BlackDeath
-
Posts
2,803 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Posts posted by BlackDeath
-
-
EDITED : Well what sounds very likely from the various hints we had until now is :
Possible :
- camcopter
- loitering drones
- drone countering drones
- attack drones
- T72B3 m.2012
- BREM-1 M ARV
- M109 CP- M60A3
- BTR-82AT
- Leopard 2A6MA2
Confirmed :
- BTR-82 [playable]
- BTR-82A [playable]
- Grkpbv 90 Mjölnir, 120mm twin-barrel mortar with semi-automatic loader
- Suppress tactics behavior has been improved- heat blur effects
- STRIX round
- Multiple level of burned out vehicles
2 -
10 minutes ago, Ssnake said:
#3, "enough" content is highly subjective term.
Not sure how to define a metric by which an objective assessment could be made. There's a playable T-72 and BMP-1, BTRs, T-55, T-62 for starters. That gives aou something to work with, particularly in the 1960s...early 1980s time frame. And version 4.3 will bring some more stuff, as to be revealed in the coming weeks on our Youtube channel (https://www.YouTube.com/c/eSimGamesDtl).
*BMP-2
@Simcoe you might want to check out the wiki too; very well done to learn how to play soviet (and other) equipment
https://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-72B1_(m.1984)
0 -
43 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:
Already in game
Nope, you got M60A3(TTS) (which may acts as proxy for M60A3)
No BTR-82 either (but BTR-82A, though)
Maybe my version does not include those? i'm at 4.259 (not the latest but close)
0 -
Just thinking about it, masking in SB is pretty much the same system than what America's army (the game) used, but with more versitality
0 -
4 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:
Knowing that the T-72b3 is more than likely coming, I hope that this masked feature will be added too. It’s a great design and very useful.
Seems highly unlikely, the first sentence in the video is "Available in the classroom version of SB Pro". But i may be wrong, of course.
Edit : That's a no (which I very well understand)From YT Esim commentaries :
I understand that, but we have to keep the classroom version functionally different from the Personal Edition in certain key areas.
0 -
1 minute ago, Lumituisku said:
Leopard masked to T-72b3 look hilarious with floating MG3
If you see a T-72 going backward at 50kmh, there is something wrong for sure ^^
3 -
Also
BREM-1 M ARV
M109 CPM60A3
BTR82
0 -
8 hours ago, Combat Wasp said:
Wow, already recieved! Thanks and looking forward to the new things!
talking about new things, when will there be some revelations? ^^
June is coming close!
0 -
10 hours ago, 33lima said:
IIRC, this pic having been taken in the AAR, the M113 had already been KO'ed and the BMPs had 'gone firm', having secured both objectives.
I could wish for SABOW-level visual representation of AFV damage...
I love the visual detail on what hit where!
0 -
That one too (2019?)
0 -
5 hours ago, Gibsonm said:
You don't even know its coming.
All we have is a guess from someone with no internal knowledge of the development process based on a view of a mousepad.
Well, according to Ssnake, "Yes, the tooth-gapped reactive armor is a giveaway for the T-72B3. Scheduled for development two years ago, arrived just in time ...
"
0 -
28 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:
Certainly... drones don't like trees.
(or lets say.. even less than AFVs)
And that enemy could even deploy drones effectively... it would first need to know where you are. So... be unpredictable, and avoid being detected. And if you are.. re-locate!
If you need to be where there is risk of drones and no cover, hopefully you have method to deal with it -> Enough units guns to be able to deploy sufficient MG fire / High explosive programmable rounds, or some sort of anti air vehicle with small guns able to send huge volume to air. Or perhaps... Canister rounds on tanks (if by change you spotted drones on low altitude) .
Drones are yet one more thing to constantly asses on battlefield.
Detecting that thing coming at you at 100km/h is going to be quite a challenge. Well actually so are javelins and other missiles.
So updating the list, we might have in next version :
- camcopter
- loitering drones
- drone countering drones
- attack drones
- T72B3
0 -
5 hours ago, Ssnake said:
I don't believe so. A radar echo needs to indicate the attacking projectile to be in a certain velocity band, and drones should be universally slower that the lower threshold (which might be around 100m/sec, maybe as low as 70m/sec (IOW, must be at least somewhere between 250...360 km/h)). Also, the trajectory would have to indicate that it's on a collision course with the protected volume of the APS, so a really fast, jet-powered drone is likely to fly high above.
I mean, either a drone is highly capable and highly complex. Then it's unlikely to be wasted in a suicide attack mission. Or it's cheap enough to be wasted in the anti-vehicular role, but then it's probably not very sophisticated. Case in point, the S-600 loitering munition is propeller driven and electrically powered, with a top dive speed of around 190km/h (if I remember the datasheet correctly). It's certainly cheaper than a Javelin missile and has arguably a higher utility value, but as an aerial vehicle its complexity level is closer to a model airplane than it is to a Bayraktar TB2 or Global Hawk (and for a loitering munition, maybe you even want it to fly slowly so the operator has enough time to observe and identify).
So theorically, vehicles APS could still updated to intercept at least those loitering drones if they become too much of a nuisance, I suppose ?
I hope there still is a way to evade those new threats in Steel Beasts, though!
0 -
4 hours ago, Lumituisku said:
So those black drones with 4 propellers are
suicideinterceptor drones tokillcounter?suicide loiteringdrones?Counter drones with drones. Ahahah. I can't but wonder how all these are deployed. I suppose like micro UAV.
I didn't even know interceptor drones existed IRL ^^
Can APS be activated by drones if too close?
0 -
50 minutes ago, Ssnake said:
Last year's:
These are T72B3, aren't they?
That design looks awesome ^^
0 -
7 hours ago, Ssnake said:
Why, maybe you take the first step and show the world what you got...
I actually did, on page 1 of this thread
0 -
-
6 hours ago, MO MO said:
First send a 4.3 video to solve our greed
Isn't the navmesh video (where the camcopter is) already a 4.3? 😁
0 -
So what we can see from differents hints and easter eggs, we might have in next version :
- camcopter
- loitering drones
- T72B3 ?
0 -
1 hour ago, Kingtiger said:
Is that a T-72B3 I am spotting in the lower part of the mousepad?... =D
Got mine yesterday, sure looks out like an interesting summer!
/KT
I was wondering what tank turret it was ^^
is there a single mousepad model or is there several?
0 -
Thanks esim! Just got the mousepad!
Looks like a very dronny future to me
1 -
59 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:
but there is no picture that would provide any evidence of frenchies on board.
Speculation, Many have seen them, just because you haven't/or have seem them does not prove the link incorrect., it's your view, and we all respect your view on the situation.
you may be an expert in information warfare
No, said I worked in the field, later taught at the school.
pointing out the credibility of such "alternative" source; qactus
And failed to provide to any sources to give us here how your claim "alternative" is in fact what you claim. Some people claim CNN is a new network.
As I posted, MI-8 being shot down, AND, by both sides. If you, and others can't find them, maybe your sources need to be looked at. We teach this very subject at the school, source creditability, and methods to confirm working theory(s).
When a person tries to defend/ or in this case why a source is a compirationist, or now the QAnon claim , your loosing the information war.
The claim of spys, QAnon leaves my head spinning, but this statement is the winner.
-Can't talk about the russian source, but there is no picture that would provide any evidence of frenchies on board.-
So you admit not knowing any R source, BUT know ," no picture that would provide any evidence" ...outstanding, move to the head of the class.
I'll end this , time will sort this out I would think.
"And failed to provide to any sources to give us here how your claim "alternative" is in fact what you claim. Some people claim CNN is a new network."
There you go : all are main info stream in France.
https://factuel.afp.com/http%3A%2F%2Fdoc.afp.com%2F9AV3TT-1
https://www.conspiracywatch.info/qactus
When a person tries to defend/ or in this case why a source is a compirationist, or now the QAnon claim , your loosing the information war.
I don't, they do it themselves!
https://qactus.fr/2020/11/09/q-infos-magnifique-message-de-qanon-quebec-merci/
There is even a whole section dedicated to QAnon; what else should I say :
"but there is no picture that would provide any evidence of frenchies on board."
Speculation, Many have seen them, just because you haven't/or have seem them does not prove the link incorrect., it's your view, and we all respect your view on the situation.
False, your source states journalists saw foreign soldiers dead on the crash site; they didn't specify they were french. They could have been American, or even Russian for that matter.
As I posted, MI-8 being shot down, AND, by both sides. If you, and others can't find them, maybe your sources need to be looked at. We teach this very subject at the school, source creditability, and methods to confirm working theory(s).
I didn't say those choppers didn't crash, there is clearly pictures of them; what I said is there is no evidence of French DGSE operators onboard those choppers contradicting what Qactus states in their article title.
The claim of spys, QAnon leaves my head spinning, but this statement is the winner.
-Can't talk about the russian source, but there is no picture that would provide any evidence of frenchies on board.-
With all that said, I suppose you don't read french, then. Sources provided by Qactus are at the bottom of the article, one of them in russian, which I don't read. Even if I can't read russian though, pictures posted on this website doesn't show anything related to frenchs operators.
Again, I am not rulling out that this choppers were sent out to exfiltrate French operators; nevertheless the claim by that website is by no mean a proof it happened as they do not provide any (even remotely solid) evidence.
Anyway as you say, time will sort this out.
Back to the main subject, that is mil videos.
0 -
1 hour ago, 12Alfa said:
The info is reported by other outlets, your attempt to taint this info is a fail.
I spent 10+ years in the Information warfare community. Unless you can provide any info to counter these sources info I would, as many, disregard any non-sourced comments.
Calling info compirationist is weak without evidence, many students have failed the course due to this very "term"
I would also note that "compirationist." term caused many to view any user as lacking in creditability.
The events took place with eyewitness and vid/photo evidence from both sides
Choose your words carefully, the evidence points to a different conclusion.
Well, first of all, I didn't say that info was either true or false, having DGSE operators in Ukraine wouldn't surprise me.
What I did is pointing out the credibility of such "alternative" source; qactus is known in France as being close to the American Qanon mouvement. Actually, they do even claim their ties with Qanon (here qanon quebec).
https://qactus.fr/2020/11/09/q-infos-magnifique-message-de-qanon-quebec-merci/
Please remember that Qanon are the guys behind "QAnon's core belief is that the world is controlled by a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping child molesters" so using them as a reference is dubious to say the least.
Now, about the article itself, I read the whole thing; the only "proof" provided by the article is
=> Means journalists working in Ukraine noticed bodies of foreign soldiers dead in the crash site. As indicated, we are talking about military instructors, who they tried to evacuate along with Azov personnel. They found patches of Tanzania, South Africa and Marroco.
No evidence, no picture of any french operator thoughout in any of the sources.Only argument advanced by the qactus is that Macron asked for an evacuation of civilians a few days before this crash + head of DGSE resigned. That is not a proof as far as I know.
Their source, https://reseauinternational.net/des-instructeurs-militaires-etrangers-se-trouvaient-egalement-dans-lhelicoptere-de-larmee-de-lair-des-forces-armees-ukrainiennes-abattu-pres-de-marioupol-par-un-stinger-manpads-capture/ doesn't give any more information and is as dubious :
https://www.lemonde.fr/verification/source/reseau-international/
Can't talk about the russian source, but there is no picture that would provide any evidence of frenchies on board.
My guess is that they made the connection between both events and stated there was DGSE operator on board. But again, this is not a proof whatsoever.
So you may be an expert in information warfare, but that kind of sources is not what I could define as trustworthy.
0 -
9 hours ago, 12Alfa said:
Qactus is an "alternative" information provider; may I even say compirationist.
Besides DGSE is more like MI6 or CIA so they very likely have personnels pretty much everywhere around the world (aka spys).
0
Hype Thread - 2022
in General Discussion
Posted
=>What new features will 4.3 have?
Subscribe to Esim YT channel to see latest vids regarding 4.3
https://www.youtube.com/c/eSimGamesDtl