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

    It seems that ZTZ-96 inherits class from M1 Abrams and ZTZ-99 inherits class from T-72.

    Same problems occurs when mod is played with ACE2, ZTZ-99 have inferior stabilization and weak protection, while ZTZ-96 is much better.

    In a previous version of VME I was able to revert this by changing classes of both vehicles, but now it seems to be immposible.

  6. Posted

    for all "armor-freaks" don´t know if this is from a book or collected documents, a lot of food...

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/apfsdstabelanowa.png/

    This one was actually done by me and my friend for some discussion on Military forums and our own research.

    I can say a thing or two about modern MBT's armor protection, but this is probably not a thread for such discussion, not everyone wan't to read such long posts, and neither some people might be happy from my real world research (based on some documents, research of guys that have access to archives and what I seen... and I seen alot, for example such things like Leopard 2 composite armor, but do not coun't that I show You photos, I promised to delete them after watching ;))

    mobility is key, sure.

    modern MBT's ordnance's can pierce some armours several times/thru, sometimes with one shot.

    so basically, armor is remain auxilary on present level of tech/R&D, while actively developed/improved, obviously, on both sides.

    It is not actually truth. At some distance by using some types of ammunition and ignoring such things like weak zones present in all designs. Modern armor can actually present incredibly impressive protection levels. But as I said, it would be a long post, and not for thread about AFRF. ;)

  10. Posted

    My heart says god yes but my brain says run the fuck away :D

    Its probably one of the few things in the world that scare me just through the photos O_O

    BMPT (Object 199) should be used in such order of battle. In open field 1 BMPT should support 2 MBT's, in city 2 BMPT's should support 1 MBT.

    It is very well protected vehicle. Front hull and low profile turret are protected by composite armor and dynamic protection 4S23 Relikt ERA. Side hull protection is however uncertain, besides basic hull armor (~80-70mm thick), the sides skirts seems to be some sort of NERA not ERA, but with attachements points for ERA.

    BMPT also have very modern and accurate FCS.

    Well, if RHS team will in future implement BMPT and T-90MS then... they will make me very happy, finally there will be a descent enemy to fight. :D

  12. Posted

    You can expect the tanks from the T-80 pack, with many fixes and improvements. Other tanks will come in later releases. Besides, there will be much more to play with than just tanks.

    Thanks for answer. And yeah, sure, other additions will also be great. :)

    But one more question, I assume that as it was said, if BMPT is planned to be added in future, so for example more accurate model for T-90 than the BIS one also can find it's way in to the mod, as well as T-90A, aim I right?

    You know, I'am just a tanknut. :rolleyes:

  14. Posted

    I'm not out of ideas and as I said earlier, desert units will come. It's just not a huge priority for me as I prefer woodland over desert :)

    Oh and the T-80U is making an appearance, only on the Russian Federation though. It is slightly stronger than an M1A1, making it the most powerful tank besides the TUSK.

    Well the problem here is that T-80U is not really stronger than M1A1, because it depends about what subvariant of M1A1 we are talking about.

    T-80U is stronger than basic M1A1, and on par with M1A1HA, M1A1HC and basic M1A2, and also weaker than M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP. So it depends against what M1A1/M1A2 subvariant we wan't to place T-80U.

    Of course there are other, very strict technical data that explains it further, but this is not a forum for such discussion, I might share in PM if someone is interested. :)

  15. Posted

    May I suggest one thing to the LoBO team? The Merkava Mk3 model is not correct in 100%, I mean the gun barrel mainly. The bore evacuator is too far close to the barrel muzzle, while it should be closer to gun mount (gun mantlet) similiar to Merkava Mk4.

    In fact MG251 gun (on Mk3) and MG253 (on Mk4) are very similiar, and the same gun model can be used.

    Also because my work and hobby involves AFV's I might serve with knowledge about these vehicles armor protection and other informations, if of course someone want to ask about them.

    Anyway, great work! :)

  16. Posted

    Sorry my friend, I think Your knowledge about Soviet tanks is extremely limited. I am educating myself to be military journalist (and writer also) so it looks differently.

    The T-64 series were developed by KB-60M Design Bureau (currently known as Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building

    Design Bureau) as a high quality tank for Soviet Forces. And it was so untill second half of 1980's.

    The T-80 series was developed also as high quality (however a bit simpler in some aspects than T-64) tank, but was designed by a separate Design Bureau the Leningrad Kirov Plant, was manufactured there and in Omsk Transmash.

    Both tanks have different hull, different engines, different tank commander cupola. But the same type of autoloader, the 6ETs-10 family.

    T-64B and T-80B was a attempt to commonalize both. Both have very similiar turret, however still both are very different tanks, designed by different design bureaus, and are similiar only because that was how MBT's were designed back then in Soviet Union.

    As for widespread of version, actually T-80B and T-80BV are the same tank, V only means that tank have added 4S20 Kontakt-1 ERA, same goes for T-64B and T-64BV.

    In SOviet tanks designation nomenclature, V was added when tanks not designed from base to have ERA installed, were equipped with such additional protection, while tanks that were designed from start to have ERA, didn't have change in designation code, this is why T-72B with ERA is still T-72B, same goes for T-80A, T-80U, T-80UD (when their production started, these tanks were not fitted with ERA, be it Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5).

    So in simple way.

    T-64 was first Soviet tank designed in such distinctive way.

    Later was T-72, it's first prototype Object 172 was in fact T-64 with different engine, while Object 172M was definitive prototype of T-72.

    And there was third tank, T-80, very different from previous two.

    So in the end Soviet Union, was manufacturing 3, very similiar yet different tanks, designed by 3 separate and competing with each other Design Bureaus.

    Ufff... ok it's time to end this history lesson.

  17. Posted · Edited by Damian90

    Yeah it goes more or less that way. From less advanced at top to more advanced at bottom.

    T-64,

    T-64R,

    T-64A,

    T-64B,

    T-64BV,

    T-64BM2,

    T-64BM Bulat,

    T-64U.

    T-72,

    T-72A (export variants are T-72M and T-72M1),

    T-72AV (Export variant with ERA is T-72M1V),

    T-72B (T-72B1 is T-72B without gun launched ATGM capability and simplified FCS),

    T-72BA,

    T-72B2 vel T-72BM Rogatka (only prototype),

    And many more variants.

    T-80,

    T-80B,

    T-80BV,

    T-80A,

    T-80U,

    T-80UD and many other variants.

    And I could probably write about tanks whole day, or even whole month... this is like a river, on some good military forums discussion about AFV's can be really, really long.

    And this is why I said earlier that You should wait for Red Hammer Studios mod release, Kenji made a briliant pack of T-64 and T-80 tanks, very detailed and contains all major variants. You can also ask them later and add some of their models in some later version of the mod. ;)

    In case of T-72 tanks, T-72B for CDF and Chedaki were made by Dractryum if I remember correctly, and were also used in ACE2, as far as I know, their creator was woring in T-90A model for some time but seems that he is not posting anything new for a while.

    May I also suggest one thing. T-80U was not manufactured in some huge quanities, and were sent mostly to more elite units of Soviet Armed Forces, thus is is rather unlikely that CDF would use T-80U also.

    It is more possible that both sides would rather have T-80BV that was more widespread.

  19. Posted

    I have a question to ACE2 team.

    Possible updated final release is possible, so if there are plans to upgrade some tanks models? For example replacing not very proper BIS M1A2 TUSK (that represents prototype not production variant) by for example modified ACE2 M1A1 model? If yes I can provide detailed photo materials of production variant (there are not many exterior visual changes, different TC cupola, different placement of remote weapon station, proper side skirts ERA placement, and of course adding a CITV, and it should be fine).

    It is not a request, but rather a simple question with small sugestion. ;)

  20. Posted

    I dont think the T-80BV or T-64BV. Just T-64A cause in real life the T-64BV is only used by Russia plus Chenarus is supposedly a extremely poor country.

    I would say maybe the T-80B and T-64A. To be realistic about the T-80B Remove The ATGM Rockets.

    Both T-80BV and T-64BV were rather wide spread across Soviet Union.

    In real life T-64BV's are retaired by Russia because these tanks were developed and builded in Kharkiv (Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau) placed in todays Ukraine, so currently logistic base is placed in Ukraine and biggest user of these tanks is Ukraine. I do not see a reason why Chernarus being part of SU in past, would not inherit some of these after SU fall, while only design bureau that survived collapse of SU in Russia is UVZ (Uralvagonzavod) that is original produced of T-72 and T-90 series, and have also made investitions to old Omsk production plant to place there repair and modernization facility for T-72 and T-80 tanks.

    In reality T-80B have 9K112 Kobra complex as T-64B so both can fire 9M112 GLATGM's, so why to remove this capability from tanks?

  21. Posted

    No, T-55AM Merida and similiar like T-55AM2B use composite addon armor codenamed BDD (layers of steel plates in resin like material encased in steel boxes or modules). While T-55 with ERA can be designated as T-55AV or T-5AMV, V was allways added to tanks not designed in the first place to have ERA (while tanks from base designed to have ERA never had V in designation code), and means more or less Vzrivnoy, in Russian it means explosive, and is obviously connected to Explosive Reactive Armor, however in Russia (and Ukraine) ERA is called Dynamic Protection, Dinamichyska Zashita/ДинамичеÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð·Ð°Ñ‰Ð¸Ñ‚Ð° in Russian or DZ in short.

  22. Posted

    Personally i can't see what's wrong with Vilas models, without him most of the mods in Arma2 wouldn't exist.

    Don't get me wrong, I do not have anything to Vilas, and I completely appreciate his great work. But it seems that his models are not completely correct with reality. For examples commander cupolas, and several other details (yet important ones for people that like when things are how they should be).

  24. Posted

    Wait, Doesent the T-64A Have an autoloader?

    Yes, one of variants from 6ETs autoloader series.

    However it seems that Vilas T-64 models are not entirely correct, IMHO I would wait for RHS new mod release and eventually ask a permission to use (or there probably will be T-64 for CDF added anyway)... only my two cents.

×