Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Kev2go]

11 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Just to update my list of prior requests...

 

M60A3 PASSIVE.  We already have the A3 simulated, and this would give us something that could be more easily slipped into earlier cold war scenarios.  This should be, essentially, the M60A3 TTS exactly as we have it now, but with a passive IR night sight as fitted to the M60A1 tanks with passive night sights.  It would make an excellent stand in for the M60A1 RISE/Passive.

 

(Before somebody tells me there was no M60A3 Passive, I did some digging and yes, it was a real thing.)

 

Duplicate this new M60A3 Passive with an ERA kit fitted (As was pointed out elsewhere, the army never used it but they did have some 200 kits in stock) and we would have an incredibly close stand in for the M60A1 RISE/Passive used in the Gulf war.

 

Add a night-vision (passive IR) view to the LeopardAS1's gunner sight so it can better stand in for Leopard1A3/A4s.

 

Milan launcher on the Marder1A3!  Sadly my dismounts tend to be stupid when it comes to lobbing missiles at tanks so I don't get roasted with a HEAT round, so I want to be able to do it myself!  If the best way to model this is as an "optional weapon" in the mission builder, so be it.

 

M113 with the TC position M47 Dragon mount and M113G with the TC position MILAN mount.  We've got much more viable infantry now and I think it would be good to have some examples of APCs with AT capability for scenarios where an M2/M3 or Marder is overkill.

 

Playable M1 TTB.  IMHO we only need sight and peri views modeled, and eSim should feel free to take broad liberties with modeling the way the FCS works if this will get it implemented as a playable vehicle.  We will probably never know how it really worked, so lets flip a coin and decide if it should work like an M1A1 or M1A2 and then just do it.

 

Yeah but why the m60a3 passive. Why not just m60a1 rise passive. The older m60a1 would be more proper and more interesting to have as it would still have a coincidence rangefinder and older mechanical type ballistic computer. With an m60a1 rise passive I that would be more ideal for older cold war scenarios than the m60a3. plus upto till early 90s as the usmc still used those into gulf war. Especially cool if we get a variant with era.

 

Imo m60a3 passive is just too similar to tts. It's the same tank but without thermals, like you said. Ideally I'd want both variants but I'd still rather choose the m60a1 rise/passive over a second m60a3

Edited September 8, 2016 by Kev2go

[Maj.Hans]

22 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

Yeah but why the m60a3 passive. Why not just m60a1 rise passive. The older m60a1 would be more proper and more interesting to have as it would still have a coincidence rangefinder and older mechanical type ballistic computer. With an m60a1 rise passive I that would be more ideal for older cold war scenarios than the m60a3. plus upto till early 90s as the usmc still used those into gulf war. Especially cool if we get a variant with era.

 

Imo m60a3 passive is just too similar to tts. It's the same tank but without thermals, like you said. Ideally I'd want both variants but I'd still rather choose the m60a1 rise/passive over a second m60a3

IIRC, totally different fire control on the A1.  Might be too much work for them to do.  The A3 Passive should be easier for them to implement.

[TSe419E]

With the caveat that my only experience with an 'A3 is virtual I think the 'A1's fire control is actually easier for the gunner.  The 'A1 gunner doesn't have to worry about ranging (that's the TC's job) or any of the associated problems of getting the proper lase.  He only has to index the ammo, put crosshairs on target and apply lead if needed, then fire when told to do so.  After observing the shot, or with the TC's assistance, adjust fire and fire again.  I find on the 'A3 that the gunner must index, crosshairs on target, lase and listen (a good indicator of a bad lase is if the motor that puts in superelevation runs for an extended amount of time) and possibly dump lead and re-lase, observe shot, adjust aim or dump lead, and maybe re-lase, then fire again.

 

I guess it really depends on what you were trained on.  I like the lase and blaze systems they have now but it really makes me wonder if the Army does much training for firing with the GAS.  We used it quite extensively on 'A1s.

[Maj.Hans]

I think with the A3 in game we're missing some cooperation between gunner an TC...

 

"Lasing!" - "Fire!"

 

"Lasing!" - "1600, Fire!"

 

"Lasing!" - "Bad range!  Re lase!"

 

Although the real tank didn't display range range for the gunner maybe in ProPE the GPS should show it somewhere anyway.

[Monkie]

I was just reading a book about the USMC's use of the M60A1 during desert storm and how all of the engagements were fought using the battle sight vs the stereoscopic rangefinder. The visibility and environment just didn't require much shooting past 1500m. It also mentioned that during the 73' conflict that the battle sights were by far more used than the stereoscopic.

 

Back to the original thread, I don't know if there is much more I would want to add to be truthful. I'm amazed that a sim has my two favorite weapon systems in it (M60 and the AH-1Q), and even has the ability to show US soldiers in the Pre-80's uniforms.

 

That being said here are my two items for the wishlist:  1) M60A1 (w and w/o the ERA)  2) crewable Chieftan.   

 

since both are somewhat modeled in the sim already I'm hoping they might have a chance. I do remember playing a simple program on the PC that simulated the Chieftans very unique sighting system, it might be tough to model but would show highlight how differen't parties approach the issue.

[TSe419E]

M60s, excepting the 'A2 and 3, used coincidence rangefinders.  Means you only used one eye to see through it.  

[Furia]

28 minutes ago, Monkie said:

I was just reading a book about the USMC's use of the M60A1 during desert storm and how all of the engagements were fought using the battle sight vs the stereoscopic rangefinder. The visibility and environment just didn't require much shooting past 1500m. It also mentioned that during the 73' conflict that the battle sights were by far more used than the stereoscopic..

What book is that one?

[Monkie]

Osprey's Duel Series "M60 vs T-62 Cold War Combatants 1956-1992"

[Furia]

Thanks!!

[Kev2go]

9 hours ago, TSe419E said:

With the caveat that my only experience with an 'A3 is virtual I think the 'A1's fire control is actually easier for the gunner.  The 'A1 gunner doesn't have to worry about ranging (that's the TC's job) or any of the associated problems of getting the proper lase.  He only has to index the ammo, put crosshairs on target and apply lead if needed, then fire when told to do so.  After observing the shot, or with the TC's assistance, adjust fire and fire again.  I find on the 'A3 that the gunner must index, crosshairs on target, lase and listen (a good indicator of a bad lase is if the motor that puts in superelevation runs for an extended amount of time) and possibly dump lead and re-lase, observe shot, adjust aim or dump lead, and maybe re-lase, then fire again.

 

I guess it really depends on what you were trained on.  I like the lase and blaze systems they have now but it really makes me wonder if the Army does much training for firing with the GAS.  We used it quite extensively on 'A1s.

 

I guess it depends on perspective. I'm no tanker but I see the improved systems a great aid in increasing efficiency and requiring less manual skill, and therefore less practice. Perhaps gunner has to do less. But he is more efficient at hitting stuff due to the aid of better technology?  I mean in comarison the coincidence range finder required more work. Ghosting image to get range took longer than the lazing process which is why I'm guessing it  was strictly in the TC position. With the a3 pretty much just requires gunner or tc to push 1 button  after sight is aimed and a second ( or less) later you have your range.

 

meanwhile you track a target the a3 compensates lead for you, which i would image would be easier and offer greater efficiency than using mere intuition to manually lead. Maybe my intuition isn't too good but I found it challenging trying to manually lead targets in the t55/t62 and t72m/m1. Even the T72B , which doesnt have true lead compensation;  the lead display during lasing was enough to noticeably increase my efficiency, in hitting moving targets.

 

My only real  qualmwith m60a3 is that there is no laser range display in the GPS like there is on the m1, and that's the display is strictly limited to the TC. 

 

I I mean dont get me wrong instill love to have this older type of tech in sb for the challenge , and to represent the truly older generation mbt.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Kev2go

[Ssnake]

The reason why we added the M60A3 and no other version simply was: Availability. The Vienna Museum of Military History supported us in a very generous way, we had master gunners who could give us briefings about the fire control system, there were user manuals, and we could have full access to two M60s for two days. Also a BMP-2. So, you all can thank Austria directly for both vehicles making it into Steel Beasts. We had a chance, and we seized it.

[TSe419E]

THANK YOU, AUSTRIA!!!

[Kev2go]

8 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The reason why we added the M60A3 and no other version simply was: Availability. The Vienna Museum of Military History supported us in a very generous way, we had master gunners who could give us briefings about the fire control system, there were user manuals, and we could have full access to two M60s for two days. Also a BMP-2. So, you all can thank Austria directly for both vehicles making it into Steel Beasts. We had a chance, and we seized it.

 

Hmm I see. Well very many thanks to the Vienna Museum for opening Thier doors.

 

Perhaps 1 day hope you get the opportunity to get invited to the bovington  tank museum in uk to get access to Thier (working) cheiftan

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Kev2go

[Ssnake]

The vehicles were actually stored on the premises of the combat school in Zwölfaxing where we routinely have a fair bit of work anyway. I mean, you probably noticed the influx of comparatively obscure Austrian armor vehicles over the last years (starting with the Ulan and LMV/ERCWS - 3.0), not the least the Pandur with 4.0, so there's the connection.

[Maj.Hans]

First, Ssnake, I want to thank you for taking the time to get another great Cold War vehicle into the game.

 

Second, I want to explain to everyone, including yourself Ssnake, that the reason why I made the request for the M60A3 Passive instead of an M60A1 RISE/Passive is that I felt while something like an M60A1 RISE/Passive would be quite difficult to implement, the A3 Passive might be much easier to implement with an A3 tank already in place.

 

From everything I can see it should be essentially identical to the A3 already in game, but using an older passive IR night sight instead of thermals.  All that needs to be done is simulate the A1 RISE/Passive night sights, and we can ask our master gunners with experience on that system how it should work.  No, it would not be a perfect representation of the USMC A1 RISE Passive, but in a similar manner to the way we ignore the more modern FCS on the LeopardAS1 with a laser instead of optical rangefinder when using it as an A3/A4, we could ignore the more modern FCS on the A3...

 

I also requested a passive IR night sight on the LeoAS1 for the same reason.

What I keep running into when making cold war scenarios is that I'm stuck making daytime scenarios.

 

Red has tanks with passive IR night sights, T55,62,72,etc.  Blue has plain old day sights, or thermals.  So a night battle is either unbalanced to favor Red with IR sights against daysights, or unbalanced to favor Blue with their Thermals...

 

I really want to be able to simulate some cold war era night fighting, with both sides groping around slowly in the dark struggling to ID blurry targets in their archaic night vision equipment...

Edited September 8, 2016 by Maj.Hans

[Vikingo]

Thank you Austria for the BMP-2 !!  For celebrate a nice video (Marko + Apocalypse 31 )

 

 

 

[GSprocket]

1978 build M60A3 would use a pair of II periscopes for gunner and commander (M35E1 and M36E1) before the upgrade to TTS (from late 1979)

So not really IR sights - but rather a Passive sight using ambient light.

RISE Passive seems to be IR periscopes (M32, M36) similar to those fitted to Txx series vehicles with active/passive IR capability over short ranges.

[Maj.Hans]

21 minutes ago, GSprocket said:

1978 build M60A3 would use a pair of II periscopes for gunner and commander (M35E1 and M36E1) before the upgrade to TTS (from late 1979)

So not really IR sights - but rather a Passive sight using ambient light.

RISE Passive seems to be IR periscopes (M32, M36) similar to those fitted to Txx series vehicles with active/passive IR capability over short ranges.

I think the A3 currently in game has retained the IR periscope for the TC's .50 mount, as was done with the real tanks, to provide the .50 some night engagement capability.

[Werewolf]

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

I guess it depends on perspective. I'm no tanker but I see the improved systems a great aid in increasing efficiency and requiring less manual skill, and therefore less practice. Perhaps gunner has to do less. But he is more efficient at hitting stuff due to the aid of better technology?  I mean in comarison the coincidence range finder required more work. Ghosting image to get range took longer than the lazing process which is why I'm guessing it  was strictly in the TC position. With the a3 pretty much just requires gunner or tc to push 1 button  after sight is aimed and a second ( or less) later you have your range.

 

I served for 3 years in M60A1's ('71 to '74) with the stereoscopic range finder. Except for an inability to shoot on the move I'd put the gunners and TC's I served with on those tanks up against the best that any M1A1 crew can field.

 

On the qualification courses in Grafenwoehr our best crews could put two rounds down range in less than 7 seconds with a 90+% 1st round hit at 2000 yards and 95% at 1500. Switch to moving targets and at 1500 we were at 87% 1st round hit and damn near 100 with 2nd round. At any range 1300 yards or less, a gunner who missed his target either stationary or moving risked having the boot of his TC firmly planted on the back of his head. 

 

We were good. Really good. We had to be - we were told and we believed that if the balloon ever went up we were expected to take out 5 of them before we were allowed to get taken out ourselves.

 

Could we have done better with the equipment that modern tankers have at their disposal. Maybe but I'm not convinced. One must then ask if that's true why did the government spend so much money on the tech? Because - as was pointed out - it does require less training, they can shoot effectively at longer ranges, the equipment may be more reliable, may be easier to replace if it breaks (you don't ever want to have to replace the analog/mechanical computer on an M-60A1 in the field - but I imagine that replacing the digital computer on an M1 is just a matter of unbolting the box and replacing it as a unit - turning it on, entering calibration mode, and then maybe a trip to the range to verify it all works).

 

It's the man using the equipment and not the equipment that counts (well mostly - I'd hate to have competed with a bow - then again Japanese Samurai were pretty darn fast and accurate with a bow at short range and I sure wouldn't want to face off against one from 100 yards if all I had was a pistol - but that's just me - one of my best friends can easily hit a 12" gong at 200 yards with a 9mm pistol using iron sights - the sucker has 20/8 vision - we call that fighter pilot eyes )

 

Example:

 

I'm a handgun shooter. Used to participate in IPSC and CAS competitions. CAS is cowboy action shooting. When I started it was fun to practice quick draw with the period style revolvers we used. I'd draw against myself looking into a full length mirror using a Ruger Vaquero. I got pretty fast, real fast actually and I'm here to tell you that I'd have had no problem using that single action revolver with sights that were just a groove in the receiver and a thumb nail sized blade mounted on the end of the barrel in competition against someone with modern optics sitting atop a Sig P220 or Cz-75 for example. And I consider myself just a bit better than average. I've seen guys reload a modern revolver with a swing out cylinder and a speed loader so fast that unless you're watching it you wouldn't know they'd reloaded at all. I've watched the same guys shoot steel disks off a Texas Star (moving target - maybe some videos on You Tube) so fast that I can't even tap my finger as fast as they can pull one and shoot.

 

Point is that it is the man, the crew that account for 95% of how well they perform and not the equipment. 

 

Or - maybe it's not and I'm just biased (the US Army does a really good job training and <gag> indoctrinating its troops - I bet even after 42 years I could still tear apart the breach mechanism of the L60 105mm main gun and put it all back together again).

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Werewolf

[TSe419E]

1 hour ago, GSprocket said:

1978 build M60A3 would use a pair of II periscopes for gunner and commander (M35E1 and M36E1) before the upgrade to TTS (from late 1979)

So not really IR sights - but rather a Passive sight using ambient light.

RISE Passive seems to be IR periscopes (M32, M36) similar to those fitted to Txx series vehicles with active/passive IR capability over short ranges.

 

There was a company of 'A3s at Knox when I went through basic summer of '79.  They all had TTS.

 

RISE Passive had Passive night viewing scopes, hence the name.  RISE had the IR scopes.

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, Werewolf said:

 

ke out 5 of them before we were allowed to get taken out ourselves.

 

Could we have done better with the equipment that modern tankers have at their disposal. Maybe but I'm not convinced. One must then ask if that's true why did the government spend so much money on the tech?

 

I suppose other reasons .its not just ease of maintenance or ease of  training. historically technology always has advanced over time. and when applied to military technology, so goes up the lethality. 

 

partially its different doctrine and philosophies. because soviets had superior #s. If you cant match or exceed #s then i suppose you have ought to try to compensate with better tech & quality, in order to beat your foe if the **** hits the fan.  with better economy It meant the west , us to a even greater degree could simply afford to invest in better tech, and eventually come up with superior platform as well, later down the road, Ie the m1. its also about preserving lives, when it comes to protection/ survivability aspect of tanks. For eg. the placing of placing ammunition behind blast doors in a separate compartment so crew doesnt die in a fiery inferno is huge milestone for tank evolution in general, and arguably one of the most relevant innovations.

 

Isnt that military tech in general,  especially if accelerated in a cold war. If country A makes better AFV, country B will counter it and try to make something better. Eventually country A ends  up outdoing country B and end up with something newer, better. Rinse and Repeat. 

 

The modern cavarlyman no longer rides a horse armed with sabre or repeating rifle, but since ww2 riding the tank which on its own has greatly evolved.  the fighter pilot no longer flies piston or subsonic jet armed with mere guns, but operates fast, sleek faster than ( or up to speed of sound) jets loaded with electronics, radars, and missiles capable of knocking out other aircraft before they get into visual range. 

 

yes i agree the man matters more than the machine, but we can all agree we want to be the guy wielding a gun to a knife fight , not the other way around. 

 

Also i understand where your coming from though, Its the tank you trained on, and served in. You were proficient with it, and felt confident against tanks if the time. its going to hold sentimental value to you. just like a civilians memory of the thier first car.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Kev2go

[Major duck]

My wish list

1. Detachable F5 Map view so i can move it onto my second screen
2. Update the arty system so the fire coordinator can get corrections from the observers pos and not only his own and make the arty queue more logical and visible
3. Get a compass that works both in 3d view and on the maps with both mils and degrees not only for arty stuff but so people can call out directions etc... better
4. Get dismounts for the GD M240 all versions and be able to shoot with the MG3 from the scout version
5. Be able to control what each man in a platoon has as a function/armament so we don’t have to make so many workarounds(with the default units) and then group them and give them a call sign as a group so you make each individual and then a weapons/Fire Team, then a Squad/section, then a platoon with the different teams then coys etc... and off course make them reusable like legos. (Sort of like a bottom up callsign template without the c/S template but so you can only chose units from the unit template so if you need more units import another unit template).
6. Make a drag and drop like system for the maps with a configurable icon system (Nato,WAPA,Others,Custom)so we can play without map updates and still fast update our maps with enemy pos etc.. like if we or our staffs drew on the map with a grease pen
7. Make the Centurion 5/2-DK playable, it used the same FCS , TIS and laser system as the leo 1A3
8. Get a crew able M113A2 Mk I DK “Wildcat/Mickey Mouse” (Inf Firesupport/Anti helo support vehicle)

9. Get the M41DK1 (Recce/Light Tank)

 

MD

Edited September 12, 2016 by Major duck

[Werewolf]

15 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

I suppose other reasons .its not just ease of maintenance or ease of  training. historically technology always has advanced over time. and when applied to military technology, so goes up the lethality. 

 

partially its different doctrine and philosophies. because soviets had superior #s. If you cant match or exceed #s then i suppose you have ought to try to compensate with better tech & quality, in order to beat your foe if the **** hits the fan.  with better economy It meant the west , us to a even greater degree could simply afford to invest in better tech, and eventually come up with superior platform as well, later down the road, Ie the m1. its also about preserving lives, when it comes to protection/ survivability aspect of tanks. For eg. the placing of placing ammunition behind blast doors in a separate compartment so crew doesnt die in a fiery inferno is huge milestone for tank evolution in general, and arguably one of the most relevant innovations.

 

Isnt that military tech in general,  especially if accelerated in a cold war. If country A makes better AFV, country B will counter it and try to make something better. Eventually country A ends  up outdoing country B and end up with something newer, better. Rinse and Repeat. 

 

The modern cavarlyman no longer rides a horse armed with sabre or repeating rifle, but since ww2 riding the tank which on its own has greatly evolved.  the fighter pilot no longer flies piston or subsonic jet armed with mere guns, but operates fast, sleek faster than ( or up to speed of sound) jets loaded with electronics, radars, and missiles capable of knocking out other aircraft before they get into visual range. 

 

yes i agree the man matters more than the machine, but we can all agree we want to be the guy wielding a gun to a knife fight , not the other way around. 

 

Also i understand where your coming from though, Its the tank you trained on, and served in. You were proficient with it, and felt confident against tanks if the time. its going to hold sentimental value to you. just like a civilians memory of the thier first car.

 

 

 

 

All very good and convincing points!

[Panzer_Leader]

5 hours ago, Major duck said:

My wish list

1. Detachable F5 Map view so i can move it onto my second screen
2. Update the arty system so the fire coordinator can get corrections from the observers pos and not only his own and make the arty queue more logical and visible
3. Get a compass that works both in 3d view and on the maps with both mils and degrees
4. Get dismounts for the GD M240 all versions and be able to shoot with the MG3 from the scout version
5. Be able to control what each man in a platoon has as a function/armament so we don’t have to make so many workarounds(with the default units) and then group them and give them a call sign as a group so you make each individual and then a weapons/Fire Team, then a Squad/section, then a platoon with the different teams then coys etc... and off course make them reusable like legos. (Sort of like a bottom up callsign template without the c/S template but so you can only chose units from the unit template so if you need more units import another unit template).
6. Make a drag and drop like system for the maps with a configurable icon system (Nato,WAPA,Others,Custom)so we can play without map updates and still fast update our maps with enemy pos etc.. like if we or our staffs drew on the map with a grease pen
7. Make the Centurion 5/2-DK playable, it used the same FCS , TIS and laser system as the leo 1 
8. Get a crew able M113A2 Mk I DK “Wildcat/Mickey Mouse” (Inf Firesupport/Anti helo support vehicle)

9. Get the M41DK1 (Recce/Light Tank)

 

MD

 

A man after my own heart! I'm with you all the way on 1, 4, 5 (great concept) and 9.

 

I never thought I'd see someone else request the M41 DK1. That and a crewable GD240 and I'm signing up for a Danish recce platoon right there!

[Marko]

56 minutes ago, Panzer_Leader said:

 

A man after my own heart! I'm with you all the way on 1, 4, 5 (great concept) and 9.

 

I never thought I'd see someone else request the M41 DK1. That and a crewable GD240 and I'm signing up for a Danish recce platoon right there!

Don't forget the chaffee.

I believe it ran recon in some armies right up till the eighty's for a US  tank it really is a small AFV.

seen one in bovington.