Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Content Count

    5,231
  • 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. in SB the angle of the armour increases protection. the figures given in the SB WIKI are LOS figures from direct front. hitting with reduced inclination will result in reduced protection. e.g hitting the turret at 30 degrees instead of direct front.
  2. you are correct. particularly the ammunition belt. the version you have in SB currently is "idealized".
  3. likely the Armata creates an enveloping IR smoke screen to break the lock of missiles like the javelin. i assume that's why the smoke grenade launchers look like they can spin, and why it has smoke grenades pointing directly into the air.
  4. The Armata actually has another softkill system installed, designed to defeat magnetic top-attack weapons such as the TOW-2B. it consists of thick cables running over the sides and front of the vehicle, which shifts the magnetic field of the tank forward, causing the weapon to detonate before it reaches the tank.
  5. the crew has 6 small cameras mounted on the turret(not hull) to provide SA, in addition to the commanders independent sight. each of the cameras has a small tube which probably sprays the lenses clean when they get dirty. there's also vision blocks on the hull, and an extra camera for the driver. if the main sight is knocked out, it's pretty much like on any other tank. the TC's sight might double as a backup sight, and there's possibly a small backup camera somewhere as well.
  6. well, not neccesarily, given that the turret of the T-15 is smaller and is made from thinner plates, and doesn't have the large turret power supplies, autoloader, and such. also T-15 engine can double as armour protection, similar to how the merkava engine doubles as protection.
  7. from the looks of it, the turret seems to be sacrificial. autocannon/60s-70s era APFSDS front protection at most. although newer information suggests that the production vehicles might be heavier than the prototypes. the active protection system is for the entire vehicle, not just the turret.
  8. well thanks. it was over 180 hours of research and modeling.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. sure, it was over-engineered. back in the 1980s, when it weighed in at 54.4 metric tonnes.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...