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.

simply trying to accentuate just how shit that gun-tank-wheel-car-thing is by forcing the TC to load

Technically the T-90A is a T-72 with a thermal as well.

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.

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.

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

B3 has a thermal, and the latest ERA.

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.

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

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.

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.