dejawolf

well, i know the CV9030F are not solid steel plates. and the CV9035NL plates are pretty much the same design.

well, with mexas, i'm talking about special composite panels. CV9035DK panels are thinner. not sure if they're even composite, or just plain spaced addon steel plates, or perhaps NERA plates.

as for CV9035 AI not using the 35mm against troops, that has been fixed as well in the new version:

the CV9035 are actually better protected than the CV9030 in steel beasts, and also better protected than CV9040B. but that protection is negligible when attacked by ATGMs, RPGs, and tanks. CV9035NL would be the best protected one. it's fitted with mexas+ spaced armour. this should give protection against weaker types of RPG and ATGM. however, in TGIF scenarios, you'll usually be up against the best of the best ATGM-wise. here's a video demonstrating dragon shooting at a CV9035NL.

if you want to know, a few more game-breaking crash bugs were found, and is in the process of being fixed. so if you want to have the best possible experience with the new SB version, oil yourself well up with a bit more patience and sit tight.

sure, we HAVE been wrong in the past, and gone to great lengths to correct these values, to make sure they are correct now. and we WILL change the values. if you can find a source more credible than the one we already have (firing tables with penetration values for various ranges for example, with secret scribbled out all over it)

i see you haven't learned the rule of steelbeasts-time. for all announcements made about release, multiply by 3. so e.g, if Esim announces release 1 months from set date, it will actually be 3 months. and so on and so forth. by esim standards, being 2-3 months overdue isn't so bad. original version of pro PE was a few years overdue.

http://www.kotsch88.de/m_105mmmun.htm#eins kotsch states penetration of M392: 120mm @ 2000m @ 60 degrees.

people would complain if every single M1A2 had a traffic cone on top

made a diagram of T-72 TPD-K1 rangefinder sight, based on picture from manual:

tank which decal is based on, "G2" in iraq.

most armoured vehicles are designed to protect from it's own ammunition from the front, unless it's a tank destroyer.

here's a PDF disclosing some info about 30mm vs 35mm bushmaster: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/vanmeerten.pdf 35mm KETF disperses almost 3 times as many 1.5gram subprojectiles (341 vs 135) as 30mm HE-frag.

close between CV9030F and CV9040C.

same as currently in SB. 7.62mm and 5.56mm. so no 7.62mm ball.

already in SB. switch to US 2000 in mission editor to get them. they also have functioning body armour.

as Jartsev said, no AM/MS for the russian army. procurement of new T-90 has been cancelled for now, in favour of Armata, and upgrade of T-72B.

the 190 with thermals are nearly all T-90A. but there's also about 30 T-90A without thermal.

one problem with the T-90 is that there's only 190 thermal equipped ones in service. the other 200 or so are T-90 with TPN-4 IR sight and modified T-72B turret. by comparison there's currently 2284 T-72B in service. as of 2016, around 630 or so of these are T-72B3 with a thermal imager and K5 ERA. so in total, russian army today have around 820 thermal equipped tanks, the majority of which are actually upgraded T-72B.

there is a clue. http://www.kotsch88.de/f_1g46.htm

i know. i made the models, and did all of the research.

TPD-K1 has 8x magnification, 1G42 of T-64B has 9x magnification, 1G46 has 12x magnification.

and also multiple variants of the T-64B

there was multiple variants of the T-64A

cost of tanks in rubles and dates: T-64 230880 (1966) tanks without ATGM: T-64A 249033 (first verison 1967 upgraded several times in 1969 1972 1975 and 1981) T-72A 337247 (1978) equivalent to late 1981 T-64A here cost is clearly lower on T-64A, although what version of T-64A is unclear. late T-64A has same FCS as T-72A, TPD-K1. tanks with ATGM: T-64B 512737 (first version in 1975 upgraded in 1981) T-64BV 536028 (1985) T-72B 421200 (1985) T-80B 826800(1978) T-64B and T-80B have identical turrets, with only differences in stowage layout and cupola(T-80B has cheaper(!) unpowered cupola, T-64B has powered cupola with AA sight.) yet russian-built T-80B is nearly twice as expensive. (thanks to expensive hull with turbine) as for T-72B, it has drastically lower-quality FCS compared to T-64B. T-64B has 1G42 optics which are fully stabilized, has variable magnification between 4x-9x, missile guidance built into the main sight, has wind sensor, cant sensor, dynamic lead.. pretty much all of the fancy stuff you expect to find in a modern western battle tank save the thermal sight and MRS. meanwhile T-72B FCS is barely an upgrade over the one in T-72M1/A with a bolted on dynamic lead system, and new 1K13 sight for the missile. autoloader in T-64B is also superior to T-72B having an option for rotating both directions, loading faster, and holding 28 instead of 22 rounds as in T-72B. missile of T-72B is inferior as well. Svir only has a range of 4000m, while refleks has a range of 5000m. so T-72B is 80% of the price of a T-64BV, but is quite inferior in many ways.