Maj.Hans

I mean...I'm well over 6 feet tall so...If you can tell me where I can find them please?

Someone mentioned leopard 2 hull ammo. If this is removed by setting stored rounds to 0 in the mission maker, does ProPE change the vulnerability in the way it does for the T-72?

While we're talking about this, does that vehicle currently have the capability to reload things on the move? I know our typical Steel Beasts vehicles can't reload from ready racks unless sitting still, but I think for a few things we might consider changing that behavior? For example I might expect the TOW gunner to try reloading while on the move, but for that to naturally take much, MUCH longer than stationary, since he would be getting bounced around, maybe have to duck under tree branches, might even drop the new missile and have to pick it up and start again, etc etc etc, but you'd think in a real life or death situation he might try doing it?

Boy was I thinking way wrong...

I'm advocating separate, safe, blow-off panel protected ammunition storage, additional measures to ensure crew safety in the event that the armor is penetrated, thicker roof armor, Leopard 2A5/6/7 style wedge armor on the front of Abrams turrets, development of crew-safe ERA that minimizes the amount of ERA generated frag that the crew may be exposed to, rooftop mounting of said ERA, emphasis on hatches capable of providing an overhead cover protection mode for the crew, and new active protection systems capable of dealing with terminal dive top attack munitions. It may perhaps even be worth looking into other countermeasures like flare launchers of some kind that might help deal with weapons like the Javelin in the event the crew knows one is coming.

Thanks, I hate it. Lol

Honestly I was thinking the coding time for a click-race for the interior for a loader could be skipped to save time for other things but if the community really wants it... *Shrug* I was mostly interested in the loaders other jobs, rather than the loading. In fact I wish on the new 90mm gun-tank-wheel-car-thing I could have that click procedure automated for me when I'm trying to TC that thing!

I'd like to be able to man the loader's position, engage targets with the AA MG where equipped, have an AI loader who was capable of employing the AA MG when told to do so, and would automatically leave the AA MG alone when servicing the gun/coax/racks/etc. Humans in the loader position should get either a black screen or a stationary view inside a turret looking at ammo racks or something and be unable to fire the AA MG while the loader is loading/coax/racks/etc. IE you can only do something if you could really do it. While we're at it...AI loader who slams his hatch closed when under fire, but waits for a command to unbutton from that point on. Perhaps utilizing the existing key/functionality for vehicle with infantry and roof hatches.

I don't know why we're even discussing "the tank" being "obsolete" or why anyone has mentioned it being a possibility. If you took World War 1 era tanks or even interwar era tanks onto a battlefield where enemy infantry had late WW2 era anti-tank weapons, meaning powerful anti-tank guns, infantry anti-tank weapons, aircraft with anti-tank weapons, etc etc etc...Well, you might be convinced that "The Tank" had been made obsolete, and present the evidence of "the tank" getting it's ass kicked as your reason. But just like the anti-tank weapons, the tank evolved, and 1945 era tanks were very capable of dealing with 1945 era tank threats. So anti-tank threats got better, and we were all sure that the ATGM had spelled the end of the tank. And then it didn't. So to me this is nothing more than just another episode of "here we go again".

I'm looking into my crystal ball and I see: Rooftop mounted ERA coming to an Abrams or Leopard 2 near you! Active Protection Systems for targeting top attack munitions.

I'm guessing that probably what we're seeing here is simply a system that wasn't thoroughly ruggedized enough before being fielded. This wouldn't be the first time it happened, IIRC. When "Schurzen" (spelling?) side skirts got slapped on WW2 era German armor as a bandaid against anti-tank rifle rounds smashing up their expensive equipment, shortly after fitting them they discovered that they were too easily bent, knocked off, damaged, or destroyed just by moving around through certain woodland areas etc that normally weren't a problem for tanks. I seem to recall that eventually the answer was a combination of improved attachment methods together with bending the ends of the plates in so they were more likely to make things slide along the outside than to allow them to get inside and scrape the plates right off the tank. As for tanks and obsolete, IIRC, the pendulum swings both ways, it just goes one direction at a time. The latest generation of high end anti-tank weapons are obviously quite effective. I imagine that soon enough we'll start seeing 360 degree APS including those that protect against top attack munitions added, simply because there is a limit to how much armor you can pile on to your tanks if you still want them to move. The Abrams is badly in need of something like that. The Leopard 2 is badly in need of some similar upgrade programs. I would REALLY like to see the hull ammo storage thing being addressed sooner rather than later. Reconfigure with an internal bunker including blow-our panels for hull storage (if possible), or switch to something like the Challenger 2 system that will douse the rounds in water if hit, or change to individual armor plated tubes to try protecting the rounds from penetrations like some of the Merkavas do, really do something or pretty much anything to reduce the vulnerability. Whatever is lost in terms of total capacity can be addressed, if necessary, by adding an external stowage canister in the bustle rack to hold the left over rounds. Unlike the T-Tank designs where the ammo is pretty much always going to be strapped to the crew, I think the Leopard has enough room to come up with a little bit better solution. EDIT TO ADD: A question about the "Relikt" soft packs. Are those things the only ERA covering the sides of those T-Tanks fitted with it in the bags like that? Or are they placing it over the top of the more usual Kontakt1/5 ERA that we would expect to see there? If the Relikt in the bags is the only ERA in that area I am really shocked that they allow them to deploy with something so fragile. If it was designed as an easily attached supplement, then I can understand how something like that might be acceptable. If you can get it to stay there, good, so much the better. If it falls off, you've still got your Kontakt 5.

Actually, you can already do this: IF AND ONLY IF you do NOT have any vehicle units selected with you go to Right Click -> Set Quality. If you have vehicles selected, you must use CTRL+LeftClick to de-select the vehicles, and then you may set infantry quality.

It's been probably two years since I tried one of those, I think "War Thunder", and it's so pathetic it's almost funny.

There was plenty of space in the install directory in G:\ where the game and all associated tools are installed, but for some reason the installer program only wants to look at drive C:\ for space requirements, even though it is not even on drive C:\. I suspect that the original installer had the same glitch and simply skipped installing the maps package. After having downloaded and installed the separate maps package, I have gone from just a handful of maps to about 75. So, problem solved: If the normal installer tool doesn't install maps, just use the separate tool and ignore the space warnings for the wrong drive.

The maps installer is incorrectly reporting available/free drive space. All installation is to my G:\ drive, an SSD I reserved just for games, however it appears that the maps installer is only looking at my C:\ drive which did not have enough space for the full install. The maps installer even warned that I didn't have enough room. My C:\ drive is an SSD partitioned just for Windows.