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 · Edited by Damian90

    Oh ok. I was persuaded that Russian army, for all which is tanks, was more or less at the same level as US Army.

    Someone lied to you, probably some fanboy or other unreliable source. After 1991, this means collapse of Soviet Union, Russian Army was more and more underfunded, degradation reached such levels, that situation could had been named FUBAR. Of course these days it is slightly better, however as far as I was able to dig out information from Russian sources, Russian Army tank corps have very hard situation, they receive very little of new vehicles, and training is very poor, especially in terms of safety, in last few years they lost few T-72B tanks with whole crews burned alive, because they didn't kept enough attention to safety and let ammo cook offs to happen. There were photos of wrecks in which these poor people died. And believe me, burning alive when ammo cook off happens, is not nice.

    And do you have in your plan to make the BM-30 Smerch ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-30_Smerch)

    Dunno, we will see.

    But you say that the T-90A is the most advanced versions of T-90, but it's not rather the T-90MS which is more advanced ?

    I said in service of Russian Federation Armed Forces. T-90SM (or T-90MS if you wish) is not in service of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, as letter S in designation suggests it is intended for export, and so far only India per avaiable informations, purchased it, tough no hard confirmation yet.

    If a new variant of T-90 would be inducted in to service, it would be most likely designated as T-90AM, and would eb similiar to T-90SM.

    As for know, Russia have no more than 225-300 T-90 and T-90A tanks, production had been ceased because it is expensive tank for Russian standards, and thus cheap modernization of T-72B tanks to T-72B3 standard was initiated.

  2. Posted

    have to ask are you guys just making us and ru stuff or you gone bring in some european stuff to at some point just asking

    We don't know the future, currently we want to finish as much as possible both factions, and then? Who knows! ;)

    Especially that some of us are not even the guys creating content, for example I am just tester + research guy that research data about vehicles.

  3. Posted

    Like the rest of the armies in the world. Let's face it - U.S. military is the monster on steroids then we talk about pumping money into it. For its purpose, Russian army is rather well equipped, then compared to bag, bundeswher or other armies in Europe and Asia.

    Yes it is. Actually US Armed Forces have the largest active and reserve main battle tanks fleet, yeah seriously, researched that subject myself, in active fleet they have around 4500 tanks in brigades, battalions and in high readiness reserve/training, and around 4000-4500 in low readiness reserve, all of these tanks are M1 Abrams type. I even seen some M60 series tanks hidden in different bases. :P

    On paper Russian Armed Forces would have bigger tank fleet, but most of these tanks in long term storage are just obsolete junk, like T-54/55 or T-62 tanks, many other are scrapped, so in reality high readiness and low readiness fleet is much smaller.

    Someone will ask China? PRC have at best around 4000 tanks, and I mean modern tanks like ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99, I don't count useless junk like T-54/55 clones (ZTZ-59, ZTZ-69 and so on) in to this, tough such junk is still in service as PRC do not have money to replace them... heck, as per recent news, they don't even have money to provide ballistic vests for most infantry units!

  4. Posted

    When we will see the T-90, BMP-3, and last MI-24/MI-28 version ?

    When ready.

    Because USA have already M1A2 Abrams TUSK III

    We have so far only M1A1AIM (also with TUSK-1 kit), M1A1FEP and M1A2SEPv1 (also with TUSK-1 kit). Such thing as TUSK III do not exist, there were only plans to create such up armor kit in real life.

    so why Russian have a Cold War equipement ?

    Because in real world Russian Army is underfunded compared to US Army and because bulk of it's weapons, equipment and so on is a cold war era equipment, not modernized or modernized in minimal level, and also because older vehicles were made much, much earlier.

    It's a fantastic mod, but it's rather disturbing to see Russians so badly equipped in your Mod, there is even no 9K22 Tunguska, while the USA have the last M2A3 Bradley and his AA version.

    As above, some assets were made earlier, that's why, plus real world, as we aim in to realism, then do not expect a T-90A tank (the most advanced T-90 variant in service of Russian Federation armed forces) to be as good as M1A2SEPv1.

    Ammo penetration values, armor protection values, all are based on real life data, or our own research and complex calculations. So if T-90A have weaker armor and weaker ammunition, compared to it's US counterparts, it will have them as such in the mod.

    It does not however that it is completely useless or vurnable compared to M1A2SEPv1 (or other American tanks). Each tank have realistic armor model, which means there are weak spots in armor protection, for example front have weak spots like gun mantlet, and side armor is incapable to stop tank gun ammunition or more modern RPG's and ATGM's.

    This is not only realistic, but forces players to actually know each vehicle, it's strong and weak sides, and use tactics.

  5. Posted

    AFAIK 4th Guards Tank Division receiving T-80UE-1 and replacing "L-4" IR searchlight on T-80U with PL-1 in 2014.

    Thanks for info's.

    @Damian90 do you got any news for me regarding the tail lights on the M2 IFV?

    Reyhard talked about that with me, I think he will fix this before next release, but there are currently more important things to fix or to be made.

  7. Posted

    This source is very poor. Such thing as T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" never existed as a real designation code, the vehicle called "Black Eagle" in reality was designated as Object 640 and was designed by KBTM design bureau as proposal for next generation tank, but was discared a long with Object 299 designed by "Spetsmash" design bureau in favor of UKBTM Object 195.

    As for IR sight, IR sight does not means thermal, it means infrared night vision, which can't be modeled in ArmA3 engine and thus as a placeholder we use passive night vision. Actually IR night vision works similiar to passive night vision, but can be amplified by use of L2G IR search light.

  8. Posted

    Actually the latest upgrades to T-80U tanks are also not very numerous, so not many tanks were upgraded.

    Eventually we would need to look in to sources and see how many were upgraded and what proper designation code received. And still sources might not be specific about that. Hard to say.

    RHS T-80U represents 1985-1989/90 standard.

  9. Posted

    A BMPT based on the T72 & T80 formats would be really cool.

    BMPT that actually had been renamed as BMOP recently, is based only on T-90A tank chassis and T-72 chassis. There were no BMPT/BMOP vehicles based on T-80 tank chassis, and most likely there won't be. The last existing tank design bureau in Russia is UKBTM and last existing manufacturer is UVZ, both responsible for T-72 and T-90 series of vehicles (plus many unknown to the west prototypes). The T-80 series design bureaus and factory plants like LKZ or KBTM and Spetsmash are no longer exist or were purchased and belong right now to UVZ, while the design bureau and factory responsible for T-64 series and T-80UD tank, the KMDB and Malyshev plant, are now belonging to Ukraine.

    Ok end of history. ;)

  13. Posted

    Well, that still doesnt explain.

    My estimate is:

    Hull front is 25mm AL + 30mm steel at 60 deg = ~90mm

    Sides are 25mm AL + 30mm steel up to 2/3-3/4 height = ~45mm. The remaining 1/3 - 1/4 is a bit angled, and seems to be partially reinforced with around 5-10mm steel, so ~55-60mm.

    So sides are definitely 3UBR6 proof, but I wouldnt be sure about 3UBR8, especially the lower 2/3-3/4 of the hull, which is still a very big target.

    Maybe, we would need good armor schematic.

    BTW, what about the rear ramp? That is the only part that seems REALLY thick.

    it's not homogeneus, seems to be spaced armor made from two thinner plates with air gap in between.

  14. Posted

    My estimates are about 10% lower for front, (so almost the same) but sides arent a bit too optimistic? I think they arent more than 55-60mm.

    Sides are made from the same material as front, upper side hull is also angled + there is side skirt made from HHS plate.

    Do you know the effectiveness of ERA? Can we give them about +300-400mm VS CE? (vs single warhead only)

    Here is the problem, nobody knows the efficency of ARAT, BRAT and SRAT ERA, however I heard it was capable to stop even PG-29V (sic!), not immposible considering that this ERA have layered design, there are at least 4-5 reactive layers inside with some sort of isolation or amortization in between layers.

    I haven't been able to find anything on search at the moment, but are you guys planning to add sidearms? I think Russia has the renamed vanilla pistol,but the US has nothing.

    We plan to, they are just not ready as they had lower priority over other stuff. :)

  15. Posted

    Do you know any other unusual combination of keys/feature ? like when on tanks to change optic ? : )

    On M1A1FEP and M1A2SEPv1 the gunner have 3x and 10x magnification in day channel, and N does not change view to thermal channel, however pushing + for further increasing zoom, will change channel to thermal, and you will have 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x magnification, same levels of magnification are for M1A2SEPv1 commander CITV tough CITV have only thermal channel and is still WIP.

  16. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Well, BMPs may be tin cans, but Bradleys are tin cans too! Dont forget that their protection was essentially the same as BMPs, until the M2A2 variant, around 30mm RHA.

    SLAP wont change anything, because BMPs are still invulnerable to it in the frontal sector. Sides and rear are already penetrable with conventional ammo.

    True. M2 and M2A1 were tin cans as well, fault of that stupid requirement to give amphibious capability for 25 tons heavy vehicle... and it still barely swimmed.

    M2A2 and M2A3 should be protected against 30mm 3UBR6 and 3UBR8 at front and sides, as there is a lot of HHS steel bolted to alluminium alloy hull, turret is made from alluminium and steel + have additional HHS steel plates volted.

    My estimations + angle of armor plates give it:

    Upper front hull - 99mm vs KE/CE

    Lower front hull - 69mm vs KE/CE

    Side hull - 69mm vs KE/CE

    Side hull + side skirts - 99mm vs KE/CE

    Front turret - 80mm vs KE/CE

    Side turret - 57mm vs KE/CE (at least where TOW launcher is placed)

    Rear turret - 30mm vs KE/CE

    Above is without ERA modules installed that will increase protection against KE and significantly increase protection against CE.

  17. Posted

    RHS team, you're doing such a great job - keep it up guys :-)

    But could someone please take a look at BMP-1, BMP-2 and their variants ? Their frontal and side armor should not be penetrated by .50cal fire, yet it takes only about 5 shots from static M2 to damage its engine and make it's crew bail out (both bmps). BMP 2 - mainly the upgraded D variant, should not get damaged from .50 fire at all. From what I've read only .50cal SLAP round can penetrate both variants frontal armor, but that round I believe is not used in regular M2 that are featured in your mod.

    I'd be very happy if you guys take a look at it. Thank you and have a nice day !

    I think you overestimate armor of BMP's, they are nothing more than tin cans just like BTR's.

    However indeed the M2 and it's ammo is not configured properly yet, why? Because there is no RHS ammo for RHS M2 yet, we use standard BIS ammo for now.

    Yeah we will look in to it ASAP, and try to create proper ammunition types for M2, including SLAP, I will discuss this with MistyRonin later. Tough there are other problems, probably more important, as we need to fix ballistics of projectiles for some tanks as they are still not properly configured for vehicles FCS and fall short to target.

    Also, is there a guide for this mod ?

    http://doc.rhsmods.org/index.php/Main_Page

  20. Posted

    Its the default scope on the US M249.Cant remember name (m60 maybe)

    Had same issue in 3.0,posted about it and thought RHS team was aware of it.Possibly i was one of only a few who had the issue via a mod conflict.

    Mods im using:

    Massis spetsnaz/veihicles

    massis nato/spz weapons

    SMA weapons

    CAF Aggressors

    HLC(ALL weapon packs)

    SG335 weapon mod(name eludes me)

    SUD russians

    RDS east static/tanks APCs.

    ADSG

    Iv no time to test removing readding all these in a hurry,but if this issue isnt happening to others and you cant check these mods il try get around to it ASAP,and let you know what compatibilites issues i find.Apoligies woulda done this in 3.0 but assumed the problem was known and being looked at for fix.

    EDIT: Only happening on M249 when default scope is attatched

    Hmmm, might be that one of mods cause problems. I do not have such problems, tough I also use plenty of other mods, some of them same as you like HLC or RDS.

  21. Posted

    Using the m1a2 mbt I was able to fire multiple default shells through a Chinook without blowing up the chopper. They just went right through. Switched to the he round and it blew up in 2 shots. I thought it was really cool to see the difference but it's it accurate?

    Yes, in general, APFSDS rounds, are just long dense rods made from steel, tungsten alloy or depleted uranium alloy and are designed to be used only against heavy armored vehicles, they go through lightweight materials with ease causing minimal damage.

    On the other hand HEAT, MPAT or HE rounds, will explode and cause much more damage against such soft targets, while their effectiveness against hard targets like tanks is much smaller.

  23. Posted

    Thanks for the quick reply Reyhard.

    Two points I was wondering about (and I just want to make sure before I create an issue in your bugtracker):

    * reticle size in different magnification stages (3x, 6x, ...), are the reticles supposed to increase proportional in size with each zoom level, iirc the reticle is independent of magnification level

    * own vehicle speed calculation - I've done some extended testing while firing with all Abrams models on the move with different speed levels and the FCS was not calculating the tanks own movement speed, so most of the rounds fired missed

    Thanks in advance for clarification.

    Well, FCS is still WIP, so some functions might not be there yet, and some things might change.

    For example USMC M1A1FEP should have the same optics as M1A2SEPv1 for it's gunner. It is on our internal issue tracker by the way. ;)

    As for reticles, to be honest I don't know, Reyhard probably has the answer as he was the one modelling this stuff.

  25. Posted

    Is it normal i cant attatch flashlights to AK family?

    And do AK's avaiable in the mod have rails to attache such equipment in the front? No? Then nope. :)

    We aim at realism, if in reality something can't be done, then it won't be done. And ArmA3 engine limitations make immposible to attache things to weapons as ad hoc sollutions using tape. :P

×