Stanny

I was meaning 1994 issue 125 mm smooth bore round. It is difficult to remember all designations. I tried popping smokes in order to block the missile guidance but with no avail - missile goes through the smoke. What is interesting is that Abrams SEP deals with these missiles without any significant problems, only some vehicles suffer minor damages. My idea with those tests is to find out which Western tanks can actually win a classic open battle against top tier Russian tanks, just pure face to face stand off, without crawling in ambushes, without hitting and running etc. This shows their actual ability. Will be testing Leopard 2E now.

Look are you that stupid that cannot see that there are three dead vehicles in the platoon? Putting you into my ignore list. Four CR2s, wedge wide spacing formation, advancing towards platoon of T-90S, fire at will ROE.

You must do something with CR2 model. It's obviously broken, three tanks dead at 4053 meters (tried lasing in both first and last return modes). Tank is absolutely weak in frontal combat, just cannot do anything with T-90S (I assume with other top tier Russian tanks too). SB Pro PE Version 3.011 from full installer in eSim downloads section, Windows XP 32 Bit

If you and your fellows cannot communicate in a normal polite way - without snobbery like "respect my authority here" we should end this discussion right now. Meanwhile I am the customer of the product who pays for the upgrades on a regular basis (as long as I have a free time to devote for the sim) and I will continue to require the quality for money - realistic tank models (not based on subjective literature descriptions but on real life counterparts instead), normal detailed clickable cockpits on all tanks (which is a black hole for Challenger II now), detailed driver places (which are also completely blank now). You may call me "trolling", "bitching", "bullying" etc. etc. - I don't care about every pompous idiot's opinion. :cool:

My complaints are pretty specific - Challenger II is one of my favorite tanks ever (rifled gun, Chobham armor and all other sweet things) and I would like to see it in simulation as realistic as possible without any nerf. Put 4 Challenger II against 4 T-90S on flat terrain at 3500 meters and see how many tanks will remain undamaged in CR2 platoon.

Unfounded criticism? And what else would you expect when top Russian tanks are being modeled as "super weapons" even without having proper access to the original army units to learn about actual capabilities? What Russian tanks were tested before adding to the Steel Beasts line? Only the downgraded export T-72M1 version? So how can you precisely model T-80 and T-90 for example, when you don't have even the proper technical documentation? Sorry guys, if you take $40 for every major upgrade customers expect quality, attention to details and technical accuracy.

What do you expect me to say? Cheers and gratitudes all the time? Yes, the SB is the best tank sim on the market but it is unfinished and many aspects are based on assumptions rather than on exact modelling. What T-90 rounds were you testing in reality if you depict those tanks to start firing at ~3000 meters accurately (according to LRF data). You are one of the designers who sells the product, so if customers pay money for this they would expect simulation that is at least accurate. If you are having troubles accessing Russian tanks for modelling go to Ukraine, Kharkiv tank plant that manufactures various advanced versions of T-64 and T-80, they will show you the tanks, drive to the tank range, and you will be able to represent those vehicles accurately. Not that difficult. Moreover they would show you actual tanks damaged in combat with various munitions so that you can model the damage characteristics.

I am not talking about the flank attacks, ambushes and other tricks as they do not show anything in real comparison between two different tank models. They show only the player's experience. If you want to compare Challenger II with any other tank properly put them all on flat terrain at approx. 7000 meters distance, Reds are guarding, Blues have to advance at top speed, engage and destroy them face-to-face. Only such test shows the actual capability of the vehicles modeled in game. You get the correct comparison of frontal armor, LRF accuracy and gun stabilization, differences in round ballistics.

I will do the third face to face test and post AAR here. First time Challenger II lost completely without any damage to T-90S platoon, second time it barely won - the last remaining tank got a fuel leak and was firing in a standing position until got all T-90S destroyed. I am creating classic face to face battles when Reds take guarding position and Blues have to advance towards them and destroy. All tanks are being loaded only with sabot rounds in maximum quantity. Last night I was doing a second test for the M1A2 Abrams SEP - their platoon just wiped T-90S platoon off, opened fire from 4100 meters with M829A3, two T-90S had their turrets blown away almost immediately, second two got their tracks broken, guns damaged and finished slightly afterwards. Only one blue tank was damaged - LRF, GPS etc. So basically what I am trying to say is that at least in SB the Challenger II is helluva weaker than M1A2 Abrams SEP, either it is underpowered or top Russian tanks are overpowered.

The one who is bitching and whining is obviously you at this point. As concerning me I was trying to take developer's attention that it is not necessary to make an "uber-waffe" out of Russian tanks simulating that they can penetrate the frontal section of the Challenger II turret from 3500 meter range (killing crew inside) with BM19 sabot because this is unrealistic, this won't happen in real combat due to the specifications of the round and the turret armoring of the Challenger II. The only way they can inflict damage at this range is launching tank guided missile through the barrel of the main gun, for example 9M112 "Kobra".

Have a look at this armor scheme for Challenger II in SB: How T-90S can penetrate the turret at 3500 meters with BM19 sabot while the penetration of this round is just 650 mm at 2000 meters at 0 degrees impact?

T-90S is nothing more than modified T-72 with upgraded reactive armor, some electronic warfare systems like "Arena" and Challenger II together with old M1A2 has shown superiority over T-72 platform in Operation Desert Storm ground offensive. Even the 125 mm sabot rounds depicted in SB Pro PE are of old 1994 year version. So why this tank should be such a "super-weapon" that kills 3 out of 4 Challengers II at 3500 meters almost instantly while looses completely to M1A2 Abrams SEP in the same conditions (I have made two scenarios 4 x 4 frontal engagements M1A2 Abrams SEP Vs T-90S and both times all T-90S were blown from 4000 meters). I mean something is wrong that Challenger II is so inferior to M1A2 Abrams SEP.

The frontal armor is just unrealistically weak, taking into account it is Chobham. 3 out of 4 tanks die almost immediately in face to face encounter with four T-90S, in the same conditions, terrain, visibility etc. LRF has difficulties in reading the correct distance both for player controlled vehicle and for AI tanks, while T-90S is insanely accurate at 3500 meters. T-90S is just a modified T-72 with extensive upgrades, but it no way can be so powerful against Challenger II. So the problems are the following: frontal armor is weak, LRF needs tweaking for better distance acquisition at longer ranges (like it is implemented in M1A2), something is wrong with L27 sabot rounds.

Challenger II is underpowered in 3.011 version, I think there is something wrong with ammunition ballistics and penetration. With L27 sabot rounds it barely wins with huge losses and damages a 4 X 4 face to face battle against T-90S or even looses in a 3500 m range duel. Basically only one tank survives out of a 4 vehicle platoon the battle against the equal platoon of T-90S. Meanwhile M1A2 Abrams SEP just wipes all T-90S squadron off with M829A3 sabot rounds at 4100 meter distance in the same terrain and conditions. I mean something is wrong either with Challenger II cannon modelling (laser range finder is quite difficult to operate at 3500+ meter distances both in first and last return modes) or with L27 ammunition ballistics and penetration, I don't think that this tank (that has Chobham armor) should be so weak compared to T-90S. 3 Challenger II out of a four tank platoon die almost immediately at 3500 meter face to face encounter with T-90s. Please pay attention at Challenger II model in the next update. It should not be that weak against T-90S.

Where do you see the political agenda here when I am talking about actual events that are taking place? I see you are from Germany, is it the official position of German moderators on these boards - speak only good about Russia and Mr. Putin or speak nothing about them? Germany always backs Russia on international arena due to their cheap gas interests but I could never imagine that this has spread to the level of the ordinary people communication. Why do you behave like this shutting up opposite opinions? You are trying to block this discussion in order not to touch the "Russian theme" as far as I understand while this topic is currently very sensitive to many ethnic Ukrainians who are actually very worried about what is happening in this country.