Jump to content

Panzer_Leader

Members
  • Content Count

    1,334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Panzer_Leader

  1. Thanks for the shout-out @Mirzayev but credit where it’s due. The two phases of this scenario were inspired by a two-scenario mission created by @Gibsonm and used by BG ANZAC which I condensed (into a single scenario with less specific reconnaissance focus and more manageable TO&E for single-player) and moved back in time to 1994. So, while I designed the scenario from the ground up, I’m not sure it would have included the “something different” you credit me for without the inspiration from @Gibsonm‘s earlier effort.
  2. ARMOR magazine ran an article about East German plans for the occupation of West Berlin here: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AuYsbQPUQlikrHPd6vaxPrRev3pL (if this link doesn’t work I’ll replace when I’m at my laptop (currently using iPad)).
  3. The new suspension effects on the terrain in this video look awesome too.
  4. Thanks @Scrapper_511, appreciate the encouragement. The next pre-4.1 update available is 'Mechanized Infantry Company Team Attack at Gershausen 1987': Changes to version 1.4 of the scenario include: Supporting artillery battery increased from six to historically correct eight tubes. Corrected a bug that could see the mission end before the Red counter-penetration force launched in limited circumstances. Have fun! There will be one more scenario updated to pre-4.1 standard before dedicated updates to include any relevant new content from 4.1 post-release and then, hopefully, one or two all-new scenarios as time allows over the next 6-12 months (one is already ~40% complete).
  5. This recent post from Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) refers to Russian strategic analysis linking achievement of Russian strategic goals to fundamental reform of its economy: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/russias-strategic-priorities-viewed-from-within/ A courageous call in today’s political environment but also borne out to a degree in this thread and preceding posts. At least, I linked the two in my mind.
  6. Yes, reviewing the AAR it was amazing how many times the M833 (not a poor round for the period) failed to penetrate the glacis of the T-80U even at point blank range. A worthy adversary!
  7. Luckily there were more M833 than T-80U (or T-80BV in this scenario); they were needed! And, yes, we've fought over this particular piece of virtual dirt with BG ANZAC a number of times... Stay tuned.
  8. After some deliberation I decided not to include the M113A2G in the company headquarters because: It is not organic to the company Doesn't have a material role, e.g. XO, recovery or supply, or add material combat power So, in effect, it becomes an extra vehicle to manage and potentially lose with little benefit to the scenario design or player. The remainder of the changes described above have been implemented in the scenario update, so thanks very much for all the input, and I may revisit this decision in future updates.
  9. The latest update to 'Area Reconnaissance at Neustadt am Rübenberge 1989' is now available for download: Changes to version 2.2 of the scenario include: Corrected Blue mission scoring so that the combat effectiveness score is accurately affected by own unit losses. The Bergepanzer 1 (M88A1 ARV) has been replaced with the Bergepanzer 2 (Wisent ARV). An echelon of 1 Unimog 1300L/Supply and 1 MB 240GD has been added to company headquarters. A GAZ-66 (Unimog 1300L) has been added to the headquarters platoon of the 2S1 self-propelled howitzer battery of the FSE. Enjoy!
  10. Confirming the Bergepanzer 1 (M88A1 ARV) has been replaced with the Bergepanzer 2 (Wisent ARV) from version 2.2.
  11. I think so No concern on my part; I was just thinking out loud after reading your interview, as it seemed like a possibility.
  12. Great article and great find @Breakthrough7! Good to have the T-14 Armata finally confirmed after all the speculation. Personally I’m quite excited about the MB G 300 CDi (I was wondering if it would be included after seeing it on one of eSim’s mugs) as I can use it as a close proxy for a Cold War Danish recce vehicle in a scenario I’ve had in mind for years... (a sequel to ‘Armoured Infantry Company Attack at Rydsgard 1991’). A few other vehicles confirmed too but I won’t spoil the surprise for others. With CROWS now fully modelled, I wonder if there’s an option to add it to M1A2 SEP?
  13. I generally don't like speculating about the content of updates and am grateful for the content that is included but, with 4.1, I'm genuinely intrigued by the two tank icons that I understand remain unidentified or revealed and what they might be, as I'm sure a lot of people are by this stage. I'm convinced one of them is T-14 Armata and here is my best guess at the remaining one in descending order of belief and/or hope: 1) T-72B3; 2) T-80BV or; 3) M1A1 SA. Am I close? Time will tell.
  14. Thanks @Ssnake I’ll make that change in the CS template. One last favour (I hope): can you please provide your recommended call sign for the M113 in the headquarters? I don’t have a “best guess” for this one and would like to finalise it before play-testing and publishing the scenario update, hopefully in the next week. Thanks again!
  15. Yes, a fantastic title on Challenger 1, my favourite Cold War tank. But, I’d highly recommend the two Photosniper volumes and the Tankograd title to round out your collection. There are more on Challenger 1 but these are complementary and the best, in my opinion.
  16. A new book on the Chieftain, published 19 April 2019, that I haven't seen before but looks credible: https://www.amazon.com/Chieftain-Britains-Flawed-Masterpiece-Green/dp/8365958295 I'll put it on my Wish List and wait for some reviews to come in before purchasing as I already have some very good books on Chieftain but, if it is good, another one won't hurt!
  17. Fingers crossed. I guess a properly modelled Protector is better than a generic RWS on an ASLAV-PC even if you can’t use the hatch, assuming you have the patience to learn all its functions.
  18. Yes, great to see a fully modelled Kongsberg Protector in 4.1. Perfect for the ASLAV-PC.
  19. Okay, following input from @Grenny and @Ssnake, here's where I've got to: I've left the the BergTrp (Wisent ARV) and SanTrp (M113A3/Medic) separate per earlier scenario version 2.1 (these call signs were based on input from @Duke(911)), though combined at scenario start. I've then created a separate "section" of the same "platoon" with the KpFW [CSM] (Unimog 1300L/Supply, MG3), Stellv. [XO] (MB 240GD) and "YYY" (M113A2G, no troops). I appreciate this is getting tedious but, what I'd really like to understand is, what is the best "call sign" (even if they didn't actually have one) for the M113A2G in this context? I should then be good to go. The beauty of this arrangement is that all call signs are part of one platoon and can all be combined, allowing the XO to run all call signs, or put the BergTrp and SanTrp closer to the CO and run a second "section" with XO, CSM and M113A2G, or split the XO's MB 240GD out on its own ultimately. Here's how it will look at mission start: This way you know from the unit graphics one "section" is primarily supply and the other recovery (and medic). I'll probably remove any annotations in closed brackets from the call signs before publication. Thanks for your patience with my undiagnosed OCD and please let me know if you have any further comments before I adopt this call sign structure
  20. Exciting and virtually scary all at the same time!
  21. I was wondering about that too (though spotted the answer above. I thought APS would be another very advanced step in simulation programming, beyond scope of 4.1). Does the Kurganets-25 mean the 9M133 Kornet is implemented in 4.1 though?
×
×
  • Create New...