Sky Hunter

For instance I hit place where BMP main fuel tank is located but instead of setting BMP on fire it still runs ahead and returns fire. Is it fueled by water or maybe M919 penetrators are made with lumber in place of pyrophoric DU? I advice you to reconsider consequences of depleted uranium round penetrating BMP frontal armor and hitting (most possibly multiple times in salvo mode!) the BMP engine compartment. Return fire? Buddy - BMP-1 crew should escape as quickly as hell from such BMP! :biggrin: Also you, Vulcano? Do you think those anti-armor rounds present in SBPro are some primitive AP rounds from before WW2 era? Do you really think APFSDS DU or FAPDS rounds only pierce trough BMP armor back to fro and that's over? No, they do not have to hit something important on their way to heavy damage BMP and its crew. They cause very huge internal damage thanks to their specific construction. Read a bit mode about it... Sorry, I don't have time to discuss and explain basics here.

The more I read AARs, the more armor issues I find. As for BMP armor protection, that is not just frontal engine compartment issue. Look at those data taken from my latest Instant Action mission (CV9040C firing Slpprj90LK/05 APFSDS rounds only): - firing at BMP-2 from 1700 m: 1. front - driver 2. front - commander 3. front - destroyed - firing at BMP-2 from 1750 m: 1. left side - nothing 2. front - commander 3. front - nothing 4. left side - nothing 5. left side - FCS 6. left side - nothing - firing at T-72M1 from 1800 m 1. left side - nothing 2. left side - nothing 3. left side - nothing 4. left side - nothing 5. left side - nothing So also hitting BMP and T-72M1 side armor often don't cause any damage! Moreover look at CV9040C armor protection. I was shelled by T-72M1 with BM-32 APFSDS rounds from 1650 m distance. Here you are results: 1. front - nothing 2. left side - nothing 3. left side - commander All that becomes very weird...

What? Military Sealift Command also took part in Reforger exercises/operation. Nope. I only suggested time-flow did not stop in 1972. Later Australia got Leo-1 and some Soviet client states in Asia got T-72 tanks. Therefore next war couldn't be excluded there with Australian tanks participation.

Of course you are mistaken. Aside of ridiculous statements made by Colossus, especially now, Russian artillery is very weak comparing to NATO artillery: practically no automated fire control systems, artillery radars and worse guns - all means bad counterbattery fire, lack of capability to frequently change fire positions etc. Their most popular tactics was and is WW2 style massive static artillery barrage. In short no match for NATO artillery.

BMP-1 armor thickness data according to Chris Foss, "Jane's Armour and Artillery 2005–2006" (recalculated to vertical RHA armor plate thickness): - gun mantlet - 26-33 mm - turret front - 31 mm - upper hull front - 41 mm - hull lower front - 35 mm - hull upper side - 16 mm - hull lower side- 18 mm - hull top - 6 mm As one can see BMP-1 is practically unarmored vehicle against fire from 25-40 mm Western autocannons using modern anti-armor round. According to SBWiki their muzzle penetration is: - 25 mm APDS - 60 mm - 25 mm APFSDS - 100 mm - 30 mm APFSDS - 110 mm - 35 mm APFSDS - 170 mm - 35 mm FAPDS - 120 mm - 35 mm APDS - 110 mm - 40 mm APFSDS - 140-170 mm depending on version Of course penetration of those rounds drops with range but no so significantly to save BMP.

I can confirm that. BMPs are ridiculously too well protected. I played one instant mission with CV9035. It took me on average nine 35 mm APFSDS rounds to kill one enemy vehicle. Surprised I created simple test scenario in mission editor: firing at BMP-2 from 1,5 km distance at frontal arcs of course from 25 mm, 30 mm, 35 mm, 40 mm autocannons using rounds of various types. Here you are my results: 25 mm Bushmaster I: - APFSDS: 1. nothing 2. gunner 3. driver 4. FCS 5. nothing 6. destroyed - APDS round: - first eight hits - nothing 9. driver - next twenty hits - nothing 30. gunner 31. nothing 30 mm Bushmaster II: - APFSDS round: 1. nothing 2. destroyed - MP-T round - completely ineffective, 15 hits with no damage 35 mm Bushmaster III: - FAPDS round 1. commander, radio 2. immobilized 3. FCS 4. nothing 5. nothing 6. driver 7. destroyed - APDS-T round: 1. gunner 2. nothing 3. nothing 4. immobilized 5. nothing 6. nothing 7. nothing 8. commander 9. nothing 10. nothing 11. destroyed - APFSDS round: 1. nothing 2. immobilized 3. nothing 4. destroyed - ABM rounds can destroy only FCS 40 mm Bofors: - newest APFSDS: 1. destroyed - oldest APFSDS: 1. gunner 2. nothing 3. radio 4. nothing 5. nothing - PFPPX round - very rarely can destroy BMP-2 with shrapnels

Yes, I do it exactly in relation to 1941-45 events. Other considerations you presented above are irrelevant here. Are you kidding? First, basic principle of armor strategy is possessing qualitatively better tanks than enemy equals they can easily destroy enemy tanks. That's plain and simple. The West chose that way and succeeded indirectly in the Cold War and directly in Gulf War without suffering heavy losses. Alternative way is very costly and cannot guarantee success. So don't spread rumors hordes of primitive tanks defeating smaller number of more advanced tanks is a correct strategy because it isn't. Even Eastern Front battles proved that - Soviets achieved victory not by their sheer numbers but because Germans cannot produce and employ a bit more much better tanks thanks to facts I mentioned earlier. Second, your thinking can be applicable only to situation when both sides have more or less qualitatively equal tanks like WP and NATO in 1950-80 period. Yet we discuss completely different situation here and your opinion about Soviet "championship" in maneuver warfare is too exaggregated - see below. And attacks of Soviet tank regiments would be repelled by NATO mechanized...battalions! "Autonomy" and Soviet military doctrine are two completely different worlds. Moreover I am afraid support and logistics were not strong sides of Soviet Army and indigenous stock numbers of Soviet units were not large. Unfortunately in late 1980s they would be slaughtered almost everywhere they would tried to attack. Think about NATO's OdeB in 1980s and anti-tank strength of NATO front-line troops of that period. Besides you forget about Rogers Doctrine's most important point - Soviet troops would be slaughtered massively before reaching FEBA and that is key point here. So think about Soviet Union still existing and Cold War going on now! What would be more expensive? The Soviets planned to suffer huge losses to win - that is most important point of their wartime strategy. And yes, they were stupid because preparing for such war they bankrupted themselves more than Reagan did. Hordes of simple tanks in the end proved to be very expensive and thus poorly maintained (for instance Marshall Yazov arrived unexpected to one of premiere tank units and...one third of tanks was not serviceable!), crew training and command quality were simplistic, centralization of command driven by communist ideology and lack of initiative amongst lower ranks were also widespread (many Soviet conscripts could not even understand their officers because they did not speak Russian!) - everything not on par with Western standards. So your theory about Napoleonic craftsmanship applied to Soviet Army commanders is a myth. In sum Soviet primitive doctrine could have succeeded only if they had massively used nuclear weapons first or had attacked NATO in earlier period of Cold War - during 60s and 70s. However in the late 1980s, when NATO overwhelmed their numbers with advanced weapons, Soviets would be beaten back quite quickly suffering heavy losses but without victory.

I think US troops for manning prepositioned stocks would be transported to Europe before war's beginning - during time of rising tensions. What I referred to was rather sea transport of US troops with heavy armament. Simply it was always possibility of new war in South-East Asia provoked by some Soviet client state armed with Soviet tanks in which Australian Army would participate. Remember then even during Vietnam War (1972 Easter offensive) NVA deployed armored formations with T-54 and PT-76 tanks.

- simply Soviet warfighting doctrine was based on belief that sustaining gigantic losses is not acceptable for the enemy and as a result it will be defeated. From their point of view Soviets accepted their own huge losses as a price of final victory. However such doctrine most possibly couldn't have succeeded without Western Allies help during World War II. Notice several issues: unimaginable Soviet losses during 1941 campaign, Allied bombing campaign, quite huge Lend-Lease help for the Soviet Union and other fronts in Europe opened by Allies in 1943 (Italy) and 1944 (Normandy). That is not true Great Patriotic War was only war between Soviet Union and Germany playing alone (maybe on Moon) as Soviet propaganda tried to claim for fifty years. - if you refer to late 1980s situation, take into account it was time of revolution in military affairs on the NATO side. Those days the Reagan Administration introduced in practice Air-Land Battle doctrine (Rogers doctrine) concept. Under this doctrine heavy emphasizing was put on defeating WP second end third strategic echelons before they could come close to the FEBA through destroying communication infrastructure, POLs and those forces directly by means of air, missile and artillery strikes. Almost all weapons needed were present in NATO arsenal at that time (MLRS, AH-64A, F-117A, F-15E with LANTRIN pod, Tornado IDS, conventional Tomahawks on US Navy vessels and plenty of aerial PGMs, ISR platforms). Also NATO ground forces were prepared accordingly (M1A1/Leo-2/Challenger tanks, Bradley/Marder/Warrior IFVs, cutting edge TOW-2A/B and HOT-2 ATGMs). So I am not sure if those Soviet rear forces would still constitute a decisive factor having also in mind US REFORGER operation. - having stated "funny" I meant balanced fight, not causing sad massacre of blind T-72M1 tanks playing Leo-2A6 with DM-53 round or something like that. PS. Not so hypothetical situation. Didn't Australian tanks fight during Vietnam War?

Not really. German tanks fought very well against hordes of T-34 an other Soviet tanks. Kill ratio was 4-7:1 on Germans favor. What overwhelmed Third Reich was Allied strategic bombing campaign which prevented Germans from building more advanced tanks. If not, Germany would have most probably stopped Soviet armor onslaught. As for WP-NATO confrontation - in time Western technological superiority in tanks and other weapons resulted bankruptcy of Soviet "quantity versus quality" doctrine not mentioning about Soviet economy. When 3rd generation NATO tanks were put into service in larger numbers, armadas of Soviet simple tanks ranging from T-55 to T-72BV would have been massacred on Central Front. BTW, if you want more balanced combat in SBPro during T-72M1 vs western tank scenario, choose Leo-AS1 fitted with M735A1 or DM33 APFSDS rounds. It does not have TIS, this ammo is "fifty-fifty" against T-72M frontal armor, but it has better ballistic calculator. In short it should be funny!

And that is also an explanation why Germans decided to add PERI R12 stabilized panoramic sight to Leo-1A4 only two years after T-72 introduction. Simply "hunter-killer" tactics in Russia means completely different thing than in the West. The history of next 40 years easily proved that!

LOL! Tanksim fans from Russia are not happy for sure! Is thermal sight a miracle device which doomed Russian tanks?

If you need more Soviet tanks being more on par with Western tanks then eSim should add crewable T-72B and/or T-80U. Both have [much] better FCS than T-72M1 which makes them better suited as a competitors of see Leo-2A4, M1A1 (lead calculations for instance, gun launched ATGMs). Unfortunately they still do not have thermal sights and TC panoramic sight. However there is also un-playable Czech T-72M4CZ variant! It has modern Western FCS (Galileo TURMS-T) featuring all functions met in present Western tanks and also good Western powerpack vastly improving its maneuverability. Maybe this could be a way to go?

I see. So let's hope you will create full 3D interiors for most popular Piranhas, Centauro, Pizarro and FOV90. As I understand now 3D interiors are available for Abrams, Bradley, Leopard-2, Leopard-1A5, all CV90 types and T-72M. Of course I cannot see reason to make such complicated interiors for quite simple vehicles like APCs with basic FCS, MRAPs, trucks etc.

Unfortunately situation awareness was not strong side od Soviet/Russian tanks from their very beginning (remember T-34?) and today the same situation still persists. Only Eastern advanced export models (T-90M, Oplot-M) have commander panoramic sights. Also notice TPK-N-1 and TKN-3 sights present in T-72A/M/M1 (IOC 1979) have quite small constant zoom level (8x and 5x respectively) - not very well suited for precise targeting and target identification - and the latter is not stabilized. However remember that basic T-72 (IOC 1972) has only optical rangefinder, no ballistic computer and its observation and targeting devices were essentially brought straight from T-62! The main T-72A/M1 advantage over T-72 was laser rangefinder and primitive ballistic calculator which in sum gave him M60A1 capabilities here but it was immediately outclassed by M60A3 TTS in the FCS area. Moreover T-72/A/B night fighting capabilities are ridiculous. Well T-72B (IOC 1985) at least has passive light amplification night sights but all Soviet tanks have night and day gunner sights separated till now AIFAK. On the opposite for instance German tanks always have good situation awareness taking into account technological progress from early WW2 period of course. I think this won't change until Russia builds brand-new next generation tank but "project T-95" died a year ago. I should also point out that despite T-72M1 drawbacks its is good that eSim included this tank in SBPro. Now you can observe themselves what technological gap arose between two sides of the Cold War and what Iraqi tankers felt in 1991...