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

  1. Posted

    And this model does not even show the real T-14 MBT based on heavy tracked platform "Armata". Model is based on some other 3d models created by fanboys that misunderstood what they seen and created these silly models on a proposal for assault tank/assault gun with turret module armed with 120mm gun-mortar designed by a different design bureu that is designing artillery systems not tanks. T-14 is designed by UKBTM design bureau that belongs to UVZ corporation, and as far as oficial sources says, T-14 will be more similiar in external appearance to Object 195, it's predecessor.

    http://naforum.zapodaj.net/images/a9422e675c1e.jpg (219 kB)

    This is leaked photo of Object 195 prototype, everyone serious assumes that T-14 will be very similiar, yet smaller.

  6. Posted

    Also, with such system and a bit of work, you can for example create vurnability zones inside vehicles. In theory hitpoints can not only simulate for example engine, or turret drives, but also ammunition. You can place them inside vehicle in such a way, that even if projectile will pierce through armor, but wont hit a hitpoint, vehicle won't be affected.

    This opens a lot of possibilities, we hopefully can eventually use in future.

    And there's more, for example some vehicles, like Abrams, uses especially encased in steel cavities, fuel tanks, as additional protection for hull. We know how much protection fuel adds (70mm of fuel = 10mm RHA) so we can eventually calculate how much protection they would add.

  7. Posted

    What's so special about your armor system? afaik its the same hitpoints, but you vehicle models consist of different materials(not vanilla ones), that have more hitpoints in them, and to penetrate them you need more powerful ammo, that's why you add aditional penetrator to ammo configs. Am i wrong?

    To expand what Reyhard said.

    Our system have modeled realistic vehicle armor, and behind that armor in vehicle fire geometry, we have hitpoints, now what does it do.

    For example if armor surface A have protection of ~800mm vs KE and KE projectile have penetration of only 500mm RHA, it won't go through armor model in vehicles fire geometry and will not affect hitpoints behind armor. So vehicle does not receive any damage to the specific components. However if armor surface B have protection vs KE of only ~450mm vs KE, then the same KE projectile will go through, will affect hitpoints, and what's more, can also kill crew disabling vehicle without killing the crew.

    It's far more realistic, and it's all based on BIS sollutions and what Olds did with his RAM. The problem is tough, that vanilla vehicles do not use this system as our vehicles do, and what's worse, vanilla ammunition, completely ignores that system, it is because for example a vanilla 120mm APFSDS round will have a value "hit" in the config as for example hit = 500, and by such even if projectile won't penetrate the armor model in vehicle fire geometry, it will affect hitpoints behind it.

    The value in cofig that affect the real penetration, is value called "calliber", so for example if calliber = 550 then projectile will penetrate 550mm of armor. If I am not mistaken.

    Of course desirable would be to further develop this armor system, and it is still considered as WIP, we also closely cooperate with Olds and Bakerman.

  8. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Maybe it was already fixed. I guess the problem was in wrong parameters in rhs penetrators in some ammo? Correct me if i'm wrong

    Yes, there were some problems, allready fixed. I tested Abrams yesterday, and even had problems with destroying M1A2SEPv1 using M829A3 firing from point blank range in to lower front hull, but could destroy it firing in to upper glacis which have weaker protection.

    Really? Wow thats incredibly impressive.

    Yes, there are reported even hits in to front hull or turret armor from iraq, where tank was hit with RPG-29V and it didn't done any damage to the tank.

    Also there were reports of hits in to the tanks side armor, hull or turret, in one case there was one KIA, loader that was directly on shaped charge jet path when projectile hit turret side, and was killed by it, in the second tank was hit in to the hull side, only some minor WIA's inside.

    In both cases tanks were only slightly damaged, nothing really serious.

    And we would want to implement that feature of M1 like safe ammo storage, so tank even if seriously hit, won't blow up like T tanks do, but mostly will be seriously damaged and disabled.

    The tanks bursts into flames first then Boom!

    I'm using the Beta and the latest AGM. I didn't notice this effect before but we've only been engaging armour with helicopters lately. That was my first real test as I'm considering TvT stuff using RHS and we're about to go into an infantry only mission so I wanted to make sure we had good anti armour (lol)

    The vanilla Mi-48 AGM were one shot to kill M1's also right enough. Same effect, burn then boom.

    This should not happen, it's probably that AGM cook off effect that triggers vehicle going boom. And vanilla stuff is not compatible with RHS as it is based on hitpoints damage system, not our realistic armor system, try to use RAM to achieve greater compatibility.

    I can eventually post a list of protection values of diferent tanks we currently have in game, so you will know what their armor protection is. Note! Such list will include only protection of their basic armor, without additional ERA if such is added to a tank. Tough I am certain only about American tanks as I worked on them exclusively, Olds helped with some T tanks, and values might be slightly different than these on my list.

    Olds is also reworking penetration values for APFSDS ammo fired from tank guns, to a more realistic ones.

  10. Posted

    Toeadie, just a small friendly hint concerning designation codes realism and consistency with real world for the AK pack.

    Everything from AK-74, so where besides letters there are also number in the code, should have - symbol in designation code.

    So it should be:

    AK -> AKS -> AKM -> AKMS -> AK-74 -> AKS-74U -> AK-74M -> RPK-74 -> AK-12 -> RPK-12 and so on.

    Nothing very important, but as person with pedantic approach to these things, tough I might give you a notice about that.

    Keep up a great work.

  11. Posted

    Hey RHS tank-experts!

    Is it possible, by ways of scripting or otherwise, to implement the tank commander's ability to slew and override the gunner's primary sight? The tank turret turns to face the front with e.g. when turned out, so perhaps this feature could mimic that (an uneducated guess)?

    This would most definitely improve the multiplayer experience by allowing the tank commander to assign targets with more precision. This could be applied for both the TKN-3 etc. plus the M1A2 CDU etc.

    This feature could be overlooked due to the fact that you can go by bearings, but still it is rather slow in comparison especially in multiplayer TvT missions.

    Thanks

    Me and Reyhard discussed this recently, and the answer is, we don't know at the moment. Reyhard is coding genius so perhaps he will be able to create a true hunter-killer system for some tanks, however do not expect such thing for next release be it beta or stable, as other more important things are in works, tough we see it as interesting option and might take a look in to it later, no promises tough.

  13. Posted

    Also consider some facts. We first need to create 3d models of NV eqiupment used by Russiand Federation Armed Forces, it is not simple and easy task to create a high quality content. So it will take time and still, not every single Russian soldier will receive them, simply because we aim at realism, compared to US Armed Forces, Russian Federation Armed Forces are underfunded, this is a fact! So not every soldier receives top notch equipment.

    And creating a content requires also a lot of research, a difficult thing to do, it if it is meant to be done properly. Also as RedPheonix said, we do not consider as a source of informations avarage internet joe who claims this or that.

    It is easy to complain, especially if you don't do anything to contribute.

    And there is very old rule here in ArmA community, you do not like a mod or addon, don't use it and find or create your own content that will please you.

  14. Posted

    I tried destroying a bradley with ~7 explosive charges placed behind it last night in TacBF, placed right behind it and on its side at point blank. Seemed to not scratch it. :(

    Is this a known issue or intentional?

    It depends, in general any explosves exploding to the sides of vehicle won't do much damage, maybe cosmetic.

    However explosion under the hull, where the explosion force and cumulate more, might far more dangerous.

    Keep in mind that Bradleys armor model is not 100% finished and implemented yet, as far as I know, Reyhard probably knows more.

  15. Posted

    I don't want to question your experience but doesn't the Challenger 2 use a MIL STD1553B databus for FCS which is a improved version of the Abram's FCS? Did the improvement make it more complex?

    And according to a friend who served the Challenger 1 with TOGS had rather poor visibility while Challenger 2 with TOGS II was a lot better. But I'm not to familiar with the Abram's optics, how effective are they?

    EDIT: How effective is HESH on a L30A1 compared to HE on a L/55?

    Found a interesting site on the Chally 2, just wanted to share

    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/11/the-tank-is-dead-long-live-the-tank-part-4-sdsr-army-2020-and-the-challenger-lep/

    It is not about databus, it is about optics placement on Challenger 2 that causes problems. The day sight that is placed on turret roof works like an other modern tank sight, it is good, no problems there, but in the moment you switch to thermal channel it starts to be funny ride. TOGS-2 is mounted on the gun mantled, which means there is no stabilization there for sight, sight is stabilized by the gun in vertical and turret in horizontal plane. It means that sight is neither SAHA neither DAHA type, so movable floating reticle is needed. It means that gunner needs to familirize himself with two different aiming methods at moving targets or when his own tank is moving.

    Another problem is long range fire when using TOGS-2, because FCS needs to compensate projectile drop, it will superelevate main gun to a proper position, which means, especially firing HESH, that when you use TOGS-2 you loose sight of your target.

    As for HESH ammo, it's obsolete, plus as far as I know, HESH with fins can be designed for smoothbore gun as well, but nobody bothers with it, a modern HE round with programmable fuze can do the same and more. HESH allways explodes on impact, while modern HE with such programmable fuze, can be programmed in to several operating modes, like explode on impact, delay/armor piercing mode where round first pierces through wall or armor and then explodes behind it, and also airburst mode so you can for example kill enemy infantry hiding besides some obstacles like sand berms. HESH can't do that.

    Actually in RHS we have such 120mm programmable HE round, the M1069, however important, for now round acts like a simple HE, it is not programmable yet, but maybe in future, maybe!. ;)

    Hi Damian, do you know of a site with good (reliable) collected information on different MBTs? I often find your posts here really interesting and sometimes would like to read more.

    The most basic source of my informations, and the best one, is literature, so books, documents and such kind of things, and of course discussions with other well acknowleged people, if you are english speaker only, try TankNet forums, for russian speaking people, Otvaga2004 forums, but due to recent political situation, forums were flooded by people not necessary interested in scientific discussion but in to who's dick is bigger type of discussion, other good russian language site is btvt.narod.ru. You can also find some of my posts on military photos.net.

    Also myself and my collegue are writing articles for polish military portals, link to my article you can find on RHS facebook page.

  16. Posted

    Fair enough. I was told by the British Army, circa late 90's, they selected that type of armour as it's safer generally.

    It's probably cheaper to produce knowing the MoD and the priority reason.

    They're both designed to shatter kinetic rounds and have there pros and cons so it makes sense for development to mix attributes somehow.

    So, Challenger 2 vs Abrams . Both fire a sabot at one another at the same time. Which crew will be drinking in the bar that night ?

    What militaries say to their soldiers officially, and what are true reasons and scientific facts are two different things. ;)

    As for M1 and Challenger 2, both have comparable armor protection, Challenger 2's addon armor kit is slightly more massive so protection over hull sides are probably slightly better. M1 on the other hand is more mobile, have better optcs and FCS (I had opportunity to familirize with both vehicles FCS using simulator and listening what crews of both have to say, Challenger 2's FCS is nightmare to learn and use), and also M256 smoothbore gun have better performance over L30A1 rifled gun, APFSDS ammunition is also more capable in US tank as it uses unitary rounds so penetrators can be longer, 3 piece ammo in Challenger 2 have limitations when it comes to penetrator lenght so it's performance will be weaker. M1 also have safer ammunition storage.

    All in all bith are good tanks.

  17. Posted

    LOL, put it this way as a rifleman I'd rather stand next to composite armour rather than ERA

    ;)

    You will be dead or injured either way. People tend to forget that projectiles when exploding or penetrating (if they are kinetic energy) also creates overpressure, flames, fragments and such sort of deadly things.

    Besides this modern ERA do not have that much of explosives, and the whole development moves towards something called SLERA or Self Limiting Explosive Reactive Armor. In fact there is not that much of explosives in explosive reactive armors.

    In the same time development of vehicles protection moves towards a combination of composite armor (which in reality, at least incase of main battle tanks, in it's design is closer to NERA or non energetic reactive armor than classical passive composite) and explosive reactive armor, even the newest Challenger 2 addon armor package uses ERA for side hull and turret protection.

  18. Posted

    The lack of coverage on the Warriors Chobham is just to protect the driver btw nothing more.

    Actually even driver protection is relatively poor considering possible angles of impact. And there is no such codename as "Chobham"... ugh I wonder how long historians will need to fight with this idiotic made up codename, even if in official armor documentation it does not exist. :j:

    The lower hull plate on the front of the Bradley has no additional protection either.

    Yes, but probably if hit there is lower, and there is transmission compartment there.

    All in all M2A2 and M2A3 are better protected than Warrior.

  19. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Base configuration? I dont know about the Warrior, but a base Bradley (M2, M2A1) can barely resist the KPVT machinegun! A 2A42 with old APBC ammo makes it swiss cheese. Or if you mean M2A2, then its OK, that can survive APDS. But thats not the base variant.

    Yes I meant M2A2 and M2A3 and I meant their base configuration, not the base variant. In fact there are no M2 and M2A1 left, all were rebuilded in to M2A2 or M2A3 configuration. ;)

    Actually Warrior have alluminium hull armor, just like M2 and M2A1, so it's base protection is probably comparable to early Bradley models, and not M2A2 and M2A3 that have alluminium + high hardness steel composite armor. Warrior is also lighter in it's base configuration than M2A2 and M2A3, 25 metric tons vs ~30 metric tons.

  20. Posted

    And don't forget Warrior is superior in protection compared to the Bradley

    Actually protection between the two is comparable. Both vehicles in their base configuration will survive from the front 30mm APDS ammo fired from 2A42/2A72 guns. Both vehicles can receive addon armor packages to further booster their sruvivability, and both of the newest addon armor kits are based on ERA.

    Actually ERA addon armor package for Bradley have better coverage over vehicle front, while in case of Warrior there is huge non protected area there.

  22. Posted

    Currently in RHS we have M2A2ODS and M2A3 which are two latest, currently widely fielded M2 variants with all bells and whistles, tough even newer M2A3 with ECP upgrades are currently in the fielding process, maybe we will have these as well, who knows.

    As for AA performance, it is more a problem with AI accuracy, try to do the same with human player and it will look differently, I don't know if we can solve this.

  23. Posted

    Don't compare M2 Bradley that have real fire control system and fully stabilized turret and armaments, to FV510 Warrior that do not have FCS, do not have stabilization, and it's 30mm main gun is obsolete design compared to Bradleys 25mm chain gun.

    Warrior is just primitive in this regard compared to M2 or even BMP-2.

    Other thing is improved Warrior that will be inducted in to service in nearest future with new turret that have real fire control system, stabilization and a modern 40mm gun with linkless belt feed.

  24. Posted

    The gun and dumb rockets should both be pilot controlled I think also.

    Funnily enough if it was a KA50 and the FLIR was better that would be fine with the narrow field of view. Telling the pilot to move here and there is silly but a single seater recce heli would suit this method.

    A revised KA-52 would be a massive 'game changer' for our GU as its primarily attack heli based for the foreseeable future.

    Thanks guys, keep up the good work it's appreciated.

    Yes we plan to look in to it, I think in the past we had discussion about practicality of Ka-52 and what can be changed, however we can't promise eventuall improvements and changes will be implemented in to 0.4 version.

×