Warrior and Other News

worst 3 · Post by **worst 3** » 2005-10-17 00:15

delete this i ment to edit my first but i quoted

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2005-10-17 03:49

Eglaerinion wrote:Warrior is looking awesome guys!

A Kubelwagen is a jeep not a halftrack.

I thought that was kinda obviously wrong, calling the "Kubelwagen" a halftrack considering the picture shows the rear end of a Challenger tank... But thanks for the info!

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-10-17 11:18

A Jeep is a Jeep. It's a 4 x 4 vehicle, also Jeep is a company, but it's one of those things we call by brand name to mean a certain sort of product, like we call cola's coke (well most of the time), glue sticks pritt-stick (at least in the UK, dunno if they even have it any where else)... anyway you get the idea. And the Kubelwagen is a regular car, it's forward wheel drive I think. So a Kubelwagen is a Kubelwagen!

Oh and those models are looking great. Two observations:

1. Get rid of the bare metal showing through on the Warrior, we NEVER let bare metal show through our paint. Make it an undercoat of Olive paint instead, as all we did with our armour was paint over the Olive with desert tan when we were moving them to Iraq and Afghanistan and so on.

2. It need to be more "yellow". It looks a little washed now (I mean the desert colour). Our paint tends to be bit more vibrant than is shown, and smoother with less bumps, but those are fairly simple things to fix if you have the .psd lying around for it.

It's all coming along nicely now! Keep it up.

OAKside · Post by **OAKside** » 2005-10-17 15:37

Wow, you guys are very talented. The day PR 1.0 comes out is going to be quite a day. The renders are absolutely beautiful! Keep it up, we await 0.2!

Tychandrus · Post by **Tychandrus** » 2005-10-17 17:45

I applaud all the efforts that the development team is putting into PRMM. I'll finally have a reason to play Battlefield 2 again (because it's just been collecting dust since Version 1.03 came out).

My sincere thanks go to the team of Project Reality.

Enforcer1975 · Post by **Enforcer1975** » 2005-10-21 21:28

I hope that the main gun isn't stabalised like on the real Warrior.

Mind Game · Post by **Mind Game** » 2005-11-07 04:30

well havnt been here in a while. Just noticed what youve done to my challenger

Even for such a small pic it's looking great. I miss working with you guys

Keep up the good work!

Post by **Hitperson** » 2005-11-10 16:21

nto sure if it has already been said but how good are the brakes on that seeing as that thing can doo serious endoes when it comes to stopping.

Doug97 · Post by **Doug97** » 2005-11-10 20:36

What are the characteristics of the Challenger II going to be compared to the Abrams? Will it be tougher/weaker, faster/slower etc?

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-10 21:31

Well, if it's realistic (which is the idea) it'll be tougher, more accurate, have a longer range main gun (not that that matters on the small BF2 maps mind) and will be ever so slightly slower (I believe it's something like 5kph slower than the Abrams, but then they do have jet turbine engines running on aviation fuel whilst the CR2 uses diesel most of the time).

Doug97 · Post by **Doug97** » 2005-11-11 01:25

Mad Max wrote:Well, if it's realistic (which is the idea) it'll be tougher, more accurate, have a longer range main gun (not that that matters on the small BF2 maps mind) and will be ever so slightly slower (I believe it's something like 5kph slower than the Abrams, but then they do have jet turbine engines running on aviation fuel whilst the CR2 uses diesel most of the time).

Yes, I would say it would be a touch slower (although the IIE has a 1500hp engine, the same as the Abrams!!), and I've read your other posts on what you think of the protection on the Abrams (RPG incidents in Iraq and such), but why do you say it is more accurate? And don't say because it has a rifled gun ... the projectiles the Abrams uses are fin-stabilised, so what's the difference?

I notice on http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/ that the Challenger gun is going to be replaced with a smoothbore ...

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-11 02:00

I don't trust that site, it also told us we use the same version of the Warrior as the Swiss have... the Swiss don't use the Warrior! Plus the CHARM rounds are also fin-stabilised, and a rifled barrel is far more accurate than a smoothbore. Fire an early smoothbore cartridge rifle then a Lee Enfield and you'll see a vast difference in accuracy.

The only reason we're thinking about swithing to a smoothbore is because the current barrels only work with our own two ammo types. If we switch it'll be cheaper in the long run to supply ammo and we'll be able to use all NATO standard stuff. All long term cost really, which is a shame.

Doug97 · Post by **Doug97** » 2005-11-11 02:47

Mad Max wrote:Plus the CHARM rounds are also fin-stabilised, and a rifled barrel is far more accurate than a smoothbore. Fire an early smoothbore cartridge rifle then a Lee Enfield and you'll see a vast difference in accuracy

I don't doubt it, but is an early smoothbore cartridge round fin-stabilised? My point is, WHY is a rifled gun better than a gun that fires fin-stabilised shot?

And where does that site say the Swiss use the Warrior?

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-11 04:19

Well, I assume you understand basic ballistics and why weapons have rifling, but I'll assume not and explain it.

Old weapons, (lets just use rifles for exaple to make things eaiser) which used to fire shot, or early cartridge rounds which were smoothbore were pretty inaccurate, because the projectile would be effected by the air resistance of traveling in an entirely straight line.

So sometime in the late Victorian era, some clever folks came up with a barrel that had a twist, to make the projectile spin as it left it. This in turn made air resistance less of a factor in determining it's erm... resistance, as the spinning motion allowed air to pass it more easily (all complex physics which isn't my forte).

Anyway, a by product of making this barrel with a twist meant that the round travelled further, faster and more accuractly than with older weapons, which had nothing to help guide it other than the straight tube it was fired from.

In short, a rifled barrel GREATLY improved accuracy and range, and overal power, which is why all modern small arms, with the exception of some handguns and shotguns (although some are rifled, generally military spec ones where more concentrated fire is required... think the Spas-12 is one such weapon) are rifled.

Fin stabilised is pretty much to do with the projectile shape more than what it's fired from. If you look at SABOT armour peircing projectiles you'll notice they're sort of like a dart, which without those fins would be very unstable, much like an arrow, because of the way the air travels around it in flight. Fins are pretty much a pre-requisit of any sort of accurate stable SABOT rounds.

Anyway, combined with fin stablised rounds, with a rifled barrel, you have much improved accuracy over a smoothbore. Like I said, smoothbore is more common because it's cheaper to produce, and most NATO 120mm shells are designed for this system.

Oh and that site has been updated since it said the Swiss use it. But look for the "Stormer APC". It has a British flag, but it's the Japanese version of it. Our Stormer is a mobile AA unit which is smaller and based on a different chassis.

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-11-11 09:41

Fin-stabilized 30 inch DU spikes are not musket balls. A rifled 120mm barrel is not appriciatively more accurate than a smoothbore when firing fin-stabilized saboted penetrators at 5160 fps. Penetrator performance is actually damaged somewhat by the rifling effect. Britian uses a rifled barrel for long-range HESH rounds; American tanks use HEAT which also prefers a smoothbore barrel. Thus, we have chosen the optium anti-tank weapon while the British prefer a slightly more general purpose weapon.

Doug97 · Post by **Doug97** » 2005-11-11 13:28

NikovK wrote:Britian uses a rifled barrel for long-range HESH rounds; American tanks use HEAT which also prefers a smoothbore barrel.

Hmm, not sure whether it being HEAT or HESH matters much compared to what type of barrel the projectile is designed for.

To address what Mad MAx wrote, rifling increases accuracy because it makes the bullet spin. But fin stabilisation also does this as the fins are very slightly off from being parallel to the projectile's direction. That is why I'm still doubtful that one is superior to the other.

And the reason spinning makes a projectile more accurate is because slight imperfections in the shape of it do not make their effects felt in one single direction during the entire flight. For example, say you fire a bullet-shaped projectile with a dent in one side of the nose and you don't make it spin. That dent will mean drag will not be equal on all sides of the nose, making the shot fly slightly squint. If you make it spin, then this effect is averaged out over 360 degrees, meaning the projecile follow a spiral pattern as it travels. This means that the total deviation of the projectile from the straight is less once it arrives at the target (also why in old WWII footage the tracers from machine guns look like they 'wobble' as they fly).

Doug97 · Post by **Doug97** » 2005-11-11 13:32

So if the game is set in the future, as well as the Challenger IIE, we should be getting the Warrior 2000?

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-11 14:09

Doug97 wrote:(also why in old WWII footage the tracers from machine guns look like they 'wobble' as they fly).

Mass produced not quite brilliant ammo, and weapon recoil. Recoil absorbing systems weren't exactly amazing during WW2 for small arms, so it had an effect on the bullets when fired. Well it makes sense when you think about it. Take the .30 cal for example. The barrel wobbled like nothing else when that thing opened up so it's bound to have some sort of effect on the rounds.

Doug97 · Post by **Doug97** » 2005-11-11 19:44

Mad Max wrote:Mass produced not quite brilliant ammo, and weapon recoil. Recoil absorbing systems weren't exactly amazing during WW2 for small arms, so it had an effect on the bullets when fired. Well it makes sense when you think about it. Take the .30 cal for example. The barrel wobbled like nothing else when that thing opened up so it's bound to have some sort of effect on the rounds.

No, think about it; how can a wobbling barrel produce a wobbling tracer? For example, if the barrel is on the up-stroke of an oscillation as the round leaves, then sure the round will deviate upwards, but NOT back down again after it has left. A moving body can't deviate from the straight without a reason.

Yes, poorer ammo can produce a more marked spiral effect, but that's because it is less symmetrical, and thus the drag produced is less even on all sides. Thus it spirals as the round spins (the spin conferred, of course, by the gun rifling).

Spinning fin-stabilised rounds and spinning rounds from a rifled gun are not really any different.

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-11-11 20:53

I was always under the assumption that tracers didn't burn evenly, so while the bullet spins along its flightpath the glowing gas is slung off to one side, making a corkscrew effect which looks like a side-to-side wobble at an angle.

HEAT rounds penetrate by concentrating energy on one point. Spinning would slew the plasma out to the sides of the axis of spin.

Wait, Victorian era for rifles? 1837-1901? They had hexagontal bore barrels long before that. American sharpshooters had them in, dare I mention it, the Revolutionary War.