Jippo

Yes, there is multispectral artillery smoke (like the German DM125) that blocks thermals. Regarding the material covers, one thing I would like to see is natural camouflage in SB. It is pretty effective in hiding things from all sorts of ways of detection and readily available everywhere except desert environs. Why not materials like the SAAB's Barracuda etc. too, but definately natural camo as well.

If I may suggest some literature: Schneider, Wolfgang; Panzer Tactics - German small unit armor tactics in World War II, Stackpole Books 2005; ISBN-13: 978-0-8117-3244-4 It's a great book for all interested in armored warfare. I personally was suprised to find out how much we are doing the things in the same way still. Not much has changed, really, at least in Finland. Trends come and go, but basics stay the same.

Pressing the mechanical trigger is quite possible while looking through the TKN. If you look at this image you can see the mechanical trigger is just in front of my left knee: But one might as well use the NSVT and actually hit & hurt someone. It has iron sights on top so you don't need to expose yourself too much. Or actually I think one could go by the tracers alone too. IIRC the TKN slave was not very accurate as it might be a bit off to one direction or another. Also you would need to use two hands to direct the turret as the buttons for turret stabilisation and slaving the gun ar at opposite thumb buttons.

Indeed. I have nothing to add to this.

Russians had and still have the conventional firepower to wipe out any defensive positions. It makes no difference what equipment soldiers in that position have if they are in no condition to use. Imho the real game begins after the east block already gained their first victories with their overwhelming artillery.

Why not? That is how we used it. TC directs targets and while the gunner shoots the TC looks for new targets. Isn't this hunter-killer operation? In tight spaces use the prisms and in the open use TKN with the horisontal stabilisation to turret. Exactly. The movement in the firing position is something the TC should even meddle with after saying where he wants the tank to go. Driver looks up a good spot and then gunner tells on the driver when he sees the target. (Actually drivers will learn to do this themselves soon) SB requires a lot more micro management than real tanks and tank formations. It doesn't handle individual tanks very precisely: for instance they do not know how to use landscape whilst moving at all. When we will have supercomputers at home, maybe then the crews will be as smart as real ones.

I think understanding is the key. Many western soldiers think that their tactics are crude or innefficient because there is very little junior commanders can decide in the Soviet/Russian combat doctrine. Western school relies in skilled and responsible NCO corps or might be even fully committed to Auftragstaktik(mission/goal tactics). Compared to that Russian junior officers and NCO's skillset and methodology might indeed be seen as limited as there is so little they can, or are allowed to do. What people here forget is the fact that what they do, they actually do well. There is no time wasted in formulating a low level plan or tasking as everything is "scripted" even up to batallion level. Platoons and companies train only few solutions to given problems so they will procecute it well in all situations. Western unit might be more innovative or sophisticated, but if it is also slow to react it has lost. They have couple of gameplans which they do well. If they loose a platoon/company here or there they will also win somewhere, and when they do they will be very quick to exploit that as it is part of their bag of tricks. And when they get their break through, it is most likely to be difficult to contain as they will be feeding the following troops right in. They will be also very quick in replacing their losses as every time company is stopped there will be others following in the same formation. Russian formations are attack machines which are designed to advance until they are destroyed or they reach their mission objectives. And when they reach the objective they already have the next machine to take the battle in their hands while the first one is replenished. If you are about to loose youre footing and enemy notices it you can be sure you are going to be in even deeper in it within 12-24 hours. It might be crude in low level but it is effective and that is what matters in big picture.

I believe because it is more useful when advancing. Remember that the T-72 engine exhaust smoke system that you can use too. That works when you are in firing position and you want to get out.

Lieste is correct, but it really isn't the muzzle velocity (the speed the round leaves the muzzle), because that is independent on the movement of launching craft and will not change. When the projectile is shot it's initial speed will be muzzle velocity + speed of the vehicle. If you shoot from vehicle moving 10m/s that will be added to the muzzle velocity(=v0) of the round. If the v0 is 1500 and the shot is fired directly ahead the speed of the round will be 1510m/s, also when fired directly to rear it will be 1490m/s. Ok that is clear, but if you shoot it directly to the side the projectile will move at the speed of 1500m/s forward and 10m/s sideways (to the direction the tank was travelling). So, in this case, if the time of flight to target is one second the shell has time to travel 10m to it's side in that time. That was explained with several shortcuts and simplfications and is in all possible ways a stupid explanation. But if you want to look further in that it is all about speed vectors. Here is something about it: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/vectors.htm

No, not really, at least I do not think so. If the tank gets hit it is likely you're dead anyway, so it doesn't matter. If the tank survives it is close to cover (if you really haven't fucked up), so into cover and out of the battle. Another try, another day. Also, if it is a knife fight like the fights are up here it is quite possible to use the gunners front looking prism and the PKT tracers as spotters. This prism is a really nice feature by the way, especially in the woods. (This is a feature I believe a Leo 2 lacks.) (Remember I just write my opinions from my own limited prespective and surroundings.)

My pleasure. I have some old pictures too, but I don't know if I should post them here? If it is ok and people want to see them it'd be no problem for me.

That is why one should pay special attention in finding firing positions. First of all the firing position needs to be such that only a short reversing puts the tank in cover. In addition, if not attacking, the escape routes from positions must be such that reversing is not needed. I think there are exactly two things that were a real problem with T-72M1: reverse gear and night capability. Nightvision is so bad that there was actually a discussion about using the tanks with white light instead of the IR-beam. White light would at least ruin the IIT's or render them useless for the opposition. Blinding xenon beams with starshells would have been quite possible way to fight. Other than that I think the tank is great. Especially for Finnish army it was a very good choice. We have very few open areas so shooting distances are short. Most often anything from 20 to 500 meters. Maybe in some places kilometer-two or so. So the lead computing becomes less important. Also amoun of armor isn't that big of deal when lot of the shots are flanking shots and almost all are shot from within very short distances. Small size plays in favour of the T-72 as well as it needs a lot smaller depression to be hidden from view. Thus I would appreciate the small size over the armor because often the first to shoot kills. Tank is very mobile and the track is very good. In my time we didn't de-track a single vehicle (Leo2 is not so good). Tank works well in snow and has a good auxiliary heater that allows it to be started and operated in extremely low temps. Tanks were also quite reliable. Of course they would break down from time to time, but mostly it was something the company could fix themselves. Maintenance side wasn't that much fun (as I heard), as it was Soviet ergonomics all the way. Sometimes changing a single component would involve removing several other components from the tank. And it is not modular by any means: engine comes of in 30 minutes only with help of explosives. But what can I say, I love it. I wouldn't have hesitated to go into a battle in one. As said, she has her small flaws, but isn't true love looking past the flaws and doing well with what you have.

I don't think the 3.5km range is a problem with T-72. IIRC we shot moving live fire target (and hit it too) from 2,5km when I was in the FDF. I also recall us shooting and hitting a Hughes MD-500 chopper from similar range with Saab training systems laser simulator. Things do get difficult in dark and when moving which, I think, makes such a shot pretty much impossible. For longer range shots we were trained to do it WW2 style and slow down or even stop for shots. Also IIRC the night sights were only good for about kilometer (give or take few hundred meters either way ).

I will keep you in the loop...

I get the following error: Error during update of CmStick 1-1057xxx The specific Product Item Option is not defined, Error 24. I update the firmware and use the 64bit CM software 4.30d. Game does not recognise the stick after upgrading to 2.6. Please help! Ps. both 11050 and 11051 are visible under 100146 | eSim Games in web admin Pps. I think I might have pressed activate all licenses in webadmin. 2.6 add 1 user shows as activated, I can dl a file or send a receipt. If I download the file it gives the error mentioned above when trying to instal on the stick. Ppps. I screwed it up, didn't I?