screenshots 3.0

[Tjay]

When i talk about map editing i dont mean contour lines,iam just wondering if there will be more object to chose from when editing the map in the map editor, like walls, hedges,ditches,infantery trenches,buildingblocks,electricity mast,haystacks,dirtpiles,oildrums,just to name a few.

I must be very fortunate. In my sim these things materialise as I go along thanks to an auxiliary computer inside my head called The Brain. It runs the 'Imagination' programme. But I gather that this feature is lacking in anyone borne after 1960.

[BlackDeath]

sentry gun looks cool

what are "NATO target" and "Custom" in this screenshot? :sonic:

Dummy tanks?

[Hedgehog]

You'll like this then: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/battle-of-hoth/

LOL.

"How not to crush the Rebellion with one swift stroke!"

Ah Peter Cushing hamming it up as Grand Moff Tarkin.

In Star Wars (if you actually want to start this

nerdy debate) apparently projectile weapons have been given up entirely in exchange for energy based weapons, maybe they are laser shots. Assuming that the walkers have some anti-laser coating/polarization filter/absorption like the vision blocks on current military vehicles, that light be sufficient. Which opens up the question why the entire hull isn't made of transparent material, so you can watch your six ("For structural reasons, of course! Glass is too rigid!"), etc., etc.

Favoring energy based weapons is an odd choice, given that they are proven to be ineffective against Jedi, and discounting the question what their seemingly inexhaustible source of energy actually is (did you ever see a battery change? Maybe it's "cold fusion"? (LOL)). The answer to all this is surprisingly simple:

Just roll with it, it's cool!

OKay.

I must be very fortunate. In my sim these things materialise as I go along thanks to an auxiliary computer inside my head called The Brain. It runs the 'Imagination' programme. But I gather that this feature is lacking in anyone borne after 1960. :smile:

I must have imagination 3.0, Don't know if it is improved or not though.....

[Hedgehog]

sentry gun looks cool

what are "NATO target" and "Custom" in this screenshot? :sonic:

Dummy tanks?

They are Pro and Developer version items.

Custom = Add new > "Whatever" into SB engine

NATO target is a target as would appear on a military range. (Only available in SB Pro only, Not Pro PE)

(Ssnake disagrees with this, as the whole point of SB is you can shoot OPFOR vehicles at will without having to worry about obtaining more. )

[Stevo]

How many haystacks and oil drums have you seen in your town, lately?

Dirtpiles, despite being cheap as dirt, also do not seem to be as common as dirt itself.

Walls: Check.

Hedges: Check.

Iam just saying it would be nice if there would be more objects to chose from to create somemore diversity in the landscape,did i mention tunnels,piled sandbags,barbwire ect.

Oil barrels filled with sand or concrete are commenly used obstacals in conflict zones

But you get my point...

Edited June 27, 2013 by Stevo

[enigma6584]

I must be very fortunate. In my sim these things materialise as I go along thanks to an auxiliary computer inside my head called The Brain. It runs the 'Imagination' programme. But I gather that this feature is lacking in anyone borne after 1960.

LOL...I have the "imagination program" constantly running in my head. Sometimes it turns off and I realize I'm not really a tank commander. :debile2:

[BlackDeath]

They are Pro and Developer version items.

Custom = Add new > "Whatever" into SB engine

NATO target is a target as would appear on a military range. (Only available in SB Pro only, Not Pro PE)

(Ssnake disagrees with this, as the whole point of SB is you can shoot OPFOR vehicles at will without having to worry about obtaining more. )

OK, thx

Iam just saying it would be nice if there would be more objects to chose from to create somemore diversity in the landscape,did i mention tunnels,piled sandbags,barbwire ect.

Oil barrels filled with sand or concrete are commenly used obstacals in conflict zones

But you get my point...

tunnels?! never heard of a tank in tunnel

[Companion]

Well, I didn't take it as being ungrateful myself, seemed to me like you were just asking for more information about the T-64.

To answer your previous question: no, I don't have much information about the T-64 with 20mm applique armor. I had a book around here about the T-64's history but I cannot seem to find it at the moment. But really, I think the T-64 is one of those areas like the T-72B discussion: a bit of unknown and confusion, plus the T-64 had extensive upgrades. The version added in SB is the 1981 model, but I was under the impression that the biggest difference prior to the BV ERA variant of 1985'ish was the anti-radiation cladding added to the roof. This wouldn't have any effect in SB, and if there was 20mm more armor added to the turret front(?) after the 1981 model then that wouldn't, IMO at least, be a significant difference to the degree that the T-64B mod.1981 wouldn't suffice (not against NATO 120mm anyway). A T-64BV would be nice addition for 1985 scenarios, but even still the non-BV type B variants were still in use at that time AFAIK.

I tried to make sense of that quagmire myself and put together what I "know" in a single tanknet thread to ask for help but unfortunately nobody seems to care

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=37823

RE: 20mm applique:

It's applied to glacis, not turret. I'm sure you've read this article by Jim Warford about Soviet testing of M111, actually, I think I started a thread about that myself in SB forum some time before. Well, it's related. According to Zaloga and "Harkonnen" (BTVT) not only T-72 but also 64/80 received glacis applique treatment to cope with new generation of NATO APFSDS. (applied during 1982 as crash program)

For T-72, it's quoted as 16mm 350BHN plate while it's usually 20mm (hardness unknown) for T-64/80. No one really knows the reason behind the difference, maybe expected threat threshold was different for different models.

Anyways, what I wanted to say - why I wanted it? Just for the sake of it and maybe added challenge Maybe I wanted my "favorite tank" to be represented in its best shape for all related years.

Addition of 20mm plate gives a marginal increase in protection that would give immunity against rounds that would have penetrated the tank but just barely do so. (I'm guessing new generation of 105mm rounds at the time)

Considering that most of early 80s NATO tanks wielded 105mm, it is not so negligible as it seems.

Weeellll... I guess it's time to stop going offtopic and let the screenshots flow

[Stevo]

OK, thx

tunnels?! never heard of a tank in tunnel

Actualy its a good place to hide them,ask the serbs,btw i didnt say anything about hiding them in it.moving forces through tunnels in mountainnes terrain (austria for example) can be tacticallly challenging,..

[Captain_Colossus]

In Star Wars (if you actually want to start this nerdy debate) apparently projectile weapons have been given up entirely in exchange for energy based weapons, maybe they are laser shots. Assuming that the walkers have some anti-laser coating/polarization filter/absorption like the vision blocks on current military vehicles, that light be sufficient. Which opens up the question why the entire hull isn't made of transparent material, so you can watch your six ("For structural reasons, of course! Glass is too rigid!"), etc., etc.

Favoring energy based weapons is an odd choice, given that they are proven to be ineffective against Jedi, and discounting the question what their seemingly inexhaustible source of energy actually is (did you ever see a battery change? Maybe it's "cold fusion"? (LOL)). The answer to all this is surprisingly simple:

Just roll with it, it's cool!

Why is Chewbacca's weapon shaped like a crossbow?

[Hedgehog]

Why is Chewbacca's weapon shaped like a crossbow?

Because it is a crossbow.

Well, a Wookie one anyway.

[Captain_Colossus]

Well, it's counter to the very idea, since Chewbacca doesn't actually draw bolts, it shoots energy. He's got like a bandolier for what I assume are energy packs or something. So the system is purely cosmetic.

Seems like the Force wouldn't approve of vanity.

[Volcano]

I tried to make sense of that quagmire myself and put together what I "know" in a single tanknet thread to ask for help but unfortunately nobody seems to care.

Ok, well, we all have our favorite pet tank. Regardless -- like I said originally, I am pretty sure the Soviets had all type of T-64B in service in 1985, so I was just pointing out that it was valid to use it for scenarios of that period (heck, they were still using some upgraded T-64A tanks in 1985 too IIRC).

Personally, I just don't see the B variant you are referring to as a significant difference to add yet another one to SB personally, not when we are missing all manner of T-80, T-62 and T-55 (early model T-80s late modernized T-62 and T-55). If another T-64 is ever added one day, then surely it would be the BV, the most superior version.

[apelles]

Ok, well, we all have our favorite pet tank. .

Which one is yours?

[Damian90]

Ok, well, we all have our favorite pet tank. Regardless -- like I said originally, I am pretty sure the Soviets had all type of T-64B in service in 1985, so I was just pointing out that it was valid to use it for scenarios of that period (heck, they were still using some upgraded T-64A tanks in 1985 too IIRC).

Personally, I just don't see the B variant you are referring to as a significant difference to add yet another one to SB personally, not when we are missing all manner of T-80, T-62 and T-55 (early model T-80s late modernized T-62 and T-55). If another T-64 is ever added one day, then surely it would be the BV, the most superior version.

Actually it is not the most superior version of the T-64.

Most superior are the two newest variants, the T-64BM vel BM "Bulat", and the T-64E.

[Volcano]

Which one is yours?

PzKw V Panther Ausf.G and/or M4A1(76)W Sherman :wink:

Actually it is not the most superior version of the T-64.

Most superior are the two newest variants, the T-64BM vel BM "Bulat", and the T-64E.

Right, I meant for the time period being discussed.

[Companion]

Ok, well, we all have our favorite pet tank. Regardless -- like I said originally, I am pretty sure the Soviets had all type of T-64B in service in 1985, so I was just pointing out that it was valid to use it for scenarios of that period (heck, they were still using some upgraded T-64A tanks in 1985 too IIRC).

Personally, I just don't see the B variant you are referring to as a significant difference to add yet another one to SB personally, not when we are missing all manner of T-80, T-62 and T-55 (early model T-80s late modernized T-62 and T-55). If another T-64 is ever added one day, then surely it would be the BV, the most superior version.

Please allow me one more post about T-64; could you disclose armor composition data/assumption that eSim used for estimating T-64A/B armor protection? esp. B?

i.e. 60mm steel 105mm STEF 50mm steel glacis a la T-72A

I'm by no means an expert but nevertheless it's an interesting subject.

[Companion]

So vehicle presentation is fianlly over, patiently waiting for remaining non-vehicle part

What's difference between Leo 2A5, 2A5A1, and 2A5A2?

[Volcano]

Please allow me one more post about T-64; could you disclose armor composition data/assumption that eSim used for estimating T-64A/B armor protection? esp. B?

i.e. 60mm steel 105mm STEF 50mm steel glacis a la T-72A

I'm by no means an expert but nevertheless it's an interesting subject.

Unfortunately no, not because it is secret, but because there are so many sources we use. Various well known book sources, Russian manuals, tank data websites, then that data is compared and cross referenced, etc. There is no one all encompassing and very detailed source I could point you to, rather it is like putting together a puzzle really.

Maybe Raino will create an LOS thickness image of the T-64B one day, but he does that on his own spare time "for fun" (so we should all be thankful for those that he can do, and understand why he doesn't make one for everything).

[Scrapper_511]

I've always itched to see how a Leopard 2 could educate the Imperial AT-ATs in ground warfare.

An armored recovery vehicle with extra long towing cable would be a more appropriate vehicle if you are at all faithful to Star Wars.

[Companion]

Unfortunately no, not because it is secret, but because there are so many sources we use. Various well known book sources, Russian manuals, tank data websites, then that data is compared and cross referenced, etc. There is no one all encompassing and very detailed source I could point you to, rather it is like putting together a puzzle really.

Maybe Raino will create an LOS thickness image of the T-64B one day, but he does that on his own spare time "for fun" (so we should all be thankful for those that he can do, and understand why he doesn't make one for everything).

But at the end of fixing the puzzle, eSim must settle on something - be that a compromise or assumption - to work out an protection estimate. That "something" right before estimation, rather than a holy grail primary source or final LOS protection picture, was what I was asking.

However, if it's unavailable, that's just as well.

Please send my gratitude to dejawolf.

[CalAB]

My new desktop background. Freakin' awesome doods!! :drink:

[Ssnake]

what are "NATO target" and "Custom" in this screenshot?

An overlooked entry from a menu of a Steel Beasts version that you will never get (internal development thing - and NO, this does NOT mean that this feature will ever make it into the Personal Edition ... some things are better left untouched).

[Rotareneg]

Yay, a stadiametric rangefinder for the Leo 2!

[Ssnake]

What's difference between Leo 2A5, 2A5A1, and 2A5A2?

In a nutshell:

1) New auxiliary sight reticule (came with the A1, is also in the A2)

2) DM11 HE-frag ammunition (came with the A1, is also in the A2)

3) Slat cage add-on armor (A2)

4) Barracuda camouflage net to reduce thermal signature (A2)