Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Occupation
    Petroleum Geo

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

EasyE's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. EasyE

    Map Editor

    Thanks for the update... I have been away from PC gaming for a while and am needing to get caught up.
  2. EasyE

    Map Editor

    That is the case. Thanks I do think I screwed up my install as I don't have the hgt or ter populated to select from.
  3. EasyE

    Map Editor

    So I feel like I should know the answer to this. Recently reinstalled the game using the 2.68 link and maps on a new computer, everything works great. Its been about two years off and I am very pumped to use my new gaming rig. Except when I open the terrain/map editor, the editor tools are not able to be selected? They are there but not able to be used. I am sure this something I did wrong on the install. Any ideas? Thanks!
  4. Great news! Looking Forward to the release.
  5. Has the COVID-19 lockdowns effected the release date of the update?
  6. I am having trouble finding this round in the mission editor? Is it available? It seems to be listed. Thanks
  7. I would like to see some Copy paste options with the map editor, Also some more bunker/ trench options. Perhaps a 2a19 Rapira 100mm AT gun. Dug in and with good application of cameo, these options would be a very tough to spot and dig out and add some nice depth for attacking/defending scenarios.
  8. Any changes to helicopters? New types or changes in behavior? Maybe I don't currently know how to use them properly, and get them to act aggressive enough to cause a headache. With the new Anti Air units and weapons, it seems that they are meat on the table now.
  9. Few small questions There have been a few updates to the armor models of tanks in SB correct? Are the LOS armor diagrams still accurate? If not are there updated values? Challenger 2 for example seems a little high from what we have learned recently..( I could be wrong and I fully expect to be told that I am) What version of the Leo-2A4 armor do we have in the game? D tech? Any plans to get other armor packages in the game? Thanks for your time.
  10. T-72Bm1989 playable Type-98/96 non playable T-90 early version nonplayable Leo-2 with B-C armor tech. (we have D tech correct?) Chieftain mk-10 T-62M-playable
  11. Looking forward to being able to do this....
  12. EasyE


    According to the document bellow a version of the armor "technology" in the XM-1 offered protection against a 115mm DU APFSDS fired at a velocity I suspect is above 1600m/s across 25 deg arc, when fitted to an IFV. So in is possible that the M1 production model was protected against such ammunition. So we know that the M1 armor could have been tested against DU apfsds. What round? M774 with a increased propellant? Basic pen calc suggest suggest that would do around 380-420mm at 0 at close range. Makes the CIA docs seem somewhat close, and referring to a DU monoblock round as the baseline for the RHA equivalence.
  13. EasyE


    I would be interested in knowing what the threat profile for the M1A1 was meant to face. Most of the documentation on APFSDS available to the USSR in the early to mid 1980s was that they performed very poorly against spaced composite arrays. IIRC a BM-22 loses 30% of its pen ability just by impacting a thin steel plate and having 500mm of air before the next layer of steel. So against the M1 I suspect the round would have preformed poorly. The more the angle of impact of the short tungsten slug goes up the more likely it will shatter against the RHA black plate of the M1...RHA equivalence be dammed... So CIA statements about the M1 400mm worth of KE protection I suspect apply against early monoblock designs M774, XM-578... Applying it to steel W slug designs the protection probably goes up a great deal. I suspect that the M1A1 was designed with protection against more advanced APFSDS designs in mind as well as tandem warheads. The thought was that the next gen of 125mm apfsds would pen around 450mm (0 deg?) at normal battle ranges. The the need for the beefed up protection. Whatever the armor array of the M1A1 is, it was almost certainly tested against M833 and M829. M833 DU long rod, is slightly heavier then the BM-42 W, the M833 a bit slower at normal combat range, however the monoblock DU design is probably better against complex arrays. "If" the M1A1 stopped the M833 it probably has a decent chance against Bm-32 and 42 from most normal engagement ranges. That said I don't think there were many if any BM-42s delivered to front line units before 1988. From what I can tell and rough back of the envelope calculations suggest that if BRL-2 (or whatever it is called) has around 530-550mm vs KE and around 1000mm vs CE it has slightly higher TE efficiency against CE and slightly lower against KE as German C-tech which we have a reasonable measure of. Cheers
  14. I think too much certainty is being drawn from it. It gives us some good insight into German armor packages against monoblock rounds (also the T-80U). However if that is vague. B-level and C-Level are rather clear armor inserts. Where I find confusion is the nature of the D armor packages. D-1/2/3, what exactly are these referring to? Are these inserts? Or Inserts plus NERA Wedge armor. Or differnt combos of each. D-1 say is B-Level plus wedge D-2 C level plus wedge, and D-3 a new insert plus wedge? Or different inserts more optimized more against CE? Seems to be that B-level tech is rough equal to about BRL-1, C is BRL-2, HAP-1/2 around D-2./3... EAP around D-2. Seems to be a rush for answers by those on the internet.. rather then to figure out what questions to ask first..
  • Create New...