Jump to content

Very dumb question from someone who has been playing on and off since 2015, regarding newer vehicles/ammo types


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I don't visit these forums regularly; I created an account in 2015 out of curiosity when I first began purchasing time-limited licenses to play every so often.

 

I've tried searching the answer via google as well as the forums and not found one that really solves this for me. Why does the vehicle/unit/ammo lineup largely end at 2005?

 

I understand that there are many potential reasons. Information of any source and any real credibility is pretty limited on newer vehicles. Militaries aren't likely to submit accurate information regarding their vehicle's capabilities, even if they're mostly retired. And the dev team doesn't have a big incentive to keep making newer vehicles considering the sheer amount of hours, resources and more hours that have to go into representing and modelling these things.

 

But I won't say I'm not a little confused and disappointed with how little the content lineup has changed in 7 years time. The latest (production) tank available in Pro PE is the T-90S for Russia (2005), followed right behind by the Leopard 2A6, with the M1A2 SEPV1 (1998) and Challenger 2 trailing well behind. The T-14 and T-15 Armata vehicles were introduced recently, which, for me, caused some head scratching; as these vehicles are still not in serial production as I type this, with estimates of actual production for the T14 being between 7 (most conservative, per Victory Day Parade sightings) and 20 (initial batch order). If it's time and resources that are in short supply, I genuinely don't get why we're seeing these, if I may describe them charitably, vaporware tanks when there are upgraded models of nearly every Western MBT that would likely require much less model work to show (later M1A2 SEP variants or even just the SEP v1 with certain "less visible" upgrades from later models, Challenger 2 upgrade packs, Leo 2A6+/7, etc). This doesn't touch Bradley, Warrior, Marder and BMP variants that are newer than the late 80s models.

 

Again I would really just like to understand the reasons for a lack of more contemporary units and if there are plans to upgrade the ones we currently have, even if models + interiors have to remain largely the same with just "less" visible aspects changed.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, which contemporary tanks and munitions are you missing?

If the Armatas are "too new" and the M1A2 and Leopard 2A6 are not contemporary enough for your taste, that would leave China, Pakistan, and Turkey as countries with relatively recent developments. Here the information is harder to come by - not impossible I suppose - but above all, a lot of our development is driven by what our army customers order, and most of them focus on the European theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's not to say that we exclusively work for army orders. Playable T-72, BMP-2, Challenger, T-55, T-62, Marder, BTR, BRDM, M60A3, ... never had a military demand behind them, and we made them anyway. But when 80% of all development hours are being consumed by development contracts, that limits how much extra work we can do (while working on a new engine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, uh, I was kind of hoping to see the M1A2C/D due to their improved optics, better ammunition (M892A4, M1147) APS, and armor improvements as well as the fact that they'd be what would be fighting the Armata if they were ever actually serially produced. As well as, of course, the T-72B3/T-90M/Etc. Some of the Challenger and Leo upgrades would also be interesting to see as well as the very numerous IFV variants that have popped up since 1990.

 

And I'm not Italian or anything but I would be interested to see how the Centauro 2 plays.

 

Thanks. @Ssnake

Edited by Richardguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Well, the T-72B3 will be part of version 4.3

 

That much at least I can confirm.

Can we expect newer models of the Aybrams and the newer ammunition to counter them as well? Plans in the near future or sooner out?

 

Thanks a bunch for that update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No immediate plans for the Abrams family. The US Army isn't as good as a customer as one might hope for, so maintaining that line is one of the tasks that we have to squeeze into the rather narrow gaps of our general workplan.

To say it bluntly, our priority is work on the new engine. Everything else is a distraction from the important task; some of these distractions are necessary or mandatory (but they are distractions nevertheless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see a Chinese MBT as AI. And Maybe an APC

Actually some branching out in other AI units.

India, Pakistan, Iran North and South Korea, Japan etc.

 

I'm surprised your customers haven't been switching their focus more towards Asia.

At least yet. I suspect it's coming.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

I'm surprised your customers haven't been switching their focus more towards Asia.

Denmark's desire for a land war in East Asia are, as far as I'm informed, limited. A comparable aspiration level can be assumed for Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain - all of which constitute our main military customers. Australia seems to be happy with what fits their Opfor manual.

Also, if you remember the news, on February 24th 2022 the European perspective shifted towards Russia. So, I suspect that it will not shift as rapidly towards East Asia as you might hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They have the "DATE Redbook" where most equipment is Russian/Soviet origin. For a good while Chinese tanks were derivative enough to keep using them as stand-ins. Admittedly, that logic no longer applies. Then again, armies rarely prepare for The War, but A War instead. As long as other tanks match the capabilities within acceptable margins, the urgeny may be less pronounced than one might think.

 

Case in point, I'm largely disinterested in hand weapons. They can all kill you, their working principle is largely the same and hasn't changed dramatically over the last 70 years.

That doesn't prevent a lot of people to express their keen interest in seeing a lot of different hand guns represented in Steel Beasts and even more so in egoshooters. Whether they really make much of a difference from a simulation perspective is up for debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Denmark's desire for a land war in East Asia are, as far as I'm informed, limited. A comparable aspiration level can be assumed for Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain - all of which constitute our main military customers. Australia seems to be happy with what fits their Opfor manual.

Also, if you remember the news, on February 24th 2022 the European perspective shifted towards Russia. So, I suspect that it will not shift as rapidly towards East Asia as you might hope for.

Aren't Britain, France and Germany main military customers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, F.T said:

Aren't Britain, France and Germany main military customers?

I'd be surprised if France military was part of the customer base;  we looooove to do things ourselves, even if we have to pay (a lot of) extra money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the countries which share a border with china and most likely to get involved in a skirmish are historical adversaries vietnam and india. the other possibility is war with north korea, which drags the PLA into it.

 

apart from that, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where china and the united states and australia go to war with tanks on china's mainland or in australia, either there is no political reason for it on either side, or nuclear weapons makes the sorts of options limited and unlikely.

 

territorial disputes with japan, taiwan or malaysia and the philippenes are the next likely scenarios- but here too these imply amphibious operations and particularly if the united states gets involved, the fighting really will involved their respective navies and swarms of sea and shore based ballistic missiles.

 

don't get me wrong, for a sandbox simulation i would like to have as many options as possible to create that sort of matchup with say PLA expeditionary forces and not worry about the plausibility so much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other possibility is Russia vs China. They are claiming to be best Buds right now but I'm not fully convinced.

Especially if China thought it could recover some of it's lost territory from Russia.

There are tensions between Japan and both Russia and China as well.

The most likely is China vs Taiwan or India I think.

I also don't think you would see Western troops defending Taiwan. Maybe Western equipment though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi @Ssnake

 

I read the posts you wrote in response to my earlier questions and I appreciate that. I do have another question regarding the penetration value given for the 25mm Bushmaster's HE round in SB Pro PE.

 

I'm asking for some changes to be made in a user mod in a game featuring the Bradley and in its current state the M792 round is being treated as an "explode on contact" projectile, with almost no effect against anything with a sliver of armor, including the BRDM-2 and armored technicals. The mod creator is happy to change these values if I can find a source but at the moment I can only find marketing material for my claims. Do you have any reading available for this cartridge? Fully understand if it's all classified and can't be touched.

 

Thanks,

 

Richard.

 

Edited by Richardguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not even sure if I understand your question.

If you want us to change the properties of the round, there's a small but non-zero chance that you can convince me to do so if you make your case and back it up with something other than gut feeling or "someone on the internet said so".

 

If you want to change the properties of ammunition, you can't.

(In the highly unlikely case that you actually can, note the end-user license agreement conditions that you mustn't. But we're always interested in talented programmers.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not even sure if I understand your question.

If you want us to change the properties of the round, there's a small but non-zero chance that you can convince me to do so if you make your case and back it up with something other than gut feeling or "someone on the internet said so".

 

If you want to change the properties of ammunition, you can't.

(In the highly unlikely case that you actually can, note the end-user license agreement conditions that you mustn't. But we're always interested in talented programmers.)

Hi no, that's not what I was asking.

 

It's to ask the source or material behind the 35mm penetration given to the M792 round in-game to change something in a user mod in another game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ah.

HE values must not be misinterpreted as RHA equivalent perforation limits. Their highly scientific unit is "bang", and by and large we're no longer using those values anymore, anyway. But we keep them for their comparative value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Ah.

HE values must not be misinterpreted as RHA equivalent perforation limits. Their highly scientific unit is "bang", and by and large we're no longer using those values anymore, anyway. But we keep them for their comparative value.

Do they have any armor penetration capabilities at all? Say 10mm RHA? 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is not easy to answer.

If the round has a delayed fuze, the sheer kinetic energy could allow the projectile to perforate a thin steel plate. The delay cant't be too great because the projectile will eventually deform and shatter, and generally you want a base detonator for this ... which is generally a no go for the smaller of the medium calibers (such as 25mm).

So, impact fuze it is, possibly with a minor delay (<5ms).

 

Now, I've seen a PT-76, which is almost as thinly armored as it gets, with 25mm HE round marks. These created scars from the fragment, obviously, and made a round dent (of 25mm, as it happened). Similar to golf ball dimples. More than scratching the paint, but not much more.

 

It's somewhat different with more brittle materials such as cinderblocks, of course. Rebar concrete on the othe hand, wellll....

 

And let's not even start talking about shockwave reflections and (partial) confinement.

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...