Jump to content

Request for a British Army Mod


FletchRDG

Recommended Posts

Perhaps the programmers could do a mod so that if you are working alongside the American Army,they could have the random fratricide factor built in,that would make it more realistic,so when your talk gets a hit on the rear end you know you got in front of an American tank.

As for cost,when has any army used common sense when spending money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

We do try. It is only when you have to work out the budgets etc for exercises etc that you realise how much it all costs. that you why as i said in my last post I am all in favour of usings sims. It is more of a question as to whether the UK MoD has been approached. In fact DRAC would be a btter place to start along with DInf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive not been on the forum for some time, partly because of the subject under discussion I hope you wont mind if I offer my opinion for what its worth.

Some years ago I was asked to spend some time assembling data on British equipment, so I think I know what is and what is not practicable in SB. I dont think Challenger2, unless it has the full support of BAE landsystems or the British MOD (or better both) Is possible to include in Steelbeasts, not yet anyway. Much of the data is known in most books, (I tracked down a surprising amount of data on the sights and functionality of sights in various books in my possession). The look of the thermal sights and the fire control functionality isnt a problem either, since ive got a Vickers Defence systems video that was created to sell Challenger2 at various trade shows. To my mind the problems were the armour (which IS a problem. Paul Lakowski has good estimates, but they are that, estimates) and the 3d model of the fighting compartment. A good friend of mine acquired some excellent imagery of the fighting compartment so no problem there in what it looks like. I understand the problem is measuring the fighting compartment, without which Dejawolf is going to have a hell of a job creating an accurate model of the fighting compartment. And I understand the MOD probably wont allow that, since it would reveal the thickness of the armour.Its also going to be a job to get soldiers who have used it to talk openly because of the official secrets act.

My own views are this.

1 Challenger 2 is doable, but only as an AI vehicle unless Esim have a hell of a lot more info and contacts than I think they have. If they did I dont think Dejawolf would be asking for line drawings since he would already have them.

2 For that reason I gave up researching it at an early stage. I say this even though a good friend of mine is working on a Challenger2 book, and was happy to let me have a lot of details. Im willing to be proven wrong, but I looked at it and I dont think I am. AI vehicle yes, crewable vehicle, no.

3 I looked at the next best thing which was Challenger1. Now I know a lot of people have a downer on this, but I will say not only did I research it for Esim (and Al had a copy of my summary since 2005) but ive also been working on a magazine article on the tank. The fire control is the area that puts most people off, but ive used a simulator of it and I dont find it more difficult to use than the one in the AS1. The point is that it worked, and it was accurate when used by skilled gunners. In the areas that mattered (armour, thermal sights, mobility) it was comparable with most of the Western tanks of its era so its hardly the pile of junk its critics claim. For those who say it is too old, I would point out that it is still a frontline tank in use with Jordan.

4 Armour estimates are still not easy to come by, but then so is that of any chobham armoured tank. Paul has some interesting estimates that seem to tally with that in British PRO records I have in my possession. Ive also taken photos with the Chobham boxes off the turret which makes estimating rather easier than with the Challenger2. Secondly measurements of the fighting compartment are available, since a Challenger 1 is in private hands in Britain and America, and in numerous museums. Lastly full manuals are available on the tank, including the user and the separate gunnery manual. If you look on tanknet you can even download them since I thoughtfully scanned them for Esim some years ago.

5 There is similarity in many respects between Challenger1 and 2. The charge bins look to be in the same place, so if you put a damage model together for Challenger1, it will if anything simplify things for Challenger 2 at a later date. You can also recycle much of the effort from modelling the hull, since again they are very similar. Even early models of the uparmour (pre Telic anyway) are identical between both tanks. Sounds are the same (and I know a friend, and myself, supplied these long ago). Additionally, sound affects for the gunner and commander will be the same. My view is going with Challenger1 first will make it a lot easier at a later date to do Challenger2.

I can see that this is not something that would be included inside of the next 2 or 3 years, so perhaps this is all a bit of a bit of an academic discussion. I just merely suggest that instead of doing a model for a tank that is going to be very difficult to assemble the data on, that it may be a good idea to do Challenger1 first, which IS doable and has already been researched by myself many years past. If anything the inclusion of that tank will generate more interest in British users AND members of the British army, which will make it a lot easier to do more complex subjects like Trojan, Titan and Warrior. Personally I think a better start would be scimitar, which many of the documents and details are already known (including armour estimates), and which has been (and still is) used by many other nations other than the UK. Not least Iran for that matter.

Just my view anyway, for what very little its worth. I wish Dejawolf and Esim luck in whatever they choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I note a couple of current and former British army members on this thread. If anyone has any views on Challenger1 and have any service anecdotes they would care to relate, I would appreciate hearing them. It would help my article no end, and I would care for a balanced view, warts and all. Many thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive not been on the forum for some time, partly because of the subject under discussion I hope you wont mind if I offer my opinion for what its worth

I expect you are quite right in that we will probably not see Challenger II,or any equipment on here for a few years.

The main reason that I have raised these comments is that voices other than Loe's or M1 operators should be heard on here,this is a forum.

Perhaps if DRAC was shown this simulator,and given an oppertunity to view its potential,he might consider it a worthwhile expenditure in the training budget.As an AFV crewman,I would have appreciated a simulator like this,although it was a fair few years ago that I served,the soldiers of today should be using this system now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well all views are welcome but the thing is the game needs more variation in vehicles. The Americans, Russians and Germans are on the game but what about the British and French,the best tanks and Armies should be Included in this game. It is a massive learning curve for crew members, Officers and even Generals/tacticians.

1. gives a chance to play with colleagues either in another country or in the regiment.

2. lets other armies recognise insignia marked on the tanks, to distinguish friend from foe.

3.It is much cheaper then the tank simulators that governments are buying today.

4.Air Forces aswell should be implemented as they work along side the armies.

5 to be able to co-ordinate attacks along side each other without entanglements.

6. it is cheap enough for soldiers to buy and take home, they could practice at home, maybe do a training programme.

7. also linked missions between Air Forces and Ground Forces.

8. Future game should implement Naval forces, ie submarine warfare, Surface warfare, etc,etc

I dont think Challenger2, unless it has the full support of BAE landsystems or the British MOD (or better both) Is possible to include in Steelbeasts, not yet anyway. Much of the data is known in most books, (I tracked down a surprising amount of data on the sights and functionality of sights in various books in my possession). The look of the thermal sights and the fire control functionality isnt a problem either, since ive got a Vickers Defence systems video that was created to sell Challenger2 at various trade shows.

I can see why it would be hard but you can get the information on the net. Its like the main gun, thats no secret no more. Everyone knows where its from, what its designated name is. so i dont see why the whole tank cant be done. Id preffer the challenger 2 because its up-to-date with the current on the game. you cant have the Abrams M1A1, the Leopard 2A4, the Leclerc, the Merkava Mk1-3, T-72/80 without the challenger 2, previous battle tanks wont be able to keep up interms of technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well all views are welcome but the thing is the game needs more variation in vehicles. The Americans, Russians and Germans are on the game but what about the British and French,the best tanks and Armies should be Included in this game. It is a massive learning curve for crew members, Officers and even Generals/tacticians.

1. gives a chance to play with colleagues either in another country or in the regiment.

2. lets other armies recognise insignia marked on the tanks, to distinguish friend from foe.

3.It is much cheaper then the tank simulators that governments are buying today.

4.Air Forces aswell should be implemented as they work along side the armies.

5 to be able to co-ordinate attacks along side each other without entanglements.

6. it is cheap enough for soldiers to buy and take home, they could practice at home, maybe do a training programme.

7. also linked missions between Air Forces and Ground Forces.

8. Future game should implement Naval forces, ie submarine warfare, Surface warfare, etc,etc

I dont think Challenger2, unless it has the full support of BAE landsystems or the British MOD (or better both) Is possible to include in Steelbeasts, not yet anyway. Much of the data is known in most books, (I tracked down a surprising amount of data on the sights and functionality of sights in various books in my possession). The look of the thermal sights and the fire control functionality isnt a problem either, since ive got a Vickers Defence systems video that was created to sell Challenger2 at various trade shows.

I can see why it would be hard but you can get the information on the net. Its like the main gun, thats no secret no more. Everyone knows where its from, what its designated name is. so i dont see why the whole tank cant be done. Id preffer the challenger 2 because its up-to-date with the current on the game. you cant have the Abrams M1A1, the Leopard 2A4, the Leclerc, the Merkava Mk1-3, T-72/80 without the challenger 2, previous battle tanks wont be able to keep up interms of technology.

The Challenger 2s guns recticule from photos looked disturbingly similar to that in the challenger 1 gunnery manual actually :) hardly surprising I guess, they both are rifles that fire HESH. Ive also got photos of the breech end of the XL28, one of the L30s prototypes. I agree, there is probably little about the gun thats secret, but aside from HESH which I gather ought to be identical to that fired by L11A5, I doubt there is much information about the APFDS rounds that it fires, or rather the penetration data related to it.

Clearly the fitment of the new Smoothbore gun is going to render a lot of information obsolete. But the armour package is unlikely to be changed, so I still dont think modelling the internal compartment will be that easy. Not impossible, there is a Challenger2 prototype on display at Bovington. How open Bovie will be to allow anyone to measure the interior is another matter. They dont seem to mind anoraks like me to measure the exterior though. :)

I saw how intricate the damage models actually are when Nils showed some of us at the 2006 ITEC show. It needs to be right, or its hardly going to send the right message to DRAC or anyone else. Thats why I suggest modelling a tank that CAN be modelled with a much higher degree of accuracy. And clearly many of those in senior positions cut their teeth in Challenger1, so its hardly going to put them off as a way of advertising the product. And its hardly going to make it more difficult to model Challenger2 later on.

Besides, another good reason why it ought to start with C1. Get the fire control right (and there is excellent documentation available, just like there isnt for Challenger2) and you use the same system for Chieftain and the Vickers3. you would essentially be getting 3 tanks for one, at least as far as the fire control is concerned.

I think many of those other elements you want are already provided by Armed Assault and VBS2. The latter the MOD has just bought, and they apparently are already getting Challenger developed for it. Not exactly an armour sim, but there are means I gather to network it with the British armys Catt sims to get more accurate results. IrishHussar could tell you a lot more about that.

BTW, good regiment. A good friend of mine was in it when it was called the 4/7th Dragoons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there is probably little about the gun thats secret, but aside from HESH which I gather ought to be identical to that fired by L11A5, I doubt there is much information about the APFDS rounds that it fires, or rather the penetration data related to it

ah ha, i have found a related webpage that contains info about APFSDS, theres 3 types of Ammunition, High explosive Squash Head (HESH), Armoured Piercing Fin-Stabalised discarding Sabot (APFSDS) and High Explosive (HE) rounds, each being described in detail and trajectory, and point of penatration. some russians have let it out and managed to right it in English. its very accurate tho the images look abit ancient lol

Clearly the fitment of the new Smoothbore gun is going to render a lot of information obsolete. But the armour package is unlikely to be changed, so I still dont think modelling the internal compartment will be that easy. Not impossible, there is a Challenger2 prototype on display at Bovington. How open Bovie will be to allow anyone to measure the interior is another matter. They dont seem to mind anoraks like me to measure the exterior though.

well they're alrite at bovi, they treated my dad well when he was training there as well as his training in caterick.

I saw how intricate the damage models actually are when Nils showed some of us at the 2006 ITEC show. It needs to be right, or its hardly going to send the right message to DRAC or anyone else. Thats why I suggest modelling a tank that CAN be modelled with a much higher degree of accuracy. And clearly many of those in senior positions cut their teeth in Challenger1, so its hardly going to put them off as a way of advertising the product. And its hardly going to make it more difficult to model Challenger2 later on.

well i guess it wont be hard to change the Chal1 to Chal2, just a turret change and an updated interior.

BTW, good regiment. A good friend of mine was in it when it was called the 4/7th Dragoons

ah my dad joined the 4th/7th RDGs a few years before it was amalgamated with the 5th Inniskilling Dragoon Guards in '96. Ive got a few friends in that regiment aswell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the fitment of the new Smoothbore gun is going to render a lot of information obsolete. But the armour package is unlikely to be changed, so I still dont think modelling the internal compartment will be that easy. Not impossible, there is a Challenger2 prototype on display at Bovington. How open Bovie will be to allow anyone to measure the interior is another matter. They dont seem to mind anoraks like me to measure the exterior though. :)

Besides, another good reason why it ought to start with C1. Get the fire control right (and there is excellent documentation available, just like there isnt for Challenger2) and you use the same system for Chieftain and the Vickers3. you would essentially be getting 3 tanks for one, at least as far as the fire control is concerned.

Re: MAIN GUN

Oh contrare, when they switch to the Smoothbore, Esim will already have the models and the stats, what with the leo 2A6 sharing the same gun...

Re: FCS

:clap: One for Charlie 1

:clap: :clap: Two for Chieftain

Vickers Mk 3 whatever that is, (its a Upgraded Centurion, Export only)

I hope one day we can go real old school and have Centurions, Leo 1 (original) And T54-55s.

And heres an idea Ssnake, T34, Shermans and Tigers?

Steel Beasts 1940 or something like that.

(for when you guys have a spare year or two :mrgreen:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well that would be going backward too far but i can see where your going with this, why not go back in time aswell. 1950s, 1940s, 1914-18,lets go back to the beginning.Bring in Every Armoured vehicle in the history of tanks. the 1st tanks are so easy to research and make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My god, can you lads stop debating this shit all over and do something constructive?

Okey right now there is 2 problems right?

1. Armament and its ammos penetrations

2. Armour values

WHAT CAN WE DO TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEMS? (I dont know what you guys have been learned but I have been learned to solve problems and issues, its not like this is fucking impossible)

1. Armament and its ammos penetrations

-well the frigging gun has been fired by many gunners, someone who is or has been a gunner must be able to get good pics of the reticle and all that stuff, like hey, my friends photographed the whole interior of the 121 (Leo2A4) just like that, they had digital cams with them on exercises etc etc so somebody must be able to get good shots of the interior?

-Ammo capabilitys, same thing here, ffs there has been allot of rounds fired downrange, someone must know or have a way to find "official" (in other words not secret) figures on penetration values or they could be figured out from other known facts.

2. Armour values. there seems to be some info out already as paul manage to do a estimation right? so more should be possible to find. and that bovington example, contact the guys and ask if you can measure the interior for a game? cant get more then a No?

If you want to see your loved british stuff in the game then do something ffs, just dont sit here and say its frigging impossible (and thats another thing ive learned, NOTHING is impossible, the impossible just take longer time to acomplish)

SO now use your excellent brains to solve this problems, OK?

/KT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is there is an awful lot of stuff that ISNT considered when people say 'lets put a challenger 2 in'. How fast is the turret traverse? What kind of elevation can you put the gun into? How fast does the fire control take to get a solution, how quick is it to reload the main gun, how quick is it to reload the Coax, how often does it jam, what is the gear ratio etc etc etc. This is why continued access to an operational tank AND access to a crewman who knows his stuff can be quite important.

I accept there is a lot of information on the net about the L30, particularly ammunition estimates. But I emphasise that, they are just estimates. This is contrary to the L11A5, which for at least the AP round, information IS known. Its also possible to go out and ask someone who used the system how it worked, with the Challenger2/L30 combination you would have to go through hoops to get the information you require from the MOD.

Its true the smoothbore is going to make some things easier as far as ammunition is concerned. However there will have to be modifications to the fire control, and clearly ammunition stowage is going to be altered, perhaps even to a turret stowage. That would mean that any information already assembled on Challenger2 will in short order prove obsolescent. And that includes all the interior photography already assembled.

I just point out that rather than go through all that, Ive already done the asessment for Challenger1, which is why it strikes me as a better starting point than Challenger2 for all kinds of reason. On the other hand we are probably discussing stuff that wont become relievant for quite a long time. I dont see Esim being able to start this without clearing what presumably is a pretty extensive military order book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well lets all just say with a nudge in the right direction and lots of persuation, Esims can score that contract quickly with the MoD or even BAE Land Systems.The sooner they pass on the specs, the quicker it will arrive on SBPP.

i think if anyone here is currently serving in the British Army to perhaps show the game to their RHQ,give them a demo and maybe they can pass on the information.

I would do it my self but i have the previous SBGE game and wouldnt be quite as good the recent SBPP version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well that would be going backward too far but i can see where your going with this, why not go back in time aswell. 1950s, 1940s, 1914-18,lets go back to the beginning.Bring in Every Armoured vehicle in the history of tanks. the 1st tanks are so easy to research and make.

I recieved an email from Stuart,who put our discussion into the correct context.Esims is a commercial enterprise,and they have to make it profitable,so they are currently concerned with working on their contracts,not what is on our 'wish for list'.

This simulator is still in the development stage,and I'm sure as it continues to develope,other nice things will happen but untill then we will have to wait.

As for Kingtiger,I think he is having a sulk because we dont want to play with him anymore,perhaps someone should put his dummy back in his mouth so we can have some peace.

I remember the 4/7 Dragoon Guards well,Fletch,they were the training regiment at Catterick when I did my recruit and afv training.Happy days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true but there must be some way of hiding the specs. Even so the british will get more recognition if they allowed it to happen. IF Esims sign a contract to say they will hide or even disguard the specs after construction of the vehicles i think everyone will be happy, we get the challenger 2 and Co and the MoD keeps the specs hush hush, everyones a winner.

Originally posted by Hugh47

I remember the 4/7 Dragoon Guards well,Fletch,they were the training regiment at Catterick when I did my recruit and afv training.Happy days!

My dad was learning to drive either the chieftain or the Challenger 1 MBT in catterick, it was 1987 at the time so it could be either. I had good times with that regiment, most of my closest friends have joined that regiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true but there must be some way of hiding the specs. Even so the british will get more recognition if they allowed it to happen. IF Esims sign a contract to say they will hide or even disguard the specs after construction of the vehicles i think everyone will be happy, we get the challenger 2 and Co and the MoD keeps the specs hush hush, everyones a winner.

My dad was learning to drive either the chieftain or the Challenger 1 MBT in catterick, it was 1987 at the time so it could be either. I had good times with that regiment, most of my closest friends have joined that regiment.

So just to summarise Fletch you are not serving, nor have you served in the RDGs and you dont possess a copy of PRO PE??

Irish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true but there must be some way of hiding the specs. Even so the british will get more recognition if they allowed it to happen. IF Esims sign a contract to say they will hide or even disguard the specs after construction of the vehicles i think everyone will be happy, we get the challenger 2 and Co and the MoD keeps the specs hush hush, everyones a winner.

The problem with modelling accurate specs is that any country that dos'nt like your vehicle will use the program to test their equipment,current or future,against the computer model.It's a very cheap way to do it,remember when we paid some Russians 1Million dollars for one of their tanks when the Berlin Wall came down,$125 is mutch cheaper.

Apologies for not being able to use this messaging well,I'm not a computer expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just to summarise Fletch you are not serving, nor have you served in the RDGs and you dont possess a copy of PRO PE??

Irish

Why should you be asking questions like that in an open forum,it is bad manners at the very least,and I dont like it,either apologise or f**k off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Irish here. There are a number of us who are currently serving or have served and I for one do not appreciate the tone that is being used by some of the more junior members. This Furum is not the NAFFI BAR on the ARRSE Forum and up until now discussions have been maintained with the correct level of civility. I would request that this contiues. There is no need for fowl language in this forum - besides it does not set a good example to younger members. I request that this ceases forthwith. I am a member of the British Army and am more than familier with the banter but this is starting to step over the mark into blatant rudness.

Members such as KT have worked hard to produce skins to replicate UK vehs using what is available within the Sim and for that I, Irish, Scots DG, Stalin etc are more than grateful. Besides the use of the Leo 2A4 or A5 in terms of fire control is very similar to that of Challenger 2.

I hear Stuart66's remarks to modelling CR1 initially, however CR1 and CR2 may look similar in many respects but BAe systems will be the first to tell you that CR2 is a completly new Veh in comparisson to CR1. CR1 is effectivly Cheiften in a new body - mutton dressed as lamb!

We are quite right to remember that ESim Games are a commercial profit making company. Military contract produce more money for them than the gaming community. ESim may get a contract with the UK MOD but I would not be surprised if part of the contract is to change the details for the public domain. If the armour is downgraded for the game version then great. Any insurgent or potential enemy who want to conduct R&D through a game is more than welcome as when they come to use it for real they may well find that CR2 is better protected and gives a bigger punch in firepower than they were expecting. So please crack on!

Finally I am putting a small note together for the CoC on the benefits of classroom based network PC based simulation and would be grateful is SSnakle Deja or any one in the know could let me know which nations currently use SBPro (Spain, Aus, Canada etc) as a training aide.

Many thanks and rant out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just to summarise Fletch you are not serving, nor have you served in the RDGs and you dont possess a copy of PRO PE??

Irish

no i have not served, and no I do not have the SBPP but I am intending on getting it and My father served, this is were al my studies and observations have steamed from. I love tanks, its my obsession. I was born into that Regiment, most of those serving now ive lived around most my life so to be honest i really dont need a lecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by:CharlieB

Finally I am putting a small note together for the CoC on the benefits of classroom based network PC based simulation and would be grateful is SSnakle Deja or any one in the know could let me know which nations currently use SBPro (Spain, Aus, Canada etc) as a training aide.

as far as i know sir US Army, the german army and the russians ( nearly wrote soviets) Army are on the game, with Mods of different countries of course ( ie greek woodland camo, swedish woodland camo, British woodland/desert camo, etc, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fletch,

Many thanks but to correctly inform the process i need to to know which armed forces currently employ SB as their classroom based trainer. I am aware of the Mods etc that as included in the game as I am a regular user. Mods are not to be relied upon as for instance US Equipment is included but as I understand this is a hangover from the original SB and the US do not use curretly use the software for training - hence no M1A2!

Those I am aware of are Canada, Australia and Spain (hence the work on the Spanish IFV which can be seen in the gallery section. Russia is not a user hence all the OPFOR vehs are not crewable.

I know Deja has been following this thread and I am sure he will be able to shed light on this. SSnake would also be able to finally put the "British Mod" issue to bed.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...