screenshots 3.0

[Companion]

The B and the BV are well known and the information about both is readily available now. For the most part, yes, the main difference between the two is the addition of ERA for better protection, so it is essentially the B, but better. I am sure the RU guys will know every other minor detail though -- details that will likely fall outside the scope/scale of SB however.

The ERA surface will simply help it to survive a few RPG attacks (and maybe also some older 105mm HEAT rounds) that might otherwise have killed it. It is not miracle protection either; simply treat it as a gradual improvement over the T-72B.

Thanks for replies,

I'm sure that ERA will be much more meaningful once older, cold war vintage NATO missiles are implemented (cue I-TOW, HOT-1, etc.)

A question came out while typing:

Will the game calculate for post-ERA residual penetration power after a HEAT shell triggers one?

[daskal]

Hmm that explosion on this pic...

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=17695&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

still looks like the sprites from the previous version. Aren't the "fireworks" part of the facelift?

[Jartsev]

Hmm that explosion on this pic...

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=17695&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

still looks like the sprites from the previous version. Aren't the "fireworks" part of the facelift?

BTW- look at the left lower corner- something new there

[lavictoireestlavie]

Mmm, I just took a look at the eSim YouTube channel HERE and noticed the header shows a Leopard 2A5 with a German skin and what looks to be the new sky effects in the background (i.e. is from v3.0). Is the German Leopard 2A5 a preview of something to come or am I overthinking it?

Panzer_Leader, I am pretty sure thats a german Leopard 2a5 in the sim itself :shocked:

If eSim adds the german version of the Leopard 2a5 ,i wonder if they add the Leopard 2a6 as well.

Edited June 5, 2013 by lavictoireestlavie
an afterthought

[Damian90]

Can I point out one thing about the so called T-72BV? There is actually no such thing as T-72BV.

The V suffix is added to the vehicle designation code after ERA was added but vehicle was designed without ERA installation in mind.

This is why we have T-64BV, T-72AV and T-80BV.

However T-72B from the very beggining was designed with ERA installation in mind, this is why after ERA was installed, it still was T-72B. So there is no such thing as T-72BV.

There are however different variants of T-72B, some are designated by the year of introduction, for example T-72B obr.1985, T-72B obr.1989, T-72B obr.1990. And other variants receive additional suffix in designation code, for example.

Obr. means if we would translated to english, it would be probably close in meaning to standard.

T-72B1, T-72B2, T-72B3, T-72BA etc.

Also one more thing, because I am sure someone will bring it up.

T-72B with "Kontakt-5" can be called T-72B(M), this is however improper designation. If this is older variant, it is still T-72B (eventually obr.19xx) no matter it have "Kontakt-1" or "Kontakt-5" ERA.

T-72B1 is downgraded T-72B, and I don't know if some have "Kontakt-5" in place of "Kontakt-1".

T-72B2 is a new designation code for a T-72BM "Rogatka" variant.

T-72B3 is a new variant which is simpler to T-72B2, but have some improvements, like new "Sosna-U" sight.

T-72BA are refurbished older variants, such tanks have installed "Kontakt-1" or "Kontakt-5" ERA, but no major improvements.

[hoggydog]

Man, that dude knows his T-72's

[Damian90]

One of the better source about T-72 series is book Боевые машины Уралвагонзавода. Танк Т-72. written by Устьянцев С.В, Колмаков Д.Г.

Unfortunetely it is only in russian as far as I am aware.

http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/T-72BA/T-72BA001.htm

Above link is also good source, you can find there more informations also about other designs.

[Hedgehog]

Man, that dude knows his T-72's

[Ssnake]

Can I point out one thing about the so called T-72BV? There is actually no such thing as T-72BV.

Maybe I overlooked it, but what's your suggestion how the "proper" designation would actually be, then? If it's still just "T-72B", how would we distinguish it from a T-72B without Kontakt-1?

[Damian90]

T-72B and T-72B (ERA)? Might be sufficent.

Or we can try with such thing, the T-72B was fielded in 1985 if I am not wrong, so perhaps variant without ERA to be T-72B obr.1985 and variant with ERA to be T-72B obr. and here is the problem, when ERA was installed on tanks? I will try to dig in my books, perhaps I will find something.

--------------------------

Ok I checked it, and there is a problem, not matters when tank was manufactured, some had and some didn't had ERA installed. So you could had T-72B obr.1984 (seems to be first initial batch) without ERA in one unit, and in the other we had the same variant with ERA installed.

So I think that for simplicity but also to keep real designation code, the best way to distinguish both, is to call them T-72B and T-72B (ERA).

[Jartsev]

Maybe I overlooked it, but what's your suggestion how the "proper" designation would actually be, then? If it's still just "T-72B", how would we distinguish it from a T-72B without Kontakt-1?

Well... Here is a kind of misunderstanding T-72B can be only with ERA. Tank that looks like T-72B, but lacks ERA- is a T-72A actually(because in fact it shares with T-72B only turret casting and powertrain in fact; main armament, hull armour, wiring, suspension etc. are not the same). This chaos is created by incremental introduction of design changes in some degree. And another thing- those naked vehicles were produced before acceptance of T-72B for service, so there can not be legally accounted as T-72B.

[Damian90]

Well this is just insanity of soviet tank designing and production, as well as designation system.

[Ssnake]

Will the game calculate for post-ERA residual penetration power after a HEAT shell triggers one?

Yes, it has always been that way, if I understand the intent of your question right. A projectile in SB Pro hits a surface, the surface has a resistance value, which will then be deducted from the projectile's current penetration depth value. Then you look for the next surface along the impact vector and repeat the process until the energy of the projectile is either expended or if there are no more surfaces (except the ground).

APFSDS projectiles are treated as vectors that will continue to travel. For HEAT projectiles however there is an upper limit - in the order of magnitude of four, five meters - where, due to the elongation process of jet formation, even an undisturbed projectile will particularize and hence lose its penetration power. One could argue that the jet particles would still have a certain threat value against soft target types, or that the penetrator deformation of an APFSDS would reduce its capability for penetration of multiple independent targets more than the linear reduction of its power. But hey, this is a real-time simulation, we have to simplify things a little.

[Ssnake]

Well... Here is a kind of misunderstanding T-72B can be only with ERA. Tank that looks like T-72B, but lacks ERA- is a T-72A actually(because in fact it shares with T-72B only turret casting and powertrain in fact; main armament, hull armour, wiring, suspension etc. are not the same).

Then how comes that there is something commonly known as T-72A without the additional frontal turret armor? Should a T-72B without ERA then be called a "T-72A+"? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense IMO, really.

We need an unambiguous designation for all the vehicles that we add to SB Pro, and be it just so that the mission designer has an idea what he'll get when selecting the tank model type. It's not helpful to say "you can't call it X because X officially doesn't exist" and then give us an alternative designation which however collides with something that already is in SB Pro but which is both visually and functionally different.

[Ssnake]

I mean, the Finns don't call their IFV "CV90/30-FI" like we do in SB Pro, but that's no reason either to break up a somewhat systematical naming convention when we also have a CV90/35-DK, CV90/40-C, etc.

[Damian90]

Then how comes that there is something commonly known as T-72A without the additional frontal turret armor? Should a T-72B without ERA then be called a "T-72A+"? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense IMO, really.

We need an unambiguous designation for all the vehicles that we add to SB Pro, and be it just so that the mission designer has an idea what he'll get when selecting the tank model type. It's not helpful to say "you can't call it X because X officially doesn't exist" and then give us an alternative designation which however collides with something that already is in SB Pro but which is both visually and functionally different.

As I said, in reality, soviet designation system is complete madness.

The best way IMHO that is something simple, yet have conncetion to reality, is to make T-72B + T-72B (ERA), and voila, we have it simple, yet we do not collide with reality.

[Ssnake]

I guess that can be arranged.

[Jartsev]

Then how comes that there is something commonly known as T-72A without the additional frontal turret armor? Should a T-72B without ERA then be called a "T-72A+"? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense IMO, really.

We need an unambiguous designation for all the vehicles that we add to SB Pro, and be it just so that the mission designer has an idea what he'll get when selecting the tank model type. It's not helpful to say "you can't call it X because X officially doesn't exist" and then give us an alternative designation which however collides with something that already is in SB Pro but which is both visually and functionally different.

Ok, under such angle of view this makes sense. Damian`s idea with T-72B and T-72B(ERA) looks good.

[RogueSnake79]

Can I point out one thing about the so called T-72BV? There is actually no such thing as T-72BV.

The V suffix is added to the vehicle designation code after ERA was added but vehicle was designed without ERA installation in mind.

This is why we have T-64BV, T-72AV and T-80BV.

However T-72B from the very beggining was designed with ERA installation in mind, this is why after ERA was installed, it still was T-72B. So there is no such thing as T-72BV.

There are however different variants of T-72B, some are designated by the year of introduction, for example T-72B obr.1985, T-72B obr.1989, T-72B obr.1990. And other variants receive additional suffix in designation code, for example.

Obr. means if we would translated to english, it would be probably close in meaning to standard.

T-72B1, T-72B2, T-72B3, T-72BA etc.

Also one more thing, because I am sure someone will bring it up.

T-72B with "Kontakt-5" can be called T-72B(M), this is however improper designation. If this is older variant, it is still T-72B (eventually obr.19xx) no matter it have "Kontakt-1" or "Kontakt-5" ERA.

T-72B1 is downgraded T-72B, and I don't know if some have "Kontakt-5" in place of "Kontakt-1".

T-72B2 is a new designation code for a T-72BM "Rogatka" variant.

T-72B3 is a new variant which is simpler to T-72B2, but have some improvements, like new "Sosna-U" sight.

T-72BA are refurbished older variants, such tanks have installed "Kontakt-1" or "Kontakt-5" ERA, but no major improvements.

Knowing that much about T-72's normally would make you a very.. strange.. man..

But here, it makes you cool. Yes, Yes, very good.

[RogueSnake79]

Well... Here is a kind of misunderstanding T-72B can be only with ERA. Tank that looks like T-72B, but lacks ERA- is a T-72A actually(because in fact it shares with T-72B only turret casting and powertrain in fact; main armament, hull armour, wiring, suspension etc. are not the same). This chaos is created by incremental introduction of design changes in some degree. And another thing- those naked vehicles were produced before acceptance of T-72B for service, so there can not be legally accounted as T-72B.

Same goes for you as well, you both can stay.

[Damian90]

Knowing that much about T-72's normally would make you a very.. strange.. man..

But here, it makes you cool. Yes, Yes, very good.

Heh, what I talked here about military designation codes is actually nothing, the design bureaus designation codes for their tanks and other vehicles are even more confusing, especially when people do not know what all these numbers actually mean.

For example Object 184, Object 432, Object 219, Object 640 etc.

However these on the first look, random numbers have a meaning.

To explain designation system of design bureaus.

Object is generic name for prototype of any kind of vehicle.

Numbers however have a such meaning.

First digit is a code for design bureau, and so:

1 = UKBTM (Nizhny Tagil, placed in the same place as UralVagonZavod production plant)

2 = LKZ (Leningrad/St Petersburg)

4 = KB-60M/KMDB (Kharkiv, placed near Malyshev production plant)

6 = KBTM (Omsk)

There were of course more design bureaus, but these ones were designing tanks and other heavy tracked vehicles.

Rest of numbers in designation code are just meaning more or less which vehicle it is.

So Object 184 is T-72B, Object 432 is T-64, Object 219 is T-80, Object 640 is... well it was never standarized and program was cancelled, some people however incorrectly name this tank "Black Eagle". :sonic:

IMHO the design bureaus designation system, is probably easier than military designation system.

[dejawolf]

all of the current designations in SB is based on Zaloga

with export tanks the designations are pretty clear. there's the T-72M, T-72M1, and T-72S

T-72M has armour similar to original T-72, about ~360mm

T-72M1 is similar to T-72A with 420mm

and T-72S is similar to T-72B with ~520mm

[DrDevice]

Hmm that explosion on this pic...

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=17695&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

still looks like the sprites from the previous version. Aren't the "fireworks" part of the facelift?

There's a note about this in the gallery that is different from the screen shot:

"It was as if I could fly! ("These aren't the particle effects you've been looking for...")"

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=17327

So, I think that's a "yes...the particle effects shown aren't final v3 ones."

[Companion]

Well... Here is a kind of misunderstanding T-72B can be only with ERA. Tank that looks like T-72B, but lacks ERA- is a T-72A actually(because in fact it shares with T-72B only turret casting and powertrain in fact; main armament, hull armour, wiring, suspension etc. are not the same). This chaos is created by incremental introduction of design changes in some degree. And another thing- those naked vehicles were produced before acceptance of T-72B for service, so there can not be legally accounted as T-72B.

Well, the thing is, naked B in SB was most likely modeled with performance of T-72B in mind.

That is, the FCS, engine, stabilizer, main gun, etc. for the naked B in game are most likely gathered/estimated from T-72B data, not that little known, little produced A/B hybrid that you've mentioned.

I like to engage in bean counters too but BV or B (ERA), I think most won't mind as long as they can recognize what it is.

[Volcano]

Gah, too many threads going on here.

Looks like I posted in the wrong one earlier.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showpost.php?p=236030&postcount=81

In any case, we fixed this now. Henceforth, in SB the "T-72B" is the 1985 variant of the T-72, the one NATO called the "super Dolly Parton" T-72 that had ATGM capability but didn't have ERA. This is consistent with Jane's designation for it and they too make no mention of ERA. The apparently commonly misnamed "T-72BV" (which is the T-72B with K1 ERA added), will be called "T-72B(K1 ERA)".

I agree that the most important thing with vehicle names, especially since they can very different based on the source (especially because some vehicle names are unofficial designations within the military for example), is that we are descriptive enough to the point that everyone can easily tell what it is.