Jump to content
Ssnake

2.640 released

Recommended Posts

Swartzkopf himself said Desert Storm would've been won even if the equipment was reversed.... I think there is some truth in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y'know...Teamspeak has a feature that puts a flag next to each person's name, identifying what country they're in.

Yes I know and am happy with a flag. Listing my suburb maybe not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least it got my town wrong :)

Most of those things list the central hub of my ISP not the actual town I live in.

What I do hate tho is when they scan your IP and make an assumption on your language, so it goes IP ***.***.***.*** you must be Belgian therefore you speak French which is the second language here not the primary which is Vlaams. I can at least read Vlaams a little bit, French I have no hope with :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russians had and still have the conventional firepower to wipe out any defensive positions. It makes no difference what equipment soldiers in that position have if they are in no condition to use. Imho the real game begins after the east block already gained their first victories with their overwhelming artillery.

Of course you are mistaken. Aside of ridiculous statements made by Colossus, especially now, Russian artillery is very weak comparing to NATO artillery: practically no automated fire control systems, artillery radars and worse guns - all means bad counterbattery fire, lack of capability to frequently change fire positions etc. Their most popular tactics was and is WW2 style massive static artillery barrage. In short no match for NATO artillery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that wasn't the idea behind Reforger.

The idea was a no notice atk where the US had to fly crews in but the vehicles were ready (fueled, ammo loaded, etc.)

Sea transport of complete units was not Reforger but standard reinforcements.

What? Military Sealift Command also took part in Reforger exercises/operation.

But if you are trying to say that our Mk5 Centurion with 20 Pdr (84mm) was a match for T-72M1 with 125mm then you are an optimist. :)

Nope. I only suggested time-flow did not stop in 1972. Later Australia got Leo-1 and some Soviet client states in Asia got T-72 tanks. Therefore next war couldn't be excluded there with Australian tanks participation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russian artillery is very weak comparing to NATO artillery: practically no automated fire control systems, artillery radars and worse guns - all means bad counterbattery fire, lack of capability to frequently change fire positions etc. Their most popular tactics was and is WW2 style massive static artillery barrage. In short no match for NATO artillery.

You really do hold a very skewed picture ... all what you are counting, soviets had and have in arsenal ... it might not be as fashionable as NATO equipment but it works just fine ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swartzkopf himself said Desert Storm would've been won even if the equipment was reversed.... I think there is some truth in that.

By equipment, did the general include the GPS? I dont think that without GPS it would have been possible to execute that famous "bypass" deep through the desert sands. How about NVGs? Would the coalition had won that conflict running T-72s without NVG and Iraqis with pumped up full equipped M1s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really do hold a very skewed picture ... all what you are counting, soviets had and have in arsenal ... it might not be as fashionable as NATO equipment but it works just fine ;)

Indeed. I have nothing to add to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky Hunter is all blah blah. I can do what he does and invent buzzwords and attribute them to him, for example, his "Praetorian Guard" NATO defense would fall asleep compared to 'Hannibal Soviet assault waves', and that should settle it- that's all the extent of what he's doing.

Setting aside his ignorance, one should remember that Soviet doctrine doesn't simply promulgate a military solution but a political one. There wasn't really a Western equivelant to merge military practice with political theory- but they did.

What this means that in the Soviet logic, you aren't trying to 'liberate' every city by force or hunt down and destroy every tank. That's a waste of time and effort. Rather, the goal is to bypass as much as possible and try and run wild in the enemy's rear- which also happens to be where its civilians are located. In that respect, the Soviets might expect the civilians to break first and force their govenments to either capitulate or make a deal. You end things faster if it could conclude this way.

Again, the T-72 is not designed to match up and go head to head with every single tank until one side or the other is destroyed- that's playing to the defender's advantage. The idea is to end the war as fast as possible by the quickest means possible. That is the problem that confronted them, the longer it took, the lesser their chances. You can see the design philosophy even in the ammunition mix- the ratio of high explosive shells to armor piercing rounds, more suited to wrecking soft targets in the rear. So it needed to end fast, hence you have tanks are as someone else said somewhat disposable because the fighting isn't supposed to last long enough to repair or replace them or send the crews back to mend them up and send them back in again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't worry too much about Sky Hunter for a while.

I think he was only here while he borrowed one of my licenses to "test drive" SB Pro PE and he's now let me know that he wont be buying it, so I guess he wont be back on the forum either.

Perhaps now the thread can move away from hypothetical Third Word War discussion and back onto comments about 2.640 itself? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent update. I'm having loads of fun.

One question I have regarding the T-72M1 is it seems the coax cannot be manually fired by the TC when using the TKN-3 periscope. Is this intentional?

I ask because it would be neat to slew the gun to the current orientation of the TC's sight and use the coax, though I'm not sure it would be useful for anything other than point-blank range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite the point, innit?

You can't control the gun elevation. It might point to the sky, or to the ground. In about 95% of all cases it's probably NOT going to have the proper elevation for the intended target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you could fire the PKT using the mechanical trigger, but to do this while looking through the TKN you'd have to use your toes.. so we don't allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pressing the mechanical trigger is quite possible while looking through the TKN. If you look at this image you can see the mechanical trigger is just in front of my left knee:

crewc2.jpg

But one might as well use the NSVT and actually hit & hurt someone. It has iron sights on top so you don't need to expose yourself too much. Or actually I think one could go by the tracers alone too.

IIRC the TKN slave was not very accurate as it might be a bit off to one direction or another. Also you would need to use two hands to direct the turret as the buttons for turret stabilisation and slaving the gun ar at opposite thumb buttons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the last two TGIF sessions have been:

T-72 Vs M1

T-72 Vs Leo 2

In both cases the Western tanks were on the defensive and the Soviet armour had numerical superiority.

So your request is already happening.

Well i was planning to attend the friday battle anyway so i think ill check it out this friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, everyone! Thought I'd introduce myself here rather than creating a new topic.

I finally made up my mind about buying Steel Beasts Pro PE. Challenger 2 is my favourite main battle tank and when I read it had been made available as a controllable tank in SB Pro PE, well... that pretty much settled the question on whether to buy or not for me :) I've been reading the SB Wiki and I realise this tank is not fully or thoroughly modelled yet (as the Leopard 2 or Abrams are), so I was wondering:

a) how accurately are the sights, FCS, subsystems, protection, mobility, etc. of the Challenger 2 modelled so far? Are they - in their current state as per 2.640 - a faithful rendition of the real thing?

b) what sort of upgrades to this tank can we expect in future versions? What about the latest upgrades, such as TES? Will those be included in a future release of SB Pro PE? What are eSimGames' thoughts about this?

Having said that, should I buy now and upgrade later or wait until the next release...?

The other question relates to purchase itself. I live in South America so if I buy the game, will shipping be a problem or will I be charged any extras for it?

Thank you :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

Welcome! :)

In order:

a) No doubt as accurate as the information that eSim was able to get from the UK MoD. A lot of this stuff can't be released so there may have been some guess work.

I've not spent time "on" CR2 but talking to some Brits they seem to think its pretty good "as is".

There is some ongoing discussion about ammunition performance (again perhaps a classified area) and that might change in a slight way in the next little while.

b) Again probably depends on what data UK MoD releases.

I'd buy it now. That way you can use it now and then enjoy the CR2 improvements if/when they come out.

The next "paid" release (i.e. 2.7 something is probably a year or so away from now). So buy 2.640 and then enjoy the free patches from now until then.

Can't give you a definitive answer re shipping. Unsure which countries charge their own specific fees.

"Panta" who comes from Uruguay might be able to give some "local" knowledge.

(Hope you are enjoying the Dakar). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was a rumour that the C2 was going to be fitted with the 120mm L55 as in the Leopard 2A6 (& Varients) but this was shelved due to cost.

(The whole interior needed a redesign due to the all in one ammo)

I stress the word "rumour".

None of the above has been substantiated by me in anyway whatsoever.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind reply, Gibsonm. I hope I'll be joining the SB club soon, once I get the shipping info sorted out.

(Hope you are enjoying the Dakar). :)

Yes, I am! :biggrin:

Cheers!

Well there was a rumour that the C2 was going to be fitted with the 120mm L55 as in the Leopard 2A6 (& Varients) but this was shelved due to cost.

(The whole interior needed a redesign due to the all in one ammo)

AFAIK, that programme was cancelled back in 2006; the development of a new APFSDS penetrator is underway for the L11A5/L30A1 rifled gun to replace ageing munition stocks (for export customers - Jordan, Oman - and the British Army), so no migration to a smoothbore 120mm main gun for now (that was once part of a larger upgrade programme referred to as "CLIP").

I was referring to the latest TES upgrades which include additional DL2 armour modules & bar armour, Enforcer RCWS, DNVS (driver's night vision system), Barracuda multi-spectral camouflage net, IED countermeasures and digital battle management system.

Anyway, I hope we get to see that implemented in SB in the near future (one can dream...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a) how accurately are the sights, FCS, subsystems, protection, mobility, etc. of the Challenger 2 modelled so far?

We have identified a few things that need to be changed/improved, and we'll do that in the form of a free update for 2.6 users. That may happen this quarter, it might take until third quarter 2012, but you will get something. Until then, what's there isn't too shoddy, given that we have received near zero support from the British MoD so far (and it wasn't easy to cobble together all the stuff from various open sources, believe me).

I can't go into details, or describe the antics of some program offices in the UK. I've written four paragraphs in two attempts, and deleted them. Even the most benevolent summary isn't suitable for the public (yes... the history of the Challenger in Steel Beasts is a history of frustration). All I can say is that the Challenger in SB Pro is our offer to the UK MoD to at least have a look at it and see what we can do for them even without their support. Maybe that'll give them an idea how much better the results could be if only they would help us a little for a tiny fraction of the money that they have been burning on a number of other projects with less tangible results than what SB Pro now offers in its current state.

b) what sort of upgrades to this tank can we expect in future versions?

Honestly, I can't say. There's only so far that one can get without actual help from the government (not subsidies, but information). While I'd love to see us working more on British equipment, I have to say that we depend on three factors, in order of descending importance:

  1. availability of information, which is the bottleneck right now
  2. availability of development time
  3. funding

#2 and #3 can substitute each other to some extent. Funding buys more development time (and usually releases some information). Without funding, we can still do a bit, but at a reduced development pace (in short, whenever we have a bit of spare time). Without additional information, the work will eventually stagnate.

Having said that, should I buy now and upgrade later or wait until the next release...?

Your own words:

I finally made up my mind about buying Steel Beasts Pro PE. Challenger 2 is my favourite main battle tank and when I read it had been made available as a controllable tank in SB Pro PE, well... that pretty much settled the question on whether to buy or not for me :)
I live in South America so if I buy the game, will shipping be a problem or will I be charged any extras for it?

Well, South America is a big area. Where, exactly?

I suspect that import taxes will be levied unless you have a friend, say, in the US, who can re-package the stuff and then send it to you as a private letter. Shipping times seem to vary substantially, so I can't make accurate predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ChrisBV :)

Well, South America is a big area. Where, exactly?

I suspect that import taxes will be levied unless you have a friend, say, in the US, who can re-package the stuff and then send it to you as a private letter. Shipping times seem to vary substantially, so I can't make accurate predictions.

I live in Argentina. Game was shipped in 21 days... I have to go to the mail to pick it up -I was not at my bunker when the mail man arrives :decu:- (no customs!! so any extra $$$ here, just the u$s 125 of the game)

At first time I thought it was stealed (other shippings delay 9-11 days) but finally arrives in perfect condition, no eSIM delay, the delay was local.

so if you are from Arg purchase now! The tanks inside the sim deserve the 125 bucks x 4,30 pesos local money = $ 537,50 you will invest :biggrin:

:gen004:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let Chris answer himself, but his location says: Lima, Peru, so that's probably where he lives. :)

Also, the price is not 125$ anymore, just 100. If you want a printed manual (but why would you, it will just get obsolete at the next update) and a physical DVD (again, why would you, just burn one yourself if you want one) then it's another 22$, not 25$.

Share this post


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...