Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ole1291

  1. At this point, we were discussing reality. I brought up figures from SBwiki as they are as good as can get on the internet and some reference was needed for the discussion. The choice of the article was probably not the best for the topic and I can see how it could add some confusion, but the author did touch on the technical aspects of bomblets potential weakness vs tanks. Maybe to answer my own question, the fact the Germans felt it was necessary to up armor the roof of their tanks in the 90s is good indications they assessed the Leo would be unacceptably vulnerable to them. How mu
  2. I didn't know. If you have any links please share, I'd be interested to read about it. That's my feeling too. I used variations of that tactic successfully in single player, but I don't recall it being used much in multiplayer head to head. Didn't know that about the EFP slug defeating ERA, interesting. The analogy with the DPICM might be wrong though: TOW-2B 's two warheads are much bigger, and listed with 300mm RHAe 152mm DPICM bomblet only 52mm Leo 2 hull ammo is of course vulnerable, but isn't the glacis armor signignificantly thicker
  3. Thanks for the info. Would you say that is enough to stop or severely deplete a DPICM bomblet EFP? I guess with regards a T-72, if penetration occurs, there is a real chance of the jet igniting the ammo carousel under the turret but would catastrophic damage also be likely for an M1 or Leo2?
  4. I am sure that works, but it seems a little gamey. Doubt it could be replicated in real life. I'm pretty sure an armored formation on a road march could be successfully engaged with an ICM strike, and I think this was done in Ukraine. But I am less sure if that is possible with armored formations once combat deployed in open fields.
  5. I totally understand that. Reason I brought the subject up is I also tend to use SB as... how to put it, an "outcome predictor" (up to a point), a learning tool, with regards to the effects some weapons modelled within the simulation. In this case, I just wanted to check how close to actual reality ICM effects were modelled. Thanks for clearing it up.
  6. Thanks, very interesting. Of note to the particular subject was this paragraph: The Puma turret can be fitted with additional armor to provide protection against medium calibre ammunition, larger fragments of artillery rounds and large artillery bomblets with EFP or shaped charge warhead. Except for a smaller curved section behind the gun (which moves when the gun is elevating), the add-on armor for the roof consists of "Igelpanzerung" (hedgehog armor), which utilizes many rubber-spikes to damage the shaped charge warheads of artillery bomblets. That "Igelpanzerung" was also me
  7. Maybe but you are choosing one of the few tanks we have in SB whose hull armor is almost as thin as that of a modern IFV, not a very representative sample. Thanks for bringing up STANAG 4569, its a useful reference, and yes, it goes to show that many APC/IFVs listed as "shrapnel proof" are actually far from it.
  8. I agree, simplifications are probably better in this instances, especially if modelling these strikes more accurately would strain the FPS too much. Current hit probability within the kill zone seems to be a good enough approximation. What surprised me in SB was the proportion of vehicles, tanks in particular, that are totally out of action after one hit. I would have expected more damaged tanks relative to destroyed ones. In the linked article, bomblet penetration is listed as 70-100mm. in SB though the RHAe given for DPICM ammunition is 54mm, I don't know which figure is more
  9. This blog: https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/04/or-smackdown-on-dpicm.html Makes an interesting argument that that DPICM is overvalued as an anti -vehicle ammunition (or in general too as its mainly rocket delivered which the author argues is an inefficient ammo logistic-wise) and is only really better than conventional ammo when dealing with infantry in the open. I used to think it was the contrary, DPICM being optimized against AFVs with the frag effect thrown in as an afterthought. So what do people here think about the issue? I must admit I was
  10. Ah, I see. I then assume the launchers around the RWS turret are potentially for some soft kill APS or smoke. Thanks for the clarification.
  11. According to Wikipedia the Btr B10 Kurganets has a "scaled down APS" but in steelbeasts it doesn't appear to be modelled (nothing happens when an ATGM is fired on the vehicule). Is that because you think it actually doesn't have one at all? or will it be modelled at a later stage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurganets-25
  12. I've started downloading 3.027 but with my slow internet connection, it doesn't look like I'll have it in time for this evening's session.
  13. You've definately chosen the safer course :bigsmile:. We'll see you next week then I guess...
  14. I tried the setup last Friday with TIGF and the game seemed perfectly playable. I did have a few slowdown from time to time (at which point I would just go back to the map view). So all and all, while not optimal, it seems perfectly possible to play SteelBeasts multiplayer sessions over the internet using a cell's phone mobile hotspot as router.
  15. I'm thinking the same as Panzer leader here. Looking forward to it and hoping my connection will be alright but as it seemed to do ok last TIGF I'm not too worried.
  16. Yes, Gibsonm was very helpful, I appreciate it. For some reason, things seemed to work pretty straightforwardly this time around. I hope it will be the same on Thursday. I'll let people know how I fare in case someone else happens to have a similar internet setup as I currently do.
  • Create New...