Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Posts

    2,186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Captain_Colossus last won the day on December 28 2021

Captain_Colossus had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

7,110 profile views

Captain_Colossus's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

45

Reputation

  1. i did not buy arma 3 because i was not interested in the semi-futuristic vehicles in the stock game; when they released historical vehicles as add on packs, it seemed to make better sense to me the other way around and offer the fictional vehicles as add ons; i thought it was a good looking environment though, the maps looked good in the videos ive seen. while arma 4 is in a preliminary state, it doesn't look that much different, in some cases you could convince me it's the same game- similar with different color palettes, more a matter of preference. the one noticeable improvement i did see in another video concerns shadows rendered at a distance- while in arma 3 you could see any object lit by the sun at maximum range without shadows, in arma 4 shadows cast by the clouds and things like this give longer range scenes or scenes looking down at the ground from high altitude more sense of depth with shadows. you be the judge:
  2. i am not sure the question makes sense in the way it is posed- 'can composite armor perform better than its own thickness' is like asking if a sandwich can taste better than itself, or can a person be taller than himself (no matter what they do, they cannot be something other than itself) the question might be re-phrased: 'can composite armor exceed the performance of its equivalent homogeneous plate in KE penetration' if that is what you mean, it depends- because the RHA equivalent of composite armor is just that - an equivalent is analogous but not equal. The figures are a way to approximate the two for comparison using RHA thickness as a basis for comparison. try it another way- sloped surfaces may be approximated to an RHA LOS thickness, but it is not the same- all things being equal, the angle of the incoming KE penetrator may give different results
  3. the problem is that you come back full circle. nothing explained matters because you already put the cart before the horse, it seems you already have the conclusion you intend in mind no matter what anyone says
  4. adds nothing to the argument; again, missiles with larger warheads and larger range already exist. the tow fills a particular niche below a heavier missile like the hellfire as either a crew served weapon on certain vehicles, or standalone, or in the case of light recon / attack helicopters; furthermore, where do you get the idea that the TOW is necessarily inadequate- the top attack model for example doesn't rely on contact with the vehicle but fires a lethal projectile from above into the thin armor of the vehicle roof- does not require an 8kg warhead for that purpose
  5. you just made my case- yes, it is safer to remove those before a battle- but you can see in your photos that wasn't done in those cases. for whatever reason, perhaps contact was not expected or whatever so that they were caught unprepared- there are real world examples of them attached- and destroyed with the vehicle. so, they could be included as an option
  6. that is called a hellfire missile then. why arbitrarily choose a requirement for 8- why not go bigger and duplicate a maverick missile? the tow fills a gap for a lighter shorter range missile. what would increasing the size and weight do that it isn't doing already which would merit the cost in weight that a person has to carry (for a larger warhead would mean a larger missile, which would change the requirements to adapt it for a new heavier launcher). where is the tow missile inadequate that a larger warhead is needed and where you essentially duplicate something which already exists? you're picking this larger figure, but why? what is the deficiency?
  7. that would necessarily change the missile performance- its flight characteristics such as speed and/or range and maneuverability. moreover, that may also affect the system which is firing it- in the case of helicopters or jets, adding more weight, which would affect range and flight characteristics, in the case of gun fired missiles like you see in russian designed tanks- cannot exceed the bore diameter nor the carrying capacity of the magazine, nor of that of the autoloader because the two piece ammunition plus propellant have dimensions or shape that the carousel cannot adapt, or in the case of man-portable missiles and rockets- limit their carrying capacity or the ability to use concealment if the launcher becomes large enough to be a lot less inconspicuous. you don't just simply just add a larger warhead like that without having to go back and redesign the weapon system- that is to say, just increasing the warhead size isn't necessarily better it everything else has to be re-engineered, it probably fails a cost-benefit analysis, or else you would be seeing larger missiles. all of a sudden you find that you have a whole new slate of problems by doing that
  8. 👍 certainly would beautify things if and when it can be done
  9. visual yes. but also: optional. authentic, detachable. excellent. (in reality there are real world examples where they were attached and fought- and destroyed). visually it rounds it out a way i just cannot explain except in some way it looks better. it's like going to barbecue where they serve no meat, because you don't win friends with salad
  10. there is something missing from the steel beasts t-72 and the t-series tank models: the detachable fuel drums. if included in steel beasts as a detachable option in the mission editor if users don't like it, or it is not applicable to the scenario, then it is win-win. pros: authentic. detachable. excellent. cons: so authentic, detachable, excellent, players not ready for the experience
  11. nato and in particular the united states are providing key support- and more than just the weapons, are providing targeting information to ukraine, making up the difference in the relative strengths between russia and ukraine. without intervention like that, ukraine certainly has bigger problems to solve (there is no evidence that they were this effective fighting separatists in the years prior). it is basically now known that they have been able to hit russian naval targets and pick off individual russian flag officers with united states intelligence- and it is basically inferred more is going on, that is, identifying russian flight plans and positions of russian BTGs. now to what extent is the fighting done by ukraine but the strategy coming from washington basically take the argument 'the tank is dead' and now flip it the other way and make ukraine to be a superpower which in either case makes this kind of statement without more context- this isn't to say that there aren't some standout examples of ukrainian battles and individual sacrifices, there most certainly are ( look at the fanatical defenses of mariupol), but it in itself it isn't as effective of course without outside assistance. there are few articles out there of american or canadian volunteers who describe their individual experiences in ukranian units as much more difficult and hellish than what is being described in the media, where they play up russian losses and virtually overlook all ukranian casualties except in examples to highlight a particular battle for good press. anything you see comes with obvious filters because it is so one sided
  12. i don't make any claims that it is a CITV sight- i simply do not know the full details- but it is a commander's TIS sight. there is scant information as to how the system is integrated in a vehicle which was never designed with a TIS to begin with. it took me this long just by circumstance to see quick video grabs of it
  13. i have been wondering how the thermal imaging system was integrated with the gunner's sights, and it looks like this video reveals what is going on- it looks like another panel screen for the gunner.
×
×
  • Create New...