Companion

Will there be an option to choose caliber of tubes (or rockets) for use in the off-board strike? Or maybe it doesn't matter because all shells are standardized no matter the caliber...? (yes I'm restating the earlier question again...)

Oh my, really nice to have a functioning onboard arty. Does the fire effect (both visual effect and actual performance) vary per machine too? i.e. a 152mm HE mission should not have such tight dispersion as a 120mm mortar mission but a target tank on the receiving end should not shrug off a direct 152mm hit with no damage/minor damages like it does when hit by mortar rounds.

With the addition of early TOWs, we have more or less complete set of late 70s-early 80s US armor/mech unit (not cav, sheridan would have to wait) which uses M1, M60, M113, and M901 For Russian OPFOR of the time period, I reckon T-72B (w/o ERA) would be good enough substitute for early 80s T-64A/B. (reportedly, after 1981, only difference between T-64A and T-64B is FCS suite.) As for ODS Brad, you may take away its LRF but there's nothing you can do about its armor. 30mm APDS would simply ding and 73mm Grom would struggle. We need either 30mm APFSDS or early bradley versions to make BMP main guns a threat that they were during 80s. One bright side from all these purist gloom is that should either the T-64BV or T-80BV appear in SB, one can be a good stand in for the other. Their Turrets have been standardized since 1981. And their hull armor also could have been standardized as well after final 1984 armor revision (which led to BV designation) FCS and tactical mobility are at least comparable for both.

In light of recent Technical screenshot update, I humbly submit this to the_List.

Actually, if you're a purist, you'll have to wait for arrival of T-64BV and T-80BV for "Russian" part of both NGP and Fulda. However, there are always non-Russian Soviet armies using T-72s. i.e. East Germany, Poland, etc. Also, the current ODS bradley is unfortunately overkill for the time period due to lack of advanced ammo for BMPs to negate armor advantage. M1-M113 combo of earlier period is still viable though. (But in this case, lack of earlier versions of TOWs remains a thorn in the eye)

Those vehicles are similar in appearance and roles so YPR-APC would work as a good substitute. But of all things, K-200 is not a license built AIFV and accordingly FMC never received any royalty regarding K-200 production and exports. Reportedly Daewoo Corp. once invited FMC's then president Robert Malott to its K-200 production line (Changwon Factory) in order to counter FMC's plagiarism claim.

Umm nope, at least Korean army doesn't use AIFV. K-200 APC's hull shape and possibly protection is similar to that of AIFV/YPR though. YPR-APC might act as a stand-in for K-200 but it lacks fancy gunshield for 50 cal. that K-200 has. (I'm assuming YPR can swim too)

Why so much minute details in orders? Do they not trust their LTs?

Fear not and play T-72 for highly explosive fun! HE-Frag has added benefit of killing both M113 AND its dismounted minions. Works even when the minions are already dismounted and hit the deck.

Based on what we have in SB, (baseline "vanilla" T-55) you'd be looking at 1960-70s timeframe. T-55AM/MV is a very different beast with its ability to use LRF and hurl missiles. And if experience with T-80U and T-72B is anything to go by, missiles from tank guns bloody hurt.

Oh, well, yes, meant to say T-80"B" No way I could forget "U" version, those AI critters always find some way to trouble me whenever encountered.

I was writing it in general discussions to receive more attention but since T-80 is not in SB, I'll just post it here. I noticed that download section has quite a few Russian manuals about T-80B, and judging from the publication years, some of them are for T-80BV. I tried to have those scanned with OCR software and machine-translated but scanning part already gives me a headache... So, the question is for our Russian-speaking members: how does FCS of T-80BV compare to its other contemporary tanks (M1, Leo 1/2, AMX-30, etc.) in procedure and performance? Also I want to verify this unconfirmed rumor stating that: "T-80 (of unknown model) ballistic computer takes more than 2 seconds to calculate solution because it is slow to process information fed by wind sensor."

Since you've mentioned it... What's the difference between "early" and "late" AH-64A?

T-64 has been constantly upgraded until mid-80s so it all depends on production year and hit location. But I'd guess baseline TOW (400mm+) to be pretty hopeless against frontal aspect even for baseline T-64 (sans obvious weakspots) ITOW does not have a tandem warhead, so ERA would negate it when triggered.

no mention of BMP-2 being crewable but "new engine" hmm... just a showcase for lighting/shadow? And how does target tracker in Ulan work? simply lock the current turret traverse speed? The name at least sounds interesting

weren't ATGMs supposed to be near the treeline because of foliage obstructing wire and guiding beam?

I think I saw some people referring to naked B as "early" and clothed, forbidden from eden B as "late" models. And I also remember Harkonnen (of BTVT, right?) from old tanknet thread, along with a picture, attributes "6-layer glacis" to early B/export S glacis and "10-layer glacis" to late B one. Then there's this quote: (from http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&p=275508)And incidentally, factory number for T-72S is obiekt 172M-E8, not 184-xx. So I'm guessing this interim naked model, which Jartsev described as having a different hull, engine, gun, and FCS than T-72B, might be the "early B" people were speaking of. Of course I might well be daydreaming :redface:

Here is what I've saved from some thread here where it was mentioned first: Personally, I think this "naked B" interim version is too insignificant to be worth including in any simulation/wargame/etc. (too short production run) And who knows if they were later upgraded and accepted into "true B" fleet? But the information is interesting anyway.

Well, the thing is, naked B in SB was most likely modeled with performance of T-72B in mind. That is, the FCS, engine, stabilizer, main gun, etc. for the naked B in game are most likely gathered/estimated from T-72B data, not that little known, little produced A/B hybrid that you've mentioned. I like to engage in bean counters too but BV or B (ERA), I think most won't mind as long as they can recognize what it is.

Thanks for replies, I'm sure that ERA will be much more meaningful once older, cold war vintage NATO missiles are implemented (cue I-TOW, HOT-1, etc.) A question came out while typing: Will the game calculate for post-ERA residual penetration power after a HEAT shell triggers one?

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

Speaking of B, I think Jartsev once mentioned that current "naked B" is actually a some kind of interim version with less protection/firepower capability compared to "real B (BV)" That said, was Jartsev's comment investigated and reflected in the upcoming update or is the upcoming T-72BV not so different from current T-72B other than ERA? I'm not trying to belittle eSim's effort put in delivering the T-72BV; I'm just curious as to what performance to expect of it when making/editing scenarios.

Ssnake let it slip a while ago when Leo screenies first appeared.

If you're looking for a historical background to spice up missions with AMXs, you could look at Middle East, SE Asia, or even multinational mission with cold war europe background. And there are enough units to accompany/oppose AMXs for such "historically feasible" missions, such as T-55, PT-76, BTR, M113, various Leo-1 variants, etc. I don't think there is an underlying motive/related future plan for every added unit in SB, especially those that benefit non-military customers than the other. Here, AMX could have been added in preparation for a new feature. Or just as equally, maybe it was added because this particular tank took so little of development resource that devs could implement it in their spare time. But the point is, the community would welcome something rather than nothing.

....Just in case that's not a sarcasm- It's good old "free to play, pay to win" model. Of course the PR dept. and fans want to renounce the latter bit but you'll know soon enough after a glimpse of game mechanism and economy. For instance, the game allow players to buy shells that perfrorm conveniently just above the protection threshold of commonly encountered opposing tanks at the cost of extra in-game currency. Then, the game offers various options, only available through hard cash, to support the player with his in-game economy.