|
Notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that its right approach to model over-penetration.
If it's overpetetration, at least, vehicle should be disabled.
Also ASDF is quite powerful, and when it hits metal target it creates huge amount of small metal fragments inside vehicle, and it's definitely should damage crew and vehicle itself.
But I wouldn't put too much efforts on it. Maybe just destroy vehicle completely ? |
|
|
|
|
anyway, tested it in editor
t72b3 use 3bm46
aiming in the upper part of hull result always in destruction on 1st hit
aiming in lower part may result in engine damage, fuel damage (non critical), dismounts injury/deat or no damage, but usually second hit destroyed it anyway
driver is unfortunately immortal in all vehicle which have ability to turn out/in (vanila & rhs)
same result with t72b obr85
are you using any mods? |
|
|
|
|
t72b3 doesn't contain 3bm46 shells(at least in 3.5 version). Did you mean 3bm42?
I used BlastCode mode, but re-test everything again without this mode.
And still M113A3 can hold hit from 3BM42. And sometimes I can't destroy it even with 2 hits. Which is kind of ridiculous for aluminum armor. So maybe its M113A3's armor problem, and not 3BM42. Also M113A3 is extremely hard to kill with 30mm(armor piercing ammo) auto cannon from BMD-4 for example(I need to hit it at least 50 times in front armor), which is also strange because it can't hold 30 mm shells at all. Should I create another issue for this?
And I'm able to reproduce same behavior with 3bm42 for Bradley's turret(but not always). Could it be ricochet? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tested 3BM46(T-80U) against M113A3 and Bradley. Same behavior as I described above(for Bradley only sometimes). |
|
|
|
|
I've tested the 3BM42 and the 3BM46 agains most likely all RHS vehicles, and except the Abrams I had never any issue penetrating armor. I conducted these test at about 1.500 m, while also testing the HEAT and MPAT issue.
M113 and Bradley could normally be penetrated at all distances and angles.
I've tested it with 3.5 and the BETA and both have similar results. |
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be because of ARMA 1.34 version? |
|
|
|
|
|
I have to admit, I cannot tell which version I used for testing (about a week ago). I have to check at home. But what I remember is your name from dev-heaven.net ACE2 tracker, always complaining about the weakness of Russian tanks. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Haha. You are wrong, once I had some kind of discussion, and nothing more. And it was sort of "speaking with a wall" discussion ))
Ah, I remember you also. I hope you are not going to prove that aluminium armor of M113A3 can hold "week Russian tank's shells"? )))
I will also try to upgrade Arma to the latest version, and test again. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just kidding mate, I tested the ammo and I could easily penetrate Bradley and M113, so everything is fine for me. |
|
|
|
|
I also made a tests - resoult is that M113 surwiwed 2 T-72B3 sabot round on ~2km (hit on side).
Moreover FCS of T-72B3 is working wrong - specially on HEAT rounds - allways calculate wrong distance to target and HEAT round is flying too high. |
|
|
|
(0000560)
|
|
Damian
|
2015-01-26 16:29
(edited on: 2015-01-26 16:47) |
|
FCS is still WIP, Reyhard knows about that issue, because many tanks in the mod have that problem.
I will test M113 against 3BM42 and 3BM46. I have ArmA3 ver 1.36 for now untill problems with new physx won't be solved, but everything else works as intended. Allways test stable version 0.3.5 or beta on stable 1.36 ArmA3.
One note tough, we have realistic calculation for all tank ammo, and it won't be changed, forgot about it.
And honestly, Russian APFSDS ammo is mostly obsolete junk compared to American APFSDS, we won't change realism and realistic results only because some fanboys complain.
Actually as I found, 3BM46 in our mod is overpowered, and should have lowered penetration capabilities.
Edit:
Ok I know where problem is, if it is really a problem.
M113 or Bradleys are damaged, very seriously by these rounds, however they do not explode, which is realistic in some way as they do not store tank gun ammo propelant charges inside, it is also possible to destroy them completely (they explode).
Probably their internal hitpoints will need some small tweaking.
However it might looks different when Olds will finally finish our armor system.
|
|
|
|
(0000566)
|
|
likvi85
|
2015-01-26 19:15
(edited on: 2015-01-26 19:30) |
|
Ok, glad that you've found a problem.
Another thing that I should mention. In case if M113 contains infantry in cargo, and I hit it with 3BM42, it doesn't damage infantry at all.
Speaking about Russian APFSDS ammo. I can agree that 3BM42 is really old and therefore is a peace of junk. But I wouldn't say so about 3BM46. It is quite powerful even comparing to US rounds. I know it doesn't make any sense to discuss anything with you, but it's just my "two cents".
Anyway, many thanks for your great work!!!
|
|
|
|
(0000567)
|
|
Damian
|
|
2015-01-26 19:25
|
|
3BM46 is also not new, do not confuse it with 3BM59 and 3BM60 that have penetration capabilities comparable to German DM53/63 and US M829A2.
However 3BM46 penetration capabilities, at best are comparable with M829A1 or DM43.
These are facts. You can thank to autoloader design in T tanks that limits penetrator lenght, and penetrator lenght and general design are responsible for penetration capabilities in far greater degree than penetrator velocity.
However it is not my problem if someone have problems with accepting reality. |
|
|
|
(0000568)
|
|
vlad_8011
|
2015-01-26 19:46
(edited on: 2015-01-26 19:48) |
|
As far as i know there is two types of 3BM42 and newer version have ability to penetrate 650mm so its not so bad, 3BM46 have ability to penetrate 600mm armour. Specification talk for themselves, newest isnt always better. Damian autoloader in T-90 and some of T-80 have been changed for ability to load bigger ammo (mainly for SABOT rounds) ;)
PS if im not mistake 3BM46 with wolfram penetrator is able to penetrate 800mm but im not sure at 100%
|
|
|
|
(0000570)
|
|
likvi85
|
2015-01-26 19:52
(edited on: 2015-01-26 19:53) |
|
3BM59 and 3BM60? I've never heard about these two. Do you mean "Svinets-1" and "Svinets-2"?. Just curious, can you give a link or something?
|
|
|
|
(0000571)
|
|
vlad_8011
|
2015-01-26 19:55
(edited on: 2015-01-26 20:06) |
|
|
|
|
(0000572)
|
|
Damian
|
2015-01-26 20:10
(edited on: 2015-01-26 20:14) |
|
3BM59 is Svinets-1, 3BM60 is Svinets-2.
3BM46 is not Svinets-1 or Svinets-2, it is just Svinets. Do not confuse them.
I know it might be confusing, but this is also somewhat a purpose of designation system like that, to confuse potential adversaries.
As a side note, 3BM59 and 3BM60 differ in materials from which penetrator is made, one uses depleted uranium alloy, the second one uses tungsten alloy. Also both can't be used by any of the currently existing T tanks, they are too long and designed for new 2A82 125mm gun that is intended for use in T-14 main battle tank based on "Armata" platform.
In general performance of 3BM59 and 3BM60 is comparable to DM53/63 and M829A3, still their lenght is somewhat limited by autoloader thus penetrators are still not up to par with M829A3 or newest M829A4... speaking of which, I think because soon the new round will be fielded, I need to talk with our coding guys about creating M829A4, but first some research must be done about it.
As for "Militarysta", he is my collegue, and researcher just like me (not for RHS tough, he is more a scientific researcher and is publishing articles here and there), he can be trusted.
As for Vasily Fofanov site, I know Vasily (kind of), and he admitted that his site is full of errors, but he does not intend to fix them, as he simply lost interest in his site, as such, it can't be used as good source, simply because data there is old, full of errors, and not up to todays knowledge about this kind of subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, that was interesting information.
Speaking about "Svinets-1,2" AFAIK they are not presented in the mod at all. And 3BM46 has armor piercing capability about 600-650 mm(depending from the source of information), this should be sufficient enough to penetrate and destroy any vehicle from any projection. Also it should be possible to penetrate Abrams from any projections, except strong front armor of course. But this behavior is currently presented in the mod.
So don't know why do you think that 3BM46 is overpowered. |
|
|
|
(0000577)
|
|
Damian
|
2015-01-26 21:13
(edited on: 2015-01-26 21:14) |
|
3BM46 currently have wrong penetration values, I made mistake and give it penetration values typical for 3BM59/3BM60 so over 700mm, so yes, 3BM46 is overpowered.
T-90SM is not in service, it's true capabilities are not known, what is known however, that 2A82 gun can't be mounted inside this vehicle, or any previous versions of T tanks, simply because autoloader for this gun does not fits in to the hull, hull is simply too narrow.
|
|
|
|
|
So, what do you mean?
How decreasing of 3BM46's penetration capability will affect actual game process? And what penetration value are you going to assign to it? To be more accurate: What we will not be able to penetrate anymore? :) |
|
|
|
(0000579)
|
|
Damian
|
|
2015-01-26 22:34
|
|
3BM46 will receive 650mm.
Besides this it is obvious you have completely no idea how armor system work in RHS (why this does not surprises me).
Actually 3BM46 is penetrating all vehicles.
Every vehicle have physically modeled armor, this armor have proper protection values, which means that for example M1A2SEPv2 have at turret front ~950mm vs KE, then the armor won't be penetrated, and hitpoints behind it won't be affected which means no damage.
However sometimes hitpoints might have some quircks and might not be affected after first initial hit. Or it might happen that projectile after penetrating armor will not hit hitpoints inside model at all, which might be a sollution of simulating lightly armored vehicles against KE rounds.
There is also something else. Ammunition have two values defining penetration and damage.
For example 3BM46 will have penetration values of 650mm but damage value (that affects hitpoints) as for example 270.
Very similiar sollution is in case of vehicles armor. There is physically modeled armor hardcoded to vehicle model, but in the config there is also armor = 600 (example) value, that defines hitpoints.
Because armor system is still WIP and not all vehicles have properly defined armor yet, then some inconsistency or bugs can be there.
PS. Don't be a smart ass, ignorant people talking about things they have completely no idea about, are something I dislike, very dislike saying it politely. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, that's clear for me now.
Another problem that I've mentioned already is M113's armor value against 30mm. It should not be able to take so many hits from 30 mm cannon. Also infantry in cargo should be damaged/killed after hitting it with 30mm or 125mm rounds.
P.S. What is your problem dude. I haven't said anything ignorant or bad. I sincerely want to help with RHS mode. And your responds to my help were rough and aggressive all the time. I'm not selling you anything and I don't need anything from you. Don't be such douchebag. |
|
|
|
(0000582)
|
|
Damian
|
2015-01-26 23:18
(edited on: 2015-01-26 23:37) |
|
"Another problem that I've mentioned already is M113's armor value against 30mm. It should not be able to take so many hits from 30 mm cannon. Also infantry in cargo should be damaged/killed after hitting it with 30mm or 125mm rounds."
I am sure that vehicle is penetrated, the problem is that ArmA3 engine makes dismounts and vehicle drivers invisible from outside, so they are also somewhat invisible for rounds.
Not RHS fault, complain to BIS.
"P.S. What is your problem dude. I haven't said anything ignorant or bad. I sincerely want to help with RHS mode. And your responds to my help were rough and aggressive all the time. I'm not selling you anything and I don't need anything from you. Don't be such douchebag."
You try to say that something is underpowered or overpowered.
The fact is that I see it as fanboyism, you think that at RHS people don't know anything about military weapon systems? But we do, and we know what we are talking about.
For armor system itself work 4 people, me, Olds, Reyhard and Bakerman. I am partially historian (my specialty is weapon system history), and I am also fully educated homeland security specialist with interest in modern military (especially weapon systems), and I have a very close contact to a real military stuff, like several other members of RHS.
So please, leave comments like that "And what penetration value are you going to assign to it? To be more accurate: What we will not be able to penetrate anymore? :)" treating us like idiots, for yourself.
I try to be polite with people, but it is tiring when I need to explain 100x times why something looks like this, or behaves like this, or why T tanks do not have super duper armor or super duper ammunition, because someone believe they have, even if by calculating these things it is just immposible, and you can't cheat the mathematics, especially that some properties, design, materials used in these designs, are known to public well for at least a decade.
However take a note, that me (douchebag) placed task to further investigate M113 model in terms of armor protection.
Vehicle is penetrated by rounds from 30mm or 125mm guns, however it seems that there might be some inconsistency with hipoints inside fire geometry. It's a minor problem as M113 still can be killed, just the whole process is inconsitent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
T-90MS have ability to fire 3BM59 and 60, even on gurkhan blog this is writed, he is specialist in T-series. |
|
|
|
(0000605)
|
|
Damian
|
|
2015-01-27 20:00
|
|
|
Gur Khan or I should say Alexei Khlopotov, is nothing more than UKBTM propaganda tube, this guy is unreliable source of information in... everything. |
|
|
|
(0000612)
|
|
vlad_8011
|
2015-01-28 12:27
(edited on: 2015-01-28 12:33) |
|
I can say same about other "specialists"
Damian, jakoże obaj jesteśmy Polakami pozwól, że zacytuję :
"Poza tym poprawiono prawie wszystkie parametry taktyczne, zwłaszcza stopień odporności i siły ognia.
Siły ognia, rozumianej jako zdolność do wykrycia celu i do jego trafienia.
Istnieje również możliwość zastosowania w T-90MS nowej armaty typu 2A82 kal. 125 mm
Źródło :
http://www.forum.militis.pl/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=2287 [^]
http://www.militis.pl/news/prezentacja-t-90ms-w-niznym-tagile [^]
Więc źródła mówią same za siebie. Nie każdy kto uważa się za specjalistę, jest nim w rzeczywistości, wszak każdy popełnia błędy i się myli
|
|
|
|
(0000613)
|
|
Damian
|
2015-01-28 14:50
(edited on: 2015-01-28 14:53) |
|
These are old informations. Currently we know that it is immposible to mount 2A82 with it's autoloader in T-72/T-90 style hull as it is not wide enough.
However I understand, that most people, do not understand that knowledge is not static, but evolves.
And poster Knat on this forum is actually my collegue, and he also have new knowledge about this subject, he will tell you the same thing. He and I actually created some concepts for future MBT, so he knows how to meassure these things. He said to me that for certain there will be problems with placing 2A82 and it's autoloader in T-72/T-90 hull, however it might be possible to place it in wider hull like that of the Object 187.
BTW we fixed M113, now after a single shot crew will bail out or vehicle will explode, after two shots from tank main gun vehicle should allways explode.
Also 30mm armor piercing ammo will do the same after 2 or more hits. It was M113 too resilient, not the ammo bug.
I can also say we are further tweaking ammo loadouts of T tanks, as there were some bug we missed there.
|
|
|
|
(0000614)
|
|
vlad_8011
|
2015-01-28 18:25
(edited on: 2015-01-28 18:26) |
|
Damian, To fantastyczne wieści. Róbcie to, w czym jesteście najlepsi, trzymamy kciuki!
|
|