Jump to content

AVEPS for all vehicles?


Recommended Posts

Hello guys,

Just wanted to ask if it would be possible to implement AVEPS as an option on all vehicles?  I realize that it is not *visually* modeled for everything it's enabled for and that's fine, but I wonder if we can't get it as an option?  It has occurred to me that it might perhaps help when trying to use existing vehicles as a substitute for others.

 

For example, the existing M60A3 might be forced into use as an M60 Sabra substitute for certain scenarios and having AVEPS on it might somewhat help with that, etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

We put it on as many vehicles as possible before the PE release. Given enough time we will eventually get around to put it on most vehicles (e.g. impossible to do for motorcycles, obviously), but for those vehicles where it's missing it simply wasn't possible to do it right away for a variety of reasons, so I can but ask for your patience as we resolve these cases one after another.

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

Given enough time we will eventually get around to put it on most vehicles

 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

but for those vehicles where it's missing it simply wasn't possible to do it right away for a variety of reasons, so I can but ask for your patience as we resolve these cases one after another.

That makes sense and that's fine.  For a moment I was concerned that the team decided to simply affix it to newer vehicles and simply leave out the old ones, but as I'm sure you're well aware with all the swapping around and substituting we do for certain scenarios it will be good to have all around.  You might never see an M60A3, M1IP, T-62, T-72M or T-64B fitted with it in the real world, but it could be interesting to have for use as stand ins like I said. 

 

I'm already thinking that the M1IP with AVEPS might make a good K1A2 for Korean scenarios, etc...I think the SK camo selection even puts South Korean camo on the M1/M1IP already...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. To me, AVePS is a suitable stand-in for launcher based medium-long distance intercept ADS, and as such highly attractive to put on as many vehicles as possible to study the survivability effect that you can get out of it for aging vehicle platforms. Let's face it, the Leopard 2 turned 40 three months ago, it too is an aging platform.

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

Let's face it, the Leopard 2 turned 40 three months ago, it too is an aging platform.

In many ways it is, and so is the M1 Abrams series.  Personally I feel that both are based on fundamentally sound concepts, although I admit I feel that their development has somewhat stagnated or perhaps even regressed.

 

Leopard 2 has done nothing to deal with the vulnerability of it's hull ammo stowage, although this has perhaps until recently been thought of as less important.  Even switching to a smaller number of internal, individual, armored stowage tubes like the Merkava would be a huge improvement.

 

The M1A1/SA Abrams with it's various improvements like the SCWS system for the TC has advanced quite a bit in capability, yet the M1A2 SEP seems to get taller and wider with every addition.  One of the big things with the M1 was, originally, to keep the profile LOW, and now we have a giant CROWS mount sticking out of the roof?

 

That's great for low intensity urban warfare but what about when you're stalking the countryside of Europe looking for T-90s?  Why doesn't the A2 move to a system more like SCWS?  The TC can use his own gun/cupola/TIS to find targets, and then the loader can spend down time using the CITV to join in the search.

 

Back to the topic of APS, I like the addition of Trophy to the Abrams but I admit I wonder why they stuck it outboard of the stowage boxes and not instead of them to keep the turret profile narrow?  Add on to the bustle rack in the rear and keep the frontal profile minimal.  But again that goes back to my complaint about profile getting bigger/taller...

 

 

Back on topic, yes, there's going to be quite a bit to learn from being able to easily tack on AVEPS in ProPE.

I've already stuck it on a T-72B1 m.1985 and gone head to head with a T-90S, and the results were quite surprising.  It has me wondering how the T72B1 with and without Kontakt-1 would compare to the T-80U with Kontakt-5 ERA...And perhaps it it might be possible to use one of the player T-72s fitted with AVEPS as a stop-gap stand in for advanced OPFOR tanks, or perhaps as platoon leader vehicles for platoons of T-80U's or T-90's to allow for player control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 4:17 AM, Maj.Hans said:

The M1A1/SA Abrams with it's various improvements like the SCWS system for the TC has advanced quite a bit in capability, yet the M1A2 SEP seems to get taller and wider with every addition.  One of the big things with the M1 was, originally, to keep the profile LOW, and now we have a giant CROWS mount sticking out of the roof?

The CROWS is not likely to be present in a high intensity war; its mainly for insurgency situations / low intensity conflicts, because you wouldn't be hiding in battle positions, because it wouldn't be possible to obtain a "turret down" hide position at all. The same is true for the TUSK kit - it likely wouldn't be present in a high intensity conventional war, unless an armored unit was assigned to clear an urban area for some strange reason (modern conventional warfare doctrine calls for urban areas to be bypassed).  Certain upgrades and attachments are given, depending on the mission, just like how every single tank wouldn't have a mine plow. Its similarly true for various attachments on the Leopard 2 as well.

 

So the issues you describe are less to do with the tanks age, and more to do with the specific mission assigned to the tank (and the fact that missions are being assigned to these tanks that it wasn't designed for).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Volcano said:

The CROWS is not likely to be present in a high intensity war; its mainly for insurgency situations / low intensity conflicts, because you wouldn't be hiding in battle positions, because it wouldn't be possible to obtain a "turret down" hide position at all. The same is true for the TUSK kit - it likely wouldn't be present in a high intensity conventional war, unless an armored unit was assigned to clear an urban area for some strange reason (modern conventional warfare doctrine calls for urban areas to be bypassed).  Certain upgrades and attachments are given, depending on the mission, just like how every single tank wouldn't have a mine plow. Its similarly true for various attachments on the Leopard 2 as well.

 

So the issues you describe are less to do with the tanks age, and more to do with the specific mission assigned to the tank.

 

As this is true for the SEPV2’s. The V3’s baseline are coming with the CROWS-LP, CREW 3 system and the RVSS installed already. I guess it would be up to the units SOP if they decided to remove these components but would be more of a pain and could cause issues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well, the various versions of the CROWS seem to be getting smaller in profile, so maybe its not so much an issue like it used to be.

 

Then again, this is a new generation of tankers and commanders who don't really know much other than insurgency warfare, which is something that the Army is urgently trying to correct by refocusing training and doctrine back to conventional threats. It likely wouldn't take long to discover that the RWS needs to be removed from the tank once any conventional war began, at least until they develop an RWS has a similar profile to the old .50 cal mount.

 

As an older tanker from the M1A1 days, the mounting of a tall RWS on a tank is sacrilege (although it does make perfect sense in an insurgency), though I guess we won't really know how much it actually gives away the M1's location in a conventional war until a newer M1A2 variant with it is added to SB. ;)

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

As an older tanker from the M1A1 days, the mounting of a tall RWS on a tank is sacrilege

This is why I am more interested in the SCWS system.  Wish we could get one simulated in Pro PE.  All the benefits of the CROWS and the CITV, but rolled into a single low profile package.

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...