Questions about soviet artillery and other in game

[Marcello]

Do you know what part of the tank the picture features?

Hull front, as noted.

I would also be interested to know what rounds caused the various sized holes. Nice picture

152mm,122mm and 100mm, both AP and HE, and 85mm AP. US made 76mm was also fired but possibly only at the sides.

It looks more like something cluster ammo would cause.

Not really. HEAT typically leaves small diameter holes.Besides given the angles involved it would be very problematic.

BTW source is:
http://www.battlefield.ru

[Wdll]

I missed the whole "this is a WW2 tank" part.

[DRG]

Post 33

[PlasmaKrab]

Originally Posted by DRG

Point 4.. (...) The M1A2 SEP Abrams with the 120mm M256 13 gun was added last patch as a what if for the people whining we had put in North Korea, Russia, China, etc future weapons systems and didn't the US. That was primarily because of things like the Chiorny Oriol were in the Russian OOB ( that is now gone and about as "real" as that T-95 tank on the wiki link ) what I should do it pull out the Abrams using that gun until someone proves it's been issued... NOT add more crap that I'll end up pulling out of the OOB in a couple of years

Don,

Maybe you shouldn't pull out this one too quickly:

The U.S. Army Weapon Systems Handbook 2010 mentions under "Future Tank Main Gun Ammunition" a new KE round tentatively named M829E4 (see page 108, warning huge PDF).
There and in this budget item justification, an Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase throughout 2010 is planned.
Various official documents schedule LRIP and deployment for 2014 (just google "120mm AKE" or M928E4).
Now we all know how these schedules turn out, and there is still no info about capabilities, but the current weapon #139 looks to me like it is broadly in the right ballpark.

[DRG]

I'll leave it in and push the introduction back to 2014.

What I am more than a LITTLE pissed off about is people who use something like this which was added BECAUSE of information like you provided to whine and complain that becasue we haven't added the latest armoured wet dream that exists only as a drawing ( maybe ) from wherever you care to use as an example this somehow "proves" we have a bias one way or the other and I have read the EXACT same pissy whining crap from BOTH sides of what used to be the "Iron curtain" about the game and they can all KMA.

None of that was, of course, directed at you Tangui

That said we are more and more reluctant to add unit's / weapons on speculation. Last release we ended up with a real mess to sort out as a number of "future weapons systems" that were put in in the US OOB years ago had to be removed becasue they died somewhere between the bright idea that someone had and the actual production.



Don

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

I'll leave it in and push the introduction back to 2014.

What I am more than a LITTLE pissed off about is people who use something like this which was added BECAUSE of information like you provided to whine and complain that becasue we haven't added the latest armoured wet dream that exists only as a drawing ( maybe ) from wherever you care to use as an example this somehow "proves" we have a bias one way or the other and I have read the EXACT same pissy whining crap from BOTH sides of what used to be the "Iron curtain" about the game and they can all KMA.

None of that was, of course, directed at you Tangui

That said we are more and more reluctant to add unit's / weapons on speculation. Last release we ended up with a real mess to sort out as a number of "future weapons systems" that were put in in the US OOB years ago had to be removed becasue they died somewhere between the bright idea that someone had and the actual production.

Don

Hey !
I, for one, am attempting very hard to avoid "wet dream" equipment. Not may fault the US Congress can't make up it's mind if it wants to fund a project (example the Osprey, they should of named it after a cat, the project had nine lives).

[DRG]

Don't worry, that wasn't directed at you either.

Don

[hoplitis]

Well you can do it Alexander's way and cut the Gordian Knot! No "future" systems. Patches from hereon to include existing systems only (to the best knowledge of the designers/contributors of the official OOBs). Would save precious OOB space too...
Then you could "enjoy" the onslaught of the "Where-are-the-future-systems?" hordes!
So, Don it really boils down to what kind of battle you want to fight! Revisiting included "future" systems from time to time, to check their validity or throw them out of the window altogether and have a "rant" surge!
Choose your battlefield!!!
Personally, I'd continue playing the game anyway...

[Firestorm]

Originally Posted by hoplitis

Well you can do it Alexander's way and cut the Gordian Knot! No "future" systems. Patches from hereon to include existing systems only (to the best knowledge of the designers/contributors of the official OOBs). Would save precious OOB space too...
Then you could "enjoy" the onslaught of the "Where-are-the-future-systems?" hordes!
So, Don it really boils down to what kind of battle you want to fight! Revisiting included "future" systems from time to time, to check their validity or throw them out of the window altogether and have a "rant" surge!
Choose your battlefield!!!
Personally, I'd continue playing the game anyway...

I suggest removing ALL heavy/hi-tech formations from future OOBs and leaving only Somali/Mujahideen-style rebel and militia units.

Tell everyone that organized military forces won't survive The End Of The World As We Know It, which you expect is going to happen within at least a month from now.

[Marek_Tucan]

Stop all OOBs at December, 2012