Jump to content

SB Pro PE 2.5x - News


Ssnake
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Not really correct. Most M60A3s were built with a searchlight. Early versions had the AN/VSS-1, whilst later versions built as Passives from the factory came with AN/VSS-3As. Some of the VSS-1 tanks which were upgraded to Passives also received the VSS-3A, whilst others simply removed the searchlight entirely.

When the TTS (Tank Thermal Sight) upgrade came out for the US Army in 1980, 1,686 were built like that new from the factory, and 3,600 were conversions of M60A3 Passives. At that point the searchlight was almost always removed. Similarly another 114 were retrofits of M60A1 Passives to TTS standard.

As a result, the vast majority of M60A3s in service outside of the US have searchlights, unless they've shelled out for a TTS upgrade or something similar from another country.

To further confuse the issue, as the M60A1s received the Passive upgrade, the searchlight was often removed. Particularly so in the case of the US Marines, as they used the tank fitted with ERA, which took the same space as the searchlight mounting.

Probably the best visual indicator is the thermal sleeve, or lack of it. M60A3s had them, M60A1s didn't. Of course, that's probably a very easy retrofit, but as the USMC photo shows, not a given.

NTM

ok. so i guess the tank in SB is the M60A3(TTS) then. i should've read my hunnicutt book a bit more carefully. at least i didn't put the aluminium roadwheels on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1st model I ever built was an MPC 1/72 scale B-17G at age 6 in 1974. My 2nd was a Tamiya 1/32 M60A1. I loved the 0.50 cal cupola turret and liked the search light, too. The M60A3 in this sim still has the cupola turret, which is really cool. But my eyes still can't get used to an M60 without the search light box. I used to play out early 80's armor battles in 1/285 miniatures of M1A1s and M60A3s versus T-72M1s and T-80As in the late 80's. I just recently threw away all of my old bookshelf wargames including my 1/285 miniatures that had gotten beat up over years of traveling. This sim is an excellent replacement for almost all of my armor miniature rule sets. My main concern and reason for not buying this sim earlier is my limited free time, which I mostly spend playing flight sims and sometimes the OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 series. But my fondness for M60A1s versus the M60A3s in the 2.5x release has finally sealed the deal for me :)

As for M60A2s, I used to despise them. But as I grew more and more interested in pre-M1 Abrams cold war era armor scenarios, the A2 became pretty significant depending on how well the missile worked. Eventually, I got used to its looks. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it in this sim. Of course, depsite its bad reputation, I ended up loving the other 152mm monstrosity - the M551 Sheridan. What could be cooler than an airmobile light tank with the same firepower of an MBT (M60A2)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is the M1 since there is an interior already. The bad news is : this an old interior compared to what have been done thereafter.

The other solutions is the M60, an American MBT and thus is more likely to be done (possibility to have permission to take photos; systems not very different of what is already there) than a British or Russian vehicle although T-55 or T-62 have been captured during 1991 and 2003 and it is certainly possible to have picture to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are still 20 days away from the release.

E-Simgames legitime marketing strategy gives us the release information in continuos but little bits. We may like it or not but it is just a legitime marketing strategy.

So far Ssnake has been giving us contant, almost daily new information or tips.

And I have to say that what I have seen on the info bits released by Ssnake is really exciting and interesting, surely a major upgrade despite we do not have all the information yet.

I do not think that by posting endessly about "tell us the crewables!!!!!! " we are going to get more information. :debile2:

I know it is hard but I guess we just need to be patient.

Face it, he would let us know the rest of the information whenever they think it is more convenient, not a minute earlier. :debile2:

So I suggest we all sit down and relax, enjoy the daily new tips and news we get and start the countdown for the 21st.

You will not change nothing this way other than being happier and more relaxed. :)

It is just a relaxed friendly advice :) Enjoy the Summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purchasing the M1 was easily justified given the record of the M60A1. Its silhouette was huge, its armor too thin, and estimates of T-64/T-72 armor and firepower implied the M60 would face the same kind of problems the M4 Sherman had against German tanks, but would be outnumbered by at least 4 or 5 to 1. Israeli combat experience exposed additional weaknesses in maintenance and reliability. I would say the worst problem was its vulnerability to just about any anti-armor weapon available all the way down to RPGs. Clearly, Chobham armored tanks set new precedents for survivability that make them a revolutionary step in tank design unlike the evolutionary M47/M48/M60 series.

But for all of its flaws, its main gun was a solid weapon. Updated targeting systems and ammunition made it a decent threat against T-72s and T-80s since it could hit and kill them reliably outside of the effective range of their guns/targeting systems as also proven by Israeil experience. US Marines only lost 1 in the one big battle their M60A1s faced in Desert Storm.

If the classic Fulda Gap scenario had occurred, what would have been the results of M60A1s trying to hold back the Soviet horde? Post cold war information indicates Soviet numbers for front line equipment numbers and capabilities were somewhat inflated. The total number of tanks available were easily as high as US/NATO estimates claimed, but significant percentages of them were obsolete tanks like T-55s or at best T-62s. I think it would have come down to training, tactics, and crew quality. Unfortunately, US doctrines believed Soviet forces were unstoppable and therefore planned fighting withdrawals all the way back to Spain if necessary. The arrival of the M1 not only gave the US a world class tank, but gave the US Army the confidence to implement the aggressive Airland Battle 2000 doctrine of taking the war to the enemy.

So therein lies what I like to game out: Fulda gap using 1970s doctrine versus standard Soviet tactics using M60A1s and M113s compared to mid 1980s M1s and M2/M3s versus almost identical Soviet fromations. Then, using M60A3 quailty tanks in both situations. With the support of AH-64s and A-10s per Airland Battle 2000 doctrine, M60A3s with stabilized guns and thermal imaging for night combat should be almost as successful as M-1s. Perhaps the M60A3s would take higher casualties, but I think their capabilities would negate the need for a fighting withdrawal. Post Desert Storm/Iraq Invasion experience would seem to indicate the logistics of keeping M1s fueled might even make M60A3s a better choice for trying to cover more ground as having a better suspension and higher average speed is worthless if you have to park and wait for fuel trucks :)

I shutter to think what it would have been like to be an M60A2 crew trying to hold the line. Even if the Shillelagh missiles worked as well as originally hoped, their rate of fire would have been too low and close in and outnumbered, they would have probably been rolled over by the T-62/T-64/T-72 hordes. If the M1 was a good reason to have an offensive strategy, the M60A2 was a good reason to withdraw to Spain. I would still like to see it modeled to try to do the job with what was in the field at the time.

Edited by streakeagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for all of its flaws, its main gun was a solid weapon. Updated targeting systems and ammunition made it a decent threat against T-72s and T-80s since it could hit and kill them reliably outside of the effective range of their guns/targeting systems as also proven by Israeil experience. US Marines only lost 1 in the one big battle their M60A1s faced in Desert Storm.

Right, but at the airport, they f aced T-55s, not T-80s. Plus you have the problem that after the Cold War ended, target practice on acquired vehicles indicated the 105mm ammunition could -not- reliably kill T-72 from the front, at least until DU ammo came out. I have a feeling that when T-72Bs are squaring off against M60A3s or Leopard 1s that there are going to be a lot of bouncing rounds.

NTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been reported at least one captured Iraqi T-55 specimen with upgraded standoff armor was known to have survived multiple Milan-class missile hits- in general though ODS probably compares much differently to Europe.

By the time Khafji and the ground phase of ODS kicked, the Iraqis were more or less blind and completely cut off from higher level headquarters. The best they could do was react to a situation, for Iraq out in the featureless deep desert it was always like a meeting engagement, whereas generally the Coalition knew where the enemy positions were and could choose where to pick them off. Despite the large stocks of Iraq equipment in the whole theatre, many times it was the case the Iraqis including the RG divisions were tactically outnumbered and were just taken apart piecemeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been reported at least one captured Iraqi T-55 specimen with upgraded standoff armor was known to have survived multiple Milan-class missile hits- in general though ODS probably compares much differently to Europe.

By the time Khafji and the ground phase of ODS kicked, the Iraqis were more or less blind and completely cut off from higher level headquarters. The best they could do was react to a situation, for Iraq out in the featureless deep desert it was always like a meeting engagement, whereas generally the Coalition knew where the enemy positions were and could choose where to pick them off. Despite the large stocks of Iraq equipment in the whole theatre, many times it was the case the Iraqis including the RG divisions were tactically outnumbered and were just taken apart piecemeal.

the iraqis weren't just tactically outnumbered. on the whole, they had about 1200 more tanks, but the iraqi air force was outnumbered 3 to 1.

also, they only had about 1000 T-72s, the rest were chinese T-55 knockoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Nils can you please tell us which one is the misterious vehicle that maybe is crewable in the update?

A little impatient, are we? ;) If anyone hasn't figured it out yet, Ssnake is not going to spill certain beans until the appropriate time. It is an exercise of futility to keep asking, just sit back and let it come to you (it is easier that way anyway)...

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...