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 Ssnake

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday

Personal Information

  • Location
    Hannover, Germany
  • Occupation
    Director, eSim Games
  1. I'm sorry, but that report is about useless. It doesn't break down the losses to different sources, or the attack direction, but just speaks in the broadest of terms. It is pseudo information that anyone could have googled within 30 minutes (not your fault, mind you; and journalists failing to do their jobs properly shouldn't come as a surprise either). WRT Maj. Hans, tanks can only be as good as their crews. 20 M1s were lost in Yemen, 10 Leo 2A4s were lost in Syria. That doesn't mean that either tank is useless. We've gone through the reasons for these losses in this thread already, to the extent that the propaganda videos of the Islamofascists provide a clue. What we can say is that the flight times are considerable, so the attackers seem to utilize their standoff range (3,500m for the AT-14). We also know the nominal penetration depth limit to be (per manufacturer claims) 1,200mm under ideal circumstances, so maybe a tad above 1,000mm in real life. Which means that the missile is very well suited for the job. Expecting a Leo 2A4 to perform better once that it gets hit by that missile is simply irrational. Expecting the Turkish Army to perform better is probably a more reasonable expectation. But they haven't had to deal with a well-equipped opponent in the past decades... just Kurds who, until recently, weren't equipped with decent anti-tank missiles (and even then they only got Milan missiles from Germany that are approaching the end of their shelf life). Syrian rebels on the other hand are being supported by a wide variety of potent countries in the region, particularly Iran for the Shiite/Alawite groups (with indirect Russian backing) while Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, and Kuweit support the Sunni jihadists. The west in the meantime is still seaching for "moderate rebels". Well, back to tactics and technology. Syria was well equipped by the Russians, and to the extent that the rebels managed to raid army weapon depots it shouldn't come as a surprise that they got their hands on first rate anti-tank equipment (if they didn't receive it from Russia via Iran). Debating the merits of ammo compartmentalization is, IMO, a point that has been settled since 1991. The Leo 2 is a legacy system that still has this weakness, always had it, and eventually it needs to get replaced. Until then crews need to rely on their skills, particularly on their mobility to avoid getting hit in the first place. Fitting active protection systems seems to be the next best option (though costly) as a stop-gap measure.
  2. Yeah... it's on our list.
  3. Yeah, it uses the entire desktop space. Maybe you can set up virtual desktops in Win 10 that use only one of the monitors?
  4. Theoretically, yes. I would rather design an entirely new vehicle concept than to attempt changes on such a massive scale. Rebuilding the Leo 2 fleet with those options as suggested will probably cost nearly as much as a new design, take several years to implement, and ultimately will still be less capable than something built from ground up.
  5. It is as much a matter of practicality and opportunity as it is one of motivation. A GoPro is much easier to handle than a wet film camera, even in the "Super 8" format (which took some time to get invented and to be commercially successful as well, BTW). Then it is also a matter of information policy, and its enforcement by unit commanders.
  6. I don't know what you mean with "poor performance". Ammo stowage in the crew compartment always was a liability, no matter which tank you're looking at, with the two exceptions "Armata" and "M1 Abrams" where this was implemented at the early conceptual phase; do you know of any other tank that does this? IF the attacker succeeds with an armor perforation in the area, a big kaboom is inevitable (and, BTW, has been predicted in Steel Beasts since version 1.0). So there's only a few things that can be done here: Uparmor the hull surrounding the ammo stowage, or reduce the amount of ammo stowed there, apply an active protection system, or, in the absence of all that, keep the tank on the move rather than putting it into static overwatch positions. The first stack of measures requires a modification of the hardware, the last one is an operational/tactical decision. Which is the least costly, and the quickest to implement.
  7. Technically, the mirror is there in the M1A1 ... it just can't apply lateral movement (yaw). This was added with the M1A2 upgrade.
  8. At least it was a quick death, I guess.
  9. Sometimes the video buffer in SB still has the originally loaded textures in memory. So, after changing the textures you either need to exit the mission editor, or proceed to testing it to see the changes in effect. At least in all but the latest SB versions. Can't rule out that this has been changed over the last months; memory is getting fuzzy, and I'm too lazy to look up the details.
  10. The log files are good - but crash dump files are better.
  11. Furthermore, in the Windows Start menu | eSim Games | SB Pro PE | Troubleshooting folder is a direct link to the place.
  12. All I can say, I press down my mouse wheel and get activated dynamic lead. There could be a multitude of reasons why your experience might be different. Button number assignment might follow a different pattern, it might be a mouse driver issue, and there's probably more reasons that just don't come to my mind right now.
  13. It may be hardcoded to button #3/mouse wheel (not forward/backward, but "click").
  14. You may use as many swearwords, and as often as you like, when playing Steel Beasts. This is the part where the "interactivity" comes into play.