New Cold War 2020 mod release! (RC 0.4)

[PlasmaKrab]

Hi Spike, and thanks for the interest.

Regarding icon importing and exporting, better refer to these two threads where things have been dicussed and explained at length:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...b=5&o=&fpart=1
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...b=5&o=&fpart=1

Russian 1000lb bombs corrected to FAB-500. I let that one slip as it is standard-default weapon linked to Greater Purposes like ammo explosions.

Now regarding bomb loadouts, that's an interesting point. As you mention, the Tu-160 apparently has the largest theoretical payload of all strat bombers in service. Now bear in mind that 1) there are other factors limiting the number of bombs carried IRL like bomb bay room and 2) there may be game-linked balance issues that mean bomb loadouts have been regarded as too large at some earlier point.
If you look closely, you'll notice that the Vietnam-era US B-52s have been given about 2/3 of the bombs they are able to carry, according to Greg Goebel's account.
Thing is, I can't find data on bomb bay layout in the Tu-160 (or earlier Tupolev bombers btw), so I don't know how many of which bombs you can fit in. Given the high-speed/low-observable profile of the aircraft, I'd tend to shun the underwing bomb racks for the standard variant.

Re. the T-95 and its gun, I know about the 152mm gun, but I have kept the 135mm as first intel suggested waaay back, on account of it being more compatible with previous Soviet tank design, mainly in tank size, ammo storage room and autoloader design. In other words, in a T-80-like hull like that of the early low-profile T-95, you could hardly stow 25 152mm rounds, and even then, they would be so short that you'd lose most of what you gained on APDS penetration. IMHO a much more radical tank design would be needed to accommodate a 152, and by the time I have such designs available, I have already switched to high-efficiency ETC 85mm.

[Marcello]

"Thing is, I can't find data on bomb bay layout in the Tu-160 (or earlier Tupolev bombers btw), so I don't know how many of which bombs you can fit in."

I do not have much time at the moment, so you will have to wait for further details and sources. But as far as I remember the only weapons that can be carried in the standard version are Kh-55/Kh-15. No conventional bombs or stuff like that. The modernization which is being carried out should enable enable various conventional bombs to be fitted.
But the non modernized planes are specialized missile carriers with no free fall bombs capabilities.

[Spike11]

Hi!

Thanks for the reply, I'll look into the icon issue later today, if I get the time.

Regarding the Tu-160 issue, for my own hack, I have simply taken the Tu-22M layout from the original version and added a few bombs - 8 1000 kg bombs per slot instead of 6. I haven't filled it to the suggested max capacity from some sources, but I still thought it made sense that the largest Russian bomber carried the largest load.

The 152 mm thingy is quite interesting, because afaik, this is where the Russians are be heading sometime in the future, and the sources I've seen, seem to suggest an ammo storage of about 40 for the T-95 (and even for the upgraded T-80...). It sounds weird, so the obvious conclusion must be considering/developing a larger ammo storage. This again suggests a larger design or less armour, which is not the case... For my hack, I've made the T-95 slightly larger (size 5) and given it approx 40 rounds. Probably all wrong, but it is a functioning compromise (I've also given upgraded NATO tanks a 140 mm gun with a similar layout).

I've also noticed that some of your later Russian ATGMs have not been designated as DC or TA. Is this an oversight, or is it deliberate?

Great hack anyway, keep up the good work!

[PlasmaKrab]

Thanks for the info, Marcello. That the original version of the Tu-160 cannot carry anything else than nuke cruise missiles make sense, as that was the case with most cold-war era strat bombers.
That the modernization allowing it to carry conventional ordnance happens only these days at a slow pace (I guess) is one of the things the Cold War mod is precisely meant to correct. From this day my bomber Blackjacks happen only from 1995 onwards.

Re. 152mm, we shall see if the Russians are heading anywhere like this in the real world. AFAIK no country has actually got anything beyond the 120/125 standard in service, despite numerous design efforts (Leopard-2KWS3, Leclerc, K2, Merkava-Mk4...) so the need isn't that appalling, and real-life Russians have enough work catching up on APFSDS technology and maybe transitioning to one-piece ammo (qv Black Eagle) before doing anything silly.
Talking about ammo loadout, I realize I have been a bit on the generous size with my T-95s.
AFAIK the original projects for the 140mm gun called for a two-piece round taking the room of 1.5 120mm round, meaning around 30 rounds for converted Western tanks. That's without including lengthened storage that would be obvious on autoloading tanks and should raise the ammo count to ~36.

You'll have to tell me more about these ATGMs, Spike, because I don't see where the issue is.

Keeping up the good work, R.C.0.5 due next week...

[Marcello]

"Re. 152mm, we shall see if the Russians are heading anywhere like this in the real world. AFAIK no country has actually got anything beyond the 120/125 standard in service, despite numerous design efforts (Leopard-2KWS3, Leclerc, K2, Merkava-Mk4...) so the need isn't that appalling, and real-life Russians have enough work catching up on APFSDS technology and maybe transitioning to one-piece ammo (qv Black Eagle) before doing anything silly."

I have to disagree to a certain extent. No country has gone from 120/125 to 140/152 because of the post cold war circumstances. You don't need a 140mm to deal with some arab T-72M1. 152mm guns on the other hand were not fielded because they were unaffordable under the economic conditions prevalent. If, on the other hand, one is assuming an ongoing Cold War and a healthier eastern economy things get very different. The 125mm are in trouble against western third generation MBTs, while the 120mm may be insufficient against the soviet fourth generation monsters. Whether the 135mm or the 152mm are chosen may come down to MIC politics.
Although the soviets were originally heading to a dead end regarding APFSDS design, items like the BM-46 show that they have learned quickly and do not have all that to catch up.

[PlasmaKrab]

As far as my sources show, the BM-46 was still a couple of yards behind contemporary 120mm rounds, but let's not start this debate again. What I meant was that without even having taken the pains of developing and fielding a 135/152mm gun, the Russian engineers could work up the gap and match current western ammo or armor designs (whichever they think of as the target), e.g. by transitioning to bustle autoloader and one-piece ammo with long-rod penetrators. Like they look like doing on the Black Eagle concepts.
Such a solution would be leagues cheaper and could be more easily retrofitted on older tanks, e.g. T-84 Oplot, T-55AGM... There's plenty of life left in the 125mm design, so I don't see the transition as urgent.

And that reflection was regarding real-world only. As far as I'm concerned, I have transitioned the Soviet tanks to 135mm from the late 90s (T-95A) as a direct answer to the first western 140mm tanks (M1A3, Leo2A8...), which is a direct answer to the predicted armor levels of the T-95 generation. Also, this 135mm (chosen over the 152mm as an easier technical solution for transitional designs, as explained above) remains in 1st-class units only for about 10 years, while other theaters get new 125mm rounds able to deal with anything they'd encounter in Central Asia or on the Chinese border.

[Marcello]

"As far as my sources show, the BM-46 was still a couple of yards behind contemporary 120mm rounds, but let's not start this debate again."

I did not mean that the BM-46 was the bleeding edge of world APFSDS design. Merely that it shows that they are not hopelessy behind and do not have a massive amount of catch up to do. They may still have a few thing to learn but not everything.

"by transitioning to bustle autoloader and one-piece ammo with long-rod penetrators. Like they look like doing on the Black Eagle concepts."

A one piece ammo would be incompatible with the existing tanks, without what would amount to a substantially
expensive retrofitting. You might as well change caliber and be done with it. Then I am not sure about why long rod penetrator have anything to do with one piece ammo or separate charge.The british seem to have no issues with having separate charge and decent APFSDS. The limitation with the soviets tanks was the projectile lenght enabled by the autoloader design. There is a workaround which has been incorporated in the T-90/T-72BM.
I have not seen diagrams for the Black Eagle so I do not know what is supposed to be going inside it but there is a possibility that it was done just for flexibility (several weapon configurations were available for it).

[PlasmaKrab]

Why do we keep going on about this already?
I agree that transitioning to 152mm can be an option for future tank design, time will tell. I agree that the Russian isn't 40 years behind in APFSDS performance, maybe 10 or 15 though, and that rebuilding older tanks with a bustle autoloader is no mean task.
I still consider that full-length rounds allow for heavier rounds with decent L/D ratio. AFAIK the British don't field anything with penetration ratios on the level of an M829E3 or DM-53. Now if you tell me they do, I'm ready to take the evidence into account.

I was just trying to point out that it would be on the whole easier, shorter and cheaper to develop new 125mm ammo for the current tanks and upgrades thereof, than developing a brand new 152mm-gun tank, as things stand these days in the real world. Both options are not mutually exclusive and wouldn't serve exactly the same purpose, but I guess the Russian military would have to make a choice. That was just to support the "maybe not 152mm for real right now" argument.

Now as far as regards the Cold War 2020 mod, I have selected the 135mm in full agreement with myself, for various reasons ranging from compatibility with transitional tank designs to easier to model physics through ammo loadout.

[Spike11]

Re the new Russian ATGMs. As far as I can see, the next-generation versions (Sokol, Feniks etc) are all categorised as regular ATGMs, not as DC- or TA-ATGMs. Since the Russians are very much into double charge HEAT (and even triple charge, apparently...) systems, I was a bit puzzled that the next generation would use single charge charges. I'm not saying this is a big deal, I was merely a bit surprised

[PlasmaKrab]

OK, I get the idea.
Look at it closely and you'll notice that these missiles have a basic AP penetration value, not HEAT. In other words, they are KE missiles...
No need for a tandem warhead then, right?
Look up the US CKEM and LOSAT, which work the same way.
I've tested this modelization of KEMs, and the PA value doesn't draw down with range, the resistance to basic ERA is rather good, and the AP values takes on the steel armor value of the target without problem.
Only issue I'm having is that since these missiles are class-13 standard ATGMs as you noted, and with rather lower penetration values than HEAT weapons, the cost is artificially low.