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

    (M1A3 Abrams prototype is said to be using a 120 mm cannon like the Kuma uses because its lighter)

    Where it is said so? Currently nobody knows what gun will be used on M1A3 vel M1A2SEPv3. There are two options, modernized M256 gun which is used currently, modernization only includes ammunition data link enabling use of programmable HE ammunition. Or newly developed in USA, XM360E1 120mm smoothbore gun. XM360E1 is a tank version of the XM360 gun for lightweight platforms developed during FCS program. If XM360E1 would be standarized and put in to production, it would receive M360 or M360A1 designation. Both M256 and XM360E1 have nothing in common with Rh-120/L55 gun besides the same calliber then being smoothbore guns.

  5. Posted

    Ambidextrous lower? That's not M4A1-spec, is it? As far as I know the only real difference between M4 and M4A1 is the amount of pewpews on the third setting.

    Nope, M4A1 currently have ambidextreus lower receiver with fire selector on both sides, dunno about magazine release and bolt release.

    There will be M4A1's, in accordance with the M4 PIP. Changes will be minimal to suite Phase I.

    These are the initial rifles we chose to get out of the way though.

    Ok. :)

  8. Posted

    For example, we're working on the M1A3 that should be in production by 2018. Basically it's an M1A2 TUSK that's lighter and has more electronics. No new tank model or anything.

    I strongly recommend to wait a bit. New M1 variant is in development, there are allready brochures made by GDLS presenting list of improvements and changes, and currently nobody knows what will be final designation for a tank, some say M1A3, other sources claims it will be M1A2SEPv3.

  11. Posted

    As far as I know, the first of your photos is correct, the second is just too much unoptimistic scenario. ;)

    By the way, do You know that Leclerc have similiar weak zone? ;)

    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/17/04/88/86/8310.jpg

    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/17/04/88/86/8110.jpg

    On these photos you can see how thin is armor block behind main sight, plus it have a hole for optical channel.

    Another tank with similiar weakness is Indian Arjun Mk1 and Mk2. Also Israeli Merkava Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 have similiar weak zone around main sight area.

  12. Posted

    Don't forget that there is armor just beneath sight assembly, it have the same composition and thickness as armor module on the turret left front.

    They tried to somewhat fix this during KWS-2 modernization program, but as you see on photos, turret after KWS-2 solves that problem only partially. Turrets on photos belong to Leopard 2S/Strv122 and Leopard 2HEL, so ones of the most advanced Leopard 2 variants.

    The problem is that they raised main sight and added approx 200-300mm of armor in front of them in place where old sight window was, but these 200-300mm of armor won't stop projectile, and it's fragments inside sight cavity, might find a way through sights optical channel hole directly in to gunners face.

    Funny thing is that nowhere in literature, there is clearly explained why they choose such design solution. My friend have a theory, but IMHO such theory is unsitasfactionary.

  13. Posted

    But isn't there a huge block of armor just behind the gunner's sight that is (almost) equivalent to the other front armor?

    Photos are worth more than a thousand words:

    http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/thord_wedman/strv_122/images/strv_122_137_of_237.jpg

    http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/thord_wedman/strv_122/images/strv_122_136_of_237.jpg

    http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/thord_wedman/strv_122/images/strv_122_144_of_237.jpg

    http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8845/przdj.jpg

    Welcome in real world. ;)

    While I agree that T-72A used sandbar filler, but I think T-80, B and BV used similar armor configuration as T-64. T-80 was meant to be a first line tank, like the T-64, not a lower quality second line tank as a T-72.

    Sorry, reliable source from Russia (one of BTRZ's or Armor Repair Plants workers) says otherwise. T-80B and T-80BV have the same "sand rods" as T-72A. AFAIK original T-80 had simple homogeneus cast steel armor just as first T-72's for it's turret armor.

    The only first line tank at that time were T-64 series, untill T-80U and T-80UD were designed.

  14. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Awww, why don't you like it? Some achilles heel?

    Unsafe ammunition storage and seriously, I seen to many photos of dead tank crew members after ammo cook off to embrace ammunition storage system that is below M1's standard. ;)

    Main sight placement creating significant weak zone just in front of gunner face and commander... balls. Good enough? :)

    Then you'd better cough up a full report when you're done!

    Will see, it depends where I will in the end serve in Army. I might end up in Security Regiment at capital city, or perhaps in 10th or 34th Armor Cavalry Brigades which both will operate Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A5 tanks.

  15. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Good point, but yes, I adjust thickness equivalency for cast strength (I used 85%--on the low end for cast steel). The Soviet glacis applique is usually quoted as HHS, which I set at 130% (vs. 120% for semi-hardened).

    Seems reasonable.

    For the Abrams, I'm not speaking of the glacis--which we're in agreement on--but the Chobham block below it. Nobody knows what Chobham is really made out of--we can guess based on photos and publicly released information of course. Does it use NERA? It would be a good idea as it's simple, cheap and seems to work quite well against HEAT (e.g. Iraqi "Enigma" armor vs. Milan). Then again, some photos show what looks to be shock-absorbing spacers--which AFAIK is only used to prolong the life of of ceramic inserts. That would make sense as most sources claim ceramic was also involved in the armor. As for NERA being based on HHS instead of RHA, do you have any references on that? Generally hardness comes at the cost of ductility. I would think that would be problematic for NERA; tungsten or DU might be better. But there's nothing preventing it from using all 3 elements in some form or another.

    "Burlington" (or "Chobham" if you wish), is NERA type armor, all declassified documents from British national archives, have descriptions that point this. Funny thing is, that British documents not even single time, mentions ceramics, interesting isn't it?

    As for these spacers you seen on photos of damaged M1's, well these are not spacers, and there are not ceramics. The things you call "spacers" are actually form of attachement insert bolts for outer armor layer for inner armor layer, something like this in drawing I made:

    http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/1024/f7379855bf92.jpg

    As for use of materials in NERA arrays, well actually you can use different types of steel, you can even combine different materials just as You said. So HHS, SHS, THS, WHA, DU can be used and combined.

    Anyway, I don't get too deep into the speculation on composition as it tends to lead "down the rabbit hole." In the end I simplify it all into a single thickness equivalence for kinetic & HEAT. I doubt the M1 vastly exceeded its design parameters (115mm sabot @800m / ITOW). The values could be ~400/700. Better? I doubt it. The Germans turned it down in favor of some pretty simple armor and they were not dummies.

    Don't believe in official statements, I have a sniff that Americans were much better informed than they tend to say. Protection against 115mm APFSDS is official story, but might not be true. IMHO 1st generation M1 had ~500mm RHAe vs KE and ~800mm RHAe vs CE for front armor.

    As for Germans, and who said that Germans actually turned out "Burlington/Chobham" in favor of something? This is popular story but the truth is that Germans did not had anything else at that time. Besides this, I seen Leopard 2A4 composite armor, I can't show you these photos (I don't even had them anymore), but it was very, very similiar to drawings of "Burlington/Chobham" from British documents.

    My general approach to all military estimates is "don't believe the hype". Combat results are the best evidence and they repeatedly show new systems--particularly complex ones--fail to meet their hype. Tank design has always been built to fairly specific threats--without much over-building. The M1 was designed against the 115mm gun and the M1A1 against the 125mm. Soviets designed against their own best gun thinking that NATO performance would be similar.*

    IMHO Americans were not designing protection against specific gun, but against projected performance of new ammunition types. And not only Americans are doing so.

    But let's just look, even up to this day, Russians as basic APFSDS ammunition, use mostly 3BM22 from 1976, even more so in 1980's. 1st generation M1's frontal protection was perfectly suited to protect against such type of threat, capable to penetrate only 430mm RHA @ 2000m.

    115mm 3BM28 could penetrate only 400mm RHA @ 2000m and it was round fielded in 1978. Both rounds perfectly fills the time period when M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 1 were fielded, and were basic types of ammunition for Soviet Army in early 1980's. WarPac countries had worse ammunition, like 3BM15 for 125mm guns for the whole period of 1980's... hey we still here in Poland use 3BM15 for both our T-72M1's and PT-91's, despite fact we have better ammunition for them, but it is war time reserve or some still in development and is not used.

    Funny thing is that M833 APFSDS for 105mm M68/M68A1 gun, fielded in 1983 had comparable penetration capabilities of 420mm RHA @ 2000m to Soviet APFSDS fired from bigger guns.

    Sounds reasonable, many of their values seem off when you dig into them.

    It is because some of their estimations, are based on wrong armor thickness.

    Now I don't disagree that the 3 MBT's were inefficient, but in the absence of hard evidence I'm skeptical they were more expensive than the larger and more lavishly-equipped NATO tanks. Anyway, cost inefficiencies in arms spending were not unique to the Soviet system--let me tell you about the US military-industrial complex!

    If you compare tank vs tank, then perhaps T-80U was cheaper than M1A1HA, but when you start to compare the whole system, it is not that simple, and system is more important than single vehicle.

    My utterly casual speculation is that Germany won the game in terms of design and cost with the Leopard 2.

    Personally I dislike Leopard 2, even if my own Army use this tank, and in near future I might end driving one. ;)

    If it had been up to me, I would have standardized on the (diesel) T-72, and incorporated FCS upgrades for "premium" versions. Oh, and I would have modularized that engine block so it didn't take all day to change... But let's not go down another rabbit hole.

    Soviets tried to do that. T-80U and T-80UD was attempt to standarize tank fleet, however, as usual, corrupted politicians and engineers in some design bureaus, made things different.

  16. Posted

    Depends on type of Soviet tank.

    Original T-64 had front hull made from combined steel plates with glass textolite, while front turret was made from cast steel with it's frontal parts having cavities for alluminium filler.

    T-64A and T-64B had different turret composition, it was cast steel that had ceramic (korundum) spheres placed inside during casting process.

    There was also third turret design that had also cast turret, but with cavities containing steel plates, however it is not clear if it was experimental only or not.

    T-72, T-72A, T-80 and T-80B had similiar front hull design as T-64 series, however turret was different, it was also cast, but it used as a filler so called "sand rods" or "sand bars". Sand is tightly compressed inside front turret cavities, but when turret is struck, sand can get through holes created by projectile, or even bulge the turret structure due to pressure.

    Some early T-72's didn't even had such protection, and turret had just simple, cast homogeneus steel armor.

    A bit different protection have T-72B, it uses so called "reflective plates" which is just fancy name for NERA or Non Energetic Reactive Armor. There are some photos of how this armor looks inside turret front cavities. Front hull have similiar protection.

    What is interesting, is that T-90 and T-90A most likely use such type of armor also, but with different plate thickness and perhaps different materials.

    T-80U and T-80UD uses so called "cellular castings" which are filled with some sort of polymer, however it's front hull have similiar configuration to late production T-80B and T-80BV.

    There was also experimental armor studied for T-80U/UD, so called "cermet" package, which was combination of steel and ceramic plates. We can assume that most likely, "cermet" was adopted for further evolution of T-80UD which are T-84 series and it's apex, BM "Oplot" tank.

    Of course there were many more experimental armor packages for tanks created in Soviet Union, as well as in NATO. For example not many people know, that originally, American M60 tanks, was scheduled to have such special armor package, and would be the first NATO tank to have such protection. Armor was called SCA or Siliceous Core Armor which used fused Silica between steel armor plates. However there were some problems with armor production, and also requirements were not fully meet by this design, and in the end, M60 ended with conventional steel homogeneus armor.

  17. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Well the subject of speculative armor values is notorious flamebait . But I'll bite with some speculative numbers of my own:

    M1 (original model) ca. 1984:

    Front hull LOS RHAe: 340 kinetic / 640 HEAT

    Front turret LOS RHAe: 350 kinetic / 700 HEAT

    Sabot penetration (M833 round): 400's@0m

    T-72A ca. 1984 (includes "Reflection" glacis upgrade):

    Front hull LOS RHAe: 500 kinetic / 580 HEAT

    Front turret LOS RHAe: 480 kinetic / 530 HEAT

    Sabot penetration (3BM29 round): ~500mm @0m

    Olds, did you actually searched from what type of steel both tanks are made? ;)

    I give you a hint, Soviets had problems with steel for their tanks, and steel was basic type of protection at that period against KE strikes. On the other hand I actually checked out steel type from which M1 is made. It is very hard HHS steel type, it's hardness ranges from 400+ HB to 500 HB. IMHO it's TE efficency will be something between standard 1.2 value for HHS and 1.3 for newer THS. We can know alsop calculate some things.

    For example M1 glacis plate, we know it is 51mm thick at 82 degrees inclination. It's relative armor thickness then is 357mm. Now let's us calculate this via TE value, 357 x 1.2 = 428mm, nice for armor plate that is only 51mm thick. Of course this value can differ a bit when we do calculation a bit different. For example let's first take this 51mm glacis plate and calculate it's TE value. 51 x 1.2 = 61, now let's take this plate and calculate it's relative thickness, 61 @ 82 degrees should be 427mm, a comparable value to the previous one.

    I know from some Russians, that in USSR there were attempts to use similiar HHS steel for turrets, however all attempts were unsuccessfull. So they used some sort of SHS steel. Also remember that Americans used in M1 rolled armor plates, which are by 5 to 15 % stronger than cast armor mostly used by Soviets.

    http://www.arcelormittalna.com/plateinformation/documents/en/Inlandflats/ProductBrochure/ARCELORMITTAL%20ARMOR.pdf

    This is company making steel for M1. Steel type is MIL-DTL-46100.

    Also take a note that M1 uses NERA type armor. NERA uses also steel plates, of very similiar thickness. Let's say we have 10 such 50mm steel plates made from such HHS armor. 50 x 1.2 = 60mm, 60 x 10 = 600mm vs KE. And this is only a steel armor. ;) And this is without inclination! I also did not added air gaps here and other materials, mostly because I loose my TE values tables and don't remember their TE values.

    The Soviets used mostly BTK-1 steel for hulls, dunno about turret.

    These are values based on research of publicly available sources, but I think they're close to real life--within 20%, possibly closer. (I haven't finished researching penetration values, so I just cribbed from Steel Beasts here). Some sources quote the M1 armor values as higher, a few as lower. I think the high values are wrong for a number of reasons (stated M1 design goals, the fact that the Germans found the kinetic resistance of its 1st generation "Chobham" too low to use in the Leopard 2, among others). The T-72A values are based on various sources, including German tests of comparable T-72M1's after unification. I'd also say the US agreed that the original M1 specs were too low in both armor & armament, hence the almost immediate work on the M1(IP)/M1A1 improvements.

    Steel Beasts values are a bit off, I talked with guys, and it seems they have wrong armor thickness values based on some wrong drawings. ;)

    As for Germans and their tests of "Burlington", you know, it is funny that they claim such things, when they actually use "Burlington". :) However don't ask me from where I know it, but I seen Leopard 2 armor, it is incredibly similiar to known photos of "Burlington".

    As for US, oh, their work on M1IP and M1A1 are completely normal, they knew that at some point original BRL-1 armor package won't be enough, actually original M1 could receive stronger BRL-2 armor package, but for some reasons it didn't.

    I'm speaking here purely in terms of armor penetration vs armor protection. But even so, multiple rounds won't help you much if they fail to penetrate your target. I don't doubt that the average NATO tank could put more rounds on a target than the average Soviet--better fire control, TI, better training, defensive advantage, etc. Maybe the Soviets knew this too and counted on thicker armor to compensate. Maybe it came from generally testing their armor against their own (at the time better) sabot rounds.

    Well, the problem is that we just recently aquired knowledge that T-72's and T-80's would loose their armor from turrets after each single hit, why you ask? T-72 up to T-72A and T-80 up to T-80B used "sand rods" as their turret special armor, it seems that it was loose sand and there are reports that it was observed that after each hit, sand was going outside through hit holes in armor. Interesting isn't it?

    On the other hand T-64's had better armor in terms of protection quality, but there were problems during production, and overall armor quality was a problem. Sometimes these ceramic spheres in turret, did not alligned properly and tanks had various armor quality at some places.

    I take your point--there is no real apples-to-apples comparison of costs. But I doubt the Soviets could have fielded quite so many tanks if they weren't cheaper than their competitors--after all their economy was rather small compared to the US + Western Europe, even though their proportion of military spending was quite a bit higher.

    Ha, you probably never lived in socialist country with socialist economy where... economy does not matters. ;)

    The fact is that for Soviets, their tanks production was much more expensive than for NATO. It is because you need to calculate not only production costs, but also costs of vehicle service life. So now think, from 1960's to 1980's Soviet Union manufactures 3 similiar MBT's, each MBT have similiar combat properties, but each of these 3 MBT's use different logistical chains, as they have different engines, different suspensions, different autoloaders, different FCS and even different hatches and periscopes. All in all what they done was purely insane from economic point of view!

    Now look at NATO, NATO countries allways manufactured single tank type at specific period. Which means that all these points above were much simpler and cheaper in the end, also there is issue of training procedures and so on. Think about that.

    Funny thing is that Soviet problems were acknowledged by some Soviet engineers like these in Kharkiv KMDB design bureu, and believe me, they were bitching at other design bureaus that they waste tons of money, to only develop and induct their own designs, instead of cooperating and manufacturing single tank type.

  18. Posted

    1st generation M1's were under-armored and under-gunned* compared to their Soviet counterparts (T-64/72/80).

    Well not exactly. 1st generation M1 had comparable armor protection to other modern MBT's used by then, also T-64, T-72 and T-80. Currently we know more about Soviet tanks back then, and it seems that Soviets had some problems with their special armor concepts, also quality problems.

    However indeed 1st generation M1 were somewhat undergunned, yet still very dangerous. 105mm M68A1 gun had it's advantages like quicker ROF.

    And they were cheaper/more numerous.

    Rather discussive tesis about being cheaper. ;)

  21. Posted

    If you noticed I'm not changing it because I can't change it lol. Maybe you should read the discussion.

    Yes you can change it, there is posibility to block firing ability without disabling ability to fully traverse cupola in vertical. However blocking this elevation in vertical to make machine gun static is broking gameplay. Problem well known from RHS T-80's which for realism sake needed to have machine gun blocked.

    I'm sorry if my history is wrong but you don't really have the right...

    No problem. I just shown you how it looks in reality, you can either listen or ignore it.

  24. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Listen, M1 series, from the beggining had remotely controlled HMG on commander cupola, from the damn beggining, do you understand that BIS model from ArmA2 is wrong? Do I really need to give you a book about M1's development history?

    http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/m1.jpg

    Here you have a photo of original M1 with 105mm gun, you can see it have exactly the same CWS cupola as any M1A1.

  25. Posted

    It is based on script, there is no option in menu to arrest him.

    Sometimes script might not run properly especially on lower specs rigs, higher specs computers have less problems with it. You also should not fire at him, it might also ruin the script. It is better to just stick to him with your team, at some point script should go on and you will finish this mission.

    It might be a bit frustrating but this is how it works.

×