Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Content Count

    5,221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dejawolf

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Occupation
    making 3d models for esim

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. well, the earliest all-steel 3BM-9 APFSDS rounds are actually less effective at an angle than later soviet rounds, at least according to this chart: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html at 60 degrees the effectiveness drops to 32% instead of the 50% of the later rounds. similarly, all throughout the 70s, the round effectiveness gradually increases to about 44% to the end of the 70s. in other words, the M-60A3, a tank which is all slope and no armour would be able to survive hits far more frequently to the turret front (@2km) from for example the 3BM-12 and 3BM-15, than what is currently the case in SB. similarly the T-72s are all designed with deflection in mind on the turret roof. one of the most shocking things i discovered 3 years ago when remaking the T-72 interiors is that the front roof of the T-72B is actually vulnerable to 125mm BM-26.
  2. Challenger 2 is a 2011 "best guess" based on the thickness of the front turret armour. basically front turret plate thicknesses(known)*material (estimate) + chobham (rough estimate) + cast turret backing thickness(estimate). in any case the armour model has a few weaknesses when it comes to simulating long APFSDS of different materials vs fullbore penetrators, since different types of material has different protection vs different types of penetrators. as an example, older steel APFSDS penetrators are far less effective against sloped armour than newer tungsten and DU penetrators, which means the armour of older tanks won't be represented properly, e.g the roof of older soviet tanks (T-62) are much thinner than LOS thickness because they considered the steel APFSDS rounds would be deflected. also, the current armour model in SB is lacking proper ricochets for full bore rounds, and also ricochet for certain HEAT rounds, where at certain steep angles the HEAT will actually be deflected instead of penetrate.
  3. sure, it was over-engineered. back in the 1980s, when it weighed in at 54.4 metric tonnes.
  4. well, the most revolutionary part of the T-14 is the unmanned turret. it allows for a smaller profile turret, which means a lower weight turret, which means you can either increase the protection of the hull, or reduce the overall weight of the entire vehicle. the current T-14 is about 15+ tonnes lighter than the latest abrams upgrade. with reduced weight of the vehicle, you reduce strain on the suspension, transmission, engine.. so theoretically it should be fairly reliable at least automotively. the abrams on the other side might be struggling with the latest armour upgrades, unless the suspension itself is upgraded as well, and even then you might get stress fractures in the hull and turret.
  5. dejawolf

    M1A2C

    the CIA documents is protection on the frontal arc. LOS thickness from 0 degrees front will be higher than CIA numbers on the chins, and equivalent on the gunshield.
  6. well, you have two types of drop-in multiplayer, team based, and capture the flag. the problem with the first one, is the complex planning that usually takes place in a steel beasts multiplayer game. the planning phase can often take up to an hour, or more if someone drops out during the planning phase. this is mostly to ensure that people are well-coordinated during the action phase, and have familiarized themselves with the map, and found appropriate fighting positions for the plan. and it's a large reason why SB multiplayer feels different from other games, and strangely, even though nothing might happend for the first 20 minutes of the game, you are enjoying yourself, because you are working the map to make sure all your units reach the optimal battle positions, in support of the plan. because you don't drop in and play, steel beasts multiplayer feels far more coordinated than other games. your flanks are usually secure, and if a flank is broken, you are usually told so you can pull back along your preplanned retreat route. that, and the small player base (because graphics looks dated by 15 years, leading people to think game is a cobbled together trashheap) along with the fact scenarios usually take 2-3 hours to complete makes this type of drop-in unlikely. even worse would be a CTF-style mode, where people randomly drop in and respawn into teams. then it would no longer be steel beasts. maybe the vehicles would be realistic, but the way they are used would be completely unrealistic, because the scenario would be completely unrealistic. maybe it would be fun, and it would train your reaction time and gunnery skills, but most likely you'd have some invisible douche spawncamping, and killing you in the flank from 3km away before you even get to do anything.
  7. it's not really the cupola per se that you are penetrating, rather there's a tiny "lip" around the gunners IR sight with a max thickness of about 23mm, and an IR sight with a thickness of 7mm. that when hit will penetrate into the main turret. similarly there are minor weakspots to the right and left of the gun (the GPS and coax ports) that when hit might kill the tank. as for "kill" in SB, we don't simulate crew fleeing the vehicle, unfortunately, but to make up for this, we have something called "mesh" damage, which also incorporates a silent kill of the vehicle. in other words, it's an oversimplification of a real world occurence. the gunshield should be a kill, the TOW has an overmatch of over 500mm even when hitting the lower extreme lip of the gunshield. the only thing that comes to mind is that you are hitting the side of the inner gun tube at a close to 90 degree angle, and due to the low damage % on the gun tube the damage is completely nullified.
  8. not when i wasn't wrong in the first place. as i said, it's poor mans kevlar.
  9. i assume you missed when i called it "poor mans" kevlar. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/a-poor-man-s-something another way to phrase it would be knock-off kevlar.
  10. and E-glass has tensile strength 95% that of kevlar. so there's that.
  11. kevlar is regularly woven synthetic fibers held together with a resin. modern glassfibers are regularly woven glassfibers held together with a resin. in no way similar is a bit of a stretch...
  12. i'm sure you can tweak the leo stowage layout, to satisfy those national pride demands. maybe even make an improved leo, with europowerpack, bigger turret bustle, but everything else common.
  13. so in other words, poor mans kevlar.
  14. dejawolf

    Ammo change

    sounds like the OP ran out of ammo and all that was left was smoke.
  15. for the M1 abrams values in SB, after the cold war ended, USA and russia exchanged information about frontal armour values on their tanks. side armour was not given. for the M1 the values were: 350mm vs KE, 700mm vs HEAT for the M1A1 HA the values are. 600mm vs KE, 1300 mm vs HEAT. the values are available in the Osprey new vanguard books by steven j zaloga. note that these values are over the entire frontal arc, so from LOS front, protection will be higher on the left and right front turret faces. the values given on the LOS diagrams, are naturally LOS values, so they are higher than frontal arc values. as for M1A2, well, it's anyones guess. there are several versions of the M1A2 however. the original M1A2 released in the mid 90s has a different armour package than the later M1A2 SEP from the early 2000s. and the M1A1 received the SEP armour package in the early 2000s as well.
×
×
  • Create New...