Jump to content

Volcano

Moderators
  • Posts

    8,292
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Volcano

  1. Hopefully we can get something going and have OPFOR vismod skins for more vehicles. It is a shame that it has not been done yet, you know, given how much head to head we all play.
  2. Hello all, Dark has put together some OD green WP style OPFOR vismod skins to use with the TGIF linked campaign games. This will give us something a little different to look at. You can get them here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/279/p13_fileid/1530 Just be sure to put them in your ...mods\textures\woodland\red
  3. Which Leo are you referring to? If you are talking about the Leo1 then yes, there should be a is a resonating clang of the 105mm shell after it fires. The 120mm maingun should have a shorter and sharper high pitched clang of the aftcap hitting the aftcap deflector. I imagine there would be a subtle difference between the two gun firing sounds as well. Unfortuantely, right now, both the 105mm and 120mm maingun uses the same interior sound effect so these cannot be differentiated. But that is something that is planned for a future sound update. As far as an "authentic" sounding maingun, well, the original one in the game was recorded complete with aftcap ejection, hitting the deflector and the deflector spinning, so I don't think you can get any more authentic than that, but "authentic" is subjective to the listener, recording quality (especially if the sound is taken from a video) and microphone placement.
  4. The plan this weekend is to continue where we left off of the linked campaign at mission #5. As usual we plan on playing two missions so, if you are able, please stick around for the second one. Mission five is roughly in the middle with the campaign possible to go either way. I think we are sitting at two wins and two losses for both sides.
  5. Well, a playable T72 won't be much fun unless we can listen to Russian voices!
  6. I would say that in a MOUT environment, yes, that is absolutely true. The roles are switched in such an environment where the tanks are secondary and support the infantry, rather than the other way around in open terrain.
  7. Wow they have a lot of vehicle models... I like their Toyota truck.
  8. Yep, at about an 6-8m diameter circle at 6km, you would be hoping to get lucky, well, frontally at least. Longer guns or rifled tubes would probably cut that circle down, although at the bottom of that page (I just glanced at it) it seems to suggest that for a rifled 105mm the diameter was larger.
  9. Good visual demonstration. Also, check this out: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-12-7/ch11.htm ...at the bottom of the page is an M1A1 screening panel with dimensions at appropriate screening ranges. Basically, when you screen a tank after bore sighting you are to manually align the gun to the center of the circle and fire off two to three rounds. If the rounds strike anywhere inside the center circle then you are "good" (screened and ready to begin TT VIII). If not, then the Master Gunner gives you a discrete computer correction factor and you fire again (basically you are zeroing the main gun). Anyway, at 1000m, the radius of the circle on the screening panel in which the rounds are expected to deviate is ~4 feet in diameter, and ~5 1/2 feet in diameter for 1500m, so it seems pretty reasonable.
  10. Since the BLUEFOR commander will be away this weekend, we will put the 1986 linked campaign on hold until next Friday (15 FEB). At that time we will continue where we left off at scenario 5. This weekend will be normal TGIF play.
  11. Ahh, I must of missed the video... I see it now. In any case it does not appear to be an issue anymore in the beta. If it is not in the beta then somewhere between the two it must have been addressed, but I guess the best way to know is if enigma could try the same exact situation in the beta. From what I see it doesn't seem to be a problem in the beta, but I might not be doing something right.
  12. I must of missed it but who indicated that the discussion was initially about HE / HEAT vs soft skin vehicles or infantry? Initially Ssnake was commenting on APDS engagement on Syrian bulldozers out to 10.4km. It seems that the discussion turned into an HE / HEAT after some pessimism. In any case, if we are now talking about HE and HEAT, then I would agree that you could area fire at targets at those ranges (4-6km). You could also area fire with HE / HEAT at stationary soft targets out to 10 to 15km (and beyond) with the use of a map, gunner's quadrant, radio, and a spotter. But now we are talking about something that can be classified as indirect fire. This is one of those things you always hear about in theory but I have never heard of it being done. Ranges of 4km to 6km could definitely be possible with HE / HEAT on a stationary target and still be considered direct fire. 7.7cm, 75mm and 18 pounder field guns in World War I were firing HE rounds direct fire at 5-6km and there were no fancy gun sights there. Thanks, I corrected it now. :razz:
  13. I think the question is whether or not you were spotted BEFORE you popped smoke. I just ran a test (and you can create a similar one) to where you start with one tank (I used an M1A1 with regular smoke), then have BMP1s and/or T72s (I used both) spawn after 10 seconds. When the mission starts, pop smoke before the enemy spawns. In the test (on the beta) the BMPs and T72s did not fire until the smoke cleared. On the other hand, and I think this is what you are seeing, if you wait until they spawn to pop smoke they will know where you are and will fire in the general direction of the smoke screen. This is the desired effect which sees to be the case when I ran a test. See if that works for you. *additional* Perhaps it is/was a problem with an older version of Pro PE. Try it in the beta and see if it is different.
  14. I guess I am just a bit of a pessimist when it comes to engaging a target beyond 4km but, then again, maybe that is just because I never had a FCS that would calculate beyond 3999m. My apologies if I seemed like I was saying that 6km engagements are a lie (and I would have to see a 10.5km non missile engagement to believe it), I was just doubting whether or not it would be something that would be practical, in the sense that it would be reliable enough to not be considered being a wasteful use of expensive ammo. If it is practical on the newest tanks, then that is great and I am about a decade behind in the technology department. :eek:
  15. Nonsense? Well, it guess it is up to interpretation. I am sure that none of the accounts in "water war" were exaggerated *sarcasm*. Personally I think 10km is a load of BS. But then again, maybe those big lumbering bulldozers were indeed finally hit after they launched several hundred HEAT rounds at it, or after someone further down range talked them onto the target. But I would think that would be the extreme. As I mentioned, I believe that modern FCS and sights could allow 4-6km engagements, but I don't see someone *wasting* ammo by having a trigger point at those ranges, much less 10km. Hmm, lets fire off all our rounds so that when the enemy gets closer we won't have any! It just doesn't seem *practical* to me unless, I suppose, you are in a perfect world with a 20x gun sight, no crosswind, the target is on the exact same elevation, you have a 100% accurate and current barometric pressure reading, the planets and their associated moons are in alignment, and God himself bore sighted your tank with The Holy Muzzle Boresight Device +20. Oh, and lets not forget, you must not of fired a single round since God did his boresighting because you would then be required to begin the MRS updating process which of course is not a scientific method. It just seems to me that only a rail gun would provide *consistent* enough results in regards to shot dispersion to make such engagements *the norm*. But I guess if the discussion is "can a target be hit at a range of 4-10km?" then the answer is different.
  16. 6km engagements? Wow, shot dispersion alone would make it nearly improssible to hit something that far away unless you were using a railgun. 4km engagements are difficult enough, but that is coming from a former M1A1 tanker. Now days the FCS / FCC / CCPs are probably capable of calculating fire control solutions beyond 4km, and some of the newer tanks go well beyond 10x sights with FLIRs.
  17. Both the semi ready and ready racks on the M1 are protected by blowout panels on top of the roof and both compartments are divided by a wall. If you take a round in this area then it is likely that it will pass through to the other storage compartment, or, at the very least, one compartment detonating would blow off the top panels which exposes the other compartment as well. *Technically* if this happened you would still have six rounds in the hull storage which would be used in an emergency situation like this. These rounds also have blow out panels on the side of the hull, just behind the skirts. HOWEVER, to get to these rounds you have to put the turret over the side and open the blast doors (two compartments of three rounds). This is a very slow and tedious process. It is an abstraction at this time to just simply remove all remaining rounds when you suffer an ammo compartment hit because it is better to do that (currently) than to keep a remainder of six rounds which are loaded normally. Of course it opens the argument that those six rounds should be subtracted from the maximum allowable rounds until the hull storage is modeled, but it is a sort of in between solution to a complicated issue.
  18. Excellent! I think everything you need to know about updating is on this page (someone correct me if I am wrong): http://www.esimgames.com/Downloads.htm#Steel%20Beasts%20Pro%20PE%202.370%20Beta ...also, you might want to consider getting the beta if you want to play around with some new stuff or play online with us.
  19. Appologies, that wasn't directed towards you, that was directed at the little pow-wow we had after the two games last week where we all sat around and did what we do best, nit picking. Even so, I made it mostly in jest.
  20. Yep, buckets o' blood abound. But none of that pointless blood like in a stupid horror movie, the antagonists were so bad that it was of the good bucket o' blood sort. It is also probably the most realistic movie yet made in the sense of showing the damage that a 12.7mm HMG can do, even if it seemed like Rambo had his infinite ammo box checked (although thankfully he did reload it once).
  21. Anyone see the new Rambo movie? I went to see it tonight... I thought it was a pretty good movie. Of course it is not perfect (what movie is?) but it was an enjoyable movie, much better than Rambo II and Rambo III that is certain. Anyway, I give it two gun tubes up.
  22. We will be continuing the linked campaign situation from last week by again playing two 45 minute scenarios. Last week Red lost the opening battle which put them on the defensive but Red followed up by stopping the Blue counter attack. Here is the situation we left off with from last week: ---------------------- BLUE: The enemy has repelled your counterattack and is now on the offensive again. RED: You have skillfully repulsed the counter attack. You have now gained sufficient time and resources to continue the advance. ---------------------- Ok, lets have fun and leave the nit picking at the door. *Beta version required to play*
  23. Yes, it wasn't until 1985 and the T-72B when it had stabilization from the 1A40-1 FCS. Technically, in order to simulate a T-72M1, we would have to remove stabilization AND lead. Then I would need to rebalance all nine scenarios to 3:1 tank to PC ratio in the companies and make it a tank regiment instead of a MRR so that Red has a chance in Hades. However, removing lead and stabilization would be opposite of what Tacbat is asking for because he says the LeoAS1 should be replaced with a Leo1A5DK. The reality is that the Leo1AS and the T-72 both have advantages and disadvantage (the T-72 is a smaller target for example) that cannot be accurately represented by having one vehicle pretend to be another. So I don't see the problem (until we have an actual crewable T-72 to choose from) to use a vehicle that is relatively close to it, and one which balances out any disadvantages it carries with it with some advantages of its own.
×
×
  • Create New...