Jump to content

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List


Azure Lion
 Share

Recommended Posts

How about two different types of water, one shallow with mild banks, and another like the current water. If you want to make a river so that only amphibious vehicles can get through, you'd put shallow water just on the edges to insure the banks aren't too steep while keeping the middle deep enough to stop other vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but its not system wide.

Its up to the scenario / map designer.

If you want to replicate a river in flood in mid monsoon then you adjust the settings to suit.

If you want to replicate the same river in say the dry season then you adjust it the other way.

Unfortunately if you just improve the traction globally it also means vehicles can climb slopes they shouldn't, etc.

Its certainly not perfect but the increased flexibility brings with it a burden for the designer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too - although in my case it's not a case of 'slacken off' but needing all the help I can get. :) I think that with the modern business of 'first shot kill' (or at least 'first shot hit') many people don't appreciate how innacurate gunnery was in the 'pre computer/laser' period. I seem to remember reading in 'King of the Killing Zone', that it took on average 13(!) rounds for a tank to hit another at ranges over 1km. (That's in battle, not on the range). Comments based on your experience of steam gunnery would be most welcome.
Any comments on the claim in the book I mentioned that prior to lazer range finding computational electronics it took several rounds for even the best gunners to get the range to the target and start landing hits? And I'd be most interested to know your opinion of the ranging machine gun versus the 'wide base' optical range finders.

Well I'm not familiar with the publication but if its referring to short barreled guns with low muzzle velocities, then it may well be right.

Slower muzzle velocities mean a moving target covers more distance (depending on the angle, etc.) between when you squeeze the trigger and when the round lands where the target was when you fired.

Add to that the lack of stab (if that applies), less sophisticated range determination and it might be right (esp. if averaged across a whole bunch of vehicle types and weather conditions of engagements).

Having said that the norm for us in Centurion days (not that I was on them) from a doctrinal view was to use three round engagements (0.50" cal spotting rounds until a hit is achieved and then fire main on the same lay).

This worked both on the range and on Operations.

Now if that has to be averaged with someone else looking down the bore and taking a guess while moving cross country in a non stabilised platform against a moving target at dusk, then the "average" is bound to be higher.

I suspect if the IDF had to resort to 13 rounds fired for 1 hit then the Golan Heights would still be Syrian and indeed Israelis would be the displaced persons.

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm not familiar with the publication but if its referring to short barreled guns with low muzzle velocities, then it may well be right.

I suspect if the IDF had to resort to 13 rounds fired for 1 hit then the Golan Heights would still be Syrian and indeed Israelis would be the displaced persons.

That was because I didn't say what the book was. Doh. It's Kill of the Killing Zone by Orr Kelly and is regarded (AFAIK) as the definitive history of the development, funding and procurement of the M1. The bit about 'pre computer' gunnery referred to the technology available during WWII and the Korean War.

Many thanks for the information. Most helpful. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why i like that period.i guess i think you had to be a more skillful gunner.

But for anybody who would like to see what it would be like try using the gunners auxiliary sight on a fast moving target.not the exact same but it would give you an idea what it would have been like and how difficult it would have been to hit targets at ranges considered relatively short by modern standards.i guess.

Having been there and done that I would agree with you 100%.

No laser rangefinders, no gun stabilization, primitive near to useless night vision gear. Our sights were a GPS and a Telescope.

TC did all the rangefinding with a stereoscopic rangefinder. Gunner used GPS and had to put lead in himself because the ANALOG computer didn't do it for you. The driver had to be almost telepathic to know when to stop, go and how to find the perfect hull down position and do it fast when the TC gave a fire command. The loader had to be strong, fast and mucho stamina to get the rounds into the chamber and himself out of the way after yelling up before gunner fired and they'd fire real quick after getting the up shout from the loader and fire command from the TC.

At Grafenwoehr we had crews that could locate a target, go from a 15mph road speed to full stop, and put two rounds downrange within 8 seconds, all the while maintaining a 93% 1st round hit rate. Sound incredible - it was and not all crews were that good but some were and we did it without all the bells and whistles.

Maybe we were brainwashed by the powers that be but we all had no problem with the take out 5 policy - we knew we could do it. Looking back on it I have my doubts now that if the flood gates had ever opened that we'd have been able to stem the tide. I do know that there'd have been lots and lots of scrap metal on the battlefields of Central Europe had the baloon gone up. And it'd have been put there without the benefits the video game generation now has.

NOTE: I'm not running down the video game gen. You guys are awesome and make up the finest armies in the world. You are kicking major butt wherever you are sent whether its in a tank, on foot, in the air or on the sea. Mucho respect sent your way. I'm just waxing nostalgic for times back in the early 70's when I served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been there and done that I would agree with you 100%.

No laser rangefinders, no gun stabilization, primitive near to useless night vision gear. Our sights were a GPS and a Telescope.

TC did all the rangefinding with a stereoscopic rangefinder. Gunner used GPS and had to put lead in himself because the ANALOG computer didn't do it for you. The driver had to be almost telepathic to know when to stop, go and how to find the perfect hull down position and do it fast when the TC gave a fire command. The loader had to be strong, fast and mucho stamina to get the rounds into the chamber and himself out of the way after yelling up before gunner fired and they'd fire real quick after getting the up shout from the loader and fire command from the TC.

At Grafenwoehr we had crews that could locate a target, go from a 15mph road speed to full stop, and put two rounds downrange within 8 seconds, all the while maintaining a 93% 1st round hit rate. Sound incredible - it was and not all crews were that good but some were and we did it without all the bells and whistles.

Maybe we were brainwashed by the powers that be but we all had no problem with the take out 5 policy - we knew we could do it. Looking back on it I have my doubts now that if the flood gates had ever opened that we'd have been able to stem the tide. I do know that there'd have been lots and lots of scrap metal on the battlefields of Central Europe had the baloon gone up. And it'd have been put there without the benefits the video game generation now has.

NOTE: I'm not running down the video game gen. You guys are awesome and make up the finest armies in the world. You are kicking major butt wherever you are sent whether its in a tank, on foot, in the air or on the sea. Mucho respect sent your way. I'm just waxing nostalgic for times back in the early 70's when I served.

Well if we get playable vehicles from that time frame.

Soviet VU will definitely use them.

After some familiarization training.

I intend to set up some MP cold war type missions.

I will pm you if all goes well.

I'm sure it will all come back to you when you see a battalion

Of T-55/T-62's Heading straight for you. LoL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get too much off topic, but I don't think WW3 in practice would have turned out that way.

After the Iron Curtain was lifted, some of the Soviet plans were revealed as expected, sacrificing even WP nations to a nuclear battlefield, if necessary.

We could assume that the Soviets would have used gas and tactical nuclear weapons and aircraft bombs either right from the outset to open up gaps in the defenses and on important political and military targets, or would have resorted to them if the initial breakthrough attempts were running behind schedule. NATO would have responded in kind, or may use nuclear weapons if the Soviets were getting too close with overrunning Western Europe. It would have likely been a totally different dimension of warfare that neither side really could prepare to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King of the Killing Zone? Found it on Amazon for only $34.71. :P

My bad typo. :( I bought mine second hand in 'very good' condition from Amazon.co.uk for £0.01 (1p) plus £2.80 post and packing. :)

Highly recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect if the IDF had to resort to 13 rounds fired for 1 hit then the Golan Heights would still be Syrian and indeed Israelis would be the displaced persons.

Well as of 1973, IDF tank gunners trained to hit enemy armour at 4,000m. Yes- 4,000m. The expected hit rate at that range was 33%.

Couple of things.

a.) It was only possible using the 105mm L7 gun, and very well characterised ammunition batches, types and natures.

b.) It was done from prepared firing ramps using very well prepared range cards.

c.) IDF tank gunners consumed about 3-7 times as much ammunition in training compared to NATO.

.... so basically an SB gunner, with none of those constraints (and all the assistance) should be able to be just as good. :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as of 1973, IDF tank gunners trained to hit enemy armour at 4,000m. Yes- 4,000m. The expected hit rate at that range was 33%.

Couple of things.

a.) It was only possible using the 105mm L7 gun, and very well characterised ammunition batches, types and natures.

b.) It was done from prepared firing ramps using very well prepared range cards.

c.) IDF tank gunners consumed about 3-7 times as much ammunition in training compared to NATO.

.... so basically an SB gunner, with none of those constraints (and all the assistance) should be able to be just as good. :biggrin:

I read. Some of the IDF gunnery instructors are female

Seemingly it motivates the young recruits to try there best

You have got to hand it to the IDF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we need more "Cold War Tanks", like this:

Or at least ability to make foliage and bush cammo visible like this on vehicles - if, lets say , that option is enabled in mission editor.

It would help with higher realism and with creating some really good ambush scenarios

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or at least ability to make foliage and bush cammo visible like this on vehicles - if, lets say , that option is enabled in mission editor.

It would help with higher realism and with creating some really good ambush scenarios

Only if AI reacts to the cammo like in real life.

It is hard to make the computer controlled units "not see things" properly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if AI reacts to the cammo like in real life.

It is hard to make the computer controlled units "not see things" properly...

Far Cry is a good example.

The AI appeared to have telescope X-ray eyes of DEATH!

They could pick you off through 2 km of jungle.

Or it could just have been the bright red Hawaiian shirt your character was wearing. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wait! I desire an M1A2!

The Strv 103 reference was a joke in response to... another joke.

If Santa comes in July he will bring a crewable one of these.

It's sooooo BEAUTIFUL! :redface:

It most certainly was not a joke :sonic: hehe

And as for the assault gun remark, yeah, I'd like that, to have an assault gun instead of conventional tanks only, not at the cost of Eisenschwein's cast turret leo 1A5, of course, but still.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...