Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. German FMJ ammunition in 7.62x51 hasn't been reported to cause any adverse effects in any civil or military weapons here that I am aware of, although some ranges with steel targets or steel backstops ban it's use due to the steel jacket. I've got several rifles here that use 5.56x45, and there aren't any safety concerns with using a wide array of foreign ammo, although Russian made stuff is known to be hard on barrels due to the steel jackets with cosmetic copper coating, but only when you talk about high round counts near 10,000 rounds. There is some issue with accuracy and with certain special rounds. Rifles made for light ball (55gr) M193 will not accurately shoot the heavy ball or heavy tracer (62gr), and rifles made for the heavy ball will sometimes cause frangible ammunition to shatter in the bore or just after exiting the muzzle. Ironically, the only round known to be dangerous or truly damaging to weapons is the new army standard round, the M855A1 EPR... I've got a pair of 8mm Mausers and they've had no trouble with shooting modern US and foreign made commercial ammo, and military ammo made in Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, and Israel from as early as 1936 to as recent as 1993 and never had any trouble with function or safety... although the Romanian stuff left some accuracy to be desired. I had to reject and not shoot surplus from Germany (1944, 1945) and East Germany (1960) because the steel cases were rusting inside, Yugoslavia (Factory #11, 1953/54) due to bad brittle brass, Iran and Ethiopia (1950s) due to external corrosion, but I wonder how much of that was due to age as some of it was over 70 years old by the time I got my hands on it... Interesting that the artillery is relatively standard while the tank shells apparently are not?
  2. That's a little surprising to me that they didn't catch the diameter problem, even without a full on certification process...But then again the whole converted mortar round thing...Eh... Small arms ammunition has been pretty well standardized for a long time, wouldn't it make sense to do the same with other larger ammunition?
  3. Oh I get it with the immersion. The thing is some groups take it way too far. I once got chewed out and yelled at for saying "Bandits! Ten Level!" instead of "Blue Leader from Blue Two, bandits, 10 O'Clock, Co-Altitude, Over." or something like that in teamspeak.
  4. Sadly I think this is pretty much the norm nowadays. Way back when I used to play Microsoft's "Combat Flight Simulator". It was not a very realistic game, ESPECIALLY in multiplayer, but I found a squad that tried to make it more realistic and joined them. They didn't stick to one side or anything, they'd sort of mix it up and try out different roles, bombers, fighters, Allied, Axis, etc. The founding member hadn't been heard from in a year when I joined, stayed missing for another year or two, came back, and a huge argument broke out. In his absence other guys had decided to declare him to be "MIA" instead of the leader and kept things going and kept organizing events. That fight led to about 3/4 of the membership leaving (myself included) to reform a new squad, in another game, under a new but similar name. That other game was IL-2 Sturmovik, at that point in time exclusively a Germany vs. Russia simulator. I was already playing it, and already in a squad on the German side, and we were involved in one of the online campaigns people used to put together. I encouraged the CFS guys to simply join up with that squad, or to form one I could transfer to so we could play together. The CFS1 guys thought the German aircraft were "too hard to fly" and formed up a squad playing on the Russian side. I used to "switch hats" so to speak and alternate between the two sides. That lasted for a few weeks and I got booted out of the German one for a "conflict of interest". I played with my old crew for a while, got tired of flying Russian planes constantly, left, joined another squad on the German side. They took things to the absolute extreme. Wanted us to use authentic phrases and code-words when using Teamspeak, spent so much time organizing and planning that they couldn't fight due to fear of becoming disorganized, etc. My actual performance in online matches had to be better than 80% of their entire team, but after missing a few of their "training" events, words were exchanged, and I left. I basically got dressed down for spending too much time being good at the game and not enough time saluting people over the internet. The crew I had played with before was still there and asked me to come back with them, which I did, they started switching sides, lots of great fun was had. I think the CFS1 multiplayer shut down about that time and the members that had still stayed over there started showing up still using their old name, recognized us, started tons of drama, etc etc etc and I got so tired of it I pretty much quit all multiplayer.
  5. That's kinda why I was curious about the whole story there especially with it being the T-62 that's in question. I can totally see it happening with customers who ordered T-55s and found the gunsights marked for some kind of new "APFSDS" realizing they weren't getting the full compliment. But I wasn't aware of the T-62 ever having a full caliber AP round. But then again, weren't APFSDS rounds in rifled bore guns something that took a while to get figured out? Something about the rifling causing problems?
  6. Tailboon with fins, like all the 115 and 125mm HEAT and HE-Frag rounds, the M830 and DM12? I mean...I think it's been done before?
  7. He starts the story at 23:00, you may have skipped past it. Sounded to me like he was talking speficially about a full caliber APFS round for the T-62. Oh well just thought it was curious.
  8. In that video he makes it sound like the tank had a full caliber projectile with fins before the APFSDS. Wonder if that story is confused with T-55s that had both full caliber AP and APFSDS?
  9. If you have secret classified documents with stamps that say "UNCLASSIFIED" all over them, then you're being negligent. You aren't properly marking your secret documents that detail the workings of your obsolete tank. You might get angry when it shows up in public, but maybe you're not being careful with how you handle your documents rather than the guy releasing them being a criminal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had accidentally slapped the wrong stamp on their own document at some point in the past. Now, If some tank commander comes along and decides on his own "Well this ain't that important, lemme just stamp it 'unclassified' and put it on the internet!", then he's an idiot and a criminal and should be beaten with the book. It would be one thing to do that in order to leak information for political reasons, espionage, or personal gain. But to settle an argument about a video game??? He had to know what was at stake there and I just can't imagine someone doing that. I suppose well have to wait to see what the results from his trial are. Allow me to point to another example. The US Navy once said it's submarines could go "Deeper than 500 feet". Then a camera crew came onboard to film, did their job, and left. When the show aired, the navy noticed, after the world saw it, that a sign was left in uncovered saying not to use a certain gauge when operating below 800 feet. Classified information was thus revealed by a camera crew filming for some TV show. Rather than arrest the film crew, the Navy said "Oops we were negligent with that and should have covered it because it was classified. Oh by the way our subs go deeper than 800 feet."
  10. Are Ian's comments about the 115mm having an APFS that was a full size round with fins on the back accurate? I thought the whole point of the 115 was to transition into an APFSDS round?
  11. You still lock your doors, don't you? At least I hope you do. It looks like the British MOD doesnt.
  12. If it was so classified to begin with then they should have taken better care of it. Besides, if the video game company has it at this point, then you know Russia and China already have it.
  13. Oof. I need that done, BAD, even if it only comes in the form of an AI controlled unit with permanently mounted launcher. My 1A3s are getting...Ehmm...."Clubbed like baby seals"...In scenarios where they once did not get clubbed...
  14. Right, that's what I thought they were... I think we will have to wait for him to respond. Maybe he meant some other feature that I am not aware of. Hey, did you guys bolt Milan launchers on my Marders yet? lol
  15. I assume that he refers to the "rings" at the interface between the sabot petals and the depleted uranium penetrator?
  16. I was always under the impression that those had more to do with transferring the thrust from the sabot to the dart, rather than post-penetration damage?
  17. We don't need no stinkin' badges!
  18. I will +1 the mini-map thing, the M163 VADS, and the playable helicopters EVEN IF they are "playable" only in a simplified sense. Perhaps it would be best to simulate the gunner's seat/sight/optics and allow control over flight in the same way it currently is through the external view. After all, I think the main think we are interested in is the interaction between the tanks and the choppers, not having a chopper sim inside of ProPE. Lemme add something to the list: The current implementation of the AVEPS vehicle protection system is freaking outstanding. But let me ask, can we get some more variants of this implemented based on simply modifying what conditions will trigger the current AVEPS system we already have? For example: AVEPS No KE: Not providing protection against any kind of APFSDS rounds. AVEPS Low V: Only providing protection against slower moving objects like missiles and RPGs. AVEPS 60 LV: Only providing protection against missiles over the frontal 60 degree arc of the turret. AVEPS 60 LV slapped on something like a T-55 or T-62 could easily be used as a substitute for tanks fited with the old Soviet "Drozd" APS system. AVEPS No KE could be used for simulating light ERA on tanks that don't currently have ERA. Slap that thing on an M60A3 TTS, disable the thermal sights, and call it an M60A3 RISE Passive. It could also be used for simulating APS systems that don't handle KE rounds, Trophy for example.
  19. I agree. And for this reason I suggest that the SB Pro team, should they decide to MAKE any playable Merkava, simply take a best guess at it and/or copy an existing fire control system from an existing tank. Save your time for things that can be accurately modeled. I would be perfectly happy having something with the speed, armor, and firepower of the Merkava Mk.2 even if it had the fire control system of the M60A3 or the M1A1.
  20. Requests for a few more keys/options we can program in the sim: 1. A key to allow me to move into the gunner seat and tell the AI TC to shut up forever and let me shoot. For those days when the AI gunner is having troubles... 2. An option within multiplayer games to allow the huaman gunner to take control over the AI driver. Useful for when the human TC has a leadership role and wants to get into the map and allow the human gunner to take over. I rarely play multiplayer but this would be very useful to me. Should be set my the human TC from the drop down menu. 3. An option to allow human TCs to issue a "Fire and adjust" order, or a "fire" order, from the map screen. Same reason as above.
  21. I admit that most of the time, on vehicles with a TC MG, I usually treat it as a weapon of suppression or desperation rather than my primary job. I would like to have the option for the Leopards, as when I play with a human gunner who can be told to "fire and adjust" I like to take the opportunity to put some hot lead down range now and then. I'd also like to be able to tell the AI gunner to "fire and adjust" while firing the TC's MG on the vehicles we have.
  22. On the Leopard 1 & 2 I wish for the ability to move the Loader's MG over to the commander's side so that I can get my hands on it.
  23. Are the Hellfires on there to give it a secondary anti-armor role or an anti-tank defensive capability, or are they actually intending to use them as a surface to air missile?
  24. I mean, right there seems like a good spot to draw the line if you ask me. I don't really feel the need to create completely new vehicles, especially when we have other options already that help us do some of that. For example, the new add-on AVEPS system has been great for this. I understand that at some point the Soviets started fitting the T-72B with Kontakt-5 ERA. We don't have a T-72 with Kontakt 5 on it in the game. But I can take the T-72B1 m.1985 and slap the AVEPS system on it and say "Squint harder!". Actually works quite well. I would still love to see more modern playable OPFOR tanks, but in the meantime the existing playable vehicles fitted with modern APFSDS and the Aveps system work quite well IMHO. Another example: we already have the Leopard AS1 in game as a playable vehicle. We already KNOW that it gets used as an Ersatz Leopard 1A3/1A4. eSim has gone so far as to provide it WITH Ersatz Leopard 1A3/1A4 skins by default. I happen to enjoy some of these cold war scenarios. So, rather than asking you guys for a whole freaking new Leopard 1A3/1A4, what I would like to see is the PZB200 night sight system modeled in some way on this tank. I don't even care if it isn't implemented 100% accurately, I just want to be able to push the "+" key and get some night vision in the gunner's sights, just like we already have on the Warrior IFV. That could be done through the "Optional Weapon" dialog so that users who don't want fictional night vision on the AS1 simply don't receive it in their scenarios unless they put it on. As another example, alternatively, maybe we could get some kind of option to select a vehicle with thermal optics, and degrade them down into the NVG views? Nothing about the fire control system needs to change, just that when the player looks into the thermal views they should see the regular "NVG" style night vision, and the AI should behave accordingly. If you do that, I can take the existing Leopard 1A5DK or 1A5GE, degrade the thermal sights, and say "Squint harder, that's a Leo 1A3A1, and that's a Leo 1A2A1!". I can go over to the M60A3 TTS, do the same thing, and tell players "Squint harder, those are USMC M60A1 RISE Passive tanks." The existing Leo2A4 and Marder1A3 could be turned into initial production Leo2A0 and Marder 1A0 that didn't have thermals, etc. That's the kind of stuff I would like to see. We already talk about how to model vehicles that we don't have by using the damage components option to create something similar, and I am PERFECTLY FINE with this, I just wish we had more flexibility in a similar way.
  • Create New...