Mayh3M

Да желания может быть сколько угодно, но всё ограничивают возможности -- ведь переделывать игру скорее не дадут :) :roll:

В буржуйской части форума полное единогласие :D

Без участия разработчиков там ничего не сделаешь! Дай бог им сил и времени и денег, чтобы они дошли когда-нибудь и до стадии клепания динамической кампании -- игру это очень оживит, да и вполне возможно, что ещё и популяризует :roll:

лол :lol: Лучше тремя -- вдруг одну собьёт ещё :lol:

Чё-то я не понял --- за этой "ракетулькой" провод что ли тянется с оптоволкном на 18 км ??? :shock: Ну Маверик тоже не 20-ти км пускают :wink:

ИМХО --- ерунда получится, а не динамическая кампания. В динамической в том весь и прикол, что из имеющихся ресурсов обеспечить победу. Самый идеальный вариант -- это не миссии вовсе --- должно быть как в Разорвоксе -- т.е. ты всегда в игре и никакого разделения между миссиями -- нужно только выбрать, за какой юнит играть. Плюс замечательную озможность командовать остальными юнитами хотелось бы иметь! 8) :)

Я смотрю всё больше авиабазовских подгребает :lol: Раньше оттуда люди (особенно с авиационного) крайне скептически к Лок Ону относились :roll: :D

Вообщем-то это разные по классу ракеты... скорее лучше сравнить с Хелфвйером типа "пустил-забыл" :roll:

в МиГ-МФИ ?? :)

Как писалось в статье, испытан на Ка-52... но вроде ещё не принят. Скорее всего будет применятся на Ка-52. Может даже на Ка-50(ОТС главное поставить такую же). И даже может на Ми-28Н :roll:

Наверное Атлоны -- они подешевше :lol:

D-Scythe Do not overestimate this fact. No real wonder in a fact, that RPG penetrated the side armour. Tanks still have no such armour in sides, to resist AT-launchers hits. Only Russians have created the "Active Defense Systems", which are shoot the incoming rockets and AT-missles from any side, before they reach the tanks' armor. The frontal hits did minimum of damage. No doubt, that most of these hits were to the front area. Currently, the RPG sid-hit make the tank lost, but not the "catastrophic kill", how you defined it. There are some burn out tanks, due to RPG hits, but most RPG penetration leave the tank quite repairable, if this hit cause not much of damages inside. With "Catastrophic kills" about 10 (from different weapons). Totally I suppose about 30-35 M1 tanks lost in Iraq of different modification, including the newest M1A2. I still have no photo of M1A2, that been hited from rear by 12.7 machine gun and make this tank lost completely, due to fired up APU and engine. But this fact were discribed in report, that brought here SwingKid :roll: No doubt -- tanks have to survive any AT-weapons hits. But it doesn't mean 100% surviving in a battle, like you been thinking I suppose :wink:

Up! Up! Up! :D :D

This fireball could be the explosion of these external additional fuel tanks, which are from the left side :arrow: That could prove my opinion about non-burning of the whole tank -- these are quite easy to break... :roll: This for better imagination, how T-62 looked inside By the way, I have the another opinion, that it could be some another tests and a main role of target played T-55. T-55 and T-62 looked quite similar from the outside T-55 T-55 T-62

Hmmm... I think all episodes before 6 (instead of 5, where's the M-48 ) are might to be the one, showed from different postions. :roll: Anyway, I disagree with your opinion. Very hard to identify anything. Mostly tanks continue to burn, if there is the penetration -- and it was only on 6th episode. All others have only exterrior damages -- and it's clearly to see. There is the hydraulics type, that did not burn, but this used only in modern Russian tanks, like T-80U and T-72B :roll: So our T-62s free from this advantage...

Nahh... How you imagine the explosion of that shell, but not the detonation procedure and everything before it :wink: Yes! The turret is no longer in action -- due to hydraulics going down. Crew were quite lucky, when the heat stream only touched loader's body armour and maked the huge dent on anoher side of the tank. I have the photos of these exact "catastrophic losses" -- do you want to see them? :wink: I could send you by mail :wink: I've already read this report, so you will not open me something new with it. Not all things suppose to be real, but mostly it's true. By the way -- this is only issue :wink: Do not compare RPG hit and GAU-8's hit -- those are absolutely different kind of sort! Currently it has. Instead of some lacking on armour discussing. That's clearly to understand -- this man is far from tanks :) ... and the words was to GGTharos, not to Dice :roll: By the way, if even Dice is right it's nothing change with T-80U situation. :) The difference between the T-62 and T-80U the same, like as between F-86 "Sabre" and F-15C :wink: What do you want to say with this? Why do you think, that they are "bad asses" ?? They are only walking people, that have no GAU-8's shoted car :D :lol: Well... depends on what they mean under the phrase "combat loaded". As I say before -- "combat loaded" mean loading everything, that for the combat. However, 5 of 7 attacks were mostly with 0% success. I'm not wonder, why nobody pay attention on it :lol:

This is Russian computer-games page -- we need more votes to rise the LOMAC's rating! :D http://www.igromania.ru/ To chose the game you may find 5 slots from the left side -- chose the first slot LOMAC -- other 4 for your own choice! :)

How you imagine yourself "explosion of the 115mm shells" ?? :roll: They were not destroyed. Only in two passes where are the tanks were burn abit. In one of them tank was with opened hatches. Another one were trully burn up from inside, but this was already heavily damaged -- pay attention on the low part of the glasic near the tracks. I suppose this tank was already under attack by several times. :roll: Due to DU rounds using and high speed/pressure/temperature. By the way, this burning from the inside could be because of high temperature reached outside -- such incidents were quite often in WWII. That fact also concludes, that this tank been already under attack by several times. The hatches were already opened -- I mean the second episode of "burning". By the way, this burning ends quite quick, after the dust flown away. :roll: This also cause some questions. Maybe were hited the outside fuel tanks, which are laying from the left side... Hmmm... I was already told about it -- I suppose, it should rise the hit % about 10%, but to reach more you have to change the whole artillery system (meant GAU-8). Most misses were because of high dispersion of the gun, but not over the aiming systems of A-10. Have you ever seen the real burning of engine inside the tank? Yes, I agree, that it suppose to be fuel, but this might to be an exterrior fuel tanks, or even just an explosion of HE round :roll: The reason of my opinion is -- if tank fuel systems burn up, than it continue to burn, before the whole fuel burn out(it could be also an explosion of the engine, or ammo). This looks terrible -- tank is fully covered by huge fire and nothing can survive in this hell! And what we see here? Just a few seconds of fire burning :!: Don't talk about the things, that you don't know :wink: There is no measure yet, that could safe M1 from RPG side hit. Noone M1 survived during the last war RPG side-hull hits. I tell more -- there is an incident, where the M1 were hited from the front by one RPG shell. It burns up the front fuel tanks, what causes the burning of the whole tank. I have a few photos of it :wink: Yeah?! How interesting! :lol: I'm exploring the main battle tank questions for about 2 years and here's the virtual pilot, that told me "you are wrong"! :D That's magnificant! :lol: I'm not argue about that. As I said -- M1A2 (currently) has the second APU. This one was hited from the side by 12.7 DShK heavy machine gun. It causes the fire and fuel leaking down to the rear hull, where the engine. This cause the engine burning and further complete losing of this tank. It proves, that tank is still in service! :D :lol: Well... the point is exactly to see these holes and explore the damages. So you may mistake, while talking, that it's full of holes. :wink: I can say the same way, that it is full of scratches :wink: You car were shoted by GAU-8 ??? :shock: Ouch... pure one... :cry: That's what I call "friendly fire" :lol:

2 SK Ну модернизация там действительно не такая уж и серьёзная. Андрей говорил о замене нескольких блоков в СУВ, что впринципе не означает замены всей БРЭО целиком :roll: Другое дело таких самолётов действительно похоже единицы... :( А разве А-10А не может применять HARM вместе с компонентом "LIGHTENING"? :?:

Avimimus Ka-50 is series producting by Vladivostok plant "Red Star". THere are already about 20-30 Ka-50 in arms (maybe even more). Production stoped, due to economic troubles and a question about Mi-28N lot...

Yes. Look at the video -- there is lots of outside armour burning. That's because of extrmaly high temperature. By the way, in a video also appearing some of american tanks (probably M-48 ), those are quite weaker armoured... Nope. Just lightly damaged. Outside burning does not meant "destroying". But not multiple side hits. This T-80 birning from the side around hull area. Just if I even have a chance to post it here. Unfortunatly have no link on this photo :roll: You are missing with APU's! M1 tanks have two APU's -- first for the starting engine, and the second, which is outside the armour from the rear, is for the power for operating the sight systems, rotating the turret and some else -- this one is always worked, because of not enough of generator power energy. Russian T-80U have only one APU, which does all kind of auxilary work, and it's working only when generator is not operating, though the main engine shoted down to any reason :wink:

Dice Nice video Dice, but again -- hardly something to conclude from it -- there are lots of pyro effects from HE shells, but camera man have not give a chance to look at the tank after the dust flew away... :?: :roll: I've spoted mostly outside burning and only one time the camera showed inside burning, but the tank was with opened hatches. Again I see, those shot-test is quite spectacular! :)

No I understood you... just I do not want flame here. I'm surely can discribe you, why the 40 tons armoured not less and better armoured, than 55-60 tons tanks, but not now. As you see, I'm already too busy with this thread... That reminds me the Predator, where the humans were not able to hit the target :lol: Not necessarily. Due to low probability of hit, the persentage of penetration comes less, than the probability of successfull penetration (which's mean the hard break down of any interrior components)is even less :roll: Yes -- there is hand aiming too, but before, there is Auxillary Power Unit (APU), which have all T-80Us modifications. This exactly for keeping the all fire systems work, when the main engine is out of action. The persentage of hiting the fuel line is even less, than probability of successful hiting the engine :wink: By the way, even if this component hited it is of course do not mean the explosion. Mostly tank should servive. Diesel fuel is very hard to make explode. This just may burn. But all MBTs have protected fuel-tanks. This mean, that fire should bring minimum if damages. I point you again the probability of hiting fuel liner is extremaly low! :!: And this liner is situated in a quite well armoured zone. By the way, I have the photo of tested T-80BV, which is less generation, than T-80U -- this tank were several times hited by RPG shells(which are much more dangerous, than 30mm AP shells). Tank is burning from the side with a quite huge fire, but after fire comes down, crew entered the tank and it's perfectly goes by itself to the base. Another one thing -- this should look crazy for you, but the fuel tanks as they are actually adds the protection equivalent to the whole armour, that's why those were situated in the front of the tank (for example M1 tanks have also them by sides from the driver) Hmmm... not sure. The explosion of ammunition is as often the fire in interior of crew compartment(there are propellant charges). As I was told before, 30mm shells have not enough of power to even penetrate T-80U's turret and glasic around autoloader, which are well armoured, even no talks about making there fire... The same chances, as hiting the fuel line :wink: Almost no chances! lol :lol: Of course no. 1. There is no chance to hit battaries, which are situated in quite armoured zone too (right behind the crew compartment in the center of a tank). 2. Even penetration does not bring enough of inside damage to break out anything there. No chances to penetrate the armour around autoloader! No chances to penetrate the crew compartment area! The armor is too thick for 30mm shells even from the sides and rear! ... as I said before, there is no chances to penetrate armour around crew compartment. As for the other components -- the inside damages (as "burning toxic DU fumes") is quite low. Such enough damages could bring only huge 120mm SABOT DU shells... Another one common mistake :wink: The ex-tankers told me, that there is enough of space to normal human dimensions and well enough to normal operating. :!: No penetrations, because of huge armour around crew compartment! Adding also low probability of even hiting. Radiation from DU shells is extremaly low -- this is about 25% of maximum allowed radiation rating. There is also report about it here, where I found the posted here report: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm Volume 9 about 105mm DU shells Bartlett, W.T., R.L. Gilchrist, G.W.R. Endres, and J.L. Baer, Radiation Characterization and Exposure Rate Measurements from Cartridge, 105mm, APFSDS-T, XM774, PNL-2947, Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, November 1979. The Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness Working Group on Depleted Uranium Munitions recommended this as one of three studies in its initial 1974 DU environmental assessment. This study focused on the health physics problems associated with assembling, storing, and using 105mm APFSDS-T XM774 ammunition. The report concluded, "Radiation levels associated with the XM774 ammunition are extremely low. The photon emissions measured did not exceed a maximum whole-body or critical organ exposure of 0.26 mR/hr. Even if personnel were exposed for long periods to the highest levels of radiation measured, it is doubtful that their exposure would reach 25 percent of the maximum permissible occupational dose listed in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20." Вообщем да. Т.е. из тех снарядов что попали по танку было множество не пробивших броню. Остальные нанесли минимальное заброневое воздействие. Также повреждены элементы подвески и катки танка :roll: Hmmm... what kind off distructions? Effective, but not enough to destroy it :wink: Only some light damages...

Чё уж гворить, если даже БРЭО Су-24М до сих пор секретна... :roll:

Kula66 As I said before -- the "which tank better" topic's CLOSED! :!: If you want to discuss it -- create another one! Hre we are discussing the abilities of GAU-8 and T-62 armour... tomcat1974 I would like -- bring on some photos! :) Currently me and some people from Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks... Those are: Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin. Have you ever read the report? Ok, I post especially for you again The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components