Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Posts

    2,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Captain_Colossus last won the day on August 19 2022

Captain_Colossus had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

7,824 profile views

Captain_Colossus's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges

100

Reputation

  1. you have me beat- i seemed to remember what was claimed to be 100 mm perforations on a t-54 range target at a tank museum and i would not have ruled that out based on the camera angle and the text overlay over the whole when the camera zooms in for a closer view. i went purely on memory of what that looked like
  2. best guess is 100mm APCBC shell still available from russian stocks
  3. it really was my intention to keep it within bounds, but your point is made. no harm no foul. post deleted.
  4. i have listened to several interviews with commonwealth and american citizens who have returned from fighting in ukraine, and the picture they give is much different than narratives in the press (or for that matter the typical internet discussion board); they have all stated that ukrainian commanders would regard the foreign fighters the most expendable, or that they were sent into the most dangerous situations in order to preserve ukranian nationals as much as possible if foreign units were available. they also point out the utter lack of experience the ukranian fighters had and were getting torn up; they were all being shuttled around to different hot spots (there are also stories many of them have tuberculosis and sent in regardless, infecting others), often getting vaporized on the way to battles rather than in the battles directly; all seem to agree that artillery and mortars are accounting for the most casualties are the most dangerous threats. american policy makers have stated that the primary reason that M1 tanks are off the table because of the difficulty of maintaining them in local conditions, i.e., this would suggest repairs and replacement of tracks and powerpacks after running through their expected lifecycles before refit. are there other reasons couched in this explanation- possibly, but i do think that is a major factor if not the only one. i do not think the us is terribly interested in broken down or abandoned M1 tanks captured by the russians, which is what is being hinted or implied in these statements
  5. this would be true if an observer is selective in their reporting, that is, a tendency to see one situation over the other. i do not think this is the case. there is evidence of tank vs tank combat, there just isn't a lot of it (relatively few videos when compared against artillery, infantry ambushes, or older photographs from earlier in the war seem to suggest columns and vehicle concentrations hit by artillery and drones). i don't see any reason that sources would elect to suppress one type of engagement over another - and i think subjectively audiences would probably be very interested to see tank vs tank combat, it gives audiences a thrill. i do not think what you are seeing is a case of bias, but in general what is actually the case- based on the evidence that is available, you are not seeing many tank vs tank engagements in this phase of the war because there aren't as many. for a comparison, there are similarities between this war and the iran-iraq persian gulf war of the 1980s, some observers noted the world-war one like attrition warfare. and while it may be interesting to think about the change in conditions if the west supplied ukraine with combat vehicles- let's say for the sake of argument a dozen challenger 2 tanks- i have to assume at least some of those will be cannibalized for parts to keep some of the others maintained and running (again, reminds of the equipment iran or iraq would need to maintain without a supply of parts from the source)
  6. in theory this may be true, but also in my view over-analyzing things a bit; over-emphasis of numbers comparison like this misses the larger picture: the amount of vehicles the west seems to be suggesting (notwithstanding m1 abrams tanks) appears to be too small to really matter; they may be a bit of a morale boost, or perhaps it is the means the west is tip-toeing here and slowing insinuate deeper involvement into the war without provoking russia too much. as it is however, how much can anyone expect 10 challenger 2 tanks to affect the war in the larger sense- this is simply a token offering. the amount of training required for proficient crews on western afvs mean they will not be seen in combat anytime soon, or if they are thrown in on an expedited basis the crews probably will have little chance to make the most of them. then there is the problem of logistics in order to supply ukraine with NATO or american or british requirements to use these vehicles, or the maintenance requirements to keep them running (this is far more important than the most one sided western press seems to acknowledge). and for all the problems the russians and ukrainians have with the t-72 or t-80 based vehicles, they are proven reliable- they can still run in crappy conditions or can make use of the local infrastructure- roads and bridges which may not be as suitable for heavier western vehicles, which may experience more difficulty especially in the wet, muddy conditions in ukraine when the ground isn't frozen ukraine does not have control of the air space to protect these vehicles from russian air attacks, drones, and so on. american and british success in iraq wasn't just because of their vehicles in themselves, but because of the whole suite of superiority in combined arms, air and artillery support, C3, logistics and materiel support- which ukraine does not have. a successful tank does not simply occur in a vacuum, the way it works as part of an overall machine, which when that is effective, the tanks are also effective, and vice-versa. in sum, theoretically you can show that a particular APFDS round will have difficulty against a target armor and that you may have the one or two real life engagements which may seem to corroborate that, but in the larger picture, i think this doesn't draw any conclusions about whether these tanks will succeed and affect the war. i also am very suspicious in the way western reporting of what is going on - all but de-emphasizing ukrainian losses or otherwise omitting them entirely, which is affecting perceptions of what is going on. you are not as likely going to see what happens if these tanks were to fail
  7. i do not believe a generation of soviet APFSDs primarily evolved the leopard 2 design, if we are going to fix causation to a primary reason, i would argue that tbe advancement of ATGMs and the performance of chemical energy warheads had more influence on 1970s designs- the evidence of that is the emphasis of compound armors developed on both sides; in reality the british, american and german designs were holistic solutions to the problem of both numerically and arguably qualitatively superior soviet afv designs ( minus electronic and thermal sensors ) in the t-64 and t-72 vs 1960s western vehicles; the western designs are not a reflection of any one factor but a solution in the broadest possible sense, that is, they skip a generation ahead of the competition at least according to their projected mission profile
  8. that's the rub- it takes work to script it into a scenario which is both 'natural looking' and stands up to tests and re-tests of the behavior. but that is the way it works in 'real life' though it is rarely encountered in scenarios- so for example, i often find it difficult to slog through a lot of infantry defenses with tanks, because there is usually no script where the enemy breaks or fails morale checks or would seem to intelligently react and preserve their own forces; i'll be the first to say that i think in some cases there are some strange experiences i have with some vehicles- in particular the bradley and piranah based vehicles which seem seem quite resilient (the latter especially) to the most modern t-72 bk HEAT rounds; without filing a formal protest with figures or data or i do not actually have, or assumptions which would not be more than argument at best, i go into the scenario and adjust behaviors- for example, the df-30 vehicle, which i have seen consistently defeat several 125 mm rounds to the front, or least survive with damages, i will add provisions that the vehicle either 1) effectively retreats, since that is probably what would have happened anyway, or 2) create an automatic destroyed condition in order to simulate routed crews or something even if the vehicle is surviving. in sum: my point is that taking the time however painful it may be to script extra behaviors into the scenario can really change the outcome- not the least of which it is actually more fun to play because you watch an enemy route before energetic efforts and not just programmed to die in place like robots- predictably and often very frustrating- which is not necessarily what commanders want if preserving the force is still intended in future operations
  9. while i have no information to either corroborate support or refute any figures, the challenge of the scenario does not have to be tied exclusively to the armor rating of the vehicles, that is, a designer can simulate morale checks or self preservation behaviors through randomized variables and force attackers to dither, retreat, stall, change course, or a defending force to surrender, retreat and so on, instead of presuming to fight the death, to the last man and so on- which could radically change a player's experience in a scenario as much as the interaction between ammunition and armor performance
  10. i tend to view it the other way- depending on the tiles selected in the map theme, many of them yields somewhat cartoon looking effect- i choose the dullest looking textures possible in order to desaturate the overall appearance; it might also be in either case the general lack of shadows color you impression of a scene i.e., since trees do not cast shadows, they all look equally illuminated ftom all sides, giving a dull appearance in your perspective, while they can look overly bright or cartoonish in mine without more natural looking shading and contrast
  11. the AVEPS system cannot be forced abort reloading when the computer decides to replenish- the option is there from the pull down menu to stop reloading, but the computer ignores the user's command to abort- this is similar to some vehicles in the past where the user cannot intervene to stop a vehicle from reloading, i.e., the computer was particularly prone to take control of the bradley and begin reloading the TOW launcher, which could not be stopped unless the player forced the vehicle to march
  12. i would certainly call steel beasts an tank/AFV/IFV sandbox simulator - meaning you can set up any mix you want of vehicles and infantry and support assets and set up user defined mission goals and areas and place them on the map and experiment. in many respects it may superficially look like combat mission in this regard, but the two games usually play rather different- not just because you can crew many of the vehicles in steel beasts, but because the stat driven results in combat mission simply plays a bit more different- combat mission is inherently designed to play as a strategy game which simplifies user interface and makes the information more manageable for the user, whereas in steel beasts, it is possible to place so many units on the map under player control that it is commonly reported that users can feel overwhelmed with everything going off in real time; this can be mitigated however with scripts and assigning automated behavior to the computer to manage friendly and enemy assets. i have seen in a few cases users who prefer the tactical strategy games like SPMBT or combat mission, simply because they could not get a handle on steel beasts. but it should answer you question to state that there is a robust map and mission editor included with steel beasts which implies that you have a real time wargame, and users do not have to necessarily confine themselves to the crew position in any particular vehicle- users may assign orders and move units from the map screens, or observe and give orders from external views, or take positions in non-tank vehicles, where those vehicles are modeled, and in cases where they are modeled, access and operate crew served weapons (such as infantry light machine guns, heavy machine guns, ATGMs, and there is even a recoilless gun)
×
×
  • Create New...