MikeKiloPapa

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.

It is exactly the nature of those sources that my question pertains to. I sincerely hope you havent based your revisions on stuff like the "leaked " swedish armor test report (obviously fake) or the british report on Leo 2 which is likely real but based on a very subjective analysis of german test data ?.....There has to be something more tangible behind the decision to reduce the Leo 2s armor I'll also note that the M1A1 and especially the HA version maintains the , apparently, unrealistic levels of protection (for HA even higher than the last A4 batch) , despite there being absolutely no (open source) material to corroborate that it actually HAS that much armor. AFAIK there were at least 3 different armor packages/ upgrades to the A4 model, with the first 6 batches having B-tech arrays , the 7th featuring C-tech armor (100 tanks)and then the final batch of 75 with the D-tech modules perhaps also fitted to (some)A5s . Though ofc it doesnt really change the main picture , it could perhaps be an argument in favor of creating a "heavy armor" A4 version in SB . Did it ?....how do you know?....There is no reliable open source information regarding the protection level of the D-tech or later armor packages. Well that is hardly fair, as not all A5s and certainly A6s retain the armor arrays from the last batch A4s. Well that cant be correct as both A5DK, STRV122 , Leopardo 2E and A6HEL all received improved armor modules. And ofc there are the rumors of some german A5s actually retaining C-tech arrays in their hulls, which at least SEEMS plausible.

Wrt the revision of the armor protection of Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A4 in this update , what sources where used ? ....im assuming Esim didnt just use the various documents and drawings found online ? ( most of which are probably of very dubious credibility) .....Also do the armor downgrade also affect the later versions of the Leopard 2 (A5, A6 etc )?...the release notes werent completely clear on that ...at least to me.

Thank you for the quick response👍🙂. I ran the CmDust as advised and will attach the log file when i send the email to sales@esimgames.com.

DISASTER !😱!....my codemeter stick decided to quit on me after more than a decade of hard use. My question is, do i now have to buy a complete new $115 license to get a new stick or is it possible to get a replacement dongle? . The old one ofc had a 4.1 license on it upgraded to 4.265.

Fully admitting that this is borderline necro-posting and nitpicking , i would like to point out the obvious fact that those arent in fact Piranha IIIs but Strykers😁....which means crappier (and less powerful) engines, crappier transmissions and crappier tires. Even in their up-armored 22t INTOPS version , our Piranha IIICs never looked that overweight and under-powered.

Yes i do......my reply was in response to this post :

Not trying to belittle the British achievement, but hitting a stationary target from a stationary tank at that distance isn't THAT big of a feat with modern fire control systems. We used to have an annual long range tank shoot, as part of the qualification for new gunners., where they had to hit one target at 4300m with HEAT (DM12A1) and another at 4700m with sabot(DM53A1) ........back then the FCS was still limited to 4000m so they had to manually input range and then use the Emergency Fire "button" to actually fire the gun, despite this most crews seemed to have little issue reliably achieving first round hits . The FCS was later upgraded to allow fire solutions out to 5000 meters making those "long range" engagements a simple lase and shoot process, and with the coming LEO 2A7DK, with its more accurate gun and vastly superior optics, it will present even less of a challenge.

Yes of course i do🙄......the "t" only gets the TC of your back when you are in the gunners seat.....and only for a few seconds at that.........What i am talking about is that when in contact with the enemy , the AI never completely lets go of the player controlled vehicle, even ignoring or resisting player issued commands.......one can literally see the opposed programming "fighting" each other in the vehicle behavior. I surely can not be the only one to have noticed this ? Its been that way for long but its been getting gradually worse as the AI has become more advanced in later SB versions.

The option of disabling or at least temporarily overriding the AI (all of it) in player controlled vehicles. The AI often seems to suffer from severe target fixation, stubbornly ignores all commands and will essentially reduce the player to a passenger/observer in the supposedly "player controlled" vehicle........i have lost countless vehicles because the computer would refuse to let me move the unit or it would ignore new target commands....for instance a higher priority target popping up.

Yikes!😬.....Suddenly NATO's vehicle line up seems a little dated...if not outdated. Dare one hope for a modern western AFV also ? 😉.....Anyway the new Russian vehicles look absolutely awesome,....i anticipate much fun (and frustration 😁) playing with them in the near future.

Well they dont call it the Daily Fail for nothing😁

A very satisfactory answer and much appreciated....thank you . 🙂 .....Also thanks for the new vid.....looks awesome🤘

First thank you....its a great video🙂.......the air defence part especially look awesome.👍......though i'll admit to being a little disappointed ......my first reaction was , great!....now 3P is a true one-shot wunder waffen.......and KETF is still useless😠.....particularly in unprogrammed mode. But i dont want to be a party-pooper and i know the video clip might not show the full potential or effectiveness of the round, so i will withhold judgement until i get my hands on the new edition myself......cant wait😁.......and in fairness at least we can actually shoot down helicopters with the CV9035 now, which is a huge improvement.

Does the new HE/ fragmentation model include FAPDS /PELE behind armor effects ?

No...they are very much muzzleloaders, as can be seen in this video : Also if you look at the PDF on Mjölner on BAEs website, it clearly states that they are muzzle loaded. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/mjolner

No only 2.....the 2 tubes on top is used to manually reload the lower pair, which is the actual (muzzleloaded)mortar barrels. The Mjölner looks kind of cool and futuristic, but it really is a quite primitive system. Completely manual loading process with one loader per barrel, a manually traversed turret, limited to a firing arc of only 60 degrees in azimuth. And as far as i can tell no integrated fire control system like most other modern vehicle based mortar systems has. (could be wrong about that though) On the other hand its probably going to be reliable, cheap and easy to maintain. Plus it has a very respectable ammunition stowage capacity of 104 rounds. Still ... a little bit too much of a low-budget solution IMO.

Or turrets ....from this years "tank biathlon" : Result of moronic tank jumping :

Que??...i sure hope you are not referring to the beautiful CV90s?..😉

I wouldnt exactly call 3 rounds in 30 seconds "burst" fire....its about half the ROF of real SPHs like K9 and PZH 2000. And unlike the latter, due to its slow ROF, the CAESAR doesnt actually have true MRSI capability. Good to know.....the painfully slow deployment of the spade was something i noticed too when watching the promo video. Its a process that shouldn't take more than 5-10 seconds max . Actually they have.....the Demo version of CAESAR 8x8 shown at Eurosatory last year , featured an automatic ammunition magazine and a loader arm that would pick up the shell directly from the magazine. For some inexplicable reason (most likely cost) we (DK) have chosen NOT to get CAESAR with that auto magazine. IDK....i tend to think that the exposed crew issue is somewhat overblown ....mostly because the chance of our SPHs ever being subjected to counter battery fire is very close to nil.....and also because the other tracked SPHs like PZH and K9 isnt actually THAT much better armored......their armor offer little more than splinter protection anyway. Wrt to enemy UAVs or helos , the entire Danish ground forces is going to have to learn how to deal with that threat anyway......a good start being the planned acquisition of GBAD systems and surveillance radars. While i too was hoping for a tracked SPH like K9, i must admit i kind of like the CAESAR......it has a very good gun, and is a proven system. Being a lot cheaper it would have made a lot of sense in twice the numbers......in other words, i would rather have 30 CAESARs than 15 K9s......but back to reality. We basically chose the cheapest SPH on the planet and still could only "afford" a measly 15 !...which tells me that we are lucky to get any new artillery at all......if only more expensive tracked options would have been available , there is a good chance that our entire artillery capability would have suffered the same fate as our submarine service(and the dodo).

Hmm....i have just had a dig through my old technical documentation on our Leo's ....in the manual "TDv 2350/069-10 DK ......Beschreibung, KPz Leopard 2 A5 DK" , KMW simply calls the applique armor "zusatzpanzerung turm /wanne ( as in add-on armor turret and hull) ...more specifically the front wedge is listed as "adaptive panzerung" and the side armor " schwenkbare panzerung. (because it swings open i guess)

Huh?.....where does that come from? ....In the decade or so i have frequented this site, i cant recall ever having come across anybody "hating" on the Abrams. Quite the contrary in fact, The M1 is often highlighted as the best modern tank design, and used as the gold standard against which all other tanks is measured.

Thats a bit rich, coming from someone whose country surrendered in a matter of hours in WW2 and which hasn't actually won a war since 1612 ! Militarily speaking , we might well be called the Italy of Scandinavia , except of course that would be an insult to the Italians. Whereas their reputation for lack of military prowess is of largely recent (as in 20th century ) origin , WE have been consistently useless and incompetent for centuries. A Dane mocking the French for military cowardice is the ultimate example of hypocrisy.

Well the Danish designation for T0W is M/87 suggesting a DOI of ca 1987 I seem to remember that our M113 TOW got their thermal capability before our Leopard 1s did with the A5 upgrade in 92-93. So around 1990 would be my guess...