Jump to content

Damian90

Member
  • Content Count

    957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

616 Excellent

4 Followers

About Damian90

  • Rank
    First Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Poland
  • Interests
    Military Technology, Armored Fighting Vehicles, Small Arms.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Damian90

    CSLA Studio - A3 WIP

    May I suggest something to the awesome CSLA mod? 😉 The T-72 should be renamed T-72M, besides not having side skirts, it should not have smoke granades dischargers at the turret front, and turret should be slightly different than on T-72M1 due to thinner armor. T-72M. T-72M1. You can also notice than T-72M1 have a slightly thicker glacis plate, because it have additional 16mm steel plate welded on top of original armor. Cheers. 😉
  2. @hcpookie I think there is a problem with QN-506, it seems to be indestructible, like projectiles just pass through it. In reality this vehicle have super thin armor.
  3. @hcpookie One thing about designations. The basic variant is simply ZTZ-99, the improved one is ZTZ-99A. ZTZ-99A2 is incorrect designation. PS. Your ZTZ-96 is in fact ZTZ-96A.
  4. One thing. ZTZ-99A have driver station moved to the left of the hull compared to ZTZ-99. This is ZTZ-99. And ZTZ-99A with driver station moved to the side, also number of vision blocks was increased from one to two. Cheers!
  5. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Check it now, dev version was upgraded and problem should be solved, hopefully.
  6. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Hmmm, did you tested only with RHS and RHS weapons, and only the newest version?
  7. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    If you hit Bradley to the side, the armor will be pierced, however keep in mind there is a lot of empty space inside, thus even if armor is pierced, vehicle take only cosmetic damage. This is one of niuances of realistic armor/projectile interaction.
  8. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Ah but the story is far more complex. T-72 was actually more expensive than T-64. I do not have data table at the hand now, but T-64 and T-64A was cheaper than T-72 and T-72A. And T-72 was kinda created illegaly against orders from the Soviet goverment and MoD. Original order was for UVZ to develop T-64A variant with V-45 diesel engine instead of 5TDF that was problematic at that time. However UVZ engineers decided to act against orders and modify the tank using their components developed for their previous failed designs like Object 167. It is very long and complex story. T-64B and T-80B only shared the same fire control system, autoloader and 9K112 Kobra ATGM system. However armor type was different, T-64B used it's own variation of Combination K armor, T-80B and T-72A used their own, simpler armor design, but all these armor offered roughly similiar protection, simply Combination K was more efficent and thus T-64B turret armor was slightly thinner in terms of physical thickness, while providing the same protection as slightly thicker T-80B and T-72A. As for armor upgrades, yes there were armor upgrades but for the hull front only. T-64BV's and T-80BV's that were earlier basic B's, received 30mm HHS plate on the glacis plate. New build BV's of both tanks, had revised front hull armor design. New build T-80BV used same hull armor as T-80U/UD. 😉 Was Soviet Union better? Not really, they had more money than Russian Federation. Current situation of RU R&D is simply result of lack of money. They simply can't replace their entire tank fleet with T-14's. They can't manufacture as many T-90M's as they wish. Contrary to US that just recently started production of new M1A2SEPv3's with production rate of a full ABCT (Armored Brigade Combat Team) per year, so a full US Army ABCT will be each year rearmed with new tanks. Imagine that.
  9. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Ok I will play here a bit of history teacher. 😉 Soviet Union arms industry was far from efficent. Let's take tanks as example. So you have a T-64, from T-64 evolved T-64A and from T-64A you got T-72 and T-80. So in late 1960's and early 1970's you have Soviet tank factories, manufacturing 3 different Main Battle Tanks, all 3 of them having similiar combat capabilities, but 3 completely different logistics chains! This is far from efficent, this is complete insanity from logistics and efficency point of view. And the funniest thing is that these tanks had practicaly same protection levels, yes, T-80 was not better armored than T-72 or T-64A. In fact while T-80 turret was kinda based on T-64A turret, T-80 turret used T-72 composite armor, and T-64A used completely different composite armor. So standarization was minimal if any! And situation did not improved over time as all these 3 designs were evolving. So from T-64A evolved T-64B, a first Soviet MBT with modern fire control system and GLATGM capability, then you have T-80B with same FCS, and T-72A which did not had FCS at all. But T-80B still used T-72A armor, while T-64B had again completely different armor. Same goes with engines, T-64 series used two stroke, opposed piston diesel 5TD/5TDF, T-72 used older generation V type diesel V-46 and it's modifications, while T-80's used GTD-1000 gas turbines. All these tanks had different autoloaders, different suspension system. Some attempt for standarization was made in the 1980's as Kharkiv and Leningrad tank factories wanted to build two variants of the same tank, it was decided to use T-80B as the basis, and so T-80U and T-80UD were created, it's literally the same tank, just with different engines and some other minor differences, like different commander cupola. Of course this was again a failure, because Nizhny Tagil get in to the whole deal with their upgraded T-72, the T-72B. So as you can see this Soviet arms industry was far from efficent. Efficent were NATO member states arms industries, for example when US started making M1 Abrams series, they stopped manufacturing previous M60 series. When FRG started making Leopard 2's, they stopped making Leopard 1's, and so on.
  10. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    T-80UE-1 is a hybrid of T-80UD turret and upgraded T-80BV hull to the T-80U standard. T-90AM is unofficial designation for the initial variant of T-90M. T-90SM is export variant. Is it frustrating? Depends, besides being part of RHS, one of my real life jobs is being military journalist. I literally spend most of my free time, reading about this stuff and doing research. I could write more, about these subjects, but I think it's not the place for this.
  11. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Please, keep in mind we still do not have a proper blow off panels and isolated ammo storage simulation implemented.
  12. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    T-90AM/SM/M still have autoloader under turret in crew compartment. Also some ammunition is still stored inside crew compartment and outside autoloader. These tanks do not have turret bustle but simply armored box for spare ammo bolted to turret rear. T-14 is different. As for your question, hopefully one day for all vehicles.
  13. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Its work in progress, be patient.
  14. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Drongo DAPS should not affect behavior of our vehicles, besides adding APS. However try without any other mods and search which one might affect it. Other than that try to install mods completely new and fresh.
  15. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    M1A1 and M1A2 can be destroyed. Simply do not try to hit front armor, it's very strong. RHS also simulates to some degree such things as isolated ammunition storage and fuel in M1 series. This means that you can hit crew, even disable vehicle by destroying turret and main gun servo's, tracks, engine etc. but vehicle itself won't explode. In real world most often vehicles do not explode but either just stay disabled or slowly burn. T tanks are different because they have exposed ammunition storage in crew compartment, this means they will explode much easier. In RHS to cause vehicle to explode you need to hit it's hitpoints responsible for that, in case of T tanks they are more or less in hull under the turret, where in real vehicle autoloader is placed. In case of M1's, it would be in turret bustle, but it might not have such hitpoints to simulate to a degree a fact that M1's have isolated ammunition compartments with blow off panels, that prevents complete vehicle destruction. PS. I just made some tests with latest version of RHS. Kornet and Metis-M can destroy M1A1 and M1A2 with ease with side shots. PS2. And just to explain. RHS simulates US Army and USMC weapons and vehicles. In case of M1A1 and M1A2 series of MBT's, this means the variants we have use at least 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package, which offers at the vehicle front, significantly superior armor protection than for example Export Armor Package used in the M1A1 and M1A2 tanks used by the Arab states. So results should be different from what you see on YT videos for example with relatively poor performance of these armies tanks. I hope this makes everything clear?
×