Confirmed

* engineer-variant added to the Boxer
* 1970s-90s variant added to the Fuchs
* engineer-variant added to the Bradley which now can also pull MICLIC trailers

Koen at eSim boards just reminded of this nice article by simHQ back from 2006, which I completely missed at that time, so it was a first read for me today. A good tactical first advice for newbies in tanking:

LINK: A flightsimmer's guide to Steel Beasts

Link added to the SBP resource thread.

Confirmed:

* M113G4 with wire link fence (crewable)
* M113A2 (crewable)
* BTR-50
* BTR-50PK

That thing looks like a burglary prevention device! :D

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2505/2013053021.jpg

Indirectly confirmed by a mysterious hinting by Ssnake:

* old explosion and smoke effects no longer there

Whatever that means in the end. But the old visuals are gone, that much seems to be certain. Most likely means: complete replacement.

Confirmed:

* Iveco LMV (crewable) with RCWS, 12.7 or 40mm, stabilized or unstabilized, and detailed RC monitor

I missed the small difference:

* playable: Leopard-1A5 GE (so far we had the Leo1A5 DK)

---

Me thinks with the - so far unplayble - M60A3 and Leopard-1 in four versions, the T-55, T-62, four T-74, T-90, Leopard-2A4, M1A1, Centuiron, AMX-15, and several cold-war era APCs for both sides, one can now set up some really nice cold war scenarios without abuing improvised vehicles types as placeholders. And some more cold war stuff maybe coming.

---
On a side-note, Cobrabase has an extensive Youtube channel, 140 videos about SBP and tank-related stuff. He did two well-done explanatory videos where he compares the Leo-2A5 with the M1A1HA, and the frightening (in its time) frontal armour of the T-80U with Western weapons and Western tanks. I think he misses or ignores two or three points in the M1-Leo2 comparison, but in general I think he really got the stuff nicely and correctly together. Maybe there will be something like that for the Leopard-2A6 and the M1A2(SEP) in the future, I would really know what he has to say.

LINK: M1A1HA-vs-Leo-2A5DK part 1
LINK: M1A1HA-vs-Leo-2A5DK part 2
LINK: strategies against the T-80U

According to technical director of eSim, Ssnake, the likely release date is 4th of July.

* T-72M now crewable
* new: T-72BV

Love for the infantry given! Screenshots released confirm:

3D models for launchers and fully functional shooter's vision displays for
* Javelin
* BILL
* Spike

* Infantry now affected by how tired they are. The more exhausted they are, the slower they run/walk.

Say Cheese!, you're on TV! :D

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/906/2013060520.jpg

* Ulan IFV, (crewable, with beautifully detailed internal stations!)

Screenshots illustrate further the up-polished visual appearances of Leopard-2A4 (heck, the old one already looked photorealistic) and BMPs.

A toast on the journey!

Steel Beasts 1/Gold, 1999, default Leopard-2A4
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2803/leo2sb.gif

Steel Beasts Pro 2004, default Leopard-2A4, desert camo
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2411/leo2a46.jpg

Steal Beasts Pro 2013, v3.0, default Leopard-2A4, woodland camo
picture gone amiss?! - 04-09-2013
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8403/2013060609.jpg

Confirmed:

* AH-64 Apache
* UH-60 Blackhawk

Yet I think completely otherwise! T-80U frontal armor data are bad joke because this tank has second generation ERA called K-5 atop of its basic armor. But this comes with two main drawbacks:

- K-5 does not constitute any reliable defense against more modern APFSDS (KE) 120 mm rounds
- not all frontal T-80U arc is covered by Contact-5. It has better coverage than T-72BM/T-90 family of tanks but far from being perfect

I don't know if SBPro guys will finally implement proper ERA - tandem HEAT warhead interaction but lack of this feature makes all T-80U and other ERA equipped tanks very unrealistic vehicles in this game.

Anyway T-80U tanks appeared in larger (but not very large as older Soviet tanks!) numbers in the late 1980s. In this time US Army introduced tandem ATGMs of TOW-2A type (armor penetration ~800-900 mm RHA behind ERA) or even more potent top-attack TOW-2B missiles. So T-80U armor was not sufficient against best anti-tank weapon of American mechanized forces even then. As for Western tanks I would say if K-5 is not well suited to defeat more modern Western 120 mm APFSDS rounds, T-80U tank has to count only on its basic armor. It is not significantly "thicker" than T-80B frontal armor being in 500-600 mm range vs KE rounds. In sum at 1.5 km range 120 mm Western tank guns could destroy T-80U using M829A1 (IOC 1990), M829A2 (IOC 1993) and not fielded in Germany DM43A1 (R&D 1993) contemporary KE rounds with quite high probability, however HEAT rounds would be much less effective. Of course now T-80U is just sitting duck against modern Western APFSDS round of M829A3, DM63, M338 types.

Technical director of eSim wrote on July 4th 2013 in the eSim forum on the issue of Russian reactive armour bricks:

"No, they are functional. That does not necessarily mean that they will defeat all incoming RPGs. (...) Tandem warheads will of course ignore ERA surfaces."

Just the visual effects of ERA exploding are not shown so far, afaik. But the use of a mathematical model to simulate first the ERA and then the solid armour getting struck by a shot has been confirmed already several years ago, it's been like that since quite a longer time. Some T-72 versions in the sim also have ERA since longer time now.

Cobrabase all in all got the general assessments right, I think. The beyond the speed of light-superiority of 3rd generation uran ammo versus latest German Tungsten he probably overestimates a bit, how it was with Tungsten and first uran generation in the 80s I do not know, SBP statistrics project a greater difference there indeed than with the latest generations of both rounds. Latest Tungsten rounds fired from the new L55 in Leo2A7 and -E almost match or even surpass the uran 3rd generation fired from the L44 used in the Abrams in penetrating power. Also, late time contamination of soldiers moving on an uran-poisened battlefield that he lists as a bonus, is tactically worthless, since the degrading effect on health sets in - if it even effects troops - not before the war is long since over. That the local population suffers from it due to long-time exposure, is something different, but tactically also uninteresting. My biggest issue with him was the comparing of reloading the ready rack. While he has a point in that the M1 can reload under fire and the Leo must swing the gun to its five o'clock position and thus offering two most vulnerable sides at two directions, he does not lose a word on a.) the influence of manouver tactics taking that into account, and b) the Leopar can reload the ready rack from the hull storage much faster than the M1. He should have assessed these factors in more detail against each other instead of comparing them completely.

Now crewable M1A2(SEP) will have improved TIS performance, featuring higher zoom factor for easier target identification and AI-controlled SEPs identifying targets at twice the range than the older Abrams models.

Confirmed:

* a periscope, with a Dutch Fennek attached to it :D
* FV-101 Scorpion (non-crewable)

* infantry gets mini-UAVs, called sensocopters
* completely new 3D model for the YPR in various configurations (command, turret with 25mm Bushmaster, ATGM)

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4758/2013061325.jpg

* M966 (Hummer with TOW) updated with detailed gunner's station
* Infantry team with TOW updated, now operational by player
* CV-9035NL, new vehicle with fully deteiled 3D interior and gunner's and commander's stations as well as detailed seat with monitor for squad leader.