Jump to content
Rotareneg

SB Pro PE 4.0 - Discussion thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

My question, does the Merkava 2 come with the LAHAT missile as a potential option ?

 

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stratos said:

The 6x6 vehicle at the end of the video is a Pandur I?

 

Yes. There are actually four Pandurs in the video, the ambulance 2x, and the Pandur I first with simple cal .50, and then with remote weapon station (ERCWS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a few questions on the Merkava.  The main gun, 120mm?  What version of Mark, A, B , C…  Infantry and if so can we change the type during scenerio creation?  Thanks in advance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dejawolf said:

that was Darkangels pet project. he's got a serious hardon for the chieftain mk.5 

Just need a Challenger 1 and we have the full set ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

 

Yes. There are actually four Pandurs in the video, the ambulance 2x, and the Pandur I first with simple cal .50, and then with remote weapon station (ERCWS).

 

Rgr, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CalAB said:

So a few questions on the Merkava.  The main gun, 120mm?  What version of Mark, A, B , C…  Infantry and if so can we change the type during scenerio creation?  Thanks in advance. 

no the main gun is 105mm. and it's a merkava 2. there's 2 versions in SB, one that has the full ammo, and one that carries infantry, but has reduced ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit confused now.  Earlier in this thread Ssnake mentioned that the model of the Merkava shown in the terrain comparison video did not have a 105mm gun.  Did the IDF use smaller guns then the 105 on their Merkava MarkII's in the late seventies?  It has a fume extractor and sorta' looks like a 120mm?  And I'm guessing the smaller ammo capacity version with infantry will indeed be able to have that infantry type changed in the scenario editor.

Edited by CalAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CalAB said:

A bit confused now.  Earlier in this thread Ssnake mentioned that the model of the Merkava shown in the terrain comparison video did not have a 105mm gun.  Did the IDF use smaller guns then the 105 on their Merkava MarkII's in the late seventies?  It has a fume extractor and sorta' looks like a 120mm?  And I'm guessing the smaller ammo capacity version with infantry will indeed be able to have that infantry type changed in the scenario editor.

It is most certainly an early production Merkava II and the Merkava II's have all used 105 mm guns.

Edited by lavictoireestlavie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, smithcorp said:

Wow - are they new M113s? They look great.

Agree, and it looks like there's a completely new 3D model for the M113G at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Panzer_Leader said:

Agree, and it looks like there's a completely new 3D model for the M113G at least.

 

yeah, roguesnake has been spending the better part of a year updating M113s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the new mine-protectant vehicles shown (and the ones already in the sim) now provide carried troops with some degree of protection from mines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dejawolf said:

merkava 2 ... and one that carries infantry ...

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Splash said:

Will the new mine-protectant vehicles shown (and the ones already in the sim) now provide carried troops with some degree of protection from mines?

 

I suppose once that we actually find the time to work on a more realistic base model of HE detonations, they will. Until then there isn't really much that can be done on the vehicle model's side. We need to address the way how explosions are handled instead.

 

Unfortunately Fate has a habit to foil my plans and determined intent to have the team work on this for at least five to six years now. I'd go ballistic if that would actually help anything, but the reality is that we put this on hold over and over again for perfectly justifiable reasons. But no matter what, the end result is still the same, we're still stuck with a model of explosions with which I am not satisfied. What's making things difficult is that the underlying model is "sort of adequate", it's not glaringly wrong and works at least so-so in most cases. If it were utterly broken the whole topic would receive top priority. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the other issue is that what are the outcomes people are after.

 

Most of these MRAP vehicles are designed to be sacrificial (i.e. the vehicle is wrecked but the occupants aren't killed).

 

So you wont see a MRAP driving through a AT minefield surviving a bunch of detonations and delivering its passengers to their destination in good order, ready to fight.

 

Even if the vehicle "succeeds" and is destroyed/heavily damaged protecting its passengers, they are usually no longer combat effective anyway. They are dazed, shocked, bruised, etc. and for most of an average SB scenario would spend their time sorting themselves out, extracting the wounded, etc.

 

From a player's perspective those guys are "out of the game", regardless of whether they are killed outright or survive the explosion but are unable to contribute.

 

So I don't think you are going to see the MRAP get heavily damaged, the troops dismount and continue on as if nothing happened (as an extreme case). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. 

I found this little bit of info on the Mark2 from Wikipedia, not sure how accurate it is though.  It looks like it will be sweet for urban type scenerios, not so good for open fields as the above video would seem to imply

 

The Mark II was first introduced into general service in April 1983. While fundamentally the same as the Merkava Mark I, it incorporated numerous small adjustments as a result of the previous year's incursion into Lebanon. The new tank was optimized for urban warfare and low intensity conflicts, with a weight and engine no greater than the Mark I.[16]

The Mark II used the same 105 mm main gun and 7.62 mm machine guns as the Mark I, but the 60 mm mortar was redesigned during construction to be located within the hull and configured for remote firing to remove the need to expose the operator to enemy small-arms fire. An Israeli-designed automatic transmission and increased fuel storage for increased range was installed on all further Mark IIs. Anti-rocket netting was fitted for increased survivability against infantry equipped with anti-tank rockets. Many minor improvements were made to the fire-control system. Updated meteorological sensors, crosswind analyzers, and thermographic optics and image intensifiers gave greater visibility and battlefield awareness.

Newer versions of the original Mark II were designated:

  • Mark IIB, with thermal optics and unspecified updates to the fire control system.
  • Mark IIC, with more armor on the top of the turret to improve protection against attack from the air.
  • Mark IID, with modular composite armor on the chassis and turret, allowing rapid replacement of damaged armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: MRAPS.

 

I understand and agree with Gibsonm's point about onboard troops being rendered "combat ineffective" in the event of an encounter with a mine or IED. I get the fact that the sim handles a concussion the same as a decapitation.

And I also wouldn't want to see players using MRAPs in any sort of a gamey manner to get troops across a minefield, for example.

My peeve has been the effective 100 percent loss of borne troops 100 meters from a blast.  Being dismounted at that distance is just as "survivable" in the sim at present.

We might just as well transport troops in that odd golf-cart-like thingy in the video. Until the issue is addressed, these kewl MRAP models are essentially eye candy. Not that there's anything wrong with eye candy. Bring it on.

I do appreciate Ssnake's explanation of the 'why' though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing to remember about the Merkava is that it's effectively a Winnebago on tracks with a cannon.  She's got a thin hull and a narrow turret and is optimized for long term dug-in defensive engagements against an advancing foe.  Sure, she's got good mobility in rough terrain, but I would be cautious in using the Mk I or Mk II in most offensive situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poor old merkava didn't do so well in built up areas either.

infantry with PG-7VL to the side, and there goes the turret.

 

pooroldmerk.jpg

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAMMIT!!

But hey, look at those groovy fire effects.  Under the hull and even one of the wheels are glowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CalAB said:

DAMMIT!!

But hey, look at those groovy fire effects.  Under the hull and even one of the wheels are glowing.

 

The .50cal stayed intact too. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...