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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 12Alfa

  1. Click the icon in the try and hit update, however it should update when you installed the latest version. Nils can add to this for a ,ore precise answer
  2. As per Russian site - Type 96B, which is also known as the ZTZ-96B, is a variant of the Type 96A main battle tank that began its service with the Chinese army in the 90s. The Type 96B, like many other land-based weapons systems or tanks, was developed by the national defence industry’s Norinco company. They of course, as stated in other forums, may have modified a T96-98 to compete, and try to win in the competition .
  3. Install as admin,make sure previous SB is removed, if needed re-dl the part 1.
  4. It will be provided on start, maps are now embedded I think, otherwise we shall provide to you, were flexible in that way. ;0 The link has the mission and map graphics, there is also a manning list for positions.
  5. Sunday Multiplayer event. Check the Multiplayer forum with Kanium, see you there.
  6. Is this a issue for AMD systems?
  7. Imperial vs metric azimuth, the old guard, and UK members have used deg, I think the standard now is Mils.
  8. In scenario's folder, there is a Downloads folder, look there.:)
  9. Agree, we do the same with the Carl G, and use the rounds aligned with the target, although we don't fire a A/T round when we have Heat for that use, I suppose if all you had was AT left, and had to fire to save lives, but this would be in extreme cases. Personalty. I never seen this in trg, or deployments, But it could have happened. Do you you use the TP RAP FFV 552 ?
  10. So now we have vids of troops firing AT wpns at non AFV's.. Not trying to cause shit here, how ever, Is this the best tactical use of said wpn system?, or I got his wpn and I can fire it, so I will? Like I stated I don't see any purpose in doing so. Can anyone explain why one would use a limited wpn system, on a non armoured trg when a AFV threat, could appear at any moment and leave the unit without that capability? Just how would the on the ground leader justify the it's use if it was needed,but unavailable when needed and lives were lost. Not pointing fingers here (just my personal education), just trying to understand the thought process, as one who has been in situations where this behavior was not tolerated/encouraged working with other nations other than my own, and I've worked/deployed with a few. Plz don't let this go pear shape.
  11. I too was scratching my head over that comment. Never told my troops to fire a anti armour weapons not used for that purpose in training, or my deployments either, just wondering where that came from?
  12. I'm comfortable with them, just pointing to the fact they are not manned as AFV's are. I have used them from sprite till now and enjoy there coming of age. ")
  13. I believe some of our Inf issues is due to not playing them enough. If we played them as we do AFV's with manning each then I think our results could/would be different. The fact is we don't. There are few missions that are based around Inf operations that we play them as individual players. I think we need to play them, as we play the AFV's to better understand their do's and can not do's. Until then it's just speculation I think. Each Inf , with a real player in control will lay this to rest.
  14. WE had a similar device to attach to our 76mm for a in-doors range, it could be a lazer to score hits on a sand table setup . Just a guess https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ww2incolor.com%2Fd%2F669048-2%2Ftank-submachine-gun-800&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ww2incolor.com%2Fus-armor%2Ftank-submachine-gun-800.html&docid=ay2szC9xR3Gu4M&tbnid=ExU-oPRDoDR4wM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiUw5Ot89zWAhXFpYMKHWQZC8A4yAEQMwgsKCowKg..i&w=500&h=284&hl=en&bih=1010&biw=1920&q=tank gunnery simulator&ved=0ahUKEwiUw5Ot89zWAhXFpYMKHWQZC8A4yAEQMwgsKCowKg&iact=mrc&uact=8 https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi08baT99zWAhVm4IMKHVJaAmkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mapleleafup.net%2Fforums%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D10694&psig=AOvVaw2_Eq9mGRpvBIQEpcUnBTvx&ust=1507411324133786
  15. International armoured soldiers compete in Worthington Cup https://globalnews.ca/news/2967048/international-armoured-soldiers-compete-in-worthington-cup-at-cfb-gagetown/ Danes take the top spot for tank gunnery again. Well done to all.
  16. Well I could have structured my queries better. And I failed to thank you, so I have some faults that need work.
  17. If one can't express a opinion, ask questions here like everyone else, then what has this site become? Is free speech only when it supports a certain narrative, or can we all ask and, receive answers in a civil manner ( as up to now was the case) with being called a troll, and old. This could be considered a personal attack by some, and therefore would not encourage people to openly discuss topics post here in the forum, is this what we want? Of course I may be wrong.
  18. Well if they are happy, and the crews are happy, then all is well. Your statement" been a success so far but time will only show results " is the root of my query. So we will have another discussion in a few years to see what has transpired on this matter. I think this is a time based issue that need more time/data . Glad to hear new equipment is reaching the troops:)
  19. Yes I know about sitting and not being used causing issues, that's true for most machines of this type, then add the outside issue and it can cause problems. I was thinking operational reliability, extra weight and all, thus my original query.
  20. My concern would be the restricted view, it looks like it obstructs the commanders view in the unbuttoned mode.I like to see the ground to my front when in hatches open peeking over the hatch ring.
  21. Sry, was looking from operational commander who have used it in RL, and not from published sources. Some of our USA players here, no offense.
  22. The only "fact" I'm not buying is reliability , this needs time to prove, I don't see this in testing, rather in years of operational use. Also, would like some comments by the users on how the CROWS placement hinders their tactical viewing, good,bad, no change?
  23. Yes, I read all of that, I'm still not buying it, maybe more sugar coating is required safely assume
  24. Has it really come to this, logic, whats next....math?