Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

On 11/20/2017 at 3:48 AM, Major duck said:

Centurion MK5/2 DK2 with LRF and Termic sight and the M41DK1 . The old gasoline engine was replaced by a new turbo-charged diesel powerpack (Cummins VTA-903TR developing 465 hp at 2.800 rpm). The 76 mm gun remained, but a new type of high performance anti-tank round (APFSDS from AAI International) was bought. 
Other improvements includes an 
NBC system, thermal night vision system (Jahn Anderson) with integrated laser rangefinder (Ericsson Radio Systems), night vision periscope (Texas Instruments) as well as Halogen searchlight mounted on the gun mantlet. The fire control system was made by AEG Telefunken using American, Danish and German components. 
Wegmann smoke dischargers were added to the turret. Fire suppression is handled by a system from Graviner (Firewire). 
Note the Leopard 1-like side skirt.

 

I've heard the M41DK1 mentioned here before, but I'm curious to know when the vehicles came into service in that configuration and what they were going to use them for?

 

It seems to me like the 76mm main gun could accomplish little other than angering an MBT, and although it might be able to take out an APC/IFV, is it the best weapon for the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

I've heard the M41DK1 mentioned here before, but I'm curious to know when the vehicles came into service in that configuration and what they were going to use them for?

 

It seems to me like the 76mm main gun could accomplish little other than angering an MBT, and although it might be able to take out an APC/IFV, is it the best weapon for the job?

It was capable of penetrating the T-72 we where told but off curse never tried it irl, it was modified so it looked like a Leopard 1A3/5 with side skirts and the turret had baskets so it had the profile of the leo , it was deployed as a recon tank in the danish heavy recon platoons which consisted of 2 M41DK1, 4 recon vehicles (Jeep/GD240) a m113 with a INF squad and a m106 81mm MMT carrier and a Command/PLT Leader vehicle, so in essence the smallest combined arms unit possible with firesupport tanks inf and recon , the M41DK1 was later replaced with the Leopard 1A5 in those units, the only exceptions to the recon role was the Tank squadron on the baltic island of Bornholm i think it had 6 M41DK1, but consider that the platoon had 1 Carl gustaf M2/M3 in each recon vehicle and one in the INF squad as well plus 2 tanks it was a unit that was very very good at doing ambushes and they excelled at not being seen in the nato recon competition and a M41 is very very silent when it sneaks up on you 50 m away you wont know its there. So i consider it a very good recon Tank until the time when the sovjets developed better armour and then it was withdrawn from service and replaced by the Leopard 1A5

The danish M41 where upgraded in 1985 - 1987 by Disa and a funny story about the upgrade was that because of the way the us manufacturers made US tanks at the time the tolerances weren't that good so DISA took all of them apart put all the toorsion bars in 1 big pile because a torsion bar is a torsion bar well not in this case every one of them where individually fitted so unique so there was a big job finding those that fitted the right place.

 

m41dk1.jpg

i%20stilling.jpg

oksb%C3%B8l.jpg

26372_1.jpg

standplads.jpg

bagl%C3%A6ns.jpg

Image8.jpg

 

Edited by Major duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Major duck said:

It was capable of penetrating the T-72 we where told but off curse never tried it irl

 

I could see it doing that from the side at a short enough range.  That wouldn't surprise me at all, to be able to shoot through the side of the hull anyway.

 

But the front?  I'll believe that when I see it...

 

Bet it would do some serious damage to something like a BMP-1/2/3 or PT-76 or something though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better player control over the attack helicopters.

 

The flight dynamics need not be greatly improved, this isn't a sim about flying helicopters, but it is a sim about things that get blown up by helicopters and things that blow helicopters up...

 

Ideally, would like to see the ability to multicrew with a Pilot/"Commander" seat in control of the rocket pods, and a gunner seat in control of the gun and ATGMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

Ideally, would like to see the ability to multicrew with a Pilot/"Commander" seat in control of the rocket pods, and a gunner seat in control of the gun and ATGMs.

 

Happy to be corrected by someone who doesn't work for a living (pilot) but I'm pretty sure that in say ARH, AH-1, AH-64, Mi-8, Mi-24, etc. the Pilot flies and the Gunner shoots.

 

So given eSim's focus on realism, if the helos in SB Pro PE were made playable, that they would follow what really happens, not split the weapon control between two people.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Pilot flies and the Gunner shoots.

 

Pilot controls the rockets - they are fixed points and cannot be slaved . Gunner controls gun and missiles. 

 

Edit - Source: Family member requires 8 hours of sleep (pilot)

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Better player control over the attack helicopters.

 

The flight dynamics need not be greatly improved, this isn't a sim about flying helicopters, but it is a sim about things that get blown up by helicopters and things that blow helicopters up...

 

Ideally, would like to see the ability to multicrew with a Pilot/"Commander" seat in control of the rocket pods, and a gunner seat in control of the gun and ATGMs.

Totally agree!

 

The PRO version lets users fly helicopters and use the weapons, and its pretty damn awesome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Better player control over the attack helicopters.

 

The flight dynamics need not be greatly improved, this isn't a sim about flying helicopters, but it is a sim about things that get blown up by helicopters and things that blow helicopters up...

 

Ideally, would like to see the ability to multicrew with a Pilot/"Commander" seat in control of the rocket pods, and a gunner seat in control of the gun and ATGMs.

 

 

No doubt that would be fun, even with no improvements to the flight model/handling. And if a scenario designer doesnt like it, they can disable the positions in the editor. In my humble opinion the same goes for infantry 'gunner view' / ironsights.

 

Also crewable AMX 13, Scorpion and  PT76 light tanks. Couldnt resist ;)

Edited by Bond_Villian
obligatory light tank wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said:

 

 

No doubt that would be fun, even with no improvements to the flight model/handling. And if a scenario designer doesnt like it, they can disable the positions in the editor. In my humble opinion the same goes for infantry 'gunner view' / ironsights.

 

Also crewable AMX 13, Scorpion and  PT76 light tanks. Couldnt resist ;)

+1

 

3QNQ4nc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Happy to be corrected by someone who doesn't work for a living (pilot) but I'm pretty sure that in say ARH, AH-1, AH-64, Mi-8, Mi-24, etc. the Pilot flies and the Gunner shoots.

 

So given eSim's focus on realism, if the helos in SB Pro PE were made playable, that they would follow what really happens, not split the weapon control between two people.

 

 

Someone has already addressed this, but I think that has changed a little bit over the decades.  I know that on the AH-64 the pylons themselves provide a tiny little bit of adjustment, so the rocket aiming pipper is a device shaped like a capital letter "I" showing the amount of vertical and horizontal adjustment you have, so it is possible for either crew member to aim the rockets, it's just that the pilot still needs to steer the aircraft to get close enough and there isn't much adjustment horizontally at all.

 

Back in the day of the AH-1G and other early Cobras it seems like the gunner was responsible for the chin turret (which could be locked facing straight forward and then aimed/fired by the pilot), while the pilot was in control of the wing mounted rocket pods, cannon pods, etc, which I understand were rigidly mounted and aimed by a rigidly mounted reflector sight in the rear cockpit.  I don't know if later AH-1s have changed this setup by putting trainable hard-points on the wings or not.  I know that early Cobras like the AH-1G had flight controls in both seats so either man could fly, but I don't know how much control the front seater had over the rocket pods and external guns.

 

From what I understand the chin turret was originally made with the 40mm AGL and the minigun because he was expected to provide suppression fire and kinda 'spread the love around' while the pilot attacked the main target.

 

I do know that in the current AH-1Z both cockpits are identical, and they have started putting the pilot up front for better visibility with his eyes, while the gunner is in back and spends more time heads down in the displays working with the optics and sensors and stuff.  I don't know, however, if the rockets are still rigidly mounted or not.

 

 

 

When I used to play "Gunship!" with a buddy as my gunner, typically as the pilot I would handle the rocket pods and the air to air missiles, while the gunner down in front handled the chain-gun and Hellfires since they had a much larger area they could be fired into without having to aim the chopper.  That did not simulate things like the laser guided precision Hydra rockets that are out there now, so maybe that's changed things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

So given eSim's focus on realism, if the helos in SB Pro PE were made playable, that they would follow what really happens, not split the weapon control between two people.

 

 

I imagine that whatever arrangement is modelled in the 'PRO' version would be more than adequate for 'PE'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

 

 

I imagine that whatever arrangement is modeled in the 'PRO' version would be more than adequate for 'PE'

 

 

And because playable helos are a feature in PRO (though limited to only a few air frames and positions), there's little chance of seeing them in PE.

Edited by MAJ_Fubar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

 

 

And because playable helos are a feature in PRO (though limited to only a few air frames and positions), there's little chance of seeing them in PE.

There are more aircraft in the Pro version than PE. 

 

And I'm pretty sure Ssnake said we weren't going to get thisc feature in the PE version. So, NO chance of seeing them.

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

 

 

I imagine that whatever arrangement is modelled in the 'PRO' version would be more than adequate for 'PE'

You quoted the wrong person somehow lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

better Russian made ATGM ammunition. See IRL video: The current in game russian ATGM are totally unreal for a simulator level. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chiquito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I ever said that playable helicopters would never make it into the PE. It's just that in their current configuration they simply are not acceptable, and I don't know when (if ever) we'll find the time to do them right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What aspects do you consider unacceptable?

 

I have to be honest, I think the flight models and behavior are good enough.  If I wanted a helicopter simulator I would go fire up "Enemy Engaged" or "Gunship!", but primarily my interest is in being able to more closely control what they're doing.  I'm not terribly concerned about having torque, retreating blade stall, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Chiquito said:

better Russian made ATGM ammunition. See IRL video: The current in game russian ATGM are totally unreal for a simulator level. 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are probably AT-4s and AT-5s, we have those in SB. But it certainly would be nice to have AT-7, AT-13 and AT-14.

Edited by TankHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TankHunter said:

 

Those are probably AT-4s and AT-5s, we have those in SB. But it certainly would be nice to have AT-7, AT-13 and AT-14.

 

Not sure what is the “real” policy of the developer in this matter. 

 

Every time I read in the forum some request like this the answer is they have not tech info about... I guess they have not neither accuracy info for AT-4s and AT-5s because I found them useless but IRL they seem useful to badly damage a tank

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Chiquito said:

Every time I read in the forum some request like this the answer is they have not tech info about... I guess they have not neither accuracy info for AT-4s and AT-5s because I found them useless but IRL they seem useful to badly damage a tank

 

A lot depends on the production date of the missile.

 

They don't remain static. From Wikipedia (with liberal amounts of salt):

Models

Missile

  • 9M111 Fagot (NATO: AT-4 Spigot and AT-4A Spigot A) Entered service in 1970. Maximum range 2,000 m (6,600 ft; 1.2 mi), minimum 70 m (230 ft). Warhead 400 mm versus RHA or 200 mm towards armour inclined at 60°[7]
  • 9M111-2 Fagot (NATO: AT-4B Spigot B) Slightly improved version.
  • 9M111M Faktoriya/Faktoria[8] (Trading post) or Fagot-M (NATO: AT-4C Spigot C) Improved motor, longer guidance wire. Maximum range 2,500 m (8,200 ft; 1.6 mi), minimum 75 m (246 ft). Improved single HEAT warhead; penetration 400 mm versus RHA or 230 mm towards armour inclined at 60°[7][9][10] (some publications claimed 9M111M to have tandem HEAT warhead).
  • 9M113M 1990. Fagot/Kornet. Tandem HEAT warhead (800 mm behind a layer of ERA). 4000 m (3500 m night (passive)).[11][12]

Launcher

  • 9P135 22.5 kg (50 lb). Can only fire the 9M111 Fagot series.
  • 9P135M Can fire the 9M111 Fagot (NATO: AT-4 Spigot) series as well as the 9M113 Konkurs (NATO: AT-5 Spandrel) series missiles.
  • 9P135M1 Updated version of the 9P135.
  • 9P135M2 Updated version of the 9P135.
  • 9P135M3 Deployed in the early 1990s. Adds 13 kg (29 lb) TPVP thermal imaging night sight – range 2,500 m (8,200 ft; 1.6 mi) at night.
  • 9S451M2 A launcher with a night sight featuring an anti-dazzle system has been developed.

 

I'm not sure if its say the 9M111 specifically currently modelled but it may seem underpowered if the recent rash of YouTube footage covers 9M113M's for example.

 

Similarly eSim may have the relevant technical information (and are therefore happy to model) the 9M111 but not the 9M113M.

 

I'm sure if you can provide them with the relevant correct data (and not a snapshot from wikipedia) they'd love to see it.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

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...