-CCCP-HAZARD

Nice job, so the "Our arms" mod isn't dead after all....

Nice job, so the "Our arms" mod isn't dead after all....

Notepad is still the best, Ofp cool studio and other util realy sucked maybe this will be better.

Excelent addon! Â It makes ofp kind of a strategy game rather then a purely tactical sim. With this script the AWACS becomes a little bit more then just an addon. Maybe it would be possible to make the MiG-31 witch are used in groups of 4 and have simiar effect(except they actualy intercept air targets) or maybe the A-50 which is the exact counterpart(detcts air targets slightly worse then the E-3 but detects ground and low flying targets better ).

http://club.guns.ru/images/video/studysvd.mpg A short movie. I'll find a pic later.

Silenced SVD's exist. Dunno where they in1985 but recently a silenecer was introduced that actualy gave the rifle improved accuracy which is uncommon for silencers. Earlier silencer models also were mentioned but i have no idea were they ever fielded or not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if they had found an auto loader to be better they would have installed one<span id='postcolor'> But russian, japanese and french tanks use auoto loaders and had they found manual loding better they would stick to that Also the brits are a very conservative nation when it comes to tank building, and they keep to their doctrine --- sacrificing mobility (Challenger2 has ~19 hp/ton) and some firepower (Rifled guns are more accurate but have lesser muzzle velocity, nowadays everyone uses smooth bore guns but brits stick to rifled guns) for heavy armor. The Challenger 2 FCS is identical to that of Leclerc and with the challengers accurate gun should give it very high overall accuracy

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the challenger 2 was designed in the early 90's same with most upgrades of tanks around now, and i really doubt a T-90 can take 5 shots from a APFDS and still fire unless the shot wasnt aimed at the main body, if a T72 can be taken out with one shot and the T-90 is derived from the T-72BM with some extras from the T-80 i would be really surpised if the T-90 can take more than 2 or 3 shots from a modern 120mm gun <span id='postcolor'> The Challenger 2 is still derived from Challenger one which was designed during the cold war. I don't think that the concept changed. About the T-90, ofcourse the shots were aimed for the frontal arc, the goal of that test was to evaluate the T-90's armor efficency. Do not confuse T-72BM1 and T-72BM, it's like confusing M1A2 and M1, the export model T-72BM1 does not have intergrated ERA and is a lot more vulnerable, T-72BM however is equiped with 2nd generation ERA that helps stop kinetic energy penetrators as well as HEAT munitions. Tests were conducted on T-72BM (Jane's IDR 7/1997) the T-72BM proved resistant to M829A1 sabots. The T-90's armor is different, the top of the turret is covered by by integrated ERA(it's stated that A-10's gun can only harm the T-90 by accident) and the layered armor uses new type of ceramics, the estimated armour values are 830 vs KE and 1400+ vs HEAT(for example M1A2 has 750 vs KE and 1360 vs HEAT). T-80U is a different story its KE resistance is about the same but HEAT resistance is different due to elder ceramics(but there is only one anti tank rocket that has improved anti ceramic performance so it's not much of an issue).

You have to try really hard to jam an auto loader, during armor test T-90 was hit by 5 apfds rounds at 1500m distance, after that the the crew was able to execute the firing sequnce the AL didn't jam and all systems were online. Modern engagements would probably last minutes, but Abramses, T-80's, T-72's, Leopards, Challengers etc were designed during the Cold War. The reason why they have manual loading is offtopic here...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I always thought it was 8 secs? Anyway, I read somewhere (on these boards! that it has been proven that a manual loader can eject an old and load a new shell unmder combat conditions in about 6 seconds. So I think the T80 and the Abrams are quite matched if you consider reloading speeds. But I have nothing to back this up ofcourse, just my memory. <span id='postcolor'> It's six seconds using the "sequnce" mode. See here. It doesn't take much skill to use this mode, all tank crews can use it. A human loader cannot sustain such r.o.f. for more than 3-4 shots.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">actually some manual loaders can load about twice as fast as an auto loader, take the T-72/T80 and abrams for example, the auto loader takes about 8 seconds while the manual loader can load in 3-4 seconds <span id='postcolor'> No they can't, IRL there is a lot factors such as fatigue, human loaders will become tired after loading 4-5 shells at the rate you described, tanks traveling over rough ground, if the tank is shaking the loader would be able to load them as fast. And the most important thing is that on the abrams for example there are 8 shells in the combat compartment and the rest are in the turet bustle which is basicaly behind the loader and about shoulder level, taking shellls from there and loading the at r.o.f. you say is beyond human efort. The reason auto loaders were introduced because they are faster then manual loading. The fulll loading cycle on the T-80 takes 6 seconds.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting.  I didn't realize that they took out a big chunk of the rear.  Is that the engine compartment there in the middle of the rear section?  ........  Do you know where the passengers sit in the rear or do they mostly just ride on the roof of the vehicle like in Chechnya (I assume out of fear of land mines)? <span id='postcolor'> The engine is in the rear and the troops sit in the middle. And no,  its not fear of land mines, it's RPG fear actually, you can have better awarenes if you ride on top of the vehicle and maybe spot that bastard  with that RPG-7 before he can fire...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The back section should have roof-top hatches, unless the hatches are removed and it's an open top, but I've never seen a BMD like that as that gives it's troops less protection against artillery and NBC attacks.<span id='postcolor'> BMD's are like that. The nature of operations carried out by paratroops(VDV Vozdushno Desantnie Vojeska) makes artillery and NBC hazards unlikely Take a look at the schematics here(BMD-2) and this pic(BMD-3)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These are here to give you guys an idea on how strong each vehicle is. Now you'll look at how many hits a M1A1 can take and set your armor value for your tank proportionally. Did anyone get that? BMP-1 = armor=200; M1A1 = armor=900; M113 = armor=150; T72 = armor=400; <span id='postcolor'> Definate figures are M60A3 250/600(with ERA)250(without ERA) M1P1 360/550 M1A1 480/710 M1A1HA 590/1020 M1A2 750/1360 Leopard1A4 140/300(vulnerable to 30mm gunfire(!!!) Leopard2A4 700/850 T-72BM1 520/950 (export version, the one used by Iraq forces) T-72BM 710/1030 T-80U 780+/-20/~1400 T-90S rated from 710 to 830 KE and 1100 to 1450mm Since modern armors are far more resistant to HEAT munitions(there is just one exception) then they are to KE penetrators it would be a good idea to work out a formula to handle the damage done by HEAT munitions in game. IMHO it should be something like <ammount of damage>/1.7 But also since IRL the armor on the sides is a lot weaker then up front but it's not the case in OFP the damage should slightly increased. Rate of fire should also be decided upon, autoloaders are faster then manual loading their r.o.f. should be 8 for T-90 T-72, 9 for T-80, 10 for Lecklerc, 12 for Strv. 103(if anyone is planing on making one) 105mm manual loading tanks should have 7-8 rpm, 120mm manual loading tanks should have 6-7: Leopard should have 7 (its combat compartment houses 15 shells) Abrams should have 6 cuz his combat compartment houses only 8 shells, Challenger2 should probably have even less cuz his gun bored and there fore you have to combine the sabot's fin with the bores in the barrel.