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

  3. Posted

    Ok, few words, and I hope RHS team won't kill me for that. :P

    As a players you will need to learn and understand strong and weak points of armored fighting vehicles you will drive. Yeah, RHS mod will have much more realistic armor damage handling than vanilla ArmA3. I can only say, the modelling is nearly there but not quiet yet. Hopefully I will finalize my report so team might be able to make tweaks here and there for initial release.

    If you watch that video carefully, these M1's there, drived by moronic AI were easy destroyed by Reyhard, because they simply exposed side armor... well, try the same trick when they show only frontal armor and... have a good luck surviving. ;) Of course their frontal armor still need tweaks, because I feel something is not 100% right, and there are other small quirks needing fixing. But overall, it looks very promising, for something like ArmA engine, this is trully a large step ahead. So big applause for RHS team, and also Olds and his work to overcome obsolete hitpoints system. ;)

    However I think I can allready say that there might be a problem with vanilla content compatibility when it comes to ammunition and armor protection of vehicles. I might have idea how to solve this (actually there are two possible options), but might not be there for initial release.

    Overall expect really great mod!

  5. Posted

    You know MSBS works the same as ACR (internal parts) - Radom do create own parts/stuff but the regular MSBS is a almost clean copy of ACR

    but i do see they improved the design and made the bullpup version which is more atractive and maybe even better than the original

    All assault rifles work on the basis of the same principle. ;)

    But really, MSBS have nothing in common also internally with ACR, we didn't even had opportunity to look at internal parts of MSBS for a long time before the whole mechanism was patented.

    So really, both rifles look similiar, but are different, separate projects. ;)

  6. Posted

    MSBS does not have anything common with ACR. ;)

    It is completely separate project, it just look the same. I know that as a citizen of Poland from my birth, I might be a bit biased, but I had opportunity to compare MSBS with some other assault rifles, and MSBS in terms of ergonomics beats them hands down. Also in terms of modularity, MSBS is a trully modular design. Each MSBS variant have at least minimum 80% commonality with other variants, and it is very easy with inbus key and parts kit to convert a specific variant in to the other, for example standard rifle in to bullpup variant by just replacing lower receiver, handguard and buttstock.

    As a matter of fact, I wonder RobertHammer if you would create a high quality MSBS model. :)

  7. Posted

    But i think the T-72B was called the T-72BV which was fitted with Kontakt-1 ERA, and the Kontakt-5 ERA wasn't introduced until 1989 and it was then called the T-72BM.

    Wrong. The suffix "V" was only added to tanks that were not esigned with ERA installation mind, so for example T-64B with Kontakt-1 becomes T-64BV, T-80B with Kontakt-1 becomes T-80BV. However T-72B from the very beggining was designed with ERA in mind, so when T-72B received Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 was still designated as T-72B.

    T-72BM (or T-72B(M)) is a non existing designation, the T-72B with Kontakt-5 is just T-72B or T-72B Model 1989/Model 1990. And there are additional variants of the T-72B.

    T-72B1 is a simplified cheaper model which does not have 9K120 guiding system for 9M119 ATGM fired from the gun barrel.

    T-72B2 is the most advanced variant developed within the program codenamed "Rogatka", it was never fielded due to costs, it was during development also known as T-72BM but this designation code was abandoned in favor of T-72B2.

    T-72B3 is currently a most modern variant in service of the Russian Federation Armed Forces. It does not have all the goodies T-72B2 had, but received newer thermal sight Sosna-U.

    T-72BA is a designation code for a refurbished T-72B's.

  8. Posted

    Just dont forget that the Bradley before the A2 variant was also very poorly armored. Its frontal protection was almost exactly the same as the BMP, around 30mm. (OK, it was actually thicker, but unlike the BMP, it was made from aluminium, that's why its weak)

    Yup, that's correct. It was actually fault of initial requirement for M2 IFV to swim so M2 and M2A1 were relatively lightly armored, quickly however US Army changed requirements and new M2A2 variant have better protection. It is very well described in Richard Hunnicutt book Bradley - A History Of The American Fighting And Support Vehicles.

    And while I agree that BMP-3 wont protect against M919 APFSDS, but it has at least quite good basic armor (65-70mm vs KE), which may be enough against the still very common 25mm M791 APDS.

    Yup, actually M919 APFSDS can penetrate around 100mm of RHA, so it is capable to perforate armor of many WWII Heavy Tanks.

    As for M791 APDS, I don't know if it still used or was withdrawn from service.

  10. Posted

    The missle on top is a metis? or a kornet? (what is the difference it seems really similar sorry)

    The missile launcher can fire ATGM's 9M111 Fagot and 9M113 Konkurs. It can't fire 9M115 Metis and 9M131 Metis-M neither 9M133 Kornet.

    The front looks like more of a sharp angle than other bmps is that to deflect rpgs or something?

    No, it's the same like in all variants of BMP-1 and BMP-2, it is designed such way for better bouancy on water and to better deflect armor piecing ammunition up to calliber of 20mm, anything above that will make a swiss cheese from these BMP's.

    Even newer BMP-3 does not offer frontal protection in it's basic protection against for example 25mm APFSDS M919 that can be fired from 25mm M242 automatic cannon which is the armament of US M2 IFV. However BMP-3 can have installed additional ERA kit just like M2 IFV which makes it less vurnable against such threats, and also offers protection against some RPG's and ATGM's.

  16. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Anyway I agree scale is important, arma 3 merkava scale is good!

    But remember merkava is a small tank etc etc

    Small? I think you never actually had opportunity to stand next to any kind of a tank. :D

    I guarantee you that it's large as small house. Just recently I had opportunity to compare in person size of T-72 class tank with Leopard 2 tank, difference in size is significant, and still for me T-72 was a large vehicle, I have around 1,75m in height, hey a T-34/85 or T-55 is large for me.

    altough it is truth that size scale in games is problematic.

  17. Posted

    One thing to be fair over BIS tough. ArmA3 vehicle models like M2A1 Slammer/Merkava Mk4M are very realistic, so improvement in model making by BIS itself is very visible. Of course there are some things I would change, but overall it's a very good job. One thing tough, the NATO tracked vehicles should be slightly larger, as their real life counterparts are really large.

    Hopefully RHS team will be capable to keep scale of vehicles just like in real life. Fact is that US tanks compared to Russian ones are larger in rather significant way.

  18. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    There was some type of T-80 for old RHS arma 2, sorry I dont know the UD (I dont know any version differences)

    but I guess its quite possible they would put in some type of t-80.

    Nah, the A2 variant of the mod had only the original T-80, the T-80B, T-80BV (with reactive armor added), T-80BK (command variant of the tank) and T-80BVK (command variant with reactive armor added) and also a T-80A which was a predecesor of T-80U and T-80UD variants but manufactured on a very little scale and never saw a large scale service as T-80U and T-80UD did.

    It may sound selfish, but now I'm happy that BI opted for the pseudo-futuristic setting, because it triggered the creation by RHS of the full modern Russian and US factions, with all kinds of details and the more than outstanding models and textures.

    RHS content has always been IMO way better than the vanilla ones in the OFP/Arma series.

    I agree, did you saw Gurdy's M1 Abrams models?

    These are the most realistic M1 tank models ever made for a game, the only thing comparable were models made for Steel Beasts Pro PE and Combat Mission Shock Force. Oh and of course Fishkopf and King Homer M1A1/M1A2 models made from OFP and later reused in the ACE1 mod for first ArmA.

    The vanilla M1 models in OFP and previous ArmA games were awfully unrealistic with many wrong things, for example view from gunner sight was not where the gunner sight actually is.

  19. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    I was only helping Gurdy with gathering informations for US AFV's mostly, and there was a bit of info gathering help from my end on BMD-4 family of vehicles which Gurdy was working on.

    However I am more than certain that RHS have excellent models of Russian/Soviet AFV's, you can see on their Facebook fanpage beautifull models of T-72B series of tanks, they also will use T-80 series of tanks models made originally for A2 and other stuff.

    You must understand that I am not a member of RHS, just an armor enthusiast with a bit of knowledge asked by Gurdy to provide help gathering informations and providing materials to create models.

    My own personall dream for Russian faction would be to have T-64 series of tanks (which were created by one of my favorite tank designers Alexander Morozov, a true genius and visionary that I put among my other favorite tank designers like Israel Tal, the father of the Merkava and Phillip Lett creator of the M1 Abrams) and T-80UD. ;)

    As for Reyhard models, AFAIK he used some models from A2, and these are not exactly precise and realistic.

  22. Posted

    Yeah, in fact precisely I've heard some complains about that ( Stryker and Bradley are not C130 transportable ), but yeah, it's true that in modern scenarios the main loads are delivered by C-17 ( or C5 ).

    What is curious to me is the difference in doctrine US - Russia.

    I mean Russian VDV has focused in

    creating even odd rocket & parachute systems ( that BTW can even be transported in their biggest helos ), and BMPs are seen swimming in most of the latest Russian exercises. I guess that make sense in Russia, where specially in the far East there's almost no good roads, lots of mud and rivers are huge in Spring-Summer.

    And most of the new Russian vehicles are able to swim ( even the new BTR90, BMD4, BMP3, etc. ).

    BTW I've seen the Patria swimming here in Finland. I guess here it's also important due to the lack of good roads, and to move across the thousands of lakes and water bodies.

    That's the diofference. USA have huge fleet of large cargo planes, so for them transporting even 60+ tons heavy MBT's is not a great problem if nececary. So US Armed Forces are more akin for survivability, firepower and tactical mobility of their heavier ground vehicles. USMC is a bit different kind of story tough, they just need amphibious APC's and IFV's.

    Russian Army on the other hand, especially VDV favors strategic mobility, tactical mobility and firepower over survivability.

    But this is a subject for not even a discussion but a book, about what are the differences and why they exist.

    BTW But actually US Army is searching also a lighter vehicles that can be much more easy air transportable, the priority have light tank for airborne troops, there is a lot of fuss currently in US Army to bring back the M8 light tank, modernize it slightly and voila. Especially that design passed all state trails, was standarized and was ready for production, just no orders were made.

  24. Posted

    I thought that the tracked Stryker and the turretless Bradley were competing for the AMPV contract and the Bradley more or less won.

    1. These designs were competing.

    2. Then someone decided that both will replace M113.

    3. Recently someones else decided that nah, we go with M2 IFV derivative.

    I don't see why they don't just wait for the GCV and then use that chassis for commonality. Unless they end up with a Bradley derivative for the GCV.

    GCV is in development, and this development is still in very, very early phase. Oh and BTW, GCV was officialy cancelled, but in reality it is not cancelled, the work is continued under new codename FFV. Seem that US Army finally found a way to screw politicians and finalize their R&D programs before they will be cut for good.

    But the AMPV isn't in use right now. Not gonna end up in this mod (hell, I don't even think they're doing the new Scorpion camo.)

    Scorpion camo is just a different variant of Multicam, and both share the same US Army codename OCP.

    As for AMPV, it might end in the mod, we will see in the future when most of the basic content will be finished.

  25. Posted

    I knew that were plans to replace it, but I didn't now that they made the final decision. Interesting information! ( although I have read that it's gonna take almost 15 years until the full replacement ).

    Initial plan was to replace it with twi different vehicles, one based on the M2 IFV and second being tracked variant of Stryker. However due to costs someone in the US Army command decided that if the vehicles based on M2 IFV chassis are more or less ready, they choose them, AFAIK there is just needed some development period to finalize designs of these specialized variants.

    But is the new family capable of air-droping, swimming and be transported in a C130?

    M113 is not capable to be air droped, this is a myth spread by Mike "Sparky" Sparks, and he is ill on his mind. US Army only done some initial tests but vehicle was never certified for air drops.

    M113 is very awfull at swimming, I heard from a soldier that served on it that swimming might be even dangerous. You must understand that amphibious requirement will be dropped in more and more new vehicle designs, and rightfully so, it's just not nececary and is compromising survivability.

    For example just recently I talked with a Polish soldier, driver of the Rosomak APC, a Polish version of Patria AMV, he said that even if vehicle is certified for swimming, nobody performs such operations and there is very small number of drivers trained and certified to swim these vehicles. It's preaty much a dead requirement created in the past by some officer that most likely was in love with BMP-1.

    I could give more such examples. Much more practical for combat vehicles is deep fording capability, so just like tanks, they can ford water obstacles. It is also safer than swimming because in case of vehicle malfunction underwater, crew and dismounts can safely leave vehicle via turret snorkel. I heard enough stories that during swimming excercises, crew members or dismounts just drowned with their swimming APC or IFV.

    C-130 transportability is again a myth, no new vehicle is actually C-130 transportable, it's another useless and dead requirement. It's better to just use C-17.

    I found these:

    Yup, prototypes of mortar carrier and APC variant. As you can see these vehicles can be equipped with the same ERA kits as standard IFV and CFV variants, thus are much more survivable than M113.

×