Jump to content

Lumituisku

Members
  • Content Count

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lumituisku


  1. 14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    The first question is, do you have the sensors for proper target identification.

     

    The next, even if the velocity decay is gentle, it's still there. Suppose your ammo overmatches the armor protection value of your target by 5%, you lose those 5% energy in the first 650m of flight, so even the small loss can make a difference. Say, your target was at 6km and you could identify it, losing 330m/s over those 6km means losing 33% of the projectile's initial energy (starting from V0=1680m/s;   1350²:1680²=0.6726, don't forget that the velocity goes squared into the kinetic energy formula). So it only makes sense to fire at the target if you have still have an overmatch at that range, IOW 400mm RHAe or (preferably) considerably less. So, what targets does that leave, PT-76, T-55? And of course side-on shots against pretty much any target.

     

    Accuracy is another issue. I heard rumors that the aluminum stabilization fins of 120mm DM33 heat up due to air compression at (initially) Mach 5 that they actually erode so that the projectile actually starts to flutter ever so slightly beyond 10km range. I haven't done the math and I can't say if that's even remotely possible (I don't think so, to be honest, although the tail section certainly receives some heat treatment while still inside the barrel, so... who knows). But if true, that would certainly be another limiting factor. Then there's (not) knowing the crosswind along the whole trajectory, and at really long ranges Coriolis force might start to play a role too (though the projectile spin is too slow for the Magnus effect, at least).

    The Israelis fired tank guns at targets up to 10.5km against Syrian bulldozers (and hit them) during the Jordan water diversion project (just before the Yom Kippur war), but they used artillery observers and fired the guns blindly, so that would be a military historical example of extreme tank gunnery.

    I suppose that is very reason why it is said that some russian tanks have edge on longer distances with their tube lauched ATGMs 

     

    Thank you all for your answers. Gibson, Dejawolf and Especially Ssnake.  I have learned a lot and I find all this rather valuable. 

     

    There is one thing though that still bugs my thoughs.  On some vehicles and ammunition there is so called minimum range. I believe I saw piece of text in Cv9030(fin) tutorial where it says that APDS ammunition takes a little while to reach its full penetration potential, as sabot parts separate from the ammunition.  Those videos I have seen from sabot rounds though, suggest that separation is almost instant, though I suspect it may not be same for every ammunition?

     

    Another instance where I have seen this minimun range is with some infantry weapons. I believe it was missiles and perhaps even RPGs?   With RPGs  what I have noticed is that if you fire those too close to tank... it can often be fatal to infantry nearby, because of fracments from explosion.

     

    So my question and wish is as follows...  Is there do we have source or method to know minimum range? Could such data added to simulation in future perhaps next to ammunition range? 

     

     

    edit:   Oh, I just though  that it could be that minimum range is more valuable with HEAT warheads?  Perhaps it has something to do with arming distance?  I may have messed some things up in my memory.  😣


  2. 4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    There's several things behind it. First and foremost, it's the cutoff range for AI engagements. Even if the ammo flies farther out (e.g. up to 130km for 120mm APFSDS DM33) , computer-controlled units won't fire. You can try trick shots as a human gunner if you want, but your AI commander might order you to cease fire (in our simulation you may disobey the vehicle commander without fear of consequences, a highly unrealistic aspect).

     

    Typically this range is derived from published data. It could be a limit of the ballistic computer not having values in the firing tables beyond a certain range. It could be the tracer burnout range after which you can't properly observe your fall of shot. In rare exceptions it could be that the ammo is so slow that beyond range X we decide to cut it off so that the AI won't waste a lot of ammo on targets that it can't effectively hit. I don't remember that we ever did this, but we reserve the right to do so for the sake of sanity.

     

    Our RHA equivalent (=RHAe, not RHA) values represent the energy at the muzzle, for range-dependent rounds.

     

    The energy of sabot rounds depends on a number of factors; where you look at a fixed design the impact velocity becomes the sole determinant, of course.

    You may find this page useful, use it responsibly. A classic APFSDS round like 120mm DM33 loses about 50m/s velocity per kilometer travelled. Older rounds tend to slow down quicker, also Soviet designs with their larger fins due to the different sabot designs (less parasitic mass = higher muzzle velocity attainable, but more drag in exterior ballistic flight because the fins must reach bore dialeter in order to stabilize the projectile during the interior ballistic phase (while it's scraping the walls of the gun tube))

    Cheesus... DM33 can fly up  up to 130km....  And just loses about 50m/s velocity per kilometer travelled.   😲

     

    Umm...  So when most engagements are under 4km,  is it safe to assume that in Steelbeast all tank sabot rounds have full penetration up to around 4km? or atleast to "effective range"?  Unlike  "in popular tank games like WOT and WT." where tank rounds seems to purposefully lose penetration very rabitly.

     

    I guess, and may have witnessed how... some older DM rounds seem to lose accuracy on long distances to be worth of trying to hit target without considerable change of missing tank sized targed beoynd the effective range?  


  3. Right, Thank you Gibsonm.

     

    I wonder...  as there are Rha penetration values on same column,  does it mean that given Rha penetration is at that range or the best round can do on some other more optimal distance. 

     

    I also wonder...  how much I could theoretically expect to lose from tank sabot round penetration, lets say... if round has to travel one more km after the effective range? perhaps something like  20%?   

     


  4. Sooo, I have recently been more and more interested of manual range finding, and estimating lead.   I found this page from wiki to help me out to find velocities of different ammunition.  http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data

     

    Then I noticed that there is "Range"  and  while in a way it seems obvious that it is somekind of effective range of ammunition. I got qurious if it really is so?  I believe it is possible to fire these rounds more far than range is. Yet... I wonder, what does that actually mean?

     

    Should I take it that Range means  that at that distance, given penetration value is still achieavable?

     

    If so, doesn't that mean that there is even more penetration potential on closer distances?

     

    I think I have seen this topic discussed somewhere, but don't seem to be able to find it.  


  5. 19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    You're not alone in this, but precisely because it is so unique it would cost us an absolutely disproportionate amount of time to adapt the AI to it. Not saying that we'd never do it, but right now we have much bigger challenges to master.

    Thank you very much for answer. I suspected that something like that might be reason. But then again, it is very hard to see such point of view, when you really wish for something. And yeah, I understand and agree. Thank you. 


  6. Above post makes me wonder if same could be possible with S-tank (Stridsvagn 103)?  I mean, I would be prepared to travel to sweden to Arsenalen and to go quite lenghs to get to you what you need for it.  It is the one vehicle I would really, really love to see in Steelbeast. 


  7. A lot of people wish a great many things from products that appeal to them.  That there is such much wishing means there is that appeal as well.  

     

    Though that said, I do aprove what Ssnake said abobe.  And I sincerely wish Esimgames stays true to chosen path.

    And, more over I love Steelbeast so much that if it ever happens (unlikely)  that Id become millionaire by winning lottery or such, id donate huge portion of that for development of next generation Steelbeast by Esim games.  

     

     

    As for the GHPC  I believe it has gunner sights as well...  to shoot things. There is video of such. 

    And by what I have seen.. commander and possibly in future gunner position.   


  8. Forwarding this from my friend Harry Martin who is relatively new player in Steelbeast. 

    Harry Martin:
    The editors would be nice, particularly the map editor, and maybe a practical explanation of route and waypoint planning, as those were things it took me a while to figure out.

    Vehicle specific commander/Gunner video tutorials would be nice, in the style of the Chieftain's videos on the M1 and M60

    Having those for some of the less popular vehicles, or ones with obscure fire controls that don't have very informative wiki pages like the CV90NL would be good

    The one thing I could never figure out is a non-clunky way to create a route path in a real time mission but not have the vehicle start to follow it immediately

    Or to have multiple units start moving at once


  9. This may be helpful to you.  

     

     

     

    If possible. I recommend you to join to Kanium's multiplayer session.  There are many people from Denmark I believe.  And I am in understanding that they have game later today.

     

     

    Also I would follow this topic on the forums

     

     


  10. Before you ask.. as I understand it. Simulation is in small pieces that those can fit to cd/dvd  and more easy to download on places with terrible interned connections.    Not convenient but manageable.  Updates usually come in convenient form of small patch that is downloaded separately and have own installer. 

     

    Also future updates to maps  works that you download  

     

    SB Pro Maps Download Manager

    This tool is used to get maps from the eSimGames map server.  If you have any previous versions installed, please uninstall them before installing V19.

    SB Pro Map Tools v19

     

    And (as I have understood it) with new map ID given or found from forums you download map you are looking for that didn't come with base package.

     

    This map tools part is not necessary for testing though, only if you want to play new missions that use map that you do not already have.  


  11. To try SB  you need to..  to download all the necessary things to run the sim. 

     

    All the map parts. Yes all  these you install one time only. These are separate thing but sim needs these to work.

     

    SB Pro PE Maps Installer – to install, download all the archives below to the same folder, along with the maps installer executable.  Then run the maps installer executable once all the files have finished downloading,.

    Maps Installer Part 1A

    Maps Installer Part 1B

    Maps Installer Part 1C

    Maps Installer Part 2A

    Maps Installer Part 2B

    Maps Installer Part 2C

    Maps Installer Part 3A

    Maps Installer Part 3B

    Maps Installer Part 3C

    Maps Installer Executable

     

    Install actual sim.

     

    SB Pro PE 4.162 Installer

    The RELEASE NOTES are available.

    Download each part below, and once all downloads are complete, double click the part 1 exe to start the install process.  Please ensure you have uninstalled previous versions of SB Pro PE first.

    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3

    Part 4

    Part 5

    Part 6

     

    If you just want to try it out. You would need to buy a time limited licence.   Or ask  someone to loan you licence temporarily  (That person needs to be online for it to work. I can do that and many others too I am sure.)

     

    If you want the sim.  Then either go for 1 Year SB Pro PE Time-Limited License.  Or buy Steel Beasts Pro PE Classic License


  12. Chees that is cramped from inside.      I  guess this is video you refer to?      And As said.  I had no knowledge, I just read the text and assumed too much, sorry about that I'm glad that I was corrected right away.  I gotta ask the museum staff about it next time when I visit there.  

     

     


  13. 1 minute ago, Maj.Hans said:

    I think that museum has incorrect "information"!

     

    T-54, T-55, and T-62 never had an auto loader in the original design!  All loading on those vehicles was manual!

    I have understood that it was manual loading mechanically assisted or something of sort...     Hence on t55  and T62  turret will stop turning and (if I don't remember wrong) gun will point up when loading.


  14. In the book there was mention that Russia didn't even offer never better heat rounds for sale.  They offered only those with up to same penetration as offered sabot rounds.  

     

    Also. Finland actually did try to buy equipment from pretty much everywhere.   It was our major policy at the time to purchace things internationally from any country that would have equipment that would fit to our needs and conditions and most importantly... bugged.

     

    For example we wanted to buy British centurions but those were not sold for us.  And when we bough  Charioteers and comet's instead..  hoping to be able to upgrade those with better guns later on.  Such gun was not for sale for us.

     

    In short...  we bough from where we could, and what we could.  trying to get best that would work for us and fit our bugged.  For long time..  it ended up to be Soviet union, but it was never meant to be only source.  

     

    I will likely read these books and after that  I hopefully will be able to tell better why things ended up being as it was. 

     

    6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    Last time I visited a barracks in Finland, I was shown a StuG III. I don't believe you throw anything away.

     

    Hah...  you would be amazed how long those lasted in service :D  

     

    According to books...  I saw mention that  usually  we purchased some extra vehicles to cannibalize for spare parts.  And we did try to do as much repairs and upgrades ourself as possible.  Even for Stug  we tried to re-rubberize those roadwheels..  but that didn't work out so in the end those were considered for wartime service  because those road wheels would not have lasted in "training"

     

    As  towards end..  when vehicles start breaking up..  more and more will be cannibalized for spares.   As long as ammunition is capable to kill expected enemy targets.  When that is no longer true,  vehicles will be tried to find secondary  roles..   as recovery  vehicle or platform for anti aircraft guns.   When that no longer is possible..   vehicles will end up to be targets on shooting range and later melted for scrap metal.    Some will likely be saved for museum or memorials "statue like"  roles.  Usually empty hulls.  Our Museum though has plenty of vehicles that can be driven on their own power. 

     

     

    BTW...  I found really interesting piece of text from our museum...    This 100 TK  is  T-55 Turret...  intended for our coastal defense. And what makes this even more interesting is..  that same  Depot that did T-55 Modernisation and maintenance  also did all these and maintenance to these..   So...  I kind of wonder.  Was reloading in our T-55s  changed from mechanical to manual as well?  

     

      811323015_100TK.thumb.jpg.7867c3d02f51aaed047fda2b9a9378af.jpg


  15. Well... Sources I referred here on last couple of my post were from internet forums and from users I do not know... And would not blindly trust either. Soo there is that too. Also M-1000 could be... Finnish designation on it or so... I did see mention of Mecar there though.

     

    And how... Eeer... I guess reading all these books thoroughly could reveal it. What little I did read there was some really... Fancy ways of getting even adequate armor at that time because some nation's did not trust Finland because of Soviet / Russian proximity and poor information security. It was considered possible that secrets given would leak to unwanted hands and hence many sales of vehicles and possible upgrades of FCS or gun were denied because of that. Quite similar likely as how Soviet Union / Russia refused to sell some of their equipment or ammunition at times. And we're often it seemed to be political tool as well. But how did we get that ammunition... I have no idea... Yet.  I'm curious though, so perhaps further reading will reveal that. 

     

    Also on the forum I found lot of this stuff there was claim that Finland still has 9 T-55m (Fin) at use based on statistics publicly shown on Finnish Defense Forces site. And some of those were seen in exercise in 2016.

     

    There are many other wild claims.. too that I just do not buy at this point but history will reveal if those were or weren't true. 


  16. T55m  (FIN)   Gunners controls  

     

    1ff9de71.jpg5e648cd7.jpg

     

    https://ylilauta.org/sota/74651036#no95571871  Interesting post claiming that Finnish T-55 had better firecontrol than Leopard 2A4...  automatic target tracking and very fast calculations..   but old "stabilization"  meaning that shooting from move wasn't accurate.   But once stopped, its claimed to be top quality.       Though... I am bit suspicious of that claim...

     

     

    Ooh  here I found ammunition information.  https://ylilauta.org/sota/74651036#no115562517

    Myös T-55M:n belgialainen M-1000 -ampumatarvike osoittautui paremmaksi läpäisyssään kuin T-72M1:n teräsnuolinen 3BM18. M-1000 kun läpäisee vielä 2 kilometrissä 350 mm, mutta 3BM18 vain 290 mm.

     

    So apparently T-55  used Belgium  Sabot round   M-1000    that has penetration of 350mm  in 2km distance.

    And T-72  used  3BM18. M-1000  (Steel arrow)  that penetrates 290mm in 2km distance. 

     

    O.o   

     

    Here is a video of Modified finnish t-72 prototype..  

     


  17. I found from interned discussion  that was related to T-72  a following comment.

     

    "Päivitys PV:n vaatimalle tasolle olisi maksanut paljon (siinä oli mm. koko etupanssaroinnin uusinta), ja lisäksi Venäjä kieltäytyi myymästä parhaita nuoliammuksiaan vaunuihin. Suomalaisten piti tyytyä export-mallisiin ammuksiin, joissa oli vähemmän panssarinläpäisyä kuin viime vuoden loppuun asti käytössä olleiden T-55M FIN -vaunujen belgialaisissa nuoliammuksissa."

     

    In short it says..  Russia refused to sell Finland their better ammunition for T-72 and Apparently T-55 latest sabot ammo from Belgium was better than "Export  (non russian)" ammunition used in our t-72s

     

    Found same info from this PDF document..

    https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/172850/Ylijohdon_reservi-Petteri-Jouko.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y   Page 223


  18. On 2/8/2020 at 4:30 AM, Maj.Hans said:

    but I also want to ask the same of the T-72s, what would they have had them loaded with at the end of their career?

    This book says  that T-72 ammunition  had speed roughly 1800 m/s

    and penetration of  650-800  depending of type of ammunition.     Perhaps that helps a bit.   

     

    Also there is interesting mention that at same time  with T72s  being purchased from east german (and other armor vehicles)  there was as well massive purchases from china...    makes me wonder...  could it be ammunition for T-72s?  As I am not aware that Finland would have bough actual vehicles from China.. so it has to be something else.

×
×
  • Create New...