Damian90

Member
  • Content count

    797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

330 Excellent

3 Followers

About Damian90

  • Rank
    Master Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. 1. Future Tank project under NGCV program is at the moment at the concept development phase, which means no private contractor is taking participation in it, it's purely done by TARDEC, TACOM, ARL and so on, it's because in US there is GOCO system or Goverment Owned Contractor Operated, which means that some weapon systems at the beggining are developed solely by US goverment agencies, and later a choosen private contractor is invited to join. Same was in case of XM1 pogram for example, initially it was being designed by TARDEC, TACOM and ARL (then known as BRL), and the requirements were made by MBTTF, only lated Chrysler Defense (later renamed General Dynamics Land Systems) and General Motors were invited to participate. 2. The tank is named M1 Abrams, not Abrahams. M1 is named after General Creighton W. Abrams. This is another lesson for you. 3. And how do you know the M1A1SA or M1A2SEP is not able to even compete with T-14? T-14 is not some wunderwaffe, and have some weak spots, for example it's unmanned turret have no significant armor protection, which was concious decision to reduce it's size and weight, but it also means that any hit will be a probable firepower kill. Another important factor is, that despite all propaganda noise surrounding T-14, for example it's active protection system is not the most modern or best one out there. Afganit is based on earlier Drozd-1/2 systems, and as such, it's hard kill countermeassures are unable to intercept either APFSDS rounds or top attack diving ATGM's like Javelin, Hellfire or Spike. Also high elevation attacks from conventional ATGM's or RPG's can't be intercepted by Afganit, simply because of the systems design. M1A2SEPv3/v4 will also receive Trophy HV active protection system as short them upgrade, and as long term upgrade new MAPS or Modular Active Protection System, that will use both soft kill and hard kill countermeassures. Not to mention heavier Next Generation Armor Package that offers greater protection than current 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. There are also some informations about further development of Explosive Reactive Armor in US, including ARAT series for M1, BRAT series for M2 and SRAT series for Strykers. 4. As I said, PL-01 was a concept mockup for a WWB Gepard program, and program requirements changed, so this concept is already obsolete. F-35 is actually a good project and extremely good fighter jet. Only because program face some problems, does not mean it's a failure, but to know this, some greater knowledge on the subject is needed, and not "knowledge" from mass media that gives a brain cancer truth to be told. As for NATO, again you seems to not understand geopolitics, in short, the US builded it's power on alliances, because alliances gives US both necessary territory for force projection, and economic expanse. This in result builds US citizens prosperity in extremely peacefull way for a superpower. If you want US to withdraw from it's alliances, you are pretty much calling for US not being as powerfull as it is and can be, in terms of military force, economics or political influance. In terms of technology, I explained already why T-14 is not some wunderwaffe. Oh and by the way, I assume you meant new Rheinmetall Rh130 smoothbore gun, well the work on this gun is extremely slow, what was presented was very early prototype, I would even say a mockup, as there is no ammunition ready for Rh130, and there was not even a single, test shot fired from it yet. As for invasions that are mythical, well, I will put it that way, check what happend in Europe few years ago, you might be surprised. ;) By the way, if someone is interested, here are official US Army renders of how Stryker and M1 will look like with their active protection systems installed. Note one thing, in this render, M1A2SEP have it's special armor modules removed only for presentation purpose, normally vehicle will have it's special armor installed in real life. And here some additional informations about active protection systems development, including MAPS.
  2. 1. I do not really care if I hurt your feelings special snowflake. I talk about facts, and facts are facts, they can't be denied, or even argued with. 2. M1 series are meant to serve up to 2050 and beyond alongside NGCV vehicles and the Future Tank, untill completely replaced, which will take time, a lot of time. So for the moment, there is no M1A3 program, besides what is the reason of using the same primary designation code for a completely new and different vehicle? Did you even thinked about this? And what if US Army decides to designate it M5 for example? Or M1250? 3. PL-01 was nothing more than a concept mockup based on CV90 chassis for the WWB Gepard program. PL-01 was only partially functional (could drive around) and was empty inside, besides driver compartment. I actually seen PL-01 in person and it didn't made any good impression on me, neither on the army. Heck Army actually changed requirements so WWB Gepard will be larger and heavier armored vehicle, without any silly stealth features. Heck PL-01 itself was disassemled, and chassis was returned to BAE Systems. So in Poland we actually laugh our asses seeing foreigners being so excited about PL-01 and not even knowing anything about the program! :D Not to mention there is second program for a real MBT, with requirements under codename Wilk. 4. Younger people in general are dumb, especially these days, not all of them true, but majority, they are also arrogant. So pardon me for hurting your feelings, but as an older man I really do not care about them. Heck when I was teenager interested in this subject, I also had older mentors who treated me like shit when I said something dumb, and I will be eternally gratefull to them for that treatment, that forced me to use my brain more, and do a proper research. 5. Why end a conversation? You don't like to increase your own knowledge by simply listening someone with a greater knowledge? Look what you learned now about PL-01, and you would never know this from "sources" like globalsecurity site, which is a very poor source of informations. When I was in the army, NCO's also didn't cared about our feelings, but in the end they made two great things, made us harder men, that are not feel insulted when told by someone with greater knowledge we are wrong, and they teached us a lot of usefull things. My good advise for you, stop to care about your feelings, or that someone might offend you, or tell you difficult truth, instead listen people with greater knowledge, learn from them.
  3. Yes, US military will report about their plans for conventional weapon systems because it's nothing classified, and they need to report that both for Congress and public domain so tax payers know, for what their taxes are spent for, because this is how system in US is made. I understand you are a teenager and not adult human being, but please, stop being a smart ass kid, because there are people older than you, with greater knowledge and experience, including this forum. Also I don't know if you noticed, but I clearly said that US Army is working on the new MBT, called at the moment as Future Tank, within the NGCV or Next Generation Combat Vehicle program. So yes, US Army is working on such project, but it's not M1A3. M1 might receive M1A3 designation, eventually, when all ECP's will be implemented, and designation code change is justified. Oh and by the way, M2 and M3 are named Bradley, after general Omar Bradley kid, not Bradly, it seems you lack even knowledge about your own countries history. And M2/M3 designation is not a pattern, M2 is simply designation for the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, while M3 is Cavalry Fighting Vehicle variant. As engineer you shold know that... Kid. Same with aircraft designation system, F-15, F-16 etc. are all different aircraft, there is no pattern here you speak about, kid.
  4. Global security is a shit not a source. Besides kid, I work as military journalist in Poland, so I check better sources, like for example official US Army brefiengs. As I said, at the moment the only new variants of M1 in development, are M1A2SEPv3 (ECP1A upgrade) and M1A2SEPv4 (ECP1B upgrade), there is no M1A3 in development or even in concept development phase. However in concept development phase is new MBT, called Future Tank, within the NGCV program. https://fortbenningausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/02-Mounted-Reuirements-Breakout.pdf http://slideplayer.com/slide/10870946/ http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/Army_Equipment_Program2017.pdf Here, some official sources for you to read.
  5. You do realize that M1A3 is not in development, and this thing is a pure fantasy? At the moment in final phase of development is M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4 is in early development phase. Maybe, maybe eventually when all ECP's will be added to M1, then and only then, designation will be changed to M1A3. Not to mention that US Army is in the early development phase of new MBT that will replace M1 series in 2030's. And no, Germans are not working on Leopard 3, such program do not exist. However Germany and France work on new MBT called MGCS or Main Ground Combat System.
  6. In real world Rhino is a device that is used to prematurely detonate EFP IED's and mines that use EFP charge attacking vehicle side with thermal signature trigger device. So I guss it should work with stuff like vanilla ArmA3 SLAM mines?
  7. I think I can spoke here for entire team. Yes, from day zero when RHS moved to ArmA3, one of the goals was to achieve maximum possible realism within the limits of ArmA3 engine, and I think RHS done it very well in my personal opinion. Artificial balance typical for arcade games was never within our scope, instead it was rather to go above and beyond what vanilla ArmA3 offers as already great and authentic military combined arms sim (well it's not a sim per se but you get the point), and implement many new features, like more realistic armor system, and "heavy" munitions, or features like more realistic FCS. Will we change that? No, especially considering how much hard work and how much time was put in to the mod already by all members. Anything we can do is only to further improve the mod within it's scope. Also to point out, what RHS was for ArmA2, or even older games, is not what RHS is for ArmA3, a lot changed and evolved.
  8. Such things do not really happen, especially in modern tanks with multilayered armors, that effectivelly absorbs waves that could create a stunn effect for crews. While in case of homogeneus armor, it's either hit by smaller calliber ammo that will not create such effect, or will be perforated by modern munitions with ease.
  9. *sigh* I wanted to explain to you, that we do not aim at balance, but at realism, and we have our own good sources and research. Not everything you encounter is a bug, but sometimes delibarate behavior that try to simulate real world that is not always super predictible, like the notion that RPG hit will always affect every lightweight vehicle the same way. Can RHS mod be better? Yes, and I can assure entire team works hard, but sometimes improvements will take time, in other cases, there will be no changes only because someone demands them. Case closed.
  10. Listen, this is your problem, we will not change anything because you say so, and your opinion contradicts our hard sources. So sorry, you don't like it, we do not force anyone to play RHS mod. PS. As for gunnery for vehicles, in real world, no tank performs gunnery at high speeds in rough terrain, it makes no sense, in reality stabilization systems are capable to keep up only with speeds up to 40-45 km/h not matters what kind of tank we talk about. Real world gunnery is not some stupid stunt show for civilian public to be amazed, especially during peace time, where additional safety rules also are considered so nobody gets injured or worse, killed. And I know what I am talking about as I am soldier myself, and real world military rifle ranges or ranges where other weapons are used, looks nowhere near what you probably expect with tanks driving full speed, firing guns blazing in all directions... *sigh* This is why you will never find a video of a human loader loading guns at full speed (besides tanks do not fight driving full speed, but much, much slower, not matters if they have autoloaders or human loaders), or unloading the main gun, because of safety reasons, as combustible propelant cases might be damaged during loading process so in peace time it's avoided to unload the gun other way than firing it, but it is still possible, and it's done in combat to conserve munitions (for example you will not fire APFSDS round at lightly armored IFV).
  11. 1. About penetration. In real life penetration of armor will not always kill the crew or even injure them. Especially hand held AT weapons if they do not hit anything important, will neither destroy a vehicle, neither kill the crew. Good example here is M113, in essence it is aluminium box on tracks with lots of empty space inside, also it have spall liners. It means that vehicle hit in cargo compartment will not be destroyed, and if it does not hit a human inside, will do minimal cosmetic damage. Some difference in survivability is also due to vehicle design. For example BMP have a very "dense" design, which means it's internal volume is very small, this means that it's easier to hit something important or crew, compared to M113 that have less "dense" design and have larger internal volume. Same applies to other vehicles like tanks for example, a larger tank with less dense internal volume, even in case of armor perforation, is less likely to be destroyed because a chance to hit a crew member or something important is smaller, than in case of smaller tank with more dense internal volume. 2. Tank reloads. The M1 series have a human loader, the loader himself knows what to do and do not need additional commands, for example in real world in combat, if commander do not decide otherwise, loader on his own will load a specific type of ammunition after each shot and arm the gun. In RHS we need to actually adjust the reload time, because after I checked with various sources + talked with some M1 tankers I know, the current standard reload time for a loader in US military is 4-6 seconds with avarage time of 5 seconds to reload the gun, while unloading the gun and loading it again takes around 10-15 seconds. For example a typical engagement commands in M1 looks more or less like this: TC - Gunner tank, fire and adjust. Loader - (loads the gun with APFSDS) Up! (If it's first time he loads that type of round then it's Sabot Up!) Gunner - Identified, on the way! Tank fires it's gun. Loader - (loads the gun again with APFSDS) Up! TC - Gunner PC (personell carrier), fire, fire HEAT (second command is for loader to load different type of ammo after firing already loaded round). Gunner - Identified, on the way! Tank again fires it's gun. Loader - (loads the gun with HEAT) HEAT Up! So loading the gun takes around 4 to 6 seconds, and egnagements are very quick. However a lot depends on loader, but the avarage standard he needs to meet to be qualified is around 5 seconds, and not above 6 seconds. In case of T tanks used by Russian forces, situation is a bit more complex, as they use autoloader, the autoloader itself needs either a command through a button push to reload the gun, or autoloader must be turned in to a different working mode where a selected ammo type will be loaded after each shot. One thing to remember is also that autoloaders also do not have a constant loading speed, and it will vary depending on design, model and also how much ammo is left in autoloader. It's not a magical device that makes tanks fire as fast as machine guns, from their main guns. However note, due to their simplistic design, Russian tanks autoloaders are able to only load the gun, they can't unload it, which means that if autoloader loaded the gun, only way to reload it is simply fire the loaded round and load a different one. The only autoloaders able to both load and unload the tank main gun, were developed in US and tested in various prototypes, most of them were designed by company named Meggitt Defense. Due to their advanced design, sometimes they are not reffered as autoloaders but as robotic ammo loading/handling systems. But as Soul_Assassin said, RHS mods are based on realism, and carefull research (manuals, books, documents, informations from real servicemembers), so RHS do not aim at such artificial things like balance, if someone likes balance, play Battlefield series or Call of Duty, here we aim more at realism.
  12. Sorry but you are wrong. T-14 is not light weighting between 48 to 52 metric tons. It is also large vehicle as was said, compared to other Russian vehicles. As for Stryker MGS, it's not a tank, it's infantry fire support vehicle, lightly armored, it's not intended to be used as MBT or a tank in general. Same with EFV, it could not be modified to be MBT, EFV was lightly armored, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle. To explain it, tanks or MBT's in general are so well protected because of their "dense" design, which means their internal volume is very small so they can fit inside only small crew, weapons, ammo, engines and other components, thanks to which with their heavy weight, they can be very well armored. On the other hand vehicles like EFV might be just as large, but they are lightweight and have huge internal volume to fit also infantry squad besides it's crew and other stuff, because of that their protection levels are pathetic compared to MBT's. In case of Tanks DLC, well new MBT's for each faction would be really great. However some additional variants of already existing vehicles are also possible. For example as already mentioned in this thread by me modification of the IFV-6 Panther APC in to IFV by the use of already existing in the game unmanned turret used on AFV-4 Gorgon for example. More modifications for existing vehicles are also possible if BI would want to include them.
  13. Yep, I also hope NATO side gonna get some love, but well, we gonna see. ;)
  14. I have some more, for example here is a project from the 90's of the US 55 tons future MBT. Or for example German made EGS technology demonstrator, unfortunetaly, it's turret was never completed, only weight simulator was placed there to simulate vehicle weight with real turret.
  15. If I may suggest something for BI Devs. If you guys want some inspiration for potential new MBT for NATO/BLUFOR, here are some suggestions. This is modified M1 tank within the CATTB (Components Advanced Technology Test Bed) program, this prototype was nicknamed "Thumper", was armed with bicalliber 120/140mm smoothbore XM291 ATAC (Advanced Tank Cannon) gun (bicalliber means that the gun breech was universal and could accept both 120mm and 140mm barrels and munitions), had new turret with XM91 autoloader in the rear bustle. Here we can see size comparrision of a NATO 140mm APFSDS round and NATO standard 120mm APFSDS round. Crew was reduced to 3 men, of course additional armament would be a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and potentially 12.7mm machine gun for commander in some sort of remote cupola mount or remote weapon station/CITV mount of project would ever be finalized. Or again this modified M1 known as TTB (Tank Test Bed), just like in T-14 the crew was placed in isolated compartment in front of the hull behind a massive front armor. Armament was in unmanned turret, a modified 120mm smoothbore M256 gun + a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. Autoloader under the turret hold 44 rounds. Of course it was a test bed, later on these sights on each side of the hull would be eliminated and a single gunner sight and a single commander sight would be placed on turret itself, perhaps commander would also receive a 12.7mm machine gun in remote weapon station/CITV mount. At the moment CATTB prototype named "Thumper" is kept in Sierra Army Depot and can be spotted via google maps satelite images, while TTB is kept in Fort Benning and awaits restoration in National Armor and Cavalry Museum. PS. So above examples clearly shown there were NATO 4th genertion MBT test beds, techology demonstrators and prototypes. ;)