dejawolf

600-650mm in a 60 degree arc for the 1991 HA is not unrealistic at all, but is on par with the last batches of the 2A4. current 2a4 level is also similar to M1A1 (non-HA) and IpM1 in SB, and higher than original M1. i would also like to remind you that 2289 M1A1's were upgraded to the HA standard, while less than 90 leopard 2A4 received the last batch upgrade. most 2a4's sold by germany to other countries were actually of the older armour standard, and we saw the result of this in turkey. as such, since the model in-game does not represent last batches of 2a4, and there's such a small number of last batch 2a4s made, its more representative to use the older armour in-game. besides, there's plenty of mid 1990s leo 2a5 and A6 versions to choose from.

on the contrary, difference between THS and RHA is quite large.

similar things will happend for the 2A5. Paul L had used a non-structural high hardness steel for the structural portions of the turret, and impossible to manufacture thicknesses of these parts. with this being corrected, we arrive at a more sober estimate for the walls of the turret. i say estimate, because we still don't know for sure how effective the main portion of the armour array actually is, and neither should we or you, until the time the vehicle is phased out of service.

well, the previous estimate for the challenger 2 turret was basically done by taking our estimate of the abrams armour closest to the challenger 2, estimating the thickness of the challenger 2 front turret, and the result was our previous estimate. all of it publicly sourced. if we used a bunch of top secret military material for our work, there's not a lot of military customers who would allow pro PE to be released.

it's what was done for the T-62 and T-55 basically.

well, i could half-ass it, just add in the panels and call it a day. that'd probably take 2 weeks or less.

alright, let me rephrase then: Just need 6 months of not working on all sorts of other shit, and it'll be done. T-72 interior was 600 hours by the by. in that same time period i can make 3-4 exterior models.

just need around 6 months, and it'll be done

well probably. it could be that it was later discovered that the ROMOR-A tiles did not protect against KE as well as assumed, and that it was changed later.

Paul Lakowski. going over his numbers i have found a few mistakes in his estimates. as an example, he assumed triple hardness steel for the outer welded structural walls of the turret, when in fact this material can only be used in a sandwich or as addon armour. he also assumed too much thickness for the outer wall, even though it was not possible to properly roll-harden steel thicker than ~45mm. However, many of these estimates are based off numbers mentioned during the CFE talks in the 1990s. In other words, they are official numbers given to the russians as an olive branch, and should be fairly accurate, at least for the abrams tanks(up to M1A1HA) so even though his assumptions for materials is off, the result is close to the real numbers.

yeah. the values in SB are based off information from Paul L. apparently there was an upgrade to the armour done to the 2A4 at some point in the late 80s or early 90s, since there was a claim it had 700mm vs KE, and 1000mm vs HEAT. we went with the more conservative estimate of 600mm over the front 60 degree arc, which makes the chins 700mm from front LOS vs KE. this was over 15 years ago.

i agree. Steel beasts is not a tool to predict battle outcomes in great detail. and even if we work on it for another 20 years, it still won't be a magic eight ball. i think changing the wording will reflect this more accurately. i would say the PE customers are important too. while PE doesn't bring in the big bucks, it does give Steel beasts valuable PR, since many PE players are army veterans, Ex-tankers, and sometimes even active duty tankers in militaries who are not customers of Steel beasts pro. and if we treat them respectfully, they might put in a good word or two, and bring in a completely new army contract.

right. SB basically takes 3 of these, and merge it into the single word "killed". so changing "killed" to "mission incapable" would signal that this doesn't mean MC-5 (KIA) but that it is merely unable to perform it's intended tasks.

seems like there's a lot of fuss caused by some misunderstandings by perhaps some poor wording in steel beasts. perhaps the word "killed" should be changed to "incapacitated" or "out of action" to reflect the state of the vehicle more accurately. especially since it's a "catch-all" for multiple simulated states, from "everyone inside are dead but vehicle can be repaired" to "vehicle is dead and on fire"

well thanks, took me a month to make those things.