In your personal opinion which is the most effective tank in Steel Beasts Pro PE

[Skybird03]

[]_--__[]KITT ,

since you repeatedly mentioned "classified data" now as their source - don't you assume, like I do, that the defence ministries and the state attorney would jump onto them when they make classified data accessible to the public? I personally have even strong doubts that they are being given classified data at all. If that would be the case, they probably would not be allowed to build a PE version for the general public.

I think they take the best publicly published data that they can find and then make reasonable guesses based on experience with the basics of tank technology and on (non-classified) feedback from the real tankers they know. You see, feedback given that includes secret material again could bring the author of such feedback into legal troubles.

On the M1A2SEP, I am not certain, but I think it has some boost in armour, too, but from a player's perspective, the added SA for the TC is what getrs my attention (and why I hope that the SEP one day will become playable). I hate to be locked in a TC seat but not being able to swing a pair of thermals or a persicope myself, independently from the gunner's sights. That is the one of two reasons why I avoid the M1 in the sim completely. The other is the - imo - better FCS of the Leopard. That jumping sight of the gunner irritates me time and again, making me, by reflex almost, trying to compensate for the jump by moving the stick. Call me conservative, but when it comes to shooting at something, I am the plain and simple point-aim-shoot kind of guy. No gimmicks in my sights, please.

[OnAlienware]

The M1A2 SEPv2 has improved armor over the M1A1(HA).

[[]_--__[]KITT]

[]_--__[]KITT ,

since you repeatedly mentioned "classified data" now as their source - don't you assume, like I do, that the defence ministries and the state attorney would jump onto them when they make classified data accessible to the public? I personally have even strong doubts that they are being given classified data at all. If that would be the case, they probably would not be allowed to build a PE version for the general public.

I think they take the best publicly published data that they can find and then make reasonable guesses based on experience with the basics of tank technology and on (non-classified) feedback from the real tankers they know. You see, feedback given that includes secret material again could bring the author of such feedback into legal troubles.

On the M1A2SEP, I am not certain, but I think it has some boost in armour, too, but from a player's perspective, the added SA for the TC is what getrs my attention (and why I hope that the SEP one day will become playable). I hate to be locked in a TC seat but not being able to swing a pair of thermals or a persicope myself, independently from the gunner's sights. That is the one of two reasons why I avoid the M1 in the sim completely. The other is the - imo - better FCS of the Leopard. That jumping sight of the gunner irritates me time and again, making me, by reflex almost, trying to compensate for the jump by moving the stick. Call me conservative, but when it comes to shooting at something, I am the plain and simple point-aim-shoot kind of guy. No gimmicks in my sights, please.

Hmm fair points. yeah I hate it in the TC position too in the M1A1 and the jumping sights of the gunner.

I'm actually very surprised that no one yet to pick the Challenger 2 in poll.

I'd think Challenger 2 with v2 of the cobham armor probably have a greater protection than M1A1(HA).

Now it's a fight between Leopard 2E and M1A1(HA). I'd think Challenger 2 deserves a chance to be the most effective tank of course not taking into consideration things such as cost per unit and numbers. I guess there's few British playing the sim?

[Azure Lion]

Guess I'm not the only one who doesn't like to play vehicles without 3D interiors. So much harder to get immersed into the game and enjoy it when you can go pick a tank or pc and feel like you're actually a crew-man. Another reason I like the 2S and 2E, the driver's position!

[MAJ_Fubar]

_--__[]KITT;217613']I'm actually very surprised that no one yet to pick the Challenger 2 in poll. I'd think Challenger 2 with v2 of the cobham armor probably have a greater protection than M1A1(HA).

Remember' date=' this is [i']your poll about effectiveness. Though the Challenger is probably the best armored tank in service today, due to its two piece ammunition, its anti-tank performance is...sub par. Not to mention that the sight arrangement is, if not really poor, then at least odd and leave it at that. Still, if utilized as designed to support infantry in the assault and defence, the 'Chally acquits itself very well, but in the tank on tank realm it comes up just a bit short.

[Tjay]

Remember, this is your poll about effectiveness. Though the Challenger is probably the best armored tank in service today, due to its two piece ammunition, its anti-tank performance is...sub par. Not to mention that the sight arrangement is, if not really poor, then at least odd and leave it at that. Still, if utilized as designed to support infantry in the assault and defence, the 'Chally acquits itself very well, but in the tank on tank realm it comes up just a bit short.

And it's very slow. Some say slower in the SB than in real life, but I'm not in a position to judge.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Remember, this is your poll about effectiveness. Though the Challenger is probably the best armored tank in service today, due to its two piece ammunition, its anti-tank performance is...sub par. Not to mention that the sight arrangement is, if not really poor, then at least odd and leave it at that. Still, if utilized as designed to support infantry in the assault and defence, the 'Chally acquits itself very well, but in the tank on tank realm it comes up just a bit short.

That's a fair point I'm just surprised the community can be very one (or two) sided. Well a surviving tank is an effective tank in my book :biggrin:

Plus though perhaps the anti tank capabilities being sub par but is it really that much. Plus the HESH round could be more effective than a HEAT round. Most tanks are designed to survive a HEAT round more than they are designed to protect against HESH I'd presume.

But yeah that oddly placed thermal sight is bugging me too, they seemed not wanting to place a rotating thermal sight on the rooftop for some unknown reasons thus necessating it to be aligned with the gun....but then again this poll isn't something serious. I just would like to know what SB community has to say about what they think is the best tank in SB Pro PE world though the poll is missing the M1A2 SEP.

[12Alfa]

I fail to see any reports from deployed Chally's that give anyone the impression that they are inferior to any other MB.:confused: As for being a poor anti-tank platform , could you state your source to we can all make the same conclusion? Do you think the crew from the 5km kill think the same?

I seemed to recall the Challenger-2 being very effective, and the wpn system linked to the sights in question by the troops that have real world time behind the controls. From all open source data the tank has preformed well and the crews are happy with its use in combat.

And lets not forget that the Challenger-1 a generation before the Challenger-2 has the longest ANTI_TANK kill in history.:shocked:

I think that the Challenger in the right hands is far the best all round MBT in the sim, it does take some additional time to learn the non-standard systems, but I think we are all spoiled by the Leo and M1 type systems.

[PincerDK]

Plus though perhaps the anti tank capabilities being sub par but is it really that much. Plus the HESH round could be more effective than a HEAT round. Most tanks are designed to survive a HEAT round more than they are designed to protect against HESH I'd presume.

Most tanks today are more protected against HESH than against HEAT. HESH used to be an effective weapon against tanks but with the coming of composite armor, that effect was heavily diminished.

HESH is not as effective against tanks as HEAT is but it is much more suited to IFV/APC's and especially buildings since HESH pancakes on the side of the building and the follow-up explosion "attacks" the whole building per se. HEAT on the other hand is good at breaking through and "attacking" the inside of a vehicle or building.

HESH IIRC is also much more suited against people in the open than HEAT since it's effect amounts to a larger explosion than HEAT.

[12Alfa]

Hesh does not have a "follow on explosion". Rather the outside explosion causes a shock/energy wave that travels from impact area inwards causing spading and other energy effects. All explosion takes place on the outside of the Armour.

I have seen this effect many times on various AFV's and a few T-72's on the range. The inside was in pretty bad shape even on the T tank.

I would say that the area that is affective by HESH is greater than by a HEAT round, being the resulting HEAT jet is small compare to the surface area for the pancaked HESH area, thous the larger behind amour effected area. Instead of a small jet, consider a large spalding area ripped from the inside armour flying around the AFV

[Thonar]

IMO the Challenger 2 is for sure a good MBT, but in my opinion he is too specialized in his role and in my opinion not a good overall MBT.

For me there are 3 reasons:

1. The speed. I think maybe a bit different, but speed is a weapon (Guderian). The faster unit can outrun his enemy and sits in the end in a better position.

The German tank-doctrine also thinks "speed is the best defense".

The Challenger 2 lacks here. But his armor (maybe the best western armor) compensate this problem.

2. Firepower. The rifled gun is maybe a bit more accurate then a smooth-bore, but you cant shoot an APFSDS as fast as in a smooth-bore and this means you lose energy, and so you lose penetration power. And this is the round you will use to destroy enemy tanks, not HESH or HEAT. Also HESH lost his great anti-tank-ability in the early '90. Modern tanks are protected in the inside with aramid to defend themselves against the shrapnels caused by HESH. So the secondary round of choice against tanks should be a HEAT...

3. The FCS. It works very similar to the M1 FCS, but in both FCS I think: "Hey, when I'm in position, its great how easy it is too use", but while driving "Hmm... in the Leopard it is more easy...", because in the FCS of the leopard's you activate the dynamic lead manual. Maybe this is also possible in the M1 and Challenger but I didnt found this option till now.

So in overall I think in Steelbeasts (!) the Leopard 2 is the best overall(!) tank. In defense and in position the Challenger 2 is a beasts... but I don't want to attack with it.

In real life I think the Leclerc or maybe the new Korean K2 are/ will be great tanks... also the Japanese Type 10 looks impressive. And all these tanks are maybe a bit ahead to the most famous western tanks, but I don't know much about them...

Greetings

Thonar

[PincerDK]

Hesh does not have a "follow on explosion". Rather the outside explosion causes a shock/energy wave that travels from impact area inwards causing spading and other energy effects. All explosion takes place on the outside of the Armour.

I have seen this effect many times on various AFV's and a few T-72's on the range. The inside was in pretty bad shape even on the T tank.

Well yeah, after the pancake hits and flattens, the "follow up" explosion creates the shockwave.

Always wanted to see how an HESH round hit. Saw a HEAT round hit a plate once from an AT4, you could see how the copper jet pushes through the plate.

But yeah could imagine the chaos of a tank hit by HESH, not a pretty sight. :eek2:

I would say that the area that is affective by HESH is greater than by a HEAT round, being the resulting HEAT jet is small compare to the surface area for the pancaked HESH area, thous the larger behind amour effected area. Instead of a small jet, consider a large spalding area ripped from the inside armour flying around the AFV

Yes I agree.

[12Alfa]

2. Firepower. The rifled gun is maybe a bit more accurate then smooth-bore, but you cant shoot an APFSDS as fast as in a smooth-bore

Some data on this please, never heard or read anything along this theory.

and this means you lose energy

As above , data please

, and so you lose penetration power

As above , data please

And this is the round you will use to destroy enemy tanks, not HESH or HEAT. Also HESH lost his great anti-tank-ability in the early '90. Modern tanks are protected in the inside with aramid to defend themselves against the shrapnels caused by HESH

So, what you are saying is that a HESH round has no effect on any tank past the 90's mark? no inside system degrading, nothing coming loose, nothing breaking, and the crew does not feel any effect?

. So the secondary round of choice against tanks should be a HEAT...

I think the best choice is HESH to strip the ERA off, then a follow-on Sabot will be effective, but all I have is range work to base this on.

3. The FCS. It works very similar to the M1 FCS, but in both FCS I think: "Hey, when I'm in position, its great how easy it is too use", but while driving "Hmm... in the Leopard it is more easy...", because in the FCS of the leopard's you activate the dynamic lead manual. Maybe this is also possible in the M1 and Challenger but I didnt found this option till now.

So in overall I think in Steelbeasts (!) the Leopard 2 is the best overall(!) tank. In defense and in position the Challenger 2 is a beasts... but I don't want to attack with it.

In real life I think the Leclerc or maybe the new Korean K2 are/ will be great tanks... also the Japanese Type 10 looks impressive. And all these tanks are maybe a bit ahead to the most famous western tanks, but I don't know much about them...

Greetings

Thonar

Tanks are not great, the crew that man them make them great.

[Volcano]

And it's very slow. Some say slower in the SB than in real life, but I'm not in a position to judge.

Well, as mentioned, it is all based on mathematics and the known combat weight of vehicle, horsepower of engine and power to weight ratio. All of this is pretty trivial, and the values themselves are available to the public, so there really isn't much that could be wrong here (not saying it is perfect though, Jane's could be wrong too). We just have to remember that all that armor has to come at the expense of something (speed).

[Thonar]

@12Alfa:

1.Simple physics: Friction in a rifled gun is greater, because the gun-diameter is a bit smaller then the bullet-diameter to give the bullet the rotation.

In a smooth-bore gun the gun-diameter is greater as the bullet-diameter

-> you don't lose as much energy in a smooth-bore gun as in a rifled.

-> The bullet of the smooth-bore can reach a higher top speed

-> Strength = mass*speed

-> higher speed, higher penetration power...

You just need to know how a rifled gun and a smooth-bore gun works...

2. I did not say, that HESH has NO effect on an enemy tank, I just said, you aren't able to destroy an enemy tank as with HEAT.

HESH is more like a flying IED...

And with a tandem-charge HEAT, you don't need a second shot.

Greetings

Thonar

[dejawolf]

@12Alfa:

1.Simple physics: Friction in a rifled gun is greater, because the gun-diameter is a bit smaller then the bullet-diameter to give the bullet the rotation.

In a smooth-bore gun the gun-diameter is greater as the bullet-diameter

-> you don't lose as much energy in a smooth-bore gun as in a rifled.

-> The bullet of the smooth-bore can reach a higher top speed

-> Strength = mass*speed

-> higher speed, higher penetration power...

You just need to know how a rifled gun and a smooth-bore gun works...

2. I did not say, that HESH has NO effect on an enemy tank, I just said, you aren't able to destroy an enemy tank as with HEAT.

HESH is more like a flying IED...

And with a tandem-charge HEAT, you don't need a second shot.

Greetings

Thonar

1. while rifling does reduce the muzzle velocity, and thus the penetration power of a round, this is not the main reason why challenger ammunition is crap. the main reason is the penetrator length. the challenger ammunition is 2-piece, with reduced penetrator length.

2. HESH is not a flying IED. HESH works by sending a shockwave through the steel, causing shrapnel, or even the armour itself(if it's thin enough) flying into the interior.

it's very effective against monoblock steel armor, like on the T-55, and powerful enough to cause spalling on steel plates 200-300mm thick. but fairly inefficient against spaced armour.

[12Alfa]

Well I still think this is a unknown theory.

The data I have seen suggests that the friction in a rifled barrel is compensated to a large degree by devices (slip rings etc) that the statement that smooth bore are better for APFSDS than rifled tubes is not supported by the data, again please provide your source.

"The bullet of the smooth-bore can reach a higher top speed"

Speed of the projectile is dependent on many factors, whether a rifled or smooth bore is not one of them, propellent , weight of projectile, ect are.

In face the studies I have seen suggest that the thin walls compared to the rifled tube can withstand greater pressures with in the tube. Again could you provide me with your source?

What know formula does "

-> Strength = mass*speed" come from what effect, I aware of most amour vs penetration formulas like the Monroe effect,demarre coefficient formula etc.

higher speed, higher penetration power... high projectile speed does not mean better penetration power! What formula/data are you using?

"You just need to know how a rifled gun and a smooth-bore gun works..."

Well I have been a student with some piratical time firing theses wpn systems, so you could say I know how each of the tube and related systems work in the REAL world. but open to learn new stuff, if only you would provide your sources?

[Thonar]

1. The most ballistic test I know are classified, sorry. (I'm a german army officer cadet)

2. http://www.kotsch88.de/m_120_mm.htm#ST120mm

DM53 (german 120mm smoothbore): 1750m/s

3. http://www.kotsch88.de/m_120mm-L11.htm

L23 (british 120mm rifled): 1534m/s

4. MrKotsch served in the east german NPA and in the Bundeswehr for 16years.

5. All modern tanks (except the Challenger 2 and the indian Arjun) are using smooth-bore weapons or were updated to a smooth-bore gun.

6. What had you studied? I cant believe that a physician is arguing your way.

7. Know I want to know YOUR sources...

[dejawolf]

Well I still think this is a unknown theory.

higher speed, higher penetration power... high projectile speed does not mean better penetration power! What formula/data are you using?

i'd assume he's using basic physics. kinetic energy and all that. if all else is equal (e.g the penetrators are both the same shape and material, they hit the target at the same angle etc.), the faster one will penetrate more than the slower one. if you go really really fast, (light speed) you'll find that the speed actually causes the projectile to gain mass according to einsteins theories, which will again increase penetrating power.

this is why it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light. since as your speed gets closer to lightspeed, the energy needed to pass the speed of light will become infinite.

essentially the penetrator at lightspeed would become a supermassive black hole that would swallow the whole universe.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Tanks are not great, the crew that man them make them great.

Well it goes without saying it is assumed the crew are comparable hehe

[12Alfa]

1. I see, well most of this that we are discussing is open source:shocked:

2 .I know:confused:

3. I know, I see that you give data for the latest DM round but not the latest CHARM, why is that?:confused:

4. What does that have to do with the statements you made in our original discussion/post.

5. I know, so what is the point?They went to smooth bore because???

6. I have studied a great many things, and more to the point have, used and seen first hand the effects of theses wpn systems.

7. Real life, and papers not unlike: International Journal of Impact Engineering,INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON BALLISTICS,European Forum on Ballistics and Projectiles,INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING,and various others on tank systems. If your going to fight them it's best to understand them, right?

Orginally you stated that

A) rifled tubes can't fire SABOT as fast as smooth bore tubes, and then give the latest DM round vs a older round. This is a generalization, there is no teck reason that they can't, its just that they don't for various reasons of MBT design and their needs among other factors.

B "and this means you lose energy", I believe that speed does not equal energy, rather there is other factors in that equation to produce energy from the projectile upon impact (if that's what were are discussing ).

c) "and so you lose penetration power". As I have stated, you can't just use the fact (if it were true) that faster projectile speed is the end effect (penetration). The formula has a few more inputs to give you the ballistic performance of a projectile upon a given target( taken into the consecration of material/s, angle etc).

Your other comment about HESH not being able to destroy a "enemy"tank is just wrong. What if the "enemy" is a T-55??:confused:

[Azure Lion]

"The bullet of the smooth-bore can reach a higher top speed"

Simple physics:

With a rifled barrel, some of the forward energy is transferred to radial energy plus friction on the rifling to get the round rotating. It also means more energy converted to heat due to the friction. This of course assuming all other conditions are the same: similar length barrel and caliber as well as powder charge, etc.

[12Alfa]

Hey I'm all for "Simple physics".

Can you tell me the drop in MV for the rifled vs the smooth bore in %. Given the following, same tube dia, same cal- 55cal, dm63 VS charm3.

So what percent of drop in the muzzle speed would there typical be? 10,20 30?:cul:

You can leave out the heat loss due to friction because they both make contact with the tube lining.

Should be easy , right?

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Hey I'm all for "Simple physics".

Can you tell me the drop in MV for the rifled vs the smooth bore in %. Given the following, same tube dia, same cal- 55cal, dm63 VS charm3.

So what percent of drop in the muzzle speed would there typical be? 10,20 30?:cul:

You can leave out the heat loss due to friction because they both make contact with the tube lining.

Should be easy , right?

Chill out Alfa :biggrin:.....the general consensus in the tanking world is higher velocity projectile translates into better penetrating power. The key word is general. Also everyone knows that smoothbore gives higher muzzle velocity than rifled at the cost of some accuracy [the word that you missed reading----> given the same all other parameters of the gun].

Why must you persist when the points are obvious(it's a moot point) and relax a bit, be less confontational and certainly be more rational.....Iraq war is over :biggrin:..the insurgents are no longer your business hehehehe, no insurgents here to be burned, We're all friends here. Enemies are far away....except that one going by the name Ssnake I've always been suspicious of that guy :biggrin:

[12Alfa]

_--__[]KITT;217683']Chill out Alfa :biggrin:..

I'm chilled.:cul:

Maybe in your world that's the consensus. The fact remains that the tube (rifled/smooth) design has little effect muzzle velocity. It's the propellent energy and the device (weight/area) going down the tube. Prove me wrong.

If a person post statements that seems to be based on facts, then he should be able to back them up.

Next we will have ppl saying they went to the moon:biggrin:

Saying comments like"hesh can't kill the enemy tank, etc" are easy to post, backing them up is another matter.

I'm reading the physics to move a projectile down the any given tube, they don't look simple:frown:

I was never in the Iraq war, and the insurgents were never my business,:confused: don't see the connection.

If the points are obvious, then showing some sources should be easy/simple, right.

What we see is more of the same, this can do that, and that can do this, all of this without any links, sources, data, even some hand drawn stick drawings, nothing, nada.

While I'm chilling out you can ponder why that is.........:confused: