confirmed feature list for the next SBP upgrade

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Often talked down, these periscopes, but I find them to be a most valuable tool. Would hate to miss them.

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

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.

thermals are no super witchcraft.

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

It also has not the viewing distance of optical sights.

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

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

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

Leased ?

= "geliehen".

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 remains to be the CV9040.

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

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

Keine Füchse, keine Luchse.

What no fennek ?

Then I will have to goon to waste that wolfes

[Skybird]

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.

[Deamon]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

[Skybird]

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.

[Skybird]

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:

Panzerung

Der M1 ist durch eine Chobham-Panzerung geschützt, eine Kompositpanzerung aus mehreren Schichten Stahl und Keramik, beim M1A2 zusätzlich auch abgereichertem Uran. Diese Panzerung entspricht an der Front 900 mm und an den Seiten 700 mm Stahl. Beim M1A2 entspricht die Frontpanzerung gar 1200 mm Stahl. Tank und Munitionsdepot sind in eigenen gepanzerten Bereichen untergebracht, um die Gefahr des Ausbrennens zu verringern. Der Innenraum des Panzers ist mit einer Schicht Kevlar ausgekleidet, um Splitterflug vorzubeugen.
Mit seinem Schutzniveau ist der M1A2 mittlerweile als veraltet anzusehen. Zwar hört und liest man in den Medien oft davon, dass die Panzerung des M1A2 für die Geschütze aller anderen Kampfpanzer und aller bekannten Panzerabwehrwaffen undurchdringbar sei, doch ist hierbei von einer positiven Tendenz der Berichterstattung auszugehen. Im Kampf um Bagdad sah man mehrere von irakischen Kämpfern vernichtete M1A2, viele davon mit Fronttreffern und im vorderen Teil ausgebrannt. Iraker berichten davon, dass es kein Problem sei, den M1A2 mit der tragbaren 9M111 Fagott (Nato: AT-4 Spigot) frontal zu „knacken“. Selbst mit der RPG-7 gelang mehrfach ein Durchdringen an den Schwachstellen wie dem seitlichen Wannenbereich. Ebenso zeigte sich die Tendenz der Panzertruppe, bei schnellen Märschen die Kanone nach hinten zu richten, um sie bei Kollisionen zu schützen. Dadurch wird der schwächer gepanzerte, hintere Teil des Turms, der auch Munition enthält, Frontalbeschuss ausgesetzt. Ein US-amerikanischer Kommandant des M1A2 schilderte in einer Reportage über „Friendly Fire“, wie die Turmfrontpanzerung, die stärkste Stelle seines M1A2, vom Geschoss eines Flugzeuges des Typs A-10 durchschlagen und die Besatzung schwer verletzt wurde. Bei der von der A-10 verfeuerten Munition handelt es sich um ein 30-mm-Geschoss, das seine Penetrationsfähigkeit aus der Verwendung eines Urankerns bezieht (Uranmunition). Auch um dieses US-amerikanische Waffensystem gibt es eine Art Legendenbildung. Uran ist hier aber nur insoweit wirksam, als die verwendeten Legierungen sehr hart sind und das Material als Schwermetall über ein hohes spezifisches Gewicht verfügt. Hieraus resultiert eine hohe Querschnittsbelastung beim Auftreffen auf eine Panzerung. Zusätzlich besitzt Uran noch die Eigenschaft, pyrophor zu sein, d.h. beim Eindringen in die Panzerung schärft sich das Uran durch den Abrieb selbst und setzt im Inneren des Panzers hohe Temperaturen frei.

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?

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think you mix up thermals and rest light amplifiers (? =Restlichtverstärker).

Nope. I brought them up as an example how much the quality strikes the performance. I bet it is the same with thermal imagers.

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.

Any RHA data on the 2A5 resp. 2A6 ? I guess both will have largely the same armour.

In that one canadian video that one guy told that the ammo is stored in the tower but isn't there also an ammo load in the hull like in all predecesors ?

[Skybird]

there is a ready rack with, I think, 15 rounds in the turret, and the rest of the rounds are stored in a separate compartment at the backside of the turret. It is a security feature, in case of fire. The compartment can be separated from the turret in case of an emergency, you can see the small "gap" between it and the turret on photos. So, every 15 shots or so, the tank has run dry and the gunner needs to relocate ammo from the separate compartment to the ready rack. I think this was not simulated in SB1.

Supplying new rounds from external stocks into a tank, btw, takes much more time in the Abrams, than in the Leo 2.

[Deamon]

Had the Leo 2 since the beginning the ammo stored in the tower ?

Also what is not fully clear to me is, do the Leo 2A5 also have a thermal imager for the peri, like the Leo 2A6 ?

And what is the overall ammo load of the Leo 2A5 ?

[Skybird]

Had the Leo 2 since the beginning the ammo stored in the tower ?

Not sure, but I guess so for the ready rack. Leo2A4 was the first being produced in large quantities, the earlier were prototypes and test models. I think I mixed it up, anyway, or did not express myself clear enough last time. The back part at the turret IS the ready rack, in a separate compartment, with the other rounds being stored below the turret, so you are right. That's why the turret needs to swing into a 5 clock position so that the gunner can access them. the M1 does not need to do that, but the reloading takes much longer in the M1. One could imagine tacical scenarios where you wish to access the remaining ammunition withiout needing to face the enemy the vulnerable flank and rear of the turret, although you would prefer to find a safe place first before reloading the rack. One could also imagine situations where the lesser time in the Leo 2 is of the essence. But I think all on all, in most situations (since you would check for a safe position in most situations anyway), the German procedure is the better one.


Also what is not fully clear to me is, do the Leo 2A5 also have a thermal imager for the peri, like the Leo 2A6 ?

The peri is for the TC only. TC has both the optical daylight peri, and thermal as a separate unit. Both are two different devices. Both are working independant from the gunner's sights. It works differently from what you know in the 2A4. TV overriding gunner also works different, and easier in the 2A5. One needs to love the 2A5, really.

And what is the overall ammo load of the Leo 2A5 ?

42 or 43 rounds. 42 I think.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not sure, but I guess so for the ready rack. Leo2A4 was the first being produced in large quantities, the earlier were prototypes and test models.

Nope, I think they were build in even greater quantities than the Leo2A4 but were upgraded later to the 2A4 variant.

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_leopard_2-a.htm

The peri is for the TC only. TC has both the optical daylight peri, and thermal as a separate unit.

What means seperate ? They are not both installed in the peri ?

As I understand it, in the Leo 2A4, the peri view is a pure day light optics and the thermal imager is rigidly installed in the turret and always points into the direction of the gun. So when the commander wants to look with it elsewhere he has to overrider the gunner and turn the turret.

But when I understood it right the Leo 2A5/A6 has a second thermal imager installed in the peri, besides the day light optics, so that the TC has it's own independant one. Is this reflected in SBP ?

Both are two different devices. Both are working independant from the gunner's sights.

The gunners thermal imager is not independen from its sight. It's just that since the 2A5, the leos have a second thermal imager in the peri. Isn't this reflected in SBPE ?

[Deamon]

It makes me wonder is this a thermal imager or an Restlichtverstärker ?

[Skybird]

Earlier Bradleys had red screens for their thermal sights, and later they turned to green. I strongly assume it is thermal images the video shows - but I will not bet my life on it. the Bradley is equipped with thermals, if it may also have night vision devices, or only special units, or has been refitted with NV meanwhile, I do not not. But to 90% I think the answer is no.

Since the 2A5, there is a gunner's daylight sight (GPS), thermal sight (also GPS), and auxiliary sight (GAS, daylightl, for reserve), and a TC's daylight sight (periscipe), and TC's thermals. All of these allow gunner and TC to use systems indepedently from each other, and look into different directions at the same time. the TC looks into a scope for the peri, and onto a screen for thermal. The TC can override gunner from any of these to make the gun swing to where the TC is looking at (override mode), or make the TC's current sight move to where the gunner is looking at and where the gun is pointing at. Override mode is easier in the A5 than it was in the A4, and at leats in SBP' more intuitive, I always struggled with this switching between normal and KP mode. The positions of some of the hardware sights have been changed from A4 to A5 (the swedish 2A6/Strv 122 changed it slightly again, due to additional armour layers at the turret, and on the roof). SBP paints it in that way that if you switch between thermal and peri, both can remain very different viwing directions, which would make them two different devices on the turret roof, whereas the gunner's thermals and optics always will be synchronized, with the expection of vertical angle of the GAS.

In modern Leo-2s, there is also an equivalent to the american IVIS system, but I do not know if it was implemented with the A5 or A6. I posted a video on it some longer time ago, where it was to be seen in some short scenes, it were finnish Leo2A5, if I remember correctly. Very sophisticated. SBP-PE does not simulate either american or German IVIS currently. If it is planned for, I do not know.

Of no other type than the A4 more Leopard-2 were produced or had been upgraded to, as far as I know. That includes both the new produced A4s, and earlier versions that were upgraded to the A4.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Earlier Bradleys had red screens for their thermal sights, and later they turned to green. I strongly assume it is thermal images the video shows - but I will not bet my life on it. the Bradley is equipped with thermals, if it may also have night vision devices, or only special units, or has been refitted with NV meanwhile, I do not not. But to 90% I think the answer is no.

Looks somewhat odd that bradley thermal imager. I am wondering whether they use the same for it like for the M1's

(the swedish 2A6/Strv 122 changed it slightly again, due to additional armour layers at the turret, and on the roof).

What, even more armour ? But maybe they would have more close engagements in their terrain.

SBP paints it in that way that if you switch between thermal and peri, both can remain very different viwing directions, which would make them two different devices on the turret roof,

That would be a game flaw then.

In modern Leo-2s, there is also an equivalent to the american IVIS system, but I do not know if it was implemented with the A5 or A6. I posted a video on it some longer time ago, where it was to be seen in some short scenes, it were finnish Leo2A5, if I remember correctly. Very sophisticated. SBP-PE does not simulate either american or German IVIS currently. If it is planned for, I do not know.

But the way the map is updated in realtime with contacts seen by any unit, kinda gives it IVIS capeability.

Of no other type than the A4 more Leopard-2 were produced or had been upgraded to, as far as I know. That includes both the new produced A4s, and earlier versions that were upgraded to the A4.

Ok, if you include the upgraded once then yers.

Here is some more thermal imager footage from an Apache in Iraq. Iraq is fairly hot Iguess, in several ways:





It appears it circles around from approx 900 meters. The view is pretty good imo, just the video quality sucks.

[Skybird]

What, even more armour ? But maybe they would have more close engagements in their terrain.

No, it is about artillery delivered anti-tank ammunition (from above), and mine protection. Also, if they would send tanks into international missions, the Strv-122 would be the choice. And that influenced the threat estimation formign the basis for their additional protection suit.

Leo2A6 and Strv-122 are said to be the best protected tanks worlwide, currently.


That would be a game flaw then.

It has been asked in their fiorum a long time ago, and was denied to be a flaw (else it would have been corrected meanwhile, since it would be something very obvious). Matter of fact is that the TC looks through a monocular to use the peri, and has the thermal image on a monitor - another indication that noth systems work independant. The gunner has both the optics and the thermal in his one and only bicular sights, and only the reserve optics (GAS) in a separate monocular.


But the way the map is updated in realtime with contacts seen by any unit, kinda gives it IVIS capeability.

You mean SB? Yes, then.

[Deamon]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What, even more armour ? But maybe they would have more close engagements in their terrain.

No, it is about artillery delivered anti-tank ammunition (from above), and mine protection. Also, if they would send tanks into international missions, the Strv-122 would be the choice. And that influenced the threat estimation formign the basis for their additional protection suit.

Leo2A6 and Strv-122 are said to be the best protected tanks worlwide, currently.

Even better protected than the M1A2 and the challenger 2 ? :hmm:

Hmm, the 2A6 don't have an reenforced roof doesn't it ?

Every heared of the Leopard 2 PSO ?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm (scroll way down)
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kp...rd_2_pso-b.htm

This thing has even more armour. Very sexy.

That would be a game flaw then.

It has been asked in their fiorum a long time ago, and was denied to be a flaw (else it would have been corrected meanwhile, since it would be something very obvious). Matter of fact is that the TC looks through a monocular to use the peri, and has the thermal image on a monitor - another indication that noth systems work independant. The gunner has both the optics and the thermal in his one and only bicular sights, and only the reserve optics (GAS) in a separate monocular.

Yes, but isn't the thermal imager installed right besides the scope in the peri ?

But the way the map is updated in realtime with contacts seen by any unit, kinda gives it IVIS capeability.

You mean SB? Yes, then.

How is it now in SBPE ?