Jump to content

SB Pro PE 4.0 - Discussion thread


Rotareneg
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Varjag said:

It seems to me, it should not have artificially restrict the already meager arsenal of vehicles that can adequately resist the "blue" coalition.

Its not as if Russian-made tanks were or are entirely toothless - but if you think a scenario favours one side by technical quality of its equipment, the other side then needs to find tactical ways to counter that. Also, during the cold war, the Sovjet doctrin expected very high own losses. The way to counter Western technological advantages was by using superior numbers. And again: its not as if those Sovjet tanks were toothless. Probably better protected than many maybe think - but you did not wish to get hit by a T-72 cannon if sitting in a Western tank of that era the T-72 was designed to defeat, namely the Leo-1.

 

Else, as had been said before, you can edit scenarios and exchnage this for that platform, for both sides. You can even mix Russian-made and Western equipment in one team, or both teams.

 

Edited by Skybird03
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

them being?

 

i mean i too dont understand why not a T72B1 1985 with Kontact bricks, when the 2012 version is basically the same thing but worse due to not having any ammunition stowage. IF the concern is about extra ammo with the tank being at an extra risk for cookoff after penetration  then they still have a choice of simply taking out less ammo.

 

Also I never did hear of a T72B1 model 2012 as a official designation. IS this some local in house modiifcation? only nation that  i found was as ordered any meaningful #s of T72B1s from Russia in 2012, was Venezuela.

 

the m.2012 is supposed to represent an actual field T-72, although it might have been better to call it M1996 or simply "field mod" since already back then the russian soldiers started to remove all of the ammunition not in the carousel, to reduce the risk of explosions. and if worst came to worst, the russians would probably have started doing this during WW3. 

fully loaded, the T-72 is extremely volatile, so the crews decided to counter this by removing all stored ammunition, fill up the sponson fuel tanks with sand, along with all storage bins on the turret with sand and stones. 

with this, and thanks to the lead/kevlar liners doubling as spall liners, a penetration would no longer mean the fiery death of all the crew. 

the other T-72B is actually a 1984-85 T-72B, and were produced in small numbers during that time period. they might've even called it a T-72A, even though it had the new turret. 

officially the russians don't give a shit about designations. there's 4-5 different T-72, T-72, and T-72B, with all sorts of different configurations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Skybird03 said:

Its not as if Russian-made tanks were or are entirely toothless - but if you think a scenario favours one side by technical quality of its equipment, the other side then needs to find tactical ways to counter that. Also, during the cold war, the Sovjet doctrin expected very high own losses. The way to counter Western technological advantages was by using superior numbers. And again: its not as if those Sovjet tanks were toothless. Probably better protected than many maybe think - but you did not wish to get hit by a T-72 cannon if sitting in a Western tank of that era the T-72 was designed to defeat, namely the Leo-1.

 

Else, as had been said before, you can edit scenarios and exchnage this for that platform, for both sides. You can even mix Russian-made and Western equipment in one team, or both teams.

 

In any case, this is no reason to underestimate the performance. If I want to create a scenario of cold war, I'm certainly not going to put a battalion of T-90 against the company Cheftain mk5. And so I would like to play a normal Soviet/Russian tank , protected from light RPG , and be able to choose the amount of ammunition. In addition, nowhere T- 72B / B1 without bricks active armor is almost gone , if not to take the provincial African countries .

Edited by Varjag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as for the T-72s maybe the current T72B1 M1985 should become T72B1 M1984 to be the player counterpart to the 72B M1984, and we should get one with Kontakt-5 to become the the replacement T72B1 M1985.

 

About the 72B1 M2012, can I suggest giving that one Kontakt5 ERA?

Edited by Maj.Hans
I nolonger wish to see a vehicle such as this one added to Pro PE as it is not in line with the high standards for accuracy and quality set by the Russian Army.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

Well, as for the T-72s maybe the current T72B1 M1985 should become T72B1 M1984 to be the player counterpart to the 72B M1984, and we should get one with Kontakt-5 to become the the replacement T72B1 M1985.

 

About the 72B1 M2012, can I suggest giving that one Kontakt5 ERA?

T-72B1 with armor "Kontakt-5" was never produced.

Edited by Varjag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Varjag said:

T-72B1 with armor "Kontakt-5" was never produced.

 

T-72B1 with fuel tanks full of sand was never produced, but it was made as a field upgrade...

 

I suggest it because the T72B1 interior model is already made.  We could have a playable Soviet tank with Kontakt 5 ERA, which gives it more resistance to Blue weapons fire.  We can otherwise put in T80U or T90S to get AI controlled vehicles with Kontakt-5 ERA, but players can't play them.

Edited by Maj.Hans
I nolonger wish to see a vehicle such as this one added to Pro PE as it is not in line with the high standards for accuracy and quality set by the Russian Army.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

T-72B1 with fuel tanks full of sand was never produced, but it was made as a field upgrade...

 

This is essentially T-72B mod. 1985 with sand instead of ammunition.

 

3 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

I suggest it because the T72B1 interior model is already made.  We could have a playable Soviet tank with Kontakt 5 ERA, which gives it more resistance to Blue weapons fire.  We can otherwise put in T80U or T90S to get AI controlled vehicles with Kontakt-5 ERA, but players can't play them.

T-72B with the protection of "Kontakt-5" have ATGM weapons. I suggest not to go to the point of absurdity, and to invent new models of equipment non-existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thewood said:

Since the Russian models are so broken, I suggest eSims scrap all Russian models so we don't continue to have this debate.

I propose you to voluntarily abandon them, if they will so interfere. And do not go here if you are not interested in the topic.

Edited by Varjag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come here trying to get some information on the game.  Not listen to endless debates on T-xx or the Leclerc.  Start a freaking separate thread for your complaints so the rest of us can actually find information.  Or better yet, stop being obsessed with your pet tank and play the game as it is.  Or, most likely, you'll jump into multiple threads continuing to debate this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Varjag said:

 

This is essentially T-72B mod. 1985 with sand instead of ammunition.

 

T-72B with the protection of "Kontakt-5" have ATGM weapons. I suggest not to go to the point of absurdity, and to invent new models of equipment non-existent.

...and it would be nice if SB is able to simulate the ATGMs one day(as in playable vehicles)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thewood said:

I come here trying to get some information on the game.  Not listen to endless debates on T-xx or the Leclerc.  Start a freaking separate thread for your complaints so the rest of us can actually find information.  Or better yet, stop being obsessed with your pet tank and play the game as it is.  Or, most likely, you'll jump into multiple threads continuing to debate this topic.

Apart from the rant. I agree with "use a seperate T-tank thread". this way t-tank info is easier to find

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thewood said:

I come here trying to get some information on the game.  Not listen to endless debates on T-xx or the Leclerc.  Start a freaking separate thread for your complaints so the rest of us can actually find information.  Or better yet, stop being obsessed with your pet tank and play the game as it is.  Or, most likely, you'll jump into multiple threads continuing to debate this topic.

I discuss what I'm interested in what as for the this game. If you are not interested, you can scroll down and continue dialogue on thgings for you interesting. Im not be able to prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Varjag said:

I discuss what I'm interested in what as for the this game. If you are not interested, you can scroll down and continue dialogue on thgings for you interesting. Im not be able to prevent it.

Again, I'd suggest starting a T-tank thread. So that informations and suggestions regarding them can be found in one place...

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

the m.2012 is supposed to represent an actual field T-72, although it might have been better to call it M1996 or simply "field mod" since already back then the russian soldiers started to remove all of the ammunition not in the carousel, to reduce the risk of explosions. and if worst came to worst, the russians would probably have started doing this during WW3. 

fully loaded, the T-72 is extremely volatile, so the crews decided to counter this by removing all stored ammunition, fill up the sponson fuel tanks with sand, along with all storage bins on the turret with sand and stones. 

with this, and thanks to the lead/kevlar liners doubling as spall liners, a penetration would no longer mean the fiery death of all the crew. 

 

Hmmm interesting,  i see thanks

 

Quote

the other T-72B is actually a 1984-85 T-72B, and were produced in small numbers during that time period. they might've even called it a T-72A, even though it had the new turret. 

 

well i mean it did have enough differences for the B to not be a T72A even without Kontact 1 ( and lack of agtms for the B1). apart from the additional turret armor, it had  20mm added to the frontal hull  new night vision optics,  plus a new sighting complex model 1A40M, with tracking lead indication. 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Marko said:

 

 

 

As for the accuracy of the T tanks modelled I am very satisfied with what we have.

Yes,  Reactive armour could be a game changer for Russian armour fans

I have seen how effective ERA can be against older RPG types from watching videos of Syrian t tanks in action

But like most models in SB its a case on being an ongoing process developing a armour simulation as good as SB

Takes time man hour and money I have learnt to accept that its a niche market. Esim just don't have the resources the big developers do.  

Every update SB gets that better.

Although the 4.0 update may not have had as many new vehicles types as other previous updates. (I Think)

 Its fixed a lot and added of things like visible crew members IMO, a small but major component to the Immersion factor.

just wish the snipers could take out TC's  It would seriously add to the fear factor in Urban type scenarios and teach players to stay button up.

 

Edited by Marko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

Hmmm interesting,  i see thanks

 

 

well i mean it did have enough differences for it to not be a T72A even without Kontact 1. apart from the additional turret armor, ithad  20mm added to the frontal hull  new night vision optics,  plus a new sighting complex model 1A40M, with tracking lead indication.

 

 

 Post-1983 T-72A  may have all mentioned features. Also it can be   fitted  with  guided missile system... You can not call exact model without checking vehicle's formular.

Edited by Jartsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

 Post-1983 T-72A  may have all mentioned features. Also it can be   fitted  with  guided missile system.

 

May.... 

 

But then its no longer a T72A if it did have all of the above mentioned features. Its a T72B. Just Like a M60A1 refurbished and reffited to be up tp M60A3 standards. just because its not factory fresh production  it still no longer A1 but an A3.

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

May.... 

 

But then its no longer a T72A if it did have all of the above mentioned features. Its a T72B

No. If formular says "Т-72A"- its T-72A, and if very same formular says "T-72B"- its T-72B. Welcome to world of military accounting :)

Edited by Jartsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

No. If formular says "Т-72A"- its T-72A, and if very same formular says "T-72B"- its T-72B.

 

right im really wondering on the source,  because T72A production has a certain set of features. and T72B would have replaced it on the factory lines in 85.

 

the T72M1 or  A we have now is a definitive production run since it has the Smoke dischargers,  since the Initial  batches A did not have them, and 16mm hhs plate, which initial  1979 A model did not have. A production run of T72As did not have upgraded systems as on the T72B.

 

There was a T72AV with Kontact 1, but not upgraded systems. But point being its no longer designated plainly by A.

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

right im really wondering on your source on this.  because T72A production has a very clear set of features. and T72B would have replaced it on the factory run in 85.

 

the T72M1 or even the A we have now is a final production run with the Smoke dischargers since the Initial A did not have them, and 16mm hhs plate, which initial A model did not have. IT didn not have upgraded systems as on the T72B. 

Clear set  of features?  Do you ever know that in very same time period 3  different turrets were used for  very same "T-72A"? 2 engines? 2 stabilizers? Which year 1A40 was introduced to series production T-72s? BTW,  what is  the difference between 1A40 and 1A40-1? When 1K120 guided weapon system was introduced?

 

And most important but funny question- what is the value of all said  changes from end-user point of view?

 

Its a very moot dispute.

Edited by Jartsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Clear set  of features?  Do you ever know that in very same time period 3  different turrets were used for  very same "T-72A"? 2 engines? 2 stabilizers? Which year 1A40 was introduced to series production T-72s? BTW,  what is  the difference between 1A40 and 1A40-1? When 1K120 guided weapon system was introduced?

 

yes it does have a certain cet of features differentiating it . You yourself said "may", which means self doubt which means you cannot definitively prove it was a standard modification or how many of them to be exact . and why are you asking me that? you are hiring researchers then? )

 

1A40 was introduced first  the  T72 Ural 1 in 76, before the T72A.  1A40-1 is the upgraded system  introduced in the  T72B. series in 1984 early production before the 85 mainline production with kontact.

 

while there are many similarities there are still features differentiating the A from the B.  Primarily such as the thicker turret, and the extra hull armor, plus earlier as listed . US forces could differentiate it hence the new nickname "Super dolly Parton", guess they had enough to go on not to be confused with just another T72A.

 

But you know thier all the same, for simplicities sake all  T72 all should have the same designation , just because of some shared or different incremental features ;) . But yeah i suppose if your point is the Russians were loose with features and not as strict with designations as western designers, then yes I guess T72B is just a T72A plus, but that too could be argued for just about any upgraded vehicle. # splitting hairs.

 

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...