Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[dejawolf]

4 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

source?

 

so that means the rest of the 360 T90's in Russian service are base model T90s then? not the A model?  Theres also the T90AM.

 

 

 

as Jartsev said, no AM/MS for the russian army. procurement of new T-90 has been cancelled for now, in favour of Armata, and upgrade of T-72B. 

Edited July 8, 2016 by dejawolf

[Kev2go]

6 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

as Jartsev said, no AM/MS for the russian army. procurement of new T-90 has been cancelled for now, in favour of Armata, and upgrade of T-72B. 

 

yes of course, but you are totally forgeting about export T90s. you also have to take into consideration the large amount of T90S the Indian army operates for export ( and also has license to actually build)

 

India is a bigger user of the T90 than Russia.  120 delivered in 2001, with another 310 being delivered in 2006, with another 347 ordered in 2007, with addtional aquisiton in 2012. With local assembled variants known as "Bhishma", thier serviceable T90s are numbered at 1000 or more.

 

So the whole only 190 thermal existing T90A  applies to the Russian Army. AS far as thermals go the T90S is reported to have come with thermals, with newer locally produced t90M "bhishma" having improved French made Thales Thermal imaging units.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Kev2go

[Bond_Villian]

Id like to see grass on the infantry helmets. I cant squint any harder.

[Rotareneg]

Some kind of function to determine which player owns a vehicle/unit would be great. During today's DOW/Kanium mission we had a support platoon go to waste as whomever owned it apparently didn't know, even after many chat messages asking for people to check if they owned it. I've seen that happen during multiple TGIFs as well.

[Gibsonm]

46 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

Some kind of function to determine which player owns a vehicle/unit would be great. During today's DOW/Kanium mission we had a support platoon go to waste as whomever owned it apparently didn't know, even after many chat messages asking for people to check if they owned it. I've seen that happen during multiple TGIFs as well.

 

Well there are the existing icon shadings?

 

If its dark or mid range Blue (or relevant colour) its yours.

 

If its pale then it isn't.

[Gibsonm]

On 7/9/2016 at 2:55 AM, Bond_Villian said:

Id like to see grass on the infantry helmets. I cant squint any harder.

 

Except of course Infantry tend not to have Couch on their helmets.

[Rotareneg]

1 minute ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well there are the existing icon shadings?

 

If its dark or mid range Blue (or relevant colour) its yours.

 

If its pale then it isn't.

 

And yet people still have trouble with it. I've seen multiple cases where the CO asked each player in turn if it was tinted darker, and everyone swore it wasn't, and then 10 minutes later someone would say "Oh, I've got unit x, who wants it?"

[Gibsonm]

Tempted to talk about horses and water but anyway.

[ghostdog688]

9 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well there are the existing icon shadings?

 

If its dark or mid range Blue (or relevant colour) its yours.

 

If its pale then it isn't.

I'm being serious here: how about a colour-blind mode? I do have issues with shade differentiation on occasion myself and although I manage with shades of blue, others can struggle. Some sort of high-contrast mode perhaps?

[Ssnake]

Interesting question. The military usually doesn't cast people with color perception issues into jobs where it is important; consequently the STANAG for tactical electronic displays doesn't ask for alternate display modes either. So, while I DID consider that question around 1998 we concluded that there was no need to take action because the real vehicles aren't designd to accommodate the user; rather, users are have to pass a screening process. In 2003 we re-evaluated that and came to the same conclusion because for our military customers we can simply assume that every operator can distinguish the colors, and SB Pro was designed as a training application.

 

At least for the immediate future I see no chance to work on this request. But maybe we have a way to make unit icons owned by the player blink for a few seconds on request, or something.

 

 

[Rotareneg]

Perhaps the participants list could be changed to have a sub-menu for each player that shows the vehicles they command, with the currently occupied one having a checkmark? Sort it so the player always sees their name at the top of the list and make it so that selecting one of the units causes the player to jump to it. That would be really handy in both in MP and SP sessions.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Rotareneg

[Kev2go]

as far as ammunition goes. id hope to see the M900 APFSDS  added for the   tanks using Nato 105mm.  

 

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Kev2go

[Apocalypse 31]

6 hours ago, Rotareneg said:

Perhaps the participants list could be changed to have a sub-menu for each player that shows the vehicles they command, with the currently occupied one having a checkmark? Sort it so the player always sees their name at the top of the list and make it so that selecting one of the units causes the player to jump to it. That would be really handy in both in MP and SP sessions.

 

Speaking of which, I think it would be better to see the vehicles listed by PLATOON order than position. We currently have all the Platoon Leaders, then Platoon Sergeants, then Section leaders, etc. I'd rather see 1st Platoon Platoon Leader, Platoon Sergeant, Section Leader, etc. 

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

as far as ammunition goes. id hope to see the M900 APFSDS  added for the   tanks using Nato 105mm.

 

Why should we add it to SB Pro when it is explicitly not certified for 105mm L7 guns?

The recoil loads are so high that it may only be fired from 105mm M68 guns found only on (early) M1 tanks (which were phased out before the M900 came in), and the Stryker MGS (which however isn't available in SB Pro).

[Kev2go]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

Why should we add it to SB Pro when it is explicitly not certified for 105mm L7 guns?

The recoil loads are so high that it may only be fired from 105mm M68 guns found only on (early) M1 tanks (which were phased out before the M900 came in), and the Stryker MGS (which however isn't available in SB Pro).

 

 

well early m1 Abrams (105mm)  did serve well into the into the 90s in the reserves & national guard units after being retired from active duty , and the round was available starting in 1989/90. so yeah.

 

Also from what i have read it was tested on and a to be in use not just the M68a1 105mm on the M1, but also for the m60A3  tank, replacing the M833 round. There is no agreement across many sources that only the M68 for the M1 could use it.  Its i dont see the logic, that the same produced cannon, the M68A1  105mm fitted also on the m60A3 wouldn't be capable to fire it. 

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m900.htm

 

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m900.htm

 

http://uxoinfo.com/blogcfc/client/includes/uxopages/Mulvaney_Details.cfm?Ord_Id=P133

 

Also  more importantly this source states that M900 DU APFSDS was actually used in the  1991 Gulf War .

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SOPKBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=m900+DU+gulf+war&source=bl&ots=7yaeabde-2&sig=P8dWEjoE2LlYXTS6lSi3ATSM2uw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuz8_g9uzNAhUBXR4KHUBPA00Q6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=m900 DU gulf war&f=false

 

From the videos  in the 4.0 thread its clear M60A3 tts is coming to 4.0  as a crewable tank This means that also M900 would be fitting for 1990s - 2000s scenarios. Are  the many export users of the M60A3 tts are still relying on the (now)  venerable M833? i cant help but be skeptical of that.

 

So i think there are 2 good reasons for the M900 to be considered for addition. M1 and M60A3 tts. 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Kev2go

[Ssnake]

Well, my source is the Jane's Ammunition Handbook (2009). I won't rule out that the M60 could also fire it; however, 1989 was when the "low rate initial production" was authorized which is exclusively for practical tests, not handing out to the troops in the field; while I cannot disprove a claim of M900 use in Desert Storm, I find it dubious unless presented more credibly than just a rumor. Actual production only started in 1995, which would be the earliest year of practical availability. By then no more M1A0, or M1IPs were left in stock.

[Bond_Villian]

On 11/07/2016 at 10:14 AM, Gibsonm said:

Except of course Infantry tend not to have Couch on their helmets.

 

That may be true (i dont know) , but it looks good!  Doing a brief google search, i find a lot of images of Cold War era British troops with it

 

[Bond_Villian]

HA!

[Grenny]

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Gibsonm said:

 

Except of course Infantry tend not to have Couch on their helmets.

putting various vegetables +stripes of sandbags on helmets and sometimes shoulders/upper body was the first thing done on any exercise i've had.

This changed only when getting transfered to a staff post...

[Kev2go]

22 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Well, my source is the Jane's Ammunition Handbook (2009). I won't rule out that the M60 could also fire it; however, 1989 was when the "low rate initial production" was authorized which is exclusively for practical tests, not handing out to the troops in the field; while I cannot disprove a claim of M900 use in Desert Storm, I find it dubious unless presented more credibly than just a rumor. Actual production only started in 1995, which would be the earliest year of practical availability. By then no more M1A0, or M1IPs were left in stock.

 

well a book source i provided about use of depleted uranium rounds i feel is more than a mere rumor which would imply a tall tale from a drunk Ex tanker or something.

 

I did some more digging and I found these sources

 

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabf.htm#back en 223

endnotes section 223. Well researched, and extensively referenced.

 

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/en.htm#to en 223

 

including a copy of the Faxed spreadsheet of varying types of ammunition used in the gulf theatre from that same source. THe list  includes  the M900 APDSDS-T: ammount shipped, Expenditures, and how many remaining units shipped back at the end of the war.

 

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en223/980415_aug97_decls1_0000004.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Kev2go

[Gibsonm]

17 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

HA!

 

Neither of those are grass.

 

I didn't say anything about foliage from shrubs or more established plants.

 

Actually "grass" (the stuff under your feet) is very unlikely since it tends to be very short and not help breakup your shape and the longer stuff doesn't blend in when you stand up and of course it dies off quickly and needs to be replaced.

 

If you look in this photo its some sort of pine branch on his helmet not the long grass behind him in the photo.

 

Glad you don't look after my garden.

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Gibsonm

[Jartsev]

23 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

So i think there are 2 good reasons for the M900 to be considered for addition. M1 and M60A3 tts. 

 

 

 

In real life M900 can be safely fired only from M68A1 gun  on M1 tank(not M60A3!) and  gun's breech serial number should be higher than 4804. There is very little point in implementation of such special round, especially since there is suitable stand-in called DM63 already in game.

[Maj.Hans]

29 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

In real life M900 can be safely fired only from M68A1 gun  on M1 tank(not M60A3!) and  gun's breech serial number should be higher than 4804. There is very little point in implementation of such special round, especially since there is suitable stand-in called DM63 already in game.

 

Really, if the gun's breech serial number is what determines the ability to fire the gun, the M60A3 could be capable of firing it if it were refitted with a new gun later.  Do note that there were radiation exposure studies to see how a full load of M900 would impact the crews of both the M1 and the M60A3.

 

Personally I happen to feel that DM63 is probably very close to the maximum that you can squeeze out of the 105mm NATO gun.  I back that up with no scientific evidence whatsoever, but it's just my gut feeling that if there was any more 'juice' to squeeze they would have done it...That and it's a very impressive round compared to the others.

 

The older version of DM63 in Pro PE did penetrate something like 600mm of armor as opposed to the 530 it does now, and I happily used it as an M900 substitute for 1989/90/91etc scenarios since the info I could dig up on M900 had it's performance in the 570 to 600mm range IIRC.

[Jartsev]

16 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

Really, if the gun's breech serial number is what determines the ability to fire the gun, the M60A3 could be capable of firing it if it were refitted with a new gun later.  Do note that there were radiation exposure studies to see how a full load of M900 would impact the crews of both the M1 and the M60A3.

 

 

Well, breech manufacturing method(forging vs.casting, if memory does not cheats me) is the first bottleneck; second one is a gun mount design and particularly recoil mechanism(used on M1 can handle higher recoil load)...

Edited July 13, 2016 by Jartsev

[TSe419E]

According to my 1990 M1/IPM1 -10;