lavictoireestlavie

Hello guys, I want to apologize for all the drama my thread has caused. After reading through the responses of the members I have come to the conclusion that some of my contributions will always directly or indirectly violate the rules of the forum because of the nature of the subject matter. I have realized that I will not be able to just ignore declassified, classified data, secret, released data when i compile information and do modeling just to suit someones or some groups believe system. In the end I want to present plausible solutions based on facts. To avoid any further complications I have decided to no longer contribute on this platform. I will take the time to remove any traces of my material that are either directly or indirectly linked to information that has been labelled as "secret" (or similar analogs).

Your post no longer violates the forum rules.

Ahh, what happens if i were to stumble on a leaked or declassified Chinese report that contain the word "機密 " (secret) and post it here ? What would you do if a declassified or leaked Russian report with секретно (secret) written on it was partially posted on here or other platforms? Will you have to inform the Chinese and/or Russian MoD ?

" I think such a thread should have been kept open. At most editing ( or technically censoring) out specific documents deemed "classified" ( should they actually be so) would have been a heather option instead of shutting down an entire thread. " - Kev2go Thank you guys for the feedback, I appreciate it. To be honest, i was pissed off to see my thread deleted just like that after having spent a couple of hours just compiling the yet incomplete information package. My measured initial response to the classified,leaked information, declassified drama would have just been to "sanitize" the original post by either deleting or at least censoring/modifying the suspect diagrams and then go on from there. "Certainly not as a singular wall of text type of data dump, but rather broken into vehicle-specific dossiers. " -Ssnake I totally see the point. Originally one of the aims of the thread was to have the information on the relevant vehicles all in one thread instead all over the place. As I was creating the thread I realized, after looking at the amount of data available, that it might be better to have individual threads (or reports) on each vehicle type. As you might have seen and/or read, the original post was not even finished and rather a work in progress. I might have to create properly cited vehicle specific reports (or dossiers) in form of a pdf file instead of a forum thread that does not seem suited for longer streams of information anyway. Dealing with protection levels of vehicles: The idea has been floated over the years about having a system in place where the user can select (via direct number input and/or a slide button set up menu) the protection values, thickness efficiencies, etc. of the relevant parts of a vehicle to suit the users wishes. This would avoid the entire classified, leaked , declassified info, muh armor- drama all together. The user can use whatever the user wants including the Steel Beasts Pro (PE) default values. You don't like the values on a turret cheek ? Now you have the chance to change that to whatever you like, more or less. I like this idea the most. Given the type of damage modelling done in Steel Beasts I am not so sure how time consuming/irritating this would be to implement for certain vehicles or if is even worth the hassle. Either way, i am also convinced that the data and models (including my own) should still be thoroughly reviewed and discussed on various relevant platforms (i.e. forums, meetings, presentations, journals, etc.) . I do not want to spread misinformation/fanboy infused bull**** on here or anywhere when it comes to these technical/scientific matters. I have seen misinformation and cringeworthy fanboyism negatively impact discussions on various forums before and i try to avoid it. I want to offer plausible solutions (ideally the solution ^^'''). " Above all I want to stay clear of security breaches; for us the legal implications could be extremely painful. At the end of the day, Steel Beasts is a computer game and nobody should go to jail over it. " - Ssnake Better save than sorry. Reminds me of one of my professors who was adamant about not using diagrams from certain sources in his lectures without having them properly cited due to copyright issues. Although i found his attitude towards the matter a bit "hysterical", i can understand that he is trying to avoid any potential legal drama. Dealing with the classified/secret/restricted issue again, how do you guys deal with declassified information that has the words "secret" on it? No, "secret" was not crossed out! There are various British documents that have been made accessible to the public via the archives that deal with the Challenger 1, Burlington, XM1, etc. yet they still carry the labels. Given the updated forum rules, these documents technically-speaking can not be posted here anymore.

Since that thread was deleted I would like to know your guys feedback whether or not you would like my input minus any classified information. Your honest response would be appreciated.

Your feedback would be appreciated:

Official documents from national archives will not get much more primary when it comes to sourcing. As i said earlier, i am looking at the protection schemes of a couple of vehicles that seem to be a bit off if we follow recently revealed sources. I want to address those.

I will create a separate thread on this in the tactics forum so I do not clutter or sidetrack this thread. There are many private SB customers that like to research these kind of topics on their own and do not see a burden in that. I myself am glad to maybe help imrove Steel Beasts. If there are multiple independent and verifiable sources that point in a different direction, i will most certainly take a second look at my original data if there is a discrepancy. Just because the information is posted in other forums does not make the information any less valid if the information is properly sourced. I am also trying to be objective with the information i collect,prepare and present without going into the "muh game/tank/style/opinion/preferences/whatever is/are better than yours" arguments. Also, the information is over 25 years old, some of which was recently declassified or at least partially declassified. I will not make a big fuss out of any "secret" document unless lives and limbs directly depend on it. It is save to assume that the 'Russians' (or insert any country) are more or less aware of the range of realistic protection levels of the tanks of other nations.

1) A crewable Leclerc (Serie 1, Serie 2,etc.)! 2) A crewable Merkava and/or just another Merkava (e.g: Merkava III, IIID) 3) Adjustment of the KE protection levels of various tanks to realistic KE protection levels. Im looking at Leopard 2A5 type vehicles and Challenger 2 in particular. Given the recent revelations some of the KE values seem to be off by literally 100% For instance, Challenger 2 turret cheeks are around 600-650 mm RHAe KE if we follow recently declassified British government documents. In Steel Beasts it is around 1250 mm RHAe against KE threats. The Leopard 2A5S turret cheeks were given a KE resistance of 750-850 mm RHAe during the Swedish tank trials vs. 1380 mm KE given in SB.

Now they should mate a Leopard 2A7 turret on a Leclerc Serie XXI hull !!!!! Do it !

+playable Leclercs !

Neat ! A question concerning the Abrams, am i right in the assumption that the US Abrams follows this special armor developmental cycle: US Army: M1 (1980 - Burlington 1) -> M1IP (1984 - Burlington 2) -> M1A1 (1986 - Burlington 2) -> M1A1 HA (1988 - Burlington2 + 1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 early (1992 - Burlington 2 + 1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A1 HA+ (1995 - 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 (1995- 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 SEP (2001 - 3rd gen. Heavy Armor Package). USMC: M1A1 HC (1990 - Burlington 2 + 1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A1 HC (1995 - 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A1 HC/FEP (2001 - 3rd gen. Heavy Armor Package)

I had my doubts about earlier but i did not want to believe that it could be fake.

So the chart is totally fake ?

Wow! From where did you get the information that they exchanged information and that those were the values that they exchanged? Could it be that these values are actually frontal arc values and that they actual front values are actually higher? The Armed Forces Journal treated from 1989, before the end of the cold war, used practically identical values over the frontal arc: Figures from a CIA report: However these values were obtained, it seems the CIA considered these figures realistic enough to include them in their report.

It was part of a presentation by R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV, that was maybe supposedly unwittlingy leaked.

As far as i could see these are the supposed protection values for the "export" M1A2 variant not the US variant. I am getting the impression that the documents are legit.

Here is a download link to the presentation: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH I am getting the strong impression that the M1A2 diagram is indeed not a fake after all.

Guys check this out from the Swedish Tank Trials that MM_SH "below-the-turret-ring" found:

oh yes yup Posted disclaimer: " According to some sources checking FMV archives that drawing above is fake, well made photoshop but still fake. So bother about it even less. Lessons learnt: don't bother about data which sources you can't confirm just because they fit your theory or you will end like GJ. "

Thank you all for your input!!! Also, concerning this diagram: I got the following response: "I had a talk yesterday with people on this subject and looks like that drawing is from SwedenMBT 2000 competition. USA offered M1A2 but with EAP (Export Armor Package). EAP differs from client to client like monkey versions for Egypt or Iraq for better setups for closer allies like Sweden or Australia. EAP for Sweden was probably close to M1A1HA but without DU. So it really isn't comparable to any M1 variant in US service - maybe lower front hull will be similar to M1 or M1IP but that just speculation. M1A2 with EAP for Sweden failed competition to Leopard 2I (similar to german 2A5) based version but amount of lower protection for M1A2 EAP for Sweden isn't known. Probably after this export failure US offered better HA version for Australia without DU replaced with titanium. "

Thank you guys for the feedback! Also guys what do you think about this claim from an 19K soldier: hmmm

Because of the "secret" on top ? I am confused.

Are you sure that this is a fake ?

Thank you for the feedback. Would you know where this diagram is from? It looks like an early M1A2 with the armor package of an M1A1 HA: Also, would you know if the composition and thickness of the upper front hull was changed from the original M1 to the M1A1 and so on. The M1A1 HC seems to have composites in the upper front hull: This might be from an M1: Also for the original M1: ... and for the early M1A1 HA: Although the early M1A1 HA variant did not seem to have featured DU inserts, i could believe that the shaded area on top the front hull could contain a thickened steel plate composite array. This makes me believe that the original M1 did not have any composite elements in the upper front hull!