Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Content Count

    757
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. Same tests with T-90 (no AVEPS fitted, side on, 2km, aim point just below centre of turret, 50 x DM53 one per target vehicle). There were no solid hits not resulting in damage. Two appear as non (mobility) damage causing on the report of which one at 1:11 was through a road wheel and went through where I think the torsion bars would be on the vehicle, so may have (remote possibility) caused a mobility kill or suspension damage (much more likely) which would not register because the vehicle was already immobilised. The other one at at 14:55 hit road wheels on either side - again, there's a very
  2. OK, I did the test again. 2km range, same aim as before, just below the turret and upping the number of Armatas to 50. Every hit appeared solid and there were a few Afganit intercepts, some of which still resulted in vehicle kills. of 50 shots, 12 resulted in no damage. That's a ratio not wildly different from the last test and, I believe, statistically significant. I'll swap the Armatas out for T-90s and do the test again. Armata vs Leo2A6 side on 2km below turret aim.sce_9_10-27-19_12_57_21.htm Armata_vs_Leo2A6_side_on_9420_102719HP-Z4401257.aar
  3. Do medical vehicles carry red cross insignia that are visible as such through thermals?
  4. Hi. This is almost certainly not a bug, but it's a problem I'm having. When I'm on a gentle slide slope, tracking targets passing up a valley at 90 degrees to me, and I track and fire, I miss low and the commander tells me to aim up 200. I can make the manual adjustment required which is presumably for the reason that the real life FCS can't cope with trunnion tilt or targets going up slopes relative to the Leo. That I could understand. However, when I switch to an AI gunner and observe from F8 view, the Commander keeps telling the gunner to add 200 over and over and the gunner kee
  5. I learn something every time I play. I can't fault SB as a learning tool.
  6. OK, I sat down and had a think about how to exclude random point of impact, so I re did the test, once (1 x 30 targets). New methodology: Range 1000 metres, gunner set to hold fire so I could take the shots manually. I moved along after each six shots to try and keep the angle side on. I fired one round per Armata and aimed about half way down the side skirt approximately in the middle of the turret, so all shots would hopefully be good solid hits in approximately the same place. I had five penetrations that, according to the report, caused no damage (apart from possibly mobility a
  7. Totally off topic, but I hope fixing the target fixation problem with Gill/Spike is working its way up the list as that system works very well vs Armata in game when it functions correctly (though often only mission killing, in contrast to the catastrophic kills it almost invariably inflicts on other Russian/Soviet tanks, as you might expect).
  8. Sorry, thewood. OK, I did some testing as promised. Methodology as follows. Red side: five groups of six Armata, in column at close spacing with their ammunition removed and both tracks set to damaged. Blue side: Leo2A6 with infinite DM53. Flat map, clear day, range from c. 2km up (dependent on position of each enemy vehicle as in column at right angles - exact angle varied for similar reasons. Results (note that I haven't checked how often Afganit operated, but a brief glance at the AARs shows it fired quite a lotl). With Afgan
  9. The actual testing itself that generates those AARs takes much longer and is proving quite tedious, if informative. I'm using the AI gunner as I kept shooting dead targets over and over. It was too much of a faff going to map view in mission editor after every shot to see if I killed one, so it's a case of- "Target! Ready! Tank! On! Fire!" Rinse and repeat 50X and again, and again and again. Late edit: I discovered you could use 10x time acceleration whilst in action. That saved a big chunk of my sanity.
  10. Where does SB save those tabular HTML files by default? I used to look at them all the time in 4.0 but can't seem to find them now.
  11. Good point. I'll do some proper testing and put some up. Could I just ask where SB currently saves the tabular AAR statistical reports by default because I'd like to include those too.
  12. I know that, until I have provided proof, you will regard this as annecdotal, but in the scenarios I have played with either M1A2 or Leo2A6 vs the T-14, upon subsequent review of the visual AAR (which I always do), I have witnessed a lot of hits that had me scratching my head. They tend to mirror Assassin 7's results above in that the kinetic projectile passes completely through the vehicle, often going through the centre of the hull side to side or the turret, without causing any damage at all. On one occasion a DM53 did this front to back, exiting from the rear of the engine compartment, wit
  13. For me the Armata has added an great and highly topical new challenge to an already brilliant simulation. I'm enjoying it immensely. One thing I did early on was line up two units of 10 M1A2 with AVEPS and T14 in line formation at 2.5 km range on a flat map and let them duke it out. It always ended badly for the Abrahms, but they were always able to kill at least a few of the T14s before being wiped out -in five attempts, the best they achieved was six kills and the worst three. They also damaged a significant number - damage to turrets/guns was frequent. So, not unstoppable, but very challeng
  14. OK, to hopefully prove that I don't constantly sit on the sidelines being picky, and very much thanks to Sean for sorting out my login and giving me some basic instructions, here's my first take at a Wiki manual for the JIM-LR. I put it in Vehicles - Others as I couldn't find a section for other equipment types such as ATGW, MGs and optical sights, RWS etc.
  15. OK, "often happened" ... I'm not being critical, just acknowledging that making vehicles, and playable ones in particular must be orders of magnitude more work than some of the other things requested, some of which have application right across SB, I am completely in awe of the vehicle interiors in particular. In fact, at 54 years old, I'm awestruck every time I play SB, and the only other simulation can say that about is Harpoon/CMANO.
  16. Those are all current and in (sometimes widespread) service so relevant to current military customers as OPFOR. Not really nostalgia vehicles IMHO. AFAIK Jpz Rakete (HOT) and Spahpanzer Luchs by comparison aren't in service with anyone anymore and others are getting rare, or extinct, at least in Europe (Leo1A5, M60A3, M901, T-62).
  17. Yes, there are a bunch of "nostalgia" vehicles in there, but AFAIK none have been added recently and even minor mods to existing older vehicles (for instance an earlier Leo 1 with passive IR sights which keeps getting requested) have not happened - I hope that changes. My favourite and far and away most used vehicle in SB is the Leo2A4. I would not ask someone for a labour of love on my behalf, though. That's just me.
  18. Realistically, I would guess that, because of the very significant investment involved, most if not all new vehicles introduced to SB from now on, are going to be paid for by military customers or created with the intent of wooing military customers and keeping the product relevant. That's why we have particularly seen highly detailed playable vehicles used by NL and Belgium, plus Russian OPFOR non-playable "prototypes" appear recently, for example. It's a big ask to request a completely new vehicle, so I tend to avoid it.
  19. Vehicles to have markings that reflect their call signs rather than to all have the same numbers.
  20. It's a form of camouflage - the position is disguised as an oasis
  21. Remember that artillery systems minimum ranges are also modelled in SB. The GMLRS has a minimum range of 15km in real life, so presumably the legacy unguided rounds provided for the MLRS in SB have a pretty significant minimum range too. I ran into this problem which a user kindly pointed out to me when using Assegai rounds from an in-game Pzh 2000 in one of my own scenarios. Another reason your mission is stuck at awaiting permission can be that there are insufficient tubes or MRLs available at that moment due to being committed to other fire missions or (I believe, where off map artillery is
  22. I haven't played with map editor yet (in three years!). How tightly can you define the area of terrain subject to low traction?
  23. We have seen that the AHEAD round from the CV9035 series can destroy optical sensors on an MBT, effectively blinding it. Would there be scope for a 120mm AHEAD round to blind an enemy tank and perhaps destroy its APS launchers? As it would be much larger, it could use a directional laser proximity fuse and therefore overcome the need for an induction fuse setter either internally or at the muzzle. The same round would make a useful unitary inert projectile against APCs etc. by turning off the fuse prior to loading.
  24. OK, I'm hoping that, programming-wise, this is not too big an ask and might be valuable to military customers. I'd like to see artillery in the off map support menu made more varied in type and effects. This is a Western-centric suggestion by a non professional. Some of these settings would be selectable by FO and others in mission editor. Basic calibres: 60mm, 81/82mm and 120mm mortar and 105mm. 122mm, 152mm and 155mm tube artillery. Rates of fire: Fast (but limited duration), Fast autoloader (also limited duration), standard, H&I. Projectiles: Mortar: HE
×
×
  • Create New...