Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Content Count

    1,533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. Think I've just stumbled across a bug. When giving on-map M270 MLRS launchers a command to fire, they will gladly fire the M26 ICM rockets, as well as the M30 GMLRS-ICM rockets. However for whatever reason, when I had them loaded with M26A1 in a scenario I absolutely could NOT get them to fire. With no other changes to the scenario, they would fire when loaded with M26 or M30 GMLRS.
  2. Set up with a platoon *EXACTLY* as demonstrated in the first half of the video except for using a platoon of PCs instead of a single PC, including waiting for mission time of 4 minutes before proceeding from the first waypoint. The infantry move out ahead of their PCs but still take routes that converge them all into a tiny little point. Ok fine, but I did use M113s. And I didn't use "Suppress". Let me do it again using a platoon of three Armatas and suppress. Once again it appears, at least to me, as if all infantry crammed themselves together into a single point. They get dropped off and the AI knows to let them move out ahead of the PC's before the PC's move out, but the troops assigned to the "left" and "right" PC in the formation converge to meet in front of the center PC.
  3. Well for whatever reason, doesn't matter what I do, I get troops that converge into a tiny little point. As shown by the screen shots posted above. If you'd like to attach a demo scenario file showing them NOT converging into a point I'm happy to run it and see what happens.
  4. Mostly, yes. I've been complaining to @Ssnake for a while, however, that the loader should *NOT* be switching the stabilization off at any point while reloading on the move. It may be something that's in the manual, but I previously got in touch with some M60 crewman and all of them basically said it was something never done in training or in combat. One, IIRC, commented that if his loader hit that switch he'd smack him. Curious to hear your input on that. I also keep hoping some day we'll get the M60A3 Passive so we can have a pre-TIS/TTS tank for Blue.
  5. You might have an older version of the game. The current version offers the T-72M, T-72A/T-72M1, T-72B1 m.1984, and T-72B1V m.1985 as playable vehicles. While I admit that the T-72B1 might not exactly be 'cutting edge' tech, it's quite a bit more advanced than the first few playable versions we had. Plus with the latest game version you can now select AVEPS as an add-on which seems to give an effect similar to Kontakt-5, Relikt, Kaktus, etc ERA. You can always do that and pretend it's the T-72B1 m.1989.
  6. Ooo? Aaaand stand by for test reports! Sorry to say that troops still cluster together. I tried giving BMP-2 platoons orders to "Engage" to a waypoint, dismount their troops, and then "Engage" at various speeds to the next waypoint. If I can figure out where the screenshots folder is I have several screencaps. I am using the latest version.
  7. See that's what I thought. It is *POSSIBLE* to very carefully create individual scripted routes for each platoon of infantry. This takes a very long time. This can not be easily done during a mission. I have had this complaint since the change from the old infantry model management to the new one. I am *NOT* complaining about the new way things are done. We have much more flexibility now, especially with humans who want to play as crunchies, and if you want to take the time you can make very convincing scripted infantry attacks, I just want two features to make it a little easier. I want a mission builder command that will cause Rifle, Scout, and LMG units to get out of the vehicle (while HMG, AGL, missile, etc teams will stay IN the vehicle) and then move ahead of the PCs, we'll call this "Inf.Attack", and gives us an easy way to plan for a PC unit to move to a point, dismount troops, and then together as one attack the objective. I want a one-key command that a human PC platoon commander can press to get his Rifle, Scout, and LMG teams to dismount and move ahead of his vehicle, while leaving missile/HMG/AGL/etc teams mounted.
  8. When doing New Unit -> From Template -> RU I have two entries for "Tank Company, T-72B1" but one of them seems to actually be T-90s.
  9. Not quite. It works in that video with a single APC. If you try to do that with a platoon of APCs, then all of the dismounted infantry will cram themselves together. It's happened every time I've tried it. They don't know to move in a spread out formation. Yes, kinda like that. But I want the infantry not to move ahead on their own independent route, but rather to join in formation with multiple APCs ahead of them. Kinda like it was done in the old days.
  10. Speaking of dismounts, I really wish there was a way to get them to: 1. Dismount 2. March ahead of the AFV they dismounted from. 3. Maintain formation. So that a scenario creator could easily have a group of PC's show up at a waypoint, get in line abreast formation, deploy troops, and move together as a unit to take a position.
  11. To be fair, that is an M60T. It's got new tracks, new transmission, and an engine with 250 more horsepower than the M60A3 TTS modeled in ProPE.
  12. Because I had incorrect info! Better still would, of course, to be to use the already modeled player vehicle.
  13. My wish list as of right now is a bunch of mostly Cold-War era themed things: Most interesting to me: 1. Leopard AS1 with optional PZB-200 passive IR night sights to better replicate the later era Leopard 1A4 with night vision. We need some pre-thermal night vision for NATO. Even if it's "wrong". Even if the 3D model is "wrong". 2. M60A3 Passive - I'm aware these weren't made in large numbers and were mostly or entirely upgraded to the TTS version, however an M60A3 with the older Passive night sights might make a great stand in for several generations of earlier M60/M48 tank. Even if it's "wrong" in details. 3. Marder 1A3: Milan launcher mounted on the Marder 1A3, EVEN IF it cannot be dismounted during the scenarios, OR EVEN IF it requires an entirely new separate vehicle "Marder 1A3 Milan", 4. M113G with Milan on the roof in West German service, and M113A as seen in US service with Dragon mounted. - Less interesting than the 113G+Milan since Dragon sucked anyway...Skip? 5. T-72A with Kontakt-1: Leverage on existing T-72A/M1 since FCS and internals are unchanged, recycle existing internals and FCS views, fills gap between T-72A/M1 and T-72B/BV. Useful to replicate Georgian T-72 SIM1, Indian "Ajeya Mk2", Finnish T-72M1 upgrade prototypes, etc. 6. BMP-1M and/or BMP-1P: Make smoke grenade launchers an "Optional Weapon" for the existing BMP-1 for when it's used in late cold-war scenarios where this upgrade was common. Don't bother with the 1P too much work for what we'd get. Less interesting things: M1A1/SA or any other A1 variant featuring the SCWS for the TC, updated armor package and TIS, based on whatever version is easier for eSim to model, even with incorrect internal/external 3D models, would be an interesting modern era toy. T-72B m.1989 / T-72B1 m1989: Fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA, but otherwise identical to the existing m.1985 vehicles, useful mostly for simulating a more modern OPFOT MBT, requires new external 3D and new damage model but could utilize existing interiors and FCS, sadly needs that new external 3D... Any one of the following: Leopard 2A4M CAN, 2A4PL, 2A4SG. Selection based upon whatever is easier for eSim to model, I think they're all pretty close, but any upgraded legacy 2A4 would be interesting to compare to the 2A5 etc. If we get one we could probably use it to represent all three. T-64BV: AI only would be fine but Less interesting due to no internals done... Not actually that useful for Cold War scenarios due to when it was introduced and numbers built? Skip? T-62 upgrade with gun launched missiles and BDD Armor Use existing T-55AM. Things that I can live without but I'll ask for anyway just in case they're easy to do: A way to set an infantry mortar team to use its 60/82mm mortar in "direct fire" mode so they'll shoot at targets that they themselves can see. Option to select between "Standard" and "Multi-spectral" smoke for *ALL* vehicles and on-map artillery. Option to disable thermals on ATGM launchers. Better infantry control in general. An easy way in the scenario editor to create good spots for vehicles to exit water and to lay down AVLB bridges. T-55M FIN upgrade? Add 105mm L7/M68 ammo options to existing T-55 m.1974 so we can call it an Israeli "Tiran 5"? A playable Merkava 2 or 3 even if its wrong because Israel will never tell us anything about it.
  14. Perhaps my definition of 'modern' is a bit loose. There seem to be plenty of 'modern' designs that aren't up to M1A2 SEP V3, Leo2A6M, and T-90AM3VBS or whatever letter of the month standard Russia is on now. I certainly wouldn't design a modern MBT with anything less than a 120mm L/44. But the 105mm / M900 combo is able to bust open a T-80 from the front if you're close enough and hit the right spot, at least in ProPE, last time I tried, and there's plenty of 'modern' designs out of China, India, Iran, etc with less armor than that! I wouldn't go putting it on any new tank but I feel like its adequate for roles like mobile gun systems, centauro, what the DF90 should have had, etc. Those aren't supposed to take on modern MBTs, but in the event they had to, at least they've got a chance to get lucky. Makes me wonder what you can squeeze out of it with new ammo, but I'll admit that in sure if you did put the latest M829A3/E4 tech into it...I think its the last upgrade you'll see...
  15. But how many of those are backwards compatible to legacy guns? On one hand I know that Taiwan uses, and Denmark only recently stopped using, 90mm armed M41 Walker Bulldog tanks, but considering how lethargic even the 105mm M68/L7 can be against modern armor.... The smallest main gun I consider "adequate" for use against modern MBTs is probably the 105mm. And even then, you need to be slinging M900 or DM63. Makes me wonder if we'll ever see a new 105mm Sabot round developed to stretch the usefulness of that gun in it's modern roles.
  16. That I think I agree upon, at least, as long as we're talking about the 105mm upgunned M-48s. I'm not sure the 90mm was up to the job even by WW2 standards! Uhm.........Well......
  17. My wish list as of right now is a bunch of Cold-War era themed things: Leopard AS1: Optional Weapon --> Passive IR Night Sight / NVG View through GPS Image intensification night sights for the Leopard AS1 for when it's used as a Leopard 1A4 / 1A3A1 / 1A3A3 stand in for cold war scenarios. EVEN IF the AS1 technically didn't have them and EVEN IF it's somehow different in a detail from the 1A4, I'd rather have a 'quick and dirty' stand in than wait forever for the ProPE team to eventually or perhaps never accurately model a West German Leopard 1...I understand time constraints and so on, so I would be very very happy with an 'Ersatz Leo' in this regard. M60A3 Passive: I'm aware these weren't made in large numbers and were mostly or entirely upgraded to the TTS version, however an M60A3 with the older Passive night sights might make a great stand in for several generations of earlier M60/M48 tank. Marder 1A3: Optional Weapon --> Milan Launcher Milan launcher mounted on the Marder 1A3, EVEN IF it cannot be dismounted during the scenarios, OR EVEN IF it requires an entirely new separate vehicle "Marder 1A3 Milan". It would also be great to have a Marder 1 in a pre-thermal sight configuration... With the current vehicles in ProPE I have noticed that night time scenarios tend to be difficult to make well balanced in certain time frames. Warsaw Pact forces are at an unfair advantage as the various T-Tanks we have *DO* have passive IR night sights fitted to them, and as crappy as they may be, with no illumination flares for NATO, and no simulation of NATO vehicle's night fighting capability pre-thermals, they get cut up pretty fast... Alternatively, NATO gets to have thermal night sights in 1975, and now they just cut Red to pieces... M113G: Optional Weapon --> Milan Launcher M113A: Optional Weapon --> Dragon Launcher The 113 was seen in West German service with a Milan launcher bolted to the roof, and in US Army service in recon roles with a Dragon launcher bolted to the hatch. Again for cold war, would like to see these some day. BMP-1M and/or BMP-1P: Even with an incorrect or incomplete 3D model. BMP-1M is nothing more than the existing BMP-1 with a group six 81 mm 902V "Tucha" smoke grenade launchers along the back of the turret. The BMP-1P furthermore replaces the AT-3 Sagger missile launcher with the AT-5 Spandrel launcher. May be an AI Only vehicle but I understand that BMP-1 and BMP-2 tended to be often times used in mixed formations, such that a platoon may have some of each vehicle, so either or both of these would be a good compliment to the existing BMP-2. Currently when a platoon is ordered to retreat, the BMP-2's pop smoke and the BMP-1's are left with everyone shooting at them. Since we already have the BMP-1 simply adding optional smoke launchers to it would satisfy this request. T-64BV: Similar to the existing T-64B, but fitted with Kontakt-1 ERA. AI only would be fine. T-72AV / T-72M1V: We already have the T-72A and T-72M1 modeled in the game combined into a single vehicle slot. On my list of "would be nice" would be the Kontakt-5 equipped version of these vehicles. Good simulation of various upgraded export/foreign production T-72M variants. T-72B m.1989 and T-72B1 m1989: Fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA, but otherwise identical to the existing m.1985 vehicles, useful mostly for simulating a more modern OPFOT MBT. One more thing: The option to select between "Standard" and "Multi-spectral" smoke for *ALL* vehicles and on-map artillery! Currently certain vehicles like the BTR-80 and certain T-72's don't have multi-spectral smoke as an option, while others ONLY have multi-spectral. For me, personally, the former is more of an issue than the latter. When creating night-time scenarios during eras where NATO would not have had thermal imagers mounted on all of it's vehicles or ATGM launchers, I always try to put multi-spectral smoke on literally everything that has smoke launchers. It may not be "correct", but since the thermal sights aren't supposed to be there ANYWAY, I think of this as a way to hamper their effect as much as I possibly can.
  18. This is why I am more interested in the SCWS system. Wish we could get one simulated in Pro PE. All the benefits of the CROWS and the CITV, but rolled into a single low profile package.
  19. Yes! That's the one! Makes you really understand that, especially historically, there had to be trade offs for every feature of a vehicle. The T-55/T-62 designers and users made propaganda films talking about the small size of the vehicle reducing it's target profile, thick armor and mobility providing protection, etc. But at what cost did that come? The M60 series had lots of room inside for the crew, and decent armor for it's time, and we know the cost that came with that...It's big like a house!
  20. In the T-55 I think that had more to do with the cramped conditions inside the turret than anything else. The world of tanks guy who goes around to various museums did a tour in a T-55 and mentioned nothing about mechanical assist for loading. In the case of the T-62, there was a spent case ejection system which required the gun to elevate to a certain angle before it could eject the spent case. Loading was again 100% manual, but again, i think the power traverse cutout there is for loader safety. It's quite possible that they may have been pulling rounds out of hull storage slots to load directly into the gun in a fight, so you wouldn't want the turret to traverse while doing that... That particular 100 56 TK turret seems to have had some modifications compared to a standard T-55 turret... I'm not sure the spent case catcher and recoil guard are original equipment. Coaxial MG seems deleted. No shells stored on clamps on the turret walls, etc.
  21. I think that museum has incorrect "information"! T-54, T-55, and T-62 never had an auto loader in the original design! All loading on those vehicles was manual!
  22. Honestly that's a kinda strange upgrade to offer without other addons or features. The added mobility is great, and the superior stability when on the move should improve moving gunnery, but I feel like it's missing some things honestly. I'd like to see it combined with some other features. For example, rolling in a Sabra style armor upgrade. I'd keep the existing 105mm main gun for crew safety reasons, and hope that modern ammunition could keep it relevant. If I thought the 105mm just wasn't enough for whatever it might have to fight, then slap the Sabra armor package on the hull and replace the turret with an M1A1 turret, optionally with the /HA etc armor package.
  23. I have to admit, I thought about that for a while, and I have wondered why we don't see newer HEAT rounds for the 100mm, 115mm, the NATO M68/L7 105mm, etc... Part of me suspects that it simply hasn't been well documented. For example, some while ago the ATK Systems website talked about 105mm MPAT rounds for use with the M68 as mounted in the M1, IPM1, M60, Stryker MGS, etc. But there were little to no real details. On the other hand, sometimes I wonder if upgrades to those weren't simply left behind as unnecessary. Even the oldest 100mm HEAT round is more than enough to whack an M2 Bradley, and HEAT has fallen out of favor for use against MBTs, so why bother with upgrades? This doesn't surprise me.,, My memory is fuzzy but if I recall correctly for the T-72, 3BM9 was an all steel APFSDS, 3BM12 had a tungsten nose plug, 3BM15 was a longer 3BM12, and 3BM17 was an all steel export version of 3BM15... Did the Soviets allow anything more modern than 3BM9/3BM17 to be exported? Did they even export 3BM12/15 with the tungsten plug? I have to admit I don't really understand this policy entirely. On one hand they equip countries like Hungary, Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia with T-72s so that their "allies" can help them fight against NATO in the Warsaw Pact. On the other hand, those T-72s would have been almost entirely helpless against modern NATO armor... In a way these facts might really help explain things. The T-55M FIN armor and the T-72M armor was equally worthless against modern anti-tank weapons. The T-55M FIN had better FCS and optics, and due to it's metal cased ammo possibly better survivability for the crew, easy to obtain spare parts from all over the world... If you can't upgrade the T-72, why not just stick with the better tank right? That's honestly interesting to hear. I'm familiar with Finland only through modern eyes. Looking back from today, where Finland is commonly depicted as a staunch enemy of the USSR, it seems strange to think about Finland being a risk for leaking things to them. But then again, they did buy Soviet tanks, Soviet planes, etc... Wonder if they could have been kept around for training purposes? Just as a way to offer another vehicle to play as the "bad" guys in exercises? But going back to earlier points I'm sure they would still be more than capable against PC/IFV type targets.
  24. That little sign on it is begging for somebody to write a caption to go with it! "NO TANKDESANT!" So this is all good info...I'm guessing the most likely source for newer ammo would be the west, Israel perhaps? Didn't they capture and use tons of T-55/T-62 both with original guns and refitted with the L7?
×
×
  • Create New...