Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. I think it's also partly that they've put themselves in the position of substituting 8x8 armoured trucks for heavily tracked AFVs in a potential conflict where they could not be confined to non line of sight transport and purely hull down ambush roles and might well need to retake ground. That and any tracked AFVs they do deploy stand to be grossly outnumbered. That said, the APS for Stryker has now fallen through, at least for the meantime. Did the US ever deploy a soft-kill APS?
  2. You just bent the needle on my sarcasm-o-meter again.
  3. That worked very well. Thank you Retro I did a test with a platoon of six MTLBs, sans ammo, on a "bumpy" map as they have a very low silhouette. Nudging works really well for manual engagements. I also found that the autotracking would break lock under circumstances I think would give autotracking problems in real life. So, perhaps it's a little bit idealised as Ssnake said, but it's still a very good and perfectly useable implementation.
  4. I have tried the DF30 engaging (initally) moving BMP-2s over bumpy terrain, from the flank. What I am finding is happening with auto tracking is that it aims for the centre mass of the vehicle, even when that part of the vehicle is behind hard cover. I fire a few rounds that hit intervening terrain and the BMP turns and engages and destroys the DF30. I am guessing this is an artefact of how autotracking is implemented in SB rather than how it would work in reality (if the picture was initially centred on the turret, would it not remain so as long as at least the turret was visible?). Is there
  5. Is this a variant of the problem that happens with infantry who become unwilling to fire an AT weapon even if a small proportion of the target vehicle is behind the trunk of a tree?
  6. I'd like to see the ability to prioritise the type of unit a unit targets - for example to task an ATGW unit to target AAA/SAM systems to open the way for attack helicopters, or the helicopters themselves to target AAA/SAM systems. Ideally FOs/JTACs would have this capability too (assuming it isn't already in the sim).
  7. Yes, I was using the Assegai (non PGK version). Thank you all for the helpful and informative responses.
  8. I would like to see TOW-ITAS. which has "assisted target tracking" among other improvements, some of which were tacked on later, implemented in SB. (someone will now tell me it's already there!) There are also at least one upgrade for the AN/TAS-4 series out there, although I'm uncertain as to whether it was purchased.
  9. OK, noob question incoming. Clearly you can fire directly at a target with almost every kind of tube artillery system ever invented. However, if you are firing indirectly, in upper register, let's say to avoid intervening terrain, buildings etc,, surely you will run into a minimum range issue, either because the system allows insufficient elevation or the CEP of the projectiles would put the system in danger from its own fire (fragments rather than direct hits), or both? I.e, you are encountering the "mortar" minimum range issue, but with a howitzer.
  10. I'm wondering how much more complex the Personal Edition of SB Pro should become. How complex it should be and how complex I would like it to be are two different things. IMHO it should be as complex as the military customers require and are willing to fund. I would personally like it to achieve the complexity level Gibsonm described in explaining the procedure required to get to the point where you can start to engage targets on a range. Many YouTube and twitch streams especially by players familiar with gaming in general but not seasoned Steel Beasts veterans are exh
  11. It was almost certainly within minimum range. Thank you Ssnake.
  12. I think the present for the Padre scene (no spoilers!) must be far and away the funniest scene in any war film I have ever seen. The Odd Angry Shot is a really brilliant film, all round.
  13. Dumb question, but do any Leo2s have crosswind sensors in real life? I thought I read somewhere that they were taken off early examples and not re-fitted to later ones because they gave spurious results - or rather the result was correct at the vehicle, which might be lurking in a sheltered location with wind blowing a gale outside of it.
  14. If I have a couple of PzH2000 on the map in a scenario, and off-map artillery, when I call for fire how can I discriminate between the off-map arty and the PzH2000s? I had trouble cancelling fire missions - can only the unit that called the mission cancel it? In one scenario I had my second missions by both on map SPHs and mortars stuck at "Awaiting permission" for the rest of the scenario - any idea what I may have been doing wrong?
  15. The G3000 has become my favourite vehicle in SB. In real life it (or the G280 CDI) appear to be being replaced by this: https://www.dutchdefencepress.com/defenture-vector-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
  16. I'm not a professional, but that sounds like a tactic born out of desperation. I wouldn't want to be the one trying to replicate the NTC results in real life.
  17. Another, seemingly unlikely but not impossible result I had today had an M-136 (AT-4) prematurely detonated well short of an MTLB by tall grass (African scenario) and still killed it with a fragment spray from, I'd guess, around four vehicle lengths distance (IIRC it hit it with about 75 fragments in a cone.circle/around a metre and a half diameter). It was almost perpendicular to the armour. Again, I really appreciate that with SB you sometimes get unexpected results that teach you things about reality that you can never get from books etc.
  18. Wonderful new vehicles - especially MB3000-NL or whatever it's called with lots of options. Fantastic trees and ground cover plants, plus colour palette add greatly to immersion Bumpy terrain - massive bonus to realism Artillery smoke and tracers - just beautiful (ditto dust clouds) Ammo types - loads more Adjustable sights on HMGs/AGLs (even if the latter shoots a tad to the right ) Infantry and attack helos now much more willing to engage Damage model - simply fantastic (especially vs helos). The downside is far too much time spent pondering over equally
  19. Sorry, what exactly are the new laser effects?
  20. All the usual disclaimers apply, but the DF-30s weapon station and electro-optics look particularly vulnerable to all sorts of nasty pointy things that would tend to be flying around, even in a counterinsurgency scenario. Just an aside, and probably "SB-OPSEC", but have the DF vehicles been added because the Belgian military uses SB?
  21. I should have taken a screen capture of this, but, this afternoon one of my infantry hit a BMP-3 with an NLAW. The post action analysis thingy clearly showed a burst deep within the crew compartment of the vehicle with fragments radiating from it. That would not be how an N-LAW worked - as you know it has a HEAT warhead angled downward like that of the BILL series. I'm wondering if the radial fragmentation was from a 100mm HE-FRAG round detonated by the N-LAW? Is fragmentation from secondary explosions modelled in SB?
  22. Thanks again guys. I'm glad it wasn't me being thick again!
  23. Thanks again for the comprehensive responses. I did first check the drop down controls list for "Binoculars" and "Bin" and nothing came up - I forgot to mention it. Apologies.
  24. I have never played a dismounted FO before and wanted to give the JIM-LR a go. 1. How do I get the JIM-LR to go into Thermal Imaging mode? 2. When I go to F2, I get what I presume was the legacy LRF that preceded it as the view looks like an optical channel rather than digital, I can toggle the LRF to night view via the + key on the keypad as per most vehicle sights, but it then loses its LRF and position generating capability and is just a plain red cross hair (not even mils for range estimation). Why would the ranging and position generating capabilities be day channel speci
  • Create New...