danzig5
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by danzig5
-
-
-
I feel this TASS article is closer to reality, which feels unclean to say as TASS is rarely anything like close to reality. No mention of T-14 in the list of vehicles by 2020, but lots of T-72b3 upgrades. Also interesting is mention of purchase of T-90A (MS) which presumably is like the T-90AM in game. I've very impressed the CM devs have predicated with such accuracy the future of Russian army equipment. If this article is to be believed I cannot see a single discrepancy between the forces in the game and the planned Russian army of 2020.
-
To answer any outstanding questions I have used this setup to film the following video presentation.
http://youtu.be/dJYVhHBaTOQFrom left to right are the T-64bv, the BM Bulat, the BM Oplot, the T-72b3, the T-90a, and the T-90AM. The BV, Bulat, and T-90AM all suffer partial or full penetration of the upper side hull once. The T-90a seems to allow more shells in than it keeps out, lower hull especially. Bug is not confined to upper hull armor, lower hull is much to thin as well.
-
Hmm, I didn't know the armor was only 20mm anywhere but where the torsion bars run along the bottom of the vehicle.
I know this diagram
Which Is quite old, being a original t-64 but the 20mm area is very low on the body, no real critical systems behind it besides the suspension and the rest of the hull armor is thick enough. Soviet I mean Federalist tank hulls haven't weakened much since the cold war, so I'm not convinced the results of these tests represent reality . I repeated this test with the .50 at 100m on the second floor firing down at the tank and it had no trouble repeating the results including the ammo explosion.
-
I'd like to see
Oh, How bold!
I will gladly show you. I had to recreate the test as I did not save, but the new results are more interesting with this second test, I feel. The baseline T-90a seems much more, ehm, vulnerable to this weapon than the AM I had previously tested. It should be noted that the only units present were a humvee and some .50 hmg teams, and they do not have m136cs launchers with them. The humvee was unarmed. All results are purely .50 stopping power. Also here is the screen shot you requested, not as much was damaged this time as previously the Weapon Controls were destroyed as well, and the driver was wounded.
These results can be repeated, as I have run the scenario five times now without significant alterations to this course of events.
-
Related to my earlier post, I have here video footage of the weakness of the side armor. .50 bmg seems to easily defeat t-90am, but not so much the t-72b3. Not shown is the damage done by the rounds, which break most internal systems.
-
Also I have seen multiple instances of the t-90 getting penetrated by the .50 cal in game from the side. There may be something to this issue, as reliable penetration with that weapon is unlikely at any range.
-
All those ideas except the 1v1 campaign are bad.
However, focusing on what would be the best thing to add:
More forces for the nations already in game are numba 1 in my opinion. US marines and Ukraine and Russian VDV. Orthodox marines would be nice too, ukraine marines too but less so given their very small numbers.
More NATO countries would be Nice, specifially POLAND LAND OF THE STRONG/FREE/BRAVE THE HEROES OF EUROPE, Germany, and Canada are muh most wanted NATO boys.
Also, CMBS vehicle pack 1 T-80UD for Russia and Ukraine, T64bm1 Bulat or whatever the hell that new t-64 they are producing is called for ukraine, BTR-80 baseline (both ukraine and Orthodox empire use this wagon) possible but very speculative features would be T-14 and M1a3 both of which should in theory be shown to the public in this year. Also vehicle pack could include older tanks like the old t-72b which still makes up alot of Russian armor. Older US tanks would be nice if unrealistic, if for no other reason than variety. IE a US tank that isn't the FInal Solution to the T-90 question, but on tracks.
In short, add the Army Rangers.
-
Highly interesting, especially the estimated protection figures and the detailed breakdown of systems. I wouldn't mind seeing a 2a82 armed version appear in a future module, to give the Russian Federation a tank closer to SEPv2 capabilities. (Although I am more interesting in the prospect of a T-80U in a future module, even though its old its just cool!)
In short, good work. Wouldn't mind seeing a write up like this for the Oplot-M as it is an even bigger mystery to most.
-
I wish we had protection figures for the third generation DU armor on the SEPv2, the visible increase in the frontal turret armor thickness makes me thick it would be pretty significant.
-
The biggest problem with Armata is that T-14 just isnt a cool name. You blew your chance for a T-100, Russia. Ya blew it
T-1000. Straight up. All the way. Liquid metal.
-
Sadly few facts are known about T-14, but to say it has the potential to equal M1A2SEPv2 is high praise (especially coming from me), as it is still shrouded in secrecy.
-
Is this comparison of a 2015 vintage tank with 1991 vintage tank intended to be inflammatory?
Factual. The M1A2Sepv2 specifically, a tank of unmatched quality and much newer than 91.
-
It seems less is known about this tank than I thought, I thought very little was known. I hope more information becomes available soon, as May Day is too far away. Certainly an interesting vehicle, perhaps nearing the quality of M1A2.
-
Or that the unmanned turret and armor didn't offer the weight savings indicated. Other artists concepts have a much larger turret assembly. Adding two more crew into the hull and still needing space for some turret function mechanisms doesn't leave a massive amount of room for protection, and I do not believe the vehicle has been lengthened or widened. Now that you mention it the drivers hatch area differs from T-90AM, but really only there. Otherwise shape is inline, and I am inclined to believe protection is as well.
-
Regarding the T14 vs M1A3 matter - Armata by the nature of it's layout alone would provide at least comparable protection (due to the shift of armour mass from turret into the hull). 2A82 gun (the new 125mm gun) is said to have at least a 20 percent advantage over the L55 gun, providing about the same level of muzzle energy as this new gun you are talking about.
The idea behind Armata was to create a common chassis for a number of vehicles (such as the tnks, IFV, SPG and so on), building upon the obj 195 program I do not see why it is viewed as "poor man T95".
This link you had posted http://rosinform.ru/...atformy-armata/ appears to have a T-90MS hull with no real changes except the turret. T-90MS does not provide adequate protected against the M1A2, so I am hesitant to think Armata will offer exciting protection levels. If pressed I could concede adequate protection though. I have heard there may be new ERA present on the design, but measures like that only complement the underlying armor and do not serve as replacements.
-
I look forward to see that becoming a reality, so M1A3 has someone to challenge it. Also I would buy a CMBS vehicle pack that was just prototype equipment in a heart beat. I mean I bought the CMBN vehicle pack and that mostly converted French, trash. (Sexy converted French trash but still..)
-
Not sure these are actually in service.
They appear to be but in limited numbers. Like most advanced Russian weapons. The older AT gun MT-12 is still in Russian service as well, although only as a light artillery piece.
-
Personally I am more interested in the Sprut AT gun. Basically the cannon of a modern Russian tank made into an at gun, with all the fixin's. Sad to see it wasn't included, but I guess Russian didn't bring them to this kind of ultra rapid advance scenario.
-
While T-14 certainly has the potential to be interesting, I expect it will go the way of T-95. Accepted for adoption, then cancelled eight years later. Russians are too poor for such things, although T-14 does kind of resemble a poor man's T-95.
Switching topics though, the budget we passed (http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2015/Army/stamped/0203735A_7_PB_2015.pdf) at the end of 2014 includes funding and a time frame for the M1A3, prototype should be finalized this year with pre-production to start in Q4 2015 and run through 2018. I am massively excited. It seems from what can be gathered that we are looking at a lighter more modern Abrams with the same upgraded protection the M1a2sepv2 has but increased fuel effeciency through the APU that's being added to the turbine engine. Also the new lightweight cannon is likely going to be the XM360e1, (more info here) which is an electrothermal-chemical gun. It can fire the existing shells of the Abrams, but early prototypes of this gun reached muzzle energies of 18MJ while Rheinmetal's cannon only reachs 14MJ. So lighter and more powerful. So even if the poor man's T-95 enters service it will be as nothing against the Reigning King of Tanks, Gen. Abrams.
-
I think the Russian air forces are not massively better in quality than mid 1990s NATO.
I've gotta say I agree Steve. A quick inventory of the Russian Air Force reveals very limited precision strike capability. Only Su-24m2, Su-34 and Su-25sm capable of real precision strikes. The majority of the Su-24ms and and Su-25as are fairly crude strike platforms, even by gulf war standards. The lack of targeting pods or something similar is the real killer.
On an aside, I am fascinated with the finally adopted Su-34, the more I look at it the more it looks like an F-15E, the Strike Eagle, in terms of capabilities. The entertaining thing is that it predates the end of the cold war. Took nearly 25 years to finally enter service.
-
obviously not blacktaildefense... not even his account
Even then, blacktail has eight half-hour videos totaling 4.5 hours on how the battleship is still the king of the sea . I would look elsewhere to form opinions.
-
I use to think M1A2 was the best and that it really had superb armor and firepower but I watched a series from a youtube account by the name of Blacktaildefense where he goes into details of the M1 series faults which really had me shocked.. And seeing the M1A2 being very powerful then it is really throws me off. There is a game called Arma 2 where M1A2 can take 5 shots from the front to the glacis without any penetration but the T-90 explodes in a fireball one the first shot on any spot. I hope that is not how it will be in this game, And I will be honest that BMP-3's arkan missile should have been able to atleast contuse the tank crew for a while the tank would have shaken if not penetrated.
LOL blacktail is just mike sparks, that raving lunatic who loves the m113 and call it the Gavin. Not one word he says even resembles fact.
-
m1e3_m1a3_abrams_zps1f0605e5.jpgApparently this *isn't* the M1A3, despite internet rumors to the effect. Click to enlarge.
Ah yes, the old Component Advanced Technology Test-Bed from back when the next Russian tank was expected to have 1000mm of RHAe protection and 152mm gun. The eighties had the best prototype tanks.
Armata soon to be in service.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
This picture reminds me of some of the Czech T-72 upgrades like this wild monster: