Kieme(ITA)

Thanks guys, glad you like them. I'll make the MTLBu next.

What kind of sky mod is that?

Kieme CMBS MTLBm-a-b-strela-shturm Special thanks to BTR for providing the ideal green base textures. This mod covers 6 variants of the MTLB for the Rus army (including the mortar carrier). Download: https://app.box.com/s/8ko3wg16clpaxwsgvbrr4g822hm8vqaq Preview:

I am playing a QB. Got this situation: at about 1km my T-90AM, couple of them, spotted several Hummers (the recon version). Between the tanks and the hummers, closer to the tanks, there's a berm (the tanks shot from partial if not complete hull down). Result: most of the hits were: "hit, weapon Mount", that is the big sensor/HMG Mount on top of the hummers. The shots were indeed at those parts, which must have been more visible to the T-90 than the hull of the hummers.

Yes, they are done, will upload them Tomorrow.

How can we discuss something like this? There's no information on Armata armor.

Yeah, BONE us.

You can have interesting mixes, like fanatic conscripts. Don't give any hope they can operate heavy machinery, drive without crashing or hit anything at ten meters, but rest assured they will keep trying.

Also spotting ability is affected, better troops will have better spotting ability.

I have tested the sniper rifles a bit, and I can tell you the 0.50 is absolutely capable of penetrations against IFVs, but mainly on the sides and rear. Barrett can reliably kill most of the people inside a BMP-3, for example, and force the rest to panic and abandon it. Side shots often cause partial penetrations (enough to kill a soldier) or internal flak (increases suppression and can wound). It is theoretically possible to destroy some parts of the tanks, but shooting at them is just a waste of ammo and time, not Worth it. Even the rear of a T-72 is practically invulnerable to the barrett. The .50 is more efficient at long distance (1km) than the other guns (against infantry), while penetrations require mostly a 500m or less range. The other guns can shoot more shots within the minute though. It's Worth to note that soldiers' training/experience level is more important than the weapons when it comes to precision.

The "hit, top turret" message corresponds to a sub-system damage or destruction. The hit message does not tell you which and how much of a subsystem is damaged. It's a non-penetration because the shot got absorbed by a sub-system (and represents the possibility that the shot exploded right on top of something, for example the targeting system or the missile launcher).

Yes Sub, it took 2 or 3 iterations (120mm Ukr mortar, precision strikes). One must have disabled the tracks (the first one almost Always does), the second or third one destroyed the vehicle.

Penetration mark of a 120mm precision round on a T-90AM:

An old style pass-through in front of the destroyed enemy.

Looks fantastic, thanks Mord. The worn-out flag in the background gives a special touch.

In a day of satellite coverage I wouldn't consider out of the way a pre-planned arty for an attacker too. By the way, another "house rule" that has been used (but not by me) would be to avoid the purchase of APS equipped units. Although last patch addressed the rarity of such units, so you might just need to keep an eye on the rarity level of your battles.

It was discussed here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119169-vehicles-being-hit-with-no-penetration-and-crew-reactions/

Why not? I wouldn't keep AAA units in the front line.

Maybe you don't need to acquire, it is possible that these missiles behave like some other assets and will get automatically shared between the storage vehicle and the teams if these two are close enough.

Some pictures to appreciate the evolution in terms of shape, size and fitting from the oldest Drozd (late '70s) to the modern one seen in recent vehicles: Drozd: http://military.tomsk.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=18891&mode=view http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://military.tomsk.ru/forum/download/file.php%253Fid%253D18887%2526mode%253Dview&imgrefurl=http://armorama.com/modules.php?op%3Dmodload%26name%3DSquawkBox%26file%3Dindex%26req%3Dviewtopic%26topic_id%3D182442%26page%3D1&h=1296&w=1728&tbnid=_PMbOZjAmTfnPM:&zoom=1&docid=YvKJPB5NM1TH1M&itg=1&ei=0mhpVdz3HcHB7Abk8YDICg&tbm=isch&ved=0CFYQMygsMCw Afganit: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEMdl-UW0AA0iWl.jpg http://sg.uploads.ru/t/M2Y8G.jpg The Afganit launchers seem close in terms of shape and dymensions, maybe they are even a bit larger than the Drozd's. But the big step was done on the sensor system. First of all there's no need for an external electronic brain (such it was fitted on the T-55) because the Afganit was intended for use on the new vehicles, therefore such complex is stored inside the vehicle. The sensor themselves are surely much smaller than the original Drozd ones, I'd dare to say 30% the size, and the concept evolved as to use several small sensor boxes placed all around the vehicle for a full coverage. Finally, there's also the evolution on the smoke dischargers, from the fixed to the mobile ones.

But if a munition is steerable it must have less space/weight/size to accomodate explosive and material to counter the incoming projectile (to be steerable there must be some mechanism plus some propeller to steer it)... So steerable + 120/160 cover arc (like they mention), seems quite of a stretch for that tube. It's not small, but not very large either.

If this reference is right: http://www.wearethemighty.com/javelin-anti-aircraft-missile-2015-02 The Javelin approaches the target more or less with a 45° angle. This is the outcome: -on the left the APS munition explodes right after leaving the tube. It's possible, but it will hit directly the hull of the vehicle and cause damage for sure, to the launcher tube, the nearby ones etc... but the angle is capable of intercepting a javelin directed to the middle of the vehicle. -on the right the munition explodes about 3 meters after leaving the tube, it won't harm the vehicle in any way so it's safe. But it won't be able to intercept the javelin. We could imagine a larger cone of effect, but this cone would need to be very very large to get the javelin... and considering it's shaped like a cone (if not a cylinder), let's say a cone, it will need to fill an amount of cubic meters of air (space) that seems unlikely.

Well, on the left side it's what it would look like (considering a 1m activation) with 120° explosion cone, I wonder if there was the need for so many charges at various angles.. if the cone of each one was meant to be so wide. Maybe the tube launches a very big tube-shaped explosive charge that covers 360° on the vertical plane (and it would be consistent with a 160, almost 180° area of effect on the horizontal plane). Looking at the picture again seems that 1m is too short, because it would hit part of the vehicle. At least 4/5m would be needed in order to ensure the explosion does not invest directly the hull: I don't know the precise angle of approach of most top-hitting weapons, such a Javelin. But even 120° appears capable of hitting top-attack weapons: The only problem I see is that if such munition wants to be efficient against top-attack weapons, and at the same time launch itself horizontally (as the tubes suggest) I see it's needed to explode very shortly after leaving the tube, otherwise the overhead of the vehicle would just be exposed... This is what never convinced me about the capability of this new russian system to cope with top-attack weapons. The launching/housing tubes of the countermeasures are horizontally mounted, so even an extreme angle of explosion would be not really suited to cover the top of the vehicle... Moreover, about the cone of action/efficiency of the APS munition. Sure it's shape (a cylinder) suggests a 360° capacity, but a very wide cone of action will disperse the efficiency more than a strict cone would do. The tubes are quite large indeed, and maybe there's enough propeller and material to cover such a wide cone, but I wonder if the munition is capable of really saturate such space in a 100% secure manner.

This picture shows a comparison between the arcs of sensors (supposing 120°) and the direct launcher tubes' facing. (There seems to be a dud with a couple of them intersecating, but this could be due to a bad drawing more than anything else... even though that front tube seems to be pointing a bit more outwards than the one on the other side) With the picture above could be a bit easier to understand the radious of the weapons of this APS. I mean the radious that each munition can cover. There must be some, at it must be at least as large to cover the dead space in between the weapon tubes. The widest area between two tubes seems to be the back 2/3rds. Between the last side tube and the first read one. But in the end, it all depends on the range of the weapons, that is the distance between the tube and where the weapon detonates in order to intercept the incoming projectile. If we knew such number we could estimate a minimum number for the width of the weapon's range, and vice-versa. It is interesting to note that the direction of one of the left side tubes is almost identical to extreme range of the 120° radius of the left sensor. This is how it would look like if the tube-launched weapons had a 1m detonation range (1m after leaving the tube) and a 30° cone of coverage. There would be a gap, even if the drawing is not accurate the gab seems too large. So the weapons must have a cone of coverage larger than 30° each. Same picture, with 60° cones. Almost there, maybe we can consider some errors within the drawing, so a 60° cone would cover the entire vehicle if the munitions would explode 1m after the launch. If we ditch the 1m assumption and start supposing the munition would explode at a larger distance then we could reach the extreme range of efficiency of a coverage having these data as assumpted (x meters -range of detonation, 60° efficiency cone of the detonation)

This is how a 90° field of operation for each sensor would (more or less) look like.: The frontal coverage (even with a slight movement of the squares I tried to add), wouldn't fit the front arc very well... there would be a dead area in front of the vehicle of more than 2x the lenght of the vehicle itself. Now, the APS will surely have an X range for its sensors and weapons, it could be that this range goes as far as 2, 3 or even 4 times the length of the vehicle, although it would be safer to assume the range is quite short: -for the weapons, because the size of them is directly dependant on their potential range (and we have to keep in mind that a lot of explosive/size is needed for the detonation against the projectile) -for the sensors, because in a natural complex environment there will be obstacles and other elements that would limit the efficiency of the sensors the closer such elements are to the sensors, not to mention the fact that the longer the range is the more complex is the scene for such sensor. So, if these sensors work on a 90° radious each (on the horizontal plane) a full coverage could be achieved, but it would create larger dead areas and require a good extension of the sensors' range. 120° functionality seems to be an overkill, and judging from the front panel of the sensor itself, maybe it's quite a large number for that. Maybe the real deal is something between 90 and 120.