Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Posts

    5,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dejawolf

  1. well thanks, took me a month to make those things.
  2. simply trying to accentuate just how shit that gun-tank-wheel-car-thing is by forcing the TC to load
  3. Technically the T-90A is a T-72 with a thermal as well.
  4. dejawolf

    T72

    yeah, leo has plenty of unused space. i'd just redesign the bustle area to be more similar to the abrams, move radios and stuff in rear of turret in front of loader and under gun, and move entire ammo rack into rear bustle, and whatever cannot fit there, move it into a separate compartment inside stowage area in rear turret. then swap out hull ammunition bunker for a large fuel tank/stowage area.
  5. dejawolf

    T72

    BMS is not neccesarily standard on all western tanks either. sure, but main armour on T-72B is not bad. 520mm or so, including hull. and K5 reduces penetration power of incoming rounds by around 30%. which means only the M829A2 or M828A3 can reliably penetrate it. not to mention interior space and overall profile is smaller, so it's harder to hit the "softer parts" especially at long ranges due to gun dispersion. at shorter range, side protection is actually superior to western tanks such as leo and abrams, although post-penetration survivability is... poorer.
  6. dejawolf

    T72

    yes. by javelins. which the Leo chally and abrams also are vulnerable to.
  7. dejawolf

    T72

    B3 has a thermal, and the latest ERA.
  8. dejawolf

    T72

    the T-72 is not outclassed by any tank of the same generation. it is quite deadly against the leopard AS1, and M60A1, and in many aspects outperform those vehicles.
  9. still, the ammunition bunker on the abrams has been hit, and the crew has survived. effect in SB however is underwhelming. in real life you will have a fire geyser shooting out of the ammunition hatches, and you need to traverse turret over to the side in order to avoid engine from catching fire from the hot glowing sparks falling down
  10. dejawolf

    T72

    i could probably tell you, and also why they were destroyed. in desert storm, it was the thermal imager of the abrams, and poor maintenance by iraqi army. most of the systems in their tanks were barely functional, and they had spent most of their best ammunition fighting the iranian army, which was outdated export rounds design (BM-12, BM-15) unable to penetrate even the front armour of the T-72M1. in 1991, russian army had far better BM-32 and BM-42 in their arsenal, with double the penetration power. during 73 easting, if i record correctly, the iraqis dug their tanks down into battle positions, so their tanks were completely stationary. a sandstorm blew up however, which obscured the american advance. while the iraqi tanks were completely blinded by the sandstorm, the americans were able to see around 500-1000m ahead with their thermals. the result was a complete destruction of the iraqi ambush. the difference in training between US and iraqi army also has to be emphasized. Iraqi army barely received any training, much less live fire training. meanwhile the US army had training simulators, and frequent live fire training exercises, along with joint training exercises with NATO. as a comparison, sweden did a trial years ago with centurions and strv 122, where they put a completely fresh crew into the strv 122 and centurion crew with years of experience. the result was predictable. strv 122 crew was completely outclassed by the much more experienced centurion crews.
  11. dejawolf

    T72

    i would say the T-72 is an excellent balance between weight and armour. there's no western tank which is able to pack that much armour into so little weight. with only 41.5 tons, the T-72M1 entire front turret and hull has a uniform(almost) 420mm, and sides are 80mm+. this with a simple cast turret with a bit of sand thrown into it is an absolutely brilliant feat of armour engineering. for comparison, a western design of equal weigh, (leopard 1) disregards almost completely all armour. and any design with equal protection in the west, is usually 15-18 tonnes heavier, or more. there has been multiple improvements and upgrades done to the T-72 to maintain it's competitiveness. the czech T-72M4CZ has an improved drivetrain with decent reverse gear, modernized FCS, and improved armour. the russian T-72B3 similarly has improved armour, and modernized FCS. both of these vehicles are quite capable in this configuration. as for the ammunition storage... there was some proposed export variants which stored extra ammunition in a bustle bin instead of in the hull.
  12. it had the benefit of being the first T-72 simulator on the market. and for its time it probably had the best driving simulation of any AFV sim. the gunnery left a few things to be desired tho. and interface was.. confusing to put it mildly.
  13. yeah. it also allows a user to have more mission modules, and tailor vehicles for specific missions or theaters. e.g have modules for low, medium and high intensity conflicts, and only ship those applicable to the mission. no reason shipping an MGS when all you need is a battle taxi, and vice-versa
  14. only problem is those grunts usually carry RPGs of some kind in SB.
  15. the fuel tanks however are filled with self-sealing foam, which would explain their extra "thickness"
  16. even if the slope doesn't deflect the round, it will still increase the LOS thickness of the armour. so an armour plate sloped at 60 degrees is effectively ~twice the LOS thickness. sloping ERA and NERA as well drastically increases the performance of these armours, as it allows them to act on the penetrator over a longer distance.
  17. it would mean a change to the ammunition layout as well, RH 120 rounds are longer and would not fit in the current challenger ammunition compartments.
  18. Loading it with HEAT or ICM capable of taking out an armoured vehicle, would mean it wouldn't have much of a loiter time. maybe at most 3-10 minutes before batteries run too low. it'd probably be better paired up with artillery or mortars for precision guidance of artillery fire.
  19. yeah, i've made enough turret bustles to know what it is.
  20. yeah, wouldn't barrel collison be great.. i mean, it's 2021 after all. but it's not possible with steel beasts. you need multiple things that steel beasts lack. basic physics, collision meshes for each vehicle, and some way for the AI to not break the guns. basic physics is a massive can of worms, that will inevitably break SB. collision meshes for each vehicle is a huge undertaking. a stop gap solution tho.. You could fake it with a ray intersect test, where you set the rays length for each vehicle. then if the "barrel ray" intersects a building, one of two things could happend. for a player vehicle, you could damage the gun if it smacks into something, like a tree or building, if the velocity is high enough. for lower velocity, and AI vehicles, it would be better to perhaps just stop the gun from moving. the way to do this would be to create a point at the point of intersection, then draw a line from the turret center to this intersection point. then set turret rotation to the direction of this line. rotating the turret the opposite direction of the direction that caused the intersection would "free" the turret movement, until the barrel again intersects something. this should work for everything. however since some buildings has imperfect collision meshes, you'd see some weird stuff like barrels being caught in the area of roof overhang.
  21. hmmh, well checking my file dates, oldest CV90 exterior files are dated 02.12.2005.. interior reference is dated 22.02.2006 pizarro reference is dated 18.10.2005, which is the time i started work on the pizarro interior. so CV9040B exterior was finished december 2012, and interior was started february 2006. the oldest finished pizarro interior file is 13.09.2006. and oldest finished CV9040 interior file is dated 24.03.2006 i guess what happened is that i gathered reference for the pizarro in 2005 and started work on the interior. got reassigned to the CV9040B, and finished that, then jumped back to the pizarro interior, and finished it later the same year i finished the CV9040B interior.
  22. realism isn't fun for everyone, but then again steel beasts isn't for everyone, it's for a niche. if we dumbed down SB, we'd essentially turn SB into war thunder, but uglier, which would more or less give SB zero competitive edge. for this reason, the thermal on the fennek is garbage, the T-72 reverse gear is non-existent, and it's IR night sight is a joke. IRL, the T-72 IR night sight is even worse, since you have to spend time unscrewing 4 bolts of a plate in front of the IR night sight, since bright lights might actually damage the sensor.
×
×
  • Create New...