Jump to content
Pigmachine

No M1A1 love in the update?

Recommended Posts

3D gunner, and clickable switches? It's the tank that's been in steelbeast for the longest time.. or am I wrong?

I started playing around with it a few weeks ago, and really like it. And since it's a , probably, more used tank that the STV122, I thought I learn it, and love it.

You already have the 3D view http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Image:M1A1%28HA%29_gunners_position.jpg from the TC view, why not use it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No army using SB is interested in the M1 so why should there be any effort being spent on its interior? Especially since there are still a number of non-simulated Leopard versions..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No army using SB is interested in the M1 so why should there be any effort being spent on its interior?

Yes, the reasoning behind what vehicles get added or upgraded has been discussed many times. Even so, your comment lead me to sympathize with the OP all the more.

Personally, I look forward to U.S. and Russian hardware upgrades and additions the most and I use the M1 almost exclusively despite the plethora of other vehicles at my disposal, well, since SBProPE came out.

Still, SB is the best PC tank sim and I've always enjoyed it and I will continue to support the team behind it for as long as I can. I know one day, it will have the collection of hardware and scenarios that I personally have been yearning for. V2.6 is a good step in this direction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure would have loved an m1 update in the patch , but given i must admit i have a virtual boner for the t-72 because now we can have some serious red vs blue both offline and online...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind a M1A2 SEP, but can live with the M1A1. Since the introduction of the T72, it would be more fitting with a fully working M1A1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought this up before. Ssnake said it was on the list, but as stated there were more important things that the contracted customers wanted. He said he would try to get it back onto the list, but no promises. So, cross your fingers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost exclusively use the M1A1- that said, the interior model isn't high at all on my list, I don't miss it given the time that could be used elsewhere. Most time is spent looking through optics, looking at the map screen, panning around when unbuttoned from the TC hatch. Maybe the interior seems to add some suspension of disbelief, but you kind of have that already with the TC buttoned view. Furthermore, when I experimented around with this with the Leopard, I found it to be an extra step- switching from gunner's default position to his gun sights could cost extra time when the shooting is on, while in contrast there is only one keystroke to switch to gunner's optics in the M1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think we took some steps to cut down the number of needless sight transitions. I'll let the beta testers elaborate on that.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww...c'mon. Now I'm really curious!

Seriously though, I'm no tanker (IRL) but I would think that most gunners would be able to hit any button they need to without taking their eyes off the sights. With the exception maybe of manual range entries. Isn't that what they train to be able to do?

Don't get me wrong, I want an M1 interior as much as anyone else! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No army using SB is interested in the M1 so why should there be any effort being spent on its interior? Especially since there are still a number of non-simulated Leopard versions..

Do the Aussies not count in that pile? They are SB users (as Gibson will remind us :D), and they are M1A1 users...

Not saying they've demanded it, but I don't think it's wholly accurate to say "no army."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't mind a M1A2 SEP

I second that. Not wishing to seem ungrateful for the list of amazing upgrades coming in 2.6, because I'm not and I appreciate the tremendous effort eSim goes to for the PE community, as exemplified by the T-72M1, but as an "Abrams man" I'd definitely love to see a crewable M1A2 SEP available in the not too distant future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the Aussies not count in that pile? They are SB users (as Gibson will remind us :D), and they are M1A1 users...

Not saying they've demanded it, but I don't think it's wholly accurate to say "no army."

Well I can confirm that "no" we haven't asked for it.

So "no army" may well be accurate.

Our School of Armour and 1st Armd Regt use crew trainers from General Dynamics (which cost a sizeable sum) as well as appended trainers on the actual vehicle.

While there are "ongoing internal discussions" we don't use SB Pro as a crew trainer for M1 but much much more as a Tactical Trainer for Crew Commanders and Tp and Sqn / CT Cmdrs, a CPX engine and as a COA evaluation tool to test TEWT solutions.

Hence our prioirites are more along the lines of "non US" call signs, etc. so it looks and sounds more like our army than someone elses, amongst other things ...

When we need to use the various internal views, the ones currently supplied are fine.

Of course if someone else gets them in that's fine (assuming the labelling, etc. was the same :)), but certainly in the "nice to have" list not the "must have".

Oh and we don't care about bouncing road wheels either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I can confirm that "no" we haven't asked for it.

So "no army" may well be accurate.

Our School of Armour uses crew trainers from General Dynamics (which cost a sizeable sum) as well as appended trainers on the actual vehicle.

While there are "ongoing internal discussions" we don't use SB Pro as a crew trainer for M1 but much much more as a Tactical Trainer for Crew Commanders and Tp and Sqn / CT Cmdrs, a CPX engine and as a COA evaluation tool to test TEWT solutions.

Hence our prioirites are more along the lines of "non US" call signs, etc. so it looks and sounds more like our army than someone elses, amongst other things ...

When we need to use the various internal views, the ones currently supplied are fine.

Oh and we don't care about bouncing road wheels either. :)

Ah, yes. When I was in the army, it was a huge logistical feat to ship a unit to the nearest tank simulator farm. SB could work as a nice unit level table top crew trainer for when they can't get to the simulator, too bad it can't find a use in that regard. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, yes. When I was in the army, it was a huge logistical feat to ship a unit to the nearest tank simulator farm. SB could work as a nice unit level table top crew trainer for when they can't get to the simulator, too bad it can't find a use in that regard. :(

Except for us its currently not "a" unit but "the" unit. :)

So we have these container sized units at School of Armour and the Regt and that's it (because they aren't needed elsewhere).

Plus there are arguments about why a Sim that only costs the price of say 3x PC and a a set of contol handles could be possibly better than the ones that cost a squillion and were bought as part of the vehicle project anyway.

There is a thought to re role some of our units into "ACR" (but not on the scale US guys would know) with currently three units (Tk, Cav and PMV) re grouping to three identical units with a Sqn of Tk, a Sqn of LAV and a Sqn of PMV each in three geographically split locations.

Unsure if the current holdings of trg assets in the Regt can be split 3 ways (e.g. 6 that becomes 2 each) or if this provides a niche for the other two units to us SB Pro in lieu.

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally forget about the Aussie M1, do we have proper skins for it?

Someone made one in the downloads section, yes. No idea how accurate it is however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is "Australian type camoflague M1 V2.460" (not my spelling) which is "near enough".

It works in 2.5x but don't know if it will be still OK in 2.6x.

These will give you a comparison:

http://defence.viotv.com/?mediaId=e1c7e148-73a3-41ec-8fc0-c509887815bb#searchterm,0,ASLAV,All

there’s one on Chong Ju with Tony Archer in it.

http://defence.viotv.com?mediaId=bef78520-c62d-4a7a-9f53-4accfa093cd7

and

one more from 1st BDE

http://defence.viotv.com?mediaId=9a614323-00c9-4457-bd66-22f927157c4b

And a JNCO crew commander:

http://defence.viotv.com?mediaId=c7c48c1f-41ee-4cd2-bdef-777a9b825490

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our School of Armour and 1st Armd Regt

Is that the "First and Only" Armd Regt? :biggrin:

(See Gaunt's Ghosts)

Oh and we don't care about bouncing road wheels either. :)

Poodoo. :(

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that the "First and Only" Armd Regt?

Um no.

There is the 1st Armd Regt AIF (which was based on a unit that draws its lineage from 1st Light Horse and had Matildas in the Second World War) and then there's the 1st Armd Regt which was raised in 1949 and is the current unit.

The former is an ARES / Territorial unit, the later a full time one.

(See Gaunt's Ghosts)

No idea who "Gaunt" was but they might arguably be called "Grant's Ghosts" after Brigadier-General William Grant's 4th Light Horse Brigade that took Beersheba in 1917.

In a classic example of mission orders, The Corps commander, General Sir H. G. Chauvel had been ordered 'to capture Beersheeba today, in order to secure water and take prisoners'. His direction was = 'Put Grant straight at it'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um no.

There is the 1st Armd Regt AIF (which was based on a unit that draws its lineage from 1st Light Horse and had Matildas in the Second World War) and then there's the 1st Armd Regt which was raised in 1949 and is the current unit.

The former is an ARES / Territorial unit, the later a full time one.

No idea who "Gaunt" was but they might arguably be called "Grant's Ghosts" after Brigadier-General William Grant's 4th Light Horse Brigade that took Beersheba in 1917.

In a classic example of mission orders, The Corps commander, General Sir H. G. Chauvel had been ordered 'to capture Beersheeba today, in order to secure water and take prisoners'. His direction was = 'Put Grant straight at it'.

Gaunt is a fictional character in a science fiction based on warhammer 40k universe where fascism/xenophobia/anything that's "grimdark" is rampant

(well, it's actually quite fun despite it being a cocktail of antitheses of proper "civilization")

And... he is a commissar-colonel and a regimental CO

(right, those stereotypical soviet style sanctioned psychopathic political officers. But our Mr. Gaunt, being a protagonist and all, is a bit different)

His regiment is called "First and Only" since the regiment is the only serviving one from its home planet after the planet blew up. So you guessed the "first and only" part right (except of course that Australia didn't blew up by forces of evil bombarding from orbit)

But I threadjack, please continue with the topic. :redface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that the "First and Only" Armd Regt? :biggrin:

(See Gaunt's Ghosts)

I see what you did there, Hedge...:sonic:

Making Tanith proud are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would settle for a M1A2. I just want the CITV system. Tired of doing everything with a National Guard M1A1 and a pair of Binos. But this lead me to using the M2/M3 Bradley more often.

Hedgehog, who cares about a dead world and its only IG regiment.

Armageddon Steel Legion, thats where the REAL Imperial Guard come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I would settle for a M1A2. I just want the CITV system. Tired of doing everything with a National Guard M1A1 and a pair of Binos. But this lead me to using the M2/M3 Bradley more often.

Hedgehog, who cares about a dead world and its only IG regiment.

Armageddon Steel Legion, thats where the REAL Imperial Guard come from.

Funny you say that, Armageddon Steel Legion is actually my main 40K Guard Force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×