PincerDK

Testing

I now understand what is meant by 'The T72 when used correctly' - stuffing your gun barrel under the turret of the opposing tank. Very Killjoyski!

But seriously, a very enjoyable evening playing a daylight version of Alpha Sierra's latest. Many thanks.

Barbarians. have you no honor? :biggrin:

He was closing in so I thought I'd give him a good look at my T-72.

Yes and it was very pwetty until that big white light exploded in my face.

I observed the Duel from the F8 view.(well fought by all involved)

The part were you rammed each other was great fun

It was like watching to male bulls knocking the hell out of each other

All credit to pincerDK he put up a good fight concidering he was out of ammo

And his tank was damaged.

It was pointless to try to engage his tank with my gun since I only had manual sights and I couldn't understand what was sabot and what was HE. And with only HE left and already 2 ineffective rounds fired on his T-72, the only last option was ramming.

Actually does anyone know if the GPS sights on the STRV122 is linked to the thermals, which means that if you lose the GPS you lose the thermals? Or are they distinct like in the Challenger? IIRC?

But thank you and yes that last point was especially enjoyable. Also thanks Cabbage for driving for me.

Looks like we did also take a good amount of Ahmed's and Muhammed's with us

All in all, a good night!

Most welcome! most happy to help you and if you are up for it, join tonight's game. There should be a place for everyone.

Other than that, I say Icelandic sheepdog

Well, theres a few things I'd like to see, assuming there was time.

1. A playable IPM1, even if it re-uses the existing M1 or the M1A1 3D model. I think the only thing thats "wrong" on the M1A1 model is the 120mm gun instead of the thinner 105mm tube. I like the 105mm gunned M1 we already have, I just wish I could get the up-armor model!

2. The ability to load MPAT or M908 OR-T in the 3rd and 4th ammo slots on the Abrams to supplement rather than replace HEAT. I understand that the MPAT was used in addition to the normal HEAT rounds on the Abrams during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and I expect the M908 round would be deployed in a very similar way.

3. Some more (AI) T-Tanks to destroy! I think a T-64A would be a great add on for the pre T-80 era, and maybe also a T-72BV or something similar, but naturally I don't expect you guys would have the time or the resources to make those playable, so I'll settle for blowing them up.

4. The ability to fire a weapon from the mounted squad-leader view for vehicles where it's possible to have the troops fight from a mounted position, perhaps in a similar manner to the way the M2HBs can be fired from the hatch of the HMMWV and M113. I know this is probably not something that would be used as a training aid, but it might make for some good multi-player play.

Similarly, for tanks fitted with a loader's MG, either the ability to order the loader up to engage with his MG, or the ability to man the gun ourselves, but I guess this should probably be very low priority as I imagine actually employing that weapon would be pretty rare.

Heh, I remember one of the reasons why we never got a playable T-72M1 in the first place was that people would start asking for more playable T-80's and T-64's. That prediction seems to be coming true.

But not matter what...

Yes a playable IPM1, T-72B, M60 and computer controlled T-64A, T-64B or T-64BV to fill the missing pieces.

I third (or fourth?) this!

Oh, one more thing, if possible.

I'd like a way to tell the gunner and driver to keep doing their thing when I hop up on the .50 cal in the M1's. I don't always actually intend on engaging something with it. Sometimes I just want to put out some suppressing fire on infantry real quick.

Same, sometimes the gunner moves around to much.

I presume they have a lot to do currently but hopefully we'll see these things at some point.

Congrats Gibson

Naah, Olympics are just not my thing. Which is weird since I very much like to do extreme sports such as martial arts and long-distance running.

It's only fun when Denmark beats everyone else. :biggrin:

But thank you for letting me participate.

Will probably, If I can get up at that time, participate in more BG-ANZAC sessions along with UK-armour sessions, especially since you are finishing the Brave Rifles Campaign next time.

Was fun shooting tanks with you guys.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/10/wargame-airland-battle/#more-119368

Speaking of the devil. :biggrin:

Like the Airland Battle title, yes unimaginative but refers to US strategy of the days which means they must know something about Cold War and not just guessing.

Send again. Mails removed.

Thanks Eisenschwein!

My idea is mostly to still keep the platoons separated so 3 platoons per company. I might have to put the CO's tank in one of them, haven't decided yet.

Coordination rooms was my original plan and what I have used mostly and it has worked most of the cases, the only problem is the risk that BLUFOR might take advantage of it. But in real life, I think you also operate with "Coordination rooms" or something similar so maybe it's not an issue after all. I would also use coordination rooms if I was in command of a whole tank battalion.

What do you mean by the "Follow if" option?

Yes my plan is to keep them attacking simultaneously and on a narrow

frontage. Thanks for the 3 km, I thought the frontage was something like that.

And I have tested with arty before so I could get a simultaneous attack AND arty impact but since this is not a major attack, I might have to keep it to either 6 tubes corresponding to the battalion mortar battery and some assorted preplanned fires.

The situation:

The enemy is attacking from either of these two directions and then advances down the valley in the west.

The friendly units have moved from that valley and their objective is the city of OBJ BISMARCK (German city of Lauenau) which they need to hold while defeating the counterattack.

If the BLUFOR commander decides not to hold the city, he can instead retreat back into the western valley to OBJ NELSON (Auetal) and hold it but he needs to inflict at least 50% casualties on the enemy.

If he decides to not hold either of these he can retreat back to his starting point and inflict at least 75% casualties on the enemy.

The problem is still how the Soviet Battalion advances down to BISMARCK and then to the valley.

SS_22_20_0201.rar

Please do Mark

Same here, Played Mechwarrior 3 and 4 so not entirely into the whole battletech story but I know a lot of how they work.

Can't tell much due to the NDA, but I'm going to play it when it comes out.

Hesh does not have a "follow on explosion". Rather the outside explosion causes a shock/energy wave that travels from impact area inwards causing spading and other energy effects. All explosion takes place on the outside of the Armour.

I have seen this effect many times on various AFV's and a few T-72's on the range. The inside was in pretty bad shape even on the T tank.

Well yeah, after the pancake hits and flattens, the "follow up" explosion creates the shockwave.

Always wanted to see how an HESH round hit. Saw a HEAT round hit a plate once from an AT4, you could see how the copper jet pushes through the plate.

But yeah could imagine the chaos of a tank hit by HESH, not a pretty sight. :eek2:

I would say that the area that is affective by HESH is greater than by a HEAT round, being the resulting HEAT jet is small compare to the surface area for the pancaked HESH area, thous the larger behind amour effected area. Instead of a small jet, consider a large spalding area ripped from the inside armour flying around the AFV

Yes I agree.

Hello gentlemen!

I have been for a long time tried to make a classic Cold War scenario in Steel Beasts that is about a Motorized Rifle Battalion/tank Battalion attacking an area while a company or equivalent is defending, you know the standard 1:3 ratio. Mostly the company is recon based, so it's either units:

US Divisional Cavalry Squadron (1 troop of 6*3 M3's + HHT with 2 M3's),

Canadian Recce Squadron (Mostly 2 platoons of 2*4 Lynx (M113A1) with an attached platoon of 1*4 Leopard 1 (Leopard 1AS1)

(For those interested in this, check the previous post I made in the Tactics section, there are some interesting input from those who know about this)

German Recon Battalion (2 Sections of 2*2 Luchs (ASLAV-25) and a Leopard 1A5 platoon of 1*4 Leopard's)

In this mission I'm currently working on it's the German unit I have chosen and they are supposed to be advancing up a valley that is situated on the boundary between a US Division and an German Division. The objective is a city and they are meant to recon the valley and defeat a possible counterattack from an MRB.

The problem is the MRB. Whenever I try to make it so the Soviet Battalion attacks in Company columns, I have to go through a lot of scripting in order to make sure 1 company is not moving ahead of the other and I have to make places where they stop in order to let 1 unit catch up with the others.

If I make these stop places, then BLUFOR has an easy way of killing them while they stand still.

Also for me there are 3 options how to make the units move:

1. You can make a route for each platoon and HQ and set them so they follow each other but that is just quite tedious to do and like the 3rd option just makes it confusing to do.

2. You can make them all follow a company route so you have all the units in one company follow a route and another follow a second and another a third.

This I have had sucess with before but the problem is then tanks since they are given the same route to follow as an BTR80.

3. You can use the copy route chain in order to copy a units movement and apply it to others. The problem is then that the routes are laid perfectly 100 m between each other which means some of the routes are going through woods and some through lakes and it's a bit confusing to try to correct them all.

I just want to hear some ideas/suggestions from those who have made those scenarios that is similar to this like Volcano's Deliberate Attack 01 or Hasty Defense 01, NGP 85 scenario which have some of the same ideas, Zipuli's scenarios or HoH pt1.

1. What was your procedure with this? did you use any of the three? or do you have you own way in order to avoid making it too tedious?

2. Some ideas?

Another question? How does people make screenshots instead of printing in Steel Beasts? I have tried some of the printscreen programs but they just provide me with a blank picture.

Plus though perhaps the anti tank capabilities being sub par but is it really that much. Plus the HESH round could be more effective than a HEAT round. Most tanks are designed to survive a HEAT round more than they are designed to protect against HESH I'd presume.

Most tanks today are more protected against HESH than against HEAT. HESH used to be an effective weapon against tanks but with the coming of composite armor, that effect was heavily diminished.

HESH is not as effective against tanks as HEAT is but it is much more suited to IFV/APC's and especially buildings since HESH pancakes on the side of the building and the follow-up explosion "attacks" the whole building per se. HEAT on the other hand is good at breaking through and "attacking" the inside of a vehicle or building.

HESH IIRC is also much more suited against people in the open than HEAT since it's effect amounts to a larger explosion than HEAT.

I have played it sometime ago, just the singleplayer campaigns and as such.

It's really my thing with Cold War and tanks and all so was looking forward to it when it came out, although the graphics made it look like a cheap knock off of World in Conflict which WEE was of course heavily inspired of.

I liked all the tank variants you could have and the amount of weaponry, IFV's, APC's, AA etc. The models seemed allright and the terrain was actually to my surprise quite nice, not WIC standards but still nice, especially the amount of detail.

Also liked the supply systems and the different tactics you could use.

I don't know what made me not play it more, it just got a little tiring I think, going through all the singleplayer tanks just to get some new tanks instead of always using Leo 1's. Some of the graphics when the tank fired also looked a little bit too cartoonish, with big muzzle flashes and great explosions.

I liked the great maps in the game, that was what WIC could have missed so you could create some great flanking manouvers.

But when you visit the forum it seems people always talk about which tank they want nerfed and which tank they want buffed and you know when people use these terms, they don't play to create nice NATO-Warsaw Pact scenarios, they use zerging and tanking and just wanna win, because it's kewl when you win.

I used the same terms in Counterstrike but that is supposed to be competitive, this game deserves better than this.

Wouldn't mind some more Cold War tanks in Steel Beasts like T80B(V) or T-64, Leopard 1A3 etc which this game has a lot of but currently I think I'll manage.

It's a nice game, maybe I have to open it again.

Received a ton of messages last night.

Just cleared it a moment before you wrote. Send it now.

Well the Command Chain on BLUEFOR was sent this as part of a PM on the 29th:

and

So they are the rules for BLUEFOR during Red Tide '85 until further notice.

Already send it to Marko who forwarded it to Tjay.

So he should be aware of the rules.

Other than that, can't wait for the next battle.

I know that it is very bad form to enter another players vehicle without permission (although I've had it done to me several times) but does that also apply to occupying the observer's position? And does doing so affect the players operation of his tank in anyway?

I had numerous people cycling through my observer's positions last night and it didn't seem to affect anything. And it has never bothered me - other than to be nervous about what experinced players are thinking of my tactics.

Those who feel very strongly about this - to the extent of shouting obscenities over the radio to any 'occupier' - surely have the option of selecting NO when asked at the start if they wish to allow others to occupy their vehicle. I realise this means that if they drop no one else can pick it up, but that's a small price to pay IMHO to avoid unpleasantness.

Was not present for the recon battle so don't know really what happened but!

IMHO I don't think it's a problem to observe another tank to watch what is happening as long as YOU'R OWN VEHICLE/PLATOON is positioned in a good position, doesn't have a job to do and the enemy is not firing on or observing or moving close to it.

And if you are observing a vehicle other than your own or even occupying it, you should always always be aware of what you'r own vehicle is doing and at the same time pay attention to comms net.

If this is not possible, STAY in your own vehicle/platoon.

Other than that, Tjay you stayed in your own platoon last friday for the crucial part so currently it seems you'r doing it right.

Tacbat you got a lot of hits too, that was some excellent shooting.

Never heard of CNAO prior to this thread. It does look interesting and might be a decent upgrade from Harpoon.

When is it scheduled to release? And I can't figure out who will be selling it or what it will cost?

Any info on that?

No reports currently on its release IIRC.

And the same for the price.

Have a folder full of these papers, the SAMS are the most interesting IMO.

My favorites are:

- Army of Excellence divisional cavalry squadron - a doctrinal step backward

- The Bear Went over the Mountain

- Who is out there? Tactical reconnaissance formations for the heavy division (gives a nice view of how the Germans, Americans and Russians operate their reconnaissance units)

Another paper I would recommend:

Scouts Out!

The Development of Reconnaissance Units in Modern Armies

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/scouts_out.pdf

That's what I thought, so was surprised to at the decision from 'on high' to deny my valiant grunts their MII3 support.

Well Tjay I think maybe in that case it was better keeping them along our squadron instead of near the infantry since placing the M113's in the valley behind the infantry would have exposed them to the ENY and they would have no chance retreating across the valley. They were also quite useful with the 50cal engaging those infantry attacking the town in the last part of the scenario.

If we had a better position for the infantry we could have made an ambush with M113's and the infantry AT weapons.

Our local chip shop uses beef dripping, and their chips are fantastic :biggrin:

Now back to the thread,

I'd like to see airburst artillery inplememted.

+1 for airburst.

Pincer,

Now see what you've done - upset MG. Easily done though.

Thanks for your offer to replace Marko if he drops or doesn't get up. Accepted.

What we don't know at the moment is who the C.O and 2 i/c will be. If Hedge accepts C.O I will understudy him as 2 i/c.

If Hedge drops - as he is prone to do - and I step up to C.O, I'd be grateful if you could replace me as 2 i/c. If I end up as C.O from the start I will need you as my 2 i/c, in which case Marko just won't have a deputy - there aren't enough of us.

I'm sure 'It'll be alright on the night'. :diable:

Well my intention was not to upset either one of you. It's probably just difficult with you two having different but equally viable views on the subject.

Hope it settles and my status is the same, XO if someone from command needs me to do.