Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Content Count

    1,533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. It is a pretty horrible system. I understand that there were actually several generations of IR equipment, with each successive generation being better able to function without the use of an illuminator. I just think it would be interesting to be able to play around with the function of the night sight, for example you might set up a scenario, discover that the T-72s loose every time, and then ask the question "But what if they could just see their targets?". Or even to set the IR sight to work as a normal day-sight to get a feel for how the reticle works with various ammunition might be helpful.
  2. Okay...I understand that the T-72's IR system was (is) basically total crap. However, the other thing I noticed is that it's actually possible to see targets further and easier through the primary sight at night than it is through the IR sights! Is this correct?! Were the Russian IR systems THAT crappy or is the SB model for IR currently messed up a little bit? Second, is there any chance we could see the option to tweak the IR sight? For example, to set it's performance levels similar to the NVGs or to act as a thermal sight? I know it's a simulator, but it still might be interesting to see how that would effect the T-72's capability. Oh and lastly...Does it actually elevate with the main gun when reloading?
  3. OK, I'm going to wrap it all up in one neat little package...Most of it is just ammunition so I hope it should be easy enough to implement at least that part. M900 APFSDS and ATK's 105mm MPAT for all the 105mm guns, and add the existing ME-456A1 HEAT to all the 105mm gunned vehicles. Some newer ammunition for the older Russian tanks, like the BM-21 or BM-28 for the T-62 and the BM-20 for the T-55 to simulate ongoing use of these older vehicles in countries like Iraq during the 90s, North Korea, Libya, Syria, etc. (BTW, on the subject of the T-62...Isn't the BM-5 actually the two-part round for the early T-64s?) An older TOW missile, perhaps the basic TOW or maybe ITOW, for earlier scenarios where the modern TOW-2 isn't really appropriate. A playable IPM1 Abrams. An M113 ACAV version, or at least an M113 with a gun shield set for the M2. And a T-64A or B to blow up with my new IPM1! Oh and if you wanted to cast all the turrets to get us a Leopard1A5, that would be cool too!
  4. It's usually a situational thing with me. Usually, if I'm using the main gun against troops, they're either in a structure or about to whack me with an anti-tank weapon. Given how plentiful coax ammunition is on most of the MBTs, I don't mind having to really blast away from long range in order to eliminate an infantry squad with it. I can't ever remember actually running out of coax ammo...Maybe ONCE in the Leopard2A4 in the original SB. In the original SB the coax ammo on the M1 was basically unlimited. I think it was something like 12,000 rounds all linked together, so you'd jam the gun or get killed before you ran out. One more question for you: What exactly am I supposed to be using the DM33 PELE rounds for? They seem to be surprisingly ineffective against APCs compared to HEAT rounds?
  5. OK, so basically HESH is something I should use both against light armor and troops, just make sure to hit some kind of a dense object with it if possible. I knew that the M830/DM12 had a frag or spall sleeve added to it, but I guess some users decided they also wanted a dedicated HE/Frag round. Now, if the spike on DM11 is just an aerodynamic thing, I still don't get why they didn't just shape it like a normal shell?
  6. I'm familiar with standard Sabot rounds, standard HEAT rounds, the MPAT, and Cannister. I'm also familiar with HE rounds, but they aren't typically something I think of However, I've noticed a few oddities. First, while many countries were out developing anti-crunchy rounds like Cannister and HE, the UK apparently felt satisfied with HESH. Are these rounds still effective against troops, or are they simply used as a substitute like the M830/DM12 HEAT-MP round was? Second, I noticed that many of the HE/Frag rounds have surprisingly good penetration values. Is this just a side effect of the velocity of the round, or an intentional design? I can understand why the Slsgr.95 with it's delay fuse would have an AP capability, but why the OF rounds on Soviet tanks? Hell the HE/Frag round on the T-62 is more effective than the Sabot rounds! And finally, although it's not modeled, I noticed that the DM-11 HE round has a spike tip on it, almost exactly like the DM12/M830 HEAT rounds. Is that round actually a smaller diameter HEAT round with a large HE round wrapped around it or something?
  7. Well I've got some more for this list, all ammunition related, and mostly from playing around with the Centauro as an Ersatz-Stryker MGS. I don't actually know much about the Stryker, but it's interesting to play "Tank Destroyer", aka "Don't shoot me, I haven't got any armor!", on occasion! 1. M900 APFSDS for the 105mm guns! I understand that this round offered similar or slightly better performance when compared to the M829, and might be pretty much all that you can squeeze out of the M68. 2. Add the 105mm version of the MPAT to the array of 105mm ammo. Apparently was developed for the Stryker MGS, but I bet it'd be fun to use for all the other 105mm stuff we've got. I guess it should have the same penetration and fuse settings as the 120mm version, but fly a bit slower? Alliant Techsystems makes these: http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_105ammo.asp And finally: 3. Add the ME-456A1 HEAT round to the available ammunition on the M1 (And for that matter the ability to mix HEAT and MPAT on them too). It's listed as a US round, but only seems to be an option for the Leopard AS1 and the Centauro, and while the M1 would probably never fire it given the much more recent date, it's still nice to have. I assume this was also developed as part of the Stryker MGS program?
  8. I hope this kind of thing will be the wave of the future, it almost became the wave of the past. Modular simulation. If you want tanks/choppers/infantry/jets/whatever, buy that module, and have a detailed representation of what interests you, that can interact with the others. IIRC, Spectrum Holobyte was going down that path with the Falcon 3.0 sim back in the day, it was part of their "Virtual Battlefield" series and each sim was a detailed sim (For that time!) for one aircraft in particular. I know quite a few Arma players who enjoy simulating hearing loss and tinnitus from forgetting to wear earplugs in infantry combat who would LOVE to be able to link up to SB Pro PE like that!
  9. Now there's something! What if part of the "punishment" for moving high speed through forests was to have the gunner traverse the gun somewhere over the frontal arc, release the palm switches, and just sit there hoping his gun doesn't catch on a tree until his TC stops acting like a fool?
  10. ...Or...Is your seemingly innocent claim that you aren't a Cylon just a ploy to make us feel safe, because you actually ARE a Cylon.... :shocked:
  11. Well, on the subject of the Russian tanks, as the T-90 is little more than a re-branded T-72, I'd be perfectly happy to get some more T-72 versions with Kontakt1 and 2 to give us a little variety in the armor we're up against. As for making them playable, while I'm sure we'd all love to see accurately modeled interriors and FCS, I guess some of that information isn't available. I will say that, for the purposes of having more OPFOR variety, I'd be perfectly happy to see that the T-72/80/90/64/etc were made playable even with an incorrect interrior or "best guess" optics and fire control. But still, I'd also be perfectly happy just having more stuff to blow up.
  12. Actually, I'd be more than happy just to have them as AI only units... I just want them so I can blow them up!
  13. Oh, one more thing, if possible. I'd like a way to tell the gunner and driver to keep doing their thing when I hop up on the .50 cal in the M1's. I don't always actually intend on engaging something with it. Sometimes I just want to put out some suppressing fire on infantry real quick.
  14. Fortunately, as the blow off panels aren't really visible in the game, I don't think it would make too much of a difference. I'm willing to accept a few "wrong" bits here and there in order to get it in the game!
  15. It happens only with certain maps, so far the two I've noticed it with are the two Fulda Gap maps in the download section. I don't see anything pop up in windowed mode either.
  16. Well, theres a few things I'd like to see, assuming there was time. 1. A playable IPM1, even if it re-uses the existing M1 or the M1A1 3D model. I think the only thing thats "wrong" on the M1A1 model is the 120mm gun instead of the thinner 105mm tube. I like the 105mm gunned M1 we already have, I just wish I could get the up-armor model! 2. The ability to load MPAT or M908 OR-T in the 3rd and 4th ammo slots on the Abrams to supplement rather than replace HEAT. I understand that the MPAT was used in addition to the normal HEAT rounds on the Abrams during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and I expect the M908 round would be deployed in a very similar way. 3. Some more (AI) T-Tanks to destroy! I think a T-64A would be a great add on for the pre T-80 era, and maybe also a T-72BV or something similar, but naturally I don't expect you guys would have the time or the resources to make those playable, so I'll settle for blowing them up. 4. The ability to fire a weapon from the mounted squad-leader view for vehicles where it's possible to have the troops fight from a mounted position, perhaps in a similar manner to the way the M2HBs can be fired from the hatch of the HMMWV and M113. I know this is probably not something that would be used as a training aid, but it might make for some good multi-player play. Similarly, for tanks fitted with a loader's MG, either the ability to order the loader up to engage with his MG, or the ability to man the gun ourselves, but I guess this should probably be very low priority as I imagine actually employing that weapon would be pretty rare.
  17. I tried alt-tabbing out a few times, but I didn't notice any error messages. I noticed that if you're missing a height map it puts an error box in the background, but didn't find anything like that. It could be a RAM issue, I've got 3 Gb installed, but I guess some maps might just be too much. Does the program need to uncompress and load the entire map before loading the selected area into the mission editor?
  18. I just got my dongle in the mail yesterday, and I've been playing around with the various vehicles and making up some missions. However, when I try to load some maps, for example one of the Fulda Gap maps...I get this weird error. I can't move the map view, and any attempt to view the terrain causes an instant crash to desktop. Anybody know what's going on?
  19. Hey, you don't need to convince me that Pro PE is worth the price! Other people have done that for you by trying to convince me that *Insert name of random FPS game here* is a great tank game because "You can, like, drive the tanks and stuff dude!"...Not really what I'm looking for... ;-) There really isn't anything else out there when it comes to tank simulators. The thing is, with how infrequently these things come out, I can see myself playing this one well after you guys retire. Although I'd prefer to hear that you had a plan for when you ended support, I guess I won't worry about it too much!
  20. First, let me say that I don't have a copy of Pro PE, YET, but I think I want to change that pretty soon...As in, like next pay-check. I'm still playing the original SB, I still love it, but I've been drooling at Pro PE for so long that I figure it's about time I stop drooling, upgrade my PC to run it, and buy the game already. Getting to the point, what I'd like to know is when Pro PE hits the end of it's supported life, when there isn't anybody left to deal with broken dongles and so on, will we see a sort of 'final patch' released that eliminates the need to use a dongle to run it? Call me paranoid, but I've never had to use one of those things before, and honestly the idea that I might accidentally break or loose a little piece of plastic 10 or 15 years from now, and then be sort of 'SOL', makes me nervous. Honestly when I get it, I'm probably going to wind up storing it in our wall safe just to make sure nothing happens.
  21. Just heard on the radio here (Announced as a TASS report...Shoulda seen my face... 'I knew it! The commies are doing it again!') that a British/Russian task force has intercepted a major pirate operation in the Gulf of Aden.
  22. Maj.Hans

    Who is Who?

    At the start yes, the log on the ground was our start line. Must be behind a foot but there was a coffee cup as a prop. IIRC the setup was something like: You are just leaving a coffee shop with your morning cup of joe. On the way out the door two men stop you, and demand that you hand over your wallet. You decline, and one pulls a switchblade. Engage the targets while backing away from the threat, two body shots and one headshot per target. So at that point I've just tossed a coffee cup (Weighted realistically with spent shell cases!) and drawn my concealed weapon, and am reacting by hosing down the targets. Since IDPA is concealed carry oriented most of the shooting is done up close, and involves lots of backing up away from threat targets while shooting at them.
  23. Maj.Hans

    Who is Who?

    Yhea, that was an IDPA shoot early last winter on our northern border with Michigan. Temperatures got down into the 30's (F scale, think 'almost frozen' in C), and there was rain on and off. Parts of the range were a total mudpit. But, they decided to go ahead and shoot it, I actually placed pretty well. We had maybe 40 shooters show up.
  24. Maj.Hans

    Who is Who?

    Well, best photos I could find so why the hell not. Here I am, I'm the big guy in the green. Indiana, U.S.
×
×
  • Create New...