Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Content Count

    757
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. And that's where I'd much rather your effort went, even if it meant an end to new vehicles or changes to the damage model for the forseeable future. What we've got is entirely workable - it just throws up an occasional anomaly which we can easily chalk up to "unlikely stuff happens in war". When I request something on the Wish List thread these days, it's either something I think won't take a staggering amount of effort (for example, a guided round for the Armata) or it's something that might take significant resources, but will have a huge benefit to realism right across the game (subtley mor
  2. PS: This is what I would expect from propellant in cased ammo being ignited.
  3. Hi Ssnake - I thought that with combustible cases or bagged charges etc. (if not in water jackets etc.) touching off one would set off the others so fast that there would be an explosion, rather than a Roman candle, it's just that the explosion would be a "low order" explosion, perhaps blowing the turret off, rather than a "high order" explosion, through sympathetic detonation rather than ignition. which, particularly when the vehicle is carrying a high proportion of HE and HEAT rounds, will tend to totally blow the vehicle apart, as seen in some knocked out MBTs in Ukraine. This may be an inc
  4. An ear piercing they can brag about in the bar.
  5. Sorry Volcano, the fault is mine as usual. There was nothing wrong with your original explanation either - I just didn't click that carousel stowage was "ready" rather than "stored". I completely understand that with c. 250 vehicles in SB, they are not all going to be kept updated to the same standard of damage modelling. I am still learning about the way damage is modelled in the game and about the vehicles themselves, both as modelled here and as they exist in RL. Your explanations made me work to understand how to kill the Armata and I discovered it had significant vulnerabilities and was e
  6. 3UBK21 Sprinter and 9M119M1 Invar-M missiles and NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex for T-14 Armata.
  7. The ability for infantry or engineers to lay AT mines and set up claymores in game. Infantry that duck when shot at, displace when out of sight and pop up somewhere else and generally make realistic use of cover and concealment. The option of more clutter (when smaller map areas selected) for infantry to hide behind in or under.
  8. Well, I've obviously been hiding under a rock for the last decade (sadly, not far from the truth!). I wasn't aware there was so much out there.
  9. OK, I did some more testing. Five three tank platoons of Russian tanks from the T-62 to the Armata. All ammo removed (even MG and smoke discharger grenades). Shooter is a Leo2A6 with DM53. Shot placement to the lower hull aligned with the centre of the turret to hit the carousel (except for the T62 when I aimed into the front hull from the side due to its different ammo storage arrangements). I did this test three times and got interesting results each time. I'm posting the AAR from the last one. All tanks either blew up, roman candled or burned (of which in earlier tests some sub
  10. OK, if we're talking Armata, if aiming frontally, I find aiming for the gun with sabot will often result in gun disablement regardless of Afganit intercept. From the front quarter, the crew module and ammo carousel both become vulnerable, although the latter has less protection. From the side, if not hull down, my first choice is the ammo carousel, followed by the crew compartment. shots into frontal portion of the turret, parallel or just below the level of the main gun will almost always take out the gun. However, if you are close enough, a hit into the turret bustle, is extremely likely to
  11. When I'm pitching SB to friends, a huge selling point, to me, is that SB is an actual military training system that is available in a very slightly attenuated version to civilians. You could argue that Harpoon/CMANO/CMO is the opposite, having been adopted by militaries subsequent to its civilian inception. What I'd like to know is are there any other simulations out there with real civilian/military crossover in usage? The only one I can think of might be TACOPS. I'm sure you can come up with other examples.
  12. I've definitely had vehicles (T-90s and Armatas) from which I have removed all ammo explode on many occasions during testing (almost always, given the correct shot placement). I'm not asking for any changes to how damage is modelled, just giving my findings. Those AARs I posted on the earlier thread had all vehicles devoid of ammunition (to stop them shooting back, without disabling the gun ) and plenty of those blew up.
  13. @Volcano I have read and re-read your posts and really do appreciate your explanations. I fully accept that you have applied the damage model that exists with SB diligently. I can see an additional problem from your point of view. Let's say there are critical components in the centre of the T-14 other than in the key systems indicated in your diagram - if you fixed that for the T-14 (which would take military espionage at this stage) you would have to do the same for every vehicle in the game and that's just not do-able and would not be a profitable use of your time. There are oth
  14. If you review my tests, I spread the shots around a bit (added to ballistic dispersal). I also fired one round per target vehicle, so cumulative damage or shots going through the same hole repeatedly did not figure in my tests, nor would it in real life The customer, reviewing hits, would at some point notice that a high proportion, aimed for centre mass from the side, did no damage. I noticed it in game play as did others. I just decided to try to work out what was happening by doing some testing. Also, when considering how full up the T14 turret is, remember that schematics onli
  15. Volcano, I LOVE the T-14 and all the new Russian vehicles in Steel Beasts. I just want to see realistic outcomes. That's all.
  16. OK, I tried to do a 100 shot test, but for some reason I still ran out of ammo on unlimited at 48 shot. This is M829A3 from the side at around 1400-1500 metres, mostly into the turret, but I tried to vary my aim a bit. Afganit was turned off. 48 hits, of which two grazed, 30 produced no apparent damage of which two were grazing shots at 02:28 and 10.31. So lets say 28 good penetrating hits of which none caused damage or 58.33%. Now think of it this way. I would guess the T14 was introduced mainly to offer military customers something interesting and state of the art in
  17. Sorry Volcano, I don't like to argue, but I think you're wrong. Nils can see something odd going on and I can't understand why you cant. c. 20% (17% in one test and 24%, admittedly with a caveat in another) of rounds going through the centre of the tank are doing no damage at all. if you look at available schematics of the T-14 and apply your knowledge of other tanks, you will see that there is a lot going on in that turret which has intentionally been kept as small as possible to present as small a target as possible. There is a massive breech, training and elevating gear, autoloader componen
  18. PS. In the last test I didn't notice that I'd gotten the Afganit removed on some vehicles. That doesn't invalidate the fact that penetrators are going through T-14s and not causing damage, but it does invalidate the relative one shot kill numbers between the T-14 and T-90, although I suspect, not by much.
  19. One thing that would be neat would be the ability to tell AI gunners in your platoon to prioritise their aim to centre mass (default), turret, or hull. That would help in combating Armata. It's basically a heavyweight fighter with a glass jaw, as Ssnake already (sort of) pointed out.
  20. I'd have to go back through all eight of the tests I posted to confirm that one instance. You can see lots of them. For the last T-14 test above (the one with 50 target vehicles) open the AAR I uploaded in game and the report in the same post. Look at the report and note the timestamps of those hits that only have mobility damage (which was because I had already disabled the tracks) then set the AAR to real world and events and keep clicking until you hit those time stamps. There are 12 examples in that one test, which is 24% of all hits obtained (two of which are are explicable as peripheral)
  21. Yes, and in a comparatively high instance of cases. I think it was 5 ex 30 hits in one case and 12 ex 50 in another. I believe that's statistically significant and probably also significant that it happens with the T-14 but not with the T-90. However, I'll happily run the tests again if more data is needed. There is something peculiar happening, but, as Ssnake said, it's down to the damage model they use and it can't be tweaked without invoking the Law of Unintended Consequences - I'm still interested to hear why it differs for the two tanks though.
  22. That's one reason why I said I didn't think Afganit made a lot of difference from the side. It may well have frontally.
  23. Basically, that was an interesting exercise, but it comes down to what Ssnake said (although it's rather more than a handful and strange (to me) that this problem exists with the T-14 but not the T-90). "That a handful of isolated rounds don't cause any damage - well, that's also to be expected if you have an energy based non-deterministic damage model. Of course we could dial up the component failure likelihoods to eleven, but then you no longer have a non-deterministic damage model. You can't have chance, and then reject the possibility of luck. Maybe we can dial down the chances
  24. I tested this extensively and it's not a repeatable issue - adjustment works perfectly. I'm guessing I had a duff gunner on two consecutive uses of the same scenario. Please delete this one and accept my apologies.
×
×
  • Create New...