New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Here comes the next release of the Cold War 2020 mod!

Now 100% compatible with WinSPMBT V3, with 2 new countries, 60 new icons and 250 new lbms.

Go get it here! (sorry, still too heavy for the forum...)

Remember the basic rules: install over a clean WinSPMBT game (V3 ONLY!), then select and install the appropriate custom OOB set. (select "overwrite all" when prompted)
Don't install it over a game version you are modifying, you may lose some of your own custom files (icons, picklists, lbms...).
And as previously, I've included a "deinstaller" .exe that you can use at any time to restore the modified mod files and restore the original game settings.

Enjoy!

Edit: DL locations changed to latest version mod installer

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Plasma,
could you pls provide a list of icons in your Shps?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers.

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Sounds very cool, I'll give it a look http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

What are you planning to do with this?

Here comes the list anyway, including the references of the icons I should update in the near future.

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Plasma,
I'll try to implement the "most probable" new units in existing obf. For example, T-95 in russian TOE. I don't fiddle so much with laser pdw and so forth, but I really find your work interesting and your icons good looking.
Thanks anyway.

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Hi, me again. I loved the older version of this mod. Which shp files are you using? are you using shp's: 47,48, 100, 101, 102 and 103 again?

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Hi Monty,

Just look above in the thread, I've posted an icon list up to date with the RC0.3 version.
To comply with Don's and Blazej's new V3 official icons, I've moved most of the files to new slots.
Now used are .shp files 49, 54, 57, 59, 99, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107.

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

FYI......

I started adding Icons for V3.5 into SHP file 49 right after V3 was released .

Don

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Thanks for the info, Don, I'll try to get a RC 0.4 out shortly after the V3.5 release to comply with this.
BTW, are you planning on using other files in the 100 series in the short term?

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

No plans to in the short term.

Don

Re: New Cold War 2020 mod version!
 

Ok thanks.

Cold War 2020 new splash...
 

cooked this up in a few minutes...

Re: Cold War 2020 new splash...
 

Mark, this is great! Thanks a lot!
I just hadn't given much thought to a frontpage yet, but the sheer idea kicks ***! Now if that actually took you a few minutes, you know I'm going to ask for more versions! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Thanks again!

Re: Cold War 2020 new splash...
 

PlasmaKrab
----------------
Tell as well as by means of what program you make icons for game.
Also interests - where to take a palette for creation of photos for game and by means of what program you it make.

Yours faithfully.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

For icons: use whichever drawing program you want, to draw pictures in Bitmap format. Then use a picture editor (Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, GIMP...) to load the palette. That will make sure the colors used are the dorrect ones. Then switch the icon back to 16-bit color, and compress them to shp files using SHPed.
You can find SHPed.exe in the folder WinSPMBT\Game Data\Graphics. Browse this forum for additional instruction on how to use it, it has already been mentioned.

The palette to use for icons is "WinSPMBT\Game Data\Design\Palettes\JASC_WINSP_ICON_PALETTE.pal"
For in-game photos (called LBMs), use Paint Shop Pro 7 and the following palette: "WinSPMBT\Game Data\Design\Palettes\JASC_WINSP_PICPAL.pal"
Save photos to .lbm format, dimensions 160x80.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Thank you

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Ka-50 not worse Ka-52. Ka-50 the main helicopter in battle org. structure of helicopters Ka-52.

It is possible to learn - as you calculated value for example parameter of an accuracy of aim the weapon - for example AT-Khrizantema?

Sprut-SD - not the tank the amphibia, is the tank of support airborne (paratroops). Thus it is able to float.

For the information: Almost all military technics (tanks, btr, bmp etc) in the Russian army - is able to float.

unit 703 = unit 708 = 120mm mortar
units 856, 857, 858 = BTR-97 - non serial model. model for militia (police)
units 870...880, 882, 885 - you are assured that a photo correct?

As a whole very beautiful photos and icons. Also very exact names and their translation.


Yours faithfully

Re: Cold War 2020 mod: obat 11 USSR
 

Are you talking about the helicopter platoon organization with one Ka-52 as command helicopter designating targets to several Ka-50s? I don't think I can do that. I replaced the 50 with the 52 based on reported Chechnya experience that the Ka-50 hadn't enough night vision capacity and one pilot wasn't enough for both piloting and targetting. I'm thinking about how it would behave in a conflict in Europe or similar, remember.Whoa, there is a lot of guessing involved, as well as guidance type, flight time and suspected technology level. Nothing steadfast enough to base anything on. Besides, I'll possibly change my missile accuracy scale for the next release.You mean the 2S25 can be airdropped just like the BMD-3? If so I'll see if I can wedge in a copy in class "airborne tank", right? Now for amphibian tank, what else should replace the PT-76 in naval troops?Vasilek cannot be mounted on a Vodnik? Then how about a lighter 82mm mortar like the 2B14?I know, but remember this is a fictional mod. I had to find something to replace the BRDM-2 and I think the BPM-97 is a good candidate (notice it isn't called BPM-97 or BTR-97, so consider it a fictional derived version).Not at all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I haven't got better for now, for a plane that never left the drawing board... I'll see what I can do with pictures of the Chinese FC-1, which is close enough.Thanks for the appreciation and the feedback!

Re: Cold War 2020 mod: obat 06 USSR
 

PlasmaKrab
--------------------
1. I speak about the organization - one Ka-50 and a little Ka-52. Ka-50 the main helicopter. Ka-52 really it is better and more reliable (because of the second member of crew of the helicopter) will behave at night.

2. Sprut-SD 2S25 - it is created on the basis of BMD-3. The gun 2A75 is created on the basis of 2A46. The hydraulic suspension bracket provides unique smoothness of a course. The gun is stabilized in two planes. This system is developed for increase in fire-power paratroops and for introduction in army of new anti-tank means of strife. Is able to float. PT-76 - it is easily replaced BTR-80, 90. As is known 76mm the gun is worse than 30mm autocannon.

3. I do not have data, that on Vodnik installed Vasilek.

4. Photo Mig-35 absolutely not correct. On a photo the plane has similar outlines with plane F-16. Here to you photo Mig-35:

http://www.pecypc.kz/kramax/mig-35-1.jpg
http://www.pecypc.kz/kramax/mig-35-2.jpg

Re: Cold War 2020 mod: obat 11 USSR
 

OK, allow me to correct, we aren't talking about the same MiG-35. Maybe you heard at some point about a projected single-engined light fighter by MiG, that was scrapped in the late 80s in favor of all-MiG-29? That's what I chose to represent here (if you look at other OOBs you'll see it is widely exported).
The MiG-35 you mention is a mere MiG-29 upgrade that started out as a MiG-29OVT but was renamed MiG-35 for better marketing image http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif years after the introduction of the one I have featured.
I know it is largely fictional, but there is no reason why I should not use the number 35, given that the upgrade you are talking about wouldn't have existed, or wouldn't have been marketed that much.

Re: Cold War 2020 mod: obat 06 USSR
 

Ok.
Mig-29OVT is a prototype of plane Mig-29M/M2, and here already this plane (Mig-29M/M2) will rename in Mig-35.

Here small translation of some constructive changes:
"... This airplane possesses the raised maneuverability as it is equipped by engines with a turned down vector of draft. Jet engines MiG-29M OVT are capable to deviate on all axes.

By other airplane with a turned down vector of draft - Russian Su-30MKI and American F-22 - jet deviates only in one plane... "

http://rosprom.gov.ru/news.php?id=1442

Re: Icons and lbms
 

What are your additions, changes to the German Leopards based on? I have been comparing the Vanilla OOB with yours and it seems a lot of the Leopards have undergone slight changes. Why is that? I know the later models require a change but the early ones too? No criticism, just curious. I want to upgrade my Leopard fleet but I am not sure yet.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Mostly different sources I'd say. I have redone most of the modelization from the ground up when I could find data. I wanted to get everything on a firm common basis, so identical units are really identical in different OOBs.
If you look closely, most tanks and AFVs are slightly (or largely) different from the original.

F.e. I have tried to re-scale the FC/RF/vision data of the whole world tank fleet to get everything on a common basis, with some fixed conventions like 40 for a hunter-killer tank, 50 if both gunner and TC have the same sensor (Leo2A5), 60 with autotracker, etc. Much guesswork involved, so the whole system is not necessarily worth more than the game original.
Same with the armor ratings, they are based on different sources and some different conventions, but don't take them for granted.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

What about dates of introduction and their weapons?

Re: Icons and lbms
 

To quote just one source I have here:
-Leopard 2"A0": 1 batch of 380 delivered 79-82
-Leopard 2A1: 1 batch of 450 delivered 82-83, 1 batch of 300 delivered 83-84
-Leopard 2A2: 1 batch of 380 retrofitted from A0
-Leopard 2A3: 1 batch of 300 delivered 84-85
-Leopard 2A4: 1 batch of 370 delivered 85-87, 1 batch of 150 delivered 88-89, 1 batch of 100 delivered 89-90, 1 batch of 75 delivered 91-92

That's for the pre-1990 series, which are the common basis.
I added more or less one year between delivery and troop IOC.

After 1990 we enter modded territory, and that's where I have started taking liberties with history. Hence the 2A5 deliveries that start full-scale in 1995 just after the modernization contract was granted. The logical follow-on is the 2A6 with the L55 gun, the 2A7 with the complete KWS2 armor package (say Leopard 2E), and the 2A8 which includes the KWS3 weapon upgrade.
Take into account that the next generation tank starts trickling into service by 2005, with some common tech with the Leo2A8, so it wouldn't be logical if this upgrade came after the more expensive new tank, and I'm not going to upgrade the Leopards for ever and ever.

The ammo I have used looks consistent with the official version, in hindsight. I used sabot round name rather than IOC year for international clarity (when copying the weapons to other orbats), so the WG79 gets the first APFSDS round available (DM13). AFAIK the DM23 (1983) and DM43 (1995) didn't enter German service, which still sticks to the official OOB: direct leap from WG79 to WG87 (DM33) to WG96 (DM53).
Now since I rebuilt the whole penetration values table to my own use, there are some source differences on some values, but as you can see they are minimal.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

I don't suppose you would be interested in looking over my OOB work. It started out as a straight forward synthesis of a, best of, WWII German OOB and the modern German OOB. Any missing, interim, units I had to come up with from diverse sources.

The chief problem is that some of those units seem a little too simulated. I am hoping that someone will look over it a bit. I also borowed units that other mod developers had worked on, like your more modern German equipment.

As my mod is very much tailored to my personal tastes Only a few Icons that I made for the E-series vehicles have been released. If you like I will send you a copy of it. If not suggestions where to send it would be good too.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Yes, I'd like to see your OOB mod, I'm always looking for new references. I can't promise you I'll check it through and through, but there are certainly things you have found and I have overlooked, and vice versa.
I think you should post your OOB somewhere on this forum, I'm probably not the only one interested.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

I'm not sure if DD(X) 155mm AGS is in your 2020 mod. It's certainly worth looking into.

Some notes for implementation; this is NOT your normal 155mm shell. It may have a bore diameter of 155mm, but the designers made the shell significantly LONGER, making it perform like an 8" shell:

155 mm/62 (6.1") AGS
260 lb shell weight, with 23.8 lbs burster charge

8"/55 (20.3 cm) Marks 12 and 15
260 lb shell weight, with 21.3 lbs burster charge

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Well, Thankyou very much for offering. I will setup the necessary files and post them up either here, with your permission, or in another post.

~~~~###~~~~

If all is well with the OOB modification, then in the not too distant future it will be posted up along with all the necessary additional stuff. I will post it in a new thread though.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Three downloads!?! Can't people read? Well never mind.

I assume at least one of you was the one that this thing was intended for so its nukey time.

@ Plasmakrab, if you didn't get it PM me and I will mail it to you.

@ all those who downloaded it anyway, don'tbe surprised if it doesn't work or if some of the files are missing.

Loading Screens
 

May I highly suggest

Linka

for your soviet screen images; just use "concept" and you can find links to download HI RES (1.2+ MB JPG) images of the following:

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/S...T-86-06635.JPG

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/S...T-87-08799.JPG

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/S...T-86-06646.JPG

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/S...T-87-12793.JPG
An artist's concept of Gruman Aerospace Corporation's proposed advanced tactical fighter (ATF). (Released to Public) Date Shot: 1 Jan 1986

Best part is; since theyr'e DoD pictures, they are 100% royalty free

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/S...T-82-01259.JPG
A artist's concept of Soviet surface-to-air laser weapons. Photo courtesy of Soviet Military Power Magazine (Released to Public)

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Hi Plasma,

I need a new place to put Icon 0049, any suggestions?

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Turreted icon shps 103 to 120 are free in the current game version. That's where I'm adding my new icons now as well.
I'm currently busy replacing all the 0049 and 0059 icons as well, upgrading lots of the old ones in the process.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2...ss140mmcv3.jpg
Leopard 2 of the Swiss Army fitted with the Swiss desianed and built 140 mm smoothbore gun which is fitted with a fume extractor and a slotted muzzle brake.

First ballistic verification of the Swiss 140mm smoothbore gun under live conditions took place in the Summer of 1988 with the first projectiles being fired from the weapon installed in a Leopard 2 MBT taking place in the Autumn of 1989.

To ease handling, the ammunition is in two parts. The main propellant charge has a steel bottom and a combustible container with about 10 kg of propellant, and one part with either a KE projectile plus an additional 5 kg of propellant or a Multipurpose (MP) round which would probably not require the additional charge. The propellant will be optimised for the KE projectiles.

The KE projectile has a long rod penetrator of conventional material, not depleted uranium as used in US projectiles of this type, and a sabot with a plastic driving band.

Trials so far have shown that both types of ammunition will penetrate around 1,000 mm of steel armour, which is a significant increase in penetration over current in-service 120 mm projectiles.

------------

Liquid Propellant Advantages over Conventional Propellants:

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2...alptestha4.gif

Martin Marietta Defense Systems is also exploring LP for the US Navy's Gun Weapon System Warships programme under a contract awarded by the Naval Surface Warfare Center's Crane Division.

The first phase of the Navy programme, the company will apply the technology and hardware of the 155 mm LP gun it is already developing for the US Army Crusader, although the naval weapon will have an expanded performance.

As a result of the first phase, the United States Navy has awarded Martin Marietta a Second Phase full performance, single shot demonstrator that will be capable of launching new precision guided munitions to a range of over 100 km.

-----------

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8...thlosatto4.jpg
United Defense Armored Gun System chassis with 105 mm turret replaced by new turret with two six round packs of LOSAT

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1...eylosatwc7.jpg
Artist's impression of a Loral Vought Systems LOSAT system mounted on a modified Bradley chassis launching an HVM

The US Army envisages a potential use on M2/M3 Bradley vehicles whilst the US Marine Corps is interested in equipping its 8 x 8 LAVs.

Another US Army interest is in the future three-man crewed Line Of Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT) Vehicle based on Bradley IFV components. This has an elevatable four-round launcher assembly with a further 20 missiles stored within the vehicle body.

Missile launch weight is approximately 77 kg, missile length 2.845 m and diameter 0.162 m. Range limits are from around 914.4 to 4,572 m.

In October 1993 it was revealed that Loral had proposed the HVM for use on the XM8 Armored Gun System for the US Army. The 105mm gun would be replaced by a two-man turret containing a pod of six HVM weapons on each side. Reloading would be by a boom/winch assembly like that used for the MLRS from another vehicle. Combat weight of the AGS LOSAT would be 20,865 kg.

It would be air-transportable in the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy (6 AGS LOSAT versus 4 Bradley LOSAT), McDonnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster III (3 AGS LOSAT versus 2 Bradley LOSAT), Lockheed C-141 Starfighter (1 AGS LOSAT compared to no Bradley LOSAT) and Lockheed C-130 Hercules (1 AGS LOSAT compared to no Bradley LOSAT).

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Starts to make you wonder if Tanks are on their way out.
I know we've all heard this song and dance before but with the introduction of top-attack ATGM's, depleted uranium armor, hyper-velocity missiles and guns, and bigger and bigger tank main guns it's getting to the point where a vehicle that can withstand the firepower of the battlefield to utilize the traditional mobility, shock, and firepower of the tank is getting so big and heavy I keep remembering the German JagdTiger or Maus - too big and heavy to be of any consequence because they couldn't go so many places due to ground pressure, inability to cross rivers (the bridges couldn't support them), and limited ammo supply due to the size of their guns.
I keep waiting for some new supertank named "Bolo Mk I" to be announced.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

"Starts to make you wonder if Tanks are on their way out."

For a start the sort of high intensity, high tech conflicts where this could become an issue aren't going to happen for many years. In the meantime tanks are proving themselves useful in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. No LOSAT touting OPFOR there.
Beyond that it is hard to tell.
Personally I am not particularly fond of the information dominance concept the FCS is based upon, where thin armored cars wipe out the enemy armor via PGM barrages from safe standoff ranges, but who knows?
In the timeframe where high intensity, high tech wars may become again likely robotics may be already sufficiently developed to make unmanned ground combat vehicles mainstream. If this was the case might the need for armor protection to keep human losses as low as possible might be a less pressing issue, resulting in UGCVs with thinner armor (a bit like in the 60's when steel armor was considered hopeless against HEAT, giving birth to designs like the Leopard 1)? As I said it is hard to tell.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

It would cost too much to replace them. Bigger and heavier tanks can be developed. LOSAT toating weapons are too expensive armies will one day realise they will have to balance costs with numbers. I hope to one day see all those techies get theirs from some good old fashioned armoured warfare.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

I hope it wont be necessary to build all those weapons ;-) anyway.
Better use them in games then in reality!

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Well, originally, the M1 Abrams entered service weighing about 50-55 tons. Now, the latest M1A2 SEPs are what 60-65 tons.

So I would think that a lot of R*D would be going on so that we can get M1A2 SEP protection on M1 Abrams weight levels; to restore the "Expansion" potential that was lost during the Abrams' lifetime.

I've looked up the specs for the US Army's XM291 140mm ATAC gun; it weighed 91 kg *LESS* than the M256 120mm Gun, and it could even be converted to fire 120mm ammo, in about an hour by replacing the gun tube. This 120mm version of the XM291 is right now the current gun of FCS.

Then we got the various other armor technologies; like electromagnetic armor, which can defeat RPG-7 warheads, yet total power drain is less than starting the tank on a cold morning; advanced explosive reactive armor which can defeat incoming APDFS rounds by snapping the penetrator in mid flight, ARENA/TROPHY close in defense systems that launch projectiles to defeat incoming threats....

I've looked up the various Electrothermal Gun technologies; and they offer about 30% imprvoement in muzzle velocity and energy over current conventional propellant guns; while not requiring the total technological base redo that liquid propellant guns do.

Presently, the M256 120mm gun with the M829A3 round can penetrate 81cm at 1000m. If we assume muzzle velocity increases by 30% with an ETC version of the M256, then that means that a ETC M829A3 would have a penetration of around 100cm + at the same range.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

DU warheads do not support higher velocities. At least yet. That´s why the L55 was abandoned by the US army as a upgrade. Tungsten penetrators can use the potential of higher velocities, but current DU is stuck in 1500-1700 m/s. That´s why the latest US DU penetrator is heavier and goes slower.

And I don´t know if M829A3 is the same as M829E3.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Not 100% sure about your reasoning here. As a matter of course Uranium is heavier than Tungsten, so DU rounds are heavier than Tungsten rounds for the same length/caliber values. So for the same initial energy (same propellant, same gun, same sabot, same temperature/pressure/whatever) a DU round will simply have lower velocity due to higher mass (kinetic energy being related to mass and square velocity and all that).
Now I don't see why DU rods wouldn't support higher velocities per se. Modern US APFSDS rounds appear to be particularly thin and long compared to equivalents (21mm for the M829E3 vs 27mm for the DM53), and this may give them a disadvantage in withholding the pressures in longer guns (though is is apparently an advantage once on target).
The French OFL-120F2, which is believed to be largely similar to the German DM-43, is DU-based and still slated with an initial velocity of 1740m/s in the Leclerc's L52 gun.
As I said, this may be due to the European rounds being substantially thicker than their US counterparts, but probably not to some intrinsic DU property.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Well check out tanknet for such reasonings. Theres been some discussion about it. However I don´t remember the exact thread, but have a strong recollection that DU does not benefit from hyper-velocities above some limit of maybe 1700m/s - 2000m/s.


Try this one:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18511

The problem with MarkSheppards thing of just increasing the velocity of M829A3 by 30% means that it´ll travel somewhere over 2000m/s that is a problem, what I´ve read from the tanknet. However, if they chance the round to a heavier one with less velocity, is OK reasoning.

And I know that everything on internet is not true. But lets face it where do you have better conversation of such things than tanknet. There´s got to be a point somewhere, if everybody seems to agree..?

Re: Icons and lbms
 

"However I don´t remember the exact thread, but have a strong recollection that DU does not benefit from hyper-velocities above some limit of maybe 1700m/s - 2000m/s."

IIRC tungsten was supposed to outperform DU, but only at extremely high velocities. These are my vague recollections anyway.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

OK, if there's one internet source I tend to trust on these subjects, Tanknet is the one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Don't take offense from what I said, I just wanted to confront your info with my own data and the low-brow calculation I can come up with.

After reading the whole thread I get a better idea of what you meant: apparently DU loses its edge over tungsten in the higher velocity range (from 1700-1800m/s upwards). I have no doubt better alloys of both metals could be (or already have been) developped to withstand ETC-like MVs.

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Actually, tungsten is slightly heavier than uranium. Their respective densities are 19.26 g/cm3 and 19.05 g/cm3. According to a Norwegian science site (and my memory from science class http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)...

Re: Icons and lbms
 

Tungsten Heavy Alloy (WHA) is usually rated @ 17.0-17.8 g/cm3 compared to Deplete Uranium @ rough 18.0-18.5 g/cm3.