What tank would you pick to be playable

[Deputy276]

Two partial solutions:

(1) you can have a human TC and gunner, and the TC can observe the fall of shot. Not always practical in multiplayer, if the friendly force size is large in comparison to the number of players.

(2) A single human in the TC position rather than the gunner position. Use the commander's periscope to lay the AI gunner onto the target. The AI is a decent shot.

Yep. #2 Occured to me right away. But then, I haven't played multipayer (yet)

[GSprocket]

T62 started to receive an external armoured LRF from 1975 onwards.

There was a modified T62 with a FCS and improvements to mobility deployed from 1983 onwards. This also received a LRF in armoured box during it's improvement programs. This also had Bra armour added to combat shaped charge warheads.

Other nations have deeper modifications including regunning with the L7/M68, adding LRF and TIS and ERA suites.

[Hedgehog]

No need for this. Just take LEO AS1 (its playable but without 3D interior, just like T-62 anyway). It has no TIS by default, but it has LRF and FCS (together with simple lead prediction) so it would be still more powerful than M-60A1 (something between A1 and A3 but a bit closer to A3). Leo 1 have even better FCS (and a TIS by default) so it would be very close to M-60A3.

T-62 had no rangefinder at all and no FCS at all. The best thing it had was a simple stab. M-60A1 had the coincidence rangefinder and very simple mechanical FCS but AFAIK no stab. M-60A2 had a funny short and fat gun (AFAIK over 150mm caliber) and it was capable to launch ATGM! M-60A3 got the serious FCS (with lead prediction and LRF) and AFAIK some of A3 got thermals.

If i had a choice to chose T-62 or LEO1 in MP PVP combat i would chose LEO1, even without thermal. Ranging in T-62 is pain in the ass, and lead is even more. LEO do not have such problems, just first shot hit and take down the T-62.

And in T-62 in SB you cannot observe where the round falls (gunsight goes up as soon as you fire because gun goes in loading position). So you cannot make corrections! Its pain in the ass that soon turns into sabot in ass from any tank with serious FCS.

Indeed, but consider this:

10 x T-62s vs 1 x Leopard 1.

Which is the likely what if scenario.

[Panzer_Leader]

For me it's:

1) Challenger 1 Mk 2/3

2) Chieftain Mk 10/11

3) BMP 1/2 (Not a tank but an ideal complement to the T-72M(1) for OPFOR players in multiplayer)

The Challenger 1 Mk 2/3 and Chieftain Mk 10/11 were important British contributors to the late Cold War period and contemporaries to their already well-represented NATO stablemates of Leopard 1, Leopard 2 and M1. With the Warrior and Scimitar already represented, it would be great to have a Challenger 1 Mk 2/3 or Chieftain Mk 10/11 available to round out a British battle group instead of using Challenger 2 as a (admittedly workable, for Challenger 1 at least) proxy.

[Hedgehog]

For me it's:

1) Challenger 1 Mk 2/3

2) Chieftain Mk 10/11

3) BMP 1/2 (Not a tank but an ideal complement to the T-72M(1) for OPFOR players in multiplayer)

The Challenger 1 Mk 2/3 and Chieftain Mk 10/11 were important British contributors to the late Cold War period and contemporaries to their already well-represented NATO stablemates of Leopard 1, Leopard 2 and M1. With the Warrior and Scimitar already represented, it would be great to have a Challenger 1 Mk 2/3 or Chieftain Mk 10/11 available to round out a British battle group instead of using Challenger 2 as a (admittedly workable, for Challenger 1 at least) proxy.

Early Chieftains and late Centurions would need the RMG issue sorted.

[Marko]

For me it's:

1) Challenger 1 Mk 2/3

2) Chieftain Mk 10/11

3) BMP 1/2 (Not a tank but an ideal complement to the T-72M(1) for OPFOR players in multiplayer)

The Challenger 1 Mk 2/3 and Chieftain Mk 10/11 were important British contributors to the late Cold War period and contemporaries to their already well-represented NATO stablemates of Leopard 1, Leopard 2 and M1. With the Warrior and Scimitar already represented, it would be great to have a Challenger 1 Mk 2/3 or Chieftain Mk 10/11 available to round out a British battle group instead of using Challenger 2 as a (admittedly workable, for Challenger 1 at least) proxy.

It would be great if the majority of the earlier cold war AFV,s were made playable.

With every update we get a couple more but at the current rate It will take a long time.

The chieftain would be high up on my personal wish list as well.

but I am still going to go for the M-48 it was used extensively by a large number of nations and deployed in a multitude of conflicts.

Something I should have made clear when I started the thread

Was that I intended that people could only chose one Tank to be made playable

That way we could establish which is the most sort after addition

The M-60 seems to be the over all first choice so far.

[REMBAT]

As I said in other topic - T-72B3M or T-90.

I can't challenge to "Leopard" or "Abrams" having just T-72M

[Grenny]

As I said in other topic - T-72B3M or T-90.

I can't challenge to "Leopard" or "Abrams" having just T-72M

As for obvious reasons, I doubt there will be enough info to model the newer russian FCS.

But maybe SB can go the other way: 1960 tanks like the M-60 or Centurion to play against the T-62.

And as said before: The Leopard 1AS or a Leo1A5 with disbaled TIS are fitting adversaries for the T-72M

[GreenSmoke]

T-80

[Ssnake]

A few remarks:

The eSim Games team is intrinsically motivated to add more playable tanks (including those close to retirement, or recently phased out). We don't need donations for that.

eSim Games is neither a charity, nor are we willing to take your money without delivering something in return.

Adding a new playable tank is only partly (and rather for the smallest part) a matter of money. It's mostly about finding time in the work plan, and the opportunity to crawl all over a vehicle and (ideally) get access to the user manual of it.

We can't just pile more and more playable tanks on top of the heap. We also must devote a (considerable) amount of time on source code maintenance and replacement of existing code modules and similar "plumbing" work. The nicest looking home is nearly worthless without decent plumbing, even if it is mostly hidden in the walls and floors. You notice bad plumbing (and then you're usually deeply dissatisfied); plumbing that you don't smell and feel is a sign of quality - but it requires effort to keep it like that. Our team must replace water and waste water lines in the house while people are still living in it, so we can't rip open the walls and floorbed to get the job done (or at least we can do so only at night without making a lot of noise).

Oh, and then we also have government contracts that bring in about 95% of our revenue, so we can't entirely ignore these customers' wishes either.

So, this is what you get. You have playable T-72s, T-62s, Challengers, Scimitars, Warriors, and more, and none of them was made on a government contract. So you do get considerably more than what armies are paying us for. Just so you know.

[TSe419E]

Thank you. I'm glad to now that.

[Deputy276]

So will the new tanks have running water??? Sorry, couldn't resist. :bigsmile:

I was never suggesting that money donated override govt contracts or give special preference. And Lord knows none of us have the cash to actually fund a tank in SB. But you can see the demand is great from the player base. Even just converting one tank that is in big demand (M60A3) to playable would be an awesome addition. But we can wait. Just not long. Some of us are old farts that actually served on those M60s, and our days are numbered. And that number is getting smaller every day

[Marko]

As I said in other topic - T-72B3M or T-90.

I can't challenge to "Leopard" or "Abrams" having just T-72M

Having once been a member of a VU that used soviet equipment

I can see where your coming from,

But as others have stated Esim would need all the relevant data.

To build a accurate interior model of the T-90 and all it systems.

One possible solution would be the T-72M4 CZ.

It has a Italian designed fire control system, I cant verify this but allegedly the fire control is similar to the one in the centauro. or so I have been told.?

[Jartsev]

As for obvious reasons, I doubt there will be enough info to model the newer russian FCS.

Right, its not possible to make crewable T-72B3, but speaking of T-90S, situation is not that bad... And anyway some new data can pop-up with time...

P.S. My personal preference- fully playable Leo 1A1 or M60A3

[Werewolf]

M60A1 and M60A3 would be my choices.

The M60A1 would add a whole new dimension to SB as it uses stereoscopic sight range finding by the TC, an analog computer and the gun is not stabilized. The armor isn't all that thick either. The M-80 cupula mounted 50 cal had a tendency to jam and it was a pain in the ass to aim. It was real easy to over heat and burn out the coaxial 7.62X51 MG. At the time we used what we called cherry juice (bright red petroleum based hydraulic fluid to move everything) in the hydraulic system that was highly flammable and would have turned the turret into a firebomb if it took a hit in the right place.

Going up against soviet tanks of the same time period wouldn't be the turkey shoot it is now in SB with modern NATO tanks (man did the powers that be have us brainwashed at the time - early 70's - they had us believing we'd take out 5 T-62/T-72's for everyone of ours they got - I used to believe that - I don't any more for a number of reasons).

Anyway - M-60A1 is my number one choice.

[TSe419E]

The M60 and 'A1 had a "coincidence" rangefinder with only one eyepiece.

This is generally how it worked.

This is a good aproximation of the image seen.

Stab was added early to mid '70s.

Armor might not be "that thick," but it has a fantastic balistic shape that can be exploited from a proper turret/hull down position that greatly increases its effectiveness.

My experience With the M85 and the TC's cupola was quite the opposite of your's. It was easy to move around and aim with or without using the sights and in four years only ever had one jam on a track I was on.

The M240, which replaced the M73/219, was a dream to opperate. It just never quit. I've had more failures with it playing Steel Beasts than any company level orginization that I served in ever had.

The "lime" juice was supposed to be better than the "cherry" juice, but a penatration that set either off was probably not one you were going to survive anyway. It was switched more to prevent accidental fires than improve crew survivability.

As for the last, hmmm. 17 tanks in company (we had 18 per company in 2AD(Fwd) as we had a blade tank assigned to each) against 10 or 13 per Soviet company. And they come at you,usually, one company at a time. Or better yet, an armored cavalry troop (of a mech. infantry or armored division). 12 tanks, six TOWs or ITVs, six Dragons, three 120mm mortars. Plus the cavalry squadron might have priority to some divisioal artillery assets (we were told, when I was in 2/9 Cav 24th Inf. that we had a dedicated BATTALION of 175mm to answer our calls). Yeah, I know there will be more than just tanks on the otherside. Yes I know we will take casualties and we'll run out of ammo. But I still think that those odds were pretty good considering all the predictions of our dismall battlefield survivability.

I hope one day to be able to test those odds.

PS. This is for units before "Division '86."

Edited October 11, 2015 by TSe419E

[Marko]

M60A1 and M60A3 would be my choices.

The M60A1 would add a whole new dimension to SB as it uses stereoscopic sight range finding by the TC, an analog computer and the gun is not stabilized. The armor isn't all that thick either. The M-80 cupula mounted 50 cal had a tendency to jam and it was a pain in the ass to aim. It was real easy to over heat and burn out the coaxial 7.62X51 MG. At the time we used what we called cherry juice (bright red petroleum based hydraulic fluid to move everything) in the hydraulic system that was highly flammable and would have turned the turret into a firebomb if it took a hit in the right place.

Going up against soviet tanks of the same time period wouldn't be the turkey shoot it is now in SB with modern NATO tanks (man did the powers that be have us brainwashed at the time - early 70's - they had us believing we'd take out 5 T-62/T-72's for everyone of ours they got - I used to believe that - I don't any more for a number of reasons).

Anyway - M-60A1 is my number one choice.

That's interesting, when you watch documentary's with the vets from WW-2 giving interviews, they say the same thing many thought there Sherman's were virtually impervious to enemy fire, and they had the best tank in production, then the met tanks like the panther/tiger did those poor guys get a wake up call.

I can understand the need to instil confidence about the combat vehicles the guys were fighting in. But that's below the belt.

[Galileo]

I choose the Leclerc. We need at least one playable French MBT in SB.

[lavictoireestlavie]

I choose the Leclerc. We need at least one playable French MBT in SB.

yes !!! :luxhello:

A playable competitive Russian vehicle (T-90S) would be neat as well. An AI controlled Merkava (I - IV) would also be neat.

[Tjay]

I choose the Leclerc. We need at least one playable French MBT in SB.

Mais, oui!

And I would have thought (just guessing) that detailed inspection and access to the user documentation wouldn't be that difficult.

[Werewolf]

TSe419e: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that when you served in M60's it was post '75 so it doesn't surprise me that your experience was different from mine.

I served in M60's (the straight M60) in Germany from '71 to '74 in Co C/4/64A 3ID. We didn't get the A1 model until the end of '71 (and we had to cheat to get those - hooked the odometers up to the tach cable to run the mileage up so we could turn the 60's in to depot). Vietnam was still going on and most of the money went there. We got squat and it showed in maintenance and training. We went to Grafenwoerh once a year. During my 3 years there we went to Hoehnfels once, participated in one Reforger and a month long NATO wargame in Northern Germany.

The M60A2 was issued to Engineering units and the A3 wasn't even a twinkle in our eyes (we hadn't heard about it even in '74). So yeah - not surprising at all to me that your experience was different from mine.

[macieksoft]

I wonder if there are any serious chances to get playable T-72 with working missiles. Something like T-72B series. As the export M had no such cool things. Also some B variants has ERA, it would make it at least a bit less ducky.

Maybe even SOSNA-U sight? Or a PT-91 with new thermal, ERA, LWS and much more?

I see a lot of guys (including me) enjoying T-72M1 not because its good (well it is not), but because its... ...Completely different. Giving us B variant would make this shitty tank even more enjoyable

[TSe419E]

TSe419e: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that when you served in M60's it was post '75 so it doesn't surprise me that your experience was different from mine.

I was in from summer '79 to summer '83. XM-1s and 'A3s were just coming out while I was at basic. There was a training battalion still using 'A2s next to mine.

[Deputy276]

Summer '69 to Fall 1970 in 3rd ACR at Ft. Lewis WA. Nothing but M60A1, M113 infantry and mortar tracks, and 114 scout vehicles. LOL...they didn't get M16 rifles until August of 1970. Still had M14 rifles. They ended up getting shot-out rifles from Nam to use. Uncle Sammie doesn't let anything go to waste. We had the M3 Grease Gun in tanks, along with the 1911A1 in a shoulder holster.

[TSe419E]

We had the M3 Grease Gun in tanks, along with the 1911A1 in a shoulder holster.

Same here.