GSprocket

Be aware that thermal considerations make turbo boost on laptops less useful than it sounds (you get a short period of good performance, then it throttles the CPU/GPU to maintain safe temperatures... You can help with a 'proper' surface to rest the laptop on (clothing and literal "laptops" are death to ventilation). Some laptops may have better cooling than others, but that may come at the expense of robustness/dust sensitivity or performance (easier to keep a slow computer cool, than a higher performance one, but average "hot" performance may then be not too dissimilar).

The Soviet Gun launched missiles aren't "slow" though, they are soft launched, then boosted to around the same velocity as an HE round (800m/s). This is more than twice the velocity of a TOW or similar weapon, and still much faster than e.g. Hellfire. Hell, the average speed to 5km is higher than the 'post launch' speed of TOW and very close to that of Hellfire's maximum velocity. Usability at these ranges is of course debatable... detection, acquisition, identification; clear LOS for the 17 seconds tof (plus time to lay prior to firing); storage conditions and failure rate (which is apparently significant). Such a long range does permit flanking shots against 'safe' targets (at least until lessons are learnt), if and when conditions are favourable.

Possibly in Georgia? There were T72B and BMP3 present. Of course while a 7km or 8km range is lovely in theory, it does rather neglect the small detail that in Western Europe the terrain intervisibilities are much lower (2000-1000m or so is typical, and some areas are down to 500m at most). If you can see him to fire a missile you have to be on prominent terrain features and visible from large distances too, and should expect artillery or air response, probably before you can fire at all. Vehicles using terrain masking and more discrete battle positions won't have nearly this long range potential in most cases.

That is guff. The M829A3 is slower not to fox ERA (which wouldn't work - 7+kg @ 1555m/s is well above the initiation requirements (or most 105mm rounds would also ignore K5 ERA??) Why the slow velocity?... simply required by the huge rod (even with a minimal material low density optimised sabot design). (It would be around 1500(ish) for the same rod and a M829A2 level sabot design, slower again for an M829A1 or earlier aluminium sabot). The thick and long rod provides more resistance to ERA and other dwell/shearing armour methods ~ the rod interacts with the effective armour over a shorter length, leaving more residual rod. It is at least 20% longer and nearly 40% heavier than the rod from any other currently serving projectile. This means, even with the lower velocity that the penetrator carries 20% more KE than the DM53, and has more 'nose' material that can be lost before performance is reduced too low for perforation of the plate behind.

Yep it is often there behind the wall of sobbing women. :luxhello:

The 40mm does quite a number with only 120g of HE... Even a small ATGM has over 1kg, and larger ones 3.5kg of HE (in 2-8kg "warheads")... even with a significant fraction focussed in a possibly "wrong" direction, there is plenty of blast left for changing the shape of softskins and aerial targets. Some even have auxiliary frag sleeves for area effect on infantry and other lightly armoured/soft targets not sensitive to blast.

We used the Karime fabric wrap, very successfully. Had lots of ways of using the standard tie to sit children of different ages/development/activity. A little warm in midsummer, but excellent in spring/autumn and winter.

The basics: Scimitar/Warrior. Best AFVs in the world, armed with BV and supply of tea. Also has tracks, an engine and other stuff, including some kind of gun. Your turn to brew.

The effect of range on penetration is exaggerated in most games, and in literature. Both main gun APFSDS and APDS have essentially 'similar' penetrations throughout their practical range. (90-95% of at muzzle penetration at 2km is typical, except for a few of the steel rounds). It can make the difference between relative degrees of vulnerability, but some areas of the armour vary by far more than this minor reduction, and different generations of ammunition are far more widely separated. There will almost always be some areas that the round can penetrate for much greater distances, and some areas where penetration is non-lethal or impossible.

There is no explicitly listed DM33 in 105mm, however it seems likely that it could be a common round with M/85. M111/DM23/PfielPat78 is listed, and has a lower performance than M/85. M426/DM63 is listed, and has a higher performance than M/85. CMC105 is the other potential candidate APFSDS round in 105mm with a performance slightly different from but comparable to M/85. See the Wiki for the basic data for each round in the simulation. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data (Though I would think the indications for suitable substitutes for "German Leopard 2A4" should really be 1A4 :c:)

Yes, that is what I see & understand. Current values for BFV & CFV: 67(133) APDS, 233(467) HEI, 800(1400) 7.62mm, 2(5)-BFV 2(10)-CFV TOW This is correct(ish*) for the BFV, but the CFV should have more gun ammunition. (*Actual belt is 70 rds/230 rds from what I have read). Not entirely sure what the doctrinal loadout is though I've seen repeated mention of a 1500 round total (900 for the BFV), and one breakdown into 1125 APDS and 375 HEI ~ though that could easily be reversed without seeming *wrong*. The CFV Coax loadout was given as 800(3600) 7.62mm, or 400 ready for the command scout sub-variant to make space for the additional comms gear.

4) Apparent lack of M3 stowage. BFV has 900 rds of HEI and APDS (I've seen 200 APDS and 700 HEI suggested as reasonable values, with 70 & 230 ready loaded). It also has stowage for 5 reloads for TOW, and 2200 rounds of 7.62mm for the onboard weapon (plus the dismount's stowage). CFV deleted 5 dismounts in exchange for increased stowage. I've seen total stowage of 1500 rds of HEI and APDS (with indications that the APDS was given the larger share - same belt sizes (and unless the instructions for filling the "hotboxes" differ between CFV and BFV the same 70 & 230 belts)). Ammunition supply for the coax increased to 4400 rounds. The existing models use the same ammunition capacities, except for ATGM, which have the 5+2 and 10+2 values.

Though you do need a machine with write permissions to the "All Users" data location in order to use the scenario and map editor tools (which isn't universal on shared machines). Better to set the permissions for the required folders than to use Admin for the same purpose though. :c:

There may be more, but for my first: (Mission editor/ammunition data). 1) Is the French OFUM PH 105F1 really an HE round? The designation suggests smoke (OFUM=Smoke, PH I'd guess referring to Phosphorous?). The "penetration" data suggests a WP type performance, rather than HE (150-180 for smoke in this calibre is common, while 300-310 seems to be the HESH values, and 240 is the French OE (explosive) round). 2) Should the T72M4 be able to stow BM-42M? (it currently still can, but not BM-42) 3) The 115mm OF-27 seems to be available on T-80U and T-90S vehicles. (ISD 1970s, identical performance data).

Don't think the French 75 is any relation to the KwK42, just have a similar design goal. The WW2 Shermans included a 105mm variant for fire support within each Bn force. (6 FS tanks, to 53 gun tanks and 17 light tanks). This is a modified 105mm M3 (pack) howitzer, and the French gun is a much longer piece... but still only fires CE shells, HE and HEAT. There are obviously accuracy improvements with higher velocity, but that may be somewhat offset by having a gun more powerful than the chassis is designed to handle, even with the presence of a muzzle brake.

I'd also note that AFAIK TOW and Dragon/Javelin share the same stowage locations, so 7 TOW is probably optimistic in most cases already.

T-55 or possibly T62... Centurion. Even AMX? For a challenge, T72M T55 is the most exported tank in the world. Both developed and developing world hell-holes.

There is a significant difference in behaviour on walls though. (Compare the paddock on the left with the far less visible one on the right).

Recently announced release of SRTM-1 data for (most) of Africa, with South & Central America following later in 2014 and the rest of the available data within 1 year: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/

You say you can't modify the map. Is that a 'requirement' or just permissions on the map? If it is only because you cannot use scenario editor then you may be able to 'replace theme' from the scenario editor to useful effect.** I prefer high drag/high traction water, and modest for the materials for banks... though some seem a bit low. Ideal would be an update to the terrain engine to give more reasonable river contours (especially flat shelving 'beaches' on insides of meanders, steep banks on outsides, more generally 'flat "u"' shaped river bottoms with some more control over bottom height/slope ~ which interacts with the surrounding terrain. Also improvements to vehicle behaviour over chaotic terrain (such as that currently in river bottoms in poor configurations), as the vehicle attitude can be rather extreme (more than that permitted by the actual terrain form), as the vehicle length doesn't moderate the pitch angle (or width, the roll angle)). ** Extract theme. Edit theme on 'any old map' in any capable computer with a usable 'map editor' (I understand that permissions can prevent access to the 'all users' folder needed for terrain editor function). Save new theme. Replace Scenario theme with modified one. Also BMP may be a better option than wheeled death traps, as they can pivot steer (or at least approximate it better)... MT-LB might be a suitable-ish alternative if you want to avoid too much firepower, though it does give some up.

I prefer "breach" though it isn't a panacea. Passing each serial in Close column is probably preferable to wide, as it requires less space to string out before and after the crossing. I usually set a route for the crossing and then attach unit's routes to this. With conditions that only one unit can be "in" the crossing at any time. Breach is more tolerant of enemy presence ~ while march does odd stuff to deploy against certain types of threat. This can be a problem if the enemy is being unfriendly. An alternative may be "Assault" if the enemy if sanitised near the crossing area. Some attempts always seem to become SNAFUs even when the previous run was flawless... I think the AI sometimes just wants to take a bath.

I thought that Bn supports were different in BMP and BTR Regts? Something to do with the relative paucity of AT assets in the BTR units.

The correct zone?

Is it in the appropriate projection? There may be a difference between the map projection and the required output. I tend to prefer using UTM or some variation on this (with planar, rectilinear coordinates in metres), rather than Geographic (with spherical angular coordinates) for working in local areas. This might not be appropriate for the task in hand, but it would be the first thing that I checked to try to work on a map for a tactical game.

There is a minor error in the pdf. The table relating to Offensive losses on p76 is referred in contents and text as Defensive. The Defensive operation is on p87.