Damian90

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. 😉

@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.

@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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Ok so because Tanks DLC was announced, and Bohemia Interactive encouraged us to provide feedback, I give myself liberty to start this topic. Note to moderators, please move it if it's in wrong section. https://arma3.com/news/arma-3-roadmap-2016-17#.WAozF4-LTIU Ok so now few things for BI devs about possible, and I would even say necessary improvements. To show how exactly stuff should look like in case of vehicles, I will use probably the best currently avaiable on market tank simulator, Steel Beasts Pro PE as a reference. 1. Thermal Sights. Yes, thermal sights in ArmA3 are, ok but they don't work as they should the primary problem is the contrast. Let me present how it looks like in case of the above mentioned simulator. As you can see contrast is good enough that gunner can actually see terain details very clearly, it's especially good in 2nd and 3rd generation FLIR systems that modern vehicles receive. For example video of a real thing. It would be really great if in game thermal sights would provide such contrast. 2. Fire Control Systems. Again, here is where ArmA3 really lags behind. At RHS we tried to create realistic FCS but it's still not perfect. The biggest issue is turret control, how it should be solved? Again good example is Steel Beasts, where turret follow the cursor, so the player does not need to move mouse much, and the turret movement itself is more stable, soft if you get me. ;) Also FCS should be able to calculate lead for moving targets in automatic mode. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M1A2_(SEP) Here is a tutorial (still WIP but I please BI Devs to keep an eye on it, should be finished soon AFAIK) for M1A2SEP FCS use, I choosen it because it would be a very close to what Merkava Mk4M or in game M2A1 Slammer have in terms of FCS capabilities. In general if I can advise something to BI devs in terms of improving vehicles fire control systems, if you guys can, purchase Steel Beasts Pro PE, and use it as a reference, will be very helpfull. http://www.steelbeasts.com/ 3. Modern Main Battle Tanks Armor Simulation. Here is also something that can be improved. In general armor simulation should be based on: a - Armor real thickness (or it's estimations). b - Armor effective thickness when it's angle is taken in to consideration. c - Armor protection vs Kinetic Energy threats like APFSDS ammunition. d - Armor protection vs Chemical Energy threats like munitions with shaped charge warheads i.e. tank HEAT rounds, RPG's or ATGM's. The general rule of thumb is that KE protection is lower then CE protection, although this is more complex subject, and can be discussed in greater detail later on. 4. Large Calliber Ammunition Simulation. This includes bot simulation of kinetic energy munitions like APFSDS and chemical energy munitions like HEAT, especially the latter one is a bit more complex subject that would need longer discussion. 5. Simulation for amphibious tracked vehicles. 6. Better physx handling for tracked vehicles. Yeah so this all for now, would be great if BI devs responsible for this project would for example put here their own questions, at least I can vouch for myself I can help by providing real life data, and all research + my own knowledge about this subject. This is really ocean sized subject so a specific questions for each point would probably be the best.

Its work in progress, be patient.

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.

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?

Reyhard just updated the mod for incoming Contact DLC. If you are on the mainbranch, the dev version of the mod won't work now before the next main game patch. However if you move your Arma3 to devbranch version, everything will work just ok.

No you are wrong. It depends what tank and what round. For example newest M1A2SEPv3 (M1A2C) have front turret armor not only increased in it's real, physical thickness from around 900mm up to around 1000mm (yes, it's around or even over 1m thick!) but also uses completely new type of special armor codenamed NGAP (Next Generation Armor Package) (and it's actually 2nd generation NGAP, 1st generation is used on some M1A2SEPv2's (M1A2B) and M1A1SA's). Same goes for the front hull by the way, it's thicker than it was (thickness increases from around 700mm to around 800mm) and uses NGAP armor. NGAP is designed to protect against the newest KE and CE threats. Of course for such high levels of protection in a conventional tank design with manned turret, there is a price, with weight of around 72.5 metric tons, compared to T-14 50+ metric tons of weight. So it all depends on vehicle concept and design. For example current European and Asian tanks focuses on mobility and firepower. US, UK and Israeli tanks focuses on protection and firepower. Russian tanks balance these factors thanks to more compact design to keep lower weight but with good protection. Of course this is simplification, but I hope it explains why things look as they look.

Not any, it depends where it hits. If it hits in the center of the turret mass, it can damage and take out the main gun. In general the turret itself is very small, very lightweight and have nearly no armor.

Maybe I will explain a bit. T-14 concept focuses on high protection levels of the hull front and high crew survivability. However, T-14 turret is lightly armored only against smaller calliber autocannon and only from the front. On the sides even 20mm or 25mm can pierce turret armor. The idea is to increase front hull protection and crew protection to very high levels, without significantly increasing vehicle weight. As for Afganit active protection system, like all APS it's capable only to intercept RPG's, ATGM's and HEAT/HE rounds fired from tank guns or similiar armament. This means that while T-14 is difficult to be completely destroyed, it should be relatively easy to knock it out of the fight through damaging or destroying it's turret and main armament. So it's something for something. In the end won't be surprised if T-14 will be a very capable machine, very dangerous one, but T-14 "Armata" is not indestructible "wunderwaffe" that can't be stopped on the battlefield.

Ok done some initial tests with Leclerc. Can I give some advice? First designation. The only designation is Leclerc. AMX-56 is a fake designation, created by mistakes by Swedes when they tested Leclerc and assumed it's designation will be AMX-56, like previous tanks (AMX-30, AMX-32, AMX-40). Second thing, Leclerc have too much ammo for main gun. It should be 40 rounds only, 22 in turret bustle autoloader, and 18 in hull storage drum. Of course I assume other things like some bug messages are due to it's WIP status.

Will it be avaiable on Steam workshop? Congrats by the way! 🙂

AMX-40 never went in to service, remaining only a prototype. Currently in French Army service there are only Series 2 Leclerc and Series 3/Series XXI Leclerc MBT's, Series 1 Leclerc's are in storage.

@real ArmaModFrance I have a question, do you plan to have more than one Leclerc variants? From what I can see you have one of the older Series 2 Leclerc, and not the newest Leclerc Series 3/Series XXI. One of the main differences visible from exterior, is the armor module in front of gunner sight. This is Series 1 or Series 2 Leclerc (most likely Series 2), you can notice that the armor module under the turret is quiet small and similiar to your model. This is Series 3/Series XXI Leclerc, you can notice that armor module in front of gunner sight is significantly stronger. In general Leclerc Series 3/XXI is better armored and slightly heaviers than Series 1/2. Keep a good work, French Army is definately a very interesting and unique one. 🙂

@fingolfin May I suggest something. AAF might need a proper cargo/cargo-armed helicopter and so a Mi-8/Mi-17 variant would be good option? We have some in RHS. Also AAF wheeled APC can be BTR-80A. Cheers.