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

    May I suggest something to the awesome CSLA mod? 😉

    The T-72 should be renamed T-72M, besides not having side skirts, it should not have smoke granades dischargers at the turret front, and turret should be slightly different than on T-72M1 due to thinner armor.

    CZECH_ARMY_Tank_T-72.jpg
    CZECH_ARMY_Tank_T-72-.jpg
    T-72M.

    Bahna_3.jpg
    T-72M1.JPG
    T-72M1.

    You can also notice than T-72M1 have a slightly thicker glacis plate, because it have additional 16mm steel plate welded on top of original armor.

    Cheers. 😉

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    17 hours ago, dragon01 said:

    Latest dev, RHS-only, the only other mods being CBA and 3den Enhanced (it's just too darn useful to turn off). RHS launchers, naturally, tested the Kornet, Metis and the tube-launched missiles from BMP-3. The 30mm was also on the BMP-3. Shots were placed roughly center of mass (slightly forward of the point sparks come from when the engine gets killed), from the right side and at a slight angle. 30mm worked, missiles didn't. Of course, there is a chance I simply missed the engine with the missiles and not with the cannon. 

     

    Check it now, dev version was upgraded and problem should be solved, hopefully.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  7. Posted

    19 hours ago, dragon01 said:

    TBH, replacing the whole mess with T-14, if they could pull it off, would probably be more economical in the long run. The problem is, of course, the money that is (or rather, isn't) available right now for that purpose. Then again, that they made the T-14 at all is quite impressive, though the paradigm, while interesting, is untested.

     

    BTW, could someone check the side armor on Bradleys? I did some tests recently, and they seem far too resistant to HEAT. The standard M2A3 variant seems to be able to take Kornet and Metis missiles without any apparent damage, nevermind anything that can be fired from a gun. On the other hand, I've been able to disable (not blow up) it from the side with a concentrated burst of 30mm AP. I know Bradley is well protected, but this seems really odd. In all cases, the vehicle was hit around center of mass. Another thing I found out, even with the turret "disabled" (red), I was still able to move it around and fire, no problem.

     

    If you hit Bradley to the side, the armor will be pierced, however keep in mind there is a lot of empty space inside, thus even if armor is pierced, vehicle take only cosmetic damage. This is one of niuances of realistic armor/projectile interaction.

  8. Posted

    11 hours ago, dragon01 said:

    A lot of that, I think was due to Soviet politics, and was hardly limited to tanks. IIRC, T-72 wasn't supposed to go into production at all unless the Cold War had gone hot, but it did (over the objections of T-64's designer), because it was so much cheaper than the T-64. I think that's about the only time the actual tanks' parameters came into this. 🙂

     

    NATO, I think, was simply much more business-minded about it. 

     

    Ah but the story is far more complex.

    T-72 was actually more expensive than T-64.

    I do not have data table at the hand now, but T-64 and T-64A was cheaper than T-72 and T-72A.

    And T-72 was kinda created illegaly against orders from the Soviet goverment and MoD. Original order was for UVZ to develop T-64A variant with V-45 diesel engine instead of 5TDF that was problematic at that time. However UVZ engineers decided to act against orders and modify the tank using their components developed for their previous failed designs like Object 167.

    It is very long and complex story.

     

    7 hours ago, reconteam said:

    I thought the T-64B and T-80B had what was essentially the same armor scheme which is estimated to be roughly equal to that of the T-72A?

     

    I've also heard the T-64BV and T-80BV besides for the addition of explosive reactive armor had some improvements to their composite armor. But that raises a few other questions. Were all BV models new build tanks? Were older B models upgraded with ERA but no integral armor changes? Did they share the same designation then?

     

    There are so many sources with different information on the minute differences between T-64, T-72, and T-80 variants that it is a nightmare to study if you ask me.

     

    T-64B and T-80B only shared the same fire control system, autoloader and 9K112 Kobra ATGM system. However armor type was different, T-64B used it's own variation of Combination K armor, T-80B and T-72A used their own, simpler armor design, but all these armor offered roughly similiar protection, simply Combination K was more efficent and thus T-64B turret armor was slightly thinner in terms of physical thickness, while providing the same protection as slightly thicker T-80B and T-72A.

     

    As for armor upgrades, yes there were armor upgrades but for the hull front only. T-64BV's and T-80BV's that were earlier basic B's, received 30mm HHS plate on the glacis plate. New build BV's of both tanks, had revised front hull armor design. New build T-80BV used same hull armor as T-80U/UD.
     

    2 hours ago, Bukain said:

    You seem like a good teacher 😄.

    But i think the Soviet Union was at least better than Russian Federation.

    Can't deny that nato capitalists have very good at innovations, and much efficient at R&D 🙂 part of that being they usually have more productive human resources. 

     

     

    😉

     

    Was Soviet Union better? Not really, they had more money than Russian Federation. Current situation of RU R&D is simply result of lack of money. They simply can't replace their entire tank fleet with T-14's. They can't manufacture as many T-90M's as they wish.

    Contrary to US that just recently started production of new M1A2SEPv3's with production rate of a full ABCT (Armored Brigade Combat Team) per year, so a full US Army ABCT will be each year rearmed with new tanks. Imagine that.

    • Like 5

  9. Posted

    10 hours ago, Bukain said:

    Thx you. This get rid some of my confusions. Anyway, the frustration is not because of many variants Russia use to have in it's arsenal, it's becuz of the fact i mentioned earlier, they most of the time use to do changing of every tiny teny small pieces and bits of a machine on trail/, in survive, getting stuffs out, switching stuffs up all the time(like into a year or two). 

    But i aware that the bad habit(imo) started to happen only after the Soviet Union collapse. Soviet industry as we all know very efficient at what that did/also very clear with what they want. For example the R&D of mig25-31, very inspiration indeed. But now with the Russian federation, not much 😕

     

    P.s it'll be a good idea to end my subject here. This is definitely  not the place 😄

     

    Ok I will play here a bit of history teacher. 😉

    Soviet Union arms industry was far from efficent. Let's take tanks as example.

    So you have a T-64, from T-64 evolved T-64A and from T-64A you got T-72 and T-80.

    So in late 1960's and early 1970's you have Soviet tank factories, manufacturing 3 different Main Battle Tanks, all 3 of them having similiar combat capabilities, but 3 completely different logistics chains! This is far from efficent, this is complete insanity from logistics and efficency point of view.

    And the funniest thing is that these tanks had practicaly same protection levels, yes, T-80 was not better armored than T-72 or T-64A. In fact while T-80 turret was kinda based on T-64A turret, T-80 turret used T-72 composite armor, and T-64A used completely different composite armor. So standarization was minimal if any!

    And situation did not improved over time as all these 3 designs were evolving.

    So from T-64A evolved T-64B, a first Soviet MBT with modern fire control system and GLATGM capability, then you have T-80B with same FCS, and T-72A which did not had FCS at all.

    But T-80B still used T-72A armor, while T-64B had again completely different armor.

    Same goes with engines, T-64 series used two stroke, opposed piston diesel 5TD/5TDF, T-72 used older generation V type diesel V-46 and it's modifications, while T-80's used GTD-1000 gas turbines.

    All these tanks had different autoloaders, different suspension system.

    Some attempt for standarization was made in the 1980's as Kharkiv and Leningrad tank factories wanted to build two variants of the same tank, it was decided to use T-80B as the basis, and so T-80U and T-80UD were created, it's literally the same tank, just with different engines and some other minor differences, like different commander cupola.

    Of course this was again a failure, because Nizhny Tagil get in to the whole deal with their upgraded T-72, the T-72B.

    So as you can see this Soviet arms industry was far from efficent.

    Efficent were NATO member states arms industries, for example when US started making M1 Abrams series, they stopped manufacturing previous M60 series. When FRG started making Leopard 2's, they stopped making Leopard 1's, and so on.

    • Like 6
    • Haha 1

  10. Posted

    T-80UE-1 is a hybrid of T-80UD turret and upgraded T-80BV hull to the T-80U standard.

    T-90AM is unofficial designation for the initial variant of T-90M. T-90SM is export variant.

    Is it frustrating? Depends, besides being part of RHS, one of my real life jobs is being military journalist. I literally spend most of my free time, reading about this stuff and doing research.

    I could write more, about these subjects, but I think it's not the place for this.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  11. Posted

    8 hours ago, dragon01 said:

    What is true, however, is that ArmA doesn't handle explosions all that well. Armata excels in protecting the crew specifically, at the cost of protection everywhere else, the turret in particular (even from the front). It would be fine if an ammo explosion didn't kill the crew anyway, because of how ArmA does this. Even early Abrams tanks have blowout panels to prevent just that from happening.

     

    Please, keep in mind we still do not have a proper blow off panels and isolated ammo storage simulation implemented.

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    10 hours ago, alessiomoreno said:

     

    Hi there!

     

    Since I am not running dev branch and hence didn't test so far - will you simulate the T90AM/SM's external ammo storage respectively and will the T14 differ from its predecessors in this regard as well?

    My question could also be read as: Will complete armour simulation for those new tanks make it into the next (proper) update?

     

    T-90AM/SM/M still have autoloader under turret in crew compartment. Also some ammunition is still stored inside crew compartment and outside autoloader. These tanks do not have turret bustle but simply armored box for spare ammo bolted to turret rear.

    T-14 is different.

     

    As for your question, hopefully one day for all vehicles.

    • Like 2

  13. Posted

    8 hours ago, dragon01 said:

    Well, do check if the missiles aren't getting intercepted. That would reduce their armor penteration quite severely. 🙂 

     

    Speaking of which, I've tried the RHS beta, the current Armata APS has an annoying habit of shooting down my own gun-launched missiles. It could probably use a check against that.

     

     

    Its work in progress, be patient.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    1 hour ago, sammael said:

     

    I would only be glad if the crew did not survive after  heavy hit. But they survivie. 

    So maybe I have some kind of addon which gives extra armor...I have active DAPS drongo mod , but it is tuned only to vanilla tanks

     

    Drongo DAPS should not affect behavior of our vehicles, besides adding APS. However try without any other mods and search which one might affect it.

     

    Other than that try to install mods completely new and fresh.

  15. Posted

    43 minutes ago, sammael said:

    Who will tell me whether it is possible to destroy RHS M1A1  with one hit atgm or other AT  weapon? 

    I haven't been able to do this for a long time. Even the metis atgm  can't do it. 

    I suspect that after tank DLC the new system of hit points the RHS mods armor  do not work very well...

     

    Who can tell what portable weapons (rhs or vanilla ) can destroy rhs tanks and where to aim? 

    At this time only vanila Titan AT can do this 

     

    M1A1 and M1A2 can be destroyed. Simply do not try to hit front armor, it's very strong.

     

    RHS also simulates to some degree such things as isolated ammunition storage and fuel in M1 series. This means that you can hit crew, even disable vehicle by destroying turret and main gun servo's, tracks, engine etc. but vehicle itself won't explode. In real world most often vehicles do not explode but either just stay disabled or slowly burn.

     

    T tanks are different because they have exposed ammunition storage in crew compartment, this means they will explode much easier.

     

    In RHS to cause vehicle to explode you need to hit it's hitpoints responsible for that, in case of T tanks they are more or less in hull under the turret, where in real vehicle autoloader is placed.

     

    In case of M1's, it would be in turret bustle, but it might not have such hitpoints to simulate to a degree a fact that M1's have isolated ammunition compartments with blow off panels, that prevents complete vehicle destruction.

     

    PS. I just made some tests with latest version of RHS. Kornet and Metis-M can destroy M1A1 and M1A2 with ease with side shots.

     

    PS2. And just to explain. RHS simulates US Army and USMC weapons and vehicles. In case of M1A1 and M1A2 series of MBT's, this means the variants we have use at least 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package, which offers at the vehicle front, significantly superior armor protection than for example Export Armor Package used in the M1A1 and M1A2 tanks used by the Arab states. So results should be different from what you see on YT videos for example with relatively poor performance of these armies tanks.

     

    I hope this makes everything clear?

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 3

  16. Posted

    1 minute ago, marek1986 said:

    Something went wrong. I have information in dialog window: "Addon 'rhs_main' requires addon 'A3_Data_F_Enoch_Loadorder"". Please help!

     

    Reyhard just updated the mod for incoming Contact DLC. If you are on the mainbranch, the dev version of the mod won't work now before the next main game patch. However if you move your Arma3 to devbranch version, everything will work just ok.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  17. Posted

    9 hours ago, dragon01 said:

    I think that the idea is that the crew would retreat in that case, not bail out. The general idea is that the hull can take quite a beating, even from the best modern AT weapons. The way T-14 is designed means that damage to the turret wouldn't be a direct threat to the crew, so in most cases they'd want to drive the tank away, as opposed to bailing out and exposing themselves to MG fire.

     

    Considering that a modern APFSDS hit on the turret is pretty likely to cause a mission kill on any modern tank (that's what those rounds are for, after all), I'd say this may not be as much of a disadvantage as it seems. With armor that thin, you'd get less spallation, so it might actually help with survivability in this scenario. Of course, autocannons or even HMGs could become a threat with armor that thin, but I suppose a competent crew should be able to avoid being shot at with autocannons from the side.

     

    No you are wrong. It depends what tank and what round. For example newest M1A2SEPv3 (M1A2C) have front turret armor not only increased in it's real, physical thickness from around 900mm up to around 1000mm (yes, it's around or even over 1m thick!) but also uses completely new type of special armor codenamed NGAP (Next Generation Armor Package) (and it's actually 2nd generation NGAP, 1st generation is used on some M1A2SEPv2's (M1A2B) and M1A1SA's). Same goes for the front hull by the way, it's thicker than it was (thickness increases from around 700mm to around 800mm) and uses NGAP armor.

    NGAP is designed to protect against the newest KE and CE threats.

    Of course for such high levels of protection in a conventional tank design with manned turret, there is a price, with weight of around 72.5 metric tons, compared to T-14 50+ metric tons of weight.

    So it all depends on vehicle concept and design.

     

    For example current European and Asian tanks focuses on mobility and firepower. US, UK and Israeli tanks focuses on protection and firepower. Russian tanks balance these factors thanks to more compact design to keep lower weight but with good protection. Of course this is simplification, but I hope it explains why things look as they look.

    • Like 4

  18. Posted

    2 minutes ago, cpt.ghost said:

    so any hit on the turret by lets say 120mm APDFS turns the armata into an armored tracked car? 

     

    Not any, it depends where it hits. If it hits in the center of the turret mass, it can damage and take out the main gun. In general the turret itself is very small, very lightweight and have nearly no armor.

     

     

  19. Posted

    Maybe I will explain a bit.

    T-14 concept focuses on high protection levels of the hull front and high crew survivability. However, T-14 turret is lightly armored only against smaller calliber autocannon and only from the front. On the sides even 20mm or 25mm can pierce turret armor.

    The idea is to increase front hull protection and crew protection to very high levels, without significantly increasing vehicle weight.

    As for Afganit active protection system, like all APS it's capable only to intercept RPG's, ATGM's and HEAT/HE rounds fired from tank guns or similiar armament.

     

    This means that while T-14 is difficult to be completely destroyed, it should be relatively easy to knock it out of the fight through damaging or destroying it's turret and main armament.

     

    So it's something for something.

    In the end won't be surprised if T-14 will be a very capable machine, very dangerous one, but T-14 "Armata" is not indestructible "wunderwaffe" that can't be stopped on the battlefield.

    • Like 4

  20. Posted

    15 minutes ago, real ArmaModFrance said:

     

    Soon™

    More seriously, it will be, just wait the update please 🙂

     

     

    Thanks !

     

    Ok done some initial tests with Leclerc. Can I give some advice?

    First designation. The only designation is Leclerc. AMX-56 is a fake designation, created by mistakes by Swedes when they tested Leclerc and assumed it's designation will be AMX-56, like previous tanks (AMX-30, AMX-32, AMX-40).

     

    Second thing, Leclerc have too much ammo for main gun. It should be 40 rounds only, 22 in turret bustle autoloader, and 18 in hull storage drum.

     

    Of course I assume other things like some bug messages are due to it's WIP status.

    • Like 4

  23. Posted

    @real ArmaModFrance

    I have a question, do you plan to have more than one Leclerc variants?

    From what I can see you have one of the older Series 2 Leclerc, and not the newest Leclerc Series 3/Series XXI.

    One of the main differences visible from exterior, is the armor module in front of gunner sight.

    French_military_on_Champs_Elysees_DSC007
    This is Series 1 or Series 2 Leclerc (most likely Series 2), you can notice that the armor module under the turret is quiet small and similiar to your model.

    Bastille_Day_2014_Paris_-_Motorised_troo
    This is Series 3/Series XXI Leclerc, you can notice that armor module in front of gunner sight is significantly stronger.

    In general Leclerc Series 3/XXI is better armored and slightly heaviers than Series 1/2.

    Keep a good work, French Army is definately a very interesting and unique one. 🙂

    • Like 1
×