|
As long as we're talking about tanks, I've been playing GHPC a lot recently and that's making me want to play more modern armor sims. Is Steel Beasts any good for just single player? I know it's like $100, you have to run it off a USB stick and it's illegal to have fun while playing it but it's not like there's a lot of options
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Actually it’s on a far more reasonable subscription model these days. It’s still pretty barebones as a game though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:In theory anything with over 200mm of pen should be able to get through the lower side hull. ... You don't need anywhere near that much. A normal Abrams rear side hull (there is no distinction between lower hull and upper hull, but there is between front and rear hull) is literally just 30mm of steel + like 7mm extra on the skirts. A lot of the extra weight added in the TUSK upgrade was extra steel and ERA on the skirts because the Iraqis figured out that a loving 14.5mm AA machinegun (of which there were plenty in Iraq) can kill an Abrams, if you shoot in the right place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
In the Phoenix Command game LatwPIAT ran, one of the Abrams was mission-killed by a skirt shot that knocked out the engine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:... You don't need anywhere near that much. A normal Abrams rear side hull (there is no distinction between lower hull and upper hull, but there is between front and rear hull) is literally just 30mm of steel + like 7mm extra on the skirts. I was talking in general for modern MBTs. Some of them have varying amounts of spaced and/or composite armor on the sides. Also ERA blocks might be more effective against ww2 APHE rounds and the like. Even the skirts would be enough to trigger most Russian and American ww2 APHE. I think the Germans usually had their fuse at 11mm or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
piL posted:The outcome of any war is dependent on the will of its participants, the terrain, and the war aims. What kind of objectives could there be? Which ones wouldn't be protected by CIWS and/or SAM and which German ones, unprotected by radar, would not be vulnerable to Delta force in blackhawks with nightvision or mobile artillery? lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:... You don't need anywhere near that much. A normal Abrams rear side hull (there is no distinction between lower hull and upper hull, but there is between front and rear hull) is literally just 30mm of steel + like 7mm extra on the skirts. This seems dramatically fragile. I know Bradley's are also extremely brittle in real life, it just makes the disparity in quality between the United States and iraq even more enormous when they used Bradleys to just plow throw entire tank divisions without a single casualty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2021 11:41
|
|
|
Nice, the new Decisive Campaigns is out November 18. I didn't think it would be this year tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Oh good, been looking forward to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
A few glimpses from the future: https://pro.matrixgames.com/news/8th-command-professional-edition-user-conference
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 09:07
|
|
|
quote:enhancements to Command’s land warfare capability (a.k.a. Project Hannibal) looking forward to the Harold Coyle DLCs quote:Rory Anderson, technical lead, previewed the new real-time multiplayer mode for Command, which allows real-time vectoring of Command entities to support your team and defeat your opponent with up to 16 players simultaneously. While there’s still significant work to be done before this is complete, Rory and the team connected three systems to the server, an umpire and a red and blue side, and started the game. While the two sides fought for supremacy in the skies, the umpire was tracking not only the battle, but could also see exactly where red and blue’s attention was by showing both where their focus and their mouse were on the map in real-time. oh HELL YES this is going to lead to some incredible content
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 09:25
|
|
|
“Okay, now the red team player is just drawing a dick on the map with the cursor while they watch their aircraft approach the target…”
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 09:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:looking forward to the Harold Coyle DLCs Some really cool stuff, I hope it makes it out of PE and into our hands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 13:36
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:drat I actually want to read that one now, it sounds lit IIRC the conclusion was basically that the Iraqis made the 1940 French Army look positively competent and quick-acting, and there's only so much having better equipment can do when you're THAT bad at using it. So they'd be able to inflict some painful tactical losses, but would just get thouroughly outmaneuvered and collapse on the operational/strategic level when up against a major late-WWII army.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Grey Hunter just started a WITE 2 LP from the Soviet side on his youtube channel for anyone wanting to check that game out
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Nice, the new Decisive Campaigns is out November 18. I didn't think it would be this year tbh. What do we know about it? I really liked Barbarossa’s decisions and political layer, is there going to be any of that in the Ardennes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Velius posted:What do we know about it? I really liked Barbarossa’s decisions and political layer, is there going to be any of that in the Ardennes? Nah this is a zag in direction - much smaller hexes, battalion sized units, and 4 turn days. Don't know too much (someone here might be in the beta) but I suspect this game will focus a lot more on fatigue and supply as it's 'thing' than previous games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Didn't deploy on tanks (did my deployment as a scout) but stories from my tank PSG was pretty much that the RPGs were scary but not a big deal. Biggest killers were EFPs (basically like HEAT shells) and the Russian AT grenades thrown from overpasses. I'm sure a KT could knock out an Abrams up close and at the flank but like mentioned here the optics and fire control systems are incredible and what would put it over. Not to say that other modern tanks don't have similar capabilities but you can engage so many targets within a short timeframe. As a TC, I would cover 12-3 and my gunner would cover 12-9 essentially giving us 180 degrees of coverage. There's a lot of emphasis in gunnery in trying to master that target hand off. Also, the sight we use for engagement is a 13x zoom which is far beyond what would be used in WW2. Edit: I also think the success at 73 easting was mostly dumb luck on our part. McMaster stumbled into the Iraqi TAA when they weren't even on their tanks. Ashmole fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Sep 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Magni posted:IIRC the conclusion was basically that the Iraqis made the 1940 French Army look positively competent and quick-acting, and there's only so much having better equipment can do when you're THAT bad at using it. So they'd be able to inflict some painful tactical losses, but would just get thouroughly outmaneuvered and collapse on the operational/strategic level when up against a major late-WWII army. The Iraq Army only looked so incompetent because Coalition air power operated with impunity, the Regular Army correctly perceived that resistance was pointless, and most crucially because they were at a gigantic materiel tactical disadvantage further magnified by the terrain they chose to fight over. Poor training and command didn't help, but even the most brilliantly led army would have come away looking like the Washington Generals if they had to fight a war that hopelessly stacked against them. Iraq would have an absurd technological advantage against the Wehrmacht and wouldn't be encumbered by most of the factors that caused them to lose so decisively IRL. Iraq would win in a rout. It would look like the Battle of Kambula.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
The luftwaffe would have thousands more planes in the AO and thus would absolutely destroy the logistics chain of the Abrams. Bish bash bosh no more fuel and the M1 is defeated before ever making it into combat 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Ashmole posted:Edit: I also think the success at 73 easting was mostly dumb luck on our part. McMaster stumbled into the Iraqi TAA when they weren't even on their tanks. They were out of the tanks to avoid getting killed via airstike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The luftwaffe would have thousands more planes in the AO and thus would absolutely destroy the logistics chain of the Abrams. Bish bash bosh no more fuel and the M1 is defeated before ever making it into combat So the Tiger Tank, but in reverse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
Velius posted:What do we know about it? I really liked Barbarossa’s decisions and political layer, is there going to be any of that in the Ardennes? quote:FEATURE LIST So generally much smaller scale stuff, to fit its setting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:So generally much smaller scale stuff, to fit its setting. I have to say I just love how each story in the series, is different than the previous one with both additions or unique things to the situation. I guess it’s just a breath of fresh air with how a lot of wargames just add new scenarios and a few new features.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Just incredibly impressed Vic basically made a whole new game in his spare time while he was also making Shadow Empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
sum posted:The Iraq Army only looked so incompetent because Coalition air power operated with impunity, the Regular Army correctly perceived that resistance was pointless, and most crucially because they were at a gigantic materiel tactical disadvantage further magnified by the terrain they chose to fight over. Poor training and command didn't help, but even the most brilliantly led army would have come away looking like the Washington Generals if they had to fight a war that hopelessly stacked against them. Iraq would have an absurd technological advantage against the Wehrmacht and wouldn't be encumbered by most of the factors that caused them to lose so decisively IRL. Iraq would win in a rout. It would look like the Battle of Kambula. There was way more broken with Saddam's army than just getting paralysed by hostile airpower or low morale. These are the same guys who brought a fully-fledged mechanised army to fight an Iranian military largely reduced to light infantry and half-trained militias. And even with superior numbers* barely managed to eke out an eventual stalemate by essentially falling back to a WWI-esque approach of static defense and intensely-planned, short setpiece attacks that were rehearsed down to the company level for weeks in advance. The moment Iraqi units met a changing situation on the battlefield and had no specific, detailed orders adressing said change handed down to them all the way from high command, they would literally just stop and do nothing other than perhaps start shooting in the direction of the enemy. And when they had orders, they would carry them out to the letter, even when doing so was blatantly counterproductive. Desert Storm put that on display even harder. Iraqi formations literally wouldn't react to massed coalition units rolling up their flanks without specific orders. Hell, they'd often not even try to report that there were coalition units rolling into an attack upon them or neighbouring units. Artillery kept pounding empty patches of desert with a regularity you could use to set your clock, completely ignoring that the coalition units it was meant to hit had moved elsewhere hours ago etc. Quite simply put, the Iraqi army displayed a level of coordination and initiative at all levels below high command that would have been considered poor by the standards of the western front in 1916, let alone in freakin' 1991. Their reaction to entire coalition divisions outflanking their line was to literally do nothing at all until like half the drat line had been rolled up already. It's no exaggeration that if you outright switched the equipment between the two parties, the Iraqis would have still been curbstomped wholesale. An absurd technological advantage simply doesn't make up for that kind of complete institutional inability to wage anything approaching an actual maneuver battle. All the gear in the world doesn't matter when the people using it simply will not ever use it to anything approaching its potential. Any major late-WWII army would just run rings around these clowns, outflank them and then stampede through their rear areas. It'd be messier than what the Americans did in '91 and take longer, but the overall outcome would be pretty drat similar. Here's a huge effortpost from that thread that details it more finely: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/iraq-circa-1991-versus-germany-circa-1941.114534/page-3#post-3085455 *The Iraqis had a ~2:1 advantage in manpower in the field for most of the Iran-Iraq War. And ~20:1 for tanks and AFVs. They still got regularily beaten in fights in the open desert by iranian infantry armed with virtually nothing heavier than small arms and molotov cocktails. Magni fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Oct 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 04:48
|
|
|
Okay, okay…Napolean vs the Iraqis
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
That owns considering historically its a bunch of US Infantry divisions rotating on with no experience and cracking under the assault and never fighting again. Afaik, even the 101st Airborne didn't see front line fighting after that either they went to reserve duty(?).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:They were out of the tanks to avoid getting killed via airstike. Even so, I think it's a battle that's held in too high regard in the US military as a major tank battle for what it ended up being.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
CMO on Humble Bundle for $40. https://www.humblebundle.com/store/command-modern-operations The new Soviet campaign pack is coming out next month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
Freedom Trails posted:Okay, okay…Napolean vs the Iraqis Lets stick to armies that historically fought in this theatre - Alexander the Great vs the Iraqis
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
dogsarentdangerous posted:Lets stick to armies that historically fought in this theatre - Alexander the Great vs the Iraqis Napoleon vs Nasser then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
UBOAT is 57% off ($12.89) for the next two weeks
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Check out The Troop demo on Steam Next Fest. Turn based, small unit action. Rather reminiscent of the classic Battle Academy in look and feel. Made by a 3 man team, but it looks rather nice. Still a work in progress, no overwatch, but some interesting mechanics. Definitely going in my wish list and could be a fun placeholder while we're waiting for Second Front.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Anyone going to bite the bullet and spend some time with the Starship Troopers demo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Fire and Maneuver Maneuver and Fire Of this routine you must never tire etc. etc. Biggest personal complaint is that there is no smart targeting. If you want your snipers to shoot spitters first you have to manually tell them to do so, every time. Otherwise they just shoot the nearest target. Feel free to argue that I was just spoiled by Infested Planet's implementation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Ashmole posted:Didn't deploy on tanks (did my deployment as a scout) but stories from my tank PSG was pretty much that the RPGs were scary but not a big deal. Biggest killers were EFPs (basically like HEAT shells) and the Russian AT grenades thrown from overpasses. My understanding was the most dangerous thing to an M1A2, at least during the Iraq war, was IEDs that used old 155mm artillery shells. From what I recall reading a number Abrahams casualties were caused just by the concussive force of these things going off near the tanks. The only thing I think that took out the M1A2 outright were Iraqi anti-aircraft pointed at tanks (I think there were two or three of those,) one loss due to an RPG-7 lighting an engine on fire, and a couple of tanks knocked out (with no casualties) during the Battle of Najaf by two “unknown” weapons (speculation is they were hit with Russian Kornet ATGMs). There were obviously a lot more disablements, including ones which required tanks to be destroyed by other Abrahams rather than be left on the field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:My understanding was the most dangerous thing to an M1A2, at least during the Iraq war, was IEDs that used old 155mm artillery shells. Oh yeah, 155s are something Ive heard a lot about. Especially the daisy chained ones. EFPs were the game changer though I think because of availability and are easily constructed (pretty sure they were ceramic and melted copper or some other metal) I think a lot of those detonated under the bottom of the tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Ashmole posted:Oh yeah, 155s are something Ive heard a lot about. Especially the daisy chained ones. EFPs were the game changer though I think because of availability and are easily constructed (pretty sure they were ceramic and melted copper or some other metal) I think a lot of those detonated under the bottom of the tank. EFPs IIRC were generally set up to hit the sides. As far as I understand it, they do need a certain stand-off distance to properly form the projectile, and would generally be command-detonated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Magni posted:EFPs IIRC were generally set up to hit the sides. As far as I understand it, they do need a certain stand-off distance to properly form the projectile, and would generally be command-detonated. Unfortunately for the tank crews, in the thankfully pretty rare event one of those 155mm shells detonated within a few yards of the tank, the shockwave alone could kill you even if nothing penetrated the tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 21:13
|
|