JustSomeGuy

So, if I understand this correctly, in real life, it would be nearly impossible for tank commanders to spot inbound ATGMs and attempt counter-measures like supressive fire or turret-down position?

It's been pretty easy to spot incoming ATGMs ever since the first SB, at least using TIS: they're represented as HUGE white coronas in SB. However, I've been watching some real-life test-range footage of TOW-2 and Bill and they overflew the camera without any visual effects at all, being pretty much invisible, black dots until the last moment.

So, I've been wondering: how realistic is the representation of ATGMs in SB Pro? Can the gunner really see incoming missile's tracer when it's on the other end of the missile? What about fire-and forget like Javelin and Spike, which I presume don't have any tracers?

And are real-life TCs really able to spot the missiles flying towards "their" AFVs and pop smoke and order the driver to hide into turret-down position within some reasonable time?

Thanks for replies..

Lt DeFault: I tried both having all the platoons embark the same single route and giving them independent routes over the same road; with normal or fast speed, march tactics and column formation, they kept crashing into each other (it might have been connected to having Russian style mixed IFV/tank companies, since BMP-2 is slower than T-90.) In the end, I resorted to using conditions with timers, so each platoon waited two more minutes before embarking, but this stretched the whole convoy horribly and made it a management nightmare.

Given the next release is focusing on SBPro internals, I would greatly appreciate improved AI/logics of driving in columns.

I once attempted to move an OPFOR battalion through a secured portion of highway to do a fast flanking move and result was complete mess: AFVs kept accelerating, hitting the vehicles before them, coming to an abrupt halt (and being hit by the vehicle behind), accelerating again and "jumping" onwards in this fashin painfully slow, creating instant congestions along the way.

This was, off course, given by the fact that the "spacing" parameter only affects vehicles in the same platoon and don't seem to "see" vehicles from other platoons until there is a collision.

So it would be great if AFVs could "sense" if there's an another AFV say, within 20 or 30 meters directly in front of them and

1) adjust speed to match the "vehicle-obstacle" in the same lane in front of them smoothly, instead of "jumping"

2) keep reasonable distance between all vehicles on given marching line, not only between direct members of given AFV's platoon

Another simple, not-so-much-time-consuming request: T-72 based ARV.

Just a 3D model in WP-green would suffice to me, it's not like ARVs are bulletproof to such an extent it would need über-armor-mapping and I feel that using Wisents for RedFor is even less realistic than using VT-72s with Wisent damage/pefrormance models.

Or am I the only one who loves ARVs so much that I feel the need for dedicated Warzsaw-Pact one?

Would it be possible to kindly ask for Central European (Czech/Austrian border) heightmap (possibly plus railways and major roads)?

The region I'm interested in is:

49° 0'00.13"N 16°56'40.00"E -> NW corner

48°40'55.00"N 16°16'19.00"E -> SW corner

I've also attached the Google Earth polygon file; and if there is anything I could provide to help creating the heightfile without some special SW, I would gladly do it.

The Palava / Pollauer Berge region has been historically of great strategic interest to Czechs, since it provides natural corridor from Austria onto Brno, Czech second largest city, and Vyskov military academy, with only few scattered hills to provide overwatch.

I am particulary interested in it because I want to demonstrate SB Pro to some ex-CSLA T-55/T-72 tankers and ex-Generals Staff officer in late summer and it would be great to have strategically important Czech landscape for our little "war games", as well as for the Czech SB Pro community.

Palava.zip

I was wandering if the SB community could be of any help to eSim when they're up to include a new vehicle or variant in SB -- regardless of whether it's ought to be crewable or not?

For example, I, living in ČR, could go to Lešany or Rokytnice museum and grab dozens of photos of details of T-55AM2 and various other ex-ČSLA (non-monkey) pieces, which might help eSim modelling armor or FCS or whatever.

I also happen to have various non-generic photos of T-72M4 TURMS-T including various details interior and even photos of the Czech EppSv-97 round including photo of the rod itself, out of sabot, and cutaway photo the BBD applique armor of T-55AM2.

And I guess for example Ukrainian or Russian SB players could do the same with variants of T-64/80/72/90.

So I was just wandering whether this could be of any help to eSim, or whether they prefer to get their own resources using other means when modelling new AFVs or variants?

"Window of opportunity".

There's a (now dead) T-72B in the little space between the buildings. Direct hit into the carousel and instant ammo cook-off.

I was playing as the -72B at the moment (while debugging a mission) and this shot came as complete surprise "from nowhere" :c:

I believe a good show of how tank diesel fuel burns is this russian video of live fire tests against combat-loaded T-80U and T-80UD (skip to 2nd minute):

Well, it would be possible to use a long but rather narrow "strip" of a map and scale-down the ranges a bit...

As for simulation of unloading, I believe it would suffice to have empty flatbed railway cars and AFVs with very little fuel and no ammo parked in very concentrated columns just next to them, with refuel and ammo trucks nearby.

Or maybe, there could be an ammo/ISO container railway coach, equally static and un-creqable as traditional ISO containers, just with SW class partially inherited from resupply trucks and partially from ISO containers SB already contain. Few hours work tops, I'd say.

Grenny:

off course the point of embarkment would be protected by a security force. That would present the challenge -- together with preserving enough ammunition on the attacker's side to destroy the off-loaded AFVs before they manage to load ammunition and turn from "defenseless sitting ducks" into "scores of fresh enemy tanks".

Race into depth of enemy's territory + tactical "when-to-reload" scenarios + race with time.

But as for "AFV are not supposed to teh frontline" - for A), I didn't say frontline, but Soviet OMG/Czechoslovak OMS were supposed to race far behind FEBA and attack just such targets; it would go the other way too.

Actually, this is exactly what I had in mind: to juice up my mission by having the BLUFOR defend off-loaded, so-far-defenseless AFVs against REDFOR advanced groups while repulsing the main atttack.

And as for B), there are still those crazy railroading-into-enemy's- scenarios like in Harold Coyle's "The Ten Thousand".

Tacbat: that would be hard to impelement, I believe. Unlike dummy, immobile 3D models... That's why I asked the latter and not the former, because we all know how overloaded eSim are.

Would it be hard to include simple, "dumb", immobile models of

1) flatbed railway car

2) generic diesel locomotive (like DB Class 218)?

Point being that many AFVs were to be transported by railway to their staging area and with these two models, it would be possible to manually place them onto "railway" portions of maps and thus simulate ambush/defense of nearby parked "just unloaded" and thus unarmed AFVs, deciding about the overall outcome of the mission...

Also, given it would be faction-affilated object, it would be possible to use it on both sides with different user-skins, so that the same locomotive model could play DB Class 218 on NATO side and "Sergei" class on Soviet side...

If a new engine is underway, I'd like to ask for ability of vehicle crews (not dismounted troops) to abandon and then re-crew their tank/IFV.

That way, it would be possible to

• somewhat lower loses on Blue side (order tank's crew to abandon immobilized vehicle and retreat into cover)
  
• simulate more realistically routed Red side (Iraqi tankers fleeing their tanks in ODS, for example)
  
• simulate ad-hoc ambushes with hopeless technology (T-55 in side street takes 1 shot at passing T-90 or Abrams and then the crew dashes out for safety)
  
• realistically re-crew vehicles where crew has been killed but vehicle itself could be repaired
  
• "spice up" scenarios with the need of unpredictable, real-time-generated CSAR missions ;-)
  

Another feature I hope for would be losing threads. That's one "T-72: Balkans on fire" feature I really miss in SB: hitting enemy tank into thread and watching as the thread slowly unrolls behind the vehicle which begins turning until it comes to partially immobilized halt. Although I dare to assume this one might already be on The List.

Okay, thanks.

Just to be sure -- so, as for saving the lives of the "emergency containment" ambushing tank, it's impossible so far, right?

Is there a way to order tank's crew to leave their vehicle during mission?

It would really come handy in certain "desperate operational-value ambushes" I'd like to have in one of my scenarios since the way it is now, the crew has no chance but to fatalistically await their death (the tank itself cannot move out due to terrain conditions and LOS, while dismounted soldiers could).

Also, it would come in handy to position un-crewed AFVs (eg. old "permanent materiel reserve" T-55s) as kind of "heavy roadblocks" within urban areas; is there a way to achieve this without "killing" the tank alongside with it's crew?

That changed throughout the 1980s.

First, it was just typical communist "Soviets do this, so you have your orders to do it also and we don't care how you do it, that's your problem and if you fail, well, you know the consequences."

Then, in 1986/87, bright young student of logistics graduated from something like "Czechoslovak Westpoint" with thesis on how to supply these OMS groups.

He defended the thesis for hours against chief logistic officer of CSLA and other "big animals" -- and got straight A. Then he proceeded to high ranks of CSLA's and then ACR's logistics organization.

I happen to know that guy also.

As far as I understand, the point was that tanks themselves were able to leap 200km in terrain with what they had on them. So, OMS would only consist of tanks and few APCs (there were not enough proper IFVs to equip OMSs with them) and very minimal supply unit. They would leap these 200 km and then, protected wheeled supply convoys would arrive, resupply and race back. On the linked page, these two guys -- the OMS tanker and the logistic chief -- were describing their ideas while analyzing what they knew about the operational plan for the OMS and the logistical system of CSLA; I'll translate small part of it for you guys:

Tanker doesn't need the fueler alongside him for four days: he needs it exactly once per four days, for half an hour in Ingolstatd. An indeed, when we look whats this is about, even those 200 kms are matter of 3 hours of march for the fueler; you only have to secure perfectly safe passages for those and guard the resupply routes from nasty surprises.

Refilling whole 1st army is collosal operation, though; if we count one fueler per company of tanks, then I get 180 fuelers just for tanks, not mentioning all the other vehicles, so maybe even twice as much. And add once more the same for ammunition; for example T-55 cartridge weights cca. 40 kg, so it's 1600 kg for single tank. This refilling is obviously even more complicated matter because it's harder to estimate it ahead. It is possible that some units would need to resupply more often.

Logistical supply of front is extraordinarily complicated matter, but with perfect organization, it is possible. And with fast paced operations and necessary dispersion of <OMS> units on the <200 km leap> line, maybe incorporating even time division, it is possible to minimize nasty suprises from the enemy. Nevertheless, I postulate that it would be far less risky, than if the logistic vehicles were moving on the battlefield these whole four days. To keep them alive just for the time of the drive <to the 200km line> and back is much easier, guaranteed.

In any way, this is logistic security of the front; it happens in already "conquered" terrain, behind frontline. Of course it has weak spots, but it is doable; the proof is the Second World war, where exactly operations like this happened many times with worse technology and in larger scale.

(Not sure what term to use for wheeled fuel supply vehicle for "tanker" would be misleading term, so I used "fueler" instead)

There's much more on OMS when this came from, but you'd need to use Google Translate (or perhaps translate.Yandex.ru with "Чешский" to "Английский", it seems to handle slavic languages slightly better) on it.

EDIT: but that probably belongs to the "real world tactics" board; here i just mentioned it to suggest that T-55AM with DOV/BDD "anti-TOW" applique armor and improved, 0.5 first-round-hit-probatility would provide for this simulation and thus give SB PRO nice possibility of scenario improvements;

and more importantly, that T-62M would be just another "soviet-only" niche vehicle, while T-55AMs were the real backbone for the "few T-72s, much more T-55AMs" mix of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Eastern Germany etc.

EDIT2: there is a photo gallery of KLADIVO-modernized 1980's vintage T-55AM2, which includes photos of the FCS and LRF controls and even schematics of the KLADIVO FCS package:

http://www.brdm2.estranky.cz/fotoalbum/tanky/modernizovany-stredni-tank-t-55am-2/

You could see there how much farther FCS-wise the T-55AM-Kladivo was in comparison with T-62M...

Often the hydraulics fail and main gun "rests" in full depression.

You could also strafe the target vehicle with coax and if something moves and tries to return fire, you know it's not dead.

But there is no 100% guaranteed, universal method how to tell whether the target is "incapable of combat". For all you know, the crew in otherwise seemingly intact tank might be dead... Or just stunned... Or just playing dead, waiting till you move aside so that they could get better shot at you.

Okay.

But since I see you happen to be Wiki editor, do you think it would be possible to add the information about EPpSv-97 and TAPNA to appropriate Wiki pages (T-72M4 and M1) so that SB-ers would know which similar modern rounds to use to get realistic performance with T-72M4?

If I may suggest my bit or two -- I know an ex-CSLA (People's Army of the Czechoslovakia) tanker trained in 1980s first on T-72 and then transitioned to "mobilization" T-55AMs intended to play OMS role, and he explains the unique and highly imporant role of T-55 -- not T-62s! -- in late 1980s.

At least in the CSLA, it were T-55AMs that were supposed to utilize any space/breach within enemy lines and sneakily race forward deep into enemy's territory as OMS ("Operacni Manevrovaci Skupina" akin to soviet Operational Maneuver Groups), destroying reinforcements, warehouses and suppy conwoys and FABs deep within enemy's territory.

More armored tanks with more powerfull guns, ie. the T-72 and Soviet T-62s, T-64s and T-80s, were kept for the "breaching" fights done in the classical "mass assault" style, because that was where the frontal tank-versus-tank fights were supposed to happen:

OMS as trait of revolution in operational art of war in CSLA's 1986 plan

Anyway, what follows after Šumava is completely unlike anything that tactics textboks wrote about "main methods of combat". The agressor is not advancing as a tidal wave, but as a creepers plants: it springs out sprouts as far and as fast as possible, then it interconnect these sprouts, pulls in the web and suffocates enemy's units stuck within it.

And those long sprouts are the OMS units.

Point is that since OMS was supposed to bypass enemy tank formations on their race as far into enemy territory as possible, doing 200km leaps and only attacking "softer" targets of reasonable strategic value (ie. arty, warehouses, FABs and surprised convoys), they didn't needed "anti-Abrams" guns or armor protection (16th tank division with >300 T-55AMs could only have encountered 37 M1A1s) and thus were given modernized, but oldest tanks: the T-55AMs.

In order to make the OMS'es T-55s reasonably usefull given their limited supplies, CSLA's T-54/55s were being upgraded with KLADIVO ("Hammer") FCS to T-5AM1/AM2/AM2B since 1982.

KLADIVO was originally developed for requirements of Arab customers, but was quickly adopted as a measure within CSLA and possibly other Warzsaw Pact nations because it supposedly put T-55 to T-72 level and beyond: it

- was digital FCS built around unlicensed copy of Intel 8080 (Tesla MHB8080A)

- had HLD-K laser rangefinger and wind and temperature sensors as inputs to ballistic computer

- had laser warning detectors (wavelengths 0.85-1.065 um)

- was able to compute automatic lead

- compensated for shooting from side slopes

In reality, it suffered from reliabity problem mostly due to quality of the 8080 unlicensed copies, overloaded turret motors and influence of main gun's recoil onto electronic equipment; and due to limited space within the turret, it had poor ergonomy resulting in super-slow control of coax. Official probability of a first-round hit at 2-3 km increased 13-times to approx. 0.5, though.

Ergo, T-62s, even with 1980's ERA and FCS updates, would play the same role as T-72M/M1/B/B1, T-64 and T-80: breaching frontlines with massive formations. I believe SB has enough types for this role.

On the other hand, modernized T-55s with NERA/Burlinghton applique armor and new FCS would try to "sneak through" the main defensive line and then race on into the NATO's rear -- and that is a role SB don't have any appropriate vehicle type for so far.

Also, it was T-54AM/55AM1/2s with applique NERA what all the non-T-72, non-soviet Warzsaw Pact tank units consisted of in 1980s, not T-62s.

Which is why I believe T-55AM/AM2/AM2B should have higher priority than somewhat niche T-62M1Ms.

(Also, T-62 was not accepted within the Warzsaw Pact coutries and T-62M1 was Soviet-only on European theatre; and SB already has soviet-only T-64 and T-80, so why add another?)

As for ammunition for Czech T-72s including T-72M4, the manual states

1997-8? Possible Czech KE upgrade - not clear if produced.

1997-98? Possible Slovak KE upgrade - not clear if produced.

However, it is clear that the upgrades were in fact produced: in Czech Republic, the "EPpSv-97" APFSDS was developed and fielded for T-72M4:

Total weight: 20,3 kg

Penetrator: 3,8 kg, developed "with Israeli cooperation"

Penetrator+combustible filling: 10,7 kg

L/D ratio: 20:1

Penetration: "1,6x more than BM-15"

I could provide some photos/screen grabs of both the penetrator itself and whole EPpSv-97 cartridge from Czech Army's promo-video.

The Slovaks have developed similar "TAPNA" with official penetration of 540mm RHaE @ 2000 m, only with their own national suppliers:

http://www.kotadef.sk/images/content/documents/prospekty/prospekt_TAPNA.pdf

Will these APFSDSs ever be modeled and/or listed properly in the SB documentation?

Hi,

I know that manual states integrated graphics cards are unsupported so this is not a bug, merely me seeking advice. However, on my old home laptop, I managed to run SB Pro PE 3 and:

+the game loads up and runs

+I could use the tactical map

+I could use TIS/FLIR

But when I attempt to switch from TIS to daylight optics or use the F8 external view, the terrain does render without any artifacts but way to the left of my actual screen: I could see about the last 10% of terrain as a stripe on the left side of my screen.

Attempts to "get out of optics" and watching interior of vehicles results into plain black screen.

I have tried both fullscreen and windowed, various resolutions, minimal and maximal details, but to no avail.

So, my question is, given the TIS works and terrain is also rendered which means that the integrated graphics card (Intel GMA4500MHD) is basically able to handle the load, does anyone have any idea how to compensate that offset with daylight optics?

(If not, okay, I could still use SB in other location, just not nearly so often.)