Mirzayev

The Leopardo 2E is a specialized version of the Leopard 2A6, designed to the specifications of the Spanish Army and their operating environment, and their chosen ammunition source. It is the second part that is the most interesting. The Leopardo 2E default loadout consists of CL 3143 SABOT, and Slsgr 95 HE-T, to reflect the ammunition currently in service with the Spanish Army. Meanwhile, the "stock" Leopard 2A6 uses DM53 SABOT, and DM12A1 HEAT. Comparing the penetration values for each, starting with the SABOT round: CL 3143 - 690mm RHA DM53 - 800mm RHA As evident, the DM53 has a little under a 16% more penetration compared to the CL 3143. Does this matter? While there are a nearly infinite number of variables, more penetration against an enemy tank is likely to cause more damage, and will increase the probability of a first-hit kill. Moving onto HEAT or HE-T, I would first like to ensure that it is completely understood that HE and HEAT rounds are designed for different purposes. HE is primarily for "soft targets" like the standard-issue SteelBeasts bunker, while HEAT is designed for use against armored targets. Depending on the time period, HEAT was either used primarily against tanks, or in a more modern context, PCs to prevent over-penetration and to maximize damage to a target "softer" than a tank. With this being said: Slsgr 95 HE-T: 290mm RHA DM12A1 HEAT: 600mm RHA As stated above, each round is made for a different purpose. However, all things being equal, I would be more comfortable running SABOT and HEAT versus SABOT and HE, not taking into account what ammo is actually purchased by a State. So why not just swap out the Slsgr 95 with the DM12A1 in the mission editor and be done with it? As I pointed out previously, the Leopardo 2E DOES NOT have any ballistic solutions loaded into the ballistic computer on the DM12A1. Therefore, if you are carrying DM12A1 in a Leopardo 2E for whatever reason (NATO exercise, WW3, just for the fun of it?) you will need to lase, divide the return number by 1/2 if shooting under 3000 meters, and then fire. While repetition builds speed, having to manually input range will slow you down compared to simply lasing and blazing. Past 3000 meters, the guidance is to divide by "a little over half," which means plenty of rounds at the tank range before you start finding a solution that works. At the end of the day, it comes down to the entire weapon system, what you need it to do, and how it fits into the scenario narrative that is being constructed. Also, please don't take my previous post as a definitive guide to the differences between the Leopardo 2E and the Leopard 2A6; that was made based purely on my observations. I also cannot comment on real-world data, like general maintenance trends, the operational readiness of the fleet, etc.

From Wikipedia: "It has thicker armor on the turret and glacis plate than the German Leopard 2A6, and uses a Spanish-designed tank command and control system, similar to the one fitted in German Leopard 2s." Some difference that I have noticed in game aside from cosmetic (Spanish as opposed to German on the controls, etc): 1. The Leopardo 2E by default uses different ammunition than the Leopard 2A6 to reflect what is in service with the Spanish Army. 2. The Leopardo 2E DOES NOT have ballistic data loaded for HEAT rounds, and normally relies of HE-T to fill that role. As such, loading any Leopardo 2E with DM12 will require manually calculating range for a correct ballistic solution (1/2 the lased range for under 3KM, a little over half for greater than 3KM; it isn't an exact science. See the tutorial for more info.) 3. The Leopardo 2E has a digital map display on the right side of the Commander's Station, unlike the Leopard 2A6. 4. The Leopardo 2E has a zoom function on the GPS in daysight more, similar to the Strv 123. The Leopard 2A6 lacks this feature. 5. The Leopardo 2E has greater protection for the Commander at "nametape defilade" compared to the Leopard 2A6. The Leopardo 2E surrounds the Commander with protective glass, additional armor, etc when outside the hatch. Off the top of my head, this is all that really popped out at me. I'm sure there are more differences.

I have a feeling that this mission is going to be brutal. I'll take CO; I've got a day off during this time slot.

@Gibsonm Definitely good stuff! This got me thinking about emulating something similar for a CO's vehicle. Traditionally in a US Cavalry Organization, the CO's vehicle doesn't have dismounts (doctrinally the OPS NCO rides in the CO's vehicle, but I have never seen this in my experience.) I played around a bit in the mission editor, and tweaked some "Damage If" and "Repair If" variables on a CO vehicle so that when there are not dismounts in the vehicle, the Commander and Gunner are "damaged" to reflect them being outside the vehicle. When they mount back up, the Commander and Gunner are "repaired" to simulate the crew being back on the vehicle. Of course, this isn't perfect. 1, having dismounts in the vehicle effectively makes the Gunner and Commander invincible in a firefight (they are constantly "being repaired"), and 2, if you lose a dismount, the Commander and Gunner are still "repaired" when they remount since the trigger is for a condition, not a number. I did also try to make the "crew" (dismounts) look like a US AFV Crew, but they kept spawning with AK-47s. Finally, as an added bonus (or bug, depending on how you want to look at it), the M3A2 Bradley seems to have developed sentience, and will raise and lower the TOW missile launcher even without a Gunner and Commander. I see this working for a small number of units; it takes time to input the "repair if" and "damage if" conditions, and the cheese could become unbearable if your entire recon formation has invincible Gunners and Commanders. Crew Dismount Test.sce

@Apocalypse 31 It is a fun mission, but you do need to know how to do IPB in its current form. Also, to be fair, you can do more of a "pew pew" recon mission by creating a Reconnaissance in Force scenario. Plenty of opportunities to kill stuff, but it does (or should anyway) force the Commander to still need to collect information on composition, disposition, etc. The effects would need to be seen in a follow on mission to really drive home that you are helping the BDE Commander make a decision.

To add an "American flavor" to what Gibsonm already stated: In an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), there are multiple levels of collection assets for recon organically available. I'll focus specifically on what you will normally encounter in your typical Steel Beasts scenario; the analysts and DCGS will remain in the TOC. ISR is the Shadow Platoon, which can be simulated in Steel Beasts by using a single UAV. The Shadow Platoon is organically under the control of the Military Intelligence Company, which is organically under the Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB.) This is a Brigade-level asset, and is normally used to answer the Brigade Commander's Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs). As such the player may have control of it IF in the context of the scenario the unit in question could theoretically answer PIR at a BDE level. This also depends on the BDE Commander's personality; in our most recent NTC Rotation, the Cavalry Squadron never controlled the Shadow, the BDE Commander controlled it directly. However, we were able to have the Shadow look at specific Named Areas of Interest (NAIs) that we identified as it traveled to its intended target. This level of Staff work could be simulated in a scenario by creating a UAV route, allowing players in the briefing to "see" what the UAV saw when flying over positions. This method includes showing enemy vehicles in an area at the start of the scenario, so it can be a good tool for refining a plan. Next is the Cavalry Squadron. This is the Brigade's largest organic collection asset, and in an ABCT consists of a Headquarters and Headquarters Troop (2x M2A3s), three Cavalry Troops (consisting of 1x M2A3 for the Commander, two Platoons of 6x M2A3s, and one section of 2x 1064 Mortar Carrier Vehicles,) and one Tank Company (consisting of 2x M1A2s for the CO and XO, and three Platoons of 4x M1A2s each). By doctrine, the Cavalry Squadron can conduct reconnaissance along a 30KM front, with each Cavalry Troop being able to conduct recon along a 10KM front. While I won't get into a full doctrinal discussion, the Cavalry Squadron is generally employed to answer Brigade-level PIRs, or to conduct security operations to allow a Brigade Combat Team (BCT) to establish a deliberate defense, conduct resupply and reorganization, etc. The Cavalry Squadron generally crosses the Line of Departure well before the rest of the Brigade; depending on time available and the mission, this can be anywhere from 12 hours to 3 days prior to the BCT's LD (obviously, there are other factors in play, these times are not exclusive.) A mission focusing on the Cavalry Squadron (or an echelon of it) should be fully recon-focused, while providing SOME tanks for the tankers to play with. Additionally, the Cavalry Squadron typically has a threat focus at areas like the National Training Center (NTC), and is used to confirm or deny the enemy's COAs to enable the BCT Commander to make decisions on how he wants to employ his forces. Each Combined Arms Battalion (CAB) has Battalion Scouts. As of right now, they are a Platoon-sized element equipped with 4x HMMWVs, and 2x M2A3s, but are slated to be standardized with 6x M2A3s to look the same as a Reconnaissance Platoon in a Cavalry Troop. Battalion Scouts are owned by the respective Battalion, and are used to answer PIR at the Battalion-level. They cross the line of departure before the Battalion LDs, but are generally well behind the Cavalry Squadron. In my experience, I have seen them cross the LD anywhere from one hour to six hours prior to the Battalion crossing LD. Generally, they perform reconnaissance in less detail than the Cavalry Squadron, are are generally, at the NTC, are terrain focused. I have seen them employed primarily to guide the Battalion into suitable Battle Positions for a hasty or deliberate defense, or to "proof" a route that the Battalion Commander wants to use to maneuver his formation on the offense. Battalion Scouts could be incorporated into a more "tank heavy" scenario, where the enemy situation is generally more understood, and where the detail of recon required is low. For the idea of incorporating "recon into tank" scenarios, Kanium did this in the past Kampfgruppe Wolf campaign. I forgot who ran this, but I'm sure you could ask on the Kanium Discord and get some information on how this was run. If you have questions about US Army Reconnaissance Doctrine, let me know. I love teaching this stuff.

I will take 12A and do scout things.

Nah, I'll do it either way.

Looks like fun! (Says the guy who has never been there ) Downloaded.

I will confirm that I can do D-66... Or you could make the lead callsign A-66, put me in an M2A2, and then I could use my real callsign.

I broke your comments down into numbers to better facilitate my answer. 1. SteelBeasts.com hosts a TeamSpeak server that anyone using Steel Beasts can connect to and use for free, provided they adhere to the community rules and guidelines. There are also other TS servers hosted by the various virtual units within Steel Beasts. Unless you feel the need to have your own TeamSpeak server, anyone using Steel Beasts can communicate with others via TS for free. 2. While I would not consider myself an expert, I have used CNR-Sim enough to consider myself to be familiar with it. When specifying scenarios to be built in a simulation for training, our WTA Contractors would need to adjust frequencies, channels, etc. based on the task organization of our unit. Unless you use the exact same Task Organization every single time you play with a group, I don't see the need to make adjustments to your channels, nets, frequencies, callsigns, etc. going away anytime soon, no matter the software you are using. 3. I never, in any part of my previous post, said that signals always work. I stated "unless your comms equipment is garbage, the average Steel Beasts Pro PE scenario is small enough in area to negate having significant degradation." There are two points of note here: a. To clarify on "comms equipment is garbage," I am referring to the fact that your comms equipment needs to be in good working order, is properly maintained, and is properly set and filled. b. I specified Steel Beasts Pro PE due to the fact that Steel Beasts Pro allows you to create scenarios that are larger in the size of the total AO you are in. The last mission that Kanium ran was Area Reconnaissance at Neustadt am Rubenberge 1989 by Panzer_Leader (which is a great mission, download it immediately!) The AO we operated in was approximately 9x9 KM, consisting of a mix of forests, small urban areas, open fields, and rolling hills. Taking into account the actual maneuver space we used, this was reduced to approximately 8x6 KM. If a Company-sized element is having significant issues talking within an 8x6 KM maneuver area, the most likely culprits are improperly maintained commo equipment, or a lack of proper training to operate said equipment. 4. Yes. It is a common practice to have multiple radios running in a single vehicle to monitor multiple channels. To talk on different radios, you will generally flip a switch on a jbox or whatever your country's equivalent equipment is. To me, this is as inconvenient as having to press a different key per channel to talk on. 5. Your mileage may vary. I have played with organizations that had a commo SOP, and I have had the misfortune of playing with some that gave no though to commo and paid the price in time. The fact is, there are always people who really "nerd out" over radios and communications. In my experience, they tend to be in the minority. 6. Client Armies have many options of other software that is devoted to simulating communications, or, as 12Alfa stated, use their own comms equipment during simulations so that Soldiers get time to train on the "switchology" of the radios they will be using. I think that eSim Games made the absolute right choice in making a deliberate decision to NOT devote resources towards simulating radios. Arma 3, for example, does include the ability to have voice chat within the game. However, all of the organizations I have played Arma 3 with use TeamSpeak or Discord, and never use the in-game voice chat. In conclusion, I do not feel that you are attacking Steel Beasts or TS in any way. I am simply giving my opinion on why TeamSpeak is a solution for the majority of Steel Beasts Pro PE players who are playing primarily for entertainment. I hope to see you in a multiplayer game at some point!

Radio discipline is certainly part of communicating in Team Speak. I have personally seen many a plan bog down based on the Commander monitoring too many nets (information overload), to not painting a picture for the Commander's understanding. I fail to understand how it is "not ideal" when TS simulates the majority of what you would normally do when setting up a radio; IE programming nets into different channels, choosing what channels to monitor, switching between nets to talk, etc. It doesn't model degradation of comms, but unless your comms equipment is garbage, the average Steel Beasts Pro PE scenario is small enough in area to negate having significant degradation. I've experienced many a "MilSim" unit on Arma 3 who insist on using Task Force Radio "for the realism" (yet the "realistic" radios are simplified compared to their real world equivalents) spend 45 minutes trying to figure out how to talk to each other. That may be some peoples' idea of fun, but it certainly isn't mine. For the remainder of the time when everyone knew what they were doing, I seldom experienced a scenario where we operated far enough apart from each other for it to matter, to include emplacing a deep OP and directing airstrikes onto an enemy armored convoy. There is nothing preventing you from getting a dedicated radio simulator and using it with Steel Beasts. The issue you will run into is that TS is free, and does 99% of what the "average" (for-entertainment, non-military use types) Steel Beasts Pro PE player wants it to do. Convincing a group to drop money on a radio simulator may not be the easiest sell in this regard.

Gents, A basic overview of the orders. I'll talk through this tomorrow during the briefing. Sorry for the lack of detail; I've got a lot going on right now at work.

For what it is worth, there are four Luchs in the mission.

I'll take CO. My, this is a lot of tanks for a recon operation.