What tank would you pick to be playable

[Froggy]

Mais, oui!

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

If I was allowed to, Esimgames might have the whole documentation for 10 years!

I vote for an AMX30B2, I have the documentation too, and it has a simpler FCS, similar to Leo AS1.

[Parachuteprone]

If I was allowed to, Esimgames might have the whole documentation for 10 years!

I vote for an AMX30B2, I have the documentation too, and it has a simpler FCS, similar to Leo AS1.

I wonder if it might help the devs if there was an "Documentation" thread where people can post equipment that they can supply docs to ?

It may be an incentive for the Devs to do a vehicle if they do not have to do as much research. Who knows what info people have stashed away at home.

Unfortunately I have none

Just a thought.

[Ssnake]

I suppose pretty much everybody here knows how to contact us directly.

[JustSomeGuy]

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.?

Yes, you're right. T-72M4CZ has FCS derived from the one on Ariete and Centauro, TURMS, which was supposed to be "universal modular tank FCS".

See local threads

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=20734 and

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=16458

However, the Army of the Czech Republic had quite high requirements on both CEP and probability of hit. This requirement was not met with initial variant of TURMS-T when shooting with the IDA practice round, though, and it seemed that either change or extensive modification of the tank's main gun would be required, which was implausible. It seems that the problem was with the original stabilization of the Soviet origin, which was unable to stabilize the main gun to the required 97% probability of hitting a NATO-standard tank target at 3000m.

With the help of Slovakian "EVPÚ" from Dubnice nad Váhom, this issue was resolved but it took 3 years and LOTS of money and meanwhile, 9/11 happened, the USA asked Czech Army to replace their soldiers in former Yugoslavia to free them for A-stan and therefore, Czech MoD lacked the money and modernized just 30 pieces, of which 20 are being run for the training purposes and remaining 10 are "Untoucheable Reserves".

(Of an interesting note, it seems that Italians kind of stole our research programme's fruits since they've sold TURMS-T to Assad and paid nothing to us for the help with making it work on a T-72...)

See http://www.army.cz/avis/publikace/zbrane_technika/modernizovany_t72.pdf for cutaway delta-diagrams and more info in Czech

and http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/12882/CZE-T-72M4-CZ for detailed photos (even of interior and the detachable APU) and some insights.

[Marko]

Yes, you're right. T-72M4CZ has FCS derived from the one on Ariete and Centauro, TURMS, which was supposed to be "universal modular tank FCS".

See local threads

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=20734 and

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=16458

However, the Army of the Czech Republic had quite high requirements on both CEP and probability of hit. This requirement was not met with initial variant of TURMS-T when shooting with the IDA practice round, though, and it seemed that either change or extensive modification of the tank's main gun would be required, which was implausible. It seems that the problem was with the original stabilization of the Soviet origin, which was unable to stabilize the main gun to the required 97% probability of hitting a NATO-standard tank target at 3000m.

With the help of Slovakian "EVPÚ" from Dubnice nad Váhom, this issue was resolved but it took 3 years and LOTS of money and meanwhile, 9/11 happened, the USA asked Czech Army to replace their soldiers in former Yugoslavia to free them for A-stan and therefore, Czech MoD lacked the money and modernized just 30 pieces, of which 20 are being run for the training purposes and remaining 10 are "Untoucheable Reserves".

(Of an interesting note, it seems that Italians kind of stole our research programme's fruits since they've sold TURMS-T to Assad and paid nothing to us for the help with making it work on a T-72...)

See http://www.army.cz/avis/publikace/zbrane_technika/modernizovany_t72.pdf for cutaway delta-diagrams and more info in Czech

and http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/12882/CZE-T-72M4-CZ for detailed photos (even of interior and the detachable APU) and some insights.

Thanks for the clarification

The M4 CZ looks like a very capable tank and under fifty tons.

[Deputy276]

Yes, you're right. T-72M4CZ has FCS derived from the one on Ariete and Centauro, TURMS, which was supposed to be "universal modular tank FCS".

See local threads

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=20734 and

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=16458

However, the Army of the Czech Republic had quite high requirements on both CEP and probability of hit. This requirement was not met with initial variant of TURMS-T when shooting with the IDA practice round, though, and it seemed that either change or extensive modification of the tank's main gun would be required, which was implausible. It seems that the problem was with the original stabilization of the Soviet origin, which was unable to stabilize the main gun to the required 97% probability of hitting a NATO-standard tank target at 3000m.

With the help of Slovakian "EVPÚ" from Dubnice nad Váhom, this issue was resolved but it took 3 years and LOTS of money and meanwhile, 9/11 happened, the USA asked Czech Army to replace their soldiers in former Yugoslavia to free them for A-stan and therefore, Czech MoD lacked the money and modernized just 30 pieces, of which 20 are being run for the training purposes and remaining 10 are "Untoucheable Reserves".

(Of an interesting note, it seems that Italians kind of stole our research programme's fruits since they've sold TURMS-T to Assad and paid nothing to us for the help with making it work on a T-72...)

See http://www.army.cz/avis/publikace/zbrane_technika/modernizovany_t72.pdf for cutaway delta-diagrams and more info in Czech

and http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/12882/CZE-T-72M4-CZ for detailed photos (even of interior and the detachable APU) and some insights.

LOL...looks like that bogus clock that kid supposedly "assembled". :tongue:

[Maj.Hans]

LOL...looks like that bogus clock that kid supposedly "assembled". :tongue:

Hey! That's high Czechnology stuff right there!

[Deputy276]

Hey! That's high Czechnology stuff right there!

Is there a Czech named Rube Goldberg? :bigsmile:

[Hedgehog]

Hey! That's high Czechnology stuff right there!

:heu:

[Sagal]

I do not have the sim but in my opinion a tank hunter would expand the scope and the diversity of the missions and add some speed (and would be more appealing to me):

1. Centauro 120

2.M1128 Stryker

For heavy tank: Leclerc (as it would please French community and attrack some of them):

[Grenny]

I do not have the sim but in my opinion a tank hunter would expand the scope and the diversity of the missions and add some speed (and would be more appealing to me):

1. Centauro 120

2.M1128 Stryker

For heavy tank: Leclerc (as it would please French community and attrack some of them):

There are at least 3 different playbale Tank-hunter vehicles in the sim.(M113-TOW, M966, M901)

The concept of a "canon" tank hunter is quiete outdated.

The Centauro is actally a recon/cav vehicle while the M1128, is at its name says: a mobile gun system intented for direct fire support for infantry.

Btw: Leclerc is not a "heavy tank" :-)

[MDF]

I do not have the sim but in my opinion a tank hunter would expand the scope and the diversity of the missions and add some speed (and would be more appealing to me):

1. Centauro 120

2.M1128 Stryker

For heavy tank: Leclerc (as it would please French community and attrack some of them):

The sim does have a crewable Centauro 105.

[Toastman]

Merkava 3B

[Captain_Colossus]

The Russians have a tank destroyer, or depending on how you classify it, a light tank for select naval and airborne units- in other words, probably less in the sense a true tank destroyer intended to protect the flanks of their advancing tank armies during the Cold War, more of a modern analogue to the PT-76.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/2s25_sprut-sd_self-propelled_anti-tank_gun_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_uk.html

[Marko]

The Russians have a tank destroyer, or depending on how you classify it, a light tank for select naval and airborne units- in other words, probably less in the sense a true tank destroyer intended to protect the flanks of their advancing tank armies during the Cold War, more of a modern analogue to the PT-76.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/2s25_sprut-sd_self-propelled_anti-tank_gun_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_uk.html

The sprut is IMO.

Would make a great addition, its a big ask but I hope one day we see more unique AFV,s like it in game. I have always been interested in airborne forces.

I would like to see the Mi-26 in game as well it can carry a BMD and its crew.

[Grenny]

The sprut is IMO.

Would make a great addition, its a big ask but I hope one day we see more unique AFV,s like it in game. I have always been interested in airborne forces.

I would like to see the Mi-26 in game as well it can carry a BMD and its crew.

...or a CH53 to carry 2 Wiesel :-)

[Marko]

...or a CH53 to carry 2 Wiesel :-)

Well aware of the CH53 lifting capacity.

A most impressive machine,

[Gibsonm]

The Russians have a tank destroyer, or depending on how you classify it, a light tank for select naval and airborne units- in other words, probably less in the sense a true tank destroyer intended to protect the flanks of their advancing tank armies during the Cold War, more of a modern analogue to the PT-76.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/2s25_sprut-sd_self-propelled_anti-tank_gun_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_uk.html

Finally an ASU-85 replacement?

[Hedgehog]

Well aware of the CH53 lifting capacity.

A most impressive machine,

Wocca! Wocca! Wocca!

"Go my pretties! Kill. Kill!"

[Stratos]

If I can only pick one it will be the M-60 for sure.

[RattyHHG]

More OPFOR stuff. Adding just the lead calculator device of the T-72 series would open up a few more T-72 variants for play. A guy made an interesting

that looked like it simulated it quite well.

Would the T-80 be possible? Not sure if info on that FCS would still be hush hush or not.

Edited October 26, 2015 by RattyHHG

[Swordsmandk]

Crewable Marder IFV definitely...