Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Damian90

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1032

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by Damian90

  4. Posted

    39 minutes ago, Aggr0 said:

    @Damian90

     

    To be honest, I don't know the exact reason why the tank was renamed. I will change it back to MBT Leopard 2A6M. 

     

    The naming of the Puma on the other hand is a somewhat more complicated issue. While PSM has given the designations S1 and S2, the Bundeswehr refers to the current Puma as the VJTF configuration. Our Puma is based on a pre-production vehicle and is therefore not really in line with the official designations.

     

    Ok then.

     

    Question, do you guys plan to add Leopard 2A7V (the current most advanced variant) and perhaps change Puma model to be more in line with current VJTF standard?

  5. Posted

    11 minutes ago, mondkalb said:

    Heya, yes this is known. We assumed it was an engine limitation that a given turret can only have a single optics memory point that all vision modes share. However there is a hidden engine technology that allows to specify optics memory-points per vision mode. We were made aware of this only yesterday. So it's known and fixable, yes.

     

    Great! So the same can be done for other vehicles as well. 🙂

  13. Posted

    11 hours ago, ShaKodemon said:

    without mods same results, but+ i can't  destroy abrams in front with all 12 Vikhrs :DD

     

    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.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    @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.

     

    ZVKMHU7.jpg
    JEMs6C2.jpg
    lkWQOLe.jpg

    • Thanks 2

  16. Posted · Edited by Dedmen
    Removed images. Rule 14

    19 hours ago, Alwarren said:

    My plan is to make four variants of the M1 for the US Army (M1A1SA with and without TUSK, M1A2 SEP v1 with and without TUSK) and two for the USMC (M1A1FEP with or without TUSK). I know that most of the USMC tanks didn't have the TUSK side EPA but I'll make one anyway 🙂

    This is the rear of the tank (with the damaged-stage SLAT of the TUSK kit)

     


    Details on the lights will probably be normal map only.

     

    Some features will be configurable in the VhC, like the bustle rack extension usually found on the FEP., the DUKE antennas, etc.

    I doubt I will ever get it 100 percent accurate, but then, most people will probably not notice 🙂

     

    Looks good!

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, Alwarren said:

    They are. I know some variants don't have the shields, and the M1A2 hasn't got the EAPU but some cooling system for the internal electronics. 


    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.

     

    1 hour ago, Alwarren said:

    Now that you mention it... I saw a picture of the rear deck of the Abrams with a hatch for the APU/Battery pack in the rear.


    It depends if there is UAAPU or Hawker Battery Pack. UAAPU besides access hatch have also UAAPU exhaust.

    m1a2_details_047_of_125.jpg

    Here you can see exhaust cover for UAAPU next to left rear light.

    m1a2_details_068_of_125.jpg

    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.

    m1a2sepv2_118.jpg

    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.


    IMG_0018.jpg

     

    1 hour ago, Alwarren said:

    I'll get back to you on that. Thank you 🙂


    Glad to be helpfull. 🙂

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

    Yeah good point. I turned them 90 degrees, but that is really way too far. I have turned them more forward now.

    The model has more or less the M1A1HC, indeed. I have a couple of extra parts that can be toggled on and off (the TUSK kit for example), this is basically the master model which all variants can be made of (the commander hatch is separate and can be exchanged for the substantially different M1A2 hatch. 

     

    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. 🙂

     

  19. Posted

    @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.

    18922593_1420034731376445_23332581271776

    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.

  20. Posted

    18 hours ago, mondkalb said:

    Heya,

    we cannot make any statements about future content beyond what is agreed as releasable between us and BI. Otherwise It runs the risk of being taken out of context and carried as "they confirmed XYZ", when in fact that was never the case.
    The tanks you mention however do exist on our own internal wishlist, meaning that we are interested. 🙂


    Understood, thanks for answer. 🙂

  24. Posted

    5 hours ago, snackynak said:

     

    The issue I had brought up with the BRDM-2 ATGM is that the gunner's external camera changes it's orientation 180 degrees every time the rack stows into the hull. So if you're trying to drive as the gunner, the external camera faces backwards when the launcher is stowed, which makes driving a bit wonky. The current work around I use is to just switch to the drivers seat when moving or enter command view, but I was wondering if there was something I could enter into the vehicle INT box that could disable the stow function so that I could stay in the gunners seat.

     

    Hmmm, @reyhard?

  25. Posted

    9 hours ago, Bukain said:

    USMC is ditching all their tank Abrams! It was so unexpectable and instant (maybe that's becuz i didn't aware of the plans?). Can't imagine what would all these Marine tank crews do now, with their babies gone 😕 Sad indeed

     

    So what's the plan of RHS team? Will you guys still maintaining Marines with tanks, or remove abrams tanks from the Marine corps faction?

     

    Just adding to what Reyhard said. USMC will give all their tanks back to US Army, and official plans are that US Army will provide heavy armor support to USMC. However plans are being constantly changed, USMC plan to deactivate its tank battalions in 2030, this is 10 years from now. In these 10 years Commendant of the USMC can change to someone who will want to keep tanks. Or later on tanks will be readded to USMC inventory.

    In RHS you have option to either use tanks or not.

    • Like 3
×