Jump to content
[]_--__[]KITT

In your personal opinion which is the most effective tank in Steel Beasts Pro PE

Which is the most effective tank in SB Pro PE world  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is the most effective tank in SB Pro PE world

    • M1A1(HA)
      20
    • Leopard 2A4
      4
    • Leopard 2A5
      10
    • Strv 122
      5
    • Leopard 2E
      20
    • Leopard 1AS
      1
    • Leopard 1A5
      0
    • Challenger 2
      3
    • T-72M1
      4
    • T-80U
      1


Recommended Posts

Just a poll, nothing serious, in your own personal opinion which is the most effective tank in Steel Beasts Pro PE world? And why if you care to elaborate too.(AI tank included too)

Also would you choose the same tank if you take into consideration of the cost of each tank? Please specify your most cost effective tank here

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=16777

Poll will be closed after 90 days :)

Edited by []_--__[]KITT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered 2A5, but I like all the Leo 2s. The reason is it's a fairly modern tank with good protection, powerful gun, good HP, the best FCS (IMO) and the H/K capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I answered 2A5, but I like all the Leo 2s. The reason is it's a fairly modern tank with good protection, powerful gun, good HP, the best FCS (IMO) and the H/K capability.

The poll hit the poll :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried to find something I'm more comfortable and successful fighting than the M1A1 (HA) but just can't. Not bad for tank that's ~20 years old. The Strv 122 comes a close second in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the Leopard 2E which is essentially more or less the Leopard 2A6. Strv 122 would be my 2nd choice. Respectable protection, powerful gun, ability to zoom in and out of the gunner's sight and very good accuracy imo made this tank my first choice.

The only downside is probably the cost per unit which is rather high but perhaps still not as high as the cost of the Challenger 2(I'm guessing).

I like Challenger 2 very much, very accurate gun and firing system and of course respectable even very respectable protection(and that noteworthy super special quality suspension performance almost luxurious for a tank/combat vehicle). But I have a couple gripes about it. One the driver sits in the middle of the tank and two that what turned out as the thermal imager is located in a very exposed position which would likely get hit. And the cost too. I'd think overall Leopard 2E or 2A6 would make a more balanced and effective tank.

M1A1(HA) has incredible armor alebit poisonous due to its depleted uranium armor but that's restricted to its frontal turret slab. The turret design itself is rather sloppy leaving a wide gap that could be pen from the front(I know the gap is probably there to enable the tank to take hull down position but still...that is a huge gap). As long as the enemy shells hitting its fontal turret slabs the M1A1(HA) crew can feel rather safe but alas that will not happen most of the time. Enemy shells will hit the sides or lower hull or the gap in the frontal turret dispatching the M1A1(HA) rather quickly. Sure the depleted uranium armor would probably save it from one or two or three hits but not likely more than that in a persistent and prolonged attack/assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you have included the non-playable T-80U, you would include the non-playable M1, M1A2SEP and the three other T-72 as well, but forgot? Protection-wise, the M1A2SEP seems to be modelled as a tough bug.

Leo2E first choice for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the latest versions of M1 was made in SB virtually impenetrable it is the obvious choice. But it is easier to shoot from leo2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you have included the non-playable T-80U, you would include the non-playable M1, M1A2SEP and the three other T-72 as well, but forgot? Protection-wise, the M1A2SEP seems to be modelled as a tough bug.

Leo2E first choice for me.

Hmm the poll only allows for 10 choices in this forum :biggrin:

Edit:

Aside from that I'd think M1A2 SEP mainly enhances the tank's digital communication capabilities. And you can't assess the added tank's effectiveness from such improvement without playing it. I'd think for armor nothing beats depleted uranium armor in M1A1(HA).

Similar reasons to not include the other T-72s as well. Without playing them how do you assess what exactly making them more effective from the others. So I just put the definitive T-72M1 in the poll because we are able to assess its capabilites.

The M1 is no longer in service so that will not be put in either poll.

The T-80U is put in the poll since we get to play against them very often in SB Pro PE. By meeting them I'd say we have a good grasp what it is able to do and not. Personally I'd prefer the T-80 without the turbine engine since I'd think it would make a more effective or more cost effective tank. But since that T-80 isn't in the SB Pro PE universe it can't be included.

Edited by []_--__[]KITT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, tough one. Though I prefer to drive in the Leopard 2E and Strv 122 since they are the most up to date tanks in the sim (I like my CITV/TIM) I feel I have survived much more punishment in the M1A1(HA)

I think the main reason for the higher losses for the Leopards vs the M1A1(HA) is the reserve ammo storage location. So long as you have hull down in the Leopard you're okei, but if it gets hit in the hull just right where the ammo is stored, adios. Or adiablo depending on your nature. There have been several times the Abrams has just survived an onslaught of punishment where I have lost Leopards on the same scenarios. (I have gone back and replaced M1A1(HA)s with Strv 122s or Leopard 2Es for missions where the option was not available.)

One reason I'd like to have the M1A2(SEP) is to compare it with the Leopard2E and Strv 122. One main complaint I have with the 2A5 and newer Leopards is the commander periscope positioning. The commander's copula and loaders gun, especially in hull down on a slope, really interfere with searching for targets.

I see the 2A4 has gotten quite a lot of votes, and I can see why if you account for monetary cost per unit. That and the periscope positioning is a major plus. But there again, I personally have had a much better survival rate in the 2A5 and newer Leopard tanks.

Haven't tried the Challenger 2 much yet, I'm spoiled with 3D interiors, so unfortunately I am biased against the Challenger 2 in that aspect, only because I have not really played it. So I do not feel my vote really counts in this instance.

First generation Leopards just do not seem to have the survivability of the newer equipment for me. It and the playable soviet tanks just do not seem to hold up to the newer generation tanks. All the leopards are fun to play though.

The interesting thing is, I have not noticed much difference between the Strv 122 (Leo 2S) and the Leo 2E. If I remember correctly the 2E is slightly better armored, that and it has the longer main cannon, but it seems just as effective as the 2S. The 2E seems to have poor acceleration and speed maintenance due to the heavier armor compared to the 2S, but I've noticed no discernible increase in survivability nor effectiveness against enemy armor. So between these two tanks, I feel I like the Leo 2S over the 2E.

Anyway, that is my humble, and hopefully unbiased (except for the Challenger 2 as explained earlier) view.

So here's to hoping we get a 3D interior to the Challenger 2 and a playable with 3D interior of the M1A2(SEP). Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the latest versions of M1 was made in SB virtually impenetrable it is the obvious choice. But it is easier to shoot from leo2.

Are you suggesting that the Armour values are wrong in SB for the latest versions of M1?:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "Whatever tank I'm in" option is missing too. ;)

Ah this

Poll will be closed after 90 days. Afterwards(or after the decisive winners are obvious) there's probably going to be another poll on the mixing percentage between the most effective tank and the most cost effective tank given certain amount of fund knowing the cost of each tank type(the winner of each poll), ranging from just using either type of tank to a mix of both. Hehe just for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting that the Armour values are wrong in SB for the latest versions of M1?:confused:

Don't know! Maybe, just maybe they are somewhere near the actual values. All the information about armour quality is strictly classified in every country.

So I'am also wondering: what method did the SB designers use to calculate it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they got good info on returned results from the manufacturers as well as data from various good sources. After all, you can get all the details of how the armor 'performs' without knowing what it is composed of. And in the end, that's all you really need to duplicate it's performance in a sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that you can only dupliacte the "performance", it's not nescessary to know all the composition.

But how they actally know the performance of t80u against M829A3? or against dm43? or leo2 against bm42?

I don't question the quality of their work, I'm sure they've got a good expertise. But how far does their knowledge goes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that you can only dupliacte the "performance", it's not nescessary to know all the composition.

But how they actally know the performance of t80u against M829A3? or against dm43? or leo2 against bm42?

I don't question the quality of their work, I'm sure they've got a good expertise. But how far does their knowledge goes?

They don't need to know that, What they need to know is the power of the gun and the performance expected from the round(classified data).

Then they compare those with the protection of each potential target in game(classified data) and voila! Pretty simple math if you know the telemetry/classified data from defense agencies.

SB Pro PE is not a game actually meaning they don't do estimates but base them on informed data. But at the end of the day real life could have freak results now and then due to previously unknown factors like design fault or material fault. All I'm saying is SB Pro PE tries to simulate the result (of hits) from KNOWN data. It all depends on the completeness of that data and its accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm pretty sure they aren't going to tell someone posting from Beijing for starters.

All I can say is that for "our" stuff they had a fair degree of access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_--__[]KITT;217544']They don't need to know that' date=' What they need to know is the power of the gun and the performance expected from the round(classified data).

Then they compare those with the protection of each potential target in game(classified data) and voila! Pretty simple math if you know the telemetry/classified data from defense agencies.

[/quote']Well, it looks pretty simple, but the only problem is that "performance expected from the round" and "protection of each potential target" both are, as you mentioned, classified and,what is even more important, basically unknown because there was no examples of confrontation between modern tanks (except modern m1 and outdated t72, which is not the case). So there are 2 questions to be asked:

1) How do they simulate the potential outcome of such a confrontation?

2) Do they have "classified" data? (anyway, even if they have, they have only the data from the "Blue" side)

Well I'm pretty sure they aren't going to tell someone posting from Beijing for starters.
Yeah, Chinese intelligence entangled SB forum with its tentacles. Do you think, they would say if I have changed the location in my profile, for example, to "Sydney, Australia"? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it looks pretty simple, but the only problem is that "performance expected from the round" and "protection of each potential target" both are, as you mentioned, classified and,what is even more important, basically unknown because there was no examples of confrontation between modern tanks (except modern m1 and outdated t72, which is not the case). So there are 2 questions to be asked:

1) How do they simulate the potential outcome of such a confrontation?

2) Do they have "classified" data? (anyway, even if they have, they have only the data from the "Blue" side)

If they have the data or classified telemetry from related defense agencies then it is a matter of physics and math calculations.

You would note that there isn't a T-90 tank in the game not even as AI. That's probably because they do not have access to its classified data(armor protection data) so there's no way to judge what would happen when a known round from a known gun and a known firing control system hit that unknown armor of the T-90 tank. It's not a matter of just adding another tank but also all the known data about that tank. It's no game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who read the user's manual will also find a chapter or two about the underlying modeling & simulation part, our sources, and methods. Throw in a bit of "standardized guesswork" and plausibility checks, and you'll have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who read the user's manual will also find a chapter or two about the underlying modeling & simulation part, our sources, and methods. Throw in a bit of "standardized guesswork" and plausibility checks, and you'll have it.
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't find anything on simulation sources in the manual. It has very interesing chapter, called battlefield hazardz etc., which personally I found very interesting and educating, but there is actually nothing on where eSim got the data on simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Throw in a bit of "standardized guesswork" and plausibility checks, and you'll have it.

Hmm did I just smell T-90 tank. Standardized guess work and plausibility check would they make T-90 come true as non controllable tank? :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't find anything on simulation sources in the manual.

There's a chapter on armor technology by Paul Lakowski, with plenty of references to his sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×