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

About ChrisWerb

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 07/06/1965

Personal Information

  • Location
    Orkney, Scotland, UK.
  • Interests
    Military, aviation, history, scuba, kayaking.
  • Occupation
    Web designer.
  1. I think you'll enjoy this
  2. You're not supposed to win them, true, but you can, if by winning we mean stopping the enemy until no more appear in sight. At least with the M1A2. That could probably be stopped (by Esim Games) by putting the spawn point somewhere where it can't be hit by direct fire through the woods, although it's possible lavish use of DPICM on its own on and around the spawn point could create a similar log jam. It's possible to deduce where the spawn point is by reviewing the AAR in World view. I know you know all that Grenny - this is for the new guy. Welcome by the way!
  3. Dumb question, but other than the WW2 Grant CDL, did anyone ever deploy a strobe capability on a tank searchlight? I'm thinking that may have been harder to locate and shoot back at, especially if you had multiple vehicles using them for illumination.
  4. System Reliablity I was using the Spike missile in game the other day and realised that I had never had one miss. Those that his always invariably heavily damaged the tanks they hit (T-64 and later Soviet/Ukrainian/Russian). I don't (obviously) have any reliability figures for Spike, but that felt suspect to me and it got me thinking that it might be nice to be able to have a baseline reliability for all systems that was 100% and to be able to teak it lower. I realise that you can set up areas in map editor and have, for example, the engine or stabilization fail on a tank unexpectedly (to the trainee) if you drive into them into it, so there is an avenue for this to be trained for with SB, it would just be nice if there were pseudo-random failures (particularly with ATGMs, automatic weapon stoppages etc.) that would add an additional level of randmness to SB. I am talking about completely random failures - it would probably be too complicated to link them to specific events/actions. Apologies if this has been asked for before. Late edit: on subsequent thought, this is a morass of potential complexity and it could be partly addressed (given time) by some probability formulae that could be entered (unfortunately) vehicle by vehicle if you really wanted to - at least for vehicles rather than dismounted systems. If we could confine it to automatic weapon stoppages (more common) and breakages (less common) and ATGW (both ground or vehicle launched) going ballistic/haywire or dudding out (ditto hand held unguided AT), that would be great.
  5. Yes, it is (not that you'll see this )
  6. Sorry Gibson, I did bother to read it, but i was primarily addressing your point that everything I know apparently comes from wikipedia etc. and not yourself or direct empirical experience of service in the ADF, and is therefore at least suspect and quite possibly invalid. Since that includes most of my supposed knowledge, including the Laws of Newtonian physics, I am now wondering if I can make the walk from here to the bathroom without floating away and have my piss arc down into the toilet bowl as the interweb predicts; if not I will have some explaining to do to the missus when she gets back from her mother's. Oddly enough, my enjoyment of SB has been greatly enhanced by your brilliant training material from which I have learned a lot - I just wish you would lay off the personal attacks. It's not their effect on me (I had a father uncanily like you) but rather what others think - like the Egyptian chap you jumped on for using the word "invulnerable" - it's not even his first language after all. SB, as you know, is not just a military training suite (though I acknowledge the knowledge and funds you channel into that), it's also a game played by gamers. The Personal Edition certainly is. The SB forum is not, as far as I know, intended to be a closed-shop for serving and veteran armed forces personnel so please try to get used to the fact that some of us never had the chance to do this stuff for real.
  7. It wasn't a question - I was giving my opinion that something would be a good addition to the game that (as far as I know) does not currently feature therein (infantry weapon reload quantities specified for logistics vehicles). i do think that feature should be optional though as it would create an admin burden for those who did not want it (ditto 155 ammo on trucks).
  8. Carried for resupply on a logistics vehicle?
  9. Nice bit of ad hom as usual Gibson and, as usual, I won't go there. I do respect your experience, but it remains a fact that weapons originally designed for AT use get a lot of use for other roles. The US recently adopted the Carl Gustav M4 as the M3A1 primarily as a non AT weapon, for example. Most AT weapons are designed to be dual or multipurpose. Likewise there are relevant modern conflicts where armour gets little use or is confined to one side which would be interesting to try to emulate here. I love armour on armour scenarios too, but I don't see any point in restricting weapon capabilities in SB to less than they are actually employed for in RL.
  10. Would make for a pretty serious VBIED if we could explode non civilian vehicles. You make a really good point of course. It would be good if you could specify what ammo a truck was carrying - the same would go for infantry ammunition, mortar rounds, ATGW etc.
  11. Often the rocket operator doesn't shoot at all - the example I gave of part of an enemy vehicle poking out from behind a wall being a recurring example. It would also be really nice if when they did shoot, they could shoot from prone. Weapons that were designed as anti armour weapons most often are not used for that purpose in combat. They're just way too useful for a myriad of other purposes. Special versions and ammunition natures for non anti-armour purposes have proliferated. There are shoulder launchers in use that are either dual purpose or not primarily anti-armour - even the US Army, having passed up on the SMAW, is now going to general issue with the Carl Gustav M4 (as the M3E1). Sometimes you really want to put the rocket/projectile where you want it to go. It could be that you want to place it optimally to cover an area target, to hit a weak point on a structure, go through a window or even hit where no enemy actually are - just beyond the corner of a wall to take out enemies behind it. Through a wall. Into a building you suspect might contain enemies etc. At the moment you can do that manually with an HE rifle grenade, but can't do it with a more powerful and versatile Carl Gustaf, Pzf-3, RPG-7 etc. Yes it's micromanagement, but that micromanagement could be pivotal to the success of an engagement. If it is allowed for everything from tanks to MG-3s and rifle grenades, why not allow it for hand-held AT weapons?
  12. Yes, I meant like that Mark/Gibson, I did take your earlier comment to onboard about wanting specific outcomes. What happens is I try to make something happen with the capabilities I see are there (and that works probably nine times out of ten), then search on the BBS - your tutorials have often proven invaluable and are greatly appreciated. If neither approach works (as in this case), I ask. As to specific bits of kit etc. I try to ask for things that will provide the most play/training value. Mostly that's just adding a redundant +1 to someone else's request because a. It's almost all been asked for before, usually multiple times and b. I know Nils and the team will make sensible decisions about what to include for the maximum financial return and play/training value based on their infinitely greater understanding of their business model than mine. I never question the business model or whine about how long hinted at changes are taking to roll out.
  13. That looks really great Abraxas, but viewing is limited to registered Panzerbattalion 911 members.
  14. I'm not sure if this request should be made here or the support forum. I often have my infantry get into situations in urban terrain where they can only see part of an armoured vehicle - typically the nose of a BMP or the rear quarter of a T-72. When they acquire the target, the anti tank gunner gets up onto his knee to take the shot, then gets down again over and over. I am guessing this is because the centre of the vehicle has to be visible for the AI to let him take the shot. One workaround is to take a rifle grenade shot instead, which sometimes results in the vehicle moving and realigning slightly, but with the absence of HEAT or HEDP rifle grenades, it does nothing else but alert the vehicle to the gunner's presence and it would still be a suboptimal solution compared to the Pzf-3 or similar. Would it be possible to code so you could override normal visibility rules and have the gunner shoot the centre of what he could see of the enemy vehicle? Alternatively, could AT weapons please be given a "shoot here" capability like the rifle grenade. This would also be useful in a lot of other circumstances (and yes, it's been discussed here before a few times now). Another request would be for a veriety of death and prone poses so it is not instantly possible to tell if an enemy is dead simply by his pose from a very great distance.
  15. I am very interested in current Finnish and German armies - particularly how various types of battalion are organised and the scale of issue of weapons - including ATGW. Can someone please point me in the direction of this info?