Companion
-
Posts
263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Posts posted by Companion
-
-
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.
0 -
Oh man, the more background research I do, the more frustrated I get trying to put together a 1980's Cold War scen pitting frontline NATO and WP units. Pushing the timeline to 2000 would then put an imaginary Soviet Union at an unfair disadvantage due to lack of BMP3 and T90. :decu:
Glad to hear original TOWs will be available, but I wonder if there is a way I can handicap the CR2 and ODS Bradley to suit my needs. Will tinker more with editor...
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.
0 -
-
Well then, I guess my American and British scenarios in the north German plains will have to wait. Will stick to Fulda and Frankfurt AO. Inventory for US, German, and Russian forces are very comprehensive for 1988 period fortunately. :thumbup:
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)
0 -
The K-200 is basically a license built AIFV or YPR. The addition of a gun shield for a 50 cal doesn't change that.
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.
0 -
...as a stand-in for the AIFVs which are still in use today (Turkey, Korea).
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)
0 -
More tanks being micro managed in Syria.
Why so much minute details in orders? Do they not trust their LTs?
0 -
Well it goes to show that I may be playing Instant Action a little too much and have gotten used to unlimited ammo. Same goes with my own scenarios. I do need to learn how to use HEAT whenever possible and save SABOT for the hard targets. :biggrin:
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.
0 -
Thanks mpow66m! You're right, that's a helpful article. Given it was written in 2001 and mentions Soviet Naval infantry was still in the process of converting its T-55, PT-76 and AT-3 at that time, I feel comfortable setting my scenario in the 1992-94 time frame when the Leopard 1A5 DK replaced the Leopard 1A3 in Danish tank and reconnaissance squadrons. So, strictly speaking, this thread should be named "Russian Naval Infantry Regiment"...
By the way, if you're interested in Soviet Naval Infantry, you may like this U.S. Army Command and General Staff College paper of 1977 which provides a lot of historical background and contemporary analysis: https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=A45842D4036D2CE6!450&authkey=!AIIM80dhvN58990
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.
0 -
The T-80 in the form of the T-80U is in SB, albeit "uncrewable".
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.
0 -
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."
0 -
Its the last in service AH-64A model. Block II or III, every time I read about it I get more confused. Markings are 1-211th Utah national guard, "Buccaneers"
Since you've mentioned it... What's the difference between "early" and "late" AH-64A?
0 -
Thanks Volcano. Going by Gibsonm's reply, I take it then 1st gen TOWs aren't available in SB. Would you happen to know if the TOW or ITOW could defeat a T-64, or any tank with reactive armor?
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.
0 -
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
0 -
Of course it would help if just before they died, they'd come up with a text message such as: 'You stupid moron! I am now going to die because you've forgotten that you put me on 'Hold Fire' during the march to the battle position and didn't take it off'. Or, 'I can't fire my ATGM 'cos you've put me too near the edge of the treeline and every time I kneel up to aim I get engaged by the coax MG of the tank I'm trying to kill, so have to seek cover'. Etc, etc, etc.
Please don't ask me how I know so much about such things.
weren't ATGMs supposed to be near the treeline because of foliage obstructing wire and guiding beam?
0 -
as for the naked B, based on the attached picture there was at least 4 of them in 1986
and around 50:53
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)“Initially the insert consisted of two 50mm+5% sheets of armor glasstextolite; in later models 30mm sheets interleaved with steel were used.
100+ mm sheet was never used, it would be extremely untechnological to
produce and handle.”
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:
0 -
It looks like we fell victim to a misconception and named the T-72B (with K-1 ERA) incorrectly as the T-72BV. Personally, I think part of that misconception in the west comes from the T-64BV. :redface: I think Companion hinted to that earlier.
We will fix the name in the release. For now you can keep calling it the T-72BV.
Currently the possible naming candidates are:
T-72B(ERA)
T-72B(K1)
T-72B(K1 ERA)
...
Jartsev, since you are "in the know", if you have a suggestion on what to call it then by all means let us know. :biggrin:
Here is what I've saved from some thread here where it was mentioned first:
Jartsev: current "naked" T-72B is actually a late-production T-72Adejawolf: no, the difference between T-72A and T-72B is the "bulging" armour on the front turret.
Jartsev: This is common mistake.
-Turret with "bulging" armor(drawing 172.10.077СБ) became available in 1982 and was used for assembly since 1983 parallel with "sand-rods" turret(drawing 172.10.073СБ).
-Pilot batch of tanks with "Svir" Guided Weapon System was produced in 1984, but full scale production of vehicles with this missile system was started somewhat year later(due unavailability of 1K13).
-ERA kits became available for series production in the march of 1985(but officially introduced in 1984).
dejawolf: no, it's common knowledge.
T-72B, BDD front turret armour inserts, V-84 engine.
T-72A, sand rods, V-46 engine.
Jartsev: Nope
Authorized config for T-72B is:
- Turret 172.10.100СБ(nearly identical to 172.10.077СБ)
- New upper glacis armor(spaced laminated w/o textolite)
- ERA "Kontakt-1"
- Engine V-84
- "Svir"
- 1A40-1 FCS
- 2E42-2 stabilizer
- 1A46M main gun
- Improved running gear
T-72B1 is authorized for production as temporary measure till delivery of 1K13(1K13 replaced by TPN-3-49 "Crystal-PA"; but I have no data about automatic loader used)
T-72B2 is a back-up project planned for production of major failure with delivery of "Svir" and armed with "Cobra". Never produced.
"Naked" T-72B-like tanks were manufactured in 1983-1984 in quite limited numbers and differed from actual T-72B by main gun, stabilizer, lack of ERA, guided weapon system, hull armor layout and V-46-6 engine. Sorry, but its a bit different to accept this for westerner. New components and assemblies were rushed in production when became ready.
All this crap causes bureaucratic chaos during depot-level repairs.
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.
0 -
Well... Here is a kind of misunderstanding T-72B can be only with ERA. Tank that looks like T-72B, but lacks ERA- is a T-72A actually(because in fact it shares with T-72B only turret casting and powertrain in fact; main armament, hull armour, wiring, suspension etc. are not the same). This chaos is created by incremental introduction of design changes in some degree. And another thing- those naked vehicles were produced before acceptance of T-72B for service, so there can not be legally accounted as T-72B.
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.
0 -
The B and the BV are well known and the information about both is readily available now. For the most part, yes, the main difference between the two is the addition of ERA for better protection, so it is essentially the B, but better. I am sure the RU guys will know every other minor detail though -- details that will likely fall outside the scope/scale of SB however.The ERA surface will simply help it to survive a few RPG attacks (and maybe also some older 105mm HEAT rounds) that might otherwise have killed it. It is not miracle protection either; simply treat it as a gradual improvement over the T-72B.
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?
0 -
Well to be fair, he didn't state the year...0
-
The T-72M will have crew positions, the T-72B will have to wait a bit longer (you sent us feedback about the fire control system differences, which we will implement for the -B versions (since we feel pretty confident that what we have is "the truth" for the T-72M series).
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.
0 -
Will it be? How do you know that?
Ssnake let it slip a while ago when Leo screenies first appeared.
0 -
Dont get me wrong i really like the fact that the AMX is included in the game,the thing is, if it's not crewable in what kind of setting would it be useable?.
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.
0 -
...wasn't it "free to play"?
....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.
0
screenshots 3.0
in General Discussion
Posted
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...)