confirmed feature list for the next SBP upgrade
 

This is a list where I summarized all confimred features that had been described by Ssnake in various threads at the SB forum, and were scattered around a bit.

Note this: due to lacking time, they consider to release the upgrade (which most probably will be payware, 28-35 dollars are thought about), in two parts, also probably, a first one planned for around x-mas, which will be tested, but due to lacking ressources not thoroughly tested and may have a risk to show up with some bugs, and a supplementing addon (for free then) around next summer. the alternative, that still is not ruled out, is a major delay (something SBP players are used to :) ) until summer and then the release of only one, but thoroughly tested and complete package.

Also note this: the big surprise was planned to be the Pizarro. It is confirmed to be ready and finished, but their spanish army contractor so far has not given is okay to the way they did model the thing, and thus the Pizarro currently is left out. As soon as the Spanish MoD says the sim is fine, it will be released. that said, I have not fully understood wether the Pizarro as planned part of this upgrade will arrive as a later supplementation (that you will not be newly charged for), or if it now will go into a later completely different update that will be a new package then.

Btw, can hinds transport troops ?

And shouldn't the tiger have an 20mm gun ?

So troops can now occupy buildings ? What exactly does this mean, have buildings now modeled interiours ?

Is there any documentation of improvements of the infantry in SBP compared to SBG ?

Did trops finally learned things like crawling, pop up shoot and go down quickly again ?

Is there a stealth option like in operation flashpoint where the soldiers try to be as camouflaged as possible ?

Can troops pick up weapons from dead soldiers ? Is the ammo and weapon load still treated only on squad level or do each sodier have now its own load out ? Which would mean when the bazooka guy was shot all bazookas would be lost to the squad untill it picks it up again.

Also is it possible in SBP to define a threat victor or threat azimuth ? So that you can force the AI to aim at a certain point.

Also is it possible now to separate the squad from its IFV ? This limitation always pissed me off, especially in situatiopns where I had to rush with the IFV quick to another place while the IFV then refused my orders and was instead staying there and waiting till the squad returned to the vehicle but till then it was to late.

Ahh finally :up:

can hinds transport troops ?

In reality yes, in the sim not by default option. However, but a mission designer can script events that any hekicopter reaching a given position will fly low, slow, and after a scripted ammount of seconds, a squad will appear there, giving the impression they were transported.


And shouldn't the tiger have an 20mm gun ?

No, it has a GIAT 30 mm cannon with up to 450 rounds, plus optional 12,7 mm MG in external mountings. It is possible that it also will carry too much ammo in the addon. It is a start, though, and if there is minor detail being wrong, this is what is emant when they say: "released in not a thourpoughly, only generally tested state." See explanations in my introduction. It will be corrected some time later, if there is a wrong.


So troops can now occupy buildings ?

Yes, since one of the last updates.


What exactly does this mean, have buildings now modeled interiours ?

No interiors, this is no FPS. It means that troops can enter bui9ldings, hide in there, and ambush taregts from the bwindows. Friom the outside oyu do not see there are troops inside a slong as they do not open fire. It is possible to order them if they should ignore the buildings, hide in the base floor, or on the second floor.


Is there any documentation of improvements of the infantry in SBP compared to SBG ?

No to my knowledge, but it has been described in many hreads over the past 18 months, and is obvious in the sim as well. Yes, the infantry has more possibilities than in SB1, no it still is not perfect.


Did trops finally learned things like crawling, pop up shoot and go down quickly again ?

Missiles shooters do like that, yes, but until the new upgrade they lie flat on the ground, uncovered. No crawling. The addon will add this: "Infantry Will now sink into the ground in forests. Makes them harder to spot, and harder to hit with direct fire. "


Is there a stealth option like in operation flashpoint where the soldiers try to be as camouflaged as possible ?

Not in this manner, but you can influence the firing range, and the level of determination (acceptance of losses) by which they will stick to a defense position. You can also give them different types of orders like "assault", "engage", "scout", which does influence if they stubbornly move towars an objective, or react by seeking battle positions when enemies are present, if they react to enemy flanking, or simply march on.


Can troops pick up weapons from dead soldiers ?

Not in that detail. I asked that one to Ssnake some months ago, but I forgot the answer. The question was wether missiles for a squad count per squad or per man. However, squads become the more reluctant to fire back the more casualties they have taken.


Is the ammo and weapon load still treated only on squad level or do each sodier have now its own load out ? Which would mean when the bazooka guy was shot all bazookas would be lost to the squad untill it picks it up again.

See above. I'll try to find out.


Also is it possible in SBP to define a threat victor or threat azimuth ? So that you can force the AI to aim at a certain point.

You already define battle positions to face a general direction, the new upgrade also allows you to specify precise left and right boundaries for observation area. the smaller this area is, the faster a threat will be recognized.


Also is it possible now to separate the squad from its IFV ?

Since longer, yes. with the new upgrade you can even divert fire and assault team, both with different kind of weapons, it seems. HMGs are introduced.


This limitation always pissed me off, especially in situatiopns where I had to rush with the IFV quick to another place while the IFV then refused my orders and was instead staying there and waiting till the squad returned to the vehicle but till then it was to late.

Give the IFV early the command to keep their squad aboard, then they will not dismount every time the behcile stops. Scout orders will make the grunts move together with the slow driving vehicles. Separate orders for the squad will separate them from the vehicle, and the vehicle will then freely move without waiting for the squad mounting again.

You mean scripting with the editor ?

And will I have to do the same with a chinook ?

You mean it has a 30mm in reality too ? :hmm:

This is cool actually.

What exactly does this mean, have buildings now modeled interiours ?

I mean, how does it looks like when a soldier pops up in a window ? There is no interiour you say and the windows are just textures then ?

Damn, they need to learn crawling. But at least something. btw I see some trenches, on videos, digged out where tanks take a hull down position and fire from. Can this trenches be digged during a mission somehow or in the terrain editor or something ?

I guess it's the same as in SB then.

Finally! This will save me a lot of micromanagement!

What do you mean with HMG's ?

No no. I mean when I actually dismount the squad and move it from to a forest patch in an ambush position and letting the IFV behind the hill to give them support. Then when the enemy comes over the hill I take them under fire with the IFV while the squad smoke them with bazookas from close range. When some enemy vehicles might have sliped through I would want to move the IFV quickely into another firing position to engage them from behind and guess what the IFV refuses my order and stay there and wait in the open till the squad returned and till then the next enemy tank comes over the hill and smoke my IFV. :damn:

About what seperate orders are you talking about ? As far as I can see you cannot really seperate the squad from the IFV, the squad can move freely very far but when I want to move the IFV then he stay there and wait till the squad is back.

How much bigger are the maps now ? I somehow get claustrophobia in SB at times. I would like to make some scenarios where you have to cross long distances with missons that goon for hours, where you don't have to expect enemies behind every hill. But SB terrain is a little bit small for my taste.

And btw, any improvements to the helo AI ? Can they hide now behind the terrain and tree lines or are they still behave like on a turkey shot ?

You mean scripting with the editor ?

Yes, during mission design.

And will I have to do the same with a chinook ?

For the time being, yes.

You mean it has a 30mm in reality too ? :hmm:

as far as I remember, yes. I just checked on the fly with Wikipedia, they also say: 30 mm.

I mean, how does it looks like when a soldier pops up in a window ? There is no interiour you say and the windows are just textures then ?

Windows are textures, soldiers remain invisible inside houses. All you see is the muzzle flashes from wepaons and a puff of msoke when a missile is fired.

Damn, they need to learn crawling. But at least something. btw I see some trenches, on videos, digged out where tanks take a hull down position and fire from. Can this trenches be digged during a mission somehow or in the terrain editor or something ?

Not during the mission, which for the time scale of usual missions is unrealostic anyway. each vehicle has it's own foxhole, and they can come in two depth levels, too, one of which allows tabnks moving back and forth, revealing their turret when firijng, and complety go on divind station while reloading. they rock back and and fourth within seconds for that reason.
You can see pictures of it here : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...d=1#post421927
I agree on the crawling part, it is a high priority for me, yes. But for esim, it seems to be a medium priority only. Has something to do with that infantry again is not the original focus of the sim.

What do you mean with HMG's ?

Heavy machine guns. Before they had LMGs and MMGs only.

No no. I mean when I actually dismount the squad and move it from to a forest patch in an ambush position and letting the IFV behind the hill to give them support. Then when the enemy comes over the hill I take them under fire with the IFV while the squad smoke them with bazookas from close range. When some enemy vehicles might have sliped through I would want to move the IFV quickely into another firing position to engage them from behind and guess what the IFV refuses my order and stay there and wait in the open till the squad returned and till then the next enemy tank comes over the hill and smoke my IFV. :damn:

Move the IFV to the squad, or giove both a movement path to a meeting point or leave the sqaud in place. Once the squad has received an order for itself , it is detached from the IFV, and the IFV can do as it pleases. At least that is like it is in SGB. Do not remember SB1, though.

About what seperate orders are you talking about ? As far as I can see you cannot really seperate the squad from the IFV, the squad can move freely very far but when I want to move the IFV then he stay there and wait till the squad is back.

See above. if you talk about SB1, I do not remember, if you talk about SBP, you do something wrong. When you unload the squad, it still is attached to the vehicle, and will follow it, and the vehicle will never stray beyond a certainn distance to the squad, or even wait until the squad has mounted again. If you click on the infantry alone and give it some order like "hold/defend", or "move", it is detached, and the tank will not wait for them to return before it moves (SBP)

How much bigger are the maps now ?

as big as the mission designer makes them. there is a limit, but I never met it so far. for example, 20x15km and more is no problem.

I somehow get claustrophobia in SB at times. I would like to make some scenarios where you have to cross long distances with missons that goon for hours, where you don't have to expect enemies behind every hill. But SB terrain is a little bit small for my taste.

Keep in my mind that platoons and companies in reality would have preordered movement corridors and phaselines for formation cohesion, else a unit would stray into anothe runits firing zoine and Blue on Blue would occure.

I played some missions going for up to 6 hours. But that is not really fun, I promise you. Somebody created the Thunderrun of amerian tanks along the highways in Baghdad, due to the micromanaging I did, I played a sneaking battle. My losses were low, but it took, as I said, over 6 hours. The road is 25 or more km long.

And btw, any improvements to the helo AI ? Can they hide now behind the terrain and tree lines or are they still behave like on a turkey shot ?

Helos are low priority and originally were meant as flying targets for gunnery practice only, so little improvement there (the Aussie military wanted them first, I believe). I doubt there will ever be a flight model of the fidelity you want. that simply is not within the scope of this simulation, and to spend time on it would thus not be justified as long as there are higher priorities - and these are there in high numbers. However, helicopters can be quite lethal. But I tend to leave them out, they are not clever in the way you described, and thus are easy targets. I use them for pop-up-and-hide recce exclusively, if ever, or to chase down an already retreating or shattered enemy (like you often use cavalry in Total War)

This must be new then. The last time I check it it was still 20mm. 30mm is quite large for such a small copter. But i don't mind, the bigger the better :D

Uhh. Does that mean you cannot gun them down then, when they fire from the window ?

Sooner or later they will surely fix it.

Heavy you mean something like MG3 ?

No I want to leave the squad where it is and move the IFV but when the IFV is a certain distance away from the squad, it holds on and the squad is running back to the IFV without me ordering it.

I just made a test run again and figured out that when the squad is a closer distance away and I want to move the IFV then the squad returns while the IFV waits. When the squad is much further away then you can go with the IFV where you like, while the squad stay where it is. However when the IFV pass the squad later too close it stops again and take them on board. Can you maybe ask the devs to add a Kriegsgerichts feature so that I can trial them for disobedience ? :shifty:

I am still talking about SB1 :)

This is good actually. Is that true that in SB2 the maps will be smaller again ?

I know but i want to simulate some marches as well and also an territorial in-depth war where the front line is maybe dissolved already and scattered units are all around. Some gunships would be good then to stop some enemy units that break through.

That reminds me on something. As far as I can see rearm and repair can be done now in the field too right ?

That would be a shame after all for such a fine sim. But sooner or later some of their customers will demand this. It's just a question of time, imho.

One day they will have worked all of them off and then they can finally implement some fine gunship AI. And teach the infantry crawling :yep:

That's what I would use them for. Some beaten formations that managed to sneak through and no tanks can catch up with them again fast enough, that's where a gang of gunships would come in handy and that is what I would want to have a really big map. Paratroops or air cavalery could be fun too to intercept breaked through formations. :hmm:

But I still have one hell of a fun with SB1. My skills much improved. This came me very handy even In OFP tank operations too.

Uhh. Does that mean you cannot gun them down then, when they fire from the window ?

You can. Sniper them. Grenade them. Missile them. MG them. Cannon them. Artillerize them. Roll into that house and crush it to flatten pieces. Whatever you pleases. You just need to know they are there without loosing tanks first.

Heavy you mean something like MG3 ?

If that is rated as heavy, yes. Or like the M60.

No I want to leave the squad where it is and move the IFV but when the IFV is a certain distance away from the squad, it holds on and the squad is running back to the IFV without me ordering it.

Maybe it was with SB1 like that, do not remember. It is no more like that in SBP.

Is that true that in SB2 the maps will be smaller again ?

No details on SB2 yet. There were some hot debates in recent days about the price model and delivery model for future upgrades that will no onger differ between patches (=repairing old stuff) and addons (=adding new content). eSim made it clear in words that if they cannot sell that ddon to the community and the latter rjecting to accept the model, they must conclude they will no longer have a civilian market. While I am pretty much sure that SBP-PE will con tinue to be worked on for the next couple of years, I am no longer 100% certain there will ever be an SB2. But this is my personal conclusions, and in no way is backed by eSim. But SB2 is several years away, of this I'm sure. Their developement ressources are very stretched already.

I know but i want to simulate some marches as well and also an territorial in-depth war where the front line is maybe dissolved already and scattered units are all around. Some gunships would be good then to stop some enemy units that break through.

This is no war simulator, and although you could set up scenarios on batallion and even brigade size, best scope remained is on platoon and company level. Having to micromanage a battle on brigade level is no fun. Also, it is pretty soon over, and would need a madness of mission designing. However, you could do as I did. I set up a series of three missions on the same, slightly shifted map, taking over wrecks from likely casualty psoitons into the next one, and create a static mini-campaign. I had one recce patrol in the beginning, then a larger fight for recconnaissance with highly randomoized enemy positions, and finally a big enemy counter-attack (which still is not finished). There are quite some campaigns like this available. But again, this is no war simulator. You have false expecations here and thus must necessarily become dissappointed, probably.

Also, take into account there is no save game function. Having people to play 6 or 8 hours in a row is not funny.

That reminds me on something. As far as I can see rearm and repair can be done now in the field too right ?

Yes. As long as the damage is not too substantial, and needed components can be expected to be available in the field, not just at bases. certain light components also cannot be repaired for the latter reason, and/or if the real repairing time would exceed several hours. In the new upgrade, you can even tow wrecked vehicles. But that needs being done manually, and cannot done by the AI ony command.

That would be a shame after all for such a fine sim. But sooner or later some of their customers will demand this. It's just a question of time, imho.

Their custimers, which is the military (the civilian version did not really sell as well as expected, I have the impression), wnated helicopters as flying targets for the gunners to train aiming at fast moving targets, and now, since the australians do use SBP on small and medium level wargaming, they also wanted an airborn observation platform. It is there, therefore, but the crew positions are absolutely rudimentary, Esim said. This will never turn into a tank AND flightsim, it will always remain a mechanized warfare sim on vehicle, platoon and company level, being best in tank stuff, with some infantry stuff, and even less helicopter stuff. expect much more, and you're likely to become dissapointed. also, if you add fideltity flight components, there is a rat's tail of additonal demands that need to be implemnted, like SAM units, radar (a whole new abyss of must-be-dones), and thehn think about the complexity of bubbles in Falcon 4. It is too much. They are not as well-staffed like a big game studio.

One day they will have worked all of them off and then they can finally implement some fine gunship AI. And teach the infantry crawling :yep:

Currently they have 600 confirmed bugs in there, though most users do not even recognize any of them - the obvious and showstopping ones are already gone. we talk of wrong ammunition layouts, or wrong numbers of rounds and such things. After that, military demands, military demands, and more military demands. Go figure. They plan to have a military-free developement year in 2009, focussing on the civilian market excluisvely, and finish things that are since long in the making (or the hoping). what will come of that remains to be seen. One can hope a lot and think that as reasonable, but I personally will not be angry with them if they deliver some items NOT. A mannable T72 is in high demand, for example (artwork is finished, but zero functionality currently), also: animated suspension. So far, no military has ordered it.

That's what I would use them for. Some beaten formations that managed to sneak through and no tanks can catch up with them again fast enough, that's where a gang of gunships would come in handy and that is what I would want to have a really big map. Paratroops or air cavalery could be fun too to intercept breaked through formations. :hmm:

All that dropping stuff can be arranged in the editor.

But I still have one hell of a fun with SB1.

Why not giving SBP a try then. If someone already likes SB1, there is no chance that SBP will be considered as wasted money.

My skills much improved. This came me very handy even In OFP tank operations too.

I am absolutely unforgiving about comparing SBP with the jumping rubber tanks in OFP! :arrgh!:

But they stay invisible in the window, just the muzzle flash. So do they hide behind the walls actually or do I simple have to shoot at windows and score a hit every time, when I know there is someone in there ?

That's how it goes.

No, all I want are MUCH bigger maps, leave the rest to me.

You can leave this to me too :yep:

Not necessarily. Some AA units would do it too. There is always some inballance somewhere and it is up to the mission designer then how many of them he wants to take in to get the ballance he wants to have.

Ok I figure they will build in whatever some military want to have in there. So when some of the military would suddenly want to have a copter sim so that their tankers can train together with their gun ship pilots then they would implement a copter sim too ? :hmm:

I wouldn't mind. But yes, it is certainly better to not expect anything.

1. Too combersome
2. To inflexible. I want that chenook to pick up squad X at point A and drop them at point B. But let me guess: I have to high expectations :)

I always have to high expectations. I always was like this. This is what drives my own development.

1. Lack money a big time.
2. I still would by it but...
3. I don't want to be tempted to play instead of spend my time with my own development, so i don't get it intentionally.:p At least not now and probably not in the near future. But that I will get it someday is a sure thing.

No, I mean this compaison tactically. I got owned so often in flashpoint but after playing SB for a while, I mobed the floor with my enemies. In flashpoint I was used to focus on the near environment, like the next bushes and tree lines but Steal Beasts thought me to think big. That did the trick :arrgh!:

But they stay invisible in the window, just the muzzle flash. So do they hide behind the walls actually or do I simple have to shoot at windows and score a hit every time, when I know there is someone in there ?

If your callibre is big enough, and your type of round is dedicated enough - does it matter...? ;) But you can gun them down with small arms fire, too, just aiming at the muzzle flashes becomes more crucial.


Not necessarily. Some AA units would do it too.

You are wrong there. even if you throw in just a single Gepard, a whole new bunch of concepts, LOS calculations, models for new sensors, damage models, AI routines would be needed, not to mention models for the Gepard, damage modelling to itself, AI logic, and so much more. They once commented on it. It means opening Pandora's box. It also means to have appropriate flight models capable of doing pop-up-and-hide tactics for the choppers if they should have a chance to survive. It's actually a very, very big tsk you are asking for. In the far away future - well, maybe, who knows - but in the forseeable future: no.


Ok I figure they will build in whatever some military want to have in there. So when some of the military would suddenly want to have a copter sim so that their tankers can train together with their gun ship pilots then they would implement a copter sim too ?

Such training obviously has not been demanded by anyone so far. Like the military does not want a jeep that can drive under the ocean, they do not expect SBP to be more than it is - a tank-centred simulation that touches some side aspects as well - not more. Tank crews do not care about getting introduced to the basics of gunship flying.


To inflexible. I want that chenook to pick up squad X at point A and drop them at point B.

I want that too, and much else as well. What a small team can actually manage to deliver, is somethign different. For the time being, you can work around it via the editor.

Can the AI vehicles shoot them down ?

I was erffering to pilots actually but never mind.

The possibility to carry troops in a vehicle is in the game already. It just need to be applied on the choppers, with some modifications maybe. Don't see a big problem here.

btw, did the M1A2 made it into SBPE finally ?

And any news whether the Leo2A6, with its killer gun will float up in the near future ? I could need a bigger punch against that pesky T-80 in a frontal confrontation. :D

Hey do I see here that the new german IFV is in the game already ? What was its name again, Panther ?

Can the AI vehicles shoot them down ?

Too easily, yes. That'S becasue helicopters in all regards are dramatically simplified. They are not the focus of this sim. I find it strange that they are included at all.


I was erffering to pilots actually but never mind.

It is no flight simulator and lacks all characteristics to be that, so nobody cares for SBP being a tool to train pilots.


The possibility to carry troops in a vehicle is in the game already. It just need to be applied on the choppers, with some modifications maybe. Don't see a big problem here.

Tell them. Big problem is: time. Lots of stuff they have on the ready, but lack the time to implement it, becasue it also would mean to throughly test it in a multitude of different situation contexts.


btw, did the M1A2 made it into SBPE finally ?

No military customer asked for it so far, which makes me wondering, but they may have other demands for that sim than we civilian players do have. I would like to see a better Abrams myself, too - preferred to a T72. SA in the Abrams is no competitor for the SA you have in any the Leopards, both one and two.


And any news whether the Leo2A6, with its killer gun will float up in the near future ? I could need a bigger punch against that pesky T-80 in a frontal confrontation. :D

You mean the longer gun used in the experimental Leo2A6, and higher? Not even a whisper on that. The current 120mm already is devastating enough, btw, especially with the latest DM55 round. It is almost unfair a round. the difference between american uranium and Germn tungsten round in terms of penetration capability by far is not as huge anymore as it once has been. The German roundas are the reference for non-uranium rounds anyway, and at short and medium ranges are as lethal as the american rounds. The American round only has an advantage of maintaining the assured penetration capacity over a slighty greater range, but we talk ranges probably in excess of 2500-3000m here. Both nations could deliver precise fire with their 120mm over 4000m. russian non-missile ammo is listed in the sim as having a maximum range of 3300m. Beyond that, they need to use their cannon-fired mini missiles, with ranges of up to 5000m. - Well, at least that is what the sim lists as technical data being used ingame. The difference between latest uranium and latest Tungsten ammunition it lists to be just 10 mm additional penetration capacity (being in the range beyond 800mm anyway). As i said, the uranium ammo is capable to remain penetrative over a slighty greater distance only.


Hey do I see here that the new german IFV is in the game already ? What was its name again, Panther ?

No German IFV. An armoured Australian truck called Bushmaster is ready, it compares to the German dingo. Also, the Spanish Pizarro is done. both vehicles so far have not passed the analysis cycle of their military customers and thus still wait to be included in an addon release. the last addon saw the Swedish CV9040 family of IFVs, and nthe Strv-122, which is a swedish improvement of the Leo-2A5 (better roof armour and mine protection, different design of aiming crosshairs, magnification switch for daylight optics as well).

I guess AA units are then superfluous anyway :)

I fugure that. But 2009 then maybe.

Do the US use it too for their tankers ?

SA ?

Yes. The canadiens introduce the Leo2A6m already with the new killer gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptqy6NgjYVg

Didn't have this impression in SB1. Can hardly crack the T-72 and T-80 over larger distances from the front side. Even with an M1A1, had a hard time to kill T-80 from the front side over somedistance from the front side.

How late is it actually ?

Does the DM55 also have some incendiary qualities like the uranium round ?

Ehh, did i said IFV ? I meant APC. That new german one. I think it was in that moving engagement movie.

Do the US use it too for their tankers ?

No.


SA ?

Situational awareness.


Yes. The canadiens introduce the Leo2A6m already with the new killer gun.

They are leased from Germany, for use in Afghanistan.



Didn't have this impression in SB1. Can hardly crack the T-72 and T-80 over larger distances from the front side. Even with an M1A1, had a hard time to kill T-80 from the front side over somedistance from the front side.

Depending on distance and impact point, it can take several shots, yes. T80 are tough nuts. Overkill capacity you can only guarantee at short distances. That's why althiough the 120mm can precisely shot at 4000+ meters, preferred combat range is much closer - what is medium range for the 120mm, is long range for the russian cannons, so in this distance segment, the Wetsern equipement has probably a slightly superior chance to kill it's oppoinent, than the russian gear has. Beyond that range, the Russian heavy armour makes it difficult to kill it quickly, below that range, Russian cannons becomes as lethal as the Western system.

Do not expect that every shot at a T80 means "tank destroyed". there would be no constant developement in cannons and rounds if it would be so easy.


How late is it actually ?

Some years only. Doin't know the number withoiut looking for it. Actually it has not been fielded in large quantities so far, that new it is. Phasing old ammunition out and new ammuntiion into service actually takes years.


Does the DM55 also have some incendiary qualities like the uranium round ?

Don't know for sure, but I assume it. Kinetic ammunition almost always enters the inside of the tank as some kind of burning gas only, due to the immense friction heat when penetrating the armour. But I am not a specialist. Maybe Bradclark knows this, if he reads here.


Ehh, did i said IFV ? I meant APC. That new german one. I think it was in that moving engagement movie.

Vielleicht steh' ich auf dem Schlauch - but I do not know what you talk about. the sim so far has the Marder 1A3 for Germany, but they are not crewable, and a variety of M113s. Aslavs are not in use in Germany, and Piranhas are in Dutch service.

That would explain why it is not present

Would it have more of it than the Leo2A6 ?

Leased ?

I am talking about this one here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7GRekITfRc

Look in 3:06

or here in 5:41:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf3j0oHw-3I

Could it be eventually the marder 3 ?

I am talking about this one here btw: http://www.freundeskreis-panzergrena...sut_200410.pdf
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_spz_3_puma-a.htm

The Puma. But it seems to be much smaller than that one in the SB movie. So could it be the marder 3 or something ? Or is this something from scandinavia ?

BTW is the fennek or at least the Luchs in there ?

Would it have more of it than the Leo2A6 ?

No, the later abrams offer the IVIS system (unit symbols on digital maps in digital netweork, later Leo2s have something comparable), and an thermal sight for the TC that works independant from the gunner's sight (also for the Leos). so far, the old Abrams-TVs need to override the gunner, link to their sights and mastercontrol these in order to look where they want to look. the gunner cannot look at a different direciton for the duration of the TC overriding him. also, the Leos have optical periscopes, that the Abrams is missing altogether. Often talked down, these periscopes, but I find them to be a most valuable tool. Would hate to miss them. there is a reason why you switch so often between optical and thermal sights. thermals are no super witchcraft. Many tanks from their fronts remain to have a low visibility from the front, if not contrasting to the empty sky. It also has not the viewing distance of optical sights.

I prefer the Leopard2 to the Abrams any time. also, slightly simplified aiming and gunnery procedures.


Leased ?

= "geliehen". They might consider to buy Leropards later on.


I am talking about this one here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7GRekITfRc

Look in 3:06

That is a swedish CV9040. the last update/addon introduced both the B and C versions.


or here in 5:41:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf3j0oHw-3I

CV9040.


Could it be eventually the marder 3 ?

No, it remains to be the CV9040. The Marder-2 will not be built. It was stopped almost ten years ago. One or two prototypes sit in a museum. Looked more like a tank than an IFV anyway. :smug:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Dde%26sa%3DG


I am talking about this one here btw: http://www.freundeskreis-panzergrenadiere.de/fileadmin/freundeskreis/artikel/puma_sut_200410.pdf
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_spz_3_puma-a.htm

That is the Puma, the successor for the Marder1A3. Not in SBP.


The Puma. But it seems to be much smaller than that one in the SB movie. So could it be the marder 3 or something ? Or is this something from scandinavia ?

Hm, let me guess... I think... yes.. it is the CV9040 you talk about, without doubt.:)

BTW is the fennek or at least the Luchs in there?

Keine Füchse, keine Luchse.

Yeah me too, but I do not find myself so often in a situation where it becomes really indespensable, just sometimes.

And that would be ? Most of the time I hang around in the thermal view.

I find it pretty super, frankly. Especially in the crappy resolution in that SB1 comes.

I think the high end things can spot a human size thermal source up to 2 kilometers away.

Yes I also tend to preffer the Leo. Exept when it maybe gets to T-80isch, or else when I expect to get alot of beating, then I want the M1

I know but was just wondering why only leased and that the germans lease their tanks at all. I guess its too hot for buying

I got a little bit rusty on tanks. It's been a while since I dealt with them :)

What no fennek ?

Then I will have to goon to waste that wolfes :88)

there is a reason why you switch so often between optical and thermal sights.
And that would be ? Most of the time I hang around in the thermal view.

You often see more in optics, than thermals, especially in woods. It depends on the actual situation. You then flip sights let's say every second, back and forth and back and forth.


I find it pretty super, frankly. Especially in the crappy resolution in that SB1 comes.

SB1 has unrealistic thermals, without range limit, and no degrading of quality over range. SBP has corrected that, and is said to be much closer to the truth. The templates for the heat signatures of vehicles also have repeatedly been worked over. Thermals in SBP give you much degraded and blurry pics than in SB1.


I think the high end things can spot a human size thermal source up to 2 kilometers away.

Depends on the contrast of the background. If it is cool air, you see more, if it is ground clutter or woods, you maybe don't see a tank from frontal that sits 1000m away.


Yes I also tend to preffer the Leo. Exept when it maybe gets to T-80isch, or else when I expect to get alot of beating, then I want the M1

that's because you do not have the 2A5 in SB1, only the 2A4 less armour.


I know but was just wondering why only leased and that the germans lease their tanks at all. I guess its too hot for buying

No, it was lacking production capacity. The tanks could not be deliverd so soon and in the quantity the Candians wished to buy them. So they leased 20 already existing new 2A6m from the BW, and bought 80 old 2A4 from BW reserves. It also was a nice way out for the Germans not to contribute more heavily to the actual battle groups with BW troops. Like the Tornados. Politically, the leasing deal as well as the Tornados are serving as alibis. But that belongs to the GT forum. :lol:

Oh, didn't knew that. But for SB1 it was maybe a good workaround for the bad resolution.

Hmm, I just remember that footage where police copters or ground observation stations use the highly sensetive thermal vision devices leaving any suspect chanceless no matter in which terrain. Devices that can make temperature differences of 0.5 degree visible. But then I also remember some images, I think from the apache where the performance appeared to me rather crappy. But I think the quality of the device plays a major role. I don't know which quality level various military branches can effort. There are this standart night vission goggles for soldiers with a crappy visual range of maybe 300 meters whereas super expensive night vision devices have a very long range and cristal clear optics.

Of course. How much more armour do the 2A5 have compared to the 2A4 and the M1A1 ?

As far as I can remember the M1A2 has twice the armour of the M1A1m is that right ?

Maybe the sales rate of the 2A6 will beat the one of the donut at the end of the day ? :hmm:

Hmm, I just remember that footage where police copters or ground observation stations use the highly sensetive thermal vision devices leaving any suspect chanceless no matter in which terrain. Devices that can make temperature differences of 0.5 degree visible. But then I also remember some images, I think from the apache where the performance appeared to me rather crappy. But I think the quality of the device plays a major role. I don't know which quality level various military branches can effort. There are this standart night vission goggles for soldiers with a crappy visual range of maybe 300 meters whereas super expensive night vision devices have a very long range and cristal clear optics.

I think you mix up thermals and rest light amplifiers (? =Restlichtverstärker). Western tanks use thermals, soldiers wear night vision goggles of the latter kind. Also, a tank from the front can be suprisignly cool, especially when having sit still since longer. An uncovered human body from 400 m away and filmed against cold ground of course lights up like a bright white spot on dark background.


Of course. How much more armour do the 2A5 have compared to the 2A4 and the M1A1 ?

You'll feel it in the sim. The Strv122 almost outclasses the M1A1. The 2A6m is considered by many to be the best protected tank in service, currently. The guy in your video confirmed that, too, if I remember correctly.


As far as I can remember the M1A2 has twice the armour of the M1A1m is that right ?

Don't know out of the blue, I need to look it up. It has more armour of course.

As far as I can remember the M1A2 has twice the armour of the M1A1m is that right ?

Don't know out of the blue, I need to look it up. It has more armour of course.


I take the easy path and just quote wikipedia:



This article confirms my own belief that the M1 is not that über-tank as which it often is described. On the other hand - what tank is?