Panzer_Leader

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    

3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Guess what you saw incoming in the last seconds of the video...

Exciting and virtually scary all at the same time!

2 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Did I seen it right, is Afganit active protection system on Kurganets-25 functional, or am I just seeing things?

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?

Likewise. Standing by...

You’re welcome. I certainly enjoyed reading it and thought others here might too.

This blog, Russia Military Analysis, contains an excellent summary of last year's large Vostok 2018 exercises held by Russia: https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/2018/09/28/assessing-vostok-2018/

Use the "PREVIOUS POST" navigation at the bottom of the linked article to work through the previous blogs on Vostok 2018 which provide an almost daily update on the course of the exercise: Day 7, Days 5-6, Day 4, Day 3, Day 2, Day 1 and Exercise Plan in reverse order.

What I found really interesting from the blogs and photos, beyond the analysis of the exercise itself, and what's relevant to Steel Beasts, is the equipment featured and the fact that many of the units involved continue to use T-72B1 (m.1985), BMP-2, BMD-2, ZSU-23-4, 2S1, 2S3 and BM-21, at least in the eastern military districts.  More modern equipment featured includes BTR-82A and 2S19 (both coming in 4.1) and T-72B3.  There isn't a mention or picture of a T-90 or BMP-3.  In many cases it seems you can look beyond Russia's signature equipment programmes, such as T-14 or even T-90, and reach straight back to late Cold War equipment even for contemporary scenarios...

I also found this very helpful resource on Russia's contemporary order of battle and geographic distribution if you're trying to visualise and understand the military districts and units involved in Vostok 2018 or more generally: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pnxxfx41cs5d3gq/Russia's Military Posture%3B Russian Ground Forces Order Of Battle_ISW_Mar18.pdf?dl=0

Cheers   

On 6/8/2019 at 8:16 PM, Grenny said:

Frankly , these vehicles will not really have callsigns, as they are used to form the company HQ.

No manouvre element , often no radio on board ==> no callsign

 

There will be the callsign for the company HQ, but these are usually cover-names

On map, simply mark as "HQ" of "GefStd(H)" or "GefStd(R)"

Thanks @Grenny, appreciate the input.  I'll use more generic call signs for these vehicles.  More for my benefit as I think about organising the vehicles in their "platoons" in the scenario, would:

• The XO most likely be found in the M113 (fitted as a command post as I understand it) or the Wolf?
• And, if the XO is in the M113 would the company sergeant major (German equivalent) be in the Wolf or vice versa?

Finally, would you expect the bergepanzer and M113 medic from battalion to be organised with these HQ units or kept separate?  At the moment I'm anticipating a combined "platoon" or echelon with perhaps the M113 separate as an XO's CP, depending on your answer above.

This will help me organise the HQ and attachments as best I can for the next iteration of the scenario, which I'm hoping to play test by the weekend.

Cheers  

More goodies!  I'm looking forward to contemporary OPFOR using the BTR-82A.

Hi Team

In anticipation of the impending release of 4.1 I'm bringing any outstanding scenarios up to my latest 4.023 standard, starting with 'M1A1 Platoon Attack on Reinforced Motorised Rifle Company', which hadn't been updated since 4.0: 

Changes to version 2.4 of the scenario include:

• BLUE infantry sections comprise two rifle squads, each equipped with 5.56 mm rifle (MARS-L), 7.62 mm MG with 700 ready rounds (7.62 LSW Minimi) and 25 40 mm grenades (M203PI). The second squad is also equipped with Carl Gustaf M3.
• RED Motorised Rifle sections comprise two rifle squads equipped with 5.45 mm rifle (AK-74) and 10 40 mm grenades (GP-30). One squad is equipped with (R)PG-7R^ and the second squad with 5.45 mm MG with 320 ready rounds (RPK-74) and RPG-27. Sources: FM 100-2-3, The Soviet Army: Troops, Organization, and Equipment, 1991 and OPFOR Worldwide Equipment Guide, 2000.
• Bunkers removed from RED automatic grenade launcher (AGL) teams to enable them to fire.
• RED minefields changed from buried to surface-laid for easier identification.

@Splash has also created an excellent custom skin for the "coalition partner" (New Zealand) infantry in this scenario, in contemporary MCU (Multi-terrain Camouflage Uniform): 

I'd recommend downloading it to maximise realism and immersion.

There are three more scenarios I'm bringing up to my final 4.023 standard which I'll release progressively over coming weeks, the intention being to then release 4.1 updates, where applicable, that only reflect the exciting new features of 4.1.

Enjoy.

On 12/6/2012 at 7:26 PM, Falli said:

According to my informations, a PzAufklKp in Heeresstruktur 4 (until 1993/4) consists of the following units:

- KpFueGrp (CO, Head)

1x Leo1, 1x M113, 1x Wolf/Iltis, 1x 2t truck, 1x 5t truck

Resurrecting this post as I'm hoping my German friends can help with appropriate call signs for the call sign template (I'm using one originally supplied by PzBtl 911) for the above vehicles (excluding the Leopard 1 = "Chef") for an update of 'Area Reconnaissance at Neustadt am Rübenberge 1989 v2.1 (4.010)' I'm working on in advance of the the release of 4.1.  Specifically, I'd love to know the "best" vehicle call signs for the M113, Wolf, 2t truck and 5t truck.  I did not include these vehicles in v2.1 of the scenario but, based on now having Fahrzeug Profile 38 'Die Panzeraufklarungstruppe der Bundeswehr 1956 bis 2008' as a reference, I'd like to include them.   

Using 'Die Panzeraufklarungstruppe der Bundeswehr 1956 bis 2008', and the battalion template on p.18, as a guide, I'm assuming the company XO could be found in the Wolf or M113, which would have been the company's tactical command post, or company sergeant major's vehicle, or maybe the other way around, I'm guessing (??).  

Any tips on the above would be gratefully received!  I like to make the organisations, equipment and call signs as accurate as I possibly can.

Cheers

^^ A very nice target indeed!

9 hours ago, Grenny said:

 

Another nice video @Grenny, thanks.  It looks like there's an updated BTR-80 model in 4.1 too.

I may not have looked at an Mi-24 through TI recently but I loved the thermal effect of its turbine exhausts.  Pretty excited to get my hands on the update.

Pumped to see the M577 making it into 4.1.  Perfect for accurate headquarters units. The Cold War just keeps getting hotter in PE!

Based on the video itself (nice narrative BTW) plus all the comments above, including things I didn’t notice first pass, it’s really looking fantastic! To possibly add to the haul, is that a new T-55 variant? Vanilla hull but LRF box above main gun?

20 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Look forward to it.

Ditto!

21 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Someone egged me on to find out how many craters you can have in a given area.

 

 

 

Turns out, beyond a certain crater density no more craters get added.

 

 

Nevertheless, I suppose "a lot" is good enough for the moment.

Interesting to compare to this drone footage of an actual artillery strike [Twitter]: https://twitter.com/SamuHaa/status/1133683103958994945

I originally thought the black craters were a little "theatrical" but apparently not (I should have known better).  Great job eSim!

I spy with my little eye an... ACRV IV14/15.  Thank you eSim, you've just made my 4.1 day!

On 5/25/2019 at 4:07 AM, Ssnake said:

14 vehicles, and vehicle families.

Technical term: a shedload.

I’m looking forward to the gradual reveal.

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

JIM-LR will be found under "personal optronics", along with night vision gear as the second option, and who knows what else might get added in the future. So, in principle, every infantry unit could be equipped with it.

Thanks @Ssnake, appreciate your answer to this and my previous question (and @Gibsonm's response). 

Some very fun stuff coming and I suspect we're at ~10% of the haul!

The JIM LR product page for those interested: https://www.safran-vectronix.com/product/jim-lr/ 

On 5/23/2019 at 2:25 AM, Ssnake said:

You won't get to see this in version 4.1, at least not in this form.

But I thought it was a neat illustration of the cannon danger zone from sabot petals as we're simulating them. The challenge was that the sabot separation itself happens rather quickly "between frames" so the initial movement appears linear when it's actually shaped more like a trumpet. After that first frame we then let the petals fly with realistic masses and different material properties such as PE (Nylon), carbon fiber, or (mostly) aluminum. Needless to say, a 1.3 kilogram heavy aluminum petal has a much higher destructive potential than a 3 gram piece of plastic (still traveling at supersonic velocities, though).

Air drag still needs to be increased a bit to reduce the max range of the petals compared to this shot by about 30 or 40%, but still.

 

Yes, overpressure near the muzzle will of course also be harmful to nearby infantry, or trucks. So, MBTs on convoy protection will need to act with a bit more discretion before applying their firepower.

 

 

And while we're making the sabot petals dangerous, we limit this to tanks where human players are responsible for weapon use - commanders, gunners. Otherwise the petals fly through the AAR and create puffs of dust where they hit the ground during the execution phase. You'll see that in some of our future YouTube videos.

 

In other news, more variety for terrain themes. We will ship SB Pro PE with a few dedicated "African" themes for your Toyota wars, with termite hills, acacia trees. One day, giraffes (just not in version 4.1). I hope you'll like it.

If ever proof was needed that Steel Beasts is a top-notch simulation, this is it.  The care that's obviously been taken to model sabot petal (and overpressure) effects is impressive.  The fidelity and training benefits to eSim's military users must be significant.  No spray and pray here -- gunners, crew commanders and nearby dismounts must be aware of where a vehicle's barrel is pointing and when it's likely to fire.

Also, reviewing @Grenny's video on the DF30 and simulation of shrapnel, does shrapnel splash off vehicle armour or other surfaces now affect nearby dismounts, i.e. can splash wound or "kill" nearby infantry if they're too close?

Fantastic! Did we notice the new DShK(M) model in there too? I'm excited to add that to one of my scenarios which currently uses the M2HB as a proxy. 

I'm also looking forward to using the GMLR as a virtual scout.  Is it based on a particular piece of equipment or a "generic" model (so I can timestamp it for inclusion in scenarios from a particular date or not)?

Centurion variant, or at least half of one.

3 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

What about the DF-30 that is in the beginning of this Video, is it crewable?

I assume the DF vehicles have been implemented as desktop training aids for the Belgian Army (a new eSim customer?) so should have full switchology etc.

Now, I wonder if the Dutch G-Class 300 CDi (available as an eSim mug) will be made available to PE users this release for some soft-skin recce?

The DF90 3D model is very impressive and a 90 mm-armed Piranha could be a lot of fun to use in-game.  As this is surely the tip of the iceberg it's probably time to dust off and polish my virtual spurs!

On 4/22/2017 at 10:55 AM, Panzer_Leader said:

 

I'm really pleased with the direction eSim has taken the 4.x updates and my personal Wish List has done well out of them, including an updated ASLAV-25 3D model and interior in 4.019.  Although it doesn't change materially, I thought I should update my Wish List post-4.019:

1. Updated 3D model for ASLAV-PC <New ASLAV-25 3D model and interior released 4.019>
2. Updated 3D model for M113AS4
3. Challenger 1 Mk 3 (crewable, 3D interior)
4. M2/M3A1
5. FV432
6. ACRV IV14/15
7. T-80BV
8. SPG-9
9. IP/M1 105 mm interior gun breech and external (commander's view) fume extractor model
10. Updated 3D model for British infantry with Mk 6 or Mk 7 helmet

Cheers

 

Bump.