Damian90
-
Content Count
1032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Posts posted by Damian90
-
-
In real world they are OP as f... as well. ;)
I can imagine these radio messages during Red Flag excercises - F-22 and F-35 OP af... nerf plox! :P
-
A small suggestion. Can a NATO (Pacific) which is based on British Armed Forces, receive the same armored vehicles as rest of NATO, or in general entire NATO, as in Armaverse, as per 2035 NATO unified it's equipment and weapons systems, especially if we consider heavy vehicles, to the single standard. So they should have M2A1 Slammer tanks, IFV-6c Panther APC's etc.
-
APFSDS rounds are not limited to 3000+m. It's all depending on FCS capabilities, a modern FCS can calculate range up to 5000+m for APFSDS rounds that are of the modern design, which means large sabot made from composites to reduce it's parasitic mass, and small fins to reduce drag during rods flight.
Of course there FCS that are unable to calculate range up to 5000+m due to variety reasons, be it's optics zoom limitations and APFSDS designs, for example T-90M/SM that is quiet primitive in this regard compared to modern tanks like Merkava Mk4 or M1A2SEPv1/v2/v/3/v4 that are capable to both calculate range for all conventional (non guided) ammo types up to 5000+m and fire these ammo types effectively up to this range.
-
1
-
-
CSAT vehicle crews, especially for pacific faction, needs helmets.
-
@TeTeT One minor suggestion, the SU-35 name in game should be fixed, now it's SU35S or something, a proper writitng per Russian system should be Su-35S. Just thought that I give a hint. ;)
-
2
-
1
-
-
Small suggestion, T-14 MBT also should have a coaxial machine gun, this small slot next to the main gun on the right, is coaxial machinegun port.
-
On 24.09.2017 at 8:50 PM, lumnuon said:Please correct me if I am wrong because you are way more knowledgeable in regards to tanks then me, but as far as I know the Bundeswehr isn´t using the Leopard 2A7V but the 2A7 (not the same as the Rheinmetall designation 2A7 since not optimized for UrbOps). Furthermore the Bundeswehr is considering the 2A7+ which would then be the most advanced MBT in the Bundeswehr arsenal.
As it was said, Bundeswehr at the moment changed the order from A7's to A7V's. Which is kinda funny because A7V is what originally was intended for A7, but budget did not allowed for it at that time for some odd reason.
-
2
-
-
BWMod team, a question, were you thinking about adding Leopard 2A7V through modification of your Leopard 2A6M model?
Leopard 2A7V is a final version of Leopard 2A7 upgrade, besides what A7 variant added like improved sights, APU etc. It also adds addon armor for front hull and mounting points for addon armor for hull and turret sides, so vehicle can be also uparmored. So it can look more or less like that fully uparmored altough with less changes to the model, like external sights are the same shape as in A6M, it lacks RWS etc.
It would be a really great addition and would fit perfectly in to 2020-2030+ time frame of the current BWMod.
-
3
-
-
1. Future Tank project under NGCV program is at the moment at the concept development phase, which means no private contractor is taking participation in it, it's purely done by TARDEC, TACOM, ARL and so on, it's because in US there is GOCO system or Goverment Owned Contractor Operated, which means that some weapon systems at the beggining are developed solely by US goverment agencies, and later a choosen private contractor is invited to join.
Same was in case of XM1 pogram for example, initially it was being designed by TARDEC, TACOM and ARL (then known as BRL), and the requirements were made by MBTTF, only lated Chrysler Defense (later renamed General Dynamics Land Systems) and General Motors were invited to participate.
2.
QuoteThe M1 Abrahams
The tank is named M1 Abrams, not Abrahams. M1 is named after General Creighton W. Abrams. This is another lesson for you.
3.
QuoteAlso seeing as how the Current M1A2's and M1A1s can't even compete with the T-14 I see no reason to keep the M1A1 or the M1A2, like I said again, upgrading and modernizing can only take something so far.
And how do you know the M1A1SA or M1A2SEP is not able to even compete with T-14? T-14 is not some wunderwaffe, and have some weak spots, for example it's unmanned turret have no significant armor protection, which was concious decision to reduce it's size and weight, but it also means that any hit will be a probable firepower kill.
Another important factor is, that despite all propaganda noise surrounding T-14, for example it's active protection system is not the most modern or best one out there. Afganit is based on earlier Drozd-1/2 systems, and as such, it's hard kill countermeassures are unable to intercept either APFSDS rounds or top attack diving ATGM's like Javelin, Hellfire or Spike. Also high elevation attacks from conventional ATGM's or RPG's can't be intercepted by Afganit, simply because of the systems design.
M1A2SEPv3/v4 will also receive Trophy HV active protection system as short them upgrade, and as long term upgrade new MAPS or Modular Active Protection System, that will use both soft kill and hard kill countermeassures. Not to mention heavier Next Generation Armor Package that offers greater protection than current 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. There are also some informations about further development of Explosive Reactive Armor in US, including ARAT series for M1, BRAT series for M2 and SRAT series for Strykers.
4.QuoteYes I look at the PL-01 and yes anyone who looks at it would be impressed by looks, seeing as I have never got to see one up close and examine it, but hey I guess every country has an F-35 Project that is completely useless in combat. Which I guess is why The United States always has to defend your sorry asses from a Mythical Russian Invasion that's never coming. You don't even have a tank that could compete with the T-14 and our tanks can hardly compete with the T-14 either, and the Germans are still working on a 30mm cannon, but that likely will have to be put on a new tank all together.
As I said, PL-01 was a concept mockup for a WWB Gepard program, and program requirements changed, so this concept is already obsolete.
F-35 is actually a good project and extremely good fighter jet. Only because program face some problems, does not mean it's a failure, but to know this, some greater knowledge on the subject is needed, and not "knowledge" from mass media that gives a brain cancer truth to be told.
As for NATO, again you seems to not understand geopolitics, in short, the US builded it's power on alliances, because alliances gives US both necessary territory for force projection, and economic expanse. This in result builds US citizens prosperity in extremely peacefull way for a superpower. If you want US to withdraw from it's alliances, you are pretty much calling for US not being as powerfull as it is and can be, in terms of military force, economics or political influance.
In terms of technology, I explained already why T-14 is not some wunderwaffe. Oh and by the way, I assume you meant new Rheinmetall Rh130 smoothbore gun, well the work on this gun is extremely slow, what was presented was very early prototype, I would even say a mockup, as there is no ammunition ready for Rh130, and there was not even a single, test shot fired from it yet.
As for invasions that are mythical, well, I will put it that way, check what happend in Europe few years ago, you might be surprised. ;)By the way, if someone is interested, here are official US Army renders of how Stryker and M1 will look like with their active protection systems installed.
Note one thing, in this render, M1A2SEP have it's special armor modules removed only for presentation purpose, normally vehicle will have it's special armor installed in real life.
And here some additional informations about active protection systems development, including MAPS.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Blackbomber200 said:*Sigh* I see you lack creativity. For the one who is pretending to be the adult in this situation you lack even basic manners or respect and still continue to name call. Even if you were older I find that excuse quite lacking because you assume just because you are old you are smarter. There are probably younger people than both you and I who know more than the both of us combined.
Yes I noticed you said NGCV called Future Tank, but its called Future Tank. For all we know it could be the M1A3, seeing as how it has no official name. When we were making an aircraft to compete with the SU-27 and the Mig-29 we called it the Advanced Tactical Fighter and didn't know much until the F-23 and F-22 competed. So maybe General Dynamics will compete and win the contract with an M1A3, I highly doubt the M1A2 will still be in service in 2035, seeing as how in Arma III The A-10 is replaced with the A-164 a more stealthier and advanced version of the A-10, modernizing things can only take you so far. Eventually you will have to rebuild and redesign a vehicle or Aircraft completely because the current platform can no longer support modern armaments and technology. I also know who General Omar Bradley, so I would appreciate if you were not a rude fk and didn't assume that I didn't know. I made a typo, people do this. I know as a Reporter you guys think you are the model of perfection and everyone who makes typos are beneath you, but sometimes you guys make Typos too. Honestly you'd think you'd have better things to do than monitor the US Militaries Armored Vehicles Program. You know with NATO and Russian tensions rising in Europe on the Russian Border and the largest Military Buildup since World War II. Or maybe you'd even pay attention to your own Country's current Tanks, like I don't know the PL-01? The PL-01 MBT is a nifty looking tank being made in Poland as one of your next Main Battle Tanks.
Maybe Bohemia won't add any M1A Series Tanks and maybe they will make NATO's next main battle tank the PL-01, unrealistic as it is to make such a light tank mostly made for stealth a main battle tank, it would be Bohemia's call to make. This is set in the future and anything could happen. All I suggested was Bohemia make an M1A3 for Arma III, even if the US Military does not make the M1A3 their next Main Battle Tank. It would be cool too see what Bohemia would create. All I'll say next is its rude and narrow minded to assume younger people can't be interested or knowledgeable in Armored Vehicles such as Tanks and APCs, Older doesn't make you smarter.
So why don't we just end this conversation now and at least part on a friendly note that we both like Armored Warfare vehicles and are passionate about them.
1. I do not really care if I hurt your feelings special snowflake. I talk about facts, and facts are facts, they can't be denied, or even argued with.
2. M1 series are meant to serve up to 2050 and beyond alongside NGCV vehicles and the Future Tank, untill completely replaced, which will take time, a lot of time. So for the moment, there is no M1A3 program, besides what is the reason of using the same primary designation code for a completely new and different vehicle? Did you even thinked about this? And what if US Army decides to designate it M5 for example? Or M1250?
3. PL-01 was nothing more than a concept mockup based on CV90 chassis for the WWB Gepard program. PL-01 was only partially functional (could drive around) and was empty inside, besides driver compartment.
I actually seen PL-01 in person and it didn't made any good impression on me, neither on the army. Heck Army actually changed requirements so WWB Gepard will be larger and heavier armored vehicle, without any silly stealth features. Heck PL-01 itself was disassemled, and chassis was returned to BAE Systems.
So in Poland we actually laugh our asses seeing foreigners being so excited about PL-01 and not even knowing anything about the program! :D
Not to mention there is second program for a real MBT, with requirements under codename Wilk.4. Younger people in general are dumb, especially these days, not all of them true, but majority, they are also arrogant. So pardon me for hurting your feelings, but as an older man I really do not care about them. Heck when I was teenager interested in this subject, I also had older mentors who treated me like shit when I said something dumb, and I will be eternally gratefull to them for that treatment, that forced me to use my brain more, and do a proper research.
5. Why end a conversation? You don't like to increase your own knowledge by simply listening someone with a greater knowledge? Look what you learned now about PL-01, and you would never know this from "sources" like globalsecurity site, which is a very poor source of informations.
When I was in the army, NCO's also didn't cared about our feelings, but in the end they made two great things, made us harder men, that are not feel insulted when told by someone with greater knowledge we are wrong, and they teached us a lot of usefull things.
My good advise for you, stop to care about your feelings, or that someone might offend you, or tell you difficult truth, instead listen people with greater knowledge, learn from them.-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Blackbomber200 said:Yes Because the US Military would really tell you what they are working on and building. Yes because I'm sure everyone knew about the U2 Spy plane back in the day too. Global Security was just one source I used. Also as an Mechanical Engineer I'd prefer if you not call me a kid, lets keep this civil and not name call. I'm an engineer and your a Military Journalist for POLAND, not even the United States. I'm fully aware of the M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4, but I have a sneaky suspicion our next Main Battle Tank will be called the M1A3, something just tells me since we have a pattern of keeping things original...
F-15
F-16
F-18
F-22
F-35
M1A1
M1A2
M2 Bradly
M3 Bradly
You starting to see the pattern?
We over here in America don't like to change names a lot and just like to add a new number.
This is also 2035 in Arma III and if you seriously think that the US Military would not have developed a new Main Battle tank or the M1A3 by 2035 over a span of 18 years whilst the Russians researched and developed the T-14 in 2011 and started production by 2015, then I don't even know what to say. Not to mention the US Defense Department is getting a bump of 70 Billion Dollars with orders from the President to modernize and upgrade the US Military. Also this is a video game set in 2035, try to think outside the box for once. Be creative and think in the future, not now in the past. Geez.
Yes, US military will report about their plans for conventional weapon systems because it's nothing classified, and they need to report that both for Congress and public domain so tax payers know, for what their taxes are spent for, because this is how system in US is made.
I understand you are a teenager and not adult human being, but please, stop being a smart ass kid, because there are people older than you, with greater knowledge and experience, including this forum.
Also I don't know if you noticed, but I clearly said that US Army is working on the new MBT, called at the moment as Future Tank, within the NGCV or Next Generation Combat Vehicle program. So yes, US Army is working on such project, but it's not M1A3. M1 might receive M1A3 designation, eventually, when all ECP's will be implemented, and designation code change is justified.
Oh and by the way, M2 and M3 are named Bradley, after general Omar Bradley kid, not Bradly, it seems you lack even knowledge about your own countries history. And M2/M3 designation is not a pattern, M2 is simply designation for the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, while M3 is Cavalry Fighting Vehicle variant. As engineer you shold know that... Kid.
Same with aircraft designation system, F-15, F-16 etc. are all different aircraft, there is no pattern here you speak about, kid.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Blackbomber200 said:The Picture I used? Yes that's fake, fantasy, not real. No one knows what the M1A3 will look like, since its still in development stages. However if you don't think that the US Army isn't working on the Next M1A Series of tanks to combat the T-14 you must be delusional.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a3.htm
Global security is a shit not a source. Besides kid, I work as military journalist in Poland, so I check better sources, like for example official US Army brefiengs.
As I said, at the moment the only new variants of M1 in development, are M1A2SEPv3 (ECP1A upgrade) and M1A2SEPv4 (ECP1B upgrade), there is no M1A3 in development or even in concept development phase. However in concept development phase is new MBT, called Future Tank, within the NGCV program.
https://fortbenningausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/02-Mounted-Reuirements-Breakout.pdf
http://slideplayer.com/slide/10870946/
http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/Army_Equipment_Program2017.pdfHere, some official sources for you to read.
-
7 minutes ago, Blackbomber200 said:If you want the Next MBT for NATO you should be looking at the M1A3, not older M1A1s and M1A2s. The M1A3 will be the US Military and probably NATO's new Main Battle Tank by 2035 even earlier to be honest. They are developing and working on the M1A3 right now. Ontop of that the Germans are working on the Leopard 3.
You do realize that M1A3 is not in development, and this thing is a pure fantasy?
At the moment in final phase of development is M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4 is in early development phase. Maybe, maybe eventually when all ECP's will be added to M1, then and only then, designation will be changed to M1A3.
Not to mention that US Army is in the early development phase of new MBT that will replace M1 series in 2030's.
And no, Germans are not working on Leopard 3, such program do not exist. However Germany and France work on new MBT called MGCS or Main Ground Combat System.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Hamakaze said:So i've got aquestion...
On the US Army MRAPs there's a thing that can be raised or lowered called a "Rhino" how would you recommend using this in game?
In real world Rhino is a device that is used to prematurely detonate EFP IED's and mines that use EFP charge attacking vehicle side with thermal signature trigger device. So I guss it should work with stuff like vanilla ArmA3 SLAM mines?
-
4
-
-
I think I can spoke here for entire team.
Yes, from day zero when RHS moved to ArmA3, one of the goals was to achieve maximum possible realism within the limits of ArmA3 engine, and I think RHS done it very well in my personal opinion. Artificial balance typical for arcade games was never within our scope, instead it was rather to go above and beyond what vanilla ArmA3 offers as already great and authentic military combined arms sim (well it's not a sim per se but you get the point), and implement many new features, like more realistic armor system, and "heavy" munitions, or features like more realistic FCS.
Will we change that?
No, especially considering how much hard work and how much time was put in to the mod already by all members. Anything we can do is only to further improve the mod within it's scope.
Also to point out, what RHS was for ArmA2, or even older games, is not what RHS is for ArmA3, a lot changed and evolved.
-
16
-
-
Such things do not really happen, especially in modern tanks with multilayered armors, that effectivelly absorbs waves that could create a stunn effect for crews. While in case of homogeneus armor, it's either hit by smaller calliber ammo that will not create such effect, or will be perforated by modern munitions with ease.
-
2
-
-
*sigh*
I wanted to explain to you, that we do not aim at balance, but at realism, and we have our own good sources and research. Not everything you encounter is a bug, but sometimes delibarate behavior that try to simulate real world that is not always super predictible, like the notion that RPG hit will always affect every lightweight vehicle the same way.
Can RHS mod be better? Yes, and I can assure entire team works hard, but sometimes improvements will take time, in other cases, there will be no changes only because someone demands them.
Case closed.
-
7
-
-
31 minutes ago, lex__1 said:1. In the parts of the automatic loader requires the command to change the type of ammunition, the rest of the machine handles himself. It's no different from charging Abrams.
No matter how much I searched and couldn't find any videos with Abrams, which charges the gun on the go, moving on rough terrain. Comes when shooting at slow driving on a smooth surface. Extract from the Arsenal of the meter charge, 15-20 kg, to put in the gun at full speed on the road. )))Show me a video where the loader crew member Abrams, extracts from the barrel of a tank loaded with ammunition, for replacement with another type of ammunition.
The barrel is not being charged, yet the team about the purpose and type of ammunition.
2. Reload time of the RPG-7
Listen, this is your problem, we will not change anything because you say so, and your opinion contradicts our hard sources. So sorry, you don't like it, we do not force anyone to play RHS mod.
PS. As for gunnery for vehicles, in real world, no tank performs gunnery at high speeds in rough terrain, it makes no sense, in reality stabilization systems are capable to keep up only with speeds up to 40-45 km/h not matters what kind of tank we talk about.
Real world gunnery is not some stupid stunt show for civilian public to be amazed, especially during peace time, where additional safety rules also are considered so nobody gets injured or worse, killed. And I know what I am talking about as I am soldier myself, and real world military rifle ranges or ranges where other weapons are used, looks nowhere near what you probably expect with tanks driving full speed, firing guns blazing in all directions... *sigh*This is why you will never find a video of a human loader loading guns at full speed (besides tanks do not fight driving full speed, but much, much slower, not matters if they have autoloaders or human loaders), or unloading the main gun, because of safety reasons, as combustible propelant cases might be damaged during loading process so in peace time it's avoided to unload the gun other way than firing it, but it is still possible, and it's done in combat to conserve munitions (for example you will not fire APFSDS round at lightly armored IFV).
-
8
-
-
1. About penetration.
In real life penetration of armor will not always kill the crew or even injure them. Especially hand held AT weapons if they do not hit anything important, will neither destroy a vehicle, neither kill the crew.
Good example here is M113, in essence it is aluminium box on tracks with lots of empty space inside, also it have spall liners. It means that vehicle hit in cargo compartment will not be destroyed, and if it does not hit a human inside, will do minimal cosmetic damage.
Some difference in survivability is also due to vehicle design. For example BMP have a very "dense" design, which means it's internal volume is very small, this means that it's easier to hit something important or crew, compared to M113 that have less "dense" design and have larger internal volume.
Same applies to other vehicles like tanks for example, a larger tank with less dense internal volume, even in case of armor perforation, is less likely to be destroyed because a chance to hit a crew member or something important is smaller, than in case of smaller tank with more dense internal volume.2. Tank reloads.
The M1 series have a human loader, the loader himself knows what to do and do not need additional commands, for example in real world in combat, if commander do not decide otherwise, loader on his own will load a specific type of ammunition after each shot and arm the gun.
In RHS we need to actually adjust the reload time, because after I checked with various sources + talked with some M1 tankers I know, the current standard reload time for a loader in US military is 4-6 seconds with avarage time of 5 seconds to reload the gun, while unloading the gun and loading it again takes around 10-15 seconds.
For example a typical engagement commands in M1 looks more or less like this:
TC - Gunner tank, fire and adjust.Loader - (loads the gun with APFSDS) Up! (If it's first time he loads that type of round then it's Sabot Up!)
Gunner - Identified, on the way!Tank fires it's gun.
Loader - (loads the gun again with APFSDS) Up!
TC - Gunner PC (personell carrier), fire, fire HEAT (second command is for loader to load different type of ammo after firing already loaded round).
Gunner - Identified, on the way!
Tank again fires it's gun.
Loader - (loads the gun with HEAT) HEAT Up!
So loading the gun takes around 4 to 6 seconds, and egnagements are very quick. However a lot depends on loader, but the avarage standard he needs to meet to be qualified is around 5 seconds, and not above 6 seconds.
In case of T tanks used by Russian forces, situation is a bit more complex, as they use autoloader, the autoloader itself needs either a command through a button push to reload the gun, or autoloader must be turned in to a different working mode where a selected ammo type will be loaded after each shot.
One thing to remember is also that autoloaders also do not have a constant loading speed, and it will vary depending on design, model and also how much ammo is left in autoloader. It's not a magical device that makes tanks fire as fast as machine guns, from their main guns.
However note, due to their simplistic design, Russian tanks autoloaders are able to only load the gun, they can't unload it, which means that if autoloader loaded the gun, only way to reload it is simply fire the loaded round and load a different one.
The only autoloaders able to both load and unload the tank main gun, were developed in US and tested in various prototypes, most of them were designed by company named Meggitt Defense. Due to their advanced design, sometimes they are not reffered as autoloaders but as robotic ammo loading/handling systems.
But as Soul_Assassin said, RHS mods are based on realism, and carefull research (manuals, books, documents, informations from real servicemembers), so RHS do not aim at such artificial things like balance, if someone likes balance, play Battlefield series or Call of Duty, here we aim more at realism.
-
10
-
-
10 hours ago, darksidesixofficial said:What I mean is basing a tank off of either. EFV especially, was quite beefy, and could be easily turned into a hard hitting MBT. (in the armaverse, anything is possible, even the babies of an F-22/F-18 relationship)
Though idk. Think about it, the T-14 seems to be on the side of a bit of a light tank. It's quite small, fits less crew than other MBT's, and also modular, btw. So with that in mind, the NATO and AAF alternatives, could be similar vehicles, and are likely to be made up by BIS. Except the AAF, it looks to be they're getting real life equivilants with altered names based on what I've seen so far. Though I'm not exactly a tank person, so idk.
Also, just because it has wheels or capacity to carry extra troops doesn't make it not a Tank. Example being Stryker MGS and Merkerva tanks, are still tanks.
Sorry but you are wrong.
T-14 is not light weighting between 48 to 52 metric tons. It is also large vehicle as was said, compared to other Russian vehicles.
As for Stryker MGS, it's not a tank, it's infantry fire support vehicle, lightly armored, it's not intended to be used as MBT or a tank in general.Same with EFV, it could not be modified to be MBT, EFV was lightly armored, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle.
To explain it, tanks or MBT's in general are so well protected because of their "dense" design, which means their internal volume is very small so they can fit inside only small crew, weapons, ammo, engines and other components, thanks to which with their heavy weight, they can be very well armored. On the other hand vehicles like EFV might be just as large, but they are lightweight and have huge internal volume to fit also infantry squad besides it's crew and other stuff, because of that their protection levels are pathetic compared to MBT's.
In case of Tanks DLC, well new MBT's for each faction would be really great. However some additional variants of already existing vehicles are also possible. For example as already mentioned in this thread by me modification of the IFV-6 Panther APC in to IFV by the use of already existing in the game unmanned turret used on AFV-4 Gorgon for example.
More modifications for existing vehicles are also possible if BI would want to include them.-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, midnightwyvern said:You've REALLY got me hoping they haven't already finished the so far unknown 3rd vehicle for the DLC.
Yep, I also hope NATO side gonna get some love, but well, we gonna see. ;)
-
I have some more, for example here is a project from the 90's of the US 55 tons future MBT.
Or for example German made EGS technology demonstrator, unfortunetaly, it's turret was never completed, only weight simulator was placed there to simulate vehicle weight with real turret.
-
If I may suggest something for BI Devs.
If you guys want some inspiration for potential new MBT for NATO/BLUFOR, here are some suggestions.
This is modified M1 tank within the CATTB (Components Advanced Technology Test Bed) program, this prototype was nicknamed "Thumper", was armed with bicalliber 120/140mm smoothbore XM291 ATAC (Advanced Tank Cannon) gun (bicalliber means that the gun breech was universal and could accept both 120mm and 140mm barrels and munitions), had new turret with XM91 autoloader in the rear bustle.
Here we can see size comparrision of a NATO 140mm APFSDS round and NATO standard 120mm APFSDS round.Crew was reduced to 3 men, of course additional armament would be a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and potentially 12.7mm machine gun for commander in some sort of remote cupola mount or remote weapon station/CITV mount of project would ever be finalized.
Or again this modified M1 known as TTB (Tank Test Bed), just like in T-14 the crew was placed in isolated compartment in front of the hull behind a massive front armor. Armament was in unmanned turret, a modified 120mm smoothbore M256 gun + a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. Autoloader under the turret hold 44 rounds.
Of course it was a test bed, later on these sights on each side of the hull would be eliminated and a single gunner sight and a single commander sight would be placed on turret itself, perhaps commander would also receive a 12.7mm machine gun in remote weapon station/CITV mount.
At the moment CATTB prototype named "Thumper" is kept in Sierra Army Depot and can be spotted via google maps satelite images, while TTB is kept in Fort Benning and awaits restoration in National Armor and Cavalry Museum.PS. So above examples clearly shown there were NATO 4th genertion MBT test beds, techology demonstrators and prototypes. ;)
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, cdn_biggdogg said:Can you lase aircraft and have the FCS aquire a firing solution. IE. a hovering or slow moving helo or a jet coming straight at you?
Yes modern tanks FCS can do that, it's actually bad idea for helicopter pilots to hover in range of modern tanks armament, surprise APFSDS, HEAT or HE round is not nice. ;)
BTW for all players, as a RHS member doing research mostly about AFV's, and also as Steel Beasts Pro PE simmer, few advises.Laser range finders cooldown, yes this is real feature (kinda ;)) because laser range finder in the past could burn out, the modern ones do not burn down but system turn them off for some time to prevent burn our if laser range finder is used too often.
Now for lasing, lead and overall gunnery.
When you have a moving target very effective technique is so called "laze and blaze", which means that you track the target for around 1-5 sec, then laze it, and after around 1-2 sec of steady track fire the main gun. What is always important is to have steady track on target. Also it's necessary to keep up turret rotation speed properly to target movement speed, it is possible that with too quick rotation, even if you have steady target track, FCS will overcalculate lead, which means miss.
I also strongly advise everyone interested in this subject to read Steel Beasts Wiki about gunnery, I will provide links for two most popular tanks in the sim at the moment, this is M1A1HA and Leopard 2A4 as they are kinda, basics for each gunnery training.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M1A1_(HA)#Gunner.27s_Position_F6
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Leopard_2A4#Gunner.27s_Position_F6I hope this will be helpfull, and interesting for other players, cheers! ;)
-
8
-
BWMod
in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Posted
Not matters, double post. :D