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

  2. Posted

    @massi

    If I may suggest something when it comes to a bit of realism. 😉

    Designations of ground armored vehicles should look like this.

    Instead of Merkava Mk-IV, the real designation is Merkava Mk4 (IDF do not use Roman numerals), and to be even more precise, in game vehicle is Merkava Mk4M.

     

    The Merkava SPH should be named Sholef, as the real world counterpart.

    There is of course Namer APC, the in game CRV variant should be called Namera (or Nemmera depending on source) as the real world ARV.

    The AA variant can be named Bardelas.

    Merkava based MLRS could be named either Menatetz or Romach as the real world IDF MLRS variants are named like that.

    • Like 1

  4. Posted

    8 hours ago, reconteam said:

    Maybe this is a bit off topic but can the six 120mm shells carried in the hull of the M1 Abrams be accessed from inside of the tank or do you have to access that compartment from the outside? Could they justifiably be added to the tank's loadout in RHS?

     

    All of that shiny new Russian armor is making me jealous when you compare it to the slow pace of AFV development back in the US. At least the Army is looking at some functional prototypes for NGCV which is a start.

     

    US Army vehicles development have similiar pace. Yuma Proving Grounds just presented M1A2C (M1A2SEPv3) prototype with Trophy HV APS and also addon armor on turret front. So don't worry. 😉

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    5 hours ago, alessiomoreno said:

    Thank you everyone for the insight - very much appreciated!

     

    In regards to the ammunition storage of T-90Ms - is the "turret bustle" just a marketing ploy or what purpose does it really serve?

    I would imagine that perhaps less ammunition is stored inside the vehicle; though I would argue that this makes reloading the carousel even more awkward and when that external ammunition storage is hit, not only is it gone, but the ensuing fire would pose a threat to the vehicle, especially since burning material might drip into the engine compartment. Are there any measure to prevent this?

    And last but not least - how will the storage compartment be implemented in-game?

    Do the new tanks come with new ammunition types?

     

     

    The external ammunition box was added to T-90AM/SM/M to increase vehicle survivability by moving secondary ammunition from crew compartment to safe external storage, leaving only 22 rounds in autoloader, which is safer as autoloader is quiet low and have some spall shields, altough still any direct hit there will cause catastrophic ammunition cook off. Also there is additional 8 rounds inside stored inside fuel tank.

    JtWtKuu.png

    As for burning material it's not a problem, if burning propelant charge is spit around vehicle it will not cause anything more than cosmetic damage, even burning fuel or napalm etc. will not cause any harm if crew hatches are closed. However flames can cause some problems, if they are sucked by engine air intakes these flames can damage some things like air filters etc. Or can be sucked by the NBC protection systems. This is why it's advised, that when possible turret should be rotated to 9 o'clock, 3 o'clock or 6 o'clock, so turret bustle is either on the side of vehicle or over front glacis plate.

    So this is for example how it looks like in M1 Abrams tanks.


    And here something from manual.

    3Fx4NoW.jpg

    As for implementing this in game, we want to have such system at one point, but do not expect it anytime soon.

    In case of new ammunition, maybe, dunno.

    • Thanks 4

  6. Posted

    On 2/16/2019 at 1:14 AM, da12thMonkey said:

    No. 2A46M-5 is distinctive because it has a muzzle reference system above the barrel. This, and higher build tolerances for straightness and rigidity are undoubtedly significant parts of what accounts for T-90M's apparent improvement in the accuracy of its gun over the T-90A/T-90SA.

     

    T-90SA lacks the new muzzle reference system, so is evidently using an older 2A46M version (IIRC 2A46M-1 and 2A46M-4 were to fit T-80's autoloader, so it's not those versions). And naturally it's not using the T-90M's Armata-derived FCS since it lacks such parts of the pointing system.

     

    Currently though, our T-90M's sighting system doesn't significantly differ from the existing T-90A's systems, due to lack of time/availability anyway.


    T-90, T-90A, T-90S and T-90SA uses 2A46M-2.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2

  7. Posted

    20 hours ago, alessiomoreno said:

    Has there been any new development in respect to the autoloader on T-90M variants, and what is to think of the new turret bustle? How well is it implemented in comparison for instance to Abrams tanks and is it any advantage in terms of e.g. crew survivability vs tanks like the Leo2?

     

    T-90AM, T-90SM and T-90M uses AZ-185 autoloader under the turret. AZ-185 is upgraded wariant of AZ-125 used in T-72 series and it's the same one used in T-90A and T-90S. AZ-185 main upgrade is capability to use APFSDS rounds with penetrator lenght of ~740mm.

    As for turret bustle, well these tanks do not have a real turret bustle, what they have is an armored box bolted to the turret rear bulkhead, for storage of some secondary main gun munitions (projectile + propelant charge). The crew does not have any access to this box from vehicle interior so to use ammunition there, they need to leave vehicle.

    t-90ms_storage_box_ammunition_rear_of_th

    IMG_3039+%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BF%

    IMG_3041+%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BF%

    Similiar in concept armored box is bolted to the rear bulkhead of the turret of BM "Oplot" tank.

    image014.jpg

    image015.jpg

    image017.jpg

     

    In general T-90AM, T-90SM and T-90M will have slightly better survivability in case of it's armor being pierced than Leopard 2, because in these T tanks, autoloader and secondary ammunition rack, are placed slightly lower than hull ammunition rack of the Leopard 2.

    However their survivability will still be lower than that of the M1A1 and M1A2 tanks, because these have their entire ammunition for main gun, stored in isolated ammunition magazines. These magazines are isolated by thick, sliding armored doors, and have blow off panels.

    Rnqnh5p.jpg
    This is photo I made inside an M1A2SEPv2 (it was quiet an old example from one of the first production batches, so quiet an used tank before main overhaul), you can see two blast doors for both turret magazines, each magazine stores 18 rounds so 36 rounds in total.

    MEgzeJ1.jpg
    And this is hull ammunition magazines, with one of the blast doors opened, each of these magazines hold 3 rounds so 6 in total.

     

    18 hours ago, Poentis.K said:

    So information regarding T-90M proryv-3

     having a 2A82 cannon is false?... well that'a a bummer :[


    Yes this was a false information. T-90AM/SM and T-90M uses 2A46M-5 gun, not 2A82.

    • Thanks 2

  8. Posted

    2 hours ago, alessiomoreno said:

    Thanks a bunch!

    Much appreciated information, as well as additions to the game!

     

    I did read on the wiki though, that the AM version would use the T-14's main gun while the export version 2M46-5 - what implications does this have both real world and in-game?

    Is integrated night vision for the driver in the latter variant possible in ArmA?

     

    Last but not least: The T-90SA (also beautiful looking model!!) will be the exact same version as the in-game T-90A or will there be slight deviations apart from the obvious one (missing Dazzlers)?

    I wonder since it specified that the SA Version was obr. 2016 while the current model is obr. 2006.

    Has there been any other modernisation of Vladimir tanks since 2006 other than the Proryv versions?

     

    Nope, 2A82 gun in any subvariant can't be mounted in any legacy tank. This gun fits only T-14. It's breech is too large to mount in older vehicles turret, and also would demand very serious modifications to the hull to fit it's new autoloader, in general it would mean cutting hull sides and welding them again to make vehicle wider.

    No no, neither T-90AM nor T-90SM nor T-90M can use 2A82 125mm smoothbore gun used by T-14.

     

    scale_2400

    scale_2400

     

    As you can see such modifications would be required, this makes such modifications extremely difficult, and extremely expensive.

    • Thanks 1

  9. Posted

    5 hours ago, Poentis.K said:

    What exact model is the turret on the T-90SM? Since most info on stuff like this is limited all I ever learned is that the SM variant only uses the 7.62 udp t05bv-1 remote weapon station, but in your model that seems to be a rws with a kord.

     

    T-90AM/SM can use either RWS with 7.62mm MG or 12.7mm HMG. Festival just deciced to give them different RWS to make them slightly different as far as I know.

    There are photos in the internet of T-90SM with 12.7mm HMG installed.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  12. Posted

    On 6.01.2019 at 3:34 AM, HBAOplus said:

    Hi @Damian90, could you please give some suggestions on this ticket please?

    https://dev.cup-arma3.org/T2748

     

    I thought you are so professional on the armored vehicles! Thanks a lot!

     

    Indeed you are right on this subject. In RHS we do not have M1A2SEPv2 with M153 CROWS-2 (yet) but in general CROWS optics look like this:

     

    1x magnification day channel, 4.3x magnification thermal channel, 12.5x magnification thermal channel, 15x magnification day channel, 30x magnification day channel.

    I think the same goes for M151 CROWS as well. In general @HBAOplus I think you should take peek at RHS when it comes to vehicle optics and FCS, as we always try to keep is as realistic as it's possible in arma engine.

    @CUP Hope this information will also be usefull.

    • Thanks 1

  14. Posted

    @CUP

    One more thing about tanks. Realistic sights. We assume that both M1A1 and M1A2 TUSK made by BI and used in CUP, are equivalents tu currently used models, so M1A1SA and M1A2SEPv2. In such case such sights they should have.

    M1A1SA:
    - Gunner : Day sight 3x and 10x magnification, thermal sight 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x magnification.
    - Commander : day sight 3x, 6x and 9x magnification, thermal sight 3x, 6x and 9x magnification. (If we assume that this is M1A1SA with SCWS cupola)

    M1A2SEPv2.
    - Gunner : Day sight 3x and 10x magnification, thermal sight 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x magnification.
    - Commander : CITV have only thermal sight with 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x magnification;
    - M153 CROWS-2 have it's standard magnification for day and thermal sights.

    Note: USMC M1A1 should be M1A1FEP it's direct equivalent of US Army M1A1SA.

    Other tanks will be less capable in this departament.

    For example:

    Challenger 2:
    - Gunner : 3x and 10x magnification for both day and thermal sight.
    - Commander : 3x and 10x magnification for day sight, it does not have thermal sight, only night vision.

    Leopard 2A6:

    - Gunner : 12x day sight magnification and also 3x and 12x thermal sight magnification.
    - Commander : 2x and 8x magnification for day sight, 3x, 12x and 24x magnification for thermal sight.

    T-72A/M1/B:
    - Gunner : 8x magnification for day sight, 8x magnification for NVG sight.

    - Commander : 7x magnification for day sight, 7x magnification magnification for NVG sight.

    Later I will add data for some other tanks and IFV's.

    Again, hopes this helps. Cheers!

    • Like 4

  15. Posted

    @CUP

    Speakig about M1A2 TUSK, some model improvements also would be nice realism wise.

    First the ERA blocks, the BIS M1A2 TUSK is based on a prototype that lacked 2x frontal ERA blocks.

    1200px-Abrams-transparent.png
    arma2_vehicles_tracked_M1A2-Tusk.jpg

    The series production vehicle, have this drawback solved as ERA blocks are added.

    Mounted_Soldier_System_(MSS).jpg

    Another problem is placement of the CROWS remote weapon station for a commander. On prototype it was indeed placed just like on the BI model, however series vehicles have CROWS mounted above the gunner primary sight "doghouse".

    Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge_2018_(41870
    Decisive_Action_Rotation_15-02_at_the_Na
    COMBINED_RESOLVE_VII_160911-A-NY707-005.

    It was done such way, because now in case of emergency, TC can use CROWS in manual mode, it also gave some other benefit.

    Of course the difference is that BI model just like the M1A2 TUSK prototype uses M151 CROWS used also on Stryker, while in reality the M1A2SEPv2 tanks, received M153 CROWS-2.

    Anyway, hope it is helpfull bit of informations. ;)

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 5

  16. Posted

    11 hours ago, Nichols said:

    @Damian90 you do realize that they are separate on many of the vehicles in real life right? The ZBD04 has a separate ATGM launcher from the main gun. The ZBD05 uses a main gun launched 105mm beam riding missile. So I would think that the way that they have it done is spot on for most if not all of the Chinese armored fighting vehicles.

     

    Nope, not all vehicles have it separate, some launch ATGMs through their main guns and not separate launchers. Of course if someone do not like realism can accept current state of affairs.

  17. Posted

    @hcpookie

    A further suggestions concerning AFV's.

    I would completely remove crew internal view where there is no interior model, or even entirely considering it's mostly redundant and not very pretty.

     

    I would change ammunition loadout.

    For example tanks and IFV's with large calliber guns that can also fire ATGM's, right now if I am not mistaken, as a main weapon in config you have separate gun and ATGM launcher, I would delete ATGM launcher, and make main gun use ATGM's as magazines, that are loaded separately. It's more realistic this way.

    Will make some more testing later.

    • Like 2
    • Confused 1

  18. Posted

    @CUP Team I have a question.

     

    If there would be a possibility in some future release you could make a modified version of Chernarus, with main airbase slightly modified? I mean airbase that is perhaps slightly enlarged, with ground vehicle motorpool/motorpools with hangars for them etc.? Also with fixed fences? Maybe using vanilla Arma3 military wall and these large fences, and make them without holes and damaged sections?

     

    In general maybe more logical design of the main airbase? Other islands with fixed military bases would also be a nice thing.

     

    Cheers!

  19. Posted

    22 hours ago, taro8 said:

    The gunner sight position was something that went unnoticed until yesterday TBQH, sadly it didn't make it into the update. Thaks for the info about the loadout will see about adjusting it.
    As for the M240 for the loader it might be a bit difficult as it would require changing the model and such, but the biggest issue is that you cannot prevent a turned in unit from firing an MG without creating a whole host of new problems. Also our M1A1 does not have a loader seat at all, just gunner, driver and commander. Loader is pretty much a dead weight in Arma as he serves nor purpose, kinda like the copilot. But well see.

     

    Great, I will also have some more suggestions later, especially considering M1A2, but I need some more time to prepare these. Cheers!

  20. Posted

    @CUP

     

    If I may suggest something, realism wise.

     

    The M1A1 and M1A2 tanks need some... updating, first is the view from gunner sight, it's on the wrong side of the turret, the gunner view should be placed where gunner sight is actually placed, seen on screen below.

     

    FDJFssG.jpg

    Another issue is the ammunition loadout.

    M1A1 and M1A2 series of MBT's should have:

    42 120mm rounds due to new ammo racks in turret bustle (18 rounds in ready rack, 18 rounds in semi ready and 6 in hull storage).
    ~11.000-12.000 7.62mm rounds for coaxial and loader machine gun, so approx 10x 1200 round belts.
    ~1.000 12.7mm rounds for commander heavy machine gun.

    I would also advise to add M240 MG model for loader in M1A1.

    Cheers and keep a good work. ;)

    • Like 6

  21. Posted

    @keeway

    May I suggest something for Project OPFOR?

     

    Perhaps update RACS faction to a bit modern standard with US M1A1HC or M1A1SA from RHS and give them also our M2A2 as IFV. Also Russian vehicles as captured T-72B obr.1984/1985 and BMP-1/BMP-2.

     

    In general for all factions more vehicles added from RHS would be a welcome thing.

    We might discuss later if you wish how this could look like.

  24. Posted

    14 hours ago, sargken said:

    What is this hunter killer/override you speak of? - I googled it 

     

    Hunter-Killer is a description of the armored fighting vehicle crew working process in which there is constant loop of actively seeking targets, identifying them and engaging. However not all vehicles are capable of Hunter-Killer, such capability have only vehicles with mostly digital fire control systems, very good optics, especially commander needs some sort of stabilized panoramic sight, and of course vehicle needs the commander override capability, so commander can either quickly designate target for gunner, or take complete control over vehicles main armament and engage target himself.

     

    This is probably the simplest description of Hunter-Killer I can come up with.

     

    14 hours ago, charlie1210 said:

    pretty sure hunter/killer is impossible in arma

     

    Not exactly, it is possible to some degree. Heck in a sorts it's allready in vanilla game, where you can designate targets for gunner, of course it's simplified. Besides Reyhard allready implemented TC override for some RHS vehicles, tough it's a slow process. ;)

    • Like 7

  25. Posted

    21 hours ago, Poentis.K said:

    7ee1750f7e.jpg
    With the tease of that T-90MS, would there be a counter for it on the US side?

     

    Let's say M1A2SEPv1 is equal to it or even slightly superior in armor protection and also optics. As for anything newer, one day perhaps, we gonna see.

     

    To be more precise with ERA counted in, T-90MS is equal in protection to our M1A2SEPv1.

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 2
×