3.0 crewable vehicles.

[Marko]

*Looks pointedly at Comrade General Markovskievitch.*

Ahem, Comrade Hedgehog may not be thinking like a good Soviet.

But Comrade Hedgehog is actually rather put out by Comrade General Markovskievitch's

lack of mentioning of Comrade Hedgehog's efforts.

:neutral:

Comrade Markovskievitch.

Duly apologises for forgetting to mention comrade Hedgehog's glorious efforts

To promote SB and recruit new cannon fodder.

[cobrabase]

Thank you for the compliments.

If we want more players however, spread the word. We need your testimonial in places other than this forum (even social media, if you chose to partake in those).

Here is what I put out to my over 1,500 youtube subscribers (at least on my FIRST small channel).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZhUN-_Vl3E

[Apocalypse 31]

Here is what I put out to my over 1,500 youtube subscribers (at least on my FIRST small channel).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZhUN-_Vl3E

You have a face for radio!

Just kidding. I've definitely come across your YT channel before. Great stuff.

[Marko]

Here is what I put out to my over 1,500 youtube subscribers (at least on my FIRST small channel).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZhUN-_Vl3E

Nice work Cobrabase.

[Eisenschwein]

Were the F*** is my Leo 1 with cast Turett?

[Volcano]

It looks like we fell victim to a misconception and named the T-72B (with K-1 ERA) incorrectly as the T-72BV. Personally, I think part of that misconception in the west comes from the T-64BV. :redface: I think Companion hinted to that earlier.

We will fix the name in the release. For now you can keep calling it the T-72BV.

Currently the possible naming candidates are:

T-72B(ERA)

T-72B(K1)

T-72B(K1 ERA)

...

Jartsev, since you are "in the know", if you have a suggestion on what to call it then by all means let us know. :biggrin:

[Jartsev]

Jartsev, since you are "in the know", if you have a suggestion on what to call it then by all means let us know. :biggrin:

T-72B(K1 ERA) looks better

[Volcano]

T-72B(K1 ERA) looks better

Ok, thanks. So it shall be.

[Companion]

It looks like we fell victim to a misconception and named the T-72B (with K-1 ERA) incorrectly as the T-72BV. Personally, I think part of that misconception in the west comes from the T-64BV. :redface: I think Companion hinted to that earlier.

We will fix the name in the release. For now you can keep calling it the T-72BV.

Currently the possible naming candidates are:

T-72B(ERA)

T-72B(K1)

T-72B(K1 ERA)

...

Jartsev, since you are "in the know", if you have a suggestion on what to call it then by all means let us know. :biggrin:

Here is what I've saved from some thread here where it was mentioned first:

Jartsev: current "naked" T-72B is actually a late-production T-72A

dejawolf: no, the difference between T-72A and T-72B is the "bulging" armour on the front turret.

Jartsev: This is common mistake.

-Turret with "bulging" armor(drawing 172.10.077СБ) became available in 1982 and was used for assembly since 1983 parallel with "sand-rods" turret(drawing 172.10.073СБ).

-Pilot batch of tanks with "Svir" Guided Weapon System was produced in 1984, but full scale production of vehicles with this missile system was started somewhat year later(due unavailability of 1K13).

-ERA kits became available for series production in the march of 1985(but officially introduced in 1984).

dejawolf: no, it's common knowledge.

T-72B, BDD front turret armour inserts, V-84 engine.

T-72A, sand rods, V-46 engine.

Jartsev: Nope

Authorized config for T-72B is:

- Turret 172.10.100СБ(nearly identical to 172.10.077СБ)

- New upper glacis armor(spaced laminated w/o textolite)

- ERA "Kontakt-1"

- Engine V-84

- "Svir"

- 1A40-1 FCS

- 2E42-2 stabilizer

- 1A46M main gun

- Improved running gear

T-72B1 is authorized for production as temporary measure till delivery of 1K13(1K13 replaced by TPN-3-49 "Crystal-PA"; but I have no data about automatic loader used)

T-72B2 is a back-up project planned for production of major failure with delivery of "Svir" and armed with "Cobra". Never produced.

"Naked" T-72B-like tanks were manufactured in 1983-1984 in quite limited numbers and differed from actual T-72B by main gun, stabilizer, lack of ERA, guided weapon system, hull armor layout and V-46-6 engine. Sorry, but its a bit different to accept this for westerner. New components and assemblies were rushed in production when became ready.

All this crap causes bureaucratic chaos during depot-level repairs.

Personally, I think this "naked B" interim version is too insignificant to be worth including in any simulation/wargame/etc. (too short production run)

And who knows if they were later upgraded and accepted into "true B" fleet?

But the information is interesting anyway.

[Volcano]

Ok, I am going to put the brakes on this runaway train.

We already have the ERA-less B in the game and it makes no sense to remove it. Also, "limited production numbers" could mean that is was produced in the hundreds and not thousands, but it still existed, and it would have been used if a conflict boiled over in 1983 to 1984. And even if it was produced in single vehicles as some sort of prototype, the entire World War III is all hypothetical in the sense that if a conflict occurred in 1983 (or was heating up), would the Soviets press it into production? Probably, yes. It is all speculative, and some credence can be given to just about any argument there.

I also think there is too much hair splitting here. The real question is whether the ERA-less B had ATGM capability or not, but Jane's said that it did (not that Jane's never makes a mistake). I am not going to change that until I am totally convinced however, because I am not in the habit of breaking people's scenarios especially on information that it seems is completely and utterly confusing and error prone no matter where you seem to look or what source you use.

One source I can see (Jane's) says that the T-72B has all the improvements (extra turret armor, bigger engine, ATGM capability), except that it wasn't fitted with ERA yet. Other sources state that the "T-72BA ERA" was the B after ERA was equipped, but I have someone in pissing in my ear as I type this that the BA had an even more upgraded FCS.

So, the final decision here is to go with a combination of Jane's and Jartsev's info:

T-72B will remain the same. Use this for your pre-ERA equipped scenarios.

T-72BV will be renamed to T-72B(K1 ERA). Use that for the true B after it was equipped with ERA.

The only thing I am willing to do beyond is rename it again. I found at least one source that refers to the T-72B with ERA as "T-72B ERA". So, uh, yeah, I could change the name from "T-72B(K1 ERA)" to just "T-72B ERA". :confused:

...we have lots of more important things to do at the moment. :cul:

[12Alfa]

It's all in the details ya know

[Volcano]

OK, one last possibility:

"Option C" that has come up in discussion is:

Rename the current T-72B to T-72B1, remove ATGM capability, and make a minor adjustment to the model and voila, we have the ERA less T-72B1 (it also had a variant with ERA too apparently), and this tank is essentially the T-72A/M1 with more armor (and consequently might be easier to make playable "one day"). On the other hand, people that used the old T-72B would have to know to just swap it out with the new one and save the scenario if they desire the ATGM.

THEN

Rename the T-72B(K1 ERA) / T-72B ERA to "T-72B". This would have ERA, ATGM capability, etc. This also assumes Jane's designation is incorrect (and they often are given that they gathered this data during the Cold War).

I will await Jartsev's suggestion if this would sound more correct to him.

[Jartsev]

OK, one last possibility:

"Option C" that has come up in discussion is:

Rename the current T-72B to T-72B1, remove ATGM capability, and make a minor adjustment to the model and voila, we have the ERA less T-72B1 (it also had a variant with ERA too apparently), and this tank is essentially the T-72A/M1 with more armor (and consequently might be easier to make playable "one day"). On the other hand, people that used the old T-72B would have to know to just swap it out with the new one and save the scenario if they desire the ATGM.

THEN

Rename the T-72B(K1 ERA) / T-72B ERA to "T-72B". This would have ERA, ATGM capability, etc. This also assumes Jane's designation is incorrect (and they often are given that they gathered this data during the Cold War).

I will await Jartsev's suggestion if this would sound more correct to him.

Hard to make a valid suggestions since if "option C" will be selected a lot of scenarios must be rebalanced. Since other people`s labor is affected- its better to postpone "sharp" changes.

[Volcano]

Hard to make a valid suggestions since if "option C" will be selected a lot of scenarios must be rebalanced. Since other people`s labor is affected- its better to postpone "sharp" changes.

True, but we did this before with T-80 (removing the TIS and suggesting that scenario designers change to the T-72M4 if they wanted a T tank with thermal). If something is wrong, we would rather fix it, but my statement was really that: "if there is any doubt, and that if a "B" ever existed in any capacity beyond a prototype, and if that "B" had no ERA but had an ATGM, then it is better to leave it as is".

If all that is true, then T-72B and a ERA equipped T-72B will remain and only the name will be different. And as far as I can tell, the answer is yes, both existed if even for a brief period between 1983 and 1985.

OK then, the final approach will be that we will rename the misnamed "BV" to the "T-72B" and rename the old "T-72B" as "T-72B(early)" as per discussed through PM.

Thanks for all the feedback.

[Gibsonm]

In terms of "breaking" things, does the underlying software use the vehicle "label" that the user sees?

Perhaps you can change the underlying code without breaking the scenario?

So the user still sees a "T-72 whatever" but the software interprets it as the "new T-72 whatever"?

[Volcano]

In terms of "breaking" things, does the underlying software use the vehicle "label" that the user sees?

Perhaps you can change the underlying code without breaking the scenario?

So the user still sees a "T-72 whatever" but the software interprets it as the "new T-72 whatever"?

No the label is just a text string which can be renamed without issue.

[jazjar]

Whew you had me worried right there. Don't want to have to wait an extra month due to an changing naming convention.

[Hedgehog]

No the label is just a text string which can be renamed without issue.

Observe:

I renamed the suppress command to something more "Commonwealth" :biggrin:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=16380&highlight=Brass+up&page=2

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showpost.php?p=211929&postcount=19

"Pstrings" file is the text file V-man mentions.

They're not daft those eSim boys!

Disclaimer:

Hedgehog does not accept any responsibility if you break SB by playing around with the "pstrings" file.

[Gibsonm]

Thanks, but that isn't what I'm talking about.

I was wondering if the name of a unit was embedded in the code (with particular reference to breaking old scenarios).

So if an old scenario had T-72BVs and they used "T72BV" in the code, then changing the name to "T72B + ERA1 blah" might break the scenario as the T72BV was no longer there.

If however the code just looks for "variable Y" and the person friendly label currently says T72BV, then changing T72BV to "T72B + ERA1 blah" is fine as long as the code is still looking for "variable Y".

[Hedgehog]

Thanks, but that isn't what I'm talking about.

I was wondering if the name of a unit was embedded in the code (with particular reference to breaking old scenarios).

So if an old scenario had T-72BVs and they used "T72BV" in the code, then changing the name to "T72B + ERA1 blah" might break the scenario as the T72BV was no longer there.

If however the code just looks for "variable Y" and the person friendly label currently says T72BV, then changing T72BV to "T72B + ERA1 blah" is fine as long as the code is still looking for "variable Y".

Pretty sure that's how it works.

It would seem logical.

[hoggydog]

Gibson the "T-72B+ERA1 Blah" was a one of special made for Boris Yeltzin to get him to and from his private dacha when to intoxicated to drive a car.

I'm not sure we need it just yet or if the infamous "vodka goggles day/night sight" fitted can be modelled in SB

[Volcano]

I was wondering if the name of a unit was embedded in the code (with particular reference to breaking old scenarios).

So if an old scenario had T-72BVs and they used "T72BV" in the code, then changing the name to "T72B + ERA1 blah" might break the scenario as the T72BV was no longer there.

If however the code just looks for "variable Y" and the person friendly label currently says T72BV, then changing T72BV to "T72B + ERA1 blah" is fine as long as the code is still looking for "variable Y".

No, there will not be any problems. After we name it "T-72B + ERA1 blah" then it would appear that way everywhere automatically like that. :biggrin:

[Ssnake]

It's like an internet domain migrating to a new server. The server IP address changes in that case, but the Domain name remains the same; what's needed are updates to the database entries in the DNS system. Isn't abstraction a wonderful thing.

[dejawolf]

as for the naked B, based on the attached picture there was at least 4 of them in 1986

and around 50:53

[Companion]

as for the naked B, based on the attached picture there was at least 4 of them in 1986

and around 50:53

I think I saw some people referring to naked B as "early" and clothed, forbidden from eden B as "late" models.

And I also remember Harkonnen (of BTVT, right?) from old tanknet thread, along with a picture, attributes "6-layer glacis" to early B/export S glacis and "10-layer glacis" to late B one.

Then there's this quote:

“Initially the insert consisted of two 50mm+5% sheets of armor glass

textolite; in later models 30mm sheets interleaved with steel were used.

100+ mm sheet was never used, it would be extremely untechnological to

produce and handle.”

(from http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&p=275508)

And incidentally, factory number for T-72S is obiekt 172M-E8, not 184-xx.

So I'm guessing this interim naked model, which Jartsev described as having a different hull, engine, gun, and FCS than T-72B, might be the "early B" people were speaking of.

Of course I might well be daydreaming :redface: