Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

dejawolf

Members
  • Content count

    5,190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dejawolf

  1. To be fair, you shouldn't be able to traverse the turret when fully unbuttoned, even in the M1 series. when fully unbuttoned your arms are above the external periscopes, and the control stick is on the inside.
  2. well, maybe the newer gun is more balanced. but original 2A46 was horribly imbalanced. you could feel the imbalance when elevating/depressing the gun. it resisted a lot more when elevating than when depressing. breech end is also much shorter on russian tanks than on western tanks, to fit inside the small turret.
  3. if the stab motors are more powerful, it will help. otherwise, it won't help much since T-72 gun is imbalanced.(gun tip heavy)
  4. less parts means less parts that can break, which means less parts that needs to be kept in stock by maintenance personell, which means increased strategic reliability, because the parts are more likely to be kept in stock even if they break more often. less parts also means lower cost per part to manufacture, which means the army can buy more spare parts, which again means that the parts are more likely to be available when they break.
  5. could be it has less parts which usually = more reliability.
  6. 1: T-72M1: nothing like doing a massed soviet assault on an unsuspecting enemy position. mowing down infantry from behind a berm with the NSV-T, the sound of the autoloader, and the fact the damn TC has no control over what you load into the cannon. want me to load HEAT? НЕТ, ИДИ НА ХУЙ! 2: M2A2 bradley with TOW-2B. it's just fun popping arian uberpanzers and sepjuices with this thing, while all they can do is sit back and curse. 3:VBIED. there's just something about successfully mission killing a tank using a skoda favorit.
  7. that's not a damage model, that's visual modeling of damage. steel beasts isn't big on visually modeling damage, but we do have 64 different states of damage affecting the performance of the vehicle in all sorts of ways. for tanks anyways, there isn't much you can damage. in some cases in real life a dead tank might look like a live tank, save for a tiny 2cm hole somewhere in the armour.
  8. it's a dedicated-anti-infantry city fighting vehicle. heavy allround protection makes it immune to RPGs from front and well-protected from the sides, and twin 30mm autocannons loaded with HE in a fast-spinning turret, without the limitations of turret traverse a tank would suffer makes it effective fighting threats in the city. high elevation also means it can pick off targets on rooftops. vs IFV it obviously is superior in protection, as heavy MG fire and event the most primitive RPGs can easily take them out.
  9. yeah those pics are a security breach.
  10. angling the hull will increase LOS thickness, but you will be exposing your far weaker hull sides. as an example, side hull of the T-72M1 is 90mm in sb. (80mm RHA steel +25mm lead/kevlar liner) angling your hull just 12 degrees side hull from the front will be equal to front hull LOS or 432mm. angle it 15 degrees, and your side hull thickness drops to 347mm. meanwhile front hull thickness at 12 degrees increase from 430 to 439mm vs KE. quite negligible. not to mention you now provide a target 3.3m wide instead of 2.2m so exposing yourself and angling the hull is just a bad idea in general. it only really works in vehicles with fairly uniform armour thickness, like IFVs. and really old tanks. against other IFVs and old tanks with shitty ammo. for modern warfare, your best bet is to stay hull or turret down.
  11. War thunder has slightly more advanced post-penetration damage calculation, because they simulate actual spall fragments. as such it's less dice throwing than SB. steel beasts mostly simulate spall fragments by dice throws. however, war thunder does not take spall liners into consideration, which considerably reduces spall cones. steel beasts take this into consideration with less secondary damage dice throws. armour for leopard 2a5 in WT is way too low though. 600mm? what a joke. leopard 2A4 armour is in that range. then there's of course the hitpoint system in WT, where rounds reduce hitpoints by XX amount. it's also hard to say whether WT takes armour compartmentalization into account. thickness on modern armour is quite significant. other issues specifically with leopard 2A5 i can see, is that ammo rack in the back of the turret is not compartmentalized as it should be.
  12. ok. and what locaton is it at on the scale when the turret is at 12 o clock?
  13. well sure, but how does it work? is it somehow attached to the turret ring? or is it attached to the hull?
  14. i dunno if calling them pennywise is appropriate. the gun on the challenger 2 is a new one, with higher chamber pressure. challenger 1 has the L11A5, challenger 2 has the L30.
  15. T-62 and T-55 have the same level of armour.
  16. yes, it was a HESH round which killed a T-55...
  17. i prefer the older separating sabot petal logo.
  18. for the BRDM-2 AT, it's quite straightforward, but for the AT-11 on T-72B, there's some significant code hurdles.
  19. it depends on the criterias. if cost is not a factor the "best" will differ from when it is a factor. the real question would be what is the best tank for your country if your army has a country where most engagement distances don't exceed 1000-2000m, and a ton of forests having a tank with high magnification optics, L55 barrel and FLIR thermals might just be unneccesary added cost, and even hinder the tank. for example, the swedes went for the shorter L44 because the L55 was at an increased risk of strikes from trees in wooded areas. having a more expensive tank also means you have less tanks, and numbers can be an advantage if the terrain benefits lower-tech systems. you might also want to sacrifice frontal protection for allround protection. if however your country has lots of wide open flat plains, you'd want a tank with the best optics, long barrel, and as much front protection as possible.
  20. from what i know, the main reason for the short L/D of russian rounds, is because of the autoloader not being able to accomodate longer rounds. only with the T-90A were the russians able to use longer rounds because of a redesign of the autoloader.
  21. 3bm-42 is a sheated and segmented apfsds. 3BM32 is the monoblock DU penetrator.
  22. what you could do is take already existing rounds with known penetration, then ask: is the DM53 longer, denser, and flies faster than the known round? if all of the above is true, then it likely has a higher penetration than that known round. there used to be values on the KEW and KEW-A1 rounds out there, but it seems like this is no longer the case. in any case, here's some blurb on the KEW-A1 http://www.gd-ots.com/download/120mm KE-W A1 APFSDS-T.pdf from this diagram, you can make the assumption that each "block" is about 200mm penetration, since M829 has a penetration of around 600mm. so KEW-A1 would have 700mm + penetration at 0 meters, and in the sub-600s at 2km. http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm DM-53 is 745mm long, projectile weighs 8.35kg with sabots, muzzle velocity is 1750m/s fired from the L55 gun, and it's tungsten. KEW-A1; length ?? projectile weight 4 kg with sabots, muzzle velocity 1740m/s and it's tungsten. from this we can make the assumption: since the DM-53 is heavier, and has a higher muzzle velocity than the KEW-A1, it's penetration power should be higher than KEW-A1. 750-850mm range is a reasonable guess.
  23. we lost quite a few players from the transition from SB gold to SB pro PE. tank guns in PE are no longer laser accurate, and some gold players could not cope with no longer being able to first-round hit targets at 4km+.
  24. the DU package is not a rumour. the M1A1 HA was the first tank with DU armour, and it can be verified by the turret serial number. it has an extra "u" at the end, for uranium.
  25. Version 1.0.0

    28 downloads

    this is the template for the new T-72 model