Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Posts

    5,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

dejawolf last won the day on January 26

dejawolf had the most liked content!

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Occupation
    making 3d models for esim

Recent Profile Visitors

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

dejawolf's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

8

Reputation

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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"
  4. well thanks, took me a month to make those things.
  5. simply trying to accentuate just how shit that gun-tank-wheel-car-thing is by forcing the TC to load
  6. Technically the T-90A is a T-72 with a thermal as well.
  7. dejawolf

    T72

    yeah, leo has plenty of unused space. i'd just redesign the bustle area to be more similar to the abrams, move radios and stuff in rear of turret in front of loader and under gun, and move entire ammo rack into rear bustle, and whatever cannot fit there, move it into a separate compartment inside stowage area in rear turret. then swap out hull ammunition bunker for a large fuel tank/stowage area.
  8. dejawolf

    T72

    BMS is not neccesarily standard on all western tanks either. sure, but main armour on T-72B is not bad. 520mm or so, including hull. and K5 reduces penetration power of incoming rounds by around 30%. which means only the M829A2 or M828A3 can reliably penetrate it. not to mention interior space and overall profile is smaller, so it's harder to hit the "softer parts" especially at long ranges due to gun dispersion. at shorter range, side protection is actually superior to western tanks such as leo and abrams, although post-penetration survivability is... poorer.
  9. dejawolf

    T72

    yes. by javelins. which the Leo chally and abrams also are vulnerable to.
  10. dejawolf

    T72

    B3 has a thermal, and the latest ERA.
  11. dejawolf

    T72

    the T-72 is not outclassed by any tank of the same generation. it is quite deadly against the leopard AS1, and M60A1, and in many aspects outperform those vehicles.
  12. still, the ammunition bunker on the abrams has been hit, and the crew has survived. effect in SB however is underwhelming. in real life you will have a fire geyser shooting out of the ammunition hatches, and you need to traverse turret over to the side in order to avoid engine from catching fire from the hot glowing sparks falling down
  13. dejawolf

    T72

    i could probably tell you, and also why they were destroyed. in desert storm, it was the thermal imager of the abrams, and poor maintenance by iraqi army. most of the systems in their tanks were barely functional, and they had spent most of their best ammunition fighting the iranian army, which was outdated export rounds design (BM-12, BM-15) unable to penetrate even the front armour of the T-72M1. in 1991, russian army had far better BM-32 and BM-42 in their arsenal, with double the penetration power. during 73 easting, if i record correctly, the iraqis dug their tanks down into battle positions, so their tanks were completely stationary. a sandstorm blew up however, which obscured the american advance. while the iraqi tanks were completely blinded by the sandstorm, the americans were able to see around 500-1000m ahead with their thermals. the result was a complete destruction of the iraqi ambush. the difference in training between US and iraqi army also has to be emphasized. Iraqi army barely received any training, much less live fire training. meanwhile the US army had training simulators, and frequent live fire training exercises, along with joint training exercises with NATO. as a comparison, sweden did a trial years ago with centurions and strv 122, where they put a completely fresh crew into the strv 122 and centurion crew with years of experience. the result was predictable. strv 122 crew was completely outclassed by the much more experienced centurion crews.
  14. dejawolf

    T72

    i would say the T-72 is an excellent balance between weight and armour. there's no western tank which is able to pack that much armour into so little weight. with only 41.5 tons, the T-72M1 entire front turret and hull has a uniform(almost) 420mm, and sides are 80mm+. this with a simple cast turret with a bit of sand thrown into it is an absolutely brilliant feat of armour engineering. for comparison, a western design of equal weigh, (leopard 1) disregards almost completely all armour. and any design with equal protection in the west, is usually 15-18 tonnes heavier, or more. there has been multiple improvements and upgrades done to the T-72 to maintain it's competitiveness. the czech T-72M4CZ has an improved drivetrain with decent reverse gear, modernized FCS, and improved armour. the russian T-72B3 similarly has improved armour, and modernized FCS. both of these vehicles are quite capable in this configuration. as for the ammunition storage... there was some proposed export variants which stored extra ammunition in a bustle bin instead of in the hull.
  15. it had the benefit of being the first T-72 simulator on the market. and for its time it probably had the best driving simulation of any AFV sim. the gunnery left a few things to be desired tho. and interface was.. confusing to put it mildly.
×
×
  • Create New...