dejawolf
-
Posts
5,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Posts posted by dejawolf
-
-
4 hours ago, MikeKiloPapa said:
I dont understand.?...the thickness of the turret shell including backing armor plates have been well known for a long time, and even if the steel quality used in the SB armor model was wrong , the difference between HHS and RHA would only result in a marginal reduction in protection level.
on the contrary, difference between THS and RHA is quite large.
0 -
similar things will happend for the 2A5. Paul L had used a non-structural high hardness steel for the structural portions of the turret, and impossible to manufacture thicknesses of these parts. with this being corrected, we arrive at a more sober estimate for the walls of the turret. i say estimate, because we still don't know for sure how effective the main portion of the armour array actually is, and neither should we or you, until the time the vehicle is phased out of service.
1 -
10 hours ago, Hedgehog said:
Turret
well, the previous estimate for the challenger 2 turret was basically done by taking our estimate of the abrams armour closest to the challenger 2, estimating the thickness of the challenger 2 front turret, and the result was our previous estimate. all of it publicly sourced.
if we used a bunch of top secret military material for our work, there's not a lot of military customers who would allow pro PE to be released.
2 -
Just now, Raven434th said:
hmmm...as an intermediate solution...that might not be a bad idea if it will only take a week or so, ....until a better build is completed of course
it's what was done for the T-62 and T-55 basically.
0 -
On 3/2/2023 at 8:58 PM, DK-DDAM said:
no... you dont
well, i could half-ass it, just add in the panels and call it a day. that'd probably take 2 weeks or less.
1 -
2 hours ago, Splash said:
Ok, color me naïve, but is that legit or just your version of Oleg Maddox's "two weeks, be sure"? 🤔
alright, let me rephrase then: Just need 6 months of not working on all sorts of other shit, and it'll be done.
T-72 interior was 600 hours by the by. in that same time period i can make 3-4 exterior models.
3 -
On 3/1/2023 at 9:20 AM, Willykurtz said:
just need around 6 months, and it'll be done
1 -
8 minutes ago, Ssnake said:
So, I would consider that explanation as rather unlikely. That doesn't mean that I can offer a better explanation. Maybe the diagram from the Wiki page is inaccurate. I must confess, the jump from 281mm to 1027mm at the edge of the add-on armor appears rather dramatic, so maybe something was changed (these diagrams don't get dynamically updated with each Steel Beasts release). In short, we would need to investigate before giving a more definitive answer.
well probably. it could be that it was later discovered that the ROMOR-A tiles did not protect against KE as well as assumed, and that it was changed later.
0 -
48 minutes ago, ole1291 said:
Any link to his work? what's his family name?
Paul Lakowski. going over his numbers i have found a few mistakes in his estimates.
as an example, he assumed triple hardness steel for the outer welded structural walls of the turret, when in fact this material can only be used in a sandwich or as addon armour.
he also assumed too much thickness for the outer wall, even though it was not possible to properly roll-harden steel thicker than ~45mm.
However, many of these estimates are based off numbers mentioned during the CFE talks in the 1990s.
In other words, they are official numbers given to the russians as an olive branch, and should be fairly accurate, at least for the abrams tanks(up to M1A1HA)
so even though his assumptions for materials is off, the result is close to the real numbers.
0 -
yeah. the values in SB are based off information from Paul L.
apparently there was an upgrade to the armour done to the 2A4 at some point in the late 80s or early 90s, since there was a claim it had 700mm vs KE, and 1000mm vs HEAT.
we went with the more conservative estimate of 600mm over the front 60 degree arc, which makes the chins 700mm from front LOS vs KE. this was over 15 years ago.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Ssnake said:
I got to say, the only customers with deep inquiries about our damage model are PE users. Not once has an army customer, in all these years, raised the topic (be it that they inquired about the model itself, or the wording to characterize the damage). It seems to me that these finer distinctions about how much a unit is out of action is not very relevant for the intended purpose of SB Pro as a tool for training and education. It may raise points of discussion similar to this in AARs, and that's then where some of the learning about the finer points of "kill" definition may come into play.
Steel Beasts is no tool to predict battle outcomes in great detail, and we do not aspire it to become one. We try to become better in all that we do because we take pride in our work. But inventing an electronic crystal ball to divine the future is explicitly excluded from our list of development goals because it's a completely elusive goal. You know the decisive factors of a real battle only after a real battle was fought, and analyzed. You can identify many contributing factors in advance, but at the end of the day there's always the chance that some seemingly irrelevant detail turned out to be pivotal, and be it just the infamous "human factor" (morale, battlefield psychology), or a random mechanical fault that makes a tank lose track at a most inopportune moment. Ancient people knew that "the gods" or "fate" had a big swing in all they did, especially in battle. It's a folly of modern times that some believe that everything is predictable. Some things are, others might be one day, but there's always that little extra surprise that you identify only afterwards.
i agree. Steel beasts is not a tool to predict battle outcomes in great detail. and even if we work on it for another 20 years, it still won't be a magic eight ball.
i think changing the wording will reflect this more accurately.
i would say the PE customers are important too. while PE doesn't bring in the big bucks, it does give Steel beasts valuable PR, since many PE players are army veterans, Ex-tankers, and sometimes even
active duty tankers in militaries who are not customers of Steel beasts pro. and if we treat them respectfully, they might put in a good word or two, and bring in a completely new army contract.
0 -
22 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:
Used by most armies at unit level sent to repair units.
Operational condition of an vehi indicating it can perform at least one and potentially all of its designated missions. Mission-capable is further defined as the sum of full mission-capable and partial mission-capable. Also called MC.
MC-1 fully MC
MC-2 user repairable
MC-3 1st line repairs
MC-4 Repair depo required
MC-5 NON repairable (KIA)
right. SB basically takes 3 of these, and merge it into the single word "killed".
so changing "killed" to "mission incapable" would signal that this doesn't mean MC-5 (KIA) but that it is merely unable to perform it's intended tasks.
0 -
seems like there's a lot of fuss caused by some misunderstandings by perhaps some poor wording in steel beasts.
perhaps the word "killed" should be changed to "incapacitated" or "out of action" to reflect the state of the vehicle more accurately.
especially since it's a "catch-all" for multiple simulated states, from "everyone inside are dead but vehicle can be repaired" to "vehicle is dead and on fire"
0 -
well thanks, took me a month to make those things.
2 -
12 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:
Honestly I was thinking the coding time for a click-race for the interior for a loader could be skipped to save time for other things but if the community really wants it...
*Shrug*I was mostly interested in the loaders other jobs, rather than the loading.
In fact I wish on the new 90mm gun-tank-wheel-car-thing I could have that click procedure automated for me when I'm trying to TC that thing!
simply trying to accentuate just how shit that gun-tank-wheel-car-thing is by forcing the TC to load
0 -
3 hours ago, Rad said:
Will there be T-72 series tanks with thermal telescopes in the new version of the simulator? Without thermal telescopes, the Red Army is blind!
Technically the T-90A is a T-72 with a thermal as well.
2 -
T72
in Ground Zero
3 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:The Leopard 2 is badly in need of some similar upgrade programs. I would REALLY like to see the hull ammo storage thing being addressed sooner rather than later. Reconfigure with an internal bunker including blow-our panels for hull storage (if possible), or switch to something like the Challenger 2 system that will douse the rounds in water if hit, or change to individual armor plated tubes to try protecting the rounds from penetrations like some of the Merkavas do, really do something or pretty much anything to reduce the vulnerability. Whatever is lost in terms of total capacity can be addressed, if necessary, by adding an external stowage canister in the bustle rack to hold the left over rounds. Unlike the T-Tank designs where the ammo is pretty much always going to be strapped to the crew, I think the Leopard has enough room to come up with a little bit better solution.
yeah, leo has plenty of unused space.
i'd just redesign the bustle area to be more similar to the abrams, move radios and stuff in rear of turret in front of loader and under gun, and move entire ammo rack
into rear bustle, and whatever cannot fit there, move it into a separate compartment inside stowage area in rear turret.
then swap out hull ammunition bunker for a large fuel tank/stowage area.
0 -
T72
in Ground Zero
9 hours ago, Kev2go said:Only the soft packs on the sides are latest relikt, otherwise what you see on the front Hull and Turret is still Kontact 5.Relikt has a distinct look ( see T80BVM or T90M). Without ERA the main armor as you know is going to be same protection as T72B mod 85 or 89.
Also how many T72's ( or tank series any in Russian tank fleet) have independent CITV for commander? How many have battlefield management system? I Think only T90M and T14 Armata. have those.
BMS is not neccesarily standard on all western tanks either.
sure, but main armour on T-72B is not bad. 520mm or so, including hull. and K5 reduces penetration power of incoming rounds by around 30%. which means only the M829A2 or M828A3 can reliably penetrate it. not to mention interior space and overall profile is smaller, so it's harder to hit the "softer parts" especially at long ranges due to gun dispersion. at shorter range, side protection is actually superior to western tanks such as leo and abrams, although post-penetration survivability is... poorer.
0 -
T72
in Ground Zero
Just now, Captain_Colossus said:there are also images of the B3 - with thermals and the latest ERA - destroyed in what we are seeing in current events.
this is what i'm getting at. and this mainly from the russian side. from what i can see virtually all of the media that you are seeing shows russian losses and almost seems to be going out of the way not to show what the ukranians are losing- which are also using similar equipment
yes. by javelins. which the Leo chally and abrams also are vulnerable to.
0 -
T72
in Ground Zero
5 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:fair enough. it is outclassed by the m1 and leopard 2 or challenger where the t-72 is still operating in the same envelope- that is, with upgrade packages and so on; i do not think think the t-72 is sufficient even with modern upgrades, all other things being equal
B3 has a thermal, and the latest ERA.
0 -
T72
in Ground Zero
2 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:3) the t-72 is still fun to play in steel beasts, because it is generally outclassed by any tank of the same generation and so therefore it imparts a specific challenge. some players may not like it, i personally like it
the T-72 is not outclassed by any tank of the same generation. it is quite deadly against the leopard AS1, and M60A1, and in many aspects outperform those vehicles.
0 -
On 3/8/2022 at 2:20 PM, Lumituisku said:
If i have understood correctly. Turret popping is actually hellishly violent and fast explosion with tremendous shock effect. What little i have seen of ammunition exploded tank hulls. I highly doubt it to be survivable even if you were in somewhat protected capsule. The hulls of tanks have so badly deformed... That when that happens instantly... I don't think it is survivable. On world war 2... Big enough artillery shell landing on bunker roof without penetration.. was still able to cause men's ears bleed... If not more. And when we're talking of ammunition explosion... Behind you... Behind a resonating armor capsule person would be inside...
still, the ammunition bunker on the abrams has been hit, and the crew has survived. effect in SB however is underwhelming. in real life you will have a fire geyser shooting out of the ammunition hatches, and you need to traverse turret over to the side in order to avoid engine from catching fire from the hot glowing sparks falling down
0 -
T72
in Ground Zero
On 3/5/2022 at 7:24 PM, Captain_Colossus said:i could not tell you how many t-72s have been destroyed in all conflicts it has even been involved with, but we do know more or less that is is not a few. this site claims that 245 armenian t-72s were lost in 2020. are you going to tell me that nike-ajax expertly employs the t-72 in multi-player, therefore that settles it-
https://theprinciplesofwar.com/uav/lessons-for-uav-employment-in-nagorno-karabakh-region/
again, before someone comes along and repeats yet again an anecdote about steel beasts or misconstrues the point i'm making- to re-iterate- i'm not saying the t-72 cannot be a deadly weapon. of course it is. what i am saying is that it has shown to be rather vulnerable and prone to losses in real conflicts; now for some countries the t-72 is the best they can do given the constraints they are operating under. but it bears repeating, in a way you get what you pay for, and the real world results tend to show.
i could probably tell you, and also why they were destroyed.
in desert storm, it was the thermal imager of the abrams, and poor maintenance by iraqi army. most of the systems in their tanks were barely functional, and they had spent most of their best ammunition fighting the iranian army, which was outdated export rounds design (BM-12, BM-15) unable to penetrate even the front armour of the T-72M1. in 1991, russian army had far better BM-32 and BM-42 in their arsenal, with double the penetration power.
during 73 easting, if i record correctly, the iraqis dug their tanks down into battle positions, so their tanks were completely stationary. a sandstorm blew up however, which obscured the american advance. while the iraqi tanks were completely blinded by the sandstorm, the americans were able to see around 500-1000m ahead with their thermals. the result was a complete destruction of the iraqi ambush.
the difference in training between US and iraqi army also has to be emphasized. Iraqi army barely received any training, much less live fire training. meanwhile the US army had training simulators, and frequent live fire training exercises, along with joint training exercises with NATO.
as a comparison, sweden did a trial years ago with centurions and strv 122, where they put a completely fresh crew into the strv 122 and centurion crew with years of experience. the result was predictable.
strv 122 crew was completely outclassed by the much more experienced centurion crews.
1 -
T72
in Ground Zero
i would say the T-72 is an excellent balance between weight and armour.
there's no western tank which is able to pack that much armour into so little weight.
with only 41.5 tons, the T-72M1 entire front turret and hull has a uniform(almost) 420mm, and sides are 80mm+.
this with a simple cast turret with a bit of sand thrown into it is an absolutely brilliant feat of armour engineering.
for comparison, a western design of equal weigh, (leopard 1) disregards almost completely all armour.
and any design with equal protection in the west, is usually 15-18 tonnes heavier, or more.
there has been multiple improvements and upgrades done to the T-72 to maintain it's competitiveness.
the czech T-72M4CZ has an improved drivetrain with decent reverse gear, modernized FCS, and improved armour.
the russian T-72B3 similarly has improved armour, and modernized FCS.
both of these vehicles are quite capable in this configuration.
as for the ammunition storage... there was some proposed export variants which stored extra ammunition in a bustle bin instead of in the hull.
1
SB Pro PE 4.377
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by dejawolf
600-650mm in a 60 degree arc for the 1991 HA is not unrealistic at all, but is on par with the last batches of the 2A4.
current 2a4 level is also similar to M1A1 (non-HA) and IpM1 in SB, and higher than original M1.
i would also like to remind you that 2289 M1A1's were upgraded to the HA standard, while less than 90 leopard 2A4 received the last batch upgrade. most 2a4's sold by germany to other countries were actually of the older armour standard, and we saw the result of this in turkey.
as such, since the model in-game does not represent last batches of 2a4, and there's such a small number of last batch 2a4s made, its more representative to use the older armour in-game.
besides, there's plenty of mid 1990s leo 2a5 and A6 versions to choose from.