Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About joshuaho96

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

212 profile views
  1. Realistic Tank aiming suggestions

    The current sight is kind of an amalgamation of the real gunner primary sight and aux sight. The real primary sight (GPS) looks like this: The real aux sight (GAS) looks like this: The CITV/commander sight looks like this: The devs really don't have to do a ton of work to know what these things look like, SB Pro PE has limitations as a simulator but the models and textures is pretty much exactly what it is in real life. Obviously the devs should still use real world references to avoid copyright/trademark issues but there's nothing wrong with using prior art as a guide to know what to look for.
  2. Realistic Tank aiming suggestions

    Regardless, it's not going to fall apart in any one engagement. Over the course of a campaign yes but Squad isn't simulating an entire war, just a single battle. For the T72s lead compensation in modernized variants can be added and integrated into the LRF system, the complication of which would probably be an interesting mechanic for gunners to learn as it is fairly complex (you have to have good track before you lase, right ammo type must be indexed, you need to hold down the LRF to be able to see the number, etc...
  3. Tanks and others

    Real tanks can and do shrug off HAT hits to the front. The ability for modern tanks to take direct hits from shape charges is very high. It sounds like the devs should implement the TOW-2B top attack missile and equivalent variants though, those things will 100% penetrate whatever tank it hits.
  4. Realistic Tank aiming suggestions

    Modern M1A2 SEP armor is DU-based, not ceramic. Spall liners are a thing, so are blast doors to keep ammo rack hits from killing the crew. By this logic we shouldn't give infantry MANPADs because that would make it too easy to take down helicopters.
  5. Realistic Tank aiming suggestions

    The problems you're talking about are basically entirely because armor in the meta has no real counters at the moment. An AH-64 Apache can easily engage tanks at 8 km. Modern Ataka missiles are rated around 950mm of RHAe and 8 km range. A TOW 2B basically instantly destroys any tank with top-attack EFP and has a max range of 4500m, which is longer than the 4000m effective range of sabot. MPAT is even less than that, roughly 2000-2200m before it becomes subsonic and all wobbly. We don't have any real TDs like TOW Humvees or Spandrels either. Yes, in the open against infantry/lighter vehicles with air superiority, a tank will handily destroy most things if it gets to shoot first. But you have to have fundamentally screwed up quite a bit for all of those things to be true in a theoretical Squad v1. Tanks should be relatively hard to come by in a 100 player game, no more than 1-2 tank platoons (3 western/modern tanks like an Abrams, 6-8 T64/T72s for opfor). With the presence of a few HATs, plenty of TOWs to be had at FOBs, effective CAS, and artillery that is available more than once every few hours the opportunity for a tank to really stretch its legs should be few and far between. If you've ever played SB Pro PE (the real pro version is used to train crews around the world) you'll know just how easy it is to lose an entire battalion to an ill-fated march through a town of infantry or dense forest.
  6. Realistic Tank aiming suggestions

    All the stuff I'm talking about is how modern FCSes work. Older stuff like the M60A3 or the T72A is much, much more complicated to use. The M60A3 in particular does need to have gun stabilization enabled and disabled on the fly, and the gunner is responsible for enabling/disabling cant compensation when the AFV is in motion. And it's not like infantry can't fight back against tanks, give some of them Javelins and RPG-29s and the meta will work itself out. Lots of TDs like TOW Humvees, BRDM Spandrels, Shturm MTLBs, Stryker MGVs, etc... and the ability for things like artillery on call to disable the GPS/CITV/tracks/etc can easily make a realistic mechanic balanced. I would also argue that much of the balance here comes down to map design. If you make a map that is like 73 Easting with literally nothing but desert then obviously infantry will just get destroyed by armor and air support. But a map like Al Basra with actual urban combat and a tank has no chance of doing anything deep in the city without immediately getting IEDed, RPGed, or hitting a mine. M1A2 SEP turret front is roughly 950mm RHAe against sabot. M829A3 penetration roughly 840mm RHAe going by SB Pro PE stats. Realistically the likelihood that you penetrate the exact same place twice is very unlikely, and the armor isn't like a piece of glass where shooting it once shatters it to the point of uselessness. I'm willing to bet that a modern tank can take multiple sabot hits to the turret front, especially at realistic engagement distances of 1+ km. Otherwise there is literally no reason for a tank to weigh 70 tons.
  7. Realistic Tank aiming suggestions

    Artificially nerfing tanks to make them WW2-era with "manually toggled stabilization" and no real fire control system is honestly absurd for a game that wants to try and approach modern warfare. The whole point of tanks is that they dominate against infantry in the open. They should be something to be feared from long distance if you don't have air support or indirect fire or TOWs that can suppress them. Even if you learn how to operate a modern FCS I'm willing to bet 90% of the player base jumping into a tank won't have a good handle on gunnery techniques to actually achieve the 90%+ first round hit rates that western tank crews get. You need to know how to achieve a steady track, know when to dump lead, know how to ensure your FCS round selection is accurate, know what return to select when the LRF returns multiple distances, etc... Armored warfare should be more about strategic positioning and maneuvering than how well you can guess the firing solution. Real tanks will deflect sabot to the mantlet all day long if they get to hull-down.
  8. Is there any interest on the dev team side in making armor (tanks, IFVs, etc..) play more realistically for the gunner/commander? I'm thinking of stuff like changing the turret traverse mechanic to be "joystick style" where the position of the mouse cursor relative to the center of the screen is what determines how quickly the turret traverses and where, up to the limits of the max turret rotation speed + max turret angle. Another example of a more realistic mechanic would be fire control systems like this mod: While spotty, the specific mechanics I'm thinking of are things like: 1. Creating + merging the tank commander role with the driver role - most AFVs have a gunner, TC/tank commander, and driver. Driving by itself is actually not that difficult a job in this game (nor should it be), so we should merge its role with the TC if the AFV has a commander role. This would allow the TC to do things like spotting targets and forcibly traversing the turret so the gunner can see exactly where the target is. PR had a really, really frustrating dynamic between driver and gunner where much of the time the driver would spot something that the gunner couldn't see in time and that bit of time where the gunner was searching for the target the engagement would be over. This would also allow for the driver to control RWSes that are normally controlled by the TC. 2. Realistic laser rangefinder behavior - currently in v12 and v11 whenever a laser rangefinder is present it basically works all the time, giving the exact range at whatever your crosshair points at. This is really unrealistic. LRFs in armored vehicles need extremely powerful lasers in order to reach out to 4 KM and beyond which means they can only do one reading at a time and if you try to spam the LRF you can actually make it overheat or the capacitors won't be able to charge up fast enough to actually fire the laser. Real lasers also have dispersion and the LRF will "see" multiple distances that the gunner has to pick between. Maybe the laser dispersion is too complicated to implement, but at the very least requiring the LRF to be bound to some kind of player action and rate-limiting it would be more realistic. 3. Realistic fire control systems - from what I've seen of V12, stuff like the Abrams is completely missing any semblance of ballistic drop/lead compensation, and the sight provided is actually the gunner auxiliary/emergency sight. When you activate the laser range finder (LRF) on a target in an Abrams (even the M1A0, much less an M1A2 SEP) it will automatically use the LRF + the ammo type input into the gunner controls (not necessarily what is in the breech!) to figure out how much ballistic drop + lead compensation to apply to the gun. Ballistic drop is based on the LRF distance, while lead compensation is based on LRF distance + your average turret speed over the past 2-3 seconds. You can see an example of this behavior here in the M1A1 which decouples the gun elevation but not the gun traversal from the gunner sight. By comparison, the M1A2 completely decouples the gunner sight from the gun barrel movement: I might have missed some things but hopefully this spurs some interesting discussions. I might have also gotten some things wrong about the state of development/this may be a repost so feel free to merge this into another thread if needed.
  9. A friendly reminder to VFX artists when tanks come out.

    Steel Beasts Pro PE is one of the most accurate simulators of actual tank mechanics I've ever seen. I've been following their development for quite some time and they actually make tank simulator software for many militaries around the world for familiarization and platoon tactics. It's not necessary to simulate the entire interior model, but at least 2D/2.5D images of the critical systems would be awesome. Simulation of things like the FCS, ready rack reloading, gyroscopic stabilization, and damage modeling would be a huge step up from PR and pretty much everything else in the industry.