Maj.Hans

Well, since I only have two licenses on my CM stick, I suppose I could always just purchase another secondary, if the fee for adding another new one were reasonable, should I ever need it.

Currently I own a dongle with a 2.6 primary license, and an additional 2.6 secondary license. I'm sold on buying 3.0, but as I have two licenses I'd like to know if the upgrade charge covers all licenses on the dongle, or one at a time? Secondly, does a license only cover one specific version at a time, or does it cover prior versions as well? IE: If I upgrade my license to 3.0, could I still play a version 2.6 game or am I now limited to only 3.0?

Hehe, I like it, I like it a lot...But I think you could try one thing to make it even better...

For what it's worth, I'm running Pro PE on a system with a 3Ghz Pentium 4 (Feel free to donate me one that's less "ancient", Ssnake ;-) ), 3 gigs worth of old DDR2 RAM, and a Radeon HD5450 video card with 512mb of video RAM. IIRC, the Core i3 is a dual core processor, while my P4 is single core. So you've got significantly more processor power than I do. I'm not familiar with the HD 4330, however please note that just because 5450 is a bigger number it does not mean that my video card is better. My old video card wouldn't run Pro PE at all. If I recall correctly, the 5450 I bought was the second or third cheapest card for sale at the time, and more than met the minimum amount of video ram listed in the requirements despite being a budget card. If you've got enough video ram you should probably be OK. Performance wise, my system (and remember, your processor is significantly faster!) runs Pro PE just fine with the detail sliders at their default settings. On maps with lots of terrain objects (particularly buildings, it seems) I do get some slowdowns when using the thermals on low zoom and looking at lots of objects. This isn't a problem because flipping to high-zoom or to day-sights to engage causes the FPS to come right back up to normal immediately. I think you'll be able to run Pro PE without any hiccups at all.

And sadly, I agree. I'd be perfectly happy to have one, preferably a Mk.2 or Mk.3 as they could be used in more scenarios than the Mk.4, but I'm sure with the lack of information about armor and fire control systems, we'll never get one.

If we're looking into adding Israeli tanks...

I think I built that exact same model kit. 1/72 scale Revell Germany And yes, a Leopard 1A5 would be nice. But fist an M1IP and M1A1/HC Abrams!

Okay, NOW I see! It never occurred to me to press the down-arrow (Peri to gun) key in the 2A5/2E/122 as the Peri is automatically locked to the gun by entering KW mode in the Leopard 2A4 that I'm so used to. In fact, in the 2A4 pressing the down arrow key after going into KW mode cancels KW and puts the system into "Peri to Gun" mode. So I just need to remember that the 2A5/2E/122 Peri requires the extra step for KW mode.

Hum, I would be all on board with that. Do you know how hard it is to find 1/72 scale model kits of Russian vehicles to be 'blown up' by my collection of 1/72 scale Abrams and Leopards?

OK, more detailed... I tried this with the 2A5, the 2E, and the 122. From the TC's position, I get into the Peri optical view, and search for targets. For some reason I find the peri IR view to be disorienting at times, so I usually stick to the optical view. I find a target, and press the up arrow hotkey to enter gun to peri override (KH?) mode. The turret traverses over to point at what I am looking at. If I decide that I want to engage the target myself, I don't seem to be able to lase from KH mode, so I press the * hotkey to enter KW mode. I now have full control of the turret, and the ability to lase, however the turret now moves independently of the Peri view. If I elevate or traverse the gun, the peri optical view does not move with the turret. I don't know if this is correct, it seems odd to me given that in the Leopard2A4 if you press the KW mode button, the peri view continues to move with the turret until you cancel the override...Incidentally, with the 2A4, I'd really appreciate being able to cancel the override when I'm in the GPSE view instead of having to go back to peri view... Just as a quick demonstration, here's a screenshot from a Leopard2E after I've entered KW mode. My stick inputs move the turret and gun, but the Peri continues to stay pointing at the target.

Interesting. It looks like for the T-64/80 style tanks reloading from the racks is actually slightly faster, but it's pretty close for the T-72. Another question for you, I was browsing tank stuff on the web the other night, and someone made the claim that while the T-64 and T-80 can load their missiles via the autoloader, the stub bases for the missiles still need to be manually loaded? That sounds incorrect to me?

I was playing around with the 2A5, when I noticed that if you use the normal day periscope to locate a target, enter Gun-to-peri mode to bring the gun on target, and then enter KW mode to engage the target on your own, the peri essentially goes back to search mode and you must use the TIM panel to engage. Is this correct? It doesn't make sense to me, but I can certainly see how somebody else could see this as making perfect sense.

...Uh...What?

Thats the way I'm seeing it. Plus you could run into issues with fleet standardization, or with your return on investment. If you start now, either the tanks that get overhauled to 2012 spec get another overhaul in three years to the 2015 specifications, or when 2015 rolls around you wind up with a bunch of tanks that are three years old so you wind up overhauling fewer tanks to the 2015 specs because you've already got a bunch that are only three years old so why not just mix them all together?...Yhea.... Random question...I wonder if they held on to any 105mm gunned Abrams tanks?

If it's not faster to simply reach over and throw a new projectile and charge into the gun, why is that? Is it faster just to turn the cranks than to get the straps/clips/buckles un done on the stored rounds?

So, I guess this question is for anybody here familiar with the T-72 and it's details. As we all know, the T-72 stores it's ammunition quite literally everywhere. I know that the autoloader is quite reliable, but naturally it can still break, malfunction, or suffer damage. I know that when the loader is damaged, the TC has to use a bunch of hand cranks to manually operate it, and this results in a rate of fire of something like one round per minute. But again, the crew is surrounded by the ammunition...So is it possible for them to simply grab the reload rounds and start manually loading the gun?

I would cover them up, but thats because I'm PARANOID about the idea of weaponry getting the tiniest speck of dirt or rust on it. But honestly it makes sense to me not to refurbish tanks that we don't need, particularly now. Why not hold off for three years on refurbishing them to todays standards and instead refurbish them to tomorrows standards later on? Edit: Naturally if congress wants to spend money thats NOT part of the military budget to rebuild them...Fine by me, we've got lots of other programs like our various free handout programs that could be cut instead.

Turret cam! Yhea! Get some!

All very good ideas. I just figured that hearing the rounds hit would provoke more of a reaction when we're trying to train new players. I know when I'm in a scenario and I hear that, it usually means it's time to pop smoke, slam the hatch, and reverse!

I think it's a limitation of the simulation that the sound of the cases can't be switched off. I'm sure at some point, were you in a real Leopard 1, you might turn to the loader and tell him to toss them overboard, or grab them and toss them out the hatch yourself, if they were getting to be too much of a problem.

I managed to talk one of my friends into at least trying SB for a little bit to see if he liked it at all. Before I started him playing, I tried to set up a few sort of easy scenarios to let him learn the ropes while getting an idea of what the game is like. So I made a scenario with a few T-55s guarding a town, set them to impotent, and talked him through all the buttons while he shot them up. Something that I noticed though was that even when the tanks set to impotent scored direct hits, quite literally nothing happened. In fact the shells seemed to just disappear upon impact. I'm pretty sure he was too busy figuring out all the fire control stuff, but it was pretty obvious to me. What I'd like to know is if we could get another version of the "Impotent" option added so that when an enemy vehicle scores a hit, the player still hears the the "Crash!" when the sabot or missile hits him? The way it is right now I feel like if enemy units are set to impotent to reduce the difficulty in a scenario, they don't give the new player any feedback to let them know that they're too exposed.

It doesn't look like theres any pages currently linking to it, so thats probably why. *Searches for an "Add Page" button* Just as soon as I figure that out...I'll add a page... Found it! That oughta work for now.

No need to go on a quest or anything! This is sort of one of those "If you happen to know right now off the top of your head, please tell me, if you don't, then thanks for your time" type things. I just find it interesting to read stuff like this: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html And wish we had something like that that covered the rounds from all of the nationalities. (You can probably forget about the stats table though, I'm sure the velocity and penetration numbers in SB are plenty close enough already)

Theres lots of info out there on the net, but I was hoping you could just tell us what you know about the rounds, as I'm sure you've done the research already. The lack of info seems to be mostly with more obscure rounds. Like the "M735/M" that I mentioned as an example. I'm familiar with the vanilla M735, and the M735A1, but I've never heard of an M735/M and the designation system seems kinda weird to me too.

While an excellent document, it seems to be the same one shipped with SB Gold, and covers only 125mm and 120mm NATO. I'd like to see a similar document, but also with some little history about the rounds, at least what we think/know.