Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. That's gotta be a typo...You'd think we'd have heard about it in other sources... Interesting upgrades for the T-55s...Makes me re-think what version is appropriate for use. Those are lots of upgrades, especially the smoke launchers.
  2. OK so they got better sights and fire control which is good. Passive night sights might not be thermals but even those are a HUGE upgrade over the old Soviet system. I can understand not trying to upgrade the armor. If you can't bring it up to a modern standard that will stop the ammunition it's likely to be hit with, then why bother adding weight at all? As for the ammo...That's going to be a shock to me if it's true! I feel like you can, to some extent, make up for having thin armor or no armor... Dig in, stay hidden, stay on the move, etc, or, kill your enemy before he kills you... That last one is hard to do if your weapons are worthless!
  3. I notice that we've got several T-55's to pick from now. I wonder, of these, which one would be the best option to represent the upgraded Finnish T-55M's? I am aware that the Finns put in much better sights and fire control, but retained the original armor. I'm not sure if they ever put in night sights other than the IR systems originally fitted. Of what we have in ProPE, which one best represents the abilities of the T-55M's? I know I could pick one of the AM/AM2 upgrades as a hypothetical with more armor, but if I want to get as close as I can to the real deal what do I go with? And again, I have to ask what ammunition would best represent what they had on hand? I know the T-55s outlasted the T-72s, so I assume they had better ammo, but I also want to ask the same of the T-72s, what would they have had them loaded with at the end of their career? Thanks
  4. In many ways it is, and so is the M1 Abrams series. Personally I feel that both are based on fundamentally sound concepts, although I admit I feel that their development has somewhat stagnated or perhaps even regressed. Leopard 2 has done nothing to deal with the vulnerability of it's hull ammo stowage, although this has perhaps until recently been thought of as less important. Even switching to a smaller number of internal, individual, armored stowage tubes like the Merkava would be a huge improvement. The M1A1/SA Abrams with it's various improvements like the SCWS system for the TC has advanced quite a bit in capability, yet the M1A2 SEP seems to get taller and wider with every addition. One of the big things with the M1 was, originally, to keep the profile LOW, and now we have a giant CROWS mount sticking out of the roof? That's great for low intensity urban warfare but what about when you're stalking the countryside of Europe looking for T-90s? Why doesn't the A2 move to a system more like SCWS? The TC can use his own gun/cupola/TIS to find targets, and then the loader can spend down time using the CITV to join in the search. Back to the topic of APS, I like the addition of Trophy to the Abrams but I admit I wonder why they stuck it outboard of the stowage boxes and not instead of them to keep the turret profile narrow? Add on to the bustle rack in the rear and keep the frontal profile minimal. But again that goes back to my complaint about profile getting bigger/taller... Back on topic, yes, there's going to be quite a bit to learn from being able to easily tack on AVEPS in ProPE. I've already stuck it on a T-72B1 m.1985 and gone head to head with a T-90S, and the results were quite surprising. It has me wondering how the T72B1 with and without Kontakt-1 would compare to the T-80U with Kontakt-5 ERA...And perhaps it it might be possible to use one of the player T-72s fitted with AVEPS as a stop-gap stand in for advanced OPFOR tanks, or perhaps as platoon leader vehicles for platoons of T-80U's or T-90's to allow for player control.
  5. Gotta really stress that what Grenny is saying here is worth paying attention to. Whenever you can get turret down and start topping off the belt it's best to do that and not to shoot totally empty. You don't need to do a complete reload every time but it's best to avoid getting down to the end of belt stop if you can anyway.
  6. That makes sense and that's fine. For a moment I was concerned that the team decided to simply affix it to newer vehicles and simply leave out the old ones, but as I'm sure you're well aware with all the swapping around and substituting we do for certain scenarios it will be good to have all around. You might never see an M60A3, M1IP, T-62, T-72M or T-64B fitted with it in the real world, but it could be interesting to have for use as stand ins like I said. I'm already thinking that the M1IP with AVEPS might make a good K1A2 for Korean scenarios, etc...I think the SK camo selection even puts South Korean camo on the M1/M1IP already...
  7. With the new upgrade it looks like I have a bunch of maps that I don't have the Terrain and Height maps for, and this is one of them that used over and over again. Does anyone have the old Fulda Gap .hgt map and if so can they please upload it here? @Ssnake - I did download and install the legacy maps package but it seems to be missing some stuff. ETA: Something else might be going on here...Most of my old scenarios are opening up just fine but every now and then I get one that wants more files...But the files are there...
  8. Hello guys, Just wanted to ask if it would be possible to implement AVEPS as an option on all vehicles? I realize that it is not *visually* modeled for everything it's enabled for and that's fine, but I wonder if we can't get it as an option? It has occurred to me that it might perhaps help when trying to use existing vehicles as a substitute for others. For example, the existing M60A3 might be forced into use as an M60 Sabra substitute for certain scenarios and having AVEPS on it might somewhat help with that, etc
  9. Well, with the other addons in terms of the periscope and stuff I guess theyre further enhancing them to work as semi-mobile observation posts?
  10. That's an assessment I would agree with. I have not yet got around to making any "low intensity conflict" scenarios in ProPE with the Leopard 2 involved but I imagine if I ever did, they would probably be downloaded to only the 15 rounds in the turret if the need simply wasn't there. Similar to loading the T-72s only with the rounds in the auto-loader I guess. That's honestly probably not a bad idea... But building on that, what about borrowing some ideas from the Merkava and the Chieftain/Challenger series? Take armored tubes like the Merkava, and build them into a pressurized tank of water/fire retardant. You'll lose out on some capacity, but what you have left will hopefully be much safer unless you hit it directly, and MAYBE if it does get penetrated you'll get lucky and it won't catastrophically explode? I'm honestly not sure exactly how effective the whole pressurized water tank thing is but I know the British have been using it for some time. I'd feel a lot better about armored storage tubes than what's currently in place. If you REALLY want to stick to the 42 round capacity, then simply move the lost rounds into external storage outside the turret, in the bustle rack. They can be put in storage tubes there and accessed only when required.
  11. No, I meant not much extra armor for the hull. I would skimp on hull armor to keep weight down I think. I agree on the turret armor though. If i were going to be upgrading the stock turret I would try to pile as much armor on the turret as I possibly could to try to make it effective, and hope the tank could fight hull down. Better still, IMHO, would be to replace it entirely with an M1A1/A2 turret with modern armor, thus getting you protected storage. I remember seeing the video of that one you posted. If I recall correctly the up-armored turrets and the Leopard 2A4 that took turret hits did quite well. The ones that took hull hits, not so good. Ahh yes you're right. My mistake! For some reason I thought some of the Magach 7 series had them. In hindsight I'm betting they passed on the 120mm due to the flammability concerns of the ammunition. The Merkavas were able to be built with armored storage but I bet retrofitting that into the M60s was difficult or impossible with the existing turret.
  12. Allow me to expound a little more on what I'm suggesting. I think I agree with you that the current generation MBT hull is simply not going to be easily up armored to stop ATGMs from poking holes in it. In the case of the Leopard 2, my main thing that I would like to see would be to have the hull ammo compartment redesigned, even if it comes at the cost of capacity, to provide more resistance to torching the crew. The Leopard 2 has already done a great job with protecting the turret. Going back to the point about using them as semi-mobile observation posts, something that I seem to recall is that the Turks were making little to no effort to at least dig their tanks in. Steel Beasts leads me to believe that a Leopard 2 in a battle position or on a reverse slope showing only the turret is much more survivable in the event of a penetration than one showing the hull. Even if the tank is "destroyed" I frequently don't see it burn or toss the turret, making me think that if it were a real tank, it might be done fighting forever but at least some of the crew might live. In the case of the M60 upgrades I question the value and wisdom of adding armor to the hull at all. The existing armor isn't that great, and you've got an awful lot of hull to up-armor. The vehicle's mobility isn't terrible but it already isn't that great. IF you're going to add armor to the hull, then IMHO it should focus on getting the most bang for your buck...Or rather, pound/kilogram. Slap some ERA on it or something that will stop simple HEAT warheads like the common older generation RPGs that are LITERALLY EVERYWHERE, and then call it a day. You'll never stop a Kornet-EM unless you armor it up into a semi-mobile tracked bunker so don't bother. In the case of the M60-120S upgrade with the Abrams turret, I figure that having 34 or 36 rounds ready to go in the turret basket is good enough. Remove ammo from the hull and do whatever can be done to provide more crew survivability for when, not if, the hull is penetrated because it's going to happen. But at least you now have a modern current generation turret with a modern armor package, and if you can stay hull down, you're much more survivable. In the case of the Magach/Sabra tanks that keep the old turret but cram in a 120mm main gun.......Well do whatever you want with it, because if it gets a hole poked in it, and there's a pretty good chance it will happen eventually, it's gonna blow sky high and toss the turret and the crew all over the place... I really would almost rather keep the old 105 and at least have SOME protection from non direct hits through the ammo racks.
  13. I imagine that the General Dynamics upgrade, the Turkish Sabra, and the Israeli Magach upgrades with 120mm main guns probably have ammo stored in the turret and in the hull. If you're going to pack the tank with explosives just ready to light off, may as well squeeze more ammo in. In the case of the 120S upgrade, you can get either 34 or 36 rounds of 120mm in the blow out compartments on the turret alone. In which case I think you might very well NOT put more ammo on the turret floor or in the hull, since you've got plenty in the turret and even a single round laying around can compromise the turret blow off panels. Well...I know they retained the original M60 power pack so honestly, I'm not sure. I would put my money on them having come up with some kind of solution. I see that they added more armor to the hull. Honestly, given how poor the hull armor is by modern standards, I would almost rather just leave that off and save weight...Not sure how effective it would be anyway. Any idea WHY they did such a thing? If they had slapped M60 turrets onto older hulls I think I could understand but how did the opposite happen? Gotta say I remember when that first came out and I think I'd feel really nervous about being in one of those in combat. There were some videos of Turkish M-60 Sabra tanks getting beat up on by Kurds/YPG/PKK/PFJ/JPF/Whoever and ISIS. From what I recall the Sabras tended to light up quite vigorously, or burn with lots of ugly yellow smoke. Having a bunch of unprotected combustible case ammo laying around inside just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The Leopard 2A4's the Turks had also showed some signs of getting a little explodey when hit in the correct spots, and I wish they would address that with a redesign.
  14. I think that was the General Dynamics demonstrator from a few years back. Personally I dig the 120S upgrade although I'm curious about the ammunition storage arrangements on this one. If you went purely with the safe storage we know it has in the turret you're looking at 36 rounds of 120mm in a new turret with a modern armor package. There might be plenty more room for ammo in the hull, probably more than the 6 rounds the Abrams fits, but I almost wonder if it's better just to leave the extra space in the hull empty and roll with the 36 in the turret...From a survivability standpoint anyway.
  15. The M60A3 isn't a tank I use frequently but I've always felt like it's main limitation was the gun, not the tank itself. The armor and the mobility might not be great, and the fire control system takes more attention than I would like...But...The LRF beats many of the soviet fire control systems, and this TTS sight is OUTSTANDING. Going back to the bigger gun point, I wish we had perhaps looked more into the M60-2000 or M60-120S, even if only for the export market... I don't like the idea of the Sabra/Magach series...Leaving unprotected combustible case main gun ammo lying around just doesn't seem wise... I will reiterate my request to have the earlier M60A3 Passive, featuring a passive IR night sight, modeled in Steel Beasts. We already have 90% of it in game, I think it would be great to leverage off of what we have, where we can, to add more content. Furthermore I will reiterate my request to have a passive IR night sight added to the Leopard AS1, or alternatively, to have a copy of the Leopard AS1 put into the game as "Leopard 2A4" featuring a passive IR night sight... Sadly NATO tanks in this sim are stuck jumping from no night optics, to the TTS/TIS sights that basically turn them into invincible death knights on tracks.
  16. If you're in the US, drop me a personal message on here some time. If you're willing to wait for me to have a good day off, I'm more than happy to burn the installer files to CD and drop them in the mail if it'll help you get up and running.
  17. How about taking the existing playable T-72B1V, slapping the T-80U armor model and external 3D onto it, and adding the option to toggle the current daysight views for the TC and gunner into a modern IR sight view? You don't even need to change the way the fire control system works, that upgrade alone will make it far more deadly as a player vehicle. Slap a title on it like "OPFOR-MBT" and be done.
  18. Me too. Also MILAN on M113G, and if possible, Dragon on M113A
  19. I can't say that I ever met him other than on the forums, but I'm sorry to hear, and it won't be the same without him... My condolences to his family.
  20. I must admit I'm surprised by that! I always thought the two EFPs were used to either find or make a gap in the top ERA and that there was a chance it might not be effective, but I didn't know that ERA wasn't effective against them. Does this include Kontakt-5 and other such "heavy ERA", or just the light weight stuff?
  21. Same for the M113G with Milan launcher mounted. And, furthermore, the same goes for the US Army M113 with Dragon mounted.
  22. I wish for content where Milan was only a vehicle component...How about that? I understand that it could/can/is be dismounted from and mounted to the vehicle, perhaps even during the time-frame of a typical scenario. Right now the choice is made for the user: they are "Locked In" to having the launcher go with the troops. I am wishing for the alternative option to have them be "Locked In" to having the launcher stay with the vehicle. Nothing more.
  23. I would be QUITE happy if we were given the choice in the scenario builder to pick between "Marder 1A3" and "Marder 1A3 Milan" and it was simply thrown in as a separate vehicle. It would be NICE to be able to mount and dismount the Milan but more often than not I find myself wishing it was mounted, or cursing up and down that my infantry have, once again, set my launcher up inside a shrubbery.
  24. Could it perhaps be altered so that when a user clicks the "Exit" button on the map screen, after returning to the eye-perspective view, he will then stand up and pan/tilt to wherever he was looking outside the hatch automatically? Personally I happen to think that Ssnake is correct and that, particularly in combat, if I couldn't have my head up looking for things that were about to kill me, be it a sniper, artillery, an enemy tank, or a big branch coming my way, I would much rather be down inside the turret where at least I have some armor to protect me. However, I would argue that the act of ducking down into the turret to glance at a map board and then popping back up to look in a certain direction might be easier in real life than in a game, almost automatic if you will.
  25. I think I remember, at one point, stumbling across a sound clip to tell the gunner to shoot at a "Chopper", as well as possibly a completely unused texture for a cargo truck or something. But I guess you guys didn't waste much time then! Kinda surprising since it seems like there are so many other games out there from both then and now, packed full of cut content, scraps and tidbits of unfinished features, etc.
  • Create New...