Jump to content

Damian90

Member
  • Content Count

    1000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

682 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

    ArmedForces:UK Vehicles

    Finally! A proper Challenger 2 model for Arma3!
  2. Damian90

    [WIP] French Army Mod : ArmaModFrance

    Sure thing. In general lately I was doing some research on French tanks, including Leclerc, so I can advise some things. For example what variants should there be, armor estimations, ammo specifications, optics specifications etc.
  3. Damian90

    [WIP] French Army Mod : ArmaModFrance

    May I suggest something? This armor block, which is typical for Leclerc S1 and Leclerc S2, should be changed to improved armor block typical for Leclerc SXXI and Leclerc XLR. It should look like this.
  4. Damian90

    ArmedForces:UK Vehicles

    Nice! Hey do you also plan to make a proposed BAE and Rheinmetall Challenger 2 Mk2?
  5. Damian90

    ArmedForces:UK Vehicles

    This is wrong, and already British MoD said that Challenger 2 tanks will remain in service and will be upgraded. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54126146
  6. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Because RHS vehicle armor models are not based on hitpoints, but on realistic armor and penetration values. US Abrams from the front have extremely good armor. You need to hit in to a weak zone like gun mantlet or upper glacis, or turret roof. Also vehicle might be disabled, with it's crew dead, but it won't explode. Just like in real world, tanks mostly do not explode if their armor is pierced. Mostly they are damaged, crew injured or dead. Tanks only explode/burn if their ammunition storage is hit and deflagrates. In real world however, Abrams is again extremely difficult to destroy this way, because it have fully isolated ammunition storage behind armored blast doors, and ammunition magazines have blow off panels. So this further improves already fantastic survivability of this tank and it's crew.
  7. @mondkalb I do not know how usefull this might be for you guys. But here are declassified British documents from Leopard 2 armor tests. Just to explain it a bit. The mentioned "LEO 2 (in-service)" is a Leopard 2A1/A2/A3/A4 with so called B tech armor package (so called A tech armor package was used only in prototype Leopard 2AV), these tanks were made from 1979 up to second half of 1980's. The so called "LEO 2 (Improved as proposed)" are later production batches of Leopard 2A4 from the second half of 1980's that used so called C tech armor package. The last ever made 75 Leopard 2A4's used so called D tech armor package, but these tanks were made in 1991 as the last batch 8 so they seems to be beyond the scope of the DLC. It also appears that all NATO tanks with special armor in 1980's period, had more or less equal protection levels over the hull and turret front.
  8. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    No, it happens, I suggest trying to hit in area where autoloader storage is or try to hit tank several times. There is certain probability to it.
  9. To be more precise, a baseline M1A2 have EAPU on turret rear. However M1A2SEPv1/v2/v3/v4 in place of EAPU have VCSU (Vapor Compression System Unit) which is part of crew air conditioning and electronics cooling system. It depends if there is UAAPU or Hawker Battery Pack. UAAPU besides access hatch have also UAAPU exhaust. Here you can see exhaust cover for UAAPU next to left rear light. M1A2SEP with Hawker Battery Pack does not have exhaust and exhaust cover. In general M1A2SEPv1's had UAAPU and M1A2SEPv2's have Hawker Battery Pack, but it's not an absolute rule, it depends on production series from which a specyfic vehicle comes from. By the way, M1A1SA's, M1A1FEP's and M1A2SEP's have also these two boxes, smaller one is for rear slave receptacle, larger box is for tank-infantry phone. Also notice rear right light also have rear driver camera. Glad to be helpfull. 🙂
  10. If I may suggest something. Loaders MG shield should also be separate as well as EAPU on turret rear transport basket. Also rear left hull sponson should have a separate fuel injection cover and it's entire upper part, because M1A2SEP variants do not have fuel tank there but either UAAPU or Hawker Battery Pack. There are probably a few other minor parts but I would need to see more of the model to make suggestions. If you want to just PM me. 🙂
  11. @CUP Ok, the M1 model looks promising. It looks like USMC M1A1HC. Can't tell much more, but I would adjust geometry and positioning of the M257 smoke granade dischargers, they should face more towards the front. Photo presents the difference between USMC M257 smoke granade dischargers (top) and US Army M250 smoke grenade dischargers (below). I would also work on muzzle of the M256 120mm main gun. Muzzle should be a bit longer and smaller than barrel thermal shroud. But other than that, it really looks promising.
  12. Understood, thanks for answer. 🙂
  13. @mondkalb A question, or two. 1. Can we expect some new ground (armored) vehicles in next update? 2. Can we expect new MBT's, like a Leopard 2A1/A2/A3/A4? And perhaps a T-72M/T-72M1?
  14. I think changing a displaynames should not cause any problems regarding backward compatibility, classnames is a different thing of course. But hey, keep a great work, cheers!
×