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.

Rotareneg

SB Pro PE 4.0 - Discussion thread

2,691 posts in this topic
8 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

Is it possible that we have the T72A without the plate?  That was an add on wasnt it?

 

After all, right now the T-72A/M1 seems to be a composite tank representing several very similar but slightly different vehicles, and I think the T72 vs L7 is one of the very few times in Pro PE where we have both a vehicle and a gun that:

1. Actually fought against each other

and

2. Were developed over time to defeat each other, with developments and results that we know very well from open sources.

 

but the model we have in steel beasts would very much be a T72A with 16mm hss plate. by the time T72M1 went into production in 1984 it would have and did incorprate the 16mm thicker armor, as well as smoke dischargers which was only around in later T72A production batches starting in the 80s.

 

They changes the name in 4.0 from T7M1 to T72A/M1 becase the respective models represented here would have near identical features. In any case id think this warrants a rexamination and fix of performance.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v4kPybS.jpg

 

Maybe the tank was already knocked out with other hit (in other place) check that the AAR "Destroyed" in the pic is in grey. The "Destroyed" have to be in red to know the "real impact" that produce the kill/damage (if I'm not wrong...)

Edited by Vikingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Vikingo said:

v4kPybS.jpg

 

Maybe the tank was already knocked out with other hit (in other place) check that the AAR "Destroyed" in the pic is in grey. The "Destroyed" have to be in red to know the "real impact" that produce the kill/damage (if I'm not wrong...)

Oh, you are correct.

 

Black indicates a pre-existing condition of the vehicle, red indicates new damage/destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Oh, you are correct.

 

Black indicates a pre-existing condition of the vehicle, red indicates new damage/destruction.

 

Confirmed! ^_^ No problem, I accustomed to see my T-72 in that status more often than desired :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Oh, you are correct.

 

Black indicates a pre-existing condition of the vehicle, red indicates new damage/destruction.

 

doh,

 

anywho doing some further testing i was unable to destroy a T72A/M1  Hull going all the way up to 400m until i hit the drivers port, above ufp ( well just under it) so T72M1/A hull is very resiliant to it in SB. 

 

However i did kill the T72M at 875m range (according to  m60a3 LRF) with the M735. Still could be considered closw as far as tank combat is concerend, however as thats still arguably out of its effective range. the T72M did have the same hull as the initial t72A (  without the 16mm extra hss plate) so it shouldn't be able to punch through its hull unless at 500-600m., at least as far as claimed tests indicated. 

 

KEvJgjB.jpg

 

2A7sXx3.jpg

 

as for turrets ive noticed I can penetrate the T72 turret with the M735 at around 2000m, though I didnt take screens because i was focused on the hull, next chance i get.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for Ssnake, if he reads this: In the 4.0 Release Notes, regarding the SpPz Luchs 2A2, there's a cryptic note, to me at least - "Added two dismounts (which is technically one too many, but the rear driver/radio operator isn't implemented as a crew station, and it's supposed to reflect doctrinal use, so...)".  What does this mean?  I'm a fan of the Luchs (it's my favourite addition to 4.0) but I didn't realise it had one dismount, let alone two.  Everything I've read indicates a crew of four, including the radio operator / rear driver, so I'm guessing it had carrying capacity for one scout and the radio operator / rear driver was doctrinally supposed to dismount to accompany the scout for a total of two.  Is my assumption correct?  And, if it is, did the Luchs ever carry an RPG, like the PzF 44 or, later, PzF 3 for the scouts to use?

 

Thanks      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the doctrinal use of the Luchs was to drive them to a spot where you could hide them (well, two - they always operated in pairs), and then to set up a dismounted observation post. (Despite the 20mm gun, as a Luchs you have almost failed your mission already if you find yourself shooting.)

 

So, drive at night, hide for the day, observe, and report.

The whole two crews (=8 guys) would dismount, of course. One would stay on the radio, two to man the OP, up to three to set up security guards, two or three may rest. We can't simulate that in its entirety. But by dismounting four in total, two can set up a dismounted observation post, and the other two can set up some local security. Radio is automatically manned, and our robo crews don't need no stinkin' rest, so overall the doctrinal use of the Luchs can be adequately simulated by giving it two dismounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ssnake, appreciate the response and I have a much better understanding of the vehicle and crew capabilities and doctrine now.  Personally, I'll avoid using dismounts from the Luchs unless they're halted in a hide and the vehicle is basically inoperable other than a turret / radio watch, at least until the dismounts are mounted again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2016 at 1:20 AM, Ssnake said:

Well, the doctrinal use of the Luchs was to drive them to a spot where you could hide them (well, two - they always operated in pairs), and then to set up a dismounted observation post. (Despite the 20mm gun, as a Luchs you have almost failed your mission already if you find yourself shooting.)

 

So, drive at night, hide for the day, observe, and report.

The whole two crews (=8 guys) would dismount, of course. One would stay on the radio, two to man the OP, up to three to set up security guards, two or three may rest. We can't simulate that in its entirety. But by dismounting four in total, two can set up a dismounted observation post, and the other two can set up some local security. Radio is automatically manned, and our robo crews don't need no stinkin' rest, so overall the doctrinal use of the Luchs can be adequately simulated by giving it two dismounts.

 

Sounds like a pretty precarious existance!  All you need is a few unlucky Russians to stumble upon you, and you're days of sneak and peek could be over for good.

 

I think the real problem with vehicles like the Luchs in Pro PE is that you can't really utilize stealth in many of these games the same way you can in real life.  I have to imagine that a real Luchs crew could find some nice woods, tuck their two vehicles in place, deploy the camo nets, and be completely and totally hidden from the air and quite hard to spot from the ground.

 

Then you're talking about individual people hiding in dense brush, well camouflaged, etc.  They're very hard to spot in the middle of a war.

 

But it seems like in simulators like Pro PE it's rather difficult to get that same effect.  So they still make a good recon vehicle, but it's hard to really set up a concealed OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bond_Villian said:

Sounds like the option to 'deploy camo nets' at runtime needs to be on the wishlist!

 

Sure then spend the next 40min watching it go up and another 20 or so pulling it down.

 

Be careful what you wish for. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

1 hour ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

Sounds like a pretty precarious existance!  All you need is a few unlucky Russians to stumble upon you, and you're days of sneak and peek could be over for good.

 

I think the real problem with vehicles like the Luchs in Pro PE is that you can't really utilize stealth in many of these games the same way you can in real life.  I have to imagine that a real Luchs crew could find some nice woods, tuck their two vehicles in place, deploy the camo nets, and be completely and totally hidden from the air and quite hard to spot from the ground.

 

Then you're talking about individual people hiding in dense brush, well camouflaged, etc.  They're very hard to spot in the middle of a war.

 

But it seems like in simulators like Pro PE it's rather difficult to get that same effect.  So they still make a good recon vehicle, but it's hard to really set up a concealed OP.

 

I'm hoping for the better terrain and maybe changes to the AI-spotting routines to solve that in the future :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maj.Hans said:

But it seems like in simulators like Pro PE it's rather difficult to get that same effect.  So they still make a good recon vehicle, but it's hard to really set up a concealed OP.

 

Not really you just need to park the vehicle in the middle of the forest, or under a bridge or whatever and turn the engine off.

 

Then use the dismounts (Luchs, BRDM-2, M3, ASLAV-PC all have them) to do the sneak and peak at the forest edge.

 

Many players park on the edge of the tree line, keep the engine running and focus on the gunner's sight and are then surprised when the T-90 taps them on the shoulder from behind them. :)

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

For stealth to work there are a number of things that need to get addressed, all of which are either comparatively simple to do but cost frame rates (something that we do not want), or they would be a major design change (like the introduction of high resolution terrain, or the transition to DirectX11/12/whatever). Necessary and desirable, yes - but at a considerable price with respect to development effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now