Jump to content

Damian90

Member
  • Content Count

    964
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

623 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

    That would be difficult because Ludowe Wojsko Polskie used a lot of different equipment than CSLA, altough some equipment was common between LWP and CSLA.
  2. Damian90

    Arma 3 Aegis (Beta)

    Ah, that's a pity, would be nice to expand these factions a little bit. 😞
  3. Damian90

    Arma 3 Aegis (Beta)

    @AveryTheKitty A question. Do you plan to add a tank for British Forces faction? Either a Slammer (in Armaverse it's considered to be NATO standard in 2030's) including it's specialized variants like Scorcher and Sandstorm. Or Kuma perhaps? Altough IMHO BAF in Armaverse 2030's could use same MBT's as US. So Slammer, Scorcher, Sandstorm and even Panther, Bobcat and Cheetah. And supplement these with either Marshal or Gorgon. Also will you expand USMC faction with vehicles? BTW Keep up a great job at expanding vanilla factions, it makes game certainly more interesting. 🙂
  4. Damian90

    BWMod

    BWMod team. It seems that Heer just received their first Leopard 2A7V. Are there any plans for future to add it to the mod? Considering that BWMod sets itself in 2020's-2030's, Leopard 2A7V would fit better in it's timeline than Leopard 2A6M.
  5. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    It's odd, I just tested it yesterday, and FCS lead was working as intended, I could even hit a very fast moving targets.
  6. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Yes, M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in RHS have FCS. You find moving target. Track it, press TAB or T or whatever key you use for laser range finder. Then you still track target a bit to get a good lead, and then you shoot. RHS uses more realistic way to simulate modern FCS. When you lase the target and FCS induces lead, you can notice that turret moves independently to the sight.
  7. Damian90

    CSLA Studio - A3 WIP

    Ah I see, so CSLA naming convention was very similiar, if not the same to the LWP naming convention for these tanks. Thanks! Damn can't wait for the mod to be released! Cheers!
  8. 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. 😉
  9. @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.
  10. @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.
  11. 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!
  12. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

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

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Hmmm, did you tested only with RHS and RHS weapons, and only the newest version?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×