SK-105 probs

[Siddhi]

As I said already, I understand the game engine limitations. I might however make a scenario where the 17 rounds are the only ammo and a much higher ROF, just for kicks. Dumb question, but a turn is 30 seconds, right?

The enemy has nothing to say if they cannot see you

Don't understand about the smoke rounds, I am referring to 105mm smoke rounds, primarily used to spot targets for arty observers.

Now what about my question regarding APCR of 56 meaning what?

btw given that the "usual suspects" are all here i would appreciate help to my problem posted Post#http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=489854&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

[Mobhack]

If you want to know the game basics, please refer to the Game Guide, introduction section (the first paragraph of text in the GG).

A sabot (AKA APCR) rating of 56 is 56cm penetration at the muzzle. SP games deal in centimetres. Details of the technical stuff can be found in the Mobhack help file. Penetration formulae cannot be published due to the original agreement with SSI, however.

As to your other post - perhaps someone with an interest in scenario design may answer that at some time. But your scenario should be OK, barring any major re-jigging of the OOBS in question. You may have to use scenhack (if a CD owner) or delete and repurchase some things if that happened. Best to make a backup, on the off chance.

Cheers
Andy

[Siddhi]

cheers Andy, hope that the SABOT changes I mentioned can be made in a future release.

[Mobhack]

Please see the sticky post at the top of the forum about OOB error reporting/and or change request procedure.

This thread has become one of these involved, on and on ones, where there may be info in there but extracted in dribs and drabs. The thread here started before we published the standard - but needs to be put to bed & replaced with a proper format change request.

We need the error report laid out in that standardised format. You can already see several examples of folks reporting using this form. We also need some acceptable reference that backs up the report, and can be checked/verified.

Cheers
Andy

[DRG]

This has gone on too long . I am STILL waiting for an answer to the question I've now asked twice. ( and here's the third and final time ) WHICH of the many versions of this unit was the subject of the original post ?

I "think" we are discussing the Austrian OOB but as I said there are many others in the game and I want some clarifcation as my interest is starting to wane

And then this.......

I have NO idea how the APCR is calculated (does that mean 560mm penetration?)and anyway it is probablly an error. The SK-105 Kurassier of the Austrian Army 1984 used the SABOT I talked about beforehand - the OFL-105-G1 with 550mm penetration at 1,700m - from 1981 onwards.

Yes a "56" means 560mm penetration so I wonder how that can be an error when you say the ammo used is rated at 550mm.

So far all I can see as a "problem" is that the weapon 103 gun with 56 penetration should be available starting with unit 8 not unit 9

Don

[Siddhi]

Andy,
That's fair enough, I'll post a change request in the right format for collection.
Cheers,
S

[Shan]

O/T and quite irrelevant for the game but anyway: Have you ever taken place on the gunner's seat of an early 'K', Siddhi? O/T and quite irrelevant for the game but anyway: Have you ever taken place on the gunner's seat of an early 'K', Siddhi? (You'd have to be quite short + slim to fit in ;-))

Siddhi said:
A RoF of 12 rounds per second is easily achievably if the engagement-arc is IIRC below 50 degrees - and there are enough targets. In manuvers that I have knowledge of a platoon of the Kurassier regularly anhiliated M60A3 compnaies on line abrest attack without any casulties in a single engagmenet.

I can confirm that - M60 crews usually stopped making the common jokes about their "smaller brothers" as the Kuerassier was called on the radio AFTER maneuvers. This, however, requires well-trained crews, and it takes a long time to get that good.

Siddhi said:
Not completly correct about the sites or stabilsation btw, although the ballistic computer and TI was added only in 1993 the stabilisation system in place beforehand was very good as were the optics, passive IR and XSW-30-U 950 /white light searchlight. 95% first-round-hit at 1,700m.

A stabilizer on a Kuerassier? Sure? AFAIK even the A2 upgrade (which, btw, was introduced only as part of the infamous Mech-Paket only from 1998 onwards, definitely not 1993) never included a stabilizer (which stabilizes the gun along 2 axis on the move... only to avoid misunderstandings), only a fire control computer and true night fighting capability (TI) were fitted. A stabilizer would not be of much use anyway if you're defending. One of the main weaknesses of the 'K', however, was its hydraulic turret transmission which sometimes worked, sometimes caught fire, and very often didn't work, and that one was not changed. Another weakness - the hydraulic steering system - also quite unreliable due to high pressures - it's not fun to fin out you cannot steer any more when you're driving at full speed...

And now to the optics of the earlier version: The daytime optics were not far from WW2, say what you want but fact is: except that you had a laser rangefinder which would get you a good range, the gunner still had to enter the range manually by adjusting his optics... and about night fighting: IMHO the passive system was completely useless - dirvers could see more on their image intensifier night sight than commanders and would often spot the "enemies" that the commander could hear, but not see... and as soon as you'd turn on the IR searchlight , everyone with an IR sight or better would know where you are.

True, the WP armies didn't have much better night-fighting capabilities but seriously... 1700m at night with 95%? Sounds a bit like manufacturer's data... under ideal conditions - maybe. But in real life and not-ideal weather conditions - impossible.

So - overall, if I'd play a cold war scenario on the defending side, I'd still prefer Kuerassier over the M-60, since it has greater RoF and mobility - but it has to be said that this is a poor man's weapon, often called a movable A/T gun with a splinter jacket...

[Siddhi]

O/T and quite irrelevant for the game but anyway: Have you ever taken place on the gunner's seat of an early 'K', Siddhi? O/T and quite irrelevant for the game but anyway: Have you ever taken place on the gunner's seat of an early 'K', Siddhi? (You'd have to be quite short + slim to fit in ;-))

actually i did - first time when i was 14 , it was small then too! i remember getting a site in my kiddneys... but i think most tanks tend to be a little cramped, especially "light" ones. und bei dir?

I can confirm that - M60 crews usually stopped making the common jokes about their "smaller brothers" as the Kuerassier was called on the radio AFTER maneuvers. This, however, requires well-trained crews, and it takes a long time to get that good.

agree - a major i worked with recently and former K commander said the main problem was the amount of dust kicked up by the backblast if you did not watch your vegetation setting - if it was a dry field under your muzzle then a couple of rapid-fire round and no wind would make a better smoke screen then anything man-made, both bad and good.

Shan said:
A stabilizer on a Kuerassier? Sure? AFAIK even the A2 upgrade (which, btw, was introduced only as part of the infamous Mech-Paket only from 1998 onwards, definitely not 1993) never included a stabilizer (which stabilizes the gun along 2 axis on the move... only to avoid misunderstandings), only a fire control computer and true night fighting capability (TI) were fitted. A stabilizer would not be of much use anyway if you're defending.

stand corrected on the "mech paket".
The A2 has the french-made CH6/6 stabilsation system, there was another one beforehand which designation i don't know.

i would say a stabilizer is vital for rapid-fire, also in defense, otherwise the recoil takes too long to absorb via the autmotive components alone.

Shan said:
One of the main weaknesses of the 'K', however, was its hydraulic turret transmission which sometimes worked, sometimes caught fire, and very often didn't work, and that one was not changed. Another weakness - the hydraulic steering system - also quite unreliable due to high pressures - it's not fun to fin out you cannot steer any more when you're driving at full speed...

true - now how did you know that! - supposedly all of it however has been changed latest with A2 model.

Shan said:IMHO the passive system was completely useless - dirvers could see more on their image intensifier night sight than commanders and would often spot the "enemies" that the commander could hear, but not see... and as soon as you'd turn on the IR searchlight , everyone with an IR sight or better would know where you are.

in early K the drivers, gunner and commander all have the same passive sites - with all the known limitations. the range i gave was NOT for night fighting. also the searchlight is mainly used as a designation tool, it was "flashed" by a desingated spotter at the main enemy elements. the passive sites is sufficent for close-in night fighting (<600m), and unlike TI ,is not "whited out" by flares.

Shan said:So - overall, if I'd play a cold war scenario on the defending side, I'd still prefer Kuerassier over the M-60, since it has greater RoF and mobility - but it has to be said that this is a poor man's weapon, often called a movable A/T gun with a splinter jacket...

ok - who are you -i'm calling h�tteldorf- meldung!!