Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Posts

    5,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by dejawolf

  1. 7 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

    I got to say, the only customers with deep inquiries about our damage model are PE users. Not once has an army customer, in all these years, raised the topic (be it that they inquired about the model itself, or the wording to characterize the damage). It seems to me that these finer distinctions about how much a unit is out of action is not very relevant for the intended purpose of SB Pro as a tool for training and education. It may raise points of discussion similar to this in AARs, and that's then where some of the learning about the finer points of "kill" definition may come into play.

    Steel Beasts is no tool to predict battle outcomes in great detail, and we do not aspire it to become one. We try to become better in all that we do because we take pride in our work. But inventing an electronic crystal ball to divine the future is explicitly excluded from our list of development goals because it's a completely elusive goal. You know the decisive factors of a real battle only after a real battle was fought, and analyzed. You can identify many contributing factors in advance, but at the end of the day there's always the chance that some seemingly irrelevant detail turned out to be pivotal, and be it just the infamous "human factor" (morale, battlefield psychology), or a random mechanical fault that makes a tank lose track at a most inopportune moment. Ancient people knew that "the gods" or "fate" had a big swing in all they did, especially in battle. It's a folly of modern times that some believe that everything is predictable. Some things are, others might be one day, but there's always that little extra surprise that you identify only afterwards.

     

    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. 22 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

    Used by most armies at unit level sent to repair units.

     

    Operational condition of an vehi indicating it can perform at least one and potentially all of its designated missions. Mission-capable is further defined as the sum of full mission-capable and partial mission-capable. Also called MC.

     

    MC-1 fully MC

    MC-2 user repairable 

    MC-3 1st line repairs

    MC-4 Repair depo required

    MC-5 NON repairable (KIA)

     

    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. 12 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

    Honestly I was thinking the coding time for a click-race for the interior for a loader could be skipped to save time for other things but if the community really wants it...
    *Shrug*

     

    I was mostly interested in the loaders other jobs, rather than the loading.

     

    In fact I wish on the new 90mm gun-tank-wheel-car-thing I could have that click procedure automated for me when I'm trying to TC that thing!

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

  5. 3 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

    The Leopard 2 is badly in need of some similar upgrade programs.  I would REALLY like to see the hull ammo storage thing being addressed sooner rather than later.  Reconfigure with an internal bunker including blow-our panels for hull storage (if possible), or switch to something like the Challenger 2 system that will douse the rounds in water if hit, or change to individual armor plated tubes to try protecting the rounds from penetrations like some of the Merkavas do, really do something or pretty much anything to reduce the vulnerability.  Whatever is lost in terms of total capacity can be addressed, if necessary, by adding an external stowage canister in the bustle rack to hold the left over rounds.  Unlike the T-Tank designs where the ammo is pretty much always going to be strapped to the crew, I think the Leopard has enough room to come up with a little bit better solution.

     

     

    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.  

  6. 9 hours ago, Kev2go said:

     

    Only the soft packs on the sides  are latest relikt,  otherwise what you see on the front Hull and Turret is still Kontact 5.Relikt has a distinct look ( see T80BVM or T90M). Without ERA the main armor as you know is going to be same protection as T72B mod 85 or 89.

     

    Also how many T72's ( or tank series any in Russian tank fleet) have independent CITV for commander? How many have battlefield management system? I Think only T90M and T14 Armata. have those.

    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. 

  7. Just now, Captain_Colossus said:

    there are also images of the B3 - with thermals and the latest ERA - destroyed in what we are seeing in current events.

     

    this is what i'm getting at. and this mainly from the russian side. from what i can see virtually all of the media that you are seeing shows russian losses and almost seems to be going out of the way not to show what the ukranians are losing- which are also using similar equipment

     

     

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

  8. 5 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

    fair enough. it is outclassed by the m1 and leopard 2 or challenger where the t-72 is still operating in the same envelope- that is, with upgrade packages and so on; i do not think think the t-72 is sufficient even with modern upgrades, all other things being equal

     

     

    B3 has a thermal, and the latest ERA. 

  9. 2 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

    3) the t-72 is still fun to play in steel beasts, because it is generally outclassed by any tank of the same generation and so therefore it imparts a specific challenge. some players may not like it, i personally like it

     

    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. 

  10. On 3/8/2022 at 2:20 PM, Lumituisku said:

    If i have understood correctly. Turret popping is actually hellishly violent and fast explosion with tremendous shock effect. What little i have seen of ammunition exploded tank hulls. I highly doubt it to be survivable even if you were in somewhat protected capsule. The hulls of tanks have so badly deformed... That when that happens instantly... I don't think it is survivable.  On world war 2... Big enough artillery shell landing on bunker roof without penetration.. was still able to cause men's ears bleed... If not more.   And when we're talking of ammunition explosion... Behind you... Behind a resonating armor capsule person would be inside...  

    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

  11. On 3/5/2022 at 7:24 PM, Captain_Colossus said:

    i could not tell you how many t-72s have been destroyed in all conflicts it has even been involved with, but we do know more or less that is is not a few. this site claims that 245 armenian t-72s were lost in 2020. are you going to tell me that nike-ajax expertly employs the t-72 in multi-player, therefore that settles it-

     

    https://theprinciplesofwar.com/uav/lessons-for-uav-employment-in-nagorno-karabakh-region/

     

    again, before someone comes along and repeats yet again an anecdote about steel beasts or misconstrues the point i'm making- to re-iterate- i'm not saying the t-72 cannot be a deadly weapon. of course it is. what i am saying is that it has shown to be rather vulnerable and prone to losses in real conflicts; now for some countries the t-72 is the best they can do given the constraints they are operating under. but it bears repeating, in a way you get what you pay for, and the real world results tend to show.

     

     

    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. 

     

  12. 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. 

     

  13. 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.

  14. yeah. it also allows a user to have more mission modules, and tailor vehicles for specific missions or theaters. e.g have modules for low, medium and high intensity conflicts, and only ship those applicable to the mission. no reason shipping an MGS when all you need is a battle taxi, and vice-versa

  15. 15 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

     

    In general, the AI is modeled (to my understanding, please correct me if I am horribly off here) to NOT expend main gun rounds on infantry, based on essentially wasting such a powerful and limited munition on a target of limited importance. 

     

    ATGM teams are another matter, since those are a credible threat at extended ranges. 

     

    This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It would be very annoying if a Platoon of tanks starts expending an entire ready rack of main gun rounds on some grunt with a PKM. 

    only problem is those grunts usually carry RPGs of some kind in SB. 

  16. On 7/16/2021 at 5:57 PM, deees said:

    I'm not questioning the accuracy of the FEA software, just whether it's likely that person configuring the simulation would be able to input the correct material properties to product meaningful solutions?

    I probably should have stated using highly-sloped armor for the purpose of deflecting modern long-rod penetrators is questionable. The penetrators don't defect significantly. The original Leopard 2 and Abrams being examples of armor designed after their introduction.

     

    (The new front wedges and the Abrams hull above the driver are examples of highly sloped armor, but they defeat projectiles in different ways.) 

     

    even if the slope doesn't deflect the round, it will still increase the LOS thickness of the armour. so an armour plate sloped at 60 degrees is effectively ~twice the LOS thickness. 

    sloping ERA and NERA as well drastically increases the performance of these armours, as it allows them to act on the penetrator over a longer distance. 

  17. 3 hours ago, Marko said:

    Guess what's going on the the SB wish list at some point.

    A CR-3 with a 120mm gun smoothbore, better mobility etc.

     

    I wonder if its possible for the Esim team just add a 120mm smoothbore on to the current model.

    Also make the model a little more powerful (IE) better mobility slightly faster

    With all the to the fire control changes ballistics and so forth doubt it would be a easy task though.

    Not suggesting you do,  just wondering could it be done or would you need to make a new model from scratch

     

     

     

    it would mean a change to the ammunition layout as well, RH 120 rounds are longer and would not fit in the current challenger ammunition compartments. 

  18. On 4/3/2021 at 9:44 AM, stormrider_sp said:

    Loitering munitions come to mind.

     Loading it with HEAT or ICM capable of taking out an armoured vehicle, would mean it wouldn't have much of a loiter time. maybe at most 3-10 minutes before batteries run too low. 

    it'd probably be better paired up with artillery or mortars for precision guidance of artillery fire. 

×
×
  • Create New...