Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Ssnake]

At leas in SB PRO PE when engaging infantry i like to have 12,7 rather than 7,62.

Ah, but is that because of deficits in the simulation?

I can but caution to draw too far-reaching conclusions from SB Pro. We don't simulate adequate psychological response from "being under fire" - IOW, we don't have actual suppression. Unlike reality our simulated ground provides absolute protection (against EVERY direct fire munition). Our simulated infantry is more easy to spot and to shoot than they are in real life. All of these factors deemphasize the value of suppressive fire.

My tactics in SB is to provide precise fire rather than waste 20 or 30 rounds for single troop using area fire.

Sure. Most experienced SB Pro players do that, I suspect. The question is, aren't we seeing negative training here and mistaking this fore reality?

[Maj.Hans]

About engaging infantry in Pro PE:

My method with a 7.62mm is, essentially, to aim short of my target, and fire a long burst while slowly raising the gun so that I lay down a path of coax rounds over my target. Pause briefly, and repeat the long burst while lowering the gun. Traverse to the next target and repeat.

About the .50 Coax:

What I mean by a .50 coax is an M1A1 CSAMM type installation. Also I wish for this content to be included in Pro PE!

IMHO, the actual NEED for a .50 Coax is rare. I don't see it as being particularly valuable in most infantry engagements, but rather as a good weapon for engaging light APCs and trucks or choppers. Having it outside the tank, like the CSAMM, so that it won't take up space inside is more valuable than having it inside where it can be serviced. Give it a big ammo box if possible and just live with knowing that once it's jammed or empty it's done until the fight is over.

[macieksoft]

My method with a 7.62mm is, essentially, to aim short of my target, and fire a long burst while slowly raising the gun so that I lay down a path of coax rounds over my target.

Its usually a good idea, especially when infantry is laying on the ground. The only problem is that it takes a lot of ammo.

I found M2 + Lemur or ERCWS-M very precise and good without wasting a lot of ammo. Its very powerful. Yes it takes some time to kill all of them but you can do it from safe range where no RPG can hit you (only ATGM can).

I am not sure about supression IRL, it still do not kills enemy, it just incapacitates him for a while and forces you to often reload your coax (it becomes a problem in T-72 where magazine is only 250 rounds). Also you have to mind the heat it produces. In most cases its enough but sometimes you may face a larger numbers of infantry when reload and heat may become a problem.

Also supression is modeled in multiple games, it may differ from the real effects on real humans but its still something similar. Would be nice if you could implement it in SB because it seems not really hard thing to make.

Supression may be good when enemy surprise you and pop up somewhere with RPG, then you can supress him and then kill as in such case you have to open fire as fast as possible before he fires hes RPG.

IRL 12,7 also has advantage of better penetration (especially SLAP) so it can be shot trough many obstacles and do its way much better than 7,62. I am not talking about taking down BRDM2 now but i mean taking down infantry behind some obstacles. Also it can go trough any body armor, while IIRC 7,62 can sometimes be stopped by plate carrier body armor (so probably 2 hits would be needed, first one have to break the plate), but it may depend on range.

And finally the range. The best thing. Staying safe is a good thing, maybe i say that because i used to flight sims where targets always have to be engaged from safe range because aircrafts are fragile, unlike tanks.

And CSAMM would be really good, even when you have to reload it from exterior the fight will probably be over before you shoot all the rounds, and even when you do you always have your 7,62 coax.

[Ssnake]

In real life overpenetration is an issue. We don't yet simulate civilian population occupying buildings, but if your rounds pass through multiple walls it's only a matter of time before you not only kill your intended target but also women and children.

I'm mentioning this only to point out that although standoff distance and the ability to engage targets behind light cover is a good thing if looked at in an isolated manner, as simulations tend to do. We must not mistake the simplifications of simulation for reality itself.

[Grenny]

In some sense the suppression in SB works: If they are under fire the grunts will(often) not pop up to fire their AT-weapons.

As for ammo consumption and heat-management with MG.

Suppressive fire is usually done for a reason, and that is in most cases to enable own manouvers. If you use up all you ready ammo or overheat you MG during that...you're doing it wrong :-P

[macieksoft]

If you use up all you ready ammo or overheat you MG during that...you're doing it wrong :-P

So from now when engaging large group of enemies i will supress them with main gun using overpressure, and when on longer range gonna use HE shells for that

In real life overpenetration is an issue. We don't yet simulate civilian population occupying buildings, but if your rounds pass through multiple walls it's only a matter of time before you not only kill your intended target but also women and children.

So, please give us personal weapons for tank crew. In such situation (AFAIK civilians ARE already simulated but they are not occupying buildings) i gonna unbutton and pull out my pistol ;D

[Grenny]

So from now when engaging large group of enemies i will supress them with main gun using overpressure, and when on longer range gonna use HE shells for that

If you're that close, better use your tracks then. Also i doubt that rate of fire and stored ammo for maingun HE will make an overly effective suppression.

[Tango29]

My tactics in SB is to provide precise fire rather than waste 20 or 30 rounds for single troop using area fire. When you notice that area fire is not precise it turns out that it takes much more ammo to kill one men when they are not close together.

FWIW, keep in mind that a 7.62mm machine gun is not a sniper rifle. With a "4 ball, 1 tracer" set up in the belt, our basic engagement method is to fire ranging bursts of from 1 to 3 tracers. Then, when you're on target, to fire killing bursts of from 5 to 7 tracers. You don't burn out the barrel that way. Essentially the machine gun is something like a "direct fire mortar:" an area neutralizing weapon, but with a smaller beaten zone.

Again, FWIW, that was the only problem with a Bren gun (look it up!). It was almost too accurate: too many rounds in too small an area! :gun:

Of course, I'm talking from experience gained quite a while ago, but I find this technique still works pretty well for me in SB. :thumbup:

[Maj.Hans]

I am not sure about supression IRL, it still do not kills enemy, it just incapacitates him for a while and forces you to often reload your coax (it becomes a problem in T-72 where magazine is only 250 rounds). Also you have to mind the heat it produces. In most cases its enough but sometimes you may face a larger numbers of infantry when reload and heat may become a problem.

This is mostly a design flaw of the T-72, IMHO. Perhaps it's best to use the T-72 against vehicles and fortifications, and allow supporting APC/IFVs to handle most of the infantry threats?

Honestly, like I said before, I don't really see the M2 / 12.7mm HMG coax as being a viable or even desirable weapon for use against infantry. It gives you a good weapon to fall back upon if your coax is down, but mostly it gives you some ability to engage lightly armored vehicles without spending off main gun ammo.

Personally I find that engaging infantry with 7.62 in an area engagement mode is often times faster than trying to snipe them. It's not a rifle, it's a machine gun.

[Gibsonm]

So, please give us personal weapons for tank crew. In such situation (AFAIK civilians ARE already simulated but they are not occupying buildings) i gonna unbutton and pull out my pistol ;D

If you are standing up in the tank and trying to suppress enemy infantry with your personal weapon as the vehicle moves then you are really doing it wrong!!

[Gibsonm]

Of course, I'm talking from experience gained quite a while ago, but I find this technique still works pretty well for me in SB. :thumbup:

Yes because its correct drills.

You don't need to spray and pray / hose pipe.

2-3 trace, adjust, 2-3 trace, adjust, 5 trace killing burst.

Next target left go on.

[Captain_Colossus]

This is mostly a design flaw of the T-72, IMHO. Perhaps it's best to use the T-72 against vehicles and fortifications, and allow supporting APC/IFVs to handle most of the infantry threats?

Consider the context of which the T-72 is designed- when the Soviets have tactical nuclear weapons and lots of artillery and WMDs in the toolbox that they regard like any other weapon to blast openings through defenses for the tanks to move through. Armor crews and supporting infantry are expected to last long enough to complete their missions and then they are expecting to die from nuclear contamination. They aren't necessarily going to spend time reducing strong infantry positions or invading enemy cities, ideally, they're designed to penetrate deep and get inside the enemies' third string echelons and destroy headquarters units, and any reserves and supply trains they happen to catch moving up. They're trying to end the war as fast possible before NATO can recover and swing the tide back. The large mix of high explosive rounds over armor piercing rounds probably indicates their particular conception of the tempo that way.

The scope of Steel Beasts scenarios that players are expected to manage however make this a difficult reality for T-72 players, where they can expect to resolve scenarios with exposure to more infantry, (and furthermore, you probably shouldn't have much supporting artillery or at all at a company level scenario).

[Maj.Hans]

Back on topic, some more requests from my wishlist:

-> In the mission editor, add the option to "Remove..." vehicle subsystems.

Currently, if I want to simulate, for example, a Leopard2A1 by removing thermals from a 2A4, I have a red damage display showing the "damaged" thermals. If I damage the laser on an M2A2 ODS I have LRF damaged staring at me.

"Remove...Thermals", for example, would give the same effect as "damaging" the thermals or the LRF, except that there would be no status message after mission start showing the "damage".

-> Ability to unbutton and engage with M2HB with the M113 TOW. When a human TC in a BRDM or BTR-80 stands up, the gunner takes his gun to max elevation, stops traverse, and the TC can unbutton. Modify the existing M113 TOW so that a human TC can choose to unbutton and engage with the M2HB.

-> Add the option for a 12.7mm NSV or even an M2HB to the TPz Fuchs 1A6 = ersatz Patria Pasi!

-> The ability to control (Aim, fire, reload) more infantry weapons - RPGs, etc.

-> Soviet MGs for infantry MG teams.

-> Add the Mk.19 AGL as optional armament (Not in an RWS!) for vehicles that can carry it, mainly the HMMWV, possibly also M113s, MRAPs, etc.

-> Functional range adjustment on the Mk19 sights, and a more workable sight for the mortars please!

[macieksoft]

If you are standing up in the tank and trying to suppress enemy infantry with your personal weapon as the vehicle moves then you are really doing it wrong!!

Not to suppress them. Just to kill them while avoiding civilian casualties (pistol bullets have low penetration so no overpenetration here unlike M2) And you can always shoot your pistol trough a tank barrel while breech is open, just remember that it works both ways ;D

[Grenny]

Not to suppress them. Just to kill them while avoiding civilian casualties (pistol bullets have low penetration so no overpenetration here unlike M2) And you can always shoot your pistol trough a tank barrel while breech is open, just remember that it works both ways ;D

Of course ;-)

Just take care that stab is off and that you don't get smashed on the turret roof when pulling that stunt

[Maj.Hans]

Not to suppress them. Just to kill them while avoiding civilian casualties (pistol bullets have low penetration so no overpenetration here unlike M2) And you can always shoot your pistol trough a tank barrel while breech is open, just remember that it works both ways ;D

Actually a common problem with pistol bullets, particularly with FMJ pistol bullets required by the laws of war, is that they do over-penetrate.

Modern rifle bullets, like 5.56mm NATO, will deform, tumble, and fragment when striking a human or a wall. A 9mm FMJ will fly right through a person or a wall and punch a hole clean through another person.

[macieksoft]

5.56 rifle bullets also sometimes over penetrate. Especially when enemy has no body armor. Pistol bullets cannot even go trough a body armor so their penetration is not as good as for rifle ones. And pistol bullets also deforms, but the way they deform is slightly different (they are short and "fat" unlike rifle ones that are slick and long).

Some police forces are using hollow point 9mm ammo to avoid such issues.

[jonestheplane]

Hi All,

First post so forgive me if I'm missing something...

To learn the map & mission designer fully I'm tweaking an Afghan map & Scenario/s, but I found something odd today.

I want to simulate pressure plate IEDs - easy you say! ...well unless I missed something, not so? Well not nicely anyway - (but then I'm a bit of a detail demon )

I want to be able to detonate IEDs without losing the lead vehicle - I can do that 9 times out of 10 with a M1A2 (Mine-roller equipped).

But, the blast always happens mid-way under the tank - not quite as expected - and more importantly, not as when rolling mine fields - i.e. the blast occurs under the roller = makes sense.

I've been using a very small trigger oval around the IED to get the above result.

So to compensate for the rollers (fwd projection of), and to make the explosion happen under the rollers, I make the oval bigger - but up to about 50m (!!) the tank is always (always) heavily damaged? I.e. Both tracks off, TC out of commission, etc, etc, etc, .

So I think there's a small bug there and... here's the on topic bit...

Can we have individual placeable pressure plate mines / IEDs - as the mine roller v mine works so well, but the minmum size of a minefield is 50+ mines in a square?

Truly Outstanding sim, TY.

PS I'm on 3.025 (x64)

[Gibsonm]

Welcome!

Firstly can I suggest you update to 3.028.

It doesn't cost anything and it will address some issues.

As for the thrust of your request, the current IED is a large one (hence why you can use it the demolish buildings, drop bridges, etc.). There is no small IED currently modeled.

Unsure if a small one will be modeled.

In the meantime to get your scenario created what are you trying to achieve?

If its an immobilised vehicle, you can place the IED off to a side to simulate the blast and add a condition to your existing condition oval to create something like:

If tank in circle X for Z seconds, detonate IED.

In addition, if IED detonated 10% chance of tank suffering track damage (I'm guessing you want the tank to have a mobility kill)?

[REMBAT]

Driver, gunner and TC crew positions for T-72(B3) or T-90

[billman]

Driver, gunner and TC crew positions for T-72(B3) or T-90

While it would be very cool to have a t72b3. I don't think the Russians are willing give fcs data to a nato affiliated company. Maby if the French have somthing.

[lavictoireestlavie]

Driver, gunner and TC crew positions for T-72(B3) or T-90

I would love having a fully or partially manable modern Russian MBT. Would it be possible to create a basic copy of these fire control systems of tanks such as the T-90(S or A) or T-72B3 and integrate it into SB Pro PE with the currently available data?

T-90S

http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-90s.htm

http://www.kotsch88.de/f_1g46.htm

T-90MS

http://topwar.ru/7117-t-90ms-tagil-sistema-upravleniya-ognem.html

General:

http://btvt.narod.ru/

[jonestheplane]

Welcome!

Firstly can I suggest you update to 3.028.

It doesn't cost anything and it will address some issues.

As for the thrust of your request, the current IED is a large one (hence why you can use it the demolish buildings, drop bridges, etc.). There is no small IED currently modeled.

Unsure if a small one will be modeled.

In the meantime to get your scenario created what are you trying to achieve?

If its an immobilised vehicle, you can place the IED off to a side to simulate the blast and add a condition to your existing condition oval to create something like:

If tank in circle X for Z seconds, detonate IED.

In addition, if IED detonated 10% chance of tank suffering track damage (I'm guessing you want the tank to have a mobility kill)?

Cheers for your reply Gibsonm,

Wildo on the update - I hesitate because I've spent a long time adding detail to a map, but I'm sure the update wont break that.

The main point I guess I was making was; I can roll directly over an IED (with v small trigger zone) and the blast, 9/10 of the time doesn't damage the tank (it's visually detonating directly under the tank).

But put the blast ~5-50m out in front of the tank (intention; so the detonation occurs under the mine roller itself), by enlarging the zone, and it always suffers heavy immobilising damage - I only mention it in case I've found a small bug - it would have to be extremely powerful / specialist IED to break an MBT at ~50m out to the front I'm guessing?

What I'm actually trying to achieve is to restrict the players mobility in certain areas of the map i.e. travel v slowly, in column, behind a limited number of roller equipped vehicles, or risk kills - to 'ratchet up' the speed v risk thing.

The mine fields work brilliantly with the rollers but don't scale down enough. The IEDs work great as 'remote triggered' devices, but I can't simulate them being triggered by rollers over a pressure plate (without 100% mob kill which is 100% counter to my aim:) ) unless I roll straight over them, which defeats the point of rollers, in the first place

It's a very small detail, and I'm pushing the scope of original design / aims a bit - I'm sure i'll find a work around.

It would just be great to have a single buried mine / IED as a placeable object.

Cheers for your thoughts, and the welcome

Edited September 28, 2015 by jonestheplane

[Deputy276]

My wish list is this:

French AMX LeClerc

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/

Italian C1 Ariete

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ariete/

Israeli Merkava 4

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/

[TSe419E]

The ability of a vehicle to tow a vehicle of equal, or less, size out of a bad situation (they've got those tow cables for a reason).

More cold-war era vehicles (1970s to 1990s), ie. Gama Goats, Jeeps, M577s, "Goers"(?), and equivilent equipment for all militaries.

Jagdpanzer Kanone, M48s, and other older equipment still used by NATO and WP forces during the same time period.