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

    *All tanks are too heavy to destroy. Hit some of the older, weaker tanks in the rear -> just damage the hull, nothing pierce them. how will you implement better armor system (relict,...) then? I fear the balance issues.

    And perhaps you should think that these RPG's that are in mod right now are not capable to destroy vehicles but only to damage them?

    It is truth that armor system is not perfect yet, but don't expect balance in a mod where realism is top priority, and real world is not balanced or fair.

    Not to mention that you people believe for some reason that tanks are easy to be destroyed, it is contrary, I seen many photos/videos where different kind of tanks were hit multiple times from RPG's (and sometimes even ATGM's), at their different surfaces and were perfectly operational, putting complete mayhem on infantry forces attacking them.

    In reality infantry needs to take great effort to defeat a single tank by usig only their own infantry anti tank weapons.

    By the way, don't expect that "Relikt" ERA you mentioned will be some sort of magical system that protects Russian tanks, not to mention it is not used on mass produced vehicles but only offered by NII Stali as replacement for obsolete "Kontakt-5". ;)

  2. Posted

    There is allways margin of error, I try to make more sense from it so Reyhard will be able to implement improved armor models. Later I should also look in to weak zones in vehicles armor (like gun mantlets).

    I also made a different calculation for Abrams using different internal structure.

    Front turret - Physical thickness ~900mm - array design - 50mm HHS (60mm vs KE/CE) + 10mm Air (2,6mm vs CE) + 10mm HHS + 5mm Rubber + 10mm HHS (x5 = 125mm - 150mm vs KE/CE)) + 10mm Air (2,6mm vs CE) + 25mm HHS + 50mm DUA + 25mm HHS (x5 = 500 - 650mm vs KE/750mm vs CE) + 10mm Air (2,6mm vs CE) + 10mm HHS + 5mm Rubber + 10mm HHS (x4 = 100mm - 120mm vs KE/CE) + 95mm HHS (114mm vs KE/CE) = 1094mm vs KE/1201mm vs CE.

    Front hull - Physical thickness ~750mm - array design - 50mm HHS (60mm vs KE/CE) + 10mm Air (2,6mm vs CE) + 10mm HHS + 5mm Rubber + 10mm HHS (x5 = 125mm - 150mm vs KE/CE)) + 10mm Air (2,6mm vs CE) + 25mm HHS + 50mm DUA + 25mm HHS (x5 = 500 - 650mm vs KE/750mm vs CE) + 65mm HHS (78mm vs KE/CE) = 938mm vs KE/1043mm vs CE.

    IMHO it looks a bit better, to be honest huge problem is to find a good ratio between different materials to have realistic KE and CE value, and to make that CE value greater than KE, just like in real life.

    Ah... it will be a long night. :P

  3. Posted

    On screenshot I seen it is badly damaged and disabled, so it does something to that tank.

    On the other hand the goal would be to make things realistic, and in reality Abrams tanks don't explode as they have isolated ammunition compartments with blow off panels... actually tanks rarely explode, most times if ammunition starts to burn there is no explosions, just very violent fire.

  4. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Steel Beasts also don't have perfect models, I actually talked with one of their artists and he admitted they got for example Abrams armor greatly underestimated, while some other tanks are overestimated to the point of absurd. ;)

    I am currently calculating my own estimations based on TE values for different materials and known armor models.

    I will say it this way. Calculating Russian tanks is relatively easy as their armor design is relatively simple, so I must admit my calculations are more or less the same as any other estimations you can find.

    However with Abrams it's start to be interesting! It's armor model can be very complex and thus I cam up with different armor protection estimations, so I need to sit a bit over this problem and figure out the most close to reality armor model for this tank.

    I will give you example of my calculations:

    TE (thickness efficency) data table for different armor materials:

    RHA - 1,0 TE vs KE/1,0 TE vs CE

    CHA - 0,9-0,92 TE vs KE/0,9-0,92 TE vs CE

    SHS – 1,2 TE vs KE/1,2 TE vs CE

    HHS – 1,3 TE vs KE/1,3 TE vs CE

    THS - 1,8 TE vs KE/1,3 TE vs CE

    AD-97 – 0,97 TE vs KE/1,5 TE vs CE

    DUA – 1,3 TE vs KE/1,5 TE vs CE

    Air – 0 TE vs KE/0,26 TE vs CE

    Rubber - ? TE vs KE/? TE vs CE

    To calculate you multiplicate armor plate thickness through TE value of material from which it is made from. For example 50 x 1.2 = 60.

    M1A1HC/M1A1AIM armor estimations (based on simplified assumed model of the armor internal design):

    Front turret - Physical thickness ~850-900mm - array design - 50mm HHS (65mm TE vs KE/CE) + 5mm Air (1,3mm TE vs CE) + 5mm HHS + 5mm Rubber + 5mm HHS (x5 layers = 75mm / 97,5mm TE vs KE/CE) + 5mm Air + 10mm HHS + 10mm DUA + 10mm HHS (x 5 layers = 150 / 195mm VS KE - 225mm vs CE) + 5mm Air (1,3 TE vs CE) + 5mm HHS + 5mm Rubber + 5mm HHS (x5 layers = 75 / 97,5mm TE vs KE/CE) + 5mm Air (1,3mm TE vs CE) + 10mm HHS + 10mm DUA + 10mm HHS (x 5 layers = 150 / 195mm VS KE - 225mm vs CE) + 5mm Air (1,3mm TE vs CE) + 10mm HHS + 10mm DUA + 10mm HHS (x 5 layers = 150 / 195mm VS KE - 225mm vs CE) + 50mm HHS (60mm vs KE/CE) + 5mm Air (1,3mm TE vs CE) + 10mm HHS (12mm vs KE/CE) + 110mm RHA = 1027mm vs KE/1124mm vs CE.

    Front hull - Physical thickness ~700-750mm - array design - 50mm HHS (65mm TE vs KE/CE) + 5mm Air (1,3mm TE vs CE) + 5mm HHS + 5mm Rubber + 5mm HHS (x5 layers = 75mm / 97,5mm TE vs KE/CE) + 5mm Air + 10mm HHS + 10mm DUA + 10mm HHS (x 5 layers = 150 / 195mm VS KE - 225mm vs CE) + 5mm Air (1,3 TE vs CE) +5mm HHS + 5mm Rubber + 5mm HHS (x5 layers = 75 / 97,5mm TE vs KE/CE) + 5(1,3mm TE vs CE)mm Air + 10mm HHS + 10mm DUA + 10mm HHS (x 5 layers = 150 / 195mm VS KE - 225mm vs CE) + 5mm Air (1,3mm TE vs CE) + 5mm HHS + 10mm DUA + 1mm HHS (x 5 layers = 100 / 130mm VS KE - 150mm vs CE) + 5mm Air (1,3mm TE vs CE) + 110mm RHA = 890mm vs KE/977mm vs CE.

    Side turret - Physical thickness ~350-400mm - array design - WIP

    Side hull - Physical thickness ~70mm + 640mm Air (suspension) + 70mm - array design - 70mm (84mm vs KE/CE) + 640mm (166,4mm vs CE) + 70mm (84mm vs KE/CE) = 168mm vs KE/334mm vs CE.

    Rear turret - Physical thickness ~50-60mm - array design - WIP

    Rear hull - Physical thickness ~40-50mm - array design - WIP

    Top turret - Physical thickness ~40-70mm - array design - WIP

    Belly hull - Physical thickness ~40-50mm - array design - WIP

    T-80B/BV (BK/BVK) armor estimations:

    Front turret - Physical thickness 531mm - array design - 191mm CHA (0,9-0,92 vs KE/CE) + 122mm "Sand Rod" (AD-97 used as a model/0,97 vs KE/1,5 vs CE) + 218mm CHA (0,9-0,92 vs KE/CE) = 171/175mm vs KE/CE + 118mm vs KE/183mm vs CE + 196/200mm vs KE/CE = 485/493mm vs KE/550/558mm vs CE.

    Front hull - Physical thickness 220 @ 68 stopni = 587mm - array design - 50mm SHS (60 vs KE/CE) + 35mm AD-97 (33mm vs KE/52mm vs CE) + 50mm SHS (60 vs KE/CE) + 35mm AD-97 (33mm vs KE/52mm vs CE) + 50mm RHA = 236 @ 68 degrees = 502mm vs KE/274 @ 68 degrees = 583mm vs CE.

    I don't say this is perfect, and there might be some serious errors.

    But I observed that my armor calculations for Abrams are very close to the observations of armor designers from UK and US, where they said that their armor (or actually various types of armors developed within program "Burlington/Starflower") can be tuned by changing layers quantity, thickness and used materials, so as I said earlier, I need to sit over this and try various different combinations to get results that can be assumed as realistic.

    Note!

    Armor model for T-80B/BV is not my fantasy, but it is based on real life data, declassified data, and observations made on damaged or destroyed tanks of this type.

  5. Posted

    quite frankly there is no evidence of that in real life. All these arguments are very speculative and always biased. So much of this kind of information is classified, that it is really impossible to claim that you know the truth, unless you have an actual video of this event on the battlefield. I have never seen these tanks face each other on any videos on the net or have I even seen this with my own eyes. Unti then, all these discussions are useless and only lead to over patriotic flag waving and insulting. Tank battles are very fun right now between these RHS tanks. I honestly wish they would keep it this way. My tank was hit couple of times when the projectile just brushed the armor and did no damage. Other times my armor actually was useful for a change. I skipped work today just to enjoy this mod. So grateful to the RHS team for this release.

    Actually it is truth. Even Russians admitt that Kontakt-5 is obsolete and will be easy defeated by even M829A2.

    We also know exact mechanism in which modern APFSDS can defeat ERA like Kontakt-5 by just... not initiating it.

    However the mod armor system probably needs more tweaking, Reyhard is still working on it and I actually need to sit and work on avaiable data to figure out something closer to the truth.

    For example in my opinion, front hull armor of the Abrams tanks is still slightly too weak, I actually had opportunity to inspect a NATO class MBT with a WarPac class MBT (these were Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A5 and PT-91) and when you stand in person just next to them, just then realize how massively thick are special armor modules on NATO MBT's compared to a T-72 class tank. And make a note that Leopard 2's frontal armor is actually thinner than that of M1A1 and M1A2, especially on the hull front.

    Of course this is only a physical thickness and there is also the rolled homogeneus armor equivalent protection, and here it starts to be funny.

    Because to calculate how good the armor is, we can use thickness efficency values for different materials. The standard RHA TE = 1.0 vs KE ammo, however there are different kind of steel armors like high hardness steel with TE = 1.2 vs KE, or tripple hardness steel with TE = 1.3 vs KE.

    So calculation here is easy, for example:

    50mm RHA x 1.0 = 50mm.

    However if we replace RHA with for example HHS.

    50mm HHS x 1.2 = 60mm.

    Thanks to this method you can create a simplified model for vehicles armor protection, however allways remember, it will allways be simplified!

    So we can play with it a bit. Let's use T-72B obr.1985 front hull armor model. We know how it armor looks like in the front hull.

    60mm RHA +15mm air gap + 15mm RHA/HHS +15mm air gap + 15mm RHA/HHS + 15mm air gap + 15mm RHA/HHS + 15mm air gap + 50mm RHA.

    Against KE ammo we will ignore air gaps and just calculate steel layers, we will assume that interlayers are made from HHS steel and adjust properly it's TE values.

    60mm + 18mm + 18mm + 18mm + 50mm = 164mm, but this is of course thickness when armor model is vertical, let's incline it to 68 degrees just like in real life.

    So if my calculations are correct, 164mm @ 68 degrees = ~530mm vs KE and the physical armor thickness should be ~587mm when adding air gaps.

    Armor of other T tanks is similiar and it's physical thickness is no larger than ~600mm, on the other hand me and my collegues estimated (because we could not meassure it in real life obviously) frontal hull special armor module of the Abrams tank to be ~700mm thick, we estimated it by comparing the hull and the module size with Leopard 2 which was meassured in real life by one of my collegues, and results for Leopard 2 were around ~650mm.

    And there are of course other materials, especially about T tanks, that for some reason were declassified, like factory drawings showing thickness and exact placement of different kind of materials inside armor cavities. We can for example compare these with assumed armor design (or known armor design) to their western counterparts and make some conclusions.

    It is definately a fact that T tanks does not have better special armor than their western counterparts, but don't make wrong conclusions, their protection isn't either a bad or weak protection, it's just different and achieved by different means, and have different characteristics.

    Actually even Reyhard pointed out for example during his work, that T tanks have very weak coverage of their ERA, and that's true, for example Kontakt-5 on T-72B obr.1989 will protect less than 50% of vehicles surface, if I am not mistaken, it will be around 45% for vehicles frontal projection. Add to this a fact that modern APFSDS ammo like M829A2 or M829A3 just punch through without even detonating ERA, does not help either.

    http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/dz_2014/dz_2014.htm

    Here is great article all should read about this subject, however it is only in russian so, people not speaking this language should use translator. But it explains a lot.

  6. Posted

    can a dev comment on the vehicle damage mechanics? does the mod just use the default arma hitpoints system or have you made any changes? thanks

    As non of the Devs replied and I am the one helping Reyhard in this issue, I will permitt myself a liberty to answer this question, although I am not a member of RHS team.

    Yes, there are changes based on the Olds work which he made for his Real Armor Mod (RAM), which means that damage model is based on vehicles real armor (of course estimated as real protection of these vehicles is classified) and real ammunition penetration capabilities. However note that this is still not completely finished and with time it may change.

  9. Posted

    Yes that what i would have assumed what the FCS does but when i pointed the crosshair on a moving tank (2 occasions) it didnt shoot correctly. Not sure why. And when i lased a target at 1.3km and shot HE frag the round impacted way earlier. Again no idea why.

    Remember that RV engine was never meant to simulate real tank FCS, so what Reyhard did is closer to that but can still be glitchy.

  10. Posted

    Ahh, I gotcha. You're Damian from tank-net, correct? I'm a fan of your posts over there!

    Yeah it was mainly the different IR zoom levels for the M1A2 etc that I was curious about. The ones in Steel Beasts Pro are absolutely unparalleled in terms of zoom (well except maybe next to the Apache Longbow :P). Something like that in this mod would be perfect.

    Yup that's me... damn I start to be famous (or rather infamous, as I have opinion of an arsehole :P).

    And yes, this is the aim to create realistic optics and FCS for M1 series, however I am not a coder so, this will be Reyhards magic, I provide only real life data and my knowledge.

  11. Posted

    The FCS lead is allways applied when you aims at moving target, your tank is moving or both. It is done that way so you can keep your crosshair on target while FCS will calculate lead automatically.

    Note! T-72 tanks does not have real fire control system, but simple ballistic calculator, that does not calculate lead, in T-72's lead must be applied manually by the gunner using stadia's in crosshair.

  12. Posted

    Important note for players interested in vehicular combat.

    This explanation is about Main Battle Tanks commander machine gun mounts, it seems that many players have problems with this issue and how it looks in reality and why because of that some things look in the mod that and not the other way.

    The problem with commander machine guns on tanks is that some of these machine guns were mounted on powered cupolas and intended to be fired only from vehicle interior (concept similiar to modern remotely controlled weapon stations). Such powered cupolas are relatively heavy, and thus it is difficult or immposible to rotate them by using only own muscles.

    Thus such cupolas have in vehicle interior a power traverse and also power or handcranck elevation for it's weapon. So for realism sake, these powered cupolas and their weapons can't be used when tank commander is sitting in opened hatch. There are various types of such powered cupolas, for example relatively simple ones, like the M1A1 CWS (Commander Weapon Station) cupola, which during vehicles modernization had been replaced by SCWS (Stabilized Commander Weapon Station) on M1A1SA and M1A1FEP which are not modelled in RHS mod... not yet at least.

    There are also other types of cupolas, where machien gun can't be fired from vehicle interior as it is mounted in a simple pintle mount. In such case to fire such kind of machine gun, commander needs to open his hatch and get outside, at least partially exposing his body to enemy fire. Such types of machine gun mounts can be found on M1A2SEPv1, T-72B or T-80U.

    However in such case, some machine gun mounts are designed in such way, that simulating them in RV engine is difficult or immposible, good example here is RHS mod team T-80U tank. On the other hand some other tanks, during their modernization proces, had these pintle mounted machine guns, replaced by modern remotely controlled weapon stations, such example is M1A2SEPv2 which is not modelled in RHS mod... not yet at least.

    ---------- Post added at 17:22 ---------- Previous post was at 17:21 ----------

    dissabled all mods but RHS and CBA and the error still appears and did them 1 at a time

    Then you have some serious problem, perhaps you should download your mod again.

  15. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    But i can cycle from gunner to driver. Zoom1, Zoom2, Scope, Driver. It is normal?(Линканите на док, не могу найти Ñтраницу)

    In what vehicle? I think you misunderstand something here. However I will double check it right now to be sure.

    Edit:

    Vehicles check - no problems found with gunner view toggle, works like intended. Conclusion - read documentation preprared by RHS team before reporting non existing problems. :icon_rolleyes:

  16. Posted

    Outstanding. In any direction.

    Damian90, maybe you can give me some clarity on this:

    http://doc.rhsmods.org/index.php/M1A1

    M1A1 still armed with M829A1 but at the same time equipped with TUSK?

    Hi King Homer.

    Well currently in the mod we have only M1A1AIM and M1A1HC from the M1A1 series. Mod team decided that these will have M829A1, but of course there are avaiable other rounds from M829 series. AFAIK M829A1 is still used where more capable ammunition is not needed.

    If I am not mistaken, but Reyhard will probably need to confirm this, more modern versions of M1A1 that at some point probably will be included in to the mod, will have different ammunition loadout.

    Of course I can discuss that with Reyhard and we can change ammo loadout, actually it is good that you pointed out this, I think that ammo loadout for main gun is still not perfect.

    Remember that this is still very much WIP, and there are also some more important things that are needed to be done.

  17. Posted

    Oh, I'm german, I'll do anything for beer

    And how is a full platoon (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/figa-2.gif)supposed to be carried by four IFV?

    That's a big problem of US Army, because standard infantry squad is 9 men. There were different ideas, like reducing mech infantry squad to 6 men. However it was considered as suboptimal, this is why decision was made to modernize M2 by using MTC30 unmanned turret, so more space inside M2 can be obtained.

  18. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    And regarding the M2A3: Do you plan to fix the amount of cargo seats? IRL they got 7 seats instead of 6. Would be great.

    There is indeed 7th seat behind driver station, however it is not used these days. Seriously, try to sqeeze back there through space between turret basket protective "chimney" and vehicles side wall with your rifle, in ballistic vest, if you do that I will buy you a beer. :)

    However currently in development is new variant of M2 with Kongsberg unmanned MTC30 turret, which means there won't be any turret basket (which is huge in case of M2's manned turret), so new M2 variant after planned modernization, will have capability to transport 9 soldiers + 3 crew members, exactly the same turret is planned for new Stryker APC variant (or rather wheeled IFV). The turret is armed with 30mm M813 automatic cannon (which is US Army improved variant of the famous ATK Mk44) with capability to convert from 30mm calliber to 40mm and in future also 50mm (as this is planned IFV armament for future), besides this there 7,62mm coaxial machine gun, and capability to integrate ATGM, it is intended probably to integrate improved "Javelin" ATGM with extended range as a replacement for TOW-2.

    http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/image10-e1413341427261.jpg (119 kB)

    http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/image9-e1413342083823.jpg (142 kB)

    If these vehicles will be fielded, I am sure that at some point, they might find their way in to the mod. ;)

  19. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    I was having some issues with the FCS of tanks, and while I know its a WIP/to-be-upgraded, I wanted to be certain; the levels of zoom available currently are a WIP, correct? Because currently, you can barely zoom in at all. Not a gigantic problem of course.

    To explain, as I am helping Reyhard doing this as a "guy who knows something". ;)

    Vehicular optics are realistic, and are meant to be realistic, which means it will look like, if possible behave like, and have zoom like in reality.

    So it means that for example optics of T-72 tanks are... junk, just like in real life, seriously sometimes I wonder who was a genius who developed optics for a tank, with fixed zoom, which is not a large zoom, and later expect that gunner will be able to hit anything reliably at todays engagement distances.

    On the other hand you will love optics of M1A2SEPv1 (and hopefully other modern M1 variants) when and if Reyhards work will be successfull. To give you some idea how it looks and to compare with Russian tanks, M1A2SEPv1 have - 3x and 10x zoom for day channel in primary sight, 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x zoom for it's thermal channel in primary sight and also for tank commander CITV (if you ask yourself why thermal sight have greater zoom variety than day sight, it's simple, in reality the primary sight is thermal, all other sights are just backups, for example day sight is used mostly for target recognition if it is immposible to recognize what you are aiming to by using thermals) + auxiliary sight with 8x zoom and unity sight with 1x zoom. Older M1 variants have only 3x and 10x zoom for it's primary sights day and thermal channel.

    57876747620f8e795de2o.jpg

    This is gunner forward instruments panel with his eye oculars, this model can be found in M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEPv1/v2. From left to right - gunner auxiliary sight (GAS) with 8x zoom, gunner primary sight (GPS) day channel with 3x and 10x zoom, above you can see unity sight with 1x zoom, and to the right GPS thermal channel with 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x zoom.

  21. Posted

    4. Army vehicles that are in desert coyote also coming shortly?

    What the hell is desert coyote pattern for vehicles?

    There is no such thing in reality. US Armed Forces use currently only - 3 color woodland, desert tan, and very rarely olive drab, there are also additional patterns that are very, very, extremely very extremely rarely used for training purpose mostly at Fort Irwin NTC.

  22. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    very nice mod that was sorely needed in arma 3. based on what i've seen in the make arma contest i think this project easily deserves a top 3 finish. however i did notice a few problems from a quick editor session(vanilla arma + rhs)

    -bmd's and bmp's would get stuck in water and not move

    -commander machine guns on russian tanks seem unusable

    1) This is BIS bug, no tracked vehicles can actually swim properly, want a fix? Ask BIS.

    2) I hope you understand that this mod aims at realism, some tanks have indeed commander machine guns, but these can be only used when commander is unbuttoned up. Now because of ArmA engine limitations and how these machine gun mounts work in reality, making these machine guns to work properly might be difficult or even impossible task. For example T-80U commander machine gun mount was designed by complete moron, honestly I don't know if it is even possible to use that mg in any practical and safe way on battlefield in reality.

  24. Posted

    It's definately a good day for ArmA community. :)

    A small hint for players orientated at vehicular gameplay, try to learn vehicles first, find their strong and weak sides, for example US tanks have very tough front armor, especially turret, and have much greater main armament minus elevation, so if possible, allways use hull down position, on the other hand, Russian tanks tend to have faster reload thanks to autoloaders, try to use this in your advantage. ;)

×