably would have low effect (=~10-20, enough to kill a man and damage light vehicle) and low range (still I see need for connect it with projectile mass). In case of AT-MP DIRDMG value still remains real penetration. INDIRDMG should be higher than in AT-only, proportionally for round mass, but with no overkill (f.e. indirecthit=200 in case of 2kg OG-7; it is better for Maverick) and increased range as compared to AT-only. There would be problem with HE/HESH/thermobaric warheads. Probably there would be need to know round mass and diameter. I wish I could see TB warheads exploding just like MPAT of new M1A2 SEP, but with slightly decreased size of explosion pattern  cornhelium`s question gives CAVS chance to reanimate, please think what can CAVS give to incomming new version of popular weapon standard  P.S. SPQR, one more thing. How about velocity and mass of projectiles you were testing? alderous were making some trials with some kind of gravity gun, shooting projectiles with all dammage values set to 0. Even then those "gravity" bullets were killing soldiers (and making them fly too). So in OFP kinetic energy does matter. And so, maybe this is the reason why high velocity rounds are more lethal than slower projectiles with higher hit values. And chance to simulate accurate rounds performances without increasing those values. Kooky, thanks for explanation

Are. MPAT-T is another name for HEAT-MP-T M830A1 round. There was few word on topic about previous version of INQ_M1A2, but here`s link about that ammo: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m830a1.htm Buckshot effect of APAM firing probably would be better than present. And once again, MPAT hit looks great but a little exaggerated... it is not thermobaric warhead

Change gunner Try to increase "skill" of AI. I got no problems with AI using STAFF, range ~700-2000 meters. More, in previous version of M1A2 SEP it was not easy for human gunner to find good level of gun before firing a STAFF, now it is not so hard task - STAFF looks smarter. I did not tried it much - so no other word about balance against other tanks - but when moved from TC seat into loader saw strange thing. First, in internal view, gunner moved from his seat and stand on it, very close to TC. In external view - loader hatch was open with gunner watching around. When I moved back from loader into TC position gunner change his position very fast and again was sitting on his seat. Nice work, I wish I have more time to play with it. Tracers works perfectly. APAM - not. Still not very accurate and PC-unfriendly. MPAT hit effect is worth of seeing, especially at night. STAFF... well, for me - still too much smoke there - but it is nice to see that there is direct path from place of explosion of projectile to target (I wish to see explosion effect that would be something between STAFF and CBT TOW2B).

CAVS program is still only discussion and ideas. But (and so )few ideas: RPG (PG7VR Anti-Armour): 750 seem to be near real penetration values of this heavy AT projectile. Similar Polish round, also with tandem warhead, weights 3 kg and could do 500 mm RHAe protected by ERA. There is hard to tell if any www sources gives PG7VR penetration value + those anti-ERA capability in one number, or there is need to add something to those 750 mm RHAe. Let say we leave those value, without adding anything. SPQR proposed to split exact penetration numbers for DIRDMG and INDIRDMG. In case of AT-only warheads splinters and blast effect is not as big as in case of multipurpose warheads. So maybe 90% + 10%? Hit=675; indirectHit=75; it have to be enough to kill a soldier and stop a car - 75 is even overkill indirectHitRange=~7; heavy, 4,5 kg round, cal. 105 mm. INDIRDMG RNG value just from head, if someone finds any formula, it would be very helpful. With 90% direct and 10% indirect hit values those second would be still overkill against "soft" targets. So maybe 95%/5%? INDIRDMG=40 with range of 150% of mass still can masacre infantry. If so, DIRDMG=715 INDIRDMG=40 and INDIRDMG RNG=7 RPG (OG-7 "Anti-Personnel" version): Similar Polish round probably could penetrate about ~20 cm of concrete wall or ~30 cm brick wall (which is equivalent of less than 1.5 cm armour plate or 3 cm normal steel) and then explode, so OG-7 probably also can do it. Mass - ~2kg? There is a problem how to find DIRDMG value. Direct hit of OG-7 probably would have to eliminate a jeep (AFAIR BIS jeep HP=20), so there must be some high enough value. hit=<20??; one more thing - probably mass and velocity have some influance on damages are taken by target indirectHit=20??; enough to kill a man or dammage vehicle indirectHitRange=10??; light round, but it`s task is to kill infantry, so range must be enough to sweep a squad. OTOH INDIRDMG range=20 seems to much for as light projectile. So maybe INDIRDMG RNG=500% of mass in case of antipersonnel warheads? Probably those formula would work as long as round would be light... M136 ("Anti-Tank" version): Real penetration value is about 450 mm RHAe: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/AT4.html hit=405; 90% of real penetration or hit=425 95% of real penetration indirectHit=45; 10% of real penetrationor indirecthit=25 5% of real penetration - enough to make infantry feel bad indirectHitRange=~3;circa 2kg of AT-warhead, range must be lower than in case of APERS round like OG-7. But those range=3 seems very, very low, =5 would work better - but no formula and counting in it M72 ("Anti-Tank" version): hit=270 (or =285); indirectHit=30 (or =15); indirectHitRange=...; again problem with good value. LAW is not APERS weapon, but range=2 seem to low. Any idea how to make LAW and AT136 little more lethal against soft targets without changing heavier rounds into A-bombs? I do not really get those JAM ALL, AA or AT types of ammo. Is it just a trick to force AI to shoot at human or air targets with their RPGs?

No matter how much you tried to blow them up or just to fry one couple always survives Any hot news from SEP`s battlefield?

FCS-T and FCS-W? Looks nice. When I post here link to article about TUSK I did not want SEP program delay. Just one more version in incoming addons. Nice, that SEPmakers thinks about TUSK after the next SEP addon version would be published

King Homer, maybe one more version? http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6985

Only one thing now... HEAT and light AFV : OFP’s Attacks and Armor use the Hit Point system, which is far from what can happen in reality. Giving a light AFV the capacity to survive to a RPG hit means it’s Armor could reach the level of the less-protected MBT’s Armor I think there should be no danger here If we take "real" pen. values for PG-7like rounds and weight*10 for vehicle HPs, there is a chance to some realistic simulaton without raping rules. Against PG-7 (pen. 260) HP>230-250 would be enough to help vehicle to survive (heavy dammaged and probably with crew casualties).

Once again. CE DIRDMG : PEN INDIRDMG : Calibre / 10 INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 50 CE-MP DIRDMG : PEN INDIRDMG : Calibre / 6 INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 25 HE DIRDMG : Calibre / 2.5 INDIRDMG : Calibre / 5 INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 10 I tried those formula (for various Polish ammo) and found that it needs some upgrades. Example I: new polish rocket grenade for RPG-7W, PG-7MT - pen.: 500 + ERA, weight: 3 kg, diameter: 95 mm, muzzle velocity: 100 m/s, range: 300 m Counting with formula above: DIRDMG : 700 INDIRDMG : 9.5 INDIRDMG RNG : 2 DIRMDG = 700 because I add 200 mm RHAe for tandem warhead. Probably those kind of addition wold be 150-250 mm RHAe. Results: I found last - INDIRDMG RNG value too low. Example II: new polish rocket grenade for RPG-7W, OG-7ME - pen.: unknown, weight: 1.9 kg, diameter: 40 mm, muzzle velocity: 120 m/s, range: 1100 m Counting with formula above: DIRDMG : 16 INDIRDMG : 8 INDIRDMG RNG : 4 Results: I found last value - INDIRDMG RNG too low. Example III: new polish rocket grenade for RPG-7W, PG-7OD - pen.: unknown, weight: 2.65 kg, diameter: 70 mm, muzzle velocity: 85 m/s, range: 1100 m Counting with formula above: DIRDMG : 28 INDIRDMG : 14 INDIRDMG RNG : 7 Results: I found last value - INDIRDMG RNG too low.  So I think way of counting dammage range should be changed. I have not exact propositions (new formula looking like SPQR`s), but for OG-7ME probably better wold be INDIRDMG RNG value ~10-15 and ~15-20 for heavier PG-7OD. Rounds like PG-7OD have some penetration abillities. Mentioned grenade could pierce 200-300 mm concrete wall, which is about 3-5 mm of good armour plate. Changing those values to RHAe leads probably to nowhere... But I think it is good idea to make this kind of APERS and anti-buliding rounds strong enough to destroy light vehicle (unarmoured jeep) with instant kill of crew and to severly dammage heavier truck (so if there would be no another way probably the only choice would be increasing DIRDMG values even in non-AT projectiles). Using only caliber for INDIRDMG and INDIRDMG RNG values needs some change. For example lets say we have three different projectiles, all with diameter: 40 mm - OG-7ME RPG-7W rocket grenade, GNPO (rifle grenade, MP - low pen. ~80 mm RHAe plus splinters) and 40 mm ammo for Pallad family granade lunchers. First round weights 1.9 kg, second about 0.6 kg, third circa 0.2 kg. So we can expect that instead of same calibre power of explosion of those three different projectiles would be... different. And more, HE effect of striking Maverick would be bigger than TOW or Hellfire, even if diameters are similar. Of course projectile weight is not same value that warhead weight. But probably those first value is easier to be found and used by configmakers. And now there is a question... what now Projectile values are not same thing as armour values, but both systems should be developed together if any idea of CAVS would survive. So I hope those questions and ideas above are not last margin of that what CAVS-thinking people should do. I think there is need for another formula, using mass/calibre values for counting OFP values. SPQRs ideas about armorstructural (`AS`) values have... value. As HP and part_of_tank_armor values can simulate tanks armour thickness `AS` could help to simulate vehicle survivability without some complicated scripts. Do `AS` works in all vehicles classes? I tried to set this value to prevent Polish APC Rosomak (Wolverine, Polish version of Finnish 8 x 8 Patria AMV; soon in Operation Carrot) to be destroyed after one PG-7 (or  multipurpose PG-7KO, both with pen.: ~260 mm RHAe) hit. Rosomak is not as heavy as AMV (22 tons compared to 26 tons) and it`s armour can withstand only 14.5 mm rounds from front. But, as I suppose, new antifire systems (Deugra, automatic, maybe Halon - I am not 100% sure) in this one of the newest worlds APCs can make it possible to survive one old PG-7. I found that `AS`=2 or 4 give no help, and the only way to make that task is by increasing HP from 220 (SPQR`s  22tons * 10) to about 250. OTOH I did not want to increase `AS` value in somekind "cosmic" way (as I believe LoBo did ) and choosed `AS`=4 as the highest value for APC. So, did I miss something and made mistake when making a config with `AS` value or in wheeled vehicles class it just do not work? One more thing anout LoBo work in CAVS-thinking category - I think that some of `AS` values are too high. I know that playability was the most important there and it is all for long and dramatic tank battles. But even if I shall agree that Merkava family tanks gives crews level of protection higher than another tanks, `AS`=16 and armorTurretTop=1.5 (with HP=1300) seems... strange. There is no way to make tank equal protection from all sides (without some complicated APS or very new technologies of NERA or electromagnetic armour). So sides of new Merkavas probably could protect from RPG rounds and even some ATGMs (more advanced than Malutkas, lets say more than 600-800 mm RHAe, which is probably much more better result than in Abrams or Challenger 2)... but not better rounds. One more thing - roof. As you can see on Merkava 3 photo new Israeli tanks have some additional plates http://www.eurofoto.no/show_im....&dy=435 http://www.eurofoto.no/show_im....&dy=483 about 4-6 cm thick, layed on 4-5 cm roof http://www.eurofoto.no/show_im....&dy=483 And it is rather not possible that it could stop any top attack ATGM or even RPG hit (with 90o angle), but probably is enough to deal with RPG hit at lower angle. So mentioned before topturret armour value look "cosmic". I have great respect for LoBo team work and I think that their idea of increasing tanks values is good, but values are too high. In CAVS there is need to find way of computing `AS` values...

I hope that these are my last words about this: It is different pic like this pic published at http://www.ofp.bmj.pl/ 21.2.2005. As you could read on bmj.pl site and forum there was some mistake and pic for LWP member-eyes-only (showing differences of interior stuff of both models, LWP and CSLA) was published instead of "official" SKOT interior pic, published here by Offtime. And because of those mistake the problem appeared. Maa just believed his own eyes (seeing "bad" pic), not LWP statement... maybe more trust to another people next time? So there should be no doubts that so called community will have opportunity to see two different models of the same vehicle, both builded from scratch, and have a chance to compare which looks better and which is more accurate. Even if there would be no cooperation.

Really nice. SPQR, how about Leclercs values? Got any clue or CAVS`s dead?

Great vehicle and great model!

Agent556, just practise. See how AI gunner level the gun when firing STAFF and do the same. With APAM I agree, I personally had problems with hitting anyone. Probably normal BIS blast would be more lethal and CPU-friendly (but OTOH not so nice looking as APAM now). Maybe high `indirecthit range` and low `indirecthit` values to simulate APERS splinters with low anti-buliding effect? King Homer, did you see TOW-2B (and, unfortunalety unrealistic TOW-2A :/) explosion from CBT Humvees? It looks really good (except there is no smoke - STAFF better here), I like the way there is seen EFP projectile (from point of explosion to target; your STAFF explodes before target and EFP "laser line" is vertical, do not exactly hit target).